Talk:Prince Vladimir (film)

clean-up
The plot summary and character descriptions, which come from the promotional website for the film are awkwardly worded and possibly inaccurate. 03:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct - the reason for this is that I have not in fact seen the film and information other than on the official website about it is rather hard to find (things might be easier if I had a Russian keyboard). I have tried to reword the plot summary and character descriptions as much as possible so that they wouldn't be complete copies of the ones on the website, but there's only so much that I could do - if anyone can do anything better, please do try. --Esn 05:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

English Translation
Are there any plans for a release of this film with English subtitles? Knowing Is Half The Battle 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Release date
The poster says Feb 22, the table says Feb 23. Which one is correct? KarolS (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Vladimir (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004212924/http://www.kinoros.ru/db/movies/20/texts/sin.html to http://www.kinoros.ru/db/movies/20/texts/sin.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

 * This edit I can simply say is nonsensical. Go try and push this POV on Kievan Rus'-related articles which do not push this nonsense and see if others will accept this. Please, the sourcing is extensive on Kievan Rus' already using scholarly sources, not state-sponsored bullshit. Otherwise, stop trying to push a fringe nationalist POV from a propaganda site. This article is also subject to discretionary sanctions. Mellk (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the article was originally written by a Ukrainian government propaganda department, Centre for Strategic Communication, so no, please do not try to use this for some kind of factual history. Mellk (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * My edits are not nonsensical. It’s nonsensical to start the first message of a new thread with a tab. I’m not pushing any POV in my edits. Euromaidan Press is not a propaganda site, it’s a reliable source. While the first article was written by The Centre for Strategic Communication, the second one wasn’t. Also I have found a third article which was also not written by The Centre for Strategic Communication. Calling russia descendants of Kyivan Rus is russian propaganda made up in order to justify “unity” between Ukraine and russia. - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 13:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , also not sure what I should do with “discretionary sanctions” and I didn’t think it worth my time to respond to a copy-paste message so blatant that says the topic I have shown interest in is “Eastern Europe and the Balkans”. - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 13:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits consist of pushing a very nationalist POV using one propaganda site. Even if we pretend it is not a propaganda site, it is still a very partisan source that should not be used for this kind of history whatsoever. Scholarly sources are preferable to this kind of garbage source. Saying that Russians have nothing to do with Kievan Rus' is a Ukrainian nationalist and state-sponsored POV that is not reflected in mainstream historiography. So please, stop edit warring otherwise you will likely face a WP:NOTHERE block, as your edits (let alone username) comes across as a POV-pusher only. And I have alerted you about discretionary sanctions because such topic areas are subject to them which you can find out more about here: WP:ACDS. Mellk (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And you can find this in any history book, Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia as an example. This is mainstream historiography, not Russian propaganda, no matter how many Ukrainian propaganda articles you mention. Mellk (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , My edits are not nationalist POV at all. If they were I would be insisting on changing “Kiev” to “Kyiv” and “Kievan-Rus” to “Ukraine-Rus”. In the discussions I have always written Kyivan-Rus but notably I haven’t changed it in the article itself. Not only Ukrainian sites claim that russia has nothing to do with Kyivan Rus. Also The Atlantic Council says the same and it’s an American Website. Not to mention, Volodymyr the Great whom this move is about is the Patron Saint of Ukrainians, not of russians. - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 15:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you have removed the part of the article about Volodymyr the Great which says he’s the Patron Saint of Ukrainians. - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 18:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for not continuing to revert, because we should discuss this first. Because you are not making other kinds of edits does not mean these edits you have already made are not pushing a POV. You are making such claims in edit summaries such as its fringe to suggest the russians are descendants of Kyivan Rus, while citing partisan sources that literally push a Ukrainian nationalist and government line (including one literally written by the government). I do not think that can be denied. Unless you can demonstrate that Kievan Rus being solely a Ukrainian state and Russians have nothing to do with it is actually what mainstream historiography says and all the other WP articles on Rus have been all false and pushing a Russian nationalist POV the whole time. You gave a link to an Atlantic Council blog article written by Lesia Kuruts-Tkach, who is regurgitating the same nationalist POV and even goes as far as to claim that Kievan Rus, Vladimir the Great etc are actually Ukrainian. Who is this? A historian, scholar? Sorry, but this is not a reliable source here and does not reflect mainstream historiography. Mellk (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, see WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mellk (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am just going to remove the part about predecessor state as I do not see it as necessary to include, at least for the time being. Mellk (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much for the reply! I appreciate your willingness to remove this part to keep a NPOV. I have found this article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine hosted by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies in the University of Alberta. The most relevant parts for this discussion are following:
 * "The ancestors of the Ukrainians included the Polianians, Siverianians, Derevlianians, Dulibians, White Croatians, Ulychians, and Tivertsians. The proto-Russian Krivichians, Viatichians, and Radimichians and the proto-Belorussian Drehovichians also lived on the lands that eventually constituted Kyivan Rus’."
 * Notice that the ancestors of Russia and Belarus are separate tribes that only lived on the land which was ruled by Kyivan Rus. Just living in that land doesn’t make them successor states of Kyivan Rus unless you consider all British Colonies successor states of the British Empire.
 * I will also quote a part of the paragraph in the section “origins” where the different theories regarding the Nationality of Kyivan Rus are discussed.
 * "Mykhailo Hrushevsky sought to demonstrate that Ukrainians were autochthonous in their territories, and that the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia was the successor to the Kyivan state. Hrushevsky's theories were for the most part adopted by Ukrainian historians and by some others. Because these theories did not correspond to the political objectives of the Soviet leadership, a panel of historians was commissioned in the 1930s by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to draw up a new historical schema of Eastern Europe; its basic premise was that Kyivan Rus’ had been founded by a single old-Rus’ nationality, out of which Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians developed in the 14th and 15th centuries."
 * Notice that the theory of Kyivan Rus being the common ancestor of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia was made by the Soviets. I have cited (literally quoted) the works of the University of Alberta. - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 11:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, different Slavic tribes (from 9th century) lived in areas of present-day Ukraine, Belarus, West Russia, also some Finno-Ugric tribes to the east who were slavicized, and they were unified by the Kievan Rus' state, which then began disintegrating into different warring principalities before Mongols invaded and devastated much of these lands. These people were never "Ukrainian", "Russian", or "Belarusian" (in the modern sense); those nations came to being after Mongol invasion and came under different influences. There are different views on the origin on Rus', including Normanist and anti-Normanist. Normanist is by far the dominant view and Western historiography is Normanist. Hrushevsky had his opinion, and for example, was anti-Normanist, and the article on Encyclopedia of Ukraine states that Soviet historiography was anti-Normanist. "Predecessor state" of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, is probably an oversimplification. But the same encyclopedia writes about Russia's origins in Kievan Rus. So I do not think it can be stated that Russians are not descendants, unless it is to push a certain POV, and of course there is the policy of WP:NPOV. Regards. Mellk (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pinging me in your reply! I appreciate it! Note that when I wrote “descendants”, what I really meant was “successor state”. I suggest to write Kievan Rus (a Medieval State which Russia claims to be the successor of) and then cite those two articles. A detailed explanation of the different theories in honesty belongs in the page about Kyivan Rus not about a movie. Thanks in advance, - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 22:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Official narrative is Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians are "one people" who were separated by foreign aggressions (now with Putin claiming a separate Ukraine was the work of Lenin among other things to justify his imperial ambitions). Ukrainian government claims that Kievan Rus was a Ukrainian state and Russians have nothing to do with it. Of course the idea of succession of states is relatively recent. I do not think such details are needed here (Kievan Rus' article explains everything), or at most, something like "a medieval state located in present-day Belarus, Russia and Ukraine". Thanks. Mellk (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I have struckthrough a few comments per WP:REDACT. Mellk (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don’t think details writing “located in present-day Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine” is necessary. I highly doubt the creators of the film were inspired by this that parts of Kyivan Rus are currently part of Russia. The film which is a Russian film and sponsored by the Russian Church was most likely made since they perceive themselves as the successors of Kyivan Rus. The article about Kyivan Rus is indeed a better place to put them.
 * P.S. I don’t think a fact-free theory made up to justify an invasion should be given the same weight as a fact-based theory. If the official Russian narrative is to be presented it should be clear that it was made to justify imperial ambitions. - 🇺🇦 Слава🇺🇦Україні 🇺🇦 Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦 (talk)🇺🇦 13:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I proposed to not add any text, or at most to add a brief text giving a neutral description of this state. I only explained this official narrative as you did not seem to be aware. Mellk (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)