Talk:Kievan Rus'

The slavic tribe of Rus'

This article criticaly overlooked the role of Polanian tribe in Kyivan Rus'. Even if, as this article suggests, vikings were the first to be called "Rus'", Kyivan Rus' was centered around Polanian tribe, Rus' vikings were representatives of Polanian tribe, all their conquerings in Eastern Europe became Polanian conquerings, all tribute they gathered from Northern slavic tribes was coming to Polanian center of Kyiv, and Polanians themself started to call themself Rus' in 852 as the chronicle suggests. Other slavic tribes like Ilmen Slavs or Kriviches never called themself Rus', they were using this name for Polanians, yet you mentioned them like equals. Polanians were basically metropoly of Kyivan Rus'. I'm not sure if anyone here cares about this article, but if you do - please put this as the suggestion. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I expected at least some form of reply. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Might need time to research and implement. If the tribe is notable that is. Nakonana (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please also take into the account that this article claims Kyivan Rus' was an amalgamation of principalities at certain period of time, which is not the case because at this point they were no longer part of Kyivan Rus', Rus' as a name only applied to the territory of Central Ukraine, which also matches the territory of Polanians. So, it's better to consider that this principalities have separated and were no longer part of Kyivan Rus' in the article. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to have particular things to be included in the article, you could write up said text (with sources) here on the talk page (as you seem knowledgeable about the topic), and someone might then be so kind to add it to the article for you :) Nakonana (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you be satisfied with non English speaking sources? 46.200.75.110 (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-English sources are explicitly allowed on English Wikipedia per WP:NONENG (even if English sources are preferred). Nakonana (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Well then there are plenty of things I want to change so here is my text variant:"Kievan Rus',[a][b] also known as Kyivan Rus',[c][7][8] was the first East Slavic state in Eastern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century.[10][11] Conquering and encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse,[12][13] and Finnic, it was ruled by the Kyivan Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[14] The name was coined by Russian historians in the 19th century to describe the period when Kiev was at the center. At its greatest extent in the mid-11th century, Kievan Rus' stretched from the White Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south and from the headwaters of the Vistula in the west to the Taman Peninsula in the east,[15][16] dominating over the East Slavic tribes.[11]

According to the Primary Chronicle, the first rulers of Rus' were two princes Askold and Dir(r. 862-882), who carried out a successful raid on Constantinople. First major territorial expansions of Kyivan state began during Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). He established Kyiv's control over the Varangian-Greek trade route and used it to gather tribute from the conquered Slavic tribes northern of Kyiv. [17]

The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually shrinking in population and size as more Principalities went their own way independently from Kyiv

In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane,[37] the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. To their north and east were the Vyatichi, and to their south was forested land settled by Slav farmers, giving way to steppelands populated by nomadic herdsmen.[38]. In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs[36] and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe."

These are changes I want to include for now, and here are sources:

History of Ukraine, Fourth Edition, by Orest Subtelny, page 57:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word."

Page 45-46 (about first rulers of Rus' Askold and Dir). Page 47 (Oleg the Wise and his tribute gatherings). 46.200.75.110 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what exactly you want to modify, can you highlight the changes? If there are too many of them, it's better to discuss them one-by-one.

Also, note that Subtelny mentions "the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word" which implies that there is also the broad sense, which corresponds to the whole Kievan Rus' (the adjective is a much later addition of course). Alaexis_¿question? 20:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have written the text I want to be included in the article for now, scroll higher.

Well, this broad sense of Kyivan Rus' didn't exist at this point of time, this is why Subtelny mentions that Kyivan Empire has "declined" and "shrank in size", until only it's ethnic metropolitan Ukrainian territories were Kyivan Rus'. Broad sense of Kyivan Rus' is just like any other country and it's empire. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If you expect other editors to compare your version and the current one and find changes this can take a long time.

To make things easier for other editors, I'm asking you to list the changes: what you propose to add, what you propose to remove and what are the sources for each change (Subtelny or smth else). Alaexis_¿question? 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Basically write something along the lines of:

I suggest the following passage:

"{{tq|copy and paste the relevant text passage from the current wiki article here}}"

be changed to:

"{{tq|write your suggested text for the new passage here}}<ref>{{Citation| author=Orest Subtelny | title=History of Ukraine | edition=4 | date= | page=57 | quote=As more and more principalities went their own way...}}</ref>" Nakonana (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well then, here it is, I'll provide additional sources in case something is unclear:"

"... was the first East Slavic state and later an amalgam of principalities[9] in Eastern Europe.. "

Change to:

" was the first east slavic state in Eastern Europe"

Source:History of Ukraine, Subtelny, page 57, quote:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word"

Current text:"Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples"

Change to:"Conquering and encompassing variety of polities and people's"

Source:Subtelny, page 47 about Oleg the Wise, most of the tribes were conquered and opposed with tribute by Kyivan prince through Varangian-Greek trade route

Current text:"uniting the East Slavic tribes"

Change to:"dominating over East Slavic tribes".

Source:Subtelny, History of Ukraine, page 47, about Oleg

Current text:"According to the Primary Chronicle, the first ruler to unite East Slavic lands into what would become Kievan Rus' was Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). He extended his control from Novgorod south along the Dnieper river valley to protect trade from Khazar incursions from the east,[11] and took control of the city."

Change to:"

According to the Primary Chronicle, the first rulers of Rus' were two princes Askold and Dir(r. 862-882), who carried out a successful raid on Constantinople. First major territorial expansions of Kyivan state began during Oleg the Wise (r. 879–912). After setting himself up as prince of Kyiv he took control over the Varangian-Greek trade route and used it to gather tribute from the conquered Slavic tribes to the north of Kyiv. [17]

Source:Subtelny History of Ukraine, page 45-46 (about first rulers Askold and Dir), page 47(about Oleg)

Current text:The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually disintegrating into various rival regional powers throughout the 12th century

Change to:The state began to decline in the late 11th century, gradually shrinking in population and size as more Principalities went their own way independently from Kyiv

Source:Subtelny, History of Ukraine, page 57, quote:"was the first east slavic state in Eastern Europe"

Source:History of Ukraine, Subtelny, page 57, quote:"As more and more principalities went their own way, Kiev's wealth, population, and territory shrank until it ranked little higher than other princi- palities. It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word" 46.200.75.110 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the existing sources in the article. E.g., there are sources supporting both "amalgam of principalities" and "uniting the East Slavic tribes".

In case of the "amalgam of principalities", I don't see how the quote from Subtelny supports the change you propose. Subtelny only says that the Kiev land was called Russkaya Zemlya in the narrow sense. It is implied that Russkaya Zemlya in the broad sense included other principalities.

Also, please see and take into account @Nederlandse Leeuw's comment below. Alaexis_¿question? 20:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so I propose to change them. Subtelny says that Kyivan Rus' shrank in size, to the point when only the territory around Kyiv was identified as Kyivan Rus'. There's no statement it became an "amalgam of principalities". Again, this broad sense of Kyivan Rus' didn't exist at this point of time because this principalities weren't identified as Rus'. Is that clear? 46.200.75.110 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You've ignored what I said about taking into account the existing sources. Alaexis_¿question? 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"So I propose to change them" that's what I said. 37.52.10.212 (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello? 46.200.75.110 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The "amalgam is principalities" is supported by a source (Martin 2009). Your claim that "this broad sense of Kyivan Rus' didn't exist at this point of time" is not supported by the the quote from Subtelny you gave earlier (It was at this stage that the city of Kiev and its surrounding lands became referred to as Ruskaia zemlia, the land of Rus', in the narrow sense of the word. Subtelny is talking about the contemporary naming whereas Kyivan Rus is a historical term. Alaexis_¿question? 20:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This are the pages of a document I listed, here are corresponding pages of actual book:45-46(26-27),47(28),57(38)

Also a few other changes I propose:

Current text:In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs[36] and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe. In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane,[37] the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. To their north and east were the Vyatichi, and to their south was forested land settled by Slav farmers, giving way to steppelands populated by nomadic herdsmen.

Change:just swap the text and put Polanians in the first place, as they are the most prominent tribe, so it would be:"In the south, in the area around Kiev, were the Poliane,[37] the Drevliane to the west of the Dnieper, and the Severiane to the east. To their north and east were the Vyatichi, and to their south was forested land settled by Slav farmers, giving way to steppelands populated by nomadic herdsmen.[38]. In the northern region around Novgorod were the Ilmen Slavs[36] and neighboring Krivichi, who occupied territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper and Volga rivers. To their north, in the Ladoga and Karelia regions, were the Finnic Chud tribe."

Source, Subtelny, History of Ukraine, book page 21 quote:"Of these, the most prominent were Polanians, who lived in Central Ukraine, on the banks of Dnieper."

Book page 25 quote:"To one of these processes we have already alluded - the slow amalgama- tion of the numerous, fragmented East Slav communal units... in the area in which Kiev would arise.

Book page 26 quote:"Murky though our knowledge of this period is, it can be assumed that the East Slavs in general and the Polianians in par- ticular were well on the way to laying the foundation for the vast political, commercial, and cultural entity that would be called Kievan Rus'." 46.200.75.110 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This is information that is already available in this article with proper citations. The only difference is that 46.200.75.110 wants to emphasise, suggest ot claim that the Polyane were already called Rus' and had already founded Kyivan Rus' before the Varangians arrived and conquered Kyiv in the late 9th century. That flies directly in the face of the literary, linguistic and archaeological evidence that most of these Slavonic, Finno-Ugric or other peoples were tributaries of the Khazar Khaganate when the Varangians (supposedly under Askold and Dir, later under Oleh and/or Ihor) came and took over control, forcing these peoples to stop paying the Khazars and instead pay tribute to them.

The idea that the Polianians in particular were well on the way to laying the foundation for the vast political, commercial, and cultural entity that would be called Kievan Rus' is just anti-Normanism through a backdoor. Granted, the Varangians didn't build the city of Kyiv. But the Polyane didn't establish the network of tribute-paying peoples dependent on the city of Kyiv after the Varangians conquered it.

At Calling of the Varangians, I have outlined how modern scholars such as Paul Magocsi and Janet Martin have reconstructed how Kyivan Rus' was established. It wasn't by invitation, nor did a state already exist; the Varangians began by raiding, then by what we might call wikt:Brandschatzung, and eventually demanding regular tribute of subdued peoples. That might not be a flattering story for the local Slavs, but that's what the evidence says. Similar to how the Romans brought political state structures to much of Europe by conquests in places where there had not been states before. Pretending that there were states before is just wishful thinking and pseudohistory, which is at the core of every anti-Normanist argument.

Incidentally, I've been working on Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv a bit, as well as Kyi dynasty. As Wikipedians, we need to be very careful in trying to separate fact from fiction. We're not here to try and confirm what we already believe; we're here to summarise what reliable sources have concluded, even if that is not what we expected or wanted them to conclude. NLeeuw (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No my friend, it's not even available in the first sentences of the article for an average reader. Essentially, most of my current proposed changes do not even discuss Polanians. The fact that Polanians were called Rus' shouldn't be a mystery either. Whether Rus' as word linguistically came from Polanians or Vikings we will never know for sure and it doesn't really matter. Yes, Polanians did payed tribute to khazars, this is even what khazar elite said about them according to Primary Chronicle:"Evil is this tribute, prince. We have won this tribute with a sabre, but the weapon of these called a sword. This men shall impose tribute upon us and upon other lands."

The fact that you took Subtelny's quote and called it "pure anti normanism" is even all more laughable, because this is what he has to say about this:"There are, therefore, good reasons to view the rise of Kiev not as the exclusive achievement of one ethnic group or another, but as the result of a complex Slavic/Scandinavian interrelationship. Recently, Omeljan Pritsak has taken this point further and argued that the entire question of the ethnic origins of Rus' is irrelevant. In his view, the original Rus' were a multiethnic and multilingual trading company that tried to control the trade routes between the Baltic and the Mediterranean and in the process established the political entity called Kievan Rus'." This shows an unprofessionalism regarding this topic from your side.

Yes, Polanians didn't established a tribute network for the most part, but they owned it as well as the vikings, because they were part of one company/organisation/state established in Central Ukraine through their complex interrelationship and similar interests. And they highly benefited from it, as their lands became or remained the core Kyivan Rus' culture and literature. So I don't make up anything of my own, I just try to bring this article closer to reality. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this edit which emphasises the role of Polans, I will mention again what is said in Viking Rus (2004): "it can be one more artificial attempt of the compiler to find an explanation for the introduction of the name of Rus to the territories at Middle Dnieper". Mellk (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This topic was created by other person. I created new topic below. Shahray (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello? 46.200.75.110 (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You've proposed changes and got negative feedback from several editors. At this point two courses of action would make sense

• You modify your proposal taking into account the feedback you've received and we discuss it.
• You request external feedback regarding your current proposal from uninvolved editors via WP:RFC or other channels.

Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Should I create new topic? 46.200.75.110 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would help. Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No. All I'm reading so far is some original research based on a selective, personal reading of the Primary Chronicle (PVL), an often highly unreliable, late, biased, and self-contradicting WP:PRIMARY source. Essentially, 46.200.75.110 seems to be making an anti-Normanism argument, claiming that the Polans (eastern) (Polanians, Polyane, Polyanians etc.) were always called Rus', always called themselves Rus', and that the Swedish Varangians who conquered Kyiv around 880 were not Rus'. This hypothesis has already been conclusively disproven and refuted by scholars decades ago, and we do not have to take it seriously. Anthropology of early Kyivan Rus' is extremely complicated and controversial, with the PVL frequently contradicting itself over what the word Rus' even means and to whom it should be applied. A drive-by comment on a talk page saying we should ignore the scholarly consensus because some person on the Internet has a different selective personal reading of the PVL is nothing to take seriously.

Similarly, theories about when and how Kyivan Rus' "declined" or "fell apart" and such should be evaluated skeptically. The traditional argument suggests that this state took 186 years (from 1054 to 1240) to "decline", while others say it wasn't really a "state" until Volodimer' got baptised around 988, so we end up with a state that was only really a "state" for 66 years (conveniently coinciding with the supposedly perfect reigns of Volodimer' and Yaroslav and constituting a "golden age"; all other knyazi were supposedly lesser) of its c. 360-year-long existence from c. 880 to 1240. It might surprise you, but I'm not convinced by the traditional argument. It's a modern myth that pre-Christian Kyivan Rus' and post-Yaroslav Kyivan Rus' were times of constant war, chaos and misery, and that the time in between was a perfect golden age unlike any other. And I'm even less impressed by a drive-by comment suggesting another simplistic personal interpretation of how Kyivan Rus' disappeared. NLeeuw (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Umm, no, nothing of what you said correspond to my views or the changes I proposed. Essentially, I have already provided a non Primary source.

Answering to your acquisitions, I do not support anti normanism, as the rise of Kyiv was contributed by both ethnicities.

I do not argue about when Kyivan Rus' declined or how it did, what I say is that it shouldn't be interpreted as disintegration into "an amalgam of principalities", but rather that this principalities have separated from Kyivan Rus' and were no longer part of it. Sorry, the most straightforward example is how we do not call former British colonies "an amalgam of British states".

I personally don't think Rus' was miserable even after it declined and shrank to the size it basically began as, Kyiv was still one of the largest and welthiest cities of a country that still was relevant and had marked huge influence. 46.200.75.110 (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Kyivan Rus'

The naming has changed. Modern sources tend to use Kyivan Rus. Even Magocsi in his latest works - Ukraina Redux: On Statehood and National Identity - Ukrainian World Congress - Ukrainian World Congress . We should start adopting the change. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

One example proves nothing, I can just as easily find many recent books which use the current title (A History of Russian Economic Thought (2023), Orthodox Mercantilism Political Economy in the Byzantine Commonwealth (2023), The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order (2024) etc). In any case there is no policy that says that only sources published in the last few years should be used when determining the name. Alaexis_¿question? 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well of those sources which do use "Kyivan", whose write that as "... also known as Kyivan ..." ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that any of the books I've mentioned predominantly uses "Kyivan Rus"? Alaexis_¿question? 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No. It's our article that uses "... also known as Kyivan Rus". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You still aren't being clear. Why would a source that uses "Kyivan" say "also known as Kyivan"? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The question is - why does the wiki article uses such a wording. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is titled "Kievan Rus'", in accordance with what has been determined to be the most widespread usage. However, "Kyivan Rus'" is used in some sources for the same thing. The phrase "also known as Kyivan Rus'" serves to let people know that these two names refer to the same thing. This is REALLY simple stuff. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The state in question is only predominantly called “Kievan Rus’” in English because of Russian imperial dominance over other Slavic peoples during the period that English-language academic study of Rus’ was first undertaken seriously.

There’s very literally a section of this page itself that deals with this. It was not called “Kievan Rus’” at the time; it was called “ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́” contemporaneously. The name “Kievan Rus’” was invented in the 1800s as a piece of Russian historiography, an invention that coincided with the coining of “Kyivan Rus’” as a piece of Ukrainian historiography. They are terms of equal tenure.

The Russian nomenclature was subsequently adopted into English in the early 1900s due to the influence of Klyuchevsky, an explicitly imperialist Russian historian who is responsible for formulating the Russian chauvinist view of Ukrainians as merely “Little Russians” whose language and culture should be understood as subordinate to the Russian imperial project.

The decision to retain the nomenclature “Kievan Rus’” on the basis that it is some undebatable fait accompli - despite knowing it is a recent, non-contemporaneous term invented by Russian imperial historians and that “Kyivan Rus’” has been around as an alternate for just as long - is not the obvious decision you want to cast it as, and it is certainly not a neutral choice as the de facto encyclopedia of record in 2024.

The polity was contemporaneously called ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́ by its residents in Old East Slavic. Actively choosing to retain the latter day Russian imperial recasting - one invented by the historian Putin quotes most frequently in his screeds about how Ukraine isn’t real, all because English imperial historians didn’t bother to listen to anyone about Slavic history aside from their Russian imperial counterparts - only serves to reinforce a Russian imperial worldview that is at the heart of the most intense bloodletting in Europe in 80 years. 2607:FEA8:51F:E000:8502:540E:26C5:B636 (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Last time I checked this still was a common name which is the only thing that matters for naming articles (see WP:COMMONNAME). A lot of time some people are unhappy with the common name (Bombay, Turkey) but we change it only when the new name becomes more widespread.

If you believe that the Kyivan Rus is the name most commonly used by scholars, then you should demonstrate it, and and RfC would probably be needed. I don't see much point in continuing this discussion to be honest. Alaexis_¿question? 06:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't need a source so say "also known as Kyivan Rus". If we have a majority of sources using one name and a minority using the other one, then it's totally legitimate to say X also known as Y. Alaexis_¿question? 13:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If we have a majority of sources using one name and a minority using the other one
But we don't.

Even Magocsi has changed his terminology. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And? Magocsi is just one source. You were already given several sources that use Kievan. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

In the section “Names” second picture and the text below should be deleted: “ When the Varangian princes arrived, the name Rus' was associated with them and came to be associated with the territories they controlled. Initially the cities of Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereyaslavl and their surroundings came under Varangian control.”

This text contradicts the recognized historical theory and the above-mentioned fact about Novgorod. The map is incorrect and not accurate, the text itself is biased and not proof-read. Rus’ did not consisted of only these three principalities at any time.

Please, alter and delete this text and map for the sake of academical honesty. 95.64.169.174 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline, but open to slight rephrase. The two sentences cited are supported by two reliable sources, and there is no reason to delete them. It is true that Kievan Rus' had more than just these three principalities, but it is also clear these three were the most important in its earliest phase.

About the map: The relationship of Novgorod with early Kievan Rus' is debated (Holmgårdr having a prominent place in Old Norse sources, while some suggesting Veliky Novgorod was the capital of Rurik's realm, although Rurik's historicity is in dispute), but in Rus' chronicles it usually was not grammatically or geographically considered part of the so-called "Rus' land" (Роуськая земля), in which Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl were the central patrimonies, while Novgorod had to pay tribute to Kiev.

I don't think the request as formulated will improve the contents. I would recommend the requester to read previous discussions on this talk page about these issues in the past 2.5 years. The current texts are usually the result of careful compromise based on reliable sources in scholarly literature. I might be persuaded to slightly alter the phrasing though; the words "Varangian princes" could be left out and replaced by just "Varangians", as the early Varangians were perhaps not yet knyazi as later understood (and we could include their retinues as well as their commanders). Given that they also controlled other cities as the requester pointed out, we could make it a bit like Initially, the most prominent cities that came under their control were Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl and their surroundings. NLeeuw (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. TylerBurden (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Did Oleg the Wise "unite East Slavic lands"?

I know from a historiographical point of view, this cannot be correct (there were obviously many more East Slavs who were not ruled by the Rus' Vikings, whether it was the semi-legendary Oleg or anyone else) - but even from a point of view of the chroniclers, I don't believe there is anything in the texts to justify "East Slavic lands". Happy to be proved wrong. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no Kieven Rus. It was simply Rus

dont know why this is viable. Kieven Rus as a term didn't come until the 19th-20th century 149.62.208.189 (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Kievan rus

@Mellk, explain how does this contradicts my changes? Shahray (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

In the discussion under § The slavic tribe of Rus', there is clearly no consensus to include additional emphasis on Polans. I do not think mentioning them in the lead is due either. There is also no mention of "Land of Rus" in Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and really, we should be using better sources than this. If this is based on the image, then this looks like synth. The other changes do not look like an improvement. For example, what is "the first Rus' people" supposed to mean? Also, changing "Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise tried to associate the name with all of the extended princely domains" to "the name was as well denoting all of the Kievan domains" changes the meaning. Mellk (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not a discussion done by me, and looks antinormanist, why should I care?

In the lead there's this quote "and took control of the city". What city of which region? I added specifications regarding this.

It is just called "Rus'" in Encyclopaedia. Source is fine. I guess you talk about the "names" section, in names section the name "Rus' land" is already introduced, it is literally another name for the same term. How is that "synth"?

"in 839, the Rus were Swedes; in 1043 the Rus were Slavs", that's what "first Rus' people" means, obviously, do you know anything about this topic or are you just testing my patience?

"changes the meaning" how? Shahray (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly the same person as the IP. Otherwise, the same IP would not have asked me before why I reverted edits made by Shahray. Even if we pretend that I am stupid, the discussion is about similar changes, so yes, this is relevant.

Also, I have not seen the formulation "first Rus people" before. No one is arguing that they did not assimilate into the Slavic population, but this implies that there is a "second Rus people" and so on. Since you are resorting to personal attacks once again, I have lost interest in discussing. Mellk (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember or care, this might be a common IP anyways.

I literally just inserted the quote from this article about this.

Please, how did I "personally attacked" you, and what "again" means? I just have no interest to wander in circles because of you giving some of the most minor excuses to not let my changes get in again and again.

I don't blame you, there are other editors which might be more knowledgeable about the topic and correct me in case I'm wrong. You're not the only one who can do that. Shahray (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's address what you don't have concerns about. I don't see concerns about moving the tribes around Kiev upwards, so I guess it's safe for me restore this? Shahray (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)