Talk:Alexander Dvorkin

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Dvorkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119042020/http://rutube.ru/tracks/1848731.html to http://rutube.ru/tracks/1848731.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213202031/http://iriney.ru/ to http://iriney.ru/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Dvorkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213202031/http://iriney.ru/ to http://iriney.ru/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable?

What is particularly notable about this person. This seems to be part of a string of articles created to puff up people and organizations in the anti-cult movement that are otherwise not notable. See the "Opposition to New Religious Movements" template. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dvorkin as a well-known historian

In this topic, dear colleague Tempus will show us that Dvorkin is known as a "Medieval historian" more than a religious figure.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've searched in the usual place where they seek information about Russian scholars [1], but there this "medieval historian" does not even appear.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• The subject is hardly a significant academic. Here is his brief biography (Russian), see also here, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Woodroar: could you please help us with this question.Tempus (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I will explain. State-sponsored clericalization is growing in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church is persistently trying to penetrate into secular science, medicine and education. Therefore, it has a set of her "Orthodox historians." Nobody takes them seriously, they do not publish in scientific journals, only in their own Orthodox ones. Sometimes they are remembered to laugh, as Yanin did. Dvorkin has no normal scientific publications; he is not at all in the search results, as I've said earlier. See here: [2] search query: Дворкин А Л Good luck!--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So, let's look at the giant list of Dvorkin's works. They were published by:

• Изд-во Братства во имя Св. Александра Невского [Publishing house of the Brotherhood in the name of St. Prince Alexander Nevsky] - There were published both his "monographs" (They are actually not monographs). Brotherhood in the name of St. Prince Alexander Nevsky was "founded by a group of laity and clergy of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese as a religious organization with the blessing of the diocesan bishop. Moreover, the Metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas Nikolay - was one of the founders of the fraternity."[3]
• Альфа и Омега (Православие и мир) [Alpha and Omega (Orthodoxy and Peace)] - this is a just a private website, [4] The "works" published there should be deleted from the Bibliography section, I suppose
• Труды Ежегодной богословской конференция ПСТГУ [Proceedings of the annual theological conference of PSTGU] - a conference of Saint Tikhon's Orthodox University
• «Христианская библиотека» - [Christian library] - The Christian Library Publishing House, established in 2003, publishes Christian literature. known for the publication of the writings of Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), the publication of the archives of Bishop Barnabas (Belyaev), the publication of the Patristica series in collaboration with the journal Alpha and Omega, publishes works by Alexander Dvorkin and others. [5]. - Some kind of cross-pollination.
• «Православная энциклопедия» - [Orthodox Encyclopedia]

Making a conclusion - not a single publication in a decent place. Dvorkin also wrote in the Great Russian Encyclopedia (which, according to the plan of Comrade Putin, is to replace the enemy Wikipedia) but with such a set of "works" this is already a shame for GRE. Almost like copy-paste from Wikipedia, which they are also notorious for.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I hastened a bit. Alpha and Omega was still a journal. The editorial board included: Bishop of Saratov and Volsky Longin (Korchagin), Archimandrite Makarii (Veretennikov), Archpriest Alexy Uminsky, Priest Alexy Timakov, Vladimir Legoyda. Another church magazine, in other words.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Do the editorial board provide peer-review of articles? Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course not. This is not a scientific journal at all.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That it is not a scientific journal tells you nothing about whether it uses peer review. Peer review exists for arts subjects too.[6] Do you have positive knowledge about whether it is peer-reviewed? Or is it just an assumption? Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I watched an interview with the creator of the magazine. She describes the process as follows: “Members of the editorial board have the right (it is also the obligation) to regularly post their materials in the journal; they can recommend the materials of other authors if they consider them to be sufficiently benign (there were cases when, upon closer examination, some of such materials shoot argumentatively); they read those articles that raise questions and make their judgment: to print, remake, or, as they say in the aircraft industry, "this aircraft will not fly." [7]. I have never seen references to the peer-review of this magazine; this is an absolutely unusual thing for magazines of this kind in Russia.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. What you have said means that any article by Dvorkin in Alpha and Omega is reviewed by knowledgeable people. Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No. From my words it follows that decisions on the articles were taken in a narrow circle of the editorial board, which included exclusively Orthodox figures and there was not a single normal historian.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, here's my take: having a background (education or training) in history isn't enough to be called a "historian". That person needs to be actively doing history, either as an educator or researcher or writer. And it must be for a legitimate organization, like teaching at an accredited university or being published in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal. It's like you're not a writer if you never get published and you're not a filmmaker if nobody ever sees your films. However, if there's any dispute, then we have to look at what reliable, third-party published sources say. Do they call Dvorkin a historian or something else? If reliable sources do call him a historian, is it one source or several sources or many/most/all sources? That I really don't know because I literally just learned who he is a week ago. Searching for "Alexander Dvorkin" "historian" in Google News turns up exactly 2 sources: the patently unreliable RT and the non-third-party NFTU. If you google "Alexander Dvorkin", it even says "Theologian" in the sidebar. Now keep in mind that the Google sidebar can be problematic and it also isn't a reliable source, but it goes to show that the Google algorithm tends to see him as a theologian versus anything else. Anyways, that's about all the input I've got. Woodroar (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Dvorkin as a well-known theologist

The subject is not a historian and hardly a scientist. He might be a theologist - based on the education. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dvorkin is neither a historian nor a theologian. He does not have works in these fields of knowledge that anyone has ever referred to from well-known scientists. Dvorkin was and remains a Kremlin religious propagandist, a fighter against religious organizations (sects) that are competitors to the Russian Orthodox Church. (Redacted) It's no secret that the ideology of the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church is the official state ideology in Russia. For the sake of this ideology, historical facts are distorted, false information is disseminated in the media, redo texts of textbooks and encyclopedias, etc. (Personal attack removed) Wlbw68 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Theology is a more complex issue. On the one hand, if theologians such as Dvorkin arrange the Moscow Patriarchate, then this is its internal affair. But this was only until 2017, when theology was declared "science" and the first candidate dissertation in the scientific specialty "theology" was defended.[8] Thus, this ceased to be an internal affair of the Church. From the neutral point of view, Dvorkin, of course, cannot be considered a theologian. Yes, he studied at Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary for a couple of years, and before that he studied at the Soviet Moscow State Pedagogical University for two years, and then (according to him) studied Russian literature at Hunter College also for two years. Then he suddenly became a historian and wrote a series of semi-literate essays, which he called a monograph about Ivan the Terrible. Actually, this is his entire educational background. He has no serious works on theology, he did not defend any dissertations on theology. Yes, he himself and the Moscow Patriarchate represent him as a theologian (and, of course, there are people who reprint this information). At the same time, on his page at PSTGU, Dvorkin is (Redacted) calling himself a “candidate of theology” (к. богословия) [9]. On the page of the Moscow Patriarchate, his academic title is correctly indicated as a master (магистр богословия). [10] Interestingly, on Dvorkin’s page in ru-Wiki, he was also called the “candidate of theology” [11] (Personal attack removed) --Nicoljaus (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed a couple personal attacks above and also redacted BLP violations. I've told you both already that our policy on claims about living persons applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even on Talk pages. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not disparage article subjects. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your increased attention to this page. Please comment on whether it is enough to have a Master of Divinity degree to be a "theologian." And can we rely on the self-representation of a person who, well, I don’t know how to write it. Assign himself a degree that he really does not have?--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, Dvorkin in his books, on his website and in multi-part interviews tells everyone that he graduated from «духовную академию» = «the Theological Academy»! Dvorkin graduated from Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary=Свято-Владимирская духовная семинария, but not the Academy=академия. Woodroar. When I read biographical books and Dvorkin’s interviews in Russian, and then began to check the information, I was horrified. How many frank biographical lies are there.Wlbw68 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• • • • Dvorkin is a theologian in terms of repressive Russian special services. Dvorkin coined the term «тоталитарная секта» = «totalitarian sect». What it is? - No one knows. What is the difference between a sect and a totalitarian sect? - No one knows. It is enough for Dvorkin to call any religious organization in Russia a totalitarian sect; the Federal Security Service is beginning to test it for extremism. And then it is persecuted in Russia (searches, arrests, deprivation of premises, confiscation of literature, bans on activities, etc.).Wlbw68 (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Look, this line of discussion needs to stop. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone here thinks about Dvorkin, or what he is or isn't. Wikipedia isn't a forum and we're not here to discuss Dvorkin. This Talk page exists to work together to write the article. We don't base articles on our own opinions or research and we also don't combine sources to say something that neither source says. Whether we call Dvorkin a historian or a theologian ultimately depends on what reliable, third-party published sources say. If you have those sources, then let's discuss them. Woodroar (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • • I do not have such sources, no one has such sources, because they do not exist in nature. I do not include such information in articles. I studied the biography of Dvorkin quite carefully and for a long time. Dvorkin has no academic degrees in either theology or history. Dvorkin does not have articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals on history and theology. Tempus in this article is trying to do everything that he always successfully does in Russian Wikipedia with the help of the administration. He takes unreliable, left-wing sources and from them contributes information to articles. Conversely, Tempus repeatedly removes information from reliable reputable sources. These are not personal attacks, but a statement of facts. Wlbw68 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Education

Given that whether Dvorkin has had sufficient education is disputed by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, would it not be better to have a section of the article on Education. I think all the sentences required are in the Biography section.

In addition, maybe it would be better not to use the alma_mater field in the infobox template, and use the education field instead. Template:Infobox person says that the alma_mater field should be used if very little information is available or relevant, but in this case information is both relevant and available. Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to start a degree at Hunter College and graduate with a BA after two years there? Allegedly Dvorkin entered the college in 1978 and graduated in 1980; that seems wrong to me. Toddy1 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In the autobiographical book "My America", Dvorkin claims that he was accepted immediately to the third year (p. 209).--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That explains it. Toddy1 (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

And how common is this situation? In the USSR, education was highly standardized, and such transitions were fairly common. Do universities in the United States often accept people from other countries in their third year of study? At the same time, Dvorkin had not studied at all for three years (he was expelled in 1975, and he entered Hunter College only in 1978) and did not know English well.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Falun Gong cult

@Tempus: I do not understand the objection to the following source:[12]

Вилли Фотре; Патрисия Дюваль; Режис Дерикбур (2013). Антисектантские движения и государственный нейтралитет. Предмет исследования: FECRIS: FECRIS - Европейская федерация центров по исследованию и информированию о сектантстве. Санкт-Петербургский государственный политехнический университет. p. 152. ISBN 978-5-7422-4131-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Toddy1 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just look at the text from the page 128 of this book:

  Международный корреспондент организации ″Права человека без границ″1 Ради безопасности своей карьер, автор статьи, который является одним из пишущих о России иностранных корреспондентов организации ″Права человека без границ″, предпочитает сохранять анонимность

  Absolutely anonymous source. Besides this book was published (″See the book on FECRIS published by HRWF “Freedom of Religion or Belief, AntiSect Movements and State Neutrality – A CASE STUDY – FECRIS”) by Dvorkin's opponent or enemy Willy Fautre who is the head of Human Rights Without Frontiers. --Tempus (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• by Dvorkin's opponent or enemy And this is good (WP:NPOV). Here is not Russian Wikipedia, were only the sources from Dvorkin or his friends are allowed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The new Bibliography section

@Tempus: Thanks for adding the new Bibliography section. It rather looks as though it was a cut-and-paste edit, and there are some problems.

• Some of the references have links that do not work. I tried two of the links:
  1. Dvorkin, A. The Armageddon in Kiev: Tragedy or Farce? // Update and Dialog. — 1994. — Вып. May. — № 4.
     This is a dead link. I tried a web archive, which produced this:[13] But that does not have the article.
  2. Dvorkin, A. A Presentation on the Situation in Russia: Scientology in Russia. // Spirituality in East & West. — 1998. — № 11.
     This is a dead link. I tried a web archive, which produced this:[14] But that is exactly the same as the other one and does not have the article.
• This is English-language Wikipedia, and though I agree that we should have the original language titles of books and articles (which are necessary when trying to get hold of them), we must also have translations of the titles into English. Please could you do this.

Thanks. Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• One should not make this section based mostly on his own laudatory writings about himself. One should use writings by independent 3rd parties, excluding his personal friends and followers. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dvorkin is an author. Articles on other authors include lists of some of their works - this includes important authors such as Charles Dickens, and unimportant authors such as Robert Greene.

Unfortunately, most of the content has been cut-and-pasted from Russian-language Wikipedia - and was better in the original because in one column format it was easier to spot which are magazine articles, and because the original has links (though I have not tested these links).

In my opinion, from the point of view of English-language Wikipedia, the list needs

1. English language translations of titles, authors and publishers alongside the original Russian names for titles.
2. To be broken down into (a) the 15 books by Dvorkin, (b) the 4 books where Dvorkin was editor-compiler, (c) the encyclopedias that he contributed articles to, and (d) articles in English by Dvorkin and any particularly important articles by Dvorkin in other languages [preferably with links].

I suspect that starting again, using Russian-language Wikipedia as a starting point would be the easiest way of achieving this. But @Tempus: did fix the problem with the two links to English-language articles by Dvorkin, so I think it is only fair to give Tempus a few days to make a start on this. Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Concern about statements out of context

The article has a sentence that reads as follows:

According to Yuri Savenko (the president of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia), relying on the works of Dvorkin "is a sign of degradation" and they "do not belong to science".

I am not sure that these should be take literally. Yuri Savenko apparently has a habit of making offensive and insulting statements about other people in statements to the press. He was censured for it in 2013 by the Commission on Professional Ethics Issues at the Board of the Russian Society of Psychiatrists. (see Yuri Savenko#The resolution on Savenko).

What Yuri Savenko actually wrote in 2004 about Dvorkin was as follows:

When a psychiatrist-academician (Dmitrieva, Sidorov) or an expert psychologist from the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences rely on the works of Dvorkin and Hassan lying outside of science, this is a sign of degradation. The current situation in France and Germany is not much better, and 20 years ago it was the same in the USA.
[Когда психиатр-академик (Дмитриева, Сидоров) или эксперт-психолог из Института психологии Российской Академии наук опираются на лежащие вне науки труды Дворкина и Хассена, это симптом деградации.][15]

This is an intemperate criticism of psychiatrists and psychologists relying on work by non-scientists. It is not worded as a criticism of Dvorkin. Yet our article has cherry-picked from the source to make it look as though it was. Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase “degradation” refers to psychologists who use Dvorkin’s works, but this also characterizes the quality of Dvorkin’s “works" - they "do not belong to science". The next phrase says near the same: he "lacks academic credentials as a religion specialist".--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. The academic study of new religious movements is not a science subject; it is an arts subject or possibly a so-called social science subject. Even if Professor Dvorkin’s works were of the highest quality, they would still be outside the realm of science. Toddy1 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you want to say. However, to the best of my understanding, I cannot agree. Psychologists are not engaged only in academic studies, they must make practical conclusions with practical recommendations. For example, direct a person to compulsory treatment. To use the work of Dvorkin in this case - this is how to use homeopathy in medicine, or to use the theory of flat earth in rocket technology - both of these "do not belong to science".--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We have to focus on what the source says; and not twist it to make it seem to say something that it does not. Toddy1 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that we understand "what the source says" differently. I think, taking into account the expression in Savenko’s words, my understanding is closer to what the source says, because the problem of aggressive expansion of anti-science (including in religious guise) into various fields of knowledge is very relevant in Putin's Russia.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The source unambiguously supports a statement that eminent Russian psychiatrists and psychologists find both Professor Dvorkin's and Dr Hassan's work useful.

Yuri Savenko's reasons for disagreeing with them using Dvorkin's and Hassan's work are not properly explained by the source. It does not help that Savenko sometimes uses insulting language to describe other people; it makes it hard to know whether his comments should be take literally or as hyperbole. If you think that it is relevant to an article on Professor Dvorkin that Yuri Savenko disagrees with Professor Sidorov and Professor Dmitrieva using Dvorkin's work, then please could you find sources that have something more than a throwaway comment written in abusive hyperbolic terms about Professors Sidorov and Dmitrieva. Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dvorkin is a “professor” only for the Moscow Patriarchate, since PSTGU is his own institution. And even then, he holds the position of professor contrary to internal rules - this position requires at least a degree of candidate of theology, he is only a Master of Divinity (approximately a bachelor). The situation when psychologists use his works is a sign of degradation (it is difficult to disagree with Savenko). If it were the internal Orthodox psychologists of the Moscow Patriarchate, and their decisions affected only those Orthodox who voluntarily recognize the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate over themselves, this would not be a problem. Unfortunately, the situation is different.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Attempt at identification of the people Yuri Savenko was referring to:

• Хассен - Steven Alan Hassan, the American mental health counselor and anti-cult specialist. The biography on Russian-language Wikipedia refers to Savenko regarding Hassan's work as unscientific. ru:Хассен, Стивен
• Дмитриева - Professor Natalia Vitalievna Dmitrieva, member of the International Academy of Sciences of Pedagogical Education. This identification must be tentative because there is no mention of Savenko criticising her work on her biography on Russia-language Wikipedia ru:Дмитриева, Наталья Витальевна
• Сидоров - Professor Pavel Ivanovich Sidorov, member of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences. His biography on Russian-language Wikipedia notes that Savenko has attacked Sidorov's anti-cult work ru:Сидоров, Павел Иванович (врач)

Toddy1 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Toddy1. You deleted this sentence [16], although we did not reach consensus. I am against removal, because this is an example of criticism, and the criticism in this article is clearly not enough. If we add more criticism, this fragment can be removed by wp:weight. For now, I think it's better to return it to the article. If you think that the reasons for disagreeing were formulated incorrectly, you can change the wording, for sure.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

An acceptable thing to do might be for you to paraphrase what was actually written, giving the quotation and translation in the footnote. This would meet the requirement of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material".

The wording I deleted was not directly supported by the text. In it, quotations were taken out of context. Criticisms of Professor Sidorov and Professor Dmitrieva were quoted to look like criticisms of Alexander Dvorkin. As such they were not directly supported by the citation. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that we should "immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced."

@Woodroar: What do you think? Toddy1 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• An acceptable thing to do might be for you to paraphrase what was actually written - This is exactly what I have already done: [17]. I paraphrased as it seemed right to me. If you have your own opinion, suggest another rephrase.
• Criticisms of Professor Sidorov and Professor Dmitrieva were quoted to look like criticisms of Alexander Dvorkin. This is strange, it seemed to me that the meaning of the sentence is obvious and fully conveys what is written in the source. But you are free to offer your own variant so that it satisfies your too. Of course, your variant should convey the main point: relying on the works of Dvorkin for psychologists "is a sign of degradation" because they "do not belong to science". I cannot agree that this case is described by a Wikipedia:Verifiability. Inline citation is available, adding a quote is also not a problem.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Toddy1, you said "quotations were taken out of context". Here is the whole paragraph [18]--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Machine translation:

"Assessing the current situation phenomenologically, it is impossible not to see a deep decline. Is phenomenology necessary for this? Exemption from professional shore, from professional snobbery and gives the look of a man from the street and an unbiased view of the child. And he will see that the king is naked. It is enough to see who held the leading chair of the country after S. S. Korsakov, it is enough to compare our academicians-psychiatrists in different epochs. When a psychiatrist-academician (Dmitrieva, Sidorov) or an expert psychologist from the Institute of psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences rely on the works of Dvorkin and Hassen, that "do not belong to science -it is a sign of degradation. The current situation in France and Germany is not much better, and 20 years ago it was the same in the United States. Physicists in a similar situation categorically refused to descend to polemics, for example, with the authors of the theory of torsion fields, psychotronic weapons. But environmentalists are forced to fight back, for example, downplaying the harm of radiation after the Chernobyl disaster. Historians are forced to repel a fantastic "new chronology" Fomenko-Rostovskogo. We are even more compelled to resist the use of psychiatry for non-medical purposes. The renewed attempts to ban "Jehovah's Witnesses", the attitude towards Catholics and Krishnas – illiterate and short-sighted policy. Of course, ideology, ideological mythology is the most effective means of manipulating public consciousness, but the "clean hands and warm heart" of the Soviet state security agencies is a recent and clear lesson of this way. And all these are signs of our time. This is the situation all over the world, it just reached the grotesque here."

Here is an extended context. Dvorkin is recalled along with the authors of the theories of torsion fields, the New chronology, with the authors of conspiracy theories about psychotronic weapons, with those who tried to minimize the damage from radiation after the Chernobyl disaster. Hope this helps you.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I read all of that last week. Хассен should be translated as "Hassan" not "Hassen" - it is a reference to Steven Alan Hassan as mentioned earlier in this thread. Toddy1 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is machine translation, sorry. No other objections?--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I agree that claims must be directly supported by the source. Whether this does or does not, I'm afraid I don't know: my Russian is limited to a few words I've picked up from GeoGuessr and PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. I will say that machine translations are fine for the Talk page, but anything we put in the article should be translated by editors. If there's a dispute over the translation, we can bring in neutral, third-party translators. That's about all I can contribute here, sorry. Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Toddy1: so what do you say? Can we translate this paragraph together? And then it will be possible to return the opinion of Savenko in the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, Tempus, and Wlbw68: You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; please could you comment on this. Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish you good health, Toddy1. Please explain. What exactly do I need to comment in detail?

I saw your personal Wikipedia page and suggest that your native language is Russian. If so, then you will easily understand

Обсуждение:Дворкин, Александр Леонидович

In the same way, you will easily understand that the page Дворкин, Александр Леонидович is carefully censored and frank lies are written on it. For example, Dvorkin cannot be called a historian, because he has neither a degree in this field, nor a single work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Wlbw68 (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read through the comments at the top of Talk:Alexander Dvorkin#Concern about statements out of context. Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Objections to the use of an article from the Bulletin of Moscow University as a source

@Wlbw68: Please could you explain your objections to the following source in more detail so that we can understand them:[19]

Мраморнов А. И. К вопросу о биографическом методе в изучении истории русской церкви (The question of the biographical method in the study of the history of the Russian church) // Вестник Московского университета (Bulletin of Moscow University). Series 8, History, 2009, Issue 5, page 46

Toddy1 (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• • It is not about where the article is written. The point is who wrote the article and what is written in it. Mramornov (Мраморнов) is an employee of the Russian Orthodox Church, he is an affiliated person. In addition, Mramornov does not have a theological education. How can he make such value judgments: "the modern theologian A. L. Dvorkin"? This is not his competence. Dvorkin’s theological education is only a seminary and nothing more. Can all seminary graduates be considered theologians? In my opinion this is already too much. Wlbw68 (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Did the University of Prešov award Dvorkin a doctorate in theology honoris causa?

According to this source, in 2016 the University of Prešov awarded Dvorkin a doctorate in theology honoris causa;

"Александр Леонидович Дворкин" [Alexander Leonidovich Dvorkin], Saint Tikhon's Orthodox University official website, retrieved 9 November 2016, says "В 2016 г. Прешовский университет (Словакия) присвоил ему степень доктора богословия honoris causa."

This Slovak news source has news stories for the award of doctor honoris causa by the University of Prešov, and it does not seem to show Professor Dvorkin receiving an award - DNES 24 Prešov, search for doctor honoris causa Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Saint Tikhon's Orthodox University official website is a very unreliable and deceitful source of information.

For example, it says here that Dvorkin has: "Ученая степень: к. богословия (M Div)" = translation "Degree: C. Theology (M Div)"

But this is not true.

«к. богословия [кандидат богословия]» = translation «Candidate of Theology» ≠ M. Div [Master of Divinity]. Wlbw68 (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me, the event really was. The local Faculty of Orthodox Theology awarded Dvorkin.[20]. But it seems they are not very proud of it and kept silence (very little information in other sources.).--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Dvorkin gets diagnosed at Serbsky - should be included

The following is an excerpt with relevant footnote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbsky_Center. 

I would edit this into the article myself but I don't know how to add footnotes and citations.

"In 2014, experts of the Serbsky Center received medical documents from a psychoneurological out-patients' clinic about the mental health condition of Alexander Dvorkin. After studying them, they concluded that he was in need of constant supervision by a psychiatrist and should take psychotropic drugs.[16]"

"Kotova, Ekaterina [Екатерина Котова] (5 August 2014). Минздрав поставил диагноз главному сектоведу [The Ministry of Health gave a diagnosis to the main scholar of sects]. Trud (in Russian). No. 107."