![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 21, 2005, February 21, 2006, February 21, 2007, February 21, 2008, February 21, 2009, and February 21, 2010. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Emax: could you please explain your logic. You insist on listing Ladislaus as tsar of Russia when in reality he had no control of the country, but the Template:Kings_and_Dukes_of_Poland does not list Russian tsars as Polish rulers when they unquestionably did controled the territory. Warsaw really was a part of Russia. Why such double standards? -- Gene s 08:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Space Cadet wrote in the summary: Read Your own Talk page before you start flaming and freaking out on people. And generally - try to calm down. Here is what he wrote:
That is not a meaningful answer by a loooong stretch. --10:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Discussion moved here from User_talk:Gene_s
Royal titles in Latin: Vladislaus Quartus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniaeque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque haereditarius rex, electus magnus dux Moschoviae
English translation: Vladislaus IV by God's grace king of Poland, grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia, and also hereditary king of the Swedes, Goths and Vandals, elected tsar of Russia. is it enough?-- Emax 07:51, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
And you completely refuse to discuss the issue of double standards which had been brought up twice on this page. -- Gene s 09:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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.
As to the Russian tsars as kings of Poland - they already are on the List of Polish rulers. Halibu tt 10:45, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with Halibutt. I will repost what I posted on Talk:False Dmitriy I: 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)
I will try to propose a workable solution. I think we all agree that Wladyslaw was not a 'real' tsar and did not rule Russia, but he did use the title nonetheless, right? I think that
== Notes ==
Here is what seems to be an acceptable compromize to me:
1 In the period 1610-1613 Muscovy did not have a single ruler who can be rightfully called tsar. A number of people ruled Muscovy or made claim to Muscovy throne. For details see Time of Troubles.
-- Gene s 05:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First I'd like to point out that I did not introduce any solution, neither POV nor NPOV. Since the matter was disputed by both of you and there was a childish revert war starting here I simply combined both of your version, without having any personal oppinion on the matter. It's still your version.
On the other hand I think of a decent compromise solution:
Finally, the Russian tsars that were kings of Poland already are on the List of Polish rulers. I believe Gene should have checked that before making some fancy statements about double standards. Halibu tt 06:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
The some word could be none or disputed or multiple etc. On the page Time of Troubles we would have to include the succession template. How about that for a compromize? -- Gene s 09:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Congartulations, Gene! You've just invented the best version I could think of. Something like
Seems like the best solution for me. The wording could be changed to some other version, like succession disputable due to or something along that line. It seems fine with me. Halibu tt 02:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
We are trying to find a consensus and nearly agreed on a solution when you barged in with your edits. If you do it again, I will ask for the page protection. Use arguments for/against the discussed version or propose your version taking into account arguments which were voiced already. Don't make unilateral changes. -- Gene s 07:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Might make an interesting addition, even through it is not certain whether it just a legend. See [1] and [2]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's a link to Brokhaus that says Mikhail was injured early in his life by a horse; can't properly cite it as reference.
http://www.rulex.ru/01130629.htm
Yet another article in the English Wikipedia obviously composed by a majority of non-native English speakers. The syntax is horrible and some of the phrases used are laughable and feel as though they came straight from Babelfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 ( talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's British syntax of the early 20th century. And Russian isn't included in Babelfish. Ameshavkin ( talk) 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The first task of the new tsar was to clear the land of the robbers infesting it. <-someone please rephrase this
"The Russian scholar Chester Dunning of Texas A&M University published in 2001 Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty, twelve years in the research and writing, nearly seven hundred pages long, a History Book Club selection, published by the Pennsylvania State University Press."
I don't want to just go modifying the page in case someone feels it belongs here but it strikes me as something that Chester Dunning himself added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Django1200 ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed a three-way pagemove of this article and his son's and great-grandson's; please discuss in the "Requested moves" section of Talk:Alexis of Russia. Nyttend ( talk) 17:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alexis of Russia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Birthday in the first part of the article is listed as 22 July, but the article itself says he was crowned on the 21 July and specifically says it was his birthday. And the infobox says his coronation was on 22 July. 2600:4040:7E74:5500:15A8:44CD:8CF5:3D3D ( talk) 02:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 21, 2005, February 21, 2006, February 21, 2007, February 21, 2008, February 21, 2009, and February 21, 2010. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Emax: could you please explain your logic. You insist on listing Ladislaus as tsar of Russia when in reality he had no control of the country, but the Template:Kings_and_Dukes_of_Poland does not list Russian tsars as Polish rulers when they unquestionably did controled the territory. Warsaw really was a part of Russia. Why such double standards? -- Gene s 08:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Space Cadet wrote in the summary: Read Your own Talk page before you start flaming and freaking out on people. And generally - try to calm down. Here is what he wrote:
That is not a meaningful answer by a loooong stretch. --10:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Discussion moved here from User_talk:Gene_s
Royal titles in Latin: Vladislaus Quartus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniaeque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque haereditarius rex, electus magnus dux Moschoviae
English translation: Vladislaus IV by God's grace king of Poland, grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia, and also hereditary king of the Swedes, Goths and Vandals, elected tsar of Russia. is it enough?-- Emax 07:51, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
And you completely refuse to discuss the issue of double standards which had been brought up twice on this page. -- Gene s 09:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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.
As to the Russian tsars as kings of Poland - they already are on the List of Polish rulers. Halibu tt 10:45, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with Halibutt. I will repost what I posted on Talk:False Dmitriy I: 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)
I will try to propose a workable solution. I think we all agree that Wladyslaw was not a 'real' tsar and did not rule Russia, but he did use the title nonetheless, right? I think that
== Notes ==
Here is what seems to be an acceptable compromize to me:
1 In the period 1610-1613 Muscovy did not have a single ruler who can be rightfully called tsar. A number of people ruled Muscovy or made claim to Muscovy throne. For details see Time of Troubles.
-- Gene s 05:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First I'd like to point out that I did not introduce any solution, neither POV nor NPOV. Since the matter was disputed by both of you and there was a childish revert war starting here I simply combined both of your version, without having any personal oppinion on the matter. It's still your version.
On the other hand I think of a decent compromise solution:
Finally, the Russian tsars that were kings of Poland already are on the List of Polish rulers. I believe Gene should have checked that before making some fancy statements about double standards. Halibu tt 06:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
The some word could be none or disputed or multiple etc. On the page Time of Troubles we would have to include the succession template. How about that for a compromize? -- Gene s 09:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Congartulations, Gene! You've just invented the best version I could think of. Something like
Seems like the best solution for me. The wording could be changed to some other version, like succession disputable due to or something along that line. It seems fine with me. Halibu tt 02:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
We are trying to find a consensus and nearly agreed on a solution when you barged in with your edits. If you do it again, I will ask for the page protection. Use arguments for/against the discussed version or propose your version taking into account arguments which were voiced already. Don't make unilateral changes. -- Gene s 07:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Might make an interesting addition, even through it is not certain whether it just a legend. See [1] and [2]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's a link to Brokhaus that says Mikhail was injured early in his life by a horse; can't properly cite it as reference.
http://www.rulex.ru/01130629.htm
Yet another article in the English Wikipedia obviously composed by a majority of non-native English speakers. The syntax is horrible and some of the phrases used are laughable and feel as though they came straight from Babelfish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 ( talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's British syntax of the early 20th century. And Russian isn't included in Babelfish. Ameshavkin ( talk) 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The first task of the new tsar was to clear the land of the robbers infesting it. <-someone please rephrase this
"The Russian scholar Chester Dunning of Texas A&M University published in 2001 Russia's First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty, twelve years in the research and writing, nearly seven hundred pages long, a History Book Club selection, published by the Pennsylvania State University Press."
I don't want to just go modifying the page in case someone feels it belongs here but it strikes me as something that Chester Dunning himself added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Django1200 ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed a three-way pagemove of this article and his son's and great-grandson's; please discuss in the "Requested moves" section of Talk:Alexis of Russia. Nyttend ( talk) 17:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alexis of Russia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Birthday in the first part of the article is listed as 22 July, but the article itself says he was crowned on the 21 July and specifically says it was his birthday. And the infobox says his coronation was on 22 July. 2600:4040:7E74:5500:15A8:44CD:8CF5:3D3D ( talk) 02:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)