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 Rusyns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rusyns 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.RusynsWikipedia:WikiProject RusynsTemplate:WikiProject RusynsRusyns 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 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 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 Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
I'm not sure why previous discussions went nowhere and why @Ermenrich undoed the addition of "Old Ukrainian" [1] given Moser says "if supradialectal Old East Slavic can deliberately be given an anachronistic name derived from modern Slavic languages, then the appropriate name would be “Old Ukrainian,” not “Old Russian.” What can still be called “Old Russian” are, for example, the dialects of Old Novgorod and other lands that became part of the Russian language territory, but, again, it is reasonable to use such a name only if one is fully conscious of its deeply anachronistic character." New Contributions to the History of the Ukrainian Language - Michael Moser - Google Books . Maybe @Mzajac could suggest? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussions above - I don’t see that you’re offering any new arguments, especially when the source is already cited in the article. The fact is that the name “Old Russian” is widely used in English, while the name “Old Ukrainian” is not. Our goal is to provide information on things under the names that our readers will search for them, not correct historical injustices. The appropriateness of the name is already discussed in the article.—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our goal is to provide information on things under the names that our readers will search for them Why do you think so?not correct historical injustices Actually, the addition wasn't doing that. The article should provide correct information, and that what the edit was. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the lead to say Old East Slavic (anachronisticOld Russian, more appropriate Old Ukrainian) - this possibility was explicitly rejected by previous discussions. I see no reason to repeat those arguments here, you can read them yourself.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMON NAME governs to article title which is not a subject of this discussion. I don't see anybody discussing Moser so when you refer to previous discussioins, please point out on a conclusion or an argument which needs to be addressed. One of latest proposals I see is Talk:Old East Slavic#c-Mzajac-2021-04-26T20:09:00.000Z-Blindlynx-2021-04-10T00:40:00.000Z“Old Russian is something of a misnomer,” and “equally Old Belorussian and Old Ukrainian,” which is an argument against your revert. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is lead-heavy editing again, symptomatically without even touching the relevant section "Terminology" where Moser's observations belong in the first place. Having Moser's opinion there with in-text attribution comes with due weight, as he is a leading scholar of Ukrainian studies. So please add it there first (NB explicitly flagged as a leading scholar's opinion), I think no-one will object.
Whether one comment is sufficient to turn around the terminology commonly used in the entire literature of Indo-European, Balto-Slavic, Slavic and East Slavic studies (including fairly recent literature of the 2010s), and thus the opening sentence of the lede, is a completely different thing. "Old Russian" is still used by scholars from all corners of the world, even when "Common East Slavic" (and less so, "Old East Slavic") has become the more preferred term in the recent years. And while many scholars deliberately move away from the traditional term "Old Russian" in favor of a non-anachonistic and neutral term, no one – including Moser – has proposed to replace it by "Old Ukraianian" as being more appropriate. Note that Moser's comment is entirely hypothetical and in subjunctive mood; it is not in the least in the spirit of Moser's text to have it in Wikivoice in the opening sentence. –Austronesier (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we got Moser removed again [2] with "already mentioned under "general considerations"". But I don't see Moser there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are using Moser to add information that is already in the article. There's no reason to do that. If you want to add something Moser says that isn't already in the article, I suspect that would be a different matter - but there is no reason to cite Moser just to cite Moser.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure how you don't see Moser there, he is literally cited twice in a row in the terminology section, supporting exactly the text you tried to add.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"if supradialectal Old East Slavic can deliberately be given an anachronistic name derived from modern Slavic languages, then the appropriate name would be “Old Ukrainian,” not “Old Russian.” What can still be called “Old Russian” are, for example, the dialects of Old Novgorod and other lands that became part of the Russian language territory." - where is this in the article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I misread what had been added. I still think that a whole paragraph cited to one source is too much. We already have Moser cited on some calling it "Old Rus'", after all. As Austronesier pointed out, even Moser isn't serious about the "Old Ukrainian" name.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they actually suggested ... the relevant section "Terminology" where Moser's observations belong in the first place. Having Moser's opinion there with in-text attribution comes with due weight, as he is a leading scholar of Ukrainian studies. So please add it there first (NB explicitly flagged as a leading scholar's opinion), I think no-one will object.ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, of course I have said that Moser isn't serious about calling Old East Slavic "Old Ukrainian". So to start with "Michael Moser concludes" isn't really citing him well. And cutting out the final part of the quote about the re-defined scope of "Old Russian" (viz. "...but, again, it is reasonable to use such a name only if one is fully conscious of its deeply anachronistic character") borders on being manipulative. –Austronesier (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! How Moser should be represented correctly, then? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is just more or less repeating what Andrey Zaliznyak said about the northern dialects. Mellk (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"if supradialectal Old East Slavic can deliberately be given an anachronistic name derived from modern Slavic languages, then the appropriate name would be “Old Ukrainian,” not “Old Russian.” What can still be called “Old Russian” are, for example, the dialects of Old Novgorod and other lands that became part of the Russian language territory." - this is not what Zaliznyak says. Actually, Moser agrees with him, and opposes him. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russian linguist Andrey Zaliznyak researched the medieval birchbark writings from the Novgorod lands of northern Rus' and found its language had significant differences to the language of Kyiv lands. Yes, except this is not an accurate summary of his findings. Mellk (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there were parts that repeated Zaliznyak, and parts that were not. It would be more of an improvement to leave parts which are not repeating, if you think something could be removed without losing the context. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But again, this is about specific dialects, not the name of Old East Slavic. Mellk (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk, when your edit are undoed, you are supposed to discuss it on a talk page, not to edit war [3] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make nonsensical claims of edit warring (again). You were reverted once. Mellk (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this translation is unsourced and is OR written by Mzajac.[4]Mellk (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
