Talk:Rurik

Tatischev's Russian History and the Ioachim Chronicle

At least one of the persons editing this article feels that the Ioachim Chronicle is not a good source for this article. What is wrong with providing the account of Rurik from the Ioachim Chronicle in addition to what is already here? Moonshiner 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Ioachim Chronicle was compiled during the lifetime of Tatischev's father, almost a millenium after the events described therein. In historiography, any evidence recorded a century or more after the fact should be treated with caution and considered as legendary. Here we have a span of some 850 years. Actually, the Ioachim Chronicle (if it really existed) should not be given more credit than other modern inventions, e.g., introduced by Tatischev himself. --Ghirla | talk 10:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

rosbyggjar

Is there anytyhing on rosbyggjar except for http://cgi.roslagsmuseet.se/roslagen.shtml ? This one looks pretty thin. If the statement "linguists usually consider this tribe to have been the Ros-byggjar" is true, there must be more evidence of research in this area. One article cannot be credited with "usually". The cited article also exclusively referes to Swedish sources. Is there any relevant, say, Harvard research? H. has a large Slavic department. If there is any substance to rosbyggjar, they must have covered it. If they did not cover it, then it's likely to be untrue. --Gene s 07:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI, the inhabitants of Roslagen are still called Rospiggar a form which in Old Norse was Rosbyggjar. Then again, why don't you contribute to Rus' (people) you seem to be very knowledgeable in this field. Please enlighten me. Just why are his origins so controversial to you and some other people from the former Soviet Union? I doubt that there are many sources that contradict the Primary Chronicle. By the way, since you're searching on the Net, I'll help you out with a few texts of which the first may also explain my last question.

1)[1]

2)[2]

3)[3]

4)[4]

5)[5]

I will let you work on this article for a month and then I'll get back and see what you have done. Cheers,--Wiglaf 09:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kindest permission to let me work on this article for a whole month. I am really flattered with the honor. I will be awaiting with greatest anticipation the illustrous moment when you "get back and see what I have done" and bestow your fair judgement upon my humble self. --Gene s 07:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relax, Gene. Why don't you read this as a goodwill promise not to interfere with your work with minute picks at each and every moment, so that you could not write anything coherent without long debate. Such bickering happens all the time in wikipedia, and IMO Wiglaf is quite generous by letting you know he will not engage in this kind of silliness. Mikkalai 16:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wiglaf, it seems that there is a misunderstanding between you two. Gene seems to doubt in the word ""rosbyggjar", since he cannot find it by google. I suspect he thinks this is kind of the name of a tribe, while it simply means "inhabitants of Roslagen". The article must state this more clearly, with modern term added, like you did here.

BTW, the mentioned article http://cgi.roslagsmuseet.se/roslagen.shtml seems to imply that that the term Roslagen is more recent than Primary Chronicle, hence it is invalid to use it for etymology of "Rus". Mikkalai 17:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If so, I am sorry Gene. Mikkalai, I don't know if it's invalid. The problem is that the Scandinavian system of Leidang districts (called Roslag or Rodslag in Sweden) is arguably much older than the written sources which are quite late. They were the maritime version of the hundred (division), which were described as early as A.D. 98 by Tacitus. What do you suggest?--Wiglaf 17:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I cannot read Swedish well. My reading is that "Roden" was the eralier term. All I could suggest is to try and look for original data and into serious research from time to time. I am not saying anytnig with respest to the current topic, but it is quite often that popular expositions tend to twist data slightly. But each twist may bring a further departure from truth. One should be eapecially cautious with etymology of such a short word: Rus/Ros/Rhos/whatever, read from texts in different languages. No wonder theories are in multitudes. Anyway, encyclopedia is not original research. It is not our goal to "prove" of "disprove" a theory, but only to present it, if it is widespread enough. In our case all what I wanted to say is to be careful with references to old names, not to fall into an anachronism or into a circular logic. For example, much earlier I fixed the following blunder in Rus' (people): when referring to the Annals of Saint Bertan, one wiki-contributor wrote: "In this delegation there were two men who called themselves Rus (Ruzzi)", which is stretching the facts (may be not deliberate): the original text said "Rhos". Mikkalai 18:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, we should present the theories as they are, but at the same time we should check them. It is great that you verified the St Bertain part. I will see what I can find concerning the naming of Roden/Rodslagen.--Wiglaf 19:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rus, Jutland and Adam of Bremen

These articles seem to a attract a lot of creative writing, so I just want to make sure: Where does Adam of Bremen write that the Rus were from Jutland?--Wiglaf 13:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The POV of this article

This article was seriously slanted. I have tried to fix the most serious problems.--Wiglaf 06:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Imaginary sources

I suggest that we remove any scholarship which bases its theories on "lost sagas" and "lost chronicles". It appears to be acceptable in the former Soviet union to do so, but it is questionable whether the products of such scholarship belong in Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 08:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymologies

While I find Proto-Norse fascinating and in some fields can't bolster my enthusiasm for it, there are some places it doesn't belong. For example: I can't see why there is a need for an unattested P-N form of the name Rörik in this article. Could anyone cite a good reason as to why? Otherwise, wouldn't it better be deleted as to avoid confusion? And remember always to put an asterisk before an unattested name or word. Asdfgl 23:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove it then. It was there in order to show the common origin of the Old West Norse and Old East Norse forms. I thought it was highly relevant in connection with the other Germanic languages cited.--Wiglaf 06:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Perfect, I hope I didn't sound too rash. As for relevancy in connection with other germanic languages, I think that rather belongs on the page on Protogermanic (which could do with some work, I'll look into it). Asdfgl 20:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Rurik was a nephew of the danish king(pretender) Harald Klak

After the sons of Godfred had thrown Harald Klak out of Denmark several times, despite or perhaps because of his support from the frankish emperor, the emperor granted him a fief or desmene called Rüstringen covering Friesland and the lands between the Elbe and the Weser. After Harald´s death his nephew Rurik inherited the desmene. Perhaps the name Rus comes from Rüstringen.

Minor inaccuracies

While the article is well-written, there are some dubious passages. I tried to remove these, but the changes were reverted. The first issue that annoys me is that it describes the Novgorod mound as similar to "regal kurgans of Yngling kings" (i.e. the kurgans at Old Uppsala). First a picky comment: in what way similar to the Uppsala kurgans? Why similar to the Uppsala kurgans and not just any big kurgan? Recall that the Uppsala kurgans are from the 5th and 6th centuries and thus are not contemporary with the 9th century Novgorod kurgan.

A more serious issue is that the article should be more careful when referring to Yngling kings. The existence of the Yngling kings are by modern mainstream historians considered at best unprovable and at worst a nationalistic and romantic fairytale (if you don't believe me, please just go to Old Uppsala and read the information signs at the mounds). The article would be better if it represented (or at least mentioned) the present-day consensus. Anyway, the Ynglings are not relevant to this article and the passage could as well be removed.

Thanks for having explained that, I restore your edits immediately. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein, the article states as follows: "likened by the chronicler to [...] Gotlanders (Goths)". Did the chronicler refer to Gotlanders, Goths, or both? While there may possibly be an ancient connection between Gotlanders and Goths, this is based on speculation and shouldn't be stated as a fact in this (unrelated) article. Anyway, this tenuous connection can hardly have been relevant in the time of Rurik, more than half a millenium after the supposed emigration.--Kallerdis 10:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You should address these concerns to User:Wiglaf, who pushed his favourite notions of identification between Goths and Gotlanders into many Wiki articles. See Geat, for instance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is very courageous of Ghirla to refer to a defunct user. It seems much more sensible if Ghirla checked if its Goths or Gotlanders in the Primary Chronicle instead. Why do you hate Wiglaf so much? He appears to have been a respected administrator, which you are not in spite of your considerable time on Wikipedia.Isse

So you will not see my comments on this page any more. If you spend more time around, you will see that most prolific editors in Wikipedia are not administrators. Admin tools are not for editing but for fighting vandalism and performing other chores. If Wiglaf had been respected, he would not have been obliged to leave. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the history around his disappearence, but can't see any criticism of Wiglaf's behaviour in connection with it. You, on the other hand, seem to have been in conflict with him about a strange theory about Varangians (you appear to have claimed that they were Fenno-ugric).Isse

PS. Your hate for a defunct administrator and your heated way of arguing and stretching the truth make me understand why you have not been entrusted with adminship.Isse

Note. Kallerdis voices the opinions of the so-called "hypercritical school" in Scandinavian history, with proponents such as Krag.Isse

... or we may call it the Augean school. From my viewpoint as an amateur, this attitude is the mainstream in academic research today, not only in Scandinavia.--Kallerdis 14:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The version you defend is extreme (but amateurs often get enthusiastic). Even the Swedish national heritage board considers the Ynglings to have been historical, so you are quite exessive in you POV, when you assert them to have been ficticious.--Isse 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How Rurik could even appear in Russia? Wrong title.

I'm on your title "The Varangians in Russia". It seems to be not quite correct title, Russia did not exist the time, even Rus did not exist. "Russia" has appeared in some 17th or 18th, before it was Kievan Rus or Rus (root land for many modern states as Russia, Ukraine). And in 9th century when Rurik came to Ladoga there was no even such name as Rus. This image made by Nicholas Roerich originally titled Guests from Overseas (1899) and the subject has nothing to do with USSR, CIS or Russia  :-) Stanislav

Looking the origin of Ruiderik another way

At last I am quite satesfied of the results published in the genetic testing of Ruiderik or shall we at last say Ruurikka family. What have been known for a long time is the fact that the Roslagen archipelago was inhabited by the Islanders ie Saaristolaiset, which were a mixture of Finno Ugrians both from Moonsund (Hiiumaa, Saaremaa, Muhu) archipelago in Aestland and Ahvena (Åland) archipelago in Vinland. This test confirms also the early connection with the connection with "Alte Finnisch" and Kuuraland (Liiviland) in addition to "Alte Prussische" spoked in Palatsi (Dvor / Hov / Hof) ie. Paltesjuborg, Palatsak, Polotesk, Polotsk, Poltesk, which was a rivaling family to the Ruiderik family which entered to Belarus using Väinäjoki route. Can any of the so called western and eastern theory supporters here provide actual information why Ruiderik and his brothers settled to the places where different dialects of Finno Ugrian language were spoken. Därför at alla dom varu två språkiga människor, som jag under certain condititions. They could easily understand the Tikaspuu (Ladder) language which was spoken at Uuslinna, Ispori, and Valgetjärv. The claim that Laatokka was deserted as one can to believe from the text of the main article, until the Varjaagi and Russi become to scene is one of the last big lies in Indo-European history made only to legimitate the development. Similar battle is also going on with the origin of Sakalibas on Volgar Bolgharia between the Tatars and Russians. When reading the Belarus history I personally believe to the theory of twofold entering to Roshland or shall we say Oruss or Uruss or ad-Dir depending the sources you use. Pritsak has made a good start to start the new research. I was also personally suprised when visited in Jukatan Peninsula in Mexico to see so many pure Finnish placenames there, even some rareties which never should be existing there. Taken as it is when looking through (peharps Ghirla tep) created arlicles of Ruiderik families in Russia that Chernigov (Tjäringova or Tjärnagova) was the main base of Dane, Göta (Guta), Svea origin families, and Soldal /Suzdal and Rosta / Rostov both with mixture of Finno Ugrian, Russian and Norwegian / Swede origin families. According to Pritsak, Rahvalod / Rangvald was for sure historical person and his roots may be found also from western sources. Rahvalod´s grande sonne is recorder as Izjaslau Uladzhimiravich in 988 at Polatsak. Jersida along the Väinäjoki / Dvzina sounds much more common Scandinavian Viking name when you make it Björn (Bear) Jernsida (Ironside) by adding simply n in it. Ironside is much more common like Thorhammar, Bloodhand and other Swedish Viking names.

For the "Tale of Bygone Years" transliteration to English I am using the splendid Old Slavonic text by Academic Dimitri Sergejevitsh Lihashov like this; "They drived varjaags behind the sea nor did they pay taxes for them and started they rule themselves. But they had no interminded common justice and rose a kin against a kin and they had intermingled quarrels and started they war against each kin against another. And said they to each others; Lets find a ruhtinaz (knäjz) who rules us and makes justified judgements. And went they to the other side of sea to Varjags, Rusjs (Rhoshs). Those Varjags call themselves Rusj (Rhoshs) as the other call themselves Sveas (Sveeas), some Normans (normanneiksi), and Anglijs (angleiksi), and as some to Gotlanders (gotlantilaisiksi), so what, so they were called. Said the Tshuudis, Meris, Sloveenes, Krivetshis, and Vepsäs "Land of ours is big and large, but there is no order in it. Come and to rule us. And chosen was three brothers with their kin and these took with them a lot of Rusjs (Rhohs) and settled the eldist - Rurik - To Novgorod (Novaharod / Uuslinna), second - Sineus - to Beloozero (Valgetjärv), and the third - Truvor - to Izborsk (Ispora). And from these Varjags got the name of Land of Rusjs".

Why not show in the article that Tshuds, Meris, and Veps were Finno Ugrians, Slovenes and Krivitshes (Crivitai) western Old Slavonic peoples.

Or peharps use a deleting finger again and remove this article from this page as so many time before. Had you understanding of Finnish language you could not delete the the text of;

• Nestorin kronikka by Academic Dmitri Serjejevitsh Lihatshov Porvoo 1994
• Muinaisuutemme merivallat by Professor Matti Klinge Helsinki 1983
• Kiovan Rusj - Eurooppalainen suurvalta by Dr Jukka Korpela Hämeenlinna 1996
• Hopeanvalkea by Dr Lennart Meri Jyväskylä 1983

And Adjeigluborg was not Staraja Ladoga or Laatokankaupunki. It was at Alavoistenjoki, on place named Alavoinen, an old kauppapaikka (Torgovaja) at Aunuksen kannas (Olonets Isthmus) where a fortres named Alvoistenlinna (castle or krepost) was built giving easy access through nearby mouth of Syvärinjoki (Svir) and Äänisjärv Ozero Onjega) and through Andoma and Kemi to Valgetjärv and beyond by Sheksna and Valgia. There were three Varjagi settlements nearby each other on the south east corner of Lake Laatokka of whose shores had been inhabited since 7000 BC and at least since by 5000 BC by Finno Ugrian peoples. One settlement was located on the mouth of Syysjoki, between Olhavanjoki and Syvärinjoki making direct connection to Mologa River and thence to via Valgia to Ieroslav and Obran Osh.

North of Vytegra toward Puutoistenjoki (where Suiskin Ushakoff kin was found) you find the Antomaa (Andoma) and east of Vytegra Kemi (Kemsk), origin of two Rurik kin Valgetjärven Andomaat (Andomsky) and Valgetjärven Kemiläiset (Kemsky) nearby you find also Uhtomaan (Ukhtomsky). Suiski is pure Karelian / Veps name. When you Russificate this name as was done when they adopted Russian Orthodox faith when all baptized received Slavonic names it become Shuisky. And large was the kin of Suiskis. You find Bruhtarin Suiskit, Glazanin Suiskit, Horvatin Suiskit, Kirdjapinin Suiskit, Skopinin Suiskit, and main root kin of Suiski from Soldal / Suzdal. Thus it seems nearly all of Soldal / Suzdal Ruideriks were Suiskis.

First came the Gutas which become Gothos from Gotland which had also Vinland name Vuojonmaa and Aestland name Ojamaa which is in daily use in Estonia. Finnish name have changed to Gotlanti. In c.200 - 250 AD every third of the creative Gutalanders at best age (16 - 30) hade to leave their countrey to auoide ouer population. They went to Väinäjoki and thence to southern direction. On their voyage some stopped to stay and founded little settlements named Holm (Island in alte Swede which turned in Old Slavonic to Kholm (knoll / hillock). Just follow the river routes and you find hundreds of Kholms in Land of Rosh. The southeners called the new settlers Sadumians, those living east of Dinjeper Ostro Sadumians (Gothos) and those wast of Dinjeper Visi Sadumians (Gothos). This according to Djagfar tarikhy as explaned by Professor Zufur Miftakhov.

Then whole Scandinavia emptied again when the Vandals come from there to settle east of Deutsch area of Pommerania. Next wave come in c.750 when the Vikings founded a settlement Aldeigjuborg Staraja Ladoga at Ladoga. In 793 the Norsemen destroyed Lindesfarne monastery in England and the age of Vikings begun. So in Indo-Eoropean main stream of history writing. How there were such a stupid peoples on the east coast of Baltic sea that they could not even sail at sea or do anything which is noted in history. No, they just appeared from sky when the history needed to be legimitated in the Indo-European Crusades toward east and Slavonic "controlling" toward north. They (Slavonians) built more ships and boats on the shores of White Sea than there was populaition according to the "offical" history and their history always start when they arrived. The Land was empty and deserted .... But the original text in Nestor´s Chronicle use purje instead of sail and laiva instead of ship. Strange, isn´t it. Uisko was Uishkui used by the Novgorodian river pirates and Gotland had onion churches. Black Sea was called Sea of Russ etc. Cheers.

Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project

|I find this study fascinating and if true, gives us a much wider picture of the history of this era while still bringing up more questions. How influential and widespread were the Finnic tribes on the affairs of the peoples known as Varangians? Do we know if some Finnic peoples were Varangians as the Project states Rurik as being? Were these Varangians less homogenously Germanic as previously thought? Where they defined as opposed to the Slavic and other Uralic peoples, as is currently believed, or was it a much more diverse association of people?

I'm not necessarily endorsing the Project either way, but it has piqued my curiosity.| CormanoSanchez (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn´t give you any picture at all since the "study" is of no scientific value whatsoever. No one knows Rurik haplogroup since we don't have access to his DNA. The only way to know the DNA of the Rus/Varangians is to acually find their bones. If we find graves that we clearly can say are Rus/Varangian then we can analyse the DNA and then compare it with DNA from different geographical areas.

Dalregementet (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, I am one of the co-administrators of the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/default.aspx?section=goals). You are correct - the only sure way to resolve the question of Rurik's ethnic origin along his paternal line would be to find his bones, positively identify these as being his and not someone else's, and then study the Y-chromosomal DNA of these bones. There is the burial mound near Novgorod, known as Shum Gora (Russian for "Noise Mountain") that is alleged to be Rurik's grave. Seismic tests of this mound indicate buried stone structures and artificial cavities. The mound has not yet been excavated, due to lack of funds. If Rurik is indeed buried therein, and if any of his bones or teeth have survived, then it may be possible to extract his Y-DNA. Usually this is very difficult with such old remains, but not necessarily impossible (unlike with the maternal-line mtDNA, which survives much longer). In the meantime, the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project is doing what is currently possible, which is to study the Y-chromosomal DNA of acknowledged and probable princely descendants of Rurik (as well as many other men who think they may possibly be descended from Rurik) in order to try to ascertain some kind of pattern from these. The project also seeks to do this with the descendants of Gediminas (Gedymin). Science does not deal with certainty, but rather with probabilities, and thus we seek to establish the probability of the line of descent. The information presented elsewhere in this discussion, namely, that so far only two modern princes have taken the test, is old. What follows is the latest information (as of March 15, 2010) from the project, as written by Dr. Andrzej Bajor, the project administrator, and edited by me for standard English - this information is reproduced here by permission of Dr. Bajor:

"The administrators of this project until 2008 were co-operating with Stepan Kravchenko and Nikita Maximov, who are the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Editor of the Russian Newsweek Magazine, respectively. The Russian Newsweek had tested the first two Rurikid princes.

"The first of these two was Prince Dmitri Mikhailovich Shahovskoi of Paris, France, the prominent Professor at the Russian Orthodox Institute, who made the 1st Y-DNA test in the Rurikid dynasty (at the end of 2006). Unexpectedly, he was found to be descended from a Finno-Ugrian background (genetic haplogroup N1c1 - earlier it was described as N3a). The 2nd one was Professor Andrei Petrovich Gagarin of St. Petersburg, Russia. His Y-DNA test result matched that of Prof. Shahovskoi. Professor Gagarin's test was confirmed later by the test of his cousin, Grigori Grigorievich Gagarin. Andrei Gagarin is also the 1st Rurikid prince to have done a Deep Clade N test (this proved that his haplo is, in fact, N1c1); in addition, after he joined the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project, he also upgraded his test up to 67 markers (FTDNA Co.'s standard).

"Next came Alexandr Solomin. For very many years he has declared that his family was, in fact, a lost branch of the Monastyrev family. The Monastyrevs of Smolensk lost the rights to their princely title as early as the 16th century. Since his Y-DNA test result matched those of Shahovskoi and Gagarin, he became the representative of the 1st family, unknown to genealogists, which proved its princely descent by Y-DNA testing. However, another test done later by Prince Nikolai Rzhevsky of the Smolensk branch showed that Alexandr is not descended from this branch of the Rurikid dynasty. Most probably he is descended from early Rurikids, but not necessarily from the princes of Smolensk.

"The 4th one was Nikita Dmitrievich Lobanov-Rostovsky of Great Britain, whose result matches the remaining three.

"The 5th one (or the 6th one after G.G. Gagarin) was Nikolai Rzhevsky of the Smolensk stock. Shortly thereafter Andrei P. Gagarin he also made his Deep Clade N test to prove his N1c1 haplo.

"These six princes are descended from St. Vladimir Monomakh. Their genetic haplo (N1c1) can be explained like this: the Roslagen seashore (slightly north of Stockholm, Sweden, where Rurik was supposed to have been born) until approx. the 4th/5th centuries A.D., was inhabited mainly by a Finno-Ugrian population. The Norse Vikings and Goths were also living in this region and were mixed with the native Finns. However, Finnish genes survived on the paternal lines. Their test results were later matched and confirmed by the tests done by the following princes from Russia: Putyatin, Kropotkin, Khilkov, Vadbolsky and Myshetsky. Although Prince Kropotkin by all means is a Rurikid, probably he is not descended on the Smolensk branch.

"The other two princes, Volkonsky and Obolensky, who are descended from Oleg Svatoslavovich (grandson of St. Yaroslav Mudry (the Wise)) are genetic Slavs (haplo R1a1). Their test results were later confirmed by a test done by another Prince Volkonsky. It seems that it was probably the king of Poland, Boleslaw II Smialy, who broke the genetic line of the Kievan Rurikoviches. In 1069 he visited Kiev with his troops. However, he escaped from Kiev shortly thereafter. The reason for this was not given by historians. He also visited Kiev in the years 1077/78 (he spent more than one year in Kiev). Their genetic haplos are typical for western Slavs, and especially for the Wielkopolska (Greater Poland) region in Poland, where the Polish royal Piast dynasty established their first princedom. Nevertheless, more explanations may exist, and these are still to be sought for.

"Prince Jakub Maria Puzyna was believed to be descended from Oleg Svatoslavovich of Kiev. However, he is not. Most probably he is not a direct descendant of Rurik. However, he is at least descended from one of Rurik's closest relatives.

"Prince Piotr Szuyski (most probably he is the last Shuyski in the world; his ancestor escaped from Moscow to the Gr. Duchy of Lithuania) was believed to be descended from St. Vladimir Monomakh. However, he is not. He is somehow related by blood with Prince Volkonsky. This puzzle can be solved by Y-DNA tests carried out among the Lyapunov and Shemyakin families (certainly, provided that the Shemyakins are descended from Prince Dmitri Shemyaka).

"By no means is Prince Stanislaw Antoni Czetwertynski a genetic descendant of Rurik. His genetic haplo (I2a2) is typical for the native population of the Ukrainian and Belarusian Polissyia region. This can also mean that Prince Tur(e), who founded the Turov-Pinsk princely dynasty, wasn't at all a genetic descendant of Rurik.

"Currently, it has been discovered that the marker # 41 (DYS 395S1b) may play a considerable role in the genealogy of the Rurikid dynasty. This marker seems to be invariant in a genetic clan. It was found that Princes Gagarin and Puzyna inherited a rare mutation (18) in this marker.

"My private database is here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mozhayski/teksty/ydna.html .

"The database also includes Gediminid princes.

"Bogdan Korybut-Woroniecki was found to be descended from a Swedish or Norwegian Viking (genetic haplo I1a). However, experts of the Polish Association of Nobility don't believe that he is a genuine Gediminid prince. In my opinion he is descended from one of the native Lithuanian princes.

"Prince Tonu Trubetsky (he is a famous musician nicknamed Tony Blackplait) is descended from the Gediminid Trubetskoi princes. His family tree since Gedimin is well documented. He was found to be descended from the native Lithuanian population. And this seemed reasonable, since from Stryjkowski's chronicle (end of 16th century) it follows that the early Gediminid princes spoke Lithuanian as their native tongue. Alas, Tonu Trubetsky's branch was broken by someone in the past [Tonu Trubetsky is of the R1a1 haplotype]. Most probably an adoption unknown to historians occurred in this branch of the Trubetsky princes. Besides, this is what the Trubetsky princes wrote in Obshchiy Gerbovnik Rassiyskoi Imperii (Armorial of the Russian Empire, vol. 2, St. Petersburg 1798). That Gedimin was descended from St. Vladimir the Great of Kiev on the Polotsk branch seems to be uncertain from the point of view of true genetics. In spite of the lack of close blood relations between the Rurikids and the Gediminids, one may, however, think of "political" family relations, i.e., that both princely lines were related in another way to each other: namely, in the Suzdal Chronicle (Suzdalskaya Letopis') one can find a text dealing with the siege of Polotsk by St. Vladimir the Great of Kiev. From this it comes out, that ROGNEDA, the future wife of St. Vladimir, as well as mother of his sons, HAD HER OWN SON from her 1st MARRIAGE. It's then quite probable that IZIASLAV VLADIMIROVICH of POLOTSK was, in fact, AN ADOPTED SON of St. Vladimir.

"Prince Askold Georgievich Khovanskii, whose ancestors were genuine Gediminid princes in Russia, is also of Finno-Ugrian descent (N1c1). He matches well with Alex Chartorisky (Czartoryski) of Australia, whose family comes from Russia. They both match well with another Prince Trubecki (Trubetzkoi) of Canada, who, for the time being, doesn't wish to show his Y-DNA test result to the public. Their tests were later confirmed by the tests made by another Trubetzkoy of Russia and Galitzine (Golitsin) of Russia. Their genetic haplos depart from those of the Rurikids. By no means were the Gediminid princes descended from St. Vladimir of Kiev. Currently, it seems that the Gediminids and Rurikids shared a common male ancestor in the time of Jesus Christ, or slightly later.

"Nevertheless, the project is seeking other princes of Gediminid descent, such as Trubecki (Trubetskoi), Golicyn (Galitzine), Chowanski (Khovansky) and Kurakin (Kurakine). Others, such as Czartoryski, Sanguszko and Koriatowicz-Kurcewicz, are rarely met in the world anymore.

"Prince Jerzy Czartoryski of Canada decided to make his Y-DNA test in spite of what historians speculate(d) about the descent of his princely branch. It is believed that his G...Grandmother, Princess Izabela Czartoryska (nee Fleming) had her 1st son with the Rurikid Prince Nikolai Vasilievich Repnin, while it was Armand-Louis de Gontaut-Biron, Duc de Lauzun, who fathered the 2nd son, Konstanty, from whom Prince Jerzy has descended. Prince Jerzy was found to be descended from a Germanic tribe (R1b1). He can still be descended from the French, since the majority of them are of Germanic origin. This is what counts here: that Prince Jerzy inherited the title of Prince, as well as family tradition, from his legitimate ancestors, the Czartoryski princes. On the other hand, however, providing that he is really descended from the Gontaut-Birons, this duly means that he is a genetic descendant of an old French family, having their roots in the 12th century, that may also eventually belong to one of the ruling dynasties (the Merovingians, or the Carolingians)."Metsamies (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for updating us at Talk:Rurik, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am the new member of TeamRurik at Yahoogroups who added Rurik and Gediminas to list of haplogroups of historical and famous figures. With what you have contributed I will be happy to update the main article, and we might also add sections to Rurikids and Gediminids, and/or House of Gediminas (separate article).

You can add your signature by typing four ~ in a row at the end of your post, or simply click them to the right of where it says Sign your posts on talk pages: a little below the edit summary box. DinDraithou (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Descendant

Queen Elizabeth 2 is related to him, should this be said in the article? This is what I found, if something is wrong, then Wikipedia are wrong.

Rurik

Igor of Kiev

Sviatoslav I of Kiev

Vladimir I of Kiev

Yaroslav I the Wise

Iziaslav I of Kiev

Sviatopolk II of Kiev

Predslava of Kiev

Béla II of Hungary

Andrew II of Hungary

Violant of Hungary

Isabella of Aragon

Philip IV of France

Isabella of France

Edward III of England

Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence

Philippa of Ulster

Roger Mortimer, Earl of March

Anne Mortimer

Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York

Edward IV of England

Elizabeth of York

Margaret Tudor

James V of Scotland

Mary I of Scotland

James I of England

Elizabeth of Bohemia

Sophia of the Palatinate

George I of Great Britain

George II of Great Britain

Frederick, Prince of Wales

George III of the United Kingdom

Prince Edward Augustus

Victoria of the United Kingdom

Edward VII of the United Kingdom

George V of the United Kingdom

George VI of the United Kingdom

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Contradiction

There is a contradiction in the article, about the disputed origin:

"So far, only two modern Rurikid princes have agreed to take this DNA test. Their results indicate that their male line originated in Uppland province in Sweden. So far, one Swede shares 11 of the prince's markers, and he believes that his own male line goes back to the 15th century in Roslagen. The DNA results of modern Rurikid princes indicate that Rurik was of Finno-Ugrian descent (haplogroup N3a1)."

So, the same DNA results show that Rurik was both of Swedish and Finno-Ugrian descent! Well? I heard (couldnt locate it in tghe text) That the varagarian Gurad were mercenaries protecting Islamic Potenetates etc/ Is this tgrue?THEEDSON1 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See "Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project", above, for updated information about this. Many more than the original two princes have by now had their DNA tested. The entry also explains how Rurik could have been of both Finnish and Swedish ancestry (although only the Finnish line shows up on the Y-DNA test). I don't know anything about the Varangian Guard protecting Islamic potentates, however - they protected the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Emperors.Metsamies (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

The pages about Rurik and Rus is of poor quality. There are new research in the subject of Rurik and Rus by the archeologist Wladyslaw Duczko. In his (exspensive) book, Viking Rus: studies on the presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, all relevant historical sources regarding Rus are listed and analyzed as well as new archeological material. Wladyslaw Duczko also states in his book, that the origin of Rus is no longer disputed, not even by russian archeologists. That because of the overwhelming material, historical and archeological, that unambigously points at Sweden for the origin of the Rus people.

It is therefore strange that Wikipedia:

• Maintains material that is obviously incorrect and also published because of political and/or nationalistic interests - Rybakovs "research for example which is based on questionable sources, intrepreted in in a very imaginery way or based on no facts at all.
• Publishes material that for any sane person just can´t be true. The so called genetical research regarding Rurik is of course not relevant and it has no scientific value what so ever. How can you claim to know a persons haplogroup, when he was living 1200 years ago and you have only tested 2 person that claim that they are his descendants??? If only one woman in the blood line has been unfaithful then the results will be wrong.
• It is a mystery that Rorek of Dorestad is mentioned together with Rurik of Holmgard. There are no evidence at all that they are one and the same person - none. The share the a similar name but thats all. A person that let the information about Rorek of Dorestad be connected with Rurik of Novgorod must be very ignorant about Nordic history. Rorik of Dorestad, is Jut while Rurik of Holmgård is Ros. You can now see in especially US web pages claims that Rorik of Dorestad and Rurik of Holmgård is one and the same person and in this case, I think that Wikipedia contributes in spreading false information that is devastating for history knowledge.

Dalregementet (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

|Provide the sources that dispute the Bajor study so this can be clarified.| CormanoSanchez (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text transferred from the article

This is obviously a newsrelease from the project.

"Here is the latest data, as of March 15, 2010, from Dr. Bajor (reproduced here with his permission):

"The administrators of this project until 2008 were co-operating with Stepan Kravchenko and Nikita Maximov, who are the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Editor of the Russian Newsweek Magazine, respectively. The Russian Newsweek had tested the first two Rurikid princes.

"The first of these two was Prince Dmitri Mikhailovich Shahovskoi of Paris, France, the prominent Professor at the Russian Orthodox Institute, who made the 1st Y-DNA test in the Rurikid dynasty (at the end of 2006). Unexpectedly, he was found to be descended from a Finno-Ugrian background (genetic haplogroup N1c1 - earlier it was described as N3a). The 2nd one was Professor Andrei Petrovich Gagarin of St. Petersburg, Russia. His Y-DNA test result matched that of Prof. Shahovskoi. Professor Gagarin's test was confirmed later by the test of his cousin, Grigori Grigorievich Gagarin. Andrei Gagarin is also the 1st Rurikid prince to have done a Deep Clade N test (this proved that his haplo is, in fact, N1c1); in addition, after he joined the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project, he also upgraded his test up to 67 markers (FTDNA Co.'s standard).

"Next came Alexandr Solomin. For very many years he has declared that his family was, in fact, a lost branch of the Monastyrev family. The Monastyrevs of Smolensk lost the rights to their princely title as early as the 16th century. Since his Y-DNA test result matched those of Shahovskoi and Gagarin, he became the representative of the 1st family, unknown to genealogists, which proved its princely descent by Y-DNA testing. However, another test done later by Prince Nikolai Rzhevsky of the Smolensk branch showed that Alexandr is not descended from this branch of the Rurikid dynasty. Most probably he is descended from early Rurikids, but not necessarily from the princes of Smolensk.

"The 4th one was Nikita Dmitrievich Lobanov-Rostovsky of Great Britain, whose result matches the remaining three.

"The 5th one (or the 6th one after G.G. Gagarin) was Nikolai Rzhevsky of the Smolensk stock. Shortly thereafter Andrei P. Gagarin he also made his Deep Clade N test to prove his N1c1 haplo.

"These six princes are descended from St. Vladimir Monomakh. Their genetic haplo (N1c1) can be explained like this: the Roslagen seashore (slightly north of Stockholm, Sweden, where Rurik was supposed to have been born) until approx. the 4th/5th centuries A.D., was inhabited mainly by a Finno-Ugrian population. The Norse Vikings and Goths were also living in this region and were mixed with the native Finns. However, Finnish genes survived on the paternal lines. Their test results were later matched and confirmed by the tests done by the following princes from Russia: Putyatin, Kropotkin, Khilkov, Vadbolsky and Myshetsky. Although Prince Kropotkin by all means is a Rurikid, probably he is not descended on the Smolensk branch.

"The other two princes, Volkonsky and Obolensky, who are descended from Oleg Svatoslavovich (grandson of St. Yaroslav Mudry (the Wise)) are genetic Slavs (haplo R1a1). Their test results were later confirmed by a test done by another Prince Volkonsky. It seems that it was probably the king of Poland, Boleslaw II Smialy, who broke the genetic line of the Kievan Rurikoviches. In 1069 he visited Kiev with his troops. However, he escaped from Kiev shortly thereafter. The reason for this was not given by historians. He also visited Kiev in the years 1077/78 (he spent more than one year in Kiev). Their genetic haplos are typical for western Slavs, and especially for the Wielkopolska (Greater Poland) region in Poland, where the Polish royal Piast dynasty established their first princedom. Nevertheless, more explanations may exist, and these are still to be sought for.

"Prince Jakub Maria Puzyna was believed to be descended from Oleg Svatoslavovich of Kiev. However, he is not. Most probably he is not a direct descendant of Rurik. However, he is at least descended from one of Rurik's closest relatives.

"Prince Piotr Szuyski (most probably he is the last Shuyski in the world; his ancestor escaped from Moscow to the Gr. Duchy of Lithuania) was believed to be descended from St. Vladimir Monomakh. However, he is not. He is somehow related by blood with Prince Volkonsky. This puzzle can be solved by Y-DNA tests carried out among the Lyapunov and Shemyakin families (certainly, provided that the Shemyakins are descended from Prince Dmitri Shemyaka).

"By no means is Prince Stanislaw Antoni Czetwertynski a genetic descendant of Rurik. His genetic haplo (I2a2) is typical for the native population of the Ukrainian and Belarusian Polissyia region. This can also mean that Prince Tur(e), who founded the Turov-Pinsk princely dynasty, wasn't at all a genetic descendant of Rurik.

"Currently, it has been discovered that the marker # 41 (DYS 395S1b) may play a considerable role in the genealogy of the Rurikid dynasty. This marker seems to be invariant in a genetic clan. It was found that Princes Gagarin and Puzyna inherited a rare mutation (18) in this marker.

"My private database is here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mozhayski/teksty/ydna.html .

"The database also includes Gediminid princes.

"Bogdan Korybut-Woroniecki was found to be descended from a Swedish or Norwegian Viking (genetic haplo I1a). However, experts of the Polish Association of Nobility don't believe that he is a genuine Gediminid prince. In my opinion he is descended from one of the native Lithuanian princes.

"Prince Tonu Trubetsky (he is a famous musician nicknamed Tony Blackplait) is descended from the Gediminid Trubetskoi princes. His family tree since Gedimin is well documented. He was found to be descended from the native Lithuanian population. And this seemed reasonable, since from Stryjkowski's chronicle (end of 16th century) it follows that the early Gediminid princes spoke Lithuanian as their native tongue. Alas, Tonu Trubetsky's branch was broken by someone in the past [Tonu Trubetsky is of the R1a1 haplotype]. Most probably an adoption unknown to historians occurred in this branch of the Trubetsky princes. Besides, this is what the Trubetsky princes wrote in Obshchiy Gerbovnik Rassiyskoi Imperii (Armorial of the Russian Empire, vol. 2, St. Petersburg 1798). That Gedimin was descended from St. Vladimir the Great of Kiev on the Polotsk branch seems to be uncertain from the point of view of true genetics. In spite of the lack of close blood relations between the Rurikids and the Gediminids, one may, however, think of "political" family relations, i.e., that both princely lines were related in another way to each other: namely, in the Suzdal Chronicle (Suzdalskaya Letopis') one can find a text dealing with the siege of Polotsk by St. Vladimir the Great of Kiev. From this it comes out, that ROGNEDA, the future wife of St. Vladimir, as well as mother of his sons, HAD HER OWN SON from her 1st MARRIAGE. It's then quite probable that IZIASLAV VLADIMIROVICH of POLOTSK was, in fact, AN ADOPTED SON of St. Vladimir.

"Prince Askold Georgievich Khovanskii, whose ancestors were genuine Gediminid princes in Russia, is also of Finno-Ugrian descent (N1c1). He matches well with Alex Chartorisky (Czartoryski) of Australia, whose family comes from Russia. They both match well with another Prince Trubecki (Trubetzkoi) of Canada, who, for the time being, doesn't wish to show his Y-DNA test result to the public. Their tests were later confirmed by the tests made by another Trubetzkoy of Russia and Galitzine (Golitsin) of Russia. Their genetic haplos depart from those of the Rurikids. By no means were the Gediminid princes descended from St. Vladimir of Kiev. Currently, it seems that the Gediminids and Rurikids shared a common male ancestor in the time of Jesus Christ, or slightly later.

"Nevertheless, the project is seeking other princes of Gediminid descent, such as Trubecki (Trubetskoi), Golicyn (Galitzine), Chowanski (Khovansky) and Kurakin (Kurakine). Others, such as Czartoryski, Sanguszko and Koriatowicz-Kurcewicz, are rarely met in the world anymore.

"Prince Jerzy Czartoryski of Canada decided to make his Y-DNA test in spite of what historians speculate(d) about the descent of his princely branch. It is believed that his G...Grandmother, Princess Izabela Czartoryska (nee Fleming) had her 1st son with the Rurikid Prince Nikolai Vasilievich Repnin, while it was Armand-Louis de Gontaut-Biron, Duc de Lauzun, who fathered the 2nd son, Konstanty, from whom Prince Jerzy has descended. Prince Jerzy was found to be descended from a Germanic tribe (R1b1). He can still be descended from the French, since the majority of them are of Germanic origin. This is what counts here: that Prince Jerzy inherited the title of Prince, as well as family tradition, from his legitimate ancestors, the Czartoryski princes. On the other hand, however, providing that he is really descended from the Gontaut-Birons, this duly means that he is a genetic descendant of an old French family, having their roots in the 12th century, that may also eventually belong to one of the ruling dynasties (the Merovingians, or the Carolingians)."Metsamies (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.234.211 (talk)

battle between a linguist and genetical results

the following text was advanced about the meaning of genetical results:

The Y DNA test results show genetical agnatic kinship within the past two millennia to about a hundred tested Finnish men. This weight of numbers is a strong support for the Finno-Ugric genetic origin of Rurikids.

The haplotype to which Rurikids belong, formed only a few millennia ago (so it cannot precede Uralic expansion), and is not widely distributed from Scandinavia to Beringia, but instead present in Finnic or formerly Finnic populations. Although there is a small possibility that the forefathers of Rurik have never spoken any Uralic language, the much higher likelihood favors that his forefathers two millennia ago were speaking Finnic in Baltic region.

Although (thanks to lazy 'Uralists') there possibly is not yet published evidence that N1c1-men in Eastern Sweden ever spoke any Uralic (even Finnic) language, the likelihood that Rurik's forefathers came there speaking Finnic language, is much higher than having shifted their language to any Germanic when still living east of the Baltic Sea. It is waited that 'Uralists' bother to research the linguistical remnants and traces in Sweden, as well archaeologists to research whether for example religious finds indicate Finnic gods' worship in eastern Sweden. Meanwhile we are to be left only with genetical finds from eastern Sweden which affirm a number of N1c1 patrilines (genetically closely related to ones living in Finnish-speaking Finland) there, long established and living in the present day. Some linguists allege it to be a a methodological error to predict a language from genes, claiming that language is never connected to genes, and in this sort of phariseism they would not even consider any probabilities in the matter, however well the chronology would fit, and however difficult would it to explain any other flow of events.

• but an unfortunate case (why do we get such here?) whose username is Yopie, keeps deleting the other half of that conclusion, making the point dysfunctional. 82.181.234.211 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Rurik's descendants spoke a Slavic language, had Slavic names and all shared a Finno-Ugric y-chromosome. Other than the bizarre legend from the primary chronicle, I do not see a Scandinavian Germanic connection. I recommend that people contributing here, take a look at the Varangian article, an article about apparently a "Scandinavian people." 174.117.103.189 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as we don't have Rurik's skeleton to analyze, there is no point in discussing genetics in this article. You want to discuss the genetics of Rurikids, go to the Rurikids article. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tatishchev

Re this, you clearly do not understand the policy you invoke. Read WP:DUE. These are completely fanciful (Tatishchev) and discredited (Rybakov) views, and "NPOV" means that our article presents them as such. Not mentioning that a view is without merit when it is in fact without merit is a violation of NPOV. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.--Yopie (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The two dynasties were united with the marriage of Catherine the Great with Peter III in 1745

What does this suppose to mean? How could Peter of Holstein-Gottorp (who was only Romanov through his mother) and Catherine of Anhalt-Zerbst (who had none Romanov neither Rurikid blood) unite Romanovs with Rurikids? 83.167.126.220 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)helcanorion

son of Halfdan

a lot of sites list Rurik as the son of Halfdan, Margave of Frisia, well it seems shady, it does require some consideration. there seems to be some confusion between this Rurik and Rorik of Dorestad(who did rule in Frisia). Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rurik-Lachyn

According to Djagfar Tarihi chronicles, Rurik's original name was Lachyn. Djagfar Tarihi in English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxlrutin (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An outdated source

An Outdated source in this sentence: The Rurikid haplotype itself (all 67 markers considered) is more closely associated with Northern Germanic language speakers.[3]

When you read the source( ^ Stratification of Y-haplogroup N1c, Jaakko Häkkinen. August 5, 2010. University of Helsinki.), it reads at the top that it's outdated and redirects to: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/N1c1.xps

The updated version says: "The true Rurikids (members of noble Russian families) belong to the Scandinavian group, and their closest relatives are found in the coastal Finland, among the Swedish-speaking Finns. Their brother group (clan of Tawast–Räihä) is found among the Western Finns."

(So, at the moment at least, the source concludes little of interest. The south-western coast of Finland, including Åland, and the Uppland part of the Swedish coast apparently had strong ties during the Viking era. If Rurik was from Roslagen it wouldn't be a big surprise if he had relatives in Finland.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.108.56 (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikilink bogus terms to valid terms, replace them or define them

In the 20th century, archaeologists partly corroborated the chronicle's version of events,[1][clarification needed] but mostly the excavations denied most of the chronicle's data about Rurik's arrival when it was apparent that the old settlement stretched to the mid-8th century and the excavated objects were mostly of Finnish-Ugric and Slavic origin, dated to the mid-8th century, which showed the settlement was not Scandinavian from the beginning.[2][page needed]

My very modest edit, consisting only of wikilinking two key terms Finnish-Ugric and Slavic, has been reversed here by User:Iryna Harpy. If the assertion made in the article is true, and it's difficult to check the source, then one would expect it to be consistent with other Wikipedia articles on similar topics. There is no entry in Wikipedia for Finnish-Ugric. The term appears to be bogus, made up by the contributor, or a mistranslation of the original language. Indeed, there is no term in the English language Finnish-Ugric in common use. Rather, the term in use is Finno-Ugric. Rather than amend the bogus term Finnish-Ugric to Finno-Ugric, however, as perhaps I ought to have done, I left it in place and wikilinked it to the correct term of Finno-Ugric.

The second tiny change I made was to wikilink Slavic as Slavic because "Slavic" of course leads to the Slavic disambiguation page.

The issue of citing sources per se does not apply here. The issue is the use of bogus terms, or or terms that are misleading. Either the citation supports the contention that the excavated objects were mostly of Finnish-Ugric and Slavic origin or it does not. If the citation does support the assertion, then the term Finnish-Ugric needs to be replaced with Finno-Ugric, unless a case can be made for the introduction of a new term Finnish-Ugric. Secondly, if the citation supports the assertion that the objects were of Slavic origin, then, if the author did not mean by this that the objects were made by Slavic persons, ie members of a cultural group known as the Slavic People, this also needs to be explained or amplified in the Wikipedia article.

What I hope that most us can agree is that it is unacceptable to have vague, undefined, bogus terms floating around in Wikipedia articles. Define them or replace them. Link them or write a new Wikipedia article for the new term - if it is justified (which here it is almost certainly not). 124.186.104.184 (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I've reinstated your wikilinks which were clearly an improvement. Your comments here make sense too. Maybe you'd like to take a crack at working further on the article? Don't be put off by the previous revert; sometimes IPs tend to be reverted without much thought, whereas editors with actual usernames are given more slack. Good luck!--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Rurik's original name

Assuming Rurik is Norse, his original name should be rendered "Hrøríkr/Hrøríkʀ". This same name is cited multiple times in various runestones (U934, Ög153, Sö159 etc.) usually as "Hrurikʀ". The second element, "-ríkʀ", is known to have length based on Icelandic and Faroese reflexes in "ríkur", and the first element, "hrø-" possibly comes from ON "hrøʀ" meaning "corpse". This view is supported by Rundata which cites "HrøRikR" as a standardised rendering of the name in Ög153 and U934. Various alternatives, such as "Hrœríkr", have been explained as variants of "Hrøríkr" by Ola Stemshaug and Kristoffer Kruken in the Norsk Personnamnleksikon (1995) Darkgamma (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Who wrote this: "Genetic investigation See also: List of haplogroups of historical and famous figures § N (Y-DNA)

According to the FamilyTreeDNA Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project, Rurik appears to have belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup N1c1, based on testing of his modern male line descendants.[6] Contrary to the Norman theory of the origin of the Kievan Rus' state, N1c1 is not widely found in Scandinavian countries, but is overwhelmingly found among Baltic and Finnish ethnicities. The N1c1 haplotype possess the distinctive value DYS390=23, also rarely found in Scandinavia, but with the closest relatives of the Rurikid haplotype being found in coastal Finland, among the Swedish-speaking Finns.[7]"

When i red the source [7] - http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/N1c1.pdf, it does not mention DYS390=23 to more present in coastal Finland. Have i missunderstood something in this article, could someone go over it to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. Y-DNA haplogroup N1c1 has a native Baltic origin, all geneticists know this. Clearly need to mention this in the article. Noraskulk (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't need to mention this, and indeed, we should not. We don't know the haplotype of Rurik unless we test Rurik's remains. Anything else is speculation. Agricolae (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Okay. To be honest, I don't know much about it myself. Noraskulk (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

There are three relevant issues here. The first two deal with the actual relevance of the information, the last with its use on Wikipedia. 1) False-paternity. The documented father is someone is not necessarily their biological father, because people being people, $4!₮ happens. This means that the haplotypes of people descended from Rurik's (on-paper) great-great-grandson have a finite chance of not reflecting that of Rurik himself. Indeed, recent reports give two 'male-line' descendants different haplotypes. 2) Historical paternity. There is a genuine scholarly debate over whether Rurik was really father of Igor - the chronology seems to be prohibitively long. In one scenario, he is seen as a material grandson, but the intervening female generation was erased because being male-line descendants of the heroic founder makes for a better story. Given this uncertainty, there is a distinct possibility that the descendants of Igor would historically have belonged to a different male-lineage than Rurik. 3) For Wikipedia, the most important criteria for determining what is included is not historical truth, but coverage. If historians writing about Rurik think this is important enough for them to include in their narratives, we should give it proportional coverage, but we shouldn't decide for ourselves as Wikipedia editors what is 'important information'. Agricolae (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

For me, it is much more important - whether Rurik had brothers. Do you believe that Sineus and Truvor existed? Noraskulk (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC).

That is practically an unanswerable question. When all you have is a source well removed in time and loaded with legendary aspects, there is just no way of evaluating its reliability. (We have the same problem with Rollo and his supposed brothers.) Agricolae (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Shum-gora

The legend, connecting Rurik and the site was invented only in XXI century. See e.g. here (in russian). Even though it is not impossible, that one of the burials somewhere contains Rurik's body, and especially in a big mound, this was connected to him very late and by amateurs. Macuser (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and clearing this up. Not that it's surprising. Unfortunately, Eastern Slavic history has been (and will continue to be) fertile ground for hoaxes... or people making a burial mound out of something they want to believe in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rurik's 15-th cousin.

@Agricolae: http://yfull.com is WP:RS and it DOES claim what I'm saying. Those with the Russian flag are official Rurikid princes. A Stockholm viking had a male-line common ancestor with them around year 300 AD. Also, this source is good on other relatives - most of them as far as year 600 BC are in the Stockholm area. And this source is also good on earlier descent. https://yfull.com/tree/N-Y4339/ https://web.archive.org/web/20181206210017/https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/n-russia-dna-project/activity-feed --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No, yfull.com is not a reliable source (not is familytreedna). It is self-published and has not gone through any kind of independent editorial process. More importantly, it does not mention Rurik, nor Stockhoolm, nor that there was a result in 2108, nor that anyone is a 15th cousin of anyone else (extrapolated, I assume, from the date estimate of about 1750 years divergence, but those numbers have extremely-wide error bars, and generation times have also differed significantly, so you can't get from this to 15th cousin). As much as the claims bounce around the internet, I haven't even seen a reliable source that establishes Rurik had this haplogroup, but even if he did, so what? People have cousins, and given the amount of tribal migration and slave trade, the location of extremely-distant cousins is not all that informative. It happens, but is not noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Agricolae: Most relatives with different layers of remoteness up to year 600 BC are found in the Stockholm area. This is important. yfull.com doesn't invent anything. They are provided with DNA data by acadimic establishments (as in the case with this viking, other ancient DNA and data from field trips to villages of different ethnic groups) - this is indicated by 3-letter codes. Or, by other DNA-testing companies like FTDNA - this is indicated by "YF" in codes. The amount of SNPs tested makes ages quite precise. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It is still self-published, free from independent evaluation, not a WP:RS. (And no, the number of SNPs does not make it precise enough to give exact generation-number kinship determinations - sites like this cite a precise number of years ago, when the results actually produce a range, and even the ranges often are inappropriately narrowed because of invalid assumptions built into the calculations.) All this aside, we needn't even discuss whether the source is reliable, since none of the added text is verifiable from the source given, which doesn't even mention Rurik. And again, even were it true, so what? You are reaching your own conclusion from this claimed result and trying to hint at implications that the reader should take from it. Wikipedia editors don't get to do that. Find a reliable source (one that has undergone independent fact-checking, not just a self-published web page or discussion board) that explicitly says that Rurik had the same haplogroup as this viking, and then we can have a discussion as to its propriety for this article. Until you can do that, there is nothing legitimate on which to base any article text. Agricolae (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sidoroff-B: I'm in complete agreement with Agricolae on this issue. Wikipedia only accepts academically recognised sources for DNA, not user generated services (even more particularly pay-for services!). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: @Agricolae: This is from an academic study! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982218308443 provide yfull.com with their data and they respect it! --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Which likewise makes no mention of Rurik. Agricolae (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I was going to leave it at that, but this really has to be said: the type reported in that academic study is N1a1a1a1a1, while N-Y4339 being attributed to Rurik is N1c1a1a1a2. Now, these may look similar, but they aren't. Not even close. The N1a and N1c lineages are thought to have split more than 10000 years ago in Siberia and to have come west with the Finno-Ugric expansion in neolithic times, so it doesn't mark any kind of kinship relevant to the medieval period. Likewise, the strontium levels reported for the same specimen indicate the individual could have been native to anywhere from Russia or Estonia to Iceland (with the latter most likely). How do any of these data about a mid-11th century viking tell us anything useful about Rurik? Are you sure this is the right citation, because it does not support the claims being attributed to it? Agricolae (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: @Agricolae: Is this WP:RS http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Rurikid.pdf

Concerning those "letter-digit-letter-digit" nomenclatures, they're being changed from study to study due to the discovery of new ancient lineages. That's why the SNP nomenclature is now preferred.

I'm obliged to mention that you're not extremely competent in genetic genealogy. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: @Agricolae: We see that Rurik's 15-th cousin is in Uppland like the rest of the relatives as much ago as year 600 BC. If this particular cousin grew up in Iceland (likely not), that doesn't change much. And by the way, haplogroup N is absolutely absent in Denmark. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not a WP:RS - it appears to be self-published, and there is no evidence that it has passed any kind of independent evaluation - it is just somebody's personal opinion/conclusion. Note also that this compiler explicitly rejects that this DNA haplotype must belong to the (or a) historical Rurik - the author explains they are referring to a 'genetic Rurik' (just as the 'genetic Adam' and 'genetic Aaron' need not represent the Biblical Adam and Aaron). Why does this matter? Well, just to give one example, there was a hypothesis put forward several decades ago that Igor was not really the son of Rurik, but an adopted son, son-in-law, or maternal grandson (I don't remember exactly, but the point is he was not of the male bloodline of Rurik). That would mean that this 'Rurikonid haplotype' is really an Igorid haplotype, that Rurik would likely have been something different entirely. That is just one of many reasons extreme care is necessary in making definitive statements about the Y-haplotypes of historical people, let alone making implications about them based on where similar haplotypes are found.

Given that the 2018 academic paper you cite uses letter-digit nomenclature, your stated preference seems far from a universal current preference. Anyhow, if you would prefer me saying that N-L392∗ diverged from N-Y4339 more than 10,000 years ago, instead of saying N1a1a1a1a1 and N1c1a1a1a2 diverged more than 10,000 years ago, I don't see how this changes the point in the slightest. Complaining about which nomenclature style I am using has no bearing on the conclusion that 10,000-year-old kinships do not merit mention in a biography.

Contrary to your claim, there is nothing obliging you to make such a personal attack (WP:NPA), which happens in this case to be inaccurate as well as incivil. Your cited source does not support the text you wish to insert. That cannot be brushed under the carpet by attacking me.

The scholarly paper says nothing about Rurik and nothing about being a 15th cousin. If this Stockholm person grew up somewhere else, anywhere from Russia to Iceland (which irrespective of your preconceptions is most likely according to Figure 3 of the cited paper), it is clearly relevant to any implication one would like to draw from this skeleton about the geographical origin of Rurik. Saying it doesn't matter because all of the other Scandinavian examples of similar haplotypes just points to how irrelevant this one sample is. More to the point though, if their common ancestor lived in Siberia, it doesn't matter where the other branch was living now or was living in 600 BC, and it tells us nothing useful about Rurik. Haplogroup N may be absent from Denmark, but it is present in Finland and Ukraine and Siberia and even in an ancient specimen from China, so what is its absence from Denmark supposed to prove?

Someone seems to have made some kind of mistake here. There is no way these haplotypes diverged about 300 AD. Either this isn't the right paper, or the yfull people have misreported the haplotype discovered in this paper. This is part of the reason independent fact-checking is important, because mistakes happen.

Oh, and please stop pinging me - the page is on my watchlist so I neither need nor want specific alerts. Agricolae (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: BOTH the Rurikids AND the skeleton are NOT L392*. They BOTH are Y4339 ! Please ping me. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sidoroff-B: That will likely come as a big surprise to the authors of the scientific paper you gave as the source for the skeleton. They report only one Haplogroup N skeleton, which they classify as L392*. Unless this is the wrong citation, it is a dead issue. Agricolae (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Y4339 is DOWNSTREAM of L392 . The academic guys did not bother about Y4339 or any SNP from L392 to Y4339, that's why they called it "L392*". They gave their data to Yfull, and Yfull compared it to their full database of individuals, highlighting the presence of Y4339. https://yfull.com/samples-from-paper/15/ Also, here is the skeleton's autosomal profile: it's Scandinavia, not Russia. https://web.archive.org/web/20181220072107/https://pp.userapi.com/c845322/v845322929/ee99b/TeeU7C5B1c8.jpg --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sidoroff-B: Y4339 is NOT downstream of L392 according to this display: [6] which they claim is based on yfull's information. It shows L392 seven nodes down the green branch, and Y4339 13 nodes down the yellow branch. Also, the autosomal figure shows a better match with Norway than Sweden, and what (very) little you see of it, up at the top, Iceland is looking pretty brown. Anyhow, this is not about whether or not you are right. You can't cite a paper that reaches a different conclusion than what you want to state, even if you think you know better than they do. Yfull's alternative interpretation may not be as they describe it, but it is self-published and has not been subjected to independent review, so it is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Neither the original paper nor yfull mention Rurik, and hence your personal conclusions represent Original Research, which is not allowed. You have nothing usable, and until you do, we are done. Agricolae (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

L392 is downstream of L1026. In your link there are three versions of the same tree, not three big branches.

Iceland was not tested in this autosomal analyses. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sidoroff-B: I am not going to even address this because it misses the point and I haven't the time or inclination to go into it with you further. Reread my comment focusing on the part after "Anyhow,. . . ." [I struck a rogue word that wasn't supposed to be there] Agricolae (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Russian subsidiary of Newsweek magazine WP:RS ? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC) @Agricolae: And a Ukrainian state academy of sciences population geneticist Utevska? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Spitting out hypotheticals helps nothing. Let's make it real simple. Find a scholarly biographical account of Rurik that thinks the haplotype of his descendants is a noteworthy aspect of his biography, and we will have something to talk about. Otherwise, we are pursuing dubious sources for what amounts to trivia anyhow.Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Much of the debate on Rurik is about his ancestry. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

So what? Agricolae (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That means that whatever hints at his ancestry should be included. Especially, if 60% (or is it more?) of tested Yaroslav the Wise's descendants ideally match of Y-chromosome tree, and their relatives including a 11th century 25-th direct cousin of Yaroslav are found mostly in Uppland. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. If 98% of Rurik's descendants had a dimple on their left buttock, we still wouldn't mention this unless some reliable source, when writing a generalized biographical account of Rurik, thought this was an important aspect of him worthy of mention - we mirror the coverage given by reliable sources. It is not the role of Wikipedia to promote whatever curious niche 'hints' individual editors find fascinating. Agricolae (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-normanism

I reverted this edit which adds the supposed names of Rurik's parents in the infobox. The problem with this, though, is Rurik's parents are not known (even who exactly Rurik was is also not known). This seems to be part of anti-normanism theories which include Rurik having Slavic origins. Specifically about Gostomysl and his daughter Umila who supposedly had a son called Rurik. Now also promoted by Putin. There is a BBC article I found.[7] Mellk (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

To add, it looks like this POV has been pushed on Italian Wikipedia[8][9]. It is borderline fringe but probably the state-sponsored version now. Mellk (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't Italy's PM getting chummy with Putin, today's far right standard bearer? Jersey John (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see any recent sources (Italian or English) that really discuss this so just seems like typical POV edits. And to be fair, the downplaying of foreign origins of such figures is done by both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists. Mellk (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Italy is much more pro-Russia than say most other countries in Europe. You therefore see Italians promoting Russian propaganda across a wide variety of media, including Wikipedia. TylerBurden (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So more speculation or any actual constructive comments? No? Mellk (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Very odd comment given I provided a source for the specific link of pro-Russian Italian POV pushing, are things getting stressful? TylerBurden (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This says nothing about Wikipedia or the subject, so yes, this is off-topic. Mellk (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Right, I'm sure it's all coincidence that the Italian Wikipedia is infested with Russian conspiracy theories. The question is why are you reviving this, if it's so off topic? TylerBurden (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I was busy for a week and saw your reply now. Of course, you should already know that this is not the place for soapboxing so we can end it here. Mellk (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would make more sense for you to focus on your content dispute/edit war below. TylerBurden (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that doing more than one thing at a time was new to you. Mellk (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA given the little remarks you like to make, even in response to recieving a basic notice for edit warring. These are Wikipedia policies after all that you claim to be so fond of. TylerBurden (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Strange, when you were casting aspersions and doubling down on it recently, did you read WP:CIVIL? I did not see AGF on your part. Mellk (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you are referring to is hardly relevant here, where you appear to have thrown behavioural policy out of the window. If you think I'm upset about some "notice", think again, it would be nice if you actually check the logs as you are instructed to do when performing a sanctions notice, instead of giving repeat ones whenever you feel like you want to intimidate someone though. Either way you're breaking policy, so it's up to you if you want to continue down this road. TylerBurden (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I did check the logs, you were not given a CT alert for EE before and you did not indicate you were aware of it using Template:Contentious topics/aware. Even if you were given a DS alert before, the CT alert must still be given. Of course, when you made accusations that seemed to be against me (you never said it was not directed against me) and then engaged in soapboxing here and wrote in a passive aggressive manner, it looks like an issue with WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mellk (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I was given a CT alert for EE long before you gave me one, so either you are lying, or the logs do not work. I fail to understand how responding to an inquiry by somebody else about Italian-Russian connections (on a thread that you initiated by chance) is "passive aggresive" or "soapboxing". If anything, your statement seems extremely hypocritical given you are the one who decided to respond with "So more speculation or any actual constructive comments? No?" This comment was made conveniently right after I gave you an edit warring notice, since you were on the verge of breaking the 3RR and such a notice is required for WP:AN/3, you reverted the notice with another bizarre passive aggresive edit summary about me "not liking" your duplicate EE notice that you put on my talk page. You claim you responded cause you didn't see it, yet you've been active since even before you went on your little break, so it seems more likely you decided to start a petty argument (with even pettier personal attacks, that you apparently are willing to stoop down to on Wikipedia, violating clear policy) because apparently you did not "like the notice".

Whatever I said, which you still haven't made clear, clearly struck a nerve with you, but doesn't excuse your behaviour here. WP:BATTLEGROUND is appropriate indeed, since it seems clear you are holding some sort of grudge against me, to the extent you are willing to violate policy to personally attack me. Go ahead and create an ANI thread and we can let administrators look at the situation, because this petty squabble is neither relevant to this talk page nor a good use of time for either of us. TylerBurden (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

So much for "think again" about you being upset over it. Since you think CT alerts are intimidating when they are placed on your talk page but when you template someone you clearly hold a grudge against, it's nothing out the ordinary, even though such templates are NOT required, especially when it is a regular (unlike CT alerts), then I cannot help you there. Strange you claim to not know what aspersions I am referring to but call the CT alert I gave to you as being a form of intimidation. Intimidation from what?

I asked you if you were going to make a constructive comment instead of soapboxing about propaganda in general but you then decided to make it personal by asking about my stress levels and bringing up an entirely different matter not relevant to this discussion. Yes, I was active for a little bit on OTHER articles, well done, and saw your comment when editing this article, which I hadn't touched in a while. I already suggested to end this, but this is up to you, I am not going to bother anymore. Mellk (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is all more personalized bickering while accusing me of the same thing, if you are going to throw such accusations around, then at least follow policy yourself. You seem to be under the impression that because you were offended by something I said, you're allowed to violate policy to personally attack me. You didn't have to respond here in the first place, you did so with a snarky comment about being constructive, to an answer to a third person who inquired about Italian connections (that you brought up in the first place), seemingly as some type of attempt at starting something because you didn't like receiving an edit warring notice that you are more than happy to deal out to other people. It's up to me, but you're not going to bother anymore? I am quite concerned with your obvious grudge and WP:NPA violating talk page conduct, to be honest, and you don't exactly seem to be backpedaling from it either. TylerBurden (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You can stop using this thread as your soapbox, thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

So you are in fact going to bother. You aren't apologizing though, but instead talking about irrelevant things like soapboxing. If I'm soapboxing what are you doing? TylerBurden (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

All recent edits made by me were in according with Wikipedia:Be bold in order to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view with sources. So far no valid reasons for removal of facts and sources were given, which is a violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Due to variety of edits I made to this page and zero specifics given to improve my edits I had reverted edits to last ones made by me. Further reverts without specifics listed here (imaginary rules not included) I will consider Wikipedia:Edit warring and forward this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Korwinski (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You were reverted with an explanation given. Instead of discussing the edit, you instead made a threat to submit a report to ANI. Sure, go ahead. Mellk (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

They were not given, so I can only presume that you're talking about comments to your edits. Okay, lets go over them

1. "actually, no these are widely used alt names". These alternative names were not removed from the article, but grouped together with other romanisations. Please provide us with a rule that all and only most common/widely used names can be used in preamble. And while we're on the subject, can we get a source that only these specific romanisations are in fact most common?

2. "same reason why moscow is not mentioned" I didn't get this one. Tsardom of Russia (also know as Tsardom of Muscovy) is mentioned in the article.

3.1 'we are not going to list certain principalities over others or every single one" a) Kingdom of Ruthenia was not "principality", but the principality that evolved and became kingdom. b) It was one of the two post-Kievan Rus' states to try to reinstate former Kievan Rus. Given that it had changed status and its importance, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be mentioned there.

3.2 "this can be mentioned in the article about the dynasty itself" I did. And you deleted that info as well. Korwinski (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You did not get consensus for your changes. As for alt names, Google Scholar for example returns 1,210 results for "Riurik", 1,120 results for "Riurik" and only 65 results for "Riuryk". Quite clearly there is a significant difference here therefore "Riuryk" belongs in the footnote, it should not be in bold. The Moscow principality is also not mentioned, Tsardom of Russia is mentioned because the last Rurikid monarch was in that polity. If you choose to mention Kingdom of Ruthenia over the other states that had Rurikid monarchs after the collapse of Kievan Rus, then this is POV pushing. You could have asked this first. Mellk (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I did not remove any information (with the exception for some repeated one) from the article. New info was added with sources when requested. Also I don't see any prior discussion about preambule, so that hardly qualifies as consensus.

2 Its also 16,100 results for "Rurik". Thats almost 15x times more than "Riurik". I don't see your linking a rule to Wiki guidelines that says this particular number is common/widely used, but the other one isn't. 16100 vs 1210 results is also very significant.

3. "Tsardom of Russia is mentioned because the last Rurikid monarch was in that polity". In the info from section "Legacy" that you had removed, you would have found out that last Rurikid monarch was in fact Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki who also happens to have held the title of Grand Prince of Russia. Do you really wish to stick with that argument and remove all mentions of the Tsardom as well?

4. I mentioned Kingdom of Ruthenia because it wasn't one of the small principalities in 13th-14th centuries, but the only state elevated to the status of Kingdom and the only one that ruled and tried to unite the lands of former Kievan Rus in the Western part of Eastern Europe. And its rullers were the only ones whose title wasn't neither absorbed by Moscow nor did they eventually become a cadet branch of the Rurikids. Korwinski (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS. Yes, "Rurik" is used more often, which is why it is the title and not an alt name. See WP:ALTNAMES. Also yes, you added the claim about Wiśniowiecki being a Rurikid which is unsourced. Mellk (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see such rule there, but I stumbled onto Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography:

1. "Do not cram multiple hypocorisms and nicknames into the name in the lead sentence; complicated naming should be explained separately."

2. "Various rulers and other nobility have often had numerous variant names in different languages. Avoid clogging the lead with a boldfaced litany of these; reserve them for an appropriate place in the body of the article, in an infobox or language sidebar, or in footnotes."

Also WP:ALTNAMES:

"If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names" or "Etymology". Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first sentence."

Re-attribution happened in 2010 by Rurik DNA project, so there aren't that many free publications on this topic online. But this book from Polish academy of sciences should be sufficient enough for you to confirm this "claim". Korwinski (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for confirming what I originally said about the alt names. And yes we have WP:POV, there is no such scholarly consensus on the origin while they are traditionally regarded as Gediminids. We can also mention other "important" states (including those that had their statuses elevated) and were not absorbed by Moscow at the time and not just that state to push a POV. Mellk (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

“OK, thanks for confirming what I originally said about the alt names.”

Confirming? Did you actually read what is written in these rules? More than three names? Footnote. Avoid clogging and move them to footnote etc. Thats what I did and what you had tried to undo.

“And yes we have WP:POV, there is no such scholarly consensus on the origin while they are traditionally regarded as Gediminids.”

There wasn’t before. Many historians including Hrushevsky weren't able to assign them to one house of another. But it is proven with DNA tests now. Unless you have other sources that disprove this fact and research? If so, please present them to us. I’m all ears.

“We can also mention other "important" states (including those that had their statuses elevated) and were not absorbed by Moscow at the time and not just that state to push a POV.”

Oh how the tables have turned. When it’s about to remove Tsardom of Russia, now you say we can add other important states, not just the last one. What’s with your prior actions then? I presume that means that my edits in “Legacy” part of the article are now out of the question. As for preamble, my preference in such would be to expand it into something like this: “Following Mongol invasion princes of Galicia-Volhynia were able to unite and rule most of South Western Rus principalities as princes and then kings of Ruthenia until death of Andrew and Leo II of Galicia c. 1323. While in the North East emerged multiple powerful principalities[footnote mentioning some or all of them] and republics [footnote mentioning Pskov and Novgorod. And also that rulers there were elected and thus some of them were not Rurikids] all of which eventually became part of Tsardom of Russia that Rurikids ruled until death of Feodor I in 1598.”. Korwinski (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"Ryurik" and "Riurik" are two alt names. I originally removed "Rorik" since there is a separate article for the person called Rorik. I also said we can mention those states, not that we should. I already said that this is the wrong place to mention individual states but this is better for the article about the dynasty itself, not the alleged progenitor. Mellk (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines above state that there should be no more than 3. Currently there're 4. Which part of that guideline you didn't understand?

"I also said we can mention those states, not that we should."

Are you serious or just paying a fool?

"this is better for the article about the dynasty itself, not the alleged progenitor."

There's no such rule, so it's just your own preference. Korwinski (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss changes to the article including re-adding some of the text, but this is only possible if you do not try to force your edit through using brute force. It is much better if we come to an agreement first, I think the block you received should indicate this. I think the mention of Wiśniowiecki is more appropriate in the article about the dynasty but if you want to briefly mention this, we should be careful not to present it as fact. Mellk (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats BS. Also I just noticed. I wasn't the one violating 3RR rule. You were the first one and now you had reverted it again without finishing discussion. Note that so far we've got 0 arguments from you. Your claims don't match with Wiki rules. Korwinski (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You were literally just blocked for violating 3RR. Please respect WP:BRD. I restored the version before the edit war, so undoing all of my own subsequent edits. If all you want to do here is WP:ABF, then I am not interested in discussing further. Your very first comment on the talk page here was accusing me of vandalism. I have better things to do than to listen to such comments. Now, are you willing to discuss improving the article or are you just going to continue this? Mellk (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"Please respect WP:BRD."

Thats intimidation and a lie. I never disrespected it.

"I restored the version before the edit war, so undoing all of my own subsequent edits."

No. You waited like a coward 24 hours while I was blocked and in order to surpass the 3RR 24 hours limit. I did, check your Talk page.

"Your very first comment on the talk page here was accusing me of vandalism."

Wikipedia:Vandalism: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content [...] without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view. Thats literally what you were doing.

"Now, are you willing to discuss improving the article or are you just going to continue this?"

Discuss what? You pointed out to rules that do not match your actions. You say one this and then back down on that under false pretences. I'm all ears for discussion, but this is a farse, not a discussion. Korwinski (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, your changes do not follow MOS:LEAD. Mellk (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

BTW, you just violated 3RR, I would suggest to self-revert. Mellk (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiśniowiecki etc

@Korwinski: Can you provide a translation of the relevant passage from this book about Wiśniowiecki? Mellk (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have that much time. In short it says: Wisniowiecki's were cadet branch of princes Zbaraski who considered themselves as Gediminovychs. But others (I presume they meant historians) argued that they belonged to Riurikovychs. Zbraski's had other few cadet branches one of them surviving to this day are Woroniecki from Zbarazh. DNA of the male descendant from this family has proven that they undoubtedly belong to the same branch of descendants from Riuryk as Kropotkins etc. Given the reasons we can recognise Wisniowiecki's as the last Rirurykovychs to rule a independent principality within a Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth until 1744.. I don't know what independent principality are they talking though. In case you have Android/iPhone, you can open Google Translator and it will translate text on the go. Pages 155-157. Korwinski (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

UPD. I have to go for now. But before I closed that book, I noticed that it was called Księstwo Wiśniowieckie. Its only in Polish wiki and not that much info online. I will check it later. Korwinski (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the translation. I checked a few Ukrainian sources which mentioned this e.g. this book which mentions this as being a more prevalent view in recent years (though there is still a view that they were Gediminids). Personally, I think this is something that can be written in detail in the article about the Rurikids itself, but if you think it should be mentioned in this article, then I suppose it can be briefly mentioned in the legacy section? Something such as: "There is an increasingly prevalent view that the House of Wiśniowiecki, which was traditionally considered to be a branch of the Gediminids, were in fact Rurikids, with Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki reigning as the grand duke of Lithuania and king of Poland from 1669 to 1673." What do you think? Mellk (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

My approach is to expand Lead and Legacy in order to depict importance of his figure. Do I understand correctly that you wish to leave just the biographical details and remove second part of the lead as well as the sections "Legacy" and possibly "Alternative theories"?

Given that first source based on DNA says (this is a direct translation) "undoubtedly belong to the same branch of descendants from Riuryk" writing it as it is only a prevalent view would be incorrect. I would write them down as Rurikids, but add a footnote explaining the situation. Faking ancestors for any reasons was rather common back then. Shuyskys themselves did the same thing claiming to be descent from older son of Alexander Nevsky in order to have upper hand in fight with princes of Moscow. Korwinski (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

What does the importance of a different figure have to do with this article? Mellk (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Current "consensus" that you were referring to above is to depict his importance and legacy. Due to that current lead includes that second paragraph and there's a Legacy section in the article. Korwinski (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Right, and what is the subject of the article? Mellk (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Tsar or Russia is not subject of the article. Do I understand correctly that you wish to leave just the biographical details and remove second part of the lead as well as the sections "Legacy" and possibly "Alternative theories"? Korwinski (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Also we have an issue with too many romanisations in the article. I'm still waiting for the rules that justify including as many of them. Or/as well as the rules that say "this number of mentions on Google Scholar is enough to include in the lead, but this number is not enough". Korwinski (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The option of WP:3PO is always available, I am not really interested in continuing this after all the comments you made. Mellk (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)