Talk:Slavic Native Faith

Article Size

This article needs to be cut down in size and consolidated. There is an overabundance of images, and many of the passages can be shortened. As it is now, the article is very long and tiresome to read, also difficult to navigate. First step would be to either remove the images or place them in a gallery. I may come back to this article in the future. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C63:89A8:5F35:7103 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This issue has been already discussed before (2020, 2021) and other editors agreed that there is no need of splitting the article: "The long is no problem at an online encyclopedy" (sic, editor DayakSibiriak, 2020) and "We do not measure the size of an article by the number of people who give a damn about the subject, but by whether there is valid, useful information that is well-sourced" (editor Ravenswing, 2021). "Too long" and "too detailed" are relative, and in any case Rodnovery (Slavic Neopaganism) is a big movement which covers all Eastern and Southeastern Europe, well documented in academic literature even in its tiny currents — and such abundant documentation testifies the importance of the topic. Moreover, as I myself already said before in some comment, I think that the practice of splitting articles is detrimental (though widespread in Wikipedia, alas!), as it produces incomplete side articles which tend to be forsaken and prey to unchecked vandalism. The current version of the article is well written and sourced but is by no means complete, as there are other important currents and aspects of the Rodnovery which need to be addressed, and the citations need to be re-organised so that each dotted sentence has its citation (currently they are mostly organised by paragraph). When the article will reach a more complete state, maybe we will consider splitting out and shrinking the section about "denominations". In any case, for short articles with few images, easy-to-read and easy-to-navigate, there is Simple English Wikipedia.--Æo (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Æo I disagee. This article is too long, per Wikipedia:Article size, which notes that at 15,000 words, articles "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", and in fact, suggests this as best practice for articles over 9k words. And our article here is at 21k. Doh. Of course, there is no need to delete anything - it just needs to be copied to a subarticle and summarized. A quick glance suggests some obvious, MoS-complaint subarticles, such as History of Slavic Native Faith, which could be made from copying the current history there, and than our history could be shortened by half if not more. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Splitting the article is a challenging task, because in each section there are references to the other sections. Furthermore, splitting out a section such as the historical one would still require making a summary of it to be left in the present article, consulting again all the sources. In the past, I had thought instead of splitting out the section about the denominations. I don't have time to actively contribute to Wikipedia at the moment, but in a few months I don't exclude returning back to work on the article. Æo (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I also agree that this article is too long, it impairs the ability of the reader to take in the information. It doesn't need to be trimmed, but split. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge from Slavic Native Faith and politics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds of WP:TOOLONG; support for the idea of improving both. Klbrain (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

---

We have this weird essayish subarticle, about - well, about Slavic Native Faith, really, because "and politics" is a very broad concept. This should be merged here (it has no interwikis and is effectivley a fork). Now, I realize this article is very long - too long - but we can split off and summarize proper subarticles such as Slavic_Native_Faith#History to History of Slavic Native Faith, etc. so lenght is not an issue (the problem is the existence of this weird fork). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: If the present article is already too long I don't see how it would be behoveful for it to be expanded with further material from another article. Moreover, the satellite article is already summarised in one of the subsections of the present article. Æo (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Æo FYI, if there is no merge, I intend to nominate that subarticle as for AfD, since it seems to me to be a fork of what we have here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Both the actual article and politics one are chock-full of dubious information based primarily on "look at this crazy thing Alexey Dobrovolsky did!". Improve both and keep seperate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeaponizingArchitecture (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Problem with Scott Simpson's Source: Plain and Simple

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is a huge, long-standing misinterpretation of Scott Simpson's work in this article. Some editors have been pushing an incorrect narrative about the word "Rodnovery" for years. Let’s make it completely clear:

1. What the Wikipedia article claims: The article implies that Scott Simpson uses the term "Rodnovery" as a general name for all Slavic Native Faith movements, inside and outside of Russia.
2. What Scott Simpson’s book actually says: Scott Simpson uses the term "Rodnovery" ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY in the Russian context. He does not expand this specific term to other Slavic countries in the way this article suggests.

Linguistic and Historical Manipulation

Using vague and pseudo-scientific phrasing like "comes from a Slavic language" to bypass the specific Russian origin of the word is pure linguistic and historical manipulation. There is no single modern "Slavic language"—there are specific languages (like Russian, Polish, or Ukrainian).

Discussing a unified "Slavic language" community makes sense only in the context of Proto-Slavic times, centuries ago. Furthermore, there is absolutely zero source evidence that anyone in that distant past—or anytime before the 19th/20th century—ever used the modern term Rodnoverye. Hiding the factual Russian context behind an amorphous "Slavic language" umbrella is an error that has no place in an article aspiring to be academic or scientific.

Chronology and Evolution of the Term: From Sylenko to the Rest of the Slavic World

If we look at Scott Simpson's actual research, he demonstrates that the modern English umbrella term "Slavic Native Faith" actually traces its historical roots back to the Ukrainian religious movement of RUNVIRA.

Simpson establishes a clear chronological order for the movement's evolution:

• The Pioneer (RUNVira): The pioneering movement was founded in the mid-1960s by a Ukrainian diaspora figure, Lev Sylenko, who established RUNVira (Рідна Українська Національна Віра – Native Ukrainian National Faith). Sylenko attempted to create a monotheistic system based on pre-Christian Slavic beliefs and deliberately coined and used the term "Native Faith" (Рідна Віра). Chronologically, this was the very first organized movement in the modern context of Slavic pagan revival.
• The Ukrainian Polytheists: Later on, contemporary Ukrainian polytheistic groups—who drew their lineage from the earlier philosophical ideas of Volodymyr Shaian—borrowed and adopted the term "Native Faith" (Рідна Віра) directly from Sylenko’s movement.
• Slavic Adaptations: It was only after these contemporary Ukrainian polytheists popularized the phrase that analogous movements from other Slavic nations adapted and translated this concept into their own national and regional contexts.

This complex historical reality and Ukrainian lineage cannot be retroactively hijacked and overwritten by a generalized Russian terminological umbrella like Rodnovery.

A long-ignored systemic issue

This problem is not new. Users have been flagging this distortion of facts on this Talk Page for years, and this unacceptable state of affairs has been dragged out for over a decade and then some. It is a textbook example of a hidden error that has been intentionally ignored by a small group of editors who treat this page as their own property.

Why keeping this error is dangerous (Citogenesis / Circular Reporting)

Because this lie has been sitting in this article for years, it has triggered citogenesis. Random bloggers, journalists, and amateur writers are now copying this exact mistake from Wikipedia and pasting it into their own articles.

• Wikipedia created a fake fact.
• The internet is now repeating this fake fact.
• This needs to stop. Wikipedia must reflect the actual source, not a distorted version of it.

To the editors blocking the fix:

You are directly harming the credibility of Wikipedia. Defending a claim that clearly just because you like how it sounds goes against everything this platform stands for.

Show the exact quote and page number where Simpson uses "Rodnovery" for non-Russian groups. If you cannot provide the exact quote, such claim is not factual. It must be changed or removed immediately. Stop ignoring the facts and stop damaging Wikipedia's integrity. MrFixItASAP (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Propaganda-like Promotion of form "Rodnovery" and Systemic Bias

In its current state, this article reads less like a neutral academic entry and more like a total puff piece designed to aggressively promote the term "Rodnovery". The way this article is structured strongly suggests that certain editors are intentionally pushing this specific word into the mainstream global vocabulary, while completely ignoring or erasing other regional forms.

This is not a new pattern of behavior. As the Talk Page history clearly shows—with documented complaints and comments dating all the way back to 2014—there has been a systematic effort on this page to delete, downplay, or remove legitimate terminology and loanwords originating from any language other than Russian.

Actively erasing non-Russian Slavic terms for over a decade while manufacturing an artificial supremacy for one specific regional loanword is a severe breach of Wikipedia's core principles. This is not objective editing; it looks like a coordinated ideological push to monopolize the terminology of the entire movement. MrFixItASAP (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Chronology and source verification in the Terminology section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Terminology" section be revised regarding the historical origins of the movement's names?14:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

User:MrFixItASAP blocked Dw31415 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: Keep the current wording (which uses the vague phrase "comes from a Slavic language" to obscure the Russian origin of term "Rodnovery" and completely omits the Ukrainian chronological roots).
• Option B: Revise the text to explicitly state the historical priority of the Ukrainian diaspora movements (RUNVira / Ridna Vira) and remove the fabricated "Slavic language" claim currently attributed to Simpson.

Prior discussion Talk:Slavic Native Faith#The Problem with Scott Simpson's Source: Plain and Simple

Survey (Terminology)

• Comment: What's the actual dispute? I don't see any opposition to the change in the previous discussion. I revised to question to comply with the requirement that the question is neutral. (summoned by bot) Dw31415 (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  Most recent discussion sections:

  • Manipulation of facts about origin of term "Rodnovery"

  See archived Talk Page discussions sections to see that push been around for a while:

  • First instance of someone noticing problem: Name
  • This article is a battlefield - deletions of references and alternative names
  • Move
  • Did "Rodnovery" enter English from Russian? And how widespread is it really outside Internet articles based on this Wikipedia page?

  There is also evidence of reverts of changes addressing mentioned issues in history if you look for user names of accounts and IPs bringing issues to light. MrFixItASAP (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  I can also add that article uses term "Rodnover[y]" about 440 times. Often many times in a row in sentences following each other. It looks very strange especially given that book of Simpson does not support claims about both it's origin and it's wide spread that initial section of article makes. It's a case of . MrFixItASAP (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy Close/Bad RFC: This is blatantly LLM-written and there's no discussion or evidence of an ongoing dispute. This appears to be the case of someone deciding to be mad about something, and going straight to a poorly supported RFC. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm having very hard time understanding your motivation behind writing so many posts that I shall be banned and showing no interest in what I actually have to say on the issue that been noticed many times on span of well, it looks like almost well over a decade with first symptoms visible on Talk Page as far back as 18 years ago. MrFixItASAP (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  Request WP:NOTHERE block. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 16:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hmmm, what is your motivation? MrFixItASAP (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  In the off-chance that this RFC actually remains open, Option A. The quoted text "comes from a Slavic language" appears absolutely nowhere in the English article, as far as I can tell. Note 8 is sufficiently detailed for the etymology and is far more than "comes from a Slavic language." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

  Citation: The term is derived from the Proto-Slavic roots *rod (род), which means anything which is "indigenous", "ancestral" and "native", also "genus", "generation", "kin", "race" (e.g. Russian родная rodnaya or родной rodnoy), and is also the name of the universe's supreme god according to Slavic knowledge; and *vera, which means "faith", "religion".[6]

  Where [6] is referring to Simpson & Filip 2013, p. 36. The problem is that book explicitly states something different. As mentioned early on Tlak Page it states that term originated from Ukrainian term "Ridna Vira" first used by Sylenko's movement. It states that Ukrainians been first to use "Ridna Vira" and other Slavic nations get inspired by that term and created own translations/variations of term in their languages. So clearly nothing there supports statement about origin in Proto-Slavic. I'm from Poland in case you wonder. MrFixItASAP (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy Close: Proposer has been blocked for actions here and ANI. With a majority of their comments being collapsed due to AI use, there isn't much that we can consider for changing this to Option B. Rather than being forced to wait 30 days for this RfC to end, I believe it should be closed sooner to avoid wasting time. If someone does share the proposer's concerns, then I am willing to withdraw this request for a speedy close. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  Boldly ended the RfC Dw31415 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Evidence of Source Misrepresentation

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The current text misrepresents the cited research by Scott Simpson:

• Explicit Ukrainian Priority: Simpson explicitly documents that the Ukrainian diaspora movements hold historical priority in developing the terminology of the movement. The article completely silences this fact.
• Intentional Linguistic Deception: The text deliberately misleads the reader by claiming the term "Rodnovery" simply comes "from a Slavic language" as a vague abstraction. This phrasing is used as a smokescreen to disguise the fact that it is a Russian loanword, while actively erasing the actual Ukrainian chronological root.
• Term Monopolization: In its current form, the text is structured in a way that implies an avoidance or outright fear of using any alternative regional forms, forcing "Rodnovery" as a blanket word at the expense of proper encyclopedic variety and accuracy.
• Citogenesis: Forcing this blanket term while erasing the actual documented history has led to circular reporting across the internet, which is now used to stonewall consensus by causing widespread use in English speaking internet based by authority of Wikipedia.

MrFixItASAP (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.