Talk:Ruthenia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rusyn stuff

The Ruthenian language is more properly called Rusyn (q.v.). This disambiguation notice has been deleted by User:Yeti. The entry at Rusyn language merely reports standard language information. This is an act of vandalism. I am reverting it and shall continue to do so. Information cannot be suppressed at Wikipedia. Wetman 23:54, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Two complaints with respect to the first definition:

First, it seems to be equating Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ruthenia. Ruthenia includes many areas outside the Carpathians and outside Carpatho-Ruthenia. For example, "White Ruthenia", now known as Belarus.

Secondly, it seems to be equating Subcarpathian-Ruthenia (AKA Carpatho-Ukraine, AKA Transcarpathian Oblast) with Carpatho-Ruthenia. Carpatho-Ruthenia includes many areas outside Subcarpathian-Ruthenia. For example, the Lemko region in Poland and the adjacent Rusnak region in Slovakia.

This is a very complex subject with a long history. It does need to be clarified. Be bold in updating pages. Alex756 07:54, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The conflation of "Ruthenia" with all of the "Rus" is not history. This entry needs to be recast by a person with a good grip on history. Wetman 20:32, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the English usage of "Ruthenia"

There is lots of confusion about Ruthenia, Russia, Little Russia and so on. What is the reason for this confussion? Basically, Ruthenia (as well as Russia) was taken into English language from Latin language. It is a literary translation of Slavic word Rus. This word is translated into English in many forms, mainly because of the political reasons. In this article are included all meanings of the word Ruthenia: 1. Rus - area inhabited historically by all East Slavic people (united by Kiyevian Rus), translated into English usually as Russia - according to me not very precisely. 2. Former name for Ukraine - after the Muscovy changed its name to Russia (Rossiya) and area later known as Ukraine was ceded by Lithuania to Poland. 3. Carpatho-Ruthenia (Karpatskaya Rus).

It should be stressed that Ruthenia always is translation of one word: Rus. The term 'Ruthenia has been used in English (and earlier in Latin) in all these meanings.

The word Rus appeared in 9th century and means territory inhabited by Eastern Slavs. It was translated into Latin in many forms: Rossia, Rosia, Russia, Rusia, Ruthenia etc. At that times there was no confusion about the translation, because the meaning was only one. The state Kiyevian Rus was fragmentated into several duches. The western ones were subdued to Poland (Halich or Galich duchy, in 13th and 14th centuries known as Kingdom of Ruthenia - area around Lviv) and Lithuania. Eastern parts were subdued in 13th century by Tatars. The Republics of Pskov and Novogorod kept independence until end of 15th century, when were destroyed by Muscovy. The problems began in 15/16th century. The rulers of Muskovy started to call themselve Emperors and their country - Muscovy - Rossiya. In following centuries this NEW term started to be translated into English also as Russia. In the meantime the territories of historical Rus included into Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samgotia (western part of former Kiyevian Rus) were still called Rus translated into Latin (and English) as Ruthenia and its inhabitans Rusiny - Ruthenians. Grand Duchy of Lithuania basically was also a Ruthenian state as it was populated mainly by Ruthenians, its nobles were of Ruthenian origins and Ruthenian was an only official language till 1697. In the end of 18th century Russian Empire, Prussia and Austria destroyed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The term Rus (translated as Ruthenia in Latin and English) for territories of present Ukraine (not only for its Austrian part) was used until beginning of 20th century. However because of influence of Russia on British science from 18/19th century this region has been called in English also as Little Russia.

Lets summarize: Ruthenia is always translation of the word Rus. Russia has two meanings: 1. Rus 2. Rossiya – former Muscovy (present time Russia.

The above problem does not exists in Slavic languages. The different translations into English have mainly political reasons. For example a Russian would always translate Rus as Russia. In contrary Ukrainian or Belarusian (especially nationalist) would translate this word as Ruthenia.

P.S. An article from Encyclopedia 1911 is an example how cautious we have to be when we use this source.

I have transferred the above, without editing it in any way, to the main article, under the heading Concerning the English usage of "Ruthenia." I have also reinstated the perfectly balanced description of the Ruthenian situation as it was in 1911, attributed to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which was suppressed by User:Yeti because it did not suit his political agenda. Not recommended behavior. At Wikipedia, we do not suppress neutral historical information. We add to the article to give it better context. Wetman 16:19, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More about Rusyns

Hi,

I removed your definition because of the following reasons:

1. This article is about definition of the word Ruthenia, not Ruthenians.

2. The definition of Ruthenians (Rusini or Rusiny), which you have taken from Encyclopedia 1911 is not used any more neither in English nor in any other language at least since the World War the First. This definition regards to Ukrainians living in the former Austria. Untill the begining of 20th century they were named Rusini or Rusiny - and translated into English as Ruthenians. The term Ukrainians was not commonly used at that times. In Austro-Hungary their official name was Rusini -(y) (Ruthenians), in Russia Little Russians (Malorusy). Their own name was Rusiny - Ruthenians. The city Lemberg (in German) is just L'viv (Polish: Lwow) in Ukraine. Today this area is included into Ukraine and is the centre of Ukrainian nationalism.

3. You have put your definition into to article about the former Rus. It has got nothing to do with Ruthenians in 1911.

It has nothing to do with my "political agenda". Please, belive me. I know what I am writing about.

Regards,

Sami

I don't understand the example of and Finnish (originally Sami) of being a tribal denomination of changed ethnicity. Aren't the Sami and Suomi related? How've the Suomi been Sami who have been Suomiised? Also, this article seems to be far too subjective. Crusadeonilliteracy 14:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is OT. (unsigned comment by Miraceti 15 Dec 2004)

About the Ruthenians

The following information has been suppressed by "publicist" User:Yeti by deleting it from the article (where I took the trouble to post his rant, though I distrust some of its misinformation), and suppressed again here on the Talk page by deleting it. This might be how it's done in Ruthenia, but not here at Wikipedia. Wikipedians may judge whether this information is accurate as history. I hope you will mention to User:Yeti how you stand on suppression of information in general. Wetman 00:28, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Ruthenians before World War I In 1911, the Encyclopaedia Britannica characterized the Ruthenians as those Little Russians who were at that time subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The name, it was pointed out, is a form of the word Russian. The Ruthenians were separated from the bulk of Russians by the accident of two feudal Russian principalities having fallen to Lithuania, which in turn was united with Poland. At the partition of Poland in the 18th century, none of the dynastic diplomats of the great powers troubled about ethnological boundaries. The Ruthenian language is in substance like the Little Russian of the Ukraine, though it has marked differences; the most interesting dialects are those in the extreme west, which approach Slovak and that of the Huzuli in Bukovina.

In 1911, the Ruthenians numbered some three million in Galicia, Bukovina, and in the Carpathians along the edges of Hungary. Throughout Galicia the Poles formed a landed aristocracy, though in two-thirds of it Ruthenians formed the bulk of the population, while The Ruthenians were therefore under an alien yoke both politically and economically, as the Britannicas British writers recognized.

In religion the Ruthenians mostly belong to the Uniate Church, acknowledging the Pope, since the meetings at Brest in 1508, but retaining their Old Slavonic liturgy and most of the outward forms of the Greek Church. Their intellectual centre was Lvov, which the Austrians called "Lemberg", where some lectures in the university were being given in Ruthenian, and they were agitating for it to have equal rights with Polish. Yet there Little Russian was freer than in imperial Russia, and in Lvov/Lemberg it found the centre of its literature.

User:Yeti responds at Wetman's Talk page (copy-and-pasted verbatim) as follows: User:Wetman, I do not understand what are you writing about. You have copied into the article about Ruthenia an article about entirely different subject. To be worse this article didn't match the present day reality at all. Including information from encyclopedia 1911 in this subject is ridiculous. I explained you why. Unfortunatelly I did not receive any answer from you. You did not start any discuss and you began to threaten me. You also removed my corrections without a word of explanation. Your behaviour is rude and I am shocked because of this. I thought that Wikipedia is a tool of serious discuss of adult people. Mayby I am wrong? I am afraid you are the problem user, not me. If you do not stop behave like a child I will report you as a Problem User.

The article describing Ruthenia as it was reported in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with the source for the material attributed, has been edited for irrelevant content and recast.If User:Yeti would follow up with an report of what was actually mistaken in this capsule view of the Western European of Ruthenia before World War I, we'd be getting a more balanced view of a part of Ruthenian history. More balanced perhaps than a view of a Greater Ruthenia that stretched to the Urals, as Yeti would have us believe. Perhaps this is a language-barrier issue and can be resolved. I am certainly not cowed by offensive threats.

BTW the small urban middle class before World War I was Jewish or German. The Germans must have been moved out. Perhaps Yeti would like to tell the story of Ruthenia's vanished Jews. Wetman 15:01, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Dear Wetman. The meanings of the name of Rus' - translated into English as Ruthenia or (ancient) Russia - were explained in this article and you could find some information in many others in Wikipedia. Please read the following: Ruthenians, Kievan Rus', Ukraine, Ukrainian, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Belarusian, Belarus. Unfortunately, that is not my fault that this name has been used through centuries in many contexts. Why ask me about Jews? Do you think I am responsible for their extinction in Central Europe? User:Yeti

Ruthenia/Ruthenian as misnomer of translation

In Slavic languages, the suffix "-in" is one of possible ways for deriving a word to dnote a person of given nationality: "Rus" -> rusin (i.e., a person of Rus, tribe or land), Bialorus -> bialorusin, "mordva"(people of Mordovia) -> "mordvin", Gruzia (Georgia) -> "gruzin"; just like English -> Englishman. Now, the land of "rusins" ("ruthenes") becomes "Ruthenia". And then further, inhabitants of Ruthenia become "Ruthenians". For a person who feels languages, this looks as bizarre, as a chain Englas -> England -> English -> Englishman -> Englishmanland -> Englishmanlander. One may think that my example is funny and artificial, but right now the word "ingermanlander" is coined by modern ignoramuses and has already popped up in google.

Please keep the above in mind when discussing "correct" name and "correct" attribution. Mikkalai 04:44, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Duly noted at Carpathian Ruthenia, though the "wrong" Ruthenians is more familiar English. Wetman 05:35, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks Mikkalai. Have a look into the Wetman's work on Carpathian Ruthenia. Real curiosum. User:Yeti

---

I recently tried to copy-edit this article. A few phrases were sufficiently unclear that I do not think I can render them fairly and clearly. Would someone who knows the topic please fix:

1. "...Ruthenian was an only official language till 1697."
   1. What language, exactly, do we mean? I believe that "Ruthenian" as a term for a language is unclear. Do we mean "Rusyn" or something else?
   2. Ignoring that point, does the (ambiguous) statement mean that "Ruthenian [or Rusyn, or whatever] was the sole official language until 1697, when [something else, Lithuanian, I presume] became co-official" or "Ruthenian [or Rusyn, or whatever] was the sole official language until 1697, when it was replaced in this role by [something else, Lithuanian, I presume]" or "The Ruthenian [or Rusyn, or whatever] language was co-official with [something else, Lithuanian, I presume] until 1697, when Ruthenian [or Rusyn, or whatever] ceased to be official." Whatever it is, could someone who knows please write something clear instead of an ambiguous sentence.

This is an exaggerrated statement, with an element of truth. In these times, the official documents, such as statute, etc., were written not in Polish, not in Lithuanian, but in Belarussian (or as some cautious historians state in the "variant of Old Slavonic close to Belarussian"). There are numerous such documents preserved. The reasons are no exactly clear to my tastes. For a very long time research into Belarussian history was suppressed first by Polish then by Bolsheviks. Only relatively recently something started to emerge. But unfortunately Belarussian nationalists (in a good sense of the word) are not always fully historically correct, to put it mildly. Mikkalai 02:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am going to presume Mikkalai knows whereof he speaks and edit the article accordingly. Certainly no purpose is served by ambiguity. But what, exactly, changed in 1697? Why is htat year singled out, and what other language came into play at that date?-- Jmabel 06:53, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This language is usually described in literature as: Ruthenian or Old Belarusian. As far as I know it was just early stage of Belarusian language with some Old Slavonic (Orthodox) influence. Yeti 00:45, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

2. "...the territories of present-day Ukraine (not only the Austrian-ruled part)." As this stands, the parenthetical clause seems to refer to the (once Austrian-ruled part of present-day Ukraine. Is that the intent? If so, OK, but I suspect what it meant to say was "...the territories of present-day Ukraine (not only the Austrian-ruled part of the historic "Rus")." If the latter is what is meant, please edit accordingly, if not, please note here so that I know someone has addressed my question.

Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel 01:51, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion but I didn't intend to past this fragment into article so there is some mess. As you know the name of Rus has a few meanings. One of them was given untill beginning of 20th century to present day Ukraine and the own name of present day Ukrainians was Rusini or Rusiny (Ruthenians). The name Ukrainians was introduced in 19th century and was not commonly used untill beginning of 20th century. The former Ruthenians-Ukrainians used to live as well in Austria-Hungary (Galicia, Carpathian or Hungarian Ruthenia) as in Russia. I did not mean the historic Rus' in this case, but simply present day Ukraine. Yeti 01:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

3. Another ambiguity: "It takes its name from the Ruthenes (also called Rusyns, Rusins, Carpatho-Rusin, or Russniaks), a small Slavonic people related to the Ukrainians and Slovaks." What is meant by "a small Slavonic people"? Presumably not small in stature. Is "small Slavonic" a term like "Little Russian" that I just happn not to know? Or does this simply mean a Slavonic people who are few in number? Clarification highly welcomed. -- Jmabel 07:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. It is just a small Slavonic ethnic group. Little Russians (Malorusy)is an ethnic name given by Russians to present time Ukrainians. For more explanations see: Ruthenians - the third definition.Yeti

4. While I am reaising issues, here's an orthographical issue. Would someone who knows what they are doing please get the typography right about "Rus", "Rus'", and "Ruś"? Yes, there is an article entitled Kievan Rus', but that's presumably just because we can't get "ś" into a title in this crippled English-language wiki. I would guess it should be referred to as Kievan Ruś, but I don't really know for sure, so someone else should make these edits.

I think that the proper best will be: Rus'. Rus is simplification and "Ruś" is Polish typography.Yeti

5. And to continue in an orthographical vein, it would really be appropriate to write words also (not instead, also) in Cyrillic where that is the way they would commonly be written.

-- Jmabel 07:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Split up the page?

Basically, the article is clearly getting out of control :-). Maybe should be reduced to disambiguation page with links to different meanings of the name Rus'? User:Yeti

Maybe, or somewhere in between. Some of this is really about the history of the word. This deserves some thought, and probably discussion here to try to get consensus, rather than someone just editing.

How does this sound? The opening paragraphs, plus the sections "Rus': Origins of the name" and "History" stay as they are; ditto "Related articles (except that it should be retitled "See also") and "Sources".

"Concerning the English usage of 'Ruthenia'" probably needs a minor rewrite:

• Get rid of "This article addresses all meanings of the word 'Ruthenia'"
• Add an appropriate link in each of the three numbered items. Respectively, these would be: (1) Kievan Rus', (2) Ukraine, and (3) Carpathian Ruthenia.

The other sections should be reduced to the parts about the words "Ruthenia", "Rus'", etc. with as little other content as possible. E.g. the discussion of whether the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was really Ruthenian belongs in the article Grand Duchy of Lithuania; the information on the sequence of empires and states ruling Carpathian Ruthenia belongs in the article Carpathian Ruthenia, etc.

Yeti and others, does this strike you as appropriate? (In any event, let's not change it for at least 48 hours so all concerned parties may weigh in.) -- Jmabel 07:06, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An aside

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

The text in question is now at Rus' (people), but the issue has not been resolved. I'll copy this there. -- Jmabel 23:33, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

On February 24th, 2004, an anonymous user from 24.105.197.133 added a lot of content, but also removed all links to Carpathian Ruthenia. It seems that we need to pay a bit more attention to this article, probably list it as controversial... --Shallot 16:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Shallot should be credited right here with a great editing job, lifting this entry out of quite unpromising nationalist materials, that were heavily ridden by agendas, to a clear, logical, historically quite accurate hub of links to more specific applications. Thank you, Shallot. Wetman 22:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Muscovy vs Rossiya

Historically and factually incorrect phrase replaced.

Also in the early 1700s, the state of Muscovy, having recently expanded to include the Rus' at Kiev, changes its name to the Greek translation of Rus', and calls itself Rossiya.

--Mikkalai, 00:06, 22 May 2004

It also should be pointed out who actually did that. It was Peter the Great. If I am not mistaken, the early spelling included double-u type letter in Cyrillic. Another thing, I believe, he, Peter I, ran in difficulties explaining the world what is the Moscovy-Rus and simply stated that it was Rus. In Germanic lands which he visited Rus spells with sharfes-S. I know it's a long shot of explaining the nature of the confusion, but at least makes sense for me. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I've just done a major overhaul of the article. The previous version was a mishmash of stuff written from a Ukrainian viewpoint. I think I've made the language vaguely encyclopedic now, but the description of what Muscovy and the Russians did still sound somewhat antagonistic to me. --Shallot 19:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Huge refactoring.

Dear colleagues,

as you maybe know, I have started wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization project some time ago. I didn't want to make changes into any related article before NPOV consensus is found within this project. However, Shallot suggested me to be bold in editing instead of finding consesus. So it is - I'm bold in editing. If you don't share the opinion that bold editing is better than finding compromise before editing, please be invited to the wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization. Thank you! Drbug 22:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I mistyped in "Edit summary": Please read "Rus (etimology)" instead of "Rus (Etimology)". I'm sorry! Drbug 22:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I assume you meant "etymology"? As far as I know "etimology" is not an English word. -- Jmabel 04:50, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

You are absoluty correct. I was almost asleep writing these articles, but I had to... Drbug 15:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1. Ruthenia is not derived from the word Rus'. This is one of two possible translations of the word Rus'. The word Ruthenia was not created to distinguish KR from anything.

"derived from" and "translated from" is a difference too subtle to be worth pontificating about... --Shallot 10:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. More precisely, "translation" just a specific way of "derivation". Drbug 15:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

2. The term Rus' was not used in papal documents only. It was commonly accepted translation of the Slavic word Rus' into Latin at least in Poland-Lithuania (including Bealrus and Ukraine) and in Kingdom of Hungary. This is the fact, not my opinion.

As I have already written to you earlier, there were several ways to tranlate Rus in Latin, and Ruthenia was chosen to be used in Papal documents. Therefore, later this spelling was widely used in countries where influense of Catholicism was strong.

3. Northern part fall under Mongol influence, that, however, were not so wishful to change culture of conquered nations comparing to Poles, so northern principalieties of Rus were using original form of Rus a bit longer; however, later it evolved into Russia in English, and Rossija in Russian. - this is an unacceptable bias. There is no reason to claim that culture of modern Russia is more "original" that culture of modern Ukraine. As I stated before the term "Russia" is not more original than "Ruthenia": BOTH are barely translations of the same word - Rus'. The claim that that Rus in Muscovy evolved into Russia is obvious false as this translation of the word Rus' was used long time before the period described (at least from 12th century) and was nothing more that LATINIZATION of the name Rus' - I know that you know that because it was YOUR argument in one of our discussions.

I agree, phrasing was bad. See Etymology of Rus and derivatives for corrected one. Drbug 15:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

4. If the term of Rus evolved into Rossiya, what about the title: The Emperor of All Rus? As far as I know Russian the term Rus' is still in common use.

Evolution means that several instances may coexist. Detailed answer to your question is alredy present at Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization. Drbug 15:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned I reverted removed stuff, because it explained controversy. If you want to remove anything, please discuss what is wrong with every fragment removed.Yeti 01:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The main idea that details of Russian history and etymology of Rus and derivatives are not appropriate to be in this article. Some points of removed stuff belongs to Etymology of Rus and derivatives, some to Kievan Rus and History of Russia, but not here... Drbug 15:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Latest version

Are we done now? I restored the paragraph about the name stopping being applied to the Belarusians, and then to Ukrainians because it makes sense, doesn't look like it would be controversial (?), and it provides context for the later text. --Shallot 19:40, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About deleting the phrase "Belarusans separated from..."

This phrase is simply wrong.

The only people who talk about "triedinstvo" (unity of the three Eastern Slav nation) was the Russian empire empiral historians and Stalin in his 1950 "Marxism-Leninism" book.

Here are some excerpts from some other discussions I had about it earlier (taken from my blog http://www.livejournal.com/users/rydel23/282295.html )

My biggest concern is the word "separated". Where did that came from? From what I read about our history, I got the impression that Belarusans of that day (i.e. the "Litvins" and "Ruthenians" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) were much more different from Russians. I would say that modern-day Belarusans (who are in many ways different from Russians in terms of language, culture, mentality) are perhaps 10 times more Russified than our forefathers of those times. Let me give you some examples:

- In 1517-1519 Francyska Skaryna published "Biblija Rus'ka" (Ruthenian Bible) which was studied by many scholars, and shows a big number of differences from Russian (not only lexically, but also in terms of syntax). If you look at the lexicon of the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it appears that "Old Belarusan" (Old Ruthenian) had so much richer lexicon coming from Polish and Latin. It's all gone in modern Belarusian. And I guess 97-98% of modern-day Belarusians perfectly understand Russian and speak at least at a passable level. Back then that was not the case. I think Litvins of the Grand Duchy wouldn't understand everything a Muscovite would say.

- Religion. Muscovites then were Russian Orthodox, nothing else. But back then we were not only "Russian" Orthodox, but also Catholic, Uniates, and ... Protestant! Don't forget the Reformation in our lands that brought amazing results to GDL in terms of enlightment, education, prosperity. (Religiously we were never close to each other.) But it was then all over...

- Because of 1654-1673. For 13 years Muscovites/Russians waged a most bloody war against GDL, killing 50% of our population, destroying most of our cities, totaly erasing our European culture. I can't imagine Russians in 2004 waging a war against Belarus in which they kill 50% of our population.

So where's this thing with "separation"? Where does that come from? When were we "together"?

I think Belarusans are ten times closer to Russians in 2004, then they were in 1654, exactly 350 years ago.

- There was never a single "East Slavic Russian nation". There was never a single "East Slavic Old Russian language". This is an invention of Russian empiral historians and Stalinists. Dixi. -- Rydel, July 9, 2004.

Biblija Rus'ka means 'Russian Bible', not 'Ruthenian Bible'. And in old times Rutenia was nothing more that the Latin equivalent of Russia. — Monedula 13:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is "Russian Bible"? What is "Russia" when you talk about 1517? Where was Russia in 1517?? As for the Bible... Francis Skaryna's Bible edition, sorry, but it was not designed for Muscovy. He was not doing any marketing or distribution in Muscovite lands. ;) It was marketed and distributed exclusively in the Grand Duchy. ;) His "Biblija Rus'ka" was a Bible written in a language that was close to what people of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania spoke. It was for the Litvins and Ruthenians (ліцьвіны і русіны) of the Grand Duchy. Have you seen it, Monedula? Do you want to read it? It's on the 'Net. -- rydel 14:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know what the Skorina's Bible does look like. The language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was certainly very like Russian. So all this talk about "Ruthenian" is nonsense. — Monedula 16:38, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You know so much about the language of the GDL and of Skaryna's Bible (maybe you have a CD from 16th century, or at least an audio tape? :))). There are a number of Ph.D.'s in Belarus and elsewhere who studied Skaryna's Bible for many years. They all call the language of the Bible "Old Belarusian" or "Old Ruthenian" (in order not to offend the Ukrainians or for the sake of being more P.C.).

Obviously it is not true. Rus'ka can be translated as Ruthenian or Russian. Ruthenian is just TRANSLATION of Rus'ka or Rus'ki(j). Russian has TWO meanings. Ruthenian just ONE. It is incredible. How can you claim that white is black? Mayby I was learnt a different Russian, Ukranian and Polish than you.Yeti 21:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know which Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish you learnt, and, frankly, I don't bother too much. Becayse it is English Wikipedia, not Russian, Ukrainian, or Polish. And it was explained several times in Wikipedia talks that Ruthenia/Ruthenian is not less ambiguous that Russia/Russian. If you disagree, please check which English you learnt. Thanks. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 11:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absolutelly. But always this is translation of the word Rus'ki(y). Try to translate ENGLISH word Ruthenian into Russian, Ukrainian or Polish. And now read the opinion of Monedula again.Yeti 19:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problems with Russian and Ukrainian: "Рутенский" in modern Russian and "Рутенський" in Ukrainian. Unfortunately, I don't know Polish language, but I won't be surprised if Polish-English translations is the only source of this Ruthenian mess... Please consider checking your knowledge of English academic terms related to ancient Russian state. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 20:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hereby I confirm and agree that Monedula's words are correct, and I cite them, and I sign them: I know what the Skorina's Bible does look like. The language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was certainly very like Russian. So all this talk about "Ruthenian" is nonsense. [Modedula] [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 20:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah... In Polish it can be also translated as Rutenski as well, but it sounds terribly artificial. And both know that the basic translation of "Ruthenian" is Rus'ki(y) or Rus'ka(ya) in Polish, in Russian and in Ukrainian. I noticed that you struggle to show that white is black but I really do not bother it. I haven't written about academic terms in English but about claim of Monedula that the only translation of Rus'ka is Russian what is clear nonsense. You claim that "talk about "Ruthenian" is nonsense"? Obviously, you can think what you like. It is your problem. In fact that word was in common usage for centuries as far as word "Rus'ki(y)" was concerned and that was clearly explained many times in discussions and in articles. I did not write about language of Skorina's Bible. But if you mentioned that remember that differentiaion between forms of Rus'ki language was still quite slight and in fact they were dialects of the same language. The name of this language in English is different case. You translate it as Russian. I do not forbide you. But I will never use it and prefer to translate it as Ruthenian what - according to me - is more precise and not less correct that Russian. And belive me: it is not a Polish plot. I am not gonna commit suicide if you do not agree with me. Bye.Yeti 21:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is you who persists in attempts to make white to seem black. Certainly, no qualified translator would translate "Ruthenian" as "Rus'ki(y)" ("Руський"). It's up to you to use "Ruthenian", but I will eliminate incorrect use of this word in Wikipedia soon, after additional check of sources explaining origins of this mess... [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 22:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? "No qualified translator would translate "Ruthenian" as "Rus'ki(y)"? I hope you are kidding. Besides, bear in mined that you are not the only user of Wikipedia and other users can have different opinions that you what is "correct". Regards.Yeti 22:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No qualified translator would translate "Ruthenian" as "Руський" into Russian. And of course you can't point one.

"Рутен"? Probably. "Рутенский"? Probably. "Русский"? Probably. Depending of context. "Руський"? Never. There's no such a word "Руський" in Russian. Neither there exists "Rusian" in English.

Wikipedia tends to replace invented terms and stories with common knowledge. Therefore, the replacement of invented "Ruthenian" is inevitable. Thanks for the discussion. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 06:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You'd better comment "Ruthenian mess" section, please. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 06:40, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just give you some samples from those writings (the first ones that I could locate on my hard drive, no special pre-screening):

1) Book title: Катехизис, то есть наука стародавняя христианская и святого писания для простых людей языка руского в пытаниях и отказах собрана. Несвиж, 1562.

In modern Belarusian: Катэхізыс - то ёсьць навука старадаўняя хрысьціянская і святага пісаньня для простых людзей языка беларускага ў пытаньнях і адказах сабраная. 1562

In modern Russian: Катехизис - это древняя, христианская наука святого писания для простых рускоговорящих людей языка, собранная в вопросах и ответах. 1562.

Dear Rydel, I could consider you seriously before this evident distortion.

In the modern Belorussian translation, you (or the translator you rely on) ignore the fact that modern Belorussian would say this in other words. For example, "людзей языка беларускага" should be worded differently. But in the modern Russian translation, you replace even those parts of the sentence that sound very natural even in modern Russian.

Apart your pseudolinguistic readings, the real fact is that the style and vocabulary of this text is very close to that used in contemporary Russian texts. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 21:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2) Skaryna's preface to one of the books: не к пожитку единого человека, но к посполитому доброму написанный. 1517

In modern Belarusian: Не да ўжытку адзінага чалавека, але да паспалітага дабра напісаны. 1517

In modern Russian: Не к использованию одним человеком, а для всеобщего блага написанный. 1517

3) Skaryna's Bible cover: Библия руска выложена доктором Франциском Скориною из славного града Полоцка, Богу ко чти и людем посполитым к доброму научению

In modern Belarusian: Біблія руская, вылажаная доктарам Францыскам Скарынаю з слаўнага гораду Полоцка, Богу да чци і людзям паспалітым к добраму навучаннью

In modern Russian: Библия руская, выданная доктором Франциском Скориной из славного града Полоцка, во славу Богу ко и для обучения простым людям

These translations are stretched for Belarusian to be as similar as possible to the original and for Russian to be as dissimmilar as possible. As an example, last part of the last translation says "in God's honour and to people (?) (to be) towards good learned" in original and Belarusian and "in the glory of God and and for education of simple people" in Russian. Nikola 16:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Dr Bug, I am sorry I just took the first thing that came to my attention - several titles. Maybe, they are bad examples. Indeed, they are. It's just from the titles. And I apologize for any distortion of the modern Russian translation. All I wanted to do is just provide some very basic samples of how "ruski jazyk" (Old Ruthenian) of the 1510-1550's looked like. That's all. Sorry. rydel 22:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Dear Rydel,

sorry if my response looked like an overreaction, but the claim that the unity of the three Eastern Slav nation is just an artificial invention of imperial historiography and Stalin, is not correct.

There are many Soviet and western scholars who consider(ed) this unity is evident, and it is widely accepted hypothesis.

As for me, it seems to be evident that there was some sort of unity in Ancient Rus. And separation (or, if you prefer this wording, formation) into these three Great/Little/White Russians started only under influence of Lithuania and Poland.

Comparing early Russian sources (like Primary Chronicle or Slovo o Polku igoreve), 16th century Muscovite Russian sources and 16th century GDL sources like that you cite, it's hard to belive that your "I think Litvins of the Grand Duchy wouldn't understand everything a Muscovite would say" is a correct assumption...

Attention, the work called "Slovo o Polku Ihorevi," is not a Russian source. It was a Rusian/Ruthenian/Rusyn source that was stored in Russia. If you don't like the name of the source language, at least understand that Russian scholars recognized it as non-Russian when it was discovered!

Genyo 02:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, in the English historiography all these sources are considered to be Russian sources. After discovering of this source, there were conjectures that "Slovo o polku igoreve" is a falsification, but as far as I know, there were never conjectures that it is not Russian, at least until recent nationalistic Ukrainian researches which I am not aware about... [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 08:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the English historiography, "Old Ruthenian" is used extremely rarely; mostly by Polish and Lithuanian scholars. Almost all others use "Old Russian". We here in Wikipedia prefer to use well-established academic terms rather than nationalistic pseudo political correct invented terms.

Ok, but don't use outdated imperialistic terms! Call the material "of Rus'" or, if you want to be Old English, "Rucean," or modern, "Rus'ian!" An attempt to equate Old Rus' with the later development called "Rossiya" is pure chauvinistic imperialism! Not every imperialistic jingo learned while young is true! Learn to be critical thinkers!

Genyo 02:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not outdated imperialistic terms, it is well-established academic terms. Therefore, we should use them. Wikipedia should be written to be comprehensible for an ordinary unenlightened reader. Wikipedia is not a place for establishing a new terminology or to invent theories. When newly invented term will prevail in the English historiography and popular press, we will start use them, no problems. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 08:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if my words look offending! I didn't mean to insult you! You are evidently not one of these boring nationalists who even often don't bother to read others' texts...

They're not personally insulting, they're insulting to an educated intelligence, though!

Genyo 02:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your generalization is just plain wrong... However, if my words offend you in personal, sorry. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 08:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 23:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't claim to have scholarly knowledge in this area. These are langauges where I am pretty lost. I do know, however, that without any apparent consensus, Rydel has once again deleted the phrase in question. -- Jmabel 04:42, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Much of the above -- conflicting views from different scholars and all -- probably belongs (with clear citations) somewhere in the Wikipedia (although probably not in this article). Does anyone have suggestions where? -- Jmabel 04:42, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jmabel, the point is quite clear. East Slavs never separated, because they never were together in the first place (only later when the lands were taken over after many bloody wars by the Russian empire after the three partitions of the Rzecz Pospolita and the Grand Duchy). It seems very clear: Belarusans of 350 ago were perhaps 10 times more different from Russians (Muscovites) of the day, than modern Belarusans versus modern Russians. Are we only imagining a controversy here? Or we still believe Stalin's books? -- rydel 10:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comparing to other nations, like China or Germany, which are considered that "they were together in the first place", "Tri-Russian" ancient nation had similar level of unity. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 11:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Chinese history. As for the Germans, I also don't know much, just a bit, but I think the parallel is not very suitable in this case (who are Belarusans? The "Dutch"? Flemish?). And your statement about one Russian nation is simply false. There is no proof of the unity. And there is plenty of evidence that there was no unity whatsoever. -- rydel 13:16, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unity in ancient times for all these territories was somewhat vague. But it is considered unity anyway.

I dind't mean direct alogies, but I think if you really want, Belarussians could be something like Baden-Württembergians.

As for China, I have already mentioneed Qin in Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization wikiproject.

The most prominent evidence of unity is similar languages. By the way, in old Russian, "языки", "языцы" meant peoples, not only languages. And in the phrase you cite: "для людей языка руского" probably should be translated as "for humans of Russian nation" ("for Russian people"), not "for Russian-speaking humans" (as you translated into both Belorussian and Russian).

However, I don't bother about removal of mentioning this separation, because I think it doesn't belong to this article, so our discussion is mostly academical, not related to this article... [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 20:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ruthenian mess.

Origin of Ruthenian mess is polical processes in Austro-Hungary. Ruthenes were invented to prevent unification with other Russians. I'd like to cite:

In 1866 Halich Rusyn wrote in "Slovo" paper: "Въ 1848 роцЪ вопрошали насъ, що мы? Мы сказали, що мы всесмиреннЪйшіи Ruthenen (Господи! Если бы праотцы наши узнали, що мы сами прозвали себе тымъ именемъ, якимъ окрестили насъ во время гоненія наши найлютЪйшіи вороги, они въ гробахъ зашевелили-бъ ся.) [...] А може вы русскіи? допрошалъ насъ Стадіонъ. Мы кляли душу-тЪло, що мы не русскіи, не Russen, но що мы таки собЪ Ruthenen, що границя наша на ЗбручЪ, що мы отвращаемся отъ такъ званыхъ Russen, яко отъ окаянныхъ шизматиковъ, съ которыми ничого вспольного имЪти не хочемъ. Якое ваше письмо? допрошали насъ далЪй. Мы сказали, що письмо наше тое, що въ церковныхъ книгахъ, и знову кляли душу-тЪло отъ гражданки [...], которой мы отрицаемся, яко чужой."

(In year 1848 they asked us, who are we? We said that we are completely prideless Ruthenen (Our Lord! If our forefathers knew that we called ourselves by the name, given by our worst enemies during persecution, they would roll in their coffins.) [...] But maybe you are Russians? - Stadion interrogated us. We swore by sole and flesh, that we are not Russians, not Russen, but we are really Ruthenen, that our border at Zbruch [river] (Polish: Zabrotz), that we turn away from so called Russen, that are cursed schismatics, we don't wish to have anything common with them. What is your script? - they interrogated further. We said that our script is that one presented in clerical books, and swore by sole and flesh again apart the citizenship [...], that we reject as alien one.")

And they explained: "Бо тогды настрашилибы ся насъ были, щобы мы, связаны исторіею тысячилЪтною, обрядомъ церковнымъ, языкомъ и литературою съ великимъ русскимъ народомъ, не забагли коли отъ Австріи оторватися, и не были насъ допустили до свободъ конституційныхъ, были бы насъ слабенькихъ тогды придушили, щобысьмо и не дыхнули дыханьемъ русскимъ." (Because otherwise they could be afraid that we tied by thousand-year history, by clerical ceremonialism, by language and literature with great Russian people, and could wish to run away from Austria, and they wouldn't allow us constitutional freedoms, and they would suffocate weak us, to stop us breath by Russian breathe.")

(The English translation from original 19th century text is mine, but I suppose it's accurate enough.)

I suppose, this 1866 text explains a lot. Comments are appreciated. Maybe it should be somewhat included into the article? [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 21:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Dr Bug, the first sentence of your last comment says it all: "Ruthenes were invented to prevent unification with other Russians". I can clearly see this is a hopeless case. First, you twist words and meanings (isn't it cool? Some Austrian could just "create a nation"? Wow! Impressive!). Then you state as proven, something that is neither proven, nor obvious. In fact, it's with 99.9% probability is false: "unification with other Russians". There was never an East Slavic unity. There was never one "Russian" nation. The only people who talked about it (created a lie, a myth) are Ivan the Terrible, who killed every second Belarusan (Litvins and Ruthenes), and Joseph Stalin, and of course the imperial Russian historians that served them... I have to confess I am just a newbie here, this is my first major discussion here. Maybe, I don't know how it works here. But I am voting against such kind of editing of the page Ruthenia. It seems you are trying to pursue a certain political agenda here instead of providing objective and truthful information about history of the loosely-defined region Rus'/Ruthenia. rydel 15:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Rydel, you even don't bother to read my texts carefully, but accuse me in the imperial sin :-(. I wrote unification, not reunification. You speculate that there was no single Russian nation - it's just your oppinion. On the other hand, I state the fact: most English-world scholars consider that there was a unity of some kind, which is proven etymologically. User:Drbug 14:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, there are obviously respectable conflicting opinions here. The solution should be to find appropriate citations to bring into the article on both sides of the debate. Hopefully, these can be citations of scholars who, themselves, have attempted to weigh the evidence and summarize the debate, not links to single primary sources, since it gets awfully close to contentious original research to try to interpret those (as evidenced above). -- Jmabel 17:53, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jmabel, you are absolutely right, and there are many issues related to the Russian history. It's why I invite everyone to participate Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization wikiproject! User:Drbug 14:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The modern Russians are "Russky". They arose as a nation in the conversion of the Finno-Ugric majority in the north to Christianity using the Old Church Slavonic language, which became the backbone of modern Russian. Their political mentality was foundationally Mongolian. They spelled things differently than the Ruthenians of Rus' proper (Kiev region), who called themselves "Rusky" (Ruthenian)--even into this century. This difference of language is seen in the "Lay of Ihor's Campaign" and in the "Tale of Bygone Years," which does not speak of the "Russians lands" (which didn't exist yet) but speaks of the "Rus'ka zemlya" (Ruthenian lands). Equating Rus' with Russia is an imerialist fantasy. Genyo 22:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm tired. REPEATING AGAIN: It's ENGLISH Wikipedia, written in ENGLISH, ENGLISH, ENGLISH. In English language, the Primary Chronicle's руская земля/русская земля/руськая земля/русьская земля is translated as "Russian land" in English. Anyone may even immediately check this with google: no relevant hits for http://www.google.com/search?q=%22primary+chronicle%22+%22ruthenian+land%22 , while http://www.google.com/search?q=%22primary+chronicle%22+%22russian+land%22 gives several directly relevant translations. No hits for invented "Rusian land" or "Rus'sian land" of course. Fortunately, Wikipedia defended from invented "Kyiv" spelling, and used English name for the city - Kiev (which is derived not from modern Great Russian language, but from Old Russian language - the one that used "ancient Ukres").

As for this Mongolian roots of Russian Empire, no doubt, Russians learned much from Mongolian rulers, but you forgot to mention, that one who invented that Russians are just Finno-Ugro-Mongols, also invented that Ukrainians are just Eastern Poles. Should I help you to recall?

Etymological distinction between "Rus" and "Russian" is caused by evolution. I'd recommend you to insist English speakers to use "Rossians" term for modern Russians. And also pay great attention to destinction between the Imperial Russian spelling "Россiя" and Soviet spelling "Россия". And, of course, insist that "United States of America" has nothing common with "North-American United States". Good luck! User:Drbug 14:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't like newly invented interpretations of the history - neither from Ukrainian nationalists, nor from Russian new chronologists, or any other talented dreamers. And I will fight for well established academic theories prevail over newly invented fantasies. Unconcerned foreign description are often more truthful (despite less accurate), because foreigners do not tend to completely rewrite the history like nationalists do.

I see no comments related to the facts presented by me, but I only see word-of-mouth accusations in imperialism, nationalism, and maybe cannibalism. Thank you, my dear opponents, it a nice indicaion that these facts are really truthful...

Sorry for possible emotions, but I tired with this anti-Russian bias.

By the way, a curious thing: please pay attention to the order in which countries are listed in the article - Ukraine, Belarus, Russia. I didn't touch this order, but always was smiling. In the sake of NPOV, the order should be "Russia, Ukraine, Belarus" (most-referenced first rule) or "Belarus, Russia, Ukraine" (alphabetical rule). I've checked the fate of the contributor who put these names in this order, and I absolutely wasn't surprised when discovered that he ended up with threats to make Wikipedia servers down. He-he. User:Drbug 14:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is that "rv", dear DrBug?

Dear DrBug or anyone else reading this, can you explain why you reverted Genyo's additions? He gave correct facts. And they are important and relevant.

Yes, indeed, "Ruce" was used to denote "Ruthenia" in Old English. Auld Guid White Ruce (Scotland & Belarus) - http://www.pravapis.org/art_scotland_belarus.asp ;)

And, yes, indeed, Muscovites (modern-day Russians) basically stole the name "Rus'" from the Belarusians and Ukrainians. First, using just the Greek form "Rossia". And, yes, it WAS met with resistance in Europe, including Rzecz Pospolita and the Grand Duchy. They didn't want Muscovites to use the name "Rossija" without having any right for it.

Can you explain why you reverted? And explain what is the problem with the two facts that he added?

unsigned, but added by User:Rydel; sig added by Jmabel

Sorry, I am still sort of new here. Forgot to sign. -- rydel 10:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They didn't want Muscovites to use the name "Rossija" without having any right for it.  (LOL)  :  Next you will tell us that French people have no right to use the name "France", because Franks were in fact a Germanic tribe. — Monedula 11:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I can easily explain my reverts.

1. "Ruce". This is a very inaccurate insertion. Just read it: "In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared." Do you understand it? Just for your information - New England is a region in the US, and a city. "Old England" sounds like a territory either. Then, it doesn't belong to this article. It belongs to the Etymology of Rus and derivatives article, and I've included the mention of Ruce there: "In the Middle English, the Ruce form was used (f.e. in The Canterbury Tales)."

2. "Muscovy, which had began to call itself "Rossiya," in 1713." It's a definitely invented nonsense. I don't know exactly when the single "s" letter became to be the double one, but "Rosiya" is officially used by the Russian rulers since 1653, "Rusiya" since ca. 1600, "Rus'" earlier than 1493. It is also mentioned in the West, f.e. by Jan Janszoon Struys in his book (English title: "The Voyages and Travels of John Struys").

3. We worked too long to make this article to be near to a neutral reflection of the most common mainstream historiography. Therefore I will persist reverting all these inaccurate propagandistic changes made by the nationalists to promote their newly invented political agenda. Point.

Thank you for your interest and cooperation!

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 11:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

1. All right. I agree. Anyway, "Ruce" is just a minor addition, nothing we should argue about.

3. Ok. ;)

2. Well, here is one link for you:

http://txt.knihi.com/mova/dyplamat.html Dimplomatic controversy for Belarusian language in year 1646.

Here is one of the relevant quotes:

Âîñü íàçîâó «ðóñê³», ÿê³ òàäû áû¢ àô³öûéíûì ³ ¢ Áåëàðóñ³, ³ ¢ Ïîëüø÷û, ïàíû êàðàëå¢ñêàå ðàäû é òðûìàë³ñÿ. Ïðûïîìí³öü òóò òðýáà, øòî «ðóñêàþ» áåëàðóñêóþ ìîâó íàçûâàë³ òàêñàìà Ñêàðûíà, Áóäíû, Öÿï³íñê³ äû ¢ñå ³íøûÿ ï³ñüìåíüí³ê³ Áåëàðóñ³ òàå ïàðû. Íÿ «ðóñêàþ», àëå «ìàñêî¢ñêàé» íàçûâàë³ òàäû çàòîå ¢ Áåëàðóñ³ ìîâó Ìàñêî¢ø÷ûíû, ìîâó ðàñåéñêóþ. Ïðûêëàäàì, «ìàñêî¢ñêàé» íàçûâࢠÿå Ñûìîí Áóäíû, «åíçûê ìîñêåâñê³», êàçàë³ òàäû é ó Ïîëüø÷û. Ó Ïîëüø÷û íàçî¢ ãýòû ïà÷àë³ çàê³äàöü òîëüê³ àä ïà÷àòêà¢ Õ²Õ ñòàãîäçüäçÿ íà âûìàãàíüíå ðàñåéñê³õ óëàäà¢. Òàäû ïàä ðàñåéñê³ì íàö³ñêàì áû¢ çàâåäçåíû äëÿ ðàñåéñêàé ìîâû íàçî¢ «åíçûê ðîñûéñê³».

As you can see, under pressure Polish and Litvins (Belarusans) started calling the language of Muscovy "jezyk rossyski" instead of "jezyk moskiewski". And we are talking about year 1646.

4. My personal thoughts about this entry: http://www.livejournal.com/users/rydel23/295985.html

Regards, rydel 13:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wrong characters decoded:

Вось назову «рускі», які тады быў афіцыйным і ў Беларусі, і ў Польшчы, паны каралеўскае рады й трымаліся. Прыпомніць тут трэба, што «рускаю» беларускую мову называлі таксама Скарына, Будны, Цяпінскі ды ўсе іншыя пісьменьнікі Беларусі тае пары. Ня «рускаю», але «маскоўскай» называлі тады затое ў Беларусі мову Маскоўшчыны, мову расейскую. Прыкладам, «маскоўскай» называў яе Сымон Будны, «ензык москевскі», казалі тады й у Польшчы. У Польшчы назоў гэты пачалі закідаць толькі ад пачаткаў ХІХ стагодзьдзя на вымаганьне расейскіх уладаў. Тады пад расейскім націскам быў заведзены для расейскай мовы назоў «ензык росыйскі».

Translation from Belorussian:

Nobles of the king council used that "Russian", which at that was the official language in Belorussia and in Poland. One should recall that Skorina, Budny, Capinsky and all other Belorussian writers named belorussian language as "russian" one at that time. In Belorussia, the language of Moscow (Muscovy), Russian, was named not "Russian", but Moscow-ian (Muscovite). While Semen Budny named it Moscow-ian (Muscovite), in Poland they named "language of Moscow". In Poland, they finished to name it so only in the beginning of the 19th century under requests of Russian authorities. Under the Russian pressure, they started to use "Language of Russia" for the Russian language.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 17:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Uladzimir (Rydel), at first, I'm happy that generally you agree with me!

As for you reference, despite it is an interesting text (I've read it completely), I do not exactly understand why did you refer it?

The fact that both modern Russian and Belorussian languages are traced to the same Old Russian is well known. The fact that it later diverged and each group called its version a genuine one, while other groups' versions a distorted one and labeled them by new labels is well known and is not uncommon BTW. I don't see anything outstanding in your text. It exaggerates the role of Old Russian/Old Belorussian a bit, but just a bit. Could you please comment?

As for your thoughts, it's interesting and thoughtful essay, but I'd like to mention that Belorussian unionists and Russian separatists exist either; then, the Russian civilization is neither european nor asiatic, it's probably a distinct civilization. But in general, despite these oversimplications, I agree that your final "Turning their heads East and West, not knowing where to seek refuge" perfectly reflects the situation...

Dr Bug  (Uladzimir U. Medeiko) 18:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From Rydel

1) About your spelling "Belorussian" - fyi, that's considerate obsolete. Most serious publications use "Belarusian" (and pronounced respectively, with an "s", not "sh").

Thanks for the information, I'm a bit conservative. However, in articles I mostly use "Belarusian" spelligs, but in the Talk pages I will continue to use "Belorussian". Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 22:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2) The only reason I gave a link to the text is to give an example how in 17th century there was a controversy. Your Muscovites were saying - "Call us Russians! Call us Russians! We are Rossia". And the other nations (Belarusans-Litvins, Poles, for example) were saying "Wait a second, you are not Russians, you shouldn't use the word Rossia". But it was very much needed to Ivan the Terrible to justify his "liberation" wars against the Catholic "oppressors" and to "save" the poor "Russian" souls (the Ruthenes who were of "Russian" faith).

Even if we suppose that Ivan IV was really evil, he didn't need any justification: he conquered Kazan, Astrakhan, Siberia not claiming that he reunite the Golden Khorde lands. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 22:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I only wanted to remind you that there was very bad evil intent in starting to use the word "Rossia". It was all about occupation and bloody wars against your closest brothers, Belarusans and Ukrainians.

"Occupation" and "bloody wars" don't need use of the word "Rossia". (Not to mention, that Ivan IV didn't change anything in use of word Rossia, Rus or similar. He just became a tsar.) It's a good illustration that your claim is recently invented. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 22:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3) When I said "East" I didn't mean Asia. Here I refer to the Great Schism. East meaning Ottoman traditions (as opposed to Western European), East meaning Orthodox traditions (as opposed to Catholicism and Protestantism), East meaning oppression and despotism (as opposed to democracy and freedom).

And there is nothing bad in "Asian". I wish you, Russians, were as Asian as South Koreans or Japanese are.

Thanks, you, Germans, are so kind. :-)

As for the democracy, Japan rulers I guess killed much more people than Russian rulers. And frankly, I suppose that Japanese know less about freedom than Russians. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 22:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regards, rydel 16:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By the way, have you watched the Chinese "Hero" movie? Considering your views, I don't think you would like it, but it illustrates the situation very well. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 00:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The origin of Russian

Vladimir Bug (I see you've changed your name--and your website to match, recently to talk to a Belarusian--what happened to Volodymyr, added only recently too?) The term is Belarusian. And Belarus' is being pulled to the Russian Empire via the last dictatorship in Europe. Russian arose in the fusion of Old Slavonic with some native Slavic elements--that's why Russian scholars note that Old Slavonic forms the backbone of Russian--see Vernadsky, for example. Belarusian on the other hand, flows directly from Old Rusian/Ruthenian. As for Russia being distinct, that oversimplifies Russian intellectual thought of a century and a half ago. The Russian encounter with Europe was marked by a deep sense of otherness.

Uladzimir Rydel, your essay was not oversimplified: keep up the contributions. An authentic Belarusian perspective here is greatly need, Thank you! Genyo 22:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To say that Russian stems from Old Church Slavonic is like saying that English stems from Latin.  English has assimilated an enormous amount of words of Latin origin, still it is certainly a Germanic language, not a Romance language.  In the same way Russian remains an East Slavic language, despite having assimilated many Church Slavonic words.  So saying that Russian stems from Old Church Slavonic would mean that Russian is a South Slavic language, which is not the case. — Monedula 09:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Russian scholars themselves tesify that OCS forms the backbone of the Russian language. See, for example, Vernadsky, A History of Russia: Kievan 'Russia' Vol. II. Yale Universty Press, 1942. For the record, English IS descended from Old Germanic but 60% of it's content is Latin! Genyo 22:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the relationship between Russian and OCS, but English is considered a Germanic language because in colloquial English, the bulk of the vocabulary is Germanic.--Wiglaf 22:37, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NO, English, is a Germanic language, because in history, English grew out of Old Germanic--later adoptions of Latin vocabulary were not foreseen! Genyo 01:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The phrase "OCS forms the backbone of the Russian language" is too vague.  If you take it to mean that Russian grew out of OCS, then it would mean that Russian is a South Slavic language, which is wrong.  Russian is an East Slavic language, and as such it grew out of the Old Russian language (which is the same thing as Old Ruthenian).  OCS was just an "add-on".  So the phrase about "backbone" just means that OSC has greatly influenced Russian language (mainly vocabulary and spelling).

Also, you seem to suggest that adding South Slavic elements has made Russian language worse.  Common opinion, however, is that it enriched Russian language, providing alternative terms for expressing subtle differences in meaning.

In a similar way, Ukrainian and Belarusian have assimilated a huge number of Polish words (many of which, in their turn, have been assimilated into Polish from German).  Did it made Ukrainian and Belarusian any worse? — Monedula 05:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why would adding South Slavic elements make Russian worse? Why would you say that?

My position is only that factually, the addition of South Slavic elements (OCS) made Russian what it is.

The word "backbone" is Vernadsky's word. Factually, it conveys a large contribution.

Your assertion about Russian arising out of "Old Russian"--a loaded label-- since Russia didn't exist then as a state, and it's roots were barely starting as a people is a very widespread opinion. There is some scholarly concern about the unicity of language among the East Slavs. Local variations may or may not have been great.

Nonetheless, there is a thin line of continuity from the East Slavic kernals in the Finno-Ugric sea that evolved into Russian. South Slavic contributions were an early large contributor, but certainly not the first start of the Russian language. Genetically, the Russian language is East Slavic.

Facing further truths about the Russian language doesn't have to threaten previously perceived truth.

Thank you for your attention to me.

Genyo 12:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to the difference between Old Russian and Old Ruthenian:  most linguists agree that up to the 12th century, the differences between all Slavic languages have been so small that any Slav could understand any other Slav without great difficulties.  So separating Old Russian from Old Ruthenian has more to do with politics than with linguistics. — Monedula 12:41, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even after the 12th century?

What about the much earlier linguistic view, widespread, that sees the Slavic break-up by the 7th century into East/West/South. That's political too? How?

Finally, isn't calling the language of Rus' "Old Russian" very political? The erly Russians were then tiny minorites of Slavic ouposts and the surrounding Finno-Ugric sea at the north-eastern periphery of Rus', at least for the earliest Rus' period.

Genyo 12:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After the 12th century (more specifically, after the fall of "reduced wovels") differences between Slavic languages have become much greater.  So some vestiges of divergence between Russian and Ukrainian may have had appeared at that time (but surely not the modern Russian and Ukrainian as such).

As to the 7th century: at that time there were no individual, mutually incomprehensible Slavic languages.  There existed only various Slavic dialects, roughly grouped into South, West and East Slavic dialects (and probably even that groupings did not exist at that time).

And Old Russian is not Russian, you must understand that clearly.  During the Rus' era, there were no Russians in the modern sense of that word (and no Ukrainians, too). — Monedula 14:00, 24 Aug 2004

(UTC)

Mutual intelligibility is one characteristic of languages and language difference--it is not the same thing. There can be partial, even large amounts of mutual intelligibility among languages and yet they can still be separate languages, not just dialects. The language of Rus' wan't Russian--you admit that. Then why call the language of Rus' "OLD Russian. That's political ideology. Genyo 14:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, the language of Rus' was not Modern Russian!  The language of Rus' was Old Russian.  Old Russian was named so only because, since the 18th century, Russian is the most widely used East Slavic language.  You may call this imperialism, but it happened that way.  And one more thing — the Church Slavonic language was widely used throughout all Rus', not just in the North-East.  And yes, in Kiev too. — Monedula 14:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And I'd like to add - not only in Kiev, by in Kyiv too :-) Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 16:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to the distinction of language and dialect, it is mainly a matter of national self-perception.  I.e. people speak the same language if they think that they are speaking the same language, and vice versa.  Now, did "Old Ruthenians" ever thought of themselves as speaking a distinct "Old Ruthenian" language, as opposed to the Old Russian language?  There is no evidence for this. — Monedula 16:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is getting non-sensical! First of all how do posit that they would have known there langauge was old?

The argument isn't about what they called their langage, but what language they did speak and how that language evolved. Russians prefer to name the language of Rus' after their own country that developed later, and call it Russky. Ukrainins see a divergence of their Kyivan inheiritance from that of the Russians, their northern neighbors, as early as the time of Rus', and so prefer to call it by the original and long-enduring form, (rus'ki) Rusian/Ruthenian (or, "Rusyn"). I'm happy to settle on a neutral anlysis and just characterize things of this era as being "of Rus'!"

So you think that russkiy and rus'kiy is not the same thing?  It is just a matter of spelling, nothing else.  In Russian language, the adjective "Russian" (русский) means both "related to Russia" (Россия) and "related to Rus'" (Русь).  So we use the term "Old Russian" (древнерусский) when we specifically talk about ancient Rus', and simply "Russian" in all other cases.  And in times of Rus', there was no way to distinguish Russian from Rusian — that distinction is just a recent invention.  Of course, today we have also the adjective "российский", but it means "related to the modern state of Russia", and cannon mean "related to modern Russian people" or "related to modern Russian language". — Monedula 07:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

DrBug's "contributions" to this page

25.08.2004. Another "update" from DrBug... I don't know what's the proper way of handling this situation, maybe someone can help me out. How do you deal with this Orwellian 1984 situations? The user DrBug's keeps making "small" "improvements" to this page, "slightly" changing it every time. Like the drops of water in an infamous Chinese torture. If I want to have my mood spoiled for the whole day, I just need to open my watchlist and see what DrBug "improved" today on Ruthenia page. And he dares to refer to his efforts as "harmonization" project. How Orwellian. How 1984! What he is doing in this free and open encyclopedia is filling it with the old lies of the Imperial Russian propaganda.

I ask anyone who is reading this to advice me, how to proceed in this situation. rydel 21:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think, at first you would be more specific. It may help. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 21:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course I could make it more specific, and point out all those imperial lies you keep inserting under the veneer of "harmonization", but I really don't know if it makes any sense... Why? I've looked at this page's history. More than 600 edits only in 2004. That means 4 updates/edits per day. If I spend just 10 minutes on each edit, it will be 6000 minutes or 100 hours, two and a half weeks of work (if you consider a 40 hour week). I simply can't waste so much time to fight Russian imperialism. I'd better spend 100 hours fighting it in a more productive way. ;) -- Kind regards, rydel 18:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then, I think, it's a right time for you to withdraw your false accusations and to beg pardon for your insulting, if the word "honor" makes a sense for you. It's just an advice. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 07:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't twist things around. There was no offense at all, just a remark that you keep making slight changes, altering this entry in subtle ways to make it "harmonized" (politically charged) according to imperial myths and lies of the Russian empire. That's a fact. You can't be offended by facts. As for the "withdrawing", why should I? But, yea... this is amazing how virtual reality mimicks real events. Here we see Muscovites (modern-day Russians, in this case) push out autochthonous population (Belarusan and Ukrainians) out of Ruthenia page. Wow. Kind regards, rydel 11:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will address all you dear readers, and Dr Bug as if facts mattered to everyone. See the Davies' source, p392, for the fact that Belarusians did at times call themselves Ruthenians/Rusyny! The proper defined notion of Rus' included the small region around Kyiv (still after 1,000 years, today's Ukrainian heartland, Velyka Ukrayina)! This is testified to even by Vernadsky's imperialistically-drenched POV, please excuse my language here, "Kievan 'Russia'!" Davies' "History of Europe" also notes the fact so well known, that it's mentioned merely in passing, that Ruthenia is used in European history as the term of opposion for people of the same nation as Rus' proper (today's Ukrainians and Belarusians) alone, as opposed to those, as Vernadsky puts it, on the periphery of Rus' propria--the "Russians." Let's not let this article be deformed to fit the modern Soviet myth of "three equal Rus' peoples"--each individual nation is always unequal to others on various historical phenomena. When people deal in facts not ideology, they can face this. Genyo 16:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where there is obviously scholarly disagreement...

... the different views should both (or all) be in the article with appropriate citations. This is a stupid thing over which to have edit wars, each side claiming a monopoly on truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Jmabel, the disagreement is obvious, but scholarly? Please fill in your fantasy on how this is a scholarly disagreement! Please provide a fantasy scenario on how this is not scholarship vs. propaganda! Genyo 03:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So are you saying we should write off your views as propaganda and consider the other to be scholarship? Look, I have no opinion in this matter myself. If one of you can quote three obviously leading scholars and the other can only quote some party hack, then that will speak for itself, but I've found that in these matters that is rarely the case. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your travels to other pages don't interest me! Speak to what is already on the pages! Speak to what is, not your fantasy model of what you think it should be! Genyo 05:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Solvuntur flavi longa statione Rutheni

I'd like to get in touch with someone who made this reference. I am looking for an original passage (by Gervasius Tilleberiensis or Honorius Augustodunensis?) which I need for the 2nd edition of my book. Could you kindly write to:

bely@infonet.by - Alies' Biely

"Old" languages

having read the discussion on Old Russian not really being "Russian" and instead should be called Rus', it struck me that those who asserted such a claim seemed to have ignored other old languages. For example "Old English". England had never been truly united as we consider it to be today back when Old English was spoken. It was divided into a number of kingdoms including Wessex. There is also the example of Old French being around when the nation we now call France had still not been properly defined. Then there is Old Spanish, even though Spain as a united entity only came into existence with the union of Castile and Aragon in the 1400s. And then we have German! Old High German, Old Low German, Old German, etc. even though Germany was only united at the time of the Holy Roman Empire (and even then some people would not call that a German state, just as how Rus is not considered a Russian state by some) or more recently during the time of Napolean and then indisputably in 1871. Also talk about there never being East Slav unity and that the Rus only refers to Belarus and Ukraine (in opposition against Russia) is clear bias as shown by how some of the contributors here seem to have adopted the old Lithuanian entities as their "own" and referring to how Russians slaughtered "our" people and how "their" people were oppressed for 600 years. That POV is so nuetral that is becomes biased. Rus referred to the lands now in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and despite what some would have us believe there was East Slav unity, just as how there was Western Germanic unity (e.g. the Angles, Jutes and Saxons coming from what is now Frisia and Denmark) at one time and Norse unity. -Anonymous user

Are you proposing any particular changes to the copy in this article, or just trying to stir up some conversation? —Michael Z. 2005-06-6 02:08 Z

Well mainly to stir up conversation and to show that some arguments placed before were biased or myopic in outlook, however I would suggest changes in the article on White Russia, especially this section:

"The failure to properly translate the name of Belarus into other languages arises from the fact that very few of the world languages have two separate words for Russia and Ruthenia. The reasons this happenned is because during the Russian empire times, the official tsarist propaganda said that Russia and Ruthenia are the same thing."

How is that neutral? It is anti-tsarist to begin with and takes no account of the fact that the name of a country is almost never translated properly into English. For example Deutschland is Germany in English, Osterreich is Austria and Cymru is Wales! In fact of all the countries in Europe the only ones the English language has spot on for correctness is England (naturally), France, Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg and I believe Romania. The rest range from close to far off the mark. The close ones are Bulgariya, Macedonija, Slovenija, Danmark,Nederland and Bosna i Hercegovina. After that things from fairly close with Rossiya/Rossija to so bad that you wonder how such names arose, such as Croatia (Hrvatska), Germany, Albania (Shqiperia) and Wales (Cymru). The other thing about the paragraph quoted above is that is seems to say that Russia and Ruthenia are not the same thing at all, when as is stated elsewhere, in the 12th century the words were used interchangeably (and thus anyone hearing that statement would give you a blank stare and probably laugh back in that time).

Of course, this will probably change little, since those who are so heartfelt over a simple name, seem to be the most vocal. They should take an example from Ireland, which said its name is both Eire and Ireland (Republic of) and got on with its life. -Anonymous user

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about ridicule from any inhabitants of twelfth-century Rus’.

I think a point this paragraph is trying to make is that the modern-day Russian Federation doesn't equate to ancient Rus’, any more than does Belarus, Ukraine, or Galicia. Remember that "Ruthenia" is a version of "Rus’", but it is usually used to refer to western lands of Belarusans and Ukrainians, in opposition to Novgorod, Vladimir-Suzdal, or Moskva (I've found that some Russians are offended by the use of "Ruthenia" to refer to all Kyivan Rus’ or Russia). The mention of tsarist propaganda (don't equate the Russian Federation with the Russian Empire) refers to the tsars' self-appointed title as Tsar of all the Russias, the imperial ambition to "reunite" great Russia, and the rhetoric that "one indivisible Russia" belongs together (under the Tsar, of course). This type of rhetoric has been used as propaganda well into the 20th century. Perhaps the section could be rewritten a bit more clearly, but it's not anti-tsarist, not inaccurate, and it is supported by links to articles such as this one. —Michael Z. 2005-06-6 14:39 Z

SLAVONIC and its dialects....

Russian, Ukranian, Belarussian, Polish, Rusyn/Ruthenian/Rusnacina, Slovak, Czech, Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian and any other SLAVONIC languages are all modern established dialects of the "OLD" SLAVONIC LANGUAGE. We all speak the same language, but we speak different dialects of it. Just as there are many dialects of French around the world, as in France, Canada, Africa and so on. Even the the French in France is a dialect of the umbrella concept FRENCH. They are all called languages in common use terms, however, linguistically they are dialets of the FRENCH FORM.

Similarily, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak and so on are all "dialects" of the SLAVONIC FORM LANGUAGE. if you keep an open ear, you will hear this truth.

Old Russian and Old Ruthenian are really OLD SLAVONIC, just used in these terms politically.

Ruthenian and Ukranian are the closest modern day languages to the old SLAVONIC language form.

I think that although what we refer to as the Common Slavonic and Old East Slavic languages probably represented a coterminous series of local dialects, with the later addition of a few closely related regional literary languages, the modern tongues you mention are mostly considered by linguists to be individual languages, and not dialects of a single language.

Canadian and African French dialects began their individual development 200-350 years ago, and are still mutually intelligible by each other's speakers. Czech and Russian, for example, have their individual roots in prehistory, and are probably quite a bit further apart from each other. Perhaps the Romance languages, Latin, Spanish, French, etc. are a better analogue to the Slavic languages. —Michael Z. 2005-06-8 20:19 Z

Rusyn & Russian

Michael Z,

No they are not the same thing.

Rusyns, speak a diffrent dialect of Slavonic then Russians do, just ask any one of them. I wonder how many slavs are contributing to this space who have any knowledge of their own dialect and others hopefully too.

Ruthenia, the area roughly surrounding the trippple borders of present day Slovak Repbulic, Ukraine, Poland & Hungary, was the cradle-land of the "PROTO-SLAVS". This is where all slavs came from, and the language evolved and seperated into dialects taking on foreign words as well.

Ruthenian is not Russian Rusnacina nie je Russcina

although they are both very close to Old Slavonic, because their geographical proximity most likely helped preserve the originality of SLAVONIC

once again...all dialects of the mother language: SLAVONIC!!!!

I'm not sure exactly what you are responding to, but when I wrote that "Ruthenia" is a version of "Rus’", I was referring to the word "Ruthenia". The word Ruthenia is a romanized version of the Slavic word Rus’. It is usually used to mean the same thing, and suffers from the same ambiguities, although it is usually applied to things Galician, Volhynian, Polish-Lithuanian, Belarusan, or Ukrainian, and not to things "Russian" in the modern sense, such as Novgorod, Vladimir-Suzdal, Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Russian Federation, etc.

I certainly did not say that Rusyn and Russian were the same language. In fact, my very point was that in the paragraph in question in the article on White Russia, Rus’ did not mean Russia, although the two have the same historic roots, and have sometimes been conflated for political reasons. —Michael Z. 2005-06-8 20:10 Z

Ruthenia in France

This page says that Ruthenia is a region in France around the city of Rodez. It also states that Rutenic language = Langue d'oc. — Monedula 13:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Early middle ages

This section contains several errors, and I am in doubt of its credibility as a whole. It also completely ignores the so-called "normanist theory". Please verify.--Wiglaf 18:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of tags reverted since the problems have not been dealt with, e.g. it says that the Swedes were called Swebes in this period. Please cite sources.--Wiglaf 10:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS, Girlandajo, the etymology is relevant, and the "Normanist theory" is relevant. I know that you doubt this theory, but you have to respect neutral point of view.--Wiglaf 10:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you propose that any article discussing Kievan Rus should mention your pet theory? The Normanist theory pertains to the origin of East Slavic state in the 9th century. The term Ruthenia came into being several centuries later. Please explain how the Normanist theory is essentual for the understanding of the term Ruthenia. -Ghirlandajo 11:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it IS an article on the name isn't it?--Wiglaf 11:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, here you can read about how to write a great article and it explicity recommends that etymology be included:

Keep the article in an encyclopedic style: add etymology or provenance (when available), look for analogies and eventual comparisons to propose. Be objective: avoid personal comments (or turn them into general statements, but only when they coincide), don't use personal forms (I found that...).

Regards, Wiglaf 11:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, should we bring the question of etymology of Russia (and the Normanist theory with it) in the article on Russian Roulette too? Perhaps it is enough to mention this theory (one of the many, BTW) in the article on Rus and its etymology? Or do you propose that a link to the Normanist theory should be inserted in every article mentioning Russia or Rus? -Ghirlandajo 17:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ghirlandajo, I believe you're exaggerating somewhat now. I thought this article was about the name "Ruthenia" and according to the recommendations for a good article, it should include an etymological section.--Wiglaf 17:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, you have already implied an etymology in the section, and a highly selective and unreferenced one to boot.--Wiglaf 18:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wiglaf, what are the errors in the Early Middle Ages section? Since the section mainly discusses Latin terminology for Rus’ lands, how would the Normanist theory be added to it? Do you propose expanding on the earlier etymology of the name Rus’? If the article's deficiency is simply that the etymology of Rus’ isn't covered here in detail, then I don't think that justifies a NPOV tag. —Michael Z. 2005-06-14 14:53 Z

The way I read it, it suggests that the name is borrowed from an Italic tribe named the Rutuli, without giving sources and without mentioning the "Normanist theory". It also claims that the Swedes were called Swebes in the middle ages, a piece of info I should have heard about by now, but haven't.--Wiglaf 16:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Swedes and Svebi, Vasily Tatishchev cites Aventinus's Annales Boiorum libri septem and Nanni Ioann's Antiquitates variae volumina 18, cum commentariis, Roma, 1498. see here and here. -Ghirlandajo 07:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the article on Vasily Tatishchev, he is not a credible source. His main "merit" seems to be that he was an anti-normanist.--Wiglaf 08:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scientific merits of Tatischev's work have been disputed even in the 18th century. It is true that he used some chronicles that have since been lost, but most of them (notably the Ioachim Chronicle) were of dubious authenticity. It is also true that he could never tell a genuine work from a fake, and some incidents inserted in his history could have been products of his own fancy. Throughout his history, he entertains his favourite idea that autocracy is the perfect form of government for Russia. (copy and paste from the article on Vasily Tatishchev)--Wiglaf 08:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if any of these facts are questionable, they should be checked, removed, or corrected. I don't know enough to do so.

But it seems to me that this article talks about the history of the Latin rendering Ruthenia, and not about its original native name Rus’ (which is discussed in Etymology of Rus). The Normanist controversy appears irrelevant. Although I don't know that much about it, it seems to me that whether the Rus’ came from Scandinavia as a cadre of leaders or as a mass migration in the 9th century, it does not affect the use of the Romanized name in the 12th century.

The article clearly implies that the names Ruteni, Rugi, and Rutuli were borrowed from Roman usage, but doesn't say that the original tribes the Romans referred to had anything to do with the Rus’ (although that could be an interesting discussion if there were anything to it). —Michael Z. 2005-06-15 04:04 Z

Ghirlandajo has based this section on Vasily Tatishchev, about whom the article says:

Scientific merits of Tatischev's work have been disputed even in the 18th century. It is true that he used some chronicles that have since been lost, but most of them (notably the Ioachim Chronicle) were of dubious authenticity. It is also true that he could never tell a genuine work from a fake, and some incidents inserted in his history could have been products of his own fancy. Throughout his history, he entertains his favourite idea that autocracy is the perfect form of government for Russia. (copy and paste from the article on Vasily Tatishchev)

I do think that a discussion on the normanist theory is much more desirable than a section which is uncritically based on Tatishchev, who used his imagination and "lost chronicles".--Wiglaf 08:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting the article on Vasily Tatischev which I wrote myself :) Actually, you should argue not with Tatischev, but with his sources - Aventinus and John of Viterbo. If the connection of Swedes with Svebi somehow hurts your national feelings, please remove their names from the article. It's that simple. -Ghirlandajo 09:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why should the connection hurt my feelings? LOL! No, the problem is that you base your text on the word of a controversial 18th century scholar. Note that in the texts you link to there is not even a single quote from Aventinus and John of Viterbo, whom he refers to. Please, if you want to base this section on Tatischev you should quote him and be explicit that it is HIS interpretation of these sources. FYI, Tacitus described the Swedes as being part of the Swebes, not identical to them, but I have seen contributors doing original research confuse the concepts. If you can give me a quote from these sources, I could consider their relevance.--Wiglaf 10:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do think that detailed discussion of the "normanist theory" should not be scattered accross too many articles (if only to facilitate consistency). However, it should by all means be mentioned (it is, unless I am quite mistaken, pointed to already, by the links to Etymology of Rus and Kievan Rus, but I don't see the harm in adding a brief explicit reference, not a lengthy explanation). dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree.--Wiglaf 10:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Disputed" tags

The disputes seem to have calmed down. Could we remove tags? If someone objects, please address the issues so that we can resolve this rather than keep the tag and do nothing. -Irpen 20:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to add what I think is missing. However, sooner or later someone will feel hurt in his national feelings (like my Russian wife and mother-in-law), and then we'll see what happens.--Wiglaf 12:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Metal mettle

RUTHENIUM is a hard brittle grayish polyvalent rare metallic element which was discovered in the Urals by Osann in 1828, and re-discovered by Claus in 1845.

It is a controversy, too, as to whom to give the credit.

June 24th, 2005 21:18 GMT

links to Ruthenia in other languages

de:Diskussion:Ruthenia

et:Arutelu:Vene

la:Ruthenia

no:Diskusjon:Rutenia

pl:Ruś

ru:Русь

sv:Rus

uk:Русь

The above links were pasted here 22 Aug 2005, with no indication of why they are here. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

To help the discussion.--RobotF 13:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

With nobody remarking about them, they don't help much. Is there something you want to cite from one or another of them? And is there any reason not to move them to the bottom, as we normally do for a new section? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

See Also section - (arrived here via 3O)

My neutral views on this would be as such. I think that the see also list as presented in the diff is not very useful and adds to confuse of the article rather than help it. For example, one of the first links in the places section is Baptism of Kievan Rus' - I naturally thought that this was probably redundant since there is a link in the main article to Kievan Rus' and I presumed that the baptism would be linked from it - that is not the case. A random assortment of see also links that don't fit into a definitive style is not really very helpful to the end user. I am a nice typical example, as my eastern history is not top marks, so I am a fresh reader. I realise that this stuff is quite complex, and often heated, and I don't know if content is the issue here, or whether it is just a style problem. My opinion would roughly fall along the lines that some of the see also's seem perfectly valid (Ruthenians, Ruthenian language, the various "history of..." links etc etc - but some of the other links seem like more minor links that should be linking off other pages, Baptism of Kievan Rus', for example). Basically it depends on what the point of this page is - a great big long list of see also's which provide no context is just going to confuse the reader - but equally a page with little linkage is not going to be useful to anyone, and create a disjointed browsing experience. As I said my eastern history is not top notch, so I don't know the context and background of this particular case, but I don't think a great big list of see also's is an effective way of helping the reader. If most (or even all) of the see also's are valid (and I am not in a good position to judge) then as an alternative I would suggest creating a navigation template to tie all the various pieces of this puzzle together, such as: (apologies this nav box is completely unrelated but it was just on a page I was browsing!) That way the user would have a central navigation tool to help them around. Basically I would say that there needs to be some organisation here to best point the reader in the right direction for what he/she wants. I hope my opinion has been of some help, and I am happy to post some more thoughts if either side feels I have missed an element of this issue. SFC9394 11:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the monopoly of Russians? It's English wikipedia, so it will be fair if Enlish-speaking (native English-speaking I mean) people will conduct this article. Аnd it will be interesting for Ukrainians, Russians and Byelorussians to know indifferent point of view

Maps

There are maps only for Ruthenia as a part of Polish-Lithunian Commonwealth and Carpathian Ruthenia...

The first map entitled "10th century ancient Rus' region", but nevertheless it fancy shows Moscow there. Did Moscow really existed in 10th century as a principal city as shown there? If not may be it's better to replace the map with unbiased one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.142.36 (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Prejudice article

Compare: http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/R/Ruthenia.html http://www.consultsos.com/pandora/ruthia.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/ruthenia

So many enciclopedies have to edir material: http://bopedia.com/en/wikipedia/r/ru/ruthenia.html

Author just stated his opinion on Rus' and do not permit any editing.

Sources

Why are there no in-line citations? I see a few {fact} tags, but I think the whole article needs {Unreferenced}. How much of this is original research?? Jd2718 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ruthenophile"

The word "Ruthenophile," which appears several times in this article, appears to be a neologism. It needs to be replaced. This again raises the question of how much, if any, of this article is original research. Jd2718 02:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)