Talk:Rurik

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tatischev's Russian History and the Ioachim Chronicle

message: 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)
thread_title: Rus, Jutland and Adam of Bremen

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Imaginary sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Etymologies

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  text transferred from the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  battle between a linguist and genetical results 

message: 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)
thread_title: Tatishchev

message: 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)
thread_title:  The two dynasties were united with the marriage of Catherine the Great with Peter III in 1745 

message: 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)
thread_title:  son of Halfdan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rurik-Lachyn 

message: 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)
thread_title: An outdated source

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wikilink bogus terms to valid terms, replace them or define them

message: 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)
thread_title: Concerning Rurik's original name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Out of curiosity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Shum-gora]]