Talk:Slavic Native Faith

Recent revisions (May 2017)

First of all, many thanks to Midnightblueowl for the recent improvements to the page. It ultimately needed this jump in quality level. Let me express just a few considerations and stylistic tips:

• I would suggest the avoidance, as far as possible, of the terms "pagan" and "neopagan" in this article, since the vast majority of Rodnovers do not use these terms.
• Consistency in uppercase and lowercase style. I personally prefer lowercase ("Slavic native faith", "pagan"), especially for "pagan" as it refers to a very vaguely definable category of religions rather than a unified religious identity.
• Avoid comparisons with Western movements classified as paganism. "Paganism" in Eastern Europe, is very different from Western "pagan" movements, especially the American "pagan" milieu.
• "Pagan" does not translate yazychnik correctly. Indeed, most Slavic language have two words conventionally translated as "pagan" in Western language: yazychnik and poganyi (itself deriving from paganus); yazich means "of the (native) tongue".
• Please, introduce smaller pictures in the article!--87.8.77.112 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, other suggestions for further improvements:

• It would be great to have a chapter dedicated to the Slavic martial art, Slavyano goretskaya borba, which is strictly linked to the Slavic Native Faith. I read about it in one of Aitamurto essays.
• Rodnovery in Russia has many representatives among intellectuals and new right ideologues. For instance, Pavel Tulaev is among them. These links should be deepened with reliable sources.--87.8.77.112 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The thing that I am concerned about here is pushing too much of an insider-POV onto this article. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not here to present Slavic Native Faith as practitioners view it. It is here to present Slavic Native Faith as the WP:Reliable sources produced by scholars of religion see it. Not all practitioners will necessarily be happy about this, but this is how it has to be. The article must therefore take into account the fact that scholars do regard Slavic Native Faith as a form of modern Paganism; they do draw comparisons between it and other Pagan movements active in Western countries; and they do almost all use the upper-case "Pagan" rather than the lower case "pagan" when discussing these new religious movements. Practitioners of Slavic Native Faith may indeed be keen to distinguish themselves from Wiccans and feminist Goddess worshippers and such, but from an etic scholarly perspective, all are forms of the same basic movement - modern Paganism. Similarly, a member of the Aryan Nations, a Mormon, and a Russian Orthodox practitioner may not be keen to see themselves as part and parcel of the same movement (Christianity), but that is precisely how scholars of religion see them. As for the issue with images, the pictures were all at a perfectly normal size by Wikipedia standards, and yet now they have been made far too small; perhaps there is something unusual about your browser that is causing problems with how you see them? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• As for the pictures, I continue to see them as rather big (I do not think it's a browser problem), I think it is a perception issue. They catch much more attention than the text and make the page appear confusing, and I think this should be avoided. What I mean is that the text should be the primary focus. We could work to find a compromise dimension: what do you think of 200px?
• As for "Pagan", there's no problem if we use it capitalised. As for the term itself, at least in this article (and in the case of any other religion that rejects it), we should work for reducing its occurrences to the minimum.
• As for the names in the lede: I think that "Vedism" and "Orthodoxy" deserve to be mentioned there, since they are the most used alternative names besides "Rodnovery". "Orthodoxy" is especially used by rather large organisations in Ukraine and Russia. At the same time, we should cut off altogether the descriptor "Slavic Neopaganism", since it is a really minor one.
• Regarding the issue of double belief (dvoverie), I disapprove the removal of the paragraph. I think it is a rather relevant element and should figure in the lede, as treated by Aitamurto.
• We should take care in distinguishing Sylenkoite monotheism from the general theological view, since RUNVira is a rather distinct movement within Rodnovery. Its monotheism is stricter than the forms of Rod-centred monism that are found among many other Rodnover movements thar accept polytheism.
• I am going to add some information about the cosmology of Prav, Nav and Yav and the Triglav to the article.
• Wojsław Brożyna: What do you think if we make a colored version of the kolovrat image? Are red and yellow the most representative colors of Rodnovery? Otherwise, which colors should we use?--87.15.202.114 (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think the Kolovrat without colours is good; there is no common colours for all Rodnovers. Red and yellow/gold is typical for Russia, but not for all Slavic. For example, Polish Rodnovers often use yellow/gold and blue motifs. -Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to have some text on "Dual Faith" in the article, but am not convinced that it is worth including in the lede. As I understand it, the idea of "Dual Faith" has been fairly recently rejected in Russian academia, as it (to some extent) has in much of the rest of Europe. How does Aitamurto deal with the subject? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

As for the image situation, I have gone with the "upright=" system that is now favoured (for some reason) than the px system. The "upright=" section allows images to alter size depending on the browser, which I think causes less problems for the increasing numbers of people who read Wikipedia on mobile devices. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Aitamurto 2016 p.18: she says "Rodnovers see their religion as a continuation of the old religion that was preserved in the dual faith (dvoeverie) of the people. The concept of dual faith is firmly established in Russian identity advocating that "although Russian was baptised, it was never Christianised". We have to keep in mind that Slavs are Europeans, but they are very different from contemporary Western Europeans. We should not interpret Slavic cultures through the lens of contemporary Western knowledge.--87.15.202.114 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Averin and Pavlova's book, I think that it is the best source about cosmology at the moment since it builds upon quotations of Paramonov, who was a scholar. The alternative would be to use primary sources, such as the books published by Dimitry Kushnir.--87.15.202.114 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Really, we need to utilise academic sources, as published in peer-reviewed sources, wherever possible. Thankfully we have quite a few such sources and new ones are constantly being produced. The article probably won't pass GAN and certainly not FAC if it contains primary sources or self-published sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent article

• I've found this recent article: The Church against neo-paganism by Pavel Skrylnikov for Intersection, 20 July 2016. It gives a rather detailed description of Rodnovery in Russia, and the impression that the movement is growing so fast that the Russian Orthodox Church is really alarmed and does not know how to counterpoise it. It contains some informations that might be useful for the article, for instance that the "Union of Slavic Rodnover Communities" was officially registered by the government in 2014 as an organisation of "Slavic culture".--87.15.202.114 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like a good source; thanks for finding it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Further suggestions and considerations (21/05)

Midnightblueowl:

• Some sections are very lenghty, for instance the sections of "history" but also "nationalism and ethnic identity" and "Slavic identity and history". For readability, I suggest to make a further level of subdivision wherever it is possible.

• Yes, it is certainly possible that these sections will require further subdivision. However, I would not do so just yet, as there is still a fair bit of information from the academic sources that needs to be incorporation into the article. Once that is achieved, then we can see how best to organise the material and subdivide it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I really like the divisions that have been introduced into the History section. I think that that tripartite division works very nicely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the number of members in Ukraine, in the article you have written that Ivakhiv reports between 5000 and 10,000 members estimated as of the early 2000s. However, in this version of the article, the one that I have read, he says that sociologists estimated between 1,000 and 95,000 (or 0.2% of the population).--82.53.195.120 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Both sources were actually published in the same year (2005). What Ivakhiv is saying is that estimates have been made that there are between 1,000 and 95,000 Ridnovers in Ukraine, but that some of these estimates are dubious because there is no explanation for how some have been ascertained. He believes that the number of active Ukrainian practitioners lies between 3000/5000 (he says different things in the two pieces) at the lower end and 10,000 at the upper. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Quote of Dołęga-Chodakowski

I want to try to explain some part of original quote of Dołęga-Chodakowski in Polish. I hope that it will be helpful for improve translation to English ;)

...i kształcąc się na wzór obcy, staliśmy się na koniec sobie samym cudzymi. - This is exactly a subsentence. Kształcąc in this context meaning in Polish changing form, not educating.

osłabiał w wielu naszych stronach duch niepodległy - wielu naszych stronach in this context do not meaning sides of ours, but sites (very generally places) of our land.

And I also want to mention that Słowiańszczyzna do not meaning people (Slavs), but land of Slavs.

If someone have further questions, just say it there :) --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ognyena Maria

The icon in question depicts the martyr (by fire) St. Marina of Antioch.--Galassi (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Surely, but in Russian Wikipedia St. Margaret (Marina) of Antioch or Margaret the Virgin is identified as Ognyena Maria, who, according to the Slavonic Encyclopedia of 1949 is the sister of Perun in Slavic folklore. It is not a hoax.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The icon in question, entitled "The Fiery Chariot of the Word" is not even Margaret/Marina of Antioch, but rather is the Theotokos herself. This fits even more perfectly with the description of Ognyena Maria as the conflation of the two saints given by Zhuravlyov of the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in one of his publications, which I have added as a source in the article about the figure.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent revisions (July 2017)

Midnightblueowl: Thank you for your recent efforts to improve the article. However, please discuss before making significant changes and deletions. Specifically:

• The dismemberment of the article in many side-articles may prove to be a good idea, however I would have not deleted all that material from the main article. The risk is that it may turn out incomplete, failing to meet the criteria of broadness and comprehensiveness required at WP:FVG and WP:FA?, if the goal is to make it a good article and then featured article. Also, article WP:LENGTH is relative to the topic treated, and our topic is a rather large one. For instance see the FA "intelligent design", it is very long and 201,047 bytes in size. "Hinduism", not a FA but a very well-done article in my view, is 252,565 bytes.
• Your attempt to stay on topic appears to be rather extreme. I would have not supported the deletion of the section and information about Slavic/Russian folk religion, since it is the main source of the Rodnover movement and the proof of the continuity that they claim. Ivanits (1989), published by M. E. Sharpe, who attests the continuity of pre-Christian religion, and the studies of Boris Rybakov, are rather strong sources, possibly stronger than many of the scholars who have studied Slavic Native Faith as a recent phenomenon. Claiming that Russian folk religion is not pertinent to the topic of Slavic Native Faith is unwarranted; taking again "Hinduism" as an example, it has lengthy sections discussing its roots: local religions and Vedic religion. The same discourse applies to other minor issues, such as the etymology of zhrets etc. The risk is to give a totally decontextualised, and therefore meaningless, picture of the topic.
• Keep utmost neutrality in explaining Rodnovers' views, avoiding personal judgements expressed through prefixes such as "pseudo-" and the use of quotation marks to target certain words, even avoiding to endorse the personal bias of authors who have studied the topic. On the basis of what I have understood studying Thomas Kuhn, true science is not dogma.

These are the major issues, for now!--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eckhardt and thanks for your message. As it stands, this article is getting far too lengthy, hence my pruning and forking; this is particularly the case for certain sections, such as those on Theology and Christianity, which were just getting out of hand. If you feel that there is really vital information that I have removed, then I am happy to discuss its reintroduction, but additions must be kept as concise as possible. Further pruning will most certainly be necessary. The Heathenry (new religious movement) article serves as a good guide for the direction in which this article should head, including the volume of text that should be given to each sub-topic. Not only has it been recently awarded FA status, but it also discusses a very similar religious tradition; both Heathenry and Slavic Native Faith are modern Pagan new religious movements stemming from the romanticist movement (Hinduism, conversely, is thousands of years old and has a fundamentally dissimilar history; the Hinduism article is not in great shape and is not one that we should be emulating).

As for WP:NEUTRAL, I fear that you may somewhat misunderstand the thrust of the policy. Wikipedia does not serve to present all sides of a topic neutrally and equally, giving them all equal weight and status. Rather, it seeks to neutrally present what the pertinent Reliable Sources say. Thus, the purpose of this article must be to faithfully report what Shnirelman, Aitamurto, Lesiv and co say about Slavic Native Faith, not try to balance what these scholars say with what practitioners believe. Doing so would be WP:False balance.

Forgive me if I am presumptuous, but I assume from the fact that you only edit articles on Slavic mythology and Native Faith that you are a practitioner of this religion? (No need to answer if you prefer privacy in such matters). That is of course fine; there is no reason to bar practitioners from editing articles about their own religion. But if that is the case then please to bear in mind the way that that may influence your editing. Practitioners of Pagan religions tend to emphasise the connection between the new religious movements and the pre-Christian belief systems; scholars of religion generally do not share that emic view. You refer to "proof of the continuity that they claim" but clearly this is not a view substantiated by the Reliable Sources written by scholars studying the Slavic Native Faith movement. Pulling out studies written by folklorists thirty or forty years ago to bolster practitioner claims is WP:Synthesis. Such sources would be very pertinent in an article on Russian folklore or something like that, but they would not be here. If there are areas where we have any significant disagreement as to the content then we can always call for a WP:Request for comment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not a member of the Rodnovery movement nor an ethnic Slav. I am interested in the study of ethnic religions and religious movements in general. Regarding the issue of Slavic folk religion, I think that the previous version was balanced precisely because it had a section specifically dedicated to that topic, as one of the major sources of the Rodnover movement, as it is also recognised by recent scholars who have focused exclusively on the latter. So, sources like Ivanits and Rybakov were appropriate in that section.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But why emphasise older sources like Ivanits and Rybakov who argue that there was a "double belief" while virtually ignoring the more recent studies by folks like Rook who explicitly refute this concept? And why add this into an article on Slavic Native Faith when scholars studying Slavic Native Faith do not refer heavily to the idea (beyond, as Aitamurto does, discussing that Native Faith practitioners are keen believers in the existence of "double belief" to legitimise their own borrowings from folk culture)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but in this case quality does not deteriorate over time. Boris Rybakov and Linda Ivanits are acknowledged authorities in the subject of Slavic folk religion (the concept of "double belief" is different, it is the theory that paganism was consciously preserved disguised as Christianity). The section presented in a balanced way both Ivanits' study and the visions of more recent scholars like Stella Rock who challenges the concept of "double belief" and not the broader concept of Slavic folk religion.

Regarding neutrality, WP:GEVAL itself states that "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world". However, I think that WP:IMPARTIAL is even more appropriate in our case; I quote it in its entirety: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone".--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Wikipedia should take a side on the debate regarding "double belief" in its articles (although I felt that the previous wording did imply support for the existence of "double belief"). Rather, what I am saying is that the Slavic Native Faith article is not really the appropriate space to discuss this debate. There are other Wikipedia articles where the academic debate is far more relevant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue of double belief is not the one I referred to when I wrote about neutrality in the first comment and in the later ones. I also criticised the use of quotation marks in a way that seems to put into question the existence of concepts like "Aryan" (a spiritual concept attested in all Indo-European languages and especially in Vedic and Avestan literature) and "ethnic religion". The impression that this gives to the reader is that Wikipedia is mocking Rodnovers' beliefs, which is against policies. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not have yet policies imposing political correction for complying with given ideologies.

Even the whole issue of the clear Indo-European origins of Slavic spirituality was left out from the article, despite Ivakhiv 2005c thoroughly discusses the subject at p. 211. Maybe you're not familiar with the topic of Indo-Europeans, but the Indo-Europeans are a fact studied in the academia, not the belief of some marginal fringe theorists like ufology and chemtrails. The general impression is that the article tries to equate Slavic Native Faith with the latter.

Returning to the issue of double faith, Ivakhiv 2005c (The Revival of Ukrainian Native Faith in Modern Paganism in World Cultures) himself discusses it at p. 212 as a "thorough synthesis of Pagan and Christian elements". At p. 214 he says that, especially in Russia, "despite intense efforts... beliefs and practices changed slowly in rural areas. Gods were replaced by saints (and he gives some equivalents, like Perun and Saint Elias, Veles and Saint Blasius, Yarilo and Saint George), Pagan festivals by Christian feast days...". This is also what Ivanits explained, and she also explained why this synthesis survives in Russia while was wiped out in Western Europe. Note that Ivakhiv 2005c is not a study on Russian folklore of the past century, and it is therefore relevant for the present article since folk religion is the source upon which Slavic Native Faith builds itself.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Quotation marks should be used when introducing a term that has a specific meaning in the context of Slavic Native Faith, particularly as some of these terms are used in quite a different manner among academics ("ethnic religion" and "Aryan" being too good examples of this). I see no reason why it need imply any de-legitimation of the concepts and beliefs of Rodnovers themselves. An alternate option might be to italicise said words. Always happy to discuss any particular instances where you feel that the use of the quotation marks might be inappropriate.

At the end of the day, the RS make clear that Slavic Native Faith is steeped in pseudo-historical ideas about super-advanced ancient Slavic races, Aryans living in Atlantis, The Book of Veles, and such like. Shnirelman, Radulovic, and others all discuss this at some length in their many publications, and that is why this topic should be reflected in the article. At the same time, if Aitamurto and Gaidukov are correct, then practitioners (at least in Russia) are increasingly adopting a more realistic understanding and interpretation of the past - and it is important that the article to reflects that as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Besides the issue of quotation marks and the others, what do you think about adding back those phrases which quoted Ivanits about Russia, integrating them with what contained in Ivakhiv 2005c quoted hereabove? Do you prefer that we keep the content under the "Beliefs" section or that we recreate a "Folk religion and double belief" section? Also consider that the "Overview + Folk double belief, ethnic religion and syncretism + Terminology" chapter of the 24/07 version was clearer, in my opinion, than the present subdivision. It would be useful to know the opinions of other contributors, too, especially Wojsław Brożyna, who has followed the article's recent developments.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I won't object if the information is reintroduced, so long as it is really kept concise. No more than two or three sentences could be warranted. I'm still not super convinced by its relevance, but it's probably not worth arguing over. I initially moved the stuff on 'double belief' to Beliefs, but granted I'm not super happy with that positioning either. If you really think it will go better in the Overview section, I won't object to the move. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ynglism and other non-Rodnover movements of Slavic Neopaganism

I think that Ynglism, Sylenkoism and other branch of Slavic Neopaganism which are NOT Slavic Native Faith should be removed from this artictle after it was renamed to current name. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

But who is to say that they are not Slavic Native Faith? Certainly, academic sources produced by historians of religion seem to discuss them as part and parcel of the same broad new religious movement that we here term "Slavic Native Faith". Stating that said groups are not "Slavic Native Faith" might be taking a side in internal religious arguments which Wikipedia should remain neutral from. For instance, our articles on Christianity should cover not just Roman Catholicism and Protestantism but also Mormonism, even though many Roman Catholics and Protestants might claim that Mormons are not real Christians. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No. It's simple. Slavic Native Faith is religion which is based on historical and ethnological sources, while Ynglism and Sylenkoism are based on their sacred (and completely modernly invented) texts. The separate question is that they are producing fake image of Slavic past, which is offense to ancestors, so they break one of basic pillars of every ethnic religion - ancestor worship. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Better comparison will be that current situation seems like you will classified Christianity as branch of Judaism, or Islam as branch of Christianity. They are different religions, despite the similarities. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As already pointed out by Midnightblueowl they are treated as movements within Rodnovery by academic publications, so they should rightfully have a place in this article. The analogy established with Mormonism also applies to the Jehovah's Witnesses and other Christian groups which are not considered Christians by Catholics and Protestants, and, despite this, have their place in the article about Christianity. Moreover, the article already points out that Ynglism and the Ukrainian National Faith are not considered part of "mainstream" Rodnovery by many groups and are vehemently criticised for their doctrines.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sylenkoism is important part of the article, as it was one of the first organized Slavic Native Faith related religious movements. Plus obviously it's the first organization to use term "Native Faith" in context of Slavic religion. That alone makes it an important part of article. It's historically descendant of Slavic religion revival as at the state of things in 1st half - middle XX century. It's however a reformed form of it - as directly stated in Maha Vira by Sylenko. RUNVira rituals and interpretations of traditions are somewhat dated by now, as they are somewhat a fossilized form of how Ukrainian revival of Slavic religion looked many decades ago plus they are transformed further by Sylenko plus eventual later changes. Pointing out differences other than theological would be beneficial for article. And it had important impact on "non reformed" Slavic Native Faith movement in Ukraine, and therefore on the movement in neighbor countries. In Ukraine RUNVira was a transition stage for many further "non reformed" Slavic Native Faith followers. It is also distinct from Ynglism in being open about the "reformed" aspects of doctrine and doesn't deny it's different in many aspects from historical Slavic cult. Slavicslav (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Vedas, Avesta, Norse and other European, Theosophy and other influences

Does anyone have sources to present how certain Indo-European religions influenced different branches of modern Slavic Native Faith? It also has evident New Age influences in more specific cases. At the moment I recall that Vedas are most common influence on eastern branches. RUNVira also has strong Avestan Zoroastrianism influences. Also Theosophy had an impact on formation of different branches of present day Native Faith in Eastern and Central Europe. Germanic Heathenery influences are also strong among Western Slavic groups. The question is are such topics a subject of any encyclopedic grade sources we can use to improve current article, or we can relay on works more loose in formal aspects. Slavicslav (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The article has currently reached a high level of accuracy and reliability, so any further addition would require good academic or high quality sources. Anyway, the various influences on Rodnovery, coming from Hinduism, Iranian Zoroastrianism, Germanic Heathenry and Siberian shamanism are already pointed out in the paragraph "Rodnovery as a new synthesis". This article should not discuss the various branches in detail, and specific influences on them may be treated in the dedicated articles (for instance "Native Ukrainian National Faith").

In case you are hoping for quality contributions in that article - I'm not an expert nor follower of "Native Ukrainian National Faith". So that article would have to wait for someone more competent person. Slavicslav (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides, please do not insert many unnecessary sub-categorisations as you did with the recent edits.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There should be a method to improve readability as now most sections looks like chaotic wall of text now. Slavicslav (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

They are not a chaotic wall of text. Chapters are internally subdivided in paragraphs treating differing topics. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. The reader is expected to be able to understand what is written.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So, there is no need of further improvements? In my humble opinion at least some paragraphs would benefit from gaining own sections, if sub sections are too much at present level of nesting. Especially when we consider the fact that current text still contains repetitions here and there. That adds quiet some to the already respectable size of the article. Further division may be helpful in identification of such parts. That's what I meant by chaos. Next time please just ask. I would be glad to explain if any part of my comments is incomprehensible. Slavicslav (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pyramids' Rodnovery and Project 12

Moscow's Golod pyramid.

I write this for the sake of future research, since at the moment I have not found any academic publication treating the subject.

There are Rodnovers who use pyramids as shrines. Alexander Golod started research on pyramid spiritual technology in the 1990s and promoted the building of tens of such pyramids in Russia. The 44m-high Golod pyramid of Moscow was destroyed on 29 May 2017 by the strong winds which hit the city that day; the hollow, wooden-framed pyramid collapsed right after the Vedic/Rodnover shaman Radmir held a rite for the ancestors inside of it (Article: "Shaman claims credit for the Moscow pyramid destroyed by hurricane winds").

Another spiritual movement led by Valery Uvarov resurrects ancient Egyptian (and other civilisations') spiritual technology and is building a settlement with pyramid shrines in Tomsk (Video: "Pyramid Complex in Tomsk proposed by Valery Uvarov and Project 12"). Official website.

Of course, these movements are not necessarily classifiable as Rodnovery, but as demonstrated by Radmir's case some Rodnovers are part of them.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How ist that supposed to be classified as a separate branch of Russian Rodnovery? Just because some people connected to that movement are related to use and building of such structure? It's like creating a branch of "Barn Rodnovery" based by the fact that some Russians happen to build barns and the same time be followers of Russian Rodnovery religion, or "Kitchen Rodnovery", "Privy Rodnovery" etc. That's an absurd. Slavicslav (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote hereinabove, this is an annotation "for the sake of future research"; it is not intended as a discussion. I just provided evidence that some Rodnovers are taking part in these pyramid movements. The title is generic, by the way, and it is not intended to represent a branch of Rodnovery.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well Rodnovery are part of many esoteric initiatives and movements in Russia and aboard. So are members of many other religions. Christianity included. I'm more or less familiar with the question of those pyramid structures and I think they were built as a result of general esoteric interests of people involved than motivated by religion, which if had any impact on initiative was a secondary or further grade influence. If however you would find any mentions of Ynglists building landings for UFOs that kind of activity could be considered as influenced by their religious movement. Slavicslav (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that the whole esoteric and NRM milieu in Russia is wider and more complex than Rodnovery itself. "Religion" is intrinsically part of these movements which basically are looking for a new model for human life, settlement and civilisation. By the way, the pyramid movement has nothing to do with UFO nonsense. I have found the main website (https://newpyramids.ru.com/) and a video presentation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q40K1ZW5cKo) of the movement inspired by Uvarov, which is named Project 12. It is very interesting; basically they believe that the pyramid, as a sacred geometry, harmonises earthly-human biological time and astronomic time and is therefore a healing device.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Prav-Jav-Nav in the Book of Veles

Wojsław Brożyna please provide sources that support existence of use of terms "Prav, Jav and Nav" outside Book of Veles in historical and folkloric sources as names for "upper", "middle" and "bottom" parts of the world. I'm not aware of existence of such division outside of Book of Veles, as that's the written "source" where it was used as the first time and later diffused to other groups, that not necessarily support Book of Veles. So far I don't see how "it is not true - this interpretation is shared by adherents who criticize Book of Veles". If they use such division and only Book of Veles is an original source for this triad of names used together they at least partially support that source. Even if all of those names are a proper words connected with Slavic languages and mythology, context of use is important here. Slavicslav (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Eckhardt Etheling what's your opinion on the subject in question? Slavicslav (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, after last edit of caption in question by Wojsław Brożyna I think we have consensus on that topic. I don't have any further objections. Thank you for your nderstanding. Slavicslav (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Did "Rodnovery" enter English from Russian? And how widespread is it really outside Internet articles based on this Wikipedia page?

Term "Rodnovery" did came from Russian speaking Internet users, followed later by some Serbians (article claiming it to be "widespread" cited on this Wikipedia page is written by Serbian author BTW). Plus the only "source" supporting it's "widespread" among literature and groups is just a short article on Svevlad page and is not even reachable now. And then diffused to some use by younger generations of Natvie Slavic Faith followers online outside of Russian and Serbian communities. And that's mainly post 2010 thing, with start of bigger magnitude around 2012. Mainly due to citing Wikipedia. That's BTW also around time when Ynglist movement came to the greatest Internet popularity among many "internet followers" of Slavic Native Faith. It could had some influence on that too.

Older generations in most Slavic countries I'm aware of still prefer other terms. So I don't see how that term is supposed to not come from Russian language. It clearly did come from Russian. And it came to Russian as it is literally a plural form of Rodnover - Native Faith follower and came to Russian as a translation of Ukrainian "Ridna Vira" as explained by Scott Simpson. Later by unknown reasons some pople started to use it as same way "Heathenry" or "Druidry" is used. As singular form, but it's clearly breaking the way "Druidry" and "Heathenry" terms were formed by adding a postfix "-ry". Just compare - Druid --> Druidry, Heathen --> Heathenry. SO Druidry --> Druid, Heathenry --> Heathen, following this rule we should have Rodnovery --> Rodnove[sic!]. But ther is no such a word in use. If "Rodnovery" did originate the same way it should look more like "Rodnoverry"/"Rodnoverery"/"Rodnoveryry". Term "Rodnovery" later started to had more widespread usage over the Internet in recent years mainly dues to it's usage on at Wikipedia page and it's claims of it being "wildly used" based just on one single article.

Just compare article history and how many times was it used in article with google trends since 2004 - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=rodnovery. Note that part of such results may be just people looking for "rodnovery" as latin transliteration of plural form of Russian name for a Slavic Native Faith follower - a Rodnover.

The other isue that in numerous Slavic languages forms "rod" "rodna" are not present, and they are "rod" - pl: "ród", ua:"rid", "rodna" - pl:"rodzima", be:"rodnaya", ua:"ridna" to give an example of Polish, Belarussian and Ukrainian languages. Same goes for "vera". Not to mention opposition to term alone in case of groups in different countries. I haven't seen a source written in english that came from many groups that even mentioned term "Rodnovery" and are using "Native Faith", "Slavjanstwo" and other.

Plus how is anyone going to ascertain terms like "widely accepted among followers" as there are really huge problems to state how many followers does Slavic Native Faith has in total? Numbers different sources provide are just estimations and they tend to differ in numbers by around 90-100 times in some cases. Plus wow much is "wildly"? What if just really small fraction of them accept that term in reality? How is one going to research that topic?

So Wikipedia article is responsible partially for more recent "widespread". That's a kind of a vicious circle. To sum up so far claims about that term "being originally widespread outside Russian related English language sources" and "not coming from Russian language" are very dubious. Slavicslav (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Academic sources say that it was originally used among Ukrainian Rodnovers, in their language Ridnovirstvo, then spread to Russian and South Slavic as Rodnoverie. However, the way you explain its Anglicised form "Rodnovery" is not correct; that is not the way words are formed in English. It does not derive from the Russian plural Rodnovery: English has the adjective "Rodnover", plural "Rodnovers", from which the noun "Rodnovery" is formed by adding the -ry suffix. That it is a widely used WP:COMMONNAME, even more widespread than the translation "Native Faith" or the extended translation "Slavic Native Faith", is a WP:BLUESKY (plain fact) which does not need explanation.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If English language has such words, why they are not stated in any official English dictionary? And even if there is no need for such terms to exist in official codified English, what language is a source for them?. It's certainly not Ukrainian. Or if it was Ukrainian, there should be an explanation how it was transformed to such form in English and by whom. All mentions of term "Rodnovery" in works of Kaarina Aitamurto and Scott Simpson I found so far are in conext of Russia, where that term is used as anglicized form of plural form of Russian word "Rodnover". I'm waiting for examples of use of such term in other conext in scientific academic sources, other than the text on Svevlad page. And as I have pointed out it's nowadays spread around the internet is mainly thanks to Wikipedia usage. That's WP:BLUESKY for everyone who was using Internet for at least a decade or so. I'm deeply interested in your arguments, if you can prove otherwise. Slavicslav (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia adopts the policy of WP:COMMONNAME for article naming and in-text usage of terms. To verify that a term is common we generally use Google count, so Internet is not excluded as a source to verify popularity, especially of terms of recent phenomena which have not entered formal English dictionaries. In our case the title of the article is not even the commonly used "Rodnovery" but the academic general descriptor "Slavic Native Faith". Because of its widespread usage, "Rodnovery" deserves a mention in the lede right besides "Slavic Native Faith".

"Rodnovery" and "Rodnovers" are used in a variety of English language literature, both academic and not academic. Just take for example the academic Kathryn Rountree's Contemporary Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Europe: Colonialist and Nationalist Impulses (Berghahn Books, 2015, ISBN 1782386475), page 217: "... and Rodnovery (contemporary Slavic paganism)...". --Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the whole count of times that term is used: https://books.google.pl/books?hl=it&id=sdKdBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=rodnovery&f=false and context. I may not be a native English speaker but I see that usage of this term is: 1)Strongly related to mentions of Russia in the context of article/articles. 2)It also mentions other anglicized name of Slavic Native Faith followers as well se page 20 "Modern Slavic Paganism or Native Faith..." that underlines Native Faith is the most important term for an author "...is known by various term including Rodnovery..." it's unknown if here it's used as a singular form as you suggest, i rather doubt as further we have "...and Ridnoviry. ..." I don't know of any source using "Ridnoviry" in other context than plural form of "Ridnovir". "..In Russia the term is Rodnoverie". 3)page 217 usage of "Rodnovery" doesn't explain what form it is and where it came from. 4)Page 313 uses "Rodnovery/Rodnoverie" together suggesting tie to Russian. And points out that term was used 3 TIMES TOTAL. That's hardly a "wide usage" in a publication consisting over 200 pages. 5)Term "Native Faith" has a good few magnitudes more wide usage: https://books.google.pl/books?hl=it&id=sdKdBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Native%20Faith&f=false It is used in context of Slavic Native Faith more times than term "Rodnovery" and even references that work lists are also using term "Native Faith" in context of "Slavic Native Faith" in their Titles 6)To sum up that works only proves my point to be valid, and is hardly evidence for term "Rodnovery" being more widespread in scientific literature. I would dare to say it proves that term "Native Faith", "Slavic Native Faith", "Insert_Slavic_nation_name Native Faith" is much more wildly used in scientific sources. That's the whole opposite what you are claiming. Slavicslav (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You also wrote: <The other isue that in numerous Slavic languages forms "rod" "rodna" are not present, and they are "rod" - pl: "ród", ua:"rid", "rodna" - pl:"rodzima", be:"rodnaya", ua:"ridna" to give an example of Polish, Belarussian and Ukrainian languages. Same goes for "vera".> Our etymology section uses Russian terms to explain the term "Rodnovery" because sources themselves mostly use Russian terms to explain it, perhaps because Westerners are more familiar with Russian than other Slavic languages. This is not a machination intended to marginalise minor Slavic languages.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all I'm not against use of Russian to explain terms. Then again, I see you didn't get what I meant. I have pointed out the out of blue sky fact (for everyone who knows at least those languages) that there is no common forms of those words in all modern Slavic languages. Therefore question arises, why that term is so close to Russian plural form of Russian term "Rodnover", which is exactly "Rodnovery" if it is supposed to not originated from that language, but be a part of English for some reason according to you. Mind to shed some light on this? With a proper citation preferably. So far everything points out that such term orignated in English from Russian. Even if it was not a direct loan of term "Rodnovery" from Russian, it at least seems to come from Russian "Rodnover", as Russian language was most probably the first language to use that form among Slavic languages. If Russian can't be credited for it's introduction into English then I'm curious why. Slavicslav (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Rodnovery" is the name of the movement, built upon "Rodnover(s)" as the name of the adherents. As all other -ry suffixed English words it not only denotes a practice, way and profession of life (like, for instance, "chemistry", "ironmongery", "masonry", "zealotry" or "Lollardry", and hundreds of others) but is also a collective plural, that is to say a group name (like, for instance, "Jewry", the same "Lollardry", or "Freemasonry", and many others). It is just a coincidence that it sounds (and is written) like the Russian plural Rodnovery. There is a very high probability, or maybe a certainty, that it entered English from Russian, but this is not discussed in academic literature and is not even relevant to English usage.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So, you say it is not discussed anywhere. So how are you so sure about that suffix thing? You just agreed that your claims are baseless. Slavicslav (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I respond here to both the branches of the discussion, which is becoming rather tedious, honestly. 1) The policy WP:COMMONNAME does not necessarily rely upon academic sources, but on general usage. "Rodnovery" is undoubtedly in widespread usage, and used besides "Slavic Native Faith" in a number of academic sources such as Rountree quoted hereinabove. 2) How it entered English language and how it is composed is not relevant to its usage. 4) General usage and some academic usages are more than enough to establish the term. If you have problems with the term, since you are directly involved in the Rodnover movement (at least judging by your nickname and some statements) you have a WP:COI that must not express itself in this Wikipedia article.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So you have no reference and sources for your claims so far, but you are obviously right because you say so, and because you think I'm a Rodnover (I have never used that term in my whole life when referring to myself) based on my nickname at Wikipedia. Do I get it right? If not I think we are having some communication issues. Can you please rephrase your statement? So far it hardly supports your position with any encyclopedic grade materials. The one you sourced here are only further illustrating that points I made so far are true. Plus you ignored many points I made in comment you supposedly are replaying to. I really hope that's not intentional. Slavicslav (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Eckhardt Etheling stop editing this discussion page section title. I know much better than you what was my original question. Since when that became accepted practice on Wikipedia? "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." as stated at Talk_page_guidelines. You did change the meaning so far. I'm reverting it to former shape. If you see grammar mistakes inform me 1st before editing to avoid changing meaning of my words. Slavicslav (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

1) I already provided the reasons and academic sources that are needed to justify the usage of the term "Rodnovery", and you are ignoring all of them. 2) Regarding the section title, your claim that all the cases which use the term are "based on this Wikipedia article" is simply false; there is is plenty of academic books, articles, discussion forums and general websites which use the term and are totally unrelated to this Wikipedia article. I will not comment further to this discussion, which has become annoying and repetitive.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Not tue, I gave a detailed comment on usage of term "Rodnovery" in scientific sources you provided with discussing context of use, and how often are they used. If discussing provided sources is a form of "ignoring" those sources then I do not understand why. It's counterintuitive to me. Mind to elaborate more on that? Slavicslav (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your position here: you created your user account on 18 February and immediately started editing and commenting here with insistence, evident knowledge of how discussions here work, evident familiarity with SNF, and a nickname which clearly indicates interest in Slavic topics. If you're here to try to impose your own visions, in other words you are a purpose-only user, please refrain since this is not what Wikipedia editors are expected to do.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Reasons behind editions are mentioned in page history. They were stylistic. Plus the other more or less related to discussion I'm trying to have with you. In case you are starting personal attacks, please stop. You are making so far too many assumptions based only on what you think is true, without even asking first. I find such attitude to be unacceptable. Slavicslav (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

English translation "Slavic Native Faith" is sharp. About Slavic "Rodnovery" (it"s from Russian): "Rodnoverie" is more correct (also from Russian and Bulgarian, Polish "Rodzimowierstwo"). See some academic publications: Aitamurto, Kaarina (2016), "Paganism, Traditionalism, Nationalism: Narratives of Russian Rodnoverie" (London and New York); Gaidukov, Alexey (2013), "The Russian-Language Internet and Rodnoverie", In Kaarina Aitamurto; Scott Simpson. Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe (Durham); Laruelle, Marlene (2012), "The Rodnoverie Movement: The Seach For Pre-Christian Ancestry And The Occult" // The New Age of Russia. Occult and Esoteric Dimensions / Ed. Menzel B., Hagemeister M., Glatzer Rosenthal B. (Munich); Simpson, Scott (2013), "Polish Rodzimowierstwo: Strategies for (Re)constructing a Movement", In Kaarina Aitamurto; Scott Simpson. Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe (Durham). DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it's notable that no scientific source calls whole movement by the term "Rodnovery"/"Rodnoverie". So Eckhardt Etheling was basically spreading fake information willingly? He is basically ignoring that fact in discussion above and repeat untrue statements despite presented contrarguments. Hell Im from Poland (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Veleslav's statement regarding the Crimean referendum of 2014

@Slavicslav: I have not deleted the paragraph that you added regarding the statement, for now. Veleslav's blog is a primary source and therefore it is not considered good for Wikipedia. Please provide a better source; maybe some Russian academic has published some article about the subject. Otherwise I'll have to delete the paragraph, despite its relevance to the topic.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

On my side - I don't see how it hurts the quality of article if we would leave just pure translation and date when he posted that. It would be just a pure citation. Whole post was translated, nothing was omitted. There is no more context at all on his blog other than that one post. I'm going to look around the Internet if I can find any mention of statement in the type of source you pointed out. I remember it provoked quiet an outrage among Ukrainian Ridnovirs in social media. Veleslav is known of his Soviet Union sentiments. But I can't say without further research if this topic is mentioned in a proper encyclopedic form. I can however point out that blog post and there was at least one youtube video in which he was mentioning his sentiment toward Soviet times. Slavicslav (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Moszyński "Kultura Ludowa Słowian"

@Wojsław Brożyna: do you have an access to that publication? I'm curious if there is anything we can use to improve current article in that publication. I see a discussion here, from the last year, about "double faith" in the context of publications by Boris Rybakov. It's been a while since I have read his book "Ancient Slavic Paganism". However I remember he had tendency to jump too easily to a really detailed conclusions based on very skimpy archaeological and folkloric material. Maybe Moszyński could be better here? I mean in a context of presenting elements of Native Faith that survived since pre-Christian times. I'm not negating influence Rybakov's works had over many of branches of modern Slavic Native Faith, and mentions about such should be present in article. Just looking for possibly better descriptions of elements surviving in "double belief". Plus Moszyński (if I'm not mistaken) refers to wider area of Slavic lands then Rybakov. Slavicslav (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I only have PDF version on my computer. It's avaible to download, for example, from there (part II - Spiritual Culture - 1/2) and there (part II 2/2). It seems to me that Moszyński had little bigger influence at Rodnovery in Poland than Rybakov. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to create a new article, "Slavic Native Faith in Poland", to discuss in detail the development of Rodnovery in Poland which seems to have roots and inspirations which are quite different from those of the East Slavic movements.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I can try to write something in a few days. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To create article "Slavic Neopaganism"

In continuation of the topic "Ynglism and other non-Rodnover movements of Slavic Neopaganism". Already discussed by Wojsław Brożyna, Midnightblueowl, Eckhardt Etheling, Slavicslav the correctness of including in this article the movements such as the "reformed" Ynglism, Peterburgian Vedism, and Native Ukrainian National Faith (Sylenkoism). And due they are treated as movements within Rodnovery by some academic publications, it's OK.

Only non-Polytheistic reconstructionism: Rerikhism (Agni Yoga), Ivanovism, Ringing Cedars' Anastasianism and others usuelly are treated as original neoreligions, new religious movements, yes, as "Slavic Neopaganism", but outside of "Slavic Native Faith" (non-Rodnover) or related with it (and Agni Yoga is even further, as an neo-oriental teaching). That's why, what for about everyone here, like the Russian Wikipedia (see: Славянское неоязычество), we need to create the article Slavic Neopaganism about all branches (and briefly about Rodnovery too) and transfer some of the material from this article to it. After all, for example, Druidry (modern) isn’t included any new syncretic religions among the Celtics. DayakSibiriak (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I can appreciate the argument but I'm not convinced by this idea. I think that we could very easily end up with a "Slavic Neopaganism" article that is essentially a duplicate of "Slavic Native Faith". I also disagree with the statement that "Only non-Polytheistic reconstructionism[…] are treated as original neoreligions, new religious movements". Polytheistic forms of Native Faith are just as much a new religious movement as any of the other groups listed, and are recognised as such by scholars of religion. Many practitioners may not be terribly happy about that fact but it does not make it any less true. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Polytheistic reconstructionism is a new religion as well, they are all new. I just want to clarify once again that "Slavic Native Faith" (Rodnoverie) and "Slavic Neopaganism" are not identical. Slavic neo-paganism is much broader and includes various syncretic cults, little associated with the native faith of the Slavs. Better 2 articles with no a duplicate. DayakSibiriak (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What could work is a series of more nation-focused articles: Modern Paganism in Russia, Modern Paganism in Ukraine, that sort of thing, which would provide some coverage of these broader issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

May be. And what, if you rename the article in the Slavic Neopaganism? Inside there will be a clear division, for example: 1) Slavic Native Faith (Rodnoverie); 2) Peterburgian Vedism; 3) Slavic syncretic neoreligions. Or abstractedly: 1) Polytheistic reconstructionism and 2) Modern syncretism. And as of now, not fit under the cap Slavic Native Faith writing including about Ivanovism, Anastasianism and neoreligions not yet mentioned here with a Slavic bias. And about Rerikhism (Agni Yoga) what for here nowdays, it's branch of Theosophy. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

My opinion (I contributed to the article as "Eckhardt Etheling"): It is well described in the article that Anastasianism, Roerichism, etc., are not stricly Rodnovery, as they often mix with it but are movements of their own. This is not the case for Peterburgian Vedism. As described in the article (both this one and the dedicated one), Peterburgian Vedism has exerted a decisive influence in the embryonal stage of Rodnovery, so that "Vedism" is another term by which Rodnovery is known. The case of Ynglism is similar: this tradition is rejected by some groups but it considers itself genuine native faith, and is discussed as Rodnovery in academic descriptions of the subject (cf. Aitamurto). So, no, I'm not in favour of distinguishing a "Slavic Neopaganism" from a "Slavic Rodnovery".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Note about recent development on the Russian Wikipedia: There has been a recent development in the Russian Wikipedia, where formerly "Rodnovery" and "Slavic Neopaganism" had separate articles, with the former dedicated exclusively to the self-claimed most purist Slavic traditionalist and reconstructionist currents while the latter dedicated to the most New Age and syncretic currents (Ynglists, Anastasians, et al.). Some users here pushed for adopting the same model and enforcing this partisan distinction (promoted by the self-proclaimed purist Rodnovers). Between December 2020 and February 2021 the two articles of the Russian Wikipedia were merged as the contributors convened that the two are synonyms and the distinction was made by some groups to exclude others from the definition.--Æo (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The deletion discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Slavic Native Faith. Krakkos (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Great fire kudesniki.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Way too long of an article...

Can we strip some content here, or can we move it to a separate page? I've seen a warning before on pages that are too long - how do I add such a message? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am against "stripping content" from this article, and in general against the excessive division of one article into multiple articles. This article was already significantly shortened in the past, resulting in the creation of various secondary articles. The reason why I am against the excessive fragmentation of a single article into multiple articles is that secondary articles always tend to be neglected, not well curated, and thus tend to degenerate over time. Besides, I don't think that this article is "too long". Just compare it to the articles about Pope Francis and Donald Trump.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So think I. The long is no problem at an online encyclopedy. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Kolovrat

A separate article about the symbol "Kolovrat" is already being written. Noraskulk (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is a hoax

Author of this article has absolutely no idea about Slavic mythology and religion nor what even rodnovery is. 90% of this article is about pseudo-Slavic sects like Ynglists that has not much common with "normal" rodnovery nor Slavic Native Faith. Author is pushing Jan Hanuš or Mathieu-Colas imaginations as serious science and making people believe in it (also in Deities of Slavic religion which is in terrible state) which proves he absolutely has no idea about what he is writting and just pushing random stuff from the internet. I just restored Krodo (Saxon god (most likely pseudo-god)) which was made redirect to Rod because of Hanus believed Krodo was major Slavic god (but even him didn't said anything about Rod). Author pushes pseudo-science like Book of Veles or Slavic Vedas. Author suggested that Rod is some major god (suggested by Rybakov), but it was denied by majority of scholars and it is not a thing in rodnovery, most of the rodnovers believe in him as god of family. Most of things written in this article have nothing to do with Slavic Native Faith and should be moved to pages dedicated to Ynglists and other New religious movements. Sławobóg (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

About a hoax is overkill, but there is a problem with including all Slavic syncretic movements like Sylenkoism and Yngliism, not only very Rodnover reconstructivism. I have already suggested splitting them up (see the head "To create article "Slavic Neopaganism"). The merit of the article is in attracting many English-language sources. The big negative is the inclusion of Agni Yoga (the course of Theosophy) and Assianism (Ossetian religion), which are not even part of any Slavic neopaganism. And too much about Russian and not enough about Polish Rodnovery. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

As discussed by Laruelle in her 2012 work, Rodnovery is extremely varied and intermixed with all the movements listed in the article, including Roerichism. Splitting them into a separate "Slavic Neopaganism" article would be problematic POV, as nearly all of these movements consider themselves "Rodnover" despite the hardcore traditionalist organisations (CCO CPB, CPT, et. al.) dismiss them as non-Rodnover, New Age movements.--Æo (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Sławobóg's rather POV and derogatory opinion about the article: SNF/Rodnovery is a new religious movement, not corresponding to ancient Slavic paganism. This is not an article about Slavic paganism, and the historians who study ancient Slavic religion are not an authority on this. You are pleased not to mix the two planes.

This article is based entirely on robust academic sources. It is by no means based entirely on the views of Ynglism, but discusses Ynglism and the Book of Veles as a part of the movement, as the sources themselves do, and presents their views together with those of other sects.

Michel Mathieu-Colas, whom you insult in your comment, is a scholar of Indo-European linguistics at the Université Paris 13 and his work is published by the French National Centre for Scientific Research (one of the most authoritative institutions in the world), thus he is a reliable academic source. If you have problem with this, please write to the FNCSR that they publish "nonsense imagination". That many Rodnovers believe in Rod as the supreme God is a fact stated in academic sources about the SNF movement, and the scholarly debate among Rybakov and others about the historical meaning of the god does not pertain to Rodnovers' use of the concept and does not belong to this article.

The article "deities of Slavic religion" is a separate one, and you are welcome if you want to give your contributions, though not based on your personal opinions or your favourite scholars, like what you have done to the article "Rod", where instead of integrating previously existing information you have completely erased text and sources and rewritten the article as as a list of opinions. If you don't like scholars like Mathieu-Colas you should not erase what they say and references to their works, but report the precise statement of another author who says that their studies were wrong and what is his interpretation instead. This is how scholarly debate works and how Wikipedia itself should work. Hanusch is indeed an old source, but he was a Slavist and philosopher and his studies deserve attention.--Æo (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I never said that Rodnovery = ancient religion.

Doubtful.

No, he is not reliable academic source. Mathieu-Colas is linguist, not an expert of religious studies, slavic studies, or eastern european history. None of the scolars in these fields cite him. Do you know why? Because it is his "personal", "hobby" work and it is not even published as a paper. This PDF can be found only on his website where he writes: "This site brings together a set of works carried out as part of my university career - analysis of narrative, then French linguistics and computer lexicography - as well as more personal reflections and documents". This is another proof that you are a manipulator and that you do not know what you are writing about, copying random things from the Internet. Not to mention that this PDF does not provide a single source. You might as well quote a biologist's book on Albanian mythology because he is a professor at some university. The proof that he does not know what he is writing about is that he mentions Chislobog, which was invented in the modern era and does not appear in folklore or in sources. He will get removed from the Wikipedia for sure.

Don't be cheeky with that "personal opinions or your favourite scholars". It was you who pushed on Wikipedia idea of Rod being "supreme god" which is 100% antiscientific. Not only have you pushed pseudoscience here, you haven't given any other opinions, which made the article non-neutral. That is why your "article" was replaced. You are manipulating once again, this time with Hanuš by linking to de.wiki where article is super short. When we look at en.wiki we can read that he was not slavist, but was "acquainted" with Slavic mythology after meeting Ukrainans and Poles. His "work" also will be removed and replaced with new and reliable sources. If you are unable to judge the value of given sources, it means that you have no idea about the topic you are dealing with. Sławobóg (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking as an outside observer, you want to ratchet back your uncivil language. Your personal opinion is not inerrant fact, nor does disagreeing with you equate to being manipulative, writing hoaxes, having no idea what they're talking about, or "pushing pseudoscience" (what the heck, we're talking a religion here). Nor are academic sources discounted automatically because they haven't written specific papers on a subject, take a personal interest in it, or make a mention of a modern invention when we are -- after all -- dealing with an article on a modern invention. Ravenswing 23:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• I am appalled by the aggressive and insulting tone of the answer. Anyway, Mathieu-Colas' paper Dieux slaves at baltes is not only on his personal website, but is a chapter in the Dictionnaire des noms des divinités published by the Archive ouverte des Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (French National Center for Scientific Research). Thus it is not a solid, but hyper-solid source. Some old scholars like Hanuš obviously have to be contextualised, but never deleted. I am not of the opinion that knowledge has an expiration date and older scholars of a given topic have to be obliterated and replaced by newer ones.--Æo (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Religion and its history are also subject to scientific criticism. I proved this user a liar: a completely bogus article about Rod, or a redirection from Krodo, who was the god of the Saxons (often regarded as a fakelore by modern scholars of Germanic mythology), to Rod, without a single source to suggest it. What he did is: 1) Write that Rod was the supreme god (fakenews) 2) He saw Hanus saying that Krodo was supreme god of the Slavs (fakenews) 3) Redirected Krodo to Rod. But even Hanus didn't say that Krodo = Rod (I checked it). Now I also want to mention that this user has already been banned for two months after reporting for manipulation (also in articles about religion) for using alternative accounts for this. And he manipulates again, using a source that not only repeats nonsense (Chislobog, Uroda, Bevo, Ursula, Veliona, (and most likely) Vesna - all fakelore), the author of this source is not scientifically related to the topic and writes everything he sees and as an unrelated scientist, he is unable to distinguish between truth and lies (WP:NOTRELIABLE). The author probably has a private interest in doing this, as indicated by his fanatical focus on the Rod, who is worshiped mainly in sects as a mix of paganism and Christianity. Sławobóg (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I am once again appalled by your ad personam attacks. I was not blocked for having manipulated anything, as I used the account to edit separate topics. However, the focus of this discussion is not me, but the topic of the article. I have no "fanatical focus on the Rod". That it is regarded as the supreme god in Rodnovery is discussed in the cited sources, not only in this article but in the Russian article too.--Æo (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't call it ad personam attack, showing people your manipulations is not an attack. Funny how you mentioned ru.wiki, because Rod is mentioned there three time: once together with other Slavic gods, then sometimes he is venerated as supreme god, then in one Ukrainian church he is venerated as supereme god - this is NPOV - your article was not. My point of this topic was to tell people to not take this article seriously. I have nothing more to say now. I'm working on gods now, then I go to the list, then I go to Slavic mythology and this article will be the last. Sławobóg (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

An example is the division of articles on Celtic neopaganism. The first (Celtic neopaganism) is about everyone, the second (Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism) is only about Reconstructing stream. This can be done here or within one article to divide Recostructionusts-traditionalists and other sincretists-modernists (Ivanovism, Yngliism, Vedism). Will less problems. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it's actually a good idea. Sławobóg (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been already discussed and rejected before. Such a division would be POV, and it is indeed POV in the poorly-written and poorly-sourced articles "Celtic neopaganism" and "Celtic Reonstructionist Paganism". Yngliism, those who consider themselves Vedists, the RUNVira, etc., all consider themselves legitimate "Rodnovery", and they are discussed as such in the sources. In addition, the label "Reconstructionism" is not used by Rodnovers and by academics who have studied the movement; as discussed in Aitamurto & Simpson, Routledge 2014, p. 39, in Eastern Europe it is not associated to religion but to historical re-enactment.--Æo (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol, nothing was rejected, you rejected it by yourself. DayakSibiriak explained why the article should be split. As I said before, I don't have time for this now. When I'll be ready we will be discussing that with more wikipedians and moderators/administrators. Sławobóg (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The new AllatRa movement has appeared in Ukraine, and it will probably soon be included in the Slavic Native Faith as well. DayakSibiriak (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like 100% Slavic Native Faith. Sławobóg (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If it will be mentioned in some scholarly article as having connection to SNF it will be included for sure.--Æo (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's check once again, is there in sources the Reconstructionist type of Rodnover movements? If yes, as least will divide them within the article. DayakSibiriak (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The term is not used either by the practitioners themselves or by academic scholars (thus it is not WP:COMMONNAME and gives zero results in Google Scholar), and there is no criterion for distinguishing Rodnovery as "Slavic Reconstructionism" separate from a "Slavic Neopaganism" which would comprehend New Age NRMs. They are all overlapping groups and currents of a single movement, and even the most purist Rodnovers represent a NRM. Simpson and Filip in Selected Words for Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe in Aitamurto and Simpson's Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, 2013, page 39, are clear: ...The word Reconstructionism implies a known template in the past which fell into ruin or abeyance and which can now be reconstructed. The notion that modern groups should maintain a recognizable tie with known ancient religions is a very strong one in CEE. Authentic sources are a major concern. However, some of the groups in CEE, such as Romuva or Dievturi, are inclined to see their project as a kind of repair and revival, rather than a complete reconstruction. In their opinion, quite a large percentage of the old religion has been continued in the living folk tradition and is available to be practiced again. Many in CEE are equally concerned with legitimately continuing forwards, rather than risking being a simulacrum or simulation of a moment in the past. In addition, the word "reconstruction" itself is deeply problematic for many CEE communities because it is already taken by a somewhat related phenomenon that most feel a need to keep scrupulously separated. The hobby that is usually called "historical re-enactment" in English ... To apply the name reconstruction to a sincere religious act would seem impious to many. Therefore, forms of that word are simply not available for use in those languages. The term simply does not exist in Slavic languages, at least in the context of religion. (It is a term which is problematic even for Western Neopaganisms, being mostly an American internet term, used in informal websites and forums, and rarely used even by academics in their works to describe Western Neopaganisms; the WP article "polytheistic reconstructionism" itself is deeply problematic, as all its [few] sources [Bonewits, Adler, Linzie] are primary, i.e. the same authors [and Neopagan practitioners] who coined the term).--Æo (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Carefully, thanks. But, if there is no criterion as to which of the modern movements is more authentic and accurate in reconstruction, then for what purpose it is written in the article and in the SNF list who is strictly equal, who is not strictly Rodnovery. Everyone is same? DayakSibiriak (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

From WP point of view they have to be treated all in the same way. Some of them claim to be the most authentic Slavic religion and that others are not (e.g. Russian Vedists vs. Ynglists, or even single organisations: CCO CPB vs. CPT), and vice versa (Ynglists vs. Vedists), but it is not up to Wikipedia to decide who is who, who is right and who is wrong. They have radically different views but all consider themselves "Rodnovers". Wikipedia can attest the influences that academic scholars have observed as concurring in the formation of a single sect, but can't take the position of a single sect or group of sects by affirming that these sects are the true Rodnovery and the others are not.--Æo (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You lie again. Of course there is a division between reconstructionism and sects. Real Rodnovers (reconstructionism) have often distanced themselves from sects that simply have nothing to do with native religion, calling them pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical, and not native, and accuse them of ridiculing neopaganism (see one of the largest, or largest, rodnover organization in Russia ru:Союз славянских общин славянской родной веры - almost ignored in the article, and nonexistend in Slavic Native Faith in Russia (but there is place for some "hill wrestling") xD). Scholars did too. Polish Rodnovers did too. HOW can you even think that there is no division?! This man literally ignored the existence of the reconstruction and the whole article is devoted to sects. This gives the impression that the whole Slavic neo-paganism consists only of "Slavic wiccans" and noone calls Wicca "Celtic Native Faith" or "Druidism/Neo-Druidism". This article describes only theology/history/whatever of pseudo-rodnovery and then show you pictures from reconstructionist rituals (xD). Not to mention ignoring Rodnovers outside of Russia and Ukraine, who are usually normal. This is literally hopeless. We should just translate Russian article, it is in much better shape, and then update it, for now it is just cherry picking and nonsense. Not to mention the fact that this "article" has been criticized many times by the Rodnovers. Sławobóg (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps soon or later we all together can make a section Reconstructionist Slavic Native Faith within this article. About Russian Union of Slavic Native Belief Communities, Ukrainian non-Sylenkoit, Polish, Czech, Slovac, etc. DayakSibiriak (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"We should just translate Russian article, it is in much better shape." That would be a very bad idea. The English-language article certainly has its problems, but it is still based overwhelmingly on the WP:Reliable Sources produced by academics working in the study of religion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Note about recent development on the Russian Wikipedia: There has been a recent development in the Russian Wikipedia, where formerly "Rodnovery" and "Slavic Neopaganism" had separate articles, with the former dedicated exclusively to the self-claimed most purist Slavic traditionalist and reconstructionist currents while the latter dedicated to the most New Age and syncretic currents (Ynglists, Anastasians, et al.). Some users here pushed for adopting the same model and enforcing this partisan distinction (promoted by the self-proclaimed purist Rodnovers). Between December 2020 and February 2021 the two articles of the Russian Wikipedia were merged as the contributors convened that the two are synonyms and the distinction was made by some groups to exclude others from the definition.--Æo (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a word about figures. Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Even relevant enough for such a large article?

Size does matter. If you can hardly populate a medium-size Ukraynian town with all of the practitioners (leaving New Age "seekers" on a quest and weekend fans aside), then this article is WAAAY to massive. If nothing is said about even approximate figures, it makes it look like a pseudo-topic blown out of proportion by supporters, and then it borders on promotional practices prohibited on Wikipedia. So yes, numbers do matter, even if, understandably, there aren't any reliable census figures. Also, as seen in the comment above this one, as with any sect or religion, the definition is very important - and very fluent. Some would rather die than accept that the sect most similar to theirs belongs to the same religious stream. -- Funny enough, now I noticed: it's 9/11, "Sect Gone Mad Day". The Universe helping me drive home my point :))) So, how many? Arminden (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The movement is quite big, especially in Russia, and the fact that there are so many academic sources discussing it testifies this. Scholarship about the movement is even more in Russian language. Some membership figures are cited in the "demographics" section: from tens of thousands estimated by some scholars, to few millions estimated by ROC agencies. The Arena Atlas 2012 completing the 2010 census of Russia found 1.7 million Pagans, half of them Russian Native Believers. In any case, I think that Wikipedia should be inclusive and have an article for any religious movement documented in sources, be it a big world religion or a small movement.--Æo (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NOTPAPER. Heck, I have on my watchlist a religion with only a hundred thousand estimated adherents at best, but with over fifty subordinate articles. 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. Ravenswing 00:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• The comment is in poor taste but criticizm about the length of the article is justified--precisely my point: How far has a person to scroll before the name that defines Rodnovie is mentioned? This wouldn't be a question if Rodnovie wouldn't be mentioned in the first line as synonym to Slavic Native Faith, which is currently the title. I think through small arguments like this and maybe an overhaul from an English native speaker (assuming most SNF interrested are not, no offense, but clumsy circumscription could easily double the text-length where a native knows to be succinct), and somebody who knows how to structure wiki-pages would be effective. 2A00:20:6008:8DA3:D810:5071:56DE:4C89 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "How far has a person to scroll before the name that defines Rodnovie (sic) is mentioned?" — There is a long note in the lede just to the right of the first mention of the term "Rodnovery" which explains its meaning very well. Besides, Wikipedia articles are written to be read, and to provide as much details as possible about a topic to those interested. For simple articles as long as the introduction of a standard article of the English Wikipedia there is the Simple English Wikipedia.--Æo (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Colloquium heptaplomeres' page numbers

Nizhni Novgorod's Minin University's Colloquium heptaplomeres is a journal dedicated to scholarly studies about Neopaganism. It contains many interesting academic articles about Rodnovery and other forms of Neopaganism, mostly in Russia but also in other countries. The versions of the papers of said journal uploaded on the CyberLeninka website do not have numbered pages. Yet, in some other sources citing Colloquium heptaplomeres' articles I have noted that pages are reported. May someone help finding out the pages' numbers? DayakSibiriak, do you have any idea on how to find the pages' numbers?--Æo (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved. In the downloadable versions of the papers the pages are numbered.--Æo (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox religious group

I've reverted the infobox religious group. The reasons are the same as those of 9 December 2020, namely that it presents an oversimplified picture of the movement. The movement is too varied to be reduced to the representation given by such infobox. The field "founders" gives two Polish and one Ukrainian authors who were indeed among the first theoreticians but were not the only ones, and some movements (notably those in Russia) may not recognise them as their initiators. The field "scriptures" gives the "Book of Veles", but there are actually various books, often focus of different currents within the movement, and not all Rodnovers recognise the Book of Veles as the main holy book of Rodnovery. All the other fields are tautological: "regions with significant populations" → "Slavic countries"; "languages" → "Slavic"; "related ethnic groups" → "Slavs"; "religion" → "modern Paganism".--Æo (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, You are right. Only this kind of infobox have been reverted with any argue near everywhere. Do you understand argue at page Balinese Hinduism: "this article not about people, but religion". Is not Infobox religious group neither for whole religion nor just people, but for any branch of some religion such as division, denomination, movement, communion? DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my delayed answer. There seems to be an established tendency in Wikipedia to avoid overcrowding articles with cumbersome templates and infoboxes. As you can see in nearly all articles which have obtained the WP:GA qualification, templates and infoboxes are absent (e.g. Heathenry (new religious movement), Candomblé, Santería, et al.).--Æo (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Manipulation of facts about origin of term "Rodnovery"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• Kalyada KR 2012 425.JPG

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

Article Size

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)

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)