Talk:Michael of Chernigov

Requested move: Mikhail of Chernihiv→Mikhail of Chernigov
This is the conventional name, and gets 61 Google results instead of 5.


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

Support

 * 1) Support—my request. —Michael Z. 2005-10-27 22:26 Z 
 * 2) support. --Irpen 00:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) support abakharev 03:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - historical name - Introvert   talk  06:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Mikhail lived in the city he called Chernigov and not Chernihiv. The common Slavic o evolved to Ukrainian i later. Chernigov is the Old East Slavic and historical name. --Ghirlandajo 07:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. If Mikhail lived in Chernihiv, then Nero was an Emperor of the Repubblica Italiana.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Fisenko 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support As wikipedia has no version of the original slavonic transliteration, lets keep the name that's commonly accepted.Kuban kazak 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support однозначно. KNewman 09:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I do not imagine he was ever addressed in Ukranian, his title has no bearing on the city and vice-versa. I would be surprised if a reader misspeled Chernigiv in some paper based on title of ancient noble, or would be happy learn that google results besides Wikipedia and it's mirrors are not keeping up with native names of cities in titles. Chernigov is English translitertion of Russian spelling. I struggle not to think about Seven Bridges of Königsberg.–Gnomz007(?) 23:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support for now. Sashazlv 03:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support traditional English designations of Mikhail/Michael of Chernigov. Olessi 17:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Greka 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Trapolator 05:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I highly doubt that the writers of the Kievan chronicles ever used "Kyjiv" or "Chernihiv". Nationalists need to get over themselves. Kazak 09:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This vote was added after the comment by admin Rob Church –Gnomz007(?) 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Supporting the mention AndriyK, paul_kiss and other that Only UKRAINIAN (RUS') pronouncing, transliterationt and guideline can be conducted for Ukrainian personaliteis, history etc. Mediatory (UA-посередництво, Ru-посредничество) of other languages (RU, PL etc) - unaccabtable. Albedo 08:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But your reasoning 1) is contrary to Naming conventions (use English), which state that article titles should be the most commonly used English name, and 2) applying this to Michael of C. implies that Ukrainian names arbitrarily trump Russian or Belarusian ones for kniazi of Kievan Rus’—the only fair way to resolve this is to go with the convention I mentioned in (1). —Michael Z. 2005-11-2 08:22 Z 
 * Unaccebtable for your encyclopedia's but fully suitable for Wikipedia Kuban kazak 13:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Chernihiv applied by creadible sources to all periods of the history --AndriyK 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Chernigov is a Russian transliteration of a name of an Ukrainian city, it is unacceptable. --MaryMaidan 16:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note additional comments on this User:MaryMaidan contributions|user's voting at the Talk:Oleg of Chernihiv, requested move section. - Introvert   talk  18:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --ashapochka 19:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC) for the reason outlined here Portal_talk:Ukraine/New_article_announcements
 * 2) Oppose. Chernigov is a Russian transliteration of a name of an Ukrainian city, it is unacceptable. --Gutsul 07:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Chernihiv is in Ukraine and Ukraine does not call it Chernigov --Andrew Alexander 16:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose It's Ukrainian city and it's name is Chernihiv. English users know nothing about political issues connected with names, they should have correct spelling to read. Correct spelling is Chernihiv, and there would be nothing to argue about here, if political issues would be thrown away. Wikipedia should use the correct up-to-date Ukrainian name. --Yalovets 19:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's make something clear, this article is not about Ukraine, but about history. History which Ukraine, Russia and Belarus shared at this time. Thereby privitising the article to Ukranian is incorrect. Considering that back then Ukraine did not exist (nor did Russia or Belarus for that fact) we cannot give a Ukranian name for a city just because events which took place centuries later decided for it to end up as a Ukranian city. Finally English users have the full right to know why there is a problem for misunderstanding of the names. Nevertheless this article is historical and the convention that Wikipedia uses is that there was a Kievan Rus not Kyivan. Therefore Chernigov period. Kuban kazak 22:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Ukrainian names for Ukrainian cities - logical, ain't it? So down with Chernigov.paul_kiss 21:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Agree with Yalovets--Mari Ana 21:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd disqualify this vote, but that's just me. KNewman 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Chernigov is a russian spelling, but this city located in Ukraine. So it's logical to use transliteration from the state language of this country. More over, Chernihiv is a historical name of this city, which was changed during the soviet period in order to support Russian as an official language in USSR. --Shao 15:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but if you are to look at 17th, 18th and 19th century Brithish or American maps then I am afraid you will not see the -hiv ending there. Moreover as I said before this article has little reference to modern Chernigov. This is a historical article about histrory that goes parrallel for Russia and Ukraine alike. Kuban kazak 16:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Modern English changed to use spelled names of cities expample: Pekin -> Beijing. Chernigiv is Ukrainian city and spelling is Chernigiv not Chernigov Adv94 06:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ...yet nobody is proposing to move the article on the 1860 Convention of Peking to Convention of Beijing. As it has been told many times, this proposed move is about a historical reference, not about the modern name of the city.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As it has been told many times, the name Chernihiv is applied in modern English to all periods of the history, starting from the first mentioning of the city.--AndriyK 13:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really condering many WWII books and history of Russia books still use Chernigov. Sorry to dissapoint you, better luck next time. Kuban kazak 16:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I admitted in the very beginning that both spellings are in use. This means that there has been no traditional English spelling (unlike Kiev). In this case the transliteration from Ukrainian has to be used. Moreover, Britannica uses "Chernihiv".--AndriyK 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In modern context, yes. But this article is not about the modern Chernigov, this is about a man who once ruled there, in a historical context which conventionally uses Russian transliterations Kuban kazak 19:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--Lom81 08:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Chernihiv- is Ukrainian city.
 * And the article is not about the city OR Ukraine.Kuban kazak 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Yakudza 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Mikhail of Chernihiv very little-known personage for english reader in difference of Nero of Rome. And Chernihiv is very minor city for english reader in difference of Königsberg. The double name contributes the mess.
 * 2) Oppose Vervin 17:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC) It could be difficult for a non-familiar international reader to distinguish between Chernihiv and Chernigov. He will astonished to seek for Chernigov and find only Chernihiv.
 * Hence expail to me why you oppose? Look at Google's search results, look at why Wiki uses Kiev not Kyiv, and i interpret your point as being pro-CherniGOV, right? Kuban kazak 20:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The main article in Wiki is Chernihiv. Using of Chernigov in some articles would confuse the reader without any cause. It would also violate the internal consistency of Wiki. BTW, the German Wiki uses Chernihiv (Tschernihiw) thoroughly. Kiev is a special case since it is already a stable term in English.Vervin 21:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There are many fields in Wikipedia where absolute consistency is impossible, or sometimes undesirable. One example is Kharkiv, which looks like it will always be Kharkov in World War Two–related articles.  Remember what Ralph Waldo Emerson said about consistency. . . .  —Michael Z. 2005-11-1 22:58 Z 
 * 1) Oppose Dovbush 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Modern Ukrainian spelling is Chernihiv--Ahonc 07:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about modern UkraineKuban kazak 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Official name should be used. --Lysy (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--Fofka 11:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose--Serghiy Riabovil 12:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Must be Mykhaylo of Chernighiv
 * Мыхаыло оф ЧерниГ-хив...я посмеялся.Kuban kazak 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--Loreley-rein 14:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Chernihiv is a original ukrainian spelling. Must be Chernihiv, Mykhaylo of Chernihiv etc
 * Original Ukranian spelling??? Only since 1991 was the city became officially known as Chernihiv, and during Mikhail's reighn, there was no Ukraine.Kuban kazak 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

The user:AndriyK who moved it made a mess in no time he spent on Wikipedia: multiple violations of 3RR (1, 2), frivolous renamings of the articles (see log) and inside the articles (his contibutions), icluding multiple moves by cut and paste, unspeakable attacks on other users are only part of his actions. See his talk, his contibutions, his log, my talk, etc. --Irpen 22:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Request was left unfulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk 12:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like it to be noted that on Domivka.net, a heavily Ukrainian nationalist portal, a call has been put up by AndriyK for all those who can to come to Wikipedia and vote for "Chernihiv". The votes are thus skewed accordingly (some Domivka users can be noted among the voters). Kazak 08:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Revote
I quote the admin: AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest. And propose to finally move this page back --Kuban kazak 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail or Michael?
Both names are used by authorative authors. Any suggestions? abakharev 04:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Was this intended to be hidden? "Used in http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521824427&id=DGMkSi4LDvwC&pg=PR30&lpg=PR30&dq=Mikhail+Chernigov&sig=L9iEAg2slPQ2Y8Ibu2v4Wv12OOY and http://books.google.com/bo " and what is the latter, as my browser seems unable to find anything sane from that. The first doesn't open - only a grey box, instead of a (presumably) book page. By the way, the English spelling of that otrher difficult word is "authoritative", I would like to see foeigners to learn that, irrespective how the resembling word is spelled in their language. Marrtel 08:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Foeigners"? We are friends, really :)&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * These two most authorative books on the subject use Mikhail of Chernigov:, . OTOH, Michael is also used in other sources. I think it is a close call. --Irpen 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course "Michael". I am surprised to find any other version, as this Michael is a clear name in everyday use in English. No foreigner should push to us a spelling that is closer to how the name sounds in their language. "If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form." The burden is: can those who favor "Mikhail", show it IS MORE COMMONLY USED IN ENGLISH than Michael? We do not use Cristobal, we use Christopher when Columbus is in question. "What would be the least surprising to a user finding the article?" It is very surprising not to find this under Michael. Frequency of usage is not given so much weight ("in a typical example of testing the usage by counting google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive") than what is usual for Michael. Finally, my experience with names of medieval persons says that a "normal" spelling is preferable, as various spellings have changed much over the time - that's one of the reasons we use "Frederick" consistently of medieval German, Danish, Swedish, Frankish, Aragonese etc personalities, as sources vary over time: in their own time, they were actually written "Fridericus", as Latin was overwhelmingly used in written sources. I understand this is a great potential for nationalistic wishes, but nationalist spellers just should get over themselves. Marrtel 07:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Marrtel's comment above pretty much summarizes what I wanted to say. I would go with "Michael".&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case it would be John the terrible as well...:(--Kuban Cossack 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't. "Ivan the Terrible" is a lot more common in English than "John".  Not so with Mikhail of Chernigov&mdash;as it was noted above, both "Mikhail" and "Michael" are equally used.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of "Ivan" as that is the form I almost always have seen used of those in English sources. There the burden of overwhelmingly more common usage is fulfilled, and it really is not surprising to anyone to find Ivan under that name version. Marrtel 15:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Google test doing ""-wp gives 49 hits to mikhail and 66 hits to michael in the precise context of "of chernigov". Marrtel 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, one "medievalist" test has been to check use of namesake family members if known. Say, if a nephew gets his name as namesake of an uncle in neighboring country, there is usually no sense to make them "federigo" and "frederik", but to use Frederick of both. Here, obviously this guy's grandson, Michael, Ban of Macsva in Hungary, was baptized to be grandfather's namesake. Probably no one here suggests the grandson to be dubbed as Mikhail, as he most certainly was In Hungary. Actually, his name in another article is "Ban Michael". Marrtel 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if we wanted to reflect the increasing cultural sensitivity in current usage, there would be no problem using Federigo, Friedrich, Fadrique, etc, as appropriate, regardless of particular family ties. But Medievalists are, well, often slower to change, and non-specialists relying on books most of which have been published in the past may expect an Anglicized form.  Nevertheless, it may be noted that the main English-language treatment of the House of Chernigov (Martin Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov 1146–1246, Cambridge University Press, 2003) uses Mikhail, as do many other English-language works on Medieval Russia (e.g., George Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, Yale University Press, 1973; John Fennell, The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200–1304, New York, 1983; Janet Martin, Medieval Russia 980–1584, Cambridge University Press, 1995; Simon Franklin in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. V, 1999).  Moreover, the form Mikhail probably has some more currency in English due to the recent presidency of Mikhail Gorbachev.  All that being said, I have no problem with "Michael" either, but the case is very moot.  There may be considerable difference between what one may perceive as "common usage" and what is "common usage" in a particular field.  Changing to Michael may in fact be over-correcting and simply drive a chasm between the information contained here and the expectation of a reader who may be looking for Mikhail of Chernigov on the basis of a reference in a book he is reading (and such a book is likely to be written by a specialist).  This is just "food for thought", and I do not know what would be the optimal solution in this case. Imladjov 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cultural sensitivity cannot help when so much time has elapsed and correct writing (as well as pronunciation) has changed that any name version today is not exactly what was used then. That is one of weighty reasons why medieval persons are knownby their fully anglicized names, and not by transliterations. Those medieval Fredericks in those different countries were NOT Federigo, Friedrich, Fredrrik etc, as such versions have established usually only centuries later. If you only check some authentic medieval documents, their names are rendered in writing in varying formats, it possibly changing between two documents about the name individual. I expect to see Michael here, as it tofday is the certainly most usual (normal) rendering of the name in English. Btw, one of the successor languages of the people whom this particular Michael ruled, tioday renders that name as Mykhaylo in transliteration to English. You cannot vouch it to be any less correct than Mikhail - it is totally clear that the language and pronunciation they used in this "Mykhaylo¨'s" era, was a bit different than any of the current languages of the region. How to be culturally sensitive then? You then are in a corner of having to accommodate two or more parallel Slavic versions. Marrtel 22:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, It looks like the majority supports Michael, I will wait for another day to see if any other compelling arguments either way since it is really a pain to edit all the double redirects that will appear after the move. abakharev 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually current usage is increasingly inconsistent, and vernacular forms are popping up in English books. A relatively popular English-language book that uses, for example, French forms of names, is Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, 1987. The modern vernacular forms, standardized spelling apart, were in the making a long time ago (and some of them actually show through the less-than-consistent Latin, which means that Federigo, Friedrich, etc (I don't know where you got "Fredrrik") are not inapplicable. But since Cyrillic names have to be transcribed, none of this need apply here.

As for Mikhail of Chernigov, you (Marrtel) pose a very legitimate question: why Mikhail and not Mykhaylo (if not Michael). In normal circumstances, if we were to be culturally sensitive, Mykhaylo ought to be preferrable. So "Michael" may well be a compromise solution. However, what would one do in such cases with forms like Vladimir, where there simply is not English equivalent. How would one then choose between Vladimir and Volodymyr? This is offered up as an example in Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepard, The Emergence of Rus 750-1200, 1996. The (often later) chronicles produced forms that were influcenced by local dialect and (when southern) included names similar to "Volodymyr". But the actual coins of the ruler used "Vladimir". The editors chose Vladimir, perhaps as more official and certainly as more conventional.

To their choice, one may add the observation that the princes of the Rurikid dynasty governed (in a sense) collectively over a realm that included the now culturally distinct areas of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, areas whose cultural distinction was expressed in different (and less exclusive) ways in the past. The dynasty had come from the north (Novgorod), and on top of that Vladimir, Yaroslav the Wise, and for that matter even Mikhail of Chernigov had been princes of Novgorod before they ever became princes of Kiev. Moreover, the Rurikid state survived, institutionally and genealogically, in/as Russia, while the other areas culturally descended from Kievan Rus' were temporarily subjugated by Poland and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages. So to prefer (exclusively) the Ukrainian form over the Russian in the names of Rurikid rulers would seem somewhat less justified than the alternative.

To pair English forms like Michael with Vladimir and the like is not impossible, in fact it would approach the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium standard for the names of Byzantines (e.g., Michael Palaiologos but Nikephoros Phokas). However, once again, as editors of Wikipedia we should pause to consider whether this reference work would be more useful with "Michael" or "Mikhail" here. To search for Mikhail of Chernigov, one has to know something about who he was. To know something about who he was, one has to encounter his name. To encounter his name one pretty much has to be reading the kind of book which, nowadays, tends to spell the name "Mikhail". I have done some checking in my bookshelves and online, and I cannot really find any recent and commonly used book on medieval Russia that actually uses "Michael" here. While the English form is certainly acceptable, I am not sure it would be advisable and productive for Wikipedia to depart from the current usage of Russianists.Imladjov 13:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Googling - "Mikhail of Chernigov" - 38 hits (excl wikipedia), "Michael of Chernigov" - 63 hits; book search Mikhail - 9 hits, Michael - 19. Discussing: nobody has strong feelings against Michael, one user has strong feelings against Mikail. Most others consider both variants acceptable. Changing to Michael abakharev 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Googling is practically irrelevant, but there is no problem with this move as long as there is a redirect. Imladjov 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Working
Contrary to recent cry from Ghirla at the edit history comment section, edits to this article are basically not subject to prior discussion at talkpage. Everyone sees that a mention of an essential source of MoC's today fame (=sainthood) can and should be mentioned in the beginning of the article. (This probably is a relevant time to notify Ghirla that he needs to work with others, not delete works of others.) Marrtel 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point, but technically Mikhail of Chernigov is still known as "Mikhail Vsevolodovich", which is at least as common (if not more) in scholarship than Saint Mikhail, etc... Moreover, "contemporarily then known as" is simply not good English.  I have changed the intro accordingly, hopefully you will be ok with it. Imladjov 13:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article page
Several princely families claim descent from the Princes of Chernigov: the majority are now extinct, but those of Mosal'skii, Obolenskii, Dolgorukii, Shcherbatov, Bariatinskii, Volkonskii, Zvenigorodskii, and Gorchakov are still extant.—Their ancestries can only be traced back through documentary sources to the end of the 15th or the beginning of the 16th century.—Only the Princes Obolenskii are an exception: their ancestry can be traced back to the second half of the 14th century.—This absence of documents can be explained by the invasion of the Mongols, who plunged the country into a state of chaos; for more than two centuries, almost nothing is known of the history of Chernigov. Deprived of information and having no chronicle, this country fell into complete obscurity and into such ignorance that even their princes, incontestably descended from Rurik, lost the memory of their ancestors.—Two centuries later, when they sought service with Moscow and wished to establish their line of descent, they were obliged to resort to filiations full of anachronisms and suspect names, if not entirely apocryphal.—Genealogies were composed in the 16th century; one of the oldest is to be found in the appendix to Volume VII of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (Voskresenskaia).—The authors paid absolutely no attention to historical accuracy and presented as the common progenitor for all these families St. Michael of Chernigov, to whom they gave four additional sons, completely unknown to the chronicles.—The chronicles of the first half of the 13th century are full of details on this Saint Michael (Table IV n. 51) and on his son Rostislav (Table XII n. 1).—There can be no doubt whatsoever that if St. Michael had had additional sons, the chronicles would have mentioned them.—They indicate, rather, St. Michael had only one son, who settled in Hungary.—At the time of his execution by the Golden Horde, St. Michael had at his side only the young Prince of Rostov, son of his daughter.—The modern genealogists (Dolgorukov, Petrov, Zotov, Vlas'ev) never once raise this question and simply endeavor to resolve these anachronisms and fill in certain blanks by arbitrarily introducing two or three new generations in each genealogy.—The genealogy of the Princes Gorchakov, for example, requires the addition of at least four generations, for at present one finds several princes who had children at 8 and 12 years of age.—The notices that are to be found for the Princes of Chernigov in the 13th and 14th centuries are almost exclusively limited to a few vague pieces of information from the Northern Chronicles and from the old commemorative lists (sinodiks) of the convents.—The sinodiks preserve a quantity of names of princes; however, they unfortunately do nothing more than list them, almost never indicating the relationship between them, and as a result they are of little use in reconstructing a filiation.—Of all the sinodiks, the most important is indisputably that of Liubech; it provides the most complete details on the Princes of Chernigov; then comes those of Kiev, Elets, and Sieviersk; the others add nothing to the contents of the preceding.—All of the sinodiks were unknown to those who composed the genealogies of the 16th century, which explains why 95% of the names found in them do not appear in the genealogies.—The latter, on the contrary, are full of names of princes whose existence has never been proven and who figure in these genealogies by ingenious combinations.—The names of the Chernigov princes are inscribed in the sinodiks more or less in chronological order, verified by several references in the Northern Chronicles.—In the Liubetskii Sinodik, following St. Michael, one finds seven other princes by the name Michael.—Immediately after him is inscribed a Prince Michael and his wife Elena, a few lines later one finds a second Michael, then Prince Mikhail Dmitrievich of Chernigov; the latter is followed by Grand Prince Michael Aleksandrovich of Chernigov, then comes Prince Michael Romanovich, killed by the Lithuanians.—The latter could well be the son of Roman of Briansk (Table XII, n. 5) whose fate is unknown; his father, as is known, had several conflicts with the Lithuanians.—Finally, following this Michael, one finds yet another Prince Michael of Glukhov and Prince Michael Vsevolodovich.—All of these princes are unknown to the genealogies and the chronicles, although their existence is without question substantiated by their insertion in the sinodiks of several churches and convents.—With this considerable number of princes from Chernigov and Sieviersk bearing the name of Michael, it is quite probable that the princely families referred to at the beginning of this article can count one or several of these Michaels as their ancestors.—The authors of the genealogies of the 16th century, who knew only of St. Michael of Chernigov, placed him at the head of all of their genealogies, without concerning themselves with the glaring anachronisms that ensued.—This insertion of St. Michael did not attract the attention of Russian historians for the simple reason that he was unquestionably a relative of the majority of these families, more or less of the same origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro Fide Lege et Rege (talk • contribs)

Gathering the primary sources about his death
About the death of Michael (Mikhail) of Chernigov, I think it's important to separate fact and (fan) fiction. We should handle WP:PRIMARY sources critically, and observe WP:NPOV. "Martyrdom" is always a POV of the people sympathising with the person killed, never that of the person/people who killed him or were otherwise his adversaries, nor of neutral observers. As usual with these kinds of narratives, the life and death of Michael of Chernigov display a big fish story in the surviving manuscripts: it becomes bigger and more extraordinary with every retelling. There is no reason for us to uncritically accept the Younger NPL, a very late version of events with unbelievable miraculous elements that are not found in the earliest surviving accounts.

Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (GVC) account
Perfecky 1973 has a critical English edition of the GVC. Its flaws are well-known, but it is a good place to start our examination. Perfecky p. 52–53:

(1243) 6753 (1245). (...) Mixail [Vsevolodovich] (...) went to Batyj to ask him [to confirm the ownership] of his lands. But Batyj requested that he [first] worship in the faith of [his Tatar] ancestors. [To this] Mixail replied: "Since God has delivered us and our lands into your hands because of our sins, we bow down to you and pay you homage. But we will not worship in the faith of your ancestors; we will not obey [this] order of yours which is blasphemy [in the eyes of] God." [Thereupon] Batyj flew into a rage like a wild beast and ordered [Mixail's] execution. (20. IX. 1246) [Mixail] was murdered by the lawless and godless Doman from Putivl', and his boyar Fedor was also murdered with him. They suffered like martyrs and received their crown [of salvation] from Christ [Our] Lord [Amen].

This account has a strong pro-Christian and anti-Mongol/Tatar POV.

Suzdal'–Vladimirian Chronicle (SVC) account
expositions.nlr.ru/LaurentianCodex/ has a digitised version of the Laurentian Codex with photocopies, Old East Slavic digital transcript and modern Russian rewording. L. 165 Vol. has the entry on 1246, which I'll autotranslate from modern Russian here (with some manual corrections):

In year 6754 (1246) Svyatoslav, Ivan the prince with his nephews came from Tatars to the fatherland. In the same year Mikhail, prince of Chernigov, with his grandson Boris went to the Tatars, and when they were in the camps, Batu directed Mikhail the prince, telling him to worship fire and their idols. But Michael the prince did not obey their command, but chided him and his idols. And then without mercy, he was stabbed by the unclean, and accepted the end of life, on the 20th of the month of September, on [the day of] memory of the holy martyr Eustathius. Batu let prince Boris go to Sartak, his son. Sartak, having honoured prince Boris, let him go back home.

This account is still quite biased ("idols", "the unclean", "without mercy"), but less explicit in saying Mikhail was martyred; just that he died on the same day as another martyr, implying a similarity.

Ystoria Mongalorum Carpine account
(…) when Michael, one of the princes of Russia, came to submit to Bati, the Tartars first tried to make him pass between two fires. After this they said that he should bow south to Chingis Khan, but he replied that he would gladly bow to Bati and his servants but not to the image of a dead man because this is improper for a Christian. When he was repeatedly told through his son Yaroslav that he must bow, and yet he refused, Bati ordered Prince Michael killed if he would not bow. Prince Michael of Chernigov was passed between fires in accordance with ancient Turco-Mongol tradition. Batu Khan sent to stab him to death for his refusal to do obeisance to Chingis Khaan's shrine in the pagan ritual imposed by the conqueror. The prince replied that he "preferred to die rather than do what was wrong". Bati sent Michael to one of his followers who trampled on his chest with his boots until the prince died. Meanwhile the prince comforted one of his soldiers who stood near by him by saying: 'Be strong because your punishment will not last long and then at once eternal joy will follow.' After this his head was cut off quickly with a knife. The soldier, to tell the truth, also had his head cut off with a knife.

This account is even more strongly pro-Christian and anti-Mongol/Tatar (the extra r in "Tartar" adds a Christian demonisation to the portrayal of the enemy) than the GVC. Those of us familiar with the Gospel of Luke will recognise the supposed Famous Last Words, which Carpine attributes to Michael of Chernigov here, as closely resembling the meaning of those attributed to Jesus on the cross towards the penitent thief: Amen, I say to you, today you will be in paradise. Such a tradition in Carpine's writing cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity, and should be regarded as historically unreliable. We should also remember that Carpine was in direct service of the Pope, and thus prone to religious bias in his retelling of the story. I do not think we should be quoting it here in full without any context or criticism. NLeeuw (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Novgorod First Chronicle (NPL)
The Chronicle of Novgorod 1016–1471 translated from the Russian by Robert Michell and Nevill Forbes (1914) has Alexey Shakhmatov in the introduction saying it is the English translation of the Synodal Transcript, i.e. the Synod Scroll or Older Recension of the Novgorod First Chronicle. I find that a bit hard to believe, as it appears to contain the entire vita of Michael Chernigov, or at least his martyrology, on pages 88 to 92 (pages 67 to 69 of the PDF file). It's quite a long account, replete with Christian messages and narratives. But Halperin 1987 p. 174 stated: The vita of Mikhail of Chernigov, written after the taking of the senses in the northeast, perhaps invented a census in the South. The full text of the vita is found only in the younger recension of the Novgorod First Chronicle, not in the Laurentian, Hypatian, or older recension of the Novgorod First Chronicles. So either Halperin is wrong, or Shakhmatov is wrong. Either way, I'll limit myself to the core of the narrative here:

...And Mikhail and Fedor answered as with one mouth: “We will not bow, and will not listen to you, for the sake of the glory of this world,” and began to sing: “ Thy martyrs, O Lord, did not deny Thee, nor did they turn away from Thy commandments, but rather suffered for Thy sake, O Christ, and endured many tortures and received perfect crowns in heaven,” and so forth. And then the executioners having arrived, and having jumped off their horses, they seized Mikhail, they stretched him out and holding his arms, began to strike him with their hands over the heart, and threw him prone on to the ground and struck him with their heels. And when he had been overpowered a certain man who had been a Christian and then become pagan having denied the Christian faith, and become a pagan transgressor of the law, named Doman, this man cut off the head of the holy Veliki Knyaz Mikhail, and hurled it away. And at that minute they said to Fedor: “ Bow thou to our gods and thou wilt receive the whole Knyazdom of thy Knyaz. And Fedor said to them: “ I do not desire the Knyazdom and do not bow to your gods; but I wish to suffer for Christ like my Knyaz.” Then again they began to torture Fedor as before they had Mikhail, and then they cut off his honoured head too. Thus, these men thanking the Lord suffered for Christ, and gave over their holy souls to the Lord into the hands of God, new holy martyrs. And their holy bodies were thrown to the dogs to eat, but on the contrary the holy bodies having lain many days were by the grace of God preserved and in no way injured. And our merciful God the Lord who loves mankind glorifying His holy and obedient servants who had suffered for Him and for the Orthodox faith...

This is an extremely elaborate, detailed, theologically advanced, strongly pro-Christian anti-pagan account. It's not even so much anti-Mongol/Tatar as it is anti-pagan. To add insult to injury, in this version, we even see that the alleged executioner was supposedly an ex-Christian apostate who had converted to paganism and was now persecuting Christians. The Christian god plays an active role in this story, apparently unwilling to prevent Mikhail and Fedor's deaths, but very willing to protect their dead bodies from being eaten by dogs. Especially the role of Fedor is much larger than in earlier recensions: SVG doesn't even mention Fedor, Carpine only features an unnamed soldier, GVC gives him the name "Fedor", and NPL has Fedor say several things, including that he 'wants to suffer and die for (Jesus) Christ like my knyaz'. Now, if that isn't laying words into someone's mouth, I don't know what is. There was probably not a single eyewitness left alive to retell the tale of their last moments in this staunchly pro-Christian manner. It's very unlikely that if earlier chroniclers had heard such details, they would have found them irrelevant to write down. More likely, pious later copyists interpolated them. There is not the slighest reason for us Wikipedians to take this version as the most authentic and historically reliable one, and cite it as if it really happened that way. NLeeuw (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sofia First Chronicle
The story of the death of Mikhail of Chernigov is recorded on pages 318-325. I haven't found a critical edition or English translation to work with yet, but we may assume it to be similar to the NPL Younger Recension. NLeeuw (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Killarnee (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Michael of Chernigov → Mikhail of Chernigov – The vast majority of literature in English since 1970 seems to favour "Mikhail of Chernigov" as WP:COMMONNAME over "Michael of Chernigov" and "Mikhail Vsevolodovich". The Ukrainian spellings "Mykhailo of Chernihiv" and "Mykhailo Vsevolodovich" are even rarer.
 * Google Ngrams comparison. It can't even detect Mykhailo, though I was able to find at least 7 books.
 * Google Scholar "Mikhail of Chernigov" 323 results.
 * Google Scholar "Mikhail Vsevolodovich" 258 results
 * Google Scholar "Michael of Chernigov" 92 results.
 * Google Scholar "Mykhailo Vsevolodovych" 11 results.
 * Google Scholar "Mykhailo of Chernihiv" 6 results.

All the recent reliable sources I have been using say Mikhail of Chernigov. The anglicised name "Michael" has steadily fallen out of favour since 1950, and appears only common in Christian hagiography, not in scholarschip and academic literature. The use of "Mykhailo" might be increasing in recent years, but it is nowhere near the common name yet. Additionally, similar names of the period are spelt Mikhail of Tver, Mikhail II of Tver and Mikhail III of Tver. As the title appears to have been a contentious issue back in 2006, I'd like to formally request a name change just in case. NLeeuw (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia is written for the English-speaking general public, not scholars.  Walrasiad (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Mikhail of Chernigov" is the WP:COMMONNAME. NLeeuw (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is not. It is only used in specialized academic works, which always tend to nativize names.  Wikipedia is for the general public, not scholars.  General works use "Michael of Chernigov", e.g.,  , , , , ,, , etc.  In Wikipedia, the standard is general works, not specialist works. Walrasiad (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you got representative statistics to back that up instead of just 9 anecdotes? I showed above that Google Ngrams and Google Scholar strongly favour Mikhail of Chernigov by a large margin (0...337% Mikhail, 0...240% Michael; 323 results Mikhail, 92 results Michael). Michael of Chernigov hasn't been the common name since 1973, and WP:AGEMATTERS. NLeeuw (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The stats don't strongly favor any. And the point of the examples is to show the kind of books - general vs. specialist. I weigh general works a lot more. Walrasiad (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: Google Ngrams automatically selected a smoothing of "3", but the picture is much clearer when you select a smoothing of "6", or 5, 7, or 8. The general trends are pretty consistent: "Mikhail of Chernigov" is by far the most frequent since 1991, while "Michael of Chernigov" and "Mikhail Vsevolodovich" end up closely together in 2nd and 3rd place, depending on the smoothing calculation you select. Before 1973 "Michael" was the most frequent, and between 1974 and 1989 "Mikhail Vsevolodovich" was the most frequent, but in the past 3.5 decades "Mikhail of Chernigov" dominations all books available on Google Books. That's general books, not just specialist books. NLeeuw (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I took a look inside. No, its not. You're still drawing on specialist works, not general works.
 * As a general norm, on Wikipedia, names of Medieval rulers are usually translated into English, as has been customary norm in historical writing. It is only relatively recently that academic fashion decided to use nativization. Academic works can get away with it because of their narrower audience and their more isolated context.  Our audience is different - it is the general public.
 * Our context is also more general. So I have also concern for WP:CONSISTENCY horizontally (non-nativized Michaels of other states at the time, e.g. Byzantine emperors) and vertically (across time, other Michaels before and after). Remember this is not the only article on Wikipedia where Michael of Chernigov is mentioned. It is jarring and inconsistent to force writing using Mikhail of Chernigov (nativized) and Genghis Khan (non-nativized) in the same sentence. Save for a few household names which the native form is overwhelmingly used (e.g. Ivan the Terrible), the preference, esp. in Medieval history articles, should be for WP:USEENGLISH.  And your stats are nowhere near that. You're relying entirely on recent scholarly works, not general works, for only the slightest of statistical edges.  And that is not enough.
 * Moreover, it opens a dangerous can of worms. If you're going to insist on nativization, you can pretty much expect toxic Russian-Ukrainian nationalist squabbles on what the "correct" native spelling is now. It will be very hard to argue that the Russian spelling "Mikhail of Chernigov" should be preferred to the Ukrainian "Mykhailo of Chernihiv".  And that is not a quarrel worth getting sucked into.  At least "Michael of Chernigov" has the benefit of neutrality.
 * This is not needed. Nothing good comes of this proposal, which promises to become a pig's breakfast.  It merely makes it more difficult for Wikipedia readers who have to sort confusingly through a myriad of Michael/Mikhail/Mihaylo and Chernigov/Chernihiv and not knowing who/what it is talking about. Walrasiad (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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.