Talk:Slavic Native Faith

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Manipulation of facts about origin of term "Rodnovery"

[edit]

I see it been 4 years since it has been disputed and

  1. Still no sources were provided proving that "rodnovery" is anything other than transliteration of Russsian term.
  2. Still no sources were provided proving that term "rodnovery" is "commonly known" [by whom?]
  3. Still no sources were provided proving that any _scientific_ religious studies related source use term "rodnovery" in context other than Russian branch of Slavic Native Faith (Scott Simpson's book use it in context of Russia only).
  4. Above facts were brought to attention but then ignored by proponents of supposed "rodnovery" term comming from "slavic language" [there is no such language].
  5. There is a huge possibility that expansion of that term is mainly due to this wikipedia article using it for many years now. Meaning that claims about term "rodnovery" presented in article are a primary reason of that term spreading over internet creating self proppeling circle.

I think there is serious need to finally address this issue as some parts of it might pottentially be politically motivated. Mr Very Knowledgeable (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add further that Scott Simpson in his book claims that Slavic Native Faith term originated in Ukrainian circles as inspired by name of religious movement created by Lev Sylenko (which is a syncretic religion partially based on pagan traditions but theological part was officially "reformed" by Sylenko making RUNVira a separate religious movement from pagan reconstructionism) "RUNVira" - where R stands for "Ridna" meaning native and "Vira" means faith. And later "ridna vira" term spread to groups in other countries creating in Polish language term "rodzima wiara" (literally Native Faith) and in Russia term "rodnoverie" (literally Native Faith). Russian term for follower of "rodnoverie" is "rodnover" which has plural form "rodnovery". Mr Very Knowledgeable (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts to promote non-neutral points of view in this article and related ones by stubborn ad hoc created accounts, in the past and also recently, trying to attack either one or the other branch of the movement or the shared terminology used for the entire movement. The only potentially "politically motivated" attempts to manipulate terminology seem to have been those of the very same ad hoc created accounts, which often declared themselves Polish, thus speaking the only Slavic language in which the form of the term for Slavic Native Faith (Rodzimowierstwo) is significantly different from the form in all other Slavic languages. The term "Rodnovery" has entered the English language, not necessarily from Russian as it is present in very similar forms in many other Slavic languages (e.g. Czech Rodnoveri), to refer to the entire movement of Slavic Neopaganism in all its expressions at least since 2013 (1), while its adjective "Rodnover" has been in use at least since the mid-2000s (see the early studies by Aitamurto). "Rodnovery" is used by academic scholars (and by Rodnover authors themselves, e.g. Petrović) writing in English to refer to the movement in all Slavic countries (2, 3), including Poland (4). As it is well explained in the article, it seems that the compound word originated in Ukrainian language, not restricted to the Sylenkians but used for the entire movement since it was coined.
  • 1) Zuev, Denis (2013). "The Russian March: Investigating the Symbolic Dimension of Political Performance in Modern Russia". Europe-Asia Studies, Volume 65. Quote: "...discourse in the blogosphere (Etling et al. 2010) and within particular web communities, such as Rodnovery (Aitamurto 2007). At the same time, the structure...".
  • 2) Radulović, Nemanja (2021). "The New Life of 'The Book of Veles'. Transformations of Mystification into Myth". In Disenchantment, Re-Enchantment and Folklore Genres, Belgrade: Institute for Literature and Arts. Quote: "The Book has had the key role in the creation of Rodnovery... a new form of reception followed the appearance of Rodnovery in Serbia early in the 21st century. According to the available information, The Book of Veles plays no significant role in the Rodnovery of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Croatia (Polish translation appeared as late as 2013/2014)... About Ukrainian Rodnovery...".
  • 3) Maiello, Giuseppe (2018). "On the Agony of Czech Slavic Paganism and the Representation of One's Own Funeral among Contemporary Czech Pagans". The Pomegranate, Volume 20, Issue 2. Quote: "Today the Slavic contemporary Paganism or Rodnovery is also present in the Balkans, but fifteen years ago Slavic identity there was associated...".
  • 4) Grochowski, Piotr (2020). "The feasts of 'Stado' and 'Kupala Night' in the rituals of the Polish Rodnovers. A revival of ethnographic sources". Ethnolinguistics, Volume 32. Quote: "It is argued in this study that contemporary Rodnovers (practitioners of Slavic Native Faith, or Rodnovery) revive ethnographic and historical sources...".
There are many other academic sources attesting the English use of the terms "Rodnovery" and "Rodnover(s)", but I think that those listed above are enough for the present discussion.--Æo (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, but none of your citations prove any widespread usage or claim it's widely spread. And as it does not claim wide spread it also does not provide proofs of wide spread of that term.
In other words – Serbian authors using term Rodnovery which is normal as that's exactly how Slavic Native Faith are called in Serbian language.
Articel 1) is about Russia. Which again also uses term rodnovery because of reasons already disputed.
Article 2) is about Serbia, Which again uses term rodnovery in Serbian language because that's a proper translation of Ukrainian term "Ridnoviry" to Serbian.
Article 3) just mention of a term is not a proof of common usage by Poles or Ukrainians. These 2 countries together form a biggest (a majority) group of Slavic Native Faith followers and no religious organization of Slavic Native Faith followers registered in these countries use term "Rodnovery" as a selfidentification in official English language releases and other English language materials. They use Rodzimowiercy in Polish, Ridnoviry in Ukrainian and Native Slavic Faith followers in English if they decide to not use Ukrainian or Polish term. This alone is enough to disprove the theorem of "rodnovery" as "widely used by Native Slavic Faith circles outside of refering to wikipedia article".
Article 4) Grochowski 2020 is written most likely using Wikipedia as reference and does not provide any data supporting widespread use of that term before it arrived on wikipedia.
So as been stated – there is no proof for widespread use of term "Rodnovery" in Slavic Native Faith circles as a proper English term outside of the zone of countries where term Rodnovery is a native translation of Ukrainian "Ridnoviry" which was original term tat get translated as Rodzimowircy in Poland and as Rodnovery in Russia. I remember prety well that pre wikipedia article times no one was using term Rodnovery outside of context of writing about Russians, ocasinally Serbians who have exactlythe same term in their language. Attempts to deny that "Rodnovery" have nothing to do with "Ridnoviry" and came from "Slavic Language" is pure denial of facts and concerning act of mental gymnastics. MaysterMind (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term is used in English academic sources, and in the general web as well, to refer to the movement as a whole, as widely documented hereinabove; "Ridnoviry", on the other hand, does not exist in English and does not even make sense. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian, Ukrainian or Polish one.--Æo (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that term does not exist in English. No academic dictionary contains that word. Only serious scientific publication [Simpson] that uses that term uses it ONLY toward Russians and no people of other Slavic nations. Why? Because that word is Russian in origin. So using it toward Russians makes sense. Which was pointed out again and again and again to you. For some reason you are ignoring replies and repeat same non-arguments of yours as "counterargument". WHY? Slovyan (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case you do not understand for some strange reason FOR REAL and do not act in bad faith, let me try to draw a picture with crayons. Let's go! Evolution was this way: Ridna Ukrainska Narodna Vira [UA, Sylenko] --> Ridna Vira [UA, Lozko circles] --> ridnovir [follower of Ridna Vira - Native Faith] --> rodnover [RU and some Suothern Slavic]. It is really that simple and it really does originated from UKRAINIAN originally. Not from some non existing entity that article refers as "Slavic language". No one been speaking a language called "Slavic language" in 20th century. Ukrainian on the other hand - quite a few millions people. It's all explained in book of Scott Simpson. Yes, I am not kidding. Slovyan (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Size

[edit]

This article needs to be cut down in size and consolidated. There is an overabundance of images, and many of the passages can be shortened. As it is now, the article is very long and tiresome to read, also difficult to navigate. First step would be to either remove the images or place them in a gallery. I may come back to this article in the future. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C63:89A8:5F35:7103 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been already discussed before (2020, 2021) and other editors agreed that there is no need of splitting the article: "The long is no problem at an online encyclopedy" (sic, editor DayakSibiriak, 2020) and "We do not measure the size of an article by the number of people who give a damn about the subject, but by whether there is valid, useful information that is well-sourced" (editor Ravenswing, 2021). "Too long" and "too detailed" are relative, and in any case Rodnovery (Slavic Neopaganism) is a big movement which covers all Eastern and Southeastern Europe, well documented in academic literature even in its tiny currents — and such abundant documentation testifies the importance of the topic. Moreover, as I myself already said before in some comment, I think that the practice of splitting articles is detrimental (though widespread in Wikipedia, alas!), as it produces incomplete side articles which tend to be forsaken and prey to unchecked vandalism. The current version of the article is well written and sourced but is by no means complete, as there are other important currents and aspects of the Rodnovery which need to be addressed, and the citations need to be re-organised so that each dotted sentence has its citation (currently they are mostly organised by paragraph). When the article will reach a more complete state, maybe we will consider splitting out and shrinking the section about "denominations". In any case, for short articles with few images, easy-to-read and easy-to-navigate, there is Simple English Wikipedia.--Æo (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Æo I disagee. This article is too long, per Wikipedia:Article size, which notes that at 15,000 words, articles "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", and in fact, suggests this as best practice for articles over 9k words. And our article here is at 21k. Doh. Of course, there is no need to delete anything - it just needs to be copied to a subarticle and summarized. A quick glance suggests some obvious, MoS-complaint subarticles, such as History of Slavic Native Faith, which could be made from copying the current history there, and than our history could be shortened by half if not more. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Splitting the article is a challenging task, because in each section there are references to the other sections. Furthermore, splitting out a section such as the historical one would still require making a summary of it to be left in the present article, consulting again all the sources. In the past, I had thought instead of splitting out the section about the denominations. I don't have time to actively contribute to Wikipedia at the moment, but in a few months I don't exclude returning back to work on the article. Æo (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this article is too long, it impairs the ability of the reader to take in the information. It doesn't need to be trimmed, but split. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Slavic Native Faith and politics

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge on the grounds of WP:TOOLONG; support for the idea of improving both. Klbrain (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have this weird essayish subarticle, about - well, about Slavic Native Faith, really, because "and politics" is a very broad concept. This should be merged here (it has no interwikis and is effectivley a fork). Now, I realize this article is very long - too long - but we can split off and summarize proper subarticles such as Slavic_Native_Faith#History to History of Slavic Native Faith, etc. so lenght is not an issue (the problem is the existence of this weird fork). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.