Talk:Architecture of Russia/Archive 2

Problems with the article

 * This article is not suitable as an encyclopaedia article, as it is in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy, and is written in a very non-encyclopaedic tone. In addition if it's from a website, it might be a copyright violation. Please do something to address these problems, or the article might be deleted as per Wikipedia's deletion policy. - ulayiti (talk)  18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Architectural landmarks erected in the country of RUS, regradless of prefixes and suffixes, must be called RUSSIAN (RUS+IAN, adjective, belonging to RUS)!

Article completely rewritten
This article was completely rewritten after the article that the above comments refer to was speedy deleted after being listed for deletion. Capitalistroadster 12:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the article. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 16:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why only tamples and churches?
Why only tamples and churches? What about citadels, towers, palaces?--Nixer 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, why there is no "Soviet architecture" article?--Nixer 01:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Get to work. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 07:24 Z 

Bepassing the dispute
Whilst I not going to get myself involved in your (to be fair quite pathetic) arguments. I would like to give the following site with excellent photos of Orthodox architecure for those who are intersted in cotributing professional information: http://www.sobory.ru/

-- Kuban kazak 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Readings
I went to the library this afternoon and had a look at the following books:


 * (2003) Entry "Architecture: Kievan Rus and Russia" in Encyclopædia Britannica (Macropedia) vol. 13, 15th ed., p. 921.
 * The article is "Architecture", the section is called "Kievan Rus and Russia". The state is referred to as Kievan Rus, but the churches of Rus are referred to in aggregate as "Russian ecclesiastical architecture".


 * William Craft Brumfield ([1993] 2004). A History of Russian Architecture, Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. ISBN 0-295-98393-0.
 * Nice book, with photographs by the author. The subject is referred to in the text as "medieval Russian architecture", but the people and state of the period are called "eastern Slavs", and note "medieval Rus and subsequently Russia".


 * John Fleming, Hugh Honour, Nikolaus Pevsner ([1966] 1998). Entry "Russian Architecture" in The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, 5th ed., pp. 493–498, London: Penguin. ISBN 0-67-088017-5.
 * Under the entry "Russian Architecture". References to the subject and period in general are "Russia", "the Old Russian state", "Kievan Russia", "Transfiguration Cathedral at Chernigov (c. 1036) . . . and all other Old Russian churches . . . [including Santa Sophia]", but Kievan Rus’ specifically is called "Kiev", also "the Kiev Prince".  Polotsk and Smolensk are in "west Russian lands".  Later references are to "Moscow's domination of Russia", "Muscovite architecture".
 * (Interesting quote about the Baroque period: ". . . Ukrainian Baroque has its own characteristics, however, and stylistically the interaction with Muscovy is less significant than was once thought.")

I would classify these all as post-Soviet editions of earlier writing. They seem to know that Kievan Rus’ is not the same thing as Russia, and refer to the state as Rus or Kiev, although it is also referred to descriptively as "medieval Russia". Russia is used for the name of later states, but in all three sources the architecture of Rus belongs firmly within the subject of Russian architecture. There is no subdivision of Rus architecture into Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian.

In the next day or two I'll propose some revisions to the article based on this, if someone else hasn't done so already. —Michael Z. 2005-11-21 00:08 Z 


 * Nice job. Thanks. --Ghirlandajo 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've found a lovely image of a Russian monastery. Perhaps there's room for it in your article? Durova 00:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes!!! Of course!--Nixer 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)



My proposal for the future of the article
I propose that this article has some radical changes. The truth is that like History of Russia, it is impossible to generalise everything into one article without having seprate articles reflecting each phase. In Russian architecture there are clear break-ups. THis site here has a feature were one can actually search through the dates when each building was built. We might be also able to obtain copyrights for several images if lucky. I propose the following strucutre: A general page (which this article can provide) Then about individual subarticles describing the individual phases of history. Now for those nationally conscious little people, there should destinct and separate subarticles for periods of history for your phase.
 * So this is what we get:
 * Three general articles (maybe more) Architectures of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine
 * Broken into phases of history:
 * Kievan Rus
 * Grand Duchy of Lithuania/Halych/Muscouvian Rus (and their respecive styles)
 * Polish Lithuanian Boroque/Ukrainian Boroque/Muscovian Boroque
 * ...and so on
 * Stalinist Architecutre
 * Post-Stalinist Soviet architecture
 * Late Soviet Architecture
 * Modern Architecture of Ukraine/Russia/Belarus
 * Each subarticle talks about decorative features, Churches, Fortifications, Palaces, Terema and so on...

Here is some info on styles

--Kuban Cossack 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained tag insertion
I see that AndriyK's mission after the return to Wikipedia from the absence over the reasons well-known is to keep trolling this article. On one hand, this is much better than large scale moving nightmare and vote rigging which got him in trouble previously. OTOH, I see no activity from this user other than occasionally showing up here and there, run some quick but fierce edit wars just under the 3RR and disappear for another week or so. This is untenable.

The tag removal has been explained multiple times. Reasons were discussed, the article RfC was filed, users commented, MichaelZ spent hours in the library due to AndriyK's persistence with nonsense ideas. The public spoke over the issue he raised and the tag was removed.

Yet, it is restored either by himself, or others who choose to act as his proxies in his shameful quest to expunge anything Russian from everything related to Ukraine. Please care to read past discussion and clearly point out the reasons behind the tag reinsertion which were not addressed by the past discussion. I hope others will reconsider acting as AndriyK's proxies. If others have an issue after having read the past discussions and insist on tagging, please use talk to explain your POV disagreement. Same applies to AndriyK. If he has anything new to say, he is welcome to do so at the talk page. Finally, if AndriyK reinserts the tag one more time without entering his grievances at talk (taking into account past discussions) and/or his explanation will seem frivolous, I will file a specific Requests for arbitration/Removal of POV tag from Russian architecture with an ArbCom. ArbCom cases often have unintended consequences as ArbCom members sometimes rule not only on specific issues, but more generally on the user's behavior and a block may very well be a consequences of a new arbitration. For one, it is not my intention to have AndriyK blocked, whatever stuff he dumps on me all the time. Another issue is that I would hate wasting time on this yet again. But I see no other venue to bring this article to normalcy with the tag being reinserted and the tagger's refusal to use talk. RfC was not sufficient. All kinds of dispute resolution was tried. ArbCom would be the last resort. --Irpen 08:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The reseons for inserting the tag are explained in the tag itself. Please read.
 * The fact that you explained your personal opinion about removal of the tag does not mean that the issue is resolved. Your opponents may disagree with your personal opinion. And, in fact, this was the case.
 * There is no need to say anything new here. The problem that I pointed out half a year ago is still not solved.
 * I propose the solution, you did not accept it. You do not propose any acceptable alternative solution.
 * The only way out is to keep the tag until somebody proposes an acceptable solution for both sides.
 * Please read once more what another user wrote to you Talk:Russian_architecture/Archive --AndriyK 08:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a vote, a poll which culminated in DROPPING the issue permanentely Talk:Russian architecture/Archive Find it there. As of then the MAJORITY of wikipedians are AGAINST any more disputes. They are FINE as it is. If you want a another poll start one here and ask it Do you see any point continuing the dispute between AndriyK's POV (and his maidan goonies) and the rest of wikipedian society? Extend the notification to the whole Portal:Architecture and go for it. It is not an issue anymore wether the buildings will be mentioned, previous poll but a fat tochka on that it is wether your POV-pushing continues. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 10:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Read what you moved in archive Talk:Russian_architecture/Archive --AndriyK 10:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes no difference to the stance. If I was you I would write Ukrainian architecture and then simply interlink them into this article that way there will be no problem, but of course how many useful articles have you written (sorry but your contributions page is so full of worthless conflicts that it really is impossible to filter) or can you ever right them? --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 11:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to explain you once more. There is a unsolved problem with the article Russian architecture.
 * Whether i article on Ukrainian architecture or not is my choice.
 * I tried to write articles here, but your troll friends prevent me from doing it.--AndriyK 11:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You tried? Really? Молодец, садись -енко/-чюк, пять. :) Although I find that if one makes writing articles a priority and leaving the policing of wikipedia to the admins which is clearely the opposite of your case, then at least people can have an opinion of you as a valuable contributor as opposed to a troll. Experience shows that useful contributors are more successful at gaining favouralbe outcomes on disputes. If I were you I'd reregister a new account and start all over. User:AnriyK's reputation is a shame of the Ukrainian society and even if you start writing articles now there is little to salvage. Стыд и срам.--Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see AndriyK reinserted the tag. Everyone, please do not remove it or alter it in any way until the issue is referred to ArbCom. I will try to be as fast as I can. --Irpen 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection
There has been no actual change to the content of this article since before the last page protection on March 31. Every single edit since then has been to either (1) insert or (2) remove the NPOV tag. Until this gets cleared up on the talk page for good, I don't feel like I'm stopping any earth-shattering developments by protecting the page. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think an edit needs to be made. In that ludicrous looking POV tag it currently reads:
 * it describes the structures that were build by ancestors of the present-day Greeks and Ukrainians in Kievan Rus...
 * Is it possible to have that replaced with:
 * it describes the structures that were built by ancestors of the present-day Greeks and Ukrainians in Kievan Rus...
 * Thanks. Telex 10:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done abakharev 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?
Lets try, to resolve the dispute by mediation. To see how many people agree to participate, please add your name below.--AndriyK 08:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Archives and talk above show extensive mediation, discussion and the article has been at RfC which brought many more users here who added their valauble comments which still didn't satisfy AndriyK. The user can't "mediate" until he achieves the his sole goal that it the results he wants. I don't object to the mediation if it is based on the new arguments, not the ones already discussed and rejected as per sources, multiple comments and the vote. Just prolonging the dispute in the hope to tire the opponents when there is nothing new to say is disruptive. I suggest Mbuk reads the discussion and archives. --Irpen 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to resolve the dispute and will particpate in the mediation process

 * 1) AndriyK 08:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Mbuk 21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This dispute is settled. Provalivay svidomyi Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

unexplained tag
A single user persisting with a nonsense claim is no reason to destroy excellent articles with ridiculous tags. When whoever who thinks that the Earth is flat tags the Earth article because it represents the "Earth is round POV", the tag would similarly be removed without discussion.

If AndriyK can come up with new reasons on why the article is not NPOV, he should bring them at talk. His old points prompted much discussion, much research through the most authoritative literature and were rejected based on that as well as the vote. Until new points are brought up, I am removing the tag. --Irpen 02:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the dispute is as obvious as about the shape of the Earth (see, for instance, ). I would not remove the tag without discussion if I would you. It would be much better to find a compromise solution.--Mbuk 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The dispute is settled, if you look in the archive, all of the points raised by the opposing party were overturned. I propose to unlock the article and permanentely purge the tag. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 10:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A dispute is settled if
 * a decission that satisfies both sides is found or
 * there is a decission by some authority (ArbCom in the present case) that is compulsory for both sides even if they do not agree with it.
 * This was not the case. Therefore, the present dispute has not been resolved yet. Let's take the next step.--AndriyK 08:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

To Irpen: there is no new reasons. The old dispute has not been resolve yet. Please note that removing the tag (and even locking the page without it) does not resolve the dispute. Let's follow WP:DR.--AndriyK 08:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * AndriyK, you can't hold the page hostage just by saying "I disagree" to satisfy your nationalist Russophobic fervor. If this were allowable, any page could have been held hostage similarly by any bad faith user. This was explained to you multiple times. Whoever claims that the Earth is flat cannot persist with POV-tagging the Earth article by saying that he doesn't consider the dispute resolved. You have anything new to say, say it. Consensus doesn't include the agreement with Holocaust deniers or those who reject the theory of evolution in the Holocaust and Science articles, respectively. If this were required, all Wikipeida articles would still have been tagged and would remain so forever. --Irpen 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the talk and the archives. There are clearly two viewpoints. AndriyK is not the only user who supports the viewpoint opposite to yours. There are at least three more users (Andrew Alexander, Yakudza, Ukrained) whith similar view. And Durova's comment suggests the solution similar to what is proposed by AndriyK and others. Later, an anonimous user with similar to AndriyK's view appeared. I have not seen any sign of consensus in favor of the present version of the article. BTW, incivil comments by Kuban Kazak and Ghirladajo do not help to form a positive impression about supporters of the present version.

I restore the tag. Please try to build a consensus.--Mbuk 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mbuk, I'll be honest. I think you're either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. --Tēlex 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes you to think so? Is everybody who have similar view is "a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet". Whose meatpuppet are you in this case?
 * BTW, this page is reserved for discussing the articles. If you would like to discuss user's activity, please use the user's talk page.--Mbuk 22:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, the tag needs removed. The users fail to explain their position at talk. If they want to bring more people to comment, the right way is article RfC rather than tagging an excellent article as a whole. That RfC has been tried and the outcome didn't suit AndriyK is no reason to insert the tag. Also, anyone is free to contact experts from the Architecture portal. Tagging per se is just mislabeling an excellent article putting it in the same category as, say, Polonophobia with bunch of its nonsense claims. --Irpen 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits of the tag text by User:Telex
Please note that nobody calls the architecture of Kievan Rus "Ukrainian architecture". Therefore whether Ukraine existed that time or not is completely irrelevant to the dispute. I removed "and Ukraine" from the tag text not because it's wrong but because it is irrelevant.

Moreover, the tag is there to point out our disagreement. We preserve the article in the form that you prefer, then the tag should be in the form that we prefer. We can do it vice versa, if you like.--AndriyK 08:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you start an article Ukrainian architecture, where you can amongst others describe the structures that were built by ancestors of the present-day Greeks and Ukrainians in Kievan Rus (i.e. hundreds years before Ukraine was created) and located in present-day Ukraine as if they were "Ukrainian". --Tēlex 12:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I respect WP policies, in particular, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.--AndriyK 12:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes tell us about your respect for policies, how many articles did you move and locked the re-directs? Or how you vote frauded two Ruthenian (not Ukrainian as that country did not exist at the time) Chernigov Princes? Or what about the 600-revert St. Vladimir's Cathedral? Or the massive POV in Holodomor that you helped your tezka to push through. After all that do expect anyone to take you seriously? IMO - pathetic... --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The message from Kuban Kazak wich is not related to RA is moved to AndriyK's talk. This page is reserved for discussing the articles. If you would like to discuss user's activity, please use the user's talk page.--Mbuk 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored it the message makes a reasonable claim about lack of good faith on an account of a user caught red-handed in using dirty tricks to push his agenda. This is relevant to how qualified he is to make a judgement of what's NPOV and what's not. If his behavior changed since then, that would have been a different story. When he makes an unrelated to any of this edit that would look different from all that he was doing to this date, I and everyone would treat that edit independently from the past history. This hasn't happened yes. --Irpen 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Causion against removing the POV tags.

 * 'I am moving the following from my talk page to here so that the readers can read it, get a better understanding of what the issue is, what the user's positions are and comment if they want. --Irpen 06:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that removing the POV-tags does not help to resolve disputes. The tag should indicate the disagrement until the dispute is resolved as described in WP:DR.--AndriyK 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad faith tag trolling you are famed for is extremely disruptive. Normally, editors use article's talk and discuss the disagreements there. In fact, when you attempted that, all your questions were answered. If you are still not satisfied, bring this again at the article's talk. --Irpen 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DR and WP:Consensus. "Answering all the questions" is not sufficient to resolve the dispute. The dispute is resolved if a consensus is built or by the decission of ArbCom.
 * The purpose of the tag is to attract the attention of other users to the disputed issue. This would help to resolve the dispute. Everybody who sincerelly wish to resolve the dispute wowuld keep the tag.
 * You are not autorized to "classify" the users. If you suspect that I am acting in bad faith, please fill arbitration agains me as you promiced many weeks ago or take other steps proposed in WP:DR. Otherwise your phrases like "bad faith tag trolling" or similar will be considered as personal attackes, wich are stricly forbidden by WP policies.--AndriyK 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, you can't hold the page hostage just by saying "I disagree" to satisfy your nationalist Russophobic fervor. If this were allowable, any page could have been held hostage similarly by any bad faith user. This was explained to you multiple times. Whoever claims that the Earth is flat cannot persist with POV-tagging the Earth article by saying that he doesn't consider the dispute resolved. You have anything new to say, say it. Consensus doesn't include the agreement with Holocaust deniers or those who reject the theory of evolution in the Holocaust and Science articles, respectively. If this were required, all Wikipeida articles would still have been tagged and would remain so forever. --Irpen 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (some PA removed)

I am second to warn you against removing the tag. All POV-tagged articles are listed in a special category. This helps other people to find the disputed articles.

I would not remove the tag without discussion if I would you.

I do not think that AndriyK does it in a bad faith. The case is not so obvious as the shape of the Earth (see, for instance, ).

Why not to look for a compromise solution?--Mbuk 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been tried. read the archives. the current situation reflects the fruit of the long discussion and research. As for AndriyK, I've seen more of him than you and I have every reason to say what I said above. If you have anything new to say, once you read the talk and the archives, by all means do so at the article's talk. --Irpen 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the talk and the archives. There are clearly two viewpoints. AndriyK is not the only user who supports the viewpoint opposite to yours. There are at least three more users (Andrew Alexander, Yakudza, Ukrained) whith similar view. And Durova's comment suggests the solution similar to what is proposed by AndriyK and others. Later, an anonimous user with similar to AndriyK's view appeared. I have not seen any sign of consensus in favor of the present version of the article. BTW, incivil comments by Kuban Kazak and Ghirladajo do not help to form a positive impression about supporters of the present version.--Mbuk 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the last point. I don't see how Durova's comments agree with AndriyK aggressive nationalist position. If you have more ideas and proposals, by all means raise them at the article's talk. --Irpen 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "agressive nationalist position" of AndriyK (I mean in the talk about the Russian architecture. Perhaps it appeared in other places) OTOH comments by Kuban Kazak are often agressive and charged with Russian nationalism, IMHO.

Please read the comment by Durova once more. She does not agree with AndriyK explecetly, but he agrees with her in his answer. Please read the whole section. Perhaps it will help to resolve the dispute.--Mbuk 22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I reread the whole section although I remembered it very well. Durova's points were taken into account in the article's later edits. AndriyK still disagrees and will disagree until the day Russia is elminated from Wikipedia. I suggest you don't become AndriyK's revert proxy. If you read the archives, have anything to add, just add what you have to say. Cite specifically what's wrong with the article. Persistent tag insertion is just tag-trolling. I don't know you yet and I assume you are an interested editor and potetnially a productive user. Instead of jumping into fierce debates immediately taking sides, I suggest you edit some articles a little. Maybe try to start from non-controversial ones. See Portal:Ukraine/Things you can do for some ideas (Kiev tram is already taken by DDima). regards, --Irpen 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll follow your links and perheps will do some edits. (Although I have very little idea about Kiev tram. Maybe I find something else.) But, to be honest, I do not like this permanent Russian Ukrainian conflict. This is the reason why I participated in this discussion. I would not like to take any sides. Agrassive and uncivil positions of Kuban Kazak and Ghirla made me simpatic to their opponents. OTOH, I did not see how Durova's proposals are taken into account in the article.--Mbuk 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I not only dislike but hate these permanent conflicts that were started with AndriyK's arrival to WP last fall and the meatpuppet that he brought with him. For Durova's proposals making its way to the article, check its edits following her voicing them. I request that you remove the ridiculous tag yourself and say anything you have to say at the article's talk. --Irpen 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain me what is the reason for removing the tag? The dispute is there. There would be no edit war if there would be no dispute. If all the parties act in good faith (which one has to assume unless the opposite is obvious) then this dispute should be resolved by discussions, mediations etc. If anybody acts in bad faith, this is also a dispute but it concerns to user's behaviour and should be resolved by blocking the distruptive user or restricting his ability to edit the article.

But in any case the dispute should be dealt with in one way or another.

You remove the tag, AndriyK puts it back. It continues for days, weeks, months. What is the ultimate goal you want to reach going this way? Or you enjoy the process? ;)

I suggest you to keep the tag (just to stop the edit war). And do something to resolve the dispute. Continue the discussion, or start arbitaition against AndriyK, if you believe that the discussion with him is useless (personally I do not think so, but you have your own experience of communicating with him and you may be right, I do not know.). But keep in mind that AndriyK is not the only one who disagrees. You have to think how to deel with the other guys.

Either discussion/mediation or arbitration will take some time, but this is the real way settle the dispute. Otherwise it's going to be endless.--Mbuk 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mbuk, the tag is removed because it is not explained. As to your question, I have every reason to believe that user:AndriyK is acting not in good faith but to push his Ukrainianian nationalist Russophobic agenda when Ukrainian Wikipedia was not enough audience for him. The evidence is his past actions, and his present actions are nothing but a repetition of familiar themes. A formal action against AndriyK would certainly result in another lengthy block. I don't want this to happen for one, and, additionally and more importantly, I have better things to do with my time at Wikipedia. I really need to see that the consequences of his actions become so intolerable that my time is better spent on dealing with his disrpuptiveness rather than articles. As long as I see that he is dealt with by an overwhelming majority of editors who reject his nationalist stance, I spend my time on writing articles rather than ArbCom cases. You are right about discussions and mediations, etc. This was tried, comments were made, changes were made as well. That he will persist until he gets it his way, is his peculiar feature. Disruption to make a point is not allowed. If you read the archives, read the past article's RfC, saw any issues unaddressed, by all means raise them at talk. I said this to you multiple times. We can't keep the tag eternally just because someone somewhere disagrees over something. Such disagreement has to be discussed and addressed. This was done. If users were allowed to persist with the tags just for the sake of it eternally, until they get it their way, every historic article in WP would have been tagged by now and no tag would ever be removed. --Irpen 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Irpen, the tag was explained in the tag itself (this was a POV-because tag). Besides there is a lot of explantion in the archive. You may say that you disagree with the explanation, but it was not unexplained.


 * Why do not want AndriyK to be blocked if you consider his action distruptive?

The edit war takes also a certain time. Why not to spend this time to resolve the dispute ultimately?


 * Addressing all the issues is not sufficient to settle the dispute. You have to reach a consensus with the opposite party. (Or an administrative action should be taken against one of the parties if the consensus is impossible). Merely discussing the disagrement is not sufficent.


 * I do not propose to keep the tag forever. It should be there until the dispute is resolved. But the dispute cannot continue forever. It should be settled one way or another.--Mbuk 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mbuk, there must me some common sense in what takes to consider the dispute resolved. If there is some fringe POV pusher with stubborness and persistence, nothing prevents him from stating that he remains unconvinced and insists that the dispute is unresolved and an excellent article should be labeled in the same category as, say, nonsense List of Polish Martyrdom sites or controversial, like Martin Luther and the Jews. This is exactly the case here as has been with this user in the past. There are people who come to Wikipedia with a political agenda. Reaching the consensus with them is impossible. That's why the article was listed for RfC, users commented, changes were made. He can't keep doing this forever until he is satisfied. Now, please don't make me repeat to you what was already said. Read the talk and archives. As for why I don't want AndriyK blocked is because his disrpuptiveness is met with sufficient opposition that is preventing him from doing too much damage. He may learn this and finally start writing instead of doing nonsense. Even at his arbitration following the actions that was totally intolerable and uncorrectable I didn't call for his block as you may see if you read the arbitration pages. Ukrainian topics need editors. It's just as simple as that. Now, please start writing too. This all is too time-consuming. --Irpen 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is a fringle POV pusher with stubborness and persistence it should be delt with by means of administrative mesures. It cannnot be dealt with by the stubborness and persistence from the other side. Otherwise you will be look like "a fringle POV pusher with stubborness and persistence" for otside observer.
 * "Sufficient opposition" means nothing else as permanent edit wars. Is it the best solution?--Mbuk 05:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've told you all I have to say on this multiple times. If I feel like I had enough of AndriyK again and his being out of controll damages the wikipedia beyond repair I will move to administrative measures. Please don't try to tire me by repetition and forcing me to repeat things. I've told you all I have to say. Take the rest to the article's talk, or start and new article RfC or see otherwise whether you can get any more support in your support of AndriyK, aside from a couple of known problem users. I don't have any more time to repeat this. This is called "feeding". I have already broke the non-feeding rule and as I see no new questions, there won't be any more new answers until you have anything new to say. For that, use the means I suggested. --Irpen 06:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * end of moved section

Back to the discussion
I propose to go step-by-step to find where exactly your disagreements are.

The first step
I propose all the involved parties to answer the question about their understanding of the word Russian. I asked already a native English speaker, Michael Zajac. His answer can be found here. But other people may disagree with him...

OK, let's everybody who would like to continue the discussion answers the following questions: ''What exactly means the word "Russian" in modern English? Does it mean only "of Russia", or it means also "of (Kievan) Rus"?''

Please keep the discussion as close to the point as possible. No personal accusations, no irrelevant stuff.--Mbuk 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My answer is obvious "Russian" means "of Russia" and not "of (Kievan) Rus". But the title Russian architecture can be understood in geographic or in historical meaning. (See my messages in the archive). In both cases the churches in Kiev and Chernihiv do not belong to the scope of the article.--AndriyK 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mbuk, please read that this has been addressed. No one claims that Kievan Rus was Russia. The point is the uninterrupted tradition from the first Churches of Rus' built by Greek masters inherited into the art of the later Muscovite Russia. The relevance of the Rus' architecture to the Russian one is unquestionable and therefore it is presented not only in this article but in classical books on the subject as discussed above by MichaelZ. There is no need to repeat all that, read talk and archives. --Irpen 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You say "Russian" means "of Russia" and does not mean "of (Kievan) Rus"? Did I understood you properly?--Mbuk 06:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read archives and WP:DFTT. --Irpen 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Until the tag is explained, issues presented at talk, explained how they are unaddressed in past discussions and edits, the users have no right to destroy the article by tagging it just because they don't like what's there. --Irpen 06:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following questions were not addressed:
 * There is inheritence between British and American. But the corresponding section does not describe the buildings of London or Manchester. Why do you insist on a different solution in a similar situation in the present article?
 * There is inheretence between Greek -> Kievan Rus -> Russian architecturte. Why the article "Russian architecture" does not describe the churches of Constantinople?
 * Read the second sentence of the first paragraph: "After the fall of Kiev, Russian architectural history continued in the principalities of Vladimir-Suzdal, and Novgorod, and the succeeding states of Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the modern Russian Federation." Was the architecture of ancient Kiev "Russian"? If not, how could it continue after fall of Kiev?--AndriyK 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrea, I think may be POV pushing. Have you read the article recently? It does not refer to the buildings erected during the Kievan Rus' period as "Russian". Au contraire, it distinguishes Kievan Rus' architecture from Russian, and only says that Russian architecture has its origins in that of Kievan Rus' (which is the common predecessor of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus). Where exactly does it refer to them as "Russian"? --Tēlex 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you think the structures of Kiev and Chernihiv belong to the scope of the article? See question 1.--AndriyK 17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You lot have 8,334,000 indigenous Russians, don't you? Just because Chernihiv and Kyiv happen to be located outside the borders of present-day Russia (no irredentist connotations here), does that necessarily have the effect of them being unrelated to whatever one may refer to as "Russian". Are you saying that those buildings are unrelated to Russians? There are some fine examples of Muslim architecture in Cordoba in Spain. According to your approach, the fact that they are not part of a Muslim state makes them no longer Muslim. --Tēlex 17:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ethnic Russians came to Ukraine hundreds years after the churches of Kiev and Chernihiv were built. Yes, I am saying that those buildings are unrelated to Russians.--AndriyK 17:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See :
 * Early Russian architecture was intimately linked with the Christianization of Kievan Rus. In his lecture, Ousterhout will describe how in the year 987, the ambassadors of Prince Volodymyr were overwhelmed by the visual splendor of the liturgical celebrations they witnessed in the churches of Constantinople. As a result, Russia converted to Orthodox Christianity and the earliest masonry buildings in Kiev were constructed by Byzantine masons brought from Constantinople.
 * --Tēlex 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a few paragraphs ago Irpen wrote "No one claims that Kievan Rus was Russia." And now Telex writes us the opposite. Let us find where we are in this discussion.

The first step
I propose all the involved parties to answer the following two questions:


 * 1) Was Kievan Rus “Medieval Russia” or it was a common predecessor of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine?
 * Irpen and Telex seem to have opposite POVs regarding this question.
 * 1) What exactly means the word "Russian" in modern English? Does it mean only "of Russia", or it means also "of (Kievan) Rus"?
 * Only AndriyK answered this question so far.

Please be polite and brief.--Mbuk 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. I say that the article distinguishes the architecture of Kievan Rus' from Russian architecture proper, but the architecture of Kievan Rus' is notable enough to mention (inter alia because some people consider it Russian). In other words, leave the article in the present version, which I understand happens to be the consensus version. --Tēlex 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mbuk, Rus' is a medieval entity, Russia is a modern one. In this sense they are not the same. Rus' is also frequently called "Medieval Russia" by very respected scholars. (see for instance: Janet L. B. Martin, Medieval Russia, 980-1584, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521368324) That you or AndriyK thinks that this is an incorrect usage is irrelevant as you are not in a position to argue with the scholars who pubslish peer-reviewed publications. However, irrespective of this issue all historians, except of the fringe ones, consider Kievan Rus' to be part of the Russian history (as well as of the Ukrainian one). Finally, I would like to point to you that this has been discussed at talk in the past and you refuse to take anything from the past discussion. There is a term for that WP:DFTT. Since your tactic seems to be simply trying to tire your opponents by going around in circles, no wonder people often don't bother to respond. --Irpen 21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "That you or AndriyK thinks that this is an incorrect usage is irrelevant as you are not in a position to argue with the scolars who pubslish peer-reviewed publications." Did I said what I think about it? How do you know. You pretend you can read my mind?
 * I am not pestering. I am trying to mediate a deadlocked dispute.

I kindly ask everybody else to be brief.--Mbuk 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I kindly ask you to read past discussions and stop posting the issues to which many parties have responded. Your dissatisfaction with the outcome doesn't give you a right to start another circle of endless arguing. Discussion is up there. Quote from the answers and the outcome of how they are not met in the text, check the edit history, be brief and specific, provide links and diffs. --Irpen 21:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No regulations in modern Russia ?
I was surprised to read in the "Modern Russia" section that: 'there was no control over how high new buildings should be'. Is this really true that there are no regulations as the the height of the buildings in Russia ? Can this be verified that Moscow indeed does not have an equivalent of a city architect office and there are no building planning regulations ? --Lysytalk 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it is not at all like that, but the new high rise skyscrapers have recentely created numberous scandals. Here is am emporis link, I assume that should be there somewhere. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 16:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to resolve the dispute
I propose try once more to resolve the dispute. The solution was proposed a long time ago. If you disagree with this proposal please propose another solution. But please do not remove the dispute tag. This does not help to solve the problem and it is against the WP policy.

Plese have a look at the article Architecture of the United States. There is definitely cultural inheritance between the British Empire and the United States. And this is seen in the architecture American_architecture. But the article Architecture of the United States describes the buildings located in US, rathe those located in England.

Let's follow the same standards in the present article.--AndriyK 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a difference. Unlike the architecture of England (which no one has ever claimed as American), there are people who consider the architecture of Kievan Rus' Russian (and even consider Kievan Rus' "Ancient Russia"). How do you propose to sidestep this? --Tēlex 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto that, it is like a double standard he has with Ukrainization. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is like two meanings of the word "Russian". One meaning is "of Russia" another meaning is "of Kievan Rus'". The latter is not found in dictionaries but sometimes used in literature.
 * There is usual way how to deal with multiple word meaning. This is disabiguatin. Combining to entities in one articles especially if they are refered to by identical or similar names is highly misleading and should be avoided.--AndriyK 15:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (responding to RfC) Andriyk, could you please point me at an outside reference which confirms the different POV? --Elonka 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the definition of the word "Russian" in "Dictionary of Contemporary English" Langenscheidt-Longman, 1978.
 * of or related to
 * the language and people of Russia
 * the chief language, language, people, and country of the USSR
 * Of cause, the second part of the definition is obsolete ;), but it does not include "of Kievan Rus'" anyway.
 * Most of modern scolars do not consider Kievan Rus' as "Ancient Russia", but rather as a different entity. I'll cite only western sources available in English.
 * For instance,
 * Orest Subtelny. Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 3rd edition (2000) ISBN 0-8020-8390-0.
 * Paul Robert Magocsi. A History of Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (1996) ISBN 0-8020-0830-5.
 * The linguisic studies confirmed that the Slavic tribes Polians and Siverians that populated, respectively, Kiev and Chernihiv, and the areas around them at the times of Kievan Rus were ancestors of present-day Ukrainians.
 * G.Y. Shevelov (1979). A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language.. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag. ISBN 3-533-02787-2.
 * (Other tribes (who populated the areas Novgorod, Vladimir-Suzdal, etc) were ancestors of Russians).
 * Therefore, classifying the architecture of ancient Kiev and Chernihiv as "Russian" is incorrect, or at least represents a POV that is not generaly recognized by the scientific community.--AndriyK 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You failed to address my concern that many people (especially in the West, and Russia or course), view Kievan Rus' as 'Russian', and they ever refer to it as Ancient Russia - it may be a fringe view, but it does widen the scope of the article. Furthermore, the issue of the present day Russians in Ukraine - aren't they Kievan Rus' inheritors? --Tēlex 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I did answer you that some people use the word "Russian" in two different meanings which shoud not be mixed in the same article to avoid misunderstanding.--AndriyK 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Andriyk, thanks for listing the books. Can you please point me at a specific paragraph or section?  Also, Telex, instead of saying "many people", could you please provide a specific reference?  Thanks. --Elonka 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In Subtelny's book, this Chap.1, "Rise and Decline of Kievan Rus".
 * In Magocsi's book, see Chap. 2 "Historical perceptions" inparticular the section "Russian historical viewpoint", where political motivations of certain historical concepts are disclosed. See also Chap.5-7 about Kievan Rus'.
 * In Shevelov's book Chap.1, inparticular Sec.4.


 * Here are links to sites about Russian architecture which do not refer to churche buildings of Kiev and Chernihiv ,.

"Ru arfchitecture is the architecture of the Russian federation" is a novel idea to treat the subject very different from the one used in books of the topic. Russian means not only the statehood. Tatar architecture isn't Russian architecture either. --Irpen 06:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This situation
Has an RfA or an RfC been filed for this article at anytime? TruthCrusader 09:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been one of the articles in question here: Requests for comment/Irpen. --Elonka 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article's RfC has been filed, comments were made and were accounted for (see talk and archives). That notwithstanding, everyone is invited to that user RfC. --Irpen 20:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Irpen is referring to this RfC from December 2005, which brought some comments in to the article's talk page: Talk:Russian_architecture/Archive. There was also a poll on whether or not certain types of architecture should be included in the category of "Russian" architecture, though there seems to have been some disagreement on the exact wording of the poll's question and whether or not it was the right thing to even be voting on.  I'm not sure if the poll's opponents suggested alternate wording (there's a lot of info there). --Elonka 00:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename
I suggest to rename the article to History of Russian architecture which should better match its actual content. (Any other suggestions ?) --Lysytalk 08:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but how do the other countries present this? --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 10:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Architecture in Russia? --Elonka 19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd suggest to split it into two: History of Russian architecture and Architecture in Russia as the current content of the article is a conglomerate of the two. --Lysytalk 20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Architecture of Russia" is no good. Kievan Rus' part is not architecture "of Russia" while it is part of the Russian architecture. "History of Russian Architecture", is less correct and redundant. We don't need to invent the byke here. Current title is good enough. --Irpen 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's not good, at it has risen much controversy (see article's history if in doubt). Why would "History of Russian Architecture" be less correct and redundant ? It would help us avoid the endless disputes about what belongs to Russian architecture and what does not. --Lysytalk 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is fully within the trend how the topic is covered in the literature, see Talk:Russian_architecture. No matter what, there would always be some who are unhappy, similar to those who deny the Holocaust, no matter how well is the latter documented. The disputes on what belongs to RA and what doesn't should not be settled in WIkipedia, which just summarized what's settled elsewhere. NPOV should not be confused to giving an equal credence to fringe ideas outside of the field's established scholarship. More soon... --Irpen 00:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lysy, what do you think of History of architecture in Russia? --Elonka 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support it as well. I believe that a rename that would help keeping the article focused would also reduce the number of controversies that currently plague the article. Right now its title suffers from being vague, and could encompass not only the history of architecture in Russia, but also Russian architecture in other countries, foreign architecture in Russia but also "geography or Russian architecture", "features of Russian architecture" and many more. Right now its content, describing different periods in history warrants the "history" title only, and I believe it's best if the title reflects the content, as the subject is huge and the article is quite long already and expected to grow. --Lysytalk 07:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother replying to this page as long as Lysy is busily trolling here, yet I feel obliged to point out, that whatever his grudge against anything Russian is, we have the articles named Bosnian architecture, Iranian architecture, Chinese architecture, Japanese architecture, Indian architecture, Hawaiian architecture, etc, etc. Please sort these out and then return here. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you brought these other examples here. Take a look at them and you'll see that they actually deal with architecture of Bosnia, Iran, China etc, while this here is concerned about the history of Russian architecture. It's even structured this way. I should also note here that I don't appreciate your calling my asking here "trolling". I've asked in the talk page instead of formally requesting the rename to see if there's any controversy to move it, as with a consensus we could avoid the burden of formal voting. --Lysytalk 07:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would actually support renaming too. It indeed could solve the controversy over the scope, though the difference might be to subtle for the edit warriors to stop warring. On the other hand I think the issue of the name is a minor that the main author should decide. If Ghirlandajo (who happens to be the main author) would object, I would not press him. (edit conflict) abakharev 07:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Ghirlandajo did object and for me this the end of my support of the renaming. The argument about consistency seems with all the other titles seems to be a valid here. On the other hand I see no trolling in the renaming proposal abakharev 07:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alex, please compare the contents of the articles and you'll see the difference. The title should best reflect the content of the article. The rationale behind the movement to rename or split the article was not to do any harm to the article but to reduce or isolate some of the edit-warring it suffers from. As to the argument that Ghirlandajo did object, with all due respect, wikipedia is a collaborative project and decisions are taken by consensus, not individual editors, regardless of how nice they are. I'm sure you'd agree with that. --Lysytalk 07:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at the examples Architecture_of_the_United_States and Architecture of the United Kingdom. Why not to rename it as Architecture of the Russian Federation?--AndriyK 09:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is NOT about architecture of the Russian Federation. It says nothing about the Sassanian fortress at Derbent, the Tatar architecture, Königsberg Cathedral, Vyborg Castle, etc, etc. The article chronicles the development of Russian architecture only. Architecture of the United Kingdom, on the contrary, briefly traces the development of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish traditions. As for the Architecture_of_the_United_States, what is the alternative - American architecture? That would have been highly misleading. -- Ghirla -трёп-  09:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ghirlandajo. The Architecture of the Russian Federation article could be spawned from this one, but so far the content here is primarily limited to the History of Russian architecture. Therefore I suggested the rename and the Architecture in Russia could be a separate article, if one is needed. --Lysytalk 11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, that the article Russian architecture may exist along with Architecture of the Russian Federation or (Architecture in Russia) but the scope of Russian architecture is a very controversial subject.
 * Does architecture of Kievan Rus belong to the scope?
 * Is Stalinist architecture "Russian"? Or it is "Soviet"?
 * I listed above a couple of books that propose the opposite view to that of the present version of the article concerning the Kievan Rus. I am sure, one can find planty of sources that classify Stalinist architecture as "Soviet" rather than "Russian". How to reconcile these different views in a single article?--AndriyK 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not have both views in the same article? Add a section like "Alternative viewpoint".  As long as it is well-referenced, this would be appropriate, and would probably make for a stronger article, too.  See Neutral point of view. --Elonka 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's palace in Warsaw
Why was the image of Stalin's Palace in Warsaw removed and replaced with Moscow State University ? It is important to illustrate that Russian architecture blossomed outside Russia as well. --Lysytalk 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet the article is titled Russian Architecture. Fact is Stalinist Architecture is not entirely Russian, and yes that goes beyond Russia, however this is a historical article about the architectural development IN RUSSIA, which includes all of the states that have been part of it e.g. Kievan Rus, Moscovian Rus, Imperial Russia, USSR and Russian Federation. Alexander Nevsky's cathedral in Warsaw would fully fit in to this article. Palace of Culture, no. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the Russian architecture is not limited to Russia only. The architecture is not about "architecture in Russia", but about "Russian architecture", regardless of what country enjoyed it. As for Warsaw, I think that both Alexander Nevsky's cathedral and Palace of Culture fit, as they were both fruits of Russian architects and also constructed by Russians. The latter was officially labeled a gift of Stalin to people of Warsaw. Nothing to be ashamed of. --Lysytalk 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not ashamed of this, but find a better image, and b) the section is meant to be brief anyway as sooner or later all headings will have main article:whatever, thus I should not see why a building that was actually built in Polish baroque external style rather than the more Neo-classic/Russo-gothic styles that are seen on most of the buildings in the USSR. The Alexander Nevsky cathedral on the other hand was a pure Russo-Byzantine construction --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 22:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh, Polish baroque style ? Nevertheless, unmistakably a fruit of Russian design, whatever the author chose to call his style. There are plenty of other photos of this building. I'd be happy to substitute this one with another but what do you find wrong about it ? The photo is much sharper than Image:Russia-Moscow-Moscow State University.jpg or Image:Whitehouse moscow april 2006.JPG that you've just included. --Lysytalk 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to the trend of Polonizing Russian topics just for the sake of it. Either be it persisting with Poland being mentioned in the lead section of Catherine's and Suvorov's articles, overemphasizing of Poland in Pushkin and Soviet partisans, etc. OTOH, Stalinist architectrue needs illustrated. If the building in Warsaw is the better illustration than the building in Moscow, so be it. If, OTOH, the only reason to introduce the image of the Warsaw building is to grind one's axe, sorry, use other articles for that. --Irpen 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless Lysy stops putting Polish images here and there, I will split the last section into Soviet architecture. There the passage about Kreschatyk will go. Take care, Ghirla  -трёп-  07:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Irpen, take a deep breath and read what you've just written. You object it because it was built in Poland. We know about Ghirlandajo's persistent polonophobia but ask yourself if you are not a bit polonophobic yourself ? You would not mind if the building was erected in Hungary or Ukraine, but you claim that the fact that it is in Poland is enough to question it being mentioned even in the image caption. As you can imagine, after Poland regained its independence in 1989, most in the country wanted to see the building destroyed as it was perceived as a symbol of Russian or Soviet oppression. Its architectural qualities were however appreciated, and it did not share the fate of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral. Now, are you aware of another masterpiece of Russian architecture, of a similar scale built abroad ? Is it not unique that such a large structure was not only designed by a prominent Russian architect but also built by Russian workers in a foreign country ? This fact alone warrants it to be prominently mentioned in an article about history of Russian architecture, not only in the image caption. Or would you prefer the article to be limited to the territory of Russia only and not include other dependent or occupied countries ? --Lysytalk 07:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, I would not object just because it was built in Poland and I won't even bother responding to a Polonophobia accusations nonsense. Look at your own post to begin with. Molobo-like catch phrase about "Poland's regaining independence in 1989" makes the whole thing look suspicious and if this was posted by a newbie, I would not even respond to a message containing such an obviousy telling sign. Or are you saying the Nevsky cathedral lacked artistic qualities and that's why it was destroyed?

I would object only if one image is pushed against the others solely for the sake of having a Polish issue prominent in one more Russian article when this is not warranted. We need an image illustrating a Stalinist neo-classicism. On that I agree. Perhaps the best known in Poland example of that style is the Palace of culture. I can take it and I can see the image in the Rosyjska architektura However, the best known in the world example of it are the seven Moscow sky-scrapers originally planned for the Stalin's 70th birthday. Of those 7 buildings, the Moscow State University is the most prominent one. If we have a good enough image of it, this should illustrate the style, rather that the Warsaw building. The latter has its own article and the image can be used in other articles too. If it was indeed the most prominent and most illustrative example of the style, I would not have objected to it of course. I don't care where it is. There are plenty of the examples of this style outside of Russia and of the huge scale too.

Kiev is full of similar scale Soviet architecture examples. The neo-classical Hotel Ukrayina (formerly Hotel Moskva) in Kiev, much of the original Kiev Metro complex, the entire Kreschatyk street ensemble. Similar is the Gosprom building and the ensemble of the Freedom Square in Kharkiv. These all details belong to the Soviet architecture article as well as to the articles on the individual objects, Stalinist architecture and some others.
 * Well talk about Hotel Ukrayina, it is in my Sb, User:Kuban kazak/Hotel Ukrayina. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 10:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Political aspect belongs to some Polish article, not sure that it is History of Poland but perhaps, Soviet occupational policies in post-war Poland (just ask Molobo to post a draft at his talk to start this up). --Irpen 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, if the article is to be limited to architecture in Russia only, so be it. I believe that your off-topic remarks regarding Polish independence and Molobo do not belong here and it was not your intention to discuss it in this talk page. Since the article lacked an illustration of Stalinist style for months and nobody cared, I attempted to add one that I considered interesting. That made Russian editors immediately jump at their guns, the picture got removed and replaced on the spot by other photos by Russian editors without any explanation and you accused me of "Polonizing" Russian article. While I believe it had a good value of informing of Russian architecture in other countries, I'm not pushing to have the picture displayed as it obviously  triggered some negative emotions of several Russian editors, that I do not understand.
 * Just for the record: I have no doubt that many Stalinist buildings exist throughout the ex-USSR countries, Ukraine included. Also in Warsaw there is whole district build in this style, which is not suprising if you consider that Warsaw was razed after the fall of Warsaw Uprizing, but it was built by Poles themselves. The Palace however is notable in that it was not only designed by a Russian architect but also constructed by Russian engineers and workers. The whole set of blocks created to house them exists in Warsaw until today. The palace documents that Russian architecture existed not only in Russian or Soviet Union (like Hotel Ukrayina) but in other countries as well.
 * As for your accusation of my pushing Polish issues, firstly, it was not me who pushed, as explained above. Secondly, rest assured that no Polish nationalist would like to see this building mentioned at all, and certainly not as a prominent example of Russian architecture, as they would want to have it destroyed in the first place. --Lysytalk 11:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the article is to be limited to architecture in Russia only, then the biuldings in Kiev and Chernihiv are irrelevant.--AndriyK 12:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, the point is not to limit the article to the architecture of Russia only but to have it illustrated in the best possible way. The MSU building fits better as a single illustration of the style, especially considering that a separate Stalinist architecture article already exists, along with the palase article, and Soviet architecture is being considered. OT remark about Polish independence was yours and not mine. I did not accuse you in the Polish nationalism. I simply called a trend of overemphasizing the Polish issues in Russia-related articles by its name. Has the palace been the most prominent example of the style, I would not have objected to it. Reread my past post. --Irpen 19:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While certainly there would be better pictures of Stalinist architecture in general, I still believe that the palace in Warsaw is a good illustration of Russian architecture outside Soviet Union. However, as I wrotea earlier, since the fact that there was Russian architecture outside Russia seems to irritate certain Russian editors, whose reaction was immediate deletion of the picture, I'm not going to press for this picture to be included. I'm however upset that you've accused me of "Polonizing" the Russian article, while all I did was adding the illustration, which even you agreed was relevant (even if you considered it worth replacing). Anyway, I think the case of the image is closed, regardless of the bitter aftertaste. --Lysytalk 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, yet again, I do not object to the Polish issues being revealed in non-Polish articles in cases they belong there and in amount that is reasonable. I object to pushing them excessively. I remember someone complaining that how come the word "Poland" is not mentioned in the intro (!) of the Catherine article. That's Polonization: pushing it into the lead. Of course the mention of partitions within the article itself is warranted. Same was the Soviet partisans article when the section on the actions in PL was added despite the material naturally belonged to UA, BE, LT sections where it was covered already (still, their action in the former SPR territories is a legitimate angle and I am all for the existence of Soviet partisans in Poland article, perhaps with the chagned name). Same here, Warsaw palace being the only illustration of the style in such a general article made no sense. With the presense of the palace article, the Stalinist architecture and others, what we need here is a single illustration of the style tops. --Irpen 21:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise version
I think the present version (of 09:53, 5 July 2006) is a reasonable compromise. If somebody disagree, please discuss it in the talk instead of immediate revert. You may also consider adding a tag to the present version if you find it unnneutral.--AndriyK 09:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Blanking is no compromise, why not write Ukrainian Architecture and then return to this one? --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Romanov Flag.svg|25px|]] 11:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A yawing gap
Thus far the article is purely about monumental architecture. There nothing about vernacular architecture. That is suprising considering that most people don't live or work in monuments! --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Where's Saint Petersburg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.152.109 (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not the first one raising this concern. It's a whole different world, and a very fragmented one. Some parts (i.e. the Pomor housing) are well documented (and available through classic architecture textbooks and modern authors' books), others are "yawing gaps" themselves (the studies are locked up at the MUAR and not available to general public). So while it is possible to concisely reproduce the classic textbook version of vernacular architecture, it will be heavily biased towards the North, and anything south from Yaroslavl will rely on WP:OR or WP:SYN or be removed. NVO (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that the definition of article as Russian architecture, taken literally, prohibits inclusion of vernacular architecture of the Caucasus and the Ukrainian elements abundant in Russian South, the Islamic art of the Volga region, the Buddhist architecture etc. - as I said, it's a wide world. Do they all belong here? NVO (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance architecture in Russia
I have remove part of this from the article Renaissance architecture because it was much longer than the brief paragraphs on every other country. It should be incorporated into this article. I will make a link. I observe that the section on this period is very scant when it comes to the names of known architects. This needs to be remedied.

Russia
''Prince Ivan III introduced Renaissance architecture to Russia by inviting a number of architects from Italy, who brought new construction techniques and some Renaissance style elements with them, while in general following the traditional designs of the Russian architecture. In 1475 the Bolognese architect Aristotele Fioravanti came to rebuild the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Moscow Kremlin, damaged in an earthquake. Fioravanti was given the 12th-century Vladimir Cathedral as a model, and produced a design combining traditional Russian style with a Renaissance sense of spaciousness, proportion and symmetry.''

''In 1485 Ivan III commissioned the building of a royal Terem Palace within the Kremlin, with Aloisio da Milano being the architect of the first three floors. Aloisio da Milano, as well as the other Italian architects, also greatly contributed to the construction of the Kremlin walls and towers. The small banqueting hall of the Russian Tsars, called the Palace of Facets because of its facetted upper story, is the work of two Italians, Marco Ruffo and Pietro Solario, and shows a more Italian style. In 1505, an Italian known in Russia as Aleviz Novyi or Aleviz Fryazin arrived in Moscow. He may have been the Venetian sculptor, Alevisio Lamberti da Montagne. He built 12 churches for Ivan III, including the Cathedral of the Archangel, a building remarkable for the successful blending of Russian tradition, Orthodox requirements and Renaissance style. It is believed that the Cathedral of the Metropolitan Peter in Vysokopetrovsky Monastery, another work of Aleviz Novyi, later served as an inspiration for the so called octagon-on-tetragon architectural form in the Moscow Baroque of the late 17th century.''

''Between the early 16th and the late 17th centuries, however, an original tradition of stone tented roof architecture had been developed in Russia. It was quite unique and different from the contemporary Renaissance architecture elsewhere in Europe, though some researches call that style 'Russian Gothic' and compare it with the European Gothic architecture of the earlier period. The Italians, with their advanced technology, may have influenced the appearance of the stone tented roof in Russia (the wooden tents were known in Russia and Europe long before). According to one hypothesis, an Italian architect called Petrok Maly may have been an author of the Ascension Church in Kolomenskoye, one of the earliest and most prominent tented roof churches.'' Amandajm (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)