Talk:Ringing Cedars' Anastasianism/Archive 1

Unreliable sources
I translated the page from scratch from the Russian article. I have omitted sections related to Russian Orthodox Church since they may have little importance outside Russian wikipedia. A lot of statements, namely, related to Rodnovers were inaccurate and have no basis in the Russian sources. Reonic (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources upon which the current version of the article is based are academic WP:RS, which are precisely what Wikipedia requires. On the contrary, the websites and forums of the movement itself are primary sources and they should not be used within Wikipedia.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to know which WP:RS uses the term "Anastasianism"? I can't find this term in any of them, only "Anastasians" is used. Reonic (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not play with words please: The real issue here is that the article was completely erased and replaced with a translation of its poor-quality Russian version. By the way, Anastasianism is the singular collective name for "Anastasians", and its Russian version Анастасианство is used throughout a variety of Russian websites.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you restored it. Why "Anastasianism" when it's not used? "Анастасианство" is not used in the Russian article and is a different word.Reonic (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Russian article is not a source for the English version, and Wikipedia is not a source in any case. This article builds upon: 1) academic sources for the content; 2) commonly used words for the terminology.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Returning to the question about whether to classify Anastasianism as Rodnovery or not. I have found and added a source (Gaidukov 2015) which explicitly separates Anastasianism from Rodnovery. Other scholars, such as Aitamurto 2016, do not treat them as separate movements. Some Ringing Cedars are undoubtedly Rodnovers (possibly most of them, as Aitamurto says in one of her writings), and this video published on 6 December 2016 (right one year ago), which presents the "kinship homestead" concept as a "Vedic" concept, contains glaring scenes of Rodnover rite and worship.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like the secondary source also separate Rodnovery. Reonic (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Ringing Cedars books and their readers are not a religion or an ideology. Truthseekereternal (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Name of article
The sources don't use the term "Anastasianism", in fact thes term is hardly used outside this article. uses the term "The Anastasia Movement" and "the Anastasians". Why not use them? Reonic (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do not play with words. To modern English conventions "The Anastasia Movement" and "the Anastasians" designate precisely the same phenomenon, and a capitalised term in a title ("The Anastasia Movement") does not constitute the name of a movement.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When searching in Google and DuckDuckGo the only place where "Anastasianism" is used is this article. Please, explain, which rule you are referring to by "do not play with words". Do you support renaming to "The Anastasia Movement" since the sources use "the Anastasia Movement"? Reonic (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No I do not support. The current title of the article presents the two most common names of the movement in Russia: Звенящие Кедры and Анастасианство / Анастасиизм. This is exhaustive enough and in line with rules.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree "Anastasianism" sounds strange and support changing the title to either "Ringing Cedars Movement" or "Anastasia Movement". I have been following the movement for four years and am myself what one may call "Anastasian" but have never come across the term "Anastasianism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangehues (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The term "Anastasianism" is misleading. Truthseekereternal (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Rodnoverie and the movement 'Anastasiya'

 * One of the source currently used says "A similar, although much bigger, organization, which is not part of the Rodnoverie movement but overlaps with it, is the movement ‘Anastasiya’ or the ‘Ringing Cedars of Russia’". However, the article says "Ringing Cedars' Anastasians are sometimes categorised as Rodnovers" quoting that very source. Is there a contradiction? Reonic (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Reonic (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia must rephrase the content of the sources it relies upon. Anastasianism overlaps with Rodovery, so Anastasians are sometimes classifiable as Rodnover.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"archetypal wise woman"

 * The article currently characterizes the main heroine as "archetypal wise woman". However, neither Aitamurto, nor Pranskevičiūtė use this term. What source is it base on? Reonic (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia must rephrase the content of the sources it relies upon. "Archetypal wise woman" is an exhaustive synthesis of all the characterisations that Anastasia has within the movement (sometimes she is referred to as a goddess, sometimes as a heroine, sometimes as a shamaness, etc.).--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Anastasia cannot be categorised as "archetypal wise woman" nor any other term - shamaness, goddess, recluse, hermit and so on. Just like the books that defy any genre, Anastasia is someone who defies any categorisation we may think of. --Orangehues —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, the article calls her a "deity". This is misleading and unrelated to anything in the book series. Truthseekereternal (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

 * The explanation of the etymology of the heroine's name "Anastasia" seems irrelevant to this article.Reonic (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Etymology of titles is treated in the very first chapters in many, if not most, articles of Wikipedia. The central figure of this movement is Anastasia, so it is worth giving the etymology of her name.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, "Anastasis" is Greek for "Resurrection" and is a central concept of the book series. Truthseekereternal (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

New section "Rodnovery and Anastasians"?

 * There is some discrepancy in the sources whether the Anastasians are a part of Rodnovery movement. Aitamurto 2016 even sayd "Many Rodnoverie publications warn their readers of the Anastasiyan movement...". It seems, there needs to be a separate section explaining all these opinions. Reonic (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be written, but at the moment the issue is already given a hint in the lede.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ringing cedars of Russia (book series)

 * A new article is needed probably reflecting the Russian article. There seems to be crucial differences between the series of books. E.g. Aitamurto 2016 asserts that "The religiosity of Megre’s book is very vague." still Balagushkin, E. G.; Shokhin, V. K. (2006) describe the movement as a new religious movement. Reonic (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The book series nor the readers are a new religious movement. Truthseekereternal (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

More sources
The Russian article uses the following sources: Can we consider them academic?Reonic (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.ecovillagenews.org/wiki/index.php/From_Russia_with_Love
 * http://www.ecovillagenewsletter.org/wiki/index.php/A_New_Anastasia_Village_in_the_Netherlands
 * No, they are not academic publications.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Influence and Scope of Movement
The article needs to describe the scope and size of this worldwide movement early on and prominently. This crucial information appears to be missing. This could be in terms of number of homestead settlements, number of homesteads, number of people living in these homesteads and/or the number of Russian dachniks (who may not have moved to settlements but are inspired by the movement nonetheless) it has influenced. Books sold could be another indicator of influence.--Orangehues (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Orangehues Truthseekereternal (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Practical Wisdom
The Ringing Cedars of Russia book series is about practical wisdom. It is not a religion. The title of this article includes the invented term "Anastasianism" which is misleading and incorrect. Describing Anastasia as a "diety" is also misleading. In the book series, Anastasia cries because people don't recognize her as a human woman. The book series seems to predict these types of misconceptions of the the book series. Please remove labels such as "Anastasianism" and "diety" from this article. Truthseekereternal (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Отец-и-сын.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Kalyada KR 2012 335.JPG