This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: All the participants here understand the dispute perfectly well, but there's a lot of complexity, so just for the benefit of any uninitiated people who might come to read this, I should give context and background.
In the early tenth century CE, a group of Norse people moved to northern France. These people became known as the Normans (from "Norsemen"), and thus the Normans and the people we not-always-accurately call Vikings were in fact the same ethnicity. The term "Anti-Normanism" is a neologism that refers not to the people we called Normans in school (who were a group active mainly in northern France, the British Isles, and Sicily) but to the Scandinavian diaspora of the latter Middle Ages and the early Mediaeval period.
That Scandinavian diaspora had a profound impact on many countries in Europe, and we can thank it for quite a lot of the modern English language. Those Norse folk were shrewd traders, expert sailors, and fearsome warriors, but they weren't politicians or evangelists. When they travelled, they were sometimes apt to assume the culture and religion of the places they moved to. Thus, for example, the pagan Norse who landed in the British Isles soon adopted Christianity and a recognizably old Saxon way of life.
Well, there was also an eastbound Scandinavian diaspora, which headed east from what's now Sweden, south into what's now Russia, and established bases in Kyiv, Novgorod, Smolensk and many other places. Mainstream scholarship would have it that modern Russians are part-descended from those Norse folk who adopted many aspects of Slavic culture, just as ethnically British people like me are part-descended from the Old West Norse.
Alas, a corrupted and debased version of this scholarship fed into Adolf Hitler's ideology, and ever since, it has been used by fascists to justify contempt for and conquest of the Slavs. Anti-Normanism is an alternative narrative that emphasizes the ethnically Slavic people, and marginalizes the ethnically Norse people, in Russian history. One has sympathy for the circumstances in which Anti-Normanism evolved, but it's not mainstream scholarship. It's Russian Pride dressed up in an academic gown.
At issue in this discussion is whether the proper title of this article is "Normanism" (which enjoys little support), "Normanism and Anti-Normanism" (which has quite a bit of support), or "Anti-Normanism" which also has quite a bit of support and is the current title. To change the title of a Wikipedia article needs a consensus, and there's no such consensus to be found here. Therefore we retain the old title, Anti-Normanism, and the outcome of this RM is not moved. —S MarshallT/C 08:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Normanism → Normanism – The article starts with "Anti-Normanism is an opposition to Normanism, the mainstream narrative..." I find it weird that the mainstream theoryofNormanism is but a section inside the fringe theory. The article must be moved and reshuffled upside down. - Altenmann>talk 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative - How about "Normanist controversy" instead? I agree that we should privilege the mainstream view in the title, but "Normanism" seems like it won't describe much of the article's content, which is on both Normanism and Anti-Normanism. "Normanist controversy" also seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic as used in scholarship. Psychastes (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "not much"? The section "Normanism" is larger than "Anti-Normanism". About your suggestion: "Normanist controversy" is essentially about controversy of the fringe view against the mainstream view, so, again, it is WP:UNDUE to put the discussion of the fringe interpretation into article title. - Altenmann>talk 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RM for "Normanist controversy" back in January 2022. Srnec (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Looks like many of the oppose votes then were based on the supposition that "Anti-Normanism" was a better title for indicating that this was a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and that "Normanism" was a false equivalence term only used by anti-normanists. Perhaps "Anti-Normanist controversy" would be more appropriate? Psychastes (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Normanism" was a false equivalence term only used by anti-normanists - sorry, wrong. It is a mainstream term. See the well-developed well-referenced ruwiki article: ru:Норманская теория. - Altenmann>talk 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, both "Normanism" and "anti-Normanism" are widely used terms. For example they are used to describe the two camps after the 18th century. This is where the "Normanist theory" or "Normanist controversy" arose. See for example The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800 p. 299. Britannica has a brief overview. Mellk (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was only one mainstream theory, namely origins from Varangians, and a bunch of alternative theories of varying degree of crackpottery, collectively known as "anti-Normanism", i.e., anti-Normanism is not a coherent theory. That's why it is named "anti-": its only common denominator is that all of them tried hard to reject the idea of Scandinavian origin of Rus'. - Altenmann>talk 15:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Normanist theory" was originally criticized and new ideas to support a supposedly Slavic origin were created. Then it was eventually accepted by most, although this fluctuated e.g. with rise of Hitler. Mellk (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk:Correct. It was criticized from its very origin in mid-18th century. But what is your opinion about article title? - Altenmann>talk 17:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about this and yes, I would agree that it seems a little odd to have the article title about a theory bordering on fringe rather than the mainstream theory. Mellk (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above comments. Mellk (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I could also be happy with Normanist controversy, Normanism and Anti-Normanism, and other titles, but the bottom line is that 'Anti-Normanism' is a confusing title for any reader who is not already an expert in the subject. We need to prioritise comprehensibility.
Normanism and anti-Normanism feels good. Strongly oppose the word "controversy" in the title. The core of the article is the description of competing theories, not the description of how the opponents were tearing each other's wigs and hitting each other with canes. - Altenmann>talk 20:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is Normanism and anti-Normanism, but would also accept "Normanist controversy". My rationale on this point largely echoes Psychastes' comment above, though Altenmann has also raised a fair point that has led me to slightly prefer the "Normanism and anti-Normanism" title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot remember right out my head, but it seems that we do have a custom to use titles "This and that" for "two-in-one" articles.... found one: "Christianity and Islam" - surely LOTS of controversy here. - Altenmann>talk 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Appears to be consensus to move, relist to determine target title Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The concept of a supposed "Normanist" theory is a straw man created by anti-Normanists, and thus a subtopic of anti-Normanism. Anti-Normanism is a fringe theory of significant notability (Soviet-era scholars such as Leo Klejn were actually sent to prison for questioning it), and should be covered in its own appropriately named article, namely this one. Mainstream scholarship on the question is covered at Rus' people. Pinging BilledMammal, Mzajac, Berig, Thomas.W and Yngvadottir, who participated in the 2022 RM discussion. Krakkos (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging editors who have taken part in a previous movediscussion here isn't canvassing, but common courtesy, it's pinging editors who haven't previously taken part in such a discussion, or even been active in that subject area, that is canvassing. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 21:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong opposeAsKrakkos says above there is no such established thing as "Normanism" in English, that term is used only in the Soviet Union and Russia, where, for nationalistic reasons, they have long claimed that the Rus, and through that Russia, was founded by Slavs and not Scandinavians, despite all archaeological evidence and all contemporary documents showing it was founded by Scandinavians. Thus the term "anti-Normanism". So moving "anti-Normanism" to "Normanism" is just yet another Russian attempt to falsify history, by trying to portray the mainstream view as just a theory, which it isn't, its a documented fact. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very confused argument. (1) Even the term is in "RUssia" and "Soviet Union", wikipedia is encyclopedia that covers international topics. Whe cover subjects which an average anglophone never heard of, such as aviv, korenizatsiya, khrushchovka, doogh, dastar, korobeinik, People's Commissariat of Properties, Kocourkov, Pryanik, Lebkuchen, and tens of thousands more. (2) If you say "normanism" is Russian falsification, then "anti-Normanism" is even worse. (3) Yes there is such word "normanism" in English, which you will find in any text that writes about "anti-normanism". - Altenmann>talk 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @Altenmann. It's fine to have articles called things like anti-capitalism, because virtually everyone already has some idea of what capitalism is. The problem with having Anti-Normanism on its own as a title is that all but a handful of readers will think 'huh?' This isn't about Russian propaganda but just about making Wikipedia readily comprehensible. Alarichall (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source I mentioned above disagrees with your claim. Unless you wish to say that the author wrote in this way for nationalistic reasons. Mellk (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. "Normanism" is a Russian nationalistic term made up to create an -ism that opposes the "natural", "true" and "pure" Slavic origin of Kievan Rus'. It is a strawman as Krakkos states above.-Berig(talk) 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if this is so (and I'm sure you're right) then the term "anti-Normanism" is no less a Russian nationalistic term made up to create an -ism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think the name "Normanism and Anti-Normanism" would be more comprehensible and won't mislead readers about the current Western scholarly consensus. Alarichall (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule against creating articles about "Russian nationalistic terms". We have "Russian world", "Moscow, third Rome", Eurasianism articles about Russian nationalistic concepts, to name a few. - Altenmann>talk 20:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even a nationalistic term, it is widely used by scholars to describe the shift in historiography over the last few centuries. As usual, lots of claims without being backed by RS. See Ngram as an example, where there is greater usage of "Normanism". Mellk (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming rather late to this point about Google Ngrams... @Mellk: I'm struggling to find out how to search for hyphenated terms in Google Ngrams (because it treats '-' as an operator, and the instructions for what to do about this aren't clear). It's not obvious to me that you actually can search for hyphenated terms. BUT, Google Scholar makes your point, I think:
Much though people in the discussion on this talk page would like to wish the term 'Normanism' away, therefore, it seems to be pretty normal in Anglophone scholarly discussion. I think we should reflect scholarly usage rather than trying to shape it.
I am a bit perplexed here. A huge part of the results you claim for "Normanist" are actually hits for "Anti-Normanist". Surely, you should be more careful with statistics, right?--Berig(talk) 16:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looking the "normanist" hits I can see a few where the excerpt given by Google Scholar actually only says "anti-normanist", so you're right that this is a problem. Damn. But in the sample of about 100 hits that I looked at, only a few had this problem: most hits for "normanist" were indeed for the term "normanist" (though often with "anti-normanist" appearing in the same article). So it's not clear to me that "a huge part of the results" for "normanist" are actually for "anti-normanist". And even if we subtract the total number of hits for "anti-normanist" (253) from the total number for "normanist" (729), "normanist" still comes out as more common than "anti-normanist" (729-253=476). Alarichall (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number for "Normanist" is insignifiant compared to the articles that already cover the "Normanist theory" such as Varangians, Vikings, Kievan Rus', Russian history, European history, world history, etc. Since we already have so many other articles that cover the standard version, it doesn't simply make sense to claim that these numbers warrant a page move. The topic is "Anti-Normanism", a Russian nationalist fringe theory and not the mainstream version of early medieval East European history.--Berig(talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as to your claim about what is "pretty normal in Anglophone scholarly discussion", I suggest you sift through whether "Normanist" ("Anti-Normanist" doesn't count) appears many times in texts produced by scholars with non-Slavic surnames. I am not claiming that scholars with Slavic surnames cannot be Anglophone, but if the results are skewed towards scholars with Slavic surnames, it does give a hint that many of them may not be "Anglophone" in a strict sense.--Berig(talk) 16:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point about Anglophone discussion wasn't intended to be to do with the native language of the scholars, but to do with what terms scholars use when they're writing in English. I think English-language Wikipedia should be drawing on the language of English-language scholarship. Alarichall (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles written by people who do not have English as their first language is not a legitimate basis for what is "Anglophone". It is a basis for "Second language Anglophone" or "Russo-English" and that is a different thing. I doubt that you would be as interested in the specific English terminology that Chinese scholars use, compared to what their British and American counterparts use.--Berig(talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having both in the title signals some kind of equalness, this equalness does not exist in the world of reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia is based on. Anti-Normanism should be described and isolated like the fringe theory it is, WP:DUE. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see lots of opinions about what reliable sources supposedly say but no one else has cited a source. The only sources referenced so far mention both terms. Therefore, the closer should keep in mind that claims such as this equalness does not exist in the world of reliable sources should be disregarded unless backed by sources. Mellk (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for saying so, but that's a load of BS, and you know it. Since you're the one who wants to move it it's up to you (see WP:BURDEN) to provide English-language sources (yes, this is the English language WP, not the Russian propaganda-version of WP, and Russian language sources aren't good enough) proving that "Normanism>" is an established mainstream term outside Russia, and not just an utterly fringe, and utterly nationalistic, view held in Russia only. It's not up to us, that is those editors who want to keep the current name, to prove anything. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Russian-language sources? Did you bother to fully read the exchanges from the beginning? I already mentioned an English-language source and Ngram as an example that your claims do not hold up. What is the reason for spouting nonsense like this? Not to mention that no one here is arguing that Normanism is the mainstream view, we are looking at terms used in historiography, so this argument is disingenuous. Mellk (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that this is not exclusive to Russia. See for example: Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands which also mentions the term 'Normanist theory' to refer to changes in historiography in also Belarus and Ukraine.[1]. Mellk (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that remotely the same thing? Please explain as I'm genuinely baffled. One of them is pitching a mainstream theory next to a fringe theory without at all making it clear which one is which, the other one describes a group of people in relation to a religion. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per others. False equivalency between a discredited point of view that deserves its own article and the mainstream view that is represented in all other articles relating to the Rus'. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This maistream view has its own name: Normanism, Normanist theory, Varangian theory of the Origin of Rus. and other synonyms. All arguments against it reminds me a joke about Little Johnny, which I consider profoundly philosophical. A teacher ask children: "Kids, please say a word which starts with letter 'A'." Johnny: "Arse, ma'am." Teacher: "Ew, Jonhhy, there is no such word!" Little Joh: "How come, ma'am, there is an arse, but there is no word?" I say, a complement to Haddocks' Eyes. - Altenmann>talk 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per False equivalency. Kobzar1917 (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "equivalency" are you talking about? These are opposing views. Please clarify your argument. - Altenmann>talk 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly badgering all opposers is usually counter-productive, since the most common reaction to it is making the opposers even more opposed than they were when posting their oppose, it can also make even more editors post oppose !votes, just to p*ss you off... - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 17:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "badgering" all opposers repeatedly, only only once per argument. It is a discussion, right? In this particular case, what is wrong with asking a wikipedian to clarify his position? This is !voting, not voting, and if the person does not say something new, rather than repeating others, then their !vote plays no role. Also, why do you think that I an objecting opposing !votes? On the contrary, some of their reasonable arguments gave me another idea how to proceed, which I will suggest after the dust settles here. - Altenmann>talk 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Krakkos. The topic of this article is "Anti-Normanism" as a ideologically motivated fringe view. Part of this fringe view is the creation of the very label "Normanism" to discredit the mainstream view. This mainstream view being reduced to an "-ism" such as "Normanism" as a topic is something you'd expect in a Soviet mid-20th century encyclopedia. But WP certainly cannot put them on par by creating a false balance by moving the page title from a manifest fringe view (which is the main topic of this article) to a label for a strawman in the universe of said fringe view. This move discussion is the culmination point of trying to normalize the fringe-born term "Normanism" after it has been excessively added in the article text last year, something that badly needs to be rectified when this bludgeoned move discussion has been closed. –Austronesier (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Kievan Rus" was created by imperial Russian historians to support the view that Kiev was succeeded by Vladimir then Moscow. Despite this, "Kievan Rus", like "Normanism", is still a widely used term. The mainstream view is already presented in the article Rus' people. "While Normanist arguments were favored in the early decades of Bolshevik Russia, the use of such arguments by the Nazi propaganda turned the Norman theory into a hot potato."[2] To say say that the term "Normanism" is not at all used by mainstream scholars is clearly false. Mellk (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy to "Kievan Rus" is off the mark. The very usage of the term "Normanism" is deeply rooted in the discourse of Anti-Normanists, citing isolated instances of usage outside the bubble doesn't change it. Let's flip it around: out of let's say twenty randomly chosen works that cover the history of the Kievan Rus' from a mainstream perspective, how many use the term Normanism at all? And how many do not use the term "Kievan Rus'"? –Austronesier (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so ideally this article should cover opposition to the mainstream view covered at Rus' people? It seems that with the current state of the article, it covers the changes in historiography, from initial denial to widespread acceptance, and now it is confined to a small group of revisionist historians. If we just want to limit this to modern revisionism rather than covering how historiography has evolved, then probably the article needs to be completely changed or it needs to be split, but this would need to be for a different discussion. I think there is a lack of agreement or confusion on what the article should cover at the same time. Mellk (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I came to the same conclusion during this discussion. Since the mainstream view is essentially forkedinRus' people and Kievan Rus'#Origin, then per WP:Summary style, we have to have a single common text, Origins of Kievan Rus', and the two mentioned pages must have only summaries therof, to prevent further divergence. - Altenmann>talk 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably something along those lines. Mellk (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. during the brief google search for the tithe of this new article, I stumble upon the 1929 theory of Celtic origin of Kievan Rus :-) and then found it is in WP, in "Ruthenians". - Altenmann>talk 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it is far from ideal to have the topic Origins of Kievan Rus' forked in sections of two articles, while the sub-subtopic Anti-Normanism (or "Normanist debate" or whatever) gets a standalone article. An article Origins of Kievan Rus' could serve three things: primarily, it can present the origins from a mainstream perspective (NB not under the heading "Normanism" or "Mainstream view", but just in plain Wikivoice); then, it can give an overview of the history of scholarship about this topic; and finally, it can present the Normanist debate as an important episode in the history of scholarship. If we will still be in need of a standalone article for a subtopic of a subtopic, that will depend on the size of the main article Origins of Kievan Rus'. As of now, the current scope of this article already somehow floats between "Origins of Kievan Rus'" and "History of scholarship about the origins of Kievan Rus'". There is defintely a mismatch between article title and scope, but moving the page to "Normanism" won't solve the problem. –Austronesier (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the article under discussion was created by @Berigbymoving it from Rus' people. Their comment was 'This debate pertains to several articles on WP and is better served with its own article', which makes sense. Alarichall (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would strongly suggest y'all to review WP:BLUDGEON and do not slap insulting labels. The core of the essay is making the same argument over and over and to different people, which I fail to see here and I challenge you to prove me wrong. On the contrary, until now there was a civilized discussion, an exchange of ideas, well beyond a simple renaming, which, it seems, nears to a reasonable resolution. - Altenmann>talk 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should strike your accusation of canvassing above, because that came well before anyone told you were bludgeoning the discussion. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were referring to my comment I wrote "badgering", not "bludgeoning", referring to your behavior here as annoying, but going by the WP definition of "bludgeoning" you are trying to bludgeon the discussion, since you have commented on all opposes here as far as I can see... - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To see a discussion as annoying is an unocooperative attitude. In RfCs there are an "!vote" section and "Discussion" section. Unfortunately we don't have "Discussion" section here and all discussion goes inline. And not only me is talking here. If you are annoyed of it, maybe you need to take a wikibreak. I am annoyed by cut-and-paste !votes "False equivalency" without any proof of this equivalency, but I keep my temper at bay, and I would advise you to do the same and stick to the essence of the discussion. - Altenmann>talk 19:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What discussion? I don't see any discussion, only you and Melik talking to each other, pestering opposers, and making outrageous demands about opposers needing to provide sources/evidence for their opposes, and even a comment saying some opposes shouldn't be counted. All opposers have given a reason for their opposes, and don't need to provide more that that, it's up to you to provide reliable sou rces for why it should be moved, which you haven't because you can't, for the simple reason that no such reliable sources exist, Per WP:UNDUE we shouldn't give undue weight to fringe theories, and anti-Normanism, that is the claim that Slavs founded the Rus', is so extremely fringe that even having this article about it is on the verge of giving it too much attention, so fringe given the overwhelming evidence, in both archeoligical evidence and contemporary documents, for the Rus' having been founded by Scandinavians, that believing the official Russian line about the Rus' having been founded by Slavs is on the same level of st00pidity as believeing earth is flat... - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 19:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any discussion, only you and Melik talking to each other - That's a true problem: the other side refuses to engage in a discussion, just repeat "False equivalency" after each other. making outrageous demands about opposers needing to provide sources/evidence for their opposes - what an outrageous statement to call a demand for sources "outrageous", and coming from a seasoned wikipedian, too. I have no slightest idea what does "False equivalency" mean and probably never will. Per WP:UNDUE we shouldn't give undue weight to fringe theories, and anti-Normanism, that is the claim that Slavs founded the Rus', is so extremely fringe that even having this article about it is on the verge of giving it too much attention - Huh? The move suggestion was exactly about what you are saying: "Anti-normanism" is a fringe theory undeserving of a full-blown article, hence the suggested renaming and rewriting, so in your anger you are barking on a wrong tree. - Altenmann>talk 20:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and don't need to provide more that that - Sure thing. I never asked the same question twice; I do recognize it is up to the OP to engage in the discussion. It seems that it never occurred to you that I am genuinely trying to understand where the opposite position comes from. For example: my pet peeve I will keep badgering with "False equivalence". Why don't y'all assume a bit of good faith and explain what this is supposed to mean. - Altenmann>talk 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and even a comment saying some opposes shouldn't be counted - I said no such thing. But even if I did, pray review the WP:!VOTE: highlighted in the policy is "it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." - Altenmann>talk 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as I wrote all opposers have given a reason, and you and Melik not accepting, or perhaps not understanding, that reason does not make the oppose !vote invalid. So stop pestering everyone here! - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 20:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial comment was accusing the mover of attempting to falsify history, then while ignoring the evidence presented you repeat the same falsehood about there being a lack of evidence, now accuse others of pestering people, so you do have some nerve here to be making such claims. Mellk (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources supporting a move have been presented, and the official Russian claim about the Rus' having been founded by Slavs is an official Russian attempt to falsify history. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one here has said that the Rus' were Slavs, so this is a straw man. Also, you said that this move request was an attempt to falsify history, no need to backtrack. Mellk (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't know what "false equivalency" means, so let me explain: "Normanism" is the Russian term for the well documented fact that the Rus' was founded by Scandinavians, while "anti-Normanism" is the Russian term for the false theory that the Rus' was founded by Slavs, so moving this article to "Normanism and anti-Normanism", or any similar name, or even any other name than "anti-Normanism", puts the fringe theory called "anti-Normanism" on the same level as the proven fact "Normanism", thus giving "anti-Normanism" a certain level of legitimacy that the utterly fringe theory doesn't deserve. Which means that even moving the article to a title that implies that "anti-Normanism" has a certain level of legitimacy, and isn't just the crackpot politically motivated nationalistic idea intended to glorify Slavs and "Mother Russia" that it really is, is an attempt to falsify history. - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 21:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you; it was not so hard. In this expanded way the argument is not without debate, but it does make sense. And what is more, I cannot contest this argument from the point of view of WP:RS, because it is about the way how Wikipedia is arranged, not about what Truth is. However, again, this argument is a straw man: my suggested move was "Anti-Normanism"->"Normanism" plus rewriting according to due weight. But sadly some "me too" !voters lacked basic comprehension skills. - Altenmann>talk 21:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is more or less the same argument that Austronesier made. But no one yet has solved the issue of the scope of the article and the current contents of the article, which covers the changes in historiography and the controversy surrounding it during those times, rather than focusing solely on the fringe theory as it stands today. Instead, there was a useless back-and-forth on who was "pestering" who. Mellk (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "false equivalency", the two terms are connected. In the literature, it would be strange to see someone refer to "anti-Normanism" without also mentioning "Normanism". This does not mean that Normanism is not the accepted view, since both terms are used when referring to the fringe view. I would imagine "Normanism" is not generally used except when discussing this kind of topic. Mellk (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is to make WP avoid the rhetorical trap set by Soviet scholars. By making an -ism out of the standard version of the origin of the Russian state, they cast doubt upon it. Everybody here understands your reasoning, but as they have so many times tried to explain, it would create a false equivalence. To me, personally, it looks like a well-intended attempt to dumb down WP, and I have seen such attempts many times during my 20+ years on WP. Sometimes, dumbing down succeeds in minor topics, but it is never an improvement.--Berig(talk) 14:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, I would agree that in either case, it is still not ideal. What is your opinion on an article along the lines of Origins of Kievan Rus' as proposed above? Mellk (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a name would still give a POV "legitimacy" to nationalistic fantasies of a bygone era. This kind of article is a way for WP to discuss and contain such notions for those who are still interested for some reason. We have other articles that do the same thing: Sarmatism, Indigenous Aryanism, Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins, Ancient astronauts, etc. Would you really suggest moving Sarmatism to "Origins of Poland", Indigenous Aryanism to "Origins of Aryans", etc?--Berig(talk) 19:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not simply moving this article to Origins of Kievan Rus', but having an article that presents the mainstream view as well as the history of scholarship. See the comment by Austronesier and the exchange there. Mellk (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have Indigenous Aryanism for the fringe view, but we also have Indo-Aryan migrations that presents the mainstream. I sense that Mellk, Altenmann and I agree that we are lacking a dedicated article of the latter kind. Isn't it already a red flag that something might be ill-composed here when the section "Mainstream view" doesn't have a {{main}}-hatnote? –Austronesier (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would have just let this discussion die until the move request had been closed, and then started to discuss what should or should not be in the article... - Tom ✓ | Thomas.W talk 20:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we invite an independent admin to close the move discussion in the previous section, because we came to the complete consensus that the page move will not solve the underlying idea? - Altenmann>talk 00:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
