Talk:Ruthenia

Μικρά Ρωσία

The article now reads: In the Russian Empire by 1840 the superior term , Μικρά Ρωσία, Little Rus, Rus Minora for Ruthenians become degradative

But "Μικρά Ρωσία" is Greek. What's this doing here??

I've replaced it with "Малая Русь" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia.

Omc (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Lifeglider: I see you reverted my edit. I have checked the Little Russia article and I understand why and I agree. However, Ρωσία is misspelled. Correct spelling is Ῥωσσία - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia#Etymology. The mark before the Ῥ is important. It's not a quote; it's called a rough breathing mark and it's part of the spelling. Also Ῥωσσία has two sigmas (σ). I've fixed the spelling in the article. Also deleted the misplaced comma after "term".Omc (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Lifeglider, I've had to revert your edit undoing Omc's correct entry. Please do not enter into edit warring here. If you have something to say, the Talk Page of any given article you wish to work on is where you should begin. Attempts have been made to discuss this with you but you have not responded. Perhaps you are confusing "Μικρά Ρωσία" for something else. "Μικρά Ρωσία" was an ecclesiastical term used by the Greek Byzantine church which only reflected a direct translation of the name for Rus' at the time and their breaking it down into the old Kievan Rus' region & the newer (then Muscovy) region as being adherents to the Byzantine Orthodox faith. This was adopted around the 14th or 15th century. Please don't confuse the nomenclature, nor how it evolved. Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Amalgamating the Rus' (region) entry with this article

The Rus' (region) item was flagged earlier in the year with a suggestion that it be merged with this article. Much as everyone seems to be avoiding the issue of a number of articles surrounding Rus' related subject matter, there are a considerable number of entries acting as duplicates for other entries (which I won't enumerate for the time being). The fact stands that this entry is dealing with precisely the same subject matter, but simply approaching it from another POV.

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

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

Merging the pages would assist in the creation of a better article as it will demand a need for verifiable, reliable sources and citations (something that both are seriously lacking in).

Please note that I've opened a section on the Rus' (region) talk page with the same commentary. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Falsification

This map ([1]) falsifies history. Kievan Rus disintegrated before the advent of cities Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod. The name " Belgorod Dnestrovsky" appeared in the Soviet Union (1944). The name "Vladimir Volynsky" -1795 year. Chersonessos ? Itil ? ... ... Michaila vnuk (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Great work! This would be done long time ago. It'd great to find some better map. Lifeglider (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As this is the same file as is being disputed on the Kievan Rus' talk page, it's best to reinstate it temporarily until consensus is reached regarding its veracity. For anyone following this discussion, please go to the talk page linked. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In general it is a mistake, to say that Ruthenia is only the Kievan Rus. Kievan Rus was a certain state. Ruthenia is the geografical and cultural territory, on which there has been emerging much more Ruthenian states (independent or dependent). In fact, East of the early Polish state (I'm from Poland & Ruś) and very often in its borders, there has been more and different Ruthenian states, not only the Kievan State. And Russia, historically is a very different piece of cake, territory, culture, completely different (and more despotic, asian type) tradition of government etc. Though some Russian scietists and politicians falsificate the history and the culture of our region saying, that the Ruthenia is the historical or/and todays part of Russia. That is nonsens ! A good example is that with the Rome and Romania. Romanians are of Roman tradition. Just as Russians are of the Ruthenian tradition. But nothing more. --Grb16 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You have raised a very important topic for the world. Russian leaders really tried with all their might to appropriate Ruthenia (Rus), although Novgorod was only a tributary of Rus', the city had a completely different culture, a language that had nothing to do with Ruthenian. Moscow was founded under the Golden Horde. 146.158.58.120 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruthenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126235948/http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/ruth/ruth00.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/ruth/ruth00.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit IP edit war introducing non-consensus new text, and removing consensus text

Despite being reverted by several editors, a dynamic IP has been changing text without any attempts at WP:BRD. The IP has been blocked for a short period of time, but could be please re-confirm that the use of 'derogatory' and other heavily loaded language is inappropriate WP:SYNTH conflating far more recent (i.e., modern) perceptions for subsections of an article dealing explicitly with actual historical usage of the WP:TITLE in an WP:NPOV manner?

While we're on the subject, I also think that the elaboration on the 'Rusyn' question in the "Early Middle Ages" carries too much WP:WEIGHT in context, taking up a third of the entire brief section. The allusion should be kept, but any excessive detail - if there is any not actually already addressed in the modern usage/dispute section - should be transferred. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the final part of the section? Well, then I agree, it will be better to transfer it .--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: Yes, that's the one. Looking at the article, I think it's straying WP:OFFTOPIC even for the contemporary section. If it needs to be transferred, I'd say it should be to the main article (that is, Rusyns), history section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I think you're right. Will you do it yourself or count on my help?--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nicoljaus. Apologies for the protracted delays between missives. I'd be grateful if you were to handle it as you see fit. I'm undergoing treatment again so, when I do check in (not often at the moment), I'm likely as not to forget. Thanks for your patience! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetngs, Iryna Harpy. I have cut this part, as it seemed to me the best way.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 01927 Ruthenia, a large group of peasants stand outside their thatch-roof homes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Current scopes of articles

We have two articles, with specific subjects that are focused on terminology:

• This article, related to the exonymic term Ruthenia, and thus properly titled: Ruthenia.
• Article related to the endonymic term Rus', currently titled: Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia.

Those are two distinctive subjects, and therefore it is proper to have two articles, but current contents of those articles are partially overlapping, in several segments. Article on the term Ruthenia should be focused on that term, without extensive elaborations on the term Rus', since that is the subject of the second article, that in turn should not contain extensive elaborations on the term Ruthenia, since that subject is covered by the first article.

Therefore, scope of the first article should be focused more clearly on the term Ruthenia, while the second article could be renamed to Names of Rus' and Russia, thus focusing more clearly on various distinctions between terms Rus' and Russia in English terminology. Sorabino (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There has to be overlap. Obviously, the second article is an overview which includes “and Ruthenia” in its subject.

But also because Ruthenia is a derivative: a Latin rendering of Rus. It originally was an exact synonym and used for the same thing, and only later acquired a more restricted meaning to refer chiefly to the southwestern region of former Kyivan Rus. Furthermore, the term Rus in non-historical usage, meaning for a contemporaneous country, came not to be used for Russia (after it was named Russia, Rossiia) and by the early twentieth century only referred to Carpathian Rus (=Carpathian Ruthenia), in the southwest.  —Michael Z. 03:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There should probably also be a page focusing on the bias here. Most of the point of view propounded in this article is properly classified as propaganda and revisionism, at best surprising to those of us of Ruthenian descent, at worst discriminatory and toxic. A≠non-A (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you describe a bit more specifically what you mean?  —Michael Z. 03:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"Russian land" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian land and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#Russian land until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Первоначальная область

Во время Киевской Руси 10 -13 века, Русь как метрополия земли вокруг Киева. И если из других земель ездили в Киев то говорили едем на Русь то есть в метрополию. 46.211.1.5 (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is about the definition of Rus Land (ruska zemlia) during the Kyivan period. It is touched on in Kievan Rus'#Names.  —Michael Z. 19:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Article concerns

This article is listed as B-class. A problem is that according to the WP:B-class criteria (#1), The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

The article is currently in the following categories:

• Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from April 2018
• Articles with unsourced statements from May 2021
• Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from May 2021
• Articles with unsourced statements from February 2023
• Articles with failed verification from July 2023
• Articles with unsourced statements from July 2023 -- Otr500 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Reassessment

Reassess article to C-class per above sourcing concerns (March 7, 2024‎) and no comments even from the supposed "204 watchers". Any further reassessment should be after the B-class criteria has been met. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)