Talk:Mokosh

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mokosh. 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/20160304074137/http://www.peterlang.com/detail/buch/35057/5/50896/ to http://www.peterlang.com/detail/buch/35057/5/50896/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Undoing the redirect "Mat Syra Zemlya" to this article

Hello, user Berig. Sorry to bother you, but I would like to request something: the divine name "Mat Syra Zemlya" ('Mother Moist Earth') redirects to "Mokosh", a Slavic deity. Nowhere in this article the expression "Mat Syra Zemlya" is found by using crtl+F. However, there *is* the article "Mat Zemlya" ('Mother Earth'), which *does* contain the expression, and explains its occurrences in Slavic mythology. My request is that "Mat Syra Zemlya" redirects to "Mat Zemlya", not to "Mokosh".189.122.34.209 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Done!--Berig (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox claiming "Goddess of fertility, waters and earth"

I've repeatedly removed a misleading infobox presenting theory as fact. Recently this article saw a rewrite primarily with Russian sources (which need to be checked, as research in Russia on these topics can be extremely dubious) and this infobox is not giving me confidence in the quality here. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

1) As I said, infoboxes are not about "facts", infoboxes are about what is in the article. (Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_not_contain?). You are removing the infobox against these rules.

2) I agree that Russian sources can promote nonsense (turboslavism), but Russian article is very critical, it explains problems with sources and folklore very well and as non-Russian I don't see anything ideological/pseudoscientific/turboslavic about it and it's easy to see once you read it. East Slavic scholars have better understanding of East Slavic folklore than other Slavic scholars, and Western scholars usually say pure nonsense. Sławobóg (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, presenting "goddess of fertility, waters and earth" as a simple fact is unacceptable and will be removed on sight no matter where it is. We're not here to swindle Wikipedia readers. This is not difficult: stick to what the record actually says. Nowhere do we have an historical attestation that lists the article's subject as "goddess of fertility, waters and earth" — this is a proposal and if it is not presented as a proposal, it will be removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, infobox is about giving informations from the article, not "facts", you made up a rule. If you have few sources saying something else or explaining why that view is wrong, then add them and we could remove that specific information from the infobox. Instead, you removed whole infobox and added no content. Sławobóg (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a core policy on Wikipedia and not negotiable. Again, do not present theory as fact to readers, in an infobox or anywhere else on article spaces. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Article is very neutral and I have nothing more to add about "facts" in infoboxes. Sławobóg (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I will bring infobox back but without disputed information, is that good enough? Sławobóg (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you're so fixated on having an infobox with lines like "| member_of = Vladimir's pantheon"? What is this adding to the article? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Vladimir's pantheon or something similar will be article in the future. Infobox is not doing any damage, has some informations in it, and infobox is generally expected. What is your problem with infoboxes? Sławobóg (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with these infoboxes is exactly what we're seeing here: Sloppy presentation of theory as fact and simplification of topics that require more extensive discussion. Infoboxes are great for car models but not deities. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it is pretty normal to use mainstream theory that is well referenced in infobox; infoboxes are used like that. {{infobox deity}} exists for a reason and is widely used. You don't own the article. I'm going to bring infobox back without the function, as compromise. Sławobóg (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's very simple: No matter how much you complain or whine, present theory as fact in an article space and it will be reverted. Given how fast and loose you've shown yourself to be with sources, this article badly needs a thorough review to see what else you may have slipped in here and there. We need eyes from a third party on this user's edits but a total rewrite will likely be a lot more efficient. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about again? Sławobóg (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You're going to have a very difficult time around here until you stick to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So I'm glad that article is well sourced and explains many ideas. Sławobóg (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Considering how many of the publications you've used are Soviet-era Russian, there's a very good chance that a total rewrite is necessary here. For any editors following this discussion, I recommend taking a closer look. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

How many? I counted 8 (Barsov, Anichkov, Galkovsky, Ivanov-Toporov, Mokiyenko, Vasmer, Sreznevsky, Lamansky). Most of the Russian sources are post-Soviet. Vasmer and Sreznevsky are dictionaries, Lamansky is referenced once. Article has NPOV, is very critical (no pro-Slavic or anti-Slavic nonsense) and very detailed. I also added some text that is not found on ru.wiki (yet) based on non-Russian source. Do you have any specific criticism? If not, don't pretend you know Slavistics. I'll be nominating article for featured article soon. Sławobóg (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a great forum for lots of feedback and a rigorous checking of the sources you've provided. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any feedback yet, just allegations based on feelings. Sławobóg (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Copy Editing (January 2025)

I have decided to help copy edit this article! Other editors are welcome to post questions and comments at the moment! Prime6421 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sacrifice of theodore removed

It has no relation to Mokosh whatsoever. Please do not restorer without discussion. --Altenmann >talk 16:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, the article has large chunks of WP:SYNTH. --Altenmann >talk 16:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Where? Sławobóg (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann, the sacrifice of the Varangians to the Kiev pantheon, that is, in particular, to Mokosh. Perhaps you mean that the sacrifice was made to several gods at once, but the authors do not directly say that it was Mokosh, and then it supposedly does not apply to her. But if it does not apply to her, then it does not apply to any of the deities of the pantheon, and therefore the sacrifice was made to no one. This is meaningless.

I would like to know where exactly the synthesis is located. GrugaroLoGran (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Just do not add text without sources that explicitly discuss Mokosh, and we will be good. --Altenmann >talk 15:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The article must provide the evidence of Mokosh. THe statement "the sacrifice of the Varangians to the Kiev pantheon, that is, in particular, to Mokosh" is circular logic: the goal of the article is exacly to prove that Mokosh was part of the pantheon.--Altenmann >talk 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, researchers do not deny the existence of Mokosh in the Kiev pantheon. Unless, of course, we take into account the hypothesis that the names of the gods were a literary insertion, but there is no evidence for this claim. The purpose of mentioning the sacrifice of the Varangians is not to prove the existence of anyone, but only to describe the cult. GrugaroLoGran (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The cult of who? --Altenmann >talk 16:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Sacrifice were made to all the gods of Kiev, and therefore to Mokosh in particular, meaning that sacrifice was part of her cult. GrugaroLoGran (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Wrong logic: a sarifice made to all gods does not mean that it was specifically "her cult".

This article is specifically about Mokosh, not about "all gods". There is plenty of information about Kievan pagan beliefs, and we are not going to put all of it here just because Mokosh was one of "all gods". --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

In any case, this discussion is meaningless: the source cited must sepecificaaly mention Mokosh or something directly related to Mokosh, because of the scope of the artcle. --Altenmann >talk 17:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

So there are only 6 or 7 gods. If this does not characterize the cult of Mokosh, then it does not characterize the cult of any other deity from the pantheon. Therefore, as I wrote above, it turns out that the recipient of the sacrifice was no one.

In any case, okay. I just wanted to clarify your position for myself. GrugaroLoGran (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Not so. In fact it turns out that you do not know who was the recipient. --Altenmann >talk 19:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

According to your logic, it turns out that it is unknown which idols were destroyed in 988. Only Perun and the gods are mentioned there, but not Mokosh directly. Then this paragraph should also be deleted. GrugaroLoGran (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Which paragraph? --Altenmann >talk 11:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

"After Vladimir baptized Rus in 988". GrugaroLoGran (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)