Talk:Rus' people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

split

this is a classic {{coatrack}} article. Rather than the people, it discusses the etymology of Rus. The people and their history are in fact treated at Rus' Khaganate. The etymology ("normanist/antinormanist") should be discussed at etymology of Rus. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Merge the article into Etymology of Rus.--Berig 18:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it's only a coat-rack if it's biased. Where is the bias? 155.188.183.7 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything Etymology of Rus should be merged into Rus' (people). more in detail about it at Talk:Etymology_of_Rus_and_derivatives [1]--Termer 18:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Updated the tag--Termer 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They should be merged. The article on the Etymology of Rus in any case is repetitive and confusing, with its first two sections seemingly going over the same territory twice, and leaving some things in a muddle. It's a "true fact," for example, that the (modern) Finnish word for Swedes is routsi (and for Sweden, Routsimaa -- the land of the routsi). Analogous words are found in Estonian (rootsi and Rootsimaa) referring to Swedes and Sweden. This isn't proof of the Nordic roots of the Rus', but it's consistent with it.--Mack2 (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter really --Mack2 (talk) but let me point it out anyway. the (modern) Finnish word for Swedes is NOT routsi but ruotsalaiset and for Sweden, it's not Routsimaa but Ruotsi--Termer (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. Also, either its a proof for anything or not, is not for us to decide whose job is just to refer to any published source out there and cite what it says. Merge or not? Sure, just that it would make sense to merge the Etymology article with this one, not vice versa like suggested in the beginning I think.--Termer (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
PPS. actually, as it appeared it mattered after all because --Mack2 had already updated the Etymology article according to the false meanings of the words. I had to revert the edit. --Termer (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ruotsi, rootsi. Finnish, Estonian for Sweden. But rootslane in Estonian (ruotsalainen in Finnish) for a Swede; while in Estonian rootsi also means "Swedish" as in rootsi keel ("Swedish language").(talk) 09:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rootsi" on it's own does not mean "Swedish" even though the spelling is the same in "rootsi keel" that means "Swedish language". The logic and grammar of finnic languages is very different from Indo-European languages --Termer (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the problem here is that this article isn't about any "people", it is about a name, about sources that attest that name, and about the historiography of the Rus' Khaganate, all of which is fully discussed elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 17:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you're incorrect at this time. In Greek and Arabian sources the "Ros" ("Rus") people are identified with the Scythians, the Huns or the Goths, later with the Norsemen..., Also the Rus people refers to the people of Kievan Rus "people of Rus" meaning basically the ancestors of modern Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Therefore suggesting that Rus' (people) means only and is strictly limited to the people of Rus' Khaganate simply isn't true.--Termer (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If anything than Rus' (region) perhaps should be merged with something. Either with the people or the name article or most likely with Kievan Rus since the region article doesn't say anything new really and even uses the map of the Kievan Rus.--Termer (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rus' (region) is a (good-faith) content fork, duplicating material from the more mature articles on Kievan Rus and Rus (name). The idea that the state and the historical region are two different things is not really supportable—Kievan Rus was not a country in the modern sense. The article's contents should be rolled into those two articles.

The same can be said about much of the content of Rus' (people). There's a bit too much overlap and forking for me to be comfortable with this whole set of articles. —Michael Z. 2008-11-27 01:22 z

People should always come first I think.:-) Because it's the people who give names, colonize regions, establish states etc. And therefore any history is a history of people, not a history of impersonal names or regions. So if anything, all related regional and/or name articles should be merged into this one in my opinion. Also, the article could be renamed simply to Rus'ian people, that has been both applied to the Varangians in the 9th century all the way to eastern Slavs until the16-17 centuries, instead of using ambiguous Rus' that can refer to either the people, the lands or the state.--Termer (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The article about the ethnic group is called East Slavs. The Rus were originally a separate foreign ruling class, who sooner or later became naturalized. —Michael Z. 2008-11-27 06:38 z

Sure, that's more or less exactly what I just said, the Rus' were originally a group of Vikings/Varangians, most likely from a region that is called Roslagen in modern Sweden. However, after the Varangians assimilated, the name Rus' was applied to the Eastern Slavs until 17-18 century, until Peter the Great came up with Rossiya that is the origin of the modern name for Russia and Russians. Please see for example The Russians, Rus As Land and People By R. R. Milner-Gulland.--Termer (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. Also if anybody says that the Russian scholars no longer dispute the Normanist theory by saying dated info. they no longer do, that's fine by me. just that it would still need an appropriate source claiming that there is a consensus now among Russian scholars and therefore the Anti-Normanist theory is obsolete. until that is not happened, nothing justifies sipmly removing sourced material from the article without providing any sources for reference to an alternative claim.--Termer (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Indo-iranian hypothesis

О. Н. Трубачев. К истокам Руси Г.В. Вернадский —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knyf (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a solution

Is it that hard to call the Varangians and Rus a mixture of Finno-Ugric and Norse people? There's evidence to believe that Rurik was of Finno-Ugric origin, and many of the place-names and settlements have Finnic roots.

The old Proto-Slavic, Baltic and Germanic peoples all had the same root from the beginning, so I don't see why this is a big deal. CormanoSanchez (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Swedish language explains the duplicity of the roots 'Rossia' or 'Russki'.

The point is in Swedish language ,"o",/sounding like in "pot"/, is pronounced as "u",/sounding like in "put"/, in many cases. In English "o" sounds by default as "ou",but in few cases it is "u" too,in "to" for example.In Swedish good examples are words 'bor'-'boende' or 'hon'. The verb 'bor' -'to live' and corresponding noun 'Boende'-inhabitant are read like this 'bor'-sounds as buhr ,word 'hon'-'she' also sounds as hun. In Swedish there two other ways to spell out "o" ,in some cases "a" can sound as "o" and ,of course, "å" which always sounds as "o". In practice, it explains why "Ros" and "Russ" are interchangeable. For genuine Swedish speaker "o" sounds somewhere in-between "o" and "u". In some dialects it is sooner "u". Russian does not have such sounding for "o"at all, in some cases it can be heard as "a"/sounding like in 'path'/ ,but never as "u" - Russian "y". Which means Russians can not explain how it is that there're different spelling roots in names "Rossiya""Rus""Russki". While Swedish language has such feature. Another important point is that since Swedish is small language and is little known by world the info is easy neglected in favor to bigger and more known Russian,yet an objective scientist would find interesting things. The Swedish adjective's ending "ska" might be spent attention on. Here goes a quote from article Rus(name)- -**Slavic adjective "russkiy"** Well,it is not only Slavic adjective,as brief check on Swedish will show you. In Swedish you say -'pråta på Engelska'-speak English 'på Franska'-on French 'på Polska'-on Polish 'på Svenska'-on Swedish 'på Ryska'-on Russian 'på Norska'-on Norwegian

• på Danska'-on Danish

So as you see Swedish adjective ends in rather similar way.I regret to admit that Slavicist theorists in Russia never really bothered to learn some Scandinavian ,just for once for objectivity sake,instead of directly charging into patriotic minded theorizing.The truth in such cases is the first victim. ¨ 17:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting hypotheses. Do you know where this is published? - 7-bubёn >t 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But still you walk around word construction of Indo-European Caucasian language. Every one of them is similar. Particularly when you mention ancient words. Even old-english "thou knowest" = you know is pronounced almost like modern russian "ty znaesh". I mean the construction is absolutely the same because russian is quite "orthodox" language comparing to English in the meaning of its semantics. So "aa snakke" or "aa spaake" (don't remember which is correct - I'm not that fluent in nordic) "...paa Ryska" is just similar construction of relative languages. It could play little to no part in the ethimologuy of the word "Rus". PS: The best translation of the word "Rusyi" into modern russian is not "dark blond" as mentioned here. It is closer to the color of wheat. If you've ever seen the wheat or if you remember, for example, how Anna Kournikova's hair color did look like you'll catch up with what I mean =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.70.236.62 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) You misplace categories,alas,-it won't work. You try to prove that Indo-European words are all the same,but here I was talking about rules of pronunciation not etymology.Anywhere since Arabs had names for Medieval Eastern Slavic *Saqaliba* ,they knew the difference between Slavic and Vikings the word *Rus* they used for Scandinavians. On 'hair color' naming theory : since original Western Russia was populated by Balts,Sarmatians,Finnish(in fact the most popular hero of Russian tales Ilya Muromets was possibly from Finnish tribe Muromi) for Eastern-Slavic to call themselves 'fair-haired' would not have any meaning at all due the similarity to neighbors.With Mongolian-Turkic conquest of Russia many parts of pre-invasion Rus got new Turkic population ,Cossacks,for example,are russified Turkic people(*Turkic word,qazaq, which means "adventurer"*-quote 'Cossaks');the Turkic Qasim Khanate' in Ryazan existed only 196 km East of Moscow etc etc.The regions with remained Slavic population invested new local meaning into the old name of their original lords to differ themselves from the Tatar newcomers.But they have no reason to differentiate themselves in the 8-9th century.The name of river Ros near Kiev would be far more serious localist theory then semantics based on modern Russian.Anywhere, I believe in Swedish theory .Scandinavians have not mutated their namings.The Goths left Sweden in the 3th century BC ,yet some immigrants from Swedish Gotland moved to leave together with Crimean Goths in the 12th century AC.Ancestry,kinship,namings were well preserved in Scandinavia,so if people from Roslagen area,which has the same name till our days, embarked into foreign adventures it sooner that initially their name was the one for the new nation they've created.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 

The discussion about the origins of Rus is already over

The renowned archeologist, Wladyslaw Duczko, has know once and for all compiled all of todays knowledge abour the Rus people and the conclusion is clear. The Rus people are from Sweden and there more specifically, from Roden (Roslagen). This is know also acknowledged by russian archeologists, so it now time to stop loose theiries that are totally groundless and lack any support from contemparary sources. Id someone objects to the reasearch carried out by Wladyslaw Duczko, please state if you are:

• a renowned reseacher and
• present evidence with your sources. Second hand material is not accepted.

A link to Wladyslaw Duczko's book, Viking Rus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalregementet (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

what is yourproblem? The article clearly states that Rus and Roslagen share the same etymology. --dab (𒁳) 19:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, yes. AFAIK the debate has been settled in practice for some time. Western historians have been near-unanimous on the Nordic origins of the Rus, and the Eastern/Russian dissenters have largely come around to that as well. I think this article needs some re-structuring though. In part to reflect this, but as it's currently written there's a bunch of redundancy and confusion. (e.g. the connection to Ruotsi is mentioned no less than four times!) The intro is too long and has some redundant/irrelevant information. I suggest making the bulk of the article handle the 'Normanist' view in a concise and uninterrupted fashion, and leave the 'alternate' theories to a section at the end. Anyone against that idea? --Pykk (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • While cleanup is always good, I don't see the need in the major restructuring. I remove the irrelevant piece. "Alternate theories" are already at the end: how further you way to move them? If you mean the section "Etymology", I suggest to split it into two parts and merge them into corresponding Norm and anti-Norm sections, leaving a brief summary, kind of: "the suggested etymolologies may be split into two main groups, according to two main trends: N & anti-N, see the corresponding sections". Now that we are here, the page Rus (name) begs for major cleanup: written as a poorly referenced essay rather than a decent wikipedia article. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I support this but the two sections can´t be given the "same" status. The Normanist theory is already proven and accepted by the scholars, so the "anti normanist" theory has to be mentioned as some sort of curiosity. Dalregementet (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

this article does indeed need some cleanup. But I would ask Dalregementet (talk · contribs) to stop adding his Roslagen thing to the lead. This article is unambiguosly titled Rus' , and its scope is the medieval population known as rus' русь. Yes, it is (virtually) undisputed that the name is cognate to that of Roslagen. So what? It still isn't the article about Roslagen. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like you to stop your tiring updates since the present people of Roslagen is the original Rus people. That is a FACT and is both historically and archeologically proven. The people in Roslagen still uses the label, so please, try to understand that people from Roslagen is Ros/Rus! Dalregementet (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But as Dbachmann said, this article is not about the people of Roslagen. Please stop adding it to the top of the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You don´t seem to understand - the Rus people in Roslagen are the original Rus people. Rurik and the Rus people emigrated from Roslagen to Holmgård according to the Primary chronicle. I would recommend you to get more familiar with Swedish and Scandinavian history before you edit anything related to that. Here is some reading by the researcher that knows most related to this topic: http://books.google.se/books?id=hEawXSP4AVwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Dalregementet (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed piece

The following text removed from article:

Research by Brian Jones (2008) of place names within the area of settlement by Norsemen in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Wales, suggests significant evidence of a wide geographic cultural continuum amongst the Norsemen. For example, within the periphery of north Wales, the words 'Orme' (Norse meaning Snake) as in the Great and Little Orme, and 'Rhos' (Norse possibly meaning the Rus peoples) as in Rhos-on-Sea and Rhosneigir (etc.), is indicative that the Norsemen shared a broad cultural base across the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Trade and tribal leadership networks would have supported a linguistic and cultural connection of these enclaved 'sea cove' Norse populations. The east Norsemen migrated to the east through the 'Volga/Dnieper route' which connected the Gulf of Finland with the Bysantine populations, whilst the west Norsemen looked to the North Sea - the 'Atlantic route'. Brian Jones' model of Norse dispersion indicates that both east and the west migrations are likely to have taken the form of seasonal predatorial explorations, followed by occasional permanent settlement in 'soft' areas with second generation (offspring expansion) resettlement arising from within these, rather than significant population migrations or invasions from the original homeland.

This is a summary of a work of a Brian Jones whoever he is. While the info in this piece may be useful for the current article, in this form it is unacceptable, because it is written in the out-of context form. Any added text must have primary focus on the article topic. - Altenmann >t 18:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant

Rus were Swedes and they still are since the people in Uppland are called "Rospiggar". In the Swedish province of Dalarna, the males are called "Dalmasar".

Wladyslaw Duczko has in his book "Viking Rus" clearly proved that the Rus people came from Sweden - and that from varoius sources, sources in central Europe, Kiev, Constantinopel and the Caliphate. The evidence are pointing in one direction only - Sweden. This is also supported with "tons" of evidence in the form of archeological findings - findings that hasn´t been properly examined until the fall of the Soviet Union. Really funny that you refer to Vilhelm Thomsen 1876... The question is: Do you have any credentials whatsoever in order to have some weight in matters regarding old Norse, archeology and history? I don´t think so.

Sweden is named Ruotsi by the Finns, the Estonians and the Sami in all times. Just grasp that!

"Infact early Rus' were collection of different (mainly) Fennoscandian tribes, having their headquarter at Aldeigjuborg" - A big joke not supported by archeological finds.

The Rus' were Swedes - Wladyslaw Duczko has lots of sources to back this up - sources whom many were not known 1876. even spoken back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalregementet (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Swedes didn't exist in time of Rus'. Better luck next time.--93.87.103.157 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, they did. The Swedes were mentioned as the Suiones by Tacitus in the first century AD and as the Sueones by Jordanes in the fifth century AD. Sverige, the Swedish name for Sweden, means "Svea rike", the realm of the Swedes, and Roslagen was a part of the land of the Swedes long before the time of the Rus'. Thomas.W (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That Rus came from Roden / Roslagen, as the name Rus suggests, is the most plausible theory. But is it absolutely the truth, that is another matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.190.251.57 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, you are indeed ignorant. There were no "Swedes" in the 8th century. There was nebulous coalitions of people called Suiones, but they were not Swedes ! Anyhow, the Rus were diverse, some argue they were mostly from the Danish peninsula; others were local Balts. 152.76.1.243 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you are the ignorant one, and what you write is total BS. See my more than one year old reply a couple of steps up in this thread. The Swedes existed as a people, centered around Uppland (with Roden/Roslagen being the name for the coastal area of their lands), at least two thousand years ago, that is long before the 8th century, and have lived in that area ever since. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Thomas, you are yet again wrong. Read but this:

Many scholars analysing ninth-century lands to the north of the Carolingian realm a priori use the term Denmark to describe them. Influenced by the teleological approach to the origins of modern Denmark, some historians think that ninth-century Denmark was united under dual Danish kingship, others stress that it was a non-unified territory ‘characterized by multiple kingship and dynastic strife’.3 Most of them, however, agree that the people living on these lands in the early Viking Age were called Danes, and the latter are often viewed as a coherent ethnic group, the precursor of the modern Danish nation.4 These views have been dominant within Danish historiography since the nineteenth century and still dominate modern Danish society.5 Yet, these perceptions of Denmark as a stable territorial unit — more or less corresponding with the modern Danish state — going back to the ninth century or even earlier and the Danes as a homogenous ethnic group living on the Carolingian border seem to be very questionable after a closer look at our sources. Available evidence suggests instead that, similar to other early medieval gentes, the ninth-century gens Danorum was constructed under the influence of both contemporary ethnic discourses and a specific political situation to the north of the Frankish world: First, this particular gens is a telling example of how long-lasting ethnic discourse affected the Frankish vision of their northern neighbours — the vision that has influenced modern historiography so much. Second, the gens Danorum illustrates well the construction of a political community out of a fluid world of early medieval ethnicities as a response to particular circumstances — in this case as a reaction to the situation in the northern Carolingian frontier in the early ninth century — and its dissolution when those circumstances ceased to exist. (Frontier Identities: Carolingian Frontier and the gens Danorum. In "Franks, Northmen and Slavs")

The very same arguement of discontinuity. or at the very least, significant social change and re-negotiation of identity can be applied to "Sweden" in the transition from "Roman Iron Age" to "Carolingian" / "Vendel" period. In fact, it has [2][3][4] [5]. Cheers Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Certainly enough reliable, verifiable sources to seriously lay questions of any continuity to rest... most certainly over 2,000 years of continuity! Incidentally, Thomas.W, you need to improve your grasp of terminology. In academic circles, what Slovenski Volk has provided is known as RS, not BS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's total BS since it has absolutely nothing to do with the area of Scandinavia where the Swedes have lived for more than two thousand years. Even the text quoted (which seems to be of dubious academic quality) clearly says that it is about the area of present day Denmark, that is more than 600 km south of the area that also in the 8th Century was the "realm of the Swedes", centered around Uppland, and its coastal area, Roden/Roslagen. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop taking it so personally. Sweden was scantily populated in the pre-Roman Iron age; and probably not even "germanic" at that point. By Roman times, there were a handful of tirbal unions which dissolved as quickly as they formed. There was no supra-regional "Swedish" identity. The first time there was a larger consolidation of pwoer in Sweden was not until the Viking Age; any auspices of a "Swede" indentity came subsequent to that. Anyhow, that's all not particularly relevant to this articleSlovenski Volk (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personally, but what you write here is a load of BS, and shows that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Posting a large citation that has nothing to do with the discussion also makes me doubt your honesty, so maybe it's time for a thorough check of your contributions in this field. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When looking at the page history I noticed that there's been some strange things happening here, with "Slovenski Volk" first making one post and an IP geolocating to Australia then rewriting it. But a comment made by Slovenski Volk in the first version of that post needs a reply, namely current concensus on Swedish ethnicity: simply- there were no 'Swedes" in 0 AD, which shows that he/she is unable to distinguish between Swedes, i.e. citizens/inhabitants of present day Sweden, and Swedes (Germanic tribe), which to me is an almost unbelievable level of ignorance, especially for someone trying to discuss things related to the Rus'. Swedes in the modern sense of the word didn't start to appear until the 13th Century when the Swedes (Germanic tribe) merged with the Geats who lived south of them (a people who were genetically the same as both the Swedes and the Danes, and spoke the same language), under a Geat leader, to form "modern" Sweden. But the Swedes (Germanic tribe) have existed for at least two thousand years, living in the same part of present-day Sweden all of that time. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 07:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't it clarified earlier in the article? The Goths, et al, are linked to the relevant groups, whereas the 'Swedes' appears several time earlier in the body, but not linked to the Swedes (Germanic tribe) until the bottom of the "Russian views of the Rus'". As a reader, it certainly leads me to believe that modern Swedes and the old Germanic tribe are one and the same, particularly in view of previous occurrences of Swedes and Sweden linking to the modern nation-state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked the internal links, but I'll go through the artice and fix it. The old subdivision of Sweden into "the land of the Geats" and "the land of the Swedes" still exists today, in the form of Götaland ("Geatland" or "land of the Geats") and Svealand ("Swedeland", or "land of the Swedes"), with the former covering present day Sweden up to just south of Stockholm, and the latter covering present day Sweden from there up to where Norrland ("Northland"), a later construction, starts. And all the way up to 1973 the formal title of the King of Sweden included being "king of the Swedes and the Geats". Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be an excellent start, Thomas.W. To be honest, I have no interest in trying to turn mainstream scholastic views on their head and don't have the credentials to do so (my area being Kievan Rus' and after). As I noted in August of this year, I've simply found that this article is more confusing than enlightening. Having looked at its history, it's suffered a plethora of hit and run edits and citations which haven't been properly developed and integrated. To my way of thinking, it's mainly in need of some good copyediting and translations of non-English sources (the reference list is an absolute mess!).

I haven't had a chance to come back to it, but it has remained static for some time. Any changes would be made with consensus with other interested editors/contributors, as I find bold edits to be counterproductive for articles that attract POV interest groups. The fact that a section on a talk page is entitled "Ignorant" means that developing a better, more informative article requires careful clarification and elaboration. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thomas W; I do know the difference between modern peoples and their late antique/ medieval namesakes, thank you very much for your enlightening comment. The problem is, apart from your pseudo-scholarly and nationalist approach (linking, as you do, highlighy hypothetical and ultimately unprovable name connections - which were thought of in the 19th century), you seem to think that tribes like Geats and Swedes were fixed, organic collectivities which lingered for centruies. This is not so. The Swedes first mentioned in the early two centuries AD are not the same body as those mentioned, say in the 8th century (broadly speaking). Just like the Saxons of the 9th century are not the same as those mentioned by Tacitus (given that Saxony was virtually depopulated after the 5th century; and soon repopulated to form a wholly new people by the same name); nor, in turn, are those medieval Saxons of the 9th century directly to the high Middle Age stem duchy "Saxons". Same goes for Frisians; same goes for the Venedi-west Slavs. But again, you'd be aware of that if your "know-it-all" attitude was more than a very, very transparent facade (evidenced by your very neglect of those wonderful references provided above; which merely demonstrated that you lack any sincere and genuine desire to learn the more nuanced anthropology of late antique and aerly medieval Scandinavians). Now, I've finished my discussion with you. I'd wish you well; but that would be a lie. And I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any more of your pathetic edits and even more pathetic ""references"" Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Total BS again since both archeaological evidence and written documents clearly show a continous presence of the same people. Period. So I suggest you try to learn about European history, particularly northern European history, before starting to dabble with articles about it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

WRONG, yet again. Nobody douts a 'general continuity' of population, but that is very different concept to ethnic continuity (I am far from suggesting that there was mass- extinction in population between, say, the 3rd century and the 8th in Sweden. But there were definitely numerous micro-regional discontinuities, changes in settlements patterns, and profound social re-arrangements-> making for the creation of wholly new "ethnies", even if the same names were re-used by the Romans, who otherwise had pretty much nil/ zilch/ squat accurate knowledge of the peoples of the north (do you think Tacitus, eg, actually set foot anywhere near Scandinavia and studied its 'natives'?). Again, you'd know that if you actually had anything more than a cursory knowlegde in anthropology. But I do not care for your ignorance, so keep reading Encarta online for your 'education', and keep up your (entirely misplaced) arrogance all you want. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Need for a serious editing

This article is, as far as I (not a speaker of Russian) can tell, largely a copy of the article in ru.wikipedia.org, including broken links to Russian-language websites. I think this has the potential to be a valuable article for en.wikipedia.org, but it needs work, perhaps from a native English speaker with a good command of Russian. User:Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, I think Americans (and other native English speakers???) have a very limited knowledge of both Viking history and early Russian history. I would like to see the articles on the Rus improved, and linked to from appropriate articles that get more views than this one does. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we have a single native English speaker on this talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Rus' people → Rus (people)

• In the sources they are referred to as simply the Rus. Given that the name can also refer to related peoples and regions etc, it would look better to have it this way. Encyclopedia Britannica uses this version. Alphasinus (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• The disputed end apostrophe represents the soft sign at the end of the Cyrillic spelling Русь. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Better avoid naming with brackets if we can. GreyHood ^Talk 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Friendly request for removal or correction of erroneous map

The "File:Europe 814.png" map - showing what Europe looked like c. 1200 years ago - needs to be removed or fixed.

The map claims to be "based on File:Europe 814.jpg map. However, it misrepresents the authentic File:Europe 814.jpg map.

For instance, the "File:Europe 814.png" map does not include the "Morduines" (Mordvins) in the "Finno-Ugric Tribes", or in "Finnish Tribes" like the authentic map does.

Also, perhaps the size of "Esthland" should be shown the way it is shown in the map from 1904 (portraying the 814 situation), etc. - RasboKaren (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Fringe Finno-Ugric theory

I have reverted the addition of a long section about a fringe Finno-Ugric theory since it lacks all scientific value since it is based on a claim made by a Finnish writer that central Sweden was inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, even as late as the 9th century AD, when all archaeological evidence, and all documentation, both local and foreign (ranging from runestones to the writings of Roman explorers), clearly shows that Southern and Central Sweden, up to far north of the Roslagen/Uppland area near Stockholm, has been inhabited by Scandinavians, i e Germanic people, since prehistoric times. The Sami people, the only Finno-Ugric people that has inhabited parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula, have never lived even anywhere near the Uppland area, but much further to the north. So a claim based on a theory that has as little scientific value as claiming that Elvis Presley is still alive doesn't belong in the article. Thomas.W (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A response to you given below - RasboKaren (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Banning Finnish language speeded up Swedification of Sweden Proper

User Thomas.W - please do not remove appropriately sourced and important information, based on guesses of ethnical backgrounds of other Wikipedia contributors.

There could not be Medieval "Swedish" sources of the Finnic- and Finno-Ugric-inhabited Kvenland - of course -, since the First ever account written in Swedish came out as late as the 14th century, Eric's Chronicle (presumably written in Turku, Finland).

As a name for a country, Kvenland seems to have gone out of ordinary usage already by the 13th century, unrecognized by scholars by the 14th century. Accordingly, the terms "Kvenland" and "Kven" are not found in Swedish literature.

However, for instance in c. 1157, in his geographical chronicle 'Leiðarvísir og borgarskipan', the Icelandic abbot Níkulás Bergsson described the lands near Norway the following way:

"Closest to Denmark is little Sweden (Svíþjóð), there is Öland (Eyland); then is Gotland; then Hälsingland (Helsingaland); then Värmland (Vermaland); then two Kvenlands (Kvenlönd), and they extend to north of Bjarmia (Bjarmalandi)."

There is other similar written evidence and much archaeological and DNA evidence for the support. My job, however, is not to write a doctoral thesis to you about this. Instead, I have appropriately provided distinguished archaeologists and historians and their works as sources.

A DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland (in Southern Sweden) supports the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era:

"The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.

It is widely accepted knowledge that still as late as in the end of the Middle Ages, Skellefteå - formerly Finnish "Heletti" - formed the border of the Finnish- and Swedish-speaking zones in what today is Northern Sweden, and that thereafter too the Finnic language zone has continued shifting much further north.

Simultaneously, Finnish place names have typically been replaced by Swedish names. Of Finnish "Heletti" became Swedish Skellefteå, of Finnish "Kainuunväylä" became Swedish Kalix River, and so on. This development had began centuries before from much further south in the modern-day area of Sweden.

It is also a commonly known fact, that the gradual evanescence of the Finnic language spoken in the area of the modern-day Norrland, Sweden, and the continued shifting further north of the Finnic language zone took place for the most part due to the restrictions and bans imposed against the use of the Finnic language spoken in the modern-day area of Sweden in the past.

In attempts to have the Finnish population of Sweden Proper "Swedified" and assimilated into the mainstream Swedish society, the use of the Finnish language had become strictly prohibited in Sweden Proper before the mid-17th-century.

By the end of the 18th century, a large part of the descendants of all Finnic people historically inhabiting the territories of the modern-day Sweden had become linguistically and culturally assimilated into the Swedish mainstream society. During the previous two centuries, various laws and regulations had been passed to speed up the "Swedification" process of the Finnic people of Sweden Proper, including total banning of the use of the Finnish language.

During the reign of Christina, Queen of Sweden, a proclamation of 1646 called for the burning of houses of all those Finns who did not want to learn Swedish in the area of Sweden Proper. Reading books written in Finnish lead in some cases to imprisonments still in the 18th century.

For clarification, this part could be discussed to a little larger extend in the article itself too, if necessary. The rest of my answer to user "Thomas.W" below: - RasboKaren (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This hodge-podge of oddball claims doesn't even merit an answer. What's next on your agenda? Claiming that the Greeks of antiquity were also Finns? Thomas.W (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just one comment: Gotland is an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea, halfway between the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Baltic countries, so claiming that the 9th century AD population of Roslagen/Uppland north of Stockholm were Finns based on someone claiming that a few prehistoric skeletal remains found on an island far away from not only the Roslagen/Uppland area but the Scandinavian Peninsula as a whole could possibly have been of Finno-Ugric origin is plain silly. And proves that the whole theory is extremely fringe. Thomas.W (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

One more comment just to show what a hodge-podge of unscientific garbage your Finno-Ugric theory is: The Forest Finns (info in Swedish [6], in Finnish [7]) that you refer to were relocated from Finland, which was then part of Sweden, during the 16th and 17th centuries (starting in 1580), moving from eastern Finland (primarily Savolax) to previously uninhabited areas of north-central Sweden proper. Meaning that they arrived in Sweden proper about 800 years after the times of Rurik, and thus have no relevance what so ever to your theory. Which you would have known if you had bothered to learn something about Swedish history before trying to rewrite it. So you pick a little here and a little there, anything that suits you, without checking if it is relevant, or plausible, or giving a single reliable scientific reference that supports your theory. So how could we possibly take your theory, or you, seriously? Thomas.W (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Findings of distinguished Swedish and Finnish scientists were provided to prove your point incorrect. E.g., the prehistoric remains of the people in Gotland were shown to match closest with those of the modern-day Finns. Gotland has been a part of the country of Sweden since the birth of Sweden, and it is a part of Scandinavia as well. In the Viking Age, Sweden did not yet exist.

Currently, the land inhabited by the Svea people ("Swealand") during the 9th century is shown too far up north (without sources too). Accordingly, the map needs to be removed. It is not known how large part of the modern-day area of Sweden was still Kvenland at the time of Rurik's birth. However, closely coinciding with the information provided in Orkneyinga, Hversu Noregr byggdist states that a descendant of Fornjót "ruled over Gothland, Kvenland (Kænlandi), and Finland".

Results published in April, 2012, of a DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland support the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era, further pointing to the overall information provided in the Orkneyinga and "Hversu" accounts being accurate: "The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.

A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. The Forest Finns are not discussed in the article, although the source about the banning of the Finnish language came from a book which focuses on the Forest Finns. The use of the Finnish language did not become banned from the Forest Finns alone, but all the Finnish-speaking people alike in the area of Sweden Proper, including Kvens, Tornedalians, Birkarls, etc. RasboKaren (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

History and support for theory of Finno-Ugric origins

The information removed by Thomas.W presents no personal views of the undersigned.

Instead, the info presents findings pertaining to a critical view shared by a number of distinguished experts. That view is today supported also by the recent Family Tree DNA studies. Accordingly, not presenting this school of thought represented by all these scientists and their related findings in this article would - of course - be wrong.

Thus, the wrongfully removed info was re-inserted to the article. Please note, that the related sources are appropriately attached, among them historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves, including Vasily Tatishchev, the author of the first full-scale Russian history.

Based on the findings of the internationally renown Professor Matti Klinge, for instance, the Finnic- and Finno-Ugric-inhabited ancient area of Kvenland included the shoreline of the entire Gulf of Bothnia, on both the present-day Swedish and Finnish sides of the Gulf.

The Doctor of Philosophy Matti Klinge, has served as a Visiting Professor at the University of Paris 1970-1972 and has held the Swedish Professorship of History at the University of Helsinki between 1975 and 2001. Klinge is one of the most prolific Scandinavian historians.

The border of the ancient Kvenland and the primarily Swedish-inhabited area in 814 AD (approximately when Rurik is believed to have born) can also be seen pictured in the map of "The Public Schools Historical Atlas by Charles Colbeck".

To juxtapose the recent Rurikid DNA studies in this informational context is appropriate and important, as the studies pinpoint that "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" "the so-called “Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1".

However, the way the above-given Family Tree pages have been used as sources until now, is inappropriate and against Wikipedia guidelines, because these particular DNA pages say nothing about "Uppland" or "Roslagen", for which they have been used as sources. Nor do they mention "Germanic" descent of the Rurikids, except only in the case of Jerzy Czartoryski of Canada, who "decided to have his Y-DNA tested in the Rurikid Project in spite of what historians speculate(d) about the descent of his princely branch."

Accordingly, the two Family Tree links in the earlier context and the sentence they were erroneously set to support were now removed.

The poorly compiled copycat image of the authentic map picturing Europe in 814 was replaced by the authentic map. No-one has opposed the earlier suggestion for the need to do this. The copycat map e.g. fails to include the "Morduines" (Mordvins) in the group of the "Finno-Ugric Tribes" (area bordered in the map), whereas the authentic map includes the "Morduines" in the group of the "Finnish Tribes". - RasboKaren (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This hodge-podge of oddball claims is as WP:Fringe as it can be and doesn't even merit an answer. What's next on your agenda? Claiming that the Greeks of antiquity were also Finns? Thomas.W (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In the suggested list of references, I do not see a single academic publication. I suggest you stop edit warring (your edits in this article have been reverted already by four editors) and come back when highly cited academic publications are available.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources ok 4 wiki use. Some older ones r'nt ... need scruitany ... dna pages indeed say not what the old text says = misquoting sources. 213.216.208.242 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User RasboKaren (talk) has been temporarily blocked for tendentious editing, pushing fringe theories and edit-warring, and 213.216.208.242 (talk) has been blocked for being used by Rasbokaren to evade the block. Thomas.W (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Theory of Dmitry Ilovaysky is a fringe theory. Theory of Vasily Tatishchev is not.

Why should views of a poorly known Russian historian Dmitry Ilovaysky be introduced - e.g. in the Rus' people article -, but not the views of the better known Vasily Tatishchev (just compare the multiple Google search results for Tatishchev over Ilovaysky)?

In his writings, Dmitry Ilovaysky expounded a hypothesis of Azov Rus, which was alleged to have been centered on Sarkel and Tmutarakan. The hypothesis of Ilovaysky has not been shared by other historians. Therefore, this can be called a fringe theory. However, the "Finnish theory" represented by Vasily Tatishchev has been shared by a number of well known historians since the 1700s, including historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves. An unbiased presentation of this view needs to be included. The recently conducted Rurikid DNA studies support the views of these historians, concluding the following:

... "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" ... "the so-called “Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1".

Based on the "Family Tree" DNA study, the members of the "Varangian Branch" represented by the "Rurikid princes") are “Finno-Ugrian”. They belong to the "Finno-Ugrian" haplogroup.

The prehistoric remains of the people in Gotland were brought up just because they too were shown to match closest with the modern-day Finns. Gotland has been a part of the country of Sweden since the birth of Sweden, and it is a part of Scandinavia as well. In the Viking Age, Sweden did not yet exist.

According to the closely coinciding information provided in both the medieval Orkneyinga and the 'Hversu Noregr byggdist' accounts, a descendant of Fornjót "ruled over Gothland, Kvenland (Kænlandi), and Finland". Results published in April, 2012, of a DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland support the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era, further pointing to the overall information provided in the Orkneyinga and "Hversu" accounts being accurate:

"The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden.

A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also appropriately given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. Here are a couple of faulty elements in the article, which need fixing:

1. The "imitation" of the 1905 map picturing Europe in 814 needs to be removed, because It has critical inaccuracies, as described before

2. The current Rus' people article continues misusing two Family Tree Rurikid DNA study pages as sources. The pages do not state that Rurik was from "Roslagen" or "Uppland". Tthey cannot be used as sources for the claim.

3. In the current Varangians and the Rus' people articles, the land inhabited by the Svea people ("Svealand") during the 9th century is shown to reach too far up north, and no sources for the claim are shown.

4. The Rurikid dynasty article continues providing a claim supported only by a broken link: "...[North] Germanic speakers (Varangians)." (the last time I removed the broken link was on November, 21, 2012, as can be seen here). RasboKaren (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Now for something completely different

Just popped by to challenge the wording of the lead. "The descendants of Rurik were the ruling dynasty of Rus' (after 862), the successor principalities of Galicia-Volhynia (after 1199), Chernigov, Vladimir-Suzdal, Grand Duchy of Moscow, and the founders of the Tsardom of Russia." Where, exactly, has this information come from (yes, I've looked it up on the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is no more an independent or secondary source than Wikipedia)? Currently, it implies that there were true successor states. After Batu Khan & his kinfolk came through, Kievan Rus' ceased to exist, full stop. If you are confused about the concept of 'successor state', please read up on the subject and feel free to consult with the list of Succession of states in Europe.

The closest any states/principalities come to being 'successor states' post-razing of Kievan Rus' were: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Principality of Polotsk, the Principality of Pereyaslavl, the Principality of Chernigov, the Principality of Kiev and the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. This has been discussed at length on the Kievan Rus' talk page & consensus unanimously reached that Kievan Rus' ended with the Mongol invasion and therefore had no successor states. All future East Slav states were created de novo. 'Successor States' has been removed from the Kievan Rus' article. If anyone has any qualms about my changing the misinformation in this particular article, please let me know as I will be doing so by the end of this week (i.e., any preferences as to how it should be phrased in order to keep unfounded claims to successorship brief). Many thanks for any input in advance! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you please indicate exactly what are you going to change? Before Yuri Dolgorukiy, the Kiev Principality was considered to be the supreme one, with all other principalities in principle subordinate to it. However, his son, Andrey I, while being entitled to become the Prince of Kiev, has chosen to stay in Vladimir. After that, nobody cared about Kiev, and why it was so easily dissolved by Mongols. What happened in 1242 is irrelevant for the big picture.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This 'linear' version of Moscow becoming the ultimate, legitimate successor-state is absolute... according to whom? This version of successorship has been scrutinized & considered contentious enough to avoid. Remember, this is English Wikipedia and there are a plethora of English language sources (as well as other secondary sources) which do not agree with what you postulate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you are not interested in looking for consensus. From what I know, this is the only Wikipedia I actively participate, so I am pretty well aware what project I am writing in.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Ymblanter. Had that been the case, I would not have bothered to notify anyone on this talk page of my intention and ask for their input. In the interests of an NPOV, there ought to be some sort of acknowledgement of various historical interpretations. While I would rather not see a long and convoluted entry on the subject here, perhaps you're willing to work with me to find a reasonable compromise on this if we're the only two interested in the contents of this article at this time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then may be you could restate again why for example the Polotsk Principality as of 1018 is not a successor of the Kiev Principality (as of 945).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, Ymblanter, I haven't been ignoring your query but have been busy IRL. I'm not going to go down the path of parsing the claims of the Polotsk Principality or any other principality simply because it is a non-argument. Again, I will reiterate that none of these principalities were 'successor states'. As you would know, this subdivision of Rus' (Kiev being the central state to which all others pledged their allegiance & paid tribute) was officially deployed by Vladimir I, superficially in order to avoid more blood baths between brothers for the central princedom of Kiev. After a few generations, the principalities themselves had been subdivided and were warring amongst themselves for personal power to the point where they couldn't get their acts together to fight as a united entity when Batu Khan used the disarray in his favour in order to besiege Rus'. The razing of Kiev IS of utmost significant as it was THE centre of the Rus' empire, not merely a principality. There's a distinct difference between a principality & the central governance of a kingdom with a central 'Prince' (ultimately, the 'Prince' of Kiev was the King). How can any principality claim to be a successor. They can break with the central state; they can attempt to usurp the central state: they cannot metamorphose into/become the central state. They can continue to exist as self-contained feudal states, use the opportunity to seize territory & plunder their neighbours carte blanche (as they did), but they cannot become legal successors to a defunct central state. Blood ties to the head of the Rurik dynasty & dynastic claims are put in place after the fact. This is merely a political ploy & does not reflect the reality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My first point is that in 1242 Kiev was not the center of the Rus' Empire, the empire did not actually exist, and if something could be called "the Rus' Empire" at the time, it was Vladimir-Suzdal (though I would probably avoid this wording at all). My second point is semantics, but if in 980 we have a single feudal state, and in 1300 in the same area we have a dozen of states, five of which are ruled by the princes who are direct descendants of the 980 prince, it is fair to call them successor states. Again, this is semantics, and if you have strong feelings about this particular points, this probably can be negociated out of the lead.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you have a particular take on the subject which I don't necessarily agree with, my greater concern lies with some sort of uniformity of information in English Wikipedia which is, after all, meant to serve as a coherent source for those who don't know anything about Slavic history. This conflict of information is evidenced everywhere from Cyrillic script to any number of articles surrounding anything & everything Slavic. Non-Slavic contributors/editors have expressed their utter dismay over trying to decipher the information and state that they have come away from the experience more confused than when they began. Perhaps this could be construed as an exercise in semantics, but I believe it to be a necessary one as these particular semantical issues are being used as leverage for various current nationalistic & political ends. I'm sure you've been involved in having to constantly clean up hit & run nationalistic changes in text, as have I. I was pleased that consensus was reached on the Kievan Rus' page to avoid the loaded term 'successor states' and, if you have no serious objections, would rather collaborate with you on how to restructure the lead appropriately. To be honest, I'm sick and tired of the "we are the true descendants of the Rus'" mentality permeating historical articles. In the interests of more balanced and cohesive information - the political atmosphere being what it is - best that flag-waving be left to the non-English Wikipedias. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see your point. Should we bypass it by replacing "successor principalities" with some longer wording, smth like "principalities created in the area formerly occupied by the Kievan Rus'"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent suggestion. For those wanting to delve into the formation of the individual principalities & see how this evolved and tied together, the links point them in the right direction, as do the links in the infobox. Do you want to do it, or should I? Also, I don't know how you feel about the Normanist issue. At the moment, it's heavily weighted towards the Normanist theory & almost entirely dismissive of the so-called 'Anti-Normanist' view. There may be a prevalent view but, considering that there are other views, the other views need some further development. Personally, having gone through the citations I've noted that the creditable secondary source texts have, at some point or another, been overlooked in the bulk of the article. They don't actually fit the bill as being references: they look more like an additional reading list than true references. It's the notes that carry the weight of the arguments. I've been trying to clean them up & find permalinks for them but, in examining them, am not convinced that they a credible enough to carry the weighty arguments being put forward by this article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not a historian, but my understanding is that Anti-Normanist theories still have to find their recognition in academic research and are considered a kind of fringe area, whereas the Normanist hypothesis, whereas poorly justified, is a mainstream. It might be good to discuss this somewhere properly and with reliable sources, but I am not the right person to do it, and all attempts on the English Wikipedia I came across were done by some freaks and had to be immediately reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I've noted that there have been 'fringe' theories here that could only be defined as lunatic-fringe. I'm fairly well acquainted with Normanist theory, so I'll take it from here as I can appreciate not wanting to involve oneself in edit wars (not that I have a particular war to wage, I'm only intending to refine the content of this article a little more). Thanks for all your assistance to this point!--Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was distracted by smth and then went on for holidays. Please feel welcome to go ahead with the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely understood. I hope your holiday was pleasant & that you feel refreshed! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A remark on Constantine Porphyrogenitus bok, de administrando imperio, when he mention the Dnieper cataracts, he names them in both their Nordic or "Russian" and Slavic names. And that is in it self interesting. And I think this should be mentioned. The article only make references to the Nordic names of the cataracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.190.251.57 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the source of the Slavic names? At the moment, the only citation given for the list within the article is "The Viking Road to Byzantium". If, indeed, Constantine names them in both languages, a balanced article would require that both be presented. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It his mentioned in de administrando imperio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.190.251.57 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look it up when I have a moment. These are exactly the kinds of details that should be elaborated on. Yes, anti-Normanist theories have come to be understood as being Tsarist & Soviet propaganda, however there is much that has been swept aside as being 'fringe' theory because it has been tarred with the same brush. Considering the amount of research still going in Russian, Ukraine (even Poland) which, while it's also being acknowledging that the Varangians played an important role in Rus', why are now independent nation-states still examining the entire area of study despite often being at political odds with each other? This page links to the Rurik/Rurikind dynasty with exhaustive lists of studies into the descendants being of a Varangian haplogroup, yet omit to note the extensive DNA research of the predominant haplogroup (an older group of related tribes in the region) still being undoubtedly prevalent in representing the current inhabitants of the areas occupied in former Kievan Rus'. Why has the emerging science of DNA studies been used to illustrate the Normanist POV yet conveniently overlooked as pertains to the majority of the population? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

New sourcing, and ? Fringe

Dear Mr Thomas. Hello. I am I am perplexed as to how, on the one hand, you dismiss arguably some of the world leading scholars in eastern European scholarship, such as Simon Franklin [8], Jonathon Shepherd[9], Omeljan Pritsak[10] and Horace G Lunt [11] - western trained scholars mind you (not crack-pot Bolsheviks !)- presenting post-modern, non-partisan perspectives which are very much in line with current anthropological thinking; whilst on the other, you consider the online dictionary you used as a "source" to be credible ?! I must say the irony is deliciously funny. Moreover, my addition has not removed any other of the other perspectives in the main of the body; but merely presents a more tertiary level analysis of high-level authors inserted by a more informed editor. So the addition stays. Period. Your very initial revert was contra WP:ROWN; as it was not a bad edit, but very much the opposite.

Now, as for the part of the lede I deleted, I did so because it is irrelevant and not WP:RS. This online dictionary [12] to which it is sourced fails WP:RS miserably, and in any case such whimsical etymological connections are peripheral to the main thrust of the article. Once you find a proper academic paper discussing it, feel free to add it to the relevant article. But keep in mind, too much has been made on alleged etymological connections. They are, always shall be, hypotheses. They are the Romantic whimsical theorems of yesteryear, and have righty been harshly criticized and dismissed by Goffart[13] (on the supposed Gotland-Goths link) and Curta (Venedi-Slavs)[14]. I would be more than happy to email any of the papers I have discussed to you so you may verify, or better still, enlighten yourself. Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that much of this article is based on spurious sources, the majority of which don't qualify as anything other than simplistic summaries of outdated children's encyclopaedia's. What reference list exists is out of date and in languages other than English (which would only be okay if there weren't contemporary English language sources available). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Children's Encyclopedias" - ha ha very much so. There actually is more and more quality work coming from, both, werstern scholars and 'new generation' Russian scholars which thankfully go beyond the old, mundane debates. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

More Criticism - Rus' vs Swedes

Has anybody already pointed out an obvious / a deliberate mistake in the current article: the Rus' were a group of Varangians among others like Swedes and Gutes

According to the Primary Chronicle, the Rus' were not Swedes, Normans, Goths, Angles, Galicians, Wallachians, Romans, Germans or Venetians.

Frankly, I'm not sure the Swedes were even Varangians.

Direct quotes from the Primary Chronicle:

"For the following nations also are a part of the race of Japheth: The Varangians, the Swedes, the Normans, the Gotlanders, the Rus', the English, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Romans, the Germans, the French, the Venetians, the Genoese, and so on. Their homes are situated in the northwest, and adjoin the Hamitic tribes."

"They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Rus': these particular Varangians were known as Rus', just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, English, and Gotlanders, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichians, and the Ves' then said to the people of Rus', “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to rule and reign over us.” They thus selected three brothers, with their kinsfolk, who took with them all the Rus' and migrated. The oldest, Rurik, located himself in Novgorod; the second, Sineus, at Beloozero; and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. On account of these Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as the land of Rus'. The present inhabitants of Novgorod are descended from the Varangian race, but aforetime they were Slavs.[15][16]Finnedi (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(Yawn) What's next, Finnedi? Your old self-invented theories about the Rus' being Finns? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W, it sure didn't take you long to arrive. :D I have splendid news for you. Have you seen these:

1. Catherine, the Great: "Gostomysl hatte vier Söhne...Die mitlere Tochter Umila war die Gemahlin eines Finnischen Königes von waragischer Abkunst. Aus dieser Ehe entsprossen Rurik und seine Brüder."[17][18]

2. Tatischev's Russian history (read chapters 4 and 5)[19]

3. Alexandre Dumas, sr: "Le prince varègue épousa Umila, fille de Gostomielz; il l'emmena en Finlande; elle fut la mére du grand Rurik."[20]

4. The Swedish E.J.Biörner who saw the lost Chronicle of Joachim wrote that the Varangians were Carelios Kyriosque Fennicos.[21]

Will you edit the sentence "the Rus' were a group of Varangians among others like Swedes and Gutes" to "the Rus' were a group of Varangians like the others were Swedes and Goths" or should I do that?Finnedi (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, an imaginary "Swedish Realm" just collapsed before my eyes, and all I did was I copied a direct quote from the Primary Chronicle. Do you call the original text "fringe"? The text in the article must be corrected, otherwise I'll have to ask for a dispute resolution in this matter as well. If you continue the way you do, what do you think is going to happen eventually?Finnedi (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism - Rodzlagen / Roden

The text under the map of Europe in the 9th century "Roslagen is located in the northernmost tip of the pink area marked "Swedes and Goths"", is plain misleading.

Rodzlagen didn't exist before the 15th century and even its predecessor Roden was mentioned first as late as 1296. The theory suggesting Rus / Ros came from Rodzlagen / Roden is but a Swedish utopia. The article at least should aim at a scientific and neutral approach. [22] Finnedi (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just like RasboKaren a few sections up you pick a little here and a little there, whatever suits you. There are three sources in the article that support the etymology of Roden -> Rus, which trumps your link. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, this is not about me or you, a Swede, but what suits the logic. The Roslagen => Rus' theory is way too tenuous to be presented as "the most prevalent theory". Now, why would the Rus' have been named by the Finns with a Finnish word, "Ruotsi", if the Rus' were Sveas (Swedes)? If the Rus' were Finns, like Catherine the Great and Tatischev et al claimed, then I could understand the logic but then "Ruotsi" would have had to mean something else than a Svea. Also, it's terribly misleading to present a map of Europe from the year 814 and write underneath that Roslagen is on that map when we know that no Roslagen or Roden existed that time.Finnedi (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Finnedi: Excuse me, but "Ruotsi" is the Finnish name for Sweden, not the Rus'. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

????? Where does anyone claim that Ruotsi means Rus'? That part of the text is the etymology section of the article, showing that Ruo-/Ru-, the first part of Roden/Roslagen, is used as a "geographical description" for Sweden/Swedes in various languages, for example in the Finnish and Estonian words for Sweden. Ruotsi/Rootsi. Thomas.W ^talk 16:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: "why would the Rus' have been named by the Finns with a Finnish word, "Ruotsi"" --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII: Please read WP:SOAP. Check the WP:TALK guidelines conveniently provided at the top of this page. Perhaps you should read the article and sources properly before formulating strange questions. You've already been supplied with the answer above (months ago). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: It's not my question. It's a quote that I disagree with. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions, etc

I think its time we move beyond the banal , endless debates about the Scandinavian/ 'Swedish' origin of the Rus, and useless debates about the etymology of Rus, as any serious linguistc knows that nouns and proper names do not suffer etymologyzation. Whatever the original meaning of "Rus' , it matters not, as it otherwise tells us nothing about why the Rus came to northwestern Russia, from where, the nature of their early society, and their relationship with the 'native' population, etc. Over the next few days I suggest intend to;

• 1) fix the lede - lets do away with the 'debate issue', as from what I m aware, the only resistence to a largely/ predominantly Scandinavia origin of those very first "Rus" who arrived in the SE Baltic & Staraja Ladogo are from now expired Soviet scholars and a hand full of fringe theorists. Of course, this is not to say the historic Rus encountered by later sources weren't a more modified, mixed group; as indeed the contibutions I put months earlier stated (a/p H G Lunt and O Pritsak), that the Rus meant traders, seafarers, raiders, which certainly was not an exclusively Swedish affair. Ie nothing from stopping Finns, Balts, etc from joining it.
• 2) Why did the Rus come ? Naturally the PVL is not immensely useful here, as it was written way after and was hagiographic/ Christian writings. Back to the question - the Rus arrival was the eastern equivalent of the 'Vikings'; fuelled by internal wars, conflict, and need for spoils, as the Swedes had been deprived from that which they had become accustomed during the Roman era due to the rise of Carolingians and the Danish kingdom who both effectively 'shut off' the peoples of what is now Sweden.
• 3) the nature of Nth Russia at time of Rus arrival (8/9th cc). Contra to Valentin Sedov;s idea that Slavs were already present in northern Russia in the 5th / 6th century, most scholars now argue that Slavonization of the Russian north occurred much later - 8/9th. So the Scandinavian migrants likely encountered a Finnic and Baltic population mostly.
• 4) Nature of contacts and early settlements: - undoubtedly there was some conflicts, as evident by the erection of fortified sites on the Baltic coast, as well as the mass grave of Scandinavian young men found there. Staraja Ladoga was , though, a newly created settlement, and not a pre-existing 'native' one.

• We also have to keep in mind, however, that there was no one "Rus", but many Rus. Many different clans/ groups/ companies mutually antogonistic vying for supremacy. The one Rus only emerged later, after all the battle was done.

Naturally, this will be supported by the latest peer-reviewed writings of scholars, professors and PhD candidates.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion

A move discussion relating to this article is open at Lech, Čech, and Rus' talk page. Khestwol (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Rus people is a fictional term

Please show me an authentic (not Wikipedia made) older map in English language or written in Latin (before 18-19th centuries) where Rus people were identified. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Rus' (name)#Early evidence. That was easy. Next! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

incorrect map

The map File:Europe_814.png informatively ineffective. Map not show territory of Roslagen. Please do not obstruct readers to receive correct information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Frankiv: The map you are trying to introduce is not backed up by reliable sources, but is original research by a Wiki Commons contributor who simply asserts that s/he has collated the information from 'hundreds of sources'. A map of such precision must be backed up by reliable sources, and not dependent on your belief that it is accurate, in order to be eligible for use on English language Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

bug map

The following map contains 1) unprofessional data about territory of Slavs. 2) contains no data on the territory of Roslagen 3) names mordva not Finno-Ugric peoples and a number of other errors. Please do not use this map in the future. And do not obstruct others to improve the quality of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You have already posted the same message to my talk page twice (here and here), then another bad faith message of the same nature immediately afterwards (here) without bothering to read or respond to the responses I've left on this talk page, your talk page, or my own talk page. Reiterating my response on the talk page, "The discussion is taking place on the talk page of the relevant article here; 2) Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and do not treat articles and talk pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The map you are trying to introduce is entirely WP:OR, as has been explained by me several times. 'No original research' is a policy. Thank you for your understanding." Also, it would be appreciated if you would self-revert the latest reintroduction of this original research map, it will work in your favour as you are edit warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

once more about

bugs in Europ map of 814.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Claiming that Roslagen should be included in the map is outright silly since there were no Rus' living there, and never have been. The original Rus' came from there, but that doesn't make the people who stayed in Roslagen Rus'... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Rus' vs. Rus

I have noticed that the name Rus appears in the article both with and without the ending apostrophe. Which is correct? Is there a difference in pronunciation? Is the name as written here a transliteration of Cyrillic? If so, what is the Cyrillic spelling of Rus', and what is the Cyrillic spelling of Rus? Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Paulmlieberman. The Cyrillic spelling is universally 'Русь' (with the apostrophe designating 'ь': the Soft sign). It's a literal transliteration, as the letters represent R-U-S-'soft-sign'. I'm aware of the disparity of usage across Wikipedia articles, but the majority of contemporary academic works (and tertiary education units specialising in Slavic Studies) on the subject in the English language favour the usage of Rus' most particularly with regards to Kievan Rus'. There are, however, many common references - dictionaries, as well as usage on the internet - still using Rus without the apostrophe. While Wikipedia's MOS guidelines WP:RUROM and WP:UKROM, for example, favour abstaining from the use of either this or the hard sign in transliterations including proper nouns, WP:COMMONNAME leans towards Rus'... but works on Rus' and the Rus' in more general terms tend to be a mixed bag, particularly where older sources are quoted directly within the research papers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Iryna Harpy. I will get to fixing these unapostrophied names sometime soon. I was just looking at the Kievan Rus' article, and I see things like

{{lang-orv|Рѹ́сь}} {{transl|orv|''Rus{{'}}''}}

I see that lang-orv displays as "Old East Slavic language". Do you know where I can find a wp article on the use of these notations? Also, why is the apostrophe after Rus in the transl part inside double curly braces? Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism Rus = Swedes

Article has clear nationalist bias. Rus were not "Swedes". This misinformation is based on Annales Bertiniani fragment:

qi se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant; comperit eos gentis esse sueonum

This does not mean that the Rus = Swedes. It means that the norhtmen visiting Louis the Pious at Ingelheim were part of the nation called the Rus' (qi se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant] and by nationality these particular Russes were Swedes (comperit eos gentis esse sueonum].

Just like British nation consists of Welsh, Scots and English nationality. It is an fact that Welsh are indeed British, but that does not make English Welsh. Nor does it mean that British are Welsh, even Welsh indeed are part of the British nation.

Russian Primary Chronicle (Nestors Chronicle) also makes it very clear that the Rus' are separate nation from the Swedes. "Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Nonmans, Angles, and Goths, for they were thus named ".

Infact early Rus' were collection of different (mainly) Fennoscandian tribes, having their headquarter at Aldeigjuborg located southeast shore of lake Ladoga. East Scandinavians, or Swedes, certainly were part of this nation but so were western Finns whom emigrated to shores of Ladoga about 800 AD, Vepsians were allready there back then. Even name of the trading town Aldeigjuborg (or Aldeigja), is Old Norse renderation from original Veps name of the settlement, Alodejoki.

The Rus' were not Swedes, they were Rus'. Article should be modified to more neutral pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.205.242 (talk • contribs)

Do you have scholarly references which put forth this opinion?- Altenmann >t 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Which opinion ? That the Rus' operated from Aldeigja/Staraya Ladoga ? That the Rus' were "multinational" ?

I would suggest Gwyn Jones: History of the Vikings (page 250 ->), Håkon Stang: Naming of the Russia, Wladyslaw Duczko: Viking Rus: studies on ::the presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe. Many of these are allready mentioned in the reference list of the article. Yet the article ::doesnt really fit the description and ideas of these modern scholars.

Also the Roslagen is not the source for the word Rus' as the article says. Vilhelm Thomsen debunked the theory allready 1876 in his Relations ::between ancient Russia and Scandinavia and yhe origins of Russian state. Roslagen is way too modern name to be considered as the source for the ::Rus'. Old Norse name for "rowers" would have been something along the line *röther. Yet here we have the famous Roslagen , in the first ::paragraph of the article. Håkan Stang in his Naming of Russia explains the origin of the word Rus' from Vepsian language *Roc briliantly. Note ::that the Aldeigja/Staraya Ladoga is right on the spot where the Vepsians used to live (and partially live even today). So the referenses are ::there but the article is like "fresh northern wind from mid-1800's". Article even starts : The Rus' (from Ukrainian: русь, [rusʲ]; also Ros, ::Rhos, from Swedish: Ros.. Huh! Swedish was not even spoken back then. It was language now known as Old Norse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.205.242 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The 3 Viking princes: Before I moved, I had a book, printed prior to WWII on Polish history, that was part of a volume of books dealing with the history of European countries. I no longer have it, but I refuse to accept that I was the ONLY American that had access to that high school library book. If you can find it, cite it, post the relevant passage, & (unlike me) can remember how to use grammar, I would appreciate it. Until then, bear with me as I try recite the passage, from a 30 year old memory (I am NO bard):

3 Viking princes came to a bend, in the Vistula river, & set up camp. The oldest, Lech, climbed the tallest nearby tree. He looked around & said, "This is where I will build my kingdom." He called it Lechistan. His descendants adopted the Latin name for the previously indigenous people, Poles, when they converted to Catholicism. The middle brother, Czech, conquered the Bohemian gypsies to the west & establish what is now know as The Czech Republic. The youngest, Rus made a fort on the river north of Kiev.

I also find it disconcerting the even I mild historian would come up with a statement like: the highly civilized & wealthy Slavic Kievs, being the major trade center for half of Europe for hundreds of years, would NEVER hire seasoned Viking raiders to be there King. Ignoring a thousand years of wealthy Romans hiring barbarians to fight their battles for them. ** Hyperbole paraphrasing to drive the point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip A Demick (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the term Viking really was used in that source, I guess you mean Northmen? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The European map

This European map should be replaced or removed since its very incorrect. For example it shows how finno-ugric people lived all the way down in Swedish Värmland? That is a pure lie and should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.77.2 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate wikilinks

Iryna Harpy, you stated [23] This was not a dup link as there are no other instances of the wl in the lead.

The lead now reads

The Rus' (Slavic languages: Русь; Greek: Ῥῶς) were an early medieval group, who lived in modern Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and other countries, and are the ancestors of modern Russians and other Eastern European ethnicities. The Rus came from what is today Roslagen of modern day Sweden. According to both contemporary Byzantine and Islamic sources and the Primary Chronicle of Rus', compiled in about A.D 1113, the Rus were Norsemen who had relocated "from over sea", first to northeastern Europe, creating an early polity that finally came under the leadership of Rurik.

Later, Rurik's relative Oleg captured Kiev, founding Rus' , academically known as Kievan Rus'. The descendants of Rurik were the ruling dynasty of Rus' (after 862), and of principalities created in the area formerly occupied by Kievan Rus', Galicia-Volhynia Principality (after 1199), Chernigov, Novgorod Republic, Kingdom of Rus (1253–1349), Vladimir-Suzdal, Grand Duchy of Moscow, and the founders of the Tsardom of Russia.

(Refs and emphasis removed and my emphasis added.)

I see two identical wikilinks to Kievan Rus'|Rus'. Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, Andrewa. I'd missed the first instance. I think, for the sake of clarity in the context, the second instance is more salient than the initial Rus' wikilink. The first instance is crowding the concepts of the Primary Chronicles and Rus' together in an unintuitive manner for the reader. Would you be amenable to that as being a reasonable compromise? I think we have to be careful to distinguish how the term Rus' is used without assuming that the reader is already familiar with Kievan Rus' being a later academic distinction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. You're quite right, the second wikilink would have been the better one to keep. Normally the first occurrence is the one to link, but here the second is the more helpful, and I missed that. Andrewa (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Cheers! I've implemented the change per WP:IAR. There aren't many editors actively involved in the development and maintenance of this article so other editors are more than welcome to bring their arguments this talk page should they disagree with the change (i.e., if there is consensus that using the second instance flouts MOS: without being beneficial to the reader). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. IMO a good example of wp:creed#2: by working together, Wikipedians will achieve results better than any of us could produce on our own. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I like your essay, Andrewa. Bookmarked for future reference for new editors! --03:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Byzantine Greek name for Rus

The article correctly says that the Byzantine Greek name for Rus was dromitae (δρομίται), adding that to a Modern Greek this alludes to running and means a run. There is also a quoted source from a conference. That is all fine as far as modern Greeks are concerned. However, in Byzantine Greek the word is derived from dromon, the byzantine name for ship, and means something like "people of the ships", which is probably a direct translation seeing that in their own language the name Rus meant beople who row, or something along those lines. I would say this needs correcting as it is not obvious why a word alluding to a run in modern Greek indicates that these people sailed in ships in medieval Russia, which is what follows that statement. Perhaps this sentence had been overcorrected at one point from something that originally made more sense.Skamnelis (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

these ones persist from Glagolitic script at Adriatic prior and out of any norse??

"The Norsemen allegedly had some enduring influence in Rus, as testified by loan words (these ones persist from Glagolitic script at Adriatic prior and out of any norse), such as [...]"

Is the sentence within the parenthesis supporting or refuting the Norse origin of the enumerated words? If refuting, a source is needed. Luke (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A) It's a grammatical nightmare (I can't make out what the editor who introduced this was trying to convey); B) The entire paragraph is in need of a clean up as there are unsupported claims about loan words. The only reference is essentially a note reading more like a breach of WP:NOR than etymologically supported contentions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sentence be removed then? Luke (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph as meaningless... and unsupported. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This article and maps are in case of Russia almost completely inccorect...

....this article has from it's tribes standpoint a rate of 80% false informations about Russia (; I don't blame the creators, because they have a very euro-centric / euro-atlantic view and feel of the world. But this article and the informations have nothing to do with Russia and it's history. In Russian Federation people are living which consist of Russkye tribes around Moscow and Siberia, scyth people, Siberian slavs, turcic tribes, finno-ugric tribes, tatar tribes, kahzar tribes. no talk about the migration and variety of this tribes in Russia. then there are important places like Samara, Arthania. at borders of China there were more than 1000 years ago "Caucasian" (eng) tribes. from this time all the nomadic mixtures are also ignored here. also like the Russki agriculture communes in Siberia, in "euorpean" lands of Russia, asian Russia, the Ural ( geographically description )

So the whole article don't have a clue about Russian Federation, Russian culture, history and it's Eurasian structure and history. This article is EXTREMELY eurocentric / atlantic-centric and so it's perspective also (; The Russian character of history, reality and the moment do not appear here and the creators seems to have nothing to do with Russian reality, it's history and can't feel it's culture and character. --92.202.202.118 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to have totally misunderstood what the article is about, it's about the historical Rus' people, a people who lived only in Europe, not about the modern day Russian people, or the Russian Federation... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lede needs clarification: who were the Rus'?

I just read (carefully) the lede to this article (which I've edited a number of times in the past), and noticed that the first two sentences make inconsistent statements. I can't find the right words to express it clearly, so I bring it to you:

The Rus' (Slavic languages: Русь, Greek: Ῥῶς) were an early medieval group, who lived in a large area of what is now Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and other countries, and are the ancestors of modern East Slavic peoples. The Rus' were a Swedish Viking tribe that came from what is today Roslagen of modern day Sweden.

BTW, check it out here (it looks glorious): https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rus%27_people

First, what is an "early medieval group"? Would the term 'people' be preferable to 'group'? Second, would it be accurate to say that the Rus' who came from Scandanavia became the nobility of the Kievan Rus'?

The section Slavic Sources has a much clearer statement: The Varangians were first expelled, then invited to rule the warring Slavic and Finnic tribes of Novgorod

It seems to me that the Rus' were, initially, the Vikings who came to the area that became Kievan Rus', but that later, during the existence of that realm, "Rus' people" would refer to all the inhabitants of the Rus' principalities. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right. Now all you need is refs, & you can adjust accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I just realised I overlooked this discussion while making some comments about the header below. Here they are again. I think it needs some major work.

• It says that the Rus' 'are the ancestors of modern East Slavic peoples'. I'm not sure where genetic research has got to on this issue (and this kind of research is still in its infancy), but I don't think we should imply that the Rus' are the only ancestors of modern East-Slavic people, which this phrasing does! I'd suggest we just delete that claim, unless someone wants to add in proper genetic scholarship that supports it.
• The statement that they 'came from what is today Roslagen of modern day Sweden' is also simplistic: as the article says, recent scholarship supports the idea that this is etymologically the same as the word Rus’, but no-one thinks that Rus' people only came from from modern Roslagen. What about 'Most recent scholarship agrees that the name Rus’ has the same origin as the name of the Swedish province of Roslagen, and that key players in the formation of Rus' identity must have come from this area of Sweden.'?
• 'According to both contemporary Byzantine and Islamic sources and the Primary Chronicle of Rus', compiled in about A.D 1113, the Rus' were Norsemen who had relocated "from over sea"'. I'm not sure if any source(s) actually say this. I searched books.google.com and scholar.google.com for '"from over sea" rus' and can't see any sources there. I'm not sure what best to do about this, but one way or another, it needs to change!
• As I've discussed below, I think the header also needs to acknowledge the ongoing Normanist/anti-Normanist debate. (Although most scholars see it as settled, it remains prominent in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, and comprises most of the actual substance of this article.)

I'd welcome your views on changing these things! Alarichall (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Does Ibn Fadlān actually describe the Rus'?

As it stands, this article has the following introduction to a quotation from Ibn Fadlān:

The Muslim diplomat and traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described the Rus' (Rusiyyah) in terms said to suggest Norsemen:

I suggest changing this to:

The Muslim diplomat and traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described people he referred to as Rūsiyyah. They have been widely assumed to be Norse Rus', but scholarship has found that although Ibn Fadlān may have been describing Scandinavians, the people in question might have been Slavs; a local people named after the river Ros’; Kievan chieftains; more than one people, whom Ibn Fadlān confused; or some other complex or transitional ethnic situation.<ref>James E. Montgomery, '[https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/JAIS/article/viewFile/4553/4006 Ibn Faḍlān and the Rūsiyyah]', ''Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies'', 3 (2000), 1-25.</ref> The opening of Ibn Fadlān's description says:

This changed version is properly referenced, avoiding the vague 'in terms said to suggest'. Either way, I think the article does need to reflect the debate about whether Ibn Fadlān was actually describing the people that this article is about. Thomas.W disagrees, and has reverted my edits accordingly. Would anyone else like to express a view? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• See WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Your proposed changes aren't acceptable since the suggested phrase "scholarship has found..." implies that a majority of scholars now think they were Slavs, which is not an accurate description of the current situation, where the Normanist theory has far more support than the anti-Normanist theory. Even the source you're linking to has a much more nuanced view on it than the text you propose, leaning far more towards the Rus' being culturally partly assimilated Scandinavians than towards them being Slavs, and also saying that the "composition" of the Rus' changed over time. Which no one denies, but in 922 AD that assimilation had barely begun, so claiming that the Rus' of 922 AD were Slavs is a fringe theory, and doesn't belong here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I see your point. How about this then?

The Muslim diplomat and traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described people he referred to as Rūsiyyah. They have been widely assumed to be Norse Rus', but scholarship has found that this is uncertain. Ibn Fadlān may have been describing Scandinavians; Slavs; a local people named after the river Ros’; Kievan chieftains; more than one people, whom Ibn Fadlān confused; or some other complex or transitional ethnic situation.<ref>James E. Montgomery, '[https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/JAIS/article/viewFile/4553/4006 Ibn Faḍlān and the Rūsiyyah]', ''Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies'', 3 (2000), 1-25.</ref> The opening of Ibn Fadlān's description says:

If you're unhappy with this, perhaps you could suggest a phrasing that you find more suitable? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • Since there are no objections to this rephrasing so far, I'll implement it. Ta! Alarichall (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No comment after a single day does not equal support. I'm opposed to your only slightly revised second version too, since all of the main views are already mentioned in the article, and your edit thus doesn't add anything new, and isn't needed. Your repeated addition of it, combined with your other edits on en-WP, make me believe that the real reason you want to add it is wanting to get the reference mentioned on as many articles as possible here, not a desire to improve articles. So stop. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Tom, I have no vested interest in promoting Montgomery's article. I think it would be helpful to stick to facts rather than making guesses about my motivations. Montgomery's article is just the main recent, expert assessment of who Ibn Fadlān might have been talking about when he discussed the Rūsiyyah. The problem here is that we can't be sure whether Ibn Fadlān's description is actually of the people being discussed in this article, and this issue needs to be recognised. This isn't about the debate over who the Rus' were (which is covered in the article): it's about whether or not Ibn Fadlān was describing them. Again, perhaps you could suggest a phrasing that you're happy with, that recognises the difficulties in using Ibn Fadlān as a source for the Rus'? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't share your views on Montgomery's article, to me (and yes, I have read it) it seems like just a summary of views previously presented by other scholars, i.e. nothing new. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed: it's a recent, informed, and well referenced summary of scholarly opinion on this topic. That's why it's useful to cite as a reference for the problem that we can't be sure who Ibn Fadlān is talking about. Alarichall (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is recent, but it isn't a summary of recent/contemporary views, just a rehash of views previously presented by other scholars, just as I wrote above. The publication date of the sources/publications discussed in Montgomery's article span at least a full century, which is why it doesn't add anything new, and doesn't deserve the prominent exposure here that you want to give it. It's like an aggregator site on the net, we don't use aggregator sites as sources, instead using the original sites as references, so instead of using Montgomery's article as a source, on multiple articles as you're trying to do, we should use the original publications as sources, provided they can add something that isn't already in the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Alarichall (talk · contribs) on this one. This isn't fringe stuff but perfectly mainstream scholarship we're talking about here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the entire discussion? We don't use "aggregator sites" as sources. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have. No one has suggested that we use an "aggregator site". Please accurately represent the position of those you disagree with. Second, edit-warring won't win you any arguments. Don't do it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: You obviously didn't read the discussion well enough: the source that Alarichall wants to use on multiple articles, and misrepresents above, is the "aggregator site" that I'm opposed too, since it's just a rehash of multiple other sources. His insistence on using that particular article as source on multiple articles, combined with his previous refspamming of an own report/article/publication (see his talk page), also makes me suspect that his primary motivation for getting the material into multiple articles is getting wide exposure for Montgomery's report/article, i.e. the source in question. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bloodofox. Going back to Tom's concerns about Montogmery, I'd see Montgomery's survey more as comprehensive in its coverage than dated. Perhaps it helps if I point to some other work that also feels the need to signal the dangers of assuming the Ibn Fadlān is talking about the Rus', to show that it would be in line with current scholarship to do the same on Wikipedia? A recent popular history by a leading scholar says: 'the exact identity of the Rus is much debated, and we should be careful not simply to take ibn Fadlan's account of the Rus as in any way representative of Viking Age Scandinavian customs' (Anders Winroth, The Age of the Vikings (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), pp. 94-95). Neil Price, 'Passing into Poetry: Viking-Age Mortuary Drama and the Origins of Norse Mythology', Medieval Archaeology, 54:1 (2010), 123-156 doi:10.1179/174581710X12790370815779 argues that evidence 'very strongly suggests not only that Ibn Fadlan’s al-Rūsīyyah — or at least the decision-making members of the group — were Scandinavians, but also that their actions among the Bulgar closely resembled what they did at home' (p. 133). But he still feels the need to acknowledge the debate over who Idb Fadlān was describing (esp. p. 132). Thorir Jonsson Hraundal, 'New Perspectives on Eastern Vikings/Rus in Arabic Sources', Viking and Medieval Scandinavia, 10 (2014), 65-97 doi:10.1484/J.VMS.5.105213 does the same (p. 79). Indeed, I think we could even be clearer about the concensus that Ibn Fadlān can probably be used as evidence for Rus'/Scandinavian culture, as long as, like these other sources, we acknowledge that actually there is doubt and debate about it. Can we perhaps more forward on these lines? Alarichall (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, no one has mentioned any aggregator site but you. Enough. We're discussing a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal. Survey pieces are both common and highly valued in scholarship. Secondly, Hall's own scholarship is peer-reviewed and published in academic journals,exactly what we want on this site. Either assume good faith or please remove yourself from this conversation until you can. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Since when is it up to you to decide who can and who can't take part in discussions here? And before making any further comments like the one above I suggest you read WP:SPAM and WP:REFSPAM. As for assuming good faith I bet I have seen more spamming here than you have, and know how to recognize it. A number of academics who are well known within their respective fields have been blocked indefinitely on en-WP, for spamming their own peer-reviewed publications here, and at least one has also had his web site blacklisted, so being written by a scholar and being peer-reviewed does not exempt anything from the normal rules. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. None of this remotely applies to WP:SPAM. I've been here for over a decade, the majority of that time active almost exclusively on these topics. Your quick turn to hostility, edit-warring, and false policy and guidelines mongering isn't contributing to this discussion in any meaningful way, despite Hall's attempts to reach out to you. Again: I suggest you take a break and review WP:AGF. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And I have been here for more than a decade, and have, unlike you, been active on a very wide range of topics, seeing a lot more of what happens here than you have. As for your claim about "quick turn to hostility, edit-warring, and false policy and guidelines mongering" it's just plain silly, and not what I had expected from an editor as experienced as you claim to be. I also hadn't expected an editor as experienced as you claim to be to instantly turn to discussing editors and not content/sources... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, @Krakkos:. I see your recent edit pertains to this discussion. The edit is fine with me, so no complaints there. Just out of interest, I just wanted to ask about a couple of comments in the edit summary. You say that "Many of the theories listed by Franklin are politically motivated fringe theories, and should not be given equal weight to the mainstream theory", but the article cited isn't by Franklin, nor does his name appear in it, so I just thought I'd check that there's no confusion here. You also say "The Rus' mentioned by Ahmad ibn Fadlan are connected to Vikings in an overwhelming amount of sources". But the concern registered by my recent edit is that there is scholarly debate precisely about whether, when Ibn Fadlān talks about Rūs/Rūsiyyah, he actually is talking about the same people as other Arabic sources do when they talk about the Rūs. Anyway, as I say, I don't object to your rephrasing. Just wanted to make sure there's no confusion. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why i mentioned the name "Franklin". I was obviously referring to the article by James E. Montgomery. My point is that the people (Rūs/Rūsiyyah whatever the name) described by Ahmad ibn Fadlan are generally assumed to have been Vikings. Other assumptions are rather fringe and should not be given equal weight to the Viking theory. As Montgomery states at page 2-3: "In later years the balance has swung in favour of the Normanists... indeed among scholars generally, it is widely assumed that the Rus were Scandinavians of eastern Swedish origin." Krakkos (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply! Alarichall (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but I've restored the long standing consensus version. We are not talking about 'other scholars/academics' analysing Ibn Fadlan, but one academic (Montgomery), ergo it is WP:UNDUE to even mention his opinion under 'Arabic sources', particularly under the guise of a WP:WEASEL use of 'other'. I've followed this thread regarding Montgomery's paper from Talk:Norse funeral, and fail to see how it passes the WP:FRINGE test when mainstream theory has not changed. Where are the rest of the reliable sources agreeing with him? The primary objective of Wikipedia is to be a reliable tertiary/encyclopaedic source, not a hodgepodge of opinions expressed by every academic who has ever had a paper published. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Iryna Harpy -- nice to meet you, and thanks for your thoughtful comments here and on the other thread (to which I'll reply over there). I guess I have two key points that suggest that the current text needs changing over here in Rus' people. (This isn't to say we should go back to the phrasing I previously suggested: I just think the handling does need improving somehow.) I guess if you are unconvinced by these points, I'll give up on this issue, but I'd appreciate it if you'd give them some thought. My first point is that recent and respected professional scholarship, while not necessarily agreeing with Montgomery, does feel the need to register that it's unclear who Ibn Fadlān is talking about. I suggest that Wikipedia would benefit from following this convention. I've cited a few examples of this above but here they are again (the latter two, by the way, cite the Montgomery article I cited). (Let me know if you'd like access to the papers if you can't see them and I can send them over (I'm at a.t.p.hall@leeds.ac.uk).)

A recent popular history by a leading scholar says: 'the exact identity of the Rus is much debated, and we should be careful not simply to take ibn Fadlan's account of the Rus as in any way representative of Viking Age Scandinavian customs' (Anders Winroth, The Age of the Vikings (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), pp. 94-95). Neil Price, 'Passing into Poetry: Viking-Age Mortuary Drama and the Origins of Norse Mythology', Medieval Archaeology, 54:1 (2010), 123-156 doi:10.1179/174581710X12790370815779 argues that evidence 'very strongly suggests not only that Ibn Fadlan’s al-Rūsīyyah — or at least the decision-making members of the group — were Scandinavians, but also that their actions among the Bulgar closely resembled what they did at home' (p. 133). But he still feels the need to acknowledge the debate over who Idb Fadlān was describing (esp. p. 132). Thorir Jonsson Hraundal, 'New Perspectives on Eastern Vikings/Rus in Arabic Sources', Viking and Medieval Scandinavia, 10 (2014), 65-97 doi:10.1484/J.VMS.5.105213 does the same (p. 79).

My second point is that at the moment, the phrasing of the article is not satisfactory, because it registers doubt about who Ibn Fadlān is talking about in an unclear and unreferenced way: "The Muslim diplomat and traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described the Rus' (Rusiyyah) in terms said to suggest Norsemen". Surely we can do better than that by concisely registering both the existence of a debate and the current concensus? I guess a wider point would be that if Ibn Fadlān is writing about the Rus' who are the subject of this article, he's one of the most important sources for them that we have, so I suggest it would be proportionate that the article should register this and outline the relevant historiography. I'm happy to suggest phrasings that might work, but would like to see your response to these points first in case anything I suggest will just get reverted ;-) Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys! Just a note to say that, now I've improved the referencing for the historiography section of this article, I'm hoping soon to improve the referencing and general level of source-criticism for the primary source sections. So I'll be coming back to the Arabic-language sources soon. The much-maligned Montgomery will feature, but other key (and more important) secondary sources will be P.B. Golden, “Rūs”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0942 and Thorir Jonsson Hraundal, 'New Perspectives on Eastern Vikings/Rus in Arabic Sources', Viking and Medieval Scandinavia, 10 (2014), 65–69 doi:10.1484/J.VMS.5.1052. Fingers crossed that a thorough and more extensively referenced overhaul here will win a warmer reception than tinkering at the edges :-) If there's anything specific you'd like to see done, or any constructive advice you'd like to offer, please do! Alarichall (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding references!

Just to note that I've done a lot of work over the last day or so adding references to the large amount of unreferenced material in this article. Inevitably, that's involved correcting some mistakes too, and I've expanded the discussions of the Normanist and Anti-Normanist debates. I'm hoping to continue with this work in the other sections too. I'd still welcome comments on the issues above (recognising the complexity of Ibn Fadlān as a source, and what to do with the header). Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I am generally fine with what you have written so far.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

:-) Alarichall (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)