Jump to content

Talk:List of Russian monarchs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Ladislaus IV of Poland(1610-1613, 1634 he officially ended his claims) This entry is highly dubious since he never even visited Moscow, let alone ruled it.

The current listing of Ladislaus IV of Poland as tsar in 1610-1613 is certainly misleading, if not outright wrong. --Gene s 05:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Current page renders only a few mangled lines. 64.236.128.27 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pretendents

[edit]

They are not rulers. You are welcome to put them into whatever separate article. Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titular Emperors of Russia

[edit]

In 1924, Nicholas II's cousin Cyril Vladimirovitch declared himself emperor. Here are the claimants to the throne since his death:

In addition, "Prince" Nicholas Romanov, who product of a morganatic marriage between HH Prince Roman Petrovitch and Countess Praskovia Cheremeteva, was elected President of the Romanov Family Association, and thus could also be considered the Head of the Imperial Family of Russia.

Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see the pretenders showed up again about a week ago. Pretenders are fine, but they're not Russian rulers. Recently I moved all information about pretenders to Line of succession to the Russian throne. Unless someone objects, I'm soon going to get rid of the pretenders here and link to that page "for information about post-1917 claimants," as I did a while ago before this new reversion. Chaucer1387 15:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Nicholas II listed as a pretender? Amanda7061 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

[edit]

Should this page be renamed to List of Russian monarchs? It will correspond to other lists similarly named and avoid confusion with later republics.

I concur. john k 00:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Calling this "List of Russian rulers" -- as opposed to "List of leaders of Russia"??? Stalin led Russia; he also ruled Russia. Or, to avoid Russia/USSR issues: Putin leads Russia; he also rules Russia. Monarchs would be much better. Chaucer1387 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this rename already happened, but on 27 July 2005, Mikkalai renamed it back. Why? I propose to do the rename again, unless someone protests within the next couple of days. Chaucer1387 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish tsar?

[edit]

Of course a Russian tsar was never appointed by a Roman Catholic pope. It was a council of Seven Boyars, the most powerful group of Russian nobles (all Orthodox Christians), who deposed the tsar Vasily Shuysky on July 27, 1610, and elected the teenage Władysław, son of Sigismund III Vasa, as Tsar of Russia on August 27, 1610. He did not assume the Muscovite throne due to his father's opposition, and a Russian uprising against Poles occupying the Kremlin at the beginning of November 1612. Władysław IV Vasa, as King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1632 to 1648, resigned the title of Tsar of Russia in 1634 (Treaty of Polyanovka). -- Mibelz 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • If Wladislaw are listed in the list of Russian rulers, then why all english kings after Henry VI not presented in the list of french rulers? Oficially they are titled as "King of England and France" from 1422 to 1801. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVolk67 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ending at Peter?

[edit]

Why does this list end at Peter the Great? --Jfruh 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was vandalized by an anon. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prince of Vladimir

[edit]

We'd better creat a independent article about them. Now many Princes who had owned the title "Grand Prince of Vladimir" can't be found in the list. A list has existed in Chinese Wikipedia, See here(Grand Prince of Vladimir). --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 06:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prince of Moscow/Prince of Moscow?

[edit]

On this page, there's a division between "Princes of Moscow" and "Grand Princes of Moscow" at 1359. But on the Grand Prince of Moscow page, the division comes before Daniel at 1283 (there's a gap between 1263 and 1283). This inconsistency is bad enough... but if you look at the underlying articles, Daniel of Moscow, Yury of Moscow, and Ivan I of Russia (Kalita) are just described as "Princes"; Simeon of Russia is the first to be described as "Grand Prince of Moscow" in his article, which would put the division at 1341. Meanwhile, if you look at the "preceded by/succeeded by" boxes at the bottom, Yury of Moscow is the first person to be labeled "Grand Prince of Moscow" by that method, which puts the division at 1303! Really, I think this calls for some standardization. Chaucer1387 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "main article" business

[edit]

I see there have been some edit wars with people deleting the duplicative material that's already at Rulers of Kievan Rus'. Most of the time, we retain the duplication. Why is this? Duplication means changes have to be made in two places; not everyone will realize this; and as a result, we have issues like Askold and Dir showing up as rulers of Kiev on the Rulers of Kievan Rus' page but not on this page, or Oleg's start date as prince of Novgorod showing up as 879 on the Rulers of Kievan Rus' page but 882 here. Similarly, in the Grand Prince of Moscow section -- in addition to the inconsistencies I pointed out in my comment of 22 Jan 2007 above -- we've got Vasili II-era usurpers here but not in the Grand Prince of Moscow article; Glinskaya shows up in both areas, but the Shuiskys and Belskys only show up here; and Simeon Bekbulatovich shows up as an independent bullet there but as a sub-bullet to Ivan the Terrible here.

I know, someone looking for a list of Russian rulers will come here and will want to see a unified list. It might be inconvenient to have them go to a Kievan Rus' article, a Grand Prince of Moscow article, and who knows what else. But we already do this with the List of leaders of Russia article -- there's no article where you'll see Rurik, Peter the Great, Stalin, and Putin on the same page. Is that so inconvenient? The main problem is that with duplication you end up getting divergent texts as time goes by, unless we're constantly making sure each change is made twice.

Is there some way to incorporate the list from the Kievan Rus' page by reference, so the text shows up but there's still only one copy of the text? Alternatively: Why do we even have Rulers of Kievan Rus' or Grand Prince of Moscow pages? Why aren't they just redirects to the appropriate section here? The Rulers of Kievan Rus' page has some historical text (arguably duplicative with the Kievan Rus' page), but the Grand Prince of Moscow is nothing but a list. Why does it even exist? Chaucer1387 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, after a brief edit war, we now no longer have an independent listing of rulers of Kievan Rus'. I'll just mention that, if that's what we're going to go with, might as well do the same with Grand Princes of Moscow, and, for that matter, with Grand Princes of Vladimir-Suzdal.
By the way, I have an answer to my own question above about why we have a separate rulers of Kievan Rus' page anyway. The reason is that, if anyone ever makes a List of Ukrainian rulers page, the Kievan Rus' rulers will be relevant to that too. Certainly the List of Ukrainian rulers page shouldn't have to refer back to the List of Russian rulers page. (And having seen the previous edit wars where people have argued that Kievan rulers aren't even Russian rulers, this is a real concern.)
One final note. Suppose this List of Russian rulers page really does become links to more minor pages, like Rulers of Kievan Rus', Vladimir-Suzdal, and Moscow. Then what's left here are Tsars and Emperors. But then why not just have a Tsars/Emperors page and make all the links go to the List of leaders of Russia page, which has the entire leadership of Russia from Kievan Rus' to Putin? It's arguably superfluous to have both a rulers page and a leaders page. Chaucer1387 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons stated above -- basically, avoiding the inconsistencies that stem from duplication by having information in a single place -- I will soon (unless I hear some objections) replace the "Vladimir" section with a link to Grand Princes of Vladimir-Suzdal. This way, Vladimir gets the same treatment as Kiev and Novgorod above. Chaucer1387 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Tsars vs Russian czars

[edit]

Russian Tsars redirects to Tsar.

Russian czars redirects to List of Russian rulers.

I don't know which is the better target - they both have merit - but it seems very wrong that they lead to different places. Any comments? Let's discuss at Talk:Russian Tsars.

Jordan Brown 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any comments, I decided that if somebody really wanted generic information on Tsars they wouldn't say "Russian", and so changed Russian Tsars to redirect to List of Russian rulers, matching Russian czars. Jordan Brown 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Russian rulers of Russia

[edit]

Should we have the rulers of the Khazars, Golden Hoard Mongols and the Goths listed as well here?Ericl 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael not Czar

[edit]

Nicholas II passed the crown on to Michael, but Michael never accepted it. He was not truly the Czar- he did not accept, was never accepted as Czar, never acted as Czar in any capacity. He needs to be removed/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockStarSheister (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He abdicated the next day, which is not quite the same thing. Richard75 (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas II

[edit]

Can anyone suggest why he is also listed in the section on pretenders to the throne? Having abdicated, and kept prisoner by the Bolsheviks, he could hardly have been a pretender, and I am unaware of him expressing the desire to regain the throne from the time of abdication to his death.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to know why authors on Wikipedia seem determined to write that Nicholas was assassinated. As that act is restricted to a political leader, and Nicholas had already abdicated nearly 15 months earlier, he was not assassinated -- he was murdered. To use assassinate is to downplay the criminal nature of the act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandalo (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Vasa

[edit]

It seems to me this entry does not belong in the list. Aside from the already noted suggestion that the Catholic Pope can not appoint an Eastern Orthodoxy ruler, the individual in question never lived in Russia, never assumed even the title of Grand Prince, never mind Tsar, and was discouraged from doing so by his father. Regardless of being elected by the seven boyars, he never held the power literally or figuratively, or the rank, which seems important, or tried to take the role by force or political manipulation. The acceptance of the rank of Grand Duke also suggests there was no serious intention in pretension to the throne of Russia, and only a half-hearted one to the throne of Moscow, which is not the same. I will be deleting this entry unless someone can offer a really good reason for keeping it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing, as the claim to the throne, even by election, was not serious since the claimant was never asked to convert to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which would have been the requirement, and was undertaken by several later Romanov monarchs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan and Peter the Great

[edit]

Why is Ivan V listed after Peter the Great when they began their joint rule on the same day and Peter outlived his half-brother for three decades? Shouldn't Peter be listed after Ivan? To me it just makes more sense. 205.244.113.226 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portraits reversed?

[edit]

On our recent Viking Russian Rivers cruise, we were shown the portrait shown on this page for Alexei Romanov as that of Mikhail Romanov. Should these two portraits be reversed? Wakchil (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav II

[edit]

He had two fourth sons?

  • Mikhail Khorobrit (1248), 4th son of Yaroslav II
  • Andrew II (1248–1252), 3rd son of Yaroslav II
  • Alexander Nevsky (1252–1263), fourth son of Yaroslav II

Don't know which is correct, so I'm just flagging it up for someone to fix. Bazj (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich Romanov: Czar Nicholas III?

[edit]

In 1922, a Zemsky Sobor created by General Mikhail Dietericks declared Grand Duke Nicholas Czar. Shouldn't this be mentioned at least in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.72.143 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is now, unfortunately. I don't think he should be listed, especially if we're not listing Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich as "Michael II," something I've actually seen in sources (but which I agree we shouldn't do). john k (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That entry is ridiculous, and there's already another section for pretenders after 1917, which makes it all the more absurd that the list ends with someone who ruled nominally in 1922. I'm deleting it from the list. Richard75 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was officially recognized as Tsar by the White movement government in eastern Russia in 1922, and remained emperor there until the White Russian government was overrun later that year. As such, he was not a "pretender", in that he was legally the sovereign monarch over a government controlling territory.XavierGreen (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's still a bit POV I'm afraid. The Whites were not the legitimate government of Russia in 1922 but a group of rebels in a civil war who happened to control some territory. Their "tsar" wasn't the recognised ruler of all Russia. So he belongs on a list of pretenders, not on the list of regular tsars, which is recognised by all historians as ending in 1917. Richard75 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were governments which did not recognize the Reds as the official government of Russia, but instead recognized the White government, such as Japan. As such, it is POV to not include him here.XavierGreen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TITLES OF THE CZAR 1854

[edit]

Full text from The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 3 June 1854, p. 3 : TITLES OF THE CZAR.-“The following is a list of the Czar's titles, which always head every ukase : Nicholas, by the grace of God Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kieffs, Vladimie, and Novgorod; Czar of Kasan, of Astrachan, Poland, Siberia, and the Taurian Chersonesus ; Seignior o Pskoff, and Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wallachia, Podolia, and Finland ; Prince of Esthonia Courland, and Semgalia, of Bialystok, Karelia, Tver, Jougria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria, and many other countries ; Seignior and Grand Prince of the territory of Inner Novgorod, Tshernigoff, Riaizin, Polotsk, Rostof, Jaroslaf, Bielozero, Oudoria, Obdoria, Koudina, Witebsk, Mtislaf, and Lord of all the hyperborean region ; Seignior of the land of Heria, Kartalina, Grousinia, Kabardinia, and Armenia; Hereditary Seignior and Suzerain of the Circassian princes, of those of the mountains, and others : Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Saint Ormarn, Ditmarseu, and Oldenburg, &c., &c." To these titles must now be added that of "Lord-fearing God," which the Czar has recently assumed. The heraldic blazonings correspond to the description given above.” --Jaanusele (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table (!)

[edit]

Why is the table for the Tsars completely different from the table for the Emperors? john k (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this is ridiculous and confusing. Not to mention the fact that Emperor and Tsar/Czar (or even Emperor and Cesar, if we may go that far) are very different (especially in the eyes of the Russian, including the rulers themselves).

No one would dare call, for example, Alexander I "Emperor" because this is precisely the image he was trying to *avoid* - the "emperor" was Napoleon! This needs to be fixed. Soviet223 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Alexander I was called Emperor all the time. It was his main title. john k (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial Western Ukrainian nonsense

[edit]

"The history of Kievan Rus (882–1240) has remained at the center of Russia's search for identity ever since the emergence of historical studies as a scholarly discipline in the Russian Empire" - What is the point or the function of this phrase in this article? To reduce Russia's obvious, manifold and traceable relationship to Kievan Rus to just "Russia's search for identity"? This phrase does not reflect the worldwide view on this issue, but tries to POV-push fringe theories of marginal Ukrainian ideologists. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to understand that mess, one should be aware about the difference between two main and very similar concepts. In Russophone world there are two different words that in English both are translated simply as Russia, one is Rus (such as Ruthenia or Rhos) and today's Russia (as Rhossia, a name that was established by Peter the Great). That article, of course, needs to be split as it does not correspond a historical reality and simply promotes the Russian national identity. During the 13th century there were at least five (5) sovereign states across the Eastern Europe that related themselves to Rus such as Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia; Kingdom of Rus; Grand Duchy of Ryazan and many others. In reality the unified Russia of today can be traced no earlier that the rule of Ivan the Terrible who was the first to be crowned as Czar. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Aleksandr Grigoryev. This lack of distinction is equally evident in lists of Russian writers (Nestor the Chronicler was RUSSIAN?). Playing on the non-Slavic lack of comprehension of Rus' and Russia is a blatant POV-push from your side, Voyevoda. Bringing up biased concepts such as "marginal Ukrainian ideologists" is certainly a POV-push when you'd know perfectly well (or, if you are a scholar in the field of Ancient Rus'/Kievan Rus') there are a plethora of Belarus, Polish and highly respected, verifiable and reliable non-Slavic scholars (i.e., disinterested parties) who differ greatly from your opinion.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aleksandr Grigoryev has a good point there. I support the split. Lifeglider (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone addressing serious issues brought up regarding this article?

[edit]

Looking at the history of this article, there's been nothing no attempt to address issues brought up on the talk page for years. All I can see is a few tweaks, reverts post-vandalism, and the expansion of sections that have been questioned without any dialogue with other editors/contributors.

Interestingly enough, in tracking quite a few of the major contributors, I've discovered that they've been indefinitely blocked for edit warring and similar contraventions of Wikipedia policy. The entire article suffers from extreme POV bias (the lead in itself is blatantly POV with absolutely no citations)... In fact, the whole entry reads like a schoolchild's essay after asking for assistance from their parents (who happen to have subjective, unsustainable views).

Add to this the fact that reader feedback has been disabled and a good case for deleting the entire article starts to come together! Naturally, there are going to be stupid remarks in the feedback, however disregarding feedback is also a disadvantage when constructive criticism/suggestions are blocked.

I'm tagging the article as suffering from multiple issues: lack of inline citations; two texts as references (Latopis hustyński. Opracowanie, przekład i komentarze and The Hustyn' Chronicle, both of which deal with Rus', not Russia) with no inline citations or page numbers; non-neutral POV; weasel words; etc. Basically, as it stands, it simply isn't a defensible, encyclopaedic entry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good research! The split of the article would be great for all of us. Specially in a historical pesprective. Lifeglider (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lifeglider, I've only just tagged it for multiple issues, so I'll allow a few weeks for interested parties to state their case. I doubt that I'll be hearing from anyone until I actually start working on it :) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

[edit]

I don't know what's worse, the rulers of Russia that suddenly ended on 1917, implying that some 9th century monarch is a ruler in the history of Russia or still that Novgorod, Moscow and Kiev were "a list of all reigning monarchs in the history of Russia". Bertdrunk (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that it discusses the existence of the Rus' Khaganate as if it weren't WP:FRINGE... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has these things, and when you try to change them suddenly some 9 years old nonsense became the linchpin of existence. Bertdrunk (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a longstanding problem. Once an article is 'embedded', AfD nominations get !voted out because it is assumed that they must be important. Ultimately, it means having to make compromises most of us (well, certainly speaking for myself) that I don't want to make. Even there, I've found accounts that have been dormant for years suddenly reverting any changes made. *Le sigh* --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers of Grand Duchy of Vladimir are considered broadly as rulers of Russia since sack of Kiev in 1169 and when Prince Andrey Bogolubsky moved his capital to Vladimir. In the same process the capital and the main titte was moved to Moscow a century after. But between Grand Duchy of Kiev and Grand Duchy of Moscow should not be a centenary gap. If you want you can rework the list to make one ruler at time - you can, but please do not remove whole section entirely. It is wrong. --Alex Welens (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexWelens: Really? Where? What does 'broadly construed' mean when we are working on a relevant, contemporary encyclopaedic resource. These are issues that have been redressed by scholars in the field of East Slavic history. Please feel free to check the talk page of Kievan Rus' (noting that its WP:TITLE is not "Kievan Russia"). You're also welcome to read the consensus that, according to reliable sources there were no successor states after Kievan Rus' was razed, only states that were successful in surviving, then fighting over the leftover land and spoils of war. Rehashing misinformation you'd find in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica is recidivism, particularly as it even pre-dates the collapse of Empires. This is either an encyclopaedic article or it is not: it's not our place to retain misinformation because in the past such assumptions were 'broadly construed'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg of Novgorod and his successors should remain in the list as long as Gothic, Hunnic, Khazar, Pontic etc. kings are featured in the List of Ukrainian rulers. Both lists should be subject to the same rules. P.S. Ideally, of course, the list of Russian rulers should be started with Andrey Bogolyubsky and the list of Ukrainian rulers from the first hetmans of the Sich. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in coming back to your observation, Ghirlandajo. Yes, I agree that this is a point in need of better clarification throughout all of the articles surrounding Rus' and states that latter emerged out of the rubble of the Mongol invasion. With Kievan Rus', the decision was not to show any successor states simply because such contiguity didn't exist. Once a kingdom in razed, it's finished. What remained was some princedoms/provinces who managed to survive in some shape, later opportunistically fighting each other for the land and spoils of war. I know I'm preaching to the converted, so I'll stop there.
Trying to make such changes in a single swoop is only going to start up edit wars with nationalists (I know you've been stuck in the middle of the worst of it), so I'm just trying the "a little at a time" approach as an alternative on articles. It's a long term project. Retaining the stamina to keep improving just demands patience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, as expected this went nowhere. Is someone willing to throw the bureaucracy out and start some action? Bertdrunk (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putin

[edit]

Why the hell is Putin not listed as a Russian ruler? Putin certainly is a ruler of Russian and so was Boris Yeltsin and Dmitry Medvedev. All of them were rulers of Russia. Putin is still a ruler of Russia.

I think that leaders of modern Russia should be added here as well.

Patchman123 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putin is not a 'ruler' in the sense of the dynastic rule represented in the article, but it does put a big question mark over the WP:TITLE of the article as being either misleading and/or imprecise (or a mixture of both). It puts me in mind of List of Ukrainian rulers, List of rulers of Belarus... and the more aptly named List of Polish monarchs if the list is to encompass only the monarchy. Comprehensive list articles come with explanatory notes, and the various epochs could probably do with being better elaborated on, even if it means good synthesis of reliable sources (as opposed to WP:SYNTH).
For the moment, I've added a "See also" section for wikilinks to relevant articles. I have to make the observation, however, that there appear to be many of these types of lists and articles for Russia that simply don't cut it as stand alone. I'm encountering duplicate articles and lists under various titles which are badly structured POV articles, or have ended up redirecting (or being merged?) into more generic and WP:SYNTH than they should be. There's definitely a bit of a mess in need of tidying up in need of scrutiny. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention of the Khazars?

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the Kingdom of Khazaria, the Khazars in this article? They appeared during its time-frame. They covered Russian land. I hope it is not because their religious conversion from paganism was not to Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.100.92 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP 73.193.100.92. No, the article is actually a mess that needs to be deleted and merged into other appropriate lists. It confuses "Russian" with the much later entity known as "Russia" (from whence the contemporary country known as "Russia" takes its name). Up to the Middle Ages, the people were known as the Rus', which covers contemporary south-western Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and eastern parts of contemporary Poland. Essentially, the Rus' were Eastern European Slavs whose leaders came from Scandinavia and became Rus'-ified. Originally, none of them were Christians, so this doesn't have anything to do with any religious affiliations but original research and WP:SYNTH. Hope that helps! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Alexis

[edit]

There was never a Michael II or Alexis II, so there's no need to call them Michael I or Alexis I. (I have left in Paul I however, as he insisted on being called that in his lifetime.) Richard75 (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Russian rulers. 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:

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) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emperors after Nicholas II

[edit]

It is accepted by all normal people that Nicholas II was the last emperor. I'm not against mentioning later claimants, but they do not belong on the same list / table as acknowledged rulers. Richard75 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Alexander III not have a portrait

[edit]

Alexander III does not have a portrait, I tried to add one (Alexander III, Emperor of Russia (1845-94).png) and saw that that file was already in the table, it just was not showing up, what is the cause of this? Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's an error with the template not allowing .png files. I've posted a message on the template talk page asking them to fix it, but in the meantime we'll need to use a .jpg file. Richard75 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of Russian Tsars

[edit]

By conflating the history of Kievan Ruś with that of Muscovy the entire article is rendered a fabrication of modern Russian propogandists. Their respective histories are separate until a fully-formed democratic nation of Kievan Ruś's Bogdan Khmelnitsky met with representatives of the Tsar of Muscovy to seek an association with Muscovy, in 1654, in order to gain military protection from the suppression upon it caused by the Kingdom of Poland.

Before that time there was no "Russia", but only the city-state of Muscovy. It was Peter the Great who took the name, "Ruś", latinized it into "Russia", while renaming Ruś "Ukraine", which means, "borderlands", and sought thereby to gold plate the autocratic Muscovy, which had been colonizing and subjugicating it's neighbors, into the the completely fabricated myth of her being a direct discendant of a democratic, Hellenic, glorious nation of Kievan Ruś.

This is settled history for which independent historical sources exist, the most famous of which is likely Michael Hrushevsky's, "A History of Ukraine", 1941, Yale University Press.

Indeed, in 1665, King Charles of Sweden, attempted to warn away Khmelnitsky from alligning Ruś with Moscow, saying that the Tsar would never tolerate a free people bordering his state, and indeed, 400 years of history have shown King Charles to have seen the future very clearly.

Russian propaganda ever since Peter the Great has not ceased to put forward the myth that modern Russia is the child--or indeed, the older brother!--of Kievan Ruś.

Dalton Garis Malugssuak (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, complaining about alleged propaganda while introducing your own propaganda. Is that all, or did you just create this account to make that comment? Mellk (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gu

[edit]

u 64.209.159.7 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basic question

[edit]

The list presents Russian nationalistic propaganda. Is the Russian POV generally accepted in Western academy? How to prove continuity between Rus' and Moscow, later Russia? I do not know the subject, but I bet that Ukrainian academy has a different opinion and that opinion should be mentioned here. At least "This list represents Russian nationalistic opinion, please compare ....". Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This article has multiple issues" since 2018.Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article: This is a list of all reigning monarchs in the history of Russia.
I bet that Ukrainian academy has a different opinion and that opinion should be mentioned here – have you seen list of Ukrainian rulers? Mellk (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's supposed to be wrong with it? Volunteer Marek 16:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know your attitude. What about your sources?Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This article relies extensively on quotations that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group. (October 2018)
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations." Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://theconversation.com/how-moscow-has-long-used-the-historic-kyivan-rus-state-to-justify-expansionism-178092 Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were two main dynasties that ruled Russia: Rurik and Romanov. This is not controversial. Mellk (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not unique. It comes up with Spain and Germany as well, all cases where one country today has a name with a deeper history than other countries that share the same heritage. Hispania includes Portugal, Germania the Netherlands and Deutschland once upon a time Austria. The Visigoths ruled Spain, i.e. Hispania, not Spain and Portugal, a meaningless dichotomy for the time. There is no elegant solution and I doubt Portugal, Austria and Ukraine have the power and influence to "pull a Greece" and force a name change on their neighbours. Srnec (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but nobody's disputing that today's Russia is "Russia". What's being disputed is that these rulers, who ruled long before there was such a thing as "Russia", were "Russian". "Ruthenian" or Rus' is a much more accurate and neutral term. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When, in your view, does "Russia" come to be? Srnec (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15th century though if you really want to push it 1380 I guess. Volunteer Marek 17:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would not be surprised if Ukraine at some point starts lobbying other countries to call Russia "Muscovy" because they "stole" the name. Mellk (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is a Western name, it is 'Rossiya', 'Sviataya Matushka Rassieya'.Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian irredentism

[edit]

The Romanovs were more "Ruthenian" than the Princes of Kyiv were "Russian". This is just nationalist Russian historiography being presented as fact. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are going to raise the same issue at list of Ukrainian rulers then? Mellk (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that list include rulers of Russia or Muscovy? No? Then please stop trying to deflect. Volunteer Marek 18:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not deflecting, because these articles need consistency as they overlap. Your answer suggests that you are OK with the article about Ukraine including Rus' rulers, is that correct? Mellk (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. As long as it doesn't try to include rulers of Muscovy. Same thing here. Volunteer Marek 17:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you complain about this article including Kievan Rus' as Russian irredentist nationalist POV but Kievan Rus' is OK to include in the article with the Ukrainian rulers, as if that isn't pushing a POV. Riiiight. Mellk (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Where is Kyiv located? Volunteer Marek 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Novgorod located? And why is this relevant? Mellk (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
its relevant because rulers of the Novgorod wrote in letters that they are going to visit Rus', so at that time Novgorod-Suzdal kingdoms wasnt being called Rus' at all and this fact is main issue for controversy for this article to name rulers of kievan Rus "Russian". 109.86.217.24 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian / Ruthenian

[edit]

Issue of classifying the "Kievan Rus" rulers as Russian, or as "Ruthenian." The term "Ruthenia" is itself a Latin exonym derived from the latinized form of the term "Роусь", transliterated as "Rus'", the word from which Russia derived - it makes very little sense to imply that the Rurikids were somehow not-Russian is ahistorical. The Anglo-Saxon house of Wessex is English - we get the word "English" from Anglo-Saxon. Same logic applies to the Rurikids and the Rus' rulers. ZelenMelen (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would suggest that you @ZelenMelen and @Lute88 stop edit-warring over this issue. Second, I think it was unwise of @B.Lukashyk to remove all entries of Princes of Novgorod and Grand Princes of Kiev without discussing it on the talk page. A sensitive issue like this needs careful consensus-building instead of unilateral actions.
Finally, I would propose a similar solution to the one we reached agreement about at Talk:List of wars involving Russia#Splitting proposal, which is to create separate lists for each contentious section, which then Template:Excerpted on all relevant general lists, e.g. List of Russian monarchs and List of leaders of Ukraine.
In fact, these lists already exist, and the sections in the latter two are WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. I think it is grossly inappropriate to include all Ruthenian leaders before the advent of Tsardom in the Russian, as well as the same before the advent of Hetmanate in the Ukrainian version.--Aristophile (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I could prepare an integration of the Grand Princes of Kiev lists into Grand Prince of Kiev as a first step. I'll put it in a draft first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think all characters from before the Grand Duchy of Moscow have no place in the article.
There cannot be Russian Monarchs when Russia weren't yet in existence. Aristophile (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also tend to think in that direction, but would you then also exclude all Grand Princes of Kiev from the List of leaders of Ukraine? After all, Ukraine didn't exist yet either. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this is appropriate solution to years-long debates. Keep links to Rus' rulers as predecessors and this is it. No point to argue that Kievan leaders are not russians if we just trim this article to beginning of actual states. 109.86.217.24 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Russian_monarchs&oldid=1210154833"