Talk:Snokhachestvo

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

This article contains multiple serious problems with sourcing, quotations, and factual accuracy introduced during a series of edits by user Mukimy. The issues outlined below are based on the article version as of 17 February 2025 (end of Mukimy’s initial major edit block), although related problems persist in later revisions.

---

1. Duplicate quotation, misattribution, and continued misuse of sources

As of 17 February 2025, the article contained two versions of the same quotation by Vladimir Dmitrievich Nabokov, taken from Laura Engelstein’s The Keys to Happiness : one from the English original and one from the Russian translation. The second quote was added without removing the first, resulting in duplication.

The quotation was also incorrectly linked to Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov (the novelist) rather than to Vladimir Dmitrievich Nabokov, the jurist who is the actual author.

Although the duplicated quotation was later removed and the attribution partially corrected, related issues remain. In subsequent edits ( November 2025) new links to biological incest were added in other parts of the article, inserted into statements citing different authors (e.g., Смирнов and Тыдыкова), none of whom describe snokhachestvo as biological incest.

Engelstein describes incest (krovosmeshchenie) as a legal category encompassing sexual relations with persons related either by blood or by marriage, within degrees defined by church law ("Engelstein"., p. 42). In this framework, snokhachestvo falls under relations by marriage rather than biological kinship. None of the cited sources support treating snokhachestvo specifically as a form of biological incest. As a marital relation defined by law, snokhachestvo is conceptually distinct from incest based on blood kinship.

---

2. Unsupported quotations and misrepresentation of Bogaevsky (1889)

The article attributes the following claims to Bogaevsky, P. M. (1889):

“the unrestricted power of the patriarch and the almost complete powerless position of women in the family”, as well as a preceding sentence describing motivations for cohabitation (early marriage, sexual attraction, and economic factors).

Neither of these statements appears in the 1889 edition of Bogaevsky’s work.

In the relevant sections (pp. 8–11), Bogaevsky describes family hierarchy in a nuanced and differentiated manner, including:

the significant advisory role of the mother within the household,

the recognized inviolability of the daughter-in-law’s dowry,

differentiated gender roles, rather than an assertion of women’s “almost complete powerlessness”.

The sole paragraph addressing snokhachestvo in this source (p. 17) characterizes it as rare among Sarapul peasants and not a customary practice, stating:

“Т. н. снохачество мало развито среди сарапульскихъ крестьянъ, по крайней мѣрѣ, оно не представляется обычнымъ явленіемъ.”

This paragraph contains no discussion of motivations for cohabitation (such as early marriage, sexual attraction, or economic factors) and does not support the broader claims attributed to Bogaevsky in the article.

A digitized copy of this edition is available online (access may be region-restricted): https://elibrary.unatlib.ru/web/viewer.html?dsfile=fd2fc827-1477-4514-ac0f-b56243176db7

---

3. Misrepresentation of Brockhaus and Efron

The article claims that peasants viewed snokhachestvo only as a sin, not as a crime, citing Brockhaus and Efron (1895).

However, the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary explicitly states (in a footnote to the entry “Кровосмешение”) that peasants did regard snokhachestvo as a crime, and that volost courts imposed punishments for it:

“Вообще народ видит теперь в снохачестве преступление, хотя и не особенно важное, как об этом свидетельствуют приговоры (дореформенных) волостных судов.”

(Brockhaus and Efron, Encyclopedic Dictionary, vol. XVI, p. 801; digitized text available on Wikisource: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/ЭСБЕ/Кровосмешение)

---

4. Irrelevant source (Tydykova, 2008)

A paragraph describing rape, incest, abortion, and murder is cited to "Tydykova (2008)"..

This source contains no mention of snokhachestvo and does not support the specific historical claims made in the article. It is a modern dissertation on contemporary violent sexual crimes and appears unrelated to the material it is cited for.

---

5. Misuse of Kostrov (1876)

Statistics on spousal murders in Tomsk Province are cited as evidence related to snokhachestvo, referencing Kostrov (1876), p. 117.

In fact:

• the cited passage appears on p. 20, not p. 117;
• it concerns forced marriages, not snokhachestvo;
• Kostrov explicitly distinguishes these phenomena.

Kostrov does discuss snokhachestvo elsewhere (p. 75), stating that only seven cases were considered by courts over a 25-year period — but this relevant passage is not cited in the article.

A digitized copy of this edition is available online (access may be region-restricted): https://www.prlib.ru/item/732724

---

6. Incorrect internal links and unclear source attribution (geographic confusion)

The article refers to villages in Oryol Province (Konevka and Melovoe), but the internal links lead to homonymous villages located in other regions (e.g., Vologda and Volgograd Oblasts), which is misleading.

In addition, the passage describing these villages is cited to Bezgin (2004). However, the quoted wording explicitly refers to archival materials from the V. N. Tenishev Ethnographic Bureau (АРЭМ, fond 7, op. 1, d. 916, l. 7) and is known to appear in published form in A. B. Ostrovsky’s study “Представления о кровосмешении в русской крестьянской среде конца XIX в.”, based on the same archival materials. This suggests that the source attribution in the article may require clarification.

---

7. Irrelevant material

A paragraph discussing prostitution, sexual behavior, and “sexual inversions” has no direct relevance to snokhachestvo and appears unrelated to the article topic.

---

Taken together, these examples suggest a pattern of source misrepresentation, incorrect citations, misleading internal links, and inclusion of irrelevant material across multiple sections of the article. I believe this content requires careful review and correction in accordance with Wikipedia’s sourcing and verifiability standards. Аксамит (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I am requesting wider community input regarding multiple sourcing and accuracy issues in this article.

A detailed breakdown of the problems has been provided above on this talk page, but in summary the concerns include:

• quotations attributed to sources where the cited wording does not appear;
• misrepresentation of what sources actually state (including claims contradicted by the cited works);
• use of clearly irrelevant sources for historical claims;
• misleading internal links and unclear source attribution;
• insertion of analytical claims not supported by the cited references.

Several of these issues originate from a series of edits by one contributor, and despite partial later corrections, many problematic statements and citations remain in the article.

I would appreciate independent evaluation of whether the current content meets Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, accurate use of sources, and reliable sourcing, and guidance on how these sections should be corrected.

Thank you for your time and input. Аксамит (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFCCAT: the "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case. If your intent is to amend a policy or guideline, this is the wrong venue: discussion should be held on the talk page for the policy or guideline itself, or at WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out — I’ve updated the RfC category accordingly. Аксамит (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Аксамит: Requests for comment are meant for resolving disputes between editors on how an article should look. Here, it doesn't seem like there is a dispute. In fact, you do not appear to have edited the article at all. If there is no disagreement, there is no need for an RFC and you should just be bold and make the changes you think best for the article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: Thank you for your comment.

My concern is not a single wording issue but a series of sourcing and attribution problems that span multiple sections and edits. Some of these stem from repeated additions by one contributor, and while there has not been an edit war, the issues persist over time.

I considered making bold changes, but given the number of sources involved and the possibility of disagreement or reversion, I thought it would be more appropriate to request broader community input first.

I have previously interacted with the article (e.g., adding a «failed verification» tag regarding a claim about modern Russia)), but large-scale rewriting without prior discussion felt inappropriate in this case.

My intention is simply to ensure accurate sourcing and neutral wording rather than to win a content dispute. Аксамит (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

In any case, you had done more than enough with your previous post on this talk page outlining what you thought were problems. Nobody objected – on Wikipedia, silence often implies consent. At that point, you could have simply gone ahead and edited. If someone, perhaps the editor you identify as the source of many of your objections, objected for example by reverting you, it would then be time to discuss and negotiate to find a consensus. Only if that failed, would it be time to invoke a dispute resolution process asking other editors to assess the arguments.

Establishing a strong consensus before doing big changes sounds like a good idea when you're new here (I've been there myself!), but as you can tell by the fact that nobody has meaningfully responded to this RFC in a week, nobody is really interested in commenting in such a discussion. You could also look at this from the perspective of community resources: a proper RFC requires many editors to spend a considerable amount of time and effort to research a topic and make up their minds about it. Why spend all these resources when there hasn't even been a proper disagreement? Normal editing and discussion about any disputes (which here have not even manifested yet) is much more efficient. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a good essay on how Wikipedia editing typically looks in practice. Related to that: you mention "the possibility of disagreement or reversion" – being reverted is not a bad thing; it just means it's time to discuss. You'll get used to that as you get more experienced in editing :) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: Thank you for the clarification and the helpful advice. That makes sense. I will proceed with careful, source-based edits and will open discussion if any disagreements arise. Аксамит (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If the RfC is inappropriate, can the tag be removed? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, done. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I endorse the encouragement to be bold made above. While I had never heard of this practice before today, your detailed analysis above appears sound. I myself saw passages where the English was unclear (eg "In a large peasant family, as a rule, there were several families of different generations"), … ("when they were looking for a wife for their son not for a wife for a son, but, first of all, for a free worker", is probably intended to mean "when seemingly looking for a wife for their son, often their main aim was to get a free worker") . Good luck Pincrete (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Thank you! I will review the wording and make some small clarifications and source-based adjustments where needed. Аксамит (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)