Talk:Rurikids

Rus' origins and consistency with other articles on Wikipedia

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)

And what is your point? There are two issues - origins of Rus or Ros was in Sweden - in a place that has L550 - Uralic y-dna line.

However Rurikids of y-dna N did not originate from Sweden, as their lineage of y-dna Y is slightly down the line - lower than Votes and around the line of Latvians-Lithuanians(hence the close ties between Rurikids and Gediminids), though they belonged to ruling class of Rus people, that ruled over Gardarike. Initially name of Rus was applied to Gardarike vikings who ruled over mixed - Baltic, Finnic and Slavic speaking people.

In times of Gardarike Rus =/= Slavs, as they became Slavic speakers only after accepting Christianity. Slavic speaking people got name Rus after their rulers - just like Gaulic lands got name France because of their Frankish rulers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.27.115 (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Duke of Mačva, Duke of Bosnia, Ban of Slavonia, Ban of Mačva, Ban of Bosnia...

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)

Shuyski family

• I propose Vasily IV Shuyski to be added to the end of the table. Shuyskies are descendants of Rurik, and he was, if though just for 4 years, a tsar.Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Catherine the Great descent from Rurik

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gagarin arms.jpg

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)

Moscow-Vladimir

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)

The Muscovite rulers were initially just Princes of Moscow (i.e. "Duke of Moscow"). Leadership of the Rus' came from the title Grand Prince which was associated not with Moscow but with Vladimir (originally associated with Kiev), though Grand Prince of Moscow was also used because 1) after the fragmentation period the different between Prince and GP wasn't as respected in actual usage and 2) GP of Vladimir became effectively the same thing as Moscow after Donskoi, whose descendents monopolized the honour of GP of Vladimir. Article atm is highly misleading. Rulers of Kiev after 13th cent. and rulers of Galicia had no more (less in fact) recognition as head of Riurikid dynasty than the rulers of Vladimir. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:33, 17 February 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)

Finno-Ugric Origin

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)

I believe it should be considered exclusively for the Lands of Free Novgorod as it carried a special status in the history of the Rus and covered a great area. The further south this assimilation was deminishing. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:52, 13 May 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 .

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. 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.. 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

Bloodline

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)

Nationality

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)

Alright, you win, but it still sounds logical to me that the founder of the dynasty determines it's ethnic affiliation.Alphasinus (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

King of Galicia-Volhynia

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)

Coat of Arms

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

• Eagle was used by Rurikid Ivan III of Russia. --Yopie (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• And this article is not about Ladoga. Most known Rurikids used eagle.--Yopie (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why we can not use the Double-headed eagle as a coat of arms of Rurik Dynasty.

1. It is not the native Rurik dynasty coat. It only came from Byzantine Empire in 1472 with Ivan III after his marriage with Byzantine princess Sophia Palaiologina.
2. It was only used by 4 Rurik dynasty rulers: Ivan III of Russia, Vasili III of Russia, Ivan the Terrible, Feodor I of Russia.
3. Rurik dynasty began in 862, double-headed eagle was used from 1472 and stopped using them in 1598 when the last Russian ruler from Rurik dynasty Feodor I of Russia died. So it was only used 126 years. In 2012 Rurik dynasty has 1150. Please compare 126 vs 1150.
4. The double-headed eagle has been keeping on using by other Russian monarchy dynasty the House of Romanov and Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov. So most people associate the double-headed eagle with the House of Romanov and Russian Empire.
5. Russian tsars can not represent all Rurik Dynasty. They come from the branch - Monomahovichi (ru:Мономаховичи) -> Yurievichi (Юрьевичи) from Vladimir II Monomakh via Yuri Dolgorukiy. There have been a lot of other Rurik dynasties branches.
6. This article is about Rurik dynasty but is not about the Tsardom of Russia or the Russian Empire.

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

1. Information about the coat of arms of Rurik dynasty in English you can find here -[5]. Actually this topic is not very popular in the English speaking World so if you want to write about it you have to use Russian and Ukrainian sources some of them I gave above. It is like you want to write about Czech History you can find more information in Czech language than in English or Russian.
2. Why we can not use the Double-headed eagle as a coat of arms of Rurik Dynasty I explained before and I am looking forward to getting your comments. Furthermore you agree with me that the Double-headed eagle came to Russia from Byzantine Empire. It did not come from Rurik or from his descendants. Russian rules have used it to express their relationship with the East Roman (Byzantine) imperial dynasty, you can read the article Third Rome. If you know after the marriage of Ivan III and Byzantine princess Sophia Palaiologina Russian rules started being called as a Tsar from Latin Caesar. In time of the Russian Empire no-one except the Imperial House of Romanov could use the double-headed eagle as a coat of arms.
3. The most famous ruler from Rurik Dynasty was Vladimir the Great which arm of coats is well known.

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. . 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

Fringe Finno-Ugric theory

I have reverted the addition of a long section about a fringe Finno-Ugric theory since it lacks all scientific value since it is based on a claim made by a Finnish writer that central Sweden was inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, even as late as the 9th century AD, when all archaeological evidence, and all documentation, both local and foreign (ranging from runestones to the writings of Roman explorers), clearly shows that Southern and Central Sweden, up to far north of the Roslagen/Uppland area near Stockholm, has been inhabited by Scandinavians, i e Germanic people, since prehistoric times. The Sami people, the only Finno-Ugric people that has inhabited parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula, have never lived even anywhere near the Uppland area, but much further to the north. So a claim based on a theory that has as little scientific value as claiming that Elvis Presley is still alive doesn't belong in the article. Thomas.W (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A response to you given below - RasboKaren (talk) 01:19, 21 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/

Banning Finnish language speeded up Swedification of Sweden Proper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For clarification, this part could be discussed to a little larger extend in the article itself too, if necessary. The rest of my answer to user "Thomas.W" below: - RasboKaren (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This hodge-podge of oddball claims is as WP:Fringe as it can be and doesn't even merit an answer. What's next on your agenda? Claiming that the Greeks of antiquity were also Finns? Thomas.W (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In the originally 6th or 7th century Widsith - copied in the 10th century Exeter Book - the Samis are called "Scridefinns" (Skiing Finns) and the Kvens and/or Finns are referred to as "Finns": "Caesar ruled the Greeks, Caelic the Finns ... I was with the Greeks and Finns and also with Caesar". RasboKaren (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Just one comment: Gotland is an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea, halfway between the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Baltic countries, so claiming that the 9th century AD population of Roslagen/Uppland north of Stockholm were Finns based on someone claiming that a few prehistoric skeletal remains found on an island far away from not only the Roslagen/Uppland area but the Scandinavian Peninsula as a whole could possibly have been of Finno-Ugric origin is plain silly. And proves that the whole theory is extremely fringe. Thomas.W (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

A work of Professor Emeritus Matti Klinge is also given as a source for Kvenland having bordered the Coast of Roslagen at the time of Rurik's birth. The Forest Finns are not discussed in the article, although the source about the banning of the Finnish language came from a book which focuses on the Forest Finns. The use of the Finnish language did not become banned from the Forest Finns alone, but all the Finnish-speaking people alike in the area of Sweden Proper, including Kvens, Tornedalians, Birkarls, etc. - - RasboKaren (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

References

History and support for theory of Finno-Ugric origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. - RasboKaren (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit was blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and came back as an IP sock, also blocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 22 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

Novgorodian tribes

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Rurikid dynasty article continues providing a claim supported only by a broken link: "...[North] Germanic speakers (Varangians)." (the last time I removed the broken link was on November, 21, 2012, as can be seen here). - - RasboKaren (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway; let's move forward. The onus isn't on me. It's on the person inserting the content. Where did this list come from? bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ivan the Terrible

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

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

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

DNA results from BioRxiv

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Are you aware that according to editing policy on self-published sources these were not inappropriate changes? How dare you using repeatedly such a language with me and making yourself above the editing policy? What you're saying is WP:GAMING the editing policy. I am warning and asking you - give a valid argument for the removal of the information as until now you didn't make any, on the contrary, made false claims--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

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

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

Gleb Svyatoslavich (VK542, 11th century), Y-haplogroup I2a1a2b1a1a-Y3120, mtDNA-haplogroup H5a2a, ancestry admixture estimate 71.1% Poland "Polish-like" 24.6% Italy "Southern European-like" etc.

Izjaslav Ingvarevych (VK541, 13th century), Y-haplogroup R1a1a1b1a1a1c1-L1029, mtDNA-haplogroup H7, ancestry admixture estimate 95% Poland "Polish-like" etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romanov

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

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

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

Emenrich deleting reference to Russian statehood in case of Rurik settling of Novgorod 862.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NPA. Russia does not exist in this time period, only Rus', and your claims about the non-existence of Ukrainians or Belarusians prior to the twentieth-century are clear examples of Great Russian chauvinism, denying the existence of minorities in a fashion reminiscent of the Russian Empire. The Primary Chronicle can't claim that Russia was founded anymore than Julius Caesar invaded "France." Modern Greek also uses Gallia to refer to France, but that doesn't mean France and Gaul are the same. Furthermore, an old book on Ivan III (reigned 1440-1505), written in a time when many Westerners still applied Russia to all the core lands of the former Russian Empire, is hardly relevant to the conquest of Novgorod by Rurik in 862.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Please learn to wp:INDENT your posts. Ivan III is not relevant to whether or not Rurik founded "Russia." In Wikipedia we follow reliable sources. Reliable sources do not refer to "Russian statehood" beginning with Rurik, nor to "Russia" existing in the time of Rus'. The fact that Russians sometimes call Russia "Rus'" does not mean them they are the same thing, and your continued insistence that Ukrainians and Belarusians are "Soviet inventions" suggests to me strongly that you do not really care what reliable sources say about the subject. Wikipedia is not for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by proving to the world that Belarusians and Ukrainians are really just Russians.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

References

DNA results

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)

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

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

Oddly, I do not find that argument very persuasive.

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

Romanovichi branch, too larche paragraph for single branch in introduction

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

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

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

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

Order of languages in the lead

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)

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

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

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

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

Requested move 14 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

• Nederlandse Leeuw: The word "dynasty" is unhelpful here, because it suggests everyone in it was a "dynast" or "ruler". en:wikt:dynasty defines it as 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".
• Marcelus: This is a certain inaccuracy that everyone seems to collectively ignore. A dynasty strictly speaking is "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)

• Support, but not for the reasons given. I do not agree that there is any problem with the extended use of the word 'dynasty' to cover the family. And our categories should not be driving article titling. Srnec (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support, for my reasoning cited above Marcelus (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Support. I don’t see the reference to a dynasty as such a serious problem. But also this is about several branches ruling in different places, not just one line ruling one state. The move better meets the WP:criteria of precision and conciseness.  —Michael Z. 01:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Founding date

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)

Legacy and Ukrainian view

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)

Which language did they speak??

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)