Talk:Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page.

Old talk

I fixed a number of problems with this article resulting from Ghirlandajo's recent edits. Among them were:

1. Neither Thietmar nor Gallus mention any popular uprising or plundering of the city (and it is to be noted that Thietmar seems to hate Boleslaus really deeply). Indeed, Ruthenia was plundered as Boleslaus was heading towards the city, but the city itself (though probably plundered as well) was kept in a good shape and there are no traces of a popular uprising. Especially that Sviatopolk kept the throne even after the Poles left (though lost it soon afterwards).
2. Also, Boleslaus withdrew from Kiev not because of some alleged popular uprising but because he had problems with Germans of Henry II and even more important problems with pagan reaction to christianization. Halibutt 12:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Again speculations? I don't think that Thietmar was particularly concerned about domestic problems of "antiquus fornicator" as he styles Boleslaus. Furthermore, the historian died by the time of Polish retreat. Anyway, here go appropriate translations from Russian sources:

1. "Недовольство народных масс владычеством иноземцев вынудило польские войска оставить Русь" (Great Soviet Encyclopedia),
2. "Болеслав, с частью войска, оставался некоторое время на Руси, и только когда русские стали избивать поляков, ушел домой, захватив имущество Ярослава и заняв по дороге червенские города." (Brockhaus-Efron). --Ghirlandajo 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

When outside talk pages or national notice boards please use English not Russian-which isn't understood by many people(including me). --Molobo 13:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Initially I wanted to accuse you of using the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but thought you might feel offended. But now that you admit it yourself... Halibutt 13:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL indeed. Basing on this "source" you may contribute "successfully" to articles like USA, capitalism or Spanish Civil War as well. =) This encyclopediae can be used only as a source in 1. maths 2. history of propaganda. And by the way: please, write in English. Greets, aegis maelstrom δ 07:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why you find the GSE's coverage of the 11th-century topics deficient. It is as good a source of information as any others. At least it knows how to tell Kievan Rus from Ruthenia, unlike some editors here. Anyway, here go some more reputable sources, including the Hypatian Chronicle:

1. Поляки вызвали среди населения Киевщины возмущение; русский народ стал избивать поляков «отай», т. е. тайно от властей, которые, по вполне понятным причинам, при создавшемся положении не могли стать на сторону восставших. Болеслав вынужден был поспешно возвратиться к себе домой, захватив, однако, Червенские города, недавно отвоеванные у Польши Владимиром Святославичем. (Academician Boris Grekov, [1])

1. В новелле ПВЛ виновником ухода Болеслава представлен «безумный Святополк», который дал приказ избивать «ляхов» по городам, в результате чего Болеслав «бежа ис Кыева, воизма имение и бояры Ярославле и сестре его, и Настаса пристави десятиньного къ имению, бе бо ему вьверилъ лестью» [Ип. ,131]. [2] --Ghirlandajo 14:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Here goes Karamzin's version of events - for processing: --Ghirlandajo 14:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

За несколько месяцев до того времени страшный пожар обратил в пепел большую часть Киева: Ярослав, озабоченный, может быть, старанием утешить жителей и загладить следы сего несчастия, едва успел изготовиться к обороне. Польские Историки пишут, что он никак не ожидал Болеславова нападения и беспечно удил рыбу в Днепре, когда гонец привез ему весть о сей опасности; что Князь Российский в ту же минуту бросил уду на землю и сказав: не время думать о забаве; время спасать отечество, вышел в поле, с Варягами и Россиянами. Король стоял на одной стороне Буга, Ярослав на другой; первый велел наводить мосты, а второй ожидал битвы с нетерпением - и час ее настал скорее, нежели он думал. Воевода и пестун Ярославов, Будый, вздумал, стоя за рекою, шутить над тучностию Болеслава и хвалился проткнуть ему брюхо острым копьем своим. Король Польский в самом деле едва мог двигаться от необыкновенной толщины, но имел дух пылкий и бодрость Героя. Оскорбленный сею дерзостию, он сказал воинам: «Отмстим, или я погибну!» - сел на коня и бросился в реку; за ним все воины. Изумленные таким скорым нападением, Россияне были приведены в беспорядок. Ярослав уступил победу храброму неприятелю, и только с четырьмя воинами ушел в Новгород. Южные города Российские, оставленные без защиты, не смели противиться и высылали дары победителю. Один из них не сдавался: Король, взяв крепость приступом, осудил жителей на рабство или вечный плен. Лучше других укрепленный, Киев хотел обороняться: Болеслав осадил его. Наконец утесненные граждане отворили ворота - и Епископ Киевский, провождаемый духовенством в ризах служебных, с крестами встретил Болеслава и Святополка, которые 14 Августа въехали торжествуя в нашу столицу, где были сестры Ярославовы. Народ снова признал Святополка Государем, а Болеслав удовольствовался именем великодушного покровителя и славою храбрости. Дитмар повествует, что Король тогда же отправил Киевского Епископа к Ярославу с предложением возвратить ему сестер, ежели он пришлет к нему дочь его, жену Святополкову (вероятно, заключенную в Новогородской или другой северной области).

Злодеи не знают благодарности: Святополк, боясь долговременной опеки тестя и желая скорее воспользоваться независимостию, тайно велел градоначальникам умертвить всех Поляков, которые думали, что они живут с друзьями, и не брали никаких предосторожностей. Злая воля его исполнилась, к бесславию имени Русского. Вероятно, что он и самому Болеславу готовил такую же участь в Киеве; но сей Государь сведал о заговоре и вышел из столицы, взяв с собою многих Бояр Российских и сестер Ярославовых. Дитмар говорит - и наш Летописец подтверждает, - что Болеслав принудил одну из них быть своею наложницею - именно Передславу, за которую он некогда сватался и, получив отказ, хотел насладиться гнусною местию. Хитрый Анастас, быв прежде любимцем Владимировым, умел снискать и доверенность Короля Польского; сделался хранителем его казны и выехал с нею из Киева: изменив первому отечеству, изменил и второму для своей личной корысти. - Польские историки уверяют, что многочисленное войско Россиян гналось за Болеславом; что он вторично разбил их на Буге и что сия река, два раза несчастная для наших предков, с того времени названа ими Черною... Болеслав оставил Россию, но удержал за собою города Червенские в Галиции, и великие сокровища, вывезенные им из Киева, отчасти роздал войску, отчасти употребил на строение церквей в своем Королевстве. Please translate the text into English. --Molobo 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo or Moloobo (I'm kinda confused with your names), I'm not a professional translator to render classical works of literature in English. Translating Karamzin is not easier than translating Mickiewicz, if you know who the latter is. I advise you to go to a local library (probably for the first time in your life) and to obtain a Polish translation. On the other hand, your own comments in this project, desultory as they are, should be written in English. --Ghirlandajo 14:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is english Wiki and if you want to use a reference you have to translate its important fragments into English if you want to discuss it with other people.Not many know Russian. 'Moloobo' That was a vandal that tried to abuse my name. --Molobo 14:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

(Great Soviet Encyclopedia)

Tsarist and Soviet Historiography What historical legacies did Ukrainians and Russians inherit from the former USSR which they now have to grapple with? Indeed, what are these profound and often disturbing legacies? The Russian historian, Yury Afanasev, complained that, ‘there is not, nor has there ever been a people and country with a history as falsiŽ ed as ours is …’10 Soviet historiography after 1934 largely returned to the Tsarist Russian scheme of history. It was a historiography, ‘which could, for the most part, be read with approval by the tsars themselves’, Lowell Tillet commented.11 Soviet historiography after 1934 served the goals of the Communist Party’s nationalities policies in the elaboration and inculcation of new myths and legends. Crucial elements of this ‘elaborate historical myth’ which Soviet historiography aimed to propagate were:12 · rehabilitation of the past; · superiority of ‘Great Russians’ as natural leaders; · the lack of ethnic hostility now or in the past; · help in the creation of a new Soviet patriotism; · there were no conquered territories, only ‘unions’ and ‘re-unions’. Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin had been wrong to condemn Tsarist Russian ‘expansionism’. The views of Bolshevik historians in the 1920s, such as Mikhail Pokrovsõ´kyi, who had condemned Tsarist expansionism, were also condemned; · these ‘unions’ and ‘re-unions’ brought only positive beneŽ ts or, at a minimum, were the ‘lesser of two evils’; · greater centralisation was a positive development; · nationalist agitation was against the wishes of the narod; · the non-Russians were incapable of creating their own state; · the Russian mission civilisatrice was beneŽ cial; · the History of the USSR was in effect that of the History of ‘Russia’. The Russian Federation did not therefore have its own separate history which dealt purely with the ‘Great Russians’ or Muscovites; · non-Russian histories were treated as regional histories of ‘Russia’; · Russian control over Ukraine and Belarus was never perceived as ‘annexation’; merely the recovery of the Tsar’s patrimony. In 1947 and 1954 new theses codiŽ ed 112 T. Kuzio the eastern Slavs as historically belonging to one Rus’kii narod. Use of the terms Russian, Rus’ian and east Slavic became inter-changeable;13 · Ukrainians and Belarusians are not separate peoples, but branches of the east Slavic Rus’kii peoples. Therefore, they should not have their own independent states, which are only ‘temporary’, but should be in union with Russia.14 From: http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf --Molobo 13:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) I fail to see why you find the GSE's coverage of the 11th-century topics deficient. It is as good a source of information as any others. At least it knows how to tell Kievan Rus from Ruthenia, unlike some editors here History under Soviets in relation to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus was falsfied for propaganda goals.Also please translate Russian text if you want to discuss it. --Molobo 15:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Article's name

The article has just been moved to <Kiev Expedition and I moved it back with no prejudice to the editor who moved it. I just think the move has to be proposed at talk first so that others who watch this article could have a say on the issue. This issue was discussed to a degree at Polish Wikipedians' notice board. Please check the discussion there too if interested. --Irpen 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you mean Kiev Expedition. The reason for the move is to improve the awkward English and to give the article a name that is found in the historical literature. Appleseed (Talk) 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

All I am saying, is that such moves have to be proposed first. If there is no resistance, it will be moved. If there are objections, they could be discussed. I simply object to uniletaral moves, except in cases of typos and other similar reasons, and ask everyone to propose their moves first. --Irpen 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been over a week without any comments or objections, so I have moved the article. Appleseed (Talk) 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Move page

User:Ghirlandajo insists on moving this article to Polish Expedition to Kiev. I asked him to use the talk page to propose the move, but he accuses me of making "undiscussed", "whimsical" moves, even though no one objected to my proposal above. Appleseed (Talk) 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is no need to add nationality here, unless there are several Kiev Expeditions by various nations that could confuse people.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Now there's more edit summary accusations, but for some reason Ghirlandajo still refuses to use this talk page. This is becoming frustrating. Appleseed (Talk) 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, I can't communicate with him on his talk page because he deletes my messages. Appleseed (Talk) 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually both titles are bad. Obviously Appleseed doesnt know Polish history: yet another "Kiev Expedition" was made by Pilsudski as stated e.g., at his fan's website pilsudski.org. Or from academic references: "Kutrzeba, T., Wyprawa Kijowska 1920 Roku, Warszawa 1937". In en: wikipedia it is known as Kiev Offensive. At the moment I have no better proposals. "Battle/invasion/operation/offensive" seem not good for this case. But one thing is for sure: Just as with kings, there should be a decent naming system for maning battles: clearly each major city was a place of dozens of battles.

Therefore I suggest that is issue must be resolved not here, but in the wikiproject "Military History", which actually has naming conventions. Who has friends there? `'mikkanarxi 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I wrote above and saw in MilHist page, in our case the proper name would be Kiev Expedition (1018). `'mikkanarxi 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. What amuses me, not a single Battle of Kiev is linked to Polish wikipedia. Oh, yeah, here they are: pl:Józef Piłsudski#Wyprawa kijowska and, amazingly, a third wyprawa: pl:1069. `'mikkanarxi 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the 1018 is actually known as "wyprawa na Ruś Kijowską", i.e., Kievan Rus Expedition `'mikkanarxi 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe; acording to Thietmar of Merseburg, it turns out there was Wyprawa Kijowska of 1013, which fizzled. So only Polish Kiev Expeditions, there were at least four. In view of these findings, there must be Kiev Expedition (1013), Kiev Expedition (1018), Kiev Expedition (1069), and Kiev Expedition (1920). `'mikkanarxi 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And I strongly suspect that "Kievski pokhod"/"pokhod na Kiev" will bring us a dozen more dates. Does anyone have a Cyrillic keyboard to do a google search for these phrases? `'mikkanarxi 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On a funny note, google says there was a "Czech trolleybus invasion of Kiev", in addition ot Nazi and Mongol ones :-) `'mikkanarxi 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I do in fact know a bit of Polish history, and even if I didn't, Kiev Offensive is linked from the See Also section of the short article, so it's hard to miss. Ghirlandajo, too, knows that there were multiple battles at Kiev (I know this because he mentioned it on my talk page), but, strangely, instead of adding a year to the title in order to disambig, his solution was to add "Polish", which does not disambig.

I agree with your proposal to add the year to all the Kiev Expedition articles. See how many entries there are for Battle of Warsaw, and it seems to work well enough. Appleseed (Talk) 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. Surely this approach simplifies naming conventions. A year IMO is enough for disambig. If there are two batles same place/same year, one can add month as, e.g., in Battle of Krasnoi (August 1812) I keep forgetting to make a stub. `'mikkanarxi 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly support year version, it makes the most sence.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lord knows I've had my differences with Ghirla in the past, but I'm going to have to back him up on this one. It seems common sense that given the number of campaigns aimed at capturing Kiev by different parties (Polish 1013, Polish 1018, Mongol, Timurid, Crimean, German WWI, Polish, Soviet, German WWII, Soviet again...) the identity of the campaigners should be included. I think the date should be included as well. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Naming conventions. And like I said too, every major city has the same problem of being sacked numerous times by various foes. So there is no reason to invent special rules for Kiev and I say let's follow the suggestian of MilHistWikipedians, who probably slept over the issue much longer than we. `'mikkanarxi 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Expedition (1018) seems quite reasonable if there's a need to disambiguate with other "Kiev Expedition"s, as far as I can tell; using the year avoids messy disputes over the exact names of the parties involved. :-) Kirill Lokshin 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a dispute? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, personally; Sviatopolk's role in all this isn't very clear from the article, but it could be that the expedition is universally regarded as "Polish" regardless.

(Having said that, from the discussion above it seems that there have been multiple Polish expeditions to Kiev; so adding "Polish" to the title wouldn't help to disambiguate, as we'd still need a date. Unless there's some particular reason why the Polish aspect needs to be indicated in the title, I think we ought to go with the normal naming convention and use just the geographic name and the year.) Kirill Lokshin 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We now have four (Mikkalai, Piotrus, Kirill Lokshin, and myself) in favor of moving to Kiev Expedition (1018). Briangotts opposes, and it seems that Ghirlandajo does too. Shall we make the move? Appleseed (Talk) 19:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose, too. There were plenty Kiev expeditions. What about the pechenegs, the polovtsy. You need to be more precise. Wikipedia is not an egocentric Polish schoolbook. Voyevoda 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The year provides the precision. Can you explain what about the proposed title is egocentric and Polish? Appleseed (Talk) 19:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am suprised our esteemed editors from the east are supporting 'Polish something' in the title - usually they are the ones clamoring for removal of 'Polish' part. Why the change of heart?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the absence of a specification like Muscovite wars that is highly polonocentric. The Poles obviously think that it is self-explaining to everybody that everything refers to them and that they are the navel of the world. Voyevoda 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me reiterate and expand my argument: the title does not necessarily have to reflect the content in full exactness. Unlike the "Muskovite Wars" example "Kiev + year" sufficiently narrows down the event. Take a look into Battle of Berezina (disambiguation). Does it really matter that the title must say that it was battle between these and these. I think it is a Russian mentality that forces to use words "elektronno-vychislitelnaya mashina", where an American says "computer". Of course, the Russian term is more exact, but it is totally unusable. Even "EVM" is terrible: you cannot create an adjective or verb from it. `'mikkanarxi 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We now have four in favour of Kiev Expedition (1018), three against. Is this sufficient to make the move? Appleseed (Talk) 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Voting is evil. Search for consensus. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was No consensus Duja► 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Polish Expedition to Kiev → Kiev Expedition (1018) — Concise title with a date to disambig between other expeditions to that city (including more than one by the Poles). Appleseed (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support per nom. Appleseed (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, although I would prefer Polish Kyiv Expedition (1018). --Lysy^talk 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. No need for longer name unless there is a disambig problem. We try to put as little info in the name as possible, see manual of style.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support: I would support Expedition to Kiev (1018) if it is any clearer. We should not use Kyiv under any circumstances; this is the English Wikipedia. The present name is ambiguous with the actual entry into Kiev in 1920. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose as the proposed title is less informative. --Irpen 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. There were many Kiev expeditions: by Andrei Bogolyubsky, by Pechenegs and Polovtsians. We should mention the attacking side in the title, everything else is a Polish attempt to place oneself in the middle of the universe. Maybe good enough for Polish schoolbooks but not good enough for English wikipedia. Voyevoda 23:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

   Voyevoda, may I suggest you vote on the merits of the proposed name and not on your view of my intentions in proposing it? Appleseed (Talk) 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Doesn't seem to be an improvement, and less informative. Sounds more like an expedition from Kiev to go explore the wilds somewhere, maybe something like the Belgian Antarctic Expedition a millennium later, only you forgot to put in where this expedition was going. Gene Nygaard 03:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - likely to cause confusion and less informative.. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

What about Polish Expedition to Kiev (1018) if there are other expedition articles? —  AjaxSmack  06:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

wiktionary:Expedition is a highly ambiguous word and the first association I have with it is not a military campaign but lots of other things. I think Capture would be a better word. --Irpen 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like expedition either but assumed it was a pre-established term. Capture yes, but what about "conquest" as in Polish conquest of Kiev (1018)? I would prefer Conquest of Kiev (1018), Conquest of Kiev by Bolesław I, or something to that effect to avoid anachronistic national labels for events in pre-national eras but I doubt that would fly in the hypernationalism of Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Irpen, "expedition" is commonly used in a military context (e.g.). I don't think "conquest" would work as it implies longevity, and the Poles were there only briefly. In fact, as the article states, "historians sometimes dispute whether Boleslaus entered the city at all". Appleseed (Talk) 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the expedition is the "wrong" word that is not applicable. The military voyage is indeed one of the definitions of the word but it is not the most common one. "Capture" in the context of the "capture of Kiev" in the title leaves no ambiguity of what this article is about while "expedition to Kiev" may mean a whole set of things totally different. --Irpen 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see one Google Books result for "Capture of Kiev", which is about as good as what I think I saw for "Kiev Expedition". I think "Kiev Expedition" sounds better, but I am not dead set against your proposal. Appleseed (Talk) 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look higher in this page, there were at least four Polish "expeditions", some of which sizzled, i.e., no capture. "Expedition" is quite applicable in military context. There are even quite a few "Expeditionary Force" articles. `'mikka 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying "Expedition" is the wrong term. I am saying it is not the best for the title due to its ambiguity. "Capture" is by far more clear.

Or is it that only ambiguous terms may be used if the Polish side was attacking and only when Poland was attacked the article titles are "invasions" and "massacres"? --Irpen 19:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not start this again. Please focus on this article. Appleseed (Talk) 19:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page links

In the article on Boleslaw the Brave/Boleslav the Brave/Boleslaw I the Brave, a link to "see Kiev Expedition" was redirected to the disambiguation page at Battle of Kiev rather than to this article. I disambiguated it, but the Battle of Kiev disambiguation page still has oodles of links to it. Gene Nygaard 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Originally, Kiev Expedition was a redirect to this article. However, based on our discussions I saw fit to change it to a disambig. I later discovered the disambig Battle of Kiev. It didn't make sense to have two disambigs, so I redirected Kiev Expedition to Battle of Kiev. Your thoughts? Appleseed (Talk) 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For now, just remain aware that it's a problem area that needs to be policed every now and then, sending those links to the proper articles. I haven't followed all the discussions, don't know all the potential pitfalls. My main reason for coming here was that the proposed change seemed less informative and more likely to cause confusion than the current name. Gene Nygaard 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, may I respectfully suggest you review the discussion so that you're able to cast an informed vote? I believe I addressed all your concerns above. To review, "expedition" is often used in a military context, not just for "exploring the wilds". Also, despite being shorter, the proposed title is more informative than the current one for several reasons. First, there was another "Polish Expedition to Kiev" in 1920 (Kiev Offensive (1920)), so having "Polish" in the title is ambiguous. Second, the parenthesized date provides the necessary disambiguation across the various armed conflicts in the history of Kiev, including the ones in which the Poles took part. Appleseed (Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out, the problem isn't that expedition doesn't have that meaning, but that it has other meanings as well, so using it for a name isn't all that helpful. Having "Polish" in the title narrows it down to two; not having Polish in the title is more ambiguous. Putting the year there may reduce the "ambiguity" but it will not increase recognizability, won't help someone pick the one they want out of a list. Having both there is clearly one better choice; there may be others that would work as well. I still don't think the proposed name is an improvement over the existing one, so there is no reason to change my opposition. Gene Nygaard 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Having both there also helps narrow down the meaning of "expedition". Perhaps a change in preposition to something other than "to" is the missing ingredient that would make a better title? How about Polish expedition against Kiev, maybe with dates or some other method of narrowing it down? In any case, that's another reason to oppose it; the "expedition" should be lowercase, since "Polish Expedition" isn't really a proper name used by anybody. Gene Nygaard 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Requested move (take two)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Polish Expedition to Kiev → Kiev Expedition (1018) — We couldn't reach a consensus half a year ago, so let's try again. Reason behind the move is simple: Polish Expedition to Kiev should be a disambig, as the title can just as well refer to Kiev Offensive (1920). It is common wikipedia naming convention to disambiguate military operations by year, not participants name - see also Battle , where titles like Kiev Operation or Kiev Expedition redirect to. Note also Polish and Russian titles on their respective wikis: Wyprawa Kijowska (1018), Киевский поход (1018).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey 2

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• However, if my suggestion below isn't included then I would support the move. I think that the current title is a bit to wordy and that the proposed title would be better. But I would still prefer the title I suggested below. Kyriakos 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Did anything change since the last proposal was defeated? Why "expedition"? It was not a picnic. Why not invasion or plunder. Any other reason than the usual one. Changing one bad title for another one makes the situation worse since it makes a false impression that the problem is being addressed. --Irpen 07:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Rename per nom. - Darwinek 18:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Accurate and concise. Appleseed (Talk) 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Irpen. //Halibutt 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  WP:POINTing again? --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Polish invasion of Kievan Rus. Since Polish editors above are known for advocating Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), this approach would only be fair, wouldn't it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  For the record: "Polish invasion of Kievan Rus" - 0 hits in literature. "Invasion of Kiev 1018" - 0 hits. "Kiev invasion 1018" - 0 hits. "Polish Expedition to Kiev" - ditto. "Kiev Expedition 1018" - 1 hit. "Expedition to Kiev 1018" - 2 hits. "Soviet invasion of Poland 1939" - 200 hits :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • "For the record", in the lack of the single established name of the article's subject, we go by descriptive names. The proposed name is even less descriptive than the current one since it removes the perpetrator AND continues using an ambiguous word. "Expedition" can be an number of things such as picnic, field-trip, or a research enterprise to discover/describe the unknown frontiers. The current title is bad but the proposed one is worse. Moving from one bad name to another is not an improvement but the opposite. Finally, the 17th century Polish invasion of Russia is called such all around, in books, encyclopedias (even in EB) and in research papers. I hope to see now a push for the name change promoters to rename that article as well. After the successful cleanup of the geographic misnomer terminology there, this step has yes to be accomplished. --Irpen 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support (nominator).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Any additional comments:

Comment. I think that maybe Polish Kiev Expedition (1018) might be a good title because it also highlights who the attacker was. Kyriakos 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Does not highlight well enough imo, needs to be highlighted stronger. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

The purpose of choosing an article title is not to highlight aspects which we, the editors, choose to highlight. Naming is all about finding the most frequently used name in reliable sources. This article has been renamed from Polish Expedition to Kiev to Kiev Expedition (1018) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading title replaced

It was not an expedition, it was full-scale invasion, headed by king imself. All over the world such a nice military walk of a full-blown army are called "invasion". `'Míkka 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mikka, please respect the WP:RM. You can of course start another one, but I very much doubt such a long descriptive name will gain consensis. As I have shown above, English literature seems to use "expedition" pver "invasion", too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no widely known absolutely stable and universally accepted title for this event. A descriptive title is quite reasonable. `'Míkka 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The literature prefers "expedition" to "invasion".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mikka's name change is against RM consensus, and seems to try to promote OR title --Molobo 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus. There was Polish consensus which happily ignored Russian consensus. From russian and Ukrainian point of view it was act of invasion of one state into another, not some jolly szpacer. `'Míkka 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mikka, the RM was done according to procedure. It was advertised at WikiProject Russian history. Interested editors agreed above that a shorter name is preferrable to a lenghty descriptive that has no hits in any sources. You can start another RM, but please no wheel-warring. PS. This is English Wikipedia, adhering to WP:NPOV. We don't use names to show what certain parties would like to call articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a talk some time ago where many people disagreed with shorter uninformative title. Nobody from them indicated that they changed their opinion. Disregarding their clearly expressed opinion is not a friendly attitude. `'Míkka 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My alleged canvassing: it is a historically sad fact that many people, such as Poles, Jews, Armentians, Italians, etc, stick together, while Russians just don't care. It is especially clearly seen in emigration. When I wrote "Polonocentrism" there is nothing negative: it is a "phenomemon of nature", neither good, nor bad. What is bad is that you don't recognize it, just as for millenia people breathed air and did not recognize it. Yes in your Polish eyes it was "Kiev expedition": walk across a river, sack a couple of villages along the way, big deal. For Ukrainians it was "plundering of Kiev". It was invasion and let's call things with their proper names. `'Míkka 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Through this not on topic, I'll just remark that I have seen plenty of evidence for Russians acting together on Wiki; and I certainly don't mind it - as long (and this applies to all such groups, Polish included) as it does not lead to a "us against them" mentality, which your recent posts (unintentionally as that may be) may suggest and foster. Polish historiography refers to this event as expedition. Russian may well use the term invasion. English, as I shown above, seems to prefer expedition over invasion; as it is an English Wikipedia, expedition should be used. Since there seem to no non-Polish expedition, we don't need this in title; year is needed as there were 3 (or even 4) such events. You seem to be implying that the Polish editors have some nefarious reasons for trying to replace "Polish invasion" with "expedition". There are no such reasons: it is simply Wikipedia policy to use short names dominant in English sources. On the other hand, one could argue that some users want to disregard policy and use a less neutral title to emphasize "how bad Poles were". This, certainly, should not be our philosophy in writing articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"How bad Poles were": in these historical times nearly every king tried to sack some other king. It was neither good nor bad by criteria of these times: it was way of life. And the term "invasion" is a neutral one that describes what really happened: one ruler invaded into lands of another ruler to do something useful for himself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs).

True, it was a common occurrence, but names for such events vary. Some are called invasions, some expeditions, some wars, some conquets, some are even stranger. It appears that this one is called "expedition" in English historiography more often then "invasion". It is not our job to correct or introduce new names - hence Invasion of Poland (1939), not "Polish September Campaign" or "Polish Defensive War", for example.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And I don't say "us agains them". I said "you look from your POV at the events and fail to recognize that it is your POV". There is nothing wrong with having a POV, just as you don't forget that others have their POV as well. Since I don't see Russians and Ukrainians rushing to defend their POV despite my reminder (which you call "canvassing"), I am halting my "expedition" into this page. May I remind you that I am neither Russian nor Ukrainian. `'Míkka 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Notes

These are just some things In notice as I'm going through the article:

1. The intro is decent, however preferably the second sentence would be listed first, as it actually details the event.
2. There are a decent number (given the articles length) of grammatical faults. Including punctuation and statements like, "Boleslaw, wanting to ensure that friendly to him Sviatopolk takes over the Kievan throne,"
3. Again strange wording - "Sviatopolk withdrew to the court of his father-in-law, Boleslaw I of Poland.[1] Boleslaw, however, had to first deal with the Germans; in the meantime he tried another avenue" Court and avenue? While grammatically correct avenue is not exactly the best word to use, and I'm not even really sure what is meant by "court". Also, who is he? Sviatopolk or Boleslaw?
4. The Thietmar of Merseburg and Powiesc Doroczna accounts should probably be split into sub-sections
5. A few more sources could be used - it seems to be all from the same book on different pages.

Until clarity and the above aspects are improved (although I think I got most the first one myself), I'm placing the article on hold.--danielfolsom 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Could use more clarity (see above)

2. Factually accurate?: Seemingly accurate - could use a bit more sources though.

3. Broad in coverage?: check

4. Neutral point of view?: Check

5. Article stability? Check

6. Images?: Check

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — danielfolsom 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Discussion

I am afraid that there are no native English speakers among the main contributors to that article. Could you, by any chance, take care of the language issues?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly it would be best if you got someone else to for two reasons: 1) It would disqualify me from reviewing the article, and 2) Some of the statements I wasn't sure what they meant - see if you can find someone from a wiki project, and if not, I guess I can give it a go ...--danielfolsom 02:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I will ask around, but I know very few copyeditors and all of them are busy :( As for the 'use of one source' - I had this source at hand and based the article on it. It is pretty reliable (series of articles by modern Polish scholars), and while more sources would be nice, I think the article passess the bare criteria for being reliably referenced.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

One source just really isn't enough - perhaps if you cited the individual articles however, that would be different. Still, I'm sure you could find something on google. Try the Wikiprojects that cover this page for copy editors, and also remember to split the section as said above.--danielfolsom 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar of any aspect of WP:V or WP:RS that states that one (reliable) publication is not enough to source an article? As for splitting the article into subsections based on the sources, I disagree: this article is not based on primary sources; it is based on secondary ones and they don't always specify which fact comes from which primary source. This would require a major shift in structure and rewriting - I believe that the current account, merging various primary sources (and noting when and where they diverge significantly is the best possible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the biggest one I can think of isWP:NPOV#Bias - "All editors and all sources have biases" - meaning this article fails WP:NPOV because it only has one source. And the article is not based on secondary ones, it's based on a secondary one - however two varying accounts are made in a confusing way, and I assume both of these accounts are mentioned in the one source you provided - so yes, splitting them would be the best thing to do for clarity. --danielfolsom 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the source is a collection of articles by several historians, so in fact you get views by different authors. Yes, published in one anthology (collection), but different POVs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then cite them separately - include the author's names. However I would still recommend more sources - there's no way to tell if the overall project has a pov - and per the above guideline we must assume it does.--danielfolsom 03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page above, more sources would seem to be essential, particularly some that discuss this event from a Russian perspective. Writing an article on a potentially controversial subject using a single source, even if this source is reliable, is unwise. Tim Vickers 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok Here's a source: http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=2000&cid=125&p=19.11.2004 --danielfolsom 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to expand the article using a news article from a radio station, go ahead - but I feel that the current version, referenced with academic publication, is good enough, per WP:RS. As for POV, if you can show that the current publication has some POV (and show examples of it), then NPOV would be the case; but until then NPOV doesn't kick in.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The above NPOV bias link proves POV - as there's only one source. There are those above five things that need to be fixed before I pass this article. Period. By submitting your article to GA Review you opened it to criticism, if you are unwilling to take any criticism then there was no point in submitting. Two users have now said that multiple sources are needed. End of discussion.--danielfolsom 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Above you wrote: Neutral point of view?: Check. So are you now changing your opinion? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This problem could be solved very simply. The description of the book you are citing says it has multiple authors. If each author contributed one chapter, why not just cite the different authors and give each author's viewpoint on the events described? The fact that the article cites one book would be acceptable if it is clear that many different viewpoints are collected together in this one volume. Tim Vickers 19:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed the criticisms of the sourcing in "Factually accurate" - however, Piortrus, what I wrote is insignificant, what the policy says is. I agree with TimVickers - it's best if each author is cited.--danielfolsom 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is an overreading of WP:V. The admission that all sources have biases was not intended to lead to this conclusion, merely to deflate the Manichean world-view of Good Unbiased Sources and Evil Biased Sources. Neutrality does not kick in until there is an actual controversy to be neutral about. (If the phrasing violates WP:PEACOCK or its relatives, that's another matter; but I don't see it on skimming.) It would, however, be good for the article to include some of these English sources, even if redundant, so that the reader can inquire further without wielding a Polish dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The accounts of history are almost always controversial - however TimVickers already commented on this. I don't care what language the sources are - because that doesn't have to do with policy.--danielfolsom 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you can satisfy the policy with a single reliable source in a foreign language, but scraping by in this way isn't a characteristic of a Good Article, which should do a bit more than the minimum. Tim Vickers 20:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any English language source that contains anything new that is not already covered in the article. If you can point me to reliable sources that containt material that can be used to expand the article further, or sources that make claims contradicting the article, we can claim that the article is biased/uncomprehensive. In my research for this article I didn't find anything that would merit the claim that the source I used is not comprehensive and neutral. Instead of citing the policies I am were aware of, please cite the articles that would suggest problems with content. PS. As for attributing articles by individual historians, I don't have access to the publication and will not have it after Xmas.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative sources don't have to contain anything new, alternative sources supporting the same points would be entirely acceptable. But can you see our concern? Here is an article that deals with a conflict between two nations that is sourced entirely from a few pages of a book we cannot read. Moreover, the book appears to have been written by authors from one side of the conflict. Look at that from our point of view and I'm sure you can see why we would be happier with the inclusion of at least some alternative sources. Tim Vickers 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus - I already showed you an article above - you said you weren't willing to add it.--danielfolsom 20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single academic source criticizing modern Polish historiography take on a 1000-year old events. That of course doesn't mean that there are no such claims, Polish historiography (as any national historiography) has its biases, but as I said - I reviewed English sources available to me and I haven't seen anything that was portrayed differently then in the Polish source I used to expand, verify and reference this article. I don't have access nor language skills to read Russian / Ukrainian historiography, but until an editor can show that they differ, I would think that WP:AGF applies and the article can be considered NPOV (think also in terms of presumption of innocence, not guilt). PS. Daniel, as for your article above: it has no claims that would be relevant to this article, it's on a different subject and published by a media outlet, not an academic work. I would of course not oppose if you want to link it in external links or add something to the article, if you did in fact find something relevant in it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm the guy reviewing the article - I don't care what's in the external links - I'm just saying find a another source. And it doesn't matter what type - it doesn't have to be an academic work.--danielfolsom 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read up on our policies like WP:RS before reviewing articles. It does matter what type of sources we cite, it matters a lot.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No - it doesn't, some are preferred, but regardless, all reliable sources are allowed - my point was it doesn't have to be an academic work.--danielfolsom 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus everyone has said you need another source, now there are two paths here: one, you argue about it this whole time - in which case tell me if you plan on doing so tell me - because there's no point in putting on hold for seven days if you have no intention of fixing it. Or, you can find a source. Either the one I found above or another source is fine.--danielfolsom 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Two for, two against - hardly everyone. I believe the article is sourced well enough, feel free to fail it so I can continue my work. There is indeed no need to keep it open for several days, as I certainly don't have access to my historical books, nor time to look for others until XMAS.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not 2 for and 2 against- its 3 against you. Each editor said there should be an english source. Well, actually I jsut said anysource -and that stands--danielfolsom 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way i'd try to hurry up on this - as there are 4 other things you need besides another source.--danielfolsom 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What I said was that an English source would improve the article — not that it should be required to be a good, or even acceptable, article. I would prefer not to be misquoted in this fashion. Danielfolsom should also bear in mind that nothing in GA warrants uncivil demands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine - an English source would improve - however, Pmanderson - you should bear in mind what civil is - as saying another source is required is hardly uncivil - but if you really think so I guess you could nominate all those templates for deletion ...--danielfolsom 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Piotrus - I realize things might have gotten slightly confusing up there given the abundance of different suggestions. In some more clarity, I'm just going to list what needs to be done to get this to GA status - which is very likely to happen.

1. The intro is decent, however preferably the second sentence would be listed first, as it actually details the event.
2. Clean up grammatical faults.
3. Clean up wording - "Sviatopolk withdrew to the court of his father-in-law, Boleslaw I of Poland.[1] Boleslaw, however, had to first deal with the Germans; in the meantime he tried another avenue" While grammatically correct avenue is not exactly the best word to use. Also, who is he? Sviatopolk or Boleslaw?
4. The Thietmar of Merseburg and Powiesc Doroczna accounts should probably be split into sub-sections - as currently it's unclear
5. One more source is needed - I don't care what language - but having only one book isn't really worthy of GA status

There are still a few days before I pass or fail this - which should be plenty of time for you to make the changes--danielfolsom 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical/wording problems have been greatly resolved by copyediting from yourself, Olessi and other editors. As I said before, not being a native speaker, I cannot help in this regard.

I don't see how the Thietmar vs Powiesc split could be accomplished; the text seems well integrated to me and where the sources differ, it is clearly mentioned in text. However if any editor would like to rewrite the article based on the above suggestion, be my guest.

There are no policies that we need to have 2+ sources. I can add several further readings, but there is no point in double - triple - and so on citing the same facts, just to show they are mentioned in several books and they don't differ. Remember, we are not doing original reserch here, having one source is perfecty ok with all our policies.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind however GA articles aren't articles that meet the bare requirement - they go above and beyond - and regardless the policy would be the NPOV one. As to the sections - when I said some sections should be reworded because they aren't clear - you said you couldn't do that because you're not a native speaker - however somehow you can say that the other text does make sense? Well hey - actually don't worry about it. I'll wait till the 7 days is up and maybe someone else will do it - if they do I'll pass the article.--danielfolsom 21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing that I don't understand. What kind of references do you want? I used a publication dedicated to the event; I doubt there is an English equivalent. There are however lots of mentions of Bolesław expedition to Kiev in 1018 in various English works, it's enough to click here, or better, here and here, to see that the event is not invented and verify all basic facts. Not a single of the English language publications, however, goes into as much detail as the Polish sources, therefore I see no reason to double verify several facts in the article with English sources. If there are some controversial facts, or something is unclear, we can expand the section and referencing, but I don't see any need to waste time verifying what is already verified. WP:GA should reflect our policies, there is no requirement that we need to be 'above' them (and note that multiplie references for the single fact are far from a good writing practice anyway). If it makes you happy, I can double reference several facts based on this notable publicatin ([[3]), - although I fail to see the point in it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need English sources - I'm just asking for one more source - even if it says the exact same thing as the source you have - just put it in there.--danielfolsom 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting (Town of Wołyń?)

I cleaned up the grammar and spelling in the article. I have no background knowledge of the article and have no preferences in terms of content. Because "Volhynia" was referred to as a town, I added a link to Wołyń (Łódź Voivodeship) (pl:Wołyń (województwo łódzkie)); please correct if necessary. Battle at Bug river should be moved to a better title (Battle of the Bug River is an option[4]). Olessi 19:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit, the link to Wołyń is incorrect: as far as I remember the sources, they refered to a settlement of that name, but in the Volhynia region (presumably a gord that gave its name to the region); Wołyń (Łódź Voivodeship) is a village in the middle of Poland and most certainly far, far from Volhynia region and Bug River.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The town can be seen on this map, between Czerwień and Włodzimier - perhaps somebody could identify its modern name?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Uprising?

It seems that some editors want to insert a claim about Kievan Uprising against pillaging Polish troops ([5]). Not a single one of my modern Polish and English sources mentioned this event, which is why I removed it few weeks ago during a rewrite of this article. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary from 1900s is hardly modern, and obviously POVed - it is even more inaccurate then 1911 EB, which we obviously stopped using as a source (per Template:1911POV) and even Jimbo's recent critique of it in NYT ([6] - One thing I have looked at before is that when we started the project we thought we could use the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain. Use that as a base to get some articles. And frankly they were unusable. They were just out of date.). So please: either present modern acadmic sources noting that there was an uprising against Boleslaw in Kiev, or don't insert such dubious claims into this well referenced article. PS. There is a claim that the uprising is mentioned in this book; please provide specific page, translation of the citation (as Darwinek suggested), Konstantin Ryzhov academic creditentials, and other things that would help us estabilished reliability of that source (particulary, if he writes about the uprising, what are his sources for it? I do hope he is not citing the Brockhaus encyclopedia...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, BritannicaPOV and other old-POV stuff talks about POV and not factual accuracy. Read Loki's entry at the Polonization talk. We are not passing the judgmental tone from the source. We are referring mere facts and you agreed with Loki on that.[7] Now, please stop revert warring and ask your friends to do so too. --Irpen 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Irpen, old POV are also about factual accuracy, too. Modern sources don't seem to mention the uprising - I would be very interested in seeing some modern Western academic sources repeating such claims. So far we have two Russian offline sources - a 1900s encyclopedia and a 1999 publication of unknown reliability; even if confirmed they fail WP:UNDUE - "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." If mainstream historians writing about this even don't mention the uprising, it is rather obvious that it the uprising is nothing but some mistake/translation error/etc. that krept into the old encyclopedia and was republished in by some more modern book. As for POV, language like pillaging is not neutral. Oh, and last but not least: why restore the unreferenced and out of place statement at the bottom of the para: s Gallus has it, the war started when Boleslaw was refused Predslava's hand, but this testimony is not given credit by most historians. The Polish duke also took the treasury of Kiev with him. ?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would urge editors to use modern objective sources. We already had enough problems with Warsaw Uprising fables about churches that weren't there.--Molobo 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Piotrus. I will live a message at Loki's talk to ask him to look at it. --Irpen 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What Loki?? User:Loki? I am not familiar with that editor, or anybody with similar name, contributing to relevant articles. And why would our discussion merit informing this person??-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant User:Utgard Loki whose comments at talk:Polonization were very thoughtful as even you admitted. --Irpen 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here must be the passage from the book by Ryzhkov that is relevant here. It is the biography of Yaroslav I the Wise. The rest of the book is also online. Could someone please find where the uprising is mentioned? I do not see it in Yaroslav's biography, which is puzzling, as that is where it would be discussed, it seems to me. Balcer 22:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Voyevoda claimed it appears on page 104.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Found this text from Ryzhov's book:

Вступив в Киев, Болеслав сам стал править русской землей, а дружину свою разослал по окрестным городам на покорм. Святополк же, досадуя на тестя за то, что не дал ему никакой власти, велел своим сторонникам избивать поляков. И начали убивать поляков. Встревоженный восстанием, Болеслав бежал из Киева, захватив с собой всю княжескую казну и всех сестер Ярослава. Увел он с собой и множество простых людей. Святополк же начал княжить в Киеве. Но Ярослав, набрав варягов, пошел во второй раз против него. Без поляков Святополк не мог уже противостоять брату и бежал в степь к печенегам. Там, собрав большое войско, он в 1019 году выступил на Ярослава, и оба войска встретились на Альте.

The text contested in this article that is justified by this reference is:

The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city.

Do they match well enough? My Russian is not good enough to judge for sure, but it seems there are huge discrepancies. Balcer 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody with fluent Russian can translate the above citation. Also, we are still waiting for information on its authors academic creditentials, and on what source he used in writing the disputed statement.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The above citation mentions nothing about the uprising. "It mentions that Boleslav quartered his troops among the locals in order to sustain them. Sviatopolk, being annoyed that he had been given no power ordered his supporters to attack the Poles. Boleslav fled Kiev and took with him the treasury, all sisters of Yaroslav and many of the local people. Sviatopolk started to reign in Kiev." Hope that helps. --Hillock65 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's interesting. We can certainly add a note on that to the article, although I'd like to point out that historians are divided on whether Boleslav ruled in Kiev himself or passed the poweer to Sviatopolk (and if so, how much of it).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The text above, full translation, says:

After entering Kiev, Boleslav started to rule the Rus' on his own (perhaps by himself as an alt. translation) and sent his troops to quarter in the neighboring towns. Sviatopolk, vexed that his in-law did not share any power with him, ordered his supporters to attack the Poles. Alarmed by the uprising, Boleslav fled Kiev but took with him the treasury and all Yaroslav's sisters. He also took many commoners with him.

Also, George Vernadsky ("Kievan Russia", Yale 1948, LCC DK40 .V44 V2) mentions that not just sisters but also other nobles loyal to Yaroslav were taken by Boleslav. Vernadsky writes that they were likely taken as hostages. Vernadsky mentions S. "Zakrewski, Boleslaw Chrobry Wielki (Lwow, Warszawa, and Krakow, 1925), p. 297-311." among other refs. Perhaps someone could check the Polish references. I am quoting from the Russian translation of the original Vernadsky's 5-volume work. This volume, as translated, is "Россия в средние века", ISBN 5-85929-016-6. --Irpen 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then, it would appear then that the statement: The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city. was a clear example of original research and stretching the content of the reference, and the concerns raised about it were justified. In that light, can we now remove the "accuracy disputed" tag, inserted as protest for the removal of that passage? Balcer 05:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You of course understand what does it mean to "send troop to quarter at the town (or village)" in medieval context, do you? It is not inconsistent at all with B&E article on Boleslav, saying:

"Boleslav took Kiev but instead of transferring it to Sviatopolk, ruled it by himself together with his Poles. Kievans, appalled by the "неистовсвта" (this word is difficult to translate, my dictionary gives atrocities, rampage, violence, frenzy, no pillage in my dictionary but can't say it does not fit the translation either) of his troops attacked the Poles and Boleslav was forced to flee."

I believe we should just say what source says what on the issue and leave it up to the reader to judge. --Irpen 05:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The respectable source notes quartering in the city and nearby villages, and this is what we should state. Of course the troops ate, raped and steal - that was the norm of those days. But this article is not the place to explain that (this is as relevant as describing battle as 'they used melee and other weapons to inflict harm on one another, often showing no mercy, etc.); this should be done in the article on quarter (military) - which, unfortunately, we don't have (but surely will one day).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what you are trying to accomplish with this? We have a reference by Ryzhov published in 1999, but now you go back to B&E from the 19th century claiming that it is more correct. The reference by Ryzhov is definitely better than B&E, don't you think? Anyway, trying to figure out what things meant in medieval context is precisely original research. Ryzhov clearly states that Sviatopolk's wish for more power was reason for the uprising that he ordered against the Poles. Balcer 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To sum up, trying to back the statement : The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city. by referencing it with Ryzhov was at the very least incorrect (if not an attempt to push one's POV by distorting a reference). Since you inserted the tag based on the removal of that statement (now shown to be incorrect by the very source that was used to reference it), could you please now remove that tag as a sign of good will? Balcer 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I won't edit the article now because there are likely some eagerly looking for a way to show any consecutive edits by me within a 24 hour window a series of partial reverts, like was done before here. Pillaging has to be backed up not by Ryszhov, but by B&E. I can reref it to back to B&E but I suggest instead we hammer out the paragraph here and insert the agreed version than have this silly revert war resumed. --Irpen 05:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we have a 1999 reference for the event, which eliminates the need for using B&E. Let's just use what Ryzhkov wrote, shall we? Wikipedia should aim to reflect current research, not 19th century research. I find your particular attachment to a source published over a 100 years ago, with all its inherent bias, rather puzzling. Is there something about the POV prevalent in 19th century Russia that is particularly to your taste? Anyway, since you presented no valid case here as far as I am concerned, I will remove the tag. Balcer 05:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Balcer. I expected better of you, to be honest, but we learn as we go. --Irpen 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

references

Kostomarov and B&E

Kostomarov, Yaroslav ? Do I have a problem with seeing a reference or is a single name given as reference ? I might add that the search for Yaroslav Kostomarov gives no results on google-we had a non-published book not long ago, now we have a non-existing scholar(I hope he is a scholar not another nationalist ideologists as was the case in Polonization article) ? Please explain this. --Molobo 12:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, after all the concerns expressed above, Irpen's recent insertion of 12 references to a 19th century publication (Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary) shows just what he thinks of accomodating opinions of other editors. Not only is that reference outdated and reflects the POV of the time, it is also exactly what its title says: an encyclopedic dictionary, providing brief (hence incomplete and simplified) treatment of its topics. Surely we can do better. Balcer 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please show a single opinion passed from B&E. If you take a good look, you will see that it is used only to reference facts. If you have sources that show these facts wrong, bring them up. --Irpen 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So, I take from your deflecting the discussion below away from my question that you did not find any judgments that I transferred to the article from B&E. If I did, please point this to me. --Irpen 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So no answer on who the mysterious person is. If nothing will be given soon, I shall remove the "reference' to this name and surname.--Molobo 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. You should have really checked the refs. The "Yaroslav", is the name of the chapter in the book. The book is listed in the refs list. Please leave edit summaries, at least the automatic ones. --Irpen 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you-could you tell us which book exactly ?--Molobo 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Metadiscussion 1

Now that I am checking out that dictionary, its outdated POV is rather amusing. Here is for example its entry for Ukraine, which begins:

Украина — так назывались юго-восточные русские земли Речи Посполитой.

translated as:

Ukraine - so was called the south-eastern Russian lands of the Commonwealth.

And then it continues to describe Ukraine only in those terms, ending its entry at the point where all of those lands were absorbed into the Russian Empire during the Partions. And then full stop, no more Ukraine. If that publication is riddled with such gems, using it is not advisable. Balcer 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The entry is correct. At the time, the name for what's now Ukraine was Little Russia, this same name was used in English sources too. There were two usage of Ukraine at the time. The one above and Sloboda Ukraine. --Irpen 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The name was Little Rus, please don't enter Tsarist mythology of Russia being equal to Rus.--Molobo 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Little Rus' is the modern translation into English of the same old name. At that time it was Little Russia. Read books Molobo. Also check this English map. --Irpen 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see Irpen has stoped using XIX century sources in favour of XVIII century ones. Rus and Russia are not the same-I realise Russian Tsar tried to propagate this idea to justify their wars of conquest and control over Ukrainian and Belarusian people, but we really don't need to support them.As to books Irpen-I do read them, modern books that is, XIX century ones I read only for amusement. I suggest you do the same.--Molobo 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, I suggested to you earlier to read on the subject a little bit. We are talking two different issues. Preferable terminology to use today and the terminology most commonly used in English, not in Russian, earlier. You can scream all you want about the Tsarist terminology but the fact is that in English Rus' and Russia was used interchangeably by the Western Scholars for a very long time. For example, the very recent book on what you and I call medieval Rus' was published by Janet Martin. This books is commonly considered a classical English textbook on the subject and is called "Medieval Russia, 980-1584". Published by Cambridge University Press in 1995 it has an ISBN 0521368324 that you can verify for yourself.

This is, however, a huge deflection off topic. The fact of the matter is that Balcer invoked the article "Ukrainia" in B&E as an example of its inaccuracy. However, the B&E uses a typical for its time toponyms, widely accepted in English as well, even to this day. At the time, Ukraina meant not exactly the same as what Ukraine refers to now, while the latter's contemporary equivalent was Малая Русь or Малороссия in Russian, the language of the contemporary source. As the very same time, the most common term in English for this land was Little Russia while today Little Rus' has become more common.

Elsewhere you recently expressed some concern about the need for the talk pages to remain structured and on topic. I hope that yesterday's conversion of yours was genuine and you will quit posting the off-topic threads about what the proper English name was a hundred yes ago for what we now call Ukraine. Thank you in advance. --Irpen 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As you agree that nobody now calls Ukraine Russia as was the case while it was largely conquered by Russian Empire, I will remove the wikiproject that has nothing to do with those Polish-Ukrainian events. As to naming-nothing of a surprise here, Western Scholars have often used the terminology invented by conquerers.--Molobo 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seriously considers the Kievan Rus' as unrelated to the History of Russia. It is as much related to Russia as it is to Ukraine and Belarus. You should really read a single book on the Russian history. --Irpen 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And Holy German Roman Empire is related to history of Italy, but I wouldn't put Wikiproject Germany in article on conflict between Italy and France. Nothing here connects to Russia which evolved as a state several hundreds years later. Please present any solid reason why Russia is connected to an issue involving history of Ukraine and Poland.--Molobo 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Metadiscussion 2

As I read more, I am less amused, and more and more disturbed. The entry on Jew is particularly chilling, reflecting many of the racist assumptions of the time. Here is a sample (warning: the content is extremely racist and may offend):

Растительность на лице и теле вообще обильная; попадаются нередко курчавые евреи. Лоб довольно широкий; лицо узкое; межглазничное пространство небольшое; глаза чрезвычайно живые, нос вообще довольно большой, часто (до 30%) кривой, но большею частью прямой (очень редко вздернутый), с подвижными ноздрями, губы часто толстоватые. Вообще черты лица настолько характерны, что опытный глаз почти всегда узнает Е. Они отличаются вообще значительным плодородием, а так как смертность у них меньше, то они размножаются быстрее тех народностей, среди которых живут, даже таких, как немцы и славяне.

Do we want to use a publication with such content as reference? I would say that we must make all effort not to. Balcer 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is an older writing style rejected now as improper as many things change. Let's concentrate on facts and not opinions. --Irpen 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not about style at all, it is about the content. Reducing it to a stylistic issue is actually dishonest. Quite simply, that Dictionary entry is based on a racist viewpoint quite common in the 19th century but totally unacceptable today. By citing that Dictionary at all, we are only increasing its credibility and making it more acceptable. If we persist, sooner or later some idiot will use its content to make antisemitic claims in Wikipedia and use it as a reference, claiming it a reliable source based on its widespread use elsewhere in Wikipedia.

What it boils down to is this: it is in general bad practice to use 19th century sources at all, if modern sources are available. Now if on top of that the source one tries to use is peppered with content based on antisemitic and racist ideology and viewpoint, any justification for using it simply disappears.

I feel very strongly about this. Wikipedia should not be used to propagate 19th century antisemitism, in whatever form. If you do not convince me that using the Dictionary as a reference does not contribute to this (directly or indirectly), I will take the issue to a more general audience. I cannot state it any more simply: a reference which contains this lake of antisemitic sewage is no longer a reliable source. Balcer 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, you invoke the Godwin's law, you loose. Try a serious argument. Besides, Pitorus already took this to a wider audience. Encyclopedias a complied by many authors and its articles are independent. Not a single controverisal fact is referred to B&E which whose entries are entirely based on the chronicles. I took time to read the old Chronicles in fact and all the B&E does is pass the Chronicler's info.

Re, the source's being wrong on smth needs to be discounted in toto, Piotrus seems to disagree with you. And in any case such argument does not apply to encyclopedias. --Irpen 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You could invoke Godwin's law if I had said something to justify it, which of course I have not. Please don't try to get out of your bind by making nonsensical arguments. Anyway, on what basis do we decide which entry in the Dictionary is reliable and which is not? If the entry on Jew is wrong, how do we know an entry on anything else is correct? The whole point of something being a reliable source is that you can have reason to trust it in its entirety. Balcer 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, you cannot seriously argue that if the book or author has made a mistake elsewhere, the entire book or the entire author's scholarship should be discounted. See the book above about Katyn. If your claims about B&E were true (which they obviously aren't), it still would only amount to a red herring in this argument -- facts reported even by biased sources must be examined, rather than brushed aside using inane and disingenuous, or even true, accusations about the source's character. This applies even to a greater extent to Encycopedias (B&E is an encyclopedia in a modern sense, not a dictionary) whose entries are composed by different people. I referred to only two B&E articles: Sviatpolk and Boleslav. I made an exception for my opponents and took time to read two old chronicles myself (it was not easy). They merely pass the chronicler's accounts. Until you show which facts are false, this discussion remains off-topic. --Irpen 22:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of a reliable source is that you can use its information without further confirmation. A reliable source can simply be used in Wikipedia, without constantly checking with other sources whether what it says is true. If you have checked Sviatpolk and Boleslav Dictionary articles against the original chronicles, that is great, but in that case you should cite the chronicles themselves as references, since that is what you are basing your certainty as to reliability on, not the Dictionary.

We are not talking about a few mistakes here and there in this case, we are talking about a source whose reliability is seriously compromised by the period and place it was written in, and the unavoidable biases and now outdated ideologies prevalent at the time.

I am puzzled by your statement that my claims about BE are not true. Please clarify this for me: do you actually believe that the Dictionary article on Jew is not antisemitic? Please be specific, so that we know where we stand in this discussion.

To be honest, I do not think this discussion will get anywhere. You are attached to using 19th century sources, not minding all the problems associated with them, for reasons about which I can only speculate. This is why I believe an outside viewpoint on this issue could be useful. I will consider requesting comment on an appropriate noticeboard. Balcer 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I can say this, Balcer. The article Jew in the B&E passed the judgments and stereotypes which were common at the time and, luckily, changed by now.

Please stop referring to B&E as a dictionary. The original Russian term that was used to produce this word have changed. You cannot call the 86-volume encyclopedia with the word dictionary in all honesty, can you?

I can point you to some known factual mistakes in modern Britannica as well. There also factual mistakes in the 1911 one, as shown by the modern research. As far as judgments are concerned, old sources are unusable in toto, this is where you an I agree.

Finally, you are playing the extremely intellectually dishonest trick for the second time that I remember. You know full-well that any scholarship has certain institutional biases, even the Western one. So is the Russian scholarship, old or new. When you don't like the info you attempt to attack the source from the side which is unrelated to the facts you happen to not like. When you wanted to discredit Meltiukhov, you searched through an entire book for what it says about Katyn, perfectly aware that this is the issue where the Russian scholarship has an institutional bias. A similar institutional bias against the Jews existed in the 19th century Russian Empire. Knowing that, you threaded in specifically that direction to attack the source. The source is not used in an article about the Jews. All the info referred to it is entirely non-controversial. Articles on such wildly different topics in such a broad encyclopedias are certainly written by different people, from even institutionally different filed. In fact you failed to dispute a single fact from the source. Please stop this tricks and stay on topic. Your behavior in these two examples has been plainly unfair, if not dishonest. --Irpen 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong in claiming that I do not like any particular info in this case that BE is referencing. This article refers to an event a thousand years ago, and I have no particular axe to grind in this case. I could not care less whether the Poles or anybody else behaved well or badly, or who was right or wrong. This is rather a matter of principle, because this is an important test case. The old 19th century sources have an advantage in that they are in the public domain and freely available online. This creates a grave danger for Wikipedia: it may easily become an encyclopedia dominated in certain areas by 19th century scholarship (since most people are too lazy or busy to go to university libraries and labouriously look up modern works available only in difficult to search paper form). So, if we have BE available online (all 86 volumes of it, as you say), should the 1890 scholarship and POV drive all before it? I would much rather not see that.

It gets even worse: in the 19th century some countries existed (and thus could publish 86 volume encyclopedias pushing their POVs), while most others (Ukraine, Poland, most of the 180 countries in the world today in fact) did not have that possibility. Thus introducing the old sources en masse would disastrously sway the POV towards that favouring the old imperial states and their outlook. In a nutshell, one person can push Russian imperial POV form the comfort of his armchair relying on fully online and Google searchable BE from anywhere in the world, cutting and pasting as needed, while another must take labourious trips to the library and dig for books on dusty book shelves, then laboriously search for information by flipping through indexes, and finally manually type out what the book contains. Clearly, this is no contest.

Only one thing could stop this and not even in all cases. If it could be clearly demonstrated that some 19th century reference work is rotten to the core with bias and hence not to be trusted. This has already happened in the case of 1911 edition of Britannica (which up to now was frequently used to import and article form wholesale, with all its old POV). I believe a similar warning flag should go up if someone uses BE, or any other comparable source. Balcer 01:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, the 1911 Britannica is not "rotten to the core". 1911 is indeed unusable for direct porting into a normal encyclopedia true enough. I would be especialy extremely careful with, say, info from 1911 on India, and would take is judgments as a useful source only of the evolution of the academic thought.

However, on many subjects old sources are uncontroversial and unsurpassed to this day. Please read the Loki's entry at the talk:Polonization one more time. The main problem with old sources is that they were written with what is now considered absurd in Academia judgmental tone. Many such sources are still pretty good references for undisputed facts, as good as any other source. Some facts in some sources are shown wrong, like in case new discoveries were made, new chronicles, new excavations, etc. In such cases there simply is no dispute. Same applies to modern sources, they also can be wrong on facts. As long as facts are undisputed and judgments are not passed, the classical sources on the subject are very useful ones. Now, would you please show me which facts in the article referred to the older sources you dispute. Please be specific. --Irpen 01:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen, it doesn't work that way. You apparently don't understand the policy on reliable sources. Our job isn't to dig through every obscure XIX century source you find and try to find books contradicting whatever fantastic claim the source makes. As you do this all the time I find your behaviour increasingly disruptive. You have been asked time and time again to use modern, objective sources, not any Stalinist,Tsarists or as in the case above racist sources to write articles. I don't see any reason to change wikipedia's reliability policy, so unless you are ready to back claims by controversial authors they should be either removed or moved to their articles as fringe theories.--Molobo 01:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How interesting, Irpen. I am glad that you are at least ready to admit that 1911 Britannica might be unreliable as regards its info on India. Indeed, since Britain, where that encyclopedia was published, was the imperial power controlling the place at the time, a view of a British encyclopedia on that country might suffer from debilitating bias. What is more, I am certain many Indians would not appreciate their former imperial power being the source for their history. I wonder now, would you be ready to apply exactly the same reasoning and admit that BE, given that it was published in the Russian Empire, would be equally unsuitable as a source of reliable and unbiased information as regards Russia's imperial possessions, namely Ukraine and Poland? And if this is not the case, please explain why not.

Molobo has a good point. 19th century sources should be avoided, unless their use is absolutely necessary. I am willing to concede that if some 19th century work is considered an unsurpassed source on some historical matter not improved by all the research since then, its use as a reference may be considered (as rare as such works are). However, this is definitely not the case here. With all due respect to Russian 19th century scholarship, I do not believe that BE is the best source out there for Russian and Eastern European history (far from it). Your insistence on using it, where with only a bit of effort you could find modern sources for the same claims, is what is driving a number of editors up the wall. Balcer 03:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Driving up the wall, Balcer, is your refusal to cite specific facts you dispute. Similarly, your habitual and sneaky attacks at sources you don't like (Meltiukhov is the modern source all right) through trying to dig what they say on questions whose coverage are known to be torn by institutional biases and, following that attempting to dismiss the source as a whole. I've you shown the Piotrus' favored source that goofed (see Katyn's talk). I've got no answer

Despite repeatedly requested to give specific facts that you question, you start threads after threads of metadiscussion. Look at what is referenced to B&E and Kostomarov. Is these facts or judgments and obsolete POV? If you concede that these are merely facts, explain how these facts are disputed. Please be specific. --Irpen 03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

M. and Katyn are simply a different matter, with problems stemming from different reasons. This discussion is already many pages long, I am not going to expand it by dwelving into those issues.

Now to your question. I am not disputing the facts at the moment, I am criticizing your use of a 19th century reference, for reasons stated at length. In all those 86 volumes of BE I am sure there are many true facts. This does not change the fact that on the whole that work is unreliable.

Let me make perfectly clear what this means. When one says that a work is unreliable, this does not mean that everything in it is 100% wrong. It means that enough of its content is wrong (disastrously and fundamentally wrong!) that the work cannot be trusted. It means that every single claim it makes has to be checked with another, reliable source. And if this is the case, citing it is simply a waste of time.

I was really hoping you would adress the EB-India and BE-Ukraine/Poland parallel. Oh well. Balcer 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

M and Katyn are not a different matter. These are all illustration of the same approach that you choose to pursue in order to take on the articles with with POV disputes. Reasonably demanding to have facts referenced is not a proble, But even when all the facts are referenced you then try your best to find the way to impeach the source. You sifted all hundreds of pages of M's book in search of a single word (Katyn) to check what he says on it. You sifted 86 volumes of B&E in search of what it says on Jews. You did it perfectly knowing that those particular issues are subject to the institutional biases of the time and place and then attempted to attack the source as a whole.

I also expected better from you than drawing EB-India / BE-Ukraine parallel. You pretend not to know that Rus is considered but of the Russian history as much as that of Ukraine by all serious scholars. Such statements given by Molobo (excusable judging by his background demonstrated elsewhere) is nothing but an academic dishonesty when it comes from the editor with non-zero familiarity with the subject. We are using a BE article on the subject of the Russian history. Besides, not a single fact in this article referenced to BE contradicts any Ukrainian source either (this is also a Ukrainian history.) In fact, Ukrainian source is also used and more will be added.

I am not interested to hear your further attacks on the sources until you cite specifically which statement referenced within this article you dispute. If you dispute none of it, please desist or take it to metapages. --Irpen 06:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Current usage in the article

Such sources should be used with caution, avoided in POV situations and replaced with modern ones when possible. Also, can somebody translate Рыжов Константин (1999). Все монархи мира: Россия: 600 кратких жизнеописаний (in Russian). Москва? Boris Grekov is a Soviet historian (which means we should treat his claims carefully), same goes for Russian Imperial historian, Nikolay Kostomarov. Information on academic credentials of Iryna Zhylenko and her work ([8]) would be nice, too. That said, I appreciate Irpen's expansion of the background (although I see no reason to remove information on Boleslaw's daughter, for example?). Currently B-E is used to reference solely the following statements: 1) Unhappy by his rule being restricted to only a small appanage which he saw unfit to the prestigious status of the Grand Duke's eldest son, Sviatopolk started to plot an armed overthrow of his father, possibly counting on the help of his father-in-law Boleslaw 2) Shortly before his death Vladimir also gave Sviatopolk Vyshgorod (Vyshhorod) nearby Kiev. I don't think either of those two is controversial. Overall, it would be nice to use English sources instead of obsolete Soviet/Russian Imperial once (this being English wikipedia and so on), but the article I think has not been compromised - instead, we seem to have mostly agreed on a consensus and neutral variant of the 'Uprising', I hope.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the title means: All monarchs of the world: Russia: 600 short biographies. Incidentally, this is not a title which would inspire confidence in regards to treating its subject fully, to be sure. Balcer 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I will add more info. I just stopped yesterday because I was too tired. --Irpen 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article part of WikiProject Russian history

Rather then Ukrainian Wiki Project ? If nobody objects I will change this error.--Molobo 21:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not start a fight over project tags. These are the worst and completely irrelevant. Just add Ukrainian Wiki Project tag and be done with it. It is no problem if an article belongs to multiple projects. Balcer 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added Ukraine and cleaned up. It seems fine now, no reason to touch it. Balcer 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)