Talk:The Tale of Igor's Campaign

This article isn't about the poem...

...but about its questionable authenticity. No single competent scholar has ever challenged the Tale's authenticity. So the whole section about this should be removed. The fact that some culturally racist historian would ever doubt authenticity of, for example, the Song of Roland (of motives of envy) wouldn't make this epic poem a fake. 94.180.12.132 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the rationale and emotive plea of, "culturally racist historian" (sic), I have to agree with user 94.180.12.132's evaluation of the article. Most of it is dedicated to disputes surround its authenticity and virtually no information about the themes or story line are provided. Given that the entire section was tagged calling for citations back in November of 2010, along with the lack of any actual discussions on this page, it would be useful to get some sort of consensus on the issue.

I'd suggest that, for the moment, the section in question be cut and pasted into the talk page to be preserved for development. If not, a separate page dedicated to debates surrounding the authenticity of the work should be created. As it stands, it's nothing short of an uninformative mess which looks far more like original research than an encyclopaedic entry on the subject of the work known as "The Tale of Igor's Campaign." It reads as though its only significance lies in whether it is authentic or not, with no indication as to what the mainstream theory is as opposed to what is potentially fringe theory. Do not assume that a reader of the English Wikipedia entry has any working knowledge of the work or any issues surrounding it, therefore long winded, unsubstantiated debates are bordering on being entirely superfluous. Even section titles such as 'Argument' isn't a fitting title. Argument for what? That it resembles other works from the middle ages and seems to merge Christian with pagan tradition? If that's the case, the 'Argument' section needs to be integrated into the 'Authenticity' section. Definitely a dubious and uninformative article and highly likely to be a case of undue weight! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot?

Give plot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:83F:823D:0:0:0:3 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Trim the the other undue weight sections, too. Zezen (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Authenticity

I made only linguistic fixes here.

This authenticity section needs to be rearranged by the pro and against voices, disregarding the periods.

Shall anyone attempt it? And the plot please, see above ;) Zezen (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Tale of Igor's Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040105122334/http://www.litera.ru:8080/stixiya/themes/slovo/ to http://www.litera.ru:8080/stixiya/themes/slovo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert Mann

I removed the links for references to Russia scholar Robert Mann. The links led to the Wikipedia article for the late violinist Robert Mann, a different Mann entirely. The Russianist whose work is cited appears to still be living in Florida working as a teacher. Random noter (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Random noter: Cheers for being on the ball! Just as an aside, the correct 'Robert Mann' you're referring to is a 'Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures', not a 'Russianist'. He specialises in Eastern European Slavic studies, which isn't quite the same thing. Apologies for feeling compelled to be pedantic, but the use of Russian-ist/Russian history/Russian culture, per se, is often conflated to exclude the cultural/historical group of ethnicities emanating from the long-defunct Rus' from which they emanated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: No worries- I was being too casually flippant. I appreciate his sphere of work, as far as I have seen it, is for an early enough period and broad enough in scope that it is not appropriately restricted to terms that more commonly cover Muscovite/Great Russian subjects only. Random noter (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Random noter: Thanks for being kind enough to put up with my pedantry. I really should practice biting my tongue when I know the editor I'm communicating with was simply being casual, not controversial. Uff, I'm issuing myself a small trout slap for being obnoxious. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

I reverted recent changes that represent the Tale as some non-authentic book created in the XVIII century. We need much more solid ground for such claims. Fore example, a comprehensive linguistic analysis performed by acad. Zaliznyak completely rules out any possibility of a forgery.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)