Talk:Rus' (name)/Archive 2

Hello

Hello,

The first line of the article, within 8 words, has a footnote, which refers to the Encyclopedia Britanica, which is cool, but the SECOND SENTENCE in that reference says that the whole thing is in dispute.

How can an article which is about a name that says it is disputed be used as a reliable source for an article about a name of a people? Horlo (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of historical revisionism. It's a matter of hurt pride, quite a few people in Russia, a Slavic country, dislike the idea that their country was founded by, and even got it's name from, Scandinavians, a Germanic people. So they try to rewrite history. Their theories have very little support, if any, outside Russia though. Thomas.W (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that may be the case, but that's not really my point. My point is that the seemingly most important reference about this article is not really a reference about this article. Does that mean that this article actually talks /describes something incorrect?Horlo (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Everyone but some Slavs agree that the Rus' (as well as the Varangians) were Scandinavians, and that the name Rus' stems from Roslagen in eastern Sweden. Which is also what both archaeological excavations and all still existing contemporary and near-contemporary documents tell us. But for every theory there's always a more or less odd counter-theory, and in order to be fair the proponents of those counter-theories, in this case the Anti-Normanist theories, must also be allowed to express their opinion, especially since we're dealing with events that took place well over a thousand years ago, long before television. And that goes for both Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Thomas.W (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Roslagen? Than what about these facts? 1. Ruxs well may be an Alanian (!) word, 2. Rosomones (roxolani) mentioned in the Getica (551)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltan bereczki (talk • contribs)

Ruxs in Alanic means "radiant light", thus the ethnonym Roxolani could be understood as "bright Alans". It has been theorized that the name Roxolani a combination of two separate tribal names: the Rus and the Alans. Rus were closely associated with the Alans in the Sarmatian period. Roxolani were a Sarmatian tribe, offshoot of the Alans, who occupied the teritory of what is now modern Ukraine, Moldova, Crimea, Southern Russia.

Jordanes (fl. 551) mentions the Roxolani as Rosomones in Getica. The ethnonym of Rus' has been connected to this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltan bereczki (talk • contribs)

Anti-Normanist or Non-Normanist theories

"There are two big political parties in the United States : Democratic party and Anti-Democratic". On the whole, the article need more neutrality . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.205.185 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality? All archaeological evidence, all contemporary documentation, all linguistic clues and even all available genetic evidence supports the Normanist theory, which because of that is the mainstream theory that is supported by the international scientific community. So, since the anti-Normanist theory, which could best be described as a fringe theory since there's nothing at all that supports it, is mentioned in the article it's already as neutral as it can get. Thomas.W (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The matter is not so straightforward at all as you describe it or want it to be. The article indeed are not quite neutral and should be improved.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

From a nationalistic Russian point of view it might not be straightforward, but from a scientific point of view it is. Thomas.W (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you want to say "but from a nationalistic Swedish point of view it is"? I wonder what you, having nothing in common with Russia/Ukraine/Belarus and even not speaking Russian and thus being incapable to read historical sources and the great corpus of historical researches and discussions on the subject, are doing here. You with righteous and quasi-religious zeal advocate and try to impose on the dogmas which please you as a Swede/Scandinavian instead of the careful consideration of this very ambiguous and controversial matter from the all different sides (it's called here WP:NPOV). But true science, especially such as history, does not rely on once and forever settled dogmas from the 18th century.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So the Russian linguist referred to in the article is secretly a Swedish nationalist masquerading as Russian? Nice conspiracy theory ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably you rather mean T.E. Karsten and Ivar Aasen are both Russian masquerading as Danish ans Norwegian respectively? Yes, very nice.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I say, thank you. (Probably you rather mean that the Russian linguist ... hey, this game is fun, we can go in circles all day long.) But according to your conspiracy-theory thinking, apparently yes, they too must be secret Russian nationalists, just like the Russian linguist is obviously secretly a Swedish nationalist. For some reason, however, no Swedes or Norwegians or Danes have ever advocated an annexion of Russia or anything like that, so your conspiracy theory makes no sense in the first place. As long as you just say "it's not so straightforward" without naming any details I will dismiss your objection, per the maxim quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

The real problem is, of course, that Anti-Normanists ignore the facts and engage in flimsy sound-alike etymologies that sound ridiculous to a trained historical linguist. They can't even stick to a single etymological proposal per scholar! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ruotsi, Ρως, Русь, Roslagen, and the loss of the dental in Old Norse.

Between the Finnic Ruotsi and Greek Ρως, the loss of a dental occurred, which even perplexed V. Thomsen in his research. Ivar Aasen, the Norwegian philologist & lexicographer whom Thomsen cites, noted northern Norwegian dialect variants Rossfolk, Rosskar, Rossmann. These examples are in fact revelant, as Irish textiles have been found at Birka, Sweden - illustrating the cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic nature of the Viking world. The loss of the dental for Ρως in Old Norse ( Greek Ρωσιστί ) names should be explained in a straightforward manner. A regular shift from ds to dz to z to s is not unknown in Norse. ( see Duczko, Wladyslaw. Viking Rus: 2004, p 23-24 ) In as much as the linguistic etymology of the Viking Rus' name is the subject of the artcle, contributors with POV nationalism and POV ethnocentricism should express themselves elsewhere on the internet. Etymology is a linguistic pursuit, not political. Sudowite (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Recommended reading: WP:FRINGE. Thomas.W (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Recommended reading: Duczko, Wladyslaw. Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004) ISBN 90-04-13874-9 Sudowite (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Recommended reading: Thomsen, Vilhelm. The relations between ancient Russia and Scandinavia and the origin of the Russian state. Three lectures delivered at the Taylor institution, Oxford, in May, 1876, in accordance with the terms of Lord Ilchester's bequest to the University, 1877, James Parker and Co., Oxford and London. ( available as reprint )Sudowite (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The earliest reference to Roslagen by Swedes are the Viking runes on Piraeus Lion, which has roþrslanti with a dental. E. V. Gordon (Introduction to Old Norse, 2nd ed. 1957) translates that part as: The warriors cut the runes, hewed them in an ornamental scroll. Aeskel (and others) and Thorlef had them well cut, they who lived in Roslagen. As for Old Novgorod, a carved pig bone excavated in 1958 used Danish Gørlev runes. Scholars date it to around 900. The Danish Gørlev runes imply Viking Novgorod multi-ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudowite (talk • contribs) 12:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern Finnish Ruotsi goes back to Old Finnish (16th century, the time of Mikael Agricola) Ruoθθi, and earlier *Rooθθi, which fits Old Norse rōþ- perfectly, so there is no mystery left to explain. Also, around the beginning of the 9th century, early Slavic *ō (< *au in inherited Balto-Slavic words) became Old Slavic u and early Slavic *i became Old Slavic ĭ, so the Greek forms render early Slavic *Rōsi (and *rōsisk-) quite faithfully. What's left is the replacement of Finnish or Old Norse /θ/ with Slavic /s/, which is expected as Slavic didn't have any interdental consonants at the time.

As for the following section:

The name Rus' may have originated from the Iranian name of the Volga River (by F. Knauer, Moscow 1901), as well as from the Rosh of Ezekiel. Prof. George Vernadsky has suggested a derivation from the Roxolani or from the Aryan term ronsa (moisture, water). River names such as Ros are common in Eastern Europe.

References

it is frustrating. Can't these scholars even stick to a single proposal each? How do you get from Scythian *rahā (or the like), the name of the Volga, to Slavic ros, let alone rus'? These people (especially George Vernadsky, who was a historian but not a linguist) are clueless about historical linguistics. Arguments appealing to vague name resemblances just don't cut it. No wonder the Anti-Normanist view hasn't gained traction. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there some sort of hardline Germanic agenda in English Wikipedia

Krakkos, I have noted that you seem to be on some sort of crusade to unify all Germanic peoples of the past (we are dealing with medieval and more ancient history) into some form of current brand of 'Germanic'. You've deleted/redirected pages at your own whim despite reasonable protests from other editors/contributors.

Now that you've merged numerous categories that have served to clarify historical questions, I find myself wondering what other redirects you have in mind. Judging by your talk page, you've been blocked, flagged and cut quite a niche for yourself for unabashed POV editing. I'd certainly like to see a comprehensive list of the official channels you've gone through in order to clear out existing pages and bypass categories in place as they have NOT been deleted, suggesting that you haven't challenged their existence openly or through a process whereby interested parties can present their arguments.

It would be appreciated if you would engage in discussions rather than simply hack your way through Wikipedia. Some sort of explanation for your activities aren't merely a matter of courtesy but a matter of policy. Working on articles requiring a high level of knowledge of linguistics and history demands that you have undoubted requisite skills... which you obviously don't. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, i'm not quite sure what a "hardline Germanic agenda" is, but since you've raised this issue on this talk page, i assume you're referring to this edit of mine on Rus (name). As i've tried to explain earlier, the term "East Germanic" is a linguistic one, and not an ethnic one. As you demand "undoubted requisite skills" in history and linguistics, i suggest you check out Herwig Wolfram (1997), The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples, page 9. I'm sorry that i didn't clarify this clearly enough earlier. Krakkos (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that:

1. You cease relying on a single secondary source dealing with only one aspect of the intention of a category which has been created;
2. You don't tamper with the amalgamation of categories without querying the existence of the categories via a higher Wikipedia venue where other involved parties can discuss the use of the term "East Germanic", "West Germanic", et al. You're trying to fly under the radar. Linguistics is a considerably more complex discipline that you would choose to present it as being: in fact, it's cross-disciplinary, meaning that etymology, ethnology and history work in tandem.

Essentially, you've changed the fundamental presentation of the facts of this article, being that the 'tribe' in question was a CLAN from the Variagan regions, not some form of generic German peoples. Explain exactly what constituted a 'typical' generic Germanic person/tribe during the medieval period. Scandinavians? Saxons? Categories are created to accommodate more complex concerns. The amalgamations you've indulged in constitute WP:OR, particularly as Old Norse, etc., are used within the article. Should that language, then, also be described as Germanic for the sake of consistency. I wonder how many instances of 'Germanic' we can fit into the one article before it turns into a volume? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry? The (North) Germanic theory is the mainstream one, even if you don't like it. The Varangians were North Germanic (Scandinavian/Norse), which is hardly "generic Germanic", but specifically North Germanic (East Norse, if Norse is still not precise enough for you). (They were most certainly not Saxon.) But yeah, saying the Rus' were Germanic is also correct, especially when contrasted to Slavic, Iranian, Finno-Ugric or what have you. So your complaint doesn't make sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this seems to be about redirecting more specific terms such as "East Germanic tribe" to more general articles such as Germanic peoples, which doesn't have anything to do with the Varangians, which were North, not East Germanic. Well, Krakkos thinks that East Germanic tribes is not really useful, as very little is known about these peoples and there is hardly anything that can be said about them that is not already in East Germanic languages or Germanic peoples, so I agree with his view that the article East Germanic tribes is superfluous and redirecting the term, and phrases like "East Germanic tribe", to Germanic peoples makes more sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speculativie hobby theories about the meaning of ”rus(s)kij” in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian

Under the heading ”from Rus’ to Russia” (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rus_(name)&oldid=607280826#From_Rus.27_to_Russia), we read:

Differently from other Slavic languages, in the specific case of Russian language russkiy (русский) refers to (and that being a Russian-specific concept) both the Rus' people and Russians with no distinction (implying both being the same people with the same language - see Russification); and rossiyskiy (российский), concerning specifically the Russian people and their state (the latter being the meaning of "Russian" as understood in the modern English language). In modern Polish the words being ruski (adj. of Rus’, Ruthenian, the older Eastern Slavs from the historic Kievan state) which may equally refer to modern Belarusians, Ukrainians or both, or in a historical context to the people of Rus’; contrasted to rosyjski (Russian, native to what became of the Muscovite state, only indirectly related to the older historical Rus’). Similarly in other Slavic languages, including modern Ukrainian: rus’kyy (руський) (Rus’, Ruthenian), whereas rosiys’kyy (російський) refers to everything belonging to Russia.

First: The first sentence is extremely eager at claiming that Russian language is different – it says *”Differently from”* and *”in the specific case of Russian”* and *“and that being a Russian-specific concept”* — all these synonymous expressions in one sentence. Impressing! And the sentence goes on, in tea spoon feeding us about *those horrible Russians* - see more below.

Second: The paragraph makes claims about Russian language (and thereby about Russians) that are very dubious — I would say that they are, if not russophobic then at least very unfriendly and illwilled. I shall exemplify:

For Polish, the text says says that ”ruski” is used – on one side – about ”modern Belarusians, Ukrainians or both”. And on the other side: ”in a historical context to the people of Rus’”. By contrast, about Russian, the text says (and this is almost impossible to even grasp): *”both the Rus' people and Russians with no distinction (implying both being the same people with the same language - see Russification); and rossiyskiy (российский), concerning specifically the Russian people and their state (the latter being the meaning of "Russian" as understood in the modern English language”*.

• Thus, the text claims the Russian language has a built-in ”Russification”. A prety bold claim!
• Unlike for Polish, the text wants us to believe that Russians do not discern between ”historical context” and current speech. This is obviously not true. (The text thus permits Polish to use "rus(s)kij” about both *historic* (Rus) and *current* (Ukrainian/Belarusian) features. But for some reason it does not permit Russians to use the same word about historic (Rus) and current (Russian) features.)
• It is of course interesting to note that Ukrainian has the most limited use of ”rus(s)kij” — for according to the text, Ukrainian only applies ”rus(s)kij” to ”Rus”. A better - and more true - presentation of the facts would be to say taht Polish and Russian, which each both has a historic and current use of the word, have a pretty similar use — and thus, that it is Ukrainian usage that differs from the other slavic languages.

Third: Even when the text is correct, it is wrong: Looking up the polish word ”ruski” in Wiktionary (http://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruski and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruski), it becomes clear that, while ”Rus” might be the *first* meaning, the second meaning of the word — in Polish – is in fact *Russian*. One of the dictionaries denoting ”Russian” as only a ”collocvial” meaning.

Fourth: As virtually all Ukrainians know Russian, I don’t know to which degree it is true that руський only refers to Rus in today’s Ukrainian. To the degree that it is true, I suspect that that is mostly a purist standpoint. As a minory language user myself (Norwegian Nynorsk), I can tell you that we Norwegian Nynorsk speakers sometimes tell each others that ”yeah, but in Norwegian Nynorsk, that word has a slighly different meaning than it has in Norwegian Bokmål”. Thus, I wonder whether руський as limited to only ”Rus”, is mostly a tongue in cheek argument - the argument of someone who knows a small secret ... It is formally correct, but far from true in practise. (And I am not sure that it should be a goal to make it become true, in practise, either!)

In a summary: This paragraph is written in a manner of wishfull - but unfriendly – thinking. It stretches things much to far, making far to wide reaching conclusions. The author(s) are much to happy to provide their theories on - and between - the lines. The paragraphs is a play on eytmologies - but it should not play, it should bring facts and coherent reasoning. Bringing Russification into the subject just makes the article dead unserious. Komputist (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(TL;DR)  Komputist, this is a Wikipedia talk page, not a blog or forum. I can't work out what your point is (other than speculation as to how you think Slavic languages work). If you wish to challenge the content of the article, please state your case briefly and succinctly. If this is a query, please state your query briefly and succinctly. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In Polish, the nomenclature for Russian (Russians) is 'rosyjski/Rosjanin' (plus other convolutions of the same word dependent on context). The Polish word for Russia is 'Rosja'.
In Ukrainian (a minority language?!), the nomenclature for Russian (Russians) is 'російський/росіянин/росіяни' (transliteration: rosiys'kyy/rosiianyn/rosiiany, plus other convolutions of the word, dependent on context). The Ukrainian word for Russia is 'Росія' (transliteration: Rosiia/Rosiya).
... therefore, I am confused as to how you managed to get yourself so confused. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Iryna Harpy For what it is worth, I disagree that what I stated above has blog post style or that it represents original research. Further more, if you had actually read my contrinuteion in full (even if it is not as brief as you wish – I think this is your obligation), you would have seen that the the article (not me) already explains about the meaning of Polish “rosyjski”, so I am not certain why you felt it was necessary for you to explain the very same thing once more. In addition, the word “rosyjski” is only relevant to the degree that it sheds light over the subject of the article (as well of the quotation from the article that I put forward), namely the word «rus» – thus, if you want to explain things, then you should explain it in order to show that article is correct or wrong and not to make points about me or anyone else.

My contribution started by citing a paragraph of the article for which this page serves as discussion page. About that quotation, I claimed that – on one side – the quality of the very English language in the quotation I presented, was very bad (because it contained many repetiations — wording that stated the same thing over and over et cetera) and — on the other side – I questioned the very content (namely, I said that the quatation does not give a truthful representation of the meaning of «rus» in today’s Russian language vs Ukrainain language vs Polish lanuage etc).
For instance, the article (thus: not me) stated about Polish, the following (which I already quoted, and thus, which I here “repost”):

In modern Polish the words being ruski (adj. of Rus’, Ruthenian, the older Eastern Slavs from the historic Kievan state) which may equally refer to modern Belarusians, Ukrainians or both, or in a historical context to the people of Rus’; contrasted to rosyjski (Russian, native to what became of the Muscovite state, only indirectly related to the older historical Rus’).

The above quotation is just a single sentence! And yet, it contains two – very long – parenthesises that makes the sentence quite difficult to undersatnd – I am not even certain that the authors beind that sentence know what it means. If we, in the first round, could agree that the language is overly complex and unclear, then I would consider that as important progress. Komputist (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Apart from other problems, the claim that ruski equally refers "to modern Belarusians, Ukrainians or both" and "contrasted to rosyjski" is plainly wrong.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify, Lüboslóv Yęzýkin. Are you inferring that ruski / rus'ki meant contemporary Russians? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've no need to "infer" simple facts. Yes, it does obviously mean.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't even feign surprise, User:Любослов Езыкин. No matter; the fact is that you would be wrong. The schooling system you went through, and the content which you POV push throughout East Slavic affairs, is incorrect. I would suggest that you and User:Komputist both familiarise yourselves with All-Russian nation and desist from using this talk page as a political platform to promote your own misconceptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I admit that I have gone through a «schooling system» Further more, I also admit having political conceptions. However, your reference to Wikipedia etiquette, creates the impression that you are trying to game the system. I would prefer that you discuss the article rather than etiquette. Now with regard to All-Russian nation, that’s a very long (and some would say ”lofty”) article: Instead of having to guess how that article supposedly is relevant to the particular paragraph we try to discuss, I would prefer that you yourself, «briefly and succinctly», tell us. Komputist (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already provided you with a succinct answer (above), yet both you and Liubobslov Yezykin who appear to rework the content to misrepresent the name for the people of Rus' as directly correlating to the history of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, (later Russia), and creating a nonsensical equation whereby the rus'ki = Russians as if it were a linear narrative. While, during the period of the height of empires, the Russian narrative was transposed into the English (and other) speaking world's understanding of Rus' and rus'kiye, the narrative line has been broken (parallel to Britain and United Kingdom often being referred to as England in the vernacular until very recently). If you find this to be contentious or 'Russophobic', I suggest it is your own sensitivity to the issue and not the content that is problematic. Currently, what you are demonstrating is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach to the subject.

Admittedly, the entire article needs to be thoroughly copyedited as much has been written by various contributors whose English is weak. It is laden with WP:WEASEL and less than neutral language from POV pushers from all sides. At some point I'll get around to to finding necessary citations, translate the relevant tracts of Russian, Ukrainian and other sources, plus citekill those that don't actually reflect what is being postulated. The fact that an article is poorly referenced and awkwardly written is not a valid excuse for deleting salient information. The content needs a clean, not sterilization. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of the criticism put forward by Komputist. The paragraph reads currently as an excerpt from a Polish or Ukrainian nationalist propaganda pamphlet. In addition, there is one more point where the truth is stretched to make an impression of "Russia against the world": The statements "Differently from other Slavic languages.." and "Similarly in other Slavic languages..." suggest that there is a common usage in all other Slavic languages except for Russian. I believe it is not true. At least according to Google translator, the Russian words русский and российский are translated into one same word in Czech, Slovak, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, and Slovenian. Thus, similarly to English, these languages have no distinction at all between these meanings. In fact, the usage of the different terms is only specific to the countries historically related to the area of Kievan Rus': Belarus, Poland, Russia and Ukraine. The differences simply reflect the old rivalry between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Tsardom of Russia in their claims over the Rus' territory.

Concerning the usage in Belarusian, there is some information at an old-Belarusian wikipage: be-x-old:Руская мова. It claims that the term Руская мова was not applied to denote the modern Russian language until this meaning was artificially introduced in 1937 (as part of the "Narkamauka" reform). The reference for that, a discussion on TV, is unfortunately not very reliable. The corresponding modern-Belarusian page be:Руская мова, значэнні does not include this information and simply states that Руская мова denotes in particular modern Russian. The page of the Russian language itself is called be:Руская мова in modern and be-x-old:Расейская мова in old-Belarusian wiki. --Off-shell (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you bothering to cite the article from old Belarusian Wikipedia? Evidently, I need to remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and you're presenting information which you, yourself, have questioned as being attributable to a reliable source. All of these purported answers to questions you've posed are hypothetical (read as WP:OR). Note, also, that Google translate is not an RS. I keep reading editors/contributor assertions based on what they believe to be true and what they believe to be untrue... yet there is no RS. Sorry, but rabbiting on about Руская мова is meaningless without sources. That's not research, it's know as making it up as you go along (AKA WP:OR) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to remind me of WP:RS. I'm bothering to cite this, because:

• The current version of this paragraph has no references at all;
• It must be rewritten or removed as noted by several readers;
• If it is kept then one needs to find proper sources for the many statements made in this paragraph. As you see, I do not put these sources into the article, but here on the talk page, such that they can be used as a starting point for further research. Knowing about this information one may then look it up in the published dictionaries of the different languages and check if it's true or not. Instead of attacking each other, I prefer a collaborative work. --Off-shell (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Russ Name

Does anyone know if the Russ last name (with two s) is the same as the Rus name in this article? The heritage is Swedish, but beyond that I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:8380:1B:B42B:F6C9:47A0:F8A8 (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's addressed in the article under the sections From Rus' to Russia and From Rus' to Ukraine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's like asking whether the name Engle is connected to the name of England (or vice versa). By the mainstream version Rus’/Russia/Rossiya/Russland/Russie/whatever came from the simple Norse word-root rōþ- (cognates: Swedish ro, roder, English row, rudder, German Ruder, Latin rēmus etc.). If some family name came from the same root, then it is obviously connected to Russia (etymologically). But if Russ is Swedish, most likely it is not connected to Russia, but rather to ON hross "horse".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen "Russ" as a Swedish family name, but if it is Swedish it's derived from horse, not Russia, just as Любослов said. As proven by Gotland russ, a pony breed native to Sweden. Thomas.W ^talk 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad the both of you understood the question. I didn't realise the query was about the IP's own surname. While you both present interesting theories, it seems more likely that it's related to this surname. The IP may know of Swedish ancestors, but it doesn't mean that their predecessors were from Sweden... or they may have been Swedish and travelled out of Sweden to an area where they were named/identified according to the colour of their hair. Per the article, "Rusiy (Русый), light-brown, said of hair color (the translation "reddish-haired", cognate with the Slavic "ryzhiy", "red-haired", is not quite exact)." It seems that ginger (or reddish) hair has some form of common morphology in many European languages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think those pages give wrong etimological information. According to russian linguists "Russ" came from old indo-european root "rus, ruz, ruj, rug" which means red. Close meaning for comparision: rouge, roux, rousse in french language; ruth, ruz, rud in celt lang.; руйан (rujan) in serbian language. Ancient sources called some of russians in such way. They explain this name by color of a face, especially cheeks, and color of hair. All mentioned words in different languages means the same: dark red or bright pink, rose color. Mahairod (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So the name has nothing to do with the Rus' people? What a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:8380:1B:99EC:3A9B:FD07:B4E1 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Claims contradicting references?

As with the other paragraph discussed above, this paragraph looks like an attempt to push some political agenda not supported by references:

"Byzantine hierarchs adopted translations of the names, then politically imposed by Russia upon the earlier Slavs, directly into the Greek. For that reason the ancient Kievan Rus' became Μικρὰ Ῥωσσία (Mikrà Rhōssía, Russia Minor or Little Russia), and the newer Russia was referred to by the name it nominated to give itself: Μεγάλη Ῥωσσία (Megálē Rhōssía, Great Russia). There are claims - from Russian authors - that the names are not of Slavic origin[14]"

The reference provided is the etymological dictionary by Max Vasmer, a Russian-born German linguist. He published his dictionary in West Germany, and in German, long after emigrating from Russia. This dictionary was later translated into Russian and is considered "the most authoritative source for Slavic-languages etymology to this day." Here is a link to another page (also in Russian) which needs no plugins and where all entries of this dictionary related to "Россия" are summarised. Hence the remark "from Russian authors" is rather dubios and seems to make an impression that their claims are politically motivated and biased. The dictionary entries specify that the first known written usage of it in Russian is found in a Moscovite charter in 1517, and that this form originated in the chancery of Constantinople patriarch which also introduced the distinction between Μεγάλη `Ρωσσία (Great Russia) and Μικρὰ ̔Ρωσσία (Little Russia). The first known Greek usages are also mentioned there: Μεγάλη `Ρωσσία - 1347, Μικρὰ ̔Ρωσσία - 1292. The first known Latin usage of Russia Minor is dated 1335. So, is there a reliable reference for the statement that the "Byzantine hierarchs adopted translations of the names, then politically imposed by Russia upon the earlier Slavs, directly into the Greek" and not other way round? --Off-shell (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The origin of this "theory" about "older and newer Rus'es" was already investigated, discussed and heavily criticised by Aleksandr Solovyov nearly 70 years ago[2]. No use to mention such fringe theories anymore. The real origin of "Little and Great Russia's" is absolutely transparent and obvious from the Greek sources themselves.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That apostrophe

So what do we do with it in English? We write it but otherwise ignore it? We do not pronounce it in any way, correct? 99.238.167.214 (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You could make a start by actually reading the article and all will be revealed. Yes, it is about pronunciation/a sound. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)