Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral

Old talk about seizure moved to a new article's talk

Please find old talk at Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral_ownership_controversy#Talk_formerly_at_Cathedral.27s_article_moved_here

Vintage image

Please check the link of the vintage image. According to its source web-site, it is an old photoshot. OTOH, I won't argue with specialists who think it is a watercolor. Just thought I bring it up. See http://travel.kyiv.org/kyiv/oldphoto/ok_79.htm --Irpen 21:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Brief mention of the controversy

To Irpen and other people itchy to reverse this. Please behave in a civilized manner, consult with the rest of the Wikipedians on this page prior to modifying the text that resulted in so many arguments. Thanks --Andrew Alexander 04:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I merely corrected a factual error, because Kiev Metropolitan's see of ROC was an UOC by then, hence it was incorrect in the article. I simply rephrased it. As for those itchy, look who's talking. --Irpen 04:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"The factual error" is corrected. It was Moscow Patrirchate, was it not? Please don't rephrase without a good reason. --Andrew Alexander 05:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, your fuss and returning to revertion and deletion cycles is absolutely unwarranted and bad faith. I am sorry if this hurts your feelings.

First of all, it was not "MP" but "UOC", check the registration documents of the organization, easily googlable. It is a factual and non-controvercial info.

The mention of controversy is relevant? There is nothing non-factual or excessive in two sentences. Those who want to read about UNSO will indeed go to a different article and no one is returning it here for now. Ukraine needs your service in writing new articles more than in vandalizing them via deletions of what you think is unflattering. Ukrainian architecture or Petro Doroshenko and many other things are waiting for you and others to cover them. --Irpen 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, unfortunately you again refuse to accept the neutral arbitration done by people like Mikkalai. This is not your private document, which you can edit as you wish fit. There were a lot efforts involved in getting the compromise. Instead you again start editing the text, e.g. removing "spiritual" in fron "leaders" when talking about Ukrainian top clergy. What does this accomplish? And even Volodymyr Sabodan aknowledges his alliegence to the Moscow Patriarchate. So why deny it here? --Andrew Alexander 06:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is at least a discussion instead of your vandalizing. Let's discuss this all right. I will restore spiritual if you insist. As for the rest, Mikka made an honest mistake when he wrote ROC, and I corrected that. The UOC is indeed under the Patriarch of Moscow but UOC is an UOC and to call it "Moscow Patriarchy" instead is a huge distortion. FYI, there is no organization called Moscow Patriarchy at all. Japanese Orthodox Church is also under the Patriarch of Moscow. Go to that article and JOC with MP there. Then, enjoy the responses. --Irpen 06:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I think "spiritual" leaders is not too encyclopedic since it carries certain approval flavor. Am I wrong? If so, I don't mind it restored. --Irpen 07:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What can be said? There is not a slightest desire for any compromise. Yes, there IS a Wikipedia page called Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchy, yet YOU deny this to be the "correct name". Everyone in Ukraine knows that Church under that name, yet Irpen thinks it's wrong. And no, no way top clergy can be called "spiritual leaders", that would be too nice to 22% of the Ukrainian population who claim allegience to that church and those leaders. This is Russian imperial arrogance and attitude at its prime. It took 100+ reverts to get the agreeable format, and even that format needs to be messed with afterwards. Amazing. And sad.--Andrew Alexander 19:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the name of the WP article and the name of the organization is not necessarily the same thing as the ongoing debate with Chernihiv related topics shows. FYI, the official name of the Church is UOC. Yes, it is sometimes referred to as UOC-MP in the press but often it is referred to simply as UOC, search the archives of the Mirror Weekly yourself. On top of that, the church definitely call itself just the "UOC".

You, OTOH, called it just "MP" which is an outright nonsense. As for the Mykhailo Denysenko or Patriarch Filaret being called a "spiritual leader", I say it is possible. 22% is a significant chunk of population even thought he is considered excommunicated and, as such, not even a monk, and even less so a church leader, from the canon law POV as well as by a significant share of Ukrainians. In view of this, I think that "spiritual" is unnecessary, but as I said above, I admit that it is possible to disagree on this. We can reinsert "spiritual" as well. --Irpen 21:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you writing a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia". Then you can push your POV about "excommunication", "not even a monk", etc.--AndriyK 08:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you not tell me what to do. Excommunication and not a monk are facts and not someone's POV. Please note that I did not add them to this article. I wrote a different article about Filaret, where this belongs, which I assume is also on your "to vandalize" list. --Irpen 08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a POV of Moscow Patriarchy, which is not NPOV.--AndriyK 13:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you wrong. This is the POV of the canon law as interpreted by the world-wide Eastern Orthodoxy, the only body that has any authority to interpete the canon law. According to this POV, Filaret was a canonical metropolitan until expelled from the church for breaking his monastic vows, improper financial dealings (this is less relevant to religion) and schismatic activities, which from the Orthodoxy POV is the most major issue. EVen his former (or current) connections with KGB and involvement in suppression of non-Muscovite churches (UGCC and UAOC) in the capacity of an ROC metropolitan are also less relevant from the reiligous POV.

In what you are right is that him being a monk or not, excommunicated or not, has no bearing for Ukrainian State as long as the organization that calls itself UOC-KP is properly registered with the State Committee of the Religious Affairs. As far as the state is conserned, it doesn't matter whether it boasts a significant portion of Ukrainian faithful or it is just a 10 person sect. In Ukraine the religious freedom is in the constitution and any organization non-profit organization may style itself as a religious organization and so is the UOC-KP. In what you are also right is that this debate doesn't belong here on the first place. There is a reasonably detailed Filaret's article, that Sashazlv and I wrote, where this is already covered.

In what you are wrong is in your view that the fact that a landmark christian building is controlled by an organization whose claim to be an "Orthodox Church" is considered questionable from the POV of the orthodoxy is somehow irrelevant for the article. I have no doubt that this needs mentioned in Cathedral article itself, but I am open to suggestions about forumlation. Your cutting the piece out altogether is not a meaningful suggestion to consider. --Irpen 16:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

autonomy and name

Dear people, I don't think that "an Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow" is a very good name and have changed it to "an Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow". If somebody doesn't like this change: always ready to discus it. Best regards. --N8Sl8er

Dear Irpen, I've looked on the website of the Church, thank you very much. As a matter of fact, I'm looking on this site right now. It's really an Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow. Look for yourself on www.orthodox.org.ua. Best regards. --N8Sl8er

Thank you very much again. But it does not change the fact that the Church is NOT "autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow", but just "under Patriarch of Moscow". If it not so, you can than very easy find another example of such a name. If you don't, well... Best reagrds.--N8Sl8er

I think there is some confusion here. There are two issues:

1. the name of the church
2. whether it has been formaly granted an autonomy by the mother church (ROC)

On (1) the answer is clear. The name is just UOC. Now, it is sometimes called UOC-MP and the reasons for that are well-known but the church never self-applies this wording to its name and always calls itself just the UOC. Yes, it openly admits that it operates under the Moscow Patriarch's see.

On (2), OTOH, the answer is that the church does have a formal autonomy since 1990. One can argue that it is just a figurehead autonomy and the church is just a front for the Russian KGB and other similary flattering issues. In reality, the issue is complex and I am sure that the church is less self-governing than the Japanese Orthodox Church that is also autonomous under the MP. However, there is a canonical autonomy and it is wort a mention. --Irpen 21:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, you are now confusing the name of the church with something else, like you own interpretation of something. This church doesn't have a name like "the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow". Try to translate this name back to the original language, it's just not right. Anyway, this is Wikipedia, it's NOT a private property, it's a public domain, everybody has a right to correct a factual error (improve an article). Let me just correct it. I like you, I like everybody here, but I just like the truth better.

Regards, --N8Sl8er

Could you just be more clear on what your point is. Mine is that:

1. The name of the church is UOC.
2. It is also sometimes, but not always, called UOC-MP. The church rejects that it is its name, while admits that it ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Moscow
3. The church has a formal autonomy, and autonomy in Eastern Orthodox Church organization is a specific term, which denotes a degree of selg-governing one step short of full autocephaly, which is a complete independence (please take a look at those links).

Please be more specific, what's your objections. --Irpen 02:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's just a common rule: don't make the information in "color". Stick to the facts. The fact is: the church listen to one name and you are trying to make up you own name for the same church. Maybe you like "yours" name better, but I don't. I like the facts. The church's name is Українська Православна Церква/ Ukrainian Orthodox Church, I think than I can live with this. But here it comes: In Ukraine exists another Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And another yet. We have to separate them somehow. I think Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchat (they are already named this way on Wiki, anyway), Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchat (they also like to call themself just "Ukrainian Orthodox Church") and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church will do the trick. Why are you not happy? It's already very difficult to understand, believe me. Regards, --N8Sl8er 03:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see now what you mean. Since this discussion is about how to call the UOC-MP in general, I will copy it to the talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchy article and will respond there. Evryone is welcome there too, of course. --Irpen 03:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia"

Please stop pushing Russian Orthodox POV to the articles. Please pay attention that canonicity

• is viewed somewhat differently by Orthodox and Catholic Churches;
• is not recognized by Protestant Churches;
• is not recognized by most of people in the wold that are not Cristian at all.

Please read WP:NPOV carefully.

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.

Please pay attention that pushing Orthodox POV is against the WP policies.--AndriyK 14:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for schysmatic Halychyans, either. POV stands for point of view. The canonicity is not a point of view but something every Orthodox church respects and complies with. The views of Protestants, Catholics, and Buddhists are quite irrelevant here. Every church which aspires to be known as Orthodox, should find its place in the centuries-old hierarchy of orthodox churches. Otherwise, it is not an Orthodox church but a heresy. --Ghirlandajo 14:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing is against WP:NPOV.--AndriyK 14:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Canonical status of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine.

Because of the illegality of the annexation of the local Church in Ukraine in 1686 by the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Ecumenical See of the Constantinople never accepted this action and never acknowledged the local Orthodox Church of Ukraine as a part of Moscow Patriarchate. What is more important, following the 28 th canon of the Forth Ecumenical Council, the Patriarchate of Constantinople still recognizes the local Church of Ukraine as an integral part of it’s canonical jurisdiction. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is continuously identifying herself as a “tender Mother” of all Orthodox Christians of Eastern and central Europe.[1]

During the meeting with the president, Archbishop Vsevolod made a statement which, according to the UOC USA public relations office, reflects the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople: “The position of the Mother Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, is that her daughter, the Moscow Patriarchate, consists of that territory which it encompassed to the year 1686. The subjugation of the Kyivan Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate was concluded by Patriarch Dionysius without the agreement or ratification of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Great Church of Christ (the Patriarchate of Constantinople).” [2] --Yakudza 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Great q uote, this must be included into the article, not the popaganda from UOC-MP itself. Made it bold, so it would not get lost.--Andrew Alexander 01:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should also include into the article information about how other Orthodox churches dismissed this statement in unison (Antioch, Alexandria, Jeruselem, Serbian, Bulgarian...well why not list them all for that fact). Also even though Constantinople might have said something about an event which took place more than 300 years ago (I wonder why wait so long), it still recognises the UOC (MP) as an the only "Legal" church in Ukraine.

ПРЕДСТАВИТЕЛИ ПОМЕСТНЫХ ЦЕРКВЕЙ ПОДДЕРЖАЛИ УКРАИНСКУЮ ПРАВОСЛАВНУЮ ЦЕРКОВЬ В ЕЕ БОРЬБЕ С РАСКОЛОМ

Архидиакон Иов, преподаватель Свято-Сергиевского богословского института в Париже (Константинопольский Патриархат): "Для православных верующих Франции, для всего академического состава преподавателей и студентов нашего богословского института проблема раскола в Украине является волнующим вопросом. Мы разделяем ту богословскую и догматическую точку зрения, что в Украине единой канонической Церковью является Украинская Православная Церковь, имеющая статус широкой автономии и самоуправляемости.

Раскол - это экклезиологическая ересь, потому что его представители думают, что они стоят выше соборного сознания Церкви и что они могут сами разрешить определенные внутрицерковные вопросы. Это абсолютно невозможно с канонической точки зрения. Конечно, мы видим, что в Украине имеется большой потенциал для утверждения Поместной Церкви. Но этот вопрос должен решаться соборно, в консультации с Матерью-Церковью - Русской Православной Церковью.

То, что раскольники произносят православный Символ веры недостаточно и ни о чем не говорит. Нужно еще и находиться в этой Церкви, т.е. быть в евхаристическом единении с другими Поместными православными Церквами, что мы продемонстрировали в Киеве. Они же не находятся в таком единении ни с одной Православной Церковью мира.

Печальным почерком раскольников является их агрессивность, стремление любой ценой утвердиться в лоне какой-то законной Церкви. Они засылают своих делегатов в другие страны, путем обмана пытаются представить себя, как каноническую Церковь. Но в Церковь Христа Спасителя обманным путем не войти".

So lets not twist facts. About the naming lets stick to the convention of the Ukranian State. Filaret's church is recognised as UOC-KP, Slobodans as UOC...I suggeest that we clarify UOC as UOC(MP) - Kuban kazak 11:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed an interesting article but we have to make sure we don't derive the wrong conclusion from it. The article talks about the "annexation by ROC". It is important to understand that UOC (lead by Met Volodymyr (Sabodan)) is NOT ROC. The Ecumenical Patriarch never doubted the canonical status of UOC. UOC is not ROC. Neither UOC is a "Moscow Patriarchy" or "Patriarchate". UOC is just UOC and it is called by the media, not always but sometimes, as UOC-MP either for simplicity (to differentiate from UOC-KP) or out of ignorance or to label it as Muscovite in denigrating sense. As per the interview of the church leader [3]:

«Української Православної Церкви Московського Патріархату» не існує. Є «Українська Православна Церква». І з цим статутним ім’ям вона зареєстрована у відповідних державних установах. Додаток «Московський Патріархат» виник значно пізніше з метою розрізнення від «УПЦ-КП», яка, без приставки «КП» існувати не може, оскільки є новою організацією, що запозичила частину назви від Української Православної Церкви.

translation: UOC-MP does not exist. There is an UOC and under this statutory name it is registered with appropriate state authorities. An addition "MP" emerged much later in order to differentiate from UPC-KP, which without "KP" cannot exist, since this is the new organization, that borrowed its name from the UOC"

We know that this is just Volodymyr's POV regarding borrowing, but we have to take his word regarding what is the name of his own church.

Now, to the question whether the interview of the particular Bishop Vsevolod reflects. A quote from the same interview:

— Відповім словами Патріарха Варфоломія, який однозначно висловився, що такої інституції як «Київський патріархат» у православному світі не існує. Колишньому віце-прем’єр-міністру Миколі Жулинському Патріарх свого часу говорив, що Філарета (главу «КП») ніхто не визнає як архієрея, про що й інформував тодішнього президента Л. Кравчука.

Щодо згаданої заяви стосовно канонічної території, то Константинополь її не робив. Принаймні, я з цією заявою не знайомий. Якщо йдеться про висловлювання архієпископа Скопелосського Всеволода, то це його особисті слова, що не мають статусу офіційної заяви. Що стосується підтримки Константинополем «Кп», то той самий владика Всеволод, наскільки мені відомо, дотримується, як і ми, того ж канонічного порядку. Він приймає «кліриків» Київського патріархату в лоно Православної Церкви не інакше як через покаяння і звершення над ними встановленої хіротонії. Як Константинополь може підтримувати УПЦ-КП, якщо він взагалі не визнає її за Церкву?

This above is too long to translate. If there are parties interested in the topic that can't read Ukrainian, please ask.

Again, this is just an opinion of Volodymyr as that was an opinion of Vsevolod. However, even from Vsevolod's opinion it does not follow in any way that he (and even less so Bartolomeo) views UOC uncanonical. He speaks about the territory of ROC and of MP. UOC is not MP. UOC is UOC and its having an ecclesiastic link to MP doesn't make it MP or an ROC any more as the Japanese Orthodox Church which also operates under the ecclesiastic link to MP.

So, in this article we are talking about the dispute between UOC and UOC-KP. There is nothing to question the canonical status of UOC in the eastern orthodoxy. --Irpen 01:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, the moment UOC-MP becomes true UOC, with no control from Moscow Patriarchate, it would be a very different argument. Now, unfortunately, it's still called "UOC-MP" in Ukraine, no matter how much wool they would like to pull over everyone's eyes. They can call themselves any name in the world, "Moscow Patriarchy" will come out right behind it. See what they call themselves despite all the lies:

Офіційний сайт Української православної церкви Московського патріархату. www.orthodox.org.ua

Sure, Stalin also wanted Ukraine to be called "independent" in the UN, so he can have an extra vote in the Security Council, may he burn in hell.--Andrew Alexander 01:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Ukrainian SSR didn't have a vote in the security counsil which I wrote in its article. If you just write some non-copyvio article too, you might feel better. As for the rest of the "MP", it is already replied to. --Irpen 01:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It would never hurt to do some reading prior to writing.--Andrew Alexander 02:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably Irpen had in mind permanent members? mikka (t) 02:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did. But thanks for the link of Andrew Alexander. It would be a good idea to add the info to the Ukr SSR article. That would ineed be a useful contribution. I know that to cut out what others wrote and/or change names is more fun. Never mind. --Irpen 02:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It is completely clear from the above discussion that the NPOV concerning "(un)canonicity" is not easy to be formed. It is definitelly impossible to formulate it in a single sentence. Let's decide whether we add a whole paragraph discussing the "canonicity" to the article on St Volodymyr's Cathedral, or we move this discussion to the UPC-KP article or to the History of Christianity in Ukraine.--AndriyK 08:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Best NPOV is what's based on facts. The lack of canonicity of UOC-KP follows from (or causes) its non-membership in the Eastern Orthodox Communion. See Eastern Orthodox Church organization for more. The fact that the major cathedral in Kiev is controlled by a church which is considered uncanonical as per above is notable. The churchs attempts to solve the problem by getting Bartholomew I recognize it. It hasn't succeeded and it is unclear whether it will. When and if it does, we'll say so. There is no issue at all ever raised whether the Met. Volodymyr's UOC is canonical or not. But it is more remote because UOC does not control the church. The details about their rivarly are indeed in other articles. Don't remove brief but relevant info. If you feel it needs balanced and not for the WP:Point reasons, do so. --Irpen 09:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of facts about UOC-KP. Should all they be described in the article on St Volodymyr's Cathedral? You find the canonicity issue "notable", other people may find something other to be "notable". Should all this be included to the article about the Cathedral?--AndriyK 09:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Those, who return "(canonical claims of the Moscow Patriarchate on the territory of Ukraine are disputed by Ecumenical Patriarch [4], [5])" probably aren't reading talk. Nowhere did the Ecumenical Patriarch questioned the canonicity of UOC. "MP" is not an organization with any property in Ukraine. All property is either with UOC or UOC-KP. Even if you call UOC as UOC(MP), it is still not a Moscow Patriarchy, which is not the same and has no property on its won in Ukraine. I am not even sure that MP per se is registered in Russia as an organization and even less so in UA. --Irpen 19:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Two most important facts on UOC-KP

Well, let's see what facts you mean to be equally notable to its non-canonicty. I think there are two most important things about it:

1. It is one of two major Ukrainian Orthodox churches
2. It is uncanonical

Please list what else you think is equally notable but take a look at WP:Point guideline to make sure you don't do what it discourages from doing. --Irpen 09:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all I would add the UPC-KP POV concerning its (un)canonicity (all POVs should be presented).

Second, I do not consider "canonicity" issue to be important at all. More important is how many people are in the Church, how many church communities it has, what is its relation to the state, wheteher some centers outside the country control (or has influence on) it, what is its historical background, who is (and was) the leader of the Church,... (the list is not exhaustive).

I am preaty sure all this (and even more) information should be present in the article about UOC-KP, but I do not think that anything of this is indeed related to the Cathedral.--AndriyK 10:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There article says just that it is viewed uncanonical by the Orthodox Communion which is a fact. It does nat just say it is "uncanonical". The KP's view on its' canonicity is a tautology, of course it sees itself canonical. You may add that "KP disagrees to it" note but this would just look funny. The arguments about the canonicity itself and the claim to Mogila's church lineage (which wasn't a Patriarchy BTW) indeed belongs elsewhere and it is already there. Could be expanded. Go ahead with that if you want. --Irpen 16:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Then the article should say that UPC-KP has 2491 parishes, 17 monasteries/nunneries, 2000 prists, 1825 churches and 217 being built, and so on and so forth.

You consider "canonicity" important and I consider all other information being much more important. Should I add it?--AndriyK 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think phrasing "Major church in Ukrane although viewed uncanonical..." addresses both points. --Irpen 16:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not think so.--AndriyK 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

See above under Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral#Two_most_important_facts_on_UOC-KP. What else is equally important? --Irpen 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not no what else is equaly important. In my opinion (un)canonicity is least important.--AndriyK 17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not in view of most of the readers, judging from the edits. And no one among them were recrtuited/hired at outsdie forum to help in politically motivated conflicts. So, perhaps it is just a mainstream view. You may call the mainstream an anti-Ukrainian mafia. Such name caling speaks for itself. --Irpen 17:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Did "most of the readers" authorized you to speak on their behalfe?--AndriyK 18:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I simply judged who and how edit the article. --Irpen 18:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Did somebody authorized you to judge?--AndriyK 18:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Those who mind me deriving their opinions from their editing in this article are free to speak up. I did not include you in the overwhelming majority, so you have no reason to complain. --Irpen 19:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainian Addresses

Dear Wikipedians, please acknowledge the fact, that the Post Office of Ukraine uses "Kyiv" to direct letters from abroad. Please DO NOT erase the correct Ukrainian address of the cathedral, no matter how painful that may be to Russian Pride. Thanks!!! user:Andrew Alexander.

Address info is for travel guides and not encyclopedias. But you can add it to Wikitravel where your contributions to Ukraine's coverage will be appreciated. --Irpen 20:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone writes Kiev then what are the chances of a letter not being delivered...0. Moreover having recieved numerous mail from Ukraine and sent it there with Russian writing on the envelope, and each and every single one of those letters was delivered. Sorry to dissapoint your postal pride. Kuban kazak 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Which shows that Ukrainian postal workers are not Russpohobic and it reflects the fact that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians aren't either. --Irpen 20:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I just hope that Ukrainian related pages are not changed simply for the reason of Russian nationalistic pride. The reason why Kyiv in the address of the cathedral absolutely needs to be changed to Russian Kiev escapes me at the moment. Is it because "Russia is the strongest and will change foreign address if needed"? Why can't a postal address mentioned in the text just be left alone? What harm will it do to anyone to have a precise address there?--Andrew Alexander 01:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

see 3 pragraphs above following the word "Address info is for travel guides...". Please calm down. --Irpen 01:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear all, I explained clearly above why the postal address doesn't belong here. Also, care to read the discussion above about the strange phrase about purported unrecognision of UOC by Constantinople which is a total nonsense. Yakudza added it not because he himslef thought this belongs here but to make a WP:Point. Please read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point official guideline. It is useful to remember anyway. --Irpen 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

Ok some facts:

• 1) KP is NOT recongnised by any Orthodox churches, including Constantinople
• 2) Constantinople simply challenged the VALIDITY transfer of Kievan metropolia to Moscow (I wonder why it kept silent for 300 years but that's off topic), it did not discontinue recognising UOC(MP) as the only "Legal" church in Ukraine.

Now which one of those facts is more important. Well the first one is a solid FACT, no one can challenge that.

The second one is simply a STATEMENT, a statement behind which even the Const Orthodox Church is devided (see my post above or read here ПРЕДСТАВИТЕЛИ ПОМЕСТНЫХ ЦЕРКВЕЙ ПОДДЕРЖАЛИ УКРАИНСКУЮ ПРАВОСЛАВНУЮ ЦЕРКОВЬ В ЕЕ БОРЬБЕ С РАСКОЛОМ), and I will repeat that it is a statement made by the Patriarch, a personal opinion if you like, NOT on behalf of the whole Const OC. All other Orthodox churches have dismissed this statement. Please Andrew Alexander please change your tone when you accuse other people of being nationalists for one country. Kuban kazak 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, let's not repeat what's already said. I am asking the editor who added a tag to reread this talk page and only after that add a list of things that make an article POV as 1,2,3... Please do it sooner rather than later. --Irpen 05:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list of things for you to read:

1. There are more than 10,000 churches in the world, why do you come to the page about a mother cathdral of one of them and start telling us that it's "not canonical". Who cares? How is it important to the cathedral? Do you see catholics writing about eternal damnation of the Anglican Church according to some Popes on every Anglican-related page?

I could not care less about other churches, as they don't claim themselves Orthodox, those that do are either in communion or uncanonical in eyes of the world Orthodox Communion. Happy?Kuban kazak 10:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

But many do! And what business is it of yours? To vandalize all the pages of those churches versus making a single page to discuss such issues is not acceptable. To erase the opinion of the traditional leader of Christian Orthodoxy is adding insult to injury.--Andrew Alexander 06:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Patriarch of Constantinople is NOT a traditional leader of Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy has no leader, the churches exist in communion with each other. In fact the communion openely challenged the title ecunimical and has numerously demanded that autocephalousy recognition be responsibility of it not Cost OC. Besides as I said before, the Cosnst OC's opinion of this is split, there has been no formal statement on behalf of the whole church, and besides the Const OC did not cease to recognise UOC(MP) as the only legal Orthodox Church in Ukraine, all it did was challenge the 300 year ago event thats all. Kuban kazak 12:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Why do you and your friends keep pushing Russian names of some historical Ukrainian figures. Prince Volodymyr in Old East Slavic is identical to modern Ukrainian. Why should he be Vladimir?--Andrew Alexander 06:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Because Vladimir is as Russian as a Ukranian figure, moreover just like with Kyiv and Kiev, the latter is used simply to avoid confusing English readers as it is much more accepted. Same with Vladimir.Kuban kazak 10:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

But what does YOUR opinion about Volodymyr has to do with his original Old East Slavic name? And why can't Kiev be mentioned along with Kyiv?--Andrew Alexander 06:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So you want to go along onto every wikipedia article and add Kyiv with Kiev, why not add Moskva with Moscow, or Varshava with Warsaw, why only Kyiv and why only on this site? (BTW Kyiv is mentioned on Kiev's site)Kuban kazak 12:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Why do you keep erasing the names of Ukrainian cities and replacing them with Russian anochronisms? --Andrew Alexander 06:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't except Kiev and Odessa whose Russian transliterations are more common in English, remember Wikipedia must be "user freindly".Kuban kazak 10:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User friendly doesn't mean "avoid Ukrainian city names at all costs".--Andrew Alexander 06:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well-known city names should be given in their well-known form, I don't mind less known city names to be given in Ukranian translit, but not Kiev and Odessa. Look at it from the opposite POV, where would you expect to see Lvov apart from the entry on the city itself. Same with Kyiv. Kuban kazak 12:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Your (3) is unrelated to this article. So, the reason of POV is just 1 and 2, correct? --Irpen 06:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The last stage of edit wars

Ok lets finally agree on common ground, because this article is tortured enough

From the start:

1. Russian transliteration: why not, was built in Russian Empire; played a key role; Kiev is Russophone
2. Comparison: why St Isaacs and not Saviour on the blood, in my opinion late 19th century grand construction go better together
3. Why put fresco compleation separate of the interior description, article needs to be consice
4. Why put a 20th century (st Barbara's remains) event in the pre-Soviet times paragraph, same reason as above article needs to be consice.
5. Cannonicity: Fine scrap the word cannonical, just write that UOC(MP) is autonomus from Moscow, UOC-KP is unrecognised by world Orthodox Communion, bare facts, nothing going too deep, if the reader wants to find out more, this is enough to get him to start thinking.

Kuban kazak 16:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I propose the folowing solution:

• your points 1-4 - according to your wish.
• The (un)canonicity metters should be moved to History of Christianity in Ukraine and/or UPC-KP and UPC-MP articles. There is no need to discuss this point every time when churches are mentioned.
• The controversy paragraph should be removed, instead the reference to the corresponding article should be added to "See also"

This way we make an article about the Cathedral, instead of politics. The readers interested in interconfessional relations, politics etc. can follow the links.--AndriyK 17:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of canonicity issue

I am sorry, but the Politics around the cathedral is too relevant to be in the obscurity of "See also" section. We do not need to take sides in the article, neither we have to describe the events. The controversy and the fact that the Church became the first church property controvesry between two UOC's needs mentioned just with the conclusion who ended up controlling the church.

Uncanonicity/canonicty edit conflict consists of two parts:

• Whether to mention that UOC-KP is uncanonical
• Whether to mention that one Bishop of the UOC-USA said in his interview.

Two the latter issue, please note that he is not a Bishop of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople but just of one of the Churches under its patriarchy, that is Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (pls note the red link, any takers btw?). Second, even he didn't question whether UOC(MP) is canonical, he questioned the 300 year old transfer and he did so not on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarch on whose behalf he is not entitled to speak anyway. Official statements of the Ecumenical Patriarch are well-known that UOC(MP) is the only canonical Orthodox church in Ukraine. Also, this info was added by Yakudza clearly in order to make a WP:Point because he didn't like to see the mention of the UOC-KP status (please read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point anyway).

As for whether to mention that fact that UOC-KP lacks recognition, how can this be unimportant, I wonder. The major church building is the hands of the Church which is not recognized world-wide. It is a fact. Contrary to what Andrew Alexander wrote, it is not the same as to say about Catholic-Anglican problem in every Anglican church building article because Anglican church does not claim that it is Catholic (which would require recognition from Rome) while UOC-KP claims that it is Orthodox. A more close analogy would be the article of the Episcopal church building of which a priest (recently ordained) was openly gay. That generated the controversy in the Anglican Communion because there is an important issue within that Church whether it is OK to tolerate Homosexuality. We should not take sides in the disputes like that, and should not even elaborate on what belongs to other articles. But a brief mention of lack of recognition by the World Orthodoxy is warranted. --Irpen 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Save this for the other articles, just mention the outline here, more on the ownership conroversy article, this has gone on long enough...Kuban kazak 17:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is just what the article does. It just mentions the issue in one sentence. --Irpen 17:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In situations let's, as this is accepted in Wikipedia apply for example. Is this WP:POINT or POV? As this is done in other encyclopedia, newspaper and other publication. On requestУПЦ-КП Google gives 105,000 links; УПЦ-КП неканонічна - 37 links; same in russian - 40 links. Practically all article, where is used "uncanonical" have polemical (POV) essence. No (!) solid publishing does not use this word. In article about cathedral "uncanonical" - uniquely POV. --Yakudza 19:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I am repeating myself third time round, scrap the word cannonical. Simply add to UOC (MP) - autonomous from Moscow Patriarchy. Likewise with UOC-KP - unrecognised by Orthodox Communion. No less no moreKuban kazak 23:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Unrecognized and uncanonical are almost identical in the religious context and uncanonical is more exact in the general context. Unrecognized may be for various reasons and also the issue may be confused by a legal recognition, which here is not a problem since the Church is properly registered and functions within the law. OTOH, we don't need to mention the lack of recognition for the second time further in the text. I will correct the article as such. --Irpen 23:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Shell we ask for mediation?

I propose to resolve the dispute by asking for official mediation. Please find below the summary of what I propose and make your summary as well. Please answer clearly whether you agree to start apply for mediation.--AndriyK 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK:

Let's think what most of the readers would expect to find in the article about St Volodymyr's Cathedral. Does he or she look for the information about politics and inter-confessional relations? In my opinion, most of the users would interested about, architecture, mosaics etc. If somebody would interested about political matters, s/he can follow the links to the corresponding articles.

1. The (un)canonicity is not related to the Cathedral itself but rather to Church that uses the building. This stuff is clearly belong to the article about Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy (UPC-KP), rather than to the article on the building it uses. Everybody who is interested in detailed information about UPC-KP can follow the link to the corresponding article.

If one would like to describe in details in the Cathedral article not only the building but also the Church that owns it, one had to add much more information: how many people are in the Church, how many church communities it has, what is its relation to the state, wheteher some centers outside the country control (or has influence on) it, what is its historical background, who is (and was) the leader of the Church,... (the list is not exhaustive).

While some people belonging to (Russian) Orthodox may consider (un)canonicity matter to be important, this is not an universal POV. Presenting only one POV is agains the NPOV policy. The UPC-KP POV concerning its (un)canonicity should be presented, as well as view of other churches should be presented. NPOV concerning "(un)canonicity" is not easy to be formulated. It is definitelly impossible to formulate it in a single sentence.

2. Concerning the so called "seizure". I was in Kiev that time. I perfectly remember that nothing extraordinary happend. Pro-Moscovian church leader Sabodan gathered a crowd. They went to the Cathedral, saw the police guiding it and went back. That's all story. This was even not an "even of the week" in Ukrainian media. In my opinion, this event does not desrve even to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. OK, some people have another opinion. They created a separate article on this event. Why should we devote a whole paragraph of in the present article to this minor event. A link in "See also" suffies.

3. Besides, I do not consider the transliteration from the Russian name to be relevant to the Cathedral in the center of Kiev. We do not add transliteration from Ukrainian to the articles about Moscower Churches, do we?

Other Cathedral may be mentioned in the article if they are somehow related to the St Volodymyr's Cathedral, not just to mention the articles that some editors like.--AndriyK 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Kuban kazak:

On the whole I like the article as it is now and agree that when the information about the seizure was expanded it should have been moved to a different article. I have numerously proposed that only skeletal facts be given about UOC(MP) and the UOC-KP one is autonomous from Moscow, the other one is unrecognised.

Russian spelling is important as the history and original symbolism for the baptism and unity of Russia as a whole (rember what it was built for, or look for many of Moscow church leaders in the frescoes). Moreover Kiev is Russophone so a common name should exist, and Vladimir himself is equally relevant to Russia and Ukraine, so lets not have one privatize histrory fully to itself. Apart from that nothing happened in front of the cathedral, although the event was important as it became a catalyst for further development in the church despute.

Why did I replace St Isaacs with Church of Saviour on the blood, well simply because if are going to compare monumental cathedrals in different cities then lets choose well where there are real similarities. Kuban kazak 18:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander:

I agree with every point of AndriyK and would like to add that the "seizure" story is a perfect example of propaganda, when a virtual non-event is pictured into something grand. There are barely any references of it. One of them comes from a Russian Orthodox booklet, another from a sentence of a petty Ukrainian provocateur. It's amazing how silly this article sounds to a person who knows anything about Kiev of that time. Also, please note an openly nationalistic stance of the people like Kuban kazak. Simply read his phrase, "unity of Russia as a whole". Is Ukraine even on the maps for that person? How can views that biased and unconventional allow to form this article? Kievans already decided what names to use in their city. They have elected a mayor and a local government, who keep all the Kiev names strictly Ukrainian. The 3 million Kievans could survive without the help of Kuban kazaks. As far as the "Orthodox canonicity" argument goes, perhaps, it's an invitation to name calling and religious bickering on every Wikipedia page dedicated to some temple. Thanks to Kuban kazaks again.

Irpen

The entry above by user:Andrew Alexander is an unrelated rant and cannot be really commented. I will, however comment on the points made by user:AndriyK. I numbered his points above and will respond to each of them one by one.

1. Should the info about canonicity of UOC-KP be mentioned? Yes it should but only passingly. The issue is complex and the discussion belongs to other articles. However, the building is used for religious services and it was contested by two organization of which one got a hold of it. The issues about this organization's history are complex but two most important pieces of information about it is (1) it's being one of two major Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, (2) its lack of recognision by any other Orthodox church in the world. The reason why the latter is important is described in my entry above at Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral#Relevance_of_canonicity_issue. However, if the lack of recognision (canonicity) is mentioned we need to say that this is still a mojor Church in UA. Otherwise, a reader might think that it is just some unrecognized sect which it isn't. The article does just that. It says "one of two major Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, viewed, however, uncanonical by Eastern Orthodox Communion.". "Uncanonical" may be replaced by "unrecognized" but the latter term is less exact as I said in the same section above, please see again Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral#Relevance_of_canonicity_issue.

2. Currently the article nowhere uses the word seizure and to say it devotes a "paragraph" to the controversy is, being literally correct, still an exaggeration. The article devotes two short sentences plainly saying that there was an ownership controversy between two organizations and one of them won it. The dispute over who controls the building is significant enough to be mentioned. Details belong to a separate article specifically devoted to the ownership controversy. They are not in this article at all.

3. The name "Vladimirsky" along with "Volodymyrsky" is important enough because the cathedral was originally founded under the former name under which it was known for most of its existence. We should use a modern name for an article title but the very common name of the cathedral should be mentioned (see for instance this google test results for whatever they are worth [6], [7] that show the Vladimirsky name is used for about 20 times more frequently)

--Irpen 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, my recent edit was already explained many times. AlexPU 21:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yakudza:

1. I agree with Irpen and User:Alex Bakharev that both English names and link St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral_ownership_controversy should be mentioned. 2. Categorically not agree with mentioning in this article about "uncanonical". This internal church policy, which can be in article History of Christianity in Ukraine, but not in each article, in which is mentionned about UOC-KP. In article about cathedral this is POV. Only ROC and UOC-MP uses "uncanonical church UOC-KP" in their own publication. (See Google: On request УПЦ-КП (UOC-KP) Google gives 105,000 links; УПЦ-КП неканонічна (uncanonical UOC-KP) - 37 links; same in russian - 40 links.) In more detail in russian: Ни одно из "светских" изданий (ни российские, ни украинские) не использует в своих информационных публикация термин "неканоческая" по отношению к УПЦ-КП. На сто тысяч линков УПЦ-КП, только в 77 из них упоминают неканоничность, причем в основном это заметки в сомнительных форумах, полемические статьи и публикации православных сайтов.

This is worth translating. "For around 100,000 search results for Ukrainain Orthodox Church of Kievan Patriarchate, only 77 mention something about "uncanonicity"." A very good argument. Simple and shows the degree of bias of the editors pushing their religious point of view in this article. It is amazing how much damage they can do.--Andrew Alexander 06:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)--Andrew Alexander 06:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Полагаю, что в Википедия не нужно изобретать велосипед, и если у какого-либо редактора отсутсвует "чувсто нейтральности" (а практически все мы в той или иной степени предвзяты) нужно просто посмотреть как написано в других изданиях, а не искать оправдания для проталкивания своей "POV" --Yakudza 14:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

abakharev

I basically agree with Irpen

1. The [un]canonical status of its present owner is important as it is important for many residents of Kyiv. It should be mentioned but only briefly and balanced by positive information about the owner. I think the article as it is now is OK in this regard.
2. Two phrases and a link is reasonable for the controversy over transfer of ownership
3. Both English names should be mentioned, especially as the less PC one gives 20 times more Google hits and most probably would be the name visitors would find in their tour-books, art students in their textbooks, etc.

More info on the cathedral would be helpful, e.g. the complete floor plan and walls with the locations, name and author of each mosaic would be great, list of priests who served with the cathedral, etc., but generally the article is in reasonable shape abakharev 12:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Common sense vs. POV extasy and excessive tolerance to Russian propagandism

Simple logic test for my (un)respected Wiki(fellows?)

User:Alex Bakharev wrote:

NPOVing is not equvalent to blanking of the relevant information,

meaning that:

• the 1990s inter-nomination quarrels are relevant to the article on material brick-layed structure that was built long before two quarreling sides actually appeared.

• the propagandist (non-legal,non-formal) declarations of a religious organization regarding another religious organization are relevant to the architectural landmark occasionally used (not even owned!) by the latter organization. In the country where church is separated from the state.

Question: what a I-think-perverted sense of logic that Bakharev has (or pretends to have)? Is there any sense to discuss something with this I-think-shameless propagandist? AlexPU 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. As you can see, I'm a POV pusher. I'm pushing the POV that we should prevent POV-pushing where irrelevant. And this POV of mine, although adopted as Wikiethics, is, unfortunately, still not shared by many users of Wikipedia.AlexPU 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Another I-think-irrelevant note :(

Regardless of what I was saying about distinguishing between brick structures and nominations, Mr Kuban kazak would like to state that:

Well UOC(MP) appeared in 1990 when the Ukranian Exarchate became fully autonomous from ROC, UOC-KP first appeared in 1992 when it was merged with the UAOC, but this union did not last long and a schism within a schism...(well seems to be a trademark of schismatics, after all they got to take credit for being called that ;). Kuban kazak 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

With reference to the above post, I shall say that it makes sense that the ROC owned the building for the vast majority of its lifetime. Thus why not return it directly to the Patriarchy of Moscow, bypassing Slobodan altogether? No of course the modern Moscow Patriarchy is "infested" with KGB (or so the people here like to say, even though KGB does not exist any more). Well here is a compormise Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, who recentely ended the 85 year schism, they certainly have all the rights to succesors of the original pre-1917 Russian Orthodox Church, which certainly owened the cathedral unquestionably.Kuban kazak 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bottom line, lighten up people, I am in a good mood today, my wife is expecting a child in...8 months time, and he (or she) will certaintly not be baptised by the schismatics.Kuban kazak 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kazak, I hope you would tolerate my decision to move and comment your comments. It's only because I just couldn't find any sense in associating your posts with mine above. I should regretfully say that you lack your logic too... However, I find your manner of starting with talk page (instead of reverting articles like other Russian editors) very nice. Thank you for that. Although you openly declared yourself a biased user: schismatic is definitely an insulting POV-pushing term. Best wishes, AlexPU 00:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well actually if you look at the history the edit war was started by AndriyK and his tezka, so no need to launch accusations. I never said I did not have a POV, but then note that that POV is not in the article, it is here in the talk page, but again I am in too much a good mood today to argue, so do change the bracket.Kuban kazak 00:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

AlexPU, I certainly have seen enough of you jumping the gun and turning rude on the opponents, announcing what you "demand", "tolerate", "won't tolerate" and "instist" both before and after your wikibreak. Let's try to solve this in a collegiate way, whenever possible, by sticking to the issues and keeping our attitudes to ourselves while possible. The issue here is a narrow one. Whether the fact who owns the the building is related to the building article (it is IMO) and whether the fact that the major orthodox cathedral in Kiev is operated by the organization whose belonging to the Orthodoxy is not universally agreed is notable do be passingly mentioned. We certainly don't have to present the long debate of Filaret's KP canonicity in this article but just to say a word about the status issue is worthy. Similarly, we are not talking about the "seizure" or whatever it is called and we don't take sides. We say that there was a controversy related to the building and link a reader who wants more to a more detailed article. More details on these issues is available above. Please make sure, you read what was already said. --Irpen 01:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edit war

It looks like we have three points of differences:

1. Inclusion of the canonical status of UOC-KP. I think it is relevant (for the reasons outlined by Irpen) but does not belong to the first paragraph of the article. I have put it to the second last paragraph, next to the controversy of the ownership, I think it is reasonably balanced
2. Link to Ukrainian opera instead of opera. I think if the article Ukrainian opera existed, it would be much more informative to link to it, but since it is a red link now, then I used the AlexPU variant of a simple opera link. The red link may be an inspiration for somebody to write the long overdue article (that is important, taking into account all these Padu li ja dryuchkom propertiy il' mimo proletit dryuchok-kinds of jokes), so my edit is disputable
3. AlexPU finds the end of the article to be POV by the magnificent singing of one of the best church chorals. The choral is often joined by opera singers, providing an unforgettable listening and spiritual experience to St Volodymyr's visitors. We could put hedging here: ...by the signing described by many as magnificent..., ...reported as providing an unforgettable listening and spiritual experience..., etc. So far nobody went forward and told us, "the singing is cacophonous, the experience is dull, etc..", why do we need to balance the article with POV that does not even exist? abakharev 07:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The last but not least, the talk page is to discuss editing of the article on the Cathedral. It is not intended to discuss User:Alex Bakharev, User:AlexPU, User:Irpen, etc. Please discuss the users somewhere in the Userspaces, not here abakharev 07:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev and AlexPU, I'd suggest you to join the mediation procedure that is already requested (see above).--AndriyK 09:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Seen as uncanonical vs is uncanonincal

I actually did not see Irpen's last version to be significantly different from mine. Thus, revert by AndriyK from Irpen to me can be seen as a sign that we are coverging and the silly edit war is about to end. Irpen did two things:

1. Fixed my grammatical error. I have returned the fix back from AndriyK revert.
2. Changed from seen as uncanonical to is canonical. Indeed Irpen's version is probably more accurate than mine, but I do not see the difference important enough to go into revert war about it. Both versions are fine with me. I left AndriyK's version abakharev 11:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that I reverted to your version should not be interpreted as if I completely agree with you. I just believe it would be better to have your version instead of an edit war until the issue is resolved by mediation.--AndriyK 12:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase:

Some orthodox church-goers are still, however, avoiding the cathedral as they see its new owner to be uncanonical by Eastern Orthodox Communion.

I changed it only because it doesn't look good. "Uncanonical by the EOC" is a tautology, because being seen uncanonical by EOC and be uncanonical is the same thing. EOC is the only authority of the issue. It is like saying that the 2004 presidential election in UA was seen as fraudulent by the Supreme Court while, since the Supreme Court is the final authority and it ruled on the issue, one should now just say that it was fradulent or it was fruadulent as confirmed by the SC. The church goers don't "see" something that is questionable. They see something that is a fact (the curch being considered uncanonical by the EOC). As such, I will restore the phrasing and remove the tautology. Will the mediators be coming here any time soon? --Irpen 18:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Let solve this point within the mediation procedure.--AndriyK 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Canonical status KP in differents article

In wikipedia un-caninical status KP is mentionned more than 10 articles, but for the rest internet beside 70 sites. (see Google searching for in sections #Yakudza:) Necessary this POV in article Ukrainians? --Yakudza 19:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Check in how many articles the Soviet Union being totalitarian or authoritarian is mentioned. That's because it is relevant. --Irpen 19:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

more 15 000 sites Really it is relevant --Yakudza 19:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is because the UOC-KP is a more obscure topic that the USSR. Its lack of canonical standing as an Orthodox Church is no less relevant that SU being a totalitarian state. The discussion is above. Mediators were invited. I would welcome more neutral parties to express their opinions --Irpen 19:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You suppose the crimes of stalinizm equivalent status Church? --Yakudza 19:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering how the UNSO ruthlessly captured churches in the Rovno and Volynian districts, how clergy were beaten and bashed, yeah that was worse than Stalinism. Because Stalinism at least explained their hostility towards religion, whilst what these people done is beyond explanation. Kuban kazak 21:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. These are events of different scale. All I mean is that crimes of Stalinism are as much relevant to the Soviet History as the lack of standing of UOC-KP as an Orthodox church to the UOC-KP. --Irpen 19:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

However, I suppose that it is not necessary to mention the totalitarian nature USSR in each article. More so in article about Soviet architecture. --Yakudza 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not the article about the architecture, this is the article about the church. If you want to expand a Ukrainian Baroque article with more info about different churches, there indeed would be no need to go into discussion of who owns what and who is (un)canonical. However, if we are writing about a particular Orthodox cathedral, the fact that the organization operating is not recognized as representing the Eastern Orthodoxy is relevant. --Irpen 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

--Irpen 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)