Talk:Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Can we put a hold on further POV edits while we sort out the ones already made?

Now Muscovite99 has inserted the following:

"In 2007 a scandal widely covered by Russia's media erupted when Diomid, Bishop of Chukotka, condemned the ROC's hierarchy and persoanlly Patrirch Alexy II for ecumenism and loyalty to the RF secular authorities. The scandal culminated in the Bishop being defrocked while Diomid issued a proclamation in which he anathematizes Patriarch Alexis, as well as others for what he saw as digression from Orthodsoxy."

To call it a scandal is POV. The characterization of it is also biased. Bishop Diomid also was teaching that cell phones and passports were of the anti-christ, and a lot of other nutty things. This does not belong in this article. It might be a footnote in an article on the ROC, or a section on bishop Diomid, but it is yet another distraction here. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, here I have to disagree. This is important and interesting. Colchicum (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You should stop labelling everything you do not fancy "POV". In Russia it was a HUMUNGOUS SCANDAL. If you want refs of that i shall provied dozens - i am the author of the relevant article in ru WP. Equally, i do not actually mind you trying to come up with another term.Muscovite99 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

HU-MAN-what? price inflation probably is, but I'm afraid you're overestimating the scope of Diomid's importance. Kremlin media reported that affair for about a week preceding to Diomid's demotion, and then he just disappeared. It probably hit some elektrichka tabloids and serious blogs before the crisis, but that's far from an all-caps scandal. No need to war over one man's one line assessment of the deceased. NVO (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is interesting or not, it is presented in a completely distorted way. There are other bishops were are very vocal in opposition to Ecumenism. Diomid is a nut. The wiki article on him notes that he condemns "taxpayer ID, cell phones, passports, vaccination and globalization." He also was being disobedient, and was deposed. This is a matter that the whole ROC decided. It was not Patriarch Alexei who deposed him, and therefore it is UNDUE here. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is very due because this a unique case of the ROC patriarch being anathematised by one of his own bishops. The whole story was a headline POLITICAL issue in Russia for more than a year.Muscovite99 (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As always, you are just trying to propagate your personal attitudes here, which is explicitly forbidden in WP. Whether or not "Diomid is a nut" is entirely beside the point here, and not up to us to debate here. We reproduce sources here and not sit in judgement over the subjects.Muscovite99 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I must insist on civility. Please try to avoid using the words "you" and "your" in posts. Let's just stick to discussing the article. --Elonka 02:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Elonka. In fact i mean "us".Muscovite99 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to me that this has anything particular to do with Alexy himself. It may have been a big scandal, but it was apparently a dispute between Diomid and the church as a whole. There seems to be a running pattern here of hanging every bit of newsworthy material about the ROC around Alexy's neck; but since his position is not monarchic, it feels to me as though people are fishing for material due to a lack of particularly noteworthy stuff involving him personally. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Diomid accused Alexy personally of canonical violations. This is noteworthy and on topic. Colchicum (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing needs to stop

There are no noteworthy or sourced allegations about the Patriarch's involvement with the KGB that have not already been noted in this article. We hashed this section through via a process of mediation. Attempts to pump yet more POV into this article need to stop. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin, since there was a report of disruption here. Can you please provide a link to prior discussions? Thanks, --Elonka 22:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see where the arbitration began here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patriarch_Alexy_II_of_Russia/Archive_1#WP:BLP_Violations_Reported_to_BLP_Notice_Board, and then continuing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patriarch_Alexy_II_of_Russia/Archive_2

If you wanted to go back to the very beginning of this debate, you would need to start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patriarch_Alexy_II_of_Russia/Archive_1#Unconstructive_Edits_.2F_Head_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church

You can also see more about this specific editor's past behavior here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muscovite99 Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you meant arbitration? I looked through the talkpage archives and the RfC, but didn't see anything that looked like mediation or an ArbCom case. I did find a COI noticeboard thread,[1] and a BLP noticeboard thread,[2] but those, and the RfC, are all from back in January. --Elonka 01:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not being that precise. I mean that we had the BLP incident report, and then had an administrator mediate the editing. We had reached a form of the text on the KGB accusations that everyone could live with -- which is where there was very little that has happened since last January... but now we have Muscovite99 attempting to unilaterally revise not only that section, but to insert repetitive accusations into the article summary. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

True to form, Frjohnwhiteford seeks to impose on every one else his partisan views. BBC is reputed to be the most balanced news media. You should stop your destructive censorial practices. You have once lost the arbitration on this page. And stop discussing editors -- discuss the issue.Muscovite99 (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first off, if I am going to participate here, I am going to insist on civility. As for Frjohnwhiteford's statement, well, sadly, BLP no longer applies, since the Patriarch passed away a few days ago. My recommendation at this point is to focus on one section of the article at a time, and try to find a consensus. Instead of simply reverting each other, try making "compromise" edits to see if you can find a middle ground? --Elonka 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that BLP still applied, but only noting that this is how that mediation began. Since we had a status quo that had been agreed upon, can we revert to the status quo ante while we discuss these proposed edits? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If we talk about the KGB link official denial (above i was primarily referring to bowdlerising the lead such as this), the issue is quite clear. If Frjohnwhiteford insists that there have been multiple denials, go ahead and provide links to others, in addition to Chaplin's in 2000. It is as plain as day.Muscovite99 (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this footnote, you will see that there are 3 separate citations, from 3 separate occasions.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, i can only see 2 there, the latter, in effect, confirming the collaboration, but insisting there is no evidence of harming anyone.Muscovite99 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the Patriarch has never denied that he, like all MP bishops was forced to collaborate on some level with the Council on Religious Affairs, which was effectively an arm of the KGB, this is nothing new and has never been in dispute. What is in dispute is whether he was a KGB agent, or that he intentionally did any harm to the Church or to any other Orthodox Christians. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• What's your point?Muscovite99 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there is a balance to this issue. We had it in this article, until today. We need to put things back into balance now. The point is clear enough. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a balance needs to be maintained. The only source that is cited 3 times in the article denying the KGB connection is the Church itself. all major secondary sources do not take it as an allegation but as an established fact. considering that the Church is very much a primary source in the context, in order to keep the article in balance, the case needs to be presented according to secondary published sources. Currently it is completely off balance by giving the primary source almost equal validity compared to the secondary sources out there.--Termer (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica does not even mention these allegations, and so to claim that it is a universally accepted fact is untrue. Furthermore, the citation supports the statement that the Moscow Patriarchate denied the claim -- which is an undeniable fact. And in fact no one else really could deny the claim. How can you otherwise prove a negative?Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source that Wikipedai doesn't rely on pr WP:PSTS, so it s irrelevant. And in fact no one else really could deny the claim sorry to point out is not a serious argument. In fact any reputable historian could simply prove that publicly available documents talking about agent Drozdov are forgeries like claimed by the Church.--Termer (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you make the assertion that any reputable historian could prove the document false? There is only one document that is claimed to have been an original KGB document that is "publicly" available, and that would be the Estonian document. Everything else is either hearsay, or supposed transcriptions. It may be that a scholar could prove it to be a forgery, if there were enough good scholars with access to it who also had enough interest to scrutinize it, but a good forgery is not something that just any historian would be able to find out. And it is not always so cut and dried a case when it comes to forgeries... there is often still an element of uncertainty. As for the Encyclopedia Britannica, I was not suggesting it as a primary source... just as an above average example of an encyclopedia (which has a much better reputation than Wikipedia), which felt no need to even address this issue. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ground rules?

Elonka,

Could we get some ground rules laid down, because as it is, it is clear that one side of this debate intend to continue to edit unilaterally? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think the rules have been laid down in WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability: sourced opinions presented as opnions should belong here, sunbjext to basic relevance, naturally.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, do not engage in deleting anything, just adding - do not mind others doing likewise.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would recommend, John Whiteford, that you do not cast aspersions on others using phrases such as "edit unilaterally". You edit just as boldly as others:) Malick78 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have not unilaterally changed this article in any controversial way from what it was that we had agreed upon. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• What ground rules would be helpful here? As an uninvolved administrator, I do have some discretion to place additional restrictions on this article per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, which says, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." Or in other words, I could place revert restrictions on the article, or on specific editors, or even ask certain editors to completely avoid the article or entire topic for a period of time. However, before doing that, I am required to give clear warnings, and explain what behaviors are a concern, so that any possibly affected editors would have the option of modifying their behavior such that sanctions might be necessary. So far I'm not seeing that specific sanctions are needed yet, but I'm open to suggestions? --Elonka 15:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be very helpful, and make for more productive editing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like that has been debated previously by Jeepday and DGG. A few months ago, I also filed a report to WP:COI noticeboard about Frjohnwhiteford who is an Orthodox priest and could have a conflict of interest. It would help if several most persistent edit warriers (Frjohnwhiteford, Muscovite99 and Russavia who just was blocked for RR violation in this article) stopped editing this article voluntarily. Biophys (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussions at the COI noticeboard, and the consensus there appeared to be that though Frjohnwhiteford (talk · contribs) is a priest, that that is not a COI which should prevent him from editing the article. As for the edit-warring, I agree that the reverting should stop, but I see no trouble with everyone continuing to make edits towards finding a compromise. I'll take a look at the other revert histories of Muscovite99 (talk · contribs) and Russavia (talk · contribs), thanks. --Elonka 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not just UNDUE, but UNTRUE

The footnote to this new quote links to an article that can now only be seen if you are a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal. However, I found a version of the article that was cut and pasted to a live journal page, and the original quote is as follows:

"Archivists who have plumbed Soviet-era records say KGB informers infiltrated churches for decades, reporting on clergy and parishioners, at home and abroad. Indrek Jurjo, chief of the publications division of the State Archives of Estonia, says that one of those agents was Patriarch Alexy II, the current leader of the Moscow church. Mr. Jurjo says that biographical details of an agent named Drozdov, found in a 1958 KGB annual report, match the cleric's Estonian background, year of birth, education and career path."

Compare that to the quote in the article now:

"In July 2007, The Wall Street Journal quoted Indrek Jurjo, chief of the publications division of the State Archives of Estonia, as saying that one of the KGB informers that had "infiltrated churches for decades, reporting on clergy and parishioners, at home and abroad" was Patriarch Alexy II: the biographical details of an agent named Drozdov, found in a 1958 KGB annual report, match the cleric's Estonian background, year of birth, education and career path."

The quote in the article has distorted the quote in the original. In the original, Mr. Jurjo is say that KGB agents had done X, Y, and Z, and one of those KGB agents was Patriarch Alexy, based on this document that matches his biography. The article says that he said one of the KGB agents who did X, Y, and Z was Patriarch Alexy. That is a complete distortion of the quote. Mr. Jurjo only labeled Patriarch Alexy a KGB, he did not attribute to him personally everything that all KGB agents had done.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that this quote was clearly distorted, I have merged the factual elements of that quote into the preceeding paragraph. Here is how the paragraph reads after my edit... you can see the article for the footnote details:

"Patriarch Alexy II was alleged to have been a KGB agent according to multiple sources,[41][42][43][44][45][46] including Gleb Yakunin and Yevgenia Albats, who both were given access to the KGB archives.[47][48][43][49] He was mentioned in the KGB archives by the code name DROZDOV. It should be noted, however, that it was very unusual for any person to be referenced in KGB documents prior to 1980 without a code name, regardless of their affiliation with the KGB.[43] It has been alleged that archival documents seen by Yevgenia Albats stated that Alexy was awarded an Honorary Citation by the KGB chairman in 1988.[48] It has also been claimed, based on a document from the Estonian KGB archives, that Alexy was a highly successful agent who "pacified" rebellious monks.[50] This document provides biographical details about an agent which match those of Patriarch Alexy, though the Russian Orthodox Church has denied the authenticity of this document.[51]According to Oleg Gordievsky, Alexy had been working for the KGB for forty years, and his case officer was Nikolai Patrushev.[52] These claims are supported by the British-based Keston Institute.[53]"

I have to thank Termer for providing the link to the Guardian article. I knew that the MP had denied the authenticity of this specific document, but until now I did not have a reliable source that said so. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanding on scant evidence in a way that is UNDUE

The following quote:

"In July 2007, The Wall Street Journal quoted Indrek Jurjo, chief of the publications division of the State Archives of Estonia, as saying that one of the KGB informers that had "infiltrated churches for decades, reporting on clergy and parishioners, at home and abroad" was Patriarch Alexy II: the biographical details of an agent named Drozdov, found in a 1958 KGB annual report, match the cleric's Estonian background, year of birth, education and career path."

Gives undue weight to this person. He is an Archivist. He is basing his comments on the one document that was mentioned in the preceding paragraph:

"It has also been claimed, based on documents from the Estonian KGB archives that Alexy was a highly successful agent who "pacified" rebellious monks."

The same Wall Street Journal article is the source of both statements. The Archivist has no special information on this document. He has no additional information behind his statements. We could add redundant statements to this article till the cows come home, but this does not improve the article, it does not make it more balanced, nor does it make it more factual. On that basis, I would argue that it should be removed.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indrek Jürjo PhD (University of Hamburg) is not an Archivist but the Historian who found the documents on agent Drozdov while researching the KGB archives , see [3] and Indrek Jürjo @ google books or google scholar--Termer (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, his commentary on the document in question adds nothing to the pool of facts here. What the document actually says has already been noted in the article. Why does it warrant twice the notice of anything else? If he had more facts to substantiate his comments, that might be different, as it is sort of like soviet swim wear, that doubles as casual wear, that doubles as evening wear -- it is the same outfit being trotted out each time.Frjohnwhiteford (talk)

The document Indrek Jürjo has discovered from KGB archives is the only publicly available piece of evidence there is on agent Drozdov. So I'd say it is relevant what the guy who discovered the piece has to say about it.--Termer (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is such scant evidence is no reason why the scant evidence should be made to appear more abundant than it is. There should be one reference to this document... not two that make it look like there are two independent sources of information. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two independent sources of information, if you read the article I left above, at first it was claimed so by the Russian parliamentary commission in Moscow who had access to KGB files in Russia. And then later the document on agent Drozdov was found from the KGB archives in Tallinn Estonia by the historian doing research in the archives.--Termer (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference is one is a document that we have a text of, and the other is what people say they saw, which is far more subjective. But the fact that people claim to have seen things is also mentioned. In this case, however, we are talking about the same piece of evidence, but in two different places. Again, the question is why? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are 2 sources of information, first the KGB archives in Moscow cited by the the Russian parliamentary commission, and by Gleb Yakunin, Yevgenia Albats. And then there is the KGB archive in Tallinn Estonia from where the document found has been made public.--Termer (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's two sources... but one source get's mentioned twice, as if it were two, thus making three. Why? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. I don't understand why to make such a big deal out of it. Patriarch himself has admitted that compromises with the KGB were made in order to "save the Church". As far as I'm concerned it's not that different than let's say Disney and McCarthyism. Disney named some names perhaps because he believed it was the right thing to do or perhaps in order to save his business and advance his career. And so did the Patriarch, perhaps because it was the only way to save the church, perhaps simply to advance his career in difficult circumstances. Does all this make Disney or the Patriarch less important historical figures? It's not our business to be judges since our job here should be listing all available facts in the article, not to work like somebodies public relations agency.--Termer (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He acknowledged compromises. He did not acknowledge being a KGB agent. There is a difference. It is not the purpose of this article to judge who is right. The purpose is to accurately and fairly state what the evidence actually is. There are things that we can provde beyond any doubt. There are things we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There are things we can make a compelling case for. And then there are things that we can state to be possible, but have to note that the evidence is less compelling. As long as we accurately state what the evidence is, and don't make claims that the evidence does not support, we are being fair. By the way, there is a new book from Princeton that I have just ordered, and I am told gives a fairly favorable account of Patriarch Alexei's life, while the authors are neither Russian nor Orthodox. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole thing about "KGB agent" is overblown and gets misinterpreted. An example of an agent of an agency would be James Bond, or any agent working for FBI, CIA etc., meaning agents are professionals and in that sense it should be easy to say that the Patriarch was no agent of the KGB like Disney wasn't an agent of CIA. They were both informants, more specifically Political informers. --Termer (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that it is overblown. It is actually quite a bit different than Disney however, in that Disney was not forced to work with the CIA because the alternative was that his family and employees might be sent to the gulags, if he didn't. The new book I mentioned maked the case that Patriarch Alexei did work with the Soviets, but that he only used his contacts with them to the advantage of the Church. Was it always the case that people in the Church benefited, and no one got hurt? I would say that in such business it is unlikely that he came away with completely clean hands, but I think that we should try to understand what his alternatives were, and that in his mind, under the circumstances he had to contend with, he believed he was doing the best he could for the Church.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody was sent to the gulags in the 60's in USSR unlike during the era of Stalinism. And as far as I'm concerned nobody has ever claimed that the Patriarch worked for the NKVD.--Termer (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This simply is contrary to fact. I refer you to "A Long Walk To Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy", by Nathaniel Davis, chapter 4, "Khrushchev's Attack". Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be simply described as a part of his career. He was so successful precisely because he was first "a secret helper", and later more like a "trusted contact". He promoted front organizations abroad among other things. Gorbachev also started as a "secret KGB helper". This is nothing special.Biophys (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point what Biophys just said. In fact anybody in the USSR who had a considerable career was involved with the KGB and had to become a political informer. And in fact I think it was a necessity if someone needed to travel aboard. Not that different from McCarthyism in the US where anybody who wanted to work in the movie business in order to avoid the Hollywood blacklist had to cooperate with the McCarthy commission.--Termer (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Remind me names of McCarthy's work camps in Alaska to prove Not that different. Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Remind me the names of KGB work camps in USSR! KGB used different methods than NKVD gulags during the era of Stalinism.--Termer (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It should not simply be described as part of his career, when the whole issue is a matter of dispute. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• John Whiteford, please due we have to go through each line of the article with a toothcomb to discuss every bit you dislike? This is a work of collaboration and a little give and take would be appreciated. The info currently under discussion is well-documented and important and deserves to stay. Malick78 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Discussing the lines that are problematic is the work of collaboration, and I am happy to give and take within the bounds of fact and Wiki Policy. See the section below. The section in question distorted a quote, and there is no doubt about it. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch's Name

By custom and tradition, names of monarchs, popes and patriarchs are always translated into other established European languages, and are not phonetically transliterated, so Peter I is not Piotr or Pyotr or whatever but is Peter I in German and English, Pierre I in French, Eugen von Savoyen is Eugene of Savoy or to Russians Евгений Савойский, and Patriarch Joasaphus (either I or II) is Joasaphus, not Ioasaf or Yoasaf or Joasaf. Likewise Patriarch Alexius (either I or II) can be Алексий (I или II) but most certainly not Alexy Roobit (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Q.

I wanted to comment before I edit the funeral story. Kirill is nauseous, Kirill faints, Kirill is in ecstasy? So what? This page is about Alexiy II.

Sincerely, David Snow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)