Talk:Lada (mythology)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lada (mythology). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Dispute?

Not that I really cared, but the front page says that there is a dispute going on at the talk page, while I see none... Halibutt 16:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Brockhaus-Efron, Lada is a fake Slavic goddess invented by early Polish historians Dlugosz and Stryjkowski. As proved by Academician Potebnya ("Einleitung in die Slaviscbe Ltieraturgehscichte"), this name was derived by Polish historians from an exclamation used in Slavic folk songs. --Ghirlandajo 17:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct! There never realy was any Lado or Lada godesses, the whole thing is a misconception (not to say invention) of Slavic humanists during Renesaince, fueled up by later romantic or neopagan views of certain historians. -- Hier0phant 11:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you modify the article accordingly? --Ghirlandajo 11:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am currently doing that. --Hier0phant 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

This is really slanted POV. This is disputed, so it shouldn't be presented as fact. Ralston in "Songs of the Russian People" disputes this interpretation and considers it to have been rebutted. I think that instead of openly declaring this to be "fakelore" that both sides of the argument should be presented. Maybe those Renaissance "Slavic humanists" were on to something. In any case, one should let the public decide rather than deciding for them, don't you think? And if this is truly the case, then we should have ample quotations from those Slavic humanists so that we can make our own decisions. Declaring this to have simply been "fueled up" by romantic historians is to insult their integrity or ability to reason. If indeed historians thought this, perhaps we should give it a little more weight than being flippant about it. The quotations that declare that Lado's name was "obviously" an exclamation are open to other interpretations, of which a prominent one is that indeed there was a deity or folk figure of some sort named Lado. This really needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.94.1 (talk • contribs) 27 April 2006

Original research?

Just to let you know, I've added an original research tag to the article. Not that I personally doubt any of it, as it seems fairly logical and rightly so. But the thing is that as long as most of the article remains without sources or sitations, it could easily misconstrued as being non-factual. You are free to remove it as you please, and please let me know if I acted too hastily. Satanael 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The source for the whole article is given at the bottom of the page. The facts listed here are several centuries old, so I don't see how any of this could be original research. And if you read what Ghirla has pointed out above, you will notice the same thing was stated in Brockhaus-Efron encyclopedia and in an article "Einleitung in die Slaviscbe Ltieraturgehscichte" by certain Potebyna. I did not use those as a refrence (simply because I am not familiar with either), but if you insist on multiple sources, you may ask him to list these two in refrence section.--Hierophant 21:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mater Verborum?

I've read somewhere that Lada is mentioned in Mater Verborum. However, since I've never even looked at it, and I have no theoretical way of finding it, I cannot claim for sure Zaebangad 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tone

Personally I find this article somewhat biased. Just because someone here said the whole thing was invented by early Slavic historians the whole article turned into how Lada is just one giant lie. I don't know much about the topic so I can't really say anything but it doesn't say anything about what those Slavic historians actually said and claimed. It doesn't mention any evidence that they might have had or any evidence that they were lying. The article seems incomplete and biased. I have to admit, the article sounds somewhat demeaning to Slavs. Sort of like its saying that Slavs have no culture of their own and that its all based on a lie. Even if this is the case with "Lada" the article should provide more information and proof as to why this is so. Recktray 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

Shouldn't this be renamed to either Lada (deity) or Lado (deity), with redirects as needed? Dsp13 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Lada (goddess) → Lada
Lada → Lada (automobile)

– (request withdrawn) The deity seems the most likely primary topic for this term, being the usage with the most long-term significance, i e. enduring notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Support, a major goddess in the culture of the countries that "recognize" her. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment - primary topic needs to take account of the language. For instance within the UK, the word Lada is recognised as the vehicle. Maybe there is no primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose the car is what comes to mind and comes into books. At most Lada (disambiguation) would be moved to baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
"What first comes to mind" is not a valid rationale, since it's inevitably tainted with personal and group biases. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Adding onto Graeme's comment above, this is the English Wikipedia with a readership of English speakers. The primary topic, in our case, then, is the vehicle. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: do you want to withdraw this and resubmit as a Lada (disambiguation) -> Lada move, though I suspect that will not get support either. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Most of the input given so far seems to address the popularity of the term's current usage for the car, and not the long-term significance of either term. Also, it would be useful to see some actual evidence for the claim that the car is the recognized meaning. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In this case the long-term significance of this topic is irrelevant. The car doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Support -- the automobile brand is not the primary topic, while Lada a major goddess in the culture of the countries that "recognize" her (h/t Randy Kryn). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, Lada (the car) was listed as the primary topic at Lada (disambiguation) until recently. I suppose I should change it back, but I thought I would see how the discussion proceeds first. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
In line with MOS:DAB, you should indeed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

90 days pageviews

"Lada"

"Lada (goddess)

Oppose – "the most likely primary topic"? Evidence? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pageviews aren't necessarily proof of which topic is primary. Apple Inc. gets more than twice as many pageviews as Apple, but the latter is still the primary topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. There might be an argument that the car brand isn't the primary topic, but that doesn't make the goddess primary. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – No evidence that the goddess is the primary topic. The one statistic presented above (page view graphs) strongly suggests that she isn't. As for the car, I think 47 years counts as "enduring notability". Certes (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
More enduring than 600 years? The earliest cited mention of the mythological Lada is from 1405–1412. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. I have a strong suspicion that Lada is an "invented mythology" goddess. Lots of these pseudogods were "found" by Slavic and Baltic intellectuala in 19th century and part of cultural self-assertion. I remember I've seen an article criticizing Latvian 'pseudogods' whuse invention bordered with ridiculosity. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
So, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT then? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
So, just I don't see evidence it is primary topic. The hell a Soviet car was named after a goddess. Hence preserve status quo. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
In other words, you can't imagine (or stomach) a Soviet car being named after a female deity, so therefore the deity can't be the most notable topic; have I got that right? Incidentally, the "Soviet" version of the car (i.e. the one sold in the USSR) was branded as Zhiguli. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
No and no. And I strongly suggest you to avoid statements phrased as personal attacks. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment I see reference to Long term notability as important. The Guideline says "While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative" by which token it matters not how long something has been around as much as how much it is 'talked about' to coin a phrase. And that is in the "general audience" for this Wikipedia. In absence of hard data, we might presume that a fairly widely sold car brand has made more impact in English speaking world than East European folklore and err on the side of caution.. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That seems fair enough. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
* Comment There's apparently little support for making the mythological figure the primary topic, so I've withdrawn the request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lada (mythology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. I would also like to mention that I have nominated the articles Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Athena, Jonah, and Pythagoras in this same category and they are all currently awaiting review. I will probably be nominating more articles in the near future. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I notice you reverted my edit in which I changed the word "commented" to "comments". Actually, "comments" is correct because one is supposed to use the present-tense when describing an extant writing. One should only use the past tense if the work is no longer extant. Even though Shedden-Ralston lived in the 1800s, since his work still exists, it should be spoken of in the present-tense. The same should also be true for the statement a few paragraphs prior: "For instance, a rector at Cracow University wrote in a postil circa 1405–1412". This should be "writes" not "wrote", assuming that this postil still exists. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for noticing that. I was in the midst of doing some style cleanup and didn't notice that anyone else had edited the page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read over this article multiple times and checked the edit history and the citations. Overall, it looks like it is up to GA quality, but I do have two concerns:

The second-to-last section entitled "Naming" is rather confusing because you mention that "The names Lada and Lado may be related to the Russian word lad, 'harmony, peace, union'" in the lead, but I think that it might be better if you restated this in the first sentence of the "Naming" section. Right now, as it is, you kind of dive right into the meanings of these words, assuming that the reader remembers that they may be related to Lada's name, but, the first time I read this, I had forgotten and had to go back through the article searching for a place that explained this.
The last section, entitled "In contemporary religion," is only one sentence: "Lada is one of the deities that some adherents of Slavic Native Faith honor with seasonal holidays." This leaves me with the impression that there is probably a great deal more that can be said about this. I think that you should try to expand this section, if possible. I would recommend trying to explain more about what these "seasonal holidays" are and how she is honored with them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I've followed the suggestion about repeating the info about the names further down. I've also moved the source on the Slavic Native Faith holidays to "Further reading"; it had only a passing mention of the goddess Lada in a simple list of deities, and I haven't found other sources that examine modern Lada rituals in any depth. Overall, the info seemed to lack sufficient weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that those changes have been made, I think that this article is passes all of the GA criteria, so I will pass it.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Remember that it is recommended that, for every article you nominate for GA, you should try to review at least two others, to keep down the backlog. Right now I am the only one who seems to be actively reviewing articles in the "Philosophy and religion" category and the backlog seems to be growing faster than articles are being reviewed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No Gender Equality ?

Don't make too much out of the caption I choose. I just wonder why the title of the article is solely Lada and Lado is just subsumized under it. The same can be seen when you search for Lado - you get directed to a page where you have to select the meaning and then instead of seeing "slawic god of beauty, counterpart to Lada" you only get "The masculine counterpart of Lada, Slavic goddess of beauty" ... a definition of his status solely through her status. In my opinion that choice of expression needs an explanation or, imho, better a change to a (more) symetric presentation.

BTW, if you were to search for Lada you wouldn't even get a selection page but hit the carmaker, from there the disambiguation site ... which of course says "Lada (mythology), a goddess in Baltic and Slavic mythology", does not mention beauty but also does not say "The feminine counterpart of Lado, Slavic god of beauty" ... in other words it's a real mess. JB. --92.195.12.169 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We go by what published sources say, not whether we personally think an issue should be "symmetric" or not. If there are sources that discuss Lado in equal terms with Lada, feel free to present them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. I totally accept the "no original research" requirement, but that does not imply that everybody has to switch their brains off. If something is labled as a counterpart to something else in a source, then actually that very source states the symmetry as a counterpart is in it self and by definition on equal terms. In other words what I'm asking for is simply that WP shall present the two as the source states. Or is there any possible way that a counterpart (without any qualifiers attached) is anything else than an equal "twin" ?

By the way after checking other languages I see that the current presentation may even be plain wrong. The german WP for instance explaines (based on source, of course), that there exist different historic documents which either name a female Lada or a male Lado in different roles, but not as two sides of the same medal nor as partners - it is either one or the other.

The Bulgarian and to some extend the Russian WP are even more "funny" because there they directly state that it is not at all sure that there ever was a slavic godess of that name. They describe it with high probability as an invention based on incorrect translation of old slavic text by western intellectuals, namely French, Italian and English. They give an example for such a wrong translation.

So, well, as I have found in other places in the WP, the blind reproduction of a few sources may lead to a result that is at least to some extend rather questionable. I can only hope that the factual truth will prevail over time. JB. --83.236.27.112 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If something is labled as a counterpart to something else in a source, then actually that very source states the symmetry as a counterpart is in it self and by definition on equal terms. I should have been clearer; I meant sources that discuss Lado and Lada in an equal degree of detail, as per WP:WEIGHT.

I see that the current presentation may even be plain wrong. The german WP for instance... Why do you assume it is the English Wikipedia that may be wrong compared to the German version, and not vice versa?

The Bulgarian and to some exten[t] the Russian WP are even more 'funny' because there they directly state that it is not at all sure that there ever was a slavic godess of that name. Ditto. Several of the sources cited actually address this argument; see § History. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I do not intend to make more out of the issue than it actually is. Let me just clarify one point: I do not and did not assume that the English WP is neccesarily wrong and the others are correct - I just found a certain discrepancy and mentioned that there is a possibility for a significant error - that we actually have a single god with undefined gender and name instead of a couple of gods. It was interesting to me to read the Russian and Bulgarian texts since we are discussing a slavic godess. Unfortunately I do not understand Polish - the others pointed a bit into that direction, that Lada was "invented" there in the 13-hundereds or so. (Yes, Google translator ... if somebody has the time, my Blockers block that thing). OK, I'm not satisfied with the current quality of the article, but it's a rather arcane subject and I'm not going to make a pet out of it :-). Have a good time ! JB. --92.195.17.204 (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)