This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rurikids article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Rurikids, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I noticed that the intro to this article states that there is a scholarly consensus that the Rus' people originated in eastern Sweden, however the article on the Rus' people gives equal credence to the "Normanist" and "anti-Normanist" theories, and it seems like there is a significant scholarly dispute over this topic. It also seems that the source cited for this claim is a BBC article about a single scholar's work on viking history and culture, which doesn't seem to be the best source to use. The article about the Primary Chronicle also discusses questions that exist about Rurik's historicity and scandinavian origin of the Rurikid dynasty. 2600:8800:1B80:33D:61A6:7EBB:BB58:CBA8 ( talk) 00:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone please explain when the Rurik Dynasty ruled over these countries on the Balkan Peninsula? These places are quite far from any East Slavic principalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.28.128.153 ( talk) 00:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Catherine the Great was widely known as "that German petty princess," motivating her own propaganda to highlight her Russian and Eastern Orthodox credentials. This was already in progress when she was the Russian heir-apparent's wife -- aiming at gathering potential support for the future -- and continued unabated during her reign as Catherine II, Empress of All Russias.
Does the primary chronicle mentions geats? Because the geats were the primary inhabitants of the Roden area. According to German sources. This explain why geats are not mentioned. I do not think it is a long shoot to suggest the geats were the original rus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 ( talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Image:Gagarin arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
At the point where it refers to the Grand Dukes of Moscow-Vladimir, is that accurate? as far as I know the Muscovite dukes were simply Grand Dukes of Moscow, not Grand Duke / Prince of Moscow-Vladimir. Rcduggan ( talk) 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
But rulers of Volhynia/Galicia WERE recognized as Kings of Russia, the only Russia of the time. Goliath74 ( talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
FU too specific when Varangian will suffice. Scandinavian in textbooks, but DNA shows FU and Slavic (RUNewsweek) origin. It is all academic at this point since all the early medieval Baltic trading centers, Reric, Hedeby, Jumne, Ladoga were ethnically mixed. - Athrash | Talk 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
DNA test actually showed a non-slavic origin, and suggested connections to finno-ugrics. Some russian scolars tried to explain it in a strange way, but there are many other scolars, who explain it the way it is [1].
Additionally, Djagfar Tarihi bulgar chronicles says the original name of Rurik was Lachyn (which meant "clear falcon" or "saint falcon"), and he was a member of volga-bulgarian Dulo-dynasty (Attila the Hun's dynasty). According to D.T. he was the son of Aydar (797-855) and he was the younger brother of volga-bulgar Khan Gabdullah Djilki (822-882). According to Djagfar Tarihi, the Dulo-dynasty were originally finno-ugrian. [2] [3] D.T. is said to be forged - by the same russian scolars who says Rurik is scandinavian. Actually, I don't see the reason, why they want Rurik so much, to be a viking origin? Why is it better, than the finno-uric truth?
Anyways, finno-ugric theory is strenghtened by the fact that Rurik's coat of arms were the trident tamga, which cannot be found among neither among Scandinavian, nor slavic tribes, but was the sign of Dulo-dynasty. [4]. Rurik was not a varangyan, but his ally, Askold (in D.T.: As-Khalib) was a varangyan mercenary in Kiev between c.a. 870 and 882. Askold and Rurik fought side by side against volga-bulgarians, most of the times they fought on the same side in battles. Maybe that's why many people thought Rurik is also a varangyan, but he came from a famous dynasty, it is not a coincidence, he was on the right spot at the right time, he was raised to rule, and he know how to rule, he was not a simple varangyan mercenary warrior, he was a born ruler.
This is 3 (!) evidence for finno-ugric and more specificly for Dulo-dynasty connections. What we have against it? Oral traditions and a short sentence in a russian chronicle. Why the scandinavian origin theory is the main theory than? Xxlrutin ( talk) 07:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Genetic studies of Rurikids But while genetically related to the later Baltic Finnic peoples, the Rurikids do not possess the DYS390=24 mutation associated with the Finnic languages, theirs remaining the ancestral DYS390=23, with the Rurikid haplotype itself (all values considered) more closely associated with [North] Germanic speakers (Varangians).[11].? This Rurik genetics argument is wrong. It is not scientifically true. The above-mentioned argument Rurik DYS390 = 23, because the marker value is the highest in Finland (see map - Semargl- SOURCE:[12], it is Family Tree DNA research results collected in 2015.It was the last direct link to today's knowledge. Jaakko Häkkinen 2012 data is not OK. Can it be repaired or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.78.95 ( talk) 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this Jaakko Häkkinen - original research is certainly not. If you even if you read what it says here DYS390 = 23. When the Finns have DYS390 = 23markeri value most in Europe (see the map VARANGIANS inEurope, Semargl -FamilyTree DNA) - so why can not write that it is not Finnish? Such leadership conclusions can not be made on the basis of science. Have you checked the removing of the official investigation results. In my opinion, Family Tree DNA studies have formal investigation. Semargl collect them information. If Jaakko Häkkinen script is not properly in 2015 and whether it is right to rely on Wikipedia for writing? Have you noticed - it has been removed. WHY? What is the value of the writing that no longer exists - it is out of date information, and therefore deleted the reference see the result is Not Found -The Requested URL /home/jphakkin/N1c.pdf was not found on this server. What is Wikipedia's responsibility for incorrect data? - I'm just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.78.95 ( talk) 08:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand -Ymblanter - nothing genetics and Family Tree DNA of modern research. If you understand that if you do not remove the short writings, based on scientific research from 2014 to 2015, look at > [2] . You will then return the text of which is also based on Family Tree DNA results and Jaakko Häkkinen 2012 written text, but it is out of date information.
So Wikipedia accepts writing that does not exist. But does not accept text that should be up-to-date research results, such as Family Tree - information Varangians areas in Europe - http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/153/ . Semargl in 2015 data to be the same source (Family TreeDNA) as Jaakko Häkkinen in 2012 data, but Jaakko Häkkinen is incorrectly interpreted the results, and the information is out of date. Now the same thing is a map n011 Varangians in Europe. Why is it can not be published? Why the disclosure is considered a mistake, even if the current text is clearly a mistake. Why does not correct the wrong information?
Ash - then so be it - it is your Wikipedia scientific level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.78.95 ( talk) 16:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
References
I think the dynasty name can be only passed through male heir otherwise it becomes chaotic as the article itself. The bloodline, I believe, can be traced not only to Rurik, but also to Adam and Eve =) Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Setting of nationality of whole dynasty, as is lasting more than 1000 years, seems to be impossible. Rurik was probably Norse or Finn, but his descendants intermarried with Slavic, Greek, Mongol, German or Latvian wives (as every noble in these times). Nationality of nobles was recent invention and they feel nationality of states they ruled. Language is not helpful, as they talked Russian and later French. BTW Wilhelm the Great was French speaking. Setting of nationality based on possible nationality of the founder is nonsense. Is Elisabeth II. Saxon? Or Juan Carlos Frank? Nonsense...-- Yopie ( talk) 19:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to start a reasonable discussion on whether or not the title should remain.
Please follow WP:BRD so that we can find consensus and move forwards without this becoming an issue. I have restored the title as per BRD until the discussion ends and consensus is found. Chaosdruid ( talk) 04:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The title never really made any sense. These rulers were princes of Galicia-Volhynia, but their kingly title was "King of Russia" Goliath74 ( talk) 19:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It is a big mistake using the Double-headed eagle as a coat of arms of Rurik Dynasty. The first Russian eagle came only in 1472 with Ivan III after his marriage with Byzantine princess Sophia Palaiologina. It is not the arms of coat neither Rurik nor Rurik Dynasty.
The coat of Rurik, some researchers (S. Gedeon, M. Rapov, A. Kuz'min, V. Merkulov) interpret as a schematic representation of a falling falcon on its prey. While others see it as an image sceptre, an anchor, a trident or fork. A stylised version of the image is the current coat of Ukraine.
About Rurik's coat of arms you can read [ [3]] in Russian language.
Now we do not know for certain how Rurik's coat looked but we know for certain about the coat of arm of his grandson Sviatoslav I of Kiev in 972. You can see the first image from [4].
MelVic ( talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic
This article is not about Russian Tsardom this article is about Rurik Dynasty we have to use Rurik's coat of arms or his closest lineal descendant here. Using Byzantine's coat of arms here is nonsense. MelVic ( talk) 09:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic
Why we can not use the Double-headed eagle as a coat of arms of Rurik Dynasty.
MelVic ( talk) 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Melvic
Yes, this article is not about Staraya Ladoga. But Staraya Ladoga municipality took Rurik's coat of arms. I already wrote:
The coat of Rurik, some researchers (S. Gedeon, M. Rapov, A. Kuz'min, V. Merkulov) interpret as a schematic representation of a falling falcon on its prey. While others see it as an image sceptre, an anchor, a trident or fork. A stylized version of the image is the current the coat of Ukraine.
Now we do not know for certain how Rurik's coat looked but we know for certain about the coat of arm of his lineal descendant Sviatoslav I of Kiev.
It is the Coat of arms of Sviatoslav I of Kiev. All branches of Rurik dynasty come from Sviatoslav I of Kiev. MelVic ( talk) 23:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic
MelVic ( talk) 08:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic
The trident tamga was the coat of arms for the Dulo-dynasty: and Rurik's coat of arms were also the trident tamga, which cannot be found among neither among Scandinavian, nor slavic tribes. [1]. Djagfar Tarihi says he was a far descendant of Attila the Hun, because Rurik was a member of the Dulo-clan, and his original name was Lachyn. His father was Aidar and his brother was Gabdullah Djilki, he was one of the two leaders in volga-bulgarian civil war in the 860's AD, which was taking place for the rule over Itil-Bulgaria. His opponent was his own brother Djilki. Djilki was supported by muslims, Lachyn (Rurik) was supported by non-muslims (tengriists). Neighbouring Kazaria supported Lachyn, because their goal was to split Itil-Bulgaria and make Kiev and Novgorod (Bashtu and Urus-Galidj) a new region separated from bulgars. Xxlrutin ( talk) 08:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
References
I have reverted the addition of a long section about a fringe Finno-Ugric theory since it lacks all scientific value since it is based on a claim made by a Finnish writer that central Sweden was inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, even as late as the 9th century AD, when all archaeological evidence, and all documentation, both local and foreign (ranging from runestones to the writings of Roman explorers), clearly shows that Southern and Central Sweden, up to far north of the Roslagen/Uppland area near Stockholm, has been inhabited by Scandinavians, i e Germanic people, since prehistoric times. The Sami people, the only Finno-Ugric people that has inhabited parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula, have never lived even anywhere near the Uppland area, but much further to the north. So a claim based on a theory that has as little scientific value as claiming that Elvis Presley is still alive doesn't belong in the article. Thomas.W ( talk) 22:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The special argument, Thomas W. - TW argument does not have any scientific basis. This Elvis - definition applies to him. See genetic studies 2014- 2015, Rurik`s N1c1 - L550 (xL1025) and spesifin YFull Y4339* > Proto- Rurik haplogroup is the FIN. General Finnic peoples nowdays (62%) of also N1c1 haplo; It has spread to Siberia - Ural Baltic Sea / Finland and then to Sweden. Sweden does not typically N group (only 7%), it is also original Finnic - before Germanic peoples the rise in southern Sweden, which has spread to only 900 in 1100 century Småland -Stockholm height. Where the indigenous - residents (N-haplo) were Finno. In addition, Finland was transferred from the 1200's a man of the population (N group), the average in Sweden Stockholm - Finsta area - the source can be found - Pope bullas 1171 AD and PhD. Moberg; > Http://www.ukforsk.se/bok0/finnar.htm. always 1500's. The best known of the migration was later Finnish forest migration (1580 >). Which is also one of the Rurik - cousin (Family Tree DNA). In general, the claim that Finns have no DYS390 = 23 marks excellent value - is a false allegation. Here is a map - a source of Family Tree DNA studies in 2015 and built on the map n011 Varangian number - the largest number in Finland and / or coming from Finland SOURCE: http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/153/ WHY mm. Finnish genetics has spread Viking - groups (N-haplo) involved extensively in Europe. This link, which brings scientific studies of Finnish and Finnic peoples of territories in Eurasia. Hunters yDNA N and mtDNA U - groups and Finnic- Finno - languages areas, the link> https://sites.google.com/site/liukkohistoria/
References
The information removed by Thomas.W presents no personal views of the undersigned.
Instead, the info presents findings pertaining to a critical view shared by a number of distinguished experts. That view is today supported also by the recent Family Tree DNA studies. Accordingly, not presenting this school of thought represented by all these scientists and their related findings in this article would - of course - be wrong.
Thus, the wrongfully removed info was re-inserted to the article. Please note, that the related sources are appropriately attached, among them historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves, including Vasily Tatishchev, the author of the first full-scale Russian history.
Based on the findings of the internationally renown Professor Matti Klinge, for instance, the Finnic- and Finno-Ugric-inhabited ancient area of Kvenland included the shoreline of the entire Gulf of Bothnia, on both the present-day Swedish and Finnish sides of the Gulf. [1]
The Doctor of Philosophy Matti Klinge, has served as a Visiting Professor at the University of Paris 1970-1972 and has held the Swedish Professorship of History at the University of Helsinki between 1975 and 2001. [2] Klinge is one of the most prolific Scandinavian historians.
The border of the ancient Kvenland and the primarily Swedish-inhabited area in 814 AD (approximately when Rurik is believed to have born) can also be seen pictured in the map of "The Public Schools Historical Atlas by Charles Colbeck". [3]
To juxtapose the recent Rurikid DNA studies in this informational context is appropriate and important, as the studies pinpoint that "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" "the so-called “ Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1". [4] [5]
Under the headline Genetic studies of Rurikids, a link was deleted, due to the information on that link being outdated. The "outdated" notification is stated on the top area of that link page. [6] - RasboKaren ( talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Genetic studies of Rurikids But while genetically related to the later Baltic Finnic peoples, the Rurikids do not possess the DYS390=24 mutation associated with the Finnic languages, theirs remaining the ancestral DYS390=23, with the Rurikid haplotype itself (all values considered) more closely associated with [North] Germanic speakers (Varangians).[11]. This Rurik genetics argument is wrong. It is not scientifically true. The above-mentioned argument Rurik DYS390 = 23, because the marker value is the highest in Finland (see map - Semargl- SOURCE:[12], it is Family Tree DNA research results collected in 2015.It was the last direct link to today's knowledge. Jaakko Häkkinen 2012 data is not OK. Can it be repaired or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.78.95 ( talk) 18:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Since the Novgorodian tribes were partly Finno-Ugric (Chud and Ves) and partly Slavic (Slovenes and Krivich), I added [Finno-Ugric and Slavic] to define the ethnicities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuisco ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The Primary Chronicle. It mentions also Slavs. Do you mean that they also were not participating? Tuisco ( talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why should views of a poorly known Russian historian Dmitry Ilovaysky be introduced - e.g. in the Rus' people article -, but not the views of the better known Vasily Tatishchev (just compare the multiple Google search results for Tatishchev over Ilovaysky)?
In his writings, Dmitry Ilovaysky expounded a hypothesis of Azov Rus, which was alleged to have been centered on Sarkel and Tmutarakan. The hypothesis of Ilovaysky has not been shared by other historians. Therefore, this can be called a fringe theory. However, the "Finnish theory" represented by Vasily Tatishchev has been shared by a number of well known historians since the 1700s, including historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves. An unbiased presentation of this view needs to be included. The recently conducted Rurikid DNA studies support the views of these historians, concluding the following:
... "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" ... "the so-called “ Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1". [1] [2]
Based on the "Family Tree" DNA study, the members of the "Varangian Branch" represented by the "Rurikid princes") are “ Finno-Ugrian”. They belong to the "Finno-Ugrian" haplogroup.
The prehistoric remains of the people in Gotland were brought up just because they too were shown to match closest with the modern-day Finns. Gotland has been a part of the country of Sweden since the birth of Sweden, and it is a part of Scandinavia as well. In the Viking Age, Sweden did not yet exist.
According to the closely coinciding information provided in both the medieval Orkneyinga and the 'Hversu Noregr byggdist' accounts, a descendant of Fornjót "ruled over Gothland, Kvenland (Kænlandi), and Finland". Results published in April, 2012, of a DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland support the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era, further pointing to the overall information provided in the Orkneyinga and "Hversu" accounts being accurate:
"The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden. [3]
A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also appropriately given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. Here are a couple of faulty elements in the article, which need fixing:
1. The "imitation" of the 1905 map picturing Europe in 814 needs to be removed, because It has critical inaccuracies, as described before
2. The current Rus' people article continues misusing two Family Tree Rurikid DNA study pages as sources. The pages do not state that Rurik was from "Roslagen" or "Uppland". Tthey cannot be used as sources for the claim.
3. In the current Varangians and the Rus' people articles, the land inhabited by the Svea people ("Svealand") during the 9th century is shown to reach too far up north, and no sources for the claim are shown.
4. The Rurikid dynasty article continues providing a claim supported only by a broken link: "... [North] Germanic speakers ( Varangians). [4]" (the last time I removed the broken link was on November, 21, 2012, as can be seen here). - - RasboKaren ( talk) 20:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
How is it vandalism to remove swathes of unsourced and unreadable redlinks? It might be a good idea to check out WP:BURDEN and WP:NOTVAND. bobrayner ( talk) 05:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Article abruptly refers to Ivan the Terrible without saying where he came from, whose son he was, how he got the throne, etc.:
Can somebody who knows the history improve this part of the article to make it comprehensive? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 01:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC))
Material on BioRxiv is not reviewed either by scientific peers or content editors. If the paper in question ends up being formally published after passing peer review then when it is published, depending on what it says in its published form, it may be appropriate for inclusion here (though building content only on a single WP:PRIMARY source is itself problematic), but a scientific result somebody just put online themselves is not a WP:RS. Agricolae ( talk) 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Agricolae, if BioRxiv is not RS you know where the place is to confirm it. Until then, you can't revert someone’s edit based on that source. I guess you know how Wikipedia works.
Mikola22 (
talk) 12:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Please check constant reverting reference and sources by Emenrich. -- Kovanja ( talk) 09:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
References
As tantalizing as we interested readers might find claims of Rurikid DNA results, Wikipedia cannot report them based on self-published, non-peer reviewed personal projects. FtDNA may have a lot of registered users, but its content is entirely self-published material, and hence is both non-WP:RS and its inclusion is also WP:UNDUE. The same applies to RootsWeb (where the archived description of the project was originally published), where all you had to do was pay a fee make a set-value "donation" and you could upload whatever you wanted. All this doesn't even take into account that the study itself was based on the unconfirmed self-reported ancestry of study participants. For this to be reportable here, two things have to happen. First, it has to be formally independently published, via a process involving editorial or peer review, plus it has to be incorporated into secondary sources to indicate that the broader scholarly community views this information as noteworthy to the question of Rurikid dynastic origins. Until that happens, we as editors do not get to substitute our own judgment for that of the scholars we are supposed to be reflecting.
Agricolae (
talk) 15:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Too large paragraph is devoted to single Romanovichi Rurikid branch in introduction and should be moved from introduction as any other Rurikid branch even those who were more important. Romanovichi ruled Central Rus only for one generation and after 1240 Kiev was passed to Alexander Nevski from Novgorodian bloodline of Yurevichi branch. Roman the Great was vassal of the Golde Horde as any other Rus prince, there is no reason to highlight him in introduction. Romananovichi brand went to extinction in single century. There is no continuity in Polish rule of Western Rus because Poles just absorbed what Romanovichi ruled. Even If Ukrainian natinalists wish some special importance to Galitsian - Volynian Principality from which they derive Ukrianian national identity since Ukrainian national revival in 19th century and natioanlist Mykhaylo Hrushevsky. Also there were a lot more Rurikid branches and more important than Romanovichi, there is no reason to enforce details of Romanovichi branch into introducton. As for axample. Rurukids from Tver rivaled Moscow during wars of over Vladimir Principality and there is no single mention of it because it's not that important as unification of Rus principalities under Moscow Rurikids. Also Novgorodian RUrikid branches ruled northwest as independent power for almost 3 centuries. Their branch survived much more than Romanovichi and there is still no mention of it.
-- 90.181.92.64 ( talk) 09:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Daniel Novák
Regarding this edit by user:Umfront: Riurik came to Rus from Novgorod, which is located on the territory of the Russian Federation, the language of which is Russian. Before that he came from places where Swedish is spoken today. Then he spent more of his life in places where Ukrainian is spoken. Doesn’t matter. He never heard Swedish, Russian, nor Ukrainian. We are not placing his historical languages here, only modern languages he is associated with today.
See MOS:LEADLANG. If we can’t agree on an order, maybe let’s just remove them all, since three languages is not really supported by the Manual of Style.
And please don’t start an edit war, per WP:BRD — Michael Z. 05:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move ( non-admin closure) >>> Extorc. talk 12:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Rurik dynasty →
Rurikids – Background:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_8#Category:Rurikids, where
Category:Rurikids is proposed to be merged into
Category:Rurik dynasty, or vice versa.
Marcelus and I think "Rurikids" is a better article title, because "Rurik dynasty" is an improper name. The article and its categories cover the entire family which supposedly descended from Rurik, and not just those who actually sat on thrones.
A series of rulers or dynasts from one family. That means Olga of Kiev would, strictly speaking, fall outside the scope of "dynasty", because she was only a princess consort and then regent. More importantly, it would have to apply to every single person in the subcategories, which it doesn't. We should also rename the main article to " Rurikids" rather than " Rurik dynasty".
"a series of people from the same family holding the same office one after another."George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles III are part of the Windsor dynasty, but Prince William is not (yet), he is part of the "House of Windsor". That's why here we should name the category "Rurikids" (or "House of Rurik" or "Rurikovichi"), and Rurik dynasty should be renamed to Rurikids.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
According to the 1906 Jewish Encylopedia the Varangians founded the Russian monarchy in 855.
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4279-chazars
87.209.63.156 ( talk) 15:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Current Legacy section has was too many factual errors and isn't neutral. I've made few recent edits to fix that, but they were reverted under pretence that it needs additional consensus. Please review my edits and advise in case you have any objection. Thanks.
Korwinski ( talk) 00:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't the infobox and opening paragraph of this article state which language the Rurikids spoke? It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to leave this information out of this article. Was it Old Norse or some Slavic language? 76.190.213.189 ( talk) 01:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rurikids article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Rurikids, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I noticed that the intro to this article states that there is a scholarly consensus that the Rus' people originated in eastern Sweden, however the article on the Rus' people gives equal credence to the "Normanist" and "anti-Normanist" theories, and it seems like there is a significant scholarly dispute over this topic. It also seems that the source cited for this claim is a BBC article about a single scholar's work on viking history and culture, which doesn't seem to be the best source to use. The article about the Primary Chronicle also discusses questions that exist about Rurik's historicity and scandinavian origin of the Rurikid dynasty. 2600:8800:1B80:33D:61A6:7EBB:BB58:CBA8 ( talk) 00:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone please explain when the Rurik Dynasty ruled over these countries on the Balkan Peninsula? These places are quite far from any East Slavic principalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.28.128.153 ( talk) 00:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Catherine the Great was widely known as "that German petty princess," motivating her own propaganda to highlight her Russian and Eastern Orthodox credentials. This was already in progress when she was the Russian heir-apparent's wife -- aiming at gathering potential support for the future -- and continued unabated during her reign as Catherine II, Empress of All Russias.
Does the primary chronicle mentions geats? Because the geats were the primary inhabitants of the Roden area. According to German sources. This explain why geats are not mentioned. I do not think it is a long shoot to suggest the geats were the original rus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 ( talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Image:Gagarin arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
At the point where it refers to the Grand Dukes of Moscow-Vladimir, is that accurate? as far as I know the Muscovite dukes were simply Grand Dukes of Moscow, not Grand Duke / Prince of Moscow-Vladimir. Rcduggan ( talk) 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
But rulers of Volhynia/Galicia WERE recognized as Kings of Russia, the only Russia of the time. Goliath74 ( talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
FU too specific when Varangian will suffice. Scandinavian in textbooks, but DNA shows FU and Slavic (RUNewsweek) origin. It is all academic at this point since all the early medieval Baltic trading centers, Reric, Hedeby, Jumne, Ladoga were ethnically mixed. - Athrash | Talk 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
DNA test actually showed a non-slavic origin, and suggested connections to finno-ugrics. Some russian scolars tried to explain it in a strange way, but there are many other scolars, who explain it the way it is [1].
Additionally, Djagfar Tarihi bulgar chronicles says the original name of Rurik was Lachyn (which meant "clear falcon" or "saint falcon"), and he was a member of volga-bulgarian Dulo-dynasty (Attila the Hun's dynasty). According to D.T. he was the son of Aydar (797-855) and he was the younger brother of volga-bulgar Khan Gabdullah Djilki (822-882). According to Djagfar Tarihi, the Dulo-dynasty were originally finno-ugrian. [2] [3] D.T. is said to be forged - by the same russian scolars who says Rurik is scandinavian. Actually, I don't see the reason, why they want Rurik so much, to be a viking origin? Why is it better, than the finno-uric truth?
Anyways, finno-ugric theory is strenghtened by the fact that Rurik's coat of arms were the trident tamga, which cannot be found among neither among Scandinavian, nor slavic tribes, but was the sign of Dulo-dynasty. [4]. Rurik was not a varangyan, but his ally, Askold (in D.T.: As-Khalib) was a varangyan mercenary in Kiev between c.a. 870 and 882. Askold and Rurik fought side by side against volga-bulgarians, most of the times they fought on the same side in battles. Maybe that's why many people thought Rurik is also a varangyan, but he came from a famous dynasty, it is not a coincidence, he was on the right spot at the right time, he was raised to rule, and he know how to rule, he was not a simple varangyan mercenary warrior, he was a born ruler.
This is 3 (!) evidence for finno-ugric and more specificly for Dulo-dynasty connections. What we have against it? Oral traditions and a short sentence in a russian chronicle. Why the scandinavian origin theory is the main theory than? Xxlrutin ( talk) 07:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Genetic studies of Rurikids But while genetically related to the later Baltic Finnic peoples, the Rurikids do not possess the DYS390=24 mutation associated with the Finnic languages, theirs remaining the ancestral DYS390=23, with the Rurikid haplotype itself (all values considered) more closely associated with [North] Germanic speakers (Varangians).[11].? This Rurik genetics argument is wrong. It is not scientifically true. The above-mentioned argument Rurik DYS390 = 23, because the marker value is the highest in Finland (see map - Semargl- SOURCE:[12], it is Family Tree DNA research results collected in 2015.It was the last direct link to today's knowledge. Jaakko Häkkinen 2012 data is not OK. Can it be repaired or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.78.95 ( talk) 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this Jaakko Häkkinen - original research is certainly not. If you even if you read what it says here DYS390 = 23. When the Finns have DYS390 = 23markeri value most in Europe (see the map VARANGIANS inEurope, Semargl -FamilyTree DNA) - so why can not write that it is not Finnish? Such leadership conclusions can not be made on the basis of science. Have you checked the removing of the official investigation results. In my opinion, Family Tree DNA studies have formal investigation. Semargl collect them information. If Jaakko Häkkinen script is not properly in 2015 and whether it is right to rely on Wikipedia for writing? Have you noticed - it has been removed. WHY? What is the value of the writing that no longer exists - it is out of date information, and therefore deleted the reference see the result is Not Found -The Requested URL /home/jphakkin/N1c.pdf was not found on this server. What is Wikipedia's responsibility for incorrect data? - I'm just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.78.95 ( talk) 08:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you understand -Ymblanter - nothing genetics and Family Tree DNA of modern research. If you understand that if you do not remove the short writings, based on scientific research from 2014 to 2015, look at > [2] . You will then return the text of which is also based on Family Tree DNA results and Jaakko Häkkinen 2012 written text, but it is out of date information.
So Wikipedia accepts writing that does not exist. But does not accept text that should be up-to-date research results, such as Family Tree - information Varangians areas in Europe - http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/153/ . Semargl in 2015 data to be the same source (Family TreeDNA) as Jaakko Häkkinen in 2012 data, but Jaakko Häkkinen is incorrectly interpreted the results, and the information is out of date. Now the same thing is a map n011 Varangians in Europe. Why is it can not be published? Why the disclosure is considered a mistake, even if the current text is clearly a mistake. Why does not correct the wrong information?
Ash - then so be it - it is your Wikipedia scientific level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.78.95 ( talk) 16:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
References
I think the dynasty name can be only passed through male heir otherwise it becomes chaotic as the article itself. The bloodline, I believe, can be traced not only to Rurik, but also to Adam and Eve =) Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Setting of nationality of whole dynasty, as is lasting more than 1000 years, seems to be impossible. Rurik was probably Norse or Finn, but his descendants intermarried with Slavic, Greek, Mongol, German or Latvian wives (as every noble in these times). Nationality of nobles was recent invention and they feel nationality of states they ruled. Language is not helpful, as they talked Russian and later French. BTW Wilhelm the Great was French speaking. Setting of nationality based on possible nationality of the founder is nonsense. Is Elisabeth II. Saxon? Or Juan Carlos Frank? Nonsense...-- Yopie ( talk) 19:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to start a reasonable discussion on whether or not the title should remain.
Please follow WP:BRD so that we can find consensus and move forwards without this becoming an issue. I have restored the title as per BRD until the discussion ends and consensus is found. Chaosdruid ( talk) 04:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The title never really made any sense. These rulers were princes of Galicia-Volhynia, but their kingly title was "King of Russia" Goliath74 ( talk) 19:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It is a big mistake using the Double-headed eagle as a coat of arms of Rurik Dynasty. The first Russian eagle came only in 1472 with Ivan III after his marriage with Byzantine princess Sophia Palaiologina. It is not the arms of coat neither Rurik nor Rurik Dynasty.
The coat of Rurik, some researchers (S. Gedeon, M. Rapov, A. Kuz'min, V. Merkulov) interpret as a schematic representation of a falling falcon on its prey. While others see it as an image sceptre, an anchor, a trident or fork. A stylised version of the image is the current coat of Ukraine.
About Rurik's coat of arms you can read [ [3]] in Russian language.
Now we do not know for certain how Rurik's coat looked but we know for certain about the coat of arm of his grandson Sviatoslav I of Kiev in 972. You can see the first image from [4].
MelVic ( talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic
This article is not about Russian Tsardom this article is about Rurik Dynasty we have to use Rurik's coat of arms or his closest lineal descendant here. Using Byzantine's coat of arms here is nonsense. MelVic ( talk) 09:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic
Why we can not use the Double-headed eagle as a coat of arms of Rurik Dynasty.
MelVic ( talk) 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Melvic
Yes, this article is not about Staraya Ladoga. But Staraya Ladoga municipality took Rurik's coat of arms. I already wrote:
The coat of Rurik, some researchers (S. Gedeon, M. Rapov, A. Kuz'min, V. Merkulov) interpret as a schematic representation of a falling falcon on its prey. While others see it as an image sceptre, an anchor, a trident or fork. A stylized version of the image is the current the coat of Ukraine.
Now we do not know for certain how Rurik's coat looked but we know for certain about the coat of arm of his lineal descendant Sviatoslav I of Kiev.
It is the Coat of arms of Sviatoslav I of Kiev. All branches of Rurik dynasty come from Sviatoslav I of Kiev. MelVic ( talk) 23:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic
MelVic ( talk) 08:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)MelVic
The trident tamga was the coat of arms for the Dulo-dynasty: and Rurik's coat of arms were also the trident tamga, which cannot be found among neither among Scandinavian, nor slavic tribes. [1]. Djagfar Tarihi says he was a far descendant of Attila the Hun, because Rurik was a member of the Dulo-clan, and his original name was Lachyn. His father was Aidar and his brother was Gabdullah Djilki, he was one of the two leaders in volga-bulgarian civil war in the 860's AD, which was taking place for the rule over Itil-Bulgaria. His opponent was his own brother Djilki. Djilki was supported by muslims, Lachyn (Rurik) was supported by non-muslims (tengriists). Neighbouring Kazaria supported Lachyn, because their goal was to split Itil-Bulgaria and make Kiev and Novgorod (Bashtu and Urus-Galidj) a new region separated from bulgars. Xxlrutin ( talk) 08:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
References
I have reverted the addition of a long section about a fringe Finno-Ugric theory since it lacks all scientific value since it is based on a claim made by a Finnish writer that central Sweden was inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, even as late as the 9th century AD, when all archaeological evidence, and all documentation, both local and foreign (ranging from runestones to the writings of Roman explorers), clearly shows that Southern and Central Sweden, up to far north of the Roslagen/Uppland area near Stockholm, has been inhabited by Scandinavians, i e Germanic people, since prehistoric times. The Sami people, the only Finno-Ugric people that has inhabited parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula, have never lived even anywhere near the Uppland area, but much further to the north. So a claim based on a theory that has as little scientific value as claiming that Elvis Presley is still alive doesn't belong in the article. Thomas.W ( talk) 22:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The special argument, Thomas W. - TW argument does not have any scientific basis. This Elvis - definition applies to him. See genetic studies 2014- 2015, Rurik`s N1c1 - L550 (xL1025) and spesifin YFull Y4339* > Proto- Rurik haplogroup is the FIN. General Finnic peoples nowdays (62%) of also N1c1 haplo; It has spread to Siberia - Ural Baltic Sea / Finland and then to Sweden. Sweden does not typically N group (only 7%), it is also original Finnic - before Germanic peoples the rise in southern Sweden, which has spread to only 900 in 1100 century Småland -Stockholm height. Where the indigenous - residents (N-haplo) were Finno. In addition, Finland was transferred from the 1200's a man of the population (N group), the average in Sweden Stockholm - Finsta area - the source can be found - Pope bullas 1171 AD and PhD. Moberg; > Http://www.ukforsk.se/bok0/finnar.htm. always 1500's. The best known of the migration was later Finnish forest migration (1580 >). Which is also one of the Rurik - cousin (Family Tree DNA). In general, the claim that Finns have no DYS390 = 23 marks excellent value - is a false allegation. Here is a map - a source of Family Tree DNA studies in 2015 and built on the map n011 Varangian number - the largest number in Finland and / or coming from Finland SOURCE: http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/153/ WHY mm. Finnish genetics has spread Viking - groups (N-haplo) involved extensively in Europe. This link, which brings scientific studies of Finnish and Finnic peoples of territories in Eurasia. Hunters yDNA N and mtDNA U - groups and Finnic- Finno - languages areas, the link> https://sites.google.com/site/liukkohistoria/
References
The information removed by Thomas.W presents no personal views of the undersigned.
Instead, the info presents findings pertaining to a critical view shared by a number of distinguished experts. That view is today supported also by the recent Family Tree DNA studies. Accordingly, not presenting this school of thought represented by all these scientists and their related findings in this article would - of course - be wrong.
Thus, the wrongfully removed info was re-inserted to the article. Please note, that the related sources are appropriately attached, among them historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves, including Vasily Tatishchev, the author of the first full-scale Russian history.
Based on the findings of the internationally renown Professor Matti Klinge, for instance, the Finnic- and Finno-Ugric-inhabited ancient area of Kvenland included the shoreline of the entire Gulf of Bothnia, on both the present-day Swedish and Finnish sides of the Gulf. [1]
The Doctor of Philosophy Matti Klinge, has served as a Visiting Professor at the University of Paris 1970-1972 and has held the Swedish Professorship of History at the University of Helsinki between 1975 and 2001. [2] Klinge is one of the most prolific Scandinavian historians.
The border of the ancient Kvenland and the primarily Swedish-inhabited area in 814 AD (approximately when Rurik is believed to have born) can also be seen pictured in the map of "The Public Schools Historical Atlas by Charles Colbeck". [3]
To juxtapose the recent Rurikid DNA studies in this informational context is appropriate and important, as the studies pinpoint that "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" "the so-called “ Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1". [4] [5]
Under the headline Genetic studies of Rurikids, a link was deleted, due to the information on that link being outdated. The "outdated" notification is stated on the top area of that link page. [6] - RasboKaren ( talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Genetic studies of Rurikids But while genetically related to the later Baltic Finnic peoples, the Rurikids do not possess the DYS390=24 mutation associated with the Finnic languages, theirs remaining the ancestral DYS390=23, with the Rurikid haplotype itself (all values considered) more closely associated with [North] Germanic speakers (Varangians).[11]. This Rurik genetics argument is wrong. It is not scientifically true. The above-mentioned argument Rurik DYS390 = 23, because the marker value is the highest in Finland (see map - Semargl- SOURCE:[12], it is Family Tree DNA research results collected in 2015.It was the last direct link to today's knowledge. Jaakko Häkkinen 2012 data is not OK. Can it be repaired or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.78.95 ( talk) 18:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Since the Novgorodian tribes were partly Finno-Ugric (Chud and Ves) and partly Slavic (Slovenes and Krivich), I added [Finno-Ugric and Slavic] to define the ethnicities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuisco ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The Primary Chronicle. It mentions also Slavs. Do you mean that they also were not participating? Tuisco ( talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why should views of a poorly known Russian historian Dmitry Ilovaysky be introduced - e.g. in the Rus' people article -, but not the views of the better known Vasily Tatishchev (just compare the multiple Google search results for Tatishchev over Ilovaysky)?
In his writings, Dmitry Ilovaysky expounded a hypothesis of Azov Rus, which was alleged to have been centered on Sarkel and Tmutarakan. The hypothesis of Ilovaysky has not been shared by other historians. Therefore, this can be called a fringe theory. However, the "Finnish theory" represented by Vasily Tatishchev has been shared by a number of well known historians since the 1700s, including historians who are Rurikid descendants themselves. An unbiased presentation of this view needs to be included. The recently conducted Rurikid DNA studies support the views of these historians, concluding the following:
... "the N1c1 Rurikid princes belong to the so-called “Varangian Branch” in" ... "the so-called “ Finno-Ugrian”" "genetic haplogroup N1c1". [1] [2]
Based on the "Family Tree" DNA study, the members of the "Varangian Branch" represented by the "Rurikid princes") are “ Finno-Ugrian”. They belong to the "Finno-Ugrian" haplogroup.
The prehistoric remains of the people in Gotland were brought up just because they too were shown to match closest with the modern-day Finns. Gotland has been a part of the country of Sweden since the birth of Sweden, and it is a part of Scandinavia as well. In the Viking Age, Sweden did not yet exist.
According to the closely coinciding information provided in both the medieval Orkneyinga and the 'Hversu Noregr byggdist' accounts, a descendant of Fornjót "ruled over Gothland, Kvenland (Kænlandi), and Finland". Results published in April, 2012, of a DNA study conducted on the prehistoric skeletal remains of four individuals from Gotland support the area having been ethnically interconnected with Finland and Kvenland during the primeval era, further pointing to the overall information provided in the Orkneyinga and "Hversu" accounts being accurate:
"The hunter-gatherers show the greatest similarity to modern-day Finns", says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden. [3]
A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also appropriately given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. Here are a couple of faulty elements in the article, which need fixing:
1. The "imitation" of the 1905 map picturing Europe in 814 needs to be removed, because It has critical inaccuracies, as described before
2. The current Rus' people article continues misusing two Family Tree Rurikid DNA study pages as sources. The pages do not state that Rurik was from "Roslagen" or "Uppland". Tthey cannot be used as sources for the claim.
3. In the current Varangians and the Rus' people articles, the land inhabited by the Svea people ("Svealand") during the 9th century is shown to reach too far up north, and no sources for the claim are shown.
4. The Rurikid dynasty article continues providing a claim supported only by a broken link: "... [North] Germanic speakers ( Varangians). [4]" (the last time I removed the broken link was on November, 21, 2012, as can be seen here). - - RasboKaren ( talk) 20:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
How is it vandalism to remove swathes of unsourced and unreadable redlinks? It might be a good idea to check out WP:BURDEN and WP:NOTVAND. bobrayner ( talk) 05:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Article abruptly refers to Ivan the Terrible without saying where he came from, whose son he was, how he got the throne, etc.:
Can somebody who knows the history improve this part of the article to make it comprehensive? ( PeacePeace ( talk) 01:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC))
Material on BioRxiv is not reviewed either by scientific peers or content editors. If the paper in question ends up being formally published after passing peer review then when it is published, depending on what it says in its published form, it may be appropriate for inclusion here (though building content only on a single WP:PRIMARY source is itself problematic), but a scientific result somebody just put online themselves is not a WP:RS. Agricolae ( talk) 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Agricolae, if BioRxiv is not RS you know where the place is to confirm it. Until then, you can't revert someone’s edit based on that source. I guess you know how Wikipedia works.
Mikola22 (
talk) 12:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Please check constant reverting reference and sources by Emenrich. -- Kovanja ( talk) 09:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
References
As tantalizing as we interested readers might find claims of Rurikid DNA results, Wikipedia cannot report them based on self-published, non-peer reviewed personal projects. FtDNA may have a lot of registered users, but its content is entirely self-published material, and hence is both non-WP:RS and its inclusion is also WP:UNDUE. The same applies to RootsWeb (where the archived description of the project was originally published), where all you had to do was pay a fee make a set-value "donation" and you could upload whatever you wanted. All this doesn't even take into account that the study itself was based on the unconfirmed self-reported ancestry of study participants. For this to be reportable here, two things have to happen. First, it has to be formally independently published, via a process involving editorial or peer review, plus it has to be incorporated into secondary sources to indicate that the broader scholarly community views this information as noteworthy to the question of Rurikid dynastic origins. Until that happens, we as editors do not get to substitute our own judgment for that of the scholars we are supposed to be reflecting.
Agricolae (
talk) 15:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Too large paragraph is devoted to single Romanovichi Rurikid branch in introduction and should be moved from introduction as any other Rurikid branch even those who were more important. Romanovichi ruled Central Rus only for one generation and after 1240 Kiev was passed to Alexander Nevski from Novgorodian bloodline of Yurevichi branch. Roman the Great was vassal of the Golde Horde as any other Rus prince, there is no reason to highlight him in introduction. Romananovichi brand went to extinction in single century. There is no continuity in Polish rule of Western Rus because Poles just absorbed what Romanovichi ruled. Even If Ukrainian natinalists wish some special importance to Galitsian - Volynian Principality from which they derive Ukrianian national identity since Ukrainian national revival in 19th century and natioanlist Mykhaylo Hrushevsky. Also there were a lot more Rurikid branches and more important than Romanovichi, there is no reason to enforce details of Romanovichi branch into introducton. As for axample. Rurukids from Tver rivaled Moscow during wars of over Vladimir Principality and there is no single mention of it because it's not that important as unification of Rus principalities under Moscow Rurikids. Also Novgorodian RUrikid branches ruled northwest as independent power for almost 3 centuries. Their branch survived much more than Romanovichi and there is still no mention of it.
-- 90.181.92.64 ( talk) 09:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Daniel Novák
Regarding this edit by user:Umfront: Riurik came to Rus from Novgorod, which is located on the territory of the Russian Federation, the language of which is Russian. Before that he came from places where Swedish is spoken today. Then he spent more of his life in places where Ukrainian is spoken. Doesn’t matter. He never heard Swedish, Russian, nor Ukrainian. We are not placing his historical languages here, only modern languages he is associated with today.
See MOS:LEADLANG. If we can’t agree on an order, maybe let’s just remove them all, since three languages is not really supported by the Manual of Style.
And please don’t start an edit war, per WP:BRD — Michael Z. 05:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move ( non-admin closure) >>> Extorc. talk 12:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Rurik dynasty →
Rurikids – Background:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_8#Category:Rurikids, where
Category:Rurikids is proposed to be merged into
Category:Rurik dynasty, or vice versa.
Marcelus and I think "Rurikids" is a better article title, because "Rurik dynasty" is an improper name. The article and its categories cover the entire family which supposedly descended from Rurik, and not just those who actually sat on thrones.
A series of rulers or dynasts from one family. That means Olga of Kiev would, strictly speaking, fall outside the scope of "dynasty", because she was only a princess consort and then regent. More importantly, it would have to apply to every single person in the subcategories, which it doesn't. We should also rename the main article to " Rurikids" rather than " Rurik dynasty".
"a series of people from the same family holding the same office one after another."George VI, Elizabeth II and Charles III are part of the Windsor dynasty, but Prince William is not (yet), he is part of the "House of Windsor". That's why here we should name the category "Rurikids" (or "House of Rurik" or "Rurikovichi"), and Rurik dynasty should be renamed to Rurikids.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
According to the 1906 Jewish Encylopedia the Varangians founded the Russian monarchy in 855.
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4279-chazars
87.209.63.156 ( talk) 15:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Current Legacy section has was too many factual errors and isn't neutral. I've made few recent edits to fix that, but they were reverted under pretence that it needs additional consensus. Please review my edits and advise in case you have any objection. Thanks.
Korwinski ( talk) 00:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't the infobox and opening paragraph of this article state which language the Rurikids spoke? It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to leave this information out of this article. Was it Old Norse or some Slavic language? 76.190.213.189 ( talk) 01:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)