Jump to content

Talk:Prince of Polotsk

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

Various issues

[edit]

Background:

While a major improvement, this recycling of content at this page still leaves various issues unaddressed. The text in question is mostly WP:UNSOURCED and may represent WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The main OR/SYNTH issue is: What are the post-1397 people and the Princes of Vitebsk, Turov, Minsk, and Drutsk doing here in an article about the Princes of Polotsk (987–1397)? Why are we still talking about Belarusian feuds/territory/history, Belarusian Kievan Rus? I don't think we should.

I am afraid the big table really has to go. It still frames Belarusian territory as the sum of the Principalities of Polotsk, Minsk, Drutsk, Vitebsk, and Turov-Pinsk. This still assumes the modern border of the Republic of Belarus as an acceptable historical geographical framework, which has been rejected by both the "Belarusian rulers" CfD and the "List of rulers of Belarus" AfD. (One may also wonder why the Principality of Smolensk and Principality of Volhynia were excluded; because capitals Smolensk and Volodymyr-Volynsky are located outside modern Belarus' borders, perhaps? I'm just pointing this out to illustrate the arbitrariness of the Belarusian territory geographical framework for historiographical purposes).

It is also not how I suggested the content should be recycled, namely you're free to recycle useful content for our existing articles such as Prince of Polotsk, Prince of Turov, Principality of Minsk etc. I didn't say it should all be moved only to Prince of Polotsk, but implied the content should be split across the various principalities where and when appropriate. That seems to be a much more sustainable solution that is historiographically justifiable.

As I said, the List of leaders of Ukraine has similar issues that should also be addressed, and I have also already pointed this out at Talk:List of leaders of Ukraine#WP:REDUNDANTFORKs. It also assumes the post-1991 modern border of Ukraine as an acceptable historical geographical framework. Although this frame has not yet been rejected by the community, its historiographic validity is equally shaky. So I do not really blame Mhmrodrigues for this. But these issues do need to be addressed one way or the other. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: @Ymblanter: Hi! And sorry, I think it's better to keep the table for now, at least until the mentioned Ukrainian issue in its rulers page is also fixed (the big Kievan Rus' table there is also my edit, if that's the problem). But If I think of it (and understand your concern) then the page List of Russian monarchs has the same issue (there I didn't intervene). My suggestion to solve your problem is to create a new page called Rulers of Kievan Rus' , and there we could join the Ukrainian and Belarusian Rus' tables. Maybe we can also expand for Russia's previous principalities in Rus'. I would anyway find necessary, as a mean of clarifying the geographical continuity, to insert a link in the existing pages for the rulers of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia to this new page. We can also add a link to the pages dedicated to the territory itself (pages of the various principalites mentioned in the table). What's your opinion? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: If you want to discuss any concern about particular info on the tables I've created, please open a new discussion and (if I'm able to) I'll be glad to whisk away any doubt. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhmrodrigues Thanks for your response! About Ukraine, I think we should at least undo the 9 December 2022 merge of the List of Ukrainian rulers into List of leaders of Ukraine. The table inside it should be restored to something like this 20 March 2012 version, where Grand Prince of Kiev, Prince of Pereyaslavl, Prince of Chernigov etc. were still kept separate. But as a matter of fact, I would still consider such sections WP:REDUNDANTFORKs anyway. The Grand Princes of Kiev were either all equally "Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian" as much as they were not. The same goes for all other medieval Rus' princes. We've already got a dedicated article for Grand Prince of Kiev, for example, where I've been making an effort to supply enough references and reliable sources for verification of the claims that this or that prince did in fact reign from and to the dates indicated. That is Wikipedia's primary goal. Our goal is not:
  • filling the table with lots of trivialities such as how many spouses or children this or that prince had.
  • filling the table with lots of fantasy portraits of centuries later of what Rurik (who might have never even existed in the first place) might have looked like, which instantly visually dominate the entire list.
  • throwing lots of princes together in one single table based on any of the three modern countries' borders.
  • etc.
So my goal is not so much to remove those modern-countries-based tables of rulers as it is to focus on the data for each of the lists of princes separately, make sure it is all WP:SOURCED, before we move on to address the rest. If we really do need those fantasy portraits somewhere, I suggest we put it in s gallery at the bottom. They are hindering the list's primary function for readers to read/check which prince of X reigned when and where. Readers are probably not browsing the list of Grand Princes of Kiev to check how many spouses or children Iziaslav II had, either; they will want to know when he was Grand Prince of Kiev. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nederlandse Leeuw:! Thank you, firstly, for your answer. However, let me write that I don't agree with your comments:
  • I would consider change what you call fantasy portraits by others, but I couldn't do that if the fantasy portrait is the only known representation of the monarch;
  • You make it seem that the presence of wives and children are excessive/useless. I don't think so. In my modest opinion, their presence serves to stress the importance of the alliances the monarch had through marriage, and which land rulers were blood related. Did you read, at least List of English monarchs, for example? So until a page named Grand Princesses of Kiev (or Consorts of the Rus') is created, the presence of this material in the table is of the most importance, as you won't find that information synthethized anywhere else in Wikipedia.
    • To this point I would also note that the Kievan period and the principalites feels a lot like an exclusively masculine fight. Women also had their roles to play (and that shouldn't be considered as less important) in the turmoil Kievan Rus' was involved since the first half of the 12th-century. Even in France, where there were no queens regnant, we can find a lot of female regents who had a strong influence on the events they lived (I remember for example Blanche of Castile). That's why I find refreshing to find women with notable political importance in countries we don't expect to.
  • I understand you may not consider the principalities as direct ancestors of the countries that were formed there centuries later, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a continuity between the Kievan Rus itself and its principalities, and that's this continuity I want to stress by listing the main princes together. Aren't these principalities considered a division of the main Kievan Rus'? That's why we need a page of Rulers of the Rus' , because one centered around Kyiv is not satisfying at all. In my opinion (again) Kyiv became in the 12th century a mainly primus inter pares, with no political authority to submit their vassals or stop the political ascendance of their eventual successor states, and that lack of central authority and unity is what brought their ultimate destruction at the hands of the Mongols. At that point its authority was merely de jure, to put it lightly. That's why a Rulers of the Rus' page would sound more effective. There we can fit better most of the Kievan principalities (just the most important, of course, as a list with all of them would be too much). So, I suggest keeping in this new page my tables as they are, and then readapt them in the page of each of the principalities to just show the rulers of that specific place. I think that the separation of the table in the main page would destroy: 1) the notion that all the Kievan principalities were all once part of a same unity, and they are effectively one same family, with feudal divisions; 2) the interesting notion that some of the princes migrated between principalites before becoming Grand Princes, such as, for example, Iziaslav II.
    • In the end it's just my opinion on the subject, and I understand you may think differently, but please refrain yourself of deleting my tables without asking me. I know it's none of your business, but it really cost me a lot of time composing that info altogether in a table.
  • I noted you didn't comment about the Kievan presence in the rulers of Russia page. Do you find it more plausible there than the other two countries? Do you find there a continuity that doesn't exist in the other two countries? I consider that it goes against your arguments. From what I know the Grand Princes of Vladimir-Suzdal weren't called rulers of Russia, in the first place.

Thank you in advance for your understanding. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhmrodrigues Thanks for your response. When it comes to lists of office-holders, portraits are usually more the exception than the rule. With modern officers for whom we've got verifiably accurate photographs it's different than with kings or princes or queens from thousands of years ago, about whom only fantasy portraits have been made in modern times (in my estimation 80% of them in the 19th century). A practical layout problem is that many such portraits are of different sizes, throwing the list regularly off-balance between entries and compromising consistent presentation. But admittedly it is not my main objection; I'm just saying that such portraits are not the primary function of lists of office-holders, nor should they get in the way of the primary functions of lists of office-holders (namely: name and dates of reign, in the correct chronological order).
I agree that women's history and women's roles in monarchies/dynasties are very important. In fact, I created Category:Grand Princesses consort of Kiev and Category:Princesses consort of Kiev (before 1019) a few weeks ago. I would gladly welcome such a List of Grand Princesses consort of Kiev (or something), just like we've got a List of Milanese consorts etc. However, I'm not sure we need to mention them in the list of monarchs, and I'm even less convinced their children should be mentioned.
  • I understand you may not consider the principalities as direct ancestors of the countries that were formed there centuries later I'm glad you do.
  • but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a continuity between the Kievan Rus itself and its principalities That is debatable, and a point of view. This could be mentioned if supported by WP:RS. (Personally, I would say that most of history is a mix between continuity and change, so it's not black-and-white. It's complicated).
  • that's this continuity I want to stress by listing the main princes together. I'm afraid you can't do that per WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH.
  • Aren't these principalities considered a division of the main Kievan Rus'? According to some, not to others. E.g. Martin, Janet (2007). Medieval Russia: 980–1584. Second Edition. E-book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-36800-4., a standard reference work that is one of the most cited here on English Wikipedia when it comes to Kievan Rus' and the Rus' principalities, never mentions 'Drutsk', never mentions 'Vitebsk', mentions 'Minsk' only once (p. 254), while 'Polotsk', 'Turov' and 'Pinsk' are mentioned very often. So I don't think we can say Drutsk, Vitebsk, and Minsk are considered a division of the main Kievan Rus', but we probably can say that about Polotsk and Turov-Pinsk.
  • one centered around Kyiv is not satisfying at all. Sorry, but WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient argument. Moreover, we've already got other lists of Rus' princes such as Prince of Chernigov, Prince of Pereyaslavl etc.. What I do think is that we could use some sort of 'master list', but that would depend on us agreeing which former states may be called "Rus' principalities", and which not. I have tried to make a start with such a list at Talk:List of tribes and states in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine#Rus' principalities, but I got stuck halfway. Moreover, we can't yet reach agreement at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 27#Category:Russian city-states on whether there are any objective criteria by which to identify "Rus' principalities", and by extension "Rus' princes". At any rate, such a 'master list' function seems to be already (partially) fulfilled by Category:Noble titles of Kievan Rus.
  • readapt them in the page of each of the principalities to just show the rulers of that specific place. I think this is a good idea, and I wholly support it.
  • the notion that all the Kievan principalities were all once part of a same unity, and they are effectively one same family That is debatable, and a point of view.
  • the interesting notion that some of the princes migrated between principalites before becoming Grand Princes, such as, for example, Iziaslav II. Sorry, but WP:INTERESTING is not a sufficient argument.
  • In the end it's just my opinion on the subject, and I understand you may think differently, but please refrain yourself of deleting my tables without asking me. I know it's none of your business, but it really cost me a lot of time composing that info altogether in a table. Well fair enough, I will grant you some more time to resolve some of these issues in due course. I may have come across a little harsh when I first reverted your edit at List of national leaders of Belarus; you do deserve respect for the good work you do. I do think you've done a commendable job of gathering all this information - though I must stress that providing reliable sources for all these claims is much more important than all those other things like portraits and kids. But eventually, misleading information should be removed or corrected if we want to maintain Wikipedia's quality standards (WP:NOW).
  • I noted you didn't comment about the Kievan presence in the rulers of Russia page. Do you find it more plausible there than the other two countries? Do you find there a continuity that doesn't exist in the other two countries? This is an extremely relevant and valid question, and I would like to emphatically answer no. None of the three countries can claim the legacy of Kievan Rus' exclusively for themselves. Eventually I hope to remove or differently organise the lists of princes in List of Russian monarchs and List of leaders of Ukraine, too. I've already taken steps to do that, e.g. by creating Prince of Moscow as a separate list rather than a simple redirect to List of Russian monarchs. And I also agree with you that the Grand Princes of Vladimir(-Suzdal) do not belong in this list. But I'm trying to be careful with both of those pages, because there are frequent editwars between pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia editors there about precisely this topic. I have proposed compromises, but very few people are willing to actually listen and work together to find such a solution. I must say that you are a refreshing exception in that regard, willing to look critically at the princes in territories now part of Belarus. There is also a difference that List of rulers of Belarus had been previously deleted for very specific reasons. I don't think such an AfD would get very far with the other two lists right now, but again, there are definitely lots of issues with both of them, and I don't shy away from calling that out on the talk pages of both lists. I'm just not willing to edit-war over it. There's already a real war going on, we don't need another one here on Wikipedia.
You're welcome, and I thank you in advance for your understanding as well. I'm sure we can find more agreements as we move forward. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nederlandse Leeuw:! Hope you're well. Thank you for your kind words! It's not frequent to encounter someone who wholly recognizes our work (given it's not even paid...).
What I do think is that we could use some sort of 'master list', but that would depend on us agreeing which former states may be called "Rus' principalities", and which not.. That's what I was trying to suggest, with my table there (please understand that I'll always defend my work). I had also some trouble in identifying which cities were indeed principalities or just peer titles, overall when categorizing the princes in Commons. Maybe we shoukd consider the Grand Princes as the most important? The problem is also that there are principalites that gain or lose importance in given periods and we've got no way to know this for sure (the amount of data about princes, perhaps is enough?). I'd like to further discuss this with you another time.
one centered around Kyiv is not satisfying at all. I explained also why I disagreed, it wasn't just because I don't like it. As I've said, principalities gained and lost importance over the years, and Kyiv lost theirs from at least the 1160s, or definitely in 1240, with its sack by the Mongols. Despite not being a political center anymore, there are many principalities that survive the Mongols. Would be right to still consider Kyiv as their main representative? That's why I align better with a Rulers of Rus' page, because Rus' possibly meant all Rurik principalities, no matter which political center they depended on a specific time (and considering the always present sudden alliance shift, well...).
that's this continuity I want to stress by listing the main princes together. It's not just continuity, but also to identify contemporary princes (listed by order of ascension to their thrones). I believe it's also easier to search in a table for a reign of a prince than looking between an extensive list of various lists of princes, like this previous version of the page of the Dukes of Silesia. But I understand that may be WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH]. But not WP:NOR. I'm not adding nothing new. I think this last is to refer to the princes I chose to include between the ones existing, am I right? I'll explain my choices for you (I know it may not matter, but...): for "Belarusian Ruriks" (you'll kill me for this eheh) I chose simply all principalities held by Polotsk Ruriks, and Turov-Pinsk because I know it shares the same importance as Polotsk in the region, despite not beong even within the same family. Let me tell you (as you've seen in the table) that the wiki is really poor on this princes, given its generally recognized importance. For "Ukrainian Ruriks", my choice was based heavily by the principalities listed here.
the notion that all the Kievan principalities were all once part of a same unity, and they are effectively one same family You can't disagree that the majority of Rus principalities were at least held by the same family, right?
the interesting notion that some of the princes migrated between principalities before becoming Grand Princes, such as, for example, Iziaslav II. Not to the point made by WP:INTERESTING. I believe (again in ny opinion) it's a good way to show the migration of the princes, and the political "paths" they made in their life: where they were ruling in a specific year? For Iziaslav II specifically we can see, through the table, that he was present first at Pereyaslavl, then in Volhynia, returned to the first city, then to the second, and only then ruled as Grand Prince. Unless he ruled by proxy. And as a son of the Grand Prince, wouldn't that mean that, in the period he ruled, the principalities he held before ruling in Kyiv were mere peers?
I will grant you some more time to resolve some of these issues in due course. For now I'll fix the image problem. Consorts won't leave the table until a consort page is effectively created.
Thank you for sharing with me your view on the problem of Russia too. I suggest we could create together a draft of this "master list" you talked about. We should decide first where to put the Rus' principalities, and then go on to the details of what should be included and how. For anything else ping me!
Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhmrodrigues Instead of just talking about the 'master list', I thought it would be a good idea to just start a draft on it: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Lists of Rus' princes. This is largely based on the Talk:List of tribes and states in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine#Rus' principalities and Category:Noble titles of Kievan Rus I mentioned above. Shall we work from here? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_of_Polotsk&oldid=1204918881"