![]() | A fact from Tsarist autocracy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 1,805 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I couldn't find the proper transliteration of Самодержавие; we certainly need it in the article. Should the article be moved to that name? Once the transliteration (and variants) are presented, we should see how popular they are. Other popular variants include replacing tsarist with Russian, and absolutism, with despotism and autocracy (although I think despotism is technically incorrect, as the tsar was not identified with a god). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the literal meaning of Russian 'самодержавие' is pretty much the same as the literal meaning of French 'sovereign'. However, through a lot of history, it has by now come to be that the English idea of 'sovereignty' refers to a considerably more general and somewhat different concept. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record, popularity of names on Google Print:
Should we move the article to Russian autocracy? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiny update on old argument: tsar was indentified with god by some. Check out [1], [2] and [3] ("Some of these older peasants had venerated the tsar as a god on earth"). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You have to be very careful with using 'peasant' attitudes toward authorities. Historians generally disagree on how to interpret such utterances, such as the Tsar is a God. In some ways, they might have believed he was, but at the same time, 'peasants' also applied strategies to interact with authorities, often making use of 'intellectual' or 'educated' stereotypes of the Russian peasantry to find easier access. The reference to Tolstoy is illuminating in this regard. This is not definitive or anything, it's just to warn you to be careful. You seem to keen on searching in Google for proof, try to identify the authors and actually make sense of why they're making their argument, also looking at their source materials. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 ( talk) 11:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Influence on the tradition of absolutism in Tsarist system.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
According to old legends, the Rurikid dynasty began when the Kievan Rus' invited some Vikings to rule over them, because they couldn't rule themselves. My pattern-seeking primate brain finds a certain similarity between that idea, and the latter-day Tsarist idea of Tsar performing a service of micromanaging everybody for the benefit of the country. Is such a connection real -- and is it discussed in the relevant literature? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
How controversial (and reliable) are connections between tsarist autocracy and modern Putinism? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe Miacek has a point. Many Russian letters -- including several we need here -- can't be precisely presented as a single Latin letter, so the more conventional thing to do is transcription rather than transliteration. 82.131.110.99 ( talk) 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit troubled by some of the recent wikignoming edits on this article. In order:
Unless somebody explains in detail why those edits should stay, I'm inclined to revert them. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not correct to say that Peter I abolished mestnichestvo, it was abolished by Zemsky Sobor in 1682. DonaldDuck ( talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (New Haven & London 1998) 5-6 & 93. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 ( talk) 10:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Should the concept of autocracy (самодержавие) - as it existed in the 19th century - be part of this article or not? It might be rightfully called a fallacy or a propaganda trick, but it runs contrary to the POV presented here. NVO ( talk) 12:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
For reasons unexplained, a link to oriental despotism is being constantly removed. This is not an irrelevant see also; this term is used in this context: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and others. PS. I hope that now that a reference for popularity and relevance of "Russian despotism" has been added, we won't see further unexplained reverts of this term.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I presume it's, again, incompatibility of concepts - same name means opposite things to different sides. The concept of "autocracy" as it existed under Alexander II and Alexander III, indeed, denounced traces of "oriental despotism" just as it denounced traces of Petrine "absolutism". Quotation marks are there because the words in that particular historical context meant something quite different from today's U. S. college definitions. A person familiar (indoctrinated?) with the concept as it emerged at home, should, indeed, be concerned about linking "autocracy" with either of the two "alien regimes" that "autocracy" was deemed to get rid of. NVO ( talk) 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Despotism" is a non-neutral term and you have to provide a solid evidence that it was used in scholarly meaning, rather than a slander. I would agree that the usage of the term must be explained in the article, but with a reference more solid than a google search result. - Altenmann >t 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Google search shows that "Russian despotism" is used by some authors, but no sources support that Tsarist autocracy was also known as Russian despotism as in the text of the article. DonaldDuck ( talk) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
To make an example, first paragraph of the article resembles "dog [reference to the google books search for "dog"] also known as cat [reference to the google books search for "cat"]". Apparently some editors keep asserting that statement "dog also known is cat" is supported by numerous scholarly sources, and oppose it's deletion :). DonaldDuck ( talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Period of absolutism in Russia have more or less precise time limits. From 1613 (first tsar of Romanov dynasty) or time of Peter I of Russia to 1905 (revolution and establishment of semi-constitutional monarchy) or 1917 (end of the monarchy). Anything from the period of Mongol invasion (13th century) or Cold war (20th) period is quite irrelevant to the topic of the article and should be removed. DonaldDuck ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the list of alt names stay in the lead or be split into its own section? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the main reason against use of this term is its current negative connotation, despotism nowadays means tyranny. ( Igny ( talk) 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC))
I would also oppose to the sentence The Tatar Yoke and the Mongol ideas and administrative system are credited with bringing the culture exhibiting some characteristics of an oriental despotism to Russia, which is not quite the same as the source says. In the source the connection to the mongols was made by Ukrainian nationalists in an attempt to separate Ukrainian and Russian cultures. So I do not think it is any relevant to the notions of tsarism or autocracy, How did you get this source, by googling tsarism together with "oriental despotism"? ( Igny ( talk) 03:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
Coming across this Wikipedia article, I decided to give my opinion whether the article is sound. I think it's not good at all, it basically tries to compress 'Russian statecraft/political history' into one idea of origins. Dealing with autocracy, the article confusingly mentions other terms as synonyms, such as despotism, and goes on to treat 'despotism' and in the next sentence 'absolutism' (even if the terms are synonymous, which they're not, why not stick to 'autocracy'?). This article is all over the place.
The article does a poor job explaining what differentiated a tsar from, let's say, William I, king of Holland, or Kangxi. It says the 'autocrat' was not bound by law, but of course he was limited in many ways, including custom, albeit in varying degrees across time. In other words, historians are divided on the matter of what 'absolutism' or 'despotism' (the same goes for 'totalitarianism' and the like) actually mean and especially on whether the terms applied to Russia without qualification. Right now, the article does not reflect any historiographical concensus or debate (properly), it simply puts forward one basic view of Russian history. In doing so, it is incredibly misleading in its use of sources, since most of the listed sources are simply used to attest the use of a term and not to support any claims made in the substantial part of the article.
Moreover, the sources that are used are often misrepresented, including Ostrowski and Crews. Ostrowski is heavily concerned with Mongol-Russian relations and with views of these relations among historians throughout the ages. The article cited is a good example of his work, but the point Ostrowski tries to make is not that the Tatar 'yoke' is credited with despotism in Russia. Ostrowski does not state this himself, he simply tries to explain the 'metahistorical reasons' for others to believe this.
Robert Crews is also misleadingly cited here, because the section where he is cited deals with the 'system' of autocracy as well as how the metaphor of Father Tsar reflects the system. To this end, the section cites Crews' work on Muslim citizenship in imperial Russia in which he explicitly referred to 'recent' Orthodox patriotism in the nineteenth century. In other words, to cite Crews' work where he says the Orthodox Church had only recently been propagating patriotism in order to suggest this can be applied to the entire period (the section is unclear about this) of Russian pre-revolutionary history is simply misleading. (This is not to say there are no authors who mention such 'father' imagery in Orthodox primers earlier, e.g. L.A.J. Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (New Haven & London 1998) 92-97)
As far as the Mongol influence is concerned, right now there is no reflection of the historiographical debate in the Wikipedia article. It simply states that the 'Tatar yoke' is credited with bringing 'oriental despotism' to Russia. Now, to reduce the debate on the Mongol influence on 'Russian'/Muscovite political culture to two views, Vernadsky and Riasanovsky (two Russian-American historians) are nice examples. Riasanovsky (and others, including many Soviet scholars) suggested that the Mongol influence on Muscovite administrative practices and such did not exist, but more importantly, when he conceded that there had been any influence at all, this was mostly negative in the form of destruction and cultural isolation. Vernadsky on the other hand claimed that Mongols had in fact had much influence on administrative practices and deemed it positive (because of its 'Eurasian' roots, as opposed to Peter I's western-style reforms). Ostrowski and Halperin may be considered more recent examples of this stance.
Of course there are many more positions, which Ostrowski also covers in his contribution to Gleason, and the evidence can be interpreted in different ways (without discounting evidence), the Wikipedia entry does not try to reflect any of these issues. It simply tries to make the claim that Russian political structures were characterized by the 'Oriental despotism' (a form of government caused by irrigation agriculture, which required lots of central planning, starting in china) of Karl Wittfogel and Bertold Spuler. This concept, however, has been throughly repudiated, Riasanovsky has disproven this especially for Russia.
Regarding Mongol influence, oriental despotism and misrepresentation of sources in this Wikipedia article, in his book on Mongols and Rus' cited here, Ostrowski indeed goes out of his way to define 'autocracy' and 'despotism' (stating any government can be despotic in theory), but he mainly tries to emphasize that the Mongols had by no means been 'despotic' and could therefore not be the source of alleged Muscovite 'despotism' (if anything, Ostrowski points to a shift in political culture from Mongol to Byzantine in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries). Why, then, does this Wikipedia article mention the 'Tatar yoke' as being credited with bringing 'oriental despotism'?
Like I said earlier, the article is all over the place and, as suggested above by other contributors, the article resembles the work of someone who has searched for the terms in Google books simply to add some citations to bolster his or her own argument. There may have been things which are questionable in the article, which I have not mentioned, so please do reply. In my opinion, to single out Russian-style 'tsarist autocracy' is to misrepresent historiography on European/Eurasian monarchies or government. It tries to conflate some five or six centuries of change and adaptations into one static concept. It suggests a Russian Sonderweg where there had been none.
I'd say delete.
2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 ( talk) 10:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Yes, the article is extremely faulty and inadequate, but the point is also that the entire concept of 'tsarist autocracy' stands on shaky grounds historiographically speaking. I'd say the problems you have identifying the differences between all those different concepts, even resorting to ask at the Wikipedia Humanities desk for help, indicates that the 'notability' of this article is questionable. Don't you agree? Please respond to my arguments in this post as well as the previous one. Thanks, 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D ( talk) 08:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
In the end, I have not really gotten a sense from the Russian wikipedia articles of what samoderzhavie actually means. Throughout the centuries, different interpretations exist and they all revolve around 'great power' and 'independence' from others, be it internationally or internally. This still seems very 'ideal typical'.
2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D ( talk) 09:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments. Unfortunately, you have not replied to my fundamental objections (I'm sorry if you don't have the time to do so), but I personally do not feel that re-writing the article is the solution. I think that even if it is re-written, the content of this page might fit in better in some other page. However, unfortunately, I disagree with the idea of 'tsarist autocracy' as a separate category in principle. This is why others should try and comment too. Could you comment on why you thought (already a few years ago) this article should exist? 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D ( talk) 10:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
And how did you get the idea that the term is used in a number of historical and political science works? You googled the 'tsarist autocracy' in google books, noted there were some hits and deemed it notable without looking into what the authors actually meant. Like I said, this article severely misrepresents sources and frankly, I believe some are simply irrelevant in this context. Many of the works do not specify 'tsarist autocracy' as a separate category of rule, they simply say it is autocracy in Russia (often copying opposition/critical ideas). Only in that sense is 'tsarist autocracy' a meaningful combination (unfortunately, Russian scholars have similarly struggled to differentiate between Russian government and other types of government). Otherwise, just go to the autocracy article. The article does not clarify what is special about 'tsarist autocracy' as opposed to 'regular autocracy' and it will not be able to do so even after it is re-written, because the article title already suggests there is some sort of historiographical consensus. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D ( talk) 11:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments, Halibutt. I find your reference to Polish usage illuminating, because it illustrates exactly the difficulties historians of all nationalities have had with defining samoderzhavie. You define it in terms of suzerainty and independence. If samoderzhavie could be described in so few words (and if you really insist on it being something fundamentally different from other monarchies already described here at wikipedia), simply remove the article and add a section at autocracy to note the different ways historians have described samoderzhavie. As we have seen, anything more will inevitably lead to so much confusion and, frankly, deception of the reader. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:38A7:F4A6:E30F:3B9F ( talk) 08:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No. I'm sorry, because what you said on Sam Sailor's talkpage was kind and understanding, but I feel you missed my point. I thought that Wikipedia was about reflecting (some kind of) scientific consensus, but historians have not engaged in a explicit discussion of 'tsarist autocracy', making the existence of this Wikipedia article 'original research' of the contributors here. There are no real 'camps', as might have been the case with the Historikerstreit for example. I cannot expand this article, but like I said, if someone wishes to incorporate the points you have raised by creating this article with the intentions you had, my section in italics may provide a starting point.
As far as your comment on Sam Sailor's talkpage goes, I understand you Wikipedia 'regulars' know how these discussions may end even before they have started, but I beg you to really consider how you go about in dealing with issues like this and with 'non-regulars'. It is unfortunate that no substantial discussion followed on my initial post, I sincerely welcome any kind of feedback; instead, you repeatedly cited Wikipedia regulations which in my opinion stemmed fruitful discussions. That said, I appreciate your comments. I hope that, at least at some subconscious level, my point about historiographical debates and how they are reflected in a highly popular internet encyclopedia has come across. Thank you for your time, 2001:1C02:1907:9500:C42A:2843:9922:93A3 ( talk) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Tsarist autocracy → Tsarism – Less POV, more common; and besides, there wasn't a tsar in Russia before Ivan IV in 1547 – Yamakkusa ( talk) 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support'''
or * '''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
![]() | A fact from Tsarist autocracy appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 1,805 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I couldn't find the proper transliteration of Самодержавие; we certainly need it in the article. Should the article be moved to that name? Once the transliteration (and variants) are presented, we should see how popular they are. Other popular variants include replacing tsarist with Russian, and absolutism, with despotism and autocracy (although I think despotism is technically incorrect, as the tsar was not identified with a god). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the literal meaning of Russian 'самодержавие' is pretty much the same as the literal meaning of French 'sovereign'. However, through a lot of history, it has by now come to be that the English idea of 'sovereignty' refers to a considerably more general and somewhat different concept. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record, popularity of names on Google Print:
Should we move the article to Russian autocracy? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiny update on old argument: tsar was indentified with god by some. Check out [1], [2] and [3] ("Some of these older peasants had venerated the tsar as a god on earth"). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You have to be very careful with using 'peasant' attitudes toward authorities. Historians generally disagree on how to interpret such utterances, such as the Tsar is a God. In some ways, they might have believed he was, but at the same time, 'peasants' also applied strategies to interact with authorities, often making use of 'intellectual' or 'educated' stereotypes of the Russian peasantry to find easier access. The reference to Tolstoy is illuminating in this regard. This is not definitive or anything, it's just to warn you to be careful. You seem to keen on searching in Google for proof, try to identify the authors and actually make sense of why they're making their argument, also looking at their source materials. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 ( talk) 11:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Influence on the tradition of absolutism in Tsarist system.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
According to old legends, the Rurikid dynasty began when the Kievan Rus' invited some Vikings to rule over them, because they couldn't rule themselves. My pattern-seeking primate brain finds a certain similarity between that idea, and the latter-day Tsarist idea of Tsar performing a service of micromanaging everybody for the benefit of the country. Is such a connection real -- and is it discussed in the relevant literature? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
How controversial (and reliable) are connections between tsarist autocracy and modern Putinism? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe Miacek has a point. Many Russian letters -- including several we need here -- can't be precisely presented as a single Latin letter, so the more conventional thing to do is transcription rather than transliteration. 82.131.110.99 ( talk) 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit troubled by some of the recent wikignoming edits on this article. In order:
Unless somebody explains in detail why those edits should stay, I'm inclined to revert them. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not correct to say that Peter I abolished mestnichestvo, it was abolished by Zemsky Sobor in 1682. DonaldDuck ( talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (New Haven & London 1998) 5-6 & 93. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 ( talk) 10:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Should the concept of autocracy (самодержавие) - as it existed in the 19th century - be part of this article or not? It might be rightfully called a fallacy or a propaganda trick, but it runs contrary to the POV presented here. NVO ( talk) 12:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
For reasons unexplained, a link to oriental despotism is being constantly removed. This is not an irrelevant see also; this term is used in this context: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and others. PS. I hope that now that a reference for popularity and relevance of "Russian despotism" has been added, we won't see further unexplained reverts of this term.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I presume it's, again, incompatibility of concepts - same name means opposite things to different sides. The concept of "autocracy" as it existed under Alexander II and Alexander III, indeed, denounced traces of "oriental despotism" just as it denounced traces of Petrine "absolutism". Quotation marks are there because the words in that particular historical context meant something quite different from today's U. S. college definitions. A person familiar (indoctrinated?) with the concept as it emerged at home, should, indeed, be concerned about linking "autocracy" with either of the two "alien regimes" that "autocracy" was deemed to get rid of. NVO ( talk) 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
"Despotism" is a non-neutral term and you have to provide a solid evidence that it was used in scholarly meaning, rather than a slander. I would agree that the usage of the term must be explained in the article, but with a reference more solid than a google search result. - Altenmann >t 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Google search shows that "Russian despotism" is used by some authors, but no sources support that Tsarist autocracy was also known as Russian despotism as in the text of the article. DonaldDuck ( talk) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
To make an example, first paragraph of the article resembles "dog [reference to the google books search for "dog"] also known as cat [reference to the google books search for "cat"]". Apparently some editors keep asserting that statement "dog also known is cat" is supported by numerous scholarly sources, and oppose it's deletion :). DonaldDuck ( talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Period of absolutism in Russia have more or less precise time limits. From 1613 (first tsar of Romanov dynasty) or time of Peter I of Russia to 1905 (revolution and establishment of semi-constitutional monarchy) or 1917 (end of the monarchy). Anything from the period of Mongol invasion (13th century) or Cold war (20th) period is quite irrelevant to the topic of the article and should be removed. DonaldDuck ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the list of alt names stay in the lead or be split into its own section? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the main reason against use of this term is its current negative connotation, despotism nowadays means tyranny. ( Igny ( talk) 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC))
I would also oppose to the sentence The Tatar Yoke and the Mongol ideas and administrative system are credited with bringing the culture exhibiting some characteristics of an oriental despotism to Russia, which is not quite the same as the source says. In the source the connection to the mongols was made by Ukrainian nationalists in an attempt to separate Ukrainian and Russian cultures. So I do not think it is any relevant to the notions of tsarism or autocracy, How did you get this source, by googling tsarism together with "oriental despotism"? ( Igny ( talk) 03:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
Coming across this Wikipedia article, I decided to give my opinion whether the article is sound. I think it's not good at all, it basically tries to compress 'Russian statecraft/political history' into one idea of origins. Dealing with autocracy, the article confusingly mentions other terms as synonyms, such as despotism, and goes on to treat 'despotism' and in the next sentence 'absolutism' (even if the terms are synonymous, which they're not, why not stick to 'autocracy'?). This article is all over the place.
The article does a poor job explaining what differentiated a tsar from, let's say, William I, king of Holland, or Kangxi. It says the 'autocrat' was not bound by law, but of course he was limited in many ways, including custom, albeit in varying degrees across time. In other words, historians are divided on the matter of what 'absolutism' or 'despotism' (the same goes for 'totalitarianism' and the like) actually mean and especially on whether the terms applied to Russia without qualification. Right now, the article does not reflect any historiographical concensus or debate (properly), it simply puts forward one basic view of Russian history. In doing so, it is incredibly misleading in its use of sources, since most of the listed sources are simply used to attest the use of a term and not to support any claims made in the substantial part of the article.
Moreover, the sources that are used are often misrepresented, including Ostrowski and Crews. Ostrowski is heavily concerned with Mongol-Russian relations and with views of these relations among historians throughout the ages. The article cited is a good example of his work, but the point Ostrowski tries to make is not that the Tatar 'yoke' is credited with despotism in Russia. Ostrowski does not state this himself, he simply tries to explain the 'metahistorical reasons' for others to believe this.
Robert Crews is also misleadingly cited here, because the section where he is cited deals with the 'system' of autocracy as well as how the metaphor of Father Tsar reflects the system. To this end, the section cites Crews' work on Muslim citizenship in imperial Russia in which he explicitly referred to 'recent' Orthodox patriotism in the nineteenth century. In other words, to cite Crews' work where he says the Orthodox Church had only recently been propagating patriotism in order to suggest this can be applied to the entire period (the section is unclear about this) of Russian pre-revolutionary history is simply misleading. (This is not to say there are no authors who mention such 'father' imagery in Orthodox primers earlier, e.g. L.A.J. Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (New Haven & London 1998) 92-97)
As far as the Mongol influence is concerned, right now there is no reflection of the historiographical debate in the Wikipedia article. It simply states that the 'Tatar yoke' is credited with bringing 'oriental despotism' to Russia. Now, to reduce the debate on the Mongol influence on 'Russian'/Muscovite political culture to two views, Vernadsky and Riasanovsky (two Russian-American historians) are nice examples. Riasanovsky (and others, including many Soviet scholars) suggested that the Mongol influence on Muscovite administrative practices and such did not exist, but more importantly, when he conceded that there had been any influence at all, this was mostly negative in the form of destruction and cultural isolation. Vernadsky on the other hand claimed that Mongols had in fact had much influence on administrative practices and deemed it positive (because of its 'Eurasian' roots, as opposed to Peter I's western-style reforms). Ostrowski and Halperin may be considered more recent examples of this stance.
Of course there are many more positions, which Ostrowski also covers in his contribution to Gleason, and the evidence can be interpreted in different ways (without discounting evidence), the Wikipedia entry does not try to reflect any of these issues. It simply tries to make the claim that Russian political structures were characterized by the 'Oriental despotism' (a form of government caused by irrigation agriculture, which required lots of central planning, starting in china) of Karl Wittfogel and Bertold Spuler. This concept, however, has been throughly repudiated, Riasanovsky has disproven this especially for Russia.
Regarding Mongol influence, oriental despotism and misrepresentation of sources in this Wikipedia article, in his book on Mongols and Rus' cited here, Ostrowski indeed goes out of his way to define 'autocracy' and 'despotism' (stating any government can be despotic in theory), but he mainly tries to emphasize that the Mongols had by no means been 'despotic' and could therefore not be the source of alleged Muscovite 'despotism' (if anything, Ostrowski points to a shift in political culture from Mongol to Byzantine in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries). Why, then, does this Wikipedia article mention the 'Tatar yoke' as being credited with bringing 'oriental despotism'?
Like I said earlier, the article is all over the place and, as suggested above by other contributors, the article resembles the work of someone who has searched for the terms in Google books simply to add some citations to bolster his or her own argument. There may have been things which are questionable in the article, which I have not mentioned, so please do reply. In my opinion, to single out Russian-style 'tsarist autocracy' is to misrepresent historiography on European/Eurasian monarchies or government. It tries to conflate some five or six centuries of change and adaptations into one static concept. It suggests a Russian Sonderweg where there had been none.
I'd say delete.
2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 ( talk) 10:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Yes, the article is extremely faulty and inadequate, but the point is also that the entire concept of 'tsarist autocracy' stands on shaky grounds historiographically speaking. I'd say the problems you have identifying the differences between all those different concepts, even resorting to ask at the Wikipedia Humanities desk for help, indicates that the 'notability' of this article is questionable. Don't you agree? Please respond to my arguments in this post as well as the previous one. Thanks, 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D ( talk) 08:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
In the end, I have not really gotten a sense from the Russian wikipedia articles of what samoderzhavie actually means. Throughout the centuries, different interpretations exist and they all revolve around 'great power' and 'independence' from others, be it internationally or internally. This still seems very 'ideal typical'.
2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D ( talk) 09:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments. Unfortunately, you have not replied to my fundamental objections (I'm sorry if you don't have the time to do so), but I personally do not feel that re-writing the article is the solution. I think that even if it is re-written, the content of this page might fit in better in some other page. However, unfortunately, I disagree with the idea of 'tsarist autocracy' as a separate category in principle. This is why others should try and comment too. Could you comment on why you thought (already a few years ago) this article should exist? 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D ( talk) 10:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
And how did you get the idea that the term is used in a number of historical and political science works? You googled the 'tsarist autocracy' in google books, noted there were some hits and deemed it notable without looking into what the authors actually meant. Like I said, this article severely misrepresents sources and frankly, I believe some are simply irrelevant in this context. Many of the works do not specify 'tsarist autocracy' as a separate category of rule, they simply say it is autocracy in Russia (often copying opposition/critical ideas). Only in that sense is 'tsarist autocracy' a meaningful combination (unfortunately, Russian scholars have similarly struggled to differentiate between Russian government and other types of government). Otherwise, just go to the autocracy article. The article does not clarify what is special about 'tsarist autocracy' as opposed to 'regular autocracy' and it will not be able to do so even after it is re-written, because the article title already suggests there is some sort of historiographical consensus. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D ( talk) 11:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments, Halibutt. I find your reference to Polish usage illuminating, because it illustrates exactly the difficulties historians of all nationalities have had with defining samoderzhavie. You define it in terms of suzerainty and independence. If samoderzhavie could be described in so few words (and if you really insist on it being something fundamentally different from other monarchies already described here at wikipedia), simply remove the article and add a section at autocracy to note the different ways historians have described samoderzhavie. As we have seen, anything more will inevitably lead to so much confusion and, frankly, deception of the reader. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:38A7:F4A6:E30F:3B9F ( talk) 08:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No. I'm sorry, because what you said on Sam Sailor's talkpage was kind and understanding, but I feel you missed my point. I thought that Wikipedia was about reflecting (some kind of) scientific consensus, but historians have not engaged in a explicit discussion of 'tsarist autocracy', making the existence of this Wikipedia article 'original research' of the contributors here. There are no real 'camps', as might have been the case with the Historikerstreit for example. I cannot expand this article, but like I said, if someone wishes to incorporate the points you have raised by creating this article with the intentions you had, my section in italics may provide a starting point.
As far as your comment on Sam Sailor's talkpage goes, I understand you Wikipedia 'regulars' know how these discussions may end even before they have started, but I beg you to really consider how you go about in dealing with issues like this and with 'non-regulars'. It is unfortunate that no substantial discussion followed on my initial post, I sincerely welcome any kind of feedback; instead, you repeatedly cited Wikipedia regulations which in my opinion stemmed fruitful discussions. That said, I appreciate your comments. I hope that, at least at some subconscious level, my point about historiographical debates and how they are reflected in a highly popular internet encyclopedia has come across. Thank you for your time, 2001:1C02:1907:9500:C42A:2843:9922:93A3 ( talk) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Tsarist autocracy → Tsarism – Less POV, more common; and besides, there wasn't a tsar in Russia before Ivan IV in 1547 – Yamakkusa ( talk) 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support'''
or * '''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.