Talk:Anti-Normanism

Requested move 22 May 2024

Anti-Normanism → Normanism – The article starts with "Anti-Normanism is an opposition to Normanism, the mainstream narrative..." I find it weird that the mainstream theory of Normanism is but a section inside the fringe theory. The article must be moved and reshuffled upside down. - Altenmann >talk 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Alternative - How about "Normanist controversy" instead? I agree that we should privilege the mainstream view in the title, but "Normanism" seems like it won't describe much of the article's content, which is on both Normanism and Anti-Normanism. "Normanist controversy" also seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic as used in scholarship. Psychastes (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "not much"? The section "Normanism" is larger than "Anti-Normanism". About your suggestion: "Normanist controversy" is essentially about controversy of the fringe view against the mainstream view, so, again, it is WP:UNDUE to put the discussion of the fringe interpretation into article title. - Altenmann >talk 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There was an RM for "Normanist controversy" back in January 2022. Srnec (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Looks like many of the oppose votes then were based on the supposition that "Anti-Normanism" was a better title for indicating that this was a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and that "Normanism" was a false equivalence term only used by anti-normanists. Perhaps "Anti-Normanist controversy" would be more appropriate? Psychastes (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"Normanism" was a false equivalence term only used by anti-normanists - sorry, wrong. It is a mainstream term. See the well-developed well-referenced ruwiki article: ru:Норманская теория. - Altenmann >talk 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, both "Normanism" and "anti-Normanism" are widely used terms. For example they are used to describe the two camps after the 18th century. This is where the "Normanist theory" or "Normanist controversy" arose. See for example The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800 p. 299. Britannica has a brief overview. Mellk (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There was only one mainstream theory, namely origins from Varangians, and a bunch of alternative theories of varying degree of crackpottery, collectively known as "anti-Normanism", i.e., anti-Normanism is not a coherent theory. That's why it is named "anti-": its only common denominator is that all of them tried hard to reject the idea of Scandinavian origin of Rus'. - Altenmann >talk 15:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The "Normanist theory" was originally criticized and new ideas to support a supposedly Slavic origin were created. Then it was eventually accepted by most, although this fluctuated e.g. with rise of Hitler. Mellk (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk:Correct. It was criticized from its very origin in mid-18th century. But what is your opinion about article title? - Altenmann >talk 17:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have thought about this and yes, I would agree that it seems a little odd to have the article title about a theory bordering on fringe rather than the mainstream theory. Mellk (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per above comments. Mellk (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also support Normanism and anti-Normanism. Mellk (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I could also be happy with Normanist controversy, Normanism and Anti-Normanism, and other titles, but the bottom line is that 'Anti-Normanism' is a confusing title for any reader who is not already an expert in the subject. We need to prioritise comprehensibility.

Alarichall (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support SOME move but not that one - Agree with Alarichall that the current title isn't right, but none of the names so far actually increase clarity. Perhaps something along the lines of Origins of Varangian Rus' or indeed Origins of Kievan Rus' would work; or if folks need 'Normanism' in there, then those could be modified to something like Norman origins of Varangian Rus' or Norman origins of Varangian Rus' controversy or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Normanism and anti-Normanism feels good. Strongly oppose the word "controversy" in the title. The core of the article is the description of competing theories, not the description of how the opponents were tearing each other's wigs and hitting each other with canes. - Altenmann >talk 20:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• My preference is Normanism and anti-Normanism, but would also accept "Normanist controversy". My rationale on this point largely echoes Psychastes' comment above, though Altenmann has also raised a fair point that has led me to slightly prefer the "Normanism and anti-Normanism" title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I cannot remember right out my head, but it seems that we do have a custom to use titles "This and that" for "two-in-one" articles.... found one: "Christianity and Islam" - surely LOTS of controversy here. - Altenmann >talk 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Appears to be consensus to move, relist to determine target title Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The concept of a supposed "Normanist" theory is a straw man created by anti-Normanists, and thus a subtopic of anti-Normanism. Anti-Normanism is a fringe theory of significant notability (Soviet-era scholars such as Leo Klejn were actually sent to prison for questioning it), and should be covered in its own appropriately named article, namely this one. Mainstream scholarship on the question is covered at Rus' people. Pinging BilledMammal, Mzajac, Berig, Thomas.W and Yngvadottir, who participated in the 2022 RM discussion. Krakkos (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  A slap of trout to you for WP:CANVASSING. - Altenmann >talk 16:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging editors who have taken part in a previous movediscussion here isn't canvassing, but common courtesy, it's pinging editors who haven't previously taken part in such a discussion, or even been active in that subject area, that is canvassing. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 21:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose As Krakkos says above there is no such established thing as "Normanism" in English, that term is used only in the Soviet Union and Russia, where, for nationalistic reasons, they have long claimed that the Rus, and through that Russia, was founded by Slavs and not Scandinavians, despite all archaeological evidence and all contemporary documents showing it was founded by Scandinavians. Thus the term "anti-Normanism". So moving "anti-Normanism" to "Normanism" is just yet another Russian attempt to falsify history, by trying to portray the mainstream view as just a theory, which it isn't, its a documented fact. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  A very confused argument. (1) Even the term is in "RUssia" and "Soviet Union", wikipedia is encyclopedia that covers international topics. Whe cover subjects which an average anglophone never heard of, such as aviv, korenizatsiya, khrushchovka, doogh, dastar, korobeinik, People's Commissariat of Properties, Kocourkov, Pryanik, Lebkuchen, and tens of thousands more. (2) If you say "normanism" is Russian falsification, then "anti-Normanism" is even worse. (3) Yes there is such word "normanism" in English, which you will find in any text that writes about "anti-normanism". - Altenmann >talk 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, @Altenmann. It's fine to have articles called things like anti-capitalism, because virtually everyone already has some idea of what capitalism is. The problem with having Anti-Normanism on its own as a title is that all but a handful of readers will think 'huh?' This isn't about Russian propaganda but just about making Wikipedia readily comprehensible. Alarichall (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  The source I mentioned above disagrees with your claim. Unless you wish to say that the author wrote in this way for nationalistic reasons. Mellk (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. "Normanism" is a Russian nationalistic term made up to create an -ism that opposes the "natural", "true" and "pure" Slavic origin of Kievan Rus'. It is a strawman as Krakkos states above.-Berig (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  But if this is so (and I'm sure you're right) then the term "anti-Normanism" is no less a Russian nationalistic term made up to create an -ism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think the name "Normanism and Anti-Normanism" would be more comprehensible and won't mislead readers about the current Western scholarly consensus. Alarichall (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is no rule against creating articles about "Russian nationalistic terms". We have "Russian world", "Moscow, third Rome", Eurasianism articles about Russian nationalistic concepts, to name a few. - Altenmann >talk 20:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is not even a nationalistic term, it is widely used by scholars to describe the shift in historiography over the last few centuries. As usual, lots of claims without being backed by RS. See Ngram as an example, where there is greater usage of "Normanism". Mellk (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Having both in the title signals some kind of equalness, this equalness does not exist in the world of reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia is based on. Anti-Normanism should be described and isolated like the fringe theory it is, WP:DUE. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "kind of equalness? An extremely opinionated criterion. What kind of equalnews is in "LGBT people and Islam"? - Altenmann >talk 21:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    I see lots of opinions about what reliable sources supposedly say but no one else has cited a source. The only sources referenced so far mention both terms. Therefore, the closer should keep in mind that claims such as this equalness does not exist in the world of reliable sources should be disregarded unless backed by sources. Mellk (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

    Pardon me for saying so, but that's a load of BS, and you know it. Since you're the one who wants to move it it's up to you (see WP:BURDEN) to provide English-language sources (yes, this is the English language WP, not the Russian propaganda-version of WP, and Russian language sources aren't good enough) proving that "Normanism>" is an established mainstream term outside Russia, and not just an utterly fringe, and utterly nationalistic, view held in Russia only. It's not up to us, that is those editors who want to keep the current name, to prove anything. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

    What Russian-language sources? Did you bother to fully read the exchanges from the beginning? I already mentioned an English-language source and Ngram as an example that your claims do not hold up. What is the reason for spouting nonsense like this? Not to mention that no one here is arguing that Normanism is the mainstream view, we are looking at terms used in historiography, so this argument is disingenuous. Mellk (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

    Not to mention that this is not exclusive to Russia. See for example: Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands which also mentions the term 'Normanist theory' to refer to changes in historiography in also Belarus and Ukraine.[1]. Mellk (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

    How is that remotely the same thing? Please explain as I'm genuinely baffled. One of them is pitching a mainstream theory next to a fringe theory without at all making it clear which one is which, the other one describes a group of people in relation to a religion. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per others. False equivalency between a discredited point of view that deserves its own article and the mainstream view that is represented in all other articles relating to the Rus'. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  This maistream view has its own name: Normanism, Normanist theory, Varangian theory of the Origin of Rus. and other synonyms. All arguments against it reminds me a joke about Little Johnny, which I consider profoundly philosophical. A teacher ask children: "Kids, please say a word which starts with letter 'A'." Johnny: "Arse, ma'am." Teacher: "Ew, Jonhhy, there is no such word!" Little Joh: "How come, ma'am, there is an arse, but there is no word?" I say, a complement to Haddocks' Eyes. - Altenmann >talk 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Per False equivalency. Kobzar1917 (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• What "equivalency" are you talking about? These are opposing views. Please clarify your argument. - Altenmann >talk 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Repeatedly badgering all opposers is usually counter-productive, since the most common reaction to it is making the opposers even more opposed than they were when posting their oppose, it can also make even more editors post oppose !votes, just to p*ss you off... - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 17:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not "badgering" all opposers repeatedly, only only once per argument. It is a discussion, right? In this particular case, what is wrong with asking a wikipedian to clarify his position? This is !voting, not voting, and if the person does not say something new, rather than repeating others, then their !vote plays no role. Also, why do you think that I an objecting opposing !votes? On the contrary, some of their reasonable arguments gave me another idea how to proceed, which I will suggest after the dust settles here. - Altenmann >talk 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Krakkos. The topic of this article is "Anti-Normanism" as a ideologically motivated fringe view. Part of this fringe view is the creation of the very label "Normanism" to discredit the mainstream view. This mainstream view being reduced to an "-ism" such as "Normanism" as a topic is something you'd expect in a Soviet mid-20th century encyclopedia. But WP certainly cannot put them on par by creating a false balance by moving the page title from a manifest fringe view (which is the main topic of this article) to a label for a strawman in the universe of said fringe view. This move discussion is the culmination point of trying to normalize the fringe-born term "Normanism" after it has been excessively added in the article text last year, something that badly needs to be rectified when this bludgeoned move discussion has been closed. –Austronesier (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The term "Kievan Rus" was created by imperial Russian historians to support the view that Kiev was succeeded by Vladimir then Moscow. Despite this, "Kievan Rus", like "Normanism", is still a widely used term. The mainstream view is already presented in the article Rus' people. "While Normanist arguments were favored in the early decades of Bolshevik Russia, the use of such arguments by the Nazi propaganda turned the Norman theory into a hot potato."[2] To say say that the term "Normanism" is not at all used by mainstream scholars is clearly false. Mellk (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The analogy to "Kievan Rus" is off the mark. The very usage of the term "Normanism" is deeply rooted in the discourse of Anti-Normanists, citing isolated instances of usage outside the bubble doesn't change it. Let's flip it around: out of let's say twenty randomly chosen works that cover the history of the Kievan Rus' from a mainstream perspective, how many use the term Normanism at all? And how many do not use the term "Kievan Rus'"? –Austronesier (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I see, so ideally this article should cover opposition to the mainstream view covered at Rus' people? It seems that with the current state of the article, it covers the changes in historiography, from initial denial to widespread acceptance, and now it is confined to a small group of revisionist historians. If we just want to limit this to modern revisionism rather than covering how historiography has evolved, then probably the article needs to be completely changed or it needs to be split, but this would need to be for a different discussion. I think there is a lack of agreement or confusion on what the article should cover at the same time. Mellk (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I came to the same conclusion during this discussion. Since the mainstream view is essentially forked in Rus' people and Kievan Rus'#Origin, then per WP:Summary style, we have to have a single common text, Origins of Kievan Rus', and the two mentioned pages must have only summaries therof, to prevent further divergence. - Altenmann >talk 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably something along those lines. Mellk (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. during the brief google search for the tithe of this new article, I stumble upon the 1929 theory of Celtic origin of Kievan Rus :-) and then found it is in WP, in "Ruthenians". - Altenmann >talk 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I would strongly suggest y'all to review WP:BLUDGEON and do not slap insulting labels. The core of the essay is making the same argument over and over and to different people, which I fail to see here and I challenge you to prove me wrong. On the contrary, until now there was a civilized discussion, an exchange of ideas, well beyond a simple renaming, which, it seems, nears to a reasonable resolution. - Altenmann >talk 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then you should strike your accusation of canvassing above, because that came well before anyone told you were bludgeoning the discussion. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I reviewed WP:CANVAS and I admit I was wrong. - Altenmann >talk 19:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Lf you were referring to my comment I wrote "badgering", not "bludgeoning", referring to your behavior here as annoying, but going by the WP definition of "bludgeoning" you are trying to bludgeon the discussion, since you have commented on all opposes here as far as I can see... - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)