Talk:Bus Beloyar

This article was on votes for deletion, the consensus was to keep it. See the archived discussion for further details.

Warning: a detailed page http://www.xpomo.com/ruskolan/liter/site.htm about Ruskolan is of highly dubiuos nature. Ruskolan is probably derived from Roxolans. Mikkalai 07:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) roxolan roksolan the female name Roksolana . Polish poem from 1629 Roksolanki or Russian women by Szymon Zimorowic. Mikkalai 07:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but if the character is treated as mythical, like Ilya Muromets, then everything seems OK. --Gene s 07:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

bozh

The identity of Bus Beloyar and Bozh is nothing but a hypothesis, far from being commonly acceptable today. Therefore it must only be described as such, attributed to the authors of the hypothesis, together with criticism. It cannot be presented in the article as a statement of the fact. - Altenmann >t 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot cite Jordanes in this respect, arbitrarily interpreting the names used in his text. - Altenmann >t 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add text about Bozh into this article, unless there is an evidence that it is interpreted by someone that it is related to Bus. Doing otherwise is practice called "synthesis", not allowed in wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 17:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand wikipedia policies, please ask quections. - Altenmann >t 17:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hrushevskiy cited at the Bozh article (most trusted Ukrainian historian of all times), "Many saw Bus in Boz. The idea is very attractive but not completely certain". The translation of Hrushevsky from Ukrainian provided in [Bozh] is not correct, it gives the opposite meaning. Other evidences provided suggest the correctness of the new version. Tale of Igor's Campaign is another great evidence. Goths' maidens (not some other's people) sing to Bus's time. Next, Bus and Boz(h) is the same pronounciation, only small spelling tints. Much less difference than between Hermanaric (Jordanes) and Ermenrichus (Ammianus Marcellinus), although the person mentionned is the same. Or it is like the word "Chicago" is spelled differеntly by Americans. Some say it "Чикаго" while others say it "Шикаго". Book of Veles - one more evidence. Bus's Monument with inscription on it - one more evidence. The "European stub" you provide as a stable version gives zero information and it is biased, contradicting recognized sources and unproved, i.e "...Huns in east, Romans in south and Germans in West, against Goths' king Hermanarich..." Vitvak (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for Ruskolan, Hrushevsky provides several names for this people based on Herodot and other ancient historians: Roskoliany (page 121), Roxoliany (page 124), Revxinaly (page 124, based on the Diofant's decree). As we can see the same name can be spelled differently by different historians. Vitvak (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have any Slavic evidences except Hrushevsky's (taken from Greek/Roman sources, namely Jordanes) that the Bozh name is correct (not Bus). Bus was mentionned by Jordanes as Boz because Bus and Boz were the same for Jordanes. Jordanes himself was in reality Iordannis (as he called himself) not Jordanes, the similar thing is with Bus/Boz. But the Bus name is more correct because it is mentionned in the Tale of Igor's Campaign (a Slavic document, more correct than Jordanes's perception of Slavic sounds) as well as in Book of Veles (both are challenged for their authenticity as everything connected with the pre -Cristian Slavic culture ). Vitvak (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your points. The Book of Veles is regarded a forgery, Getica is not. Orthography is hardly a problem in this case. This article should be deleted, and a small entry should be made into Bozh: "The Book of Veles, a literary forgery claimed to be ancient Slavic, mentions Bozh (Bus) as +".--Zoupan 08:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Veles does not mention Bozh. It does not mention Bus. Period. It mentions "bus time", and not all agree it is "Bus's time". - Altenmann >t 05:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orthography is always a problem. Getica and Hrushevsky are sufficient sources. The Book of Veles's is considered by some to be a forgery, others consider it other way. The ideas (information itself) of the Book of Veles are not a forgery at all as they are cross-consistent with other sources (Jordanes, Procopius); the media (the planks) was not checked at all due to their disappearance; the image of a plank is not an object to be studied instead of the plank itself. The Soviet era scholars's views on the Book of Veles (L.P. Zhukovskaya) should be reconsidered. As I said Hermanaric (Jordanes) and Ermenrichus (Ammianus Marcellinus) constitute big differance for that Soviet era scholars and on differences like trhat the forgery of the Book of Veles is grounded (L.P. Zhukovskaya). Vitvak (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I suggest you to learn now wikipedia works: WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY - read and understand. Otherwise all what you wrote has a singe answer: "tl;dr" . YOur opinions on the subject are irrelevant; only scholarly sources. - Altenmann >t 05:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Beloyar will be redirected to Bozh as per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Redirection. Again, an entry about Book of Veles' mention of Bus/Bozh is sufficient.--Zoupan 14:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be redirected. And Bozh is not mentioned in Book of Veles. The article is mess, and it looks like Bus Beloyar is invention of Alexander Asov, but I have no time for this bullshit. Betse is to delete. Russian wikipedia does not have this page. - Altenmann >t 03:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hrushevsky "Many saw Bus in Boz. The idea is very attractive but not completely certain". In history everithing is not completely certain. Bus's time was sang in The Tale of Igor's Campaign. Hrushevsky acknoledges several possible versions of name Bozh: Bozhko, Bozhidar etc. All these are facts. Alexander Asov or prof. Chudinov is no way worse than L.P. Zhukovskaya/Rybakov. "I have no time for this bullshit", according to Altenmann, suggests his nonrespect for our history and his destructive/vandalic activity expressed by such nonrespect. So Altenmann should be removed from moderators, his IP adress blocked for ecditing, Vitvak's version should be restored. And let him stop distorting and making fun of history of Slavic nationality, to which, according to my judgement, he has little relation. Vitvak (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow wikipedia rules , learn carefully the policies WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Your interpretations of ancient authors are irrelevant. Please use modern sources. - Altenmann >t 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Asov or Chudinov are academic scholars. They are freaks whose opinion nobody is taking seriously, and which has no place in Wikipedia beyond the articles on these guys. Rybakov, though I am not exactly fond of his ideas, was a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]