Обговорення:Чорнобог

message: Статтю треба докорінно переписати. Зараз вона посилається на фальсифіковану Велесову книгу.--ЮеАртеміс (обговорення) 12:16, 4 липня 2018 (UTC)

message: There is a lot of fakelore in this article, especially in paragraphs «У міфології» (100% fakelore) and «Культ Чорнобога». There are no myths associated with these (pseudo) deities, they are inventions of some poets or obsolete researchers. When I was working on Polish/English article I mistook Gorbachov source, he actually rejects that Arabian source as reliable - this info was copied from my article here (I'm sorry for this). Virtually all researchers agree that the later sources are unreliable. I just updated English and Polish articles, which are in very good state can be translated.  are you interested in it? Sławobóg (обговорення) 11:38, 14 серпня 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, known sources about Chornobog are very late mythos or probably mistakes, but they deserve to be mentioned. About his cult the most is toponyms, that can proof the character's existence in beliefs but not his status. I think the section about interpretations should be expanded, rather than shortening of other sections. Thanks for your work, I'll update the article soon.--Віщун (обговорення) 11:59, 14 серпня 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :It is ok to mention later sources, I also did that, but Helmold's source is only real source and that should be highlighted (I placed later sources in separated paragraph), meanwhile article says «У хроніках Гельмольда та Петра Альбіна» which is misleading. I highly recommend translating what Łuczyński wrote, his book is scientific and presents good evidence / arguments that it is a Christian invention based on the phrase "bad fate". Whole «У міфології» should be removed as it uses unreliable sources (Квашнин-Самарин - mentioned by Klejn as very amateur + it's 19th century, and Chernobog didn't exist in any Ukrainian believes, it is some imagination). Sławobóg (обговорення) 12:44, 14 серпня 2022 (UTC)

text: :Oh, and the authenticity of the names of the mountains in Lusatia was also unequivocally refuted. Sławobóg (обговорення) 12:46, 14 серпня 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ::However, I would not like to delete the given examples, since their content is still mythological. Even if they are not truly pagan mythos, Chornobog as many researchers agree, may be a personification of bad fate or other name of a devil. Mythos probably introduced by romantics or arose under christian influence are mythos anyway. Thanks for your assortment of sources at all, an will expand the article. --Віщун (обговорення) 19:18, 14 серпня 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :::But these sources are unreliable sources (ВП:В):

text: :::Перевіряючи джерела, спитайте себе: чи є автор визнаним експертом у даній області? Чи джерело публікує матеріали із грубими помилками? Чи джерело дотримується журналістських або академічних стандартів етики у дослідженнях/розслідуваннях? У випадку точки зору: чи джерело є відомою постаттю? Чи він/вона виражає думку значної групи людей?

text: :::Come one... Ukrainian Wiki has a lot of fakelore, and keeping it makes article longer but worse at the same time. Imaginations by Квашнин-Самарин are his imaginations, not real mythos, there are no surviving myths about the Chernobog. Why don't you use some mainstream ukrainian slavicist/linguist/religious scholar instead? His opinion would be more reliable. If someone reconstructs myths, it should be in the "interpretations" section, if it's a poet's idea it should be in "in culture", if it's in modern religion it should be in "in rodnovery", and not mislead the reader into thinking that these are some real myths. Sławobóg (обговорення) 08:52, 15 серпня 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Generally this is what I had written before. Interpretations section must be expanded. We have a situation similar to such characters as Mokosh: modern ideas about characters image and functions originates from mostly XIX-XX century. Even if they are pure fictions, the logical structure must be like "statement (before) - debunking (after)". It can be misleading only if the article will not be read to the end. Simply: I don't deny the falsity of the specified examples, I advocate their place in the logical chain.--Віщун (обговорення) 10:34, 15 серпня 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fakelore