Talk:Filaret Denysenko

message: It mixes facts with rumors. 
It does not follow WP:NPOV giving preference to the POV of Russian Orthodox Church.--AndriyK 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point exactly to questionable statements and offer a way you think the article could be improved. Until than, your unexplained tag is removed similar to your previous disruptice activities. --Irpen 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way of improvement is proposed above and is implemented in the version you have reverted  acouple of days ago.--AndriyK 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes please ask.--AndriyK 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another disgusting attack at your opponents, AndriyK. --Irpen 18:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mangojuice, under normal circumstances, a user disputing the neutrality of the article is sufficient to tag it provided the user acts in good faith and provides an explanation to the tag. This is not the case here. Tagging left and right, and refusing to elaborate, is the only activity of AndriyK at Wikipedia, except of personal attacks, content removal and wikilawyering. In this case, he fails to provide any rationale to the tag. I do realize that the sources used in the article should be added, but even AndriyK doesn't dispute the accuracy of it since he knows that its facts are right. Otherwise, it would have been the "accuracy" rather than a POV-tag and he would be crying out loud about the false info. The POV-tag placed by an aggresive nationalist is only caused by his not liking of certain things. After attemting to remove them, he tried to move them to a separate section, not only moving them out of context, but disrupting the chronology and the article's flow. Most sources on the topic are not in English, but may I suggest that you read this talk page and check the edit history if you are going to get involved in it. I appreciate your participation, but common sense is missing in this tag. We can't allow the Holocaust denialists to keep a tag infinitely at the Holocaust article no matter how long the remain "unconvinced". This is a less hot case but the merit is similar. So, if you would like to keep your tag, please read the entire page above to get some context. Thanks, --Irpen 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is unencyclopedic 

message: Okay, too much info flying around on here for me to get all the details right.  However, I think this article is looking better.  My two cents on the neutrality issue is that I think the business about the UOC-KP lacking canonical standing is too prominent in the lead; I think it should be removed: the text in the section on the creation of the UOC-KP makes it quite clear how bad the relationship is between the UOC-KP and the EO communion.  Also, a minor point: the "sometimes violent" comment regarding the disputes -- is this really true?  How "violent" did they get?  Mangojuicetalk 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were pretty violent with injuries and stuff. As for the intro, sorry, I disagree. The main controversy about this person is that two strong and non-reconcilable opinions exist. One is that he is a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church and another is that he is a "Patriarch" of the "Orthodox" Church. The only way to make it clear without the quotation marks is to state the problem neutrally in the top of the article. The intro just states mere facts and does not opinionize. On one hand, it mentions that this is a Major church in Ukraine. On the other hand, it mentions the lack of canonicity. --Irpen 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The article pointed to by the linked phrase Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy is actually called UOC - Kiev Patriarchate.   There's a note there that this had been changed.  Should the text here be changed to Patriarchate?142.68.44.16 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UOC - Kiev 'Patriarchy' or 'Patriarchate'? 

message: should this be 'dioceses' (or eparchies)? or only one parish each?142.68.44.16 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   four more bishops left the Church with their parishes 

message: What about this? --Ghirla-трёп- 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a reputable source? I cannot assess the quality of Russian sources without offline or online help. I removed the complete controversies section because it was sourceless. Andries (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegitimate daughter? 

message: Is he a member of Our Ukraine? What is he doing on there convention? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member of [[Our Ukraine]]? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Filaret (Denysenko). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030916003900/http://risu.org.ua/content.php?page_id=48&l=en to http://www.risu.org.ua/content.php?page_id=48&l=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not sure it is useful for us to repeat inflammatory things said by Filaret and interpreted by The Independent. Yes, he made remarks about "becoming the new Cain" and "Satan entering into him". Filaret did not mention anyone by name. Perhaps it is abundantly clear who Filaret is targeting. But right now, we have the malicious interpretation of one source. I do not think it is worth inserting this inflammatory rhetoric into a WP:BLP, even via WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also of your opinion and rewrote this part of the article in order for it to be more neutral. Veverve (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently Filaret again said about Cain, when FSB captured Ukrainian ships with shooting and two seriously wounded seamen:  But now it seems like collective Cain: "I again turn my voice to the those committing fratricides, the new Cains, who, calling our people their brothers, came to our house to shed blood and enslave us."--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  could you check if the "the those" mistake of the section is in the original communiqué from Filaret or only in the Unian translation? If it is only in the translation, could you please correct the version of the article? Veverve (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, this is an error. Ukrainian text have no such emphasis. Literally it said "Again I turn my voice to kinslayers - new Cains". I can not say exactly how things are with the articles in this sentence (may be "the kinslayers" would be better), this is a problem for me in English. But "the those" seems to have no sense.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks ! I corrected the quote. Veverve (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged political remarks 

message: Filaret may or may not be the current patriarch of the Kiev Patriarchate, according to an article cited by . The source seems WP:RS, but I'm not well enough versed in Eastern Orthodox Church politics to understand how to proceed. How can the patriarchship of a bishop be in dispute? Is Filaret patriarch, or isn't he? Why is that article careful to state that it's only archbishop Job Getcha's opinion that Filaret is not patriarch? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kiev Patriarchate is in the process of being disbanded. On December 15, a new Orthodox Church of Ukraine was proclaimed, and Epiphanius (protege of Filaret) became its head. Supposedly Filaret will remain an "honorary" patriarch (only for the use in Ukraine) until the end of his life.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification. Does the new unified independent church have a Wikipedia article? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, not yet. Many information is in the article  2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. As for me, it now can be divided.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over patriarchship 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion