Talk:Josaphat Kuntsevych

message: Considering as how we have an article on Kuncewicz family, is there any reason this member has his surname in the 'Kuncevyc' variant?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, "Kuncevyc" must be write as minimum "Kuncevych"!!!!! This is ukrainized form of all-Slavic name, known in Poland as "Kuncewicz".  But, dear Mr. Piotruś, Kuncevych wasn't a Pole, and please don't suggest here to write his name in Polish language. The same situation is with "Sheptycky (Sheptyc'kyi)" and "Szeptycki". Let's to finish Polish Wiki in Poland. Amen. Rostislaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.111.191.105 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [Vladimir] Wiki is for all and everywhere, Rostislaw. And it shall be not a free commercial channel for any kind of nationalism. In fact, Josaphat was a citizen of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a loyal and meritorious servant of the Commonwealth. So being really neutral, one can't say he wasn't a Pole. "Pole" does not mean automatically "catholic". The same way he wasn't "Ukrainian" nor "Belarusian" in the contemporary meaning of these adjectives. "Kuncewicz" surname is equally legal as other slavic spellings. In complex history of eastern nations many Commonwealth nobles declaring polish identity and acting as polish patriots had old ruthen origins ('Sapieha' for instance). Perhaps it would be best to ask father Josaphat himself, what language he was thinking, speaking and writting in. As in his case and multiple other cases, that would cease spelling conflicts for ever. Pity, we can't do that! So we must share wikipedia in peace and humility. What is actually interesting, his original surname was shorter (ang. "Kuntchyz") and he started to use longer "Kuncevych" or "Kuncewicz" form as you wish, being 30-40 years old. This longer form, ending with suffix "-icz" or "ych" (as you wish) should have appointed his noble origins. Is that right he was a noble? Did he receive his title from the King? Perhaps he was just not entitled to use such form of the surname. So as you see, we wade in the lack of basic facts that would justify addressing father Josaphat as purely "Kuncevych" or "Kuncewicz" only. Amen. Your neighbour, Vladimir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.184.225 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

text: P.S. In case of "Szeptyc'kyi" you are partly wrong Rostislaw, he was an ukrainian patriot of polish noble origins. There is also a similar case nowadays - the president of Lithuania, Ms. Dalia Grybauskaite, great lithuanian patriot is of polish family surname "Grzybowska". One never knows... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.184.225 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vatican library record found at viaf.org says "Congregatio de causis sanctorum, Index ac Status Causarum, 1999,‏ ‎‡b  p. 562 (Forma preferita: Iosaphat Kuncewicz)‏", i.e., the preferred last name is "Kuncewicz". I believe the article should be moved to the viaf.org permalink name "Iosaphat Kuncewicz" He was made a saint so that would be an authoritative name. The foreign language Wikipedias transliterate his name, for example the Slovak is "Jozafát Kuncevič", the Lithuanian is "Juozapatas Kuncevičius", and the French is "Josaphat Koncévitch". It should  be "Kuntsevych". —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how authoritative VIAF is, presumably no more than the source it cites, which you tell me is the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.  I don't think that in English the first name should be written with initial I, rather than initial J, even if VIAF prefers it.  Latin, as now (again) written, does not use J, and that is why the Congregation prefers "Iosaphat" and why that is the form in the Martyrologium Romanum, the official list of recognized saints, published in Latin.  Surely "Kuntsevych" (employing "ts" for the sound represented by "c" in Eastern European languages that use the Latin alphabet) is an attempt to do for English what the Slovak, Lithuanian, and French Wikipedias did for their languages.  While I personally prefer the use of "c" to transliterate Cyrillic, I have to fall in with the fact that "ts" is the accepted form in English, as in "Donetsk", not "Doneck".  The same sound is represented in German by "z" and so the German Wikipedia has "Kunzewitsch", with "tsch" to represent the sound represented by "cz" in Polish, by "č" in other Central or Eastern European languages, by "tch" in French ... and in English by "ch".  Esoglou (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the "J" vs, "I". The "ts" is not what is used in 21st century historical works – for example:  Or in the 1979 God's Playground by Norman Davies (p. 174). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We must, I suppose, look exclusively to English-language sources, and ignore those in other languages, to learn what is English usage when referring to this individual.  21st-century books in English that call him Kuntsevych seem to be far more numerous than those that use the Polish orthography Kuncewicz.  A search for 21st-century books for "Kuncewicz" overwhelmingly brings up not him but others with that surname, or else books about him in Polish, not in English.  For him, "Kuntsevych" seems to be firmly in possession in 21st-century English.  Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: English usage for historical figures and places changes over time (for example, I remember as a child in the 1970s learning that Beijing was called Peking – yet I would not call it Peking today) and, I believe, "Kuntsevych" will eventually be "Kuncewicz" – it is just a hold over from Imperial Russian scholarship's Russification. The Commonwealth had more than one official language and there was no need to transliterate what was already officially done. The article states that, , but that certainly is not Polish, nor Ruthenian, nor Volhynian, nor Polesian... —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The future may well prove your forecast right.  The statement about his birth name is not about a document, I think.  If it were, someone could search for the document.  Esoglou (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

text: The confusion comes from the fact that he was born  into a Ruthenian family (Kuncewicz) at Volodymyr (a Magdeburg rights town since 1431) in Volhynian Voivodeship (1569–1795), which was, since the 1569 Union of Lublin (which established the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), within the Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown after being transferred from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. According to a quote in the Ruthenian language article, the  was the official language within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1699. But, I see, that Volodymyr was within the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland during his entire life. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Kuncewicz 

message: To say "his relics" is inaccurate.  St. Josaphat's body lies under the altar of St. Basil in St. Peter's Basilica. I have changed this to read "a relic" meaning a portion of his body.Caeruleancentaur 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His relics? 

message: There are several observable facts here. First is that Josephat is held in high regard by the Greek Rite Catholics and venerated as a saint. Secondly the article draws more or less exclusively on sources affiliated with the Catholic Church which, not surprisingly, paint him in a very positive light. And third Orthodox Christians have a very different view of him and his life. To my mind one obvious corrective would be to edit the article and add a section noting the controversy and the allegations against him. Point in fact I had intended to do so, and may yet. Unfortunately, while I have found a number of references to Josephat that are critical in nature, most repeating the accusations above, none seem to reference any verifiable incidents or cite reputable sources. Perhaps there are some in languages other than English. However, pending such a find, I think the best that can be done is to post some kind of cautionary note that the article relies heavily on biased sources.Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: As far as I am able to discern nothing significant has changed to resolve the question of neutrality. The article is still based disproportionately on Roman Catholic sources and nothing has been produced resolving either way the allegations against him by the Eastern Orthodox. IMO removal of the POV tag is not justified at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I removed the tag is because it had been a full year since anyone has commented on the topic. I suggest that if no one else has anything to contribute to the topic of neutrality, then it seems to me the dispute has been at the very least dropped. It seems to me that if reliable Orthodox sources can not be produced to contribute to the alleged controversy pertaining to the Roman Catholic saint, then the neutrality allegation doesn't have a leg to stand on. I want to be clear though that I am not suggesting that the allegations are untrue. However, it appears a request for sourced documentation regarding him have not been fulfilled. If you or someone else could add such reliable sources, that would settle the bias claim from the Orthodox side. Without the source information, it's difficult to continue to claim neutrality-bias exists. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not limited to claims by the Eastern Orthodox. The article relies almost exclusively on sources closely tied to the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed much of the text was lifted directly from the first edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I concur however that the absence of any serious sources backing the allegations against Kuntsevych undermines that claim. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking back on this topic 4 months later and it appears that nothing has really changed regarding claims to providing any evidence of lack of neutrality. Does anyone have anything further to contribute regarding neutrality issues regarding this article? If not, I will proceed to remove the neutrality tag. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the POV tag based on the lack of any evidence supporting the above claims and replaced it with an affiliated sources tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still controversial 

message: Alright, I'm the person who slapped the "citation needed" tag on the "pogroms" claim in the lede.
The citation now provided to substantiate that claim is from www.orthodoxinfo.com, a highly polemical Orthodox site.
Is that website objective enough to meet wikipedia's standards for objective citations? The page it links to alone demonstrates its vigorously polemical spirit. Is this enough of a reputable secondary source?
Just sayin'. It would be nice if this article could somehow find some middle ground between the Roman Catholic perspective and ideologically driven character assassination.
71.92.209.141 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments about the editing, article language, and the website at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#St. Josaphat Kuntsevych Controversy. The site is not dedicated to polemics, though it contains some. I have reworded some of the lead paragraph to remove language offensive to both sides of what can still be a volatile issue and make it more neutral. Evensteven (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pogroms" in the lede 

message: This is a controversial article that should have historically correct language to describe groups. On globalsecurity.org, I read:
The Belarusians article states "Until the 1870s Belarusians were mostly known as Litvins" and "In 13th–18th centuries Belarusians were mostly known under the names of Litvins/Lithuanians and Ruthenians" and "some modern Belarusian scholars and people in Belarus consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to be a Belarusian state when it existed". Globalsecurity.org uses a modern cultural overlay to describe what took place in the 17th century. Both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlobalSecurity.org was deleted and  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Pike was delete "per lack of notability". The globalsecurity.org article cited in this article is not a good source for a contentious subject.
—BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that I am reading your point correctly. Are you suggesting that a sources does not meet WP:RS unless it has a Wikipedia article? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm saying neither the editor nor the site is notable and the article does not cite sources and . —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I could easily agree that a source which speaks of historical events in terms more appropriate to the existing situation would be among the less optimal sources for use in an article here. John Carter (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''globalsecurity.org'' as a source 

message: The publisher describes this multi-volume encyclopedia as: "Written by religious studies experts and historians, each article focuses on the basic question: How did this person come to be regarded as holy?" The article about Kuntsevych, in Holy people of the world, contains two political geography mistakes:
*It mistakenly states that Volodymyr was in "Volyn, Lithuania" instead of in Volhynian Voivodeship, Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
*It mistakenly states that Vitebsk was in "Russia" instead of in Vitebsk Voivodeship, Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 
Maybe someone may see it as more secular. But, realistically, I think, just about everything written about him in English will have a similar perspective.
—BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Holy people of the world : a cross-cultural encyclopedia'' 

message: Is the 2012 story of a proposed translation of Kuntsevych's relics, from Vatican City to an unspecified location in Belarus, disinformation? It seems that Russian Orthodox Church Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev in an interview published by Zvyazda, a state-owned daily newspaper in Minsk, Belarus, is the only source for this.
*Quoted in 
—BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 proposed translation of relics story 

message: Substituted at 20:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Is there a reference to support the statement about the Ukrainians celebrating him on the first Sunday after Nov 12 rather than on Nov 12?  And I suppose this produces the misleading date Nov 25 in the side box. The Ruthenian Catholic Church has him on Nov 12. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of veneration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Josaphat Kuntsevych. 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/20081210163817/http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj61.htm to http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj61.htm
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) 08:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Josaphat Kuntsevych. 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/20070705140239/http://www.stjosaphateparchy.org/ to http://www.stjosaphateparchy.org/
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) 06:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the word "disuniates" might be an English approximation of the Polish word "dysunici" but I wonder if it is a real English word.  Is it commonly used in the literature? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "disuniate" 

message: what a strange list.  Why is it here?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sources for development of this article may be located at" 

message: The source cited for the claim that St. Josaphat "incited the burning of Orthodox faithful for celebrating a thanksgiving liturgy" is a polemical Eastern Orthodox work. I am unsure whether it can be considered a reliable source.  Horarum (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source