This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rusyns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rusyns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RusynsWikipedia:WikiProject RusynsTemplate:WikiProject RusynsRusyns articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "The reason the princely family felt a need for Slavic names was to accommodate the local Slavic nobility", In urban to "The penetration of Slavic names into princely anthroponymicon indicates the beginnings of assimilation processes. Princes of Scandinavian origin started to feel a necessity and found it possible to borrow local names for at least some of their scions thus breaking off with the ancestral tradition of naming" or something similar to show that the royal family was beginning to merge with their eastern slavic peoples local custom. The lack of mention of Sviatoslav as the start of the assmilation process into the slavic is a oversight in the article. RayquayZzZ (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Oh, I guess you were interpreting the refernce[1] cited there. In my opinion both versions are bad: "the princely family felt a need" and "started to feel a necessity and found it possible" are both far-stretched guessworks based on scarce records on the period. Surely no prince said "I feel a need".
I reviewed the paragraph in question and the source cited and removed it althogether, because it was a liberal interpretation by a wikipedian: "wants to give", "felt a need" - there is no basis to read the minds of Varangians. - Altenmann>talk20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Viking Rus by Wladyslaw Duczko, he says that the later chronicle mention of Polans under the year 898 "can be one more artificial attempt of the compiler to find an explanation for the introduction of the name of Rus to the territories at Middle Dnieper" (p. 208). He also mentions that "there is obvious conflict between this statement and the repeated description of the places where Poliane were dwelling... Once more we find traces of artificial constructions hiding a lack of information about the realities of the distant past. The similarity of names between the Polish Polans and the Kievan Poliane looks very suspicious... He needed a name for the people among which the Rus settled and built their state, and there was also a need to make these people important by giving them not only superior qualities but also a well-established name." He also mentions that in a 911 treaty, the term "Rus nation" is a misleading translation "giving the impression that the envoys represented the whole population of Rhosia. The original word is rod, which refers to an extended family consisting of all kinsfolk" (p. 210). Mellk (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mention that the name was transferred to the Middle Dnieper region is already included in the article. We do not need to insert questionable claims about the Polans adopting it and then explaining the terminology of the state in later centuries, especially in the lead. This belongs in a different article. Mellk (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And so I expanded on it, and added the terminology behind it, what is your point? I didn't add explanations of this terms, I simply added references to the articles that explain this terminology, you have no point. Shahray (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any major claims from modern Historiography that Polanians suddenly aren't a real tribe. You're just ignoring sources that are already presented in the article. Shahray (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said there was no Slavic tribe there. That is a straw man. The sources you used simply repeat the chronicle retelling of events. Mellk (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No they're not, where did this conclusion came from? "As far as the use of the name Rus' goes, it appears it was first applied to people that rae Vikings, then to the land of Polanians, then to a political entity known as Kievan Rus'" how is this simply a "chronicle retelling of events"? Stop it, I'm reverting the changes. Shahray (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wladyslaw Duczko does not say the name was not applied to the Middle Dnieper, he is saying that the mention of the Polans adopting the name is an artificial attempt of introducing the name there. This article also falls under WP:CTOPS. I would suggest to not engage in edit warring. Mellk (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it started imply to Polianians and their land is not disputed. I would like to not engage, so please stop falsely accusing me of not providing a source or providing a "source that just retell chronicle". If that's all, I will revert. Shahray (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article already says that the name was used for the Middle Dnieper and spread to other Slavic territories. There is no dispute about this. The statements you added, however, are quite clearly disputed. Does anyone say Duczko is wrong or that there was no artificial attempt to explain the introduction of the name? This is also a newer source compared to the ones you used. You cannot say I would like to not engage otherwise it suggests that you are not interested in collaborating. This is a collaborative project. Mellk (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fringe theory, it isn't stated in any article. I mean to collaborate, and I will change the text slightly for that reason for now. And if you're willing to collaborate aswell, please don't delete all of my changes again. Shahray (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a fringe theory. If you insist on mentioning Polans, then we must use the newer source by Duczko per WP:AGEMATTERS. This is also not something that can be mentioned in the lead as it is clearly disputed. Please do not restore your disputed changes that you do not have consensus for, otherwise this will be considered edit warring. It is better to come up with a proposed wording here that everyone can agree to. Mellk (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He needed a name for the people among which the Rus settled and built their state, and there was also a need to make these people important by giving them not only superior qualities but also a well-established name." this type of wording clearly discards the existence of Polianians, or a slavic tribe there. This idea isn't mainstream, so it's definitely WP:Fringe. I can delete the mention of Polianians just while this conversation is going, my expansion is still constructive. And please don't delete all my changes again, you can delete only the segment you didn't like, otherwise you're just offensively discarding all of other people's hardwork for nothing, just because of one change you didn't like. Please be respectful, and then our talk will be much healthier, and I'll see you're also willing to cooperate. Shahray (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, in my original edit summary, I said your edit had too much editorializing and you still have not given a reason for other unexplained and unconstructive changes.
For instance, you changed the sentence: "In Russian historiography, two cities are used to describe the beginnings of the country: Kiev and Novgorod" to "In Russian historiography, besides Kiev, Novgorod is also used to describe the beginnings of the country in nationalistic purposes". The source says "two towns used to symbolise the early history of Russia: Kiev and Novgorod". There is nothing about nationalistic purposes written here (p. 60). The fact that you have added this unsourced change three times now is not a good sign.
Then you changed that Novgorod "was another centre of the same culture" to "but it is believed by some it was another centre of the same culture, brought from Kiev", so you are once again inserting your own opinion. We can go on. You also changed "On the account of these Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as the land of Rus'" to "On account of these Varangians, the Land of Rus' was named, while Novgorodians, those people Novgorodians are from Varangian kin." Another unsourced change. It is also clear by these changes that this is POV-pushing.
You are also missing out a very important detail that it was applied to the area around Ladoga before it was applied to the Middle Dnieper. "The area between the lakes was the original Rus, and it was from here its name was transferred to the Slav territories on the middle Dnieper" in Viking Rus (p. 60). OK sure, we do not need to say that the Polans did not exist in wikivoice, but it is at least important to give context to this, in that the Primary Chronicle was written to give political legitimacy.
A useful strategy to follow is WP:BRD. I reverted because I dispute all of the changes. Reverting is a natural part of the process, therefore it is not promising to see that you find such reverts to be 'offensive'. Mellk (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've given me different accuses many of which weren't true.
Modern consensus holds that "Russia" didn't exist during the time of Kievan Rus'. Since Novgorod is now located on the territory of modern Russia, Russia will obviously try to use the city in its own nationalistic Historiography to represent it as "another beginning of the state". I thought it was obvious and doesn't need a source, because Russian Historiography is known to be imperialistic. But alright, I can just delete "nationalistic" and it stays just fine.
As about "same culture", I've added a source, the same culture is unlikely , so I thought to add "Brought from Kiev" as an explanation, but I agree it might have been wrong addition since this segment tells about Russian interpretation only. It still can be added in braces or in other form as explanation, and if it such a major change, add sources.
I gave an explanation that you ignored, I added a literal translation of how it was written in the chronicle, since the previous variant didn't seem to be correct. The previous translation is unsourced as well and the source is no longer available. So yeah, I might need to put something here and then translate it from a more modern language.
"The area between the lakes was the original Rus, and it was from here its name was transferred to the Slav territories on the middle Dnieper" was part of the segment about "Russian Historiography". Your decision to put it in the lead disturbes Neutrality, so I definitely revert it. "Do not make changes you don't have a consensus on" familiar words?
About Polans, my sources did not specifically discussed Primary Chronicle, adoption of the name Rus' by people of Dnieper Ukraine, also known as Polans is a well known fact. "Rus' is first vikings, then Polans, then Kievan Rus" is how it should be in the article and how it is stated in reliable sources, what you proposed is just insertion of opinion.
I'm only glad if reverts are mindful and with propositions for improvement (or directly implementing those improvements), but in your case you delete everything without explanation for the most part, it can only be discribed as offensive. Shahray (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement says nothing about Russia existing during the time. It simply says that the two cities are considered to be part of its history, while the two original centers are glossed over. This is precisely what the source says. I thought it was obvious and doesn't need a source. Once again, you demonstrate that you do not understand basic policies, if you think you must insert your personal opinion here to push a particular POV.
The original chronicle was not written in Ukrainian, so your decision to include Ukrainian only once again shows POV-pushing. Also, we do not need to put this in the lead. We are more interested in the Norse names, since the subject is about a Scandinavian group, rather than Slavonic-texts written centuries later.
Your decision to put it in the lead disturbes Neutrality. No, the source writes this as fact, that these were the original centers. It is well known that they established settlements here. This is also a much better source than Encyclopedia of Ukraine and the others used since it is not only newer, but focuses specifically on the subject of the article. The statement about Russian historiography only refers to the first sentence. If you believe this should be omitted, then this suggests POV-pushing. It is strange that you insist we cannot mentioned Ladoga in the lead but we must include "Central Ukraine" along with the Ukrainian name. Mellk (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kiev is nor part of Russia, nor part of Russian history, nor there was any "Russia" during the time of Kievan Rus'. It's an objective reality and consensus.
I took criticism and will not add "nationalistic", there are statements that can be made in Wikipedia without use of reliable source, I know about it. You yourself often stumble upon and disregard the policies you suggest to follow, like WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. So I suggest you to take a critique as well. I didn't add Ukrainian translation.
Ladoga is not included in "Rus' land in narrow sense". By adding it in the lead, you also ignore other sources that do not mention that "Ladoga region was called Rus'". If there was Viking-Rus' people settlements here it doesn't yet suggest the region was named "Rus'". "Central Ukraine" is a region, just like "North-West Russia".
The article is about Varangian Rus, not "Rus land". The lead said the name Gardar was used for Ladoga. Either way "Rus land" is a chronicle term from a later period and this is not for the lead since the article is about Rus' people. Duh. This is therefore not a valid reason for removal and one of the issues here is probably due to a poor understanding of English. Mellk (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Rus' khaganate":
"The location of the purported khaganate, more specifically the residence of the supposed khagan, has been actively disputed since the late 19th century. Sites proposed by scholars have included the following:
The Middle Dnieper including Kiev (Kyiv): Mykhailo Hrushevsky (1904, the Kievan khagan being Slavic), Alexander Vasiliev (1946, the Kievan khagan being Varangian-Swedish), Boris Rybakov, Lev Gumilev, Mikhail Artamonov (1940, the Kievan khagan being Slavic), Alexander V. Riasanovsky (1962, the Kievan khagan being Slavic), Anatoly Novoseltsev, Aleksandr Nazarenko, Anton Gorsky [ru], Charles J. Halperin (1987).
The Lower Dnieper near the Black Sea: Vasilii G. Vasil’evskii (1915; the khagan being Khazar).
The Sea of Azov (Tmutarakan): George Vernadsky (1940).
"Southern Rus'": Julius Brutzkus (1935, the khagan being Khazar).
the Middle Don and the Siverskyi Donets basin: E. S. Galkina (2002).
The interfluve of the Middle Don and the upper Oka to the Middle Dnieper: Valentin Sedov [ru], Peter Benjamin Golden.
The Upper Volga region: Simon Franklin & Jonathan Shepard (1996, one of 4 options).
Rostov: Paul Robert Magocsi (2010), Lawrence N. Langer (2021, one of 3 options).
The Volkhov river region: Aleksey Shakhmatov, Sergey Platonov, Vasily Bartold, Omeljan Pritsak, Constantin Zuckerman, Dmitry Machinsky, Elena Alexandrovna Melnikova [ru].
Rurikovo Gorodische (Holmgard) near Veliky Novgorod: Jonathan Shepard (1995), Simon Franklin & Jonathan Shepard (1996, one of 4 options), Lawrence N. Langer (2021, one of 3 options).
Lake Ilmen: Iurii Vladimirovich Got'e (1915), Imre Boba (1968).
Staraya Ladoga (Aldeigjuborg): Simon Franklin & Jonathan Shepard (1996, one of 4 options), Lawrence N. Langer (2021, one of 3 options).
Staraya Russa.
The land of the Chud: Ernst Kunik (1844).
East Sweden (Birka): Simon Franklin & Jonathan Shepard (1996, one of 4 options), Ildar Garipzanov (2006, it was an (East) Swedish kongur named Håkan who may have operated in North Rus', but without permanent residence)
Nowhere: Oleksiy Tolochko (2015), Donald Ostrowski (2018)."
These are all versions of the early Swedish settlements, and you only assist on mentioning Ladoga?
"Varangian-Rus'" is not a region, so it can't be transferred "from there to there".
Nothing in the lead said anything about Rus Khaganate. This is another straw man. The lead said the name of the Rus was transferred to the Middle Dnieper. The Varangian Rus gave that land the name, as is described in the source and also in the body. If you think "transferred" is incorrect for whatever reason, you could have changed that word instead of removing the entire text. Now, can you explain why the rest of the text was removed? Otherwise I would suggest to self-revert. Mellk (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If you think "transferred" is incorrect for whatever reason, you could have changed that word instead of removing the entire text" this is exactly what you did to my edits, deal with it. The lead of your version said "it was transferred from there to Dnieper region". "From there" is from where, from Ladoga? Ladoga's region isn't "Rus' land", and in previous versions, it was instead more directly stated that the name Rus' was brought by VARANGIANS to Dnieper Ukraine (Region, not a country), and not "from there". Not only this, the subject around first settlements of Varangians is clearly disputed, like I showed with the quote directly from Kievan Rus' article, so there should either be a mentioning of multiple theories in the lead, or they should be removed from the lead. Also, quote from your version:"It was from the Ladoga area, which formed the centre of the Rus', that the envoys went to Constantinople in 838". In the original source, it was actually about the "straw man", Rus' khaganate:"The Ladoga area was the core of the kaganate of Rus: it was from here the Rhos’ envoys went to Constantinople in 838".
Please tell me where I inserted my own opinions and made nonsensical changes as you did. We are not the same here. You did not provide any source that disputes the fact that Ladoga was a center of the Varangian Rus. Instead, you came up with straw men arguments. Dumping a bunch of sources that dispute the existence of the khaganate has nothing to do with mentioning Ladoga in the lead. Yes, there were settlements elsewhere, but we are talking about the main settlements that were the center of the Varangian Rus. You are still not addressing this. Mellk (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did insert your POV, like in the example with quote about Rus' khaganate. As I quoted, Kiev, Chernihiv, and Pereyaslav are also considered the most prominent. Shahray (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ladoga area was the core of the kaganate of Rus: it was from here the Rhos’ envoys went to Constantinople in 838". You just contradicted yourself, saying Rus' khaganate is a "straw man", yet you still included this disputed subject in the article, and even interpreted this quote in your own way without mentioning of "Rus' Khaganate" . Shahray (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you still included this disputed subject in the article. I did not add a statement about Rus khanagate. The statement I added was It was from the Ladoga area, which formed the centre of the Rus'... It does not alter the meaning. Mellk (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source already says "These two original centres of Rus were Staraja Ladoga and Rurikovo Gorodishche". You are nitpicking. Mellk (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It was from the Ladoga area, which formed the centre of the Rus', that the envoys went to Constantinople in 838." was pulled out of context, and the context is about Rus' khaganate. So this quote should definitely be removed. I thought about, Ladoga being prominent centre doesn't discards the prominence of other places, so whe can include Ladoga, Kiev, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav in the lead. Shahray (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Modern consensus holds that "Russia" didn't exist during the time of Kievan Rus'. And yet in your edits in other articles you are fine with stating "Ukrainian rulers of Kievan Rus'".[1] I see that I am wasting my time here. Mellk (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is from Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500-1300):
"Both factors have in addition shifted the emphasis of the recent research on... specifically the area of modern St. Petersburg, and especially the southern shore of Lake Ladoga. That is now viewed as the area in which the first urban centers of Eastern Europe emerged and where the first capital of Rus’ (long before Kiev, of course) was established." (p. 207)
"(Staraia) Ladoga is now viewed as the northern terminal of an enormous commercial trade network linking the Baltic to the Caspian Sea, across the vast swathe of land in Eastern Europe." (p. 277)
"The earliest Viking-age finds are therefore those of northwestern Russia, particularly the region of the lakes Ladoga and Il’men." (p. 278)
Please tell me what is "non-neutral" about mentioning Ladoga in the lead and removing the mention of Ladoga in the beginning of the history section, when it is pretty clear that this was an important center. The lead is also a summary of the article and you have removed an important part, not only the information about the first settlements, but also the migration of the Rus and the names they used, which is well-covered in the article. Mellk (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"When the Varangian princes arrived, the name Rus' was associated with them and came to be associated with the territories they controlled. Initially the cities of Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereyaslavl and their surroundings came under Varangian control."
Sources:Magosci 2010, p.72.
Melnikova, E. A.; Petrukhin, V. Ya.; Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, eds. (2014). Древняя Русь в средневековом мире: энциклопедия [Early Rus in the medieval world: encyclopedia].
This does not contradict what Duczko says or Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500-1300), in that the center of the Varangian Rus was at first in Ladoga, while Kiev was paying tribute to the Khazars. Of course, I do not expect a book about the entire history of Ukraine to mention Ladoga and to only briefly mention the Varangians. Which is why the book by Duczko is a better source, since it is specifically about this subject and is written by someone who specializes in this subject. The article already says they first arrived in the 8th century in Ladoga, so saying there are different variations of where Vikings first arrived is a wrong conclusion you've made. Mellk (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course, I do not expect a book about the entire history of Ukraine to mention Ladoga and to only briefly mention the Varangians" maybe, but no, Varangians are definitely not briefly mentioned in this book. Someone even tried to take down this quote, and this is what editor replied:"but in Rus' chronicles it usually was not grammatically or geographically considered part of the so-called "Rus' land" (Роуськая земля), in which Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl were the central patrimonies, while Novgorod had to pay tribute to Kiev". It's not just about a name, it's also about prominence, and the stated above cities seemed to be the most prominent. Shahray (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the article is called "Rus' people", not "Rus land". The lead already stated the original center was around Ladoga, then the name Rus was transferred to the middle Dnieper. What is factually incorrect about this? You still have not shown anything that contradicts this. Mellk (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not just about a name, it's also about prominence, and the stated above cities seemed to be the most prominent" read carefully. "Rus' name" wasn't transferred from "somewhere", but was brought by Vikings, this is already more directly stated in previous versions. Shahray (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling me that the original center, which the source refers to as the "first urban centers of Eastern Europe", "the first capital of Rus’ (long before Kiev, of course)" and the "northern terminal of an enormous commercial trade network", are not important facts and that they were not prominent? Mellk (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no different viewpoints that you've shown. The viewpoints you mentioned are about a different topic, not the original center. If you cannot understand what the source is trying to say, then this is not my problem. Mellk (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Initially, the most prominent cities that came under Varangian control were Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl and their surroundings" the topic is the same, duh. Your problem is ignoring other sources and stating only one point of view, while this is not how Wikipedia works. Shahray (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The article already says they first arrived in the 8th century in Ladoga, so saying there are different variations of where Vikings first arrived is a wrong conclusion you've made" if it does, it might make sense to add different viewpoints. Shahray (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The earliest Viking-age finds are therefore those of northwestern Russia, particularly the region of the lakes Ladoga and Il’men". This is besides the point, we are referring to Ladoga as a center. There were no other centers until Kiev was conquered. Mellk (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is just your POV, because other sources can state that Kiev, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav were first settlements and the most prominent at the time. Shahray (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my POV, I have already quoted the sources that state this. Meanwhile, you have not provided any source that disputes this. You only mentioned "Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl" as the centers of "Rus land", when the article is not even about this. This is a different topic. Mellk (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about centers of the vikings, and those cities were also the most prominent centers of the vikings. Not just "Rus' land". Shahray (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the original center. Nobody said that Kiev was not a prominent center. Kiev is already mentioned in the article and Kievan Rus is well-covered. Mellk (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kiev was THE most prominent centre, along with Chernihiv and Pereyaslav. So I suggest we include all 4 cities with Ladoga in the lead then. Also, yeah, being reffered as the denonym of Kievan Rus', this article focuses almost entirely on Vikings, and reviews Kievan Rus' only in relationship to Scandinavia or Sweden. Should we maybe also add "Ruthenian" as one of the denonyms in Kievan Rus' article, what do you think? Shahray (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the last comment, Nobody said that Kiev was not a prominent center. I am referring to the original center, but for some reason this just flies past you. Kievan Rus is already mentioned and you are still bringing up cities of "land of Rus", which is a different concept. Also, kindly stop edit warring and restoring your disputed changes. Regarding this edit, you are still editorializing. The statement about Novgorod not being part of Rus does not belong in this article and uses a fake reference. Mellk (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kiev is also reffered as city which initially came under Varangian control, and also MOST important, part that you ignored. How does it not belong, and uses a "fake reference"? And you also have deleted other specifications, without any reason. Shahray (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was initially under Khazar control. "Tichomirov 1947:60-80" is not a valid reference. You are simply restoring your original changes in a gradual manner. This still counts as edit warring. Mellk (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So will you explain why this is not a valid reference and why have you deleted all other changes, or should I again undo your revert myself do to WP:BRD and WP:Reverts? Shahray (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what is so difficult about understanding what consensus means. You made changes that were reverted. You did not get consensus to restore those changes.
I already mentioned that your changes included unnecessary editorializing. The cited source says: "These two original centres of Rus were Staraja Ladoga and Rurikovo Gorodishche". Despite this, you still insist on adding phrases like "thought to be". The source also says "middle Dnieper" yet you insist on changing this to "Dnieper Ukraine". This is not following the source.
The statement you added about Novgorod is also out of place there and looks like another POV change. The reference you added does not include the name of any journal or article. Presumably, this is referring to "Происхождение названий 'Русь' и 'Русская земля'" by the historian Mikhail Tikhomirov, except this is referring to usage of the name in the 12th and 13th centuries. There he also says that the name "Rus" appeared in Novgorod then Kiev in the 9th century. "Ruthenia" is also irrelevant here and I do not see the point of dropping such terms here if it will only cause confusion to the reader. Mellk (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it's seems so hard to understand that reverts must be made only if necessary and must be explained reasonably afterwards. WP:BRD, WP:Reverts.
Middle Dnieper and Dnieper Ukraine refers to the same region, Dnieper Ukraine is just more clear, you are only mad about this because of your russian centric POV.
The name Rus' was applied to the land of Polans, inhabitants of Dnieper Ukraine, this is 9th century my guy. Ruthenia is simply another name for the land of Rus'. Shahray (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't bother anyone, it's you who bothers me inserting some russian centric POV all day, violating the policies of reverts. This page isn't only viewed by you, other editors can tell if there's an issue in this statements or not. For now, please stop edit warring. Shahray (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TylerBurden (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)