Talk:Kievan Rus'

Changes and edit warring - Kievan Rus v Rus

There is no consensus for changing the article to remove East Slavs as being the founders of the state and saying that the Rus state was started by Norsemen. This is the third time the revert has been made.

Edit warring is NOT going to get us anywhere. Also, using an incorrect edit summary is not really in good faith. The summary "adding Belarus template" was a cover for removing East Slav. Please find consensus before removing East Slavs as the founders of the state. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Which east slavic tribe is it referring to?Alphasinus (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is childish. The state may have been founded by Norsemen in the 9th century, but it really only flourished in the 10th century, when it was clearly an East Slavic State. This is like quibbling over whether the USA is really a state founded by Spaniards, as Spanish Florida was founded in 1513, a full century before the first Brits set foot on American soil. It is undisputed that the Spanish spearheaded the colonization of North America. The USA and Canada still aren't "Spanish states" because of that fact. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Duplicated on the Rus vs Rus page)

The problem here is getting the facts right, keeping POV out and ensuring that things are correctly represented as per sources.

As I understand it the facts of the matter are: the people that lived there established states which fell into disarray with constant warring and they invited the Rus in to rule them and provide leadership which made everything flourish. It was not, as it seems to read now, as if the Rus Norsemen came in and conquered everybody and started the states on their own.

This situation has to be correctly written about and we should not tolerate anything which detracts from the sourced facts or introduces POV bias.

PS don't forget that the native Americans were there first lol! (and yes, there were some Norsemen there as well...) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rus' or Kievan Rus' discussion

see subpage /Kievan_Rus'_v_Rus — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

"Rus" vs. "land of the Rus"

The territory was clearly known as "land of the Rus" (ruskaya zemlya) in the 12th century. It is unclear when it first became known by the feminine Rus. See wikt:Talk:Русь for details. It seems likely that this happened as early as the 14th century. It is unclear whether it can be traced to the 13th century, which would be necessary to claim it as a contemporary term for the state.

ru:Обсуждение:Киевская_Русь

Could an explanation for the apostrophe be put into the article?

I can't find any explanation for the apostrophe after Rus in the article, nor in the Rus' article linked from the See also section. Could an explanation be put in? Thanks! Allens (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's explained in the article about the name, which is linked to from the second sentence here. Perhaps some of the information there about Kievan Rus' can be moved into this article. --illythr (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Add WikiProject Norse history and culture?

The Kievan Rus' article is actually listed among that project's most viewed articles, but there isn't a notation in this Talk page of that project. Regardless of what one may think of the role of the Norse in Kievan Rus' history, it is a matter of interest... Allens (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kievan Rus' historical map 980 1054.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kievan Rus' historical map 980 1054.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)