This is an archive of past discussions about Kievan Rus'. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Here is something which do not fit. How can three (actually four) peoples; Meri (Merja), Tshuudi / Chuds (Vadja / Vod), Karelians (Izhoras) and Vepsäs (Ves), (not tribes) be a minority within two Slav peoples, of which only one (Krivitshis) belonged to Eastern Slavonic block, the other being Vendi (Veneti) immigrants from Baltic shore coming from Polatsik (original inhabitants Balts, then followed by Juuttis / Danes from Jutland), when forming a common trading place at the neck of Olhava River two kilometres down stream of Ilmajärvi (Air Lake)? Monk Nestor seems to have been made "little" exaggeration in his history.
Secondly, where are mentioned the Madjaarit (Magy-ers) who settled at the shore of Dinjeper Etelköz on the place of three Ugri (Uhorski) Hills c. 835-894? They had concentraded there 20.000 horse warriors, the best of Magy-ers army, the rest 30.000 were scattered to other places in Etelköz between Dinjeper and Dinjester. They ruled by the time the Slav peoples living at the time also in the Etelköz area, which later, only after 894-895, when Magy-ers left to Pannonia, become what is now called the cradle of Kievan (Kijev) Rus Gaganate.
What about Viatsit (Vjatitsit) who were part of a Finno Ugrian Ud-murt originated Vitka tribe which moved and settled to the area between Upper Oka and Dinjeper and lived there at the time of Etelköz?
How could Askold and Dyr (Dir) settle themselves among the Magy-ers in 860 ?. The story as written down by Nestor more than a hundred years later needs to be thought with rational thinking by historians combining all Byzantine, Norsemen, Finno Ugrian, Turkic-Tatar, Arabian and Persian sources to have even a golden central way in reliability of history for Early History of Rus´.
How can declined Kasaari (Khazar) Gaganate rule Kiev (Kijev) after their defeat to Arabs? Why they had to allied with Byzantine Emperor against "pagan" Petsenags?
The first time in European history I hear that whole population of Rus changed their religion from "paganism" to Orthodox Christianity just like that in a year or so. Bishop Leontij, who was not of Slav origin, appeared to Rosta / Rostov and suddenly all Meris (Merjas) were Orthodoxs (at least according to Nestor Chonicle).
All Karelians were Christianized in one year according to Russian Primary Chronicle, but for Western Roman Catholic Church it took more than 150 years to convert the Russian named "Swedes", living in Finland to even nominal Christianity. Strange is it? The question is of same Finno Ugrian people under name Finns which were divided to different tribes just as Hämes (Jems) Kainus, (Kvens) and Karelians (Korielas) speking Finnish with different dialects.
For German "kalparitarit" / "sword crusaders" it took 27 years to have whole small piece of land called today Estonia under their control in 1201-1227 beating the Aestes (with Danish help), tribe after tribe, a population of only 200.000 people.
"The church had a liturgy written in Cyrillic and a corpus of translations from the Greek that had been produced for the Slavic peoples. The existence of this literature facilitated the conversion to Christianity of the Eastern Slavs and introduced them to rudimentary Greek philosophy, science, and historiography without the necessity of learning Greek. In contrast, educated people in medieval Western and Central Europe learned Latin. Enjoying independence from the Roman authority and free from tenets of Latin learning, the East Slavs developed their own literature and fine arts, quite distinct from those of other Orthodox countries."
What is to suggest it was a Golden Age? Please see other Golden Age listings which usually document great achievements in art, literature, science and so on. This simply says they were exposed to Greek influences and developed a unique style. Is that a Golden Age? Please provide more details about the achievements of the time if possible. THanks! --Michaelrayw2 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Locked?
Why is this locked?
Kiev Rus is a civilization that really doesn't have bad things in them. Soon every page will be locked, and wikipedia will just become a free encyclopidea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijj (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to write an article without turning it into a p*ssing match? I made some minor edits to clean out some of the bias, but i suspect someone (nationlist feelings?) will likely undo them eventually. If we use references to contemporary societies in every civ article to inflate a certain civ, youll end up having to compare the mayans to chinese emperors. It's pointless. Just state what the society had, dont go calling out paris for having dirty streets... or trying to claim londons population (totally under-estimated) makes Kiev awesome. Also, if we traced any/every king/ruler of any/every nation you'd find they are ALL insanely cross-related... indeed studies have shown that every human being on earth is likely related to a common ancestor as close as the early first century AD, its just dumb, has little relevancy, and makes the article sound/seem less than trust-worthy.
Also, I want to make a special note, that bias and fact arent always intractably connected... you CAN get rid of bias without removing facts (unless the facts stated are irrelevant and exist just to promote an agenda)... too often i see people looking to remove bias removing the facts associated, usually because theyre from the "offended" party.
Lionvision (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"London's population circa 1200" I cant believe i have to write this up, not only does the "comparison" stated by the original author broker little worth at all, its cherry picking at best, and on top of cherry picking it serves no intrest to this article... But rant aside here are two references saying the population in london was considerably higher on or around the same time as Kievien Rus.
The statement made by the previous author with super low balled counts for london and the corrallory "where urbanization was as advanced as anywhere in Europe north of the Mediterranean" is flat out WRONG or misguided at best, and cherry-picking, and not relevant.
Stop fueling this rampant bias, remove the comparison because it does no good to anyone and only diminishes Kievan Rus.
Lionvision (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
My friend, the information stated that you removed is information in the work cited by Robert Bartlett, and serves the purpose of comparison. It's a more reliable source than those websites, but for instance if you believe the comparison to be unbalanced, that doesn't prevent you supplementing it with information from other reliable sources. The point being made was the extent of urbanization in Kievan Rus, particularly in the Dnieper Basin, information highly worth stating as it is notable. I'm reverting you on this basis. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The current comparison is needless unencyclopedic chauvinism. It's enough that Russian sources overstate the reach of Kievan Rus as compared to non-Russian western sources. (I've read enough reputable ones on both sides to see the pattern, but I have no burning need to rain on the Russian pride parade here, skull as sipping cup aside.) Perhaps we can add population New York at the time, several native American Indians with beads? Angkor, a real metropolis at that time, had anywhere from 300,000 to 1,000,000 inhabitants depending on whose numbers you want to believe. —PētersV (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Using reliable sources, it is encyclopedic to give the reader an account of the level of urbanism in Kievan Rus using reliable sources, comparing it to other areas of European Christendom. Such estimates are only ever estimitates, though for European cities estimates don't tend to be as wild as those cooky "estimates" given for places like Angkor and Tenochtitlan. Anyways, the authors cited here are Janet Martin and Prof Robert Bartlett, neither of whom are Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian. 82.11.53.237 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Your premise is that one can gauge urban development by the number of inhabitants. Urbanization is not merely a matter of numbers. That the number of anything somewhere else is of significance as a comparison is your (Deacon and anon IP) personal inference only.
If you wish to write something about the Dnieper being along an ancient trade route that ran from Lake Lagoda and Lake Onega in the far north down out to Black Sea, Aegean, and on to western Europe and Africa and discuss the population growth that engendered in the Dnieper basin, that's significant. If you then contrasted to the Thames as a trade route, with scholarly estimates on commerce, you could then build a comparison that meant something. Or the Seine. Whatever. As it stands, "by comparison, A had X", doesn't tell a story of any value. It's just a piece of trivia, which is why it's not adding any value to the article. —PētersV (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Number of inhabitants is certainly the core element of urbanization as far as most historians are concerned, and simple numbers do give alot of useful info (there has to be a political and economic system that allows so many people to eat without producing food, etc). If you wish to extend the discussion of urbanization, with references from reliable sources to other elements such as building and trade, material culture, etc, you are free to do so ... ;) But talking about Ukrainian and Russian chauvinism is hardly helpful here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"Using reliable sources, it is encyclopedic to give the reader an account of the level of urbanism in Kievan Rus using reliable sources, comparing it to other areas of European Christendom"
Personally I don't see why we should compare it to Christendom rather then to other urbanised areas of humanity. Christanity is just a religion like many others and makes no special change to urbanisation. But if you insist to comparing it to other centers of religious life in Europe... By 1180 Constantinopol had 400.000 citizens according to J. Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople page 144.
--Molobo (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You see, now were in a pissing match... and all completely irelvant. But to be much more specific the reason were in a pissing match is because the population of Kievan Rus is not a huge/significant factor... such as being the worlds largest city (which would be much more relevant)... it was an advanced city with many other contemporary rivals of simlar worth. The fact that someone chose london and not paris to compare it to shows just how fickle (and inappropriate) the comparison is. Seriously... this statement just makes rus look bad. Also, i cited several sources a few which were excerpts from books written by experts... so who are we to say which source were going to use as base? Its retarded, the info is contradictory and not beneficial. It's ego massaging... it would be best to say that these two cities were large and fairly advanced for the age and leave it be, the second you try to compare them, you open up the gateway to endless comparisons not relvant to THIS article. Lionvision (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
London with 12 000 inhabitants ???
The Historical assessment section includes : London - population 12 000 around AD 1200
This looks like copied from some old soviet propaganda material(great east-poor west). This estimate does not match the numbers in the wikipedia's London article : 1100 - 18 000, 1300 - 100 000 inhabitants
Please, fix the "Map of Kievan Rus' right before Sviatoslav's campaigns, mid 10th century". That is very fun.
Realy. Most of cities on north-east was founded MUCH more later. For example Vladimir was founded by Volodymir (Vladimir) who lived AFTER Sviatoslav. The same thing for Yaroslavl and almost all other cities. Moscow, Nizhniy Novgorod, Ryazan were founded much later. Same as Belgorod, Kursk, Pereyaslav and Galich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.47.194 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wrong picture
Please, fix the "Map of Kievan Rus' right before Sviatoslav's campaigns, mid 10th century". That is very fun. Realy. Most of cities on north-east was founded MUCH more later. For example Vladimir was founded by Volodymir (Vladimir) who lived AFTER Sviatoslav. The same thing for Yaroslavl and almost all other cities. Moscow, Nizhniy Novgorod, Ryazan were founded much later. Same as Belgorod, Kursk, Pereyaslav and Galich.
It's better to remove or replace that picture . There are too much errors. Wrong place of mordvins and leak of many other nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.47.194 (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree wih you that they are numerous errors within the picture in questions. However, in my opinion, it is definitely not necessary (or even advisable) to remove this picture entirely. First of all, the errors within the picture are just minor ones and the major points of the picture will still be expressed even with the errors. Second, this is, by far, the picture with the most clarity of and detail of the few maps of Kievan Rus'. I feel that the picture should remain, for the time being, and someone with expertise in map-making can re-make and improve the map by re-creating it using one of the many cartography programs and ridding it of all of the errors that are currently on it. I think that this is an acceptable compromise rather than just remove the picture entirely; what do you think? Cheers! --Laurinavicius (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Rusification of east Slavs history
The file created by SeikoEn needs to be corrected as soon as possible. First Rus' state was formatted in the surrounding of Staraya Ladoga and Veliky Novgorod (not in Kiev). The second Rus state was formatted in Kiev and then it was annexed by prince Oleg of Veliky Novgorod. The second thing is that the fictitious colour of coat of arms can suggest that it is Ukrainian coat of arms - what is not true of course. Kind regards from Prague
Most of cities on north-east was founded MUCH more later. For example Vladimir was founded by Volodymir (Vladimir) who lived AFTER Sviatoslav. The same thing for Yaroslavl and almost all other cities. Moscow, Nizhniy Novgorod, Ryazan were founded much later. Same as Belgorod, Kursk, Pereyaslav and Galich. This is very much true and tipical rusification of the maps of Kyiv Rus'. STOP the rusification of ukrainian history!!! --SeikoEn (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody tries to Russify anything here. It's common history of all the East Slavic nations and should be given as such. Rus is not Ukraine, just like it is not Russia, or Belarus, and yet it belongs to the history of all of them. There were no Ukrainian tribes back then, the separation into the three major East Slavic ethnic groups took place much later.
It's a matter of controversy what can be considered a start point of the Rus state, and it's impossible to give one short absolutely correct answer here, but it has no relation to the matter — the map I mean.
Your map claims that in the 8th century the land of Rus was around Kiev — which is very doubtful and mot likely is wrong. Most sources state the Rus people were active in the north first, and were rulers of Novgorod before they became took Kiev. Then your map claims that in 882 Kievan Rus consisted of the larger (dark red) area around Kiev. But Oleg, whom you consider the founder of Rus, was the prince of Novgorod. So how comes Kiev was a part of his state, and Novgorod was not? The Ukrainized names are ridiculous, the "national emblem" is ridiculous, there are some typos, some names weren't translated at all, the map is not well done from technical point of view. I don't think this map can be used in Wikipedia. Yet again I ask you: where you got this map from? What sources you used? Hellerick (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Founders of Kyiv - tribe Polans as decedens of modern Ukrainians - were rulers of all Rus'-Ukraine in that historical time. Oleg was war captain and not a prince. Who are Russians? Mostly Merya, Muromian and something of Vyatiches who was liveing in perfiery of Kyiv Rus', people called rus'ki from Rusyns-Ukrainians, later they asimilated Novgorod lands ... and all the text is about Russian fake glory, very funny :-) ... You know, people are not so stupid as some of you wretches thinks they are. Good luck with rusification of ukrainian famous history an your cinical attitude! This is the real reason why are Russians truly people from Asia, without european mentality wich they want so bad ... Poor thing realy! --SeikoEn (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
We are not here to discuss who is who and create tension. I think that the map that we are talking about here, is very good, that is why I did not notice anything wrong with it at first. However, no matter how you cut it Rus were in a different location and much more widespread in the eighth century and there is undeniable evidence that they came versus being of a local elite. They came from the north, from the Vikings (Varangians), just as they did in Western Europe. Because the tribes in the north were rather loose and chaotic, Varangians (see Rurik) right away formed an elite, consolidated, and gradually expanded their influence. When they got further south and reached areas with denser population; they retained the leading role but were very quickly assimilated. The Grand Princes of Kiev were mixing with locals as soon as Sviatoslav. The same thing happened in Western Europe. Or in China, when Mongols took it, instead of fighting, the chinese simply assimilated mongols into their society over decades.
If we are talking about Kievan Rus. This is a totally different story. It retained the name but, when it really emerged around Volodymir times, was a state on its own. Of course Polans (eastern) played a key role, just because they were around Kiev, but also did the Drevlyans, and the Severians, varangians themselves, and let's not forget Novgorod, that played a huge role; every iconic Kiev Prince was at some point earlier in his career Prince of Novgorod.
If we are talking about actual Russians, or Ukrainians, or Belorussians for that matter. They have not even started to form until few centuries later. So lets drop it.
I think that the map has to be changed. Simple edit would be to delete everything relating to yellow, and then it is good. But we have to change it because it is misleading.Ivan2007 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh I did not get it. What exactly is misleading? And what's wrong with yellow?
As for the Rus being "aliens", there are two version about the matter, and even though I support Normanism too, it is not up to Wikipedia to decide which of the two well-established theories is correct one. Hellerick (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I am referring to the yellow part on the map that claims that Rus is orginally from Kiev land. Normanist or not, the article's and the map's name is Kievan Rus, we need to keep with that.Ivan2007 (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you're talking about that map. Yeah, the yellow and dark red areas are misguiding. Kievan Rus never existed without both Kiev and Novgorod. Hellerick (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Original name
I'm not sure, probably this issue was already discussed — it's about the original name of the country. It was spelled "Роусь" in Old Slavic, and yet it's spelled "Русь" in all the contemporary East Slavic languages. Should change the name to "Роусь"? Hellerick (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, "Роусь" and "Русь" are rather orthographic variants and in the latter there is not exactly "у" but vertical ligature (Ꙋ, ꙋ) like Greek ȣ. And there can be free variation in real texts. To be sure it would be useful to check the original text of say " Povest' vremennykh let" maybe here. My traffic is limited now so I can't do it by myself. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The source cites several copies of the chronicle, and they use different styles. So now we have three variants: Роусь, Русь, and Рꙋсь. Hellerick (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Your map is poorly made from both technical and factual point of view. You refuse to improve it, you refuse to provide your sources. If you see some pro-Russian bias in my actions, please point out at what it evinces in. Hellerick (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Uliches and Tivertsi
Is is said that Uliches and Tivertsi were paying tribute to Sveneld the latest since mid 900s. However, none of the maps of Kievan Rus of this period show this area and dependent of Kievan Rus. The only serious expansion comes after Sviatoslv conquest. Did Sveneld have a separate state, I dont think so. Any thoughts on that? 63.240.123.12 (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I was born in Ukraine and live there for many years, I know some about the history of this country. The Kiev has never been part Khazaria, but slavic population of Kiev paid mandatory tribute to Khazars in early 9th century before varangians arrive. The Khazars (see main article) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who was eventually distroed by slavic Rus and other neighbors.
The main source about russian history of that time is the The Russian Primary Chronicle and it says:
6367 (859) The Varangians from beyond the sea imposed tribute upon the Chuds, the Slavs, the Merians, the Ves, and the Krivichians. But the Khazars imposed it upon the Polianians, the Severians, and the Viatichians, and collected a squirrel skin and a beaver skin from each hearth.
With Rurik there were two men who did not belong to his kin, but were boyars. They obtained permission to go to Constantinople with their families. They thus sailed down the Dnieper, and in the course of their journey they saw a small city on a hill. Upon their inquiry as to whose town it was, they were informed that three brothers, Kii, Shchek, and Khoriv, had once built the city, but that since their deaths, their descendants were living there as tributaries of the Khazars. Askold and Dir remained in this city, and after gathering together many Varangians, they established their domination over the country of the Polianians at the same time that Rurik was ruling at Novgorod
In fact Khazars and Rus was a bitter enemies all the time long until Rus king Svatoslav (grandson of varangian Rurik) totaly distroed the capital of Khazaria Itil.
The Rus warlords Oleg and Sviatoslav I of Kiev launched several wars against the Khazar khaganate, often with Byzantine connivance.
Most of russians would be really surprized (if not upset) when you tell them that Khazaria is predecessor of Kievan Rus. This does not make any sence since these many historical and poetical books about wars between khazars and early russians (see the main article about Khazars and Rise of Rus).
Khazaria certainly was a predecessor of Kievan Rus'. In 882, Prince Oleg of Novgorod revolted against Khazaria and formally established the state known today as Kievan Rus'. Prior to Oleg's revolt, the territory of the future Kievan state was ruled over by the Khazars and the Varangians, but primarily the former. The people of this territory were forced to pay taxes and tribute to the Khazars. Thus, Khazaria was a predecessor of Rus' as: a) the territory that later came to make up Kievan Rus' was ruled by Khazaria; and b) Prince Oleg of Novogorod formally established Kievan Rus' by revolting and declaring independence from Khazaria. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, according to Russian Primary Chronicle Oleg was varangian and a relative of the first ruler, Rurik, and was entrusted by Rurik to take care of both his kingdom and his young son Ingvar, or Igor. Oleg gradually took control of the Dnieper cities, captured Kiev (previously held by the Varangian warlords, Askold and Dir) and finally moved his capital from Novgorod there. Novgorod had never paid tribute to Khazaria, they was paying tribute to varangians.
The Rus' Primary Chronicle:[1]
6367 (859). The Varangians from beyond the sea imposed tribute upon the Chuds, the Slavs,
the Merians, the Ves', and the Krivichians. But the Khazars imposed it upon the Polyanians, the
Severians, and the Vyatichians, and collected a white squirrel-skin from each hearth.
6368–6370 (860–862). The tributaries of the Varangians drove them back beyond the sea
and, refusing them further tribute, set out to govern themselves. There was no law among them,
but tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against another. They said to themselves, “Let us seek a prince who may rule over us and judge us
according to the Law.” They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Rus': these particular
Varangians were known as Rus', just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, English,
and Gotlanders, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichians, and the Ves'
then said to the people of Rus', “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to
rule and reign over us.” They thus selected three brothers, with their kinsfolk, who took with
them all the Rus' and migrated. The oldest, Rurik, located himself in Novgorod; the second,
Sineus, at Beloozero; and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. On account of these Varangians, the
district of Novgorod became known as the land of Rus'. The present inhabitants of Novgorod are
descended from the Varangian race, but aforetime they were Slavs.
...
With Rurik there were two men who did not belong to his kin, but were boyars. They
obtained permission to go to Tsargrad with their families. They thus sailed down the Dnipro, and
in the course of their journey they saw a small city on a hill. Upon their inquiry as to whose town
it was, they were informed that three brothers, Kyi, Shchek, and Khoriv, had once built the city,
but that since their deaths, their descendants were living there as tributaries of the Khazars.
Askold and Dir remained in the city, and after gathering together many Varangians, they
established their dominion over the country of the Polyanians at the same time that Rurik was
ruling at Novgorod.
...
6378–6387 (870–879). On his deathbed, Rurik bequeathed his realm to Oleg, who belonged
to his kin, and entrusted to Oleg’s hands his son Igor', for he was very young.
6388–6390 (880–882). Oleg set forth, taking with him many warriors from among the
Varangians, the Chuds, the Slavs, the Merians and all the Krivichians. He then came to the hills of Kyiv, and
saw how Askold and Dir reigned there. He hid his warriors in the boats, left some others behind,
and went forward himself bearing the child Igor'. He thus came to the foot of the Hungarian hill,
and after concealing his troops, he sent messengers to Askold and Dir, representing himself as a
stranger on his way to Greece on an errand for Oleg and for Igor', the prince’s son, and
requesting that they should come forth to greet them as members of their race. Askold and Dir
straightway came forth. Then all the soldiery jumped out of the boats, and Oleg said to Askold
and Dir, “You are not princes nor even of princely stock, but I am of princely birth.” Igor' was
then brought forward, and Oleg announced that he was the son of Rurik. They killed Askold and
Dir, and after carrying them to the hill, they buried them there, on the hill now known as
Hungarian, where the castle of Ol'ma now stands. Over that tomb Ol'ma built a church dedicated
to St. Nicholas, but Dir’s tomb is behind St. Irene’s. Oleg set himself up as prince in Kyiv, and
declared that it should be the mother of Rus' cities. The Varangians, Slavs, and others who
accompanied him, were called Rus'. Oleg began to build stockaded towns, and imposed tribute
on the Slavs, the Krivichians, and the Merians.
So there is no way Oleg would "declare independence from Khazars" since he was a Novgorod leader of Varangians and was never under control of Khazars.
I have already responded to this on my talk page, but I will also add my comment here. I stated: "First off, after gaining and securing power in Novgorod, Oleg traveled south to Kiev in 882, which, at the time, was controlled by Khazaria. There, he declared the city's independence from Khazarian rule and its unification with Novogorod, and moved his kingdom's capital from Novgorod to Kiev. This is generally recognized as the formal establishment of Kievan Rus', not when Rurik or Oleg took power in Novgorod years before. Second, Kiev was not a Varangian city during the mid-to-late 800's, but was a Khazarian one. Kiev was conquered by Khazaria in circa 840; prior to that, it was controlled by numerous East Slavic tribes at different periods of time, including the Varangians. However, the Varangians had not controlled Kiev for at least forty-to-fifty years prior to Oleg's capture of the city. Third, while the Russian Primary Chronicle is a well-respected primary source, it has been criticized as being biased towards a sort-of pro-Russian viewpoint, and generally conflicts with other chronicles of the time that discuss these events, such as the Novgorod, Kiev, East Slavic, and Byzantine Chronicles, which, on the other hand, usually agree with one another. So, I disagree with your assertion that the Russian Primary Chronicle is "the main source about russian history of that time", and believe that there are numerous other credible primary sources from that time. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 12:54 am, Today (UTC−5)" My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Innab (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Ok, I will agree to call Khazaria a "predecessor" in term of control of some territory that later came to make up Kievan Rus', but paying mandatory "tribute" did not mean that Kiev belonged to Khazaria as a full-right member city, it rather was wage of defeat. Chronicle said that "The Varangians, Slavs, and others who accompanied him, were called Rus". Khazarians was forced to withdraw from Kiev, and later been destroyed by Rus and other neigbours.
Exactly my point! Khazaria ruled a vast portion of what later came to be known as Kievan Rus', and, as such, is labeled as a predecessor state. Cheers! Laurinavicius (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Factual errors about the early history
1. Originally founded by the Scandinavian traders (Varangians) called "Rus'" and centered in Novgorod, the state later included territories stretching south to the Black Sea, east to Volga, and west to the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Novgorod was founded by The Ilmen Slavs (Slovenes). Original text of The Russian Primary Chronicle: Словѣне же сѣдоша около озера Илмера, и прозвашася своимъ именемъ, и сдѣлаша городъ и нарекоша и́ Новъгородъ.
Translation: Slovenes sat near the Ilmen lake, and were called by their name, and founded the city and called it Novgorod.
2. In the ninth century the capital of the Rus became Kiev, a Slavic settlement that in early 9th century was paying tribute to Khazars but captured by the Varangians in 864.
No such text in the Russian Primary Chronicle.
Yes, it is:
With Rurik there were two men who did not belong to his kin, but were boyars. They obtained permission to go to Tsargrad with their families. They thus sailed down the Dnipro, and in the course of their journey they saw a small city on a hill. Upon their inquiry as to whose town it was, they were informed that three brothers, Kyi, Shchek, and Khoriv, had once built the city, but that since their deaths, their descendants were living there as tributaries of the Khazars. Askold and Dir remained in the city, and after gathering together many Varangians, they established their dominion over the country of the Polyanians at the same time that Rurik was ruling at Novgorod.
3. According to the Russian Primary Chronicle, the earliest chronicle of Kievan Rus′, the territory of the future Kievan state was divided between some Varaigian state and Khazaria.
The Russian Primary Chronicle doesn't says so...
4. Some of the tribes (unknown who exactly) decided to invite the Rus Varaigians to rule over them.
It is known: Ркоша руси чюдь, словенѣ, кривичи и вся: «Земля наша велика и обилна, а наряда въ ней нѣтъ. Да поидете княжить и володѣть нами».
1 It may be that the Slovenes founded Novgorod. We are talking about the founding of the Kievan Rus' though, not Novgorod as far as I am aware and does the chronicle state dates of those events ?
2 and 3 The primary chronicle is not a book I have in my house, however, it may be that "just because it is not in the primary chronicle it is not true"
4 The statement said "unknown exactly" and the primary chronicle is one source which states Chud, Slovenes and Krivichi (according to your translation).
This does not mean that I disagree with your points, it is merely that more research must be done to discover the facts here. There are more knowledgeable editors out there than me who may be able to help on this matter and you should consider dropping a note onto the Ukraine portal page to ask for opinions
I think that the edits made recently - moving some of the pics to left - make the article much more difficult to read and so made it worse.
The edit summaries of "saving white space" are not really true, there is no saving of any whitespace. Much more whitespace would have been saved by creating two columns for the demographics section for example.
The major problem is the three "In a series of" boxes; History of Ukraine, History of Russia and History of East Slavs.
I will put arrange them better and put some of the pics into gallery. "Maps" and another one.
It has been brought to my attention that the infobox/series of Ukrainian/series of Russian boxes can cause a "it looks really bad" for lower resolution browsers.
Can we discuss how this can be solved, if it is a real problem, and what to do if anything.
There has been an image aligning issue for some time as the infoboxes go a long way down the page. Three or four different editors have tried to cure it. The first problem was that having the boxes there meant none of the images would appear in the sections that they were supposed to be in.
Laurinavicius tried to fix the image bleed problems by moving them to the left and making them smaller, but they were then unreadable [2] and very small.
The problem I had was that after I had put the images into a gallery, the series of Ukraine and series of Russia end up interfering with the gallery further down and also creates lots of whitespace. [3]
I cured it by moving the series of Ukrainian and series of Russian boxes up to being in between between the TOC and infobox [4]
I wish I could help with fixing it, but I can only confirm that it not only "looks horrible" at low resolutions, but actually is a problem. The history infoboxes in my low-res system are crammed between the TOC and the infobox, and overlap large chunks of both.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 8, 2011; 19:15 (UTC) I have corrected the quote to accurately reflect the IP editors comments. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is to scrap the infobox/series completely, both Russian and Ukrainian. They are redundant, since all the links contained in them may be found also in the Russian/Ukrainian topics navboxes at the bottom of the page. GreyHoodTalk19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
@Ezhiki - What resolution is that using?
Well I think we should keep the Ukrainian one if we can, in particular it has many more links to historical articles than the bottom navbox. Are we sure that the Russian links are replicated?
Ah, now I see that Ukrainian template contains more links when expanded. Well, then my proposal is to turn it into a separate navbox at the bottom of the article. The side boxes really create too many problems in many articles. As for the Russian links, I have inserted the missing ones to the Template:Russia topics. GreyHoodTalk20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice work! I am just going to take out the Russian one for now to see if it still causes problems and while we decide on whether or not to remove it/replace it. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The only sensible decision is arranging the pictures in a normal way, not in galleries, while reformatting the Ukrainian template and moving it to the bottom of the page. GreyHoodTalk22:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no problem at 1024x768 and above, at least not when I view at that resolution, not even an overlap on my screen. I would suggest that the average screen size is 1024 and above, if not the vast majority of screen sizes. I am sorry, but I disagree on the phrase "normal" picture placement. A side by side layout allows easy comparison between size changes of territory and IMO is more elegant. It is also easier to change the display sizes by changing one number instead of in all images. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the problems with resolutions, the arrangement of pictures in this article and the placement of the template near the TOC is unusual and unhandy, far from the standard of a good or featured article. Pictures should illustrate the text, and not be mixed (both maps and non-maps) in the galleries. And all navigation templates better be placed at the bottom, without giving undue weight to any of them. Later I'll see if I have time to fix all these issues. GreyHoodTalk00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's hope you understand that there is no consensus for sweeping changes yet. I think it would be best that your propose and then we find consensus on matters rather than one person assuming they know best. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course, if I try to remake the Ukrainian template, I'll start a discussion on its page beforhand. As for the rearrangement of pictures in this article, I think that the need for it is self-obvious, when compared to the standards of illustration of articles. GreyHoodTalk01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
In response to the inquiries above (if that still helps), the problem I experienced was at 800x600 resolution, but even at 1,280x1,024 there is a significant overlap when the browser window is not maximized. As of today (with only the "History of Ukraine" box remaining), in a non-maximized window the navbox overlaps a good chunk of the TOC. Same problem can be observed at 800x600 on my smartphone.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 15:35 (UTC)
Due to the senseless edit warring on this I have removed all the boxes. Discussion has not been finished, consensus has not been found and yet people are edit warring. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I fully support this edit, as providing a common template for a common part of several modern states' history is clearly the best solution. It also was not a revert, (but a new solution), so WP:BRD doesn't apply. Are there any content-related objections to this solution? --illythr (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, that certainly is not good enough. We were approaching consensus on having no infoboxes and having navboxes, now all of a sudden people are beginning to diverge again. Secondly, the East Slav infobox is more of a Russia Infobox with some small changes. The Ukraine one has more links and more neutral terminology and more specific coverage by area.
A little while ago you were going to make a Russia Navbox for the bottom to match the Ukraine one. Now you want an East Slav Infobox that has a non existent portal on it? That doesn't even make sense, why does it have an East Slav portal link when there is no East Slav portal or project?
As it seems there is only a "if one goes in they all go in" and that is obviously unacceptable, the only other option is to adopt the Navboxes as we had already agreed. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I would also like to support having just one infobox instead of three. The history of Kievan Rus is shared by three modern countries, but having three huge infoboxes at the top of the page is definitely an overkill (not to mention it looks ugly). If the East Slavs infobox is incomplete or not neutral or deficient in some other ways (a point about the link to the non-existing East Slavs portal is a good one), it can always be improved to make it more acceptable. If that's impossible, or if no one wants to do that job, I'd be in favor of taking out all three and seeking other means to aid navigation, such as navboxes at the bottom. Perhaps compiling a list of all options proposed so far and going through a straw poll would put everyone on one page?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2011; 13:19 (UTC)
As I have specified, I support adding the common template for now. Remaking the Ukrainian navbox will require quite an amount of time for discussion, changing the code, and fixing the template's location on the pages. While we can't do it quickly, and removal of just one Russian seems to cause edit war, usage of the common template might be a good solution. GreyHoodTalk14:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
None of them need anymore info adding per se, although it could be done (I have also fixed the Middle ages navbox so that it does not start expanded)
There were more links in the Ukraine "Seriesbox", but whether or not they need to be added is another matter. (if you want to compare them side by side I have them here User:Chaosdruid/documentsofinterest/Ukraine) The main issue I have with the East Slav one is that it is more centred on Russian topics rather than being generally concerned with East Slavs as a whole, for example following the Kievan Rus' entry it lists "Novgorod Republic" as does the Russia one (although it has Vladimir-Suzdal between them), the Ukraine and Belarus ones both have list "Galicia–Volhynia".
These are the sort of things that would have to be sorted out as they are indirectly introducing POV (as well as the matter of there being no East Slav portal etc needing a workaround) and as the East Slav one has the potential for being seen as POV, I do not think it can simply be used instead - that was the main reason for me removing it.
My final point is about the detail. It seems the Ukraine "seriesbox" has much more information as it includes ancient history and has more links to smaller periods of time than the others.
As there is no East Slav project, or portal, I really think we should consider modifying the East Slav one (unless there is another found which better suits the purpose. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
PS I found we have a similar problem on KhazariaChaosdruid (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Religion and language - Norse
There have been a couple of additions to the infobox that are beginning to develop as a problem.
The problems are twofold. Firstly I can see no evidence from the articles linked, nor others from those articles, that Old Norse was a "common" language. It may well have been spoken by themselves but they were a minority. Secondly there is nothing to say that Norse paganism was adopted by the population.
Obviously if this can be reliably sourced then no problem.
As usual, please observe WP:BRD. The addition was made and has been reverted twice now until consensus if found for the addition of the material. The onus is upon the adding editor to show why the material should be added and to form consensus here first. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The founding dynasty of Kievan Rus, the Rurik dynasty, was of Norse origin so its obvious that Old Norse was spoken in the state. Several Russian names like Oleg and Igor are actually desceandants of Norse names. Of course, the Slavic people were the majority population of the state but i don't think that we should remove Old Norse from the article altogether. The first rulers of the Rurik dynasty practised Norse paganism. It was not a majority religion, but it was practised by a notable minority. I don't see the point of not mentioning that in the article. Do you happen to be Ukrainian of Russian? Alphasinus (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, Norse Paganism was practicised by early Varangian traders in Rus, but there is no evidence that it was practiced by the Rurik dynasty. Also, the origin of Rurik is disputed: he might have been Norse, but might have been of Finnish or Baltic Slav origin as well. After some consideration, I think we could add Norse Paganism and Old Norse to the infobox, but on the last place and with a note that these were in huge minority and confined mostly to the 9th-10th cc. timeframe. 12:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)GreyHoodTalk
...and most importantly, it should not be added without a source being cited. No matter how logical the addition may seem, if it is contested, it must be sourced.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 23, 2011; 13:22 (UTC)
@Alphasinus - I do not think my nationality/ancestry has anything to do with this conversation?
Yes, it may be obvious that some sort of Norse-ish language may have been spoken in the state. If a family go to visit an island where there are 10,000 people speaking language X and the four family members speak language Y, yes, language Y could be said to be spoken on that island. It would not be appropriate to put that in the "common language" field as it is obviously not a common language at 4 out of 10,004. Then there are the other problems of numbers and refs brought up by the other editors. Unfortunately you will need to show all concerned that "Common" usage was in fact present.
Similarly with religion. We cannot list every single religious practice in the country in that infobox field, it could be said that the United Kingdom is Protestant, Catholic and Methodist. But that would not cover the followers of Islam, Bhuddists, Jews, Atheists etc. Here we have to find consensus as to whether it was a significant enough number to warrant an inclusion as "the religion of the country/dynasty" - for example I noticed that one of the distribution maps of the Norse languages only had a very small area marked in near Kiev, from that alone it would imply that the majority of the populous did not use it.
There is nothing to stop most of this information being included in the article, as long as properly sourced etc, it is really just the infobox addition that is a problem here. Adding something in the infobox implies it was for the whole of the population/people. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never advocated the inclusion of every single language spoken in Kievan Rus, but to me it seems relevant to include the language and religion of those that founded the state.Alphasinus (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Changes and edit warring - Kievan Rus v Rus
There is no consensus for changing the article to remove East Slavs as being the founders of the state and saying that the Rus state was started by Norsemen. This is the third time the revert has been made.
Edit warring is NOT going to get us anywhere. Also, using an incorrect edit summary is not really in good faith. The summary "adding Belarus template" was a cover for removing East Slav. Please find consensus before removing East Slavs as the founders of the state. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This is childish. The state may have been founded by Norsemen in the 9th century, but it really only flourished in the 10th century, when it was clearly an East Slavic State. This is like quibbling over whether the USA is really a state founded by Spaniards, as Spanish Florida was founded in 1513, a full century before the first Brits set foot on American soil. It is undisputed that the Spanish spearheaded the colonization of North America. The USA and Canada still aren't "Spanish states" because of that fact. --dab(𒁳)11:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(Duplicated on the Rus vs Rus page)
The problem here is getting the facts right, keeping POV out and ensuring that things are correctly represented as per sources.
As I understand it the facts of the matter are: the people that lived there established states which fell into disarray with constant warring and they invited the Rus in to rule them and provide leadership which made everything flourish. It was not, as it seems to read now, as if the Rus Norsemen came in and conquered everybody and started the states on their own.
This situation has to be correctly written about and we should not tolerate anything which detracts from the sourced facts or introduces POV bias.
PS don't forget that the native Americans were there first lol! (and yes, there were some Norsemen there as well...) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Could an explanation for the apostrophe be put into the article?
I can't find any explanation for the apostrophe after Rus in the article, nor in the Rus' article linked from the See also section. Could an explanation be put in? Thanks! Allens (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The Kievan Rus' article is actually listed among that project's most viewed articles, but there isn't a notation in this Talk page of that project. Regardless of what one may think of the role of the Norse in Kievan Rus' history, it is a matter of interest... Allens (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Kievan Rus' historical map 980 1054.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
There have been many discussions of this on Talk:Kiev and the consensus is to use the normal English spelling Kiev, rather than a transliteration from a foreign language.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Rus Khaganate stuff
I propose that this material be parred down only to top sources, and with proper citations. This is in the realm of fringe theory, and is disputed by scholars, or not even mentioned by the top historians. To present this stuff as absolute fact without attribution of the source seems very POVy to me.--Львівське (говорити) 23:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go over all of the sources since they're kind of a mess, it's possible Pritsak could be out of context. Bear in mind the only footnote that mentions Pritsak says "Pritsak passim for additional sources", so no direct citation of any material.--Львівське (говорити) 02:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
While I'm all for presenting fringe theories in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, if a respectable tertiary source like Britannica has no problem with this one, neither should we. That is, it's clearly not as fringe as you seem to believe. --illythr (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Where does EB corroborate this? I see the EB link but I also see that users can submit information anonymously, is this actual published EB or some online wiki knockoff?--Львівське (говорити) 22:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the source does not say that KR was preceded by "The Rus Khaganate", just that there is a possibility that it was preceeded by a "Volga Rus khagan state". A) not directly connected b) Not considered by all scholars c) Not known under this uniform name of "Rus Khaganate" --Львівське (говорити) 23:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on the sources I've put in below, it does not seem that the 'Rus Kakanate' was a predecessor to Kievan Rus. The "title of kagan" part seems to be questionable, but it does appear that a polity existed in some form from 830 until its conquest by Kievan Rus. While these Varangians who worked with Khazars in Southern Russia existed, I think it would be incorrect to say that this tribe of traders was in some way related to Kievan Rus. This seems to be original research to imply this connection. While both states were founded by varangian rus's, the kaganate was not an "early phase" of kievan rus, but a separate faction altogether with a different political structure unrelated to kievan development.--Львівське (говорити) 02:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo
Following the unexplained reverts by Ghirlandajo here and here, and being the top contributor to both articles 1/2 - there appears to be a case of page ownership going on. Rather than engage in an edit war and revert to "your" version, please use the talk page here so that both this and the khaganate article can be improved. Reverting and removing material en masse without discussion breaks the WP:BOLD cycle of article improvement.--Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sources
K, this isn't a race, but I've dusted off 2 history textbooks, one from a russian, the other from a ukrainian perspective. I think we can get this settled soon. All's well.--Львівське (говорити) 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
page 23: "Under the year A.D. 839 a Western source, The Bertinian Annals, tells about the Rus ambassadors who came to Ingelheim through Constantinople and who were men of Khakan-Rus, but who turned out to be Swedes. Some scholars even concluded that the ambassadors must have come all the way from Sweden, and they read khakan to mean Haakon. But the Russian khakanate was probably located in southern Russia, and the title of khakan suggests Khazar rather than Norman influence."
23-24: "Certain Arabic authors also mention and sometimes discuss and describe the Rus, but their statements have also been variously interpreted by different scholars. In general the Rus of the Arabic writers are a numerous people rather than a viking detachment, "a tribe of the Slavs" according to Ibn-Khurdadhbih. The Rus had many small towns, and its ruler bore the title of khakan.
page 51: "For the longest time, however, the Slavs were not united, and no individual tribe had the strength to confront the Kazar Kaganate. Building up the necessary strength became a possibility only in the mid-ninth century, with a new development in the region of Kiev. This development combined local forces with a group of leaders from Scandinavia – the Varangians – and the result was the eventual consolidation of a new power known as Rus'."
55 "Was Kievan Rus' the first state on East Slavic territory, or was it just a successor to earlier ones?"
56-59 - I will add this later, the content overviews the Normanist, anti-Normanist, and Celtic origin theories of all scholarly viewpoints. No mention os a khaganate is made at all as a predecessor to Kievan Rus, though- lvivske
59: "Despite the seemingly persuasive arguments of proponents of the various theories, there still is no definitive answer to the question of the origin of Rus'."
62: "A violent civil war took place during the 820s, and although the [Khazar] kaganate's strength was restored a decade later, certain results of the conflict would have serious implications in the future. The losers of the internal political struggle, known as Kabars, fled northward to the Varangian Rus' in the upper Volga region, near Rostov, and southward to the Magyars, who formerly had been loyal vassals of the Khazars. The presence of Kabar political refugees from Khazaria among the Varangian traders in Rostov helped to raise the latter's prestige, with the consequence that by the 830s a new power center known as the Rus' Kaganate had come into existence. The acceptance of the Kabar rebels by the Magyars, however, turned the latter into enemies of the new rulers of Khazaria."
"Rus" vs. "land of the Rus"
The territory was clearly known as "land of the Rus" (ruskaya zemlya) in the 12th century.
It is unclear when it first became known by the feminine Rus. See wikt:Talk:Русь for details.
It seems likely that this happened as early as the 14th century.
It is unclear whether it can be traced to the 13th century, which would be necessary to claim it as a contemporary term for the state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Kievan Russia appears in Engliah language scholarship back into the 19th century. The article makes it out to be only Kievan Rus' and a creation of Russian scholarship, Kievan Rus' having made it into the English language only in the 20th century. Just saying. I added "Kievan Russia" to the lead since you won't find older sources without it. VєсrumЬа ►TALK23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Wikipedia should cite variants on the nomenclature. It's unfortunate that it should be in the preamble/intro as it continues to perpetuate the lack of distinction between interpretations according to Western eras. I'd suggest that many readers would just read the intro to acquaint themselves with the subject at hand and not bother going into the details of the history, much less the evolution of the term 'Kievan Russia'. Would you object if I were to clarify by changing, "Kievan Rus', or Kievan Russia,..." to Kievan Rus' (previously referred to as Kievan Russia in earlier Western scholarship),..."? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Stillrockwood, I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Remove which article and redirect where? You are also overlooking Wikipedia protocols regarding article deletion, redirects, etc., etc., etc... Wikipedia may not be a democracy but it DOES have policies and works on principles of collaboration, co-operation and consensus. Please stop using it as a personal stomping ground. You have not gotten off to a good start. If you continue to behave in this manner, you will soon be pulled up for vandalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point is being made either, although a redirect from Kievan Russia to here would be worthwhile. I don't have any great objection to taking "Kievan Russia" out of the lead, but then the "Name" section needs some essential reorganization to address that it completely ignores English language usage. I can take a look at doing that update. VєсrumЬа ►TALK02:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent compromise, Vecrumba. It would be excellent if you can make that update. Please let me know if I can help out on anything. Incidentally, I've just salvaged this header after Stillrockwood vandalised it. It didn't even show up as an entry I'd simply have to click to undo. He's either an agent provocateur or a genuinely overzealous Ukrainian patriot who's just appeared on the scene and is already creating havoc for editors and other contributors on various Slavic articles. He's asked for my assistance with his English translations from Ukrainian, so I'll have a chat and see if I can curtail his enthusiasm. Unfortunately, I suspect he just wants to rewrite Wikipedia according to his views alone and really isn't interested in a balanced view or compromise with anyone. Oh, well. Interest groups abound in these parts of Wiki. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Scolaire. I guess it was a case of pareidolia in action, given the heated nature of the 'discussions' that go on here! It truly resembled an attempt at a contemptuous noise and I jumped to conclusions, for which I apologise. Bad form on my behalf. Hopefully, Stillrockwood has gotten over his teething problems and will desist from his swashbuckling adventures in contributing to Wikipedia EN. He's made contact with me on my talk page and doesn't strike me as being foolish and immature, so I'll do my best to keep him calm. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Historiography
This article lies grounding on materials of propaganda of Russia which interprets history in strange way: there were no towns at russia territories; no slavic tribes (only nomads which have been attacking Kievan Rus'); capital (Kiev belongs to Ukraine) but Russia tolds that they are successors of Rus (probably while names are one like another) forgetting that major part of their land (approx 90%) was been got after disintegration nomads empire and bandits or somebody who cant get land on fertile black soils of Kievan Rus' (10%)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stillrockwood (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Stillrockwood, Laszlo Panaflex was completely justified in undoing your revision. Please try to understand that this item should be as unbiased as is humanly possible and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As he noted on his talk page, aside from not approaching this entry maintaining a neutral POV, your addition/amendment was grammatically incorrect and inappropriately slotted into a section dealing with historical facts. As your English is not up to par in terms of contributing directly to Wikipedia EN, you should not go in and make additions yourself. You are not doing any cause you stand for a favour by vandalising articles. Thank you for for being understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I had A from history thus when men is correcting article according its political views I mush to be quiet & watch please the map of Kievan Rus' (Im asking you to find київська русь мапа) and modern map compare them and think whats about russia I can in a few time (1-2 weeks) translate from Ukrainian, Belorussian articles about Kievan Rus' but need somebody who will correct my "perfect English" Stillrockwood—Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC) all derive their identity from the early medieval state. isn't political view???Stillrockwood05:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not the correct venue for discussions of this nature. If you have any queries or requests to make of me, please do so on my talk page and I'll respond as soon as I'm able. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the point this editor is making is that the territory of Kievan Rus' corresponds with modern Ukraine rather than modern Russia, as the name "Kievan Russia" would suggest. I don't know if this is true or not, because the article is so poorly written (especially the first few sections) as to make it impossible to find that sort of information. If it is true, however, then I think it ought to be stated very early on in the lead, and there should be some attempt to explain why it was called "Kievan Russia" if it was not coterminous with modern Russia. This should also be done in greater detail in the "Name" section. Scolaire (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Here, by the way, is the Bing translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article. At first glance, it seems to be well written, though poorly referenced. It does, however, have a substantial section on historiography, which is notably absent from this article. Yes, Stillrockwood has an obviously nationalist point of view. But if there are two significant points of view, NPOV requires that they both be presented in the article. Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
From this good map with the modern state borders it is clearly seen that modern Ukraine corresponds only to one third (if not less) of Ancient Rus'. It also had some parts of modern Poland and Moldova, so Ukrainian jealous editors should cool down their nationalistic ambitions and stop pulling all the blanket on themselves, only because it's called by convention "Kievan" and Kiev is in modern Ukraine.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
As for the name. Russia IS the original name of the country in Latin and then in all other western languages (including English) and Rus' is a recent invention by envious Ukrainian historians, who just can't accept the simple fact that only one of the three countries retains the name until nowadays.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think Russian editors might need to cool down their language sometimes, too. Can you say what you just said in an encyclopaedic way that would inform readers of this article about the geographical spread of the medieval Rus' and the origins of the names "Rus'" and "Russia", without sounding like somebody on a soapbox? Your edit to the "Name" section was good, by the way. I just think the info needs to be a bit more obvious, for instance in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, the map you link to doesn't mean anything to me. There is no legend. I can't see what is the border of Kievan Rus, or what are the modern borders, or what the different colours represent. Perhaps you could explain it in simple English? Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I've being trying to work out who added this map as I can't find it in the edits. Is this the map claiming to be a "Map of Kievan Rus' just before Sviatoslav's campaigns, mid-10th century." If so, I'm completely stumped over this one. I've checked its source and have found that it has been created using various world-mapping software. There is absolutely no indicator as to the date that it's supposed to represent (final period of Kievan Rus' or is it actually already someone's attempt to replicate a Vladimir-Suzdal interpretation of Rus'?). Please feel free to check a plethora of sources depicting 10th century Rus' which are datable as being contemporary to their illustration. Moscow does not appear anywhere in 10th century maps because it was possibly not even inhabited (current archaeological digs in Moscow are getting excited over artefacts dating its being inhabited at some time in the early to mid 12th century). The first original maps of Rus' don't even mention Moscow until the late 12th century... and certainly so firmly established inside its borders but, rather, as a outlying post. That this map is meant to be a depiction of mid-10th century Rus' is absolute, unadulterated fabrication. Please, this goes beyond the bounds of nationalistic quibbles! In the name of indisputable historical accuracy, it really must be removed! If this map isn't the one in dispute, I'm disputing it now and am prepared to present a case using maps and information we can't use on Wikipedia due to licensing limitations! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the maximum span of Kievan Rus' territorial control is significantly larger under Russian scholarship than non-Russian—and particularly with regard to Sviatoslav's campaigns. As I recall, his moving his capital south was a bit premature given he lost his head on the way back and his skull was fashioned into a beer mug. At some point we'll need to expand the article to document this dichotomy.
As for the term "Kievan Russia", it is what it is. It's utterly bogus to apply today's Russian-Ukrainian squabbling to common terms in the English language. Let's please not jump on the Russia versus Ukraine bandwagon crap with its accusations over Kiev must be renamed to Kyiv, to not do so validates Russian supremacy over Ukraine, and all. VєсrumЬа ►TALK14:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Point 1 - Maps VS actual content. I would suggest, then, that this is a rational argument for removing the map until such a time as the article has been elaborated on. Being allowed to stand as is suggests that, naturally, it is going to be interpreted as an absolute and accurate depiction of the territory or Rus'. Once the subject at hand has been expanded, at least two maps should be depicted... Perhaps a third and fourth as various interest groups promote their own theories. Sounding a little ludicrous? Confusing? Perhaps the best method of dealing with this would be to eliminate this map altogether. Considering the number of maps already on the page, it's overkill. In light of the fact that it is not even a coherent rendering of a 'map', it simply doesn't belong here. Where is the context? I could just as easily use software to render a map of Europe, add various names of Kievan Russia's cities (picking and choosing what I do and don't want to include) and call it a 'map'. Who knows, I might want to grab some large chunks of Western Europe and toss them into the mix. That doesn't make it a valid map and it would certainly be deleted within moments of my tossing it into the mix, and rightly so. It is duplicitous to keep adding interpretations with some promise of 'expanding' on the veracity at a future point in time. I've seen this page NOT being elaborated on for some time with more and more unsubstantiated information and maps for a long, long time. It's an either or situation: that is, either cover the topic reasonably thoroughly elaborating enough on contentious issues to present them in a balanced manner or leave them on hold until they are ready to be presented in a balanced manner.
Point 2 - Who's jumped on a 'bandwagon'? That's an abrupt about face! I'd consulted with you in order to ascertain whether you'd object to amending the inclusion of Kievan Russia. I said nothing about deleting it, stating that, as a matter of acknowledging the evolution of the nomenclature! You implied that you were in agreement with me by telling me you'd look into the matter in order to establish a redirect. I haven't pushed the issue on the understanding that you have other priorities and would get to it as soon as you found a moment. It doesn't really require "a lot of moving around" as you'd suggested, but I did let it go at that for the moment. I was under the impression that I was dealing with a reasonable and erudite human being (although your comment about the edit on the talk page did finish with a, "Just saying."), but now you've started noises about 'bandwagons' and 'bogus'. Considering that you seem to be well versed enough in the issues surrounding Russian 'maps' and other 'maps' of Kievan Rus' at the time of Sviatoslav 1, I have to wonder at why you were so anxious to add "Kievan Russia" as a vital fact but have displayed no interest in 'expanding' the issues surrounding the Russian historical interpretation of the 'map' in question. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon however, I'm finding myself wondering whether you already have. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You both give the impression of continuing a long-standing discussion. However, fiddling with flags and names does not go a long way towards giving the reader useful information. Perhaps, for the sake of clariifying this discussion, you could both answer the following questions:
What do you think was the extent of the polity in, say, 880, and what are your sources for that estimate?
What do you see as the main points at issue between Russian and Ukrainian (or other) scholarship, and again, what are the most authoritative sources for each?
An easy and reasonable question to ask, Scolaire: a complex and painful one to answer. I would have to respond with an entire treatise to do the issue any justice. Please note that this is the first time I have ever dared to intervene on any pages/entries regarding "Russia" (history, politics, imperialism, etc.) for fear of serious bullying and being called a Russophobe (now on par with being called anti-Semite for other editors in English Wikipedia as a non-PC area they'd rather not involve themselves with) which I simply don't have the energy or inclination to fight. I've never tampered with names, flags or queried any issues which I would consider biased. Feel free to check any pages associated with this area and you won't see so much as a peep out of me. Allow me some time to think over this question. Until that point, for the sake of brevity, I put to you the case of the UK. While I have always used the term 'UK' and have differentiated between England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, et al, until recently the name 'England' was commonly used to refer to the British Isles. Due to their history of occupation, while England has comprehensive records of its own, Scotland has very little in the way of surviving 'records' to draw on historically. Does this mean that the English version of history - and biased writings regarding the nature and lifestyle of the 'Scots' (as term still in use) - is the only honest and verifiable version of the history of the mainland? Just something for you to ponder until I collect my thoughts in the most neutral and objective manner possible. I'm not stirring things up as a matter of nationalism. This area of historical accuracy is only beginning to be explored by scholars outside of the interest groups. It may be useful for you to pose this question to Polish, Hungarian and other scholars who are more likely to give you a more neutral understanding of the issues at hand. You might want to ask what their history books teach. Interestingly, they don't tally with the Russian historical sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
A commendable find! While it doesn't state whether it's a depiction of early or late 11th century, at an educated guess, this would be well into the second half, if not the latter part. Considering that this represents the 11th century polity, and that the polity had grown considerably since the mid-10th century, it certainly seems to bely the veracity of the current map purportedly depicting the mid-10th century polity currently featured on the page. Personally, I'd put my head out (as I've already done) and declare that it exemplifies the nature of the pure fabrications littering the entire page. In fact, while I was tempted to break this header up into two sections, it actually fits neatly under the heading of 'Lies'. Would you be willing to include this map in the article? If so, you WILL soon be berated for being a Russophobe promoting the anti-Russian lies being fabricated by the USA. Just in case you think I'm psychotic and delusional, try it out. I jest not! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a couple of trustworthy sources to compare against, might be a couple of days, but I can probably get an idea for the date (early or late 11th). VєсrumЬа ►TALK00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I had three out of four handy, Magocsi's historical atlas of Central Eastern Europe; Adams, Matley, and McCagg's atlas of Russian and Eastern European history, Penguin's historical atlas of Russia (good but not always quite as reliable). There's another early detailed historical atlas I have buried somewhere. Generally the map linked to above (looking at original) is representative of the middle of the 11th century, arguably the height of the Kievan state's expansion. The blob of the earliest Kievan state is probably right, but there's another phase that's missing, which is the Kievan state expanding up north along the Dnieper. The territory west of and bordering the Black Sea (today's Moldova et al.) is generally represented as being under temporary or partial control over the course of a number of campaigns. (That's missing in the current article map, which also isn't very good in being as fuzzy as it is.)
An excellent suggestion, Vecrumba! I was just coming in to add that it would be far more productive to use a series of maps depicting the various changes in the polity over the periods in question. At the moment, the presentation is a confusing slap-dash of maps going back and forth supposedly illustrating what the state looked like according to the section it's been appended to. As a general overview, it's neither coherent nor cohesive for anyone trying to acquaint themselves with the inception of the polity to its demise. If I were an 'outsider' trying to make sense of what's going on, I have no doubt that I'd come out at the end of the article completely confounded. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Dating the map is no problem. The source map says "Kievan Rus' after 1054". I've changed my map's description accordingly. I seem to have a problem adding it to the infobox, however. It's not displaying, at least not on my computer. Does anybody know how to fix this? I agree that in the article, a series of maps or an animated map would be highly desirable. That would be a project for somebody else, though. Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Going back to earlier questions and comments about the "10th-century" map, I've gone back through the article history. It was added on 7 February 2006 and the caption was "Map of the Ancient Rus'". The Commons File doesn't have any description at all as far as I can see. There's no reason, therefore, to suppose it was ever intented to represent "Kievan Rus' just before Sviatoslav's campaigns". In fact, it's as near as makes no difference to UNLV's 1054 map. It's only a matter of changing the caption. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
In fact, what I'm going to do is move that map into the infobox (I've figured out what I did wrong before) with a caption of "mid-11th century", and put my one in its place. Scolaire (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Quite correct about the previously captioned "10th century" map. With regards to creating an animated version (considering that flash is being phased out), I'm able to make an animated gif provided the images I work with are of a reasonable resolution. My only concern would be the size of the file (high compression means sacrificing quality). I'll also need to have a good search around MetaWiki to see whether there's a possibility of making a slide show as an alternative. My only other concern is that these 'generic' maps, which depend on the viewer's knowledge of geography, make any sense without current borders for nation-states as a reference point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Current borders would help, but the biggest problem with this new map is it does not show the river systems, which are referenced throughout the article, and of course were of vital importance. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The map in the infobox shows the river systems. The problem is, the more elements you try to include in a map, the less easy it is to read. The map at the bottom (the three are more or less the same) gives rivers, mountains, modern borders, old borders, and the names of all the tribes. That's too much for my brain. I think there's room for all three: people who can grasp complexity can look at the complex map, those who prefer simplicity can look at the simpler ones. Scolaire (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I do agree with Lazlo regarding the rudimentary geographical points (ie, the significance of the river systems) being in place as an 'at a glance' method of interpreting/orientating oneself. That said, this is a work in progress. I'm hoping that Vecrumba will get back to us soon with a series of timeline maps which could be adapted. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is seriously limited by PD rights as plenty of maps are in existence. As it stands, the state of the mapping here is still a mess. I guess you're getting a sense of why tackling these articles is such a headache that I usually try to avoid them at all costs. If you tried to step into the more significant articles regarding Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Belarus history you're brain would explode. Mine imploded long ago. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
As a PS, I'm still on antibiotics fighting off a bout of flu. Once my mind has cleared, I'm going to read the entire article thoroughly. There are several areas in need of tightening up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Related to the discussion on maps, the intro contained two descriptions of the greatest extent of the state, with a cite that did not support the statement. I've removed one description, the cite, and a couple of dead links as well. The only source that I have found that supports the statement that the state stretched to the Black Sea is the map linked in the External Links section; other maps, including Magocsi, show the border somewhat north of the Black Sea shore. I've included the link to the supportive map and will continue to look for another source. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Laszlo. The item/article is, hopefully, on its way to reflecting some sort of coherent overview. As at it stands, it's still a hodgepodge of disembodied headers & entries about as cohesive as the State was when Batu Khan razed it. As noted to Scolaire & Vecrumba, I'll be taking a blue pencil to it once I'm feeling well enough to do so. It's obvious that hit and run edits are going to persist. That being the case, let's have a reasonable body of sections (ie, not The Final Disintegration virtually at the top of the article, followed by an assortment of repetitive and contradictory islands of Society, Historical Assessment, Novels About Kievan Rus', ad nauseum just hanging around for the fun of it. It's difficult enough to keep track of useful edits and OTT cris de coeur as is.
I'll also state that I still consider the current intro, in itself, to be a ridiculously simplistic attempt at a preamble. "Kievan Rus' or Kievan Russia, was a medieval political union of East Slavic and Finnic tribes in Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century, under the reign of the Rurik dynasty." I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the fact that the Finnic tribes were still an equal presence in the mid-13th century. I wasn't aware that "Kievan Rus' dates from 882, when Varangians (Vikings), called Rus', liberated the Slavic town of Kiev from the tribute of the Khazars and moved their capital there from Novgorod." My understanding was that the Varangians came at the behest of Slavic tribes who were fed up with having to pay tribute to the Khazars. The amount of 'moving of capitals' leaves me gobsmacked. Later on, Kievan Rus' 'moved' to Moscow. It's amazing how many times entire populations packed up their cities and 'moved' thousands of miles. Wow! The Western pioneers of the USA would have been green with envy at such massive ventures across hostile terrains and hostile tribes. All of the minor edits are well intended but are making for a very sloppy article.
(Naturally, I have no intention of reorganising the article without consulting with other editors. To my knowledge, that's why the talk pages exist.) Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I find comments like this frustrating. People are making good faith efforts to improve the page -- with sourced material -- but all you find is fault. I'm sorry if you don't feel fit enough to contribute right now, but simply coming by to trash what others are working on and issuing urgent (!) warnings about how they need to produce maps and overhaul everything and that you will be redoing it all ... someday ... is not helpful. Like assigning loads of work for others to do when we have no idea what will be acceptable and what will be "blue penciled" -- and when asked for specific ideas, you demur. I suppose we should just abandon our efforts, since you will be coming back to fix it all anyhow. (And please don't now lament that you are being attacked for some POV or other because I don't have a POV and I don't care what yours is.) Why should I bother trying to improve the page when you announce you will be overhauling everything anyway? Add constructive ideas that you are willing to work on yourself all you like. If the article should be reorganized, present a proposal on how it should be structured. If the lead is simplistic, suggest specific improvements. But coming by every day or two to mock and lambast what others are working on, while adding no content or concrete ideas, is not constructive. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with Laszlo there. I first attempted to edit this article in July 2011, but had to give up because I could make no sense at all of what I was reading. I waited two years for somebody to take it from "a hodgepodge of disembodied headers & entries about as cohesive as the State was when Batu Khan razed it" to something remotely readable. In the end, I had to go to Google Books and learn the history myself in order to write something intelligible. Iryna Harpy did not make one single edit in those two years. I look forward to some constructive editing in the near future, hopefully on the 80% of the article that I have not already worked on. Scolaire (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you've all misunderstood my intention (which was to glean whether there is some sort of consensus on a fresh pair of eyes being needed here, not to be pompous & just come through like a stormtrooper, rework the article as I see fit, then leave you all to undo my edits and feel that I'd trampled all over your hard work). Scolaire, please let me know which 80% belongs to you, therefore is not to be touched; Laszlo, please let me know which your 19% is. I'll see what I can do with the definite & indefinite articles that remain. I'm pleased to see that, at least, I'm getting some sort of feedback from people who have been working on this page over the last two years (or more). If you'd prefer, I'll just come in with my evil blue pencil at some point and go ballistic reworking everything to suit my personal taste without any warning. No doubt, had I approached the entry in this manner, you'd have been far more receptive to any input. Fair enough. I'll keep mum about it. There's nothing quite like trying to establish who is working on the page and trying to collaborate with them: and this has evidently been nothing like establishing contact and collaborating. I'll repeat my apologies for appearing to have landed here from nowhere and intentionally set about hurting your feelings about the work you've done so far. If nothing else, it's forced a rethink of the intro which, to my mind, is shaping up to be a pretty decent preamble now. If you're going take my interference as a personal slight, I'll join in and put up my "nobody likes me" hackles and will spend the next few days sulking. No doubt, I'll hear from you again once I've had my wicked way with the article and the 'watched' page notifications start flooding in thick & fast. I've made a mental note to myself that talk pages are only in place for flaming. Cheers from 'she of the acerbic tongue but nothing to contribute but critiques'! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think I can say I have never seen a less sincere apology in my life! You have the nerve to say your rant "forced a rethink of the intro"! Two (three now) editors with a genuine concern for the article took it upon themselves to improve the intro, without any "collaboration" from you. Never mind. Your input to the article, if you make any genuine input, will be appreciated. And your suggestions on the talk page, if you make any constructive suggestions, will be teated with respect.
I never said that any part of the article "belongs to me, therefore is not to be touched". The two small sections that I worked on – the "Origin" section and the lead – have been further edited by others, and that is fine. What I said was that I hoped the 80% (probably more) that I have not worked on would be improved as well, and in a collaborative way. Scolaire (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You also completely ignore the primary point of my comment: If you'd like to collaborate, that would be great; but you offer no specific ideas and add no content yourself. No one is afraid of your blue pencil. On the contrary, please do break out your blue pencil and add constructive, specific ideas to improve the page. But you merely talk about what you will do someday while providing no assistance to what we are trying to do now. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
^Riasanovsky, Nicholas (2005). A History of Russia. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 23–24.
^Magocsi, Paul Robert (2010). A History of Ukraine: A Land and Its Peoples. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 51–66.
.png)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}