Talk:Cathedral of the Theotokos, Vilnius

Revert warring

I would like to point out that such edits are not acceptable. I don't know why you are so keen to obliterate the fact that the first churches in Lithuania and its capital were Orthodox. It is a fact and you have to live with it. I don't think that rabid revert warring aimed at obliterating the references to chronicles not to your liking will help to promote your POV. Wikipedia is not a Lithuanian propaganda machine. If you want to obliterate the memory of Lithuanian Orthodoxy, please consider converting the oldest church of your city into a place where the corpses are cut, as your ancestors did in the 19th century. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ghirlandajo, were did you take that I obliterate the fact that the first churches in Lithuania and its capital were Orthodox. M.K. 15:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear M.K., you are keen to obliterate the mention of chronicles that I supplied in favour of citing your favourite nationalist hackwriters. Such an attitude seems very disturbing to me. You attack every article even remotely connected with Lithuanian history (such as Navahradak) to pump it with nationalist insinuations and original research. Please stop. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not attacking, Ghirlandajo, you see the problem is your rv., I very kindly removed disputed statement as, Orthodox, but you rv. It without a hesitation. Now I only provided some primary sources that your statement is not very accurate. If you like we can go to primary edit of another editor were was no Orthodox ruler Algirdas.M.K. 15:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. Navahradak do not contain OR from mine side.

I do not dispute that Algirdas died a pagan. As his lifestyle was pagan, I even concede that it is not likely that he was buried in the church. Yet disputing the well-known fact that he formally converted to Orthodoxy is plain silly. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronicles which you are talking, have several huge errors, and they contradict to contemporary accounts and even to other Rus chron. As I said, we can solve his dispute very quickly removing Orthodox (his particular word) ruler Algirdas and also rest of mine refs. I wrote these refs., that you can see that your statements is not very correct and also I do not based mine opinion on some nationalism theories. Sadly you accused me of nationalism already:( M.K. 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. how this statement is supporting your view: although the nationalist Lithuanian chronicles like to cite biased Polish authors (such as Jan Długosz) in order to dispute the fact. I did not used any LT chr.

First of all, Bychowiec Chronicle is not a "Rus chron". It was commissioned by a Catholic ruler, who had not the least interest in proving the Orthodoxy of Algirdas. If you think that Dlugosz doesn't "have several huge errors" and doesn't "contradict to contemporary accounts", then you'd better read up on the subject. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bychowiec Chronicle praised Gastoldus deeds, Algirdas baptism is out of text in this account (possibly, included for impression only). Indeed Dlugosz had POV, very strong and quite many statements of his are ridiculous, despite this, if Dlugosz statements can be verified by several different contemporary and primary sources, they are not disputed. I provided several primary sources of document collections which has nothing to do with Dlugosz too. M.K. 17:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. and I am not a well known Lithuanian nationalist either

Off-topic cut out

The following piece is removed from article, since it is badly misplaced.

By contemporary accounts of Hermann von Wartberge , which were endorse by Jan Długosz works , Algirdas was referred as pagan ruler, who was buried during the pagan ceremonies. Even more, Patriarch Neilos in the 14th century described Algirdas as fire-worshipping prince , another Patriarch Philotheos excommunicated all Ruthenian noblemen, who helped impious Algirdas . Algirdas pagan faith also went into the 14th Byzantine historian Nicephorus Gregoras accounts . Despite these and other contemporary accounts, as well as modern studies , some Russian historians, such as Batiushikov, proclaimed Algirdas as Orthodox ruler, even cultivated a myth, that he was buried in this Cathedral, while no credible evidence of this, could been found till present-day.

It is absolutely out of question to have a detailed discusion of religion of a notable person in some secondary article. To avoid ambiguities and branching of opinions in wikipedia, this part must be incorporated into Algirdas article, where it may be further elaborated in proper context and detail, and then referred to in other wikipedia articles `'mikka (t) 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have updated the Algirdas article myself, but IMO it is better that the original author of the text leave this trace in article's history. `'mikka (t) 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

very good move leaving neutral part of article, because I also tried to make it a bit neutral without any extensive ref., but I was stopped by another editor rv. If I see something that needs do be placed in main article of Aldg. i will do M.K. 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, please keep in mind about old names: to write "H. de Wartberge" would be the same as R. of Chichester or W. Spindleshanks or P. the Great :-). `'mikka (t) 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK! :) M.K. 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)