Talk:Vasili IV of Russia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
hmm..how one can die when he is already dead? ;_) (pls rephrase the last sentence..)
User:Ghirlandajo should justify his changes not me.--Emax 08:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- And why is that? Are you special in some way? You made the dubious changes, please justify them. --Gene s 08:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Space Cadet wrote in the summary: I already discussed on your own Talk page. And without your ridiculing and patronizing. Just for the record what he wrote in my talk page:
- I engage in reverts of incorrect information, because and only when I truly believe it is incorrect. Sometimes I have a difficulty using Talk pages (when I run out of coins in an internet cafe) and sometimes I forget the edit summaries. Mea Culpa. Space Cadet 08:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is not a meaningful reply. --Gene s 10:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gordian knot
Gentlemen, I untied the Gordian knot for you by placing both of the rulers in the succession box and adding a {{disputed}} tag. I believe it should stay there until the matter is resolved here. Please, don't make me ask for protection of this page. Halibutt 10:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Yes, he should be listed there. At least with a note, explaining this as a historical curiosity. I'd do the same for Wladyslaw as a tzar or Russian tzars as rulers of Poland, add them to a list with <sup>1</sup> note below explaining that the title is controversial because... Btw, the same thing is with Wladyslaw being King of Sweden, Goths and Vandals - IIRC he never step one foot there, but I hear nobody complaining. The fact is that he had a reason to call himself that. Should we censore it out or explain why he insisted on doing that, even if he wasn't really a Tsar? Are we builing an NPOV Encyclopedia or not? Btw, I like the idea of putting two names in the template. We can have the real tsar and the 'wannabe' Wladislaw with a note, nicely fixing everything, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Let's avoid repeating everything. I suggest we use Talk:Michael I of Russia as the primary talk page. --Gene s
- Support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Let's avoid repeating everything. I suggest we use Talk:Michael I of Russia as the primary talk page. --Gene s
- Yes, he should be listed there. At least with a note, explaining this as a historical curiosity. I'd do the same for Wladyslaw as a tzar or Russian tzars as rulers of Poland, add them to a list with <sup>1</sup> note below explaining that the title is controversial because... Btw, the same thing is with Wladyslaw being King of Sweden, Goths and Vandals - IIRC he never step one foot there, but I hear nobody complaining. The fact is that he had a reason to call himself that. Should we censore it out or explain why he insisted on doing that, even if he wasn't really a Tsar? Are we builing an NPOV Encyclopedia or not? Btw, I like the idea of putting two names in the template. We can have the real tsar and the 'wannabe' Wladislaw with a note, nicely fixing everything, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] External link
Godunov to Nicholas II by Saul Zaklad
[edit] Conflict
Okay, was Vasya IV the last Rurikid Tsar, or was it Feodor I? THe pages on the two Tsars and the Rurik dyanasty all conflict.--ChadThomson 07:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Feodor was the last Rurikid tsar from the legitimate House of Moscow. Vasily IV was also a Rurikid, but he was not chosen by people and his legitimacy was not backed up by tradition. --Ghirlandajo 07:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
