Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

Falsification

This map ([1]) falsifies history. Kievan Rus disintegrated before the advent of cities Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod. The name " Belgorod Dnestrovsky" appeared in the Soviet Union (1944). The name "Vladimir Volynsky" -1795 year. Chersonessos ? Itil ? ... ... Michaila vnuk (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the map is really inaccurate. Lifeglider (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this issue up again, Michaila vnuk. The veracity of the map has been disputed before. I'm going to reinstate it temporarily as I don't think you can take issue with the introductory map without taking issue with the one located here and here within the body of the article as well. The most important aspect is that reliable and verifiable sources are used for the purposes of English Wikipedia. It is not essential that they be in English.
As it appears that you are well acquainted with this era, as well as being aware of historical tampering with the borders, etc., could you provide some citations to back up your claims? In order to replace these maps, we need A) Verification; B) Access to more realistic maps which won't incur copyright violations or, if that is not possible, can be reworked in order to avoid copyright violations. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Please note that I have directed all of your talk page challenges to this one file to this talk page as it has far more traffic than the others.
Removing individual instances of this map serves little purpose as it is in use on a number of English Wikipedia pages, as well as a substantial number of other wikis. Full details about this file are to be found here and here... and seems to be derived from another uncited file (a larger .PNG version, the author of which has had multiple files deleted from Wikipedia & Wiki Commons over the years) and created using a mapping tool. Considering that not one of the instances cites a single source on which it was based, I'm surprised that it has been floating around and being used for so long without anyone questioning its veracity.
It should be challenged at the storage source in order that it be deleted entirely and allowing for all who are using it to state their case if they object to the deletion, as well as warn editors on the relevant pages that its veracity is in question and that they will need to replace it with a verifiable map from a reliable source.
The deletion of this file would require going through the correct deletion processes Wiki Commons and English Wikipedia separately. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point, let's make a new map and exchange the old one with it. But i'm not sure that reinstating would be necessary. The source can be Janet Martin's book about medieval Rus/Ruthenia. The author explains the facts from a interesting perspective. Read it, if you not yet did it. Lifeglider (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. What benefit from maps, that characterizes Kievan Rus in the 11th century, but shows the city, are based in the 13th century. ? If there is not a good map, why show falsification ?

How a geographer who has studied the history, characterizing these cards above. [2] [3] Michaila vnuk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: The first map linked here would go nicely in the infobox. As for the second one, I prefer the map from the same time period that is currently on the page, buried at the bottom in the Administrative units section. That map should be moved to the Fragmentation and decline section, and the vague map in the Golden age section should be removed. I've been working on image placement on a number of pages lately, as well as revamping the map profile of the Khazar page, and I think this configuration would work and be more instructive. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for moving ahead on this without waiting a bit longer. I was experimenting with how my proposal would look, and this seems a clear improvement so I went ahead with it. Great find, by the way, on the map, Michaila vnuk! - Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see the move, Lazlo! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


Dear Iryna Harpy, you asked for some citations

  • Book of historian, full member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR Mikhail Tikhomirov [4] "Old Russian City," 1956. Scientific works [5]
  • In 1147: Moscow was the homestead, the first mention in the chronicle (Tikhomirov, [6]).
  • Insignificant city (Moscow) 12-13 centuries (Tikhomirov, [7]).
  • Nizhny Novgorod founded in 1221 by Yuri Vsyevolodovitch (Tikhomirov, [8]).
  • Please note that the map of the old, new and non-existent cities ([9]) does not match with this ([10]), which is in the article.
  • Here's collection of maps from Russian textbooks (there Kievan Rus in the 11th century) [11]. A cursory analysis shows a very poor quality of this maps [12].
  • On this map [13] is not enough only to St. Petersburg ??????!.

Michaila vnuk (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, Michaila vnuk. Out of interest -
  1. Would you consider that the amalgamated map derived from "Ізборник" (980 to 1054 and 1054 to 1132) is a reasonable reproduction of Kievan Rus' for that period (as used within this article)? Obviously, the person responsible for it has tried to squash too large a period into a single map and has created absolute borders for outlying territories. How would you consider it best to redress the major problems?
  2. The same question applies to the use of the 980 to 1054 map at 'Izbornyk' being reproduced in this article as this map?
  3. Finally, the reproduction of the 8th to 9th century as is also reproduced in this article?
I'd be grateful for your feedback on the matter as there's a good deal of effort involved if I need to rework maps using other source maps to be translated into English (although, if the situation calls for it, I'm willing to do so). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Good afternoon.
1. I believe that merging the two maps (980-1054, 1054-1132) is inappropriate. The first describes the heyday , and the second - a period of civil strifes. Pay attention - historians show always narrow time periods. When you combine the story itself is lost (the development of the state in time) and one historical situation is superimposed on the other. Better to show the historical period of prosperity. But, in any case, must show the date of the historical period.
2. This map ([14]) also has a drawback. South of Kievan Rus (area) located on the lands of nomadic peoples. Here [15] in the south there is some diffusion. I think that is a good option [16]. Michaila vnuk (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm entirely in agreement with you as regards the merging of eras, which is what all the current maps attempt to do (including the principalities, etc.). I read them as purpose built in order that the cartography fits a generic theory, and each one slots neatly into the others creating the illusion of a cohesive 'map' spanning nearly 4 centuries(!) or, at the least, trying to squash a couple of centuries together. The reality is that principalities currently happily sitting together side by side were not concurrent in the manner in which they are presented, nor are the absolute borders shown realistic.
The problem is that these maps are pretty, colourful, easy for readers to digest at a glance and hence, as evidenced by the number of Wikis using them, highly desirable. Replacing them with maps accurately depicting shorter eras would involve omitting regions and the shifting spheres of influence. Ultimately, this would require that: A) more maps be produced and crowded into one article, or B) recreating the same number of maps (which might leave some interested parties feeling irate). Personally, I'd rather work on a small number of maps which DO represent known territories at a particular point in time (i.e. the zenith of Kievan Rus') with only absolute perimeters illustrated; the disintegration; the principalities (denoting earliest to latest in the text/legend)... but I doubt whether I could make them as pretty. Does pretty override veracity?
Before I embark on the hefty task of creating new maps, I need to check with other contributors to this article as to whether they agree on my changing maps as per this discussion. All feedback appreciated! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, first I agree that marging is inappropriate. What is usually missing from the merged maps are the cities that existed, and in most cases it happens ukrainian cities, probably because of the creators, which happens to be russians. Second, the maps should be containing names in english, otherwise it will be inaccessible for western readers. What source are you planning to use? Lifeglider (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for taking my time in responding but I was hoping for further input from other editors/contributors before pursuing the matter further. My preference would be to use the Izbornyk map for 980 to 1054 as it explicitly represents the Golden Age (Vladimir the Great followed by Yaroslav the Wise), while the 1054 to 1132 is already the period of fragmentation and decline under Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav the Great.
The map of Administrative Centres, while it claims to be depicting the period 1054 to 1132, has me scratching my head. It points to the same two maps used for the map above and no others sources... so I don't have any idea as to how the creator of this map established the various borders of principalities. Perhaps they came to him in a vision?
The 8th and 9th century map of East Slavic peoples is purportedly taken from the Izbornyk version, but it doesn't quite adhere and, again, depicts absolute borders where there hasn't ever been any evidence beyond a generalized area.
Finally, I've done a lot of desktop publishing and know my way around Photoshop well. Translating the text of the Izbornyk maps into English is not a problem for me, but I know that the construction of the maps could take me a couple of full working days apiece. I have no intention of labouring over them if other editors/contributors are going to dismiss them as being incorrect and protest their use in place of the existing maps, therefore I'll continue to wait on further indication as to whether others involved in this article are going to accept or reject them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Visual effect

Re recent edit revert of replacing columns by lists by Irena Harpy, I generally find columns provide a much more visually pleasing look on the page than long lists that occupy a lot of vertical space, mainly blank (there is probably something in MOS about this). However I agree that here the situation is a little different since there is text as well as simple link lists so it gets more cluttered. I also recognise that you are very familiar with this page over time. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Michael Goodyear. I did recognise that it was done in good faith. I've been known to tidy galleries, tweak columns, create tables, ad infinitum for precisely the same reasons as you've outlined above. I do find sprawling lists irritating. In this instance, unfortunately, the text isn't conducive to columns.
Nevertheless, thank you for drawing my attention to the section. It needs a bit of a copyedit as some of the info appears to have been entered by contributors whose first language isn't English. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' and tectonic shifts

Just a quick note regarding reverting this edit: unless I'm mistaken, Kievan Rus' was not Novgorodian Rus' unless it turns out that the Indian subcontinent collided with Novgorod and Novgorod moved to Kiev. I'm not sure of what this user has in mind for their next contribution, but it may be that another land mass in the Black Sea (Crimea?) collided and Kiev moved to Moscow. It may account for the existence of the Urals. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Dubious" tag

The disputed material tag that was added is appropriate when an article "contains unlikely information, without providing suitable references." But this statement is referenced and taken directly from a reliable source. The dispute then appears to be with the source -- do you have a source that disagrees with the source used? You ask "since when?" How is that relevant? The statement regards the people who populated the area prior to the emergence of KR, not how long they had been there. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for actually starting a corresponding section for discussion, Lazlo Panaflex. I've only just encountered the tag and was perplexed by it. Janet Martin is undoubtedly a reliable source. Where is the RS to suggest that the statement is 'dubious'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The flag of Kievan Rus

I wonder why the article is missing the flag of Kievan Rus in the introductory table, as is customary for pages on states. --66.193.187.2 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would assume that it's simply unknown what flag Kievan Rus' used, or, equally likely, there were multiple flags depending on the specific ruler, not a single state flag. Do you know of a reliable source that discusses the flag? Huon (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Graphical History of Kievan Rus

Iryna -

I'm confused as to why you reverted that last edit of 28 June by Ulmanor. The current entry is a dead link, at least as far as I can tell. http://www.angelfire.com/or3/kievan_rus/ looks to be correct. Paulmlieberman (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks that the angelfire link was accidentally duplicated, which broke the URL. The .tk site is dead for me, too, so I took the liberty to fix and restore the angelfire link. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 30, 2014; 13:22 (UTC)
I use Firefox and the Angelfire site doesn't work. I've actually preserved all of the site (complete with all of the linked pages) via the Wayback Machine. Perhaps it would be best if I were to link it directly to the Wayback Machine. Considering that I'm hardly alone in using Firefox as my preferred browser, and that the site uses archaic coding and pop-ups that most new browsers block or don't recognise, I'd see it as being far more useful for readers to be able to access the direct, simple HTML pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I just tried http://www.angelfire.com/or3/kievan_rus/ with Chrome, Firefox and IE, on Windows 7, and it worked fine (including those obnoxious ads) on all three. On the other hand, I agree with Iryna that the simple HTML would be much preferable. Any idea who owns these maps? Are there copyright issues? Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm on Windows 8.1 now and, since my old laptop died a few weeks ago, don't have the means to check various browsers on Windows 7 or earlier. As it stands, the Angelfire site isn't attributed, but the Wayback Machine still features the Angelfire logo, etc. This is what it looks like accessing the maps and links from the archive. I'm not certain as to whether copyright issues are of relevance in this instance. Perhaps Ëzhiki has some insight into the matter.
PS The site ultimately belongs to Lycos per these terms. After checking the source content, the user who produced the maps did not name him/herself. Lycos has the right to keep the material in the public domain and, as there was no attribution or copyright in the first place, plus bearing in mind that this is an external link, I have further reason to suggest that it falls under "fair use". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Firefox + Windows 8.1 here, both sites work fine, if a bit wonky (some "undefined's" here and there). The Wayback Machine one loads a little slower. After looking at it via Internet Explorer and seeing all those horrible ads, I say keep the Wayback Machine one. --illythr (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done In agreement over the pop-ups. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms of Kievan Rus

Accordingly to the Wiki entry on Symbols of the Rurikids, "every knyaz had his own “coat of arms”. There is no particular reason to discriminate and choose one coat of arms over others. However, the article uses Vladimir's emblem attributed wrongly as the state's coat of arms. As the state as a whole did not possess a coat of arms, I would suggest to delete the picture from the article as misleading (or, at least, annotate properly: the shown coat of arms belongs personally to Vladimir the Great) 81.109.125.129 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you for the observation. The coat of arms was removed by me some time ago as original research, but was recently reinstated. Removed again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging "Old Russian State"

As I didn't have a chance to chime in on the RM on the other article (and, in truth, the proposal should have been discussed here where there are far more editors watching this page), the "Old Russian State" article should not have been merged here as it is WP:OFFTOPIC. The WP:TITLE of the page is the clue, and it does not encompass political WP:RECENTISM, nor should it be treated as a WP:COATRACK for political propaganda.

I'd suggest that the article either remain where it was, or that it be appended to All-Russian nation or Russian nationalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should not be merged. However, I have added a brief note and link to that page under "Name" section. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit just removed the link, claiming WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:OFFTOPIC. I don't think any of those apply. It's not recent or news; Russia has been using "Old Russian State" for more than 5 years now. I don't see how it's off-topic; its about the name of this topic.
I know that some think it's a little weird that Russia is pushing that term; they're probably "up to something". I actually would tend to agree. But the fact that WP:IDONTLIKEIT cannot be any influence on WP. Some official organizations are using that term. Some readers may come across it, and wonder what it means. To inform them, we should link it. That's all I'm up to. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv vs. Kiev

I undid revision 643227062 by MishkaUA008 (talk) today. S/he had changed all instances of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". With all due respect to speakers of Ukrainian and Russian, this is the English version of Wikipedia, and though Kyiv is a better transliteration of Київ, Kiev is how the English-speaking world best knows the city, and therefore, it is the best term to use when referring to the Rus'. If this frustrates native speakers, think how Jews feel that Yahweh became Jehovah. It's an accident of linguistic history, and we just have to live with it. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd go one step further. Even if there were a trend to denote the modern city as "Kyiv", I do not think there's a corresponding trend to rename the Rus' to the "Kyivan Rus'". My Google Books search found "Kievan Rus'" to outnumber "Kyivan Rus'" more than 15:1. Huon (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
This is why we've have a dedicated talk page for Kiev/naming for years. Kiev is the English language WP:COMMONNAME which has been definitively reinforced by recent events in Ukraine. Per Huon's observation, I've also noted (somewhere in the pages and pages of archived talk) that, even if there were a dramatic change to the use of "Kyiv" in contemporary terms, this would not include historical articles such as this one. Kievan Rus', in itself, was a synthesised naming convention adopted in the 19th century to qualify the historical use of Rus' to denote the State/Kingdom/Empire from whence the modern day peoples and cultures of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine evolved. The nomenclature used for this article reflects contemporary English language studies of this state whereby the anachronistic use of 'Kievan Russia' has fallen by the wayside as being a misconception promoted during the era of Empires that misrepresented the complexity and reality of the terminology (i.e., just as the use of 'England' to denote Britain, and Russia to denote the USSR have been re-evaluated to reflect the real meaning). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The main city of Rus' only Veliky Novgorod! (also known as Holmgard!)

Kiev - this is Khazars colony! His real name is SAMBAT! Therefore this article should be called Old Russian State! Our state began in 862 with prince Rurik! Remove Khazars colony Sambat-kyiv from our history! This is not our capital! Our Capital is Holmgard! ---Zemant (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Zemant, as I've noted to you in the past, you would need to bring some serious WP:RS in order to bring this to the table for discussion alone. Until such a time, this is essentially Басни Крылова (AKA WP:OR). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Novgorod was later founded and Kiev was the first capital of Rus, so stop with your ukrainianphobic propaganda and accept that Kiev was the centre of Kievan rus. "Archaeological excavations in the middle to late 20th century, however, have found cultural layers dating back only to the late 10th century, the time of the Christianization of Rus' and a century after it was allegedly founded, suggesting that the chronicle entries mentioning Novgorod in the 850s or 860s are later interpolations.[14] Archaeological dating is fairly easy and accurate to within 15–25 years, as the streets were paved with wood, and most of the houses made of wood, allowing for tree ring dating." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veliky_Novgorod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2028:607:9A01:45EB:E5CD:936B:48F3 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Kiev link in 1st sentence

I think adding a link to Kiev in the first sentence is helpful. The fact that "Kievan" means "of Kiev" is not obvious to all English speakers, especially as "Kievan" looks like something pronounced "Keevan". The analogy of Roman doesn't apply, as Roman is likely two orders of magnitude more well-known than Kievan. (And I think it would actually help there as well.)

There's benefit in adding it, and no detriment I can see. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit war

I have reverted Brynsten's edits for the following reasons:

Reply: Well, that link indicates that the word graven is linked to Russian. Kievan Rus was a place of origin of Belarus and Ukraine and Russia, not only Russia.
  • There's no need to point out twice in the lead that the Rurikid dynasty had Scandinavian connections. If the ethnic origin of the dynasty is significant enough to be discussed in the lead at all, we should link to the Varangians article, which deals specifically with this branch of Scandinavians.
Reply: there's nothing wrong about indicating Scandinavian connection here.
  • Kiev certainly is the capital of Ukraine, but there's no need whatsoever to mention that in the lead of the article.
Reply: There is a need to explain it because the term "Kievan Rus" consists of two words, both need to be explained.
  • I have no idea whether or not Kievan Rus' was "the only state containing 'Rus' that is known in history", but no source for that claim was given, and since Ivan IV named himself Tsar and Grand Duke of all Rus', I rather doubt it.
Reply: there are good reasons to doubt any facts related to this topic in the absence of hard historic evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brynsten (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In summary the edits appear to advance a nationalist point of view without improving the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply: This is actually very hard allegation and is not a good community spirit Huon (talk).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brynsten (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The page for Kiev is already linked in the infobox and the second paragraph of the article. There is no need to force it into the first sentence. As for the currency, the unit used then is apt, not the unit used now. Your last changes, which broke the link, appear to replace a Russian spelling with a Ukrainian one. How does that advance a Russian nationalistic agenda, as you charged in your edit summary? At any rate, the deciding factor is how it is used in English language sources. As for the Scandanavian-Varangian link, that seems more appropriate for the pages on Rurik Dynasty and Oleg than here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Brynsten has a point that there's no reason to choose the Russian spelling for the currency over the Ukrainian or Byelorussian; conversely there's no reason to choose the Ukrainian over the Russian or Byelorussian either. Since the target article is at Grzywna (unit) anyway, I'd suggest using a piped link and displaying the Old East Slavic name of grivĭna. Regarding Kiev, I think we can expect our readers to be a little better-educated than Brynsten takes them to be. Kiev is pretty well-known, unlike "Rus'", particularly this spelling with the apostrophe at the end. Furthermore, the Kievan Rus' are not so named because Kiev is the capital of Ukraine. For comparison, the lead paragraph of Roman Empire doesn't even link to the city of Rome, much less mention that it's the capital of Italy today. I still haven't seen a source for the claim about having been "the only state containing 'Rus' that is known in history". Since Brynsten agrees that reliable sources are necessary for claims on this topic, I expect we're done on this last issue until such sources are provided. Huon (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said here and on Brynsten's talk page, I have no preference for which spelling is used. The spelling preferred in RS is the proper form to use here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
While Kiev is well known in Europe, it might not be well-known in more distant regions of the world where some people might still think that it is in Russia. This seems to be quickly changing because of news coverage of events in the region. Still, I thought it would not hurt to refer the readers to the modern geographic location where Kievan Rus once was. This is to facilitate perception of the article, its connection to the world we live in today. Regarding use of "grivna", thank you Huon and Laszlo Panaflex on consensus that the way it appears to readers should be changed from Russian "grivna" to a more objective and relevant to this article, term "grivĭna'. I am not technically skilled enough to correct the way it appears to readers and I hope that someone can change this or I can change it if someone tells me how. Brynsten (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Re grivna vs grivĭna: Brynsten, you are misconstruing what I wrote. I said that we should be guided by how the term is rendered in reliable sources, in accord with WP:RS. A Google Books search renders a long list of books using "grivna," including a number of sources cited in this article, and authors of various nationalities. Usage of "grivĭna" is sparse and almost entirely limited to foreign language web sites, some of which also use "grivna." I find none of the sources used here. "Grivna" is clearly the more common English rendering used in a variety of RS. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Once again, I would remind editors that this article is for the English-language Wikipedia. Whereas speakers of Russian, Ukranian, and other Slavic languages may want to see "grivĭna", the vast majority of English speakers will have never seen a breve over an i, and have no idea what it is or how to pronounce it. As such, I think its use in this article just gets in the way of understanding. Having a link to the Grzywna article is enough; anyone who wants to learn more about it (including the various ways of spelling it) can go there. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Laszlo Panaflex is right regarding the most common name. My initial Google Books searches seemed to somewhat favor "Hryvina", but in a direct comparison "Grivna" wins out, particularly considering that some of the hits for "Hryvina" were false positives referring to the modern currency instead of the ancient one. Huon (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Today part of"

Since the introduction of the "Today part of" section to the infobox, followed by some edit warring over the order of presentation, can safely state that we have consensus for listing modern nation-states alphabetically as being the preferable, WP:NPOV form of representation? I'm casting my !vote is for alphabetical order. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to the issue of infobox map

Since the deletion of the map used for the infobox well over a year ago, the principalities map keeps getting reintroduced as a depiction of Kievan Rus'. While the map in question is fine used as it currently appears for a second time in the Administrative divisions of Rus subheader, I've removed it a couple of times as being a misleading conflation of less than 80 years expansion towards the zenith of the state's influence, with the maximum extent surrounded by borders as if it were a modern day country. These principalities did not exist concurrently, and they most certainly aren't representations of "Kievan Rus' - 882–1240" as they imply to the reader.

My personal preference is to have no image until there is a reasonable and well sourced map over misinformation. See:

The map currently in use is based on this (980-1054) and this (1054-1132)... and they're both too literal. I'd be okay with even a variant on these if the map followed the convention of fading the majority of borders that weren't defined by a topographical feature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit war over historical symbol

I and other users have added historical a symbol used by Kievan Rus' by the Rurik Dynasty which are well documented as being present on most of Kievan Rus' coins and seals. The symbol is used in multiple versions of this article in other languages. Yet some users delete the symbol, without reason given or any conversation in the talk section.

This article is filled with fantasy paintings made in the 19th century. Yet why is an actual historical symbol, which has been found multiple times in areological artefacts of coins and seals, presented here in unbiased form, being removed?

I suggest this article be monitored by a Wikipedia editor who does not have any Slavic ties and does not have any history of editing Belarus, Russia or Ukraine aricles. Currently, there is the issue of powerful Wikipedia editors who could be on the Russian or Ukrainian governments' payrolls as so-called propaganda "trolls". --Elevencontortionist (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

1) This is a talk page, not your personal soapbox. 2) You and which other users have added these 'symbols'? These were your additions. The article, per WP:TITLE covers the entire history, not just the 'Golden Age', therefore using symbols from a short period of time is WP:SYNTH. 3) Most importantly, do not make WP:PERSONAL attacks and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about editors and what you believe motivates them just because you don't like the the sourced, WP:NPOV content of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Irina. Anonym (A.B. adresses here to Elevencontortionist, who got name; a right move ; insert by Altenmann), if you look through the archives of the talk page you would see that the state symbols are the recurrent theme of discussions with a strong consensus between the editors: Kievan Rus did not have a single state symbol or a coat of arms. It was a Western invention that was not adopted in Eastern Europe at that time. Different princes put different symbols on their coins and seals. Some of them put tridents. Modern USA puts pyramids and $ signs on their coins but that would not make neither pyramids nor $ the official coat of arms of the USA. Similarly tridents on the coins would not make the symbol the official state symbol of Kievan Rus through its 500 years of existence. No serious history textbooks whether printed in the West, in Russia, in Ukraine or in Belarus would state trident as the single state symbol of Kievan Rus, that is why it should not go to the infobox. If you disagree please find a serious university level history textbook or an encyclopaedia that would list trident as the single state symbol of the state.
Regarding pictures, we can always discuss the best selection of illustrations. But since Novgorod was an important part of Kievan Rus, then removal of Novgorod cathedral looks like a strange action that needs to be discussed Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I see the removal of the picture of Novgorod cathedral as a POV attempt to turn Kievan Rus', a "multi-national" historical political entity, into a predecessor of the Ukraine alone. Thomas.W talk 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
What you're discussing is nothing. Because nobody ever removed the picture of Novogrod Cathedral. It was merely moved to the religion section. It is currently misclassified under the Golden Age Section, which covers the 10th century. Yet it was built in the 11th century when Kievan Rus' was in decline. You guys undid my moving the picture to the proper section.--Elevencontortionist (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
AFAIU, the Golden Age continued in 11th century, when Novgorod was part. the decline started, yes, but in terms of total expanse 11th century was still its height. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I double-checked the dates and verified that Novgorod lands were formally part of Kievan Rus well into 12th century, albeit maintaining significant independence. Therefore I conclude that the image is not "misclassified". - üser:Altenmann >t 18:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Moving the image of the cathedral is not a problem, and I've now moved the image. Images are preferably matched with corresponding text, but not necessarily so. When they are not, that does not "misclassify" them. But when you start a discussion by accusing other editors of being paid "propaganda trolls," do not be surprised when they do not agree with your grievances. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a nationalist brawl. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I second your move to the proper section. I agree with the statement that the images are better to match text but this is not always technically possible. In this case there is no technical problems to match text with imagery. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Your move created a problem by cluttering too many images into one small section (see WP:LAYIM). I moved one to another position for a better visual presentation. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. In some cases the same image may illustrate different points, and this this case there may be a disagreement about better placement. In such cases one has to present arguments why this or that place is better. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia article, not your personal soapbox for removing most references to Ukraine. The trident is well-referenced on the Wikipedia article about Symbols of the Rurikids to which it was linked, and is featured on many Wikipedia articles about Kievan Rus' in multiple other languages. I agree with you that it should not go in the infobox. Let's move it to another part of the article. Do not make WP:PERSONAL or ethnically-motivated attacks about me and what you believe motivates me just because you don't like the the sourced, WP:NPOV content of the article.--Elevencontortionist (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
(a) Nobody objects that it was a symbol of Rurikids. (b) wikipedias in other languages have different rules. Some of them are really lenient as to the verifiability. Therefore while we may look there for extra info, the final say is the rules of English-language wikipedia. (c) I second your request to avoid references to wikipedian's personality. (D) That said, please provide references from reliable sources which specifically describe the COA of Kievan Rus, and we shall discuss them. Personal opinions may serve for the clarification of the reasoning about the issue, but in en:Wiki the final say is after the published opinions of experts on the topic. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A reference in the Guardian.

This page was referenced in the Guardian on 19 August 2015. JRPG (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Old Russian State

Hello Iryna Harpy, why did you remove the sources? What's wrong? it's reliable sources. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

These sources do not meet the requirements of WP:RS -- a Soviet map with no secondary interpretation, and a blurb from a museum web site with no scholarly sourcing. Further, these edits add information that conflicts with the text of the page, which cites proper secondary sources. The term 'Old Russian State' may have become popular in Russian literature, but it is not supported by English language sources. A Google Books search indicates that most uses of that phrase are from the post-Soviet era referring to revival of the pre-Soviet state, and even when discussing Kievan Rus', they do not capitalize 'Old' and thus do not use the term as the name of the entity, just as a descriptor. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the gtranslation is wrong: the Russian term in question, "Древнерусское Государство", actually is "ancient Russian state". Also Laszlo is correct that it is not the name of the state, it is a plain-language descriptor of "Kievan Rus" (as actually marked on the map). The "Old Russian" would be "Старорусское". At the same time, Laszlo's claim " is not supported by English language sources" is rather dubious, if search google. But the expression commonly refers to the indeed "old Russian state" (i.e., tsardom), rather than to the "ancient" one. (Good grief they don't yet know well about the wild fantasy of "Rus Khaganate".) - üser:Altenmann >t 03:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Please, let's not dignify "Rus Khaganate" by mentioning here. Oops, too late. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary Chronicle source.

The Primary Chronicle is considered to be a fundamental source in the interpretation of the history of the Eastern Slavs. Scholars have noted it substantiates the notion that Kievan Rus was founded by a small number of Vikings operating as a ruling class over a much larger population of Slavs, with the two cultures and ethnicities intermingling. Likewise, similarities between this and the founding of the Norman dynasty in France are pointed out. Both editors who have repeatedly removed this sourced content miscast these edits as POV, when they reflect secondary source material. Esnertofidel (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum. It is conspicuous that editors who routinely accuse others of POV edits are themselves seen to make statements as: "Please, let's not dignify "Rus Khaganate" by mentioning here. Oops, too late." Moreover, I've noted that others besides myself appear to have had similar conflicts to this one with these same two editors. There may be a broader issue here, requiring moderator intervention. I will be following these proceeding closely, and will take action as necessary. Esnertofidel (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The Primary Chronicles is a primary source, which should be used for limited purposes only. The Chronicle is used here with very specific passages cited. This addition you are making cites a broad passage that doesn't appear to even mention the Normans, and certainly not for this point. This should be supported by a secondary source, not the interpretation of a primary source by an editor, and even then the addition is a tangent of dubious relevance. The sentence this edit has been added to is sourced from the footnote in the previous sentence, David Stone. That source discusses the Normanist view of the migration to Slav lands but does not discuss the Duchy of Normandy or France. Finally, per WP:BRD, the passage should be removed until consensus for it has been established. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The content added is rooted in a secondary source that discusses the transliteration of the Primary Chronicle by the late professor Samual Hazzard, not in the contents of the Primary Chronicle itself. This renders your argument baseless. Secondly, when edits are in dispute, WP:DR explicitly states not to delete salvageable text. Yours and Harpy's edits have been in violation of this basic guideline. As has been noted in the addendum, this behavior appears to constitute a pattern and merits examination, but this is for the near future. Esnertofidel (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Re content: Then why do you cite the Chronicle and not Hazzard? Re process: BRD clearly states "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" during the discussion. And your accusations cut directly against the policy you cite yourself, which states "focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct." And re that conduct, we have merely removed material that was improperly sourced to a passage of a primary source that does not even mention the Normans and could not possibly discuss the Duchy of Normandy. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The secondary source on which the new content is based are edits that were made by Samual Hazzard Cross during his translation of the Chronicle, and which were included in the published text. As such, they are a part of the citation together with the Primary Chronicle's main body of content. You would be aware of this if you had examined the information before summarily deleting it in violation of WP:DR. Perhaps a more suitable link for this secondary source would have been [ http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf ], though in this matter, simple confusion does not appear to lie at the root of the problem. Your case is misinformed, or, more probabilistic at this juncture, is motivated by POV. My observations do not cut against WP:DR; there exists a tendency in articles of this category to attempt the suppression of information that pertains to the mixed, or intermingled, origin of notable historic dynasties. It appears to be rooted in nationalist or far-right sentiment, and it consistently undermines the quality of content on Wikipedia articles. This renders my observations part and parcel of the dispute. Esnertofidel (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
You cite the “Primary Chronicle, 879–902,” which does not even correspond to the sections labelled by Hazzard Cross (pp. 60-64). That passage does not even mention the Normans. And, again, it could not possibly mention France or the Duchy of Normandy, neither of which existed yet. Thus your cite does not support the comparison to the Normans in Normandy. The Normans are mentioned in introductory section 4 on page 52 and in the section for 860-862 (p.59), but only in passing and not in support of the content you added. And you continue to ignore the process of WP:BRD, which directly governs this dispute. None of the content is “salvageable” via DR as none of it is supported by the source you provided. As for your vague accusations, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am merely following the cited sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Esnertofidel: Please familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL. After that, please have a good, solid read of WP:NOR. This is an encyclopaedic article, not a place for you to push your personal theories. Thank you, in advance, for your courteous consideration of these issues. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest that this dispute end here, and we return to improving the article? I think that Esnertofidel's additional text gives a good perspective, but that the citation is not the right one. One of the reasons I edit this article is that I think it is important for Europeans and people of European descent to appreciate the role Vikings played in the civilizing of Europe. If you look in the Normans article, in the section on the settling of Nornmandy, you'll see this:
The descendants of Rollo's men and their Frankish wives would replace the Norse religion and Old Norse language with Catholicism (Christianity) and the Gallo-Romance language of the local people, blending maternal Frankish heritage with Old Norse tradition and custom to synthesize a unique "Norman" culture in the north of France.[1] The Norman language was forged by the adoption of the indigenous langue d'oïl branch of Romance by a Norse-speaking ruling class, and it developed into the regional language that survives today.
The reference here is to [1]. I haven't read this book, but it likely gives us the context that Esnertofidel needs to cite for the valid point he wants to make. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Eleanor Searle, Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power, 840–1066 (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1988), p. 89

Map in infobox (again)

If anyone believes that the principalities map should be used as a substitute for the map currently in use in the infobox, could we please regroup to discuss the issue? The map is fine as an indicator of the principalities, but is seriously flawed as a general depiction as absolute borders are used, whereas RS don't even agree on how far into territories the sphere of influence extended. At least the current map reads clearly as approximations outside of the interior principalities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Two points in favor of principalities map: It seems to show more principalities and, more important, while both are self-drawn, the princ map has its source given (in image history comments). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kievan Rus'. 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:

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

checkY 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) 17:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Russland...

It is interesting that the German word for "soot" is "Russ", and the German word for Russia is "Russland" = "the land of soot". This throws some doubt on the derivation of "Russia" from "Kievian Rus". Russia is a cold place in the wintertime, and the earlier Russians had to burn lots of wood and coal to keep warm. Hence "the land of soot".
On the other hand, you might be able to find some connection between "Kievian Rus" and "soot" in proto-Indo-European.
German place names generally make sense: Frankreich = kingdom of the Franks = France; Osterreich = eastern kingdom = Austria; Polen is simply Poland; Italien is simply Italy; die Niederlande = the lowlands = the Netherlands; Dänemark = the land of the Danes = Denmark. Griechenland = the land of the Greeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.215.183.159 (talk • contribs)

  • Nope, such a connection isn't possible. The word for soot in modern German is Ruß, but that's not what soot was called during the times of Kievan Rus' and when the name Russland first appeared, since according to the German language Wiktionary the modern word Ruß is derived from an old Germanic word that appears as hrūm and hrūmech in Germanic languages of that time. So sorry, but it has nothing to do with the modern German word for soot... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There was no such term as "Kievan Rus", its 19 century "invention", it is not found in historic documents - the land is clearly called "Great Rus". "Kievan" only marks the time perion during which Great Rus had capital in Kiev. The term "Rus" comes from German "Preuss" and was used by Katharina II the Great, who originated from Germany. Great deal of Russian words originate from German language. See Mauro Orbini, l Regno degli Slavi hoggi corottamente detti Schiavoni, 1601.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kievan Rus'. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Part of todays Poland would be part of Kievan Rus'

According to this map. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kievan_Rus_in_the_11th_Century.png and others Poland would be part of Kievan Rus'. I was told maps were not a reliable source, yet the article has a map that shows the area that made up Kievan Rus' so that cant be right. Also considering Western Ukraine was once part of Poland I think a good percent of polish people might be descendents of Rus' people So the lead may need to be changed to The modern peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, and Russia all claim Kievan Rus' as their cultural ancestors This is something I was taught in school (High School and College) but I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have anything listed about some of the Poles being Descendents of rus' people. Maybe it's political, I don't know, but Poland should be listed in "Today part of".--75.66.124.118 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem is, Kievan Rus' didn't have set, defined borders. The article currently lists Moldova in "Today part of," which doesn't appear supported by the map you cite. That map looks like it does include parts of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Other users frequently add Finland to the list. So, let's add all of them! Then let's turn to Template:Infobox former country, which says "It is recommended that this parameter be avoided if there are more than four such countries". So then let's remove the whole parameter. Which is my recommendation. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You do know Kievan Rus' is part of Wikiproject Poland, right? So it does have some significance to the people of Poland. Look at Zbyslava of Kiev She was a Duchess of Poland born in Kievan Rus'. Also the map includes less than 1% of Estonia and Lithuania, so why bring up the Baltic states? If only four countries are to be listed it should be Russia, Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus, based on the obvious connection of those four countries.--75.66.124.118 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Your arguments are as obtuse as they could possibly get... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but that sounds like a personal attack. Please do not attack me and remain civil Thank you.--75.66.124.118 (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but how is an observation on the calibre of arguments presented a personal attack? Politically motivated intermarriage between the nobility of polities were a constant. It is made clear that Zbyslava was married into a pre-existing polity (i.e., dark age/medieval Poland) in order for one brother from that polity to form an alliance with the other polity and knock his brother off the podium for ultimate power in that polity. Vladimir the Great married Anna Porphyrogenita for political reasons... so how does that affect Greece's affiliation with Kievan Rus'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Greece? Why are you moving the goalpost? I am talking about Poland and Kievan Rus'. You claim my argument is obtuse, but what did I say that was wrong??? Kievan Rus' is part of Poland's project page which is true. The map I posted includes less than 1% of Estonia and Lithuania which is true and Zbyslava of Kiev was born in Kievan Rus' which is true. If only four countries should be listed it should be Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus based on the fact that Kievan Rus' is listed as important, even if it's listed as low-importance to Poland's project page.--75.66.124.118 (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Moving discussion from my talk page:

Kievan Rus’ included the eastern part of today’s Poland as you can see by this map. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kievan_Rus_in_the_11th_Century.png --75.66.124.118 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to take it to the article's talk page. Ultimately, yes, areas of what is now Poland and Ukraine are the much earlier cradle of what is now known as Slavic culture, language, etc. For the purposes of the article, however, it is not a significant enough an area to include in what reliable sources consider to be central to the Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian - and specifically Eastern European - precursor state. Poland was already forging an identity of its own. There are a lot of overlaps in how the cultures and ethnicities evolved but, for the broad scope article, it is WP:UNDUE for inclusion. These overlaps are dealt with in later principality articles where they are significant to the subject. Note, also, that the map on Commons is an approximation and is not based on precise sourced information (namely because there is no academic consensus as to where the maximum borders of the actual territory ended at any one point in time throughout its existence: nor will there ever be as there are no precise, contemporary records for this). A reasonable map created for Commons providing an approximation is a useful reference point, but it is not a reliable source of itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of rather the Polish people identify as being descendants of The Rus' people isn't relevant to the article. If sources confirm part of today's Poland made up Kievan Rus' then we should stick to the source. From what I understand, based on what you wrote you do not want it to be added based on a political aspect between Russia and Poland? That should not matter when it comes to the article. Also maps have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years so I don't see how the map would be wrong? "but it is not a reliable source of itself" Can you post a link where this was voted on by wiki users? Maybe it would be best to seek consensus on the article's talk page.--75.66.124.118 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

As is probably self-evident, I'm in agreement with Laszlo Panaflex. My second revert also points out that the reliable source used for the modern nation-states (in the form of Encyclopaedia Britannica) does not include the bits and pieces of other modern nation-states in their map or text content. While I have no problems with Belorusia, Russia and Ukraine in the infobox, speculative, short term spheres of influence would require some form of WP:INTEXT attribution with explanation for the benefit of the reader in order that they not be misinformed. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, either the extraneous 'might have included parts of' are omitted, or the parameter is removed altogether. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

RU country code

Why does Kievan Rus have the country code RU in the infobox. This is an extinct polity that certainly doesn't have a country code, and if it did, it wouldn't be the same as modern Russia. I can't figure out where this is in the infobox code, or I would remove it myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Term "Kievan Rus" is invented in 19 century and not found in any documents. The correct historical name of the state is "Great Rus" with direct descendant being Russian Empire, which descendant being USSR, which descendant being Russian Federation. 81.173.171.183 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Nationalist posts like the above prove my point: we need to get this out of the article. It's a claim that Russia alone is the descendent of Kievan Rus, exactly like the Ukrainian coat of arms was a claim that Ukraine alone is its descendent.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I looked at this when you raised the point before. Can't tell where that is coming from or how to remove it. Weird. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Thomas. W recently removed the image of the coat of arms, claiming that it is the symbol of the modern state of Ukraine. He is correct, but that symbol is based on a coin carrying the coat of arms of Vladimir the Great (958-1015), Grand Prince of Kiev. The history of this and related coats of arms of the Rurikids can be found here, complete with an image showing the variations. Based on this, I think the image is totally appropriate in this context. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Paulmlieberman: Coins aren't blue and yellow, with those colours it's the small coat of arms of the modern-day country of Ukraine, added here in a POV attempt to claim the legacy of the Kievan Rus' for Ukraine alone, not a symbol that has anything to do with the Kievan Rus'. It's also not an exact representation of the symbol on the coins, which apparently was the personal house mark of Vladimir the Great, since each ruler had an own mark on their coins, and again not a symbol of the Kievan Rus', and thus doesn't belong here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Reiterating Tom above, the cited page specifically states "Rurikid symbols were personal, with every knyaz devising an emblem of their own for themselves." So using one as the CoA for the full dynasty is clearly incorrect. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
All right, I can live with that logic. Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Paulmlieberman: I've been out of the picture with regards to editing for some time - ergo the tardy response - however I fully support Tom and Laszlo P. on this issue. Unfortunately, we seem to have a lot of articles on defunct states from all over the world using symbols, banners and flags which may have been associated with the state in question but a) don't officially represent said state throughout its existence, and b) are obvious POV pushes explicitly used to associate the entity with a modern nation-state. Trying to sway the reader in such a manner is a big Wikipedia no-no: essentially reading as advocacy and misleading rather than informing. I know you know your way around, so I wouldn't dream of insulting you by by spelling out the relevant policies and guidelines here. Good to know we're all on the same page, that consensus has been formed, and that any attempts to reintroduce such symbols will be removed promptly. Cheers, all! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox changes

An IP editor made the following change to the infobox, this has been reverted twice, and restored once, all by different editors. From:

To:

Please could the parties explain why they regard this as important. Toddy1 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • There is a clear consensus among historians that Kiev was the capital of Kievan Rus'. There is no such consensus on Ladoga or Novgorod. During the period of Oleg's stay in Novgorod, one cannot speak of the existence of Kievan Rus' as a state, but of its birth. In addition, many details of Oleg's biography are based only on late chronicle references that modern historians do not recognize as a credible source. --Yakudza (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The reason I feel that Novgorod at least should be mentioned in the infobox, as the capital of the Rus' before Kiev, is that the history of the Rus' before they arrived in Kiev, i.e. before it became the Kievan Rus', is prominently mentioned in the article. I also feel that the anti-Normanist view on the origin of the Rus' is given too much weight in the article, considering that all contemporary documents support the Normanist view, and the Normanist view also is the mainstream view among scholars. Because as it is the article is bordering on POV. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The problem stems from the incorrect name given to the article. Its subject is the state of Ancient Rus, which unites the periods of Novgorod Rus (Новгородская Русь) and Kievan Rus (Киевская Русь). The English wikipedia has conflated all this (likely for political reasons). Ghirla-трёп- 07:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
as a loose federation[4] of East Slavic and Finnic peoples

You mean the Germanic vikings known as the Kievan Rus were secretly Slavo-Finns? How did history change so drastically? Were the DNA samples of the Kievan-Rus finds just fake news? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nationalist POV pushing on existence of Ukraine/Belarus

I'd just like to note that the source [17] that Kovanja keeps trying to add for his contention that Ukraine and Belarus did not exist before the twentieth century does not support his position. P. 139 [:

The Second World War marked a significant change not only in the history of the urbanization of Ukraine but in the history of the Ukrainian people as well. For the first time since the middle of the seventeenth century, all Ukrainian ethnic lands were united under a single political authority; Lyiv and Lviv were no longer separated by an international boundary. The only period comparable in this regard was the period from 1569 to 1648, when most Ukrainian lands found themselves within the confines of the Korona, the Polish-dominated part of the Rzeczpospolita.

These words make it crystal clear that the author thinks Ukrainians have been around since at least the 16th century, and this is supported by a simple search of the word "Ukraine" in the book [18]. In fact, on p. 76, the author refers to the the independent Ukraine that was established de facto in 1648. Later on the author argues against Russian nationalists claiming that Ukraine and Belarus are creations of Western propaganda, in fact [19]. Now I can't see that specific page Kovanja has been linking to, but I think these other sections make it fairly clear that the book does not support his contention that Ukraine and Belarus didn't exist before the 20th century, and that we therefore need to mention Holy Russia as the only true heir of Rus' in the lead of this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich,
these topics are almost on daily basis the POV battlegrounds especially between pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian views, that should be dealt with quite carefully not visioning present conflicts back in time, as since the existence of the Kievan Rus' nowadays even the historiographies are clashing over heritage or interpretations, that may be true for all subsections of it, etc. We should as well be careful what we understand on Ukraine or Belarus in any time, since these terms are as well recurrently used in improper or anachronistic contexts, that may be also a subject of debate. It is good that you reverted the user's edits, I would have done the same.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC))
@Ermenrich and KIENGIR:, perhaps you'd like to explain to the unenlightened when "Russia" became "Rossia" in lieu of "Rus'", but please do no use article talk pages for WP:SOAP. This is not a forum. Thank you for your understanding. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, I'm a bit confused why you're accusing me of this. I'm explaining why I reverted this (supposedly sourced) edit [20], as the editor who performed it did it twice. The source does not support his contention.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ermenrich and KIENGIR:
@Iryna Harpy:, I am also confused, I don't see how it would anything to do with SOAP. I drawed just Ermenrich's attention to that some edits may have different purpose as it would seem in these topics recurrently, as we deal as well in other pages with some POV issues (see i.e. Urartu, btw. one edit and one answer is far from a forum). However, since I know your good intentions and special style (= you are franky honest and what is in your heart is in as well on your mouth, oh, in proper English "wear one's heart on one's sleeve") I ask as well Ermenrich not to have any bad feelings :-).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC))
@Ermenrich and KIENGIR: - Indeed, it was something of a knee-jerk reaction (for which I apologise). "J'Accuse" is apt here, having been guilty of doing what I've accused others of doing: putting them down for their nationalistic/political/economic/social ontology. The pledge to assume good faith was retaken by many long-term Wikipedians last year. I doubt that everyone has managed to remain faithful to it all the time, but trying to be more patient. What I found strange is that neither of you left a POV 'warning' on the user's page. The user's talk page demonstrates that they have been been given the benefit of the doubt as to good faith, but have continued unable to stop their non-neutral content contributions. I think a better method of handling this would have been to leave warning templates on their talk page, and ping them here asking that they discuss the content they added (i.e., WP:BRD). This affords future editors reading this talk page a better insight into what the content issue is/was, and the evolution of discussions surrounding the issue. The value in article talk pages is in making each new section issue clear. Leaving missives on the user's talk page leaves a record of their behaviour/perceived behaviour. It doesn't necessarily mean that the user is actually guilty as charged, but 'paper trails' can be very useful. Cheers, and keep up the good work! Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy:, Thank you for your fedback! Well - I may speak only my behalf, though I made only one edit in this page recently -, I usually let notifications on the user's talk page in case after second revert and talk page discussion still would not follow BRD policies or similar (roughly), as per administrator conduct and agreement (gathered in practice through years, in case I did the opposite long time ago, admins asked me to adhere to the article's talk page primarily). Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC))
@Ermenrich and KIENGIR: - Yes, that is sage advice. Leaving a message on the user's page (neither of you actually pinged user Kovanja) is a good idea as a follow-up. They are obliged to respond if they attempt to make non-neutral/POV content changes, and it's all recorded in page histories that this person was directly spoken to, and can't claim that they'd missed the ping, etc. Happy editing! Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Ancient Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ancient Ukraine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12#Ancient Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Novgorod never was not the capital of Kievan Rus' it is fake

Hi, If you are not Russian bot you should understand that Novgorod never was a capital of Kievan Rus. This is quite simple to prove. Before Oleg captured Kiev there was no such state as Kievan Rus. And this suggests that Novgorod could not be the capital of Kievan Rus. There is not a single respected historical European source that would prove otherwise. Therefore, the statement that Novgorod is the capital of Kievan Rus is a lie. Please remove Novgorod from Capital section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.217.197 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the traditional account presented in The Russian Primary Chronicle, it was founded by the Viking Oleg, ruler of Novgorod from about 879. In 882 he seized Smolensk and Kiev, and the latter city, owing to its strategic location on the Dnieper River, became the capital of Kievan Rus. Oleg, (died c. 912), semilegendary Viking (Varangian) leader who became prince of Kiev and is considered to be the founder of the Kievan Rus state. According to The Russian Primary Chronicle of the 12th century, Oleg, after succeeding his kinsman Rurik as ruler of Novgorod (c. 879), went down the Dnieper River with his Varangian retinue and seized control of Smolensk and Kiev (882), which he subsequently made his capital. Валко (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Links to entertainment sites are not proof. Please don't play with facts. The Ukrainian version of Wikipedia indicates that Kiev (Kyiv) is the first and only capital of the Kievan Rus'. Evidence is a reference to historical documents that are internationally recognized, where it will be written that despite the name, Novgorod was the first capital of Kievan Rus'. And if there is no evidence that this is a fake, please delete Novgorod as the first capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.217.197 (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia BRITANNICA. So edit in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Look, and be convinced of the truth of my words ru:Киевская Русь and be:Кіеўская Русь Валко (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

Hey! How are you doing? I have made some changes to the article and you have reverted those changes.

For example:

"The state declined beginning in the late 11th century and during the 12th century, disintegrating into various rival regional powers". This is incorrect because the verb declined is usually followed by the to-infinitive, not by a gerund. Certain verbs are generally followed by the to-infinitive rather than a prepositional phrase or gerund. This is formed with the word to and the base form of the modifying verb.

"Demand for luxury goods fostered production of expensive jewelry and religious wares, allowing their export, and an advanced credit and money-lending system may have also been in place." Uncountable nouns do not use indefinite articles a or an.

"To their north and east were the Vyatichi, and to their south was forested land settled by Slav farmers, giving way to steppelands populated by nomadic herdsmen." Steppelands is not a single word.

"The Rus' burned towns, churches, and monasteries, butchering the people and amassing booty." A comma should not separate a subject from its verb. Remove it.

If you need any further assistance please feel free to let me know.

Thanks & Regards! Rnagfn (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You changed 'beginning' in the first passage above to 'to begin', which is incorrect grammar. You also altered quoted content (the Ahmad ibn Fadlan quote), which we do not do. Your changes to the Foundation of the Kievan state and Rus'–Byzantine relations sections also introduced incorrect grammar. The 'an' and the comma are correct in these sentences. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, the word 'steppelands', one word, is used in the cited source [21]. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Laszlo Panaflex, thanks for your clarification. I am new to Wikipedia and now I am learning the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. I have checked the quoted content later when you reverted the changes. I am sorry that was my mistake. I have also checked the issue with the word "steppelands". You just mentioned, I used incorrect grammar. Can you please let me know the reason so that I can follow it?

Thanks & Regards, Rnagfn (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In the first sentence, there is an independent clause, Demand for luxury goods fostered production of expensive jewelry and religious wares,; a parenthetical clause, allowing their export,; a conjunction, and; and a second independent clause, an advanced credit and money-lending system may have also been in place.
The second sentence has an independent clause, The Rus' burned towns, churches, and monasteries, and a descriptive parenthetical clause, butchering the people and amassing booty.
Hope that helps. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex, I really appreciate your help and clarification.

Thanks & Regards!

History

I returned my version of editing, as I refer to more convincing sources, and the actions of the participant Laszlo Panaflex are not clear to me. Noraskulk (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

This editor has changed and removed sourced content without explanation; changed NPOV language because he does not agree with it; added weasel words “most scholars” without a source reflecting that most scholars agree; states an “undeniable fact” that is not in the cited source (because he changed the cited content); and added sources from the 1800s with links to Russian language sites that do not appear to be the sources cited. This was a well researched section with language that has been stable for years now, and he is changing the POV without discussion. I do not have time to deal with this these days, but if no one else cares, I will just move on. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Explain why this nationalistic opinion is important: Considering the linguistic arguments mounted by nationalist scholars, if the proto-Rus' were Scandinavians, they must have quickly become nativized, adopting Slavic languages and other cultural practices.? Noraskulk (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC).
The passage discusses why there are few Scandinavian words in the Russian language. Please review the cited source ([22]) and the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I have provided you with relevant sources, as you requested; please review them if you have time. I hope we can find a compromise. Noraskulk (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Hello, Wikipedians. It is quite strange to see the coat of arms of Kievan Rus', because Rus' had no coat of arms. What is depicted with the inscription "coat of arms" is actually the coin of Vladimir the Great. And the trident depicted on this coin is also not the coat of arms of Kievan Rus in any way, it was the personal sign of Vladimir the Great, his unique sign. The motives for this kind of misinformation are clear - to draw a reader's attention on apperent similarity of the "coats of arms" of Kievan Rus and Ukraine, although, at first, as I said, Vladimir the Great's personal sign was not the coat of arms of Kievan Rus in no way, Rus did not have it at all, and secondly, what is the most funny, the coat of arms of Ukraine was created in 1917 by Mykhailo Hrushevsky on the basis of Vladimir the Great's personal sign. Therefore, without being able to edit this article, I would like to ask the conscientious moderators to remove this pro-Ukrainian misinformation and to keep the article away from pseudo-historical fiction, thank you for your attention.--5.167.160.73 (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Novohorod was never the capital, and certainly not the original one.

Even in the following article, the year 879 is not listed as a year of significance for Kyivan Ruthenia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle


Additionally, just because Rurik may have arrived in Novohorod, that does not constitute founding a state. There were no East Slavs at the time and no nation was proclaimed there and then.

By contrast, Prince Oleh himself declare Kyiv the capital of Kyivan Ruthenia and proclaimed it "The mother of all Rus' cities", thus declaring the nation as founded and centered in Kyiv, something demonstrated in the article.


The 879 reference is nothing more than Russian propaganda attempting to slight Ukraine's history once again, and to keep the claim, which has no legitimate reference backing it up, is nothing but POV Synth at best and POV pushing at worst, both of which violate Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:101:2F90:C47D:6B35:2C1C:2364 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No reliable sources were provided for such changes.Jingiby (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Belittling the huge importance of Novgorod in the formation of Russian statehood is a typical Ukrainian propaganda--5.167.160.73 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this entire paragraph is biased.

In the "Name" section:

"The terms Ancient Ukraine and Ancient Russia are not politically correct, as they are infringing to the Belarusian people while supposedly increasing the hierarchical status of one of the two modern states involved in a conflict since 2014, respectively. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian version of history was based on History of Ukraine-Rus', with its perception of Galicia–Volhynia Rus' as the main successor of Kievan Rus' after its collapse, instead of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' (with Moscow), left from the previous Imperial and Soviet versions, along with the all-Russian irredentist ideology."

I feel that it states opinions as facts and using weasel words. I think it needs a more neutral point of view. While I'm not versed in this history, I thinkg it could be something like this:

"There is controversy about the use of the terms Ancient Ukraine and Ancient Russia to refer to Kievan Rus'. In Ukraine, the sucessor state of Kievan Rus' is considered the Glaicia-Volhynia Rus', an antecessor state of Ukraine, while in Russia the sucessor state is considered to be the Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', and antecessor state of Russia. a petition to rename Ukraine as Kievan Rus' in 2016 was stated to be an assertion to Ukraine's historical independence, while the relationship with Russia has been used to back all-Russian irrendentist claims.

Any opinions?

. Not A Superhero (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be better to remove the paragraph altogether. The fact is that almost everything about Kievan Rus' (even having "Kiev" in the name) is considered highly political in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. So, in spite of the fact that this is the English-language Wikipedia, this article is subject to constant edit wars by people whose native languages are Russian and Ukrainian, including frequent attempts by pro-Ukraine editors to change all instances of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". The statements in the paragraph in question are of little interest to anyone not emotionally involved in the nationality issues currently playing out in the former Soviet Union. Perhaps the best way to maintain NPOV would be to avoid the issue altogether. Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Kievan Rus heraldic

How can be Tryzub of Vladimir the Great Coat of Arms? Kievan Rus itself did not keep heraldic in European understanding of medieval heraldic. --Kovanja (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m actually sort of inclined to agree, but I think there must be some previous discussion on this issue that might clarify it?—Ermenrich (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I've found previous discussions on this issue - apparently it keeps getting added back as the "coat of arms" but its only a personal symbol (and obviously it's attractive for Ukrainian nationalists to claim it's the coat of arms of Rus' since it's the origin of the coat of arms of Ukraine).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kievan_Rus%27/Archive_4&oldid=997775934"