This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rusyns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rusyns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RusynsWikipedia:WikiProject RusynsTemplate:WikiProject RusynsRusyns
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Mellk, thanks for removing this nonsense. I could have done it myself, but this user has disguised his edit so that it doesn't look like vandalism at first glance. Emenrigen (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk:, practically all the text I have added is based on the Online Encyclopedia of Ukraine. The article in its current state is a mess, so I wanted to clean it up. For example, parts of it are about works from the 15th and 16th century, long after Kyivan Rus fell. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you are removing a bunch of sourced information and also added a POV statement in the lead that Kievan Rus was the predecessor state of Ukraine citing unreliable sources for that statement. All articles republished on Euromaidan Press. Even if you want to argue that it is not a propaganda site, it is still a highly partisan source that only pushes state-sponsored pro-Ukrainian POV on all topics. Even going through the sources, this is the opinion of one Ukrainian historian about "Old Ukrainian" language (clearly fringe). This is about a film written by a Ukrainian non-expert. This is about "Ukrainian relics" written by a Ukrainian non-expert. This is marked as an opinion article showing Ukrainian historical revisionism. Of course in Ukraine they write about "Ukraine-Rus" but this is not mainstream historiography and is (fringe) WP:POV. Mellk (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk:, the article in its current state is a mess, and it promotes a pro-russian POV. For instance, the short description is Literary works of Old Russian authors. This should be changed to Literary works of Kyivan Rus authors or Literary works of Old East Slavic authors. Entire sections of the article are unsourced. The chapter about “Mathematics and cosmology” only cites two sources and both are in the last paragraph. In the early period after the adoption of Christianity in Russia.... This is a non-neutral way to talk about the adoption of Christianity in Kyivan Rus. This section continues and discusses works written in the 15th and 16th century, despite the fact that Kyivan Rus fell in 1240. The article makes no mention of the Kyivan chronicles or of Nestor the Chronicler. One of the sources cited is Russian syllabic poetry of the XV-XVII centuries. Leningrad, 1970. p. 213-214. Not only is it irrelevant (not Old Rus), it’s also a partisan source. Also, I’m not sure why works written in the Soviet Union are considered reliable in such topics. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦11:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Old Russian is widely used. Indeed the article used to be Old Russian literature until recently when a sock (now blocked) moved the article to Old Rus' literature (in case you did not already know Emenrigen). I would understand Old East Slavic literature for consistency but "Old Rus'" seems seldom used (this is for another discussion though). Indeed the language codes are for "Old Russian". You cannot just get rid of all mentions of it because you do not like it. WP:NPOV is not about writing about a subject in a "neutral" way. Of course Western historiography here has an emphasis on Russia or bias but WP is not for WP:RGW. Now I am not saying this article is not without issues and it could be improved but as kind of mentioned your removals seemed less policy-based. Also the scope of the article is about the language, it did not disappear in 1240. Mellk (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk:, is the article really about the language? If it is, then the first paragraph of the article does not support your claim:
Old Rus' literature,[citation needed] also known as Old Russian literature[1][2] or Old East Slavic literature,[3] is a collection of literary works of Old Rus' authors, which includes all the works of ancient Rus' theologians, historians, philosophers, translators, etc., and written in Old East Slavic.
If I press on the words “Old Rus”, it sends me to the article about Kyivan Rus therefore works written after Kyivan Rus fell are out of the scope of this article. If they continued the traditions of Kyivan Rus, then it’s ok to mention this in a few sentences. For example my version, the last paragraph in the chapter about chronicles is about the Lithuanian-Ruthenian state. It’s possible that it’s out of scope however the article in its current state gives much more details about works that were written after Kyivan Rus fell, and doesn’t give details about the Kyivan Chronicles at all.
P.s. I’m not sure how “Emenrigen” is related. That’s the same user who left a nonsensical warning message in my user talk page titled Warning about vandalism in the article "Old Rus' literature", when the content of the message has nothing to do with vandalism and is just a standard copy paste reply. Besides, according to WP:NOTV, boldly editing and even edit warring are not vandalism. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦09:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink is wrong, but this was added by the sock who made careless POV edits across many articles. The article is about literature in Old East Slavic so whatever was written in that language. Yes the article is Old East Slavic but "Old Russian" is still widely used, so it should still be kept as an alternative name and depending on the context. Mellk (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk:, could you please link to the revision where the wikilink was added? I don’t know why you are so sure that it’s wrong, since you were not involved in the creation of the article based on the revision history. Also, I found an older revision that says Old Rus' literature (traditionally also by the misnomer Old Russian literature or Old Ruthenian literature), this fits much better in my opinion. And this still does not address the fact that the article promotes a pro-russian POV, and completely ignores the Kyivan chronicles. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦09:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that whole sock business, it seems Uliana245 was blocked as a sockpuppet of Jafaz. Jafaz has a sockpuppet investigation page that can be found here. It says Jafaz is a known sockmaster who has been banned indefinetly on 6 March for this reason. As for their behaviour, the user has repeatedly tried to POV-push idea that "Z" is a symbol of Russian fascism at the Russian fascism (ideology) article. WHY IS THIS A POV? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦16:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I am guessing everything not pro-Ukrainian POV is pro-Russian POV because of claims such as "Even if russians were descendants of Rus which they are not"[1]. Mellk (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support I have compared the use of both terms in academic books and articles: the number of Google hits is almost identical for both variants, but Old Rus' literature is quite often used solely in the context of Russian literature. Given that the article actually covers the "literary heritage of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine", I presume it would be correct to move it. ThegaBolt (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen plenty of results for Old Rus but when specifically searching for something like Old Rus' language or Old Rus' literature there are very few (unlike with the others). Mellk (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support “Old Rus” is an awkward calque from another languge, denoting some kind of geographical or political context. Old East Slavic is a language with an associated body of literature. —MichaelZ.04:22, 16 December 2022 (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.
A lot of Russian-language sources cited seem to have been presented only with machine-translated titles, making identification difficult, and at times perhaps mistranslating Русь as "Russia(n)" or Руси as "in Russia". As Mellk and I agreed at Talk:Names of Rusʹ, Russia and Ruthenia, the adjectives "russkii", "russkaya" and their declensions etc. can be translated both as "Rus'" and "Russian" depending on context. E.g. I have translated История русского права as The history of Russian law, because Zhivov 2002 appears to give an overview from prehistory until the present, in which Kievan (Kyivan) Rus' no longer exists, but Russia does. But nouns such as Русь and Руси are clear-cut: they are translated as "Rus'" and refer to Kievan Rus' and/or the Rus' principalities that emerged within/from it. The same goes for Древней Руси: "of Old Rus'" (or "of Ancient Rus'"). I suspect most of these errors are the result of some earlier users believing whatever Google Translate or DeepL or whatever comes up with to be correct, which isn't always true. Priority should always be given to the title in the original language, mention it in the |title= parameter, and then in |trans-title= followed by an official English translation if any is available (e.g. Likhachev's 1967 classic Поэтика древнерусской литературы was translated in 2014 as The Poetics of Early Russian Literature, so I gave that as the trans-title), and otherwise a self-made translation that is as accurate as possible, but also adheres to English literary conventions on book titles (e.g. capitalising all nouns and adjectives). It's fine to use a translation machine in order to help make this approximate trans-title, but we must not blindly believe whatever the top suggestion is.
Beyond the issue of Rus'/Russia(n) there are other issues such as pravda; sometimes it means "justice", sometimes "truth", sometimes "law", and sometimes it is simply part of the title Russkaya Pravda, in which case we transcribe it in nominative singular, and do not translate it. This is why I changed the trans-title of От закона русского к Русской правде from From Russian Law to the Russian Truth to From Rus' Law to Russkaya Pravda. As I explained in my edit summary, there are numerous possibilities depending on the contents of the book. От закона русского = From rus'/russian law (both lowercase, but English book titles capitalise all nouns and adjectives. от always goes with genitive). к Русской правде = to Russkaya pravda (the first uppercase, the latter lowercase, so I think this is a name, i.e. the title of the document). I understand the title to mean a historic development from the earliest laws of Kievan Rus' up until the 11th-century Russkaya Pravda, hence why I think the first part is best written as "Rus' law", but because English nouns in titles are capitalised, the "l" becomes "L".
I don't have a specific question, I just wanted to explain my edits a bit better than I could in edit summaries. I think including the original titles (if possible with a URL) and an accurate trans-title is just very important to inform both readers and users, and to make verification a lot easier. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. "Русь" should be translated as "Rus'" rather than "Russia" ("Россия"). It is true that machine translations usually just translate it as "Russia". Well, there are cases where "Русь" in Russian can mean "Russia" (such as in poems or other works) but it would not be applicable here. Mellk (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all this.
It is okay to leave citations with just romanized text if the correct translation is uncertain, since they are mainly only accessible to readers of the language anyway. —MichaelZ.21:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article conflates all Russian literature until the 18th century (the foundation of the modern literary language) as "Old East Slavic literature". Russian literature until this point is generally called "Old Russian". This also includes writings in Church Slavonic which cannot belong under such a title. It did not help that there were a bunch of blanket changes changing every instance of "Russian", and of course, it did not help that in the first place the article included literature from the times of Kievan Rus, which probably caused this. Now we have 17th-century Russian poets described as "the earliest representatives of Old East Slavic syllabic poetry". Mellk (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
