Talk:Kievan Rus'

Novohorod was never the capital, and certainly not the original one.

Even in the following article, the year 879 is not listed as a year of significance for Kyivan Ruthenia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle

Additionally, just because Rurik may have arrived in Novohorod, that does not constitute founding a state. There were no East Slavs at the time and no nation was proclaimed there and then.

By contrast, Prince Oleh himself declare Kyiv the capital of Kyivan Ruthenia and proclaimed it "The mother of all Rus' cities", thus declaring the nation as founded and centered in Kyiv, something demonstrated in the article.

The 879 reference is nothing more than Russian propaganda attempting to slight Ukraine's history once again, and to keep the claim, which has no legitimate reference backing it up, is nothing but POV Synth at best and POV pushing at worst, both of which violate Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:101:2F90:C47D:6B35:2C1C:2364 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No reliable sources were provided for such changes.Jingiby (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Belittling the huge importance of Novgorod in the formation of Russian statehood is a typical Ukrainian propaganda--5.167.160.73 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

History

I returned my version of editing, as I refer to more convincing sources, and the actions of the participant Laszlo Panaflex are not clear to me. Noraskulk (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

This editor has changed and removed sourced content without explanation; changed NPOV language because he does not agree with it; added weasel words “most scholars” without a source reflecting that most scholars agree; states an “undeniable fact” that is not in the cited source (because he changed the cited content); and added sources from the 1800s with links to Russian language sites that do not appear to be the sources cited. This was a well researched section with language that has been stable for years now, and he is changing the POV without discussion. I do not have time to deal with this these days, but if no one else cares, I will just move on. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Explain why this nationalistic opinion is important: Considering the linguistic arguments mounted by nationalist scholars, if the proto-Rus' were Scandinavians, they must have quickly become nativized, adopting Slavic languages and other cultural practices.? Noraskulk (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

The passage discusses why there are few Scandinavian words in the Russian language. Please review the cited source ([1]) and the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have provided you with relevant sources, as you requested; please review them if you have time. I hope we can find a compromise. Noraskulk (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Hello, Wikipedians. It is quite strange to see the coat of arms of Kievan Rus', because Rus' had no coat of arms. What is depicted with the inscription "coat of arms" is actually the coin of Vladimir the Great. And the trident depicted on this coin is also not the coat of arms of Kievan Rus in any way, it was the personal sign of Vladimir the Great, his unique sign. The motives for this kind of misinformation are clear - to draw a reader's attention on apperent similarity of the "coats of arms" of Kievan Rus and Ukraine, although, at first, as I said, Vladimir the Great's personal sign was not the coat of arms of Kievan Rus in no way, Rus did not have it at all, and secondly, what is the most funny, the coat of arms of Ukraine was created in 1917 by Mykhailo Hrushevsky on the basis of Vladimir the Great's personal sign. Therefore, without being able to edit this article, I would like to ask the conscientious moderators to remove this pro-Ukrainian misinformation and to keep the article away from pseudo-historical fiction, thank you for your attention.--5.167.160.73 (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this entire paragraph is biased.

In the "Name" section:

"The terms Ancient Ukraine and Ancient Russia are not politically correct, as they are infringing to the Belarusian people while supposedly increasing the hierarchical status of one of the two modern states involved in a conflict since 2014, respectively. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian version of history was based on History of Ukraine-Rus', with its perception of Galicia–Volhynia Rus' as the main successor of Kievan Rus' after its collapse, instead of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' (with Moscow), left from the previous Imperial and Soviet versions, along with the all-Russian irredentist ideology."

I feel that it states opinions as facts and using weasel words. I think it needs a more neutral point of view. While I'm not versed in this history, I thinkg it could be something like this:

"There is controversy about the use of the terms Ancient Ukraine and Ancient Russia to refer to Kievan Rus'. In Ukraine, the sucessor state of Kievan Rus' is considered the Glaicia-Volhynia Rus', an antecessor state of Ukraine, while in Russia the sucessor state is considered to be the Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', and antecessor state of Russia. a petition to rename Ukraine as Kievan Rus' in 2016 was stated to be an assertion to Ukraine's historical independence, while the relationship with Russia has been used to back all-Russian irrendentist claims.

Any opinions?

. Not A Superhero (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be better to remove the paragraph altogether. The fact is that almost everything about Kievan Rus' (even having "Kiev" in the name) is considered highly political in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. So, in spite of the fact that this is the English-language Wikipedia, this article is subject to constant edit wars by people whose native languages are Russian and Ukrainian, including frequent attempts by pro-Ukraine editors to change all instances of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". The statements in the paragraph in question are of little interest to anyone not emotionally involved in the nationality issues currently playing out in the former Soviet Union. Perhaps the best way to maintain NPOV would be to avoid the issue altogether. Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyiv Respelling

Is there consensus that the moving to Kyiv of the city formerly known on WP as Kiev has an effect on this article's title? I've already seen people piping "Kyivan Rus'" here from Ukraine-related pages and it seems only a matter of time before the first move request comes through.

I'd personally say that Kievan/Kyivan on this article is a separate issue from the spelling of the city and should remain at Kievan Rus' unless reliable sources prefer Kyivan, but that's just my opinion.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus. But the driveby editors coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia do not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I supported the name change, but never thought it would be used to change articles such as this.   // Timothy :: talk  19:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you must be new to Wikipedia. Welcome. This is what happens here. Walrasiad (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The word Kyivan, an adjective and noun derived from Kyiv, is part of the name Kyivan Rus, however you choose to spell them. While updating, I’ve chosen to avoid getting too far into articles about medieval Kyivan Rus, hoping that this would eventually become obvious to everyone. But I’ve already encountered articles that refer to Kyiv, the Kyivans, the Kyivan church, and Kyivan Rus (e.g. history of Kyiv), so the question is not going to wait too long for us to starting arguing about it. (Some of you may be old enough to remember the huge wiki-war about moving “Lemberg” to “Lvov.”) —Michael Z. 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's funny how referring to usage like Kievan Rus' is dismissed in the move request as irrelevant to the question, but turn around and the move is taken as a reason to change the title to Kyivan Rus' regardless of the common name. The goal has always been the total suppression of "Kiev". Srnec (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dismissed by whom? Goal of whom? You trying to start a conspiracy theory, or are you accusing someone specific of some specific malign act?

It seems self-evident to me that when one decides to use Kyiv then the obvious derived adjective is Kyivan, and one would then use the names that include those adjectives. We don’t expect to keep calling the people of Myanmar Burman, and mix up different spellings in one article. —Michael Z. 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to this comment by Levivich: Also, I disagree that your ngram is a "better way", because, for example, searching for "of Kiev" or "in Kiev" will pick up all the various things called "Battle of Kiev", "Siege of Kiev", "Kiev Offensive". In other words, usage with regards to, e.g., battles is irrelevant to the question of the title of the city's article. Yet somehow the title of that article is relevant to the name of historical battles. As for the goal of suppressing "Kiev", it is apparent from the spate of follow up moves that have no basis in sources whatsoever. All that talk about COMMONNAME and now this? Maybe it wasn't all about policy after all. (Of course it wasn't. Neither side cares deeply about interpreting wiki rules. And that includes me. It's not a conspiracy, just normal human behaviour. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law.) Srnec (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Srnec, there is some truth to your statement above. Although when you said When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law, I think it is actually even more than that: majority of enwiki editors have conscious or unconscious biases, including me, (that result in WP:Systematic bias) and those systemic biases direct their editing actions here on enwiki. This resulted in pro-Kiev editors supporting "Kiev" spelling because they wanted/desired that spelling to continue being used (and over the course of 10+ years to support that desire to continue using "Kiev" they used whatever means where necessary: when reliable sources supported "Kiev" - they used those, when reliable sources switched to "Kyiv" in 2019 - they switched to using Google Ngram/Trends/Searches). I will leave you with this, though: we should at least try to overcome our systemic biases and look at the evidence as objectively and impartially, as we possibly can; in this case, if we look at the spelling of Kyivan Rus' objectively, you will see that it is a derivative from Kyiv, and and as such it should be spelled Kyivan Rus'--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not what seems evident to you that matters. COMMONNAME and recognizability to our readers does. Here's an ngram for fun. No chicken to distract. Walrasiad (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Yes, Mzajac, I suppose that’s why we refer to the “Myanmar Campaign” and “Myanmar Railway” as well as the “Treaty of Bratislava” here on Wikipedia. “Burma “ is after all just an adjectival use of the noun Burma which is now Myanmar and in Slovakia they find Pressburg to be a vestige of Austrian colonialism, so obviously what English language sources call these things is irrelevant. </sarcasm>—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Ermenrich, not a perfect example. But it is “Kievan” that is seen as a vestige of Russian colonialism to Kyivans in Kyiv. Ironic that the principle is being used to support its continuation while our language is changing, no? —Michael Z. 13:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The feelings of modern day Ukrainians are irrelevant to how a polity is called that existed nearly a thousand years ago and is equally claimed by Russians and Belarusians (and didn't speak modern Ukrainian anyway!). Ngram shows that "Kievan Rus'" is by far the preferred spelling in English.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You brought up feelings. Feelings don’t affect our guidelines, but they do influence our choice when the guidelines’ result is not cut-and-dried, and they offer us the opportunity to interpret them. Feelings, if you want to call it that, are also recognized as significant by WP:BIAS.

Academic and popular literature use both Kyivan Rus and Kievan Rus. Wikipedia’s default choice, after a long delay, is now Kyiv, accompanied self-evidently by its derivative adjective and common noun Kyivan. There are more Russians and Russianists in the English-language world and Wikipedia than there are Ukrainians and Ukrainianists, and this fact along with the momentum of educational systems that are still shedding imperial legacies, is responsible for a WP:systemic bias against our natural choice according to current English. The entity Kyivan Rus was neither Russian nor Ukrainian, so we would and should use the normal term in its name, except for a bias that favours the nineteenth-century Russianism. —Michael Z. 15:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If a majority of sources refer to an entity a certain way, then that is how we are to refer to it. There is no Wiki-policy that says that we disregard this when someone alleges "systemic bias" of our sources, which is an inherently subjective notion anyway. The only reason for insisting on such a change is nationalism, which is its own form of "systemic bias". No Ukrainian is oppressed by reading about Kievan Rus', which is the more common form of the name in English. If they want to read about Kyivan Rus', they're welcome to do that at another website or in their own language.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)