Talk:Rus' Khaganate

GA Nomination

I'm afraid I'll be failing this. My comments on relavent parts of the GA requirements are as such:

1. It is well written. Fail
(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

Stylistic issues, including awkward phrasing in the introduction, are problems.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

The lead section is too short and doesn't "sum up" the article. Futhermore, it's generally a bad idea to introduce cited information in an intro, at least unless it's expounded upon in the article body.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Pass -with flying colours

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

very well done. comprehensive and complete

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;

acceptable. However, if you're going to use footnotes and a works cited, why not just put the full citations into the footnotes?

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

very well done. Nothing looks suspect, and a good number of the sources are from very respectable publishers.

3. It is broad in its coverage. Fail -but only tentativly

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

This is a very sparse article. Granted, it is a very sparsly documented subject. As it stands, I can't say whether or not it's a complete article, however if a respecable source were to be put in that says, "we know x, y, and z," about this period, and nothing more, and then the article covers x, y, and z, that'd be complete.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass -Apparently not applicable either.

5. It is stable. Fail

It's only 5 days old. The nomination was only made after the article existed for one day. Let a number of editors work on it, decide that it's GA material, and then renominate, also after other problems taken care of.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Fail

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

The relevance of the first picture is not explained, and the caption for the second picture contains text which belongs in the body of the article.

All in all, this has potential. But it's not GA material now, for reasons above. I work on articles about poorly known historical figures and periods all the time, and believe me, you can ususally dredge up a little more than this, if only in the form of scholarly debate. You might want to get a few more knowledgable editors (perhaps find a related wikiproject and flag them down) and a few copyeditors to straighten out some awkward prose. Thanatosimii 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

GA second try

A lot of progress has been made since the last nomination. I placed a {{fact}} tag next to one statement that needed a citation, but other than that this article passes all GA criteria. So I am promoting it now. --RelHistBuff 11:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Brian, I think I will be through with the article by the end of the day. I suppose we need a painstaking proofreading, so as to improve my bloody English, and some standardization of references: for instance, we have two or three Noonans, so a reference to "Noonan Rus" may look confusing. I'm not sure how these problems are usually solved. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Girla, I appreciate your edits, which are moving the article in the right direction. I'm going to make some more major edits to this article over the next several days. Beit Or 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the current version is rather well-balanced. If you think about adding new content, my concern is not to give undue weight to some fringe theory. The subject of the article is little documented and extremely delicate, so that wild speculations abound. We should be very careful on this ground. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:citations, usually the footnote would have the author and (if there are more than one work by that author) the title or part of the title of the work, then page number. I will work on it a bit. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just about right now. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "Zuckerman 2000"? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

High quality illustrations

By way of illustrating the article, I may suggest another painting by Vasnetsov illustrating the traditions of the 10th-century Rus. I understand that it refers to a later period, so I would not replace the current picture without prior consultation. Another Vasnetsov's painting is this. It is supposed to illustrate a Russian fairy tale, but would look nice in some articles on early Russian history as well. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I love the Boyan one, but as you say, he lived in a later period. It would be great for the Kievan Rus' article, though. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion. I just noted that the online version of Vernadsky's work is illustrated by the symbols found on pottery unearthed in 1997 at Lyubsha and dated to the mid-9th century (see at the very top of the page). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Title "khagan" in the tenth century

What's the source of this statement: "Apart from Hudud al-Alam, there is no evidence that the title was used in the tenth century." Ibn Rustah, for example, used it in the mid-tenth century. Beit Or 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you name any? Ibn Rustah compiled his work based on the anonymous text dated from between 860s to the 880s, while later Arab authors just repeated Ibn Rustah's words. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that certain about ibn Rustah, or a theory? In any case Ilarion and others use it in later periods, even if rarely and possibly for poetic effect. I don't think we can definitively say that it was never used in the tenth century; rather, that it appears not to have been extensively used. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But, and this is just my own musing, even if, for example, Sviatoslav or Igor used the title Khagan, it doesn't necessarily mean that they got it from the old Rus' Khaganate. Remember that the Khazar empire still flourished into the mid tenth century so it's possible that both the Rus' Khagans and the Kievan Rus' leaders who may have called themselves Khagans in later periods got the title from the Khazars. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dating

The first paragraph puts the approximate timeframe of the time when Rus' Khaganate flourished at roughly the late eighth and early to mid-ninth centuries CE. I'm afraid this statement is unclear. If we take the mid-ninth century as the ending date of the khaganate, then the testimonies of ibn Rustah and ibn Fadlan, both of whom visited the Volga region in the tenth century, must be disregarded. Furthermore, the dating of the existence of the khaganate is dipsuted among scholars; we need some very strong evidence to assign fixed dating to this polity. Beit Or 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As best I know, ibn Fadlan did not call the Rus' leader "khagan", while ibn Rustah never visited Northern Europe. He used the text of the so-called "anonymous notice" from the 870s. Zuckerman speaks about it in his paper. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Fadlan didn't call the Rus' king Khagan, but the title clearly was used even by Russian sources (though probably just for poetic effect). I've made some adjustments in that section to a somewhat more cautious wording. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually I meant to ask about consistency between the above statement from the lead and the usage of ibn Rustah and ibn Fadlan as sources (the latter is used for the description of the "khagan" even though he doesn't mention this title). Beit Or 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jones is quoted as saying that ibn Fadlan DOES call the ruler khagan - I'll have to double check my copy to figure this out. He may actually refer to ibn Rustah. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the reference. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed a certain "Pavel Smirnov" mentioned at the beginning of the section. Who is he? Judging from the text, he follows Rybakov's obsolete idea about the khaganate's location in the Dnieper valley. Why is his opinion so important as to come before primary sources? Is there any reference? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not familiar with his work. Who added him?

I have provided the reference. Less certain about his influence, but Peter Benjamin Golden seems to view him as significant enough to cite his opinion. Beit Or 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Slavic sources on Rus Khaganate

What's the reference for the claim that later Slavic sources mention Rus Khaganate? They only seem to apply the title "khagan" to some contemporary princes. Beit Or 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am thus inclined to move these quotes to the "Decline and legacy" section. Beit Or 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology of Kiev

I just noticed that the paragraph "There is no evidence of an urban settlement on the site of Kiev prior to the 880s.[24] Archaeological finds from the period in the vicinity of Kiev are almost non-existent." contradicts the following paragraph from Kyi, Schek and Khoriv:

"Archeological excavations have shown, there indeed was an ancient settlement from the 6th century."

Did I miss something here? Or am I being confused by the word "urban" in the "There is no evidence of an urban settlement" phrase? Goliath74 03:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

FA

Since it appears that most of the major edits are in, I'm going to nominate this for FA at the end of the day unless there are any objections or anyone wants to make a major addition. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add separate sections on government, customs, and relations with neighbors, and to expand the section on economy, but that may take some time. Beit Or 20:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Should I hold off then? There's no reason that stuff can't be added later either way. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's up to you, I suppose. Beit Or 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait till those sections are integrated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Walkeren"

As far as I know, this can only be an alternative spelling (and pronunciation!) of Walcheren, now in Zeeland. I checked and did not find any Frisian island called Walkeren today. However, historically, "Frisian Walkeren" is correct. Frisians did settle Walcheren (and part of West-Flanders) and at the time given in the article, Frisian influence on Walcheren/Walkeren must have been strong. See eg[1] I do not know what to do about this - I do not want to obstruct FA status, but someone should have a look at this, thanks. --Pan Gerwazy 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the nature of the problem. You say that Frisian Walkeren is historically correct. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But there is a link in the article to Frisian islands, which are all on the East: North East of modern Frisia, a province in the Netherlands (with its own language, Frisian, which died out on most of these islands). Walcheren is in the South West of the Netherlands (there is the whole of Holland in between!), and therefore it is not mentioned under Frisian islands. The link should go to Old Frisian history, Old Frisia, or whatever, I think. Our Wikipedia article on Walcheren does not mention its Frisian past. A link to Frisian islands puts the place more Easterly than it really is/was. Oh, and Walcheren is no longer an island, it was joined to Zuid-Beveland, which in its turn was joined to the mainland. What used to be Walcheren is now the townships of Middelburg, Veere and Vlissingen (=Flushing). --Pan Gerwazy 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pan, thanks for pointing this out to me. I encountered the name of the island in the Russian translation of Zuckerman's article as Валькерен and was sort of lost to find a correct transliteration back to English. Since the island was said to be in the modern Netherlands and Category:Islands of the Netherlands contains only Frisian islands, I assumed that it is one of the Frisian islands and eliminated the redlinking by linking Walkeren to Frisian Islands. Now that you helped to identify the (former) island, I corrected the wikilink to point to Walcheren. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that solves the problem. The Walcheren article talks about Danes (who seem to have taken over from the Frisians and may even have assimilated them). Walcheren would be Валхерен (stress on first syllable, possibly intrusive -e- at the end) in Russian by the way. The "k" probably indicates an incomplete 1st Germanic consonat switch (Indo-European "k" becoming "h" or "х"). "Walkeren" exists as a family name in the Netherlands. Funny how the Frisian connection turned out to be pure coincidence... Most of the remaining Dutch islands are indeed Frisian now. There is Texel, which looks like an extension of the Frisian islands, but was never considered Frisian. And there is a 2 square kilometre uninhabited and unnamed island a few kilometres off Rotterdam harbour. --Pan Gerwazy 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. At the time, of course, before the great land reclamations, most of the area was probably swamp and island. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, a swamp is actually a good defensive position (the Belgians proved that in 1914). However, there is a major problem with Khaganate Rus' at Walcheren: Charlemagne is supposed to have subdued the Frisians in 790. Just how strong his control was, remains in doubt if you look how Frankish land was divided in 840. West-Flanders, settled by Frisians and Saxons, but conquered by 790 was given to France: why split up the "core Frankish lands" this way? And the Verdun treaty did not even mention which arm of the Scheldt (normally two before the reclaiming, but occasionally three or four immediately after some inundations) was meant as the border, so the status of Walcheren was unclear. If the source does suggest that there were at least some Rus' at Walcheren in the time period of the Khaganate, that may mean an alliance between Frisians or Danes on the one hand and Rus' on the other. Did the Frisians hire a pre-Varangian guard to protect their largely maritime "empire"? Fascinating stuff, but, unfortunately, something lost in the mist of history, I suppose.--Pan Gerwazy 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

More's the pity. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

"even before the rise of Holmgard-Novgorod, the chief political and economic centre of the area was located at Aldeigja-Ladoga". This implies that Aldeigja-Ladoga was still the chief center after the rise of Holmgard-Novgorod (because of the "even before"), which would seem to not be the case. I'm not sure it that's what it's trying to say. Is this just meant to say that Aldeigja-Ladoga was supplanted by Holmgard-Novgorod when the latter developed, or is it meant to emphasize that the region was already politically and economically active before the development of the latter center? I've left it as is for now, but clarification would be good. --Robth^Talk 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The former interpretation is correct. Kudos for your thorough copyedit of the article. It was most helpful. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; I've removed the "even" to clarify the meaning in the text. And the copyedit was my pleasure; I always enjoy doing a close reading of a well-done article like this. --Robth^Talk 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Noncovered questions genesis of this theory

Congrats with FAC success. It seems I failed to "derail" the nomination :-). Still my questions remained, and I am moving this sore in your eye here.

• 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?
• The intro should state clearly that Rus' Khaganate is a relatively 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.

I hope you take them seriously, rather than take a defensive position against a Russophobic Mikka. `'mikkanarxi 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that to the extent sources are available, all of your questions are addressed in the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• They are not. Try a random one from the list: "who of historians was first to use the term "Russky Kaganat" or synonym?"

And the major problem is that it seems you don't really care, and I don't care as well, otherwise I would have already updated the text. `'mikkanarxi 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

While I am here, what the heck is Vadim the Bold to do with khaganate? `'mikkanarxi 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that you're seeking to satify your curiousity. If so, you should do some research insteading of asking questions on Wikipedia talk pages. Beit Or 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And my impresion is that you are dodging the issues. Good bye, not playing these games anymore. `'mikkanarxi 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question presupposes that a "historian" came up with the designation "Rus' Khaganate" on his own. That is not the case. The name appears in various forms in primary, contemporaneous documents. And I think Vadim's possible connection is made quite clear. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Vadim issue: as a goodbye, let me spell it for you. (1) The the article says khaganate was dissolved before "the call of varyags" of kievan Rus, as referred by Primary Chronicle. (2) Vadim is described as rebelling against Rurik (3) Rurik was not among rulers of khaganate. (4) hence Vadim is irrelevant to khaganate. Don't bother to answer, feel safe in your historical essays. `'mikkanarxi 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the text of this article yet again, I can only conclude that you either (a) misunderstand the nature of the parts you cite or (b) deliberately ignoring the text in favor of hearing yourself type. The only (very scant) mention of Vadim is at the end where what is known about the destruction of the early Rus' sites is compared to the account of Vadim's revolt in the Nikon chronicle. As the article states all too clearly, it's not at all clear whether Rurik was a ruler of the Khagnate, or what relationship, if any the Rurikids had with the Rus' Khagans'. It's hard to assume good faith when, rather than edit in a constructive manner, you sit on the talk page and take potshots, repeating the same arguments ad nauseum and ignoring whatever explanation is given. Your attitude is akin to denying that Ancient Egypt existed because such facts as Tutankhamun's perantage are unknown or multiple theories exist. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Unless you raise any new issues, I don't really have anything further to say to address your complaints. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should be called the "Rus Khaganate THEORY".... As a historian, I can tell you that this theory rests on such poor evidence that it is little better than the most outlandish revisionist nonsense being peddled on crackpot blog sites today. If the Byzantines don't make a single reference to this "polity" that is because this "polity" is the dream of 20th century authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.101.236 (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is a nonsence

Khaganate is a Turkic word and applying it to a Russian state is a nonsence. This article propagates Fomenkoism. While some Russian princes probably were reffered to as khagans in Turkic languages or asquired the title by conquest of Turkic peoples, use of this word to describe genuinely Slavic state is an anti-scientific nonsence.--Dojarca 13:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the sources cited in the article clearly demonstrate that "Khagan" was used as a title by the Rus' themselves, and even by later Kievan Rus' people in a literary manner. You cannot erase history simply because it doesn't agree with your worldview. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, did you really read the article? Beit Or 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OBALDET!!! SAY WHAT? Briangotts, where did you get this B/S? That is so not true. I would agree if you say that some of them did. Can you give a reference? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we recommend this piece of garbage article for deletion? It was written with absolutely no evidence to back it up except the appearance of a word in a Frankish 9th century chronicle that resembles the word "khagan". That is literally the only thing approaching solid evidence. If you can't say when and where this khanate existed, then it didn't exist. A bunch of jokers on this website are going to try to rewrite history I guess... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.101.236 (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I support the opinion "This article is a nonsence". There is no consensus in academia about Rus' Khaganate, but the article stress only on one, so called "Nothern" theory. I would ask authors of the article to rewrite it in more neutral style. At least in the introduction. I've tried to do that [2], but some users has been pushing their point of view.--133.41.84.206 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You support your own opinion? How interesting. If you actually read the article, you will see that no fewer than 3 different theories on the location are given. The one given most attention is the one supported by the largest number of modern historians. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not my opinion but of the user metioned above. I've actually read the article and found out that there is no consensus about this polity.

Firstly, it is a hypotetical state and it should be presented as such in introduction. No direct evidence that proves the existance of Rus Khaganat as a state is available nowadays. No country of the medieval time in Europe or Asia did mention such state. So the introduction should include term "hypotetical".

Secondly, there is no established theory in academia about the realm of Rus Khaganate. You may describe all theories in the article as you do, stressing on the views of the the largest number of modern historians, but not in the introduction, because the problem of location is still on debate. Therefore I would ask you to make the introduction less categoriacal, omiting the direct relation to any particular region (Novgorod, Kiev or whatever) because we dont now for sure the exact location of the polity as well as the true name of it...

Hope you will listen to my comments.--133.41.84.206 02:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that everyone is listening to your comments. However, IMHO this is a highly mature and stable article which has been thoroughly scrutinized and discussed. I think it is fair to say that the present version pretty much corresponds what a majority of the interested WP editors can agree on.--Berig 09:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources ??

Hello,

There seem to be no actual sources that support any of the information in the lead.

The previous discussions have shown that there is no consensus in the scholarly community about this polity.

Are there any sources which would support the existence of this article? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but to continue my point: references 1,2, and 3 all say "eg Christian" plus page number. What does that mean? Which Christian? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? If you look at the very extensive list of sources you will see that one of the authors cited is the noted historian David Christian. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise, this is another David Christian. Beit Or 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, thanks. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, when I click on the reference number, I see "eg. Christian, pg 338". What does this mean? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any source which supports this statement "A predecessor to the Rurik Dynasty and the Kievan Rus', the Rus' Khaganate was a state (or a cluster of city-states) set up by Varangians (Scandinavians) in what is today northern Russia."

Or this "The varangians were called Rhos or Rus." Are there any sources for this? The asticle Rus(people) does not actually quote any references that support this.

Or the classic "The Rus' Khaganate period marked the genesis of a distinct Rus' ethnos, and its successor states would include Kievan Rus' and later states from which modern Russia evolved." Modern Russia evolved from Rus? Which later states? That is the problem with this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just checked the two David Christians. So which one is the referenced source - the Vietnam hero or the author of the history of vodka? Horlo (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments such as the one above hardly help you in this discussion Horlo.--Berig (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, you don't seem to have articulated any actual issue with the article, aside from your not understanding how standard MLA citation format works. Perhaps a thorough review of WP:CITE would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The acclaimed historian [3]. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that what you have a problem with is the standard MLA citation format, not with the actual text of the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Horlo. I care less for whatever format only if your claim can be verified. Of what use are your citation if they cannot be verified. Personally, I never heard of no Christian as I can bet you never did of Solovyov and Hrushevsky. Even the name of your historian already gives away a certain degree of bias. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, did you actually read the article? Hrushevsky is cited as one of the sources, amoung almost 50 others. And asserting that an author is biased because his name is "Christian" is completely absurd and undermines whatever argument you are trying to make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Khaganate

Mykhailo Hrushevskyi states that the Arabian source of IX century and one German chronologist were recalling that the Rus princes called themselves khagan. Hrushevskyi claims that this title was enherited from the Khazar Khaganate that was occupying the lands of what later became Rus. There was NO RUS KHAGANATE. Dr. Christian needs to check his sources a little bit more careful before inventing of no existent civilizations. Hrushevsky, Mykhailo. "Illustrated History of Ukraine." March of Russian Brigades, eds. p. 52. Donetsk, Ukraine: BAO, 2001. ISBN 966-548-571-7. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrushevskyi's theory is interesting and perhaps worthy of mention in the article, but it is one view out of many. Christian is hardly the only source that writes about the existence of the Rus' Khaganate. Have you actually read the article? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Franklin, Shepherd, Pritsak, Vernadsky, Zuckerman, Bartold, Machinsky and Artamonov are hardly lightweights in this field. Which one of us is the one ignoring sources? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Rus' Khaganate" is definitely not anything that you'd learn in any conventional history class as a fact. It is a theory that a some kind of statehood may have existed back then prior to the Kievan Rus' but..like the article says it was: "during a poorly documented period in the history". Yet, even though poorly documented, the article claims right frm the beginning that "The Rus' Khaganate was a polity that flourished". So there is a contradiction there. Also, Rus' Khaganate is quite ambiguous, there is a dispute among scholars [4] regarding the location of the supposed Khaganate . In historical documents it can refer to either The Varangian Rus, or the Volga-Rus' Khaganate subject to the Khazar khagan, that's been thought was established by Itil Bulgarian Khan Aydar (819- 855) 831 AD [5] etc. So at least the opening sentence should give more weight to the "poorly documented period" and uncertainty of the subject instead of claiming it for a fact that it "was a polity that flourished" etc. Also, most of the sources given are offline. Not that I'd question that there are people around who'd like to write thick books on poorly documented periods. But usually this kind of stuff is looked at as mythology by conventional historians. The bottom line, this subject is highly controversial unlike an impression I'm getting while reading this article.--Termer (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. I noticed the issues have been raised several times above with no results. That's too bad, in case this is indeed "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". As currently even the header contradicts the Location , Origin etc. sections that are actually not too bad. Comaan, how can you say in the lead that the Rus' Khaganate was a state (or a cluster of city-states) set up by a people called Rhos or Rus, and then later go into different direction with The location of the khaganate has been actively disputed since the early twentieth century and The origins of the Rus' Khaganate are unclear.Sorry guys, such contradictions within an article, especially in a featured article are just too far out.--Termer (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you seem to be missing the point here: Hrushevsky was a ground breaking historian working with primary sources on the ground.

And seriously, does a statement like "According to contemporaneous sources, the population centers of the region, which may have included the proto-towns of Holmgard (Novgorod), Aldeigja (Ladoga), Lyubsha, Alaborg, Sarskoe Gorodishche, and Timerevo, were under the rule of a monarch or monarchs using the Old Turkic title Khagan." have any actual factual basis at all?

I think that this article at least deserves a tag to clean it up. I will add one - it seems that I'm not the only person who sees serious issues here. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Pleasd do not remove tags

Hello,

Please let me outline the reasons I put the cleanup tag on this article.

First, there are no on-line references until, well, at all. The references provided cannot be verified, according to WP standards;

Second, a Google search of "Rus Khaganate" results in 7 mirrors of Wikipedia, the 8th being a Russian historical review from 1977. Unfortunately, that was written before the collapse of the ussr;

Third, a reliance on texts who use "Rus'" and "Russia" interchangeably, such as "The First Major Silver Crisis in Russia and the Baltic, ca. 875-900", and "The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860";

Fourth, the external links lead to either nothing connected to northern Russia [[6]] or more soviet era history [[7]].

Please do not remove the tag without adressing all of these issues, Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you are being disingenuous. The references are quite verifiable. There is no WP policy that requires WP:RS to be online. Your disagreement with terminology does not render sources illegitimate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you are being a few things yourself:

First, a wikilawyer: there have been challenges as to the validity of this article, and as to the very existence of a "Rus Khaganate". There are no rules that require sources to be online, but if an article is about something as important as the pre-cursor to Kyivan Rus, and therefore to the very existence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, there should be reference to that somewhere on the internet.

By the way, please do not ask me to provide references that disprove the existence of a Rus Khaganate, because there are no sources that disprove a Camelot before King Arthur, or disprove the existence of a major battle at Thermopylae before 480BC.

Second, you are being obfuscatious - "the references are quite verifiable". Let's examine the second one: titled "al-Alaq al-nafisah: Maruf bih Ibn Rustah. Tarjamah va taliq-i Husayn Qarah'chanlu". What does that mean? How is it verifiable? The article has 18 references in languages other than English. How are they verifiable to people who don't speak Persian, Russian, or French?

Also, why is there no ISBN number until the 16th reference, (and then when I go to verify it, it doesn't give me any information about the publication)?

Third, defensive: "Your disagreement with terminology does not render sources illegitimate". This is not about what I think, nor is it an attack at you, the author of this article. So let me explain: the fact that the sources are illegitimate makes them illegitimate, and my opinion has nothing to do with it. You cite 8 sources about East European history published by the Soviet Union! Enough said here.

Finally, you are ignoring fact: Rus does not mean Russia. Russia does not mean Rus. That is not a disagreement by me, that is fact. The article cites numerous sources that use the name interchangeably.

So let's stop this name-calling, and improve the article. Please answer these statements before removing the tag. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the result of a language barrier, or what, but your concerns have all been addressed ad nauseum here. Continuing to add the tags in contravention of the general consensus is, at this point, vandalism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is a language issue - unfortunately, you don't seem to understand my question: Why is there no mention of any Rus Khaganate on the internet, if it is "the genesis of a distinct Rus' ethnos, and its successor states would include Kievan Rus' and later states from which modern Russia evolved"? Please do answer me, thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say other than what has already said. Your questions have been asked and answered. If you don't like the answers, I can't help you further. As noted on my user page, I am scaling back my WP involvement significantly, possibly completely, and am not interested in a lengthy debate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ALL THIS ARTICLE IS A FULL NONSENSE!!!

ALL ARTICLE IS A FULL NONSENSE!!! THERE IS NO RUS' KHAGHANAT! ARABIAN HISTORIANS USED THE TITLE OF KHAGHAN FOLLOWING THE KHAZARS TERMS, ILARION USED IT AS A POETIC PHRASE INSTEAD OF THE KING OR THE TSAR - THE WORDS WHICH DOESN'T EXISTS IN EAST SLAVIC LANGUAGES AT THAT TIME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.129.215 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly nonsense. The beginning of article clearly says this is a modern term for something what existed when there were close to none written sources, so we don't know how this was called. For example, archeologists use the terms like "Cucuteni-Trypillian culture", although I am quite sure that Neanderthals hardly used this word (could they even utter it at all? :-) Lom Konkreta (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, Neanderthals were long extinct in the Neolithic/Bronze Age. The bearers of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture were fully modern humans (Cro-Magnon). They may not have had a full-blown form of writing, but they were no less modern, physiologically, than the ancient Egyptians or the Minoan civilisation, or Ötzi, for example, or the Aztecs, and they practiced agriculture and metalworking. Your point about self-designations is well-taken, but I find it quite ignorant (even offensive) to associate a Neolithic/Chalcolithic culture with grunting ape-men (not to mention that the Neanderthals likely weren't grunting ape-men, either). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've taken university-level Russian history classes and read Russian history from the big names and never heard of any so-called "Rus Khaganate". Ever. This article reeks of original research and false history. If a remenant of the Khazar khagans existed in this period of time, somewhere in Russia, it had NOTHING to do with Rus people, who came later. The article title is historical revisionism--Львівське (говорити) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Petrukhin seems to think this is all just, for lack of a better word, original research. False positives from a source or two, not something that was real.--Львівське (говорити) 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Article title

The article title "Rus Khaganate" isn't a good choice. This suggests that we are talking about a proper name. The fact is that the proper name is "Rus", and that this "Rus" has sometimes been described as a "khaganate". So a proper title might be "Rus (khaganate)", or perhaps better "early Rus". The search string "Rus Khaganate" gives me all of 16 hits on google books. Of these 16, seven have a date of 2006, i.e. they were published at a time when this Wikipedia article had already been created. Of the remaining nine,

• one is an index entry, "Rus, khaganate of" (a false positive)
• six use uncapitalized "Rus khaganate"

which leaves us with the ample evidence of two (2) instances of the term "Rus Khaganate" being used before Wikipedia popularized it:

• "These settlements became the citadels of a federal state which must also have owed something to the Tartar peoples now penetrating the Volga basin for it was spoken of by a hybrid name, the Rus Khaganate." Cyril Dean Darlington The evolution of man and society, 1971.
• "How independent of its homeland (the kingdom of Uppsala) this Rus Khaganate in northern Russia may have been, is difficult to say." Johannes Brøndsted, Kalle Skov trans., The Vikings, 1980.

The six instances of "Rus khaganate" read as follows:

• 1963: "a theory of a Varangian Rus' khaganate on the Don, which was later transferred to Kiev and Novgorod (Vernadsky). These last views are actually attempts to unite the Iranian and the Varangian-Scandinavian theories"
• 1982: "The complex problem of the Rus' khaganate has been discussed throughout the six volumes of The Origin of Rus'"
• 1986: "The succession system, probably a vestige of the experience of the Rus khaganate in the Upper Volga, was based upon two principles"
• 2003: "Khazaria was overthrown in the tenth century by the Rus' khaganate and control of Silk Road commerce in the Caucasus fell to the new power."
• 2003: "The adoption of this title [khagan] by the early Rus' khaganate - and not of the Greek title 'Basileus' - shows that its relations with the steppe world on the whole and with Khazaria in particular were much more intensive..."
• 2005: "Golden doubts that the Rus khaganate has existed after the end of the 9th century"

So yeah, it cannot be disputed that the name exists and has seen some incidential use. But usually we base our decisions of the titles of articles on historical states a number of references that isn't in the single digits.

What this article actually addresses is the "early Rus", or the "origin of the Rus state", and the circumstantial evidence that it was a "khaganate" is just one among numerous factors.

Be that as it may, this article should be merged with Rus (people), since it addresses the same topic. Under which title the merge takes place will be a secondary consideration. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems this is a sporadic western rendition of the Soviet-era term русский каганат. I assume it was used specifically in contexts where people wondered why the ruler is referred to as a khagan. Otherwise the state is simply known as "Rus". The articles at ru-wiki are in an even worse state of disarray than ours, they have a ru:Новгородская Русь alongside a ru:Русский каганат one, besides ru:Русь (народ) and ru:Русь (название). "Новгородская Русь" is allegedly a "former country" which was "established" in 862 and "disestablished" in 882. Yeah right. How about we write a separate article about each year of the Old Russian state during the 9th century? Especially since next to nothing is known about anything concerning it?

Leaving all the terminological prancing around with the term Русь aside, the sober term for this thing is Древнерусское государство, "Old Russian polity". This term covers the entire period of the 9th to 12th centuries. What we need is a single article, at Rus' or "Old Russian state" or elsewhere, which covers the entire topic. After that, there can still be sub-articles to cover sub-entities in greater details if necessary. But it is bad practice if in the face of content disputes, people stash away their material in as many minor articles as they can. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I was peeking at this article for a long time, and I saw that it is kinda wrong (but kinda right as well). While I agree with almost all what you, unfortulately I have to notice that your recent edits of the intro actuall made the things worse. The old version said: is a name suggested for a polity that flourished during a poorly-documented period in the history of Eastern Europe. You changer it into "a historiographical term (translating Russian: русский каганат)[1] for the formative phase of the Rus state in the 9th century". May be it is just me, but your version makes it sound as if it is a standard term. (The previous version clearly stated that it is "suggested", and the article does list the proponents of the term). I must say only the first sentence kept me in peace with the article, which I see as someone's reconstruction of what is almost totally unrecorded in the history.

I like you idea about "Old Russian polity". However I have to tweak it sligtly: the topic in quextion must speak about начальном этапе развития древнерусского государства , since Kievan Rus is also referred to as Древнерусское государство. And I agree it must be written based on what is actually known or hypothecised about it. At the same time, I think that Rus Khaganate page, but clearly written as a particular hypothesis about the political arrangement of the old Russian polity. Right now it reads as an article about a real state. Much more cautious words (such as "suggested", "conjectured", "concluded", etc., rather than "existed", "was"). And a good deal of its content moved to the new article. I also suspect that many references to original sources such as ibn Fadlan do not actually use the terms "khagan", "khaganate", and are used as space-fillers to "fleshen" the hypothesis. I suspect the same goes with references to Christian's A History of Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia and others. In other words, the current article must be thoroughly cleaned of original research, which is a compilation from otherwise disconnected sources to make one smooth text about a hypothesis which says much more beyond what the hypothesis and the underlying sources actually say.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with "article title". The problem is with "article content". If you think my rant has merits, I may continue and sugegst a new page structure to cover the "prehistoric Rus". Lom Konkreta (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

An article up for deletion becomes the article of the day

WOW! Too funny! NorthernThunder (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This article and the theory behind it stem from Russian embarrassment about being conquered by the Mongols. So revisionists like Fomenko want to argue, "Look. We were khans too. See how Russian it is to be a khan."

Then it also stems from the idea that nomadic culture is cool and the "west" is bad. So it's a way of saying, "Look how influenced by the nomads Russia was. The nomads were the bringers of culture. Not the other way around. See, everyone!"

As for any evidence for the gibberish and idiocy it discusses, using thousands of words, there is the kind of evidence that would only convince a bigfoot hunter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.101.236 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I just removed a proposed deletion tag from this article, added by User:DanaPhD with this edit. The reason given was as follows:

Article Kyivan Rus' exists already. Rus' + Khaganate are present only in muslim Asian Khagantes sources. The translation of "Kniazivstvo" in local and European sources is different, it is Kyiv (Kiiv ) Rus state , empire, Königreich (German), etc. The land is centered around Kiiv what is capital of Ukraine. It is absolutely European. THe article is attack from well known attempting defamation Russian source.

I'm pretty sure this tag is not appropriate for this article, but I'm unsure how best to handle it. I thought I'd move to the talk page to let other editors deal with it. 72.195.132.12 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection, I'm wondering if the article should contain a section about dissenting opinions among historians regarding this subject. There seem to be a few editors vehemently opposed to the article for some reason. Are these editors mere extremists, or are there multiple competing theories regarding this subject? 72.195.132.12 (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Original research in the Dating section

The Dating section has the unreferenced statement "A connection between original kaghan and the Germanic kuning (Swedish konung, English king, German König), proto-Germanic kuningaz, is imputed." I have no idea who has imputed this very dubious connection, but without a reliable reference it is original research, and has no place in the article, especially one that is supposed to be a featured article. I deleted the sentence with this edit, but the deletion was reverted by User:Berig, so I am raising the issue for discussion here. BabelStone (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the disputed text was originally added by an IP in this edit in December 2009, so I am unsure why an established editor is so keen on keeping it. BabelStone (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The identity of an editor is utterly irrelevant to the merits of the edit. See Ad hominem and WP:HUMAN. 72.195.132.12 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

The article has one huge big slant: it talks about something which is nothing but a modern hypothetical reconstruction.

• The name is modern artificial accidental coinage: "someone called rulers khagans hence it was khaganate"
• Contemporary documents are extremely scarce; the amount of them is less than this article :-)
• No coherent explanation about the evolution of the concept among the historians (who proposed, who supported)
• What is most important, not a shred of criticism.
• And by the way, what is the official position of Putin in this respect? :-) I mean what do they teach in Russian middle school?

I changed an intro slightly, to indicate some artificialness of the reconstruction, but the above issues must be seriously addressed before the POV tag removed. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for jumping in into an area of no my expertise. I did the same in the article "Heat". I hope I will not generate the same amount of heat as in Talk:Heat. It just sometimes happens that for a fresh, ignorant eye logical blunders may be seen better than for proponents, whose vision is to prove, rather than to disprove. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. It there a better tag for the issues I described? "POV" seems rather harsh. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You've really got to read the past talk, requests for deletion, and other history for this article. The issues you are raising have been hashed and rehashed, over and over again, and have been addressed at length. Please review. In the meantime I am removing the tag. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, colleague, this talk page is very small, and may be I am stupid, but I did not find answers to my objections.

• First item is addressed by clear phrase in in the into.
• What is most important, not a shred of criticism. - this is the core reason of POV tag.
• the article is written as propaganda piece about old ancestry based on extremely scant info patched by liberal about of guesswork.

and so on. Tag restored until we discuss my objections point by point. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• P.S.Please read carefully what tag note says, Especially the part which starts with the word "Please". Staszek Lem (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Briangotts, while it is appreciated that you have put a lot of time and energy into this article and feel understandably defensive about it, please read earlier comments and current comments from people who have studied the history of the region in depth. As Staszek Lem has noted, it is presented as if it were fact and not an incredible amount of conjecture badly held together with old bandaids and chewing gum. By the time I got to, "A predecessor to the Rurik Dynasty and the Kievan Rus'..." I couldn't believe that this was purportedly a balanced, NPOV Wikipedia article. You've created an article from fringe theory and presented it as if were an established, verifiable chunk of history. Please explain how you can justify the unshakeable confidence of the lead alone? Origins? Government? Customs and religion? Decline and legacy? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Same tired old criticisms, raised again and again ad nauseum. It is you, Iryna, who is not reading the earlier commentary and discussion on this article which has hashed and re-hashed all of these matters. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

So far, everybody here agreed that the article is POV and undersourced. You are the first user in the lest several months to make a claim it is not POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Briangotts. I have read the entire talk page and would suggest that you read it objectively. The fact stands that the article has been questioned time and time again for good reason: hypothetical/speculative research by some academics does not override the mainstream view. To develop a lengthy, detailed article on this subject while obfuscating the mainstream is not encyclopaedic, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

FA review

This article is in need of some serious work. As present it is almost C class, rather than B, GA, A or FA.

There are substantial problems with:

• Grammar
  • "set up by a people called Rus'," - surely it is "the Rus'"?
  • "around the year 838 ... Thirty years later, in spring 871" - that is not 30 years; if it took three years to get back, put that in
  • "while three other East Slavic sources" - there were no Slavic sources mentioned earlier, so other to what?
• Prose
  • "most of them foreign texts" really? foreign to whom?
  • Also, much of the article is written as if it is a speech, with unnatural reading pauses.
• Punctuation - many commas in the wrong place leading to dropped sentence parts leaving meaningless and unrelated sentences ("dependant clause" or "parenthetical element")
  • e.g. "A predecessor to the Rurik Dynasty and the Kievan Rus', the Rus' Khaganate was a state, or a cluster of city-states, set up by a people called Rus', who may have been Norsemen, in what is today northern Russia."
• Lack of citations (one per para = C class)

Smaller issues include:

• Italics
• Possible POV
• OR
• References (notes include refs, biblio listed as Refs, multiple refs instead of one ref with page numbers, refs that incorrectly labelled e.g. "Jones, 2nd edition 1984" is actually Jones third edition: 1963, 1973, 1984])

I will read this through at length tonight, but it is clear from just reading the lead and first paragraph of the first section that there are lots of issues to address.

The worst thing on my list above is "in what is today northern Russia" - so, Belarus and Ukraine have been dropped? That is extreme POV and OR, especially as the article correctly states "Today part of: Russia [and] Ukraine" in the infobox!

A lot has changed here since I last read it in 2010, and certainly a great deal more has changed since FA status in 2006, so to avoid complications I suggest it is improved. I will leave it up to other more regular editors for a few days but will start chopping it about if no-one works on it. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like heavy anti-Normanist POV, with Russian sources not mentioned at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Having carefully looked over the history of the article, it certainly seems that its verifiability has been seriously compromised over the last few years. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Staszek Lem

I intended to clean POV from the article first by cleaning the slanted verbiage, but quickly realized it would be impossible without fundamentally rewriting the whole article, it being extremely thick in stating theory for facts. A glaring example:

In 838, the Rus' Khaganate sent an embassy to the Byzantine Empire, which was recorded in the Annals of St. Bertin.

This is a quite liberal exaggerration of what was actually written by St.Bertin. (check sources yourself).

An the whole article is of such style: it is postulated that R-Khaganate existed, and thus everything from these times and lands must be Khagan's. And in this article, into each and every fact from those times and lands the word "Khaganage" is liberally inserted, giving an impression of 100% credibility. If it isn't POV pushing at its best. This is not how serious science written. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This was my impression as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I, too, can only see the current article as needing to be scrapped and written from scratch. There have been a few good editors trying to tackle criticisms from within what is a flawed construct, meaning that the criticism ends up being lost in an article that presupposes that the existence of the "Rus' Khaganate" as a given. For the reader, all that would suggest is that there are some minor differences in opinion as to details regarding relatively minor aspects of an recognised, factual 'state'. A reasonable article would require making it clear that it is a composite picture of a 'state' pieced together from a variety of disparate sources which may or may not actually tie together. It would also require a serious 'Criticism' section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Starting point FA review

First of all, I think it might be best to address the very nature of this topic. When given the FA status, it read thus 15th December 2006 - FA status added to the talk page at 19:01 on the 16th, next article edit is half an hour after FA is given

Now, it appears to me that there is an issue here, that even if we accept that the name is correct, there is the problem of a "clubbing together" of the Rus' and Khaganate.

From my understanding of the available material, and a recently discovered BBC podcast from 2010, western historians seem to give the Vikings in these areas two names, the Volga- or Rus'- Vikings who initially used the Volga and Don & Dnieper, respectively. They also seem to be saying that the Volga Vikings were influenced mainly by the Arabs (& Baghdad?) , while the Rus' were more influenced from Byzantium and Constantinople. I will also be referencing book s and material from Google Scholar, which returned a reasonable amount of hits (450+).

The podcast involves: James Montgomery, Professor of Classical Arabic at the University of Cambridge; Neil Price, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Aberdeen; Elizabeth Rowe, Lecturer in Scandinavian History of the Viking Age at Clare Hall in the University of Cambridge.Chaosdruid (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources we cannot agree on

It is fairly important to agree sources we can accept as consensus, it is also clear there are some that are categorically opposed by people.

1. Which sources are out for now?

2. Which can we agree on?

Chaosdruid

I would say all those authors from the podcast are reliable, and can be used. They also have published material available. I suggest a starting point for Ibn Fadlan is Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies Vol. 3.. Note that the dates quoted are 921 A.D on.

Comments

I am going to trawl through the list of google scholar material to see what lies in there. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If the podcast says nothing about 'rus khaganate', then it is out of here: we already know that there were plenty of wikings there, but the question is whether they constitute a "khaganate", rather than a bunch of robber gangs settled here and there to squeeze chicken locals. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please notice that you used incorrect search for scholar: you did not put "Rus khaganate" in quotes as a single term. There are scores of articles which talk about rus and kghagans but not about "rus khagans".

So, [8] this search gives only 27 hits, of which only about dozen are reasonable.

Google books gives more hits, but the results are heavily contaminated by Wikibooks bullshit, and other garbage (eg it hits "Cracks in the Iron Closet: Travels in Gay and Lesbian Russia" ??? wtf??), so I would give about 100 usable hits here. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I also quickly read some books hit by "Русский каганат". I don't know the probability theory well, but three randomly hit books from google are of extremely low scientific value (read: total bullshit). Staszek Lem (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem - Stop being antagonistic, overbearing and swearing/making trash comments - it does not bode well for peoples opinions of your credibilty. Obviously a reference to "lesbian travel guides" is not going to be used, how stupid do you think we are here?

I am well aware of what is going to be a good source and what is not, so don't fill this page with loads of "bullshit" as you call it. Do you know the phrase "teach a granny to suck eggs?".

Did you listen to the podcast? This is an FA review, make helpful positive statements instead of just spurting out lots of "it had better not be this, it had better not be that".

The idea is to find consensus, not just rant and call Wikibooks "bullshit" - if they come from Wikipedia, then make the necessary steps to find consensus for change.

You may also notice that I have already stated that the podcast mentions two distinct groups, and one of those correlates roughly to one of the maps here. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please replace the word "bullshit" with the politically correct expression "unreliable sources" and don't panic. Whom my side, I promise I will not use b** and other nasty word. I gave the "lesbian" example to demonstrate that simple google count you used in your initial post (about google acholar) is not a valid indicator; if one weed out irrelevant and unreliable, you will see that the term in question is rather scarcely used, indicative of fringe theory. I still consider wikibooks as an attempt to make bucks off suckers, which I consider an abuse of wikipedia. Also they create the very same information noise wikipedia is supposed to combat.

Please indicate how exactly I am antagonistic towards wikipedians personally. Please explain what is wrong with being antagonistic to certain opinions.

It is irrelevant which "distinct groups" are discussed in the podcast. The major issue is whether "rus khaganate" is discussed there. If not, then it is not a source for this article, per wikipedia rules.

If you think that antagonistic is bad, then please do not antagonize opponents by removing tags until consensus is reached, in violation of wikipedia policies. By the way, your headcount in edit summary is wrong. So far the only response to my objections was RTFM. I disagree that my concerns were addressed in previous talks. I may understand that some think that my objections were too generic. But how about answering the very specific concern in section "#Questionable statement from the intro"? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Questionable statement from the intro

A predecessor to the Rurik Dynasty and the Kievan Rus', the Rus' Khaganate was a state, or a cluster of city-states, set up by a people called Rus', who may have been Norsemen, in what is today northern Russia.

• First, St. Bertin says nothing about "state" or "city-state" or "khaganate".
• Second, Gwyn Jones only cursory mentions "khaganate of Kiev", which is ridiculous to call "Northern Russia" at the times in question.
• Third, there is no evidence that whatever there was it was "set up" by Rus. Just as well, it was before them and they only conquered it.

On other words, this impressive phrase is a synthesis/speculation from occasional sources. Unless someone provides a direct reference explicitly stating something in this sense, this phrase must be severely edited. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag removal and edit warring

AS the discussion above seems to stste consensus to remove any NPOV tag, there is a little matter of this (from the template pages):

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Clearly 1 and 3 were fulfilled.

2 also, as there is nothing to say excactly what this is.

SO, to proceed, you need to tag the sections where this POV is, or/and the specific sentences. You also need to add this here so that people can see what is being objected to. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, colleague, (1) is far from being fulfilled. Per (3): calling it "dormant" is er...<shut up, Stas> unfair at the least. (2) also means that you simply ignored lists of issues left unaddressed. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Why POV tag is on the whole arfticle

As it was explained, in opinion of at least 3 recent and 3 past wikipedians, the article as a whole is presented in biased way: it describes a hypothetical polity (existence of which postulated on several sources which use title "khagan" for a leader of a group of Rus people) as a solid scientific fact.

The proper structure should be as follows.

1. Several sources use the word "khagan"
2. Let us assume that this title is synonymous to "king"
3. Let us assume that this was a single "king" for a reasonably large "kingdom"
4. Lacking better name, let us call it "Rus Khaganate"
5. Assuming the above true, what this Khaganate could be?
6. Some researchers made the above assumptions, made reasonable guesses about the location of the Khaganate, and tried to reconstruct it. Some of them placed it here, while others there.

How other historians responded to this? Was it incorporated into the official "History of Russis" via textboks and general monographs? And so on.

It looks like I have to "teach a granny to suck eggs", but looks like granny does not like this. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You have made several edits on the article, infact you have probably made more in the last two months than all the other editors put together. Have you not addressed these issues yourself? If you have, then the POV notice is not appropriate.

You say that the article as a whole is biased. You state that because it is not mentioned in Russian textbooks that this cannot be true. It is, however mentioned elsewhere, and backed up by soures. SO, to make it neutral, we add both sides, as supported by refs and evidence. You have added that, but you cannot claim POV just because the other side of the argument is left in.

If historians decide this is a name for something, if it is used then it becomes de facto "their name for it".

THe issue here is fixing the article - you have made many edits, but are still tagging the WHOLE article as POV. If I provide sources that mention "Rus' Khaganate" then you must remove the tag by your own statements above? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. I did make some cosmetic changes to the article, some of them were reverted. I not merely say it is biased, I also explained why: a hypothesis is presented as fact. I am pretty much sure, judging by the dismiisive reaction of the main opponent, that any my major rewrite of the article according to my plan will be readily reverted. Therefore I posted (several times) several issues I consider major, to be addressed, and I want to gather a consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please keep in mind that several other who share my point of view. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fellow editors: Please refrain from diverting this much-needed discussion into an exchange of personal attacks. I agree that the proposed structure above would be a significant improvement on the article. I also agree that the objections to the POV of the entire article have been repeatedly and specifically raised, yet every answer appears to be "read the talk page," though I find no point at which consensus on the issue has been found. If you believe consensus on these issues has been reached, please cite specific sections of the talk page, rather than dismissing all criticism with the general admonition to read the whole thing.

Please focus on the proposed restructure of the article. If you believe there is no need for such a reworking, please state why, even if it means rehashing discussions you believe have already been made, or cite the specific section(s) where the objections were answered. These issues have been raised repeatedly for years, and several editors believe they have not been properly addressed. A good faith and specific discussion of these issues is clearly necessary. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of sources

Vernadsky, History of Russia

While he directly states "In view of the foregoing, no doubt that the Russian Khanate existed in the first half of the ninth century", the "foregoing" in fact is peppered with cautious wordings (assuming that Google Translate did not screw up here :-), such as "we allow ourselves to make a trial conclusion", " Therefore, we can assume that this practice began much earlier", " Nothing contradicts the hypothesis", "We can assume that some of them moved through the Baltic Sea to Livonia", etc. In other words, as a true scientist, Vernadsky presented his opinion about Russian Khaganate as a plausuble hypothesis based on reasonable assumptions, rather a statement of historical fact. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Vernadsky very clearly talks of his assumption that the Khaganate existed. (He thinks it is a plausible assumption). In addition, the book was written in 1943. It does not undermine its importance, but it is hardly a modern source.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to outright discard it as obsolete, unless since 1943 new facts were discovered. His opinion is part of the genesis of the concept, influential without doubt. And if someone rejected his statements (which he himself clearly states are hypothetical), then this rejection must be based on solid arguments and these arguments summarized in our encyclopedic article. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest to reject it as obsolete, and I am not sure why you are arguing with me. I am a Russian speaker and I thought my reading of Vernadsky as superior over the Google Translate would be welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably I misread your intention when you wrote "but it is hardly a modern source". So, please clarify the intention of this "but". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

We have to be very careful with it. This is not at all my field, but for example most of the archeological work in the Lower Volga was performed after the 1940s. If there were academic sources published after Vernadsky, we might give them more priority. (We have to be careful though since already Gumilyov is very much supeculative, at the edge of being fringe, and his followers are mostly fringe).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I undestand that very well. In fact, the whole fuss I raised is because the whole theory is basically speculative, to varying degrees. By the way, it is not a job of wikipedian to assign priorities. In the case of Vernadsky (since he was an influential figure) we must summarize his ideas and explain how later evidence supported or rejected some or all his opinions. The same with other authors. We must clearly state who suggested what and when and why. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

From the pleface to vol. 1.: While hardly anyone would deny the importance of such a plan, its implementation meets the almost insurmountable difficulties, as appropriate written, especially domestic sources characterizing the earliest period are extremely rare. You can compare this with the task of restoring the broken fragments of vases, of which only a few remained intact; due to the wide gap is difficult to put into place, even those pieces that we possess. Therefore, in many cases it was necessary to refer to the method of assumptions, but in each of them the author has tried many times to test my hypothesis using all available indirect evidence. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Duczko, Wiking Rus

"The Kaganate of Rus"

• The use of the title chacanus by the ruler of the Rus had led scholars to call the organization he headed the "kaganate of Rus"
• If we accept his hypothesis, we may apprehend the polity of Rus as a kind of a kaganate.
• He goes on to enumerate numerous hypotheses about the location of the Khaganate, assigning them various degrees of plausibility, but none is described as confirmed . He favors the Ladoga hypothesis because this area, in his opinion, matches best to ibn Rusteh's rendering of "The Anynymous Account", the most detailed description of Rus centre on an island in the lake amid huge swamps.
• He favor the opinion that the polity was a result of rapid development under a charismatic leader ("in accord with similar cases <...> in Europe"); [that would also explain a commonly agrreed short time span of its existence (S.L.)]

Thus, this author does not fail to carefully point out the hypothetical nature of the issue as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hudud al-Alam (primary)

[9]

Hudud al-'Alam, The Regions of the World V. Minorsky

§ 44. Discourse on the Rūs Country and its Towns

East of this country are the mountains of the Pechenegs; south of it, the river Rūtā ( ?); west of it, the Ṣaqlābs; north of it, the Uninhabited Lands of the North. This is a vast country, and the inhabitants are evil-tempered (badh ṭab'), intractable (badh-rag va nā-sāzanda), arrogant-looking (shūkh-rūy), quarrelsome (sitīīza-kār), and warlike (ḥarb-kun). They war with all the infidels (kāfir) who live round them, and come out victorious (bihtar āyand). The king is called Rūs-khāqān. It is a country extremely favoured by nature with regard to all the necessaries (of life). One group (gurūh) of them practise chivalry (muruvvat). They hold the physicians in respect (ṭabībān rā buzurg dārand). They annually pay the tithe on their booty and commercial profits (ghanīmat va bāzurgānī) to the government (sulṭān). Among them lives a group of Slavs who serve them. Out of 100 cubits (gaz) of cotton fabric (karbās), more or less, they sew trousers which they put on (andar pūshand), tucking them up above the knee (bar sar-i zānū gird karda dārand). They wear woollen bonnets (ba sar bar nihādha dārand) with tails let down behind their necks (dum az pas-i qafā furū hishta). They bury the dead with all their belongings (bā har chi bā khwīshtan dāradh), 38a | clothes, and ornaments (pīrāya). They (also) place in the grave, with the dead, food and drinks (ṭa'ām va sharāb).

1. KŪYĀBA ( Kūbāba, &c.) is the town [land ?] of the Rūs lying nearest to the Islamic lands. It is a pleasant place and is the seat of the king. It produces various furs (mūy) and valuable swords.

2. Ṣ.LĀBA (? ), a pleasant town from which, whenever peace reigns, they go for trade (? bā bāzurgānīāyand) to the districts of Bulghār.

3. URTĀB (? ), a town where strangers are killed whenever they visit it. It produces very valuable blades and swords which can be bent in two (ū rā du tāh tavān kardan), but as soon as the hand is removed they return to their former state.

The above translation is supplied with a detailed commentary by the translator. I cannot judge their relation to the modern views. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, this is the wrong time period. The dates are far too late to be relevant to this time period. The article states "roughly the late 8th and early-to-mid-9th centuries AD", which can be reasonably assumed to be not outside of the period 750-850 AD, so this "contemporary work" is at least 50 years out-of-time - thus it cannot be considered as contemporary. It might well be usable for the period 920 - 980 AD, but that is not the time period covered by this article.

The book is also dated a little strangely. It says "A Persian Geography, 372 A.H. - 982 A.D."; however: :372+622= 994. If one uses subtraction, (2014-1435)+372=951

I do not wish to start a heated debate, this is simply a fact. A piece of material written 60-120 years after this time period in 950 AD can not be reliably used as evidence for what happened between 830-900 AD, and especially when it does not talk about the past, but the present. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are arguing with. These are primary sources, yes. I agree with you that this source cannot be used for wikipedia purposes 'as is'. We can only use secondary sources which use it as an argument and use this primary sources for our own verification of secondary sources (some of them may be in error simply being a chinese whispers-type version written without actually reading the primary ones. As for whether it is a reliable evidence, it is not our job to judge it, if some author admits it as such. Ah HUGE problem with the article is lack of the criticism of the concept as a whole. In my humble opinion, there are only three possibilities for this: either it is 100% mainstream or it is 100% marginal, or wikipedians don't care. I do care a bit, but since I am not a historian, I am not qualified to wade through modern Russian nationalist pseudohistory on the internet and in print (I was amazed by its amounts when I was trying to figure out a reasonable text for Bus Beloyar). I only may occasionally spot patent nonsense in a wikipedia article. -No.Altenmann >t 06:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Article demoted

The article is demoted. I am ready to take reasonable part in work on it, since it is an interesting subject. Chaosdruid , in the FAR it seems you stated you have an intention to rewrite it. What is your plan? I am not good at writing big texts, but I may start collecting bits and pieces. -No.Altenmann >t 06:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, what its class must be? In wikiproject links its class is simply stripped. My first guess it can be set to Class A. -No.Altenmann >t 06:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Belarus issue

Please stop reverting my edits concerning the History of Belarus template. Polotsk was suggestedly founded founded in 862 and is a part of Belarusian state now. There's no doubt that Polotsk was inhabited by Rus'. Also, such templates for Ukraine and Russia are placed in wrong alphabetical order. Киберрыба (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no reason to believe that Polotsk was "founded" in 862. By no means the khaganate is a part of Belarus's pre-history. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is disputed, but the Primary Chronicle says so, there's also some archeological evidence. Most of Russian Medieval history is narrated in accordance with the Chronicle. And if Khaganate is a hypothesis itself, why would we ignore the Nestor's work? Киберрыба (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, the Primary Chronicle does not mention the Khaganate.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but if we compare the Chronicle mention of Polotsk with the fact that it was clearly a town of Rus' (I mean ethnic group, not the Khaganate here), we can count Polotsk in (as it has is on the map). Киберрыба (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR without a supporting source. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Kiber, you are confusing two very different things: Rus people and Rus Khaganate. While Rus lived everywhere, Rus Khaganate was not everywhere. And we definitely do not know that Polotsk was part of it. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Киберрыба (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And we definitely do not know that Polotsk existed before the late 900s. --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this discussion is getting political or not, but Polotsk is clearly shown on the map as part of the Rus Khaganate, so in order to preserve consistency of the article I included Belarus as well. If you don't want Belarus in the article, change the map, please. Btw for those debating the existence of Polotsk in 862, the wiki page for Polotsk gives that opinion some merit, so correct that page if you have information it did not exist. Please, don't use wikipedia for expressing your political views.

Also, I listed the countries alphabetically

And if you're debating whether northern Belarus was part of Rus Khaganate, why does everybody accept Ukraine as part of it? Please, let me know -- Lokisis (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2015 (CET)

Please provide references that cite Polotsk as part of Rus Khaganate. The self-made wikipedian's map is not a valid reference. I have an intention to remove this map altogether, but I noticed that map's creator provided references, and I am going to double-check them. Please also notice that the map is for various Varangian settlements, not for the alleged Khaganate. Nobody claims that the Khaganate was stretching from Baltic sea to Kiev and beyond. Nobody says that Ukraine was part of Khaganate. Some say that some places of modern ukraine could have been one on possible locations of Khaganate. Concluding, talking here about Polotsk is just socializing. You know the rules of wikipedia: either you provide explicit scholarly sources, or Polotsk is out. -M.Altenmann >t 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also have problems with comprehending the map in question, therefore I think it would be useful if the editors who created the map in question, being Briangotts and Electionworld, could help out here. There are no chapters, figure numbers, or page numbers alluded to from the sources used. It's been a long time since I read a couple of the sources cited but, if memory serves me correctly, those sources are not even in agreement with each other. The only way I can imagine them being used as a basis for the map is by creating a map of the largest possible reaches of the Khaganate. It certainly couldn't depict what has been perceived to be the extent of the Khaganate without the inclusion of other territories proposed as possibilities. In itself, this article has been the subject of serious contention from its inception (i.e., the existence of the Rus' Khaganate is still theoretical and archaeological evidence hasn't yielded evidence to reinforce it). Where exactly, in the sources, are the borders defined? Kiev definitely has a huge question mark over it, as does Sarskoye Gorodishche, and Rostov... and, yes, the map is of Varangian settlement, so which of these sources calls it the Rus' Khaganate? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Customs and religion section

I fail to see how reiteration of Rus' customs and religions deems a mention in an article on a highly theoretical 'state'. Surely any information not already in the Rus' related articles should be merged there (as would be appropriate for the Christianization article which is just a replication of the Christianization of Kievan Rus'). Why are known works by foreign chroniclers from that period being rehashed here when their observations were based on travelling through areas of Rus' with nothing to imply that it was some sort of Rus' Khaganate?

There was no parallel universe under observation, but simply that of the Rus'. Any mythology, religious practices, and social structure being depicted here was that which pre-existed Kievan Rus' (and the Slavic people who lived in those territories) therefore how can it be transposed here as if this theoretical state can be explained as being a cohesive whole by grabbing bits and pieces of content that simply don't discuss this postulated 'state' in any seriousness outside of WP:OR, based on WP:SYNTH? It's purely and simply misleading for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rus' Khaganate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070908133036/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-38491 to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-38491

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Location of Khaganate

According to User:Thomas.W, the material and the sources that I posted "present a distinctly non-mainstream Russia-centric view". I beg to disagree, these are all highly respected scholars. Especially Sedov (ru:Седов, Валентин Васильевич). He was Member of the Russian Academy. How more mainstream can you get. Please get yourself informed, Thomas.

The English Wiki article is severely out of date. So I'm trying to fix it. Y-barton (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Being seen as "mainstream" in Russia doesn't automatically mean being mainstream in the world as a whole, which is what we go by on the English language Wikipedia. Sources claiming that the almost totally unknown 9th century Rus' Khaganate was the first Russian state, and tells of "Russian Rus'" attacks on Constantinople without mentioning that the Rus' who attacked that city according to all contemporary sources were Scandinavians, or of Scandinavian descent, aren't mainstream, other than in Russia perhaps. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• • This is some kind of misunderstanding. Sedov is an archaeologist with hundreds of professional publications. What sources are you talking about? Y-barton (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The ones you added to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Tom, this is clearly a misunderstanding. Do you have an ability in Russian? The ru article is titled, literally, “Russian Khaganate”. So my translations simply translated these words literally. Now I see that “Russian Khaganate” perhaps should have been styled as “Rus’ Khaganate”. I see no problem with this. Is this what it’s about? Y-barton (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• It wasn't a mistranslation made by you, both of the sources you provided call it the "Russian Khaganate" (both Sedov and the other source call it "Русский каганат"/"Русского каганат", just like the article on the Russian Wikipedia call it ru:Русский каганат; while the name used internationally would be "Русь каганат", as it should be considering that even in Russian the Rus' people are referred to as ru:Русь (народ)), and both of the sources are very much Anti-Normanist, while the international mainstream view supports the "Normanist theory". Both of the sources also present theories, interpretations and what have you that are contrary to what contemporary documents say. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sedov was one of the top Russian archaeologists, with hundreds of professional publications. Now you say that he cannot be cited in English Wikipedia? Because of one word that he used wrong. Is this it? (Actually, I’ve already found him cited a few times in English Wikipedia.) Y-barton (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

huge mistake

Who Wrote this ???

"Hudud al-Alam, an anonymous Arabic"

According to book Page , the Author was from Afghanistan and the Book written in Persian not Arabic , I'm gonna Correct this . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.236.153.165 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Rus Khaganate

While it's indisputable that there are several primary sources mentioning khagan of Rus, I couldn't find which secondary sources describe the entity that existed in 9th century on the territories of modern-day Russia and Ukraine. Could someone provide them? Alaexis_¿question? 13:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Khaganate or Koganate (Coganate)?

It's ok if the name is widely accepted. But take a look at names Koch, Cog. Until XIV century it had economy almost entirely based on transportations along rivers and lakes. It looks like the "kogan" ("cogan") is person who had fleet of boats to do this trade or any other activities.Anton Kopiev (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Separate state or same as Kievan Rus'?

It seems that we've got a bit of a complicated situation.

• Some argue that there was a Rus' "khaganate", which was established around 830 (Magocsi) and "disappeared between 872 and 922" (Golden) or "by 911" (Zuckerman), because mentions of kagan disappeared in the early 10th century, presumably before Kievan Rus' was founded as a principality (knyazestvo княжество).
• But others (Halperin and others) say that even Volodymyr the Great and Ihor of Kyiv were still called kagans in the 11th and 12th century, namely in the Sermon on Law and Grace and in The Tale of Igor's Campaign. (Incidentally, Halperin thinks that the mention of a chacanus in the Annales Bertiniani sub anno 839 also refers to "the ruler of Kiev", even though the foundation of Kievan Rus' is usually dated to the 880s with Oleh the Wise).

Does that mean that there is continuity, or discontinuity? If the 839 reference is to a "ruler" of a separate state which then disappeared, the Rus' must have inherited the title of kagan from the Khazars twice. They adopted it in the 830s, still had it in 871, then forgot all about it for more than a century, and then suddenly Hilarion of Kiev remembered it around 1040 when he praised Volodymyr as kagan for baptising the Rus' people? Given that kagan is an Asiatic Turkic Khazar pagan shamanist steppe nomad title that would have been foreign to the originally Germanic Scandinavian Norse Swedish Varangian Viking (but Slavicising and Christianising) Rurikid Rus' princes of Kiev, they would probably be quite hesitant to suddenly adopt such a title in the late 10th century. I think it's more likely that there was either a long-established tradition of doing so, or (as some scholars have suggested) that defeating the Khazar Khanate around 950 also meant appropriating their rulers' title. Then Volodymyr simply inherited it from Sviatoslav I.

Meanwhile, Halperin 1987 p. 118 mentions that when the Mongols/Tatars invaded in 1223, their khans were still called kan, and Karakorum was called Kanovi or Kanovich(i), but later on they were systematically called tsar. Even Chingiz kan was later called Chingis tsar. Given that Fadhlan calls the prince of Kiev a malik in 922, but Hilarion reverts to kagan around 1040, it may also be that these titles are more interchangeable than we think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You should read some of Thorir Jonsson Hraundal or other more recent historiography, the most important Rus before the 10th century aren't the Dnieper ones but the Volga ones. I'd be careful about the 'originally Germanic Scandinavian Norse Swedish Varangian Viking ' stuff, that if anything makes it easier to explain that the called themselves khagans. Norse merchant settlers in the eastern European river system would initially have had little overarching political organisation, and so when strongmen began to unite the trade route they would have been forced to model their authority on that of the Khazars. Rus calling themselves khagans is no different that Bulgars called themselves Tsars and the like. Because of the St Bertin source you can be pretty sure that happened at least a century before Svyatoslav. Since at least some of the Volga Vikings were part of the Khazar imperium it's probably either an early polity in the middle Volga now lost or the overarching leadership based further north-west. It may be, this is OR I'll admit, that the abandonment of the title has more to do with some wider linguistic development to which it was tied, like the decline of Norse in eastern Europe or the elimination of distinctive eastern Norse (Volga or otherwise) Norse vocabulary in the face of new waves of 'real', Christian Scandinavians with ideas of political authority more in line with 'western' models in the 11th century. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. It's good to be as careful as you suggested, and do away with unnecessary assumptions that may cloud our judgement. I've been reading a lot more in the past 3 days, trying to verify the claims made in this article by checking the literature cited. It's a mixed bag; a lot of material is correctly cited, a lot is not, and a lot of stuff appears to be irrelevant. I'm making efforts to improve the contents, and learning a lot in the process.

It does seem that the title khagan was used amongst a certain group of Rus' people in the late 9th century, but by that time Kievan Rus' may have already been established at Kiev. Unfortunately the chronology of the Primary Chronicle, the Novgorod First Chronicle and others is very unreliable; e.g. the reign of Oleg the Wise in Kiev may have begun much earlier or later than traditionally dated at c. 879~882. The Bertiniani reference of 839 could also be referring to Rus' Norsemen who had sworn fealty to the Khazar khagan, even though the Kievan Rus' under Sviatoslav would defeat them approximately 110 years later. A lot can happen in that much time, especially if we don't have many sources about what happened in between. As an example, early 9th-century Kiev probably was a river outpost controlled by the Khazars (as Magocsi 2010 described it), then the Rus' Norsemen may have imposed their authority upon the Kiev population by demanding tribute in exchange for protection, while still acknowledging Khazar overlordship, and then sending ambassassadors to Ingelheim in 839, who called themselves Rus', but had a Khazar khagan. (It could also have been in a different place, of course, like the middle or upper Volga). Even so, Halperin thinks that the 839 chacanus is already "the ruler of Kiev", meaning Kievan Rus' would have been established much earlier than according to Rus' chronicles. It does presume that titles such as khagan and knyaz were somewhat interchangeable in this early period, which I find somewhat unlikely. Your remark that Rus' calling themselves khagans is no different than Bulgars called themselves tsars and the like seems more plausible; they may be making a political/dynastic claim towards certain authority over a certain people or area that wasn't originally part of their tradition. It would make sense, because the Varangians were from Scandinavia and had kings (konungar), just like the Bulgars originally came from Volga Bulgaria and had a khan/emir before they arrived in the Balkans and started claiming the Roman/Byzantine title of caesar > tsar. I'd also like to explore the possibility that a "Rus'" khaganate may have been a splinter of the Khazar khaganate due to the war (of succession?) that seems to have occurred in the 820s (as Magocsi and especially Pritsak have suggested); then the Rus' may have inherited the dynastic claims of the Kabar faction which went into exile in a Rus'-dominated area (upper Volga?).

It also remains strange that Louis the German, the son of Louis the Pious who had received these Rus' ambassadors in 839, tells Basil I in 871 that he has 'heard of an Avar caganum, but never of Khazar or Norman ones.' Because either way, if the Rus' ambassadors had been Khazar subjects, or representing an independent Rus'/Norse/Swedish monarch, his father would have known about either option some 32 years earlier. On the other hand, Louis the German was probably not around at his father's court in 839, or exchanging information about foreign policy with him, because at the time he was actually busy waging war on his dad. So it wouldn't be too surprising if he missed the memo. (I should read more about that).

At any rate, all scholars seem to agree that if a Rus' khaganate (independent of, or predating Kievan Rus') did exist, it had already disappeared by 900. So Ibn Fadhlan's 922 visit and description of the Rus' concerns Kievan Rus', not some pre-900 khaganate, especially because he calls the Rus' ruler a malik, not a khaqan. It cannot be used in support of a khaganate, nor providing information on a khaganate if it existed, so I had to remove that section.

Zuckerman's summary of there being 6 references that can be divided into two classes (2 Latin and 1, possibly 2 independent Perso-Arab sources, and then lots of later sources copying this 1 or these 2 sources; and the 3 Old East Slavic late sources), is particularly useful. I want to examine just how dependent the Perso-Arab sources are on each other, and the differences between them, because as Zuckerman argued, that may make them a single source (i.e. they do not pass the criterion of independent attestation) rather than lots of independent sources, as proponents of a Rus' khaganate often seem to present the matter. I've already examined the sources of Hudud al-'Alam and written them down. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Garipzanov argues that the Chacanus of the Annales Bertiniani was a Hakon, not a khagan. Ostrowski seems to agree. The existence of a distinct Rus' khaganate seems highly conjectural. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for mentioning it Srnec. I hadn't read your comment until now, but about 2 hours after you posted it, I was reading and writing about Garipzanov 2006 as mentioned in Ostrowski 2018. It seems that Duczko 2004, p. 24–25's assertion, that 'virtually all scholars agree' that c/Chacanus is a title rather than a name, may have to be revisited now that both Garipzanov 2006 and Ostrowski 2018 have argued on new linguistic grounds that it is the Swedish proper name Håkan.

Incidentally, the way the information in this article is/was organised is/was a bit of a mess and sometimes misleading. I'm trying reorganise everything in a way that makes it easy to understand for the reader, and does not imply that Wikipedia is taking a side on any question about which there is no consensus. For example, speaking of "Origins" and "Decline and legacy" implies existence, which is quod erat demonstrandum, but we can safely say that has not been done yet. Just a cursory look at the widespread disagreement about possible locations reveals just how little has been demonstrated. (Incidentally, as I indicated in my edit summary, I have copied the basic text of that overview from ru:Русский каганат, but many names of scholars are still unsourced (which I should fix), and ruwiki lumped a large number of places in a very large region together under the heading North of Eastern Europe, where the Scandinavian presence was recorded the earliest (Ladoga - Rurik's settlement in Novgorod - Rostov - Staraya Russa), which is misleading in many other ways because it implies these scholars all agree, which they don't, and by emphasising Scandinavian presence was recorded the earliest in that area it is "poisoning the well" against all other options). Unfortunately, in my efforts to improve many elements of this article, I may be duplicating some material that will later have to be removed again. What I'm mostly trying to do is verify everything that has been said (there is a lot to go through, especially in non-English or poorly accessible sources), and to note anything relevant down that I find along the way, even if this information has already been noted elsewhere (sometimes even by myself haha). That's where those duplications come from. I'm trying to fix this as I move on, while I'm trying to remain open for all sorts of possibilities and assume as little as possible; seeking to confirm what they already believed is a trap that a lot of people interested in this subject seem to have fallen into, and which I am trying to avoid myself.

If anyone has any olther suggestions, please do not hesitate mentioning them here. E.g. Deacon's suggestion to read Hraundal seems like a good idea. I'd also like to explore whether the so-called "Anonymous Note" is the same as the source which Minorsky 1937 identified as Jayhani's book; that could be the key to solving the khaqan(-i) rus question in all Arabic-Persian sources. The Balkhi School seems to be entirely separate from it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the following archived source that I found at Sermon on Law and Grace from the Pushkin House, but also give a warning:

"Introduction to the full text in original, and in modern Russian translation". Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) (in Russian). Archived from the original on 25 May 2011. Retrieved 23 February 2023. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 26 May 2011 suggested (help)

This website contains an introduction, the original text in Old East Slavic, and a modern Russian translation. It's really useful because the text is digitised, and therefore searchable and autotranslatable (photocopies in books are useless if you barely understand Old East Slavic, and are looking for just 1 word in such a long text!). As I have listed under Rus' Khaganate#Old East Slavic sources, the original text appears to contain 5 occurrences of the word каганъ ("kagan") in various forms (4 of them refer to Volodimir I, 1 to his son Georgij/Yaroslav the Wise); this is confirmed by Simon Franklin's 1991 translation. If you are careless (like I initially was), you'll type in the word каган and ctrl+F that, and you'll get 8 results in the original text; but 2 of them are in the footnotes and do not count, and 1 is in Hilarion's alleged colophon, which is a separate text. It's really 5 in total (btw Google Translate mistranslates the first кагану as "language"). Moreover, the modern Russian 'translation' has replaced every instance of каганъ ("kagan") with (велико) княз ("(grand) prince"), which to me seems a piece of unscholarly censorship. Pushkin house also changes every mention of the various forms of the name of "Volodimir" into Vladimir. On the other hand, I have relied extensively on Franklin 1991 for the English translation, and his transcription of the various forms of the name "Volodimir" as they appear in the text is also somewhat contestable. Hilarion evidently didn't care how the name was spelt, as he changed it multiple times in the same text. Perhaps we should just transcribe each letter as the original text says before we reopen that whole can of worms about what his supposed "real name" was? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sweden

Since Eric Anundsson is described as ruling Novgorod in Norse sagas when Harald Fairhair was alive and visited the place. Also, Snorri Sturlasson did mention that Swedes have been active in controlling the countries in the east and that large parts of Eastern Europe paid tributes to Sweden. Could the Rus Khaganate before Rurik and the Slavic revolts just be Sweden? Since the Nestor Chronicle mentions that basically, no larger political structure existed before the Varangians got their dirty noses involved in East Slavic politics. Norwegians and Icelandic historiographers are so uninterested in Eastern Scandinavia and Eastern Europe that they barely mention it. We do not even know what pity kingdoms existed in Sweden. Since the Icelanders just refer to a united Sweden. Adam of Bremen mentions that Swedish king Olof invaded the Curonians 20 years before Rurik.

They just call Russia for greater Sweden the inhabitants for Swedes. Maybe the Scandinavian Heimskringlas source's brief mentions are true and Swedes controlled the countries in the east. But as said the Icelandic sources are not interested in Sweden since they are all Norwegian and Danes mostly. Just brief mentions of Swedish jarls viewing themselves 1015 Ad as the rightful masters of Eastern Europe at the royal assembly. That they wanted to go to war and dominate the Eastern countries as their grandfathers did. I can't get over my obsession with this.

Or the Snorri Sturlasson made that up in his saga. For what reason? Why do Icelanders call Kievan Rus greater Sweden? 2A00:801:79B:CB4C:3D12:9489:28F9:7631 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)