Talk:Grand Prince of Kiev

message: This page links to Tsar for rulers after 1132, and Tsar links here for rulers prior Daniel in 1283...so aren't there some rulers missing? Some of the Byzantine emperors pages refer to Rus' rulers after 1132, but I can't find them listed anywhere. Adam Bishop 06:18, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiglaf, Aren't you speaking of king Olaf Skötkonung of Sweden? Mikkalai 18:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mikkalai. I am sorry for not answering earlier. I have not checked this page for half a year and I had not set it on "watch". No, king Olaf of Norway and king Olof of Sweden were two different kings. I am thinking of writing an article in Wikipedia about the Swedish princess and her relationship to both Olafs.--Wiglaf 19:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The list to rulers of Kievan Rus cannot include Novgorod princes, because they never ruled Kiev.--Alex Kov 05:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming of the article

message: The image :Image:Sviatoslav sculputre.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Sviatoslav sculputre.jpg

message: Olso about Aleander Nevsky, O. Rusina wrote "after the death of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (1246) his sons, Alexander and Andrew, neglecting the rights of his uncle Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, disposed of in 1247 "to the Tatars" and have achieved that that Andrew received from Khan Vladimir, and the eldest, Olexandr, - "Kyiv and all the Russian land". True, the last one was the nominee of Kiev: turning to Novgorod, where he reigned earlier, Alexander began the struggle with Andrew and in 1252, having obtained the right from the Tatars "Oldest in all his brothers", took Vladimir. After that Kiev finally left beyond the boundaries of most recent political interests of the princes of the North-Eastern Russia" 
After that she wrote that no any information about rulers in late XIII century, so Kyiv stay without princess till the middle of XIV century. Augustus-ua (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Grand Prince of Kiev" was a title, and has nothing to do with whether they ever visited Kiev, or were the "hands-on" ruler of the city of Kiev, or not. Try to look at things from a greater perspective, not the very narrow Ukrainian perspective your edits show. The Kievan Rus' was a much larger area than just Kiev, or what is today the Ukraine for that matter, and the history and legacy of the Kievan Rus' does not belong to the Ukraine alone. - Tom | Thomas.W  talk 15:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, how do you think if we would have compromise and wrote that after tatrs destroy of Kiev in 1240 title was omly nominal and princes really didn't stay in city? And about Olshansky dynastyin first half of XIV century we can wroute that there are only legendary rulers? Augustus-ua (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  XIII-XIV century 

message: As was mentioned on the Kyiv talk page, some historical (mostly Russian) articles would need to be discussed before moving them to Kyiv. This is likely one of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The default is uniformity, so it is up to those who are against it to make their case.  Since you are the one reverting the move, what special circumstances do you think require the naming of this page to be different?  Agricolae (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mentioned on the Kyiv talk page that historical articles maybe should not be moved. They would be dealing mostly with Russian Kiev rulers. To just ignore that and move them all seems to be a bit reckless. It would be good to talk about some of those exceptions on the Kyiv talk page "before" moving them? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

text: And others are also now chiming in about some of these historical moves without discussion on the moving editor's talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point to discussing whether we should have a discussion, so let's just skip that part and get to the actual matter at hand.  If you don't think it should be moved, why don't you think it should be moved?  If the best argument you or anyone else can come up with is is that other people may not think it should be moved, that is nothing but inertia, not a reason. Agricolae (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the one who brought this fact up at Talk:Kyiv. It is under discussion there and has been since before these moves were made. Take it there please. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you were just the one who started the discussion here. Agricolae (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , has right, the change of the present-day name does not imply to change the name of historical context, which is undoubtedly Kiev and other contemporary historical forms.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not undoubtedly, since someone moved it, so there needs to be a better argument than simply asserting certainty. Agricolae (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because someone moves something, does not refute what I said. In every historical context more or less it may be determined which term would be the most appropriate.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does refute what you said.  Clearly the person who moved it thought it should be moved - they did not think it should "undoubtedly" stay at 'Kiev and other contemporary historical forms'. No, bold assertions aside, there is nothing undoubtable about this. Agricolae (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The reason not to move the article is due to "...of Kiev" being part of common names of these rulers. Please see: :Category:Grand_Princes_of_Kiev. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really begging the question.  Because that is what the city was called in English until recently, and what we called the city here, of course that is what the principality was called.  Now that the consensus is to call the city Kyiv, it is not as obvious as your comment would seem to imply that we should only change the name of the city while still using the more archaic form of the name for the principality. Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by the more archaic form? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The one that is not the current one. Agricolae (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

text:  Nonsense.  We don't rename all historical articles using "Constantinople" to "Istanbul" just because that is the current spelling of the city.  At any rate, this discussion is already on-going at Talk:Kievan Rus, Talk:Kyiv, etc. among other places, and we should try not to carry on the same discussion in multiple places.  Clearly we need to reach a solution by consensus before any moves of historical articles are undertaken.  Walrasiad (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: None of which, even were we to accept it, makes what I said 'nonsense'. We don't depart from uniformity by default, yet the primary reason given here for doing so is that it is self-evident that we should, which is neither true nor really a reason. Agricolae (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

text:  Dear Walrasiad, KIENGIR, Fyunck(click)! I would like to pay Your attantion that Kiev is not historical name of the city Kyiv. In times we are talking about (period when Kyiv had princes) - original name was written in old slavic language as Кыѥвъ where letter ы is spealing in latin as y. In some old european maps we may also find next name of the city in latin form - Kyovia, Chios, Kijoiua etc. There for Kiev is not historical name like "Constantinople" - it is just actual russian language pronunciation of the name of the ukrainian capital. N.B. Very important is to understand that Rus is not the same as Russian. After the Kyivan Rus collapsed - its parts were caled for a centures as Rvssia (actual western part of Ukraine and eastern part of Poland), Rvssia Rubra (actual central and southern part of Ukraine), Rvssia Alba (actual northern and eastern parts of Ukraine, southern part of Belarus, western part of Russian federation) - as You may see on the added historical maps. There for RusSIAN rulers never have been in Kyiv becouse Kyiv was capital of Rus rullers (Russian federation on that time had another name - Moscovia and till XV century Moscovia was Mongolian colony). Additionally I would like to thanks Agricolae for a thinking!!! (not copypasting as someones). B.Lukashyk (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Already discussed at Kyiv/Kiev naming RfC, and consensus was made. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Kyiv? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved.   (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Grand Prince of Kiev →  – Dear all! Wright spelling of the city in the  Romanization system is KYIV (not Kiev). Please look fot the Kyiv wiki-page as well as https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-I. B.Lukashyk (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyiv is not neologism becouse it is not relatively recent or isolated word that may be in the process of entering common use. As well as Ukrainian language is not in the process of entering common use. Kiev - is  spelling of the name of Kyiv in russian language and is not a historical name of Kyiv. In old slavic language name of city was written as  Кыѥвъ where letter ы is spealing in latin as y. But if You prefer to use russian-language transliterations for Ukrainian place names - be so kind to say it clearly. B.Lukashyk (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 April 2021 

message: The authenticity of the Veles Book is not disputed. It is a verified forgery. Is this an encyclopedia or a brothel? Disgusting...
47.17.216.1 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veles Book 

message: Need rename name to Kyiv, because Kiev - Russian pronouncements. Kyiv - its international name capital of Ukraine and Kyivan Rus' Lyaschuchenko (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a formal discussion of this question, and the decision was made that while the modern entity should be referred to as Kyiv, there has been a long convention among historians to refer to the medieval entity as Kiev, and until modern historians begin to refer to that historical state as Kyiv, neither should we. (I think the underlying logic was flawed, but part of the social contract of participating on Wikipedia is that one respects community consensus, even those with which one disagrees.) The same basically applies to the other name changes - we don't refer to historical people by the most correct name, we refer to them by the name most commonly used by the English-language historical community. This sometimes leads to people being referred to by name forms that are historically inaccurate or represent how they are referred to by their conquerors or enemies, because it was from the latter that knowledge of them passed into the English language.  It is not Wikipedia's place to 'correct' academic historians, but rather to follow them. Agricolae (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" 

message: Article semi-protected for a year to prevent the endless rounds of Kiev/Kyiv changes. Requesting that editors please respect the consensus in the RfC above: if you disagree with the outcome feel free to wait a reasonable time and propose a new RfC rather than edit-warring changes into the article itself.
Apologies to any IP or new editor who wanted to make other legitimate edits to this article - please instead post these changes as edit-requests on this talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding this link to the explanation on policy since I think it will be helpful.. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)#Kiev/Kyiv Marleeashton (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: What WP:LISTCRITERIA for inclusion do we set? It is quite obvious that none have been set so far, because the article contradicts itself in everything from title ("Grand Prince of Kiev", "Prince of Kiev", an alleged "Kagan of the Rus'", or the alleged "founder of Kiev") to chronology (from the 9th or 10th century? Was Kyi, Rurik, Oleg or Volodimer I the first to carry the title? Until 1240 or 1362? And why?) to geography (apparently it also counts if there allegedly was some Rus' Khaganate that was allegedly according to some not based in Kiev at all). At the very least, any person on this list must be identified as "Grand Prince of Kiev" in WP:RS. It's not enough for them to have allegedly resided in Kiev, or to have allegedly been a "ruler" of "the Rus'" regardless of their actual title, and it's not enough to just be "Prince of Kiev" (because there was also a Principality of Kiev, which is not the same as Kievan Rus'). Although to be fair, the primary sources may not explicitly identify particular monarchs as "Grand Prince of Kiev", (e.g. Volodimer I is mostly called "our great kagan" in the Sermon on Law and Grace, and the text uses the words князи ("prince") and Кыевъ ("Kyevŭ") only once and not in relation to Volodimer), per WP:PRIMARY that's irrelevant, so as long as reliable secondary sources identify him as a "Grand Prince of Kiev", that is okay. The rest of this is just a bunch of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and needs to be cleaned up. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria 

message: This is not a merger proposal yet, I'm just documenting this for a potential future merger. For the moment it seems far more important to agree on inclusion criteria and to provide WP:RS for all contents inside this article/list (see previous section #Inclusion criteria).
Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, we may have to integrate the following list/article sections into this list:
* Principality of Kiev#Grand Princes
* List of rulers of Belarus#Rurikid Belarus
* List of leaders of Ukraine#Kyivan Rus' (c. 375/800 – 1240/1362)
* List of leaders of Russia#Grand Princes of Kiev (882–1157)
* List of Russian monarchs#Grand princes of Kiev
There might also be WP:OVERLAP with Family tree of Russian monarchs and Rurik dynasty. When I've done more reading and editing, I'll get back to this question. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: Need to be changed AnnaYarmoliuk (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the big red notice at the top of this page. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyiv not Kiev