Talk:Sineus and Truvor

Truvor and Sineus or Tiura and Simo

One point which has been always with little notice is why Rurik (Rurikka) sent his, presumably younger brothers to "rule" peoples at Isborska / Issa and Belojeozero / Valgetjärv. Maybe because they understood or had some knowledge of the language which was spoken in both places Vatja or Setu and Vepsä (Veps). All are Finno Baltic languages.

JN

Original research does not belong to Wikipedia.--217.112.249.156 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians tend to be more liberal with what appears on talkpages, than this anonymous Finnish IP does.--Berig 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize that English Wikipedia is a bulletin board for chauvinistic nonsense, something that the Finnish Wikipedia is not.--217.112.249.156 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Truvor established his realm in the vicinity of Smolensk." No, no, no. Smolensk rather than Pskov. Truvor established himself at Izborsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izborsk). And this entry are foolish, because Smolensk, Pskov and Izborsk had independenced kingdoms.

I will be correcting this entry, exactly for "Truvor established his realm in the vicinity of Smolensk." on "Truvor established himself at Izborsk." Dixi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.82.181 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh  09:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Truvor and Sineus → Sineus and Truvor — - propose moving per order of appearance in the Chronicle (see [1]), per the usual way the two are referred to in Russian (this is original research) and per the names of the same in the other Wikipedias. -- Y not? 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Current scholarly"

Section Description second para boldly claims:

The current scholarly[by whom?] is that "Rurik, Sineus, en Truvor" should be read "Rurik, sine hus, en tro(gna) vär(ingar)" (Rurik, his house/relatives, and true companions).

Sounds like interpreted by someone who don't know the Scandinavian languages very well. There is no way that vär(ingar) could be shortened to vär. Vérr (< Pn. *viraz) on the other hand means "man", related to were in werewolf (= "man wolf"). Hús is neutrum and if in singular the reflexive pronoun sin, should be in the neuter form sit. It doesn't signify "relatives" but maybe "clan", for which plural is an odd occurrence but maybe possible if he had many clans at his back. For the literal interpretation "house" a plural might be possible, but the sum of all property would more naturally be termed oðal in singular.

I think some specific academic source (Dr. etc.) is needed for this far-fetched interpretation, it doesn't feel natural for someone who speaks Swedish and know something about the history of the language. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondly: it appears to me that the weird interpretation made in this article is not supported by the Soviet Encyclopedia who provides no detailed interpretation on the original phrase leading to "Rurik, sine hus, en tro(gna) vär(ingar)", so that this article unduly synthesizes and originally researches on the topic in a policy violating way. I'll add a synth-inline. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion which has zero weight in Wikipedia. Whereas I am willing to leave the tag of original synthesis, the tag of not having material in the source is clearly improper since the material is in the source. --Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, oh, preposterous and offensive. My voice accounts to 1, not 0, so consensus with me is required. My opinion counts for something and is quite sufficient when I put on question a statement and require an attribution. I don't make personal claims by require extra verification, I put a statement under question and giving some reflections should be enough to motivate the tagging. You cannot remove the [by whom] tag without consulting me, because you need the consensus, and especially you cannot remove the tag without providing attributions. You should reconsider your tone, which I find offensive and derogative. Secondly, the provably false statement that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia supports the explicit interpretation:

"Rurik, sine hus, en tro(gna) vär(ingar)" is the current scholarly interpretation

cannot be taken as a reason for removing a need for attribution. The sentence in this article claims something else than the provided source, so the citation of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia fails to support the statement in the article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Good, I added another source which is a textbook.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. Could we then perhaps substitute "current scholarly interpretation" for the opinion of Кацва and Юргано (perhaps Katsva and Yefganov Yurganoff?) and others? Then the attribution would fulfill the general guide lines that encourages attribution. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a textbook, and they just summarize what they know from others. But I will think how is best to reformulate.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see. As it is now, I think the "task is then accomplished". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

cementery of Sineus [2] Тагунов в Орле (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)