Revision as of 21:09, 20 June 2006 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits restored the talk page content, the message was not a personal attack and cannot be removed. It is realted to AGF or lack of GF claim← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:46, 21 June 2006 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
::Because I respect WP policies, in particular, ] and ].--] 12:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | ::Because I respect WP policies, in particular, ] and ].--] 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... --] ] 17:43, 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... --] ] 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.--] 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. --] 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
== 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 . 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.--] 21:21, 20 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. --] 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:46, 21 June 2006
Architecture Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Problems with the article
- This article is not suitable as an encyclopaedia article, as it is in violation of Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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. Ëvilphoenix 16:30, August 12, 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 ( 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 ( 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 . . . ", 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)
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)
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)
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...
--Kuban Cossack 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Unexplained tag insertion
I see that AndriyK's mission after the return to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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#Wikipedia_Rules_and_Regulations --AndriyK 08:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- There was a vote, a poll which culminated in DROPPING the issue permanentely Talk:Russian architecture/Archive#Survey 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 10:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Read what you moved in archive Talk:Russian_architecture/Archive#Wikipedia_Rules_and_Regulations --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 11:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Read what you moved in archive Talk:Russian_architecture/Archive#Wikipedia_Rules_and_Regulations --AndriyK 10:58, 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 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) 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
- 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)
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 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)
- A dispute is settled if
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)
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
Oppose
- This dispute is settled. Provalivay svidomyi Kuban Cossack 16:42, 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 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)
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)
- 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)