Talk:Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Propose Protecting this Article

My apologies for being off line while discussion here continued. In this edit Diff I asked for a second opinion and DGG has looked in. I believe that at the very least User:Biophys and User:Frjohnwhiteford are both interested in building towards a workable solution, and I suspect that WP:AGF can be applied to all the editors here. Because there are number of potential editors to this article I would like to suggest the following -

1. The page be protected from editing by anyone accept an admin.
2. The goal is to create the most accurate article possible with available references
3. For any section that has content that is disputed by anyone the whole section will be removed from the article and moved to the talk page for review.
4. You continue to work amongst yourselves on the talk page on the disputed content, ask Jeepday if you need a opinion or decision.
5. Before asking Jeepday for an opinion all parties who are involved in the dispute give a short explanation of why their position is correct and provide policy (with links) to support their position.
6. Everyone involved agrees to accept Jeepday's opinion as definitive, If two editors agree that Jeepday's opinion is not realistic We will ask User:DGG for a final decision.
7. Agree to accept User:Biophys as an expert in the Russian language and User:Frjohnwhiteford as an expert on the church
8. Everyone agrees to try not to take this personal, there is a history here, feelings are strong, and some viewpoints are harshly opposed. There is no question that in this process you will feel upset at each other and probably at me as well. You will think twice before accusing anyone of bad faith, and if you accidentally do respond poorly you will apologizes. If offered an apology you will accept it and continue to move towards the goal.
9. When you have reached agreement on a section or paragraph of text, ask me or if I am off line for more the 48 hours use {{editprotect}} to add the content. Remember there is no hurry.
10. If you support this proposal please sign below, and say you agree with the proposal
11. If you don't agree please provide an alternative suggestion.
12. We can modify or add rules as needed when a majority of those agreeing to this proposal agree to the new rule.

Proposed by Jeepday (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

may this all work out! DGG (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tentative agreement with a minor change suggested

I would agree, with the caveat that Biophys is not the only expert in Russian who has been participating in this discussion. I would also ask that as a starting point, the article be rolled back to the last edit by Jeepday. A good bit of content has been removed that should not have been, and a good bit added back or inserted that should not have been. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree

--Miyokan (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tentative agreement with a minor change suggested

I have been asked for input so he I am. I would also agree, but I must say that Frjohnwhiteford may not be the best person to rely on solely for the church view. While I don't want to engage in personal attacks, I must say that having seen his edits on four separate articles, I have yet to see an NPOV approach taken, and adherence to the spirit of Wikipedia is commonly absent. For instance: regarding an unreliable ref (that included factually incorrect material) in Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, he consistently avoided finding compromises, preferring to revert edits that were sensible. Another instance of his standards: when I pointed out massive copyvio in Jonah of Manchuria which he wrote, he responded by removing a little of it and putting quotation marks round the rest, claiming it was fair use (after having also claimed that the writer of it had no claim to copyright at all).

Hence, I have reservations. More input on the side of the church is required I feel. Malick78 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said that translator had no copyright to her translation, I said the original article (written in Russian, in China, in the 1920's, was public domain. That, and the other issues you raise are beside the point, and I would simply say that you are misrepresenting what occurred on these pages, and invite anyone who wishes to investigate it the issues, to go read the talk pages on the articles in question. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am agreeable to another recognized expert in the Russian language being part of the team, if a majority agree that there is another Russian language expert, item 12 address this. I am not agreeable to leaving any content in the article that is part of a disputed section. The last edit I made does not imply that that version is any better then any other version see M:The Wrong Version. I would protect the page in what ever version is present at the time, and remove any section where anyone questions any part of that section. It will not be replaced until there is consensus that the version being offered meets policy expectations. Consensus does not mean everyone agrees. Jeepday (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am agreeable to another recognized expert for the church being part of the team, if a majority agree that there is another church expert, item 12 address this. Jeepday (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than this designation being honorary, what function will it actually have? I assume that it will not stop editors from disagreeing with me, if they have some basis, nor will anyone be prevented from challenging a translation from a Russian "expert"... so what is it exactly that is being proposed? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is honorary and it will not stop editors from disagreeing with you. It formally recognizes who are specializes in specific areas of knowledge relevant to the article. Jeepday (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree if points 1 and 3 excluded (see my alternative version below).Biophys (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think an intervention that did not include page protection would go any better than the first time Jeepday tried it, was ignored by several editors? Also, why, if you intend to work with this process, and comply with Wikipedia Policy, would you fear having this article page protected, and only edited by Jeepday as we worked through the issues as a group? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Points 1 and 3 are inconsistent with WP standard rules and practices.Biophys (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EW#Enforcement and whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion.Jeepday (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you hide first few words? It tells: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion." Of course I agree with that! If a reference does not satisfy WP:Source, text should be removed. I am talking only about texts supported by reliable sources. If everyone agrees that that such sourced and relevant text can not be removed - I am with you.Biophys (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are probably pretty close to the same place here, but there is no policy that says there is any text that can't be removed. I do not have a goal to remove or include any specific text, but I can't promise you that any specific text that has a reference will never be removed Example. The goal of any article is to be the best it can be, occasionally that may require removing referenced text. Wikipedia is a work of many hands and minds, occasionally the consensus flows to less content then one person might prefer. Additionally Wikipedia:BLP#Sources is a little more stringent then some other verifiability policies in Wikipedia, so even content that has one good source may be subject to removal. It gets even harder if you have conflicting reliable references. Lets just take it as it comes and look to written policy to solve any questions that come up. Like I said in item 5 of #Propose Protecting this Article when two (or more) editors can not agree, they present their sides with supporting policy, I will research, and give you a solution. Obviously not everyone is going to be happy every time. Anyone who has looked through my edit history can see I don't have a side in this article, let's just assume good faith on everyone's part and move forward. Ok? Jeepday (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can move forward if this article is not protected and we all follow WP policies. This article is no different from others. If serious edit warring takes place, it can be protected by an uninvolved administrator according to existing WP policies. Personally, I am not enthusiastic about this article after such discussion.Biophys (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious edit warring has taken place in this article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent} The edit wars are in the past, we are looking forward to a bright future of consensus building. Jeepday (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree

Alternative suggestion.

1. The article is not protected. 2. Any sourced and relevant content can not be removed from the present or future versions of this article, unless there is a general consensus to remove (although it can be edited to be more consistent with sources; reduced in size, NPOVed, etc.). 3. If any disagreement is not resolved, we ask opinion of Jeepday with explanation (as he suggested). 4. Jeepday authority is accepted. 5. If two or more people disagree with Jeepday, they can ask DGG.Biophys (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with point 1 (protection). During last few weeks we had many edits of this article by users with different political views and perspectives, including Muscovite99, Malick, Martintg, ellol, and me. All these users had no problems negotiating the text. The dispute exists between Frjohnwhiteford and all others. Frjohnwhiteford considers Alexius to be his personal "spiritual leader", which potentially leads to a conflict of interest. By protecting this page, we remove it from a wider WP community, which is hardly warranted at this moment. Saying that, I would be glad to help with translations of Russian texts or go along with any consensus decisions.Biophys (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As you will recall, the COI charge has been tried, and fallen flat in the eyes of uninvolved editors. Continuing to raise this issue is contrary to WP:NPA. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is warranted at this stage, as it doesn't appear to be a case of one group of editors conflicting with another group. Martintg (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Only because at least one group has been trying to avoid an edit war here by getting some outside intervention. When a more moderate form was attempted, the other side simply disregarded it. They have also removed a good bit of content, without any discussion, contrary to what had been asked by Jeepday.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from yourself, who are the other members of this group you are siding with? 202.12.233.23 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who have been trying to strike a balance here, and I will let them speak for themselves, but I am not the only one who has reverted some of the attempts to insert violations of the WP:BLP policy into this article, as can be seen from the edit history. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong here. You are right. There is probably a user who supports you, although he made only one edit here (a revert of me) so far. That is User:Miyokan who had this "KGB troll" userbox invented by banned User:Vlad fedorov. I think that was simply a bad joke, because the KGB still only exists in Belarus, being replaced by two successor (FSB and SVR) agencies in Russia. Still, you are right.Biophys (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a low attempt to try to smear my reputation, that is obviously a tongue-in-cheek userbox. I agree with Frjohnwhiteford on this - why would you think an intervention that did not include page protection would go any better than the first time Jeepday tried it, was ignored by several editors? Also, why, if you intend to work with this process, and comply with Wikipedia Policy, would you fear having this article page protected, and only edited by Jeepday as we worked through the issues as a group?--Miyokan (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You said: "That was a low attempt to try to smear my reputation". What are you talking about? I did not criticize you at all. To the contrary, it is great when users make disclaimers on their pages or announce their political views. I have seen userboxes of people who support Palestinian resistance or who "refute Stalinist propaganda". All of that is fine. You included a userbox saying that "you are a paid member of KGB Internet brigades". That is fine too. You simply stated your political position and views, and I respect that. I only said the userbox was probably a "bad joke" because I think you actually do not work there. If I am wrong, I am ready to apologize.Biophys (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

some of the comments immediately above are inappropriate, and do not contribute to the discussion on the article. I am disappointed to see the thread being continued. DGG (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. You are absolutely right. Let's talk only about the article.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Frankly speaking, I do not see an editorial conflict here, which would be serious enough to adopt such measures. At least not yet. There are many articles in WP that are subject of much stronger disputes. I suggest to wait a little and see how it goes. If it goes bad, then this suggestion is great and worth a serious consideration. "Bad" means "sterile" RR warring, when the article is not improving over the time. However if article improves as a result of competitive editing, then everything is fine from WP perspective. Biophys (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason we are not having a revert war right now is because we have Admin intervention. There certainly is a serious editorial conflict which necessitates some intervention... particularly when the less rigorous approach Jeepday had been taking was simply being reverted by contentious editors, who simply refused to abide by any of his decisions. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is warranted right now. One also could object that Jeapday might effectively become an "owner" of this article, which would be against WP:OWN. However looking at Jeapday's edit record, I believe he would be a good arbiter.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN refers to a very different phenomenon than arbitration. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Have no fears of anybody owning the article if i have anything to say about it. I dont want to get involved in the editing, but i will keep in touch with it. DGG (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I basically agree with everything except protection of this page for a long time.Biophys (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Church and State Section

There are a number of problems with this section as it stands:

1. It contains a very bad translation of Metropolitan Sergius' declaration. This is a very famous quote, which has often been translated, but never translated such as it is here:

"We wish to be Christian Orthodox and in the same time to consider Soviet Union our civilian homeland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and whose failures are our failures. We consider every strike aimed at the Union, be it a war, boycott, any societal calamity or just a murder from behind... as the strike aimed at us."

2. Aside from the poor English usage reflected here, there are substantive inaccuracies.

Just to cite one example of more common way it has been translated:

"we want to be Orthodox and we want to realize the Soviet Union as our motherland, whose joys are our joys and whose sorrows are our sorrows." (from PDS Russia Religion News)

There are a couple of significant differences here. It is joys and sorrows, not joys and successes. Secondly, the word "Motherland" is very significant, and is not at all done justice by "civilian homeland".

3. The block quote from Patriarch Alexei's interview is also a poor translation, and furthermore is too long for this article.

4. Also, if we are to give a full treatment of this subject, there should be a good bit of discussion about the Social Concept Document, which was approved by the ROC in 2000, and deals extensively with this issue (who can see the most important excerpts from that document at the bottom of this page).

It would be better to put such material into a section of the article on the Russian Orthodox Church, or in a separate article all together, that was referenced in this article. As it is, this is a huge bunny trail, that only relates to Patriarch Alexei tangentially. It would be best to cut it down to a paragraph, and tie it into the discussion about collaboration with the Soviet government. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to the above, I recommend that this section be eliminated. And that the relevant material be merged back into the controversies section, as presented on this page Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - as a temporary solution. Such section is important, but it should be completely different. Current text does not make much sense.Biophys (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, if no one objects, I will go ahead and modify this segment as suggested by Frjohnwhiteford.Biophys (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already done so, if you are referring to my last suggestion. If you are referring to my previous suggestion, it might be best to propose that in the appropriate article (i.e. Russian Orthodox Church, or Russian Orthodox Church History), and then link it here when it is done. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section problems

Marriage

There is no reason why the first sentence needs to distinguish between civil and ecclesiatical wedlock.

I would suggest that it simply read:

"He married Vera Alekseesva, the daughter of a priest from Tallinn Georgi Alekseev, on April 11, 1950.".

What follows is typical of the tabloid journalism found in Moscow News:

"...on Tuesday of the Bright Week when the mystery of matrimony is canonically forbidden. Moskovskie Novosti has alleged that according to an official report written by a priest-inspector Pariysky to the Leningrad Department for the Affairs of the ROC, the marriage had been unlawfully expedited in order for Ridiger to become a deacon and avoid military service (marriage is impossible after ordination in Orthodoxy)."

I have already commented on the problems here. I don't believe it is correct to say that there is a canon that forbids marriage during bright week (though there is one that forbids it during lent). However, for reasons of economia, marriages are often permitted at times when the typikon would say they should not be performed. Certainly, it is contrary to normal practice to perform a marriage during bright week, but weddings are sometimes performed during lent or any other time, if there is a need that is deemed sufficient by the bishop. This material is irrelevant, and implies things that are not proven by the known facts. If it was left in the article, a discussion of economia would be necessary... which is a long bunny trial that is not warranted.

I would leave only the final statement:

"They divorced less than a year later."

Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• The distinction is quite important. First, unlike in most Western countries, a church-officiated wedlock was and is legally null and void in Russia (the USSR). The fact that there was a mystery (Sacrament) of matrimony celebrated is importnat as there is no information about the dissolution thereof (for which a special episcopal decree is requisite); as the Rev Whiteford may know, marriage is fundamentally indissoluble in Orthodoxy as long as both spouses continue to be alive and sane. Thus, in Orthodox terms, he ought to be deemed still married unless otherwise proven, which, in turn, makes his episcopal consecration (let alone his monkhood) invalid on the basis of Canons 12 and 48 of The Sixth Council [1].Muscovite99 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• As for the ban on matrimony during the Bright Week, it is directly forbidden by Chapter 50 of Nomocanon -- a valid source of Church Law. Hence all this fuss in Russia about "Красная горка" (Second Sunday after Easter) - the fist day after many weeks when wedding is possible in church.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no need to say anything other than that they were married. One would assume it was a legal marriage, and that it also was a church marriage. Secondly, you are wrong about the Orthodox view of marriage. The Orthodox Church does believe in divorce, and certainly does not believe that marriage is eternal... one need read only the patristic commentary on Christ's response to the Sadducees on that subject. Thirdly, if you are familiar with Orthodoxy, you will know that Economia is often allowed when it comes to the question of when a marriage may take place, if there are grounds deemed sufficient by the bishop. As for the canons, there are no Ecumenical canons which address this issue that I am aware of, but it is certainly true that it is contrary to the tradition of the Church to perform a wedding during bright week... it is also contrary to the Church tradition to perform a memorial service on a Sunday... but this also is often allowed due to economia. Economia may be applied when the action is not inherently evil (and marriage is not evil), but when it is a question of the appropriate occassion or circumstance. You have the norm, but then you have exceptions to the norm that are allowed by the bishops discretion. All of this is completely irrelevant, and you have only a tabloid as a source. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This segment of text merely describes what the source tells. The source satisfies WP:Source. If you want to dispute text by Muscovite99, please provide alternative sources that support your view. So far, I have seen none.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the point that merely sourcing a statement does not qualify it to be included in any given article. It has to be relevant, and it has to comply with WP:BLP, which states:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."

As it is, you have a tabloid article that implies a number of things that are not necessary conclusions from the empirical facts. Furthermore, as has been previously pointed out to you, if you are making a controversial point, more than one reliable source is necessary... and I would dispute whether you have even one at this point. It is also largely irrelevant, and if it remains in the text we will have to include an excursus on how the principle of Economia functions in the life of the Orthodox Church.... which is a bunny trial that distracts from the purpose of the article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable source to me and the issue is worthy of note. But let's get rid of the word 'mystery' of marriage. Malick78 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The marriage and divorce are certainly notable enough to warrant mention. The commentary about whether or not it was uncanonical, and what was the motivation behind it, is the problem. These get into disputable, unprovable, and to some extent unknowable issues. And at present we have only one tabloid source... and the source is a tabloid. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

More applicable Policy here, from WP:BLP:

"Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly."

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

We do not have well documented reliable sources here. We have one tabloid, repeating gossip, and making unprovable assertions. According to Jeepday's instructions, when a contentious assertion is made, at least two reliable sources are necessary. I would argue that we do not even have one here... but we certainly do not have two. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a ruling here from Jeepday and DGG? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ruling - I was slightly confused that the reference link is in Russian but the reference is named as Moscow News which is the English version of Moskovskiye Novosti so it may be more appropriate to name the reference with the Russian as the article does not appear to be available on the English site. I could find no indication that Moskovskiye Novosti or Moscow News was a tabloid, User:Frjohnwhiteford has argued that the source valid for reporting the marriage,Diff User:Biophys has suggested that an alternate reference be provided to support that the marriage occurred when the it was not canonically forbidden.Diff The rule is without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). There is a published reliable sourced with one view, it has been established that the marriage is significant, it would be biased to report incompletely. WP:BLP Does not require criticism to not be published but it does say The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics. Summary based on the evidence provided the content should stay in the article, it could stand to be reworded a bit "mystery" probably needs to go, but I leave the rewording to you all. If other sources are found that can be incorporated to improve the marriage section they should be. Jeepday (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read what I actually wrote, I never argued that Moscow News was a reliable source, only that the fact that the Patriarch was married and divorced was noteworthy enough to merit mention. I can provide you with numerous sources that describe Moscow News as a tabloid, but here are two: This one, and this one, entitled Moscow News and Irresponsible Journalism. You ask for a source that states that the wedding did not occur during a period prohibited by the canons. So far, no one has cited an actual canon that prohibits weddings during the period in question. However, I have agreed that the wedding occurred during a period in which a wedding is normally prohibited, but the problem here is that neither you, nor Biophys, nor evidently the author of the article in question understand that when Economia is applied, there is no violation of the canons... there is a pastoral application of the canons... see the Wiki article on Economia, for starters, then you might read this article, or any of a number of theological works that deal with the concept. In the Orthodox Church, a laymen does not get to decide that he will be married during a period in which weddings are not normally allowed... and in fact the article in question states that the Bishop of Talinn allowed it... it does not mention the principle of economia, but that is simply due to the ignorance of the author. Economia is applied regularly, when there is seen a sufficient need to do so. There is the norm, but there are generally allowable exceptions, when the question involves things that are not inherently evil, but matters of discipline. There is only one source that I have been able to find in English or Russian which makes the assertions Sidorenko makes in this article... and that is Sidorenko. Is he a canon law expert? No. Is he a theologian? No. Has he ever attended a Sunday School class... probably not. How can this one source be considered a reliable and notable source, when making commentary about the application of the canons of the Orthodox Church? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is Moskovskiye Novosti not Moscow News, additionally a quick look at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ which is by definition a tabloid then looking at http://mnweekly.ru/ compared to http://www.nytimes.com/ shows the Moscow News has more in common with The New York Times then it does with the The Sun. The first reference you provided says this about the newspaper you are calling a tabloid; "today's restructured newspaper stands at the vanguard of newly independent periodicals" This one. Frjohnwhiteford you asked for my ruling you got it, had I agreed with your position, your history shows you would have accepted and supported that, now when I don't agree with your position you don't accept it. Your arguments are not sound in rebuttal and you are not providing any reference to support the article content as you beleive it should be. If you asked for my ruling because you thought I would agree with your personal view then you acted in bad faith and should read Wikipedia:Policy shopping, if you asked for my ruling because you expected everyone to respect and abide by it then, please do as you would expect others to do. Jeepday (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that something close to 100% of people do not argue with those who agree with them, and of those who do, the bulk would either be drunks, drug addicts, or crazy people. People usually argue with people when and if they disagree. Yes, I hoped you would agree with me... particularly since you had stated that in controversial matters two reliable sources would be necessary, or the disputed material would be removed... and here we have at best one source, and the material is disputed, and yet you are not saying it should be removed. The guidelines that were established stated that if you gave a ruling, and two users disagreed that DGG would be consulted... that being the case, I assumed that when you gave a ruling, people were allowed to question it, and to disagree. Now I believe that you are trying to be fair, and I appreciate that. I have stated that I would prefer the article be protected, and that only you make the changes, after the issues had been worked through... and that would still be my preference... because I would rather deal with a fair minded third party, than the law of the jungle. However, I do not understand why you raise the issue of policy shopping here, or question my good faith. I merely provided you with some additional details, which you stated were lacking, and pointed out some facts that I think you do not understand. Of course, if you continue to disagree with me, and no one else questions your decision, I assume your decision stands. I have not undertaken to subvert your decision by making edits to the section in question that would violate it, and so your questioning of my motives is I think uncalled for here. You should perhaps better clarify what your expectations are... but I have been endeavoring to understand them, and to work within them.

Moscovskiye Novosti and Moscow News are the English and Russian Language versions of the same entity, and so the names are used interchangeably. If you look at the second source I provided, you will find its assessment of the Journalism of MN to be very low, refers to it as a tabloid, as irresponsible, and speaks of its history as a tool of propaganda. Most journalists in Russia were schooled as propagandists rather than as "fair and balanced" journalists in the western sense. The fact that it is said to have stood "at the vanguard of newly independent periodicals" says a lot about the influence it had, but nothing about the Journalistic standards of that tabloid. The two word summation of the style of Moscow News by the New York Times (which also speaks of it as one of many Russian Tabloids), is "conspiratorial daring"... which doesn't say much about careful and accurate journalism. What you have in Moscow News, and many other Russian papers is the Yellow Journalism of the Muckrakers that were so common in the US at the turn of the previous century. Like the Muckrakers, they may do a lot of good by shining the light on corruption, but they also are not known for being very careful about proving what they assert, or verifying everything they say with reliable sources -- as the article in my second source discusses.

If you have a Catholic background, it might help you to know that the Catholic concept of Dispensation has a connection with the Orthodox concept of Economia. What kind of references are you suggesting that I am lacking here, that I need to provide, and to prove what? If you read the articles on Economia that I referenced, you will see that when Economia is applied, there is no violation of the canons, because the Canons are applied according to Economia rather than Akribia (Strictness). According to the strict reading of the canons, an Orthodox Christian may not marry anyone who is not Orthodox. According to Economia, this is relaxed when the prospective spouse is an adherent of certain mainstream heterodox sects, which are trinitarian, particularly in situations in which the Orthodox live as minorities in predominantly heterodox cultures, and the alternative would leave many people with the choice of leaving the Church, or remaining single. For pastoral reasons, the bishop gives a "dispensation", and the marriage is allowed.

In any case, if the basic content does stand, then we will have to add quite a few more pertinent facts from the article, and then insert a discussion of the meaning and function of Economia in the Orthodox Church. I think that is an unnecessary bunny trail that distracts from the article... but if that's the way it is going to be, so be it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The content of the article remains at the discretion of the involved editors to come to agreement on. As far as the reference goes I restate what I have said before, in the edit Diff user Frjohnwhiteford, (the sole person now arguing to prevent inclusion of text based on the reference) was completely willing to enter text into Wikipedia based on solely on the same source his is now arguing against. The question seems to be not if the information in the reference is true, rather does the reference support content that a particular editor wants to include or exclude. I also again urge, the editors of the article, to find additional references for the marriage and include them in the article. On a different note; I assume that the other editors may find that "Then insert a discussion of the meaning and function of Economia in the Orthodox Church" inappropriate, but again I leave you all to come to your own consensus and ask for help if you come to a disagreement. Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday, can you tell me where in the edit that you cited: Diff I endorsed the source? If you read my edit which you cited, I stated "What follows is typical of the tabloid journalism found in Moscow News..." That is not an endorsement, in my opinion. In my edit, I suggested a form of the text which would have been accurate and fair. I left in the original cited source, because I am not aware of any other source on the subject, and was trying to compromise with the previous edit. Even if we accept as a given that the Moscow News is every bit as reliable a source as the New York Times, just for the sake of discussion, the New Times may be a reliable source for verifying some fact say in the life of Albert Einstein... however, if a New Times article asserted something erroneous about Einstein's theory of relativity, it would not be a reliable source... because the New Times is not a scientific journal, it is a news paper, with reporters that may or may not always understand every subject they touch upon. In Wikipedia:Attribution, it states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (Emphasis in the original quote). Evgeny Sidorenko is not an expert in Canon Law, Church History, Pastoral Theology, or Theology. He is therefore not a reliable source to pontificate about the appropriateness of Patriarch Alexei's marriage vis-a-vis Orthodox Canon law and Tradition. While a reporter may be well qualified to dig up the basic facts of a marriage of some public figure, and report on them, they are not reliable sources on theological or ecclesiastical matters. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• A Note to provide some basic facts as there seems to have been too much fog through both good faith ignorance and deliberate obfuscation. 1. The Moscow News and Московские новости have been too entirely different editorial entities since the early 1990s. I shall try not to delve into the paper's history as it would take a lengthy article, but the essential point is that in the 90s Московские новости was known as a liberal (in the European sense of the term) intellectual journal (i mean something quite the opposite of a tabloid); shortly after the article in question was published it embarked on a difficult path of changing many hands until it was literally buried by the couple of Arcadi Gaydamak (as the owner) and Vitaly Tretyakov (as editor-in-chief), the main reason for the failure being exactly both unwillingness and incapability of the latter to make the stodgy paper a bit more like a tabloid, which is a common tendency with all serious newspapers worldwide. 2. Sidorenko is in fact a pen-name of a well-known Patriarch's personal former correspondent Eugene Komarov (you can read about him here [2]) and also a senior editor at the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate in the early 1990s (See the highlighted words here [3]). The MN version of his piece had been expurgated before publication, about which he was quite cross -- you can read the unexpurgated version here [4], complete with nice family photos (I've already added the link to the article). The piece was based on a thorough investigation of archival documents both in the State Archive of Estonia and Petersburg. Regarding the questions about "Sidorenko's" expertise ("and that is Sidorenko. Is he a canon law expert? No. Is he a theologian? No. Has he ever attended a Sunday School class... probably not."), -- the answer is actually Yes to all the questions, except the last one (dear Fr John), for, when he was a young boy, Sunday schools were illegal (some people in the USSR in fact got jailed for attempts to organise something of the kind), but the guy completed the full course of the Moscow Spiritual Seminary, thus becoming the Master of Theology. 3. The issue of Economia is neither here nor there, as this article is not about canons or theology, it is about a person and his life. Mentioning the Canon Law provides the necessary background -- otherwise it is simply unclear what all the fuss is about. Does it imply any "innuendo"? I hope it does as this is what facts are cited for -- for a reader to be able to make conclusions, otherwise such facts are irrelevant. Are we accusing him of anything? No, as we are not in a position to adjudicate on these matters. We are not discussing the issue of his canonicity, or otherwise, we simply provide some facts that make the character of the person in question more discernible: he was obviously eager to dodge the draft and brave in his own way (or perhaps not mature enough to realise the implications) to go to such lengths as to both stretch the Church's Canon Law AND ALSO face the real possibility of being criminally prosecuted on 2 charges at once: fictitious marriage and draft-dodging. (And, Yes, a conclusion can be easily drawn that such possibility was raised in a private chat when he was propositioned later in 1958 -- we are approaching the 50th anniversary of his recruitment in a few days - in a typical KGB incidentally-on-purpose style of amicable blackmail). 4. I already pointed the canon that directly forbids marriage in the Bright Week -- Chapter 50 of Nomocanon. Yes, it is not from the decisions of an Ecumenical Council, but in the ROC it has the status of a valid canon. Any Church calendar on its page 3 or 4 cites the Bright Week as one of the periods when "wedding shall not be performed". Those who want some reading on the issue of the dissolution of marriage in Orthodoxy, are welcome to read Tsypin's chapter on it here [5].Muscovite99 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99, Let me ask you a few questions:

1). Do you agree or disagree that in the history of the Orthodox Church, marriages have been performed during fasts, bright week, or other periods in which any Church calendar would note that weddings are not performed, with the blessing of the ruling bishop?

2). Do you agree or disagree that when a bishop gives such a blessing that this falls under the power of a bishop to "bind and to loose" and is an act of Economia?

3). Do you deny that Metropolitan Gregory's approval of this wedding during Bright Week is an example of #1, and falls under #2?

I will read up on the author, but being a seminary graduate does not make one an expert on canon law or a theologian. It would hopefully mean that he would have more knowledge of those subjects than the average Joe. An expert is someone who is recognized as such by his peers in that field. What evidence do you have that experts in canon law, Theology, or Church history consider this person to an expert or an authority? What books are articles has he authored in those fields, which have been peer reviewed? Also, what exactly are you basing your claim that Evgeny Sidorenko is the pen name of Evgeny Kamarov? At the end of the link you posted in the article, it says that multiple authors worked on the piece, including Kamarov, but that it was published under Sidorenko's name. Evgeny is not an unusual Russian name. I may have missed something, so please clarify.

Also, what you say about this having been a sham marriage is illogical. The Patriarch did not become exempt from the draft because he was married -- he became exempt because he was subsequently ordained a clergyman. He did not need to contract a sham marriage for that to happen. Unmarried men are ordained all the time, it's just that they may not subsequently get married. If the marriage was a sham... it was completely unnecessary, because the Patriarch found himself in the same boat at the end of the day... an unmarried clergyman, who can never marry and remain a clergyman. Also, it seems rather unlikely that the father of his wife would have participated so fully in such a sham. The article by Sidorenko also makes no suggestion that it was a sham marriage. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You are talking theology and canons again (i am ready to accept what you have said here, but it is beside the point for reasons i have laid out above). The text of the second reference contains actually 2 texts (the one as was published in MN and below - the version prior to being edited by MN editors - there's no substantive difference) accompanied by Evgeniy Komarov comment which clearly says that he is the actual author of the piece and also that some other contributors had been involved, including 2 "museum officers" who did the archive job and provided the photos. He says that Myannik on seeing those was amazed as she had not expected them to be in any one else's possession (i suspect this particular bit may be meant just to absolve her of the responsibility for actually having provided those). I did not say anything "about this having been a sham marriage". All i said that there was (and is) a criminal code article called "fictious marriage" (in Russian) which interprets as such any wedlock that does not involve actual cohabitation (similar crimes exist in pretty much all countries). It is not frequently used for actual prosecution, which is usually an indication that is one of those used by certain agencies to browbeat a person into "cooperation" (the favourite article for such purposes in the USSR was male homosexuality (#121 prim), also never actually enforced but widely used). I think the whole point is simply not worth the hours we have already spent debating it, mostly recycling the same arguments. My feeling is that you tend to overreact, viewing any mention of the facts disagreeable with you as almost a personal attack. Believe me, PA himself (like most of Russia's top men) do not give a damn about this thing -- i mean about what people say and think of him. The only person's opinion he cares about is putin and only as long as the latter is in the Kremlin. You are fundamentally mistaken in treating him as a church figure -- he is THE oldest nomenklatura (and i do not use the term pejoritively -- merely stating the fact) member still in office: just think of it for a sec -- since 1961 has he not known what it means to use public transport, stand in lines to buy food, have to bribe a doctor to get atrocious medical service... If you want to know this, I knew Komarov personally, albeit quite tangentially, in the early 90s and he never failed to strike me as a fanatical devotee of the Moscow Patriarchate and PA in particular. And he is far from being alone in his league: there are quite a few people (i am not talking about disgruntled clerics) who upon closer acquaintance were disgusted by what they saw -- not because there is something especially monstrous about him -- No, but by discovering that there is just NOTHING of any substance in him; he is just a self-obsessed actor without much acting talent. The above said was meant just to kind of explain myself as i have read assertions that "I hate" the subject -- that is not true: there's nobody there to hate and that is exactly the trouble. There are plenty of decent bishops in the ROC, but regrettably back in 1990 arguably the worst was chosen for reasons that are not difficult to discern, but that is an altogether different story... Sorry, i have to state that i do not intend to continue this debate here (unless there are some specific enquiries that had better be forwarded to my chat-page). Thanks every one!Muscovite99 (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am "talking theology and canons again", because when you insert claims that Patriarch Alexei's marriage violated the canons of the Church, you are "talking theology and canons"... not empirical facts. I am glad that you "accept what (I) have said here" about the fact that in this case the bishop were in fact applying economia. When economia is applied, there is no violation of the canons... no more so than if Congress passes a law that grants a special exception to some law to an individual in a particular circumstance is the law "violated". I note that you did not answer my question about what peer reviewed articles or book Komarov has had published on theology, Church history, or on the Canons. Having a theological degree does not make you an expert on these subjects any more than having a law degree makes you an expert on the law. A law degree makes you qualified to take the bar exam, but it does not make you an expert or an authority on the law.

Also, the problem with the link you have added to the "unexpurgated version" of this article, is that by definition this version is not a reliable source for an article on a living person. What is on that page is the form of the article that did not undergo an editorial process. WP:VERIFIABILITY states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:Reliable Sources#Wikipedia does not publish original research states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." "The unexpurgated version" is unpublished by any reliable source. WP:BLP#Sources states: "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." If you merely wanted to add a link to the photos, there are versions of the published article that have the photos which should be linked to instead. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Muscovite99, I came to similar concussions about Moskovskiye Novosti and Moscow News as you have mentioned in your point 1 above, when I was looking into Frjohnwhiteford's comments. There seems to be a number of reference available on line that could be used to clarify this in Wikipedia articles on these two sources. Do you know any one who might be interested in improving those articles so that their quality as references will be easier for other editors to see in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 14:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the articles are less than good. But then again, Moskovskiye Novosti has been shut down (they call it suspension). I might try to improve it when i have time.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that this material is going to be left in the article, here is my proposed revision, which is more faithful to what is actually stated in the article, and provides more pertinent details:

He married Vera Alekseesva, the daughter of a priest from Tallinn Georgi Alekseev, on April 11, 1950, on Tuesday of the Bright Week when marriages are normally prohibited according to Church tradition; however, permission was granted by Metropolitan Gregory of Leningrad, at the request of Bishop Roman of Tallinn and the fathers of both the bride and groom (both or whom were priests, and who concelebrated the marriage together). Moskovskie Novosti has alleged that according to a denunciation written by a priest-inspector Pariysky to the Leningrad Council of Religious Affairs, the marriage had been expedited in order for Ridiger to become a deacon and avoid being drafted into the Soviet Army (marriage is impossible after ordination in Orthodoxy). Up until 1950, seminarians were given a deferment from the draft, but in 1950 this was changed, and only clergy were exempt. For reason which have remained private, they divorced less than a year later.

Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Residence

This section begins:

"The Patriarch's private residence is located in the village of Lukino (near Peredelkino) (originally it was meant as Patriarch Alexius I's dacha), now a western suburb of Moscow; it includes a 17th century church, a museum, and a spacious three-storey house built in the late 1990s."

No source is given to substantiate the comment about a dacha. The use of "dacha" has implications of extravagance which are not warranted.

The text continues:

"On the residence compound there is a de-facto rotating women's monastery, according to the Patriarch's interview;"

The source says nothing about a "de-facto rotating women's monastery." I think the whole thing is irrelevant, but if it is left in at all it should simply state "In the residence compound, there are a group of nuns who are in charge of household chores and duties."

Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

More than a week having passed, and no reference having been provided to substantiate the comment about Patriarch Alexei I's "Dacha", and no defense of it remaining in the article having been presented, I have removed it as unsourced POV commentary. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Telling about dacha is POV-pushing?! This is over the top. I think that Muscovite99 describes Alexius as a person by providing some interesting although minor details of his life. That is something a reader would like to know. That is what makes articles interesting. Let's respect each other's edits. We are looking for acompromise here.Biophys (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99 has made it quite clear that he despises Patriarch Alexei. Throwing in the word "Dacha" is a loaded phrase that suggests an extravagant life-style. Furthermore, the assertion is entirely without substantiation. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Having "Dacha" is an extravagant life-style?! Almost everyone in Russia has a dacha. This can be simply a barn.Biophys (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That may well be in Russian, but this is not a Russian article. In English, Dacha is never used in reference to a barn. Usually, it is used in reference to some rich Russians second or third home. See Dacha#Dachas of the elite.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Frjohnwhiteford: Actually, if you read the following source listed on the bottom of the Further Reading page of the link you provided, you will see that the article, [6] ("Dacha Wanna Be Russian?") explains what dachas are.

So what is a "dacha?" The word has made significant inroads into English because, although it can theoretically be translated as "summer house," or "cottage" the dacha is not necessarily that comfortable, leisurely symbol of affluence, or that picturesque image of country living...

...But for many Russians, the dacha is still a simple home-away-from-home. Every weekend, many don large rubber boots (резиновые сапоги) and weed and care for their vegetable patches. They eat shashlik (a kind of barbeque on skewers), play outdoor games, go for walks and just relax. At night, they retire to what usually amounts to a simple wooden shack, often lacking running water and electricity. To many, this is a "return to the soil," to their roots and the ways of their forefathers.

If you are going to write cross-cultural articles (or articles that at least have some cross-cultural interfacing or require cross-cultural knowledge and understanding) for Wikipedia, I would recommend that you do three things: 1) learn to step into the culture you're writing about. If you forget to take of your "American" mindset and put on the mindset of the other culture, you are going to run into tremendous problems. Your example here is when you stated that "dacha" is a rich Russian's summer house. That is an American hearing a Russian word and imagining something based on American cultural pretexts; you should be an American hearing a Russian word and imagining something Russian based on the dominant meaning within the Russian culture. While I understand that the meaning of dacha is changing, as per the article cited from above, the "rich Russian's summer house" is not the dominant meaning. Learn to think outside of your own culture; I did it, so it can't be that difficult. 2) don't assume that everyone agrees with you. I happen to be an American. I just broke your use of the word "never" because I understand a dacha to be more akin to a hunter's shack than an extravagant McMansion somewhere in the wilderness. Then again, I suppose it helps that I took the time to educate myself many years ago. 3) don't be pretentious; you aren't a Russian living in Russia who is exposed to Russian speech, dialects, lexical and semantic structures, and various other elements that make a Russian uniquely Russian. Genuinely listen to what they say; they know their culture better than you do.--Sarienpalth (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this article were being written in Russian, I wouldn't be editing it. If my Russian was good enough to facilitate that, I would certainly defer to native speakers. But when an article is written in English, and we are talking about English usage, even if it is of a Russian loan word... it is the English usage that concerns us. Not how the word is used in Russian. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right - we are concerned about using the word correctly, in context. We're not talking about reading/writing/speaking Russian, we're talking about using a Russian loan word correctly, as it is currently used in Russian culture so that we don't distort the meaning of the word when it's translated into English. Sarienpalth (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not our job to correct common English usage here. If you want to start a crusade to fight the improper understanding of "dacha" as it is used in contemporary English, you are free to do so. And if you are successful in getting everyone to understand that a dacha can be a barn, or a shack, then we will have to take that into account... though I think it is rather obvious that the Patriarch's residence is neither a barn nor a shack. The phrase "Gung-ho" comes from Chinese it. It has one meaning in Chinese, and a related, but different meaning in English. In English, it is the English usage we must concern ourselves with. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

'Dacha' doesn't have to mean a rich house in English. John Whiteford, you're wrong. Malick78 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Have to" is a rather absolute word. Many words do not "have to" have the meaning that they most commonly do in popular usage. "Prevent" can mean "to go before", but when you use that word, most people assume you mean to stop something from happening. In english, a dacha usually is used in reference to a summer or vacation home. I don't know about you, but anyone who has a home that they use for just one part of the year, is living rather high on the hog. In any case, there was no source for the statement in question, and so it doesn't much matter. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, no it's not; most people who use that Russian loan word probably don't know what it is. Once again, you're assuming that a Russian dacha and a summer house in America/Britain/Austrailia are the same thing when they are not. Read the article Dacha Wanna Be Russian? at the bottom of the page that you cited and it will clearly illustrate that your position on the usage of the word is incorrect. Keep this up and you're going to throw your credibility as a neutral, culturally-sensitive, fact-seeking writer into question. Sarienpalth (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above, and see also Dacha#Dachas of the elite. Since the question is a moot point, since the statement lacked any citation to substantiate it regardless of the meaning or implication of the word "dacha", I'm done discussing it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading Section

This section is entirely one sided, and is unnecessary... that's what footnotes are for. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There having been no response after a week, I am deleting this section. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Health assertions

Just for reference here's the relevant section excerpted from the June, 2007, edition of the Russiam WP article, when the issue of his health was a hot issue.(it was subsequently removed, perhaps, unduly).

References

== Состояние здоровья и сопряжённые с ним скандалы в СМИ ==

Cамый серьёзный инцидент, связанный со здоровьем, имел место в октябре 2002 в Астрахани, где Патриарх находился с визитом. После перенесённого тогда Патриархом тяжёлого инсульта, на Украине и в среде Русской Зарубежной Церковью стали распространятся слухи о некоем явлении ему в алтаре астраханского собора прп. Феодосия Печерского, который якобы сказал: «Отпали от Бога - ты и многие братья твои, и к диаволу припали, - произнес святой. - И правители Руси не правители уж суть, а кривители. И церковь потворствует им. И не стоять вам по правую руку от Христа. И ждет вас мука огненная, скрежет зубовный, страдания бесконечные, аще не опомнитесь, окаянные. Милость Господа нашего безгранична, но слишком долог для вас путь к спасению через искупление бесчисленных грехов ваших, а час ответа близок»[7]. Тогда пресс-служба ОВЦС Патриархии выступила с официальным опровержением, заявив, что «слухи злонамеренно распространяются противниками Церкви, заинтересованными во внесении смуты в умы верующих людей»[8].

27 апреля 2007 российские СМИ распространили информацию о резком ухудшении здоровья Патриарха, находящегося в Швейцарии [9][10][11][12].

Руководитель пресс-службы Патриархии о. Владимир Вигилянский заявил РИА Новости, что волна безосновательных слухов о тяжелом состоянии здоровья Патриарха, поднятая и распространяемая в Интернете в последние дни, «просто возмутительна»[13]. Отец Владимир предположил, что в информационной кампании о якобы имевшей место смерти Патриарха можно усмотреть и злой умысел, направленный на срыв подписания Акта о каноническом общении между Русской Зарубежной Церковью и Московским Патриархатом, намеченого на 17 мая 2007.

Уторм 2 мая 2007 Патриарх Алексий совершил литургию в Воскресенском храме Покровского монастыря у Покровской Заставы в Москве и после богослужения заявил следующее: «Кому-то, видимо, хотелось испортить и отпуск, и лечение, а, может быть, кто-то распускал эти слухи в преддверии подписания акта о воссоединении Зарубежной церкви с матерью-Церковью, с Московским Патриархатом, в надежде, что они отразятся на его подписании»; «никакого аортошунтирования у меня никогда не было, и не было никакой клинической смерти, иначе бы я сегодня не служил здесь, как и было намечено до отпуска»

3 мая 2007 Владимир Вигилянский заявил, что главный редактор радио «Эхо Москвы» Алексей Венедиктов и главный редактор газеты «Московский комсомолец» Павел Гусев, распространявшие слухи о смерти или тяжкой болезни Патриарха, должны уйти в отставку:

Это не какая-то нелепая ошибка интерпретации, как мы поначалу думали; теперь в произошедшем твердо видны злые намерения. Одной из целей клеветы могло быть желание посеять смуту в отношении подписания Акта о Воссоединении Русской Православной Церкви заграницей с матерью-Русской Православной Церковью. С другой стороны, целью клеветнической пиар-кампании могло быть желание проверить, как будет себя вести Церковь и архиереи, лишившись архипастыря.<...> Я не виню даже сами издания в целом, а виню конкретных людей, стоящих за газетой «Московский комсомолец» и за радио «Эхо Москвы». Это их затея, и, как сказал сегодня сам Святейший Патриарх, это не что иное, как «злая воля людей». Поэтому я считаю, что Алексей Венедиктов, главный редактор «Эха Москвы», и Павел Гусев, главный редактор «Московского комсомольцы» должны подать в отставку. В суд на них мы подавать не будем, но о том, что они нечестные люди и что они поддержали самые гнусные слухи, я заявить не боюсь. В том, что они вообще когда-нибудь извинятся, я сильно сомневаюсь, так как подобные люди считают извинения проявлением слабости.

И г-н Венедиктов, и г-н Гусев отвергли требования о. Владимира Вигилянского. Г-н Венедиктов, в частности, заявил: «в эфире сообщение о Патриархе звучало так: "Как сообщают источники Эхо Москвы, Патриарх находится на лечении в Швейцарии. Наши источники сообщают, что его состояние довольно сложное. Однако источники в Патриархии говорят, что они разговаривали с Патриархом в 13:00 по местному времени и все в порядке»; «пресс-служба Патриархии, которая должна была объяснить это [отсутствие Патриарха] верующим, гражданам, этого не сделала, а теперь пытается переложить свою плохую работу на журналистов, которые искали информацию и получали ее ото всюду, кроме пресс-службы Патриархии»[14]

Г-н Гусев назвал претензии Патриархии "абсолютно безосновательными", добавив: «Прежде всего хочу отметить, что у нас светское государство. И хотя, конечно, у нас свобода слова, и каждый может говорить все, что угодно, негоже официальному представителю церкви заниматься такими вопросами»; «когда эти слухи про Патриарха распространялись по Москве, Патриархия их не опровергала, а просто молчала, тем самым только усугубляя ситуацию. Поэтому ее пресс-секретарь в таком случае сам должен уйти в отставку».

Высказываются предположения, что ложный слух мог быть санкционирован в Кремле; или спровоцирован недовольными процессом воссоединения б. подполковником КГБ Константином Преображенским, Евгением Магеровским и М. Назаровым.

3 мая представитель пресс-службы Московской патриархии сообщил, что Патриарх Алексий не будет подавать в суд на СМИ, распространявшие ложные сведения о его болезни и даже смерти Muscovite99 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the Patriarch had died was a hoax, see WHO ORGANIZED THE PROVOCATIVE RUMORS ON EVE OF 17 MAY?. He supposedly had died just days prior to my seeing him in Moscow, serving three very long liturgies in one week. This sort of thing has no place in this article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it was a hot POLITICAL issue in Moscow for several weeks thereafter, as such "hoaxes" are not possible by expedience of some disgruntled kids. The fact of media reports is quite significant, as most analysts in Moscow concurred that some very highly-placed persons in Putin's administration were quite unhappy with PA II (Speculations usually fingured Sobyanin). I am not suggesting placing all these specuations into the article, but a mention of such reports is perfectly justified, in my view. By the way, in Russia popular belief is that if a person has been reported dead while being alive, it is a very good omen for him: there'll be many happy returns...Muscovite99 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Pushkov'a and Vigilyansky's chat is just their spin on the matter.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it happened weeks before reconciliation with with ROCOR was, I suspect, not entirely coincidental, and the people responsible for spreading it were in many cases those who were opposed to that reconciliation (e.g. portal credo... staffed largely by adherents of a splinter group of a splinter group) who hoped to scare people by the specter of the uncertainty that would result from this at this critical point in that process. But at the end of the day, it was in fact a hoax... why it was spread is debatable. There is no reason to mention it at all, but if it is mentioned, it should be mentioned as a hoax... since that is in fact what it was. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was not entirely a hoax as he was indeed in a Swiss hospital when the reports came through, either undergoing a routine medical check-up or an operation. In fact, the report seems to have originated with the Moskovsky Komsomolets web site (the distinction with the print paper is of consequence as these are 2 different editorial boards) and then spread mostly through i-net media. The media scandal was mostly stoked by the fact that the Patriarchate's press service was very tight-lipped for several days, apparently unwilling to confirm the very fact of PA II being in a Swiss hospital, before having to do so. Thus most of the vituperation eventually was not against PA but against Vigilyansky who is in charge of MP PR. Another point is a true serious health-related incident prior to that -- in October 2002 in Astrakhan (See the first para of the Russian text above): he barely showed up for a few months after. Therefore, some qualification is in order in addition to merely stating hid current good health.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he saw the doctor is a far cry from the reports that he died on the operating table (three times, as I recall). He was in excellent health when I saw him days later... and even Credo-Portal was ashamed, and attempting to exonerate themselves of responsibility. What could be the possible justification of mentioning such nonsense in this article? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that Muscovite99 is right, and he is ceratinly an expert on the subject of this article.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

He is right about precisely what? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dear john, in all frankness, i do NOT mean to offend you in any way, but i already read that you had seen the subject once about half a dozen times. Can you explain what this fact proves or disproves, please. I saw Clinton a couple of times, read hundreds of books and articles on the US politics (in fact passed several University exams on the subject), but i would never dare interpolate into the US policy discussion issues with Americans. Because what i learnt very well from my many years of interacting with foreigners (mostly Americans) both professionally and privately is this: THEY (even if they are rednecks from a Midwest desert) know better than me, FOR they are part of it and i am always a bystander; and the stupidest thing i can possibly do is start lecturing them on the relative virtues of Clinton vs Bush or suchlike. I know full well what "exotic" religions such as Russian Orthodoxy mean in the US -- they are viewed as national (from ancestral motherland) patrimony, or as just that (exotica) by converts/fans. Whereas in the RF it is part of the actual mainstream political/social/philosophical discourse and struggle. And this discourse is waged by people who have very high awareness of Russia's immediate background (that is Communist); for the people here, the fact that a person was at all allowed to travel to a "capitalist country" means he had joined the Soviet nomenklatura. (Just for you to understand: when there was a mere possibility that my mum could be seconded as a teacher to Mongolia ("a socialist country"), she was immediately told to seek to join the Communist Party, to start with). And for such a person to explore the fleshpots on his own in Paris -- i shall tell you in all honesty, i only know of one other Soviet citizen who was permitted to do this kind of thing -- the late Metropolitan Pitirim (Nechayev), who would normally don his civilian clothes for such occasions. This is a kind of thing that was absolutely unthinkable even for very senior Party bosses: Gorbachev, in his own words, got a glimpse of western store selection of sausages only when he was already a politburo member and was duly shocked and instantly converted (to capitalism). You ignore all this, which is perfectly alright, if you were writing an article on your Oklohoma-City parish, but this article is not about your parish's boss (as some have pointed out here) -- it is, above all, about the Soviet-era bishop, Yeltsin and Putin-era Russia' patriarch (in fact, a modern RF politician). And you keep believing that your private viewpoint is the absolute truth, which is very Russian-Orthodox, of course, but this is a secular multinational resource here.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was not a hoax, why was Portal-Credo running away from it so fast and hard in the article I posted? What my eye witness testimony proves is that the story was bogus, because people who die three times on the operating table generally do not stand and serve through multiple services of between 3 to 5 hours a piece within days of that event. I saw him up close, received communion from twice, and spoke with him (through a translator), once, and he was clearly in very good health, and does not look at all his age. Your conclusions about Patriarch Alexei eating onion soup in Paris are neither here nor there, unless you have reliable sources that voice those conclusions as well. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not placing any of my "conclusions" in the article, to start with. The soup was mentioned by the Patriarch himself in the interview that is placed on the official MP web site. For some reason the MP officials (and the Patriarch himself) believe that this is worth mentioning. My point essentially is that you seek to impose your personal view (which you are perfectly entitled to have and share) on every one else, which is not in the spirit of the WP, or any productive discussion.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More original research and POV pushing.

Muscovite99's edit summary for the inserted text that I just undid reads as follows: "Recovered the bit about the dish - it may appear trivial, but quite revealing in many ways (a Sov citizen being allowed to explore parisian resrants on HIS OWN is sth else".

This shows that Muscovite99 is attempting to make a point that goes beyond the source he is citing, which is original research and POV pushing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this has nothing to do with POV pushing. Muscovite simply described a life style of this person. That is something a reader would like to know. Also, the deletion of "Futher reading" is unacceptable. Please wait for consensus opinion of others before deletions.Biophys (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

After a week since the last time I argued that the "Further Reading" section was redundant, and one-sided, you have not made the slightest argument in favor of retaining it. Now, the burden is on you to build a consensus to re-insert it. I have already taken the issue to this talk page... even to this minute, you have not offered any defense for why this should be included. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree on both points. I fail to see how describing the Patriarch's fondness for french onion soup could be in any way be construed as POV pushing. Would it be more neutral if it were cabbage soup? Martintg (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, the interview does not say French Onion Soup is his favorite dish... only that he likes it. Secondly, Muscovite99's edit summary demonstrates that he was not merely interested in noting the Patriarch's taste in food. Are we next going to talk about his favorite color? Even in Paris, one must eat. Paris is known for having good food. So what? There is nothing here that is note worthy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment about "Dacha" above. Providing minor personal details is important. This make an article interesting. We do not want a boring copy of his official biography here.Biophys (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We also don't want to spice it up with innuendo, half truths, and one-sided accounts of his life. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• See my post above this section.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing Arguments on French Onion Soup

I am going to ask Jeepday for a ruling on this point, but want to give everyone a final chance to cite the policies that support their position. I am opposed to the inclusion of this text because it involved original research (WP:OR), since Muscovite99 is clearly attempting to make a point that is not supported by the source, as is clear from his edit summary when he re-inserted the text in question. It also is contrary to WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia, which cites as an example of information that is too unimportant to warrant inclusion the following:

"However, in some cases, the information is just too unimportant. For instance, a note like "Alan Smithee's favorite color is yellow" cannot be integrated into the text without distracting from it (in other words, it's trivia no matter how it is presented, and should therefore be removed)."

I think there is a very clear parallel between Alan Smithee's favorite color, and Patriarch Alexei having a taste for French Onion Soup. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruling on French Onion Soup

To address the question of the soup. While only Frjohnwhiteford has posted policies to support their side of the argument, I have looked through the talk above. What I see is an argument that there is not a reference that says "French Onion Soup is his favorite dish... only that he likes it" and a good argument not to include it per WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia. All parties involved in the discussion have valid perspectives to include or not include the piece, but only policy to not include was offered, the rest was tends to fall under WP:ILIKEIT which is recognized as not a valid argument in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The edit summary provided when the piece in question was added does not appear to meet the expectations of Use of edit summaries in disputes Editors should beware of what they are communicating in their edit summaries and review Help:Edit summary#Recommendations as appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

my view, summarized

which you may or may not follow. I find it inconceivable that anyone who knows the soviet system could think that Alexius II was not considerably involved with the KGB, and the question is only to what extent he was, how honest his claims of trying to ameliorate it are, & the degree of moral culpability involved. But this is not provable, and short of events like those in East German is not likely to be. As people can have very strong reasons for thinking one way or the other, they resort to discussions of other aspects of his character, which are at most trivial compared to the essential matters. But I appreciate the cleverness -- however unconstructive -- with which one or another position has been argued here.

I think insinuation raises questions of BLP, and the present version approved by my colleague here is not acceptable. I respect his judgment in these matters at least as much as my own, but we disagree; as I see it he's going by the rules literally, and I by their intentions, and we each think that our method of looking at it is right. I hold to my own position. I think none the worse of him for his. DGG (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate please what exactly you think is not acceptable in present version? Almost everything seems to be supported by sources.Biophys (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have said clearly enough that the details of his marriage or his housekeeping, supported by sources or not, amount to excessive weight, and come under BLP--although not explicit condemnations, the negative intent is clear to me & I think it is to you as well. It is a matter of opinion on how to apply BLP in this instance, and I have given mine. When my opinion is asked for, I give it. What weight other people assign it, is up to them. I do not use admin powers in a matter where another respected admin disagrees. DGG (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexei and politics

A few interesting things in this article. Could be interesting. Malick78 (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Flag

At this point, I would be in favor of removing the NPOV flag from the article. There is more we need to do with the article, but as it stands right now, I think it is about as close to being NPOV as it is likely to get. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think perhaps the two issues I raise below should be addressed prior to removing the NPOV flag -- though aside from those two points (and keeping in mind that there is more information on his tenure as Patriarch that can and should be added) I think we have a relatively balanced article now. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sotnikova Controversy

Given that awhile back, even Muscovite99 conceded that this controversy was over blown:

"As for Sotnikova, it has blown over, by and large. The whole thing was blown out of proportion by her business rivals. She was indeed fairly close to him at the turn of century but no more."

And given that what we have in this section has a lot to to do with Sotnikova, and little to do with Patriarch Alexei, I would argue that it should be removed, or moved to an article on Sotnikova. As it currently stands, I think this section gives far too much weight to the controversy, and is contrary to WP:UNDUE. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A week having passed, and there having been no objection, I have deleted this section. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a solid reason for removal, a proposal was made and a reasonable time allowed for rebuttal. Without looking into the details of the content or references. It appears that John had a what he believed to be valid reason and probable consensus before removing the text. Looks like Bio waited until the edit was made before objecting [15] while, this is his right, it is unreasonable given the history on this article. Questions of content should be addressed on the talk page not in edit summaries while reverting another editors announced change. Additionally Bio did not make any edits on the talk page to address John's concerns, then or now. I would think leaving it removed while discussing the value it could add to the article would be appropriate. This is a question of process not content. If the editors here can come to consensus to restore all or part of the text that is fine, if not you can leave it out, or ask me to for tie breaker. I have re-remove the content as John did in this edit Jeepday (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Preobrazhensky's ever forthcoming book

I would argue that this quote is also given undue weight, and violates WP:UNDUE:

According to Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, Alexius II did not privately deny his involvement with the KGB and told to Oleg Kalugin: “Why are you exaggerating what happened? Yes, we collaborated with the KGB, even I did. But it was a struggle for peace, for disarmament! There’s nothing wrong with that!”

My reasons for taking this position are:

1. The book has been "forthcoming" for nearly a year now. As it is, it is not published, and we don't know what the final form will be.

2. We have Preobrazhensky's characterization of a conversation that was related to him by Oleg Kalugin... and so it is hearsay upon hearsay, and unless it was corroborated by an independent source (i.e., some source other than Preobrazhensky or Kalugin who claimed to have heard similar statements from Patriarch Alexei), it is highly questionable, and poorly sourced. In accordance with WP:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, either better sources are needed, or it should be removed. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There having been no objection after a week, I have deleted this quote. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Supporting the process of removal same as in #Sotnikova Controversy above. Re-removing text if you want to have a content discussion have it on the talk page not in the edit summary. Once again this is a question of process not content, if you can't reach consensus on the content let me know. Jeepday (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Final arguments on the aforementioned two issues

I waited a week for a response, and then took the actions I mentioned above. I still have no reply, but Biophys has reverted my edits with only the following edit summary "Restoring perfectly sourced texts. No any reasonable justification to remove these sourced texts was provided at talk page." I would point out that I provided reasons, and so far he has provided no counter arguments. I will ask Jeepday for a ruling, but will give him and anyone else one more chance to actually state a counter argument before I do so. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested and given. Jeepday (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The deleted statements were based on citing reliable sources. No any reasons why the sources are unreliable was given. I can provide more sources on these subjects. Can we then reinsert the statements, perhaps with some modifications?Biophys (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply providing sources is not sufficient to warrant inclusion. The text must also be relevant, and not given undue weight. If you can find other sources that independently verify that Patriarch Alexei made statements such as the one cited by Preobrazhensky, then please present them here, and let's discuss them. As for the other issue, even Muscovite99 again it was much ado about nothing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating controversy on homosexuality

It is absolutely essential to present not only the view of those who support homosexual behavior and lifestyles, but the actual views of the Patriarch and Orthodox Church - what happened in the previous versions amounted to an attack on his views without seeking to understand what they actually are. Without an understanding of the historical and current views of traditional Christianity, at the very least the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, one presents an unbalanced straw man that will discredit the view as soon as the inquirer actually comes into contact with what the Orthodox Church's teachings are. Surely even a liberal committed to gay rights can see this. In my edit I left the hostile claims in place and merely added the view of the Orthodox Church, which of course Alexei (Alexius) shares. http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26 It is NPOV to stress that there is not a plurality of views on homosexuality in the Orthodox Church; that it has always been the teaching of the Church and has of necessity been supported by all Church leaders at all times and that a Church leader cannot oppose Orthodox Tradition and remain Church leader (it mayy be a shocking revelation to some, but there is no room for personal opinion on doctrine. Attempting to present the opinion as one merely held by Alexius is in fact a partisan point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• You state his view then the church's - with refs. You then say he cannot deviate from the church's. But where is the ref for that linkage or the fact that his view is caused by the church's beliefs and not his own private ones? Those extrapolations seem OR. Secondly, the article is about him and as an individual his view is his own. What his organisation thinks is beside the point somewhat. After all, he can leave it if his views differ, he doesn't have to agree with it. It is again his choice and he chooses to be a bigot. "Kleptomania" is his word, not the church's. Malick78 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Church's position, which corresponds with Alexius's, is already on the external links page. Here is the appropriate link from an official site in English (the Orthodox Church of America): http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26

It is your (incorrect) assumption that his position is one based on bigotry. Insisting on presenting his position as merely an individual view is like insisting that the view of the President of the United States on anarchy must be presented in a like manner - it is absurd and contradicts a fundamental position of the Church. No President can be President if he subscribes to a position contrary to the American Constitution, and no Church leader can be a Church leader if he subscribes to a position that contradicts the Church. If his (personal) position - which for believers makes no difference from the corporate position on dogmatic stands - were somehow different from the dogmatic stand, it would be reasonable to point out the discrepancy, but such a discrepancy does not exist. Conversely, presenting the position as merely the patriarch's personal position is actively false and implies that a Church leader can be a Church leader and disagree on dogmatic issues. If they do disagree on dogmatic issues, they become schismatic and break with the Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_(religion). Rusmeister (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• That is lovely original research of yours, but no where on the page you gave the link for does it say "the Patriarch cannot have a different opinion from that which is officially endorsed by his church". No where. And that's what I was asking for. A citation. Please provide a ref for the opinion you are giving - because without it it cannot appear on WP. At the moment it's just your extrapolation from two independent things that you see as facts. Malick78 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malik. Long time, no see. I gave the reference. there is no requirement from wikipedia that I satisfy every personal request. It is a fact that a Patriarch or Pope may not hold views contrary to the position of his Church and remain Pope or Patriarch. The fact is that in Orthodoxy, a believer MUST conform any personal opinions to accept Church dogma. (Rusmeister (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hate to burst your bubble but there are plenty of instances where a Pope has altered the course of the church and changed official doctrine. It's possible. Sigh. Malick78 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mali, this is a misunderstanding of the structure of the Orthodox Church. You assume that it is the same as the catholic Church. This is not the case. One of the prime issues that split the two Churches in 1054 was Papal authority, which the 4 Eastern Church Sees (aside from Rome) - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem - insisted on the collegial nature of Church leadership, which means precisely that one man cannot alter the course of the entire Church. Rome broke with the other Churches and insisted on Papal authority, and thus the Roman Church became capable of this. The other Churches (which remained in communion collectively) did not. The Patriarch of the Russian Church could go bonkers and against the 2,000 year tradition of the Church, but that would not force any other Church leader to follow suit. In such a case he would likely be deposed by the Synod. But the whole scenario is highly improbable. Your references to abuse of power by Catholic Popes are thus irrelevant to the Orthodox Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister (talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's besides the point - he is a human with a brain and can think what he likes. If he disagreed with Church opinion, he could say so and leave the church. That he doesn't leave is because he agrees with it whole-heartedly, which is therefore shows that it is his own opinion - as was my point in the first place. Secondly and more importantly, if an editor wants to say that Alexius is against homosexuality because his church forces him to be - the editor should find those two points in the same source, - not cobble them together from two different sources making the link him/herself. That is named "original research" in these quarters and has no place here:) Malick78 (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Sigh*

No, the real point is that you are trying to paint it as MERELY his personal opinion. It is a very important point that it is not and that personal opinions within the Orthodox Church may not contradict orthodox doctrine - if a person disagrees, then he rejects the authority of the Church and excludes himself from it. It would be noteworthy if his opinion conflicted with the Church (it would even be newsworthy - but the fact remains that he is required to uphold Orthodox doctrine and is not free to express opinions to the contrary and remain a leader in the Orthodox Church and this is something that MUST be published for any fair understanding of the facts, rather than mere partisan manipulation of them. Rusmeister (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• What is noteworthy is his opposition to homosexuality. That's why the western media has reported it. What is also noteworthy is your use of a quote from the Orthodox Church in the US to tell us what the Patriarch thinks. Or rather, it doesn't - it is off topic and talks in general terms. Nothing about the Patriarch at all. Please understand, partisan manipulation with refs beats a "fair understanding of the facts" without. Until you have proper refs saying that he has to be opposed to homosexuality, then your point is just OR as I said. Please find these refs instead of edit-warring. Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is NOT noteworthy, because the Orthodox Church has always condemned homosexual behavior. Your refusal to understand what it means to be Orthodox doesn't make it appropriate to hide this fact from the public. It is indicative of a partial effort on your part to condemn the Patriarch's position rather than attempt to explain or understand it. FTR, I'll get additional references to Church canons stating that no one may be Orthodox and hold dissenting opinions on dogmatic issues - and that includes Alexius. Your insistence that the Church canon laws specifically name him is silly. Might as well publish a law saying that Malik may not exceed the speed limit. We don't have to name every citizen in the law to apply the law to him. Rusmeister (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How did this section even make it into the article? First, "supported the traditional stand that the Orthodox Church has always taken and opposed the display of homosexuality in Russia" is basically nonsense, the Orthodox Church has always had only a single stance on the issue. The statement implies that there is some disagreement within the Church on the matter, that is not the case. Second how exactly is this controversial to begin with? The sentiment expressed is the norm for Russian culture and society. Maybe in California this would be a controversy, in Moscow these views are not controversial. At the very lest this section needs to make that clear, or possibly be removed entirely. Sotnik (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Sotnik. The problem is that some people evidently want to paint the Patriarch as having merely a personal opinion and to be an unreasonable bigot, and are working to erase any evidence that this is and always has been the stand of the Orthodox Church and that no one can possibly be a Church leader and hold a dissenting view.

References have been provided, in English where possible (thus the OCA references - they are part of the same Church). It is NOT original research, please stop calling it that. Rusmeister (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

I've added this tag to this section because half the section is from a site that doesn't even mention the patriarch's views - it is there just because an editor thinks it is relevant - yet there is no direct link from it to this article's topic. As the tag says: "Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Patriarch Alexius II of Russia"." Quite clearly the vague description of the Church's views is off topic. Malick78 (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you have personally expressed the idea that a) the Patriarch may hold a view that contradicts the Orthodox Church and somehow remain Patriarch b) that you personally need proof to the contrary (which is provided via Church canon, which is Church law, but you deny it because it does not mention the Patriarch by name c) you want it in English on a country, language and culture far removed from your own understandings

does not change what IS. What is available in English concerning a non-English person has been provided. If necessary. I'll provide more sources in any language (most likely Russian. But the position that Alexeius must conform to Church canon law is NPOV, not OR and is from existing websites. You have ignored this again and again and this is proof of a partisan POV effort on your part to paint the Patriarch as a bigot on a personal level while denying him the support of the Church from which he derives his beliefs. The position of the Church is 100% relevant.

You refuse to understand that on matters of church dogma the position of the Orthodox Church IS the position of the individual believer - or he is not Orthodox. You don't understand Orthodoxy and you don't want to. You seem to just want Orthodox Christians to be presented as unreasoning bigots. Please stop. I have followed wikipedia rules and your extensive efforts to paint it otherwise don't change that. Rusmeister (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• You say X+Y=Z, and have given sources regarding X and Y, but neither says that the '+' is warranted in the equation. Neither says 'he is a homophobe because he has to be'. They just say X) he is a homophobe, Y) the OC church is homophobic. Where is the direct link? That's what the synthesis tag is for, to stop you plucking random facts (only you say they're not random, a source does not back you up) to make a deduction that suits your POV. Where is the source that says we must link them? Please find it, because until then it's just your own view and uncorroborated. Malick78 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the word "consistently" and changed it to "repeatedly", because we have numerous examples of him doing just that. There is no synthesis of sources. One could just as easily argue that it is a synthesis of sources to claim that his position on homosexuality is a controversy. It is not a matter of POV that Patriarch Alexei holds to the position he holds. He presided over a council that affirmed this to be the position of the Church. He signed that document. He has made numerous statements that reflect that position. Now if you want to just delete this whole section, I would be OK with that. A case could be made that the issue is given undue weight here.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, we should keep the section - this stain on his character should be left for all to see:) However, you seem to have missed the point. We have sources that say he has criticised homosexuality. That's fine and is on topic. Then, the article says "the church itself is against homosexuality". That is quite obviously an addition added to defend him - ie, it is POV and not neutral. In order to include it, there should be a 3rd party source saying that this fact is the reason why he is against homosexuality. After all, how do you know he wouldn't, if not in the church, be against gays? At the moment, all editors are saying is that "we know it's true and relevant so we will add it". Truth, being relative and in the eye of the beholder, has to be backed by refs on WP. That's all I would like to see, and that's what the synthesis tag was for: for all refs to relate to the Patriarch directly and not use insinuation. Malick78 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We know from the council that he presided over and the document that it produced, which he signed, that he affirms the position of that document, which states that this is the position of the Church. Also, in the documents that criticize him for his stance, they themselves make it clear that he is speaking on behalf of the Church, and affirming the position of the Church. It is not at all POV to state that this is the case. You can consider this a stain. I consider it a feather in his cap that he has not deviated from the teaching of the Church despite contemporary pressure from some to do so. He is also against pornography, adultery, and fornication... and so perhaps we should start sections on those things as well.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If all truth is relative and in the eye of the beholder, there's no way we can post anything on wikipedia - it's all relative. Fortunately, that is not actually the case. As I said earlier, Malick (and noticed that you did not respond to it) the President of the US may not be president and subscribe to anarchy. You have insisted that proof be provided that the Patriarch's view IS the view of the Church. I have provided such references. You rejected them bcause they don't cite the Patriarch by name. I pointed out that they don't have to and you go back to your original insistence - arguing in a circle. The fact that you see the Patriarch's view as "a stain" reveals POV on your part, and your use of the word "homophobia" - a highly debatable term that assumes fear on the part of the people who oppose it (see criticism of the term on the homophobia page - one might as well say 'alcophobe' to refer to opposition to alcoholism.) - as deeply misunderstanding the Church's position. Since it has been posted here I can only conclude that you do NOT wish to understand it, but see it through the fog of your own POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister (talk•

Well, the past few years have shown that the a US President can be President while ignoring the constitution. Regardless, this seems to me less like a personal criticism and more like a criticism of the church. Also, all of the sources for the homosexual criticism section are in English from Western newspapers and only mention Western consternation, which suggests to me that there's no serious criticism in Russia. Until someone can find some, I changed the section to say that it's controversial in the West. Esn (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to visit by Pope John Paul

How come this issue isn't addressed? It was very controversial at the time and Alexey was one of the driving forces behind the opposition. Deserves at least a mention. Malick78 (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rüdiger or Ridiger?

Was his father more often referred to as von Rüdiger (German variant) or Ridiger (Russified version)? Did Alexey initially use Latinization Rüdiger or Ridiger when in Estonia? Rüdiger seems to give more google hits, and I've also encountered this version more often, so I presume He was born as Aleksey Rüdiger would be historically more accurate. --Miacek (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to historian Aarne Veedla [16] who has worked through all available state and family archives tracking down the family tree the family names of both Aleksey and his father Mihhail have been spelled as Ridiger. However, at the same time Alexy II' cousin and childhood friend who currently lives in Germany, the name is spelled as Alexander Rüdiger according to the source. So I'd say both versions are correct or at least it wouldn't be wrong to spell it either ways.--Termer (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Balance needed

The criticism section is currently one third of the article. While criticism is, of course, valid, it is hardly one-third of the reason that makes Alexey notable. The Russian article, while mentioning the criticisms mentioned in the English one (though giving less space to the homosexual critism section - and yes, in Russian it also seems that the controversy was limited to the West), also goes in far more detail about his life. Esn (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you are welcome to add more sourced information. He is known to the public mostly as described in this commentary by priest Yakov Krotov [17]:

"Формально владыка Алексий Ридигер стоял у кормила правления Церковью 45 лет. Тогда его и еще нескольких молодых (по церковным меркам) монахов неожиданно расставили на ключевые епископские посты. Расставили досрочно: видимо, Хрущев был недоволен тем, как идет борьба с религией, и поставил тех, кого считал более способными ликвидировать Церковь.

Трагедия жизни владыки Алексия Ридигера в том, что он всегда колебался вместе с линией партии. Приказывали – отлучал отца Глеба Якунина, приказывали – возвращал в Церковь, потом опять приказали – он опять отлучил. "Партия" здесь – прежде всего Лубянка, "орден меченосцев". Именно КГБ с середины 1970-х годов начал активно реализовывать проект "Православие на место коммунизма". Став патриархом в 1990 году, владыка Алексий Ридигер активнейшим образом этот проект довершал. Как и КГБ и Министерство обороны, Московская патриархия при полной поддержке Ельцина собрала силы после кратковременной горбачевской оттепели и перешла в атаку на свободу. Патриарх Алексий II всегда был на шаг впереди Ельцина по дороге к реставрации деспотизма." Biophys (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image sizing

Russavia, stop removing forced image sizing throughout Wikipedia. Maybe under your particular settings this doesn't look ugly, but with default settings the pictures now look tiny. Colchicum (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:MOS#Images. Removing forced image sizing is within the confines of WP Manual of Style. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Succession

Who is likely to succeed Alexy? Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, or Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk, the latter believed to be the Kremlin's preferred successor? --Hapsala (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is there somewhere an explanation about the process of succession and selection of the successor ? If not, could some wikipedian write one ? Thanks a lot. Hektor (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• If you read Russian then there is something on ru:Поместный собор. Basically today or tomorrow the Synod of ROC should appoint a temporarily Mestoblyustitel Patrirshego prestola (the keeper of Patriarch throne). Then within 6 months of Patriarch's death there should be a Pomestny Sobor (Congress of Church Bishops, clergy. Pomestny sobor elects the new Patriarch who should be older than 40 and be a bishop (in practice most probably a metropolitan). During the Soviet time the elections were open, thus, allowing the Soviets to intimidate the voters into voting a person agreed by communists. Alexy was elected by Pomestny Sobor of 1990 by a secret ballot in two rounds: the second round included voting of the two candidates with the highest score. Most probably the same procedure will be this time as well. By the church law Patriarch has the duty to organize Pomestny Sobor at least every five years but Alexy did not organize any: the new Pomestny Sobor will be the first since 1990 that elected Alexy Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Russia Today has some speculation at http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/34354. But of course, it's best to wait until announcement before introducing into article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Alexy

This seems very wrong to me. Sure, many uneducated westerners pronounce the Russian name Alek-SEY as "a-LEK-sy", but that's no reason to actually spell it as if this were the correct pronunciation. "Alexy" is completely contrary to any notion of standard transliteration practices. I'm surprised there's been no prior discussion of this, so I won't move it until comments are received. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, his name is not Алексей, but Алексий, which per WP:RUS should be rendered as Alexy. Moreover, Alexy II (along with Aleksy II) is the most widely used spelling. Colchicum (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, in that case the article is very misleading and inconsistent and needs considerable work. Some quotes:

• Patriarch Alexy II ... (secular name Alexey Mikhailovich Ridiger ...
• Patriarch Alexey II oversaw ...
• His name (secular Алексей, clerical Алексий) is transliterated from the Cyrillic alphabet into English in various forms, including Alexius, Aleksi, Alexis, Alexei, Alexey and Alexy.
  • This is confusing two quite different names (although they are variants of each other). Алексей is transliterated Aleksey, Aleksei or Alexey, and Алексий is transliterated Aleksy or Alexy.
• When he became a monk, his name was not changed
• Alexey Mikhailovich Ridiger was born in Tallinn, Estonia ....
• thereafter, until entering clerical life, he's referred to as Alexey Ridiger.

How is one to intepret this? His birth name was Алексей. The clerical version is Алексий, and that's the version he used as Patriarch. That is not the same as saying "his name was not changed". Better to say, "he used the clerical version of his name rather than the secular version". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a serious discussion since Wikipedia doesn't rely on how different editors might feel about anything but on WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. Alexy II is the way how it's spelled in mainstream media like BBC, CNN, how it's spelled in press releases by the President of Russia, it's the way it's spelled by the U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle. and last but not least, the same aplies to Russian Orthodox Church Representation to the European Institutions etc. etc. So there is no need for a discussion about it, Alexy II is the official spelling in English.--Termer (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. There's still the matter of him being called "Patriarch Alexey II" in the article (see dot point 2 above) and the confusing and inaccurate explanation of the transliteration (see dot point 3). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The spelling in the article should be fixed of course. (Other than when it refers to the secular name that is spelled Alexey). I was looking also for the official Russian Orthodox Church web site in order to confirm everything once more and here it is: ALEXY II (secular name Alexey Mikhailovich Ridiger) @ Official web site of the Moscow Patriarchate--Termer (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

R.I.P

Good night sweet prince..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.61 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

KGB Agent ? Ouch!

So, he was KGB agent? Had he killed any people? How can a spy become a "Holy Man"? Can we put some more clarification to these seemingly credible allegations confirmed by multiple sources. Bosniak (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

During the Soviet Union, it was a requirement to at least get some sort of approval from the State to be a bishop. Therefore, collaboration was necessary. This means the KGB probably kept files on him, possibly Alexei was in the KGB, but it doesn't mean he was very active. Most likely, he was KGB on paper, but not in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.167.31 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Alexius said himself to Oleg Kalugin: “Why are you exaggerating what happened? Yes, we collaborated with the KGB, even I did. But it was a struggle for peace, for disarmament! There’s nothing wrong with that!” (see Putin's Espionage Church by Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy). According to Oleg Gordievsky, Alexius has been working for the KGB during forty years, and his case officer was Nikolai Patrushev (a video was removed from YouTube). His KGB recruitment file tells the following: "Recruited 28 February 1958 on the basis of patriotic feelings for exposing and exploiting anti-Soviet elements among the Orthodox clergy, among whom he has ties which are of operational interest to the KGB. During recruitment, consideration was given (after consolidating our hold [on him] through practical work) to his future promotion, as opportunities allow, to the office of bishop of Tallinn and Estonia.". "After assigning the agent to practical work with the organs of governmental security on concrete agency matters, we are planning to also utilize him for promoting our interests among capitalist governments as a member of church delegations.". Alexius had been awarded an Honorary Citation by the KGB chairman in 1988. But you know what? He was only hired as an "agent". But his successor Gundyaev was allegedly a uniformed KGB officer.Biophys (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The homosexuality matter is WP:UNDUE

It's totally unremarkable that Alexy held to the doctrines of his church; there's no reason to make a point of this with respect to homosexuality. I've removed the whole passage. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well you shouldn't have because it's been discussed on this page so you should have continued the discussion there. I'll re-add it. Any obit of the guy mentions his position on homosexuality, and his opinion that it was a disease was widely reported in the media. It is therefore notable and hardly undue if so widely reported. Malick78 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Except it isn't "so widely reported"-- at least, a quick bit of Google-news gave me two reports out of the dozens that mentioned homosexuality. Also, I looked at the previous discussion, and it didn't seem to me to address the WP:UNDUE question particularly, but rather whether Alexy was expressing a personal opinion. At any rate, I'm willing to go through the WP:BRD drill. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mangoe, I agree with you, but until it is established as undue weight, it's important to demonstrate according to Wikipedia rules that it IS unremarkable; thus, the sourced evidence that it IS and always has been a teaching of the Church and that its basis is not hatred or fear, but on understandings that differ with the ones presented in modern culture today. Misunderstandings can only be corrected by providing true and verifiable information. Failing to do so just leads to the false idea that one can be a member of the Orthodox Church in good standing and disagree with Church dogma (and so some may have tried to incorrectly paint the Patriarch as a fearful, hateful and unreasonable bigot and his view as a merely personal one, which is simply not the case). Rusmeister (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not something that should go under "criticism" but be more like a part of Doctrine, that would also need to include oppression of religious freedom in Russia, stand against Roman Catholic Church etc. But I'd say lets give some respect here and wait at least until the funeral is over before proceeding with any "criticism". Also, it would be worth it to keep in mind that "Opposition to homosexuality" can be looked at as something negative only if someone is a social liberal. If someone is a social conservative, "Opposition to homosexuality" wouldn't be anything that would need to be criticize about. So it is a political question, yet another reason to put it under Doctrine instead of "criticism"--Termer (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? If he's speaking as a spokesman of his church, we do not need to repeat the doctrine of that church. Mangoe (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mangoe is right. As I indicated in the creating controversy section, you cannot have a leader of an organization who opposes the fundamental principles of his organization. Attempts to accent them here are decidely POV attempts by people who object to the beliefs of the Orthodox Church and cast them as merely a personal stand. Discussion of all of those things really belongs, if anywhere, in the entry on the Orthodox Church. Next we'll have to duplicate all of these stands under every single major Orthodox figure: Patriarch Tikhon condemned homosexual behavior. Patriarch Nikon condemned homosexual behavior. Tsar Nicholas II condemned homosexual behavior. Etc. And the point that the Church condemns the act but NOT the person is deliberately whitewashed as part of a propaganda war. In the meantime, (until the undue weight is confirmed) the only way to stop that is to provide NPOV info on the stand of the Orthodox Church, revealing both that it is not a matter of personal opinion and that the act is clearly distinguished from the person. And the same principle applies to everything else that is not personal opinion on the part of the Patriarch (stand on the Catholic Church, religious oppression, etc). But that whole section should ultimately be removed. Rusmeister (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

condemns the act but not the person? Sorry but this is confusing, what exactly is considered to be "the act" in the context? Regarding either a head of Church determines the doctrine or vice versa, an institution as Church tells the leader what the doctrine is, than this is not a serious discussion since it's whoever runs an organization is the one who makes the policies. Exactly like in Lutheran Church in Scandinavia where gay couplers can get married in church because the religious leader had said so, the same goes for any church where it depends on what the leaders say, and the Orthodox Church is no different in that sense. It's the head of the Church who makes the doctrine, not vice versa.--Termer (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to cite your claim that the patriarch determines the doctrine of the Russian church? The polity and especially doctrinal development of the Lutheran churches is considerably different from that of the Orthodox. And again, this is still an assumption of notability rather than a demonstration. Mangoe (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The head of a local Orthodox Church does not act like a Pope. He cannot dictate doctrinal statements. Authoritative statements are issued on a Synodal level... but even such a synod has no right to change the faith of the Church. The Orthodox Church has always believed homosexuality was a sin. It always will. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rest in Peace Man. Respect. --Whatayunoe (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, we report it if others report it. That's WP's essence. Soooooo, let's take a look, for instance, at gold old Pravda's obituary of the guy. What do they say? Well what do you know, a whole paragraph on the subject: "He was also an outspoken critic of the homosexual "life style" and as such had earned the hatred of many of the West's elites. His efforts in blocking the Pride Parades in Moscow have only further driven their hatred of this holy man. It should be noted though, that at no time did the Patriarch call for violence against this abnormality, but pastoral counseling and love."

Now, not only do they mention it but they mention how controversial this was in the West. It therefore does not seem to be WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, it does not say "he had to believe it because his bigoted religion believed it". Those are just your words which you add to explain and defend this bigot. And that's the that I was complaining about. The subject of homosexuality should therefore be dealt with in a criticism section, since he was criticised widely for it, and any defence of him (which you are all so desperate to provide), should be cited with sources from within texts that deal with Alexy (ie don't find an independent text on the ROC that says it's anti-gay, find a text on Alexy that says he couldn't deviate from his church's prejudiced beliefs on this subject). It's simple. No please:)) Malick78 (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the rather hagiographic piece from Pravda, and I do not see that it says that this was all that controversial. And again, going back and forth across the obituaries, even in the west, there is still the difficulty that very, very few of them felt the need to bring this up. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• He "earned the hatred of many of the West's elites. His efforts in blocking the Pride Parades in Moscow have only further driven their hatred of this holy man." Can we not assume the word "hatred" implies controversy? Come on... Malick78 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another approach, then

My problem with this isn't so much that it is mentioned at all, but that it is is being made out as a major controversy about Alexy. Perhaps the best solution is a much more abbreviated mention of his opposition under "Career". Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the entire section is essentially one long quote, perhaps we should have a quote from a gay-rights activist, or at least anyone with a different view than him on the matter. It's not very balanced right now.205.155.5.168 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• The long quote from the ROC is the problem - it's his defendants trying to defend him with their own Original Research. That's the bit that should be removed. Malick78 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that passage had to go. Take a look now and see what you think. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot better now, thank you 205.155.5.63 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Name

Is it really necessary to say every single english spelling of the man's name? If we're calling him Alexy then why is it at all relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.5.168 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because the various forms listed are to be found in use in various texts and articles, and an average reader could be forgiven for wondering if they were all the same person or not. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting publication about his death (Russian). Biophys (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but is it really neccesary for them to be in the first paragraph? No. 205.155.5.63 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Date format inconsistency

I noted the date format inconsistency here. Some of it uses:
MM DD, YYYY
DDth MM YYYY
DD MM YYYY
I don't know the date format that is being used in Russia, so I leave this for russians to decide. w_tanoto (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan Kyrill's "fainting" is trivial and WP:UNDUE

This article is about Patriarch Alexei, not about Metropolitan Kyrill. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As the section title it is certainly not appropriate, though it may stay in the text. Colchicum (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is a very minor note, or even a footnote, I would argue that it is WP:UNDUE. Why include it in this article when it is of such minor significance? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not? The article is not particularly long. Though personally I don't see how the fact is interesting. Colchicum (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it is uninteresting, unimportant, and also is contrary to WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia, which cites as an example of information that is too unimportant to warrant inclusion the following:

"However, in some cases, the information is just too unimportant. For instance, a note like "Alan Smithee's favorite color is yellow" cannot be integrated into the text without distracting from it (in other words, it's trivia no matter how it is presented, and should therefore be removed)."

As such, it simply distracts from what is important in the article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• And thou art the One to make determination thereof :)Muscovite99 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Inserting another assertion from Keston into a paragraph that was providing balance

Another objectionable example of POV pushing is the following:

"The Moscow Patriarchate is known to have at least once officially and explicitly denied that Patriarch Alexy was a recruited KGB agent[48], to which Keston Institute responded: "Keston News Service has reviewed all the available documentary evidence from the various archives of the KGB, and concluded that long- standing allegations that the Patriarch and other senior bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church collaborated with the KGB are based on fact."

This follows a section in which all the accusations were given full vent, and this began the section that had bee providing the other side of the story, and yet now we have Muscovite99 coopting this section too. Keston's opinions were already noted. By inserting this reply, and changing the introductory statement to erroneously suggest that the MP had only denied the accusations once, when three citations are noted is POV pushing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

BBC Quote in the article summary

There are thousands of comments in the press in the wake of Patriarch Alexei's repose. There is no reason why this particular quote from the BBC should be put in the article summary, other than that it suits the POV of the editor who inserted it:

On the day of his death the BBC said: "Patriarch Alexiy II had an extraordinary career, in which he switched from suppressing the Russian Orthodox Church to being its champion. A favourite of the KGB, he was promoted rapidly through the Church hierarchy, doing the Kremlin's bidding at a time when dissident priests were thrown into jail. As the Church's effective foreign minister, he helped cover up the repression of Russian Christians, defending the Soviet system to the outside world. He rose quickly through the ranks, being elected head of the Russian Orthodox Church at a crucial time, in 1990, with the Soviet Union on the path to collapse. Surprisingly, perhaps, he seized the moment, and went on to oversee the revival and flowering of the Church."

This quote adds no new information that was not already in the article, and including in the summary gives it undue weight, thus violating WP:UNDUE. This BBC article offers no documentation to substantiate its assertions, and in fact lifted a quote from this article on Wikipedia. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• It perfectly sums up his career, which apt for the lead: pithy and balanced - masterstroke of BBC.Muscovite99 (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a POV, not a fact. It does not belong in the article summary. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

POV is about editor's opinions, which this is not.Muscovite99 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The choice to lift this particular quote and include it in the summary is POV. There is no proof that Patriarch Alexei was "a favorite of the KGB". That is the opinion of the writer at the BBC, who evidently limited his research to reading this wikipedia article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC quote in the lead is prejudicial in breaching the NPOV of this article. Why is the BBC article given such prominence over EVERYTHING else. Why don't we insert this in its entireity: Address to the Nation following the Death of Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II. Of course to do that, would mean to even attempt to attain WP:NPOV, but of course, this does not fit into the POV which certain editors want to push. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section as follows:

On the day of his death the BBC said: "Patriarch Alexiy II had an extraordinary career, in which he switched from suppressing the Russian Orthodox Church to being its champion. A favourite of the KGB, he was promoted rapidly through the Church hierarchy, doing the Kremlin's bidding at a time when dissident priests were thrown into jail. As the Church's effective foreign minister, he helped cover up the repression of Russian Christians, defending the Soviet system to the outside world. He rose quickly through the ranks, being elected head of the Russian Orthodox Church at a crucial time, in 1990, with the Soviet Union on the path to collapse. Surprisingly, perhaps, he seized the moment, and went on to oversee the revival and flowering of the Church."

People need to read WP:LEAD before getting involved in articles. The lead is supposed to give a very brief overview of the article, it isn't supposed to paint a certain POV. Apart from being a rip-off of BBC materials, simply pasting quotes of this and that is NOT how an encyclopaedia works. The lack of ability to write coherrent prose is not an excuse plastering quotes all over the place, particularly when they are POV quotes right in the lead of the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is supposed to give a very brief overview of the article -- that is exactly what the quote does in a perfectly neutral way (that is as per WP:NPOV). It is neutral because it does not present any of the editors' views and sums up the facts as expounded in the article thereunder.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Beeb quote could appear later, but it doesn't belong in the lead, especially as it is nigh unto an editorial. At the very least we really need confidence that it's an assessment of Alexy's career that is widely agreed upon. For example, the statements that he was a "favorite of the KGB" and was "doing the Kremlin's bidding" really need a better grounding. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, a "favourite of the KGB" is neutral how exactly? It is highly contentious, and certainly not neutral, as it is the POV of a single source - that source being the BBC. The entire "quote" in its entireity doesn't even belong in the article; it needs to be rewritten as prose and attributed accordingly - so long as it is not WP:UNDUE - do we have multiple sources which state he was a "favourite of the KGB", for example? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is not known for claiming things without grounding. To any one who knows how life was organised in the USSR, the very fact that a person was regularly sent on trips to the "capitlist countries" is incontestable proof that, at the very least, the person in question was a loyal collaborator. I am saying "at the very least" because such person is more likely to have been at a later stage recruited as a fully-fledged officer under cover. In the USSR (until 1990) the formal procedure for going abroad was by way of getting a permission -- it was called "exit visa" (may sound pretty funny to the uninitiated). I also put Putin's statement if somebody might think "balance" is called for.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Russavia, is it not POV that you have just removed balanced BBC statement and retained Putin's partisan opinion?Muscovite99 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, why did you not put "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" tag on Putin's view as well? This is becoming downright ridiculous. You consider POV only the views you personally disagree with -- also please see the bottom section.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And I noticed that someone had added in Putin's opinion, and was going to remove that and place it here also, because it also does not belong in the lead. But you have added back in the Beeb quotes again. So remove both the Beeb and Putin quotes from the article, because again WP:LEAD applies to all articles. I am not Russian Orthodox, hell, I'm not even Christian, so I don't have any vested interests here, apart from trying to help to achieve NPOV, but it is somewhat difficult to even begin to achieve this when we have highly prejudicial quotes in the lead. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, i cannot see anything "prejudicial" in either of them. I for one would even accept them both. The lead is supposed to sum up the significance of the subjects and these 2 quotes do it just fine: The lead should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.(WP:LEAD)Muscovite99 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't see a problem with "a favourite of the KGB" then there is no point in discussing this further with you. Another source states: "The most important legacy of the departed Patriarch was his unity project. Unifying the Church was very painful – the Soviet experience divided the Church and left very deep and painful scars. Aleksy II was instrumental in uniting all Orthodox Christians under one roof. This was no small task." -- yet this aspect of Alexy's legacy is completely (and conveniently) left out of the lead. You are attempting to turn this article into nothing more than a KGB anecdote. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the easiest path is to stick to facts and avoid judgements and opinions in the article. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to start an article about a controversial figure (especially a recently deceased) by a partisan opinion. On the other hand I think BBC's cite is notable and should be in the article. I have created a new section "Opinion about Alexy II" and moved the quote there. Probably Putin's quote should be there as well Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Putin quote moved here

I have moved the following quote from the article lead to here, as it does not belong in the lead to the article.

Russia's Prime-minister Vladimir Putin said Patriarch Alexy II had been a prominent figure in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as a great statesman.

They may belong in the article, but they most certainly do not belong in the lead. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)