Talk:Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality

message: I feel that this article is necessary, because the term "Narodnost" is only marginally corresponds to its translations, "Nationality", "Nationalism", and hence requires explanations. I cannot do this right now. It is also quite possible that a better translation exists. Mikkalai 17:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently, I happened to re-read a collection of letters by Dostoyevskiy. He was an ardent supporter of this motto and I think he explained his adherence to it somewhere. The thing could be added, though I can't recall any citations right now.--Constanz - Talk 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Has been a while. Where should I move it? --Irpen 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Narodnost is difficult to translate, and any translation has its disadvantages. So perhaps leave it at National Character? That would mean changing the title to Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and National Character. Errabee 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before any move please provide a contemporary (ie 19th century) reference. In modern texts I saw both variants. Judging from the Imperial Russian constitution I have reasonable doubs that "Autocracy" is  on the second place. `'mikka 19:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concept

message: I'm going to redirect one of them.P4k (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's almost the same thing. Official Nationality is one of three principles.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is exactly the same thing as [[Official Nationality]], right? 

message: I do not think that the translation is close, exactly like the disclosure of the problems that Uvarov formulated. Theory «Pravoslaviye, samoderzhaviye, narodnost'» has a completely different semantic meaning.
*Pravoslaviye − the people in Russia are religious and respect the clergy on a par with state power. Religion can solve issues that cannot be resolved by the samoderzhaviye;
*Samoderzhaviye − Uvarov sincerely believed that the Russian people did not share such notions as “tsar” and “country”. For people, this is all one, guaranteeing happiness, strength and glory;
*Narodnost'  − the basis of Russia lies in the unity of all nations.
First, I suggest leaving transliteration. Semantic meaning is lost during translation absolutely.
Or the second option is the revision of the article, but then we need a discussion about which interpretation of Uvarov’s words is more accurate. MarcusTraianus (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubtful correctness of the translation 

message: This is a very important article, which is full of unfortunate things such as this:  “ Briefly speaking, Uvarov tried to deprive education of its most important integral part: an analytical and critical approach to an environment (specifically to the political environment).”
Is it really the function of a wikipedia article to pronounce the “most important integral part” of education?   Could someone with expertise suited to the task please edit this stuff? 147.160.131.20 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion 

message: I fail to see how and ideology of autocracy can be described as anti-absolutist. If anyone can provide a rationale, please do so and reinstate the word.
Slavophiles, in particular, accepted the anti-European, anti-absolutist, paternalistic side of the doctrine. Tjobrien.seoul (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-absolutist autocracy?