Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Kyivan Rus, irrelevant Ukrainian neologism. Drivel matching term like Istanbulic (Eastern Roman Empire)

Kyivan Rus is 21st century Ukrainian nationalist ivention. It was never mentioned as Kyivan Rus in any reputable or unreputable source prior 21st century. Only Kievan Rus. Even If Encyclopedia Britannica asumed this laughable neologism, it was never mentioned prior 21st century. Kievan Rus is historical terminology and terminus technicus --Kovanja (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That is untrue. See Google Books Ngram.

The fact is Kievan Rus itself is a nineteenth-century Russian imperialist invention. In the nineteenth century Great-Russian historiography was laying claim to medieval Kyiv and insisted on the nonexistence of Ukrainians, in the twentieth Soviet historiography was promoting the brotherhood of Soviet peoples, and in the twenty-first Ukrainians are asserting their own decolonization. So what? Our job is to follow the reliable sources, including the Encyclopædia Britannica and a thousand others, and no amount of pejoratives will change these facts. —Michael Z. 23:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Seriously. Don't you think 19th century Russian imperialists had better things to be doing than fussing over making sure that the romanised name of a particular city is romanised the so-called 'Russian' way rather than the 'Ukranian' way? (which is an absurd notion to begin with, that ANY romanisation could be either 'Russian' or 'Ukranian', because neither of them uses the Roman alphabet at all). You maybe haven't noticed that we don't call the capital of Russia Moskva in English. It's totally absurd to claim that there was some grand Russian plot sustained over 200 years to make sure that English speakers spelt Kiev the 'Russian' way, while not even making the slightest attempt to get us to spell Moscow the Russian way.

But you've pretty much declared your mission on Wikipedia is to right great wrongs; a word of advice, though: the Ukrainians' cause will not be advanced by attempts to use the English language as turf to have a pissing contest with the Russians in. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you really supporting Kovanja’s screed about “Ukrainian nationalists” and their “drivel”? Thousands of reliable sources use Kyivan Rus. Many also tell us that Kiev is Russian and Kyiv Ukrainian. Do you need me to provide a list of citations? We should respect Wikipedia’s guidelines, its consensus decisions, and follow WP:RS, and use them to back up our assertions, and not invent Ukrainian plots and respond with accusations if someone observes that Kyivan Rus is used in English. And it’s not fair to accuse me of fabricating “plots”: if you are claiming there was no forcible Russification during most of three centuries, then I suggest research this subject matter. —Michael Z. 22:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What kind of decolonization are talking about, no Ukrainians even lived in Kiev prior 20th century and foudnation of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic. Majority was Russian and largest minority was Jewish. Most of modern day Kiev was built by architects and builders from St. Petersburg and Moscow. Old Kiev was destroyed in 13th century by Batu Khan. Original name of state was just Rus or in Byzantine sources Ῥωσία. Yes Kievan Rus is academical terminology for period of Russian history, long before modern dy Ukrainain nation was fabricated in 19th century Austria with Lwow flag.(Far from Russian Kiev) --90.181.92.64 (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to English-language Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines for citing reliable sources, at WP:CITE, and for neutral point of view at WP:NPOV. Be aware that your edits are in a topic that is subject to discretionary sanctions. Thanks for your contributions. —Michael Z. 13:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is there an apostrophe? is that a wikipedia invention?

basically title. I'm a little ignorant about this. Starzoner (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Nah. It's been around for a couple of decades among academic scholars. It's a diacritic supposed to represent an old Slavonic "soft sign" sound. Some scholars use it, some don't. And even some of those that do italicize it as a foreign word. The main argument for it is that when "Rus" becomes possessive it is rendered "Rusian", which leads to the tendency for spell-checkers to correct it to "Russian". So keeping it "Rus'ian" or even just maintaining the possessive purely as "Rus'" (e.g. "Rus'-Byzantine relations" rather than "Rus'ian-Byzantine relations") is a simple way to keep it different. Walrasiad (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Starzoner, the apostrophe ’ or prime ′ is used in scholarly romanization of the Cyrillic alphabet, when words are discussed and the original spelling is important to convey in Latin characters. It’s been in use since the nineteenth century. East Slavic Русь or archaic Роусь = Rus’. The soft sign ь is a modifier that changes the pronunciation of the preceding consonant, normally transcribed as a j-coloured consonant in IPA, like /rusʲ/. This is absent in native English, but we do see the tilde serving the same function in Spanish, as in señor, pronounced /seˈnʲor/ (also transcribed /seˈɲor/).

This apostrophe is meaningless in normal English, and useless in copy for a general audience. Perhaps its consistent use signals that Rus is an exotic word and not a typo, or that the writer possesses secret knowledge, but it is also a distraction (as this discussion attests).

Yes, it helps differentiate Rusian from a misspelling of Russian, but this word little-used and I’ve never seen it in any dictionary. Rus’ian with an apostrophe obviously isn’t the romanization of any Slavic word, and is almost never used.

There’s no reason to ever use Rusian, since Rus is both a noun and adjective (according to the OED). Good style is just “Rus territories,” or “territories of Rus.” —Michael Z. 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing how many RS actually use the apostrophe versus don't. I suspect NGRAM isn't any help here since it probably counts instances of "Rus'" as instances of "Rus", unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to work. A name without the skeuomorphic apostrophe from transliteration better satisfies all five WP:CRITERIA. —Michael Z. 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I would certainly support a move to a form without the apostrophe, although I suspect there is a strong “pro-apostrophe lobby” ( things can never be simple here can they ;-))—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I’d support it. I suggest you post an RFC to gauge acceptance and add a note at relevant WikiProjects. If it’s about the orthography of Rus(’) in any context, including the scope of article naming and body copy it still needn’t be affected by discussions regarding the spelling of K**van. Most relevant article titles are listed in Rus. —Michael Z. 19:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

+1 Lev!vich 03:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent reverts

AndriiDr,

I said take it to the talk page, discuss here and until stop reverting. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I'm sure that an editor should start a discussion and prove why an edit without sources should be here, before adding it, especially if it has already been undone. Otherwise, it should be reverted. I think it makes no sense to argue with you why controversial edits without sources are unacceptable. Please explain me, why you are canceling my rollback? This user falsifies sources in articles in which you actively participate (link). It looks very strange that you prefer not to see it. --AndriiDr (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

What I see something sourced, which was removed, but has been part of the article a longer period. At this point here has to be the case discussed per our policies. Now I ping for you @Noraskulk:, whom with you have the debate (the case should be discussed here transparently in front of other editors to follow and see). In case the user would not engage here for a reasonable time, you may proceed with your edits (but I suggest you to wait at least one week). Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC))

• I don't want the user AndriiDr to take offense at me. I thought you were Gaudi9223, because the edit you are returning was first added by the Gaudi9223 user. Noraskulk (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"Kyivan"?

As I understand it, a number of articles (including Rus' people and others) were vandalized. If I don't have time to fix it today or tomorrow, I will ask a friend of the administrator. Noraskulk (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

There’s the public signal that attempts to normalize ignoring wp:assume good faith. I assume it refers to this edit that uses the normal adjective derived from Kyiv. Used in academic literature. —Michael Z. 14:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand anything but I agree. I was referring to the editor AndriiDr, who for some reason cancels only my edits in Wikipedia Noraskulk (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

You reported the issue on October 20, but I reverted your edits on October 25. Not bad. I have a business proposal for you. --AndriiDr (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

An offer i can't refuse. Noraskulk (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyiv Respelling

Is there consensus that the moving to Kyiv of the city formerly known on WP as Kiev has an effect on this article's title? I've already seen people piping "Kyivan Rus'" here from Ukraine-related pages and it seems only a matter of time before the first move request comes through.

I'd personally say that Kievan/Kyivan on this article is a separate issue from the spelling of the city and should remain at Kievan Rus' unless reliable sources prefer Kyivan, but that's just my opinion.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus. But the driveby editors coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia do not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I supported the name change, but never thought it would be used to change articles such as this.   // Timothy :: talk  19:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you must be new to Wikipedia. Welcome. This is what happens here. Walrasiad (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No it is not... not normally with historical articles. Metro stations, sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The word Kyivan, an adjective and noun derived from Kyiv, is part of the name Kyivan Rus, however you choose to spell them. While updating, I’ve chosen to avoid getting too far into articles about medieval Kyivan Rus, hoping that this would eventually become obvious to everyone. But I’ve already encountered articles that refer to Kyiv, the Kyivans, the Kyivan church, and Kyivan Rus (e.g. history of Kyiv), so the question is not going to wait too long for us to starting arguing about it. (Some of you may be old enough to remember the huge wiki-war about moving “Lemberg” to “Lvov.”) —Michael Z. 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's funny how referring to usage like Kievan Rus' is dismissed in the move request as irrelevant to the question, but turn around and the move is taken as a reason to change the title to Kyivan Rus' regardless of the common name. The goal has always been the total suppression of "Kiev". Srnec (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dismissed by whom? Goal of whom? You trying to start a conspiracy theory, or are you accusing someone specific of some specific malign act?

It seems self-evident to me 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 Burman, and mix up different spellings in one article. —Michael Z. 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to this comment by Levivich: Also, I disagree that your ngram is a "better way", because, for example, searching for "of Kiev" or "in Kiev" will pick up all the various things called "Battle of Kiev", "Siege of Kiev", "Kiev Offensive". In other words, usage with regards to, e.g., battles is irrelevant to the question of the title of the city's article. Yet somehow the title of that article is relevant to the name of historical battles. As for the goal of suppressing "Kiev", it is apparent from the spate of follow up moves that have no basis in sources whatsoever. All that talk about COMMONNAME and now this? Maybe it wasn't all about policy after all. (Of course it wasn't. Neither side cares deeply about interpreting wiki rules. And that includes me. It's not a conspiracy, just normal human behaviour. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law.) Srnec (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Srnec, there is some truth to your statement above. Although when you said When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law, I think it is actually even more than that: majority of enwiki editors have conscious or unconscious biases, including me, (that result in WP:Systematic bias) and those systemic biases direct their editing actions here on enwiki. This resulted in pro-Kiev editors supporting "Kiev" spelling because they wanted/desired that spelling to continue being used (and over the course of 10+ years to support that desire to continue using "Kiev" they used whatever means where necessary: when reliable sources supported "Kiev" - they used those, when reliable sources switched to "Kyiv" in 2019 - they switched to using Google Ngram/Trends/Searches). I will leave you with this, though: we should at least try to overcome our systemic biases and look at the evidence as objectively and impartially, as we possibly can; in this case, if we look at the spelling of Kyivan Rus' objectively, you will see that it is a derivative from Kyiv, and and as such it should be spelled Kyivan Rus'--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Myanmar article and see just how much the word Burmese (not Burman) is used. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not what seems evident to you that matters. COMMONNAME and recognizability to our readers does. Here's an ngram for fun. No chicken to distract. Walrasiad (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Yes, Mzajac, I suppose that’s why we refer to the “Myanmar Campaign” and “Myanmar Railway” as well as the “Treaty of Bratislava” here on Wikipedia. “Burma “ is after all just an adjectival use of the noun Burma which is now Myanmar and in Slovakia they find Pressburg to be a vestige of Austrian colonialism, so obviously what English language sources call these things is irrelevant. </sarcasm>—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Ermenrich, not a perfect example. But it is “Kievan” that is seen as a vestige of Russian colonialism to Kyivans in Kyiv. Ironic that the principle is being used to support its continuation while our language is changing, no? —Michael Z. 13:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The feelings of modern day Ukrainians are irrelevant to how a polity is called that existed nearly a thousand years ago and is equally claimed by Russians and Belarusians (and didn't speak modern Ukrainian anyway!). Ngram shows that "Kievan Rus'" is by far the preferred spelling in English.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You brought up feelings. Feelings don’t affect our guidelines, but they do influence our choice when the guidelines’ result is not cut-and-dried, and they offer us the opportunity to interpret them. Feelings, if you want to call it that, are also recognized as significant by WP:BIAS.

Academic and popular literature use both Kyivan Rus and Kievan Rus. Wikipedia’s default choice, after a long delay, is now Kyiv, accompanied self-evidently by its derivative adjective and common noun Kyivan. There are more Russians and Russianists in the English-language world and Wikipedia than there are Ukrainians and Ukrainianists, and this fact along with the momentum of educational systems that are still shedding imperial legacies, is responsible for a WP:systemic bias against our natural choice according to current English. The entity Kyivan Rus was neither Russian nor Ukrainian, so we would and should use the normal term in its name, except for a bias that favours the nineteenth-century Russianism. —Michael Z. 15:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If a majority of sources refer to an entity a certain way, then that is how we are to refer to it. There is no Wiki-policy that says that we disregard this when someone alleges "systemic bias" of our sources, which is an inherently subjective notion anyway. The only reason for insisting on such a change is nationalism, which is its own form of "systemic bias". No Ukrainian is oppressed by reading about Kievan Rus', which is the more common form of the name in English. If they want to read about Kyivan Rus', they're welcome to do that at another website or in their own language.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've written many historical articles which deal with real colonialism, and we've had to make more difficult decisions that this. The default has always been usage in sources and recognizability to readers, which is whom Wikipedia serves. So in historical articles, we've had to use Madras (rather than Chennai), Calicut (rather than Kozhikode), Cannanore (rather than Kannur), Cochin (rather than Kochi), etc. Kiev should be treated the same way. It is fine to make a note of alternative names and spellings of the modern city at the beginning, but the article title and name use throughout the article should adhere to common usage in English-language sources. Walrasiad (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A strong argument. Would you suggest in this article we spell the name of the city Kyiv and refer to its people as Kyivans, who live in Kievan Rus? Balkanizing usage by subject matter leads to conflicts in articles that don’t fit the stereotyped scope like Principality of Kiev, and broad ones like History of Kyiv, and will lead to endless arguments on a subject the community thought it just resolved after months. Our guidelines ask for consistency. —Michael Z. 20:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Our policies require to use the most recognizable name in English though, if it exists.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That wording doesn’t sum up our policies. Consensus is that Kyiv is the primary spelling. But you’re already aware of that. —Michael Z. 15:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any issue in writing in the same sentence that the Kievan Rus' was a Medieval state which capital was Kyiv. It may be followed by a note explaining that Kiev is (rather than "was") an accepted alternative spelling for Kyiv, if the numerous sections on the topic are not already sufficient. We may get inspiration from the way Peking/Beijing is handled in similar situation. Place Clichy (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, merely that in historical articles, the name of the city be spelled "Kiev" and its people as "Kievan" or "Rus'" (if you want to avoid "Russian"). Imposing modern spellings anachronistically leads to unfamiliar names for historical entities and figures. Balkanization is what you inevitably chose when voting for the name change in spelling in the modern city article. Common name and reocgnizability doesn't cease being the criteria for other articles. If consistency and quarrels really worries you, maybe you should have thought of that in advance. Walrasiad (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought we all won when a moratorium was lifted and Wikipedians supported consensus to title that article correctly. And of course, I have been on Wikipedia long enough to have thought of this, which is why for now I am editing articles where consensus might be easier to reach.

Anyway, not sure what you mean by “anachronistically.” Kyivan Rus and Kievan Rus are both modern spellings in use, and the eighteenth-century colonial version has given some ground to the other in the last half century. The name wasn’t synchronistic with the existence of Kyivan Rus, not in English, Russian, nor Ukrainian. Neither spelling is particularly recognizable to the average English reader, but one has the advantage of using a spelling derived from the modern spelling of a more famous subject. Maybe you can hone your argument for keeping after you’ve read my comments. —Michael Z. 21:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia serves the general English-speaking public, and recognizability is the first priority in WP:CRITERIA. "Kievan Rus" is not obscure, it is a well-known entity from history and is far and away the most common name in English-language history books and general reference works. Wikipedia criteria for an article doesn't end because another article happens to change its name. There is no short-cut, I am afraid. For historical articles, you're going to have to go on a case-by-case basis, via RMs, with reliable sources from general English-language resources. FWIW, most of us who work primarily in historical articles haven't been following - and frankly don't much care - about the modern Kyiv/Kiev article. But we care - and we care quite a lot - about "Kievan Rus". Walrasiad (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s an interpretation of only part of the story. Recognizability is not more important than other criteria, and that is why we have a preferred spelling and its derivative, Kyiv and Kyivan, and we have guidelines about consistency. Then there is common sense and good writing style. —Michael Z. 15:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac, this isn't about "balkanizing usage", this is about using right name in right context. There was no WWII-era "siege of Saint Petersburg", despite our article about that city being named this way, there was siege of Leningrad (and, likewise, Bolshevik armed insurrection of 1917 didn't happen in Saint Petersburg, but in Petrograd). "Blindly copying" article name from one subject to another without regard for proper context and recognizability of the name of the subject in question (in our case, Kievan Rus') will only bring more and more problems not much dissimilar to the aforementioned example. While there are indeed subjects for which such "consitency approach" would apply easily (such as, say, Kyiv metropolitan area, or Subdivisions of Kyiv, or Geography of Kyiv) this is not always the case, and certainly not the case for historical articles, which, among other things, might involve geographical renaming issues, examples of which include aforementioned SPb, and, arguably, recent push from Kiev to Kyiv, which, despite not being "rename proper" (locally, the name remainded same, no specific acts on renaming, similar to, say, this one (in Russian), were issued), has ramifications akin to geographical renaming. City is named Beijing, but article about historical event is Battle of Peking (1900). Kolkata but Siege of Calcutta. Seryo93 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

English-language historiography should be the only guide here. If the majority usage in historiography for the name of this polity is Kievan Rus′, or Kyivan Rus′, then that should be the name of the article, period. The same goes for other historical polities named after Kiev, such as Principality of Kiev, Kiev Voivodeship, Kiev Viceroyalty and Kiev Governorate, and other specific proper nouns. Place Clichy (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

English-language history writing uses both spellings. Historians who use Kyiv use Kyivan Rus. Because common sense. See this Google Scholar search for plenty of evidence. —Michael Z. 11:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In Google scholar, “Kievan Rus” has 16,500 results, which 8.5 times more than “Kyivan Rus” with 1,950 hits (most of which seem to be written by Ukrainian scholars). Hanberke (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Those numbers are not real. See WP:GOOGLE. Nor do those numbers determine our naming. Please see the recent move of Kyiv for proof, and talk:Kyiv for a good example of what does. —Michael Z. 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, wp:COMMONNAME does, a policy you seem determined to ignore. Furthermore, your Google Scholar search seems to run counter to your own point. With a few exceptions, the results are recent and by Ukrainians publishing in books with titles in Ukrainian [1] [2], or are in some way about modern Ukraine ("Kyivan Rus Park", Ukraine and Russia and several actually use "Kievan Rus'" in the title or text [3]. If, on the other hand, I search "Kievan Rus", all results use "Kievan Rus" [4].—Ermenrich (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hanberke. English-language historiography clearly seems to prefer Kievan Rus to Kyivan Rus. Blind "common sense" is not always the best judge here, otherwise the article for the Treaty of Tilsit would be located at Treaty of Sovetsk, and the Moscow Kiyevsky railway station would be called Kyivska. Place Clichy (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It has already been proposed to rename Moscow Kiyevsky railway station to Moscow Kyivan railway station.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that sounds like a neutral unbiased proposal. Place Clichy (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my proposal to use the example of Constantinople -> Istanbul as guideline, where a boundary date (1923) is used to determine usage in articles. As far as English language usage is concerned, Kiev -> Kyiv is a name change. And for exactly the same identical reasons i.e. Istanbul is (and has always been) the local Turkish pronunciation of Constantinople, but the English transliteration of Constantinople -> Istanbul only began being insisted upon by the Turkish nationalist government after 1923, and adopted by foreign governments and press c.1930. I propose to similarly adopt 1995 as the boundary date in this instance, with all historical uses before 1995 as "Kiev", and after 1995 as "Kyiv". "Common sense" doesn't prevent usage of Constantinople for historical articles before 1923, while still having Istanbul, History of Istanbul, Timeline of Istanbul, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would support such a proposal, but it would require a wide-range of input and the necessary discussion is likely to become a nationalist shitshow, unfortunately.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a horrible proposal. —Michael Z. 18:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reasoning. Do you have any reasons for why we should not follow WP:COMMONNAME? Do you deny that most sources historically (and particularly about the Middle Ages) use the spelling Kiev?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you assert that most sources, historically, changed usage in 1995? If not, then what is the basis for this proposal, or what does your challenging question have to do with it? —Michael Z. 02:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need to mess the historical names with today's anti-Russian feelings? What if next govt abruptly decides to rename Kyiv to another name? Ex. Astana to Nursultan. What was done was done in history. We may fervently wish, but just can't revert what happened in the past. Yes, until 1990s, the city was, this way or that way, historically known as Kiev and entered into English-language historiography in that form. Just hover over the left-side languages bar in Kyiv article, almost all other languages use Kiev. Today it is Kyiv, but in the past it was Kiev. And what about Dnieper river? Dnipro? Once started, there will be no end. Hanberke (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal, as it matches what is actually done in other situations where the English name has changed.--Khajidha (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Support Ermenrich, Khajidha, etc. Just because the main page's name changed, does not imply to change everywhere in a blind way, especially back in time in historical context.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

I agree with KIENGIR. Jingiby (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

May be someone would start an RfC about thehistorical uses of Kiev/Kyiv? I would personally be ok with 1991, 1917, or possibly an earlier date, but it is really tiring to argues this in every tangentially related article--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we're going through the same arguments in Anthony of Kyiv and Battle of Kiev (1918) and who knows how many more will pop up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And even at Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:,

well, then I have to draw the attention on the events in the Principality of Kiev, it's talk, my personal talk, and @K.e.coffman: personal talk. Trolling (arguments) like "In every page in English WP containing Kiev, Kiev will be changed to Kyiv. It is just the matter of time. Excluding name of dishes like "Chiken Kiev" of cause" or "There will not be Kiev in English Wikipedia, only Kyiv. (exception for chicken-Kiev, LOL)" are annoying, so these issues should be handled at one global instance, not necessarily at every article's talk after mass replacement happened...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

I believe that the user has zero useful contribution and should not be editing the English Wikipedia anymore (have a look of their talk page). However, they already managed to personally attack me today at ANI, and I can not block them. Somebody else has to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:,

heh, he just trolled again my talk page with an edit-warring notice, although I did not touch the page since a while and opened the talk, while he was continung edit warring with K.e.coffmann ([5]). Near to WP:NOTHERE.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

Yes, but at this point there is very little I can do about it, because I am involved. Any other administrator can block them, though normally admins try not to go into Eastern European issues without a good reason, so the user likely will be able to continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:,

would you please supervise the events as an uninvolved admin, concerning this ([6]) and the above four entries where we outlined the quite problematic and concerning behavior of this user? Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

@Ad Orientem:, see ([7]), the user continues edit warring meanwhile pretending not to understand our policies. 4th revert so far.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

I brought the matter to ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' as a polity

The argument seems to be about whether to treat the name as "[[Kyiv]]av [[Rus]]", vs "[[Kievan Rus]]", whereas "Kievan" is treated as a misspelling to be corrected. I don't believe that is the case; see nGram. Since Ukraine's independence, "Kyivan Rus" has gained ground, but the predominant spelling is "Kievan Rus". WP:Consistency (with sources) and WP:COMMONNAME apply. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. Kyivan is the normal common noun and adjective derived from Kyiv. Kievan is an alternate spelling based on the dated spelling of the name. And usage will continue to change. See, for example, the official site of Unesco’s world heritage sites: Kyiv: Saint-Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, where the inclusion criteria explain its significance as “a result of the cultural interaction of the Kyivan Rus’, the Byzantine Empire and Western Europe.”

My opinion is that the current spelling should normally be used, should be preferred over the dated spelling, should be preferred in mixed contexts, except where there’s some justification to diverge. But editors are working hard to justify not updating after the article move. —Michael Z. 19:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If it’s an outdated spelling, why do a majority of WP:RS use it? I assume that your problem with it is not that it’s “outdated”, but that it’s based on Russian. That being the case, why not be honest about that?—Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Do the majority really use it as of right now? We just moved the main article because it is expected that either currently or very soon they are using Kyiv. You may have already seen it, but I posted a short list of examples at talk:Kyiv#Related articles.  —Michael Z. 22:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See [8]. You've already disputed Google Scholar results, so I won't bother again, but this Ngram very clearly that the average person still calls this "Kievan Rus" rather than "Kyivan Rus". The NGRAM doesn't even show an uptick in "Kyivan" since Ukrainian independence.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not dispute Google Scholar results. WP:GOOGLE disputes the use of the inaccurate numbers at the top of each Google search results page for any use. Anyway, you seem to be re-arguing the renaming of the article Kyiv. Wrong place. I learned a new term yesterday, special pleading. —Michael Z. 15:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what you choose to call the modern city, but you can't just dismiss the Ngram in favor of Kievan Rus because you don't like the results.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Google Ngram results were submitted before last week’s decision on Kyiv. It didn’t ignore any facts, and it also considered much more than that, including from every anti-Kyiv argument, and weighted them all appropriately. (Have you read the decision? It was unimpeachable.) Our style manual should spell the city’s name and terms derived from it according to the standard we have set. These arguments are trying to re-litigate the same question, or delay or limit its acceptance. —Michael Z. 18:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The decision affection the name of the modern city of Kyiv, not other articles about historical polities where the use of Kiev is still the norm. The Ngram shows use for Kievan Rus over Kyivan Rus. You can't just argue that the modern name has changed so we have to change historical names that are not necessarily changing the same way. You haven't shown any evidence for a comparable change in favor of "Kyivan Rus".--Ermenrich (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the decision affects the title of the article about the 800-year-old city. For all other articles, wp:consistency should be respected. This shouldn’t be argued, exceptions to it should. —Michael Z. 21:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove the "Rus" and you get the same result. Kiev is the common name of the city. Still. Srnec (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess you’ll have to appeal the RM of Kyiv after the six-month moratorium ends. See you there. —Michael Z. 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Kyiv RM was closed with a move based in part on the strength of WP:MODERNPLACENAME which deals with a situation like this one. "Kievan Rus'" is the common name for the polity in question; it's not undergone a change similar to "Kyiv". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It definitely is undergoing such a change. You can do the research to see how far along it is if you like, but everything in the decision to move Kyiv applies here. Here are some examples:

• Dmytro Doroshenko (1975), A Survey of Ukrainian History, Winnipeg: Humeniuk Publication Foundation.
• Serhiy Yekelchyk (2007), Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation, Oxford University Press.
• Serhii Plokhy (2015), The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine.
• Anne Applebaum (2017), Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine, Toronto: McClellan & Stewart.
• Natalie Kononenko (2019), Ukrainian Epic and Historical Song: Folklore in Context, University of Toronto Press. Michael Z. 20:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Unesco (2020), Kyiv: Saint-Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. “The property is a result of the cultural interaction of the Kyivan Rus’, the Byzantine Empire and Western Europe.” [Unesco adopted Kyiv, including derivative Kyivan Rus’, at their convention in June–July 2019.]

 —Michael Z. 19:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: "change is in the air" [9] -- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Besides, these selective sources have already been presented at Talk:Kiev and were not convincing there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please. Obviously they are “selective” as they are meant to provide examples. They were one hundred percent convincing as to the existence of these specific sources. Please don’t write it as if it were a smear on my integrity. —Michael Z. 19:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not disagree that these examples exist. At the top of this section, I provided this nGram for 1990 to 2019. Since Ukraine's independence, "Kyivan Rus" has gained ground, but the predominant spelling is "Kievan Rus". WP:CONSISTENT (with sources) and WP:COMMONNAME apply. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying about the guidelines linked in wp:consistency? They recommend that titles should be consistent, e.g., with the main article Kyiv and a hundred other articles, and that article text should be consistent, e.g., using the name Kyiv and its derivative noun and adjective Kyivan and (rare) Kyivite. —Michael Z. 19:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject", the subject being "[[Kievan Rus]]". (Fixed the link to the guideline; sorry, my mistake). I provided the nGram, twice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No, wp:consistent is one of the criteria, below that. Start at the next sentence, “There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.” Consistency is one point: “Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.”

But wp:consistenCY also links to other guidelines, including wp:TITLECON and MOS:ARTCON. We should use the spellings Kyiv, Kyivan, unless there’s a reason that trumps consistency. Consistency is arguably more important for reader recognition and understanding than thinking they’re too slow to realize Kyivan Rus is a spelling of Kievan Rus, when Kyiv is also spelled Kiev. —Michael Z. 22:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is overlooking the fact that until practically yesterday, Wikipedia was consistent in its use of the Kiev spelling (minus maybe a few justified exceptions like FC Dynamo Kyiv), and that after repeated renaming discussions that consistently considered Kiev to be a most valid and common English name for the city (see 15 pages of archives at Talk:Kyiv/Naming). Somehow, there was a successful RM which resulted in the article about the city being moved to Kyiv, nobody disputes that. This discussion was BTW closed as a "rough consensus" only, with arguments recognized as valid on both sides by the closer. You can hardly use this discussion to blindly apply "consistency" to derivative names that follow their own historiographical conventions or are separate proper nouns such as Kievan Rus. Place Clichy (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

In short, yes we can. —Michael Z. 23:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Farewell good old Kiev then! Hanberke (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hanberke, I wouldn't say so - the proponent(s) of Kyivan Rus are loud here, but they're clearly in the minority, and per Talk:Kyiv#Related articles it looks like consensus may be to leave historical articles with Kiev.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You are right, but, frankly, this will wreak a naming havoc in English language historiography, at least in English Wikipedia. Kiev is a historically well-established name, a brand; and people around the world, and very me, just don't care about its origin, whether it was transliterated from Russian, Old Varangian, or Arabic. Just check the other languages' Wiki articles on Kiev/Kyiv. One can Find&Replace Kiev to Kyiv in English Wikipedia only. But, what about German, French, Spanish, Indonesian, Malayalam and almost all other wikis? And the entire generations of academicians with their related works? They are already there, I mean published in millions of copies and reside in hundreds, thousands of libraries all around the world, plus all those historical content on the web. What is the good in replacing that? Just can't understand. My final say is to support and maintain Old Kiev / Modern Kyiv approach with 1995 as cut-off date. Hanberke (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI:

In November 2019 Encyclopædia Britannica Online renamed the article about the city and edited its copy “Kyiv, national capital, Ukraine” and uses the derived adjective in Kyivan Rus and Kyivan Mohyla Academy. At the same time they updated the article “Ukraine” to use Kyiv, too. That includes the entire history section, starting in prehistory and including Kyivan Rus. It introduces these names with the formula Kyiv (Kiev) and Kyivan (Kievan) Rus when they first appear in a major section, and uses the adjective in the Kyivan state, Kyivan dynasty, etcetera.

In March 2020, Britannica changed the body copy in “Vladimir I, grand prince of Kiev” to use Kyiv for the city, but retains Kievan Rus and Kievan realm in this article. For now. —Michael Z. 03:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

They must be suffering the same trouble we're suffering. FYI, on Google Trends, apparently the only people looking for "Kyivan Rus" live in Ukraine. Rest of the world searches for "Kievan Rus". Walrasiad (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Searchability is not a trouble for either of us. Search engines understand alternate spellings, and using redirects, cross-references, and parenthetical mentions like “Kyivan Rus (Kievan Rus)” according to our normal guidelines make it completely moot.

What Britannica has is an editorial policy and people to implement it, over time. They seem to be using Kyiv and Kyivan Rus in more historical articles on all periods as they are updated. Can’t tell yet if they intend to do it only in articles related to Ukrainian history, but I suspect it will eventually be uniform.

The unique “trouble” we have is our consensus structure, where an intransigent minority of editors who have created a selective set of exceptions to our normal practice after the move of the main article by a larger part of the community. The use of inconsistent spelling doesn’t serve our readers, especially in topics that cross the magical August-24,-1991-to-October-1995 gulf, and the vague language of the “in historical articles” decision will waste our time arguing over individual “edge case” articles. Oh well, there’s no lack of volunteer help, no deadline, and that’s how it is, for now. —Michael Z. 16:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

"Later, as these territories, now part of modern central Ukraine and Belarus, fell to the Gediminids, the powerful, largely Ruthenized Grand Duchy of Lithuania drew heavily on Rus' cultural and legal traditions." No citations on two statements in this sentence. "Largely Ruthenized" and "drew heavily on Rus' cultural and legal traditions." 78.56.254.37 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request 15 January 2021

I request that: "According to most scholars, the Varangians were Norman traders, consisting of Vikings, Danes and Balts" be changed to "According to most scholars, the Varangians were Norse traders and Vikings", and that: "the linguistic arguments mounted by nationalist scholars, if the proto-Rus' were Danes or Finns, they must have quickly become nativized, adopting Slavic languages and other cultural practices." be changed to "the linguistic arguments mounted by nationalist scholars, if the proto-Rus' were Norse in origin, they must have quickly become nativized, adopting Slavic languages and other cultural practices." XenotimeX (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Kyiv the capital of Ukraine

I think we should change the city name "Kiev" to "Kyiv". "Kyiv" is the proper romanized name of Ukraine's capital. Wikipedia already renamed (and has some other articles) with its proper name. Ukraine launched KyivNotKiev campaign. Kyiv's government official website is spelled with Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kram333r (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed. Kievan Rus is the far more common usage in English, and this is an entirely separate issue from how we spell the modern name of Ukraine's capital. The Ukrainian government doesn't have any control over the English language.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed that user Ermenrich, doesn't let me change the name of "Saint Sophia Cathedral of Kiev" to "Saint Sophia Cathedral of Kyiv". The same thing applies to "Kiev Pechersk Lavra". Also he reverts my changes on capital name. Why I can't rename the capital of Ukraine from Kiev to Kyiv, when it's the correct romanized name of the city? I'm not talking about renaming "Kievan Rus'", as Ermenrich said: "Kievan Rus is the far more common usage in English"; "The Ukrainian government doesn't have any control over the English language." I want to add correct romanized name of Ukrane's capital. Kiev is wrong.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kram333r (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC) 

This has been discussed countless times already, including in this talk page. In the Kyiv talk page (Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles), it was agreed that "Kiev" would be left alone in historical articles and there would need to be consensus to make any change to this. Even if you think something is wrong, please refrain from making such changes again after you've been reverted and follow WP:BRD and WP:CON. I highly doubt this consensus will change though. Mellk (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kram333r: You really need to use the talk page rather than constantly reverting everyone. You've been explained why your edits were undone and have been asked nicely not to edit war. It is quite a miracle you have not been blocked yet. Mellk (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Clearly no consensus is about to develop for this and re-litigation is not a helpful practice. WP:SNOW, in addition to the solid and numerically superior policy based arguments against moving, encourages an early close to this. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Kievan Rus' → Kyivan Rus' – Dear all! KYIVAN RUS' was the state were Kyiv was the capital - there for normal spelling should be Kyivan Rus' (under Tenth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names held in New York, 31 July-9 August 2012, were recommended that the system, as set out in the document entitled Romanization system in Ukraine, be adopted as the international system for the romanization of Ukrainian geographical names https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/10th-uncsgn-docs/econf/E_CONF.101_144_Report%20of%20the%2010th%20UNCSGN_e.pdf). For some other detailes plaese see KyivNotKiev. To some conservative persons with thinking that: Kievan Rus is the far more common usage in English, I would like to pay attantion that KIEV-an is pronunciation of the ukrainanin capital in Soviet (Russion impire) manner which was wrongly used by some english-speaking persons.http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CK%5CY%5CKyivanRushDA.htm P.S. When Albert Einstein investigated that Isaac Newton made a bug - he had a right and obligation to fix it. I belive we will not be so ossified to be affreid to correct the error. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/kyiv-not-kiev-why-spelling-matters-in-ukraines-quest-for-an-independent-identity/ B.Lukashyk (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ukraine didn’t exist when Kievan Rus’ did, so it doesn’t get to decide what we call Kievan Rus’ in English, sorry. This has been discussed numerous times. There is no reason for trumping wp:COMMONNAME.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Kiev - is spelling of the name of Kyiv in russian language and is not a historical name of Kyiv. In old slavic language name of city was written as Кыѥвъ where letter ы is spealing in latin as y. In some old european maps we may also find next name of the city in latin form - Kyovia, Chios, Kijoiua etc. There for Kiev is not historical name like "Constantinople" - it is just actual russian language pronunciation of the name of the ukrainian capital. N.B. Very important is to understand that Rus is not the same as Russian. After the Kyivan Rus collapsed - its parts were caled for a centures as Rvssia (actual western part of Ukraine and eastern part of Poland), Rvssia Rubra (actual central and southern part of Ukraine), Rvssia Alba (actual northern and eastern parts of Ukraine, southern part of Belarus, western part of Russian federation) - as You may see on the added historical maps. P.S. Russian Federation and russian language didn’t exist when Kievan Rus’ did as well (Russian federation on that time had another name - Moscovia and till XV century Moscovia was Mongolian colony). But if You prefer to use russian-language transliterations for Ukrainian place names - be so kind to say it clearly. B.Lukashyk (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. Kiev is not Russian, it is English. The fact that Russia didn't exist at the time is therefore irrelevant. Also, the Russian pronunciation of Kiev is not the same as the English one, you're confused. The name in Old East Slavic is just as irrelevant as the name in modern Ukrainian. I suggest you read the policy I cited, WP:COMMONNAME.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note - Topic banned editor *Support, with all five of the titling WP:CRITERIA in mind. —Michael Z. 13:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  except perhaps the fact that you cannot partticipate in anything Kyiv-related until 1 December 2021. Back on topic, no new arguments in comparison with previous discussion at #Kyiv Respelling (and foremost, the fact that in historical topics we shall evaluate commonity of name of subject in question, not blindly copying city name: [[K(ie/yi)van Rus']], not [[K(ie/yi)v]]an Rus'. Otherwise, we again arrive at "Siege of Saint Petersburg"). So, I'd rather WP:SNOW oppose (clarification added 19:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)) it. Seryo93 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Mzajac—blindlynx (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Ukrainian neologisms should not be reflected in Wikipedia titles. Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Kyiv is not neologism becouse it is not relatively recent or isolated word that may be in the process of entering common use. As well as Ukrainian language is not in the process of entering common use.B.Lukashyk (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME:

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.

Seriously. If I would receive 1$ for every time someone tries to shove political irredentist POV into history-related articles on Wikipedia, I'd be richer than all ruling clans of post-Soviet countries combined. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, clearly not the most common name in academic sources. In addition, the nominator has 27 edits which reminds me of multiple block evasion attempts in this editing area.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngram clearly shows this. Mellk (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and as all above. Namkongville (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per consensus on Kyiv/Kiev spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per detailed nomination as well as particularized responses, per Michael Z. and per blindlynx. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose emphatically, per comments above. We shouldn't have to relitigate this; it's a waste of time. Carlstak (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Short description

Please change the short description to "Medieval East Slavic state in present-day Belarus, western Russia, and Ukraine (879-1240)". Every reference defines it as "state". Finnic identity peripheral at best. Tribes identities disappeared. Alphabetical order countries. Small w western, with comma separating it only to Russia. 206.45.157.165 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Is it brief enough?

• Britannica (2016):[10] “historical state, Europe . . . first East Slavic state. It reached its peak in the early to mid-11th century.”
• The Columbia Encyclopedia (2018):[11] “medieval state of the Eastern Slavs. It was the earliest predecessor of modern Ukraine and Russia. Flourishing from the 10th to the 13th cent., it included nearly all of present-day Ukraine and Belarus and part of NW European Russia, extending as far N as Novgorod and Vladimir.”
• Encyclopedia of Ukraine (1988):[12] “The first state to arise among the Eastern Slavs. It took its name from the city of Kyiv, the seat of the grand prince from about 880 until the beginning of the 13th century.”

 —Michael Z. 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"According to Snorri, the people were called Suiones"

This is unlikely as Suiones is the Latin name for Swedes. Snorri would have used the Old Norse name - can someone check the what he actually says? Berig, perhaps?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

He did call it "Great Sweden", among other things, but we shouldn't refer directly to Snorri here, as he is a primary source.--Berig (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Whad does the ' mean?

David1776 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Cyrillic soft sign. Rus' = Русь. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Where can I find the transliteration chart that says that ь is ' ? David1776 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian/WP:RUS and Wikipedia:Romanization_of_Ukrainian/Ukrainian_National_transliteration_table (specially, section "Explicit soft sign and apostrophe"). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There are tables of relevant standard romanization systems here:

• Romanization of Belarusian#Standard systems for romanizing Belarusian
• Romanization of Russian#Transliteration table
• Romanization of Ukrainian#Tables of romanization systems

The BGN/PCGN system is primarily used for geographical names in English sources, but there is a Russian/UN system used internationally for this,[13], and other standard systems used for Belarusian and Ukrainian. The modified Library of Congress is more widely used in academic and popular-academic writing, including history, for all three languages. WP:RUS is an WP:original research essay by Wikipedians and should not be referred to without a good reason.

Typically, the Cyrillic soft sign is romanized as an apostrophe ( ʼ ) or prime mark ( ʹ ) in strict romanizations, especially in glossaries, for linguistics, or for bibliographic cataloguing, but omitted in general writing. Many sources retain the mark exceptionally in the name Rus: which helps to distinguish it from the traditional abbreviation Rus. for “Russian.” —Michael Z.

Mistake: Capital

Novgorod is not capital and awful to write something like that if you now documentary history of this lands. Sokol.Constantin (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You have sources that disagree with every other source on this page? Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The name of Kiev Rus should be Kyiv Rus. As it is the Ukrainian language, not Russian. If it is Kyiv it spells not originally for people that don't know the difference. For example, Paris is Paris spelling is ok, but if it would be Pares? So Kyiv is the capital of Ukraine now and it used to be Kyiv Rus in a past. Ukraine advising to be careful with this misunderstanding. Please do changes with respect to our old culture. Thank you YanaTr (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME is Kievan Rus', this is a historical article about a time when no "Russian" or "Ukrainian" language existed. The above page move discussion proved that the majority of English results in scholarly sources spell it like this. There are many other articles with historical names such as Battle of Stalingrad (not Volgograd) and Fall of Constantinople (not Istanbul). And you fall on your own sword with bringing up Paris, every English speaker pronounces it in a common way that is different to the way the French say it (Par-ee), while the Italians call it Parigi, etc. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Correct the spelling of Kiev to Kyiv 71.17.53.84 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is clearly a thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not necessary. There are no incidents of vandalism, there are no edit wars going on and editors have good discourse here in talk. The Impartial Truth (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Kyivan or Kievan Rus'

If modern Kyiv is called Kyiv why Rus' is Kievan?

1. Kyiv #KyivanRus #morekyiv 93.73.117.77 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a very valid point. ✔️

“Kievan” is in the primary Soviet language, Russian, whereas “Kyivan” is derived from the land's own language, Ukrainian.

I support “Kyivan” over an alternative moniker by their historical oppressors. The city is named after one of its founders, Kyi. ToniTurunen (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

After the main article was renamed Kyiv, a reactionary group of editors responded by voting to use the spelling “Kiev,” “in historical articles.” It seems to me that “Kyiv” is more appropriate in articles on the subject of the city, and articles on Ukrainian subjects, relating to any period. A more appropriate venue for this discussion would be at talk:Kyiv. —Michael Z. 15:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS. Calling other editors "reactionary" is an insult and impugns their motives and I'd ask you to please strike that word.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking out for their reputations. But reactionary is not insulting. My dictionary says it means “opposing reform,” and does not label it as pejorative or anything. If you believe opposing reform is negative, I won’t argue.

I have no personal beef with these editors and don’t impugn them. They expressed their opinions. I abide by the decision.

But since you bring up motives, let’s just mention Wikipedia guidelines and how they figure into WP:CONSENSUS that guides our practices. I have the right not to love a decision that I feel wasn’t a good one. About ninety editors participated in the consensus in a formal move request, anticipated for a full year and conducted over two and a half months, to use the spelling Kyiv in Wikipedia. The consensus was accompanied by a long, thoughtful explanation of the decision, referring to the arguments and to Wikipedia guidelines. Then in reaction to it, a smaller group of just over one third as many participated in a two-week RFC to restrict its implementation to subjects covering less than two percent of the city’s history. Neither the RFC request nor the decision provided a rationale for its disproportionately restrictive effect, and the result was apparently determined purely by majority vote of this smaller group. It ignored some important guideline principles and from over here looks rather like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Anyway, consensus changes, and I think this could be revisited or modified, and in time I hope propose a better procedure to resolve the issue.  —Michael Z. 18:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You're of course welcome not to strike it, but I'd be more careful. You've been topic banned from this area once, it could easily happen again if you bring an antagonistic, battleground mentality to it - which is what calling your opponents "reactionary" smacks of to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Touché, User:Ermenrich. I appreciate the air of unselfconscious irony. —Michael Z. 20:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I just want us all to get along and talk civilly. No one is harmed by the name of Kievan Rus, no one's life is at stake, there's no reason to personalize the dispute. Especially in these fraught times we need to make an effort to get along. I've seen enough assuming bad faith lately. You can read "unselfconscious irony" into that if you want. You'd presumably be unhappy if someone accused you of nationalism, right? The same applies to calling someone "reactionary", don't you think?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually an admin called me, specifically, an “ultranationalist.” It’s an inaccurate personal insult, but they refused to apologize or acknowledge that it was inappropriate, and I don’t recall that anyone stood up to defend me, even when I brought it to a related issue at ANI. I am not insulting anyone, but characterizing a collective act as an opposite reaction to an event.

I also feel hurt because it looks like you are trying to score points by bringing that up, by mentioning that you know about my previous topic ban, calling me “antagonistic,” practically in the same breath you lecture me about WP:BATTLEGROUND &c. I am trying to assume good faith, but maybe you could have taken this to my talk page instead of indulging in what is starting to add up to an attempt at a public shaming and a disruption to the actual discussion.

But it just occurs to me that you were probably there and might be taking it personally; I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, I meant no offence. Here, I replaced it with a neutral description instead of the word you object to. —Michael Z. 00:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Michael, first, being an admin, you are expected to know our policy and to avoid its misinterpretation. Our policy clearly says that modern names are not necessarily applicable to historical topics.

Second, even if we assume that "Kiev"->"Kyiv" transition has already happened in English (which by no means is the case), a transition from "Kievan Rus'" to "Kyivan Rus'" hasn't, and there is no indication that it will happen in a close future: a relative frequency of "Kievan Rus'" is increasing during the last decade. (I had to remove "'", because the link is not working with them, but if you type "Rus'" in Ngram, you get the same results.)

Michael, by naming other users "reactionary" you demonstrate battleground mentality and by misinterpreting our policy you demonstrate insufficient competence. That may be forgivable for an ordinary user, but that is hardly compatible with your admin's status. Think about that. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The Kyiv RM was passed almost entirely on the basis of post-2010 journalistic sources. Usage like "Kievan Rus'" in historical writing was dismissed by supporters of the move as irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, however, to the naming of the article on the city, I do not see how the name of that article can be relevant here. If the move to Kyiv had been based on a broad array of sources and a long-term trend, appeals to consistency might apply here. But it was certainly not. You cannot exclude most evidence relevant to the naming of this article and somehow see in the result of the discussion a consensus for change here. Srnec (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder how many reliable sources that use Kyiv use Kievan Rus. (Britannica, which doesn’t immediately apply new style rules to all of its content until it’s updated, does use both, but not in the same article.) Anyway, that is academic while the “historical articles” exception is in place (although many articles do refer to both pre-1991 and post-1995 history). —Michael Z. 02:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

We wouldn't restrict ourselves to RS that use Kyiv, so it is irrelevant. WP does not care too much for between-article consistency. Not in ref format, not in spelling, date format, etc. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean within-article consistency, in articles throughout Wikipedia. I am referring to reliable sources as examples of good copy editing. Would you agree if we refer to Kiev in the article Kievan Rus, then we ought also to refer to Kyivan Rus in articles that use Kyiv? I find the inconsistency throughout History of Kyiv, for example, to be unacceptable. —Michael Z. 03:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to within-article consistency so long as it is recognized that Kiev should not be changed to Kyiv in historical articles without good reason. Like all other consistency/variation rules. The main article being Kyiv is not such a reason. "Kyiv" being in the title of the article is. Srnec (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I do not see a problem with using transliteration/spelling "Kyivan Rus'" (this is same name) because Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University is using such spelling [14],[15]. Moreover, it has already been renamed as Kyivan Rus' in Wiktionary: [16]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth i feel the name should be changed, a challenge is always that current and historic usage are often conflated—blindlynx 14:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Historic usage before about 1750 was not Kiev, but Kieff, Kiovia, Kiou, and several other forms. Of course the very name K**van Rus is not historical, because it was invented long after the subject ceased to exist, and, of course, the Middle and Modern English language didn’t exist concurrently. I think there is a serious confusion about the concept of “historic usage” versus, um . . . usage. —Michael Z. 04:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  The overwhelming usage in English was 'Kievan' for the last couple of centuries until the post-Soviet era, and it's been the vast majority usage at least until the latest conflict. I'd say this is still 'historical usage'. Granted 'Kievan Rus' is a modern name, but all the Old East Slavic names from the era transliterate far better as Kiev than as Kyiv, the vowel changing in modern times too... It'd be like if we said the Byzantine Empire didn't call itself that, but due to modern Greek we should call it the 'Vyzantine Empire' or we are giving into their erstwhile Western European oppressors, despite the /b/ being the older Greek form anyway, and the overwhelming form in English language scholarship and usage for centuries. Harsimaja (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  The historical name in English is "Kievan Rus". The consensus is to use Kiev for historical use and Kyiv for modern use. The Impartial Truth (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Rurikid symbol

@RadomirZinovyev: The symbol in question is strongly associated with the Rurikids. You are the one involving modern politics by using the appropriation of the symbol by a modern state as a reason to suppress it or deny its relevance when writing about a 1000-year-old state. Wladyslaw Duczko, Viking Rus (Brill, 2004), discusses the symbol at length on pages 228–238, where he refers to it as "the dynastic badge of identity" and says that "the trident became the dominant emblem of the dynasty". We have an entire article devoted to the symbols of the Rurikids and it seems perfectly reasonable to include it here. Srnec (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason why this symbol was NOT on this wiki page before the war and has only started appearing now. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What reason? Srnec’s argument seems sound. —Michael Z. 21:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see the trident was first added in February 2009[17] and removed in June 2012,[18] without edit summaries. Then it became a topic of debate in several discussions (see Talk:Kievan Rus'/Archive 4) from January 2015 to October 2020. Reasons given to remove it included that it was a personal symbol and not a state symbol, that it changed over time, and that it was not literally a heraldic coat of arms. I’m not sure I agree with them, given the reference above. Referring to some of those earlier discussions, state symbols like the Canadian maple leaf and the Stars and Stripes changed over time, but that doesn’t mean we don’t include a representative version in the respective infoboxes. —Michael Z. 22:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian attestation

I have reverted this edit based on the cited source. The reverted text, "The variant Kyivan Rus' appeared in English-language scholarship by the 1950s .... Later, the Russian term was rendered into ... Ukrainian" was incorrect because Ukrainian Київська Русь appears in print sources from 1898 onward (not only after the 1950s). Doremo (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Please reread your own comment. You’re talking about a name in Ukrainian and a spelling in English. These are two different things and here is no contradiction. —Michael Z. 12:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This issue is that the material should be presented either chronologically (19th century, 19th century, 1950s, later) or with explicit specifications (19th century, 1950s, 19th century, later) rather than ambiguously (19th century, 1950s, later). It's fine if the Ukrainian attestation (19th century) follows the mention of the English, but the previous text implied that the Ukrainian name appeared after the 1950s. In any case, it would also be good to narrow down when the Belarusian and Rusyn names appeared because that content is currently unsourced. Doremo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

Change “Kievan” to “Kyivan” because “Kiev” is a russian spelling of a ukrainian city Kyiv. Hrabovska (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussions above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is not about the Ukranian city Kyiv. TylerBurden (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Flag of the Kyivan Rus'

File:Flag of the Kievan Rus' (879–1240).svg

Flag of the Kievan Rus'

I see the Italian version of this article shows a flag that points to an original text in Cyrillic. If that flag is legitimate it would be nice to add it to this article.

ICE77 (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The flag has its origins in a 16th century commemorative work, and there is no evidence it was ever used during the time of the Rus'. For one, the Kievan Rus' was not a "state" in the modern sense, and didn't have anything like a unified flag, coat of arms etc. Individual princes had their own coat of arms, but they were only used by the prince's supporters, and would have been ephemeral at best. That Russian article you mentioned is actually a critique of some Ukrainian nationalist memes which tried to claim Ukraine as the only valid successor to the Kievan Rus', and is little more than a Russian nationalist retort with its own chauvinistic take on things. There is nothing in that source to support this flag as being the "flag of the Kievan Rus'." Toadchavay (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I left a comment in the Italian version of this article to discourage the use of the flag I still see there as of today.

ICE77 (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)