Bylina is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize
music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force
guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us
assess and improve genre articles to
good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Bogatyr and other major subject matter ought to be mentioned somehow. I'm still not quite sure of the definition of the word, so I'm not going to insert it haphazardly just yet. --
Sy / (talk)
Old East Slavic?
The article presents no evidence of really old origin of bylinas so that it can be classifi4ed as old east slavic. Editors (like me:-) may be thrown off by the dates of the events in bylinas. There was definitely no bylinas recorded in Belarus, and in Ukraine the epics were known as dumas. Please correct me if I missed something. -
Altenmann>talk02:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
P.S. I did find opinions about ancient origins of bylinas, but they are just theoretical speculations and AFAIK there are no records of them (or similar plots) or about them other than in relatively modern Russian. -
Altenmann>talk02:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
There seems to be a disconnect. The cited source Britannica says “bylina, plural byliny, traditional form of Old Russian and Russian heroic narrative poetry transmitted orally.” What do you think it means by
Old Russian? —MichaelZ.02:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Britannica says “Russian and the other East Slavic languages (Ukrainian, Belarusian) did not diverge noticeably from one another until the Middle Russian period (the late 13th to the 16th century). The term Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time.”
[1] —MichaelZ.02:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Britannica is a tertiary source, not always reliable. It was especially funny to read about Russian tsars in Britannica. Whatever Britannica says, there must be expert's opinion about existence of bylinas in the time of Kievan Rus. -
Altenmann>talk02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
P.S. I always felt weird when linguists speak about "
Old East Slavic language". It is close to impossible for people to speak the same language in ancient Kiev and ancient Novgorod at the same time without internets mass media that could unify the language. -
Altenmann>talk02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That says “Old Russian literature” is a controversial term. It is not the same thing as Old Russian, which appears to be (confusingly) used later in the article when referring to the Kyivan period.
No, it is what Britannica literally says the term means, as I quoted above. And you have no interpretation, merely refusal to use the source while retaining the citation. Is there an issue for you? —MichaelZ.12:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The article
Bylina speaks not about language, but about culture, so it is pointless to discuss what "Old Russian language" could mean. If you want to invoke language, there is 100% sure there are no bylinas recorded in "Old Russian language" whatever it could be. -
Altenmann>talk03:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Right, not recorded hence no immediate evidence of their existence at the time. Is there indirect evidence, like, some arabic traveler to ar-Rus mentioned B-L-N ? -
Altenmann>talk03:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
“The tradition originates in the 10th or 11th century.”
“Given that several mention Kiev, the capital city of Kievan Rus, the majority of folklore researchers agree that this area was the site of the genre’s inception. Scholars also point to other medieval principalities as possible centers of creation of bylinas: those of Galicia and Volhynia, Rostov and Suzdal.”
“Most Russian epics probably originated from the tenth through the fourteenth centuries, mainly during the existence of what has been called Rus, Kievan Rus (Kievan Russia), or the Russian land. . . . In this period one speaks about the East Slavs, since their division into three linguistic and ethnic groups (Byelorussian, Russian, and Ukrainian) took place only in the fourteenth century.”
“While most of the [bylina] plots seem to have originated in Southwestern Russia, in the Pre-Mongol era, in modern times they were preserved chiefly in the outlying provinces of the Far North, eg., along the coast of the Arctic Ocean and around Lake Onega.”
1974, Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics: 92.
Reputable scholars speak cautiously about things that cannot be documented. In your quotes: 3rd ref: "plots seem to have originated ", 2nd ref: "Russian epics probably originated". 1st ref is from a blog, sloppily written, with no supporting refs. -
Altenmann>talk16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
After a good night's sleep, here is my compromise proposal, something like this: add "... probably originated in early East Slavic times" to the lede and expand the article text elaborating this statement. Especially about the puzzle that they were recorded only in the areas pretty remote from the place of deeds. -
Altenmann>talk16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
What’s the compromise there? “Early” is practically meaningless, so it’s compromised, because it doesn’t say what the sources say. Byliny originated in times when Old East Slavic was spoken. —MichaelZ.19:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I favour one for a simple reason: one language we know for sure and another one is hypothetical, not factual. Therefore my suggestion: "... probably originated " -
Altenmann>talk21:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Probably is an expression of likelihood but not certainty, not unlikelihood. It means it more likely is than is not (see
Words of estimative probability). You are going against the sources if you have decided that we should treat probably as “probably not.” —MichaelZ.22:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
And “early East Slavic times” follows none of the sources, and corresponds to nothing. East Slavic is not a time, and early in it can be any time before the present. All of the sources are more specific about time and language. —MichaelZ.22:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
“Hypothetical” is your own misleading framing, And no source says this. Note the difference between accepted
theory based on evidence, and an untested
hypothesis. All sources say that the accepted theory is that bylinas probably originated in Old East Slavic in Kyivan Rus. Your personal hypothesis is that they might not have, or something like that, so therefore we should not mention the accepted theory. It is ass backwards. It’s like declining to mention the
speed of light in the article about it because the number and relativity are “hypothetical.” It’s like letting creationism equally inform the lead in the article about the hypothetical “dinosaurs.”
The article early Slavs is about the 5th to 10th centuries: the Common Slavic period explicitly before the period of bylinas, Kyivan Rus, and Old East Slavic. The sources about bylinas don’t say “early Slavic times,” nor “early East Slavic times,” neither of which is a defined time nor a linguistic chronology. They say it was in the time of an old East Slavic (or ”Old Russian”).
I give up. You don’t seem interested in reading the sources accurately. I will move on to dispute resolution. If
user:Mellk is no longer participating, then I’ll consider getting a
WP:3rd, otherwise an RFC. —MichaelZ.14:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The word "probably originated" means it is hypothetical. Whatever you say about "old" or "early" does not invalidate the fact that there are no
Old East Slavic bylinas known. Therefore it is hypothetical. And a decent lede must clearly say this. -
Altenmann>talk16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
So the lead should say “ is a type of Old East Slavic and Russian oral epic poem that probably originated in Kievan Rus after the tenth century.” —MichaelZ.16:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Bylina is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize
music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force
guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us
assess and improve genre articles to
good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Bogatyr and other major subject matter ought to be mentioned somehow. I'm still not quite sure of the definition of the word, so I'm not going to insert it haphazardly just yet. --
Sy / (talk)
Old East Slavic?
The article presents no evidence of really old origin of bylinas so that it can be classifi4ed as old east slavic. Editors (like me:-) may be thrown off by the dates of the events in bylinas. There was definitely no bylinas recorded in Belarus, and in Ukraine the epics were known as dumas. Please correct me if I missed something. -
Altenmann>talk02:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
P.S. I did find opinions about ancient origins of bylinas, but they are just theoretical speculations and AFAIK there are no records of them (or similar plots) or about them other than in relatively modern Russian. -
Altenmann>talk02:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
There seems to be a disconnect. The cited source Britannica says “bylina, plural byliny, traditional form of Old Russian and Russian heroic narrative poetry transmitted orally.” What do you think it means by
Old Russian? —MichaelZ.02:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Britannica says “Russian and the other East Slavic languages (Ukrainian, Belarusian) did not diverge noticeably from one another until the Middle Russian period (the late 13th to the 16th century). The term Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time.”
[1] —MichaelZ.02:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Britannica is a tertiary source, not always reliable. It was especially funny to read about Russian tsars in Britannica. Whatever Britannica says, there must be expert's opinion about existence of bylinas in the time of Kievan Rus. -
Altenmann>talk02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
P.S. I always felt weird when linguists speak about "
Old East Slavic language". It is close to impossible for people to speak the same language in ancient Kiev and ancient Novgorod at the same time without internets mass media that could unify the language. -
Altenmann>talk02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That says “Old Russian literature” is a controversial term. It is not the same thing as Old Russian, which appears to be (confusingly) used later in the article when referring to the Kyivan period.
No, it is what Britannica literally says the term means, as I quoted above. And you have no interpretation, merely refusal to use the source while retaining the citation. Is there an issue for you? —MichaelZ.12:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The article
Bylina speaks not about language, but about culture, so it is pointless to discuss what "Old Russian language" could mean. If you want to invoke language, there is 100% sure there are no bylinas recorded in "Old Russian language" whatever it could be. -
Altenmann>talk03:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Right, not recorded hence no immediate evidence of their existence at the time. Is there indirect evidence, like, some arabic traveler to ar-Rus mentioned B-L-N ? -
Altenmann>talk03:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
“The tradition originates in the 10th or 11th century.”
“Given that several mention Kiev, the capital city of Kievan Rus, the majority of folklore researchers agree that this area was the site of the genre’s inception. Scholars also point to other medieval principalities as possible centers of creation of bylinas: those of Galicia and Volhynia, Rostov and Suzdal.”
“Most Russian epics probably originated from the tenth through the fourteenth centuries, mainly during the existence of what has been called Rus, Kievan Rus (Kievan Russia), or the Russian land. . . . In this period one speaks about the East Slavs, since their division into three linguistic and ethnic groups (Byelorussian, Russian, and Ukrainian) took place only in the fourteenth century.”
“While most of the [bylina] plots seem to have originated in Southwestern Russia, in the Pre-Mongol era, in modern times they were preserved chiefly in the outlying provinces of the Far North, eg., along the coast of the Arctic Ocean and around Lake Onega.”
1974, Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics: 92.
Reputable scholars speak cautiously about things that cannot be documented. In your quotes: 3rd ref: "plots seem to have originated ", 2nd ref: "Russian epics probably originated". 1st ref is from a blog, sloppily written, with no supporting refs. -
Altenmann>talk16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
After a good night's sleep, here is my compromise proposal, something like this: add "... probably originated in early East Slavic times" to the lede and expand the article text elaborating this statement. Especially about the puzzle that they were recorded only in the areas pretty remote from the place of deeds. -
Altenmann>talk16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
What’s the compromise there? “Early” is practically meaningless, so it’s compromised, because it doesn’t say what the sources say. Byliny originated in times when Old East Slavic was spoken. —MichaelZ.19:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I favour one for a simple reason: one language we know for sure and another one is hypothetical, not factual. Therefore my suggestion: "... probably originated " -
Altenmann>talk21:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Probably is an expression of likelihood but not certainty, not unlikelihood. It means it more likely is than is not (see
Words of estimative probability). You are going against the sources if you have decided that we should treat probably as “probably not.” —MichaelZ.22:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
And “early East Slavic times” follows none of the sources, and corresponds to nothing. East Slavic is not a time, and early in it can be any time before the present. All of the sources are more specific about time and language. —MichaelZ.22:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
“Hypothetical” is your own misleading framing, And no source says this. Note the difference between accepted
theory based on evidence, and an untested
hypothesis. All sources say that the accepted theory is that bylinas probably originated in Old East Slavic in Kyivan Rus. Your personal hypothesis is that they might not have, or something like that, so therefore we should not mention the accepted theory. It is ass backwards. It’s like declining to mention the
speed of light in the article about it because the number and relativity are “hypothetical.” It’s like letting creationism equally inform the lead in the article about the hypothetical “dinosaurs.”
The article early Slavs is about the 5th to 10th centuries: the Common Slavic period explicitly before the period of bylinas, Kyivan Rus, and Old East Slavic. The sources about bylinas don’t say “early Slavic times,” nor “early East Slavic times,” neither of which is a defined time nor a linguistic chronology. They say it was in the time of an old East Slavic (or ”Old Russian”).
I give up. You don’t seem interested in reading the sources accurately. I will move on to dispute resolution. If
user:Mellk is no longer participating, then I’ll consider getting a
WP:3rd, otherwise an RFC. —MichaelZ.14:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The word "probably originated" means it is hypothetical. Whatever you say about "old" or "early" does not invalidate the fact that there are no
Old East Slavic bylinas known. Therefore it is hypothetical. And a decent lede must clearly say this. -
Altenmann>talk16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
So the lead should say “ is a type of Old East Slavic and Russian oral epic poem that probably originated in Kievan Rus after the tenth century.” —MichaelZ.16:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply