Talk:Filaret Denysenko

Official bio moved Talk:Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko)/Official bio

...to save page for the dialog. -Irpen 05:59, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Canonical standing of Filaret's UOC-KP

I added to the article the information I remember from following the news on the matters. Of course the article is highly incomplete and needs more info including the bio info above. With selected facts presented it may seem like a POV. Please improve but do not delete relevant information without discussing it first. I simply can't write the whole article myself, but I will be happy to help if anyone wants to take it upon. What we do need first of all is a drammatic improvement of History of Christianity in Ukraine article. Please no flames. -Irpen 01:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

We should, probably, be more precise and say that UPTs KP is not in communion with Moscow patriarchy and other Eastern orthodoxies. However, it is in some form of communion with UAPTs (autocephalous). I don't know how to interpret the term "unrecognized canonical standing". It is imprecise and may make readers think that UPTs KP is "illegitimate". However, the church is legitimate in the sense of secular laws, since it is a properly registered organization in Ukraine. Sashazlv 23:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sasha, I don't see a caveat here. Not being recognized within orthodoxy is not the same thing as being illegitimate. Ukraine is the country with clearly acceptable record of religious freedom now, and except some extreme cases pretty much all religious organizations can be easily registered. The text says that UOC-KP is not recognized within Eastern Orthodoxy, and does not say anything about the state. The user may click on EO-link, History of Christianity in UA link, etc. and see that UOC-KP is a major church in Ukraine. If you want you can change it to "not in full communion" but "unrecognized" in Easter Orthodoxy says the same, just in a little more blunt form and little more clearly for a lay-reader.

Re the last expansion I made, I do expect some editors may get unhappy and I would not mind discussion how to improve the article. I wrote it based mostly on my memories from following the press (not yellow press at all) and googled a little bit for the archived coverage. If other editors view this as imbalanced, it goes without saying that they can improve it. However, I am pretty sure the current version is right on the main facts it presents. Regards, -Irpen

I meant that "not in canonical standing" sounds ambiguous, for instance, as if it were a sect whose practices considerably violate orthodox canon. It may be argued that the subordination of the Kyiv metropolian to the Moscow partiarchy is not canonical in the first place. So, I think that "not in communion" is much less ambiguous. Sashazlv 17:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will try to think how to say this better. Or you can change it yourself. In my opinion "not in communion with Moscow" is too soft because being non-canonical (at least until the negotiatnions with Patriarch Bartholomew I end with a meaningful result, which won't happen soon anyway, and this result gets at least some recognition) is more than simply being unrecognized by ROC. The issue of transfer of metropolitan to Moscow some centuries ago is a valid issue to discuss but it is moot in this context because it in no way affects the ROC, the UOC-MP and the UOC-KP being canonical or not themselves. The claim of the lineage of UOC-KP directly to the pre-transfer church of Petro Mohyla is a big overstretch anyway. I will get back to this later. Feel free to change this yourslef of course. -Irpen 17:42, Jun 9, 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)

Metropolitan of what?

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)

Clarification

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

NPOV

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)

Please be more specific, what of the POV of the UOC-KP is missing as 1,2,3. Until then, your POV tag is unjustified. --Irpen 14:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly the one that you've removed several times.--AndriyK 10:03, 8 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)

This not only about "uncanonicity". Read carefully what you delete.--AndriyK 10:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

1. What I meant by incorrect is your sentence: "Stricktly speaking, Russian Orthodox Church did not have authority to defrock or excommunicate him."

"Excommunicate" in ROC decision literally means that ROC orders all priests in all churches under ROC control to withhold communion from Filaret, should Filaret ask for it. By implication, it effectively prohibits all priests in ROC from providing Filaret with all other church services. Since Filaret could receive communion in ROC churches before this decision, it is within ROC authority to do so.

This is your own interpretation quite different from what ROC declared [1].--AndriyK 17:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to give you an incorrect analogy and correct analogy. Incorrect analogy (maybe, you were thinking along these lines): Russia issues an order to arrest Kuchma on the territory of Ukraine. Russia has no authority to do so. Correct analogy: Russia announces Kuchma persona non grata and issues an order to refuse Kuchma entry into Russia. This is within Russia's authority.

2. "Considered uncanonical". I am personally in favor of stating that UPTs-KP is "not in communion with other Orthodox churches". This is technically more correct than "uncanonical" and has less of negative connotation. But it should be discussed with other editors. Sashazlv 02:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

1. issue of canonicity and its relevance is explained above
2. that excommunication was controvercial is a tautology as explained earlier at this page
3. That ROC or UOC had no authority to excommunicate him is incorrect as Sasha explained to you already. Read Canon law in addition to Filaret's propaganda brochures. --Irpen 14:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove POV tag until the dispute is resolved.--AndriyK 15:36, 9 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)

My objections are stated clearly in the first paragraph of this section. Read it once more please.--AndriyK 15:42, 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)

Yes, I do.

• The explanation of Sashazlv is not confirmed by any creadible sources. Documents, I cited above, indicate that Moscow Patriarchy viewd it differently.
• The circumstances of deforking and excomuniation (that Filaret did not belong to the churche that deforked and excomuniaated him) are factural and clearly belong to the article.
• If the opinion of a Church that is presently irrelevant to the described person is presented, presenting the opinion of the Church he belongs to even more important.
• I am not interested in your and explanations. Please cite creadible sources.--AndriyK 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Deforking and Exconnunication do not belong to the leading paragraph.--AndriyK 19:58, 13 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

Well that is not entirely correct. Depends how one approaches it. In 1992 Filaret swore to retire from his position (in front of the whole synod of bishops from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus...and other FSU republics), as the Metropolitan of Kiev and Ukraine. This was preceded by a vote of The events of the Synod (3/4 way down), where only 3 of the 20 Ukrainian bishops supported him. It was followed by a horde of accusations of corruption and disrespect to monaistic vowes. The Ukrainian bishops proposed that Filaret retires and I qoute:

Митрополит Филарет внял, наконец, многочисленным просьбам в свой адрес об отставке и согласился уйти с поста предстоятеля Украинской Церкви. Однако, он выговорил условием своего ухода проведение выборов нового митрополита Киевского в Киеве, а не Москве. Объяснял он это тем, что подобная мера позволит избежать обвинения во вмешательстве Москвы в дела Украинской Церкви. Филарет дал слово архиерея, что не будет чинить никаких препятствий свободному волеизъявлению Украинской Церкви при избрании ее Первоиерарха. Сравнив себя с пророком Ионой, выброшенным за борт ради общего блага, владыка попросил тем не менее не отправлять его на покой, а предоставить возможность продолжать свое служение у Престола Божия. На все свои предложения митрополит Филарет получил согласие участников Собора. Святейший Патриарх Алексий от лица епископата выразил митрополиту Филарету благодарность за жертву, приносимую ради Церкви. Ему было обещано предоставить какую-либо иную кафедру Русской Православной Церкви. Дабы развеять сомнения в обещании митрополита Киевского оставить руководство Украинской Церковью, он еще раз подтвердил свое слово, заверив, что сложит свои полномочия, как только соберется Собор Украинской Православной Церкви. Также обещал митрополит провести сразу же после Архиерейского Собора Русской Церкви заседание Синода УПЦ с целью восстановления на своих кафедрах незаконно смещенных им епископов. Митрополит Филарет целовал крест и Евангелие, чтобы подтвердить истинность своих обещаний

Then he comes back to Kiev, refuses to follow any of the deeds he swore to do. Contacts UNA-UNSO, Kravchuk. As a result the synod for the election of new metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church goes to Kharkov (due to instability in Kiev) and there elects head. Vladimir returns to Kiev, he is denied access to Volodymyr's cathedral. From there begins a third wave of temple capturing across Ukraine. In the meantime he was still viewed as a clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church. Even though he claimed to have left the church, he did not go through the ritual of actually leaving it. As a result Moscow Patriarchy and the Metropolia of Kiev conducted the ritual in his absence... Now that he was defrocked, he is officially a schismatic, all Eastern Orthodox Churches confirmed this. -- Kuban kazak 00:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Rumours about Filaret

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)

This rumors are encyclopedic since they are correctly presented as "rumors" not facts. They reached the press, caused some stirr, so they are notable. The article does not say he was "Antonov", it says only that there were notable allegations.

To give you an analogy, there are rumors that Russia was behind Yushchenko's poisioning and that it sent Spetznaz to help Yanuk. This is presented in Wikipedia in exactly same way, as rumors and allegations that reached the press. On the other hand, the posioning itself is not a rumor. It is presented as fact, as it is widely considered proven. Do you note the difference? --Irpen 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be the first time I can agree with Irpen. Indeed there are such rumors. (Frankly speaking, I believe that these rumors tell us truth. But this is my personal opinion that does not belong to the article).

BTW, similar information about Patriarch Alexius II is also there. (даже фото имеется ;) )--AndriyK 20:05, 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)

Perfect idea. Irpen claimed above that deforking and excomunication are always contorversial. Why not to move this stuff to the section "Controvercy" together with the rumors about KGB?--AndriyK 13:29, 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)

I did not offer the new article, but only new section Controversy. Иначе вместо одной POV-статьи будет две, как это случилось со статьей о Вл.Соборе. --Yakudza 11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with two articles. Detailed allegation of Filaret's financial mis-handlings (alleged), common law wife and children despite formal monastism (widley considered proven), the controversy in ROC's patriarchal election, the controversy of Kharkiv Sobor (congress) could be enough material for a separate article. Another example is Catherine the Great where her "sex with the horse" thing served as a basis for a new article. Whatever we do, the fact of excommunication of a Christian "Patriarch" is sertainly notable enough to be mentioned in the article itself. That's all I meant. --Irpen 15:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As you can check in the history, I did not remove information about deforking and excomunication. I added factural information about how exactly it happened. Separate section about controversial mattersis a great idea. user:AndriyK

Irpen, as you stated above "deforking and excomunication are always contorversial". Therefore it belongs to the section "Controvercies" together with rumors. Look at the article about Allexius. It has a separate section for the controversial stuff. Mixing rumors and facts even "in chronological order" is not encyclopedic style.--AndriyK 10:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is unencyclopedic

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)

Please point exactly to questionable statements and offer a way you think the article could be improved. Until than, your unexplained tag is removed similar to your previous disruptice activities. --Irpen 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The way of improvement is proposed above and is implemented in the version[2] you have reverted [3] acouple of days ago.--AndriyK 18:22, 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)

Yes please ask.--AndriyK 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another disgusting attack at your opponents, AndriyK. --Irpen 18:59, 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.) Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mangojuice, under normal circumstances, a user disputing the neutrality of the article is sufficient to tag it provided the user acts in good faith and provides an explanation to the tag. This is not the case here. Tagging left and right, and refusing to elaborate, is the only activity of AndriyK at Wikipedia, except of personal attacks, content removal and wikilawyering. In this case, he fails to provide any rationale to the tag. I do realize that the sources used in the article should be added, but even AndriyK doesn't dispute the accuracy of it since he knows that its facts are right. Otherwise, it would have been the "accuracy" rather than a POV-tag and he would be crying out loud about the false info. The POV-tag placed by an aggresive nationalist is only caused by his not liking of certain things. After attemting to remove them, he tried to move them to a separate section, not only moving them out of context, but disrupting the chronology and the article's flow. Most sources on the topic are not in English, but may I suggest that you read this talk page and check the edit history if you are going to get involved in it. I appreciate your participation, but common sense is missing in this tag. We can't allow the Holocaust denialists to keep a tag infinitely at the Holocaust article no matter how long the remain "unconvinced". This is a less hot case but the merit is similar. So, if you would like to keep your tag, please read the entire page above to get some context. Thanks, --Irpen 21:15, 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)

Critiques of this article

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.

1. The "viewed, however, as "uncanonical" ... " thing in the lead that Andriy has repeatedly removed: I agree, it should be removed. First of all, it's not grammatical. Second, the lead paragraph is a place for very important summary of the subject, and the way this phrase is written, it's extremely prominent.
2. The use of abbreviations for ROC and UOC-KP is a bad idea. The text flows horribly with all those abbreviations. And unless someone is already familiar with the subject, they'll keep having to look back to figure out which is which.
3. Some of the stuff in the article badly needs a source. For instance, "Filaret lost through allegations of improper financial dealings and common-law wife...", and "The election turned out to be bitter," and "The disputes, sometimes violent, ..., and, with the relationship between Filaret and the ROC heirarch already having turned bitter." This kind of thing is clearly analysis of history, and needs a strong source to back it up: a source that backs up the analysis, not just the events. I can't stress this enough: sources, sources, sources. WP:V requires them, and sources are the best way to dissolve nasty POV issues.
4. What IS the response of the UOC-KP to this whole excommunication/defrocking/schism thing? The article doesn't even mention it, but it seems very important. This is where I see the POV problem: the standpoint of the official church, while arguably more important, is the only one presented here. I disagree with Andriy's solution, however, of making a "controversy" section. Instead, I think the history of these events should be presented in a simple, factual manner, but including Filaret's responses to all this. Also, surely there are other things to say about Filaret, who's been the head of a significant church for over 10 years, besides the controversy. From reading the article, I get the impression (which I feel in my gut must be wrong) that all that's worth knowing about this guy is the big church politics scandals he's involved in.
5. Generally speaking, the prose just doesn't make sense in several places. For instance, I'm very baffled by the first sentence of the second paragraph (if it's even a sentence). Also, the last paragraph seems totally off topic from the previous one.

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. Mangojuice^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.

1. If this is ungrammatical, by all means improve the grammar. However, it is exactly as prominent as it should be. See, in the Easter Orthodox Church being in agreement with canon law is extremely important. For the very EO doctrine such things as apostolic succession, canon law, connection with past clauses etc is synonymous with being able to call itself "Orthodox" at all. Strictly speak, the UOC-KP is not even the Orthodox Church. I, however, by no means insist on the article saying that. However, it is important for the person who is a Patriarch that the very status of his church is questionable, and it is questionable not just by mine or uncle Jones' opinion, but in opinion of every Orthodox Church in the world. Saying that in detail, or even using "Orthodox" (in quotation marks) instead of Orthodox to reflect on that is too much. But saying clearly that the church's status is different from the status expected from any organization that calls itself an OC is extremely important.
2. Abbreviations is a style problem, not a POV problem. If Mango is a native speaker, he is welcome to improve the text flow and style as he sees fit.
3. Allegations of impromer financial dealings and common law wife were made for sure. If anyone doubts that, add a "fact" tag to the sentence. But note, that even AndriyK doesn't dispute these allegations. These are known to everyone in Ukraine. "Unreferenced" takes care of it for now. If someone claims, that this is falce, add a "fact" tag by all means. But even AndriyK did not dispute that such allegations were indeed made and they were rather strong.
4. The details of UOC's response belongs to UOC article. Whatever it is, it does not change the fact that the church is uncanonical. The latter is a matter of Canon law, in which the ultimate authority is not UOC or ROC but the Eastern Orthodox Communion. It's non-recognizing the church says all there is to it. If UOC-KP claims, that the lack of recognition is unfair, fine, add it briefly here. Details belong to UOC-KP article and History of Christianity in Ukraine. Note that this article doesn't elaborate on the details of the lack of canonicity. It simply states it. Details are elsewhere as well
5. The first sentence of the second para is "Filaret was one of the most influential hierarchs of the ROC, where the office of Metropolitan of Kiev iswas highly regarded." What's there to be baffled about? What is exactly wrong with the last paragraph and how is it irrelevant?

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)

I don't dispute the facts, but I do dispute the rumors. Rumors are not a credible source. I do dispute any allegations if they are not confirmed by creadible sources. --AndriyK

This has been described in the #Rumours about Filaret section above. --Irpen 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The lack of referencies is not the only drawback. The main problem that the article represents POV of Russian Orthodox Church and completely ignores WP:NPOV.

Please pay attantion that not everybody in the wold is Russian Orthodox. Therefore the view of Russian (Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian) Orthodox Church is not a universal truth. This is just a POV not a NPOV. If different views exist, they all should be mentioned and analyzed in a neutral way.

As I said, lack of canonical status is not POV but a fact. Excimmunication is not POV but a fact. The position of Filaret towards the former follows from the fact that he persistently attempt to gain the canonical recognision for his church as the RISU ref states, btw. This is in the article as well. The position of Filaret towards the later has also been added to the article. He refuses to recognize the excommunication. This has also been discussed in the #NPOV section above. --Irpen 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one example. Protestant Churches are not recognized by the Catholic Church as "canonical". Do the Wikipedia articles about Protestant Churches repeatedly stress the "uncanonicity" of Protestant Churches in the prominent position? No! Because it is just a POV of the Catholic Church not the NPOV.

No doubt, contovercies between different Churches should be addressed in Wikipedia. But it should be placed properly. For instance into the articles about the history of Christianity. Positions of all Churches should be analyzed from a neutral position.

Your example is not a valid one. Protestant churches are not Orthodox. They do not call themselves Orthodox and for them the canonical standing within Orthodoxy is irrelevant. Neither they are catholic. Strictly speaking, from the position of the Orthodox CHurch status, the UOC-KP should be called "Orthodox" rather than Orthodox and F. should be called "Patriarch" rather than Patriarch. None of these are used in the article. The controversies between churches no doubt belong to the History of Christianity article. But the article of the hihgest church hierarch can't not mention the fact that his church lacks legitimacy within the Orthodoxy because this puts the whole issue in the correct perspective. It explains his attempts to reach the recognision for his church (as per ref), at explains why he is unsuccesful in that too. These are facts and not POV. --Irpen 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is strongly against the policy to base the article on the POV of one Church saying that other views belong to another article.

The POV of UOC-KP is included as well. UOC-KP sees lack of canonical recognision a problem and tries to resolve it. It failed so far. That's its position. It also considers excommunication invalid. Fine with me. The article says just that. --Irpen 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice that my previous compromise offer: to move the controversial stuff into a separate saction is not the best solution. The right solution would be to avoid violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V in the whole article.

I am ready to modify the article in a neutral way. But it will be a waste of time if my changes will be immediately reverted as it always happenned in the past.

I put the tag back. The article in its present form is unacceptable for Wikipedia standards.--AndriyK 10:06, 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)

Yet this is directely related to his career as an Orthodox cleric. --Kuban Cossack 10:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet UOC KP claims to be an Orthodox church on par with the other canonical Orthodox Churches, and they refuse to accept it as such. --Kuban Cossack 10:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Andriy calls the article unacceptable in its current form. I don't know about that, but Irpen, please do not remove the POV tag again until we've talked it out. Doing so is dismissive, and there are obviously still a lot of raw feelings among you folks: don't make it worse. And I have no idea why you removed the "unreferenced" tag, there are no more sources included than before! I haven't looked at your changes enough yet, but I will. Mangojuice^talk 13:11, 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)

I will not remove the unreferenced tag until the article has been referenced. Once it has been referenced, it may be reasonable to put {{fact}} tags on specific claims that need sources. However, I think it's far more disruptive to readers to have a dozen fact tags in the article than one big unreferenced tag at the top. I wish you would understand about these tags: they should be no big deal. I don't understand why they irk you so much: there are problems with the article, which we haven't all resolved yet, so why shouldn't they stay? It's not like tons of people are reading this article, and if they were, it would be better if they knew there were issues with it. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I can help Mangojuice to answer your question.

• having been recruited in the past as a KGB agent code-named "Antonov"
• Filaret lost (Patriarch Elections) through allegations of improper financial dealings and common-law wife and children in contravention of his monastic vows. (According to the cited source, "Soon afterwards (i.e. after the dissolution of the USSR and after the request to the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church to grant the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate autocephalous status) a number of articles appeared in the press accusing Filaret of severe violation of his monastic vows and abuse of his ecclesiastical authority." The Patriarch elections took place in 1990, i.e. before the dissolution of the USSR). Where are "improper financial dealings" came from?--AndriyK 17:58, 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)

Okay, I see there's one more source than there used to be, and it backs up most of the article. I'm willing to go to the {{fact}} thing, for anything not backed up by that second source. Let me be the one to change over, though, and I'll have to wait until after Irpen is done with the "inuse" tag. Mangojuice^talk 20:52, 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)

Irpen, dispite of your long-time experience at WP, you still do not understand the basic WP policies. If I think something or suspect something ,this is not yet a good reason to include it to the article. Only something that can be verified belongs to the article.

I also heard other rumors about Russian Orthodox bishops. I heard that they nearly all either live with their housemaids (who are usually nuns, by the way) as with common law wives or they are homosexual. Some of them use their position and power in the Church to force prists and monks to have homosexual contacts with them [4], etc.,etc. etc. Sometimes such rumors appear in the yelow press. And I believe that much of it is true. Do you think including all this into Wikipedia article will improve the quality of the resorce?--AndriyK 09:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now about your referencies.

1. Kievskiy Telegraf, April 17-23, 2000 is available in the net [5] is available in the net . Could you please provide the link to the article? Section "Religion" contains something else [6]. I found it.
2. Who is Dmytro Korchynskyi? Is he a scoolar or a respectable independent journalist? What is his profession? (I know the answer. ;) But I would like to see your interpretation and justification of considering his book as a reliable source).
3. Could you please cite what exactly was written in "Ogoniok"? Who is the author and what is the title of the article?
4. Admitting having contacts with KGB in not the same as being agent of KGB. Every citizen in the Soviet Union coud be questioned by KGB, this did not make him an agent immediatelly.
5. OK
6. OK

I appreciate your work. Hopefully we'll step-by-step approach the consensus.--AndriyK 10:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chronological order [7], [8]

• Jan.,1990 Kiev Exarchate renamed into Ukrainian Orthodox Church
• May 3,1990 Death of Patriarch Pimen
• June 6, 1990 Patriarch elections, Filaret lost, Alexius II elected.
• July 9, 1990 Bishops of UOC ask ROC to grand self-governing (a sort of autonomy, not autocephaly!)
• Oct. 25-27, 1990 self-governing (a sort of autonomy, not autocephaly!) was granted, Filaret became Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine
• Oct. 27, 1990 the patent(? грамота) confirming the autonomy was handed to Filaret by Alexius in Sint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev

Then one year later:

• Aug.24 1991 - Desintegration of SU began.
• Nov. 1-3, 1991 Sobor UOC askes ROC to grant canonical autocephaly
• March 31 -Apr.1 1992, ROC refuses and requests Filaret to step down (the later demonstrates that self-governing was purely declarative)
• Apr. 1992 Bishop session in Zhytomyr demands Filaret to step down
• May 27, 1992 Kharkiv synod, Filaret ousted, Volodymyr(Sobodan) elected.
• June 11, 1992 Moscow Sobor, Filaret deforked.

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:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.

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)

Korchynsky's book is not self-published, It is published by the publisher, as stated in the ref. So the statement about the self-published literature doesn't really apply. You try to remove the material not to your liking from the articles by any possible way. First you claimed K. is not a scholar. When explained that he was a witness you bring up another frivolous argument. Please stop trolling and your opponents will stop talking about it. The guidance on how to deal with pestering is applicable. When you make valid points, I answer them. --Irpen 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Many publishers (or even most of them) do not a peer-review the books before publication. Any book can be published by the aouthor or a sponsor pais for it. Exactly as it is written 'Anyone can ... pay to have a book published--AndriyK 18:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What about other points I raised in my today's messages?--AndriyK 18:52, 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:

• Author: AndriyK
• Title: "My first book"
• Publisher: AndriyK
• ISBN: given

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)

I can also register my own publishing office and call it to honor my opponent "Irpen LTD". The ref then would than say:

• Author: AndriyK
• Title: "My first book"
• Publisher: Irpen LTD
• ISBN: given

Or I can go to my friend who owns his own publishing office "I publish all my friends' books LTD". The ref then would than say:

• Author: AndriyK
• Title: "My first book"
• Publisher: I publish all my friends' books LTD
• ISBN: given

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:

• Author: AndriyK
• Title: "Pears grow on the pussy-willow tree"
• Publisher: A very old, many years existing publisher
• ISBN: given

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)

Translation

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)

That would be "of Kiev and Halych". I will try to find out. --Irpen 16:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here "Kyiv and Halych" [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndriyK (talk • contribs)

Comments

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? Mangojuice^talk 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were pretty violent with injuries and stuff. As for the intro, sorry, I disagree. The main controversy about this person is that two strong and non-reconcilable opinions exist. One is that he is a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church and another is that he is a "Patriarch" of the "Orthodox" Church. The only way to make it clear without the quotation marks is to state the problem neutrally in the top of the article. The intro just states mere facts and does not opinionize. On one hand, it mentions that this is a Major church in Ukraine. On the other hand, it mentions the lack of canonicity. --Irpen 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

UOC - Kiev 'Patriarchy' or 'Patriarchate'?

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)

four more bishops left the Church with their parishes

should this be 'dioceses' (or eparchies)? or only one parish each?142.68.44.16 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

illegitimate daughter?

What about this? --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that a reputable source? I cannot assess the quality of Russian sources without offline or online help. I removed the complete controversies section because it was sourceless. Andries (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Member of Our Ukraine?

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030916003900/http://risu.org.ua/content.php?page_id=48&l=en to http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?page_id=48&l=en

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Alleged political remarks

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)

I am also of your opinion and rewrote this part of the article in order for it to be more neutral. Veverve (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Recently Filaret again said about Cain, when FSB captured Ukrainian ships with shooting and two seriously wounded seamen: [11] But now it seems like collective Cain: "I again turn my voice to the those committing fratricides, the new Cains, who, calling our people their brothers, came to our house to shed blood and enslave us."--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: could you check if the "the those" mistake of the section is in the original communiqué from Filaret or only in the Unian translation? If it is only in the translation, could you please correct the version of the article? Veverve (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think, this is an error. Ukrainian text have no such emphasis. Literally it said "Again I turn my voice to kinslayers - new Cains". I can not say exactly how things are with the articles in this sentence (may be "the kinslayers" would be better), this is a problem for me in English. But "the those" seems to have no sense.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Nicoljaus:! I corrected the quote. Veverve (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over patriarchship

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 Kiev Patriarchate is in the process of being disbanded. On December 15, a new Orthodox Church of Ukraine was proclaimed, and Epiphanius (protege of Filaret) became its head. Supposedly Filaret will remain an "honorary" patriarch (only for the use in Ukraine) until the end of his life.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Does the new unified independent church have a Wikipedia article? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, not yet. Many information is in the article 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. As for me, it now can be divided.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC) --13:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Патријарх Филарет.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)