Talk:Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality

Concept
I feel that this article is necessary, because the term "Narodnost" is only marginally corresponds to its translations, "Nationality", "Nationalism", and hence requires explanations. I cannot do this right now. It is also quite possible that a better translation exists. Mikkalai 17:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Recently, I happened to re-read a collection of letters by Dostoyevskiy. He was an ardent supporter of this motto and I think he explained his adherence to it somewhere. The thing could be added, though I can't recall any citations right now.--Constanz - Talk 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the article lists the terms in the wrong order. It is "Pravoslavie, Samoderzhavie i Narodnost'" Since it is an established phrase, we cannot rephrase it by changing the word order. So, the article needs moved. Just FYI: there is a Britannica article on the subject.

As for the translation of "Narodnost'", I am not sure either. Both Nationality (used by EB) and National Character (suggested by Mikka) are not quite exact. Perhaps "National Ethos"? Or another alternative is Pravoslaviye, Samoderzhaviye, I Narodnost, which also has a disatvantage, obviously.

Let's decide on this now since the article needs moved anyway because of the wrong word order. --Irpen 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Has been a while. Where should I move it? --Irpen 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Narodnost is difficult to translate, and any translation has its disadvantages. So perhaps leave it at National Character? That would mean changing the title to Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and National Character. Er rab ee 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Before any move please provide a contemporary (ie 19th century) reference. In modern texts I saw both variants. Judging from the Imperial Russian constitution I have reasonable doubs that "Autocracy" is on the second place. `'mikka 19:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Граф Сергей Уваров

Православие, Самодержавие, Народность О некоторых общих началах, могущих служить руководством при управлении Министерством народного просвещения

Доложено Его Величеству 19 ноября 1833 г.

По вступлению моему с высочайшего Вашего Императорского Величества повеления в должность Министра народного просвещения, употребил я, так сказать, заглавным, местом, лозунгом моего управления, следующие выражения: "Народное воспитание должно совершаться в соединенном духе Православия, Самодержавия и Народности"...

I think it settles it. Moving? --Irpen 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

this is exactly the same thing as Official Nationality, right?
I'm going to redirect one of them.P4k (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's almost the same thing. Official Nationality is one of three principles.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Untranslateble Russian words

 * There is some strange claim in the article - "Narodnost is not translatable, and it means something different."

In fact the word Narodnost itself appeared in Russian as translation of French term fr:Nationalité and with regard to the similar Polish term pl:Narodowość. And it means exactly the same as english words Nationalism and Populism.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So it means exactly the same thing as two English words with completely different meanings. This is a good demonstration of why it's accurate to say that Narodnost has no (single) English equivalent. Saying that a word's meaning is lost or altered in translation is not some mystical, obscurantist claim. The fact that it was originally a translation from French is irrelevant. In any case replacing cited content with uncited content is rarely justifiable. Why am I supposed to take your word over that of the authors I cited?P4k (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway fuck it. I'm mad but what you wrote is probably not wrong so the article can just incorporate all this information.P4k (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that a word's meaning is lost is OK when it is really lost, which is certainly not the case with Narodnost. Narodnost has direct English equivalents. As for authors your cited, Radzinsky is not a reputable historian but a TV personality.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether he's a reputable historian or not. The book meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, it isn't really our job to evaluate people's qualifications beyond a very minimal level.  If you don't think he's reputable then leave out that sentence; what about the two other sentences you deleted?
 * One more thing. Russian is not some obscure language. Claims that some russian words has no equivalents and are not traslatable to other languages usually appear when author wants to push some biased view on Russia. In the case with Narodnost it is very simple. This biased view is "French or Polish nationalism, or nationalism of some other nation is good, but Russian nationalism is utterly different thing and Russian nationalism is very bad".DonaldDuck (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK.  If you don't want the article to say that it has no equivalent in English, it won't.  What about the two other sentences you deleted?P4k (talk)

Hedlund writes that it "really means something like a spirit of fusion or of closeseness with the narod, the 'ordinary people,' rather than a sense of belonging to a particular natsiya, or 'nation.
 * I think it is already adequately described by the term Populism. "Populism is a discourse which supports "the people" versus "the elites".

Miller states that it "did not directly signify national identity but reflected the feeling of affiliation of the people to Orthodoxy and the Tsar." -
 * Basically, Miller states that the third part of Uvarov's formula is just the supporting point for the first two points - Autocracy and Orthodoxy. Then why there are three points and not just two? Nationality is not less important for Uvarov then two other points.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful correctness of the translation
I do not think that the translation is close, exactly like the disclosure of the problems that Uvarov formulated. Theory «Pravoslaviye, samoderzhaviye, narodnost'» has a completely different semantic meaning.
 * Pravoslaviye − the people in Russia are religious and respect the clergy on a par with state power. Religion can solve issues that cannot be resolved by the samoderzhaviye;
 * Samoderzhaviye − Uvarov sincerely believed that the Russian people did not share such notions as “tsar” and “country”. For people, this is all one, guaranteeing happiness, strength and glory;
 * Narodnost'  − the basis of Russia lies in the unity of all nations.

First, I suggest leaving transliteration. Semantic meaning is lost during translation absolutely.

Or the second option is the revision of the article, but then we need a discussion about which interpretation of Uvarov’s words is more accurate. MarcusTraianus (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinion
This is a very important article, which is full of unfortunate things such as this: “ Briefly speaking, Uvarov tried to deprive education of its most important integral part: an analytical and critical approach to an environment (specifically to the political environment).” Is it really the function of a wikipedia article to pronounce the “most important integral part” of education? Could someone with expertise suited to the task please edit this stuff? 147.160.131.20 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Anti-absolutist autocracy?
I fail to see how and ideology of autocracy can be described as anti-absolutist. If anyone can provide a rationale, please do so and reinstate the word.

Slavophiles, in particular, accepted the anti-European, anti-absolutist, paternalistic side of the doctrine. Tjobrien.seoul (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)