Talk:Primary Chronicle

"Russian" is by far more used word in this context in English than "Ruthenian". If you have comments about this, please participate Wikipedia:Russian_History_Harmonization wikiproject.

Beginning of the Chronicle

The article currently says:

The chronicle begins with the deluge...

as if anyone reading this passage knows what deluge is referred to. Since it also claims that the Chronicle is about "Kievan Rus from around 850 to 1110", one must assume this does not refer to the Great Flood (the only near-universally reported historical deluge I'm aware of), as the latter could hardly have happened after all the BCE-recorded tales of Sumeria, Babylon, Greece, etc. Or is there an gap of several millenia (up to 850 CE) in the Chronicle? Could someone explain what is meant by this? Thanks. — Jeff Q 19:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to an unclear place. It does refer to the Great Flood. The chronicle merely retales the prehistory according to the Bible, i.e., this part is not "chronicle" per se. I will try to correct the article accordingly. Mikkalai 21:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for clearing that up. — Jeff Q 10:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Russian -> Rus`

"The Russian Primary Chronicle (Russian: Повесть временных лет, Povest' vremennykh let,..." etc.

The same problem persist. In Ukrainian there are two different words: 'rus`kyi' and 'rosiyskyi`, the same are in Belarusian. Here these two different concepts are mixed-up again. The problem is obviously not linguistic but political one. The fact that the term 'Russian Primary Chronicle' is widely used doesn't make the word 'Russian' correct. It's just a widely spread confusion, constantly supported by Russian propaganda at all times since 1713. However, there were no 'Russians' in Kyiv at that time and until 17th century. And the Kievan prince was Volodymyr, not Vladimir. So, I NPOV it.

On the other hand, one can easily find the term 'Rus' Primary Chronicle' on the Net, i.e.: hudce7.harvard.edu/~ostrowski/Rus'%20Church/primchron.pdf

--Olexij 00:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. It is here, and the link is in the wikiarticle. Start reading before writing, please. Did you take a look into the "Primary Chronicle" and actually saw there "Volodymyr"? How about "Kyiv"? There, too? And there were "Russians" in Kyiv, too: "liudi rus'skiya", and "zemlya rus'skaya", i Rus'. And "russkij" is "Russian" in English, I checked in the dictionary yesterday myself. And it is not busines of wikipedia to solve political problems by teaching British and Americans how to speak English. Mikkalai 07:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it was an Old East Slavic–English dictionary, then I doubt that it would said "of or pertaining to the Russian Federation, and the people thereof." From the discussions here I'm not clear on the Russian adjectives for "of Rus'" and "of Russia"—some of the Russian on this page was mangled in ISO-8859-1—but who says that English nomenclature apes Russian? —Michael Z. 2005-02-2 17:56 Z

• Did you take a look into the "Primary Chronicle" and actually saw there "Volodymyr"? - Yes, of course. Look e.g. into Ipats'ky copy, and you will find it at the very beginning 'Володимиръ' or 'Володимеръ'
  
  • Right. Thank you. And the traditional English transliteration would be Volodimir IMO. I am not at all sure that "и" here was "ы" (as rendered by "y"). Mikkalai 20:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• How about "Kyiv"? - Right. 'КиѢв' and 'КыѢв'.
  
• And "russkij" is "Russian" in English - Your dictionary is probably Russian-English one? So, it's obvious: there is no difference between 'russkij' and 'belonging to Rus' in Russian. As a result of a certain political doctrine. If you'd take a Ukrainian-English dictionary, you find something else, because there are two quite different words 'руський' and 'російський' in Ukrainian. --Olexij 11:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, you are right, but it is not our business to teach English English. Mikkalai 20:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You are lying again. The Ukrainian words are borrowed from the Russian words ðóññêèé and ðîññèéñêèé, respectively. National self-appelations are not developed according to "certain political doctrines". Language is the result of centuries-long natural development and not of someone's desire to offend the Ukrainians. Two centuries ago the word Ukrainians didn't exist at all, and their nationalistic claims are hardly a century old. Ghirlandajo 12:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ghirlandajo, you don’t know about Ekaterina's ukaz equating 'russki' and 'rossiyski', do you? (late 18th century). The same ukaz prohibited Moskovian people to call themselves 'Moskovians'. Do you really mean, this is a 'centuries-long natural development' of the language? Perhaps, if you take an interest in 'Russian' chronicles, you know, who is Dmitri Likhachev. So, you must know that this prominent Russian scholar and a great expert on Rus' proposed to introduce the adjective 'rus'skiy' (русьский) to the Russian language. So, do not accuse people of lying just because you don't possess enough knowledge on the subject matter. --Olexij 15:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL! --Ghirlandajo 15:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please speak to the facts and assertions, and avoid name-calling. —Michael Z. 2005-02-2 17:24 Z

Just take it easy, Oleksij. Your own "objection" provides the answer. You admit that "the term 'Russian Primary Chronicle' is widely used". The RPC is the most common English usage title of the document as easily confirmed by Google test and therefore it should be used in English Wikipedia. Besides, the possible alternatives such as the 'Primary Chronicle of the Kiev Rus' ' give exactly zero google hits. So, the name is correct as reflecting the English usage. If you see the controversy here, feel free to raise it in the article text. However, changing the name to a less familiar for an English language reader to satisfy some political views is a wrong way to go and is not a legitimate reason to raise an NPOV flag. I am removing it. Irpen 05:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• You may remove NPOV flag, but it doesn't remove the problem. --Olexij 11:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The word ðóñêèé has been a continuous self-appelation of Russians for more than a millenium. You can do nothing about it. Ghirlandajo 12:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The author of the work Mikkalai cites above never uses the adjective "Russian" to describe Rus'. He uses Rus' as both noun and adjective. In the relevant papers on his site, he refers to Rus' studies, the Rus' Church, and the Rus' Primary Chronicle.

Why not follow his example, to avoid this kind of unproductive controversy.

—Michael Z. 2005-02-2 17:56 Z

The artificial "controversy" here is primarily about the title "Russian Primary Chronicle". The number of google hits for "Russian Primary Chronicle" and "Rus' Primary Chronicle" is 1750 and 69, respectively. The most common English language usage should prevail in Wikipedia. If this usage itself is a controversy for some, it is a legitimate issue to raise in an article itself. A paragraph in the text that the term "Russian" may be misleading in the context might fit in, but not changing names so that they become unfamiliar to an English language reader. The obsession of de-russification of Ukrainian and Slavic names in their English usage is unproductive in itself and Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for such activity. Irpen 19:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't trust Google so much. There is a good story about ' razbliuto '. You may enter this word yourself in Google and get 162 (!) hits for the Russian word 'razbliuto', which is supposed to mean 'the feeling a person retains for someone he or she once loved'.

E.g. you'll find it in a Language Lover's Guide to the Most Intriguing Words Around the World: ' RAZBLIUTO (RUSSIAN): The confusing bundle of emotions felt by Russian males for their ex-girlfriends '.

The point is that there is no (and never was) such odd word in Russian. It's a fake thought out by some C.W. Walker and first used in his 'The City of Lies Affairs' in 1967.

I mean that the Russian Primary Chronicle is the same 'razbliuto', but somewhat elder and somewhat more established one. However, there's nothing to be done, it's a fake.

There are two ways: to admit it's a fake or to continue reproducing it again and again. It depands on what you consider the Wikipedia to be: a source of information or a source of confusions you just accustomed to. --Olexij 20:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, thankfully Wikipedia isn't a blind slave to Google search result counts, yet (if so, then the proper name is "The Primary Chronicle", which gets 2,160 hits). We discuss many or most cases where there is a difference of opinion. We also don't use names which are technically incorrect or misleading, even when Google counts or 'conventional wisdom' indicate otherwise, e.g., Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus, Bombay/Mumbai, Zurich/Zürich. The name is only common because of the long history of influence of Russian nationalist scholarship. We don't call Rus' Russia, Belarus White Russia, or Ukraine Malorossiya; why do we call this the Russian Primary Chronicle?

The "obsession of de-russification" seems to be well balanced by a zealous Imperial Pride. I'm just waiting for someone to cite the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica as authoritative. —Michael Z. 2005-02-2 21:44 Z

Michael and Oleksij, while google count is not a single most important criterion, it is certainly one of the important ones and has to be considered along with other factors. Other such criteria are the references in other English language Encyclopedias. What 1911 Britannica called it (Russian Chronicle) is unimportant because the prevailing term may have changed in 100 years. That today's Britannica calls it "The Russian Primary Chronicle" IS important (more important than the Google count). It reflects what a current prevailing English usage is. And calling it differently would be misleading (not vice versa) because it would confuse the reader and the reader has no interest in the effects of political debates on the terminology.

Mallorossiya, White Russia are not prevailing English language terms and that's why it would be incorrect to use them. However, Montenegro is a prevailing usage and English WP uses it rather than Crna Gora. If the prevailing term seems misleading to some, it is perfectly OK to discuss it inside the article and even devote a chapter to this issue, like "Kiev or Kyiv?" chapter in the Kiev article. This is what I suggested to do in my previous post. This would be a right way to present the ongoing discussion about important difference of opinions to the reader.

However, changing the name and making it misleading to a reader (while more politically correct from someone's POV) or raising an NPOV flag to express personal dissatisfaction with today's English terminology is a simplistic way to short-circuit the discussion and is unencyclopedic.

And finally, the WP is indeed a wrong place to apply the "obsession of de-russification" zeal. Balanced or not by the "zealous Imperial Pride" two wrongs don't make it right. Irpen 05:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some incorrect details.

Dear colleagues, I'd like to ask your attention to the following two points.

1. "The Old Russian Primary Chronicle" in the very beginning of the text looks weird. Before the recent change, it was "The Russian Primary Chronicle" - the scientifically used term, while this new one looks very unnatural. Please comment!

2. "The Hypatian codex was discovered... The language of this work is Old Church Slavonic with many East Slavisms." As far as I know, the language of the Hypatian codex is not really Old Church Slavonic. Could anyone check? Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The language of the Hypatian Codex is the East Slavic version of Church Slavonic rather than Old Church Slavonic. The incorrect phrasing you quote derives from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The terminology should be updated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Why don't you fix it. You've been active here a while ago and now left for ru-wiki. For good? --Irpen 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, it's nice that people are still remember me :-). I'm going to increase level of my participation here.

Ok, I will doublecheck, and then fix. I'm now older and hopefully wiser :-). Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 07:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

--Dear all, Forgive my lack of knowledge regarding the format of the discussion groups. For clarification: The PVL is neither "Old" nor "Russian". The standard English titles of the PVL are "The Tale of Bygone Years" and "The Russian Primary Chronicle," the latter epithet clearly betraying a Russian chauvanistic bias. The language of the people of Kievan Rus' was Old East Slavic (NOT OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC...no East Slavic texts were written in OCS...not even the earliest, the Ostromir Gospel); they are definitely the ancestors of Ukrainians and Belorusians, and arguably of Russians. In any case, "Russian" should be avoided as a term for this period. I will not make these changes myself but I hope one of you will take the lead and make the necessary changes. Best, Matt Herrington, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Harvard University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.76.31 (talk)

You are welcome to address your concerns to Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has the article about Russian Primary Chronicle. Indeed, the terms "Old Russian language" and "Russian Primary Chronicle" traditionally predominate in Western scientific discourse. Once upon a time, I supported the move of these articles to Old East Slavic language (a sort of new coinage and original wiki-research, if you ask me) and Primary Chronicle, but now I see that our lenience did little to appease nationalist sentiments here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

PVL is mostly known as "Russian Primary Chronicle" to the English-speaking scholars. According to the Wikipedia's rules, Wikipedia should not use rare terms in attempt to be more politically corect that the rest of the world. The spoken language of Kievan Rus, Novgorod Republic and even Muscovy was Old East Slavic, but I don't see how may it be related to my questions above... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The PVL is also known simply as "The Primary Chronicle" which would be much more appropriate than "The RUSSIAN Primary Chronicle" as the word Russian is historically inaccurate. -Matthew Herrington

External Link 404

Hello, the link to Durham University appears to be bad. Thanks67.42.97.97 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Style of the article

It seems to me that this article is in some need of improvement. The article, in its earliest form, goes back to 2002 and its style is somewhat out-of-date with regard to the current Wikipedia standards. In particular, there are no footnote-style citations of references within the text, which is the current referencing standard. Instead, the references are simply listed at the end of the article and the format of these references looks rather strange. Also, the "Assessment" section has a wiff of WP:OR to its style.

I hope that people knowledgeble about the subject will improve the article, add in-line citations of relevant references, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

About impertinent behaviour of wikipedia's writers

The following passage is a rude mockery over the history of Russia:

"The early part is rich in anecdotal stories, among which are the arrival of the three Varangian brothers, the founding of Kiev, the murder of Askold and Dir, the death of Oleg, who was killed by a serpent concealed in the skeleton of his horse, and the vengeance taken by Olga, the wife of Igor, on the Drevlians, who had murdered her husband."

I don't understand how one can compare a unique chronicle with anecdotal stories".it seems to me man wrote that must know nothing except anecdotes. Frank Russian (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. I think you're confusing the English word "anecdote" with the Russian "анекдот". An "anecdote" is a "short account of an incident (especially a biographical one)" (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=anecdote). "Анекдот" on the other hand is a "joke". There's really nothing wrong with that statement.~~Nicholas A. Chambers 10:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)