Talk:Slavic Native Faith

message: * 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)
replies: text: *Looks like a good source; thanks for finding it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent article

message: :
* 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Further suggestions and considerations (21/05)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quote of Dołęga-Chodakowski 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: [[Ognyena Maria]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: As already pointed out by  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)
thread_title:  Ynglism and other non-Rodnover movements of Slavic Neopaganism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pyramids' Rodnovery and Project 12 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prav-Jav-Nav in the Book of Veles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Veleslav's statement regarding the Crimean referendum of 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Good idea. I can try to write something in a few days. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moszyński "Kultura Ludowa Słowian" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To create article "Slavic Neopaganism" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of [[:Category:Slavic countries and territories|Category:Slavic countries and territories]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  So think I. The long is no problem at an online encyclopedy. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too long of an article... 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not a word about figures. Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Even relevant enough for such a large article? 

message: 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? , do you have any idea on how to find the pages' numbers?--Æo (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  <strike>''Colloquium heptaplomeres''{{'}} page numbers</strike> 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox religious group 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: This issue has been already discussed before (2020, 2021) and other editors agreed that there is no need of splitting the article:  (sic, editor DayakSibiriak, 2020) and  (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)
thread_title:  Article Size