Talk:Ukrainian wreath

A fact from Ukrainian wreath appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 December 2007, and was viewed approximately 6,516 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the tradition of a Ukrainian flower wreath (pictured), a headdress worn by girls and young unmarried women, dates back to the pagan Slavic customs that predate the Christianization of Rus?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/December.

Wikipedia

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

DYK?[edit]

Suggestions welcome. --Irpen 03:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...that the tradition of a Ukrainian flower wreath, a headdress worn by girls and young unmarried women, dates back to the pagan Slavic customs that predate the Christianization of Rus?

How about the one above? --Irpen 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, but it might be a little short. I get 1.449 characters with spaces, and 1.216 without. Which one is suitable for DYK? Bogdan ^що? 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With spaces, but adding an extra paragraph would ensure it is above the minimum requirements.--Riurik^(discuss) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct link - Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_9--Riurik^(discuss) 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More pictures?[edit]

I just uploaded a nice postcard from 1916 showing a Ukrainian girl that can illustrate the article rather good. I have more of the same kind and can upload them too if you think they fit the article. Narking (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

error link. --Riurik^(discuss) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The vinok is very nice, the girl looks... angry. Ostap (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, more text is needed to warrant more pictures. Articles are not galleries and the number of pictures we can use is restricted by their length. Short 2-3 para articles cannot carry more than 1 pic with few exceptions. --Irpen 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and something needs to be done at the tryzub article. Too many pictures. Ostap (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, let's keep the less angry girl. The 1916 picture can always be used in the culture article.--Riurik^(discuss) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additional information[edit]

According to the Encyclopdia of Ukraine, the Rusalky wear wreaths of sedge in the Ukrainian tradition. [2] If this is true, should it be added to the article, since it is a wreath? Ostap (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should rather be added to Rusalka if it is not there yet. This Rusalka wreath is totally different from the girl's wreath with its specific symbolism. --Irpen 04:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that this article is for the vinok only then, and not just any wreath. Consider the proposal withdrawn. Ostap (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

format[edit]

Not all of Pre-Christian beliefs descibes pre-Christian beliefs. But I don't know how to fix this. Ostap (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I retitled the section. Also, I moved the neopaganist-related tradition to a separate section. I am not sure we need it here, though. --Irpen 00:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are claims[edit]

I reverted the "there are claims"-like article rewrite. Those are applicable if there are other claims to the contrary. The info is totally non-controversial and if anyone wants to dispute anything, please explain yourself at the talk page. --Irpen 18:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase "there are claims", but I think it's appropriate to explain where the historical claims come from, rather than treating them as unqualified fact. The absence of opposing claims may only show a lack of interest (or fatigue, since Frazer claimed that so many festivals were originally pagan). Is there any documentary evidence anywhere, for the pre-Christian significance of the wreath? I haven't managed to find any, yet.

The only source originally cited was a casual article in a weekly U.S. Ukrainian publication — that doesn't mean that it's wrong, but it's hardly better than citing a blog as a source (blogs are sometimes right, too). I added Frazer, which does provide one (qualified) research source, and also lets individual evaluate how much to trust the claims — some people think Frazer is great, and others, not so much. David (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think we are on the right track. Of course we do not have historical sources about the pagan tradition since the chronicles were written well past the Baptism of Kiev and the deeply religious chroniclers who worked in the monasteries would not be a good source for pagan beliefs, especially since for them, those were times almost as far away as the chroniclers' own times for us. The article needs simply to say that the accounts are rather legendary than historical. However, the Ivan Kupala thing is known to have originated in pre-Christian paganism. No need to question that. Also, why revert in rash thus restoring the old typos, I wonder. --Irpen 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are indeed inferior to the info from scholarly source. Such sources, as well as blogs, which you say are "sometimes right" too, should be evaluated by the author. If the established ethnologist wrote something in his blog or for whatever reason chose to author a newspaper article, the source is acceptable. The author should be judged by his/her own academic standing and this makes more difference than where he chose to write the current work. --Irpen 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Ostap 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David your concern is understandable. The Weekly's account is actually in line with others found in - at least Ukrainian - history books, rather than invented for the sake of publication. If I come across English sources of this, I'll reference them here as well.

Irpen, regarding the newspaper articles - nicely put, Kulchytsky would approve :).--Riurik^(discuss) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ostap. I knew about the link. I kind of hoped that Dpm64 would google himself before his response.

Riurik, I never ever argued against using Kulchitsky whether it is a book or a Zerkalo Nedeli or Den article, did I? I used him extensively in many of my rewrites of the article you were talking about. Of course with all matters equal, the scholarly source is more reliable, and, perhaps, the future of Wikipedia would be moving away from non-scholarly sources as a whole. But we are not there yet. I repeatedly argued against using newspaper articles written by journalists or otherwise non-academic people for history topics unless the author's credibility may be independently established. --Irpen 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does she count as established? Apparently she is only a library assistant. Ostap 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is not of course a top scholar, but she is within a mainstream academy all right, isn't she? She edited and published books specifically in ethnology. --Irpen 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would have been better to just let the Polish editors do away with this article. Ostap 20:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hush! --Irpen 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Irpen, you will be proud to hear that initially I did not include this source without first checking her academic credentials. To me she seemed reasonably well qualified.Ostap 20:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I expected you did. Anyway, if we are to expand on this, we should elaborate that this is more ethnologist's than historian's purview. Ethnology is a field with different tools and different standards. Unlike historians, whose bread and butter are archives, documents and archaeological findings, ethnologists do analyze legends and songs. Nothing wrong with that. --Irpen 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I was just picking on you. So we're clear, I am 100% on the same page as you are regarding the sourcing. Regarding "librarians," sometimes they seem to know more than the actual "scholars" who use their services, maybe that's why. Cheers and out, --Riurik^(discuss) 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only Ukrainian[edit]

This kind of head wear is just as well known in Poland or Czech, for example. In most Slavic countries, actually. Why was it named "Ukrainian", then? Is it any different from the other Slavic ones? In what? Please provide fact about that or rename the article. 195.22.117.118 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC) (anonymous until I find my password, sorry)[reply]

I second that (five years passed, hugh?..) I'm not a specialist, but I think this is quite similar at least for the Eastern Slavic cultures (see e.g. the Russian or Polish entries interwiki'ed from the Ukrainian one. Piramidon (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I terton (tertiary?) that, after 13 years. The intro doesn't even try to tell us what is distinct about the Ukrainian wreath. The wreath is part also of Swedish traditions. It is not as strong as it seems to be in Ukraine, from this article, but neither is it distinct. This article should be moved to wreath in Ukraine, wreath in Ukrainian culture or something else, according to Wikipedian customs that I haven't learnt.--Ettrig (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it as it would be a reasonable search term for someone looking to read about it (and there is enough RS in the article and elsewhere to show that it is a notable thing in Ukraine). However, could also be a case to rename the article to "Vinok" which is what it is called and might be better? 78.18.239.117 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]