Talk:History of Russia

History of russia

Talk 173.189.70.213 (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The amount of things factually incorrect in this article is mind boggling!

Such an article should not be based on myths and falsehoods propagated by the Russian Empire in the 18th to 20th century.

Historically accurate version:

The history of Russia begins with the history of the various Finno-Ugric tribes in the area known to the Rus' as Zalesye. The start-date of specifically Russian history is the establishment of the Independent Grand Duchy of Vladimir-Suzdal in 1169.

The state adopted Christianity from the Rus', who brought it onto its lands in 1157 prior its to independence. After the Mongol invasions in 1237–1240 the Grand Duchy of Vladimir-Suzdal, along with the other Principalities formerly belonging to Rus', was forced to accept the overlordship of the Mongols.

The rest, which was not corrected, was cut due to irrelevance. Valdazleifr (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless clear, this correction, only concerns the first paragraph/section of the article. Valdazleifr (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OVERLAP 13th to 16th century

History of Russia#Mongol invasion and vassalage (1223–1480) and History of Russia#Grand Duchy of Moscow (1283–1547) narratively overlap 4 centuries, containing a lot of duplicate information. I think this is because this article, History of Russia, is trying to do two things simultaneously:

1. tell the history of the Russian state, from Kievan Rus' to Vladimir-Suzdal to Muscovy to the Tsardom, Empire, Soviet Union and Federation; and
2. tell the history of the country of Russia as a geographical area in Eastern Europe and all of Northern Asia (as covered by the Russian Federation since 1991).

For #1, it makes sense to take a Muscovite perspective. For #2, that perspective is way too narrow, and it makes sense to talk extensively about not just all the other Rus' principalities like Novgorod Republic, Novgorod-Suzdal, Tver, Ryazan, Rostov etc. but also all those non-Rus' states such as khanates, emirates, empires, kingdoms etc. that existed on the Eurasian steppe and Siberia before Moscow conquered them. We can't really do both simultaneously without creating the massive overlap that the article is currently showing. I'd like to improve this article, but perhaps we should reach agreement about this first.

A third alternative to a state-based or geography-based narrative would be to just make things chronological, by century for example. Instead of looking at events only through the eyes of the Mongols / Golden Horde (which also has its problems, as e.g. the Novgorod Republic was never subjected by it), or only through the eyes of Muscovy, we can explain relevant events that happened in, say, the 15th century under the heading 15th century. This prevents overlap and duplication of information. I'm curious what other editors think, but if nobody responds, I think I'm gonna introduce century-based sections to solve the issues. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

article’s historic infidelity

The amount of things factually incorrect in this article is mind boggling! Such an article should not be based on myths and falsehoods propagated by the Russian Empire in the 18th to 20th century. Valdazleifr (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to be more specific Marcelus (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Prehistory

To say that prehistory of Siberia has to do with the prehistory of Russia is in my opinion not correct. This would be the same as to say that prehistory of Denmark has to do with prehistory of Greenland. Just because Greenland is under Denmark rule the prehistories have nothing in common. Kinna (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I aggree! This is nonsense. And the complete paragraph of prehistory is very, very poor. E.G. the Mesolitic an AC/C-Neolithic periods are completely missing!HJJHolm (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Gene pool

Do I need to explain the problem with citing a book about the gene pool of ethnic Russians to change the first sentence of this article? Not to mention the other unexplained POV changes. Mellk (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay didn't notice at first. I can replace it with other source. Now, what are these other "POV edits"? Shahray (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

First, you must self-revert. You do not have consensus for your changes. Mellk (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I deleted what is disputed, for everything else you haven't made an explanation yet. Shahray (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I disputed all the changes. I have already mentioned elsewhere that you made a large number of unexplained and unsourced changes. The long-standing text does not need to be changed, you made POV changes to the wording for no good reason. Mellk (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

For example? So far I only heard something about russians and suzdalians. Shahray (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, in the history of Ukraine article, you are OK with adding claims like "Ukrainian territories" formed the core of Kievan Rus,[1] but on this article, you made blanket changes of Russia/Russian to modern Russia/Russian and other terms based on personal opinion. Are you going to fully self-revert or not? Mellk (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a claim, this is how it's written in the main Ukraine article as well.

I overviewed and found only one example where "modern" can be out of place. For everything else, again, you haven't given explanation. Shahray (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I have told you why you were reverted. I do not see the point of discussing further if you are not willing to undo your changes. An admin told you that you should avoid reverting in such instances, but even that is apparently not enough. Mellk (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

So far you only given explanation for "modern" and "Finno-Ugric", and I deleted them. I will undo them all, if you will give actual explanation and reason, but for now you're just again summarising it like "complete nonsense". How am I supposed to interpret this? Shahray (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not how it works. You do not have consensus for your changes. You were told repeatedly to read WP:BRD. You were reverted. Rather than edit warring, you are supposed to discuss with me and get consensus for your changes. Mellk (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Then must read this part of WP:BRD:"If you revert, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page". If you just write "I don't agree", and then delete all of the changes, it's not how it works either. Be specific about your reasons, Mellk. Shahray (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You missed the part where it says "don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting". You have restored your edit and refuse to self-revert. I have already given you a specific reason for reverting, I am not expected to write an essay in the edit summary explaining why I oppose every single change. Mellk (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That follows after reasoning part, which you haven't given yet. So keep that in mind and follow the policy. Shahray (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You made more than a dozen changes to the wording. I do not need to list all these changes you made when you can take a look at the diff yourself and see what you changed. This is a waste of time.

As I already mentioned, there is no good reason to change the wording. The previous wording was fine. If you disagree, suggest what should be changed here on the talk page and get consensus for your changes first rather than edit warring.

Finally, there is no reason to mention Finno-Ugric origins of ethnic Russians in the opening sentence. The article is about the history of Russia, not the ethnic origins of Russians and Finno-Ugric tribes (citing a source about the gene pool) is not relevant there. You also added detail about Askold and Dir. I do not need the point of inserting "Land of Rus", when, like on the talk page of history of Ukraine, you were told by User:Alaexis that this was term was unclear and does not belong there. This fixation on "Land of Rus" and your attempts to associate Ukraine with it is disruptive at this point. Mellk (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not nearly a dozen, you just can't or don't want to explain why have you reverted them.

No it wasn't entirely accurate, like for example "Rus' state" is mentioned in the beginning, and "Russian principalities". Other statements were made according to sources.

If Russians are descendent from finno-ugric tribes as well, their history also touches them in equal amount, obviously.

Yes, I added details about Askold and Dir.

Land of Rus' isn't unclear, when in Rus' people article you very clearly differentiated it from Scandinavian Rus'. What was unclear for Alaexis is Ruthenia reference. I only have doubts about the inclusion of Land of Rus' because it's not a territory of modern Russia, but still it probably left a huge impact on these Northern territories at the time for it to not be mentioned.

I do not remember where I mentioned Ukraine once in those edits. It's you who is fixated on finding relationship between modern politics and countries/events that happened thousands of years ago.

Okay, I'll wait for while, but if that's it, I'll tell the other editor that you have given explanation in total for only two things, and everything else you just don't want to "waste time" on explaining. Shahray (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we work the other way, since the changes have already been disputed: Propose the changes here, and explain why you think they would improve the article. I believe this is a more reasonable way to start a discussion since we don't have to start by guessing the motivations for the change. Also the WP:ONUS on you, and so should the effort of starting the discussions be. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I won't list all the changes since you can view them in history of edits. I'll do a quick recap:

In lead add information about finno ugric ancestory of Russians, so it would be clear their history also heavily matters for Russia.

"Established Rus' state" is a bit of an incorrect description in lead, and would be better to rather change this to simply "establishment of Rus' people settlements".

Change "driving unification of Russian territory" to more neutral "conquering Russian territory and posing itself as" unificator"", as all this states weren't initially settled by some "unitary russian people" like in case with German unification for example, and control over them was gained in result of a long wars.

As about adding Askold and Dir, Land of Rus' and stuff, it's to explain how Scandinavians moved southern and how this northern tribes happened to be under Kiev's control. Shahray (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Rus state" is fine. Settlements were founded beginning in the 8th century in the Ladoga region, so it would be incorrect to say that the establishment of Rus settlements began in 862. As is mentioned in Viking Rus (2004), that year "despite its historicity or not, was always understood by scholars as a kind of a starting point of the Russian state" (p. 12).

Not all territories were conquered, and "unification" simply means that different states were combined into one. Adding "posing itself" as a unificator is a POV change. Mellk (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is incorrect to call any structure in 862 a state, and there's certainly was no "russian state". Kievan Rus' appeared in 882.

They weren't "combined", they were simply conquered and their territory came under moscow control, and nothing was left from their statehood. Shahray (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, you misinterpreted the source. 882 is simply when Kiev was conquered and is used as a conventional starting point for the "Kievan period". The Discovery of the Baltic (p. 272) says that 862 is when the new realm was established in the north. Either way, your proposal is not an improvement.

Currently we have cited Russia: A Country Study cited which says: "Muscovy gained full sovereignty over the ethnically Russian lands in 1480 when Mongol overlordship ended officially, and by the beginning of the sixteenth century virtually all those lands were united". If we pretend that this was all won by conquest, this does not matter. Mellk (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

882 is a common date for the beginning of Kievan Rus' state, this is even said further in the article:"Thus, the first East Slavic state, Rus', emerged". Thus, this quote is not correct and should be rephrased.

About Muscovy, if this territories were conquered, it's not "doesn't matter", the only issue you can address here is that there was no source added. Shahray (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This does not imply that the "Rus state" in Novgorod was the first East Slavic state. It was quite clearly ruled by Varangians, whereas the elite of Kievan Rus became Slavs. Read carefully. Mellk (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That's why we want to change the mention about East Slavs in quote about 882. The structure that formed in north in 862 wasn't yet a state, while Rus' state itself was created in 882. Shahray (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

(deindent) This thread will be a mess if we start discussing all of the suggested edits in a single thread. You can either create subthreads for the different items or we can proceed item-by-item. For this reason, I will only comment on the first item, the Finno-Ugric component in the Russian heritage. You added to the article Russians are as well descendants of finno-ugric tribes in approximately equal amounts I looked at the sources that you provided: First one is a link to Russian Wikipedia—not worth commenting on. The second, [2] discusses Kiovan Rus', but does not contain anything that would verify the statement. The third reference also does not contain anything that would verify this statement (it does discuss the fact that modern Russia, like Ancient Rus', is multinational). This kind of false referencing is disruptive, and a wastes other editors' time. I also note that these kind of claims that Russians are not actually Slavs but Finno-Ugrians mostly relate to Ukrainian identity-building, and have no place here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well this source actually refers to a video, and I'm not sure if this is reliable, so I deleted this statement. But it seems a lot of Russian scientists talk about finno-ugric heritage, like Kluchevsky, Lomonosov, and Karamzin (Карамзин Н. М. История государства Российского. Т. 1. — М.: Моск. рабочий, Слог. 1993—1994. — С. 45).

Well, since this topic is complicated, you can choose next item which you think is disputed, and put it into subthread, I don't really think next edits are big or complicated enough to be putted into subthreads. Shahray (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's continue with a simple thread then. I'll take the next biggest change, which is about Askold and Dir. You propose to change

• from Their successors allegedly moved south and extended their authority to Kiev, which had been previously dominated by the Khazars.[36]
• to Two of Rurik's kinsmen, Askold and Dir, travelled to the south, which had been previously dominated by the Khazars[36] and became the first Kievan princes, under them Dnieper Ukraine and it's inhabitants became known as Land of Rus' or Ruthenia,[37,38] which will then act as organizational metropole for northern lands.[39] Rurik's successors allegedly moved south to Kiev, and formed Rurik dynasty, which will then rule Kievan Rus'.

There are some grammatical problems which obscure the intended meaning here. Even if those would be fixed, I am not immediately convinced that this would be an improvement. I know the basics about the Kievan Rus', but the proposed text is heavily loaded with wikilinks, the only purpose of which seems to be name dropping. For me, it's too heavy to read and I don't see how it accomplishes the stated objective "it's to explain how Scandinavians moved southern and how this northern tribes happened to be under Kiev's control". As a sidenote, in the next paragraph (of the original text), the passage Thus, the first East Slavic state, Rus', emerged [...] is bit weird in the way it emphasizes the Slavicness of Kievan Rus', when were just told us that the leaders of the state were Varangians. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also just remove "the first East Slavic state" and change this to "Kievan Rus". Since, we are talking about the founding of the state and since assimilation was a gradual process which is mentioned later on (By the end of the 10th century, the minority Norse military aristocracy had merged with the native Slavic population), we can just remove this. Mellk (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not native so you can always correct me. Regarding wikilinks, you can just move them at the end of the sentence.

"is bit weird in the way it emphasizes the Slavicness of Kievan Rus'" Yeah! I also noticed this, and changed to "the first state to rise among East Slavs". But still, quote "first East Slavic state" is also used in the main Kievan Rus' article, so does it need a change as well? Shahray (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Jähmefyysikko, so if you don't have any other questions regarding Askold and Dir we can move to the other items. Shahray (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't have any consensus yet, so moving on would be maintaining the status quo, and I guess that's not what you want. I still think we should fix this passage a bit, so let me offer more precise criticism:

• If we go into detail of mentioning Askold and Dir, then we should also mention Oleg, who is perhaps more important in establishing the polity and especially the dynasty. I think we should not mention either here.
• Mentioning Dnieper Ukraine seems unmotivated (the target article is about modern Ukraine). The article about Kiovan princes (links to Grand Prince of Kiev) has overlap with Rurik dynasty so we only need to offer one of those links. I suggest Rurik dynasty, which can be more naturally mentioned here.
• "inhabitants became known as Land of Rus' or Ruthenia": we should not mention nomenclature for nomenclature's sake, so drop these.
• "which will then act as organizational metropole for northern lands." Is this saying that Kiev rules the region surrounding it? That's what most city-states do, so I don't think there's much information here. Anyway, I would not use Encyclopedia of Ukraine as a reference in any contentious context, since its impartiality is disputed.

In the text currently in the article, there are the following problems:

• the "first East-Slavic state" is unmotivated
• "allegedly" is a weasel word, replace with "According to the chronicles"

I propose (changes in red)

[...] the Varangians Rurik, Sineus and Truvor were invited in the 860s to restore order in three towns [...]. According to the chronicles, their successors moved south and extended their authority to Kiev, which had been previously dominated by the Khazars.

The state of Kiovan Rus', ruled by the Rurikid dynasty, emerged in the 9th century along the Dnieper River valley. A coordinated group of princely states with a common interest in maintaining trade along the river routes, Kievan Rus' controlled the trade route for furs, wax, and slaves between Scandinavia and the Byzantine Empire along the Volkhov and Dnieper Rivers.

Please enlighten me, why is Kiovan Rus' is presented as a "group of states" in the latter part? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Oleg is already mentioned, after Askold and Dir it tells that Rurik's successors went south, which includes Oleg.

2. Dnieper Ukraine merely refers to geographical region, not a country, you can also call it Middle Dnieper.

3. Land of Rus' refers to the core of Kievan Rus' which is Middle Dnieper. Ruthenia can simply be put as a pipelink for Land of Rus'.

4. Polans which were inhabitants of Middle Dnieper are cited as organizers of Kievan Rus'. It means this region was central for the entire Kievan Rus'.

5. Kievan Rus' disintegrated in high middle ages, Kievan region remained to call itself Rus' land while other principalities ruled by Rus' princes became more independent. Shahray (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Similarly, Askold and Dir are also included in "their successors"

2. I note that Middle Dnieper redirects to Dnieper Ukraine (after a recent edit), which still discusses the modern region. Dnieper River valley is already mentioned, is that not enough to locate the region where the action happens?

3. Linking to an article discussing an ambiguous term doesn't help our readers much. We are giving a broad overview for the reader who doesn't know anything and, if possible, we should use unambiguous terms.

4. Yes, perhaps Polans could be mentioned when Kiev is first mentioned, but I don't understand what it means to be an "organizer" of a state.

5. This change should be spelled out. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Well, I don't think they were succesors, they were killed by Oleg for that reason, Oleg is Rurik's successor because Rurik gave him his dominion.

2. Indeed, well it makes more sense then just Dnieper reference, which didn't clarify anything. If we are talking about Land of Rus' it is specifically Middle Dnieper region, while Kievan Rus' itself scatters across all of Dnieper.

3. Ruthenia is merged with Rus' region article by reaching consensus 10 years ago, you can look at it.

4. Because this region of Polans was at intersection of important trade routes and all important cultural and economic achievements were brought from here to peripheries of Kievan Rus'. It was also a political core and a residence for Grand Prince of Kiev.

5. You mean to change "princely states"? Shahray (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jähmefyysikko, so what? Shahray (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you have time, you can help with reviewing the changes in other articles. Shahray (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think we are making a lot of progress here. To item 5: I meant that we should add some description of how the state fragmented into multiple states, but I currently don't know enough about the topic. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So what do you propose regarding first 4? I'm not sure if this description is necessarily needed, but I'll think of the way it can be changed. Shahray (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jähmefyysikko, I solved the issue in History of Ukraine article, I was actually putting a bit of my own interpretation instead of strictly following the sources, so here, similarly, I want to change a few things about my wording, like removing pipelink to Ruthenia:"Two of Rurik's kinsmen, Askold and Dir, travelled to the south, which had been previously dominated by the Khazars and became the first Kievan princes, with their arrival Dnieper Ukraine and it's inhabitants became known as Rus' or Rus' land, this area will then execute power over northern lands as organizational metropole. Rurik's successors allegedly moved south to Kiev, and formed Rurik dynasty, which will then rule Kievan Rus'".

There should technically be no issues right now. Shahray (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that text is full of issues and would not be an improvement over the current version. Grammatic: the text is made of several unconnected ideas linked by commas, and the tense switches between future and past tense. Does the source really say that it's inhabitants became known as Rus' or Rus' land? It seems awkward to call people "land". Use of terms: Dnieper Ukraine is anachronistic, and that should be explicitly pointed out ("In the Dnieper valley, in the area of present-day Ukraine" or something similar). "Allegedly" I already commented on above, that seems to refer to chronicles, so "According to the Primary Chronicle (?)" would be better. There are also the two terms Rus' and Kiovan Rus'. Should the reader find some difference between the two, or would it be better to use a single term? If there is a difference, it should be explained because otherwise the text is confusing, or the use of one of the terms avoided. Again, I don't see much progress here, so perhaps move on? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I may not be strong in grammar.

"Does the source really say that it's inhabitants became known as Rus' or Rus' land? It seems awkward to call people "land"". Well in my sentence you can see "Dnieper Ukraine and it's inhabitants". So it refers to a territory of Dnieper Ukraine as well.

The source about Polans says:"In the 9th and 10th centuries they were already known as the Rus’". Regarding Rus' land we can insert source from main Kievan Rus article [3], I will translate quote from Ukrainian:"As follows from the author's list, the main blocks of this chronicle were created in the palaces of the cities of the Middle Dnieper region, i.e. "Rus' land" in the narrow sense of this term, the ancient political, cultural, and economic center of the East Slavic world".

Rus' land usually (in narrow sense) refers to Middle Dnieper, Dnieper Ukraine simply refers to the same region, it does not suggests Ukraine existed back then. In Novgorod Republic article [4], you can see a wording "Northern Russia" as well. So it's fine I guess. Shahray (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jähmefyysikko, I know you are active right now, so I am responding again, to solve all concerns faster and not stretch this discussion for unnecessarily long time.

Also, regarding "allegedly", yes indeed, Rurik is a legendary figure so I will insert a chronicle here. Shahray (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)