text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATI Radeon 9250

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus --cesarb 18:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ATI Radeon 9250
Jeesh. A whole page dedicated to an out-of-date graphics card made by ATI, complete with Benchmark scores. Its not even a well known or notable model. Is this a review magazine or an encyclopedia? If this user wishes to contribute, can I kindly suggest he enhance the exisiting Radeon page, as thats the present location for detail on ATI cards. Timharwoodx 20:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[anonymous:06-11-05 5:40 est]I suppose according to the published Wikipedia Deletion policy, specifically the "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" portion, that this is indeed a good candidate for action.

Here are the bones I particularly have with the article.

First, the ATI Radeon, model 9250 is not... I don't know, a unique product. It is a rather vague marketing designation used for Radeon based graphics cards using a certain IC that happen to fit a very broad profile. Now in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's my opinion, that it's a poor entry to have as on it's own, rather it should be an addendum to the entry on the IC that the model 9250 is a subset of.

Second, I have some issues with the benchmarks cited. It's rather dangerous, in my humble opinion, to casually cite benchmarks with the addresses of websites, and I also believe that it is in poor style to just randomly quote benchmarks, rather I think that there should be a site wide policy on graphics card benchmarks.[/anonymous]

 * Delete Not notable enough and, given the rate of progress of graphics cards, irrelevant in a year. DJ Clayworth 02:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pages like this.  An encyclopedia is a catalog of facts, among other things.  -- Un focused 04:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Card has some notability. JamesBurns 05:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't think of a good reason to keep this. WP is not a general knowledgebase. --Xcali 05:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete If this one is kept, then there's going to be an article for every Radeon model. I think a good compromise is to do it the way GeForce articles are done: one article per generation which encompasses several different models, but all essentially of the same generation. In this case one article would include Radeon 8500, 8500LE, 9000 Pro, 9000, 9200, and 9250 since all of them are essentially the same chip design. --Berkut 13:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge If you don't like those benchmarks, you can remove those, but keep the page. IMHO it would be useful to have a separate article for every procuct, not a bad thing -- as long as it is well organized. We are not running out of paper. --Thv 10:13, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Yeah, but if this stays, then what happens next? We get separate pages for EVERY electronics product ever made? Complete with all known technical details, and all recorded benchmarks? Then what? We dispute which are valid benchmarks to include? Surely it should be as it is now, one page per NOTABLE series of products manufactured. Its a pandoras box to vast amounts of mindless content no-one will ever read. Timharwoodx 12:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't see what the problem is with an article on all the electronics products ever produced.  We're not running out of paper.  Your belief that someone won't read them seems to be based on the fact that you think that you, personally, would have no use for the information.  Not good evidence.  Moreover your invocation of the word "notable" is not right; there is no notability clause in the deletion criteria except for biographical articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'I can't see what the problem is with an article on all the electronics products ever produced.' Have you any idea how much rubbish that would introduce into the Wiki? What, multiple pages dedicated to benchmarks, on every graphics card, sound card, widget, and CPU ever released? Well, while we're at it, why not put every press release ATI ever released into the WIKI as well? I've put several pages up for deletion before that were just ATI and NVIDIA press releases, and they always got delted. WIKI is not a PR vehicle for large multinational compaies. Maybe you think it is. Besides which, the article is complete nonsense, just form a technical point of view. And since a lot of the IT content is my writing, i.e. AMD, NVIDIA, ATI, etc, I know my stuff. Actually the 9250 is a re-spin of the old 8500 core, and if you wanted to write up the 9250, you would list it as a sub category on the 8500 page.

 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

My grounds for deletion is as above, and the WIKI guidelines preclude the holding of info on every electronics product ever made. That would be an indiscriminate list of information. Timharwoodx 21:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A little WP:RPA has been applied in refactoring the above comments, the sense of which I've attempted to retain.

You're right that press releases should be deleted from Wikipedia--they would be source documents and, subject to copyright and licensing, may be candidates for Wikipedia. You're also right that there are questions about the technical specifications of this family of cards--it owed more to marketing than technology. But those are content questions that can be dealt with by appropriate categorization and editorial content in the article.

While it is true that Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", articles on electronic devices need be no such thing, any more than articles on Shakespeare plays, Beethoven symphonies, Cities in Pennsylvania, musicians with platinum disks, or episodes of The Simpsons.

YOu ask "can I kindly suggest [that the creator of this article] enhance the exisiting Radeon page, as thats the present location for detail on ATI cards" Well it was up to you to do that when you encountered this article--just merge and redirect. Instead of which you put it up for deletion, thus raising the question of whether this information is completely worthless. May I suggest that perhaps it is not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I am one of the resident IT experts, I try to follow the guideline of do not bite the newcomers. I've just added "The 9250 was launched in summer 2004, supporting the older PCI bus interface, and 256mb of memory," to the Radeon page. Thats the only worthwhile content I can find on the 9250 page. I hardly think the fact the 9250 has the CATALYST drivers is news. MERGED. Now delete this nonsense. There is a specialist IT WIKI in operation. The main WIKI is not the place to list every electronics product ever made, with full benchmarks and complete data sheets. Timharwoodx 22:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikinerds.org - Please take your content to wikinerds. Thats the forum for technical data sheets and benchmarks on every electronics product ever made. Timharwoodx 22:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. not wikinerds. The question here is whether the article in question should be deleted from here, not whether it should exist somewhere else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it clearly should be deleted from WIKI. I was just trying to point out plenty of other WIKIs now exist, and if you wanted detailed benchmarks and spec sheets on EVERY ELECTRONICS PRODUCT EVER MANUFACTURED, WIKINERDS is the forum for you. They welcome it. The thing is, its people like me who wrote a lot of the IT content in the WIKI, and now some guys come in late in the day, and start adding poor quality material. Well, I'm not having it. I've not written this much content, to see the IT section of WIKI reduced to nonsense, recycled press releases, and page after page of uninformative data sheets. I mean, not to be boring, but the 9250 is just a re-spin of the 8500 core. If someone wanted to write up the 9250 they'd have started an 8500 page, and stuck the 9250 at the bottom of it. Its not even a logical presentation. The page is technically illiterate, misconceived, poorly presented, and irrelevant. Timharwoodx 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Cheezels

Cheezels are a brand of Australian snack food currently produced by Snack Brands Australia. Made from corn and rice, they are a crisp puffy ring with a strong, savoury cheddar cheese flavour and aroma. They are similar in texture to cheese puffs, American Cheetos, or Canadian Cheezies.

In some countries they are distributed by Laura Matte (which since 2016 has been owned by Universal Robina Corporation, and previously by The Real McCoy Snackfood Company ). In Malaysia, Cheezels were originally produced by Danone and later by Kraft Foods, and are currently owned by Mondelēz International, together with Twisties. In New Zealand, Cheezels are manufactured by Bluebird Foods Ltd a PepsiCo company.

History
According to any modern packet of Cheezels, the snack entered the market in 1971. Company folklore has it that the creative team were stuck for a name when the boss chipped in with "Just call 'em Cheezels".

As of 2017 Cheezels are gluten free.

Flavours
Usually, Cheezels are made from corn and rice, and many kinds of powdered cheeses. Other flavours of the snack have been produced by Snack Brands Australia, such as:
 * Original Cheese
 * Pizza
 * Smokin' BBQ
 * Cheese & Bacon - also previously known as Rashers Cheese & Bacon
 * Hoops & Crosses Burger Flavoured - cheeseburger-flavoured Cheezels shaped like the Xs and Os in the game tic-tac-toe
 * Minis - miniature versions of Cheezels
 * Chilli Cheese

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cheezels


text:
Elmag RTV

Radio Television Elmag is a broadcasting company based in Podgorica, Montenegro. RTV Elmag consists of TV Elmag and Radio Elmag.

Radio Elmag was the first private FM radio station in Montenegro and is receivable throughout the country. Its transmission frequency in Podgorica is 96.00 FM.

The owner is Orhan Hodzic. President of Oki Air group. Radio Elmag won many rewards and is considered as the best in Montenegro.

title: Elmag RTV


text:
User talk:Elapsed

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 20:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

POV
Mais uma vez a tua lata atinge niveis inqualificaveis. Como ousar dizer que os outros são parciais quando tu é que o és?

A Universidade de Coimbra a mais prestigiada em Portugal? o ISCTE e A UBI também são bast prestigiadas? Tás a brincar ou a falar sério? Aquele artigo de educação merece um grande POV. Preconceito contra o politécnico e ensino privado. O Não-ensino universitário o que é meu amigo? Em que lei aparece isso? Nas estatisticas web ou no JN? Formar técnicos? Os politécnicos tem o objectivo de formar especialistas profissionais e não técnicos (talvez fosse assim há uns tempos, mas não o é hj em dia). Porque raio fui eu estudar, é que antes de entrar já era técnico. Tu tás é a brincar com isto. Só não pus lá uma tag de POV porque reconheço o trabalho que tiveste. Já agora, a tua universidade é tão requisitada, que no meu curso no ano em que entrei, a UC ficou a meio da tabela, e o meu em 2º ex-quo com o IST. A UC é mm requisitadissima entre os estudantes, que hoje é vista como uma univ. de indole regional. Em que áreas a UC é prestigiada? Em engenharias não é. Em arquitectura não é. Em direito já não é. Gostava de saber... O que estou a dizer é que a UC não seja prestigiada, é bastante, mas não é a mais. -Pedro 13:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Onde está escrito que a Univ. Coimbra é a mais prestigiada? Se está, a Mais prestigiada diz-me onde que eu próprio retiro. Ao dizeres que essa universidade é regional só revelas o teu total desconhecimento da realidade e a tua mais profunda parcialidade, o que é bem patente no teu estilo de escrita propagandístico. Quanto ao facciosismo que apregoas, ele não existe. Tudo o que afirmo sabes que é realidade, apesar de não ser politicamente correcto afirmá-lo. Contudo, as estatísticas de médias, numerus clausus, empregabilidade, qualidade do corpo docente, investigação e pesquisa, publicações, avaliações feitas ao ensino superior (que depois não são publicitadas nem geram qq medida) etc. estão ai para prová-lo. A opinião geral das pessoas também reconhece a clara distinção que existe entre os vários subsistemas, a menos que tenham que enveredar por um que não seja o seu favorito. Não podes chamar preconceito à percepção que uma sociedade tem das coisas, porque ela é fruto da observação quotidiana da realidade. Tentares passar a ideia de que o ensino politécnico é exactamente igual ao universitário, e que só difere no nome, é muito errado. E esqueceres o passado recente desse subsistema de ensino, que somente ultimamente tem sofrido diversas alterações com vista a diminuir algumas das suas diferenças formais, também não é imparcial. Se quiseres discutir médias de acesso, avaliações à qualidade de ensino e de investigação das instituições, e inclusivamente exemplos de casos concretos de estudantes de diferentes subsistemas de ensino ainda que da mesma área de estudo, poderemos fazê-lo de modo a que possamos tirar as devidas elações.

P.S. - Quem começou a destruir trabalho (artigos) feito previamente não fui eu. E digo-te, isso é o que mais me irrita porque é impossível alguém olhar para um artigo e não concordar com a totalidade desse artigo, mesmo que tenha pontos de vista completamente diferentes. Inclusivamente tenho-me abstido de reverter ou reformular imensas coisas que tens escrito em vários artigos, porque a minha política não é destruir, mas também não concordo que se crie uma imagem distorcida das coisas. Elapsed 16:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

NUTS 2
How can the traditional Catalan domain be a NUTS 2 Statistical Region of Europe? Did you mean to affix this category to Autonomous Community of Catalonia? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, you are right. I've already fixed the problem. Thanks. Elapsed 11:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Iberomoldes Copyright
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Iberomoldes, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! -- Creidieki 01:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Portuguese companies
Pá, tu importas-te de não apagar empresas da lista só porque nunca ouviste falar delas? Apagares algumas subsidiárias ainda vá (a não ser que sejam a Vista Alegre - eu vou fundir esse artigo com outro), agora apagares o Grupo SGA inteiro é que eu não percebo. Tens algum diferendo com o Pereira Coutinho ou quê? --Pc13 12:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Paz. :) (Volta a pôr o Grupo SGA e já agora incia (pelo menos) o artigo referente ao dito grupo). Elapsed 12:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:LocalCoimbra.png
Thanks for uploading Image:LocalCoimbra.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion ★ talk 19:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the Image:LocalCoimbra.png on Coimbra's article in Portuguese Wikipedia. Link: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coimbra

 * Now they have another image (Imagem:LocalCoimbra.svg - in Portuguese Wikipedia), but it is very similar. If you remove the old one (Image:LocalCoimbra.png), place the new Imagem:LocalCoimbra.svg in substitution for Coimbra's article current image in English. Thank you. Elapsed 13:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! The one on the Portuguese site is from the commons, and is freely licensed, so I replaced ours with that one like you said, the old one (which was smaller and greyscale) will get deleted, but we have the better one now! :D - cohesion ★ talk 19:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Coimbra from Sta Clara.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coimbra from Sta Clara.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:University of Coimbra Symbol.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:University of Coimbra Symbol.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:BotanicoCoimbra1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BotanicoCoimbra1.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:BotanicoCoimbra2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BotanicoCoimbra2.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:BotanicoCoimbra3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BotanicoCoimbra3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:BotanicoCoimbra4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BotanicoCoimbra4.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 04:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:BotanicoCoimbra5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BotanicoCoimbra5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Freguesias_Coimbra.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Freguesias_Coimbra.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:HUC Coimbra.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HUC Coimbra.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:CBR.png, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 16:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

hi
Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CFUCoimbra.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CFUCoimbra.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Critical Software
A tag has been placed on Critical Software requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Toddst1 (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Algarve_NUTS_2.gif
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Algarve_NUTS_2.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Norte NUTS 2.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Norte NUTS 2.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation

A tag has been placed on Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência

A tag has been placed on Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Logoplaste

A tag has been placed on Logoplaste, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. shoy (reactions) 15:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Biotecnol for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Biotecnol is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Biotecnol until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Desertarun (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elapsed


text:
The Power of Shazam!

The Power of Shazam! is a 1994 hardcover graphic novel, written and painted by Jerry Ordway for DC Comics. The 96-page story, depicting the revamped origins of former Fawcett Comics superhero Captain Marvel, was followed by an ongoing series, also titled The Power of Shazam!, which ran from 1995 to 1999.

The graphic novel
After a previous retcon by Roy Thomas and Tom Mandrake in 1987 with the Shazam!: The New Beginning miniseries, Captain Marvel was again given a revised origin in the 1994 graphic novel The Power of Shazam!. Captain Marvel's origin would also be retold in Jeff Smith's Shazam!: The Monster Society of Evil limited series in 2007, though this origin takes place outside of DC continuity.

As The Power of Shazam! graphic novel opens, ten-year-old Billy Batson's parents, both archeologists, are working in Egypt, excavating the tomb of Ramses II with their associate Theo Adam. Murdering the elder Batsons, Adam also kidnaps their young daughter Mary and steals a scarab necklace once attached to one of the sarcophagi in the tomb. Billy had been left behind at home in Fawcett City because of poor school grades. As in the Fawcett Comics origin story from Whiz Comics #2 (1940), Billy is abandoned by his cruel uncle Ebenezer, and becomes a paperboy to earn a living. One night, Billy meets a dark-clothed stranger outside of a subway tunnel, and follows the stranger onto a magic subway car. The subway car leads Billy to the realm of the Wizard Shazam, who assigns the boy as his successor. By speaking Shazam's name, Billy is struck by a bolt of magic lightning and transformed into Captain Marvel, an adult superhero.

As Captain Marvel, Billy thwarts a plan by Theo Adam and his employer, the rich tycoon Doctor Sivana, to destroy the WHIZ radio building and silence a witness to Adam's murders. Adam's encounters with Marvel, who is the "spitting image of C.C. Batson", along with the clues from the expedition, lead him to realize he is the reincarnation of Teth-Adam, the original heir to the power of Shazam. Upon crossing the Wizard, Teth-Adam was killed and his powers drawn into a scarab, the very same scarab that Adam stole from the tomb after killing the Batsons. Taking the scarab from Sivana's trophy room, Adam says the Wizard's name and is struck by magic lightning, becoming Black Adam.

Adam and Captain Marvel battle each other on the grounds of the Sivana-funded Fawcett World Fair, with Marvel winning the battle by snatching Adam's scarab from him. Marvel takes Adam to the Wizard, who takes Adam's voice and wipes his memory. Billy later learns that the stranger who led Billy to the Wizard was the spirit of his father, and that his sister Mary is still alive. Billy promises, as Captain Marvel, to fight injustice and evil, and also to find his missing sister. Meanwhile, Sivana has lost all of his money and possessions due to the destruction of his properties by Marvel and Adam, and swears revenge on the Captain.

The series
Ordway's graphic novel was a success, winning the Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Award for Favorite Original Graphic Album of 1994, and led to the publication of an ongoing Power of Shazam! series, set four years after the graphic novel. The series, which began publication in March 1995, reintroduced many of the characters from Fawcett Comics into current DC continuity, including Mary Bromfield/Mary Marvel, Freddy Freeman/Captain Marvel, Jr., Beautia Sivana, Mister Tawky Tawny, Bulletman, Minute-Man, the Spy Smasher, Ibis and Taia, and even Hoppy the Marvel Bunny. Villains reincarnated in the series included Ibac, Mister Mind, Mister Atom, Aunt Minerva, and Blaze and Satanus from the Superman titles, who were retconned as the wizard Shazam's illegitimate children with a demoness (name unknown).

Mary Marvel was introduced as an adult instead of in her traditional teenage form, and insisted upon sharing the name of "Captain Marvel" with her brother. Captain Marvel, Jr., resenting being called "Junior" all of the time and needing a name he could say without calling down the magic lightning (his magic word being "Captain Marvel"), renamed himself "CM3". Jerry Ordway wrote all of the stories for the series and the one Annual, and provided painted covers in the style of the graphic novel as well. Peter Krause, Mike Manley, Dick Giordano, and Ordway himself served as the series' main artists.

While the series received good reviews and featured guest artwork from comic book icons such as Curt Swan and Gil Kane, sales for the Golden Age-inspired series slowed as it went on, as darker, more intense comic book stories had become more popular by the 1990s than the Marvel Family's more light-hearted adventures. The book was cancelled with issue #47 in March 1999 (issue #1,000,000 was published in November 1998 as part of the DC One Million event, giving the main series a total of 48 issues published). One Annual was also published in 1996, bringing the total number of issues to 49.

Blackest Night
In January 2010, The Power of Shazam! had a single issue revival (#48, continuing from the (vol. 2) numbering) tying into DC's Blackest Night event. It involved Black Adam's dead protégé Osiris being reanimated as a Black Lantern, and battling his killer, the Apokoliptian crocodile man Sobek. Billy and Mary Batson, powerless after the events of Justice Society of America (vol. 3) #25, appear briefly in the issue.

Reprint collections
The Power of Shazam! #33 (Dec. 1997) was among the selected stories reprinted in the 2008 trade paperback ''Shazam! The Greatest Stories Ever Told'' (ISBN 1401216749), highlighting some of the best Captain Marvel tales published.

Issues #35-36 were collected in the Starman: To Reach the Stars trade paperback and in Starman Omnibus Volume 4.

Issues #38-41 were collected in DC Comics Presents: Shazam! #1 (Sept. 2011) and #44-47 were collected in DC Comics Presents: Shazam! #2 (Oct. 2011).

Issues #1-2 and 33 were among the stories reprinted in Shazam!: A Celebration of 75 Years hardcover collection (2015). (ISBN 978-1401255381)

In August 2020, the ongoing series was properly collected for the first time in the hardcover ''The Power of Shazam! Book One: In The Beginning, which collects the Power of Shazam! graphic novel, issues #1-12 of the ongoing series, plus a story from Superman & Batman Magazine'' #4; plus bonus material (ISBN 978-1401299415).

A second volume, ''The Power of Shazam! Book Two: The Worm Turns, was published in trade paperback in May 2023, collecting issues #13-23 of the ongoing series, as well as the Annual, "Playing with Fire" from Showcase '96, Superboy Plus #1, Supergirl Plus #1, and Superman: The Man of Tomorrow'' #4 (ISBN 978-1779521743). A hardcover edition, due for release in December 2021, was never published.

Reception
The book was critically praised.

Awards

 * The Power of Shazam! graphic novel won the Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Award for Favorite Original Graphic Album of 1994.
 * Issue #1,000,000 of The Power of Shazam! was a part of the DC One Million storyline, which was a top votegetter for the Comics Buyer's Guide Fan Award for Favorite Story for 1999.

title: The Power of Shazam!


text:
Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)

The Ukrianian Orthodox Church is not under the Moscow Patriache and separated from Moscow in 2022.

https://news.church.ua/2022/05/27/postanova-soboru-ukrajinskoji-pravoslavnoji-cerkvi-vid-27-travnya-2022-roku/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.2.235 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that it is not so clear cut... See Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  18:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

autonomy and name
Please see the note at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Thanks! -Irpen 20:22, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * The discussion below was copied from Talk:St_Volodymyr%27s_Cathedral

Dear people, I don't think that "an Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow" is a very good name and have changed it to "an Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow". If somebody doesn't like this change: always ready to discus it. Best regards. --N8Sl8er

Dear Irpen, I've looked on the website of the Church, thank you very much. As a matter of fact, I'm looking on this site right now. It's really an Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Moscow. Look for yourself on www.orthodox.org.ua. Best regards. --N8Sl8er

Thank you very much again. But it does not change the fact that the Church is NOT "autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow", but just "under Patriarch of Moscow". If it not so, you can than very easy find another example of such a name. If you don't, well... Best reagrds.--N8Sl8er

I think there is some confusion here. There are two issues: On (1) the answer is clear. The name is just UOC. Now, it is sometimes called UOC-MP and the reasons for that are well-known but the church never self-applies this wording to its name and always calls itself just the UOC. Yes, it openly admits that it operates under the Moscow Patriarch's see.
 * 1) the name of the church
 * 2) whether it has been formaly granted an autonomy by the mother church (ROC)

On (2), OTOH, the answer is that the church does have a formal autonomy since 1990. One can argue that it is just a figurehead autonomy and the church is just a front for the Russian KGB and other similary flattering issues. In reality, the issue is complex and I am sure that the church is less self-governing than the Japanese Orthodox Church that is also autonomous under the MP. However, there is a canonical autonomy and it is wort a mention. --Irpen 21:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, you are now confusing the name of the church with something else, like you own interpretation of something. This church doesn't have a name like "the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, autonomous under the Patriarch of Moscow". Try to translate this name back to the original language, it's just not right. Anyway, this is Wikipedia, it's NOT a private property, it's a public domain, everybody has a right to correct a factual error (improve an article). Let me just correct it. I like you, I like everybody here, but I just like the truth better. Regards, --N8Sl8er

 * Could you just be more clear on what your point is. Mine is that:

 * 1) The name of the church is UOC.
 * 2) It is also sometimes, but not always, called UOC-MP. The church rejects that it is its name, while admits that it ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Moscow
 * 3) The church has a formal autonomy, and autonomy in Eastern Orthodox Church organization is a specific term, which denotes a degree of selg-governing one step short of full autocephaly, which is a complete independence (please take a look at those links).

Please be more specific, what's your objections. --Irpen 02:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's just a common rule: don't make the information in "color". Stick to the facts. The fact is: the church listen to one name and you are trying to make up you own name for the same church. Maybe you like "yours" name better, but I don't. I like the facts. The church's name is Українська Православна Церква/ Ukrainian Orthodox Church, I think than I can live with this. But here it comes: In Ukraine exists another Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And another yet. We have to separate them somehow. I think Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchat (they are already named this way on Wiki, anyway), Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchat (they also like to call themself just "Ukrainian Orthodox Church") and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church will do the trick. Why are you not happy? It's already very difficult to understand, believe me.  Regards, --N8Sl8er 03:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

https://www.patriarchate.org/-/oikoumenikos-patriarches-einai-logikon-na-epithymomen-os-meter-ekklesia-ten-apokatastasin-tes-enotetos-tou-en-oukrania-dieremenou-ekklesiastikou-somat?_101_INSTANCE_N2gTPQxXwPlE_languageId=en_US There is a super authoritative statement about the status of the Church--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Metropolit vladimir.jpg
The image Image:Metropolit vladimir.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

UOC vs UOC (MP)
I wanted to remind that Wikipedia is a secondary source and reflects what sources and academic literature say about this particular church per WP:V. As such, what that church calls itself and what name it is registered uder is but secondary to credible academic sources. The article is correctly titled Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and so it should be reflected in the intro. It also explains that the Church prefers to be called Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I thought that was simple enough and not a cause for another revert war. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hillock, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and stop creating an empty ground for a flame and edit war. You know better than that. Also when reminding of wikipedia policies, try to spell correctly so that noone will be lost in translation and avoid contradicting like: Wikipedia is a secondary source  and is but secondary to credible academic sources.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not about what I like or dislike, it is about WP:V, and for you particularly WP:EW. Please have a very good look at the title of this article and read the academic sources I cited above. This church is known to the outside world as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as evidenced by multiple printed sources in English. The opinion of the church itself is amply reflected in the appropriate section. Unfortunately it appears you are looking at this as another battle ground and even erased well sourced statements. Your sterile edit warring will not succeed and will not be tolerated, I have a feeling you know how this one's going to end. So, please follow the WP guidelines and stop edit warring. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, the article clearly states this in its current form and via the title. For example the Pochayiv Lavra of the Assumption of the Theotokos is simply titled as Pochayiv lavra, yet the lead displays it in full, same way how the Cathedral of Intercession of the Virgin on the Moat is given in full on the article about Saint Basil's Cathedral. So why per WP:POINT must you ignore the official registar of Ukraine? As for battlegrounds, it seems by your edit contributions over the past month, that apart from interwiki additions your contribution to article space is all but absent, save the times you had to stalk on my edits and revert... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 22:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The version that you POVishly keep reverting to attempts to represent it as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church whereas in the English language academic literature this church is known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Even the source that you yourself labeled as justified source clearly states that the Moscow Patriarchate's autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, by far the largest ... became known as UOC-MP. So why are you waging this revert war if the source that you yourself provided labels it as the UOC-MP? I haven't found a single English language source that calls this church just UOC, it is always UOC-MP, for example here or here or here or here. There is an abundance of sources to justify its true name UOC-MP, while you presented none whatsoever! Please stop revert warring and check the sources! --Hillock65 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?
the last edit of Hillock65 seems to be a good compromise. I think it's better to if Hillock65 & Kuban kazak do not change it before the reach a compromise on this talk page. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to official wikipedia infobox rules in a infobox The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. Mabey we can put in there Ukrainian Orthodox Church and below there (with or without or) Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as in the Kyiv infobox where technically Kiev shouldn't be in, but if rules are ignored there why not in this article too? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The name in the lead is important as it attempts to represent this church as the only one Ukrainian Orthodox, whereas there are at least two churches contesting its name. Most importantly, that's what the multiple English language sources name this church. And per WP:V that's the way it should be called in Wikipedia. There is a compromise already present in the article - it states that the church prefers a different name and it is provided in bold. The whole section explains the controversy over the name. I understand some prefer this antisemitic and anti-ukrainian church to be the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine, but the credible sources cited above clearly and convincingly disagree. Compromise is only possible when it doesnt violate WP rules, WP:V in particular. I thought him spending so much time correcting Kyiv to Kiev he should know that it dosn't matter what one whants to be called, it is what the sources call it that matters. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) should be placed early in the lead? Since it seems to be a more actual description of the name problem between the 2 churches then what the current lead says (the lead is a bit vague about that now).... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is already early in the lead, it is the second sentence. How much earlier can it be? It is explained right after the first sentence and even in bold. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Church is registered under the name "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" in the State Committee of Ukraine in Religious Affairs. is not in the lead I got the idea that is Kubans main problem but well see what he says..... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Well I have reworked the article, and I can say that Hillock's call of this church as anti-semitic and anti-Ukrainian has just stripped him of his neutrality view. What can I say, the sources Hillock provided actually use terms like UOC-MP rather than UOC(MP), which is different, since in the latter case the (MP) arises as the clarification. It also does not change the fact that this church unlike other schismatic organisations is recognised by the whole Eastern Orthodox communion as the only legitimate church in Ukraine. Thus the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as it is officially registered, and as it is officially called is the only Orthodox Church in Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In one last attempt for a compromise, I changed only a couple of sentences in the lead to correspond with the title, mentioned about the church's insistence on being simply the UOC. I do hope this will stop the revert war. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Saint Basil's Cathedral first the official name, then the common name. Also please stop adding the dead link about the 7.2 million adherents. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, eh?
I thought the edit war was finally over, when Kuban Cossack is starting again with distorting the lead to reflect his POV and removing statements about academic literature on the subject. My patience with this nonsense is wearing thin. It's been talked over ad nauseum and forever. Something needs to be done. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see, the edit war, which you started for you is over when one accepts your version? Interesting compare how you "revamp" and how this edit is compared to the original. Now your patience is wearing thin, well I can only point you to this which I hope will one day cure you of your bad habits...--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you just rejected my recent compromise and started another round of edit war. Very unwise. You'll see. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its you who rejected the compromise, and please don't WP:THREATen me, you know its pointless.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the most recent independent survey of the Ukrainian population, one conducted in June and July of 2007 by the Ukrainian Sociological Service, Ukrainians identified their own church affiliation as follows:

 * UOC-KP 32.4%
 * Non-religious 23.0%
 * UOC-MP 20.9%
 * Greek Catholic 10.3%
 * Believer, but no affiliation 9.7%
 * "Other" 1.8%
 * UAOC 0.8%
 * Roman Catholic 0.6%
 * Protestants 0.2%
 * Jewish 0.1%
 * Muslim 0.0% (less than 0.1%)

That is, in this survey 32.4% of the Ukrainian population, or roughly 14 million people, identify themselves as members of the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarch (UOC-KP), while only 20.9%, or about 9 million, claim to be members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate, or UOC-MP).

The CIA World Factbook provides the following figures for religious affiliation in Ukraine:

 * "Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate 50.4%,
 * Ukrainian Orthodox - Moscow Patriarchate 26.1%,
 * Ukrainian Greek Catholic 8%,
 * Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox 7.2%,
 * Roman Catholic 2.2%,
 * Protestant 2.2%,
 * Jewish 0.6%,
 * other 3.2% (2006 est.)"

While there have been fluctuations over the years, I am personally not aware of a single, independent survey of the Ukrainian population subsequent to 1997 which would indicate that the UOC-MP is larger than the UOC-KP. For example, in analyzing an earlier set of surveys, historian Andrew Wilson writes, in "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation" (Yale University Press, 2002: pp 236-237):

"...According to the largest and most comprehensive poll undertaken in 1997, exists in Ukraine (its supporters can basically be grouped with those of the Moscow Patriarchate). An impressive regions of Galicia and Transcarpathia."
 * 65.7% of the sample considered themselves believers, and of these
 * 62.5% expressed an allegiance to 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
 * 43% named the UOC-KP, and only
 * 4% the Autocephalous Orthodox. Greek Catholics accounted for
 * 14.3%, concentrated overwhelmingly in the western

According to Dr. Wilson's footnotes, the above figures are from a 1997 Socis-Gallup poll. Dr. Wilson adds, on page 361:

"According to another Sosis-Gallup poll in February 1998, 41% claimed no religion, 20.4% backed the UOC-KP, 7.5% the UOC-MP, 1.8% the UAOC and 6.3% the Greek Catholics..."

The fact that, despite the availability of objective data such as the above, the Moscow Patriarchate continues to claim to represent almost 70% of the Ukrainian population, would suggest that the claims provided by Moscow are extremely doubtful.

Bandurist (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bandurist please provide references for all the polls you cited above. In most polls on religious affiliation in Ukraine, most people simply said they are Orthodox Christians and did not clearly identified themselves with either UOC-KP and UOC-MP. However, it is a common knowledge of any practicing Orthodox Christian in Ukraine what UOC-KP is simply not a factor outside of Western Ukraine and Kiev. At least 70 % of Ukrainian population lives outside of Kiev and Western Ukraine and it is hard to find a UOC-KP church there. Religious adherence polls based on CIA factbook or Razumkov Centre are misleading. The biggest problem is the religious split between two largest Ukrainian Orthodox Churches - Ukrainian Orthodox Curch-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP). Majority of Ukrainians are not able to identify themselves with a particular church organization (62.5 % according to 2006 Razumkov Center poll ["What religious group do you belong to?". Sociology poll by [[Razumkov Centre]) Majority of this 62.5 % of Ukrainians were baptized in UOC-MP churches and attend church services (even if only during Easter mess) in UOC-MP churches. This is simply because great majority of Ukrainian Orthodox churches and clergy belong to UOC-MP (approximately 68 % of all Orthodox Christian communities in the country. The trick that allows UOC-KP to make claim to be the largest church in Ukraine is that the majority of their adherents clearly indicate they belong to UOC-KP (which is generally more nationalist and politicized), while most people who were baptized by UOC-MP and attend UOC-MP church services simply state they are Orthodox Christians. UOC-MP also often portrays itself as the canonical Orthodox Christian church in Ukraine rather than the "Moscow church", downplaying its connections with Moscow Patriarchate (esp. in Central and Western Ukraine) and this also contributes to the confusion polls on church allegiance in Ukraine create. In addition, many of the UOC-MP churches and majority of people who identify with UOC-MP are in the more urbanized South and East Ukraine where church attendance is low compared to the rural Western Ukraine where UOC-KP is the strongest. If the pollsters would have used a different methodology that would explained the differences between the two churches and really press the Ukrainians to choose between the two more than 50 % of Ukrainians would identify with UOC-MP while only around 15 % with UOC-KP. The religious divide in Ukraine is not exactly the same as a linguistic, political, cultural and historical divide in Ukraine between Russian-speaking south-east(majority of Yanukovych voters in the second round of the recent presidential poll) and Ukrainian speaking north-west (mostly Tymoshenko voters), there is an Orthodox Christian majority in the North and Central Ukraine and a sizable Orthodox minority (including the UOC-MP laity) in the West, yet there is a relation to the overall split which divides Ukraine in two. Roughly 55 to 60 % of more or less religious Ukrainians identify with UOC-MP (or the canonical Orthodox Ukrainian church as many know it) while the rest are members of UOC-KP church, Greko-Catholic church, Roman Catholic church, various Protestant churches and so on. --Fisenko

I made a picture. ;) haha
We just had a walk with my friend through L'viv and it seems our picture was quite a success. :) Maybe you can use it somehow. ;) -- Nazar (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The caption under this picture is incorrect. As the official site (Ukrainian)http://upc.lviv.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149:2011-03-25-18-53-35&catid=14:2011-02-09-21-06-26&Itemid=18 says, UOC(MP) in Lviv have at least three working churches. Danko109.201.228.168 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Language?
As far as I know, this Church uses only Russian and Church Slavonic. Who put Ukrainian?

Can anyone who is expert on this subject solve the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.242.235 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 schism
As all Ukrainians know, the MP church has broken apart in 2011 when Mythropolit Sabodan was critically ill. Without this information, the article is outdated and biased which I now going to note with my tags. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"were transferred"
In the history section "Merger into the ROC", we see the sentence "six eparchies (dioceses) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine were transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church." The passive tense hides information. Who transferred them? And again "eparchies in Lviv, Peremyshl and Lutsk that were transferred to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church." Some more detail would be helpful. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1995-fil intr.JPG

Church Recognition
The article previously falsely claimed that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not recognized as a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church by three churches (the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Church of Greece). This is not true. According to decisions of the Holy and Great Council of Crete, there is no need of other churches to recognize the autonomous status of a local church. The sources that were previously provided just referred to the Churches' recognition of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and didn't mention the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) at all. The bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are still normally listed in the annual directories of global Orthodoxy published by both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece as members of the Russian Orthodox Church. On the other hand, the Patriarchate of Alexandria does not publish such a directory but has not made any official conciliar decision either on the status of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine or on that of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Rhodion (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  17:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) → Ukrainian Orthodox Church – The UOC-MP has announced its separation from the Moscow Patriarchate. Vypr (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose.
 * 1. This church structure remains in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The ROC still can arrange a new sobor and appoint other bishops in charge of the UOC-MP, just as they did in 1992 (see Харківський собор (1992)).
 * 2. Ukrainian Orthodox Church is an alternative name for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, used in official state documents and by the church itself. It can't be used as an article name for an unrecognized, newly proclaimed independent church. EricLewan (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * UPD. It seems like they didn't proclaim anything new at all. According to the statement from the UOC-MP, they speak about "independence" and "self-governance" (something they've declared for years, not autocephaly), and only "express disagreement with the position of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia". I think chaotic edits here must be stopped, as they didn't break any communion with the Russian Church. EricLewan (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Breaking communion isn't the only way a split can occur. As the head of External Church Relations has said, they have completely disassociated themselves with the Moscow Patriarchate and their statutes are now akin to that of an autocephalous church. Vypr (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Council adopted relevant amendments and additions to the Statutes on the administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, indicating the full self-sufficiency and independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church."
 * There are no citations on this page that include objective evidence that the UOC lied in their public statement. The Ukrianian Orthodox Church is Ukrainian, consists of Ukrianians, speaks Ukrianian, and has existed in Ukraine for a long time. The inclusion of Moscow Patriache on the title and throughout the page is Russifying a Ukrianian institution. The UOC parishioners and clergy are Ukrianian. Inclusion of Moscow Patieache creates a bias and improperly Russifies Ukrainians. Refusing to acknowledge a groups nationality and forcibly labeling them as foreigners is against hate speech platform rules and violations the UN Charter that ensures all individuals can choose their nationality. Including Moscow Patriache is forcibly labeling a Ukrainian church as Russian. ￼Insisting that a Ukrianian church is actually Russian is discriminatory and insultive to Ukrianians. 174.100.2.235 (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Soft support. The break with Moscow appears to be pretty decisive. The old descriptor simply no longer reflects the facts on the ground or the way the church self-identifies. But perhaps it’s prudent to wait a few more days until more RS support the name change. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The UOC has clearly cut ties with Moscow for obvious and widely reported reasons. natemup (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Temporary oppose. This has only just happened, and reliable sources haven't yet had time to properly digest it. We should wait until we have a significant number of reliable sources covering this – especially in-depth analysis, as opposed to just brief news articles – that we can judge what new name reliable sources have settled upon. I think it is better to leave it under its old name temporarily, than make a hasty rename only to have to rename it again if RS later ends up calling it something else. Mr248 (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The plain name is 1) shared by another church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate, and 2) is also a descriptive phrase, sounding like it refers to the native Orthodox Church of Ukraine or a number of other churches listed at Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation). It’s undetermined whether the announcement represents a real change of status, it certainly isn’t autocephaly or any formal ecclesiastical change yet, and it has not been accepted by the Moscow church. There’s no official name change and there hasn’t been time to determine any change in WP:COMMONNAME as the event is ongoing. —Michael Z. 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. I can see the point of the nomination, but Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) lists too many churches for this one to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Church status in 2022
According to Kliment (Vecherya), who is the сhairman of the Synodal Information and Education Department of the UOC-MP, the status of the church has not changed compared to the one that exists since 1990 and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church does not break off any relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. The same thing has been stated by Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the ROC, who said that the unity between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church remains :

"Yesterday the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church took place. He confirmed the status that this Church has had since 1990, when it received a Blessed Letter of Self-Government from His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia"

The definition of independence in Eastern Orthodox churches is autocephaly. There were no statements towards that on the Council, they indeed reaffirmed their previous status of a "self-governed" church. Therefore, there was no separation from the Russian Orthodox Church.

I think we must carefully review all of the chaotic edits that were made on this page to make sure that they correspond to the reality, not to something that was presented in press. --EricLewan (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Purely based on what I’m reading, the status of the UOC-MP is very unclear to me right now. Perhaps they also don’t know it themselves. It is also unclear to me if Crimea is still under the UOC-MP as I also read reports it would be moved directly under the ROC. Also, how many Ukrainians are still under the UOC-MP instead of the OCU? I read vastly different statistics. De wafelenbak (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

 * The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is independent of the Moscow Patriarchate, per the head of the State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Affairs and Freedom of Conscience.  Therefore, the MP designation is no longer appropriate or accurate.  I would suggest changing its designation to UOC-Onufriy or UOC (Onufriy), since this is a method already used to distinguish other Orthodox churches with similar names (like the different iterations of ROCOR).  I also challenge the notion that "The definition of independence in Eastern Orthodox churches is autocephaly."  There is a long history of Orthodox churches having varying levels of independence, with various terms used, sometimes with disagreement between churches on the exact definition of their independence, while remaining in communion with one another, and there are also churches that call themselves "autocephalous" without being in communion with or recognized by anyone else.  --Nepsis2 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

New Statute
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church's new statute has been published. It shows the Church is not canonically dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate. --Nepsis2 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Please don't make chaotic edits, because the version of the statute that you've sent shows exactly the opposite.
 * "1.1. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is self-ruled (самостійною) and independent (незалежною) in its management and organization in accordance with the Charter of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II of October 27, 1990."
 * The referred Charter declares:
 * "The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, united through our Russian Orthodox Church with the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, without a conciliar decision of the entire Orthodox Catholic Plenitude, shall not change anything with regard to the dogmas of faith and holy canons".
 * This is what canonical dependence is about. Moreover, there are no such terms as "self-ruled" or "independent" in Eastern Orthodoxy. A church can either be an exarchate, an autonomous, or autocephalous. Only an autocephalous church does not report to any higher-ranking bishop, and UOC-MP has never declared itself as one.
 * The statute also declares its support to "preserving the canonical unity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with all Local Orthodox Churches". All local Orthodox Churches recognize UOC-MP as a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, this is the canonical unity that exists between them. None of them has ever recognized it as an autocephalous church, as they never claimed to be one. Neither anyone has called them schismatics, they continue to be in communion with all of the churches that Russian Church is in, including the Russian Orthodox Church itself . And the UOC-MP, just as the ROC, continues the schism with the churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Greece and Cyprus.
 * I really hope that you do not try to prove a fraudulent point here, since Wikipedia isn't really a place for political opinions. I will request protection for this page. EricLewan (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Fraudulent is calling them part of the Moscow Patriarchate when they no longer see themselves that way. https://velychlviv.com/mytropolyt-filaret-kucherov-v-ukrayini-bilshe-nemaye-upts-moskovskogo-patriarhatu/  --Nepsis2 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How a group sees themselves is not materially relevant. Only how they are characterized by secondary sources, and reliable ones at that. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 00:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate or accurate to characterize them as part of the Russian Orthodox Church any longer. Nepsis2 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you've sent is an opinion of a single bishop, not an official statement of the church. They never stated that they are separating from the ROC. The confirmed that they follow the Charter of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II of October 27, 1990, which directly declares that they are a part of this church.
 * There are other bishops of UOC-MP that say the exact opposite thing of what you've said: https://lb.ua/society/2022/12/09/538499_andriy_pinchuk_upts_yak_bula_i.html
 * And this a more recent opinion, when time has passed and they saw that nothing is actually going to change. The Feofania sobor probably gave a lot of people a false impression, which most likely was the initial purpose of the sobor.
 * To state that now they're an "ex-branch" or have had a "separation" in 2022 would be complete false. They state that they're "an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church" since 1990, not 2022. Nothing has ever changed in these kinds of statements. EricLewan (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What a day to make a bold claim like that!
 * "The Council of Bishops considered changes and additions to the Statute on the Administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which would testify to the complete autonomy and independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church approved changes to the Statute on the management of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In particular, the clause that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church was removed from the Statute. In this way, not only the administrative independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which existed even before that, was established, but also the separation from the Moscow Patriarchate was confirmed." --Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv and All Ukraine, Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, December 14, 2022 Nepsis2 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be worth waiting for the dust to settle on this and the raids that also occurred today. Change/a shift could well be in the air. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The UOC separated from the MP six months ago. Where else is the dust going to go? Nepsis2 (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Words are cheap, especially so when coming from primary sources. We need secondary sources confirming a definitive split. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You could at least note that the church's status with respect to the Russian Orthodox Church is disputed, instead of simply proclaiming it part of the Russian church. Nepsis2 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A note that the church's official position with respect to Russia is somewhat unclear/ambiguous might be due, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Court of Pentarchy (the court of the five heads of the ancient Orthodox churches) — the highest instance of world Orthodoxy, is very rare: the last precedent was more than 450 years ago, when the Moscow Patriarch Nikon was deprived of patriarchy and sent to repentance by a simple monk; his followers are still known in Russia as old believers." Any source that claims Old Believers are Nikon's followers should be taken with a grain of salt. Nepsis2 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Headquarters
Infobox says "Headquarters: Kyiv Pechersk Lavra; Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ (under construction since 2007)", and provides a broken link as a reference to the second." Anyone familiar with this topic would know what the first is, but what is the second? There is a disambiguation article Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ listing several cathedrals by that name, but the only two in Ukraine, Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, Kyiv and Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, Ivano-Frankivsk, are Greek Catholic churches not Orthodox ones. So, does anyone know what it is talking about? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Autocephaly claims?
The current version of the article says: "It is a matter of dispute as to whether the Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church or is autocephalic."

It is not really clear who is making claims about their alleged autocephaly. The UOC-MP never claimed to be autocephalous. Representatives of the church themselves, such as Clement (Vecheria), the head of the UOC-MP Synodal Information and Education Department, had denied that their church has an autocephalous status when asked by a journalist.

My suggestion is that we stick to the official position of the church AND their recognized canonical status, that they actually refer to – "the Ukrainian Orthodox Church shall be a self-governing church with the rights of broad autonomy". It is not about an alleged autocephaly, whoever makes these claims.

They keep stressing that they aren't dependent on the ROC in any administrative or financial way, etc, which should be mentioned and explained as well. EricLewan (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So I presume you are proposing that the sentence in the lead is changed from "It is a matter of dispute as to whether the Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church or is autocephalic" to "It is a matter of dispute as to whether the Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church or not". I agree with that change. I did not come across sources that stated that the church denied that their church has an autocephalous status. Other sources gave me the reason that de-facto they inspired to be so. I am not a knower of church laws and practices, but if they are not an independent church (what I assume "autocephalic" means and are not part of the Russian Orthodox Church they should be described in Wikipedia as an unrecognized Orthodox church in Ukraine? Just as Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate? Or as a non-autocephalous self-proclamed independent church? (That is basically saying the same, I think....) —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not read EricLewan's post good enough... But obviously describing the church as "a self-governing church with the rights of broad autonomy" does not make sense. In 2021 they were not self-governing but part of another church and now they have no "broad autonomy" from this other church because they claim the are not a part of this other church. You can not have "broad autonomy" if you are not part of another organization; if you are not part of another organization you have "full autonomy". This church might be schizophrenic, the description of it on Wikipedia much make logic sense (preferably). —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 * They do not really claim that they are no longer part of the Russian Orthodox Church. According to the church's hierarchy, their status has not changed: "the decisions of the UOC Council do not contradict the canonical norms of the church structure of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but emphasize its independent status".
 * There have been speculations their new status since the Sobor in May 2022, but some people seem to interpret it as wishful thinking, rather than what the church actually stated. And they stated that they're "independent", basically the internal status that they had within the ROC since 1990. For other Orthodox churches, these are just ROC dioceses in Ukraine, since there's no such canonical status as "self-governing and independent".
 * They're not an autonomous church either, but "with the rights of broad autonomy". There are only two autonomous churches within the Russian Orthodox Church, these are Orthodox Church in Japan and Chinese Orthodox Church. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has a similar status to Metropolis of Chișinău and All Moldova, which is "self-governing". It has not changed, but has been "emphasized". EricLewan (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They've said over, and over, and over that they have separated from the Moscow Patriarchate. Nepsis2 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The church did not publish its new May 2022 constitution. So we do not know how they officially describe their role. In its official declaration on May 27, 2022 about this constitution the church (only) says: "The Council adopted appropriate amendments to the Statute with regards to the Administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), all of which testify to the full independence and autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church" and it also says "The Council approves and confirms the resolutions of the Councils of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the decisions of the Holy Synods of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which met after the last Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (July 8, 2011). The Council approves the activities of the various Departments and Synodal Institutions of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church." So the church is saying that nothing has changed since 2011? I know that members of the church have been saying that they have separated from the Moscow Patriarchate.... but I got the feeling that these people do not understand their own church or are stating misleading statements. People from the church also said that the church did not cause a schism, if they did not cause a schism they did not break with the russian orthodox church. In its official declaration on May 27, 2022 the church is also being against schism. I also noticed that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) now has since 1 year ago foreign parishes, that is something, as I understand, only a autocephalous can have... To be honest I find the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) to be a schizophrenic mess.... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Church's statute is published, it's been linked here before and clearly readable and authentic with Metropolitan Onufriy's seal.
 * The UOC has been functionally independent from the Moscow Patriarchate for all practical purposes since 1990. What remained were basically nominal and ceremonial connections.  What happened in 2022 was cross out the "functionally" and "for all practical purposes" to sever those last ties and preclude the MP from being able to manipulate the UOC.
 * You claim that the UOC only has two options, continuation under Moscow Patriarchate or schism. This argument reflects splinter views held by religious groups in Ukraine that separated from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, not mainstream Orthodox practice. Nepsis2 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would have been more decent if the UOC "severed those last ties" from the Moscow Patriarchate right after the Battle of Ilovaisk back in 2014 where it was absolutely clear that russian soldiers were killing Ukrainians and the Russian Orthodox Church (in Moscow) was doing nothing to stop that bloodbath. But unfortunately, just like other christian churches, UOC's leadership seems to care more about institutions then people. The fact that church leadership(s) seems to care more about institutions then people is the real reason churches are shrinking in most European countries. People are generally not so stupid that they can not see what institutions are not good for them (even if they can not always explain why). (Of course my opinions are not really relevant for the quality of this Wikipedia article, but I thought it would be decent to show my critical thinking about this church (and other churches).) —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  18:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The UOC may have hoped that maintaining the connection and friendly relations would keep Russia from invading Ukraine, or it would be useful for convincing Russia to withdraw if they did. They did use their connection to help negotiate for the release of Ukrainian prisoners at the request of then-President Petro Poroshenko. Nepsis2 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your explanation here above ↑ is good but it is pretty confusing to read 5 minutes later that the UOC-MP Metropolitan of Kyiv Pechersk Lavra just stated that that he and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church "had nothing in common" with Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate. That could be interpreted that he does really claim that they are no longer part of the Russian Orthodox Church, but it can also can be interpreted differently... Anyhow it is pretty clear to me that this church is not autocephalic (and did nothing to deserve/get that claim). It is for now probably the safest bet to remove "or is autocephalic" from what the current version of the article says:) "It is a matter of dispute as to whether the Church is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church or is autocephalic."

A few days ago I included in the Infobox of this article (being quite ignorant and confused....) "Independence = 27 May 2022 (recognized only by the church itself)". Should this also be removed, or reworded? —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just removed the "autocephalic" wording from the lead. Other editors had time to chip in their thought. (And no Wikipedia article is final anyway...) —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  16:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I just changed Infobox also sine the church does not call itself independent in a way as most people understand the word "independence". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  19:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Collaborating clergymen and lack of punishment
I came across sources that confirmed that this church has collaborating (with russia) clergymen and that these collaborating clergymen are not getting punished by the church. I did not come across sourced in which the church explained why they did not punish collaborating clergymen. I think it would make this a better Wikipedia article if these sources/information appeared in the article. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Ukraine is a constitutionally secular state. The government has no right to get involved in a church's internal disciplinary matters.  Nepsis2 (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That was not an answer to my question Nepsis2.... Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. For your grievances with Ukrainian government actions you can find out how to communicate with them on their contact (web)page. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I gave you an answer to explain that what you're asking for does not exist and has no reason to exist. Nepsis2 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This article in The Guardian might have an explanation I find plausible for the church not punishing collaborating clergymen: "Cyril Hovorun, a theologian who used to be a senior member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and then switched allegiance, compared the issue of pro-Russian infiltration in the church with the paedophile scandal in the Roman Catholic church – the leadership knows who is a Russian collaborator but turn a blind eye, or even defend the bishop in question, in order to protect the church."

On a personal note (an not as a Wikipedia editor): Christian churches sure make Buddhism look good to me..... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  20:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

On 13 April 2023, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church consecrated Holy Chrism in Kyiv for the first time in 110 years, why did they not do this before?
On 13 April 2023, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church consecrated Holy Chrism in Kyiv for the first time in 110 years. Why did they not do this before? Without knowing why they did not do that before the information is actually more confusing the encyclopedic (Wikipedia is not a church encyclopedic and most of its readers, including I, do not understand church affairs.) (And quite frankly, I think that churches themselves are very bad at explaining their actions.) —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Good question. Was it previously done in another city? Did they take a fww liters ftom Moscow previously? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Chrism in the Orthodox Church can be made by any Orthodox bishop, but most do not, and leave it to their primate or get their chrism from another Orthodox Church.  A church brewing its own chrism is taken as a sign of independence because it indicates self-sufficiency, since chrism is a critical element of several Orthodox rites.
 * The UOC formerly received chrism from the Moscow Patriarchate. Since breaking ties with Moscow, they started to explore the possibility of making it themselves.  Another possibility would have been to start taking chrism from a different Orthodox Church that brews their own.
 * Chrism was previously brewed in Kyiv under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate, but that was discontinued because of World War I and the Bolshevik revolution. Holy Week 2023 is the first time the UOC is brewing chrism on its own. Nepsis2 (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

More information needed as to whether Ukrainian government is infringing UOC's religious liberty
The article currently says, in reference to 2023 legislation that allegedly would ban UOC, that "Human rights activists and commentators have expressed concern for this as an attack on freedom of religion in Ukraine." It seems this information may be outdated, and that more information would be helpful as to the UOC's current legal status and whether its religious liberty is being infringed. This Wall Street Journal article has an interesting take on the issue. I don't feel knowledgeable enough about it to edit the article myself, but it does seem like important information to cover. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing this out. I checked the two references and then removed the whole paragraph: The fist source (Christianity Today) is a good one with a lot of background information, but doesn't mention "Human rights activists". The second source (Spectator) is not relevant. As a primary source by one commentator it cannot support the claim that "commentators" (in plural) expressed concerns, nor can it establish its own relevance. Finally, both sources report on the first reading in parliament, stating that a second reading would follow. Meaning, at the time the sources were published (Fall 2023), the parliamentary process was still far from finished. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


text:
Otakar Bystřina

Otakar Bystřina (23 May 1861 in Věrovany – 18 July 1931 in Ostravice ) is pen name for a Czech writer who was a subject of Austria for much of his life.

His real name was Ferdinand Dostál and he worked as lawyer. He is known for collection of humoristic stories from Hanakia (in the Olomouc Region of the Czech Republic) Hanácká legenda (1904, Hanakian Legend) and for biographic novel Súchovská republika (1923, Republic of Súchov).

The second novel is about group of young people living in community dedicated to arts and folkloristics founded around 1882 by Matúš Beňa (1861–1944), a teacher from Súchová. Many of its members become important figures of culture of Moravia.

title: Otakar Bystřina