Talk:Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.	Architecture Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

An entry from Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4 April 2006.

Contents 1 Old talk 2 Copper roof 3 Bogdanovich quote 4 The destruction was ordered by authorities of consitutionally Christian country 5 Blanking 6 Tag 7 Reliable sources 8 1920 article from Tygodnik Ilustrowany 9 Let's just get back to the contentious point 10 Response to Irpen 11 War time vs peacetime 12 Relax and take a deep breath 13 Orientation

[edit] Old talk

Alex, looking at the references in Polish I read that the there were proposals to turn the cathedral into a Catholic church, which would have preserved the building, but they were never carried out. Besides, if the bulding did start to function as a Catholic church in any serious way, I doubt that it would have been demolished. The Germans during their occupation in 1915-1918 used the cathedral as a garrison church, so maybe it was then that the alterations you are mentioning were made. Anyway, let me know what sources you are using to add the information about use as "Cathedral of Saint Henric". Balcer 00:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Great job. In the referenced you looked at, did you by any chance find any clue to the 'what is the oldest Orthodox church in Warsaw' question, raised at Talk:Warsaw Uprising (1794)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We could also use a reference for the claim that stone from the altar was used in Pilsudski's tombstone. At this point I am not claiming this did not happen, but it seems to me somewhat controversial, and could really use a credible citation. Balcer 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The burialplace of Pilsudski is shown in this photo. As you can see, it is a very simple affair, and I do not see where the jasper columns from the cathedral altar would go. Furthermore, my Google searches turned up no confirmation of the claim. So, for now, until solid references are provided, I am removing the relevant sentence. Balcer 04:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jasper columns used for Pilsudsky burial are mentioned in a few articles on different sites of the Russian Orthodox Church like [[1]] or Labyntsev-Schavinskaya article in the reference section, etc. Frankly, I would not bet my life based on these sources. It might be a legend. And indeed there is nothing resembling these columns on the photos of the Pilsudsky thomb. The jasper columns seems to be a common feature of altars of the contemporary rich Orthodox Churches. They were also a part of the altar of the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow and the Kazan Cathedral in Saint Petersburg, etc. Incidentally all seems to be stolen or lost or misplaced. abakharev 05:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copper roof

Re: "The valuable copper roof of the cathedral was looted by them". Do we know if it was "looted" as in "chipped away at by enterprising soldiers" or "looted" as in "requisitioned by the German military"? Ahasuerus 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing it was an organised operation, as there was quite a lot of copper on the roof which could be used in industry during wartime. I don't think individual soldiers would be scaling the roof of the huge cathedral to chip away copper, but who knows Balcer 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but a source would be nice so that we could see the context. "Looting" is a highly ambivalent term in this context and could be interpreted either way by the readers. Overall, the article could use a lot more attributions. Anybody happen to have the text of that Polish Art Studies (1992) article handy? Ahasuerus 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely want to avoid the use of any controversial term in this potentially contentious article. The source I used here states:

W czasie I wojny światowej świątynia służyła Niemcom jako kościół garnizonowy, co nie przeszkodziło im w obdarciu jej kopuł z dwumilimetrowej, wysokiej jakości złoconej blachy miedzianej.[2]

Translation: During World war I the church served the Germans as a garrison church, which did not prevent them from stripping its cupolas of their 2 mm thick, high qualitty gold-plated copper sheet.

If you want to rephrase the statement in the article to make it more neutral, feel free to do so. Balcer 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now that is quite useful. Basically, the cathedral looked very different in 1900-1915, when it had a gold plated roof, and in 1916-1924, when it didn't. That's worth noting.

Also, the article currently claims that "some considered it a great work of architecture which should be preserved in some form". I wonder who these "some" were? According to Norman Davies' God's Playground: A History of Poland, Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 0231053525 p.619, the cathedral was widely viewed (by Poles) as "pretentious". This is not surprising since even Russian intellectuals considered the officially approved "neo-Russian style" of the late 19th century "excessive, pompous and in 'bad taste'" (see Svetlana Boym in "Nostalgic Memorials and Postmodern Survival of Russia" in Post Modern Challenge: Perspectives East and West, ed. Bo Strath, Rodopi, Amsterdam - Atlanta, GA, 1999, ISBN 9042007559 p.152) and there is a fair deal of it in this cathedral. I wonder if there is a way to tell who the supporters of the cathedral were in the early 1920s. Ahasuerus 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that when I wrote "great work of architecture", that might have been a bit hasty. Our best online source[3] states, Wśród obrońców soboru znalazło się wielu wybitnych architektów, m.in. Mikołaj Tołwiński i Stefan Szyller. Translation: Among the defenders of the church were found many great architects, among them Mikołaj Tołwiński i Stefan Szyller. If these architects saw value in preserving the building, that might attest to its architectural quality, though calling it a "great work of architecture" may be an exaggeration. Balcer 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very good! It looks like we now have enough to construct a reasonably well balanced paragraph re: contemporary views of the cathedral. Something along the lines of "Polish public opinion was divided on the issue of the artistic merits of the cathedral. While many considered it "pretentious" (insert the Davies quote here), some, including prominent architects like Mikołaj Tołwiński and Stefan Szyller, considered it worth preserving (insert that URL here)." Does it sound reasonable?

Also, do we have more on the building's style? All I see is Benois' biography at http://www.artnet.com/library/00/0079/T007932.asp (Grove dictionary of art):

Stylistically, they are predominantly essays in various neo-Renaissance idioms, with neo-Russian and a quiet, slightly gothicized Moderne (Russian Art Nouveau) for the ecclesiastical works.

which doesn't tell us much about this particular design. Ahasuerus 20:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should translate all the relevant passges of the Polish reference. I will do that once I find the time. Hopefully it will answer your questions. Your proposal for the wording of the issue seems fine to me. Balcer 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of the gold on the roof in the article?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogdanovich quote

Doing my Google searches I can find nothing about this person in Polish, so it is difficult to say what the Polish form of his name was, as asked by Irpen. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a list of Polish senators from that time available online.

Anyway, including such lengthy quotes bothers me from the point of view of preserving neutrality. Given that now we have a long "anti-demolition" quote, should we now, for balance, dig up a quote by someone who was in favour of the demolition? Overall, including lengthy quotes supporting one particular POV seems to me against the spirit of NPOV.

Furthermore, the value of the quote is lessened by not having the original source. The website in Russian apparently translated a speech given in Polish, and now Irpen has translated it again, unfortunately into less than perfect English. How can we be sure that the original sense of the speech has been preserved? On top of that, since when have politicians given well reasoned, balanced speeches carefully keeping track of all the facts and providing a reasonable, balanced point of view?

I guess my question to Irpen is this: what is more important, having a Wikipedia that is balanced and quotes only the highest quality sources, or a Wikipedia which uses sloppy sourcing to advance a "correct" point of view that one is attached to? Balcer 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an old question with few obvious answers. Peer reviewed sources are certainly better than non-peer reviewed sources, but even they have errors, usually minor factual errors. For example, _God's Playground_ (see above) claimed that the cathedral was demolished in 1923.

I try not to include non peer reviewed sources except in rare cases and then I clearly mark them as such, e.g. Joel Shubin. On the other hand, I don't know if removing a non-peer reviewed source introduced by another editor should be the first remedy. Sometimes it can raise an interesting question and make you search for better, peer reviewed sources. In the meantime, you can always slap a "citation needed" or "a non-peer reviewed source" tag on the quote and work with the other editors on improving it. It's not like there is any rush :) Ahasuerus 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, you are welcome to correct my English. I can see where your grivances are coming from as some time ago I had similar conserns about the inclusion of quotes. However, my conserns were largely overuled by other Polish Wikipedians and we now have quotes of Molotov "congratulating" Germans with their successes in Poland not only in narrow articles, but even in History of Poland (1939–1945)) article as well! Additionally, an extended section neutrally titled "Treatment of Polish citizens under the Soviet occupation" was recently added to that article. To my opponents, the completeness seem to matter more than keeping it clear and simple and this seems to be becoming a standard in Polish related articles, as well making every Russia related article whose subject had whatever relation to Poland devoted largely to that relation. See articles like Catherine the Great, Suvorov, Soviet partisan and even Tyutchev and Ded Moroz.

I was first to support keeping the info where it is directly related and describing the words briefly rather than giving the full quotes. My colleagues disagree and you can check recent discussions at Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945), Talk:Kiev Offensive, Talk:Soviet partisan for more. Since the community of Polish editors opposing my approach is prevailing in the coverage of Poland, for the sake of consistensy, we should use the full quotes here as well. If think that quotes and too much detail damage the articles, I invite your participation to History of Poland (1939–1945). --Irpen 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, it is of course difficult for me to correct your English in your translation of the quote, because my Russian is not good enough. I fear that if I correct you, we will move even further from what the original sense of the quote was. To me the best approach would also be to leave the quote out, but summarize its general content and include a link to it. That way, one still conveys the general message intended, while avoiding the impression that the translation is authoritative. The only time I would proceed otherwise would be if there is an authoritative version of a given text in the original language, so that its correctness may be checked. Translating a text more than once is simply a bad practice, as any child knows.

Anyway, I do not support your general reasoning. If some users resort to questionable tactics, is it then our fate to apply that approach ourselves? If Molobo uses demagogic quotes, should we use them as well? What does it mean for the whole future of the project if the most biased and unreasonable user becomes the standard setter to whom everybody must conform?

Why don't we just try to make this the best article possible, using our best judgement? I thought this is what Wikipedia was all about. Overall, I am tired of editing articles with users who believe that there is some kind of an all-embracing conflict between Wikipedia communities, and so any tactics the "other side" uses are justified. Since when did Wikipedia become a battleground, or an arena for a replay of history? Balcer 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, please join us at the talk pages of the articles I listed. Let's start from History of Poland (1939–1945), by far a more important article than this one. Or from Soviet partisan. And don't blame everything on Molobo. He is certainly a loose cannon but he wouldn't have gotten his way in this and other articles listed above, unless a couple of other Polish editors were using him as a battering ram to throw lots of article out of NPOV balance. I don't want to call names here but this is a global problem. Instead of accusing me in WP:Point, please read the talk pages I listed above. --Irpen 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I will take a look at those discussions. If they are as problematic as you say, I will add some comments. Still, as far as I can tell, none of those whom you consider problematic editors have so far contributed to this article. Is it at all possible then that we try to make this article as good as we can make it using our best judgement? If everybody working on this article has some doubts about the wisdom of including some of the quotes, then why are they included? Because some other article has gone bad? That is just absurd. Balcer 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I am sorry that this seems annoying but something has to be done with this mess in the articles listed above and many others. The Soviet-German '39 Brest parade is described in detail in at least five articles (even with names of commanders and its pictures added not only to the PL Sept Campaign article but even to Red Army, Hist of Pl 39-45 and, recently added by Halibutt, even to the History of the USSR!). Molotov's congratualting phonecall to Nazi leadership is quoted everywhere as well. My crying wolfe was rebuffed with an addition of extra section to History of PL entitled "treatment of Polish citizens by Soviets" and after that the article was even submitted for a peerreview!!! OK, now that we all see the problem, as far as this article is conserned, I suggest a compromise. We don't have to use a quote in the text body, just the description you made, and will give a full quote in the footnote.

Also, I am sure there should not be many variants of the Polish version of Vecheslav Bogdanovich's name. Should be smth like Wieslaw or Wieceslaw Bogdanovic (with Diactrics). I will write an article based on [4] [5] (note the latter link, btw. It is very friendly article towards Poland and still gives the exact quote of his Senate speech, confirming its correctness) --Irpen 23:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for moving the quote into the footnotes. If I can find an equally eloquent quote from one of the proponents of the cathedral's demolition, I will also consider including it. As for Bogdanovich, indeed, the Polish version of his name may be spelled in many different ways, making it hard to get information about him. On the other hand, it may simply be that he does not yet have a mention on the internet in Polish (not every senator was necessarily a prominent figure).

I must say I have not been following the latest Polish-Russian disputes as I have been busy trying to help establish a working compromise on Nicolas Copernicus and related articles. Over there we also have a number of editors who are trying to push their POV, often by ignoring established references and proving their points by various hits spit out by Google searches or obscure books (that way you can prove anything). In general lately we seem to have an epidemic of unbalanced nationalist editors, who seem to be obsessed with pushing their peculiar version of history, which invariably involves painting this nation or another in the blackest of colours (incidentlly, have you seen User talk:Molobo lately?). Often the points that they make are technically true in detail, but they create an entirely false impression of the overall picture.

"There is a nice quote by William Blake that illustrates this:

A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.

The solution is to establish some basic framework of common sense. Thus controversial events such as the join Soviet-German parades in 1939, which undoubtedly did happen, should be kept in perspective and not given too much prominence. On the other hand, they should not be swept under the carpet either.

The main thing is to avoid sinking to the level of the POV pushers, as that means they win. Balcer 01:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I agree with every word you are saying here. It is fine to have an article on the Brest parade. It is also fine to mention it in PL Spet. Campaign article. But what is it doing (with picutes!) in the History of PL along with the Molotov's quotes and a full-blown POV-written section about "treatment by Soviet occupiers"?

I spoke about "establishing some basic framework and common sense" in almost exactly your words when discussing the problem with user:Dr. Dan here. Common sense should be aplied more broadly in being somewhat measured in throwing around "fact" and "npov" tags (see this and this discussion.

If only I managed to bring attention of more neutrally inclined Polish editors to this ongoing problem, I think the quote provoked a useful enough dispute. As for your question about why Molobo isn't around lately, this relative peace will not last long. See here for more. --Irpen 02:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is a very sad historical commentary on nationalism interwined with religous intolerance. It reminds me of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan by the Taliban in Afghanistan, a few years ago. This was when sick primitive types destroyed what was religiously and politically, "objectional" to them. Dr. Dan 23:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think that's a correct comparision. The building was created only for a short period of time and had several flaws in its construction that actually were also main reasons for its demolition. Of course it also was mainly build to demonstrate Russian occupation of Poland and symbol of Russian hold over Polish capital. It really had no use after Russian troops left Poland after it was liberated from them(the remaining Russian community wasn't of similar size), and I can perefecly understand people wanting to demolish a flawed building that was a symbol of Russian opression and Polish sufferings in past hundred years. Anyway I will expand on technical reasons why it was demolished as they aren't in the article. --Molobo 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Will you use your expertise as an architect, engineer, or atheist, when you "expand" your technical reasons that this "flawed" building was demolished? Most of the Wikipedia community that knows you and your edits, perfecly (sic) understands your not having a problem with this barbarous act,and your preparing to explain to us the "technical reasons" why it was demolished. We are waiting, Pan Molobo.Dr. Dan 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Different people will draw different conclusions, assuming that they are even interested in sweeping "historical commentary" in the first place. But the nice thing about Wikipedia is that its editors don't have to worry about all this stuff. Present the facts as we know them, explain what the main actors' motivations were (preferably using their own words to avoid distortions) and let the cathedrals fall where they may, as it were :) Ahasuerus 19:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The destruction was ordered by authorities of consitutionally Christian country

My edit that points this out was reverted by Balcer. Here is our arguing in edit summaries:

• 06:47, April 7, 2006 Balcer (rev (this is a big POV stretch and you know it. I must say, I like your careful phrasing which somehow omits the fact countless Orthodox churches were being demolished in Russia itself at the time))
• 06:50, April 7, 2006 Irpen (Soviet Russia didn't claim to be a Cristian country, Destruction of Churches in USSR started only later)
• 06:52, April 7, 2006 Balcer (look, don't insert judgemental POV. This article is about the cathedral, and its job is not to highlight how bad a country Poland was)

Please note, that this fact is a notable pespective. A consitutionally Christian country blowing up a place of Christian worship is a notable fact and it is related to a cathedral that was being blown up.

That Crusaders who ransacked Constantinople were Christians and claimed to be on the Christian mission is widely considered notable and emphasized. Similarly, the fact that a Christian country in peace time demolishes churches is notable as well. --Irpen 07:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note the POV. First of all "blowing up". Guess what, if you want to demolish any building you usually use some explosives. If the Poles took it down with hammers, would it have made you feel any better?

Anyway, I have news for you. Even if a country is "Christian", it is not illegal to demolish a church, if there is no more need for it. Does it say anywhere in Polish constitution that "no Christian church shall ever be torn down?" Many Catholic churches in Poland and other Catholic countries have been torn down for one reason or another. They are not eternal.

Consider the United States, one of the most religious countries in the world. Even there hundreds of Catholic churches are being shut down and torn down as we speak, for various reasons. [6],[7].

Balcer 07:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I did not use "blew up" in an article. I am not saying that destroying a church was illegal. I am saying that it is controversial. I am not aware of any controversial destructions of Churches in US. In US many churches are just barns or houses fitted for the religious purpose. Not a single notable church with unique artwork was ordered destroyed by the US gov that I am aware.

Second, in US the Church and the state are constitutionally separated. Christianity is not mentioned in the constitution and even posting ten commandments on the public building raises lawsuits. Even though, religion plays an importnat role in US politics and life, it is not the same as the country claims its adherence to the Chrisitan ideals explicitly in the Constituiton. (and in the irony of it, destroys churches). --Irpen 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is the text of the Polish constitution [8]. The key point of course that it is the Roman Catholic religion which is enshrined as the preponderant religion, NOT Christianity.

Art. 114. The Roman Catholic religion, being the religion of the preponderant majority of the nation, occupies in the state the chief position among enfranchised religions. The Roman Catholic Church governs itself under its own laws. The relation of the state to the church will be determined on the basis of a agreement with the Apostolic See, which is subject to ratification by the Sejm.

Therefore, it is clear that demolishing a Russian Orthodox church cannot in any conceivable way contradict this article. Given this obvious fact, I invite you to remove the word Christian from the lead immediately. Balcer 07:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The destruction of building was simply erasing a symbol or Russian occupation, that had no practical use. Poland wasn't a "Christian" country and it never declered itself as such. As to the quote-remember "no original research". Not only it serves to propagate Russian Imperialist POV you spread so much but also can't be confirmed. It is quite possible that other churches were destroyed in other countries with large catholic population-due to structural flaws, changes in urban development. We can't put your opinions in article as facts. --Molobo 07:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just two be clear, 2 questions to Irpen:

• 1. Which article of the Polish Constitution states specifically that "Poland is a Christian country"?
• 2. Which article of the Polish Constitution specifically "commits Poland to Christian ideals"?

The text is here. Please be specific. If you cannot find confirmation, kindly remove your claims. Balcer 07:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I removed "committments" but no doubt that Poland was indeed a Christian country, so I left that part. The fact of this being the first act like this in the century is still notable and is referenced.

Molobo, your edit was plain sloppy, as many of them often are. You roughly translated something and POVed that into a carefully written article. Please be more serious. --Irpen 08:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, BTW, I never claimed that the destruction was illegal. --Irpen 08:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed "committments" but no doubt that Poland was indeed a Christian country Spare us your opinions Irpen. Wiki is for facts not presenting your worldview. Poland is in fact a very shallow religious state with its own characteristics and such POV wording is not neutral. --Molobo 08:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, where does your certainty come from that Poland was a "Christian country"? If there is really no doubt about this, why is this not stated in the country's constitution? Where does your conviction about this come from, other than from a personal POV? How do you explain that, if Poland was such a Christian country, its most important leader, Józef Piłsudski, was a socialist without strong religious convictions, if not an outright atheist? Finally, how come there is no word about this "fact beyond doubt" in the Second Polish Republic article? Maybe you should establish it there first, before trying to make such claims in this article.

Besides, if one can make an argument in this vein at all, one can argue that some Poles wanted Poland to be a Roman Catholic country, which is quite different from Christian, especially in the context of the 1920s. One point you seem to be missing is that before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches did not exactly like each other, and relations between them were often strained. I doubt the two denominations frequently thought of themselves as the members of the same Chrisitian community. Rather, they saw the other side as heretics. Balcer 12:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a semantical debate about nothing. Unbelievable. So a Roman Catholic country is not a Christian country? Better change the lead in the Wikipedia English article on Roman Catholicism. What do the religious convictions of Pilsudski or Molobo (the self proclaimed atheist), have to do with the article? BTW, the remark Poland is in fact a very "shallow" religious state with its own characteristics, is so ridiculously telling, that one wonders why one should even bother to respond to it. Dr. Dan 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the difference is important, since a "Roman Catholic" country really would not care that much about the Orthodox churches on its territory, given the animosity between Catholic and Orthodox faiths in this period, but a "Christian" country might. The whole argument that Irpen is spinning is that Poland was a "Chrisitian" country, and hence in the spirit of Christian solidarity it should have preserved the catherdral, and by allowing its destruction it violated its own principles. Now obviously, if Poland was a Roman Catholic country, this does not apply, as nowhere in the Catholic ideology of the 1920s is there a call to preserve and care for Orthodox churches. In fact, I would guess that Roman Catholic clergy were generally in favor of the cathedral's destruction.

Irpen, don't you see that you start from the goal: "make Poland look bad" and then you build your theory on top of this assumption, without any reference to the real facts. Don't you see that if anything, things were the opposite to what your are claiming, and that it was precisely the fact that many Poles were militant Catholics which contributed to the cathedral's demolition?

At any rate, I would like to see some serious scholarly references arguing that Poland was a "Christian" country and hence can be accused of hypocrisy in this matter. If this was something "obvious", then there should be piles of books testifying to that fact. Irpen's personal opinions by themselves are not very convincing here.Balcer 13:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dan, the problem here is not with semantics, but rather with semiology. Not with logic in the words, but the logic behind them. The whole "Christian Poland" would probably be nice in an article on religions in Poland, along with the data on various religions and such. However, in such an article it serves a purpose of promoting some POV. The statement clearly implies that there was some religious conflict or religious reason for the demolition of the church, while there was apparently none. Moreover, if we are to discuss religions here and accept Poland as a Catholic state (even though back then only roughly 50% of Poles were Catholics), then Irpen would have to better explain how come a Catholic state (a religious state perhaps?) was obliged to defend Eastern Orthodox shrines in its capital, where not more than half a percent of inhabitants were Orthodox?

On yet another sidenote, it is quite comforting that the "Polish anti-Orthodox conspiracy" theories have a serious flaw in that noone could beat the Orthodox people themselves in destroying Orthodox churches. //Halibutt 14:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it seems like an attempt to portay a demolishon of an essentially useless building as religious conflict with Orthodoxy. It's quite typical, and really quite bizarre, because in reality Poles simply don't care at all for Orthodox religion and its nonexistant as issue in Poland... --Molobo 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny you say that [9]... --Kuban Cossack 14:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And ? What is it suppose to mean ? You realise that they are dozens of official churches in Poland (There is an Ecumenical Council where they patricipate) ? Orthodox Church is just one of them. It's really unimportant for Poles. I realise of course that in minds of some Russians Poles exist only to fight it. But trust me, it has no significence to Polish society at all. Sorry If I hurt your feelings but it more like Orthodox faithfull giving themselfs some degree of importance by creating such stories and imaginery enemies, while in fact it is unseen and uncared for by the public... --Molobo 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, tell that to the people of Bialystok or Chelm... I am sure that will make very popular there.--Kuban Cossack 15:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Both locations are called the "B Poland": low population, low prosperity, low importance for matters of the country. And I really don't know why they should they be upset ? Because I don't believe Orthodoxy is considered some rival to Polish culture like some Russian editors would like us to believe ? I think any reasnoble faith would desire to have such a status. But let's end this offtopic, but trust me really to Polish society Orthodox faith is of no importance...If you think otherwise you are simply deluding yourself. For instance 5,000 Tatars have more coverage in Polish press then 500.000 Orthodox believers...But it is really offtopic... --Molobo 15:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So in that case what are trying to achieve in this article, by vandalising the fairly neutral text to make it look like what? How the big Russian bear deflowered the poor Polish virgin? I'll make a parrallel, Helisinki, Cathedral of Dormation. Too built at the turn of the century, too was and is a massive building, too was built in a Lutheran city with little Orthodox people, save the Russians...however the Finns did behave a little bit more civilised IMO. --Kuban Cossack 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Note the drastic difference in architectural form. The Russians in Finland displayed at least some cultural sensitivity and build Orthodox churches which did not clash with the other buildings of the city. The same cannot be said of the cathedral in Warsaw. Balcer 16:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please write clearly what you mean ? I can't understand you. As to Finns the situation is different since they didn't form the main opposition to Russian imperialism and ambitions of supremacy in Central Europe as Poles did, so their relation with Russia is different to Polish one. What I am only doing is adding facts to the article that weren't included and which are involved with political aspect of the undertaking-mainly that it was demonstration of force pursued by an official engaged in Russification policy. As if destroying symbols of foreing occupation and perseuction of one's nation is civilised or not is a matter of personal opinion. I of course understand and had seen Russian nationalist propaganda claiming that the "benevolent" Russian Empire tried to civilise other nations. It will be a welcomed addition to Propaganda article on Wiki. --Molobo 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is to be noted that there currently are two large Orthodox churches in Warsaw, as well as two smaller chapels (one of them serving the students of the Warsaw University), not to mention the Uniate churches and the Basilian monastery in the Old Town (Miodowa Street). [10][11]. I wonder why didn't the barbarians...errr... Poles destroy those as well. //Halibutt 23:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why all this arguing? The issue can be stated objectively: find out how many Catholic churches were demolished between 1915 and 1930 and for what reason, and how many Orthodox churches were demolished between 1915 and 1930 and for what reason (we already know that all but two of them, the two large ones that Halibutt is refering to above, were destroyed in Warsaw, we just don't know how many that is). As for the Cathedral being demolished because of Polish-Catholic chauvinism, well, I don't even see Molobo arguing differently (please do not take this the wrong way Molobo :)). Maybe we can leave it at that? Moonshiner 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

I shall restored blanked information as soon as possible. Many facts have been deleted, for example the date of founding, the fact where it was placed etc. As usuall information about Russian imperialism is being deleted. --Molobo 08:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, even with my terrible Polish, I read that the article speaks about the year of tsar's approval and not the date to be picked for an anniversary of partition. Should the tsar have waited a year just to avoid a coinsidence? What else is deleted? --Irpen 08:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your polish is poor indeed: Dodatkowo, w 1893 roku, w setną rocznicę przyłączenia "kraju zachodnio-rosyjskiego" do Rosji, car Aleksander III wyraził zgodę

Additionally in 1893, during one hundred anniversary of joining "west russian state" to Russia, tsar Alexander III agreed. --Molobo 09:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And what did I get wrong. The whole year was a centenial anniversary. If Aleksandr signed the approval on exactly January 21, 1893, that would have been notable. Otherwise, there is nothing notable in a particular year. If the tsar gets a proposal, he approves or rejects it. That's all. He doesn't wait for the whole year just because the year is centennial. --Irpen 09:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says is was done on anniversary of Partiton of Poland, unless you have a source contradicting this I shall restore this informaton. --Molobo 09:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Due to blanking and discussion I added tag to indicate that the current state of article isn't considered by some editors as neutral. Especially deletion of information about the placement of the building, the date it was founded and how it was perceived by Polish population is worrying as to neutrality. As to the building, it was simply a building that was badly constructed, obstructed the architecture of the city, and was build as symbol of Russian domination. That it had something to do with Orthodox faith was the least important factor, especially as Orthodox Russian population left together with Russian occupation of Poland(or if you prefere Irpen's sources "the benevolent rule of glorious Tsars" ;) ) --Molobo 08:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Plese find objective resources, the site you quote can't be seen as objective as it represents Orthodox Church, and we need to cross examine its claims, as it is known Orthodox church is quite paranoid towards Catholicism and its statements could be biased. Can you find an non-Orthodox source claiming the same fact ? --Molobo 09:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1920 article from Tygodnik Ilustrowany

It's so interesting that I am providing a partial translation below.[12]. It shows well the point of view of the inhabitants of Warsaw at the time.

May, 1920

About the church on Saxon Square

There has not been among us an affair which generated as much discussion as the case of the cathedral on Saxon Square.

To demolish it, or to leave it?

Not effective were the voices of realists reminding that Poland surely has a thousand problems more important than this small detail of public life. The discussion went on and goes on today, attracting ever new supporters and opponents of the demolition. This heated discussion is entirely understandable. The cathedral on Saxon square, built in our capital by Russia, strikes directly at Polish feeling. The government of the partitioner constructed the church not for real religious reasons, but to annoy Polish national ambition. It constructed it to make explicit its state power, to give Warsaw an oriental branding. It purposely built it to such great height and in a central location of the city, so that its size and placement would squash the Polish-European appearance and character of the city. The church came from an evil feeling. This evil feeling, locked into the church's stones, generates a yearning for revenge among Polish masses and individuals.

The discussion so far about the cathedral accepts only two radical methods of solving the issue: 1) leave the cathedral in its entirety, in its current state, or 2) demolish it completely, saving only exterior and interior mosaics, as works of art. The supporters of the first point of view call upon reasons of economy, as the demolition of this colossal building would supposedly cost tens of millions of marks; the supporters of the second aproach use arguments involving our national pride and esthetic. It cannot be denied, after all, that the cathedral, as a work of architecture, is ugly, especially in its upper parts, and it not only is not an asset to the city's appearance, but in fact it is a disfigurement of Warsaw.

[The article goes on to discuss the compromise solution of reconstructing the building and turning it into a Catholic church, after removing many of the offending architectural features]Balcer 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. We should add parts of it to references in manner similiar to the quote of Bogdanowicz --Molobo 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be also nice to put into article the drawing of proposed drawing of changing the building from Russian to European shape. --Molobo 16:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what is the copyright status of pictures in a Polish magazine from 1920 (hence published 86 years ago). Any experts out there? Balcer 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in is certailny a good option for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I know of your views as you already said so. But please do not unnecessarily annoy other editors by this nonsense that Russian is somehow not European. We all already know exactly how you view it and what you imply by it. So just keep it to yourself. It's not a point in the argument anyway, so no need to shout such nonsense for an upteenth time. --Irpen 17:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, didn't you know, Goebbels, didn't think Russia was European either. Of course there's where the similarity ends, because terrible as he might be to some, he at least was intelligent. Dr. Dan 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am enjoying your constructive and enlightened contributions to this discussion (this one in particular). Keep them coming. Balcer 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said many times before to people who enjoy my constructive and enlightened contributions, the big difference being, I confine them to talk pages, whereas others try to create articles of "fact", and present them as such. Unfortunately this action reminded me of the Taliban's actions, and I wish it didn't. Sorry that it bothers you. Dr. Dan 18:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if we get into architectural terminolgy I would love for someone to define what is European and what is not? The cathedral is a form of 19th century modern Ampire style, - massive scale buildings vivedely decorated with a theme (in this case Russo-Byzantine) likewise in Britain similar grand structures were built only with a Gothic theme. (Take the House of Parliament building). Ampire saw itself in the United States, in China, in what remained of Persia and the Ottoman Empire, each with their own destinct decoration. In that sense Ampire is neither European nor Asian but a world-driven style which dominated the architecture until merging into the ar-deco in the first half of the 20th century and in the USSR eventually lagged on the longest to form the Stalinist architecture. BTW Molobo, what do you make of Pałac Kultury i Nauki? --Kuban Cossack 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, in case you don't realize, this European stuff BS was an attempt just to troll. The best way to respond to such entries is to not feed them. That entry got exactly as much response as it deserved. Going into topical architectural dispute in response to a trollish statement is a waste of your time and will just prolong the meaningless debate. There are several more meaningful debates here to join if you have time. So, you can safely ignore this one. --Irpen 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I only translated the article to illustrate the POV of Warsaw inhabitants at the time. From the article, it would appear that on the whole they did not consider Russian Orthodox architecture European. Now, we might mention this in the article, solely to indicate what the feelings were about the church in Warsaw of the time, not making sweeping statements about Russian architecture in general. I would caution everybody from reading too much into that article, as it is only a snapshot of feelings in a particular place, at a particular time.Balcer 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's just get back to the contentious point

Balcer, I consider you the most neutral Polish editor (no offense to others, please. Myself for one isn't the most neutral Ukrainian editor either), and I am saddened that you reacted to my edit so harshly. My edit included a mistake in that committal of PL to Christian ideal being mentioned in the constitution and when you linked the constitution, I removed it. It amazes me that not everyone agrees that it is correct to call Poland a Christian country. This is a fairly neutral statement and does not require a fundamentalist government. In a similar way, Italy or Mexico are Christian countries or Turkey is a Muslim country. Soviet Union even in early stages when most of its population still self-identified as christian was never a christian country because the government was explicitly and militantly godless most of the time.

In this respect, it is peculiar that the government of a christian country orders a demolition of the christian church, even though (or perhaps especially because) the country is predominantly catholic and the church is orthodox. I've seen refs about many orthodox churches destroyed in the interwar Poland, even the village churches. This is described in the academic literature in English and I may bring it up to WP some time but I had no intention to bring this to this article. This article is about a particular magnificent cathedral and the uniqueness of this part of the context of its destruction deserves to be mentioned in the intro.

As I explained, you can find easily how the fact that crusaders on the mission embraced by the Pope, a self-claimed leader of an entire christian world, ransacked Constantinople, one of the cradles of the Christianity of the time, is notable exactly despite (or especially because of) Constantinople was Orthodox. So, while my addition could possibly be improved, I don't agree with its deletion.

And I never said that the article should be hidden from users. I said that your fast hand announcement brought a couple of rabid reverters and now, the article's history will be growing with a page per day speed with no use. Anyway, if you disagree with my edit, just talk. I will listen. --Irpen 18:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Irpen

The main reason I object to what you are trying to add is that I see in it a misguided attempt to forcefully magnify the significance of the whole cathedral issue. Let's analyze what you are trying to add now:

... making it the first Christian place of worship to be destroyed in the twentieth century by the decision of the state authorities of the Christian country.

My problems with this:

1. Fixation on centuries. What is so special about the 20th century? Are we now to keep track of "first occurence in a century" for all kinds of things? (first war in the 17th century, first massacre in the 21st century and so on). Quite frankly, who cares?

2. "destroyed" - "demolished" is the appropriate term

3. "state authorities" - why is that significant? Would it have made a difference if the cathedral was torn down on, say, the orders of Warsaw City Council?

4. "Christian country" - at the time just about all countries in Europe were Christian, by your definition, so this does not convey new information.

5. The statement "first ... to be destroyed" implies that this was a first event which started some kind of a series. Are you serious about this? What other Christian countries destroyed Christian churches as a result of what happened to the cathedral in Warsaw?

6. The whole emphasis on "first" is just not credible. Are you absolutely sure that, in the whole wide world, which had plenty of Christian countries by your definition, not a single Christian church was demolished by the authorities between 1900 and 1926? On what are you basing your certainty? I would guess that there is an excellent chance that even in Poland other Orthodox churches have been demolished earlier. For example, the 20 orthodox churches demolished in Warsaw, are you sure they were all demolished after the cathedral? What about all the churches which have been demolished in the course of World War I, on the orders of military (hence state) authorities (as here)? Ah, but of course in response to this you will refine your category and claim that wartime damage is not included. And so on and so forth.

7. As I explained before, calling Poland a Christian country is a stretch. In Warsaw alone one third of the population was Jewish. Besides, if we use your definition of what a Christian country is (majority Christian population), then Russia falls under this category in the 1920s. Are you willing to prove that the Russian authorities did not destroy a single church before 1926? Balcer 20:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, the objections illustrate how the special category you are trying to fit the event into is contrived, artificial, and of little significance, except to score propaganda points. Balcer 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As to point 6 of what you wrote above: until 1915, that is until the Russian evacuation of Warsaw (if I were Irpen I would certainly write an angry article on those shameful days, BTW; the Russians destroyed the power station, the bridge over Vistula, damaged the water works and so on), every single Russian regiment stationed in Warsaw had its own church - and there were quite a few of them as the town was a garrison town and a major node in Russian plans of defence. The interesting thing is that during the evacuation most of them were demolished by the Russians themselves (or rather stripped of everything to possess any value, be it religious or purely financial). But even before some of the churches were in tragic shape. I assume that the problem was that there were simply too many of Orthodox churches in a non-Orthodox town, and the Russians simply did not use all of them.

This was the case for instance of the Archangel Michael the Arch-Strategist church at Aleje Ujazdowskie street, right over the modern Armii Ludowej street tunnel. It was built in late 19th century for the Guards Regiment stationed nearby. Entirely wooden, the church fell into disuse already before the war. When the Germans came to Warsaw in 1915, they ordered the building to be demolished because it had already started to rot. The area was closed down since it posed a threat to anyone entering, though the demolition lasted until 1923. And of course I guess that in Russian sources this was yet another of the churches "destroyed by the Poles". But does any Russian source mention that it were the Russians themselves to dismantle the tin roof of the temple some time around 1913 and it was them to allow it to rot? //Halibutt 03:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I will answer to each of your points:

1. What so special in the 20th century? This state marked the real separation between Church and state in Politics. In 19th century the very concept of the national states didn't exist, and religion stil played (like for century prior to that) an important role in the state affairs. In the 20th century emerged the concept of modern state, based on the concept of the nation (that also came into existence only in the 19th century) rather than religion and ruling dynastic rights, and the legitimacy of the government being based on the people's choices expressed at the election. To put it briefly, 20th century marked the era of the secular states and it matters.

2. destroyed and demolished can be used interchangeably in this context

3. "state authorities", yes it is significant. Central governments decisions are based on the state politics, while municipal decisions are more down to earth based. If the church is shut down because of the change of the zoning regulations, because it is unsafe due to a modern building code, this are the types of decisions based on the local laws and taken by local authorities. This was not the case. It was clearly a political decision,

4. "Christian country", yes it matters. Other countries were also Christian, true enough. And the govs of other christian countries didn't make similar decisions to destroy a particular church building. This is unique

5. Fisrt to be destroyed in peace time, I agree to that correction. Churches destroyed in the war, are a totally different ballpark.

6. Your examples of the churches destroyed in the course of the war just isn't applicable. I have to sources that say it was first. Maybe it was first among the landmark churches. As I explained the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, the St. Michael's Golden-Domed Cathedral and the Holy Dormition Cathedral in Kiev were demolished only later as Soviets started their active anti-religion campaign only after they were firmly in hold of the country. In mid-20s it was too dangerous for them to antagonize the population with such drastic and insensitive campaign. They were still consolidating their control over the country.

7. Russia doesn't fall in such category. As I explained, it was ran by an openly godless government whose leader famously called the religion and Opium of the People. And yes, Soviets didn't destroy churches in the early 20s. They had more urgent problems on their mind, some of which was killing or subjugating the clerics, whose loyalty was with the old regime. As Lenin wrote: "Чем большее число представителей реакционной буржуазии и реакционного духовенства удастся нам по этому поводу расстрелять, тем лучше."[13] ("The more representatives of the reactionary bourgeoisie and reactionary clergy we manage to shoot in this case, the better,"

That I made a mistake in an extent to which the Christianity was mentioned in the constitution I admit and once you pointed that out, I immediately withdrew that. The significance of the destruction and its being indeed out of the ordinary in the context of the 20th century is an interesting and noteworthy fact and deserves to me mentioned. --Irpen 21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War time vs peacetime

Lets just concentrate on the most significant objection:

5. First to be destroyed in peace time, I agree to that correction. Churches destroyed in the war, are a totally different ballpark. How convenient. In this way, any objection raised can just be accomodated by you changing the category appropriately. Now why is it exactly that churches destroyed in wartime don't count? When the German artillery heavily bombarded the famous cathedral in Rheims, you don't think this was a purposeful destruction of a Christian place of worship by a Christian state (in this case the military, which is the organ of the state par excellence)? Did the fact that a war was going on make this acceptable (the cathedral had no military significance)? Does war somehow remove all moral constraints and all moral responsibility? Please explain yourself carefully here, without just making sweeping, meaningless statements like "totally different ballpark" or "your example ... just isn't applicable".

Maybe it was first among the landmark churches. So, now that clear objections have been raised that even in Poland this might not have been the first Orthodox church destroyed, your are changing the category (again) by now claiming, that only landmark churches should count. Of course what is a landmark church is going to be decided by ... you.

Let me again restate my main point. Your actions in this matter are clear, and if you are blind to them, I can only feel sorry for you. You have simply set out to somehow force into the lead of the article a statement to the effect that the demolition of the cathedral was of huge significance, because it falls into some unique category. That is your working assumption, which you simply accept as a given. You attempt to construct this category, and when the inadequacies of a given version are pointed out to you, you simply change the category (hence redefining the rules of the game). Surely you can see that this has nothing to do with objectivity and neutrality, but it appears to be a part of some personal crusade of yours to insert POV into articles dear to your world view. I can only urge you once more to rethink your approach, which is ultimately self-defeating. For any event, if one thinks hard enough, one can define a narrow category of which it is the only member, except that such a narrow category is useless. Balcer 22:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, the difference between bombarding the building in the course of the war and destroying the building based on purely political considerations in the peacetime is so obvious, that I am surprized you don't see it. You are accusing me in having some kind of an agenda here (perhaps an anti-Polish one). I am equally surprized. I've been around here long enough so that even reminding you of WP:AGF seems redundant. You don't need to assume, since you've seen my edits to many articles. I don't have any agenda but for a better Wikipedia.

Having said that, I do view the destruction of the Cathedral as a significant event and I am not alone at that. That in Poland it might be subconsiously understood that this was a shameful act may be the reason why it is not covered extensively in Polish historiography and state approved vandalism is presented as a minor thing of little significance. This is a common bias in any national historiography. In Ukraine, the anti-Jewish pogroms committed under the leadership of some iconic figures for Ukrainian nation are minimized for similar reasons. Until recently, even such a knowledgeble editor like Piotrus was unaware that the Orthodox church in PLC was oppressed even though it is written even in Britannica. We all inherit the biases of the scholarship that taught us. Wikipedia's being an international project helps us rid of some misconceptions. --Irpen 23:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, so again your argument is: "it's obvious". I could have done much better in my mathematical exams at university if such forms of proof were accepted. How can you be sure that the Germans did not have political considerations in mind also when they destroyed one of the most beautiful of the French cathedrals? Are you certain they did not do this precisely to destroy French cultural heritage?

Also, please, do not compare the destruction of the cathedral to pogroms or other traumatic historical events. Not a single person died in connection with the demolition of the cathedral. It was just a building, nothing more, nothing less. In a century which saw tens of millions of Europeans die in unspeakable ways, your attempt to give this demolition of a building some huge significance is simply a reflection of your own hidden obsessions and prejudices.

Anyway, it seems we are coming a full circle now. You are still claiming the Poland was a "Christian" country. This you can only base on the fact that the majority of its population was Christian, as obviously there is nothing about Poland being Christian in its constitution and its government at the time was not particularly religious. So, you can only say that Poland was a country with majority Christian population. Just like the United States is a country where the majority of the population is Christian, yet it is not a Christian country. Note the important difference.

And of course it just so happens that Russia had a majority Christian population at the time, so according to your definition it can be classified as a Christian country. So the only question remains: did state authorties in Russia destroy any major churches before 1926? Balcer 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am reading your chief reference, Irpen, and I am seeing some interesting things there:

Вслед за ликвидацией в первые два года существовани независимой Польши около четырехсот православных храмов (1918-1920 гг.) и разрушением варшавского кафедрального собора во всей II Речи Посполитой началось массовое уничтожение православных святынь. Во многих воеводских центрах, в том числе и там, где православные жители являлись коренным населением, были разрушены городские православные соборы. Одновременно с варшавским, в 1924-1925 гг., был уничтожен величественный православный собор во имя Воздвижения Честного Креста Господня на Литовской площади в г. Люблине - первая епископска кафедра св. Патриарха Тихона.

This disproves your claims that the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral cathedral was even the first major church to be destroyed. Another major church was destroyed in Lublin earlier, in 1924-1925. Feast of the Cross church on Lithuanian Square in Lublin - first bishop cathedral of saint Tikhon of Moscow - sounds pretty major to me. Some pictures are here. It was built in 1870-1876. Balcer 03:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relax and take a deep breath

I'd suggest all the contributors to visit WP:TEA. You are all doing a good job, and the article is improving constantly. I have two questions for you: 1) what was built in place of the Cathedral 2) what are the other famous Orthodox Churches in Warsaw? Which one is the oldest, and are there any today? This info may be useful for the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Nothing. Plain city square (it used to stand slightly to the south of the Saxon axis running right through the middle of the Unknown Soldier's Tomb
2. St. Mary Magdalene's Cathedral in Praga (right on the other side of the street from the "Polish-Soviet Brotherhood" monument, BTW) and St. John Klimak's church are probably the best known. There is also a pretty little church in the suburb of Wołomin (St. Peter and Paul church), as well as two or three chapels in various parts of the city. There is also a former chapel in the Warsaw Citadel (currently unused as it's in the part still held by the army), the Orthodox Seminary at Paryska Street (with its own chapel devoted to Holy Mary Mother of God) and the ecumenical seminary at Miodowa (serving mostly the Orthodox and Unites, but also other denominations). //Halibutt 03:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the church in Wołomin was built in 1938. Currently the community has some 20 members altogether - the paroch included[14]. //Halibutt

The St. Mary Magdalene's Cathedral in Praga picture, is quite beautiful. Thanks. Dr. Dan 04:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a separate series of articles: Orthodox Churches in Warsaw. --Kuban Cossack 19:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Or even a broader one: Treatment of the Orthodox Church in the interwar Poland. I have some references written just on the subject. But, perhaps, Halibutt would agree that such important topic should not be a separate article but a section in History of Poland (1918-1939) similar to his masterpiece section "Treatment of Polish citizens by Soviet occupants" in the History of Poland (1939-1945). I will try start this section once I can put aside some time for that. --Irpen 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, given that your recent POV edit has been totally discretited (even you have not bothered to argue in its favor anymore), don't you think it would be a good time to reconsider your strategy? At the very minimum, could you at least acknowledge that you were in the wrong here, and that your edit might have been, just possibly, biased and non-neutral? Would it really be a good follow-up to this fiasco to start a brand new POV article so that we can have a similar discussion all over again, just on a slightly different topic? If that is your plan, please reconsider. If I was in your shoes (i.e. introduced controversial changes into an article on a divisive topic and have been proved wrong), I definitely would. Balcer 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack suggestion is a good one, but Irpen's reeks of POV pushing, I am afraid. But perhaps instead of Orthodox Churches in Warsaw we may just start Churches in Warsaw with a subsections on various Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other churches? Alternatively Places of worship in Warsaw may be better, including synagogues and other non-chruch-like temples.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, Balcer, instead of accusing others in POV pushing, I am asking you for an umpteenth time to clean the History of PL after Molobo's and Halibutt's POV pushing there. I hate to do it myself, because, unlike either of you, I will be reverted on the spot by the same two individuals, perhaps with "rv vandalism" or "using popups" abusive edit summary

Now, to the issue: Balcer, I disagree that my edit was "discredited". I explained above.

Piotrus, some time ago you were similarly unaware about suppression of the Orthodoxy in PLC. Now, after my referenced additions to several articles, you seem to be accepting it. Similarly, the treatment of the Orthodox church in the nationalist interwar Poland may be another terra incognita for you. I will be happy to provide you with more information that will hopefully be useful for all of us and for Wikipedia. --Irpen 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, for an umpteenth time let me remind you that this is not article about History of Poland but about something else. I have stated several times that the probelmatic section should be copied to a subarticle and only a summary version should be left there. As far as this argument goes, I find myself supporting Balcer, I am afraid. I will welcome your expantion of my knowledge, but I'd really, really, really apreciate it if you would use sources other then Russian 19th century historiography.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, how can 19th century historiography be used to source the policies of the Second Polish Republic? So, don't worry, I will not use them. Now, should I purge that other article from extravagant section, parade and Molotov's quotes or will you do it on your own? What really ticks me off is being reverted by "using popups" abusive edit summary which your friend learnt how to use. It is much more rude than his calling my edits "vandalism" which is just kind of funny. --Irpen 03:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply gave up and started calling your actions by their proper name. Which of course if OT for this discussion. //Halibutt 08:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note, I started an article on Places of worship in Warsaw. Feel free to add more to the list. //Halibutt 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orientation

One more thing: currently the article states that Eastern Orthodox churches have the altar oriented to the East, and Roman Catholic churches have it oriented to the West, the reconstruction transformed the old altar into the pipe organ room, and led to other significant alterations. Frankly, I doubt this was the reason since... Catholic churches usually have their altars oriented to the East as well. The very word (oriented) makes it pretty clear, not to mention hundreds of thousands of churches in the world. This is true both to the St. John's Cathedral of Warsaw (medieval) and my parochial church (built some 5 years ago). //Halibutt 11:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not sure about this one as well, but did not want to remove it as it did not seem impossible. I will remove this sentence now. Balcer 13:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the orientation is not as closely observed in modern churches as it used to be until 18th century, but still. //Halibutt 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)