Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Kyivan Rus

It is clear that the variant name Kyivan Rus' also exists in scholarly sources, and so it should be mentioned as a secondary name in the article. The following deleted text should be restored to the article: "... or Kyivan Rus'[1][2][3] ... The variant Kyivan Rus' appeared in English-language scholarship by the 1950s.[4]" The current version of the article cites two sources for Kyivan Rus' in the lede without citing the variant name Kyivan Rus'.
     1. ^ Rubin, Barnett R.; Snyder, Jack L. (1998). Post-Soviet Political Order: Conflict and State Building. London: Routledge. p. 93.
     2. ^ Smoke, Richard (1996). Perceptions of Security: Public Opinion and Expert Assessments in Europe's New Democracies. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. p. 189.
     3. ^ Sanders, Thomas (1999). Historiography of Imperial Russia: The Profession and Writing of History in a Multinational State. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. p. 345.
     4. ^ Oreletsky, Vasyl (1957). "The Leading Feature of Ukrainian Law" (PDF). The Ukrainian Review. 4 (3): 49. Retrieved April 5, 2022.
Doremo (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doremo the article for kyi has a link to this page spelling it as "kyivan rus" too 2001:56A:F4BC:9500:51A:A3C2:CF33:D7F8 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Just looked at the article kyi and no it doesn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Why did Kyivan Rus' suddenly pop up? It's definitely not a common usage. Beshogur (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It is a variant name that has been increasing in frequency for about four decades, and so it should be mentioned as a secondary name in the article because it is used in some scholarly sources. Doremo (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It used to be in the lead but seems like it got removed at some point. Mellk (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This was present since July 2, 2020,[1] and removed on April 5[2] by user:The Impartial Truth, who previously removed it twice on March 17.[3][4] I reverted.[5] —Michael Z. 03:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The topic was previously discussed:
 —Michael Z. 03:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

None of these discussions address this topic. They involve moving the article to (and retitling it) Kyivan Rus'. The relevant issue here is that Kyivan Rus' has also appeared in scholarly sources for several decades (and its frequency is increasing), and so that variant name should be mentioned as a secondary name in the lede and, where relevant, in the article. Doremo (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

These are the issues based off policy I see.
Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system; this page is intended to help editors agree on which name of a place is to appear as the title.
Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out. If there are more names than this, or the lead section is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea.
The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability.
For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use.
Unless Kyivan Rus' is widely used Wikipedia should not include in in the opening paragraph otherwise Wikipedia is acting as an artificial source to influence the frequency of use in modern scholarly sources.
The title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses. The following are examples of names that may be included parenthetically, although inclusion should reflect consensus.
There is much more that need to be done and discussed before adding Kyivan Rus' in the first sentence as opposed to removing it. There is a consensus for Kyiv now as opposed to Kiev for modern use. The Impartial Truth (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, please achieve consensus on the talk page first (beyond the declaration above). Nobody is trying to remove Kievan Rus' or make it non-primary, as your edit summary implies ("there is a consensus for historical use to remain -'Kievan Rus'-"). To address your individual points, one secondary name in the lede is not clutter (it is certainly less than your suggested two or three). Regarding your suggested 10% threshold, Kyivan Rus' seems to be at about 15% compared to Kievan Rus'. The material for Kyivan Rus' is well-sourced. Please let other editors add their opinions on this before continuing your one-man campaign to delete it. Doremo (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Please achieve a consensus before adding alternative names. Thank you. The Impartial Truth (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The dispute was begun by your removing the name, which was reverted. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for the change. At the moment, you are the sole dissenter. —Michael Z. 03:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The name has seen 10–15% usage during this century.[6] Kyivan Rus, Kyivan state, and Kyiv state are attested since the 1950s (see wikt:Citations:Kiev). —Michael Z. 17:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I have done my own research and do not come to that conclusion. I based off searches at libraries in major U.S and U.K cities and the books they contain. Would you like to see compiled results? The Impartial Truth (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The actual figure appears to be much less. Principality of Kiev - Wikipedia. Should we change this too? A direct successor state? This is about an English encyclopedia. Forget modern politics. The Impartial Truth (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:WHATABOUT, you keep citing some mysterious old consensus as an excuse to keep status quo of the article, but judging by how much you are getting reverted by several editors the current consensus is clearly against you. If Kyivan Rus' is used often enough in sources, it makes sense to include it as an alternate name. TylerBurden (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not used often enough in sources. This is about a modern political event affecting established historically accepted names. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. No one during the time of the Kievan Rus' had names similar to anything spoken during modern times. Since this is an English encyclopedia, we use English. From the very first use in history referring to the historical grouping of peoples in English until this very modern (2014) conflict between Ukraine and Russia it has been Kievan Rus' in the English language. The very use of Kyivan Rus' in a response to this debate and confusion over Wikipedia:What is consensus? - Wikipedia is just evidence that Neutral point of view should be observed here. If there's really nothing constructive to add then don't talk about individual editors. That is wrong and not in the spirit of Wikipedia... The Impartial Truth (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
This is where a consensus is being formed. The Impartial Truth (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
We are not rewriting history by using modern names to describe things, we are not editing Wikipedia in the times you describe. WP:COMMONNAME states that easily recognized names should be used, and if for some people that is the alternate spelling of Kyivan Rus' and that is used in a large enough amount of sources then there is no reason to keep it out of the article and doing so seems more like censorship than anything else. People have provided evidence that it sees a somewhat frequent use in modern sources, including before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and all you have to say to that is "not enough" and "consensus". The only one here who is trying to keep it out of the article entirely is you, and I am very curious as to why because frankly your reasoning doesn't hold up since Kievan Rus' would still be the primary name in the article. TylerBurden (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
And please, don't use terms like Wikipedia is not about winning when the edit history on this very article shows you involved in an edit war about this very topic. TylerBurden (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment - When I see Kievan Rus', or Kyivan Rus' it seems to imply a close amount of usage with Kievan Rus' having a few more sources. The last couple months not withstanding (which we shouldn't use because of recentism) research indicate quite low usage for Kyivan Rus'.... but it is used. Shouldn't the lead be more in line with: Kievan Rus' (ocassionally Kyivan Rus') was a loose federation in Eastern Europe...? The word "occasionally can be changed to "sometimes" or "rarely" but we have to convey to our readers that the usage of Kyivan Rus' is not the common spelling. In tennis articles we tend to display dual names of tournaments with the word "or" but when it's uncommon or rarely used we put it in parenthesis and unbold or we only mention the name in the main body of prose. We wouldn't tend to put it side by side on the same level and only separated by the word "or"... that would be undue weight for the term and not truthful to our readers. Just my observation here where it seems like there's room for compromise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think "Kievan Rus', sometimes Kyivan Rus'" sounds fair. It's already appropriately in second place, but changing or to sometimes would accurately reflect its lower frequency and prevent misunderstandings. Doremo (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems like a good compromise to me, gives the alternate spelling some weight while still making it clear it is secondary. TylerBurden (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This is not a convention. MOS:BOLDALTNAMES says nothing about using “sometimes” or other indicators of frequency. Why sometimes and not also as in dictionaries (e.g., Merriam-Webster)? The fact that this spelling is not the article title and appears second already signals that it’s secondary. There is no reason to use a special treatment for this one article’s alternate spelling.
To survey what other articles do, I arbitrarily picked Category:History of Eastern Europe and checked all of the articles with multiple bold names.
  • Achaemenid Empire
    The Achaemenid Empire, also called the First Persian Empire . . .
  • Eastern Bloc:
    The Eastern Bloc, also known as the Communist Bloc, the Socialist Bloc and the Soviet Bloc . . .
  • Great Turkish War:
    The Great Turkish War, also called the Wars of the Holy League . . .
  • Great Union:
    In Romanian historiography, the Great Union or Great Union of 1918 . . .
  • Polonization:
    Polonization (or Polonisation) . . .
  • Soviet Union:
    The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) . . .
  • Transnistria:
    Transnistria, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR) . . .
  • Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia:
    The unification of Moldavia and Wallachia, also known as the unification of the Romanian Principalities or as the Little Union . . .
None of these uses a restrictive adverb to indicate frequency of use. Achaemenid Empire, for example, is used 215 times more often than its alternate name,[7] but is only joined with “also called,” just like the examples in the MOS.
We also shouldn’t choose to use it in this article only, to diminish a Ukrainian-derived spelling, because it gives the impression that we’re trying to diminish Ukrainian historiography in favour of the Russian version of Ukrainian history (see WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV).
It should simply read Kievan Rus', also spelled Kyivan Rus' . . . . —Michael Z. 23:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
If you go verbatim it says "and significant alternative names". Kyivan is far from significant. It is used but very infrequently. Also MOS tells us "The title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses." MOS:ALTNAME allows different separators other than "also" and allows much flexibility. This is an article that may need that flexibility. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I have no objection to or or also in the lede. However, this article isn't unique in using sometimes (e.g., Axe, Garage rock) and wouldn't be unique in using occasionally (e.g., Caernarfon Bay, Kedgeree). Doremo (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Or/Sometimes/Also whatever is fine by me, as long as it accurately represents a secondary status since that is what appears to be the case. I understand Michael Z's concerns and they are valid and real, one needs only take a look at articles relevant to Russia and Ukraine to see that, but we must also be careful to not let our personal feelings on subjects affect the articles. TylerBurden (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Fyunck(click)’s gauge of relative significance is vague, and based on arbitrary opinion.
In recent years, the relative frequency of Kyivan Rus to Kievan Rus varies from 5% to 30%[8] (hover for exact numbers, because the chart’s visual smoothing rounds off the extremes).
Comparing to the article leads in my list above, that is not insignificant. For example:
  • “also called” First Persian Empire actually has less than 4% of the title term’s usage[9]
  • “also known as” the Communist Bloc ≤15%, the Socialist Bloc <6%, and the Soviet Bloc >57%[10]
  • “also called” the Wars of the Holy League varies widely[11]
  • “or” Great Union of 1918 less than 4%[12]
  • “or” Polonisation 7 to 69%[13]
  • “officially” the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, less than 3%[14]
  • “officially” the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, less than 2%[15]
  • “also known as” the unification of the Romanian Principalities,[16] or as the Little Union[17] vary a lot.
So I think you’ve made an assumption without evidence, but if we look at it the frequency of usage of Kyivan Rus is not particularly low. Making a point of adding the de-intensifier “sometimes” is placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on its lesser frequency. It should just say “or Kyivan Rus.” —Michael Z. 20:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Romanization of роусьскаѧ землѧ

Expert needed. It should be something along the lines of "rusĭskaja zeml'a", ѧ used like modern я, not as iotated ę. There's no -aję ending in Old Slavic. 89.64.82.62 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think your use of the apostrophe in ѧ = 'a is phonemic transcription of the pronunciation, and not transliteration of the text. The ѧ should be romanized the same way both times. I will try to double-check my sources and respond later (but I suspect the answer means choosing which reference to follow, and not what is right or wrong). —Michael Z. 02:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

Kyivan Rus' or Kievan Rus (in Russian) Kyivan citizen (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Not sure exactly what you want but the lead is per sources and consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022 (2)

This article uses both UK and US spellings (e.g. "centre" and "Romanized"), which is incorrect per WP:ARTCON. (It could be Oxford spelling, but that's rare, and shouldn't be assumed unless the article has a use-Oxford spelling tag, which is absent here.) Since I can't figure out how to change "Romanized" -- it's apparently spelt that way by a template that can't be modified -- please change "centre" and "labour" and "favourable" to "center" and "labor" and "favorable". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You’re describing standard Canadian spelling. Just tag this talk page with {{Canadian English}} and we’re done.  —Michael Z. 16:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh. Okay. Sorry, I thought Canadians used "s" in these words. I've added the template you suggested. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

In the infobox, please remove this caption: 

A map of later Kievan Rus' (after the death of Yaroslav I in 1054)

and replace it with this: 

A map of Kievan Rus' after the death of Yaroslav I in 1054

Since the polity endured from the late 9th to the mid-13th century, the mid-11th century probably shouldn't be called "later". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done TylerBurden (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

From the lead: Kievan Rus', sometimes Kyivan Rus'

The statement from the lead references four times the second name and does not reference the first one. The name should be discussed in the main text ('Name' section) but it is not. Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean Kievan Rus' should have some sources in the name section to show it is used? I agree. And it has many sources in the name section. And I just added two more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You mean you added examples of its use as references? I see that occasionally, but is it accepted practice? That is not the same as using a secondary reliable source to reference a fact that the source attests. (Although an encyclopedia or dictionary entry like the Britannica article does serve as a proper reference to the terms’ meaning.) —Michael Z. 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know, it's done all the time in tennis articles for the same purpose. When we say "some sources have called John Doe the greatest" we make sure we give one or two examples of sources saying just that. It's why using the term "many" has all kinds of issues rather than "some." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, in a properly referenced article something like that would be referenced with the word passim, meaning “in passing,” where a source implies a fact but doesn’t state it explicitly. But it’s usually used, by experts, for obscure things that are uncontroversial and lack more formal sources. I’d say it’s to be avoided in Wikipedia if possible, and improved whenever possible. —Michael Z. 22:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Here, "also" is more appropriate than "sometimes." "Sometimes" implies previously and infrequently, but as the many references for this entry clearly show, "Kyivan Rus" is in widespread use. Hence, "also" should be used because it is less biased and more neutral than "sometimes." To maintain Wikipedia neutrality on this subject, "Kievan Rus" should not be favored over "Kyivan Rus". Rather, these terms should be shown as equivalent in usage, and parentheses used to show this equivalence when used, including in the title. The title should either be "Kievan (Kyivan) Rus'" or "Kyivan (Kievan) Rus'". BowTieTuba (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Don't personally see the issue at this point with "also" espescially if enough modern reliable sources use it, using that word hardly overrides "Kievan Rus'". TylerBurden (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Using "also" is a reasonable suggestion. Looking at 2022 usage on newspapers.com, the ratio for "Kievan:Kyivan Rus" is 86:45, or roughly 2:1, for which "also" seems like a fair characterization. (It's the same as the current center:centre ratio in English, for which the characterization "center (also centre)" would be pretty much universally accepted.) In contrast, the recently added "Kyevan" is much less common, for which "occasionally" seems fair. Doremo (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
In this case, the issue is that "also" conveys a more accurate description of modern usage than "sometimes." "Also" connotes more widespread usage than "sometimes". The newspaper usage research provided by @Doremo is much appreciated. Alternately, because the title of this entry is "Kievan Rus'", using "often" instead of "sometimes" might convey a similar sense as to frequency of usage of "Kyivan Rus'" - because "Kievan Rus'" is in wider use, it warrants the main title for the entry, but "Kyivan Rus'" is often used as well. Is there a Wikipedia convention or guidance for terms qualifying usage? BowTieTuba (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I feel like there is consensus to at least change the wording to "also". Given the amount of reliable sources that use such wording, it seems to be appropriate. And again, that word does not override the other spelling used for the article name. TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Dictionaries and encyclopedias use frequency labels like also or rare(ly). I don’t recall ever seeing sometimes. —Michael Z. 19:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@TylerBurden, because both references listed with Kyivan Rus were print media, the addition of a web academic reference showing this usage seemed helpful. BowTieTuba (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Done Marcelus (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Britannica

Per WP:BRITANNICA, I am in favour of removing any reference to Britannica entries, especially if a more reliable source already supports the same statement. Either the contents of Britannica are constantly changing, or whoever keeps quoting Britannica keeps getting it wrong! Every Britannica reference consistently WP:FAILs verification. It appears to be a completely useless source.

Example:

  • Wikipedia: Vladimir had been prince of Novgorod when his father Sviatoslav I died in 972. He was forced to flee to Scandinavia in 976 after his half-brother Yaropolk had murdered his other brother Oleg and taken control of Rus. In Scandinavia, with the help of his relative Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway, Vladimir assembled a Viking army and reconquered Novgorod and Kiev from Yaropolk. "Vladimir I (grand prince of Kiev) – Encyclopædia Britannica". Britannica.com. 28 March 2014. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
  • Britannica: He was made prince of Novgorod in 970. On the death of his father in 972, he was forced to flee to Scandinavia, where he enlisted help from an uncle and overcame Yaropolk, another son of Svyatoslav, who attempted to seize the duchy of Novgorod as well as Kyiv. By 980 Vladimir had consolidated the Kievan realm from Ukraine to the Baltic Sea (...)

Britannica doesn't say a lot of the things that the Wikipedia article claims it does. There is no 'fleeing in 976', no half-brother', no 'murdered his other brother Oleg', no 'Earl Håkon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway', etc. Britannica even claims Yaropolk didn't succeed in seizing Novgorod and Kyiv yet, so 'taken control of Rus' and 'reconquered Novgorod and Kiev from Yaropolk' cannot be based on Britannica. This doesn't necessarily mean Britannica is wrong, it just means you can't use it to support these claims.

Or not anymore. In the opening sentence of this Wikipedia article it says that Kyivan Rus' was 'a state in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century'. Britannica just doesn't say that it 'was a state in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century'. It says lots of other related things, but not that; e.g. there is no mention of 'Northern Europe' and it is ambiguous about whether the state ended in the 13th or 14th century. Maybe it used to say that, but not anymore?

Finally, unlike Wikipedia and the RS that it is supported by, Britannica doesn't cite its sources, so there is no way for us to verify what it says, and it could always change. Britannica is not what it once was, especially not the online version. It may be written by educated people, but I regard it as educated WP:USERGENERATED content. A good article deserves better than relying on a second-rate site as Britannica. It just gets in the way of what we as Wikipedians are trying to achieve. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Was Kievan Rus' founded in 879 or in 882?

The infobox lists Novgorod as the capital from 879-882, but also says that Kievan Rus' was founded in 882. These can't both be true at once. Since 882 is the date when Oleg conquered Kiev and declared himself Prince of Kiev it seems more correct to me, but then I don't think Novgorod should be listed in the infobox as a capital. Spacemarine22 (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That was recently added to the infobox without any reasoning explained for it and has now been removed, if the person would like to explain their reasoning or at least provide a source to support it they can. TylerBurden (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The start and end dates of Kyivan Rus' are subject to (endless) scholarly debate. Who was the 'first' 'ruler'? How do you 'found' a 'state'? Which sources should we trust, or can't we really trust any of them? E.g. the Novgorod Chronicle and Primary Chronicle contradict each other on when the Invitation to the Varangians allegedly happened. Similarly, the end of Kyivan Rus' is often given as 1240 because of the Siege of Kyiv (1240), but arguments can be made it already ceased to function as a state long before that, or continued to exist e.g. in the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia until the 14th century. For infobox purposes, I think it's fine if we made it something more vague and approximate like c. 9th–13th century, like the opening sentence does. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

In popular culture section

I just remembered a song. "Time to raise a toast to our generous host" <<Jarisleif! Jarisleif!>> "Ruler of the Rus' from coast to coast" <<Jarisleif! Jarisleif!>> - Turisas, The Varangian Way (2007). And another one: "Holmgard, and beyond!" I think we could add an 'In popular culture' section for this kind of stuff, right? These are modern cultural references to Kyivan Rus' that are widely known to a certain part of the public, although not many people may have made the connection between that band and this historic state. I'm sure you can think of many other examples worth adding to such a section. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I added the section. Other additions to it are welcome. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Kyivan Rus', not Kievan Rus'

Correct English name of Ukrainian capital is Kyiv not Kiev. Kyiv is in Ukraine, not Russia; transliteration from Ukrainian language should be used as this city is in Ukraine. Longer discussion is in section Names in topic Kyiv.
The word etymology:
Transcription of Ukrainian name into English is "Ки́їв" => Kyiv.
Transcription of Russian name into English is "Киев" => Kiev.
"Kyiv" => "Kyivan", "Kyivan Rus'"
"Kiev" => "Kievan", "Kievan Rus'"
All topics in English Wikipedia should be subjected to correction Kiev/Kievan => Kyiv/Kyivan including the topic tittles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.39.97 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv is in Ukraine, so Ukraine should have crucial influence here. They should be able to influence how their capital is called and how historical Ukrainian states are called.
Russia also has an origin in the Kyivan Rus, but is a side branch. All sources in literature are based on Russian claims and the usage of transcription from Russian language to English.
But we should stop doing that. Russians should be able to say how name Moscow is used, historical states based on Moscow or St. Petersburg. But Ukraine should be able to say how name Kyiv (Ukrainian capital) is used, and historical states including Kyivan Rus.
68.134.39.97 (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Britannica started recently using name Kyivan Rus:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/History#ref404367 68.134.39.97 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a continuation of your last soapboxing so I moved it here. I'm not even sure it should stay but I'll leave that to others. The only thing that matters.... the only thing... is what the majority of all books and sources use in English. What Ukraine wants means zero here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not surprising that you didn't even bother to read the comment after the infobox. Just a note: WP:KIEV. This is consensus. Summer talk 20:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
In Google Scholar results for 2022–23, Kyivan Rus comprises 29% of the total.[18][19] In Google Books for 2020–2023 it is about 27%.[20][21] I believe proportional usage is now higher than it was for Kyiv when we decided to rename that article, so never say never.  —Michael Z. 23:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This is true... you never know what will happen in the future. It could always go back to Kiev if the politics in the region changes and English takes notice. The English language is a strange beast to be sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
And Google News gives me 37 to 47 for the last 60 days, which is 44%.[22][23]  —Michael Z. 04:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
And in the last two days it's 0 to 3.... so 0%.[24] [25]. Enough with these ridiculous arbitrary time periods already...as an administrator you should know better than that. Usually we'd look at a five or ten year trend to determine English usage. Obviously dynamic events like a war can hasten things so we have to keep an eye out, because without Russia's 2022 attack and atrocities we'd certainly still be looking at Kiev as an article title. But this thread is about a soapboxer being reverted over multiple articles multiple times without them reading any of the talk page info. Someone who posted this stuff here not once but twice in locations where I had to move it to a proper location. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Google news does not return data for five or ten years. For a longer time period it returns exactly 99 results. I believe we’ve already had this conversation so this time I’ll ask you to please not make the personal remarks. As someone who’se been on this site a decade and a half you should know better.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), WP:SET refers us to Google News, but it says nothing of a five or ten year trend. If we “should know better than that,” then please be so kind as to show us how to meet the standard.  —Michael Z. 14:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Using your same parameters I can get results. I took a ten year period of 2013 and got for scholar, Kyivan/Kievan as 1090/9630... about 10%. And for books Kyivan/Kievan as 7330/22600. And if you continue to use 60 day time periods I will continue to call you out on arbitrary posts. Especially in a thread such as this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason for Wikipedia to ruch things, we are suppose to reflect current knowledge and naming conventions of the academic English literature. So far Kievan Rus' is much more popular. Marcelus (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I’m not suggesting rushing anything. There is also no reason to avoid gauging the right time for such things, nor to delay them.  —Michael Z. 15:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Posting a 60 day trend is doing just that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Posting information is posting information. Following the recommendation of a Wikipedia how-to page does not deserve “calling out.” Then pretending to respond but ignoring my question about WP:SET’s recommendation of Google News Search is just . . . What is that, exactly? No one is obliging you to take part in this. If you only have unkind things to say, maybe improve an article instead.  —Michael Z. 20:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
My first response was not unkind in the least... in fact I agreed with you. Then you went off the rails and I called you out on it, and it was deserved as such. Stick to reasonable assessments and I say nothing (because it's reasonable) or I say "true." Climb out on a limb and I look for my saw. No one is obliging you to make 60 day statements either... in fact as an administrator I think we expect better from you. The same with the dude that started this thread. They soapboxed in the wrong place and all I did was move it to a correct section. Then they did it again (while they were also changing multiple articles) in another section and I moved it again to here with a note. Then they did it again. Then you added a one year and three year google search and I said that it's true and how tough and tangled English can be. We all know it can be slow as molasses or pretty quick (as with the Russian war). Then you added a 60 day 44% post which I found as arbitrary and ridiculous, and I will always defend against that sort of post. I don't think most administrators would have posted that stuff since it is unhelpful, especially in this thread. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I know of no rule preventing me or any admin or non-admin from gauging current usage with a sample from Google News, a method recommended by the guideline, and sharing the result with anyone that cares. So I will continue to do so when I deem it appropriate. You are welcome to ignore me. I will try to live with your disappointment. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 00:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Since no news source will ever be RS for this article, why would usage in the news be relevant? Srnec (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
1) When we survey usage in books, we do not filter for only the small number of books that are reliable sources on Kyivan Rus. The search results include fiction, philology, international relations, botany, philosophy, and anything else that mentions it in passing. The prevailing frequency test is usually one of reliable sources, and not only of reliable sources on a specific subject.
2) That statement is CRYSTAL.
3) A search on G News immediately finds examples that could conceivably benefit this article or a related one.[26][27][28][29][30][31]
 —Michael Z. 03:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I guess I shouldn’t omit one for the “In popular culture” section you’ve been wanting to add.[32] —Michael Z. 03:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Let's discuss about approved name in English for the capital of Ukraine.
The United States Board on Geographic Names (US BGN) at its 398th meeting on June 11, 2019 removed the conventional name “Kiev,” leaving “Kyiv” as the sole approved name for the capital of Ukraine (Ref1-page 6), (Ref2).
US BGN also approved other changes in 2019 (two examples):
  • the name “North Macedonia” for the former “Macedonia.”
  • change from “Astana” to “Nur-Sultan” for the capital of Kazakhstan.
So as you can see all these changes are important for English language. And they were approved by US government agency responsible for standardization of geographical names in English. This US agency is also in contact with United Nations and British government experts.
Historical names in many cases include names of cities. It is very important to use the approved name in particular language, like Kyiv (not Kiev); so Kyivan Rus' is the only name which should be considered as primary name (Kiev Rus' as secondary name, since was used for long time). That way we are avoiding confusion about proper naming.
There will be some situations where old city names could be used like Buda and Pest since these 2 cities are not present now (they were merged and formed Budapest later). But there is no such problem in the case of Kyiv.
Thus, any historical articles containing the name of the Ukrainian capital within their main title headers should likewise use the form Kyiv.
This form is the most up to date in English based on US government decision. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
You shold read WP:KYIV Marcelus (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
#From the lead: Kievan Rus', sometimes Kyivan Rus': this September/October 2022 discussion a few months ago established a perfectly reasonable consensus. The title is Kievan Rus', and Kyivan Rus' is an acceptable alternative in the opening sentence, and in quotations elsewhere in the article. I think Michael Z. is correct that the balance is gradually shifting in favour of Kyivan Rus'. But it does not seem enough yet to be changing the title. That may take several more months or even years, once scholarly literature (books, journals) have caught up. As Srnec said, for a historic medieval state, I don't think our judgement should weigh too heavily on recent news articles. Finally, as Marcelus said, 68.134.39.97 should read WP:KYIV. I think 68.134.39.97 should be given a warning, as they have also been trying to push the same spelling changes in other articles. At the end of the day, people who only edit Wikipedia to change Kiev/Kievan to Kyiv/Kyivan are WP:NOTHERE to actually improve the quality of the contents, and are disrupting the process of building an encyclopaedia. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
PS: Incidentally, the military history YouTube educational channel Kings and Generals (which recently hit 3 million subscribers) published another documentary today in which they write Kyivan Rus' and Kyiv. "How the Ruthenians defended against the Mongols - Medieval Documentary". YouTube. 9 February 2023. Retrieved 9 February 2023. They switched last year shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, although are still a bit inconsistent in their cartography (in which maps occasionally read 'Kiev' or 'Kyiv'). This documentary is consistent in maps, narration and subtitles: Kyiv and Kyivan Rus'. In my humble opinion, this is not yet sufficient for a name change, but it supports the trend that Michael Z. has observed is gradually taking place. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Please read WP:OFFICIALNAME. Summer talk 23:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
How does that apply? There was no official name. The name and its spellings that we are discussing were coined centuries after the subject we gone.  —Michael Z. 02:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I am addressing anon's Thus, any historical articles containing the name of the Ukrainian capital within their main title headers should likewise use the form Kyiv.
This form is the most up to date in English based on US government decision. Changing the name of a city the state was based in is not always a basis to change all other derived names. Summer talk 06:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
That is true, but it does get needlessly awkward, vis-à-vis WP:CONSISTENCY and simple copywriting. Kyivan is the natural related adjective, and also the noun meaning a person from the city. The Kyivan churches, the Kyivan princes, the Kyivan state, namely Kievan Rus. The most egregious example is the title and entire text of the article History of Kyiv, where an attempt to clean up the porridge of spellings gets reverted and then shouted down on the talk page.  —Michael Z. 06:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Moscowy is not Rus'. Moscow was a rural village in the outpost of Kyivan Rus' before Mongolian invasion. Mongolians gave Moscowitz the statehood history. The Grand Duchy of Moscowy was founded during reign of Mongolian Khan, because Moscow was a very convenient hub to collect toll from the Slavic states.
Moscowy is just trying to add itself some credibility in the Slavic world by hijacking the Rus' heritage from Ukraine, Belarus and Novgorod Republic.
Moscow's efforts to call itself the “third Rome" or a “center of Eastern Slavic culture” are just ridiculous. Even its name “Russia" received only in 1721, when Peter I passed a decree to change Moscowy name into Russia (name used by the Greek Orthodox Clergy in regards to Kyivan Rus').
So "Russians" became engaged in chronicle production and fakes, describing their origin from Octavian Augustus through Kyiv to Moscow. For 500 years of its existence, the propaganda machine of Moscow Rus was engaged in rewriting of history, depriving all the enslaved peoples of their history, assimilating them with the history of "Russians", and re-shaping it in its own way. Each new "Russian" Tsar created all new historical facts, but no matter how hard he tried, they were written on the basis of authentic documents, which, although destroyed later, still left a trace in the new works of Moscow. Thanks to which we can, using the logic so hated by the Muscovites, find and recover the truth. Which we're actually doing now.
In the process of creating new history, "RUSSIAN" HISTORIANS REPLACED NAME OF HISTORICAL "RUS'" to "KIEVAN RUS'" in 19. century. So name KIEVAN RUS' is made-up centuries after the time when this state existed.
To correct/undo this made-up issue we have two choices: (1) we can start using again original term RUS' or (2) we can change KIEVAN RUS' to KYIVAN RUS'. I think 2nd option will be easier to perform. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
There is text the page Wikipedia:Official names in section Rationale/Practicality:
The preference for common names avoids several problems with official names: (...)
  • Propaganda. Some official names are inaccurate and deceptive for propaganda purposes.
As we can see facts created by Russians are imperial PROPAGANDA. So this is another reason why we should stop using term KIEVAN RUS'. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh my this is just soapboxing central, LOL. We already use the common English name.... you seem to want us to use the uncommon English name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Is that all you have to say? When you lack arguments you use invectives, an inappropriate tone of speech, and you are deleting my comments in discussions. Or maybe you are one of propagandists I mentioned above? 68.134.39.97 (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
It's the same blather over and over that is answered in all the previous discussions if you'd bother to read them as others have pointed out. So yeah I'm starting to find this funny. When you don't bother to register and 61 out of 64 posts are all on Kyiv, and the other 3 were text removals that were all reverted, I start to wonder about your own agenda here at Wikipedia. Are you here to work with others and move on if they disagree, or are you here to SHOUT and ram what is not consensus nor common down our throats? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Example of edition correcting spelling error which was reverted by you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthodox_Church_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1137572396
Editors earlier did not have problem with that. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.134.39.97&oldid=1137746301 68.134.39.97 (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I have also edited (Kiev => Kyiv) approx. 10 articles in short time few days ago (Feb 6-7) at once. And I gave always explanation for the reason why I am changing text.
But I stopped doing that.
Instead I am discussing the topic on this page. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Your small essay is basically WP:NATIONALISM, Wikipedia shouldn't repeat Russian nationalism, but also it shouldn't repeat Ukrainian nationalism. Marcelus (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I am not Ukrainian, but I feel that they need to be supported against imperial Russian politics. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's an agenda that is better solved by you giving to the Ukrainian Red Cross than it is to run roughshod over English vernacular. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already donated few times. How about you? 68.134.39.97 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear. 68.134.39.97 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia but to push a POV. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, however. Fyunck's suggestion of 68.134.39.97 donating to certain Ukrainian charities seems like a much better idea (which they now indicate they have already done) than rehashing debates that have been had over and over here. The consensus is stated at WP:KYIV, and essentially everyone here agrees with it for the time being. I think it's likely that this article will one day switch to modern Ukrainian spelling given the observed trends in English literature and news articles (as noted by Michael Z.), but per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot yet do so. The modern Republic of Ukraine can also not be unambiguously identified as the successor state to Kievan/Kyivan Rus', let alone as same state, so the spelling of the capital of the post-1991 state has no direct bearing on that of the medieval state (this, too, is stated at WP:KYIV). Given all this, I suggest we WP:SNOWBALL this discussion and move on. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Approval decision for KYIV by The United States Board on Geographic Names should be enough to correct all historical names containing adjective KYIVAN. But historical reasons and counteraction of Russian propaganda are another important factors we should include; please, remember phrases like Kiev Rus are a part of this propaganda.
We should support Ukraine in different ways. Donation is not enough. Ukraine should also be supported politically and military in good interest of civilized world; this includes opposition of Russian imperial propaganda.
In my opinion, there are 3 countries that are successors of medieval Rus': Ukraine, Belarus and Novgorod republic. The last one was annihilated by Muscovy. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
No. Just no. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, and not to care to find out. Until you do, I think your comments here are pointless. If you do want to know how it works, you can always ask, and I or others here may be willing to help you with certain questions. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems self-evident that when one decides to use Kyiv then the obvious derived adjective is Kyivan, and one would then use the names that include those adjectives. We don’t expect to keep calling the people of Myanmar Burmese (Names of Myanmar). Instead maybe we will call them Myanma, right?
It is about consistency - Wikipedia:Consistency
The lack of consistency is the main reason, I am here. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
please, remember phrases like Kiev Rus are a part of this propaganda, that's not even factually true. Russian historical propaganda often uses term "Древнеру́сское госуда́рство", "Old-Russian State", but that's it. Marcelus (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, the concept kievskaia Rus was invented and used to support Russian imperial colonialism in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, when the empire ruled Ukraine, eliminated Zaporizhzhian Cossack autonomy, and suppressed Ukrainian language and identity. “Ancient Russian state” and “Muscovite Rus/Russia” are today’s anti-Kyivan Rus for the age of Ukrainian independence (I believe a short-lived article Old Russian State was merged into this one). Current Russian imperialism has recently changed tack and diversified with “holy Crimea,” “Ukrainians are a fake nation,” “Kyiv Nazi junta,” “de-satanization,” and a host of others.  —Michael Z. 17:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Guys, let's stop feeding the troll. 68.134.39.97 is WP:NOTHERE. We're wasting our time with someone who doesn't want to comply with how Wikipedia works. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. Looks like they just removed their own non-encyclopedic propaganda garbage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Statements like that won’t get consensus in discussions like this one. That is all far removed from our processes that could do so. Read WP:TITLE and related guidelines, then see how it works on discussion pages.  —Michael Z. 21:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
[My comment immediately above was in reply to a since-deleted comment, not to Fyunck(click). —Michael Z. 23:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)]
About Russian influence on Western Universities and education
This is the reason why their version of "history", Russian-coined historical terms (including Kievan Rus'), imperial propaganda are so popular.
(A)
After Lenin’s 1917 coup d’état, émigré Russian academics transplanted to Western universities the imperial rewrite of Russian history. It was Olympian. Vaulting over a chasm of half a millennium between the destruction of the medieval Kyivan Rus’ state and the rise of one of its former colonial outposts (“Muscovy”), the latter declared dominion over the former. Chronology was reversed and history somersaulted — Ukraine now erased as “Little Russia” was born. Successive generations of Western savants absorbed to their innermost core the canonicity of Russia’s continuum from Kyivan Rus,’ citing one another as authority to the point of hypnotic stasis.
[33]The ‘Little Russia’ malware in our brains
(B)
Many scholars say the Russian state receives too much focus in academia at the expense of the colonized nations, regions, and groups, including Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, as well as ethnic minority communities in Russia itself. The view from St. Petersburg and Moscow -- the capitals of Russia since the tsarist era and of the Soviet Union -- dominates.
The war is forcing scholars, departments, and university officials to question how they teach the history of Russia, the former Soviet Union, and the region, what textbooks and sources they use, whom they hire, which archives they mine for information, and even what departments should be named.
[34]Moscow's Invasion Of Ukraine Triggers 'Soul-Searching' At Western Universities As Scholars Rethink Russian Studies
[35]Towards Decolonizing Eastern European and Eurasian Art and Material Culture: From the 1800s to the present
(C)
British historian prof. Norman Davies talks about strong Russian influence in Slavic/Slavonic departments in Western universities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p1_TrXc_o0&t=1010s (min:sec 16:50 to 19:40) 68.134.39.97 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Above post was removed originally by Fyunck(click) (on Feb 10, 2023).
It was removed because it is trolling propaganda soapboxing. I am shocked it was put back and my guess is it will continue to happen with this IP. I think @Nederlandse Leeuw: said it best that 68.134.39.97 is WP:NOTHERE. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The truth stings. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Fyunck(click) removed also part of this text on Feb 7, 2023. I guess is too much truth for him. My understanding is that he can remove posts and changes by others, he does not like. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Please don’t gloat. I restored the links above because they are relevant to the subject and cover important topics that are underrepresented in this article. Bravo. But your string of posts were not directly relevant and verging on argumentative, and I can easily see how someone could delete another in the heat of the discussion. Let’s leave it at that. —Michael Z. 22:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is important to know how many Russians are in academics, including historians and political scientists. This is the reason why it is so hard for the West to accept non-Russian point of view and terminology. Even if name Kyiv has already been standardized as geographical name in English.
Standardization of name Kyiv also took long enough, 30 years after Ukraine gained independence. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum, nor a blog, it's a talk page when we discuss substantial changes to the article, not your opinion pieces. Marcelus (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
What Marcelus says. If 68.134.39.97 goes on like this, I think a temporary block is in order. They are wasting our time, abusing the talk page and WP:disruptive to the project in general. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Example of Russian propaganda and lies in relation to WW2, Poland and Western Europe (UK, etc):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vVEVa3-lZ4 (some of you may know Russian language)
Video made by Warsaw-based think tank/research institute Centre for Eastern Studies (Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich).
As you can see some Russian "historians" are taking a part in these lies.
The same problem is with "Russian studies on" Kyiv Rus and Ukraine. 68.134.39.97 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
More garbage from our IP TROLL. When is some administration gonna make this stop? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), this article belongs to a contentious topic. Please try to observe basic WP:CIVILITY. —Michael Z. 01:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac: This guy continues to TROLL/Soapbox this talk page. You need to do your job with this dude. Maybe you're too close to the topic and should hand it off to another administrator, because he's within a hair of being blocked (as others have said) and I think it could have been prevented with a firmer administrative hand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
You’re right, you should get someone uninvolved. And keep a cool head.  —Michael Z. 05:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

State vs loose federation

Currently the first sentence states that Kievan Rus' was a state in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. Previously this used to say loose federation. However I think it might be a bit misleading to call it a "state" all the way up to 1240 (or at the beginning). Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia which is used as a reference here says loose federation. So I think it should be worded slightly differently. Mellk (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the word federation, its dictionary definition is "a group of organizations, countries, regions, etc. that have joined together to form a larger organization or government" [36] which is not quite how Kievan Rus appeared.
Also, I think that a state can be a loose confederation - we even have a term "failed state." Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the word state is used by historians, e.g., Riasanovsky has a chapter on "the establishment of the Kievan state." Alaexis¿question? 20:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not think it should be simply replaced with "loose federation", that would also be misleading, but it probably needs a bit more context. In the 12th century it basically disintegrated. Maybe something along the lines of "was a state and later a [something] of [principalities?]". Maybe a look at some sources to find a wording. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion from Martin 2009b, p. 5: Over the two centuries following Vladimir's death (1015), Kievan Rus became an amalgam of principalities, whose number increased as the dynasty itself grew. An 'an amalgam of principalities' seems accurate. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good! Alaexis¿question? 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I should nuance this a bit, and point out that this is the description given by Janet Marit for the post-1015 period. For the early period, she does say "state" (page 1 and 2). In the middle p places she uses "domain", "realm" and "dynasty", indicating that it was a monarchy. E.g.
  • "In these early centuries East Slavic tribes and their neighbours coalesced into the Christian state of Kievan Rus." (page 1)
  • "The transformation of these tribes into the state of Kievan Rus is shrouded in mystery." (page 2)
  • "By that time [962] the realm of the Riurikid clan had expanded substantially." "...forefathers' domain..." (page 3)
  • "Over the next generations Vladimir and his successors continued to extend their domain and to create an appraratus to govern it. The political structure they devised for Kievan Rus was based on the concept that its lands were the possession of the dynasty." "...his realm..." (page 4)
She is implying that the state was virtually undivided until 1015, but also indicates that by the 11th century Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereiaslavl had emerged as 'main principalities', and 'Galicia and Volhynia (south-west of Kiev) gained the status of separate principalities in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, respectively.' In fact, she says both Vladimir and his father Sviatoslav "assigned a portion of his realm to each of his principal sons." (page 4) Although she doesn't explain when, how and why Sviatoslav I (r. 943–972) did this exactly, nor which portions these were, she does point out Vladimir already "governed" Novgorod around 972 while his brother Iaropolk was prince of Kiev. (page 4) This leaves us with some important questions: when did these city-based principalities within Kyivan Rus' emerge? Our current Wikipedia articles do not really give dates supported by reliable sources:
  • Principality of Kiev states 1132–1471 in the infobox without source, adding Following the death of Mstislav I of Kiev in 1132, the semi-autonomous states were de facto independent and so led to the emergence of the Principality of Kiev as a separate state. without source. When Kyiv emerged as a separate principality from Kyivan Rus' as a whole seems especially difficult to determine, as presumably the Grand Prince of Kyiv was claiming authority over all other territories all the time, and wouldn't want to limit his authority to just Kyiv and environs. But at least according to Martin, there was a Kyiv principality by the 11th century and perhaps even the 10th already.
  • Principality of Chernigov states 988–1402 in the infobox without source. These years aren't mentioned anywhere in the text, and they seem entirely original research.
  • Principality of Pereyaslavl states 988–1239/1323 in the infobox without source. Martin implies it already existed during Sviatoslav I (r. 943–972).
Martin implies there were 'portions' of the realm during Sviatoslav I (r. 943–972) already, so 988 would be too late, but we don't know whether these portions were/included Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereiaslavl. Novgorod was apparently a 'portion' around 972, but not in the 11th century, at least not with the status of principality: "After 1097 each of these principalities (with the exceptions of Novgorod and Kiev) was identified with its own branch of the dynasty." (page 5). The Principality of Pereyaslavl article states (with a source!): "The Primary Chronicle dates the foundation of the city of Pereyaslavl' to 992; the archaeological evidence suggests it was founded not long after this date." That would mean the 988 foundation date is too early; you can't really have a Principality of Pereyaslavl when there is no city of Pereyaslavl yet!
Long story short: I think the best description of Kievan Rus' in the opening sentence would be:
Kievan Rus', also known as Kyivan Rus' (Old East Slavic / Old Norse names), was a state and later an amalgam of principalities in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. It seems to have begun as a unified state, a unitary monarchy, but then feudalised (rather than "federalised", which is a modern concept) into several appanages that became autonomous and independent when central authority/sovereignty weakened. This is what we have seen in countless other historical polities such as the Holy Roman Empire, but also the Chinese Empire under the Zhou dynasty (Warring States period), and in the Kingdom of France several times over (most notably the Duchy of Burgundy that went from a royal Valois appanage to becoming an independent Burgundian State). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
That's not a bad first sentence. I agree with avoiding "federation". Srnec (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I've applied it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I think this wording is rather ambiguous. However, I do agree with the comparison to the Holy Roman Empire, which is why I think its better to go with something like "political entity." Nuances of how it went to decentralized "amalgam" with weakened central authority could be mentioned further on. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion here. We can call it a political entity and explain the transition from a more cetralised to a less centralised state later in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I do not even insist that much on this option (although it would have been more accurate). I just find the very sentence extremely confusing. Maybe rephrase it? I dont know. Its just that a political entity is either a state or some other kind of union, and saying "it was a state and LATER on an amalgam of principalities" does not clarify things. If anything, it makes them all the more confusing. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Also I think the second sentence (Encompassing a variety of polities and peoples, including East Slavic, Norse, and Finnic...) could be reworded slightly to mention the Slavicization and assimilation of those peoples into the East Slavic tribes. Mellk (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on the point of the state. In many ways, Kyivan Rus' reminds me of the Holy Roman Empire: a loose federation/conglomeration of principalities that only functions as a "state" when there is a ruler whose sovereignty is generally recognised by lower rulers. Whenever this is not the case, they are at war with each other over who is the emperor / (grand) prince, or at least the lower rulers just rule as if they are sovereign and ignore the guy/lady at the top. Then the idea of a unified state is just fiction. One ruler after another claims to be the Grand Duke/Prince/King/Emperor/Tsar etc. "of all Rus'", but they only rule a tiny fraction of it which they manage to militarily control.
About the demographics I'm less certain. There evidently was a Slavicisation going on in the first few centuries as shown by how the Norse Varangians gradually changed their names, language, customs etc, but whether all inhabitants were at some point assimilated seems highly doubtful. E.g. we know that in the High Middle Ages, many Jews migrated into the area, probably also Germans, Hungarians, Lithuanians etc. for various reasons (trade, work, fleeing from war/famine etc.). And of course lots of Tatars and Mongols settled in the area in the 13th century; although never becoming a majority, they were significant for more than a century. And Cumans also passed through at some point. But I haven't read enough about it to say anything for certain. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
PS: I would just like to say that I appreciate cooperating with you. We had some points of disagreement, but I think we agree a lot on how this article should be improved. There is a lot to fix, years of neglect and bad sourcing/referencing. Lots of people seem more interested in what the word "Rus'" does and doesn't mean than the actual history of this area, and inserting long URLs to the same work on Google Books. ;) I'm hoping to clear a lot of clutter up through standardisation of referencing. Meanwhile I see you cleaning up some anachronisms and duplications, adding refs to unsourced claims. I just hope we don't have too many edit conflicts while simultaneously making improvements haha. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes it would be good to try to get this article to GA status. Mellk (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Hah, well, if we wanna reach GA status there is a whole lot more work to do! According to two of the involved WikiProjects it's currently even a C instead a B. There is just so much material to go through, a lot of broken links that we cannot verify anymore, many bad sources or bad cites. (How wrong the population estimates for Kyiv, Novgorod and Chernihiv in 1200 were, for example; how can one say "Kiev had 50,000 and Chernigov 30,000" when the source says Chernihiv probably had more than Kyiv?). In many cases we have contradictory editions of books, and so an earlier or later edition of the same book won't have the information on the same pages. In some cases I just have to hope I didn't ruin anything, in others I'm pretty sure I restored it correctly. Anyway, we'll see. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess it can be worded in such a way to show that it was a gradual process. Of course there were Norse influences too. Mellk (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
We can probably add "which underwent gradual and partial Slavicisation," though I'm not sure it has to be in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 20:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

I believe there is a typo in the first or second paragraph..."made up of many polities (I think this is supposed to be politics) and peoples..." CharCssdy88 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: According to Oxford: polity

/ˈpɒlɪti/ noun plural noun: polities, a form or process of civil government or constitution.

It appears to be used correctly here. TylerBurden (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

{{History}}

Please add

{{History of Ukraine|early}}

— 89.206.112.10 (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose These sidebars take up way too much space. If we want to be WP:NPOV, we need to include not just Ukraine, but also Belarus and Russia. That makes a mess out of the layout. Besides, there are already {{Ukraine topics}} {{Russia topics}} {{Belarus topics}} templates at the bottom, that will have to do. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@89.206.112.10: don't change my edits as if I'm an admin or pending changes reviewer formally rejecting a request, and sign your own comments. Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Russian and English adoption

User:Paul Siebert, I don’t understand your objection.[37] Kievskaia Rus (Киевская Русь) is a foreign term that was introduced in the nineteenth century. Kievan Rus is an English term derived from it by translation and introduced later. My wording simply changed the reference directly to the referent, rather than to its translation which is a separate subject of the following paragraph. To make the two subjects clearer by not using one as the subject of the sentence to stand in for the other.  —Michael Z. 17:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(that is my initial post that I made concurrently with Michael): This edit, and especially the edit summary, is a typical example of Primordialism. It implies that there is some specific modern state and some specific nation that can be seen as a true successor of Kievan Rus', whereas other modern states are considered "foreign". In connection to that, I am wondering which modern state is considered as a successor state of Byzantine or Charlemagne empires, and which modern languages are not "foreign"? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Edit summary should not interest us too much. Leaving them aside it seems to me that the version proposed by @Mzajac is more logical. The sentence says that the term appeared first in Russian and then in Ukrainian and Belarusian, its logicla to use these languages forms. The English adaptation of the term is mentioned in the next paragraph. Marcelus (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
WTF even? Russian is a foreign language. The subject of the sentence is a Russian word, not the English one.  —Michael Z. 17:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Ops. You are right. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I was also mislead by the section's title. It should be not "Russian and English adoption", but "English adoption". "Kievan Rus'" was a term that was proposed by Russian Imperial historians and adopted by English historiography. If your argument is that "Kievan Rus'" is a foreign term in English, then I have absolutely no objections to that. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Meaningful map

Please replace

| image_map              = Location of Kyivan Rus.png
| image_map_caption      = A map of Kievan Rus' after the death of [[Yaroslav the Wise|Yaroslav I]] in 1054

with

| image_map              = Kievan-rus-1015-1113.png
| image_map_caption      = Map showing the Kievan Rus' and its principalities during the 11th century

in order to have a map in the lead/infobox section that actually says something about the historic situation, rather than a map of 3 continents with some of it painted solid green. — 89.206.112.10 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I say no. The map doesn’t provide enough context to serve as a locator map in the infobox, it is too detailed for the infobox and its labels are unreadable at a normal viewing size, and it is already present in the appropriate article section where the historical situation is actually the subject.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. TylerBurden (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The infobox could use a better map anyway, the current one was made by a now-banned editor and is really inaccurate. Mellk (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

References in the lede

I am a little bit puzzled by this edit summary. The fact that some sources use the term "Kyivan Pus" is absolutely non controversial. The true controversy is if "Kyivan" should be used as a primary name (or if the title should be changed to "Kyivan"). The references should be removed, because that is against MOS. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Agree — There is no controversy that both terms are used. All references should be removed from the lead unless where {{nvb}} has to be expected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.112.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Disagree You know this topic is contentious, you have engaged in discussions about the title on this talk page before. The talk page header states The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. You know that by removing references to the WP:ALTNAME, you are suggesting that the altname isn't as well-supported as other users have demonstrated as a result of previous discussions. There is no reason to remove these references, other than to undermine an opposing POV. You shouldn't do that on a page about a contentious topic that you know is contentious without discussing it on the talk page first, while claiming the subject is not controversial. You know it is controversial. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Cheers mate, the topic is indeed contentious. But WP:CTOP doesn't suspend MOS:LEADCITE. Your accusation against Paul Siebert of intending to remove either name is speculative bordering on bad faith. The name issue is well sourced in the Names section. Therefore the citations can and should be omitted in the lead. Feel free to place {{nvb}} in their stead wherever you desire. Besides: "Kyivan Pus"? Parapraxis of the year! Not cheering, though. — 89.206.112.10 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Leeuw, whereas the controversy over the name (Kievan vs Kyivan) does exist, there is no controversy over the fact that this controversy exist. As you probably noticed, I removed the references, but not the name itself. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree. The footnotes should not be there. No footnotes are needed in the lead. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    Per WP:BUNDLING I've bundled most cites into one ref. This makes it considerably more readable and balanced. I think this is probably a good solution, as Paul Siebert does have a point per MOS:LEADCITE. References 6 and 8 follow the Template:Sfn and can therefore not be easily bundled, as these sources are also invoked elsewhere in the article, but the rest could be bundled. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Usually, references in the lead section are not needed because the lead only summarizes the high-points of the main body, which should be where references reside. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Disagree: as Nederlandse Leeuw says the spelling is controversial and certain people are interested in undermining it, so it is useful to have the references present in the lead so readers as easily as possible can verify its prevalence. Frankly, I think it is a pretty dumb portion of the MOS, I have had several people I know (non editors, so would not be aware of the MOS let alone fixate on it) think lead statements have been unsourced because of the lack of inline citations. But that is beside the point, there are plenty of other references in the lead, so seems weird to just remove the ones for Kyiv. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
    I suggest getting to know some people, who understand how citations work before relying on them, and to move not just those for the common names, but all citations from the lead to their respective article body sections or temporarily storing them in the appropriate template
for later use. — 89.206.112.10 (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I would assume the editors who wrote MOS:CITELEAD understand how citations work. TylerBurden (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
They obviously do. I was referring to the people you know (non editors, so would not be aware of the MOS let alone fixate on it) think lead statements have been unsourced because of the lack of inline citations.
MOS:LEADCITE apllies regardless and the lead only summarizes statements already referenced in the body without repeating their references or adding new ones. — 89.206.112.10 (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
So you're saying the lead should have no references, and as you can see people disagree because this is a controversial topic. "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." TylerBurden (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Disagree. There are sixteen citations in the lead. Removing only one because it is “absolutely non controversial” and no citations belong in the lead is self-evidently a controversial move. The editor contradicts their own rationale by picking on their one issue. —Michael Z. 17:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    Controversy: see, for example, anti-Ukrainian POV-pushing by an active editor in good standing during two months of 2022,[38] citing the rationale-free and POV “historical articles” RFC.[39]  —Michael Z. 17:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    That's why the lead should only summarize statements already mentioned in the body, without repeating or adding references. If you consider this guideline controversial, you can propose changing it.
    Until then, statements that may be controversial should self-evidently be well referenced in the body, not in the lead. — 89.206.112.10 (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kievan_Rus%27/Archive_6&oldid=1170288221"