Talk:Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia

@Thomas.W

what exactly is unsourced about this? it's just another formulation and nothing more. --85.212.65.254 (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas W. & 90.155.215.40

What exactly is at this formulation unsourced? In fact it can't be unsourced because it's all already on Wikipedia.

....referred to the people and[1] regions from the 9th century to people which inhabited the lands of todays cities like Novgorod, Kiev, Moscow, Vladimir, Lviv and their surrounding environments. People of Rus' ethnicity lived in the Volga region across the Dnieper up to the Galicia region. Rus' Khaganate, Kievan Rus', Muscovite Rus' and the Rus' of Galicia–Volhynia were some of the former states which were inhabited by mostly Slavic tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.65.254 (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Lydia Groth

The etymology section mentions "historian Lydia Groth" – which make the following argument look very serious –, but the provided sources are rather obscure and no "Lydia Groth" is among the sources of the present article. The statement that sv:Roslagen (or, how it was called earlier, sv:Roden) was "was unsuitable for life, as it was then under water at a depth of 6-7 meters" looks like nonsense and is definitely not matching common knowledge on the history of Roslagen. Michael.riessler (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Current scopes of related articles

We have two articles, with specific subjects that are focused on terminology:

• This article, related to the endonymic term Rus', currently titled: Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia.
• Article related to the exonymic term Ruthenia, and thus properly titled: Ruthenia.

As I noted at the talk page of the second article (here), themes of those articles are dedicated to distinctive subjects, and therefore it is proper to have two articles, but their current contents are partially overlapping, in several segments. Article on the term Rus' should be focused on that term, without extensive elaborations on the term Ruthenia, since that is the subject of the second article, that in turn should not contain extensive elaborations on the term Rus', since that subject is covered by the first article. In order to improve focus and clarity, this article could be renamed to Names of Rus' and Russia, thus focusing more clearly on various distinctions between terms Rus' and Russia in English terminology, without extensive elaboration on the on the term Ruthenia, since that subject is already covered by the second article. Sorabino (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Spelling

@Mellk: you reverted some of my recent edits by saying 'this is not how those sources write it'. In each of these cases, the source in question appears to be Б. М. Клосс. О происхождении названия “Россия”. М.: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси, 2012. To take the first example, Kloss does indeed write on page 3 в древнеиших русских источиках для названия нашеи страны использовались слова Русь или Русская земля. (v drevneishih russkih istochikah dlja nazvanija nashei strany ispol'zovalis' slova Rus' ili Russkaja zemlja; "In ancient Russian sources the words Русь or Русская земля were used to name our country". The problem is that this source is in Russian, while the text of mine you reverted is in English. An other-language source cannot say how we should spell a word in English, in this case Русская земля.

Halperin (2022), p. vii–viii has explained why we should translate Русская земля as Rus' land and not as Russian land: I have previously erroneously translated “russkaia zemlia” for the Kievan (Kyivan) period as the “Russian Land.” Because the East Slavs had not yet divided up into Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians, technically russkaia zemlia should be translated as the “East Slavic Land.” The translation “Russian” represents Great Russian chauvinism toward the Kievan inheritance. In an effort to finesse that prejudice, some scholars invented a hybrid anglicization of Rus’ as an adjective, the “Rus’ian Land.” I find both “East Slavic Land” and “Rus’ian Land” artificial, and awkward. I prefer to lose the grammar but keep the content by translating it as the “Rus’ Land,” despite the fact that “Rus’” is not an adjective. I am not alone in such usage. Of course, russkii referring to the Muscovite grand principality and later tsardom from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century could legitimately be translated as “Russian,” but that would entail employing two translations of the phrase, “Rus’ Land” for the Kievan and Mongol periods as well as for early modern Ukraine, and “Russian Land” for early modern Muscovy. Because I am trying to emphasize the evolution of a single myth I have for that reason preferred to use only a single form. For simplicity’s sake I will disregard variant medieval spellings such as ruskaia and variants such as rustaia and use only the normative spelling. As Halperin is a leading expert in this field, who is not alone in such usage, we should follow this established convention. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

In The Symbolic World of Russianness and Historical Dictionary of Medieval Russia, it says "Russian land", not "Rus' land". And Halperin says "Russian land" can be used in this context anyway. Mellk (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at the context then. Currently, this article claims While the oldest endonyms of the Grand Duchy of Moscow used in its documents were Rus' (Russian: Русь) and the Russian land (Russian: Русская земля), and refers to page 3 of Kloss for support. But as I quoted above, this is not what Kloss says in the first sentence. Unless Kloss meant the Grand Duchy of Moscow when he wrote нашеи страны ("our country", which presumably is the Russian Federation in his case), I think he meant a larger area than just Muscovy, and not necessarily a state, but a geographical region. I think he meant Kievan Rus', because the first time Kloss gets more specific is in the third sentence, when he writes about Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev calling himself Metropolitan of Kiev and all Росuя in 1387. Cyprian may have resided in Moscow, but the region he claimed authority over was Kievan Rus', a much larger area than just Muscovy. It must be, because at the time (since 1362) Kiev was controlled by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not Moscow. In fact, the only time page 3 ever mentions the word московскии (moskovskii, "Muscovite") is when referring to the scribe Ivan Cherny ("the Black"). This directly supports my edit changing "Russian state scribe Ivan Cherny" to "Muscovite state scribe Ivan Cherny". I'll raise the stakes: ru:Иван Чёрный (писец) says the same: Иван Чёрный — писец при дворе московского великого князя Ивана III, в 1480-х гг. "Ivan Cherny — a scribe at the court of the Moscow Grand Duke Ivan III, in the 1480s." So it would seem my edits were justified. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the sentence the two sources I mentioned are cited. Those use "Russian land" not "Rus' land". Besides "русский" (here "русская") in Russian always translates to "Russian" in English. If it was a different language then it could be "Rus'" but this is from Russian. I suppose the change about Ivan Cherny is fine. Mellk (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me about Ivan Cherny being a Muscovite scribe, I restored it.
On the other points: We are not talking about the second part of the sentence that also invokes Hellberg-Hirn and Langer. Kloss page 3 (currentely reference [29]) is invoked in the first part of the sentence in order to support claims he doesn't make. The first sentence of page 3 is talking about "our country", an area that is evidently larger than the territory of the Grand Duchy of Moscow was in 1387, because it included Kiev, which was part of Lithuania at the time. The words of the Grand Duchy of Moscow used in its documents WP:FAIL, they are not found on page 3. (If anything, the 1387 reference Kloss starts with comes from the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus', not from the Grand Duchy of Moscow, which was a different institution altogether). Moreover, Halperin and others state clearly that they do not always translate Русская as Russian, but as Rus', especially in medieval and early modern sources, where Rus' is the norm, and Russian is erroneous or signifies prejudice. Deviating from that norm without invoking English-language reliable sources constitutes WP:OR, because WP:FAIL. Moreover, Русская земля are not just modern Russian words, but also an Old East Slavic (=Old Russian), Church Slavonic and Chancery Slavonic words, with its oldest variations including wikt:Русьскаꙗ землꙗ and so on. What does Kloss page 3 say about the language of Русская земля ? He says it is in в древнеиших русских v drevneishih russkih "In ancient/Old Russian". In other words, Old East Slavic (traditionally also Old Russian; Belarusian: старажытнаруская мова; Russian: древнерусский язык; Ukrainian: давньоруська мова). There is no reason to require words in Old East Slavic (Old Russian) sources to be spelt in English according to the spelling and meaning of modern Russian words, especially when scholars such as Halperin explicitly do not do so for stated reasons. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Does Halperin refer to (modern) Russian? I do not think so. "Роусьскаꙗ землꙗ" for example. Where does "Русская" appear in that book? "Русская земля" is the (modern) Russian spelling, it is not written in this way in OES. In The Symbolic World of Russianness, it says "But the country was more frequently called Rus, the Russian land, Russkaia zemlia, or the Muscovite state, Moskovskoe gosudarstvo, up to the end of the 17th century". In the Historical Dictionary of Medieval Russia it says: "Other terms were the Russian Land and from the middle of the 16th century the Russian Tsardom". Since this is about the Muscovite and then (centralized) Russian state, this makes sense. Mellk (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Halperin wrote: The translation “Russian” represents Great Russian chauvinism toward the Kievan inheritance. Great Russian chauvinism is a modern Russian ideology created in the 19th century on the idea that there is a Great Russian language. So what he is saying is that translating Русская in medieval and early modern sources as "Russian" is applying not just modern Russian linguistic standards, but a specific modern ideology, to a period in the past where it is anachronistic.

As I said, OES had many different ways of spelling the term; I linked to Wiktionary which gives the following examples: ...many spelling variants such as русьскаꙗ, роусьска, роусьскаѧ, рускаѧ, рускаꙗ, роусскаѧ etc. and землꙗ or землѧ. But the etymologically right form is роусьскаꙗ землꙗ. The Tale of the Destruction of the Rus' Land spells it as Рꙋскыꙗ земли. Halperin explains in Latin (as I quoted extensively above) that whenever it appears as russkaia zemlia, ruskaia or rustaia or other medieval variants, he will translate it as Rus', so it is one of many medieval variants (although probably not the oldest ever found) that also happens to be still used in modern Russian (after 1800). For the same reason, we can say that when Kloss page 3 writes Русская земля, he is not necessarily referring to the oldest spelling form of that term ever attested. Kloss' interest is about when spelling variants emerge in late medieval sources (1387 and after) that start to gradually and inconsistently put -ua, -ya, -iya, -ia, -sua etc. after Rus' , whence the modern word Россия Rossiya comes from.

Again, we're not talking about Hellberg-Hirn and Langer here. Also, in the quotes you provided here, they make no claim that the spelling they use for the term reflect the oldest endonyms. Neither goes back further than the 15th century, and in both cases they just say that then the term Rossiia emerged, they say nothing about when "Russian land" was first attested.

Besides, these are still just 2 "Russian land" counterexamples, I can give a lot of other "Rus' land" examples beyond Halperin. If you really want to do a whole literature overview of "Rus' land" versus "Russian land" as a translation of Русская земля in recent English-language scholarly sources, we could turn this into a fun competition who can find the highest spelling frequency. But we could also save ourselves the trouble, and as a compromise just say both "Rus' land" and "Russian land" are commonly used translations in English literature, with the former being used in more recent early-21st-centry literature and the latter more frequent in the 20th century (as appears to be the case, Halperin himself being an example of this shift from Russian to Rus' ). We might even add the term Rus'ian land which he dislikes, but is indeed sometimes used. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If it was about Kievan Rus' then "Rus' land" would be fine but since this part is specific to Muscovy and Russia as a whole then "Russian land" makes sense here. The sentence ends with: a new form of its name, Rusia or Russia, appeared and became common in the 15th century -- this only refers to Muscovy/Russia specifically.

Where does Halperin say "Русская" (in Russian language) should be translated as "Rus'"? He only mentioned "russkaia zemlia" but also says it could be translated to "Russian land" when referring to Muscovy. Again here we are only talking about endonyms in Muscovy/Russia rather than all of former Kievan Rus'. Maybe it could be reworded slightly to make that clearer. Mellk (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If it was about Kievan Rus' It is. We are talking about Kloss page 3 sentence 1.

but since this part is specific to Muscovy and Russia as a whole It is not. We are talking about Kloss page 3 sentence 1.

The sentence ends with Again, we're not talking about Hellberg-Hirn and Langer here.

Where does Halperin say "Русская" (in Russian language) should be translated as "Rus'"? Halperin (2022), p. vii–viii; I quoted it in my very first comment in this talk page section. Long story short: "Русская" in all medieval and early modern (Old) East Slavic sources should be translated as "Rus'".

but also says it ["Русская"] could be translated to "Russian land" when referring to Muscovy No, he says that russkii referring to the Muscovite grand principality and later tsardom from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century could legitimately be translated as “Russian,”, not that "Русская" could.

Again here we are only talking about endonyms in Muscovy/Russia rather than all of former Kievan Rus'. No, we are talking about all of former Kievan Rus' in the first, second and third sentences of Kloss page 3, because Kloss mentions the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus', and as that article states: The Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus' (...) was a metropolis of the Eastern Orthodox Church that was erected on the territory of Kievan Rus'. (...) The episcopal seat (cathedra) was located in the city of Kiev. There is no mention of "Muscovy" or "Russia" in the lead section of that article. Instead, it indicates the metropolis was based in Kiev, which at the time Cyprian wrote in 1387 was controlled by Lithuania, not by Muscovy. Moreover, 2 days ago, you agreed with me that In fact, the only time page 3 ever mentions the word московскии (moskovskii, "Muscovite") is when referring to the scribe Ivan Cherny in the 1480s (a whole century later than Kloss' opening sentences about the usage of toponyms by the Metropolis of Kiev and all Rus'), and that this was a valid reason for calling Ivan Cherny a "Muscovite" rather than a "Russian" scribe. Lastly, even today the title of Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' (Russian: Патриарх Московский и всея Руси, romanized: Patriarkh Moskovskij i vseja Rusi) is the official title of the office-holder in the succession of Metropolitans/Patriarchs of Kiev/Moscow and all Rus'. They always have been referring to Kievan Rus', following Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical territorial boundaries/claims rather than Rurikid/Romanov dynastic territorial boundaries/claims. Unless one is deliberately trying to mix them up (e.g. for the purpose of Great Russian chauvinism toward the Kievan inheritance, as Halperin puts it), we should distinguish the principality from the metropolis. Kloss page 3 does not talk about the principality until the end of page 3, where he mentions the Muscovite scribe Ivan Cherny in the 1480s. All previous sentences can only be directly or indirectly tied to the metropolis. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I added some sources, rearranged some contents and added a new section about ecclesiastical titles. It's all still very new and will need to be corrected and supported with RS, but I thought I'd just make a start here. I think Kloss' reference to Cyprian would probably fit in here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You said: We are talking about Kloss page 3 sentence 1. Which says: "В древнейших русских источниках для названия нашей страны использовались слова Русь или Русская земля." This is an assumption here. Again, Halperin only refers to "russkaia zemlia", he does not mention the Russian language here and how Russian words specifically should be translated, this predates Russian. He says "russkii" because this is the default form (masculine nominative) and since "zemlia" is a feminine noun, it becomes "russkaia zemlia". This is the same word he is referring to. Hence why he mentions "Russian Land" as another translation immediately after referring to "russkii" ("russkii" because he meant in general, it would not be right to translate russkoe tsarstvo, or russkoe gosudarstvo, as "Rus' tsardom" or "Rus' state" rather than "Russian"). Mellk (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway I do not see any significant changes required anymore. Mellk (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You make some good points. russkoe tsarstvo and russkoe gosudarstvo can be readily translated as Russian tsardom and Russian state as far as I'm concerned, but I do think that with russkaia zemlia we should be more careful. At the moment we seem to agree that both translations are possible, and I've supported this with reference to Halperin 2022. I also agree with your latest edits, they made some improvements. I think I'll make some further improvements myself about the Ruthenia section with the new literature I found. There is quite a large diversity of names in sources about Galicia–Volhynia, which in late medieval Latin sources is interchangeably called Russia, Ruscia, Ruthenia etc. while the princes and kings are called Ruthenorum or Russiae/Rusciae and its population Rusciae/Russiae or more regularly Ruthenos. These are then adopted as dynastic titles in various forms by Lithuania and Poland, as well as in foreign correspondance or ethnography from other states such as Hungary or the Papacy. It does seem like Ruthenia would eventually become the most common name by the 19th century (probably already earlier), but for a long time these names were used interchangeably without a clear favourite. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it is fine to mention both "Russian land" and "Rus' land" as translations in this case since it seems by "oldest endonyms" it is also referring to the pre-Mongol period too, I just thought it was only referring to a later period but the wording is clearer now. Of course Russia and Ruthenia are Latin forms that are conflated with Rus in English so it is not simple. At the moment there are two separate sections (§ From Rus' to Russia and § From Rus' to Ruthenia) but the latter also mentions usage of Russia (and alternative forms), like you said used interchangeably, so I am not sure how that should be handled. And yes for example the element ruthenium was named after Russia but Ruthenia was the dominant name for Russia in Latin. Mellk (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad we cleared that up. Indeed, the Latin forms present a whole new problem that was much more complicated than I thought, which makes the subdivision of the section indeed somewhat questionable, and I am also not sure if this is the best solution. Ruthenia would eventually become the dominant form in (Western) Ukraine, but it co-existed for a long time with Russia, Ruscia etc. That development also fits, at least partially, under the heading of "From Rus' to Russia". But for geographic clarity, I think it's best to keep them separated.

Moreover, one can argue that in Belarus, "Rus'" has never quite gone away. We've got an article called White Ruthenia, explaining part of the changes that went on especially in non-East-Slavic languages such as Latin, Polish and English, but from an East Slavic point of view, only Bela-/Bila-/Biełaja-/Belaya- was added in front of Rus' from Kievan Rus' times until present. Putting Belarus under "From Rus' to Ruthenia" is only accurate from an early modern outsider's perspective, but in modern times these languages have all adopted the endonyms Belarus and Bielarus (well, except Latin Wikipedia, which still says la:Ruthenia Alba, but okay. Incidentally, in my native language, Dutch, 10 years ago everyone still said and wrote Wit-Rusland, but in recent years people (myself included) are increasingly switching to Belarus). One can argue that the name of Belarus changed the least of the three regions/countries. Perhaps we should simply create a separate section called "From Rus' to Belarus"? This would include the "White, Black, Red" subsection. Then again, all those articles are called "Ruthenia": White Ruthenia, Black Ruthenia, Red Ruthenia. I suppose there are no perfect solutions here either.

The section "Little Russia, New Russia" is potentially so contentious that I dared not put it under either of those previous sections. Although these are names for (parts of) Ukraine, they represent a Great Russian or Russian imperial(ist) perspective that is generally frowned upon by modern Ukrainians (and anti-imperialist Russians). Perhaps keeping that a separate section is best. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There is already the article Etymology of Belarus so I do not think a section for Belarus specifically is needed. Mellk (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh thanks for pointing that out! I added a link to it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think I have to unwind the convoluted 3,000 words above to see that this is still wrong:

• While the oldest endonyms were Rus' (Russian: Русь) and the Rus' land[27] or Russian land[27] (Russian: Русская земля),[28] a new form of its name, Rusia or Russia, appeared in the 15th century, and became common thereafter.
• In the Russian Tsardom, the word Russia replaced the old name Rus' in official documents, though the names Rus' and Russian land were still common and synonymous to it,[49] and often appeared in the form Great Russia (Russian: Великая Россия), which is more typical of the 17th century,[50] whereas the state was also known as Great-Russian Tsardom (Russian: Великороссийское царствие).[37]

There is no debate over the fact that Rus was not Russia. To use “Russian Land” as a translation for the “oldest endonyms,” before Russia existed or was given the name, without noting the dated and non-POV nature of the terminology is obviously not acceptable. I don’t care if you bracket the synthetic statement with a series of citations (one of which '’specifically denigrates the usage). I don’t care if you use the technicality that some passage occurs specifically to the context of Muscovy or something to justify it. It’s ridiculous to argue such details when the overall text is ambiguous and freely uses ambiguous or even incorrect English translations when referring to specific Old East Slavic words, and the result is a text that’s blatantly problematic.

If “Russian land” is used, it should only be specifically to note that this dated and confusing terminology may still be used in some sources.

I assume good faith, but user:Mellk already framed this as a battleground and explicitly supported an imperial Russian or early 20th-century stance when they rejected the last four decades of developments in the practice of history by stating “Your "decolonization" campaign is disruptive” (at Talk:Alexander Nevsky #Alexander Nevsky dispute/ Anachronistic “Russian princes”), among other editing disputes. This is clearly a wider problem, and it is actively and passively supported by other editors throughout numerous articles. Perhaps it should be taken to wider forum to openly establish a consensus, before we end up in another arbitration case as in WP:HJP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Kievan and Kyivan

@Altenmann "in historical contexts historical names are used in Wikipedia" As far as I know Kyivan Rus is also used in modern English sources, which is what the sentence you removed it from is about. TylerBurden (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

And this is written at the very top of Kievan Rus' article. But this is a different article. It only creates clutter to repeat this phrase "also called..." in all articles. In Wikipedia the article name is "Kievan Rus', see notice at the top of Talk:Kievan Rus'. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not clutter if it's relevant context, which specifically modern English certainly is. Are you saying that the term Kyivan Rus only belongs in a single Wikipedia article? TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, do not edit the article in this respect until the discussion is concluded. - Altenmann >talk 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You are the one removing long standing content without obtaining consensus. TylerBurden (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I an in my rights to edit anytime anything, per WP:CONSENSUS. This rule concerns ongoing discussions, and in fact you violated it, because you reverted while the discussion was in progress. Please self-revert. - Altenmann >talk 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on a change you made, removing long standing content, which was reverted. The process in that instance is that you gain consensus for your disputed edit. See WP:DUE, removing Kyivan Rus is undue in this instance discussing modern English terms. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Russian historic revisionism

Things here does not add up. Rus comes from Old Norse (ruser, rusa) as in 'charging' the 'charging-people' this is how the Vikings named people. This is very old knowledge in the Nordics. The wikipedia does not mention this at all. 212.247.252.69 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to your statement.- Altenmann >talk 16:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn Fadlan for Varangians near Astrakhan

Astrakhan is a Russian city founded in the 16th century. Fadlan was in the Middle Volga, where there was a Bulgar state. The Lower Volga is the possession of the Khazars. Why is Astrakhan listed? 5.129.245.161 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Right; anachronism fixed. - Altenmann >talk 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Rus' referred to the Scandinavians initially

The opening sentence of this article is rather misleading. Originally, Rus' referred to the Scandinavians themselves. It was only gradually, and much later than the 9th century, that the term became identified with the East Slavic polity of Kievan Rus' and its inhabitants (eventually as an endonym thereof). Kobzar1917 (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"The term “Rus’,” brought to the region by the Vikings in the ninth and tenth centuries, was adopted by the inhabitants of Kyivan Rus’, who took the Viking princes and warriors into their fold and Slavicized them." - Plokhy, S. (2015). The gates of Europe: a history of Ukraine. New York, Basic Books. (p. 26)

"In the past there was lively historical debate about the identity of the Rus, but today there does not seem much doubt that they were Scandinavian Vikings, or “Varangians,” as the Slavs called them, merchant-warriors seeking to dominate the trade routes which traversed territory settled by Slavic, Baltic, and Finno-Ugrian peoples..." - Hosking, G. (2001) Russia and the Russians: A History. Harvard University Press. (p. 30)

"In any case, as far as the use of the term Rus’ is concerned, it appears that it was first applied to (1) a people, that is, the Varangians/Scandinavians; then to (2) the territory of the Polianians in central Ukraine; and eventually to (3) the political entity that came to be called Kievan Rus’." - Subtelny, O. (2009). Ukraine: A History, Fourth Edition. University of Toronto Press. (p. 42)

"Initially, the term Rus’ was associated simply with the ruling elite of Varangian origin. Gradually, however, Rus’ came to mean the territories and their inhabitants living under the rule of Volodymyr I and his filial representatives. At first this meant the land surrounding Kiev, Pereiaslav, and Chernihiv, but eventually it included all seven principalities of the realm." - Magocsi, P. (2007). Ukraine: An Illustrated History. University of Toronto Press. (p. 58)

"The Tale of Bygone Years claims that there was no agreement among the local Slavic tribes and they were constantly fighting each other. To stop the strife, "…they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes and others Normans and Angles and still others Gotlanders, for they were thus named." - Hrytsak, Y. (2023). UKRAINE The Forging of a Nation. Public Affairs. (p. 50-51)

Kobzar1917 (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The opening sentence could be something along the lines of The names Rus', Russia, and Ruthenia trace back to the medieval state of Kievan Rus' and its Scandinavian founders, the Varangians. (Do you think this provides enough context for the casual reader?) Then the rest of the first paragraph would discuss in more detail the Swedish tribe and Kiovan Rus', summarizing the Etymology section. The second paragraph would be about Russia, and the third about Ruthenia. There should be something about the Ecclesiastical titles also, since the introduction is supposed to summarize the article per MOS:LEAD. The introduction should also be simpler; it does not need to introduce so many Cyrillic and Greek words. Those details can be left to the main text. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. There were some sources in the earlier introduction (permalink) which might be useful to incorporate in the main text. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

All good. The opening sentence still reads the term "originate[s] from the medieval state", so I'm gonna go ahead and fix that. Kobzar1917 (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You did not fix anything here, you added information not explained anywhere in the article to push a certain POV. If the issue is the word "originate", then this is an easy fix. Mellk (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What "POV" exactly? Read the sources, do your homework. All I did was clarify the scholarly consensus. Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We have MOS:LEAD. Of course, I did not expect you to bother reading any of this. Mellk (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and can you explain specifically how my lead is in breach of MOS:LEAD? Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a summary. What you added is not mentioned in the body. Therefore, you cannot include information in the lead that is not mentioned anywhere else. Therefore, referring to the narrow definition without any context or explanation of this is also POV-pushing. Mellk (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh but it is mentioned in the body. Extensively. I advise you read it first next time. Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Really? Please point out where the heartlands Kiev, Chernihiv and Pereiaslavl are mentioned? Mellk (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You're correct that that precise wording doesn't appear in the body. I'll have to rectify that. Do you deny its accuracy? Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to rectify that -- this is a collaborative project. Insisting that only you can edit the article by not discussing proposed edits and continually restoring your disputed edit does not follow the spirit of this. Therefore, kindly self-revert and propose your change here. Mellk (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to collaborate with you. But simply reverting all my contributions on sight, and not making any distinction between the content and sources I've spent hours including, is not very collegial - would you agree? Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary exaggeration. I edited this article (and the others) long before you made your first edit. For this article, you added information in the lead not explained anywhere in the article and lacking context. The appropriate option here is to remove this for the time being. We have WP:ONUS. Just because you can cite a source, does not mean it automatically warrants inclusion and can not be removed. Mellk (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

But, I believe you are abusing WP:ONUS by reverting wholesale without raising any actual objections, as you did in the Ostrog Bible article. If you have any specific objections, I'm happy to discuss. What, specifically, do you object to in my altered lead for this article? Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have explained my objection. In addition, you can see that Kievan Rus#Names explains this part in a clear way. Mellk (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

From your link:

"When the Varangian princes arrived, the name Rus' was associated with them and came to be associated with the territories they controlled. Initially the cities of Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereyaslavl and their surroundings came under Varangian control"

So what is your objection?

I honestly don't understand. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You did not quote the entire paragraph, where it provides a more detailed explanation of this. I have also just explained to you that your edit did not follow MOS:LEAD. Not to mention other unsupported changes like Russia is a Hellenized rendition of the same word. Mellk (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"unsupported changes"? Please see: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Russia#Etymology. Although, you might have a point in regards to that not being adequately elucidated in this article. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia itself as a source. But even there it says that the word Russia itself is from Latin. Mellk (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "Russia" in English, comes to us via Latin - but it originates in the Greek rendition. That's how these things work (see: Rome coming to English via French). I would've been more than happy to flesh that out in the lead, except for my judgment that it adds another level of complication that would stupefy the lay person. in my humble opinion. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is not mentioned in the body. We do not need to flesh out the lead, because it needs to be fleshed out in the body. The lead is simply a summary of this. Mellk (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@Jähmefyysikko, I see the discussion higher, but the viking element is still included in the article. I suppose it should be deleted? Shahray (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)