Talk:Kievan Rus'

Volodymyr the Great, not “Vladimir”

Change the name to its correct Rus’ form, Vladimir is a wrong transcription. 136.169.48.44 (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:COMMONNAME applies. It is written the way the majority of sources spell it, which may differ from how you personally spell it. TylerBurden (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Volodymyr" is also the Ukrainian spelling, which was not written then. Mellk (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s a bit misleading. Володимѣръ was written then, which can be properly transliterated as Volodymǐr. The Ukrainian form is closer to the Old East Slavic while Russian Vladimir is closer to Old Church Slavic. —Michael Z. 15:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that "Vladimir" comes from Old Church Slavonic form, however I believe it is usually transliterated as "Volodimer" (this is at least how it is in the Vladimir the Great article and wiktionary), so quite a bit different. Mellk (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, often, technically, Volodiměr, with и →i reflecting Old East Slavic pronunciation, but the yat ѣ → ě reflecting a Russian WP:BIAS in the Western history of Slavistics (the legacy of “Russianists” in the nineteenth and twentieth century), the vowel having become je in Russian, i in Ukrainian, and ja in South Slavic. Here we see a systemic Russian bias that is invisible to non-specialists and even many specialists unless it is explained. —Michael Z. 16:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't yat pronunciation closer to e back then most likely? I would be interested in reading more about this however. Mellk (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d have to dig out Shevelov 1979 to see what he says about Old Ukrainian yat pronunciation. Anyway, the conventional transliteration is based on nineteenth-century Russian scholarship, long after the pronunciation diverged in the two languages. —Michael Z. 19:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hm: I understand transliteration ě and sometimes ä has been used for the Common Slavic yat which may have been pronounced like [æ]. Transliteration chart in Shevelov 1979 (I don’t have the full text at hand) only gives this transliteration for Old Ukrainian yat but says the Middle Ukrainian sound was [i], or [’e] in northern Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 19:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I would also imagine there would be dialectal variation. In Wiktionary there are also alternative forms listed. "Володимиръ" for example seems to be in some texts. Mellk (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I think spelling was quite variable anyway. Only a reliable source can tell us which spelling or trend is dialectal. —Michael Z. 22:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not related to dialectal variation. In Kievan Rus', Church Slavonic played the same role as Latin played in Western Europe: it was a literary language, so all records were in Church Slavonic. The difference between Rus' and Western Europe was that in Rus' both its colloquial language and its literary language belonged to the same family, and local people were able to understand Church Slavonic like modern Russians can understand modern Ukrainian. That is why some Church Slavonic forms were easily adapted by East Slavs (imo, especially by Russians).

With regard to dialects, the population of the territory that now belongs to modern Central and Southern Russia spoke the same dialect as the population that lived in modern Ukraine, so they pronounced this name as "Volodimer". I am not sure about Novgorod dialect, but, although it was different from the Southern dialect, it seems they pronounced it like "Volodimer" too.

Therefore,

• if we are concerned about a correct pronounciation, we should use "Volodimer".
• if we want to follow historical sources, we should use "Vladimir", for that is a correct form according to Church Slavic norms.
• if we want to emphasize the lack of continuity between Moscow Czars and the Ukrainian konung Volodimer (which seems to be a part of the ideological war between modern Russians and modern Ukrainians), then we chose the option that depends on one's political views, but I am not sure if that is allowed by our policy.

I think we should use Charlemagne as an example. He was a ruler of what is currently France, Germany and some smaller states, and his "correct" name is "Charlemagne" in French (let it be the analog of "Ukrainian"), "Karl der Große" in German (let's assume it is an analog of modern Russian), "Carolus Magnus" in Latin (that is an analog of Church Slavonic). Which name is used in English Wikipedia? Charlemagne. Why? Because it is the most common name in English literature.

And, for the same reason, Vladimir should be used in this article.

To speak about any "pro-Russian" bias in this case is as laughable as to speak about a pro-French bias of Western historiography in the case of Karl the Great's empire. Of course, by using the term "Charlemagne", English speaking historians do not imply that Charlemagne was a Frenchmen, and Aachen (his capital) is actually the French city. It just means that, for some historical reason, English acquired this work from French. That's it.

Do you guys seriously propose to count the number of historical names acquired by English during last thousand of years and, if these numbers do not correspond to the modern political map, to fix "the bias"?

In my opinion, attempts of foreign nationals (or non-native English speakers) to fix English to please someone's national pride are laughable. I can understand Bombay -> Mumbai, because majority of population of India speaks English (which is the official language in India, by the way, and the majority of English speakers in the world live in that country), but to teach native English speakers how to spell "Vladimir", which is the word of their own language, is ... I would say, not modest. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Language can change. Consensus can change. I can mention countless examples from toponyms to personal names that have changed in the past several decades (e.g. Courtrai to Kortrijk, Louvain to Leuven). So, just because English acquired some French exonym at some point long ago, doesn't mean it will always keep it. And as had been pointed out more times than I care to count (WP:KIEV), Kiev was once the dominant form of spelling the Ukrainian capital in modern English, but now it is Kyiv. Similarly, everyone agrees that the last German emperor was called Wilhelm II, German Emperor, and there are discussions ongoing (like, literally, this is almost all they talk about on the talk page) whether William I, German Emperor should actually be renamed Wilhelm I, German Emperor. Clearly, the English language is increasingly favouring endonyms over historical exonyms, although it tends to do so gradually, not radically, and only when and where appropriate. History is one of the areas where we should be cautious.

I, too, am the kind of person who thinks this should not be rushed, especially not in historical articles. As I have been explaining to fellow Wikipedian Mellk on my talk page: I tend not to change existing spelling in texts written by others (per WP:KIEV do not change existing content.); I only apply modern spelling in texts that I add myself. In some cases these are quotes from the sources that I cite, such as Katchanovski et al. 2013, which use modern spelling for historical subjects; e.g. 'no adequate system of succession to the Kyivan throne was developed' is a direct quote. I do not change spelling in existing content (unless the entire sentence is malformed/incorrect and unsourced, and I have to reformulate it based on a reliable source, then I might change it based on the spelling used in the reliable source). You'll notice I didn't remove "Vladimir", I just added "Volodymyr" in certain places when I added Katchanovski et al. 2013 as a source. In other cases I have added "Kievan" for practical reasons, such as a Main article template link from the redirect Mongol invasion of Rus' to Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus', because that is the current article title. Although this is somewhat inconsistent, it is an allowable variety and diversity in article content when there is no clear universal standard (...), except that spelling of existing text should generally not be changed. If anything, I think this helps the reader understand that there is this linguistic, historic and cultural diversity that has in some sense always existed (...).

[Some users argue] switching the entire article over to one spelling or another. I am not in favour of such a radical decision at all. Articles like this should grow and evolve organically, and varieties in spelling that may arise could simply be part of that process depending on the historiographic literature that is available to support it. Eliminating either one spelling wouldn't do justice to the diversity in good sources. E.g. Magocsi 2010 is another good source I have used, and he uses 'Kiev' and 'Kievan', which is fine; if I quote him, I'll follow his spelling.

Long story short, do not change existing content.. But if you are adding content, and the source you are citing (and especially if you're directly quoting it) is using modern spelling, you can use it in this Wikipedia article, too. If the spelling is very different from existing spelling, such as in the case of Vladimir and Volodymyr, consider doing what I did: Vladimir/Volodymyr. Ultimately, the goal is that our readers understand what the text is about. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think your key mistake is that you mix two different things. Some foreign words, like "Kiev", "Moscow", "Prague", "Munich", "Rome" have become English words many centuries ago, and any change of their spelling in local languages have no effect on their English spelling: these words are different. For example, the modern Russian word "Moskva" is spelled and pronounced in this form during several centuries, but English retains an ancient form "Московъ", which was in use more than 500 years ago. And Russians do not complain. The same can be said about Belgrade (Beograde in Serbian), Lissabon ("Lisboa"), Warsaw (Warszawa in Polish), and so on. I would say, that is more a rule than an exception.

IMO, the explanation is as follows: the historical names, which are deeply rooted in the world history, are less prone to change and are more stable than other names. Two analogies can be proposed to illustrate this thought. First, as you know, some genes are less prone to mutations and are more conserved than others, and these genes are usually the ones that are vital to the organism's survival. Another example is English irregular verbs: as you know, all most verbs in old English were irregular, but they changed their form with time. Only the most important verbs remain irregular.

Historical names that are deeply rooted in the international culture resist to change, and are not affected by political changes (e.g. the current conflict between Ukrainians and Russians). And, contrary to your assertion, Kiev is still being used much more frequently. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thus, in contrast to Kiev, transition from Lvov to Lviv went quite smoothly, because this name is much less important, and because it is the foreign word, so English speakers just transliterate the foreign word in its most common form. But, in contrast to Lvov/Lviv, Kiev is not a foreign word in English (interestingly, Kyiv is usually underscored by mist spelling checker as a typo). Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of what you are saying is irrelevant to the subject at hand. A city's relative world-historic importance doesn't necessarily mean its spelling in English will always remain the same. Remember how Peking has become Beijing, and Nanking became Nanjing within the last decades, even though the former spellings were arguably deeply rooted in the world history. We still say Peking duck, and if you read or look at 1989 reports of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, you'll notice English-language media still write and say 'Peking'; and the Nanjing Massacre is still widely known as Nanking Massacre or Rape of Nanking (also due to the 1997 book). These are relatively recent changes in spelling of hugely important cities. We are not talking about small provincial cities (such as Lviv) the average English speaker has never heard of: both places were the capital city for long periods in Chinese history and are well-known; Europeans have just applied Southern Chinese spelling for centuries, because the Southern Chinese were their primary source of contact for centuries due to trade. (That's also the reason why Sichuan pepper was known as Szechuan pepper for centuries).

You refer to "foreign words", but all names we are discussing here are foreign words. From the point of view of the English language, both Courtrai and Kortrijk are "foreign words". The difference is whether it is an endonym (copied from the locally dominant language) or an exonym (a derivative invented by another language that has no major local presence). Courtrai is a French exonym now abandoned in English (except in certain historical contexts such as Battle of Courtrai (1918)), Kortrijk is a Dutch endonym recently adopted in English. The assertion that "deeply rooted historical names are not affected by political changes" is clearly incorrect. If Beijing hadn't become the capital city of the PR of China, but Nanjing, I think the locally dominant version of Chinese would have set the model for the national standard, and we would still be commonly talking about Peking and Nanking. If there hadn't been a Flemish Movement that successfully advocated for the federalisation of Belgium into language communities, and French would have remained the dominant (political) language in Belgium and no recognition would have been given to the Dutch-language area in which the city is located, I think we would still be commonly talking about Courtrai. If Ukraine hadn't become independent in 1991 and adopted Ukrainian as its state language, and especially if Russia hadn't been invading Ukraine since 2014, I think we would still be commonly talking about Kiev. Since 24 February 2022, countless more English-language media and publications have (often explicitly) switched to Kyiv for political reasons, and that process is very easy to document and verify. (I'm not going to argue with you about which name is more common; that debate has been settled at WP:KIEV long before 24 February 2022. I do have to say that your personal computer's spelling checker is the funniest argument I've heard so far. My spelling checker underscores 'Siebert' as a typo, but that doesn't mean it's a wrong name either.)

To get back on topic: Magocsi 2010 is one of the good sources used extensively inside this article (by myself and by many different users over the years). He uses Kiev/Kievan, but also Volodymyr. The Konstam 2005 book that I quoted yesterday also consistently writes Kiev/Kievan, but also consistently Volodymyr. Katchanovski et al. 2013 write both Kyiv/Kyivan and Volodymyr. This is still anecdotal evidence, but this might indicate that Volodymyr is actually more common in English literature about the Rus' than Kyiv/Kyivan.

I think we should simply follow what the source we are citing/quoting is saying by default, and allow for variety and diversity in this article without changing existing content just to change the spelling merely in order to favour our personal preferences. The most compelling reason for this is that the Old East Slavic language no longer exists, so it is no longer possible to adopt its endonyms, because it is no longer the locally dominant language. And there is no particular reason to pick any of the three main languages that sprang from it (Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian) as the eternal spelling standard for all Kyivan Rus' personal names and toponyms in English. For toponyms, an argument can be made to align these spelling standards with modern geography, because some of these cities and regions still exist today. E.g. Novgorod Land and Novgorod Republic retain the spelling Novgorod because Veliky Novgorod is located in modern Russia. But Novhorod-Siverskyi is located in modern Ukraine, so an argument can be made to change Principality of Novgorod-Seversk to Principality of Novhorod-Siverskyi, also to avoid confusion with Novgorod Land and the Novgorod Republic. "Principality of Novgorod" currently redirects to Veliky Novgorod, but I think it's better to make it a disamb. When it comes to personal names like Vladimir/Volodymyr (a person who no longer exists), I think it is a matter of frequency in literature, or simply following the source you happen to be citing/quoting from. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Chinese toponyms is hardly a good example, because that change is a part of a global transition in spelling of Chinese words.

WRT "You refer to "foreign words", but all names we are discussing here are foreign words", you are missing the point. Whereas Courtrai (or, e.g. Kharkov/Kharkiv) are definitely foreign words, "Moscow" is not. Otherwise, English speakers would have switched to "Moskva" long time ago. Indeed, if "Moscow" is a foreign word, then can you please tell me which modern language it was taken from? Maybe, from German ("Moskau"), but definitely not from Russian. Alas, "Moscow" is an English word, and this word may change only if Russians rename the city (e.g. to "Putingrad", which, I hope, will never happen). Imagine that Russians adopted new grammar rules, and the name of their capital became "Maskva" (which is closer to Moscow dialect pronunciation). Will it have any effect on the spelling of the English word "Moscow"? I see absolutely no reason why it should.

Let me reiterate it: when we are talking about some modern foreign names or toponyms that have no English equivalents (like "Vinnytsia"), we use a transliteration from a local language. If the original spelling changes (Kharkov -> Kharkiv), we change a transliteration accordingly (we use Kharkov in Third Battle of Kharkov, but we use Kharkiv for the modern name, for it was not renaming of the city, just a change of spelling).

However, for some historical names and for some cities we use English words if such words exist. The examples are "Kiev", "Moscow", "Prague", "The Hague" (not "Der Haag"), etc. As we can see, "Vladimir the Great" belong to this category. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand what endonym and exonym are? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I do like how Snyder uses the kuningaz’s native name to bring clarity: “Valdimar was, to put it gently, not a Russian.”[1]  —Michael Z. 00:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant when I wrote "if we want to emphasize the lack of continuity between Moscow Czars and the Ukrainian konung Volodimer (which seems to be a part of the ideological war between modern Russians and modern Ukrainians), then we chose the option that depends on one's political views, but I am not sure if that is allowed by our policy".

Of course, Vladimir was not Russian, but that doesn't make him Ukrainian. He lived during the time when neither Russians nor Ukrainians existed, and he spoke the language that was spoken by common ancestors of Russians and Ukrainians. They all pronounced this name as "Volodymer/Volodymir'" (because "volo" was common for all East Slavs, and "vlad" was a South Slavic pronunciation: thus, the name of the first Vladimir's capital had always been "Novgorod", not "Novograd").

Therefore, even if Vladimir were Russian ("Velikoross") (which, of course, would be a weird assumption), his name pronounced as "Volodimer".

But all of that is irrelevant. What is relevant is how his name is written in majority of secondary sources. I am not an expert, but a simple ngram search confirms that "Vladimir" is much more common. The fact that it was taken from official Russian (actually Church Slavonic) tradition doesn't change anything. Thus, English sources use "Charlemagne" for Karl the Great, East European scholars (including Ukrainian ones) use the term derived from the German version of his name, but that does not means English speakers believe Charlemagne was a Frenchmen and Ukrainians believe he was a German.

I think we should stop this silly discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not a silly discussion I started.

But as you mention it, his first language was likely Old Norse, and hence my reference to the endonym and how neatly it bypasses the politics you dwell on.

And as you attempted to characterize sources: English-language sources in the tradition of Ukrainian historiography have followed a formula like this for decades: “Toponyms are usually transliterated from the language of the country in which the designated places are currently located. As a rule, personal names are given in the forms characteristic of the cultural tradition to which the given person belonged” (Serhii Plokhy 2021, The Frontline: Essays on Ukraine’s past and present:viii). But sources in the imperial and Soviet traditions use Russian names. One of these days en.Wikipedia could figure out that its rule is not neutral, but has a WP:BIAS that automatically indulges the selfish imperial narrative, but I think it’s likely that Western scholarship will fix itself before Wikipedia does.[2]  —Michael Z. 04:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Good point. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Then I hope you understand it when I say that attempting to group names like Moscow, Kiev/Kyiv, Vladimir/Volodymyr and Courtrai/Kortrijk into categories such as "foreign words" and "English words" doesn't make much sense. Because they are both foreign and English at the same time: each of these words has an etymologically non-English origin, but it has been widely adopted into the English language and is thus arguably "an English word". (If you really want a toponym of native "English"/Anglo-Saxon/Germanic origin, you need something like Newtown. Lots of toponyms in England aren't "English" either, e.g. placenames ending on -by are Scandinavian, London comes from Latin Londinium, and York ultimately goes back to Celtic *Eborakon). Moscow was not "taken" from any language, but derived from Russian Moskva for use in English, but it is simultaneously just as "foreign" and "English" as Kiev, Kyiv, Courtrai and Kortrijk are, even though Moscow, Kiev and Coutrai are exonyms and Kyiv and Kortrijk are endonyms.

We can all agree that Moskva is currently not really an "English" word, because it's rarely used in English in this form, and as you noted Russians do not complain. But if Russians were to complain, I bet we are going to see an increasing use of Moskva in the next 10 years. A good example here is the Name of the Czech Republic: since 2016, the Czech government has urged English-language users to switch to Czechia instead of Czech Republic. (Strictly speaking, Czechia is still an exonym, because the Czech word for Czechia is Česko, but I digress). This has been increasingly successful. So even "deeply rooted historical names are affected by political changes". Language can change, and consensus can change.

Michael Z. here cites Plokhy 2011 in practice making the argument about using endonyms for toponyms that I said could be made in theory:

• I: For toponyms, an argument can be made to align these spelling standards with modern geography, because some of these cities and regions still exist today.
• Plokhy: Toponyms are usually transliterated from the language of the country in which the designated places are currently located.

That supports my suggestion to change Principality of Novgorod-Seversk to Principality of Novhorod-Siverskyi, for example.

Unfortunately Plokhy 2011's principle doesn't solve the personal name question: As a rule, personal names are given in the forms characteristic of the cultural tradition to which the given person belonged. Because both the Old Norse tradition of Valdimar (as reconstructed by Snyder) and the Old East Slavic tradition of Володимѣръ Volodiměrъ (as mentioned in his Wikibio) no longer exist, and the latter has brought forth three national standards: Uladzimir (Belarusian), Vladimir (Russian), and Volodymyr (Ukrainian). Linguistically, we can't categorise him into (just) one of these three cultural traditions. (That English-language literature has long favoured Russian spelling as the standard is mostly due to the fact that (apart from the Korenizatsya era of the 1920s) Russian had been the official language of all three countries from Imperial Russian times to 1991, but the last 3 decades have had a major impact, and this change in language and consensus is reflected in our recent English-language reliable sources). Geographically, it's also not so clear-cut: yes he was prince of Kyiv (in modern Ukraine) from 980 to 1015, but also born in Budnik (in modern Russia) and prince of Novgorod (in modern Russia) from 969 to 977. Hence my conclusion that nobody can claim Mr. "the Great" for themselves, and my suggestion that we should follow the spelling of the source we are citing/quoting from, and accept the resulting variety and diversity, which does justice to the reality that Kyivan/Kievan Rus' has a very diverse linguistic/cultural legacy up to the present that no single country or language can claim solely for themselves. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Moscow and Muscovy both derive from Old East Slavic Московь (Moskovĭ), derived by conjugation from the Common Slavic plural *mosky. In this case, the local name has historically changed more than the exonym. It’s an interesting etymology, analogous to the word for “church” whose root form tserky became tserkovʹ in Russian and tserkva in Ukrainian.

The additional reason that Western historiography has used Russian names is that Kliuchevksy’s students established Western scholarship on “Russia,” and resisted decolonization of history much longer for the Russian and Soviet empires than it did for other imperial states. There’s a blatant colonial WP:BIAS inherited in Wikipedia: can you imagine the huge discussions we’ve held over, say, labelling Mahatma Gandhi a “British revolutionary” because he was born in the British Empire? —Michael Z. 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that etymology is interesting.

I agree that Russian spellings and perspectives should not be the default, certainly not for toponyms outside of the internationally recognised borders of the Russian Federation. English-language historiography is gradually catching up to the new realities we find ourselves in (what you call "decolonisation of history"). In areas of uncertainty such as personal names, I think we should follow the source and allow some varieties for new content, but not change existing content. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But there is a lot of determined resistance to decolonization. There will always be three or more editors who point to sources from the 1970s that say so-and-so was a Russian painter, and pointedly refuse to respect a new one that says so-and-so was a Ukrainian painter of Greek ancestry that worked in the Russian empire. —Michael Z. 21:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

And when scholarship is decolonized, we should absolutely change outdated content.  —Michael Z. 21:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That depends. It would be ridiculous to call Petliura "Soviet/Russian revolutionary" just because he was active in the territory of Russian Empire/USSR. But it would we equally ridiculous to call Trotsky or Dybenko "Ukrainian revolutionaries". And, wrt "decolonisation", read The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939 by Terry Martin.

I see two trends in decolonisation of history. The first one, is rejection of an old feudal discourse (like "Moscow as a Third Rome", "re-unification of Slavic people under Russian rule" etc). The second one is composing/invention of the history by newly formed nations from the primodrialist point of view, which is totally ahistoric.

Thus, your example with a "Russian painter" is a demonstration of the second trend. What does "Ukrainian painter of Greek ancestry that worked in the Russian empire" supposed to mean? Do you mean that he was an ethnic Greek who lived on a territory of modern Ukraine? How does it make him Ukrainian? And how do you understand the term "Ukrainian" in this context? Clearly, no Ukrainian (as well as Russian) nation existed in XIX century. And the word "Russian" meant "an Orthodox subject of the Russian Czar (except Georgians)". Withing this group, there were Velikorosses (Greater Russians, people whose descendants are now called "Russians"), Malorosses (people who are now called Ukrainians) etc. And, obviously the word "Russian painter" meant not his ethnicity. Using your approach, we should call Karl Bryullov not a "Russian painter", but a "Russian painter of French ancestry that worked in the Russian empire", Aurelius Augustinus "An Algerian theologian of Berber origin who worked in a Roman Empire", and so on.

Again, your point of view assumes that nations are fixed and ancient, and it is a pure Primordialism, which is a generally discredited point of view.

IMO, the main problem with Russian-Ukrainian terminology is as follows. In English and Ukrainian, the term "Russian" refers to three different things: to the old feudal empire ("Russian empire") that became a cradle for several new nations, to the modern country ("Russian federation") and to the ethnic group ("Russian"). In reality, these three terms have totally different meaning, and in Russian they are different ("Rossiyskii/Russky"). Thus, I am sure the painter whom you are talking about is described as "Rossiyskii", not "Russkii", and the term "Rossiyskii" refers not to Russian federation, but to a totally different entity, Russian empire. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

From the lead: Kievan Rus', sometimes Kyivan Rus'

The statement from the lead references four times the second name and does not reference the first one. The name should be discussed in the main text ('Name' section) but it is not. Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean Kievan Rus' should have some sources in the name section to show it is used? I agree. And it has many sources in the name section. And I just added two more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean you added examples of its use as references? I see that occasionally, but is it accepted practice? That is not the same as using a secondary reliable source to reference a fact that the source attests. (Although an encyclopedia or dictionary entry like the Britannica article does serve as a proper reference to the terms’ meaning.) —Michael Z. 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, it's done all the time in tennis articles for the same purpose. When we say "some sources have called John Doe the greatest" we make sure we give one or two examples of sources saying just that. It's why using the term "many" has all kinds of issues rather than "some." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, in a properly referenced article something like that would be referenced with the word passim, meaning “in passing,” where a source implies a fact but doesn’t state it explicitly. But it’s usually used, by experts, for obscure things that are uncontroversial and lack more formal sources. I’d say it’s to be avoided in Wikipedia if possible, and improved whenever possible. —Michael Z. 22:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Here, "also" is more appropriate than "sometimes." "Sometimes" implies previously and infrequently, but as the many references for this entry clearly show, "Kyivan Rus" is in widespread use. Hence, "also" should be used because it is less biased and more neutral than "sometimes." To maintain Wikipedia neutrality on this subject, "Kievan Rus" should not be favored over "Kyivan Rus". Rather, these terms should be shown as equivalent in usage, and parentheses used to show this equivalence when used, including in the title. The title should either be "Kievan (Kyivan) Rus'" or "Kyivan (Kievan) Rus'". BowTieTuba (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't personally see the issue at this point with "also" espescially if enough modern reliable sources use it, using that word hardly overrides "Kievan Rus'". TylerBurden (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Using "also" is a reasonable suggestion. Looking at 2022 usage on newspapers.com, the ratio for "Kievan:Kyivan Rus" is 86:45, or roughly 2:1, for which "also" seems like a fair characterization. (It's the same as the current center:centre ratio in English, for which the characterization "center (also centre)" would be pretty much universally accepted.) In contrast, the recently added "Kyevan" is much less common, for which "occasionally" seems fair. Doremo (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

In this case, the issue is that "also" conveys a more accurate description of modern usage than "sometimes." "Also" connotes more widespread usage than "sometimes". The newspaper usage research provided by @Doremo is much appreciated. Alternately, because the title of this entry is "Kievan Rus'", using "often" instead of "sometimes" might convey a similar sense as to frequency of usage of "Kyivan Rus'" - because "Kievan Rus'" is in wider use, it warrants the main title for the entry, but "Kyivan Rus'" is often used as well. Is there a Wikipedia convention or guidance for terms qualifying usage? BowTieTuba (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there is consensus to at least change the wording to "also". Given the amount of reliable sources that use such wording, it seems to be appropriate. And again, that word does not override the other spelling used for the article name. TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Dictionaries and encyclopedias use frequency labels like also or rare(ly). I don’t recall ever seeing sometimes. —Michael Z. 19:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden, because both references listed with Kyivan Rus were print media, the addition of a web academic reference showing this usage seemed helpful. BowTieTuba (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Done Marcelus (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Was Kievan Rus' founded in 879 or in 882?

The infobox lists Novgorod as the capital from 879-882, but also says that Kievan Rus' was founded in 882. These can't both be true at once. Since 882 is the date when Oleg conquered Kiev and declared himself Prince of Kiev it seems more correct to me, but then I don't think Novgorod should be listed in the infobox as a capital. Spacemarine22 (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That was recently added to the infobox without any reasoning explained for it and has now been removed, if the person would like to explain their reasoning or at least provide a source to support it they can. TylerBurden (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The start and end dates of Kyivan Rus' are subject to (endless) scholarly debate. Who was the 'first' 'ruler'? How do you 'found' a 'state'? Which sources should we trust, or can't we really trust any of them? E.g. the Novgorod Chronicle and Primary Chronicle contradict each other on when the Invitation to the Varangians allegedly happened. Similarly, the end of Kyivan Rus' is often given as 1240 because of the Siege of Kyiv (1240), but arguments can be made it already ceased to function as a state long before that, or continued to exist e.g. in the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia until the 14th century. For infobox purposes, I think it's fine if we made it something more vague and approximate like c. 9th–13th century, like the opening sentence does. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

State vs loose federation

Currently the first sentence states that Kievan Rus' was a state in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. Previously this used to say loose federation. However I think it might be a bit misleading to call it a "state" all the way up to 1240 (or at the beginning). Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia which is used as a reference here says loose federation. So I think it should be worded slightly differently. Mellk (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the word federation, its dictionary definition is "a group of organizations, countries, regions, etc. that have joined together to form a larger organization or government" [3] which is not quite how Kievan Rus appeared.

Also, I think that a state can be a loose confederation - we even have a term "failed state." Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the word state is used by historians, e.g., Riasanovsky has a chapter on "the establishment of the Kievan state." Alaexis_¿question? 20:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it should be simply replaced with "loose federation", that would also be misleading, but it probably needs a bit more context. In the 12th century it basically disintegrated. Maybe something along the lines of "was a state and later a [something] of [principalities?]". Maybe a look at some sources to find a wording. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion from Martin 2009b, p. 5: Over the two centuries following Vladimir's death (1015), Kievan Rus became an amalgam of principalities, whose number increased as the dynasty itself grew. An 'an amalgam of principalities' seems accurate. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! Alaexis_¿question? 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I should nuance this a bit, and point out that this is the description given by Janet Marit for the post-1015 period. For the early period, she does say "state" (page 1 and 2). In the middle p places she uses "domain", "realm" and "dynasty", indicating that it was a monarchy. E.g.

• "In these early centuries East Slavic tribes and their neighbours coalesced into the Christian state of Kievan Rus." (page 1)
• "The transformation of these tribes into the state of Kievan Rus is shrouded in mystery." (page 2)
• "By that time [962] the realm of the Riurikid clan had expanded substantially." "...forefathers' domain..." (page 3)
• "Over the next generations Vladimir and his successors continued to extend their domain and to create an appraratus to govern it. The political structure they devised for Kievan Rus was based on the concept that its lands were the possession of the dynasty." "...his realm..." (page 4)

She is implying that the state was virtually undivided until 1015, but also indicates that by the 11th century Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereiaslavl had emerged as 'main principalities', and 'Galicia and Volhynia (south-west of Kiev) gained the status of separate principalities in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, respectively.' In fact, she says both Vladimir and his father Sviatoslav "assigned a portion of his realm to each of his principal sons." (page 4) Although she doesn't explain when, how and why Sviatoslav I (r. 943–972) did this exactly, nor which portions these were, she does point out Vladimir already "governed" Novgorod around 972 while his brother Iaropolk was prince of Kiev. (page 4) This leaves us with some important questions: when did these city-based principalities within Kyivan Rus' emerge? Our current Wikipedia articles do not really give dates supported by reliable sources:

• Principality of Kiev states 1132–1471 in the infobox without source, adding Following the death of Mstislav I of Kiev in 1132, the semi-autonomous states were de facto independent and so led to the emergence of the Principality of Kiev as a separate state. without source. When Kyiv emerged as a separate principality from Kyivan Rus' as a whole seems especially difficult to determine, as presumably the Grand Prince of Kyiv was claiming authority over all other territories all the time, and wouldn't want to limit his authority to just Kyiv and environs. But at least according to Martin, there was a Kyiv principality by the 11th century and perhaps even the 10th already.
• Principality of Chernigov states 988–1402 in the infobox without source. These years aren't mentioned anywhere in the text, and they seem entirely original research.
• Principality of Pereyaslavl states 988–1239/1323 in the infobox without source. Martin implies it already existed during Sviatoslav I (r. 943–972).

Martin implies there were 'portions' of the realm during Sviatoslav I (r. 943–972) already, so 988 would be too late, but we don't know whether these portions were/included Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereiaslavl. Novgorod was apparently a 'portion' around 972, but not in the 11th century, at least not with the status of principality: "After 1097 each of these principalities (with the exceptions of Novgorod and Kiev) was identified with its own branch of the dynasty." (page 5). The Principality of Pereyaslavl article states (with a source!): "The Primary Chronicle dates the foundation of the city of Pereyaslavl' to 992; the archaeological evidence suggests it was founded not long after this date." That would mean the 988 foundation date is too early; you can't really have a Principality of Pereyaslavl when there is no city of Pereyaslavl yet!

Long story short: I think the best description of Kievan Rus' in the opening sentence would be:

Kievan Rus', also known as Kyivan Rus' (Old East Slavic / Old Norse names), was a state and later an amalgam of principalities in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. It seems to have begun as a unified state, a unitary monarchy, but then feudalised (rather than "federalised", which is a modern concept) into several appanages that became autonomous and independent when central authority/sovereignty weakened. This is what we have seen in countless other historical polities such as the Holy Roman Empire, but also the Chinese Empire under the Zhou dynasty (Warring States period), and in the Kingdom of France several times over (most notably the Duchy of Burgundy that went from a royal Valois appanage to becoming an independent Burgundian State). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not a bad first sentence. I agree with avoiding "federation". Srnec (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Also I think the second sentence (Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse, and Finnic...) could be reworded slightly to mention the Slavicization and assimilation of those peoples into the East Slavic tribes. Mellk (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on the point of the state. In many ways, Kyivan Rus' reminds me of the Holy Roman Empire: a loose federation/conglomeration of principalities that only functions as a "state" when there is a ruler whose sovereignty is generally recognised by lower rulers. Whenever this is not the case, they are at war with each other over who is the emperor / (grand) prince, or at least the lower rulers just rule as if they are sovereign and ignore the guy/lady at the top. Then the idea of a unified state is just fiction. One ruler after another claims to be the Grand Duke/Prince/King/Emperor/Tsar etc. "of all Rus'", but they only rule a tiny fraction of it which they manage to militarily control.

About the demographics I'm less certain. There evidently was a Slavicisation going on in the first few centuries as shown by how the Norse Varangians gradually changed their names, language, customs etc, but whether all inhabitants were at some point assimilated seems highly doubtful. E.g. we know that in the High Middle Ages, many Jews migrated into the area, probably also Germans, Hungarians, Lithuanians etc. for various reasons (trade, work, fleeing from war/famine etc.). And of course lots of Tatars and Mongols settled in the area in the 13th century; although never becoming a majority, they were significant for more than a century. And Cumans also passed through at some point. But I haven't read enough about it to say anything for certain. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: I would just like to say that I appreciate cooperating with you. We had some points of disagreement, but I think we agree a lot on how this article should be improved. There is a lot to fix, years of neglect and bad sourcing/referencing. Lots of people seem more interested in what the word "Rus'" does and doesn't mean than the actual history of this area, and inserting long URLs to the same work on Google Books. ;) I'm hoping to clear a lot of clutter up through standardisation of referencing. Meanwhile I see you cleaning up some anachronisms and duplications, adding refs to unsourced claims. I just hope we don't have too many edit conflicts while simultaneously making improvements haha. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it would be good to try to get this article to GA status. Mellk (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hah, well, if we wanna reach GA status there is a whole lot more work to do! According to two of the involved WikiProjects it's currently even a C instead a B. There is just so much material to go through, a lot of broken links that we cannot verify anymore, many bad sources or bad cites. (How wrong the population estimates for Kyiv, Novgorod and Chernihiv in 1200 were, for example; how can one say "Kiev had 50,000 and Chernigov 30,000" when the source says Chernihiv probably had more than Kyiv?). In many cases we have contradictory editions of books, and so an earlier or later edition of the same book won't have the information on the same pages. In some cases I just have to hope I didn't ruin anything, in others I'm pretty sure I restored it correctly. Anyway, we'll see. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess it can be worded in such a way to show that it was a gradual process. Of course there were Norse influences too. Mellk (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

We can probably add "which underwent gradual and partial Slavicisation," though I'm not sure it has to be in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 20:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Britannica

Per WP:BRITANNICA, I am in favour of removing any reference to Britannica entries, especially if a more reliable source already supports the same statement. Either the contents of Britannica are constantly changing, or whoever keeps quoting Britannica keeps getting it wrong! Every Britannica reference consistently WP:FAILs verification. It appears to be a completely useless source.

Example:

• Wikipedia: Vladimir had been prince of Novgorod when his father Sviatoslav I died in 972. He was forced to flee to Scandinavia in 976 after his half-brother Yaropolk had murdered his other brother Oleg and taken control of Rus. In Scandinavia, with the help of his relative Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway, Vladimir assembled a Viking army and reconquered Novgorod and Kiev from Yaropolk. "Vladimir I (grand prince of Kiev) – Encyclopædia Britannica". Britannica.com. 28 March 2014. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
• Britannica: He was made prince of Novgorod in 970. On the death of his father in 972, he was forced to flee to Scandinavia, where he enlisted help from an uncle and overcame Yaropolk, another son of Svyatoslav, who attempted to seize the duchy of Novgorod as well as Kyiv. By 980 Vladimir had consolidated the Kievan realm from Ukraine to the Baltic Sea (...)

Britannica doesn't say a lot of the things that the Wikipedia article claims it does. There is no 'fleeing in 976', no half-brother', no 'murdered his other brother Oleg', no 'Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway', etc. Britannica even claims Yaropolk didn't succeed in seizing Novgorod and Kyiv yet, so 'taken control of Rus' and 'reconquered Novgorod and Kiev from Yaropolk' cannot be based on Britannica. This doesn't necessarily mean Britannica is wrong, it just means you can't use it to support these claims.

Or not anymore. In the opening sentence of this Wikipedia article it says that Kyivan Rus' was 'a state in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century'. Britannica just doesn't say that it 'was a state in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century'. It says lots of other related things, but not that; e.g. there is no mention of 'Northern Europe' and it is ambiguous about whether the state ended in the 13th or 14th century. Maybe it used to say that, but not anymore?

Finally, unlike Wikipedia and the RS that it is supported by, Britannica doesn't cite its sources, so there is no way for us to verify what it says, and it could always change. Britannica is not what it once was, especially not the online version. It may be written by educated people, but I regard it as educated WP:USERGENERATED content. A good article deserves better than relying on a second-rate site as Britannica. It just gets in the way of what we as Wikipedians are trying to achieve. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

In popular culture section

I just remembered a song. "Time to raise a toast to our generous host" <<Jarisleif! Jarisleif!>> "Ruler of the Rus' from coast to coast" <<Jarisleif! Jarisleif!>> - Turisas, The Varangian Way (2007). And another one: "Holmgard, and beyond!" I think we could add an 'In popular culture' section for this kind of stuff, right? These are modern cultural references to Kyivan Rus' that are widely known to a certain part of the public, although not many people may have made the connection between that band and this historic state. I'm sure you can think of many other examples worth adding to such a section. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I added the section. Other additions to it are welcome. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Muromian-map.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)