Jump to content

Talk:Rus' (region)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, but i`v got some objections. As far as i know orthodoxy isn`t that centralised as Roman catholicism, so claims wrere was its center are supriseing me, of course if we`ll not consider Muscovy/Russian Dukes/Tzars claims as a priori rightfull (third Rome). Moreover, Kiev Peechersk Lawra was still after Mongol or Lithuanian conquares significient center of orthodox culture, this or numerous foundations of different orthodox noble familyies are rather not examples of persecution. Next, and unfortunatelly common, mistake is to consider Muscovy/Russia as a only one sucessor of Ruś, while Novograd, neither Zaporizzjan Cossacs, nor Belarussians (Slavic "Lithuanians") weren`t willing to recognize it. Last dubious thing is Polish conquare of any part of Ruś, my advice is to look after for a reason why Galich-Vollhynia was annexed (Vollhynia for real conquared by Lithuania), or rather suceeded by Casimir the Great. Btw. not whole Galizia was part of Kievian Ruś. Mikołajski (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what I meant was the official residence of the metropolite of the Russian orthodox church (which was the same as Rus orthodox church). It was in Vladimir and later in Moscow and this was recongnized all over the Rus. Secondly, I spoke of how Lithuania or Moscow considered themselves, not how they were percepted by neighbouring groups or entities. Therefore, I didn't write anything wrong, not to speak about the fact that those perceptions varied throughout the time. Maybe you are right in respect of Galicia. However, Poland was mostly percepted as foreign occupant and conqueror in Ukraine and Russia, probably of its attitude or some of its failed campaignes aiming at this. But as in the upper case, I think perceptions shouldn't play a role and I wouldn't protest if you remove it. Finally, the discrimination of the Orthodox Christians was a reality in Lithuania, causing many Knyazs and cities to switch to the Moscow side in 1499, for example. Please read more about it. Voyevoda (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you`r right if it goes for orthodox metropolites, i`m quite ignorant in this matter, so i`ll not dispute it. Can you proove that Poland was considered as a occupant, when and by who exactly? Ukraine wasn`t conquared by no mean, if it goes for Galich, it was inherited by Casimir the Great after Bolesław Jurii Trojdenowicz died. Some boyars however called Tatars, to whom Casimir didn`t wanted to pay tribute, some other allied to Lithuanians and finally they took Vollhynia. Becouse of that deal between Casimir and Bolesław, and then with Lithuanian Grand Dukes, Poland had rights to whole Ukraine, that`s why it was taken. Hard to call it conquare.
Which campaings you mean by talking some? 1609 was maybe one time when Muscovy was attacked first. Lithuania wasn`t anti-orthodox, some of its Grand Dukes were orthodox, most of highes offices were in hands of orthodoxes (read about it!) and if it goes for swicheing sides it had a different reasons (rather political). Belive me, i saw tons of documents like Zygmunt August privilage about equality of catholics and orthodoxes or Warsaw Confederation of religious peace, hundrets of orthodox nobles, hetmans, voivods, starosts etc. "Persecution" of orthodoxes and some "rusophobia" are just myths.Mikołajski (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

The lead starts with Rus but Rus' redirects elsewhere.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about normanists vs anti normanists contains the sentence "Scientists, who are Normanist"...is this to say that all scientists are normanist? Should it read "Scientists who are Normanist", or perhaps more appropriately "Ethnographers who are Normanist" since most physicists or chemists are probably non-partisan in this matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaBjork (talk • contribs) 05:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs work.

[edit]

This sentence needs work: "According to the so-called Normanist theory, the name originated from the tribe of Rus' which were Norse descent inhabited the rivers of the region. "G Sanguinetti (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this entry with Ruthenia article

[edit]

Merging this item with the Ruthenia entry was proposed earlier in the year but everyone seems to be avoiding the issue. The fact stands that this is dealing with precisely the same subject matter but approaching it from another POV.

While it is appreciated that none of us like factional fighting, avoiding each other by creating articles under different names in order to fly under the radar is unacceptable. Dependent on which page readers land on, they will come away with disparate understandings of any given subject. Wikipedia, when dealing with historical/scientific matters is encyclopaedic, not an intentionally duplicitous methodology for getting your own way.

Whether we like it or not, obfuscating non-neutral POV content is creating pages with sloppy articles with no citations... and we all know that Wikipedia's not a publisher of original research. I'd suggest that material from here be moved across to the Ruthenia page ASAP or that the page simply be redirected to the Ruthenia article, meaning that any potentially valid and useful information here will be lost.

Merging the pages would also assist in the creation of a better article as it will demand a need for verifiable, reliable sources and citations.

Please note that I've opened a section on the Ruthenia talk page with the same commentary. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27 December 2013 - Rationale from Aleksandr Grigoryev as to why he nominated this article to be merged with the Ruthenia article.
Approximate location of Ruthenia

Thank you, for your gesture in regards to my opinion. I am certainly not an expert, but history, particularly of the Eastern Europe, is something that I read about a lot. I noticed that if you read history articles in western sources before the 20th century, there are not much use of the word RUS. It is a recent adaptation of a Russian loanword and direct transliteration (therefore it is sometimes written with apostrophe to identify softness in pronunciation - Rus'). Previously a common name for Rus was Ruthenia which is a Latinized form that adopted during the time of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Ruthenian territory outside of the Commonwealth was referred to as Muscovy after the city that was established in the 13th century.

According to numerous historians (Mikhail Tikhomirov, Boris Rybakov and others) consider the Ruthenian (or Rus, if you will) territory as a midstream of Dnieper where it intakes the greatest number of its other bigger tributaries (Desna, Prypiat, Teteriv, Ros). Of course, there are opposing specialists on the issue such as Dmitry Likhachov who considers the territory much bigger in such manner that it also covers area of the European Russia.

In the Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms of the 14th century, Ruthenia is known as Roxia. It is located to the west of Tanais (a Greek name for Don River), please note, that not to the north. Another book, Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, also calls Ukraine as Russia or Roxolania stating that Russia is located between the Turkic Tanais, Sarmatian Mountains (Carpathians), and Taurida island (Crimea).

According to Ivan Vyshenskyi, Ruthenia is not a territory, but rather one of unique Eastern Orthodox nations: Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Moscow, others.

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC) (Copied and pasted from my own talk page as relevant to this discussion) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose merging both articles. Although during some historical periods, the terms Rus' and Ruthenia may have denoted the same area, they had different meanings at other times. Instead, I have an impression that the current Ruthenia page includes too much information about the term Rus' which should belong into the Rus' article. The content of the Ruthenia page should be devoted solely to its topic, namely, what was called Ruthenia, when and by whom. As far as I can judge, this approach is followed in other language sections of Wikipedia, e.g. in Russian and in German. --Off-shell (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this was tagged for merging by Aleksandr Grigoryev, I'd be interested to hear his opinion on the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that what you are arguing is merely semantics and does not justify two separate entries, Off-shell. In my reading of English language texts, the terms are interchangeable. I think you would have to be able to demonstrate a definitive disparity via RS to support your position. EDIT Russian and German Wikipedia have made their own decisions as to how it should be dealt with (assuming there was even any genuine discussion of the matter). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also take it as a given that convolutions on the naming conventions/etymology would need to be elaborated on and developed in the body of the Ruthenia article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification

[edit]

This map ([1]) falsifies history. Kievan Rus disintegrated before the advent of cities Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod. The name " Belgorod Dnestrovsky" appeared in the Soviet Union (1944). The name "Vladimir Volynsky" -1795 year. Chersonessos ? Itil ? ... ... Michaila vnuk (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, someone did get rid of that map. The map is undoubtedly falsification. Great work! Lifeglider (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As this is the same file as is being disputed on the Kievan Rus' talk page, it's best to reinstate it temporarily until consensus is reached regarding its veracity. For anyone following this discussion, please go to the talk page linked. Incidentally, I'm not reinstating the map here as this article is earmarked for being merged with the Ruthenia article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 2 April 2016

[edit]

It should be changed to a redirect to Rus' (name) to fix the double redirect. Niceguy149 (talk • contributions • logs) 12:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done and also unprotected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Niceguy149 and MSGJ: You've both overlooked the fact that the consensus was to merge the content of this article into Ruthenia as being the main article dealing with the concept of 'region', as opposed to the Rus' (name) article which should only be addressing the history of the nomenclature. The aspects of 'name' and 'region' should be treated as separate issues per WP:TITLE, therefore this redirect should actually point to the 'Ruthenia' article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me about that, sorry for not knowing/overlooking that. I changed the redirect to go to Ruthenia, so hopefully this has been worked out. --Niceguy149 (talk • contributions • logs) 00:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greatly appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rus%27_(region)&oldid=1235455087"