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

Archives

Talk:Kiev Expedition (1018)/Archive01

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 ([[1]), - 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)

Extended hold

I extend the hold of the nomination. The article is unstable. I am half-way through a significant expansion and I need to finish it. That my efforts are being obstructed by baseless reverts is only making this more difficult. --Irpen 03:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I spoke to Piotrus privately about this - but I didn't say it here. I'm going to either re-review this later today or tomorrow, and if it is not stable by the time I do review this then it will be failed - as an article being stable is a requirement.--danielfolsom 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Piotrus continues to resort to private conversations about the content of the article's we disagree on behind my back instead of conducting conversations on the talk page. But the past events prepared me to not get surprised by anything coming from that user.

Anyway, I am not sure I will have time to do another expansion before the time you choose to review it. If you "review" it before I get to it, no big deal. I will develop it further later. Regards, --Irpen 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fail

Ok - I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to fail this article for two reasons:

1. I'm not convinced it's stable
2. I read the new introduction - and I immediately saw a case of strange grammar and possible POV ("in the retrospect").

I think some minor clean up could easily get this article to good article status - and I encourage everyone to re-submit it when its ready. Good luck, --danielfolsom 00:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I renominated the article, it seems stable (no edits in over a week).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The article is full of inaccuracies because it was written through google-books and trying to reconcile different contradictory quotes together instead of reading at least a single book on the Rus' and develop the article from there. My every attempt to improve it triggers a spree of reverts from you. The article is in a pity state, not anything close to a GA. --Irpen 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What Google Books? I don't see a single cited in references. The article was written with modern references, and destabilized only because you attempted to push outdated Russian Imperial/Soviet scholarship views, offending editors who disagreed with you (Balcer was so disgusted with your behavior that he seemingly left the project after this discussion). Please don't attempt to destabilize the article again.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also miss Balcer, but it was he who started invoking ethnic stereotypes accusing other editors in xenophobic views repeatedly. I hope he will not do it when he is back. As long as your POVed versions of history are on the backburner, I try to stay away, because I try to not edit articles you create. But I can't (and won't) tolerate your pushing them to the mainpage through FAC, DYK or trying to give them prominence through GAC. This article is in pity shape and needs much improvement. Inline refs and formatting is not all that it takes to create good articles. Adequate coverage of the topic matters. --Irpen 21:02, 23 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[2]). 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)

The old sources can be pretty useful.

The town of Volyn is mentioned in the 14th century chronicler's "List of all Ruthenian cities, the further and the near ones" (originally «А се имена градомъ всЂмъ Русскымъ, далнимъ и ближнимъ»). This list was copied in several chronicles, for instance in the Voskresensky Chronicle. Among the Volhynian towns ("А се грады Волынскіе") we find:

"Лвовъ Великій, Волынь, на Бугу Володимеръ

that is

"Lvov the Great, Volyn, on [Western] Bug] Volodimer [Volodymyr-Volynsky].

The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary elaborates on it in the eponymous article [Волынь или Велынь]. The article says that this was a medieval town that gave its name to the Volhynian land and that the town does not exist at present. The B&E states that scientist point to its two possible locations, one is close to Grudek [currently Gródek nad Bugiem] in what was at the time of publication the Lublin Governorate. The other possibility is the location of the cofluence of Huczwa and Western Bug. The "anti-Polish" encyclopedia somehow mentions that Boleslav the Brave defeated Yaroslav by this town at 1018 and that the chronicles are silent about the town ever since the time of Mstislav Izyaslavovich in the second half of the 12th century.

I will start the Volyn (town) article. --Irpen 03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Either a new article, or a note would certainly be useful.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Uprising?

It seems that some editors want to insert a claim about Kievan Uprising against pillaging Polish troops ([3]). 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 ([4] - 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.[5] 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)

Ukraine "evolved as a state" no earlier than Russia. I suggested that you read at least one book on the subject before providing your opinions on the matter. Kievan Rus' was not Ukraine. It was not Russia either. It was a predecessor of both. If you are not big on reading books, read the first three sentences in the Kievan Rus article of Columbia Encyclopedia. --Irpen 03:59, 8 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)

Metadiscussion 2a

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)

Some sources need to be impeached. People using sources which are in various ways invalid is a constant problem on Wikipedia. I am glad I am doing my part to correct that problem, as far as I am able. You have also challenged sources in their entirety in the past, and I do not question your right to do so. Surely we can both agree that some sources are so fundamentally flawed that they simply should not be used, even if some facts they contain are correct.

You think that the only place one can find institutional bias in B&E is in its article on Jews? Admittedly, that is a likely place and the first one I looked at, but let me assure you, that kind of thinking can be found in many of its articles, to a greater or lesser degree. And please spare me the "institutional bias" justification. Yes, it might have been excusable at the time, but using a source with such bias today is simply unacceptable. The entry on Jew is quite simply antisemitic, and that is the only way that text can be read today. We should not consider a source reliable today if it contains that and other similar text. Quite frankly, given the opposition to racism you have manifested in the past, I am somewhat surprised that this text has not elicited more outrage and dismay from you, and that you are happy to dismiss it as harmless. Really, were there no antisemites in the 19th century, just good honest men who were unfortunate to suffer from an institutional bias? This is much too charitable a view of the matter, I'm afraid.

As for the parallel I suggested, all it means is this: an imperial power is unlikely to produce objective scholarship about the lands it controls, especially if it considers them part of the homeland (just think of France and Algeria, that "integral" part of France that before 1960 no Frenchman contemplated ever giving up).

You are right in one thing: further discussion of this issue here is probably pointless, and indeed the matter should be taken up on a more general page. This is indeed what I plan to do at some point. I am glad this discussion occured, as it gives me some idea what justifications are likely to be used by proponents of using 19th century sources. As I outlined above, given the pecularities of current copyright laws and the danger that 19th century public domain sources may enter into general use on Wikipedia and have their POV take over, this could indeed become a general problem.

Anyway, as far as this article is concerned, I will make a special effort to replace every single fact referenced by 19th century sources by referencing with modern works. This should resolve the problem. I trust that you will not object. Balcer 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I did challenge the sources in the past. And my doing so was opposed by you and your friends. It is OK to disagree on sources. For instance, are the works produced by an institution created as a prosecutional authority of the "communist crimes" academically reliable? I think it was a legitimate question. Are works on remote history published in non academic dziennik or tygodnik acceptable? Are unsigned historic essays on the web-sites of the institute of biotech acceptable? These are normal issues to discuss. Is the particular 19th century source reliable? Is Meltyukhov's book reliable? These are also OK to discuss. What is unacceptable and dishonest is the wholesale brushing aside of the referenced info through disingenuous argument aimed at the character assassination of the the authors, wikipedians or academic, without any doubt, scholars, based on facetious arguments that your colleagues who edit WP with you for years hold xenophobic views or the academics that worked in this or that country or that many years ago or that some other author who published a totally unrelated article in the 86-volume collection published crap.

Your horrific slurrish attack on my character where your expressed "surprise" hints that I hold the xenophobic views on my own does not even warrant a response, especially since making such attacks have become your trademark (I count 5 of the top of my head.) Those attacks are especially unworthy from the editor who allowed the filthy Zydokomuna theories to stay for about a year in the article on his watchlist until I found and removed them.

• "Jewish complicity in crimes against Poles during and immediately following the war?"[6]
• "many Polish Jews supported Communism which further polarized them as a group?"[7]

It is also noteworthy that for some of this stuff was "restored" by our respected colleague [8] who then waged a revert war [9] when I attempted to remove these "theories" referenced to the source that contradicted that nutty claim. [10] Should I combine these seemingly random occurrences with this referenced data about my colleagues background and start propagating claims about their "tolerance"? Whatever I thought of these coincidences I kept them to myself while you repeatedly resort to such dirty accusations.

"[T]hat kind of thinking can be found in many of its articles, to a greater or lesser degree" is a horribly vague and inadmissible statement. Yes, this kind of thinking can be likely found in the Judaism and Zionism article. None of it can be found in the articles devoted to the Kievan princes since those were based on chronicler's accounts and nothing else. The collective of the encyclopedia authors is readily available and it was comprised form established and accomplished academics in all fields, including the Slavic history. True, historic thought developed since then and the critiques of the chronicles have pointed out their inconsistencies as well as the historian's biases. I pointed those out in this article I wrote because on the issues where such inconsistencies are found, we must mention them but there is nothing flawed in the issues that remain non-disputed. You dispute something, you find the basis in sources, not on the basis of attacking the source you happen to not like.

I will welcome your effort to complement the references to undisputed facts by adding modern sources. In fact, I am doing an exactly the same thing. --Irpen 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for anything in my remarks that might have offended you. You yourself have expressed surprise on this very page at my actions recently [11], hence I thought you considered this form of expression inoffensive. I will take note and avoid using that tone with you in the future.

To finally wrap this up, let me explain the philosophy behind my objections. I am not sure if you agree, but I think that, on the whole, humanity makes progress, and that our scholarship, understanding of the world, even values and morality are better than they were 100 years ago. Looked at in this way, using 100 years old sources (except when completely unavoidable) is fundamentally regressive. It amounts to walking backwards in this, the most modern of encyclopedias, that should contain the most up to date, even cutting edge knowledge in every field. Using a 100 year source implies that we have made no progress, that in 4 generations filled with momentous events and breathtaking technological change, we have learned nothing and understood nothing. That to me is simply absurd.Balcer 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer in the above link you brought up my "surprise" was about your action seemingly amounting to an act of academic dishonesty. Unpleasant and unflattering, this is a whole different ballpark than subtle accusation of xenophobia that we are discussing here

I agree that the society is making progress. I support modern sources. I support adding them to the article, as many as reasonably possible. If the modern source shows the old source false, the modern source takes priority. What I object to is wholesale removal of referenced information when none of the contradictory info is presented. If modern sources support the info. Add them by all means. If they show they contradict the info, this is certainly important. If you happen to not believe the info or merely think that if it were true than you would know it but fail to produce the source of any sort, you can't just remove it by invoking too general arguments about the time and the origin country. Sources have to be looked at individually. Facts have to be analyzed individually as well. --Irpen 00:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, do you have some way to access the content of my watchlist? Is that somehow possible within Wiki software? For your information, I regularly clean out my watchlist completely by deleting all its entries, to give myself a fresh start. Furthermore, unlike you, I do not appoint myself guardian of particular articles, to watch over them like a hawk. But why am I even responding to this, your accusations are so far below the belt as to be almost silly. Still they serve a useful purpose to make clear to me that any further discussion with you is positively harmful. You will not hear from me again for a while. Balcer 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Balcer, you repeatedly used the ambiguous language in discussing the xenophobia in general and your colleagues in particular. These were offensive and should be avoided by all of us. I even tried to convince the ArbCom to address this problem in general. --Irpen 01:00, 8 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 ([12]) 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)

Please stay within the scope of the sources

Gentlemen, I am traveling this week and cannot edit much. So, I cannot do much article improvement, less go over a recent extensive edit. But, colleagues, please do not deflect the article from what the sources actually say! I see that as a result of the new series of edits, the article now says something that Turov was given to Sviatopolk in "Vladimir's will". The sources say nothing of that sort. In fact, they suggest that it was given to him as an appanage and even that is not stated explicitly but can be considered implied. I said above that the article's main problem is with being rather wrong on the material itself, not even its representation. Please do not sway it even further away. --Irpen 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my fault. I was trying to make it more clear in my copyediting. I'll revert it. JKBrooks85 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting is fine; we just need to pay attention to refs. I am we will incorporate much of your reverted copyediting.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I've placed the article on hold so that the following issues can be addressed:

• I'm not sure about the copyright status of the map used in the infobox. I can't understand Polish but it seems it has been scanned from a book called "Illustrated Historical Atlas of Poland". If that's the case, its GNU license is not enough, as it would need permission from the publisher or the original author to be posted at Commons.
• Why are epithets written in parenthesis and in italics? Normal practice is to have them in regular case and without parenthesis. For instance, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionheart, Charles the Fat, etc.
• In the "Lead" section:

• The first sentences needs to mention that the brothers were fighting for the title of Duke of Kiev. Without this, one might think they were competing to be kings.

• In the "Background":

• Per WP:MOS#Images, text should not be sandwiched between pics. This is a problem in this section but can be easily fixed by moving images to sections further down.
• Reinbern of Calabria is spelled as Reinbern and as Reinberg, which one is correct?
• Its is mentioned that The motives of Boleslaw and Reinberg were complicated, on further reading their motives don't seem to be complicated. This sentence is superfluous IMHO.
• The first paragraph of the "Death of Vladimir" subsection runs into the previous two paragraphs as all of them deal with how Sviatopolk felt unjustly treated by his father and decided to plot against him. That needs to be fixed.
• Also, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to have a "Death of Vladimir" subsection under "Background", it would be better to get rid of that subdivision and merge its text into the rest of the section.

• In "The Expedition" section:

• It would be nice to mention where Nestor the Chronicler and Gallus got their info from.
• In the second paragraph it is not clear whether Pechenegs were part of Boleslaw's army or a separate army allied to Boleslaw.
• There's a citation needed tag in the "Fall of Kiev" subsection
• Sviatopolk is spelled Svyatopolk, the name should be standarized throughout the article.

• In the "Aftermath" section:

• It would be good to mention how did Sviatopolk lost his throne.

• In the "References" section:

• All books are correctly tagged with language templates, except for the last one which seems to be Ukrainian. It should be tagged accordingly.

• Finally, as a general suggestion, the article could use some thorough copyediting to improve its prose. Enlisting help from the League of Copyeditors or some other user uninvolved with the article could be a way to get this done.

Drop me a note for any comments or questions and when you're done with all these issues. Good luck, --Victor12 21:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Replies:

• map: the Polish description states it is "own work (of editor Poznaniak) based on "Ilustrowany Atlas Historii Polski" and additional publications
• epithets - addressed
• competed for the title of Grand Prince (seems more correct than Duke) of Kiev - added
• pics shifted
• Reinbern, Sviatopolk standarized
• complicated motives... sentence removed
• rewritten to remove duplicate info in early paras, but I think the 'death...' subsection - added by the last GA reviewer - can stay
• my sources did not say anything on where Nestor the Chronicler and Gallus got their info unfortunately
• Pechenegs - this was not clear in my sources, neither
• citation needed for: "The Russian Primary Chronicle asserts that Boleslaw did not leave Kiev and expressed no plans to do so" - this claim was not added by me. I'd suggest moving this to talk until somebody wants to reference it.
• how Sviatopolk lost his throne - indeed, but at the moment I don't have references for that; interested readers can always go to our (unreferenced...) article on Sviatopolk I of Kiev
• as I don't speak Russian nor Ukranian I am afraid I cannot verify the language myself

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work so far. I've stroked all resolved issues. Still, the following need to be addresed:

• The map might be a problem depending on how it was made. It seems to me that "based on" means that he scanned the map from the Atlas and then modified it. If that's the case, it would be a derivative work and as such unsuitable for use, check Commons:Licensing#Derivative works.
• The role of the Pechenegs needs to be clarified. The article states that there were 100 Pechenegs on Boleslaw's army and then that Pechenegs besieged Kiev. As 100 men seems a pretty low number to lay siege on a city we might conclude that there was a main Pecheneg army separated from that of Boleslaw's. That should be made clear in the article.
• I've checked the references again and it appears that not all books mentioned in the References section are used for inline citations, including the one by Mykhailo Hrushevsky. All such books not directly supporting the article should be removed. Also, inline citations need to be standardized, currently, reference number 14 has a different format than the rest.

That's it for now, --Victor12 02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the map, I think we should assume good faith; the editor who created it states its his own work and he released it under open license. We can of course inquire further, but as far as I am concerned, it is a map which cites sources - and as such much better than a map which doesn't. As for Pechengs, I simply cannot find anything clear in my sources. Yes, it is likely there was another army. But I cannot find a clear citation for it, I am afraid. I will move the excess books to 'further reading' section. I am afraid I cannot help with citation 14, it's not in a language I can decipher.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably make an inquiry about the map at commons and see what happens. As for this GA nomination it definitely needs two things to pass, first it needs to deal with the citation needed tag in the "Fall of Kiev" section. The second thing needed is formatting for footnote # 14. If you can't understand the language please ask for help from some other editor. There should be several wikipedians interested in this article that speak Russian. With their help you can also solve the mystery of the "Istoria Ukrainy-Rusi" book, that is whether it's written in Ukranian or Russian. --Victor12 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unreferenced claim ("The Russian Primary Chronicle asserts that Boleslaw did not leave Kiev and expressed no plans to do so"); I will see if anybody can help with that ref.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Halibutt has kindly translated the ref into English; I have formatted it accordingly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work! I've now promoted the article to GA. I hope you keep working on this article for a future FA nomination. As a suggestion it would be useful to thoroughly copyedit the article to improve its prose. The League of Copyeditors might be of help in this regard. Congratulations again and good luck. --Victor12 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral / non-reliable sources given

Kostomarov

The aricle uses Nikolay Kostomarov who was a an nationalist ideologist belonging to an antipolish ideology movement-untill more neutral sources in an article about Polish history are used the tag about non-neutrality needs to remain. --Molobo 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a sample of Kosto's writings :

National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine - Page 311 by Ilya Prizel - Political Science - 1998 - 464 pages Kostomarov agreed that Slavs and Slavs alone truly embraced the spirit of Christ. Poland's Christian values however, had degenerated as Poland developed into a brutal aristocratic state enserfing its people and the Ukrainians(...) only Ukraine retained the true Slavic-Christian egalitarianism(...). It was Ukraine's mission to reawaken the true Slavic spirit etc.

Basically he was a nationalist ideologician belonging to an movement whose core idea was hatred towards Polish people.--Molobo 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting; but is his work used to advocate any controversial point? I am certainly not a fan of using old (19th century) sources, but if they just state the same thing (dates, for examples) as modern ones would, and are in PD and online due to their age, there is no harm using them. Of course, due care should be taken to avoid their obsolete POVs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Zhylenko

The above point about Kostomarov is interesting. I also wonder whether Iryna Zhylenko - Ukrainian poet - classifies as reliable writer with regards to controversial historical statements; she is used as a source for the claim that Saint Moses the Hungarian was emasculated - but per Talk:Moses the Hungarian, this is not supported by other works.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert war over the fact mentioned by dozen hagiographies [13] looks more than strange I must say. M0RD00R 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your link is it gives me only some strange signs, nothing that I could read or decipher. Please correct it.--Molobo 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange signs have a name. It's called Cyrillic. M0RD00R 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Random websites, whether in Cyrillic, Latin or hieroglyphs, are not considered reliable sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my computer doesn't reckonize it then and gives only strange signs. Is it Russian, Bulgarian or Ukrainan, Belarusian ? Anyway could you give sources in alphabet not isolated to a a couple of Eastern countries ? Not many people understand it outside them, and if its Russian then most Polish editors here from what I understand where born when soviet occupation started to end and we no longer were forced to learn our overlords so to speak language. Thank you in advance and best regards--Molobo 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am not even sure that it is a very same Zhylenko. The source: "Патерик Києво-Печерський", organized, adapted into Ukrainian, and footnoted by Iryna Zhylenko, Kiev, 2001, is merely a modern publication of the medieval patericon. Zhylenko was the editor who organized and footnoted this source rather than have written it. A google search produces several more medieval manuscripts recently published under her editorship.

Also, the lates "GA drive" you carried made the article rather nonsensial overall. It may "pass" by the view of people who have no knowledge of the subject, but it requires several major corrections which I will do. --Irpen 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the source is a medieval primary source? Hardly reliable. Are any modern scholars citing this claim? On Talk:Moses the Hungarian we have noted several modern publications regarding the saint which do not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The source is modern since, if you care to read, the Patericon is not just reprinted but published with footnotes and annotations. The demasculation is discussed in the annotation written in 2001. --Irpen 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on it in the Saint article? And also, could you explain how the fate of one captive is more relevant to this (Kiev expedition) article than the origins of certain library in certain enlightenment article? PS. Could you also translate the title "Патерик Києво-Печерський" into English - machine translation is producing some garbage. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding previous manipulation of facts like those in Warsaw Uprising I would like to see the quote given by a neutral party and translated by a person not involved in the dispute.--Molobo 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, "Патерик Києво-Печерський" translates: "Kiev Pechersk Patericon". You can look up what Kiev Pechersk and what patericon means. The issue is covered in section 30, entitled "About the venerable Moses the Hungarian". Annotations and editor's notes are in the bottom of this page. As for the choise of an article to expand on it, please allow me to decide for myself which articles I edit. --Irpen 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Title - again

Ok, firstly, I couldn't give the smallest monkey about whether this should be called an "invasion" or an "expedition". But this title is another example of the introduction of terminology before historians do. I know you guys get most of your material from non-English sources, but this term is not used in English (outside Wikipedia) as a proper noun. None of the main English texts on medieval Rus'ia use this term, and there is no instance in Google books of this being used in this way. The phrase "Kiev expedition" is used for a number of things (including this), but with a small e and not as a proper noun. The title is another minor violation of WP:NOR. The subject itself is totally valid topic for an encyclopedia, but to avoid violating WP:NOR use a descriptive title such as Expedition of Boleslaw against Kiev, 1018 or something along those lines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain major rewrite in detail

I've reverted this major good faith rewrite by Deacon. It was not an easy decision, but the changes were very substantial, and worryingly included removal of a lot of information. Since over the past years I put many, many hours into writing and expanding the article, I would like to see such a major rewrite justified on talk - by this, in particular, I mean justification for any removal of information (ex. why mention of Pechengs and German mercs was removed from the infobox? Why was size estimate removed? Background no longer mentions Boris and Gleb, why? And so on). PS. The new title seems to long for our guidelines (see WP:NC).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a large number of inaccuracies, historical misunderstandings and misrepresentation of primary sources in the article. These included assertions about Svyatopolk being the eldest son with "legal claim" and the stuff about Boris and Gleb's, to made up army figures (not in the sources) and rambling irrelevant undue speculations. As you will see I have brought scholarly, reliable English-language sources to the article, quotes from the most reliable primary source to make the source-analysis relationship transparent, balanced the narrative, improved the English and improved its accuracy ... for which I'd thought you'd be thanking me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

All information were sourced to reliable publications. I will try to add the names of Polish historians who contributed to Wyprawa... if it is what you want. You are welcome to add other historians POV, but don't remove the existing info and POV. This is why I notified you that I expect you to add info, not to remove existing one and waste hours of my work. PS. I much appreciate your efforts to improve the grammar and such. Please, expand the article, not replace it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Our article cites Wyprawa..., p.6-13. The primary contributor to this publication was Rafał Jaworski, a historian from a Polish university (pl:Uniwersytet Humanistyczno-Przyrodniczy Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach, [14]) and also an editor a popular science history magazine, Mówią Wieki. He seems a reliable source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, "my sources are better than yours" is a poor argument. I agree with Piotr that although you have every right to add more details, the existing details should not have been removed - especially without prior agreement with the former editor. JonCatalán (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than ignoring WP:OWN, can you tell me what you actually object to, Piotrus? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to your removal of reliable referenced information in your rewrite. I ask you to list each fact you removed with detailed explanation why it was removed, or merge the two versions, keeping the old information, instead of replacing the article with your own. Your edit warring - removing even information about Rafał Jaworski - is not helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You object to it ... why? You haven't exactly enlightened me on that ... just lots of tendentious WP:OWN stuff. Cited or no, citations no non-POlish speaker can verify anyways, your version of the article contained many errors, which I removed.

• "His army size is estimated at between 2,000–5,000 warriors, including 100 Pechenegs, 300 German knights, and 500 Hungarian mercenaries." - wrong, 1000 Pechenegs, while the 2000-5000 figure is just made-up
• "Vladimir I dictated that his eldest son, Sviatopolk I, would only receive the remote town of Turov (Turaŭ) after his death, and he chose his younger sons, Boris and Gleb, as successors despite Sviatopolk's primogeniture.Unhappy by his rule being restricted to only a small appanage which he saw as unfit for the prestigious status of the Grand Duke's eldest son, Sviatopolk plotted to overthrow his father. These plans were thwarted by Vladimir, who called all three conspirators to Kiev and jailed them in 1013." - pure nonsense, we have no idea what his inheritance plan was, nor why Svyatopolk or his brothers rebelled.
• "Upon Vladimir's death, Sviatopolk, the eldest son, could lay a strong legal claim for inheriting Kiev despite being highly unpopular with Kievans. Therefore, Vladimir's court attempted to conceal his death from Sviatopolk while his brothers, Boris and Gleb, consolidated power." = likewise nonsense; read what I replaced it with. Ignoring the fact that there's no reason to say Svyatopolk was the eldest son, and that it wouldn't have mattered anyway, tt was Svyatopolk who seized and consolidated power. Gleb was at his seat in Murom, while Boris was on campaign against the nomads.
• "Historians are divided on whether Boleslaw then decided to rule Kievan lands himself or not." - not really. He was only there a few months, had no power base in Rus or connections, was supporting someone else, modern historian wouldn't even debate it. Undue weight here.
• Sviatopolk asked Boleslaw to help him recapture the Kievan throne - really, asked him? (we have records of a conversation?)

I could go on ...but really, as I have improved the article, it would be more helpful if you actually specified what you object, rather than complaining about "your work" being undone (see WP:OWN). 95% of "your work" is still there, and the article is larger. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Your edit-warring is not helpful ... A little disingenouous if I may say so, given you're the one reverting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What you call "made-up", "pure nonsense" is sourced to a reliable scholar (Jaworski). I don't have time to merge the two versions; you want to add your version - you do it. Otherwise the version which passed the GA and MILHIST A article criteria should stay.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea if that scholar says that, and if he does (only have your word on that), that's an unfortunate mistake. It's simply nonsense, and reading the primary sources and consulting decent historical analysis in Martin, Franklin and Shepard, will show that to you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He says that, and his academic credentials trump your personal POV, I am afraid, per WP:NPOV/WP:V. You may think something is nonsense, but that doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia. He is a reliable scholar, and his findings/POV should be included. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, Piotrus. You say ... his academic credentials trump your personal POV, I am afraid, per WP:NPOV/WP:V. You may think something is nonsense, but that doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia' Well, listen, assuming you interpretted him correctly, which is a very big assumption given your known reliability on these things, it is transparently contradicted by the evidence, which makes it un-usable. But to show why it is total nonsense, let look at your text allegedly based on that source:

he chose his younger sons, Boris and Gleb, as successors despite Sviatopolk's primogeniture.

Silly. Sviatopolk position in the son list is completely unknown, and he is even widely accused of being a bastard. What's more Kievan Rus didn't operate on primogeniture. This is an example of some of the crude nonsense in the article. But it's hardly the only one. Let's continue.

Unhappy by his rule being restricted to only a small appanage which he saw as unfit for the prestigious status of the Grand Duke's eldest son, Sviatopolk plotted to overthrow his father.

Builds a narrative based on mistake. Adds details about Sviatopolk's plot which aren't attested in the sources. Etc. Bad history. Let's continue:

These plans were thwarted by Vladimir, who called all three conspirators to Kiev and jailed them in 1013. Sviatopolk counted on the help of his father-in-law Boleslaw, who encouraged Sviatopolk's plans through his daughter. The planned overthrow may have been supported by Bishop Reinbern of Kolberg, who had traveled with Boleslaw's daughter.[6] Reinbern may have acted in the interest of Catholic Rome. While the Great Schism that divided the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches was formalized only half a century later, ideological and political differences between Rome and Constantinople were already firmly in place, causing Rome to make efforts to sway the Rus' towards its influence and away from that of Byzantium.Reinbern died shortly after Sviatopolk was imprisoned.

All Thietmar says is that is that Reinbern went to Rus with the Polish bride, acted as a missionary to pagan peoples while there, and got imprisoned in Sviatopolk's entourage. The speculation, besides showing historical misunderstanding, is irrelevant to the context of the article, and is anachronistic as Rus leaders even for another century encouraged western clerics to come in, there being no schism at that point.

... but Boleslaw, wanting to ensure that his ally, Sviatopolk, took over the Kievan throne, invaded Kiev's lands in 1013 with the goal of freeing Sviatopolk.

"Goal" isn't known, only the invasion. That obviously should be stated. And, for instance, Martin and Franklin and Shepard believe his goal was the Cherven towns. Sviatopolk may not have been imprisoned until 1014, the year after the invasion. Arguably Sviatopolk could have been imprisoned because of his father-in-law's invasion, not the other way around. Some consciousness of this kind of problem in medieval history, piotrus, would stop you putting that kind of thing in. Anyways, let's continue ...

Now this stuff is hard-core nonsense:

Little is known about the event other than the fact that Vladimir released Sviatopolk from imprisonment shortly before his death,[3] and that he may have granted him the town of Vyshgorod, (Vyshhorod) near Kiev. Upon Vladimir's death, Sviatopolk, the eldest son, could lay a strong legal claim for inheriting Kiev despite being highly unpopular with Kievans.[7][4] Therefore, Vladimir's court attempted to conceal his death from Sviatopolk while his brothers, Boris and Gleb, consolidated power. Sviatopolk nevertheless uncovered the plot and seized his father's throne. Vladimir's personal guard (druzhyna) and the Kievan militia chose to align themselves with Boris, Vladimir's favored son, who was preferred by Kievans

Now let's compare with what the most widely academically recommended work on Kievan Rus in the English language, Franklin and Shepard's The Emergence of the Rus (pp. 184-5), says:

... As we have seen, Vladimir's policy was to convert the lands of the Rus into a family firm, to install his sons in key towns. But there are signs that in the latter years of his reign at least some of his sons were less loyal than he might have wished. Around 1013 or 1014 Sviatopolk of Turov is alleged to have plotted against him, and Vladimir had him arrested [185] and held - perhaps in Kiev, perhaps in nearbly Vyshgorod. In 1015 Iaroslav himself refused to send Vladimir the regular dues from his own town of Novgorod. Vladimir prepared to march norther, but fell ill and died before setting out. The circumstances of Sviatopolk's and Iaroslav's quarrels with their father are obscure, but unrelated sources (Thietmar and the chronicle) suggest that dynastic or regional tension predates the death of Vladimir.

The second phase lasted through the summer of 1015, starting on the day Vladimir died, Friday 15 July. The principal actors were Sviatopolk of Turov and three of his brothers: Boris of Rostov, Gleb of Murom and Sviatoslav of the Derevlian land. Sviatopolk's previous arrest turned out to be an advantage, for it ensured that he was already in Kiev (or Vyshgorod), closest to the center of power, and thus able to manoeuvre more quickly and effectively than his brothers. If the native narratives are to be believed, Sviatopolk bribed the local into acquiescence, assuming authority in Kiev, and applied his energies to arranging for the murder of as many of his brothers as he could. His first victim was Boris, whom Vladimir had sent south against the Pechenegs. Returning from the steppes, deserted by his father's men (supposedly for declining to take Kiev on his behalf), Boris camped before the river Alta - in the middle ages a kind of perennial Rubicon on the road to or from the lands of the nomads, now the site of Kiev's international airport, about 40 miles south-east of the city. Here, on Sunday 24 July, Sviatopolk's assassins found him and killed him. Gleb was next, lured by deceit from distant Murom in the north-east. He reached the confluences of the rivers Smiadin and Dnieper close to Smolensk, where he too was murdered without resistance, on Monday 5 September. Sviatoslav was killed while trying to escape to Hungary ....

So just my "POV"? This is merely tendentiousness. Sloppy research is more to blame. You can't use the kind of source you use and expect to be able write early medieval history. It just has too many complexities. I'm sorry you'd rather fight over this matter than have a discussion, but you're still going to get a discussion anyway. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, Deacon, you fail to understand my point. I am not disuputing your additions. I am disputing removal of the other POV, once you claim as nonesense and so on. Despite what you believe, the other POV is referenced, and should be kept. If you think it is necessary, we can qualify it: According to Jaworski...' and add According to X and Y, this is different. But if Jaworski gives 5,000 for numbers, and writes about elder/younger son, this should be kept, no matter what you believe or like. This is called WP:NPOV, FYI.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Piotrus and Alan, do you really prefer a newspaper over reliable academic sources? It is a really strange approach Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have explained the reliability of the source (written by a respected historian) above. I am very disappointed, Alex, that your only contribution here is a blank revert in support of Irpen :( PS. Your edit summary even shows you haven't looked at the article: neither version (unfortunately) uses Google Books... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Piotrus and JonCatalán, there is an important matter here that seems to be missing from this discussion. The notion that indeed sometimes some sources are better than others. I agree with JonCatalán that such argument can be tried in any discussion but I suggest that he indeed spends a little more time investigating the matter. If we have sources of approximately similar academic standing and credibility, all within scholarly mainstream but disagreeing with each other, I sure agree that both sources should be reflected giving with the due weight given to each opinion. Here we have a different story. On one hand we have two classical modern books on the subject: "Medieval Russia" by martin and "Emergence of Rus" by Franklin & Shepard. These books are the most authoritative modern works published in English on the subject universally used in the university courses around the world as textbooks on the Medieval Rus. The other sources are relatively obscure and are nowhere close to the former two by their authority in the scholarly field.

I would not object to less commonly known sources being used per se but if they contradict the classical works, this is a different story. Saying that sources like Martin, Frankin and Shepard say A while some relatively obscure source says B is a classical WP:UNDUE.

On a more general note, the difference between the two versions illustrate one of the fundamental problem of Wikipedia. The problem of seriously looking articles being written and even rated Good, A or even FA, while in fact those articles are entirely written by editors who instead of reading books on the subject write Wikipedia through googling (and google-booking.)

If there is anything to add to this version, I more than welcome that. But contradicting Sheppard or Martin with articles published in Rzechpospolita is unacceptable.

On the final note, I wonder what brought Alden Jones to this article all of a sudden. This editor's sole activity in East European articles is reverting to Piotrus' version. I mean literally. And when Piotrus has three reverts under the belt, out of the blue this fellow whose English, sadly, is not good enough to edit, kicks in with an extra revert. This is no way to edit harmoniously, guys.

I would like to suggest that this disagreement is solved at this talk page discussion rather than through a mobilization of a tag team for a revert war coordinated by Gadu-Gadu. --Irpen 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

If I may say, Piotrus, you are being rather tendentious. What facts in the article do you dispute? You have inserted a disputed tag without disputing anything ... it will be removed unless you do so. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see User:Irpen has already removed it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the accuracy of your version, which omits several key findings, arguments and POVs present in my version.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you dispute? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, just include everything, don't delete anything. Say, "so and so states that this is what happened but so and so says that this is what actually happened . That's it. Cla68 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[15] --Irpen 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Refimprovement

There's just the one statement in the article resting solely on a Brockhaus article, the underlined part here: "It is of note that Boleslaw invaded Kiev's lands in 1013, though no source gives any explanation. This was possibly Boleslaw's first attempt to re-take the Cherven towns, though it has also been argued that his goal might have been to free Svyatopolk." Can anyone suggest a reference? This contradicts the chronology in Franklin & Shepard, pp. 199–200, where Boleslaw's 1013 invasion precedes Svyatoslav's marriage and subsequent arrest. More to follow ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, waiting for more! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I know there was already spat over Zhylenko's work, but what is it needed for anyway? And why is it referenced without comment or caution when material from the "Primary Chronicle", "Gallus" and Thietmar is not? It's a martyrology, right? Or something similar. And why does Mme Drozd get billed as a historian - "In the past some historians (such as Zhylenko and Kostomarov) have conjectured ..." - when she's not? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For Chwała Oręża Polskiego #2 (or 23), since this is a collective work, can we please have an author and article title for these? Is there an ISSN for this magazine? I couldn't find one, but if there is it should be listed here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noted above - and in the maintext, albeit my revision was reverted - that the primary author is historian Rafał Jaworski (see details few scrolls above).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, I'm not being clear enough. Surely these articles are "signed". Let me give you an illustration of what I mean. If I open Les Dossiers d'archéologie, no. 327, there's a table of contents at the front. This tells me that the coordination scientifique (i.e. the general editor) was Umberto Roberto and for each article tells me who wrote it (e.g. the article "Les Germains entre Rhin, Danube et mer Baltique" was by Professor Jan Bemmann of Bonn University). The work is edited by Roberto (or in the case of Chwała Oręża Polskiego, by Jaworski I presume), but the articles are written by various people. In a collective work the reference should be to the article and the article's author, not to the work as a whole and the editor, or so I'd expect in a GA/A/FA class article. We need to attribute the material as clearly and unambiguously as possible, particularly when dealing with sources which the average interested reader will be unable to find in a library or even purchase from an internet bookshop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In our case, all articles cited were written by Jaworski.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to specify the references, Piotrus, in the references, article by article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, does this work consist of a collection of essays by separate authors (most done by Jaworski) or is it one work with many authors? If the former you need to cite the essays individually by author. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, almost all of the work (and all cited info) comes from Jaworski. There are a few minor inserts (ex. about the weaponry of the period) by other authors, they are not cited.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I and Angus wrote above, you need to make the ref(s) more sophisticated than that. As I asked above, does this work consist of a collection of essays by separate authors (most done by Jaworski) or is it one work with many authors? If the former you need to cite the essays individually by author. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to improve the citation's style, I've given you all info that is need for that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't, as you haven't specified the individual articles (nor informed me if there are individual articles). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by Piotrus

It might be a good idea to refrain from disingenuous edit-summaries at the moment.[16] Anyway, I have content issues with your reverts, which I've explained on talk quite fully; and you haven't commented on them. Don't you see why if you don't address my own content concerns your reverts aren't going to get anywhere? Reverting and edit-warring isn't how you'll make my concerns disappear, Piotrus, it never has been ... :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your issues, and I have restored well-referenced content. My version, which does not remove any of your content (other than few errors, such as the "Duchy of the Poles"), merges all the available info, per suggestions by neutral editors (User:Catalan, User:Cla68). You are more than welcome to expand the text and point out (for example) a specific work that disputes Jaworski claim that Sv. was the eldest son. In such cases, we may also attribute a given theory to Jaworski (I've done so already, for example with regards to his estimate of the size of the Polish forces. Yes, it's an estimate by a historian, who admits its not based on a primary source but on the works of Polish historians speculating about the Polish contingent in 1018; still it is a reliable historical claim). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original ref was presented as if it came from a historical source. But if you're gonna use a made-up number (which is what it is), you'll have to explain why the cited author thinks that figure range likely to be accurate. After all, you are inserting it in the lead template as if it were a fact, which of course it isn't. Jaworski is not a prominent historian of medieval Rus, so his claims won't get enough attention to be disputed by historians of the topic. More generally, because he (supposedly) wrote that in the Polish language, it won't be subject to any meaningful peer review among specialists of medieval Russia. That Svyatopolk's position in the sons list is unclear is demonstrable by reading actual historians of medieval Russia, such as Franklin and Shepard, the refs to which I provided and even went to the trouble to quote. As it is so demonstrably clear, adding this bit could serve nothing more than highlight the mistake of a non-specialist historical writer or give undue weight to a non-mainstream author in the subject area. I mean, does Jaworski just assert this or does he argue it based upon source evidence, and which evidence? You need to at least point this out If the former, then the reference isn't reliable. If the latter, his arguments should be summarised. Duchy of the Poles or Duchy of Poland is btw a more historically authentic way of representing how that lordship was described in contemporary sources. Actually give Thietmar a read and you'd find that out. Regarding the assertions of those "neutral editors", you're both misrepresenting them and pushing a flawed argument, as even if they did what you're asserting (which they didn't), it wouldn't matter because the actual heart of the dispute is being ignored. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)