Talk:Kirill I of Moscow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Science & education / Politics and law / Religion / Mass media (Rated C-class, Top-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and education in 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Russia / History / Politics and law / Religion (Rated B-class, Top-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
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.
 
WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, an attempt to organize information in articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Wrong Image[edit]

That's clearly a picture of Osama bin Laden! 82.24.104.76 (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Misc. Edits[edit]

Edited grammar and links, as well as layout and spacing throughout the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.55.88 (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Church Positions[edit]

It seems there is very little on this mans writings or positions on the page. I would like to see references added on homosexuality, women's rights, race relations, etc. It seems to me, this is relevant to the future of Russia moving away from mysticism to a rational modern nation. There is also little on church finance, which is clearly in the case of the Russian Orthodox Church very questionable. The history of church run charities is questionable. And, there is nothing related to sex abuse, which is just as rampant in the Russian Orthodox Church as in others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.187.0 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"the church expert Nikolai Mitrokhin"[edit]

First off, this is not in English. Secondly I have no idea what an expert on "ROC ecinimic activities", but it is POV to label him an expert even if he is a "scholar" and to not label every other scholar who is cited as an "expert" too. Who says he is an expert? He is an author... that does not make him an expert in anything, aside from perhaps a keen ability to get publishers to print things he writes. Oprah has published more books and articles than he has. Is she an expert too? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys' latest edit may well be accurate, but I would like to see the source information that supports the claim that Nikolai Mitokhin is a "black market researcher from Russian State University for the Humanities". Is he a researcher who does research for the Russian State University, of is he a researcher who happens to have attended the Russian State University. If he is the latter, references to the university should be removed. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It tells: "научный сотрудник Центра исследований теневой экономики при РГГУ Николай Митрохин" ("a researcher of the Center for Research of Underground Economy affiliated with the Russian State University for the Humanities"). It means that "Center" is a part of University, something like a Medical Center of a US University. Here the ref (Russian) [1]. It tells the following:

Занимающий внушительное четырехэтажное здание в Даниловом монастыре Отдел внешних церковных связей (ОВЦС), которым руководит митрополит Кирилл, называют церковным МИДом. Это ключевая структура РПЦ. Кирилл возглавил ОВЦС в 1989 году, еще при позапрошлом патриархе Пимене. Кураторы из Совета по делам религий при Совете министров СССР вполне доверяли тогда еще молодому иерарху — в оперативных кругах его знали под псевдонимом «Михайлов» (так его называли в своих отчетах сотрудники Пятого управления КГБ). Эта неприятная для иерарха подробность всплыла в начале 1990-х годов, когда на свет стали появляться итоги работы парламентской комиссии по расследованию деятельности КГБ. Работала комиссия и с архивами Пятого управления, а первым публичным итогом этой работы для церкви стала публикация в журнале «Христианский вестник» за октябрь 1992 года. Тогда-то вся заинтересованная публика и узнала о том, что церковные иерархи сплошь и рядом в советские годы были так или иначе связаны (или зависимы?) от политической полиции — КГБ. Назывались и псевдонимы, которые давали в своих отчетах сотрудники идеологической контрразведки — «Дроздов,» «Адамант», «Островский»... Свои псевдонимы были и у представителей остальных конфессий — мусульман, иудеев, католиков и так далее.

Митрополит Кирилл сделал в советские годы стремительную карьеру. Уже в 22-летнем возрасте, учась в Ленинградской духовной академии и служа секретарем могущественного митрополита Никодима, Кирилл начал регулярно выезжать за границу. Он занял крупные посты в руководстве Всемирного совета церквей, Конференции европейских церквей, миротворческих организациях. Уже в 28 лет он ректор Ленинградской академии, а в 30 — архиепископ Выборгский.

Комиссия президиума Верховного совета России в начале 1992 года официально обратила внимание руководства РПЦ на «глубокую инфильтрацию агентуры спецслужб» в Церковь, что «представляет собой серьезную опасность для общества и государства». В том же году, встречаясь со студентами МГУ, Кирилл утверждал: «Факт встречи духовенства с представителями КГБ нравственно безразличен». И действительно, этот факт скоро стал «безразличен», потому что странице под названием «Михайлов» в биографии Кирилла пришла на смену страница под названием «Табачный».

В 1996 году ОВЦС через свой Фонд «Ника» под видом гуманитарной помощи (без таможенных пошлин) ввез в Россию более 8 млрд сигарет, вытеснив с рынка импортеров, плативших пошлины. Первой эту историю откопала вскоре закрытая и забытая маленькая бизнес-газета, а затем был целый вал публикаций в «Московском комсомольце» и «Московских новостях».

Собственно, табачные короли и начали первую кампанию разоблачения, как они считали, недобросовестного конкурента. На никотине, утверждали тогда СМИ и злые языки в самой Церкви, Кирилл составил стартовый капитал — несколько сотен миллионов долларов, после чего финансовые скандалы полились на него, как из рога изобилия. Он был причастен к беспошлинному экспорту нефти, отлову камчатского краба, добыче уральских самоцветов, учреждению банков, скупке акций и недвижимости. Специфические (с оттенком «пастырства») связи в политическом руководстве и бизнес-сообществе быстро вывели Кирилла на первое место по объему личных активов среди иерархов РПЦ МП. В 2004 году научный сотрудник Центра исследований теневой экономики при РГГУ Николай Митрохин выпустил монографию о теневой экономической деятельности РПЦ. Состояние митрополита Кирилла оценивалось в этой работе в $1,5 млрд. Спустя 2 года журналисты «Московских новостей» попытались пересчитать активы главы церковного МИДа и пришли к выводу, что они насчитывают уже $4 млрд. Ни сам митрополит, ни руководство РПЦ эти данные не комментировали.

Принадлежность к элите требует определенного набора атрибутов. В 2002 году митрополит Кирилл купил пентхаус в Доме на набережной с видом на храм Христа Спасителя. Это, кстати, единственная квартира в Москве, зарегистрированная именно на митрополита по его мирской фамилии Гундяев, о чем есть соответствующая запись в кадастровой ведомости. В СМИ появилась и информация о покупке митрополитом виллы в Швейцарии. Одновременно митрополит занялся активной и во многом беспрецедентной для церковного иерарха просветительской деятельностью посредством телевидения: ведет программы на разных телеканалах, ежедневно появляется в выпусках новостей, его обслуживают несколько информагентств и журналов.

  1. ^ (Russian)Божественные голоса The New Times № 50, December 15, 2008.

Biophys (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


P.S. This Mitrokhin seems to be a notable expert of the Russian Orthodox Church business, author of a book and other numerous publications like this: [1].Biophys (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From the same source an edit was added: В статье допущена ошибка. Николай Митрохин не являлся сотрудником Центра по изучению нелегальной экономической деятельности РГГУ: в 2000 году он издал в этом центре свою работу "Экономическая деятельность РПЦ и ее теневая составляющая", в которой не содержалась оценка личного состояния митрополита Кирилла. It says that he did NOT work for the Center for Black Market Research"; only that he published his work for that center. That throws out any credibility with regards to the cited Center. In any event, it is highly POV and questionable - not a reliable established source. Rusmeister (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

New title[edit]

Why "Patriarch-Elect" instead of simply "Patriarch"?Biophys (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because he is a "Patriarch-Elect". Only from 01.02.2009 he becam a Patriarch wit NEW name. Miller111 (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he's sorted himself out. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Putin's pick?[edit]

More on the succession process is needed. Who were the other candidates? Was Kirill Putin's first choice? &c... 192.121.84.241 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Putin picks the chief of the orthodox church? --Bernardoni (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vyazma[edit]

Why was the title Archbishop of Smolensk and Vyazma changed to Archbishop of Smolensk and Kaliningrad in 1989? --Hapsala (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyril[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article called Kirill and not Cyril? His predecessors (e.g. Alexy, Sergius) are here with their English names, as is customary with patriarchs and popes. Also, it's Kyrill in German, Cirilo in Spanish, Cirillo in Italian, Cyryl in Polish etc. I can't see why Kirill/Cyril should be singled out for special treatment. The press seems to be divided, but TIME, for example, has Cyril: [2] --89.245.251.212 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree, I think it should be Cyril, not Kirill. --210.6.141.44 (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support English Cyril, or possibly Latin Cyrillus, not Kirill. --Hapsala (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree - no need to translate personal names - you wouldn't have the Spanish King at King John Charles, would you? - fchd (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
But we call the pope Benedict XVI or John Paul II.--210.6.141.44 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree It is very uncommon to see him referred to as Cyril, and I think we should reflect normal usage, rather than wag a finger at people in favor of something that is not commonly used. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support To my knowledge, we don't have a "never translate names" or "always translate names" rule. Instead, we have a "translate names if it is English convention to translate names" rule (WP:RM). That explains how we can end up with John Paul II and Juan Carlos I If English usage backs Cyril, then I back Cyril. Would appreciate more evidence on this point, however. Erudy (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem in this case is that Wikipedia was instrumental in the spreading of Kirill as opposed to Cyril. Believe it or not, many news outlets look to Wikipedia for guidance if no other reliable source is available. There is, of course, no way to prove this. What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia does not only reflect reality, it also creates it. And in this case it means that although we Wikipedians want to use whatever the press uses we Wikipedians have in fact determined or at least heavily influenced what they use. If in February 2007, this page would have been created as Metropolitan Cyril we wouldn't be having this discuission. --85.181.238.139 (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Juan Carlos was born Juan Carlos. It's not a name he has assumed upon his ascent to the throne. --Akkolon (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The claim of the IP editor is not based upon any facts. Metropolitan Cyril up to 2000 has 3 google news hits. Metropolitan Kirill has 47 hits. So it appears that even before the advent of WP, his English name was already established as Kirill. --Russavia Dialogue 10:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I would contend that while Google News usage obviously favors Kirill (not sure whether Google News has representative data for the pre-Google News years, though), 50 hits for a period of nine years does not make anything established. --85.181.238.139 (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That is for the search term "Metropolitan Kirill" (and Cyril) enclosed with " and ". Regardless, see my comment below. We have established guidelines for Russian names, and as results for the last 30 days show, less than 1% of sources use Cyril. That is already an established name, as per our guidelines, Popes names are irrelevant to Russian Orthodox articles; we have a guideline and demonstrated usage, and your assertion that news sources have taken their lead from WP has absolutely zero evidence.--Russavia Dialogue 12:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not dispute any of that. And I was talking of 1991-2000. I just assume (with, as you say, zero evidence in this particular case) that now that he got widespread coverage for the first time, Wikipedia was used by many as a source of confirmation. I have no personal stake in what he's called here. (I can't even read Kirillic :-)). I didn't say anything about popes. --85.181.238.139 (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Popes' and patriarchs' names are translated for a reason. They choose their papal/patriarchal names in order to express whose example they wish to follow. In Cyril's case his name is most probably referring to Saint Cyril. Therefore it is established usage to call the pope or patriarch by the same name as the saint. And as it is Saint Cyril in English and not Saint Kirill, I would go for Cyril. [3] --Akkolon (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Unlike the Roman Popes, Orthodox Patriarch do not change their names when elected. They change their names when they become monks, which in Patriarch Kyrill's case, would have been a long time ago. Where he to take on the Great Schema, he would change his name again, but that is not likely to happen. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolute oppose WP:RUS comes into play here, not to mention that he is referred to as Patriarch Cyril in the last 30 days 14 times, as opposed to Patriarch Kirill 1,582 times. It is clear cut, Cyril is not what he is widely known as, nor is Cyril what he wants to be known as in English where he is clearly referred to as Patriarch Kirill. --Russavia Dialogue 10:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Second this; besides, the Patriarchate itself calls him Kirill in English [4], same for the US branch of ROC [5]. NVO (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Likewise, I unquestionably disagree with using the "alternative" name Cyril in this article - you do not incidentally suggest to refer to Patriach Pavle of Serbia as "Patriarch Paul"? (ouital77 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC))moved to correct topic by Ignatus (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

All Rus vs. All Russia[edit]

The official title of the Patriarch of Moscow is "Патриарх Московский и всея Руси"

The name of Russia in Russian is "Россия". As anyone can see "Россия" is not "Руси". There are four parts of Rus': Russia, Ukraine (or Little Russia), Belarus (White Russia), and Carpatho-Russia (i.e the Rusyns). So please stop correcting this article on this point. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the Russian federation is "smaller" than Russia..... No, the distinction Rus and Russia is unfortunately not logically implemented in English; so you may start a petition here before changing the offial titles, which is actually Moscow and all Russia. --Hapsala (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong here: the name of Russia in Russian is both "Русь" and "Россия". "Русь" is the original form, "Россия" is its Hellenised form (from Ρωσία). (The difference between the two is no more than between "Britain" and its Latinised form "Britannia"). The English word "Russia" is obviously derived from the word "Русь" plus the suffix "-ia", routinely used for the names of countries; it existed in the English language well before the Russians started naming their country "Россия". Though since Peter the Great "Россия" started gradually replacing "Русь" in public use, it has never replaced it altogether. The Russian Church is much older than Peter the Great and it sticks to the old good word of "Русь". And don't confuse Russia with the Russian Federation, as historic Russia (that is "all Russia" of the patriarchal title) includes as well the independent countries of Ukraine (Little Russia) and Belarus (White Russia). Yurism (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, name "Русская православная церковь" was adopted only in 1945, before that it had been named "Российская...". First comment about Русь is not so true but the second is also. "Патриарх московский и всея Руси" is medieval therm from times when nobody cold separate Russia and Ukraina (then, there was politically Moscow Rus' and Lithuanian Rus', and they controversed for several historical regions like White Russia). This is not true to limit Kirill's titular eparchy to Russian Federation (by constitution, name equivalent to Russia) even now. It's a question for person knowing good historical and political English terms to say if we here can translate Русь as Russia or it is not correct and Rus’ should be instead. Ignatus (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of Numerals?[edit]

I think it is strange and out of the ordinary to refer to Kirill as "Kirill I". Check out, e.g., the website of the Moscow Patriarchate or the Russian Wikipedia. His predecessor was known as "Alexy II" because there was a patriarch with that name before him (who incidentally was never called "Alexy I" in his lifetime). If some years later ROC will elect another patriarch named Kirill, our current patriarch will be known as "Kirill I" - until then it seems strained and artificial to refer to him in this way (he is not a monarch). I suggest changing the title of the article to "Patriarch Kirill of Moscow."

Agree.Ignatus (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This anon agrees. Dynastic number I is assigned retroactively. There is no "I" until there's at least a "II". So Miss Manners says as well. He's neither addressed as, nor styled as, "Kyrill I" within Russia itself, and as far as I can tell the Russian-language version of this page agrees as well. 68.170.190.61 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well. See a similar discussion (in French) about Pope Francis. (70.210.68.61 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC))

Mordvin?[edit]

The reference says that the Patriarch's father and grandfather hail from the Mordovia region. Which is 2/3 ethnically Russian. Nowhere does it state that he has ethnic Mordvin roots. If that's not the case, can someone provide a reference? Sotnik (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting?[edit]

Is it interesting enough for this article that Kirill gives controversial people like Dmytro Firtash church honors? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What about this?. What is controversial about that?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that if Al Capone would have done lots of "social activities" he also would have had a change in getting a medal from the Russian Church? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes he would. Also Wikipedia is not a forum.--♫GoP♫TCN 14:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
True... but it's an interesting point she makes, GOP (and suggestive, shock horror, of corruption or something like it). Try to be more friendly :) Malick78 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of most of the material on controversies[edit]

I am not entirely happy with the removal of most of the material on controversies on on 16-16 August.[6] The editor who did this has tried to suppress notable controversies regarding the Patriarch before.[7] This mass removal was done without discussion. It has left only the most recent example.

  • If the intention was to airbrush out of history all the many controversies, then the materials should be restored.
  • If the intention was to deal with "undue weight" by putting the detail on the controversies in a separate article, surely the editor should have summarised each of the controversies in the Kirill I of Moscow article, and use the "Main article: Controversies of Kirill I of Moscow".

What should we do?--Toddy1 (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree this seems to be a case of vandalism. The reason for the removal: "This is an article about a religious leader, not politician" is absurd as this article is about a person as whole including all notable and socially impacting aspects of him. It seems an attempt to cover Kirill by one of his supporters. Asterno (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Let us keep also such material on controversies, if well supported by widespread sources. We can keep a separate article for controversies (Controversies of Kirill I of Moscow) only if the original article is very long, which is not the case here. So I suggest to delete Controversies of Kirill I of Moscow. A ntv (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Many of the paragraphs on the various controversies are very short here. Earlier version explained some of them better. An advantage of having a separate article on the controversies, would be that each controversy could be greatly expanded using reliable sources, and the version on the main article kept as a summary.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that two sections are notable, but the rest isn't really. "Gold" dust of the Patriarch, Silver Shoe Award, Importation of cigarettes and "Nomination" for Nobel Prize is very trivial and should be removed, per WP:TRIVIA. Also his role in the Pussy Riot dilemma is not really notable. He did not make the decision of two years imprisonment, but he merely did the rightous decision what every clergy would do, namely criticizing their performance. It is funny that someone called my edit "vandalism" XD; perhaps you need to watch their performance and all the feminist hateful outrages. Regards.--Kürbis () 11:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The "Gold" dust of the Patriarch was in the Financial Times. It is not trivial.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree, all the criticism is relevant. As for Kurbis's actions - they may not be vandalism, but reverting so many other people was unhelpful. Please don't do it. The guy gets off on being involved in politics, so let him take the criticism that that brings. Malick78 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think it would be reasonable to remain all the current subitems of the Controversies Section except for "Nomination for Nobel Prize" and "Golden Shoe" as of relatively minor importance and transfer them into the separate "Controversies" article where all subjects would be described in details. Asterno (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The bit about the shoe award seemed trivial because it was put in a separate section to what the award for. Even GreatOrangePumpkin/Kürbis accepted that the airbrushed out watch was notable. I have moved all the watch bits to the same section.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
In fact it is what I spoke about with the exclusion that "Nobel nomination" is also a subject of minor importance deserving transfering to the Controversies of Kirill I of Moscow Article Asterno (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest merging all the content from "controversies" back here and making "controversies" redirect. Having a separate article about "controversies" is a bad style. In addition, the sections about awards should be wikified/reformatted or removed. My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Most of the so-called controversies are not really notable. Regards.--Kürbis () 08:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, since they are the only sourced part of the article (his early life, ministry, and awards have.... just one ref as far as I can see) perhaps the whole article should be deleted? Only kidding. My point is that the controversies section is the only encyclopaedic bit of the entire article. Funny that. (Btw, how about we cull the awards section? No refs - as I've stated - and most aren't notable - they lack links to articles on the award.) Malick78 (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
        • The reality is that the so-called "controversies" are the most notable aspects of the patriarch's life. This is why people have both the interest and the opportunity to cite them. The various jobs he had before he took on management responsibility for the well-known shopping mall, are of little interest to an English-speaking audience.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)