Talk:Josaphat Kuntsevych

Rename to Kuncewicz
Considering as how we have an article on Kuncewicz family, is there any reason this member has his surname in the 'Kuncevyc' variant?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, "Kuncevyc" must be write as minimum "Kuncevych"!!!!! This is ukrainized form of all-Slavic name, known in Poland as "Kuncewicz". But, dear Mr. Piotruś, Kuncevych wasn't a Pole, and please don't suggest here to write his name in Polish language. The same situation is with "Sheptycky (Sheptyc'kyi)" and "Szeptycki". Let's to finish Polish Wiki in Poland. Amen. Rostislaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.111.191.105 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * [Vladimir] Wiki is for all and everywhere, Rostislaw. And it shall be not a free commercial channel for any kind of nationalism. In fact, Josaphat was a citizen of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a loyal and meritorious servant of the Commonwealth. So being really neutral, one can't say he wasn't a Pole. "Pole" does not mean automatically "catholic". The same way he wasn't "Ukrainian" nor "Belarusian" in the contemporary meaning of these adjectives. "Kuncewicz" surname is equally legal as other slavic spellings. In complex history of eastern nations many Commonwealth nobles declaring polish identity and acting as polish patriots had old ruthen origins ('Sapieha' for instance). Perhaps it would be best to ask father Josaphat himself, what language he was thinking, speaking and writting in. As in his case and multiple other cases, that would cease spelling conflicts for ever. Pity, we can't do that! So we must share wikipedia in peace and humility. What is actually interesting, his original surname was shorter (ang. "Kuntchyz") and he started to use longer "Kuncevych" or "Kuncewicz" form as you wish, being 30-40 years old. This longer form, ending with suffix "-icz" or "ych" (as you wish) should have appointed his noble origins. Is that right he was a noble? Did he receive his title from the King? Perhaps he was just not entitled to use such form of the surname. So as you see, we wade in the lack of basic facts that would justify addressing father Josaphat as purely "Kuncevych" or "Kuncewicz" only. Amen. Your neighbour, Vladimir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.184.225 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. In case of "Szeptyc'kyi" you are partly wrong Rostislaw, he was an ukrainian patriot of polish noble origins. There is also a similar case nowadays - the president of Lithuania, Ms. Dalia Grybauskaite, great lithuanian patriot is of polish family surname "Grzybowska". One never knows... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.184.225 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Vatican library record found at viaf.org says "Congregatio de causis sanctorum, Index ac Status Causarum, 1999,‏ ‎‡b p. 562 (Forma preferita: Iosaphat Kuncewicz)‏", i.e., the preferred last name is "Kuncewicz". I believe the article should be moved to the viaf.org permalink name "Iosaphat Kuncewicz" He was made a saint so that would be an authoritative name. The foreign language Wikipedias transliterate his name, for example the Slovak is "Jozafát Kuncevič", the Lithuanian is "Juozapatas Kuncevičius", and the French is "Josaphat Koncévitch". It should  be "Kuntsevych". —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how authoritative VIAF is, presumably no more than the source it cites, which you tell me is the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. I don't think that in English the first name should be written with initial I, rather than initial J, even if VIAF prefers it.  Latin, as now (again) written, does not use J, and that is why the Congregation prefers "Iosaphat" and why that is the form in the Martyrologium Romanum, the official list of recognized saints, published in Latin.  Surely "Kuntsevych" (employing "ts" for the sound represented by "c" in Eastern European languages that use the Latin alphabet) is an attempt to do for English what the Slovak, Lithuanian, and French Wikipedias did for their languages.  While I personally prefer the use of "c" to transliterate Cyrillic, I have to fall in with the fact that "ts" is the accepted form in English, as in "Donetsk", not "Doneck".  The same sound is represented in German by "z" and so the German Wikipedia has "Kunzewitsch", with "tsch" to represent the sound represented by "cz" in Polish, by "č" in other Central or Eastern European languages, by "tch" in French ... and in English by "ch".  Esoglou (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about the "J" vs, "I". The "ts" is not what is used in 21st century historical works – for example: Or in the 1979 God's Playground by Norman Davies (p. 174). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We must, I suppose, look exclusively to English-language sources, and ignore those in other languages, to learn what is English usage when referring to this individual. 21st-century books in English that call him Kuntsevych seem to be far more numerous than those that use the Polish orthography Kuncewicz.  A search for 21st-century books for "Kuncewicz" overwhelmingly brings up not him but others with that surname, or else books about him in Polish, not in English.  For him, "Kuntsevych" seems to be firmly in possession in 21st-century English.  Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * English usage for historical figures and places changes over time (for example, I remember as a child in the 1970s learning that Beijing was called Peking – yet I would not call it Peking today) and, I believe, "Kuntsevych" will eventually be "Kuncewicz" – it is just a hold over from Imperial Russian scholarship's Russification. The Commonwealth had more than one official language and there was no need to transliterate what was already officially done. The article states that, "He was born Ioann Kuntsevych", but that certainly is not Polish, nor Ruthenian, nor Volhynian, nor Polesian... —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The future may well prove your forecast right. The statement about his birth name is not about a document, I think.  If it were, someone could search for the document.  Esoglou (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the statement about his birth name is not about a document, its my opinion.

Himka wrote that he "used a modified form of the Library of Congress system" to transliterate from Ruthenian/Ukrainian (p. 20). He also noted that "orthographies of the variants of the Ruthenian literary language employed in the late nineteenth century often differed substantially from that of modern standard Ukrainian" (p. 21). So there seems to be 19th century and 21st century forms of transliteration. Himko transliterated the name as "Iosafat Kuntsevych" (p. 52). My opinion has changed about a transliteration and think that moving to a different name would lead to future flip-flop moves. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The confusion comes from the fact that he was born c. 1580 into a Ruthenian family (Kuncewicz) at Volodymyr (a Magdeburg rights town since 1431) in Volhynian Voivodeship (1569–1795), which was, since the 1569 Union of Lublin (which established the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), within the Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown after being transferred from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. According to a quote in the Ruthenian language article, the "literary version of Ruthenian, written in Cyrillic and also known as Chancery Slavonic" was the official language within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1699. But, I see, that Volodymyr was within the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland during his entire life. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

His relics?
To say "his relics" is inaccurate. St. Josaphat's body lies under the altar of St. Basil in St. Peter's Basilica. I have changed this to read "a relic" meaning a portion of his body.Caeruleancentaur 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think this "guy" is a saint?
Josaphat Kuncevych killed Orthodox christians and burned their bodies or let them be eaten by dogs. A saint indeed!? Kuncevych in Belarus and Stepinac in Croatia! What a nice pair of "saints" we have here! And you even dare proclaiming them martyrs. Let us see what the Chancellor of Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, the representative of the Polish King,and a catholic, wrote to Josaphat Kuntsevich on 12 March, 1622, which is one and a half years before Josaphat's death:

"...By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism."

That is really an abomination. May God have mercy upon such a "Church" and such christians!

Hieromonk Ksenofont, Serbian Orthodox Church —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.238.44.231 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC) and modified several time on the same date.


 * The Hieromonk's observations have more than a bit of merit. While the Catholic Church indeed honors Josephat as a Saint, his life is highly controversial - a fact of which I see no mention in this bio. He has long been an object of hatred by Orthodox Christians who accuse him of all manner of coercive, repressive, and distasteful acts in his zeal for Catholicism over Orthodoxy. That the article makes no reference whatsoever to these considerations - instead painting a picture of a universally-admirable hierarch - leaves its NPOV seriously open to debate. Irish Melkite (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, br.Ksenofont, you provide no facts of St. Josaphat doing the things you ascribe to him. The quote from Sapiega (even if correct), refers to general "you", which can be used for plural ("you all" etc). So, it can refer to some other extremists, and is no proof of St.Josaphat's "violence". In addition, your statement that people who used force at some point of their lives cannot become saints is contentious. E.g. St. Peter the Apostle had cut off an ear of Malchus, the servant of archpriest. Nevertheless, the Orthodox church does not deny his being a saint.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.8.34 (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear father Ksenofont, аlthough Kuncevych was accused of these crimes, the charges were based on hearsay and not on real facts. Kuncevich did not kill the Orthodox christians, he did not let their bodies be eaten by the dogs, and he did not write that he "freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches". In fact, in his response to the Chancellor Sapeha, Kuncevich writes that he never forced anyone to unite with Rome. Violence was not his method. His method was preaching, and for the strength of his word he earned the nickname "soul-catcher" from his opponents. Kuncevich convinced thousands of Orthodox christians to join the Union with Rome. Had he been such a murderer as you claim he was, his preaching would not have been so effective. Nobody in his right mind would have recognized a murderer and a destroyer of churches as their spiritual leader.


 * The source of the rumors about Kuncevych's atrocities were the Orthodox opponents of the Union with Rome. Of course, he had more than enough of those. The most prominent one was Meletiy Smotrickiy, an Orthodox priest who wanted to take over Kuncevich's place as the religious leader in the city of Polotsk. Naturally, Smotricky would have been happy if Kuncevich had left the city. Later, he repented spreading disgusting rumors about Kuncevych and thus indirectly causing his murder. Unfortunately, it was too late. As a sign of his repentence, Smotricky joined the union with Rome and ended his days in a catholic monastery in Ukraine.


 * With best regards, 129.70.54.207 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Mykhaylo


 * Due to the high level of the polemical literature in that age, whichever statement in that writings shall be verified by high quality historians. A ntv (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * True. Unfortunately, the job of the "high quality historians" in this case would be pretty difficult. If Kuncevych killed Orthodox people, then what are the names of those people? His contemporaries, like Chancellor Lew Sapieha quoted by father Ksenofont, do not give the names of the victims. Besides, Lew Sapiega was a powerful man. As Hetman of the Great Dutchy of Lituania, he was a commander of a big army. Kuncevych, on the other hand, did not have a big army, not even a small one. Murder was a big crime back then as it is now. Then why did Sapieha only accuse Kuncevych of killing some abstract people instead of arreasting him for killing concrete people? Given Sapieha's high position, he could do it easily. The only reasonable answer to this simple question seems to be that Kuncevich never killed anybody. There were rumors, there were anonymous pamphlets, but there was no crime. If you can offer an alternative answer, I would be very interested in hearing it. Karpovy (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

An article on orthodoxinfo.com informs that a French translation of Lew Sapieha's 12 March 1622 letter to Kuncevych (in French) is included in Guépin includes Kuncevych's 22 April 1622 response letter to Sapieha (in French). Reading the first volume's table of contents shows a complex chronology involving a large geographic area involving the Counter-Reformation in Poland as well as separation of the Ruthenian Orthodox after the Union of Brest. There were Cossack insurgents (who were nominal subjects of the Commonwealth) operating in support of an Orthodox hierarchy (not just in the Commonwealth's Połock Voivodeship) countered by civil authority support of the Greek-Catholic ministry. Kuntsevych was killed during a truce period of the Polish–Swedish War (1621–25) after a few years after the Polish–Ottoman War (1620–21) – it would be interesting to read about how, in the region where Kuntsevych prosteletized, the populace was policed and what role or jurisdiction Kuntsevych may have had.
 * Contains two volumes bound in one.

Nevertheless, I read Sapieha's 12 March 1622 letter to Kuncevych (in French) and it did contain the quote contributed by 195.238.44.231 in. The quote: [//www.google.com/search?q= "You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches"] is found only on several sites including orthodoxinfo.com. An English translation of Sapieha's 12 March 1622 letter to Kuncevych is found in: Which, of course, does not include that quote either. The letter is about jurisdiction. Sapieha wrote that, "obedience to the laws of the country is more necessary than the union with Rome. [...] it is also necessary to labour with reflection and not to apply the cogi intrare, which is contrary to our laws." The phrase cogi intrare roughly translates as "compel to enter into". Sapieha only wrote that: "[you] assume that you are permitted to despoil schismatics and to cut off their heads"; "you offer violence to consciences, and you shut churches"; and, "you [...] write to us that it is necessary to banish the opponents of the union". "Now, I [Sapieha] inform you [Kuntsevych] that by the king's command, the churches must be opened and restored to the Greeks, that they may perform divine service." There is not enough information in this letter to assume that "to cut off their heads" is anything more than a 17th century idiom, in an unspecified language, for removing their leadership. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Modified 23:26, 26 November 2014 and 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to those who disagree, what we as individuals think is irrelevant. He has been canonized as a saint by one church, and it is our obligation to record that. What we as individuals think about whether they qualify or not is irrelevant. I say this as a Roman Catholic who pretty much personally created and developed several articles about saints of traditions other than the Roman Catholic, and as someone who in my first update to the saints portal, lo those many years ago now, put Nestorius in as the selected biography. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The Josaphat article could be so much better by developing the bigger picture about how he tried to reduce the prejudices that existed in his diocese against the Latin Church among the Orthodox. He chastised bigamous priests, wrote his catechism in Ruthenian vernacular, worked to reduce ignorance of the clergy through education, developed regulations for the administration of parishes, in other words he worked to reform and improve the clergy and the church. He was opposed by Protestants who conspired against him, as did Cyril Lucaris. Unfortunately there is so little about him in English. His ministry was quite extensive. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversy
There are several observable facts here. First is that Josephat is held in high regard by the Greek Rite Catholics and venerated as a saint. Secondly the article draws more or less exclusively on sources affiliated with the Catholic Church which, not surprisingly, paint him in a very positive light. And third Orthodox Christians have a very different view of him and his life. To my mind one obvious corrective would be to edit the article and add a section noting the controversy and the allegations against him. Point in fact I had intended to do so, and may yet. Unfortunately, while I have found a number of references to Josephat that are critical in nature, most repeating the accusations above, none seem to reference any verifiable incidents or cite reputable sources. Perhaps there are some in languages other than English. However, pending such a find, I think the best that can be done is to post some kind of cautionary note that the article relies heavily on biased sources.Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Still controversial
As far as I am able to discern nothing significant has changed to resolve the question of neutrality. The article is still based disproportionately on Roman Catholic sources and nothing has been produced resolving either way the allegations against him by the Eastern Orthodox. IMO removal of the POV tag is not justified at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed the tag is because it had been a full year since anyone has commented on the topic. I suggest that if no one else has anything to contribute to the topic of neutrality, then it seems to me the dispute has been at the very least dropped. It seems to me that if reliable Orthodox sources can not be produced to contribute to the alleged controversy pertaining to the Roman Catholic saint, then the neutrality allegation doesn't have a leg to stand on. I want to be clear though that I am not suggesting that the allegations are untrue. However, it appears a request for sourced documentation regarding him have not been fulfilled. If you or someone else could add such reliable sources, that would settle the bias claim from the Orthodox side. Without the source information, it's difficult to continue to claim neutrality-bias exists. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is not limited to claims by the Eastern Orthodox. The article relies almost exclusively on sources closely tied to the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed much of the text was lifted directly from the first edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I concur however that the absence of any serious sources backing the allegations against Kuntsevych undermines that claim. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Checking back on this topic 4 months later and it appears that nothing has really changed regarding claims to providing any evidence of lack of neutrality. Does anyone have anything further to contribute regarding neutrality issues regarding this article? If not, I will proceed to remove the neutrality tag. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the POV tag based on the lack of any evidence supporting the above claims and replaced it with an affiliated sources tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent POV editing
Given the recent POV editing I have posted the following note on the talk page of several related Wiki-Projects. I am reposting it below for the record....

"IP 188.129.90.247 has been aggressively editing the article on Josaphat Kuntsevych, a canonized Catholic saint. After making several obviously POV attempts to edit the article w/o sources he has added one. Unfortunately the source is a polemically anti-Catholic website which I doubt passes WP:RS. Further a good chunk of the most recent edit looks like a copy and paste. That said, some of the claims may be legitimate and there are original sources quoted. Kuntsevych is a VERY controversial figure among Eastern Orthodox Christians. See the talk page. Currently I am unable to revert any of his edits due to 3RR. A look from other editors would be appreciated." -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reverted most of 188.129.90.247's edits. See revision comments for specific reasons. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have long believed that this article is unbalanced due to its over reliance on Roman Catholic sources. But any counterbalance needs to be properly sourced and worded in an encyclopedic manner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Others besides Ad Orientem, please see my reply to his note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. I would specifically ask for feedback on my proposed change to the lead paragraph, which I intend to place in the article in the next couple of days or so, unless I hear to the contrary. Evensteven (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just offering an uninvolved comment, I regret to say that the works relating to this topic listed on WorldCat tend to very rarely be available in English. I also found only one match on JSTOR, in an article only tangentially related to the topic. It might, maybe, if it hasn't already been done, be useful to check the wikipedias in other languages to see what their articles say, and which sources they base their content on, particularly if those sources are not in the English language. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks John; it's always a suitable idea. Fortunately though, more and more sources are becoming available in English all the time. Just can't say when one on this topic will show up. I have made the edit, based on the attention it is getting now, and the evident need to neutralize the language. Evensteven (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The content added by an anonymous contributor at 188.129.90.247 on 2014-11-09, and, is not reliable. It cites orthodoxinfo.com. I believe that it provided an Orthodox version of Kuntsevych but conflates history. Other articles on orthodoxinfo.com do the same, for example by Nicholas Maas. Maas took extremely great liberties interpreting the sources he cited. For example, Maas wrote:"Worshippers were forced out of their Churches, many leaving only on the end of a bloody sword. When the Orthodox, in one instance, set up tents in which to worship, Josaphat encouraged his brigands to disrupt their services, set fire to the tents, and attack the clergy and believers. And with the help of the Latin civil authorities, Josaphat saw to it that Orthodox priests were exiled and that no new Orthodox Bishops were Consecrated. His pogrom violently put down any resistance to the Brest "Union" and left the Orthodox ostensibly powerless to protest the loss of their Faith to Papal domination."

But the source that Maas cited, Nicolas Zernov, actually wrote, in Eastern Christendom, that:"In spite of this division, the pro-Romans proclaimed their recognition of the Pope, and the King at once declared them the only lawful representatives of the Russian Church in his dominions. Those who refused to surrender were outlawed, bishops and priests were expelled, churches closed, persecution began. Deprived of their bishops the opponents of union were harassed on all sides, and a number of them began to despair, a despondency aggravated by the events of the Time of Troubles, during which the Poles occupied even Moscow. The turning point, however, occurred in 1620 when Theophanes, the Patriarch of Jerusalem (1608-45), on his way to Moscow, secretly ordained seven Orthodox bishops in the Ukraine. The Polish government ordered their immediate arrest, but unexpectedly a new force came to the rescue the Cossacks. These pirates of the steppes, outlaws from Poland and Russia, were mostly Orthodox, but originally they showed little respect for any religion. They recognized no authority and their camps in the no-man's land of the lower reaches of the Dnieper and the Don were a menace to Tatars, Turks and Poles alike. Yet when the Orthodox fell victim to organized persecution, the Cossacks protected them and forced the Poles to make important concessions. Under this unexpected patronage the Orthodox reopened their schools and restored their Church life."

I did not see the subject of this Wikipedia article even mentioned in Zernov, but I also think Zernov provides good neutral background for this article that should be added.

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Modified 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The fundamental editing question is not about whether or not a POV is present, but about how it is presented, and whether or not the presentation is neutral. The base question about the source is also not about whether or not the source has a POV, even a polemical one, but about whether it accurately portrays the POV it purports to portray. And it is not appropriate to paint an entire website that contains some polemical articles as being entirely polemical, for a great many are not. The polemicism needs to be judged article by article, where the sources are. The website acts only as an intermediary mechanism of presentation, and is not constructed for the purpose of being oppositional.


 * Clearly the subject of this article is a controversial figure, whose life contains controversial events. Both politics and religion enter the subject area. But you say that you believe the Orthodox article conflates history. I am afraid that that is entirely beside the point. Your belief is not the question. An Orthodox viewpoint is the question, and as you also say, is accurately reflected by the Orthodox source. As has been stated before, Orthodox sources are sometimes not readily available in English, and we needs must use what we have. I am Orthodox, and do not personally subscribe to the source's polemical tone, but the tone does not make the source unreliable. The historical "interpretations" you speak of are of the essence of the POVs present in the contested events described in the article. It is not for us WP editors to supply opinions about sources based on what we think of their POV, or at least, not for us to determine reliability based on what we think of that POV. You and I both appear uncomfortable with the tone of this source, but that is not a reason for us to eliminate the source. It has been observed that an Orthodox view has long been lacking in the article and that it therefore lacks balance, and with that observation I agree. This is a reliable source. Our job is to state the POV for the article in a neutral voice - to defuse the tone in an encyclopedic manner. It would be my preference to find other Orthodox sources for this article to add to this one (not replace it), in order that the article can become better balanced. Evensteven (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My complaint is not about an Orthodox viewpoint, or Orthodox sources, or even a polemic tone, such as the prejudice of a group blood accusation against Eastern Catholics. My complaint is specifically about the atrocity propaganda presented as an argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy, in the specific case of Kuntsevych, which is presented without verifiable attribution.


 * A website has editorial control of its content. The article, The Vatican and Russia, is a work of apologetics, written in 1990, after the revolutions of 1989 but before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that equivocates 16th century events and persecution with 20th century events and persecution. It equivocates the 1595 Union of Brest with the 1946 synod of Lviv. Ivanov-Treenadzaty's proposition is that "Soviet authorities must be censured for victimizing the Uniates" but "Russian Orthodox people must" not "have a guilt complex over this, something which is [...] being instilled [...] by [...] public opinion. When similar pressure comes out of migr[ant?] newspapers [...] it is [...] a sad occurrence, [...] which we are [...] accustomed to." His conclusion is "it should be clear that if the Uniates are now suffering, it is because of their guilt of four centuries ago, connected with the false council of 1595 and the 'initiative group' of 1946." Ivanov-Treenadzaty wrote, in 1990, that it is Communists and not Orthodox who "persecute the Uniates" and should "not prevent us from rejoicing that a majority of the faithful, who were once pulled away from the fold, have now returned. Today [...] repentance is [...] demanded of Orthodox in conjunction with the liquidation of Uniatism in Soviet Russia." He argues that the context of the Union of Brest and its implementation "must be firmly brought to mind" with three details:
 * that "[s]ix hierarch-apostates, headed by Mikhail Ragoza, started a purely clerical movement, totally separated from the people, without any regard for tradition ⟨and therefore illegal⟩."
 * This needs a reliable and verifiable source to explain why it is considered illegal and what illegal means in this context.
 * that "the flagrant lawlessness and persecution which confessors from among the people, organized into the famous brotherhoods, were subjected to."
 * This needs a reliable and verifiable source what "the flagrant lawlessness and persecution" was and how Kuntsevych was involved. Were these brotherhoods legal in the Commonwealth? What were "confessors from among the people"?
 * "that the 'Greek Faith' ⟨Orthodoxy⟩, existing on the territory of the Polish Lithuanian State was not recognized as lawful, and judging by the facts, was outside the law. This gave the pany (Polish lords) the right to unlawfully dispose of Orthodox property, to give their churches and cathedrals to the Uniates or even to lease them to the Jews!"
 * The government considered the Uniate hierarchy as the lawful hierarchy and had church buildings legally devolved to it. Ivanov-Treenadzaty wrote that there was "the right to unlawfully dispose of Orthodox property", Ivanov-Treenadzaty's assessment is incorrect, the legal process was lawful. This needs a reliable and verifiable source to explain what the laws were and how Kuntsevych used the courts to enforce the devolution of property.
 * The author, Ivanov-Treenadzaty included a translation of Sapieha's 12 March 1622 letter; that same translation is quoted . Ivanov-Treenadzaty notes that "[t]he text of this letter can be found in several publications in Russian, with several variations due to translation." And he notes that Guépin included this letter in his book. The article is a WP:TERTIARY source for the translation of the letter, and Ivanov-Treenadzaty does not name the origin of the translation used. I believe it is reasonable to doubt the accuracy and precision of this translation since it not reflected in a separate published English translation. I have a hunch that it is his English translation of one those anonymous Russian translations, which he admits are found in multiple variations. In other words, it looks to me like a translation of a translation of a translation. This letter, Ivanov-Treenadzaty wrote, was "[t]he most convincing condemnation of Kuntsevich's character." Other assertions, such as "Kuntsevich ordered the disposal of dead Orthodox by having their corpses exhumed and thrown to dogs" or that "he pillaged and terrorized the Orthodox, closing and burning churches", are clearly from some other unnamed source. The article is, in my opinion, not a good source about Kuntsevych – again only about the details presented about Kuntsevych – and I believe it is WP:QUESTIONABLE ("rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions").


 * —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Those are all very reasonable points as to accuracy, fairly stated. If the Orthodox source is inaccurate, surely that is the correct basis for challenging it. And personally, I would like to see an Orthodox source that is both accurate and not polemical. I am not challenging what you or other sources say about the historical facts, as I have neither additional sources nor prior knowledge derived from any. I will say again that the whole setting was in a time and place of violent conflict over religion (Orthodoxy and Catholicism) such as has occurred quite a number of times over the centuries. What is "legal" though, depends on politics, and on who wins a conflict, and rarely are such conflicts resolved; rather, they are beaten down, as in war. Thus, the side that is overcome may lose political clout, but may not remain subdued. That's the kind of thing we must look for in sources here, and what good sources will look for themselves. I'm not fully assured that any sources that dwell on legalities here are likely to be particularly impartial, whatever side they're on. But biased sources can be used, if only the bias is neutralized in the article. I wish I knew more in order to discern what the state of things is here, but my cautions about impartiality are surely to the point, and the recognizing and proper handling of bias are at the heart of my comments. Thanks for listening. Evensteven (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Pogroms" in the lede
Alright, I'm the person who slapped the "citation needed" tag on the "pogroms" claim in the lede.

The citation now provided to substantiate that claim is from www.orthodoxinfo.com, a highly polemical Orthodox site.

Is that website objective enough to meet wikipedia's standards for objective citations? The page it links to alone demonstrates its vigorously polemical spirit. Is this enough of a reputable secondary source?

Just sayin'. It would be nice if this article could somehow find some middle ground between the Roman Catholic perspective and ideologically driven character assassination.

71.92.209.141 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments about the editing, article language, and the website at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. The site is not dedicated to polemics, though it contains some. I have reworded some of the lead paragraph to remove language offensive to both sides of what can still be a volatile issue and make it more neutral. Evensteven (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian or Ruthenian
I won't object if someone undoes my Ukrainian-to-Ruthenian change. The more I think of it, the more obscure I find the question. I'll let others examine whether in the early 1600s they'd be called Ruthenians, as in the 1800s, or Ukrainians, or something else. Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting thought, what they might call themselves at the time. But name shifts also do not take place all at once, and where there is contested change, it may not be uniform. Bartholomew's still the Patriarch of Constantinople, not Istanbul, after all. The native tribes of North America are not called Indians any more, but native Americans. Yet I have no European ancestry closer than five generations back, and no tribal ancestors from America. If I'm not "native American", what am I? I'm not native anywhere else. So, every label has the potential to be problematic, and some (like this one) to be controversial. It's not simply a question of political names for a geographic region, but of race and culture, not of only one period in time, but of family history and of his own lifetime's associations. I'm for sticking with Ruthenian for now, but if a question arises, there is no reason we can't accept mention of more than one appropriate label in the article. If there are prominent alternatives, the sources will also likely make mention of them, and they can be the guide. Evensteven (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A little more info on names, which are complicated because of changes in political boundaries. According to Natalia Shlikhta who wrote about "The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church" in Eastern Christianity and politics in the twenty-first century, the original name of the Church was "Uniate (uniatska)" but is not used in the 21st century Greek Catholics (I wonder if Shlikhta meant Ukrainian or all?) context except by those who are "openly ". Modern Ukrainian historians use "uniina" which has no English form. After the 1772 First Partition of Poland, the name changed in 1774. Shlikhta discusses what took place in the Austrian Partition but does not mention if this was the case in the Russian Partition. The Church was not separated within the Commonwealth – that happened in 1772, which was about one-and-a-half centuries after Kuntsevych was murdered.


 * —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org as a source
This is a controversial article that should have historically correct language to describe groups. On globalsecurity.org, I read: "both civil and religious authorities persecuted the Orthodox Church and supported the Uniates in their takeover of Orthodox property. The leaders of the Rzeczpospolita launched a resolute campaign against the moral values of the Belarusian people at the beginning of the 17th century. Its major attack on Belarusian culture began with the adoption of the law by the General Confederation of the Rzeczpospolita nobility in 1696 on banning the Belarusian language from its official use in all the matters related to the state, administrative and judicial bodies, substituting it by the Polish language."

The Belarusians article states "Until the 1870s Belarusians were mostly known as Litvins" and "In 13th–18th centuries Belarusians were mostly known under the names of Litvins/Lithuanians and Ruthenians" and "some modern Belarusian scholars and people in Belarus consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to be a Belarusian state when it existed". Globalsecurity.org uses a modern cultural overlay to describe what took place in the 17th century. Both Articles for deletion/GlobalSecurity.org was deleted and Articles for deletion/John E. Pike was delete "per lack of notability". The globalsecurity.org article cited in this article is not a good source for a contentious subject.

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I am reading your point correctly. Are you suggesting that a sources does not meet WP:RS unless it has a Wikipedia article? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying neither the editor nor the site is notable and the article does not cite sources and uses a modern cultural overlay to describe what took place in the 17th century. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I could easily agree that a source which speaks of historical events in terms more appropriate to the existing situation would be among the less optimal sources for use in an article here. John Carter (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of Saints
This edit is misleading. As far as I am aware the ODS contains only saints recognized by the Roman Church. The Book of Common Prayer contains only saints recognized by Rome with the exception of Charles I who is not to be found in the ODS. If there are non-Catholic saints found in the ODS please identify them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's also not an Orthodox source, and therefore is subject to a weighted perspective in favor of the west and western churches, very much a POV issue in this topic. It's certainly a reliable source, but I think it reasonable to subject it to qualification as a source with a view, at least when the view is so obvious as here. It's no wonder that there are still polemical sources extant in the world, when there is no reconciliation of viewpoints on either side. ODS may be milder in tone on the surface, but no less polemical in effect than what some have objected to from the Orthodox world. Let's please keep in mind that being neutral is not just a matter of not ranting. Evensteven (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have no objections at all to citing it as a reliable source per se. I do object to trying to pretend or insinuate that it is not a Roman Catholic source. The implication in the edit I reverted was that it has some standing as an ecumenical source. It does not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then cite it as a reliable source. Don't pretend either that it is a Roman Catholic source or that it is not a Roman Catholic source.  The implication in the edit you reverted to was that it was a prejudiced source for what it states about a particular saint.


 * Evensteven is right in saying that the ODS selection of saints is weighted to the west. It is, and more particularly to those of the British Isles – not surprising for a publication called the Oxford Book of Saints.  It states so itself.  Wikipedia should either say nothing about its selection of saints, OR it should report what the ODS itself says about its selection, OR it should report what some reliable source says about its selection.  What Wikipedia should not do is to mention only that the ODS includes the saints in the General Roman Calendar (an extremely small minority among the saints recognized by the Roman Catholic Church – for that you should go to the Roman Martyrology) and to cover up the fact that the ODS explicitly speaks of non-Roman Catholic sources too.  (It also explicitly says that it leaves Eastern saints to someone who knows more about them.)  To do that is misleading.  And as this would strike the reader as meant to suggest that a statement in the ODS about some individual saint must therefore be biased, it is doubly misleading and appears to violate NPOV by casting unsourced aspersions on the ODS editor and on the author of that particular ODS entry.
 * The ODS explicitly says that it includes British and Irish saints who are not in the General Roman Calendar. Some of them, I think – but is it worthwhile checking? – are not even in the Roman Martyrology.
 * We cannot selectively and misleadingly mention only the General Roman Calendar. What then should we do?  Report accurately what the ODS itself says or what some other reliable source says of it?  Omit all mention of the limits that the ODS set itself?  The latter seems to be the simpler solution.  Esoglou (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is another consideration here also. To quote the article sentence in question: "Kuntsevych could be thought of as a patron "of ecumenical endeavour today.". This statement uses ODS as the source, and I'm willing to grant that it does say basically that. But you must admit that this statement is a evaluative conclusion drawn by the source about Kuntsevych himself, not about a historical fact or something independently verifiable. In other words, it is the opinion of the source. And therefore it is subject to bias of viewpoint by drawing upon the perfectly obvious relation it has to western influence and insight. It is not too much to say that the viewpoint of the east and of the Orthodox differs highly, for religious reasons, and as a result of the historical disputes, and you have all seen polemical descriptions of just what that viewpoint is like. A non-polemical Orthodox statement will not, however, differ in disagreeing wholeheartedly with the ODS conclusion, and that too is a matter of viewpoint. As I said, the depth of view and of feeling about the view is still raw on both sides, and there is more to being neutral about it than simply refraining from ranting. There needs to be a recognition that while ODS is a generally reliable source, that it does express a western view in its conclusion, and that is not the only view. The western view is apparently not restrictively Catholic, but that is beside the point. It is a view, and ought to be neutrally stated, and neither edit to date does this. I'm open to suggestions about how that might be done, and done without pointing fingers all over the place. That would be the last thing needed in an encyclopedia. Evensteven (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As you say, and as WP:YESPOV says, the view of the ODS should be stated. Statements about the ODS itself must be cited to a reliable source, such as itself.  Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was not trying to say that something like "ODS has a western point of view" was necessary in the article text, for that is an additional statement requiring sourcing, as you say. Maybe I've been going around a point that hasn't needed to be made. The current text in the Veneration section is ok by me, and I was under the impression that it was still contested. If not, then I think we're done. Evensteven (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the basis of that comment, I make bold to remove the selective "additional statement requiring sourcing" that is now in the article. Esoglou (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a problem. Kuntsevych is identified in the article as a Catholic saint, and if ODS speaks of him, it's obvious that it includes at least the one Catholic saint in question. There are a great many saints also that are both Catholic and Orthodox, although Kuntsevych is clearly not among the number, so I see little point in using this labeling to grind on about differences between the churches. ODS and church leaders and anybody else can talk all they wish about ecumenical relations and reconciliations and theology and history, but it will all come to nothing unless rank and file Catholic and Orthodox also make a choice to stop beating drums to harangue each other. This is one historical point at which there has been war, and there is still war, and the only way to end it is to make peace instead. I'm glad of WP's insistence on neutrality, and of general encyclopedic neutrality, because it creates an opportunity for cessation of the war; in fact, it absolutely requires it. May it be blessed! And conveniently, while it remains encyclopedic, I expect it will be. Evensteven (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Holy people of the world : a cross-cultural encyclopedia
The publisher describes this multi-volume encyclopedia as: "Written by religious studies experts and historians, each article focuses on the basic question: How did this person come to be regarded as holy?" The article about Kuntsevych, in Holy people of the world, contains two political geography mistakes:
 * It mistakenly states that Volodymyr was in "Volyn, Lithuania" instead of in Volhynian Voivodeship, Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
 * It mistakenly states that Vitebsk was in "Russia" instead of in Vitebsk Voivodeship, Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Maybe someone may see it as more secular. But, realistically, I think, just about everything written about him in English will have a similar perspective.

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

2012 proposed translation of relics story
Is the 2012 story of a proposed translation of Kuntsevych's relics, from Vatican City to an unspecified location in Belarus, disinformation? It seems that Russian Orthodox Church Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev in an interview published by Zvyazda, a state-owned daily newspaper in Minsk, Belarus, is the only source for this.
 * Quoted in

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

date of veneration
Is there a reference to support the statement about the Ukrainians celebrating him on the first Sunday after Nov 12 rather than on Nov 12? And I suppose this produces the misleading date Nov 25 in the side box. The Ruthenian Catholic Church has him on Nov 12. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josaphat Kuntsevych. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210163817/http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj61.htm to http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj61.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josaphat Kuntsevych. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705140239/http://www.stjosaphateparchy.org/ to http://www.stjosaphateparchy.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"disuniate"
the word "disuniates" might be an English approximation of the Polish word "dysunici" but I wonder if it is a real English word. Is it commonly used in the literature? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC) I don't think it is a real word. Should be changed.--142.163.195.253 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"sources for development of this article may be located at"
what a strange list. Why is it here?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source
The source cited for the claim that St. Josaphat "incited the burning of Orthodox faithful for celebrating a thanksgiving liturgy" is a polemical Eastern Orthodox work. I am unsure whether it can be considered a reliable source. Horarum (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)