Talk:Kievan Rus'

Name

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

The only argument for the name Kiev is the use of the name. But everyone knows very well that this wording is not correct - no one has any argument against it. So why are my wording edits being reverted and called "controversial" by the user TimothyBlue? Salto Loco (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is very outrageous. Stop ignoring the community if they have so many questions about the title! Salto Loco (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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

And??? Name the reason why they were reverted? Salto Loco (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason at the “very top” Salto Loco (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is. Please drop this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the big red template is invisible on mobile devices, which the editor is using here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's perfectly visible to me on this mobile. I guess you meant that it is not visible in mobile view? Just another reason why the mobile version should not be editable.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess so. Many navigational templates in articles are also invisible on my phone. But I realize the big red template isn't completely hidden. However, one has to click the text "Learn more about this page" on the top of this page to make it appear, which seems like a bad feature. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Would be much better if you could provide reliable sources supporting your claims. 2A00:1FA0:4300:8A1C:17A8:85A7:642:FD95 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe Plokhy’s The Origins of the Slavic Nations talks about in what ways this is true, and the limits in how meaningful it is, in the context of competing national claims. Probably his Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History too.  —Michael Z. 03:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Plokhy is arguing that Ukraine is the only cultural successor of Kievan Rus'? Can you provide pages where he makes such claim? Marcelus (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

re: Plokhy is arguing that Ukraine is the only cultural successor of Kievan Rus'?, I don't think that is what Michael was saying this, he's pretty clear in his comment, talks about in what ways this is true, and the limits in how meaningful it is. I'm not seeing anything that indicates he is stating the above.  // Timothy :: talk  09:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Plokhy says "none of the three" [1], which is definitely a non-orthodox position. There are other positions, such as one by Mykhailo Hrushevsky (same link). But it is true that all of them "claim". There is no problem on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The article says not a word about this besides the lede, which strikes me as weird. Don't we say that a lede is a summary of article text? And while writing this, I noticed that the article does not have section "Culture". We do have Culture of Kievan Rus'. How about a couple of words here, following Wikipedia:Summary style? And speaking about cultural ancestry, it looks like uk-wikipedians don't feel it: we have ru:Культура Древней Руси and be:Культура Старажытнай Русі, but there is no article uk:Культура Київської Русі. - Altenmann >talk 03:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Compare maps of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' from the 9th to 13th century, the period of it's existance under the name(s), and modern maps of our countries. Geographically, Kievan/Kyivan Rus' was in the place of many sections of modern countries, not entirely composing of any of them. Since Kievan/Kyivan Rus' did not strictly develop into anything we have now, as it was fragmented during & after the Mongolian Invasion, it should be resonable to assume that the people of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' ended up seperated. With the seperation of the people, the culture that was once the entirety of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' would now be in multiple different locations that would eventually go on to be what we have now. I sincerely doubt every single tradition and the generations of people who practiced them somehow migrated over to where Modern Ukraine currently resides.

And the comment of the Cossacks... Where is the evidence for this claim? Additionally, what does that have to do with Kievan/Kyivan Rus'? The area was significantly larger than where it is thought the Cossacks originated. Culture could have still been carried by other groups of people as well... Dasymutilla (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But it is misunderstanding of what Kyivan Rus' was. It was like any empire, with an ethnic core which was in Central Ukraine. Only tribe in Central Ukraine called themself Rus', no other slavic tribe called themself Rus', they were conquered by this Ukrainian tribe and payed tribute, war contribution to Kyiv. After Mongol invasion, western Ukrainian will identify themself as Kingdom of Rus', as considering themself as one nation with Central Ukrainians. That's how Kyivan Rus' became Ukraine. 46.118.237.59 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Article Incorporation

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

Wikipedia is not a paper book to put everything into a single text. In Wikipedia we split big subjects into reasonably-sized subtopics. Please read WP:Summary style. - Altenmann >talk 00:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, although the ladder section is still being asked. Why is the Culture of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' not even mentioned? The WP:Summary style mentions tying the information to a "parent article", which would be the primary article of whatever sub-topic relates to/came from, which doesn't exist in this article. There is a reference to Culture of Kievan Rus' for "further reading" in the #Society section but the category does not really mention any relation to cultural aspects. It's the same with each of the other articles proposed: Where are the references to the seperate information in the main article? Dasymutilla (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Culture of Kievan/Kyivan Rus' not even mentioned? It is: Kievan Rus'#Culture. Per WP:TOOLONG, the current article is almost too long with 12,514 words. If it grows beyond 15,000 words, it Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. If you think the current text does not mention enough about culture, you should trim it elsewhere to make room for it. Trimming may only be done if it is unnecessary or WP:UNDUE material. Please be careful. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

why ' ?

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

It's a transliteration of Cyrillic Русь. The letter ь indicates palatalization, in this case a sort of whispered i-type sound at the end of the word. It doesn't have an exact English equivalent. In Russian, it sounds like "roose" with a little bit of a hiss on the s. Kyoto Grand (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

So will you please write about that with an appropriate source? Answering me here wasn't the point... 2600:8800:2C09:3200:2100:D473:34D8:FAC6 (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

See Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic. It has a table titled Prussian Instructions, scientific transliteration, and ISO 9.

About 2/3 of the way down the table, you will find a row for the last letter of Русь, which looks like a lower-case B. The transliteration symbol for it in the Russian column is an apostrophe. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Kyivan, not kievan.

Kyivan, not kievan. 217.165.252.232 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Historical, well established names in English sources cannot be changed, per wikipedia policies. - Altenmann >talk 20:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If I got a euro for every time someone posted a message on this talk page saying it should be Kyivan instead of Kievan, I could buy a train ticket to Kyiv by now. The WP:COMMONNAME is not gonna change any time soon (even though trends have been observed in that direction recently, they are not significant enough yet). NLeeuw (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding the historical, triangular red banner of Kievan Rus according to frescoes from the chronicles to the article

Vbokivs (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That is wp:or. Medieval polities did not have flags in the modern sense.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a banner, though. Shouldn't it be uploaded nonetheless? Vbokivs (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be. It's just a random banner, nothing indicates it was used by Kievan Rus' princes. On the second picture it's clearly used by two sides. Also those pictures are from 15th century. Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ermenrich and Marcelus are correct. Unless you can show a banner, flag or coat of arms to have been used historically, probably in roll of arms / armorial, it is mere speculation to suggest that a simple monocoloured flag used by multiple sides was "the" banner of all of Kievan Rus'. NLeeuw (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not a random banner at all. My sources are the miniatirues from a very significant source called the Primary Chronicle - "Radziwiłł Chronicle" and an icon called «Богоматерь Знамение» (Битва новгородцев с суздальцами). The triangular flag was the most common type of battle flag of Rus (so in the plural the inhabitants of Kievan Rus' were called). The banner marked the middle of the army. It was guarded by banner bearers. From afar it was visible - whether the squad was defeated (the banner fell down) or the battle was successful (the banner ‘stretched like clouds’). The shape of the banner could also be in the form of a trapezoid, and also with three or two triangular wedges of cloth. Vbokivs (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Another fragment from the Primary Chronicle. Vbokivs (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Historical chronicles describe and depict the flags of Russia as triangular red cloths of different lengths. Even if the miniatures are from 15th century, they depict events that happened during Kievan Rus' existence. In Rus, instead of the words ‘flag’ and ‘banner’ the word ‘styag’ was used, because the army was pulled together under it. Nonetheless, it is the same as a flag. Vbokivs (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

We need a source that explicitly says that the red triangle was the banner of Rus'.

The ru-wiki article actually says that banners of various colours were used, but unfortunately there is no inline citation. Alaexis_¿question? 08:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, they appear red in all of the miniatures, why does that not count as a source? Vbokivs (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The colour of the Rus' military banners was predominantly red, but rarely also blue and green. Vbokivs (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It was, factually, the symbol that represented Rus'. Vbokivs (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The part about multiple colours you are referring to from the article is related to the beginning of Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov's rule. So it is not about Kievan Rus, but rather Tsardom of Russia. Vbokivs (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Facial_Chronicle_-_b.09,_p.302_-_Battle_of_the_Vozha_River_(1378).png#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Facial_Chronicle_-_b.09,_p.302_-_Battle_of_the_Vozha_River_(1378).png

Here is another miniature from the Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible, but it doesn't depict something that happened in the Kievan Rus', but rather a conflict that happened between the Moscow Principality in 1378 and the Golden Horde. They are using that exact red triangular banner because the Rus' army used it even before the Mongol invasion and the Moscow Principality continued this. Vbokivs (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is still all original research. You can’t use your own interpretation of primary source images to add material to Wikipedia. Please review our policies on wp:reliable sources and wp:original research.-Ermenrich (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing other than the last part is my interpretation. I've looked at the miniatures from the chronicles. Vbokivs (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Everything you've said is original research. You have no source stating that the Rus' used a red triangular banner, only your own observation of primary source images that were made hundreds of years after the end of Kievan Rus.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. I was going to write the same: we need scholarly sources that say what this triangle was. - Altenmann >talk 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. No scholars mention flag of "Kievan Rus". - Altenmann >talk 18:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

On a side note, what did this long narrow triangular banner mean? - Altenmann >talk 18:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"Tasty ice-cream for sale at the shop around the corner! Now at a discount of 23 grivny apiece! Check out our new flavour "Vladislav, Baby Don't Hurt Me!"

Seriously though, I haven't got a clue. Seems like the illustrator of the Radziwiłł Chronicle just used the most vivid colour on his palette to paint some but not all of these flags with. Red tends to be best noticeable from a distance in all kinds of weather conditions. It's one of the leading theories of why the Dutch Prince's Flag, originally orange white light-blue, changed to red white dark-blue at sea (which in turn inspired the modern Russian white blue red flag) so that it was better recognisable in the distance, regardless of sun glare, fog, mist, or cloudy skies.

In this 15th-century Radziwiłł Chronicle miniature, Andrey Bogolyubsky's left arm is cut off by his assassins, although the texts claim his "right hand" was cut off. A 1965 autopsy of Andrey's body confirmed the left arm showed many cut marks.

There is no reason to believe the illustrator got everything right. For example, the Radziwiłł Chronicle, Suzdalian Chronicle (Laurentian text) and Kievan Chronicle all agree that shortly before Andrey Bogolyubsky was murdered, "Peter cut off his right hand." Yet, the adjoining illustration shows his left arm being cut off. I kid you not. Read the details at Andrey Bogolyubsky#Death. We really, really can't take these illustrations in the Radziwiłł Chronicle at face value, no matter how beautiful and unique they are. NLeeuw (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the color may be fake, but I don't think the overall shape of these long narrow triangles were invented.... and finally I found these in wp: Pennon and Oriflamme. - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)