Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact checking in the article

The article claims Russia and Belarus as cultural successors of Kyivan Rus'. What is the reasoning behind that? "in 839, the Rus were Swedes; in 1043 the Rus were Slavs", the article refers to the arrival of Rus' ambassadors to King Louis in 839, where the ambassadors identified themselves as Swedes there. But from this you can draw an absolutely opposite conclusion, that the Swedes are only mercenaries of Kyivan Rus', and they do not call themselves Rus', and this may actually make more sense. Wikipedia should not indulge Normanist side with such contradicting quotes.

Article goes on saying "Oleg began to collect tribute from all the Eastern Slavs" but this is not true, because the Polanians, which according to the chronicle were called Rus', did not pay tribute, its their Rus' princes collected tribute from other Slavic tribes. By the way, the article completely ignores the fact that the polanians were named Rus', although this is the foundation of the Kyivan Rus' state, and instead treats them as an average tribe. Article also says that Askold and Dir captured Kyiv, although the only thing wrote in chronicle is that they established rule in Kyiv, and that's all. "Rurik led Rus'", there's no mentioning he was ever leading such state. "Slavs from the Kievan region colonized the territory by subjugating and merging with the Finnic tribes already occupying the area" there's no mentioning of that.

"The combined principality of Vladimir-Suzdal asserted itself as a major power in Kievan Rus' in the late 12th century" reasoning? "Andrey Bogolyubsky took over the title of the grand prince to claim primacy in Rus'" this principality wasn't even considered as Rus'. He didn't took over the grand title from anyone, only named himself. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The article claims Russia and Belarus as cultural successors of Kyivan Rus' No, the article does not claim that, all three modern states - including Ukraine - claim that. The quote is supported by reference to Serhii Plokhy, a Ukrainian historian.
People can draw lots of conclusions, but it is incorrect to say Wikipedia [is] indulg[ing] Normanist side.
Article goes on saying "Oleg began to collect tribute from all the Eastern Slavs" No it does not say that anywhere, you are making this up.
although this is the foundation of the Kyivan Rus' state That's your WP:POV. Come up with reliable sources if you think it's not just your opinion.
the only thing wrote [sic] in chronicle [sic] We don't care what is literally specifically written in the Primary Chronicle. It's a WP:PRIMARY source, it's not WP:RS.
"Slavs from the Kievan region... the area" & "The combined principality... claim primacy in Rus'" there's no mentioning of that. For once I agree with you. This is an unsourced claim, I think it's time that I do another cleanup round of unsourced claims. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The Normanist theory, or a mainly-normanist compromise, has been pretty much resolved as the academic consensus. To accept it is not indulging one side of two equally valid ones in a current debate. That said, historians do admit that there’s much that we don’t know and that we cannot know, and an ideal version of this article would make every statement with that level of uncertainty in mind. I don’t believe we’re close to it yet.  —Michael Z. 00:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the contradicting source, that was interpreted in favor of normanism, even though we can get a completely different conclusion by historians.
Well, yeah, this article could also provide some sources to confirm antinormanist theory. It would make sense. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
See the WP:DUE policy, the anti-normanist theory is already mentioned on the article, as the less accepted theory it shouldn't have equal representation. Mostly, it is promoted by Slavic nationalists. TylerBurden (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think antinormanist theory is so insignificant so it deserves only a mention. It was promoted by some russian nationalists, not slavic. As well as normanist theory was promoted by other side of nationalists. History of Kyivan Rus' has long been falsifacated to the benefit of each side.
In any case, I would want to see an answer to the topic I'm discussing. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia policy disagrees with you, not going to comment on your other points. TylerBurden (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I comment this from Wikipedia perspective to give more information about more visible source on the Internet. Huh? Shouldn't Wikipedia react on provided suggestions for improvement? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Your suggestions about increasing coverage of anti-normanism is WP:UNDUE for this article, Wikipedia has an entire article on it, Anti-Normanism, that is where in depth content should go. TylerBurden (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Read my suggestions in the topic. If we are talking about this discussion, according to the wikipedia the article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject", and anti-Normanism is not so inconspicuous that it is impossible to leave some resources concretely in this article to support. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It is already mentioned, it is not a widely accepted theory, plenty of people want their view more represented, including those with fringe views. What reliable sources advocate for this then, since you say that it "is is not so inconspicuous"? TylerBurden (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to represent to you the amount of sources or researching about normanism or anti normanism. What I was talking about is the suggestions above in the topic. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
TylerBurden is right, it is WP:UNDUE to say more about anti-Normanism (a discredited nationalism-inspired theory) than this article already does. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is using in that case a historical source in order to interpret this in favor of normanist side. It is not my conclusion, those are conclusions of some historians, but the article interprets that in favor of normanist side.
I'm quoting the article:"Oleg set about consolidating his power over the surrounding region and the riverways north to Novgorod, imposing tribute on the East Slav tribes". No I'm not making this up.
"Come up with reliable sources if you think it's not just your opinion" okay, in which format should I provide it to you?
"It's a WP:PRIMARY source, it's not WP:RS", same.
"For once I agree with you" cool, keep going! 5.248.199.38 (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Once again I'm done talking to you. You just never listen to what we are saying about the policies and guidelines, you're only here to argue for your own point of view (Anti-Normanism has been discredited since the 1990s). On very rare occasions you spot an error, but otherwise there is no point in wasting more time with you. Sorry. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I did not say that anti-Normanism discarded. I was talking about the contradicting quote in the article. And I also asked you in which format to provide me with a secondary resource to be specific. You just ignored that and instead wrote this response about nothing. You also ignored East slav tribute quote. Don't make up that I'm ignoring anything, you just can't listen nor read to what I'm actually talking about. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The easiest source to find from russian or ukrainian for this topic would be "History of Ukraine-Rus". I couldn't find this book for free on English, however I found this ukrainian website http://litopys.org.ua/hrushrus/iur10704.htm, and translated the text on English. This is volume 1, chapter 7, page 4, citation of first paragraph:"But at the same time, the name of Rus' is specially associated with the land of Polanians, with the suburbs of Kyiv: this is Rus', Russka zemlya хατ'έξοχήν, and under this name she is opposed to all others, just as a "Rus' soldier" (Kyivanian) is opposed to people from other regions 1). This specialization of the Rus' name in Kyiv and Kyiv region, on the one hand, and in its state, on the other, can most naturally be explained by the fact that the name of Rus', whatever its origin, was a specific name of the Kyiv region, Polanian land at the time when it became the center of the wider "Rus'" state and starting from Kyiv, as from its tribal center, this name covered wider circles 2). From that alone it would follow that this state organization also had to come from Kyiv, when the Rus' name, which was later transferred to this entire state, came from Kyiv." 5.248.199.38 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Read WP:PRIMARY. Bye. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean? "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". This exactly what I provided to you. What "bye"? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
You never learn. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Look, I have no desire to play riddles with you. I gived you a secondary source I even gived a quote about Secondary Resources from your wikipedia so it would be clear I gived exactly secondary source. So now, you should either accept it or explain to me comprehensibly what I "didn't learn". 5.248.199.38 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't quite understand, what specific changes do you propose? Alaexis¿question? 09:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, let's come back to what I was saying.
"in 839, the Rus were Swedes; in 1043 the Rus were Slavs", my proposal, this quote is too contradicting to be kept in Wikipedia.
"Oleg set about consolidating his power over the surrounding region and the riverways north to Novgorod, imposing tribute on the East Slav tribes" this is not true, because the Polanians, which according to the chronicle were called Rus', did not pay tribute, its their Rus' princes collected tribute from other Slavic tribes. By the way, the article completely ignores the fact that the polanians were named Rus', although this is the foundation of the Kyivan Rus' state, and instead treats them as an average tribe. My proposal: correct this quote, add information about Polanians, specifically that they were called Rus' in Kyivan Rus'. The Kyivan Rus' itself is their state, article should reflect that. Instead, this article focuses all attention on Varangians for no reason.
"On their way south, they discovered "a small city on a hill," Kiev, captured it", it seems like a bad translation, so instead of "captured" it would be correct to put "started to rule in it".
"Rurik led Rus'" he didn't rule such state, so simply delete this one. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your third point, "started to rule in it" is the natural translation of "начаста владѣти." I'll make this change.
Regarding the rest, the passages you quoted are well referenced. The only source you provided that supports your proposed changes is Hrushevsky's History of Ukraine-Rus. While this is a well-known series, WP:AGEMATTERS and it would be good to see to what extent the more recent scholarship supports this view. Alaexis¿question? 19:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Askold, I'll need to check first what the current sources say about the Khazars so it'll take some time. Alaexis¿question? 20:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Done. Alaexis¿question? 10:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Good. But I still see this quote:"established their dominion over the country of the Polyanians". As you noticed, original chronicle contains "начаста владѣти", this does not contain words "established" or "dominion".
Do I need provide you something more? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but this is a quote from Martin (A Companion to Russian History, ed. Abbott Gleason). In general we prefer secondary sources who are professional historians and so are supposed to be better at interpreting primary sources like Primary Chronicle than you or me.
Now it's possible that *other* historians do not agree with Martin and have their own interpretation of the chronicles. You need to provide these other sources and then we can determine where the consensus is.
Finally, please note that the whole paragraph is about the account as per Rus chronicles and nowhere it says in wikivoice that this is what happened in reality. It even notes that the scholars now find this sequence of events unlikely. Alaexis¿question? 07:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I tried to search for any recent scholarship about Kyivan Rus', but Google doesn't answer me anything. Can you tell me where I can look for it? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not really an expert in this area. I would look at the works already cited in the article and would ask for help at WP:Wikiproject Russia and WP:Wikiproject Ukraine. Alaexis¿question? 15:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I will go with this article, http://www.golos.com.ua/article/314096. Citation:"...the most organized and developed was the Polanian tribe - around Kyiv, which was located at the crossroads of trade, economic, political and cultural ties ties All this led to the formation of the Kyivan-Polanian (Kyivan-Rus') state called Rus'. We fully agree with M. Hrushevskyi's scientific concept that the Kievo-Rus state — "Rus'" — was created by ancient Ukrainians, autochthons who have lived in this territory since ancient times." This is more. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, the Bibliography of the history of the Early Slavs and Rus' would be useful too, I think. Alaexis¿question? 15:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
So? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The Golos article is not a scholarly source (Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses per WP:SCHOLARSHIP), unlike the existing sources in the article. Alaexis¿question? 08:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean? "At the discretion of the community, we submit a series of articles, the authors of which are statesmen, scientists who have carried out powerful research work, which in the end fills the entire difficult history of Ukrainian statehood with concrete content." This is a scientific source. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The author of the article is Ihor Boiko and he is not even a professional historian. There are plenty of scholarly sources on the history of Rus' which satisfy the WP:SCHOLARSHIP criteria I mentioned earlier. There is absolutely no reason to use newspaper articles for this article. I would suggest using relatively recent English-language overview books to avoid local biases and make sure they represent the current consensus. Alaexis¿question? 08:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
"the authors of which are statesmen, scientists who have carried out powerful research work", and why wouldn't it be professional? It is also referring to a more popular historian, which means he wasn't disproved or denied, and his statements are not outdated, which you asked me to prove previously. So, what's the problem? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I've explained myself as well as I could and referred to the policy as well. Let's hear other editors' thoughts on this. Alaexis¿question? 20:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for being late. Here is Motsya O. P.
"Internal" Rus in the context of boundary clarification:http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?I21DBN=LINK&P21DBN=UJRN&Z21ID=&S21REF=10&S21CNR=20&S21STN=1&S21FMT=ASP_meta&C21COM=S&2_S21P03=FILA=&2_S21STR=arhl_2015_1_7.
Quoting:"Let's start with the classic of national historical science by M. Hrushevskyi: "This small triangle between the Dnieper, Irpen and Ross is the center of the historical life of our people and the original country of its name - this is Rus, Kyivshchyna under the name of Rus, Rus' land... Rus' is the land of Polanians, Rusyns - are Polanians first of all...
(Hrushevskyi 1991, pp. 190-191). of course, the use of the "Ukrainian" term for the end of the 1st millennium AD is an exaggeration, but in general the author's position is quite clear.
Let's also familiarize ourself with M. Kotlyar's vision of the problem: "The main focus of the birth of future statehood was the Polanian tribal association in the Middle Dnieper region." And further: "During the 8th-9th centuries, the state association in the Middle Dnieper region with a center in Kyiv, which scientists conventionally call the Rus' land for this time, took a significant step forward on the path of socio-economic, political and cultural progress" (Kotlyar 1995, pp. 45, 65)...
From all of the above, it is definitely possible
to draw the following conclusion: in the opinion of most scientists, the southern concept of the origin of the Rue' is many times more prevalent than its northern version." 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
So? Response? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

These are the opinions of two scholars, you cannot conclude from it that "in the opinion of most scientists, the southern concept of the origin of the Rus' is many times more prevalent than its northern version." To make claims about the scholarly consensus we need to see this position clearly stated in major overview works. To give an example, the 2nd edition of Cambridge History of Russia (2007) notes the existence of debate regarding the provenance of the name Rus' but still uses it to refer to Scandinavians who imposed their rule over Eastern Slavs (p. 2). It's certainly possible that the consensus has changed, however it's your responsibility to demonstrate it with high quality sources which provide a bird-eye view of the state of the scholarship. Alaexis¿question? 13:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Author gave a few examples of scientists, I have shown a couple of them for brevity. And these are examples of the most popular scholars in this topic. And of course, this does not mean that he reached his conclusion only because of two scientists. I don't know what you mean by major overlook works, could you be more concrete? If this is not overview work, I don't know what is. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
So, explanation? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Answer? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for not answering earlier. To take the example I gave earlier, the Cambridge History of Russia has a reputable publisher, was edited by a prominent scholar Maureen Perrie and the chapters about Kievan Rus' were also written by prominent scholars such as Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepard. It's also reasonably recent so we can assume that it reflects the current scholarly consensus.
The sources you provided are either old (Hrushevskii) or written by a much less known academic (Motsia) in a relatively obscure journal. Alaexis¿question? 20:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The person you showed me is not even a Kyivan Rus' history researcher and is only prominent regarding history of Russia. Motsya is at least a researcher of Kyivan Rus' history and has quoted more popular researchers on this topic. I don't get why my example doesn't fit. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, to make the discussion more productive, can you propose concrete changes: what the article says now vs what you want to write instead. Alaexis¿question? 06:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I already did, but well, I can shortly put it back together again. In my opinion, the article should state that Rus' is first of all the tribe in middle Dnipro region, previously called Polanians, which took control over other Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes and forced them to pay tribute. This should be an explanation of how what we now know as "Kyivan Rus'" was created. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The article already says that the name Rus' continued to refer to this triangular territory east of the middle Dnieper until after the disintegration of Kievan Rus' citing Magocsi. If by "first of all" you mean replacing the first sentence of the lede, then I'm strongly against it, as the most common meaning of Kievan Rus' is a state and later an amalgam of principalities in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.
I don't think that we can convince each other, so I would suggest to request third-party feedback via WP:3O or WP:RFC. Alaexis¿question? 19:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I meant the tribe of Rus' that lived in Middle Dnipro region, previously called Polanians, that took control over other tribes, not "triangular". Currently I don't see that in article. And by "first of all" I mean it should be the main definition since this is what it meant in Kyivan Rus. As I said it should be an explanation of its creation, so it should be noted in "History" page and maybe in few other places that concern this topic, it's not the first sentence. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
so? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
As I already said, I would suggest to request third-party feedback via WP:3O or WP:RFC. Alaexis¿question? 07:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
What a silly waste of time. Claim: Rus' is first of all the tribe in middle Dnipro region, previously called Polanians -- accoding to Wikipedia policies, WP:RS, WP:CITE, please provide references from reliable sources which say that. - Altenmann >talk 07:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
You can open your eyes and find out that I have given the resource a long time ago. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The texts you cited do not say your claim I cited: "Rus ... is the tribe...Polanians". Because this is nonsense. - Altenmann >talk 15:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
You can, but I would rather want to see your direct on my comments. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm waiting for direct answer on what I am saying 5.248.199.38 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
You have a very direct answer from me right above. Maybe there is some sense in what you are saying, but you failed to state what you want to be added to the article supported by cited reliable sources. If you disagree, please provide an exact quote from the sources. - Altenmann >talk 18:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't reffering to you. I already provided a source and a quote from it, and already explained what I want to change in the article. Now I'm waiting for the answer from the person I referred to. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I gave you an answer why your suggestion is bad: the quite you gave does not say shat you want to add into article. Moreover, it is a project of volunteers. You cannot demand anything from anybody. - Altenmann >talk 23:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes it does, explain your point. Also, I don't remember when my suggestion became a demand, I was talking to administrator of this page, I don't know who are you or what do you want to achieve with such claims. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
In Wikipedia there is no such thing as "administrator of this page". You were demanding an answer. You were given an answer. I am at a loss how I can prove that some statement is not in the mentioned source. The burden of proof is on you. - Altenmann >talk 16:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know who are you and what do you want to achieve with your false claims. If you want to prove something to me then explain yourself, what you currently do is ignoring reality, I have no reason to waste my time on this. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I think we are reaching a point of WP:BLUDGEONING here, several editors have now identified issues with your suggestions, and you evidently haven't managed to gain WP:CONSENSUS. The cause of wasting of time here seems to be because you are unable to drop the subject. I suggest someone uninvolved closes this thread. TylerBurden (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Iranian Poliane

Currently the article calls Poliane "a group of Slavicized tribes with Iranian origins" following Janet Martin's Medieval Russia, 980-1584. It looks like high quality source but I've never heard anything like this before and searching for "Poliane Iranian" on Google Books didn't produce any other works. FWIW, the Polans (eastern) article doesn't say anything about their Iranian origin either.

At the same time, there are many sources which call Poliane an East Slavic tribe without any qualifiers (A Companion to Russian History by Abbott Gleason, 2014, p.38; Slavic Cultures in the Middle Ages by Gasparov and Raevsky-Hughes, p. 48; The Oxford History of Historical Writing Volume 2: 400-1400, p. 289).

I'm not a specialist and it's hard for me to understand what the scholarly consensus is currently. Would be great to hear what other editors think. Pinging @Laszlo Panaflex and @E-960. Alaexis¿question? 20:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles on the Scythians and Sarmatians tell us they were assimilated by the early Slavs. I’m not sure that’s exactly what the above is referring to, but this may be an avenue for further searching.  —Michael Z. 21:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The passage is closely sourced from Martin, and the note formerly linked directly to the page as there were earlier questions as well; the page is no longer available in the Google Books preview, unfortunately. I do not know whether this is the scholarly consensus, but Martin is a widely cited source overall. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Laszlo Panaflex and Michael, I agree with Alaexis, this article should present only the universally agreed upon facts by historians and this being that the Eastern Polans were Slavic (why... because this is not the article about Eastern Polans and there is no point in discussing nuances here). Historian Janet Martin's view is not universal as shown by Alaexis, and should not be presented in the Wikipedia narrator's voice (see Wikipedia guidelines). There is a lot of debate in this area because the question always comes up whether an Iranian tribe was Slavicized or whether a Slavic tribe simply borrowed from the Sarmatian culture, so making outright statements like that is controversial to say the least, especially given the fact that the tribe of Poliane has for their tribe name a Slavic word for field. In fact, the Slavic tribe that was of Iranian origin were the White Croats and there is general agreement on this among historians, why... because the very name Croat is of Iranian origin.--E-960 (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I've checked the source and Martin does say it, there is no doubt about the accuracy of the citation.
Searching for "Poliane/Polans + Sarmatians" mostly produces results about Sarmatism, I haven't seen anything concrete about the connection. Perhaps we could attribute this statement in the article. Alaexis¿question? 11:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Alaexis, well "Polans + Sarmatians" is a separate topic, here you are talking about Poles and the mythical ethno-cultural ideology within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, first envisioned by Jan Długosz, long story short, this was a pseudo-historical ideology. If Janet Martin used that to assert the the claim that Eastern Polans were Iranian than it's not very academic of her and would be a minority view. Again, in this context, disputed views shared by only a few historians should not be included here. If this was a universally accepted claim then we would have a lot of sources linking Eastern Polans with Iranian tribes, however you don't, and the only tribes that have this link are White Croats and Croats. --E-960 (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Much of the paragraph remains sourced to Martin, so I am replacing the cn tag at the end with the Martin note. It was originally placed at the end to begin with, but was moved over the Poliane questions. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv and Not Kiev, wrong spelling

Kiev is wrong spelling (Rossian) made by Moscow by Soviet Government, Kyiv is older then Moscow, the correct spelling is KYIV! Kyiv is a capital of Kyivan Rus' and is a capital of Ukraine. Please correct the spelling and use official sources of the spelling not Moscow's one. 176.36.125.12 (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:KYIV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Which has zero rationale, unlike anon’s post above. With respect, citing that without being able to explain it is a total cop-out.  —Michael Z. 03:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Since History of Kyiv describes "Kyiv" as the capital of Kievan/Kyivan Rus', I would think the infobox here should also indicate "Kyiv" not "Kiev". We don't use "Peking" for "Beijing" before a certain "historical" date. I agree that "see WP:KYIV" does not qualify as an answer. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The rationale is the November 2020 RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles, where consensus was established: For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content. "historical" was defined as before 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence). Kievan/Kyivan Rus' ceased to exist in the 13th century, therefore, it is an unambiguously historical topic where Kiev applies, except for direct quotes from WP:RS per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording.
On a personal note: the Kyiv/Kiev reversions / editwars / repetitive discussion are getting old and boring. We really have no need for more IP addresses and WP:SPAs who never or almost never edit Wikipedia, except to come in here and only change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" every time, or argue on the talk page that it should be changed. There is a widely accepted consensus, and the community is maintaining it.
The RfC consensus can only be overturned by a new RfC, but I can already predict the WP:COMMONNAME for this historic state will still overwhelmingly be Kievan Rus'. We do see Kyivan Rus' more frequently in recent years, and eventually WP:AGEMATTERS will probably overturn the consensus (which I am personally in favour of), but that moment is probably some more months or years away. Until that time, the community is maintaining the established consensus.
Please, check Google Ngrams or Google Scholar ("kievan rus'" since 2019: 5.000 results; "kyivan rus'" since 2019: 1.560 results), or whatever first, instead of coming in here like every other person who (almost) never edits Wikipedia just to change it without discussion, or to restart the same old discussion we have been having for years, but without new arguments or evidence beyond Kiev is wrong spelling (Rossian) made by Moscow by Soviet Government, Kyiv is older then Moscow, the correct spelling is KYIV! Kyiv is a capital of Kyivan Rus' and is a capital of Ukraine (...) etc. We've heard it all before. We've discussed it all before. It wastes everyone's time and energy, but it won't change the well-established consensus spelt out at WP:KYIV/WP:KIEV. Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Potentially you could just add a warning with the banners along the lines of Talk:Swastika or Talk:Fascism, and then summarily revert anyone who doesn't read it before posting. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
That may actually be a good idea. A template like Template:Warning Fascism left-wing or especially Template:Swastika not Hakenkreuz could be useful. We're wasting way too much time by having to explain it over and over again. As said, I myself am actually in favour of Kyivan Rus', but we cannot change it until it becomes the WP:COMMONNAME. Mellk, I and several others have been maintaining the consensus by reverting all undiscussed changes, which is fairly easy, but the talk page discussions are getting old. I do not appreciate Michael Z (whom I respect very much, and have worked with before) questioning WP:KYIV/WP:KIEV every single time when yet another IP or SPA comes in here saying we should change it. I understand and empathise with his emotions and frustrations over this because of what is currently happening in his country, but he knows the article title of this historic medieval state won't change for the time being. This shouldn't have to be explained every time, neither to passersby, nor to newbies, nor to regulars. Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
It may also be worthwhile to make a Kyiv/Kiev equivalent to {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}. It wouldn't have to be even half as long, and could go right below the warning banner everywhere that is subject to this issue, or even in quiet locations where no large warning banner is needed as helpful explanation. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay I just wrote a draft text based on the swastika-not-Hakenkreuz template:

Warning template draft text

The common English-language name for the medieval state centred around modern-day Kyiv is "Kievan Rus'"

Although the modern-day capital of Ukraine is commonly called Kyiv in current English, per the Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME and the community consensus outlined on this talk page in April 2021, and at WP:KYIV/WP:KIEV, we use the term for the medieval state and its capital that are the common names in English-language historiography, which are "Kievan Rus" and "Kiev". This is not a comment on the identity or association of the medieval state to any modern country, language or culture; it is merely the name by which it is commonly known in English-language literature.
Please do not request that "Kievan Rus'" be changed to "Kyivan Rus'", or "Kiev" to "Kyiv": any such request will be denied.

How does that sound? If I'm missing anything important, or should change or leave something out, please say so. Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I might also add Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 5#Requested move 19 April 2021 to it? And should we vote on this text or can I just WP:BOLDly add it to the top of this talk page? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Well in general WP:BRD is a good idea, or else we eventually find ourselves discussing whether we should have a discussion about a discussion. It almost certainly will be subject to some additional editing, but there's no need to !vote on anything short of an RFC, if someone doesn't like the wording they can tweak it and then someone else may fully or partially revert them and so on. Eventually, between some bold editing and discussion a consensus can hopefully be reached, or at least that's the way it usually works. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. I will add it to the top. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think I'll italicise all the terms in quotation marks, because the apostrophe ' at the end of Rus', representing the soft sign ь in Cyrillic Роусь or Русь, must remain recognisable as part of the name, to avoid confusion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done. Much more readable now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I changed "name" to "spelling" as that more accurately tells the true story in English. Most people would pronounce them the same as it's always been. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Fair. When I talk to people about the modern city, I say Kyiv and pronounce it Keef, as in modern Ukrainian. When I talk to them about the medieval state, I interchangeably use Kyivan Rus' (pronounced as Keevan Rus) and Kievan Rus' (pronounced as Key-Evan Rus). And then I just hope people understand what I'm talking about, and if not, I get to be the walking talking encyclopaedia who knows lots of things haha. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm... what's interesting is that I've never heard or seen it pronounced Keef in modern Ukrainian. Even our own article on Kyiv says Key-U or Key-jU. Some American news networks got it pretty bad when the recent war started and pronounced it Keev. But American English has it as Key-if or Key-ev no matter the spelling. At my local universities and libraries I only seem to hear Key-ev as with the chicken dish. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay now I'm beginning to doubt. File:Uk-Київ.ogg does sound like Kee-jU. Just like Lviv File:Uk-Львів2.oga sounds like L-Vee-jU (which I did know, but in practice I usually still say Lveev). Timothy Snyder always says Kee-jïv, Perun says Keev. In English these days the focus seems to be only on not pronouncing an ɛ, because that is "Russian", but we don't really look at the other letters. We expect to pronounce the v as a v, as in "believe", not as a w as in "view". I don't know. I guess pronunciation is a separate matter, as long as we agree on where to use which spelling here on Wikipedia. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I object.
  1. If you state that the spelling '’Kiev is the COMMONNAME, the “single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources,” please demonstrate it is so.
  2. The text creates a new, non-consensus guideline above and beyond, and overriding both of the important decisions mentioned in WP:KYIV. In particular, in both the spirit and the letter it goes against the decision of September 16, 2020***—which found that there was more than one common name—and cites a rationale which is likely false. In fact, the spelling Kyiv is now used more in history sources than it was used generally at the time of that decision, and may well be the more commonly used one in history sources.
 —Michael Z. 14:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Google Scholar results by year, as reported at the top of the first search results page, excluding citations, including the keyword “history” to skew returned results towards the subject of history. Kyiv has been the prevailing spelling for over a half decade. Its usage in academic articles with “history” exceeds the threshold in general results that led to the consensus renaming of the article Kyiv in September 2020.
Annual usage of Kyiv spelling in articles with “history”
Year “Kyiv” “Kiev” % Kyiv
2012 2,770 8,400 25%
2013 5,020 9,920 34%
2014 8,570 12,700 40%
2015 8,650 11,500 43%
2016 12,400 14,300 46%
2017 15,100 15,000 50%
2018 18,000 16,100 53%
2019 20,800 16,600 56%
2020 22,300 16,500 57%
2021 23,200 15,600 60%
2022 23,100 12,800 64%
2023 (to Aug 15) 11,200 4,910 70%
“The spellings for the medieval state and its capital that are the common names in English-language historiography, which are Kievan Rus' and Kiev” is demonstrably false.  —Michael Z. 16:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Google Advanced Book Search by year, as displayed on the last page of results, restricted to English-language results and with subject:History.
Annual usage of Kyiv spelling in books on the subject of History
Year “Kyiv” “Kiev” % Kyiv
2018 Page 3 of about 278,000 results (21 actually shown) Page 8 of about 1,790,000 results (73) 22%
2019 Page 2 of about 186,000 results (19) Page 8 of about 1,790,000 results (73) 21%
2020 Page 3 of about 278,000 results (29) Page 3 of about 28 results (22) 57%
2021 Page 4 of about 371,000 results (35) Page 5 of about 1,120,000 results (41) 46%
2022 Page 7 of about 647,000 results (61) Page 4 of about 893,000 results (40) 60%
2023 (to Aug 15) Page 4 of about 370,000 results (35) Page 4 of about 893,000 results (34) 51%
 —Michael Z. 16:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Since 2022, the usage of Kyiv exceeds Kiev in articles that mention K**van Rus:
 —Michael Z. 17:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to get too far off-topic, but again you are well aware of the limitations of the GOOGLETEST. As just one example this shows up in the search results for the first column, and yet Kyiv only appears in the reference section in a url.
More to the point there's a pretty strong sitewide consensus against RECENTISM which means that participants to an RFC will be rather unimpressed with any searches that include only the last two years. Give it a decade, see how things shake out. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for citing RECENTISM. Can you explain how it applies to the decision to move Kyiv and therefore use the spelling sitewide after a detailed argument, and to the decision to use “Kiev” in historical articles because of a majority vote?  —Michael Z. 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure, RECENTISM, and it's cousin PRESENTISM, are not any kind of absolute proscriptions or licenses very few of our PAGs are in fact, despite the modern tendency to boil them away to nutshells on the noticeboards and thus lose all their nuance. Location articles are treated differently for these purposes than history articles, just as articles on current events are treated quite differently from those on political entities. The pages themselves explain this.
You already know this, which is precisely why you didn't start an RFC months ago, both of us have been around more than long enough to read community sentiment and predict outcomes with a fair amount of accuracy. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac: you've been around a while, so you are well aware that in the end Wikipedia runs on WP:CON. The discussions that control this topic, both more recent then the one you supplied are 1 and 2. The first being a derivation of the second which is itself a derivation from MOS:PLACE. I'm also sure you remember WP:DANZIG to which this is very much analogous.
If you wish to change the sitewide consensus that governs MOS:PLACE you can of course initiate an WP:RFCBEFORE at it's discussion page, not this one but that is unlikely to be productive. Either way we cannot overule sitewide consensus from well attended RFCs on this page, this is why people have been curt to inquiries since ultimately they merely waste everyone's time including yours.
As another analogy, when people add curly quotes they get reverted with the simple summary of MOS:CURLY. Explaining the complex reasons that guideline persists is exhausting when done repeatedly and we all know it's not going to change, hence better to have everyone use their time in a more productive way. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly? To paraphrase, we must respect sitewide consensus, and we must respect subject-specific consensus that overrides it, but we mustn’t come to any consensus specific to this subject here and now that overrides any of those.
Whether I have that right or not, I’ll continue to object to the factually wrong assertion in the new note at the top. It refers to COMMONNAME and KYIV but contradicts both of them in spirit and fact.  —Michael Z. 18:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Apart from the WP:RECENTISM-laden search on Google Scholar for 2022-present results, you never searched for Rus', so your "history" + "Kyiv" search results are irrelevant. We're not talking about “history” in general. We are talking about the medieval state. You are also well aware that the requested move of this page was WP:SNOWclosed on 20 April 2021 after it became quickly apparent there was no majority in favour of moving it as Kyivan Rus' is just not the WP:COMMONNAME. Your objection has been noted, but rejected. Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to reject your framing. Subject specific and sitewide consensus work together in complex ways. It's natural when one doesn't like something to assert the whole mess is completely contradictory and should be ignored see some of the deletion foodfights, and I'll grant that I'm sympathetic to those complaints, because our policies and procedures are indeed quite messy, at the same type just because things are messy doesn't mean its an anarchy either.
You don't need me to tell you that of course. And, even today there is (limited) room for IAR, and neither I nor anyone else who's been here a minute is going to insist on blind adherence to guidelines or even policies. At the same time a certain measure of pragmatism is needed. You may truly believe that a certain class of article is inappropriate and start nominating them for AfD, however unless/until a sizeable portion of the community agrees or at least of the subset that regularly participates in AfD you'll just waste time, and needlessly irritate fellow editors. And in the alternate case where a bunch of people do agree with you, why not just launch an RfC on the appropriate PAG page instead?
As a practical matter given the current bureaucratic nature of the project there's not a snowball's chance in hell that a local consensus would survive review on the noticeboards, and again you know this already, so pragmatically we should avoid wasting each other's time, and especially that of new editors.
You have the right to object, even if we have gotten quicker to muzzle people over time, but also be aware of SOAPBOX, BLUDGEON, and FORUM. If you want to complain on my talkpage feel free, I probably won't reply but I don't mind. Put a big box prominently at the top of your userpage, so long is it's not a POLEMIC fine. At the same time please try to respect your fellow contributors and refrain from taking up their time here; many of them agree with you on most or even all of your content concerns, but disagree with getting there through improper methods. The integrity of the system as a whole is in the end far more important than achieving your desired outcome in any one specific case. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Aside

Collapsing as a well-meaning friendly attempt to keep things on topic, if anyone must continue at the very least let's try to keep it within a collapsed section so that it doesn't end up cluttering things in an archive for all time to come. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I actually see User talk:Mzajac/2021#Topic ban violations (Warning) being warned by an admin that they should not be editing Talk:Kievan Rus' in violation of your topic ban? Please don't do that. Michael Z acknowledged this: Thanks; I will be more careful. —Michael Z. 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC). However, he has been editing this talk page many times since, starting on 17:15, 5 January 2022. I think we might give him some leeway because it is his country that has been invaded in February 2022, and that country's history being denied by the aggressor state. My interactions with him here have been quite amicable and productive, and I've learnt a lot from his patient answers and explanations. That is constructive. But on the naming issue, I really think he should know better than to repeatedly question a firmly established consensus. That is WP:DISRUPTIVE. I think this is a reasonable distinction that he should be aware of. Good day to all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but user conduct issue really belong first in user talk rather than main talkspace, and potentially if they can't be resolved there then in projectspace. Given the emotions and special circumstance involved here I would really hope we could give some leeway and try to avoid projectspace altogether, but again I don't want to diverge onto talking about something other than the contents of the article or this talk page itself. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Nederlandse Leeuw and 74.73.224.126: Mzajac was banned for a year on Dec 16, 2020; now his ban is expired, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive277#Mzajac Marcelus (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac @Marcelus Sorry, I was unaware that the topicban was temporary, and had already expired. I've struck my statement suggesting that there might be a violation, because now I know that is not the case. My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding. Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I guess it's good this is all inside the cob then, thanks for the info Marcelus. P.S. unregistered users can't be pinged, well not yet anyway, apparently that's coming some time next year. Not sure how I feel about yet, it'll make it harder to duck out of places if things go sideways by pretending I haven't seen, but it is what it is I guess. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I actually wanted to send you a thank you note several times, 74.73.224.126, but unfortunately that's not possible. Well then I'll say 'thank you' right now for your assistance and your considerate move to cob this. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023

Please, put Kyivan Rus' in the title first because Kyiv is the correct spelling of the capital of Ukraine and the name is from this city, so it has to be Kyivan. 188.163.20.87 (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Clearly stated in red at the top of the page. M.Bitton (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

the first ruler to start uniting East Slavic lands

This statement is incorrect because it is anachronism. At that time the lands he united were not only slavic, but finnic and other peoples. - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The statement is not incorrect, it says he was the first one to unite East Slavic lands, it doesn't say he united *only* East Slavic lands.
How would you reword it? Alaexis¿question? 17:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
After some thinking I see that you are right. - Altenmann >talk 18:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kievan_Rus%27/Archive_9&oldid=1179514800"