Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Lead

Given that the "Origin" section now has a discussion of the historiography of Kievan Rus's origin and makes clear that the Primary Chronicle version is only one (12th-century) version, and probably largely made up, I believe it is no longer appropriate to give that version in the lead as the definitive version. Also, since by the time of Yaroslav any Vikings were either gone or completely assimiliated, there's no point in saying that the decline of the state "coincided with the end of the Viking age". As regards recent edits, the fact that the Finnic Chuds were among the tribes mentioned in the Primary Chronicle doesn't really make Kievan Rus' a union of East Slavic and Finnic tribes. It says later in the article that Kievan Rus' "was fringed in the north by the Finnic Chud", and later again that during the breakup of the state, "Slavs from the Kievan region colonized the territory that eventually became the Grand Duchy of Moscow by subjugating and merging with the Finnic tribes already occupying the area". I am editing the lead in line with these observations. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I derived that from the Brittanica entry as well as from Magocsi, Martin, and Riasanovsky, all of whom include Finnic tribes in their discussions of origins. I'll not quibble over whether it belongs here, particularly in the lead, but the statement is well-sourced. If those tribes merged with the Slavs, they were part of the political union making up KR. But again, I don't consider it a crucial point. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's not a crucial point. I just felt that to talk of a "union (or federation) of East Slavic and Finnic tribes" – especially in the first sentence – suggested, if not that they were co-equal, at least that the Finns were a major force in the creation, expansion and administration of KR, rather than just being somewhere in the mix, which I presume is what the sources say. They should certainly get due credit in the "Origin" section. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I should mention I'm not done with the lead yet. To be reflected are...

• the impact of the establishment of Kievan Rus' on the Slavs as a mercantile people
• inclusion of the Finnic peoples
• "Slavification" of the ruling class (so, end of Viking age irrelevant to decline of Kievan Rus')
• other points of interest

Usually you fix and article and write the lead to match the article, but the lead had content "enhancements" not in the sources cited, had timings off (Rus Justice/Justice Rus later), so I thought it best to start there. My updates so far just corrected the current summary. Please comment as I redo or add chunks. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Obviously I'm not claiming sole possession of the lead at the moment, just letting you know more planned. If useful, we could keep a short inventory of points to include in the lead if that helps. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you mention Rus Justice, I've noticed that it's in the lead but not in the article. If you or anybody else know enough about it, it would be a good idea to add a paragraph (or even a sub-section) to the Society section. Scolaire (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Rus' or Kievan Rus' discussion

see subpage /Kievan_Rus'_v_Rus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosdruid (talk • contribs) 09:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need this as a subpage? It's just a slice of discussion from February/March 2011. It should simply be archived along with the other (interminable) discussions. Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Extension of sincere apology

Having recouped enough to read this page again, I found myself extremely humbled at noting that I came across as a terrible bully (read as severely embarrassed). I extend my sincerest apologies to all concerned for having been so antagonistic in my approach. Note to self regarding something I should already know by my age:- do not attempt to be constructive when you aren't well enough to contribute anything of substance. I won't approach this article again until I can sit at the computer for periods above 10 minutes at a time.

Again, apologies for being a pain in the backside. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, no hard feelings. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Laszlo. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Apology absolutely accepted. It must be even harder to apologise a second time. All credit to you. Scolaire (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Scolaire. I am terrible about apologies but, if the crime fits, I'll wear it. No, it wasn't easy as I can be a really arrogant prig and arrogant, prideful people don't like admitting they were in the wrong. Hopefully, my few virtues will help to neutralise the rudeness inflicted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic nomenclature issues are not going to go away

Some sort of compromise/consensus needs to be reached on the nomenclature throughout this article. I realise that scholarship in English has institutionalised the use of the word "Russian" but the issue of its implications are not about to go away. Remember that, at the time that the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911) was written, the concept of Nation-States hadn't even established themselves. We are currently writing for an audience who does not identify with colonial Empires but with nation-states.

While we persist in using anachronistic terminology without qualifying it, people are going to continue to rip through and change the nomenclature regularly (and justifiably so). The use of "Russian" and Russian spelling having been adapted in English sources of the past cannot be ignored but they need to be recognised for what they are. For example, if you check the Primary Chronicles, Prince Vladimir was adapted from the Russian pronunciation of the name. The Chronicles clearly refer to him as Володимер/Володимеръ/Володимерѣ/Володимиръ: all variants on that spelling (Volodimer/Volodimer'/Volodimir'), not Vladimir. Please feel free to check.

As regards the use of Kievan Russia, as I suggested to Vercrumba when he added it because it is still in common use (due to a persistence in regurgitating anachronisms for the sake of familiarity and for political reasons:- I'm not going to even pretend there are no political agendas at stake here), it is essential that the use of the term be qualified as being a scholastic hangover. Is Thailand Siam or has the obsolete terminology (Siam) been phased out? Where is Tanganyika? Where is Persia? The issue is not going to go away just because of scholastic convenience and conventions. Surely, for the sake of historical accuracy and present day readers, the context needs to be developed instead of halted. I am certainly not advocating changes from Kiev to Kyiv, just some sensible mode of disambiguation in the name of good sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the Google Ngram viewer can help. In the 19th century, "Kievan Rus" does not appear much at all but, on the other hand "Kievan Russia" only appears in significant numbers between 1876 and 1882 – a pretty small window! In the mid-20th century, "Kievan Russia" shows another spike between 1940 and 1946, and is more popular, but decreasingly so, from then until 1980. From 1982 onwards, "Kievan Russia" declines steadily; "Kievan Rus" goes up and down, but is still five times as frequent by 2008 (the latest the Ngram viewer will compute). "Kievan Rus'" only comes into it's own in this period, and overtakes "Kievan Russia" after 1990, though still only being ¼ as frequent as "Kievan Rus" by 2008 looks as though it is treated by Google the same as "Kievan Rus". It inserts a space and then, I think, looks for "Kievan Rus" followed by a quote mark. All this suggests to me that, in a 21st-century encyclopaedia article, "Kievan Russia" should not be in the first sentence of the lead, or in the lead at all, but should be confined to the "Name" section. It also suggests that "Kievan Rus" should be the title of the article, but that's another kettle of fish. Scolaire (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I tried to find some equivalent of "Kievan Russia" to compare books in Russian, but I failed to find any Ngram for it. "Kievan Rus" (obviously with the soft sign) has its ups and downs, in Russian as in English. In fact, "Kievan Rus" in English and "Киевская Русь" in Russian show similar patterns; though they spike at slightly different times, they both show an increase after 1935, and the same dip in the 1970's and after 1998. Scolaire (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, goody! What a fabulous tool! Yes, I was dubious about using Kievan Russia in the first instance as I haven't encountered it in anything other than very old scholarly texts and a few modern references attached to papers written in the Russian Studies/History departments of a handful of western universities. It seems that I've been taking arguments citing search phrases in good faith when I should have questioned their veracity. Many of the talk pages surrounding Eastern European history propose "Russia" and "Russian" as being the absolute common denominator in searches. I'm even okay with Old Russia somewhere for search engines, but not in the manner in which it is currently being presented. It's obviously going to continue to be tampered with until seriously involved contributors come to a consensus. At the moment, aside from Lazlo's good work, every time I get a notification regarding changes I can be fairly certain that the opening paragraph is what has been changed, reverted, changed and reverted. Even Lazlo removed the reference a couple of weeks back but reverted his own edit. If self-censorship isn't a reflection on how nervous everyone is about the subject, I don't know what is.

Rather than touching this article, I've been spending a substantial amount of time cleaning up pages that link in directly and indirectly all suffering the same fundamental problem: links called Old Russian redirecting to Old East Slavic, Vladimir not linking to anything and bastardised literary translations of Old East Slavic script posing as literal translations. I don't see anyone being able to do a little research into the area being able to fathom anything as it stands.

P.S. I'm boning up on my Ruskaia Pravda (it's been a long, long time since I studied it). As you observed recently, it would be useful to pull a few key notes into the society section. The existing page - Ruska Pravda - is referenced in the 2nd paragraph of the intro here as "Rus' Justice". The page, in itself, is in a state of serious disrepair. It's entitled "Russkaya Pravda", is redirected from "Ruska Pravda", links from the Old East Slavic page as "Justice of the Rus". Well, rather than go on in detail, for an insight into the inconsistency of the naming conventions are here's everything that links into the page. The content also suffers from signification and memory trace. At this juncture, I've barely touched it but am about to embark on that process. If you're interested, I'll keep you appraised of how it's all going. Wish me luck! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire provides a sound basis for removing "Kievan Russia." The sources I have been working with rarely use that term, if ever, and it is clearly a lightning rod that will continue to draw nationalist ire, as Iryna has pointed out. I support taking it out. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've also changed my comments re Kievan Rus' in Google Ngram viewer. I think I may have read it wrong first time. Scolaire (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for hearing me out on the subject. I'm now going to apply the Google Ngram viewer to "Russkaya Pravda" as Wikipedia is the only source I've encountered using this spelling. There have obviously been disputes which have merely created problems with disambiguation - as the redirect to the page itself suggests. The nomenclature within the article also suggests a bizarre attempt at Russification. Russifying the title (double 's'), and the use of 'y' doesn't conform to any officially recognised international transliteration system I'm aware of (other than the British Museum system which wouldn't use double 's'). So far, my searches have established that it is extremely anachronistic and yields little other than forums and blogs which transliterate it in a variety of ways OR are a reference to the much later Russian code of law (and they're welcome to apply "Russkaya Pravda" to that specific entry). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, here it is. Single 's', whether in Ruskaia or Ruska, does not appear in books in English at all between 1840 and 2008. Russkaya scores higher than Russkaia overall, although Russkaia just pips it in some years. Doing a Google Books search on "Russkaya Pravda" in the 21st century alone shows that it is still commonly used to describe the system of justice introduced in the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (with a 'Y'). Looks like that's the best we've got at the moment. Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Russkaya and Russkaia are fairly much running neck to neck post 2000. The other thing to take into account which version of Russkaya Pravda is being referenced. If you check again, "Russkaya Pravda" in the 21st century alone, you may note that the first few references are to Wikipedia and collections of writings from Wikipedia. Other references are to the Russkaya Pravda of Imperial Russia which superseded the version referenced in the context of Kievan Rus' either as stand alone references or as adhering to a particular spelling in order to propound a contiguity of the legal system. I'd suggest there's a strong case to be made for the latter continuing to influence the spelling of the former. Noted that names such as Yaroslav have become the convention, as with Kiev (although, as I've noted, I would never argue for Kyivan Rus' as it was not the name of the state and simply reflects an etymological change in the Ukrainian language). Conventions aside, I suppose I'm a terrible pedant and the use of Vladimir and the double 's' get up my nose because they're simply not accurate. I can live with a Y instead of an I. What I find hard to sswallow iss Russian conventions being perpetuated because they are already in place. I'd even settle for Rus'kaya Pravda. The question is whichPravda is which? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're making the mistake of treating this as an academic treatise. It's not. It's an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. As such, we are limited to summarising what is stated in secondary sources. It's most definitely not a question of "I can live with...". "I'd settle for..." or "what I find hard to sswallow..." [sic]. A WP article has to be objective; it cannot be based on one person's opinion. I did not post that link to Google Books without checking it carefully. The majority of the books on the first few pages specifically talk about the Russkaya Pravda of the 11th century, of Yaroslav the Wise, of the descendants of Vladimir (spelt 'Vladimir'), or all three. You can argue all you like about one usage influencing another, but it doesn't alter the verifiable fact that Russkaya Pravda is the most commonly used term in English-language secondary sources for the 11th-century system. Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, Scolaire. I'm still struggling with research habits of a lifetime vs what Wikipedia is and is not. I've overestimated my adaptability. It truly is a steeper learning curve than I'd anticipated. No doubt I'll fall into the same traps a few more times before I get the hang of it. Thanks for pulling me up on this matter. I'm still in need of all the guidance I can get. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Successor states

I think InvaderCito's edit was correct. All he did was to fix a broken infobox. In fixing it again, I have left out the Grand Duchy of Moscow, only because that was not in the list before InvaderCito's edit. If the entire list consists of "contentious connections", then either the list should be removed altogether – rather than just reverting to a broken version – or there should be a discussion to decide what ought, and ought not, be listed as successor states. It seems to me that there is an argument for saying the only "successor state" was the Mongol Empire, so I would be inclined to opt for deleting the entire list. Scolaire (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, some of these links are already in the other infoboxes. When a territory is merely carved up between numerous later states, it is rather dubious to call them successors. In a legal context, a successor state implies that they have legal links, indicating a transfer of sovereignty rights, rather than simply where the pieces eventually ended up after conquest. And I'm not a big fan of packing tangential detail into infoboxes, particularly the way they muck up the formatting while providing questionable value. I would support eliminating the list of "successors," or limiting it to those that could reasonably be seen as true legal successors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. Yet again, I take full responsibility for not having set up a discussion here immediately and not having the opportunity to do so until this morning. It was irresponsible of me to undo the edit - which was intended to be a temporary one pending discussion - without explaining the why but, IRL, I was already running late for a meeting. I acknowledge that it's a sloppy excuse but I truly had lost track of time. I'm not sure of what happened but, when I undid InvaderCito's 'fix', it took your original entries with it, Scolaire.

You've both already outlined my rationale for not regarding his additions as as being successor states. In context, the Kievan Rus' state was already crumbling by the time Batu Khan and his kinsmen took advantage of the anarchic situation: warring between the princedoms left all of the territories susceptible without enough time to organise themselves against the offensive. These cracks were already opening up at the zenith of the state's power when Vladimir the Great, having killed his own older brother in order to become the ruler of Kiev, initiated a system of dividing up the state to every son on the understanding that each retain loyalty to and pay tribute to Kiev as the central state. Within a couple of generations the number of princedoms and squabbles (read as warfare) knocked the infrastructure out from under the state's feet. Once the Mongolian Empire had razed Kiev, well... To an extent, I do see it as being a useful reference as it currently stands, albeit, strictly speaking, the term "successor" doesn't apply. What is of greater concern is that InvaderCito won't be the last contributor who'll be tempted to 'fix' it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, since the three of us are agreed to remove it, and nobody has objected, it can be removed. Then there'll be nothing to 'fix'. Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, then, that elimination is the best 'fix' possible. Last time I checked, defunct mean defunct. You can nail a dead parrot back onto its perch but it's definitely still dead. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why "Kievan"?

Why is it called "Kievan"? Ukrainian capital is and always was called Kyiv in the language of local people - proto-Ukrainians and modern Ukrainians. The state has to be called "Kyivan Rus'" and word "Kyiv" should be used everywhere instead of "Kiev". The same relates to any article using "Kiev". "Kiev" is a Russian name of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.99.47 (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Russian name of the city is "Киев". "Kiev" is its name in English. And since this is the English Wikipedia and not proto-Ukrainian...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2013; 20:37 (UTC)

Протоукры?))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.187.89.224 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

First & foremost, before this goes any further, modern naming conventions are probably best avoided due to an immediate problem with a maintaining a neutral POV. This subject has been argued at length already so I'd suggest that, if you're serious about disputing the name, you take a look at this talk page.

• Ezhiki82, I am hoping that you meant proto-Ukrainian (being modern Ukrainian) on the understanding that it also proto-Russian (being the modern Russian). Both languages, along with Belorus & other regional languages, are POST-Rus'ian languages.
• 82.193.99.47 & 178.187.89.224, whether it appeals or not, the term Kievan is the English title given Rus', not the current nation-states that have emerged: тобто, "прото"/поперед-українське, ТА "прото"/поперед-російське. The Primary Chronicles & other literature refer to Kiyev, not Kyiv, therefore there in no substantive argument on those grounds. From another perspective, having studied the history of Rus' in a language other than English, it wasn't until I studied at an English-speaking university that I even encountered the term "Kievan Rus" as being the predominant term. Rus' was purely & simply Rus'. As is noted early in the article, the term "Kievan Rus'" was only invented relatively recently in history. That, however, is not a debate appropriate to this talk page & should be relegated to the relevant talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna, I agree with this for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.99.47 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing Latin name/s dispute

Rather than unwarranted edit wars regarding the Latin conventions for the area in question, I think there needs to be some sort of consensus reached as to the naming conventions, namely:

1. They should be as contemporaneous to the era in question as possible (as the entry is about Kievan Rus', not 300 years+ post-Kievan Rus');
2. The only method of establishing the chronology and popular use of any acceptable Latin naming conventions is through references to reliable sources, not through bickering.

Could we, at least, establish that there is consensus on seeking consensus and a necessity for demonstrating approximately WHEN all said Latin forms first came into use? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• To add to this, there are quite a few articles/entries revolving around this issue which link in and out of this article. Every one of these articles is only consistent in being inconsistent. Dependent on where a reader lands from a search, they will come away with an entirely different understanding of life and the universe as Eastern Europeans perceive it to be. See Rus (name), Rus' people, Ruthenia, Rus (region), Old East Slavic. Is this an encyclopaedic entry or a political playground? If I don't like what one interest group has written & they unilaterally block you from editing, does that mean having to start another article espousing your own views? If you don't comprehend the concept of collaborating & trying to incorporate theories (other than fringe theories), perhaps you should abstain from editing. This is a touchy area, therefore the only sensible approach is to find reliable sources for anything deemed to be contentious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

All you need here is to have read throughout the well-written Nazarenko's article which thoroughly deals with the subject. If some Ukrainophile editors obsessively hate and cannot stand that so adored by them Kievan Rus' was called in Latin and other languages the same as modern so hateful Russia it is their own nationalistic inferiority complex problems.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're oversimplifying by suggesting that only one secondary source needs to be consulted. As you can see, someone else has already stepped in and changed this without contesting it. The following section, 'Name' now appears virtually contradictory. I'd also suggest that you should tone down your language as, "Ukrainophile editors obsessively hate" (sic) and "... so hateful Russia it is their own nationalistic inferiority complex problems" (sic) are antagonistic remarks which make it evident that you have no interest in approaching the subject from an NPOV. Such absolutist stances are counterproductive when attempting to find consensus with other editors whose objective is to create an encyclopaedic article. Again, I would appeal to contributors to actually provide citations, not merely change it back to their preferred naming conventions. This approach will continue to backfire on everyone who 'contributes' in this way. Where there are differing interpretations, they need to be elaborated on and supported with secondary references (and there is most certainly more than one secondary source). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I just don't know how to call properly all those Ukrainian nationalistic people who constantly come here and delete highly qualified academic secondary sources with many links from primary sources, just because they dislike this and think that "it could not be because it could not be". I don't think that such sorts of "protests" and deletions of academic sources can be tolerated here, they are really really annoying, and it has nothing to do with my or anything else POV. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of highly respectable academic secondary sources which don't agree with your sources. Please remember that your attitude suggests that you could be perceived of as being equally guilty of being a Russian nationalist if you close yourself off from anything which doesn't suit your POV. If there are differing opinions from various reputable secondary sources, they all need to be represented whether you personally approve or not. The idea behind consensus is to find a way in which to present differing views through compromises which all parties are satisfied with (no one is expected to be happy with compromise). If no consensus on any given area can be reached, all sides need to be represented in a reasonable manner. These articles are written with the reader in mind. The only undesirable compromise is the integrity of the subject. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Любослов, I will take your use of "Russia" as being an error made in good faith. Having read through Nazorenko's publication, it is notable that, with all the convolutions on the name of the region and its peoples, his only reference to Russia is on pg.50 as the latter French usage of Rus(s)ia - a point being made of adding the second s in brackets as it did not come into being as any form of conventional spelling until well after the end of the Kievan Rus' state. Please bear in mind that your usage could be construed as being intentionally duplicitous, taking advantage of the modern English reader's visual familiarity with the signifier "Russia". This is completely inappropriate given the context & understood pronunciation of any of these forms of the term & region at that time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Page 40 details the usage of this name form in Latin sources from the X century onwards quite extensively, with the relevant sentence from the summary on page 50 stating the following (translated): For Latin sources from Romance-speaking regions, England and Poland, the name variants of Rus' with 's' turn out to be typical: Rus(s)i / Rus(s)ia, Old French: Ros(s)ie, Rus(s)ie etc. This later French form is discussed on page 41. So it appears to be an good faith error on your part, perhaps due to a mistranslation. Hope this clears things up, I'm restoring the form along with an additional page number. --illythr (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to sources written by russian scholars, in most cases they are unreliable and have to be read with caution. I recommend to read the real source. In this case we have to find old documents of french and polish origin. Lifeglider (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Lifeglider. Having seen that Illythr has reinstated Rus(s)ia with the brackets, I will let it stand... for the moment. Bear in mind, however, that you and Любослов are treading on thin ice here. You are using Nazorenko as the sole source. In the first instance, there are no translations of his work into English. If there were, he would not be deemed a reputable & reliable scholar anywhere outside of Russia. He is, essentially, anti-Normanist & none of his theories have been postulated to the world's scholarly community. By no means should you consider that I take his 'research' with anything but a grain of salt. In order to bypass having to go through lengthy debates about Norman theory versus what is understood to be barely tolerated anti-Normanist fringe theory - this article being complex enough and having suffered enough as the result of political interest groups - I won't make too much noise as long as you don't keep tweaking serious study with Nazorenko's conclusions. Just as a forewarning, I will be tackling the so-called pseudo-antique Rut(h)enian issue in the next few days as it is backed up by far more reliable and widely acknowledged sources than you wish to acknowledge. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ruthenia, probably is another name of Ukraine and Ukrainian people. Poles always, for centuries, called ukrainians for ruthenians. And so did lituanians (while belarusians called themselves lithuanians). In the case of the russians, it must be said that according to source material (papers, books, etc) poles called russians for muscovites and moskali until 19th century, only after that they (poles) started with the "new name" invented by Peter I, Rossians (pol. rosyjski, rosyjskie). And it's important to notice, that finns (finnish people) still call russia Venäjä! While latvians say "Krievija", and estonians say "Venemaa". Until the late 14th century or maybe later, nobody even heard about Muscovite, simply because it was a little village run by tartars in the lands of Moskel/Moxel (btw that's where the name "moskals" originated, and probably that's why russians so afraid to be called moskals/moskali, they are so afraid of their history). In the end of 15th century, when Muscovites conquered Krivichi and Venes, there still was no russia. Only in late 16th century when muscovites crowned their tsar, it became kingdom of Muscovites. The older latin sources containing terms rusia or rusie, or with double "s" (if those even exist), can only refer to todays Ukraine, because in that time there were city-states, and it was one such city-state called Kyiv. I would not say that I take anyone's side in the above discussion. I just contribute with the facts. Lifeglider (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Lifeglider: Please note that an author's ethnicity is not a valid reason for the exclusion of a source. Indeed, such ethnic prejudice is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and harms your own credibility.

@Iryna Harpy: Nazarenko's stance in the Normanist/anti-Normanist dispute is irrelevant here, since his book is used in this article only as an academic secondary source for contemporaneous names of Rus'. The author is remarkably transparent in this regard, listing all the primary sources he analyzed with dates, page numbers and instance counts of all the name forms listed. --illythr (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Illythr, Nararekno's (apologies for the misspelling) overall stance on this area of analysis is very much relevant as his interpretation is possibly tainted in order to posit his theory/ies. Naturally, I can't say one way or the other as, in formal terms, his work has not been translated and evaluated by his peers in the global academic world. In the second instance, you've been around long enough to be highly aware of policy surrounding non-English sources. Given that there is already a solid English language research base in place, I don't actually see why Nazarenko should be represented in this article, full stop. I, and other English readers & editors, have to take your word on the 'transparency' of his research when you've now made it abundantly clear that it has been introduced as a coatrack to hang your replacing Kievan Rus' with Old Russian State. The nomenclature has been discussed ad infinitum already (please check this talk page thoroughly before insinuating your op ed changes). I would nominate that Nazarenko be precluded (as he is obviously being used as a trogan) until such a time as he has been translated into English and his research critiqued by his peers and found to be 'transparent'. Various Russian historians of note are already well represented in the article and there is no question of prejudice based on ethnicity in the article as it stands, and should continue to stand. I don't concern myself with whether the sources are Swedish, Chinese or Turkish so long as the integrity of the work is recognised. If you are reprimanding Lifeglider for his prejudice, it would have behooven you to extend the same reprimand to Lüboslóv.

Note - I started this section on order that it go on record on this talk page that the subject has been discussed for future contributors/editors. The fact that there hasn't been much input is not a reflection of a lack of interest. Many editors have put time, sincere research and effort into this article & are probably sick to death of these self-same interest group politics being played out, therefore couldn't be bothered entering into the discussion for the umpteenth-dozen time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Iryna, it seems you like verbose conversations but unfortunately I have not much time to read them thoroughly and answer them, and especially I want to notice I'm not going to listen to any sermons as I don't consider my moral principles as less reputable than of others or my in fact neutral POV as not worthy. Everything I've just tried is to put simple obvious facts in the article. As you know from the rules simple facts are not required many if any evidences. No-one seriously puts into question or demands evidences of that England was/is called Anglia in Latin, Britain - Britannia, Germany - Germania, Australia - Australia (and not Kangarooland or something) and so on. These are facts regardless of someone's opinions or POV. OK, if somebody demands a proof, I've given them as this is nothing difficult. One of the virtues of Nazarenko's article is that being a secondary source it gives many links to the primary sources. And as I remember it is discouraged here to use primary instead of secondary sources.

As you can see from above my warnings have come true. Lifeglider or any person alike has nothing but just tried to wipe out academic sources for his (unfortunately very popular amongst Ukrainians) fringe theories, only because he dislike this sources. I don't think this is acceptable here. If some Bretons don't like that Britain is called Britannia (so I don't believe that such Bretons exist, it sounds quite ridiculous in the West, but not in the East, unfortunately), that does not mean we should dump all the sources saying this and clear up the actual history putting in the invented one instead.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit comments such as, "All of you, read Nazarenko at last!" are not constructive as the majority of editors/contributors who have worked on, and continue to work on, this article don't know Russian: they aren't even Slavs. Your analogy illustrating the obvious nature of naming conventions where you believe no evidence is required is an oversimplification of grandiose proportions (i.e. if it were as clear cut as you would have it, this entry would not be fraught with disputes). Your attitude is offensive right down to the details in having extrapolated information about me from my talk page about being verbose & living in Australia/"Kangarooland" (sic). Illythr's & your edits to the article have been undone by editors other than me. I would ask that you please desist from your antagonistic attitude. If Nazarenko's research could have served as a useful secondary source, both you and Illythr have single-handedly undermined the possibility by misuse of his research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we now have several issues instead of just one.

• First, editing history. My last edit to the article is this one. The edit that changed "Kievan Rus'" to "old Russian state" and removed a well-sourced paragraph followed mine and belongs to an anonymous editor from Bratsk, Russia. It was obviously inappropriate (article name changes must be done via move request discussions) and was promptly reverted by Laszlo Panaflex. This edit sequence can be easily checked in the article's edit history. As you're still a relatively new editor, I'm writing this off as a rookie error. Still, the argument you've built out of that error doesn't hold water anyway, as Nazarenko's book does not examine modern English nomenclature and thus can't be used to even attempt to justify such a change in any way.
• Second, Nazarenko's credentials. While you did make your personal dislike of him abundantly clear, you unfortunately failed to back your claim with appropriate peer criticism. I can't take your own word for it, since you apparently possess only basic skills in the language needed to examine the work in question (as stated on your user page) and have repeatedly failed to even spell the author's name properly. While trying to rectify this shortcoming on your part, I only managed to find this Anti-Normanist criticism against Nazarenko, branding him a Normanist. Perhaps you can help out here? Otherwise, as a major Russian medievalist and a high-ranking member of RAN, he certainly does qualify as a reliable source in his field of study. Even if he were a rabid Anti-Normanist as you claim, I still fail to see how his aggregating of contemporaneous names of the state in major languages of the time from important primary sources helps one or the other point of view. I have already provided a translated quotation of the relevant sentence, so, per WP:NONENG, the reference can stay until English sources of equal quality and relevance are provided (i.e., a similarly exhaustive research on contemporaneous names of Rus' done by at least as highly accredited historian as Nazarenko).
• Third, prejudice. While Lüboslóv's exasperated comment regarding the nationalist activity plaguing this article is unhelpful, it is not outright problematic since he is not the one who's trying to excise a source from the article first on a verifiably false premise and then on the author's ethnicity and replace it with original research. --illythr (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• My apologies for the misreading of the edits. This was, genuinely, a rookie misreading of a series of edits which took place quickly (as was the Nazarenko typo: which only goes to show that I should stop being so lazy about wearing my reading glasses when at the computer). It does, however, serve to demonstrate how quickly and easily introducing untested and uncontested sources draws in nationalists from various ends of the spectrum who use it as an opportunity to try to change the direction from being neutral to being nationalistic.
• In this instance, I do not feel that the burden of proof lies with me but with those introducing Nazarenko's research. Considering that this synthesis of his research was published in 2009, the fact of its not being referenced or even noted in Medieval Slavic/Medieval Russian Studies by scholars from outside of Russia presents itself as being problematic and begs the question of why this would be so. Is he truly as revered as you would have him or is he, essentially, a non-player with his works being disregarded for other reasons. I can find absolutely no mention of him outside of the dated Russian critique you've pointed out and the EN Wikipedia entry which is, in itself, a cleaned up stub from RU Wikipedia. Given the dubious nature of current interpretation, surrounding readings of and research into "Medieval Russia" within Russia itself, I choose to err on the side of caution when it comes to the contents of the entire publication. The sections are not independent of each other but rely on each other in order to make a case. Absence can speak volumes and, again, I will state that, much as I would like to take your word on the 'transparency' issue, I simply can't do so as I'm a cynic. Given that a ex-colleague of mine carved out a global niche (and Professorial position) on the strength of post-modern readings of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc., I think I have a right to be. In terms of research, her work can't be faulted... but it certainly doesn't make it anything more than complete crud. I'm currently making contact with various Slavic Historians in various parts of the world in order to find out whether they are even aware of Nazarenko's work.
• I have already stated that I started this talk section in order to avoid edit warring and cannot be held accountable for other people's edits. All I can be accused of having done is having brought up what is, from an academic stance, a legitimate question. I would like to take the opportunity to ask you which nationality you believe to be plaguing this article? There is a world of difference between uninformed prejudice and questioning the veracity of a source for rational reasons. I would also appreciate it if you desisted from treating me as if I were a halfwit by dismissing Lüboslóv's prejudice as being 'exasperation'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You should let the readers decide for themselves what sources are appropriate. If the source contains alleged material, it should stay, regardless of origin or ethnicity. But it would be more useful if the source was in English, of course. Lifeglider (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Lüboslóv Yęzýkin: there was not even a mention from my side about the source, that is just something you fabricated. My opinion is that the source should stay. Regarding bretons, according to you, I should be Czech if I'd ever mentioned Praha. That is not appropriate comparison, and is most childish. Hope that you can better than that. Lifeglider (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Lifeglider, I disagree that readers should 'decide for themselves' (sic). Wikipedia is not a forum or YouTube. In light of the fact that this article is drawing in unwarranted nationalistic additions and ideologies, I originally made a point of inserting "citation" for every Latin name used (these naming conventions are obviously going to be of the highest importance to English readers). Additions of the modern Ukrainian name; excising various contemporary forms of the Latin name with an edit comment of they can't all be latin (and ruthenia was the latin one anyway); excising "Russia" with a declaration of There is no "Russia" In Latin  ! which was countered with an edit comment of yes, it was, just face this bitter truth are all pointedly antagonistic an unacceptable.

The discussion regarding Nazarenko has come about a digression. On face value, he certainly has the credentials to merit being cited as a serious secondary resource. However, I am concerned about being told that his work is transparent when his publication has only ever appeared in the Russian language, no-one has attempted to provide a reasonable translation of the pages being cited and I've been greeted with an authoritative finger-wagging telling me that the citations stand until I can 'replace' an unknown quantity with an equally authoritative quantity in English if I can find one. I'm not particularly concerned with 'replacement', but neither I nor other editors who can't read Russian are in a position to accept his work or expand on alternative positions if we don't know what the text explores or postulates. The fact of the easy accessibility of his work via the internet only demonstrates that it falls under FUTON bias category does not make it more credible. As it is only available in image format, it isn't possible to even use translation software in order to elicit some form of understanding of the contents.

We can all point to Wikipedia policy and guidelines but, when it comes to certain questions, it is made clear that we use our common sense. I am genuinely concerned about the possibility of his work being fringe theory, therefore have every right to challenge it. If it appears that I'm questioning his work because it was Not Invented Here then, yes, I am. All nation-states write their history to serve their own interests. Take a look at the last Iraq war and the U.S., British and Australian official line. Russian scholarship in this area has already been brought into question as regards fringe theory. If I can feel assured the section from Nazarenko's publication is truly stand-alone and not constructed in order to expand on anti-Normanist theories, I am more than happy to accept it as being an invaluable secondary resource. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreement can be made on one thing, that russian sources are suitable on russian wikipedia. Here on english wikipedia should only english sources (written in english) be stated. But then we need to clear all items from sources other than English. Which I see as more appropriate for English readers. Because we can not understand these Cyrillic sources in any case. But, of course, russian editors of the english wikipedia, wouldn't probably agree on that, simply because they are nationalists and want to protect their fabricated history. Unfortunately. Lifeglider (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's completely inappropriate to bring up questions of fabrication as this article, as can be said of any Wikipedia entry, deals with available sources. Unless you are an accredited expert in the field and can back up your accusation with verifiable proof, levelling accusations of fabrication is seriously inappropriate and downright prejudiced.

My only interest here is to check the reliability of sources. Of course it is entirely appropriate to use sources from any language so long as they can be deemed to be reliable. The current prevalence of the use of Russian sources merely reflects the fact of the majority of studies in question being in Russian and having been written by Russians. In light of the lack of information and concrete documentation surrounding Kievan Rus', these are essential in order to fill in details on the subject. The only thing I consider to be unfortunate is the under-representation of Polish and other researchers in the field who have not been used in this article due to their not being available in English. There is nothing to be done about that as Wikipedia is not compulsory.

While I acknowledge that I must assume good faith, I am also obliged to concern myself with the calibre of the the sources as, per Wikipedia policy, when using any secondary sources context matters, as does the level of scholarship... which is why I am querying the lack of peer review pertaining to Nazarenko. Peer review in the contemporary academic world (and he is producing scholarly texts in the contemporary academic world) takes place at a global level and are not proscribed to the boundaries of any given nation-state. Academics attend and present papers at global conferences regularly, and every publication is reviewed on a global level: a fact reflected in Australia, for example, in the weighting of their research quantum. Publications with little acknowledged peer review at a global level (or questionable peer review) are receive no points. An academic can 'publish' volumes of research but, unless it is globally peer reviewed and the veracity of their work acknowledged (whether it be controversial or not), the fact of its existence doesn't automatically mean that it is considered to be valid or reliable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

After a bit of looking around, I found essentially the same information, if less detailed, in Magocsi's 2010 work here. Adding him as an additional source will hopefully put this discussion to rest. --illythr (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it will 'bury the axe' for the time being. Personally, I have no desire to entertain extremist nationalist politics from any side. Hopefully, as research is broadened, more issues will become clear (including that of the Normanist view being the only legitimate interpretation). Having had feedback from a couple of academics on the subject of Nazarenko, he seems to have been greeted with some distaste in the non-Russian world, being perceived as a puppet of contemporary Russian politics & the Russian state's correct-line thinking. I'd rather not dismiss his research if it truly can be understood to be legitimate as, by the same token, any disdain could be equally construed as reflecting contemporary political prejudice which is undeserved. I have no way of discerning whether he has been dismissed as a non-player because his research has been deemed to be inaccurate or whether, more ominously, he is being ignored because he doesn't serve views which the global community (read as Western world) wishes to acknowledge. This is, after all, purportedly a representation of a long-defunct state from which a variety of modern Slavic nation-states emerged and who have a common history: not a battleground for contemporary political in-fighting. There are enough of 'those' pages around to suit every temperament already! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Expanding Fragmentation and Decline section - citations needed

I'm not amalgamating the recent addition (now the 3rd paragraph) to the 'Fragmentation and Decline' section for the moment as it is basically a more detailed reiteration of the paragraph above it. It's wonderful to see this elaboration however, considering that the majority of the section in question has no citations in the first instance, the detail of the additional information suggests that there must be at least one verifiable source being drawn on. I'm inclined to remove the entire addition unless someone can provide sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Section notes

I'll have further comments regarding later sections, but these are for starters:

• The "Consolidation of power" section is a near-direct block quote straight out of Martin, and it is largely out of context in the history narrative. I will be blending parts of it into more appropriate areas and eliminating the redundant parts. The first paragraph, for instance, will serve as a nice intro to the Origin section. I am moving and condensing it and adding a direct link to the cited text. (Note: Martin uses the name Slovenes, which Waldman/Mason render as Slovens, another name for the Ilmen slavs, which I am using here to avoid confusion with the southern Slovenes, and in conjunction with the map on the page.)
• Similarly, I will be blending the "Foreign Relations" section into the historical narrative.

Both of these areas will be left a bit piecemeal for the time being and eventually eliminated. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds excellent, Laszlo. I've been following your progress with keen interest. At this point, I'm still forcing myself to learn the ins and outs by working on other articles so do not feel qualified to contribute as yet. It's great to see that its coming along well without me opening my big yapper! Keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Checking in: Haven't disappeared, just busy these days... The period 913-945 has been challenging as the sources are sparse and somewhat contradictory. I've done a lot of reading and compiled a lot of notes, and I'll begin drafting as time allows. The outline for the end of the Rus'-Byz relations section goes something like, a) death of Oleg, Igor takes power, Chronicle sparse from 913-941; b) Igor attacks Byz 941, Rus' attack in Caspian 943, another attack on Byz 944, treaty 945; c) Schechter ltr/Zuckerman/Vernadsky calls timing into question, possible explanations raised. The death of Igor and the Olga regency will begin the Sviatoslav section, which will tie together the preceding steppe politics and Byz relations sections, culminating in the death of Sviatoslav. And now I need a drink... Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a double, Laszlo: you've earned it! Yes, unfortunately the information available surrounding that epoch is sparse. Your projected outline makes sense. I'm glad you deleted the excess blurb in the (now 'ex')-Warfare section. There's ample information in the Wikipedia entries, although it does remind me that they're in need of clean-ups. I'm still just plodding through outlying entries & sweeping a few corners as I go. Judging by the initial introduction of this subsection, I suspect that the contributor who added it isn't a native English speaker &/or spends too much time playing computer war games. It struck me that he/she had translated the Slavic word for military strategy literally. I've amended this to Military Campaigns. Back to the salt mines/decipherment of Linear B for me (currently reacquainting myself with Old Eastern Slavic). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Novels

Why is the novels section being changed to such an unusual and messy format? The prior format was much better organized, arranged by author, and used a common citation method. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the entire section is basically a listicle. It should be split off to something like, List of Novels about Kievan Rus'. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Having quickly investigated the additions and, judging by the awkward translations, I'm inclined to think that it's a cut, translate & paste effort from a list of various novels(?) available in the Russian language. Google searches have yielded either nothing or have recognised the name of a writer in the transcription into English but merely point to novels in Russian alone with no write ups as to the content. Given that, if others start to add to the exhaustive list in a number of languages the entire entry will become a byte-heavy catalogue of verifiable and unverifiable novels (some of them appear to be more Barbara Cartland pulp fiction by nature than researched historical novels). If a listicle is desirable, it has to be introduced as another entry to link to and, personally, I have no desire to wade through it and structure it. I have a backlog of pages in desperate need of cleaning up currently consuming my time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Re the quality of these novels, this is what I suspected. The editor revising and adding to the section is unresponsive as well -- perhaps she doesn't speak English. I've likewise been working on some projects that have been on the back burner since long before I back-burnered my work here. So we may have to just live with it for the time being. I suspect the list will eventually be dumped into its own article, then challenged as non-noteworthy and deleted. Perhaps it will at least get a nice window seat on its journey to oblivion... Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to start it on its journey by creating an entry (stub) under the title of Novels about Kievan Rus' over the next few days. I certainly don't consider it to be relevant to an encyclopaedic article on Kievan Rus' and can't find any precedents in comparable articles. At least that will assist in de-cluttering an entry already rife with a lack of citations. Next on the agenda is asking that citations in languages other than English have the salient material from non-English sources be translated into English... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Part of history of Sweden

This article should also be a hub/part of series history of Sweden, since it covers swedish colonization in eastern Europe and the establishment of the the Kievan Rus' state. Rus' being an old slavic expression for norsemen. Varangian aristocracy ruled over Novgorod and later Kievan Rus'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.19.156 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Novels about Kievan Rus' section

It has been noted that the section, Novels about Kievan Rus', has been expanded recently. While I wouldn't want to delete the existing entries, there is no precedent for listing novels on any other comparable articles about an historical epoch/era. The list doesn't indicate whether they historical dramatisations, fantasies based loosely on mythological characters, etc. Given that the article is highly comprehensive and lengthy as it stands, under the advice of senior editors, I propose that the list be cut and pasted here, to the talk page, so that it could be potentially developed elsewhere at a later date.

(To quote): "A category would only be appropriate if we had articles on those novels, which, for all I can tell, we do not, and I doubt they are all notable enough for articles of their own (some might be; then a category could be created). A separate sub-page, say Kievan Rus' in fiction, could be written if we have reliable sources discussing this sub-genre of historical fiction in some detail. Similarly a list, say List of novels about Kievan Rus', would have to establish that the topic is notable; see WP:LISTN. All of those methods would involve massive amounts of work and some reliable sources."

If anyone feels that there is a solid rationale for retaining the list on the page as is, please let me know. If no objections are raised regarding removing it from the article, I'll do so in a few days and preserve the section as it currently stands (below).

Thank you for you input in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Novels about Kievan Rus' 1833 Mikhail Zagoskin — Grave of Ascold. Story from Time of Vladimir I 1835 Alexander Veltman — Sviatoslavich, Foster-Child of Enemies. The Wonder from Time of Red Sun of Vladimir 1938 Antonin Ladinsky — The Dove under Pontus 1947 Georgy Storm — The Feats of Sviatoslav 1955 Valentin Ivanov — Stories of Ancient Years 1959 Antonin Ladinsky — When Chersonese Has Fallen (final variant of The Dove under Pontus) 1959 Semen Sklyarenko — Sviatoslav (1959, Russian translation from Ukrainian in 1961) 1961 Valentin Ivanov — Great Rus 1962 Semen Sklyarenko — Vladimir (Russian translation from Ukrainian in 1963) 1966 Antonin Ladinsky — Anna Yaroslavna, Queen of France 1966 Valentin Ivanov — Primary Rus' 1968 Pavel Zagrebelny — The Wonder (Russian translation from Ukrainian in 1982; epoch of Yaroslav the Wise) 1971 Pavel Zagrebelny — First Bridge (Russian translation from Ukrainian in 1980; about first bridge over Dnepr in the time of Vladimir Monomakh) 1972 Boris Tumasov — Unknown Land (last years of Vladimir I's reigning) 1972 Pavel Zagrebelny — Death in Kiev (Russian translation from Ukrainian in 1980; about Yury Dolgorukiy) 1973 Antonin Ladinsky — The Last Way of Vladimir Monomakh 1975 Pavel Zagrebelny — Eupraxia (Russian translation from Ukrainian in 1984) 1982 Raisa Ivanchenko — The Anger of Perun (Russian translation from Ukrainian in 1986; time of Vladimir I) 1988 Leonid Dayneko — By the Track of the Magician (about Vseslav of Polotsk; authorized translation from Byelorussian) 1988 Raisa Ivanchenko — Treason, or How Does Begin to Became the Ruler (only on Ukranian; about Ascold, Dir and Oleg) 1993 Raisa Ivanchenko — Poison for the Princess (only on Ukranian; about Olga) 1994 Galina Petrechenko - Rurik 1996 Boris Vasilyev — Oleg the Prophetic 1996 Galina Petrechenko - Prince Oleg 1996 Boris Tumasov - And Generation of Ruriikovich Must Be (about Oleg) 1997 Alexander Filimonov — Come and Help (about Mstislav the Brave) 1997 Sergey Bulyga — On Wednesday, First Hour p.m. (about Vseslav of Polotsk) 2001 Boris Tumasov — Boris and Gleb: Washed by Blood 2001 Victor Porotnikov — Igor Sviotoslavich 2002 Boris Vasilyev — Olga, Queen of Ruses 2002 Boris Tumasov — Mstislav Vladimirovich (about Mstislav the Brave) 2002 Victor Porotnikov — Sviatoslav Yaroslavich (final title is Prince Sviotoslav II) 2004 Victor Porotnikov — Oleg of Chernigov. The Clew of Svarog 2006 Boris Vasilyev — Prince Sviatoslav 2006 Galina Romanova — Mstislav the Great: Monomashich 2007 Boris Vasilyev — Vladimir Red Sunny 2008 Vasily Sedugin — Prince Igor 2008 Natalya Pavlishcheva — Princess Olga 2009 Victor Porotnikov — Prince Sviatoslav. "I Go Against You!" 2009 Vasily Sedugin — Prince Rurik 2009 Vasily Sedugin — Prince Kiy, the Founder of Kiev 2009 Vasily Sedugin — Ascold and Dir 2010 Boris Vasilyev — Vladimir Monomakh 2010 Vasily Sedugin — Vladimir Monomakh 2011 Natalya Pavlishcheva — Yaroslav the Wise 2011 Victor Porotnikov — The Last Feat of Sviatoslav. "Let Our Children Will Be Such As He!" 2011 Vasily Sedugin — Prince Gostomysl - Slavic Grandfather of Ruric 2011 Vasily Sedugin — Svyatopolk the Accursed. Damned Prince 2011 Vasily Sedugin — Mstislav the Great. Last Prince of United Rus' 2011 Natalya Pavlishcheva — Yury Dolgorukiy. Mythical Prince. 2012 Victor Porotnikov — Dobrynya Nikitich. For Russian land! 2013 Victor Porotnikov — Bloody Christening "with a Fire and a Sword"

• Support. Obviously I agree with this proposal. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, most of those novels are hardly notable. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Expedited process of removal as the section was being expanded without attempts to improve the encyclopaedic quality of the information. Note that I have left a message on Анна Волкова/Anna Volkova's talk page to inform her of the removal of the section (although the above version now reflects the latest additions). Aside from its being WP:NN and WP:OFFTOPIC, the user was turning it into a WP:LINKFARM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I did this section long ago, and nobody had a protest. Then I supply many books. Now I begin to make notes. I don't think that it is off-top. Анна Волкова (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So I don't understand why somebody delete the section. Анна Волкова (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Anna, please do not take this a personal slight. I ask that you read the commentary made regarding your list in this section of the talk page, as well as the information left on your talk page. It isn't that it's simply off-topic: read the guidelines regarding lists, WP:NN, linkfarms, overlistification and overcategorization (particularly overcategorization - trivia).

This article is already extremely long and, if you read it over carefully, you'll find that much of the information in various sections is directed to other developed pages in order to avoid reiteration of information. If you consider that the section you've added is of significance and wish to develop this as a separate entry (which could then be linked once it has been approved), information on requirements has been provided above the cut section. This is not the decision of a single contributor/editor. No one person has 'deleted' your list. It was removed by consensus and under the advisement of a senior editor who is not involved in this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I want the advisement of a senior editor who is not involved in this article. Анна Волкова (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

By all means, Anna. If you feel that the deletion of the section was unfair, you have the right to refer this to a third party, or via other methods as per Wikipedia guidelines and policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editor

I have been contacted by Anna about this article, which surprised me, as we have previously been on opposite sides in a dispute about her adding external links in article bodytext.
I think Anna may have hoped I would just revert the removal, but I have explained that this would just be an edit war, and the inclusion/exclusion should be discussed.
I am not an Admin - but have been on WP for nearly 6 years and have 42K+ edits – I do not read Russian, but have used Google translate on several of the links.
I have edited this article once before, on 4 March 2011, to correct the spelling of "refered" to "referred", in this Diff but do not believe that this makes me an “involved “ editor.

At the top of this section; Iryna starts by saying "I wouldn't want to delete the existing entries" but later does so, without any explanation for her change of proposal.

I agree with User:Huon (whose advice should have been credited), that the creation of a category would not be very useful as there are almost no articles, and that the subject might struggle to pass WP:Notability#Stand-alone_lists.
I do not agree that it should be moved to the talk page at this point, as the inclusion of the list is not creating a problem, and this just sidesteps the issue without finding a long-term solution, In time, the talk page will be archived and the list will, effectively, disappear.
WP:NODEADLINE can be read two ways, but no-one seems to be questioning the accuracy of the list, although, bizarrely there seem to be objections to adding references.

With regard to article size, WP:Article size is based on “readable prose size” which excludes lists, so the in/exclusion of the list does not affect this whatsoever. The readable prose size is 48 kB (7859 words) The rules of thumb state

> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division

If the article continues to grow it will probably need subdivision very shortly, but this has nothing to do with the list.

WP:LINKFARM is not applicable here – this is not a list of external links. What Anna has done is add references for some of the books, which, provided these are reliable sources, not marketing links (which from Google translate they do not appear to be) is absolutely correct, in accordance with WP:V and she should be praised/thanked for that, not criticized

WP:Overlistification also does not appear relevant, as a list of books does not come under any of the four headings:-

1. Irrelevant Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, and Religion Lists
2. Trivia/Trivial Lists
3. Agenda-Oriented Lists
4. Over-extensive Lists

WP:Overcategorization and overcategorization - trivia are both totally irrelevant, as this is not about categories.

Personally, I think the earlier format of the list – grouped by authors, which breaks the list into sections, is preferable to the date-order format which is a slab of text, but the addition of the references is useful and should be re-incorporated

In summary – I think that the list should be re-included, as the arguments against its inclusion are weak, and numerous irrelevant guidelines have been quoted to Anna. If editors wish the list removed, I believe they should first propose a long term solution.
Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:Overlistification is not relevant, and I would point to the subsection on Trivia/Trivial Lists as grounds ("wikipedia is not: an indiscriminate collection of information. Lists such as these may prove fun and even useful, but they are ultimately of little or no academic encyclopedic value."). At any rate, an assessment needs to be done, preferably by a Russian speaker, to evaluate whether these novels are notable and historical, or whether they are simply works that are set in KR without any particular probing research into the period. As I stated above (in the Section Notes/Novels section), this material at best appears to be a listicle attached to the article, and should be split into a separate page, like List of Novels about Kievan Rus'. At worst, it is a Trivia List, as described above. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd call WP:WEIGHT the main argument against inclusion. Novels about the Kievan Rus' are not all that important an aspect of the topic. Furthermore, a bare-bones list of works with publication dates, but without any context will not help our readers; it provides next to no information. If we have reliable sources that discuss the perception (and possibly the change of perception) of the Kievan Rus' in popular culture, I'm all for a section on that - but as I said in my advice to Iryna Harpy, that would require sources and quite a bit of work.

Lastly, one precedent and a lack of precedent: WP:Overlistification mentions among the "trivial lists" "Fight Club in popular culture", which was deleted. I don't think "Kievan Rus' in popular culture" would survive any better unless we show some third-party sources that discuss the topic. Also, I'm not aware of any other similar article that includes a list of books. Mongols, Vikings, Sioux, Vandals, Frankish Empire, whatever - no list of books for any of those. The Sioux come close with an "in popular media" section that probably should be pruned, and the Vikings article discusses their cultural legacy the way it should be done - with some actual content, context, and sources. We should follow the Vikings, not the Sioux. Huon (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Arjayay and want to return the earlier format of the list. Theme of Kievan Rus' is very considerable in Russian fiction now. Russian Wikipedia show it but I want to show it in English Wikipedia too (in this article). Uninvolved editor Arjayay adduced many proofs. Анна Волкова (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"Popular culture" sections are notoriously problematic, with people wanting to include pop songs because they mention the subject on one line. Based on the list, which I am sure is not complete, there seems to be an upsurge of novels about the Kievan Rus' - 2 pre 1900, 2 from 1900 to 1950, 23 from 1950 to 2000 and 25 since 2000.

I agree with Huon that there should be some commentary, not just a bare list, but I cannot agree with his interpretation of WP:Overlistification for two reasons:-

1. Overlistification is about free-standing lists, "It is a tool useful for determining if a list should be deleted or merged in an article for deletion discussion." This is not a free-standing list, but if it became one, Overlistification could well decide that it should be merged back into this article.
2. Even if it was relvent to embedded lists, the examples cited in "trivial lists" such as "List of films by gory death scene", "List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves" are indeed trivia, but a list of books by subject is not. As examples, we already have List of books set in New York City, List of novels set in Crete, List of books about bacon and List of books about Tintin

Anna - other than User:Alex Bakharev you appear to be the only fluent Russian speaker in this discussion (Iryna claims Ru-1) - can you find any "reliable sources that discuss the perception (and possibly the change of perception) of the Kievan Rus' in popular culture" ?
Arjayay (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your second example above confirms that this list should be split off to its own article, and whether it is notable and what ought to be included should be determined in discussion there: Just as "List of books set in New York City" is not appended to the article on NYC, a "List of novels set in KR" should not be attached here (in fact, the NYC list looks much like a better-formatted version of the list here; it would serve as a fine template to follow with this list). And if it is then judged to be trivial under Overlistification, it would hardly be relevant enough to be merged back here.

Further, the process of finding sources discussing the novels -- and of finding Russian speakers who can properly evaluate the reliability of those sources and the notability of the novels -- would be facilitated by having its own separate space to develop. Including it here during that process, where multiple editors do not believe the list even belongs, would be counter-productive. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The list should be re-included. It's of great value to know which writers did write about the corresponding subject. Lifeglider (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you verify that these writers are notable? Can you provide sources? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To add to Laszlo Panaflex's query regarding notability, could you also provide details as to which genre each novel fits into. One is definitely a children's fairytale complete with dragons and other modern pop-culture sundries which guarantee international recognition and popularity, but are completely alien to Slavic mythology. Could you also explain to me how a list of novels written in Russian or translated into Russian is of interest or of any use to an English reader/speaker in within the context of an article about the actual historical subject of Kievan Rus'? I truly don't see it, so I'd be genuinely grateful if you could elucidate on its value. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Arjayay, I'd like to address your comments on my behaviour as you've basically levelled accusations of hypocrisy at me. Please read my proposal carefully: "While I wouldn't want to delete the existing entries... I propose that the list be cut and pasted here, to the talk page, so that it could be potentially developed elsewhere at a later date." I'm certain no one else was confused by the intention to preserve the list on the talk page out of courtesy. Why else would I have bothered to cut and paste it to this page when a simple link to the relevant section in the article would have sufficed?

In the second instance, I'd like to address Anna's apparent shock over the removal of her list from the article and its being kept safely on the talk page. A short version was entered by her early in the year. This was overlooked as the article suffers from constant interest group traffic and was in need of a serious overhaul. Thanks to the hard work put in by Laszlo Panaflex (also Scolaire), a substantial part of it was reorganised logically and repetition of information redirected to other articles explicitly dealing with the subject matter. I had certainly noted that the list seemed extraneous and barely relevant to an article with an extraordinarily large wish-list for citations, translations of relevant tracts from non-English sources, etc. As with the history of the Vikings, the history of Rus' is fraught with problems due to lack of contemporaneous documentation. Trying to decipher it for an interested English reader is perilous enough. Adding another barely related section will not serve the readers' understanding of the subject at hand in any meaningful way. Try reading the article as it stands (sans list) and tell me, honestly, that you're not confounded.

When Anna returned to expanding her existing list on 13 September, over the course of 42 convoluted edits (please note that not one of her 67 entries, including starting the section, has carried an edit comment), it had expanded to this by 14 September. On the 13th, I intended to leave a message for Anna on her own talk page, but saw that Laszlo Panaflex had already done so. I added her page to my watchlist and noted that she had continued expanding the list after his missive (which she has never responded to) and ignoring the fact that the talk page had already had comments added questioning what the list actually dealt with, much less its structure. I added a new section to the talk page explicitly dealing with the matter based on what had been ascertained as to its relevance on 17 September. If she had missed that, she certainly shouldn't have missed the tag added to the section in question on 18 September which I replaced with another an hour later as the tag used was being disputed and not allowing for directing watchers to the relevant talk. That's 2 instances where she would have been alerted to changes to the page. Allowing for the benefit of the doubt in ignoring changes messages, how could she possibly not have seen the alert to direct her to the talk page section and defend her position when she made a further series of 15 edits on 22nd September?

My executive decision to expedite the process of removing the list from the article was hardly unjustified or unsupported. If you take a look at the number of watchers and the page history, you will be assured that no one can so much as sneeze in the article's general direction without reverts and battles over who is going to disinfect it within a matter of moments. The silence on the matter speaks volumes about there being a broader consensus than merely a man and his dog.

Finally, while other issues of how many dozen policy guidelines it takes before it is recognised that a case has been built for excluding a list have already been adequately tackled by others (above), demonstrating that there are valid reasons to do so. I will now add a final two issues which call it into question.
1. Are any of these novels recognised as being of the calibre of Gogol's "Taras Bulba" to the 16th and 17th Cossack era; Sienkiewicz's "With Fire and Sword" to the Cossack era and The Deluge; Tolstoy's "War and Peace" to the Napoleonic Wars in Russia? Anna, herself, has told us that these are lifted directly from Russian Wikipedia. Where are the genres and are these (as I am certain they are) simply popular fiction in Russia where the readers are already familiar with their history and, consequently, such a list may be of interest and value to a Russian reader.
This brings me neatly to point
2. A plethora of WP:NPOV issues that are being raised by including this list. I've checked the Russian Wikipedia article and it most certainly doesn't have any such list in their article, not even a redirect within the article. The novels included in the list here are based on what is available in Russia, even citing when a Belarusian or Ukrainian novel was translated into Russian. That fact certainly reads as being prominently and embarrassingly exclusive. How will it be tackled if it remains? Obviously, and understandably, the Russian Wikipedia entry proscribes their list based on what has been written or translated into the Russian language. How will a section in English Wikipedia proscribe entries? No swashbuckling Viking adventure novels in written in Danish that venture into Kievan Rus' territory can be excluded. How many Ukrainian, Polish, Belarus, Lithuanian, German, Dutch novels are going to be added, reverted, warred over on an article that can barely hold its own already? For me, no precedents and no value equals development elsewhere where it may be of value... not here! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You write about precedents but think, please, about the rules. I addressed to Arjaway because I understood when we were in dispute about another article that he is very good member of Wikipedia and he is attentive to the rules. Анна Волкова (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Аннушка, поверьте, что я никак не имела, и не имею ввиду вас оскорбить. I understand that your English is a little weak and that it is difficult for you to communicate your ideas in the way you can in your native Russian, but it is the rules of English Wikipedia and how they apply in the context of this article which are under discussion. That is why I encouraged you to seek advice if you felt that the decision was wrong. It had occurred to me that you have been reticent to participate in discussions from the outset because you don't feel confident enough to express yourself in English. Yes, Arjayay is obviously well versed in the rules but, then, so are others participating in the discussion. No one has approached dismissing your work with any malicious intent to simply throw it out. I would seriously suggest that you ask for information on where to find assistance at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Иришка, или Ириненок (Иринёнок). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Иринёнок, я никак не думала, что вы хотите меня оскорбить. Maybe, my first small list (with little addition) is a compromise? Анна Волкова (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is not up to me to make such decisions. Even reintroducing the original list would still require justification and, most definitely, an elaboration as to each novel's notability on its own merit. I truly believe that the list you wish to develop needs to be classified under its own category, or as a stub. All the expansion of the list did was to alert us to the fact that it was problematic. Reverting it to a shorter form won't make the issues surrounding its inclusion go away. My ultimate concern has to lie with the integrity of the article. I, too, have little wish-lists for the article but know I can't add them as they simply aren't justified. I'm sorry that it's the case... but it is the case. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so. Анна Волкова (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's probably what separates scholars from uneducated. By the way, Islandic Sagas and Primary Chronicle are also fairy tales. Lifeglider (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)