Talk:Russian architecture/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This archive discusses the edit war that has been destroying the history of this article started by a user who was shamed at his arbitration for this and many other reasons.

Moving articles by cut and paste

User:Ghirlandajo, you are showing a bad example to the novice Wikipedia editors, particularly User:AndriyK. Now he should be completely lost about the wikipedia rules and may actually never grow to respect other people's works.

Now the discussion page is linked between Russian architecture and Architecture of Rus, but the articles themselves and their histories are separated. abakharev 10:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

User:AndriyK, in the event you would almost single-handily wrote an article of a similar quality and some alternatively talented user would suddenly move it to a strange location, I promise not to scold you for using cut-n-paste to return the article where it belongs. abakharev 12:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


User:Ilya K posted a POV sticker on the top of the article, but forgot to explain his grievances on the talk page. Unless he would explain them shortly, I intend to remove the sticker. abakharev 12:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

POV is in unifiyng Kievan Rus with Muscovy and Russia architecture. Ilya K 12:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
So it makes totally disputed all the sections of the article including the Soviet architecture and the architecture of Russian Empire?
Anyway the Ukraine and Russia share the common history and it is impossible to separate one of the other for some periods. Including the whole history of the Kievan Rus into the Russian history, without separating it onto the History of the Russian Rus and the Ukrainian Rus is a norm for all English-language text books I am aware of. Of course it does not prevent any History of Ukraine to include any references to the history of Rus including the history of Russian Rus. abakharev 12:57, 29

October 2005 (UTC)

It's better to make separate Architecture of Rus article Ilya K 13:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, write it then. I personally has nothing against a good article on the architecture of the Kievan Rus, then both Russian Architecture and Ukrainian Architecture could just refer to the new article and have a few milestones mentioned. I would still wait for the opinion of Ghirladajo, as he is the main author and his opinion matter most abakharev 13:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Guys, the only part that is disputed here is the title and whether one signle section belongs to the article, not even the neutrality of the section. There are special templates for that. User:Ilya K, if still unconvinsed, may add these templates to an appropriate section but there is no justification to put a disputed tag over the entire article. I repeat that the matter is not that I view his objctions as without merit but that they are obviously narrower than the general disputed tag. Also, please check the recent entries at Talk:Kievan Rus' for a very similar dispute. --Irpen 14:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The POV to be discussed is clearly seen in the first sentence, which mentiones architecture of Kievan Rus, which is not quite well correspondes to the title.--AndriyK 20:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

For that, you can use the templates that question neutrality of the title and/or the particular section. But you can leave the global POV for now. Wait for kind of responses you will get. --Irpen 21:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can imagine... ;) --AndriyK 21:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Still, as a suggestion, please consider the following: Template:POV-title-section, Template:Disputed-section and Template:POV-title which are more sort of narrow. or maybe none. As an alternative, write an article about Ukrainian architecture, include there the architecture of Rus' and I promise you, no one will bark. Also, your efforts to write an article about Ch. principality are highly appreciated. You can be sure it will be listed up for a move vote, but in any case your writing is helping WP. I hope this won't be the last article you write. Feel free to retract the load of shit you unloaded at Maidan but feel free not to as well. Your language speaks about yourself as much as about the others. --Irpen 21:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Since there is little chance to convince user:AndriyK in anything, I suggest we put the appropriateness of the title up for voting. If we see a consensus emerging that the title is adequate, we will dump his tag. If not, we will discuss what the better name would be. In the meanwhile, I suggest AndriyK offers his suggestions on how to name the article. I bet his was joking with "Rus'" in the name of the article that included Soviet Realism architecture. I doubt he will take up my proposal to write a Ukrainian architecture article and have the issue settled this way. He can still contribute to Ukrainian baroque written by his perceived enemies of Ukraine. But maybe he has other good ideas. Objections? --Irpen 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Woud not you start voting about the value of π? Indeed, π=3 or π=4 is much more convenient that this crazy irrational number π=3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751...
This is not a matter of somebody's taste. This is a matter of fact. Kievan Rus is not Russia. And Russia is not Kievan Rus.--AndriyK 08:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

We already heard you, AndriyK. Reread above and answer the question, if you can. You are asked to offer a name. Reread... Also, while Ghirlandajo didn't authorize me to speak on his behalf, I can asure you that if you will write a Ukrainian architecture article and would start it from Kievan Rus' chapter and would just paste his text there, he would not object at all from what I can tell --Irpen 23:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it not be sufficient to put one brief sentence in that section explaining the meaning of Rus’? If it can mention in passing Ukrainian and Belarusan heritage without distracting from the subject, that should satisfy any reasonable East Slav. Michael Z. 2005-11-2 02:26 Z

I don't know what would be sufficient for the user you have in mind but IMO such mention would definetely not hurt. OTOH, the claim that the even while this isn't added yet the article needs a global POV label is just ridiculous. Unfortunately, I am not too good in architecture. But those who are, would you please indeed add a word or two as per above? Thanks! --Irpen 04:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I am second that this a sound idea. May be we should wait a few hours for Ghirlandajo to make the edit himself? Since he has written the article, the last thing I'd want is to offend his sensibility abakharev 07:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think that with modified title of the first section now we can remove the tag. If anyone's unhappy with it and insists on reinserting it, propose a different title at talk for discussion. Throwing the tag an not proposing anything is the road to nowhere. Titling the article as "Architecture of Rus'" is just a bad joke. --Irpen 16:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Good article

In case it hasn't been clearly stated, very good work, G. Michael Z. 2005-11-2 02:00 Z

Modifying text according to the title

I propose the following solution:

  1. Do not change the title, but
  2. change the first paragraph and
  3. cut the first section according to the title.

(The section in its initial form is copied to the article Architecture of Kievan Rus). If you are not agree, feel free to revert, but propose another solution. Removing the POV template is not a solution.--AndriyK 20:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I restored the butchered text which I pretty much explained in my edit summary. Architecture of Kiev is related to the architecture of Vladimir-Suzdal and remove it to satisfy a fringe UA-nationalist POV is no way to deal with an issue. There are two ways to deal with POV tags. One is to find the mutually acceptable solution. The other one, if the first option fails, is to see where the clear majority stands and whether there is a clear majority. So far, several people expressed their opinion and I do not see anyone object but AndriyK himself. If with more people speaking up, the trend remains unchanged, we will get rid of the tag. If we get flooded with people from internet forums who will just express themselves and leave, as it was being done and Chernigov Principality votes, several people are already prepared to take the recent disastrous trends to arbitration. I hope this won't be necessary. --Irpen 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, I know it hurts to see a good article you wrote being butchered, but I think we are dealing with an issue properly now. Please, let a dissenter keep his tag for now. --Irpen 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen did not propose any solution, so I reverted back. If you revert, please propose your way tpo solve the issue.--AndriyK 08:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a problem, so I can't propose the solution. You are the only one here that sees a problem when there is none. As per such, the problem is most likely with someone's Russophobia rather than the article's neutrality. And there are how many editors above that said that the article is OK? --Irpen 08:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot propose any solution, let other people do it, instead of starting an edit war.--AndriyK 08:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the introductory page in accordence with the title. The POV-section template is added to the first section. The churches in Kiev and Chernihiv has nothing to do with Russian architecture.--AndriyK 19:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a very fringe POV that is hard even to comment. I suggest you find at least one established editor with such views without recruitment at maidan where you brought a bunch of single-vote editors who would not know what they are doing, similar to the absentee voters in 2004 election voted as they were ordered. --Irpen 19:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, AndriyK. I added "The first examples of monumental architecture in Russia (as well as in Belarus and Ukraine) were the great churches of Rus'...", and you marked the section POV with this explanation on my talk page: "It would be incorect to consider churches in Kiev and Chernihiv as "Russian" architecture." Here you write "The churches in Kiev and Chernihiv has nothing to do with Russian."

You're just plain wrong. The architecture of Kievan Rus’ is equally part of the traditions of Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian architecture. The ancient architecture in Ukraine had a great influence on the entire Russian tradition. This view is probably more neutral than that of most mainstream English-language architecture books, so you should stop wasting everybody's time now. Michael Z. 2005-11-3 20:42 Z

Yes, the architecture of the North of Kievan Rus is a part of Russian architecture, while that of the West is a part of Belarusian architecture, while that of South is a part of Ukrainian architecture. If the ancient architecture in Ukraine had a great influence on the entire Russian tradition, it should be clearly stated in the article. Architecture of Kiev could be mentioned in this context, but the architecture of Kiev or Chernihiv should not be considered as "Russian".
Why the architecture of the whole Soviet Union is considered as "Russian". I modified the first paragraph properly. What was the reason to revert it?--AndriyK 21:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
AndriyK, you're implying that Kievan Rus’ had three independent architectural traditions which stopped at the borders of modern countries, and you know this is false. This is pushing a POV. No respectable architecture book or historian treats it this way. In fact many of them just call it all Russian architecture, period. You should really stop this, before someone pulls out the references. Michael Z. 2005-11-3 21:23 Z
Calling the whole architecture of Kievan Rus "Russian" is not pushing a POV? If you disagree what I propose, please propose another solution. Until that, the corrresponding section should be marked as disputed.--AndriyK 13:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Kievan Rus’ was the Belarusan, Russian, and Ukrainian predecessor state. There is no factual inaccuracy, no misleading implication, and this article is in accord with mainstream literature on the subject. This article is not about a "northern part of Kievan Rus’" (but if you can cite a source, please do). If you insist there's a NPOV problem, please file a request for comment in the right place to get more experienced and neutral editors to look at this page. Michael Z. 2005-11-7 15:58 Z

That is unless the person who disputes it is the only Wikipedians who sees a problem and also is known for defying consensus and having the radically out-of-the mainstream views for the WP community. --Irpen 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, again, it is not my or anyone's business to tell you what to do but if you wrote some articles contributing to Wikipedia of about 10% of the great content contributed by Ghirlandajo (both Michael and I did have many disagreements and arguments with him) rather than roam around his, mine or other people's articles with meaningless name "corrections", you would be perceived differently by the community. You find articles and either inflame everyone by name modifications and strange changes of the titles, or cut pieces out of them or throw ridiculous tags on good or, at least, very acceptable articles despite there is a huge shortage of attention to Russia and especially to Ukraine in WP. In fact, there is only a single Ukraine related WP:FA (Hero of Ukraine written mostly my Zscout370 and SashaZlv, while you manage to include Sasha too in the enemies of your Maidan war).

You then come here and do the same. Then you come to Orange revolution which Michael and myself took great pains to write very carefully weighting and researching every word of it.

You started a Chernihiv Principality. Do something there. If you manage to make a great article out of it, you might even succeed in having others agree to have it under the strange name out of respect to the author. This is a huge disruption and a waste of time of everyone, so far, including yourself to begin with. I offered you several times to forgo the bad blood and start some meaningful discussions. I am sure, many others would be willing to do it as well. --Irpen 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-Russian "Russian" architecture

With all respect to Russian architecture, why am I called "racist" as well as being abused in other words by Mr. Ghirlandajo, when trying to state the obvious? Ukrainian architecture isn't Russian. I feel that this abuse goes beyond any possible rules of Wikepedia. Russia should not claim some foreign architecture to be "Russian". It isn't true. Russians have not migrated from Kiev to Russia, they took some styles and designs from there, but this doesn't make Kiev's architecture Russian.

"...they took some styles and designs from there..."—isn't this saying that the churches of Kievan Rus’ influenced northern architecture? In other words, are part of its tradition? Do we know who the architects were? Do we know that no architect who designed a church in Kiev ever designed another in Novgorod? Do you think the Byzantine influence on northern churches leap-frogged "Ukraine" and went directly to "Russia"?
This article is about a fairly continuous architectural tradition. To edit out the parts of it that were south of the border of the Ukrainian SSR is wrong. It's not motivated by anything you read in a mainstream English-language book about architecture. You'll have to work a lot harder to convince anyone that this idea is neutral. Michael Z. 2005-11-11 20:25 Z

Michael, I see no problem with the article about Russian architecture referring to Kiev's architecture. Just like I don't see any problem with the article about the later styles of Ukrainian architecture referring to Italian architecture. There were famous Italian architects working in Kiev. But would you like me to start listing all of their works as "Ukrainian"? If the same person built something in Milano using the same style, would I suddenly list those buildings as "Ukrainian"? It simply doesn't make any sense. The British Architecture page doesn't list Rome's Coliseum as a masterpiece of British architecture because there are some Roman buildings in Britain. If it did, would you call a person "racist" for trying to correct it? --Andrew Alexander 23:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't try to convince me, I don't have the power to un-protect the article or rule on the wording; try to convince everyone here—I'm sure G-man will unprotect the article once it looks like we have achieved some consensus. Offer up a compromise wording that you feel is better than what's in the article now and may be acceptable to everyone, or quote a reference that supports your point of view.
In my opinion, the architecture of Kievan Rus’ belongs to all three of Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian traditions; we can bicker about the details, but that doesn't belong here. I don't believe the article is saying that St. Sophia in Kiev is "Russian". I can't think of a better analogy at the moment, but the architecture of Rome and the United Kingdom do not have the same relationship as the architecture of central Rus’ and the architecture of northern Rus’. If you think we can change some wording to make the relationship more clear, without turning this into a political dissertation, I would like to hear it. Michael Z. 2005-11-12 01:18 Z
Russian architecture belongs to Kievan Rus tradition. What's wrong with this statement? Note a slight difference from calling St Sofia in Kiev "Russian architecture". Kievan Rus doesn't belong to Russian tradition. Just like Roman Empire doesn't belond to British tradition. The opposite may be true. And yes, the ancient architecture somewhere in Bath, Britain, is Roman. Just like some temples in "Northern Russia" are Kievan. Do you feel the difference from calling all the ancient Kievan buildings Russian? Do you understand that British architecture doesn't go over the history of some buildings in Rome? Because it doesn't have as its purpose to bamboozle the reader into thinking that Rome is Britain. Unlike the 300 years of the Russian historiographical tradition, trying desperately to steal Ukraine's history and make it "Russian". Which is laughable.--Andrew Alexander 01:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
While Britannica doesn't have a separate article on Ukrainian architecture, it does have an article on Ukrainian literature, which mentions the Tale of Igor's Campaign. So does the article on Russian literature. That's part of our shared heritage, just like the Charlemagne Chapel in Aachen is a common heritage of the French, German, and Dutch people. Your parallel with Romans in Britain is simply ridiculous. Nobody contends that ancient Greek ruins in Korsun are Russian or Ukrainian. --Ghirlandajo 23:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This view (Russians stole history, Rus' were us rather than them, etc.) represents such a narrow fringe segment of Ukrainian nationalistoc viewpoint that it isn't even worth commenting. Say something serious if you want any serious responces. --Irpen 06:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Insulting your opponents will not make Kievan architecture "Russian". Hijacking someone's history is a serious business Russia has been engaging in for centuries. The proof of this is all over Russian "history books". And please don't trivialize the argument to "us and them". Try to see the problem with calling another country's culture "Russian". There were no Russians there, those people spoke a different language, didn't have tsars and Moscow Patriarchate, didn't drink Russian vodka and play Russian balalayka. Claiming their masterpieces to be "Russian" is wrong. One can claim to inherit a certain tradition, but don't claim the tradition to inherit you. --Andrew Alexander 07:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
So you think that the 11th-century Kievans did have hetmans and Uniate church, drank Ukrainian gorilka and played Ukrainian bandura? Good for you. It shows the level of your competence on the subject. --Ghirlandajo 23:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think lack of support of the view that Kievan Rus history doesn't belong to Russia, and only to Ukraine, among other Wikipedians and in the Western historiography speaks about your ideas itself. Note, we are not talking about Halych-Vohlynia principality period here but about Kievan period. See above. --Irpen 17:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think despite multiple repetitions, you still fail to understand that Kievan history DOES belong to Russia. But not wholly. Some part of it. Just like part of Roman history belongs to Britain. Whether you genuinely misunderstand this fact, or just pretend not to see it, it's not going to help Russia usurp ancient Kiev history. Mentioning early Kiev buildings as examples of Russian architecture is ridiculous. Russia has nothing to do with those buildings. They didn't build or design them, they didn't even export bricks from mother-Russia at that time.--Andrew Alexander 17:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said that this chpapter equally belongs to the Ukrainian architecture which you are welcome to write. Or would you delete it from there too? --Irpen 18:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
No, sorry, it does not belong to this page. Because, once again, Kiev architecture isn't Russian. I hope you understood it this time. It's OK to say "churches of Suzdal and Vladimir were build similar to some churches in Kiev". It's not OK to list churches of Kiev as examples of "Russian architecture". Stop hijacking those buildings. They are too heavy to carry across the border.--Andrew Alexander 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So would you or wouldn't you delete this section from Ukrainian architecture? --Irpen 18:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure which section you want to delete, but why wouldn't Kiev churches be described under Ukrainian architecture?

Andrew, I think a better analogy than British/Roman would be avoiding describing Greek and Etruscan architecture under Roman architecture, or leaving out Byzantine architecture from an article about Turkish architecture. No one is saying that the architecture of Rus’ belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine.

Let's change the wording so that it can't be accused of implying that. Perhaps the language simply has to be more politically neutral. Would it work if the first section referred only to Rus’ and not Russia? Michael Z. 2005-11-12 23:47 Z

I think we're making the same mistake again. It's fine to describe something. It's not fine to claim it to be something it's not. E.g. it would be ridiculous to claim ancients buildings in Athens as examples of Roman or Turkish architecture. Yet we claim here that ancient churches in Kiev are "Russian". They are not! We don't describe buildings in Rome as "Romanian", do we? In fact, Russia has plenty of its own builgings to describe. Why would anyone go to another country? There are hundreds of churches missing in this article, yet we need to spend whole paragraphs on the Churches of Tithes and St. Sophia. --Andrew Alexander 01:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Far too many editors have been adding unacceptable insults to their edit summaries here (and elsewhere). If I hadn't already been active in the discussion here, I would have protected it by now. You should all be ashamed of yourselves and apologize for the unprofessional behaviour. Michael Z. 2005-11-11 20:25 Z

I've listed this page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If you can all resist name-calling and accusations, and apologize to each other for the impolite statements, and start to discuss this, then I will retract my request. I suggest leaving Kiev architecture in the text, since this is in line with mainstream literature on the subject. The onus is on AndriyK and Andrew Alexander to convince others that this is not NPOV, preferably with the support of respectable literature. If anyone can provide references to the contrary, that may help resolve this too. Michael Z. 2005-11-11 20:36 Z
Dear Michael, I would not object against mentioning of Kievan architecture here, provided that it would be made clear that it has influences Russian architecture (similarly as Byzantine architecture influenced the Kievan one).
In present for it looks like the architecture of Kiev and Chernihiv is Russian, which is not true.
It would be more productive to correct the article according to the title, preserving most of the matherial there.--AndriyK 18:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And to this I would like to add that the only editing by AndriyK and Andrew Alexander of this article was removing pieces form it, the measure which is generally frown upon except in few cases. --Irpen 20:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't matter now; the discussion and edit summaries got pretty ugly all round, and that's why I requested protection. I couldn't see this dispute being resolved the way things were going.
Also, it doesn't matter whose edit version the article got protected at. I don't think it will get unprotected until this can be resolved satisfactorily. So gentlemen, please take a deep breath, find some references, and present them respectfully. Or offer some compromise wording for the article (compromise means nobody gets their way). Michael Z. 2005-11-11 21:34 Z
Michael, you are acting as the only sensible man all around. I wish all the articles written by me would get protected. Thanks, Ghirlandajo 21:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Careful what you wish for. In the mean time, please let's not just sit on this, but try to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction, or at least mutual disgruntlement. Michael Z. 2005-11-11 22:23 Z

Michael, I am sorry and I am always for compromising when possible but I don't see a possiblity to accomodate Andrew's and Andriy's fervent wish to exclude Kievan Rus' architecture from the Russian architecture article. I am sure that this part can be used directly in a Ukrainian architecture article too which our prolific revert warriors won't write because so far they just deleted stuff or changed names (or at least that was over 90% of their activity). If they cannot be satisfied with the fact the architecture of Kiev Rus' is part of the Russian architecture (as well as of the Ukrainian one), it cannot be resolved to their satisfaction. And if they will keep to express their dissatisfaction by deleting the chapter from the article, this article will have to be protected forever until their getting permanently blocked. --Irpen 22:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Then let's try to find sufficient references to support one point of view or the other. If no one else can do it by Monday or so, then I'll go to my city library and find the five biggest, most recent architecture books, and see how they treat the subject. Michael Z. 2005-11-11 22:56 Z
You may start by opening [History of Western Architecture] in the 2004 Britannica, which starts the section on [Russian architecture] with St Sophia Cathedral in Kiev and the Church of the Tithes. That's the ref AndriyK is particularly fond of alluding to. --Ghirlandajo 23:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Is Kiev a Russian city? Or was it under Russia's boot for some 300 or so years? So Ukrainian historians had a good chance end up in concetration camps the moment they whispered about ancient Ukrainian, and not "Russian" architecture? So the Church of Tithes, which was built by Kievans, the ancestors of today Ukrainians, became "an old Russian church". --Andrew Alexander 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether Kiev is a Russian or Ukrainian city today. The monuments we are discussing were built a millenium ago. So we should establish whether Kiev was Russian or Ukrainian at that time. Sorry, it was neither. It was Old Russian, if you like, or "ruski", as the Kievans called themselves. The word "Ukraine" was ignored by them. The Church of the Tithes was not built by Kievans either. It was built by Byzantine masters, because Kievans, having been baptized but several years before that, didn't know how to build a church. --Ghirlandajo 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
How is this whining related to the issue. Kievans of Rus are ancestors of Ukrainians as much as they are of Russians. And don't bring the BS here about Finno-Ugric tribes in the north. These were heard here before. --Irpen 06:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it's hard to understand, but try: Kiev architecture isn't Russian. It's Kievan. Russia has no relation to it whatsoever, except for learning from it.--Andrew Alexander 08:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
All that Ukrainians did to their St Sophia was to ridiculously polonize its outlook in the 17th century. So you may take the pear domes with you. The core and interior of the building clearly belongs to the Russian tradition. It was the Assumption Church of the Pecherski monastery that inspired the first cathedrals in Smolensk, Suzdal, and elsewhere in Russia. Russian architecture continued to copy their outlook for centuries. On the other hand, Ukrainian architecture, such as we know it, borrowed nothing from this churches. It was inspired by other models, primarily Polish. --Ghirlandajo 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
One thing you're right about. Russia continued to copy. It doesn't make the original to be in a "Russian style" however. --Andrew Alexander 05:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You are not making your point any more convinsing by repeating it. --Irpen 17:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I just try to help you get the point. So you can repeat it without twisting it.--Andrew Alexander 17:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
There is actually no point you can help to get to. Following your logic, if a building stands in Novgorod-Seversky, it is part of Ukrainian architecture only, whereas a twin building standing 40 km away, somewhere in Sevsk, is Russian and not Ukrainian. Let's say there are two twin churches in Chernigov and Smolensk, built by the same masters (e.g., Piatnitskaya church and Petropavlovsky sobor). Following your logic, the former should be mentioned in the article on Ukrainian architecture, and the latter - on the Russian architecture. This is a very naive form of nationalism. In fact, cultural traditions are continuous and do not care about present borders, which were drawn but several decades ago. Nobody knows where this border will be, say, three centuries later, but the cultural tradition of Russian architecture will remain as it is now. --Ghirlandajo 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Another illustration. There are Saint Vladimir's Cathedral and Saint Andrew's Church in Kiev. Both were designed, constructed and decorated by Russian masters: Rastrelli, Michurin, Vasnetsov, Vrubel. Nevertheless, nobody will say that you "hijack" these buildings if you mention them in your article on Ukrainian architecture. So how do you know that St Sophia's Cathedral was designed by a Kievan and not by some master from Novgorod? Let's be fair, it's all much more complicated than the issue of modern borders. --Ghirlandajo 00:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I bet you hope the border will not be where it is now and an ugly, Polonized Ukrianian style will be replaced by a noble, pure Russian style. The brainwashing got so bad in Russia, that Russian tourists start asking in Kiev, "so when did Ukrainians manage to steal all of these old buildings from Russia?". --Andrew Alexander 01:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, you are raving mad. Your answers (or rather lack thereof) show that it's hopeless to discuss anything with you. Nationalists will be nationalists, no matter how many arguments you propose to them. --Ghirlandajo 02:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, it's fine to describe Russian churches built in old Kievan style. It's also fine to say what old Kievan style is. It's not fine to treat Ukraine as a "poor relative" who happened to be at the same place where Kiev is. Treat your neighbors with respect, they'll return a favor. Behave like a swine and they they will ask you to keep far away.--Andrew Alexander 05:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I beg you, stop quarrelling, you started fine with presenting your points, but now..., this page happened on my watchlist and that is no pleasure to have it come up it with undue accusations from both sides, please, discuss more calmly and constructively, or if you truly have no hope in each other - go through some Wikipedia formal procedure. –Gnomz007(?) 05:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this page protection looks more and more like a way to stifle any modification due to reasonable objections to calling Kiev architecture "Russian". A primitive nationalistic point of view of Imperial Russia is implemented despite all the evidence to the contrary. Let's summarize the gist of the Russian nationalistic objections to not calling Kiev Russian. "Kiev is a common heritage of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and therefore it cannot belong only to Ukraine." Therefore Russia has a right to claim every Kiev building as its own. This claim is absurd. The reason it's absurd is that by any reasonable historical standard, a country cannot lay a claim on something it has not created or has no current posession of. Romania or Spain cannot claim the ownership of all the Ancient Rome buildings. Arabs cannot claim ownership of Israeli relics. Turkey cannot claim ownership of Athens temples. Even the "common source" theory would not justify any such claims. Especially if the "common source" lies mostly in ancient Kiev's projection of its cultural and military power, but is not supported by the evidence of mass migration from Kiev to Russia.--Andrew Alexander 04:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not looking more and more like anything, except that I haven't had time to get to the library yet. I don't see "Russia" claiming anything here, unless Russia is using a different user name. Since you aren't coming up with anything new, you'll just have to be patient. I'm still planning to do some research, and probably propose a revision of the first article section here. Michael Z. 2005-11-16 07:35 Z
I can't believe you don't see a single claim of Russian ownership of Kiev temples in "Pre-Mongol period (988–1230)". Almost every sentence in that paragraph alludes to the buildings located in Kiev as Russian. The "center of Russian life" in Kiev you don't see either? --Andrew Alexander 17:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see this being corrected in the revert war. As I wrote above, you may propose a compromise revision, or wait to see my proposal. Michael Z. 2005-11-16 23:49 Z
Michael, the reason this parapgraph hasn't been completely changed is because the people defending old Kiev architecture from Russian claims are too careful. They wish a civil discussion and not a brute force approach preferred by another side advertizing Russian Imperial chauvinism. I wish you a speedy trip to that library. I wish even more that the article would not be dependent on this. I suggest creating separate articles for the Kiev temples mentioned here (unless those article already exist), then simply refer from here to those article and accompany this with the mention that Russian architecture has evolved from the designs of those temples. You can also mention original Byzantian architecture as another major source of inspiration for Russian architects.--Andrew Alexander 05:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


This page has been protected for a week. How does everyone feel about unprotection and are you any closer to consensus? I'd like to remind everyone that even after this is eventually unprotected, edit warring and incivility is not to start up again. Dmcdevit·t 08:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like one side of the dispute is satisfied with the protected version and do not take any efforts to find the consensus. It would be reasonable to protect the page with POV template on the top of it. This would incaurage all the sides to participate in the discussion more actively.--AndriyK 11:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has proposed any compromises which could lead to consensus yet, but shortly I will propose a revision (see below). We can discuss and revise it here, and when consensus is reached we can unprotect the article. Sound okay? Michael Z. 2005-11-21 00:11 Z
Feel free to contact me directly on my talk page when it's ready, that'll be faster than RFPP. Dmcdevit·t 01:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I apologize for taking so long to come up with a proposed revision. I'm working on it now, and should have something to post for review tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Michael Z. 2005-11-29 22:13 Z

Waiting on the revision.--Andrew Alexander 03:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Again, sorry for taking so long. Since protection had been removed and there was no comment or objection to my observations above, I've entered it directly into the article. It's wide open again, but let's please discuss any potentially controversial changes here, or try to make revisions that will be acceptable to everyone. I've tried to revise the intro and first section without making a wholesale rewrite or losing its sense, but still present the information in a way that could be acceptable to all sides of the controversy. There were also some minor changes further down, and a lot of minor copy-edits. If I haven't quite succeeded, let me know how it can be improved.

Thanks for the patience. This article is an excellent start, but I hope we can get past this, because there is the potential to write a lot more about other aspects, such as vernacular architecture, cubism and futurism, and later modernism. Michael Z. 2005-12-1 05:37 Z

Michael, I appreciate your efforts to keep from referencing to Kiev's churches as Russian. Still, there is a little problem. The problem is, these churches can't be talked about directly in the article called "Russian Architecture". We can only reference to them as examples that Russian architects aspired to, but didn't produce themselves. I understand, that every Russian historian (well, almost) will argue hotly that Kiev churcher are Russian. In fact, every encyclopedic article written or reviewed by Russian historians would always include Kievan Rus in its entirety as "Russian". But what's the factual basis for these claims? Were Russian architects known to build Churches of Tithes or St Sofia? Were ancient Kiev citizens Russian? Were they speaking in Russian? And please note, old Kievan architecture wasn't all the same all over Kievan Rus. That's natural, because Kievan Rus was a confederation of autonomous princedoms. In fact, there were frequent wars among those princedomes, alsmost every 10-20 years. At the time of Mongol invasion there was hardly a single state with a single currrency and army. The styles and designs of the churches differ significantly, even though all of them tried to imitate the Byzantine style to some extent.--Andrew Alexander 20:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The "claims" you refer to are not present in this article. I don't know about Russian historians—I haven't read any—but English and American architectural historians quite directly talk about the architecture of Kievan Rus’ in books and articles on "Russian architecture," and without claiming that they are Russian churches. (Incidentally, the first wave of church-building in the territories of modern Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia were supervised by Greek architects who worked in several principalities; there is no basis whatsoever to call many them Ukrainian or Russian except for the borders of modern states. Later derivative churches developed more regional character)
I've supplied some good references attesting to this above, and was unable to find anything at all about Russian architectural history which does not talk about these churches—have you found anything? I'm no expert on architectural history, but I do have some education in the field. I think I've done a pretty good job of reflecting the state of current English-language publication on the subject in my revision, perhaps showing even a bit more care about keeping it neutral than some of them. And of course improvement is always welcome.
If you're not happy with it, I suggest you start by finding some convincing references to back up your opinion. Michael Z. 2005-12-4 00:23 Z
True. It is also true that many people referred to Ukraine as "Russia" in the near past. Is this the reason to continue with that tradition despite the facts? I was asking about some factual basis.--Andrew Alexander 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting fact, which I would like to know more about. I thought the names of the architects were unknown for the Church of Tithes and St Sofia. Still, what's the reason to descibe those churches in "Russian architecture"?--Andrew Alexander 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
And your work is appreciated. However, most of those texts are based on the texts written prior to the USSR breakup. Moreover, most of it is based on the opinions of Russia herself. I'd like to hear some logical explanation of why some foreign country temple is considered Russian.--Andrew Alexander 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of references that do not call e.g. the Church of Tithes "Russian":;4545/,,
Your first reference is a Ukrainian press release which calls the Tithes Church a building of "Kyivan Rus"; well this article refers to it is a "church of Kievan Rus’", and a "Kievan church". Your second reference is Britannica, whose article on "Russian Architecture" indeed does talk about the Church of the Tithes. Your third reference about "Vladimir I of Kiev" says nothing at all about the Church of the tithes; most of it is a mirror of Wikipedia, and it doesn't write about Kievan or Russian architecture, on that page or others that I could find. Find some respectable articles on Russian architectural history which leave out Kievan Rus.
I have looked at references on the subject Russian architecture, and they all discuss Kievan Rus architecture. I have picked out the most respected and recent ones, the least Russian-oriented ones that I could find, and cited them here. You claim that they are discredited because they are Russian-influenced, but you don't have any contradictory sources. Failing this, you fall back on "logic", which is in effect saying we should do some research and set a new trend.
And finally stop arguing from false assertions. You imply that I continue with a tradition of referring to Ukraine as "Russia", which is false—neither I nor the text of this article refer to Ukraine as Russia. You keep implying that this article calls the Kievan churches Russian, which is false—it does not call them Russian. I've spent a lot of time indulging you and AdriyK in this article, mostly because you've been polite so far. Don't make me feel like I've been wasting my time. Michael Z. 2005-12-4 08:22 Z
I am not sure what the last passage is about. Am I not being polite? Please stop indulging me and whoever else. No politeness can explain wrong facts in the text. Kiev=Kyiv according to many sources. Do you disagree? Should we disregard all the sources on Kyivan Rus? This way a lot of modern historical sources will be excluded. Also, try reading the third reference lead, it talks about the "Cathedral of Tithes". Finally, yes, the sources you cite do follow a long tradition established by Russia to consider Kievan Rus "early Russia", which it is not. I don't ask you to disregard those sources. Simply look at other sources as well. They include a current map and history books on Kievan Rus. The latter will never tell you that Russia established Kiev, or the ethnic Russians populated Kiev, or that ancient Kievans migrated to Russia. Why are those sources worse than a couple of books you cited? A reputable source may still contain a biased POV since it may care less whether Kiev was "Russia" or it wasn't. A book on architecture may consider the questions of Kiev national identity irrelevant. Kiev (Kyiv) may disagree but who is asking Kiev? Wikipedia makes this all very different since it forces to use a multitude of respectable views. There is a respectable historical view point considering ancient Kiev not to be ancient Russia. This must be mentioned in this article.--Andrew Alexander 11:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Where are the sources for this "respectable historical viewpoint"? I suggest at the very least working to introduce this point of view to such topics as the history of Kievan Rus and the origins of Muscovy here at wikipedia, before you begin to promote it at an article with such limited connections to it as this one. The POV that Kiev was not Russia is not at all a respectable historical viewpoint from where I'm standing. It's a rogue theory that just began making the rounds, and I'm yet to see a single peer review from a non-Ukrainian who finds it plausible. 11:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Per Columbia Encyclopedia, Kievan Rus is "medieval state of the Eastern Slavs. It was the earliest predecessor of modern Ukraine and Russia. Flourishing from the 10th to the 13th cent., it included nearly all of present-day Ukraine and Belarus and part of NW European Russia, extending as far N as Novgorod and Vladimir." As you see, it states that Kievan Rus included part of Russia. It does not state that Kievan Rus is equivalent to "early Russia". Just like Roman Empire included part of Brittain, but it was not "early Brittain". Per the same text,
"According to some scholars the history of the Kievan state is the common heritage of modern Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, although their existence as separate peoples has been traced as far back as the 12th cent." [1]
Again, this reputable source makes a claim that Kiev was not early Russia.--Andrew Alexander 12:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Nobody opposing your viewpoint is equating Keivan Rus with modern day Russia, somehow excluding Ukraine. I am not disputubg that Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage. The encyclopedia you quote goes nowhere near supporting your radical viewpoint posted just above, that Kievans never even migrated to Russia, and that the Kievans are so distinct that even the things they did as far back as the 10th century cannot be called Russian. No one is calling them "modern Russian". We're calling them "Russian". Provide proof why you think something of a Rus' is not Russian.
I already did. There is quire a significant "something" from Kievan Rus that is not Russian. Read it again, "it included nearly all of present-day Ukraine and Belarus".--Andrew Alexander 03:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
If the people of Kievan Rus self-identified as Russians when those churches were built, then the churches may very well be called Russian as well.
Once again. No one anywhere in the world somehow believes that modern day Russians are the only true heirs to the Kievan Rus heritage, that one fine day the entire Kievan Rus just got up and moved out becoming Muscovy. Russian does not mean "not Ukrainian" to anyone arguing with you here. No one has any problem with that fact being stated. I am however vehemently opposed to attempts to strike out any mention of anything Kievan from anything Russia-related. Per your own attempts at proof, then Kievan Rus should not be mentioned in anything under the Ukrainian heading, since that Columbia article does not say that Kievan Rus was early Ukraine.
Say it with me. Common heritage. Self identification. Rus'. Ruski. 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Is that some sort of Russian Empire rant? "Russian does not mean not Ukrainian". Who needs logic? "Repeat after me", too bad the USSR corpse has already rotten away, so no one can make people repeat nonsense. What else did you learn in school? How about, if A is part of B, then B is not part of A?--Andrew Alexander 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I see, Michael, you were working hard to prove that there are books in English calling architecture of Kyiv "Russian". You might work even harder and you find that some English language authors are still not avare about the very existance of Ukraine and do not see any difference between the USSR and Russia. You may work even harder and find the people still beleaving that the Earth is flat. Then add this all bullshit to Wikipedia. This will exstremely improve the quality of the resource.

You may be very surprised, but there are other languages in the world. And there are even sources on Kyivan architecture in these languages. Sadly (for you and your friends) they do not consider Kyivan archotecture as Russian [2],[3]. You may ignore these sources, but please do not remove the POV template. The problem is still there, even if you and your friends do not see it.--AndriyK 13:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I worked hard to find the most respectable and neutral sources on Russian architecture, to indulge you. Your assertions about what I was trying to prove are bullshit. I cited respectable English and American encyclopedias and academic books, not commercial and tourism web sites, lacking even an author's name.
This article refers to Kievan churches exactly as such; it does not call them Russian architecture. You're deluding yourself in your anti-Russian frenzy. Michael Z. 2005-12-4 17:12 Z
Would you say Columbia Encyclopedia is also "deluding itself in its anti-Russian frenzy"?--Andrew Alexander 23:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
We can add their article on "Russian art and architecture" to the external links, if you like. Your favourite reference starts with "With the Christianization of Russia in the late 10th cent. the Russian church and its art became subject to Constantinople (see Byzantine art and architecture). Major artistic centers developed in Kiev, Novgorod, and Pskov." Stop wasting our time, and read your sources before you cite them. Michael Z. 2005-12-5 15:40 Z


There doesn't seem to be much point in continuing to prevent further edits to this article. There has been no substantive discussion her in over a week. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a deep breath

If I might add a fresh opinion to this old debate, I think it's worth taking a step back from individual words in the article. This entire talk page is a giant monument to bias, and the innocent article is a victim to a grander cause that has nothing to do with architecture. Whether St Sophia is called Russian is of no relevance to an architect or an art student. This only matters to a handful of Ukrainian nationalists. Just take a look at the pro-Ukrainian crew contributions: how much are they contributing about architecture, and how much are they contributing about non-Russian Ukraine?

The entire discussion is revisionism, aiming to satisfy the latest extremist views. Just ask yourself this. If you went back to the year 1054, and asked St Sophia's architect "Is your cathedral Russian or Kievan?", what would his answer be? He'd look at you funny and scoff.

The troubled relationship between Russians and Ukrainians is irrelevant for things from 11th century Kiev. It should be a side note, something kept in a separate article that a more interested reader may decide to check out at his leisure. It does not deserve all the attention and scrutiny so readily given by the wiki community. There is a direct, undisputed line that leads from 12th century Kiev to 14th century Muscovy. Kievans moved en mass to Muscovy to escape the Mongol invasion; early Muscovite princes were direct descendants of the Kievan House of Rurik. It's preposterous to claim that Kievans were somehow separate, unrelated. However you attempt to re-spell it, the first legal codex of Kievan Rus was called the Ruskaya Pravda. If that had the word Russian in it, so may the churches its writers built.

(P.S. I just discovered the Russkaya Pravda talk page and I'm too tired to post there, but anyone with even cursory knowledge of the language actually used in the 'Eastern Slavic territory' at the time of its writing will know that it was common to spell the word "Russian" with one s, even in documents written in Muscovy hundreds of years later.) 06:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

POV tag reinsertion by AndriyK

I request the editor who added the POV tag to list his objections to its current form as 1,2,3... --Irpen 03:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. Architecture of Kiev is not Russian.
  2. Architecture of Chernihiv is not Russian.
  3. Only part of architecture of the Soviet Union was Russian.--AndriyK 14:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Modern architecture of Kiev is not Russian. Ancient architecture of Kiev is, yes, part of both Russian and UkrainianArchitecture traditions. When you will include churches of ancient Novgorod, related to their sister-churches in Kiev, into a Ukrainian architecture article, that you will write one day, no one will POV the article and if someone will, I'll do my best to fend them off. Will you write it BTW? See, Russian mafia wrote a Ukrainian baroque. Your only contribution to the Architecture, aside from the rv war at this article, was pasting the chapter from it to another article without even acknowledging that. So, you managed to violate even a very liberal GDFL license. Not that you stayed away from copyvios in the past, I must add. --Irpen 16:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand something. Why would an article on Ukrainian architecture include a description of churches in Novgorod? Ukraine didn't build it and it doesn't own it. Yes, there is a common tradition, but it goes way outside of Ukraine, e.g. to Byzantine Empire. For your information, Wikipedia does not exist for "fending off" someone on some irrational grounds. Writing encyclopedias is not a sport, precision and logic is valued above the amount of text written.--Andrew Alexander 17:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me repeat the underlying concepts one more time. Let us discuss these in principle before we begn discussing individual implementations.
1. Kievan Rus was neither modern Russia, nor modern Ukraine. It is part of the common heritage of both nations. Events that are part of these common origins belong to both Russians and Ukrainians equally.
2. People of Kievan Rus called themselves Russian. Therefore things created by them can also be called Russian.
3. However, if Kievan Rus should not be mentioned with things related to Russia, the same reasoning would also mean it cannot be mentioned with anything related to Ukraine. 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Sorry, no kolkhozes as far as common heritage goes. I.e. it's OK to claim a common heritage and mention this in the article. It's quite a different matter to make a claim on specific buildings in Kiev and call them "Russian architecture". There is no basis for a country to claim some buildings in another country on the basis of "tradidtion". This claim is ridiculous.
2. People in Kievan Rus did not call themselves "Russian". They did refer to themselves as "Rus'ki", which is quire different semantically.
3. Please, do not spin. No one forbids you to mention Kievan Rus in this article. Not a single soul.--Andrew Alexander 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm on your side of the argument here, anonymous, but I sure have to disagree with your point number 2. Russian means "of or pertaining to Russia". Since Россия was not yet conceived at the time, and we happen to be writing an encyclopedia in modern English, you can't use twelfth-century Old East Slavic etymology to equate Rus’ with Russia. Michael Z. 2005-12-6 04:15 Z
I disagree on that, and I've described my basis in the section below this one. Russian does not mean "of or pertaining to Russia"; it is widely used for things of or pertaining to Rus' (case in point: Ivan the Terrible).
However, the linguistic discussion is irrelevant to the overall topic. Actually, the article no longer even calls anything of the Kievan Rus' "Russian". The argument is that the Kievan Rus' does not even belong here at all. Therefore my point 2 is actually irrelevant to the subject at hand, and I believe we should concentrate on 1 and 3. Thank you for letting me see that. 05:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite right. Sorry to pick on an academic point. Our time is valuable. Michael Z. 2005-12-6 05:13 Z

POV Paragraphs

The current edition looks fine except for the two paragraphs:

"Medieval Rus’ (988–1230) The great churches of Kievan Rus', built after the adoption of Christianity in 988, were the first examples of monumental architecture in the East Slavic lands, the territory of modern-day Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. The architectural style of the Kievan state which quickly established itself was strongly influenced by the Byzantine. Early Eastern Orthodox churches were mainly made of wood with the simplest form of church becoming known as a cell church. Major cathedrals often featured scores of small domes, which led some art historians to take this as an indication of what the pagan Slavic temples should have looked like.

The earliest Kievan churches were built and decorated with frescoes and mosaics by Byzantine masters. A great example of an early church of Rus' was the thirteen-domed Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev (1037-54), but much of its exterior has been altered with time."

According to many sources, e.g. Columbia Encyclopedia, Kievan Rus' was a "common heritage", but Ukrainian and Russian ancestors lived as separate peoples in different, often warring princedoms. E.g., the article says, "In 1169, Kiev was sacked and pillaged by the armies of Andrei Bogolubsky of Suzdal". It appears from this and other reliable sources that Kiev was not "Russian". Directly listing Kiev churches in the article called "Russian Architecture" is mispalced. The first Russian example of medieval architecture is Saint Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod. Hence the "Medieval Rus" architecture period in Russia starts not in 988 as the article states, but in 1044.--Andrew Alexander 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

        • Actually those paragraphs are almost paraphrased from Columbia article, which is actually an improvement –Gnomz007(?) 20:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Andrew, your ignorance is just laughable, especially when you profess to teach others. Novgorod and Kiev constututed a single state until 1125, when razodroshasya zemlya ruska... In if you are not familiar with Russian Primary Chronicle, this sources clearly states that the united Russian land was torn apart. Not Ukrainian land, mind you. What we discuss here are pre-1125 churches. Further, wooden St Sophia churches were built in Kiev, Novgorod, and Rostov the same year. The stone churches that replaced them were also constructed simultaneously. Therefore your assumption that Kievan architecture is somehow older than Novgorodian, is also fake. --Ghirlandajo 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, you manipulate the words. Rus and Russia are not the same. Russia did not exist when Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev was build. How can it be Russian?--AndriyK 17:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Why did 11th-century French and English sources refer to Novgorod and Kiev as Russia then? --Ghirlandajo 18:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Was or was not the set of laws of the Kievan Rus called the "Russian Law"? Note, since I'm assuming you are not familiar with Church Slavonic, that it was common in all Slavic languages to spell "Russian" with one S before 1755. This universally includes Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Polish sources. Great Russian linguist Vladimir Dal argued that Rusian with one S is proper, and two S's is wrong as late as the 1860s, when he was preparing his famous dictionary. 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We are no longer speaking eleventh-century English or French. Today Rus’ and Russia mean different things, regardless that in Russian a single adjective is used for both. Michael Z. 2005-12-6 02:35 Z

That's preposterous. Should we then completely rewrite the entire history of Russia and strike out the word "Russian" prior to Peter the Great making "Rossiya" the official country name? Say, is Ivan the Terrible then not a Russian tzar? 03:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You're making quite a stretch there—please don't hurt yourself. In baiting AndriyK, Ghirlandajo wrote that eleventh-century usage is evidence that there is no difference today between the English terms Rus’ and Russia. I'm sure you agree that's not the case. Michael Z. 2005-12-6 04:04 Z
This thread is a disaster where different issues are jumbled together and arguments for one are used to prove the other. I'll try to untangle it. First of all, the English adjective "Russian" is used for things of both "Rus'" and "Russia". That's what my previous post pointed out. I am yet to see a reasonable argument as to why things related to a Rus' cannot be called Russian. My post before the last, 02:09, attempts to support using the adjective Russian for Kievan Rus'.
A little etimology: the Russian word "Rus(s)ki" means "of Rus'". In the Russian language there is a second adjective, Rossiyski, which means "of Russia". Both are translated into English as "Russian". Kievan Rus' architecture is "of Rus'". It is not "of Russia". This is obviously linguistics only - the discussion of whether or not the art of Rus' belongs with the art of Russia is a separate one, and I'm attempting it in a separate spot on this page. 04:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute

  1. One point of view contends that all architecture of Kievan Rus belongs in this article, and that a Ukrainian point of view can be satisfied by describing thes examples as of "Kievan Rus" or "Kievan" architecture, not as Russian.
  2. Point of view of AndriyK .
    Russia did not exist at the time when the first Churches/Cathedrals in Kiev, Novgorod, Vladimir, Suzdal, Chernihiv were build. So these buildings do not belong to Russian architecture if looking from historical perspective. They belong to the architecture of Kievan Rus (in historical sence).
    The Churches/Cathedrals in Novgorod, Vladimir, Suzdal are located in present-day Russia so the do belong to Russian architecture (in geographical sence).
    If the article is intended to describe the archtecture being Russian in historic sense, then the architecture of Kievan Rus does not belong to it.
    More likely, the article is intended to describe the Russian architecture in geographic sense. In this case the buildings built in the time of Kievan Rus and located on the territory of the present day Russia do belong to the article scope.
    The ancient buildings in Kiev and Chernihiv do not belong to Russian architecture in any sence. They, however, can be mentioned in the article if some building(s) located in Russia was/were inspired by some building(s) located in Ukraine. But it should be formulated in the way excluding any misunderstanding. (See also the comment of User:Durova below).
    At present, it is completely unclear from the artcile how the architecture of Novgorod was influenced by the architecture of Kiev and the description of Kievan churches under the title "Russian architecture" looks like a description of pieces of Russian architecture. Many reader would understand it in this way, even if it is not stated explicitely. I find it completely unacceptable. The POV tag should be there until the issue is solved.
    One more point that should be marked by the POV tag is mentioning the architecture of the Soviet Union. Only part of the Soviet Union was Russian. So was the architecture. The issue may be solved by replacing "Soviet Union" with "RSFSR" in the leading paragraph (as I proposed several weeks ago).--AndriyK 10:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[Thanks, this helps put the dispute in perspective. I'll give it some thought and respond. Can Andrew Alexander endorse this view? Michael Z. 2005-12-9 15:48 Z]
Sorry, but "view 1" is incorrect. Who ever said that? It's fine to mention whatever is relevant to the article. It just has to be done properly. And there is no need to copy those sources here again. Simply look a little bit up. Perhaps, while doing it, also read opponent's point view.--Andrew Alexander 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you wrote "The problem is, these churches can't be talked about directly in the article called 'Russian Architecture'." And my impression was that AndriyK wouldn't remove the POV notice until Kievan Rus’ was removed completely, or at least the structures on Ukrainian territory; "cut the first section according to the title" being one condition of his proposed solution. Michael Z. 2005-12-7 06:15 Z

Sources supporting point of view #1:

  • -

Point of view #2 is supported by the following and other publications, which do discuss architecture of Kievan Rus under the heading "Russian architecture"—some of them refer to it by the adjective Russian, others don't.

  • "Architecture: Kievan Rus and Russia" in Encyclopædia Britannica (Macropedia) vol. 13, 15th ed., 2003, p. 921.
  • John Fleming, Hugh Honour, Nikolaus Pevsner. "Russian Architecture" in The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, 5th ed., [1966] 1998, pp. 493–498, London: Penguin. ISBN 0-67-088017-5.
  • Russian art and architecture, in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001–05.

Is this a fair summary? Michael Z.  

To which I would add that describing the architecture of Rus in this article in no way prevents this material from being used in the future Ukrainian architecture article which probably will have to be written by the "Russian mafia" since the, so called "Ukrainian patriots" (user:AndriyK and user:Andrew Alexander) seem too indifferent to the Ukrainian architecture to contribute, but care about derussification enough to cause this stir. --Irpen 21:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am lookin forward to see the article describing aicent architecture of Novgorod, Vladimir and Suzdal as "Ukrainian architecture". :)))--AndriyK 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Would you please add any citations that support point of view #1 to the list above? Michael Z. 2005-12-6 19:28 Z
I am not going to cite sources confirming POV #1. I did not formulate it. It was formulated by somebody who likes to twist the words of opponents.
Kievan or even Byzantine and others architecture styles may be mentioned in the article as styles that influenced Russian architecture, but not as a part of Russian architecture. (See also the comment of User:Durova below.) There are plenty of sources confirming that Russia appeared in several centuries after the St Sophia Cathedral in Kiev was built. Should I list them or you can find them yourself.;)--AndriyK 09:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't make cracks about my twisting your words—I asked for comment, and I quoted you and Andrew above to show clearly on what I based my supposition about your demands. If I thought you were my "opponent" would I be here trying to resolve this with you?
Go ahead and rewrite the point of view to accurately reflect your and Andrew's opinions—I did ask for your comment after I put it there—but please make it concrete. Do you still call for the removal of the Kievan Rus section of this article, or not? Are Kievan and Byzantine structures allowed to be mentioned, or just styles—I believe the article already doesn't call these structures Russian, so I assumed you were still demanding their removal. Would changing the article according to Durova's specific suggestions satisfy you? Do you still consider the Columbia Encyclopedia an example to follow? Please be specific, so we can resolve this quickly. Michael Z. 2005-12-7 14:57 Z
But Andriy already stated what was wrong with the article. And so did I. At least five times already. Let me repeat. Do not refer directly to Kiev city churches as examples of "Russian architecture". Refer to them as examples that influenced Russian architecture. Also correct "Medieval Rus’ (988–1230)" to "Medieval Russia (1044–1230)". 1044 being the year of the start of the construction of the first known Russian church.--Andrew Alexander 16:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. Even if you exclude Kievan churches, first wooden cathedrals of Novgorod and Rostov were constructed in the 990s. --Ghirlandajo 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
But the article does not "refer directly to Kiev city churches as examples of 'Russian architecture'". If you can find a passage that does so, please change it, or point it out and I will. It appears that what you want is to change the article so that Kievan Rus’ and Medieval Russia of pre-1230 are treated as two separate political entities, or two separate architectural traditions, right? Michael Z. 2005-12-7 16:32 Z
I have an impression that they don't know what they want. Kievan Rus and Vladimir Suzdal, Vladimir-Suzdal and Muscovy, Muscovy and Russian Empire, Russian Empire and Soviet Union are all separate political entities - should we break the article into separate articles, as if there were no single tradition at all? --Ghirlandajo 17:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The article is being extremely unclear what it considers Russian architecture, just like specified by the independent reviewer below. Now please, don't make me repeat the whole argument over and over. Just make the text clearer.--Andrew Alexander 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Am I right or wrong? You've said a lot about what you won't accept, but you haven't been clear at all about what we can do to satisfy you. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what would make you two happy. It doesn't seem to me that some of the conditions you and AndriyK have set would be satisfied by Durova's suggestions, or maybe you've changed your position a bit. Would implementing her suggestions satisfy you? You've kept this article frozen with a POV notice for almost six weeks now, so please clear about what it is you want. Please answer my questions, or summarize your requirements above if I have interpreted them incorrectly, or point out a short summary of your position on this page if it's already spelt out. Michael Z. 2005-12-7 17:08 Z
I can't give any more specific instructions on how to clarify the issue than those already given to you on this page. Sorry, Michael.--Andrew Alexander 17:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Can specific Kievan churches be named in this article or not? Michael Z. 2005-12-7 17:48 Z
I already answered this question, please scroll up and read.--Andrew Alexander 05:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I scrolled up and read "The problem is, these churches can't be talked about directly in the article called 'Russian Architecture',"—so that means no. But then after I paraphrased that, I read "Who ever said that? It's fine to mention whatever is relevant to the article. It just has to be done properly"—so that means you changed your mind to yes, correct? Then it's okay with you for specific Kievan churches be named in this article? Michael Z. 2005-12-8 07:16 Z

Sometimes I wonder why I write all this if the opponents don't even read it. Will repeat, again, " Do not refer directly to Kiev city churches as examples of "Russian architecture". Refer to them as examples that influenced Russian architecture. Also correct "Medieval Rus’ (988–1230)" to "Medieval Russia (1044–1230)"."--Andrew Alexander 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what changes you propose. --Ghirlandajo 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay; I understand.
Great!--Andrew Alexander 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You wrote ". . . Hence the "Medieval Rus" architecture period in Russia starts not in 988 as the article states, but in 1044", citing a passage in the Columbia Encyclopedia about Suzdal sacking Kiev. Although there were regional differences, I don't think there was a specific "Russian period" in the architecture of Rus’, at least not attested by the sources we quote on this page, including the Columbia Encyclopedia ("Russian art and architecture"). The fact that members of the Riurikid family controlled different city-states and made war on each other doesn't seem to have created two different architectural styles. Dividing the architecture of Rus’ this way doesn't have any precedent in the literature. I also anticipate all kinds of POV problems with artificially dividing Rus’ into Russia and Ukraine—neither heritage "owns" Rus’, much less a chunk of it delineated by modern borders.
I'm still waiting to hear from AndriyK on whether he still insists that Kievan Rus’ be removed from this article. Michael Z. 2005-12-8 16:31 Z
I am afraid you still didn't read the answers. This is slightly amazing, less and less now, however. The reason the Russian medieval period started in 1044 is not because of Suzdal or sacking of Kiev. It is because the first, I quote the article, "purely Russian structure" was started in 1044. There are plenty of references for that. Let's concetrate on "purely Russian" stuff and leave all those "impure" structures outside of Russia alone. They are not Russian. Any disagreement here? And please feel free to refer to the style, provide examples of that style, go all the way to Byzantine Empire and ancient Greeks if necessary. Just don't call or allude to any of those buildings as "Russian". --Andrew Alexander 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess I'm just too stupid to understand—thanks for explaining it slowly. What is your reference for this purely Russian medieval period in architecture, starting in 1044? I looked again through the Russian art & architecture article in the Columbia Encyclopedia you cited, and I can't find the reference—it treats "Russian architecture" as a single topic, starting from the "Christianization of Russia in the late 10th cent". Michael Z. 2005-12-8 21:09 Z
There were references provided above. As well as the arguments. Russian architecture article can start from an earlier time if there are any known Russian structures prior to 1044. This encyclopedia is not a "copy-and-paste" of other books. It has to refer to facts, based on some published research and evidence. There is no evidence or research that says that Kiev churches were built by Russia. You are welcome do disprove that Kiev was not in Russia or was not populated by Russians. Sources have been provided for these facts. At the very least it's necessary to aknowledge these facts in the article.--Andrew Alexander 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
"References provided above"? Here are the references provided by you and AndriyK:
  • [4] Britannica article on "Kiev". Don't see how this contributes to your point of view, but Britannica's article on "Architecture", "Kievan Rus and Russia" section calls Kievan churches "Russian ecclesiastical architecture".
  • [5] article on "Vladimir I of Kiev"—I don't see any support for your view on architecture here, and their article on "Russian architecture" merely quotes Wikipedia and Columbia Encyclopedia. We can't use Wikipedia as a reference, but for CE, see below.
  • [6] Columbia Encyclopedia article on "Kievan Rus"—I don't see any support for your view on architecture here, but Columbia's very brief article on "Russian art and architecture" [7] specifically includes St. Sofia of Kiev in "Russian architecture".
  • [8] unattributed press release, which references an inaccessible page on another news site [9]
  • [10] unattributed article on St. Sofia of Kiev on a tourism site.
  • [11] unattributed article on St. Sofia of Kiev on a commercial site. Can you quote a line from it that supports your point of view?
Did I miss a reference that supports your point of view?
"There is no evidence or research that says that Kiev churches were built by Russia. You are welcome do disprove that Kiev was not in Russia or was not populated by Russians."
This article does not assert these things. Why exactly are you keeping the POV notice on it? Michael Z. 2005-12-9 06:49 Z
Because this encyclopedia has to be based not on one point of view, but also others that are supported by facts. There is wide-spread POV that Russian architecture started in Kiev. But there is also another POV that ancient Kiev was populated by the cultural and physical ansestors of Ukrainians and Ukraine is outside of Russia. This POV implies that Russia had nothing to do with building Kiev churches. Is this a valid POV? Well, yes, because not only it is not supported by Russian propaganda and the resulting "accepted wisdom", but it is supported by archeological and geographical facts. Russia is outside of Ukraine and Ukrainian ancestors resided in Kiev well before 988. Hance they built those buildings. I must note that the two POVs described are logically contrary to each other. But this is natural. Because one of them is based on facts, while the other is based on state propaganda.--Andrew Alexander 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to request for comment

I am not a European but I did study some Eastern European history at the university level. That was during the final days of the Soviet empire. English language sources traced Russia's pre-Mongol roots to the Kievan Rus, noting the geographical difference from the successor state. In terms of modern nationalism and recent history I can understand complaints that this represented unexamined bias. How this issue plays out on the Kievan Rus' article may be very interesting. Here we have the simpler question of architectural heritage.

I'll draw a few parallels. Roman architecture borrowed substantially from classical Greece, particularly in temple design. Late Roman architectural elements dominated southern Europe for much of the middle ages and migrated to Latin America with the Spanish. Another example of architectural borrowing took place between England and the United States. Boston's Old North Church designed in the style of Sir Christopher Wren in the early eighteenth century inspired widespread imitation in North America. The stereotypical United States church might be described as a white wooden or red brick structure with a single nave and no transept and a single pointed tower above the main entrance door. The style shares traits with Christopher Wren's church London's St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe, but resembles few structures in continental Europe. The architectural debts the United States owes to Great Britain are not a political issue.

This makes me optimistic that an NPOV article about Russian architecture could acknowledge heritage in Kievan Rus. This article needs a better explanation of Kievan Rus and its relationship to modern Russia. The caption to the church at Novgorod, for example, fails to state which country it is in. Brief references to modern Ukranian and Belorussian architecture would also be appropriate. This regional international style developed at roughly the same time as gothic architecture. Articles about that style may serve as a useful model for NPOV compromise here. Best wishes with this fine subject. Your churches certainly are beautiful. Durova 17:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. There was indeed a great influence of British architecture on American one. This should be mentioned in the article on American architecture. But I would not describe any London buildings in the article entitled "American architecture" as these buildings belong to American architecture. There is clear difference between "to have influence on" and "to be part of".--AndriyK 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Reading that comment was a pleasure. Finally someone understands that claiming a tradition and claiming a building are not the same things. Finally some common sense.--Andrew Alexander 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, American university courses in architectural history routinely show images of London buildings (and Greek buildings, etc.) when illustrating precursors of American styles. The important difference between those presentations and this article is clarity. An American professor or textbook will state something like, "This is the Choragic Monument to Lysicrates in Athens, Greece built 334 BC." Then, "Similar cylindrical designs became a motif in New York City architecture. The earliest surviving example is the tower atSt. Paul's Chapel, 1766. Observe the similarities with the Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Riverside Park at 89th Street, 1902. Fashionable nineteenth century apartment buildings used the shape to conceal water towers."

The weakness in your present article is the ambiguous text regarding stylistic influences. Whether or not the editors intend to claim Novgorod and Kiev as part of Russia, it's possible to interpret the current text that way. Assign more specific locations and dates within your article and the dispute will probably resolve itself.

Most English speaking readers have little background in this subject. My suggestion is to give a brief summary of the history and geography, then mention the influence of Kievan Rus architecture on all three modern states (Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine). Put a line or two in NPOV terms about the debate over whether the medieval Kievan state is a precursor of modern Russia. Make sure the headings, captions, and examples explain where each structure is located.

Again, best wishes. Durova 01:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Could not agree more!--AndriyK 09:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

--- --- --- ---

  • Comment'. No expert at all in the subject, but let me pose some questions and comments.

Would you describe Hagia Sophia as Greek architecture -- not Greek-inspired, but Greek? I would. It's not in Greece now, but it was when it was built. It of course would ALSO be described in an article on Turkey, and be called Turkish architecture, but in a different sense -- as architecture IN Turkey, not architecture MADE by Turks.

Similarly, pre-war buildings in Kaliningrad are German architecture (and also Russian), old buildings in Dublin are British architecture (and also Irish), and so forth. This seems unexceptionable, to me.

Buildings in Kiev, if old enough, are Russian architecture -- that is, they were built by people who, culturally, were on the direct line of descent to Russian culture. In other words, they were "in" Russia (or proto-Russia, anyway) when they were built; there was no sense of "Ukraine" as an entity separate from "Russia" at that time, I don't think.

In Constantinople, you have a clear line: Buildings erected there were Greek before 1453, Turkish after. (Even if designed and built by Greeks, they were created under the ultimate control of Turks -- somewhere, a Turkish official had to give the OK for the project, even if just passively by not stopping it. For the same reason, buildings in Moscow designed by Italian nationals are still Russian architecture.)

In Kiev there is no such clear break point, so maybe that makes it harder to deal with. But I would say this:

Architecture in Kievian Rus' should be described in articles about Russia AND in articles about Ukraine. There doesn't need to be one central article which is the single source on Kievian architecture. Maybe it would be IDEAL, but its not necessary. I would expect to see a description on Hagia Sophia in an article on Greece AND in article on Turkey. They might describe Hagia Sophia differently; that can't be helped. Ultimately the researcher will have to sort it out.

So what I'm saying is... Yes Kievian Rus' architecture belongs here, and the POV tag should be removed if I understand the issue aright. Editors working on Ukranian subjects have EVERY right to include every building that is or ever was in the Ukraine, but NO right to demand that Russian subjects not include material on the Russian cultural homeland. Herostratus 08:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC) --- --- --- ---

You would be right if Russia existed at the time when St Sophia was built. In fact, it appeared several centures later.
Ancient buildings in Constantinople where build by ancestors of modern Greeks on the territory inhabited by ancestors of modern Greeks. Therefore they are Greek buildings (in historical sence). Now they are located in Turkey on the territory mostly inhabited by Turkes. Therefore they are Turkish (in geographical sence).
The ncient Cathedrals in Kiev and Chernihiv were built under guidence of Greek experts by ancestors of modern Ukrainians on the therritory inhabited by ancestors of modern Ukrainians at the time when both Russia and Ukraine did not exist as separate entities. It is located in the present-day Ukraine on the territory mosly populated by Ukrainians. What do have Russians to do with them? What is the reason to classify them as Russian?--AndriyK 09:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"built.. by ancestors of modern Ukrainians". No, they were built by (and designed at the behest of) people who, culturally (I don't know or care about the race or genes involved) were the common ancestors of the Ukrainians AND the Russians. But whether you agree or disagree with that, here is what I believe is the key point. In America, when I took undergraduate Russian History, it was commonly understood that Kievian Rus' (along with Rurik and his folk) was the beginning of Russian history. In other words, at least here in America, for the average layman, what I have stated is taken -- rightly or wrongly -- as the Recieved Knowledge, the Standard Model, the Accepted Wisdom, the default. And Wikipedia MUST, as a general rule, pay very great deference to that. Wikipedia is NOT a place to advance controversial theories, but to collect the common wisdom.
If I may offer three olive branches -- (1) I know that the Accepted Wisdom may be objectively wrong, and someday maybe what what you say will be the Acdepted Wisdom. I would encourage you to write, speak and agitatate to change that perspective, if you wish. (2) Along with probably 95+% of informed Americans, I sympathize with what the Ukranians have suffered in culteral domination (and of course much else). I know it must be galling, but that does not change what the facts are, or what the Accepted Wisdom is. (3) Why not write an article on Ukrainian architechture -- including Kieviean Rus' of course -- and make it BETTER than that Russian one -- better pictures, more erudite analysis, and so forth. That would seem to be a postive way of the impasse. Herostratus 18:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
As you encourage me "to write, speak and agitatate to change that perspective", I start it right now. ;)
Kievan Rus was populated by about a dozen East Slavic tribes, each having own dialect and customs. The tribes inhabited a huge area so the communication between them was quite weak.
Later the southern tribes (Polans, Drevlyans, Volhynians, Buzhans, White Croatians, Siverians,Ulichs, Tivertsi became Ukrainians. (So Polyans (who lived in Kiev and around it) were ancestors of modern Ukrainians, both culturally and genetically.) The nothern tribes: Radimichi, Vyatichs and Slovens became Russians and the western ones: Dregovichs, Krivichs became Belarusians. This is quite generally accepted "standard model" of East Slavic history.
If American textbook state something different, it, no doubt, should be mentioned in the WP articles. But according to WP:NPOV policy, all other POVs should be presented. There are enough textbooks and monographies describing the history of the Eastern Slavs in the way I summarize above.
Anyway, thank you very much for your comment and for your interest to the topic.--AndriyK 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Herostratus. ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with Accepted Wisdom. Nothing wrong with Accepted Facts either. If someone provides a different point of view, based on facts, that point of view has to be included in the article. We can't deny that point of view because it contradicts "Accepted Wisdom" (especially if that wisdom is based on the political and cultural persecution within the USSR and Russian Empire). The Kiev churches in question were built by the ancestors of modern Ukrainians and are located on the territory of Ukraine. These are facts and they need to be mentioned.--Andrew Alexander 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the architectural history of Constantinople/Istanbul - so unfortunately I can't comment on Hagia Sophia. I can comment on an analogous historical situation in the southwestern United States. The oldest architecture in this part of the world is the Anasazi ruins and the Taos Pueblo and related Pueblo villages. California's Spanish colonial missions also predate United States presence in the area. It's worth noting political geography when introducing these styles. Architectural history would discuss their influence on later structures.

One of the earliest examples of Art deco architecture is The Cliff Dwelling in New York City, built in 1911 (also [12] and [13]). One of the strains of United States culture has been the desire to assert independence from European culture. Skyscrapers were an American innovation. The earliest ones copied European design motifs. This draws parallels to the Anasazi tradition of building onto vertical spaces. Indigenous North American motifs became an important art deco theme, for example in the Chanin Building in midtown Manhattan, 1929 (also decorative details [14] and [15]).

Mission Revival Style architecture and Spanish Colonial Revival Style architecture continue to be popular in southwestern states. A particularly attractive example is the city hall of Pasadena, California. [16]

The point of these examples is to illustrate how stylistic influence and continuity matter to architectural history. The land that now comprises the United States has undergone enormous cultural change in the last thousand years. It would be somewhat unfair to the Hopi and Zuni to study art deco design without acknowledging them. If Hagia Sophia exerted an influence over Turkish architecture, then by all means study it in that context. Architectural categories can overlap. This article has chosen to focus mainly on Russian church architecture. Since it follows a continuous tradition, it makes sense to trace that tradition to its origins. Durova 23:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempted some NPOV changes to the Kievan Rus' section. I don't claim expertise on the subject but most of these changes are common sense: state the geography and range of influence at the beginning of the Kievan Rus' section, note the controversy in neutral terms, and add the modern country name to the caption of the church at Novgorod.
I agree it goes too far to call Saint Sophia a purely Russian church. It did exert a great influence over Russian church architecture. Yet the phrasing of the description implied that this influence was uniquely Russian, which seems to be misleading. Didn't it also have a great impact on Ukranian and Belorussian church architecture? If someone who knows the subject better can point to specific traits of Saint Sophia-influenced Russian church design that rarely appear in later Ukranian or Belorussian church design then please edit the article to explain the distinction.
It would be a good thing for this article if it described specific features of Russian architecture that distinguish it from neighboring countries. The United States invented the elevator and built the world's first skyscrapers. What was unique and influential about Russian movements such as constructivism? Durova 05:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the most recent changes to the article, the genealogical descent of the people who built a certain style isn't relevant to its architectural history. Durova 20:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I would agree in most cases. However, in this case it needs to be clarified. Russian Empire for almost 300 years insisted that Kievan Rus equals Russia. False genealogical claims have been used. The modern version of history says that Kiev was populated by the ancient Ukrainian tribe of Polyany. These are the people who built those churches, it needs to be aknowledged. If you can express it in a more agreeable language, please do.--Andrew Alexander 20:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't in the position of evaluating the truth of such claims. Are they being advanced in mainstream or reputable venues? If so then the editors here should choose between presenting both sides and citing sources or sidestepping the issue. I have difficulty comprehending this debate's emphasis on ethnicity. Durova 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It is Andrew Alexander who places emphasis on ethnicity. He is somehow sure that Ukrainians were distinct from Russians in the 11th century. He even knows the fact (quite ignored by reputable scholars) that the Kievan Sophia was built by "Ukrainians". Actually, as I told ad nauseum, both the Church of the Tithes and the Kievan Sophia were constructed and decorated by Byzantine masters. Local artists knew neither how to build churches nor how to decorate them with mosaics. They had no prior experience and expertise. Novgorod's Saint Sophia was the first church diverging from the Byzanine model and assumed to have been constructed by the local artisans of Rus. --Ghirlandajo 12:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I do not see any reason for your sarcasm. Existent of different East Slavic tribes speaking different languages and having different customs is described in Primary Chronicle. So not only ancestors of Ukrainian were different from ancestors of Russians, there were about a dozen of ethnic communities that later converged to the modern three ones.--AndriyK 13:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice. Can you quote a passage from the RPC as to which languages they spoke? --Ghirlandajo 13:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Each tribe spoke its own language. You can easily find it yourself in the Primary Chronicle.--AndriyK 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Huh... Just curious... Can you cite it for me? --Ghirlandajo 14:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was mistaking. Primary Chronicle mentions only different customs of different tribes:
Поляномъ живущимъ особЂ, якоже ркохомъ, сущии отъ рода СловЂньска, и наркошася Поляне, а Деревляне отъ Словенъ же, и нарекошася Древляне; Радимичи бо и Вятичи отъ Ляховъ. Бяста бо два брата в ЛясЂхъ, Радимъ, а другый Вятокъ, и пришедша сЂдоста, Радимъ на Съжю, и прозвашася Радимичи, а Вятко сЂде своимъ родомъ по ОцЂ, отъ него прозвашася Вятичи. И живяху в мирЂ Поляне, и Древляне, и Северо, и Радимичи, и Вятичи, и Хорвати. ДулЂби же живяху по Бугу, кде нынЂ Волыняне, а Улутичи, Тиверци сЂдяху по Бугу и по ДнЂпру, и присЂдяху къ Дунаеви; и бЂ множ[с]тво ихъ, сЂдяху бо по Бугу и по Днепру оли до моря, и суть городи ихъ и до сего дне, да то ся зовяху отъ ГрЂкъ Великая Скуфь. ИмЂяхуть бо обычая своя, и законы отець своихъ и предания кождо своя норовъ. Поляне бо своихъ отецъ обычаи имяху тихъ и кротокъ, и стыдЂнье къ снохамъ своимъ и къ сестрамъ, и къ матеремъ своимъ, и снохы къ свекровамъ своимъ и къ дЂверемъ велико стыдЂнье имуще; и брачныи обычаи [и] мЂаху: не хожаше женихъ по невЂсту, но привожаху вечеръ, а заутра приношаху что на ней вдадуче. А Деревляни живяху звЂрьскымъ образомъ, жівуще скотьскы: и убиваху другъ друга, ядуще все нечисто, и браченья в нихъ не быша, но умыкаху у воды дЂвица. А Радимичи, и Вятичи, и Северо одинъ обычай имяху: живяху в лЂсЂ, якоже всякый звЂрь, ядуще все нечисто, и срамословье в нихъ предъ отци и предъ снохами; и бьраци не бываху в нихъ, но игрища межю селы. И схожахуся на игрища, на плясанья и на вся бЂсовьскыя пЂсни, и ту умыкаху жены собЂ, с нею же кто свЂщевашеся; имяхуть же по д†и по три жены. И аще кто умряше, творяху трызну надъ нимъ, и по семъ творяху кладу велику, и възложатъ на кладу мертвЂца, и съжигаху, и по семъ събравше кости, вложаху въ ссудъ малъ и поставляху на столпЂ на путехъ, иже творять Вятичи и нынЂ. Си же обычай творяху и Кривічи и прочии погании, не вЂдуще закона Божиа, но творяху сами себЂ законъ.
Differencies in the spoken languages of different parts of Kievan Rus were reported by linguists in the last half of 19th century (Shakhmatov and others).--AndriyK 16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, just one more time you attempted to cite the source that doesn't support what you were saying. Good at least, that you admitted that this time. Now, to your last part, how could the linguists of the later 19th century report something of the time of Kievan Rus. All such research is purely speculative and as such are not reports. The prevailing mainstream idea of the Ukrainian language origin, as presented for instance in Britannica, was already discussed at UA L talk. That you flooded the UA L article with the alternative speculations of some researchers that stay out of mainstream is yet to be moderated. I simply set myself to put your ArbCom behind first and than deal with the articles which you damaged so much, such as the Ukrainian language and Ukrainization. You cannot continue with pushing these ideas to more articles until there is some community support for that at the article's talk. --Irpen 16:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we please keep this mentoring tone out of this discussion?--Andrew Alexander 17:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Irpen, if you call works of one of the greatest Russian linguists Shakhmatov "speculative", then a fair discussion with you is hardly possible. Could you provide any reference supporting your clame?--AndriyK 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, we have only one report about that time, which is the Primary Chronicle. All the research of 19th, 20th and other century scientists, both the reputable ones and the chalratanes, can only be speculative by nature. Some of this research is considered credible and made it to mainstream books, some didn't. I never called Shakhmatov a charlatane. I only questioned your calling the 19th century research a "report of the language in Kievan Rus". --Irpen

Ms Durova, Re. the tribe of Polyany, yes, this is a common view advanced in mainstream. Even the Russian textbooks say this. There is no emphasis at all. A single sentence (reverted recently with a disruptive comment) about the identity of people who built Kiev churches should be present in the article, don't you think? Note, I carefully kept the pro-Russian POV. The recent reverting edit deleted another POV and restored the monopoly of the pro-Russian view. --Andrew Alexander 17:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, please site mainstream books and Russian textbooks that call Polyany the Ukrainian tribe rather than an East Slavic one. If this is indeed so, we should consider adding this valuable info to the Polans article as well as to the Early East Slavs. Thank you, --Irpen 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
But they were not "Ukrainian", only one of the progenitors of modern Ukrainians. And yes, will find you a bunch of references soon.--Andrew Alexander 18:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, this formulation is not questionable and you don't need to look for refs for me to confirm that. However, yor earlier assertion was quite different. You said at this very page: "The modern version of history says that Kiev was populated by the ancient Ukrainian tribe of Polyany. " Don't you see the difference? --Irpen 18:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see any difference. We can reformulate using "progenitors of modern Ukrainians" phrase if desired. I was trying to keep that sentence as short as possible for the reasons already mentioned by Ms Durova above.--Andrew Alexander 20:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, please note your objections regarding listing opposing POV's. You are quite active reverting Kyiv Oblast to its Russian transliteration ;).--Andrew Alexander 04:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get what you said in the first sentence. Please rephrase. As for Talk:Kiev Oblast that you listed for a move vote, it is fine with me as long as you are not bringing another bunch of followers from forums instructing them what to do. Please also note that it was you who were just reverting. I am developing an article. All you did was come and change names in the initial version and in the following more developed versions right in the middle of my work. I was writing and expanding an article and you were just changing names. Don't you see the difference? People here write articles and all you and your namesake do is Ukrainization. You chose a much easier mission for yourself, I must admit. --Irpen 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were just rephrasing some sentences there to make it look like editing while you were reverting. I apologize for such a mistake. Anyway, any hope of reply in this discussion? Or, still busy expanding?--Andrew Alexander 04:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply to what? I did not see a question. --Irpen 04:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I got it. Will restore the erased version soon.--Andrew Alexander 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As for "just rephrasing" none of my expansion edits included reverting you (I did that in separate edits) and why not others just compare the versions to see whether I added info or just rephrased. --Irpen 04:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like my efforts at NPOV comment aren't really leading toward resolution. I suggest you try mediation. You already have the best advice I can give. I'd like to thank this dialogue for something: it prompted me to check architecture of the United States which was really in dismal shape. It's somewhat better now. Best wishes. Durova 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A nice article on the topic of your dispute

Here is something nice from

Я вспоминаю москвичей, приехавших к нам по работе. Я сопровождал их по историческим местам Киева и видел, как трепетно они относятся к нашей общей истории, как ошеломляет их тысячелетняя древность Софии и Лавры. Тем более, как оказалось, у большинства из них украинские корни. Харьков, Днепропетровск, Одесса, Киев – эти города они знают не понаслышке, они в них жили и учились. И я вижу в их глазах недоумение – неужели эти с детства и юности родные места уже другая страна? Этот вопрос также мучает и меня.
Киевская Русь объединяла земли от Киева до Новгорода, Суздаля, Владимира, Галича. Это значит, что практически вся европейская часть Украины и России – это и была Киевская Русь. Святая равноапостольная княгиня Ольга родом была из-под Пскова. Святой князь Андрей Боголюбский, внук Владимира Мономаха и старший сын Юрия Долгорукого – основателя Москвы, был князем Вышгородским, затем Владимирским и Суздальским. И как бы не переписывали историю сегодняшние соблазнители, это история наша общая.

--Kuban kazak 11:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Six weeks

Well, AndriyK and Andrew Alexander have kept the POV notice on this article while stifling any meaningful contributions for a full six weeks.

It's not nice to start a survey with a lie. --Andrew Alexander 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I only meant that the POV notice discouraged any substantial contribution—I chose my wording badly. Please see #Apology below. Michael Z. 2005-12-16 04:57 Z

I've tried moderating the discussion and editing the article to a neutral point-of-view version myself, and I've initiated a request for comment, but the commentors have given up.

The next logical step according to Wikipedia:Disputes seems to be to conduct a survey. You may consult #Summary of the dispute above, but I don't think it clarifies the nature of this dispute at all. Instead, I'll cut to the chase, and conduct a simple survey. This is not a binding vote, but just a survey to gauge the consensus. If you take exception to the wording of my survey, then I suggest you conduct your own survey.


Who is in favour of including all of the architecture of Kievan Rus in the article "Russian architecture"?

As indicated already many times, none of the opposing editors are against this article referencing all of Kievan, Byzantine, Greek, and other architectures as examples of style. The question needs to be reformulated. Right now it sounds misleading. It does not reflect the point of this dispute. Consider the following: Who is in favor of not acknowledging national and chronological ownership of the Kievan Rus temples mentioned in this article?--Andrew Alexander 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In favour

  1. Michael Z. 2005-12-14 07:23 Z
  2. Ghirlandajo 11:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kuban kazak 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Irpen 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC). Will add more comments later but most have been said already anyway.
  5. --Nixer 20:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. abakharev 22:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Gnomz007(?) 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Out of question that a section must be here, but creating an additional separate article which would be more comprehensive and less controvesial would help to explore this period better, as well it would not have other heirs of Rus' guarding their borders within Kievan Rus'.
  8. JamesTeterenko 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC). The style of the architecture is more important than the geography. See the various other architecture articles in architectural history.
  9. Ebanko 13:47, 24 March 2006 (PT)


  1. Oppose --AndriyK 11:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. oppose The question is simply incorrect. No one is against "including" anything as long as its correctly referenced. In the case of different views on how to reference, the most common, even opposing views have to be included and explained. Otherwise, the whole subject needs to be sidestepped. But this is not what the arguments above are calling for.--Andrew Alexander 23:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yakudza 13:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC) But support offer a User:Gnomz007 about separate article - Architecture of Kievan Rus and offer User:Durova.
  4. Ukrained 20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Agree with Yakudza regarding separate article. IMHO, Russian architecture should only address the latter - very carefully, as a "pre-history" or "impact".


  • Russia did not exist at that time. Therefore, the architecture of Kievan Rus cannot be "Russian" if looking from historical perspective.
  • On the other hand, all buildings located on the territory of the present-day Russia (including those built in the time of Kievan Rus) may be classified as Russian architecture in geographical sence and therefore may be described in the article.
  • Architecture of Kiev, Chernihiv and other Ukrainian cities and towns does not belong to Russian architecture in any sence. Here is a simple example:
    • There are structures built in the times of Roman Empire on the territioris of the present-day Germany, France, Spain and many other european countries. Nobody call them "Italian architecture".
    • Nobody would describe ancient buildings located in Rome as "French architecture", "Spanish architecture" or "German architecture", although many Europien nations may consider people of Roman Empire as their historical, cultural or even genetic ancestors.
  • Any influencies of Bysantine, Kievan or any other styles on Russian architecture of cause can be mentioned. But such points should be clearly formulated.
  • Architecture of Kievan Rus as whole may be described in a separate article.--AndriyK 11:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Академик Рыбаков предложил использовать в русском языке слово "руський" для понятий относящихся к периоду Киевской Руси, чтобы не было путаницы. Новшество не прижилось. Полагаю, что должна быть отдельная статья об архитектуре Киевской Руси, возможно она будет на 60% пересекаться с этой. Создание таких статей, опять же, один из стандартных путей в википедии для разрешения конфликтов. А статье Russian architecture безусловно следует говорить о древнерусском периоде и о его влиянии на всю русскую архитектуру, оговорив, что период Киевской Руси был общим историческим наследием для Украины, России и Беларуси. Для того, чтобы избежать спекуляции с термином "русский" и не создать ложного впечатления о тождестве понятий "Русь" и "Россия". Судя по странице обсуждения, некоторые редакторы именно так и полагают. --Yakudza 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


  • And please note that inviting users from Maidan will this time be answered with inviting users from Anti-Orange and Edinoe Otechestvo should they appear. -- Kuban kazak 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    •  ;) Kuban kazak, such an effective way you choose to promote your point of view... Anti-Orange? If I wasn't as cynical as I am, I would immediately start conflicting with you and question every each of your edits... And dozens of thousands of Ukrainians would. I'm starting to dislike the atmosphere there... Ukrained 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Funny you say that, I lived in Rovno for five years and so far have not met a Ukrainian who disagrees with me, apart from virtualy, is that where those dozens of thousands come from? Virtual reality? ;) Fact is Anti-Orange is a political mirror of Maidan. Now if one user here thinks he can get more votes to support his cause by publishing the case on an UNRELATED website forum. I am just telling him that we are capable of doing the same. Having said that I am yet to see non-wikipedian users invading the no need to escalate a strict yet fair warning into a premature edit war. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia, I am looking forward to some serious input from you, not just silly edit wars which due to action of a small minority damaged all of the Ukrainian editors' reputations... -- Kuban kazak 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

not just silly edit wars? Are you accusing me of something? Comeon, I've just entered WP and you already call me silly? Please cool down. Ukrained 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Did I call you silly? I refered to previous edit wars, like the one on this article. IMHO there is no need to privatise history. Saint Sophia of Kiev, for example, can be equally considered Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian architecture and equally mentioned on all three articles. Kuban kazak 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatever you do, Kuban Kazak, if you do that this will be responded with an RfC, plus I guess you would not like the damage to the project they will do.–Gnomz007(?) 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hold on a second I did not post anything yet, nor did I say I was INTENT on posting it. I WARNED the user that inviting non-related, politically driven pepople to the vote AS HE HAS PREVIOUSLY DONE will this time be answered in similar manner. However as none have been observed yet I am silent and believe me if anything it is my intention to keep politics out of wikipedia. -- Kuban kazak 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Guys, peace please. No nead to start this all over. New user might not have known of the past absentee vote fraud (I mean not the one that prompted the Orange revolution, but the one that prompted a more local controversy). Having said that, the new user have already made some positive input to the articles. Also, I think the reputation of Ukrainian editors around here so far survived the attack :). --Irpen 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


I've reconsidered this survey which I started. I was frustrated with the impasse, and thought I would break it by reducing the dispute to its simplest terms. Of course it's much more complex, and all this has done is point out how painfully polarized this discussion has been. I shouldn't have acted so extremely, and I'm sorry for it. I apologize to everyone who's taken part in this discussion.

I've considered many times suggesting that we simply remove the architecture of Kievan Rus from this article ("Architecture of Kievan Rus" already exists), but of course it has to be referred to in this one; that architecture is the direct antecedent of the architecture of Muscovy and Russia, and that's the way it is treated in all other serious references. It doesn't make sense to divide the architecture of Kievan Rus at the modern borders. I do see AndriyK and Andrew Alexander's point, but I don't agree that covering the topic in this article entitled "Architecture of Russia" is the same as calling Kievan Rus "Russia". I also don't think that the answer is to explain the history of the politics concerning Kievan Rus, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine in this article. The architecture is apolitical, and that discussion belongs elsewhere.

I don't know how else to resolve this. I'm just going to leave the POV notice and forget about it. Michael Z. 2005-12-16 04:57 Z

In that case I propose for the article to be retitled as architecture of Rus. -- Kuban kazak 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly what I did several weeks ago. Now I am being accused for it on the arbitration page.--AndriyK 23:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is nothing but a frivolous name for an article that included also Muscovy, Imperial Russia and Soviet Realism. --Irpen 23:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this is not the best solution, but better than permanent dispute or edit war.
The most reasonable solution would be two separate cross-linked articles abot Russian architecture and architecture of Kievan Rus.--AndriyK 00:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

On the side note, it is to Michael and Ghirlandajo that some here have to apologize. Ghirlandajo took a huge effort to write an excellent and totally non-political art-related article. Michael spent an enormous amount of time going to the library, making an extensive books search, spending hours and hours on these discussions and explanations only to be bullied again by two ideologues with political agendas. I hope I got the right words in the last sentence. I am not an en-4 user. Oh yes, and if this entry of mine gets added to AndriyK's arbitration as another "evidence", I will only welcome that. This complete discussion is very well worth a look from the judges. --Irpen 23:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to shorten the section

Perhaps it would be a good idea to shorten the section on Kievan Rus and point to the main Kievan Rus architecture article? That would leave more space for public architecture and styles of later periods. I noticed several fine images at Saint Petersburg. I'd love to see these styles discussed. The Hermitage, please? Russian Gothic revival and beaux arts...interesting! The large number of bridges in that city raises a question for the Russians on the board: are there many distinctive bridges in Russia? I remember reading that the large network of navigable rivers in that part of the world was a significant factor in uniting it as a single empire. Regards, Durova 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How would the shortening of one section leave "more space" for the others. Just add to others if they need more space! There is no space limit in WP as long as the info is relevant. The so called "Main" Rus architecture article is nothing but a plagiarism, an unaknowledged cut and paste from here. It's the relevance of Kievan Rus architecture is what's frivolously questioned. If it is relvant, it belongs here. If not, it doesn't. See the previous section. As for the suggestion above to include more, of course and any time! Someone with knowledge of the Russian arts is welcome to do it. But why remove a clearly relevant information to satisfy some fringe Russophobic views of two editors who wrote so little by themselves for any topic? --Irpen 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually WP recommends keeping articles below 32k because some browsers fail to load the page at that point. If the main article actually is plagiarism then please tag it as such, cite the source, and bring it to the attention of Wikipedia. Setting aside that question, I do hope you expand the article in these other areas. Best wishes. Durova 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The so called "main article" is a plagiarism from this one. It was nothing but a section from here cut and pasted ito a new article by AndriyK without even aknowledging the source (this article by Ghirlandajo). So, by failing to aknowledge, AndriyK managed to violate even the liberal GFDL! It is already correct by Mikka and myself who aknowledged the source at talk and edit summary. --Irpen 17:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"Plagiarism" is too harsh. It was copied without reference to the original article history; a mistake that's made by both newbies and experienced editors all the time.
The section/main article organization is a good idea, although the section is not currently so long that it need be removed from this article. AndriyK and Andrew Alexander, why don't you just expand that article to the point that there is a clear requirement for a standalone article. Then it would make sense to have a shorter version here, although of course that still wouldn't justify removing Kievan churches from this article. Michael Z. 2005-12-19 18:56 Z
Yes! Yes! Yes! A great idea! Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, another idea for you! Also a new one! Also, beware that the nemesis Ghirlandajo might be secretly plotting at this very minute to write a Ukrainian architecture article. Would not it be a shame for our patriots that those hated "Russian mafiozi" keep adding material about Ukrainian culture to the Wikipedia, while others change names and revert war? Maybe it's time to start doing something ourselves, isn't it? --Irpen 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree to this suggestion. The crux of this dispute is in the refusal of the Russian-leaning party of editors to acknowledge national and chronological ownership of the Kyiv catherals. I think we can completely circumvent the problem as suggested by Ms. Durova. I also see no problem with this article providing a more detailed description of the Kyiv Rus cathedrals located on the territory of modern Russia.--Andrew Alexander 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The dispute is based on attempt to single-handedly solve the knot that Kievan Rus' was.
This thing is doomed, if you are going to depart from vague statementes, using them in very wide sense, in encyclopedias, which show more inconsistencies even then Wiki, doing original research on who is who.
However bitter you may get about Russian historians, it does not make that they say insignificant, you can not disprove it right here, even if something is false, thats life.
I think the definition in Columbia University Encyclopedia cuts it all - "architectural production of the geographical area of Russia.", which does not stop it from being outrageously negligent about Ukraine in the very next paragraph.
This article right now shows much more consideration, maybe it can be helped like this: as soon as the discussion crosses the border of modern Russia insert something like "one of the first examples of monumental architecture in the territory of modern Russia built during Kievan Rus' period is Saint Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod" and other phrasing which will remind reader where he is.
Look "With the Christianization of Russia in the late 10th cent...", after that how do you know is that "A distinctive Russian style soon emerged..." is distinctive from Ukraine or Bysantine? So better stop using vague words in too wide sense.
The pargraph starts with a lot of forewords about being politically charged, I think it is useless basically "below we write POV, which one we don't know", it needs better clarification instead.
Phrases like ...medieval Russian state state incorporated... - definitely need fixing.
My 2cents. Bye.–Gnomz007(?) 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Gnomz007, I have nothing against mentioning "the traditional" (started by the Russian Empire) version of history here, provided the Russian editors stop censoring the modern version that takes actual archeological facts into account.--Andrew Alexander 23:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no refusal to acknowledge any national ownership whatsoever. As pointed out here above several times, what's pertaining to Kievan Rus' is as much Ukrainian as it is Russian because the Rus' was the predecessor of the both nations. The crux of the dispute is somewhat different. But if you agree with the suggestion anyway, everyone would welcome the expansion of the Architecture of Kievan Rus' separate article, which is now just a copy of the section from here pasted by AndriyK. --Irpen 21:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
No need to push your POV here again. Kyiv cathedrals aren't "as Russian", never have been. There is simply no chronological reason for this. I noticed you evaded the question of acknowledging Polyany building something in Kyiv as well as their history as it went against the party line you're pushing. Now you come back here again and continue doing the same. Why don't you do something useful and answer the messages on the Holodomor regarding your insertion of a POV tag.--Andrew Alexander 23:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I made a mistake saying Kyiv cathedrals "never have been Russian". Russia held those cathedrals for a couple of centuries during which it managed to blow up a good half of them.--Andrew Alexander 23:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain yourself from Russophobic remarks before an arbitration against you is filed as well. -- Kuban kazak 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Is that a threat? Please refrain yourself from history denial, "Kuban kazak".--Andrew Alexander 23:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It might well be, such behaivour is unacceptable one thing is argument of historical facts another is open accusations. Что страшно?--Kuban kazak 23:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
And BTW the majority here voted for mentioning of Sophia of Kiev.
"Russophobic remarks" alone sounds like an accusation. Read history. Read what Russia did to the cathedrals that the "majority" wants back. History is even more "russophobic".--Andrew Alexander 23:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Another open accusation, against Russian and UOC (MP) i presume. And you blame me for bringing politics into discussions...Ну раз уж пошло то за получение по шапке ответственность не беру. Одесса не Россия увы. -- Kuban kazak 23:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
"Alas Odessa is not Russia"?--Andrew Alexander 07:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
И еще раз по шапке; (продолжение).-- Kuban kazak 10:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, your russophobic remarks at talk pages is nothing new and they don't help to advance your point. Kazak, still, no need to resort to "А ты кто такой?". Keep it cool. --Irpen 00:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Russophobic in what respect? Look, whether people like or dislike Russia for destroying two out of three major Kyiv cathedrals, the one cathedral left is still not Russian. It wasn't built by Russia. Consider it russophobic. Just let the other point of view exist.--Andrew Alexander 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
sigh...--Kuban kazak 11:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Russophobic in respect that the churches were destroyed (an in Russia as well) not by the "Russians" but by the Soviet government comprised of Russians, Ukrainians, Jews and Georgians alike. --Irpen 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No need to invent. Who ever said that the cathedrals were destroyed by the "Russians"? Read carefully prior to making accusations. The cathedrals were destroyed by the government of the Soviet Union. This government was sitting in Moscow. Moscow is in Russia. Very russophobic, isn't it?--Andrew Alexander 07:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
And compromised of a Georgian, a Pole, a half Chuvash half Jew, many other jews. Some Ukrainians as well as Russians. But that governement was officialy called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of which I believe Ukraine was a founding state.--Kuban kazak 11:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't misquote your own self. "Russia destroyed two out of three Kiev's cathedrals", "Russia managed to blow up a good half of them" is right above. --Irpen 07:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that it is you who are misquoting. Of course Russia managed all that. What country is Moscow a capital of? However, you twisted it to the "Russians". And now it sounds as if someone accused all the Russians of coming to Kyiv and destroying something.--Andrew Alexander 08:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
==Recent Changes==

Gnomz007 added a paragraph:

"The medieval state of Kievan Rus' incorporated parts of what is now Ukraine and was centered around the towns of Novgorod and (later) Kiev. Its influence on architectural tradition extended to the modern states of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. The status of Kievan Rus' as a precursor state to Russia is a somewhat politically charged issue after the fall of Soviet Union and the independence of Ukraine and Belarus."

The intention seems good. There are a few problems. First, Kyivan Rus was never centered around Novgorod. Perhaps there was some other state centered around it, but it wasn't Kyivan Rus. At the very least the statement needs a citation. Second problem is that the paragraph doesn't touch on the issue of alluding later to some Kyiv and Chernihiv churches as Russian (and not mentioning that they were built by Ukrainian ancestors in Ukraine). Again, I like the general direction of the paragraph, it just doesn't go too far in solving the disputed issue.--Andrew Alexander 05:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not addded it, I fixed the pargraph I saw broken, discussed before. The Kievan Rus' centered around Novgorod sounds contradictory (it was there before I did any editing), but I as I see from Kievan Rus' article there is some sense in it, referring to the early period in the history, I guess it can go since it was before the events that led to the development of architecture.
As for acknowledging, it just requires good wording, so it would not ruin the article. Mentioning ancestors of Ukrainians is a long topic to discuss, lets start by putting proper geographical reminders first, I personally have doubts that it would do anything but bring more confusion in the article.
BTW,I guess the Chernihiv church needs more discussion, in the article : destruction (this one by the Nazis, it even survived the Mongols), when it was reconstructed?, I have never found any reference to the actual date of reconstruction [17]. Given [18] Baranovsky date of death it was still in SU. Anyway it just supports the case that Kievan Rus' Architecture has chances of becoming the "Main article".–Gnomz007(?) 09:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A single sentence would not make an article more confusing. It's far more confusing to not mentioned the facts of the matter. It may make the article confusing for a few people perhaps. But that is a good confusion. Leading to learning something factual. The last resort of any bias is to claim that something is "too long" or "too confusing" to mention. This case seems some kind of a record. It needs to actually shorten the article.--Andrew Alexander 09:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You've got me slightly wrong, I meant that I have doubts if you write that the church was built by Polyane and Severyane next to Chergnihiv, it would clarify the things enough for the reader.
I have no solid objections, except probably that you are trying to apply the findings in too wide sense.
I think that Bysantine architecture to Kiev architecture is not that Kiev architecture to Novgorod architecture, and the comparison to Roman<->Britain is even further off.
And the whole discussion about separation of the tribes would be better held at the very Kievan Rus' article.
I do not intend to solve all problems, I intervene when I rightly or wrongly think my judgement is enough.–Gnomz007(?) 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Just one comment on recent changes: A.A. changed the word "continued" to "started", that is a little amusing, did those guys wait for the fall of Kiev before starting their work, I guess multitasking and parallelism was not known before the advent of computing :^).
It is rather the center for the architectural tradition moved from the former center, but according to analysys of techniques the monumental Kievan architecture tradition has got production center in Novgorod, described in a couple of the Rappoport books[19] see picture(all in Russian).
But for some reason I do not think Russian architecture historians would be politicised - the task of establishing Ukraine's historical unity with Russia was carried out by other aspects of history in much more efficient way, so it would be ridiculous to falsify on such small scale.
Are there any Ukrainian sources on Russian architecture?–Gnomz007(?) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I've read the complete phrase, but still it by no means started there.–Gnomz007(?) 05:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just some word-juggling: the Kievan Rus' monumental architecture started in Kiev, the Kievan Rus' architecture started to spread on the territory of modern Russian through Novgorod and Vladimir Suzdal, after the fall of Kiev, the future-Russian principlities kept the tradition and continued.
Not just the Church of Tithes but everything outside modern Russia is just architectural tradition to Russian architecture.
Churches on territory of Russia are younger, but this is just the new generation of Kievan Rus' architecture, but unlike Romans in Britain Vladimir-Suzdal Kievan Rus' architects did not go, they were at home.
And your version is not balanced, it is just your version–Gnomz007(?) 06:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To those, who remove the POV-tag

The fact that you did not demonstrate any willingness to a compromise does not mean that the dispute is resolved. Please stop removing the tag and return to the discussion.--AndriyK 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You stop trolling on this article. There was a vote on its neutrality and its current state was adopted, if you have any other complaints or issues then take it thorough an RfC. Has you arbitration taught you anything? --Kuban Cossack 17:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
AnrdiyK, have you considered using the {{POV-because|Reason}} template? In this template is reads: the neutrality is disputed because: and then you give a brief reason why you think this article is biased. E.g. {{POV-because|It implies that ethnic Ukrainian architects were ethnic Russians}} or whatever it is you are disputing. Do you know that inappropriate use of POV tags is described as a form of Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Latinus 17:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Usefull tag. Thanks! --AndriyK 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

it describes the structures that were build by ancestors of the present-day Ukrainians in Kievan Rus (i.e. hundreds years before Russia was created) and located in present-day Ukraine as if they were "Russian".

And you accuse us of being chauvists. Implying that Russians have no right to being successors of the Kievan Rus? Also the article headings clearly say that the period when these buildings were built was before Russia came into existance. Look write Ukrainian architecture and copypaste that heading into that time period. Write Belarusian Architecture and do the same. Or at least start them off with that heading. --Kuban Cossack 20:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancestors of Russians lived in the nothern part of Kievan Rus. And I have no objections if the churches of Novgorod, Suzdal, Vladimir etc. are discribed as Russian architecture. They were build by ancestors of Russians and are located in Russia. In that sence Russia is one of successors of Kievan Rus. But Russia has nothing to do to Kiev, Chernihiv or other Ukrainian cities.
Sorry but this original research is not going to go anywhere, Russia has nothing to do with modern Kiev, Chernihiv or other cities (by modern post-1991) but it has quite a relation to its historical (pre-1991) relations. What would name the same St. Volodymyr cathedral as not of the best examples of Russian Neo-Byzantine architecture. Would Khreshatyk not be an example to Stalinist Ampire style? Would Rastelli's St. Andrew's church on the Podil not be an example of late 18th century styles mirrored in Petersburg? Likewise Sophia is an example of ancient Russian architecture. Its reconstruction by Mogilla is a different story. --Kuban Cossack 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me decide myself which articles to write.--AndriyK 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

At least you better write something rather than delete, revert and paste. Modern Russia has indeed little if anything to do to those cities. We are talking in historical sense here. Phew, forgot that this was already said. Oh well, WP:TROLL#Pestering. --Irpen 08:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In historical sence, Russia has nothing to do with buildings in Kiev and Chernihiv that were build hundreds years before Russia was created. Yes, it was already said. Pestering is what you and your friends do [20] --AndriyK 09:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Speak for yourself, this original research which you are trying to inject has been numerously disproven. --Kuban Cossack 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is original? That Russia did not exist at the time whent St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev was built? Or that Kiev and Chernihiv does not belong to Russia? --AndriyK 16:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion "that Russia did not exist at the time whent St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev was built" is clearly a fringe theory and original research. I don't know any comprehensive account of Russian history which doesn't start from 862 at least. For one thing, British and French chronicles of the time refer to the country either as Rusia or Russia, and that's it. Actually, we've seen from your previous edits that you are thoroughly brainwashed with hysterically anti-Russian media now on the upsurge in Ukraine, hence I see no point in wasting my time on talking with you. Go to the library, read mature books, grow up, and then come back to editing. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Neither did Ukraine for that fact, or both existed as the Kievan Rus. In that case both Ukrainian architecture and Russian architecture have the right to mention them. --Kuban Cossack 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've tried something; I hope it's accurate. If it isn't tell me and I'll remove it. I think this may solve the problem. --Latinus 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to the article and for your help. Still, the point you have changed was not the main problem. The problem is that the churches of Kiev and Chernihiv are described later in the same paragraph without mentioning that they are not actually Russian but just have influenced Russian architecture. (Please have a look at the comment(s) of User:Durova above).

I could have corrected it myself, but I am sure my changes will be reverted immediatelyx by those guys that only care about the removing the tag.--AndriyK 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder of a common sense on tagging

Latinus, your work is appreciated but the tag is totally inappropriate. To insist on the tag, the tagger must first list the objections and the community must in good faith address them in an attempt to satisfy the objections of the tagger. A healthy debate should ensue. This all already happened here. If the tagger is simply a troll, he would take a position of persisting and refusing to agree on anything other than to satisfy his fringe out of mainstream view. No way we can afford to allow trolls to pick any articles they want, tag them and enjoy their fringe POV getting prominence by damaging a good article. The way to distinguish between the valid objections that the community yet failed to address but trying in good faith and trollish stubborn persistence of some individuals, is to see whether the consensus finds the article agreeable. This was done and the straw poll was conducted. Once the community determines that the objections are simple trollism the tag cannot be kept based on the same objections. If anyone wants to retag the article again, the new objections must be brought up. Repeating the old ones, discussed and rejected by the community is simple pestering. Unless AndriyK or anyone has any new objections, they can't have the tag because if it is attempted to be justified by the old objections it is as good as unjustified at all. --Irpen 20:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If AndriyK is actually placing the tag out of bad faith or is trolling in some other way, then the guidelines say that the best way to deal with the problem is to form a consensus to keep them in their place. If there already is a consensus that the old version is OK, then that's that and all he can do is post any objections on the talk page. If he indeed doesn't have any new arguments since the straw poll, then he shouldn't be placing the tag. I must say - if he does not intend to persue dispute resolution, then there is no point in him adding the tag at all. --Latinus 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW you didn't give your views on my little attempt to solve this before reverting - I understand that it may have been totally inappropriate as I based it on the relatively limited knowledge I have on the matter, but it would be nice to know :-) --Latinus 20:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Latinus, I didn't revert you. I went over your edit. Some things you wrote were touched in the previous paragraph. I expanded that previous paragraph taking into acount your edit and restorred the following paragraph since the repetition seemed redundant. I apreciate your involvement. --Irpen 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus about removing the tag. The tag was there up to January 29. Then Irpen removed it. This provoked an edit war with User:Andrew Alexander. No consesus was formed. Irpen has a habit to call "consensus" everything what he agreed with Ghirla and alike.--AndriyK 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you on about there was a vote, earlier in this talk page which you lost! You do not accept the results of that vote? Then it is an RfC or a mediation, whichever suits you best. Do read WP:AGF! --Kuban Cossack 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the talk page is here for everyone to view. AndriyK can attack his opponents as much as he wants. That's nothing new either. Why not consider starting to write instead of remove, revert and paste since this is all you have done since a long time? --Irpen 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules and Regulations

There was a survey, which results in 8 vs. 4 in favor for the proposal to keep Kiev Rus architecture as a part of the article. But,

  • Opinion surveys should be used to determine whether a consensus exists, not to decide which side "wins". Successful surveys and polls can never generate consensus, they can only show an existing consensus, if any. Using a survey may be useful because some people who disagree will nevertheless recognize and accept the consensus opinion of the community. (Wikipedia:Votes)
  • A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. (Wikipedia:Straw polls)

There is still a dispute. Consensus has not been reached. In order to resolve the disput both sides are adviced to go for Mediation or Requesting an advocate (Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).

With respect to the tag, it was correctly places based, and from both sides it followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral (Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

Who and why was removing the tag?

  • Irpen
    • Irpen: rm ridiculous tag, discussion subsided, straw poll's result is clear, explanations at talk are there, add the grievences to talk anew if you want to continue this
    • Irpen: reverted, and if you restore the tag, please explain at talk, old objections are answered
    • Irpen, rv tag placed unexplained at talk
    • Irpen: All points were discussed and answered and the clear majority at the talk thinks so. You can't keep the tag just because you persist. Bring up fresh objections first
    • Irpen: answered in talk to the satisfaction of majority, you, if such a patriot, care to write Ukrainian architecture, don't take a lazy approach of destroying other's work just to push your fringe views
    • Irpen: ...tag removed as per Talk:Russian_architecture#Reminder_of_a_common_sense_on_tagging)
    • Irpen: rm unexplained tag. You've been given plenty of advises on what to do, to keep the tag. Startd RfC or list fresh objections, you can't just restore a tag and walk away
  • Response to Irpen:
    • Straw poll results (8 vs. 4) were not clear, and the survey showed that consensus does not exists. (see explanation above)
    • Decisions should be made by consensus, not by "clear majority". (This is contrary to Wikipedia Election, which is a separate issue). (see Wikipedia rules cited above)
    • There are outstanding objectives, which were responded, but again, consensus has not being reached. Fresh objectives?
    • We are advised to assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless there are clear evidence to the contrary
  • Ghirlandajo
    • Ghirlandajo: rv
    • Ghirlandajo: rv trolling
    • Ghirlandajo: rm whimsical tag
    • Ghirlandajo: the tag has been hanging here for many months, only because one troll decided so; enough, Arbcom said
  • Response to Ghirlandajo:
    • If you are sure that all other ways to resolve the dispute failed, then bring the issue to Arbcom. But at this point there is an unresolved dispute, and the tag is a way to indicate that.
  • Kuban kazak
    • Kuban kazak: That is the most rediculous tag I have seen...
    • Kuban kazak: Once again if you want start and RfC start a mediation but stop screwing the history of this page with endless revert wars!
  • Response to Kuban kazak:
    • The tag is not rediculous to the person who put it, and the person should be respected, as any other member of the community.
    • The tag should stay until the dispute is resolved (by consensus as Wikipedia rules says, or by ArbCom as the last resort). Until then the people who are removing the tag are screwing the page history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I had an exchange re this with the same anonymous editor at my talk. I post it below because it is relevant. --Irpen 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked a little more over the Russian Architecture talk page. AndriyK did clearly state his objectives back in early December. There was a survey later in December, which resulted in 8 vs. 4 in the favor of keeping Kiev Rus architecture as a part of the article. I don't know Wikipedia rules, but in my view POV tag should be a tool for a minority to express disagreement with the majority. The majority's got the article their way, but the minory should have rights at least for a tag (claiming that the view in the article is the view by majority, which is not the same as neutral view). But then, should a view by minority be allowed on Hitler page? Tough question..
So, I read a few more Wikipedia rules and guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, survey is mentioned as one of the ways to resolve a dispute. Also from there: "Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary". Reading more on the surveys Wikipedia:Straw polls, what I see is "Decisions should be made by consensus rather than a strict majority rule" (good goal, hard to achive; but in the end the rule is the rule), "A straw poll is just a tool for quickly probing opinions", and "A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority". Thus, there was a survey, but consensus has not being achieved. There are other ways mentioned to resolve the dispute: "Informal Mediation", "Discuss with third parties", "Mediation", "Requesting an advocate". As a last resolt, "Arbitration" is mentioned. But as long as the dispute is not resolved, POV tag should stay. It's both majority amd minority who should initiate further steps to resolve the despute. --Anonymous

Yes you are right and check how much time people spent on the issue in response to his tag, checking the academic sources. BTW, tagging was the second thing he did. The first one was moving it to another title Architecture of Rus, that is despite it goes into the Socialist realism times, and we his trademark dirty trick with artificial history to make sure his point is forced upon others. Then he pasted the whole chapter to Architecture of Kievan Rus without any acknowledgement of the authorship, making an impression that he wrote such a superior article. Only after that he placed a tag and it was given a fare amount of thought by the community.

Michael even took an effort to go to the city library and saw that in academia the approach is similar to the one taken in the article. What more you could ask for from the editors who listened to his objections and gave the matter such a thorough study? Third parties mostly agreed as well. If there is a bias all over the world due to a historic influence of the Russian scholarship in the historiography, the way to address it is in the new scholarly works, not in encyclopedia whose aim is to summarize the matter based on the existing knowledge, rather than to "correct" it. [snip] We mast defer to the mainstream view and mention the minority view, if they are substantial but clearly as minority view, like Holocaust denial in the Holocaust article, or the "weather theory" in Holodomor or that Russia is not a descendant of Kievan Rus' but of Finno-Ugric tribes in the North, like some fierce Ukrainian nationalists are trying to portray it.

Objections raised earlier were thoroughly reviewed. If he has new objections, he is requested to bring them up not just tag the article. Adding the unexplained tag both destroyes the article's history and uglifies it. --Irpen 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"What more you could ask ...?" There is no consensus on the Russian Architecture article, and it's wrong to claim that it exists. AndriyK has never agreed. Can you prove that he is acting in bad faith? Is he actually acting in the bad faith? Other contributors, such as Yakudza, and A.A. supported the objectives in the survey.
In the end, even if somebody is an evil, should or should not we go by the rules? If not, then who are we?
What I am asking is that we go by the rules.

Yes, my point is that he is acting in bad faith here as he has shown in the past he is able to, like frivolous moves of the articles and falsified voting oto prevent moving them back. If someone throws a tag, we must study his objections first and address them the best we can. Nothing can prevent a bad-faith user from persisting by just saying "I don't agree". He cannot be allowed to screw the articles just because his views differ from the reality. One thing is ignoring someone's objection. Another thing is to persist with objections that were addressed just to stubbornly make a point. --Irpen 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, AndriyK's objectives were clearly stated (somewhere in the middle of this talk page; if I were him, I would repeat the objectives to make them perfectly clear). And, Yes, objectives were discussed, but not satisfied, and the consensus has has not been reached. The dispute is still here.
Now, if claim that AndiyK is acting in bad faith here, then as it's a seriuos claim, you probably have to provide some evidence in support for that claim. Otherwise it may be classified as a personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

To Irpen:

What is bad faith? I remove inaccuracies from the articles in order to make wikipedia more precise and informative.

You and your friend make the opposite. You confuse the reader trying to convince him that the structures built by ancestors of Ukrainians (when Russia did not exist yet) are pieces of "Russian architecture".

These are you and your friends who act in bad faith trying to use Wikipedia for propaganda of Russian chauvinism.--AndriyK 10:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that AndiyK and a few other contributors trully think that Kiev Rus Architecture should not be a part of this article. And I see some logic behind the claim. Thus, AndiyK's actions are primary driven by his views, not by bad faith.
I also believe that Irpen and "his friends" trully think that Kiev Rus Architecture belongs to this article. And I see arguments in support of this claim too. Thus, Irpen's actions are also primary driven by his views, not by bad faith.
It's wrong and contrary to WP policy to claim bad faith without providing clear evidence. It's wrong and contrary to WP policy to remove the POV tag while the dispute is not resolved. It's wrong and contrary to WP policy to personally attack someone by accusing of using Wikipedia for propaganda without a sufficient proof.
The process of resolving disputes is outlined in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Ask for a mediator, for example. Kuban kazak oulined his proposals below. So far, no response has been given to them.
It's really wrong that you both don't even want to talk. This is what drives the conflict on this page, on other pages, and it'll keep going. Conflicts do not disappear by themselves. You have to deal with each other to resolve them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Listen, what do you mean "I don't want to talk?". When he says something meaningful, I have to respond, otherwise I have no excuse in altering his edits without providing an explanation. What he is repeating above is addressed. What matters in not whose friends say what but what the mainstream scholars say. Check above the results of MichaelZ' reserach on that. Take a look at Britannica's Western Architecture article, particularly its "The Christian East :: Kievan Rus and Russia" section. Nothing can prevent a user from taking a stubborn stance a persisting with "I don't agree" claim for as long as he likes. If this is allowed, all history related articles would have been permanently POV-tagged. That they aren't is perhaps, there are not so many overpersistent trolls and the community at some points says "it's enough". The view that the Holocaust is the fabrication of the Zionist conspiracy, although a fringe one, has a sufficient number of adherents. By anon's logic, those people should be allowed to hold the Holocaust article hostage indefinitely. Or we should seek a compromise with the [21] in connection with Holodomor article. AndriyK's views are understandable tue enough. It was shown above that from the academic perspective those views have no merit as of now. When the mainstream views on the East-Slavic history change towards the view that Russian culture is not related to medieval Kiev, we will change the article. For now, he wasted enough of everyone's time. --Irpen 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You twist my words as usually. I did not say that "that Russian culture is not related to medieval Kiev". I just said that culture and architecture of medieval Kiev and Chernihiv was not Russian. It could not be, because Russia did not existed yet.
Are you able to discuss the issue without dirty tricks like twisting the words of your opponents, claiming that my objections are not explained at the talk, whyle they are explained many times etc.? If you are, we can continue the discussion.--AndriyK 20:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Irpen: I wrote that "you both don't even want to talk" based on how I interpreted your statement: "I have no intention to talk to him, unless absolutely necessary". It seems that I misread it. Sorry.
AndriyK is not satisfied with answers that have been provided. So, how should we deal with that? The answer is: there are rules that regulate such situation: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Removal of the POV tag is not mentioned as a way to resolve the dispute. What is mentioned is Mediation, Requesting an Advocate, Arbitrage as the last resort. The rules are there to follow. (A mediator is a person who is willing to talk and put AndriyK's arguments on one side, mainstream views on the other side, and attempt to weight them to the best of his abilities. This is what the mediator is for.)
I should mention that there are proposals to change the rules: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution reform (which is an indication that there is a need for improvement). In any case, whatever the rules are, we should go by the rules.

To Kuban Kazak

Please do not mess up this page.--AndriyK 10:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This message is addressed specifically to the fascists hiding under a mask of nationalism.

Architectural landmarks erected in the country of RUS, regradless of prefixes and suffixes used by TODAY's historians, must be called RUSSIAN (RUS+IAN, adjective, belonging to RUS)! Furthermore, these nationalist pretensions are not substantiated: Ukraine, as a pseudopolitical formation, was nonexistant until the 20th century. As such, Ukraine, meaning "outskirts" in Slavic, is a DECENDANT of the Russian Empire.

"RUS+IAN"="Rusian" (with one "s"). I've never seen such word in English. Let's ask a native English speaker.OK?--Mbuk 13:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to be a smartass here! I spelled the word with a double S. Instead, you should ask that native speaker of yours to explain to you the usage of English articles before nouns (e.g. ...such A word...)Ebanko

No need ridicule or call each other names.
Russian means "belonging to Russia", at least according to my dictionary. It is still used by conservative writers to refer to Rus’, because much scholarship used to consider Rus’ and Russia to be one and the same. Other authors use the adjective Rus’ or sometimes the awkward construction Rusian. I've written on the topic in a bit more length in response to Mbuk at user talk:Mzajac#The meaning of the word "Russian". Michael Z. 2006-03-28 17:10 Z

Protecting over POV tag edit-war

I've protected the article, and suggested it as one of the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. Please calm yourselves. Michael Z. 2006-03-31 00:36 Z