User talk:Drbug/ArchiveAA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149
Contents |
[edit] ru:wiki tasks
Hi DrBug -- Ill leave a real response on the ru:wiki. -戴眩sv 17:55, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC) Oh never mind -- that was systranslation to russian --the message Im sure is fairly clear, but I originally forgot to add the link to meta:LanguageRu.php -- which, you guys need to translate to get rid of the English blight on your beautiful russian wiki. ;) Spaceeba. -戴眩sv 18:03, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Estonian Collar
Hi, Thank You for correction! But do you know more about this Collar... It must be in Москва but where?--Egon
[edit] Language.Php changing
BTW, could you please advise how should I proceed to make changes to be effective earlier?
- Sorry, I don't understand what have you meant by that :) Nikola 18:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I see now. Well, I don't know, except that I guess that there probably is someone else then Brion qho could do it. Ask on the lists (Intlwiki and Wikidev), explain that you've made drastic changes to the translation and that you don't expect new changes soon if at all etc. etc. And bring a big gun ;) Nikola 18:42, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Taiwan
Replied at User_talk:Menchi#Taiwan_Russian_link. --Menchi (Talk)â 16:42, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Bolshevik
Please take a look at my recent proposal in Talk:Bolshevik Cautious 16:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Russian/Ruthenian
Hi, I would like to discuss an article about Kiyevian Rus and meanings of names: Russian and Ruthenian. According to me the article is very misleading. As a Russian, you know very well what is difference between names of Rus and Rossiya (sorry, I do not have cyrrilic script). Unfortunatelly, the persons withot knowledge of Slavic languages do not. The article about Kiyevian Rus is written from the point of view of Russian historiography. Considering Russia as a direct continuation of Kiyevian Rus (as in the article) is ridicoulus and derogatory for many Ukrainians, Belarusians (maybe not for electors of Lukaszenka) and other people of Ruthenian origin. It is true that in the Middle Ages there were used the terms of Russia, Rossia etc. But it was a transliteration of the name of Rus. The term of Russia in the modern sense has different meaning: Russia as a state and a country, not the historical Rus - this name also exists in Russian language, isn't it? The term of Ruthenia was commonly used for Rus through centuries. I think that using it is much more precise than Russia in the same meaning. I supose that non Slavic readers of the Wikipedia have got the right to get the full and honest picture of the situation without nationalistic mithology.
Regards,
- Answer in User_Talk:Yeti
Thank you for your answer.
I agree with you that primary target of encyclopedia is to contain as clear and as truthful information as possible. Unfortunately, I can’t agree with some of your arguments.
1. Obviously, Ruthenia is not a Latin word for Russia. It is a Latin word for Rus. The difference is very clear for me (speaker of three Slavic languages) and, as I belive for you – native speaker of Russian. The English word Russia has two different meanings: Rus and Rossiya. I hope that we agree that the term Rus is more general than Rossiya. It is why tradition of Rus include not only Russia but other states and ethnic groups that have nothing to do with Russian state. The word Ruthenia was commonly used not only in Papal documents but in Latin language in all around Europe. In Central Europe the word Russia (in the meaning of Rus) wasn’t used almost all, at least from the end of 15th century (Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland, Hungary). In western part of Europe were used both Russia and Ruthenia. I can’t agree with you that the word Russia is less as ambiguous then Ruthenia. The word Russia has two meanings. Ruthenia always the only one: Rus. You know very well that Ruthenia (in the meaning of Carpathian Rus) also is not nothing more than literary translation of Rus. It is why in Slavic languages WE call this region Karpatskaya Rus, not just Rus. Similarly, the other English name for this region is Carpathian Ruthenia. And I don’t think that use of Russia in context of Rus is more natural. Latin is not Russian. Usage of the word “ancient” before Russian doesn’t solve the problem.
2. You should understand that usage of the word Russia may be "derogatory for any valuable quantity of Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Poles" as far as it is used in context of legacy of these nations. Russians through centuries tried to make them Russians by force and usage of Russian in the sens of Rus could appear a some kind of continuation of this policy. I was born on territory of historical Rus. Amongst my ancestrors were people belonging to many ethnic groups inlcluding Ruthenians. My wife is 100% Ruthenian. The problem is that our roots are in Rus, not in Rossiya. Should you visit London you can find a monument of first Christian ruler of Rus funded by Ukrainian emigrants. The inscription beneath is: "Volodymyr the Great , ruler of Ukraine". Guess why? It is not just nationalism.
In modern English the usage of Ruthenia and Russia (Rus) is not consequent. For example for former Rus is usually called Russia. But Rus included in G.D. of Lithuania is usually called Ruthenia, irrespectively of the fact that both are translation of the same word.
The problem is not usage of a noun Russia for Rus but also context of use. Have a look on the page about Kiyevian Rus. For someone without knowledge of Eastern European history it would be obvious that Russia (Rus) and Russia state are the same thing. But this is nonsens. Muscovite state (later Russia – Rossiya) was just one of a few succesor states. If you write about Novgorod, don’t forget that it’s population was virtually annihilated by Muscovite troops and populated by quite new settlers from Moscov area. Republic of Novgorod was not united with Moscov – was destroyed together with it’s inhabitans. It is ridiculous that modern Russian regard themselve succesors of this ancient city. Another succesor state of ancient Rus was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samgotia. The official language of this state was Ruthenian (Russian if you prefer) and its governing class was of Rus origins. The Ruthenian states was united deliberatery under the Lithuanian governing family for protection against Tatars and Moscov agression. The modern succesors of traditions of Rus are Ukraine (untill 19th century known as Rus - translated as Ruthenia, not Russia) and Belarus.
The only argument I agree is traditional use of the noun Russia in context of ancient Rus in English language. But it should be clearly explained the difference between both meanings of this word. There should be also clarified that in English exsists alternative terms for Rus. Sole "Russian" is not acceptable.
I have written my first post as a some kind of provocation. I hope that Wikipedia would be an excellent tool to find an agreement between diferent points of view. But you have to understand that your views are a Russian (in modern sense) view of history, not history itself.
Regards,
