Talk:History of Christianity in Ukraine/Archive 4

Eastern Orthodoxy Collaboration of the "Month"
This article has been tagged as the Eastern Orthodoxy Collaboration of the "Month" since at least August of 2006. As there is no evidence of any acitivity on that project, I propose that, unless someone from the EO-COTM objects, the tags be removed. Qe2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Statistical data (Institute of sociologies of National academy of the sciences 2000)
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Not religious 37,2 36,5 34,4 30,2 32,6 31,3 30,7 UOC-KP       25,7 29,6 32,7 33,7 32,2 31,0 32,9 UOC-MP       3,3  8,2  7,3  7,8  9,2  9,8  9,8 UAOC         1,7  0,6  0,5  0,8  1,7  0,8  1,0 ROC           -   7,2   -    -    -    -    - UGCC         6,1  6,5  7,1  7,0  5,5  8,0  6,4 Other        1,8  3,0  2,4  2,5  2,2  3,6  3,2 Not defined  16,0 15,2 14,7 17,9 15,9 15,0 16,0

UOC-KP (УПЦ-КП) - Українська Православна Церква (Київський Патрiархат)Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy UOC-MP (УПЦ-МП) - Українська Православна Церква (Московський Патрiархат) Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow UAOC (УАПЦ) - Українська Автокефальна Православна Церква Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church ROC (РПЦ) - Росiйська Православна Церква, Russian Orthodox Church UGCC (УГКЦ) - Українська Греко-Католицька Церква, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

Institute of sociologies of National academy of the sciences 2000. Statistic data from | page Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy --Yakudza 07:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Protestantism in Ukraine
Prase "Despite the rapid growth and agressive missionary activities, even today Protestants in Ukraine remain a small minority in a largely Orthodox Christian country." - there is not wholly exact

See reference to article article and *statistical data. Quotings with article:

Протестанты и греко-католики опередили УПЦ МП по числу верующих, еженедельно посещающих храмы и молитвенные дома.

Вторыми по числу в Украине являются протестантские церкви, в общем насчитывающие 8.500 организаций.

Активно-практикующие верующие, посещающие храм еженедельно... По количеству этих верующих примерно равными силами обладают греко-католики (1 млн. 200 тысяч человек), протестанты (820 тысяч), УПЦ (790 тысяч), УПЦ КП (720 тысяч). (Yuriy Chernomorets. "Social base of the ukrainian orthodoxy", March 2005 --Yakudza 01:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This link appears to be dead. If anyone find the article, or the source of the survey, I would be very grateful if they would share it here.Qe2 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Yakudza, we can speculate about who is going to church more often, but I seriously doubt there is an actual academic study on the matter. Yes Baptists and other Protestants go to church services more often, while many Orthodox Christians visit church only occasionally. So what ? Does not change the fact majority of Ukrainians consider themselves Orthodox and were baptized in the Orthodox church. Fisenko 01:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes this is academic studies. These statistical given wholly reliable. Data of "Ukrainian sociology service", Centre Razumkova and the official statistics of the State committee of religion. As of questioning the Centre Razumkova in general visit church 37,4% populations; religious, but do not visit church - 37,8%. Visit church at week once or more beside 8%.  Ukrainians regrettably are largely non-religious.


 * Modern Ukraine practically is policonfessial country. Data about content of religious organizations from official statistics of the State committee on religion:


 * UOC-MP - 10623
 * Protestant - 8500
 * UOC-KP - 3508
 * UGCC - 3480
 * Actively-practising religious (Visit church at week once or more), sociological data:


 * UGCC - 32,0%
 * Protestant - 21,9%
 * UOC-MP - 21,1%
 * UOC-KP - 19,2%
 * Consider themselves Orthodox


 * UOC-MP - 37,8%
 * UOC-KP - 28,7%
 * Consider themselves Greek Catholics - 18,6%
 * Consider themselves Protestants - 5,9%

Quotings with this article: ''Thereby, nor one of the Church possesses the liking even halfs defined 19 mln. religious!''


 * See note above about dead link.Qe2 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

''Из числа 33 млн. верующих около 14 млн. заявляют, что не относят себя к какой-либо церкви, и 19 млн. являются симпатиками какой-то одной церкви. Таким образом, симпатики какой-либо конкретной церкви заведомо составляют меньшинство населения Украины. Если перечислить основные группы, то симпатики УПЦ МП – это 7,2 млн., УПЦ КП – 5,5 млн., УГКЦ – 3,8 млн. Таким образом, ни одна из церквей не обладает симпатиями даже половины определившихся 19 млн. верующих! Симпатики УПЦ МП – это только 37,8% определившихся верующих, УПЦ КП – 28,7%, УГКЦ – 18,6%.''

Really many of Ukrainians consider themselves Orthodox and were baptized in the Orthodox church. But modern Ukraine largely non-religious and practically is policonfessial country. And Modern Protestants in Ukraine are not a small minority. --Yakudza 23:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Yakudza your numbers are may be right, however, there is no rule as to how often one should attend religious service in order to consider Orthodox Christian. The fact is if you walk the streets of Ukrainian citises and villages and ask them a question "What is your religios church affiliation ? ", something like 60-70 % will say Orthodox Christian, may be 10 % will say Greko-Catholic, 10-20 % will say none/atheist, and may be 1-3 % will say they are Protestant (Baptist or Pentacstal) Fisenko 04:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes you be right. I only will correct numerals, according to available statistics.


 * Protestant 2-3%
 * Greko-Catholic 8%
 * ateist and no defined 25-35%
 * Orthodox Christian 53% (25 mln.,including 47,8% atheists and 58% undefined)
 * Украину можно называть только «потенциально православной», поскольку «просто православными» называет себя 25 млн. человек (в том числе 47,8% атеистов и 58% сомневающихся). 


 * Я полагаю, что вся приведенная статистика, может дополнить и улучшить статью в википедии. Относительно протестантов, на мой взгляд, можно сказать примерно так: Несмотря активную миссионерскую деятельность, к протестантам относят себя только 2-3% населения Украины. Однако они составляют 20% активно-практикующих верующих (посещающих церковь раз в неделю и более), а по числу религиозых общин (8.500) уступают только УПЦ-МП.--Yakudza 18:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing that matters most is the self-identification of people in Ukraine, which is overwhelmingly Orthodox with GC beeing a significant but distant second. People may have no clue about canonical disputes within the Eastern Ortohodoxy, people may attend the Church 2-10 times in their lifetime (Baptism, wedding, funeral and those of someone else). Those who occasionally stop by for Easter in addition to those happy/tragic rare events are about as much reiligous as those that don't. So, we should make it clear in the article the fact that Ukrainians are overwhelmingly EO or GC.

Church attendance, OTOH, is also a factual info and may be included but only such that it won't mislead the reader into thinking that Ukraine is more Protestant than it actually is. --Irpen 18:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Constructive Work
Anyway I broke down the article into a structure, ommited the edits of the vandals that refuse to discuss them (they could have been kept had they explaind them...) Here is an article on the Pre-Muscovite West-Ruthenian Metropolia. I propose this, you take the 20th century, I do the early history. 1400-1686, rest we leave for later. Unless some of the vandals can finally swallow their childish national pride and join in on the project. --Kuban Cossack 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what I think the article needs (feel free to add on): --Kuban Cossack 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

19th century

 * 1) The return of Uniates to Orthodoxy after the Synod of Polotsk (Volhynia and Podolia)
 * 2) Russophilia of Uniate Galicia
 * 3) Colonisation of Novorossiya

Part one and two more or less done, now need part three, should include a summary of all notable events in Novo and Malo Rossiayas in the 19th century. --Kuban Cossack 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

20th Century

 * 1) The derussophiliation in Galicia, massacre of Telergoff
 * 2) How Uniate-Orthodox people were effected during World War I, first former in the Russian occupation of Galicia and latter in the Central Power occupation of Volhynia and Podolia
 * 3) Same but for the Polish-Bolshevik War
 * 4) Fate of Uniate Galicians and Orthodox Volhynians in the Second Polish Republic (see Pochayiv Lavra, that seems to have a good source of info)
 * 5) Fate of Carpathian Ruthenians in Czechoslovakia, their en masse return to Orthodoxy during the interwar period
 * 6) Persectution of the UAOC and ROC in Ukraine needs expansion.
 * 7) Fate of Uniate Galicians and Orthodox Volhynians in 1939-1941 (I have started on the latter part)
 * 8) War times need massive expansion! Not just the UAOC, but also about ROC's patriotic stance
 * I started Part one, as well as parts two, six and seven.--Kuban Cossack 19:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Statistical data
Last official data on 2006 - --Yakudza 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If time is given and people will find it useful I can graph the data and then make a series of maps based on the distribution of parishes and % belonging to a specific group in all districts of Ukraine. I already made a draft version based on 2004 data, which I e-mailed to Faustian. If anybody else wants a copy, contact me on (e-mail this user). --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Romanov Monarchy.svg|25px|]] 09:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had trouble opening up your file with the map, which I would be very interested in seeing. What program should I use to open it? regards Faustian 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * WinRar, it is a file compressor but much better than normal .zip. Here download it . --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Romanov Monarchy.svg|25px|]] 14:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Mr. Kuban Cossack's request, I am posting here prior to suggesting edits, which the gentlemen finds overly 'POV' (In my honest opinion, my revisions were much more neutral than the text they replaced, but I am willing to attempt to cooperate). My apologies if this is the wrong place to post, as I see that discussion regarding the use of registered parish counts also takes place lower down.

Parish counts cannot be relied upon as an indicator of popular support because it is very easy for any group so motivated to register a number of "paper parishes", registered communities that do not actually exist. All that one requires to register a parish in Ukraine is the names of ten adult Ukrainian citizens. Possible motivation for doing so would include a desire for a particular group to appear to have more support than actually, a desire to influence local authorities responsible for granting use of church buildings, and a hope of obtaining a larger share of properties when permanent division does take place. Whether or not such has actually happened, the possibility decreases the value of parish counts as an indicator of popular or relative support.

Surveys of the population are, meanwhile, the most common measure of relative strength of religious groups. See, for example, adherants.com or the surveys conducted by the Pew charitable trust. I would therefore agree, as suggested below, that the article should reflect neutral surveys and estimates.

By that same token, it seems that the order of the UOC-KP and UOC(MP) should be reversed in the article, as it is standard practice in English language literature to list groups in size from largest to smallest based on number of adherants. Agains, see the many surveys and estimates provided in, or linked to by, adherants.com. Qe2 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So if a parish is part of a whole church building, and the fact that by the amount of churches, not parsishes, the UOC(MP) outnumbers UOC-KP 3:1 is in your opinion irrelevant? --Kuban Cossack 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Protestants in Ukraine
The current article makes reference to the Studist sect of the German Evangelical (Lutheran) movement in Ukraine. This group really played only a minor role among the Lutherans. I have therefore added a few sentences to expand on the Lutheran context. I have added an external link to an extraction of Lutheran records of the Ukraine region, which was served by the St. Petersburg Consistory. These extractions roughly cover the years 1835-1885. A second added link points to a more detailed discussion of the Lutheran presence in Ukraine.

Jerry Frank, Webmaster http://www.sggee.org 205.206.215.65 21:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seventh-Day-Adventists
The first Adventists in Ukraine were German settlers.

Surveys
Surveys are useless! Why because regardless of who publishes the survey, it will have a substantial skew towards the publisher's author. Moreover as surveys are not censuses and there are no actual authentic figures, just summations, it classes as WP:NOR. So its better we do not add them altogether. If anything I can give equal surveys that will make the UOC(MP) as the dominant church of the population of Ukraine.... What is true is that presently the UOC(MP) is the most dynamically growing of all of them by building thousands of churches in Ukraine.--Kuban Cossack 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Also if one reads some of the comments to the surveys: In particular, and I quote: "На третьому місці з показником в 20,4% - Українська Православна Церква (Московського Патрiархату). " В абсолютных цифрах - это около 10 млн. человек, разбирающихся в религиозной ситуации. Достаточно неплохой показатель. Ведь, чтобы в сложившейся ситуации признать себя верующим УПЦ МП - нужно понимать суть. А 30% сторонников КП - плод масс-медийной пропаганды, а не анализа ситуации. Большинство этих людей регулярно не посещают храмы УПЦ КП. Достаточно в воскресенье утром проити по филаретовским храмам, что-бы в этом убедиться. , which I can say corresponds to my experience in Rivne. --Kuban Cossack 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but surveys vary in their quality and as such are not useless.  Good surveys certainly have a place in wikipedia.  The survey I quoted was not conducted by a particular Church brotherhood or some marginal organization like that, but by the well known as well established Ukrainian Sociological Service whose surveys have been conducted on many topics, such as politics , and the results of its surveys have appeared on a web-site of the Ukrasinian government .  This is a legitimate, professional organization whose shouldn't be dismissed off-hand.


 * If you can find other surveys (hopefully, not conducted by the Orthodox Brotherhood) that show different results for Ukrainian religious affiliation than please add the info. Then we can make the article state that "different surveys provide different estimates" or something to that effect.


 * The comments about the survey that you quoted are interesting but refer only to personal experiences, which are valuable but doesn't belong on the article main page.


 * Also, you removed the US governments' estimate of religious adherents in Ukraine, taken from the CIA Worldfactbook. The Factbook is used as a source on numerous wiki articles such as Demographics of Ukraine, Demographics of Moldova and the statistics section for the demographics of Poland .  I see no reason why those estimates should be removed from the estimates of religious adherents within Ukraine.


 * So, I am adding the info that you have removed and urge you to add other info to balance it out, if it exists. I, certainly, would be interested in seeing it.  warmly  Faustian 19:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the usefulness and usability of the surveys in general, provided they are conducted by respected organizations. This particular case, however, has a caveat that KK has correctly pointed out. Most lay people have little interest in the church politics and, while it is hard to come up with estimates, a significant group of Ukrainians do not know much about Orthodox divisions within Ukraine. For many religious self-identification does not go beyond being able to self-identify as Orthodox, Greek-Catholic or a Jehova's witness. To know the details of UOC's rivarly one either needs to follow the issue in the news or be personally involved in the interchurch fights (like witnessing one's own church being commandeered by the paramilitary assistants of either faction or even take part in those series of captures). Certainly if one can self-identify with the national church and state that it is under a patriarch abroad (UOC(MP)), one is more likely to know exactly what one is saying. As such, I've seen dramatically opposite survey results for a relative membership between the major UOC churches. I will locate and find the quite different percentages, if necessary. At the same time, the the comparisons of the numbers of parishes, churches and communities are much more reliable. --Irpen 20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I look forward to the contrary survey results. Do you feel that the CIA worldfactbook's figures (19% UOC-KP, 9% UOC-MP, 16% undetermined) may reflect that ambivalence? Faustian 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Come tothink of it, I remember reading something about different results being determined by extent of religiosity. When surveys look at people who go to church regularly they tend to favor the UOC-KP, because such people are much more common in western and central Ukraine than in the UOC-MP's heartland.  When they ask about mere baptism or self-identification (rather than church attendance) the figures are different.  I don't recall where I read that so I won't put it up in the article however.  Faustian 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The major problem of the surveys is that it is simple to say that we asked 5000 people in all major cities in Ukraine, but this has one major flaw - Ukrainian society has a sharp rural/urban difference. Urban society, at most is brought up on Marxist, cosmopolitan ideals...where the majority of people are not regular church-goers. In fact it is something of similar to Soviet times, if before people were members of Comsomol and even the party, that did not mean that they actually were idiologically communist. What changed? It got a new name although retained the same abbreviation - КП, was founded by ex-Communists Kravchuk and Dinisenko, and if yesterday it talked about the bad influences of Trotskism, Maoism and Capitalism, today its any Russophilism/Moscowphilism. The only difference is that it is no longer compulsary to attend meetings services. The majority don't because they could not care less.
 * With respect to the rural population, then for its majority, the people are traditional and conservative. It is hardly a wonder why the UOC(MP) statistically in all, minus the western regions, has absoloute majority in rural Ukraine. Most of the rural settlements are one church per selo. Moreover most of the construction of new churches takes place in rural areas. . Now wether or not the people of those rural settlements resent the fact that they are UOC(MP) church-goers is irrelevant, and until a full census is published - Original Research. Thus I advice we restrict to number of parishes alone. As for US gov data, then if its the same data source that suggested that Saddam had WMO that are still to be found...Nothing is credible here, hence I am removing them...--Kuban Cossack 13:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your personal views on the value of surveys should not invalidate them. Surveys are generally recognized as legitimate ways of viewing public opinion, provided that they are conducted by professionals working for respected organization. They are certainly used as sources throughout wikipedia. As outlined earlier in the talk section, Ukrainian Sociological Service is a legitimate surveying organization whose data even appears on a Ukrainian government website. There is no legitimate reason to exclude the data from their survey.

As for number of parishes - this is not a completely accurate indicator, because it may reflect better financing and doesn't take into account the size of parishes. For example, the number of (western-financed) Protestant parishes seems to overrepresent the number of actual Protestant believers. The best approach is to use parish size plus survey data (and hopefully irpen will find other surveys) to provice the most objective picture possible.

Furthermore, it seems silly to wipe out estimates on topics such as US government estimates simply because of the fact that the US government got WMDs wrong (this is another and complicated matter - the public excuses for the Iraq war didn't match what analysts were saying). Thw demographic info in the CIA Worldfactbook is used throughout wikipedia, in newspaper articles, etc. It is also used as a basis for the NationMaster figures on Ukrainian religion. Even if you disagree about the credibility, it is an important fact that this is the US government's estimate and that this estimate is considered credible by various sources. There is no legitimate reason to exclude those figures from this article.

With all respect, tt seems you are pushing a non-nuetral point of view regarding the UOC-MP's popularity in Ukraine. This is, unfortunately, a pattern with you. I remember you have earlier claimed that almost all of the churches in Transcarpathia reverted to Orthodoxy in the 1920's-1930's, before I found the reference that stated that only 1/3 of them did. Please, let's be objective. Faustian 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted a comment related to this article about under "statistical data". Qe2 16:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is true is that of all the Orthodox groups in Transcarpathia, the UOC (MP) has 90% majority... And please it is UOC(MP) not UOC-MP... As for Protestant organistations, true, but they are mostly urban based, and by parishes, most of UOC(MP)s parishes have actual church buildings. You posted me a good statistical summary of data once...I recall...--Kuban Cossack 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the map you placed, although it also illustrates the skewed perspective of number of parishes. Based on number of parishes, it would seem that in Donetsk for example protestants are as numerous as Orthodox!

Also, I've readded the estimate from the Worldfactbook that somebody (you?) removed. The Worldfactbook's legitimacy has already been documented. You have included another survey, which is fine, why remove the specific data of other estimates? Let's show all the information. Faustian 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The world factbook is irrelevant. I can add the Sri Lankan gvt estimates if you want or Russian gvt estimates for that fact. What makes a US source more credible than a Russian one?--Kuban Cossack 13:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thw world factbook is not irrelevant, it is a resource referenced by other organizations and information sources such as throughout wikipedia and NationMaster. In this way, its estimates are comparable to those of the Worldbank or UN other sources.  Faustian 16:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well just because its used, does not mean anywhere that its use its obligatory. Wikipedia is a free and international encyclopedia and having a CIA source is in your opinion neutral?


 * This map, while not incorrectly labeled, is misleading. Please see my explanation above under the "Statistical Data" section.  The number of registered parishes simply does not correlate with the number of adherants, or Faithful.  Qe2 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented already:NUMBER OF CHURCHES vs Number of parishes and the UOC(MP) still has a 4:1 lead of KP!--Kuban Cossack 13:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you put forth an unsported statement, and actually wrote "3 to 1" last time. Each time you post, the advantage for Moscow gets bigger. If you have a reliable source for this, then please do add that data. However, none of this changes the facts regarding number of Faithful, which is, anywhere else on this or any other site, the statistic used to compare size of religious bodies. Qe2 14:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Faustian, your hypothesis would indeed make sense, but the 2006 survey, which did not allow respondents to select "Orthodox of no particular jurisdiction" provided numbers of 30.1% UOC-KP, 20.4% UOC-MP, and 1.5% UAOC. Also, with apologies for being repitious, all that is required to register a parish in Ukraine is the names of 10 adult citizens. Hence, the number of registered parishes is not a reliable indicator of popular support. Qe2 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well what makes you think that UOC(MP) is the only church involved in "paper parishes"? A statement you yourself have not sourced and is thus even more WP:NOR than total number. Now then I do not know about you, but 157 monasteries, three lavras and over ten thousand clergy does not sound paper to me. Lastly per WP:POINT please stop reverting. I will draw the points of mediation later tonight...if you do revert once again I will ask the admin to lock the article altogether...Please WP:FAITH and WP:NPOV. You are the one who is lobbying to introduce radical changes, you have to justify them...--Kuban Cossack 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

More to do
Have to dump this here for noe:

Verify part about Saint Andrew
The article on Saint Titus states that he was Paul's disciple and not Andrew's. 132.69.232.98 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Ruthenian period
These developments in the Roman Empire, Great Moravia, and Bulgaria set the stage for the conception of metat the Baptism of Kiev-Rus' ordered by the Saint Vladimir at the Dnieper River in 988. From the beginning, the Metropolitans of Kiev resided at Pereyaslav in Ukraine, then Kiev(1037). The identity and further separate development of the Kievan Church was achieved by the election of Metropolitans, native and/or not confirmed by the Patriarch of Constantinople (Ilarion, 1051-1054; Klym Smolyatich 1147-1154; and, Gregory Tsamblak 1415-1419).

Following the Mongol annihilation of Kiev in the 13th century, the Metropolitan of Kiev moved to Vladimir in 1299. By 1326, the Metropolitan had settled in Moscow, and by 1328 had changed the title of Metropolitan of Kiev for the title Metropolitan of Moscow. The separate legal tradition of the Russian Church, as differentiated from the Church in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was codified in the decision of the first properly Russian Church Council of the Hundred Chapters ('Stoglav') in 1448, followed by the formal separation of the Church of Rus' into separate Russian (Muscovite) and Ruthenian (Kievan) Metropoliae in 1453.

Middle Ruthenian period
Meanwhile, for the Church of Kiev, the loss of the Metropolitan of Kiev in 1299 was rapidly supplanted by the creation of the Metropolia of Halych for Southern Rus' in 1303. In 1352, the Metropolitan of Halych began to relocate back to Kiev; thereafter, the Kievan Church was headed by the Metropolitan of Kiev-Halych and All Rus. The Metropolitan of Moscow opposed the creation of this Metropolia at Halych/Kiev. This Church governed most of the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, often from the city of Navahrudak in today's Belarus. Between 1054 and 1448, this Ruthenian Church continued to send representatives to the ecumenical councils called by the Pope of Rome, but also succumbed to increasing pressure by her mother church among Greek in Constantinople to cease communion with the Bishop (Pope) of Rome. Though Constantinople and Rome had their disputes, the Kievan hierarchy tried to work for Christian unity. Representatives from Rus participated in the Western Councils of Lyon (1245) and Constance (1418). Isidore, the Metropolitan of Kiev, was himself one of the creators of the Union of Florence (1439).

The era of Catholic-Orthodox rivalry and separation
The memory of the Council of Florence on the Ruthenian lands of Ukraine and Belarus, which had passed under the control of the states of Lithuania and Poland after the decline of the Ukrainian-centered empire of Rus', bore concrete fruit in the Union of Brest (Berest') in 1596, which united the Ruthenian Church of the Ukrainian and Belarusyn lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with the Pope of Rome. This union was not accepted by all the members of the Greek Church in these lands, and marked the beginning of the creation of separate Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches on the lands of Ukraine and Belarus. Due to violence, the Metropolitan of the Kievan Greek Catholic Church left Kiev early in the 1600s and settled in Navahrudak and Wilno in Belarus.

For Now... Kevlar67 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv v. Kiev
I know this is a recycled topic, but I think the time has come to recognize the official Ukrainian Romanization "Kyiv" and use that in articles. That spelling was officially recognized by the U.S. government last year, and is used by the Ukrainian government. A parallel would be the change from "Peking" (Cantonese pronunciation) to "Beijing" (Mandarin pronunciation) for the Chinese capitol city. Qe2 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is recycled, and no it is not going to change Kiev is an ENGLISH name... Like Moscow vs Moskva...--Kuban Cossack 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Same here, Kyiv and not Kyyiv. — Alex (T 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, English practice is slowly changing to "Kyiv". While most major newspapers continue to use "Kiev", all major modern map publications use "Kyiv", which is also the spelling used by the United Nations, and the governements of the English-speaking nations of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and, since October 2006, the United States. In the New York Times and Times of London, the accepted style is "Kiev", not Kyiv when writing about the city, but to preserve "Kyiv" in the proper names of organizations who select that spelling, hence "Dynamo Kyiv". Qe2 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A much more pertinent question for the purposes of this article, is the practice of translating the names of Ukrainian saints into non-Ukrainian variants. For example, St. Andrew, much like other legendary or mythological figures, has stories related to him from all over the world, but in Ukraine this figure is personified as St. Andriy. Is there any functional reason not to use the vocabulary of Ukrainian christians in this article? Otherwise, the article does not explain the Ukrainian christian mythology very well.--tufkaa 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the name change the point?--Kuban Cossack 01:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Point is, we're stating a history of legendary characters of Ukraine, and all the characters seem to be foreigners. The Saint Andrew who visited Scotland is a different mythological entity that St. Andriy. Both are based on the same person, but belong to different mythologies.--tufkaa 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the characters, prominent in Ukrainian history to be presented under the names their are better known to the anglophone reader. Say, the great Bartolomeo Rastrelli is known in Russian as Варфоломей Варфоломеевич Растеллии (Varfolomey Varfolomeevich Rastrelli). This architect is mentioned in many purely Russian articles and always under the best known to the English reader name Bartolomeo. Saint Feodosiy of Kiev is called as Theodosius of Kiev, Filofei is called Philotheus of Pskov and Petro Mohyla goes under the anglicized first name Peter. Those who want to know the Ukrainian (or Russian for that matter) version of Saint Andrew's name, can click on the interwiki link in the appropriate article. Unwarranted, unconventional name are clutter and confusion and do not add anything to the topic. --Irpen 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. My suggestion might be to use the more common spelling for those, such as St. Andrew, who travelled from outside of Ukraine or who spent a great deal of their lives outside of Ukraine, but to use the Ukrainian spelling for those whose lives were spent within what is now Ukraine. Hence "St. Volodymyr" over "St. Vladimir". The Patriarch of Constantinople has used "St. Volodymyr" since at least 2004. Qe2 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And does the Patriarch of Constantinople now also has rights to deciding on how to name saints in english?--Kuban Cossack 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I provided this as one source, however I see that the UOC-MP also uses the spelling "Volodymyr", and that Encylopedia Brittanica article on Ukraine cited by Irpen uses "Volodymyr (Vladimir)" for the first usage, and then continues with "Volodymyr". I suggest we mirror that usage here.  Qe2 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

UGCC Move to Kyiv
Both the Kyivan Patrichate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Constantinople) stated that the Greek Catholic Church should have the right to locate wherever it so wanted. Hence, the statement that move was condemened by "all Eastern Orthodoxy" is not correct. The move was condemned, officially and on multiple occassions, by the UOC-MP. If anyone can find published condemnations from any other Eastern Orthodox hierachs, please do add them to the list. Qe2 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction Ecumenical Patriarchate condemned the move...--Kuban Cossack 14:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I remember otherwise, and will look, but you must be able to support your statement. Qe2 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go statement from each and every leader of the communion and a special one from Tsargrad itself .--Kuban Cossack 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The statements are not from "each and every", but from several. Also, I cannot seem to find any specific condemnation of the "move to Kyiv".  The various statements seem to all caution the Catholic Church not to elevate the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church to a Patriarchy, or else to state that they would not recognize the cannonicity of the UGCC.  219.166.46.101 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Ok Qe2 I excepect quite a few explanations from you so be ready to answer them:


 * I hope others will feel free to join in and contribute. (For the record, QE2 wrote this line, not KK. Qe2 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

1
1.You removed Religion in the new socialist state had little value, but particularly the Russian Orthodox Church who was actively supportive of the White Movement Why? This is very important to the article.

This statement may imply that the Russian Orthodox Church did not cooperate with the Soviet State, which, whether willingly or not, it did. Also, as this article deals with Ukrainian, not Russian, history, it seems distracting to introduce this topic. Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it did or did not is open to interpretation. Although I should stress in the period of the Russian Civil War more than a million churches were closed and destroyed and thousands of priests shot. Now if anything Ukraine was fortunate to be part of the Russian Empire and thus all Christianity related topics that took place in the Empire have had their resonance in Ukraine...Including a period as significant as that one.--Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At the very least, and unlike the Ukrainian,the Russian Orthodox Church did survive as an entity. Hence, it cannot be said that "particularly" the Russian Orthodox Church had little value.  It is confusing what you mean, also, by "little value".  Qe2 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thank god it did! At least someone's prayer's were answered. Now the term particularly has value because in the Russian Empire and particularly in Ukraine the Russian Orthodox Church was the largest religious group. And I do not think it is necessary to remind you that pre-1917 Ukraine was an integral part of the Russian Empire (minus Galicia which is treated on a separate note). Lastly pre-1917 in Ukraine alone the Russian Orthodox Church had the influence and domination that the Communist-puppet UAOC never attained even close to.--Kuban Cossack 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But, again, the UAOC was wiped out, while Patriarch Sergey agreed to cooperate with the Soviet government, such that the ROC survived. It seems clear that that the ROC was not "particularly" of little value, but was "uniquely" of value to Soviet Russia. 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not him who agreed to cooperate, but Patriarch Tikhon, who was later executed himself...and we are dealing of two different time frames - one post-revolution Bolshevism which in case you do not know resulted in virtual closing of all monasteries in Russia, destruction of the whole church heirarchy and more than twenty thousand clergy executed. The scale at which it happened was very visible. UAOC on the other hand never had the position in Ukraine or elesewhere that the pre-revolution ROC had. In fact it is fair to say that the UAOC was more of a puppet church than the ROC because the Bolsheviks sanctioned its existance under the pretext of using it as a levarage against the ROC, along with other schismatic groups in RSFSR...And it was not "cooperation" as such, but more of a survival, since right up to 1939 you had priests shot and remaining churches being closed --Kuban Cossack 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the UAOC was wiped out and both it and the Kyivan Metopolia were suborinated to the ROC. Whether or not the ROC's cooperation with Soviet Russia helped or harmed the people and the Faith is neither clear nor a topic for this article.  As the ROC, unlike all other Orthodox and Catholic churches, survived, it cannot be said that the ROC was "particularly" of little value.  The ROC was, at least to some extent, the only church that was useful to the NKVD and KGB.  Qe2 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Peasantry"
2.You replaced:
 * the UAOC gained a wide following among the Ukrainian peasentry.
 * with the UAOC gained a wide following among the Ukrainian population.
 * First of all at a time when churches were being massively destroyed in Ukraine in all cities, only rural areas could actually have any type of service. Second you have no opinion polls of that time that the urban population actually continued to be religious, therefore per WP:NOR it is misleading to make such a statement.

I replaced "peasantry" with "population" because the word "peasant" echoes the "kh" word used by some Russians to describe Ukrainians, and generally found offensive by Ukrainians. The lay delegates at the 1921 UAOC Sobor in Kyiv included "some of the country's most prominent academicians, professors, writers, composers, and others". Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I cannot follow that argument "echoes" the term khokhol. First of all we cannot describe events in short lived states as a whole. What we do know is that whilst the Soviet leadership set out to destroy the ROC, it used the UAOC as a strong leverage whilst it needed it. Indeed in 1920s it was barely persecuted. However once that need expired, they finished what they began - to create and aetheist state. Now like it or not, but back then most of the Ukrainian cities were actually not Ukrainian as such, and most of the Ukrainian ethnos was rural. These are simple demographic facts. Also it is true that the first churches blown were in the cities.--Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * QE2, the phrase "UAOC gained a wide following among the Ukrainian peasantry." is introduced by myself and is a direct quote from Britannica. The original quote in the History of UA section devoted to the interwar period says: "An important factor in the national revival, despite antireligious propaganda and harassment, was the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church, which had gained a wide following among the Ukrainian peasantry since its formation in 1921." --Irpen 09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be grateful if you could please post more from the surrounding text, and provide the ISBN or publication date for that edition of Britannica. Qe2 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The source is the article Ukraine in the most current Encyclopædia Britannica (2007). I gave a full sentence without ripping anything out of context. I am wary of lengthy pasting of the copyrighted material into Wikipedia. Reasonable quotes is OK, though. So, here is the passage with one sentence above and one below the quote I gave above:
 * ...Enrollments in Ukrainian-language schools and the publication of Ukrainian books increased dramatically. Lively debates developed about the course of Ukrainian literature, in which the writer Mykola Khvylovy threw out the slogan “Away from Moscow!” and urged a cultural orientation toward Europe. An important factor in the national revival, despite antireligious propaganda and harassment, was the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church, which had gained a wide following among the Ukrainian peasantry since its formation in 1921.


 * Ukrainization was vigorously promoted by the “national communists,” including such Ukrainian Bolsheviks as Skrypnyk and Khvylovy, and especially by the former Borotbists, most prominently the people's commissar of education, Oleksander Shumsky.

HTH, --Irpen 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am overly sensitive, but I still do like the idea of using "peasantry" here. The Brittanica article provides broader context. Qe2 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

UAOC churches, closed down or transferred to ROC?
3.You replaced the quite netural
 * However in the early-1930s the Soviet government abruptly reversed the policies in the national republics and the UAOC fared no better than the Russian Orthodox church as the mass arrests of UAOC's hierarchy and clergy culminated in the liquidation of the church in 1930. with
 * However, in the 1930s the Soviet government began its policy of Russification on the national republics, which included mass arrests of UAOC hierarchy and clergy, handing over all churches to the Russian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Sergey, and the execution by the KGB of a number of church leaders, including, in 1937, of Metropolitan Vasyl (Lypkivsky).
 * For your information in Moscow Patriarchy was restored only in 1943 and the KGB came into existance in 1954. Moreover in 1930s no churches were handed over to the ROC, instead they were closed and destroyed, cite me one source that would confirm that between 1930-39 there was a handover of a church building to the ROC. Lastly Sovietisation or de-religionisation would be more correct way of classing this event rather than Russification...


 * I would not object to replacing KGB with NKVD, but Patriarch Sergey of Moscow signed his agreement to cooperate with the Soviet government in 1927.


 * Metropolitan Lypkivsky of Kyiv refused to sign and was arrested, as were many of the delegates to the 1927 UAOC Sobor. "His succesor, Mykola Boretsky, was forced to sign a document dissolving the church at a special meeting called by the GPU on 28-29 January 1930...A remnant of 300 parishes was allowed to reconstitute itself as the 'Ukrainian Orthodox Church' but the last parish was extinquished in 1936....at the parish level, some 2,400 priests were reported arrested....the successive Metropolitans of the Ukrainian Autocephalus Church all perished in the hands of the NKVD...of the Autocephalus bishops only two survived...but the  transfer of of the Ukrainian Church to Moscow control  did not merely lead to a different priesthood.  It was accompanied by a virtual destruction of the rural church..." . Citation  has  lengthy first hand account of the local UAOC priest dissapearing and being replaced by a newly-ordained ROC priest, who assisted in the confiscation of the grain (and, later, an account of the ROC priest being found in a ditch with his throat slit).  Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So here you cite It was accompanied by a virtual destruction of the rural church..." wrt point two, I shall take that citation thank you very much...As for a lengthy citation its only an example...and besides as you can see both were in the end "removed", Finally, forgive me if I am wrong, but I still see no reference that its remains actually transferred to the ROC as such, only that they were destroyed... WRT other information then I have no problem adding info on Metropolitan Vasyl...--Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are taking one word out of context. 219.166.46.101 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For the remaining part of the article I shall qoute from WP:VAND - Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism'''. You a) remove the map, and b) replace your version of the text with NO consensus. PLEASE STOP!.
 * I quote "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." My sincere intent is to restore the integrity of these pages. I would like us all to work together, as you invited. Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well apply the rule to yourself, for your information numerous people came across this article, yet you are the first one who is lobbying for such radical change without consensus You want the changes you justify those changes prior to implementing them. --Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to tell you with what happened to User:Vernyhora or the like of other POV-pushers. There is no excuse for disruptive behaivour, and you will not get anywhere with reverting. I suggest you take a moment for this to sink in...
 * I do not know the history of the users you write about, but it would probably be helpful for us all if we all would refrain from assumptions and 'ad hominem' statements Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * People who take their time wrt WP:FAITH and search for solutions, sacrificing their own opinions, for example above you can see that I agreed with Faustian to restore the surveys. That does not mean I agree with them or that it would be the best way to describe the situation, but for the sake of consensus and an end to edit warring I went with that. You on the other hand are continuing to revert. Why? --Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it appears that you continued to delete the survey results, despite the consensus above. Qe2 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Check again the survey results are all there, I did reformat them to be more concise, yes, but I was lobbying for their total deletion...now I actually do not mind keeping them...--Kuban Cossack 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I shall continue:

Order of churches
4.Order of churches:
 * I have numerously offered you to provide some evidince for this WP:NOR - statement of paper parishes so in that case for all you said. ALL parishes of both the UOC(MP) and UOC-KP are thus paper ones and each is of 10 adults big. In that case lets judge by monasteries. Here the ratio is simple 157 cloisters and 3 lavras vs. 35... Speaks for itself...

You are misquoting me. Please look at what I wrote above. Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did and that is exactly what you wrote above, that all "parish number data is useless"...--Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please point to where you are quoting me? I honestly cannot imagine myself writing what you claim I did, and cannot find those words anywhere on this page.  I do find where you wrote, clearly "Surveys are useless".
 * I have no objection to the inclusion of parish numbers, but I do object to your attempt to use these numbers, rather than population surveys, as a basis for defining support for various churches. In any mainstream encylopedia or almanac, the number of adherants is the primary measure of church size; as such, you should justify your wish to use number of parishes, rather than scientific surveys.  I feel your map is misleading because it creates a strong false impression.
 * Regarding number of parishes, I wrote that all that is required to register a parish is the names of 10 adult citizens. Hence, the statistic is not reliable or comparable.  I also explained, and I think your arguments actually give evidence, there is strong motivation for the creation of paper parishes.  As such, I can see no positive value in adopting a non-standard measure for this page. Qe2 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again I must say that population surveys are very sketchy, first of all the results you give will be fully realistic for Kiev, but if you go to Sevastopol or Lviv I doubt they will be the same. That is the point, because you and I know that the distribution and popularity of a particular church is very dependent on the geographical location. Thus it is very easy to say that in Lviv most will choose UGCC, in Sevastopol - UOC(MP) and so on... This is just simple common sense (which quoted as a reason below). Now then we look at parish data, and what do you know, in Crimea UOC-KP has 2% and in Lviv UOC(MP) - 2%. Which matches the common sense. The only place that surveys can be reliable is in a 50:50 atmosphere like Kiev. Look combine the UOC(MP) with those of no particular choice, and then divide by UOC-KP and you obtain the same ratio as you would by dividing the no of UOC(MP)'s parishes by those of UOC-KP. Now continuing by using common sense, I can draw the conclusion that the people who said they have no preference adhere to the UOC(MP). Hence in any survey to gain the portion of Ukrainians adhering to the UOC(MP) we simply combine those that deliberatly specify MP and those that do not. In any case it clearly climbs to the top.
 * Lastly if you have noticed the order in which churches are given is not by parish numbers. Otherwise it would be UOC(MP), then protestants, then UGCC, and only then UOC-KP. --Kuban Cossack 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between Moscow and "UOC"
5.''Although officially organized as an autonomous church under the Moscow Patriarchate, the UOC(MP) has much less autonomy than traditionally understood in Orthodoxy. For example, the charter of the UOC-MP requires the church to impliment all decisions of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the 2000 Synod of the ROC refused to affirm the autonomy of the UOC(MP).''
 * Cite this,
 * Common knowledge, but see, for example Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I should have noted page 241, especially.  Qe2 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

...are you aware of church workings? For your information Patriarch Alexey back in 1991 officially declared that the ROC fully has no property in Ukraine. Moreover you are telling me that for a priest to become a bishop this discision has to come from Moscow. Might I remind you that nearly all of UOC(MP) clergy are native Ukrainians. This is simply BS and also WP:POINT.
 * None of these statements, nor the obscenity, relate directly to the statement in question. Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong strong POV there, however it does not change anything, instead of citing a book why not find an authentic ROC source, or do you want me to dig into that. One novel is not enough I am afraid. --Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which source do you consider to be a "novel"? Qe2 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrew Wilson's Unexpected nation...a historical book, how about authentic source?--Kuban Cossack 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which of the two facts do you dispute, that "the charter of the UOC-MP requires the church to impliment all decisions of the Russian Orthodox Church" or that "the 2000 Synod of the ROC refused to affirm the autonomy of the UOC(MP)"? 219.166.46.101 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of them. And in the case that they are true, it is important to note the motive of both parties the Moscow Patriarchy and the Kievan Metropolia and why did they agree on the terms set. After all amputating a limb from a body is bad, so why would splitting a church be good? Again authentic ROC documents transcrpits of meetings would be helpful...Since you are the one who is insistant on adding that kind of information it is your responsibility to make sure its not dubious.--Kuban Cossack 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Before even arguing about Wilson, let's first find a citation where he says that the "charter of the UOC-MP requires the church to impliment all decisions of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the 2000 Synod of the ROC refused to affirm the autonomy of the UOC(MP)" Where does he say that? --Irpen 09:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought I included the page number. I quote from page 241 of Mr. Wilson's "novel":

"The 'One True Church'

The nominally independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow patriarchate still claims to be the largest Church in Ukraine, at least institutionally if not in terms of popular sympathy. Its head, also Volodymyr (Viktor Sabodan), has claimed in public to support the eventual creation of a national Ukrainian Orthodox Church, so long as it is through a process that is both canonical and evolutionary. On the other hand, the UOC(MP) statute still declares that it 'forms ...part of the Moscow patriarchate'  and that it is obliged to 'put into practice the decisions of local councils of the Russian Orthodox Church'. The August 2000 Synod of the ROC sharply narrowed Volodymyr's freedom of maneuvre by refusing to grant even autonomy, let alone autocephaly. Some have even sought its reregistration under the more 'honest' label of local branches of the Russian Orthodox Church."

Mr. Wilson continues, and I think my minor additions are actually more fair to the UOC(MP) than the text of Mr. Wilson or other scholars who write of Ukraine. However, I would be happy to rewrite this sentence along the lines of:

Although officially organized as an autonomous church under the Moscow Patriarchate, voices outside Ukraine, such as the historian Andrew Wilson, point out that the UOC(MP) has much less autonomy than traditionally understood in Orthodoxy, citing, for example, the charter of the UOC(MP) which requires the church to 'put into practice the decisions of local councils of the Russian Orthodox Church', and the August 2000 Synod of the ROC, which refused to grant autonomy to the UOC(MP).

Qe2 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Also interesting is the fact that for a long time now Moscow and the Muscovite church have not been using clumsy euphemisms in the name of the UOC-MP. This can be verified simply by looking at the headlines of the Orthodox media, which are close to the Moscow Patriarchate. They openly call it “the Muscovite Church in Ukraine” (even though Tolochko considers this “incorrect and not completely true”). All this is happening because the UOC-MP has a weird and absolutely non-canonical status. It is neither autocephalous nor autonomous, but has “independence in its administration.” Qe2 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this wording can be supported: "Although officially organized as an autonomous church under the Moscow Patriarchate, there are those who question whether the UOC(MP) is truly an autonomous as traditionally understood in Orthodoxy, citing, for example, the charter of the UOC(MP) which requires the church to 'put into practice the decisions of local councils of the Russian Orthodox Church', and the August 2000 Synod of the ROC, which refused to grant autonomy to the UOC(MP)." Qe2 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

6
6.''Formed in 1992 when a large portion of Ukrainian Orthodox left the Moscow Patriarchate to unite with the UAOC headed by Patriarch Mstyslav. ''
 * WRONG! First of all only 3 bishops actually supported Filaret in the end, of whom one later turned to support thy sinod of Kharkov, which did represent the majority of clergy. Filaret had to use UNA-UNSO to actually gain any churches. See St Volodymyr's Cathedral ownership controversy.
 * "large" is relative, but I will be happy to agree to deleting that term.Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And replace it with "small", to give it the true picture? --Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It must be more than three bishops, as at least four bishops returned to the MP in 1995. Qe2 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

7
7.the church has yet to be officially recognised by other Eastern Orthodox churches. Faith and history, but I would be willing to replace "yet to be" with "as of 2007" or the like. 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that will ever happen?
 * Why not then since its founding, the church remains unrecognised--Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

8
8.You removed:where it has agreed to incorporate some of the parishes that have been excommunicated by the ROC for various breaking of canonic laws.
 * Why? Do you need to have an example of such parishes, sure

First, "parishes" cannot be anathematized (excommunicated); only individuals. Second, this statement implies (i) that all were excommunicated (ii) prior to the fact. Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further comments
I think that is enough for you to answer for the time being...--Kuban Cossack 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Yes, that is a lot to answer.  I hope that you will reciprocate when we begin to discuss your text.  Qe2 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was only my text, it has been in the article for a long time, I did participate in writing it, but this is a free encyclopedia and if you look into the history there were dozens of edits that changed it and polished it. Nothing quite to the scale that you are imposing. For the record, just to prove to me that you are willing to discuss wrt WP:EQ do not revert the text yet. --Kuban Cossack 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Guys, formal mediation is a mess and should be the last resort. Let's try resolve it ourselves first. QE and KK, please never ever unexplained reverts. QE, you should use edit summary. Please let's talk. I will try to give this article a go within a day or two. I have been busy lately and I did not want to get to this article in 15 minutes increments. Without setting aside two hours or so, I do not think it is right to work on the articles like this. I will try to give my best to reconsile the differences and add my own entries to the discussions above. --Irpen 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir, Looking at the history of this page I see that it has been dominated by KK, and that a number of writers have expressed frustration with the non-neutrality of the situation. To restore the credibility of the page, I would respectfully request that we do seek neutral dispute resolution, such as formal mediation.  As it was KK's suggestion to do so at first, this solution should be acceptable to all. 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all nothing is dominated in wikipedia, there are those who are active and there are those who are less active, but in the end it all comes down to the actual content. For your information this was the state of the article before I made my first edit . Now I do agree that I wrote the vast majority of the text, and although there were on/off conflicts, nobody actually went the scale you did, to completely change the actual purpose of the article in, what I see, nothing more than advertising UOC-KP at the expense of destroying the image of UOC(MP) and as you pointed out on your user page yourself QE2 is a priest in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Kyiv.. Naturally you will have bias towards UOC-KP, and actually by being a wikipedian you can have a bias towards anything PROVIDED it is contained only in user and talk pages.


 * Now then wrt mediation, now that the article is locked (and it will be until consensus is reached) let's actually see how far we can get w/o using third party opinion. I am not saying it will not be needed, but at least I have numerously encouraged you to discuss the issue and stop edit warring, it is unfortunate I had to ask the admin to freeze the page, but I think it is better that we settle as many issues as we can. --Kuban Cossack 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would honestly consider that I have a bias towards truth and true Orthodoxy, and that, as a Ukrainian, this leads me to the Kyivan Patriarchate. Fortunately, unlike many in this world, there is no pressure for me to belong to a church other than that to which my heart leads me.  I am confident that presenting the truth, such as the independent statistics that you argue so streneously against, and replacing your descriptions of historical fact, will allow people to judge the truth on their own.  You attack, confuse, use explitives, yet 'none of what you write changes the fact that the changes I wish to make are supported by the data.' 219.166.46.101 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let us hope that during this Lenten season we will both find it in our hearts to approach this task in a spirit of honest humility. I will pray for such.  219.166.46.101 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Orthodox or not, by saying Orthodox Ukrainian IS UOC-KP and not anyone else is a massive POV. [...]

I do not believe that I have ever made such a statement anywhere.219.166.46.101 07:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, I keep forgetting to log in.) Qe2 07:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [...] For the record I doubt that God himself has any particular nationality or ethnicity. Thus it is on the contrary important to state, that back in Byzantine empire the five patriarchates were formed for administration only, not to endorse local nationalism...On the contrary I support simultaneously church unity and local autonomy i.e. on the level of liturgy language and local saints - but at the same time all of those saints will be recognised by any other church in communion. As a result you have Bulgarian Orthodox Churches in honour of Alexander Nevsky (as an example). UOC-KP on the other hand upon seizing a building would rename it to its own taste. Like what happened with the Church of Our Lady of Kazan was renamed in honour of some other icon. Speaking of seizures, I myself witnessed one in Rivne. With all said above, it is, but a personal opinion and irrelevant to the article, however I want you to understand, that just because you are involved with the religion, does not mean that everything you put is right, or is politically correct in the way it is presented. As for data, then again if someone feels its sketchy, that someone cannot be blamed for being cynical. On the contrary it only increases the authority of the article each time someone brings in a source that is less biased and more authentic. For example simple church statistics are more credible than third party sources and historical books.
 * With all said above, in the end there should be a good result from all this one that will not only suit both of our tastes, but one that we can mutually agree on. Regards--Kuban Cossack 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the final version will look like, it really ought to include the data from the CIA Worldfactbook on religion in Ukraine. I'm inclined to consider scientific survey data to be at least as important as number of parishes; I wouldn't discount type of data. Faustian 01:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, unless you want me to get some FSB publications, as well as Mossad, MI6 and all the other intelligence agencies - no, but of course, not the original classified documents, but those that they publish to the public...Besides all of the numbers are either duplicated by other surveys or given elsewhere.--Kuban Cossack 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because you personally don't like a source's findings doesn't mean it's not legitimate. If the factbook is good enough for numerous other articles and nationmaster, it's good enough for this article.  Likewise with Andrew Wilson's book that claims the UOC-KP to have more people UOC (MP).  Andrew Wilson is a very highly regarded scholar, his book is published by Yale.  his claims too belong in this article, even if you don't know what his original source is.  We report what others say, we don't get invovled in original research.  Faustian 13:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that says nothing to me...You insist on having some data that is not only dubious, but with no original source, just because some other random organistations use it. Same with scholars, it's not the content, but the money that allows any publishing house to publish a book...--Kuban Cossack 00:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the CIA worldfactbook is not "some other random organization". Your dismissal of Andrew Wilson's work (the guy is a very well-respected British scholar whose book is published by Yale) with words such as "not the content, but the money that allows any publishing house to publish a book" speaks, unfortunately, to your lack of objectivity on this topic.  Do you beleive there is a pro-Filaret, an anti-Orthodox (MP) conspiracy afoot supported by the CIA and with the participation of Yale?  Faustian 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A problem with surveys
I do not deny the general usability of the surveys for the Wikipedia articles as a source of info but this is an issue which should be judged case by case. Questions of who conducted the survey, how obvious are their results, whether they are self-contradictory or not are important.

Here is another related survey published on the very same web-site, RISU, and even taken by the same institution, the Ukrainian Sociology Service, as the survey used by Faustian. Let's take a look at these numbers:


 * "According to the survey, among the 70 percent of Ukrainians who consider themselves religious, 40 percent belong to particular religions and denominations and 29 percent have not decided on their religion. About 16 percent of people stated they are not religious and another 14 percent remain undecided."

So, 70% of population of Ukraine consider themselves religious, 16% are non-religious and 14% are "unsure". From those who claim being religious, just over a half consider themselves being part of a specific denomination, and the rest simply think that they "have faith in God" (40% vs 29%)

Reading further:


 * "In addition, the survey revealed that the three biggest denominations in Ukraine are the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate (UOC-KP) and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) with 37.8, 28.7 and 18.6 percent of the faithful respectively. The faithful of these churches constitute about 85 percent of Ukrainians who identified themselves as religious."

So, we have:
 * UOC - 37.8%, UOC-KP - 28.7%, UGCC - 18.6%

The numbers are rather surprizing compared to the results given in the survey linked by Faustian where we read:
 * UOC - 20.4%, KP - 30.1%, UGCC - 7.8%, UAOC - 1.5%

What is substantial is not even that UOC has such a clear advantage over KP, but how significantly the numbers differ from survey to survey published by the same source. Those surveys being taken two years apart cannot explain such a huge difference as 10% switching from UOC to KP. Even more startling would be the supposed conversion of millions of Ukrainians from Greek Catholicism to the Eastern Orthodoxy within two years. The conversion between Greek Catholic and Orthodox faith is a serious matter and millions do not just switch between different branches of Christianity in the period of two years.

Now, there are CIA worldbook numbers which differ from both surveys. A simple common sense tells that CIA simply used some other survey as neither CIA nor even the Ukrainian authorities conduct the comprehensive censuses about the religious preferences of the Ukrainians. What we really see from those surveys is that people are confused. Besides, most of them do not even attend any church and give answers to the questions that not all of them even fully understand as only truly religious ones are able to give an informed answer to such questions.

As a result we get an arbitrary set of all confusing numbers that show dramatically different results from survey to survey. In view of this, we should either not use such survey data at all or, if we add it to the article, we should state that surveys produce contradictory results and are an unreliable indicator of anything. Additionally, some religious Ukrainians who are both nationally and religious conscious declare their allegiance to KP and even may attend their Church for the Easter service but when it comes to baptizing the newborn, they take the baby to the UOC as they are conscious about Baptism being the way to salvation and to be sure the later is guaranteed, they go to the church whose being "truly within the Orthodox Christianity" is beyond reproach (speaking strictly from the Eastern Orthodoxy POV the non-canonical churches are not "truly Orthodox" and the rites they perform are not valid). I read about this phenomenon somewhere and I can even look for a source, but since I am not about to add this to the article, I do not think is necessary. I am simply pointing out how meaningless all this statistics is and this is the reason of the numbers contradicting each other.

As the same time, the numbers of parishes is taken from the documents filed with the State Committee for the Religious Affairs. The leaders of the parishes cannot not know exactly what denomination they belong. This is reliable and encyclopedic info.


 * The same statistics also show that in Ukraine there are over 6,000 protestant and Jehova's witnesses parishes in Ukraine. Is this data less scientific than the data showing the large number of UOC (MP) parishes?  Is protestantism Ukraine's seciond largest religion, almost on par with UOC (MP)?  Of course it is not, and the data from surveys is the thing that injects some reality in opposition to the statistics on number of parishes.Faustian 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the surveys, when the question is clear, like "What language do you use primarily at home?", the results of such surveys are more valid than when the question is "Do you support the idea of the Russian language becoming the state language in Ukraine?", as the latter question understandably is much more confusing. By asking people confusing questions one can easily get contradictory results. For instance in the March 17, 1991 referendum 80.2% of Ukrainian population voted for Ukraine's joining the renovated USSR and on December 1 of the same year 92% of population voted for the Ukrainian full independence. Manipulation with these data by POV pushers may be used for all sorts of speculations in either direction.

The surveys with the more confusing questions are especially vulnerable to challenges if they produce wildly different results from survey to survey. --Irpen 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the difference in figures is accounted for by the first figure being of the faithful and the second being of the general population? Faustian 16:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How would I know how they count this? In any case, the explanation you suggest is implausible as it should not have changed the ratios, only the absolute values. The bottomline is that those surveys are unreliable as demonstrated by their inconsistency. --Irpen 17:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the data does not change the ratios as much as you might think. The second survey shows a ratio of 13% among believers (7.8% among the general population), inconsistant with the 18% on the first survey but not extremely so. Faustian 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, 5% is very significant compared to the survey's margin of error. besides, the largest denomination would remain the largest no matter whether you express the numbers in the percentages of the entire population or in the percentages of only the religious base. If you have a sampling of 100 people of who only 10 are religious and 4, 3, 2 and 1 belong to the demoniations A, B, C and D, respectively, the percentages would be 40%, 30%, 20% and 10% of the faithful, respectively, and 4%, 3%, 2% and 1% of the total number of people but the largest denomination would remain the largest no matter what you use as the base. --Irpen 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I need not reply to this, or to your comment above, at this point it is either we dump the surveys alogether or move up the WP:DR process. Irpen's findings are truly wonderful. In case you do not mind I have also removed the BS of 50% KP followers form the Demographics of Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Those findings were sourced and I restored them. If an issue is unresolved in this article, why do you change it in other articles?  What we see is that both surveys (as Irpen demonstrated) are unreliable, while number of parishes (as Qe2..) showed is also an unreliable indicator of religious adherence.  I suggest that we do what I had originally proposed - state that the issue is controversial, and show data representing the different viewpoints rather than only one side's surveys.  Show the parish data, then mention its drawback; and show the figures from a few surveys. Faustian 14:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Risu sources: * 9049 communities * 122 monasteries * 3519 monks and nuns * 7509 priests * 7755 churches * 840 churches are being built * 2781 communities * 22 monasteries * 113 monks and nuns * 2182 priests * 1825 churches * 217 churches are being built
 * UOC(MP)
 * UOC-KP
 * Now are you convinced? Actually it is the UOC-KP that seems to have a much larger proportion of "paper" parishes. Also notice not only the 4:1 ratio of the UOC(MP) to UOC-KP but also the same one for the new parish constructions. Happy now? UOC-KP is definetly going AFTER the UOC(MP) not only from the inflated results that the survey showed, which Irpen's findings show 100% forgery, but also because the UOC-KP has much more paper parishes than UOC(MP). If anything number of church buildings and clergy IS reliable! Challenge that! --Kuban Cossack 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly becoming too emotionally involved in this discussion. I doubt that Irpen suggested that the surveys were "100% forgeries", just that they contained inconsistencies and therefore that they are far from perfect as a source of information. Every source of info contains advantages and disadvantages. The number of new church buildings may reflect funding, not number of adherants, for instance. After all, does the building of the massive UGCC cathedral in Kiev signify that Kievans have turned to Catholicism? The number of old church buildings might reflect the fact that the UOC (MP) is the heir of the owner of all church buildings in Ukraine prior to the 1990's.

It is best to simply put in all the data - the survey data (both sides), the number of parishes, number of buildings, with brief explanations of what this means. You seem to want to "cherry pick" the pieces of data that magnify the importance of the UOC (MP) and to ignore everything else, no matter how legitimate, that supports a different conclusion. Your dismissal of Andrew Wilson's claim as the product of some sort of conspiracy is quite illustrative of that.Faustian 15:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing the surveys as forgeries but I see them as totally unreliable. You can argue whether or not the parishes, churches and churches' construction statistics reflect the true strength of the church, but you cannot argue this data is not correct. Surveys, however, are invalid, otherwise they would not have come up so much out of whack one from the other. Not only their numbers cannot be used for inferring anything but they cannot be trusted to represent the reality while the parishes numbers, at least, are not doubted even if you challenge what one infers from them. --Irpen 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well-constructed surveys are very reliable. Other than asking the people themselves, how can you know what people believe?  The fact that all independent surveys of the population show generally the same trend is an argument for, and not against, their reliability. Qe2 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Trouble is they don't. --Irpen 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but all of the sourced indepedent surveys cited on this page do in fact appear to be quite consistent. Qe2 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, read this page above and below. --Irpen 09:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of my understanding, can you please re-post a link or source to at least one independent survey that is not consistent with the others? The only sourced survey I see that is off the mark is the single survey commissioned by the UGCC. Qe2 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A problem with surveys (section break)
And of course from the same RISU website :

Research on the denominational configuration of Ukraine today varies so much that it raises questions about validity. However, the problem is not researchers' lack of professionalism, but the lack of firm denominational identity among respondents. Actually, this is not a problem for the Eastern Rite Catholic Church because it consistently accounts for six to eight percent of the adult population of Ukraine in surveys. It is more complicated with Protestants because some surveys do not "catch" them at all. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses, some Pentecostals, and even some Baptists do not respond to the name Protestant. Yet, Protestant denominations that have a fixed membership are easy to count. The All-Ukrainian Union of Evangelical Christian-Baptist Church has 130,000 members, the All-Ukrainian Union of Evangelical Christians (Pentecostal) has about 90,000 members, the Ukrainian Union of Seventh-day Adventists has about 40,000 members, and Jehovah's Witnesses have about 107,000 members. The above Protestants, plus members of charismatic and independent churches (excluding Reformed and Lutherans), cannot be more than 600,000 to 700,000. Without question, their influence on religious life is much higher than their numbers would suggest. But the figures shown also undermine the idea of "Protestant expansion" in Ukraine.
 * Church Strength in Ukraine


 * How Religious Is Ukraine?

Results of Survey Research

1. Your attitude to religion. You are ...
 * A believer 66
 * A nonbeliever 23
 * An atheist 5
 * Difficult to answer 7

Sixty-six percent of the people questioned consider themselves to be believers, almost a fourth are nonbelievers, and five percent say that they are atheists. This rather high level of declared believers does not correspond with actual participation in religious life.

2. How often are you coming to church services?
 * Once a week 7
 * Twice or more often a month 5
 * Once a month 5
 * 2-11 times a year 23
 * Once a year 15
 * Never 10
 * No answer 35

Calculating the results, we can assume that the number of believers who actually hold to church canons and live correspondingly is not higher than 15-20 percent of Ukraine's adult population today.

3. What is your denomination? R*oman Catholic Church 1
 * Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate 22
 * Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate 12
 * Orthodox, but do not belong to any denomination 26
 * Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church 8
 * Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church 1
 * Other 5
 * Do not belong to any denomination/ecumenist 25

There is a paradoxical situation in that the number of registered churches of the Moscow Patriarchate is much larger than the number of churches of the Kyivan Patriarchate, yet only 12 percent of the people identify themselves with the Moscow Patriarchate, whereas 22 percent identify with the Kyivan Patriarchate.

Sources: Viktor Yelens'kii, Oleksandr Stegnii, Andrii Yurash, and Il'ko Kucheriv, "Kruglii stil' Religiinii vibir naselennia Ukraini: za danimi opituvannia gromads'koi dumki' [Round Table Discussion 'Religious Choices of Ukraine's Population: According to the Data from Public Opinions Polls']." Kyiv: Fond "Demokratichni initsiativi," Mott Foundation, 2000.

Faustian 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, while I couldn't find data on number of protestant church buildings, in terms of Sunday schools the various protestant churches have about 75% as many as does the UOC (MP) . (4019 versus over 3,000).  And as noted Are we to suggest that there are nearly as many protestants as UOC (MP) in Ukraine?


 * So, if you choose to use only number of parishes, you will have to state that protestants are the second largest religious community in Ukraine and that there are almost as many of them as there are UOC (MP). Which is absurd.  So, survey data becomes essential.

As I stated earlier, I strongly suggest that we include parish data, as well as various survey data, along with a brief statement concerning each measure's shortcomings, and to conclude that that relative popularity of each faith is ultimately not very clear. Faustian 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems like an appropriate solution, although I would continue to ask that the surveys, which are consitent and the common standard, be given due weight in the article. As such, the new map, which creates a false visual impression, should be deleted.  (Allowing that latter addition to remain while requiring the interim changes to be discussed here also does not seem consistent.) Qe2 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Wilson, Ukraine: Unexpected Nation, Yale University Press, page 236:

"It is not easy to determine which is the largest Church in Ukraine after the upheavals of the early 1990's. In part, this simply confirms the reality of religious pluralism in Ukraine.  It is also reflective of the fact that official figures record the number of parishes, not the number of believers..."

"Opinion polls conducted since 1991 give a better idea of how widespread particular faiths are. According to the largest and most comprehensive poll undertaken in 1997, 65.7% of the sample considered themselves believers, and of these 62.5% expressed an allegiance to a particular Church.  Of the latter, 12.3% declared themselves supporters of the UOC (MP) and a further 11.6% claimed to belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, although technically it no longer exists in Ukraine (its supporters can basically be grouped together with those of the Moscow patriarchate).  An impressive 43% named the UOC (KP) and only 4% the Autocephalous Orthodox.  Greek Catholics accounted for 14.3%, concentrated overwhelmingly in the western regions of Galicia and Transcarpathia."

"Considerable differences were apparent between Ukraine east and west of the Dnieper (the only regional breakdown available for the figures). Atheism and non-aligned belief were prominent in the east, where only 28% belonged to a particular Church, compared to 63% in the west..."

Wilson also cites a Sosis-Gallup poll conducted in February 1998 that showed 41% no religion, 20.4% UOC (KP), 7.3% UOC (MP), 1.8% UAOC, 6.3% Greek Catholic, 16% Orthodox but of no particular confession.

Basically, the polls cited by Wilson are consistent with modern polls in showing more adherents for the UOC (KP) than for the UOC (MP). Do any polls exist, not made by the UOC (MP) itself, that show more UOC (MP) adherents? Faustian 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This one. --Irpen 05:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Even  that survey shows that the number of OUC (MP) adherents doesn't match its threefold advantage in number of churches.  I was thinking of Kuban Kazak's statement, included in the article, where the UOC (MP) claims 75% of Ukraine's adherents.  I suggest the article include the parish info, (and describe limitations of it), and add something like "in contrast to the number of parishes, most surveys state that UOC (KP) has more adherents, although other surveys state the opposite," reference the various surveys, and add a statement that the truth is not definitively known.  Also briefly state the limitations of survey data in general and probably mention lower numbers of believers in the UOC (MP) territory in southern and eastern Ukraine as a possible explanation for the discrepency between UOC (MP) greater number of parishes versus UOC (MP) a la Andrew Wilson.  I would also take out the UOC (MP) claim of having 75% of the adherents (unless we put in a statement by the KP - I would prefer neither).  Would that sound fair to you? Faustian 06:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the survey comissioned by the UGCC is that, out of respect for the UOC(MP), the UGCC identified that church by its legally registered name, the "Ukrainian Orthodox Church". In other words, there appears to be a substantial portion of the population who would describe themselves members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but not as members of the UOC(MP). This is one of the reasons that RISU, a Greek Catholic institution, does not cite that survey, but an earlier independent survey in its article on Church strength.     QE2 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * False. This survey actually called. UOC as UOC-MP. --Irpen 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you are confusing the language used in this article reporting the results of the survey with the language of the questions asked on the survey. Qe2 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would, however, be more than happy to include the UGCC survey among other survey data. Again, and I hate to sound like a broken record, surveys of the population are the only means to compare the support of the people for a particular churches. This the tool used everywhere else, and I do not see why Ukraine should be different. That all of the independent surveys, of which several are quoted in this page, are consistent suggests that far from being useless, the surveys are indeed accurate.

Finally, I am glad that KK appears to have changed his mind about the acceptability of RISU as an information source. QE2 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Survey may be indeed the means to compare the support of people for various churches. Trouble is when even surveys do not allow that as we get wildly different results from survey to survey. --Irpen 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, we do not get "wildly different" results, but consistent results from all of the independent, scientific surveys. The results only become wild if we include results from surveys conducted by religious bodies themselves. These are not the same thing. Qe2 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are two surveys taken by the same institutions and published at the same site (RISU)
 * Survey 1
 * UOC - 37.8%, KP - 28.7%, UGCC - 18.6%
 * Survey 2 :
 * UOC - 20.4%, KP - 30.1%, UGCC - 7.8%, UAOC - 1.5%

Are you saying these are not wildly different results? --Irpen 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out twice on this page, the first survey is not "independent", as it was commissioned by the UGCC. The fact that RISU, a Greek Catholic institution, does not rely on that survey suggests that even the UGCC recognizes it as flawed. In any event, again, that survey is not an independent survey, but is one conducted by a religious body.  (A religious body that I respect, but that is, as KK would quickly point out, only my POV.) Qe2 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoever commissioned that survey, it was conducted not by UGCC but the Ukrainian Sociology Service, the same polling institution that conducted the other survey. --Irpen 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that anyone ever stated otherwise.Qe2 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

From the US State Department 2006 International Report on Religious Freedom:

"In 2004 the national newspaper Den (The Day) published the results of a major poll on religious beliefs by the All-Ukraine Sociological Service. Of the respondents who identified themselves as believers, 50.44 percent said they belonged to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC)-Kiev Patriarchate; 26.13 percent to the UOC-Moscow Patriarchate; 8.02 percent to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (sometimes referred to as the Uniate, Byzantine, or Eastern Rite Church); 7.21 percent to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church; 2.19 percent belonged to the Roman Catholic Church; 2.19 percent identified themselves as Protestants; 0.63 percent responded that they observed Jewish religious practices; and 3.2 percent said they belonged to 'other denominations'."  Qe2 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A Review and Comparison of Various Surveys (subsection 1)
I would like to put all the survey data together so we can see what the big picture is. For purposes of a less clumsy comparison, I have standardized the numbers by making them all a percentage of the general population rather than percentage of believers (as we have seen, some surveys give results in different formats). For example, survey one stated that only 40% of the population belongs to a particular religion and the figures provided are for those 40% rather than for the general population. To get the general population total, I multiplied each of the numbers by .4. Anyways, in this discussion we have:


 * Survey 1
 * UOC - 15.1%, KP - 11.5%, UGCC - 7.44%, religious but no particular religion - 29%


 * Survey 2 :
 * UOC - 20.4%, KP - 30.1%, UGCC - 7.8%, UAOC - 1.5%


 * Viktor Yelens'kii, Oleksandr Stegnii, Andrii Yurash, and Il'ko Kucheriv, "Kruglii stil' Religiinii vibir naselennia Ukraini: za danimi opituvannia gromads'koi dumki' [Round Table Discussion 'Religious Choices of Ukraine's Population: According to the Data from Public Opinions Polls']." Kyiv: Fond "Demokratichni initsiativi," Mott Foundation, 2000.
 * UOC (MP) - 12%, KP - 22%, Orthodox, no particular denomination - 26%, UGCC - 8%, UAOO - 1%


 * Andrew Wilson's description of "largest and most comprehensive survey undertaken in 1997" :
 * UOC (MP) + ROC - 9.8%, KP - 17.63%, UGCC - 5.9%, UAOC - 1%, religious but no particular religion - 24.6%


 * Sosis-Gallup Poll from 1998 :
 * UOC (MP) - 7.3%, KP - 20.4%, UGCC - 6.3%, Orthodox but no particular affiliation - 16%


 * CIA Worldfactbook :
 * UOC (MP) - 9%, KP - 19%, UGCC - 6%, UAOC - 1.7%, Orthodox no particular jurisdiction 16%

I did not include the data from the US State Department website preceding the page break because it didn't say what percentage were believers (so I couldn't standardize it). Feel free to add others. Five scientific, respected surveys have been listed above, along with data from the Worldfactbook which presumably is also based on a scientific survey. The conclusions so far:

With resepct to adherence to the UGCC and UAOC, the results are quite consistant. Across all six surveys, about 6-8% of the Ukrainian population identifes itself as Greek Catholic and 1-2% as belonging to the UAOC.

Now, let's look at the two largest Orthodox Churches.

Five of the surveys allow the choice "Orthodox of no particular jurisdiction." Of these, the numbers are remarkably consistant on four of the five surveys, with the UOC (MP) having the adherence of about 7-12% of the population and the KP of 19-22% of the population. On only one survey the UOC (MP) has the advantage, but even there it is a rather slight one (15.1% versus 11.5% of the general population). The Orthodox situation is somewhat muddled because in each survey a huge number of Orthodox adherents do not list a particular preference.

I see no reason to question the validity of the surveys based on "inconsistent results", as the results are indeed rather consistant across most surveys and any variance is logically explainable.

Therefore, the conclusions based on the survey data should stand. The write-up should summarize the results of all the scientific surveys. The number of adherents of the UGCC should be described as 6-8% of the general population and of the UAOC as 1-2% of the general population. The article should describe the limitation of specific numbers for Orthodox due to the large number of people who do not express loyalty to a particular Church. However, it should note that of those who do identify specifically, most surveys show greater allegience to the UOC-KP than the UOC (MP). This does not, of course, necessarily mean that the UOC (KP) has more adherents. It could mean that people who follow the UOC - KP are more likely to identify themselves as such while people who attend UOC (MP) Churches might be more likely to merely consider themselves "Orthodox". Or they might not be. We simply don't know what kind of churches those who consider themselves of no particular demonination actually attend based on the survey data. This should problem should also be explained in the article. In general, the survey evidence suggests that the UOC (MP) and UOC - KP are about evenly matched in terms of adherents.

What do you think, Irpen? regards Faustian 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Faustian, I, for one, thank you for taking the time to collate and present this data and readily agree with the approach you suggest, although I am not certain I understand why the "evidence suggests that the UOC (MP) and UOC - KP are about evenly matched in terms of adherents". There is only one survey that suggests a comparable or greater support for the UOC(MP), and that survey was exceptional as the UOC(MP) was identified merely as the "UOC", not the "UOC(MP)" as in the other surveys. It seems that the only observation that can be made is that there are a large number of Ukrainians who would consider themselves members of the UOC, but not of the UOC(MP).  I suspect that many of these are those who would consider themselves "Orthodox of no particular jurisdiction" in other surveys.  Still, I am all for preseting a write up of all of the available data, including that survey.  Qe2 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I wrong in stating that the evidence suggests that the UOC (MP) and KP are evenly matched. Rather, this was my educated guess based upon the presumption that most of the ones of no particular denomination are from southern and eastern Ukraine (and therefore, are actually UOC (MP) people because that Church is dominant in those regions). I made this assumption for a couple of reasons. Firstly, those regions of Ukraine are the least religious and therefore even the religious people there may be more casual about their faith. Secondly, because Orthodoxy is more homogenous in eastern and southern Ukraine, and there are fewer conflicts, it makes sense that the believers would be less likely to identify their particular faith. In a place in Volyn or Kiev in contrast, where battles have occurred between members of competing Churches, it is logical that people would be more likely to identify their particular Church. On the other hand, it is also possible that some UOC - KP people do not endorse their own Church because they oppose the splits within Orthodoxy.

I seriously doubt that 100% or even 90% of the unaffiliated are indeed UOC (MP). But 70-80% seems possible (or who knows, it could be 50% or 60%). If the higher figures are true, this would push the true number of adherents of the UOC (MP) close to the UOC (KP) in terms of numer of adherents, making the number of adherents approximately equal or, depending on the survey, possibly even surpassing the UOC - KP. One of the surveys listed, Survey 2, doesn't include the Orthodox (or other religious) of no particular denomination, and on that survey the number of adherents of the UOK (MP) is closer to the number of UOC - KP than on any of the surveys which do include unspecified religious people. This suggests that more "unaffiliated" actually belong to the UOC (MP) than UOC - KP.

All of this is merely my speculation and for this reason doesn't belong in the article of course. We don't really know which of the two main Orthodox Churches are larger because of the very high number of unspecified Orthodox. Faustian 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A Review and Comparison of Various Surveys (subsection 2)

 * Here is another analysis of the same question we are now discussing:


 * Jaroslaw Martyniuk: Letter to Ukrainian Weekly (re: Is an Orthodox Conflict Brewing in Ukraine?)


 * In his analysis "Is an Orthodox conflict brewing in Ukraine?" [published on April 14 by the Religious Information Service of Ukraine, and reproduced on April 17 by The Ukrainian Weekly, see above -UKL] Mr. Roman Kupchinsky writes that the largest branch of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is "by far" the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP). He then proceeds to list the number of communities, monasteries and churches that each of the churches owns or controls. Based on those numbers he correctly concludes that the UOC-MP is the largest branch and the UOC-Kyiv Patriarchate is a distant second. While these facts are true they conflict head-on with survey results conducted by InterMedia and other organizations over the years. These surveys paint a completely different religious picture in Ukraine.


 * For example, in a 2003 nationwide survey (sample = 4,006 respondents over age 15) when respondents were asked . . . . "Speaking about religious groups, which religious group do you consider yourself a member of or feel closest to? . . . the results showed that more than twice as many interviewees considered themselves members of or closer to the UOC-KP than the UOC-MP. The disparity between "control of property" and what people say is striking. The actual results show the following breakdown among various religious denominations in Ukraine:


 * Ukrainian Greek Catholic --8%
 * Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP --38%
 * Ukrainian Orthodox Church- MP --16%
 * Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church --2%
 * Russian Orthodox Church --5%
 * Roman Catholic --1%
 * Protestant--1%
 * Muslim--1%
 * Jewish--0.1%
 * Other--3%
 * Do not feel close to any religion --20%
 * D/K --5%
 * Total =100%


 * Even if one includes those respondents that consider themselves as Russian Orthodox (5%) to those who consider themselves UOC-MP (16%) the resulting ratio is still almost two-to-one in favor of the UOC-KP. These numbers are not new (they have been reported in the RFE/RL Research Report and The Ukrainian Weekly) and the relationship has been remarkably consistent since the early nineties.


 * Unfortunately the mantra "largest by far" has been repeated so many times that observers get a distorted picture of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Of course there are some legitimate reasons for the differences-many respondents may attend UOC-MP churches because it's the only church in town, but their allegiance-when asked spontaneously in a face-to face an interview-is clearly with UOC-KP. Some responses may not be aware of the differences between the two Patriarchates but instinctively respond Kyiv Patriarchate, etc., but all that is a subject for another discussion.
 * Jaroslaw Martyniuk Washington, D.C. Qe2 10:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * QE2, in the future please avoid pasting extensive material from elsewhere verbatim. Survey data would be useful but that would have been all we need. We all know how to click if you just provide a link. Pasting pages of external text quickly overload the talk page and the editor's own thoughts become lost in too verbose quotes. Besides, this may violate the copyright of external sites, even though the letter is only a hypothetical suggestion. --Irpen 06:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with Faustian on that we have to do too much guessing to give an estimate and we are not qualified to do it on one hand, and surveys themseves do not show the true picture on the other hand. What I propose to do is as follows. We simply state in the article that surveys produce the unreliable results and are difficult to use to give any estimates within reasonable accuracy (I elaborated above why: divergence and confusion). We may further state that both churches are clearly leading all the rest by the number of adherents. We move all survey results, with explanations to the footnotes and may add in text that despite the divergence, some surveys suggest the advantage of KP (caveat, we do have to say that they are unreliable, see above). The number of parishes data is unquestionably reliable. It should be given as no one actually doubts these numbers. We may further add that there is a caveat here as well since small or large parish still counts as one and it is rather unreliable to infer the numbers of adherents from the numbers of the parishes.

We do not change the order of the churches for now since when sections are swapped differences are harder to trace. I will read the proper chapter by Wilson this weekend and will let you know what I think. --Irpen 08:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A Review and Comparison of Various Surveys (Subsection 3)

 * I agree with your general recommendations. However, I question your characterization of the survey results as unreliable (having designed and conducted research using surveys for my doctoral work I know a little bit about them).  Because the results are remarkably similiar across most surveys (as outlined by me, above), they are indeed reliable.  For example, when you claimed that two of the surveys had wildly different results and added the numbers:


 * UOC - 37.8%, KP - 28.7%, UGCC - 18.6%


 * UOC - 20.4%, KP - 30.1%, UGCC - 7.8%, UAOC - 1.5%


 * You didn't take into account that the first one was based on total number of believers (about 40% of the population), while the second one was out of the total population. So the numbers as you posted them were measuring two different things.  When I multiplied the numbers from the first survey by .4 (because only 40% of the population, according to the first survey, specified their belief), the results became quite consistent with respect to all the churches other than the UOC-KP and UOC (MP):


 * UOC - 15.1%, KP - 11.5%, UGCC - 7.44% (religious but no particular religion - 29%)
 * UOC - 20.4%, KP - 30.1%, UGCC - 7.8%, UAOC - 1.5%


 * This highlights that the problem with the survey results is limited only with respect to whether the OAC (MP) has more adherents than does the UOC-KP. This probably reflects people's genuine attitudes (confusion about the two Orthodox Churches, being undecided, not caring about which Orthodox Church they belong to, not wishing to differentiate the two, etc.) rather than the surveys' poor reliability which after all show remarkably similar results for the UGCC.


 * Three of the surveys, whose results are posted by Qe2, don't include "no particular religion" as an option. These ones consistently show greater adherence to the UOC-KP than the UOC (MP).  This suggests that the UOC-KP indeed has more adherents.  A question arises with respect to the valdity of those three surveys, however.  Since we know that when given the option a relatively large number of people don't specify their Orthodoxy (in some casses, the unspecified is even larger than the number who proclaim their adherents to either of the two main Orthodox Churches!), how accurate are those surveys that fail to give as an option, no specific Orthodoxy?  This is not a question of reliability (the results of those three surveys are relatively consistent) but validity (how accurately do those consistant results really measure what they claim to measure - i.e., people's religious adherence).  I think the validity of the two surveys that don't include unspecified religion or Orthodoxy as an option is questionable, given the well-known number of people who when given that option don't specify their particular Orthodoxy.


 * When the "Modern Times" section is rewritten, I recommend that we use one category, Orthodoxy, describe it as by far the largest religion in Ukraine. Within this section we describe the three-way split within Orthodoxy and then include a brief discussion of survey data and parish data with limitations of each method of measurement.  With respect to surveys and adherents, it would read something like this: "Most surveys show that more people identify themselves as belonging to the UOC - KP than to the UOC (MP).  However, such a high number of people do not specify their allegience to either of the two Church across most surveys that it is unclear from survey data which of the two main Orthodox Churches actually has the highest number of adherents."  I would also include the regional variation and impact on recent politics.  I would not state that the surveys are unreliable because they do indeed seem to be quite reliable.  The actual results or statistics of each survey can be put into footnotes.  Any information about specific Churches should then be placed under the appropriate subheadings (UOC-MP, UOC -KP, UAOC).  I am nuetral about whether the UOC-KP or the UOC (MP) should come first.  Given that the size of each Church isn't clear, perhaps it should be alphabetical.  Faustian 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To quickly reply to Faustian before I respond to Irpen at more length later, even if one looks at only the surveys that do include "Orthodox of no particular jurisdiction" as an option, the UOC-KP still receives a significantly and consistently greater percentage of responses. This might compare, for example, to surveys of U.S. voters which include Indpendent as a choice for party affiliation. One might write, were Independents to show a larger number, that, for example, "Democrats outnumber Republicans, but a sifnificant number of Independents exist", but I do not believe that one would write "it is unclear from survey data which of the two main political parties actually has the highest number of followers."


 * In your analogy, the question of which of the two main Orthodox Churches has more adherents is compared to predicting who would win the election in an essentially 2 party system like the the USA in surveys that ask for party membership.


 * Not "who would win the election", but simply "party membership"; just because there are many independents does not mean that the relative size of the parties cannot be compared. Qe2 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the surveys say that the number of Democrats outnumber the Republicans, but the number of independents is higher or as high as the number of people in either party, we could say that the democratic party has more members, but we cannot say who will win the election because the number of independants (who after all will almost all ultimately vote for one of the two named parties) is too high.


 * Again, I never suggested predicting "who would win the election", but simply that, based on the available data, "the number of Democrats (UOC-KP) outnumber the Republicans (UOC-MP). Qe2 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, the "no preference" Orthodox ultimately really do adhere to one of the two largest Churches.


 * Why? If we are to allow the people to self-define their adherence, then we cannot state that, despite their answers, these people "really" have an adherence other than that they state. On the other hand, those surveys which do not allow a response along the lines of "Orthodox of no juridiction" still consistently show more adherents for the UOC-KP.Qe2 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why the wording I proposed seems right, because although those who self-identify as KP do indeed outnumber those who self-identify as (MP), the number of those with no preference but who do nevertheless identify as something is so high that the actual rates of adherence are unknown based on the surveys.


 * It seems that you are suggesting a standard other than self-identification.Qe2 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why I think my wording "Most surveys show that more people identify themselves as belonging to the UOC - KP than to the UOC (MP). However, such a high number of people do not specify their allegience to either of the two Church across most surveys that it is unclear from survey data which of the two main Orthodox Churches actually has the highest number of adherents." is the best.Faustian 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To return to my previous analogy, this seems to be the same as writing "Most surveys show that more people identify themselves as belonging to the Democratic Party than to the Republican Party. However, such a high number of people do not specify their allegience to either of the two parties across most surveys that it is unclear from survey data which of the two main parties actually has the highest number of members."  The fact that many people do not identify with one party or the other does not make it impossible to compare party size.  This is not a prediction of how people will vote, but a measure of how people identify themselves. Qe2 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A Review and Comparison of Various Surveys (Subsection 4)
The only survey that shows the UOC-MP outnumbering the UOC-KP is the one commissioned by the UGCC which is not directly comparable because it used the name UOC instead of UOC-MP. My understanding is also that it is normal practice in statistics not to allow a single outlying result to redifine the conclusion; the data should, of course, be noted, but a single survey should not be overly weighted, especially one that was commissioned by one the interested parties. (My impression is that, although the UGCC did entrust the surveying to a reputable indepedent agency, it was the UGCC itself which decided to use the registered name "UOC" for the the "UOC-MP". While their reasons may have been noble, this highlights one of the problems with surveys that are not entirely independent.  Then again, thanks to that survey, we can see that there do exist a significant number of people who consider themselves members of the UOC, but not the UOC-MP, which is, in itself, useful information.)
 * I explained above that this assertion is incorrect. The survey was conducted by the Ukrainian Sociological Service, an independent polling orhanization, and UOC was actually called UOC-MP. See . --Irpen 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One cannot assume that those who consider themselves Orthodox of no jurisdication are undecided; it is not impossible or unlikely that many of these are honestly Orthodox and honestly do not consider themselves members of either "jurisdiction". The fact that they exist does not in any way reduce the number of faithful in any other Church. If one looks at the various sets of data regarding church sizes in the United States cited on the adherents.com website, one can see that all cited surveys, including those by the Pew Research Center, rank size of bodies from largest to smaller based upon those who express a preference.  The fact that the Pew Survey, for example, includes 8-12% who consider themselves religous but "no preference", does not stop the authors from describing or presenting the data for those who do have a preference.


 * As Dr. Martyniuk wrote in 2005, "...the resulting ratio is still almost two-to-one in favor of the UOC-KP. These numbers are not new (they have been reported in the RFE/RL Research Report and The Ukrainian Weekly) and the relationship has been remarkably consistent since the early nineties. "


 * In summary, rather than writing that "...it is unclear from survey data which of the two main Orthodox Churches actually has the highest number of adherents", I would suggest softening the language to something more like "Although almost all surveys show that more Orthodox identify themselves as belonging to the UOC-KP than to the UOC(MP), many of these surveys also indicate that a significant percentage of those who consider themselves Orthodox do not consider themselves members of either Church." After that, we can present the survey data, and then the registered parish data.


 * I do like the idea you propose for grouping Orthodox in one section (Although on a strictly gut reaction, I would like to consider the Faithful of the OC and GCC part of the same "Kyivan Church" family and am saddened to see them cut away), and the general tone you suggest; I would enthusiastically support a revision along the lines you propose.  Qe2 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Irpen, Just because a number is accurate, does not mean it is useful. Although I do not doubt that the data for the number or registered parishes is an accurate count of the number of registered parishes, and although I have no qualms about including that, or any other raw data, in the article, this data clearly does not correlate with the popular support for various churches.  Please look at the many, many articles found on, or linked to by, the adherents.com website ; please open any English-language almanac; in all cases, the number of adherents as measured in scientific surveys is the standard for church size.  Faustian has shown, at great length, that your concern with the innacuracy of the surveys (as well as KK's insistence that "all surveys are useless) is not necessary.  All of the independent surveys taken over the past decade give fairly stable numbers for each church, and consistent relative size of all organizations.  Therefore, the article should present this information clearly, and should quote one or two representative samples.  There is no reason to discredit the survey data.  Any maps should be based on that data, as the visual information overweighs the written explanation. Qe2 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, your claim that this survey that shows that UOC has more adherents than KP because UOC was called misleadingly is incorrect. In that survey, the respondents picked from the choices given to them as UOC-MP and UOC-KP. This is done despite UOC-MP is an incorrect name, strictly speaking, as the name of the church is just UOC, but this is a side question. Media use both names and survey questioners always use "MP" in the end for the sake of clarity. Trouble with survey is not that they are falsified or taken unscientifically (although the fact that one shows more for UOC(MP) and the other shows more for UOC-KP is alarming). The point is that the question is confusing and this is why people give different answers from survey to survey. I suggest we avoid stating which church has more adherents because bot number of parishes statistics and Survey statistics is unreliable in this case to infer the answer. Why number of Parishes cannot serve the base of number of adherents is obvious. The large parish can have more adherents than three small ones. The surveys also do not allow to draw any reliable conclusion as otherwise, we would not have different denominations leading from survey to survey. They do allow to estimate the number of Greek Catholics, because unlike the other numbers, their percentage is consistent. I tend to agree with Faustian that the reason is both lack of firm identification between different Orthodox branches (unlike between non-Orthodox and Orthodox), weak religiousity of a large number of people (still not weak enough to call themseves atheist) and that the questions are confusing for many. Remember my analogy above that inferring anything from a survey when the questions are simple and clear for everyone (What language do you use at home?) is much more meaningful than to infer anything from a much more politically charged and confusing question (Do you support Russian to become a second state language?) Same here, Greek Catholics and Orthodox can more or less firmly self-identify within branch. When it comes to which of the UOC's (remember there are more, like so called "UAOC (canonical)", the so called "True Orthodox Church" and whatever others) is much more confusing.Irpen 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I may have misinterpreted your earlier comments. I agree with your logic above, and with your agreement to Faustian's approach. Qe2 09:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So, I suggest stating that both UOC's are clearly leading by the number of followers but as far as going any further, I support the approach suggested by Faustian above. --Irpen 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) I am now reading Section 11 (Angels and Pins: Ukrainian Religion), from Wilson's "The Ukrainians" (ISBN 0300093098) and will be able to comment once I finish. --Irpen 08:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my lengthy absense
I apologise I kept people waiting, now I have read the above discussion and here are my vies on the topic. At present we need to decide what goes in the modern section and what does not. In my opinion things like church attendance and present rivalry as well as geographical support (down to the Oblast) should go into a new article called Religion in Ukraine, with a see also from here and from Demographics in Ukraine this article instead should quickly summarise that data along the lines of, different surveys show different results... and so on... The new article should also include things like Islam and Judaism in Ukraine and other religions should IMO go there, as this article primarily deals with religions that Ukrainians adhere to, not the different minorities that live there. So where its written majority of practicing Roman Catholics in Ukraine are the Polish minority does this belong here or there?

WRT geographica distribution I have pulled an excellent source, now the link does not always work, but it does give the distribution among individual oblasts not in terms of parish numbers, but also in terms of clergy and church buildings (and categorises them like - those rented, those built in 1990-2005, those that are architectural heritage etc.) That can be used to make a good series of maps for the four major Ukrainian churches - UOC, UOC-KP, UAOC, UGCC, each with two one for numbers, the second for percentages. This is official state data!

Another discussion on statistics

 * Dear KK, I am, believe it or not, truly glad that you are well. Regarding this data, please see my reply immediately above to Irpen. I am certain that the data is official, but the article should not be based upon the number of parishes; that is misleading, as people expect churches to be compared by number of adherents, not communities. Qe2 08:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That data is not about not only includes number of parishes, but number of church buildings. Now unless you are suggesting that the majority of UOC(MP) churches are empty and that the majority of UOC-KP churches are overcrowded, based on simple priest and church building ratio...Your argument, I am sorry, but so far fails to convince me...But I do appreciate your care for my wellbeing...very touching.--Kuban Cossack 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, "number of churches" is a very good point and it is more indicative than the number of parishes. A group of people who get together once a month in someone's flat can register a parish of some Protestant denomination and this will count at much towards the total number of parishes value as the St Volodymyr's Cathedral or Kiev Pechersk Lavra. Number of churches, however, while imperfect, is very meaningful because it would include both the small and the large churches for both sides and the real buildings, unlike parishes, are less likely to be fictitious. --Irpen 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please let us not forget that people in Ukraine have for many years been willing to attend a house of worship that was a part of church to which they did not belong. There are many instances where the hierarchy have pushed clergy to support one church, or the local authorities have refused to re-assign a church, and one finds a village or town where a large portion, or even majority, of the worshippers at one church actually would prefer to be part of another church.  There are other places where people would be willing to build there own church, but have other needs.  Please do note the number of buildings, but this, again, is not a direct measure of people's faith. Qe2 23:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any information to back this? --Kuban Cossack 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To add to this the Qe2's assertion plainly makes no sense. Putting aside a group of people who are not very into those things and consider them "just Orthodox", the conscious choosers between the two churches can be symbolically divided into two groups, the, so to speak, "nationally conscious" (KK calls them "svidomi") and the "religiously conscious". Group one will be caught dead going into what they percieve as a "Muscovite Imperialist Church" and will go to whatever they have in their area that is "purely Ukrainian, be it AO, KP or, perhaps even the so called "AO (canonincal)" of so called "Metropolitan" Moses (Kulyk). Those people put their national and political priorities above the religious ones. I take no position on that since my national and religious priorities are rather moderate. The other group, the "religiously conscious" ones, would be caught dead taking the Eucharist in the building which is (from the POV of the mainstream Orthodox Christianity) the "Orthodox Church" only by the officially registered name. Remember that from this POV (which I also neither endorse or condemn) the non-canonical organization cannot have anything to do with the Orthodoxy. As such, performing any rites there, starting from the regular ones (Eucharist) to a very special ones (Chritianization and wedding ceremony) has no meaning for the salvation, sacrament, repentance, etc. --Irpen 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On this topic, as I have, per your request and in the spirit of openness, refrained from making changes until we can establish a consensus. In that same spirit, it somes appropriate for you to remove your map, which was added after our discussions began, and without consensus.Qe2 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Move the map to demographics of Ukraine or better keep it here until the Religion in Ukraine starts off.--Kuban Cossack 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think the map should be removed until a consenus is reached. Again, I have, per your request, refrained from editing the site; as the map is a new addition it should be treated in the same way that you ask us to treat other data. Qe2 23:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The map has been removed as per your request.--Kuban Cossack 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Last but not least, the order of the churches should follow the order in which the state lists them and that is MP, KP, AP, GC and then others...That is how most encyclopedias list them...Why should we change that?--Kuban Cossack 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The CIA World Factbook, the U.S. State Department, and the RISU article on church size, all of which are quoted above, list the churches in order of size, that is KP, MP, GC, and then AO. Andrew Wilson presents them in the order KP, MP, AO, and then GC. When you write "most encylopedias", what authorities are you referring to? (I also note that when many voices have noted that "Kyiv" is the official state spelling of that city, you stated to the effect that this is beside the point.) Qe2 08:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * USA has as much authority over wikipedia as does Zimbabwe and Trinidad and Tobago, --Kuban Cossack


 * We've already gone over this - the CIA Worldfactbook is a legitimate source of information.  There is a precedent of it being used a such on numerous wikipedia articles, and it is also used as a source for NationMaster.Faustian 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Faustian, let's just look at each individual case. CIA worldbook gets its numbers from the Ukrainian sources, the same ones that we use. When it gives population and GDP estimates, it gets those from the state authorities. For the religion, they have to use those same surveys that we are discussing here. The trouble with those surveys is clear. Now, from what I've seen, the Western Media, is very incompetent in nuances of the situation in Ukraine. Suffice is to see those simplistic cliches they apply even to this day, like Yushchenko = pro-Western, Yanukovych = pro-Russian. CIA book is at the same level as any Western respectable paper, like say, NYTimes which is full of such oversimplification blunders. --Irpen 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Irpen, I generally agree with what you've written above. It all comes down tot he surveys, which as I've hopefully shown are quite reliable and valid.  The confusion, which as we've both stated is limited to Orthodoxy, is a valid indicator of the populations' feelings.


 * Faustian, I too generally agree with what you've written. It all comes down tot he number of churches, clergy and their geographical distribution, which as I've hopefully shown are quite reliable and valid... I did not mean to do that, but it seams we are going in circles here...--Kuban Cossack 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that all of that data is very important although it, too, has certain flaws. As the "default" Church and heir of the only pre-1990 Church, it makes sense that the UOC (MP) has an advantage in terms of infrastructure (real estate, priests, etc.).Faustian 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well in terms of heir, actually Kravchuk made every attempt to allow Filaret to completely pocket the whole budget when he was expelled from the ROC and began his schism. Now advantage or disadvantage, very few of the clergy agreed to actually follow him, and only via UNA-UNSO was he able to make anything of his church. Canonically of course none of these schismatic groups are recognised and of course the UOC(MP) is the heir, which is actually if you read the statements that they give to Yushenko's campaign of creating a united church: only after full return of seized property, and the redundance of Filaret will they agree to engage in dialogue.--Kuban Cossack 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What you wrote about the vast majority of the ROC/UOC (MP) priests refusing to abandon their Church highlights the inherent institutional advantage enjoyed by the UOC (MP) and why the number of priests, like the amount of real estate, is far from an ideal indicator of religious adherence. In terms of being canonical, is the UAOC canonical or not?  My understanding is that it is analogous to the ROCOR, except that unlike the ROCOR it has reentered the "home country" in opposition to the established Church.Faustian 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That UAOC is non-canonical is not even in dispute by the UAOC itself. It does not satisfy any of the necessary criteria. Firstly, it has not Apostolic succession lineage as upon the church inception no ordained Bishop agreed to participate in the original formation of the church in 1921 and the priests "Ordained" their first leaders Met. Vasyl (Lypkivsky) and bishop Nestor (Stravynsky) in the non-recognized "Alexandrian" manner: by the laying-on of hands by priests. Secondly, the UAOC itself is currently walled off from the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Besides, it is generally in a big mess with no clarity even on who is their first Hierarch.


 * The Canadian and US respective churches, historically connected to the UAOC, but not organizationally connected to it right now in any way, are in a somewhat better shape as their are accepted by Constantinople ander its auspice. Even these churches raise questions and eyebrows together with the lack of full clarity about the general state of affairs with the Orthodoxy in North America. OCA, for one, which can make the best claim of being the "local church" in N.A. (pomestnaya tserkov') is in somewhat confusing relationship with Constantinople too about its status (although not the standing of the OC itself). There are various churches in N.A. under different European patriarchates which is not very helpful either as the canon calls for the local churches within each entity rather than Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians and Romanians in the US attending each their own churches under the non-American patriarch.


 * As for ROCOR, it does have an apostolic succession as it was initiated by the Bishops of the ROC who were fully ordained and all further ordainments took place in the proper order. It is accepted by some, but not all, of the mainstream churches. Most importantly, in May of this year the official "Act of Canonical Communion" is scheduled which will restore the full communion between the ROCOR and the MP. It is still going to be confusing as within these two churches (and between them) the difference of opinions exist on whether this would make ROCOR a part of ROC (ROCOR tends to disagree) and the question of OCA rather than ROC being the North American local church is going to be inevitably raised at some point by OCA and it was already mentioned in the letter from OCA to ROCOR in connection with the planned in May event. --Irpen 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another discussion on statistics (section break)

 * but then again:The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), Moscow Patriarchate, is the largest single religious community and is the largest of the country's Orthodox Churches. The Church has 10,040 registered communities, most of them located in the central, southern, and eastern parts of the country......


 * Older report. The number of registered communities is a seductive number, as it is readily available, but legitimate social scientists eventually see that what Dr. Martyniuk wrote above is correct; number of communities is not the same thing as the number of adherents, and number of adherents is the standard measure of church strength. Qe2 23:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And number of church buildings, number of clergy, number of eparchies and number of cloisters? The truth is that Religion of Russia they list both, but note which one precedes - number of communities. --Kuban Cossack 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Risu lists Orthodox first - MP, KP, AO then the Catholics GC, RC and then others check for yourself. Many public pages about Ukraine follow this - Ukrainian Orthodox - Moscow Patriarchate, or Russian Orthodox is the dominant church composing about 70% of all Orthodox believers in Ukraine. Pass my regards to Wilson, and the people who forged the surveys... --Kuban Cossack 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What forged surveys? You have an unfortunate pattern of endorsing your information, no matter how dubious the source (such as [protestant website above] claiming that the UOC MP has 70% of Ukraine's Orthodox adherents), as long as it supports your claims, while rejecting legitimate sources such as numerous surveys, the scholarly work of Andrew Wilson, the Worldfactbook, if those don't agree with your views. You need to be more objective.  Faustian 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Forged is an overkill indeed. I would call them unindicative for the reasons above. --Irpen 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction, you were the one, who explicitly told me that I am not allowed to use pro - UOC publications. I can give you a samosval of surveys from sites such as http://www.otechestvo.org.ua/, and my own quote from the same state department is more than interesting. Please comment on it...--Kuban Cossack 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What you quoted from the state department was correct. Of course, it was speaking about the number of communities rather than number of adherents.Faustian 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that a problem?--Kuban Cossack 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it just has its limitations as we have been discussing. Surveys are probably the most accurate indicator, and they accurately indicate that the majority of Orthodox believers in Ukraine don't care about the differences between the Churches, or are confused about them, and that therefore it is impossible to say which one has more adherents.Faustian 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet by default that would mean the UOC (MP) because some of the regions e.g. Transcarpathia has a 95% UOC(MP) church building and parish amount. So like I said only places where there is a large presence of all churches could the surveys be of any indication e.g. Kiev, and my ratio multiplication of UOC(MP) + all orthodox divided by UOC-KP shows that the results are the same as the ration of MP parishes / KP parishes. --Kuban Cossack 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ahem just a sample of the tone that they use, and how convincing are their articles. --Kuban Cossack 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether a source is pro or anti UOC, as long as it is objective. I want the information to be correct, rather than to conform to whatever personal biases I may have.  I place evidence before ideology.  The examples that you have given from the UOC websites show that those UOC websites are not objective and thus, unless they use info that has been sourced elsewhere, are probably not trustworthy.  On the contrary, the surveys described on these talk pages, the CIA worldfactbook, Wilson's work, are pretty objective.Faustian 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless authentic photos seem to show otherwise...and its already published... and actually a number of Russian news agencies e.g. newsru.com use that website...which means that evidence is objective, which I place before ideology myself. Now like it or not, but I did quite a bit of statistics in university and I know, and mathematically can prove it to you why a census might be wrong, particularly wrt Irpen's comment above there is opposite correlation between the no. of churches and clergy (% wise) and the no. of followers according to some censuses. Call me a skeptic, but surveys, particularly with a sample size of 5000 is nowhere to be taken as accurate, not for a country of a population of 46 million. That is (roughly) 0.01% of the population... Which is not that hard to handpick if you got a time and resources... In my experience, and consult any professional mathematician, 1% is where a survey can be thought of as approaching accuracy. However hypothetically it is still possible to have a major source of error. As I did not see the original works and recordings of where each result came from, which regions...particularly since UOC-KP numbers jump from 20 to 50%... such surveys must be treated as only estimates, and potential forgery. Particularly in Ukraine, where there is also a major geographic distribution as well. You saw me manipulate the numbers for Kiev's data and the ratios we got there... Now I know this is bordering on Original research, however we have to apply a bit of common sense here. Only a census can give the results with no error. Unfortunately we do not have this. What we do have that is accurate is the register of churches, particularly those being built and the clergy serving in them. Now like that or not, that is an indicator and a strong one. You can disagree with that, but in that case provide sources that confirm this. As for speaking about ideology, just out of interest what is yours? --Kuban Cossack 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I consider myself relatively nuetral from this perspective. I feel that Ukraine should have its own Orthodox Church, just as do Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, and every other Orthodox country.  But on the other hand, I'm not a fan of Filaret and probably would not belong to an uncanonical Church.  I think that both of the competing Churches and their followers have been too mixed up with nationalism (Russian on the part of the UOC (MP) as your website shows, and Ukrainian with respect to UOC-KP involvement with UNA/UNSO).  If the choice were mine, it would be for Ukraine to have a united Ukrainian Patriarchate that was unconnected with Filaret and which would concentrate on spiritual rather than political matters.  My personal feelings aside, I'm trying to get the most realistic picture of the situation in Ukraine.Faustian 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ukraine has its own Orthodox Church - which is canonically recognised, what is the point of having a patriarchate? I myself did not care much until I witnessed a storming of church in Rivne, and found myself involved. Watching how UOC-KP priests were beating old pensioners made my mind up...with all else I agree with you.--Kuban Cossack 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When were you in Rivne and what were you doing there? Qe2 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My wife is from Rivne, we first met in summer 1998 and right up until 2003 when she married me and moved to the Kuban I frequently visited her and for some times stayed for as long as a month. This happened back in august 1999 or 2000 (I can't remember now), thank god the church did not fall, but it was close...very close...--Kuban Cossack 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What you write is the exact opposite of what various media report happening in Rivne, which report the community voted to join the UOC-KP and monks from the MP monastery attacked civilians. In any event, I read that Wikipedia is establishing a system for verification of academic credentials.   As you have made a claim to have first hand knowledge of an event, would you agree to having that claim independently verified? Qe2 10:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, I can't even remember the actual date, and there was no mass media or press presence there anyway. I was out shopping and was walking past a church when all of a sudden I saw a group of 10 UNSO men in camoflouge and another 3 priests fighting with a group of 30 pensioners and women with children. I joined in... then the authorities came and most of the UNSO ran off...However I am not actually inclined to include this event, and moreover I fail to follow your "argument" or whichever event that you are reffering to. --Kuban Cossack 12:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually a survey taking is a rather developed applied science and well-conducted survey with a set of reasonably constructed questions can produce rather representative results with much less than 1% participation. Conducting such survey requires the domain knowledge on behalf of the takers, mainly to have a sufficiently representative group. I believe that Ukrainian Sociological Services is indeed a respectable institution but even they failed to produce any kind of convincing consistency. This is partly because they have likely failed to account for regional and other demographic differences (no matter how they tried) and partly because the question is much more difficult for an average Joe (or Taras) to answer than, say, "Do you believe in god (yes, no, unsure)?" --Irpen 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear KK, you may choose to ignore the survey data if you wish, but the information should be clearly presented in the article so that people reading the article will have the same opportunity. Qe2 23:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not ignore them, I just treat them the same as asking what is your favourite Death metal band...from an audience that listens to classical music. The analogy is the same, and should be presented as such. --Kuban Cossack 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing worth mentioning. From what I have read in different analysis of churches that coexist in the certain terriotry, not only in UA, it is the number of parishes that's the most frequently mentioned factor in estimating their relative strength. Yes, there are US survey numbers for the number of baptists, episcopalians, etc, but much literature uses the naumbers of parishes. The reason probably is that the latter number is, while not always precisely, related to the number of adherents, and is much better known. It also may be that there are some sensitivities in conducting such surveys even in much more religiously stable areas than Ukraine. --Irpen 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another update: this is not really for an article as my personal observation do not count and I am not a survey taker. Just got off the phone with someone who lives in Eastern Ukraine's large city. Like most cities there, it is large Russophone and dominated by UOC. The person is not very much into politics and attends the church but not very regularly. When she mentioned that, I got curious and asked, whose church is she now going to. She told me the name of the Saint to whom the Church is named. I then tried to find out whether it is UOC's or KP's church. I tried to ask in different ways and could not get the firm answer. I asked, Volodymyr's or Filaret's? In response I was given the name of the Saint to whom the Church is named. I tried to dig from another side and asked "Russian or Ukrainian?" The answer was "Ukrainian, everything is now Ukrainian" (the latter meaning not religion or language, but "of Ukraine", like even Party of Regions is a Ukrainian party despite most of them speak Russian.) Desperate I asked then "Whose Patriarchate?" She answered "What?". I had to ask a leading question. "Moscow Patriarchate" or "Kiev Patriarchate"? She immediately said "Kiev". And added, "Kiev and Moscow are different now. Each of us now has its own borders". Point is, that my respondent is totally apolitical. She lives in a Russophone city E.UA city and the chance is very strong that the church she goes to, as well as the majority of the churches there, are UOC. She was not able to tell me anything and when I finally asked "Kiev or Moscow", she said Kiev because she of course knows that she lives in Ukraine, Kiev is the capital of Ukraine while Moscow is Russia.


 * Perhaps, that's how the survey numbers show what they show. People actually don't know but when the question is "Kiev or Moscow", the person from Ukraine always answers "Kiev" unless s/he knows the subject.


 * As I said, I am not adding my original observations to the article. But here, at the talk page, we are all friends in the collegiate discussion. I thought I can share it with you as this is relevant and you did not mind wasting time reading this.


 * My 8 of March greetings to your loved ones! --Irpen 08:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this observation and for taking the time to write in detail about the UAOC. I truly appreciate it. Your experience probably is an excellent indicator of why the survey results are what they are. They demonstrate that the surveys are indeed accurate - and in this accuracy they capture the Orthodox Ukrainian population's confusion or ignorance. Faustian 13:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Between the [Revision of 19:33 on 10 February 2007] and today's block, only one citation has remained from the material added before the mass revert. I don't understand the justification for the removal of cited information. Can someone please cite the major issues preventing the improvement of this article? As it stands, the article is inaccurate in my view, and the sooner it gets fixed, the better.--tufkaa 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above, feel free to comment and raise your issues.--Kuban Cossack 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above resulted in the protection of the article, after all of the recent additions had been removed. Each point above has been presented with a counterpoint. Since there is little progress being made, perhaps the editors could cite the major issues which resulted in the lock? Are their accusations of bias? If so, where? Does the dispute involve more than the order of the churches listed in the article?--tufkaa 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you kept up the discussion above, but unless Qe2 has any fresh arguments to make and per Irpen's new found observations I think we can conclude that neither the order of churches nor the radical additions that Qe2 was lobbying for are going to be added. So what are your opinions on this matter and what would you like to see change (like you I do not want a fresh phase of edit wars the minute the article is unprotected). --Kuban Cossack 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, it seems that the arguments above indicate you have failed to justify your version over mine. In fact, after we finish this section, it seems we will have to go back through the sections above. I would like to believe your sincerity, but, if you are not willing to discuss this in an academic style, it seems that we should request mediation, as *you* first suggested. Qe2 07:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that, as of today, the article remains locked, although it still includes the map added after discussion began. It appears that a collaborative consensus has been reached by the participating parties, but that we are now awaiting comments from Irpen and Kuban Cossack, the latter, who last posted on 18 February, being the party who objected and requested protection of the article. Although I do sincerely hope that KK is welll, it seems that at some point the article should be unlocked. Qe2 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I left my comments in the previous section. --Irpen 08:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has been unlocked.Qe2 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category
I suggest putting in this one instead of general Christianity in Europe template. Sideshow Bob 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
I've copied and moved this part of the conversation into its own section for the sake of clarity:

What you wrote about the vast majority of the ROC/UOC (MP) priests refusing to abandon their Church highlights the inherent institutional advantage enjoyed by the UOC (MP) and why the number of priests, like the amount of real estate, is far from an ideal indicator of religious adherence. In terms of being canonical, is the UAOC canonical or not? My understanding is that it is analogous to the ROCOR, except that unlike the ROCOR it has reentered the "home country" in opposition to the established Church.Faustian 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That UAOC is non-canonical is not even in dispute by the UAOC itself. It does not satisfy any of the necessary criteria. Firstly, it has not Apostolic succession lineage as upon the church inception no ordained Bishop agreed to participate in the original formation of the church in 1921 and the priests "Ordained" their first leaders Met. Vasyl (Lypkivsky) and bishop Nestor (Stravynsky) in the non-recognized "Alexandrian" manner: by the laying-on of hands by priests. Secondly, the UAOC itself is currently walled off from the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Besides, it is generally in a big mess with no clarity even on who is their first Hierarch.


 * The Canadian and US respective churches, historically connected to the UAOC, but not organizationally connected to it right now in any way, are in a somewhat better shape as their are accepted by Constantinople ander its auspice. Even these churches raise questions and eyebrows together with the lack of full clarity about the general state of affairs with the Orthodoxy in North America. OCA, for one, which can make the best claim of being the "local church" in N.A. (pomestnaya tserkov', perhaps "national church" is a better translation of this important term) is in somewhat confusing relationship with Constantinople too about its status (although not the standing of the OC itself). There are various churches in N.A. under different European patriarchates which is not very helpful either as the canon calls for the local churches within each entity rather than Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians and Romanians in the US attending each their own churches under the non-American patriarch.


 * As for ROCOR, it does have an apostolic succession as it was initiated by the Bishops of the ROC who were fully ordained and all further ordainments took place in the proper order. It is accepted by some, but not all, of the mainstream churches. Most importantly, in May of this year the official "Act of Canonical Communion" is scheduled which will restore the full communion between the ROCOR and the MP. It is still going to be confusing as within these two churches (and between them) the difference of opinions exist on whether this would make ROCOR a part of ROC (ROCOR tends to disagree) and the question will inevitebly be raised by the OCA the North American local church and some were already mentioned in the letter from OCA to ROCOR in connection with the planned in May event. --Irpen 20:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info. However according to wiki about the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in 1924 when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory VII issued a tomos re-establishing the Kievan Rus-Ukrainian Metropolitan diocese as an Autocephalous Church. The responsibility of establishing a new Synod of Bishops was given to the Metropolitan-Archbishop of Warsaw, Dionisij (Waledynskyj) (the Polish Orthodox Church was basically made up mostly of ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusyns).  The UOAC Church abroad descends from those bishops and priests who fled Ukraine after World War II and who then merged witht he Ukrainian Orthodox Churches already there.  This story is told in the wiki entry on Patriarch Mstyslav (Stepan Skrypnyk), and the line of apostolic succession is here.  It seems to have indeed been canonical prior to World War II although its modern presence on Ukrainian soil is unapproved...Faustian 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We should try to use better sources than the wiki itself. But anyway, here is what I know (or I think I know). The canonical status and recognition are two different (while related) things while the universal recognition usually signifies the full canonical status. Ecumenical Patriarch may choose to recognize someone or something but this by itself does not solve the whole host of problems. First of all, if Constantinope indeed "granted" Autocephaly to UAOC in 1924, this would have been very strange. Autocephaly may only be "granted" by the mother church and even this is not a instant solution of all the problems. Example: Constantinople tends to not recognize any Autocephaly or Autonomy of any church unless it is granted by Constantinople itself. The OCA status is an example of this strange state of affairs. Its status of the canonical body in the N.A. is not disputed but some patriarchates including the Constantinople do not recognize its self-governing status. See this for more. Does it mean that they consider it part of ROC? The clear answer to this question is very difficult to find.

So, we would really have to find out what was there in that Tomos and whether the statement mentioned there was an official statement by Constantinople or the opinion of one of its Bishops. It is easy to confuse the two. For example there is frequently cited in press confusion that Constantinople "does not recognize" UOC under the MP or other similar unclear nonsense. They are all based on a whimsical interview given at one point of time by one Bishop under the Constantinople, the Archbishop Vsevolod (Maydansky) who is actually with the UOC of the USA (a spin-off from UAOC accepted by Constantinople). As for the official position of the EP, there is nothing more clear than the statement of the Patriarch Bartholomew I where he says that Filaret is not consider a church hierarch by anyone in the Orthodoxy. Also note that even Vsevolod, as well as any other supreme bishops, accept the clerics of the KP into the Orthodox church only through a "repentance" procedure. Bear in mind that schism in Eastern Orthodoxy is considered a crime.

Now, the reality is of course affected by politics. As decades or sometimes centuries pass the facts on the ground affect the actions of the hierarchs of the established churches as well as the status of the "relatively new" churches. This has not happened here yet and is nowhere in sight either for KP or for UAOC whose position is better in some respects and worse in some others. An established historic tradition (UAOC is almost 100 years old), the de-facto legacy in some territories and partial recognition of its spin-offs helps UAOC somewhat. The mess it is currently in hurts it about as much. Firm state support and nationalist rhetoric helps KP in some respect but the total lack of recognition hurts it, perhaps, more or at least as much.

The keys from this mess is of course in Moscow right now. The day MP decides to grant a full autocephaly to UOC from its current autonomous status would effectively end any meaningful position of Filaret, his KP and UAOC. From the canonical standpoint Ukraine already has a "local church" (pomestnaya tserkov') which is nothing else but the Volodymyr's UOC and no one can seriously dispute that. Its lack of full autocephaly, its involvement in politics being comparable to that of KP's involvement as well as many other political struggles allow to politicize the religious debate and boost the claims of other churches. However, Moscow is understandably not eager to do such step as after this there would be no return and the centuries old churches have to think from the perspective of longer than a decade or two. It may seem to them that the current set of events with Ukraine's becoming more and more independent from Russia is not assured to be an eternal change. Some hundreds years ago this already has happened and yet reversed. Position of myself, Faustian, QE2, KK and even Jimbo Wales in respect to this is irrelevant. Certainly the last parliamentary election has likely raised some hopes in Moscow, not necessarily about the "re-unification" but about the overall trends. So, Moscow would be in no rush to grant autocephaly and this disarray will continue, at least for some time, unless it is solved by an unexpected and miraculous change. But, hey, this is religion! So miracles may happen, you know. Isn't miracle a synonym of the "act of God"? --Irpen 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. It would be interesting to find out whether the Ukrainian bishops in the US and Canada were RE-ordained or not when their churches were received by Constantinople (in the 1990s). The latter would imply that their hierarchical status was accepted as it was and the former would clearly mean that even Constantinople saw their churches outside of the Communion prior to receiving them.


 * To remind you, this event caused the significant rift within the Ukrainian church in the US. Some parishes decided to move under Filaret's KP. Later, some of them chose to revert and when they turned again to UOC/USA the  Archbishop Vsevolod (Maydansky) of UOC/USA only received those clerics back through a canonical procedure of repentance and re-ordainment. See this interview. --Irpen 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The way to proceed
I removed the POV tag as the discussion seems to have subsided. If we are to readd the survey numbers, we should give the whole variety and the explanation on why they do not reflect more of the confusion rather that the relative church' strength, similar to what was discussed above. --Irpen 05:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is time to continue with this discussion. Especially, in reviewing the talk pages, it seems that the only people objecting to inclusion of independent survey data are Irpen and Kuban_Kazak.  It seems that all other editors have expressed a wish to include this information.  As this information is published in independent media and appears on the Ukrainian Wiki, there is no reason not to include it here.  Anyone is free to draft an explanation such as the one Irpen proposed above.  That is, if he (or anyone) feels that the data is unreliable or innacurate, they are welcome to include a disclaimer.


 * Regarding ordering of churches, could you summarize why you feel that the UOC-MP must come first? Qe2 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why bring back old ghosts? To answer your second question, answer why change you feel that UOC should not come first. I do advise you to read WP:POINT. --18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuban kazak (talk • contribs)

Eulogy
Although the Liturgy in Russian orthodox churches was in the Russian version of Church Slavonic, the Sermon or Homily was in Russian (not in Church Slavonic).

In the Byzantine Catholic churches, up until 1963 the liturgy was in Church Slavonic (with Ukrainian pronounciation) and the Sermon was in Ukrainian. Bandurist (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So Church Slavonic has different versions? ... Tell me another one. Also a refrence for the eulogy being in Russian would be helpful. --Kuban Cossack 12:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Orthodox church and Ukrainian Catholic church maintain their own specific ritual forms in celebrating the Divine Liturgy. These are particularly evident when compared to the liturgical norms of the Russian Orthodox church. The priest in a Ukrainian church traditionally reads the Gospel facing the congregation, while in the Russian church he is turned away from them; moreover, the Ukrainian priest keeps the Royal Gates of the iconostasis open considerably longer than does the Russian. After the subjugation of the Ukrainian Orthodox to the Russian Orthodox church in the 18th century, numerous Russian elements were introduced into the liturgy in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church that emerged after 1917 reformed the liturgy (including abbreviations) and revived many old Ukrainian traditions. These traditions are now observed by Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions in the West, but the Orthodox church under the Moscow patriarch retains the Russian elements.

In the 17th century, sermons were delivered in bookish Belarusian-Ukrainian combined with vernacular elements. Both the Orthodox and Uniate churches placed much emphasis on the clarity of sermons. Sermons were usually preached after the reading of the Gospel in Uniate churches, while Orthodox priests as a rule delivered their sermons at the end of the Divine Liturgy.

When in the late 17th century the Ukrainian Orthodox church came under the control of Moscow, the hitherto common homiletical practices of the Orthodox and Uniate churches began to diverge.

As a result of systematic Russification, homiletics in the Ukrainian language progressively declined in the 19th century.

In the Ukrainian Catholic church, the 18th century saw the continuation of developments of the previous century, and the Ukrainian bookish, and later the vernacular, language replaced Church Slavonic in homiletics. The Russian authorities persecuted, and by 1830 abolished, the Ukrainian Catholic church in the territory under their control. That church continued its legal existence only in Austrian-ruled Western Ukraine.

At the turn of the 19th century the clergy in Western Ukraine began using the vernacular in their sermons and publications. Sermons were published in the vernacular by Mykhailo Luchkai (2 vols, 1831), T. Vytvytsky (2 vols, 1847), and Antin Dobriansky (1850) and in supplements to such newspapers as Zoria halytska (1853–4).

The Ukrainian Orthodox church was restored under the Ukrainian National Republic in 1917 and survived in Soviet Ukraine until the early 1930s. During this time homiletics was fostered by the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church (UAOC). From the 1930s sermons in Soviet Ukraine were delivered mostly in Russian (except in the Western Ukrainian regions annexed in 1944).

Homiletics has developed normally outside the Soviet bloc within all the Ukrainian churches.

Bandurist (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting one thing, that after 1917 and the establishment of the Ukrainian Exarchate all eulogy in rural Ukrainian speaking areas was read in Ukrainian, even today the UOC(MP) reads its eulogy in Ukrainian (except those where the faithfull are Russophone). However to actually read liturgy in Ukrainian, is something that was seen only in ex-Uniate parishes in western Ukraine. Elsewhere it was Church slavonic. This is much more unique. --Kuban Cossack 12:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)