Talk:Rus' (name)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contents and title

The by 95% do not correspond its title Mikkalai 23:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The problems with Latin and English word-usage began in the 15th and 16th century. The rulers of Muscovy reunited (or conquered) northern parts of former Kievan Rus. Later they accepted title of Ruler of All Rus. However, Lithuania and Poland that controlled southern part, were rejecting it (probably for political reasons). Later, Rus' - in Russian language - evolved to Rossiya under Greek influence (Russia is Rosia in Greek language).

1. The order suggests the first, took control is shorter and more neutral
2. probably a translation issue, in english accepted implies he it was his to accept or decline
3. bad grammer, the political reasons are intuitively obvious: a ruler of a neighboring country wanted to take lands they controlled, there's no need to meniton political reasons here (and not everywhere else)

1. "Took control" sounds somewhat like "occupated".
2. I hope "evolved" is ok.
3. Ok, "political reasons" removed.

Drbug 19:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll need to find some native speaker to resolve all the subtleties of meaning.

I disagree. The wording must be clear for foreigners as well. However, I see that our collision is rather political than linguistic... Drbug 05:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The wording isn't clear right now, hence I can't tell whever the collision is linguistic or political: are you merely trying to explain a dispute over those provinces or are you implying the rulers of Muscovy had some supernatural moral right in their claims, whilst Poles and Lithuanians stood in their way? Besides encyclopedic articles need to be written in a certin formal style and the whole article could use a good once over from someone speaks english natively.

Yes, I definitely won't agree this article to deny the fact that Russian rulers had, as you say, "some supernatural moral right" for their claims. Therefore, the collision is political. Linguistically awful wording is just an awkward attempt to solve this political collision. Welcome to the Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization, facts and reasons are listed there! Drbug 18:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared.

User:Genyo inserted the bold text in the context below:

By the 10th century, the term Ruthenia was used, among other spellings, in Latin Papal documents in the sense of Rus' the people or medieval state of Rus (Kievan Rus), and later became a dominant name for Rus in Latin. Some modern scholars use the Ruthenia spelling in English for this period. In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared.

To me, the whole sentence, "In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared." sounds weird. It doesn't seem to be an academic contribution. I haven't find neither relevant information for "Old England", nor for "Ruce".

Can anyoune write anything on this issue? Thanks!

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here [1]--Wiglaf 21:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, now I added info into the article. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rus = Red

Has anybody heard that the following: the word "Rus" means "red-head" or how the original inhabitants perceived and caricatured the Scandinavian.

At any rate, if we are to talk about etymology it is perhaps advisable to mention the origin and meaning of a word. In this context we would have the equivalent of "Frank" (french) = "Freeman" etc...

Yes, you can find the information that it could mean "read-head" on Rus' (people), but so far no one has added anything on folk etymology. I agree with you.--Wiglaf 08:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Roxolani

How about a conection to the Sarmatian tribe of Roxolani, whose name probably means the Bright Alani.???

Great Russia and Little Russia

These names were not meant to contain any judgement, as they came to be used later by Russian, i.e. 'Great Russian' nationalists. In Byzantine terminology, great regularly referred to countries further away from the Byzantine borders, whereas little referred to nearer countries and especially those inside the imperial frontiers; in a similar sense, Great Serbia and Great Bulgaria were used when these countries were independent from Constantinople, whereas the same regions were called Little Serbia and Little Bulgaria when they had to pay tribute to the emperor. --Daniel Buncic 2005-01-12 10:04 (CET)

I believe the comment should be inserted in the article on Little Russia. I don't think the term "contained any judgement" as used by "Great Russian nationalists". It was the only term in use until 1830s, when several Little Russian writers deemed it denigrating and switched to the new term "Ukraine". So, the term was found to "contain a jusgement" by Ukrainian nationalists and not by the Russian authorities. Ghirlandajo 10:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't think there had been a general term for the whole territory of Ukraine, from Kharkov to Uzhhorod, until the 20th century. Little Russia was applied to the Left Bank only (if I'm not mistaken). Ghirlandajo 10:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even accepting that Tsar Aleksei added "Tsar of Little Russia" to his titles out of deference to Byzantine scholarship, it's hard to argue that it wasn't politically expedient to invoke "one indivisible Russia". I'm sure that Great Russian nationalists and imperial authorities referred to Cossacks like Mazepa as Little Russians with utmost respect.

Of course there wasn't a general term for Ukraine from Kharkiv to Uzhhorod, because it was never a unified territory during this time. Tsars, kings and hetmans named their dominions. Nations weren't considered self-determining the way they might be today, and the average peasant probably referred to himself as "Orthodox", or perhaps "Rusyn". Territory inhabited by Ukrainians was constantly split up between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporozhian Host, the Crimean Khanate, Muscovy, and Transylvania/Austria, and of course borders changed constantly during thirty years of war after the Treaty of Pereyaslav. The initially-autonomous Host was further split into the Hetmanate, Zaporozhia, and Sloboda Ukraine, later absorbed into the Russian Empire and New Russia.

But "Little Russian" obviously referred to the Ukrainian nation, regardless of its political division. It was applied to all Ukrainian territory within the Russian Empire, north of "New Russia" (the "wild" steppes that were traditionally Ottoman territory).

According to Subtelny's Ukraine: A History (p. 141, 159), Cossack territory, which at times included parts of right-bank Ukraine but not Galicia or Volhynia, was formally called the Zaporozhian Host (Zaporoz'ke Vijs'ko?), but was referred to by Russians as Malorossiia. At the time, Ukrainian lands were referred to by Poles as Ukraine.

By Magocsi's Historical Atlas of Ukraine (map 17), "At certain times, there were three such [governor-generalships], two of which carried the title governor-general of Little Russia. By the 1830s, there was a Little Russian governor-general for the Right Bank (Kiev/Podolia/Volhynia, 1831-1917), a Little Russian governor-general for the Left Bank (Kharkiv/Poltava/Chernihiv, 1835-1860s), and a governor-general for New Russia (Kherson/Katerynoslav/Taurida, 1797-1874)." —Michael Z. 2005-06-2 01:29 Z

It's a difficult term as Ukraine itself meaning "border(-land)" implies a cultural debt which excites nationalist retorts. Orel Subtelny's History, which was a standard text at my own uni also confused the issue greatly by noting that Ruthenia was also occasionally referred to as Little Russia within the Habsburg Empire before its absorption post 1945. I've also seen the term used in this way by Z.A.B. Zeman.

A sea of inaccuracies

Don't have to read much: hit "the inhabitants called it "Русская Земля"", and here's the first one. Spelling, pronounciation differed from century to century, principality to principality. Absolutely unclear why the modern Russian version is chosen. If anything, it is "Руская земля" or "Руськая земля", if we stick with Russian, and why should we. Gaidash 6 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

It stroke me as odd EVERY time I read the article. I fixed it. -Iopq 10:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotation at the beginning citing the Finnish word Ruotsi fails to make the point that this is actually the Finnish for SWEDEN !! The Finnish word for Russia is VENÄJÄ. Jatrius 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that in the history of some ethnonyms it appears that the objects of investigation are being quoted themselves, i.e. the German word "Deutsch", with an original stem meaning "person" appears in the Swedish "tysk" and Dutch "duits" (German). The English word "Dutch", however, might be suspicious in that it could either mean that the people falling between present day German and English speakers have (a) referred to themselves as "people", or (b) been refered to according to the people living beyond them.

A parallel to this can be seen in the historical Hungarian name for the Bohemian or Bohemian State as "Tót Ország", whereas "tót" is a cognate of the same set of words "Dutch", "Deutsch", "Duits", "tysk".

Perhaps, it is actually this type of hypothesis that has been used in aligning the Finnish "Ruotsi" and Estonian "Rootsi" words with the modern meaning "Sweden". On the other hand, it might be interesting to assess one particular word in Estonian and Finnish "rahvas" (est: people, nation; fin: rabble, peasantry). Are there any other languages that might support the "Ru-s" referring to themselves as "people"? Rueter May 7, 2007

merge

why should Rus' (people) be merged here? This is an article about etymology, and that is an article about a historical people. Much of the content of Rus' (people) should be moved here, so that the arcicle can treat the people proper instead of etymological details, but there should remain an article "Rus' (people)" dedicated to the people (as described by Ibn Fadlan etc.) proper. dab (ᛏ) 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Normanist POV

I think this article contained Anti-Normanist POVs such as defining the Varangians as people of dubious extraction, and by giving wrong dates for the appearance of the name Rhos. There is nothing glorious in promoting Soviet style pseudo-history.--Wiglaf 08:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Western scholarship consider... nothing really

As per EB:

RUS -ancient people who gave their name to the land of Russia. Their origin and identity are much in dispute. Traditional Western scholars believe them to be Scandinavian Vikings, an offshoot of the Varangians, who moved southward from the Baltic coast and founded the first consolidated state among the eastern Slavs, centring on Kiev. Russian scholars, along with some Westerners, consider the Rus to be a southeastern Slavic tribe that founded a tribal league; the Kievan state, they affirm, was the creation of Slavs and was attacked and held only briefly by Varangians....

So, don't make it sound like a mainstream vs crackpot. These are both mainstream theories of which one has more support, and traditionally more respected while the other is not discounted or limited to Slavophiles. --Irpen 08:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I think the article should state which one has most support, and where. I have actually failed to find any western source that even mentions the anti-normanist theory, until now.--Wiglaf 08:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The source is above. Britannica is enough for me for now. One has wider support, you're right. I will try to accomodate this now. --Irpen 08:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal of information on the root.--Wiglaf 08:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, corrected already. --Irpen 08:58, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I have added some early evidence in the section called early evidence.--Wiglaf 09:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Rhos" before Photius

What about the Greek mentions of "Rus" in Southern Russia and Ukraine in 7th and 8th century? They can not possibly be Scandinavian, can they? This needs to be included. Goliath74 17:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, Al Khurdadhbeh talks of Rus as a "kind of Saqlab". Whether that means Rus are slavic or "like Slavic", or even "kind of slaves" we can't know for sure. Some see Saqlab as a Slavic tribe (majority of historians), some see Saqlab as "Eastern European slaves" (Pritsak)

Inner Rus versus Outer Rus

Lifted by me from another source (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9253/rus.html) for the purpose of easier copy and paste:

"While the Primary Chronicle has the "Rus" first take power in the north, gradually extending their power south, when they reach the Kiev area something strange happens. The term "Rus" then becomes confined to a very narrow area around Kiev, the land of the Polianians, in the Middle Dnieper region.It was a very specific region and besides Kiev included these cities: Chernigov, Pereiaslavl, Vyshgorod, Belgorod, Torchesk, Trepol', Boguslavl', Korsun', Kanev, Shumsk, Tikhoml', Vygoshev, Gnoinitsa, and Buzhsk. This included the lands of the Severiane, Radimachi, and parts of the lands of the Ulichi and Viatachi in addition to the lands of the Polianians. Everything else is referred to as the "periphery of Rus". This is from Russian sources that predate the Primary Chronicle, such as the Russian Laws. The Emperor Constantine (Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus) makes reference to this in the 10th century when he speaks of "Inner" and "Outer" Russia. This lasts until the 12th century, when the term came to designate all the Eastern Slavs."

So, Novgorod is not Rus? Do Ryurikids temporarily lose control over Novgorod? Appears that Rus has a Southern origin. Could this be the Rus of which the Greek chronicles speak? Goliath74 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please check the edits by User:Genyo. He already attempted to push a similar nationalistic bullshit. Thankfully, not a single edit of his survives. I would be glad to see you quoting "Russian sources that predate the Primary Chronicle". I\m not aware of any. As best I know, "Periphery of Rus", "Outer Rus", "Shumerian-Ukrainian language" are all the same bullshit propagated by several guys from Lviv. Rus started in Novgorod, as even the name of Staraya Russa makes clear, and that's a fact. If you came here to propagate fantasies, you should read Wikipedia:No original research.--Ghirlandajo 18:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to believe that 7th century Rus started at Novgorod, since, according to several "Zhitias" by Greek chroniclers, it was based on the northern coast of Black Sea in 7th century, about 150 years before the advent of Waeringer-Varyags.

So, not only Novgorod being the first capital of Rus is NOT a FACT, it is very arguable at best.

Staraya Russa means absolutely nothing in this context. Staraya Russa was thought to have originated in mid-10th century (not mentioned by any author until 1076). It is about 100 years after the events described by the Primary Chronicle.

I am not familiar with "Shumerian-Ukrainian language" (perhaps, you can enlighten me). But "Outer Rus" is a term used by Constantine VII. Goliath74 18:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Like every other toponym of traditional Greek "inner"-"outer" dychotomy, it was used for reasons of geographical proximity only. Those lands that lay closer to Constantinople, were called "inner". Those lands that lay further from Byzantium, were called "outer". It is like Blizhnee and Dalneye Zarubeshye in Russian parlance. De adm. imp. has nothing to say on Rus' origin, as Constantine was perfectly ignorant on that point. I don't have enough time for discussing pure speculations in the moment. Let's see what other editors will say.--Ghirlandajo 19:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You do, however, have time to brand something "nationalistic bullshit" and "fantasies". I would regard Scandinavian Rus a "fantasy" since no Scandinavian tribe or people under that name had ever been found, if not for the fact that PVL is mentioning them (rightly or wrongly). Let's at least attempt to have a civilized discourse here. Goliath74 19:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

For the time being, you may scan history of this page and Varangian for details of my feud with User:Wiglaf, who accused me of Russian nationalism when I attempted to tone down his normanistic POV-pushing. Check this edit and what followed it, for example. Or this one. So now I seem to be attacked on both sides ;) --Ghirlandajo 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not intend on attacking anyone. I am neither an ethnic Russian nor an ethnic Ukrainian (if that is what you think I am). If you do believe that there is an argument between you and me, think of it in monk Nestor's terms. He represented the pro-Scandinavian Novgorod party and argued against the Kiev-based Greek party. Goliath74 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is more complicated that you think. As I said many times in this article and elsewhere, the hypothesized figure of Nestor the Chronicler represented the party of the reigning prince, Svyatopolk II, who had no connections with Novgorod. The pro-Greek party was represented by Svatopolk's successor Vladimir Monomakh, whose mother was Greek and whose family demesne was Pereyaslav rather than Kiev. --Ghirlandajo 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Vladimir was born in Kiev and his first knyazhenie was in Chernigov. I might be wrong though... Svyatopolk II did rule in Novgorod (1078-1088) for 10 years prior to ascending on Kiev throne. In any case, Kiev and Novgorod remained bitter rivals for the moniker of the first Russian city throughout the ancient Rus history. PVL gives this distinction to Novgorod. It is extremely possible that many passages of Nestor were very partisan. Goliath74 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I don't see any reason to think either party is particularly pushing a POV rather than trying to get this right. May I suggest that you both assume good faith, focus on the sources, and try to work out if there is some material that should be mentioned here and is not? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Reviewing this article, I see there are many unsupported assumptions and attempts at first-hand research and even guessing. Particularly there is extremely little listing of sources, and those that are here are unreliable (the National Geographic translation of Ibn Rustah's account is, to put it mildly, complete junk, and the translation from the Primary Chronicle is not very good either). Looking at the discussion page, it becomes obvious that some editors of this article have some sort of non-NPOV agenda. I'm going to tag this page with a factual accuracy dispute and a 'Pages needing expert attention' tag. Moonshiner 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Early 7th century Rus

What of the early 7th century Rus in Lower Don area? I've seen theories that would suggest their origins as Antes, Goths (remnants of the East Gothic kingdom), Iranian Roxolani, even Scandinavians (although 100 to 150 years too early). There is a good reason to believe these have been in contact with Middle Dnieper Slavs long before Ryurikids. Could the name "Rus" come from them?

George Vernadsky (in his book "Kievan Russia") believes the early 7th Century Rus are actually the Iranian Roxolani passing their name to the Antes who, in term, pass this name to the Varangian bands a couple of centuries later.Goliath74 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rusalka

Is a "rusalka" really a "mermaid" — "a fabled creature of the sea with the head and upper body of a woman and the tail of a fish"? I suspect that "water sprite" ("a sprite or nymph living in or near the water") really may be closer to the true meaning of "rusalka." logologist|Talk 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As a word borrowed from Latin, "rusalka" has no place in this article. It is as simple as ABC. See Vasmer for details. --Ghirla | talk 00:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

of cause 'Rus' means people who lives in the land with lots of rivers. The same is truth with the name 'Lietuva'. Both names in Lithuanian language are asociated with water. 'Rusenti' means to flow or to smoulder, In Lithuania we have lots of such names like the city and river on the Baltic sea shore 'Rusne', 'rasa' means a dew, 'prusai' means Prussia and means people who live on the shores of rivers. Moreover 'rusalka' means 'rus' and 'alka'. And 'alka' in Lithuania is called the holly place/stone for prayings and sacrifieses in the holly forest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.190.59 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 27 September 2008

Grand Duke of all Rus

I am not sure if it is important but the sentence "Ivan III was the first to assume the title of Grand Duke of all Rus" is a little bit incorrect. Ivan III was the first prince to de facto control all of north-eastern Russia, and is recognizaed in histroy as such. But the title itself ("Grand Duke of all Ruce or Velikiy Knyaz Vseya Rusi") was used by the Grand Dukes of Vladimir (and not only in Moscovite line) since the beginning of 14th century. The first prince to use it was, as far as I know, Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver.Gestr 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit accordingly; a citation would be nice. - Jmabel | Talk 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement not referenced and false - candidate for delition

This article in its intro section has a statement That early "Rus" state had no proper name; by its inhabitants it was called "Русская Земля" (ruskaya zemlya), which might be translated as "Rus Land" or "Land of the Rus".

There is no supporting evidence provided for this statement, and it appears to be clearly false anyway because people in that land and time never spoke Russian - that language simply did not exist yet. As such, unless the statement is rephrased and properly referenced, I will move to delete. Serhiy 18:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see the word "Russian" there? Russian and Rus are two different things as well as two different words. What's the matter? --Irpen 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I also don't understand what the problem of Serhiy is. The statement is true: The inhabitants of the Rus called the country русская земля. That does not mean Russian in modern sense. Voyevoda 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First, if "That does not mean Russian in modern sense.", then the words "Русская Земля" (ruskaya zemlya) have to be deleted. These words are in Russian, and that was not the language spoken by people in Kyiv Rus. If you want to give those words, please give them how they were spoken if you have evidence for that - i.e., in Old Slavic. Otherwise, this is encyclopedia in English, and any explanations must be in English.

Second, the statement "The statement is true: The inhabitants of the Rus called the country ### ###" does not become true simply because you say so. Please provide proper evidence for this statement. Otherwise, the article has to re-written to present a balanced view of all possibilities - this issue is far from resolved. Serhiy 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion was moved here from another place Serhiy 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC):

Russia and Rus are two different words. Sorry, I don't get your point. --Irpen 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is, this is a statement from the article "Etymology of Rus" - and the statement says that people who lived in Kyiv Rus called their land "Русская Земля". Absolute nonsense, because if they did call it something, it would be in a different language - Russian, which is used here, did not exist yet. Plus it is far from obvious (there is a lot of evidence to the contrary) that people at the time called that land as such even in the language spoken in what we call now Kyiv Rus, whatever you may call that language ("Old Slavic" etc). But let's discuss this at that page, I just indicated here that this discussion was emerging, because it is related to the Ukraina one, and so people from here might be interested. Serhiy 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And what did they call it then? You want an English version here or what? I suppose you won't like to see "Russian land" translation of that here (I won't either) because that would nave been misleading. --Irpen 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to hear my view on this (how they called it and more), please wait, when I have time I will re-write that article on the etymology of Rus, referencing it to sources that I consider credible. Then you or someone will provide sources for another view, and we will have a balanced article. But in any case, whatever they called it, it was not in Russian - and so any Russian words from the article must go. Serhiy 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to see something in cyrrilic there and are happy to except either version, it can be "Земля Руська", and so on consistently in all other places (Русь, Русичі etc). Otherwise, it will be in English. (And even that depending on evidence). Serhiy 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct about "Руська" here. If others don't disagree, we'll replace it. I would be wary of rewriting the whole article which achieved its current form through a long history of edits, by if this is how you feel, go for it. And "Русичі" has no place here as there is no certainty the word ever existed. It isn't mentioned in PSRL and mentioned only once anywhere at all (see this). --Irpen 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not difficult to provide evidence. Even at home, without the library, I have found something in an old term paper I once wrote about a short Old East Slavic text from about 1237–1246 ([2]):

Слово о погибели Роускыя земли [...]

О свѣтло свѣтлая и оукрасно оукрашена землѧ Роуськая

И многыми красотами оудивлена еси [...]

In other texts you find all sorts of spellings (роуськая, роуская, руская, роусская, русская etc.) and in both word orders (з. р. and р. з.), but it always has a long ending -ая because according to Old East Slavic grammar it has to have this long ending to indicate the definiteness (‘the Rusian land’, not ‘a Rusian land’). Consequently, the form "Земля Руська" is clearly not Old East Slavic but purely Ukrainian. The form "Русская Земля" is Old East Slavic, though only one of dozens of possible spellings. Feel free to choose a different spelling that does not happen to look Russian, e.g. роуская земля as in the title of the text quoted above.

--Daniel Bunčić 09:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I can read German if necessary but not as fluently as to skim through the full article in 5 minutes, which is all I have for this. Could you please provide here (in English or Russian or Ukrainian) references directly to the Chronicles where the word was used in these forms? If texts of the Chronicles can be access online, links would be appreciated. Thanks. Serhiy 12:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some things just take more than five minutes. The text is called "Слово о погибели Роускыя земли". It can be found in two manuscripts. It is probably most easily accessible in Памятники литературы древней Руси: XIII век (Moscow 1981, p. 130) or in the monograph by Yu. K. Begunov, Памятник русской литературы XIII века: Слово о погибели русской земли (Moscow, Leningrad 1965).

But this is just one reference I had at hand when I was at home. If you go to the library and take I. I. Sreznevsky’s Матеріалы для словаря древне-русскаго языка по письменнымъ памятникамъ (St. Petersburg 1893) from the shelf, you find lots of references sub voce земля, e.g. the following:

• "Кн(я)зь в тыи годы володыи всею землею Рускою Владимиръ."

(chapter 6 in "Чтеніе о житіи и о погубленіи...", from I. I. Sreznevsky, Сказаніе о святыхъ Борисѣ и Глѣбѣ, St. Petersburg 1860)

• "Ѿ тѣхъ [Варѧгъ] прозвасѧ Роуская землѧ."

(Primary Chronicle sub anno 6370, available online at [3]; see also the quotations in the Russian article on the Primary Chronicle)

• "Добра хочю брати и Руськѣи земли."

("Грамота великаго князя Владимира Мономаха къ Олегу Святославичу", in: Повѣсть временныхъ лѣтъ по Лаврентьевскому списку, St. Petersburg 1872, p. 166-168)

• "О Руская земле"

(The Tale of Igor's Campaign)

• "Не было того [...], оже бы кто вшелъ ратью в силную землю в Суздальскую, оже вышелъ цѣлъ, хотя бы и вся Русская земля, и Галичьская, и Киевьская, и Смоленьская, и Черніговьская, и Новгородская, и Рязаньская никако протіву сей силѣ успѣютъ."

("Троицкая лѣтопись" sub anno 6724, in: Повѣсть временныхъ лѣтъ по Лаврентьевскому списку, St. Petersburg 1872, p. 465 ff.)

Please let this suffice. If you still don't believe that русская земля is Old East Slavic, look the sources up yourself.

(By the way, I had already changed the spelling in the article to "роуская земля", but Ghirlandajo reverted it. Write this word as you like, I don't care as long as it's real Old East Slavic.)

--Daniel Bunčić 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for the extensive citations. I was not aware of this form, but I do recognise that you are right. Previously I have seen in primary sources and quoted only the form "Rus'" (Русь), hence was my original criticism. Also, the form "Рус.." as opposed to "Роус.." seems to be quite widespread, so there is no need perhaps to change that part of the word. What is, however, also clear from most sources that you provided as well as from the Chronicle that I checked now (ПовЂсть временныхъ лЂтъ) is that the word was practically always (if not absolutely always) written as "Руская" rather than "Русская". Also, from the same source, it follows that the word "Земля" in such cases was not capitalised. Correspondingly, I make a change in the article to this form: "Руская земля".

I have a number of further questions to this article, which I suggest we discuss in due order. Will post all when have time; for now, let's take the following one. After the split of Rus' into the northern (now Russia) and southern (now Ukraine) parts, the word Rus' was still used widely in both of them. In Russia, it became part of the country name, in Ukraine it has been used even as late as the XIXth century (and of course now) in various forms as a synonim to Ukraine (I will provide exact citations and additions to the article on this later, don't have time to deal with this all at once). In the light of this, is there a reason why in the intro statement of this article, after mentioning the origin of the word, we only say about its usage in the modern Russia and don't even mention its usage in the modern/historical Ukraine? Why not a balanced coverage, or none at all? If for no obvious reason, I will make the corresponding addition. Serhiy 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the spelling of 'Rusian land', it does appear with -ss- even in the quotations I wrote down above, in the last one. It is of course the more historically 'correct' spelling, because etymologically this is *rus- + -ьsk-, so there really are two s in the word (though of course only one s is pronounced).

The Eastern Slavs of Kievan times had four ways of writing the sound [u] (after a hard consonant):

• the digraph оу
• ѹ: the ligature of оу
• ѫ: the big yus letter
• with increasing frequency the simple letter у as used today.

All these spellings were rather interchangeable without any difference. For that reason, many modern editions of ancient texts for convenience's sake just write у no matter what letter is written in the manuscript. Therefore from the quotations above you cannot tell which spelling was used most often, you would have to look at the original manuscripts or at least at the forewords to the editions the quotations are drawn from.

Concerning your the use of the word Rus’ in Ukraine and Belarus: Of course, go ahead and enter any additional information you have, preferably with good references.

--Daniel Bunčić 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [corrections Daniel Bunčić 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)]

Daniel, thank you for the good explanation on the "oy"/"y" difference. I understand that as per this explanation, it would indeed be more appropriate to use "oy" in that opening sentence in this article. In reading the Chronicles, I also observed that the "oy" was used very frequently.

Regarding the spelling with one "c" or double "cc": with all due respect, and I understand you know some theories of why one is more correct than the other, BUT: I just went through the full texts of:

ПовЂсть временныхъ лЂтъ (from the beginning to 1117);

Кіевскій лЂтописный сводъ (from 1118 to 1200); and

Галицко-Волынскій сводъ (from 1201 to 1292).

NOT ON EVEN A SINGLE OCCASION! was the word Руская, Руское, Рускіе, Роуская, Роуское or any other such form used with double "cc". So, unless you have reasons to believe and evidence to show that the entire set of primary chronicles as per [ПСРЛ. — Т. 2. Ипатьевская летопись. — СПб., 1908.] has the wrong spelling of the word (not the one used in the original chronicle), it has to be with single "c" here on WP. Serhiy 09:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being misunderstandable: When putting 'correct' in inverted commas, I was not referring to 'correct' in the sense of 'this is what obeys the norms' or 'this is what should be used in Wikipedia'. It is just the spelling that conveys the etymology, while the spelling with one s conveys only the pronunciation. I think the medieval scribes did not really care which spelling was 'correct' – and neither should we. Feel free to choose the one you like most, or the one you have found to be more frequent in the texts you looked at. --Daniel Bunčić 09:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Personally, I like the spellings with only one с, without ь (and possibly with оу) best, because they look neither Russian nor Ukrainian (nor Belarusian). --Daniel Bunčić 09:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the ь, but I fixed the spelling. оу would be kind of confusing because readers who are familiar with cyrillic will think it's pronounced differently. -Iopq 10:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Rossøya, Svalbard

Rossøya, Svalbard is a settlement(?) on Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Ocean. Since "øy" means an island in Norwegian, does Rossøya mean "island of the Ross"? Does anyone know the origin of this name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.184.241.188 (talk • contribs) 1 June 2006.

Citation needed

Citation is needed for the double "s" being "likely due to Greek influences." For starters, claims of causality almost always need citation, but on top of that, given that the Greek "Ρωσία" has a single "σ", the purported source of the influence is unclear. - Jmabel | Talk 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When in doubt, check Vasmer. According to him, the medieval chancellory of the Patriarch of Constantinople used the form "Ρωσσία", which was adopted since 1517 by Russian clerics as well. The same chancellory was the source of the notorious division between Great Russia (Μεγαλη P.) and Little Russia (Μικρα P.) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cause for misinterpretation

The largest territory of that state belongs to Russia, from where the Rus' people later moved to Belarus and Ukraine. or The largest territory of that medieval state is now part of Russia, from where the Rus' people later moved to Belarus and Ukraine. may give the false impression that these nationalities existed at the time of Rus'. The "European part of Russia" is still larger than most countries; I don't believe that adding that qualifier was intended as a slight and it actually clarifies the area of Rus' more clearly.--tufkaa 22:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's OK with me as long as we mention that the largest portion of Ukraine, or New Russia, was settled by the nomadic Polovtsi. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The page is "broken"?

What part of Rus' (people) should be transferred to this page? I'll be happy to oblige. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

everything that talks about the term and its attestations. That is, "1. Key sources", "2. Normanist theory" (suggests that Kievan Rus' may have been named after its Scandinavian ruling elite), and "3. Antinormanist theories" (disputing that Kievan Rus' may have been named after its Scandinavian ruling elite). In short, the entire article, since it is entirely about the etymology and early application of the name "Rus". Actual peoples called "Rus" are the populations of (a) the Rus' Khaganate and (b) of the Kievan Rus', both of which have their own articles. At best, "Rus' (people)" could disambiguate between Rus' (ethnonym), Rus' Khaganate and Kievan Rus'. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire article on Rus is about Etymology--Dwarf Kirlston 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If anything than the Etymology of Rus should be merged into Rus' (people), not like suggested above. Nobody makes articles about an etymology as the main subject but it should be vice versa. Suggesting that Rus' (people) should go with the Rus' Khaganate or Kievan Rus' would be like English people could disambiguate between England and USA. In short I think the suggestion doesn't make any sense unless the Etymology is going to be merged into Rus' (people).--Termer 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. Updated the tag--Termer 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody makes articles about an etymology as the main subject"? You must not have seen our Category:Etymologies, especially Category:Ethnonyms... --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I meant of course was that nobody would have an article about an etymology on it's own without having an article about the subject in general at first. And the fact that there is a category Etymologies seems like a reason not to merge the articles, keep Rus' (people) and this one as the etymology fork for the first one.--Termer 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rus' Khaganate is not about Rus? Rus' Khaganate, Ruthenia, Kievan Rus' all articles about the subject in general.--Dwarf Kirlston 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that this one, the Etymology of Rus should be hooked up to Rus' Khaganate,Kievan Rus' and Ruthenia as well?--Termer 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Made a new section for Rus' (people) -Etymology with a link to this one as the main article--Termer 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi --Mack2, please see Talk:Rus' (people) why I had to revert your edit. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Normanist theories

It`s a great pleasure to read about a true etymology of Rus` (no geopolitics, of course:)).

Me, growing at the ROS` river with ROSava, ROS`ka and ROStavytsia tributaries, and walking on ROSa (Ukrainian for dew) every morning, I have never had even a shadow of doubt that these are nobody else than Varangians who brought us these names! How can one question that all that names are just unfortunate derivates from the great Roslagen area? I`m not sure if this untenable pseudo-theory should have place at such a reliable encycopedia.. Best regards, --Pozytyv (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)