Talk:Anti-Normanism/Archive 1

[Untitled]
I have moved this information from Rus' people, because the information pertains to several articles and not only that one.--Berig (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention AC in lead
The lead currently doesn't give any indication that the wp:RS/AC is the "Normanist" position. I think this needs to happen, otherwise it's a bit like if we had an article called "The Evolution Debate" and ended it without giving a sense of where the debate actually stands in mainstream sources, i.e. saying "I heard the jury is still out... on science".--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. I will see what I can do.--Berig (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nazis
The section on the Nazis is not given a lot of context and is mostly just quotes. Do they deserve their own section? I think we might be better served including them in a section about the ideological underpinnings of either position - after all, a lot of Anti-Normanism is a reaction to the Nazi position that the Slavs can't form their own states and are therefore an inferior race, right? Also, if I'm not mistaken this wasn't a purely "Nazi" view, but a general sort of Nationalist/racialist interpretation of Rus history that was popular in the West.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . Yes, delusions of innate ethnic qualities are nothing new. This article is a lot to handle alone, especially as I feel I have almost promised to work on Rus' people. If you feel inclined to have a go at those sections, I would be grateful and I am sure you will do a great job.--Berig (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, yeah, I know what you mean. I'll see if I can't have a go at some point, but probably not too soon. I have a few other balls in the air at the moment (and it's always much easier to point out faults if you don't think you're the one who's going to correct them ;-)).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . LOL, I almost curse the fact that I have real life to handle.--Berig (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . I trimmed it down and inserted it where I think it fits in the flow of the text.--Berig (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The point was that normanism was widely used and still used to show inferior nature of modern Russians to Europeans. But I see from discussion that wikipedia agrees with normanism. 2A02:A45E:72A7:1:DABB:C1FF:FEAC:7283 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently so does most of modern reliable sources. TylerBurden (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that most of modern reliable sources "show inferior nature of modern Russians to Europeans" :-)? FYI WP:NOTAFORUM. - Altenmann >talk 19:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

POV-tag
What is the objective of the POV-tag in the section "Anti-Normanism"? If this is to mean: "Reader, be careful, here comes the fringe position!", the tag is quite misapplied. Usually we place the tag when the Wikipedia text portrays the topic in a biased way – which I cannot see here, since you correctly expose what "Anti-Normanism" is, to wit 20th century ideology-driven fringe revisionism. After I had seen the tag, I expected that a POV-warring Anti-Normanist placed it there :)

Another point: I suggest to reduce the use of the word "Normanist" to describe mainstream position. Applying an -ism to the latter creates the spurious impression that we are dealing here with two opinions of equal weight. But these are just minor things. It's good to have well-written educating articles about fringe theories which have a high vitality outside of mainstream academia. Kudos! –Austronesier (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You are indeed right! Thanks, I will change according to your suggestion. This article still needs a lot of work.--Berig (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2022

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Anti-Normanism → Normanist Controversy – Following discussion at Talk:Normanism, the present page Anti-Normanism is a merger of Normanism and Anti-Normanism. I believe that the consensus of the merger discussion is that this merger should be reflected by changing the title of Anti-Normanism to Normanist Controversy. However, an article with that title currently exists as a redirect to Anti-Normanism so I can't perform the move myself. Alarichall (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisted.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 12:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article appears to discuss a widely accepted historiographical theory, and to title it "Normanist Controversy" is to give undue weight to the fringe beliefs in opposition to that theory. Instead, I would support a move to "Normanism", as it discusses the concept in general, including the wide support for the theory and the fringe opposition to it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think understanding the history of the Anti-Normanism article helps a bit with your concerns, @BilledMammal. Most or all of the stuff here used to be part of Rus'. However, because Rus' now focuses on representing the consensus among (western) professional historians, the long section on the historiography behind that consensus was hived off to create the article that we're now discussing. So this article is about the one-time historiographical controversy (just as, say Hindi–Urdu controversy is an article on a debate that is now over). Alarichall (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying - on that basis, I've struck my support for a move to "Normanism". However, I believe my objections to "Normanist Controversy" still apply; it appears to be a fringe theory, not a controversy, just as creationism is a fringe theory, not a controversy - Teach the Controversy. BilledMammal (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2022 (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 questiong it), and should be covered in its own appropriately named article, namely this one. Mainstream scholarship on the question is covered at Rus' people. I would also suggest that the lead as previously written by Berig be restored. Krakkos (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I get your perspective, but the person who read Anti-Normanism and felt moved to create Normanism implicitly made a good point: ordinary readers of Wikipedia who don't already know the ins-and-outs of these issues encounter Anti-Normanism and the first thing they think is, 'well, before I read about this, I want to know what Normanism is'. We need to make sense to that wide readership. Alarichall (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move to Normanist controversy (l.c. C), or perhaps Normanist debate. Historically, as more evidence has come to light, both sides of the debate have converged to a degree. Some anti-Normanists advocate hypotheses that may not be the simplest explanation or best supported, yet they are not written off by mainstream secondary sources, only presented as possibilities with fewer proponents. Because ultimately, there are details they remain unproven. The debates on Normanism have influenced modern theory and vice versa. —Michael Z. 16:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Normanist debate (or Normanism debate?) also works for me. 'Debate' ameliorates some of @BilledMammal's concerns above. Alarichall (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Even debate I have an issue with, as it implies there is a debate - from what I understand, there is no debate, with Anti-Normanism being widely rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a debate. This is an article about historiography, which includes the history of history. Also, it’s impossible to say that one side was completely right and the other completely wrong, because research has gradually changed views: so maybe it’s less of a debate but the way academic research works is theories are always challenged and modified. —Michael Z. 19:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I fully agree with the opposes above. The writing of the article Normanism was an attempt to use false equivalence in order to create false balance, and now the struggle continues.--Berig (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - It's not a "Normanism controversy", it's a fringe anti-Normanism theory, mainly propagated by people in Russia, against a massively mainstream long-standing opinion, and per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy fringe theories should not be given equal weight to mainstream views. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote my oppose above in a bit of a hurry, so to clarify things "Anti-Normanism" is an established and relatively widely understood term for the Soviet attempts to rewrite history, while the term "Normanism", without the prefix "Anti-", is confusing at best for native English-speakers, since "Norman" in English refers to someone or something from Normandy, not Norsemen in general, and "Normanism" refers to something that has been influenced by Normans, Normandy or the Norman version of French, making the proposed new name for the article, "Normanism controversy" confusing. So in my opinion the article should not only keep its current name, "Anti-Normanism", but also be rewritten to remove the use of the term Norman/Normans for Norsemen/Scandinavians (a meaning that term has only in Eastern Europe, not in the English-speaking world, and this is, after all, the English language Wikipedia). This article should also be only about the fringe Anti-Normanist theory, its history and a bit about why it is and always has been just a politically motivated fringe theory, never accepted by scholars in general. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article about Anti-Normanism on the Russian Wikipedia (Антинорманизм) could be used as a pattern/template for rewriting this article. If you can't read Russian, use Google Translate. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As ably stated by . What needs explicating to the reader is the fringe theory; the place for the context of what it is "anti-" is the intro, with reference to Rus'. Also per WP:COMMONNAME, not treated in mainstream scholarship as a "controversy". Yngvadottir (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (with lowercase c). The proposed title, "Normanist controversy", is widely used and is a better descriptor of what should be the topic of this article. The controversy has a clear beginning in the 18th century. Contrary to, Normanism emerged first with Theophilus Siegfried Bayer and Gerhard Friedrich Müller. Anti-Normanism arose with Mikhail Lomonosov's response to them. Srnec (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to lend weight to this: a Google Scholar search for "Normanist controversy" turns up about 142 results, including plenty of respectable and some recent scholarship. "Anti-Normanism" turns up about 190. So the term "Normanist controversy" hardly seems fringe in academic writing. Alarichall (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the term that is fringe, it's the theory behind the term... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undue weight given to a term from fringe discourse
@ pointed out in Talk:Normanism that "Normanism" is a term which is largely confined to the discourse of the anti-Normanist camp (see also my comment in above). It is ok to mention this term in scare quotes once or twice in order to explain the "Anti"-term, but it should not be given undue weight by mentioning it in bold in the lede, nor should it be repeatedly used in the main text to describe the mainstream position. This strongly reminds me of the usage of the term "Aryan invasion" by proponents of Indigenous Aryanism; we don't adopt the polemic term "Aryan invasion" in that article to refer to the mainstream view. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased language
Under "Other views":


 * Scholars such as Omeljan Pritsak and Horace G. Lunt offer explanations that go beyond simplistic attempts to attribute 'ethnicity' on first glance interpretation of literary, philological, and archaeological evidence.

This seems to inappropriately favour these views and dismiss other views.

Note that I am a novice to the topic and have no opinion on these scholars or views. Just commenting on the language. Chriswaterguy talk 18:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Article fails its purpose
The article fails its purpose as it was turned into discussion page rather than an article. It fails explaining what anti-Normanism is and instead lists arguments why anti-Normanism should not never be considered at all without understanding the subject. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's good that this article represents historiographical debates (and so in that sense might look like 'a discussion page'), but I agree that the article is baffling to anyone who does not already understand what Normanism is and who is not willing to read the article with great care. It doesn't help that if you search Wikipedia for 'Normanism', you're redirected to 'anti-Normanism' -- yet 'anti-Normanism' does not offer an early and clear explanation of what 'Normanism' is. Clearer explanation in the lead would be very helpful. Alarichall (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)