Talk:Bolesław I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis/Archive 1

message: I fixed a number of problems with this article resulting from Ghirlandajo's recent edits. Among them were:
# Neither Thietmar nor Gallus mention any popular uprising or plundering of the city (and it is to be noted that Thietmar seems to hate Boleslaus really deeply). Indeed, Ruthenia was plundered as Boleslaus was heading towards the city, but the city itself (though probably plundered as well) was kept in a good shape and there are no traces of a popular uprising. Especially that Sviatopolk kept the throne even after the Poles left (though lost it soon afterwards). 
# Also, Boleslaus withdrew from Kiev not because of some alleged popular uprising but because he had problems with Germans of Henry II and even more important problems with pagan reaction to christianization. Halibutt 12:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Initially I wanted to accuse you of using the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but thought you might feel offended. But now that you admit it yourself... Halibutt 13:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL indeed. Basing on this "source" you may contribute "successfully" to articles like USA, capitalism or Spanish Civil War as well. =) This encyclopediae can be used only as a source in 1. maths 2. history of propaganda. And by the way: please, write in English. Greets, aegis maelstrom δ 07:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Molobo or Moloobo (I'm kinda confused with your names), I'm not a professional translator to render classical works of literature in English. Translating Karamzin is not easier than translating Mickiewicz, if you know who the latter is. I advise you to go to a local library (probably for the first time in your life) and to obtain a Polish translation. On the other hand, your own comments in this project, desultory as they are, should be written in English. --Ghirlandajo 14:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Great Soviet Encyclopedia)
Tsarist and Soviet Historiography
What historical legacies did Ukrainians and Russians inherit from the former USSR
which they now have to grapple with? Indeed, what are these profound and often
disturbing legacies? The Russian historian, Yury Afanasev, complained that, ‘there is
not, nor has there ever been a people and country with a history as falsi ed as ours
is …’10 Soviet historiography after 1934 largely returned to the Tsarist Russian scheme
of history. It was a historiography, ‘which could, for the most part, be read with
approval by the tsars themselves’, Lowell Tillet commented.11 Soviet historiography
after 1934 served the goals of the Communist Party’s nationalities policies in the
elaboration and inculcation of new myths and legends. Crucial elements of this
‘elaborate historical myth’ which Soviet historiography aimed to propagate were:12
· rehabilitation of the past;
· superiority of ‘Great Russians’ as natural leaders;
· the lack of ethnic hostility now or in the past;
· help in the creation of a new Soviet patriotism;
· there were no conquered territories, only ‘unions’ and ‘re-unions’. Friedrich Engels,
Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin had been wrong to condemn Tsarist Russian ‘expansionism’.
The views of Bolshevik historians in the 1920s, such as Mikhail
Pokrovsõ´kyi, who had condemned Tsarist expansionism, were also condemned;
· these ‘unions’ and ‘re-unions’ brought only positive bene ts or, at a minimum, were
the ‘lesser of two evils’;
· greater centralisation was a positive development;
· nationalist agitation was against the wishes of the narod;
· the non-Russians were incapable of creating their own state;
· the Russian mission civilisatrice was bene cial;
· the History of the USSR was in effect that of the History of ‘Russia’. The Russian
Federation did not therefore have its own separate history which dealt purely with the
‘Great Russians’ or Muscovites;
· non-Russian histories were treated as regional histories of ‘Russia’;
· Russian control over Ukraine and Belarus was never perceived as ‘annexation’;
merely the recovery of the Tsar’s patrimony. In 1947 and 1954 new theses codi ed
112 T. Kuzio
the eastern Slavs as historically belonging to one Rus’kii narod. Use of the terms
Russian, Rus’ian and east Slavic became inter-changeable;13
· Ukrainians and Belarusians are not separate peoples, but branches of the east Slavic
Rus’kii peoples. Therefore, they should not have their own independent states, which
are only ‘temporary’, but should be in union with Russia.14
From:
http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf
--Molobo 13:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: The article has just been moved to <Kiev Expedition and I moved it back with no prejudice to the editor who moved it. I just think the move has to be proposed at talk first so that others who watch this article could have a say on the issue. This issue was discussed to a degree at Polish Wikipedians' notice board. Please check the discussion there too if interested. --Irpen 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you mean Kiev Expedition.  The reason for the move is to improve the awkward English and to give the article a name that is found in the historical literature. Appleseed (Talk) 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been over a week without any comments or objections, so I have moved the article. Appleseed (Talk) 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's name

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support per nom. Appleseed (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support per nom. Appleseed (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose as the proposed title is less informative. --Irpen 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Polish Expedition to Kiev → Kiev Expedition (1018) — We couldn't reach a consensus half a year ago, so let's try again. Reason behind the move is simple: Polish Expedition to Kiev should be a disambig, as the title can just as well refer to Kiev Offensive (1920). It is common wikipedia naming convention to disambiguate military operations by year, not participants name - see also Battle , where titles like Kiev Operation or Kiev Expedition redirect to. Note also Polish and Russian titles on their respective wikis: Wyprawa Kijowska (1018), Киевский поход (1018).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*However, if my suggestion below isn't included then I would support the move. I think that the current title is a bit to wordy and that the proposed title would be better. But I would still prefer the title I suggested below. Kyriakos 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
Comment. I think that maybe Polish Kiev Expedition (1018) might be a good title because it also highlights who the attacker was. Kyriakos 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Does not highlight well enough imo, needs to be highlighted stronger. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The purpose of choosing an article title is not to highlight aspects which we, the editors, choose to highlight. Naming is all about finding the most frequently used name in reliable sources. This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (take two)

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*However, if my suggestion below isn't included then I would support the move. I think that the current title is a bit to wordy and that the proposed title would be better. But I would still prefer the title I suggested below. Kyriakos 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey 2

message: :Any additional comments:
Comment. I think that maybe Polish Kiev Expedition (1018) might be a good title because it also highlights who the attacker was. Kyriakos 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not highlight well enough imo, needs to be highlighted stronger. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
The purpose of choosing an article title is not to highlight aspects which we, the editors, choose to highlight. Naming is all about finding the most frequently used name in reliable sources. This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion 2