This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The disputed material tag that was added is appropriate when an article "contains unlikely information, without providing suitable references." But this statement is referenced and taken directly from a reliable source. The dispute then appears to be with the source -- do you have a source that disagrees with the source used? You ask "since when?" How is that relevant? The statement regards the people who populated the area prior to the emergence of KR, not how long they had been there. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for actually starting a corresponding section for discussion, Lazlo Panaflex. I've only just encountered the tag and was perplexed by it. Janet Martin is undoubtedly a reliable source. Where is the RS to suggest that the statement is 'dubious'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder why the article is missing the flag of Kievan Rus in the introductory table, as is customary for pages on states. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I would assume that it's simply unknown what flag Kievan Rus' used, or, equally likely, there were multiple flags depending on the specific ruler, not a single state flag. Do you know of a reliable source that discusses the flag? Huon (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The main city of Rus' only Veliky Novgorod! (also known as Holmgard!)
Kiev - this is Khazars colony! His real name is SAMBAT! Therefore this article should be called Old Russian State! Our state began in 862 with prince Rurik! Remove Khazars colony Sambat-kyiv from our history! This is not our capital! Our Capital is Holmgard! ---Zemant (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Zemant, as I've noted to you in the past, you would need to bring some serious WP:RS in order to bring this to the table for discussion alone. Until such a time, this is essentially Басни Крылова (AKA WP:OR). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why you reverted that last edit of 28 June by Ulmanor. The current entry is a dead link, at least as far as I can tell. http://www.angelfire.com/or3/kievan_rus/ looks to be correct. Paulmlieberman (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks that the angelfire link was accidentally duplicated, which broke the URL. The .tk site is dead for me, too, so I took the liberty to fix and restore the angelfire link. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 30, 2014; 13:22 (UTC)
I use Firefox and the Angelfire site doesn't work. I've actually preserved all of the site (complete with all of the linked pages) via the Wayback Machine. Perhaps it would be best if I were to link it directly to the Wayback Machine. Considering that I'm hardly alone in using Firefox as my preferred browser, and that the site uses archaic coding and pop-ups that most new browsers block or don't recognise, I'd see it as being far more useful for readers to be able to access the direct, simple HTML pages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I just tried http://www.angelfire.com/or3/kievan_rus/ with Chrome, Firefox and IE, on Windows 7, and it worked fine (including those obnoxious ads) on all three. On the other hand, I agree with Iryna that the simple HTML would be much preferable. Any idea who owns these maps? Are there copyright issues? Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm on Windows 8.1 now and, since my old laptop died a few weeks ago, don't have the means to check various browsers on Windows 7 or earlier. As it stands, the Angelfire site isn't attributed, but the Wayback Machine still features the Angelfire logo, etc. This is what it looks like accessing the maps and links from the archive. I'm not certain as to whether copyright issues are of relevance in this instance. Perhaps Ëzhiki has some insight into the matter.
PS The site ultimately belongs to Lycos per these terms. After checking the source content, the user who produced the maps did not name him/herself. Lycos has the right to keep the material in the public domain and, as there was no attribution or copyright in the first place, plus bearing in mind that this is an external link, I have further reason to suggest that it falls under "fair use". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Firefox + Windows 8.1 here, both sites work fine, if a bit wonky (some "undefined's" here and there). The Wayback Machine one loads a little slower. After looking at it via Internet Explorer and seeing all those horrible ads, I say keep the Wayback Machine one. --illythr (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Done In agreement over the pop-ups. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)