Talk:East Slavs

I reverted the following change of the intro, made by genyo.

The East Slavs are the ethnic group that evolved into the Belarusian and Ukrainian peoples. They also contributed a large linguistic component and and a minority ethnic component of the Russian people. Each of the many nationalities of Rus' has a separate history and complex origins. The historical origins of the Russian state, however, are chiefly those of the East Slav minority and the assimilated Finno-Ugric majority people of the North-Eastern Europe.

This theory is widely propagandized in modern nationalistic Ukrainian history. It even entered into Ukrainian school textbooks. Poor Russians. A century ago this people was attempted to be made from barbaric Huns, now they turn out to be ground-dugout dwelling finns. What next? Shipwrecked Martians turned into troglodytes?

If one wants to propagate this theory, this should be done at the main, Russians, page, where it can be compared against other theories, and only then into various summary and refernce pages. And as usual, Russians are nochalantly neglecting themselves. Mikkalai 03:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is a half-true.

• The English term Russians is used to refer to the citizens of Russia, regardless of their ethnicity; in Russian, the demonym Russian is translated as rossiyanin (россиянин, plural rossiyane), while the ethnic Russians, are referred to as russkiye (sg. русский, russkiy); in literary Ukrainian the term Russian (in both cases) is translated as rosiyanyn (росіянин plural rosiyany), while the ancient Russians or all East Slavs, are referred to as rus'ki (руські). Not all rosiyany are rus'ki.
• Ancient "Russian" city Murom - the homland of one of Russian Heros - is Finno-Ugric.

UeArtemis (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could this be translated as clan instead of tribal union or nations. The words seems to me to have more of familial feeling to it than union or nation imply. Vivafelis 03:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

tribal clan seems fine to me but I am no specialist. --Irpen 16:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

as my Russian|Ukrainian isn't really very good, I'm not certain either. How would you define plemena in Russian|Ukrainian? Vivafelis 18:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure, I get the question. The closest English word to Племя (Plemya) is a tribe. --Irpen 18:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess I'm asking an ethnographic/anthropological question. I'll do some research first and come back to the later. Thanks. --Vivafelis 00:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Same in Polish: the term "plemiona" is almost always translated to English as "tribes". Halibutt 08:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the article on Clan states that "often, the distinguishing factor is that a clan is a smaller part of a larger society such as a tribe, a chiefdom, or a state" and even that "most clans are exogamous, meaning that its members cannot marry one another." According to these two criteria, Slavic "plemena" are tribes and not clans. --Itinerant1 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the reference to "Finno-Ugric origins" of the Russian State completely. The statement that the modern Russian people (not state!) included many assimilated Finn-Ugric inhabitants of Eastern Europen Plain is partly correct (but nobody knows the exact ratio of the assimilated finno-ugrs, and not only finno-ugrs were assimilated). But from the phrase it appears that Ukranian and Belurussian origins are "not mixed". That is nonsense: Ukrainians included many slavonized turcic tribes, and Belorussians also included many Baltic groups. It should be either mentioned that Ukrainians and Belorussians have mixed origins too, or the phrase deleted completely. I prefer the latter, because, obviously, any modern nation has "mixed origins". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gestr (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the first of the twelfe "plemen" be spelled as "Polyans" (like Drevlyans) instead of "Polans" Goliath74 18:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Polans" and "Polians" seem to be more common: [1], [2], [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndriyK (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

There were two distinct Slavic tribes with the same name ( pronounced "Polyane" ). One lived in what is now Western Poland, the other lived around Kiev, Ukraine. It seems that the terms "Polyans" and "Polians" refer only to the Eastern tribe, whereas the term "Polans" is more common and can refer to both. We can use the term "Polans" as long as we link it to "Polans (eastern)." --Itinerant1 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing controversial about it being a forgery. Get rid of the reference. This is a reputable article. And, hopefully, a reputable encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennv (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

This image is biased. It presents the early slavs wearing a costume wich appeared much later in SOME slavic countries, where Romanian ethnographic influences occured: Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine (Hutsuls), Poland (Gorals), Slovakia (Moravian Wallachia) (see Vlachs). Slovenia, Eastern Ukraine, northern Poland, Bielorussia, Russia and other slavic peoples (Serboi, Wends, etc) don`t present these elements. And they never did. Slavic peoples were influenced by the people they camed in contact with and mixed. Some with Romanians (hence the variants of the costumes), others were influenced by asiatic (tartar) costumes, while other never had a "traditional costume"... Greier 13:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cossaks are not a tribe!!! Who wrote that? Cossaks were free mercenaries who roamed the steppes of Ukraine at the beginning. After that they established they headquater (Sich) on the island of Khortytsia which is surrounded by Dnipro river. They colonized the less populated lands , establishing the new communities (lower Volga river and the Ural montains). After the destruction of Sich by the Russian empire they ran to lower Danube, lower Don, and Poland. Ekaterine the Great offered them an alternative to settle in Kuban. This way she would gain the well-developed agricultural lands and have military protection from the Caucasian region and Turks in the face of Cossaks. Anyway, calling Cossaks a Russian tribe is way off, considering the fact that they take their roots from Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image Image:Yuri Gagarin official portrait.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

from orgin in czech "Slovan" or in polish "Słowianin" after "słowa" which means "words". Slavs - people of words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.144.75.106 (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Slava - Glory/Fame. Slavs (Slavyane) - Glorious people. UeArtemis (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Or the "spoken word" if with "-en" form. The Big Hoof! (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Slavs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301173543/http://rodstvo.ru/rus/hist/ver1.htm to http://www.rodstvo.ru/rus/hist/ver1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's been a bit of re-jigging of the image description for the map depicting the maximum territory inhabited by the East Slavic tribes in the 8th and 9th centuries. The long-standing description was a mess, further exacerbated by good faith attempts to 'fix' it here and here.

Firstly, using Halecki was WP:SYNTH in context. He did not describe it as the first East Slavic 'realm'. Any of the territory inhabited by any one of the tribes is a 'realm'. Kievan Rus' was the first state/polity described as being organised as such according to Western standards. Secondly, the description did not match that which is depicted in the map, reading as: "Maximum extent of European territory inhabited by the Kievan Rus' (predecessors of the East Slavs) in the 8th and 9th century." became "Maximum extent of European territory inhabited by the Kievan Rus' (the first East Slavic realm) in the 8th and 9th century.", whereas what is depicted is "Maximum extent of European territory inhabited by the East Slavic tribes - predecessors of Kievan Rus', the first East Slavic state - in the 8th and 9th century."

If anyone wishes to discuss these changes, or can think of how to improve the description to make it terse, please feel free to continue this thread. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've just reverted the introduction of a map of Eastern Slavic countries here. I'd consider it misleading for the reader as it does not represent the ethnic groups identified as East Slavic, but the borders of contemporary nation-states. These countries also surround other ethnic groups (particularly Siberia,, Crimea, etc.) who are found exclusively in the vast area depicted. Use of the map in the infobox implies that the territory depicted inhabited - wall to wall - by East Slavs. Any other editor input on this issue? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Use of the map in the infobox implies that the territory depicted inhabited - wall to wall - by East Slavs - there is no such statement in the map legend. The map correctly reflects the contemporary countries where an East Slavic language is the national language, no more. Perhaps, there will be only a small refinement.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suggest to restore the map, but with caption "Countries with predominantly East Slavic population". 20:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

contemporary countries where an East Slavic language is the national language --the statement is wrong, because Russian is one of the two official languages is Kazakhstan as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is not a completely correct statement. According to their Conctitution: "The state language of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall be the Kazak language." They used Russian officially, but it's not their national language. I agree with the caption "Countries with predominantly East Slavic population".--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

A better idea would be a table of countries where East Slavs are significant minorities (R,U,B, Kazakhstan, Latvia, ...) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maps are more visible, there are usually maps are used. See West Slavs for example. Or do you mean making a table in addition to the map? --Nicoljaus (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in East Slavs. Krakkos (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Quoting source pages 20 and 23: "румыны и аромуны лингвистически принадлежат к романской группе, но генетически обособлены"....( "Romanians and Aromanians linguistically belong to the Romance group, but are genetically isolated"...) and "В "восточно-европейский" кластер вошли западные и восточные славяне, балты, а так же балканские народы" ( "The "Eastern European" cluster included Western and Eastern Slavs, Balts, as well as the Balkan peoples").

Of course I used a translator, but even so it cannot be denied that the source says exactly the opposite. Emenrigen (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• EthnicRussiansInTheFormerUSSR.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply