Talk:Vladimir the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Settled on Orthodox Christianity"[edit]

Given St Vladimir's conversion predated the East-West Schism, is it not slightly anachronistic to say he chose Orthodox Christianity over "Roman Catholicism"? Would it not be more accurate - if it's indeed the case - to say that it was Byzantine, rather than Latin, missionaries who received him into the undivided Church? After all, had he not died in communion with Rome, he would not be honoured as a saint in the Catholic Church. 13afuse (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I'd like you to note that emotional stress is not necessary for encyclopedian article. Most monarchs had to finish off their rivals, and we don't call them "bloody". According to your tactics, we should mention that William the Conqueror was a bastard, and so on. Besides, Malusha was not a slave girl but a housekeeper at Olga's house (ключница). Уважаемый! у каждого явления существует две стороны. как у медали. вот, например, Малуша, с одной стороны, была рабыня, никто этого не отрицает, с другой, она стала ключницей, т.е. фактически была домоуправительницей - очень большим человеком в доме. можно писать и так и этак. меня интересует, почему Вы, человек из России, предпочитаете акцентировать внимание иностранцев на темной стороне российской истории?

How about we call him "Vladimir The Rapist"?


http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintv09.htm shows that his July 15 feast day is Roman Catholic, not only Eastern orthodox.


This is one of the worst yet. "As a heathen, he had several wives" WTF??? JHK

Read on! As a heathen he put up statues and subdued other peoples. Evidently there's a causal link. MichaelTinkler

Bad Heathens! Bad, bad heathens! JHK


I wonder about the Yaroslav the Wise holding Novgorod 'in fief'. Is that term applicable (other than by analogy) to 10th c. Russia? I fear it's a fragment of Catholic Encyclopedia.MichaelTinkler

Yep, there it was in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'm going to cut the 'in fief'.MichaelTinkler

and did you know that if you google kherson, 2 of the top 10 hits are marriage-agencies? *sigh*.


The tragedy is that I used to use the Catholic Encyclopedia: I've gone off it completely after being treated to HJ's selections. Agree on the "fief" twaddle - I just wasn't cutting enough. Slash and burn! User:David Parker

CE is still ok in parts -- but not as the only source. I have found an excellent online source...will send it to you if I can figure out how! User:JHK

It was Perun not Odin and Thor whose statues Vladimir erected. Though Perun is a slavic analog of Odin. --maqs 23:40, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


Another important thing: St. Vladimir was baptised in Chersonesos (in Crimea, now in suburbs of Sevastopol, founded by greeks in 422-421 BC). Since 16 c. AD that city was usually called Chersonesos of Tavria (Khersones Tavricheskiy, Russian Херсонес Таврический ) or Kherson/Korsun'. The city of Kherson the article linked to was founded in 1778 AD in memory of Chersonesos.
--maqs 00:10, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Image on this page listed as "Historic statue in Kiev, Ukraine, appears to be of St. Andrew, not Vladimir. (unsigned)

Anonymous, you are mistaken. That't the right statue. --Irpen 15:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Trydent" of Vladimir (Volodymer) and Co[edit]

If you dont belive that members of the Ruriks family, pat. Svyatoslav, Volodymer and Yaroslav, had been using "trident"-like symbols as personal crests on coins and seals, you should look through e-net pages (even russian pages http://russianchange.narod.ru/ or http://geraldika.ru/ or http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/russia/retro.htm) about the early "heraldry" or Rus. The Rurikids used "trident" not because they were Ukrainian nationalists, but because it was their family symbol. Regards--133.41.4.47 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing to read such things, because it was me who wrote Svyatopolk I in February 2005 and uploaded real (not imaginary) trident-like symbols to this article. On the other hands, your images are factually incorrect, because exact attribution of symbols to one or another of Yaroslav's descendants is purely speculative. Even with seals, which normally bear an image of the ruler's patron saint and his name, attribution frequently presents insurmountable difficulties. What makes these images even less acceptable for an encyclopaedia, is that the symbols are clothed in the Ukranian heraldic colors, which had not been attested before the Galician period of Ukrainian history. In short, unlike the images in the article about Svyatopolk, the modernised interpretations which you uploaded are speculations with a nationalist background. Please read WP:NOR. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I chose gold and blue colours for the crests of Volodymer not because they are the colours of Ukrainian flag but because these colors where probably used by Kievan princes, on the contrary to other princes and slavic states that used red and white (Polotsk, Poland, Bohemia...). Kings of France used blue and gold and Byzantium empereors used purpule and gold to separate themselves from "reddish" nobility. So, why the Kievan princes couldnt do the same? In fact, the colors of the crest are not so significant as the image. Crest, or proper to say emblem, has no colours, just a form. It is not a "coat of arm". If you do not like the combination of gold and blue, thats your right. But I see no need to cut off the image. Nobody, however, knows what were the "national" colours of Rus. If my images are speculation and should be deleted from this article, please delete also other images (statues etc.) because they are "speculative" images of Volodymer. If you want put the trident images from the Svatopolk article to Vladimir which you consider to be real, go on and do it. --Alex Kov 07:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The heading of the article[edit]

This person has no more relation to the modern Russia, than Caesar to the modern Romania. Why the hell the Russian spelling has been used in the heading? Volodymyr would be much closer... Morkva 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Because this spelling is used in most English language books about this period of Rus. Per WP:NC(UE):
If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources.
Greetings, --Irpen 23:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The matter is historical justice, and the most commonly used versions are not always correct. They are also subject to change- no one uses now, for example, such names as Constantinople or Smyrna (Istanbul and Izmir instead), which once had also been the so called "commonly used versions"Morkva 16:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Badly written passage[edit]

I would have rewritten this passage, if I'd understood what it was saying. I don't have any books on this subject, so perhaps someone who does could clarify it:

In 987, Bardas Sclerus and Bardas Phocas revolted against the Byzantine emperor Basil II. The latter, having double-crossed Sclerus, with whom both rebels briefly joined forces, but then bardas Phocas proclaimed himself emperor on September 14, 987.

Volodymyr[edit]

I see that it is mentioned that in Old Slavic and Ukrainian his name was Volodymyr (or Volodimir), thus the main article name should say Volodymyr.

He was never known as Vladimir, only by Russians after their appearance centuries later, as well as Bulgarian monks (Old Church Slavonic). Please fix. Thanks.

Well, he is called Vladimir by most historic books in English. This is what matters. --Irpen 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Notice on that the statue it says Volodymyr and not Vladimir. --MaksKhomenko 18:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This being an English-language article, it's completely beside the point what Russians or Ukranians might call him. At the moment, English-speakers use "Vladimir," sorry. One day, we might wake up to Ukranian usage and distinguish Vladimir from Volodymyr, but Wikipedia is hardly the place to force the issue. Anyway, the article lists the name in several languages, so that if someone takes issue with the way English speakers spell it, the more accurate Ukranian spelling is available to those who want to know. Themill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter much contemporary Ukrainian spell of his name, but it matters the most his original prononciation to which the Ukrainian spel is the closest.--Hrystiv 03:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrystiv (talkcontribs)

I'm against it being renamed Volodymyr, but if it is the older form. Then it should be mentioned in the intro. The Grand Duchy Kiev did include present day Ukraine as well as Russia.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Article should be renamed to Volodymyr indeed. Unfortunately, during the Soviet era Russians rewrote a lot of Ukrainian history so that to identify the nation with Russians and to diminish any historical significance of Ukrainians at all. However, this is a big mistake (of course gladly accepted by Russians) and, unfortunately, thoughtlessly adopted by English speaking literature. Please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyderxman (talkcontribs) 01:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It should remain as it is. While you may be correct that Soviet historians may have rewritten some common pre-revolutionary Russian history - which included Ukraine as the point of origin of what became the Russia Empire - in history books prior to the 1917 revolution the name was Vladimir the Great. However, if you wish to return to old Slavonic - akin to today's Old Church Slavonic - in which the Chronicles were written then you will encounter Volodimir. That name could used if the entire English language Wiki would revert to English as it was used in the times of Chaucer. I don't think that will happen, so Volodimir shouldn't occur either.Федоров (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Name[edit]

The sentence "Volodymyr Svyatoslavych the Great, often mistakenly spelled Vladimir" is incorrect as "Volodymyr" being a modern Ukrainian spelling is no more correct than "Vladimir" (modern Russian spelling). The old East Slavic was either "Володимеръ"(according to the Hypatian codex) or "Володимѣръ"(Vasmer). Note the different vowels in the two last syllables. The reason of this is that the root "mer" derives from the gothic "-mērs"("great") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.185.171 (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice this, thanks - that were edits by an anonymous Ukrainian nationalist (note the typical Kiev to Kyiv change). Reverted. --Illythr (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But did you notice that the preceding statement was by an anonymous Russian nationalist (check the whois, and this is the only contribution, even left unsigned)? Horlo (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the IP is Russian, but how did you determine that this person is a nationalist? --Illythr (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, the same way that you had determined that the previous change had been made by a Ukrainian nationalist. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
While changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" arbitrarily is a good indication of an Ukrainian nationalist at work (because the article's name is currently Kiev, despite the dogged, incessant attempts by the nationalists to rename it for six freaking years), a reversion of this is not an indication of anything, other than, perhaps, due vigilance (I failed to notice the change, for instance). --Illythr (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? So what you're saying is that you have no arguments here. Do you have any others? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Er, what? --Illythr (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"while changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" arbitrarily is a good indication of a Ukrainian nationalist at work". That's what. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Well, everyone I saw going about doing this in Wikipedia articles, where the name "Kiev" is entirely noncontroversial (pre-1991) has invariably turned out to be one. Here it's even more obvious, due to the "often mistakenly spelled" thingy. Compare - "Moskva, often mistakenly spelled as Moscow, is the capital of Russia..." However, this branch of the discussion is entirely irrelevant to the article. If you find my original statement offensive, just say so and I will delete it. --Illythr (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, everyone I saw going and changing it back has been one, too. Horlo (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. --Illythr (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No gentlemen, Volodymyr is just and simply the Ukrainian spelling of Vladimir. The Old Russian would be Volodimer, not the Ukrainian Volodymyr. But, at the risk of being impolite, the point is that in world history this person is widely known as Vladimir, in spite of preferences of those who want to artificially purify Ukrainain history of anything Russian. Except for the Ukrainian WP article, in all other languages he is traditionally called Vladimir, whether some like this or not. So let's adher to what is already established by tradition, meaning we call this person Vladimir. Changing Vladimir into Volodimer or even Volodymyr looks highly artificial. Wikipedia should adher to what is widely accepted in world history. I am not Russian and do not intend to hurt any nationalistic/chauvistic sentiments. Vasilij (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Vasilij, you seem to be making lots of wonderful statements like "just and simply", "widely known", and "accepted in world history". Yes, for a very long time, there were very many concerted efforts - first by the Russian empire, and then by the USSR - to convince the world of lots of things. You seem to have bought into it: for example, what does "artificially purify Ukrainian history of anything Russian" mean? Personally, I think it's the other way around - Russian history needs to get proud of Russian accomplishments, not Ukrainian ones. Now, back to this article, why do you think "Vladimir" should be used in the name of this article? Please don't say "widely accepted in world history" or "established by tradition". Real arguments, please. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's the only argument there needs to be - he is known in the West under that specific name (same as "Moscow" and not "Moskva"). In Google Books, for example, "Vladimir of Kiev" yields 668 hits, whereas "Volodymyr of Kiev" - 23 and "Volodymyr of Kyiv" - only 5. --Illythr (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, arguments like "he is known in the west" do not hold any water, and google results are not really reliable at all, as per the WP MoS. Volodymyr is known around the Anglosphere by many names, with modern literature frequenting Volodymyr more. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Curious, you say that the "he is known in the West" argument "holds no water" and then use it immediately in support of your own POV. However, the support for "Vladimir" has been definitely demonstrated (a 660 vs 28 relation leaves no ambiguity), thus refuting your own argument you failed to substantiate in any way. I will restore the original form now. Please refrain from further changes to the name until you provide a definite preference for "Volodymir" in the English language literature. --Illythr (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, it's sad that as soon an an opposing opinion is presented, it is immediately labeled a POV. Illythr, are you actually familliar with the WP rules of transliteration, and if so, why do you rely so much on Google? You should know that google is not in any way reliable when discussing what is common in English. To demonstrate, the first hit on Google which does not include Wikipedia claims that "Vladimir the Great ... grand duke of Kieff and Russia". The "source" still spells Kyiv as Kieff, which even Russians stopped doing a long time ago, and uses "Rus" and "Russia" interchangeably, which everybody but Russians stopped doing a long time ago.
Now, the first hit on "Volodymyr the Great" in google books brings us to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, the second to a study on religion, and the third to a book called "The Ukrainians - an unexpected nation".
Please feel free to actually look at the results, not just count them, as the Wikipedia Manual of Style (that's what MoS means, by the way) suggests. That's why I changed the name, and that's why I will change it back. Please do not revert it. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, you failed to present some sort of evidence to the claim that "Volodymyr" is used more widely in Western literature, whereas I demonstrated the evidence to the contrary. Hence, this claim is your opinion only. WP Transliteration rules apply only when an established name does not exist in English, which is clearly not the case here. In this case, the difference is too great anyway. What the Google search definitely shows is the lack of support for the name you portray as "common". Here's a more refined search in Google Books, that addresses the problem you mentioned (post-1991 sources only, no "Kieff"). The difference stays in proportion (432 hits versus 4+12). Note that I do not endorse such Google searches as a universal means to solve naming problems. They are only applicable when they show the preference of one name over others by a margin large enough to leave no reasonable doubt, such as this case. There's no problem in mentioning the modern Ukrainian spelling (already done), but replacing the common name with it is a no go. --Illythr (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir is certainly the main name used in the west, with much wider usage than any Ukrainization. If you want to challenge this, please provide a major English-language textbook of medieval history not primarily devoted to Ukraine that uses Volodymyr or similar Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think such a book can be found. This won't make it any less undue, considering hundreds of books that use "Vladimir", though. --Illythr (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Illythr, have you actually ever seen any of the "hundreds of books" that use the Russian nationalistic chauvanistic "Vladimir"? Please remember that there is a difference between the internet and reality. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with what Google Books actually is, to acquire an understanding about where its books come from. Your characteristic of Vladimir as a "Russian nationalistic chauvanistic" name warrants no further comments. --Illythr (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,Illythr, please believe me when I say I know what a google search is (by the way, do you know what a google is - without googling it?).
Here's the problem: for a long time, there has been a concerted effort to claim that "there has never been a Ukraine, there is no Ukraine, and there never will be a Ukraine". (just google the Emz Ukaz (please note the mistranslation of "Ukrainian" as "little russian")). Unfortunately, the pen is not mightier than the sword, and eventually scholars just say what has been said - and published, and printed, and repeated (another question: who said "a lie told often enough becomes the truth"?).
Luckily, truth cannot be defeated, and what is right has come to be. Scholars are re-discovering the truth about history, and many books are being published in which Volodymyr is used.
Here's a test for the google books engine: try "Volodymyr the Great", and look at the date of the first publication. Then, try "Vladimir the Great" and look at the date of the first entry. This is an important lesson in dealing with history (and also Wikipedia guidelines, as well) - don't just look at numbers, but look into the results. This will help you understand what is used, not what was used. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I know what a googol is. I asked if you understand what Google Books is, however.
The problem goes two ways - for a while, there was no Ukraine, but once it was established, a group of people, in a display of false patriotism, attempted to create its history way back from prehistoric times. While both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists love taking on each others' fairy tales, luckily, here on the English Wikipedia, we don't get to decide what is The Truth and which one of them is Truer than the others. We merely work reflect established scientific consensus. What this consensus is has been thoroughly demonstrated to you by means of respectable English encyclopaediae and numerous samples of English language books. If your version of "truth" differs from the widely accepted one, please work towards establishing it outside of Wikipedia first.
The method of examining just the first entry of the search results is a very bad one, as we don't know how the sorting mechanism works. A more reliable way to see what's is used is to simply look for that: limit the search to books printed within the, say, last 3 years (2006-2009). This, too results in a clear preference for Vladimir (139 to 27) --Illythr (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, nice catch on the googol.
You seem to have understood the problem: for a long time, there were many people trying to say that there was no Ukraine. How can that be: There was no Ukraine? Saying that is as absurd as saying that there was no America before 1492. It has always been there - possibly not in the way that it is known today (yes, in Volodymyr's time, Kyiv was the capital to be in continental Europe). That is, however, very different from there being no Ukraine. There has always been Ukraine, and judging by what it has survived to today, there always will be Ukraine.
So, please no more statements like "in a display of false patriotism" or "taking on each other's fairy tales". Because they all started in Kyiv. Build a bridge - get over it.
Now, what exactly does "What this consensus is has been thoroughly demonstrated to you" mean"? You and 84.47.185.171 are a consensus?
Please don't misinterpret my suggestion as a "method of examining just the first entry" - what it is is a show to you what used to be, and what is. People used to think that the earth was flat, it was spelled Vladimir, and there was no Ukraine. Now, we know better.
Let's take the next step together: look at the results, don't just count them: the first result for google books, published in English between 2006 and 2009 about Vladimir the great is about [1] VLADIMIR PUTIN. It's called Russia's foreign policy something something.
However, when you search about Volodymyr the Great ( plus same search parameters), you get a history book about ANCIENT UKRAINE, [2] called "Origins of the Slavic Nations".
So now you know, so please stop changing it back, and saying things like: "here on the English Wikipedia" because I don't know about any other Wikipedias. Hopefully, that has been enough demonstration for you, thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC).
There was no United States of America before July 4, 1776, and certainly not before 1492. There were other "states" on that territory, sure, but any kind of continuity and links to the modern USA begin only with the arrival of European settlers, as any Native American will tell you.
As for consensus - The links to English language books and encyclopedia demonstrating the dominance of "Vladimir" are available on this page.
The search result you falsely present as mine lacks the quotation marks (vladimir the great as opposed to "Vladimir the Great") and is therefore misleading and completely useless - the first entry is actually a mention of Peter the Great; it then goes on to list many other notable Vladimirs, including Putin, Nabokov and, yes, Vladimir I of Kiev (second hit, actually). In an amusing bit of irony, your search for volodymyr the great without the marks suffers from the same problem - there are apparently other notable Volodymyrs (including ones from the Soviet period) as well as totally irrelevant books that have the words "Volodymyr" and "great" in them. Please refer to Google Search help to understand how such searches work.
What you did demonstrate, however, is that continuing this discussion is meaningless. As you choose to ignore the evidence presented to you there is nothing more I can add, other than a suggestion to ask an uninvolved administrator for a third opinion, or start an RFC, if you must. --Illythr (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
An uninvolved administrator would be a great idea. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a notice at the Wikiproject history. --Illythr (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Alex, good to talk to you again. Franky, I'm baffled by your statement: "please provide a major English-language textbook of medieval history not primarily devoted to Ukraine". What exactly do you mean? What is "major"? What is "primarily"? Would you like a textbook at a primary or a post-secondary level? Why is an online encyclopedia not good enough, if it gets the hits (google: "Volodymyr the Great" gets the Encylopedia of Ukraine first, and "Vladimir the Great" gets Wikipedia first, the outdated Advent page (see Kieff) second, and the Encyclopedia of Ukraine third)?
This discussion nothing to do with textbooks, but rather with what people are using. Please let me know, thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well lets check the usage.
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica [3] Vladimir I of Kiev (no mentioning of Volodymyr);
  • Columbia [4] the main article is Vladimir I three names are used:Vladimir I (vlăd`əmĭr', Rus. vlədyē`mĭr), Volodymyr I (vŭl'ədyē`myĭr), or Saint Vladimir;
  • Hutchinson: [5] only name Vladimir I is used.
  • Now lets check the search engines:
    • "Vladimir I of Kiev" excluding Wikipedia: Google[6] - 5740 hits, books [7] Scolar [8] -312 hits
    • "Volodymyr I of Kiev" Google [9] - 152 hits, books [10] - 31 hits; Scolar [11] - 3 hits
    • "Volodymyr I of Kyiv" Google [12] 415 hits; books [13] 5 hits; scolar [14] - 4hits;
As demonstrated Vladimir is used ten times as often as Volodymyr in the web, books or academic publications. Out of three major English encyclopaedias all three use Vladimir as the main title and only one even mentions name Volodymyr or any other Ukrainization Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, how is any of this connected to "a major English-language textbook of medieval history", as you suggested, or what people are using? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, also, let's refrain from statements like "russianization" or "Ukrainianization" of terms. The name is what it is. Now, perhaps you would like to discuss the entire section of the WP MoS that says "Look at the results, don't just count them"? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Article should be renamed to Volodymyr indeed. Unfortunately, during the Soviet era Russians rewrote a lot of Ukrainian history so that to identify the nation with Russians and to diminish any historical significance of Ukrainians at all. However, this is a big mistake (of course gladly accepted by Russians) and, unfortunately, thoughtlessly adopted by English speaking literature. Please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyderxman (talkcontribs) 01:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir the Great - "Leader of Ukraine" ??[edit]

One of the photographs is labelled as above. The inscription is incorrect since in Vladimir's time there was no such locale or locations known as "Ukraine'. I don't think that photos that reflect incorrect historical fact have a place in Wikipedia. Федоров (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are no other objections ... I suggest a move[edit]

If there are no other objections, I move that "Vladimir" be changed to "Volodymyr" in this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Alex has demonstrated above the pointlessness of attempting to change from the common English name. But feel free to open a request to move anyway - I guess it will provide a better sense of closure to this discussion. --Illythr (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Name as it is being Vladimir is ridiculously incorrect. It should be renamed closer to knyaz's original written name spell.--Hrystiv 04:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrystiv (talkcontribs)
You mean Володимеръ Святославичь? No. --Illythr (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I mean leaving it as Vladimir is just ridiculous.It has to be renamed close to its original written form.--Hrystiv 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrystiv (talkcontribs)
Using the most common name for the article is policy. That Vladimir is indeed the most commonly used name in English has been thoroughly demonstrated in the previous section. But feel free to open a request for move anyway. --Illythr (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits to pictures - which is a better representation of him?[edit]

Hi

The picture war that seems to have started needs to stop.

The picture was changed from the coin to one of a statue in May [15]. Since no objections have been raised it seems asthough, and for me also, the edit was not objected to.

It may be argued that the picture that was there until June was better as an image of him but I think that the latest reversion taking it back to the gold coin is not a satisfactory image considering that it appears to be claimed as an improvement we can compare them and see which best shows a representation of him

(May to June) 1000 Vladimir Sviat.jpg and this (June to July)1000 Vladimir 2.jpg compared to this Zlatnik HQ.jpg

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The coin image is definitely the weakest image. Both statues have much richer, more useful, content. Santamoly (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the coin image, it's more authentic than Romantic Nationalist mythology. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It is completely irrelevant which image is nicer looking. Historic image should be at the top of the list ALWAYS. If you want to put the other image - please do but lower on the page as a modern interpretation. 63.240.123.12 (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Throughout Wikipedia, there are hundreds (or thousands) of articles about historical personalities where later artistic depiction (such as monuments) serve as illustration. Due to its rather primitive design the Vladimir identification value of this coin image is rather low. Compare to the article Charlemagne where an Albrecht Durer painting is preferred to a contemporary coin (although is better made than the Vladimir's one). No double standards! Strongly keep the well-known and prominent artist's work. --195.35.72.172 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Request Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)



Vladimir I of KievVladimir the Great — Most common name. His son is already at Yaroslav I the Wise and there is also Peter the Great. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. It is also worth moving Yaroslav I the Wise to just Yaroslav the Wise. GreyHood Talk 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Google hits give slightly more sway to "Vladimir the Great" than "Vladimir I of Kiev." No objections with moving Yaroslav as GreyHood suggested above either.. —dsergienko (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. per above. --Curtis23's Usalions 00:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's have some evidence that Vladimir the Great is clearly most commonly known as such, in English; this ngram suggests that he isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    Comment Thanks for informing about such a tool. Well I tweaked it and the new ngram show otherwise. Also if you do compare it to Vladimir I and Vladimir the Great; this ngram shows the oldest form mentioned was Vladimir the Great. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    Whereas these Google searches give different results.
"vladimir the great" -wikipedia = About 131,000 results
"volodymyr the great" -wikipedia = About 65,800 results
"vladimir I of Kiev" -wikipedia = About 63,400 results
"volodymyr I of Kiev" -wikipedia = About 266 results
It should perhaps be noted that EB gives it as Vladimir I, in full Vladimir Svyatoslavich or Ukrainian Volodymyr Sviatoslavych.
For added confusion is the search, "Saint Vladimir" -wikipedia = About 206,000 results Chaosdruid (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Potentally support but whatever is done, the present form should be retained as a redirect, as it is a likely search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please rename article to Volodymyr the Great.[edit]

Please rename article to Volodymyr the Great. Patlatus (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not the most common used name in English language sources as witnessed by a Google books search. On enWiki we must strive to use the most common name established in English language usage and that is "Vladimir the Great," which is why there is a move request to it right now. —dsergienko (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to use most common name and rely on google search.
Four of five people living on the Earth are Chinese but this doesn't mean I am Chinese.
Most people smoke, drink alcohol, use drugs but this doesn't mean it is good or it is correct.
We should search the truth and find correct spelling and even if it is commonly used misspelling we should find the truth and give it to another people.
Most people rely to Google and Wikipedia so what we will write in Wikipidia that will be most used in Google books and so on and so forth.
We shouldn't rely on present google search results.
Patlatus (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It not a matter of truth. Because both names are truth. Vladimir and Volodymyr are form of his true name (being the uaed by his comtemporaries and probably himself) Володимѣръ Свѧтославичь (Old East Slavic) and Valdamarr Sveinaldsson (Old Norse). It just happens that Vladimir is more prevalent as shown by google search. The one more prevalent population wise world wide would probably be "弗拉基米尔".--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The normal English translitation is Vladimir, whatever may be theoretically correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is funny and even ridiculous. How can you claim the translation of any name can be correct? You can't translate names. Name is what it is and not how it is perceived by most people. I strongly agree with Patlatus: "We should search the truth and find correct spelling and even if it is commonly used misspelling we should find the truth and give it to another people". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyderxman (talkcontribs) 01:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose -- It should remain as it is. While you may be correct that Soviet historians may have rewritten some common pre-revolutionary Russian history - which included Ukraine as the point of origin of what became the Russia Empire - in history books prior to the 1917 revolution the name was Vladimir the Great. However, if you wish to return to old Slavonic - akin to today's Old Church Slavonic - in which the Chronicles were written then you will encounter Volodimir. That name could used if the entire English language Wiki would revert to English as it was used in the times of Chaucer. I don't think that will happen, so Volodimir shouldn't occur either.Федоров (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You can't vote on a closed discussion. You got to start a new request.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So i am new here...I was wondering how to find something's citation....I wanted to edit this bit:“In 983, after another of his military successes, Prince Vladimir and his army thought it necessary to sacrifice human lives to the gods. A lot was cast and it fell on a youth, Ioann by name, the son of a Christian, Fyodor. His father stood firmly against his son being sacrificed to the idols. More than that, he tried to show the pagans the futility of their faith: ‘Your gods are just plain wood: it is here now but it may rot into oblivion tomorrow; your gods neither eat, nor drink, nor talk and are made by human hand from wood; whereas there is only one God — He is worshiped by Greeks and He created heaven and earth; and your gods? They have created nothing, for they have been created themselves; never will I give my son to the devils!’” I just thought the writing could be improved however I wanted to read the source material. I hope this is the right place for this and thanks alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winfredtheforth (talkcontribs) 06:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Map includes copyvio[edit]

Hi

I removed the map as it has copyvio text within it. The text is from the Internet Encyclopaedia of Ukraine's pages - as did others that SeikioEN produced. I did discuss this with him a long time ago, and the matter was supposedly resolved. It is possible this one was missed, but I am checking all his uploads now to ensure the matter is completely resolved.

With the other one he fixed it and uploaded a new version, hopefully that is what will happen with this one. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)