Talk:Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis/Archive 2

references

Kostomarov and B&E

Kostomarov, Yaroslav ? Do I have a problem with seeing a reference or is a single name given as reference ? I might add that the search for Yaroslav Kostomarov gives no results on google-we had a non-published book not long ago, now we have a non-existing scholar(I hope he is a scholar not another nationalist ideologists as was the case in Polonization article) ? Please explain this. --Molobo 12:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, after all the concerns expressed above, Irpen's recent insertion of 12 references to a 19th century publication (Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary) shows just what he thinks of accomodating opinions of other editors. Not only is that reference outdated and reflects the POV of the time, it is also exactly what its title says: an encyclopedic dictionary, providing brief (hence incomplete and simplified) treatment of its topics. Surely we can do better. Balcer 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please show a single opinion passed from B&E. If you take a good look, you will see that it is used only to reference facts. If you have sources that show these facts wrong, bring them up. --Irpen 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So, I take from your deflecting the discussion below away from my question that you did not find any judgments that I transferred to the article from B&E. If I did, please point this to me. --Irpen 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So no answer on who the mysterious person is. If nothing will be given soon, I shall remove the "reference' to this name and surname.--Molobo 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. You should have really checked the refs. The "Yaroslav", is the name of the chapter in the book. The book is listed in the refs list. Please leave edit summaries, at least the automatic ones. --Irpen 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you-could you tell us which book exactly ?--Molobo 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Metadiscussion 1

Now that I am checking out that dictionary, its outdated POV is rather amusing. Here is for example its entry for Ukraine, which begins:

Украина — так назывались юго-восточные русские земли Речи Посполитой.

translated as:

Ukraine - so was called the south-eastern Russian lands of the Commonwealth.

And then it continues to describe Ukraine only in those terms, ending its entry at the point where all of those lands were absorbed into the Russian Empire during the Partions. And then full stop, no more Ukraine. If that publication is riddled with such gems, using it is not advisable. Balcer 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The entry is correct. At the time, the name for what's now Ukraine was Little Russia, this same name was used in English sources too. There were two usage of Ukraine at the time. The one above and Sloboda Ukraine. --Irpen 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The name was Little Rus, please don't enter Tsarist mythology of Russia being equal to Rus.--Molobo 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Little Rus' is the modern translation into English of the same old name. At that time it was Little Russia. Read books Molobo. Also check this English map. --Irpen 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see Irpen has stoped using XIX century sources in favour of XVIII century ones. Rus and Russia are not the same-I realise Russian Tsar tried to propagate this idea to justify their wars of conquest and control over Ukrainian and Belarusian people, but we really don't need to support them.As to books Irpen-I do read them, modern books that is, XIX century ones I read only for amusement. I suggest you do the same.--Molobo 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, I suggested to you earlier to read on the subject a little bit. We are talking two different issues. Preferable terminology to use today and the terminology most commonly used in English, not in Russian, earlier. You can scream all you want about the Tsarist terminology but the fact is that in English Rus' and Russia was used interchangeably by the Western Scholars for a very long time. For example, the very recent book on what you and I call medieval Rus' was published by Janet Martin. This books is commonly considered a classical English textbook on the subject and is called "Medieval Russia, 980-1584". Published by Cambridge University Press in 1995 it has an ISBN 0521368324 that you can verify for yourself.

This is, however, a huge deflection off topic. The fact of the matter is that Balcer invoked the article "Ukrainia" in B&E as an example of its inaccuracy. However, the B&E uses a typical for its time toponyms, widely accepted in English as well, even to this day. At the time, Ukraina meant not exactly the same as what Ukraine refers to now, while the latter's contemporary equivalent was Малая Русь or Малороссия in Russian, the language of the contemporary source. As the very same time, the most common term in English for this land was Little Russia while today Little Rus' has become more common.

Elsewhere you recently expressed some concern about the need for the talk pages to remain structured and on topic. I hope that yesterday's conversion of yours was genuine and you will quit posting the off-topic threads about what the proper English name was a hundred yes ago for what we now call Ukraine. Thank you in advance. --Irpen 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As you agree that nobody now calls Ukraine Russia as was the case while it was largely conquered by Russian Empire, I will remove the wikiproject that has nothing to do with those Polish-Ukrainian events. As to naming-nothing of a surprise here, Western Scholars have often used the terminology invented by conquerers.--Molobo 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seriously considers the Kievan Rus' as unrelated to the History of Russia. It is as much related to Russia as it is to Ukraine and Belarus. You should really read a single book on the Russian history. --Irpen 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And Holy German Roman Empire is related to history of Italy, but I wouldn't put Wikiproject Germany in article on conflict between Italy and France. Nothing here connects to Russia which evolved as a state several hundreds years later. Please present any solid reason why Russia is connected to an issue involving history of Ukraine and Poland.--Molobo 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine "evolved as a state" no earlier than Russia. I suggested that you read at least one book on the subject before providing your opinions on the matter. Kievan Rus' was not Ukraine. It was not Russia either. It was a predecessor of both. If you are not big on reading books, read the first three sentences in the Kievan Rus article of Columbia Encyclopedia. --Irpen 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Metadiscussion 2

As I read more, I am less amused, and more and more disturbed. The entry on Jew is particularly chilling, reflecting many of the racist assumptions of the time. Here is a sample (warning: the content is extremely racist and may offend):

Растительность на лице и теле вообще обильная; попадаются нередко курчавые евреи. Лоб довольно широкий; лицо узкое; межглазничное пространство небольшое; глаза чрезвычайно живые, нос вообще довольно большой, часто (до 30%) кривой, но большею частью прямой (очень редко вздернутый), с подвижными ноздрями, губы часто толстоватые. Вообще черты лица настолько характерны, что опытный глаз почти всегда узнает Е. Они отличаются вообще значительным плодородием, а так как смертность у них меньше, то они размножаются быстрее тех народностей, среди которых живут, даже таких, как немцы и славяне.

Do we want to use a publication with such content as reference? I would say that we must make all effort not to. Balcer 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is an older writing style rejected now as improper as many things change. Let's concentrate on facts and not opinions. --Irpen 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not about style at all, it is about the content. Reducing it to a stylistic issue is actually dishonest. Quite simply, that Dictionary entry is based on a racist viewpoint quite common in the 19th century but totally unacceptable today. By citing that Dictionary at all, we are only increasing its credibility and making it more acceptable. If we persist, sooner or later some idiot will use its content to make antisemitic claims in Wikipedia and use it as a reference, claiming it a reliable source based on its widespread use elsewhere in Wikipedia.

What it boils down to is this: it is in general bad practice to use 19th century sources at all, if modern sources are available. Now if on top of that the source one tries to use is peppered with content based on antisemitic and racist ideology and viewpoint, any justification for using it simply disappears.

I feel very strongly about this. Wikipedia should not be used to propagate 19th century antisemitism, in whatever form. If you do not convince me that using the Dictionary as a reference does not contribute to this (directly or indirectly), I will take the issue to a more general audience. I cannot state it any more simply: a reference which contains this lake of antisemitic sewage is no longer a reliable source. Balcer 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, you invoke the Godwin's law, you loose. Try a serious argument. Besides, Pitorus already took this to a wider audience. Encyclopedias a complied by many authors and its articles are independent. Not a single controverisal fact is referred to B&E which whose entries are entirely based on the chronicles. I took time to read the old Chronicles in fact and all the B&E does is pass the Chronicler's info.

Re, the source's being wrong on smth needs to be discounted in toto, Piotrus seems to disagree with you. And in any case such argument does not apply to encyclopedias. --Irpen 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You could invoke Godwin's law if I had said something to justify it, which of course I have not. Please don't try to get out of your bind by making nonsensical arguments. Anyway, on what basis do we decide which entry in the Dictionary is reliable and which is not? If the entry on Jew is wrong, how do we know an entry on anything else is correct? The whole point of something being a reliable source is that you can have reason to trust it in its entirety. Balcer 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, you cannot seriously argue that if the book or author has made a mistake elsewhere, the entire book or the entire author's scholarship should be discounted. See the book above about Katyn. If your claims about B&E were true (which they obviously aren't), it still would only amount to a red herring in this argument -- facts reported even by biased sources must be examined, rather than brushed aside using inane and disingenuous, or even true, accusations about the source's character. This applies even to a greater extent to Encycopedias (B&E is an encyclopedia in a modern sense, not a dictionary) whose entries are composed by different people. I referred to only two B&E articles: Sviatpolk and Boleslav. I made an exception for my opponents and took time to read two old chronicles myself (it was not easy). They merely pass the chronicler's accounts. Until you show which facts are false, this discussion remains off-topic. --Irpen 22:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of a reliable source is that you can use its information without further confirmation. A reliable source can simply be used in Wikipedia, without constantly checking with other sources whether what it says is true. If you have checked Sviatpolk and Boleslav Dictionary articles against the original chronicles, that is great, but in that case you should cite the chronicles themselves as references, since that is what you are basing your certainty as to reliability on, not the Dictionary.

We are not talking about a few mistakes here and there in this case, we are talking about a source whose reliability is seriously compromised by the period and place it was written in, and the unavoidable biases and now outdated ideologies prevalent at the time.

I am puzzled by your statement that my claims about BE are not true. Please clarify this for me: do you actually believe that the Dictionary article on Jew is not antisemitic? Please be specific, so that we know where we stand in this discussion.

To be honest, I do not think this discussion will get anywhere. You are attached to using 19th century sources, not minding all the problems associated with them, for reasons about which I can only speculate. This is why I believe an outside viewpoint on this issue could be useful. I will consider requesting comment on an appropriate noticeboard. Balcer 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I can say this, Balcer. The article Jew in the B&E passed the judgments and stereotypes which were common at the time and, luckily, changed by now.

Please stop referring to B&E as a dictionary. The original Russian term that was used to produce this word have changed. You cannot call the 86-volume encyclopedia with the word dictionary in all honesty, can you?

I can point you to some known factual mistakes in modern Britannica as well. There also factual mistakes in the 1911 one, as shown by the modern research. As far as judgments are concerned, old sources are unusable in toto, this is where you an I agree.

Finally, you are playing the extremely intellectually dishonest trick for the second time that I remember. You know full-well that any scholarship has certain institutional biases, even the Western one. So is the Russian scholarship, old or new. When you don't like the info you attempt to attack the source from the side which is unrelated to the facts you happen to not like. When you wanted to discredit Meltiukhov, you searched through an entire book for what it says about Katyn, perfectly aware that this is the issue where the Russian scholarship has an institutional bias. A similar institutional bias against the Jews existed in the 19th century Russian Empire. Knowing that, you threaded in specifically that direction to attack the source. The source is not used in an article about the Jews. All the info referred to it is entirely non-controversial. Articles on such wildly different topics in such a broad encyclopedias are certainly written by different people, from even institutionally different filed. In fact you failed to dispute a single fact from the source. Please stop this tricks and stay on topic. Your behavior in these two examples has been plainly unfair, if not dishonest. --Irpen 00:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong in claiming that I do not like any particular info in this case that BE is referencing. This article refers to an event a thousand years ago, and I have no particular axe to grind in this case. I could not care less whether the Poles or anybody else behaved well or badly, or who was right or wrong. This is rather a matter of principle, because this is an important test case. The old 19th century sources have an advantage in that they are in the public domain and freely available online. This creates a grave danger for Wikipedia: it may easily become an encyclopedia dominated in certain areas by 19th century scholarship (since most people are too lazy or busy to go to university libraries and labouriously look up modern works available only in difficult to search paper form). So, if we have BE available online (all 86 volumes of it, as you say), should the 1890 scholarship and POV drive all before it? I would much rather not see that.

It gets even worse: in the 19th century some countries existed (and thus could publish 86 volume encyclopedias pushing their POVs), while most others (Ukraine, Poland, most of the 180 countries in the world today in fact) did not have that possibility. Thus introducing the old sources en masse would disastrously sway the POV towards that favouring the old imperial states and their outlook. In a nutshell, one person can push Russian imperial POV form the comfort of his armchair relying on fully online and Google searchable BE from anywhere in the world, cutting and pasting as needed, while another must take labourious trips to the library and dig for books on dusty book shelves, then laboriously search for information by flipping through indexes, and finally manually type out what the book contains. Clearly, this is no contest.

Only one thing could stop this and not even in all cases. If it could be clearly demonstrated that some 19th century reference work is rotten to the core with bias and hence not to be trusted. This has already happened in the case of 1911 edition of Britannica (which up to now was frequently used to import and article form wholesale, with all its old POV). I believe a similar warning flag should go up if someone uses BE, or any other comparable source. Balcer 01:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, the 1911 Britannica is not "rotten to the core". 1911 is indeed unusable for direct porting into a normal encyclopedia true enough. I would be especialy extremely careful with, say, info from 1911 on India, and would take is judgments as a useful source only of the evolution of the academic thought.

However, on many subjects old sources are uncontroversial and unsurpassed to this day. Please read the Loki's entry at the talk:Polonization one more time. The main problem with old sources is that they were written with what is now considered absurd in Academia judgmental tone. Many such sources are still pretty good references for undisputed facts, as good as any other source. Some facts in some sources are shown wrong, like in case new discoveries were made, new chronicles, new excavations, etc. In such cases there simply is no dispute. Same applies to modern sources, they also can be wrong on facts. As long as facts are undisputed and judgments are not passed, the classical sources on the subject are very useful ones. Now, would you please show me which facts in the article referred to the older sources you dispute. Please be specific. --Irpen 01:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen, it doesn't work that way. You apparently don't understand the policy on reliable sources. Our job isn't to dig through every obscure XIX century source you find and try to find books contradicting whatever fantastic claim the source makes. As you do this all the time I find your behaviour increasingly disruptive. You have been asked time and time again to use modern, objective sources, not any Stalinist,Tsarists or as in the case above racist sources to write articles. I don't see any reason to change wikipedia's reliability policy, so unless you are ready to back claims by controversial authors they should be either removed or moved to their articles as fringe theories.--Molobo 01:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How interesting, Irpen. I am glad that you are at least ready to admit that 1911 Britannica might be unreliable as regards its info on India. Indeed, since Britain, where that encyclopedia was published, was the imperial power controlling the place at the time, a view of a British encyclopedia on that country might suffer from debilitating bias. What is more, I am certain many Indians would not appreciate their former imperial power being the source for their history. I wonder now, would you be ready to apply exactly the same reasoning and admit that BE, given that it was published in the Russian Empire, would be equally unsuitable as a source of reliable and unbiased information as regards Russia's imperial possessions, namely Ukraine and Poland? And if this is not the case, please explain why not.

Molobo has a good point. 19th century sources should be avoided, unless their use is absolutely necessary. I am willing to concede that if some 19th century work is considered an unsurpassed source on some historical matter not improved by all the research since then, its use as a reference may be considered (as rare as such works are). However, this is definitely not the case here. With all due respect to Russian 19th century scholarship, I do not believe that BE is the best source out there for Russian and Eastern European history (far from it). Your insistence on using it, where with only a bit of effort you could find modern sources for the same claims, is what is driving a number of editors up the wall. Balcer 03:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Driving up the wall, Balcer, is your refusal to cite specific facts you dispute. Similarly, your habitual and sneaky attacks at sources you don't like (Meltiukhov is the modern source all right) through trying to dig what they say on questions whose coverage are known to be torn by institutional biases and, following that attempting to dismiss the source as a whole. I've you shown the Piotrus' favored source that goofed (see Katyn's talk). I've got no answer

Despite repeatedly requested to give specific facts that you question, you start threads after threads of metadiscussion. Look at what is referenced to B&E and Kostomarov. Is these facts or judgments and obsolete POV? If you concede that these are merely facts, explain how these facts are disputed. Please be specific. --Irpen 03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Metadiscussion 2a

M. and Katyn are simply a different matter, with problems stemming from different reasons. This discussion is already many pages long, I am not going to expand it by dwelving into those issues.

Now to your question. I am not disputing the facts at the moment, I am criticizing your use of a 19th century reference, for reasons stated at length. In all those 86 volumes of BE I am sure there are many true facts. This does not change the fact that on the whole that work is unreliable.

Let me make perfectly clear what this means. When one says that a work is unreliable, this does not mean that everything in it is 100% wrong. It means that enough of its content is wrong (disastrously and fundamentally wrong!) that the work cannot be trusted. It means that every single claim it makes has to be checked with another, reliable source. And if this is the case, citing it is simply a waste of time.

I was really hoping you would adress the EB-India and BE-Ukraine/Poland parallel. Oh well. Balcer 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

M and Katyn are not a different matter. These are all illustration of the same approach that you choose to pursue in order to take on the articles with with POV disputes. Reasonably demanding to have facts referenced is not a proble, But even when all the facts are referenced you then try your best to find the way to impeach the source. You sifted all hundreds of pages of M's book in search of a single word (Katyn) to check what he says on it. You sifted 86 volumes of B&E in search of what it says on Jews. You did it perfectly knowing that those particular issues are subject to the institutional biases of the time and place and then attempted to attack the source as a whole.

I also expected better from you than drawing EB-India / BE-Ukraine parallel. You pretend not to know that Rus is considered but of the Russian history as much as that of Ukraine by all serious scholars. Such statements given by Molobo (excusable judging by his background demonstrated elsewhere) is nothing but an academic dishonesty when it comes from the editor with non-zero familiarity with the subject. We are using a BE article on the subject of the Russian history. Besides, not a single fact in this article referenced to BE contradicts any Ukrainian source either (this is also a Ukrainian history.) In fact, Ukrainian source is also used and more will be added.

I am not interested to hear your further attacks on the sources until you cite specifically which statement referenced within this article you dispute. If you dispute none of it, please desist or take it to metapages. --Irpen 06:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some sources need to be impeached. People using sources which are in various ways invalid is a constant problem on Wikipedia. I am glad I am doing my part to correct that problem, as far as I am able. You have also challenged sources in their entirety in the past, and I do not question your right to do so. Surely we can both agree that some sources are so fundamentally flawed that they simply should not be used, even if some facts they contain are correct.

You think that the only place one can find institutional bias in B&E is in its article on Jews? Admittedly, that is a likely place and the first one I looked at, but let me assure you, that kind of thinking can be found in many of its articles, to a greater or lesser degree. And please spare me the "institutional bias" justification. Yes, it might have been excusable at the time, but using a source with such bias today is simply unacceptable. The entry on Jew is quite simply antisemitic, and that is the only way that text can be read today. We should not consider a source reliable today if it contains that and other similar text. Quite frankly, given the opposition to racism you have manifested in the past, I am somewhat surprised that this text has not elicited more outrage and dismay from you, and that you are happy to dismiss it as harmless. Really, were there no antisemites in the 19th century, just good honest men who were unfortunate to suffer from an institutional bias? This is much too charitable a view of the matter, I'm afraid.

As for the parallel I suggested, all it means is this: an imperial power is unlikely to produce objective scholarship about the lands it controls, especially if it considers them part of the homeland (just think of France and Algeria, that "integral" part of France that before 1960 no Frenchman contemplated ever giving up).

You are right in one thing: further discussion of this issue here is probably pointless, and indeed the matter should be taken up on a more general page. This is indeed what I plan to do at some point. I am glad this discussion occured, as it gives me some idea what justifications are likely to be used by proponents of using 19th century sources. As I outlined above, given the pecularities of current copyright laws and the danger that 19th century public domain sources may enter into general use on Wikipedia and have their POV take over, this could indeed become a general problem.

Anyway, as far as this article is concerned, I will make a special effort to replace every single fact referenced by 19th century sources by referencing with modern works. This should resolve the problem. I trust that you will not object. Balcer 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I did challenge the sources in the past. And my doing so was opposed by you and your friends. It is OK to disagree on sources. For instance, are the works produced by an institution created as a prosecutional authority of the "communist crimes" academically reliable? I think it was a legitimate question. Are works on remote history published in non academic dziennik or tygodnik acceptable? Are unsigned historic essays on the web-sites of the institute of biotech acceptable? These are normal issues to discuss. Is the particular 19th century source reliable? Is Meltyukhov's book reliable? These are also OK to discuss. What is unacceptable and dishonest is the wholesale brushing aside of the referenced info through disingenuous argument aimed at the character assassination of the the authors, wikipedians or academic, without any doubt, scholars, based on facetious arguments that your colleagues who edit WP with you for years hold xenophobic views or the academics that worked in this or that country or that many years ago or that some other author who published a totally unrelated article in the 86-volume collection published crap.

Your horrific slurrish attack on my character where your expressed "surprise" hints that I hold the xenophobic views on my own does not even warrant a response, especially since making such attacks have become your trademark (I count 5 of the top of my head.) Those attacks are especially unworthy from the editor who allowed the filthy Zydokomuna theories to stay for about a year in the article on his watchlist until I found and removed them.

• "Jewish complicity in crimes against Poles during and immediately following the war?"[1]
• "many Polish Jews supported Communism which further polarized them as a group?"[2]

It is also noteworthy that for some of this stuff was "restored" by our respected colleague [3] who then waged a revert war [4] when I attempted to remove these "theories" referenced to the source that contradicted that nutty claim. [5] Should I combine these seemingly random occurrences with this referenced data about my colleagues background and start propagating claims about their "tolerance"? Whatever I thought of these coincidences I kept them to myself while you repeatedly resort to such dirty accusations.

"[T]hat kind of thinking can be found in many of its articles, to a greater or lesser degree" is a horribly vague and inadmissible statement. Yes, this kind of thinking can be likely found in the Judaism and Zionism article. None of it can be found in the articles devoted to the Kievan princes since those were based on chronicler's accounts and nothing else. The collective of the encyclopedia authors is readily available and it was comprised form established and accomplished academics in all fields, including the Slavic history. True, historic thought developed since then and the critiques of the chronicles have pointed out their inconsistencies as well as the historian's biases. I pointed those out in this article I wrote because on the issues where such inconsistencies are found, we must mention them but there is nothing flawed in the issues that remain non-disputed. You dispute something, you find the basis in sources, not on the basis of attacking the source you happen to not like.

I will welcome your effort to complement the references to undisputed facts by adding modern sources. In fact, I am doing an exactly the same thing. --Irpen 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for anything in my remarks that might have offended you. You yourself have expressed surprise on this very page at my actions recently [6], hence I thought you considered this form of expression inoffensive. I will take note and avoid using that tone with you in the future.

To finally wrap this up, let me explain the philosophy behind my objections. I am not sure if you agree, but I think that, on the whole, humanity makes progress, and that our scholarship, understanding of the world, even values and morality are better than they were 100 years ago. Looked at in this way, using 100 years old sources (except when completely unavoidable) is fundamentally regressive. It amounts to walking backwards in this, the most modern of encyclopedias, that should contain the most up to date, even cutting edge knowledge in every field. Using a 100 year source implies that we have made no progress, that in 4 generations filled with momentous events and breathtaking technological change, we have learned nothing and understood nothing. That to me is simply absurd.Balcer 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer in the above link you brought up my "surprise" was about your action seemingly amounting to an act of academic dishonesty. Unpleasant and unflattering, this is a whole different ballpark than subtle accusation of xenophobia that we are discussing here

I agree that the society is making progress. I support modern sources. I support adding them to the article, as many as reasonably possible. If the modern source shows the old source false, the modern source takes priority. What I object to is wholesale removal of referenced information when none of the contradictory info is presented. If modern sources support the info. Add them by all means. If they show they contradict the info, this is certainly important. If you happen to not believe the info or merely think that if it were true than you would know it but fail to produce the source of any sort, you can't just remove it by invoking too general arguments about the time and the origin country. Sources have to be looked at individually. Facts have to be analyzed individually as well. --Irpen 00:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, do you have some way to access the content of my watchlist? Is that somehow possible within Wiki software? For your information, I regularly clean out my watchlist completely by deleting all its entries, to give myself a fresh start. Furthermore, unlike you, I do not appoint myself guardian of particular articles, to watch over them like a hawk. But why am I even responding to this, your accusations are so far below the belt as to be almost silly. Still they serve a useful purpose to make clear to me that any further discussion with you is positively harmful. You will not hear from me again for a while. Balcer 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Balcer, you repeatedly used the ambiguous language in discussing the xenophobia in general and your colleagues in particular. These were offensive and should be avoided by all of us. I even tried to convince the ArbCom to address this problem in general. --Irpen 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Current usage in the article

Such sources should be used with caution, avoided in POV situations and replaced with modern ones when possible. Also, can somebody translate Рыжов Константин (1999). Все монархи мира: Россия: 600 кратких жизнеописаний (in Russian). Москва? Boris Grekov is a Soviet historian (which means we should treat his claims carefully), same goes for Russian Imperial historian, Nikolay Kostomarov. Information on academic credentials of Iryna Zhylenko and her work ([7]) would be nice, too. That said, I appreciate Irpen's expansion of the background (although I see no reason to remove information on Boleslaw's daughter, for example?). Currently B-E is used to reference solely the following statements: 1) Unhappy by his rule being restricted to only a small appanage which he saw unfit to the prestigious status of the Grand Duke's eldest son, Sviatopolk started to plot an armed overthrow of his father, possibly counting on the help of his father-in-law Boleslaw 2) Shortly before his death Vladimir also gave Sviatopolk Vyshgorod (Vyshhorod) nearby Kiev. I don't think either of those two is controversial. Overall, it would be nice to use English sources instead of obsolete Soviet/Russian Imperial once (this being English wikipedia and so on), but the article I think has not been compromised - instead, we seem to have mostly agreed on a consensus and neutral variant of the 'Uprising', I hope.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the title means: All monarchs of the world: Russia: 600 short biographies. Incidentally, this is not a title which would inspire confidence in regards to treating its subject fully, to be sure. Balcer 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I will add more info. I just stopped yesterday because I was too tired. --Irpen 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article part of WikiProject Russian history

Rather then Ukrainian Wiki Project ? If nobody objects I will change this error.--Molobo 21:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not start a fight over project tags. These are the worst and completely irrelevant. Just add Ukrainian Wiki Project tag and be done with it. It is no problem if an article belongs to multiple projects. Balcer 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added Ukraine and cleaned up. It seems fine now, no reason to touch it. Balcer 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stay within the scope of the sources

Gentlemen, I am traveling this week and cannot edit much. So, I cannot do much article improvement, less go over a recent extensive edit. But, colleagues, please do not deflect the article from what the sources actually say! I see that as a result of the new series of edits, the article now says something that Turov was given to Sviatopolk in "Vladimir's will". The sources say nothing of that sort. In fact, they suggest that it was given to him as an appanage and even that is not stated explicitly but can be considered implied. I said above that the article's main problem is with being rather wrong on the material itself, not even its representation. Please do not sway it even further away. --Irpen 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my fault. I was trying to make it more clear in my copyediting. I'll revert it. JKBrooks85 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting is fine; we just need to pay attention to refs. I am we will incorporate much of your reverted copyediting.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I've placed the article on hold so that the following issues can be addressed:

• I'm not sure about the copyright status of the map used in the infobox. I can't understand Polish but it seems it has been scanned from a book called "Illustrated Historical Atlas of Poland". If that's the case, its GNU license is not enough, as it would need permission from the publisher or the original author to be posted at Commons.
• Why are epithets written in parenthesis and in italics? Normal practice is to have them in regular case and without parenthesis. For instance, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionheart, Charles the Fat, etc.
• In the "Lead" section:

• The first sentences needs to mention that the brothers were fighting for the title of Duke of Kiev. Without this, one might think they were competing to be kings.

• In the "Background":

• Per WP:MOS#Images, text should not be sandwiched between pics. This is a problem in this section but can be easily fixed by moving images to sections further down.
• Reinbern of Calabria is spelled as Reinbern and as Reinberg, which one is correct?
• Its is mentioned that The motives of Boleslaw and Reinberg were complicated, on further reading their motives don't seem to be complicated. This sentence is superfluous IMHO.
• The first paragraph of the "Death of Vladimir" subsection runs into the previous two paragraphs as all of them deal with how Sviatopolk felt unjustly treated by his father and decided to plot against him. That needs to be fixed.
• Also, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to have a "Death of Vladimir" subsection under "Background", it would be better to get rid of that subdivision and merge its text into the rest of the section.

• In "The Expedition" section:

• It would be nice to mention where Nestor the Chronicler and Gallus got their info from.
• In the second paragraph it is not clear whether Pechenegs were part of Boleslaw's army or a separate army allied to Boleslaw.
• There's a citation needed tag in the "Fall of Kiev" subsection
• Sviatopolk is spelled Svyatopolk, the name should be standarized throughout the article.

• In the "Aftermath" section:

• It would be good to mention how did Sviatopolk lost his throne.

• In the "References" section:

• All books are correctly tagged with language templates, except for the last one which seems to be Ukrainian. It should be tagged accordingly.

• Finally, as a general suggestion, the article could use some thorough copyediting to improve its prose. Enlisting help from the League of Copyeditors or some other user uninvolved with the article could be a way to get this done.

Drop me a note for any comments or questions and when you're done with all these issues. Good luck, --Victor12 21:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Replies:

• map: the Polish description states it is "own work (of editor Poznaniak) based on "Ilustrowany Atlas Historii Polski" and additional publications
• epithets - addressed
• competed for the title of Grand Prince (seems more correct than Duke) of Kiev - added
• pics shifted
• Reinbern, Sviatopolk standarized
• complicated motives... sentence removed
• rewritten to remove duplicate info in early paras, but I think the 'death...' subsection - added by the last GA reviewer - can stay
• my sources did not say anything on where Nestor the Chronicler and Gallus got their info unfortunately
• Pechenegs - this was not clear in my sources, neither
• citation needed for: "The Russian Primary Chronicle asserts that Boleslaw did not leave Kiev and expressed no plans to do so" - this claim was not added by me. I'd suggest moving this to talk until somebody wants to reference it.
• how Sviatopolk lost his throne - indeed, but at the moment I don't have references for that; interested readers can always go to our (unreferenced...) article on Sviatopolk I of Kiev
• as I don't speak Russian nor Ukranian I am afraid I cannot verify the language myself

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work so far. I've stroked all resolved issues. Still, the following need to be addresed:

• The map might be a problem depending on how it was made. It seems to me that "based on" means that he scanned the map from the Atlas and then modified it. If that's the case, it would be a derivative work and as such unsuitable for use, check Commons:Licensing#Derivative works.
• The role of the Pechenegs needs to be clarified. The article states that there were 100 Pechenegs on Boleslaw's army and then that Pechenegs besieged Kiev. As 100 men seems a pretty low number to lay siege on a city we might conclude that there was a main Pecheneg army separated from that of Boleslaw's. That should be made clear in the article.
• I've checked the references again and it appears that not all books mentioned in the References section are used for inline citations, including the one by Mykhailo Hrushevsky. All such books not directly supporting the article should be removed. Also, inline citations need to be standardized, currently, reference number 14 has a different format than the rest.

That's it for now, --Victor12 02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the map, I think we should assume good faith; the editor who created it states its his own work and he released it under open license. We can of course inquire further, but as far as I am concerned, it is a map which cites sources - and as such much better than a map which doesn't. As for Pechengs, I simply cannot find anything clear in my sources. Yes, it is likely there was another army. But I cannot find a clear citation for it, I am afraid. I will move the excess books to 'further reading' section. I am afraid I cannot help with citation 14, it's not in a language I can decipher.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably make an inquiry about the map at commons and see what happens. As for this GA nomination it definitely needs two things to pass, first it needs to deal with the citation needed tag in the "Fall of Kiev" section. The second thing needed is formatting for footnote # 14. If you can't understand the language please ask for help from some other editor. There should be several wikipedians interested in this article that speak Russian. With their help you can also solve the mystery of the "Istoria Ukrainy-Rusi" book, that is whether it's written in Ukranian or Russian. --Victor12 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unreferenced claim ("The Russian Primary Chronicle asserts that Boleslaw did not leave Kiev and expressed no plans to do so"); I will see if anybody can help with that ref.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Halibutt has kindly translated the ref into English; I have formatted it accordingly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work! I've now promoted the article to GA. I hope you keep working on this article for a future FA nomination. As a suggestion it would be useful to thoroughly copyedit the article to improve its prose. The League of Copyeditors might be of help in this regard. Congratulations again and good luck. --Victor12 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral / non-reliable sources given

Kostomarov

The aricle uses Nikolay Kostomarov who was a an nationalist ideologist belonging to an antipolish ideology movement-untill more neutral sources in an article about Polish history are used the tag about non-neutrality needs to remain. --Molobo 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a sample of Kosto's writings :

National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine - Page 311 by Ilya Prizel - Political Science - 1998 - 464 pages Kostomarov agreed that Slavs and Slavs alone truly embraced the spirit of Christ. Poland's Christian values however, had degenerated as Poland developed into a brutal aristocratic state enserfing its people and the Ukrainians(...) only Ukraine retained the true Slavic-Christian egalitarianism(...). It was Ukraine's mission to reawaken the true Slavic spirit etc.

Basically he was a nationalist ideologician belonging to an movement whose core idea was hatred towards Polish people.--Molobo 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting; but is his work used to advocate any controversial point? I am certainly not a fan of using old (19th century) sources, but if they just state the same thing (dates, for examples) as modern ones would, and are in PD and online due to their age, there is no harm using them. Of course, due care should be taken to avoid their obsolete POVs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Zhylenko

The above point about Kostomarov is interesting. I also wonder whether Iryna Zhylenko - Ukrainian poet - classifies as reliable writer with regards to controversial historical statements; she is used as a source for the claim that Saint Moses the Hungarian was emasculated - but per Talk:Moses the Hungarian, this is not supported by other works.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert war over the fact mentioned by dozen hagiographies [8] looks more than strange I must say. M0RD00R 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your link is it gives me only some strange signs, nothing that I could read or decipher. Please correct it.--Molobo 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange signs have a name. It's called Cyrillic. M0RD00R 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Random websites, whether in Cyrillic, Latin or hieroglyphs, are not considered reliable sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my computer doesn't reckonize it then and gives only strange signs. Is it Russian, Bulgarian or Ukrainan, Belarusian ? Anyway could you give sources in alphabet not isolated to a a couple of Eastern countries ? Not many people understand it outside them, and if its Russian then most Polish editors here from what I understand where born when soviet occupation started to end and we no longer were forced to learn our overlords so to speak language. Thank you in advance and best regards--Molobo 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am not even sure that it is a very same Zhylenko. The source: "Патерик Києво-Печерський", organized, adapted into Ukrainian, and footnoted by Iryna Zhylenko, Kiev, 2001, is merely a modern publication of the medieval patericon. Zhylenko was the editor who organized and footnoted this source rather than have written it. A google search produces several more medieval manuscripts recently published under her editorship.

Also, the lates "GA drive" you carried made the article rather nonsensial overall. It may "pass" by the view of people who have no knowledge of the subject, but it requires several major corrections which I will do. --Irpen 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the source is a medieval primary source? Hardly reliable. Are any modern scholars citing this claim? On Talk:Moses the Hungarian we have noted several modern publications regarding the saint which do not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The source is modern since, if you care to read, the Patericon is not just reprinted but published with footnotes and annotations. The demasculation is discussed in the annotation written in 2001. --Irpen 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on it in the Saint article? And also, could you explain how the fate of one captive is more relevant to this (Kiev expedition) article than the origins of certain library in certain enlightenment article? PS. Could you also translate the title "Патерик Києво-Печерський" into English - machine translation is producing some garbage. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding previous manipulation of facts like those in Warsaw Uprising I would like to see the quote given by a neutral party and translated by a person not involved in the dispute.--Molobo 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, "Патерик Києво-Печерський" translates: "Kiev Pechersk Patericon". You can look up what Kiev Pechersk and what patericon means. The issue is covered in section 30, entitled "About the venerable Moses the Hungarian". Annotations and editor's notes are in the bottom of this page. As for the choise of an article to expand on it, please allow me to decide for myself which articles I edit. --Irpen 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Title - again

Ok, firstly, I couldn't give the smallest monkey about whether this should be called an "invasion" or an "expedition". But this title is another example of the introduction of terminology before historians do. I know you guys get most of your material from non-English sources, but this term is not used in English (outside Wikipedia) as a proper noun. None of the main English texts on medieval Rus'ia use this term, and there is no instance in Google books of this being used in this way. The phrase "Kiev expedition" is used for a number of things (including this), but with a small e and not as a proper noun. The title is another minor violation of WP:NOR. The subject itself is totally valid topic for an encyclopedia, but to avoid violating WP:NOR use a descriptive title such as Expedition of Boleslaw against Kiev, 1018 or something along those lines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain major rewrite in detail

I've reverted this major good faith rewrite by Deacon. It was not an easy decision, but the changes were very substantial, and worryingly included removal of a lot of information. Since over the past years I put many, many hours into writing and expanding the article, I would like to see such a major rewrite justified on talk - by this, in particular, I mean justification for any removal of information (ex. why mention of Pechengs and German mercs was removed from the infobox? Why was size estimate removed? Background no longer mentions Boris and Gleb, why? And so on). PS. The new title seems to long for our guidelines (see WP:NC).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a large number of inaccuracies, historical misunderstandings and misrepresentation of primary sources in the article. These included assertions about Svyatopolk being the eldest son with "legal claim" and the stuff about Boris and Gleb's, to made up army figures (not in the sources) and rambling irrelevant undue speculations. As you will see I have brought scholarly, reliable English-language sources to the article, quotes from the most reliable primary source to make the source-analysis relationship transparent, balanced the narrative, improved the English and improved its accuracy ... for which I'd thought you'd be thanking me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

All information were sourced to reliable publications. I will try to add the names of Polish historians who contributed to Wyprawa... if it is what you want. You are welcome to add other historians POV, but don't remove the existing info and POV. This is why I notified you that I expect you to add info, not to remove existing one and waste hours of my work. PS. I much appreciate your efforts to improve the grammar and such. Please, expand the article, not replace it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Our article cites Wyprawa..., p.6-13. The primary contributor to this publication was Rafał Jaworski, a historian from a Polish university (pl:Uniwersytet Humanistyczno-Przyrodniczy Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach, [9]) and also an editor a popular science history magazine, Mówią Wieki. He seems a reliable source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, "my sources are better than yours" is a poor argument. I agree with Piotr that although you have every right to add more details, the existing details should not have been removed - especially without prior agreement with the former editor. JonCatalán (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than ignoring WP:OWN, can you tell me what you actually object to, Piotrus? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to your removal of reliable referenced information in your rewrite. I ask you to list each fact you removed with detailed explanation why it was removed, or merge the two versions, keeping the old information, instead of replacing the article with your own. Your edit warring - removing even information about Rafał Jaworski - is not helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You object to it ... why? You haven't exactly enlightened me on that ... just lots of tendentious WP:OWN stuff. Cited or no, citations no non-POlish speaker can verify anyways, your version of the article contained many errors, which I removed.

• "His army size is estimated at between 2,000–5,000 warriors, including 100 Pechenegs, 300 German knights, and 500 Hungarian mercenaries." - wrong, 1000 Pechenegs, while the 2000-5000 figure is just made-up
• "Vladimir I dictated that his eldest son, Sviatopolk I, would only receive the remote town of Turov (Turaŭ) after his death, and he chose his younger sons, Boris and Gleb, as successors despite Sviatopolk's primogeniture.Unhappy by his rule being restricted to only a small appanage which he saw as unfit for the prestigious status of the Grand Duke's eldest son, Sviatopolk plotted to overthrow his father. These plans were thwarted by Vladimir, who called all three conspirators to Kiev and jailed them in 1013." - pure nonsense, we have no idea what his inheritance plan was, nor why Svyatopolk or his brothers rebelled.
• "Upon Vladimir's death, Sviatopolk, the eldest son, could lay a strong legal claim for inheriting Kiev despite being highly unpopular with Kievans. Therefore, Vladimir's court attempted to conceal his death from Sviatopolk while his brothers, Boris and Gleb, consolidated power." = likewise nonsense; read what I replaced it with. Ignoring the fact that there's no reason to say Svyatopolk was the eldest son, and that it wouldn't have mattered anyway, tt was Svyatopolk who seized and consolidated power. Gleb was at his seat in Murom, while Boris was on campaign against the nomads.
• "Historians are divided on whether Boleslaw then decided to rule Kievan lands himself or not." - not really. He was only there a few months, had no power base in Rus or connections, was supporting someone else, modern historian wouldn't even debate it. Undue weight here.
• Sviatopolk asked Boleslaw to help him recapture the Kievan throne - really, asked him? (we have records of a conversation?)

I could go on ...but really, as I have improved the article, it would be more helpful if you actually specified what you object, rather than complaining about "your work" being undone (see WP:OWN). 95% of "your work" is still there, and the article is larger. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Your edit-warring is not helpful ... A little disingenouous if I may say so, given you're the one reverting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What you call "made-up", "pure nonsense" is sourced to a reliable scholar (Jaworski). I don't have time to merge the two versions; you want to add your version - you do it. Otherwise the version which passed the GA and MILHIST A article criteria should stay.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea if that scholar says that, and if he does (only have your word on that), that's an unfortunate mistake. It's simply nonsense, and reading the primary sources and consulting decent historical analysis in Martin, Franklin and Shepard, will show that to you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He says that, and his academic credentials trump your personal POV, I am afraid, per WP:NPOV/WP:V. You may think something is nonsense, but that doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia. He is a reliable scholar, and his findings/POV should be included. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, Piotrus. You say ... his academic credentials trump your personal POV, I am afraid, per WP:NPOV/WP:V. You may think something is nonsense, but that doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia' Well, listen, assuming you interpretted him correctly, which is a very big assumption given your known reliability on these things, it is transparently contradicted by the evidence, which makes it un-usable. But to show why it is total nonsense, let look at your text allegedly based on that source:

he chose his younger sons, Boris and Gleb, as successors despite Sviatopolk's primogeniture.

Silly. Sviatopolk position in the son list is completely unknown, and he is even widely accused of being a bastard. What's more Kievan Rus didn't operate on primogeniture. This is an example of some of the crude nonsense in the article. But it's hardly the only one. Let's continue.

Unhappy by his rule being restricted to only a small appanage which he saw as unfit for the prestigious status of the Grand Duke's eldest son, Sviatopolk plotted to overthrow his father.

Builds a narrative based on mistake. Adds details about Sviatopolk's plot which aren't attested in the sources. Etc. Bad history. Let's continue:

These plans were thwarted by Vladimir, who called all three conspirators to Kiev and jailed them in 1013. Sviatopolk counted on the help of his father-in-law Boleslaw, who encouraged Sviatopolk's plans through his daughter. The planned overthrow may have been supported by Bishop Reinbern of Kolberg, who had traveled with Boleslaw's daughter.[6] Reinbern may have acted in the interest of Catholic Rome. While the Great Schism that divided the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches was formalized only half a century later, ideological and political differences between Rome and Constantinople were already firmly in place, causing Rome to make efforts to sway the Rus' towards its influence and away from that of Byzantium.Reinbern died shortly after Sviatopolk was imprisoned.

All Thietmar says is that is that Reinbern went to Rus with the Polish bride, acted as a missionary to pagan peoples while there, and got imprisoned in Sviatopolk's entourage. The speculation, besides showing historical misunderstanding, is irrelevant to the context of the article, and is anachronistic as Rus leaders even for another century encouraged western clerics to come in, there being no schism at that point.

... but Boleslaw, wanting to ensure that his ally, Sviatopolk, took over the Kievan throne, invaded Kiev's lands in 1013 with the goal of freeing Sviatopolk.

"Goal" isn't known, only the invasion. That obviously should be stated. And, for instance, Martin and Franklin and Shepard believe his goal was the Cherven towns. Sviatopolk may not have been imprisoned until 1014, the year after the invasion. Arguably Sviatopolk could have been imprisoned because of his father-in-law's invasion, not the other way around. Some consciousness of this kind of problem in medieval history, piotrus, would stop you putting that kind of thing in. Anyways, let's continue ...

Now this stuff is hard-core nonsense:

Little is known about the event other than the fact that Vladimir released Sviatopolk from imprisonment shortly before his death,[3] and that he may have granted him the town of Vyshgorod, (Vyshhorod) near Kiev. Upon Vladimir's death, Sviatopolk, the eldest son, could lay a strong legal claim for inheriting Kiev despite being highly unpopular with Kievans.[7][4] Therefore, Vladimir's court attempted to conceal his death from Sviatopolk while his brothers, Boris and Gleb, consolidated power. Sviatopolk nevertheless uncovered the plot and seized his father's throne. Vladimir's personal guard (druzhyna) and the Kievan militia chose to align themselves with Boris, Vladimir's favored son, who was preferred by Kievans

Now let's compare with what the most widely academically recommended work on Kievan Rus in the English language, Franklin and Shepard's The Emergence of the Rus (pp. 184-5), says:

... As we have seen, Vladimir's policy was to convert the lands of the Rus into a family firm, to install his sons in key towns. But there are signs that in the latter years of his reign at least some of his sons were less loyal than he might have wished. Around 1013 or 1014 Sviatopolk of Turov is alleged to have plotted against him, and Vladimir had him arrested [185] and held - perhaps in Kiev, perhaps in nearbly Vyshgorod. In 1015 Iaroslav himself refused to send Vladimir the regular dues from his own town of Novgorod. Vladimir prepared to march norther, but fell ill and died before setting out. The circumstances of Sviatopolk's and Iaroslav's quarrels with their father are obscure, but unrelated sources (Thietmar and the chronicle) suggest that dynastic or regional tension predates the death of Vladimir.

The second phase lasted through the summer of 1015, starting on the day Vladimir died, Friday 15 July. The principal actors were Sviatopolk of Turov and three of his brothers: Boris of Rostov, Gleb of Murom and Sviatoslav of the Derevlian land. Sviatopolk's previous arrest turned out to be an advantage, for it ensured that he was already in Kiev (or Vyshgorod), closest to the center of power, and thus able to manoeuvre more quickly and effectively than his brothers. If the native narratives are to be believed, Sviatopolk bribed the local into acquiescence, assuming authority in Kiev, and applied his energies to arranging for the murder of as many of his brothers as he could. His first victim was Boris, whom Vladimir had sent south against the Pechenegs. Returning from the steppes, deserted by his father's men (supposedly for declining to take Kiev on his behalf), Boris camped before the river Alta - in the middle ages a kind of perennial Rubicon on the road to or from the lands of the nomads, now the site of Kiev's international airport, about 40 miles south-east of the city. Here, on Sunday 24 July, Sviatopolk's assassins found him and killed him. Gleb was next, lured by deceit from distant Murom in the north-east. He reached the confluences of the rivers Smiadin and Dnieper close to Smolensk, where he too was murdered without resistance, on Monday 5 September. Sviatoslav was killed while trying to escape to Hungary ....

So just my "POV"? This is merely tendentiousness. Sloppy research is more to blame. You can't use the kind of source you use and expect to be able write early medieval history. It just has too many complexities. I'm sorry you'd rather fight over this matter than have a discussion, but you're still going to get a discussion anyway. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, Deacon, you fail to understand my point. I am not disuputing your additions. I am disputing removal of the other POV, once you claim as nonesense and so on. Despite what you believe, the other POV is referenced, and should be kept. If you think it is necessary, we can qualify it: According to Jaworski...' and add According to X and Y, this is different. But if Jaworski gives 5,000 for numbers, and writes about elder/younger son, this should be kept, no matter what you believe or like. This is called WP:NPOV, FYI.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Piotrus and Alan, do you really prefer a newspaper over reliable academic sources? It is a really strange approach Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have explained the reliability of the source (written by a respected historian) above. I am very disappointed, Alex, that your only contribution here is a blank revert in support of Irpen :( PS. Your edit summary even shows you haven't looked at the article: neither version (unfortunately) uses Google Books... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Piotrus and JonCatalán, there is an important matter here that seems to be missing from this discussion. The notion that indeed sometimes some sources are better than others. I agree with JonCatalán that such argument can be tried in any discussion but I suggest that he indeed spends a little more time investigating the matter. If we have sources of approximately similar academic standing and credibility, all within scholarly mainstream but disagreeing with each other, I sure agree that both sources should be reflected giving with the due weight given to each opinion. Here we have a different story. On one hand we have two classical modern books on the subject: "Medieval Russia" by martin and "Emergence of Rus" by Franklin & Shepard. These books are the most authoritative modern works published in English on the subject universally used in the university courses around the world as textbooks on the Medieval Rus. The other sources are relatively obscure and are nowhere close to the former two by their authority in the scholarly field.

I would not object to less commonly known sources being used per se but if they contradict the classical works, this is a different story. Saying that sources like Martin, Frankin and Shepard say A while some relatively obscure source says B is a classical WP:UNDUE.

On a more general note, the difference between the two versions illustrate one of the fundamental problem of Wikipedia. The problem of seriously looking articles being written and even rated Good, A or even FA, while in fact those articles are entirely written by editors who instead of reading books on the subject write Wikipedia through googling (and google-booking.)

If there is anything to add to this version, I more than welcome that. But contradicting Sheppard or Martin with articles published in Rzechpospolita is unacceptable.

On the final note, I wonder what brought Alden Jones to this article all of a sudden. This editor's sole activity in East European articles is reverting to Piotrus' version. I mean literally. And when Piotrus has three reverts under the belt, out of the blue this fellow whose English, sadly, is not good enough to edit, kicks in with an extra revert. This is no way to edit harmoniously, guys.

I would like to suggest that this disagreement is solved at this talk page discussion rather than through a mobilization of a tag team for a revert war coordinated by Gadu-Gadu. --Irpen 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

If I may say, Piotrus, you are being rather tendentious. What facts in the article do you dispute? You have inserted a disputed tag without disputing anything ... it will be removed unless you do so. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see User:Irpen has already removed it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the accuracy of your version, which omits several key findings, arguments and POVs present in my version.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you dispute? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, just include everything, don't delete anything. Say, "so and so states that this is what happened but so and so says that this is what actually happened . That's it. Cla68 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[10] --Irpen 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Refimprovement

Chronological error

There's just the one statement in the article resting solely on a Brockhaus article, the underlined part here: "It is of note that Boleslaw invaded Kiev's lands in 1013, though no source gives any explanation. This was possibly Boleslaw's first attempt to re-take the Cherven towns, though it has also been argued that his goal might have been to free Svyatopolk." Can anyone suggest a reference? This contradicts the chronology in Franklin & Shepard, pp. 199–200, where Boleslaw's 1013 invasion precedes Svyatoslav's marriage and subsequent arrest. More to follow ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, waiting for more! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who added this Brockhaus reference, and not to such bizarre claim, I am surprised that in the process of editing it turned to say such nonsense. I never added this bizarre claim of freeing Svyatopolk being Boleslav's goal. And of course Brockhaus does not say that either.

This is the edit that adds this claim. In fact, everything that was sourced to Brockhaus, is confirmed by better modern sources to which I had no access at the time and I had no qualms when Brockhaus was removed. When we have a clearly superior source, it should always take precedence. --Irpen 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Zhylenko

I know there was already spat over Zhylenko's work, but what is it needed for anyway? And why is it referenced without comment or caution when material from the "Primary Chronicle", "Gallus" and Thietmar is not? It's a martyrology, right? Or something similar. And why does Mme Drozd get billed as a historian - "In the past some historians (such as Zhylenko and Kostomarov) have conjectured ..." - when she's not? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is resolved to my dissatisfaction. Reading patericon, it is a 13th century martyrology-type work. So, definitely all references to that need to be redone in "according to the Kievan Cave Patericon ..." style. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my additions are not based on primary sources (those, as well as Russian secondary sources, IIRC, were mostly Irpen's additions). My additions are primarly based on "Wyprawa..." by Jaworski.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The patericon in question is not used directly anywhere in the article. At least, I never added any direct references to patericon itself but to the extensive comments given in its heavily annotated recent republication of which Zhylenko was the main editor. I tried to check whether the editor of the publication is the same person as poet Iryna Zhylenko, and was unable to verify that. I did find though that there are many other medieval texts recently published under the editorship of Zhylenko.

I have no qualms if references to her annotations are replaced with better sources. The mere fact that Moses the Hungarian was forcibly taken from Kiev to Poland where he was later emasculated is probably based on the patericon itself but it is widely made in many later hagiographies. --Irpen 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaworski

For Chwała Oręża Polskiego #2 (or 23), since this is a collective work, can we please have an author and article title for these? Is there an ISSN for this magazine? I couldn't find one, but if there is it should be listed here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noted above - and in the maintext, albeit my revision was reverted - that the primary author is historian Rafał Jaworski (see details few scrolls above).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, I'm not being clear enough. Surely these articles are "signed". Let me give you an illustration of what I mean. If I open Les Dossiers d'archéologie, no. 327, there's a table of contents at the front. This tells me that the coordination scientifique (i.e. the general editor) was Umberto Roberto and for each article tells me who wrote it (e.g. the article "Les Germains entre Rhin, Danube et mer Baltique" was by Professor Jan Bemmann of Bonn University). The work is edited by Roberto (or in the case of Chwała Oręża Polskiego, by Jaworski I presume), but the articles are written by various people. In a collective work the reference should be to the article and the article's author, not to the work as a whole and the editor, or so I'd expect in a GA/A/FA class article. We need to attribute the material as clearly and unambiguously as possible, particularly when dealing with sources which the average interested reader will be unable to find in a library or even purchase from an internet bookshop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In our case, all articles cited were written by Jaworski.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to specify the references, Piotrus, in the references, article by article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, does this work consist of a collection of essays by separate authors (most done by Jaworski) or is it one work with many authors? If the former you need to cite the essays individually by author. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, almost all of the work (and all cited info) comes from Jaworski. There are a few minor inserts (ex. about the weaponry of the period) by other authors, they are not cited.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I and Angus wrote above, you need to make the ref(s) more sophisticated than that. As I asked above, does this work consist of a collection of essays by separate authors (most done by Jaworski) or is it one work with many authors? If the former you need to cite the essays individually by author. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to improve the citation's style, I've given you all info that is need for that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't, as you haven't specified the individual articles (nor informed me if there are individual articles). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider those "articles" chapters within the book written by one single author. The other authors have written small "boxes", easily identifiable. While not the most popular book format, this is not uncommon. If you want, you can go and add Jaworski to every citation from the source; I don't see much point in doing so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaworski's number

Not only Jaworski is a source by far inferior than classical books on the subjecy like Martin's or Sheppard. Even, the info referenced to Jaworski is not presented adequately.

For example there is a claim of the Polish force strength being 4 to 7 thousand fighters, which is supposedly Jaworski's estimate. In fact, this is Piotrus' synthesis of what Jaworski actually says. My Polish is not good at all, but it is enough to understand the Jaworski's claim from his "A Strife on Bug" article.

What he says is this:

"Historians, who have rather poor sources at their disposal, do not agree on the men count of the Brave's expedition. While the numbers of Germans (300 knights), Hungarians (500) and Pechenegs (1000 fighters) are given by Thietmar, the size of the Polish force is unknown. It is estimated that from 2 to 5 thousand of Polish soldiers took part in the campaign."

Thus we have a rather precise count of mercenaries 300+500+1000=1800 and a very rough estimate of the Polish indigenous force (2 to 5 thousand) that can be found only in Jaworski.

I understand that Piotrus obtains his 4 to 7 thousand by adding 1800 to 2000 and to 5000 respectively, and rounding this up on his own. This is pure synthesis and a bad one. First, no one ever combines the better known number with the imprecise guess since the result of such addition is meaningless. Second, Jaworski's estimate is worthy of being mentioned in the body at most but not in the infobox if no other historian, including the world renowned specialist on the Medieval Rus find it appropriate to do any such estimates. There is no reason to assume that Jaworski has in his disposal some additional info unavailable to any English or Russian researcher. --Irpen 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed this from the infobox. --Irpen 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the estimate seems quite reliable to me. As a compromise, we can transform it into a note, where we could explain, in essence, how this number was reached and by whom (feel free to write such a note based on your comment above). And it seems prefectly reasonable to assume that Jaworski, author of the newest publication on the subject cited here, has access to some new (perhaps Polish?) research. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite reliable to you is not good enough. To some people historical fantasies of Anatoly Fomenko "seem quite reliable". Is there a single other work with this number? I am asking because Jaworski does not give a citation of where he finds such estimate. Neither he shows us how he obtained it. It may be good enough to mention in the text but not for the infobox since it is not established firmly enough. Besides, I repeat, you cannot add up numbers cited by Jaworski on your own. His work does not say 7,000 anywhere. Even he knows better than to add up numbers more or less known to the numbers that are a very rough guesswork as such sum is totally meaningless. --Irpen 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He is a reliable historian, unless you can provide proof he is known for creating fantasies or that he is contradicted by others. But ok, I'll de-add the infobox.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am not comparing Jaworski with Fomenko. I was referring to your "seems reliable to me" claim. I have no qualms to use Jaworski per se but not to give him an undue weight. It is one thing to reference to him some part in the main text body but it is quite another thing to slap the estimate found nowhere else into the infobox over the whole article. Many historians with by far better established reputation in Medieval Rus wrote on these events and none made such estimates. This should make us at least somewhat cautious here. --Irpen 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again: Jaworski work is the newest we have. Feel free to ask about it at WP:RSN or WP:MILHIST, or start an RfC.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Again, Piotrus, I am not trying to impeach Jaworski as a whole. He is usable. I am against giving an undue weight to some claim about an otherwise widely researched event that can only be sourced to a relatively obscure Polish historian while not a single better known specialist on Medieval Rus mentions it and Jaworski himself gives this claim uncited. Still, I do not object to use it in the text body of the article. But placing such an exceptional estimate in an infobox, is giving a relatively obscure opinion too much of an undue weight.

Infoboxes are like categories. Their use should be unquestionable. Anything more nuanced belongs to the main text where the nuances can be properly outlined. --Irpen 18:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He is the only source, reliable (academic), and not contradicted by other sources. I see no problem with using him in infobox, particularly of we - as you noted - don't synthesize his findings too much, and - as I've noted - we make sure (with a note) even his infobox numbers are clearly attributed (so the reader can make his own judgment on them). It is illogical to leave 'unknown' in infobox, when at least one historian argues it is known. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we are at last at the stage where we are ready to ask for a third opinion. The issue at hand, as I see it, goes like this. The subject is an event that is covered in a wide variety of scholarly sources. However, on certain details of this event, very few specifics is known (and Jaworski himself admits that the basis to make any estimates of the Polish force is very poor while we have a pretty good clue from the chronicle about the mercenary component). So poor the basis is that no source written by the specialists who wrote internationally acclaimed books on the topic and whose authority is widely established world-wide, dares to try to estimate a Polish force. In the meanwhile a relatively obscure Polish historian whose research on Russian history is practically unknown outside of Poland makes his own estimate of the force while honestly acknowledging that such estimate has a very poor source basis. When he does such estimate, he shows neither how he obtains it himself nor he gives any reference to where he gets it from (because he gives it not in an academic work but in a popular article for a general audience).

You and I both agree that such estimate can be given in a text of an article in an attributed form and with the caveat that other authors do not dare to make an estimate based on a poor information available. However, and this is where we disagree, this is not rock solid enough for an infobox, where a nuanced explanation is impossible. You insist that this belongs to an infobox while I say this infobox field should be left blank or (at most) say "see text". If you agree that this fairly summarizes our disagreement, please file an RfC. --Irpen 20:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with stress on "internationally recognized" (US is not international) vs "obscure Polish", and I'd like to repeat again Jaworski work is the newest (so he may have access to more modern research than our other, older sources), I agree with the rest of your problem statement. You can file the RfC when you are ready.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by Piotrus

Discussion moved from user talk pages

It might be a good idea to refrain from disingenuous edit-summaries at the moment.[11] Anyway, I have content issues with your reverts, which I've explained on talk quite fully; and you haven't commented on them. Don't you see why if you don't address my own content concerns your reverts aren't going to get anywhere? Reverting and edit-warring isn't how you'll make my concerns disappear, Piotrus, it never has been ... :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your issues, and I have restored well-referenced content. My version, which does not remove any of your content (other than few errors, such as the "Duchy of the Poles"), merges all the available info, per suggestions by neutral editors (User:Catalan, User:Cla68). You are more than welcome to expand the text and point out (for example) a specific work that disputes Jaworski claim that Sv. was the eldest son. In such cases, we may also attribute a given theory to Jaworski (I've done so already, for example with regards to his estimate of the size of the Polish forces. Yes, it's an estimate by a historian, who admits its not based on a primary source but on the works of Polish historians speculating about the Polish contingent in 1018; still it is a reliable historical claim). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original ref was presented as if it came from a historical source. But if you're gonna use a made-up number (which is what it is), you'll have to explain why the cited author thinks that figure range likely to be accurate. After all, you are inserting it in the lead template as if it were a fact, which of course it isn't. Jaworski is not a prominent historian of medieval Rus, so his claims won't get enough attention to be disputed by historians of the topic. More generally, because he (supposedly) wrote that in the Polish language, it won't be subject to any meaningful peer review among specialists of medieval Russia. That Svyatopolk's position in the sons list is unclear is demonstrable by reading actual historians of medieval Russia, such as Franklin and Shepard, the refs to which I provided and even went to the trouble to quote. As it is so demonstrably clear, adding this bit could serve nothing more than highlight the mistake of a non-specialist historical writer or give undue weight to a non-mainstream author in the subject area. I mean, does Jaworski just assert this or does he argue it based upon source evidence, and which evidence? You need to at least point this out If the former, then the reference isn't reliable. If the latter, his arguments should be summarised. Duchy of the Poles or Duchy of Poland is btw a more historically authentic way of representing how that lordship was described in contemporary sources. Actually give Thietmar a read and you'd find that out. Regarding the assertions of those "neutral editors", you're both misrepresenting them and pushing a flawed argument, as even if they did what you're asserting (which they didn't), it wouldn't matter because the actual heart of the dispute is being ignored. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this, btw, an example of the "referenced" material you're reinsertin: "In any case, Svyatopolk was released by Vladimir in 1013, shortly before his death, and that he may have granted him the town of Vyshgorod, (Vyshhorod) near Kiev." 1) It doesn't have a reference and 2) you're ignoring my comments on this above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaworski is a prominent historian in Poland (cited in books, other mentions). As I wrote earlier, I have no qualms about qualifying his claims with "Polish histtorian Jaworski estimates...' and so on. Perhaps you'd like to back up your claim about world-leading expertise of Franklin and Simions by creating an entry for Simon Franklin and expanding Jonathan Shepard? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you address my points please, Piotrus. Regarding Franklin and Shepard ... is it that you do not believe this or that you want me to expand the articles? Regarding Jaworski, you asked that me to givea specific work that disputes Jaworski claim that Sv. was the eldest son, so that's me telling you why that won't happen. As far as it looks, the Jaworski claim (which your silence indicates isn't backed-up in his writings) looks like a run-of-the-mill mistake in a work by a non-specialist historian writing for a general audience. This is no big deal, it's very common, and no-one with experience in historical writing would seek to make a big deal of it. Early medieval history isn't ww2 stuff, you need to cite historians (' interpretations) along with the sources they use to approach any sort of quality, and develop an editorial judgment to do this well. Wanting to give so much space and time to a matter based solely on an assertion by a non-specialist historical writer for a newspaper in contradiction by the most prominent mainstream historians is not, in my view, good editorial judgment. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all of your points. I see little reason to continue this conversation, since you ignore my proof of Jaworski being a respected medievalist of Russia, claim you don't need to provide sources contradicting him before removing him, and so on. You mentioned WP:OWN earlier: please take a good, hard look at this article. There is a reason neutral editors who commented here supported merging of our versions, and object to your removal of my referenced material.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making up stuff about neutral editor as an excuse to ignore my points. You haven't proved he is a "respected medievalist of Russia", merely shown he is a historian in Poland, which was already known. I have went through bibliographies on Kievan Rus and his name doesn't show up. Moreover, respected historians of medieval Rus don't write in Polish, they write in Russian, English and sometimes German or French. I find it difficult to believe that you think he is a specialist on that topic, and if you do, the reasons why are still a mystery to everyone. Please actually address my numerous points about individual reinsertions rather than try to silence the discussion with hollow references to "neutral editors", irrelevant policy pages and to dismiss individual points under the irrelevant umbrella of general "merge". Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In Poland, historians write in Polish, and they are quite reliable, respectable and well-known. I will of course grant you that non-English historians are commonly disregarded and unknown in the West, but this doesn't mean that they are considered less reliable on Wikipedia (see WP:RSUE).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kievan Rus is a particular specialization and its scholarly community is international, and write mostly in either English (Westerners) or Russian (Russians), and sometimes in German or French. You already know he's not a specialist in the topic, so I dunno why you wanna waste time on that point. Besides, you're still ignoring the other points I made, as well as my questions and the majority of problems I've raised about your restored content. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, there was no point in asking me to look at merging back some of the previous material and agreeing that the referencing could do with improvement if you meant to simply revert to the original, flawed version. I have asked two questions about sources, one of which is as yet unanswered. The other is not clearly answered. Sourcing is of critical importance in articles like this. If we look at the footnotes in Franklin & Shepard, we can get an idea of what more detailed material is available. Quite a few of the interesting books and articles seem to be by A. V. Nazarenko & M. B. Sverdlov, both writing in Russian.

And I am more than a little concerned about so much of the material you wish to retain resting on a source which is uncheckable in practice and of uncertain quality. The former title of the magazine, Zwycięstwa i chwała oręża polskiego, is not, to an anglophone, something that engenders much confidence in seriousness of the content, but perhaps it has different significance in Polish. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Angus, since in the past week you have not merged almost anything (I assumed due to time constrains), I took a stab at it. The source cited is reliable. I have no problem with attribution if there is a contradiction with another source. I can't understand what the problems are? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, with respect, your judgement of sources has not always been of the best. You asked me to look at merging things, but even what was left after the Deacon finished still needed work because he wasn't ruthless enough. Ancient Brockhaus material, nineteenth century writings by Nikolay Kostomarov, Iryna Zhylenko being called a historian, and material being referenced to a patericon without comment as if were a secondary source. Even the Jaworski material does not leave me entirely happy; unlike Mówią Wieki, Chwała Oręża Polskiego is virtually invisible on the internet. And reading things like the idea that one could find "a specific work that disputes Jaworski claim that Sv. was the eldest son" is reminiscent of pseudoscience talk pages. I hope you feel some regret at have written that. I am not seeing that we should be rushing to do anything until we're clear on what needs to be done. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I mentioned it earlier, but since you are new to the discussion: Chwała... was a series of inserts, prepared by MW for a popular Polish newspaper, Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). I see it as reliable as MW, which is to say as reliable as any popular science history mag, written by a reliable academic. If Jaworski claims that Sv. was the eldest son, it seems reliable to me unless it is contradicted by some other source. Forgive me, but Deacon saying it's nonsense is not for me a reliable criticism of source of that quality.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If Jaworski claims that Sv. was the eldest son, it seems reliable to me unless it is contradicted by some other source.

Sorry, Piotrus, did you miss it when I gave two references, actually quoting one to save you a trip to the university library, doing just that?(!) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the Deacon saying this. It's Janet Martin and Franklin & Shepard who are saying that there is no solid evidence as to the birth order of Vladimir's sons. In any case, this article is not the place to go into detail because it's tangential to the subject. It belongs in the articles on Vladimir and his sons where it can be treated properly. And it would be ridiculous to expect that Jaworski's arguments in a newspaper supplement would be rebutted anywhere, especially in books which predate it. Like I said, asking for an explicit refutation in print of a fringe theory or an accidental error is the sort of thing seen on the talk pages of articles about pseudosciences.

And what of my other concerns? Is Irina Zhylenko really a historian? Shouldn't the patericon be treated like other primary sources? Is the Brockhaus representative of modern scholarship? How about Kostomarov? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I missed the "no solid evidence". I had corrected this in text; Jaworski's work is newer by a decade and it is possible new evidence of scientific consensus have been estabilished. I am not going to comment about other sources - I am not opposing their removal/rewrite, but I object to removal of Jaworski's work.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Are you aware of any significant breakthroughs in the medieval Rus research in the last decade? Were any new chronicles discovered or any amazing archaeological findings published? Unlike other works used here, Jaworski's work strikes me as a popular writing for the general public in a popular newspaper by the author whose respectability in the field cannot be verified. He is not some guy from the street, no doubt, but he is not known as an authority in Kievan Rus, especially compared to the leading Russian and Ukrainian historians or Martin and Sheppard, whose books are used in any university course on the subject in US and UK, and are extensively referenced and their authors are an unquestionable authority in the field.

It is just an objective fact of life that sometimes one source is better than the other. It is not always the case and when respectable sources disagree, it is OK to say that this source claims A while the other source claims B. I don't see this being the case here. --Irpen 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues of contention

I'd like to go through some of the disputed material in detail:

1. Polish historian [[Rafał Jaworski]] wrote that Vladimir I dictated that his eldest son, Sviatopolk I, would only receive the remote town of [[Turov]] (''Turaŭ'') after his death, and he chose his younger sons, [[Boris and Gleb]], as successors despite Sviatopolk's [[primogeniture]].<ref name="Wyprawa6"/> Unhappy by his rule being restricted to only a small [[appanage]] which he saw as unfit for the prestigious status of the Grand Duke's eldest son, Sviatopolk plotted to overthrow his father.<ref name="Wyprawa6"/> This does not agree with the accounts in Martin and Franklin & Shepard as noted already.
2. Reinbern may have acted in the interest of [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] [[Holy See|Rome]]; while the [[East-West Schism|Great Schism]] that divided the [[Orthodox Christianity|Eastern Orthodox]] and Catholic churches was formalized only half a century later, ideological and political differences between Rome and [[Constantinople]] were already firmly in place, causing Rome to make efforts to sway the Rus' towards its influence and away from that of [[Byzantium]].<ref name=pat30/> The source for this is apparently the Kievan Caves Patericon, but none of this can possibly be derived in that source. If it is derived from some commentary Zhylenko added, that needs to be made very clear.
3. In any case, Svyatopolk was released by Vladimir in 1013, shortly before his death, and that he may have granted him the town of [[Vyshgorod]], (''Vyshhorod'') near Kiev. Unreferenced. F&S disagree in any case.
4. Upon Vladimir's death, Sviatopolk, the eldest son, could lay a strong legal claim for inheriting Kiev despite being highly unpopular with Kievans. According to the ''Primary Chronicle'', Vladimir's court attempted to conceal his death from Sviatopolk while his brothers, Boris and Gleb, consolidated power. Unreferenced and, worse yet, inserted so as to appear that F&S support this, which they don't.
5. Vladimir's personal guard ([[druzhyna]]) and the Kievan militia chose to align themselves with [[Boris and Gleb|Boris]], Vladimir's favored son, who was preferred by Kievans. Unreferenced and, worse yet, inserted so as to appear that F&S support this, which they don't.
6. Yaroslav, in turn, wanted to prevent Boleslaw from uniting with the Pechenegs, defeat Boleslaw's main force and then take care of the less organized Pechenegs.<ref name="Wyprawa8"/> Jaworski is evidently a mind-reader since there is no other way that anyone can know what those involved wanted. To determine what they did is quite difficult enough.

I could go on, but surely this is enough for now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Added info on contradition to text. Per WP:NPOV, notable points and arguments should be represented. If Jaworski has a different theory, it should be presented. Note it is attributed to him, feel free to clarify it further. Also note that his work is more recent that those that contradict him.
2. While I found this explanation, added by Irpen, useful and interesting, as I have not read the source he cited I will not object to its removal, provided he is notified of it and given a chance to reply here.
3. Again, IIRC, this was added by Irpen. The rest, as in point 2 above.
4. As above.
5. As above.
6. Disagree. I am sure a reliable historian like Jarowski has sufficient expertise and knowledge to base his claim unpon it. I will however add a clarification to the text that this is based on Jarowski.

I hope the above goes long way in stopping a revert war. If Irpen does not reply within a day or two, I will not object to removal of material disputed in points 2-5.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I will also list below the items, constantly reveted by Deacon, with which removal I strongly disagree:

7 Jaworski provides an estimate for the size of Polish forces (2,000-5,000). He notes it's a common estimate, not supported by primary sources but by later scholarly works.

8 While the naming of the Polish state pre-1025 is an interesting issue, Kingdom of Poland is better than Duchy of the Poland (particularly with "the"). I'd suggest and welcome creation of an article on Duchy of Poland, supported by reliable refs. I am not familiar with that name being the common and popular name to pre-1025 KoP.

9 I am disappointed with Deacon removing even the minor cosmetic corrections, such as the ilinks that exist in my version to Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev or Jonathan Shepard (just two of several examples of useful, non-controversial info he reverts). WP:OWN was mentioned, and this indeed is a good illustration to it (I tried to keep all Deacon additions in the article).

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

While I was archiving the older comments today, the following matter caught my eye:

• As I wrote above, the source is a collection of articles by several historians, so in fact you get views by different authors. Yes, published in one anthology (collection), but different POVs. (2007-09-03)
• As I wrote above, almost all of the work (and all cited info) comes from Jaworski. There are a few minor inserts (ex. about the weaponry of the period) by other authors, they are not cited. (2008-09-01)

I find the discrepancy between your earlier comments and your recent ones rather worrisome.

The Martin and Shepard & Franklin books can be checked by any interested editor, albeit with some difficulty, on Google books, and they are available in many libraries in the English-speaking world. For the Jaworski work, we must effectively take your word on the matter, and you have been less than frank about this work either now or in the past. I trust that you can see why this is a most serious problem.

As regards the changes made, I am not quite convinced. For a student submitting a paper, Martin and Franklin & Shepard would be a fairly safe bet. Martin, to a degree, and Franklin & Shepard explain the reasons for their conclusions by reference to the various pieces of evidence which survive. Their works are quite widely cited and clearly meet the standard expected of sourcing. I am not entirely satisfied that the same is true of the source on which you wish to rely so heavily. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: the discrepancy. I was under the impression it was written by several historians until few days ago I revisited it and realized that 90% of the booklet was written by one person.

Yes, it is extremely difficult to access many Polish scholarly works. Sad, but it does not make them less reliable. If you want, I can fwd you a scan of Jaworski work.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be helpful. My Polish is non-existent - I know what Uwaga means on road signs - but I'm sure I can get it translated more or less. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do send me an @, as wikimails don't support attachments.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, is this intended as a serious edit:

Polish historian Rafał Jaworski wrote that Vladimir I dictated that his eldest son, Sviatopolk I, would only receive the remote town of Turov (Turaŭ) after his death, and he chose his younger sons, Boris and Gleb, as successors despite Sviatopolk's primogeniture.[4] His argument contradicts that of Martin, Franklin and Shepard, who in their older works however note that there is no solid evidence as to the birth order of Vladimir's sons.[citation needed] Unhappy by his rule being restricted to only a small appanage which he saw as unfit for the prestigious status of the Grand Duke's eldest son, Sviatopolk plotted to overthrow his father

It's very strange, to say the least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How so? Seems quite accurate and NPOV to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think then you'll need to reread what I wrote above again. And, to elaborate, to depict the non-Kievan specialist Jaworski's unreferenced article for a popular audience in a magazine/newspaper published only in Polish as potentially a cut above Franklin and Shepard is patently ridiculous. You honestly don't see that? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see we are finally making progress. Now, Deacon, why couldn't we have done it from the very beginning - why did you spend two weeks simply reverting all of my edits before accepting my merge proposal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit seems to be problematic. According to the translation I got (simplifying the process rather there), Jaworski does not say that Svyatopolk was the eldest surviving son, only that he was older than Boris (& Gleb). I also notice that Jaworski doesn't say Svyatopolk had Boris killed, but instead (repeating what Franklin & Shepard call a "conspiracy theory") says Yaroslav was responsible, repeating the mangled account in Eymund's saga. Still lots to do here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will self-revert myself, until the time I can provide the exact quote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you really need to do much more. The Jaworski material is hard to take too seriously as a major source for this article. If you're still in Pittsburgh, the University there has the Franklin & Shepard book, and Vernadsky's old one, and Duczko's rather odd one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Jaworski material is hard to take too seriously". Why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[12]. --Irpen 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." Rzeczpospolita is not, when it comes to the history of medieval Rus, a "respected mainstream publication".

You still haven't explained how it came to be that you omitted Jaworski's version of the deaths of Boris & Gleb. Since I only have a part-translation, I can't say if there are other examples of cherry-picking or not. Even just the one puts the article into question. This is the sort of problematic behaviour that resulted in arbcom requiring PHG to use commonly available English-language sources, or to have them checked by a mentor. In view of these comments, I am wondering whether this needs to be raised in the current arbitration case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I find threatening with arbcom dispute resolution quite below the standards of a respectable discussion. I also find it curious that you are building a straw man of Rzeczpospolita, where in fact all the content of the publication in question was supplied by a respectable, historical magazine Mówią Wieki (Rzeczpospolita provided only an outlet and sponsorship). In other words, article by Jaworski appeared in an insert prepared by MW for Rzeczpospolita. And MW in Poland is considered a respectable mainstream publication on any aspect of history - you can even see its articles cited by Western scholars ([13]).

"You still haven't explained how it came to be that you omitted Jaworski's version of the deaths of Boris & Gleb". At that point, I have no idea what version that was, and I have no time to look back and figure out if and where a mistake occurred. If it did - well, I, like everyone, am not perfect and might have misread Jaworski (as I did for example with some of his numbers at one point). Assuming bad faith ("examples of cherry-picking") is again below the standards of our relatively peaceful discussion here, Angus. I am always assuming good faith on your part, and if you make a mistake, I understand you are human. I would expect the same attitude in return.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that sooner or later you'll reread the Jaworski article and update this accordingly. You're the person who thinks it's a key source, and you're the one who reads Polish, so it's really up to you to fix things so that this article fairly represents Jaworski's views, which I doubt at present. I rather doubt that I'll be able to do it. And while I find the idea of edit-warring to keep material in the article without actually checking its accuracy nothing short of incredible, that's something for you to worry about. Are we agreed that this is not really a GA class article? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)