Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 19 May 2009

	Rus' Khaganate is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 20, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed November 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed November 15, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 15, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 19, 2006. Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Belarus High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Norse history and culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country More information: /  This article has been marked as needing an infobox. An editor has requested that a flag image be added to this article and placed within the infobox. An editor has requested that a coat of arms image be added to this article and placed within the infobox. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Nomination

I'm afraid I'll be failing this. My comments on relavent parts of the GA requirements are as such:

1. It is well written. Fail
(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

Stylistic issues, including awkward phrasing in the introduction, are problems.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

The lead section is too short and doesn't "sum up" the article. Futhermore, it's generally a bad idea to introduce cited information in an intro, at least unless it's expounded upon in the article body.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Pass -with flying colours

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

very well done. comprehensive and complete

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;

acceptable. However, if you're going to use footnotes and a works cited, why not just put the full citations into the footnotes?

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

very well done. Nothing looks suspect, and a good number of the sources are from very respectable publishers.

3. It is broad in its coverage. Fail -but only tentativly

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

This is a very sparse article. Granted, it is a very sparsly documented subject. As it stands, I can't say whether or not it's a complete article, however if a respecable source were to be put in that says, "we know x, y, and z," about this period, and nothing more, and then the article covers x, y, and z, that'd be complete.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass -Apparently not applicable either.

5. It is stable. Fail

It's only 5 days old. The nomination was only made after the article existed for one day. Let a number of editors work on it, decide that it's GA material, and then renominate, also after other problems taken care of.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Fail

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

The relevance of the first picture is not explained, and the caption for the second picture contains text which belongs in the body of the article.

All in all, this has potential. But it's not GA material now, for reasons above. I work on articles about poorly known historical figures and periods all the time, and believe me, you can ususally dredge up a little more than this, if only in the form of scholarly debate. You might want to get a few more knowledgable editors (perhaps find a related wikiproject and flag them down) and a few copyeditors to straighten out some awkward prose. Thanatosimii 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

GA second try

A lot of progress has been made since the last nomination. I placed a {{fact}} tag next to one statement that needed a citation, but other than that this article passes all GA criteria. So I am promoting it now. --RelHistBuff 11:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Brian, I think I will be through with the article by the end of the day. I suppose we need a painstaking proofreading, so as to improve my bloody English, and some standardization of references: for instance, we have two or three Noonans, so a reference to "Noonan Rus" may look confusing. I'm not sure how these problems are usually solved. --Ghirla 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Girla, I appreciate your edits, which are moving the article in the right direction. I'm going to make some more major edits to this article over the next several days. Beit Or 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the current version is rather well-balanced. If you think about adding new content, my concern is not to give undue weight to some fringe theory. The subject of the article is little documented and extremely delicate, so that wild speculations abound. We should be very careful on this ground. --Ghirla 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:citations, usually the footnote would have the author and (if there are more than one work by that author) the title or part of the title of the work, then page number. I will work on it a bit. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just about right now. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "Zuckerman 2000"? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

High quality illustrations

By way of illustrating the article, I may suggest another painting by Vasnetsov illustrating the traditions of the 10th-century Rus. I understand that it refers to a later period, so I would not replace the current picture without prior consultation. Another Vasnetsov's painting is this. It is supposed to illustrate a Russian fairy tale, but would look nice in some articles on early Russian history as well. --Ghirla 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I love the Boyan one, but as you say, he lived in a later period. It would be great for the Kievan Rus' article, though. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion. I just noted that the online version of Vernadsky's work is illustrated by the symbols found on pottery unearthed in 1997 at Lyubsha and dated to the mid-9th century (see at the very top of the page). --Ghirla 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Title "khagan" in the tenth century

What's the source of this statement: "Apart from Hudud al-Alam, there is no evidence that the title was used in the tenth century." Ibn Rustah, for example, used it in the mid-tenth century. Beit Or 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you name any? Ibn Rustah compiled his work based on the anonymous text dated from between 860s to the 880s, while later Arab authors just repeated Ibn Rustah's words. --Ghirla 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that certain about ibn Rustah, or a theory? In any case Ilarion and others use it in later periods, even if rarely and possibly for poetic effect. I don't think we can definitively say that it was never used in the tenth century; rather, that it appears not to have been extensively used. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But, and this is just my own musing, even if, for example, Sviatoslav or Igor used the title Khagan, it doesn't necessarily mean that they got it from the old Rus' Khaganate. Remember that the Khazar empire still flourished into the mid tenth century so it's possible that both the Rus' Khagans and the Kievan Rus' leaders who may have called themselves Khagans in later periods got the title from the Khazars. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dating

The first paragraph puts the approximate timeframe of the time when Rus' Khaganate flourished at roughly the late eighth and early to mid-ninth centuries CE. I'm afraid this statement is unclear. If we take the mid-ninth century as the ending date of the khaganate, then the testimonies of ibn Rustah and ibn Fadlan, both of whom visited the Volga region in the tenth century, must be disregarded. Furthermore, the dating of the existence of the khaganate is dipsuted among scholars; we need some very strong evidence to assign fixed dating to this polity. Beit Or 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As best I know, ibn Fadlan did not call the Rus' leader "khagan", while ibn Rustah never visited Northern Europe. He used the text of the so-called "anonymous notice" from the 870s. Zuckerman speaks about it in his paper. --Ghirla 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Fadlan didn't call the Rus' king Khagan, but the title clearly was used even by Russian sources (though probably just for poetic effect). I've made some adjustments in that section to a somewhat more cautious wording. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually I meant to ask about consistency between the above statement from the lead and the usage of ibn Rustah and ibn Fadlan as sources (the latter is used for the description of the "khagan" even though he doesn't mention this title). Beit Or 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jones is quoted as saying that ibn Fadlan DOES call the ruler khagan - I'll have to double check my copy to figure this out. He may actually refer to ibn Rustah. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the reference. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed a certain "Pavel Smirnov" mentioned at the beginning of the section. Who is he? Judging from the text, he follows Rybakov's obsolete idea about the khaganate's location in the Dnieper valley. Why is his opinion so important as to come before primary sources? Is there any reference? --Ghirla 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not familiar with his work. Who added him?

I have provided the reference. Less certain about his influence, but Peter Benjamin Golden seems to view him as significant enough to cite his opinion. Beit Or 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Slavic sources on Rus Khaganate

What's the reference for the claim that later Slavic sources mention Rus Khaganate? They only seem to apply the title "khagan" to some contemporary princes. Beit Or 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am thus inclined to move these quotes to the "Decline and legacy" section. Beit Or 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology of Kiev

I just noticed that the paragraph "There is no evidence of an urban settlement on the site of Kiev prior to the 880s. Archaeological finds from the period in the vicinity of Kiev are almost non-existent." contradicts the following paragraph from Kyi, Schek and Khoriv:

"Archeological excavations have shown, there indeed was an ancient settlement from the 6th century."

Did I miss something here? Or am I being confused by the word "urban" in the "There is no evidence of an urban settlement" phrase? Goliath74 03:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

FA

Since it appears that most of the major edits are in, I'm going to nominate this for FA at the end of the day unless there are any objections or anyone wants to make a major addition. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add separate sections on government, customs, and relations with neighbors, and to expand the section on economy, but that may take some time. Beit Or 20:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Should I hold off then? There's no reason that stuff can't be added later either way. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's up to you, I suppose. Beit Or 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait till those sections are integrated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Walkeren"

As far as I know, this can only be an alternative spelling (and pronunciation!) of Walcheren, now in Zeeland. I checked and did not find any Frisian island called Walkeren today. However, historically, "Frisian Walkeren" is correct. Frisians did settle Walcheren (and part of West-Flanders) and at the time given in the article, Frisian influence on Walcheren/Walkeren must have been strong. See eg I do not know what to do about this - I do not want to obstruct FA status, but someone should have a look at this, thanks. --Pan Gerwazy 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the nature of the problem. You say that Frisian Walkeren is historically correct. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But there is a link in the article to Frisian islands, which are all on the East: North East of modern Frisia, a province in the Netherlands (with its own language, Frisian, which died out on most of these islands). Walcheren is in the South West of the Netherlands (there is the whole of Holland in between!), and therefore it is not mentioned under Frisian islands. The link should go to Old Frisian history, Old Frisia, or whatever, I think. Our Misplaced Pages article on Walcheren does not mention its Frisian past. A link to Frisian islands puts the place more Easterly than it really is/was. Oh, and Walcheren is no longer an island, it was joined to Zuid-Beveland, which in its turn was joined to the mainland. What used to be Walcheren is now the townships of Middelburg, Veere and Vlissingen (=Flushing). --Pan Gerwazy 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pan, thanks for pointing this out to me. I encountered the name of the island in the Russian translation of Zuckerman's article as Валькерен and was sort of lost to find a correct transliteration back to English. Since the island was said to be in the modern Netherlands and Category:Islands of the Netherlands contains only Frisian islands, I assumed that it is one of the Frisian islands and eliminated the redlinking by linking Walkeren to Frisian Islands. Now that you helped to identify the (former) island, I corrected the wikilink to point to Walcheren. --Ghirla 14:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that solves the problem. The Walcheren article talks about Danes (who seem to have taken over from the Frisians and may even have assimilated them). Walcheren would be Валхерен (stress on first syllable, possibly intrusive -e- at the end) in Russian by the way. The "k" probably indicates an incomplete 1st Germanic consonat switch (Indo-European "k" becoming "h" or "х"). "Walkeren" exists as a family name in the Netherlands. Funny how the Frisian connection turned out to be pure coincidence... Most of the remaining Dutch islands are indeed Frisian now. There is Texel, which looks like an extension of the Frisian islands, but was never considered Frisian. And there is a 2 square kilometre uninhabited and unnamed island a few kilometres off Rotterdam harbour. --Pan Gerwazy 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. At the time, of course, before the great land reclamations, most of the area was probably swamp and island. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, a swamp is actually a good defensive position (the Belgians proved that in 1914). However, there is a major problem with Khaganate Rus' at Walcheren: Charlemagne is supposed to have subdued the Frisians in 790. Just how strong his control was, remains in doubt if you look how Frankish land was divided in 840. West-Flanders, settled by Frisians and Saxons, but conquered by 790 was given to France: why split up the "core Frankish lands" this way? And the Verdun treaty did not even mention which arm of the Scheldt (normally two before the reclaiming, but occasionally three or four immediately after some inundations) was meant as the border, so the status of Walcheren was unclear. If the source does suggest that there were at least some Rus' at Walcheren in the time period of the Khaganate, that may mean an alliance between Frisians or Danes on the one hand and Rus' on the other. Did the Frisians hire a pre-Varangian guard to protect their largely maritime "empire"? Fascinating stuff, but, unfortunately, something lost in the mist of history, I suppose.--Pan Gerwazy 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

More's the pity. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

"even before the rise of Holmgard-Novgorod, the chief political and economic centre of the area was located at Aldeigja-Ladoga". This implies that Aldeigja-Ladoga was still the chief center after the rise of Holmgard-Novgorod (because of the "even before"), which would seem to not be the case. I'm not sure it that's what it's trying to say. Is this just meant to say that Aldeigja-Ladoga was supplanted by Holmgard-Novgorod when the latter developed, or is it meant to emphasize that the region was already politically and economically active before the development of the latter center? I've left it as is for now, but clarification would be good. --Robth 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The former interpretation is correct. Kudos for your thorough copyedit of the article. It was most helpful. --Ghirla 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; I've removed the "even" to clarify the meaning in the text. And the copyedit was my pleasure; I always enjoy doing a close reading of a well-done article like this. --Robth 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Noncovered questions genesis of this theory

Congrats with FAC success. It seems I failed to "derail" the nomination :-). Still my questions remained, and I am moving this sore in your eye here.

• article requires a full separate section about the genesis of this theory. At present the text is written in the matter-of-fact way (although with NPOV defense: "there was a state or not state", "it was located here or there", etc. (which is good)).
• What missing is who of historians was first to use the term "Russky Kaganat" or synonym.
• Were there any sporadic references during previous centuries?
• Are there any notable opponents? (I dont believe there are none. I know quite a few guys who are sure that Russians are Finns or Huns. But I may be wrong; the latter guys may be simply ignorant of RusKha).
• What are the reasons under the intro phrase: "Rus' Khaganate, sometimes called Volkhov Rus, Ilmen Rus, or Novgorod Rus"? Who identified them as the one?
• The intro should state clearly that Rus' Khaganate is a relatively modern term and most probably was not used at these times.
• Any hypotheses about absence of the mentioning in Primary Chronicle besides a vague phrase that slavs and finns first kicked varangian's ass and then invited them back.

I hope you take them seriously, rather than take a defensive position against a Russophobic Mikka. `'mikkanarxi 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that to the extent sources are available, all of your questions are addressed in the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• They are not. Try a random one from the list: "who of historians was first to use the term "Russky Kaganat" or synonym?"

And the major problem is that it seems you don't really care, and I don't care as well, otherwise I would have already updated the text. `'mikkanarxi 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

While I am here, what the heck is Vadim the Bold to do with khaganate? `'mikkanarxi 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that you're seeking to satify your curiousity. If so, you should do some research insteading of asking questions on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Beit Or 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And my impresion is that you are dodging the issues. Good bye, not playing these games anymore. `'mikkanarxi 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question presupposes that a "historian" came up with the designation "Rus' Khaganate" on his own. That is not the case. The name appears in various forms in primary, contemporaneous documents. And I think Vadim's possible connection is made quite clear. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Vadim issue: as a goodbye, let me spell it for you. (1) The the article says khaganate was dissolved before "the call of varyags" of kievan Rus, as referred by Primary Chronicle. (2) Vadim is described as rebelling against Rurik (3) Rurik was not among rulers of khaganate. (4) hence Vadim is irrelevant to khaganate. Don't bother to answer, feel safe in your historical essays. `'mikkanarxi 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the text of this article yet again, I can only conclude that you either (a) misunderstand the nature of the parts you cite or (b) deliberately ignoring the text in favor of hearing yourself type. The only (very scant) mention of Vadim is at the end where what is known about the destruction of the early Rus' sites is compared to the account of Vadim's revolt in the Nikon chronicle. As the article states all too clearly, it's not at all clear whether Rurik was a ruler of the Khagnate, or what relationship, if any the Rurikids had with the Rus' Khagans'. It's hard to assume good faith when, rather than edit in a constructive manner, you sit on the talk page and take potshots, repeating the same arguments ad nauseum and ignoring whatever explanation is given. Your attitude is akin to denying that Ancient Egypt existed because such facts as Tutankhamun's perantage are unknown or multiple theories exist. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Unless you raise any new issues, I don't really have anything further to say to address your complaints. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is a nonsence

Khaganate is a Turkic word and applying it to a Russian state is a nonsence. This article propagates Fomenkoism. While some Russian princes probably were reffered to as khagans in Turkic languages or asquired the title by conquest of Turkic peoples, use of this word to describe genuinely Slavic state is an anti-scientific nonsence.--Dojarca 13:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the sources cited in the article clearly demonstrate that "Khagan" was used as a title by the Rus' themselves, and even by later Kievan Rus' people in a literary manner. You cannot erase history simply because it doesn't agree with your worldview. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, did you really read the article? Beit Or 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OBALDET!!! SAY WHAT? Briangotts, where did you get this B/S? That is so not true. I would agree if you say that some of them did. Can you give a reference? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I support the opinion "This article is a nonsence". There is no consensus in academia about Rus' Khaganate, but the article stress only on one, so called "Nothern" theory. I would ask authors of the article to rewrite it in more neutral style. At least in the introduction. I've tried to do that , but some users has been pushing their point of view.--133.41.84.206 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You support your own opinion? How interesting. If you actually read the article, you will see that no fewer than 3 different theories on the location are given. The one given most attention is the one supported by the largest number of modern historians. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not my opinion but of the user metioned above. I've actually read the article and found out that there is no consensus about this polity.

Firstly, it is a hypotetical state and it should be presented as such in introduction. No direct evidence that proves the existance of Rus Khaganat as a state is available nowadays. No country of the medieval time in Europe or Asia did mention such state. So the introduction should include term "hypotetical".

Secondly, there is no established theory in academia about the realm of Rus Khaganate. You may describe all theories in the article as you do, stressing on the views of the the largest number of modern historians, but not in the introduction, because the problem of location is still on debate. Therefore I would ask you to make the introduction less categoriacal, omiting the direct relation to any particular region (Novgorod, Kiev or whatever) because we dont now for sure the exact location of the polity as well as the true name of it...

Hope you will listen to my comments.--133.41.84.206 02:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that everyone is listening to your comments. However, IMHO this is a highly mature and stable article which has been thoroughly scrutinized and discussed. I think it is fair to say that the present version pretty much corresponds what a majority of the interested WP editors can agree on.--Berig 09:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources ??

Hello,

There seem to be no actual sources that support any of the information in the lead.

The previous discussions have shown that there is no consensus in the scholarly community about this polity.

Are there any sources which would support the existence of this article? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but to continue my point: references 1,2, and 3 all say "eg Christian" plus page number. What does that mean? Which Christian? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? If you look at the very extensive list of sources you will see that one of the authors cited is the noted historian David Christian. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise, this is another David Christian. Beit Or 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, thanks. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, when I click on the reference number, I see "eg. Christian, pg 338". What does this mean? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any source which supports this statement "A predecessor to the Rurik Dynasty and the Kievan Rus', the Rus' Khaganate was a state (or a cluster of city-states) set up by Varangians (Scandinavians) in what is today northern Russia."

Or this "The varangians were called Rhos or Rus." Are there any sources for this? The asticle Rus(people) does not actually quote any references that support this.

Or the classic "The Rus' Khaganate period marked the genesis of a distinct Rus' ethnos, and its successor states would include Kievan Rus' and later states from which modern Russia evolved." Modern Russia evolved from Rus? Which later states? That is the problem with this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just checked the two David Christians. So which one is the referenced source - the Vietnam hero or the author of the history of vodka? Horlo (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments such as the one above hardly help you in this discussion Horlo.--Berig (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, you don't seem to have articulated any actual issue with the article, aside from your not understanding how standard MLA citation format works. Perhaps a thorough review of WP:CITE would be helpful. Jayjg 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The acclaimed historian . Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that what you have a problem with is the standard MLA citation format, not with the actual text of the article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Horlo. I care less for whatever format only if your claim can be verified. Of what use are your citation if they cannot be verified. Personally, I never heard of no Christian as I can bet you never did of Solovyov and Hrushevsky. Even the name of your historian already gives away a certain degree of bias. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, did you actually read the article? Hrushevsky is cited as one of the sources, amoung almost 50 others. And asserting that an author is biased because his name is "Christian" is completely absurd and undermines whatever argument you are trying to make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Khaganate

Mykhailo Hrushevskyi states that the Arabian source of IX century and one German chronologist were recalling that the Rus princes called themselves khagan. Hrushevskyi claims that this title was enherited from the Khazar Khaganate that was occupying the lands of what later became Rus. There was NO RUS KHAGANATE. Dr. Christian needs to check his sources a little bit more careful before inventing of no existent civilizations. Hrushevsky, Mykhailo. "Illustrated History of Ukraine." March of Russian Brigades, eds. p. 52. Donetsk, Ukraine: BAO, 2001. ISBN 966-548-571-7. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrushevskyi's theory is interesting and perhaps worthy of mention in the article, but it is one view out of many. Christian is hardly the only source that writes about the existence of the Rus' Khaganate. Have you actually read the article? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Franklin, Shepherd, Pritsak, Vernadsky, Zuckerman, Bartold, Machinsky and Artamonov are hardly lightweights in this field. Which one of us is the one ignoring sources? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Rus' Khaganate" is definitely not anything that you'd learn in any conventional history class as a fact. It is a theory that a some kind of statehood may have existed back then prior to the Kievan Rus' but..like the article says it was: "during a poorly documented period in the history". Yet, even though poorly documented, the article claims right frm the beginning that "The Rus' Khaganate was a polity that flourished". So there is a contradiction there. Also, Rus' Khaganate is quite ambiguous, there is a dispute among scholars regarding the location of the supposed Khaganate . In historical documents it can refer to either The Varangian Rus, or the Volga-Rus' Khaganate subject to the Khazar khagan, that's been thought was established by Itil Bulgarian Khan Aydar (819- 855) 831 AD etc. So at least the opening sentence should give more weight to the "poorly documented period" and uncertainty of the subject instead of claiming it for a fact that it "was a polity that flourished" etc. Also, most of the sources given are offline. Not that I'd question that there are people around who'd like to write thick books on poorly documented periods. But usually this kind of stuff is looked at as mythology by conventional historians. The bottom line, this subject is highly controversial unlike an impression I'm getting while reading this article.--Termer (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. I noticed the issues have been raised several times above with no results. That's too bad, in case this is indeed "one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community". As currently even the header contradicts the Location , Origin etc. sections that are actually not too bad. Comaan, how can you say in the lead that the Rus' Khaganate was a state (or a cluster of city-states) set up by a people called Rhos or Rus, and then later go into different direction with The location of the khaganate has been actively disputed since the early twentieth century and The origins of the Rus' Khaganate are unclear.Sorry guys, such contradictions within an article, especially in a featured article are just too far out.--Termer (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you seem to be missing the point here: Hrushevsky was a ground breaking historian working with primary sources on the ground.

And seriously, does a statement like "According to contemporaneous sources, the population centers of the region, which may have included the proto-towns of Holmgard (Novgorod), Aldeigja (Ladoga), Lyubsha, Alaborg, Sarskoe Gorodishche, and Timerevo, were under the rule of a monarch or monarchs using the Old Turkic title Khagan." have any actual factual basis at all?

I think that this article at least deserves a tag to clean it up. I will add one - it seems that I'm not the only person who sees serious issues here. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Pleasd do not remove tags

Hello,

Please let me outline the reasons I put the cleanup tag on this article.

First, there are no on-line references until, well, at all. The references provided cannot be verified, according to WP standards;

Second, a Google search of "Rus Khaganate" results in 7 mirrors of Misplaced Pages, the 8th being a Russian historical review from 1977. Unfortunately, that was written before the collapse of the ussr;

Third, a reliance on texts who use "Rus'" and "Russia" interchangeably, such as "The First Major Silver Crisis in Russia and the Baltic, ca. 875-900", and "The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860";

Fourth, the external links lead to either nothing connected to northern Russia ] or more soviet era history ].

Please do not remove the tag without adressing all of these issues, Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you are being disingenuous. The references are quite verifiable. There is no WP policy that requires WP:RS to be online. Your disagreement with terminology does not render sources illegitimate. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are featured articles
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Belarus articles
• High-importance Belarus articles
• FA-Class Norse history and culture articles
• High-importance Norse history and culture articles
• FA-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• FA-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance FA-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• FA-Class former country articles
• Former country articles without infoboxes
• Former country articles requiring a flag
• Former country articles requiring a coat of arms
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• FA-Class Middle Ages articles
• Unknown-importance Middle Ages articles
• FA-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages