Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

Adding sources I find that I don't want to use as references in the article here. I'm not familiar with any of the sites that have information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Monomakhos appears to be a blog, but has lots of good referenced information. For most of this information, I expect it will be easy to find the sources they used (though they may be in Cyrillic).
• orthochristian.com also has lots of coverage.
• Statement by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory of the Russian Church
• Announcement of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Establishing Communion with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church- Kievyn Patriarchate and Claiming Jurisdiction over Ukraine
• Orthodox Synaxis- A blog dedicated to discussing the crisis of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church including numerous historical source documents, background and analysis papers on the canonical positions of all sides.
  • Ukraine Church Controversy: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) From the above website run by the Institute for Orthodox Unity.
• Churches in the Ukrainian Crisis - will not help on current events, but appears to be a very good scholarly source for background information.

Title

There are articles in Ukrainian and Russian on this. Both are (roughly translated) titled "Provision of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine". Should this article be moved there? It's certainly WP:CRYSTAL to assume that a permanent schism will happen. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the issue of autocephaly, of course, has caused the current Schism, but now the article covers the conflict between Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As for the WP:CRYSTAL, a Schism may well be temporary, but its history in any case deserves a description in a separate article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Well just wait until Ecumenical Patriarchate responds about this news and will announce about Russian Orthodox Church and it's autonomous churches fate in the denomination soon. Chad The Goatman (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As per media reporting the "schism" is the current state of affairs. Per WP:CRYSTAL we do not try to make decisions based on predictions of its permanence or lack thereof. --Calthinus (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"primus sine paribus" and "primus inter pares"

Can somebody who understands this please add some material about this dispute? It seems like one of those wording disputes that requires significant expertise to explain the full impact. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:The only text I found is this: https://www.patriarchate.org/-/primus-sine-paribus-hapantesis-eis-to-peri-proteiou-keimenon-tou-patriarcheiou-moschas-tou-sebasmiotatou-metropolitou-prouses-k-elpidophorou

Met. Hilarion, in his interview, is interrogated on this expression of "primus sine paribus", and the interviewer explecitly credits the Metropolitan of Bursa and his article on the website of the Ecumenical Patriarch as the origin of this expression.

References

To whom autocephaly will be granted

As said Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun, PhD, Senior Lecturer at Stockholm School of Theology: "If Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Ukrainian churches as they are now, there would be many reservations and concerns from other [autocephalous] Churches, and problems with the reception of the Ukrainian autocephaly from them. But if Constantinople grants full autocephaly to its own structure in Ukraine, there will be much less reservations about this."[1] As for me, the attempts to claim that autocephaly will be granted to UOC-KP and UAOC is a kind of provocation to support the Russian decision to cut the ties with Ecumenical Patriarchat. Sorry for rough words.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve article

Hello,

Reading this article, I see several ways to improve the article:

• There is no mention at all of the EP proposition to have Onuphrius (current metropolitan of the UOC-MP) as head of the new Ukrainian Church. However every source I have read on the topic mentions this, and it seems to be the major compromise proposal of Constantinople towards Moscow.
• The sources cited seem to be predominantly Russian. Using different and balanced sources would be a great way to bring neutrality to the article. Especially, Sputnik is cited in the main article body. Sputnik is by no way a reliable source and must be treated with great care.
• The hatnote link to the Chalcedonian schism is weird. There are many schisms in history that can be put in parallel to this one more than the Chalcedonian schism: the 1054 Great Schism, the Constantinople-Moscow schism between ca. 1453 and 1589, the Raskol, the 1996 Estonian schism etc.

I don't have easy access to sources right now and I don't have either first-hand knowledge of the subject, but I think these topics should be discussed. Place Clichy (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

• I agree — I have requested the help of an expert in Eastern Orthodoxy, Russia or Ukraine to help us tackle this and various other issues.
• I have definitely noticed somewhat of a pro-Russian bias in the article and have added the "unbalanced" template.
• Any thoughts on the updated hatnote?

Regards, Adelsheim (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

proposition to have Onuphrius (current metropolitan of the UOC-MP) as head of the new Ukrainian Church. - Can you give a link were this proposal is discussed?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Anybody can always argue that anything is biased (and/or may need more expertise). One could equally well argue that it's unbalanced towards the Western perspective (for instance, I think all but two of the sources I've added have been Ukrainian or Western ones). Meanwhile the template that has been added partly due to alleged pro-Russian bias (as well as 'needs attention from an expert in Orthodoxy or Ukraine') may well ensure that this doesn't make our front page thru WP:ITNC (ITN never posts articles with such templates, so I am now going to have to remove the 'Ready for Posting' flag that I put on its ITNC entry a few hours ago; somebody could try simply removing the flag, but I suspect that may not be seen as good enough by ITN). And I suspect that on balance that rather suits Putin, who unsurprisingly seems to prefer that the rest of the world pay as little attention to this as possible, and to his own role in it - Constantinople's attitude is a victory for the West and for pro-Western forces in the Ukraine, and the Kremlin website no longer mentions that Putin's Security Council meeting on October 12th discussed the problem. So ironically it seems that 'objectively' (as Lenin tended to say) the most pro-Russian thing in this article is the template complaining about its alleged pro-Russian bias. Fortunately maybe it wouldn't have been posted anyway (which can be called either 'looking on the bright side' or 'sour grapes'). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I must admit I didn't give today's edits (particuliary yours re: neutrality per ITN quality objections) more than a cursory review and I apologize unreservedly for that. I withdraw my reservations above after careful consideration. Regards, Adelsheim (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: The Onuphry compromise hypothesis is mentioned for instance in this article in French newspaper La Croix about the 31 August meeting between Kirill and Bartholomew, mentioning declarations by Met. Emmanuel of France and an article in AsiaNews (a Catholic news agency) as source.

On other topics, it is true that many articles have far worse neutrality issues than this one. However, starting a section called "Reactions of other Orthodox Churches" by the Belarusian and ROCOR parts of the Russian Orthodox Church does not seem very balanced. Place Clichy (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Place Clichy:Sorry, but this is only hypothesis of AsiaNews and why their opinion is such an important? In addition, I did not find this news on the AsiaNews website. In this article on AsiaNews, concerning the meeting of two patriarchs in Fanar, there are no mentions of Onuphrius or Onuphry: [2] We have no official statements on such a proposal. In the most detailed presentation of the meeting: [3] there are no mentions of Onuphrius or Onuphry too.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: Those churches are administratively autonomous, therefore are not subject to the administrative decisions of the Russian Orthodox Church, so how are their responses not of value? What if someone thinks that ROCOR is still in communion with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America? Vypr (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The ROCOR and Belarusian Church and their statements are definitely of value to a certain point, however they are part, albeit autonomous, of the ROC. For your concern "What if someone thinks...", their positions are already mentioned elsewhere in the article, for instance in September 2018: Russian Orthodox synod's "retaliatory measures" and the aftermath. A different and better wording can probably be found, but it should be placed in a section not titled Responses from other Eastern Orthodox churches. It should also respect the limit that adding statements from every hierarch, exarchate and eparchy of the ROC to the article is neither balanced nor very valuable, especially when, unsurprisingly, this statement is of "unanimous support for the position of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow". Place Clichy (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope I found a solution which satisfies both parties @Place Clichy: @Nicoljaus: Veverve (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Change page title punctuation from 'en dash' to 'hyphen'

I tried to link internally to this page and it took issue with there being an en dash in the title, and having looked at other pages with a similar [entity]-[entity] page title form, as in the Sino-Indian war, it seems that a hyphen is normally used instead of an en dash. If this could be changed, that would be appreciated. I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I couldn't work out if/how I could change it myself.

MOS:HYPHEN says to use an en dash but to have a redirect from the title using a hyphen. Thincat (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahh yes, you are correct. Have this been implemented? I'm not sure how to tell :/ Charliemccombie (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, ahh, yes. Now I've learned something too. A bot has created the redirect automatically when it scanned and spotted an en dash in the title.[4] To find out you would look for Moscow-Constantinople schism (with a hyphen/minus) and, seeing a red link, create the page with contents

#REDIRECT [[Moscow–Constantinople schism]] (with an en dash)

See Help:REDIRECT and WP:REDIRECT. I don't know what the other bits are that the bot put there nor why there is a colon before the file name.[5] I see you have only just started here so I'll take the opportunity to welcome you to Wikipedia (before someone treats you as if you were on a social media site!). Thincat (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Canonical issues

This section is completely 1 sided and presents without any balance the arguments of the Ecumenical Patriarchate from sources affiliated with the EP. I have tagged the section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have moved the POV tag to the top of the article. This is starting to read like an apologia for the EP and relying far too heavily on biased sources affiliated with the EP and the schismatic churches with little or no balance or suggestion that there may be alternative views. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• This should fall under the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions; I'm not sure they will help out here (and you're obviously involved) but if there is too much POV pushing that should be an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed two of the long quotes from the article. There's probably enough information to have a separate article on the 1996 schism sparked by the issues in Estonia if somebody wants to do that. I'll try to do a full read-through this week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have dropped a caution on the talk page of one of the more prolific editors of the article. I am going to AGF for now, but clearly some of what has been added is problematic. I think that Canonical issues section which is based almost entirely on biased sources and presents the EP's claims as something close to settled facts will require a major rewrite at the least. It might be necessary to just scrap the section and start from scratch. I do however think that a properly balanced section that addresses the canonical issues is a good idea and the EP's side should be fairly presented. But currently it is grossly unbalanced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I failed my explanation by confounding the 2 searchers credited, I will put the final version here: the only credited searcher is "Mr. Konstantinos Vetochnikov" who is French (or is born in France), or at least seems to since he got his diplomas in France and wrote his résumé in French, and works at the Collège de France (https://college-de-france.academia.edu/KonstantinosVetochnikov ; http://www.cfeb.org/curiculum/mba_vetochnikov.pdf) and whose religious opinions are unknown. The person who is credited for NOT having participated to the writing of this document is "Mr. Agamemnon Tselikas", whose sole credit is to have "render[ed] available to the Ecumenical Patriarchate—both in the original and in transliteration—the ancient copies of the critical Patriarchal and Synodal documents pertaining to the relations of the Church of Ukraine with the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow during the seventeenth century"; said Tselikas is Greek (http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/project/team/academic/agamemnon-tselikas ) and therefore is not under the EP's jurisdictions as the Church of Greece is autocephalous. There is no mention of any searcher affiliated to the AUOC or the UOC-KP in "The Ecumenical Throne and". Lastly "non-canonical churches" is a biased POV, the one of Moscow and maybe the Serbian Orthodox Church). I do not know very well how talk pages work, sorry if there is some inconveniences.Veverve (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Veverve

While I'm at it, I would like you to tell me precisely why the whole Wikipedia article is, according to you, unbalanced since most of the article are collections of quotes given by officials taken from direct sources.Veverve (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Tendency toward isolation of the Russian Orthodox Church" section

Do I understand correctly that this section is based only on the opinion and interpretation of facts by a hierarch who is subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople? 37.151.19.210 (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's how it looks to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still concerned by this section. It seems to be WP:UNDUE and based on the primary source statements of Elpidophoros, Metropolitan of Bursa. The material about the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council should stay (without the SYNTH of it being Another claimed example of the tendency from the ROC to isolate itself), I'm going to remove the rest. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Article is far too long

I have added a "Too Long" tag to the article as it is already far too long and includes too much detailed and repetitious information which is tedious to try and read. We need to start rewriting the article with less unnecessary detail and convoluted phrasing. Yahboo (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it not a bit too early to rewrite the article? I say this considering we currently cannot see the big picture because the main events are very recent (less than a month). It may be better to way until Ukraine get its tomos (if it ever recieves it) or to wait until next year. As a side note, I support synthesizing the current article, but I would strongly suggest to keep all the current information, or to try to keep as many of them as possible. Veverve (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be good if you could decide which information is most essential and remove a lot of what isn't essential. There is far too much detailed information on secondary matters which greatly detracts from the article. Articles should only focus on the most important or essential facts and issues. Yahboo (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If you tell me the points which, according to you, 1) are the most unnecessary, 2) are too long, I will have a look at it. I am asking you this because since I wrote most of the article my opinion on those things may be biased. I am also open to any suggestion!Veverve (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Too many quotations

A lot of this is direct quotes and should be summarized, the amount of inserts in the quotations (for example, "[t]he Patriarch of Constantinople" or "urge[d] the [Ecumenical] Patriarch Bartholomew [of Constantinople] and the synod of the Church of Constantinople to review their decisions and do everything possible to either disavow the previous decision or withdraw it, stopping this process, which [...] is taking absolutely distinct forms of church schism throughout Eastern Orthodoxy[.]") makes no sense (besides the ellipsis) and may take away from neutrality (for example, adding "Ecumenical" when the quote does not include it). Vypr (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The article is drowning in a variety of large quotes. I'm trying to keep an eye on the article, but my English is not good enough to rewrite most of them in the best way.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Links to the "Union of Orthodox Journalists"

The article is now has about 30 links to this organization (the site is [6]). I looked for some information about it. It seems like this is an anonymous pro-Moscow website, at least the Ukrainian side of the “hybrid war” thinks so. From my point of view, it is worth to limit the use of this site as a source of judgments, and use it with caution as a source of facts.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"within December 2018"

I need help. Which version of the text better than the other transmits the source sited?

In preparation of the meeting of the Holy and Sacred Synod on 27-29 November, 2018, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople reiterates its sacred decision to grant the Tomos of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.

While the preparation process for the Holy Council (SOBOR) of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is underway, the concrete date within December 2018, will be presented for the confirmation and announcement by the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.[7]

1) The corresponding Holy Council (SOBOR) is preliminary scheduled to be held in December 2018

or

2) The date of the corresponding Holy Council (SOBOR) is preliminary scheduled to be given by the Ecumenical Patriarchate during December 2018

From my point of view, the 1st version is correct. The 2nd version would be correct if the sentence was written as "While the preparation process for the Holy Council (SOBOR) of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is underway, the concrete date will be presented for the confirmation and announcement by the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate within December 2018."

In the seconadary sources:

• "The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has said the Holy Council of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine will be held in December."[8]
• "Holy Council of Ukraine's Orthodox Church scheduled for December – Ecumenical Patriarchate" [9]

@Veverve: Do you have anything to say in defense of your edit [10]?

@Nicoljaus: I am in favor of taking the most cautious approach. As far as I can tell it is the date which should be announced in December. Veverve (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Veverve: I see nothing cautious in your approach, only a distortion of the source text. Do you have any arguments for your version?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: the text is ambiguous and therefore it is unclear if the SOBOR's date will be scheduled in December. However, its date is sure to be announced in December. This is why I believe my approach is the most cautious. Veverve (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Veverve: No, it looks like the date will be announced during the "meeting of the Holy and Sacred Synod on 27-29 November, 2018". You think the text is ambiguous? But you reverted your version, not the neutral one. Once again, do you have any arguments for your version?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: I already gave you my argument and believe my version is the neutral version. If you really think I am wrong then use your version, it will be changed in a bit more than a month anyway. Veverve (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, your version is only your version. If you have no neutral variant, I'll return my version, because secondary sources are on my side.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Making use of this page

I think we could make use of this page and the information on it: http://spzh.news/en/zashhita-very/54524-chto-dumajut-pomestnyje-pravoslavnyje-cerkvi-ob-ukrainskoj-avtokefalii

However I do not really know how to do it properly. Does anyone have suggestions? Veverve (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the POV of the Moscow, published on an anonymous propaganda site. In my opinion, the article already has an excess of links to this site.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are not opinions from Moscow but from most of the Orthodox autocephalous churches compiled by a pro-Moscow website; I was planning to use this article for the "Responses from other Eastern Orthodox churches" section and asked for suggestions on how to do so.

This article is perfectly neutral as it only conveys factual information; most of this site's news are this way: a simple and short information which is often taken from somewhere else (often a translation of a previously published article in Ukrainian/Russian). Some of their articles can of course be very biaised, e.g. http://spzh.news/en/chelovek-i-cerkovy/57288-takoj-narodnoj-lyubvi-kakuju-imejet-blazhennejshij-onufrij-net-ni-u-kogo

I used this site quite a lot in the Wikipedia article because most of the time I cannot find the information they publish, in English, on other websites in English. If I can, I use another more neutral source, but it is sometimes impossible. Veverve (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I see the problem precisely in this: statements are selected by a pro-Moscow site in order to justify 4 points of conclusions. I am not familiar enough with the topic to evaluate how conscientiously selected statements are. It is very likely that a more neutral secondary source would use other statements or point them to a wider context. This source could be used with attribution, but how? An anonymous site with a selection made by an unknown "Orthodox journalist" Galan?--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

One little example, about a position of Albanian Orthodox Church. The Moscow Patriarchate published only a letter from Archbishop Anastasios of October 10, but there was also a letter of November 7, where Moscow’s decisions had been seriously criticized:

At the same time, however, we ought to remark that the latest decision of the Church of Russia is also a source of great concern. It is unthinkable that the Divine Eucharist, the mystery par excellence of the infinite love and the utter humiliation of Christ, could be used as a weapon against another Church. Is it possible that the decision and order of the Hierarchy of the Church of Russia may cancel the energy of the Holy Spirit in the holy Orthodox churches that operate under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?[11]

Of course, the pro-Moscow media, including Orthodox Journalists, pretended that this letter was not.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not konw where to put this info: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=14774

Does anyone have a suggestion?Veverve (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Law on the transfer of the St Andrew's church

There is some disrepancies concerning when the law voted in October by the Ukrainian parliament will take effect. Here is what is currently written:

"Finally, President Proshenko signed the law of transfer on 7 November 2018[181][172][182][183][184] and the law took effect on 10 November 2018.[181][172][185] On 28 November 2018, in conformity with the law on religious organizations, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved the transfer of the St Andrew's church to the Ecumenical patriarchate's permanent use; the bill must still be signed by the Ukrainian President and will take effect the day after its publication.[186]"

@Nicoljaus: since you seem to be able to understand Russian and/or Ukrainian (I am sorry, I am unable to tell the difference since I cannot read cyrillic alphabet), could you try to find information in order to clarify that matter? Veverve (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do not see discrepancies here. On November 7, the law was signed, and on November 28, the government approved the transfer, in accordance with this law. But I would remove the last sentence: "the bill must still be signed by the Ukrainian President and will take effect the day after its publication." I have little knowledge of the legislation of Ukraine, but I have not found such a position there. Perhaps this is a mistake and this sentence remains from the previous news, about October 18th.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Stavropegion

What is a Stavropegion? I don't see it on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. From sources it does appear to be the correct spelling; probably an alternate form of Stauropegion [12]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: you are right, see: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CS%5CT%5CStauropegion.htm

I will update the article. Veverve (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing Declarations by the Russian Orthodox Church

I think it should be good to summarize the ROC arguments of this paragraph by themes. I suggest:

• the EP is in schism
• the ROC considers that Constantinople is not the primus inter pares anymore and is no more allowed to coordinate the Orthodox churches
  • the primus inter pares statute was linked to the fact Constantinople was the capital of the Roman empire and then the Byzantine empire, but now those empire do not existe anymore and so does the honorary role of Constantinople
• the ROC is only defending the canons
• various positions

What do you think about this? Veverve (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• • It would be nice to sum up, but now it looks like a set of propaganda slogans. Well, for example: "the EP is in schism" - despite the fact that it was Russia that went into schism. Based on the WP:NPOV, it is necessary to give the position of both parties simultaneously. And, as far as I know, Wikipedia does not encourage independent conclusions of this kind, it is necessary that some respected expert sum up these statements.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Those are the official positions of the ROC, not slogans. As for giving both POV, the letter the EP sent to Onufriy as well as The Ecumenical throne and the Church of Ukraine can be used to present the POV of the EP.Veverve (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

These are primary sources. As far as I know, an amateur analysis of this kind is undesirable for such sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

More and more pro-Moscow POV

@Veverve: I don't want to fight, but you're starting a war of edits. Once again, you are trying to give the opinion of dubious propaganda web-sites as the facts. Don't do that. About the "Union of Orthodox journalists" I have already written to you several times. Further, vesti-ukr is the known generator of the Russian fakes in Ukraine. An advisor to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine placed this site in a honorable second place in the top-10 of pro-Moscow fake generators. You need much more reliable sources to make their manipulation with WP:CRYSTAL useful to the encyclopedia article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: I am trying to be as fair as possible in my sources by using both Ukrainian and Russian sources. I cannot only use sources from only one point of view. Veverve (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this. Cite the neutral or pro-ukrainian source you have used to write about this meeting.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Splitting of an article

So, on 15 December creation of the new structure of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine has become a fact, rather than guessing. I believe it is now worth to create a corresponding article and move a large part of the information there. Including travels of Poroshenko, unifying council and the like. In this article, it should be left mainly that which is connected with the split between Moscow and Fener (Constantinople).--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus:Sure! However, the only official name we have in English comes from a Facebook post by Zorya translated by UNIAN ("Orthodox Church of Ukraine"). Could you check in the charter if the translation is correct? https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2018/12/15/7201322/ Veverve (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The Church there is named literally "Orthodox Church of Ukraine" or "Orthodox Church in Ukraine". As I see it was named "Church of Ukraine" in the [Announcement of 11/10/2018]. Fener does not like names like "Ukrainian Church", because it condemns ethnophyletism. From this point of view, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine should be one for people of all nationalities.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"in" or "of" Ukraine, which one do you think is more faithful to the original Ukrainian/Greek? If both expressions are equal, then I think "of Ukraine" sounds better, besides that's how UNIAN translated it. Veverve (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, "of Ukraine" seems better.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: do you want me to create the page about the OCU? EDIT: looks like it is already done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church_of_Ukraine Veverve (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Sorry, I'm out of time today.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem, it does not bother me at all Veverve (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Condensing article text, pruning references

The page is a great collection of sources on the topic, and this is indeed how a new and current topic should be approached when building the article from scratch.

However, the page content should now be condensed. The entire lengthy "reactions" section is going to be of very little encyclopedic interest and should be shortened to a brief summary of the gist of reactions. Journalistic sources should be avoided entirely (there is nothing of substance that can be contributed to the topic by outlets such as Reuters or the NYT, journalists give pointers to what is going on, but their content is not authoritative on its own). --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you concerning the "Reactions" section. I believe it is important to know what others churches think about the ongoing schism. The reasons are that it helps people know what those churches think about the ongoing chism, which is essential since in Orthodoxy churches have more independence (even an exarchate like the AROCWE has refused to be dissolved before approving this decision). Veverve (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do not dispute the utility of a "reactions" section as such. I was making an observation about the general way such sections are shaped over time when the page matures. It begins with a list of individual reactions, with individual quotes and individual references. Over time this day-to-day "breaking news" format should be replaced by an edited prose section giving a coherent summary of what the reactions were, ideally already based on one or several secondary references that give such summaries. Maybe it's to early for this in this particular case, but this is what should happen over time. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is too early. I think we should wait until at least February. By then, hopefully, things will be settled down and we will be able to see the bigger picture. Veverve (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: maybe creating a new article for the reactions of the different Orthodox churches would be a good idea, what do you think of it? Veverve (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The letter from Sawa (Hrycuniak)

Has anyone seen this letter? Is it published on the official website of Polish Orthodox Church?

On 18 December, Onufriy received a letter from the primate of the POC in which the primate of tje POC announced his support for Metropolitan Onufriy.

--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, but that does not mean that the letter has not been sent as a private letter, like the letter from the primate of the Albanian Orthodox Church to Patriarch Kirill had been sent earlier and published later. So far, the Polish Orthodox Church has not said it had not sent a letter; i.e. it did not publish any official denial of the info given by the UOC-MP and the ROC. With the POC's attitude toward the situation in Ukraine, I would be more encline to think this letter has effectively been sent and that its content is in favor of the position of the ROC. Therefore, I think you should revert your edit in which you removed this statement. Veverve (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The situation is such that it is not the POC declared support for Onufriy, but Moscow declared that the POC had declared ... What Moscow is doing with the letters, we have already seen with the Albania case. It is always unpleasant to me to cancel your edits, but I would wait until POC to expresses its support in a more verifiable form.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Splitting the page

Maybe the "Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine" section should be split into its own article, like in the Russian and Ukrainian wiki (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Предоставление_автокефалии_православной_церкви_на_Украине). Veverve (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I created Granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine since the article was getting too big. Veverve (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

This article has been nominated to be linked on the main page as a major news event with an article of suitable quality. Once there my guess is that we are going to see a sharp uptick in traffic, and potentially POV/disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Too technical?

I'm kind of familiar with the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the article is filled to the brim with words I hardly understand. Yes, the article does try to explain them with links to other articles, but it still comes across as really confusing to me as a layperson. 129.101.28.52 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You will be of great help if you make a list of such obscure words here.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Going by the guidelines in MOS:JARGON, some of the worse ones (IMO) are: stauropegion (definition is linked, and not defined in the lead, even though it is defined later in the article), schismatics (a general reader could probably guess that it has something to do with "schism" right off the bat, but they still might not know what it means?), Rus’ (Used a lot in the "Background" section, but it's really vague. For me as a non-expert it confused me and I had to look at the linked Baptism of Rus' article but also had to go from there to the Rus' (people) and Kievan Rus articles to begin to understand what it was talking about), Uniate (definition is linked, not defined in the article), exarchs (not defined at all), concelebration (not defined at all), and synaxis (linked, not defined in article). Also, I feel like even though they're given definitions, technical words like "autocephaly" and "tomos" are used too much, and in some cases "independence" and "decree" could work for those words instead (especially earlier on in the article, to try to follow WP:UPFRONT). In addition, especially when compared to the related Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine article that's also on the main page at the moment, there aren't any pictures to help illustrate things. 129.101.28.52 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with OP. LEDE is nearly indecipherable. Not sure how this article got cleared to be on the main page today. Yilloslime (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to make corrections according to your suggestions except for adding illustrations, this is a problem for me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yilloslime: do you think it is now understandable enough? Veverve (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I've clarified the infobox and a partial bit of the article. I'm gonna work on improving some of the verbosity of the article over time. Vypr (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Eastern Orthodox Church

A discussion has been opened on the question of whether the newly established Orthodox Church of Ukraine should be listed among the generally recognized autocephalous churches. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Opening of Russian Orthodox Churches in the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

Recently, Russian Orthodox Church opened a church in Seoul, South Korea. South Korea is under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Maybe similar incidents are happening in other countries under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. --Algyeran (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Korea was under the omiphorion of the Russian Church as far back as the 19th century. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Anything happening here?

After the announcement of the Tomos of Autocephaly, things seem to have died down in this geopolitical dispute. I see a few news stories about bilateral relations between the new Church of Ukraine and those of Cyprus and Romania, but nothing new about disputes between Moscow and Constantinople.

Regarding editing of this article: while the break in communion continues (and it is entirely unclear whether it will be permanent), the dispute around autocephaly in Ukraine seems largely resolved. We have a "reactions" spin-off Reactions of the Orthodox churches to the 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism spin-off, with the full set of primary sources for the dispute. We also have Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine article on the specific dispute in 2018.

The article seems ripe for copy-editing and some minor section heading changes. For example: I'm not sure the "Russkiy Mir vs Romiosyne" section is valuable as-is. There is a dispute between Moscow and Constantinople - obscure terms that appear to simply be defined as the ideologies of these groups seems unnecessary.

@Ad Orientem: anything I'm missing here? This needs a line-by-line copy edit but the current article structure seems fairly stable at this point? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki There has been little in the form of dramatic developments. While the churches of Cyprus and Romania have been making noises and dropping hints, at the moment none of the canonical churches, excepting Constantinople, recognize the new entity. The latest developments are that the Ukrainian government has passed a law ordering the Ukraininan Orthodox Church (in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world) to change its name to the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. They are so far refusing to comply, arguing that it is an attempt to nullify property deeds and leases in order to seize their churches and monasteries. There have been around 85-90 documented cases of parishes switching from the UOC (MP) to the new entity. Of those around 30 are believed to have been voluntary. The others were taken over by supporters of the new church under varying circumstances that would probably not pass legal muster in any developed country. The UOC (MP) has alleged violence in some instances. The nationalist church denies this and almost all the sources reporting on this support one side or the other and are not RS. The Serbian Church has been hardening its stand in support of the UOC (MP) and the Russian Orthodox Church with some sharply worded criticism directed at Constantinople (EP). Also the EP recently dismissed, rather curtly, an appeal from the Antiochian Orthodox Church to convene a pan Orthodox Synod to resolve the issue. Anyways that is where things are as of right now. I suspect that there is a lot going on behind the scenes, but time will tell. [I am currently very busy in the real world and messages left for me may not get a speedy reply.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Add I almost forgot. Constantinople recently announced the dissolution of their Western European Diocese of parishes that follow the Russian tradition. This was established in the wake of the Russian Revolution when the Russian Church was under severe and violent persecution by the Communists and was done to protect the parishes from being seized or abused by the Communists and their puppet church. The announcement was something of a bolt from the blue and came with no explanation or consultation. All of the parishes of the Russian diocese were to be put under Greek bishops. The clergy of the diocese, not surprisingly, have expressed their resentment and have declined to comply. They are currently in discussion with a number of other canonical churches about where to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"There have been around 85-90 documented cases of parishes switching from the UOC (MP) to the new entity. Of those around 30 are believed to have been voluntary." that is, according to the UOC-MP

As for what is happening now, the Athonite monks seem to have gotten in a quarrel among themselves on the Ukrainian question (cf. Reactions_of_the_Orthodox_churches_to_the_2018_Moscow–Constantinople_schism#Mount_Athos and this article), and the AROCWE has refused its dissolution and seems to lean toward the ROCOR (cf. Archdiocese_of_Russian_Orthodox_churches_in_Western_Europe#Dissolution_and_its_aftermath).

I am in favor of keeping the "Russian world" part, but I did not find much about "romionsini". I think we should put the ambitions of the ROC and the EP, i.e. in the end, only remove the "Romiosyne" sub-section. Veverve (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

And the Albanians have just chimed in.[13] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What about Crimea? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Where is the objective "truth"?

In order to attempt to address the entire issue of autocephaly in Ukraine it is necessary to understand several items: - the status and authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch (his status and authority are NOT comparable to that of the Roman Catholic Pope in Rome) - the canonical (church procedures/rules/law) of the Eastern Orthodox Church - the correct names of previously existing and new Orthodox Church organizations in Ukraine - the text of the Constitution of the Republic of Ukraine (forbidding secular government involvement in church/religious affairs) Only if these issues are addressed objectively can there be some degree of clarity, vice reflections of high emotion, in the Wiki articles that relate.Moryak (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

- This is way outside of the scope of this article. Feel free to create an article titled something like "Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Eastern Orthodoxy" to explain what you want to explain, however there is already a section at Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople#Prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

- again, outside of the scope of this article, this kind of information has its place at Eastern Orthodox Church

- does not concern the schism at all, this kind of information has its place at Religion in Ukraine

- Constitution of Ukraine; it has nothing to do with the break of communion between Moscow and Constantinople.

I believe that the fact those points are unadressed does not mean the article is not objectively true. Veverve (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moryak: if it is of any interest for you, the Orthodoxwiki has an article on the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Veverve (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Serbian Church

The Serbian Church has just issued a statement on the issue. While they are remaining in communion with Constantinople for now, they have stated that they are only doing so out of economia/oikonomia. And they are discouraging their clergy from concelebrating with anyone who has communed with the clergy of the UOC.[14] -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I will wait for secondary sources before trying to make any edits about that - I am unclear as to its impact on the situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is OR... but... In part the Serbs are sending a warning shot across the bow of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church. Both of whom are currently considering their position vis a vis Ukraine. But beyond that, the Serbs are being completely upfront in their response to this. They are scandalized, and furious with the EP for precipitating this schism and claiming authority that pretty much nobody in the broader Orthodox Church recognizes. If we are waiting for secondary source coverage that may be a while in coming. Especially in the English Language world. Anyways that is the back story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Conflict between Filaret and Epiphanius

Conflict between Filaret and Epiphanius may be of interest to any talk page watchers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Asking for re-evaluations?

The article has progressed a lot since October 2018, and therefore I believe it would be appropriate to ask the verious WikiProjects concerned by this article to re-evaluate their ratings of the article. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Orthodox Church of Ukraine recognized by the Church of Greece

@Ad Orientem:@Power~enwiki: this information might be of interest to you and to people following the talk page.

Yes I saw that in my news feed this morning. I suspect that this will have the effect of throwing gasoline on a fire. Stand by for further developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

And here is one I was not expecting... Metropolitans Seraphim of Piraeus and Kythira say no vote happened, no recognition of OCU. I'd not post this just yet. Let's wait for some formal clarification. I understand that a number of media sources that had reported on the recognition have pulled their stories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Could it not have been simple for once in this whole affair? Veverve (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the Church of Greece regognized the OCU. Veverve (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What now?

Since the ROC has already warned it would cease to commemorate the primate of the Church of Greece or anyone who recognize any priest from the OCU, and since the primate of the Church of Greece had the right to decide on the recognition of the OCU and chose to recognize the OCU, the situation is likely to change. Does anyone have some feedback on how editors of this article should proceed? Moreover, any kind of feedback is welcome. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Should this information be included?

Link. Should it? Veverve (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
And should "Russian Orthodox Church considering accepting Alexandria clergy who don't want to recognize Ukrainian schism" be included? Veverve (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it is relevant.--Mickey (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Page move

@Vypr: I am against your page move, because it would imply the schism has ended in 2020. Hence, I will revert your renaming. You are free to start a WP:RMCM discussion. Veverve (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vypr:As an advice, you might want to use Wikipedia:Twinkle. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus (not moved) (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 06:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---

2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism → 2018–20 Moscow–Constantinople schism – In the sidebar of the Current Events portal, many events have included the current year in their title despite the event starting in a previous year. There is no official naming convention on this type of title, however, I believe we should look to be more consistent. The schism is not isolated to 2018. Vypr (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 02:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vypr: As I stated above, I disagree. I believe clarity is more important than being consistent with what I believe is a mistake: I blieve ongoing event should be either named with the name they started, e.g. the current title of this page, or the name they started+"present", e.g. Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present). Veverve (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to 2018–present Moscow–Constantinople schism. Have been considering nominating this one myself Ribbet32 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ribbet32:I would prefer "Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018–present)" Veverve (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: The name of the article should indicate perpetuity since the schism is ongoing. The current title suggests the schism was limited to that year alone, so the proposal to add "(2008-present)" to the title seems the most satisfactory until the issue is resolved. Parabellus (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: and @Vypr: do you support the move to "Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018–present)"? Veverve (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine with that Ribbet32 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: That's better. Vypr (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think, schism is different from an active war. Schism is just a one-time split, until the sides decide to reunite. For example, we write East–West Schism, not 1054–2020 East–West Schism or 1054–present East–West Schism. (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose courteously. This proposal seems to be addressing a problem that doesn't exist. The current title differentiates the article from the earlier schism quite adequately by including the start date. Nothing further is needed. Adding a "to" date would be misleading in that such almost always denotes an end date in article titles. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Let it be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. It is possible that we need a broader article title on the whole conflict, or two separate articles, or redirects (using date ranges) for the post-schism conflict/war stuff, leading to an appropriate section at the article on the schism and its aftermath. Also, I oppose using "2019–20" anyway, which is not as easy to parse with certainty as a date range. While it is sometimes permissible under MOS:DATERANGE to use YYYY–YY abbreviated year ranges in some two-contiguous-years contexts, it is never required (except in the title of a published work or other proper name exclusively using that format in reliable sources giving the name). The short form generally is not used except in tight-space circumstances like a crowded table (and it shouldn't be done at all for 01 through 12 cases, because the year-month date 2002-03 and the year–year range 2002–03 are indistinguishable in many fonts, though tables could be an exception when it's very clear from the context that all the entries in the column are YYYY-YY year ranges; but such contextual clarity cannot possibly apply to stand-alone page titles). As another aside, short-style ranges are especially problematic in article titles, because we're expected to redirect one to the other. That is, if we're obligated to redirect Snooker world rankings 1979-80 and Snooker world rankings 1979–80 to Snooker world rankings 1979–1980, etc. that is actually an error for cases of -01 to -12, redirecting a YYYY-MM (which may be nonsensical in the context or may not be) to a YYYY–YY. By contrast, YYYY-YYYY with hyphen has no ambiguous meaning, so redirecting to YYYY–YYYY with the proper en dash is no form of problem. This principle matters even in a context like this where we might have -20, because of WP:CONSISTENT; that is, if other event articles (including for Moscow specifically) are going to have full YYYY–YYYY dating when they have any 01 to 12 second-year values, then they should all use YYYY–YYYY for consistency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.