Talk:Rurik

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)

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. Mellk (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

To add, it looks like this POV has been pushed on Italian Wikipedia. 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)

semi-legendary status of Rurik

I would like to propose adding a brief, sourced note in the lead that reflects the widely held view among historians that Rurik may be a legendary or semi-legendary figure. Reliable reference works describe him as "semilegendary" or "semi-legendary":

• Encyclopaedia Britannica: "semilegendary founder of the Rurik dynasty"
• Encyclopedia.com: "The legendary Norman warrior Rurik "

Given that the historicity of Rurik is debated and that the Primary Chronicle was compiled centuries after the events it describes, it seems appropriate to mention this briefly in the lead, in line with Wikipedia's summary style. Proposed wording: Rurik is traditionally regarded as the founder of the Rurikid dynasty; however, many historians consider him a legendary or semi-legendary figure. I would appreciate feedback before making the change. Smirnoff80 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand the MOS:LEAD concern and I am not arguing that the lead should become overloaded with historiographical detail.

My point was simply that several modern reference works explicitly describe Rurik as "semi-legendary", and this characterization is widely used in scholarship and encyclopedic literature. Since the article already discusses the uncertainty surrounding the Primary Chronicle account, a brief and carefully worded mention in the lead does not seem undue to me.

At the same time, I agree that the wording should remain balanced and avoid overstating certainty in either direction. Perhaps a compromise formulation could be discussed. Smirnoff80 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Mellk. Thanks for clarifying your stance regarding MOS:LEAD. I understand your point that the terms "legendary" or "semi-legendary" should be fully established in the body of the article before appearing in the introduction.

To resolve this and comply with Wikipedia guidelines, I propose that we first expand the Historiography section. We can explicitly mention that standard academic reference works, such as Encyclopædia Britannica and Encyclopedia.com (including the entry by Dimnik), treat Rurik's historical consensus as open to debate. While Dimnik rightly notes that archaeology neither proves nor disproves the chronicles, the broader academic consensus often categorizes him as a "semi-legendary" figure precisely because of this lack of contemporary verification.

Once we establish this in the body with proper citations from Britannica and Encyclopedia.com, we can then return to updating the lead to accurately summarize the text. Let's work together on the wording for the Historiography section first. What are your thoughts on this approach? Smirnoff80 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)