Talk:Rus' people/Archive 1

(Moved from Talk:Ruthenia Jmabel 23:34, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)): From the article: "...British (originally Celts)..." is not really on the mark. The Celts who were the "Britons" of Roman times are now, more or less, the Welsh, Cornish, and even Bretons. The people now known as the "British" are a mixed lot, as the term includes the Scots (a term that originally derives from a name for Ireland!), the descendents of the (Germanic) Anglo-Saxons, the Cornish and Welsh (but not the Bretons), and, arguably such unrelated groups as British Moslems. Would anyone be opposed to dropping this very confusing off-topic would-be parallel from the article? It gives other, better examples. -- Jmabel 06:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A brief look-around shows that there is quite a few material around for this article, not covered yet. Not to say that it should cover both pro-scandinavian POV and anti-scandinavian one, not just dismiss Slavic versions with arrogant contempt. Mikkalai 03:23, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

Right now it seems to be biased towards the Slavic version in the second section, having slavic scholars insightfully sweeping the scandinavian theory off the table as western chauvinist. Oh, I see an edit while I was commenting changed this, though I still think right now this section's point of view is not neutral enough, using the words 'insightful' and 'justly' as well as 'how problematic'. User:Martijn faassen


 * Much better now in the recent edit. I still think 'Montgomery' is introduced out of the blue (though mentioned in the references). Perhaps some introduction to the various researchers in this field is in order. --Martijn faassen 21:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The following piece cut away as excessive and highly questionable.
 * They suggest that there was just as great a difference in levels of cultural advancement between the Slavs and the Scandinavians as there was between the Romans and the Germanic tribes. As the Varangians were in complete awe of the cultural achievements of the Eastern Slavs, they assimilated immediately.

Note that a similar statement still remains in the article.Mikkalai 16:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

vague overlaps & contradictions
Let's see here,

the Normanist theory is odious to so many Russians, to the dominant Russian view, but Russia then went and named herself after what is repeatedly and narrowly asserted to be a foreign Scandinavian people?

Why call this article "Rus' (people)" and then include a "Slavicist theory" that won't even say who this contruct of "Rus' people" is?

Russia never named herself after Scandanavians! Russia dropped her first name of Moskva/Muscovy and named herself after the Greek name for the people of Kievan Rus' in 1713, after taking them over in the preceding half-century.

Kievan Rus' on the other hand named herself after "the Rus'", who as the article indicates, may have been SOME people from Scandanavia or A people/nation from Scandanavia (if the "Normanist" position is endorsed).

In any case, the Rus' people became those around Kiev most specifically, also, all those who belonged to the same people as the people of Kiev, and those under Kiev's rule in the most general sense. Let's straighten out this article.

204.105.197.133. Feb 23, 2004


 * It is interesting to see the way you use the word "foreign". Nobody is against the Slavicist theory. If Westerners tend to believe "narrowly" in the Normanist theory it is due to an evaluation of historical sources, rather than western chauvinism. If there were any such bias, the controversy would surely be parallelled by a similar one in Normandy, about which there is also a Normanist theory. The problem seems to reside in that the anti-Normanists have yet to present some historical sources that can compete with those of the Normanists. In fact, there are many Normanists even in Russia, some of which have suggested that the supposed invitation should be done once again.


 * I have included a few theories to support the slavicist theory, as they are very interesting. You are invited to fill that part of the article with revealing facts as to the "wrongness" of the Normanist theory. My PERSONAL opinion is that Rus' has several sources (one of which is covered by the water theory), but that would be a linguistic theory (within the cognitive linguistics branch) and not a historical theory. Moreover, Wikipedia is not the place for the presentation of personal hypotheses. Wiglaf

I use the word 'foreign' here the emphasize the extreme reaction of certain Slavicists in Russia to the Normanist theory as being an affront to the dignity of the state and it's history.

I am not asserting the wrongness of the Normanist theory. I'm not inclined to either side. I do find the whole topic to be a wonderfully fascinating historical puzzle.

Towards that end, my main point is that this article as it stands is conceptually fractured and inconsistent.

It is titled, "Rus' people" but only half of it, the first "Normanist" half actually is worthy of the name. The only part of the second half that rises to the occasion is the one brief allusion to a people called Roxolanae who are described as Iranian.

The article as it stands should be titled, "Rus': Origins of the name."

On the other hand, the decision to focus on Rus' as people would not be helped by avoiding the narrower and broader meanings seen one thousand years ago: "narrow" meaning a small region around Kiev; and, "broad" meaning the large expanse of the Kievan Rus' empire/confederation.

Regards, 204.105.197.133 Feb 23 2004


 * Yes, the second part is problematic, as it is mostly a collection of anti-normanist theories. I hope that other people will contribute with better information than I have been able to do. You are right in pointing out that Rus' was applied to a geographical area, but that part is very well covered in the article Ruthenia, and this article is actually an off-shoot of that article. I have made a link to that page, within the discussion on the Normanist theory. You make a good suggestion about the naming of this article, but if the Normanist theory is right, the real Rus' people were probably first centered around a group of Norse colonists who gradually became Slavs, and so the extension of the name should have been gradual, making it logical to have the possible Norse origin as a first part of the article on the Rus people (in analogy with the article on Normans). I hope that the other possible origins will be filled in in time. Regards, Wiglaf

204.105.197.133 wrote: narrow to a small region around Kiev; and, broad, to the large expanse of the Kievan Rus' empire/confederation.
 * Not so small at all!! Don't forget, it covered Novgorod, both at the beginning (Rurik came to Novgorod first), as well as at its prime. Surely the area was larger than Scandinavia. Mikkalai 18:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That the name could nave been "non-native", nothing unusual in this. Just recall Grand Duchy of Lithuania, from Baltic sea to Black sea, ruled by a handful of Baltic aristocrats. Mikkalai 18:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the name could have been non-native!

But I want to be precise on the narrow vs. broad meanings of "Rus'":

Regardless of whether or not Rus' came from Novgorod, regardless of whether the name Rus' was of Normanist, or most particularly Scandanavian origins,

at a certain point, Rus' became a designation applied to lands within a small circumference of the territory around Kiev: the name Rus' was sometimes used, for example, to exclude, for example, Novgorod!

204.105.197.133 Feb 24, 2004


 * In that case you should perhaps be exact about when this "narrow sense" was used, and put it in the article on Ruthenia. Wiglaf
 * And perhaps since you seem to be an active editor here, you'd better register yourself, so that we could address to you by a name, rather than by the IP-number (Dear 204.105.197.133! Hmmmph...) Mikkalai 22:16, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ruzzi
Mikkalai, I notice you've deleted, "Old High German Ruzzi was pronouned rootsi which is very close to the Estonian and Finnish names for Sweden (Rootsi and Ruotsi). This suggests that Rus' is etymologically identical to these Finnish and Estonian forms." Could you explain? Are you saying this is dead-out wrong? If it's merely overstated, or needs attribution to some particular scholar, we should qualify/attribute it appropriately, not simply delete it. -- Jmabel 04:33, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Mikkalai comments that the original text has the form Rhos. I believe him. Well done Mikkalai! This means that I took the info from a text that had changed the original form of the name. Mea culpa.


 * However, I think it is wrong to remove the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden. I put them back. Wiglaf
 * Sorry, I overcut. (But because of that you phrased this statement better than it was. :-) I looked briefly trhu various theories and cannot happen but notice that different people dig so many different words that sounded similarly to ros/rus in there old times, not to say about variations in spelling due to rendering into latin an arabic. By the way how the hell they are so sure that ibn faldan's is "Rusiyyah"? As far as I know, arabic script normally does not mark vowels, so it could as well be "risuyah". All these "linguistic" theories (including normanist) are based on so scarse material that I would use *very* cautios phrasings when saying aout their validity. Mikkalai 15:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * As for "ruzzi", it is listed Bavarian Geographer, in a list of tribes without specific localization, and to attribute this form to a German dialect is *so* ridiculous. Mikkalai 16:46, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Old High German was hardly a dialect >:-(

It is the origin of modern German, and the direct ancestor of Bavarian. Wiglaf
 * Thanks. Now I think I see how this claim originated. From 'bavarian geographer', then in must be Hochdeutsch... Mikkalai 19:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Norse or Slavic?
Aryan or not? Blonde Knight of Teuton 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You just look up 'Aryan'.Krastain 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rus'ian" vs. "Russian"
I don't believe I have any particular axe to grind here, but I notice that Drbug keeps changing "Rus'ian" to "Russian", insisting that the former is "not an English word". I believe that "Rus'ian" is the normal scholarly usage to indicate clearly that one is referring to Kievan Rus' and not to modern-day Russia. Can someone who is more of a scholar in this area please weigh in? I don't want to just revert him based on my definitely non-expert knowledge. -- Jmabel 18:43, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is called the "Russian Primary Chronicle," not "Rus'ian," and although I have no real specialty in this area, I don't think I have ever seen "Rus'ian" in English. Adam Bishop 05:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do a Google, Search, you'll find it has some scholarly use. The use of the word "Russian" before "Russia" existed is political ideology, not science. Genyo 02:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Genyo, I strongly doubt that "Russian" is used instead of "Rus'ian" for political and ideological reasons. Most English-speaking scientists aren't part of the political and ideological controversies you're involved in. Don't accuse English language scholars of having political and ideological agendas where there is none.
 * However, since you apparently have serious problems with the word, and neutrality is a lodestar for Wikipedia, "Rus'ian" may be a nice alternative. Personally, I don't care which. --Wiglaf 06:50, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I however strongly disagree to replace the English words with the invented words unknown to both public and scholars in favor to nationalists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. NPOV principle is just a second one after being an encyclopedia principle. (I however doubt how can anyone consider use of the term invented by nationalists to be NPOV.)
 * I will insist on replacing this invented term with mainstream one, at least untill either the Wikipedia policy is changed or this invented term became mainstream one. Thank you for understanding. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If your preference is to not like the more precise and academically advanced term Rus'ian, then accuracy dictates that the simple term Rus' or "of Rus'" be used. Otherwise two different countries would be confused, which would be anti-intellectual. Accept my understanding--and thank you for yours. Genyo 01:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Using Rus' should be acceptable (I hope), I believe I remember seeing it used as an adjective as well. Adam Bishop 07:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Russian Primary Chronicle is a proper name used by the scholars and encyclopedies. I oppose to replace it with invented awkward Primary Chronicle of Rus. We'd better name it Povest' Vremennykh Let everywhere then, if we don't care about English language traditions. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Normanist vs Slavicist
I think there is a vagueness, even imprecision here between the use of these two terms ('anti-normanist' vs. 'Slavicist'). Much of the historical stimulus for the "native Slav" theory comes from Russian Romanticist myths. These include the foundational myth of pure Slavic ancestry of the Russian nation--in fact, the Russian nation was formed centuries after the advent of th "Rus'" from the assimilation of a large Finno-Ugric populations surrounding Slavic forts. Built upon this myth is the equation of the modern Russian nation with another ancient state--Kievan Rus'--whose capital was not in Russia until around 1700.

Historically, in light of the example cited in the early paragraphs of the article--from the Davies source, terming a Slavicist theory "anti-Normanist" is largely accurate. Yet, a person can advance native 'Slavicist' theory of origin for non-chauvanistic, non-imperial reasons, solely from the evidence. Some scholars from the descendants of The heartland of Slavic Rus'-- Ukraine have propsed such theories, for example.

Another problem is that "Slavicist" usually means and expert in matters Slavic--another imprecision.

Perhaps it would be good to avoid labels and redescribe the content in terms of historical positions.

In any event, I hope we can avoid the Russian imperialist tendency to censorship, which is lamented in the article. Genyo 15:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We do need a title on the section, though. How about covering both bases with ==The "Antinormanist" or "Slavicist" theories==? -- Jmabel 17:51, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. How bout, "The political origins of Rus'--Scandanavian or Slavic? Genyo 18:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The preceding section is entitled "The Normanist Theory". One or another way, we should keep the section titles parallel, no? -- Jmabel 21:07, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, all things being equal, paralell or consistent titles are a good thing. Genyo 21:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Ukraine
The Encyclopedia of Ukraine seems to be a good source of information..--Wiglaf 14:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd call it good source of sources; as for 'infomation', I'd be careful during the assimilation of it. Mikkalai 18:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Original quote from Primary Chronicle
&#1042;&#1098; &#1083;4&#1090;&#1086; 6367. &#1048;&#1084;&#1072;&#1093;&#1091; &#1076;&#1072;&#1085;&#1100; &#1042;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103;&#1079;&#1080; &#1080;&#1079; &#1079;&#1072;&#1084;&#1086;&#1088;&#1100;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072; &#1063;&#1102;&#1076;&#1080; &#1080; &#1085;&#1072; &#1057;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;4&#1077;&#1085;&#1077;&#1093;&#1098;. &#1052;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080; &#1080; &#1085;&#1072; &#1042;&#1089;4&#1093;&#1098; &#1080; &#1085;&#1072; &#1050;&#1088;&#1080;&#1074;&#1080;&#1095;4&#1093;&#1098;.

&#1042;&#1098; &#1083;4&#1090;&#1086; 6370. &#1048;&#1079;&#1098;&#1075;&#1085;&#1072;&#1096;&#1072; &#1042;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103;&#1075;&#1099; &#1079;&#1072; &#1084;&#1086;&#1088;&#1077; &#1080; &#1085;&#1077; &#1076;&#1072;&#1096;&#1072; &#1080;&#1084; &#1076;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;. &#1048; &#1087;&#1086;&#1095;&#1072;&#1096;&#1072; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080; &#1074; &#1089;&#1086;&#1073;&#1098; &#1074;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1076;&#1072;&#1090;&#1080;. &#1048; &#1085;&#1077; &#1073;4 &#1074;&#1098; &#1085;&#1080;&#1093;&#1098; &#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1076;&#1099;, &#1080; &#1074;&#1098;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072; &#1088;&#1086;&#1076; &#1085;&#1072; &#1088;&#1086;&#1076;, &#1080; &#1073;&#1099;&#1096;&#1072; &#1074; &#1085;&#1080;&#1093;&#1098; &#1091;&#1089;&#1086;&#1073;&#1080;&#1094;4, &#1080; &#1074;&#1086;&#1077;&#1074;&#1072;&#1090;&#1080; &#1087;&#1086;&#1095;&#1072;&#1096;&#1072; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080; &#1085;&#1072; &#1089;&#1103;. &#1048; &#1088;4&#1096;&#1072; &#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080; &#1074;&#1098; &#1089;&#1077;&#1073;&#1098;:"&#1087;&#1086;&#1080;&#1097;&#1077;&#1084;&#1098; &#1089;&#1086;&#1073;4 &#1082;&#1085;&#1103;&#1079;&#1103;, &#1080;&#1078;&#1077; &#1073;&#1099; &#1074;&#1083;&#1072;&#1076;4&#1083;&#1098; &#1085;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080; &#1080; &#1089;&#1091;&#1076;&#1080;&#1083;&#1098; &#1087;&#1086; &#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1091;." &#1048; &#1080;&#1076;&#1086;&#1096;&#1072; &#1079;&#1072; &#1084;&#1086;&#1088;&#1077; &#1082;&#1098; &#1042;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103;&#1075;&#1086;&#1084;&#1098;, &#1082; &#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1080;, &#1057;&#1080;&#1094;&#1077; &#1073;&#1086; &#1089;&#1103; &#1079;&#1074;&#1072;&#1093;&#1091; &#1090;&#1080; &#1042;&#1072;&#1088;&#1103;&#1079;&#1080; &#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;, &#1103;&#1082;&#1086; &#1089;&#1077; &#1076;&#1088;&#1091;&#1079;&#1080;&#1080; &#1079;&#1086;&#1074;&#1091;&#1090;&#1100;&#1089;&#1103; &#1057;&#1074;&#1077;&#1077;, &#1076;&#1088;&#1091;&#1079;&#1080;&#1103; &#1078;&#1077; &#1059;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;, &#1040;&#1085;&#1075;&#1083;&#1103;&#1085;&#1077;, &#1080;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080; &#1043;4&#1090;&#1077;.

On the Rus' == Swedes issue: the Chronicle specifically says: ''These varangians were called Rus, just as the other ones were called Swedes, still others were Germans, Angles or Goths. So that was their name.'' Mikkalai 18:34, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but "Swede" was not a simple concept in Viking age Scandinavia. There was the Swedish king, but he was the king of peope who usually only called themselves, Geats, närkingar (Nerike), västermän (Westmannia), södermän (Sudermannia), Gutar (Gotland, the Goths of the chronicle), and Ros-byggjar (Roslagen). If you want to have a look at the controversy of "Swede", look at Ancient Uppsala.--Wiglaf 18:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rus names of rapids
Removed: The Rhos names are Scandinavian. IMO the names "Aeifor", "Varouforos", "Leanti", etc. used in the "de administrando" as Rhosian names hardly can be called Scandinavian. Mikkalai 19:06, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Why aren't they Scandinavian? I have added the names and their forms in Old Norse, with translation.--Wiglaf 19:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this. Clearly, the names were distorted closer to the Greek ear and I could not reconize anything Germanic in them. Just as a non-native Slav can hardly recognize Slavic roots in Slavic verions of the names of rapids. Mikkalai 19:58, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that. At first sight, they look greek even to me. :)--Wiglaf 17:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Because as far as I know there are no any theory that traces these names to any specific Scandinavian language. There are claims that was a branch of Old Norse different to all other currently known languages derived from the Old Norse language, and it is not necessary that is a Scandinavian branch. Old Norse is not equal to Scandinavian. That's why the Ruegen theory and other similar theories are still popular. However, if there are any links between these names and any specific Scandinavian language, could you please specify them? It would be interesting to fill a lacuna in my knowledge! Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 19:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was no specific Scandinavian language that was distinct from Old Norse. Check Old Norse and North Germanic for information. It could be the dialect from Roslagen or the Scandinavian dialect of the Rus. Moreover, the Greeks can't be expected to have been doing an exact phonetic transcription.--Wiglaf 19:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Wiglaf, yes, maybe I used a bit wrong words, but I mean that as far as I know, these words can't be linked to any of known dialects of Old Norse (of course, it may be caused by the inaccuracies in transription), and therefore some claim that it was a distinct dialect used by the Germanic non-Scandinavian people who adopted the Slavic culture. These people might live in Ruegen or in nowdays Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia. It's not that I wish to put this information instead of the common version, I just like to mention that a language and a territory is not the same. The use of "Scandinavian" in this context implies that they were living in Scandinavia, what is definitely not proven yet, despite they no doubt had a Scandinavian roots. I hope this time my wording is more clear! :-) Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 19:59, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean :-). Yes it is very possible that the Rhos was a population of varied descent that was settled east of the Baltic sea since a few generations. However, there were also plenty of Scandinavians who just passed Kievan Rus' going further south and east. I don't think it is possible to know from the limited amount of words that are provided.--Wiglaf 20:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I completely agree. And maybe it's a good idea not to put "Scandinavian" which implyes that we know that they were Scandinavian. I don't see that it adds anything to the article, and therefore maybe it's right not to recover a sentence that Mikkolai deleted. What do you think? Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that question of ethnic label was that sensitive. In the West, "Scandinavian" is used for mediaeval norse speaking people of Scandinavian descent. Consequently, it strikes me as natural to label any Norse speaking population in mediaeval Europe as "Scandinavian". It is not a political label.--Wiglaf 20:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem, I haven't seen any evil in your actions :-). I don't think that this labelling question is too important either... Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Russian/Rus Primary Chronicle of Nestor
The original title of the chronicle in question is "Tale of Bygone Years." The chronicle is the earliest in the history of Rus', not Russia. Most of the chronicle was compiled and edited in Ukraine, not Russia.

To call the chronicle Russian is based on the imperialist attempt to Make Rus' the same thing as Russia, which isn't even close to the truth. Genyo 14:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * But it's called the Russian Primary Chronicle, not the Primary Chronicle of Rus'...why not change all instances of the name to "Tale of Bygone Years" or "Chronicle of Nestor", and avoid this dispute entirely? But whatever you do, don't call it "Chronicle of Rus'", it is not called that in English. Adam Bishop 16:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we would better use simple "Primary Chronicle" without a precise attribution. It is well known to the scholars, despite may be a bit misleading for the common public, provoking it to think that the chronicle the World's Primary Chronicle, or at least that it is a foreign source (however, this problem remains with all titles other than Russian Primary Chronicle). If it's not a problem, I vote for the Primary Chronicle, despite I still think that the most appropriate phrase for the Encyclopedia in this context is the Russian Primary Chronicle. Thanks for trying to find a compromise! Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 17:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think "Tale of Bygone Year's" is best, and Nestor's Chronicle or Primary Chronicle are both acceptable. I'm encouraged. Genyo 19:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Wiglaf, that's OK! Thank you for leading us out of the loop! Genyo 02:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

the name Rusiyyah for a group of people who are usually interpreted as Vikings

 * 1) Is there any written source naming the word viking connected to Rus?
 * 2) Is there possibly any source for that Rus are usually interpreted as Vikings? Who, when, were?

Dan Koehl 20:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have a source on this (and I didn't write it) but i believe the equation of Varangian = Viking is uncontroversial, and the possibility the the original Rus' were Varangians is at least a common hypothesis. Which is to say I'm sure this isn't crazy, but I can't give you a citation, someone else should be able to. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Someone else couldnt. I belive its correct to either remove the word viking, or give sources for the statement. From my point of view the question is under discussion, and if it was really evidence for the theory, then also sources should be able to name? My advice is to avoid terms which are not mentioned in the sources. If no vikings, knights, pirats, computer technicans or cowboys are named in the sources, then those terms should not be used. If there is a theory that says Rus was cowboys, however, its worth to give that theory a presentation, with quotes and sources. Dan Koehl 22:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I gave you that Liutprand reference on the Varangian talk page, if you saw it there. I'm not sure we understand your objection, so it's hard to answer it - why is it "under discussion," or controversial? Adam Bishop 06:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Viking. dab (T) 07:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) What exactly you understand by the word "source"? Mikkalai 07:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) If you are source lover, then please learn how to use them. The quoted phrase from the nearest "source", namely this wikiarticle, doesn't speak about connection of "Rus" to vikings. The quoted phrase is related to Ibn Faldan's account on Rusiyyah, whatever the word may mean. The Ibn Fadlan article also says that not all historians agree with this interpretation. Mikkalai 07:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) And by the way, everybody knows that Rus originates from bears, not from cowboys. Mikkalai 07:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I daresay the article makes clear the source is Ibn Rustah, and his description
 * They harry the Slavs, using ships to reach them; they carry them off as slaves and...sell them. They have no fields but simply live on what they get from the Slav's lands....You have only what you can provide with this weapon.
 * is summarized as "Viking" behaviour by the article. As far as I see, the disputed point is not the violent behaviour of the Rus, but their Scandinavian origin. "Viking" as used here means "Scandinavians who arrived in ships and behave unagreeably". If they were not Scandinavians, their behaviour would still be unagreeable, but they would not qualify as "Vikings". I think this article is organized too 'antagonistic' anyway. It dives right into the ontroversy before giving any background. Why don't we describe the sources first, and then add that people disagree about their interpretation? In the end, the "Normanist" and "anti-Normanist" are not unreconcilable: It all boils down to the conclusion that the Rus were "less than en ethnos", and hardly left any cultural or linguistic traces. dab (T) 09:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Whether they left any traces depends on whom you ask. You could argue that they left plenty of traces: personal names, the name of the country, loan words, a system of inheritance that would desintegrate the country (according to a Russian professor I know), place names and more Scandinavian archaeological remains than have been found in Scandinavia itself.--Wiglaf 14:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * you're right. I rephrase: "Normanist" and "anti-Normanist" are not necessarily unreconcileable, but rather a quantitative question of how numerous these Scandinavians were. There are linguistic traces, names and loanwords, but they did not impose their language on the locals. The "anti-Normanists" are obviously fuelled by nationalist ideals (Slavic nations do not like the idea of being former Teutonic colonies), much like people opposing the Aryan invasion theory (Indian colonial memories) or the Finno-Ugric languages (Hungarian Soviet memories), but it must be admitted that the Rus were probably a ruling class rather than a full ethnos, and also appear in Ibn Fadlan as travelling traders rather than as settlers. dab (T) 15:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. The reason why they did not impose their language is often described with the metaphor that the Scandinavians disappeared into a "sea of Slavs". They were a only ruling class in most of the territory, but there were areas of Scandinavian settlement, especially in the upper Volga area (considerable areas of settlement), around Gniezhdovo and just south of the Ladoga. I am a only a bit suspicious of the less than an ethnos proposal that is given in the article because in my mind it seems like they think "if we cannot make them Slavs, let's make them ethnically neutral" ;-).--Wiglaf 17:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * well, I don't think that is meant to dispute that the Scandinavians were an ethnos (obviously they were). It is just saying that not enough of them emigrated to "Russia" as the "Rus" to preserve their ethnic identity in the long term (which we know is how it turned out). dab (T) 18:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, if it is interpreted in that way, it is correct.--Wiglaf 20:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "they did not impose their language on the locals ... but it must be admitted that the Rus were probably a ruling class" - Ouch... HOW did they rule then? By pointing at things and giving angry looks? I guess next thing you're going to claim is that folks there in UK still speak Saxon.

839/ 869
"According to Montgomery, the Rus' were Swedes in 839" was changed without comment to "According to Montgomery, the Rus' were Swedes in 869". I have no idea of the facts, but it seemed an odd change to go without explanation, so I am making this comment to point it out. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was just a typo. But I have reservations as to Swedish identity of the Rus' in 839. Rurik, for example, came from Jutland. --Ghirlandajo 7:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * An important point, in my opinion. Others may disagree, but I find it less than credible to differentiate between different Norse ethnicities before Christianization when these ethnos appear as far away from home as in Kiev. In a sense, the Swedes and the Novgorodians were neigbours (via the Gulf of Finland, that is) which may make is natural for Novgorodians to characterize all Norses as Swedes. /Tuomas 08:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's as simple as looking up the quote (p24). It is not Montgomery's statement, however, but a quote of Logan. It is also a bit out of context to quote it like this: the "were Swedes" brings a discussion to a point, but it is understood that this means "originated in what is now Eastern Sweden". dab (&#5839;) 09:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There are no Russian sources that identify the Varangians as Swedes. It is said that they came "from overseas", which is a standard phrase for Scandinavia in general. The Russian Primary Chronicle states that they were Rus, just like there were others, Swedes, and Danes, and English, and Goths. It is clear from this phrasing that the Rus was distinguished from Swedes. The names of the Rus are Norwegian, for the most part. And a point may be made that Rurik came from the royal house of Haithabu. The earliest settlement of Ladoga (i.e., the capital of Rurik) and earthenware found there are identical to those found in Jutland.Ghirlandajo 09:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ghirlandajo, in those days, Swedes was a generic name for several tribes such as Gotlanders (Goths in the chronicle), Rosbyggjar (Roslagen), etc. If you argue that their mention besides the Swedes is an argument against their being "Swedes", then, you have to explain in what way the Gotlanders did not come from Sweden. Like the Rosbyggjar they were subjects to the Swedish king since centuries.--Wiglaf 14:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * PS. Likewise, since the 9th century, you find Geats mentioned both as Swedes and not as Swedes, depending on the use of Swede in the context. Swede is a debated term when it comes to this period, and usually if tribes such as Rosbyggjar and Gotlanders are mentioned, Swedes is a narrow concept probably only referring to the population around Mälaren (its most narrow sense in those days). the interpretation that they came from Eastern Sweden is in no way contradicting the accounts of the chronicle.--Wiglaf 14:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

why Rus'?
why the apostrophe? it it a russian tvyordy znak? (if so, we should say so). Neither Greek Rhos nor Arab ar-rus explains this orthography. dab (&#5839;) 13:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * never mind, it's a myagky znak, &#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;. Are the spellings Rus and Rus' used interchangeably? Is Rus not rather the English spelling, and Rus the russian one? dab (&#5839;') 13:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Rus' is a technically precise transliteration. Rus is more casual, leaving off the apostrophe, whose function a lay reader may not understand.  &mdash;Michael Z. 17:15, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)


 * no, my point is: Rus' is the technically precise transliteration of the Russian language form. Why the Russian language form? The technically precise transcription of the Arabic form, for example, would be R&#363;s. dab (&#5839;) 17:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I'm catching on. Are you trying to imply that we should use English words on Wikipedia and not Russian ones?  Incidentally, I think the transcription is the same from Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, and possibly the old language of Kievan Rus' as well.  Or are you saying this word comes to us from Arabic?


 * In my opinion, whether you keep the apostrophe or drop it, it's still a transliterated foreign word. Personally, I prefer Rus', because it duplicates the correct pronunciation for those who know, and doesn't interfere for those who don't.  On the other hand, some would argue that to explain transliteration and then use it without would make the article a bit cleaner, typographically.  It's a matter of establishing a "house style" for the usage of this word.  What do you think?  &mdash;Michael Z. 18:49, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)


 * I guess we'll use whatever is current in English publications. But note that "Rus'" does not indicate the correct (native) pronunciation. It indicates the modern Russian pronunciation, Which is just as good as the modern English pronunciation or whatever. it is a question of modern Russian orthography, and has nothing to do with the Rus themselves. If you want the 'correct' pronunciation, you'd have to reconstruct the Proto-Norse term, I guess, but that would make little sense. Since the first testimonies about the people seem to be Greek and Arabic, transliteration of the Greek or Arabic terms would make sense. But whatever, Rus' is fine too, I guess, as long as we make clear why we spell it that way (which at the moment, it would seem, is not the case). dab (&#5839;) 22:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To most readers it probably looks as a remnant of a plural marker, or as a grammatical error. --Ruhrjung 23:08, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)


 * Only to those utterly unfamiliar with the topic. As a person half-familiar with this, but not expert, the spelling with the apostrophe is what I'm used to seeing. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the transliteration of the name from the language of Kievan Rus' is exactly Rus' or Rus&#464;, depending on the transliteration system you use. The soft sign used to be pronounced as a short vowel, but I don't know if the exact pronunciation of the time is known.   Greek?  Arabic?  Proto-Norse?


 * I'm pretty sure that Kievan Rus' or Kyivan Rus', rendered with or without the apostrophe, is the conventional name in academic and encyclopedic English usage. Do you want to establish whether Wikipedia will use the apostrophe, or not, in all occurrences?  Or would you like to see a note or link explaining the orthography?


 * &mdash;Michael Z. 00:46, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)


 * For simplicity's sake, I suggest Rus without the apostrophe like Dab, but such a decision should be applied to Kievan Rus as well.--Wiglaf 10:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * well, I'm not sure. First of all, I am not trying to impose my solution here, I am genuinely inquiring about the possibilities. I suppose the spelling is tied up with the very problems and controversies of this article. This article is not about the Kievan Rus', they have their own article. If anything, it is about the history, or origins, of the Kievan Rus'. These were an early Slavic state, and per Michael's argument, they are properly spelled Rus'. But in this article, we say how Ibn Rustah reports that the "Rus' exploited the Slavs". This is incorrect. The Rus' were 12th century Slavs. Ibn Rustah reports how the R&#363;s (or the Rusiyyah) exploited the Slavs. The names are of course related, and it would seem that the Slavs, when they won the upper hand, took over the name. But how exactly this happend is of course the controversy described here. I suppose it would be proper to speak about Rus for the time they still were (dominated by) Varangians, about Rus or R&#363;s in connection with Arabic testimonies, and about Rus'  after the Slavs had taken over. dab (&#5839;) 10:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * They're the same word, dab. Adding or deleting an accent doesn't change the meaning, nor does transliterating it from Arabic instead of Old Ruthenian or modern Ukrainian or Russian, nor does using the English-language form, if you would call it that.  Is there any academic literature that follows the orthographic conventions you propose?  The Normanist controversy is a debate about people and historic events, not about diacritical marks.  Since Wikipedia isn't about to resolve this debate, all we can do is make a note of the controversy.


 * Why not simply write what's on your mind, instead of beating around the bush for two days?


 * &mdash;Michael Z. 16:46, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)


 * hello? I'm trying to be as explicit as I can. The apostrophe is not an 'accent', it corresponds, as you have noted, either to a 'soft sign' or a short i. I have also said that we should probably use whichever spelling is most commonly used. My main point is, however, that we should make clear the relation between the spellings. Of course they are ultimately the same name, but since most of this article is about speculation about this very name, some precision is certainly desireable. dab (&#5839;) 17:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Specialists who deal with foreign languages often (judging by my experience in linguistics and mathematics) have very technical terminology that is not suitable to popular accounts such as in a general encyclopedia. In what I've read, the ordinary English term is "Rus", not "Rus' ". The apostrophe at the end looks quite silly (I mean in English, not in literal transcription from Russian) to this English-speaking reader. Since it is a specialist mark and has no significance except to specialists and native speakers of Slavic, to whom en.Wikipedia is not directed, I suggest removing the '. Zaslav 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

name variants
ok, so how is the name attested? It is, strictly speaking, anachronistic to speak of 9th century Rus', just as it is anachronistic to speak of 12th century R&#363;siyyah. Of course we can, for the sake of simplicity, refer to the lot with Rus, after we have made this clear. Why is this at all relevant? Because there is evidence that the Rus' and the Rhos are not really the same people at all, or at least that their language changed completely between 839 and 1116. dab (&#5839;) 17:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rhos &#929;&#969;&#963;, Greek, 9th century (I think), and in De Administrando Imperio, 950.
 * R&#363;s &#1585;&#1608;&#1587; or R&#363;siyyah, Arabic, 922, Ibn Fadlan
 * R&#363;s &#1585;&#1608;&#1587;, Arabic, 10th century, Ibn Rustah
 * Rus' &#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100; (Old Russian(?)), 1116, Primary Chronicle

Interwiki
User:.:Ajvol:. recently modified the Russian-language interwiki link and removed all other interwiki links, entirely without comment. I have restored the other interwiki links. I do not know which link for Russian is more correct, but under the circumstances I am suspicious. Would someone who reads Russian please explain what is going on here? And if the removals of links are justified, would someone please explain that? Thanks -- Jmabel | Talk 19:34, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
I see that there is now a proposal to merge this back with the article on etymology. Seems to me that I remember they were split as a way of getting away from constant edit warring about whether the article should focus on the word itself or the the people. No one has indicated a reason to expect that would be any different now. I am at least skeptical about the value of such a merge, especially because both articles seem pretty stable now and I fear a bunch of fruitless edit warring again. Can someone state the case for the merge? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * It was me, who posted the merge template. It's just that much material in this article that has to do with etymology is not included into the etymology article itself. Maybe the template was not the best thing to do this. Let's try this and this instead. Thanks, -Irpen 01:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Normanist theory prevails by simple reason that there's no written sources supporting any other hypothesis and yet the one and only available, the Primary Chronicles are "pro-norman". I don't think the author of these was influenced by the modern-day westerners so claims of subjective approach are not substantiated. Could Russian historians produce any other comparable chronicles? You have vast Russian lands, cities and ruins. Dig. Search. Until this is accomplished there should be no justification for claims "to balance" out the normanist explanation. In th current version the counter-arguments have been given a fair and thorough overview.ˇ --Bete 11:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Several Byzantene Greek Zhitias while not discussing the origins of Rus, nevertheless place "Rus" (or more preceisely, "Ros") in Lower Don area as early as 600s. To me and most experts (not counting myself as such) this seems to mean that these were most likely NOT Scandianvians. Here is the source suggesting Ros are not Scandinavian that the above contributor wanted to see. Goliath74 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Right now this article seems to read as if the proponents of Normanist theory completely support the text of the Chronicle. From what I've read in several books supporting this theory, none of them find the idea that the Rus were "invited" credible at all. This is a rather important point, since the anti-normanist theories emphasise the unlikelieness of this. Basically, no modern historians seem to believe this whether they are for or against the theory. The text of the chronicle should perhaps be seperated better from the interpretation? (anon 31 July 2005)

A comment about the expalation of Slavicists theory in the article
The following part of the article seems to be somewhat incorrect:

This conclusion leads Slavicists to deny or reinterpret the Primary Chronicle, which claims that the Danish (or Swedish) Rus' were "invited". They claim that Nestor, a putative author of the Chronicle, was biased against the pro-Greek party of Vladimir Monomakh and supported the pro-Scandinavian party of the ruling prince Svyatopolk. They cite Nestor's factual inaccuracies as pro-Scandinavian manipulations and compare his account of Rurik's invitation with numerous similar stories found in folklore around the world. Boris Rybakov, a prominent Soviet historian, felt that the cultural level of the Varangians could not have warranted an invitation from the equally culturally advanced Slavs.

Let's take Rybakov's book "A birth of Rus'" as an example. I don't have proper english translation, so I will just do my best to translate some points from the book:

When Svjatopolk died in 1113, kievian nobiles invited Vladimir Monomakh to rule. After becoming the Great Kniaz, Monomakh put his attention on the Nestor's Chronicle; it was edited by igumen Silvestr at 1116. Monomakh was not satisfied with the result and passed the Chronicle to his eldest son Mstislav for the final correction. That was done near 1118. The Chronicle was modified in two main directions. First, the newer part of the Chronicle was altered - the part that describes a deeds of Svyatopolk and his rival Monomakh. Additionaly, the beginning of the Chronicle suffered heavy changes. Nestor was kievian and the Slavian South, Kiev and Podniprov'je were his primary topics. Mstislav, his editor, was a heir (by his mother) of Kings of England, Kings of Sweden, he lived the most part of his life in Novgorod and his wife was of novgorodian origin. Novgorod and Varangians were very close to him, while Kiev and kievian nobility, who did not accept his father for twenty years, seemed hostile for him. Knjaz Mstislav changed the story, innaturaly moved Novgorod before Kiev, voluntarily transferred the beginning of Rus far to the North, added varangians to the story. The legend about the invitation of varangians looks exactly the same as the story of the invitation of Mstislav's father to Kiev in 1113. An editor made a lot of changes in Nestor's text, injected a number of rough insertions not aligned with the previous text.

As we can see, the article virtually inverts Rybakov's text! 212.109.36.74 17:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition?
The opening of this article right now is "The origins of the Rus (Rus', Русь) are controversial...." but no definition is to be seen. Shouldn't the origins be under a separate section, and the opening reserved for the definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.188.164 (talk • contribs) 21 Feb 2006


 * You're quite right. The simplest solution would be to move this article to Normanist controversy.  —Michael Z. 2006-02-28 02:00 Z 


 * That would be the worst possible solution. I'm sure you mean "yes, indeed, the origins should be a under a separae section, and the opening should be reserved for the definition!" Adam Bishop 03:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not possible to provide a single definition, as points of view vary wildly. Leave the opening as it is. --Ghirla | talk 08:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But Adam, this article isn't about the Rus' people in general, it only discusses elements of the Normanist controversy, and application of the name Rus’. In any case, Ghirla, the introduction is lacking in that it doesn't set the context for a reader unfamiliar with the topic.  —Michael Z. 2006-02-28 17:47 Z 


 * Either way, the first sentence should make it clear who Rus' refers to, before going into the controversy. - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See also... or not
User:Ghirlandajo has repeatedly removed what I see as a perfectly valid and even useful "see also" list. I think it should be restored. But I am not going to edit war over this. Essentially, as it stands now, he has won because he is more willing than me to make this a fight, and, as far as I can tell absolutely unwilling either to compromise or to discuss the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that at least some if not all of these see also links are relevant and will provide more information for people interested in Rus' people even if scolars disagree whether the Rus are descendant of Slavic or Norse peoples. The links should be a part of this article.Inge 01:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Listmania seems to be rampant here. WP is not a slovenly and arbitrary list of links. If you consider any item important, put it into the context of the text. See also WP:CONTEXT: there is no need to duplicate links provided from within the text. -- Ghirla -трёп-  05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This would suggest that you think that no articles should have "see also" sections. Since we have guidelines for "see also" sections, this would seem to put you pretty clearly against consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Did ibn Rustah actually visit Novgorod or Tmutarakan'?
In the article a description of Rus implies a certain geographic definition that seems matching Taman (Tmutarakan') more than Novgorod. Did ibn Rustah visit Novgorod? or Tmutarakan'? Tmutarakan's "unhealthy air" and marshy grounds are nearly famous and, it seems almost consensual, Tmutarakan (and surrounding area) housed either a "Kagan of Rus" or an otherwise very authoritative figure in Rus, whoever these Rus may have been.

Does anyone have an authoritative quotation of Ibn Rustah describing Novgorod? Goliath74 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology
Why does the article deal mostly with written sources and overlooks the archaeological contribution? 130.234.75.173 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What precisely do you feel should be covered and is missing? - Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Map of Scandinavian settlements
Just a curious observation: the map looks a bit misleading. Since Novgorod and most other settlements marked as Scandinavian have evidence of Slavic settlement much earlier than Scandinavian, should we not call them "settlements with significant Scandinavian presence" rather than "Scandinavian settlements".

In which case, instead of "Holmgard (Novgorod)", we should write "Novgorod (Holmgard)", etc.Goliath74 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Who were the Rus afterall?
The article has "slavonic sources", "greek sources", theories about the name, etc. But it simply doesn`t explain who were the Rus`???? That`s why I camed here! To find out who the Rus were! I find it very, very strange that an article of what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, has such a narrow view: the Rus were an "East Slavic nation"... Where they???? Very shallow view... "East Slavic nation"... :) What happened to the Chuds, Mers, Balts, Iranic tribes, etc? I`ll start a chapter on this issue, and I invited you to contribute. Until then, I find my edit (the Rus is the name given to a population/group of populations) most suitable. Please comment on this too! Varag 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedia is not supposed to indulge in original research. It simply represents existing points of view. It is pretty obvious that the Rus of the 9th century were the Norsemen and the Rus of the 11th century were the East Slavs (Russians). Neither "Chuds" nor "Mers" nor "Iranic tribes" have no relation to this whatsoever. -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very dubious inclusion
In the References and further reading:


 * Ruthven, Jon. The Prophecy That Is Shaping History. Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003.

The accompanying link - http://www.prophecyshapinghistory.org - is a PDF, despite the innocent-looking URL. If you follow up the link (which I just did), it is the book in the entirety. At a quick skim, the book appears to be a crackpot thesis that the history of the northern nations was prophesied in the Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 36-39. I cannot imagine why this should be linked from an encyclopedia. I strongly recommend that it be cut. - Jmabel | Talk 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OR
The whole text has it's own conclusions instead of citing sources. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Point by {fact} when you think the statment are unnown to you. There is rather consensus that obvious senteces dont have to be referenced. What is obvius to contributors may be not obvius to other readers so is importan to insert facts insted of general OR . How those who wrote may get the idea what crosed your maind when you inserted {OR} on top of article? Szac 19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian person names of Scandinavian origin...
What about all those russian person-names that are similar to scandinavian ones like Vladimir (-> Valdemar) and Olav ? Don't these point to a Scandinavian origin of the original Rus too? Fedor 09:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Valdemar is from Vladimir rather than vice versa (the result of some dynastic marriage which took place much later, I don't remember more details). Don't know what you mean by "Olav". As for Oleg and Igor', I don't think their Scandinavian origin is disputed by anybody. --91.148.159.4 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence
"The Rus' were an East Slavic nation..."

If the term "Rus'" is used here as a designating the East Slavic "nation" ("state" or "ethnicity" seem less anachronistic), then why is the whole article about the (probably/possibly) non-Slavic origin? I suppose it should be made clear that "Rus'" can refer to two things: 1. a Slavic state/ethnicity; 2. a group of obscure, possibly Scandinavian origin that apparently founded the above-mentioned Slavic state and gave it its name. This article is clearly about the latter. --91.148.159.4 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some kooks keep writing about things they don't understand. I reverted to the 2006 version of the lead. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Normany nura do noru! Szac 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark this
So many western texts that are written about Slavs have one thing in common.

That all suggest that the Slavs were dominated by this tribe, influenced by another, ruled by an "elite" from elsewhere. As if to say that Slavs are incapable of ruling themselves and forming thwir own culture/ identity/ civilization.

Apart from this Rus example, also - the Bulgarians: slavs ruled by Turkish elite - Serbo-Croats: ""       ""  ""  Iranian (Alan) elite - the Kingdom of Samo: who was apparently a Frank that ruled the Slovak tribes

These may well be true, and i dont mean to sound like a conspirocy theorist, but one must wonder whether there might be a bias in the way these theories are, at least, worded or presented.

IS this related to the age-old frictions between to opposing 'worlds' of white european culture: the Slavic vs German world ?

First of all "the Slavs being incapable of ruling themselves", now, one has also have in mind the Great Moravian Empire founden in 800s, then the Czech kingdom, Poland and the Slavs/Wends in north eastern Germany, and as far as i know these states/kingdoms were fonded by no others than the Slavs themselves. This is of course what i have read in various historybooks, i have not seen the sources, but there is no mention of any "foreign" influence.

About the first thing you mentioned about Rus, Bulgaria, Serbs, Croats and Samo´s kingdom, well i think it´s also a question how you interpret the original sources, and clearly it has been done in a certain way. For example: Who says the original Bulgarians were Turks really?, and not every historian/archeologist agree on that, some believe they actually were Slavs. In the case of Serbs and Croats, things seems to be obscure. Samo can we be sure he really was a Frank. I believe Scandinavians as well as Slavs might have had some influence in the formation of the Rus people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.114.134 (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the research does not (EDIT: intentionally or deliberately)take a bias; merely, the explanations are thus given due to lack of evidence since the early Slavs were notoriously known for evading historical mention for a long time. It is still unclear whether the Varangian Rus were all Germanic, mainly Finno-Ugric or a mix of all of them. It's obvious English Wikipedia has a majority of editors who are either pro-Germanic or pro-Slavic, but it is our duty to remain NPOV in the absence of enough evidence.

I'll give you my belief: The Varangian Rus were a mix of Norsemen and Finno-Ugrians who helped form a state with older Slavic roots. Now why is that so controversial? | CormanoSanchez (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rascia
I dont want to add much more, just this: it´s mentioned in the 7th century, the route of christianization of the slavs went from southeast to northwest, not opposite. Now open some eyes and research Rascia (oh by the way: it´s pronounced even the same).

Berlin, 27.07.2007