Talk:Michael of Chernigov

message: #Support—my request.  —Michael Z. 2005-10-27 22:26 Z
#support. --Irpen 00:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose Supporting the mention AndriyK, paul_kiss and other that Only UKRAINIAN (RUS') pronouncing, transliterationt and guideline can be conducted for Ukrainian personaliteis, history etc. Mediatory (UA-посередництво, Ru-посредничество) of other languages (RU, PL etc) - unaccabtable. Albedo 08:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments
The user:AndriyK who moved it made a mess in no time he spent on Wikipedia: multiple violations of 3RR (1, 2), frivolous renamings of the articles (see log) and inside the articles (his contibutions), icluding multiple moves by cut and paste, unspeakable attacks on other users are only part of his actions. See his talk, his contibutions, his log, my talk, etc. --Irpen 22:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: :Add any additional comments
The user:AndriyK who moved it made a mess in no time he spent on Wikipedia: multiple violations of 3RR (1, 2), frivolous renamings of the articles (see log) and inside the articles (his contibutions), icluding multiple moves by cut and paste, unspeakable attacks on other users are only part of his actions. See his talk, his contibutions, his log, my talk, etc. --Irpen 22:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I quote the admin:
AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest.
And propose to finally move this page back --Kuban kazak 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revote

message: Both names are used by authorative authors. Any suggestions? abakharev 04:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this intended to be hidden? "Used in http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521824427&id=DGMkSi4LDvwC&pg=PR30&lpg=PR30&dq=Mikhail+Chernigov&sig=L9iEAg2slPQ2Y8Ibu2v4Wv12OOY and http://books.google.com/bo " and what is the latter, as my browser seems unable to find anything sane from that. The first doesn't open - only a grey box, instead of a (presumably) book page. By the way, the English spelling of that otrher difficult word is "authoritative", I would like to see foeigners to learn that, irrespective how the resembling word is spelled in their language. Marrtel 08:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Foeigners"?  We are friends, really :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: These two most authorative books on the subject use Mikhail of Chernigov:, . OTOH, Michael is also used in other sources. I think it is a close call. --Irpen 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Marrtel's comment above pretty much summarizes what I wanted to say.  I would go with "Michael".—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it wouldn't.  "Ivan the Terrible" is a lot more common in English than "John".  Not so with Mikhail of Chernigov—as it was noted above, both "Mikhail" and "Michael" are equally used.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of "Ivan" as that is the form I almost always have seen used of those in English sources. There the burden of overwhelmingly more common usage is fulfilled, and it really is not surprising to anyone to find Ivan under that name version. Marrtel 15:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, if we wanted to reflect the increasing cultural sensitivity in current usage, there would be no problem using Federigo, Friedrich, Fadrique, etc, as appropriate, regardless of particular family ties.  But Medievalists are, well, often slower to change, and non-specialists relying on books most of which have been published in the past may expect an Anglicized form.  Nevertheless, it may be noted that the main English-language treatment of the House of Chernigov (Martin Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov 1146–1246, Cambridge University Press, 2003) uses Mikhail, as do many other English-language works on Medieval Russia (e.g., George Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, Yale University Press, 1973; John Fennell, The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200–1304, New York, 1983; Janet Martin, Medieval Russia 980–1584, Cambridge University Press, 1995; Simon Franklin in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. V, 1999).  Moreover, the form Mikhail probably has some more currency in English due to the recent presidency of Mikhail Gorbachev.  All that being said, I have no problem with "Michael" either, but the case is very moot.  There may be considerable difference between what one may perceive as "common usage" and what is "common usage" in a particular field.  Changing to Michael may in fact be over-correcting and simply drive a chasm between the information contained here and the expectation of a reader who may be looking for Mikhail of Chernigov on the basis of a reference in a book he is reading (and such a book is likely to be written by a specialist).  This is just "food for thought", and I do not know what would be the optimal solution in this case. Imladjov 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, It looks like the majority supports Michael, I will wait for another day to see if any other compelling arguments either way since it is really a pain to edit all the double redirects that will appear after the move. abakharev 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Googling is practically irrelevant, but there is no problem with this move as long as there is a redirect.  Imladjov 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mikhail or Michael?

message: Contrary to recent cry from Ghirla at the edit history comment section, edits to this article are basically not subject to prior discussion at talkpage. Everyone sees that a mention of an essential source of MoC's today fame (=sainthood) can and should be mentioned in the beginning of the article. (This probably is a relevant time to notify Ghirla that he needs to work with others, not delete works of others.) Marrtel 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, but technically Mikhail of Chernigov is still known as "Mikhail Vsevolodovich", which is at least as common (if not more) in scholarship than Saint Mikhail, etc...  Moreover, "contemporarily then known as" is simply not good English.  I have changed the intro accordingly, hopefully you will be ok with it. Imladjov 13:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working

message: About the death of Michael (Mikhail) of Chernigov, I think it's important to separate fact and (fan) fiction. We should handle WP:PRIMARY sources critically, and observe WP:NPOV. "Martyrdom" is always a POV of the people sympathising with the person killed, never that of the person/people who killed him or were otherwise his adversaries, nor of neutral observers. As usual with these kinds of narratives, the life and death of Michael of Chernigov display a big fish story in the surviving manuscripts: it becomes bigger and more extraordinary with every retelling. There is no reason for us to uncritically accept the Younger NPL, a very late version of events with unbelievable miraculous elements that are not found in the earliest surviving accounts. 
=== Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (GVC) account ===
Perfecky 1973 has a critical English edition of the GVC. Its flaws are well-known, but it is a good place to start our examination. Perfecky p. 52–53:
This account has a strong pro-Christian and anti-Mongol/Tatar POV.
=== Suzdal'–Vladimirian Chronicle (SVC) account ===
expositions.nlr.ru/LaurentianCodex/ has a digitised version of the Laurentian Codex with photocopies, Old East Slavic digital transcript and modern Russian rewording. L. 165 Vol. has the entry on 1246, which I'll autotranslate from modern Russian here (with some manual corrections):
This account is still quite biased ("idols", "the unclean", "without mercy"), but less explicit in saying Mikhail was martyred; just that he died on the same day as another martyr, implying a similarity.
=== Ystoria Mongalorum Carpine account ===
This account is even more strongly pro-Christian and anti-Mongol/Tatar (the extra r in "Tartar" adds a Christian demonisation to the portrayal of the enemy) than the GVC. Those of us familiar with the Gospel of Luke will recognise the supposed Famous Last Words, which Carpine attributes to Michael of Chernigov here, as closely resembling the meaning of those attributed to Jesus on the cross towards the penitent thief:  Such a tradition in Carpine's writing cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity, and should be regarded as historically unreliable. We should also remember that Carpine was in direct service of the Pope, and thus prone to religious bias in his retelling of the story. I do not think we should be quoting it here in full without any context or criticism. NLeeuw (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gathering the primary sources about his death 

message: This account is even more strongly pro-Christian and anti-Mongol/Tatar (the extra r in "Tartar" adds a Christian demonisation to the portrayal of the enemy) than the GVC. Those of us familiar with the Gospel of Luke will recognise the supposed Famous Last Words, which Carpine attributes to Michael of Chernigov here, as closely resembling the meaning of those attributed to Jesus on the cross towards the penitent thief:  Such a tradition in Carpine's writing cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity, and should be regarded as historically unreliable. We should also remember that Carpine was in direct service of the Pope, and thus prone to religious bias in his retelling of the story. I do not think we should be quoting it here in full without any context or criticism. NLeeuw (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Ystoria Mongalorum]]'' Carpine account 

message: The Chronicle of Novgorod 1016–1471 translated from the Russian by Robert Michell and Nevill Forbes (1914) has Alexey Shakhmatov in the introduction saying it is the English translation of the Synodal Transcript, i.e. the Synod Scroll or Older Recension of the Novgorod First Chronicle. I find that a bit hard to believe, as it appears to contain the entire vita of Michael Chernigov, or at least his martyrology, on pages 88 to 92 (pages 67 to 69 of the PDF file). It's quite a long account, replete with Christian messages and narratives. But Halperin 1987 p. 174 stated:  So either Halperin is wrong, or Shakhmatov is wrong. Either way, I'll limit myself to the core of the narrative here:
This is an extremely elaborate, detailed, theologically advanced, strongly pro-Christian anti-pagan account. It's not even so much anti-Mongol/Tatar as it is anti-pagan. To add insult to injury, in this version, we even see that the alleged executioner was supposedly an ex-Christian apostate who had converted to paganism and was now persecuting Christians. The Christian god plays an active role in this story, apparently unwilling to prevent Mikhail and Fedor's deaths, but very willing to protect their dead bodies from being eaten by dogs. Especially the role of Fedor is much larger than in earlier recensions: SVG doesn't even mention Fedor, Carpine only features an unnamed soldier, GVC gives him the name "Fedor", and NPL has Fedor say several things, including that he 'wants to suffer and die for (Jesus) Christ like my knyaz'. Now, if that isn't laying words into someone's mouth, I don't know what is. There was probably not a single eyewitness left alive to retell the tale of their last moments in this staunchly pro-Christian manner. It's very unlikely that if earlier chroniclers had heard such details, they would have found them irrelevant to write down. More likely, pious later copyists interpolated them. There is not the slighest reason for us Wikipedians to take this version as the most authentic and historically reliable one, and cite it as if it really happened that way. NLeeuw (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Novgorod First Chronicle'' (NPL) 

message: The story of the death of Mikhail of Chernigov is recorded on pages 318-325. I haven't found a critical edition or English translation to work with yet, but we may assume it to be similar to the NPL Younger Recension. NLeeuw (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Sofia First Chronicle]]''