Talk:Hilarion (Alfeyev)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Russia / Performing arts / Science & education / History / Politics and law / Religion (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the performing arts in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.

External link to German Wiki[edit]

I've added an external link to a german page. If you think this is a problem - please let me know. Best --Weissmann (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Why is there a sentence claiming that Alfeyev has been accused of heresy by parishioners? The source for this statement is a website which cannot be used as an informative scholarly source. I suggest removing this sentence since the claim that parishioners shouted "heretic" is not verifiable by an acceptable source.Grailknighthero (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up with sources cited. There are some conflicting dates. Grailknighthero (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hilarion Alfeyev or just Hilarion?[edit]

I don't think any Russian would call him "Hilarion Alfeyev". Alfeyev is his secular family name. Once he's entered religion he became just Hilarion. Therefore the title of the pages on the German, Serbian, Romanian, Greek Wikis are probably wrong. Amazing: Serbian, Romanian, Greek, three languages spoken by Orthodox people! The English, Bulgarian, Ukrainian Wikis take their cue from the Russian Wiki and should be right. Note the Russian Wiki doesn't have as its page name "Hilarion Alfeyev" but "Hilarion (Alfeyev)". So the right way to talk about him would probably have been or be "Brother Hilarion", "Bishop Hilarion", "Metropolitan Hilarion", and, who knows, maybe in the future "Archbishop Hilarion" or even "Patriarch Hilarion", never "Hilarion Alfeyev". If you wanna double-check that'd be great. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 08:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a secular encyclopaedia and not a religious one and the policies for all biographical articles require that a person's usual full name is included in the introduction and that they are then referred to by surname only without any religious or other titles. There are some exceptions to these policies but they do not apply in his case. In any case he is in fact frequently known as "Hilarion Alfeyev", including on his books and recordings - such as here for example. Afterwriting (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right. If he does it himself, it's his business, who are we to say. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 09:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Russian transliteration[edit]

Isn't there any Wikipedia guideline for the transliteration of Russian into English? Anyone does whatever they feel like? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 08:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of context[edit]

Hello user Afterwriting. In your zeal to apply guidelines (as you understand them) as dogmatically as you can, you have removed a statement which, though unsourced, provides important context for readers and thus you have diminished the informational value of the article.

Below Metropolitan Hilarion's statement that the Orthodox Church is a federation of autocephalous churches, someone added the following statement: "This is the view of the Moscow Patriarchate, but it is not shared by other Orthodox Christians, and certainly not by the Oecumenical Patriarchate." Now, without this additional statement a reader may be led to believe that Metropolitan Hilarion's assertion is axiomatic or at least the most common opinion among Orthodox Christians.

Not all statements need to be sourced. Articles do not have to have a source for every sentence. The fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople (the Oecumenial Patriarchate) differs on this matter is common knowledge as far as I know, just like the statement "Paris is the capital of France" is common knowledge that does not need to be sourced unless challenged.

Are you challenging the substance of the statement you have removed? Are you knowledgeable about the various opinions as to the organization of the Orthodox Church among members of that church? If not, I will reinstate that statement. I hope we're not going to get into an unpleasant edit war. If you have problems with the reinsertion, let us then go seek a third opinion (see for example Wikipedia:Third opinion). Thank you.

Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 09:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all statements need to be referenced but it should be obvious that this one does as it is contradicting another statement and is therefore a contentious statement. This is NOT a church encyclopaedia (a fact which you seem determined to forget) and such statements will be meaningless to most potential readers. If you put it back then I will be obliged to add a citation required tag to it. If it is not then referenced within a few days it will be removed in accordance with the policy on such matters. Your analogy of this statement with with Paris being the capital of France is totally erroneous. So I strongly suggest that you find a reliable reference to support this vague and meaningless statement before adding it back. Afterwriting (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a few things you do not seem to understand:
  • The statement you removed was not contradicting the statement which preceded it. The first statement stated someone's opinion. The second statement simply pointed out the opinion expressed in the first statement was not universally held. The substance of the second statement was not the Eastern Orthodox church is or is not a confederation of independent churches but that the opinion it was was not universally held. The second statement did not contradict the first statement inasmuch as the first statement did not state the opinion expressed was universally held. It would have if the first statement had been "It is universally accepted that..." but that's not what the first statement says
  • I don't know where you get I am determined to forget this is not a church encyclopaedia. On the contrary, you seem determined to forget editors are to stick to the facts and are not to start pinning on each other ulterior motives. Assuming ulterior motives is precisely the contrary of assuming good faith. I wonder if you are not just projecting on another editor a behavior you are engaging in. Are you (this is just a question) a militant secularist who sees everywhere the hand of a conspiracy of supposedly religious people?
  • That the analogy with the statement "Paris is the capital of France" is erroneous is your opinion. My opinion is the statement the Constantinople patriarchate would hold another opinion than the one Metropolitan Hilarion stated is so simple and obvious (it is on a par with "it is probable most traffic policemen do not hold the opinion traffic policement are useless" after the statement of an opinion traffic policemen were useless) only someone who doesn't take the time to analyze properly what he is reading wouldn't be able to see it.
  • The trick of adding a tag is nothing but a roundabout way to do again what you've already done, no more no less. It remains to be seen if the tag was added appropriately or abusively. I'm saying it is your opinion a citation is required since you are not challenging the substance of the statement and have provided no reasonable ground this is the sort of statement that needs a reference. If you want to engage in an edit war (that is the threat you are making if I understand you) it is not impossible for me to take out your tag, because my opinion will be you would have added that tag abusively. Ultimately we will have to go to some sort of arbitration which is exactly what I've proposed already and which I observe you do not seem to have taken note of. You don't seem to be aware there's a difference between policy and your own interpreation of policy.
  • How would such statements be "meaningless to most potential readers"? Those are statements in simple straightforward English. You seem to hold a pretty low opinion of "most potential readers". Incidentally "potential readers" is redundant. Any reasonable being with a command of English is a "potential reader" of this page. "Readers" would do just as well. This sort of redundant English is not good style. And coming from someone who thinks they are the final judge on what good style is, it kind of gives meaning to the word "irony", don't they? "Kind of gives" may be a little redundant also. But I do not whack people over the head with grammar, spelling and punctuation.
  • You strongly suggest? Who do you think you are to strongly suggest? This sort of insulting rhetoric strongly suggests you think you've been appointed through some sort of divine intervention to rule over standards down here. But this is not a place you own and you have not been appointed, divinely or otherwise, to anything, except by yourself.
  • Finally how can a statement be "vague and meaningless". It could if you wish be "vague or meaningless". But "vague and meaningless"? Style again? Or logic? Or both?
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 20:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)