Talk:Sviatoslav I

message: Should the name be Sviatoslav or Svyatoslav? Whichever one, it needs to be consistent throughout the article.  Right now they're both used: Sviatoslav in the title and very beginning and Svyatoslav throughout most of the text.
Billy Shears 19:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Or chose the one you like and unify the spelling. It doesn't make so much difference, really. --Ghirlandajo 20:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Světoslav(ŭ?), Svaetoslav(ŭ?), Svætoslav(ŭ?)? Considering his name seems to have actually been Свѣтославъ? As the article says: Some scholars speculate that the name of Sviatoslav, composed of the Slavic roots for "holy" and "glory", was an artificial derivation combining those of his predecessors Oleg and Rurik (they mean "holy" and "glorious" in Old Norse, respectively.[2] Krum Stanoev 19:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: The map of Sviatoslav's state is a fiction. A self made map of unknown validity. The lands of derevlians on the nothern west from Kiev that were conquered by his mother Olga are not included into red space. They are presented even as the lands on the southern west?!?. On the contrary, the eastern and nothern boders of Rus (red and orange) are unreasonably enlareged (land of Polotsk was taken after his death by Volodymer, the land of Novgorod wasn't so big at that time). The boders signed by orange are nonsense, because nobody can prove that Sviatoslav had left his administartion there. Hazaria and Bulgaria were only plundered by the prince's armies but not conquered. Hazars were unable to stand after his blow but Bulgaria still to exist unntil the middle of 13 c.
Therefore Sviatoslav expeditions should be shown on the map as arrows (directions of his campains) rather than as encircling of paticular areas. It should be deleted as POV or remade. The sourses listed in the image are either unreliable or the author who created the map used wrong data. --Alex Kov 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since you removed the map from the article again, I will place it here at talk for now, awaiting the response from the author. In the meanwhile, please make sure all your edits are done while you are logged in. You latest deletion again came from an IP. --Irpen 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I belive that the old name Durostor is more appropiate for accuracy, Silistra is the modern name.CristianChirita 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Silistria

message: How do we get the Gibbon text moved to Wikisource where it belongs? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibbon 

message: First, let me say this is one of the best, most entertaining articles I've read for a GA review. Extremely interesting! The lead is somewhat weaker than the rest, and the Russian phrases could possibly also use a a Latin alphabet transliteration. "Kievan Rus'"  is written both with and without the '.  Some references have odd little underscores, such as "Primary Chronicle _____." - what do they mean?
Still, none of these seem enough to withold GA. However, this article seems near-FA, so fixing them would probably get it the rest of the way.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall:
#:a Pass/Fail: 
2a has the weird underscores, so is only a mostly-pass. 6b is a get-out clause if there's no images, so it's not applicable.
Still, it's a pretty clear pass. Great work! Adam Cuerden talk 14:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The underscored references indicate that the writer of the reference (in this case, me) didn't have access to the actual document in question and couldn't cite to a specific section or page number at the time of writing. The facts referenced do come from the works cited and I am working on fixing them. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, it happens. Not ideal, but as it's getting fixed, no big problem Adam Cuerden talk 23:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: The guidance on the usage of primary vs. secondary sources is provided by WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims... In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." Beit Or 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation of the policy is faulty. The second phrase relates to secondary sources only, that is, to reliable secondary sources as opposed to not-reliable secondary sources. WP:RS does not state that secondary sources should be preferred to primary sources, because it is too silly. Your implication that the Primary Chronicle has not been "published by a reliable publisher", needs good sourcing. As best I know, the science of textology was born from the analysis of the Primary Chronicle. According to Aleksey Shakhmatov, it is the most analyzed text in history, after the Bible. Overall, I'm disappointed with the level of your replies and intend to adopt a more stern attitude towards your edits. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response is less a couterargument than a personal attack, one out of many directed against me. The policy is very clear: Wikipedia articles must rely on secondary sources. Instead, you want this article to rely on your preferred primary source, while conclusions of modern scholars must be relegated to footnotes, because the former is "hard eveidence" and thus reliable, while the latter are "speculations" and thus unreliable. In fact, the opposite is the case: medieval chronicles, especially the Primary Chronicle, are fraught with errors and spin, while modern scholars study history on a multidisciplinary basis, by combining all the available documentary evidence with data provided by archeology, geology, climatology etc. So, yes, secondary sources must be preferred to primary sources, and your understanding of the policy is flawed and completely unacceptable. Beit Or 11:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you obviously prefer fringe theories promoted by your pet authors to primary records, I see no point in arguing with you. Your constant revert warring should be assessed according to WP:TROLL procedures. I don't think there are many people in the project who have dealt with more trolls than myself (and won an anti-troll award in the process), therefore my further interaction with yourself and your unsubstantiated accusations of "personal attacks" (without providing a single diff), will be based on WP:DE and the wise maxim: "Don't feed the trolls". I don't speak with your until apologies are forthcoming. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dab, I agree with this interpretation (although nobody questioned the accuracy of translations, in this case). What is objectionable is Beit Or's attempt to represent his favoured interpretation as the ultimate truth (see this edit). Encyclopedia of Islam offers one of sundry interpretations of the events; Wikipedia is not liable to follow its interpretation. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab, of course, this is what the EoI says; otherwise, I would be engaging in original research. If this is just "one of sundry interpretations" as Ghirlandajo is suggesting, then what's the obstacle to providing the alternative ones? In addition, the EoI is not the only source suggesting this reason for the change in Khazar policies towards the Rus: see Briangotts comments above about Dunlop's view. Beit Or 14:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you claim Wilhelm Barthold as your source. His interpretation is one of many, and quite outdated too. Now don't accuse me that I underestimate Barthold's research, because it was me who wrote the article about him a year ago. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I've just read the article with great interest and read this talk page afterwards. By chance, I've been following the recent policy discussions about reliable sources, attribution etc. quite closely, and, as someone mainly involved in history articles and with a history degree, I've come to the conclusion that the deprecation of primary sources in favour of secondary ones does not, on the whole, apply to history articles; that deprecation is really to prevent pseudoscientific and political blogs and websites being used as references in articles instead of published sources. As far as history articles are concerned, a published primary source is as valid as a secondary source, since it has undergone an editing process and has been published in print. Of course, wikipedia editors may not subject primary sources to their own original interpretation, which is where secondary sources come in. qp10qp 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: There is a very nice statue of Svyatoslav, by Eugene Lanceray, see here. I'm not sure whether we may upload it, in regard to our copyright rules. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided not to risk with this one and uploaded a PD engraving by Chorikov. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: Svyatoslav's foreign policy is being discussed here. Comments are welcome. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion 

message: The extent of Kievan Rus' to the Dniester River (Southern Ukraine, present-day Moldova and Transnistria is being discussed here: Talk:History of Transnistria. There is some confusion and the input from specialists would be appreciated. - Mauco 06:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kievan to the Dniester? 

message: I really like this article. Would nominating it for FA be appropriate, think ye? Adam Cuerden talk 15:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA?

message: *When the page is reopened for editing, please don't forget to include links to Boris Grekov and Mikhail Tikhomirov. We have articles about these two historians. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests

message: Looking at random pages, I saw that Battle of Silistra said "Kievan knyaz Sviatoslav Igorevich..." It's not my field, so I mention it here so someone who knows can deal with it. Tom Harrison Talk 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: It should be part of Ukrainian history portal. (unsigned)
:It is. What it is not part of is the UA history wikiproject and the reason is that such wikiproject does not exist. If there was, it would have been part of it without question. --Irpen 08:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian history 

message: "Sviatoslav began by rallying the Khazars' East Slavic vassal tribes to his cause."
What's the point of mentioning of adding "East" to Slavic? Division of Slavs into three categories was performed in 19th century.
The article says: "East Slavic: Святослав Ігоревич". There is no one language called "East Slavic" (see East Slavic). This looks like the modern spelling in Ukrainian or Belarusian (I am not sure), but certainly not in Russian which has no letter "І" but uses "И" in its place. Tsf 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Slavic 

message: He was not germanic king. What you do not agree? I simply corrected incorrect information. It is not a test. And the Russian work kniaz is really derived from Germanic one, but it is more correct call Sviatoslav by his Russian title rather than German.--212.176.15.250 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False. Kniaz has a transparent Germanic provenance. And it is no more Russian than Ukrainian or Polish. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But to translate it as konung, and link to Germanic monarchy, in the lead, is to oversimplify a complex, and largely unknown, situation. Who claims, and on what conceivable evidence, that this is the same constitution as, say, Clovis, or even Aun? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Germanic king" 

message: Please lock his IP from editing... Look at his history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.182.27.196 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  216.9.95.166  

message: I added a link to Sviatoslav's  link family tree] to the article a few hours ago because he happens to be one of the earliest ancestors to most members of royal families in Europe like the Windsors for instance. This information is new and, I guess, interesting almost to everybody. However, the link was removed by one of the editors. My question is why?.. --Stanley78 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally, I removed it because it was a bad style entry. This is a FA and we can't have the (have a look at...)' inserts in it. I now took a second look with the purpose of wikifying this, if useful. It seems to me, we still cannot have this a reference for a FA quality article. The reason is that the site itself is a wiki, that is it does not qualify under WP:RS. I am not saying the info is incorrect. The web-page is nice and dandy but we cannot refer to is as to a source of the info. We could add the site to the External links section, but having external links section is, again, not such a good idea for the FA articles. I am sorry but IMO the link http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Special:Tree/561 cannot be kept in the article. Thanks anyway, --Irpen 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No single person would be able to create such a big family tree of Sviatoslav. His tree on Rodovid is the result of work of hundreds of people from different countries, just like an article about Sviatoslav on Wikipedia. I think you would agree that the opportunity to learn more through his family tree would benefit the article and the Wikipedia community. --Stanley78 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I first was also looking for External Links section. Then I thought that it would still be more appropriate to have a link to his family tree placed inside the Family section of his article where the tree belongs. Maybe it is worth to have a say that he is a great great ... great gradfather to now living members of royal families in Europe in the intro to the article? --Stanley78 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sviatoslav's family tree 

message: Unless my eyes are lying to me, I cannot find a single reference to the work written by the authors Franklin and Shepard. Perhaps someone can list the title and publication information of their book/article?--The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franklin and Shepard  

message: Name Svyatoslav DOES exist in medieval Slavic states, in exactly the same time period...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetoslav_of_Croatia
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetoslav_Suronja
due to linguistic differentiations, old slavic -jat wowel tranformed to characteristic wowels -e, -je or -ije that differ modern Slavic languages...
in Croatian, word svet means holy, while word svijet means world
Also, check on bottom of above web URL's - lineage of Croatian kings and princes, and their names...
all the -slav and -mir endings that you can imagine
My name is Krešimir (Kreshymeer), and there is no EXACTLY that name in any Slavic language today, but there is Krassimir in Bulgarian and Russian, and they mean the same:
it is light (fire, bonefire) that illuminates the world - hence, this is one of manifestations of Sun God Svarog, as god of wisdom
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.153.80 (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of nam Svyatoslav 

message: Коллеги, как по-вашему будет лучше перевести на английский язык его коронное:  = : "I am going to you", "I am going against you", "I'm going to conquer you", "I'm going to fight you" или так как я перевёл в самой статье? Какие есть предложения? Некая Дарра Гольдштейн переводит следующим образом: "I'm coming against you".</br>
P.S. Послание, отправленное им в Царьград было следующим: «Хочу на вас идти, возьму ваш город, как взял Болгарскую Преславу». -- George Serdechny 13:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Хочу на вас идти" 

message: So, he had slavic name, gave his son a slavic name, worshiped slavic gods, but he was a Viking?
I have added part about Perun and Veles (which was removed by the same user who inserted the viking thingy), because it's not true that Primary Chronicle doesn't mention that. I don't know how to insert additional reference properly, but somebody else can do it, if I did something wrong. Here it is:
Russian traditional culture: religion, gender, and customary law, Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer, p. 4, ISBN:1-56324-039-4 (c), ISBN:ISBN:1-56324-040-8 (p)
http://books.google.com/books?id=WdCYt7zc8eEC&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
--Faveladweller (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vikingslav I of Kiev 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sviatoslav I of Kiev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307182746/http://www.sgu.ru/rus_hist/?wid=699 to http://www.sgu.ru/rus_hist/?wid=699
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114135153/http://www.sgu.ru/rus_hist/ to http://www.sgu.ru/rus_hist/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617053223/http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/hanak.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/hanak.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sviatoslav I of Kiev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809220444/http://xeno.sova-center.ru/6BA2468/6BB4208/706B4D8?print=on to http://www.xeno.sova-center.ru/6BA2468/6BB4208/706B4D8?print=on
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927015836/http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=329123 to http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?AID=329123
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article as it stands does not meet FA criteria due to lack of citations for content. The problem is worse than it appears because some footnotes are not in fact references, but themselves contain unverified information such as: "The exact date of Sviatoslav's Bulgarian campaign, which likely did not commence until the conclusion of his Khazar campaign, is unknown." If the article isn't consistently verifiable to high-quality reliable sources, it will need featured article reasssment. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020|FA sweeps]]