Talk:Normanism

Merger proposal

I propose merging Anti-Normanism into Normanism. The topics are different sides of the same coin, so it's weird to have separate articles on them. Anti-Normanism is much more developed than Normanism, so I'd expect it to provide the vast majority of the content, but I think Normanism is a more obvious article title than Anti-Normanism. Conceivably a third title like 'Normanism and anti-Normanism' would be appropriate though? Alarichall (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. If Anti-Normanism is a much more developed article, why merge it into this new article? Shouldn't the merge be the other way round?--Berig (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I just think that it's more obvious to name the article by the positive title (Normanism) rather than the negative one (anti-Normanism). But my main concern is that it's weird to have separate articles because they are essentially on the same topic. Would you support merging to anti-Normanism? Alarichall (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I support merging into Anti-Normanism and renaming the article 'Normanism and anti-Normanism'.--Berig (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd also support merging this article into Anti-Normanism. The current Anti-Normanism article does a good job at laying out both sides of the debate; I think it'd be sensible to reframe that article as an overview of the whole controversy, rather than split the issue between two articles. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Pro et contra:

What you offer is extremely strange. First, these are two directions in the development of historiography. Second, by what logic will we leave the cart and not the horse? The leading article is this, not anti. The proposal means destructiveness. Alzeco by Molise (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

And one more thing: I do not see the Russian-Ukrainian position on the issue. However, it is most reasonable to first have the inner conviction and only then the Anglo-Saxon view of literature. When only negation is advocated, everything turns to nihilism. I think that the summary of Dmitry Likhachov's book gives a real alternative to calling it, to put it mildly, a delusion:

The last book of the prominent contemporary academic scientist, D. S. Likhachov, is a reflection of the comprehensive study of millennial Russian culture and its historiographical understanding. Academician D. S. Likhachov defends the humanistic concept of the unitary cultural space and debunks many myths, justifying the European orientation of Russian culture with its strong Christian values. The author repeatedly emphasizes that the Bulgarians and their literature have played a significant role in the absorption of the Christian written culture. At the same time, he reveals the nature of Russia's national identity, manifested in the canons of Russian aesthetics and Orthodox religious practice. This problematic and profoundly personal book is an incredible account of an intellectual's turbulent journey through 20th Century Russia.

Alzeco by Molise (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources and wp:WEIGHT to determine what perspectives should be represented and how much space to give them. A person who died in 1999, and whose book appears, based on your summary, to be some sort of neo-Orthodox nationalist tome that is also a "problematic and profoundly personal book", probably does not deserve much weight here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Too bad if the authorities don't mean anything. As well as "Russia's conscience". These are some kind of vandals who served in the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire, and not the empire served them. I have to repeat again for the cart and the horse. Alzeco by Molise (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is proposing to remove anything. Rather, what we're discussing is simply the merging of both articles - Normanism and Anti-Normanism - into a single article that encompasses both sides of the controversy (something that the existing Anti-Normanism article already does, in fact). This would probably also involve us changing the title of the Anti-Normanism article (perhaps to "Normanism and anti-Normanism", as Alarichall has suggested) in order to reflect the change in that article's overall focus. In my opinion, this proposal will actually lead to better coverage of both theories; the Normanist and Anti-Normanist theories exist in dialogue with one another, and so giving them a shared article would allow for us to cover the full course of the debate without dealing with omissions or redundancies. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge and rename Normanist controversy (a heading from Subtelny, Ukraine: A History). Maybe in the nineteenth century there were two completely exclusive positions, but the debate expanded to multiple anti-Normanist theories which didn’t necessarily deny some role to the Norse. Today’s (less contentious?) academic discussion and this article’s subject is the degree of Norse influence in early Rus, not its presence or absence. On the other hand, the corresponding heading in Magocsi, A History of Ukraine, allows for a more less constrained scope of the question: “The Great Debate: The Origin of Rus’.” —Michael Z. 18:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Helpful to see support for a merge here. I could also work with 'Normanist controversy' as a title. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll formally put my support behind merge and rename Normanist controversy as well. I've already mentioned my reasons in supporting the merge, and 'Normanist controversy' seems like the title that best fits the WP:CRITERIA. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• • I am against for reasons of principle.

If the aim of a joint article is to present both of these, then this general article should not only be for these two, but for everyone else. Including various historiographical theses close to fiction, about the origins of Russian statehood.

Such an article already exists and is Russian historiography.

Secondly, after Wikipedia in other languages, and especially in Russian and Ukrainian, there is a separate article, so this assessment has already been made and the merger would not be appropriate. Alzeco by Molise (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Alzeco by Molise, no, Russian historiography is not, and never has been, an article. It could be a good idea, but I think Rus' people#History is better for that, and it could be spunout to Historiography of the Rus' people. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support merger and renaming to Normanist controversy. We aren't bound by what Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia do, and anyway, we have absolutely no reason to include "theses close to fiction" as these fall under wp:FRINGE.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Alezco by Molise: I do think it would be brilliant to have an English Wikipedia article on Russian historiography (and perhaps separate ones on Ukrainian historiography, Belarussian historiography, etc.) -- and I agree with you that in cases where 'historiographical theses close to fiction' were influential, we should include them in articles on historiography. I believe that one of the limitations of Wikipedia at the moment is that articles tend to try to represent facts or consensus where sometimes surveying debates would be more helpful. BUT I don't think that means we should not have an article on the Normanist controversy. We could have a general article on Russian historiography, which would talk briefly about the Normanist debate but also other prominent issues (e.g. the influence of Marxist thought in the Soviet period). This article could link to the article on the Normanist controvery for readers who want more detail. Do you speak Russian? Would you be able to translate ru:Российская досоветская историография into English? Alarichall (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  ru:Российская_досоветская_историография is trivially translated to English using Google Scholar, and the translation of Russian to English is very good.

  However, I don't recommend taking that path, as the Russian language article is written in a casual wordy story telling style, without careful referencing to its very few references. It is worth reading for context. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed, support instead Merge and redirect both Normanism and Anti-Normanism into Rus' people#History. Rus' people is the parent topic for these duelling historical theories. There is too much anachronism in the language for these theory topics to stand alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by 'anachronism' here. I am aware that Anti-Normanism was once part of Rus' people but got spun out as an article in its own right because it was taking up a lot of space and because the anti-Normanist position is no longer taken very seriously by professional (Anglophone) historians. Either way, perhaps we could merge Normanism and Anti-Normanism even if that's just a first step to reintegrating into Rus' people? Alarichall (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

As the original proposer of this merger, I agree with the subsequent suggestion of merging both articles under the title Normanist Controversy. To my eye, there's a rough concensus to this effect. Alarichall (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "Normanism" is used largely within anti-Normanist discourse. The concept of "Normanism" is thus mainly a sub-topic of the anti-Normanism. Anti-Normanism has greater notability. Therefore i think the best solution would be to merge to anti-Normanism. Krakkos (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• I support merging both into a single article, am not terribly concerned about what its title is. Srnec (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, there's clear support here for merging the articles, albeit it's not so clear what title they should have. I'm going to merge the content of the shorter Normanism to the longer Anti-Normanism and worry about the name-change separately. But I think we do have concensus here for moving the merged article to Normanist Controversy. Alarichall (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Russian historiography

Indeed, such an article does not exist, and this is just a list of authors. In fact, only the Russian Wikipedia has an article, but it is not complete: ru:Российская досоветская историография. Alzeco by Molise (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)