Talk:Slavic neopaganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Slavic Neopaganism)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as High-importance).

Blood sacrifice of the Slavic Peoples[edit]

See the conversation here:

Volhv Veleslav[edit]

In Russian section, Volhv Veleslav should be mentioned, he is main Rodnover priest in Russia.


Велеслав (Илья Черкасов) - Volhv Veleslav (Ilya Cherkasov)

Verkhovod Russian-Slavic Rodnovercheskoy Communities 'Rodoljub'; (founded in 1998), one of the founders of the Commonwealth Native Faith Communities Slavic Veles Circle (founded in 1999). Came into this world eight leaf fall / October-month of 1973. From his childhood interest in history, with a passion read Russian folk tales, epics. In school, attended the School of the young historian, at MSU.

And leaving on summer vacation in the village (the village Semyonovskoye that near Tver), with rapture heard stories of old people 'about his former life, collecting local folklore - songs, stories, plots, bylichki and legends. In order to answer the question about the meaning of life left in the early independent spiritual quests. In the late 80's. XX century. When bookshops still could not find literature covering spiritual matters that are closely converged with the mystical underground, to be able to read a book of spiritual teachers of East and West, published in 'Samizdat'; (illegal then were distributed in the form of 'photocopies').

In 1990 he graduated from high school, but instead to go to MSU on a historical or philosophical faculty was expected his family and friends, announced that he was not interested in a career scientist, historian or philosopher, as they 'speak the Truth, not Knowing her, his hands sewed his Russian shirt of sackcloth, stopped eating meat and cut hair, do yoga and other spiritual practices. In those years, in Russia there are many different sects and spiritual teachings, began to gain momentum ROC. Veleslav communicate with their followers, was interested in the essence of their teachings, but not joined to any of them, believing that 'truth is apprehended in the heart, not to follow any doctrine, church dogma or private views of some religious leader'; In 1992, the 'samizdat'; his first book - 'The Doctrine of the Heart'; Soon around Veleslava gathered a small group of like-minded people united by a common spiritual quest.

February 24, 1998 Veleslav together with like-minded announced the creation of the Russian-Slavic Rodnovercheskoy Communities 'Rodoljub and Spiritual Enlightenment Society'; Satya Veda (Sanskrit 'True Knowledge'), during the first year operating as a unit. May 12, 1998 year was the first public ceremony in the renovated temple near Warm camp. The rite began with the worship of Veles - Slavic god of wisdom, Spiritual Patron of the Community, and was aimed at reunification of participating in it with the Force Native Gods in 1999. Veleslav with a group of like-minded people creates a Commonwealth Community Veles Circle.

Rodoljub as spiritual and moral teaching in Russian and Slavic Rodnoveriya based on three key positions, who are the:

1. Love for Vsesuschemu Vsebogu Rod - a single supreme truth - the Creator, preserver and destroyer of all things, pervasive inspiring beginning, the One in Himself and in diverse Vsebozhi (in Likah Native Gods - his best acting in the World), a visible manifestation of which is Vsezhivaya Mother Nature.  2. Love to the genus of heaven - the cathedral and the Soul Force ancestors. Spiritual continuity in the succession of Generic time immemorial, and a life worthy of the glory of their ancestors.  3. Love for Earth Rod - their relatives, living in Reveal. Feasible assistance to the needy and cooperation with people living on the right.

Magus Veleslav - a talented poet and writer who has written several dozen books on the Russian-Slavic Rodnoveriyu and spiritual culture of the Slavs, including: The Call of Hyperborea "(1998)," Ce Rus - Surya "(1998)," Tradition "(1999) , "Rodoljub" (1999), "Confrontation", ed. under the pseudonym Yevpaty Kolovrat (1999), "In the forests of the Slavic" (1999), "Dew on the sword" (1999), "The Book of Herbs. Path "(1999)," Kolo glory! "(1999)," Songs of Svetoslav (2000), "Drink from the River of Life. The book Rodosveta "(2000)," The Book of the Void "(2000)," Aboriginal Faith-Veda. Rodosveta book. The book Svyatogora "(2001)," Native Gods "(2001);" Rodnoverchesky native "(2002)," In Defense of the Ancient Faith ... "(2002)," Funeral Feast for BA Rybakov (2002), "Obryadnik" (2003), "Index" (2003), "Perun" (2004); "Jarylo" (2004), "Mara" (2004), "The Book of Veles story. Russian Veda: Book of Doves "(2005)," Prophetic word list "(2005)," Russian Rodnoverie. Native Gods Mudroslovie, ceremonies, together with Stavrou (2005), "Small Vélez Dream. Box of Dreams, "with vlh. Bogumilom (2005), "" The Book of Veles: gods and ancestors, together with vlh. Bogumilom (2006), "Prophetic Book of Wisdom" (2006), "Shuyny Trek: The Book of Navi" (2006), "Generic native" (2006), "Slavic Zagovornik" (2007), "Slavonic Book of the Dead" (2007); Veda Navi: Black Zagovornik "(2007)," The Book of Volkhov interpretations, together with vlh. Bogumilom (2007), "The doctrine of the Magi: The Wisdom of Veles Koschny Century" (2007), "The doctrine of the Magi: The White Book" (2007), "Living Russ Veda: Revelation Native Gods" (2008), "The Black Book of Mary" (2008 ), "The Book of Veles Zeal. Spiritual practices and rituals of the Russian-Slavic Rodnoveriya "(2008), etc.

The Veles Circle

"The Veles Circle" is the fellowship of Slavonic heathen (Native faith) communities (heathen groups), formed into summer 4408 from the foundation of Slovensk the great (into summer 1999 AD). From the foundation day the primary task of The Circle became the comprehension of the heritage of our ancestors, the development of heathen spirituality and the search for its own paths. The work both of the leaders (Veleslav, Bogumil Murin, Stavr ) and other participants in the fellowship in many respects are the basis of the spiritual and ritual aspects of contemporary Russian heathenism.

"The Veles Circle" is a non-political organization based on voluntary non-commercial participation. In the head of this is the council of magi.

The heathen groups which take part in The Circle are:

- the Russian-Slavonic Native Faith community "RODOLUBIE" (year of formation - 1998 AD, leader - magi Veleslav);

- the Obninsk Native Faith Troyan community "TRIGLAV" (year of formation - 1993 AD, leader - magi Bogumil Murin);

- the Kostroma Native Faith community "KHOROVOD" (year of formation - 1999 AD, leader - magi Borich);

- the Ryazan Native Faith community "TROYESVET" (year of formation - 2000 AD, leader - priest Mirolyub); 

"The Veles Circle" is the non-political formation of those related on spirit and attitude of people, united under a number of common purposes. Purposes of the fellowship "The Veles Circle":

1) reconstruction, revival and increase of the spiritual heritage of our ancestors;

2) practical mastering and implementation of the magic knowledge (Vedaniye) of our ancestors;

3) spiritual coordination, research and enlightenment work. All Native Faith communities, which take part in "The Veles Circle", enter into it on good will and from the agreement of other terms, have equal rights and responsibilities before each other.

The fellowship of communities "The Veles Circle" is governed by the council of magi, leader priests, which are gathered at least one time per year. In the case of the geographical distance of any participant in "The Veles Circle", the possibility to participate in decision making, and also information about the afore-mentioned are achieved by means of different communication channels as that: electronic or usual mail, telephone, etc. The spiritual Patron of The Veles Circle is Veles - Slavonic God of wisdom.

The number of different books published and released by "The Veles Circle" approaches almost hundred. It is important to note that our readers - participants in the heathen motion - on the merit estimated not only a quantity, but also, that the main thing, the quality of the published materials. Among those there are reflections to the spiritual themes, the search for truth in religion, the zeals, the enormous accumulated massif of heathen rites and laudings, used now on our sanctuaries, work on the history of Russia, the rare publications of those left it is age-long, the artistic works of the heathen authors and much other. Internet resource "The Veles Circle" is called to reflect in the network the variety of the materials of those accumulated by our fellowship in the years of its existence.

From the day of its discovery the resource is one of the large in the heathen Internet - on it is represented more than five hundred articles of different content and by different authors, connected with one idea - revival and continuation of the development of Slavonic heathenism in our days. Website will be regular (monthly) updated by new materials and, furthermore, at it will appear all topical news of The Circle. Those who want to participate and collaborate with The Circle can contact the administration. The addresses are indicated below. 

(2005 ) priest Svetlojar - — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Kolovrat (Коловрат) Swastika (Свастика) main symbol of Rodnovery[edit]

I have below removed. "please open eyes. 1 blogspot of more references i give. Blogspot is interview with Merski, leading Rodnover of Poland and an link is Rodolubue, organisation of Veleslav - Veleslav, is THE leading Rodnover and his group Rodolubie." Simple research proves this. Main rodnover communities of Veleslav and Bogumil Volkhv show this. Maybe person taking my information does not know Rodnovery truly, other than Wiki?

The Kolovrat (Коловрат) Swastika (Свастика) is the foremost symbol representing Rodnovery.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As I told in one of previous editions, the Hands of God are strictlty Polish symbol, connected to Lusatian culture. It is not (how it could be?) common symbol of Rodnovery. Only the swastika is the main symbol representing Rodnovery. One of its forms is Kolovrat so popular in Russia.[8] In Poland very popular is triskelion, which is the main symbol of Rodzima Wiara (one of three maina organizations in Poland), świaszczyca (rounded swastika with four arms) and many others. I can provide links if someone needs it. Hands of God are the main symbol of Native Polish Church, which is very well clear on the photograph ilustrating discussed article in section Poland, everybode can see it. Saying that Hands of God are the mains symbol of Rodnovery is not only Polonocentric but also, for Poland itslef, Native-Polish-Church-centric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of Slavians in Russia[edit]

Are there studies citing something about the adherents of Slavianstvo in Russia? --Esimal 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


why was this moved without discussion? The common English term would be "Slavic Neopaganism", and preferring Rodnovery over Rodná Víra or other variants is Russo-centric. --dab (𒁳) 12:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Article is centered around Russia. In Poland "Slavic Neopoganism" is called Rodzimowierstwo słowiańskie which means Slavic native faith / religion. --DumnyPolak (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Either the page should be moved to Slavianstvo, or Slavianstvo should be a disambiguation. Note that 'Rodnovery' etymologically refers to a god or gods. Some Slavianstvo adherents may not believe in gods: they may think gods are valuable, educational, cultural, psychological stories, archetypes, etc., but actually have pan(en)theist or atheist views, or think that gods only possibly exist, etc.--if you look at all the modern philosophies of paganism that exist, you will find that this is true for many pagans, because 'paganism' means 'non-Abrahamism' and includes non-theisms like secular humanism, some Hinduism, and Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Classical Greek philosophy that includes mysticism and mystery schools, but is not always theist, etc. Also, Slavianstvo, focusing on the Slavs, also denotes folklore, culture that is integrated with religion, etc.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Rodnovery does not make reference to god Rod if this is what you mean. It's a compound word of Rodna "Native" and Vera "Faith".-- (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the value of an opinion on Slavic Neopaganism by an anthropologist that is not a practitioner of the faith? It's an outsider's view. Why not provide credible references by established practitioners. It is far from the truth to condemn the faith as a whole as being racist, just because a few fringe fascist groups distort it like many neo-nazi's have done with Asatru. I think this person has as much credibility to comment on Slavic Neopaganism as ADL does with Asatru/Heathenism.JanderVK (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article (maybe it has changed) does not seem to condemn the faith, but if it is more critical than the Germanic Neopaganism one, or even if the Slavianstvo article seems too critical, it should be made clear that what it says does not apply to all practicioners.--Dchmelik (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


Calling Slavic paganism "fakeloric" while applying no such distinction to Wicca seems strange and arbitrary. Wicca's ancient "witch-cult" has had plenty of research done on it, summarized at Witch-cult hypothesis, and it looks like that's just as fakeloric as some aspects of Slavic Neopaganism, if not more so. Thoughts? Kiralexis (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Though it has references, it is not NPOV. Just because some Slavic religious people use fakelore, does not mean everyone does. That should be deleted, or explained neutrally. I am third-generation Slavic-American with knowledge of Slavic culture directly from an ancestor who immigrated here, and though they were not Slavianstvo adherents, it is part of my religious view, and what is important to me is culture, not fakelore, which I am against, and it is offencive to me to call Slavianstvo 'fakeloric.'--Dchmelik (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately your direct knowledge, true as it may be, constitutes ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is against the rules here.--Galassi (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not modify the article based on my knowledge, but on a common view about 'paganism.' See the box at the bottom of the page, which says some views are folkloric (or fakeloric,) and others are reconstructionist, and see Polytheistic reconstructionism. The article says 'reconstructionist religions are based on the surviving historical record, and on surviving folk practices of the culture in question.' Fakelore is not genuine folk practice, but the citations you are trying to say are some ultimate authority seem to be claiming Slavianstvo is completely folkloric/fakeloric, while some people are reconstructionists. You can find plenty of examples of Slavic religious reconstructionism on the 'net, and probably books, and the polytheistic reconstructionism article lists this article as a type of reconstructionism. You are pushing a non-NPOV.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the subject either way, but the rule here is VERIFIABILITY OVER TRUTH. Find RELIABLE SOURCES to support the purported authenticity of rodnover beliefs, and they will be included.
Until then....--Galassi (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You clearly do have an anti-Slavianstvo opinion, and others indicating misunderstanding, such as about why reconstructionism and fakelore are incompatible--yet you left the article as saying Slavianstvo is reconstructionist--and you claim all adherents of Slavianstvo 'believe.' There is no Slavianstvo authority that says you must, and if the ancestors of reconstructionists did not verifiably believe something, then neither do they--if they believe anything at all (rather than being gnostic.) Non-fakelore primary sources (archaeological and old manuscript) are mentioned in the article and cited in Slavic mythology and several of the Slavic gods articles. As for reconstructionism, no source is needed other than the definition. Again, please learn the definition and also see that there are primary sources cited in articles this one links to.--Dchmelik (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:GOODFAITH, WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:NOR.--Galassi (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Also WP:PRIMARY.--Galassi (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I was not trying to insult or say you do not have good faith, but making the article have an extreme (and contradictory) non-NPOV seems extremely biased against the topic, and is also a sweeping generalization (implying things such as all adherents believe/etc., whether you meant that or not, though it seems clear the article's meaning implies they all believe fakelore is useful.) I have been here about as many years as you and am not just here to listen to people cite guidelines/rules but avoid discussions such as how specific things in articles should be clear/unbiased. If you ignored just about everything the original poster and I said, I could probably also cite guidelines/rules; I am uninterested in doing so. My point is that the statement Slavianstvo is reconstructionist (the definition of which apparently you did not look up, or you disagree with the statement and should remove it from the article) and the mere existence of reliable historical primary sources suffices to make it not all fakeloric. You state I am doing original research, but it is you who are doing so by using definitions in an original, incompatible way and making it appear these authorities speak about every single adherent of Slavianstvo, and saying (or at least making the article imply) without reference, that adherents necessarily believe, and so that this incompatible definition still applies. More people should discuss the article.--Dchmelik (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
For starters there is nothing biased and NNPOV anbout "fakelore". There was a lot it in the 19th century, and some of it was quite influential. The main rule of wikipedia is to cite what reliable sources say on the subject. These sources do say that rodnoveriye is based on fakelore. The latter was also a subject of many scholarly studies. How about some good scholarly/scientific secondary sources to the contrary? THe onus is on you to find them.--Galassi (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
For enders, saying it is fakelore and reconstructionism simultaneously is not only biased, but is semantically impossible, so it is misleading (and also biased for that reason.) No matter what your sources say (which are disputed, with explanation after having read the English one) the fact that historical Slavianstvo sources exist make your sources' views incomplete. If you choose to ignore that the article says historical sources exist (which it makes clear are used, and are written about on Wikipedia,) the onus is still on you when writing an introduction to make clear that reconstructionists only use historical sources, and that your sources that are only about other adherents (and none in the case of the book review in English.)--Dchmelik (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi claimed below in my section exposing him, that (with another sweeping generalization) Slavianstvo is based on the Book of Veles, indicating again that he did not read the article or related articles. Neopagans do not normally worship all the gods in the pantheon or pantheons that are important to them. Almost all the Slavic gods are understood from information from historical sources, such as oral tradition, and certainly The Primary Chronicle and other Mediaeval texts and archaeological sources the article says exists. The Slavic gods article cite these sources.--Dchmelik (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It was about neopaganism in general, and the slavic is no exception. The oral tradition is not WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.--Galassi (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, though Primary Chronicle, etc., is, and I did not cite oral tradition as a source, though with citation styles like MLA, it is acceptable to cite speech. You just avoided almost everything I said again. Your sources should be specific about Slavianstvo, not generalizations about neopaganism that may not even apply to the general topic.--Dchmelik (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
'Neopaganism' is redirected to 'paganism (contemporary),' so, though what you said about neopaganism is a gross generalization, that source no longer applies in this context (and this should really not be a neopaganism article) Articles with sources cited proving Slavianstvo is also reconstructionist include Svarog#Sources, Triglav_(mythology), Zaria_(goddess), Zorya, Flins_(mythology), Kresnik (deity), Kupala, Gabija, Žemyna, Złota Baba, Ala_(demon), Baba_Yaga, Bannik, Bies, Blud, Domovoi, Drekavac, German (mythology), Kikimora, Lady Midday, Rusalka, Stuhać, Vampire_folklore_by_region#Slavic, Vodyanoy, Werewolf, Zduhać, Alkonost, Bukavac, Cikavac, Psoglav, Sirin, Slavic fairies. This article refers to all those somehow, so refers to their references, which must be considered. Many of the other articles list reliable primary and secondary sources. I guess you did not read or read all my suggestions previously, but if you have read this, I think you can no longer claim with honesty that Slavianstvo is fakelore.--Dchmelik (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

On 2011-11-29T13:12:57 Galassi (contribs) censored someone's statements about fakelore below, claiming 'WP:NOTAFORUM.' I read that page, and there is no precedent to remove such statements. Though I do not agree with the comment (fakelore needs to be exposed,) I thought I should return it. Unless someone can prove it is ok to suppress the extent of free speech that exists here, this censorship should likely be reported.

'Use of that term is really quite offensive and biased against practitioners of this religion. I'm sure if this label were applied to any of the Western pagan religions, like Wicca or Asatru, it would be reverted immediately. I propose its removal and replacing it with 'folklore'. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC).'

the introduction's contradictory semantics, and what most the sources supposedly saying this is 'fakelore' actually say[edit]

Galassi cited three articles to say Slavianstvo is fakelore, which is incompatible with the earlier and current description that Slavianstvo is reconstructionist. The English article is a book review, which I found and read. The only place it mentions fakelore is 'claims of links to ancient, persecuted religions cause lingering labels of "fakelore" and "folklorismus" to spring to mind, and scholars devoted to traditional arts turn elsewhere in search of authenticity,' and the review mentions no Slavic paganism. I would need a translation of the Slavic language sources, but Galassi's isogesis or outright misrepresentation of the English source casts great doubt on her/his good faith usage of the other sources, and makes me think these sources should be removed. I recommend leaving the English one so people can see that it is misrepresented, until the other sources are investigated. Editors of this page are close to consenus (someone implied to me consensus is a Wikipedia official policy) that Slavianstvo is not all fakelore, and one can see this is true by learning about the sources the article mentions, and the Slavic gods articles.

Perhaps Galassi owes an explanation of the misrepresentation of the book review, and proof of what the other sources (which could be left if they are reasonable, but the description still must be unbiased and semantically clear) say, and perhaps, if it was deliberate misprepresentation or he cannot compromise on a description that makes semantic sense (separating reconstructionism and fakelore,) he should be ignored and prevented from editing the article, or it should be protected.--Dchmelik (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

WHy don't you find reliable sources that would offer contradicting opnions? You are also mistaken: Slavic Neopaganism is not reconstructionist, because it is not based on scholarship, but rather on a literary hoax, the Book of Veles.--Galassi (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

From some web site, Galassi added another article that does not mention Slavic paganism, and a citation from Google books that does not mention Slavic paganism, but mentions one fictional god that a few non-reconstructionists believe in.--Dchmelik (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It was about neopaganism in general, and the slavic is no exception. The oral tradition is not WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. You need to reliably source which neopagans believe or not believe which gods.--Galassi (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
That is laughable: I replied to part of that in the 'Fakeloric?' section, and what I said is common knowledge. If you think every Slavianstvo adherent believes in fakeloric gods, or fakelore about them, then on the contrary, you need to prove that. If someone said every Celtic or Teutonic pagan believed in the Roman-invented goddess Britannia, or that all Greek pagans believed in Wonder Woman (now a daughter of Zeus) people would find that equally laughable. Additionally, your source with the fakeloric god Lada is about neither Slavianstvo in general nor neopaganism in general, and as I said, I doubt any of your sources are or are being used in an unbiased way, and because of your history of incorrect references, I doubt that (m)any of the ones on neopaganism are even reliable--and it would be far out to say the authors studied every single neopagan sect and the even more numerous individual practitioners. Such sources should be used in the main neopaganism article first--Dchmelik (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
How's your Russian? --Galassi (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I know about less than 10 words, but I may investigate all your sources after seeking sources about Slavianstvo reconstructionism--or maybe I will just start an article on it since you seem intent to keep this one against that.--Dchmelik (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi claimed her/his new academic dictionary source in Russian is very specific, but the source does not mention fakelore, and conflates neopaganism with an unethical lifestyle, Satanism, and bizarre New Age and fantasy ideas. Yet, he might have thought I was attacking him when I said he had an anti-Slavianstvo view. It seems more like he has one (or misunderstanding) now, and I have certain 'anti' views myself... it is an intellectual observation, not attack.--Dchmelik (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an authoritative academic dictionary, well in line with WP:RS, regardless of your UNDOCUMENTED personal opinion.--Galassi (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not state an opinion in my previous comment, but you stated one in yours. Not all academic dictionaries are authoritative.--Dchmelik (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
THe Russian Dictionary of Philosophy is.--Galassi (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If you even cited that, the point is the cited article does not mention fakelore, but you use it as a reference for fakelore. - essential reading on the subject. --Galassi (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi removed my WP:RS tags at least four times after I had explained the reason for them. You can find which sources I meant elsewhere on the page by looking at the article and talk pages' edit history. Here is the update on his other incorrectly referenced and biased/fringe sources, which I read translated online.

  • --no mention of fakelore or manufactured religion
  • V.Shnirelman "Неоязычество и национализм", Восточноевропейский ареал // Исследования по прикладной и неотложной этнологии. № 114. ИЭА РАН, 1998 г.; Неоязычество на просторах Евразии. «Библейско-богословский институт св. апостола Андрея», Москва, 2001, pp. 68, 102, 177, 168.--Biblical--biased. I could only search for words, not read entirely, but there is no occurrence of Russian words for 'fakelore' or 'manufactured'
  • --no mention of fakelore or manufactured religion
  • Шнирельман, В. Изобретение религии: неоязычество на просторах Евразии// material generalizing all of Slavic paganism as 'invented' (i.e. fakelore.) Galassi conceded on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Galassi_breaking_guidelines.2Frules_on_Slavic_Neopaganism that Slavic paganism uses fakelore 'most of the time' (which is an improvement, but may still indicate bias.) If he truly thinks so and is responsible, he will remove this fringe material and all his incorrectly referenced information.

bias about quasireligion status, and extremism? (such as Galassi's source)[edit]

With Galassi's latest seemingly unreliable source, he quotes N. Mikheyeva as saying Slavianstvo is quasireligious (clearly biased) and extreme. However, using, the source generalizes that neopaganism, a 'religion,' is extreme and does not mention Slavianstvo. If Galissi cannot offer a translation that is about Slavianstvo (that someone unbiased agrees with,) rather than neopaganism, which is not even a religion, but group of diverse religions also with views that conflict with each other, then it would be appropriate to delete the sentence and report it to admins as an example of continued incorrect references. Some of the points discussed in the 'Name' section above about bias focusing on extremism may still need to be considered. --Dchmelik (talk)

THere is little indication that Slavianstvo is what you purport it to be. The Rondnoveriye in Eastern Europe has been MUCH criticized for extremism, antisemitism, xenophobia etc. in Russian academic sources.--Galassi (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Whatever nonsense you claim it is, there is no indication of that, and 'quasireligion' is not in the OED (or MWD,) so you probably use neologisms, and the pseudoreligion article says 'psudeoreligion' is pejorative, which again implies the uninformed, anti-Slavianstvo view of your sources and yourself.--Dchmelik (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no views on the subject. I report what Reliable Sources say. And so must you. Such are the rules here. And I think you mistakenly conflating Slavyanstvo (or Panslavism) with Neopaganism. It is not a common term for neopaganism.--Galassi (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If you did not use improper capitalization, start sentences with 'and,' and use verbs in succession, and imply neopaganism is not a common term for neopaganism, I might bother answering what may be wrongly guessed in your last, incomprehensible, sentence. Let us be clear that the way you use sources conflates Slavic religions (e.g. Slavianstvo) with neopaganism, particularly with the view that neopaganism is one religion and people's ravings about the neopaganism concept apply to all sorts of paganism.--Dchmelik (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this passage here for discussion: "Slavianstvo (Slavianism)[9] , Russian: славянство."(marginally reliable citation). Ru-Wiki makes no mention of such a word, and I couldn't find any reliable source equating Slavianstvo with Slavic Neopaganism. --Galassi (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

2nd check: All other Slavic wikis make no mention of this word either, except the Polish wiki. --Galassi (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is another update on a source from Galassi.

Why should it? Slavyanstvo has NOTHING TO DO with neopaganism.--Galassi (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Large removal of unreferenced content[edit]

I removed a large amount from the article today, because all of the following were entirely unreferenced.

If this article is going to take shape as an encyclopaedic piece. then I encourage all editors to add back information with appropriate references. Thanks.

I quote below the portions I removed;

Rebirth of Slavic spirituality

The pre-Christian religions of the Slavic peoples probably died out slowly in the countryside after the official adoption of Christianity (Moravia in 863, Poland in 966, Kievan Rus' in 988).[citation needed] Those Pagan religious practices that were not adopted into Christian folk practice were probably stamped out by the 15th century;[citation needed] however, some modern Rodnovers make use of 19th century folk practices that may be altered survivals of the earlier religion.

In the 19th century, many Slavic nations experienced a Romantic fascination with an idealised Slavic Arcadia that was believed to exist before Christianity arrived, which combined such notions as the noble savage and Johann Gottfried Herder's national spirit. In the absence of extensive written or archaeological evidence for the destroyed Slavic religion, these artistic visions were important in rebuilding interest in the lost Slavic heritage after the unmitigated condemnation of medieval Christian writers. Zorian Dołęga-Chodakowski's 1818 pamphlet "O Sławiańszczyżnie przed chrześcijaństwem" (About the Slavs before Christianity) would later prove to be an influential proto-Neopagan manifesto with its depiction of "two cultures" in the Slavic lands; one was the original pure Slavic culture of the peasants, the other was the imported foreign culture of the nobility. Unlike earlier authors, Dołęga-Chodakowski identified Christianity as a negative influence on national character.

In addition to new artistic representations, the 19th century was a period which rediscovered many authentic fragments of Slavic religion, such as the publication of the Tale of Igor's Campaign (1800) and the excavation of the Zbruch idol (1848). It was also rife with fakes, such as the Prillwitz idols (1795) and the Mikorzyn stones (1855).

As in other European countries, many Slavic nations developed their own Rodnover traditions in the first half of the 20th century (Poland by 1921; Ukraine by 1934; compare with neighbours Germany by 1925; and Latvia by 1926). The German and Polish groups were often already referred to as Neopagan in press articles before World War II.

Common themes

Most, but not all, Rodnovers place a heavy emphasis on some form of nationalism as part of their ideology combined with anti-Christian sentiment (they consider Christianity a Jewish superstition). In some cases, this may be limited to a commitment to preserve national tradition and folklore; in other cases, it may include chauvinism directed against other ethnic groups. As Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology in Moscow, has written, ethnic nationalism, xenophobia, racism, and antisemitism are core values of many Russian Rodnover groups. He has also pointed out recent translations into Russian of "racist and antisemitic teachings" by the Italian fascist Julius Evola and the antisemitic Theosophist Alice Bailey which are evidence of this tendency. The promotion of the Panslavist and specifically russocentric ideas by right-wing associations of the Russian Rodnovery groups have led to inferences that these groups promulgate Russian imperialism.

Ecology and respect for nature is another shared theme. Piotr Wiench has claimed that nationalism is less important than ecology to most groups. Many groups use extensive symbolism drawn from the natural world (trees, lightning, Sun, and Moon) and many hold their religious ceremonies outdoors in sparsely populated areas.

Most Rodnovers draw their material from some combination of written medieval chronicles, archaeological evidence, 19th century fakelore, artistic invention and direct "divine revelation". In Russia and Ukraine, many Rodnovers use the Book of Veles as a sacred text. Meanwhile this work, a 20th century literary forgery, does not enjoy widespread popularity in Rodnover groups in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It must also be pointed out, that Black metal music has played an important role in fueling the interest of the Slavic youth in Rodnovery.

Czech Republic

Rodnover groups in the Czech Republic include Společenství Rodná Víra (the Association of Native Faith) based in Prague.


The largest pagan group in Slovakia is Krug Peruna; it actively organizes different ceremonies throughout the country. Moreover, it has members not only in Bratislava (its headquarters) but also in other cities such as Martin and Košice.

Another smaller group is Paromova Dúbrava, which draws together pagans from Bratislava and nearby vicinities. The most recent group is Rodolesie from Veľký Krtíš.

The new Rodnover page is Geryon, situated in Bratislava. The Geryon communicate with the other Rodnover sites or groups. The centrum of this guild is in Bratislava, but the members are over both the Slovak and Czech Republics.

Miroslav Švický (also known as ŽiariSlav) published on the subject what was quite well recognized by Slovak etnologic academia, most notably the book Návrat Slovenov. He with group of people around him named Rodný kruh fosters unorthodox approach to neopaganism under Slovak name vedomectvo. They focus on comprehending pagan themes that survived in Slovakia to this day, instead of exactly reproducing rituals as they are described in historical literature (often fragmentary and written by foreigners). The aim is to restore harmony with nature by preserving old rituals, crafts and music as well as creating new ones in the same spirit, named novodrevo, novodrevná hudba. Švický is frontman of musical group Bytosti, that plays such music.


One of the most influential Ukrainian Rodnover ideologues was Volodymyr Shaian (1908–1974). In 1934, Shaian, a specialist in Sanskrit at Lviv University, claimed to have a religious experience while observing a folk ritual in the Carpathian mountains. His brand of Rodnovery emphasised the shared roots of Indo-European culture. He was involved in a short-lived Rodnover movement in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, before emigrating to London at the end of the Second World War. After the war, he was an outspoken supporter of the authenticity of the Book of Veles, and his own 900-page magnum opus on Slavic religion, Vira Predkiv Nashih (The Faith of Our Ancestors), was published posthumously by his supporters in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada in 1987.

The largest group that currently continues Shaian’s legacy is the Obiednannia Ridnoviriv Ukrayiny (Об`єднання Рідновірів України "Native Faith Association of Ukraine"), founded in 1998 by Halyna Lozko, a University lecturer in Kiev. This group is a federation of previously existing smaller groups, including Lozko’s own Pravoslavia, founded in 1993. (The name Pravoslavia is a sort of pun which means both “speaks the truth” and Orthodoxy in the Ukrainian language.) The federation has chapters in Kiev, Kharkiv, Odessa, Boryspil, Chernihiv, Mykolaiv, Lviv and Yuzhnoukrainsk. "Pravoslavia" publishes a glossy magazine named "Svaroh” after the Slavic deity.

Lev Sylenko (1921- ) was a disciple of Shayan’s before breaking with him in the 1960s and developing an alternative reconstruction of Ukrainian pre-Christian religion. Sylenko’s vision is a monotheism that worships the god Dazhboh. Sylenko founded his RUNVira group in 1966 in Chicago, USA, and only opened their first temple in the mother country of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. The current headquarters of RUNVira is in Spring Glen, New York, USA. His 1,400-page Maha Vira was published in 1979. Smaller groups have broken off from RUNVira and mix Sylenko’s teachings with other sources.

 Chzz  ►  04:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

credible references?[edit]

I removed some Verify credibility templates earlier which should be used when a reference is unreliable. For instance, a personal blog, a company's own website, etc., are generally considered unreliable. The references given were generally reliable as far as they themselves were concerned. The references given may not, however, support the statements in the article that they've been put next to and in that case the references should simply be deleted. Banaticus (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Since their justification so far has been uninformed sweeping generalizations and in all cases, no further reply, I have done so. It would be good to note that Galissi's citations about xenophobia and violence are not complete, and though it is not in my interest to tag them, before any new references he might come up with, those ones, and the few other incomplete ones in the article, should be properly cited.--Dchmelik (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the SHizhensky and others' criticism (reliably sourced) to the Russia section, where it is relevant. Ramoval thereof would fall ander WP:CENSORSHIP.--Galassi (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Not really. Your citations that are even properly used/unbiased are incomplete. You need to (re)read WP:cite: Wikipedia's citations cannot be a mere link, and are supposed to be done similar to complete academic citation styles such as MLA.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi added two sources on Slavianist anti-semitism and wasted the admins time rambling, mentioning the topic for no reason related to the conduct arbitration. Slavianist anti-semitism should be documented, but it must be done with reliable sources. Galassi's second link is a copy of someone else's writing, whose original source of publication is not cited, which violates WP:verify because of making it impossible to investigate the original (unknown) source to see if meets the conditions such as the reputation for reliable research required for WP:reliable. I will remove it, if it is returned; please cite the original source.--dchmelik (t|c) 03:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. It is an exact quotation from Schnirelmann, and is eminently reliable!--Galassi (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not recall it being a quotation, and someone else's name is at the end. If it is a quotation, you must cite how Schnirelmann published it--in a book, speech, etc., because we need to be able to see if he and his publisher are reliable. If it was by another person and is more than quotation, such as commentary, it seems ok to return.--dchmelik (t|c) 02:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


Cyrillic searches yield nothing of the sort pertaining to neopaganism. The word refers to SLAVIC CIVIZATION. You must stop.--Galassi (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no convention that the word has to be Cyrillic. Slavs, whether they speak a Slavic language or not, use the term Slavianstvo (more standard English than Slavyanstvo) to describe their religions, and you must stop deleting my (third-party sources WP:sources.) Any word containing 'pagan' is pejorative, but unfortunately 'reclaimed,' sort of like fag, etc., and not everyone uses it, but unfortunately it is one of the only allegedly standard terms. Though the statement seems to imply Slavianstvo is neopagan, you must realize that 'neopagan' is an artificial category some people find offencive because of, not only the term 'pagan,' but its implications about historical knowledge. I encourage you to avoid speech generally/historically, or partially regarded as hateful or misrepresentative, such as 'cult,' 'quasireligion,' 'pagan' and derivatives, etc.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI, Slavyanstvo is a. a Russian word, not English; means Slavic world/civilization at large; c. has nothing to do with any kind of paganism, neo or otherwise; d. not a common term; e. seems to be undocumentable....--Galassi (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You were either editing too hastily to notice that it is, or noticed but are a liar (such as also writing an edit summary that says I removed sources without discussion, when there has been discussion directly above and on your talk page) as well as repeat violator who defies admins and has a history of being blocked and mediators not working with you. Whether you like it or not--apparently you do not--'Slavianstvo' is used in the English-speaking world, and 'Slavianism' is a translation in even more standard English (all the words about Slavianstvo sects are translated from Slavic anyway, so you have made no point.) I had documented this with reliable third party sources, which you removed, making the article not tell the whole truth.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
1.WP:NPA. 2. Shnirelman is a major scholar of neopaganism, and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 3. These citations are concidered authoritative in Ru-wiki. 4. Your edits are disruptive.--Galassi (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Your habit of changing the topic is disruptive. The reliable third-party secondary source that someone had cited, and that I completed the reference on, is sufficient evidence on Slavianstvo.--dchmelik (t|c) 03:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It is cited - NP/Eurasion Realm etc. And stop soiling my talk page. The NP discussion must be conducted here.--Galassi (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is, so my citation will remain. What is 'NP/Eurasian Realm?' You used my talk page, so I replied on yours: that is convention. If you want me to stop 'soiling,' define that childishly negative term so I can. Even the board of trustees does not generally restrict where people discuss, unless someone is being incivil or off-topic, and as far as I know, you do not have authority in the matter (except maybe your talk page.) If you mean 'neopaganism,' if I have something to say to all editors on a page, I will. General neopaganism is not the topic here.--dchmelik (t|c) 03:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not interested in general neopaganism. Russian neopaganism is an extreminst movement, largely antisemitic, and you cannot CENSOR any reliably sourced information apropos.--Galassi (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you know enough about 'neopaganism' in general to be editing this article reliably, and why did you say merely 'the NP discussion?' Why did you censor the talk page (see above?) Bigoted quotes, 'reliably sourced' or not, belong in no articles except those exposing bigotry.--dchmelik (t|c) 08:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I do. I have owned a OldSlavic/Russian bilingual edition of the Primary Chronicle since 1972. But you apparently know nothing about Russia and its language. --Galassi (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Both of you, please tone down the rhetoric. If you continue in this vein then one or both are likely to be blocked for disruptive editing. You each seem to have some expertise in this area; please use it collaboratively to improve the article, not to score points off each other. Please make your next edits ones that improve the article, rather than continuing this squabble. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kim, I have always made an effort to be polite, but perhaps I accused him of too many things, but perhaps as for my such statements that have links you should read those and his instance of censoring the talk page. It seems to me that some people want to focus the article on terms such as 'rodnovery' and say they have to do with 'native faith' (like 'volkism' and Nazism,) when it also means 'worship of the gods' and is only a small part of 'Slavianstvo.' When pages started appearing on the 'net on it years ago, they mostly used that term. They also mostly used the 'hands of God' symbol on the pages rather than the swastikas that were at the top recently. The term is the most appropriate one, even more than any 'paganism,' just like 'Hellenismos' refers to ancient & modern religion of the Greek (Hellene) gods, or even just Greek-related philosophy with cultural religious aspects but no required belief, instead of them using some other term to refer to some 'volkish' or 'nativist' focus, which not everyone focuses on and is a misrepresentation and demonization. There is absolutely no other term universally pertaining to the subject other than one with the word 'Slav' in it, otherwise it can equally refer to other religions such as the Abrahamic ones even, which also have natives and are not what the topic focuses on.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dchmelik that the current 'Russia' paragraph is highly biased and anti-Rodnover. -- (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not. It merely reports the scholarly opinions thereof. The article doesn't have to be PROrodnover either. It has to have NPOV, and be reliably cited with secondary sources.--Galassi (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


Panslavism has NOTHING to do with neopaganism, and should not be brought here per WP:REDFLAG.--Galassi (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

While I concluded most of your recent edits are correct, I disagree with some of what you said on 'Talk.' One only needs to also cite Nazi ideology to prove pan-slavic Nazism. Pan-slavism can also be ideology openly starting in one country when they want to join with similar others. That is what Nazism does; most people in Germanic countries were Allied against Nazis, but Nazism was still pan-germanic ideology. Your source said Nazi Slavs exist, but since they cannot be pan-germanic, they certainly use the same ideology and are pan-slavic--if they do not use the same ideology, then your source is misinformed that they are Nazis. The source said they are 'pagan' Nazis, so they are pagan pan-slavists. I was not calling it conspiracy: some extremists are open about their goals, such as perhaps in your other citations, and National Bolshevism, a Communist party using Nazi symbolism and some Nazi ideology. Since they are Communists, most of them are atheists: 'Nazism' says it is pannationalism, so I think your source need not detail that. It may not say what kind of pagan each Nazi is, which is irrelevant, but all Nazis are pan-nationalist. I reply to your abstract definition in the next section.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories and the article's/redirects titles; 'Pagan/heathen' vs. 'платить' ('plateet') or 'язычник' ('youzoufchnik')[edit]

As for similarity/difference between pan-slavism, Slavianism, Rodnovery, etc., Venn diagrams help. The categories are all the same and are all different. I rarely recall the OED definition, the only one I will accept, for 'pagan,' and though it is allegedly 'reclaimed' like 'fag,' the term is non-academic: numerous 'pagans' find 'pagan' and derivatives slurs. I sort of do, and would appreciate if people say a purely English (e.g. '(neo)heathen') or Slavic term here and to me about the page: 'heathen' is related to English words I know, the Slavic ones are ok; mixing other terms confuses me. says Russian for 'pagan' is 'платить' ('plateet;') 'heathen' is язычник ('youzoufchnik.') I may not have heard and transliterated right, but I think no Slavianstvo site I ever saw (10 to 100 or so) said their religion was 'Slavic Neopaganism' rather than Slavianstvo (or Rodnovery, etc.) If you call a religious Slavianist in Eurasia 'pagan/heathen,' not Slavic terms, they will not know what you are talking about and think it is so stupid it is funny, rude, or both. 'Pagan' is Latin (Celtic ;) & English (Teutonic ;) 'heathen' is English and the terms are almost interchangeble to Britons, Americans, etc., however according to members of the only good philosophy chat room findable, with almost 100 members mostly far more educated than me, academics do not use 'pagan/heathen' referring to indigenous religion, and continental Europeans are more familiar with one latter or other term, which are still slurs or usually non-religious, like meaning 'rural.'

Clearly the Slavianstvo article's creator was North Atlantic 'pagan' or writing for some, but 'pagan' must eventually be replaced here with a Slavic religious slur, because mainstream Christian Slavs will accept no ethnic name for the article, and I should not either: it would mislead. Slavianstvo and Slavianism are directed here: one or both must probably get disambiguated.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the general term which translates "Paganism" in most of Slavic languages is "Jazikestvo"; Google Translator translates "Paganism" in Russian as язычество yazychestvo and "Pagan" as языческий yazycheskiĭ. "Slavianstvo" (En. Slavianism) is of little usage; most of the Pagans in Slavic countries use the word "Rodnovery" (and cognates) for their ethnic religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Galassi in his previous comments is right when he says that "Slavianism" is used to refer to the Slavic culture and civilization at large, and not to a specific religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No, 'Slavianstvo' was the only term that appeared on the internet on the topic for years, and it equally refers to religion, in a similar manner the word Hellenismos/Hellenism is used. I still have never seen a 'Rodnovery' site on the internet, but the term could equally refer to a native of the Abrahamic religions. 'Slavianstvo' refers to a native or non-native that is interested in the Slavic religions. If you are not going to say who you are, then at least cite your sources.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong. Virtually all Slavic Pagans call thei religion Rodnovery. "Slavianism"/Slavianstvo appears only in one online page (the one linked in the lede, not a reliable source) as the name for the movement.-- (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. 'Virtually all,' though it is your opinion and not actually the case, is irrelevant... and there are other pages. You and whoever did the comment above, whoever you are (maybe people who are usually signed in and pushing this viewpoint) keep hijacking sections to discuss other things. There is already a section above where people were debating whether 'Slavianstvo' is the broader term, and now you are talking about it everywhere, as if you want people to read it everywhere like propaganda.--dchmelik (t|c) 02:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please use reliable sources[edit]

Rodnovery is one of the most developed Contemporary Pagan movements. A large amount of studies on the subject by renowned professors can be found.

-- (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

source this[edit]

I removed the following text from the main article:

As Dr. Victor Shnirelman, a cultural anthropologist at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology in Moscow, has written, ethnic nationalism, xenophobia, racism, and antisemitism are core values of many Russian Rodnover groups.
He has also pointed out recent translations into Russian of "racist and antisemitic teachings" by the Italian fascist Julius Evola and the antisemitic Theosophist Alice Bailey which are evidence of this tendency. The promotion of the Panslavist and specifically russocentric ideas by right-wing associations of the Russian Rodnovery groups have led to inferences that these groups promulgate Russian imperialism.

My issues with the material include a) a total absence of footnotes for the Shnirelman statement b) questions as to why the writings of an Italian fascist and a British/American theosophist demonstrate anything at all about Russian Rodnover groups c) use of "points out", which implies endorsement d) lack of references for the characterizations of Evola and Bailey, which are defamatory if untrue e) an unsourced statement about inferences that somebody may or may not be drawing about undescribed "associations" of unspecified groups that may or may not promote imperialism.

Needs sourcing at a minimum, and notability may be an issue as well. Elinruby (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Schnnirelman should go into the Russian section with all the Russian Rodnover related material, where the citations are listed.--Galassi (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that would seem to be a better place than Common themes, where it was. Though the relevance of Evola and Bailey are still unclear to me, and the word "as", in addition to the above. seems to imply endorsement.... if he verifiably said it, then that takes care of some of the issues. But who is he anyway and why do we care what he says? And what's the leap of logic I am not seeing between Evola and Bailey and these groups? Elinruby (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Shcnirelmann mentions Evola as well as German mystical aryanism as influences on Russian NP in a lot of places. Russia and logic are not very compatible...--Galassi (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Shnirelman appears to be one of the most important scholars researching the topic of this article. Russia and logic not compatible? I think you might want to discuss that with a Russian mathematician or perhaps a chess grand master. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of the problems seem to have stemmed a hasty copy from the Russia section, where there are, as Galassi says, some citations. I have been looking at them off and on. One problem I am having is the quality of machine translation, but I have left the sourced -- even self-published -- statements elsewhere alone, because he conceivably *is* an expert. I still have questions, however, as to whether he is an expert on neo-paganism or antisemitism or the intersection of the two. He seems to be both over-emphasizing Russia and overlooking the Gaia characteristics of many groups. There also seems to be a logic that goes: If some skinheads are pagans, then all pagans are skinheads, which would of course be a fallacy. This are only preliminary questions though and not assessments. I have an open mind on the topic and recognize you from RSN. If you have specific knowledge I would love to hear your thoughts on the above. Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Schnirelmann is not "conceivably" an expert. Hei IS one. He is not overemphasizing Russia either. It is the largest Slavic country, and it naturally has 99% of world's rodnovers. Elsewhere they are few. As to them skinheads, PREVALENCE does NOT mean ALL of them are neopagan.--Galassi (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Nor does it mean that all pagans are skinheads, which may be an overtone here, is my point. As to Schnirelman, I am not saying it's a reach to call him an expert; just that I have not made up my mind on this point, but it seems possible. Especially if itsmejudith thinks so. I do wonder why he doesn't have a wiki page tho. Hope that clarifies. Elinruby (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
He does, both here and in ruwiki. Not sure about your overtones....--Galassi (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
On what statistics do you base your claim that Russia "naturally has 99% of world's rodnovers"?! Rodnovery is registered as a religion in Poland and large Rodnover communities exist in Ukraine and Belarus. Also, a comment "Russia and logic are not very compatible.", clearly shows you are biased, which is also shown in the article itself. What makes Schnirelmann an "expert on Rodnovery"? That his text is translated into English, and works of Slavic scholars aren't? Perunova straža (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If the article was much more about Slavic philosophy than religion, maybe the statements on Evola and Bailey would be relevant... but they are not. Just because someone translates something to a language does not mean it is suddenly part of the religion of the language's ethnic group, any more than if someone translated Hitler's writings to Hebrew, that that suddenly would mean those were part of Judaism. Evloa's and Bailey's writings have to do with farther Western cultures, and in the case of Bailey (I do not really know much about Evola) are actually esoteric Christian, not pagan, so pretty much completely off-topic. If I recall correctly, she may, like Theosophy which influenced her, both use elements of Judeo-Christian religion while criticizing it... so it really has more to do with heterodoxy in that than the Slavic gods or related philosophy. So, while I think it is fine to keep the criticism of some Slavic groups, the unrelated esoteric--'occult'--stuff (Slavianstvo is probably more exoteric--not occult, just focused more on public culture & worship) should probably be removed.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

update- I am removing the same two paragraphs, which re-appeared.. the reason for this is that it is rhetorically tying a large, widespread population with inflammatory descriptions by a particular author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WHere in our policies or guidelines does that say we can remove what reliable sources say about our subject? I have removed the last sentence however. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Anything on Tripod is by definition self-published[edit]

moving the material here pending better references:

Most Rodnovers draw their material from some combination of written medieval chronicles, archaeological evidence, 19th and 20th century fakelore, artistic invention and direct "divine revelation"[10].

That text is a copy of a Schnirelmann article.--Galassi (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
where was it published? Elinruby (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Didn't take long to find the better link - --Galassi (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
That has a better chance of flying; mind you Tripod's was zero. I don't have time to Google the publication right now, but I suggest, if this is the same article, that you use this reference instead. If you want to work on the article, one thing you might want to do is see if anyone has ever asked about these magazines at the reliable source noticeboard. Or not, if you don't want to -- but if there's already been a consensus that susch and such is a respected publication then that's one less thing to wonder about. Elinruby (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

that journal on sunround is self-published and only ok if your guy is an expert on neo-paganism[edit]

I don't have time to fully investigate. Right now he does seem to me to have some credentials, but as an expert on anti-semitism. I am not removing the material as it does seem possible that he may be an expert on anti-semitism in neopaganism, but since I need to go I am noting the question for anyone else who may be editing. Elinruby (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources, POV's, Neopaganism and Google translate[edit]

Number of used sources are written by Christians and intended to be used in a smear campaign against Slavic pagans (Shnirelman is the best example - his "book" was published by Biblical and theological institute of st. Andrew in Moscow). Using clearly biased sources led to making this article to be a POV. The wording of the article is most unfortunate, since it is obvious that writers used Google translate when they copy/pasted texts from Slavic languages. Also, application of term Neopaganism on Rodnovery is not adequate. It's pagan religion, not neopagan religion. Too much text is dedicated to obscure and marginal groups in Rodnovery, presenting them as mainstream. By the way, a Rodnover group named after a mythological creature from Hellenismos?! Does anyone think that is not a hoax? Perunova straža (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. Because of the recent state of the article, I am sure many of the references are intended to demonize... but it is important to point out racism, just as the occasional racism/Nazism is pointed out on the Germanic neopaganism article... but maybe this article also needs its own section on that, rather than focusing on the negative in almost every section. I dislike the term 'neopaganism'--and even 'pagan'--and think each 'pagan' religion should have an article named after the ethnic term for the religion ('Slavianstvo' here,) as that is the only universal element of each such religion (or group of philosophies/religions.) Indo-European religion is related, so it is entirely possible a group was named after something from an older similar culture for either real or new reasons... but I will leave that up to you to investigate if it is even still in the article.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Finding an appropriate symbol[edit]

This recent edit removed one symbol and replaced it with another - along with a long string of (not very useful) references. Can we have some dicussion here of which (if any) symbol is an appropriate one to use? As far as I can see there are at least two candidates but there may be others... Any thoughts? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually both symbols can be inserted into the article, since both the symbols are used and therefore represent the movement. The only difference is that one of them represents the Polish/Western Slavic branch of the movement, while the other one the Russian/Ukrainian/East Slavic branch. -- (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a sensible move if it was agreeable to others and had (at least some!) support in the sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is Hands of God have no support in the sources. As far I know they are not used by Czech and Slovak people, since these nations do not identify themselves wuth Lusatian culture. It's the strictly Polish tradition to identify with Lusatians. The well known archeological site in Biskupin was thougt for a long time as "Slavic". Hands of God are found in the centre of Poland. It is false to atribute this symbol to whole West Salvic Rodnovery. In Poland there are three-four oficially registered rodnovery organizations and many others unregistered. Only one of them identifies strong with Hands of God, other Polish rodnovers use it very very rare. I'm sorry to say that by it looks like someone from Native Polish Church would make propaganda everywhere in Wikipedia. If you e.g. on Czech site about Rodnovery you'll find there two phographs of Native Polish Church. It's strange, isn't it? Im not sure what the symbol of Czech Rodna Vira is, but probably this one: Here are the symbols of Polish organizations rounded swastika with four arms rounded swastika with three arms (inscribed in the sun) For comaparision Native Polish Church there is not easy to make compromise for West Slavic Rodnovery but probably the swastika four-armed and rounded (to make distinction from Nazi-swastika) would be the best solution (on the left) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The edit named first above seems biased to me. For years, the only symbol of Slavianstvo I saw on the 'net was the Hands of God... it still seems to be the de facto general Slavianist symbol there as of a year or so ago... and I, as a general and Czech Slavianist, use it--as the Slavs were exterminated by Nazis, I would never use a swastika-based symbol, and I suspect bigots are just trying to associate swastikas and Nazis with all of Slavianstvo just because there may be a few right-wing Slavs in their countries who are interested in that... but if you are talking about Western Slavianists in 'first world' countries, I do not think they would likely use swastikas much either... and just as Wiccans in America are a valid part of neopaganism, so are the many Slavs in Western countries. If swastika-based symbols that are not actually standard swastikas happened to be used in these cultures, like in India and maybe Tibet where the Nazis got it from, then someone could rightly use it if they do it politely and preferably not publicly, but I would mainly be interested in it from a historical viewpoint. I do not like the turn this article has taken since I last edited it. It is true some Slavianists on the 'net use these symbols now, but I suspect you will still mostly find the Hands of God. It is also the symbol we use on WikiProject Neopaganism and by everyone who makes userboxes to express interest in Slavianstvo, so I am not the only one who feels this way.--dchmelik (t|c) 08:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo of "Temple of Oriyana in Spring Glen, New York"[edit]

I've been able to find this temple.

Google streetview of entrance:,+new+york&hl=en&ll=41.66291,-74.426923&spn=0.022859,0.038538&hnear=Spring+Glen,+Wawarsing,+Ulster,+New+York,+United+States&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.662896,-74.426907&panoid=CQav6PDM0jCrn1bNsIAa_Q&cbp=12,98.61,,1,1.1

Bing oblique photo:

The description of this image

Description Sylenkoite people worship in Ukraine. Date 2007(2007) Source Narodna Pravda Author Юрій Самсон - Yuri Samson on Narodna Pravda

is incorrect.

Indeed, the link to Narodna Pravda reveals totally different image of a temple interior at Epiphany, Alexandria (presumably Ukraine).

Thus, three problems:

1. The description of this image is incorrect, and applies

2. It is not appropriate attachded to the section discussion Slavic Neopaganism in Ukraine.

3. If you click on the link to Spring Glen, you are redirected to the article on Hamden, Connecticut, an entirely different place.

Would someone who knows what they are doing please sort this mess out. Sorry, but I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to do so.

Floozybackloves (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Old faith of Slavs existed until WWI[edit]

quote: "The pre-Christian religions of the Slavic peoples probably died out slowly in the countryside after the official adoption of Christianity (Moravia in 863, Poland in 966, Kievan Rus' in 988)."

Occult nonsense. Slavic (real) paganism and pagan priesthood survived until WWI or until the beginning of 20th century AD. After communism, nazism, became forbidden and died out. In Slovenia existed real priests or better said priestesses and they were hiding their faith from roman church because of fear or destruction.

What you say sounds more likely, just as what is argued for the traditions in Wicca and other paganism. We do not write an article on what 'probably' happened. See if there are any sources for what you say, and if not, maybe change it anyway, as it is shown to be true for 'paganism' in general.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not say it "probably" happened but it EXISTED. There exists even descendants of the latest known Slovenian priests or better said priestesses. The tradition called Osvatina survived until WWI. Everything is documented. And Slavic Old faith has nothing to do with Wicca nonsense. The word "paganism" is a mockery: word means "primitive, rural" in Latin. Christianity, Judaism in Slavic lands adopted many pre Christian Slavic festivals. The last (real) Slavic & Lithuanian priesthood survived to World War 1. After that became forbidden or died out. How ever few descendants of these people survived. Their stories and still modern traces of these cultural elements were documented. These people lived in biggest secrecy. Here is one of the (many) sources, about god Kres / Kresnik. Celebration of Kresnik day. (the source is already mentioned in the article). This cultural continuum is mentioned also on the Slovenian site of Wikipedia of Slovenian mythology.


I propose moving this page to "Rodnovery". Do you support or oppose? Pass a Method talk 20:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I do not see a reason to favorise term "Rodnovery" over polish "Rodzimowiercy", ukrainian "Ridnoviry" or any other form. There should be redirection from "Rodnovery" to this article. And also from "Rodzimowiercy", "Ridnoviry" and so on, as there are many terms in many slavic languages to describe movement. Too many to favorise one over another. (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per reasons given by IP above, plus this is the English language Wikipedia and article titles should be in English or in non-English words or phrases that are readily understood by most readers. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kim D-B. On, we should keep the name that's most useful to English speakers. DoriTalkContribs 03:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A quick Google consult (English-language) shows about 2:1 usage for Rodnovery. "Slavic Neopaganism" sounds like an academic descriptor. We shouldn't let national varieties prevent us from using a WP:COMMONNAME; use the most common variant and make the rest redirects. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I get different results than BDD, practically the opposite in fact. I also did regular Google searches returning only English-language results, and I got 19,100 hits for '"Slavic neopaganism" -Wikipedia', 7,360 hits for '"Rodnovery" -Wikipedia', 9900 hits for '"Rodzimowiercy" -Wikipedia', and 1020 hits for '"Ridnoviry" -Wikipedia'. I also checked Google News and Google Books, but the results were less conclusive. For Google Books, when I excluded the word "Wikipedia" from the search I got 4 results for "slavic neopaganism", 4 results for "rodnovery", 4 results for "rodzimowiercy", and 2 results for "ridnoviry". I'm guessing that my search was configured differently somehow to BDD's, but I'm not sure quite how. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 04:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- From WP:CRITERIA: 'Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles.'.
    Sowlos (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Article is about several religions, of which Slavic Rodnovery is just one. Perunova straža (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rodnovery is only a subset of another word: it should be moved to 'Slavianstvo', if anything. People pushing the term 'Rodnovery' are typically trying to push the view--because they dislike or like it--that Slavianstvo is about 'native' Slavs, and 'nativism', i.e. 'folkism' like the Nazi volkish aspect that allowed Teutonic paganism in Nazism. That is non-NPOV and excludes the Slavianists who are pantheist, Slavic Wiccans who see the Slavic gods as only aspects of 'Goddess' or 'God,' and even atheists who may just be skeptics but see the gods as possibly existing and/or Jungian archetypes. This portrayal of Slavianstvo as folkist must be eliminated from the beginning of the article, because articles are supposed to be in a postive light, and even the Germanic neopaganism is not calling all Germanic pagans Nazis. It is fine to cite incidents in each country, but it still needs to also focus on positive aspects. The following anonymous comment, though under my vote on this, is not a vote and should be elsewhere. It ignores the facts, which I am willing to discuss elsewhere.--dchmelik (t|c) 03:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The term "Slavianstvo" is not used in the Slavic languages for this movement, which is called "Rodnovery", as you can verify viewing the title of all the Slavic languages versions of this article. "Slavianstvo"/Slavianism is a general term for Slavic culture and identity in some languages. And "Rodnovery" is not at all "a subset" of Slavic Neo-paganism. In the Slavic countries things such as "Slavic Wiccans" don't exist. "Folkist" doesn't have a negative connotation; Slavic Rodnovery is mostly an ethnic religion, which means it is strictly connected to ethnic identity. And finally, none of the Slavic ethnic groups has "Celtic" origins as you have stated in one of your edits.-- (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over a week. Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Slavic NeopaganismSlavic neopaganism – Decap. Not a proper name. - Altenmann >t 17:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slavianism vs Rodnovery[edit]

I put this comment on Dchmelik's talkpage but it seems it has been removed from there, so I have decided to copy it here.-- (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are repeating a section that basically is above and should move all this up there. I do not accept anonymous comments on my talk page.--dchmelik (t|c) 02:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using the word "Slavianstvo" to describe Slavic Neopaganism. It's proper name in English is Rodnovery, which is an adaptation of the Russian Rodnoverie, the Ukrainian Ridnovirstvo, Ridna Vira, and so on, all of which mean "Native-Faith". On the Internet you can find most of the information googling Rodnovery or Rodnoverie, and obviously also googling in Russian, Ukrainian and other Slavic languages. There are also academic publications using this name: [1], [2], [3]. The Rodnovery movement is the same as Slavic Paganism. Slavianism is a term seldom used for Rodnovery; it is instead often used as a general term for Slavic culture, identity, and nationalism, so its usage for the religion is equivocal or utterly wrong.-- (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

'Google' is not a verb, and the usage of it as one is an indication a person is not very academic. There are published, cited, sources using the term 'Slavianstvo,' and it was what was originally used in this article and most sites I saw on the 'net at that time (before I ever saw the term 'Rodnovery' at any.) There is no central authority that says what it has to be called, and the only common element to all the sects (similarly that those of Hellenismos/Hellenism are Greek) is that they are Slavic. There is even one called 'Pravoslavya' cited in the article. 'Rodnovery' is not the same (any more than Asatru, Senistrognata, and Aurrad are 'universal' in their areas) because it does not say 'Slav'--it can be a translation of 'Native (American) religion'--and there are many smaller sects with different old and new names, and not all people involved have faith ('vera.') By writing it with this word having volkism/nativist connotations rather than Slavic ones (regardless of whether one even lives in a Slavic nation, or whether one is Slavic rather than necessarily interested) people like you are marginalizing Slavianists and portraying them as volkish and believers, when not all are. It does not matter how 'seldom' a term is used: it matters what is most descriptive. So what if it has other meanings? Words do. 'Hellenism' also means culture, but people use it as a religious term anyway, as 'Hellenismos' originally was, and they are not going to stop just because someone else who has no authority does not like it.--dchmelik (t|c) 02:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You are clearly not well-versed in Slavic topics. No academic source uses the term "Slavianstvo", just one page on the internet cites it, a page not focussed on Slavic Neopaganism, and probably a copy of an old revision of the Russia article on Wikipedia. "Pravoslavia" is just another name, a minority one, used for the same religion (Slavic Neopaganism), it's not another "sect". Your personal interpretations on the term "Rodnovery" are not authoritative, "Rodnovery" means "Native Faith" in the Slavic languages, implying "Slavic" Native Faith, and is not used solely by volkish groups but by all Slavic Pagans in the Slavic countries, even by Slavic meinstream media. "Slavianists" are an invention.-- (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this IP on all counts here.--Galassi (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, Rodnovery is not at all comparable to Wicca, which in the Slavic countries does not exist. New Age-influenced movements in the Slavic world are very different from those of the West. For example under the Rodnovery category one can find Ingliism.-- (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Witch-cult hypothesis, or at least the fact that ancient pagans including witches existed (just read some Slavic fairy tales) applies to Slavic countries, and Wicca is intended to apply not just to all of European paganism including parts also called in Asia, but even any part of the world, and Slavic Wicca exists. I personally know a Slavic Wiccan who lives in a Slavic country (though it would be just as relevant if that person lived outside Europe, as millions of pagans do) and you can find pages about it on the 'net, including those of people who do live there.--dchmelik (t|c) 02:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Wiccans from Slavic countries (I assume Poland, Croatia or the Czech Republic) could exist, but a few Slavic Wiccans don't make a movement. Any academic work studying Neopaganism in the Slavic countries deals just with Rodnovery when discussing the revival of Slavic native religions. Moreover "Slavic Wicca", if it really exists as a movement and not just as a personal opinion of a few people, should be discussed in the Wicca article and not in the Rodnovery article, being Rodnovery the Slavic Native Faith.-- (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

lack of proper sources on "mostly called Rodnovery"[edit]

Term "Rodnovery" is not used in polish, ukrainian, belarussian languages ( and potentially in few more ). So is there any statistics that supports use in sentence words "mostly called Rodnovery"? 'English form used by many English-language Slavic Pagan websites and by the domain of the largest Russian organization' Which sites they are? Are they russian sites in english? I don't see any statistics in reference. Just one article about _russian_ pagans and some blury mention of "Slavic Pagans" without stating where are that pagans from. Unless proper statistics are avaible I see no reason to use phrase "mostly called Rodnovery" in this article. (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is used also in Polish (Rodzimowierstwo), Ukrainian (Ridnovirstvo, Ridnoviry), and also Belarusian an all other Slavic languages in different variants. "Rodnovery" is an English calque widely used even on English-language Slavic forums and publications. See: Milan Petrović. Qualification of Slavic Rodnovery in Scientific Literature — Neopaganism or Native Religion. 2013. -- (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"It is used in also Polish (...)" No it's not. "Ukrainian" No, it's not "and also Belarusian" Again it's not. In those languages world "rodnovery" does not exists. "Rodnovery" is an English calque widely used even on English-language Slavic forums and publications" it is, as are "slavic paganism", "slavic neopaganism" widely used. Prove it's used more often than "slavic paganism" and "slavic neopaganism". And make distinction if it's called by scientists ( please give their scientific titles, universities, scientific journals etc. ) or by people around internet or members of that religion. At this moment sentence is blurry. (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rodzimowierstwo and Ridnovirstvo are the Polish and Ukrainian words corresponding to "Rodnovery" in English, look at the names of the corrisponding wiki's articles. The movement has this name (in its various forms) in all Slavic languages and so it is given relevance to "Rodnovery" in the lede of this article. Please stop deleting sentences. -- (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I have modified the phrase removing that it's "mostly called" Rodnovery, even if this is a fact anyone can verify. And it's used both by academics and members. In the Slavic languages this movement is not called "Slavic Neopaganism" since they refuse the label of "Neopaganism", and the most used names are words etimologically corrisponding to "Rodnovery". Your argument is like saying that "Christianity" does not exist because it is called "Christentum" in German or "Cristianismo" in Portuguese... the fact is that the name is the same but adapted to the various languages. -- (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"In the Slavic languages this movement is not called "Slavic Neopaganism" since they refuse the label of "Neopaganism"" First of all "rodnovery" is plural form of serbian or russian "rodnover" ( member of (rusian/serbian language) "rodna vera" - eng. "native faith" ). "Slavic neopaganism" is sinuglar and it is english world. So at grammatical level "Slavic neopaganism" is not "rodnovery". "Rodnovery" are people, not religion.

"Your argument is like saying that "Christianity" does not exist because it is called "Christentum" in German or "Cristianismo" in Portuguese... the fact is that the name is the same but adapted to the various languages" So you ar saying that names of slavic native faith in slavic languages developed from russian/serbian world "rodnovery"? If yes support it with sources.

There is only one link to article ( BTW is that serbian one really scientific? ) that uses term "rodnovery" in english, present in this article is written by probably serbian, so it is no surprising that he uses form native to serbian languages. Sadly text lacks explanation why he made such choice over another slavic languages forms to be used in english. He aslo mention other names of slavic religion in different languages. As you said noone uses portugal, latin, greek etc. form of word "christianity" when speaking in english about it. I don't know ATM any official texsts written in enlish by polish rodzimowiercy that uses term "rodnovery" to describe themself, or by ukrainian ridnoviry. If they do exists link them in article. ATM there is only one english article linked to your sentence present in this wiki entry. It's just one of many local names. And BTW when it comes to forums as far as I noticed they use term "rodnovery" to describe russian slavic pagans ( which is normal because that is how russian pagans name themself ). When I read about for example polish pagans in texts I can see mentions of word "rodzimowiercy", "rodzima wiara" in english texts. So if there would be more talks about e.g. russian or serbian slavic pagans than about e.g. polish then term "rodnovery" will be used more often then "rodzimowiercy" but it will still adress russian or serbian slavic pagan religion members. (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Rodnovery" is an English word, whether coming from Russian or any other Slavic language in English is is used as a name for the religion, while the name for the adherents are "Rodnover" singular and "Rodnovers" plural. This terminology is in use also by Slavs (not only Russians, but also many Ukrainian-English websites) when they write in English, as Petrovic proves. The name for the movement in Russian is "Rodnoverie", the adjectives are "Rodnover" singular and "Rodnovery" plural as you have said, but is not the same as "Rodnovery" in English, which is formed by "Rodnover" loaned from Slavic + the suffix "-ery/-ry" which means community, movement, group, system of thought, like in "Heathenry" or "Druidry". -- (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
So provide links to those non serbian or non russian sites ( you mentioned some ukrainian sites ) and proper scientific articles. It would be great if you provide info who introduced that term into scientific English terminology. (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethymology section claiming false, nonencyclopedic, lacking neutral point of wiev and lacking sources[edit]

First of all "rodnovery" is not an only name, and only some editors on wikipedia are claiming this is "the only proper name" of slavic native faith. It is ridiculous.

Second not all native faith followers claim Rod to be supreme and only god, because: not all groups are henotheists ( e.g. strong polytheism in Poland ), not all groups agrees he is supreme ( and says he has othe role in pantheon ).

And ofcourse many claims of that section lacks sources and are arrogant to groups who has other laws/rules/teaching than "one and only true rodnoverie". Claiming "rodnovery" are only true name for slavic native faith and Rod is supreme and only god of Slavs is as encyclopeding as claiming tha catholics ( or orthodox or protestants etc. ) are the one and only true christian church. To make it clear.

I see some editors can't accept fact that there are many other names for slavic native faith in use. They are not abolished from supporting their claims with sources only because they belive their path of slavic native faith is one and only. Encyclopedia is based on facts not on beliefs of editors.

And one interesting fact. Read explaination on word of "rodnovery" and discusion on that term section before this section of talk page. They are claiming 2 different explainations to that term. BOTH LACKS SOURCES. (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What you claim is false. What the article says is that "Rodnovery" is the mostly used term, and this s a fact, and sources testify this. All the section sentences are properly referenced, and the two etymologies (though related and not contrasting) are both discussed in Aitamurto's (2007) study, just read it.
You can add the internal views of the Polish organization you are a representing in the "Poland" section, with proper sourcing.-- (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You are not even remotely funny. That section is clearly arrogant, and far from Neutral Point of View. If sources are making same arrogant statements then it doesn't differ from catholic books claiming that catholicism is the one and only true form of christianity. Is source about slavic faith in Russia only, or in ALL SLAVIC COUNTRIES? (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, you need to find a way of collaborating on this. Neither is going to persuade the other that you are correct and I can't referee as I have no specialised knowledge. But I'm sure you could find a form of words which would satisfy each of you - however you are BOTH going to have to settle for something less than your own personal optimum. Please now start working towards a compromise - start suggesting alternatives to your preferred positions! Oh, and it would be great if you'd sign up with accounts which would mean we copuld all communicate much more easily! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced and far from neutral point of wiev section etymology was removed. Then it came back with put sources in missing places. Putting sources in lacking places is good. But is still far far away from reality and neutral point of wiev. And author of setion calls removal of unsourced and non neutral section a vandalism. It is supposed to be funny? It's arrogance and lack of manners. Is wikipedia a place for yelling to whole word that one vision of slavic faith is better than another and "most apporitate" and people who do not agree are wrong "because they are"? As was mentioned before many groups of slavic pagans do not agree on what is said in that section. I have no idea why moderators do not react when all marks of arrogance of author of this section were pointed out earlier in this discussion. What do moderators not understand? There is no single reason why that section still exists in this article in this shape. Have author of section Ethymology provided any counter arguments? I do not see any. (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That section is written according to academic works on the subject. Blanking it is an act of vandalism. You can add further information on other points of view if you have proper sources supporting them.-- (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
My answer could be only one - read wikipedia guildlines for articles - especially neutal point of wiev, and misleading phrases. And get respect for others. As you seems to have a problem that other points of wiev on slavonic paganism exists and other names than "rodnovery" are in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Also you had a time to present counter arguments in defence of this section, but you choose to remain silent. Text was lacking citations. So it was removed. Then you reverted it, giving as an explanation "Revert vandalistic removal of sourced material" and then sourced it. I do not have idea if it was a kind of joke, if yes, then it was bad one. And was clearlly arrogant. (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced claims[edit]

  • MANY* are still present in this article. Shouldn't they be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

annoying forcing "One And Only True Name"[edit]

If you read this discussion page you can notice ip user/users reacting with a strong aggression on use of any other name for slavic native faith then "rodnovery". He/she argues that "rodnovery is used in slavic languages". To information of mods, editors and readers of wikipedia - term rodnovery is not used in all slavonic languages. Slavonic languages differ and has different names. So use of argument "this is name of slavonic neopaganism in slavonic languages" is jus a smoke and mirrors. Deception. Trick. Read reaction of this person(s) on term "slavianstvo" on this talk page. You will see what I mean. Rodnovery is not the only name in use, even in english. And BTW according to pollicy of wikipedia on consistency term "slavic neopaganism" is more apporitiate here ( see discussion on move request to "rodnovery" ). (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

1) I'm not user Galassi; 2) blanking properly written and sourced sections like you did to "etymology" is vandalistic. You can integrate further informations on other points of view if you have proper sources for them.-- (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
1)How is Galassi conected here? 2)If this section is written in encyclopedic way, than one of us lacks a connection with reality. And guildlines for encyclopedic articles. (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting pictures move without giving any clear reason[edit]

What is a reason? Statue of Perun was moved to section Ukraine, because is located in Ukraine. Another pictures are also in proper country sections if they were taken there. So what is a problem? I did it for consistency. That I have added Sylenko portrait is a problem? OK, but please give a reason, not just "vandalism" which it clearly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ The kolovrat [spinning wheel] represents the Sun and is a symbol of the god Svarog. It represents strength, dignity, sun and fire. It is a symbol of secular as well as spiritual power. "Kolo" means wheel, and its "vrat" [spokes] are turning. The kolovrat represents the endless cycle of birth and deaths. [Each turn of] the wheel is a cycle of life in our world. The "Swastika and Kolovrat it's the same, the only difference it's that Kolovrat it's the symbol for Slavic Faith (Rodnovery) Swastika is for the Sun (Dazbog or Swarog) it's THE symbol of the Sun. You see Kolovrat too, but we can see it like THE symbol of our faith (like mjolnir it's symbol of Thor but it's the symbol for many Asatru People). But Kolovrat is too for The Sun and For Slavic Gods like Swarog and his Son Dazbog but it's the time too! you know the circle of the life, the wheel turning... you see what I mean?swarzyca is too a symbol of the Sun and Fire like the three other!!! and great symbol for Rodnover. They bring chance! they are sacred for us and it's symbols of Gods so they bring us chance and protection!!!"
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^ Pilkington, H. and Popov, A. (2009) 'Understanding neo-paganism in Russia: religion? ideology? philosophy? fantasy?', in Subcultures and new religious movements in Russia and East-Central Europe, 253- 304, Editors: McKay, G., Williams, C., Goddard, M., Foxlee, N. and Ramanauskaite, E. (9783039119219) Oxford ; New York: Peter Lang, p. 282
  9. ^
  10. ^

This article is a battlefield - deletions of references and alternative names[edit]

For various posters trying to prove ( sadly most often without any real proofs ) that this or another term is a correct english form of their favourite name of slavic native faith. I mostly mean 1st paragraph. Not so long time ago there was sourced to popuar names "ridnoviry" and "rodnovery", both were sourced. Suddenly 1st paragraph mentions "rodism" and ridnoviry and rodnovery dissappeared. After looking into page source I see there is alot of text before 1st paragraph that does not even shows in article and are noticable as note. There is hidden rodnovery term with sources. Well kinda strange, but if moderation accepts it. Saddly someone removed sources for ukrainian term "ridnoviry" that is also widespread in internet, and used in atleast one english language book about slavic native faith in Ukraine. Deletation of sources is really suprising.

Such behaviour has been disputed many times on this talk page. Sadly with almost zero response from moderation.

I propose leaving just english "slavic neopaganism" ( as that is article name ) and removal of any other name from 1st paragraph. Then mention all alternative names in another section of article. But please this time without removing sourced names together with sources. (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No comments yet, anyone agree/disagree? This page really lacks any feedback for long months so far. (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Editor2020 00:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Excelent! Lets clean this mess. (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The current lede is well written and clear, and reports all the names that have to be reported, with proper sources at their place. The lede prior to the current revision used various links that weren't reliable.-- (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
What was unreliable? Care to speak with full sentences? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
In case "you dont get it by yourself" ignoring the fact that there are also non rusian names in use in english articles, forums etc around internet ( similar argument for use of term "rodnovery" was used both in article and at talk page ) is not only strange, but somewhat suspicious. What drives you? You came suddenly out of nowhere and change article according to your vision of the world that only names coming from russian should be used in this article. I ask you again "why?". If you ( once again ) will not answer this question I ask mods to put lock on this article for this article or so something similar if possible. You ignored most of questions directed to you at this talk page. Are you afraid of something? NPOV is required in encyclopedic style, even if you don't accept that fact. (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Avoiding dialog won't help. Really. (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please clean up 1st paragraph and lock this article ( allow only registred users edit )

Ip user changing 1st paragraph and refusing to provide any arguments and avoiding discussion. Totally resistant to any argumentation and ignoring arguments of others people. Just read whole talk page about ip user forcing russian terms to be the one and only correct terms. He/she started argumentation from "term "rodnovery" is widly used around intenet". When one provided other names in use around internet ip user started reverting changes and removing those terms leaving only thos that cames from russian language."Wide use around the internet" is no longer good enoght argument for he/she. That's a good example of double standards. Also erased from 1st paragraph name "ridnoviry" is both in use around internet - forums, web articles, newspaper articles etc. and in at least one scientific book. Yet he/she keeps removing that name. That's an unacceptable megalomania.

- Slavic Native Faith follower from Poland. (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Any moderators reading this page? (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that you have a Polish agenda or trying to push a Polish WP:POV. This is English Wikipedia and it uses English terminology. Basically, you complain that English has assimilated the East Slavic, South Slavic and Czech and Slovak version of the name (Rodnovery, from Rodnoverie or Ridnovirstvo), instead of the Polish version—that is slightly different from the other Slavic forms—Rodzimowierstwo. This has happened clearly because Rodnovery is more easily pronounceable by an English speaker, and because scholarly work has started from studying the East Slavic movement, thus introducing Rodnover into English.-- (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
What "polish agenda" do you see in in not hiding the fact, that there are more than russian only names in use ( both on the internet ande in scientific articles )? You started removing sourced mentions of that fact and you claim that others "are pushing their agenda"? Laughable.
Great now you again stopped any discussion and reverted edits that are not compatibile with your world wiev. You are so encyclopedic, neutral and free of "polish agenda". *Sigh* I don't know what do you expect, as your reverts last time were canceled by registred users. What makes you think this time it would be different? This is really pathetic. (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

sad case of megalomania or intentional manipulations

ip user that feels strong urge to show world - at any price tat "rodnovers" is "most apporitate term to use in english" seems to think we are idiots and we don't see his or her trickery when she or he edits article creating mess of notes refering to references refering to something else to hide the fact that many of his or her claims are unsoursed at all. Not to mention it makes article unreadable and looks like typical attempt of manipulation. When someone oposite him or her - yels about "pushing agendas". Agenda? Once again I ask you what "agenda" do you mean. As I can't see any agenda in simple fact that you for long months was not able to source your claims about russian terms "being the most apporitate to use in english" ( whatever that means - for me personally it's an empty slogan without any meaning at all ). And your battle against e.g. terms that commes from e.g. ukrain or other languages is really ridicullous. All you do is screaming we opress you if you even talk with us at all. I really do not know who are you and what drives you, but your whining about "agendas" seems to be a kind of freudian slip. (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just realised that he or she even removed reference to english language scientifical source - book about ukrainian paganism in modern Ukraine. That's unacceptable. I added that sourc again to article. (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't removed any reference to scientific books. Instead, you are that who has been manipulating the sourced content of the article. You haven't even read and understood my former message, in which I made the point on the terminology issue. You just keep going on with personal attacks in an uncomprehensible English.-- (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No? So where they gone? For a walk? You are pathetic. That reference was gone after your edits. Or wait, maybe you are trying to say that book is nonscientific? Why? Because it uses ukrainian term ridnoviry? I guess some kind of ukrainophobia may be a case here. But I hope it is not. So, please support your attacks of hysteria with some real arguments. Do not just scream how everyone here offends you and don't understand your english. There are some rules here we must follow. One of them is supporting your claims with real arguments. Ignorantia juris non excusat195.150.224.186 (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)