Talk:Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow

New Approach

There are two goals here, the first and foremost is to build a good NPOV article, the second is to get all parties to work together towards the first goal. You both have good points, and you both have different perspectives. You also both have a good grasp of the subject.

Each of you tell me the one section header that you feel is most important in this article, you don't need to explain it just name it. Jeepday (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Frjohnwhiteford - As the article currently stands "Criticism", but if you are asking where to start, I would suggest we start with the most blatant WP:BLP violation still in the article, which is in the "Personal Life" section, and is the bit about the nuns, and the violation of the canons. This is clearly original research, irrelevant, and an attempt to imply a scandal that is not otherwise documented. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Biophys - "Relations between Orthodox Church and Russian State under Alexii II" Biophys (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying Frjohnwhiteford, one step at a time. I would ask each of you to write one section, Frjohnwhiteford write "Criticism"; Biophys write "Relations between Orthodox Church and Russian State under Alexii II", keep it about 500 words or less. use good references, and don't worry about the what the other is doing. Take a couple days, do it well and when it's ready leave me a note and I will come look. Like we said before the section should only contain topics related to the section header. If you start feeling frustrated read Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible or Wikipedia:There is no deadline. I believe you are both working in good faith to do what you think is best, you are both trying to work towards the same goal you just have different visions of the goal. If you finish your section before the other, just wait until you are both done before starting something new. Will this work to start? Jeepday (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That works for me, although 500 words may be insufficient. Of course, other users might appear during next few days, and they are very welcome to edit this article...Biophys (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit by adding or clarify not removing, leave all references in place as appropriate. Do not remove references or referenced material unless you added it. When everyone gets done adding we can look at removing content as needed. If you feel that specific contend is untrue, or not supported by references and you beleive that other editors may not agree with your assessment. Bring it to my attention and I will offer a neutral perspective. Will that work? Jeepday (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "New approach" is going to work only if me and Frjohnwhiteford agree on it. Unlike me, Frjohnwhiteford did not state that he agree, and instead started editing this article. So the deal is off?Biophys (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look above, you will see that I am the only who was formally agreed to approach suggested. I have every intention of working with the resolution process, and I will remind you that it is you who began editing and reorganizing this article immediately, and without asking for imput. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So, are going to stop editing this article (say for two-three days) and prepare your segment of text as suggested by Jeepday? If you do, I will do the same.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for some clarification on what it is that we are supposed to be doing. I am not clear on whether we are editing the article, or preparing drafts to be presented on the talk page. Also, so long as we are in the mode of not removing redundant content, it would be difficult for me to edit the section I had in mind. I could produce some additional content in Patriarch Alexei's defense, but that will increase the size of that section, rather than reduce it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This is not quite clear for me too.Biophys (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you are both content to work on drafts, that is probably the best approach. If you don't know how to make a sub page let me know, unless you would prefer to work on your user page or off line. Jeepday (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Jeepday asked me whether or not I supported his approach. I certainly do. DGG (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing Content

A big part of the argument here is editors removing other editors work. I am seeing what looks like reliably sourced material being removed. While we are striving for balance, please let the contributing editors shorten their own work. If you feel strongly that a single reference is not sufficient for some content then it is appropriate per WP:BLP to remove it from the main article. But when doing so please bring it to the talk page (with the references supplied) indicate your specific concerns and give the contributing editors a chance to supply additional references or adjust the text as needed. Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since content in defense of Patriarch Alexei has in fact been removed, how or when will it be put back, since it was removed contrary to your instructions above? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuns Removed by Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) per comments below

It has been suggested that the content on nuns below represents WP:OR, it does not appear that there is previously published reference supporting the claim that there are nuns working in the household in violation of the canon. Please provide references supporting the assertion of wrongness, and seek approval for reliability of the sources here before reposting. Thanks Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) the nuns are in charge of all the household chores and duties. The presence of unrelated women in an Orthodox bishop's house is canonically forbidden by the First Ecumenical Council (Canon 3[1]) and Sixth Ecumenical Council (Canon 5[2]).

Alexius himself said that nuns are working in his house - a reliable source provides and interview with Alesius where he said just that. That is a Russian language source. Since you and Frjohnwhiteford do not know Russian (if I understand correctly), please avoid unilateral deletion of statements supported by reliable Russian sources without consulting with at least two users who know Russian.Biophys (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He did not say that they lived there, and he certainly did not suggest this was a violation of the Ecumenical Canons. There is a difference between having women living in the same area, who come to clean the house, and having women share a residence. I do not speak Russian fluently, however, I read it well enough to know that you are engaging in original research here that is not substantiated by the source.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The remaining statement "On the residence compound there is a de-facto rotating women's monastery, according to the Patriarch's interview" is also original research, because the interview says nothing about a defacto rotating convent. This is an extrapolation by the person who inserted this irrelevant material. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also nothing in the sources to warrant the inclusion of the commentary "originally it was meant as Patriarch Alexius I's dacha". Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Biophys the general assessment made by Frjohnwhiteford is correct, if the reference does not say there is a violation of Ecumenical Canons, then per WP:BLP you can't say it in the article. Because of the nature of the content, you would probably need to find at least 2 published reliable sources that support wrong doing. If you have questions I am more then happy to answer them. Jeepday (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday asked me whether or not I supported his edits. I do support this edit.DGG (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article as it stands does not assert any wrongdoing: it says "the nuns are in charge of all the household chores and duties. The presence of unrelated women in an Orthodox bishop's house is canonically forbidden by the First Ecumenical Council (Canon 3[1]) and Sixth Ecumenical Council (Canon 5[2])." Just read the words, not your own assumptions.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. There are two supporting links/sources here which tell about First Ecumenical Council (Canon 3[1]) and Sixth Ecumenical Council (Canon 5[2]). Unfortunately, those are Russian sources, so DGG can not read them. May be a partial translation is needed?Biophys (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"does not assert any wrongdoing" Either it is intended means just that, or it is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But the statement is completely sourced. First of two sources tells, for example (this is old but fully understandable Russian language): "Великий Собор без изъятия положил, чтобы ни епископу, ни пресвитеру, ни диакону, и вообще никому из находящихся в клире, не было позволено иметь сожительствующую в доме женщину, разве матерь, или сестру, или тетку или те только лица, которые чужды всякаго подозрения." It says that any Orthodox priest is strictly forbidden to have any women living in his house except his own women relatives (no matter what they are doing and who they are). Alexius has such women living in his residency according to his own interview (another reliable source). So, I do not see any problems here. Frjohnwhiteford raised the question if the "residency" qualifies as a "house". But Alexius said himself in the interview something like "my residence is my home". I personally prefer not to include such things in BLPs, but this is a legitimate edit by Muscovite99 Biophys (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

When you take source #1 which asserts fact "A" (that in the Patriarch has nuns who live in the compound in which his home is, and source #2 which asserts fact "B" (that the canons forbid women living in the home of a bishop), and connect the two to make the conclusion that A+B=C (Patriarch Alexei is violating the canons), that is original research. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• What I am seeing here is that there appears to be two facts here that are referecened, They way they are placed does imply an accusation of wrongness that has not been shown to be documented outside of Wikipedia. Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources.

• 1. On the residence compound there is a de-facto rotating women's monastery, according to the Patriarch's interview; the nuns are in charge of all the household chores and duties.

• 2. The presence of unrelated women in an Orthodox bishop's house is canonically forbidden by the First Ecumenical Council (Canon 3[3]) and Sixth Ecumenical Council (Canon 5[4])

• Both statements have been repeatedly removed from the article and repeatedly been reverted, This by definition is Edit warring Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area.. There are only two ways to prevent an edit war, cooperation or enforcement. I have suggested both, neither has been embraced by the editors of this article. I am here because editors chose to request assistance with the disagreement. I am not going to participate in, take sides in, or try to manage an edit war. Jeepday (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I removed sentence two above, again this morning per WP:BLP and WP:SYN. If an editor has questions, notices any other BLP concerns or requires a dispute resolution please leave a note at my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Jeepday on this, for the reasons he gives. WP:SYNTH is very clearly applicable. Synthesizing an implied accusation from an equivocal fact and millenium-old regulations is altogether excessive. DGG (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Three Choices

There are three choices for my participation in this article, which would the editors of this article prefer? Jeepday (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• 1. I don't participate at all
• 2. I facilitate the dispute resolution with the agreement of the majority of the editors here
  • Agree.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• 3. I enforce Wikipidia policy
  • I agree with this too... which is crucial. We obviously need an arbiter who ensure that a reasonable process is observed in getting this article into compliance with WP:BLP, which it currently is not. Experience has shown that the editors are not going to come to a consensus that will be both in accordance with Wikipedia Policy, and respected by all the participants, and so we definitely need your help. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am available for dispute resolution. It is not my intent to be a primary editor of this article or monitor activities here to any great degree. I will keep this on my watch list and assume that editors will work in good faith to resolve amongst themselves most disputes. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing the NPOV Tag

There certainly remains a dispute about the neutrality of this article. There is no justification for removing it until the dispute is resolved. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Work for KGB claim and loyalty to the Soviet State

While I do not comment on Patriarch's alleged work for KGB -- I want to make a point that Sergian loyalty to the Soviet state which was oficially discussed by the Patriarch does not equal to the alleged KGB work.

Indeed, that's true that Patriarch Alexius acknowledged that compromises were made with the Soviet government by bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, himself included, and publicly repented of these compromises:

"Defending one thing, it was necessary to give somewhere else. Were there any other organizations, or any other people among those who had to carry responsibility not only for themselves but for thousands of other fates, who in those years in the Soviet Union were not compelled to act likewise? Before those people, however, to whom the compromises, silence, forced passivity or expressions of loyalty permitted by the leaders of the church in those years caused pain, before these people, and not only before God, I ask forgiveness, understanding and prayers."

But it's important to note it wasn't Patriarch's reply on his alleged KGB work, but rather than that, justification on his own loyalty to the state and Sergian principles in Soviet time. Suggesting that it concerned KGB work is original research. ellol (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a response to his "KGB work", it is a response to the whole question of his collaboration with the Soviets. See my comments below. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research when you state the proper context of a quote, and then quote it, and that quote is from a reliable source. It is only original research when you try to string several facts together from various sources, to reach a conclusion that is not found in either. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

By common sense that it refers to the accusations does seem to be the implication. But in the absence of direct evidence some qualification in the wording is needed. DGG (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with ellol here. Simply serving Soviet authorities and being a KGB agent (not a KGB officer but an agent; some Russian Orthodox priests are KGB officers with a military rank, visit SVR headquarters in Yasenevo, etc.) are two different things. All sources (ten or more) claim that he was a KGB agent. Like ellol, I am not aware of any public statements by Alexius where he denies (or publicly admits) of being a KGB agent during Soviet times.Biophys (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you, the Moscow Patriarchate certainly has denied it:

"The Moscow Patriarchate has denied a The Times of London report alleging that the current head of the Russian Orthodox Church collaborated with KGB in the Soviet era.

Official spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchy Father Vsevolod Chaplin labeled such reports as "absolutely unsubstantiated" in a Wednesday interview with Interfax. "There is no data indicating that Patriarch Alexy II was an associate of the special services, and no classified documents bear his signature," he said.

"I do not think that direct dialogue between the current patriarch and KGB took place," Father Vsevolod continued. However, "all bishops communicated with representatives of the council for religious matters in the Soviet government, which was inevitable, since any issue, even the most insignificant one, had to be resolved through this body. It is quite another matter that the council forwarded all its materials to the KGB," he said." MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE REJECTS TIMES REPORT OF ALEXY II'S COLLABORATION WITH KGB, Sept 20 (Interfax)

"Chaplin, the church spokesman, said in March, "Nobody has ever seen a single real document that would confirm the patriarch used his contacts with Soviet authorities to make harm to the church or to any people in the church." RUSSIA'S WELL-CONNECTED PATRIARCH, Washington Post Foreign Service , 23 May 2002 Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is to what extent did the Patriarch collaborate with the Soviet government. He is accused of going so far as to be a KGB agent. He denies this (contrary to Biophys' assertion), but acknowledges that he did collaborate on some level. The citation does not constitute original research, nor is the quote taken out of context, but is entirely appropriate. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose Protecting this Article

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 -

1. The page be protected from editing by anyone accept an admin.
2. The goal is to create the most accurate article possible with available references
3. For any section that has content that is disputed by anyone the whole section will be removed from the article and moved to the talk page for review.
4. You continue to work amongst yourselves on the talk page on the disputed content, ask Jeepday if you need a opinion or decision.
5. Before asking Jeepday for an opinion all parties who are involved in the dispute give a short explanation of why their position is correct and provide policy (with links) to support their position.
6. Everyone involved agrees to accept Jeepday's opinion as definitive, If two editors agree that Jeepday's opinion is not realistic We will ask User:DGG for a final decision.
7. Agree to accept User:Biophys as an expert in the Russian language and User:Frjohnwhiteford as an expert on the church
8. Everyone agrees to try not to take this personal, there is a history here, feelings are strong, and some viewpoints are harshly opposed. There is no question that in this process you will feel upset at each other and probably at me as well. You will think twice before accusing anyone of bad faith, and if you accidentally do respond poorly you will apologizes. If offered an apology you will accept it and continue to move towards the goal.
9. When you have reached agreement on a section or paragraph of text, ask me or if I am off line for more the 48 hours use {{editprotect}} to add the content. Remember there is no hurry.
10. If you support this proposal please sign below, and say you agree with the proposal
11. If you don't agree please provide an alternative suggestion.
12. We can modify or add rules as needed when a majority of those agreeing to this proposal agree to the new rule.

Proposed by Jeepday (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

may this all work out! DGG (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tentative agreement with a minor change suggested

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)

Agree

--Miyokan (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tentative agreement with a minor change suggested

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)

I never said that translator had no copyright to her translation, I said the original article (written in Russian, in China, in the 1920's, was public domain. That, and the other issues you raise are beside the point, and I would simply say that you are misrepresenting what occurred on these pages, and invite anyone who wishes to investigate it the issues, to go read the talk pages on the articles in question. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am agreeable to another recognized expert in the Russian language being part of the team, if a majority agree that there is another Russian language expert, item 12 address this. I am not agreeable to leaving any content in the article that is part of a disputed section. The last edit I made does not imply that that version is any better then any other version see M:The Wrong Version. I would protect the page in what ever version is present at the time, and remove any section where anyone questions any part of that section. It will not be replaced until there is consensus that the version being offered meets policy expectations. Consensus does not mean everyone agrees. Jeepday (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am agreeable to another recognized expert for the church being part of the team, if a majority agree that there is another church expert, item 12 address this. Jeepday (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than this designation being honorary, what function will it actually have? I assume that it will not stop editors from disagreeing with me, if they have some basis, nor will anyone be prevented from challenging a translation from a Russian "expert"... so what is it exactly that is being proposed? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is honorary and it will not stop editors from disagreeing with you. It formally recognizes who are specializes in specific areas of knowledge relevant to the article. Jeepday (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree if points 1 and 3 excluded (see my alternative version below).Biophys (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think an intervention that did not include page protection would go any better than the first time Jeepday tried it, was ignored by several editors? Also, why, if you intend to work with this process, and comply with Wikipedia Policy, would you fear having this article page protected, and only edited by Jeepday as we worked through the issues as a group? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Points 1 and 3 are inconsistent with WP standard rules and practices.Biophys (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EW#Enforcement and whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion.Jeepday (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you hide first few words? It tells: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion." Of course I agree with that! If a reference does not satisfy WP:Source, text should be removed. I am talking only about texts supported by reliable sources. If everyone agrees that that such sourced and relevant text can not be removed - I am with you.Biophys (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are probably pretty close to the same place here, but there is no policy that says there is any text that can't be removed. I do not have a goal to remove or include any specific text, but I can't promise you that any specific text that has a reference will never be removed Example. The goal of any article is to be the best it can be, occasionally that may require removing referenced text. Wikipedia is a work of many hands and minds, occasionally the consensus flows to less content then one person might prefer. Additionally Wikipedia:BLP#Sources is a little more stringent then some other verifiability policies in Wikipedia, so even content that has one good source may be subject to removal. It gets even harder if you have conflicting reliable references. Lets just take it as it comes and look to written policy to solve any questions that come up. Like I said in item 5 of #Propose Protecting this Article when two (or more) editors can not agree, they present their sides with supporting policy, I will research, and give you a solution. Obviously not everyone is going to be happy every time. Anyone who has looked through my edit history can see I don't have a side in this article, let's just assume good faith on everyone's part and move forward. Ok? Jeepday (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can move forward if this article is not protected and we all follow WP policies. This article is no different from others. If serious edit warring takes place, it can be protected by an uninvolved administrator according to existing WP policies. Personally, I am not enthusiastic about this article after such discussion.Biophys (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious edit warring has taken place in this article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:09, 5 February 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)

Don't agree

Alternative suggestion.

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)

As you will recall, the COI charge has been tried, and fallen flat in the eyes of uninvolved editors. Continuing to raise this issue is contrary to WP:NPA. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:39, 31 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)

Only because at least one group has been trying to avoid an edit war here by getting some outside intervention. When a more moderate form was attempted, the other side simply disregarded it. They have also removed a good bit of content, without any discussion, contrary to what had been asked by Jeepday.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from yourself, who are the other members of this group you are siding with? 202.12.233.23 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who have been trying to strike a balance here, and I will let them speak for themselves, but I am not the only one who has reverted some of the attempts to insert violations of the WP:BLP policy into this article, as can be seen from the edit history. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong here. You are right. There is probably a user who supports you, although he made only one edit here (a revert of me) so far. That is User:Miyokan who had this "KGB troll" userbox invented by banned User:Vlad fedorov. I think that was simply a bad joke, because the KGB still only exists in Belarus, being replaced by two successor (FSB and SVR) agencies in Russia. Still, you are right.Biophys (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a low attempt to try to smear my reputation, that is obviously a tongue-in-cheek userbox. I agree with Frjohnwhiteford on this - why would you think an intervention that did not include page protection would go any better than the first time Jeepday tried it, was ignored by several editors? Also, why, if you intend to work with this process, and comply with Wikipedia Policy, would you fear having this article page protected, and only edited by Jeepday as we worked through the issues as a group?--Miyokan (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You said: "That was a low attempt to try to smear my reputation". What are you talking about? I did not criticize you at all. To the contrary, it is great when users make disclaimers on their pages or announce their political views. I have seen userboxes of people who support Palestinian resistance or who "refute Stalinist propaganda". All of that is fine. You included a userbox saying that "you are a paid member of KGB Internet brigades". That is fine too. You simply stated your political position and views, and I respect that. I only said the userbox was probably a "bad joke" because I think you actually do not work there. If I am wrong, I am ready to apologize.Biophys (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

some of the comments immediately above are inappropriate, and do not contribute to the discussion on the article. I am disappointed to see the thread being continued. DGG (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. You are absolutely right. Let's talk only about the article.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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)

The only reason we are not having a revert war right now is because we have Admin intervention. There certainly is a serious editorial conflict which necessitates some intervention... particularly when the less rigorous approach Jeepday had been taking was simply being reverted by contentious editors, who simply refused to abide by any of his decisions. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is warranted right now. One also could object that Jeapday might effectively become an "owner" of this article, which would be against WP:OWN. However looking at Jeapday's edit record, I believe he would be a good arbiter.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN refers to a very different phenomenon than arbitration. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Have no fears of anybody owning the article if i have anything to say about it. I dont want to get involved in the editing, but i will keep in touch with it. DGG (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I basically agree with everything except protection of this page for a long time.Biophys (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Church and State Section

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)

Since no one has responded to the above, I recommend that this section be eliminated. And that the relevant material be merged back into the controversies section, as presented on this page Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - as a temporary solution. Such section is important, but it should be completely different. Current text does not make much sense.Biophys (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section problems

Marriage

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.".

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)."

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)

• The distinction is quite important. First, unlike in most Western countries, a church-officiated wedlock was and is legally null and void in Russia (the USSR). The fact that there was a mystery (Sacrament) of matrimony celebrated is importnat as there is no information about the dissolution thereof (for which a special episcopal decree is requisite); as the Rev Whiteford may know, marriage is fundamentally undissolvable in Orthodoxy as long as both spouses continue to be alive and sane. Thus, in Orthodox terms, he ought to be deemed still married unless otherwise proven, which, in turn, makes his episcopal consecration (let alone his monkhood) invalid on the basis of Canons 12 and 48 of The Sixth Council [5].Muscovite99 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• As for the ban on matrimony during the Bright Week, it is directly forbidden by Chapter 50 of Nomocanon -- a valid source of Church Law. Hence all this fuss in Russia about "Красная горка" (Second Sunday after Easter) - the fist day after many weeks when wedding is possible in church.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no need to say anything other than that they were married. One would assume it was a legal marriage, and that it also was a church marriage. Secondly, you are wrong about the Orthodox view of marriage. The Orthodox Church does believe in divorce, and certainly does not believe that marriage is eternal... one need read only the patristic commentary on Christ's response to the Sadducees on that subject. Thirdly, if you are familiar with Orthodoxy, you will know that Economia is often allowed when it comes to the question of when a marriage may take place, if there are grounds deemed sufficient by the bishop. As for the canons, there are no Ecumenical canons which address this issue that I am aware of, but it is certainly true that it is contrary to the tradition of the Church to perform a wedding during bright week... it is also contrary to the Church tradition to perform a memorial service on a Sunday... but this also is often allowed due to economia. Economia may be applied when the action is not inherently evil (and marriage is not evil), but when it is a question of the appropriate occassion or circumstance. You have the norm, but then you have exceptions to the norm that are allowed by the bishops discretion. All of this is completely irrelevant, and you have only a tabloid as a source. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This segment of text merely describes what the source tells. The source satisfies WP:Source. If you want to dispute text by Muscovite99, please provide alternative sources that support your view. So far, I have seen none.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Residence

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;"

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)

Further Reading Section

This section is entirely one sided, and is unnecessary... that's what footnotes are for. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Health assertions

Just for reference here's the relevant section that 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).

== Состояние здоровья и сопряжённые с ним скандалы в СМИ ==

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»[6]. Тогда пресс-служба ОВЦС Патриархии выступила с официальным опровержением, заявив, что «слухи злонамеренно распространяются противниками Церкви, заинтересованными во внесении смуты в умы верующих людей»[7].

27 апреля 2007 российские СМИ распространили информацию о резком ухудшении здоровья Патриарха, находящегося в Швейцарии [8][9][10][11].

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»[12]. 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 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»

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: Template:Начало цитаты 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. Template:Конец цитаты

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»[13]

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».

Высказываются предположения, что ложный слух мог быть санкционирован в Кремле; или спровоцирован недовольными процессом воссоединения б. подполковником КГБ Константином Преображенским, Евгением Магеровским и М. Назаровым.

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 Muscovite99 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the Patriarch had died was a hoax, see WHO ORGANIZED THE PROVOCATIVE RUMORS ON EVE OF 17 MAY?. He supposedly had died just days prior to my seeing him in Moscow, serving three very long liturgies in one week. This sort of thing has no place in this article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)