Talk:Rurik

Rurik-Lachyn

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

An outdated source

An Outdated source in this sentence: The Rurikid haplotype itself (all 67 markers considered) is more closely associated with Northern Germanic language speakers.[3]

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 University of Helsinki.), it reads at the top that it's outdated and redirects to: http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/N1c1.xps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning Rurik's original name

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

Out of curiosity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shum-gora

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

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

Rurik's 15-th cousin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sidoroff-B: Y4339 is NOT downstream of L392 according to this display: [1] which they claim is based on yfull's information. It shows L392 seven nodes down the green branch, and Y4339 13 nodes down the yellow branch. Also, the autosomal figure shows a better match with Norway than Sweden, and what (very) little you see of it, up at the top, Iceland is looking pretty brown. Anyhow, this is not about whether or not you are right. You can't cite a paper that reaches a different conclusion than what you want to state, even if you think you know better than they do. Yfull's alternative interpretation may not be as they describe it, but it is self-published and has not been subjected to independent review, so it is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Neither the original paper nor yfull mention Rurik, and hence your personal conclusions represent Original Research, which is not allowed. You have nothing usable, and until you do, we are done. Agricolae (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-normanism

I reverted this edit which adds the supposed names of Rurik's parents in the infobox. The problem with this, though, is Rurik's parents are not known (even who exactly Rurik was is also not known). This seems to be part of anti-normanism theories which include Rurik having Slavic origins. Specifically about Gostomysl and his daughter Umila who supposedly had a son called Rurik. Now also promoted by Putin. There is a BBC article I found.[2] Mellk (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

To add, it looks like this POV has been pushed on Italian Wikipedia[3][4]. It is borderline fringe but probably the state-sponsored version now. Mellk (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also WP:ALTNAMES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you serious or just paying a fool?

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

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

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

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

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

"Please respect WP:BRD."

Thats intimidation and a lie. I never disrespected it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiśniowiecki etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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