Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Rus' Khaganate - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:55, 20 January 2022 (Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 07:55, 20 January 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Rus' Khaganate

Self-nom as the creator of this article, though User:Ghirlandajo and User:Beit Or contributed as much or more than I did. I think this is a very comprehensive coverage of a little-known period in Russian history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the necessity to use Latin and not Cyrillic (or Greek for instance) script in the references. Since this is an English encyclopedia, this is the only choice.--Yannismarou 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Latin letters are preferable, but if the latinised name is a transliteration where there might be several ways to do so (Peking/Beijing) it can be appropriate to include the original name in (parentheses). Also see WP:MOS - Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) for reference. --Oden 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In parenthesis, yes, but not only the original name.--Yannismarou 09:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Oppose.
    • This very interesting article is written so well and convincingly that a casual reader may take it for a solid, well-established state. In fact this is nothing but a reconstruction from scarse historical references, and pretty much recent one. This must be said more prominently in the introduction. In particular, is this theory taught in Russian school? So the remarks kinda "I never even knew of the existence of this state" are pretty much normal reaction.
    • Second, The article is not about some obscure lost island in New Guinea, it is part of the history of big chunk of land:
      • What was written about these lands/times in other history books?
      • What is the genesis of this theory?
Concluding, in the current state the article is rather misleading IMO. `'mikkanarxi 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the sources speak for themselves, and all prominent scholars in the field agree that this polity existed. To the extent there are disagreements about temporal or geographic scope, or about the nature of its government, religion etc., these disagreements are extensively (even, thanks to Ghirla and Beit Or, painstakingly) set forth in the the article. The fact that this period is or is not taught in Russian schools is irrelevant. Very few (if any) American students learn about the Adena culture, either; that doesn't mean that they didn't exist or that they weren't a part of the history of North America. I have no idea why your second point militates against FA status; it would seem quite the opposite. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't have to tell me once again that american schools suck. anyway, I probably had to be more specific: Do they teach this in historical depts of Russian universities? Also about "all prominent scholars", I am not an expert, so I even did not raise this concern (namely, if there is any disagreement), alsthough I have my doubts as to total unanimousity with respect to these scarsely documented times. The second point subbranches into two items about an isolated stand of the text. `'mikkanarxi 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By a sheer occasion, just now I stumbled upon the statement "there is no commonly accepted understanding of Rus khaganate", reaffirming my major objection: the article is misleading in presenting (possibly inadvertently) this theory as a well-established, consolidated piece of knowledge. `'mikkanarxi 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A case to demonstrate my claim: The authors so unconditionally assume their POV that unwittingly (I don't assume they intended to cheat) write false statements: "The earliest European reference to the khaganate comes from the Annals of St. Bertin." There is no mention of "khaganate" In Bertinian Annals. This style of writing is good for pop-science, but not for encyclopedia, despite multiple inline references. And once again, paradoxically, the problem is aggravated by the fact that the text is very well written, so that ony such hardened nasty people like me may stop and wonder whether all this is bullhit or not. `'mikkanarxi 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    Mikka, if you feel that the article is a bunch of fantasies by Briangotts and me, you should apply to AfD. You may consider deleting its ru.wiki predecessor as well. To be sure, you won't find anything about the khaganate in Karamzin, Solovyov, or Klyuchevsky because, as the former has observed, в 1850 г., по высочайшему повелению Николая I запрещено было подвергать критике вопрос о годе основания русского государства, ибо-де 862-й год назначен преподобным Нестором. In the Soviet period, anti-Semitism was still rampant, so the "khagans" and Khazarian influences were seldom mentioned. I can't imagine any modern historian who can overlook evidence, however. Even Rybakov, the pundit of Soviet historiography, did not dare to deny these stubborn facts. --Ghirla 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Don't overreact. What you've just wrote is a valid addition to the article, as an explanation of the obscurity of the topic. I am surprized you don't find this oblivion/obscurity to be a notable issue. `'mikkanarxi 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    I indeed treated the obscure issue with scepticism and, when Brian started the article, went offline for evidence to debunk it as a fringe theory. I checked my books... and returned to expand the article. --Ghirla 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    That's exactly my point. The theory is relatively novel, and this deserves explanation. Please notice I am not questioning its validity. I am questioning its presentation. `'mikkanarxi 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the purpose of this reader is to derail this FAC nomination. It's his right to oppose, yet he makes several gross mistatements of fact that must not go unanswered:
Bertin does not use the word "Khaganate" but he does refer to a Rus' ruler whose title was "Khagan". a land ruled by a khagan is a "khaganate." To deny that Bertin refers to the Rus' Khaganate is an exercise in verbal trickery.
On the contrary, it is a verbal trickery to put your words into Bertin's mouth. He could have used the word "khagan" for countles reasons. the title of the ruler does not always correspond to the name of the polity, take Golden Horde for an example. `'mikkanarxi 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the main question remain unanswered and obscure here. Is Khaganate mentioned in Bertin or not? Those supporting "yes" can they give a clear and undisputable argumentation, so that everybody is convinced here?--Yannismarou 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The polity is known as "Rus' Khaganate" to modern academics. It is a descriptive, not intended to be a recreation of what the people themselves called their polity (like calling someone "Byzantine Emperor" instead of "Baseleius ton Rhomahoi". We know that the ruler of the Rus' in this period was called khagan. Therefore his kingdom was khaganate.
If Bertin referred to a "King of x", we would say that that is a reference to the "x kingdom". This is no different. Mikka is nitpicking here, and not in any particularly relevant manner. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the denial that this is taught in Russian universities- what Russian universities do or do not teach is their own affair, and something over which I have no control (and little concrete knowledge). But I will point out that numerous Russian professors, who did teach at various universities, have acknowledged this period of history and written extensively about it: Svetlana Pletnyeva, Machinsky, and Novoseltsev to name just three off the top of my head. Numerous Western academics of Russian or Ukrainian origin (Omeljan Pritsak, Vernadsky, etc.) have also written copious works on this topic. This is to say nothing, of course, of the vast number of scholars who have discussed the Rus' Khaganate who were not Russian or Ukrainian. To ask that everyone ignore all of these sources based on Mikka's feeling that this is all "bullhit" doesn't seem to me to comport with what Misplaced Pages is all about. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I was asking. You answered. Or not? Teaching in universities is an important criterion, meaning that a theory is widely accepted. Professors write millions of articles. Not all of them are mainstream. Are there any books that have a title or a chapter title with words "Rus Khaganate"? () `'mikkanarxi 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Example. --Ghirla 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, to refer to this article as a "theory" is ridiculous. The Rus' Khaganate existed, the fact that we don't know much about the structure of its government etc. is immaterial to its place in this encyclopedia. The disagreements and multiple theories extant are all given and discussed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There are many things that "exist". To see that you perceive the term "theory" as a slur or insult is very funny. The article itself says that facts are scarse, hence the rest is a theory derived from scarse literary mentionings and excavations. And the introduction to this article cannot sound in the same declarative, doubtless way as, say, for Ancient Rome. `'mikkanarxi 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am no longer certain what you are objecting to. Your statements don't appear to be part of a coherent argument. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It smells like there are some strained interpretations in the article. However prostitution in the People's Republic of China isn't taught at schools either, but the article is featured, Mikka. :P --Brand спойт 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting, well-written, well-sourced, nicely illustrated, good length. Happy to support. :-) SlimVirgin 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article has wonderful citations and references, and the quality of it is impressive. Another fine, fresh (and former DYK) Rus' article brought up beyond GA standard in under a month. Good work! --Grimhelm 14:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. Here are random examples of why the whole text needs copy-editing.
    • "poorly-documented"—NO hyphen after "-ly'. Why start with a negative?
    • "According to contemporary sources"—Does contemporary refer to the ninth century or now?
Oh, dear... "Contemporary" refers to the era of Rus' Khaganate; otherwise, it would be "modern". Beit Or 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You' re right on that one; the rest stands, though. Tony 07:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "its successors would ultimately found Kievan Rus' and its successors, the states from which modern Russia would evolve."—why this back-slung conditional? What's wrong with the plain "its successors ultimately founded"? And "modern Russia evolved".
What's wrong with the use of the conditional? I can fix that anyway. --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is true that these two conditionals in a row do not sound very nice, but again grammatically they are not wrong. In this case, the truth is somewhere between your opinion and Tony's!--Yannismarou 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "he was aware only about the Avar khagans, but never heard about the khagans of the Khazars and Normanns"—aware about? Insert "had" before "never". There's a false contrast here: "but" should be "and".
    • We have "11th" and "12th", but "tenth".
That was also easily fixed. --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are some of the years linked? 889 tells me about Strathclyde, the Khmer empire, Bulgaria and Scotland. That's helpful.
You forgot to mention the Magyars, and both the Magyars and the Bulgars are mentioned in this article: just look at Template:Gardariki! --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is way below the required "professional" standard. Tony 14:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker of English, therefore I can't assess if there is any merit in what Tony says above. I urge native speakers to examine his arguments which appear like his personal preferences rather than a definitely fixed standard. --Ghirla 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Had" before "never" is indeed a personal preference. My personal preference is tha same, but a preference it is. Beit Or 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have gone through this and copyedited it. I made a number of smallish corrections, but I found the writing to be quite good on the whole. One sentence did stump me--see the article's talk page. Once that is resolved, however, I feel that the prose will be a very solid standard. --Robth 15:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite interesting, well written, well referenced, well illustrated, good length. Kudos to its creators! Jayjg 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object. This is a very interesting article, but there are several issues that need to be resolved first (I fully expect them to be, and thus it is a minor object which I expect to change to support shortly). 1) there are a few places where inline citations are needed, I added a few fact templates 2) government section has some inline comments raising important questions, they should be addressed, preferably at talk 3) there are some other inline comments throughout the article; discuss them at talk and remove them from article 4) lead could use a picture.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    <ad hominem removed into section "Freedom of expression"> `'mikkanarxi 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Conditional support if the last citation requested tag I added and is now removed would be replaced by a footnote explaining that the sources discussed in this sentence are discussed in more details in the following paras.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. ←Humus sapiens 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without revoking my support, I would like to make a few additional remarks (after reading the article line by line), in order to underscore some minor problems IMO that should be settled, before the article acquires the FA status (I must say I was influenced by Grimhelm's remarks):
  • Is there a reference of Rus' Khaganate in the the Annals of St. Bertin as the article claims or not as mikka asserts? Such things are of major importance, if we want to guarantee that the article is accurate, and we should clarify them.
The Annals of St. Bertin article has been created by Berig - I copied his citation from it into this article. --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I meant mikka; not you! Sorry!--Yannismarou 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so I wasn't confused for no reason… No need to apologise though - the article got improved in the process. :-) --Grimhelm 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the Salerno Chronicle? There is no wikilink and no explanation. Will the editors of the article create a stub for this Chronicle? Shall they offer a brief explanation in the article we review (which according to my IMO would be necessary, even if a wiki-article existed)? This is not a major issue, but I think that some kind of explanation should be offered.
I believe that would be the Chronicon Salernitanum, which has had an article for some time; I have provided a link to it. --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • About the fate of Rus' Khaganate there is only a short uncited paragraph at the end of the article. And, although prominent scholars are mentioned throughout the article, there is nothing there! Just the assertion that "The fate of the Rus' Khaganate, and the process by which it either evolved into or was consumed by the Rurikid Kievan Rus', is uncleal." Yes, but, when we have this detailed analysis in all the previous sections, the level of analysis in this final issue of huge importance can be caracterized as lower and maybe inadequate. What are the conclusions of the recent scholarly research? Slavonic and other sources may not be helpful, but what are the most popular scholarly theories right now? My impression is that the article closes leaving a sense of "incompleteness" to the reader, who wants something more in this particular issue, when he is already so well-informed for the previous open questions.
  • And, of course, before the article gets FA status, the added should be fixed. Otherwise, this is a reason for objections. A FA can't be in the category "Articles with unsourced statements".--Yannismarou 11:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the points raised earlier seem to have been largely addressed. The word "behooves" should be replaced by an alternative construction, and I would be happier if the last paragraph contained a citation. Other than these, I am content with the development of the article this week. I believe it meets the FA requirements. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Second attempt It seems that the authors took this thing too personally and started bickering with me instead of anwering my major objection. I admit my guilt of not being very clear and probably too offensive. Let me restate it once more. The theory and the term Russian Khaganate are relatively novel in modern historiography (forgetting about ancient sources), and many of us of various levels of knowledge in rusian history admitted never heard before.
    • Therefore this article requires a full separate section about the genesis of this theory. At present the text is written in the matter-of-fact way (although with NPOV defense: "there was a state or not state", "it was located here or there", etc. (which is good)).
    • What missing is who of historians was first to use the term "Russky Kaganat" or synonym.
    • Were there any sporadic references during previous centuries?
    • Are there any notable opponents? (I dont believe there are none. I know quite a few guys who are sure that Russians are Finns or Huns. But I may be wrong; the latter guys may be simply ignorant of RusKha).
    • What are the reasons under the intro phrase: "Rus' Khaganate, sometimes called Volkhov Rus, Ilmen Rus, or Novgorod Rus"? Who identified them as the one?
      • Comment: Just noticed that I was not the first one who questioned this phrase, but was reverted under false edit summary "These are not statements that require citations. They are discussed extensively in the text": None of "Volkhov Rus", "Ilmen Rus", "Novgorod Rus" are mentioned anywhere in the article. `'mikkanarxi 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The intro should state clearly that Rus' Khaganate is a modern term and most probably was not used at these times.
    • Any hypotheses about absence of the mentioning in Primary Chronicle besides a vague phrase that slavs and finns first kicked varangian's ass and then invited them back.
`'mikkanarxi 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to answer every question one can conceivably invent. Beit Or 11:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, I did not "conceivably invent" these question. This is plain common sense. A new theory out of the blue. If is does not raise suspicious, it means that our brains are ready for indoctrination by next best smooth-talking kook. I was not nitpicking, kinda "what was the name of at least one Rus Khagan?" (a good one by the way) or "you misssed a comma in line 37 from below" or something else. I posed one HUGE question (a bit itemized): what is the place of this theory within Russian historiography? `'mikkanarxi 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect Mikkalai, but I don't think it is a valid criterion for opposing the nomination that the theory is new to you. The many references show clearly that it is not a new theory, and your concerns about indoctrination make me wonder if you are opposing the nomination because you simply don't like the idea of a Rus' Khaganate.--Berig 16:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to evaluate the validity of the commented-out objections in the "government" section, but those need to be resolved--either by clarification or by reevaluating the content of that section. Other than that, however, I found this to highly informative and a very good read. --Robth 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A revelation to me. And the problem I found was dealt with quickly, so I am convinced any surprises around the corner will be solved in the same way. --Pan Gerwazy 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Freedom of expression" (Personal bickering removed out of discussion of the article)

  • Why was Ghirla's comment removed?! I may not agree with his opinion, but I think this removal does not serve the freedom of expression here. I actually intended to post an answer to his opinion ("No, it is not. This is an established practice in FAC, FAR and FARC. I have initiated it, but I have also suffered it").--Yannismarou 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    There is no "freedom of expression" in wikipedia. See WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK. `'mikkanarxi 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    If there is no freedom of expression here, let's close the store and let's all go home!!! I've suffered similar attacks by Ghirla, but I never reverted his edits. I repeat again that I'm per Piotrus in this particular case, and I really feel disappointed his citations requests and copy-edit were removed. I agree that this is not constructive attitude by the editors of the article, and that such actions do not help at all their FA aspirations. But, at the same time, I do not accept the deletion of Ghirla's comments. He was wrong and unfair, but he was civil. He did not insult and he did not use "bad words". So, I still regard the removal of his comment as arbitrary. The best response towards such comments is a strong argumentation; not deletions!--Yannismarou 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    The behaviour of Piotrus has indeed been less than graceful. He was previously warned to avoid citation template spamming. Not only does he disregard the arbitrator's advice, but he also today accused his opponents in vandalism and "hundreds much more incivil comments". All this against the background of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus, where the question of his desysopping is being discussed at the moment. There is enough stuff for arbitration, I think. --Ghirla 08:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yannismarou - check this for an interesting twist...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with you! And I say once again that I'm against any reverts of this kind. Your wording had obviously nothing to do with a personal attack. This is something I detest whoever initiates it!--Yannismarou 10:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    Oh! And I also believe that this is definitely not a case (this particular case - I do not know the background of the desysopping request, but I will read the relevant page) for arbitration or for desysopping! Let's not exaggerate things here!! Instead of removing the (the addition of which I repeat is a common practice in FAC, FAR and FARC), Ghirla or any other editor could just add the requested citations. Piotrus, me and any other reviewers dedicate time reading and trying to improve the article. The reviewers are not enemies of the article. This is a wrong philosophy. And if the editors of the article had understood that from the first momment, this would have been an easy (almost boring!) FAC. Instead, we have unfortunate reverts, warning for arbitration and desysopping! I'm really overwhelmed with all this unnecessary fuss.--Yannismarou 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)