Talk:St. Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy

message: I believe it's wrong to wage here an ideological war, using the materials of the Russian Orthodox Church, or any other Church for that matter. This page has to be about the facts of the building. Not who and when was ousted from the ROC and for what reason. This is irrelevant since it bears absolutely no consequence to the visitors of the Cathedral. They don't care about oustings, anathemas, and other ideological nonsense. Could the subject of the church-related affairs be brought outside of this article? Could any Russian Church-inspired author of Wikipedia please redirect his rightous anger somewhere outside of scope of architecture and art? --Andrew Alexander 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all this has nothing to do with remarks about Russian propaganda, and I ask that you keep such personal attitudes to yourself, administrators of wikipedia DO NOT tolerate nationalistic insults. Next what we have are several key facts which we have combined together. 
*Fact one UOCKP is NOT recognised by world Orthdoxy
*Fact two after Filaret returned from Moscow, he took the empty cathedral and UNSO and Kravchuk immediately hailed him for doing so and pleged defence against anybody. (UNSO confirms this)
*Fact three when Vladimir came to Kiev he gathering the crowd of supporters began to approach the cathedral to find it barricaded off them, thats what you have been saying, that is what I agree to.
*Fact four, no bloodshed did take place IN FRONT OF THE CATHEDRAL, that is because Vladimir called for people to turn away to the Lavra
*Fact five, which is irrelevant to this article, is that the UNSO and the police supporting Filaret followed them to the Lavra and there was a stampede, battle, clash or whatever you want to call it. 
Kuban kazak 23:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, but how is that the events on who controls the cathedral is not related to the cathedral's article escapes me. A solution could be a separate article with the events entitled as Seizure of St. Volodymyr's Cathedral in 1992 with a summary here. If you favor such a solution, write such an article, let's have people agree on its content, than we'll write a summary and post it here. I will support you in your efforts to write such an article. --Irpen 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important who controls the cathedral and it's described in the article right now. Yes, please write a separate article about any alleged seizure, but do provide some reputable sources as required by the NPOV policy.--Andrew Alexander 03:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: These are facts that have no significance to any propaganda. UNSO confirms these facts, I am sure Kiev's police archives will also confirm them, I am also sure that many media archives will show similar picture. Once again these are the events presented from a NEUTRAL POV. What is irrelevant to the cathedral is the references to Pyotr Mogilla, what does he have to do with the seizure? Kuban kazak 11:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that offer. But I would rather not. The problem is, I can't write about something that didn't happen. Really, I already asked you and other Russian fans here to come up with a single word in a single reputable source about the "violent seizure". Mr. Bakharev gave it a shot, but he missed badly. See the discussion above. --Andrew Alexander 05:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Would you call your single Russian source (a book by Petrushko) reputable and balanced? --Andrew Alexander 05:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that it cites a total of 187 of them. http://ua.mrezha.ru/petrprim.htm Kuban kazak 18:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please explain why it's ridiculous.--Andrew Alexander 05:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Good Point mate, I so far have not seen a single counter-source. Kuban kazak 13:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Material beyond the scope of this article

message: I removed some POV phrases. Please explain clearly why such hateful POV is expressed when a religious organ of an independent state lays claim on the property in the state. mikka (t) 06:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the state has no religious organ, since last time I checked, in Ukraine the church and state are separated. In Ukraine two organizations both properly registered with authorities claim to represent the Orthodoxy. This is the end of the matter as far as the state is conserned. Which of the two churches is a legitimate successor of Ukrainian exharhate in religious sense is not a state matter. There is a canon law and as interpeted by the world-wide Orthodox communion, the UOC is canonical and the UOC-KP is Schizmatic. The property issues are decided legally speaking on a case by case basis. In reality, who captures what keeps it and the police helps the captors or the defenders depending on which church is in favor at this time or which church has better corrupt connection with the local police commander. You can read Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko), History of Christianity in Ukraine and many sources outside WP for more. --Irpen 06:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have used the word "country", rather than "state". I understand only perfectly well that the issue is not the God's glory, but golden calf. As for schizm, protestants and lutherans were schizmatics some time ago. The "world-wide" has no legal say in a souvereign country. In Ukraine it is an undertandable desire to distantiate from moskali, and it is not our business to judge them. It is bad that they cannot solve the issue peacefully, but... mikka (t) 07:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mikkalai, completely agree. I can assure you that the Moscow Patriarchate is far from the poorest and homeless in Ukraine. Ukraine chose not to fight for those thousands of cathedrals and churches. There is a fight here to preserve some sort of decency and follow some basic rules of Wikipedia. It's not as easy one.--Andrew Alexander 05:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have edited Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev to include its late 20th century history,(I was not registered then however) If anyone thinks the last paragraph is not a NPOV then please would someone explain what NPOV is to me, because I am under opinion that people especially AndriyK do not know what NPOV is.Kuban kazak 11:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOV--AndriyK 13:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on some of your comments on this discussion, I would advise that you read some of the rules that are laid down there. Kuban kazak 13:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure. I read it carefully.--AndriyK 14:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Property claim

message: Do you think we need some background info? Like:
Ukraine inherrited the Soviet law that had made all the churches to be property of the state, who should allocate them to the religious communities according to their requests. The law deliberately had not explained the cases of two communities requested the same building or a schism within a religious community. In the Glastnost time the law was sometime interpreted as whoever mounted the noisiest protest wins...
Similar controversy erupted over though out Ukraine over allocating churches to Ukrainian Roman-Catholics, Uniates, UOC-KP, etc., as well as in Russia over requests of ROCA and the Catacomb Church. abakharev 22:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this, in a rewritten form, is a good addition to the History of Christianity in Ukraine article but can be used here too. I am not sure about the situation in the USSR though. Were buildings returned to church in 1988 or were just allowed to be used by ROC assuming that they remained the state property? Also, the issue of two organizations claiming the building was initially moot since the ROC had the monopoly over whatever christianity was allowed to exist. A good point though, --Irpen 22:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need some backgroung info? 

message: This is not a really good article for someone who is either non-Ukrainian or non-religous - they would have a hard time understanding it, one can tell the article has been through a nuclear edit war. Starzaz (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor article