Talk:Culture of ancient Rus

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Culture of Ancient Rus→Culture of Kievan Rus'—"Ancient" is an incorrect adjective for the medieval society usually called Kievan Rus'

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support—this is my request. —Michael Z. 2006-02-28 01:51 Z
• Oppose. Only part of the article deals with Kievan Rus. My suggestion is to break down the article into corresponding chapters somehow. KNewman 06:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. More than half the article treats post-Kievan period. The term "Kievan Rus" is not historic one, either. --Ghirla | talk 07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Comment: It could be simply Culture of Rus' which avoids disputes over Ukrainian vs. Russian POVs. But for sure the article as written now is incorrect by using the word Russia as a synonym for Rus'. Kevlar67 06:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Further- Collectively, interested editors have to decide what time period and geographic area are to be covered before a name can be chosen. Right now the article is a about Russia not Rus'. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but it should be labeled as such, so a seperate article could be written about the Kievan state and/or Halych, etc.Kevlar67 11:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If you want to move the article somewhere, let's move it to Culture of Medieval Russia, as the article concentrates on the history of lands (Vladimir, Novgorod, Moscow - not Halych, Chernigov, Pereyaslav) that are now part of Russian Federation. --Ghirla | talk 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• The article, as it stands now, is indeed about medieval Russia. It goes well into the post-Kievan period, doesn't deal with Halych-Volhynia at all, but goes length intro periods (Suzdal and Muscovite) which are post-common, so to speak, to Russia and Ukraine, but rather just Russian. If we add to the Kievan chapter that this period serves as a common base to other cultures, not just the Russian one, Ghirla's Culture of Medieval Russia would be the optimal name. This very same chapter could be than used for other articles. OTOH, the problem for other articles would be their names. "Medieval Ukraine" doesn's sound correct since the name of Ukraine gained usage in post-medieval times only. --Irpen 08:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Call it Ruthenia or Western Rus then. --Ghirla | talk 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be split into two articles, or renamed Culture of Kievan Rus' and Medieval Russia. This certainly includes history before Russia existed, so "Medieval Russia" is not a suitable title. Ghirla, what do you mean "The term "Kievan Rus" is not historic one, either": it is the term most used by historians. I hope you're not suggesting that Wikipedia should abandon Modern English and switch to thousand-year-old Slavic naming conventions—we've already been through that hoary chestnut a few times. —Michael Z. 2006-02-28 18:07 Z

What you call Kievan Rus was known as zemlya ruskaya within its borders and as Rugia/Rusia/Russia abroad. So I find your statement that the article "certainly includes history before Russia existed" quite annoying. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What historians call Kievan Rus’—I don't recall coining the term. Rus’kaya was the adjectival form of Rus’. In Modern English Rus’=Русь, Russia=Россия. You already know all this: don't you get tired of relying on obsolete nomenclature to uphold the Great Russian national pride? Are you going to cite the 1911 Britannica next? —Michael Z. 2006-03-01 02:42 Z

Guys, this is a side debate to the article rename. Ancient Rus' in English is indeed a misnomer. Russian "Drevnyaya Rus'" when so tranlsated makes it confusing because "ancient" in English usually refers to the times of antiquity. With the Western Rus not being covered in the article, this is indeed about the Culture of Medieval Russia, just with a small modification for the Kievan section to make sure it reflects the fact that Russia has no monopoly to be a descendent from the Kievan state but shares it with other two East Slavic nations.

The fact that the cultures indeed have split makes it rather impossible to have an article that would encompass both post-Kievan Suzdal and post-Kievan Halych. Remember the debate about the Russian architecture? This is a very similar issue. Russian architecture and Russian culture are both sourced to Kievan times and this belong here. Culture of Western Rus' then remains to be written. --Irpen 04:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Kievan Rus’ conventionally refers to the collective principalities with their shared history and culture (see the recent naming debate at talk:Kievan Rus'). An article about the "culture of Kievan Rus’" would be incomplete without mentioning the Legacy of Rus’, and discussing the break-up and divergence between the cultures of Halych, and Vladimir/Suzdal and Moscow, particularly the effects of the Mongol invasion and suzerainty. However, an in-depth culture of Muscovy belongs in its own article. —Michael Z. 2006-03-01 18:59 Z

There is no doubt that while there may be a debate on whether Medieval Rus is Russia, there is no debate that Muscovy and Russia are interchangeable for sure. If you are saying that culture of Muscovy article is fine to have, than Culture of medieval Russia is just another name for it. As for "its own article", agreed. And this is this article. With Kievan section slightly rephrased, Suzdal and Moscow is Muscovy. --Irpen 19:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, but how do we forestall the cries of "stealing" which will inevitably happen when someone uses the first two-thirds of this article to start "Culture of Kievan Rus’"? —Michael Z. 2006-03-01 21:14 Z

Even though I wrote the article, I wouldn't mind if somebody used the part on Kievan Rus for the Culture of Kievan Rus. Everything we submit is for everybody, anyway. Cut and paste shouldn't be an issue. KNewman 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only it shouldn't be an issue, it cannot be an issue since everything we write here, we submit under GFDL, that is the reuse is allowed but a traceable courtesy aknowledgement is warranted. Whoever strats the Culture of Western Rus' article and pastes the Kievan section from here to there will simply need to supply the paste with an edit summary "copied section X from the article Y into the article Z". It is when the material is pasted unaknowledged, it is "stealing" and a violation even of a liberal GFDL license, like was done initially here by a known problem user, later corrected by subsequent edits. --Irpen 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Remains the question of how to rename this article. "Ancient Rus" does not fly. —Michael Z. 2006-03-02 00:37 Z

I suggest Culture of medieval Russia with the small modification of the Kievan section. --Irpen 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.