![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Architectural landmarks erected in the country of RUS, regradless of prefixes and suffixes, must be called RUSSIAN (RUS+IAN, adjective, belonging to RUS)!
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)
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)
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)
I went to the library this afternoon and had a look at the following books:
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
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)
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 [1] 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.
Here is some info on styles [2]
-- Kuban Cossack 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that AndriyK's mission after the return to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)( Talk) 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please note that removing the POV-tags does not help to resolve disputes. The tag should indicate the disagrement until the dispute is resolved as described in WP:DR.-- AndriyK 18:43, 14 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 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am second to warn you against removing the tag. All POV-tagged articles are listed in a special category. This helps other people to find the disputed articles.
I would not remove the tag without discussion if I would you.
I do not think that AndriyK does it in a bad faith. The case is not so obvious as the shape of the Earth (see, for instance, [4] ).
Why not to look for a compromise solution?-- Mbuk 21:10, 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.-- Mbuk 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any "agressive nationalist position" of AndriyK (I mean in the talk about the Russian architecture. Perhaps it appeared in other places) OTOH comments by Kuban Kazak are often agressive and charged with Russian nationalism, IMHO.
Please read the comment by Durova once more. She does not agree with AndriyK explecetly, but he agrees with her in his answer. Please read the whole section. Perhaps it will help to resolve the dispute.-- Mbuk 22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll follow your links and perheps will do some edits. (Although I have very little idea about Kiev tram. Maybe I find something else.) But, to be honest, I do not like this permanent Russian Ukrainian conflict. This is the reason why I participated in this discussion. I would not like to take any sides. Agrassive and uncivil positions of Kuban Kazak and Ghirla made me simpatic to their opponents. OTOH, I did not see how Durova's proposals are taken into account in the article.-- Mbuk 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please explain me what is the reason for removing the tag? The dispute is there. There would be no edit war if there would be no dispute. If all the parties act in good faith (which one has to assume unless the opposite is obvious) then this dispute should be resolved by discussions, mediations etc. If anybody acts in bad faith, this is also a dispute but it concerns to user's behaviour and should be resolved by blocking the distruptive user or restricting his ability to edit the article.
But in any case the dispute should be dealt with in one way or another.
You remove the tag, AndriyK puts it back. It continues for days, weeks, months. What is the ultimate goal you want to reach going this way? Or you enjoy the process? ;)
I suggest you to keep the tag (just to stop the edit war). And do something to resolve the dispute. Continue the discussion, or start arbitaition against AndriyK, if you believe that the discussion with him is useless (personally I do not think so, but you have your own experience of communicating with him and you may be right, I do not know.). But keep in mind that AndriyK is not the only one who disagrees. You have to think how to deel with the other guys.
Either discussion/mediation or arbitration will take some time, but this is the real way settle the dispute. Otherwise it's going to be endless.-- Mbuk 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The edit war takes also a certain time. Why not to spend this time to resolve the dispute ultimately?
Mbuk, there must me some common sense in what takes to consider the dispute resolved. If there is some fringe POV pusher with stubborness and persistence, nothing prevents him from stating that he remains unconvinced and insists that the dispute is unresolved and an excellent article should be labeled in the same category as, say, nonsense List of Polish Martyrdom sites or controversial, like Martin Luther and the Jews. This is exactly the case here as has been with this user in the past. There are people who come to Wikipedia with a political agenda. Reaching the consensus with them is impossible. That's why the article was listed for RfC, users commented, changes were made. He can't keep doing this forever until he is satisfied. Now, please don't make me repeat to you what was already said. Read the talk and archives. As for why I don't want AndriyK blocked is because his disrpuptiveness is met with sufficient opposition that is preventing him from doing too much damage. He may learn this and finally start writing instead of doing nonsense. Even at his arbitration following the actions that was totally intolerable and uncorrectable I didn't call for his block as you may see if you read the arbitration pages. Ukrainian topics need editors. It's just as simple as that. Now, please start writing too. This all is too time-consuming. -- Irpen 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've told you all I have to say on this multiple times. If I feel like I had enough of AndriyK again and his being out of controll damages the wikipedia beyond repair I will move to administrative measures. Please don't try to tire me by repetition and forcing me to repeat things. I've told you all I have to say. Take the rest to the article's talk, or start and new article RfC or see otherwise whether you can get any more support in your support of AndriyK, aside from a couple of known problem users. I don't have any more time to repeat this. This is called "feeding". I have already broke the non-feeding rule and as I see no new questions, there won't be any more new answers until you have anything new to say. For that, use the means I suggested. -- Irpen 06:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose to go step-by-step to find where exactly your disagreements are.
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)
Until the tag is explained, issues presented at talk, explained how they are unaddressed in past discussions and edits, the users have no right to destroy the article by tagging it just because they don't like what's there. -- Irpen 06:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a few paragraphs ago Irpen wrote "No one claims that Kievan Rus was Russia." And now Telex writes us the opposite. Let us find where we are in this discussion.
I propose all the involved parties to answer the following two questions:
Please be polite and brief.-- Mbuk 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I kindly ask everybody else to be brief.-- Mbuk 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to read in the "Modern Russia" section that: 'there was no control over how high new buildings should be'. Is this really true that there are no regulations as the the height of the buildings in Russia ? Can this be verified that Moscow indeed does not have an equivalent of a city architect office and there are no building planning regulations ? -- Lysy talk 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose try once more to resolve the dispute. The solution was proposed a long time ago [7]. If you disagree with this proposal please propose another solution. But please do not remove the dispute tag. This does not help to solve the problem and it is against the WP policy.
Plese have a look at the article Architecture of the United States. There is definitely cultural inheritance between the British Empire and the United States. And this is seen in the architecture American_architecture#English_influence_on_the_east_coast. But the article Architecture of the United States describes the buildings located in US, rathe those located in England.
Let's follow the same standards in the present article.-- AndriyK 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"Ru arfchitecture is the architecture of the Russian federation" is a novel idea to treat the subject very different from the one used in books of the topic. Russian means not only the statehood. Tatar architecture isn't Russian architecture either. -- Irpen 06:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Has an RfA or an RfC been filed for this article at anytime? TruthCrusader 09:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to rename the article to History of Russian architecture which should better match its actual content. (Any other suggestions ?) -- Lysy talk 08:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"Architecture of Russia" is no good. Kievan Rus' part is not architecture "of Russia" while it is part of the Russian architecture. "History of Russian Architecture", is less correct and redundant. We don't need to invent the byke here. Current title is good enough. -- Irpen 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This is fully within the trend how the topic is covered in the literature, see Talk:Russian_architecture#Readings. No matter what, there would always be some who are unhappy, similar to those who deny the Holocaust, no matter how well is the latter documented. The disputes on what belongs to RA and what doesn't should not be settled in WIkipedia, which just summarized what's settled elsewhere. NPOV should not be confused to giving an equal credence to fringe ideas outside of the field's established scholarship. More soon... -- Irpen 00:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother replying to this page as long as Lysy is busily trolling here, yet I feel obliged to point out, that whatever his grudge against anything Russian is, we have the articles named Bosnian architecture, Iranian architecture, Chinese architecture, Japanese architecture, Indian architecture, Hawaiian architecture, etc, etc. Please sort these out and then return here. -- Ghirla -трёп- 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at the examples Architecture_of_the_United_States and Architecture of the United Kingdom. Why not to rename it as Architecture of the Russian Federation?-- AndriyK 09:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why was the image of Stalin's Palace in Warsaw removed and replaced with Moscow State University ? It is important to illustrate that Russian architecture blossomed outside Russia as well. -- Lysy talk 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I object to the trend of Polonizing Russian topics just for the sake of it. Either be it persisting with Poland being mentioned in the lead section of Catherine's and Suvorov's articles, overemphasizing of Poland in Pushkin and Soviet partisans, etc. OTOH, Stalinist architectrue needs illustrated. If the building in Warsaw is the better illustration than the building in Moscow, so be it. If, OTOH, the only reason to introduce the image of the Warsaw building is to grind one's axe, sorry, use other articles for that. -- Irpen 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless Lysy stops putting Polish images here and there, I will split the last section into Soviet architecture. There the passage about Kreschatyk will go. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 07:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, I would not object just because it was built in Poland and I won't even bother responding to a Polonophobia accusations nonsense. Look at your own post to begin with. Molobo-like catch phrase about "Poland's regaining independence in 1989" makes the whole thing look suspicious and if this was posted by a newbie, I would not even respond to a message containing such an obviousy telling sign. Or are you saying the Nevsky cathedral lacked artistic qualities and that's why it was destroyed?
I would object only if one image is pushed against the others solely for the sake of having a Polish issue prominent in one more Russian article when this is not warranted. We need an image illustrating a Stalinist neo-classicism. On that I agree. Perhaps the best known in Poland example of that style is the Palace of culture. I can take it and I can see the image in the [[pl:Rosyjska architektura]] However, the best known in the world example of it are the seven Moscow sky-scrapers originally planned for the Stalin's 70th birthday. Of those 7 buildings, the Moscow State University is the most prominent one. If we have a good enough image of it, this should illustrate the style, rather that the Warsaw building. The latter has its own article and the image can be used in other articles too. If it was indeed the most prominent and most illustrative example of the style, I would not have objected to it of course. I don't care where it is. There are plenty of the examples of this style outside of Russia and of the huge scale too.
Kiev is full of similar scale Soviet architecture examples. The neo-classical Hotel Ukrayina (formerly Hotel Moskva) in Kiev, much of the original Kiev Metro complex, the entire Kreschatyk street ensemble. Similar is the Gosprom building and the ensemble of the Freedom Square in Kharkiv. These all details belong to the Soviet architecture article as well as to the articles on the individual objects, Stalinist architecture and some others.
Political aspect belongs to some Polish article, not sure that it is History of Poland but perhaps, Soviet occupational policies in post-war Poland (just ask Molobo to post a draft at his talk to start this up). -- Irpen 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, the point is not to limit the article to the architecture of Russia only but to have it illustrated in the best possible way. The MSU building fits better as a single illustration of the style, especially considering that a separate Stalinist architecture article already exists, along with the palase article, and Soviet architecture is being considered. OT remark about Polish independence was yours and not mine. I did not accuse you in the Polish nationalism. I simply called a trend of overemphasizing the Polish issues in Russia-related articles by its name. Has the palace been the most prominent example of the style, I would not have objected to it. Reread my past post. -- Irpen 19:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, yet again, I do not object to the Polish issues being revealed in non-Polish articles in cases they belong there and in amount that is reasonable. I object to pushing them excessively. I remember someone complaining that how come the word "Poland" is not mentioned in the intro (!) of the Catherine article. That's Polonization: pushing it into the lead. Of course the mention of partitions within the article itself is warranted. Same was the Soviet partisans article when the section on the actions in PL was added despite the material naturally belonged to UA, BE, LT sections where it was covered already (still, their action in the former SPR territories is a legitimate angle and I am all for the existence of Soviet partisans in Poland article, perhaps with the chagned name). Same here, Warsaw palace being the only illustration of the style in such a general article made no sense. With the presense of the palace article, the Stalinist architecture and others, what we need here is a single illustration of the style tops. -- Irpen 21:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the present version (of 09:53, 5 July 2006) is a reasonable compromise. If somebody disagree, please discuss it in the talk instead of immediate revert. You may also consider adding a tag to the present version if you find it unnneutral.-- AndriyK 09:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thus far the article is purely about monumental architecture. There nothing about vernacular architecture. That is suprising considering that most people don't live or work in monuments! -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Where's Saint Petersburg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.152.109 ( talk) 12:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have remove part of this from the article Renaissance architecture because it was much longer than the brief paragraphs on every other country. It should be incorporated into this article. I will make a link. I observe that the section on this period is very scant when it comes to the names of known architects. This needs to be remedied.
Prince Ivan III introduced Renaissance architecture to Russia by inviting a number of architects from Italy, who brought new construction techniques and some Renaissance style elements with them, while in general following the traditional designs of the Russian architecture. In 1475 the Bolognese architect Aristotele Fioravanti came to rebuild the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Moscow Kremlin, damaged in an earthquake. Fioravanti was given the 12th-century Vladimir Cathedral as a model, and produced a design combining traditional Russian style with a Renaissance sense of spaciousness, proportion and symmetry.
In 1485 Ivan III commissioned the building of a royal Terem Palace within the Kremlin, with Aloisio da Milano being the architect of the first three floors. Aloisio da Milano, as well as the other Italian architects, also greatly contributed to the construction of the Kremlin walls and towers. The small banqueting hall of the Russian Tsars, called the Palace of Facets because of its facetted upper story, is the work of two Italians, Marco Ruffo and Pietro Solario, and shows a more Italian style. In 1505, an Italian known in Russia as Aleviz Novyi or Aleviz Fryazin arrived in Moscow. He may have been the Venetian sculptor, Alevisio Lamberti da Montagne. He built 12 churches for Ivan III, including the Cathedral of the Archangel, a building remarkable for the successful blending of Russian tradition, Orthodox requirements and Renaissance style. It is believed that the Cathedral of the Metropolitan Peter in Vysokopetrovsky Monastery, another work of Aleviz Novyi, later served as an inspiration for the so called octagon-on-tetragon architectural form in the Moscow Baroque of the late 17th century.
Between the early 16th and the late 17th centuries, however, an original tradition of stone
tented roof architecture had been developed in Russia. It was quite unique and different from the contemporary Renaissance architecture elsewhere in Europe, though some researches call that style 'Russian Gothic' and compare it with the European
Gothic architecture of the earlier period. The Italians, with their advanced technology, may have influenced the appearance of the stone
tented roof in Russia (the wooden tents were known in Russia and Europe long before). According to one hypothesis, an Italian architect called
Petrok Maly may have been an author of the Ascension Church in
Kolomenskoye, one of the earliest and most prominent tented roof churches.
Amandajm (
talk)
09:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Architectural landmarks erected in the country of RUS, regradless of prefixes and suffixes, must be called RUSSIAN (RUS+IAN, adjective, belonging to RUS)!
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)
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)
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)
I went to the library this afternoon and had a look at the following books:
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
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)
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 [1] 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.
Here is some info on styles [2]
-- Kuban Cossack 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that AndriyK's mission after the return to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)( Talk) 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please note that removing the POV-tags does not help to resolve disputes. The tag should indicate the disagrement until the dispute is resolved as described in WP:DR.-- AndriyK 18:43, 14 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 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am second to warn you against removing the tag. All POV-tagged articles are listed in a special category. This helps other people to find the disputed articles.
I would not remove the tag without discussion if I would you.
I do not think that AndriyK does it in a bad faith. The case is not so obvious as the shape of the Earth (see, for instance, [4] ).
Why not to look for a compromise solution?-- Mbuk 21:10, 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.-- Mbuk 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any "agressive nationalist position" of AndriyK (I mean in the talk about the Russian architecture. Perhaps it appeared in other places) OTOH comments by Kuban Kazak are often agressive and charged with Russian nationalism, IMHO.
Please read the comment by Durova once more. She does not agree with AndriyK explecetly, but he agrees with her in his answer. Please read the whole section. Perhaps it will help to resolve the dispute.-- Mbuk 22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll follow your links and perheps will do some edits. (Although I have very little idea about Kiev tram. Maybe I find something else.) But, to be honest, I do not like this permanent Russian Ukrainian conflict. This is the reason why I participated in this discussion. I would not like to take any sides. Agrassive and uncivil positions of Kuban Kazak and Ghirla made me simpatic to their opponents. OTOH, I did not see how Durova's proposals are taken into account in the article.-- Mbuk 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please explain me what is the reason for removing the tag? The dispute is there. There would be no edit war if there would be no dispute. If all the parties act in good faith (which one has to assume unless the opposite is obvious) then this dispute should be resolved by discussions, mediations etc. If anybody acts in bad faith, this is also a dispute but it concerns to user's behaviour and should be resolved by blocking the distruptive user or restricting his ability to edit the article.
But in any case the dispute should be dealt with in one way or another.
You remove the tag, AndriyK puts it back. It continues for days, weeks, months. What is the ultimate goal you want to reach going this way? Or you enjoy the process? ;)
I suggest you to keep the tag (just to stop the edit war). And do something to resolve the dispute. Continue the discussion, or start arbitaition against AndriyK, if you believe that the discussion with him is useless (personally I do not think so, but you have your own experience of communicating with him and you may be right, I do not know.). But keep in mind that AndriyK is not the only one who disagrees. You have to think how to deel with the other guys.
Either discussion/mediation or arbitration will take some time, but this is the real way settle the dispute. Otherwise it's going to be endless.-- Mbuk 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The edit war takes also a certain time. Why not to spend this time to resolve the dispute ultimately?
Mbuk, there must me some common sense in what takes to consider the dispute resolved. If there is some fringe POV pusher with stubborness and persistence, nothing prevents him from stating that he remains unconvinced and insists that the dispute is unresolved and an excellent article should be labeled in the same category as, say, nonsense List of Polish Martyrdom sites or controversial, like Martin Luther and the Jews. This is exactly the case here as has been with this user in the past. There are people who come to Wikipedia with a political agenda. Reaching the consensus with them is impossible. That's why the article was listed for RfC, users commented, changes were made. He can't keep doing this forever until he is satisfied. Now, please don't make me repeat to you what was already said. Read the talk and archives. As for why I don't want AndriyK blocked is because his disrpuptiveness is met with sufficient opposition that is preventing him from doing too much damage. He may learn this and finally start writing instead of doing nonsense. Even at his arbitration following the actions that was totally intolerable and uncorrectable I didn't call for his block as you may see if you read the arbitration pages. Ukrainian topics need editors. It's just as simple as that. Now, please start writing too. This all is too time-consuming. -- Irpen 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've told you all I have to say on this multiple times. If I feel like I had enough of AndriyK again and his being out of controll damages the wikipedia beyond repair I will move to administrative measures. Please don't try to tire me by repetition and forcing me to repeat things. I've told you all I have to say. Take the rest to the article's talk, or start and new article RfC or see otherwise whether you can get any more support in your support of AndriyK, aside from a couple of known problem users. I don't have any more time to repeat this. This is called "feeding". I have already broke the non-feeding rule and as I see no new questions, there won't be any more new answers until you have anything new to say. For that, use the means I suggested. -- Irpen 06:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose to go step-by-step to find where exactly your disagreements are.
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)
Until the tag is explained, issues presented at talk, explained how they are unaddressed in past discussions and edits, the users have no right to destroy the article by tagging it just because they don't like what's there. -- Irpen 06:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a few paragraphs ago Irpen wrote "No one claims that Kievan Rus was Russia." And now Telex writes us the opposite. Let us find where we are in this discussion.
I propose all the involved parties to answer the following two questions:
Please be polite and brief.-- Mbuk 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I kindly ask everybody else to be brief.-- Mbuk 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to read in the "Modern Russia" section that: 'there was no control over how high new buildings should be'. Is this really true that there are no regulations as the the height of the buildings in Russia ? Can this be verified that Moscow indeed does not have an equivalent of a city architect office and there are no building planning regulations ? -- Lysy talk 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose try once more to resolve the dispute. The solution was proposed a long time ago [7]. If you disagree with this proposal please propose another solution. But please do not remove the dispute tag. This does not help to solve the problem and it is against the WP policy.
Plese have a look at the article Architecture of the United States. There is definitely cultural inheritance between the British Empire and the United States. And this is seen in the architecture American_architecture#English_influence_on_the_east_coast. But the article Architecture of the United States describes the buildings located in US, rathe those located in England.
Let's follow the same standards in the present article.-- AndriyK 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"Ru arfchitecture is the architecture of the Russian federation" is a novel idea to treat the subject very different from the one used in books of the topic. Russian means not only the statehood. Tatar architecture isn't Russian architecture either. -- Irpen 06:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Has an RfA or an RfC been filed for this article at anytime? TruthCrusader 09:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to rename the article to History of Russian architecture which should better match its actual content. (Any other suggestions ?) -- Lysy talk 08:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"Architecture of Russia" is no good. Kievan Rus' part is not architecture "of Russia" while it is part of the Russian architecture. "History of Russian Architecture", is less correct and redundant. We don't need to invent the byke here. Current title is good enough. -- Irpen 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This is fully within the trend how the topic is covered in the literature, see Talk:Russian_architecture#Readings. No matter what, there would always be some who are unhappy, similar to those who deny the Holocaust, no matter how well is the latter documented. The disputes on what belongs to RA and what doesn't should not be settled in WIkipedia, which just summarized what's settled elsewhere. NPOV should not be confused to giving an equal credence to fringe ideas outside of the field's established scholarship. More soon... -- Irpen 00:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother replying to this page as long as Lysy is busily trolling here, yet I feel obliged to point out, that whatever his grudge against anything Russian is, we have the articles named Bosnian architecture, Iranian architecture, Chinese architecture, Japanese architecture, Indian architecture, Hawaiian architecture, etc, etc. Please sort these out and then return here. -- Ghirla -трёп- 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at the examples Architecture_of_the_United_States and Architecture of the United Kingdom. Why not to rename it as Architecture of the Russian Federation?-- AndriyK 09:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why was the image of Stalin's Palace in Warsaw removed and replaced with Moscow State University ? It is important to illustrate that Russian architecture blossomed outside Russia as well. -- Lysy talk 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I object to the trend of Polonizing Russian topics just for the sake of it. Either be it persisting with Poland being mentioned in the lead section of Catherine's and Suvorov's articles, overemphasizing of Poland in Pushkin and Soviet partisans, etc. OTOH, Stalinist architectrue needs illustrated. If the building in Warsaw is the better illustration than the building in Moscow, so be it. If, OTOH, the only reason to introduce the image of the Warsaw building is to grind one's axe, sorry, use other articles for that. -- Irpen 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless Lysy stops putting Polish images here and there, I will split the last section into Soviet architecture. There the passage about Kreschatyk will go. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 07:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, I would not object just because it was built in Poland and I won't even bother responding to a Polonophobia accusations nonsense. Look at your own post to begin with. Molobo-like catch phrase about "Poland's regaining independence in 1989" makes the whole thing look suspicious and if this was posted by a newbie, I would not even respond to a message containing such an obviousy telling sign. Or are you saying the Nevsky cathedral lacked artistic qualities and that's why it was destroyed?
I would object only if one image is pushed against the others solely for the sake of having a Polish issue prominent in one more Russian article when this is not warranted. We need an image illustrating a Stalinist neo-classicism. On that I agree. Perhaps the best known in Poland example of that style is the Palace of culture. I can take it and I can see the image in the [[pl:Rosyjska architektura]] However, the best known in the world example of it are the seven Moscow sky-scrapers originally planned for the Stalin's 70th birthday. Of those 7 buildings, the Moscow State University is the most prominent one. If we have a good enough image of it, this should illustrate the style, rather that the Warsaw building. The latter has its own article and the image can be used in other articles too. If it was indeed the most prominent and most illustrative example of the style, I would not have objected to it of course. I don't care where it is. There are plenty of the examples of this style outside of Russia and of the huge scale too.
Kiev is full of similar scale Soviet architecture examples. The neo-classical Hotel Ukrayina (formerly Hotel Moskva) in Kiev, much of the original Kiev Metro complex, the entire Kreschatyk street ensemble. Similar is the Gosprom building and the ensemble of the Freedom Square in Kharkiv. These all details belong to the Soviet architecture article as well as to the articles on the individual objects, Stalinist architecture and some others.
Political aspect belongs to some Polish article, not sure that it is History of Poland but perhaps, Soviet occupational policies in post-war Poland (just ask Molobo to post a draft at his talk to start this up). -- Irpen 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, the point is not to limit the article to the architecture of Russia only but to have it illustrated in the best possible way. The MSU building fits better as a single illustration of the style, especially considering that a separate Stalinist architecture article already exists, along with the palase article, and Soviet architecture is being considered. OT remark about Polish independence was yours and not mine. I did not accuse you in the Polish nationalism. I simply called a trend of overemphasizing the Polish issues in Russia-related articles by its name. Has the palace been the most prominent example of the style, I would not have objected to it. Reread my past post. -- Irpen 19:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, yet again, I do not object to the Polish issues being revealed in non-Polish articles in cases they belong there and in amount that is reasonable. I object to pushing them excessively. I remember someone complaining that how come the word "Poland" is not mentioned in the intro (!) of the Catherine article. That's Polonization: pushing it into the lead. Of course the mention of partitions within the article itself is warranted. Same was the Soviet partisans article when the section on the actions in PL was added despite the material naturally belonged to UA, BE, LT sections where it was covered already (still, their action in the former SPR territories is a legitimate angle and I am all for the existence of Soviet partisans in Poland article, perhaps with the chagned name). Same here, Warsaw palace being the only illustration of the style in such a general article made no sense. With the presense of the palace article, the Stalinist architecture and others, what we need here is a single illustration of the style tops. -- Irpen 21:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the present version (of 09:53, 5 July 2006) is a reasonable compromise. If somebody disagree, please discuss it in the talk instead of immediate revert. You may also consider adding a tag to the present version if you find it unnneutral.-- AndriyK 09:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thus far the article is purely about monumental architecture. There nothing about vernacular architecture. That is suprising considering that most people don't live or work in monuments! -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Where's Saint Petersburg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.152.109 ( talk) 12:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have remove part of this from the article Renaissance architecture because it was much longer than the brief paragraphs on every other country. It should be incorporated into this article. I will make a link. I observe that the section on this period is very scant when it comes to the names of known architects. This needs to be remedied.
Prince Ivan III introduced Renaissance architecture to Russia by inviting a number of architects from Italy, who brought new construction techniques and some Renaissance style elements with them, while in general following the traditional designs of the Russian architecture. In 1475 the Bolognese architect Aristotele Fioravanti came to rebuild the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Moscow Kremlin, damaged in an earthquake. Fioravanti was given the 12th-century Vladimir Cathedral as a model, and produced a design combining traditional Russian style with a Renaissance sense of spaciousness, proportion and symmetry.
In 1485 Ivan III commissioned the building of a royal Terem Palace within the Kremlin, with Aloisio da Milano being the architect of the first three floors. Aloisio da Milano, as well as the other Italian architects, also greatly contributed to the construction of the Kremlin walls and towers. The small banqueting hall of the Russian Tsars, called the Palace of Facets because of its facetted upper story, is the work of two Italians, Marco Ruffo and Pietro Solario, and shows a more Italian style. In 1505, an Italian known in Russia as Aleviz Novyi or Aleviz Fryazin arrived in Moscow. He may have been the Venetian sculptor, Alevisio Lamberti da Montagne. He built 12 churches for Ivan III, including the Cathedral of the Archangel, a building remarkable for the successful blending of Russian tradition, Orthodox requirements and Renaissance style. It is believed that the Cathedral of the Metropolitan Peter in Vysokopetrovsky Monastery, another work of Aleviz Novyi, later served as an inspiration for the so called octagon-on-tetragon architectural form in the Moscow Baroque of the late 17th century.
Between the early 16th and the late 17th centuries, however, an original tradition of stone
tented roof architecture had been developed in Russia. It was quite unique and different from the contemporary Renaissance architecture elsewhere in Europe, though some researches call that style 'Russian Gothic' and compare it with the European
Gothic architecture of the earlier period. The Italians, with their advanced technology, may have influenced the appearance of the stone
tented roof in Russia (the wooden tents were known in Russia and Europe long before). According to one hypothesis, an Italian architect called
Petrok Maly may have been an author of the Ascension Church in
Kolomenskoye, one of the earliest and most prominent tented roof churches.
Amandajm (
talk)
09:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)