Talk:St. Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy

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

Talk formerly at Cathedral's article moved here[edit]

seizure[edit]

The cited sources do not confirm the following:

However afterwards the cathedral again became a subject of controversy. In 1992, following the events surrounnding the ouster of Filaret, a Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine of the Russian Orthodox Church, the cathedral became the first building to be seized by the newly proclaimed Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy in a series of clashes between several Ukrainian churches. The followers of the schizmatic church with the assistance of nationalist paramilitary groups barrikaded themselves inside the cathedral and refused entry to the new canonical church leader and several thousand believers who gathered to meet him.

This is a propaganda which does not correspond NPOV policy and is not verifiable.--AndriyK 16:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey, you know perfectly that this cathedral was designed and built as St Vladimir's Cathedral. I believe most of its authors - from Filaret of Moscow to Vasnetsov and Vrubel - would have been greatly surprized to learn that the cathedral they created should be styled otherwise. Thankfully, St Vladimir's Cathedral is still the preferred name both in Kiev (whose population is primarily Russophone) and outside Ukraine (as the google search clearly demonstrates). You may vandalize this page for as long as you like, but you can't change the facts and history. As you persistently vandalize the pages created by me - such as this one or Novgorod-Seversky - I have to suspend contributing new articles on Ukrainian subjects until the moment of your eventual expulsion. --Ghirlandajo 17:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What this all has to do with the propaganda I removed from the article (see above)?
P.S. I am Andriy, if you would like address to me by the first name. --AndriyK 17:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seizure was well covered in the news and the coverage is abundant still on the web. See this book, for example. On the side note, AndriyK, you replaced it with copyvio as I have shown in edit history. This is just another tactic you use in addition to smearing others on and off Wikipedia. --Irpen 23:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from this article Именно они вместе с милицией преградили делегации УПЦ доступ в митрополичью резиденцию на Пушкинской, когда представители канонической Украинской Церкви пришли принять дела у низложенного Филарета [5]. То же самое повторилось у входа в кафедральный Владимирский собор, когда туда прибыл новоизбранный Предстоятель УПЦ митрополит Киевский и всея Украины Владимир
Our job is to present history as it was not as how people portray it to be, the Cathedral was SEIZED by the UNA-UNSO and when Metropolitan Vladimir to avoid the bloodshed turned the crowd to the Pechersk Lavra, the UNSO followed them there and attempted to capture the place too but failed, police fought on both sides of the conflict... How else do we present it, UNSO liberated the cathedral? UNSO courageously defended the new true Ukranian clergyman by beating up loads of people? Совесть люди, совесть надо иметь когда о таких вещах пишем. Kuban kazak 12:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 12:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The police together with public militia prevented unauthorized seizure of the temple by the snatch squad of the religious extremists under the leadership of Sabodan. --Yakudza 08:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC) /Irpen modified this entry/[reply]

Ok, boys, in russian. Если отбросить пропагандисткую мишуру и произвольную трактовку с приведенного текста this book, оставив только факты, то выходит следующее - Собор вскегда принадлежал Украинской православной церкви, был резиденцией митрополита Филарета. После того как он объявил о независимости от Московского патриархата, Московская патриархия назначила Володимира (Сабодана) своим представителем в Киеве. После этого ею был организован поход на Владимирский собор с целью его захвата. Причем религиозные фанатики шли на силовой захват (автор этого текста был настолько прямодушен, что сам признал это написав фразу "чтобы избежать кровопролития", т.е. фанатики, организованные Сабоданом были готовы идти на кровопролитие, и только вмешательство Сабодана его предотвратило). Благодаря организованной работе милиции при поддержке украинской народной самообороны (УНСО) удалось предотвратить силовой захват Владимирского собора. После этого по иниативе митрополита Сабодана была ЗАХВАЧЕНА Печерская Лавра. Т.е. все с точностью до наоборот. Еще раз хочу напомнить, что википедия не пропагадндисткий орган Московской Патриархии, излагать нужно факты, а не мнения религиозных фундаменталистов. -- Yakudza 13:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
И что ты хочешь сказать? Ты устранил один главный факт в кроме УНСО никто не поддержал Филарета, Киевляне встали за Митрополитом Владимиром который был назначен не Московской Патриархией а выбран синодом Украинской Православной Церкви на Харьковском Соборе. Также милиция воевала на обеих сторонах драки, Беркут например защитил Печерскую Лавру. В любом случии Корчинский который тогда руководил этой шайкой недавно вернулся из раскола. Но вообще-то нам надо быть внимательно за тем чего мы пишем, но одно дело это представлять с нейтральной точки зрения, но другое это писать про Гитлера что мол на бедную Германию напали и он один ее защищал.Kuban kazak 16:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, let's not criticize each other's English. I will try to translate the above into English using my own imperfect skills. In the meanwhile, you can also check memoirs of Korchinsky, available for instance at lib.ru. I posted quotes from both books at Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral/quotes. The issue is difficult but needs to be covered. --Irpen 22:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kuban kazak, I did not autorize you to talk on my behalf. I am Kiever. I was in Kiev that time. But I did not support the KGB agent Sabodan. And most of Kiever did not do it. Please avoid spoiling the articles by Russian propaganda.--AndriyK 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
А где я за тебя говорил, интересно что большенство Киевлян которых я очень хорошо знаю имеют противоположную точку зрения на события в те дни. К тому же ты же сам мне сказал в дискусии про казаков что личная точка зрения ни может быть нейтральная и поэтому ей в энциклопедии не место. Кстати кто КГБист? Может кавалер ордена Трудового Красного Знамени г-н. Денисенко? Может ты перепутал события? А вообще че убрал Русскую транслитерацию, уберешь еще раз верну.Kuban kazak 17:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please discuss Filaret at his article. I think I covered much of this when I wrote it. see Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko). Until AndriyK starts writing articles, his edits have to be watched and corrected. Also, be proud if he calls you names. Check outside web-sites for that, linked from Wikipedia. --Irpen 17:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, some of us are not as good writing in English, but we all can understand it. At least, those who can write in English well, please use it here.

Can the piece about the 1992 events go into a separate article or a section on Filaret or whatever? I think it would be enough to have a reference here. The story seems to be controversial, thus, require quite a lot of info and the main article on the cathedral can accomodate only a couple of sentenses at most. abakharev 03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to choose the golden middle here. We have articles for each of the UOC's, Filaret and a History of Christianity in Ukraine. OTOH, the fight for the cathedral is related to the cathedral article for sure. I think we will achieve some compromise if editors add and edit the info instead of removing it. The issue is indeed controvercial and hard to cover. --Irpen 03:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am reasonably happy with your variant of the events as it is now, but if the length of the paragraph would rise (I assume as blanking the paragraph is a childish way to indicate that something important is missing there), then we would have to move it into a separate article. abakharev 04:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my version isn't optimal. I am working on it these days but blanking by others is indeed an obstacle. Thanks, --Irpen 04:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing in that paragraph is a single reliable English language reference regarding the "violent" events no one has heard about. It's unfortunate that an article about a cathedral has become a dump for the religious fanatics. If Russian web site says something, it isn't necessarily true. It needs to be confirmed. A simple SINGLE verifiable reference would do! No, instead this site is spammed with some Russian made "pravda" over and over and over again. Can't anyone see a problem here? --Andrew Alexander 00:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is a pre-WWW and there is no online press available, only books. This topic is obscure enough in the West to write books, so it was only written in UA and RU, or at least mostly in UA and RU. What you can do is find another source in Russian/Ukrainian/anything that speaks about these events differently. Until then, this is the only version we have. I am sorry if this upsets you. Deleting information from the articles is rarely an option. Find alternative sources and add their info, or edit this info if you see its not conforming to sources sited. I see that it needs to be edited and it is on the top of my to do list but I had my hands full with our friend who messed up dozens of articles in one day. I will get to this too. But deleting the referenced info is vandalism. You better write something than delete the info written by others. --Irpen 01:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no verifiable English sources - no info. There is no need to post a web link. Post a reference to a news article or a book. Libraries still have newspapers, magazines and books.--Andrew Alexander 03:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatdaya mean "a web link". It is a book, with an author, publisher and ISBN #. Someone posted in on the web. So are posted many other books. Find another one, I don't object. --Irpen 03:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish a similar amount of vigor could be applied to the rest of the content of this article. I can't understand, what's not clear in the phrase "verifiable English language source". (User:Andrew Alexander forgot to sign)

Go to Ukrainian wiki and tell them they can't use English L text on Shakespeare article, only what's translated to Ukrainian because the rest can't be verified. I am sorry, it is an exaggeration. Yes! But, OK, we have a source. We retell what's said there. Not in the best way and I will work this out. But instead of deleting, read once more "don't be reckless" before ever deleting anything. Only on very rare occasions deleting something is appropriate.See this with this as an example of a justifiable deletion (IMO). Peace. --Irpen 04:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia rules clearly forbid propaganda and ideological rhetoric. The Russian book referenced is full of it. In fact, it's basically nothing else but a Russian Orthodoxy Propagandist Handbook. Taking this drivel and making it a pretext for editing an article about a beatiful Ukrainian cathedral is ridiculous. We are talking about the events that allegedly happened in 1992. Finding a good English language source shouldn't be difficult. Please at least try to find it. --Andrew Alexander 04:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Alexander, this is going in circles. I suggest you find the source that describes the events differently and then we will discuss how to present its version too. Or are you saying that there was nothing newsworthy around the cathedral in June 1992? --Irpen 07:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the seizure story[edit]

Well, I saw it in 1992 on CNN with my own eyes. It was similar to the original version of Irpen

You have a good memory. However, I think you're mistaken. There were no violent events in and around St.Volodymyr's Cathedral. It's a very quite place. Too bad Russian patriots invent history. Wouldn't be the first time however.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992 the internet was in its nascent, so there were no sites of the news agencies, as it is now. But still there are some refences:

This is the same book, an ROC Propagandist Handbook, the only one that "remembers", just like you do, the "violent events" of 1992.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing! This reference doesn't even mention any "violent events" surrounging St Volodymyr's.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a word about the "violent events".--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again not a word.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the background information:

Some of these are GOOD articles. But they contain NOT A SINGLE WORD of confirmation of the events.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And so on and so on...


None of the internet sources here are 100% reliable, but if you are in doubt, just go to a good library and look trough the major Ukrainian newspaper of May-June 1992. Anyway if all the data here are propaganda, there sure should be quite a number of contra-propaganda materials. Please present them.

I have nothing contra-propagandist to present. I am not in the business of pro- or contra-propaganda. Sorry about that. Really, I wish the imaginary events were better rebutted by the Ukrainian press. But they probably just never heard about them.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ball is now on your field Andrew A and Andriy K.

Just out of curiosity, what is your version about the transfer of the Cathedral?

  • It was not happen at all?
  • It was peaceful?
  • It was not peaceful but Irpen overinflated the disturbances?
  • Some facts (background info) are missing? - Just presnt them, then.
Again, I wish I could help you with the discussion of something that no one except you and a couple of other people heard about. Unfortunately, the info is not there. Apparently there was nothing violent or worth attention there.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was the main Cathedral of Ukrainian Exarchate of Russian Orthodox Church. Then (February 1990) the Exarchate was transformed to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (subordinated to Moscow Patriarchate).
Later (November, 1991) the Congress (Sobor) of Ukrainian Orthodox Church declared the Church Autocephalous (independependent of Moscow Patriarchate). Moscow Patriarchate did not accept this decision as well as a part of bishops of Ukrainian Orthodox Church. They organized their own Sobor in Kharkiv, declared that Ukrainian Orthodox Church were stillsubordinated to Moscow Patriarchate and elected Sabodan their Metroplitan.
Please let's not get the facts wrong the church proclaimed autocephalousy under extreame pressure from Kravchuk and Filaret. When however the whole ROC was summoned to Moscow, most of the high clergy of the UOC refused to support Filaret's demands and demanded his resignation. Filrated AGREED to the terms and even sworn them forward. Upon return to Kiev he immediately contacted UNSO and seized the cathedral, and immediately recognized Skripnik as his new Patriarch. UOC-MP due to the intense pressure in Kiev held a sobor in Kharkov where the clergy denounced Dinesenko & Co (even those that originally supported him in the autocephaleous claim) and elected a new leader Vladimir.Kuban kazak 22:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then Sabodan & Co tried to seize the Cathedral, but did not sucseed. The police guided it and nothing extraordinary happened.
When Vladimir returned to Kiev to rightfully take what was rightfully still Ukranian Orthodox Churches' property UNSO and Police guarded the cathedral, but you are right, nothing extraordinary happened around the cathedral simply because Vladimir managed to turn the several thousand crowd to the Lavra. When the UNSO realised that there will be no bloodshed around the cathedral and that the Kievans are already in the Lavra they frantically tried to storm it, but the several thousand crowd of believers overpowered them... sorry mate but there is quite a few eyewitnesses to that effect, even UNSO seems to agree with that. Although your point is almost in parrallel with theirs, нашел мой маленький мальчик чем гордиться. Kuban kazak 22:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On 16, June 1992 UNSO company from Kyiv took over its protection a residence of Kyiv metropolitan, Volodymyr Cathedral and all other cathedrals and churches of UOC in Kyiv. UNSO-men have been providing there for twenty-four-hour guarding because representatives of Moscow Patriarchy tried to seize cathedrals and churches, especially Volodymyr Cathedral


I do not think this episode even worth to be mentioned.--AndriyK 20:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A paramilitary group occupying a series of churches in the Ukrainian capital is not notable? Were they armed? —Michael Z. 2005-11-1 04:09 Z
As per their leader Korchynskyy's memoires linked from this page, they were indeed armed but not officially. He mentions that he ordered his boys to drop all "criminal posessions" when they were about to be rounded up during their aborted attempt to storm Kiev Pechersk Lavra for excommunicated Filaret. They ended up arrested this time. According to Korchynskyy, the reason was that the local police had connections with Lavra leadership. OTOH, around St. Volodymyr's they were assisted by police in holding the building for Filaret's "Patriarchate". ---Irpen 04:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the side note, Alexander A, if you feel offended by my suggestion that you should get a life and do something constructive, then I am sorry. You can live without doing anything constructive or having a life, if you prefer that way. abakharev 07:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you could be more polite. That would be constructive.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Material beyond the scope of this article[edit]

I believe it's wrong to wage here an ideological war, using the materials of the Russian Orthodox Church, or any other Church for that matter. This page has to be about the facts of the building. Not who and when was ousted from the ROC and for what reason. This is irrelevant since it bears absolutely no consequence to the visitors of the Cathedral. They don't care about oustings, anathemas, and other ideological nonsense. Could the subject of the church-related affairs be brought outside of this article? Could any Russian Church-inspired author of Wikipedia please redirect his rightous anger somewhere outside of scope of architecture and art? --Andrew Alexander 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this has nothing to do with remarks about Russian propaganda, and I ask that you keep such personal attitudes to yourself, administrators of wikipedia DO NOT tolerate nationalistic insults. Next what we have are several key facts which we have combined together.
  • Fact one UOCKP is NOT recognised by world Orthdoxy
  • Fact two after Filaret returned from Moscow, he took the empty cathedral and UNSO and Kravchuk immediately hailed him for doing so and pleged defence against anybody. (UNSO confirms this)
  • Fact three when Vladimir came to Kiev he gathering the crowd of supporters began to approach the cathedral to find it barricaded off them, thats what you have been saying, that is what I agree to.
  • Fact four, no bloodshed did take place IN FRONT OF THE CATHEDRAL, that is because Vladimir called for people to turn away to the Lavra
  • Fact five, which is irrelevant to this article, is that the UNSO and the police supporting Filaret followed them to the Lavra and there was a stampede, battle, clash or whatever you want to call it.

Kuban kazak 23:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban kazak, these are not facts. This is an interpretation of something you have read in some book. While it may seem very important, it has practically nothing to with the actual building of the cathedral.--Andrew Alexander 03:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but how is that the events on who controls the cathedral is not related to the cathedral's article escapes me. A solution could be a separate article with the events entitled as Seizure of St. Volodymyr's Cathedral in 1992 with a summary here. If you favor such a solution, write such an article, let's have people agree on its content, than we'll write a summary and post it here. I will support you in your efforts to write such an article. --Irpen 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's important who controls the cathedral and it's described in the article right now. Yes, please write a separate article about any alleged seizure, but do provide some reputable sources as required by the NPOV policy.--Andrew Alexander 03:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These are facts that have no significance to any propaganda. UNSO confirms these facts, I am sure Kiev's police archives will also confirm them, I am also sure that many media archives will show similar picture. Once again these are the events presented from a NEUTRAL POV. What is irrelevant to the cathedral is the references to Pyotr Mogilla, what does he have to do with the seizure? Kuban kazak 11:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I didn't say I will write the article. I offered to help you in writing it. I have other things to do for now. Until you or anyone writes a separate article, there is no better place in WP for a detailed course of events than here. Your deletion is pure vandalism as most people here seem to agree. --Irpen 03:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that offer. But I would rather not. The problem is, I can't write about something that didn't happen. Really, I already asked you and other Russian fans here to come up with a single word in a single reputable source about the "violent seizure". Mr. Bakharev gave it a shot, but he missed badly. See the discussion above. --Andrew Alexander 05:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That you call the sources you disagree with unreliable is your problem rather than Wikipedia's. --Irpen 05:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call your single Russian source (a book by Petrushko) reputable and balanced? --Andrew Alexander 05:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it cites a total of 187 of them. http://ua.mrezha.ru/petrprim.htm Kuban kazak 18:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly offered to point to a source that presents your version of events. Your claim that there are no sources because "nothing happened" is plain ridiculous. --Irpen 05:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why it's ridiculous.--Andrew Alexander 05:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, several people are telling here that they remember 1992 and the description fits their memories. You may call them liers of course. That's your attitude. I disagree with you = I lie. I think Chernigov is more appropriate for Principality name = I hate ukrainian name. Your attitude needs a good deel of WP:Civil reading. I bet you haven't look there after I gave you the link. Next is that the book of Korchinsky himslef who modestly says that he "Виставив охорону" (put up the guards) for whatever reason. And he was a leader of Militant UNA-UNSO, or you deny that too. Next, how can you explain that the seizure could possibly go peaceably. The version supported in the sources cited lacks all these contradictions. However, saying what makes sense and what doesn't is in a way an original research. That's why I present a version and cite sources. You disagree with it? Very well, cite your sources too. --Irpen 06:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Point mate, I so far have not seen a single counter-source. Kuban kazak 13:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Property claim[edit]

I removed some POV phrases. Please explain clearly why such hateful POV is expressed when a religious organ of an independent state lays claim on the property in the state. mikka (t) 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the state has no religious organ, since last time I checked, in Ukraine the church and state are separated. In Ukraine two organizations both properly registered with authorities claim to represent the Orthodoxy. This is the end of the matter as far as the state is conserned. Which of the two churches is a legitimate successor of Ukrainian exharhate in religious sense is not a state matter. There is a canon law and as interpeted by the world-wide Orthodox communion, the UOC is canonical and the UOC-KP is Schizmatic. The property issues are decided legally speaking on a case by case basis. In reality, who captures what keeps it and the police helps the captors or the defenders depending on which church is in favor at this time or which church has better corrupt connection with the local police commander. You can read Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko), History of Christianity in Ukraine and many sources outside WP for more. --Irpen 06:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should have used the word "country", rather than "state". I understand only perfectly well that the issue is not the God's glory, but golden calf. As for schizm, protestants and lutherans were schizmatics some time ago. The "world-wide" has no legal say in a souvereign country. In Ukraine it is an undertandable desire to distantiate from moskali, and it is not our business to judge them. It is bad that they cannot solve the issue peacefully, but... mikka (t) 07:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mikkalai, completely agree. I can assure you that the Moscow Patriarchate is far from the poorest and homeless in Ukraine. Ukraine chose not to fight for those thousands of cathedrals and churches. There is a fight here to preserve some sort of decency and follow some basic rules of Wikipedia. It's not as easy one.--Andrew Alexander 05:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Ukraine's (which is the state) business to choose to fight or not too. This is an intra-religious matter and the state involvement is just an unfortunate reality.

This problem is a more remote one, however. The issue at hand is how the cathedral happened to end up with UOC-KP and why so. It is not a trivial issue, otherwise Lavra, Sophia, etc. would also be Filaret's. Or St. Volodymyr's would we with canonical UOC the same way as the Lavra is. Is the issue of whose and why the cathedral is worth to be covered in the cathedral article or not? If yes, what should we write? What do we know? Andrew Alexander denies the seizure in toto and blanks the text. I suggested that he presents his version according the sources he can cite that disagree with the sources cited with the current version. All we get in response is blanking and sneaky 3RR avoidance by adding small changes. I asked for Mikka's expert opinion should the article be protected or a bad-faith user sanctioned. --Irpen 05:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev to include its late 20th century history,(I was not registered then however) If anyone thinks the last paragraph is not a NPOV then please would someone explain what NPOV is to me, because I am under opinion that people especially AndriyK do not know what NPOV is.Kuban kazak 11:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPOV--AndriyK 13:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on some of your comments on this discussion, I would advise that you read some of the rules that are laid down there. Kuban kazak 13:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure. I read it carefully.--AndriyK 14:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's think what this article should be about[edit]

Let's imagine a what most of the readership would expect to find in the article St Volodymyr's Cathedral. Does he or she look for the information about the crowds dathered different KGB agents around the Cathedral? I think most of the users would interested about, architecture, mosaics etc. If you believe that somebody would interested about KGB organized crowds, you are free to write an article about it. (But please base it on creadible sources!)

On the other hand, if your purpose is just to shit in every Ukraine-related article, you, no doubt, will continue. It's just waste of time to discuss it with you.--AndriyK 17:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't contradict yourself where are your sources about KGB involvement, credible sources that is. Kuban kazak 18:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I decide to add this infromation to the article, be sure, I'll provide the sources. (user:AndriyK, unsigned)

AndriyK, as for shitting around, it's funny you dare talking about this at all. I will set aside some time to make a translation of your smear, slander and foul language attacks in ua-wiki and maidan to show the community what is your level of communication. As for a separate article, I don't mind having it but I am not motivated yet to write it myself. I will participate when you write it, be sure. (Irpen)

I see, you are interesting in shitting in other articles, instead of writing your own.--AndriyK 18:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't write articles? You really have guts, buddy.

And don't lie in WP talk pages and internet forums about Britannica. As I've shown to you at talk:Chernihiv, EB uses Chernigov for every historical person's article. So, Oleg, Mikhail, etc. of Chernihiv in Britannica is your plain fantasy. I have no hope that you will admit to making mistakes, let alone to lying and slandering, at Maidan or here. Luckily, facts speak for for you. --Irpen 18:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not said that Britannica uses "Mikahil of Chernihiv" or "Oleg of Chernihiv". I insist that Britannica uses "Chernihiv". This is you, who lies.
According to the naming convention one has to use the correct state(city) name as a part of the monarch's title.--AndriyK 18:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, others see what you said and what you didn't. Sorry, to have brought an unrelated dispute to this page. --Irpen 19:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intervene into your debate but Andriyko what you are saying about modern city's names in relation to historical articles its absurd. But if you are to fullfil that pledge, then how come I did not see you edit WWII articles so that we will have Blockade of Petersburg and Battle of Volgograd...seven bridges of Kaliningrad...or is it too much for you. At least its better than wasting time pointlessly deleting complete paragraphs, and make sure your tyezka reads this as well. Kuban kazak 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion on Talk:Chernihiv and Portal talk:Ukraine/New article announcements before you make your irrelevant remarks on "Battle of Volgograd".--AndriyK 06:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK, that's a very good idea. Please add all the info about the KGB connections. Only not on this page, but here: Russian Orthodox Church. Let's play their little game. Also, let's ask our friends from the countries Russia occupied to support this cause. I am sure a lot of Polish and Estonians and Latvians will be glad help the Russian friends here find the long searched truth about the KGB roots of their Patriarch. This article is a too boring place for this.--Andrew Alexander 05:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you make this a similar silly game, I doubt you will have many followers among the Polish editors. If you really have some sourced material to add, I will welcome it with all my heart. --Irpen 05:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go another way. I'll try to convince the community that using architecture, art, music etc. articles fro bringing attension to political issues should be discauraged or forbidden. If I do not succeed and such kind of insertions to the articles will be encauraged by admins, I'll add KGB-collaboration or similar information to the most of Russia-related articles.--AndriyK 06:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something that your grandchildren will be VERY proud of ... my grandad spent his life adding KGB references to an online encyclopedia, he did not actually write new articles he only modified them so they will fit his nationalistic perspective... (Ну ты меня рассмшил, молодец!!!) Kuban kazak 12:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncanonical[edit]

. . . one of Kiev's major landmarks and the mother cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy, one of two major Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, viewed, however, uncanonical by the Eastern Orthodox Communion.

AndriyK, why did you remove the explanation of the UOC-KP's status with the edit summary "rm prop"? This seems to me to be a provable fact of church organization, and not in any way denigrating, much less "propaganda". The status and affiliation of this church's organization is certainly relevant to the article. —Michael Z. 2005-11-1 06:50 Z

This is indeed a provable fact, but it is not related to St Volodymyr's Cathedral. How a biutiful building can be canonical or uncanonical? This is about Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) and can be mentioned in the corresponding article. The present article containce a link to the UOC(KP) article and the reader who interested in canonicity/uncanonicity matters can follow the link. The article, in my opinion, should be about the Cathedral, not about politics, inter-confessional relations etc. Regards, --AndriyK 07:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying the body which controls this church is certainly relevant. The Ukrainian churches are hard enough to keep straight by those of us who are familiar with them. It's even more significant given the role this building played in recent events. If you think the description is unflattering then reword it, but don't remove such information and hide it under the label "rm prop". —Michael Z. 2005-11-1 08:11 Z
The body is identified this is Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate). I do not find it reasonable to caracterize or describe in details the "body" in the article devoted to the building and not to the "body".
Concerning the events. I was in Kiev that time. I perfectly remember that nothing extraordinary happend. 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. I regret that some people devote to this unimprotant forteen-year-old event 30% of the article on more that hundred years old building. It's pity, you are supporting them.--AndriyK 08:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The event itself might have been unimportant...but it was a catalyst for many future events in the uneasy Ukranian Church topic, which is why we have pretty much included it, downscaled it but kept it here, in the article.Kuban kazak 12:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with AndriyK for a change, if it would stop the silly edit war, we could live without the Uncanonical adjective. The story about transferring the cathedral is a kind of a side story for the article on the building. The status of the Filaret's church is a side story to the transfer.

New talk continues here[edit]

St Volodymyr's Cathedral always was the mother cathedral of Filaret. UNSO never seized this church. About this "fact" no information nor in one of brought sources. Possible wrong information (unsourced info) about " with the assistance of the Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary group (UNA - UNSO), seized the cathedral " it was mixed up with attempt of the seizure Kiev-Pechersk monastery? --Yakudza 06:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. V's was not a "personal mother cathedral" of Filaret. It was his in the capacity of Kiev Metropolitan. With his ouster and excommunication the church still belonged to Ukrainian exharhate of ROC and from 1990 the UOC. Nevertheless, Filaret used the political momentum to seize the cash box of UOC and some of its property which he, using UNSO "defended" from the rightful owner. St Volodymyr's was part of this "defended" property. Currently the article doesn's speak about seuzire. It says that they did not allow Met. Volodymyr in. Much can be found in newspaper archives. This was the first article (from '95) I found: http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/58/4391 --Irpen 07:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about the fact that UNSO themselves confirm this:
On 16, June 1992 UNSO company from Kyiv took over its protection a residence of Kyiv metropolitan, Volodymyr Cathedral and all other cathedrals and churches of UOC in Kyiv. UNSO-men have been providing there for twenty-four-hour guarding because representatives of Moscow Patriarchy tried to seize cathedrals and churches, especially Volodymyr CathedralKuban kazak 13:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guys you know the difference between guard and seizure? All sources write: UNSO protected Volodymyr Cathedral, but followers Sabodana tried seize! Phrase "with the assistance of the Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary group (UNA - UNSO), seized the cathedral" must be removed , as unconfirmed source --Yakudza 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will think how to say this better. Will do today. With one of the two active revertors now 24-hr blocked, editing today will be 2 times easier. --Irpen 15:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need some backgroung info?[edit]

Do you think we need some background info? Like: Ukraine inherrited the Soviet law that had made all the churches to be property of the state, who should allocate them to the religious communities according to their requests. The law deliberately had not explained the cases of two communities requested the same building or a schism within a religious community. In the Glastnost time the law was sometime interpreted as whoever mounted the noisiest protest wins...

Similar controversy erupted over though out Ukraine over allocating churches to Ukrainian Roman-Catholics, Uniates, UOC-KP, etc., as well as in Russia over requests of ROCA and the Catacomb Church. abakharev 22:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this, in a rewritten form, is a good addition to the History of Christianity in Ukraine article but can be used here too. I am not sure about the situation in the USSR though. Were buildings returned to church in 1988 or were just allowed to be used by ROC assuming that they remained the state property? Also, the issue of two organizations claiming the building was initially moot since the ROC had the monopoly over whatever christianity was allowed to exist. A good point though, --Irpen 22:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Law[edit]

The newly established church, claiming the lineage to the historic Ukrainan church of Metropolitan Peter Mogila that existed until the end-17th century, at the time had the control of St. Volodymyr's in accordance with Ukrainian laws.

Could you pls be more specific? The church belonged to Kiev Exharhate of ROC and later the UOC, of which Filaret was a Metropolitan until he was ousted. The ouster of Filaret does not change the fact that the building remains with the Church who ousted a corrupt leader. OK, corrupt is a POV but the property rights didn't change by the change of the leader. According to what laws the Church was moved to UOC-KP, a new organization? Was it a property of Filaret so that it moved with him to UOC-KP as per laws? It is only the professors in Universities, when they move to a different University, sometimes take their team and equipment. Is this the case? --Irpen

I am not a Ukrainian lawyer, however, it is fairly obvious that UOC-MP doesn't have legal rights to the building. If it had, it would already trumpet about it and get the building as well with the help of the Ukrainian police. Ukraine isn't a wild-west country with some random people "seizing" huge properties in the center of Kiev, no matter what the most super-canonical church in the world would say.--Andrew Alexander 07:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't realized, I have to tell you that, in sense of Church property, Ukraine was a Wild west. All property belonged to ROC in the end-eighties (largely unjustly) but there was no any kind of legal procedure to decide which churches to give to UAOC, UGCC and UOC-KP. Everyone started to seize churches from each other and we ended up with the status quo. The rank-and-file policemen in Ukraine, like in every country, follow the orders and they see their job as doing what their commander says rather than "enforcing some laws". It is good when the commanders give only legal orders and when legal system is developed to cover most aspects of life. It is not always so even in developed democracies and definetely not so in post-Soviet states. UOC-KP was in state favor under Kravchuk and police and SBU were helping it. It fell out of favor under Kuchma and we remember well the sad events of the attempted funeral in Sofia cathedral. Laws had little to do with these events and your inserting them, and then claiming, that you are not a lawyer, so leave me alone, is inconsistent. --Irpen 07:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to tell you, apparently in vain, that UOC-MP does not have legal rights over the cathdral because it would already mention it at least 50,000 times since the "illegal seizure". Obviously, you are self-interpreting Ukrainian laws without even noticing the strange fact, that the "accuser" (UOC-MP) doesn't even complain about anything in court.--Andrew Alexander 07:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write in the article that UOC-MP legally owns the building. I am not so sure whether this issues are settled even today. However, you wrote that UOC-KP somehow "owned" the building already in 1992, right after its being pronounced. Did it also own it before being pronounced too? This is your quote UOC-KP "at the time had the control of St. Volodymyr's in accordance with Ukrainian laws.". --Irpen 07:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that UOC-KP "split" from ROC according to the decision of a big chunk of the top Ukrainian clergy. The property belonged not to some guy or a group of guys in Moscow, but to the local religious communities that decided to leave ROC, with the clergy acting as their representatives. Thus the cathedral didn't change hands. It it did, I am sure UOC-MP would have said something by now in Ukrainian courts. But hey, you just know stuff like that better than even they do.--Andrew Alexander 07:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Big chunk" you were talking about actually consisted of two out of 20+ bishops. The rest of today's UOC-KP's bishops are ordained by Filaret after his excommunication or by other similarly "legitimate" hierarchs. An ousted metropolitan or bishop has no power to ordain and the apostolic succession, a very important issue in Eastern Orthodoxy, is broken. But this is purely a religous matter. As far as state is conserned, it's fine as long as the organization which calls itself religious is a non-profit. However, as of that time, there were exactly two bishops that supported the schizm and one of them later repented and left Filaret's "Patriarchy". --Irpen 07:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the totally irrelevant to the Ukrainian Law info. --Andrew Alexander 07:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you said about some hypothetical "big chunk" as a legal justification of property transfer or, rather, keeping, as you preferred to call it. I showed you how "big" was a chunk. --Irpen 07:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your information which I don't even have any desire to check. It's a completely moot point since this article is about St Volodymyr's, the one where the very "uncanonical" church leader of UOC-KP kept his service to the Kievan parish.--Andrew Alexander 08:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care whether you check it or not and if you do and find out things more exactly (like maybe only 1 and not 2 bishops joined the schizm), you would be able to educate yourself and all of us.

The whole issue was brought up by your claim that Filaret's UOC-KP, that came into existence just weeks before the events, had already the control of the cathedral "according to Ukrainian laws". I just showed you that it is, at least, unreasonably unlikely to be so. Also, I explained to you and other readers, how things were in Ukraine at the time when 4 religious organizations were fighting, sometimes violently, for the buildings in legal limbo, and how state chose to interfere (or not to) depending of who was in favor with who. This is quite different from your claim that some "Ukrainian law" gave Filaret's "KP" the building of St Volodymyr. --Irpen 08:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy that you don't care to a degree that you can't even provide a reputable source of whatever that you say here. Juggling around with poorly understood notions of Orthodox canonicity does not imply knowing Ukrainian laws. UOC-MP knows them and it does not claim St. Volodymyr's in court. Thus UOC-KP had the church legally. Unless you have something to present here to help UOC-MP build their legal argument from the ground up.--Andrew Alexander 08:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't turn the issue to its head. It was your claim was that the KP somehow legally owned the church in '92 (not even now, which might be the case) just in two weeks after its birth. I showed that it is unlikely. You are free to go to the library or an archive, find a court writ that confirms the Church was KP's in 1992, right from the beginning, and we will return this to an article.
If you have any rememberence of these times with churches changing hands, sometimes, twice a day, you would understand that it was indeed more about the wild west than legal rights. --Irpen 08:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with all this "rememberence" is that it is too vague to be applied to one specific case. The notions of church property exist in the Ukrainian law. We can't arbitrarily slap some vague impressions onto a specific case and then claim that the law is irrelevant.--Andrew Alexander 09:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In SOVIET UNIONS the building of churchs were in property of state. Ditto, was in Ukraine at the beginning 90-h years. Religious communities were not owner of cathedral, but had a right on use by buildings. Thereby if local religious communities moved over to other subservience, that new church continued to use building. Turning the St Volodymyr's Cathedral under contol the Kiev Patriarchy was in accordance with Ukrainian laws. This was a decision communities.

Same more detailed in russian: В Советском Союзе, здания церквей были в собственности государства. Так же было и в Украине в начале 90-х. Религиозные общины были не владельцами зданий церквей, но имели право на пользование зданиями . Таким образом, если местные приходы, чаще всего вместе со священниками, принимали решенике о переходе в другое подчинение, то здание церкви оставалось в пользовании тех же прихожан, но уже в подчинении новой церкви. Такие переходы были массовыми в конце 80-х начале 90-х, конфликты возникали, обычно, в тех случаях, когда на одно здание претендовали две общины. Чаще всего это было в Галичине, где могла быть ситуация когда часть прихожан в одном селе была греко-католиками, а часть православными (причем не Московского патриархата, а УАПЦ, которая позже объединилась с УПЦ-КП). С Владимирским собором была таже ситуация, прихожане вместе со священником (в данном случае митрополитом Филаретом) вышли из подчинения Московскому патриархату, как и тысячи общин в Украине до них, и после них. Их переход в подчинение Киевскому Патриархату был в полном соответствии с украинскими законами и конституцией (право на свободу совести и вероисповедания). Здесь не было кофликта собственности. Собор в то время был собственностью государства. --Yakudza 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yakudza's information indeed clears some things up regarding formal status with the church property in the early nineties. However, in no way it proves that KP upon its' birth had legal rights to St. Volodymyr's. "Local parishes" where highly confused as well as the clergy, whose low-level members are more used to doing what they are told by their superiors than to knowing the details of secular and canon laws.
Senior clergy, on the other hand, may have been KGB compromised but they were people with understanding of what was going on and with the knowledge of both secular and religious laws. The fact is that senior clergy didn't go with the schizm. On the local level the provocateurs from all 4 churches (MP, KP, UAOC, UGCC) often ignited violent confrontations and seizures and authorities interference was based on political climate (Kravchuk was pro-KP, Kuchma was pro-MP, local commanders mostly were with the ones who offered them more perks).
Since the state failed to help sort things out in any legal way, or implement any laws or committee that would consider cases and assign the building, the whole thing was outside of the law. It finally ended up with the status quo reached at certain point being de-facto legalized and even that is not yet finished since buildings still occasionally change hands in violent confrontation. The whole idea is that as early as in '92 the legal things were clear enough that one or the other church had some legal rights is misleading. As such, we can't talk about one or the other church having any legal rights at that early stage.
On the side note, I would prefer that they went to court, at leats now, and the state helped decide the property issues (which are secular issues) in some legal way. But with the legal system in Ukraine being still rather quirky and the court system being rather corrupt it would be hard, though perhaps possible, to achieve. As for the '92, the whole legalistic language cannot be applied. --Irpen 00:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "legalistic" language should and will be applied in this article. This language is far more precise than the propagandistic language drawn from some obscure web sites. You can't erase somebody's useful info simply because you "don't like" it. You may disagree with the laws of Ukraine, call them quirky, but that's what guides UOC-MP and UOC-KP in this specific dispute. Per Yakudza's info, the cathedral was in the hands of the state, loaned to the local religious community. This community was and still is led by UOC-KP.--Andrew Alexander 00:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, you wrong. Nothing was loaned to this or that church by the state, as I explained above. Who held on to what was decided by who seized or failed to seize what and the state was just sending mixed messages. Find any mention of the state giving the cathedral to UOC-KP within two weeks after it was self-proclaimed and then we can discuss how we include it. --Irpen 00:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to the information provided, the state "allowed the use" of the buildings for the parishes. What is wrong? Why is it wrong? The parish of St. Volodymyr's has been headed by the UOC-KP priests. Again, what is that you disagree with here? (unsigned by user:Andrew Alexander)

What you wrote in the article now is different and I would accept it if we would have any evidence that local parish of St Volodymyr's supported the schism or that there was some state order giving the building to UOC-KP in just about a week after it was pronounced. What we know is that it was supported by UNA-UNSO and it is mentioned already.

We don't know with certainly about the parish but they were probalby just common Kievans. We have the source that states that thousands of Kievans came to meet Volodymyr. We don't know about crowds of other Kievans holding the church for Filaret. We also know that in Ukraine, the churches in general, were captured and recaptured and the police involvement in these fights was inconsistent. Should this have been somehow regulated by the law, you would not expect this to happen. --Irpen 01:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know about crowds supporting Filaret, but we do know about great number of Kievers comming to St Volodymyr's Cathedral to attend the God Service [1], [2], [3]. everyone can see it on TV on Cristmas or Easter.
A great part of Ukrainians consider themselves as parishioner of UPC-KP
За даними дослідження, серед 70% віруючих 40,7% тих, хто належить до конкретних релігійних конфесій, а 29% не визначилися зі своєю конфесійною приналежністю. З решти 30% населення України 16,1% вважають себе невіруючими, а 14,3% не можуть себе однозначно ідентифікувати з певною вірою. Як зазначалося на прес-конференції, результати опитування свідчать, що найбільш численними конфесіями в Україні є Українська Православна Церква (Московського Патріярхату) - 37,8% усіх конфесійне визначених віруючих (або 15,4% дорослого населення України); Українська Православна Церква - Київський Патріярхат - відповідно 28,7% (11,7%) та УГКЦ -18,6% (7,6%). Отже, вірні цих Церков становлять близько 85% тих, хто вважає себе віруючими і належить до певної конфесії. Жодна з усіх інших Церков та релігій не охоплює більш ніж 2% конфесійно визначених віруючих (тобто 1% всього населення). Серед активних віруючих (8% усіх громадян України та 23% усіх конфесійно визначених віруючих) і тих, хто відвідує церкви хоч раз на місяць, найчисленнішою конфесією є УГКЦ (близько третини всіх активно віруючих); наступні конфесії - УПЦ (МП), УПЦ-КП і протестантські конфесії (кожна - близько п'ятої частини віруючих.

(see [4]).--AndriyK 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about now or 1992? --Irpen 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

poor article[edit]

This is not a really good article for someone who is either non-Ukrainian or non-religous - they would have a hard time understanding it, one can tell the article has been through a nuclear edit war. Starzaz (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Volodymyr%27s_Cathedral_ownership_controversy&oldid=1201700474"