Talk:Kievan Rus'

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mzajac (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 9 January 2024 (→‎The modern nations of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus’ as their cultural ancestor.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kyiv, not Kiev. Kyivan Rus’, not Kievan Rus’. End of Kyivan Rus’ was in 1392, not in 1240.

It’s Kyiv and Kyivan Rus’. Forward.ops (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About spelling, Please look at the very top of this talk page. - Altenmann >talk 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About 1392, please provide reference for your claim. Also, please see uk:Розпад Київської Русі. - Altenmann >talk 16:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About 1392: It’s the true year when Kyivan Rus’ is stopped exist. That’s the year when Kingdom Galicia-Volhynia was annexed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland. That’s the true and real end of Ruthenia. Forward.ops (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you like to be so precise, then please note that there was no such state "Kievan Rus". This term was invented by Russian historians in 19th century for their nationalistic purposes, to lay ideological justification for "gathering of Russian lands" by Muscovite tsars. - Altenmann >talk 15:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there was: this article is about it. That the name wasn’t in use in Medieval Rus is something else, but it is the common name today. (Of course, Russian historians in the 21st centuries have a different opinion about it, and now invented “Ancient Russian State” or whatever.)
But I challenge you to demonstrate that a substantial majority of reliable modern sources use “Kiev” and not Kyiv, per WP:MODERNPLACENAME.  —Michael Z. 15:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author(s) are consistently using Russian forms of even unique Ukrainian names. Examples: Grivna instead of Hryvnia, Chernigov instead of Chernihiv, Kiev instead of Kyiv, Dnieper instead of Dnipro. This caused doubts about the objectivity and credibility of this text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.234.80 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These words are used in English language. It is unfortunate for Ukrainian nationalist feelings that they came into English via Russian, but this has nothing to do with credibility of Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 14:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This words are wrong. It’s should called in the Ukrainian language but not in Russian. Forward.ops (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s completely wrong because Kyivan Rus’ is Ukraine and not muscovy. So it’s should be Kyiv, not Kiev. Chernihiv, not Chernigov. Dnipro, not Dnieper. I just want to be people would know the true and real history with the real names, not some muscovite one. Forward.ops (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kievan Rus is not Ukraine, just as Roman Empire is not Italy. - Altenmann >talk 15:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kyivan Rus’ is Ukraine, Roman Empire is Italy. Forward.ops (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good logic, sir. 2A00:1FA0:44BD:18F2:0:6E:A108:F101 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ik, thanks. Forward.ops (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MODERNPLACENAME tells us to use the modern name, but “Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same.”
In Google Books English results:
  • "Kyivan Rus"
  • "Kievan Rus"
    • 2020[5] 18 (58%)
    • 2021[6] 23 (50%)
    • 2022[7] 18 (60%)
    • 2023[8] 19 (45%)
Google Scholar results include a lot of foreign-language sources with English-language abstracts, so these figures may not be very reliable. Still.
  • "Kyivan Rus"
  • "Kievan Rus"
    • 2020[13] 1,210 (81%)
    • 2021[14] 1,170 (78%)
    • 2022[15] 1,060 (69%)
    • 2023[16] 618 (62%)
It does not appear that the older name is used in a substantial majority of reliable modern sources. —Michael Z. 15:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even "Ancient Rus" has greater usage than "Kyivan Rus". Mellk (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t appear to be true. But it’s the direct translation of Russian drevniaia Rus, and probably appears in many abstracts translated from Russian, perhaps by non-idiomatic writers of English, as well as non-expert sources. So what?  —Michael Z. 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't appear to be true. Really? You are going by raw numbers on Google Books and Google Scholar, and the number of results for "Ancient Rus" is greater. "Kyivan Rus" is the direct translation of Ukrainian Kyivska Rus and "probably" appears in many "non-expert sources". So what? Mellk (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The term “ancient Rus” is a non-idiomatic calque from Russian. It generally doesn’t appear in good English history writing except when referring specifically to the term, for example:
  • “The outdated concept of Ancient Rus as the cradle of “three brotherly peoples”, ie Russians, . . . ”[17]
  • “So, in Putin’s narrative, “Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus”, bound by “spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and hav[ing]”[18]
While Kyivan Rus is increasingly used in good English writing, along with Kyiv, in history and other subjects.
I’m surprised that you didn’t discern the difference.  —Michael Z. 20:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, this article should use the spelling Kyiv for the city, because the 2021 decision is opposed to MODERNPLACENAME.  —Michael Z. 20:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:GEO essentially says the same thing, although it is more vague than MODERNPLACENAME: “A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context.”
Know that the name Kyiv was never mentioned in English until centuries after Kyivan Rus ceased to exist, and was never spelled “Kiev” until the very end of the seventeenth century.  —Michael Z. 22:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious assertions in {{Kyivan Rus'}}

The big red template at the top of this talk page says that “we use the spellings for the medieval state and its capital that are the common names in English-language historiography, which are Kievan Rus' and Kiev.” These are two dubious assertions and should be supported with firm evidence or deleted.

Guidelines tell us to normally use the name and spelling used in the main article title, i.e. Kyiv not “Kiev.” WP:MODERNPLACENAME tells us to use the modern name, but “Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same.” This is not the case for Kyiv, and probably not the case for Kyivan Rus either. —Michael Z. 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MODERNPLACENAME says we should use modern names "for articles discussing the present." Alaexis¿question? 21:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I quoted what it says about other articles. It does not say to use old names in articles about the past just because. It makes it conditional.
But that’s beside the point. The point is the statement that the names we have been using in this article “are the common names in English-language historiography.” This is false, and should be removed from the red box. If no one has anything to say about that, then I’ll correct the text in the box. —Michael Z. 22:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't touch the box. The box reflects consensus. If you think consensus has changed, go thru RM. Then the box will be irrelevant and its removal uncontroversial. If you feel the box should be removed during an RM, I have no objection to taking it down while an RM is open. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The statements I refer to not only cannot be determined by consensus as they are false assertions of fact, they were not determined by consensus, and they do not come from the consensus decisions referred to in the box.  —Michael Z. 05:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's all irrelevant. You want the page moved. There is a process for that. What is complaining about the template going to do? Srnec (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want to correct the temolate’s text. As I’m having trouble conveying it to you, I’ll just do it.  —Michael Z. 18:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is based on the analysis made by LouisAragon in the last RM. Alaexis¿question? 09:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I found the following at Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 5#Requested move 19 April 2021:
1. - Jstor search: "Kyivan Rus'" gets 734 hits, "Kievan Rus'" gets 2.913. 2. - Google books: "Kyivan Rus'" gets 8.950 hits, "Kievan Rus'" gets 81.300. 3. - Google scholar: "Kyivan Rus'" gets 17.800 hits, "Kievan Rus'" gets 21.700". 4. - Brill: "Kyivan Rus'" gets 39 hits, "Kievan Rus'" gets 504.
I don’t see anything supporting that “Kiev” is the common name.  —Michael Z. 19:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t? Really? 734 to 2913? 8950 to 81300? 17800 to 21700? Are you looking at different numbers than the ones you quoted?—Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Sigh.] The name “Kiev.”  —Michael Z. 19:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are searches from 2020–present (from the year of the Kyiv RM).
Brill search, from 2020
JSTOR search, 2020–present, search everything
Google Advanced Book Search, 2020–present, English-language results
Google Scholar, 2020–present
  • "Kyiv" About 85,000 results
  • "Kiev" About 23,200 results (21%)
The spelling Kiev is not the common name in current usage. This was established in the September 2020 decision already found there is more than one common name, and policies “recommend using the more recent name when deciding between two common names.”
But the red box says that “Kiev” is the common name “in English-language historiography,” an assertion for which there is zero evidence. Maybe the above search engines can let us test this. Three of them let us limit the result by subject.
Above searches, adding subject = history:
Brill search, from 2020
JSTOR search, 2020–present, search everything
Google Advanced Book Search, 2020–present, English-language results
So since 2020 publications in the subject area of history indexed by Brill and JSTOR use Kiev some more (+9% and +9%), while those in Google books a bit less (-9%) than all of their indexed publications. Totals:
  • All sources:
    • Kyiv (all): 459 + 2032 + 411 = 2,902
    • Kiev (all): 836 + 2,514 + 295 = 3,645
    • Kiev / (Kyiv + Kiev) (all) = 0.56
  • History sources:
    • Kyiv (history): 165 + 740 + 151 = 1,056
    • Kiev (history): 467 + 1,314 + 75 = 1,856
    • Kiev / (Kyiv + Kiev) (history) = 0.64
Kiev usage in history subjects is 8% higher than generally in this fraction of sources (which are less than one percent of the sources in Google Scholar). Does this difference pass the threshold of “a substantial majority of reliable modern sources,” when considering that we moved the article Kyiv when usage of the name was significantly lower?
I don’t believe there is a significant difference in usage “in English-language historiography.” The assertion in the red box above is false.
There is no reason to make an exception to using the main article’s spelling Kyiv for history subjects or in the text of this article.  —Michael Z. 20:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article (and the text you object to) is not about the usage of Kiev vs Kyiv. It’s about Kievan Rus vs Kyivan Rus. There it’s pretty obvious that Kievan Rus is (still) much more common. As Srnec has said, if you want to move the article, which has a name based on the consensus of the editors here on common English usage, then you need to start an RM, not try to change things on the article without doing that.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we’re in partial agreement. I removed the part about the usage of Kiev vs Kyiv.[19]  —Michael Z. 23:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the recent threads in the talk page and last few archived talk pages are about names. If only if all this effort was instead directed at actually improving the article. Mellk (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naming is one of the things we have to get right. When concerns are voiced regularly it often means we haven’t done so. In this case, the article is not in sync with current sources.  —Michael Z. 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These 'concerns' mostly come from IPs and other newly created SPAs that do not understand the policies and are not willing to understand/follow them. Mellk (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the “Kyiv in other articles” consensus without any rationale becomes more obsolete due to changing usage—and therefore more in opposition to the policies—more people will continue to be right in pointing out the problem. Resisting needed change by denigrating the people pointing out the need for it will only get you so far.  —Michael Z. 15:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure exactly how many times you have repeated this but it is getting to the point of being disruptive. Mellk (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no native name

This fact must be in lede Because lede is summary of important points of the article and the fact that it is not a "native" name is rather critical because many people read only summary. I also removed "Native name" from infobox, because there was none. There was native name for Kiev Principality, but not for larger polity of which principality was part. - Altenmann >talk 20:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? The contemporary native name was "Rus' land" (ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́) as described in the Names section.
Regarding your addition of the fact that "Kievan Rus" is a 19th-century term, I'm not sure it's one of the most important facts about it (cf. Byzantine Empire) but I'm fine with leaving it if other editors think it is important. Alaexis¿question? 20:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Rus land" is not a name of a polity. It simply means "land of Rus". - Altenmann >talk 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
most important -- It is important enough to counter a widespread assumption that it is a genuine native name of the polity. - Altenmann >talk 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rus land was not the same thing as Kyivan Rus, what it meant changed over time, and it continued to be used contemporaneously after Kyivan Rus was gone. Arguably, its broader sense corresponded to the territory of Kyivan Rus from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, but this may not have been the primary meaning, and I don’t think it referred to a polity.  —Michael Z. 21:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should source your aussumptions Kievan Rus is modern name to speak of Rus or Ruthenia. Maybe you should read wikipedia more. 2A01:E0A:4B8:240:D107:8C4B:CADC:AB0F (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a modern name, but no, it is not an exact synonym for either Rus Land, Rus, or Ruthenia. The definitions are different even when we consider the medieval period, and certainly for the seven centuries following the disintegration of Kyivan Rus. Let me know if this is not clear from a reading of any of the relevant articles. —Michael Z. 16:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about "let me know" to justify your assumptions, it's about give sources to what you say. What you're saying is very dubious and circonvolutive. The debate here is Kievan Rus was not a "native name" and is a more modern name. So why are you trying exactly to continue debating and insinuating things that countless wikipedia articles would not agree with??? Ettenrocal (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'm no longer sure what the discussion is about. This is a medieval polity that underwent substantial changes in the 10-13th centuries, so it's not going to have a single "official" name, and there is no way to neatly distinguish between the polity and the territory. Magocsi writes in his History of Ukraine
I don't think anyone seriously contests this. It's true that the term Rus' had another narrower meaning, which was arguably used more than the broad one. We explain it in the article, so the interested reader will not be misled. Alaexis¿question? 09:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What “debate”? You wrote “the debate is . . .” and stated a fact no one disagrees with. What change to the article’s text do you want to see?
(I have no idea what I wrote that you think is incorrect, since to my knowledge Wikipedia articles do not disagree with it, but let’s just find out what this debate is first.)  —Michael Z. 14:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyevan

The statement Kyjevŭ (Kыѥвъ) is not supported by sources cited. If fact, I see different: - Altenmann >talk 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks dubious to me. I’ve only seen the second source, but it definitely doesn’t say that spelling is “based on Old East Slavic Kyjevŭ (Kыѥвъ).” It’s just as likely a typo or mistake by the editor of Midlands local newspapers who wrote that article.  —Michael Z. 22:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name

With all due respect to WP:MODERNPLACENAME, but we have to tell the truth and use at the beginning of the article the wording "Kievan Rus', correctly Kyivan Rus", not "Kievan Rus', also known as Kyivan Rus". The edit does not violate any Wikipedia rules and I see no reason to block it. This is a very sensitive topic and if so many people are unhappy with the name, then something is wrong. Salto Loco (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument for the name Kiev is the use of the name. But everyone knows very well that this wording is not correct - no one has any argument against it. So why are my wording edits being reverted and called "controversial" by the user TimothyBlue? Salto Loco (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is very outrageous. Stop ignoring the community if they have so many questions about the title! Salto Loco (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the very top of this talk page, and you will understand why your efforts are denied. - Altenmann >talk 03:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And??? Name the reason why they were reverted? Salto Loco (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason at the “very top” Salto Loco (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. Please drop this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The modern nations of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus’ as their cultural ancestor.

Only Ukraine is the cultural successor of Kievan Rus. Back then, there were no states like today's Belarus or Russia. Kyivan Rus is also known as Rus' or the Land of the Cossacks. The Cossacks were Ukrainians. 212.90.63.34 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be much better if you could provide reliable sources supporting your claims. 2A00:1FA0:4300:8A1C:17A8:85A7:642:FD95 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Plokhy’s The Origins of the Slavic Nations talks about in what ways this is true, and the limits in how meaningful it is, in the context of competing national claims.  —Michael Z. 03:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kievan_Rus%27&oldid=1194462541"