This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
...but about its questionable authenticity. No single competent scholar has ever challenged the Tale's authenticity. So the whole section about this should be removed. The fact that some culturally racist historian would ever doubt authenticity of, for example, the Song of Roland (of motives of envy) wouldn't make this epic poem a fake. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring the rationale and emotive plea of, "culturally racist historian" (sic), I have to agree with user 220.127.116.11's evaluation of the article. Most of it is dedicated to disputes surround its authenticity and virtually no information about the themes or story line are provided. Given that the entire section was tagged calling for citations back in November of 2010, along with the lack of any actual discussions on this page, it would be useful to get some sort of consensus on the issue.
I'd suggest that, for the moment, the section in question be cut and pasted into the talk page to be preserved for development. If not, a separate page dedicated to debates surrounding the authenticity of the work should be created. As it stands, it's nothing short of an uninformative mess which looks far more like original research than an encyclopaedic entry on the subject of the work known as "The Tale of Igor's Campaign." It reads as though its only significance lies in whether it is authentic or not, with no indication as to what the mainstream theory is as opposed to what is potentially fringe theory. Do not assume that a reader of the English Wikipedia entry has any working knowledge of the work or any issues surrounding it, therefore long winded, unsubstantiated debates are bordering on being entirely superfluous. Even section titles such as 'Argument' isn't a fitting title. Argument for what? That it resembles other works from the middle ages and seems to merge Christian with pagan tradition? If that's the case, the 'Argument' section needs to be integrated into the 'Authenticity' section. Definitely a dubious and uninformative article and highly likely to be a case of undue weight! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)