Talk:Anne of Kiev

Comment

Who writes this nonsense? Old Church Slavic language was simply old Bulgarian language, since Christianity came to Eastern Europe through Bulgaria, all sacred books and Bibles were written in Bulgarian language. Since then, the spoken Bulgarian language changed, the written in the Bibles and canons - not. How can Bulgarian language be an ancestor of Russian language? They even belong to different groups of Slavic languages: Bulgarian language belongs to South group of Slavic languages, Russian - to East Slavic Languages. How can one evolve into another? The same you can say that German is an ancestor of English, or something. And why is this RUSSIAN HISTORY? Kiev is in UKRAINE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.240.160 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

On your last point—modern Kiev is in Ukraine. Old Kiev was in Kievan Rus', which was an ancestor state of modern Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. As such, articles on topics dealing with Kievan Rus' are covered under history of all three countries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:00, April 22, 2009 (UTC)

Rus is the old name for Ukraine, not Belarus or Russia. Russia was called Muscovy prior to 1703.76.70.117.169 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OCS is not Old Bulgarian. It was based on the Slavic dialect of Thesalonika. At that time all Slavic languages were mutually intelligible. Christianity didn't come to EE through Bulgaria, it was spread by East Romans. Modern Russian *is* derived from OCS - its roots go back to Lomonosov who combined OCS and modern (in his day) vernacular. Kiev was Russian (Ruthenian), it was not the Borderland (Ukraine) back then, it was the Heartland. Stop spewing Ukrainian nationalistic nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.103.193 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole article seemed to have been written by a Ukrainian. I removed the Note section, since the Reims Gospel it refers to has no connection to Anne what-so-ever. Also, the information for this article is taken mostly from a clearly nationalistic Ukrainian webpage which has no credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.103.193 (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed "Anne was born in Kiev between 1024 and 1032." to "Anne most likely was born in Novgorod between 1024 and 1032." There is no sources about the date and the place of her birth. But in 1010-1036 the residence and the court of Yaroslav the Wise was in Novgorod. And it is unlikely that pregnant Indigerd gave birth to Anne during one of rare visits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.107.126.162 (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Anne of Kiev? Seriously? Anne of Russia. She was always known in France as "daughter of the king of Russia". Only recently due to modern politics the term "Anne of Kiev" was coined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.76.76 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Daughters of Yaroslav the Wise

Was Anne the youngest? Who was the person that said which of the four was who? I'm just wondering is there any historical analysis or prove behind who is who is this image.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Marriage

I have a question about the how-manyith wife she was to Henri. In the wiki pages on him, she is his 3rd wife. In this article it says "After the death of his 1st wife ... he married Anne ...". Which is correct? 79.225.5.209 (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Rho

I deleted the reference to Anne's feelings in France and her 'letter' which is non-existent

This was an absolulely shameful reference for an article on a historical figure - it is as good as using Dumas for references in an article about Louis XIII. No 'letter' from Anne describing the alleged barbarity of the French exists. The cited text was a 20th century joke and not a real document. 95.24.242.54 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Preambula

Why russian language was removed from preambula? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.194.54.184 (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please could you explain why an English-language article on someone who lived 1030 – 1075 needs to have her name in either modern Ukrainian or modern Russian. I could understand the case for having her name in the language of her time.

The signature in the infobox shows her signature Ана Ръина. I think that spelling should be the one used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I think that either Ukrainian and Russian languages should be mentioned either none of them. At the history of article I found that both languages were here but today Russian was unexpectedly removed by user who sometimes tries to remove things which could be associated with Russia. And because of this removing I asked my question. Sorry if my English not very well.176.194.54.184 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Everybody knows that anonimous-made-changes here are ALL political driven. May be use spelling in church-slavonic ? Its closer to Kievan Rus' . 217.23.74.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the article on Gytha of Wessex, it shows the woman's name as spelled in her own time (Gȳð), and the spelling in modern-English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"that anonimous-made-changes" But this change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_of_Kiev&type=revision&diff=782997358&oldid=782995492 was made by registered user. Again, I think it's OK if none of languages are mentioned. Also it's OK if both of languages are mentioned (like in French version of this article, in my opinion this is the better variant than none of languages).176.194.54.184 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Major update coming April 2019

Hi! We are Arealhon, jpost1212, and SWWJ96. As part of a college seminar on medieval queens where our final project is to substantially update a Wikipedia page of an understudied medieval queen, we will be carrying out major revisions to this page over the next week and a half (through May 3, 2019). Please bear with us while we fix links and insert more internal citations! Arealhon (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Conversion?

some historians have interpreted this letter from the Pope as being indicative of Anne's conversion to Roman Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy.[10]

Some may have said so, but is there much sense in it - at least phrased like this? Queen Anne was born to Catholics and as an infant baptized a Catholic; in 1051 she being a Catholic married another Catholic and moved to his land to reign it with him - a land which throughout the time in question stayed Catholic. It is true that in the meantime, to be precise in the year 1054, her native place cut themself off from the Catholic Church, but why would that induce a Catholic queen of France who had never been anything than Catholic throughout her lifetime to need a conversion?--2001:A61:3A6B:B901:34C4:FD29:E628:4022 (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2022

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: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Anne of Kiev → Anne of Kyiv – To unify naming with Kyiv (Kyïv). However, I don't know EnWiki naming policies. AS ^sa 08:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC) AS ^sa 08:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. For the following reasons:

1) The suggestion is a misunderstanding of the name. She is named "Anne of Kiev" because she was Princess of the Kingdom of Kievan Rus'. She is not "Anne of the city of Kyiv", she is "Anne of the Kingdom of Kievan Rus'", and that's why she is called Anne of Kiev.

2) all other royalty of the Kievan Rus' is called "of Kiev", for example Anastasia of Kiev, Iziaslav I of Kiev, etc. If you change her name, you have to change the name of all of their articles in accordance with the policy of consistency, so I don't know why her article in particular is targeted. But that is still not reasonable, because "Kiev" here stands for the kingdom of Kievan Rus', not for the city of Kyiv.

3) If you change her title, then you must also change the title of the article Kievan Rus', since "Kiev" here stands for the kingdom of Kievan Rus', not for the city of Kyiv. The article Kievan Rus' is the reason to why all these hundreds of royalty is called "of Kiev".

4) Wikipedia uses the name that is most commonly used about the subject in sholarly litterature.

5) As said before, "Kiev" here stands for the kingdom of Kievan Rus', not for the city of Kyiv, so the suggestion of this discussion is a result of a misunderstanding. --Aciram (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

1) No, the name Kyivan Rus was only coined centuries after her death. She was Anne of (the city of) Kyiv centuries earlier.

2) True, but a) are they all the right name, and b) we don’t have to change all of them.

3) Well, then when we renamed Kyiv, we should have renamed Kyivan Rus too, right?

4) Very often, yes.

5) That is reiterating 1 and it is still wrong. Kyiv is Kyiv. Kyivan Rus literally means “Rus (Ruthenia) of Kyiv.” Synonyms include the Kyivan state and just Kyiv.

 —Michael Z. 23:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

1) No, she is not a princess of a city. She is a princess of a state.

2) Wikipedia policy of consistency requires they all have the same name form. Change all of them a the same time, or change none of them.

3) Then go and start a discussion to change the name of the article of Kievan Rus'. If you succeed, then all royalty of that state can have their names changed too, Anne being among them. As of now, that article is called Kievan Rus', and because of that the royalty of that state must also be called Kiev, Anne included.

4) We agree then. Wikipedia is not a place for debates or changing names, Wikipedia is only a place to repeat established information. It is not up to Wikipedia to introduce name changes. We are neutral.

5) A city and a state is not the same thing.

I will not engage in a lengthy debate, particularly not about a sensitive topic, which this appears to be. I have said my piece. See if you can get other people to agree with you instead. Have a nice day.--Aciram (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

1) That’s an academic distinction. One of the names we call her by is Anne of Kyiv, not Anne of Kyivan Rus. 2) It does not. Consistency is just the least important of five WP:CRITERIA. 3) Inconsistent and selective application of your own logic. 4) Yes, and so we moved Kiev → Kyiv. 5) Not always true, not quite true in this case – the state didn’t have a contemporary name as such, but the power was the personage of the velykyi kniaz and the seat of power was Kyiv – and irrelevant, because she is called Anne of Kyiv, after the city. —Michael Z. 01:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I refer to the last sentence of my above post: I will not engage in a lengthy debate, particularly not about a sensitive topic, which this appears to be. I have said my piece. See if you can get other people to agree with you instead. Have a nice day. --Aciram (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. For the reasons stated above by Aciram. Denisarona (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reasons given by Aciram. Perhaps Admins should be shutting down these types of RMs when not accompanied by any real reasoning. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• To add, going by WP:COMMONNAME, "Anne of Kiev" returns about 3.3k results on Google Books while "Anne of Kyiv" returns <200. Mellk (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unlike the capital of Ukraine Kievan Rus' is not commonly known as Kyiv.--67.70.102.93 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support  It’s about time historical names like this were reviewed since we renamed Kyiv by consensus more than two years ago. There is no rationale for defying that consensus and using the nineteenth- and twentieth-century spelling in Anne’s name. The spelling Kiev is 1) dated in 2022, and 2) an anachronism: it was never used in English until seven centuries after her death (see wikt:Citations:Kiev). Kyiv is the modern spelling of the 1,500-year-old city’s name, and Anne of Kyiv is a modern spelling of this subject’s epithet (it is not her name as such). —Michael Z. 23:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  There is no rationale for defying that consensus. Except consensus on the usage of "Kiev" was already established as well as the article title "Kievan Rus'". Mellk (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  And Michael Z. knows this perfectly well, since they have been topic-banned previously from anything related to Kiev/Kyiv exactly because of the misuse of the historical usage. Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, @Ymblanter. I was not aware of it, but this user does appear to be heated about the subject. As can be seen above, they did not respect or accept my message that I did not wish to continue a debate with them, but keeps pressing it in what appears to be a polemic way. I will ignore further talk from their part.--Aciram (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter please stop badgering me about that. You went over the top last time you picked a fight and escalated it to enforcement, where your request was tossed out as “premature” and “frivolous.” You have previously slandered me with the label “ultranationalist” that I’ve told you is an offensive lie, and it is clear from your history that you just want to pick another argument. Please stick to the topic and work on building the encyclopedia instead of stalking me and writing about me in attempts to poison the discussion.  —Michael Z. 16:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Which consensus? The “text of historical articles” vote had no rationale given with either the proposal or the decision. There is no rationale or consensus there that directly affects this article title. No one has yet articulated one here either.  —Michael Z. 16:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose google scholar results are rather conclusive

Marcelus (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above rationale. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely anachronistic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Both spellings are completely anachronistic. The current title is also a dated spelling. How does that make you choose it?  —Michael Z. 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Because nobody calls her that in English-language sources! Just because the name of the city is now commonly Kyiv does not mean that everything derived from it has automatically changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Untrue.[1] But that is a different argument. “Anachronistic” applies to both.  —Michael Z. 16:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Most of which are translations from non-English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  1) I don’t think so. 2) So what if it were true? 3) Aren’t most uses of the other spelling translations?  —Michael Z. 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. If we only include articles since 2022, "Anne of Kyiv" gets 7 Google Scholar results [2] while "Anne of Kiev" gets 6 [3]. There is little evidence yet that Kyiv is more common nowadays in this case. But it appears that the switch is currently ongoing. One day, sooner than later, there is going to be consistency, both in modern and historical articles. Super Ψ Dro 00:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  We get still more for Anna Yaroslavna.[4]

  I looked her up in my standard histories, and none of them call here any of those. I have the impression that she is most often referred to as just Anne (daughter of Yaroslav), the stereotypical epithets are less commonly used and therefore their frequency varies a lot, and there isn’t a single established commonly-used name. —Michael Z. 01:39, 5 January 2023 (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.

Protection of article

Perhaps this article should be protected somehow. It is almost comical how it is targeted again and again in the Kiev-Kyiv issue. More than any other Kievan royalty or the Kievan Rus article itself, it seems. Just a suggestion. Aciram (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)