Talk:Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018/Archive 2

Misleading title replaced
It was not an expedition, it was full-scale invasion, headed by king imself. All over the world such a nice military walk of a full-blown army are called "invasion". `'Míkka 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mikka, please respect the WP:RM. You can of course start another one, but I very much doubt such a long descriptive name will gain consensis. As I have shown above, English literature seems to use "expedition" pver "invasion", too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no widely known absolutely stable and universally accepted title for this event. A descriptive title is quite reasonable. `'Míkka 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The literature prefers "expedition" to "invasion".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mikka's name change is against RM consensus, and seems to try to promote OR title --Molobo 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus. There was Polish consensus which happily ignored Russian consensus. From russian and Ukrainian point of view it was act of invasion of one state into another, not some jolly szpacer. `'Míkka 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mikka, the RM was done according to procedure. It was advertised at WikiProject Russian history. Interested editors agreed above that a shorter name is preferrable to a lenghty descriptive that has no hits in any sources. You can start another RM, but please no wheel-warring. PS. This is English Wikipedia, adhering to WP:NPOV. We don't use names to show what certain parties would like to call articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a talk some time ago where many people disagreed with shorter uninformative title. Nobody from them indicated that they changed their opinion. Disregarding their clearly expressed opinion is not a friendly attitude. `'Míkka 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My alleged canvassing: it is a historically sad fact that many people, such as Poles, Jews, Armentians, Italians, etc, stick together, while Russians just don't care. It is especially clearly seen in emigration. When I wrote "Polonocentrism" there is nothing  negative: it is a "phenomemon of nature", neither good, nor bad. What is bad is that you don't recognize it, just as for millenia people breathed air and did not recognize it. Yes in your Polish eyes it was "Kiev expedition": walk across a river, sack a couple of villages along the way, big deal. For Ukrainians it was "plundering of Kiev". It was invasion and let's call things with their proper names. `'Míkka 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Through this not on topic, I'll just remark that I have seen plenty of evidence for Russians acting together on Wiki; and I certainly don't mind it - as long (and this applies to all such groups, Polish included) as it does not lead to a "us against them" mentality, which your recent posts (unintentionally as that may be) may suggest and foster. Polish historiography refers to this event as expedition. Russian may well use the term invasion. English, as I shown above, seems to prefer expedition over invasion; as it is an English Wikipedia, expedition should be used. Since there seem to no non-Polish expedition, we don't need this in title; year is needed as there were 3 (or even 4) such events. You seem to be implying that the Polish editors have some nefarious reasons for trying to replace "Polish invasion" with "expedition". There are no such reasons: it is simply Wikipedia policy to use short names dominant in English sources. On the other hand, one could argue that some users want to disregard policy and use a less neutral title to emphasize "how bad Poles were". This, certainly, should not be our philosophy in writing articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "How bad Poles were": in these historical times nearly every king tried to sack some other king. It was neither good nor bad by criteria of these times: it was way of life. And the term "invasion" is a neutral one that describes what really happened: one ruler invaded into lands of another ruler to do something useful for himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs).
 * True, it was a common occurrence, but names for such events vary. Some are called invasions, some expeditions, some wars, some conquets, some are even stranger. It appears that this one is called "expedition" in English historiography more often then "invasion". It is not our job to correct or introduce new names - hence Invasion of Poland (1939), not "Polish September Campaign" or "Polish Defensive War", for example.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't say "us agains them". I said "you look from your POV at the events and fail to recognize that it is your POV". There is nothing wrong with having a POV, just as you don't forget that others have their POV as well. Since I don't see Russians and Ukrainians rushing to defend their POV despite my reminder (which you call "canvassing"), I am halting my "expedition" into this page. May I remind you that I am neither Russian nor Ukrainian. `'Míkka 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Notes
These are just some things In notice as I'm going through the article: Until clarity and the above aspects are improved (although I think I got most the first one myself), I'm placing the article on hold.-- daniel  folsom  20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The intro is decent, however preferably the second sentence would be listed first, as it actually details the event.
 * 2) There are a decent number (given the articles length) of grammatical faults. Including punctuation and statements like, "Boleslaw, wanting to ensure that friendly to him Sviatopolk takes over the Kievan throne,"
 * 3) Again strange wording - "Sviatopolk withdrew to the court of his father-in-law, Boleslaw I of Poland.[1] Boleslaw, however, had to first deal with the Germans; in the meantime he tried another avenue" Court and avenue? While grammatically correct avenue is not exactly the best word to use, and I'm not even really sure what is meant by "court". Also, who is he? Sviatopolk or Boleslaw?
 * 4) The Thietmar of Merseburg and Powiesc Doroczna accounts should probably be split into sub-sections
 * 5) A few more sources could be used - it seems to be all from the same book on different pages.

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Could use more clarity (see above)
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Seemingly accurate - could use a bit more sources though.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: check
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Check
 * 5. Article stability? Check
 * 6. Images?: Check

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — daniel  folsom  20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Discussion
I am afraid that there are no native English speakers among the main contributors to that article. Could you, by any chance, take care of the language issues?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly it would be best if you got someone else to for two reasons: 1) It would disqualify me from reviewing the article, and 2) Some of the statements I wasn't sure what they meant - see if you can find someone from a wiki project, and if not, I guess I can give it a go ...--  daniel  folsom  02:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will ask around, but I know very few copyeditors and all of them are busy :( As for the 'use of one source' - I had this source at hand and based the article on it. It is pretty reliable (series of articles by modern Polish scholars), and while more sources would be nice, I think the article passess the bare criteria for being reliably referenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One source just really isn't enough - perhaps if you cited the individual articles however, that would be different. Still, I'm sure you could find something on google. Try the Wikiprojects that cover this page for copy editors, and also remember to split the section as said above.-- daniel  folsom  02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar of any aspect of WP:V or WP:RS that states that one (reliable) publication is not enough to source an article? As for splitting the article into subsections based on the sources, I disagree: this article is not based on primary sources; it is based on secondary ones and they don't always specify which fact comes from which primary source. This would require a major shift in structure and rewriting - I believe that the current account, merging various primary sources (and noting when and where they diverge significantly is the best possible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the biggest one I can think of isWP:NPOV - "All editors and all sources have biases" - meaning this article fails WP:NPOV because it only has one source. And the article is not based on secondary ones, it's based on a secondary one - however two varying accounts are made in a confusing way, and I assume both of these accounts are mentioned in the one source you provided - so yes, splitting them would be the best thing to do for clarity. -- daniel  folsom  02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the source is a collection of articles by several historians, so in fact you get views by different authors. Yes, published in one anthology (collection), but different POVs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then cite them separately - include the author's names. However I would still recommend more sources - there's no way to tell if the overall project has a pov - and per the above guideline we must assume it does.-- daniel  folsom  03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the talk page above, more sources would seem to be essential, particularly some that discuss this event from a Russian perspective. Writing an article on a potentially controversial subject using a single source, even if this source is reliable, is unwise. Tim Vickers 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok Here's a source: http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=2000&cid=125&p=19.11.2004 -- daniel  folsom  15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to expand the article using a news article from a radio station, go ahead - but I feel that the current version, referenced with academic publication, is good enough, per WP:RS. As for POV, if you can show that the current publication has some POV (and show examples of it), then NPOV would be the case; but until then NPOV doesn't kick in.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above NPOV bias link proves POV - as there's only one source. There are those above five things that need to be fixed before I pass this article. Period. By submitting your article to GA Review you opened it to criticism, if you are unwilling to take any criticism then there was no point in submitting. Two users have now said that multiple sources are needed. End of discussion.-- daniel  folsom  18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Above you wrote: Neutral point of view?: Check. So are you now changing your opinion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This problem could be solved very simply. The description of the book you are citing says it has multiple authors. If each author contributed one chapter, why not just cite the different authors and give each author's viewpoint on the events described? The fact that the article cites one book would be acceptable if it is clear that many different viewpoints are collected together in this one volume. Tim Vickers 19:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I placed the criticisms of the sourcing in "Factually accurate" - however, Piortrus, what I wrote is insignificant, what the policy says is. I agree with TimVickers - it's best if each author is cited.-- daniel  folsom  19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an overreading of WP:V. The admission that all sources have biases was not intended to lead to this conclusion, merely to deflate the Manichean world-view of Good Unbiased Sources and Evil Biased Sources. Neutrality does not kick in until there is an actual controversy to be neutral about. (If the phrasing violates WP:PEACOCK or its relatives, that's another matter; but I don't see it on skimming.) It would, however, be good for the article to include some of these English sources, even if redundant, so that the reader can inquire further without wielding a Polish dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The accounts of history are almost always controversial - however TimVickers already commented on this. I don't care what language the sources are - because that doesn't have to do with policy.-- daniel  folsom  20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you can satisfy the policy with a single reliable source in a foreign language, but scraping by in this way isn't a characteristic of a Good Article, which should do a bit more than the minimum. Tim Vickers 20:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any English language source that contains anything new that is not already covered in the article. If you can point me to reliable sources that containt material that can be used to expand the article further, or sources that make claims contradicting the article, we can claim that the article is biased/uncomprehensive. In my research for this article I didn't find anything that would merit the claim that the source I used is not comprehensive and neutral. Instead of citing the policies I am were aware of, please cite the articles that would suggest problems with content. PS. As for attributing articles by individual historians, I don't have access to the publication and will not have it after Xmas.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternative sources don't have to contain anything new, alternative sources supporting the same points would be entirely acceptable. But can you see our concern? Here is an article that deals with a conflict between two nations that is sourced entirely from a few pages of a book we cannot read. Moreover, the book appears to have been written by authors from one side of the conflict. Look at that from our point of view and I'm sure you can see why we would be happier with the inclusion of at least some alternative sources. Tim Vickers 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus - I already showed you an article above - you said you weren't willing to add it.-- daniel  folsom  20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a single academic source criticizing modern Polish historiography take on a 1000-year old events. That of course doesn't mean that there are no such claims, Polish historiography (as any national historiography) has its biases, but as I said - I reviewed English sources available to me and I haven't seen anything that was portrayed differently then in the Polish source I used to expand, verify and reference this article. I don't have access nor language skills to read Russian / Ukrainian historiography, but until an editor can show that they differ, I would think that WP:AGF applies and the article can be considered NPOV (think also in terms of presumption of innocence, not guilt). PS. Daniel, as for your article above: it has no claims that would be relevant to this article, it's on a different subject and published by a media outlet, not an academic work. I would of course not oppose if you want to link it in external links or add something to the article, if you did in fact find something relevant in it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the guy reviewing the article - I don't care what's in the external links - I'm just saying find a another source. And it doesn't matter what type - it doesn't have to be an academic work.-- daniel  folsom  21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read up on our policies like WP:RS before reviewing articles. It does matter what type of sources we cite, it matters a lot.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No - it doesn't, some are preferred, but regardless, all reliable sources are allowed - my point was it doesn't have to be an academic work.-- daniel  folsom  21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus everyone has said you need another source, now there are two paths here: one, you argue about it this whole time - in which case tell me if you plan on doing so tell me - because there's no point in putting on hold for seven days if you have no intention of fixing it. Or, you can find a source. Either the one I found above or another source is fine.-- daniel  folsom  21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Two for, two against - hardly everyone. I believe the article is sourced well enough, feel free to fail it so I can continue my work. There is indeed no need to keep it open for several days, as I certainly don't have access to my historical books, nor time to look for others until XMAS.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not 2 for and 2 against- its 3 against you. Each editor said there should be an english source. Well, actually I jsut said anysource -and that stands-- daniel  folsom  21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way i'd try to hurry up on this - as there are 4 other things you need besides another source.-- daniel  folsom  21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What I said was that an English source would improve the article — not that it should be required to be a good, or even acceptable, article. I would prefer not to be misquoted in this fashion. Danielfolsom should also bear in mind that nothing in GA warrants uncivil demands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine - an English source would improve - however, Pmanderson - you should bear in mind what civil is - as saying another source is required is hardly uncivil - but if you really think so I guess you could nominate all those templates for deletion ...-- daniel  folsom  20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break
Piotrus - I realize things might have gotten slightly confusing up there given the abundance of different suggestions. In some more clarity, I'm just going to list what needs to be done to get this to GA status - which is very likely to happen. There are still a few days before I pass or fail this - which should be plenty of time for you to make the changes-- daniel  folsom  20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The intro is decent, however preferably the second sentence would be listed first, as it actually details the event.
 * 2) Clean up grammatical faults.
 * 3) Clean up wording - "Sviatopolk withdrew to the court of his father-in-law, Boleslaw I of Poland.[1] Boleslaw, however, had to first deal with the Germans; in the meantime he tried another avenue" While grammatically correct avenue is not exactly the best word to use. Also, who is he? Sviatopolk or Boleslaw?
 * 4) The Thietmar of Merseburg and Powiesc Doroczna accounts should probably be split into sub-sections - as currently it's unclear
 * 5) One more source is needed - I don't care what language - but having only one book isn't really worthy of GA status


 * Grammatical/wording problems have been greatly resolved by copyediting from yourself, Olessi and other editors. As I said before, not being a native speaker, I cannot help in this regard.
 * I don't see how the Thietmar vs Powiesc split could be accomplished; the text seems well integrated to me and where the sources differ, it is clearly mentioned in text. However if any editor would like to rewrite the article based on the above suggestion, be my guest.
 * There are no policies that we need to have 2+ sources. I can add several further readings, but there is no point in double - triple - and so on citing the same facts, just to show they are mentioned in several books and they don't differ. Remember, we are not doing original reserch here, having one source is perfecty ok with all our policies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind however GA articles aren't articles that meet the bare requirement - they go above and beyond - and regardless the policy would be the NPOV one. As to the sections - when I said some sections should be reworded because they aren't clear - you said you couldn't do that because you're not a native speaker - however somehow you can say that the other text does make sense? Well hey - actually don't worry about it. I'll wait till the 7 days is up and maybe someone else will do it - if they do I'll pass the article.-- daniel  folsom  21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is one thing that I don't understand. What kind of references do you want? I used a publication dedicated to the event; I doubt there is an English equivalent. There are however lots of mentions of Bolesław expedition to Kiev in 1018 in various English works, it's enough to click here, or better, here and here, to see that the event is not invented and verify all basic facts. Not a single of the English language publications, however, goes into as much detail as the Polish sources, therefore I see no reason to double verify several facts in the article with English sources. If there are some controversial facts, or something is unclear, we can expand the section and referencing, but I don't see any need to waste time verifying what is already verified. WP:GA should reflect our policies, there is no requirement that we need to be 'above' them (and note that multiplie references for the single fact are far from a good writing practice anyway). If it makes you happy, I can double reference several facts based on this notable publicatin ([), - although I fail to see the point in it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need English sources - I'm just asking for one more source - even if it says the exact same thing as the source you have - just put it in there.-- daniel  folsom  02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Extended hold
I extend the hold of the nomination. The article is unstable. I am half-way through a significant expansion and I need to finish it. That my efforts are being obstructed by baseless reverts is only making this more difficult. --Irpen 03:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I spoke to Piotrus privately about this - but I didn't say it here. I'm going to either re-review this later today or tomorrow, and if it is not stable by the time I do review this then it will be failed - as an article being stable is a requirement.-- daniel  folsom  21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Piotrus continues to resort to private conversations about the content of the article's we disagree on behind my back instead of conducting conversations on the talk page. But the past events prepared me to not get surprised by anything coming from that user.

Anyway, I am not sure I will have time to do another expansion before the time you choose to review it. If you "review" it before I get to it, no big deal. I will develop it further later. Regards, --Irpen 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fail
Ok - I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to fail this article for two reasons: I think some minor clean up could easily get this article to good article status - and I encourage everyone to re-submit it when its ready. Good luck, -- daniel  folsom  00:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not convinced it's stable
 * 2) I read the new introduction - and I immediately saw a case of strange grammar and possible POV ("in the retrospect").


 * I renominated the article, it seems stable (no edits in over a week).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? The article is full of inaccuracies because it was written through google-books and trying to reconcile different contradictory quotes together instead of reading at least a single book on the Rus' and develop the article from there. My every attempt to improve it triggers a spree of reverts from you. The article is in a pity state, not anything close to a GA. --Irpen 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What Google Books? I don't see a single cited in references. The article was written with modern references, and destabilized only because you attempted to push outdated Russian Imperial/Soviet scholarship views, offending editors who disagreed with you (Balcer was so disgusted with your behavior that he seemingly left the project after this discussion). Please don't attempt to destabilize the article again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also miss Balcer, but it was he who started invoking ethnic stereotypes accusing other editors in xenophobic views repeatedly. I hope he will not do it when he is back. As long as your POVed versions of history are on the backburner, I try to stay away, because I try to not edit articles you create. But I can't (and won't) tolerate your pushing them to the mainpage through FAC, DYK or trying to give them prominence through GAC. This article is in pity shape and needs much improvement. Inline refs and formatting is not all that it takes to create good articles. Adequate coverage of the topic matters. --Irpen 21:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting (Town of Wołyń?)
I cleaned up the grammar and spelling in the article. I have no background knowledge of the article and have no preferences in terms of content. Because "Volhynia" was referred to as a town, I added a link to Wołyń (Łódź Voivodeship) (pl:Wołyń (województwo łódzkie)); please correct if necessary. Battle at Bug river should be moved to a better title (Battle of the Bug River is an option). Olessi 19:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedit, the link to Wołyń is incorrect: as far as I remember the sources, they refered to a settlement of that name, but in the Volhynia region (presumably a gord that gave its name to the region); Wołyń (Łódź Voivodeship) is a village in the middle of Poland and most certainly far, far from Volhynia region and Bug River.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The town can be seen on this map, between Czerwień and Włodzimier - perhaps somebody could identify its modern name?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The old sources can be pretty useful.

The town of Volyn is mentioned in the 14th century chronicler's "List of all Ruthenian cities, the further and the near ones" (originally «А се имена градомъ всЂмъ Русскымъ, далнимъ и ближнимъ»). This list was copied in several chronicles, for instance in the Voskresensky Chronicle. Among the Volhynian towns ("А се грады Волынскіе") we find:
 * "Лвовъ Великій, Волынь, на Бугу Володимеръ

that is
 * ''"Lvov the Great, Volyn, on [Western] Bug] Volodimer [ Volodymyr-Volynsky ].

The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary elaborates on it in the eponymous article [Волынь или Велынь]. The article says that this was a medieval town that gave its name to the Volhynian land and that the town does not exist at present. The B&E states that scientist point to its two possible locations, one is close to Grudek [currently Gródek nad Bugiem] in what was at the time of publication the Lublin Governorate. The other possibility is the location of the cofluence of Huczwa and Western Bug. The "anti-Polish" encyclopedia somehow mentions that Boleslav the Brave defeated Yaroslav by this town at 1018 and that the chronicles are silent about the town ever since the time of Mstislav Izyaslavovich in the second half of the 12th century.

I will start the Volyn (town) article. --Irpen 03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. Either a new article, or a note would certainly be useful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Uprising?
It seems that some editors want to insert a claim about Kievan Uprising against pillaging Polish troops. Not a single one of my modern Polish and English sources mentioned this event, which is why I removed it few weeks ago during a rewrite of this article. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary from 1900s is hardly modern, and obviously POVed - it is even more inaccurate then 1911 EB, which we obviously stopped using as a source (per Template:1911POV) and even Jimbo's recent critique of it in NYT ( - One thing I have looked at before is that when we started the project we thought we could use the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain. Use that as a base to get some articles. And frankly they were unusable. They were just out of date.). So please: either present modern acadmic sources noting that there was an uprising against Boleslaw in Kiev, or don't insert such dubious claims into this well referenced article. PS. There is a claim that the uprising is mentioned in this book; please provide specific page, translation of the citation (as Darwinek suggested), Konstantin Ryzhov academic creditentials, and other things that would help us estabilished reliability of that source (particulary, if he writes about the uprising, what are his sources for it? I do hope he is not citing the Brockhaus encyclopedia...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, BritannicaPOV and other old-POV stuff talks about POV and not factual accuracy. Read Loki's entry at the Polonization talk. We are not passing the judgmental tone from the source. We are referring mere facts and you agreed with Loki on that. Now, please stop revert warring and ask your friends to do so too. --Irpen 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Irpen, old POV are also about factual accuracy, too. Modern sources don't seem to mention the uprising - I would be very interested in seeing some modern Western academic sources repeating such claims. So far we have two Russian offline sources - a 1900s encyclopedia and a 1999 publication of unknown reliability; even if confirmed they fail WP:UNDUE - "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." If mainstream historians writing about this even don't mention the uprising, it is rather obvious that it the uprising is nothing but some mistake/translation error/etc. that krept into the old encyclopedia and was republished in by some more modern book. As for POV, language like pillaging is not neutral. Oh, and last but not least: why restore the unreferenced and out of place statement at the bottom of the para: s Gallus has it, the war started when Boleslaw was refused Predslava's hand, but this testimony is not given credit by most historians. The Polish duke also took the treasury of Kiev with him. ?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would urge editors to use modern objective sources. We already had enough problems with Warsaw Uprising fables about churches that weren't there.--Molobo 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, Piotrus. I will live a message at Loki's talk to ask him to look at it. --Irpen 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What Loki?? User:Loki? I am not familiar with that editor, or anybody with similar name, contributing to relevant articles. And why would our discussion merit informing this person??--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant User:Utgard Loki whose comments at talk:Polonization were very thoughtful as even you admitted. --Irpen 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here must be the passage from the book by Ryzhkov that is relevant here. It is the biography of Yaroslav I the Wise. The rest of the book is also online. Could someone please find where the uprising is mentioned? I do not see it in Yaroslav's biography, which is puzzling, as that is where it would be discussed, it seems to me. Balcer 22:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Voyevoda claimed it appears on page 104.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Found this text from Ryzhov's book:

Вступив в Киев, Болеслав сам стал править русской землей, а дружину свою разослал по окрестным городам на покорм. Святополк же, досадуя на тестя за то, что не дал ему никакой власти, велел своим сторонникам избивать поляков. И начали убивать поляков. Встревоженный восстанием, Болеслав бежал из Киева, захватив с собой всю княжескую казну и всех сестер Ярослава. Увел он с собой и множество простых людей. Святополк же начал княжить в Киеве. Но Ярослав, набрав варягов, пошел во второй раз против него. Без поляков Святополк не мог уже противостоять брату и бежал в степь к печенегам. Там, собрав большое войско, он в 1019 году выступил на Ярослава, и оба войска встретились на Альте.

The text contested in this article that is justified by this reference is:

The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city.

Do they match well enough? My Russian is not good enough to judge for sure, but it seems there are huge discrepancies. Balcer 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps somebody with fluent Russian can translate the above citation. Also, we are still waiting for information on its authors academic creditentials, and on what source he used in writing the disputed statement.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above citation mentions nothing about the uprising. "It mentions that Boleslav quartered his troops among the locals in order to sustain them. Sviatopolk, being annoyed that he had been given no power ordered his supporters to attack the Poles. Boleslav fled Kiev and took with him the treasury, all sisters of Yaroslav and many of the local people. Sviatopolk started to reign in Kiev." Hope that helps. --Hillock65 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's interesting. We can certainly add a note on that to the article, although I'd like to point out that historians are divided on whether Boleslav ruled in Kiev himself or passed the poweer to Sviatopolk (and if so, how much of it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The text above, full translation, says:
 * After entering Kiev, Boleslav started to rule the Rus' on his own (perhaps by himself as an alt. translation) and sent his troops to quarter in the neighboring towns. Sviatopolk, vexed that his in-law did not share any power with him, ordered his supporters to attack the Poles. Alarmed by the uprising, Boleslav fled Kiev but took with him the treasury and all Yaroslav's sisters. He also took many commoners with him.

Also, George Vernadsky ("Kievan Russia", Yale 1948, V2) mentions that not just sisters but also other nobles loyal to Yaroslav were taken by Boleslav. Vernadsky writes that they were likely taken as hostages. Vernadsky mentions S. "Zakrewski, Boleslaw Chrobry Wielki (Lwow, Warszawa, and Krakow, 1925), p. 297-311." among other refs. Perhaps someone could check the Polish references. I am quoting from the Russian translation of the original Vernadsky's 5-volume work. This volume, as translated, is "Россия в средние века", ISBN 5-85929-016-6. --Irpen 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, it would appear then that the statement: The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city. was a clear example of original research and stretching the content of the reference, and the concerns raised about it were justified. In that light, can we now remove the "accuracy disputed" tag, inserted as protest for the removal of that passage? Balcer 05:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You of course understand what does it mean to "send troop to quarter at the town (or village)" in medieval context, do you? It is not inconsistent at all with B&E article on Boleslav, saying:


 * "Boleslav took Kiev but instead of transferring it to Sviatopolk, ruled it by himself together with his Poles. Kievans, appalled by the "неистовсвта"  (this word is difficult to translate, my dictionary gives atrocities, rampage, violence, frenzy, no pillage in my dictionary but can't say it does not fit the translation either) of his troops attacked the Poles and Boleslav was forced to flee."

I believe we should just say what source says what on the issue and leave it up to the reader to judge. --Irpen 05:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The respectable source notes quartering in the city and nearby villages, and this is what we should state. Of course the troops ate, raped and steal - that was the norm of those days. But this article is not the place to explain that (this is as relevant as describing battle as 'they used melee and other weapons to inflict harm on one another, often showing no mercy, etc.); this should be done in the article on quarter (military) - which, unfortunately, we don't have (but surely will one day).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask what you are trying to accomplish with this? We have a reference by Ryzhov published in 1999, but now you go back to B&E from the 19th century claiming that it is more correct.  The reference by Ryzhov is definitely better than B&E, don't you think?  Anyway, trying to figure out what things meant in medieval context is precisely original research.  Ryzhov clearly states that Sviatopolk's wish for more power was reason for the uprising that he ordered against the Poles. Balcer 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To sum up, trying to back the statement : The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens and Boleslaw was forced to leave the city. by referencing it with Ryzhov was at the very least incorrect (if not an attempt to push one's POV by distorting a reference). Since you inserted the tag based on the removal of that statement (now shown to be incorrect by the very source that was used to reference it), could you please now remove that tag as a sign of good will? Balcer 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I won't edit the article now because there are likely some eagerly looking for a way to show any consecutive edits by me within a 24 hour window a series of partial reverts, like was done before here. Pillaging has to be backed up not by Ryszhov, but by B&E. I can reref it to back to B&E but I suggest instead we hammer out the paragraph here and insert the agreed version than have this silly revert war resumed. --Irpen 05:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we have a 1999 reference for the event, which eliminates the need for using B&E. Let's just use what Ryzhkov wrote, shall we?  Wikipedia should aim to reflect current research, not 19th century research.  I find your particular attachment to a source published over a 100 years ago, with all its inherent bias, rather puzzling.  Is there something about the POV prevalent in 19th century Russia that is particularly to your taste?  Anyway, since you presented no valid case here as far as I am concerned, I will remove the tag. Balcer 05:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Balcer. I expected better of you, to be honest, but we learn as we go. --Irpen 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)