Jump to content

Talk:John of Kronstadt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Should we move it to John of Kronstadt? --Ghirla | talk 07:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of Birth and Death

[edit]

Are these dates Julian (Old Style) or Gregorian (New Style)?Jtyroler (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ioannity

[edit]

Guilts of the Ioannity sect cannot be mentioned in Criticism. John of Kronstadt had extremely negative attitude to the Ioannites, and that fact was documented in a whole number of sources. B7elijah (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

leader of Black Hundreds?

[edit]

The Wikipedia article on Black Hundreds, includes John Kronstadt as a "prominent" leader of the Black Hundreds. [[1]] "Popularity and Power". Is this true? If so, should it be mentioned here? Or the Black Hundred article corrected? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not really npov

[edit]

"He was a striking, unconventional personality, deeply pious and immensely energetic. He was one of the most internationally famous and beloved Orthodox Christian leaders of his time." This is not a fan-page for John of Kronstadt. 81.227.190.9 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John of Kronstadt. 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:

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) 07:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus version

[edit]

I propose the edit

1. Decrease the image of caricature.

2. Substitute "The escape of John of Kronstadt" for "John of Kronstadt is leaving Kronstadt". There are no sources that John of Kronstadt escaped Kronstadt.

3. Substitute ""Kronstadt Father"" for "Priest in Kronstadt". It is more accurately.

4. Substitute "the rest of the priests of St. Andrew's Cathedral held a procession to the rebels; they persuaded them to stop the uprising" for "they tried to persuade them to stop the uprising". It is more accurately.

Aleksei m (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. There is no point in doing this. The image should be clear.
  • 2. There are more than enough sources. Pictured is an escape. The signature under the picture says: "My soul is indignant and feels that there will be a beating of the wicked intellectuals! I'll sit on the donkey and go to my beloved son in St. Petersburg" ("Духъ мой зело взыграяся ибо чуетъ избиеніе богомерзской интелдигенціи. Потеку на осляти ко чаду моему любезному во Питеръ градъ")
  • 3. What is the point in this substitution?
  • 4. Now everything is stated very exactly, according to sources.


Wlbw68 (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicoljaus:. Ok, I agree. In this case, it turns out that John fled the city. The picture shows escape. What is there to argue about?

The upper caption below the picture: "Исход из Кронштадта" (Exodus from Kronstadt). This is a hint at the Exodus of Moses from Egypt. But according to the Bible, Moses chased by Pharaoh, which then drowned in the Red Sea.

John on the donkey is a hint of Christ on the donkey during the Palm Sunday. The author hints that Christ did not come out of John.Wlbw68 (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


1. I think the image should be less size. What is the point of so large size?
2. Pictured is a leaving. He doesn't hurry.
3. The name must be clear. Aleksei m (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources that John of Kronstadt escaped Kronstadt.

Matrosy obratilis’ v bandu,
Kto byl saper – stal khuligan,
Miatezhnyi Shchmidt beret komandu,
Bezhit blazhennyi Ioann.

All the sailors have formed a gang,
The sappers become a hooligan,
The ritous Schmidt is taking command.
While blessed John is fleeing town.

By Kizenko --Nicoljaus (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The caricature doesn't image an escape. Aleksei m (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source (Kizenko) puts these satirical works in one row, as an examples of a multitude works of that time, mocking the "shameful escape" of the "Kronstadt Father". So, I see the "escape", Wlbw68 sees the same, the secondary source sees and only you for some reason do not see. Is this a trolling again?--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling? Show that Kizenko put these satirical works as true. Aleksei m (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any proof that all these articles and cartoons are just "unhistorical" fakes - bring them. While I believe Kitsenko and not you.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't undestand what you mean: while I believe Kitsenko. Where did Kizenko write that these works are true?Aleksei m (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Kizenko write that these works are true? When historian mention a source, he, by default, don't implies that this source is "unhistorical", or fiction, or fake, or so on. So, "If you have any proof that all these articles and cartoons are just "unhistorical" fakes - bring them."--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Kizenko put these sources to show what satirical sources writes, but she does not agree with its. Aleksei m (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does she "disagree"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She wrote herself that John of Kronstadt prefered to leave Kronstadt, but satirical press wrote — "escape". Aleksei m (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the "disagreement" here. "To leave, to escape, to flee" - the fact is the same. Is there any proof from Kizenko that the cartoon is "unhistorical", or a "fiction" or whatever else did you have in mind when began edit warring?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this edit warring, without discussion, was organized for the sake of war. And this is not good.Wlbw68 (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't argee with you. I defended the historical facts. Aleksei m (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Removing your signature under a caricature is not a defense of historical facts.Wlbw68 (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature size

[edit]

In the past version, the signature to the cartoon, I think, is too long. It is disproportionate and breaks the markup in the article. I think it's better to put it in a note.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The texts are not need. Aleksei m (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need, the readers need.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, readers need to understand the meaning of the image. Moreover, this image was signed by the author of the cartoon. They are one whole. Wlbw68 (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the source to verify this text. There are many strange statements. Aleksei m (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a text in mixed Church Slavonic and Russian languages. This text has been translated into English. What sources do you need? What do you need: dictionaries, reference books? If you think that the translation is incorrect, then indicate the places where it was translated right. Do you understand and read in Church Slavonic? Wlbw68 (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to show the source to verify the content of the text. Is the text true? Aleksei m (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can see in the picture this text.Wlbw68 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, you demanded: 1. Decrease the image of caricature. Now you pretend that you do not notice the text in the picture. This is very similar to trolling, as for me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trolling. May be you trolling. I ask to show the source to confirm that the text in the picture is true. Is the text historical or fiction by the author? Aleksei m (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You ask questions that are completely devoid of meaning.Wlbw68 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems to me with this demand of the source, which will show that "the text is historical" we came to complete absurdity.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think so? Aleksei m (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because you can not correctly formulate your question. Wlbw68 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is not correctly formulated? Aleksei m (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a caricature, under her signature. You ask: Is the text of historical or fiction by the author? It is not correct. The author's signature under any image is a text that is a constant. The author of any image so wanted, this is his copyright, and this is not discussed.Wlbw68 (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decisions to change the size of the image was not accepted. Wlbw68 (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the cause? Aleksei m (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The picture should be clear, so that everything is clearly visible on itWlbw68 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is clear if it size is less. Aleksei m (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a small picture, it's hard to see the image. Wlbw68 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is hard to see if the size is less? Aleksei m (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we agree to decrease the picture? Aleksei m (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the picture is small. Wlbw68 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decisions to change the title of the section were not discussed at all. Wlbw68 (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Kronstadt Father"? Aleksei m (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the section is very old, who introduced it and why it was introduced - it is unknown. But, it is quite acceptable. Moreover, it is in inverted commas. Wlbw68 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer on my question. Aleksei m (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Kronstadt Father"? - This is John Sergiev, who lived in Kronstadt.Wlbw68 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What phase "Priest in Kronstadt" did you not satisfy? Aleksei m (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After the marriage, he was at first a deacon and only a little later a priest. The deacon is the Father, and the priest is the Father.Wlbw68 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Could someone look at the extended commentaries for the references as they seem lengthy and unnecessary. Otr500 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What references do you mean? Aleksei m (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

This article really is in bad need of clean up. It is obvious from reading this that it has been drafted largely by anyone opposed to Orthodoxy without even providing good citations51.52.16.18 (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV

[edit]

Now article obviosly violates NPOV. There are no neutral sources that John of Kronstadt has known for his chauvinistic and antisemitic views, only soviet agitprop. What are the arguments agains this version? Aleksei m (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a controversial figure. For those who believe in everyday miracles, he is a saint, for those who hold a rational view of the world, he is an obscurantist. Thus secular (soviet) sources balance "agitprop" from the other side.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John is one of the main organizers and ideologist of the Black Hundred - the Union of the Russian People. He joined this organization and was a lifelong and honorary member until his death. This indisputable fact is recognized by all modern Russian nationalists. The Black Hundred ideology is monarchism, great-power chauvinism, Antisemitism, Anti-Socialism.

Quotes from the Program of the Union of Russian People:


"Union of the Russian People .... will seek:

1.So that Jews could not be admitted either to the army, or to the navy, or by military personnel, or by voluntary employment, nor in combat units, nor in commissariat. So that Jews could not be military doctors, paramedics and pharmacists.

2.Immediate restoration of the strict Jewish Pale of Settlement within the former limits, with the provision to the eligible societies included in the Pale of Settlement, the right to make decisions on the prohibition of Jews within their limits, as well as eviction from them.

3.The exclusion of Jews from all educational institutions where children of Christians study, and the deprivation of their right to establish higher and secondary educational institutions. Prohibition of Jews from being teachers and supervisors (directors, inspectors, etc.) in state, public and private educational institutions. Prohibiting Jews from being home and village teachers. (This prohibition applies to Jewish women).

4. The prohibition of Jews to serve in public and public services. The prohibition of Jews to receive any kind of concession and to participate in any kind of public and state contracts and supplies. The prohibition of Jews from being shipowners and boatmasters and generally serving in the merchant navy and on the railways.

Prohibitions on Jews from participating in elections to public institutions and local governments, as well as having their representatives in them by appointment of administrative authority.

5. The ban on Jews under any form in the State Council and the State Duma, nor on elections to them.

6. The ban on Jews to maintain pharmacies, to be pharmacists, to administer and serve there.

Prohibition of Jews from trading in medicines and medical products... and etc"

What questions can there be? – This is pure anti-semitism. Wlbw68 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not mean that John of Kronstadt agreed with this provision of the program. He could only agree with other provisions of the program. You write that John of Kronstadt "was known for his chauvinistic, antisemitic and anticommunist views". But you can't prove it by a neutral source. Aleksei m (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The program was adopted on September 2, 1906.

The program itself says: "This election program has been worked out and unanimously adopted by the First All-Russian Congress of Authorized Departments of the Union of the Russian People and is, therefore, mandatory for all departments of the Union throughout the Russian Empire."

John of Kronstadt supported the Union not only spiritually, but also in large sums of money. Welcoming the 3rd All-Russian Congress of Russian People, held in October 1906, wrote in a telegram: "I am enthusiastically watching the speeches and deeds of the Congress." November 26 (December 9), on the day of memory of the martyr George, in the presence of tens of thousands of members of the Union of the Russian People, he consecrated the khorugv and banner and handed them to the kneeling chairman of the Union Alexander Dubrovin.

In 1907, John of Kronstadt joined the Union of the Russian People. October 15, 1907 was unanimously elected a lifetime honorary member of the Union. He was a member of many branches of the Union, participated in events organized by members of the Union, spoke at monarchical meetings and religious processions.

Before joining the Union of the Russian People in a statement, John wrote: "I ask, as a like-minded person, to enroll me as well" Преставился св. прав. Иоанн Кронштадтский

John fully supported all the decisions of the Union and was one of the most active members of the Union.Wlbw68 (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for the phrase "John fully supported all the decisions of the Union"? Aleksei m (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John of Kronstadt and Black Hundreds

[edit]

The attitude of John to the Black Hundred from February 2018 was described by the phrase: "During the Russian Revolution of 1905, he helped organise the Black Hundreds as a militia to aid the police in the fight against left-wing extremists and to restore order." As Aleksei m found out, this phrase was added by Wlbw68 ([2]) from Vladimir Purishkevich. Few days ago I made an edit: [3] to clarify that Black Hundreds fought not only against "extremists" but also against Jews and liberals. But the question of John’s connection with these organizations (which, no doubt, was) should be clarified too. @Wlbw68: I think it would be nice if you help to improve this moment with reliable links to secondary sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course. Nicoljaus is absolutely right.

"O. John was an honorary chairman and member of numerous monarchist organizations, in particular, according to his testimony, he was in a thousand departments of the Union of the Russian People, including such large ones as the Kharkov department of the Union of the Russian People. He was personally close to many prominent figures of the right-wing monarchist movement: the holy martyr Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), Bishop Hermogenes (Dolganyov) and Archpriest I. Vostorgov, Father Superior Arsenius (Alekseev), V. A. Gringmut and others. He was vividly interested in affairs in the monarchist movement, even shortly before death. So during a meeting with a member of the Union of the Russian People, Archpriest M. Khudonosov in February. 1908 he talked a lot about the benefits of the Union of the Russian People, the need for a wider distribution of patriotic newspapers. Oct 25 1908, blessing the two companions of Archpriest Khudonosov, who were members of the Union of the Russian People, about. John told them: "Be firm, courageous, do not leave your post". The allies regarded these words of the shepherd as "a dying testament to the Union of the Russian People."" Степанов А. Д. Иоанн Кронштадтский// Чёрная сотня. Историческая энциклопедия / Сост. А. Д. Степанов, А. А. Иванов. Отв. ред. О. А. Платонов. — М.: Институт русской цивилизации, 2008. — С. 229. — 680 с. — ISBN 978-5-93675-139-4.

In 2014, Vitaly Milonov proposed the establishment of June 14 as a memorial day for John of Kronstadt in St. Petersburg. But the Federation of Jewish Communities of the Russia became an absolute adversary, it made an official statement: "John of Kronstadt was a member of the odious Black-Hundred organization «Union of the Russian People», known for its terrible anti-Semitism and moral support for Jewish pogroms in pre-revolutionary Russia" Федерация еврейских общин России нашла в выступлении Милонова признаки антисемитизма Wlbw68 (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this part using only English sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canonization

[edit]

User Nicoljaus, you wrote according Kizenko ([4]): 

In 1990, after the beginning of Perestroika and the liberalization of church life in the USSR, John was subsequently canonized by the Moscow Patriarchate. Moreover, after the 1990 the rehabilitation of the sectarian Ioannites started and even the Ioannite leaders previously condemned by the Synod were incorporated into the mainstream Orthodoxy in Russia.

From where did you take word "moreover"? It is not neutral. Aleksei m (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "moreover" to obey the rules WP:COPYVIO (you have no right for just copy-pasting the text}. So I elaborated the page of the text from the book of Kizenko into the one sentence. If you think the word "moreover" is not neutral, you can tell me where it was forbidden to use in the rules or guidelines. Or to raise the issue of banning the word "moreover" for general discussion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote in such manner to show as if the canonization of Father John and the rehabilitation of the Ioanites are of the same plan. It is not neutral. Aleksei m (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don’t think so. You failed exposing my sinister plan.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you write the word "moreover"? Aleksei m (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To describe the situation. Not only John himself, but Ioannites were incorporated into mainstream too.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean to describe the situation? The word "moreover" is not in the source and violates context. Do you argee to write as in the source: "Canonization of John led not only to the recognition of his holiness, but also to the rehabilitation of the Ioannites ". Aleksei m (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the need for words "recognition of his holiness". This is a secular encyclopedia, not a fan club.--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the source and appropriate to the context. Aleksei m (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Nicoljaus here--"recognition of his holiness" is a decidedly non-neutral phrasing. I'm also not sure I understand the objection to "moreover", as it's a value-neutral transition word. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy hello! I saw this article at ANI. My 2 cents is that "moreover" is a perfectly nuetral word. Its a linking word with no particular meaning. If its contentious, just use a different turn of phrase. Also, you cannot write exactly what is in a source. We have to paraphrase sources, or that would be a WP:COPYVIO. Very close paraphrasing is also forbidden. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover is not not contextual. Do you agree to write "however"? Aleksei m (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morever means further, additionally, also, besides, too, etc. In context, I think its usage is perfect. I'm not really seeing the issue here. What I do take issue with is you having previously tried to replace "moreover" with "Most ironically", which is not at encyclopedic. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover also means more significantly. Do you agree to replace by "also"? Aleksei m (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue it doesn't mean significantly, as I couldn't find a dictionary entry claiming as such. And even if it did mean significantly, I'd say that the following sentence is of some significance. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[5]: (used to add information) also and more importantly. Aleksei m (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the objection to write "also"? Aleksei m (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, however, moreover; I don't see why it matters. A transition word is a transition word. Are we seriously arguing about the semantics of a single unimportant word? Any transition word could be used and it would mean essentially the same thing. Maybe we don't even need a transition word there. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is matter because the use of the word "moreover" suggests that canonization was bad. Example the phrase: "He saved a man. Moreover, he killed a man". Is this phrase correct? Aleksei m (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...are you confusing "moreover" with "however"? "Moreover", at most, suggests a transition between a specific detail and a more general or more important phenomenon. He saved a man. Moreover, he killed a man is a nonsensical set of sentences, and I can only imagine someone using it if they were trying to make a joke or highlight the irony of an action that could be interpreted multiple ways. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My great thanks to Rosguill and CaptainEek for participating in the discussion. I am forced to state my disability in dealing with Aleksei m. I just do not understand what he is trying to achieve. Thanks to your participation, I can see that the problem is probably not on my side.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannites were indeed included in the mainstream in the Russian Orthodox Church. Kizenko is absolutely right. Book of the sectarian-Ioannit Bolshakov «Источник живой воды» («Source of Living Water»), in which the Ioannites are very good people published three times, in 1995, 1997, 1999 years. ISBN 5-7624-0007-7 ISBN 5-7624-0007-7 ISBN 5-7624-0046-8

The 1999 edition says: «With the blessing of Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John.» Previous editions also had a blessing. The dispute that Aleksei m started about nothing. Wlbw68 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

[edit]

I find it dubious that this page would be rated as TOP importance in two separate Wikiprojects. I could understand high importantance perhaps, but I think a priority re-evaluation is in order. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and changed them myself. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper clarification

[edit]

The article has a section reading This publication was discussed by the highest church organ, the Most Holy Synod, because such a publication, without religious censorship, was interference into the affairs of the Church. The hierarchs of the Synod were in disarray, and especially the Metropolitan Isidore (the direct supervisor of Father John) was dissatisfied, but they could do nothing. I've added a clarify tag, because this section doesn't make much sense. Why would John's actions being published in a newspaper be a cause for such concern? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wlbw68: Perhaps you could clarify why the affiliation of the New Times was important, and why you re-added it. Whether it was pro-government or anti-semetic doesn't seem to have much relation to the fact that John was published in it? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CaptainEek. Kitsenko writes that according to the then rules, such publications (about miracles) were not supposed to be made by the secular press. First, they had to be approved by the religious censor. However, the wide popularity of Father John was created bypassing the Holy Synod, through the pro-government press. And although the hierarchs might be unpleased, they could do nothing, especially after the meeting of John with Tsar Alexander III.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicoljaus: Could you perhaps amend the article to explain that, as it does not make much sense currently? I would, but do not have access to the source. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. What do you think: as in my previous remark - will it be normal in principle, or do we need more details? I am afraid that it will produce a disproportionate amount of text.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Synod was fully appointed and completely subordinate to the monarch and could not object to him.

The magazine was pro-government and anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism was a state ideology in the Russian Empire. John of Kronstadt was promoted by official propaganda through this magazine. John was the mouthpiece of the official propaganda of monarchism, chauvinism, anti-Semitism. For example, the statement of John: “The current troubled and unrecognized politicians are lusting for constitutional or republican rule in Russia, but they do not understand the history and character of the Russian people, which cannot exist without the Tsar of the Autocracy, who lives in him and in him and in prosperity and ill-fated and alone , after God and the Queen of heaven, has his hopes. So we will reverence the Tsar, as an autocrat given from God for the good of Russia”

“What would you be the Russians without the Tsar? Our enemies tried to destroy the very name of Russia, since the bearer and keeper of Russia after God is the Sovereign of Russia, the Tsar of the Autocracy and without him Russia is not Russia ” [6] That is why historians call John the henchman or servant of the tsarist regime. This is objective and fair.Wlbw68 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think explaining the issue can be done reasonably and without too much text. Feel free to try to craft and include an explanatory sentence or two. As is, the article is a bit short and thus more info would be good. I'm still unclear why the hierarchs were displeased with the publication however, if they were appointed by the government and were a government mouthpiece, why would they oppose one of their own saying the things that were state policy? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This broke the hierarchy. It turned out that they lost the ability to manage the situation. I do not agree that the entire clergy was completely "government mouthpiece". There was strong intentions to separate the Сhurch from tsarism. Many, for example, welcomed the February Revolution and soon restored the Patriarchate (which Peter the Great liquidated).--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Tsar was the head of the Church in Russia, according to the current official documents ("Oath for the members of the Holy Synod").Bishops in Russia really strove for independent governance in the Church. But there was no talk of a complete separation of the Church from the state. The clergy in Russia before the October Revolution were on full state support. The government paid the clergy a monthly salary, churches were built and repaired with state money, the state paid for the maintenance of theological educational institutions. Finally, the clergy was a privileged estate. Who will refuse money and power? The clergy is ready to serve any government if the government gives the clergy money and power. During the monarchy, the clergy were for the monarchy. After the February Revolution, it was for the republic. And after the October Revolution, it was against the Bolsheviks, because Lenin separated the Church from the state. The clergy lost both money and power.Wlbw68 (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force master

[edit]
@Air Force master:, please do not arrange a war of corrections and do not delete the text of the article with links to authoritative sources. I returned the consensus version of the article. I understand that facts about John’s anti-Semitic views are unpleasant to you, but you won’t erase the words from the song.Wlbw68 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wlbw68:, these words and few more standing by them are not unpleasant to me at all. Those references are mostly written by anti-church or atheist writers (Atheistic Dictionary or a book by Boris Pavlovskiy or by atheist writer Anatoliy Belov whose importance was not big so the russian wikipedia deleted an article about him). Thank you for patience! NOTE: Edits made by unregistered users are not made by me. Air Force master 18:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Надпись на цся

[edit]

Здравствуйте, ув. коллега @Pisarz12345:. Меня удивляет ваше стремление добавить в шапку статьи надпись имени Иоанна на цся. Зачем это? В Википедии полно людей, которые в РПЦ канонизированы. И что для каждого из них нужно добавлять надпись его имени на цся, только потому что спустя 50 или 100 лет его канонизировали и составили ему службу на цся? Кроме того, сайт Азбука веры это совсем не АИ. Прошу вас: не ведите войну правок--Wlbw68 (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The funeral of John

[edit]

Zoticus777. The coffin with the body was transported through St. Petersburg with pompous ceremonies and buried in the Ioannovsky Convent. Please read: Death and funeral of Fr. John. --Wlbw68 (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Great pomp and ceremony” would be a better phrase. “Pompous” has a derogatory implication in English. 31.94.12.240 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted Assasination

[edit]

An agent of the Imperial Russian Secret Service named Colonel Victor K. Kaledin wrote a memoir with the rather cryptic title of “K. 14-O.M. 66”. In Chapter 5, he states:

“…the anarchist, Anton Skavronski, who in 1905 threw a bomb at the well-known ecclesiastic Father John of Kronstadt. Father John escaped, however, with nothing more than a severe concussion, and this gave rise to a ‘miracle’ which culminated in unspeakable orgies by the nuns of a fashionable convent in the neighbourhood of St. Petersburg.”

Is there anything to any of this? I have not seen it referred to elsewhere. The attempted murder, at least, should be verified as of interest to the article. And what is this talk of a supposed miracle? 31.94.12.240 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_of_Kronstadt&oldid=1207836894"