Talk:History of Ukraine

Conversion in 988

Cyril converted the nobles in 988? That was Volodymyr. Cyril was about 120 years earlier, he might have converted a few, I don't know.

Main page history section

The history section of the main country page looks like it has about as much information as does this page. Someone should move over whatever's missing here. --Shallot 17:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this piece is twice as long, but, you're right,we need some expansion here. Genyo 03:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine at maps.

Dear wikipedians,

there is the following text in the article:

In the 11th century, Kievan Rus was, geographically, the largest state in Europe. During this time, Kievan Rus became known in the rest of Europe under several names derived from Rus. In addition, the name "Ukraine" first appears in recorded history on maps of the period.

Can anyone point me to the map that uses Ukraine that time? As far as I know, there are just few disputed references to this word in Chronicles at the best!

Thanks!

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'd better write your version. --Vasile 00:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you want to sustain this important modification. --Vasile 04:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prohibition of Ukrainian language

Your version: The Russians in particular imposed strict limits on attempts to elevate Ukrainian language and culture, even banning its use in official documents. Due to political processes in Austro-Hungary, the people of Ukraine began to accept a change of their name from Rus/Rusyny to Ruthenia/Ruthenians and then to Ukraine/Ukrainians.

The actual version: The Russians in particular imposed strict limits on attempts to elevate Ukrainian language and culture, even banning its use and study. The fate of the Ukrainians was much more positive under the Austrians. During this time, the people of Ukraine began to accept a change of their name from Rus'/Rusyny (Ruthenia/Ruthenians) to Ukraine/Ukrainians.

--Vasile

Dear Vasile, it's because there are no evidences of any decisions of Russian tsars or Russian government against the Ukrainian language use in common literature. However, I will check documents and update with details. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For those who read Russian I'd like to cite both infamous documents often used by modern Ukrainian nationalists to support their opinion that Ukrainian was banned in Russia (I don't wish to waste time to translage these w/o specific request):

1863 Valuev's circular:

Давно уже идут споры в нашей печати о возможности существования самостоятельной малороссийской литературы. Поводом к этим спорам служили произведения некоторых писателей, отличавшихся более или менее замечательным талантом или своею оригинальностью. В последнее время вопрос о малороссийской литературе получил иной характер, вследствие обстоятельств чисто политических, не имеющих никакого отношения к интересам собственно литературным. Прежние произведения на малороссийском языке имели в виду лишь образованные классы Южной России, ныне же приверженцы малороссийской народности обратили свои виды на массу непросвещенную, и те из них, которые стремятся к осуществлению своих политических замыслов, принялись, под предлогом распространения грамотности и просвещения, за издание книг для первоначального чтения, букварей, грамматик, географий и т.п. В числе подобных деятелей находилось множество лиц, о преступных действиях которых производилось следственное дело в особой комиссии.

В С.-Петербурге даже собираются пожертвования для издания дешевых книг на южно-русском наречии. Многие из этих книг поступили уже на рассмотрение в С.-Петербургский цензурный комитет. Не малое число таких же книг представляется и в киевский цензурный комитет. Сей последний в особенности затрудняется пропуском упомянутых изданий, имея в виду следующие обстоятельства: обучение во всех без изъятия училищах производится на общерусском языке и употребление в училищах малороссийского языка нигде не допущено; самый вопрос о пользе и возможности употребления в школах этого наречия не только не решен, но даже возбуждение этого вопроса принято большинством малороссиян с негодованием, часто высказывающимся в печати. Они весьма основательно доказывают, что никакого особенного малороссийского языка не было, нет и быть не может, и что наречие их, употребляемое простонародием, есть тот же русский язык, только испорченный влиянием на него Польши; что общерусский язык так же понятен для малороссов, как и для великороссиян, и даже гораздо понятнее, чем теперь сочиняемый для них некоторыми малороссами и в особенности поляками, так называемый, украинский язык. Лиц того кружка, который усиливается доказать противное, большинство самих малороссов упрекает в сепаратистских замыслах, враждебных к России и гибельных для Малороссии.

Явление это тем более прискорбно и заслуживает внимания, что оно совпадает с политическими замыслами поляков, и едва ли не им обязано своим происхождением, судя по рукописям, поступившим в цензуру, и по тому, что большая часть малороссийских сочинений действительно поступает от поляков. Наконец, и киевский генерал-губернатор находит опасным и вредным выпуск в свет рассматриваемого ныне духовною цензурою перевода на малороссийский язык Нового Завета.

Принимая во внимание, с одной стороны, настоящее тревожное положение общества, волнуемого политическими событиями, а с другой стороны имея в виду, что вопрос об обучении грамотности на местных наречиях не получил еще окончательного разрешения в законодательном порядке, министр внутренних дел признал необходимым, впредь до соглашения с министром народного просвещения, обер-прокурором св.синода и шефом жандармов относительно печатания книг на малороссийском языке, сделать по цензурному ведомству распоряжение, чтобы к печати дозволялись только такие произведения на этом языке, которые принадлежат к области изящной литературы; пропуском же книг на малороссийском языке как духовного содержания, так учебных и вообще назначаемых для первоначального чтения народа, приостановиться. О распоряжении этом было повергаемо на Высочайшее Государя Императора воззрение и Его Величеству благоугодно было удостоить оное монаршего одобрения.

1876 Emskiy Decree:

1) Не допускать ввоза в пределы Империи, без особого на то разрешения Главного Управления по делам печати, каких бы то ни было книг и брошюр, издаваемых за границей на малороссийском наречии.

2) Печатание и издание в Империи оригинальных произведений и переводов на том же наречии воспретить, за исключением лишь: а) исторических документов и памятников и б) произведений изящной словесности, но с тем, чтобы при печатании исторических памятников безусловно удерживалось правописание подлинника; в произведениях же изящной словесности не было допускаемо никаких отступлений от общепринятого русского провописания, и чтобы разрешение на напечатание произведений изящной словесности давалось не иначе, как по рассмотрении рукописей в Главном Управлении по делам печати.

3) Воспретить также различные сценические представления и чтения на малороссийском наречии, а равно и печатание на таковом же текстов к музыкальным нотам.

I'd like to mention, that item 2) prohibits use of the spelling newly invented in Austro-Hungary, not use of old spelling used in Ukrainian territories inside Russia.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 09:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) NOTE the above documents are NOT in original wording! They have been essentially modernized. Ángel.García ~ ~ ~ ~

Early History

"The first identifiable groups to populate what is now Ukraine were the Trypillians, followed by the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Goths, among other nomadic peoples who arrived throughout the first millennium BC. During this period, Ukraine served as a super highway for the migration for peoples from Asia into Europe. These people were known to colonists and traders in the ancient world, including the Greeks and the Romans, who established trading outposts, and which eventually became city states. Of particular interest was the Antes civilization, which, during the common era, left its mark upon the territory of Ukraine. The Antes were thought to be an early Slavic or pre-Slavic civilization in the area."

Could somebody please explain to me this paragraph's subtle sense metaphoric "relevance" for the article? --Vasile 00:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but i'mnont sure logic will do.

Most of the first 4/5ths of the article speak of the history of the territory of today's state of Ukraine. The final several sentences speak of the early history of the ethnos of today'ssUkrainians.

Thanks for the chance to educate you.

Genyo 00:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. If you write about history of the "territory", what's the reason you mentioned those peoples? Why are they important for Ukraine history? For example, please write more about the importance of Roman colons in Ukraine history. Where these colons were located? --Vasile 02:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If anything, previous settlements are important because they show why the current population settled the same area. Pre-historic, Greek and Roman colonies were all generally built next to notable landforms: arable land for agriculture, or rivers for water or seas for trade or easily defensible hills where one can build forts, ... and then they probably also left traces of their culture/civilization that was inherited by those that came later. There can be any number of notable historical factoids in the old periods. (I never thought I'd have to explain this kind of thing...) --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying what/who was in today's Ukraine before the Ukrainians? Even though it may seem anachronistic to put this under the modern-day title, history doesn't begin in the 6th century AD. --Joy [shallot] 01:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I would even prefer more information about the history prior to the 6th century. Juro 03:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I should also probably note my semi-bias given that I've recently created Croatia before the Croats with just this line of reasoning in mind. --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you think we shold add something about Ukrainian Waffen-SS division? Some of its units killed Jews in Lviv (in 1941), took part in Warsaw Uprising (on German side), murdered civilians in Slovakia...

• YES THERE WAS A UKRAINIAN ss DIVISION, BUT THERE WERE ALSO JEWS WHO BETREYED THEIR OWN PEOPLE, MANY SLAVIC NATION AND NOT ONLY SLAVS, TATARS FOR EXAMPLE, THOUGHT THAT GERMANS WERE BETTER THAN COMMUNISTS, (DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE RIGHT) BUT THE FACT IS MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WANTED TO FIGHT COMMUNISM SO DON'T CONFUSE UKRAINIAN SS DIVISION WITH THE REST OF THE UKRAINAINS, ANYWAY WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH UKRAINIAN ORIGINS?????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.149.200.191 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 11 October 2004

1) I believe, that the fact of existence of SS (Galizien?) Division should be mentioned, as well as similiar engagemnets should be noticed eg. in case of Latvia or Estonia. 2) Please note, that the description of facts does not judge the motives of SS-volunteers - it should only states that the fact took place. 3) I wonder, why the discussion regarding SS Division is under "early history" heading. --MWeinz 10:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV regarding Holodomor denial

172, I'm glad we're working this out. But your description of the conflicting opinions is unbalanced. For now I'm reverting this paragraph (my emphasis).

Some Ukrainian nationalist historians, along with some Western writers, consider the famine of 1932-33 a deliberate act of genocide. However, some Western Soviet specialists writing more recently such as Moshe Lewin, Alexander Dallin, and Alec Nove dismiss the idea that the famine was a deliberate act, but rather the consequence of Stalin's program of industrialization and collectivization.

I thought that simply noting that there are conflicting opinions would be suitable here, without spending several paragraphs analysing the respective arguments or posting résumés of all the proponents. I'm thinking those details belong at the Collectivization article, but maybe here is better. We could easily get into an edit war adding our favourite supporters to the lists:

Ukrainians, non-Ukrainians including westerners, nationalists, non-nationanalists, historians, Soviet specialists, and writers, consider the famine of 1932–1933...

However, some Western Soviet specialists writing more recently, as well as in earlier times, staunch communists, hack journalists, Stalin apologists, Ukrainophobes, nostalgic Marxist-Leninists, easterners, westerners, nationalists, historians, school marms, and teacup poodles dismiss the idea...

Anyway, I suggest that this be kept simple and neutral, or addressed in detail, perhaps in a subsection titled Was the famine deliberate, or some such thing. At the very least, let's not start with the label "Ukrainian nationalists", which is ungenerously limited at best, and pejorative at worst. —Michael Z. 2005-01-31 16:55 Z

Anon's edit of July 15, 2005

Recently, an anonymous editors, who seems to have a good grasp on some facts but somewhat partisan views edited the article extensively. I would like to call this and other editors for the usual caution we should all use in all WP articles, but especially on the wide topic articles like this one. The edits were done hastily, were not proofread, while some info was actually useful. The article simply could not remain in that form. It either had to be quickly moderated (speed at the cost of quality, unfortunately) or get a POV tag, which would be even a bigger shame. I chose the first solution. I am not sure, the article is better now, than it was before the recent set of edits, but that's OK. It will get improved with time. It would be more convenient to communicate if the anon editor chooses to register. registering does not compromise the anonymity in any way. To the contrary, since IP points to an approximate location, while the username does not. But that's just a request of course. I hope, with everyone's cooperation, the article will improve. Regards, --Irpen 23:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nazi photos

We have an edit war over inclusion of two photos showing Ukrainians celebrating the Nazi rules. I think it is unfair and an undue weight to a point of view. At least 3.5mln Ukrainians were with the Red Army and Soviet Partisans, at least 250thousand with OUN, 20 thousand with SS Halicia+local police ~ <100K with Germans. I think the allegiances were divided accordingly. At any rate it was not a happy time for the majority: World War + Underground War + Foreign Occupation+Slave labor. Thus I think to have 2 photos out of 3 in the section showing Ukrainians happily embracing German rule is biased and not-neutral. Lets hear other opinions Alex Bakharev

Peak of Ukraine?

The page says "The Ukrainians reached their peak when extending rule to Wallachia/Bessarabia, until the shores of the Black Sea". Can someone show me a proof of this? I really, really don't believe this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.184.91 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 January 2007

20th Century is a Mess

The 20th Century section on this article is not great. The "Russian Revolution and War of Independence" topic consists of a short blurb on chaos in the country before jumping to 2 historians' accounts, and then jumping to the Holodomor. At no point does the section even MENTION that Ukraine joins the USSR in 1922. This needs attention stat, pretty big oversight. I've added a brief sentence but we need some elaboration. SSR07 (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

POV edits

Despite being warned, Smm380 (who is likely also editing as an IP) continues to make unsourced and POV changes. Here is the latest example. If there is no objection, I will undo all their edits. Mellk (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that some of the edits were not bad and probably most were made in good faith but I agree with you regarding this particular change. The claim that Galich-Volyn was *the* successor state of Kievan Rus seems spurious and would require several high-quality sources which the editor has not added. Alaexis_¿question? 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

They added a bunch of text in the past few weeks. They were told to add citations as this is a basic policy but they continued to not follow this.

For now I would suggest to remove unsourced and questionable statements. Some of the sources they used are also not reliable. Unless someone wishes to review all the text and sources they added as well as to add references for uncited text. Mellk (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I haven't followed the changes closely, no citations is indeed a serious matter. Alaexis_¿question? 20:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The section still says that Galicia-Volhynia "is successor state". I also do not think it makes sense to include the modern concept of state succession here, but perhaps there is a better way to phrase this? Mellk (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I am finding it impossible again to follow their edits since they are not only continuing to edit while logged out despite previously being warned, but also repeatedly making a series of unexplained changes. What is the reason for the terminology changes here and here? These look like POV changes to me. I am also seeing problems with low-quality sources being cited e.g. here and here. It would also be more helpful if they actually included the citations from the start instead of continually adding unsourced text with CN tags. But since they have ignored all the previous warnings, I do not have any confidence that this will improve. Mellk (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed some terms back to the stable version. I think that any unsourced text can simply be removed. Alaexis_¿question? 22:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I see there were also such changes made to the Cossack Hetmanate section. I will go through the edits a bit later. Mellk (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mellk: I was looking for a reason why you set a POV tag[1], but couldn't find any. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This section is about this. Mellk (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:RESPTAG. If you are not able to name specific problems, a maintenance tag is not helpful for anybody wanting to address the problem. Another way might be to tag a specific section. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

A discussion about certain issues with the article was started. Another editor made changes to the article as a result of this discussion. There is still no consensus yet that this was completely resolved and again you insist on removing the tag before we can conclude the discussion (this is not the first time). Mellk (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

History of ukraine

Responding to @Alaexis, Ruthenia is simply a synonym for Land of Rus', which is the core region of Kievan Rus'. One and the same thing. And it's located in what is now Ukraine. Shahray (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, but names can change their meaning during the course of the centuries. E.g. "Dutch" (in German: Deutsch) originally meant "German". But nowadays, I wouldn't advise you to call a Dutch person a "German". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The term Ruthenia has multiple meanings ranging from the whole Kievan Rus to various Western Rus' territories now located mostly in Ukraine and Belarus. Therefore using it obfuscates rather than clarifies the text.

It's also not a native contemporary name (Rus' - Русь), nor is it commonly used in historical books. Alaexis_¿question? 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay so am I replacing with just Land of Rus' then? Shahray (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly in the article would you like to add it? Alaexis_¿question? 21:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I saw your edit. I'm still not sure it's an improvement. You're still linking Ruthenia where it's not justified The earliest source about the history of Land of Rus' and the Middle Dnieper region is the Tale of Bygone Years (Primary Chronicle). Land of Rus' is unclear and clicking on the wikilink doesn't clarify anything. Alaexis_¿question? 21:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a short section in "Early Middle Ages" that clarifies Land of Rus' in core sense. Shahray (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Alaexis, I saw your rv, first of all I am glad you actually give explanation for your reverts unlike some editors, you could have notify me in the Talk page though.

About sources, Encyclopedia of Ukraine does call it an organisational core, quote:"The location of the Polianians' territory at the intersection of important trade routes contributed to their economic and cultural development as organizers of the Kyivan Rus’ state". Polianians were inhabitants of Dnieper Ukraine territory.

In the main Ukraine article it also says:"During the Middle Ages, Ukraine was the site of early Slavic expansion and the area later became a key centre of East Slavic culture under the state of Kievan Rus', which emerged in the 9th century".

Even this image in the article is called "Historic core of Rus'".

So yeah, Ukrainian lands were the core, it's definitely should be mentioned.

About Subtelny, I didn't get what you exactly mean, here's the quote from the page I cited:"It was at this stage Kiev and it's surrounding lands were reffered to as Ruskaia Zemlya, the Land of Rus', in the narrow sense. Nonetheless, Kiev was still an alluring prize, whoever claimed not only enjoyed prestige of "Mother of Rus' cities", but could also claim himself as senior of Rurikid dynasty". Completely corresponds to what I have added.

About Cossacks, well maybe it needs additional source, in my opinion it's obvious that they played crucial role in development of Ukrainian identity. Shahray (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is your text

“ Ukraine enters into written history with the establishment of medieval Kievan state, with Ukrainian territories serving as its core, naming themselves as Land of Rus'. It emerged as one of the most powerful and advanced nations of Europe at that time, with Kyiv meeting its Golden age and Christianization under Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise. Kievan Rus' started to disintegrate in High Middle Ages, with Kievan monarchs competing and fighting over the throne in Land of Rus', ”

Regarding the "core" claim, if a source says that the Polanians were the organizers of the Kyivan Rus’ state you can't use it to write that Ukrainian territories served as the core of Kievan Rus. These are very different statements. Also note that the very same Encyclopedia of Ukraine acknowledges the role of the Varangians in the 9th century the Varangians from Scandinavia conquered the tribes and laid the groundwork for the Kyivan Rus’ state.

Regarding Land of Rus', you use a piped link that leads the reader to the Ruthenia article. This is not based on any sources and can only mislead the reader. Note that Subtelny only starts to use the term Ruthenian starting from ~14th century. The term Land of Rus itself is used only two times in Subtelny's book so it's not a commonly used name. On p. 38 Subtelny makes it clear that there are multiple definitions of the Land of Rus. So again, there is no need to use this term in the lede. Elsewhere in the article we can definitely discuss multiple meaning of this term. Alaexis_¿question? 19:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, obviously Ukranian is used merely as a geographical term, because the article is about History of Ukraine, if that's your concern.

Article Ruthenia was merged with an item "Rus' region" by reaching consensus 10 years ago, item "Rus' land" also redirects here. So it's one and the same thing.

Yes, Land of Rus' also has a broader meaning, meaning all the lands under Kievan control, and regarding that broader meaning there is already an established historiographic name which is "Kievan Rus'", while Land of Rus' is mostly used to describe this core region specifically. Shahray (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the redirect (Rus region -> Ruthenia) makes sense to be honest. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

I don't think I can add anything to what I wrote earlier, so please feel free to seek external feedback via WP:RFC or other channels. Alaexis_¿question? 10:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well that's your viewpoint.

So are you allowing me to keep some of the changes or you need additional sources? Shahray (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not a good idea to bad-mouth another editor immediately after your block expired. Secondly, you have been told multiple times to look at dispute resolution if you cannot come to an agreement with another editor. It is pretty clear in their last comment that they do not think the changes should be restored. Mellk (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, this edit was made without any supporting sources. Please propose edits here at the talk one by one providing reliable sources for them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, this section was already unsourced, so does it need a source? Shahray (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the lead and such statements are not supported in the article. Like with other POV edits you have made, I do not think it is something that will be supported by high-quality sources in a way that follows WP:DUE. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

In the article History of Poland the lead does not contain sources as well. Don't accuse someone else in POV pushing when you yourself make unreasonable reverts. Shahray (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Because we have MOS:LEAD. Perhaps it is worth spending time actually showing an intention to learn more about the policies and manual of style? Mellk (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

For you it's definitely worth spending time on learning how to have a good attitude to other person. Shahray (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

When you add statements like Ukrainian territories serving as it's core and Principality of Galicia-Volhynia then succeed the Land of Rus', this is pretty clear POV-pushing (and poor English). Mellk (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Quote from the main Ukraine article:"Ukraine was the site of early Slavic expansion and the area later became a key centre of East Slavic culture under the state of Kievan Rus". Shahray (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"During the Middle Ages, Ukraine was the site of early Slavic expansion and the area later became a key centre of East Slavic culture...". There is a difference between this and saying that Ukrainian territories formed the core of the state. Mellk (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Ukrainian area later became a key centre of East Slavic culture" what difference? Shahray (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not the correct quote. Either way, Principality of Galicia-Volhynia then succeed the Land of Rus' is still POV-pushing. Mellk (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"This not a correct quote" Lmao.

No it's not POV pushing, quote from the main article:"Its rulers continued the political and cultural legacy of Kiev, preserving the traditions and governance of the Rus' state".

I should probably add this as one of another example of your false accuses and POV pushing. Shahray (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between this statement (which needs a better source anyway) and referring to the concept of state succession. Comments like "Lmao" are not helpful. Mellk (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shahray. That's not how it works. You can challenge unsourced content by adding a {{citationneeded}} tag if you believe it's not true. If no one provides a source within a reasonable time this content can be deleted. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I can add sources. Do you have any question about Land of Rus'? Shahray (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, sources are cited. Shahray (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You were told to propose changes on the talk page and get consensus first. But you still restored disputed changes. Please stop restoring your edits after they have been reverted. There is clearly an issue with the wording. Mellk (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Alaexis, so I didn't get what you exactly mean by "I don't think I can add anything to what I wrote earlier". Does this allow me to keep the changes or you suggest me to rephrase them to correspond more to sources?

Can I ask @Rsk6400 to view my changes for example? Shahray (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This means that I'm not convinced by your arguments, I don't agree with the changes you've made and I don't think that further discussion involving us is helpful. At this point you have two options:

1. You take into account the feedback that u:Mellk, u:Rsk6400 and I have given and come up with a new version of the lede.
2. You ask other editors to express their opinion via WP:RFC or any other way that doesn't violate WP:CANVASSING.

Naturally, @Rsk6400 is welcome to chime in. Alaexis_¿question? 21:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no point in answering your other comments. You said something about not liking "Ukrainian lands were a core", so I can change the lead instead to "In Dnieper Ukraine, the tribe of Polans served as organizers of Kievan Rus' state, which was contributed by their geographic location". This one just strictly follows the source.

Land of Rus' merely refers to a region that was first called Rus', which is modern Dnieper Ukraine. Questions?

Rus' region redirects to Ruthenia article, this two items were merged by consensus, why am I not allowed to use it where it's obviously appropriate? Shahray (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that you realised why other editors objected to your edits.

I'm not even disputing that Polanian lands served as the core of the Kievan Rus state, you just need to find a reliable source stating that. "In Dnieper Ukraine, the tribe of Polans served as organizers of Kievan Rus' state, which was contributed by their geographic location" is fine, as long as the role of Vikings is mentioned somewhere not very far (per the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, in the 9th century the Varangians from Scandinavia conquered the tribes and laid the groundwork for the Kyivan Rus’ state).

I've explained multiple times why Ruthenia is not an appropriate term to use here. Please either find sources that support your position or request external feedback. Otherwise it's just wasting the time of other editors. Alaexis_¿question? 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so regarding "the core" your only issue was that I didn't strictly followed the source? Alright, lesson learned then.

I don't specifically create pipelink to Ruthenia, I create pipelink to Rus' region, which then redirects to Ruthenia. Article Ruthenia doesn't solely discusses the Early modern term of "Ruthenia", but also the Rus' region of 9th-13th century as well. This items were merged, and so this is best article for discussing Rus' region term. You can create a link for a specific section in this article in order to avoid confusion with the later Ruthenia term. Shahray (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, "Land of Rus" is not mentioned anywhere in the body and Subtelny only refers to it once here to refer to "the narrow sense of the word". Neither does he refer to "core Land of Rus". This is WP:OR. It is preferable to have the wording proposed on the talk page that everyone can agree to rather than back-and-forth reverts. Mellk (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding: The Polans will start to identify themselves as Rus' approximately in 9th century with the arrival of the Varangians. This is based on the chronicle retelling of events and is not something that can be stated in wikivoice. There are doubts about this and like other events mentioned in chronicles to give political legitimacy to the ruling dynasty this was probably an attempt to artificially introduce the name to the region. Mellk (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not the statement from any part of the chronicle, it's a well known fact that inhabitants of Dnieper started to call themself Rus' with arrival of Vikings in 9th century. Shahray (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The only mention of this is in the chronicle, which is well known to not be a reliable source. Mellk (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned in a source, not chronicle. Shahray (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We know about the history during this period because of the chronicle. That does not mean we have to take everything it says at face value. Is there a reliable source that does not challenge what it says regarding this? Encyclopedia of Ukraine hardly counts as a reliable source. Wladyslaw Duczko for example challenges this narrative. Is there anyone who disagrees with him? Mellk (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is your POV. Like I said, this statement is not derived from chronicle, and never said to be from it, it's just a well-known fact. Don't push WP:Fringe Theories that were already denied, your behavior is already questionable. Shahray (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a reliable source, a book written by a specialist to support this statement, and rather than finding another specialist who refutes this view, you instead write "it's just a well-known fact" and claiming that this is a fringe theory without any evidence. Mellk (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't yet mean all statements in it follow WP:FRINGE policy. It seems we have already discussed how this author was denying the existence of Polans, and now you're bringing him up again? Shahray (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

But going by your logic, it is cited so it is you who must get consensus to remove this. Right? Or is this something different? Mellk (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We get consensus that it is a WP:Fringe theory, what do you mean? Shahray (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Firstly, this is a pointless addition to the lead. The lead already starts off by referring to the prehistoric period. There is no reason to state the obvious.

Secondly, this adds too much emphasis on the Ruthenian aspect of GDL and tries to portray it as something along the lines of a Ruthenian continuator state. Also, it is not appropriate to refer to 'Ukrainian territories' at this time. Ruthenian, sure. So I do not understand why "present-day" was removed. Like with the text about Kievan Rus, this is introducing anachronisms. Mellk (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

First, this changes were agreed upon by two editors. Without this part, the article has no proper beginning, in any other history article there's a beginning like that (e. g. History of Poland).

Secondly, yes, this is an article about history of Ukraine, so it must put emphasis on elements that matter for Ukraine. The name of the state itself is "Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Ruthenia-Samogitia".

Third, again, this article is about history of Ukraine, term "Ukranian territories" would be applied correspondingly. You better be concerned about anachronisms like "Russian states". Shahray (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me where exactly another editor explicitly said that they "agreed" with this change. Just because you were not automatically reverted does not mean that consensus was achieved here. If you are not able to, then I will ask you to kindly self-revert. If you cannot do both, then I will simply go ahead and ask for an administrator to intervene, since it would indicate that the block did not help. Mellk (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the bold in the beginning of the article, the relevant guideline is MOS:AVOIDBOLD. In more refined articles, like History of England, History of Ireland or History of the United States (it is the English WP after all), there is often no bold. A bigger issue is that the topics presented in the first paragraph are not discussed in the article, and conversely, the prehistoric topics discussed in the article are not presented in the lead (which should be a summary of the article per MOS:LEAD). Since the topics brought up the first lead paragraph are highly interesting, I would suggest expanding the article, and then rewriting the intro accordingly. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As I don't see any productive discussion with this other aggressive editor and I already reported them, you can address how you would like to expand this article. For example, this bold is presented in History of Israel, History of Poland and History of Netherlands. Shahray (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk, yeah, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that I agreed to these changes. I'm not sure they constitute an improvement compared to the previous version but I didn't see anything obviously wrong and therefore did not revert them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

We have had a few hundred edits to the article in recent months, mostly by one or two editors. I already ran out of energy to review those changes a good while back. Mellk (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk, I am responding to your edits in Kievan Rus' article. The text "Rus' land" below the image is sourced, there's no issue regarding this. Why does my changes "not look like an improvement"? I won't create hundreds of talk pages just because you always disagree with me for precisely no reason. Shahray (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, this is called WP:SYNTH. Secondly, please start the discussion on the talk page of that article so that all interested parties can participate in the discussion. Mellk (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to spam messages everywhere just because of you alone. If you want to create new topic there, you can do it.

And now, I ask for a clear explanation for why my changes are "synth" or "not an improvement", otherwise it's just another unreasonable edit. Shahray (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Since this concerns another article, you must start the discussion on the talk page of that article. Otherwise, this is a misuse of the talk page. This talk page is only about improving this article. This does not count as spam. If you create a new topic there, I will explain my reasoning there in more detail. Mellk (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't waste my time on interrogating you everywhere for "more details", you should give a clear reasoning for you edit from the beginning. If you prefer to give explanation in the talk page, then fine, do it there. Shahray (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you remember the advice that was given to you before on what you should do if your edit has been reverted? I have also realized now that you had already started a talk page discussion about Polans on Talk:Kievan Rus' with the participation of other editors and there was clearly no consensus to implement your changes. Best to continue the discussion there. Mellk (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, yes, Lithuania is important to mention. But this kind of phrasing is missing from Grand Duchy of Lithuania. That article was also a target of Belarusian nationalists who attempted to overemphasize the Ruthenian part and tried to rename it or consistently refer to it as the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Ruthenia-Samogitia". Similarly, it would be problematic to take the Russian POV and refer to it as the "Lithuanian-Russian state" when talking about Russian history. Since Lithuania had a large chunk of modern Russian territory as well, it would not make sense to overemphasize the Slavicness of the state just because the context is Russian history. Mellk (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I hear for the first time of ridiculous concept "Lithuanian-Russian state" which I don't think is even supported by Russian POV. Shahray (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)