Talk:Rus' people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Franklin (1996)

Hi Berig, I've adjusted the references that you've just added to Franklin (1996) to link to Franklin & Shepard (1996). Since that was the closest source already present in the references section I inferred that was what you intended. If I am wrong, please revert my changes and add bibliographic details for the correct source. Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wham2001, I recently split the article into two, and just found a paragraph in the other article that should be moved here. I have not had time yet to check the references and work on that section, and we'll need more material. I am only glad and grateful that you took your time to help out here :-).--Berig (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Harald Fairhair and Vladimir the Great

I don't know if this fits in the article, but there's an article on JSTOR that suggests that stories about Vladimir the Great are actually inspired by/derived from stories about king Harald Fairhair of Norway: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20621109 --Ermenrich (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Some choice quotes: In addition to these western and southern ties is a vital northern oral tie?the Icelandic skalds. Though there were skalds from throughout the Scandinavian world, the movements and actions of the Icelanders have been the best recorded due to the numerous written records from Iceland in the medieval period, "Eymund's Saga" alone lists four Icelanders who were with him in Rus1.68 These skalds would have brought with them their stock in trade; epic stories about rulers, their wives and children, feuds, and warfare?elements that would have been common to oral storytelling in the Rusian tradition as well.69 And, of course, in addition to bringing stories to Rus', the skalds also brought stories back from Rus'. "Eymund's Saga," which was written in Iceland in the thirteenth century, tells the clearly discernible tale of Iaroslav and his brothers' infighting in the early eleventh century.70 Some of the names have been changed, but the roles can still be accurately discerned, as can all of the main events, further illustrating patterns of communication and interaction in oral storytelling in the medieval world.

In addition to these oral storytellers, there were other means of communication between Rus' and Scandinavia?the skalds often travelled with Scandinavian rulers, who are also present in Rus'. For example, in the eleventh century, St. Olaf of Norway and his son Magnus spent time at Iaroslav's court with his Scandinavian wife, Ingigerd.71 Throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries there are a host of such visits and dynastic marriages connecting Scandinavia and Rus', which provide the possibility for a further transmission of knowledge through simple personal interaction. This is especially important because many of those interactions took place at high levels, especially via marriages of Scandinavian princesses and Rusian rulers. It is extremely likely that these women would have known the story of Harald Fairhair, and they provide another plausible source for the importation of Harald's story into Rus'. To take one particular example, Mstislav Vladimirich, early twelfth-century kniaz' of Novgorod and later Kiev, was the son of an Anglo-Saxon woman (Gy?a Haroldsdottir) and was married to Christina, the daughter of King Inge Steinkelsson of Sweden.72 Mstislav, thus, had two familial opportunities to learn Harald's story, which he could have used for the glorification of his family and kingdom.

Might be of use even if we leave out the main theory about Harald inspiring later stories.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to incorporate this unless/until it gets picked up by others. As we all know, you can't get an academic paper published that just repeats the scholarly consensus, so there is an undue bias toward revisionism in the scholarly literature. The real test is the degree to which other scholars incorporate it into their narratives. Agricolae (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that those quotes I've given might be useful just for more Scandinavian-Rus' connections, even if we leave out something about stories about Harald Fairhair inspiring similar stories about Vladimir the Great.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea that there was an influence of ON poetry on Russian medieval traditions is mainstream, and so are the close contacts between the princely family and the Scandinavian royal houses. I think the information can be useful in several ways, together with other sources, of course.--Berig (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, that the traditions of Scandinavia and Kievan Rus' influenced each other has been known for a long time, and it is hard to know if it is Oleg of Kiev's death that was based on Orvar-Odd's or the other way round.--Berig (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that the article could use some coverage of Oleg. What do editors think? Carlstak (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there should be some coverage of correspondences like that. There are scholars who study Norse influence on East Slavic culture, legends and laws.--Berig (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For the moment I am using The Nordic Languages, volume I, and there is a relevant paragraph I can cite here:

"[...] it must be mentioned that some scholars assume there was Old Nordic influence also in literature (folklore), e.g. the Tale of Igor, bylini etc. (Forssman 1982², 89-90), and law (Russkaja Pravda). This, of course, is of considerable importance generally, as far as the social and cultural background of language contact is concerned; [...]"[1].

So it is a small topic, but of considerable importance to their work (of reference), and I think it is relevant for this article as well.--Berig (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Not challenging the cultural flow between Scandinavia and the Rus or its acceptance by scholars, just the very specific claim of this paper that the tales of Vladimir may derive directly from those of Harald Fairhair. Agricolae (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on this cultural flow, and it can be relevant to mention the Harald Fairhair theory as one suggestion among several. It can't of course be raised to the same level of prominence as the Orvar-Odd and Igor correspondence, the knowledge of which has been around for at least a century.--Berig (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added another source. There is a lot of room for expansion here, and apparently, there are other theories surrounding Vladimir the Great and that the legends about him have Scandinavian origins.--Berig (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of Old Norse

I am bothered by how to spell Old Norse names, and especially in the etymology section. There are different forms provided by the sources, depending on scholary preference. To me, personally, it does not matter because I know to read the different choices and I understand how they are related and that they usually refer to the same pronunciation. I am concerned about what the main audience of this article may understand. I suggest normalizing Old Norse, throughout, although this will make the references more opaque, and we are eventually bound to have an upset editor raging about the text not fitting the sources provided saying "the text says róðr but the source says rōþer, claiming bad faith and fringe, and I may not be around to explain. Back in the early days Haukur tried to explain the issue and to find a solution but was criticized by angry editors wanting to enforce "English spelling".--Berig (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Rus' Khaghanate

While I've reverted Noraskulk's edit for other reasons, I agree with him about the Rus' Khaghanate being a controversial topic that we should approach carefully. It's currently sourced to Hyun Jin Kim, who, while a respectable scholar, holds views well outside the mainstream about the Huns actually having been an organized empire when they first appear in Europe. It doesn't surprise me he would also support the existence of the Rus' Khaghanate since he's a "fan" of enormous powerful steppe empires, but my understanding is that this is fairly contested and Kim's expertise lies in an earlier period anyway. I'm unfortunately not especially knowledgeable about the debate. Krakkos, maybe you know something?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Hyun Jin Kim is far from an ideal source on this question. Iver B. Neumann is probably a better source. Not all scholars agree on the existence of a Rus' Khaganate. For that reason i have tweaked the sentence in question in order to make it less suggestive. Krakkos (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Emenrich, I have allowed myself to return the previous version of this sentence, because the information presented in it is false. All the chronicles say that Askold and Dir simply captured Kiev and, gathering an army, went on a campaign against Byzantium. The source I removed contained only information about the Russian khaganate, which is clearly not necessary here. Noraskulk (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

1) that source is no longer there. 2) we do not rely on primary sources here to reconstruct history, we use secondary sources. That primary sources do not say something is therefore irrelevant.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Error

The sentence "The so-called Ingvar the Far-Travelled, a Swedish Viking who wanted to conquer Georgia" is an error, Ingvar the Far-Travelled was never in the sources mentioned as a viking, while contrary, the people that attacked him, were referred to as vikings. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Competence is required

The content recently added to the article by IP 83.227.81.54 was very poorly written, and much of it was incomprehensible. It was also full of errors. The editor's English here on the talk page seem to be a bit better, but I would suggest that if this person does not have the competence to submit better material, he or she should not be editing the article. Per WP:COMPETENCE "Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess." It takes far too long to fix, and it's not the responsibility of other editors to fix it. Carlstak (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, I have been concerned about the general pattern of editing since December by several IPs and one logged in User but they have been coming too fast and furious for me to look at individually - I was planning to wait it out before looking at them en masse but they show no sign of slowing and the number of edits spanning most of the page have changed enough to make such a review a challenge. I am leaning toward favoring a major revert. Agricolae (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Looking over content added since mid-December, I see a lot of very badly written text and clumsy editing. I don't think it's worth the time and effort to repair it, and it should be removed. These incompetent editors are damaging the article. And now this IP 83.227.81.54 is reverting my correction of his grammar mistake, and trying to tell me that the comma in his edit: "Birka was founded, by a king of the 8th century to expand and control trade in the region." is correct, and citing Grammarly as proof he is correct. IP obviously does not know English. Carlstak (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the appropriate reference point is this edit: 16:40, 4 December 2020‎ Monkbot. As to Grammarly, this is what you get when you ask a computer - it has apparently prioritized the current fad in 'effective writing', the anathematizing of passive voice, over more mundane criteria such as actual coherence. Agricolae (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see that revision, but I do see the revision of 00:40, 5 December 2020‎ by Monkbot. I've filtered out bot edits in my watchlist, but a few still show, for some reason. A strange thing about the edits by the IP is that his English seems to be better on the talk page than in the content he adds to the article itself—this is a trait I've noticed in the editing done on WP by many non-native writers of English. Nonetheless, his editing is substandard and his English is execrable. The junk he's added to the article needs to go. His edit summary, "It is, developed, to recognize grammar mistakes" is the funniest thing I've read all day. He knows nothing about proper punctuation. Carlstak (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of the reason the Talk page contribution looks better is that the IP has spent weeks tinkering with it: tweaking it, rewriting it, replacing parts of it - 77 edits since the start of January. Again, I gave up trying to keep track. All that effort one would hope would bring improvement. Agricolae (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking of getting involved, but I think that the best strategy is to let that kind of editor expend his/her energy for a while. Getting involved too early just seems to trigger them.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That might be so, but the question arises how long we should let such an editor go hog-wild. It's a waste of other editors' time and energy fixing the messes he creates. I recall the case of a Venezuelan editor who ran rampant for years, damaging hundreds of articles on Spanish history with unintelligible English and garbled history before someone finally followed the link on his user page to his Twitter account and found proof that he was a sock of an indefinitely blocked user. I could never understand why I seemed to be the only one who tried to fix his egregious editing or revert his nonsense; in retrospect, I think everyone else was worn out by this aggressive vandal, and simply gave up. He was incredibly persistent, popping up now and again as an IP to add one undocumented fact, for which I could find no source anywhere, to an article I wrote. This went on for years. Carlstak (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should semi-protect the article. This is the kind of article, we usually semi-protect, and that should stop the IPs at least.--Berig (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

In light of what you have written above, I have semiprotected this page, because of "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content". I think the concerns over WP:COMPETENCE makes that a valid choice.--Berig (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If this semiprotection is challenged and a valid reason for unprotecting it is raised, another admin can easily unprotect it.--Berig (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Berig, this should be helpful. Carlstak (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem! This old battle-ground should have been protected ages ago.--Berig (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

So Upplandic runestone 11 is not considered relevant in the context of this article.... I only added a comma on Carlstaks edits and you freak out completly on all edits. Come on. Let Carlstaks edits be left alone. He fixed my grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaJohansen (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC) ¨ While the anti normanists refers too none existent sources.

I added sources for every edit I did. I read online for every single edit. The anti-normans section does not even have for almost all of the claims. Uplandic runestone 11 is extremely relevant for this article. The fact that you removed Carlstaks edits of my text make me irritated and a little bit sad because I spent a lot of time sourcing and reading about the subject in Fornordic Icelandic literature.

Welcome back with an account. We don't need to back up the existence of Roslagen with that runestone, because it is not controversial and becomes OT. Neither is the connection between Ros(lagen) and Russia controversial in mainstream scholarship. What you wrote is interesting but we need to have the text more focused here.--Berig (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this and the Nordic sources section as a whole, it is not enough to simply describe a runestone that you think is relevant, or that scholars think is relevant - it is necessary to provide enough context that a naive reader will understand why it is relevant, and that was not done here. As someone unfamiliar with the scholarship, I struggled to understand any relevance for everything after the initial quote (itself not attributed to its source). That there are many people buried on Adelsö? So what? What does the existence of a nautically-themed monument at the port of Hovgården tell us that illuminates Rus' origin? How does mention of king Hakon being at Roden tell us that the Rus' were Northmen? I couldn't tell whether it was all just irrelevant, or it was relevant in some manner left totally obscure, but neither is what an encyclopedia is aiming for. Agricolae (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I try to accommodate Victoria here, and intend to explain it to her. Please, have patience with me, or I will leave this article in your hands.--Berig (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand - I was trying to explain to Victoria why your actions were justified. Agricolae (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! The runestones are a bit too late to be relevant, but I have moved them to the etymology section, where they can be useful.--Berig (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing my incompetence. That my English is incoherent and that my language is wrong on every level. The critique is charming levels of critique here. You have bashed me enough. What is the wrong in that comma... I added one come and Carlstak gets completely pissed on me. Then he goes on a full rampage against my academic language. That I as a person is a hog-wild nut job. It is almost like a personal attack from his side ... It feels there is an undertone of I hate you and your political viewpoints and your entire character is wrong and, everything you do is wrong. I'm superior to you and you can go away to another website. Is my viewpoint on Carlstaks tone. Even thou most of my edits had perfect grammar according to Grammarly. That is a very harsh critique for just a comma... Are you insecure or something? I did just check with my grammar spelling program for improving this article. If you feel my edits are hog wild, edit better yourself and remove mine do not go on a personal attack on my low level of English fluency. I tried to improve the article nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If my grammar is so bad grammarly can be an important tool for making my spelling easier to understand. The fact that I use it should come to no suprise then... But apparently using grammarly makes you a bad editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Then ban me from editing if my edits were so bad. Instead of starting a thread on the talk page about how bad my English is to bash me Carlstak. I think that is considered bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Everything we do here is logged and up for scrutiny. Everything I write and do on WP, I do knowing that it may raise a storm of criticism. As you can see on my talkpage, even when I enforce Wikipedia policy (or maybe just because I do it) I may receive comments from angry editors who want my talkpage to be a showcase of their dissatisfaction. I would not trust Grammarly, if I were you. It is targeted towards native speakers of English and common errors that they make, and considering your Scandinavian name, I assume that you are not.--Berig (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Meh, I might overreact... Your right I should be able to take criticism but I felt the tone was very very harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The tone is sometimes very harsh, here. Your contribution about the runestones was a very important addition, which inspired me to integrate them in the etymology section, and I am very happy with the result. In this way we help each other on WP, and make something better than we would be able to do alone. :-)--Berig (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It stands in Heimskringla that all the eastern lands beyond Finland, Estonia, Starya Ladoga and Curonia were once vassals under Swedish king and that Olof Skötkonung lost it all due to his ill-planned wars against Olaf the thick. It never specifies which other areas Thorgny the Lawspeaker means. We can probably assume they mean Kievan Rus but I do not find it related to the Rus people. Writings such a thing could be viewed as problematic when there are so few sources beyond Heimskringla. I do not find fitting on the main article either. But most likely Torgny the Lawspeaker meant the Rus lands. But this is before the complete chronology of Swedish kings. This is also not directly a reliable source. When it only exists in one source. We are probably talking about the Uppsala state, not modern Sweden...

"My grandfather Thorgny could well remember the Upsala king Eirik Eymundson, and used to say of him that when he was in his best years he went out every summer on expeditions to different countries, and conquered for himself Finland, Kirjalaland, Courland, Estonia, and the eastern countries all around. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.143.7 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"On this alone, he applies all his power, while he allows his tributaries/vassal states [territories paying protection money to the Swedes] in other countries to go from him through laziness and weakness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.143.7 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have seen the information that Kievan Rus' had a tributary relationship with Sweden, several times before, but these sources may have been old and written in Swedish. I don't remember. I also think it is realistic and believable as it explains both the privileged legal status of the Varangians in Kievan Rus' and the willingness with which Varangian troops were provided. However, it does not matter what I think is reasonable, nor does it matter much what a 13th c. source said about the 11th c. political relationship between the Swedish kings and the lands east of the Baltic Sea. We try to build a stable and reliable article that agrees with Wikipedia policy. In order to do that we need to use secondary sources, i.e. sources written by established scholars and that also are in agreement with views broadly held in the academic community. The relationship between Sweden and Kievan Rus' is on such a high and general level that we would need at least one reputable mainstream historian. If there was at least *one* we could add that information and refer to her/him. If there are many we would not even need to mention who holds the view, as long as we provide inline references. However, I trust Carlstak's skills at digging up English-language information, and if there were such recent and mainstream secondary sources he would easily have found a good one, or several.--Berig (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Still Heimskringla is used as the primary source for early Swedish history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.143.7 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but here on WP, we need to present Heimskringla through secondary sources, because Heimskringa often treats events very far back in time from when it was written. Also how historians view this primary source varies from time to time depending on the prevalent ideology, which is important to keep in mind and mention.--Berig (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I have been on WP long enough to know that there are editors who are very fond of hypercritical historians, or adhere to the Götaland theory, and who will attack anything written in Iceland on Swedish Proto-history. These are usually, but not always, good-faith editors, and we need to provide these editors with reliable secondary sources that they can consult.--Berig (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence, Berig. I looked high and low, and found nothing usable. Amen to your points about primary and secondary sources. Carlstak (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The only sources available were not only oral most likely it was also written on tree runes that decayed and were forever lost. The yngling king Erik mentioned by Ansgar rose a runestone after defeating the geats as the old traditions tell. This is probably one of the core events in Swedish history or else the Upsala king would not have risen a great runestone celebrating the great victory in late 700 ad. The same wars mentioned in the Beowulf sagas.

the father sat(in) Uppsala , the father that ...... nights and days. Alríkr <lu--r> feared(?) not Eyvísl(?). C ... that Eiríkr's boy is called Sigmarr/celebrated-for-victories. Mighty battle

Mentioning a great battle victory. With conquerors from the Swedish seat of Uppsala. The Swedish armour and army of this time had the most advanced weapon technology at the time. Probably a core event in the early Swedish history and one battle that leads closer to the unification of the Swedes and Goths. Still, some Gothenburgers claim the unification came from their lands and that ancient Uppsala laid in the Ostrogoths lands... Fascinating runestone btw. But everyone with any knowledge knows Uppsala laid in Uppsala... That there still exists a discussion about whatever ancient Uppsala is in Uppsala just shows that the Swedish wiki is a mild joke... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6taland_theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparl%C3%B6sa_Runestone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.143.7 (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I know the perfect books for you to read. Read some books by Mats G. Larsson. In case you don't already know about him, he is an archaeologist who writes about Swedish pre-history by combining archaeology with modern scholary research and the old Sagas. I think you would like reading him a lot, and you can refer to him when you contribute on English Wikipedia. He has won prizes for his books and he is a member of the Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy. His books are good secondary sources to use.--Berig (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation [1]

There must be a better source for "Kievan Rus' remained a tributary to the Swedish kings into the 11th century" than the one presented if it is true. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone put Hellquist in doubt as a source before, but he was a linguist. There was a special relationship between Sweden and Kievan Rus', as the Swedes/Varangians had legal priviledges, and the rulers of Kievan Rus' always could count on Swedish/Varangian troops. I will see what I can dig up.--Berig (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I found Sweden by Victor Alfred Nilsson. Even older than Hellquist's dictionary, it's nationalistic and its racial views are antiquated, but it's all I could find. He says: "After the conquest of Kief, Oleg commanded a tribute to be paid to the Variagi '*for the preservation of peace." This tribute to the Swedes was paid up to the death of Jaroslaf, who in 1019 gave assurance to the king of Upsala that it should be paid regularly, Vladimir having neglected to do so. This tribute could be nothing else than a scat paid to the king of Sweden by the rulers of Russia during the ninth and tenth centuries." Carlstak (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it is better, though, but thanks anyway :-).--Berig (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I will have to look into this further. I am reading Larsson's book Rusernas riken (1993). This is a mainstream author and the book is a recent secondary source. On page 23, he writes that Novgorod paid tribute to the Varangians until 1054. This is probably what is behind the idea that Kievan Rus' paid tribute to Sweden.--Berig (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is what he writes (in my translation):

[Oleg] also decided that that Novgorod pay a yearly tribute to the Varangians, "for the sake of peace", as the Tale of Bygone Years says. The Varangians who are mentioned here must be those who lived in Scandinavia, and here it is again a tax paid not to be subjected to pillaging by bands from the other side of the sea. The tax continued to be paid until 1054, and as we are to see it is until this year that the Rus' princes keep intense contacts westwards (Scandinavia), and regularly get military help from there.

So the idea that Kievan Rus' paid tribute to Sweden comes from The Tale of Bygone Years, and it appears to be correct, and verifiable.--Berig (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole passage from the Tale reads like this:

Oleg set himself up as prince in Kiev, and declared that it should be the mother of Russian cities. The Varangians, Slavs, and others who accompanied him, were called Russes. Oleg began to build stockaded towns, and imposed tribute on the Slavs, the Krivichians, and the Merians. He commanded that Novgorod should pay the Varangians tribute to the amount of 300 grivny a year for the preservation of peace. This tribute was paid to the Varangians until the death of Yaroslav.

This seems susceptible to different interpretations. For example, I wonder how it relates to the tribute Yaroslav as prince of Novgorod had to forward to his father in Kiev (prior to his rebellion). In any case, even if we accept that Novgorod paid Danegeld (Swedegeld?) down to 1054, I don't think that verifies the statement "Kievan Rus' remained a tributary to the Swedish kings into the 11th century", since Novgorod clearly cannot stand in for Rus' here. Srnec (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It is interpretation that is the problem here. It is easy to see why there are older Swedish sources that say that Kievan Rus' paid tribute to Sweden, but it is also clear why the notion has not become widely internationally accepted.--Berig (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

replace 'the the' with 'the' Hubert909 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Done! Thank you for pointing it out.--Berig (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This article has become highly Swedish romanticised by Swedish editors

The thing about ‘Rus’ is generally believed to meaning Swedes from an area called Roslagen, and in that time actually were called Roden, is really a ridiculous attempt to change the facts and known data about The origins of the Rus. The provided sources the author Jonathan Shepard does not state this. The other sources are from some Swedish websites or something. This is not how Wikipedia should be like.

--GoatHorsy (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan Shepard is not cited for the etymology of Rus' (that I can find). It is also cited to two respected etymological dictionaries (which are freely available online), one Swedish and one Russian, and Stefan Brink. So I'm not sure what part of the article you're referring to exactly, but no, it is not cited to "some Swedish websites or something".--Ermenrich (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021 - disambiguation needed tag

There is a disambiguation tag on the "Further information" links below the heading Byzantine sources

As the (most likely) intended links: Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus' and Siege of Constantinople are already linked in the body of the section, suggest either remove the "Further information: Rus'–Byzantine War and Rus'–Byzantine Treaty" (both DAB pages) altogether, as unneeded, or, if is preferred to keep the DAB links, then add hidden notes, such as <!--intentional link to DAB page--> to the links (and remove dn tag). 49.177.30.125 (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Note: The usual practice for intentional linking to disambiguation pages is to link in the format [[Example (disambiguation)|Example]]. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 14:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, lovely, thanks for the info, Qwerfjkl. That would be my alternative suggestion to the removal suggested above, then, rather than the hidden note I suggested ...

So, to recap, can the DAB links either: be removed; or, alternatively, can they be linked - intentionally - as DAB links, per the approved method of doing so? (And the dn tag deleted in either case?) Thanks. 49.177.30.125 ([[User talk:49.177.30.125|talk]t]) 03:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (Correction.) 49.177.30.125 (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Note: The links are already intentional disambiguations

YES, but - deliberate or not - they are tagged! <SOB!> That is what I said in my very first sentence! Tagged: You know, with a maintennance tag. Doesn't WP want it cleaned up? That's all I want. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I just want to resolve the "disambiguation needed" tag that was added in March 2021. If I could edit it, I would do one of the above. If you do not want to do it, because you do not think it should be done, or for whatever reason, that's fine, but please stop replying; in that case and just say "no", so I can stop wasting my time. Feel free to leave the tag there. (Can you see the tag on the link I included above? Click on it, if you like ...) I was only trying to help, but it seems barely worth this level of to-and-fro. Best wishes to you, @Qwerfjkl: 49.177.30.125 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, FYI, use {{reply to}} at the start of the reply, or use {{u}} as you have used {{reply to}}. Happy editing! ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 10:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Seems too unclear I'll leave it as it is for now ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 10:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Really?! 49.177.30.125 (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Take two: There are links to DAB pages within "Further information" template ...

1. ... under the heading for Rus' people § Byzantine sources:
   Further information: Rus'–Byzantine War and Rus'–Byzantine Treaty[disambiguation needed]
2. (the links themselves are not to article pages - they are to disambiguation pages.)
   Rus'–Byzantine War and Rus'–Byzantine Treaty
3. There are now disambiguation maintenance tags on the links: {{dn}}

Can someone who has access please disambiguate the links? I made some previous suggestions above, which I will repeat here, as I was not very clear before:

• Take out the "Further information" template completely - with its DAB page links, as the likely intended targets of the links are present within the text immediately underneath:
  Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus' and Siege of Constantinople

Alternatively

• If the targets of the links are intentionally to the DAB pages, do whatever is usual in such cases, for instance, as mentioned above by Qwerfjkl:

[[Example (disambiguation)|Example]]

Hoping I have explained ok. Thanks 49.177.73.238 (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The {{Further}} template is a form of hatnote, so it often links to disambiguation pages. Dab hatnotes usually show the "(disambiguation)" qualifier in their links because readers should readily know upon what type of page they will land. The hatnote has been adjusted to reflect normal usage per WP:INTDABLINK. It would also be correct to use the {{!}} pipe to hide the dab qualifier; however, that is not quite as useful for letting readers know where they will land when they click the link. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand. That is what I am suggesting in the second option above. Delete the 'DAB needed' tags, then, if the links should stay to DAB pages, the Further info template needs to be re-added with the links in format {{Further|Rus'–Byzantine War (disambiguation)|Rus'–Byzantine Treaty (disambiguation)}} not as present </nowiki>{{Further information: Rus'–Byzantine War and Rus'–Byzantine Treaty}}</nowiki>. Thanks 49.177.73.238 (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Done by above responding Editor, Paine Ellsworth.

Oops, sorry, it has already been done. I should have looked at article first. Reading your response, I thought I had been misunderstood. Thank you so much, that DAB tag has been bugging me! 49.177.73.238 (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Too much of a single source

I think, section “Assimilation” has too much data from the single source - Melnikova’s article, especially subsections “Urban” and “Rural”. It’s an interesting research, however other versions should also be presented. And this section is too extensive.

Olveyg (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

Please replace the original sentences (marked as "PREV") in the section "Western European sources" with the following proposed sentences (marked as "NEW"). What is written in PREV (i.e. in the original version) contradicts what is written in the "Annals of St. Bertin" which is the primary source here. In "NEW", I've provided several quotes from the "Annals of St. Bertin" and several extra sources that will let correctly and better understand some points that are given in both the PREV version and in the NEW version. One of the sources (this one) was taken from the Wiki article "Rugii" and copied here. I've also replaced some terms which don't match the context and can be wrongly interpreted (at this moment, only within the proposed change, though it should be done across the whole text).

PREV:

In this delegation there were two men who called themselves Rhos (Rhos vocari dicebant). Louis enquired about their origins and learnt that they were Swedes (eos gentis esse Sueonum). Fearing that they were spies for their allies, the Danes, he detained them, before letting them proceed after receiving reassurances from Byzantium. Subsequently, in the 10th and 11th centuries, Latin sources routinely confused the Rus' with the extinct East Germanic tribe, the Rugians. Olga of Kiev, for instance, was designated as queen of the Rugians (reginae Rugorum) in the Lotharingian Chronicle compiled by the anonymous continuator of Regino of Prüm.

NEW:

People in this delegation called themselves Rhos (... qui se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant, ...). But once Louis enquired about their origins, it turned out that they were Swedes and were likely spying in Rus' and Byzantine (Quorum adventus causam imperator diligentius investigans, comperit eos gentis esse Sueonum, exploratores potius regni illius nostrique ...). For this reason, he detained them, before letting them proceed after receiving reassurances from Byzantium. This text makes it clear that the Russes (Rus' people) are not Swedes: they are mentioned as two different peoples/nations (gens: gentem, gentis). Moreover, the Annals of St. Bertin report that the Russes had a person designated Chacanus (... quod rex illorum, Chacanus vocabulo, ...). This appellation corresponds to one of the titles used among the Khazar elite recorded as כגנ (k-g-n) in the Cambridge Document, خاقان (khakan) in Arabic sources, and Χαγάνος (khaganos) in Byzantine sources. Subsequently, in the 10th and 11th centuries, Latin sources routinely confused the Rus' with the tribe of Rugians. Olga of Kiev, for instance, was designated as queen of the Rugians (reginae Rugorum) in the Lotharingian Chronicle compiled by the anonymous continuator of Regino of Prüm. At least after the sixth century, the name of the Rugii referred to Slavic speaking peoples including Russes. Daniel Poirot (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't use a WP:PRIMARY source to rewrite this section. Moreover, your translation appears fairly idiosyncratic. Quorum adventus causam imperator diligentius investigans, comperit eos gentis esse Sueonum, exploratores potius regni illius nostrique ... does not mean "they were likely spying in Rus' and Byzantium" it means "rather explorers [maybe spies] of this and our kingdom", comperit eos esse Sueonum certainly means "he learned that they were Swedes". It's not really important though, as we can't rely on our own translations of primary sources to create the article. So, not done.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aholiman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

An update and reduction of my previous proposal as it contained a mistake. Please replace the original sentences (marked as "PREV") in the section "Western European sources" with the following proposed sentences (marked as "NEW"). The primary sources are referenced along with the academic researches or the academic translations. In case of doubts, questions, suggestions, or corrections, let's have a discussion.

PREV:

In this delegation there were two men who called themselves Rhos (Rhos vocari dicebant). Louis enquired about their origins and learnt that they were Swedes (eos gentis esse Sueonum). Fearing that they were spies for their allies, the Danes, he detained them, before letting them proceed after receiving reassurances from Byzantium. Subsequently, in the 10th and 11th centuries, Latin sources routinely confused the Rus' with the extinct East Germanic tribe, the Rugians. Olga of Kiev, for instance, was designated as queen of the Rugians (reginae Rugorum) in the Lotharingian Chronicle compiled by the anonymous continuator of Regino of Prüm.

NEW:

In this delegation there were men who called themselves Rhos (in the Latin text, ... qui se, id est gentem suam, Rhos vocari dicebant, ...; translated by Aleksandr Nazarenko as ... who stated that they, i.e. their nation, were called Rhos, ...). Once Louis enquired the reason of their arrival (in the Latin text, ... Quorum adventus causam imperator diligentius investigans, ...), he learnt that they were Swedes (eos gentis esse Sueonum; verbatim, their nation is Sveoni). Fearing that they were spies, he detained them, before letting them proceed after receiving reassurances from Byzantium. Subsequently, in the 10th and 11th centuries, Latin sources routinely confused the Rus' with the tribe of Rugians. Olga of Kiev, for instance, was designated as queen of the Rugians (reginae Rugorum) in the Lotharingian Chronicle compiled by the anonymous continuator of Regino of Prüm. At least after the 6th century, the name of the Rugii referred to Slavic speaking peoples including the Rus'. According to the Annals of St. Bertin, the Rus' leader had the title Khagan (... quod rex illorum, Chacanus vocabulo, ...). Daniel Poirot (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done although I've left the other request open to generate consensus. casualdejekyll 00:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022 (2)

Please change the sentence in PREV, in the section "Western European sources", to the sentences in NEW. The current sentence in PREV is a fabrication because Liutprand never wrote that the Russes are Norsemen. (The present-day term "Norsemen" is not the same as "Normans". And various translations don't have any "Norsemen" at all.) He wrote that they were called Nordmanni or Nortmanni because they lived north of Constantinople and/or north of Cremona.

PREV:

Another source comes from Liutprand of Cremona, a 10th-century Lombard bishop who in a report from Constantinople to Holy Roman Emperor Otto I wrote, in reference to the Rhos (Rus'), 'the Russians whom we call by the other name of Norsemen'.

NEW:

Another source comes from Liutprand of Cremona, a 10th-century Lombard bishop who in a report from Constantinople to Holy Roman Emperor Otto I wrote, in reference to the Rhos (Rus'):

Latin text in the 1514 ed.:

'Constantinopolitana urbs quae prius Byzantium | nova nunc dicitur Roma, inter ferocissimas gentes est constituta. Habet quippe ab Aquilone Hungaros, Pizenacos, Chazaros, Rusios quos alio nomine nos Nortmannos appellamus, atque Bulgaros nimium sibi vicinos.'

Latin text in the 1877 ed. by Vilhelm Thomsen:

'... Habet quippe (Constantinopolis) ab aquilone Hungarios, Pizenacos, Chazaros, Rusios quos alio nos nomine Nordmannos appellamus, atque Bulgaros nimium sibi vicinos.'

English translation by F. A. Wright (1930):

'The city of Constantinople, which was formerly called Byzantium and is now called New Rome, stands in territory surrounded by warlike peoples. On the north it has the Hungarii, the Pizenaci, the Chazari, and Rusii sometimes called by another name Nordmanni, and the Bulgarii who live too close for harmony.'

Latin text in the 1514 ed.:

'Gens quaedam est sub aquilonis parte constituta : quam a qualitate corporis graeci vocant Russos : nos vero a positione loci vocamus nordmannos. Lingua quippe teutonum nord aquilo : Man autem mas seu vir dicitur : unde & Nordmannos aquilonares homines dicere possumus.'

Latin text in the 1877 ed. by Vilhelm Thomsen:

'Gens quaedam est sub aquilonis parte constituta quam a qualitate corporis Greci vocant Rúsios, nos vero a positione loci nominamus Nordmannos. Lingua quippe Teutonum Nord aquilo, man autem dicitur homo, unde et Nordmannos aquilonares homines dicere possumus.'

English translation by F. A. Wright (1930):

'There is a certain northern people whom the Greeks call Rusii, “les roux” from the colour of their skins, while we from the position of their country call them Nordmanni, “northmen”. In the Teuton language “nord” means north, and “man” means “human being”, so that Nordmanni is equivalent to “men of the north”.' Daniel Poirot (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, Daniel Poirot! Thanks for this thoughtful suggestion. It would be overkill to quote all these sources in this article, I think, but I take the point that the current translation of Liutprand oversimplifies things a bit. I've made a minor change to the current text based on your suggestions, but we could probably do better. Is the Liutprand text being cited his Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana? If it is, we should link to that. If this is the source, I wonder if it would make sense to add a section on "Representation of the Rus'" to that article, where you could summarise historians' debate about this sentence and cite all these sources? Alarichall (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Alarichall! No, it's not Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana, it's Antapodosis. I think the section Etymology should be updated because Antapodosis is mentioned to provide the etymology for the word Rus' in some works. But I still don't think that we should use an incomplete translation that includes Norsemen, as it doesn't provide all the context given above and just disinforms readers. Above, there are several Latin texts. We could preserve the one with two links and one normal English translation. But the original text or its closest approximation should be definitely put in here, I believe. Daniel Poirot (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Alarichall, I've seen a new change of yours. What can be done with Liutprand's etymology? It's currently missing. I would at least add '... we from the position of their country call them Nordmanni ... In the Teuton language “nord” means north, and “man” means “human being”, ...”'. Or should it be in the Etymology section? Daniel Poirot (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Alarichall, are you still working on this? casualdejekyll 01:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Casualdejekyll: I'm not deliberately not working on it, but have got overtaken by other things. I haven't had time to do the work to judge how important Daniel Poirot's second set of quotations really is so I'm not sure what I think we should do with them. Please do pick this up if you'd like to! Alarichall (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm busy at this exact moment but can totally pick it up later today. casualdejekyll 12:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, Daniel Poirot, while I'm not exactly opposed to the second quotation being added, I think it might be overkill. I'm going to take a little to think about it and check back on it later today. (You'd think after a month of this edit request being open you'd be autoconfirmed by now, right?) casualdejekyll 15:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

casualdejekyll, I think we can avoid quoting the Latin text. As for the etymology for "Nordmanni", I think we could extend the quotation or put the remaining part in the section "Etymology" as the same quote also covers a possible etymology for "Rus'". In the case of the latter, we can remain this section as-is, but I don't think that the meaning of "Nordmanni" should be reflected there. On the other hand, people can open the link and read the full translation on their own. What do you think? I'm not sure if I understood your last question. Daniel Poirot (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You do know that at this point you have the 10 edits and 4 days required, right? So.. casualdejekyll 19:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Good news!

casualdejekyll 19:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

casualdejekyll, understood. Thanks, I didn't notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Poirot (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References

which path to make our minds up?

tyler burden, you suggested they be added as a germanic-slavic hybrid ethnic group of viking people (varangians) but when i did add the info you requested, then doug weller removed it. you said i cant call them slavs and melik said i cant call them germanics. either that or an (originally germanic, later slavic) similar type scenario if you can cite the reference sources for that, akin to the Cossacks having been "originally turkic, later slavic" listed before. Lord saturnus (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)