Talk:Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow/Archive 1

message: What about reports of KGB infiltration of the Orthodox Church during the Soviet period?  As a high ranking cleric, the Patriarch would have been involved.
: Good question! I added more information about it. Actually, Farther Gleb Yakunin (one of well known dissidents in the Soviet Union) was given access to KGB archives and published some of the documents about this subject. He also wrote a letter to the Patriarch with codenames of the top hierarchs who were KGB agents: ADAMANT, ABBAT, TOPAZ, MIKHAILOV, and DROZDOV (the Patriarch himself). This letter was unprecedented in the history of Russian Ortodox Church. (see pages 660-661 in the book Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West, Gardners Books (2000), .) See also book Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia--Past, Present, and Future. 1994. .Biophys 06:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, someone is trying to dispute your information without references. I reverted his/her edit, but (s)he repeated it again. Colchicum 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mitrokhin archive has documented fairly clearly in The Sword and the Shield how the KGB systematically infiltrated and recruited Russian Orthodox seminarians in the USSR in the 1950's and 1960's, including the rapidly-promoted seminarian who became the Patriarch Alexey II.  Mitrokhin has published his documentary evidence that active collaboration with the KGB was a virtual neccesity for promotion within the heirarchy of the Sergianist Orthodox "Church" in Soviet Russia.  There is also a great deal of circumstantial evidence that the KGB and Russian Orthodox heirarchs (if a meaningful distinction can be made between these two entities)of the Moscow Patriarchate, at the behest of President Vladimir Putin, himself, have now successfully infiltrated and "recruited" the Synod of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR)under Metropolitan Laurus, which voted in May of 2006 to submit to the canonical authority of the Moscow Patriarchate.  Very little has been written in the Western press about the events leading up to this rather startling reversal of the ROCOR's longstanding condemnation of the KGB-controlled Moscow Patriarchate, and it is possible that very little ever will be written on the subject.  The free press in Russia has now been effectively silenced, and the leaders of the ROCOR around the world have essentially whitewashed any trace of controversy within their own jurisdictions in the name of Russian nationalism and "unity."  The late Metropolitan Vitaly, the former first heirarch of the ROCOR was forcibly removed from office in Montreal, Canada in 2000 by unidentified plainclothesmen (graphic photos of this whole spectacle appeared on the internet) at the time that Metropolitan Laurus first ascended to power as the new first heirarch of the ROCOR, and initiated the process of reunification with the Alexey's Moscow Patrarchate.  While it is important to refrain from unsubstantiated libel against anyone, there can be little doubt that people within the KGB--Moscow Patriarchate-ROCOR infrastructure are now carefully monitoring and expunging any public record or discussion of their current and recent activities, including, I suspect, any information posted on Wikipedia.  It would, therefore, be better for us to err on the`side of openness and a full disclosure of the truth, than to collude silently with their carefully orchestrated campaign of disinformation about the relationship between the KGB and the Russian Orthodox Church in- and outside of Russia.
--Raskolnikov
It was a common practice for the KGB to give code names to people they kept files on. Patriarch Alexius being a high ranking church official was obviously under KGB surveillance. It does not make him a KGB agent.  It is also quite ridiculous to use obviously biased Gleb Yakunin ( a controversial priest expelled from the Orthodox church) and Yevgenia Albats (liberal Russian-Jewish journalist) as “independent confirmation”. Fisenko 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not an established facts but the rumors are notable. Should be put as rumors Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We have around 10 to 20 reliable sources including published books claiming this to be the case based on KGB archives and other information (such as words of Alexius himself to Kalugin - allegedly). The reliable secondary sources also cite exact pages in those archives. These are not "rumors" but sourced information. If we treat this as a "controversy" (which is fine), we can provide "pro" and "contra" opinions, as usual. Then it will be perfectly NPOV.Biophys (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KGB?? 

message: *Let's also have something about his opposition to foreign and minority religions - he supported the Russian gov in bringing in a law that meant religious orgs had to register... and have their activities scrutinised by the authorities. This led to the Salvation Army being closed in Moscow and described as a 'paramilitary organisation'. Basically, as Memorial say, he's a bit of a fascist. Malick78 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support of suppression of other religions

message: Since when diatribes of a priest who was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia? And Albats is the most severely partisan journalist in Russia; her allegations are anything but partial and/or reliable. Currently the article reads like a deliberate slur and contradicts our policies on WP:BLP. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not reliable sources, but notable and well-known. The article shouldn't claim that their information is true, and it doesn't claim so. This is not a kind of I heard it somewhere and there is in principle nothing derogatory in being an alleged agent of a secret service, so I don't see how BLP applies here. Colchicum 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinions of dissidents are all too predictable and in a short article like this one give the appearance of undue weight. I don't see how Yakunin can "independently confirm" anything, given his background, and why his opinions are notable to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia. Perhaps I should raise the issue on WP:BLPN. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. But as far as I could see, these are allegations very well-known in Russia, much better than details of his official biography, hence notable and not undue. Mindreading of dissidents or whoever is not up to us.Colchicum 16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree with Colchicum, but the aricle about Alexius II can indeed be extended to describe many other aspects of his life. As for books by Mitrokhin and Albats, they are notable and reliable sources according to WP:SOURCEBiophys 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yakunin and Albats as "[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]" 

message: The reference provided makes the clear point that prior to the 1980's the KGB normally referred to everyone with one code name or another... even those whom they were persecuting.  That is simply a fact, and examples of people whom the KGB was after being referred to by a code name can easily be provided. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course everyone in KGB files had a code name. But code name is simply irrelevant here. These sources assert that he WAS a KGB agent not because he had a code name, but because the found documents indicate explicitly that he worked for the KGB. Furthermore, he admitted his work for KGB to Kalugin ("that was  for peace"...), according to sources. So, what is the subject of the dispute?Biophys (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, the fact that he had a code is used to suggest that this proves he was an agent, and the fact is, as you concede, this does not prove any such thing.  Which original documents state that he explicitly worked as a KGB agent? Where did they come from? The alleged quote regarding Kalugin is hearsay from an individual who has an axe to grind against the Moscow Patriarchate, and has made numerous outrageous statements that would indicate that he is a crack pot, and not a reliable source.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There are around eight reliable sources claiming him to be a KGB agent. That is more than enough per WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability. Some of them are reliable secondary sources - scholarly books. Do you suggest these sources insufficient? I can bring more. I suggest however that we both stop this struggle. Otherwise, we will increase this article twice by including a lot of materials about his work as a KGB agent, and we both do not want that.Biophys (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And how about that: "Among his controversial "non-profit" connections, Patriarch Alexius II has been a patron of Gulnaz "Gulya" Sotnikova, president of Vertex Aero who is being investigated for corruption and white-collar crime. ... Vertex, informed sources tell RRM, specializes in obstetrical and gynecological practices and runs maternity centers and abortion clinics. Moscow police believe Vertex is behind a large, unlicensed fetal organ harvesting operation in a clinic of the Moscow Institute of Biological Medicine." (U.S. Food Aid Through Patriarchate May Be Abused, Priest Says; Distributor Tied to Illegal Activity & Trafficking in Parts of Unborn Babies - by Russia Reform Monitor No. 584, February 11, 1999). Do we want to include that? And I am not even talking about murders of Russian priests to take over the Russian Orthodox Church abroad (see ).Biophys (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code Names 

message: Biophys raised an objection to my referencing in a footnote the material on this page as being from a "personal blog":
http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/patalexei.htm
As can easily be seen it is not a blog, and I did not write what it one it.  It contains a post to a yahoo group by a ROCOR priest who was on the  joint commission for reconciliation between the MP and ROCOR -- Fr. Alexander Lebedeff.  He has simply provided a translation into English of an interview in Isvestia. Now, I could have made the same edit, and simply referenced Isvestia, but I think most readers who do not have backlog copies of Isvestia around the house, and do not speak or read Russian would like to to read a translation of what is actually referred to.  The information is from a reliable source, and is a translation of a reliable source.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone cites the following words by Alexius on this blog:
Pat A.: "Being a person of the Church, I must take on myself responsibility for all that occurred in the life of my Church: not only for the good, but also for the difficult, the sorrowful, the erroneous."
Pat. A.: "Today we can say that falsehood is interspersed in his Declaration, which stated as its goal 'placing the Church into proper relations with the Soviet government.' But these relations--and in the Declaration they are clearly defined as the submission of the Church to the interests of governmental politics--are exactly those which are incorrect from the point of view of the Church."
Pat. A.: "Of people, then, to whom these compromises, silence, forced passivity or expressions of loyalty that were permitted by the Church leadership in those days, have caused pain -- of these people, not only before God, but also before them, I ask forgiveness, understanding, and prayers."
Unfortunately, this is not too informative. It is not clear at all what he means. Of course "Izvestija" can be cited, but you should check yourself that citation is correct.Biophys (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are direct translations of the Russian by a notable Russian Priest from a reliable source, and unless you have some evidence to suggest that he has mistranslated the material, there is no basis for not including it.  References to Isvestia are provide on the page linked, which in turn provides a link to said notable Russian Priest's original translation of said reliable source. And it is quite clear what he is saying if you are familiar with the history in question. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but we have to assume that a reader is not familiar with the question. But I think your last edit is fine. I also commented in Mitrokhin Archive. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided an additional reference for those who may not be familiar with the history in question.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personal blog" 

message: A reliable source that supports the following assertion of fact is needed, or else the assertion needs to be deleted:
:"Alexius was awarded an Honorary Citation by the KGB chairmen in 1988, according to archive documents."
Which archive documents are we talking about here, and where did you get this information.? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not find a single reference to this assertion on Google, and so I am removing it until we are provided with reliable source documentation. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I included exact citation with page. This is a book, a reliable secondary source, which is much better than any Google garbage.Biophys (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which archive does the book say this is to be found in?  Who found it?  Where can I find it?  Based on the reference you provide, I take it that this is one of those archive documents that Yevgenia Albats claims to have seen, but which no document is available for independent verification.  As such, the assertion that this is verified by documents in the KGB archive should be qualified that it is according to the testimony of a person who claim to have seen it, rather than according to any documents that anyone else might examine.  Also, you say that this has been discussed by many KGB agents.  How do you know that? Please provide a source, or stop inserting that claim.  Also, please stop deleting the statement about the meaning of having a KGB code name, for which I have provided a source.  It is certainly pertinent. It is verified by a reliable source. It is a matter of fact. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Code name is irrelevant. Sources claim that he worked for KGB not because he had code name. I cite exactly what source says. If you disagree, you can check this in a library. Since, you insist on developing this segment, I will have to include more sourced materials.Biophys (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Code name is relevant, or else it would not be cited.  It would suffice to say he is alleged to be a KGB agent, no?  If you want to delete all references to the KGB Code name, I will be OK with deleted by qualification of that fact. Feel free to bring in more sources... just be sure not to make assertions that are not supported by the sources, and make sure that they are reliable sources. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: O'K, I left the irrelevant material about code name but explained it, so a reader can understand what is all about.Biophys (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it all the accusations you can document... but do not mix them, as you are doing.  Specify which accusations are supported by what sources.  As a matter of fact, there is no document you can quote from that states Patriarch Alexei received an award from the KGB... you have the testimony of someone who claims to have read that.  We do not know what she may have read into the text, or what the text actually said... or if the text even exists.  Please keep it straight.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged KGB Award 

message: Do not you know that collaboration of Russian Orthodox Church and Alexius with the KGB is very well established in numerous reliable sources? Look, for example 
this article by Keith Armes who is is associate director of the Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and Policy of Boston University:
The opening of some KGB archives since August 1991 has made available
for the first time clear evidence of the subordination of the Orthodox hierarchy to the Soviet government. An investigative journalist, Alexander Nezhny, was able to establish the close relationship between a number of bishops and the “organs,” and to determine the identities of the bishops involved on the basis of the chronology of missions abroad undertaken by hierarchs at the behest of the KGB and references to the agent names by which they were known. In
particular, the KGB affiliation of three prominent hierarchs is now established:
the recently deposed Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev (code name “Antonov”),
Metropolitan Yuvenali of Krutisk and Kolomna, who was head of the foreign
relations department of the patriarchate (code name “Adamant”), and
Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk and Yurev, head of the publishing
department of the patriarchate (code name “Abbat”). It is also established that
the present patriarch, Aleksi II, served the KGB under the poetic name “Blackbird” (Drozdov).
Investigations carried out in the KGB archives by Lev Ponomarev, chairman
of the short-lived Russian Supreme Soviet Commission to Investigate the Causes
and Circumstances of the Putsch, and Father Gleb Yakunin, who served as a
member of that commission, make it clear that the chain of command for
controlling the church ran directly from the Politburo through the CPSU Central
Committee Department of Agitation and Propaganda, to the USSR Council of
Ministers' Council on Religious Affairs, and finally to the KGB, which had a
special subdivision (Fourth Department of the Fifth Administration) for religion.
There is abundant evidence of the KGB's control of the church's activities
abroad and its success in ensuring that the World Council of Churches (WCC) consistently adopted positions advantageous to the Soviet leadership.
Thus in 1980, a KGB report signed by the head of the Fourth Department
states, “. . . the secretary general of the World Council of Churches,
Philip Potter, has been in Moscow as a guest of the Moscow Patriarchate.
A favorable influence was exercised on him by agents `Svyatoslav,'
`Adamant,' `Mikhailov,' and `Ostrovsky.' Information of operational interest was obtained on the activities of the WCC.” In 1983, the KGB dispatched 47 agents to attend the WCC General Assembly in Vancouver. In the following year, KGB reports make it clear that the Uruguayan Emilio Castro was elected WCC general secretary with the assistance of its agents attending the session of the selection committee.
At a major Orthodox Church conference in Moscow in 1988, the “situation
among the participants was checked” by clandestine means, and a “positive
communiqué was adopted in which a principled appraisal was adopted by the
episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church of the activities of religious
extremists [dissidents] in our country.” The KGB reported on its work at the
July 1989 WCC meeting in Moscow, “As a result of measures carried out, eight
public statements and three official letters were adopted which were in
accordance with the political line of socialist countries . . . Thanks to our agents a positive effect was exercised on the foreigners, and additional ideological and personality data were obtained, [as well as] information on their political views and the positions they occupied in their own countries. Numerous interviews took place that were favorable to us.”
A facsimile document dated November 1987, and published by the former KGB officer Stanislav Levchenko, confirmed in striking fashion the extent of
Party control over the Orthodox Church's affairs. According to this paper, the
approval of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the KGB, the Council on Religious
Affairs (in the person of its chairman, Konstantin Kharchev), and the CPSU
Central Committee's Propaganda Department, was required for the church to
send priests to serve Orthodox parishes in Brazil and Uruguay. There is
evidence that KGB officers were sent to study at seminaries abroad in order to
become priests and serve in the Soviet Union.
The KGB paid particular attention to relations with the Vatican. A 1989 report by Col. V. Timoshevsky, head of the KGB's Fourth Department, states, “The most important journeys were those by the agents `Antonov,' `Ostrovsky,' and `Adamant' to Italy for negotiations with the Pope on questions of future relations between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular the problems of the Uniates.” The patriarchate's External Affairs Department consisted almost entirely of KGB agents. The department's main ideologist, Buevsky, a KGB officer now venerable leastwise in years, has been responsible for writing the patriarch's public statements and encomia on successive national leaders since 1946.4
A prominent priest, Father Georgi Edelshtein, has stated that one-half of the
clergy were overt or covert KGB employees through the end of the
Gorbachev era. He has confirmed that the hierarchy took large bribes
from priests seeking transfers to rich parishes and from candidates for
bishoprics. Father Edelshtein comments, “Do you know where our
present-day church ends and the KGB begins? The only difference was that some wore hoods and some had shoulder boards.”5 Until very recently, the conduct of some members of the episcopate showed no trace of aggiornamento. In 1990, a group of students asked the Bishop of Chelyabinsk for help in organizing an Orthodox youth group to look after new converts. This prelate requested a list of the organizers, which he then sent to the local KGB. The KGB, however, wrote back to the bishop informing him that their duties no longer included such “internal matters,” and passed on copies of the correspondence to the city soviet for publication. Father Gleb Yakunin has stated that within the top church hierarchy, nine out
of ten were KGB agents. 
Significantly, none of the prominent bishops attending a conference in Moscow on 19 August 1991, condemned the putsch. Not one
came to the White House to bless its defenders who faced death protecting the
legal government of Russia from the overthrow attempt by military forces.8 It is
a reasonable assumption that many hierarchs were recruited by the KGB at the
seminary—or even initially sent to the seminary by a patron with blue epaulettes—and marked out from the beginning for a distinguished clerical
career. For these men, the practice of religion meant the search for and
attainment of warm places and high preferment. So far, however, documentary
evidence for such recruiting is lacking. In January 1992, further access to the
archives was denied to Supreme Soviet investigative commissions with the
approval of the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, Ruslan Khasbulatov, after joint
presentations had been made to him by the chairman of the Russian External
Intelligence Service, Yevgeny Primakov, and Patriarch Aleksi.9
Particularly damaging to the credibility and moral stature of the Orthodox
hierarchy is the degree to which the current patriarch is morally compromised by
a career of subservience to the Politburo. According to the KGB archives, in
February 1988, the KGB chairman rewarded Aleksi II with a “Certificate of
Honor” for successful performance.10 In 1965, as Archbishop of Tallinn, Aleksi
demanded that Archbishop Hermogen of Kaluga, who at the time was
undoubtedly the most courageous of all the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate,
go into forced retirement for signing a protest against the complicity of the
Synod in the Soviet government's campaign of church closures.11
The patriarch's behavior during the August coup was a classic case of
temporization. After initially failing to condemn the putsch, the following day
he released a carefully measured statement: “[The] situation is troubling the
conscience of millions of our compatriots who are beginning to question the
lawfulness of the newly formed State Emergency Committee. . .We are hoping
that the USSR Supreme Soviet will give a principled assessment and take
resolute measures to stabilize the situation in the country.” Aleksi was well
aware that there was no prospect of the Supreme Soviet's meeting in the
immediate future, nor a possibility for taking “resolute measures.” It was not
until the afternoon of August 21 that the patriarch, sensing which way the wind
was blowing, agreed to sign an appeal that condemned the putsch leaders'
shedding of innocent blood and rejected Communist ideology.12
Despite repeated calls upon him for a public and formal expression of
contrition for his servility to the Communist leadership and lies on its behalf,
Aleksi has always declined to make a public declaration of repentance. For those
who still hoped for change at the highest level of the hierarchy, a recent episode proved especially discouraging. There is indisputable evidence that in recent months Patriarch Aleksi lied in denying charges that, in November 1991, he had approached a U.S. undersecretary of state to put pressure on Voice of America to change its programming about the Russian Orthodox Church.13 The patriarch felt impelled to make this extraordinary démarche by his concern about the “bias against the patriarchate” displayed in programs produced by a prominent priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Father Viktor Potapov.
Do we want all of that appear in this article and other articles?Biophys (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate was subjugated by the Soviet government is not in dispute.  That Patriarch Alexei collaborated on some level with the Soviets is also not in dispute.  That he was a KGB agent, on their payroll, willfully doing their bidding, is another matter entirely.  I happen to know Fr. Victor Potapov personally, by the way, and while he would agree with that which is not in dispute, he would also agree that the level of the Patriarch's collaboration with the KGB is in dispute, and has not been proven.  There was not a lot of choice given to clergy and bishops in Russia... and this goes for the non-Orthodox clergy as well. You either cooperated, or you were in a gulag, or shot.  Some cooperated more fully and willingly than others, however -- but in most cases, God and those individuals only know the truth about each individual complicity. You have to understand a few things here: 1) the Russian press is quite free, but not always fair and balanced. 2) you have many atheists still looking for ways to undercut the Church. 3) You have cold warrior individuals and organizations, who hate Russia, and are always willing to repeat and believe anything bad they can come up with about Russia. 4) We unfortunately do not hear the full conversation in English, because most of what is written on this subject is in Russian. Again, feel free to post any accusations you can document from a reliable source... just be sure to keep them straight, identify the source, and the basis for the claim, and make sure you do not make assertions of fact that are not supported by the source. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse there may be atheists looking for ways to undercut the church, but there must be a distinction made between the church and individual. Sure there are cold warriors who hate Russia, but we are talking about the Soviet Union. By the same token, there are those who attempt to whitewash the past of those who willingly compromised their values and collaborated with the KGB in the persecution of the church. I find it particularly disengenuous for those collaborators to now hide behind the real suffering of church members who sacrificed their lives for their faith. That Alexei does not give a full account of his involvement only damages the church, for the sake of his own personal ambition. You talk of Russian sources, note that Biophys is a native Russian speaker. Martintg (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know many native Russian speakers who have a much better handle on Russian Church history than does Biophys. Also, if you read the history of the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate under the Soviet period, it is quite clear that they suffered as well.  It is also clear that they did press for the rights of the Church whenever they could.  Probably there were better ways in many instances they could have responded, but for those of us sitting in comfort, who have never had a gun to our heads, it is easy for us to judge them. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it a gun to his head, or an offer of facilitated promotion through the ranks of the church hierarchy, that motivated Alexei's collaboration? Given that Stalin and his methods were long dead, I'd say the latter was the more likely scenario. Martintg (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At what point are you suggesting that the Soviet government ceased using coercive methods against Church leaders? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Right. There is a good Russian source about. Martintg is right, as clear from numerous Russian sources, such as     Orthodox Taliban.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's right about what?  He never answered my question.  When do you think the Soviets ceased to use coercive methods on the Church? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course, Soviets widely used coercive methods on the Church, and Alexius II was one of those "Soviets"/KGB agents who widely used coercive methods on others.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are trying to have it both ways here. You are saying on the one hand, Patriarch Alexei was completely free to choose his level of involvement with the Soviet government, but apparently he was the only one with such freedom, because he and the KGB widely used coercive methods on everyone else.  And you believe your approach to this subject is neutral? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I said, I know via a very good friend what Gleb Yakunin's assessment of the actual evidence is... when the cameras are not rolling... and it was that there was no smoking gun.  Of course, he has become much more antagonistic to the real Orthodox Church, after he helped form a phony one... which consists of a handful of clergy, and no laity to speak of. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Orthodox Church and the KGB

message: In light of his ad hominem attacks, and his unilateral edits, in which he has continually reverted sourced material, I have made a report on the incident board:
Repeated reverts of sourced statements, harassment, and tendentious edits by Biophys Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident Report 

message: As it is now we have more than a half of the article on a living person, the head of a large church, liked by millions churchgoers, devoted to a collection of badly-sourced rumors. It is a severe violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is not an English version of compromat.ru. We need either urgently expand the article filling it with positive and neutral; information or remove controversies or move controversies to a separate article, akin to John Kerry and John Kerry military service controversy or Ward Churchill and Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy and Ward Churchill misconduct issues. I would prefer the later Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best to expand the "positive" part of the article (compare with Russian version), as this better serves to WP purpose. I disagree though that present version is badly sourced. It is supported by 15-20 reliable sources per WP:Verifiability. If that is not enough, I can easily add more. Would you like to expand the "positive" part? Of course everyone is welcome to do this. Biophys (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In its current form it violates the verifiability policy by claims to consensus that are based on individuals who hold an opinion.  According to policy, each opinion should be identified by the person who expressed it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you knew Russian, I would recommend you this source and links indicated there. It even includes a photocopy from the KGB archive about Alexius. There is enormous information about Alexius. No one simply tried to write a good article about him. Should we?Biophys (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with the document.  This is the one that allegedly comes from the Estonian KGB archives.  There is already a link in the footnotes to an English translation, and a photocopy of the Russian text.  I am working on references to show that the authenticity of this particular document has been debated.  When I get them, I will post them. I have found some of what I am looking for, but am having some of my Russian friend track down more. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: O'K, just take your time, study sources, and include new materials. We should not edit this article simultaneously to avoid edit warring (it is extremely unpleasant when someone deletes things you just included in the article).Biophys (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is a photocopy from this site  It tells "about Patriarch Aleksei’s involvement in the Estonian KGB from February 1958 on, in an article by Felix Corley, “KNS Russia: The Patriarch and the KGB”, Thursday, September 21, 2000. The Keston Institute at Oxford was kind enough to furnish me with a photocopy of the extract from the “Report on agent/operational work of the Fourth Department of the KGB attached to the Council of Ministers of the Estonian SSR for 1958, signed by Chairman of the Estonian KGB [Col. I.P.] Karpov and Head of the Fourth Department, Belyayev, as found in the Estonian State Archive, record group 131, file 393, pp 125-126. These Estonian records may well have been moved since to FSB Archives in Russia. The final entry on agent Drozdov is from February 1988: An order of the USSR KGB chairman was prepared to award to Agent “Drozdov” the Certificate of Honor.” FSB Central Archive, f.6, op.11, por. No. 148, d.Ch-175.t.1, p.209. Thus Patriarch Aleksei II was not only an agent of the KGB, he was singled out to receive honors for thirty years of outstanding service.”"Biophys (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the Sotnikova controversy section is given undue weight.  I finished reading the extensive, and well documented book "A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy", it has a section on funding of the ROC, it was written after this controversy occurred, and was not thought notable enough for reference.  This is, by the way, from an Academic publisher, and he is a college professor, and former U.S. Foreign Service officer. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very common that something is described in one source but does not described in another. You are welcome to add positive materials about Alexius to make this article more balanced.Biophys (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *As the main author of the Russian article i can attest that that is the most exhaustive factual documents-based outlay of all major facts related to the subject you can possibly find in one piece. The sources are naturally mostly in Russian, but then they mostly exist in Russian only. Two "negative" facts: his marriage and recruitment to the KGB. As for the former, it is a well established fact (you can find info on his wife Алекссева (Мянник) in the Encyclopedia of Russian emigration , it has been in the Russian press, in articles far fron critical of him; as for the latter it is pretty much a badge of honour in to-day's Russia run by the KGB.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are well familiar with the subject, could you please improve this article in agreement with WP:NPOV? But I think this article should be much shorter than in Russian WP.Biophys (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several months ago i tried (then anonymously) but was promptly repelled by censoring. The Texan padre, as i can see from the article's history, is giving free rein to his sensorial proclivities, instead of adding some "positive" purely clerical info that could well be added. I believe all his recent edits here are quite unlawful.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not warry. Just go ahead and correct whatever you think should be corrected. If you need to delete or rewirite my contributions - please do. Main idea of couse to add more sourced content and make the article more interesting and readable (I think that Russian version was too long and boring). Your help is appreciated.Biophys (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: *Connections with the KGB  
*Connections with Sotnikova 
*Connections with Sergei Mikhailov 
*Connections with Gestapo??? 
*Church business, such as selling the signature of Alexius, oil and alcohol   . 
Could anything like that happen in the US?Biophys (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Patriarch Alexei was 16 when the war was over.  He would have been 15 when the Nazis left Estonia.  What work with the Gestapo do you think he would have been involved in at that tender age?  No doubt he helped Hitler formulate the final solution... no?  Given that your sources contain such obviously ridiculous charges, you might want to reconsider the sources for the others as well.  The source I referenced is a truly reliable and scholarly source.  Not an example of Russian yellow journalism.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why I have marked this "???". We have to double check everything. Age does not prove anything. For example, Pavel Sudoplatov started executing people as a member of Cheka at the age of 14.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not make the claim completely impossible, but it makes it highly unlikely.  Furthermore, if there were any evidence to support the claim, wouldn't the KGB have found it, and would there not be record of such in the vast KGB archive views by Gleb Yakunin and company? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As you probably know, KGB archives have never been opened and remain state secret. It is exactly after the leakage of information about Alexius (and because of the leakage), these archvies were closed. A Duma commitee that investigated KGB actions (Albats was a member of that Commitee) has been disbanded by Ruslan Hasbulatov because Alexius asked him. So, did you finish your edits? If you did, it is my turn. If not, please do.Biophys (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Estonian KGB document was legitimate -- which I doubt -- it would have contained such an important piece of information, had the KGB been aware of it.  Aside from that, Yakunin and company did in fact go through the archives, and found no such thing... and such a tidbit would have not gone uncommented on, because collaboration with the Nazis would generally be considered far less forgivable than collaboration with the KGB. I am finished with my edits for the time being.  I am still waiting to get my hands on some additional information. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have that leads you to doubt the legitimacy of these KGB documents? Martintg (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, my intent is not to document an extensive argument against this particular document in this article, but simply to document that there is such an argument (which is a fact) -- not being a Russian or being particularly fluent in Russian, I don't think that I am personally in a position to make the argument myself... though, as I said, I am waiting for some information, and we shall see what I am given by the people I asked to do some digging.  I remember when the article first appeared, and a very well educated and thoughtful Russian friend of mine filled me in on the dispute about the fonts in the document (with the argument being that the font used did not exist at the time the document ostensibly was produced).  There is also the fact the document is a bit too cute and convenient for those wishing to undercut Patriarch Alexei (the Estonian government, anti-religious elements, maybe the CIA, for that matter)... The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being another example of what I would call a too cute forgery (one that reads like it was written by Boris Badenov).  There is also the fact that this document presents Patriarch Alexei as only being "compliant" when the objective facts would indicate that he was attempting to defend the Church, although clearly by working within the system, rather than by pursuing the path of the Catacomb Church, or the path of Martyrdom.  It just seems to me that if there was such a document, the record would be a bit less lopsided.  Also, if Patriarch Alexei was a KGB agent, rather than just a bishop who had to interact with KGB agents, there would be documents that bear his signature... and to date, not one such document has surfaced, or to my knowledge even been alleged to have been seen by anyone. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Collecting some Russian sources

message: Biophys' latest edits continue to violate the WP:BLP policy.  Instead of balancing the article, as we were told by an administrator, he is furthering the expansion of criticisms... particularly the whole KGB link line of attack.
On the question of Patriarch Alexei's marriage.  It is certainly true that he was married.  It is also true that he was divorced in less than a year.  Anyone who has ever been married can probably imagine why... the first year is usually fairly tough for any couple, and apparently it was too tough for at least one of them. It is also true that the typikon of the Orthodox Church does not normally allow a marriage to take place during bright week... but it also true that the typikon says they should not occur on the eve of any fast day (which excludes about 1/2 the year), or on the eve of any great feast, or on the eve of any Sunday.  However, there are often reasons why weddings due take place during such times.  And generally speaking, doing one during bright week would be seen as far less objectionable than doing it during the previous 40 days of Great Lent or Holy Week.  We do not know why it would have been allowed in this case.  During the Soviet period, the niceties of the typikon often could not be observed due to any number of factors.  You even had priests conducting secret funerals over a clump of earth taken from the grave of a loved one, because such a funeral could not be done publicly.  It is not true that Patriarch Alexei needed to get married to be ordained a Deacon.  Unmarried Deacons are ordained all of the time... it's just that once you are ordained a Deacon, you cannot marry.  Now if the marriage was a sham marriage of convenience, it was completely unnecessary, because the only reason to have done it would have been if it was Patriarch Alexei's intention to remain married (and a clergyman cannot divorce and remarry either)... and obviously this did not happen.  He become a monk, and has remained one ever since.
Also, just a note to Biophys, while it is generally nice to not edit an article at the same moment someone else is, there is no rule that says that you get to do what you want to this article, because now it is your turn.  If you want to make such a radical re-write of the article, it would be a good idea for you to take it to the talk page. When you engage in edits that an administrator has already stated are violations of the WP:BLP policy, there is no reason at all that you should expect that it would be the burden of others to go to the talk page first. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly fine to provide well sourced information in BLP, even if this is a negative information (negative or not is often a subjective judgement). But deletion of well referenced and relevant materials is a violation of WP:NPOV policy. If you want to balance the article, please provide more sourced information on a person, rather than delete everything that you do not like. It is not for you to decide waht is true and what   is not. We simply write down what reliable sources tell. Please remember: "verifiability, not truth".Biophys (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are for the most part not bringing in new points, just expanding on the points that are already in the controversies section, and can be had by reading what was there, or the footnotes already in place.  You have made the article even more imbalanced than before, contrary to what an administrator has said needed to happen.  There is nothing in the NPOV policy that says that you can hijack an entire article to push your own POV here, which is what you are doing.  Furthermore, if your read WP:BLP you will see that the first principle is to do no harm, and to make every effort to provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject. Your edits have done nothing of the sort and clearly violate that policy.  As such, if these edits remain as they are, I will be posting this issue on the BLP incident board so we can get some outside intervention. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the Criticisms of Patriarch Alexei rather than on any positive or neutral information 

message: How about a section on this to fill out the article with more general less controversial things?  As patriarch he decides the direction the church takes... He has had to deal with ties with the Vatican and building bridges between Orthodoxy and Catholicism... What about these things and others? Malick78 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. At one point Russia refused to let the Pope to enter the country on the insistence of Alexius. But later the relationships improve. See article in The Guardian for example  .Biophys (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Policies?

message: The last series of edits by Frjohnwhiteford represents a clear WP:NPOV violation. He deleted all sourced information he did not like. This should be corrected.Biophys (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is very simple. You have deleted a lot of perfectly sourced contributions of other users - without any discussion and consensus building. This is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:CIV. Do not be surprised if someone simply reverts your changes.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, so far you reverted most of my edits. I only began editing the article when I saw that you were charging ahead and editing it without discussion, and decided that rather than allowing you to create facts on the ground, I would do some edits of my own, which I did step by step, and with explanations in my edit summaries.  My edits were entirely consistent with what we were asked to do with the article. At this point, I would would say that reaching a consensus via debates on this talk page is unlikely given your POV pushing, and unwillingness to reach any reasonable compromises or to tone done the criticisms that have been recognized by at least two admins now as clear violations of WP:BLP.  I have not tried to remove from the article any reasonable criticism that can be documented from reliable sources, and do not constitute original research... I have only tried to reduce the amount of material that you have inserted, to make it conform to the BLP policy, and provide a fair presentation of the facts. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Last edits

message: Biophys' new divisions, and changing of the titles do not make sense.  You have three "criticism", and only one response, which is to the first criticism, but which comes after the third criticism.  You also continue to have overkill double and triple references to the same sources.  You have POV commentary and original research regarding the nuns that clean the Patriarch's residence, and the appropriateness of the date of his marriage, and his alleged reasons for getting married.  I have previous addressed the issue of his marriage, and as things are we have tabloid commentary...using actual tabloids from sources known to be hostile to the Russian Orthodox Church.  We also have a further reading section, which is entirely redundant, given the footnotes, and highly selective. It also references sources that are themselves controversial. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather wait for opinion of Muscovite99 who is main author of article about Alexius in Russian WP. He seems to be the best expert here. If he wants to be involved, I would simply allow him to make a neutral article and limit myself and you to this talk page.Biophys (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with your assessment on a number of levels. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the Article 

message: There are two goals here, the first and foremost is to build a good NPOV article, the second is to get all parties to work together towards the first goal.  You both have good points, and you both have different perspectives.  You also both have a good grasp of the subject.  
Each of you tell me the one section header that you feel is most important in this article, you don't need to explain it just name it. Jeepday (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me, although 500 words may be insufficient. Of course, other users might appear during next few days, and they are very welcome to edit this article...Biophys (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit by adding or clarify not removing, leave all references in place as appropriate.  Do not remove references or referenced material unless you added it.  When everyone gets done adding we can look at removing content as needed.  If you feel that specific contend is untrue, or not supported by references and you beleive that other editors may not agree with your assessment.  Bring it to my attention and I will offer a neutral perspective.  Will that work? Jeepday (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "New approach" is going to work only if me and Frjohnwhiteford agree on it. Unlike me, Frjohnwhiteford did not state that he agree, and instead started editing this article. So the deal is off?Biophys (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you look above, you will see that I am the only who was formally agreed to approach suggested. I have every intention of working with the resolution process, and I will remind you that it is you who began editing and reorganizing this article immediately, and without asking for imput. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So, are going to stop editing this article (say for two-three days) and prepare your segment of text as suggested by Jeepday? If you do, I will do the same.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am waiting for some clarification on what it is that we are supposed to be doing.  I am not clear on whether we are editing the article, or preparing drafts to be presented on the talk page.  Also, so long as we are in the mode of not removing redundant content, it would be difficult for me to edit the section I had in mind.  I could produce some additional content in Patriarch Alexei's defense, but that will increase the size of that section, rather than reduce it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. This is not quite clear for me too.Biophys (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Alexius himself said that nuns are working in his house - a reliable source provides and interview with Alesius where he said just that. That is a Russian language source. Since you and Frjohnwhiteford do not know Russian (if I understand correctly), please avoid unilateral deletion of statements supported by reliable Russian sources without consulting with at least two users who know Russian.Biophys (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He did not say that they lived there, and he certainly did not suggest this was a violation of the Ecumenical Canons.  There is a difference between having women living in the same area, who come to clean the house, and having women share a residence. I do not speak Russian fluently, however, I read it well enough to know that you are engaging in original research here that is not substantiated by the source.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The remaining statement "On the residence compound there is a de-facto rotating women's monastery, according to the Patriarch's interview" is also original research, because the interview says nothing about a defacto rotating convent.  This is an extrapolation by the person who inserted this irrelevant material. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeepday asked me whether or not I supported his edits. I do support this edit.DGG (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Right. There are two supporting links/sources here which tell about First Ecumenical Council (Canon 3[1]) and Sixth Ecumenical Council (Canon 5[2]). Unfortunately, those are Russian sources, so DGG can not read them. May be a partial translation is needed?Biophys (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "does not assert any wrongdoing"  Either it is intended means just that, or it is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But the statement is completely sourced. First of two sources tells, for example (this is old but fully understandable Russian language): "Великий Собор без изъятия положил, чтобы ни епископу, ни пресвитеру, ни диакону, и вообще никому из находящихся в клире, не было позволено иметь сожительствующую в доме женщину, разве матерь, или сестру, или тетку или те только лица, которые чужды всякаго подозрения." It says that any Orthodox priest is strictly forbidden to have any women living in his house except his own women relatives (no matter what they are doing and who they are). Alexius has such women living in his residency according to his own interview (another reliable source). So, I do not see any problems here. Frjohnwhiteford raised the question if the "residency" qualifies as a "house". But Alexius said himself in the interview something like "my residence is my home". I personally prefer not to include such things in BLPs, but this is a legitimate edit by Muscovite99  Biophys (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you take source #1 which asserts fact "A" (that in the Patriarch has nuns who live in the compound in which his home is, and source #2 which asserts fact "B" (that the canons forbid women living in the home of a bishop), and connect the two to make the conclusion that A+B=C (Patriarch Alexei is violating the canons), that is original research. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: A big part of the argument here is editors removing other editors work. I am seeing what looks like reliably sourced material being removed.  While we are striving for balance, please let the contributing editors shorten their own work.  If you feel strongly that a single reference is not sufficient for some content then it is appropriate per WP:BLP to remove it from the main article. But when doing so please bring it to the talk page (with the references supplied) indicate your specific concerns and give the contributing editors a chance to supply additional references or adjust the text as needed. Thanks :)  Jeepday (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since content in defense of Patriarch Alexei has in fact been removed, how or when will it be put back, since it was removed contrary to your instructions above? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Content

message: It has been suggested that the content on nuns below represents WP:OR, it does not appear that there is previously published reference supporting the claim that there are nuns working in the household in violation of the canon.  Please provide references supporting the assertion of wrongness, and seek approval for reliability of the sources here before reposting. Thanks Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexius himself said that nuns are working in his house - a reliable source provides and interview with Alesius where he said just that. That is a Russian language source. Since you and Frjohnwhiteford do not know Russian (if I understand correctly), please avoid unilateral deletion of statements supported by reliable Russian sources without consulting with at least two users who know Russian.Biophys (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He did not say that they lived there, and he certainly did not suggest this was a violation of the Ecumenical Canons.  There is a difference between having women living in the same area, who come to clean the house, and having women share a residence. I do not speak Russian fluently, however, I read it well enough to know that you are engaging in original research here that is not substantiated by the source.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The remaining statement "On the residence compound there is a de-facto rotating women's monastery, according to the Patriarch's interview" is also original research, because the interview says nothing about a defacto rotating convent.  This is an extrapolation by the person who inserted this irrelevant material. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeepday asked me whether or not I supported his edits. I do support this edit.DGG (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Right. There are two supporting links/sources here which tell about First Ecumenical Council (Canon 3[1]) and Sixth Ecumenical Council (Canon 5[2]). Unfortunately, those are Russian sources, so DGG can not read them. May be a partial translation is needed?Biophys (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "does not assert any wrongdoing"  Either it is intended means just that, or it is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But the statement is completely sourced. First of two sources tells, for example (this is old but fully understandable Russian language): "Великий Собор без изъятия положил, чтобы ни епископу, ни пресвитеру, ни диакону, и вообще никому из находящихся в клире, не было позволено иметь сожительствующую в доме женщину, разве матерь, или сестру, или тетку или те только лица, которые чужды всякаго подозрения." It says that any Orthodox priest is strictly forbidden to have any women living in his house except his own women relatives (no matter what they are doing and who they are). Alexius has such women living in his residency according to his own interview (another reliable source). So, I do not see any problems here. Frjohnwhiteford raised the question if the "residency" qualifies as a "house". But Alexius said himself in the interview something like "my residence is my home". I personally prefer not to include such things in BLPs, but this is a legitimate edit by Muscovite99  Biophys (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you take source #1 which asserts fact "A" (that in the Patriarch has nuns who live in the compound in which his home is, and source #2 which asserts fact "B" (that the canons forbid women living in the home of a bishop), and connect the two to make the conclusion that A+B=C (Patriarch Alexei is violating the canons), that is original research. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I agree with Jeepday on this, for the reasons he gives. WP:SYNTH is very clearly applicable. Synthesizing an implied accusation from an equivocal fact and millenium-old regulations is altogether excessive. DGG (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuns Removed by [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] <small>([[User talk:Jeepday|talk]])</small> 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) per comments below

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

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