Talk:History of Christianity in Ukraine/Archive 1

Expansion

This article needs some historical background, from Russian Imperial times, Cossack era, and before.

Genyo 17:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Act of Union

Could someone add a description on the Act of Union page regarding the unification of the two branches? It might be better (if there's enough to write about) if someone could even make a separate page. Something like Act of Union (Ukrainian Orthodox) perhaps? --01:39, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

"expansion" template

I added an {{expansion}} template. This article needs a LOT! It definitely goes beyond the stub. But the template would prominently warn the reader to do more searching for the info if s/he would like to get any understanding of the subject.

Another Kyiv/Kiev discussion on yet another talk pages

(a note added later: a long discussion about titling of Kiev article occurred and reccurred at Talk:Kiev page. Separate discussions about the usage of the name in text of other articles took place at different talk pages. Maybe we could create an article entitled Spellings of the Name of the Capital of Ukraine. The article will be devoted to how the city name was written, particulary in English, and why. It could also say about introduction of Kyiv spelling and how well (or badly) it succeeds. Its talk page (Talk:Spellings of the Name of the Capital of Ukraine) would releive all other talk pages from this topic and, possibly, allow to reach some conclusion. We do need a conclusion. Opinions of the editors are strong and different and the WP needs consistency. Below is the discussion which was here before I wrote this note. Irpen 05:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC))

Changed Kyiv -> Kiev (arguments discussed all too often)and external web-links moved to the end of the article. Irpen 20:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, you're unfairly glossing over the issue. The titling of the article on "Kiev" has been discussed and resolved, because the Russian transliteration is the most commonly used name in English.

But regarding the use of the city's native Ukrainian name Kyiv in writing there is no consensus, no Wikipedia policy nor convention, and very little actual discussion. Kyiv is used in several English-language publications and press establishments. It is an alternate name in English, the authors of this article have deemed it acceptable in its context, and no random readers have changed it or complained. It can be just as legitimately used as the name in Russian "Kharkov" is for Kharkiv, in articles about WWII battles in the Ukrainian SSR.

I agree there is no consensus. There was similarly no "consensus" for the titling of the Kiev article. Just the reasoning for Kiev appeared strong enough even for those who disagreed. Irpen

You've stated elsewhere that "I see the usage of Kyiv by many authors as a completely legitimate attempt to change the established name of the city". I'm tempted to see your systematic censorship as an attempt to protect the status quo. I respect you for your contributions and your infinitely patient discussions, but you seem to be just as attached to the question of Kyiv vs. Kiev as I am.

I did not mean the editors of WP are among the authors whose use of Kyiv I find acceptable. It is OK to use Kyiv, say, as a journalist, if this does not contradict the style policy of the newspaper or a magazine. It is also OK to use Kyiv for the book authors if they see fit. These two cases are examples of acceptable promoting the usage of Kyiv. It is not OK to use Kyiv (at least yet) in encyclopedia, which, as a reference source, should reflect the established usage rather than be used to push one term over another. I am trying to make sure that WP reflects the current usage as it should. If you consider this as "protecting the status quo" I won't argue about that. Encyclopedia is a wrong medium to push one term, preferable to some, against the other. There are other media, including many on the web, appropriate for this. Whatever usage currently prevails, it is the one encyclopedia should use. When KharkIv seemed to have been established and beat KharkOv in modern English usage, it became an appropriate term for the WP and I voted for it. KharkOv is still established in some fields, therefore it is appropriate to use in certain topics. KYIV is not established in any context since Kiev was used in English for as long as there are any records. Currently, because of the partial success of promoters KYIV, it became somewhat used. It warrants a mention and discussion on the naming in the text of a Kiev article as well as a mention in parentheses in some other articles. It's very limited usage in the major English media shows that it should not be used as a main name for the city in encyclopedia. That's my view on the issue.

Therefore, while I never go to editing the article just to replace Kyiv by Kiev, I do that when I edit the page for other reasons. This page, for instance, was in a dire need of an expansion template and links were placed at the wrong place. This prompted my interference, not the usage of Kyiv itself. I would have never been persistent, if I haven't viewed Kyiv as a wrong usage in an encyclopedia article. I supported changing terms to Ukrainian names in many cases. Thanks for your complements :). I will not revert Kyiv in this article now but only for the sake of the world peace. I might do it later if I research the subject of the hisory of Ukrainian christianity enough to contribute to this article. I am open, though, to opinions on the issue at this and other talk pages. Irpen

I am choosing to combat systemic bias, and restoring the use of Kyiv in this article. —Michael Z. 2005-04-16 22:04 Z

I think it is incorrect to call my position a systemic bias. I do view the usage of Kyiv in encyclopedia as premature and act accordingly. However, it is easy to see that I endorsed and used other Ukrainian names in many articles. Irpen 16:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

No offense meant. By systemic bias I just meant the inertia of a mainstream convention. It's not necessarily a wrong bias, and 'combating' it certainly is by definition "experimental", but Wikipedia does have some commitment to that end (i.e., Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias).

No offence taken :). I can't argue that widely accepted conventions may create the bias toward the mainstream opinion. Means of addressing this problem is a different issue. Irpen

I apologize for accusing you of "systematic censorship"; that was definitely out of line. You certainly are one of the most objective editors regarding such matters. —Michael Z. 2005-04-18 20:54 Z

I didn't take it as any offence at all. I agree that the editors should exercise a reasonable self-restraint in changing the names even when they feel there are good reasons for doing so. My self-imposed restraint in the cases like this is not to push the "edit" button for the sole purpose of changing the name of a person or a place. However, I do change names (in good faith) in the course of other edits in the article. Unlike Kharkiv/Kharkov, I just don't feel that there exists a context that might affect the choice between Kyiv/Kiev as a primary name since Kiev seems to have always been and still seems to be a primary usage in English. Of course which term is correct may be a subject of debate. But whatever the correct term is, it should be used in WP for the sake of consistency. Irpen

Article title

Suggestion to move the article from the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" to "Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine"

Such title would seem more appropriate since two churches currently claim the jurisdiction and the name and the article is broader than simply being about these two churches. This is the article about the history of Ukrainian Christianity which in any case won't be a history of any of these churches, both created very recently. If after some years, the situation settles down and there will be a single canonical universally recognized church body in UA under the UOC name, we could change the name back. Currently there is no article titled "Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine" and the current article may be moved to a new name without any difficulty and without submissions to the "requested moves" page. If there are objections or alternative names, please list them here.

I would like to request from those who disagree not to sabotage the name change proposal by creating Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine entry with a redirect to this article. There is no need to complicate the proposed move in such a bad faith way. If I see reasonable objections, I will not do anything until they are discussed. - Irpen 20:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable; histories of the individual churches could grow into their own articles in addition to this one, but they are somewhat intertwined so perhaps not. There would have to be a bit more representation of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (inclusion of which may be controversial), but not much because that one has a larger article of its own. —Michael Z. 2005-04-18 20:38 Z

Come to think of it, there's some historical material at UGCC which might be merged into this article. To be done with sensitivity for other editors, I think. —Michael Z. 2005-04-18 20:41 Z

I think UGCC definitely needs to get discussed in this article. The history of its coming into being, periods of rivalry (with involvement of different political authorities), periods of suppression and (relatively) peaceful coexistence with the Orthodox churches is a part of the history of the Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine. Same applies to a RC church. Personally, I would welcome such contribution. Irpen 00:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Page moved to even broader title "History of Christianity in Ukraine".

After some thought, I figured it is impossible to write a separate history of Orthodox Christianity of Ukraine. So, I moved this article (there were no objections) to the "History of Christianity in Ukraine". The histories of all Ukrainian Churches are so intertwined with each other and with UGCC that it is impossible to write a separate history of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Please contibute to improving this article! I will keep working on it these days but not sure how much time I will have. Irpen 23:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thinking more of it. I really think it is impossible to have separate articles about each major church in UA, except, UGCC, which has a centuries long history. The history of all orthodox churches in UA are so intertwined that it is impossible to tell the story of one church without invoking the other all the time. I posted a {{merge}} template at both UOC-KP and UOC-MP articles. My suggestion is to merge all the info about these churches into the History of Christianity in Ukraine article when their stories, which are mostly stories of their relationship, may be told fully. Perhaps, the UAOC having its own history due to its life in diaspora when it was suppress in UA, may still have an article on its own in addition to being covered here. Irpen 05:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist bias has no place in an encylopedia

As such, the terms "Russian occupation" and "foreign land of Russia" are inappropriate and should be changed. Kazak

Sure, article has it's deficiencies. Please make changes as you see fit and see whether they will stand when other editors see them. The more neutral and factual based your writing is, the better chances it has to be accepted. I wanted to rework through most of the article, but never got to that yet. Please go ahead. just make sure you stick to facts. Irpen 19:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

To anon user who placed a NPOV tag: when placing a tag please list more specifically what and how should be changed or (even better) go ahead and change it. Otherwise, the tag will be removed. Irpen 05:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Getting the article off ground

I find recent changes made by user:Fisenko reasonable. I can't fully judge their neutrality , but they seem to match what I generally heard. I will do some changes now, but nothing drammatic, just to keep the style consistent. One thing though I would like to raise it the removal of the paragraph:

"On October 8, 1942 Archbishop Nikanor and Bishop Mstyslav (later a Patriarch) of the UAOC and Metropolitan Oleksiy (Hromadsky) of the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church concluded an Act of Union, uniting the two national churches at the Pochaev Lavra (monastery). Nazi occupation authorities and pro-Russian hierarchs of the Autonomous Church forced Metropolitan Oleksiy to remove his signature. Metropolitan Oleksiy was executed in Volhynia on May 7, 1943."

This is important information. If it is imprecise or not neutral, please rewrite it but removing it entirely is not a step towards improvement. I placed it back for now in the original place, but hidden in <!-- this wikisyntax -->, it does not appear in the article, you have to click an "edit" button to see it, and, as such, it is easy to restore or rewrite. Please do that asap. I am glad the article finally got some attention and is getting off the ground. Regards, Irpen 05:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainian influence in ROC in 17th-18th centuries

Currently, the acrticle uses the phrase "Ukrainian domination of the Russian Orthodox Church" for the aftermath of the transfer of Patriarchy. While certainly flattering for the Ukrainian clergy, I think this is too a radical statement. Was it really a "domination" or could we use a softer word? --Irpen 02:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)