| Revision as of 04:38, 29 October 2005 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Template← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:36, 3 January 2025 edit undoErmenrich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers22,388 edits the directive that this article is written in Canadian English (really?) was added by an IP without any discussion - I see no evidence that the article is or ever has been written in Canadian English |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Kyivan Rus'}} |
|
==Old talk== |
|
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
# Should there be added reference that Rurik was invited by local population? This is how it was presented in Russian chronicles. |
|
|
|
{{Talk page header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Rusyns|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Belarus|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|hist=yes|humgeo=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|e-e}}{{Press |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = ] |
|
|
| title = Misplaced Pages acts as a check on Putin’s false view of history |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/31/wikipedia-hitler-putin-lavrov/ |
|
|
| date = 31 May 2022 |
|
|
| quote = Since the Russian invasion, the English Misplaced Pages articles about the historical figures and topics Putin invoked have been racking up pop-star numbers. ... Also with ]-type numbers is the article about Kievan Rus’ (just under a million views), the ancient kingdom led by Vladimir the Great (225,000). |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|
| collapse = false |
|
|
| title1 = |
|
|
| title2 = |
|
|
| list = |
|
|
* RM, Kievan Rus' → Kyivan Rus', '''Not moved''', 19 April 2021, ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archives |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 }} |
|
|
== The slavic tribe of Rus' == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article criticaly overlooked the role of Polanian tribe in Kyivan Rus'. Even if, as this article suggests, vikings were the first to be called "Rus'", Kyivan Rus' was centered around Polanian tribe, Rus' vikings were representatives of Polanian tribe, all their conquerings in Eastern Europe became Polanian conquerings, all tribute they gathered from Northern slavic tribes was coming to Polanian center of Kyiv, and Polanians themself started to call themself Rus' in 852 as the chronicle suggests. Other slavic tribes like Ilmen Slavs or Kriviches never called themself Rus', they were using this name for Polanians, yet you mentioned them like equals. Polanians were basically metropoly of Kyivan Rus'. I'm not sure if anyone here cares about this article, but if you do - please put this as the suggestion. ] (]) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
#End of article is somewhat wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, I expected at least some form of reply. ] (]) 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:''To the southwest, the principality of Galicia-Volhynia? had highly developed trade relations with its Polish, Hungarian, and Lithuanian neighbors and emerged as another successor to Kievan Rus'. In the early thirteenth century, ? united the two previously separate principalities, conquered Kiev, and assumed the title of grand duke of Kievan Rus'. His son, ? (Danylo; r. 1238-1264) was the first ruler of Kievan Rus' to accept a crown from the Roman papacy, apparently doing so without breaking with Orthodoxy. Early in the 14th century, the patriarch of the Orthodox Church in Constantinople granted the rulers of Galicia-Volhynia a metropolitan to compensate for the move of the Kievan metropolitan to Vladimir. |
|
|
|
::Might need time to research and implement. ''If'' the tribe is notable that is. ] (]) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please also take into the account that this article claims Kyivan Rus' was an amalgamation of principalities at certain period of time, which is not the case because at this point they were no longer part of Kyivan Rus', Rus' as a name only applied to the territory of Central Ukraine, which also matches the territory of Polanians. So, it's better to consider that this principalities have separated and were no longer part of Kyivan Rus' in the article. ] (]) 11:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If you want to have particular things to be included in the article, you could write up said text (with sources) here on the talk page (as you seem knowledgeable about the topic), and someone might then be so kind to add it to the article for you :) ] (]) 12:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Would you be satisfied with non English speaking sources? ] (]) 16:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Non-English sources are explicitly allowed on English Misplaced Pages per ] (even if English sources are ''preferred''). ] (]) 12:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Well then there are plenty of things I want to change so here is my text variant:"Kievan Rus', also known as Kyivan Rus', was the first East Slavic state in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. Conquering and encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse, and Finnic, it was ruled by the Kyivan Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik. The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was at the center. At its greatest extent in the mid-11th century, Kievan Rus' stretched from the White Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south and from the headwaters of the Vistula in the west to the Taman Peninsula in the east, dominating over the East Slavic tribes. |
|
|
:::::::According to the Primary Chronicle, the first rulers of Rus' were two princes Askold and Dir(r. 862-882), who carried out a successful raid on Constantinople. First major territorial expansions of Kyivan state began during Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). He established Kyiv's control over the Varangian-Greek trade route and used it to gather tribute from the conquered Slavic tribes northern of Kyiv. |
|
|
:::::::The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually shrinking in population and size as more Principalities went their own way independently from Kyiv |
|
|
:::::::In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane, the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. 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.. In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe." |
|
|
:::::::These are changes I want to include for now, and here are sources: |
|
|
:::::::History of Ukraine, Fourth Edition, by Orest Subtelny, page 57:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word." |
|
|
:::::::Page 45-46 (about first rulers of Rus' Askold and Dir). Page 47 (Oleg the Wise and his tribute gatherings). ] (]) 17:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It's not clear what exactly you want to modify, can you highlight the changes? If there are too many of them, it's better to discuss them one-by-one. |
|
|
::::::::Also, note that Subtelny mentions "the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word" which implies that there is also the broad sense, which corresponds to the whole ''Kievan Rus''' (the adjective is a much later addition of course). ]<sub>]</sub> 20:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I have written the text I want to be included in the article for now, scroll higher. |
|
|
:::::::::Well, this broad sense of Kyivan Rus' didn't exist at this point of time, this is why Subtelny mentions that Kyivan Empire has "declined" and "shrank in size", until only it's ethnic metropolitan Ukrainian territories were Kyivan Rus'. Broad sense of Kyivan Rus' is just like any other country and it's empire. ] (]) 07:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::If you expect other editors to compare your version and the current one and find changes this can take a long time. |
|
|
::::::::::To make things easier for other editors, I'm asking you to list the changes: what you propose to add, what you propose to remove and what are the sources for each change (Subtelny or smth else). ]<sub>]</sub> 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Basically write something along the lines of: |
|
|
::::::::::<br> |
|
|
::::::::::''I suggest the following passage:'' |
|
|
::::::::::<br> |
|
|
::::::::::''"<nowiki>{{</nowiki>]|{{tq|copy and paste the relevant text passage from the current wiki article here|italic=yes}}}}"'' |
|
|
::::::::::<br> |
|
|
::::::::::''be changed to:'' |
|
|
::::::::::<br> |
|
|
::::::::::''"<nowiki>{{</nowiki>]|{{tq|write your suggested text for the new passage here|italic=yes}}}}<nowiki><</nowiki>]><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]| author={{tq|Orest Subtelny}} | title={{tq|History of Ukraine}} | edition={{tq|4}} | date= | page={{tq|57}} | quote={{tq|As more and more principalities went their own way...}}}}</ref>"'' ] (]) 13:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Well then, here it is, I'll provide additional sources in case something is unclear:" |
|
|
:::::::::::"... was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities in Eastern Europe.. " |
|
|
:::::::::::Change to: |
|
|
:::::::::::" was the first east slavic state in Eastern Europe" |
|
|
:::::::::::Source:History of Ukraine, Subtelny, page 57, quote:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word" |
|
|
:::::::::::Current text:"Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples" |
|
|
:::::::::::Change to:"Conquering and encompassing variety of polities and people's" |
|
|
:::::::::::Source:Subtelny, page 47 about Oleg the Wise, most of the tribes were conquered and opposed with tribute by Kyivan prince through Varangian-Greek trade route |
|
|
:::::::::::Current text:"uniting the East Slavic tribes" |
|
|
:::::::::::Change to:"dominating over East Slavic tribes". |
|
|
:::::::::::Source:Subtelny, History of Ukraine, page 47, about Oleg |
|
|
:::::::::::Current text:"According to the Primary Chronicle, the first ruler to unite East Slavic lands into what would become Kievan Rus' was Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). He extended his control from Novgorod south along the Dnieper river valley to protect trade from Khazar incursions from the east, and took control of the city." |
|
|
:::::::::::Change to:" |
|
|
:::::::::::According to the Primary Chronicle, the first rulers of Rus' were two princes Askold and Dir(r. 862-882), who carried out a successful raid on Constantinople. First major territorial expansions of Kyivan state began during Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). After setting himself up as prince of Kyiv he took control over the Varangian-Greek trade route and used it to gather tribute from the conquered Slavic tribes to the north of Kyiv. |
|
|
:::::::::::Source:Subtelny History of Ukraine, page 45-46 (about first rulers Askold and Dir), page 47(about Oleg) |
|
|
:::::::::::Current text:The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually disintegrating into various rival regional powers throughout the 12th century |
|
|
:::::::::::Change to:The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually shrinking in population and size as more Principalities went their own way independently from Kyiv |
|
|
:::::::::::Source:Subtelny, History of Ukraine, page 57, quote:"was the first east slavic state in Eastern Europe" |
|
|
:::::::::::Source:History of Ukraine, Subtelny, page 57, quote:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word" ] (]) 17:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You seem to ignore the existing sources in the article. E.g., there are sources supporting both "amalgam of principalities" and "uniting the East Slavic tribes". |
|
|
::::::::::::In case of the "amalgam of principalities", I don't see how the quote from Subtelny supports the change you propose. Subtelny only says that the Kiev land was called Russkaya Zemlya in the narrow sense. It is implied that Russkaya Zemlya in the broad sense included other principalities. |
|
|
::::::::::::Also, please see and take into account @]'s comment below. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Yes, so I propose to change them. Subtelny says that Kyivan Rus' shrank in size, to the point when only the territory around Kyiv was identified as Kyivan Rus'. There's no statement it became an "amalgam of principalities". Again, this broad sense of Kyivan Rus' didn't exist at this point of time because this principalities weren't identified as Rus'. Is that clear? ] (]) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::You've ignored what I said about taking into account the existing sources. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::"So I propose to change them" that's what I said. ] (]) 11:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Hello? ] (]) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::The "amalgam is principalities" is supported by a source (Martin 2009). Your claim that "this broad sense of Kyivan Rus' didn't exist at this point of time" is not supported by the the quote from Subtelny you gave earlier ({{tquote|It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word.}} Subtelny is talking about the contemporary naming whereas Kyivan Rus is a historical term. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::This are the pages of a document I listed, here are corresponding pages of actual book:45-46(26-27),47(28),57(38) |
|
|
::::::::Also a few other changes I propose: |
|
|
::::::::Current text:In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe. In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane, the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. 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. |
|
|
::::::::Change:just swap the text and put Polanians in the first place, as they are the most prominent tribe, so it would be:"In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane, the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. 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.. In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe." |
|
|
::::::::Source, Subtelny, History of Ukraine, book page 21 quote:"Of these, the most prominent were Polanians, who lived in Central Ukraine, on the banks of Dnieper." |
|
|
::::::::Book page 25 quote:"To one of these processes we have already alluded - the slow amalgama- tion of the numerous, fragmented East Slav communal units... in the area in which Kiev would arise. |
|
|
::::::::Book page 26 quote:"Murky though our knowledge of this period is, it can be assumed that the East Slavs in general and the Polianians in par- ticular were well on the way to laying the foundation for the vast political, commercial, and cultural entity that would be called Kievan Rus'." ] (]) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::This is information that is already available in this article with proper citations. The only difference is that 46.200.75.110 wants to emphasise, suggest ot claim that the Polyane were already called Rus' and had already founded Kyivan Rus' before the Varangians arrived and conquered Kyiv in the late 9th century. That flies directly in the face of the literary, linguistic and archaeological evidence that most of these Slavonic, Finno-Ugric or other peoples were tributaries of the Khazar Khaganate when the Varangians (supposedly under Askold and Dir, later under Oleh and/or Ihor) came and took over control, forcing these peoples to stop paying the Khazars and instead pay tribute to them. |
|
|
:::::::::The idea that {{xt|the Polianians in particular were well on the way to laying the foundation for the vast political, commercial, and cultural entity that would be called Kievan Rus'}} is just ] through a backdoor. Granted, the Varangians didn't build the city of Kyiv. But the Polyane didn't establish the network of tribute-paying peoples dependent on the city of Kyiv after the Varangians conquered it. |
|
|
:::::::::At ], I have outlined how modern scholars such as Paul Magocsi and Janet Martin have reconstructed how Kyivan Rus' was established. It wasn't by invitation, nor did a state already exist; the Varangians began by raiding, then by what we might call '']'', and eventually demanding regular tribute of subdued peoples. That might not be a flattering story for the local Slavs, but that's what the evidence says. Similar to how the Romans brought political state structures to much of Europe by conquests in places where there had not been states before. Pretending that there were states before is just wishful thinking and pseudohistory, which is at the core of every anti-Normanist argument. |
|
|
:::::::::Incidentally, I've been working on ] a bit, as well as ]. As Wikipedians, we need to be very careful in trying to separate fact from fiction. We're not here to try and confirm what we already believe; we're here to summarise what reliable sources have concluded, even if that is not what we expected or wanted them to conclude. ] (]) 21:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::No my friend, it's not even available in the first sentences of the article for an average reader. Essentially, most of my current proposed changes do not even discuss Polanians. The fact that Polanians were called Rus' shouldn't be a mystery either. Whether Rus' as word linguistically came from Polanians or Vikings we will never know for sure and it doesn't really matter. Yes, Polanians did payed tribute to khazars, this is even what khazar elite said about them according to Primary Chronicle:"Evil is this tribute, prince. We have won this tribute with a sabre, but the weapon of these called a sword. This men shall impose tribute upon us and upon other lands." |
|
|
::::::::::The fact that you took Subtelny's quote and called it "pure anti normanism" is even all more laughable, because this is what he has to say about this:"There are, therefore, good reasons to view the rise of Kiev not as the exclusive achievement of one ethnic group or another, but as the result of a complex Slavic/Scandinavian interrelationship. Recently, Omeljan Pritsak has taken this point further and argued that the entire question of the ethnic origins of Rus' is irrelevant. In his view, the original Rus' were a multiethnic and multilingual trading company that tried to control the trade routes between the Baltic and the Mediterranean and in the process established the political entity called Kievan Rus'." This shows an unprofessionalism regarding this topic from your side. |
|
|
::::::::::Yes, Polanians didn't established a tribute network for the most part, but they owned it as well as the vikings, because they were part of one company/organisation/state established in Central Ukraine through their complex interrelationship and similar interests. And they highly benefited from it, as their lands became or remained the core Kyivan Rus' culture and literature. So I don't make up anything of my own, I just try to bring this article closer to reality. ] (]) 10:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Regarding edit which emphasises the role of Polans, I will mention again what is said in ''Viking Rus'' (2004): "it can be one more artificial attempt of the compiler to find an explanation for the introduction of the name of Rus to the territories at Middle Dnieper". ] (]) 11:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::This topic was created by other person. I created new topic below. ] (]) 11:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Hello? ] (]) 08:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::You've proposed changes and got negative feedback from several editors. At this point two courses of action would make sense |
|
|
:::::::::::* You modify your proposal taking into account the feedback you've received and we discuss it. |
|
|
:::::::::::* You request external feedback regarding your current proposal from uninvolved editors via ] or other channels. |
|
|
:::::::::::]<sub>]</sub> 20:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Should I create new topic? ] (]) 17:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Yes, that would help. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''No.''' All I'm reading so far is some original research based on a selective, personal reading of the ''Primary Chronicle'' (PVL), an often highly unreliable, late, biased, and self-contradicting ] source. Essentially, 46.200.75.110 seems to be making an ] argument, claiming that the ] (Polanians, Polyane, Polyanians etc.) were always called {{xt|Rus'}}, always called themselves {{xt|Rus'}}, and that the Swedish Varangians who conquered Kyiv around 880 were not {{xt|Rus'}}. This hypothesis has already been conclusively disproven and refuted by scholars decades ago, and we do not have to take it seriously. Anthropology of early Kyivan Rus' is extremely complicated and controversial, with the PVL frequently contradicting itself over what the word {{xt|Rus'}} even means and to whom it should be applied. A drive-by comment on a talk page saying we should ignore the scholarly consensus because some person on the Internet has a different selective personal reading of the PVL is nothing to take seriously. |
|
:However, a long and unsuccessful struggle against the Mongols combined with internal opposition to the prince and foreign intervention to weaken Galicia-Volhynia. With the end of the ? in the mid-fourteenth century, Galicia-Volhynia ceased to exist; Lithuania took Volhynia, and Poland annexed Galicia''. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, theories about when and how Kyivan Rus' "declined" or "fell apart" and such should be evaluated skeptically. The traditional argument suggests that this state took 186 years (from 1054 to 1240) to "decline", while others say it wasn't really a "state" until Volodimer' got baptised around 988, so we end up with a state that was only really a "state" for 66 years (conveniently coinciding with the supposedly perfect reigns of Volodimer' and Yaroslav and constituting a "golden age"; all other ''knyazi'' were supposedly lesser) of its {{circa}} 360-year-long existence from {{circa}} 880 to 1240. It might surprise you, but I'm not convinced by the traditional argument. It's a modern myth that pre-Christian Kyivan Rus' and post-Yaroslav Kyivan Rus' were times of constant war, chaos and misery, and that the time in between was a perfect golden age unlike any other. And I'm even less impressed by a drive-by comment suggesting another simplistic personal interpretation of how Kyivan Rus' disappeared. ] (]) 16:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
As you know, it was Casimir the Great, king of Poland, who almost _forced_ Constantinople of making metropolite in Galicia. Casimir the Great was legal heir to last prince of Galicia, with whom he make deal, that after his death he will rule Galicia - that last prince, moreover, was (IIRC, at least partially) from Piast dynasty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Umm, no, nothing of what you said correspond to my views or the changes I proposed. Essentially, I have already provided a non Primary source. |
|
However from entry it seems the opposite. I will change it very soon now (c), that is as soon as i will finish my other urgent projectds, then few articles on wikipedia, then others... ] |
|
|
|
:Answering to your acquisitions, I do not support anti normanism, as the rise of Kyiv was contributed by both ethnicities. |
|
|
:I do not argue about when Kyivan Rus' declined or how it did, what I say is that it shouldn't be interpreted as disintegration into "an amalgam of principalities", but rather that this principalities have separated from Kyivan Rus' and were no longer part of it. Sorry, the most straightforward example is how we do not call former British colonies "an amalgam of British states". |
|
|
:I personally don't think Rus' was miserable even after it declined and shrank to the size it basically began as, Kyiv was still one of the largest and welthiest cities of a country that still was relevant and had marked huge influence. ] (]) 10:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Did Oleg the Wise "unite East Slavic lands"? == |
|
I would be most grateful if you can improve on it. I only provided a good start... ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know from a historiographical point of view, this cannot be correct (there were obviously many more East Slavs who were not ruled by the Rus' Vikings, whether it was the semi-legendary Oleg or anyone else) - but even from a point of view of the chroniclers, I don't believe there is anything in the texts to justify "East Slavic lands". Happy to be proved wrong. ] (]) 09:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Well, i will try, although i am not historian and i hope that someone more skillful will do it. Entry is already very good. Last two paragraphs are not false; they are just facts choosen so final impression is false. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== There was no Kieven Rus. It was simply Rus == |
|
hm: here what i've found: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dont know why this is viable. Kieven Rus as a term didn't come until the 19th-20th century ] (]) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
"After the conversion of the Ruthenians in this region to Christianity, the Bishopric of Halicz, suffragan to Kiev, was established for their benefit between 1152 and 1180. Halicz had been made a metropolitan see in 1345 by John Calecas, Patriarch of Constantinople, but in 1347 it was again placed under the jurisdiction of Kiev, at the request of the Grand Duke Simeon of Moscow. Its metropolitan rank was restored to Halicz only after the Polish occupation of the province about 1371; " |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Kievan rus == |
|
Seems i was partially wrong, partially right :) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], explain how does this contradicts my changes? ] (]) 11:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
The '']'' table that appears at the top of the article might give readers the false impression the todays ] and ] are the logical successors of ], dropping it would be a bad idea but I think we need a clear reference to ] and the ] article right above it. Does any one have a better idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:In the discussion under {{section link||The slavic tribe of Rus'}}, there is clearly no consensus to include additional emphasis on Polans. I do not think mentioning them in the lead is due either. There is also no mention of "Land of Rus" in Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and really, we should be using better sources than this. If this is based on the image, then this looks like synth. The other changes do not look like an improvement. For example, what is "the first Rus' people" supposed to mean? Also, changing "Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise tried to associate the name with all of the extended princely domains" to "the name was as well denoting all of the Kievan domains" changes the meaning. ] (]) 11:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== NPOV for series inclusion == |
|
|
|
::This is not a discussion done by me, and looks antinormanist, why should I care? |
|
|
::In the lead there's this quote "and took control of the city". What city of which region? I added specifications regarding this. |
|
|
::It is just called "Rus'" in Encyclopaedia. Source is fine. I guess you talk about the "names" section, in names section the name "Rus' land" is already introduced, it is literally another name for the same term. How is that "synth"? |
|
|
::"in 839, the Rus were Swedes; in 1043 the Rus were Slavs", that's what "first Rus' people" means, obviously, do you know anything about this topic or are you just testing my patience? |
|
|
::"changes the meaning" how? ] (]) 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are clearly the same person as the IP. Otherwise, the same IP would not have asked me before why I reverted edits made by Shahray. Even if we pretend that I am stupid, the discussion is about similar changes, so yes, this is relevant. |
|
|
:::Also, I have not seen the formulation "first Rus people" before. No one is arguing that they did not assimilate into the Slavic population, but this implies that there is a "second Rus people" and so on. Since you are resorting to personal attacks once again, I have lost interest in discussing. ] (]) 13:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't remember or care, this might be a common IP anyways. |
|
|
::::I literally just inserted the quote from this article about this. |
|
|
::::Please, how did I "personally attacked" you, and what "again" means? I just have no interest to wander in circles because of you giving some of the most minor excuses to not let my changes get in again and again. |
|
|
::::I don't blame you, there are other editors which might be more knowledgeable about the topic and correct me in case I'm wrong. You're not the only one who can do that. ] (]) 13:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Let's address what you don't have concerns about. I don't see concerns about moving the tribes around Kiev upwards, so I guess it's safe for me restore this? ] (]) 09:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Add Kiyewskaya Rus as an alternate spelling == |
|
While I am not sure what the best solution to the problem would be, it's clear that the fundamental position that underlies the proposal is correct: it is quite biased and tenditious to have an article on "Kievan Rus'" and then place it for basic identification framework in an article on "Russia," a nation which arose much later and NOT solely from Rus' in its original name, ethnicity, language or politics and culture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus are the three descendant nations and languages of the origjnal Kyivan Rus. So the Belarusian spelling should be there ] (]) 00:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I would add a second assertion: that this article arguably should also be referenced/incorporated into the entry on Belarus'. I don't think my point is as urgent as the one recommended directly above, but I think it is valid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:We use the names commonly used in English-language sources. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
This issue needs some further attention/guidance to arrive at a better NPOV result. |
|
|
] 02:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:Genyo, have you already seen discussion on ]ns? |
|
|
] 09:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Szopen, I sure have, and yes, it is relevant. But what do you propose be done to solve the problem mentioned by the previous contributor? multiple links? the recasting of the article on Kievan Rus' into a more equal-time incorporation into a series on the history of Ukraine, which arguably is the first place for such an article? How about dividing the Kievan Rus' article into subsections for each area? (The areas later to be called "Ukraine", "Russia," and Belarus'?) |
|
|
What do you (and others, for that mattter) say about that? |
|
|
|
|
|
I think it'd be great to do this in an organized consensus-developing way instead of a volley of revision wars. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 12:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've added a a small forward to the ] as a stop gap measure, it probably needs a few tweaks. A few questions: |
|
|
#Is there some way to make the box automaticly scale is the size of the table will change? |
|
|
#Is the problem explained clearly enough, or should it be expanded? |
|
|
#Is there anything important that should also be mentioned that I have overlooked? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
If modern Russia is mentioned Ukraine should be mentioned as well. There is no nationalism in that. However, obviously the paragraph shoud be edited. Another solution is to remove the frame entirely.] 14:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's nice to mention that Ukraine and Belarus that share their history with modern Russia, I agree. But it should be done in accurate manner, not by brute inaccurate nationalistic changes. And don't forget common policy for the Misplaced Pages - "most used items preferred" - that is used when ambiguation problem arises. Whatever Ukrainian nationalists think, it's a matter of fact that Russia is the most powerful and so most often referenced country of those that share territory and history of Kievan Rus. Remember - ''not everything that derogates Russians is good''. :-) ] 20:59, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:It seems that I've made maximum that is possible at this point. ] 21:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
DrBug, the point is NOT to derogate Russia--the point is to not derogate her neighbors. Secondly, the point isn't that Ukraine and Belarus' share a common history with Russia--the point is that Russia simply didn't exist a thousand years ago, and that instead Russia and Ukraine and Belarus' share a common inheritance--though unequally--in the state of Kievan Rus' The problem arises in Russian imperialistic claims that Kievan Rus' was something else, was Russia, which is patently false. Kievan Rus' was a foreign period in the history of Russia, though one that was partly formative of Russian identity. |
|
|
And that is the problem underlying the "Series" issue. |
|
|
] 01:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
History and evolution of Kievan Rus and used terms do not reflect mainstream English historiography and contain antirussian bias. ] 11:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:How so? Using terms w/o backing them up is meaningless. --]] 22:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Date of Founding of Kievan Rus == |
|
|
], ], ] are confusing as to when KR was founded. The date of 860 is when Rurik supposedly came to Novgorod. And there was no such thing as '''Kievan''' Rus at least until Oleg. Please fix who knows better. ] 21:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pro-Swedish changes reverted == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it proper to include in the article on the common history of three Slavic states so many minor details about Swedish connections. We might add as much info about Danish, Polish, Finnish, and Greek contacts of the Rus, thereby turning the article into partisan mess. Some added info is not correct, i.e., Yaroslav the Wise did not marry *two* Swedish princesses (not that it matters so much whom he married). If we mention Yaroslav's Swedish wife, why not mention Greek wife of his father, and Greek, Polish, German wives of his sons? Yaroslav was hardly Svyatoslav's successor, as there were three or four princes ruling in between. It is not important for the history of Kievan state that some Varangian once living in Rus was elected king of Sweden. If you think that this Swedish-oriented information is of great importance, please add it to the articles on Yaroslav the Wise, Svyatoslav, etc and not to the first article in the series dedicated to Russian history. ] 11:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sorry, if I have stepped on some toes, but you make some pretty strong assertions about their ''slavicness'' as early as the mid-10th century. This was the time of a very multi-cultural Kievan Rus. Solve that or we are going to exchange some editing. Moreover, your anti-normanist POV is quite evident in your edits.--] 11:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The name of the country/renaming this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be correct to call the mediaeval state which is the subject of this article Old Ruthenia rather than Kievan Rus'? Firstly, Rus' with the '' ' '' sign at the end looks awkward to an English speaker. Secondly, the name ''Ruthenia'' is known in English and it's nothing but the latinised form of the name of the state referred to in this article. Finally, the inhabitants of that country themselves didn't define it with the adjective ''Kievan''. As a matter of fact, there wasn't even any need to do so, as there was just one Ruthenia they knew - that was the state they lived in. |
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, it should be noticed the article is Russian-oriented (this shouldn't be seen as an accusation, but as a statement, as the fact I'm mentioning may have to do with the lack of information rather than the author's intentions). In addition to the artificial and biassed name ''Kievan Rus''' (it implies the old principality with the centre in Kiev (Kyiv) was the predecessor of '''Muscovite Rus''', i.e. Russia), the article uses the Russian transcription of the names of objects in the Ukrainian capital, as well as the princes' names. E.g., the prince the article refers to as ''Vladimir'' was known in the contemporary chronicles as ''Volodimer'' (''Volodymyr'' in modern Ukrainian). |
|
|
|
|
|
] 09:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think that's a good idea. I am not Russian or Ukrainian - I am not even European at all - and from my limited experience of this subject, it is known as "Kievan Rus'" in English and names are spelled in the more-familiar Russian versions (Vladimir rather than Volodimer). The article shouldn't be moved. ] 15:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Names reflect usage in English language. Unfortunately they vcame into English thro Russian, but you cannot change the usage. As for factual bias, feel free to correct the facts, but be prepared to provide proofs for your changes. You may also want to add contemporary names of princes into the corresponding articles. ] ] 21:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:"the predecessor of '''Muscovite Rus'''": the name cannot imply anything. There were also other territories named ]. ] ] 21:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The name ''Kievan Rus’'' is pretty much universally used in the literature I've read, and I don't see it as Russian-biased. This transliteration of the old name is neutral, and it's the same as the modern term русь in Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian (right?). Every possible translation seems to be seen as extremely biased by someone (Russians see ''Ruthenia'' as a Polish term, other translations tend to evoke confusion, at least in me, about what is Russian for ''Rus’'' and for ''Russia''). After long debate it was settled that on Misplaced Pages the term ''Ruthenia'' would be used as a translation of Rus’ only when referring to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. ''—] ] <small>2005-07-19 04:42 Z</small>'' |
|
|
|
|
|
This anon attempts to make a fork, ], of this article. This is inadmissible. The term is of zero usage in English language. I put "]" ]. ] ] 21:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Name usage=== |
|
|
Can someone add some info when this term came into the usage and how the entity was called at these old times? The ] article is not very helpful. ] ] 19:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: IIRC the term was coined by German scholars working at the Russian Academy of Sciences in the late 18th century. In the ], the land was known as "zemlya rus'kaya", i.e., "the Russian land" (or the "Rusian land", if a spelling quirk matters to our Ruthenian friends). --] 19:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Russian land" was not limited to Kievan Rus. I am speaking about political terminology here. Was in "Kiev lands", "Igor's lands" or something else? I know there were various principalities. Were there hierarchy, unions, etc.? Did Kiev actually rule the whole lands in its peak, or only collected the tribute? ] ] 01:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Source citation == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a large quote from the "Primary Chronicle" within the article. It should be given a citation providing biblio data for the translated edition that was used as the source. I do not have all of the available English translations here, so I cannot do it, but thought to mention this omission in case someone else can add the necessary data. |
|
|
] 06:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Template == |
|
|
|
|
|
], ], ], and ], and anyone else involved in this edit war over the past few days, can you PLEASE stop removing and re-adding the template, and discuss it here first? I can understand the misplaced sense of nationalism that is occurring here, when you think a larger country is stealing your smaller country's history, but this is getting ridiculous. It seems perfectly logical to me to include the History of Russia template; if you are offended, it is your fault, not the fault of the template or the article. So, stop the edit warring, I don't want to have to protect the page and/or block anyone. ] 05:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Adam, I fully support your zeal. This edit war is a part of a much larger one involving tens of articles and introduced by AndriyK a fortnight ago. See ], ], ], ], to name just a few articles concerned. See also Administrator's noticeboard under AndriyK. --] 08:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Adam, please explain your point of view. The template doesn't seem relevant. No one pastes a bunch of links about history of modern Romania into the article about ancient Rome. It would be considered a vandalism. Yet it's OK for a bunch of links about Muscovy, Imperial Russia, Revolution of 1905, Revolution of 1917, Russian Civil War, Soviet Union, and Russian Federation to be right at the top of the article about ancient Kiev. While somebody's history may seem unimportant, one needs to apply single fair standard to the way history articles are written. Posting a large number of links about a different place isn't helping the reader.--] 01:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is not only in Russia but even in Britannica, the ] starts with Kievan Rus . Britannica's history of RU starts from the following chapters: Prehistory and the rise of the Rus, Kiev, The rise of Kiev, The decline of Kiev, etc... I am sorry that the traditional historiographic view that Kievan Rus' is part not only of Ukrainian but also of the Histories of other nations upset some but this is how it is. --] 01:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Dear Irpen, while it's OK for history of Russia to contain a reference to Kievan Rus, overburdening this page with Russian historical links isn't helpful. It's confusing. It's more than enough to provide a single link to history of Russia at the end of the article. Single link to history of Romania at the end of ancient Rome article is OK as well.--] 01:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Template simply states that this article is a part of History of RU series. Nothing else. It is just there was an editor (]), who made a ] a ], almost on his own. The series was built, organized and templates created. If you or I will take an effort to make a comparable History of UA series, we will make a template and put it right next to it. Please consider adding this to your "to do" list. I would have done it myself, should I have seen myself able to complet such a gigantic and nobel task. --] 01:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dear Irpen, one can always make a link to that series at the end of the article. Instead of posting all the links of some series at the top. While it's noble to write informative and balanced articles in your free time, it's not noble to spam the links to those articles in confusing places.--] 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Information is Spam only when it's irrelevant. It is only you who thinks it is irrelevant. The way Misplaced Pages works is that it is ruled by consensus. That several people reverted this change of yours shows, that this seems relevant enough for everyone else. --] 01:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How is Revolution of 1905 relevant to Kievan Rus?--] 02:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Could anyone else PLEASE talk to the guy. I will make a History of UA similar template over the weekend to make him feel better, and will put it next to History of RU (it would be a good think to do anyway) but I am afraid he will then strike out both. Would hate to see my work wasted. --] 04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
This article criticaly overlooked the role of Polanian tribe in Kyivan Rus'. Even if, as this article suggests, vikings were the first to be called "Rus'", Kyivan Rus' was centered around Polanian tribe, Rus' vikings were representatives of Polanian tribe, all their conquerings in Eastern Europe became Polanian conquerings, all tribute they gathered from Northern slavic tribes was coming to Polanian center of Kyiv, and Polanians themself started to call themself Rus' in 852 as the chronicle suggests. Other slavic tribes like Ilmen Slavs or Kriviches never called themself Rus', they were using this name for Polanians, yet you mentioned them like equals. Polanians were basically metropoly of Kyivan Rus'. I'm not sure if anyone here cares about this article, but if you do - please put this as the suggestion. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, theories about when and how Kyivan Rus' "declined" or "fell apart" and such should be evaluated skeptically. The traditional argument suggests that this state took 186 years (from 1054 to 1240) to "decline", while others say it wasn't really a "state" until Volodimer' got baptised around 988, so we end up with a state that was only really a "state" for 66 years (conveniently coinciding with the supposedly perfect reigns of Volodimer' and Yaroslav and constituting a "golden age"; all other knyazi were supposedly lesser) of its c. 360-year-long existence from c. 880 to 1240. It might surprise you, but I'm not convinced by the traditional argument. It's a modern myth that pre-Christian Kyivan Rus' and post-Yaroslav Kyivan Rus' were times of constant war, chaos and misery, and that the time in between was a perfect golden age unlike any other. And I'm even less impressed by a drive-by comment suggesting another simplistic personal interpretation of how Kyivan Rus' disappeared. NLeeuw (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I know from a historiographical point of view, this cannot be correct (there were obviously many more East Slavs who were not ruled by the Rus' Vikings, whether it was the semi-legendary Oleg or anyone else) - but even from a point of view of the chroniclers, I don't believe there is anything in the texts to justify "East Slavic lands". Happy to be proved wrong. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
