Talk:Sviatoslav I of Kiev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Sviatoslav I of Kiev is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 26, 2007.

Contents

[edit] older entries

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Map

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)

The Kievan Rus at the beginning of Sviatoslav's reign (in red), showing his conquests to 972 (in orange).
The Kievan Rus at the beginning of Sviatoslav's reign (in red), showing his conquests to 972 (in orange).
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)

"conquests" do not mean occupation. Sviatoslav's armies moved through the general areas depicted. Historical maps are never intended to draw clear-cut and fully accurate boundaries because such boundaries are impossible to determine even at that time, let alone today. This user appears to object to user-made images for the sake of objecting to them. By the standards he would impose every historical map on Wikipedia should be removed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Selfmade maps should not be removed. I just dont like this paticular map, which is full of factual mistakes . The territory of Rus (red)in the north is unreasonably enlarged, while the southern lands are depicted as a smal area along the Dniper river. The derevlians are not the tribe from steps on the south but woods on the west. Read Tolochko or Rybakov, or any other valuable historiography on the subject to learn the realms of Rus during the reign of Sviatoslav. You'll see that your map is wrong and it should be remade. If you want to show the wars of Sviatoslav on the east do it by arrows (es. in case of Khazaria and Bulgaria). Thats a ussual way of depicting war campaigns of those who invaded but not conquered (occupied) the lands of foes. For example, look at the maps of crusades. The crusaders took several castles and towns in Asia Minor on their way to the Holy Land, but in the cartography these castles and towns are not included (encircled) into the borders of the crusarers' kingdoms. Please remade your map in accordance to historical facts and rules of cartography. --Alex Kov 05:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silistria

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

I think the Byzantine Greek name was Dorystolon. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibbon

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

[edit] GA review

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)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): [[Image:|15px]] c (non-free images have fair use rationales): [[Image:|15px]]
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

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)

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)
Fair enough, it happens. Not ideal, but as it's getting fixed, no big problem Adam Cuerden talk 23:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beit Or's edits

I'm a busy editor and have multiple tasks on my hands. I don't have time to analyze irresponsible edits by any stray wikipedian, but I decided to make an exception for Beit Or:

1. "Cyrillic: Святослав" changed to "Russian: Святослав" - he was as Russian as he was Ukrainian; his name in all three East Slavic languages spells identically; Cyrillic writing is not italicized per WP:RUS.
2. "Despite this" before the reference changed to "however". I'll let Briangotts to judge on the wisdom of changing his wording. Nevertheless, a footnote after the first word in the sentence ("however") looks lame.
3. "His "legitimate" (the notion of legitimacy in pagan times was blurred) children included" changed to "by his wives". Surely, he had children not by husbands? What is disputed in this passage?
4. Added: "The conflict between Khazaria and Rus began in the early 9th century when the Khazars closed the Volga trade route for the Rus merchants in response to their pillage of Muslim lands." This extraordinary assertion needs to be well sourced, with links to primary sources that record "the closing of the Volga trade route for the Rus merchants in response (sic!) to their pillage of Muslim lands". Original research and fringe theories will not be tolerated.
5. With a remarkable lack of consistency, after adding the above highly speculative passage, Beit Or requested citations for the famous passage from the Primary Chronicle about "Иду на вы!" The chronicle is the foremost source of data about Svyatoslav; it is mentioned in every passage of the article; is it not enough?
6. "He then turned his attention to the Khazars, who had been until recently the dominant force in the Pontic steppe." - sentence deleted for reasons unknown.
7. "Logan, Donald F. (1192). The Vikings in History 2nd ed. Routledge. ISBN 0-4150-8396-6" added to references, without specification what claim in the article it is to reference.

Unless detailed explanation of every unsubstantiated edit is forthcoming, they will be reverted. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A point-by-point response:
1. Svyatoslav was not of Slavic origin; the general rule on Wikipedia is to give the spelling in the original language rather than in an alternative alphabet. Casual observation suggests that the Old East Slavic language is not used in Wikipedia articles on Rus with preference being given to Russian. Even if Svyatoslav is spelled identically in Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, this name is an exception rather than a rule. For the sake of consistency, it is a good idea to conctinue to stick to Russian.
I wish you would have explained it to scores of anonymous editors from Ukraine and Belarus who will instantly add identical transilterations in their native tongues. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
2. "Despite this" is unidiomatic in English; "however" or "nevertheless" are preferred.
3. "By his wives" makes sense because Malusha was not his wife.
This claim needs to be sourced. Could you explain who was considered "wife" and who was "concubine" in pagan Russia? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
4. This is from the article "Khazars" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. I'll add the full reference shortly.
"Encyclopaedia of Islam" is not a primary sources. Please don't confuse sources and their 21st-century interpretations by certain scholars, which have not been endorsed in the academic mainstream. You might have noticed that I place such theories in footnotes. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles on history must be written using reliable secondary sources. Primary sources must be used with extreme caution. Beit Or 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What is your basis for such a statement? Do you have any particular guideline in mind? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
5. It was actually Briangotts who requested a citation for this. A fairly reasonable request, IMHO.
Excessive requests for citations of generally known facts have been previously condemned by ArbCom. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That Washington, D.C., is the capital city of the United States is a commonly known fact. A phrase written by a murky East Slavic ruler is not an example of a commonly known fact. Beit Or 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll remove the anon's addition if you don't like it. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
6. The sentence is redundant: it makes no sense to say that Svyatoslav turned his attention to the Khazars in the middle of his campaign against them.
I'll let Briangotts (the author) to judge on this issue. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Footnote #13 (deleted by Ghirlandajo) is referenced to Logan.
Every reference should back up a certain claim in this article. If you references does not pertain to any particular piece of text, it should be removed to another section: "bibliography" or "further reading". --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This reference backs up a quote by a visitor to Atil. Beit Or 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any visitor to Atil mentioned in the article. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Then, calling somebody else's edits "irresponsible"[1] cuts no ice with me. Either edits are in accordance with Wikipedia policies or they are not; the rest is irrelevant. Beit Or 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No comment on your understanding of Wikipedia policies. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, please do not insert your comments within comments by other editors: readers of the talk page will not be able to understand who said what. Beit Or 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pace, gentlemen. Let me see if I can help move things forward. No. 4: This is actually closer to the account given in D.M. Dunlop's work- that the Khazars first permitted the Rus to go down the Volga, then tried to stop them (killing many in 911 or 913). I don't think, however, that any contemporary source definitively linked Sviatoslav's campaign with these earlier events. But if it's in the EOI we could say something like "Such and such scholars promoted the view that Sviatoslav's war against Khazaria was provoked by the Khazar policy of ...." and then cite to the appropriate article's authors. With regard to #5, I requested a citation for the quote "I am coming for you" (or whatever it was) not because I wanted it removed but because I wanted to know what the source was. If indeed it was from the Primary Chronicle, it should DEFINITELY stay, but it wasn't identified as such and because it was added by an anon, I was a little suspicious. If Ghirla says it comes from the Primary Chronicle, I see no reason why not to add it back in (with the note that the Chronicle reports it). Re: primary sources/secondary sources... I've seen some discussion about this but never reviewed the actual policy (nor do I know where it's located). I tend to be in favor of quoting primary sources where possible and relying on secondary to interpret. I've seen some users object to this entirely... Usually these are people who want to whitewash elements of Muhammad's life by saying you can't quote to this or that primary source reporting some terrible thing he did because you're not "trained in interpretation" or something like that. With regard to No. 3, I don't know what Malusha's relationship with Sviatoslav was. The Vladimir I of Kiev article says she was a concubine and Vladimir was illegitimate. How do we know whether she was a wife or concubine? Does the Pr. Ch. say, or some other document (even if they do we should regard that with caution because these are Christian docs and not pagan). In medieval Wallachia, a son was legitimate if he came from "his father's bone." Was it the same in Russia? If we don't know, maybe (at least for now) the best thing would be to say "wives and concubines". No. 6 - I think the modifications to the Khazar campaign section are generally good and help with clarity. No. 7 the reference to the visitor appears ot have been added so it looks like all is well. Let's try to keep it civil- through all of our efforts, I think the article is much better now than it was a week ago, and if we can continue to collaborate peacefully I think it will be an FA before long. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the citation requested note from the line "Иду на вы!" based on Ghirla's statement that it comes from the Primary Chronicle. If this is not so let me know. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is the very next sentence after "Upon his expeditions he carried with him neither wagons nor kettles, and boiled no meat..." quoted by yourself. What I find really suspect, is the phrase "Pay nothing to Khazars!" Does Dunlop cite any primary source for this information? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Another query: is there any evidence that Khazars had cavalry "superior" to Russian forces? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be in Nicolle's Attila and the Nomad Hordes (Osprey) among other sources. I will try to find a cite. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

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)

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)
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)
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)

guys, the "prefer scholarly secondary sources" policy intends to avoid amateurish interpretation of primary sources, which are often less than clear. Of course the PC is crucially important, but we cannot discuss and interpret it in home-grown wikitranslations, we need to base our discussion of primary sources on scholarly discussions of these primary sources. Khazarian correspondence and the PC are both primary sources, and you should just present both for what they are worth. Conclusions such as the 940s connection are not to be treated as "self-evident" as Beit Or seems to attempt, but, at least if challenged, need to be attributed to some scholar or other. As far I understand, the Encyclopedia of Islam is just the source of the text of these correspondences, and not of the conclusion, or is it? It the Enc. of Islam does claim the connection, it would then be Ghirla's turn to say "however, according to Dr. Y, this connection is unlikely or overstated" or something. dab (ᛏ) 13:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

I should probably point out here that the primary sources listed: Documents of trials, etc, clearly indicate that a modenrn context is being considered.

E.g., they're meant to avoid people writing on, say, an actress' divorce from running off and getting a copy of the divorce trial, spilling all sorts of new nasty private information onto Wikipedia. Are we seriously trying to say that notable, published historical documents are inappropriate for historical sources? Or, ad absurdum, that an article on, say, The Importance of Being Earnest must avoid using the play as its source? No! This is ridiculous, and the guideline is probably being misinterpreted. Adam Cuerden talk 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Prince

Should there be a separate succession box for prince of Novgorod, khan (claimant) to Bulgaria, etc.? Also, are there any indications that Sviatoslav used the title Khagan Rus'?

Negative reply to all three questions. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia claims that Svyatoslav's conquests are comparable (by area) to those of Alexander the Great. Could anybody check the size of territories conquered by the two? --Ghirla -трёп- 06:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are comparable. Alexander's empire was about 2.1 million sq. miles. The entire Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus together come to about 7? So the Russian wiki claim would mean that Sviatoslav's territory covered 30% of this area.
I think the way the claim originated is the fact that Sviatoslav's power was primarily concentrated in what is now the Northwestern Federal District and the Central Federal District, which are together about 1.3 million sq. mi. Adding the Ukraine and Belarus to this brings the total area up to about the same as Alexander's empire. Of course, this assumes that Sviatoslav controlled these regions in their entirety, which is not a true assumption (he had no control, to my knowledge in Karelia, Permia, Kola Peninsula, western Belarus or the Ukraine west of the Dnepr. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you look at the map above, which I created and which was removed by another user because it depicted too large an area of rule, you will see that the area depcited there is still considerably less than 2.1 million sq. miles. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrations

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)

Do we know what year this picture was taken? It might be public domain Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I decided not to risk with this one and uploaded a PD engraving by Chorikov. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related discussion

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

[edit] Kievan to the Dniester?

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)

[edit] FA?

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

[edit] map

I've uploaded a newer, somewhat more conservative version of the map incorporating his subjugation of the Alans

[edit] Requests

[edit] Title

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)

[edit] Ukrainian history

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)


[edit] East Slavic

"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)

[edit] "Germanic king"

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)

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)
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)

[edit] 216.9.95.166

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).

[edit] Sviatoslav's family tree

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)

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)
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)

I agree with you. Honestly, I just loved the web-site. I just don't see how we can include the link for the style reasons. We cannot use it as a ref. We could use it as an "External link" but we do not have such section and even having them is usually a bad idea. I am looking forward for the way to include the link. --Irpen 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor, or Prince Charles, the husband to the late Princess Diana, is in the 40th (XL) generation while Sviatoslav is in the 5th (V) in the family tree at http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Special:Tree/561. --Stanley78 23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sviatoslav was the great grandfather to Anne of Kiev, the daughter of Yaroslav the Wise. It was Anne who united the bloods of Western and Eastern European royal families. --Stanley78 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)