Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral

message: Please check the link of the vintage image. According to its source web-site, it is an old photoshot. OTOH, I won't argue with specialists who think it is a watercolor. Just thought I bring it up. See http://travel.kyiv.org/kyiv/oldphoto/ok_79.htm   --Irpen 21:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vintage image

message: 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: Dear Wikipedians, please acknowledge the fact, that the Post Office of Ukraine uses "Kyiv" to direct letters from abroad. Please DO NOT erase the correct Ukrainian address of the cathedral, no matter how painful that may be to Russian Pride. Thanks!!! user:Andrew Alexander.
:Address info is for travel guides and not encyclopedias. But you can add it to Wikitravel where your contributions to Ukraine's coverage will be appreciated. --Irpen 20:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone writes Kiev then what are the chances of a letter not being delivered...0. Moreover having recieved numerous mail from Ukraine and sent it there with Russian writing on the envelope, and each and every single one of those letters was delivered. Sorry to dissapoint your postal pride. Kuban kazak 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: see 3 pragraphs above following the word "Address info is for travel guides...". Please calm down. --Irpen 01:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian Addresses 

message: Ok some facts:
*1) KP is NOT recongnised by any Orthodox churches, including Constantinople
*2) Constantinople simply challenged the VALIDITY transfer of Kievan metropolia to Moscow (I wonder why it kept silent for 300 years but that's off topic), it did not discontinue recognising UOC(MP) as the only "Legal" church in Ukraine.
Now which one of those facts is more important. Well the first one is a solid FACT, no one can challenge that. 
The second one is simply a STATEMENT, a statement behind which even the Const Orthodox Church is devided (see my post above or read here ПРЕДСТАВИТЕЛИ ПОМЕСТНЫХ ЦЕРКВЕЙ ПОДДЕРЖАЛИ УКРАИНСКУЮ ПРАВОСЛАВНУЮ ЦЕРКОВЬ В ЕЕ БОРЬБЕ С РАСКОЛОМ), and I will repeat that it is a statement made by the Patriarch, a personal opinion if you like, NOT on behalf of the whole Const OC. All other Orthodox churches have dismissed this statement. Please Andrew Alexander please change your tone when you accuse other people of being nationalists for one country. Kuban kazak 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not care less about other churches, as they don't claim themselves Orthodox, those that do are either in communion or uncanonical in eyes of the world Orthodox Communion. Happy?Kuban kazak 10:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But many do! And what business is it of yours? To vandalize all the pages of those churches versus making a single page to discuss such issues is not acceptable. To erase the opinion of the traditional leader of Christian Orthodoxy is adding insult to injury.--Andrew Alexander 06:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Patriarch of Constantinople is NOT a traditional leader of Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy has no leader, the churches exist in communion with each other. In fact the communion openely challenged the title ecunimical and has numerously demanded that autocephalousy recognition be responsibility of it not Cost OC. Besides as I said before, the Cosnst OC's opinion of this is split, there has been no formal statement on behalf of the whole church, and besides the Const OC did not cease to recognise UOC(MP) as the only legal Orthodox Church in Ukraine, all it did was challenge the 300 year ago event thats all.  Kuban kazak 12:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Because Vladimir is as Russian as a Ukranian figure, moreover just like with Kyiv and Kiev, the latter is used simply to avoid confusing English readers as it is much more accepted. Same with Vladimir.Kuban kazak 10:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But what does YOUR opinion about Volodymyr has to do with his original Old East Slavic name? And why can't Kiev be mentioned along with Kyiv?--Andrew Alexander 06:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want to go along onto every wikipedia article and add Kyiv with Kiev, why not add Moskva with Moscow, or Varshava with Warsaw, why only Kyiv and why only on this site? (BTW Kyiv is mentioned on Kiev's site)Kuban kazak 12:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't except Kiev and Odessa whose Russian transliterations are more common in English, remember Wikipedia must be "user freindly".Kuban kazak 10:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User friendly doesn't mean "avoid Ukrainian city names at all costs".--Andrew Alexander 06:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well-known city names should be given in their well-known form, I don't mind less known city names to be given in Ukranian translit, but not Kiev and Odessa. Look at it from the opposite POV, where would you expect to see Lvov apart from the entry on the city itself. Same with Kyiv. Kuban kazak 12:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Your (3) is unrelated to this article. So, the reason of POV is just 1 and 2, correct? --Irpen 06:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I am sorry, but the Politics around the cathedral is too relevant to be in the obscurity of "See also" section. We do not need to take sides in the article, neither we have to describe the events. The controversy and the fact that the Church became the first church property controvesry between two UOC's needs mentioned just with the conclusion who ended up controlling the church.
Uncanonicity/canonicty edit conflict consists of two parts:
*Whether to mention that UOC-KP is uncanonical
*Whether to mention that one Bishop of the UOC-USA said in his interview.
Two the latter issue, please note that he is not a Bishop of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople but just of one of the Churches under its patriarchy, that is Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (pls note the red link, any takers btw?). Second, even he didn't question whether UOC(MP) is canonical, he questioned the 300 year old transfer and he did so not on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarch on whose behalf he is not entitled to speak anyway. Official statements of the Ecumenical Patriarch are well-known that UOC(MP) is the only canonical Orthodox church in Ukraine. Also, this info was added by Yakudza clearly in order to make a WP:Point because he didn't like to see the mention of the UOC-KP status (please read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point anyway).
As for whether to mention that fact that UOC-KP lacks recognition, how can this be unimportant, I wonder. The major church building is the hands of the Church which is not recognized world-wide. It is a fact. Contrary to what Andrew Alexander wrote, it is not the same as to say about Catholic-Anglican problem in every Anglican church building article because Anglican church does not claim that it is Catholic (which would require recognition from Rome) while UOC-KP claims that it is Orthodox. A more close analogy would be the article of the Episcopal church building of which a priest (recently ordained) was openly gay. That generated the controversy in the Anglican Communion because there is an important issue within that Church whether it is OK to tolerate Homosexuality. We should not take sides in the disputes like that, and should not even elaborate on what belongs to other articles. But a brief mention of lack of recognition by the World Orthodoxy is warranted. --Irpen 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Save this for the other articles, just mention the outline here, more on the ownership conroversy article, this has gone on long enough...Kuban kazak 17:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I am repeating myself third time round, scrap the word cannonical. Simply add to UOC (MP) - autonomous from Moscow Patriarchy. Likewise with UOC-KP - unrecognised by Orthodox Communion. No less no moreKuban kazak 23:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of canonicity issue

message: I propose to resolve the dispute by asking for official mediation. Please find below the summary of what I propose and make your summary as well. Please answer clearly whether you agree to start apply for mediation.--AndriyK 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my recent edit was already explained many times. AlexPU 21:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is worth translating. "For around 100,000 search results for Ukrainain Orthodox Church of Kievan Patriarchate, only 77 mention something about "uncanonicity"." A very good argument. Simple and shows the degree of bias of the editors pushing their religious point of view in this article. It is amazing how much damage they can do.--Andrew Alexander 06:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shell we ask for mediation? 

message: Let's think what most of the readers would expect to find in the article about St Volodymyr's Cathedral. Does he or she look for the information about politics and inter-confessional relations? In my opinion, most of the users would interested about, architecture, mosaics etc. If somebody would interested about political matters, s/he can follow the links to the corresponding articles.
1. The (un)canonicity is not related to the Cathedral itself but rather to Church that uses the building. This stuff is clearly belong to the article about Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy (UPC-KP), rather than to the article on the building it uses. Everybody who is interested in detailed information about UPC-KP can follow the link to the corresponding article.
If one would like to describe in details in the Cathedral article not only the building but also the Church that owns it, one had to add much more information:  how many people are in the Church, how many church communities it has, what is its relation to the state, wheteher some centers outside the country control (or has influence on) it, what is its historical background, who is (and was) the leader of the Church,... (the list is not exhaustive). 
While some people belonging to (Russian) Orthodox may consider (un)canonicity matter to be important, this is not an universal POV. Presenting only one POV is agains the NPOV policy. The UPC-KP POV concerning its (un)canonicity should be presented, as well as view of other churches should be presented.  NPOV concerning "(un)canonicity" is not easy to be formulated. It is definitelly impossible to formulate it in a single sentence. 
2. Concerning the so called "seizure". I was in Kiev that time. I perfectly remember that nothing extraordinary happend. Pro-Moscovian church leader Sabodan gathered a crowd. They went to the Cathedral, saw the police guiding it and went back. That's all story. This was even not an "even of the week" in Ukrainian media. In my opinion, this event does not desrve even to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. OK, some people have another opinion. They created a separate article on this event. Why should we devote a whole paragraph of in the present article to this minor event. A link in "See also" suffies. 
3. Besides, I do not consider the transliteration from the Russian name to be relevant to the Cathedral in the center of Kiev. We do not add transliteration from Ukrainian to the articles about Moscower Churches, do we? 
Other Cathedral may be mentioned in the article if they are somehow related to the St Volodymyr's Cathedral, not just to mention the articles that some editors like.--AndriyK 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]]:

message: On the whole I like the article as it is now and agree that when the information about the seizure was expanded it should have been moved to a different article. I have numerously proposed that only skeletal facts be given about UOC(MP) and the UOC-KP one is autonomous from Moscow, the other one is unrecognised.
Russian spelling is important as the history and original symbolism for the baptism and unity of Russia as a whole (rember what it was built for, or look for many of Moscow church leaders in the frescoes). Moreover Kiev is Russophone so a common name should exist, and Vladimir himself is equally relevant to Russia and Ukraine, so lets not have one privatize histrory fully to itself. Apart from that nothing happened in front of the cathedral, although the event was important as it became a catalyst for further development in the church despute.
Why did I replace St Isaacs with Church of Saviour on the blood, well simply because if are going to compare monumental cathedrals in different cities then lets choose well where there are real similarities. Kuban kazak 18:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]]:

message: The entry above by user:Andrew Alexander is an unrelated rant and cannot be really commented. I will, however comment on the points made by user:AndriyK. I numbered his points above and will respond to each of them one by one.
1. Should the info about canonicity of UOC-KP be mentioned? Yes it should but only passingly. The issue is complex and the discussion belongs to other articles. However, the building is used for religious services and it was contested by two organization of which one got a hold of it. The issues about this organization's history are complex but two most important pieces of information about it is (1) it's being one of two major Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, (2) its lack of recognision by any other Orthodox church in the world. The reason why the latter is important is described in my entry above at Talk:St_Volodymyr%27s_Cathedral#Relevance_of_canonicity_issue. However, if the lack of recognision (canonicity) is mentioned we need to say that this is still a mojor Church in UA. Otherwise, a reader might think that it is just some unrecognized sect which it isn't. The article does just that. It says "one of two major Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, viewed, however, uncanonical by Eastern Orthodox Communion.". "Uncanonical" may be replaced by "unrecognized" but the latter term is less exact as I said in the same section above, please see again Talk:St_Volodymyr%27s_Cathedral#Relevance_of_canonicity_issue.
2. Currently the article nowhere uses the word seizure and to say it devotes a "paragraph" to the controversy is, being literally correct, still an exaggeration. The article devotes two short sentences plainly saying that there was an ownership controversy between two organizations and one of them won it. The dispute over who controls the building is significant enough to be mentioned. Details belong to a separate article specifically devoted to the ownership controversy. They are not in this article at all. 
3. The name "Vladimirsky" along with "Volodymyrsky" is important enough because the cathedral was originally founded under the former name under which it was known for most of its existence. We should use a modern name for an article title but the very common name of the cathedral should be mentioned (see for instance this google test results for whatever they are worth ,  that show the Vladimirsky name is used for about 20 times more frequently)
--Irpen 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my recent edit was already explained many times. AlexPU 21:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Irpen|Irpen]]

message: 1. I agree with Irpen and User:Alex Bakharev that both English names and link St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral_ownership_controversy should be mentioned.
2. Categorically not agree with mentioning in this article about "uncanonical". This internal church policy, which can be in article History of Christianity in Ukraine, but not in each article, in which is mentionned about UOC-KP. In article about cathedral this is POV.  Only ROC and UOC-MP uses "uncanonical church UOC-KP" in their own publication. (See Google: On request УПЦ-КП (UOC-KP) Google gives 105,000 links; УПЦ-КП неканонічна (uncanonical UOC-KP) - 37 links; same in russian - 40 links.) In more detail in russian: Ни одно  из "светских" изданий (ни российские, ни украинские) не использует в своих информационных публикация термин "неканоческая" по отношению к УПЦ-КП. На сто тысяч линков УПЦ-КП, только в 77 из них упоминают неканоничность, причем в основном это заметки в сомнительных форумах, полемические статьи и публикации православных сайтов. 
::This is worth translating. "For around 100,000 search results for Ukrainain Orthodox Church of Kievan Patriarchate, only 77 mention something about "uncanonicity"." A very good argument. Simple and shows the degree of bias of the editors pushing their religious point of view in this article. It is amazing how much damage they can do.--Andrew Alexander 06:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Yakudza|Yakudza]]:

message: I basically agree with Irpen
#The [un]canonical status of its present owner is important as it is important for many residents of Kyiv. It should be mentioned but only briefly and balanced by positive information about the owner. I think the article as it is now is OK in this regard. 
#Two phrases and a link is reasonable for the controversy over transfer of ownership
#Both English names should be mentioned, especially as the less PC one gives 20 times more Google hits and most probably would be the name visitors would find in their tour-books, art students in their textbooks, etc.
More info on the cathedral would be helpful, e.g. the complete floor plan and walls with the locations, name and author of each mosaic would be great, list of priests who served with the cathedral, etc., but generally the article is in reasonable shape abakharev 12:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]]

message: Simple logic test for my (un)respected Wiki(fellows?)
User:Alex Bakharev wrote:
NPOVing is not equvalent to blanking of the relevant information,
meaning that:
*the 1990s inter-nomination quarrels are relevant to the article on material brick-layed structure that was built long before two quarreling sides actually appeared.
*the propagandist (non-legal,non-formal) declarations of a religious organization regarding another religious organization are relevant to the architectural landmark occasionally used (not even owned!) by the latter organization. In the country where church is separated from the state.
Question: what a I-think-perverted sense of logic that Bakharev has (or pretends to have)? Is there any sense to discuss something with this I-think-shameless propagandist? AlexPU 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common sense vs. POV extasy and excessive tolerance to Russian propagandism 

message: Regardless of what I was saying about distinguishing between brick structures and nominations, Mr Kuban kazak would like to state that:
:Well UOC(MP) appeared in 1990 when the Ukranian Exarchate became fully autonomous from ROC, UOC-KP first appeared in 1992 when it was merged with the UAOC, but this union did not last long and a schism within a schism...(well seems to be a trademark of schismatics, after all they got to take credit for being called that ;). Kuban kazak 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With reference to the above post, I shall say that it makes sense that the ROC owned the building for the vast majority of its lifetime. Thus why not return it directly to the Patriarchy of Moscow, bypassing Slobodan altogether? No of course the modern Moscow Patriarchy is "infested" with KGB (or so the people here like to say, even though KGB does not exist any more). Well here is a compormise Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, who recentely ended the 85 year schism, they certainly have all the rights to succesors of the original pre-1917 Russian Orthodox Church, which certainly owened the cathedral unquestionably.Kuban kazak 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Bottom line, lighten up people, I am in a good mood today, my wife is expecting a child in...8 months time, and he (or she) will certaintly not be baptised by the schismatics.Kuban kazak 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well actually if you look at the history the edit war was started by AndriyK and his tezka, so no need to launch accusations. I never said I did not have a POV, but then note that that POV is not in the article, it is here in the talk page, but again I am in too much a good mood today to argue, so do change the bracket.Kuban kazak 00:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another I-think-irrelevant note :(

message: It looks like we have three points of differences:
#Inclusion of the canonical status of UOC-KP. I think it is relevant (for the reasons outlined by Irpen) but does not belong to the first paragraph of the article. I have put it to the second last paragraph, next to the controversy of the ownership, I think it is reasonably balanced
#Link to Ukrainian opera instead of opera. I think if the article Ukrainian opera existed, it would be much more informative to link to it, but since it is a red link now, then I used the AlexPU variant of a simple opera link. The red link may be an inspiration for somebody to write the long overdue article (that is important, taking into account all these Padu li ja dryuchkom propertiy il' mimo proletit dryuchok-kinds of jokes), so my edit is disputable
#AlexPU finds the end of the article to be POV by the magnificent singing of one of the best church chorals. The choral is often joined by opera singers, providing an unforgettable listening and spiritual experience to St Volodymyr's visitors. We could put hedging here: ...by the signing described by many as magnificent..., ...reported as providing an unforgettable listening and spiritual experience..., etc. So far nobody went forward and told us, "the singing is cacophonous, the experience is dull, etc..", why do we need to balance the article with POV that does not even exist? abakharev 07:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex Bakharev and AlexPU, I'd suggest you to join the mediation procedure that is already requested (see above).--AndriyK 09:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit war 

message: I actually did not see Irpen's last version to be significantly different from mine. Thus, revert by AndriyK from Irpen to me can be seen as a sign that we are coverging and the silly edit war is about to end. Irpen did two things: 
#Fixed my grammatical error. I have returned the fix back from AndriyK revert.
#Changed from seen as uncanonical to is canonical. Indeed Irpen's version is probably more accurate than mine, but I do not see the difference important enough to go into revert war about it. Both versions are fine with me. I left AndriyK's version abakharev 11:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that I reverted to your version should not be interpreted as if I completely agree with you. I just believe it would be better to have your version instead of an edit war until the issue is resolved by mediation.--AndriyK 12:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Some orthodox church-goers are still, however, avoiding the cathedral as they see its new owner to be uncanonical by Eastern Orthodox Communion.
I changed it only because it doesn't look good. "Uncanonical by the EOC" is a tautology, because being seen uncanonical by EOC and be uncanonical is the same thing. EOC is the only authority of the issue. It is like saying that the 2004 presidential election in UA was seen as fraudulent by the Supreme Court while, since the Supreme Court is the final authority and it ruled on the issue, one should now just say that it was fradulent or it was fruadulent as confirmed by the SC. The church goers don't "see" something that is questionable. They see something that is a fact (the curch being considered uncanonical by the EOC). As such, I will restore the phrasing and remove the tautology. Will the mediators be coming here any time soon? --Irpen 18:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let solve this point within the mediation procedure.--AndriyK 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seen as uncanonical vs is uncanonincal

message: In wikipedia un-caninical status KP is mentionned more than 10 articles, but for the rest internet beside 70 sites. (see Google searching for in sections #Yakudza:) Necessary this POV in article Ukrainians? --Yakudza 19:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check in how many articles the Soviet Union being totalitarian or authoritarian is mentioned. That's because it is relevant. --Irpen 19:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: more 15 000 sites Really it is relevant --Yakudza 19:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because the UOC-KP is a more obscure topic that the USSR. Its lack of canonical standing as an Orthodox Church  is no less relevant that SU being a totalitarian state. The discussion is above. Mediators were invited. I would welcome more neutral parties to express their opinions --Irpen 19:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You suppose the crimes of stalinizm equivalent status Church? --Yakudza 19:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how the UNSO ruthlessly captured churches in the Rovno and Volynian districts, how clergy were beaten and bashed, yeah that was worse than Stalinism. Because Stalinism at least explained their hostility towards religion, whilst what these people done is beyond explanation. Kuban kazak 21:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: However, I suppose that it is not necessary to mention the totalitarian nature USSR in each article. More so in article about Soviet architecture. --Yakudza 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonical status KP in differents article