User talk:Drbug/Russian History Harmonization

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

Project format discussion archive

Intentions[edit]

Dear Yeti, my intentions are very clearly expressed in the very first Wikipedia:Russian_History_Harmonization sentence. (Quote: This project targets to remove systematic anti-Russian bias in many articles related to Russian history and to reach consistency through Wikipedia.) If the project will also benefit "much wider subject", it's only good, I think. By the way, you are Pole, aren't you? It explains a lot. :-) Drbug 16:06, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Drbug. Please, show me these "anti-Russian bias". In many cases it is just non Russian view of history. Do you claim that Russians do not have their historical myths? They have. And I do not understand your last statement. If you suggest that I am anti-Russian you are wrong. I like and - as i think - I know Russia. By the way, I will be in your country again in July and August.Yeti 23:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yeti, you are surely not anti-Russian, I in no way tryed to insult you or something like that. However, claims about difference between Russia and Rossija definitely come from Poland (and early from Poland only) since ancient time. Recent time tensions didn't help tolerance. I will try to show several interesting facts that I found digging the historic texts a bit later... A fact that you are Pole (considering your answer, it's so) clearly explains why you are so sure that "reunification of Rus'" is nothing more than just a Russian myth... Are you planning to visit St.Petersburg, Rus' :-) this summer? Drbug 16:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
My very good friend is an Ukrainian. According to him Ukraine is only descendant of ancient Rus and the names of Rus was the name for Ukraine for centuries. Russia is to be something entirely new, created under Mongolian influence and translating Rus as Russia makes him mad. Who is right? His opinion against yours. In my personal opinion Russia is just ONE of descendants of Kyevian Rus - like Ukraine i Bialorus are. For me it is very clear. The comparison to Poland has no point as modern Poland is just the sole descendant of miedvieval Polish state. Do you know any other one? And why do you try to impose an impression on English speakers that Rus and Russia are the same word? We both know very well that is not. What do you afraid? By the way: as far as my nationality is concerned I am a POlish citizen, but my ethnic origins are far more complicated. Yeti 20:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If he is mad, how could he be right?! :-) I would completely agree with you point, if you replace Russia with Russian Federation or Great Russia. And this replacement is the key point. Russia is a very ambiguous word. In English, Rus and Russian are really almost the same (but "Rus" is archaism) - there are extremely few (or maybe even no) American scholars who clearly distinguish them. And invention of artificial words and classifications like "Russians/Ruthenes" just make things even more complicated, because it became necessary to read all talk pages to understad it. Therefore, I come to clear understanding that most widely used words in English ("Russia", "Russian") should be used through Wikipedia, but clear footnotes are necessary every time when any confusion is possible. However, it is a subject for discussion a bit later.
Yes, your ethnic origins and citizenship are not that really matters, but education does. So I mean that you have primarily Polish education. Drbug 08:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Drbug. You can tell such fairy tales to someone who knows nothing about Eastern Europe not does not speak Russian, Ukrainian and Polish. I do. And sorry, but for me the difference between Rus' and Rossiya is very clear. And why do you claim that Rus is archaism? This is very living word in all these languages and its meaning is very different than Rossiya. Ruthenia and Ruthenes are not artificial words. Mayby it is strange for someone with Russian education, but surely not for someone with Ukurainian or Polish. The word Ruthenia was almost solely translation of the word Rus into Latin in between 13th and 18th centuries at least as non-Muscovy Rus is concerned. I agree with you that usage of Ruthenia and Russia is complicated but it is not the point. Usage of names: Rus', Rossiya, Russky, Rusinsky, Carpato-Russky etc. is complicated as well but is obvious for every educated East-european. Making it artificially "simple" in English is a cheat. And as far as my education is concerned, if you claim that your Russian education makes you more predisposed to NPOV in this subject, forget about that. This is international encyclopedia, not Russian one and all points of view: Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Belorusian are equal. As far as I know we should try to make out a compromise version, not to favourise one of POV. It is why I claim that the heading you have included in many articles is not fair. To make it neutral we should add also something like: Ukrainian history harmonisation, Belarusian..., Carpathoruthenian... etc. It is why I claim that you try to enforce Russian POV.Yeti 13:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
en.wikipedia.org is definitely not Russian Wikipedia. It is English Wikipedia. Oriented to English readers, not to Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, nor educated East-European readers. It's why I will propose later to replace "Kievan Rus'" with "Kievan Rus". (By the way, in Russian Federation it is called "Древнерусское Государство" - "Ancient Russian State" - which is, strictly NPOV speaking, may be more correct.) I don't think it's wise to force English-speaking readers to guess what do beautiful newly invented pseudo-English terms mean. I suppose we should use well-established terminology instead, with correct notices and attribution. I agree that my Soviet education may lead to some bias too, and therefore I a) always do googlechecks and check for American historiography, and trust Russian sources only when claims are properly attributed, b) started this discussion in attempt to find internationally confirmed facts instead of editing articles. I'm trying to avoid bias, I do my best. Before accusing me that I'm telling fairy tales, please refer to American sources. I see you allegations, but see no comments on "fair tales" below in the Rus/Russia/Rosja section. Not all details are listed there, for example how "Grand Dukeship" was moved from one prince to another or how did Rusy interacted with Tatars, Poles, etc., but I will have to write them too if none of you write them. If you are sure that I have wrong eye, please show me significant amount of American academic texts with no *rus*sian or Polish authors, containing your point of view. National points of view should be properly attributed, and being properly attibuted they became a fact. For example, "Official Russian historiography considers Alexander Nevsky to be Russian patriot, great diplomat and warrior. However, some scholars, especially Ukrainian nationalists, consider him traitor, who helped Mongols to manage Russians and to repress their uprisings" - is an NPOV fact, despite it represents probably biased points of view. Hoping for cooperation, not for opposition, sincerelly yours, Drbug 15:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to oppose if you present constructive arguments not slogans from "traditional" Russian historiography. But facts are facts. Russia IS NOT ONLY translation of the name Rus' - Pycь into English. Ruthenia is in some cases used much more often than Russia, does not matter if you like it or not. Sorry, but Kingdom of Russia in case of the state of king Danylo seems just bizzare. There is commonly used name Kingdom of Ruthenia. The same about Duchy of Ruthenia, Red Ruthenia, Carpathian Ruthenia and many others. All of them are translations of the name of Rus'! So why do you calim that it is a artificial word? And sorry, but talking that Rosiya and Rus are the same is nothing more that nationalism.But Ok, let's try to work it out.Yeti 17:45, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely will collect factual statistic data before proposing changes in naming. It's why I only will (most probably) propose to replace "Rus'" with "Rus" - despite I'm really sure that former is much more frequently used, I have to check this for sure. As for "Rus" and "Rosja", you mix up two different issues (and this mix adds mess to the subject): a) whether or not actions of North-Russian rulers may be considered as reunification of Rus, and b) evolution of sounding of word "Rus". These a) and b) are not equal. I will present more facts on these issues, and the discussion of course will be continued. Frankly, I'm a bit concerned that instead of commenting prepositions that I suppose near to be facts, you are discussing where these facts lead. Let's first collect facts and than we'll think which NPOV conclusions can be made! What do you think about this? Drbug 18:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly searched "Rutenia" by Google and now I'm absolutely sure that in English language the term "Ruthenia" almost never used in sense of "Kievan Rus". Numbers later this week, but you can check immediately by yourself if you wish. "Ruthenia" should be removed from most places where it is now encountered in the Wikipedia. Sorry for destruction of your myth... Drbug 20:45, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming that I'm wrong, saying: In English, Rus and Russian are really almost the same (but "Rus" is archaism). However, could you please show me occurences of using "Rus" in sense of "Russian" in English? What is plural form? "Ruses"? "Rusians"? Frankly, I doubt that you will manage to find even single example, but anyway, it is appreciated, if any. Sorry for the tone, I'm just tired... :-( Drbug 21:07, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
To make the thing clear: I am entirely aware that Ruthenia is not often used as far as Kyevian Rus' is concerned. But on the other hand you claim that this is an artificial word, what is not true. The problem is also that Russia in English is used in two very DIFFERENT meanings, which HAVE TO be clearly stated. You have also a tendecy to claim that modern Russia and Rus are the same, which is not acceptable. If you like it or not we have to be aware that usage of the words Russia and Ruthenia is perfectly illogical in English. And usage it in manner of Russian scholars only is a bias. Anyway, I hope that we should try to reach compromise in discussions under every article regarded.Yeti 13:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see any real clashes of drbug with other editors that could justify so much fuss. I fail to understand why don't he just edit the articles he thinks suspicious. Mikkalai 16:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's because I hate conflicts, I hate wars, including reverting wars (however, when the war is inevitable, I don't avoid it)... And I don't have too mush spare time - there are tens of articles. Therefore there's no clashes. Two examples that fed me up are Rus/Rus'/Russia/Ruthenia/Russian/Ruthenian misleading nonsense and clear statements about Chechen separatist movement (discussion on this, I suppose, resulted in more consistency through the Wikipedia, too). I suppose that 1. listing strong fact 2. making strong resolution 3. referring to these resolutions in discussions 4. going to clause 1 cycle is much more productive than revering war. Drbug 18:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop personal attacks? Thank you! Drbug 16:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Stopped and removed. Could you pease be more specific when speaking of anti-Russian bias, with references to articles that you think they have? Mikkalai 17:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You are right, in the future I will try to be more specific when referring to both sources of my data and to Wikipedia's bias and inconsistency. Drbug 18:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quote from article about "Mongol invasion": Although a Ruthenian army defeated the Golden Horde at Kulikovo in 1380, Mongol domination of the Ruthenian-inhabited territories, along with demands of tribute from Ruthenian princes, continued until about 1480. No comments. Drbug 18:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
You've yet to hear what Fomenko has to say about this ;) Nikola 22:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea about that quote, but saying "No comments." is about as useful as banging your head against the nearest wall -- it's not useful at all. Be bold in editing pages, that is how this place works. I can't blame Mikkalai for his (now removed) comments about forming a committee just for the sake of forming a committee, because so far all that this thing has brought us has been odd-looking notes on top of various pages. That's not productive. --Shallot 18:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No problem to be bold. I was trying to find peaceful and professional solution, but if you suppose that war is better, there will be war. I will revert all claims that fall under scope of this project and have no enough authoritative factual references. I suppose that revert war is a stupid thing, but as you wish. As for the "No comment" remark, just for your information - Russian army at Kulikovo pole was the army by Dmitry Donskoy, the ruler of Moscow principality (Muscovy, Moskovskaya Rus). Drbug 21:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am not proposing war, I'm proposing that you fix things that are wrong. Believe it or not, there is actually a possibility that everyone won't disagree with you and instantly revert your changes! I've seen the diff of the changes to Ruthenia and it seems that even though Yeti and you disagree about the intricate details of the chronology and importance of events, there is nevertheless a consensus that various applications of Rus' have various meanings, and we just needed to state that without anti-Muscovy/anti-Russia overtones, or indeed any others. --Shallot 10:03, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rus'/Russia/Rosja[edit]

The Russian nation currently exists! It's origens can be explained!


Darn! I was writin (approx 5-6 hours) a large text about this all, but unfortunately pressed incorrect button in the browser. How stupid! I will retype that all later, but now main ideas:

  1. Rus' probably comes from Scandinavian *rotp-
  2. Rus' country probably started from North (Staraya Ladoga, Novgorod)
  3. Rus' word became common in early 900's
  4. When Kievan Rus' was declining, its principalities got much more fredom.
  5. These principalities however stayed somewhat united:
    1. They all earlier were territories of Kievan Rus'
    2. Their princes had common ancestor Rurik
    3. They fought for being Grand Duke (Kiev, then moved to Vladimir, them moved to Moscow)
    4. After rebellion, Mongols almost didn't participate in domestic affairs, and vast authonomy and some unity preserved
    5. People spoke in ancient-Russian (with dialects)
  6. However, Galich-Volynia (Galich-Volyn Rus') separated from other Russian principalities (denoted as Vladimir-Suzdal' Rus' and included Kiev) in 1199.
  7. Rus' word continued to be used in Rus'
  8. Byzantines used word Rosia since ancient times (Constantine used "Rosia" in his "Management of Imperias" book about 950)
  9. To distinguish Galich-Volyn Rus' from Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', Byzantine hierarches invented Mikra Rosia and Makra Rosia in 1361.
  10. Ivan III officially proclaimed to reunite "land of fathers" the Rus' (Message to lithuanian ambassadors in 1493: "чем его Бог подаровал от дед и прадед от начала, правой есть уроженный государь всеа Руси")
  11. He mostly succeeded, however, Poland that absorbed some Russian lands didn't like the idea of Russian resurrection
    1. At first, poles rejected title "of All Rus'"
    2. And then poles rejected an evident fact that north-Russian people are Russians - Matvej Mehovskij in his "Tractate about two Sarmatias" invented a "Moski" nation, and there are no any refences that they are part of Russian people.
    3. This scheme became common in Polish-Lithuanian literature, but high-educated people knew the real situation, and sometimes let out the truth: Mihalon Litvin, 1550: Moskovityane specified as part of Ruteni, and that Kiev was domain of Dukes of Russia and Moskovia.
  12. Like Byzantines invented Mikra and Makra Rusia's, most probably Poles invented Ukraina and Moskovia
  13. 1547 - Ivan IV was inaugurated as Tsar and Grand Duke of All Rus' (Tsar title added)
  14. "Rosiya" word was used by those who educated in Greece, used in clerical texts, and then eventually replaced Rus'
  15. 170x - Peter I was inaugurated as emperor, and the Russia became Russian Empire

...to be continued. Comments are highly appreciated!

Drbug 22:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. You can temporary save pages during editing. Dont be afraid. :-) I have been exposed for similar problems. On macintosh you can drag-and-drop current text into small noticies on the desktop.. When I make larger changes I temporary save it on another page, e.g. "History of Russia/temp" and then move it back laterwards to the main article. // Rogper 10:17, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the nice idea! Drbug 11:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rus/Rusy/Rusich[edit]

A comment: what was name of Kievan Rus' in the language spoken by inhabitants of Kievan Rus'? Did it have a name at all? If not, how was it called? How were people who inhabited Kievan Rus' called themselves, in their language? How did people speaking that language called that language, in the language? How do we know any of that? Are ther conflicting sources about that? Nikola 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think, your question is very hard to answer - people probably mostly named themselves by tribal names - for example, "Novgorodians" called themselves Slovyane; idea of unified country/state (ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer :-) ) wasn't that common these times in these territories, I guess. As far as I know, in early 900's Rus' and Rusy (Ruses) became widespread among inhabitans of Kievan Rus'. In 800's it mostly applied to the prince and his guards , then shifted to high-class too, and then to the rest of people. As far as I remember, in first 0907 Russian-Byzantine treaty Oleg is specified as "Князь русов" (Prince of Ruses). I however will check for details and refresh memory. Drbug 08:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking because I'm reading The tale of Igor's campaign, and at one place it says "къняземь о земли Руськои" but at another it says "за землю Русьскую" while Igor calls his people "Русичи". I think that it would be quite helpful if original names would be written in articles aside English ones. Nikola 01:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct, Русичи (Rusichi) is yet another form of inhabitans of Rus. I think it would be interesting to make refereces to chronicles and other documents, but this unfortunately requires much time. Земля Руськая, Руская, Русская, Русьская, Русов - all these spellings were used... Drbug 11:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Does that means that name was changing or that spelling was inconsistent? Regarding my second question, it seems then that Kievan Rus didn't have a name, as Serbia and, I believe, more countries of the time, but was called simply "land of Rus" (Rusian land). Nikola 05:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I guess, both - however, distinction between "changing" and "inconsistent" seems to me to be somewhat vague. As far as I know, there was no official internal name for the land originally (there basically was no need). By the way, "Serbia" was not internal name originally too - "ia" suffix is a Latin influence. In foreign relations, for Latin world, it often was Rusia, Russia, Ruscia... As far as I know, your assumption is correct - the country internally was referenced as land of fathers or land of Rus. Drbug 16:24, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I wanted to say, that Serbia didn't have a name. Now, another question has occurred to me - How are "Kievan Rus" and "Russia" called in today's Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish etc.? Nikola 08:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, can someone please add a status report, so we could see which articles are currently being worked at?--Ezhiki 13:33, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ruthenia and Etymology of Rus and derivatives have recently been edited/created in this vein. I'm not aware of much else. --Shallot 14:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ezhiki 14:43, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Now let's work :-)[edit]

Free wikipedians, thank you for your both support and criticism. I guess that I have caught attention of almost all who may be interested in the topic (and therefore whose participation should be fruitful). For a while, I suppose, there's no more need in the "inviting notices", so I won't revert them now.

The problem of inconsistency and noise is becoming the main problem of Wikipedia, and so I think techniques like that I'm experimentize now will someday become common - and so guidelines will be changed following this. Wikipedia is evolving, and therefore it is not wise to put rude "You are a vandal, I Am the Law" statements and revert others' attempts to improve the situation.

I suppose, we will discuss methods of harmonizing complex topics in common and notices in particular a bit later again. But now I'd ask you not to waste time by discussing first phase of harmonization process before other stages are completed, and so could you please help me in my attempt to achieve target of this project? I'm very scare that solely Nikola inserted factual data up to moment... Remember - I wish to remove antirussian bias from these articles, but I don't wish to replace it with Vladimir Medeiko's bias. So I (and the World) need your help!

a NPOV would also seek to remove pro-Russian bias, and Russian imperialism from Wikipedia! Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case here!
Genyo 02:31, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
First, thank you for pointing me more articles that need care. Second, I'm happy to see one who knows details of Ukrainian nationalistic point of view and therefore can do the QA for facts declared in this project. Please check Wikipedia:Russian_History_Harmonization - are there any factual errors? Please don't hesitate to add other facts. Thank you! Drbug 09:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
By the way, could you please specify, which articles contain what you call "pro-Russian bias, and Russian imperialism" that is not reflect standard scientific English world point of view? Thanks. Drbug 10:14, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Drbug 16:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ruthenian language[edit]

So far as I can discern, Ruthenian language and Old Russian language speak about a same language. I think that Ruthenian language should be made into a disambiguation page (there already is Rusyn language, and if Ruthenes was used to refer to Ukrainians, then Ruthenian language was probably used to refer to Ukrainian language as well). The page about the language should then be at a neutral location (for example at unusual but I think undisputable Language of Rus) until some final solution is found. Nikola 05:55, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If noone has objections in next few days, I'd do this. (I won't create "Language of Rus" but link to both Old Ruthenian language and Old Russian language.) Nikola 07:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Use of title Russia for Muscovy[edit]

Wikipedia is not a right place for promoting radical nationalistic views on the history.

First, as a matter of fact, the mainstream English historiography applies name Russia to the Muscovy. One can easily refer to any online Encyclopedia (http://www.encyclopedia.com http://encarta.msn.com http://www.eb.com) to check this.

Second, I'd like to mention facts proving that using name of Russia for Muscovy in not a common mistake, but a proper use.

Moskva (i.e. Muscovy) is used extremely rarely in Russian documents and therefore can't be considered the official name for the Muscovite Russia. Please notice, that Russians didn't use "Muscovy" (i.e. Moskovia), but "Moscow" (Moskva). It is common practice to denote the state for its capital - even now people (and mass media) often use phrases like "Washington decided" in sense of "The US government made a decision".

In most official documents (in letters to ambassadors, in decrees, and in chronicles) there are mostly used derivatives of Rus. I'd like to mention some examples, but believe me, they are really numerous, it's just a really few examples:

  • in 1493 Ivan III the Great wrote to Lithuanian ambassadors: "чем его Бог подаровал от дед и прадед от начала, правой есть уроженный государь всеа Руси" ("what his grand father and grand grand father granted, from the origins, he is a legitimate ruler of all Rus").
  • in text from the 1st Pskov chronicle, dated by 1526 (about second marriage of Vassily III): "Того же лета поеха князь великии, царь всея Роусии, в объездъ; ... И приеха князь великии тоя осени из объезда к Москве ... кому по мне царьствовати на Роускои земли ..." ("This year the Great Duke, the Tsar of all Russia, tripped around [Russia]; ... And in autumn the Great Duke returned to Moscow ... who will rule in Russian land after me ...".
  • in the letter to hetman Ivan Vygovsky in 1658: "Малую Росию в подданство под его царского величества высокую руку привел; а [теперь] буди Великая Росия Великою Росиею, а Малая Росия Малою Росиею..." ("...led Little Russia to hands of his royal majesty; and now Great Russia will be the Great Russia, and Little Russia will be the Little Russia...").
  • in 1650 Ukrainian Bogdan Khmelnitsky address Aleksey Mikhailovich as Tsar of Russia (Tolochko).

For the reason that I wish to take a sleep at least a bit this night, I skip story how the term Muscovy was invented by Poles. Now let's shift to the year 1713:

In early 18th century Russia became much larger than initial Moscow Principality, and usage of the name Muscovy by the West was incorrect. Russian ambassadors in 1713 asked to use more precise Russia instead of imprecise Muscovy.

  • in 1713 Menshikov writes to Russian ambassodor in Denmark: "Во всех курантах печатают государство наше Мос­ковским, а не Российским, и того ради извольте у себя сие престеречь, чтоб печатали Российским, о чем и к прочим ко всем дворам писано" ("In all newspaper our state is called Moscow one, not Russian one, and please ask them to use call it Russian one, and I wrote it to other govenments") - I don't see how it could be considered like Ukrainian nationalists state, that in 1713 Muscovy was renamed to Russia!

I think that the issue is absolute clear and I will prevent the nationalistic changes.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 05:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, comrade Vladimir, for documenting the name change with some diplomatic history. Keep looking for the name change earlier, you won't find it! I would note that this is only after Peter the Great fully absorbed the Rus' propria (the Ukarainian heartland). Ironically ,Russia would rule all of Rus' after its name was changed again, this time to "the USSR!" Genyo 18:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you have no mouth, why would you scream?! Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drbug/Russian_History_Harmonization&oldid=237451215"