Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)

message: The Ukrianian Orthodox Church is not under the Moscow Patriache and separated from Moscow in 2022. 
https://news.church.ua/2022/05/27/postanova-soboru-ukrajinskoji-pravoslavnoji-cerkvi-vid-27-travnya-2022-roku/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.2.235 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that it is not so clear cut... See Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)#Autocephaly claims? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

message: Please see the note at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Thanks! -Irpen 20:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
:The discussion below was copied from Talk:St_Volodymyr%27s_Cathedral#autonomy_and_name
Dear people, I don't think that "an Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow" is a very good name and have changed it to "an Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow". If somebody doesn't like this change: always ready to discus it.
Best regards. --N8Sl8er
Dear Irpen, I've looked on the website of the Church, thank you very much. As a matter of fact, I'm looking on this site right now. It's  really an Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow. Look for yourself on www.orthodox.org.ua. 
Best regards. --N8Sl8er
Thank you very much again. But it does not change the fact that the Church is NOT "autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow", but just "under Patriarch of Moscow". If it not so, you can than very easy find another example of such a name. If you don't, well... 
Best reagrds.--N8Sl8er
I think there is some confusion here. There are two issues:
#the name of the church
#whether it has been formaly granted an autonomy by the mother church (ROC)
On (1) the answer is clear. The name is just UOC. Now, it is sometimes called UOC-MP and the reasons for that are well-known but the church never self-applies this wording to its name and always calls itself just the UOC. Yes, it openly admits that it operates under the Moscow Patriarch's see.
On (2), OTOH, the answer is that the church does have a formal autonomy since 1990. One can argue that it is just a figurehead autonomy and the church is just a front for the Russian KGB and other similary flattering issues. In reality, the issue is complex and I am sure that the church is less self-governing than the Japanese Orthodox Church that is also autonomous under the MP. However, there is a canonical autonomy and it is wort a mention. --Irpen 21:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you just be more clear on what your point is. Mine is that:
#The name of the church is UOC.
#It is also sometimes, but not always, called UOC-MP. The church rejects that it is its name, while admits that it ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Moscow
#The church has a formal autonomy, and autonomy in Eastern Orthodox Church organization is a specific term, which denotes a degree of selg-governing one step short of full autocephaly, which is a complete independence (please take a look at those links).
Please be more specific, what's your objections. --Irpen 02:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The image :Image:Metropolit vladimir.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Metropolit vladimir.jpg

message: I wanted to remind that Wikipedia is a secondary source and reflects what sources and academic literature say about this particular church per WP:V.  As such, what that church calls itself and what name it is registered uder is but secondary to credible academic sources. The article is correctly titled Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and so it should be reflected in the intro. It also explains that the Church prefers to be called Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I thought that was simple enough and not a cause for another revert war. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hillock, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop creating an empty ground for a flame and edit war. You know better than that. Also when reminding of wikipedia policies, try to spell correctly so that noone will be lost in translation and avoid contradicting like: Wikipedia is a secondary source  and is but secondary to credible academic sources.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not about what I like or dislike, it is about WP:V, and for you particularly WP:EW. Please have a very good look at the title of this article and read the academic sources I cited above. This church is known to the outside world as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as evidenced by multiple printed sources in English. The opinion of the church itself is amply reflected in the appropriate section. Unfortunately it appears you are looking at this as another battle ground and even erased well sourced statements. Your sterile edit warring will not succeed and will not be tolerated, I have a feeling you know how this one's going to end. So, please follow the WP guidelines and stop edit warring. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, the article clearly states this in its current form and via the title. For example the Pochayiv Lavra of the Assumption of the Theotokos is simply titled as Pochayiv lavra, yet the lead displays it in full, same way how the Cathedral of Intercession of the Virgin on the Moat is given in full on the article about Saint Basil's Cathedral. So why per WP:POINT must you ignore the official registar of Ukraine? As for battlegrounds, it seems by your edit contributions over the past month, that apart from interwiki additions your contribution to article space is all but absent, save the times you had to stalk on my edits and revert... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 22:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The version that you POVishly keep reverting to attempts to represent it as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church whereas in the English language academic literature this church is known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Even the source that you yourself labeled as justified source clearly states that the Moscow Patriarchate's autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, by far the largest ... became known as UOC-MP. So why are you waging this revert war if the source that you yourself provided labels it as the UOC-MP? I haven't found a single English language source that calls this church just UOC, it is always UOC-MP, for example here or here or here or here. There is an abundance of sources to justify its true name UOC-MP, while you presented none whatsoever! Please stop revert warring and check the sources! --Hillock65 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UOC vs UOC (MP) 

message: the last edit of Hillock65 seems to be a good compromise. I think it's better to if Hillock65 &  Kuban kazak do not change it before the reach a compromise on this talk page. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to official wikipedia infobox rules in a infobox The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. Mabey we can put in there Ukrainian Orthodox Church and below there (with or without or) Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as in the Kyiv infobox where technically Kiev shouldn't be in, but if rules are ignored there why not in this article too? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The name in the lead is important as it attempts to represent this church as the only one Ukrainian Orthodox, whereas there are at least two churches contesting its name. Most importantly, that's what the multiple English language sources name this church. And per WP:V that's the way it should be called in Wikipedia. There is a compromise already present in the article - it states that the church prefers a different name and it is provided in bold. The whole section explains the controversy over the name. I understand some prefer this antisemitic and anti-ukrainian church to be the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine, but the credible sources cited above clearly and convincingly disagree. Compromise is only possible when it doesnt violate WP rules, WP:V in particular. I thought him spending so much time correcting Kyiv to Kiev he should know that it dosn't matter what one whants to be called, it is what the sources call it that matters. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It is already early in the lead, it is the second sentence. How much earlier can it be? It is explained right after the first sentence and even in bold. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have reworked the article, and I can say that Hillock's call of this church as anti-semitic and anti-Ukrainian has just stripped him of his neutrality view. What can I say, the sources Hillock provided actually use terms like UOC-MP rather than UOC(MP), which is different, since in the latter case the (MP) arises as the clarification. It also does not change the fact that this church unlike other schismatic organisations is recognised by the whole Eastern Orthodox communion as the only legitimate church in Ukraine. Thus the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as it is officially registered, and as it is officially called is the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In one last attempt for a compromise, I changed only a couple of sentences in the lead to correspond with the title, mentioned about the church's insistence on being simply the UOC. I do hope this will stop the revert war. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Saint Basil's Cathedral first the official name, then the common name. Also please stop adding the dead link about the 7.2 million adherents. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise?

message: I thought the edit war was finally over, when Kuban Cossack is starting again with distorting the lead to reflect his POV and removing statements about academic literature on the subject. My patience with this nonsense is wearing thin. It's been talked over ad nauseum and forever. Something needs to be done. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see, the edit war, which you started for you is over when one accepts your version? Interesting compare how you "revamp" and how this edit is compared to the original. Now your patience is wearing thin, well I can only point you to this which I hope will one day cure you of your bad habits...--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that you just rejected my recent compromise and started another round of edit war. Very unwise. You'll see. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its you who rejected the compromise, and please don't WP:THREATen me, you know its pointless.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, eh? 

message: left|thumb|L'viv Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate
We just had a walk with my friend through L'viv and it seems our picture was quite a success. :) Maybe you can use it somehow. ;) -- Nazar (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made a picture. ;) haha 

message: As far as I know, this Church uses only Russian and Church Slavonic. Who put Ukrainian?
Can anyone who is expert on this subject solve the issue?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.242.235 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language? 

message: As all Ukrainians know, the MP church has broken apart in 2011 when Mythropolit Sabodan was critically ill. Without this information, the article is outdated and biased which I now going to note with my tags. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 schism 

message: In the history section "Merger into the ROC", we see the sentence "six eparchies (dioceses) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine were transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church."  The passive tense hides information.  Who transferred them? And again "eparchies in Lviv, Peremyshl and Lutsk that were transferred to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church."  Some more detail would be helpful. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "were transferred" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 1995-fil intr.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article previously falsely claimed that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not recognized as a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church by three churches (the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Church of Greece). This is not true. According to decisions of the Holy and Great Council of Crete, there is no need of other churches to recognize the autonomous status of a local church. The sources that were previously provided just referred to the Churches' recognition of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and didn't mention the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) at all. The bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are still normally listed in the annual directories of global Orthodoxy published by both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece as members of the Russian Orthodox Church. On the other hand, the Patriarchate of Alexandria does not publish such a directory but has not made any official conciliar decision either on the status of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine or on that of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Rhodion (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church Recognition 

message: According to Kliment (Vecherya), who is the сhairman of the Synodal Information and Education Department of the UOC-MP, the status of the church has not changed compared to the one that exists since 1990 and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church does not break off any relations with the Russian Orthodox ChurchВ УПЦ заявили о сохранении отношений с Русской православной церковью. The same thing has been stated by Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the ROC, who said that the unity between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church remainsМитрополит Волоколамский Иларион: Единство между Русской Православной Церковью и Украинской Православной Церковью сохраняется:
"Yesterday the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church took place. He confirmed the status that this Church has had since 1990, when it received a Blessed Letter of Self-Government from His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia"
The definition of independence in Eastern Orthodox churches is autocephaly. There were no statements towards that on the Council, they indeed reaffirmed their previous status of a "self-governed" church. Therefore, there was no separation from the Russian Orthodox Church.
I think we must carefully review all of the chaotic edits that were made on this page to make sure that they correspond to the reality, not to something that was presented in press. --EricLewan (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely based on what I’m reading, the status of the UOC-MP is very unclear to me right now. Perhaps they also don’t know it themselves. It is also unclear to me if Crimea is still under the UOC-MP as I also read reports it would be moved directly under the ROC. Also, how many Ukrainians are still under the UOC-MP instead of the OCU? I read vastly different statistics. De wafelenbak (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is independent of the Moscow Patriarchate, per the head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience.State Ethnopolitics Head says why the UOC is not controlled from Moscow5 months of Russia’s full-scale attack: 183 religious sites ruined in Ukraine  Therefore, the MP designation is no longer appropriate or accurate.  I would suggest changing its designation to UOC-Onufriy or UOC (Onufriy), since this is a method already used to distinguish other Orthodox churches with similar names (like the different iterations of ROCOR).  I also challenge the notion that "The definition of independence in Eastern Orthodox churches is autocephaly."  There is a long history of Orthodox churches having varying levels of independence, with various terms used, sometimes with disagreement between churches on the exact definition of their independence, while remaining in communion with one another, and there are also churches that call themselves "autocephalous" without being in communion with or recognized by anyone else.  --Nepsis2 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church status in 2022 

message: Infobox says "Headquarters: Kyiv Pechersk Lavra; Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ (under construction since 2007)", and provides a broken link as a reference to the second." Anyone familiar with this topic would know what the first is, but what is the second? There is a disambiguation article Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ listing several cathedrals by that name, but the only two in Ukraine, Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, Kyiv and Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, Ivano-Frankivsk, are Greek Catholic churches not Orthodox ones. So, does anyone know what it is talking about? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters 

message: I came across sources that confirmed that this church has collaborating (with russia) clergymen and that these collaborating clergymen are not getting punished by the church. I did not come across sourced in which the church explained why they did not punish collaborating clergymen. I think it would make this a better Wikipedia article if these sources/information appeared in the article.  — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ukraine is a constitutionally secular state.  The government has no right to get involved in a church's internal disciplinary matters.  Nepsis2 (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not an answer to my question Nepsis2.... Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. For your grievances with Ukrainian government actions you can find out how to communicate with them on their contact (web)page. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave you an answer to explain that what you're asking for does not exist and has no reason to exist. Nepsis2 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborating clergymen and lack of punishment 

message: The article currently says, in reference to 2023 legislation that allegedly would ban UOC, that "Human rights activists and commentators have expressed concern for this as an attack on freedom of religion in Ukraine." It seems this information may be outdated, and that more information would be helpful as to the UOC's current legal status and whether its religious liberty is being infringed. This Wall Street Journal article has an interesting take on the issue. I don't feel knowledgeable enough about it to edit the article myself, but it does seem like important information to cover. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I checked the two references and then removed the whole paragraph: The fist source (Christianity Today) is a good one with a lot of background information, but doesn't mention "Human rights activists". The second source (Spectator) is not relevant. As a primary source by one commentator it cannot support the claim that "commentators" (in plural) expressed concerns, nor can it establish its own relevance. Finally, both sources report on the first reading in parliament, stating that a second reading would follow. Meaning, at the time the sources were published (Fall 2023), the parliamentary process was still far from finished. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information needed as to whether Ukrainian government is infringing UOC's religious liberty