Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drbug (talk | contribs) at 21:32, 27 April 2004 (Fixed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1. Should there be added reference that Rurik was invited by local population? This is how it was presented in Russian chronicles.

1. End of article is somewhat wrong.

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.

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.

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.

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... szopen

I would be most grateful if you can improve on it. I only provided a good start... Graham Chapman

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. szopen

hm: here what i've found:

"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; "

Seems i was partially wrong, partially right :) szopen

The history of Russia table that appears at the top of the article might give readers the false impression the todays Russia and Russians are the logical successors of Kievan Rus, dropping it would be a bad idea but I think we need a clear reference to Ukraine and the History of Ukraine article right above it. Does any one have a better idea.

NPOV for series inclusion

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.

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.

This issue needs some further attention/guidance to arrive at a better NPOV result. Genyo 02:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Genyo, have you already seen discussion on Ruthenians?

Szopen 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.

Genyo 12:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've added a a small forward to the history of Russia table as a stop gap measure, it probably needs a few tweaks. A few questions:

1. Is there some way to make the box automaticly scale is the size of the table will change?
2. Is the problem explained clearly enough, or should it be expanded?
3. 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.Yeti 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. :-) Drbug 20:59, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems that I've made maximum that is possible at this point. Drbug 21:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)