Talk:Rurikids

Since the Novgorodian tribes were partly Finno-Ugric (Chud and Ves) and partly Slavic (Slovenes and Krivich), I added [Finno-Ugric and Slavic] to define the ethnicities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuisco (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that Chud and Ves participated in the invitation? Neither Solovyov nor Klyuchevsky mention this. I strongly suspect this is not correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary Chronicle. It mentions also Slavs. Do you mean that they also were not participating?Tuisco (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary Chronicle says very clearly: "Новгородцы же - те люди от варяжского рода, а прежде были словене." This does not leave much of interpretation. It says indeed the Chud and Ves were among the tribes who inveted the Varangians but does not say there were Novgorod tribes, only that they previously paid tribute to Varangians.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 “

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.^[3]

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

How is it vandalism to remove swathes of unsourced and unreadable redlinks? It might be a good idea to check out

It is not vandalism, but did you try to source them before removal?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the reverter has nothing to say in his defense. The valueable data will be reinserted. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if we could source them though.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm concerned about the use of surnames as a substitute for the identities of particular nobles. If those redlinks ever turn blue, and if the list is ever properly sourced, and if we can overlook the fact that it's impossible for readers to digest, it's still likely that some links would point to an article about a different topic, not whoever the hypothetical source is talking about. That does not seem "valuable" to me. For example, the most notable Pronsky is this lady; are we going to declare that she and all her kin are "of Rurik stock" due to a surname alone?

Calling me the "reverter" is both deceptive and irrelevant; Ghirlandajo made the first revert.

Anyway; let's move forward. The onus isn't on me. It's on

the person inserting the content. Where did this list come from? bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyone? Where did the list come from? bobrayner (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain as to whether anyone has responded to you on your talk page, but I've found a link from one of the other pages regarding the Rus' people (and various surrounding pages) which appears to be the common denominator. Links from this page lead to elaborate lists of those tested (although I haven't found any detailed information as to how any of those tested were located or precisely how their lineage was determined). Personally, I have no objection to using the DNA information but do feel a concern over a lack of indication that the outcomes have been interpreted in a variety of ways and that the source documentation itself explicitly warns that the findings are a scientific list to be interpreted with caution. I'm hoping Ymblanter can shed some further light on when this list was added & what the circumstances of consensus as to its use were (when he/she finds the time). My dealings with this editor have been very positive. I'm assuming that Ymblanter hasn't responded to you due to being busy on other projects on other wikis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not really involved, I never added nor removed this info, I just suspect that it could be rather easily sourced. But I do not have sources at hand; to source the info, I would need to search.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time out to drop by, Ymblanter. Unless bobrayner still has profound objections, I'm leaving this on the backburner for the moment. There are so many pages that need fleshing out and a good tidy that I'm not going to touch it until or if I have time. I've pointed him in the direction of some of some source info and would suggest that it's highly likely that the editor/contributor who added this info may no longer be active here. Finding out what the interpretations are, as you suggest, merely a matter of a little research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article abruptly refers to Ivan the Terrible without saying where he came from, whose son he was, how he got the throne, etc.:

"Beginning with the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the Muscovite branch used the title "Tsar of All Russia" and ruled over the Tsardom of Russia."

Can somebody who knows the history improve this part of the article to make it comprehensive? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Material on BioRxiv is not reviewed either by scientific peers or content editors. If the paper in question ends up being formally published after passing peer review then when it is published, depending on what it says in its published form, it may be appropriate for inclusion here (though building content only on a single WP:PRIMARY source is itself problematic), but a scientific result somebody just put online themselves is not a WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The arguments for the revert were that is "based on self-published source", "self-published scientific results are not

WP:RS", and "there is no peer review or editorial content review involved ". The issue is with the fact BioRxiv is not the author's own website nor their organization's server, it has basic screening and checking for plagiarism, it is a repository for biological sciences in which is quickly shared preprint results (like in the case of COVID-19) before peer-reviewed publishing, bioRxiv has for a reason own Wikipedian cite style and is widely cited on Wikipedia. The study is credited not by "somebody", but by many experts in their scientific field whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, as well as reported by third-party British Archaeology, NewScientist

gaining news notability. Even if self-published, it doesn't make this kind of source unreliable!

Per editing policy

WP:USINGSPS, "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved", "2. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved and this is none of these. Your wikilawyer interpretation of this would mean that any crap I put online would equally be treated as reliable, just because I was the one who put it there. That is not how it works. Even scientific WP:PRIMARY sources have to be used with caution, let alone whatever anyone who has ever published a scientific paper before happens to upload. The fact that BioRxiv looks for plagiarism does nothing to imbue a heightened level of reliability. Agricolae (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is a joke and I will not continue this discussion further - or we are going to edit the article according to editing policy or we are directly going to the noticeboard. Saying that this scientific RS credited by many experts is not anything of these is pointing to a single fact - the edit-war which you started with invalid substantion is due to your misunderstanding of editing policy on self-published sources and identifying reliability of the sources, authors and publishers. Please don't waste my time and space of this talk page with your stupid interpretations of my behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made inappropriate changes based on a self-published preliminary conclusion that has not passed the basic standard of scientific reliability, peer review. Then when it got reverted, you decided that the need to obtain consensus for a contested change doesn't apply to you. Don't pretend this is my doing. The page was perfectly stable before you decided your text absolutely needed to be in it. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that according to editing policy on self-published sources these were not inappropriate changes? How dare you using repeatedly such a language with me and making yourself above the editing policy? What you're saying is

WP:GAMING the editing policy. I am warning and asking you - give a valid argument for the removal of the information as until now you didn't make any, on the contrary, made false claims--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you aware that when you make a change and it is contested, every time you put it back without obtaining consensus is inherently inappropriate? All of this Wikilawyering of yours is just trying to paper over the simple fact. You made a change, it was contested, you just kept on making it again and again and again. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN and they will tell you the same thing - that your claim that SPS permits anything ever put online by anyone who has ever published anything just doesn't wash. Agricolae (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is possible to obtain a consensus with you when from the beginning you're are

refusing to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? It was not contested and reverted with a valid substantiation and furthermore made various negative remarks downplaying reliability of the scientific source and experts. Besides rambling of personal liking, I still didn't hear a single valid argument based on the policy that the information is controversial for inclusion or the source is unreliable for citation--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

An unpublished paper that overturns centuries-long historical consensus is uncontroversial, is it? This is the kind of result that shouldn't even be trusted as WP:PRIMARY until there is a better feel for how it is going to be received by WP:SECONDARY sources, and you want to include it before it even passes peer review, just because the authors have published before. Agricolae (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming simply absurd. Per editing policy of self-published sources, it doesn't matter if the paper is unpublished when is produced by experts in the specific field whose papers were published in peer-review journals. The paper does not have a single word about overturning centuries-long historical consensus! Although there's still some debate around the consensus and each of the two prevailing theories has its own valid arguments and point of view, it doesn't mean that the scientific consensus will change. In other words, the status of the historiographical consensus is not related to the individual information's reliability and verifiability per Wikipedian editing policy. Are you aware that this result is a genetic fact of the skeletal remains of the individuals and no secondary source can find in these same skeletal remains another haplogroup? If we are following your controversial argumentation we are disabling the inclusion of significant information about these individuals. Since you give yourself such freedom of contextualization of information, if two dynasty descendants from the 11th and 13th centuries belonged to two haplogroups present mainly among Slavic-speaking populations it does not mean that the founders of the dynasty were necessary of Slavic ancestry, or did not belong to these haplogroups, or could indicate gradual assimilation, extramarital intercourse and else, nothing uncommon in human history. Whatever the case, that context is not brought-up and neither has anything to do with the reliability of the source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am having problems following your argument. It is so important that it has too be in the article right now and yet it isn't all that important, really. Which is it? If the context was not brought up, that makes it sound like original research to suggest it has broader relevance - you are making a good argument to leave it out. All the more reason to see how it is received by SECONDARY sources before putting it in. Agricolae (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What argument? Sorry, but you're making things up along the way, now you're even saying, I assume, that the information is trivial. You are making now personal interpretations of the information in question giving or removing them of their context which is against PRIMARY. I didn't bring up this issue around the context and consensus, you did, neither I care about it as information is reliable for inclusion. It is not unimportant, genetic information is like any other information about the individual, and in the scientific sense, it is most close to anthropological information about an individual like height, health, and so on. There's no interpretation in citing the source saying that the specific individual carries a specific haplogroup. If bothers additional information that the haplogroup is mainly related and present in Slavic-speaking populations then that can be removed as could be perceived as an interpretation of the factual information.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the source does not give context, if its relevance to the broader context is all a matter if interpretation, which would be original research, then its conclusions do not belong in an article that depends on that exact context for it to be relevant. You can't have it both ways - it can't be both uncontextualized raw data that belongs in an article based on that context that isn't there. But this is all beside the point: it is way premature to be forcing this non-peer-reviewed material into any articles, indeed, several steps away. Agricolae (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy guideline, it is not premature to include this scientific material, get the facts straight. If you insist on exact context, then maybe it could be removed from this and Rus' people article, but it still has the context for inclusion in the articles of respective individuals or others about genetics.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Agricolae, if BioRxiv is not RS you know where the place is to confirm it. Until then, you can't revert someone’s edit based on that source. I guess you know how Wikipedia works. Mikola22 (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the actual meaning of your edit? Is it to show that Rurik dynasty did not actually come from Varangians (aka Варяги), but from Slavs? So they were not Варяги, that was all only a myth? Is that the claim? If so, this is a very heavy. We would need some really good secondary sources (reviews or books) which place these genetic findings to a proper historical perspective, instead of simply citing the genetic study, not matter if it was on BioRxiv or already published. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: As stated before, we have four articles in question, with different scope. The information is simply this:

Y-haplogroup I2a1a2b1a1a-Y3120, mtDNA-haplogroup H5a2a

, ancestry admixture estimate 71.1% Poland "Polish-like" 24.6% Italy "Southern European-like" etc.

Y-haplogroup R1a1a1b1a1a1c1-L1029, mtDNA-haplogroup H7

, ancestry admixture estimate 95% Poland "Polish-like" etc.

In the paper, their aDNA results are indirectly mentioned, "Some individuals have strong affinity with Eastern Europeans, particularly those from the island of Gotland in eastern Sweden. The latter likely reflects individuals with Baltic ancestry".

The only actual meaning is sharing the genetic information about those two descendants. Firstly on their articles because I think the information is significant. Additionally was shared on this and Rus' people article because have a section on the origin i.e. various sections for each scientific discipline showing their results, excluding, for now, a section on population genetics. We do have secondary sources that were cited to give a further historical-demographical perspective on the mentioned Y-DNA haplogroups (both are characteristic of Eastern European Slavic-speaking populations and not Northern Europeans). However, it only indirectly presumes that the dynasty was not of Northern European ancestry because passed centuries between the founders and mentioned descendants, it is possibly due to assimilation of the dynasty by the local population, marital infidelity or the adoption of another's son and so on. It is strange that two direct descendants belong to two different Y-DNA haplogroups, nevertheless of being mainly present among the Slavs, it shows different paternal male-lines contributed to the dynasty. Even if Rurik, the founder, carried one of these haplogroups it doesn't necessarily imply he was an ethnic Slav or of an immediate Slavic ancestry, however, possibly of distant Slavic ancestry as it would go along with what's written in historical sources and that is "the people of Novgorod are of Varangian stock, for formerly they were Slovenes" (cited in this article). That's just my take on the information. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the WP:RS issue being discussed elsewhere, this is making a (charged) point about the Rurikids, even if only by implication, from a source that does not mention the dynasty at all and does not discuss the relevance of these samples to this family. Since you have felt free to berate me on what Wikipedia editors are supposedly not allowed to do, you obviously already know that we don't get to select data not connected to the topic by the source and use them make points we ourselves, but not the source, think are important. You want to tell people in this article that the Rurikids are not of a single male lineage as you say is the intent here, then find a source that says so, rather than citing primary data so as to make your own point by implication. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How it is not connected to the topic of the individuals? It's like stating their height. Please don't stick your words into my mouth. I didn't want anything. I simply cited the results from the primary scientific source and then secondary scientific sources that already gave a conclusion on a specific haplogroup.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not connected to the topic by the cited source. Rurik nor his dynasty are never named anywhere in the body of the paper that is serving as justification for its addition. And you seem to be fighting awfully hard to get that text in the article to now claim you didn't want anything - you wanted it there, don't fault me for thinking you wanted it there for the reasons you just gave to explain what it means. And I don't appreciate this constant berating - we are clearly not communicating well, because I have my own interpretations of your behavior that are also not flattering, but we both should AGF, as hard as that can be. Agricolae (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So

Varangian, no one disputes this? Then, I am not sure what is significance of these genetic data, exactly? If there was a historical significance in these data, that should be stated and explained in a secondary scholarly source. Simply saying, "hey, that historical person had such and such haplogroup" is kind of meaningless. Yes, he had. So what? Obviously, these rulers lived in the Slavic population, so the result was predictable. Did they suffer from inbreeding? Probably not that dynasty? My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

In other words, "it only indirectly presumes that the dynasty was not of Northern European ancestry" sounds like WP:OR. If that was extensively debated in secondary RS (as opposed to just publishing a haplogroups), then it can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As already said, the Y-DNA haplogroups "are mainly related and present among the Slavic-speaking populations", I did not mention Early Slavs, Kievan Slavs or Slavs as such. The cited sources don't mention or dispute what Rurik was by ethnic identity. Implications of the genetic results to the consensus on the ancestry of the Rus' people are open for scientific debate. I don't see any concern stating that this and this haplogroup is mainly present in this and this population.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources in the disputed addition don't mention Rurik or his dynasty at all. The Rurik dynasty is brought up twice in 200+ pages of supplementary material. Digging out passing mention from 200 pages of supplementary text to make a point (even if implicit) not explicitly made by the source is problematic on both WP:OR and WP:PROPORTION grounds. Agricolae (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the ethnicity/genetics of Izjaslav Ingvarevych is at all relevant? Did that affect their political decisions? If it was important in any aspects, that must be explicitly claimed by secondary RS. I agree with Agricolae that such info does not belong to page - at least as written and with such sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, when the study is peer review published and a secondary source gives more attention to the information it can be considered for inclusion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is different for the different pages, but in each case, we generally aren't going to give haplotypes just for their own sake. We want some scholar to have incorporated the information into a larger analysis of the subject, basically explaining why we should care. Otherwise it is more like blood type, which even if it can be documented is usually just trivia and we don't give it unless it has been characterized as having a particular importance to the subject. For Gleb or Izyaslav, we would want someone writing about them not only mention it, but discuss what its implications are for them. For the Rurik dynasty, basically we want a source that is explicit in explaining what it means for two members to have had different, apparently Slav, haplotypes. For the Rus' individual haplotypes are unlikely ever to be relevant, but if a secondary source addressing the question of Rus' origin dedicates part of their analysis the apparent ethnicities of all the haplotypes found in Rus' burials, it may be appropriate to incorporate a summary of that discussion (on an ethnicity level, rather than naming the individual haplotypes). That is how I see it at least. Agricolae (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is so far the best research (with comments) on Rurikid lines we have so far. Here. Rurikid lines show in most haplo N but there are also those with R (R1a) like in Trubetskoy family. Here, one tested member of this family tested R1a alhough having perfect made genealogy tree and well sourced. There could be only two reasons why DNA differ with other Trubetskoy. One that it was not uncommon that a child had "different" father but was accepted by "official" father. There is also lot of interesting information in Norwegian history books as it claims that Rurik with his brothers made three attempts on ruling Russia and failed twice. Norwegian sources claim that Rurik had to rule with other, local rulers and that they could also be incuded in "Rurikid line". So far, no one could prove any hypothesis.Camdan (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the galery of CoA, I noticed COA of Romanov with this text: The coat of arms of the Romanov dynasty (who were descendants through female line of the house of Rurik). In what way where they descendents through female line? There is no such linage and this (Romanov) should be removed. Might be so that some of the Romanovs married to a woman that origin from Rurikid line but this does not make all the family descendents through female line.Camdan (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of how descendancy applies to royal family lines has nothing to do with yDNA, but more to aDNA(especially if there are no males).

Potential male rulers of UK have patrilinear line of (modern)Danish and Greek royal family lines, but they are now representing House of Windsor(via female line) - very similar how Romanovs did apply their descendancy to Ruriks(via female line). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.27.115 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check constant reverting reference and sources by Emenrich. --Kovanja (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you reference the Primary Chronicle, Visit Novgorod.com, another Russian tourist website, Encyclopedia Britannica, which does not mention Russian statehood, some website that discusses the foundation of Kievan Rus, and a book not about Rus’. None of these books support you assertion that this is “the foundation of the Russian state” and most aren’t reliable sources anyway. You need to obtain consensus for your edits at any rate, not keep reverting. Rosia is Rus’ Not Russia. Russia does not exist at this time, and this is a clear attempt to make some claim that Rus’ is Russia rather than Ukraine or Belarus.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosia is Greek terminology for Russia, Rossia is used even in modern day Russia. There are two terms in Russian for Russian lands. Rossia and Rus'. Rurik dynasty ruled Russia as Tsards until very 16th centruy. Ukraine and Belarus were founded only as Soviet Republic with no historical context. Kiev was inhabited by Russian majority utnil creation of Ukrainian Soviet Republic and largest minority was Jewish. Russia built 1000 years memorial to it's foundation during the Catherine the Great in 1700s who is also of Rurik descent even If she is of German Prussian origin. You keep reverting mention of Novgorodian Rurikids uniting Rus principalities under Moscow princiaplity. Please make some reasearch. Russia is English terminology for Rossia or Rus, just as Germany is or Germania is Latin terminology for Deutschland. ( You keep reverting references to all principalities ruled by Rurikids also you keep reverting mention of Ivan III of house Rurik who united Rus principalities against Mongolians.--Kovanja (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider Primarly Cronicle to be tourist website? How about other sources you keep deleting.^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovanja (talk • contribs)

The above is historical revisionist nonsense that has no place on Wikipedia. Also, citing an entirely different book than you cited in the article as a sort of bait-and-switch (and one written in 1964 at that) is unlikely to convince anyone.—Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific, what exactly is revisionist nonesence, you are talking like a child. What's wrong with sources written in 1964 and in 12th century. Please do not pretend defficiency of iodine during your childhood. Rosia is even modern day Greek terminology for Russia as well as it was Greek terminology for Russia druing 10th century. Kovanja (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)--Kovanja (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan III (reigned 1440-1505), written in a time when many Westerners still applied Russia to all the core lands of the former Russian Empire, is hardly relevant to the conquest of Novgorod by Rurik in 862.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NPA Russia is latinized terminology for Rus it's synonymum for Russia even in modern day Russian. As well as Greek terminology for Russia is Ρωσία and it was used by Greek sources to refer Russia since 9th century to this day. Your denying reality and ignoring of the facts is ridiculous. Russia was ruled by Rurik dynasty until 16th century meanwhile Belarus and Ukraine are fabricates of 19th century local nationalism with no connection to real history at all. Since Ukrainian nation was firstly described by Makhaylo Hrushevski in Austrain Galitsia.(Far from Kiev inhabited fully by Russians until 20th century and foundation of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic) Modern day Russian does have only two terms for Russia. It's Greek terminology Ρωσία and original terminology Rus. Show me prove of very existence of nation called Belarusians and Ukrainians (not Cossacks) prior 19th centuries. Even their language is refered as Western Russian dialect in all non Russian sources. So do you tell that France and Gallia used the same language and were ruled by the same dynasty as Rus/Russia in 10th century as well as in 16th century. Minorities within The Tsardom of Rus were Tatars, Kalmyks etc. No one efer refered to some Belarusians as a minority it was Soviet invention. You are keep denysing Rurikid history recorded by Rurikid themselves. I refered book of Ivan III and his unification of Rus/Russia. It was his main political doctrine beside Orthodoxy to collect Russian lands such as Novorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Tver etc. --Kovanja (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Please learn to

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by proving to the world that Belarusians and Ukrainians are really just Russians.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

As tantalizing as we interested readers might find claims of Rurikid DNA results, Wikipedia cannot report them based on self-published, non-peer reviewed personal projects. FtDNA may have a lot of registered users, but its content is entirely self-published material, and hence is both non-WP:RS and its inclusion is also WP:UNDUE. The same applies to RootsWeb (where the archived description of the project was originally published), where all you had to do was pay a fee make a set-value "donation" and you could upload whatever you wanted. All this doesn't even take into account that the study itself was based on the unconfirmed self-reported ancestry of study participants. For this to be reportable here, two things have to happen. First, it has to be formally independently published, via a process involving editorial or peer review, plus it has to be incorporated into secondary sources to indicate that the broader scholarly community views this information as noteworthy to the question of Rurikid dynastic origins. Until that happens, we as editors do not get to substitute our own judgment for that of the scholars we are supposed to be reflecting. Agricolae (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I was wondering about the sources myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• + Noraskulk (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I do not find that argument very persuasive.

I did not address Eupedia, but since it was mentioned in the edit summary, I will address it too. It's reliability is irrelevant, for two reasons. First, it makes no mention of the Rurik dynasty and draws no conclusions about it. It is WP:SYNTH to deduce a conclusion about an article subject based on a source that makes no mention of the article subject, and it certainly does nothing to address WP:UNDUE, given that it is not about the subject. Second, there is no umbrella effect whereby all you have to do is have one reliable source and everything in the section is rendered reliable - it works the other way around. If the only way you can get to a reliable source (if that even is what it is, which I don't think is the case) is by bringing non-WP:RS material into the article to make the connection, the whole relevance-establishing chain fails. Agricolae (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too large paragraph is devoted to single Romanovichi Rurikid branch in introduction and should be moved from introduction as any other Rurikid branch even those who were more important. Romanovichi ruled Central Rus only for one generation and after 1240 Kiev was passed to Alexander Nevski from Novgorodian bloodline of Yurevichi branch. Roman the Great was vassal of the Golde Horde as any other Rus prince, there is no reason to highlight him in introduction. Romananovichi brand went to extinction in single century. There is no continuity in Polish rule of Western Rus because Poles just absorbed what Romanovichi ruled. Even If Ukrainian natinalists wish some special importance to Galitsian - Volynian Principality from which they derive Ukrianian national identity since Ukrainian national revival in 19th century and natioanlist Mykhaylo Hrushevsky. Also there were a lot more Rurikid branches and more important than Romanovichi, there is no reason to enforce details of Romanovichi branch into introducton. As for axample. Rurukids from Tver rivaled Moscow during wars of over Vladimir Principality and there is no single mention of it because it's not that important as unification of Rus principalities under Moscow Rurikids. Also Novgorodian RUrikid branches ruled northwest as independent power for almost 3 centuries. Their branch survived much more than Romanovichi and there is still no mention of it.

--90.181.92.64 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Daniel Novák[reply]

This sounds a lot like banned user Kovanja…—Ermenrich (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blocked before for block evasion.--Berig (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is not about the Romanovychi, it is about the significance of the Riurikids to Ukrainian historiography (please clarify or improve it). It complements the following paragraph regarding Russian history, and I welcome anyone knowledgeable enough to add another about Belarus. —Michael Z. 01:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit by user:Umfront: Riurik came to Rus from Novgorod, which is located on the territory of the Russian Federation, the language of which is Russian. Before that he came from places where Swedish is spoken today. Then he spent more of his life in places where Ukrainian is spoken. Doesn’t matter. He never heard Swedish, Russian, nor Ukrainian. We are not placing his historical languages here, only modern languages he is associated with today.

See

And please don’t start an edit war, per

I'd be in favor of removing all three - it doesn't really help our readers any and serves mostly to score nationalist points as far as I can see. I can guarantee that if Swedish nationalists cared we'd also have constant edit warring about including their name in Swedish or Old Norse or something. Better to remove them all.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We may still have the question of order, if they appear elsewhere in the article. Alphabetical is NPOV. —Michael Z. 17:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care if they are given at the start or not, but if we assign some priority to them we will have endless nationlistic nonsense over that ranking. The alphabet is the alphabet. Agricolae (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4279-chazars

87.209.63.156 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current Legacy section has was too many factual errors and isn't neutral. I've made few recent edits to fix that, but they were reverted under pretence that it needs additional consensus. Please review my edits and advise in case you have any objection. Thanks.

Korwinski (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the infobox and opening paragraph of this article state which language the Rurikids spoke? It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to leave this information out of this article. Was it Old Norse or some Slavic language? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]