Talk:Lada (mythology)

Active discussions


Lada, Lado, mLad, vLad, vLada means "young, ruling one". It was a goddess depicted as a white swan, wife of Svarog and mother of Zorya or Danica, this is Irish Danu or Vedic Saraswati (this is Zorya-Sveta in Slavic); all of them were always depicted with white wings and as a white bird, swan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Here I should meantion a lie:

"Vid, in which one can easily recognise the name of Svetovid, a major Slavic god of war, prophecies "

Svetovid was the main god, from him came 1. Man - Čelovek (this is "Forehead" or Čelo + Vek = "era", this is Vedic Yuga (transliteration into Slavic is Vyuga, Vyuka, Vijek; Vek or "Era"). He is Shiva, or "White (Sveti (in sanskrit as Sveta or Zveta; "white") or "worldly") Seer (Vid)... "from his tears (when he was "sleeping" (or in Vedas: "when Shiva was in Samadhi state - meditation)) came 1. human to planet Earth (which "is a little sand/stone in a great Sea, ... where everything stood still if you put there" ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2017Edit

The following is a closed 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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(request withdrawn) The deity seems the most likely primary topic for this term, being the usage with the most long-term significance, i e. enduring notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, a major goddess in the culture of the countries that "recognize" her. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - primary topic needs to take account of the language. For instance within the UK, the word Lada is recognised as the vehicle. Maybe there is no primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the car is what comes to mind and comes into books. At most Lada (disambiguation) would be moved to baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    "What first comes to mind" is not a valid rationale, since it's inevitably tainted with personal and group biases. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Adding onto Graeme's comment above, this is the English Wikipedia with a readership of English speakers. The primary topic, in our case, then, is the vehicle. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: do you want to withdraw this and resubmit as a Lada (disambiguation) -> Lada move, though I suspect that will not get support either. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the input given so far seems to address the popularity of the term's current usage for the car, and not the long-term significance of either term. Also, it would be useful to see some actual evidence for the claim that the car is the recognized meaning. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In this case the long-term significance of this topic is irrelevant. The car doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 07:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- the automobile brand is not the primary topic, while Lada a major goddess in the culture of the countries that "recognize" her (h/t Randy Kryn). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    For the record, Lada (the car) was listed as the primary topic at Lada (disambiguation) until recently. I suppose I should change it back, but I thought I would see how the discussion proceeds first. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    In line with MOS:DAB, you should indeed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
90 days pageviews

"Lada (goddess)

  • Oppose – "the most likely primary topic"? Evidence? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    Pageviews aren't necessarily proof of which topic is primary. Apple Inc. gets more than twice as many pageviews as Apple, but the latter is still the primary topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There might be an argument that the car brand isn't the primary topic, but that doesn't make the goddess primary. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No evidence that the goddess is the primary topic. The one statistic presented above (page view graphs) strongly suggests that she isn't. As for the car, I think 47 years counts as "enduring notability". Certes (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    More enduring than 600 years? The earliest cited mention of the mythological Lada is from 1405–1412. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have a strong suspicion that Lada is an "invented mythology" goddess. Lots of these pseudogods were "found" by Slavic and Baltic intellectuala in 19th century and part of cultural self-assertion. I remember I've seen an article criticizing Latvian 'pseudogods' whuse invention bordered with ridiculosity. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    So, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT then? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    So, just I don't see evidence it is primary topic. The hell a Soviet car was named after a goddess. Hence preserve status quo. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    In other words, you can't imagine (or stomach) a Soviet car being named after a female deity, so therefore the deity can't be the most notable topic; have I got that right? Incidentally, the "Soviet" version of the car (i.e. the one sold in the USSR) was branded as Zhiguli. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    No and no. And I strongly suggest you to avoid statements phrased as personal attacks. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I see reference to Long term notability as important. The Guideline says "While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative" by which token it matters not how long something has been around as much as how much it is 'talked about' to coin a phrase. And that is in the "general audience" for this Wikipedia. In absence of hard data, we might presume that a fairly widely sold car brand has made more impact in English speaking world than East European folklore and err on the side of caution.. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    That seems fair enough. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •  * Comment There's apparently little support for making the mythological figure the primary topic, so I've withdrawn the request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2017 (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.

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lada (mythology)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. I would also like to mention that I have nominated the articles Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Athena, Jonah, and Pythagoras in this same category and they are all currently awaiting review. I will probably be nominating more articles in the near future. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I notice you reverted my edit in which I changed the word "commented" to "comments". Actually, "comments" is correct because one is supposed to use the present-tense when describing an extant writing. One should only use the past tense if the work is no longer extant. Even though Shedden-Ralston lived in the 1800s, since his work still exists, it should be spoken of in the present-tense. The same should also be true for the statement a few paragraphs prior: "For instance, a rector at Cracow University wrote in a postil circa 1405–1412". This should be "writes" not "wrote", assuming that this postil still exists. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for noticing that. I was in the midst of doing some style cleanup and didn't notice that anyone else had edited the page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read over this article multiple times and checked the edit history and the citations. Overall, it looks like it is up to GA quality, but I do have two concerns:

  • The second-to-last section entitled "Naming" is rather confusing because you mention that "The names Lada and Lado may be related to the Russian word lad, 'harmony, peace, union'" in the lead, but I think that it might be better if you restated this in the first sentence of the "Naming" section. Right now, as it is, you kind of dive right into the meanings of these words, assuming that the reader remembers that they may be related to Lada's name, but, the first time I read this, I had forgotten and had to go back through the article searching for a place that explained this.
  • The last section, entitled "In contemporary religion," is only one sentence: "Lada is one of the deities that some adherents of Slavic Native Faith honor with seasonal holidays." This leaves me with the impression that there is probably a great deal more that can be said about this. I think that you should try to expand this section, if possible. I would recommend trying to explain more about what these "seasonal holidays" are and how she is honored with them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input; I've followed the suggestion about repeating the info about the names further down. I've also moved the source on the Slavic Native Faith holidays to "Further reading"; it had only a passing mention of the goddess Lada in a simple list of deities, and I haven't found other sources that examine modern Lada rituals in any depth. Overall, the info seemed to lack sufficient weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that those changes have been made, I think that this article is passes all of the GA criteria, so I will pass it.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  


  ·   ·   ·  

Remember that it is recommended that, for every article you nominate for GA, you should try to review at least two others, to keep down the backlog. Right now I am the only one who seems to be actively reviewing articles in the "Philosophy and religion" category and the backlog seems to be growing faster than articles are being reviewed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Lada (mythology)" page.