Talk:Kievan Rus'

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

There was no native name[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
Please note that the big red template is invisible on mobile devices, which the editor is using here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly visible to me on this mobile. I guess you meant that it is not visible in mobile view? Just another reason why the mobile version should not be editable.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. Many navigational templates in articles are also invisible on my phone. But I realize the big red template isn't completely hidden. However, one has to click the text "Learn more about this page" on the top of this page to make it appear, which seems like a bad feature. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Probably his Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History too.  —Michael Z. 03:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plokhy is arguing that Ukraine is the only cultural successor of Kievan Rus'? Can you provide pages where he makes such claim? Marcelus (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: Plokhy is arguing that Ukraine is the only cultural successor of Kievan Rus'?, I don't think that is what Michael was saying this, he's pretty clear in his comment, talks about in what ways this is true, and the limits in how meaningful it is. I'm not seeing anything that indicates he is stating the above.  // Timothy :: talk  09:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plokhy says "none of the three" [1], which is definitely a non-orthodox position. There are other positions, such as one by Mykhailo Hrushevsky (same link). But it is true that all of them "claim". There is no problem on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says not a word about this besides the lede, which strikes me as weird. Don't we say that a lede is a summary of article text? And while writing this, I noticed that the article does not have section "Culture". We do have Culture of Kievan Rus'. How about a couple of words here, following Wikipedia:Summary style? And speaking about cultural ancestry, it looks like uk-wikipedians don't feel it: we have ru:Культура Древней Руси and be:Культура Старажытнай Русі, but there is no article uk:Культура Київської Русі. - Altenmann >talk 03:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compare maps of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' from the 9th to 13th century, the period of it's existance under the name(s), and modern maps of our countries. Geographically, Kievan/Kyivan Rus' was in the place of many sections of modern countries, not entirely composing of any of them. Since Kievan/Kyivan Rus' did not strictly develop into anything we have now, as it was fragmented during & after the Mongolian Invasion, it should be resonable to assume that the people of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' ended up seperated. With the seperation of the people, the culture that was once the entirety of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' would now be in multiple different locations that would eventually go on to be what we have now. I sincerely doubt every single tradition and the generations of people who practiced them somehow migrated over to where Modern Ukraine currently resides.
And the comment of the Cossacks... Where is the evidence for this claim? Additionally, what does that have to do with Kievan/Kyivan Rus'? The area was significantly larger than where it is thought the Cossacks originated. Culture could have still been carried by other groups of people as well... Dasymutilla (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is misunderstanding of what Kyivan Rus' was. It was like any empire, with an ethnic core which was in Central Ukraine. Only tribe in Central Ukraine called themself Rus', no other slavic tribe called themself Rus', they were conquered by this Ukrainian tribe and payed tribute, war contribution to Kyiv. After Mongol invasion, western Ukrainian will identify themself as Kingdom of Rus', as considering themself as one nation with Central Ukrainians. That's how Kyivan Rus' became Ukraine. 46.118.237.59 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is off-topic. Talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM. NLeeuw (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Incorporation[edit]

I suggest the articles Kievan Rus' law, Kievan Rus' ornament, Culture of Kievan Rus', Christianization of Kievan Rus', and Architecture of Kievan Rus' all be incorporated into the main article. I am not about to argue about semantics, and it is my understanding that all articles refer to roughly the same period of the same geographic location. If this suggestion is not agreed with, why does this article not have the extent of information contained in the others? This is especially true for the Culture of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' (by which I refer to the nation mentioned in this article), which would be considerably important information for those seeking the information without warranting confusion. Dasymutilla (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a paper book to put everything into a single text. In Wikipedia we split big subjects into reasonably-sized subtopics. Please read WP:Summary style. - Altenmann >talk 00:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, although the ladder section is still being asked. Why is the Culture of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' not even mentioned? The WP:Summary style mentions tying the information to a "parent article", which would be the primary article of whatever sub-topic relates to/came from, which doesn't exist in this article. There is a reference to Culture of Kievan Rus' for "further reading" in the #Society section but the category does not really mention any relation to cultural aspects. It's the same with each of the other articles proposed: Where are the references to the seperate information in the main article? Dasymutilla (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Culture of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' not even mentioned? It is: Kievan Rus'#Culture. Per WP:TOOLONG, the current article is almost too long with 12,514 words. If it grows beyond 15,000 words, it Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. If you think the current text does not mention enough about culture, you should trim it elsewhere to make room for it. Trimming may only be done if it is unnecessary or WP:UNDUE material. Please be careful. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why ' ?[edit]

I came here to find out why there's a ' at the end, but it doesn't tell me. Should be explained. 2600:8800:2C09:3200:B9CA:241A:8C0F:AF81 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a transliteration of Cyrillic Русь. The letter ь indicates palatalization, in this case a sort of whispered i-type sound at the end of the word. It doesn't have an exact English equivalent. In Russian, it sounds like "roose" with a little bit of a hiss on the s. Kyoto Grand (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So will you please write about that with an appropriate source? Answering me here wasn't the point... 2600:8800:2C09:3200:2100:D473:34D8:FAC6 (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic. It has a table titled Prussian Instructions, scientific transliteration, and ISO 9.
About 2/3 of the way down the table, you will find a row for the last letter of Русь, which looks like a lower-case B. The transliteration symbol for it in the Russian column is an apostrophe. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kievan_Rus%27&oldid=1219741715"