Talk:List of Russian rulers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[edit] Totally fucked
Current page renders only a few mangled lines. 64.236.128.27 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed pretendents
They are not rulers. You are welcome to put them into whatever separate article. Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Titular Emperors of Russia
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)
Why is Nicholas II listed as a pretender? Amanda7061 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rename?
Should this page be renamed to List of Russian monarchs? It will correspond to other lists similarly named and avoid confusion with later republics.
-
- 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] Polish tsar?
- To User:Ghirlandajo. Don't lie about Władysław IV Waza. He was really the Russian tsar 1610-1613 by Roman Pope. Read history.--Maliuta 09:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Read Talk:Michael_I_of_Russia first. I remind you once again that the current phrasing is a result of painful compromise reached back in January by all the parties concerned. If you want to resume the edit wars that used to rock the Wiki on the subject, you are welcome. If such is your intention, I reserve the right to edit articles on Estonian history symmetrically and liberally. --Ghirlandajo 10:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- You should also be aware that the Roman pope cannot make anyone the Russian tsar, just like the Russian Patriarch cannot appoint a Polish or English king. The Pope is no authority for Russia, just one of schysmatic bishops subject to anathema and eternal damnation from the 11th century. --Ghirlandajo 10:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Read Talk:Michael_I_of_Russia first. I remind you once again that the current phrasing is a result of painful compromise reached back in January by all the parties concerned. If you want to resume the edit wars that used to rock the Wiki on the subject, you are welcome. If such is your intention, I reserve the right to edit articles on Estonian history symmetrically and liberally. --Ghirlandajo 10:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ending at Peter?
Why does this list end at Peter the Great? --Jfruh 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grand Prince of Vladimir
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)
[edit] Grand Prince of Moscow/Prince of Moscow?
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)
[edit] This whole "main article" business
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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] Russian Tsars vs Russian czars
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)
- 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)
[edit] Pre-Russian rulers of Russia
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)
[edit] Michael not Czar
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)
[edit] Nicholas II
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)
[edit] House of Vasa
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)