Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Nevsky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely unacceptable article

[edit]

Especially this part: Some historians see Alexander's choice of subordination to the Golden Horde and refusal of cooperation with western countries and church as an important reaffirmation of East Slavs' Orthodox orientation (begun under Duke Vladimir of Kiev and his Mother Olga) Let me remind you that intention of West in Russia was complete elimination of Russians as Orthodox heretics (Orthodox Church was not considered by West as Christian one). There were no any proposal from any western country "to cooperate", only invasions and war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Iskander ar-Rusiya was definitely a heretic Muslim, not a heretic Christian 82.199.102.55 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be rewritten

[edit]

It's clear that this article was written by some Ukrainian nationalist. It's absolutely unacceptable in the current form. The article is full of anachronisms (Moscovite Russia in 13 century!!!) and instigate hate to Russians.

Ukrainian??

[edit]

Alexander Nevsky never even was on the territory of present-day Ukraine, why do you have his name in this language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]
proclaimed "Saint"of the Russian Orthodox Church

If you wish to stay polite to Orthodox, it should be "canonized by Orthodox Church" or "glorified as saint by Orthodox Church", but in this form it's simply a slap in the face of any Orthodox person.

Nevsky tried to strengthen his authority at the expense of the boyars and at the same time suppress any anti-Muscovite uprisings in the country (Novgorod uprising of 1259).

? What is this? In 13th century Moscow was insignificant town of Principat of Vladimir and Suzdal. The son of Nevsky was installed as the first feud [udel'nyi] prince of Moscow, the rize of Moscow starts with the grandson of Nevsky only [Ivan I]

Strategic considerations aside, Alexander's victory was an important milestone in the development of Muscovite Russia.

There were no "Muscovite Russia" till 15th century.

Comment by Compay

[edit]
hundreds claimed by Russian chronicles

is a later time addition to the cronicles. The chronicles say: "В лето 6750 не бысть ничтоже", which means "in the year 6750 nothing happened", 6750 being 1242. I think the frase should be "claimed later by Russian sources" Compay 10:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Russia at all mentioned? There was no Russia back then. there was only scattered principalities that became Russia later. Plus, not all of these principalities were under mongolians. Most were, and they were scattered and not united, but there were some that were free from mongolian rule, for example the most powerful one back then, Novgorod (could you please give a source on Novgorod paying the tribute, sine it is a factually incorrect claim).

Come on. Stating there was "no Russia" in Alexander Nevsky's time is about like saying there was no such thing as Germany prior to 1871. There are a number of nations that fragmented for a time, even for centuries, only to reunite at a later date. China did, Germany did, Italy did, and so did Russia. In the case of Russia, this is obvious. The successor states of Kievan Rus' were led by branches of the same House of Rurik, and when Ivan The Terrible reunited all the territory, he declared himself "Tsar of all the Russias." He wouldn't have done that if those lands weren't viewed as all parts of one nation. Jsc1973 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canonization?

[edit]

The article says 1547, but I found various sources mentioning different dates, amongst others 1267 and 1381. —Vildricianus 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be helpful if the article gave some reason why he was canonized. I assume that he must have done something besides be a great leader in order to become a saint? Cdixon 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic principles of canonization in Orthodox Church: http://www.klikovo.ru/db/msg/4203 Contemporaly life description of Alexander - http://hronos.km.ru/dokum/nevski_zh.html the reference should be [Памятники литературы Древней Руси. XIII век / Пер. В.И. Охотниковой. М., 1981. С. 426-439.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life?

[edit]

Did he have a family? Children? This article gives us only the political take on the man.

He had at least two sons. One of them, Dmitry of Pereslavl, has a wikipedia article on him. Andrew II and Yaroslav III were Alexander's brothers. The rules of succession in the Russian states were rather bewildering.--Syd Henderson 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio File?

[edit]

Shouldn't the audio file be in a more user friendly format? I don't even know what an .ogg file is.

Strange dry view on Alexander Nevsky

[edit]

There are tons of books written on Alexander Nevsky by famous Russian historians of the past. I wish somebody could add extracts from Karamzin (XVIII century)and Soloviev (XIX century)works who were using interesting sources. In this article we see old-fashioned Soviet-type view on Nevsky, while he was much more than that, he was a product of those barbaric times.

[propaganda] Far from being simply dry, in points it is downright antagonistic (at a level I come across when dealing with nationalistic Russophobic Ukrainians). How can a prince be a "collaborator" (as the 1st paragraph states) against his own subjects? Alexeykh (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Style Dates

[edit]

Throughout the article it is not mentioned that the dates listed are those of Old Style (Julian calendar). For instance, the battle against the Teutonians took place on 18th of April rather than on 5th of April (the latter being the Old style date) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.151.131.39 (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are you aware that the New Style (Gregorian) calendar only came into existence on 15 October 1582, and was NOT retrospective? This means that the day before then was 4 October 1582 (there was a 10-day gap), and there's no need specify it as a Julian date because the Julian calendar was the only one in existence in the West. It's completely specious to even talk about Julian/Gregorian dates prior to 15 October 1582, and it's utterly absurd to convert any of the (Julian) dates before then to their supposed Gregorian equivalents. The dates of events in Alexander Nevsky's life as recorded by the chroniclers of the time are the only valid dates there are.
It looks like someone's been fiddling with his date of birth, because we show it as "30 May 1220 (?)" in the lead, but as "5 June 1221" in the infobox. I can only hazard a guess at why they're different. Maybe they come from different sources; even so, we can't be seen to be speaking with 2 voices on such a basic issue as this. Or maybe someone's had a go at calculating what the Gregorian equivalent of (Julian) 30 May would have been back then, and come up with 5 June, a 6-day gap. Pity, because the gap would have been 7 days. But the point is that such a calculation should never have been done in the first place because it's completely imappropriate. So, anyone know what his actual date of birth was? Julian only, please. ---- JackofOz (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed for Version 0.7

[edit]

I'd expected to be able to include this article on a major historical figure (I'm a chemist, not a historian, but I was familiar with his story). The article is fairly short, but often biographies are for this period. However, I see that there are virtually no references; the article does include quite a lot of material that could be considered conjecture (e.g., judging importance, influence or impact of events) when it occurs without external source material. That means I must reluctantly fail the article. If a few sources are added (and preferably some inline cites for the bolder statements), please renominate the article. Thanks, Walkerma 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remains/Relics

[edit]

The page states that his remains are in the Lavra/Monastery to this day, but they were moved in 1922 to the State Hermitage Museum. See: http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/08/hm89_0_1_67.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychair (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 08:22, 4 October 2014 by Vuhdeem

[edit]

Revision as of 08:22, 4 October 2014 by Vuhdeem - contradicts dates of article: "In 1237, ... He gave his 8-year-old son Aleksandr Yaroslavich to Batu into amanat (hostages). While staying in the Horde from 1238 to 1252,... , wed Batu Khan's daughter, "

Known wikipedia sources give: 1236 - first rule in Novgorod in age of 15, first visit into Orda - 1247 in age of 26, no Khan's doughter as a wife.

Now it found in uk.wikipedia article "Володимир Білінський". It may be timely view of this particular person.

Vuhdeem revision also removed date 1236 of previous author: Ghirlandajo Revision as of 15:02, 10 June 2005, and inserted itself stright among sentence of Ghirlandajo Revision.

Revision 08:22, 4 October 2014 by Vuhdeem should be limited to "OTHER VIEWS".

VSL56 (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to master touch of Ghirlandajo ! - Revision as of 08:10, 27 February 2016 (deleted vandalism from 2014 and copyright violations) That is better. VSL56 (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexander Nevsky/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Made a small edit regarding the battle with the Swedes. This took place 1240 and the Mongol invasion 1237. I just changed "a year" to "three years" after the defeat of the Swedes. Erabbra (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 07:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Nevsky. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Nevsky. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vasall

[edit]

He has been a Vasall of the golden hord. This has been removed again. Please prove that he was not a vasall. Л.Н.Гумилев - Древняя Русь и великая степь ^ Jump up to:a b Also look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_and_vassals_of_the_Mongol_Empire Macjena (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Macjena: it already says that he agreed to pay tribute to the Horde. I do not think he (as a person) can be called a "vassal" in this context, in such a context we can refer to to vassal states. Of course I am not disputing vassal state statuses but whether it is appropriate to use the term "vassal" to describe him as a person. Or if you can find such sources that use the term "vassal" to refer to him. If you think I am incorrect here, please let me know. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thecollector.com/alexander-nevsky-kievan-rus-savior/
He paid tribute, he had to throw himself on the ground before the prince and swear loyalty and allegiance. Macjena (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nevsky dispute/ Anachronistic “Russian princes”

[edit]
RESOLVED
“Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion” – WP:CR. Resolved the issue over the source having anachronism or presentism when describing the Rus’. Okiyo9228 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I anticipate you’re going to revert my edit again therefore expound on your rationale for doing it. Okiyo9228 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your change does not follow what the book says. Such a word cannot simply be substituted, it is not some kind of synonym. Here is what the book actually says. It also just says "assumed the throne of Vladimir". It does not say anything about this ruler being the "supreme Kievan Rus ruler". Such an entity no longer existed at this point in time. So I am not sure why you changed this in the first place and restored it. Of course the original "supreme Russian ruler" makes more sense in this context but it is still unsupported by the source. So I suggest to self-revert until you can find a different source and make the appropriate adjustments because it does not follow the policy of WP:V. Mellk (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have done what you’ve asked for, namely to modify my edit accordingly to the standards you stated below. Apropos to your first assertion, I am not substituting the word, I have merely rectified the word, as I stated in my summary ““Russian” is a more modern name; for “Russian” was adapted around the early modern age even though “Russian” is etymologically derived from “Rus”. You could compare the two words as they aren’t synonyms by which I have used under my impulses but for which I have done whilst being cognizant of the history and etymology of both words to which effect it can be declared Rus. Okiyo9228 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I added the source by which it can be declared cogent. Okiyo9228 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good source, but it says "the most senior of the princes following the fall of Kiev" ("supreme Kievan Rus ruler" is inaccurate in this case) and refers to the Russian princes. Mellk (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it may be a good source but you’re going astray from what I had been propounding on. As I previously said in the paragraph above "Russian" is a more modern term and gives off the wrong connotation and subsequently when put into the article gives off a deficient contextualization even @Mzajac noticed that. Okiyo9228 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you must find a source that says this. If multiple sources say one thing, your opinion that it "gives off the wrong connotation" is not enough here. And this editor you mention was previously topic banned for such disruptive editing a while ago so not the best endorsement here. Mellk (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the source, but in any case, you can say that it's in conflict with the sources but the source is a fountain by which the text gains it authority and cannot be contested for not having a citation. Now, one may move on from the citation to add meaning albeit paraphrase which is already seen in the article. Essentially, we don't have to continue to debate over this, I propose NPOV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. To which effect we can rectify the wording of the article. If you desire to persist and indulge on their being sources then I will send my response when you respond. Okiyo9228 (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This book distinguishes between "Russian princes" and "Rus' princes", depending on the context. Your change fails WP:V, which is the problem. The author made this distinction clear but you are not following what the author said and are just assuming this is what was meant. Mellk (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the book uses “Kievan Rus' princes” and “Rus' princes” early on, then “Rus' princes” and “Russian princes.” There is no case where it distinguishes, and some where it obviously uses two terms for exactly the same concept, as I’ve shown in quotations below.  —Michael Z. 02:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kievan Rus princes is used up to Sviatoslav Vsevolodich, and Russian princes is used starting from the rule of the Golden Horde.  —Michael Z. 02:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronistic “Russian princes”

[edit]

@Mellk reverted my correction of the use of “Russian princes,” presumably with reference to sources that use old-fashioned Russo-centric vocabulary for a period before Russia existed.[1] Why not link to List of Princes of Russia, too? There’s a consensus not to do this. It is disruptive to revert improvements based on what is recognized as a nationalist POV.  —Michael Z. 23:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, we cannot refer to a "Ukraine" until the 20th century. Or is this something different? If you have a problem with sources (one from 2022), replace the sources rather than continually making unsourced changes. Also, kindly stop following my edits. Your "decolonization" campaign is disruptive, yes indeed. Mellk (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not following your edits, (I tell the editor who keeps reverting me).
Regarding your whataboutism: I’m surprised you don’t know that Ukraine is the name of a country, used specifically since the fifteenth century and appearing on maps since the seventeenth, and used thusly in current historiography.
As you well know, the name Russia as it’s used today was not applied to the duchies of Vladimir, Suzdal, or Moscow in the thirteenth century, when the name Rossiia was centuries away from being borrowed from Greek. At best one can say “in what is now the northwestern corner of Russia,” but this is far from useful. It is not properly applied to them in current historiography, at least when it is not being lazy about language and names.  —Michael Z. 23:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then kindly explain how you arrived at this article, please. This is also not about the name "Rossiia", this is about that we have cited RS that contradict the claim that "Russian" cannot be used in a medieval context whatsoever. Or are these authors Russian nationalists? One is from 2022 so I do not see such a sudden change. Mellk (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is uncited and vague anyway. It is unclear which princes it means. Did it include Halych-Volyn? Did it include just the grand prince or every one? I tagged it.  —Michael Z. 23:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says "all the Russian princes were obliged to go to Sarai for a renewal of their patents" after Mongke became great khan in 1251. The book here uses both "Rus'" and "Russian" as adjectives (and yes both "Russian princes" and "Rus' princes" are both used depending on the context), therefore the author used these for a reason. We should not guess here and make false assumptions because it does distinguish between them, rather than simply referring to all of Rus' as Russian. Mellk (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which book? I don’t see a source associated with the statement.  —Michael Z. 00:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found it by searching.[2]  —Michael Z. 00:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear she uses Rus' and Russian as synonyms, wherever they feel comfortable, the former more commonly in the early part of the book of course. The book is written from the context of Russia, to 1584, with the latter portion all about Muscovy and Russia, and not Rus lands in Halych-Volyn and Lithuania. The equivalence is made clear in the very first sentence of the text: “the northern shores off a land that became known as Rus' and, later, Russia” (1). She is aware of the difference, but casual about it.
“The Mongol invasion of the Rus' lands was massive; it was devastating; and it had a lasting impact on the Russian lands” (150). “Russian princes” in one sentence are referred to as “Rus' princes” two sentences later (170). “Russian Primary Chronicle” (2). Kyiv is the “mother of Russian cities” (68). The “census of the Russian population” includes “the Kievan area in the early 1240s” (166).
“The author used these for a reason.” Yeah, she mixed it up to sound less boring, to have a natural-sounding adjective and not the awkward Rus’ian that some authors use. There is no other reason. If you claim there’s a secret reason, you are the one guessing.  —Michael Z. 01:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are making that assumption. If it is to have a natural-sounding adjective, then why is "Rus'" used as an adjective? If you want to claim that the author is just an idiot and you know better, then sorry, I don't buy it. The policy is WP:V anyway. Mellk (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are making the assumption “used these for a reason” without any evidence. I did not imply anyone is an “idiot.”
Martin explains the visits.
Riurikid princes under the Golden Horde were required to personally visit the khans to pay obeisance, bring tribute, taxes, and conscripts, and have their rule approved (pp 173, 187). They initially approved according to the traditions of Rus inheritance, but later picked their favourites, giving Moscow hegemony (187, 206, 429).
Alexander visited Guyuk, who died only two years later in 1251, and his successor Möngke required another visit, too soon for Andrei (168, 178).
There’s no significance coded in the use of “Russian princes” in some of those passages and not others.  —Michael Z. 01:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the point in coming up with excuses not to follow what the source says. Mellk (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says several things. When it describes the situation is says “Riurikid princes.” What’s your excuse for using the inappropriate “Russian princes”?  —Michael Z. 02:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not on that particular page from what I can see. Also, "Riurikid" refers to a dynasty, whereas here we are discussing usage of "Rus'" vs "Russian". Mellk (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also not aware of some apparent unspecified consensus to only use "Rus'" up to an arbitrary year regardless of context. Where did this come from and what do we do about the term "Ruthenian"? Mellk (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Mzajac on the means by which historians, when writing books on the history of Russia use the term "Russian" erroneously when it comes to the medieval Kievan Rus. Yes, it may help the reader be able to understand facile but causes reductionism, subsequently causing the problem we are in currently. Also, it thereby cause challenges which can "“nationalize” the Rus′ past on behalf of existing national projects, laying the groundwork for a new understanding of the premodern history of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus"
@Mellk Is this fine?

"In actual fact, the Mongols never asked the Rus’ princes to abandon their faith and showed maximum tolerance of the Orthodox Church in general. But the chronicler’s differentiation of three models of behavior reflected very real gradations in the Rus’ princes’ collaboration with and resistance to Mongol authority. Prince Mykhailo, who was indeed killed on Batu’s orders, refused to capitulate to the Mongols in 1239 and even killed the envoys sent by the khan to receive his surrender. Yaroslav of Vladimir, by contrast, was the first of the Rus’ princes to pledge allegiance to the Mongols, which gained him the title of grand prince of Rus’ and the right to install his voevoda in Kyiv. He remained loyal to the Mongols until his death in 1246, as did his son and successor, Aleksandr Nevsky, whom the Russian Orthodox Church later recognized as a saint for his role in defending the Rus’ lands from western aggressors, the Swedes and the Teutonic Knights. Danylo took a different course: while he swore allegiance to Batu Khan, he did not abide by his oath very long."

Okiyo9228 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are referring to a period after Kievan Rus'. If you believe that historians use such terms erroneously, that is fine. But the policy is WP:V. In the context of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, sources often use "Ruthenian" there. It is similar here. Mellk (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with the quote, if so, I will use it as a source. Okiyo9228 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what is the relevance of that quote here. Can you explain please? Mellk (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book is called the Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy; this quote is pertinent because it describes the circumstances of the Rus' whilst Kievan Rus albeit principalities were occupied by the Mongols. Moreover, it uses the word Rus' instead of "Russian" when talking about that epoch. Okiyo9228 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement in question is about princes travelling to Sarai, so I still do not see the relevance of that quote here, unless it is for something else. The book by Janet Martin also uses "Rus'", but we are focusing on this statement. Mellk (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s in the book as well. Okiyo9228 (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I would send you quotes but you would still plausibly ask for context on how it entails or makes it requisite to be used a source. Thus, I assume you have a means by which you can find the book and scan through it… Okiyo9228 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which book are you referring to? You can just add a citation here. Mellk (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy Okiyo9228 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which quotes? Mellk (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before that see this: [3] pg 72.
Suffice to say, I can simply add a note next every term Rus’. The current sources can stay but this will let everyone become cognizant of the notion that the term is used in vague ways. If you so desire I can put it on every term called Rus’ in the article, subsequently granting a source and NPV. But, I presume you have more objections regardless of this good pact…? Okiyo9228 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate article about the naming of Rus'. If someone is interested in what the name means and different interpretations, they can visit that article. Such a footnote is unnecessary. I am also not sure what you mean by pact, there are no pacts on Wikipedia. Mellk (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such footnotes are requisite in a contentious topic that we’re currently embroiled in. Okiyo9228 (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to who? Mellk (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We also have now two RS for Sarai (one you added yourself) that say "Russian princes" as opposed to "Rus' prince". In terms of WP:V, we cannot simply decide to use a different word with a different meaning. Mellk (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years, however, the correct terms Rus' and Kievan Rus' have appeared more frequently in English-language scholarly publications, although the corresponding adjective Rus'/Rusyn has been avoided in favor of either the incorrect term Russian or the correct but visually confusing term Rus'ian/Rusian.

I had no intention for a new obscure word; I was planning to to use only the word princes instead of Rus or Russian. As I’ve said already, footnotes are needed for this contentious problem that we’re embroiled in. According to who? According to you as you continue to persist in trying to find a means of avoiding a NPV. Okiyo9228 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the issue here, what the true term should be (also this is one POV, not WP:NPOV). The issue is WP:V. Mellk (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can perpetually say the problem is verifiability without regarding what I’ve already said! I said the sources can be kept the same but the footnotes must be added. Okiyo9228 (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes will not make the source invalid but will affirm the source thereby making it valid, subsequently making it valid! Yet, you still have objections, completely fatuous. Okiyo9228 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what is difficult about this. The two sources are cited for the statement about Sarai. Both use "Russian princes" when referring to Sarai. Both also use "Rus'" in other contexts, meaning the issue is not about Rus'/Russian as the authors already know this. I am opposing any kind of WP:SYNTH or whatever. You still insist on using wording that contradicts what the sources say. Yes, fatuous. Mellk (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting contradicting this source.  —Michael Z. 08:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then follow the wording the source uses then. Or use a different source for the statement instead. Mellk (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done.  —Michael Z. 16:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, decolonization has been going on for over two centuries. I suppose it is disruptive, but you can’t blame me. I suggest you get used to it.  —Michael Z. 08:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify what exactly you mean by this because it sounds like a threat of being disruptive (again). Mellk (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“When the Mongol military commander demanded that Danylo turn over his capital city of Halych to the Mongols, he went to see Batu Khan in his capital, Sarai, on the Volga. It was the kind of visit other Rus’ princes had paid the khan earlier, the purpose being to pledge allegiance to the Mongols and receive the khan’s yarlyk, or conditional right to rule their principalities”

Gates of Europe: History of Ukraine
Does this bring tranquility to your volition? Okiyo9228 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This quote is about Daniel of Galicia visiting Batu in 1246. The statement in question refers to Mongke in 1251. Mellk (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you looking for in a quote? You must be cognizant of the fact that the book won’t have the exact sentence you’re looking for. Okiyo9228 (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the statement is simply about the princes visiting Sarai after Mongke became great khan. There will be more than these two sources. You provided a quote that referred to something else. At the moment there is a clarification tag because it says "Rus' princes" because apparently this unclear in terms of which princes it is referring to even though the source cited refers to Russian princes. Mellk (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated it, with supporting quote from this source.  —Michael Z. 16:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems we’ve reached the conclusion of this dispute. Okiyo9228 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was disruptive for King George when the Americans tossed tea into Boston Harbour. Please don’t cast aspersions: I promise I wasn’t present. One can name more recent examples,[4][5] but my name’s not in any of the bylines or citations either.  —Michael Z. 23:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your response to your editing being called disruptive is "get used to it" and "you can't blame me", then do not been surprised I asked for clarification. You still have not answered the question of how you ended up on this article. Mellk (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said that by bringing sources to Wikipedia about decolonization of knowledge – an important theme in the study of history for six decades or more – I was responsible for a “disruptive campaign.” This is blatant nonsense, but I’ll indulge you with a serious response.
You are objecting to normal editing, resisting including knowledge that you dislike from reliable sources, and denying the fact and the study of decolonization, which you denigrate with scare quotes. It looks like you might be trying to WP:right great wrongs, perhaps because you disapprove of this field of study or hold some incompatible political views, but I don’t really care about your motives. You are being disrespectful, obstructionist, and disruptive.  —Michael Z. 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are using it as an excuse to push a POV and not follow what a source says because you do not like what it says. Of course your previous topic ban and warnings of a potential desysop have not deterred you from disruptive editing and writing inappropriate comments. Mellk (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lads, if you want to inquire about each other’s motives then do it in your own page talk section, for it seems this dispute has been resolved but is now deviating from its original purpose. Okiyo9228 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Nevsky&oldid=1236787789"