Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia naming issue

Russia naming issue

Found in the cleanup backlog: an unsourced, NPOV, possibly original research article claiming a conspiracy to rename Russia as Muscovy. Unencyclopedic. Merge anything verifiable to Etymology of Rus and derivatives and delete. Alba 18:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—this seems to be a troll: nothing of merit here, unless someone wants to find references in support of a few facts in the timeline. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 18:25 Z
Indeed, the name of Russia predated the name of Muscovy in the western tradition, however unhappy our Polish and Ukrainian friends may feel about the fact. Yet the wording of the article is POVish. It needs to be NPOVed and wikified, that's all. So keep and expand on the model of Name of Ukraine. Or perhaps eventually merge to Etymology of Rus and derivatives? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and cleanup, perhaps merge, but POV problems is not a reason for deletion. Factual information on timeline is totally correct and useful. Interpretations are presented in a partisan and argumentive form. Needs cleanup but not the deletion. --Irpen 19:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Ghirla - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone promises to dePOV, reference, and/or re-write it altogether. If nothing much is left after such a re-write, then merge salvageable parts to Etymology of Rus and derivatives.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --Kerowyn 00:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced POV fork. If there's anything verifiable in there, it should be part of the Russia article. Robin Johnson 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Despite the fact that there may be some correct facts in this article, I see no basis for the existence of the article itself. Just for the record, can someone state in a neutrally-worded sentence or two, what exactly is the "Russia naming issue"? Citation of at least one respectable source would help, too. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 19:29 Z

The issue is the existance of the claim that the self-appelation of the "Rus" rooted names (Russia, Rossia, Rus' Velikaya, etc) was "stolen" by the "Muscovites" for the political purposes, that the "correct" names were and remain only Muscovites and Muscovy (which I don't disagree, these were also correct names) and the Russia and Rus' are incorrect and stolen. That "they" "stole" or "attempted to steal" or "to monopolize" the legacy of Rus', that ony we (whatever it means) are related to Rus' and Muscovites owe their legacy only to Mongolic or Finno-Ugric tribes, that "we are more Rus'ian" then them" (see this article in Ukrainian or in Russian for a good review).

Finally, if you go to uk-wiki, you can find users who deny to call Russin things as "Russian" even today and agree to only call it Muscovite (see this). --Irpen 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this article is about a particular rhetorical stance used in a debate about the lineage or "legitimacy" of the Ukrainian and Russian nations? Does it really justify more than a mention in etymology of Rus'? Perhaps it is part of a larger topic about the rhetoric of national self-importance?

I just don't see the merit of analyzing a name-calling match in too much detail. English-language historians tend to document the etymology and usage of names like Rus’, Russia, etc, and the social and political histories of the peoples involved. They may mention that some argument features prominently in somebody's national rhetoric, perhaps mentioning prominent scholars who have held particular related views, but stay well away from evaluating the relative merits of such arguments, as, I think, should we. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 20:27 Z

All I am saying is that this is a valid issue and such cleaned up article will not harm and will cover a legitimate, although a rhetorical, point. I think it doesn't qualify for AfD. I would consider the etymology article much more important. Note that both were started by the same user (now seem retired) rather than some troll. --Irpen 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone would rewrite this so it doesn't sound like someone's personal grudge, then I may change my vote. But as currently written, it's not a suitable article. —Michael Z. 2006-03-20 23:16 Z

Until then it should be POVed with a tag that I find totally justifiable. However, the POVish presentation in itself is the reason for correction and not deletion provided that the topic is legitimate. --Irpen 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]