Talk:Michael of Russia

About Ladislaus

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:

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 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)

Like all her predecessors since 1066, Queen Elizabeth II of England, on her official website, uses the title of "Duke (sic!) of Normandy". Should we list her among dukes of Normandy? After the 15th century, three different dynasties of Europe styled themselves "kings of Jerusalem and emperors of Constantinople" at the same time. All these titles have very little to do with reality. Ghirlandajo 08:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are giving evidence that he assumed such title, i.e. made a claim to the thone. That's good for him, but not enough for an encyclopedia article. Did he actually rule Muscovy for 3 years? Is there any evidence that he issued decees and they were followed? And, by the way, use talk page of the article, not my talk page. By writing here you are writing to me alone. By using article talk page you are talking to everybody involved. --Gene s 07:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Russians elected him, so whats the problem?--Emax 08:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Some of them elected him, sure. But was he really the tsar of Russia? A bunch of people also supported various False Dmitrys, some of them even managed to gain control of the country. As far as I know, Ladislaus was never the actual ruler. The actual rulers between 1610 and 1613 were Patriarch and Pozharsky. --Gene s 08:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wladyslaw was elected by the Polish nobility, not by the Russians. Russian tsars were elected by the Zemsky Sobor, and this happened on two occasions only: Boris Godunov in 1598 and Mikhail Romanov in 1613. Ghirlandajo 08:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, by Polish imperialists! Ghirlandajo... :)--Emax 08:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making a mockery out of this discussion instead of productively contributing to it? Do you have anything salient to say on the subject?

Please explain double standards in the list of Polish rules template. --Gene s 08:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Wladyslaw was elected by the Polish nobility, not by the Russians" that is kindergarten, dear Gene--Emax 08:54, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Emax, you just missed my point. I said he was elected by some, but failed to actually assert control. You kindergarten argument is meningless. Can you say something useful? --Gene s 09:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You reverted 4 times Gene s, --Emax 08:51, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, just 3. And I would like to point out that you are still refusing to discuss the matter in any kind of a meaningful way. --Gene s 09:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the treaty with boyars, Wladislaw had to convert to Orthodoxy and cut his powers in benefit of the boyars. He didn't fullfill the clauses. Besides, according to Polyanovka's Peace Treaty he refused all his claims to the Russian throne. He could call himself whosoever he wanted, the point is who he was in fact. So, please, avoid feeding your quasi-national pride with empty claims. Concerning the point that Russian Tsars are mentioned in the list of Polish rulers, i'd like to note that they were actual rulers not due to the political intrigues of a handful of boyars but due to the matter of fact. So, i will insist on removing this character from the list further more. --maqs 11:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Double standards

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)

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.

As to the Russian tsars as kings of Poland - they already are on the List of Polish rulers. Halibutt 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 ¹ 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 would like to point out, that User:Halibutt, obviously being a Pole, is not a neutral party in this discussion. I still point out double standards in Russian/Polish history articles. The template Template:Kings_and_Dukes_of_Poland does not mention Russian tsars, as well as List of Polish rulers does not even mention that the majority of Poland was ruled by Russian tsars for over 100 years. Here in 1610-1613 Russia did not have a ruler, at least not a ruler who could be clearly named tsar. Why don't you update the Polish history pages first and then come here and make a symmetrical change in these pages? Are we building an NPOV encyclopedia or what? --Gene s 11:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that one's nationality is irrelavant on Wiki, only ones contribution should matter, and this is why I will not enquore - or assume - what nationality are you. I don't care. If you see double standards, fix them. As I wrote earlier, I agree that Russian tsars should be added to the list of Polish rulers. Feel free to do so, this will be a constructive and valuable addition to Wiki. But deleting information on Wladislaw being tsar is the opposite of such actions: it is nothing short of POVed vandalism, using flawed logic: since article A (list of Polish rulers) is bad, I will not allow the improvement of article B (on Wladislaw). I will support any constructive work, I will oppose any vandalism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that one's nationality is irrelavant on Wiki It would have been great if it were true. Unfortunately it is not. Wiki is just a reflection of the real world. In this specific case one contributor (User:Halibutt) pretended to act as a neutral mediator while he clearly cannot be seen as neutral. His proposed solution was not neutral at all.

If you see double standards, fix them. That's exactly what I am doing here. I am arguing the case in order to fix a problem. I am not going to add references to Russian tsars to the lists of Polish rules because it would just cause more conflict. But I insist on removing Ladislaus from the list of Russian tsars and from the succession sequence. He should be mentioned, but not in the same capacity and place as, say Ivan IV of Russia.

But deleting information on Wladislaw being tsar is the opposite of such actions. But he was never actually a tsar of Russia. It's fine to mention him on the page of Time of Troubles. For example, the addition by User:Maqs on this page is quite a good description. But it's wrong to include him in the succession sequence in the same capacity as other people who actually ruled the country.

it is nothing short of POVed vandalism, using flawed logic: "since article A (list of Polish rulers) is bad, I will not allow the improvement of article B (on Wladislaw)" But here you make an implicit assumption that the changes made by Emax & Space_Cadet are actually improvements. That has not been proven so far. But their refusal to discuss the matter in a meaningful IS abuse and POV pushing. --Gene s 13:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okeh. Let as sum up the suggestions at last. The compromise, imho, lays in adding a special note in the body of both articles about the controversal reign of Wladislaw in Moscow without listing him as an actual tsar. Agreed? --maqs 06:16, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

See on the bottom if that is acceptable. --Gene s 06:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed solution

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

• the detailed explanation on why that was so should be added to a subsection in the Wladyslaw IV Waza article. I copied the current explanation below and incorporated some of the info you mentioned in this discussion, please work on it and expand it with the info you mentioned above until we are all satisfied and agree this can be moved to the articles (about Wladislaw, Michel I and any other appopriate). Then I hope we can resolve other similar conflicts. We can either leave the note in every article or preferably, make it link to the relevant subsection in the Wladyslaw IV article.
• the template to use with list of Russian rulers should look like this --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC):

== Notes ==

1. See Wladislaus IV of Poland#Wladislaw as a Tsar for main article. Wladislaus IV, king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was briefly elected Russian Tsar by Russian boyars (this election has some name or sth? where was it?) in 1610. According to the treaty (name?) with boyars, Wladislaw had to convert to Orthodoxy and reduce his monarch powers expanding the boyars priviliges (anything else?). He didn't fullfill the clauses and he was never able to reign in Russia, as his support there was very temporary and dependend on shifting internal politics among boyars. He held on the title without any real power until 1635, when at the Polyanovka's Peace Treaty he gave up all his claims to the Russian throne (he also returned some royal insignia that was in Poland posession since the False Dmitris events, do I recall this correctly?). Expand on did he came to Russia, did he try to regain the title, etc.

---

I don't think it's an acceptable compromize. If the would-be-tsar is included in the succession, why not include the actual rulers Dmitry Pozharsky and patriarch Philaret, as well as whatever number of False Dmitriys who made the claim to the throne. There were also numerous peasant uprisings, with leaders usually claiming the throne. If Ladislaus was tsar, why not Pugachev or Bolotnikov? What's the logic? Anyone who made the claim should be included! Claim is enough, right?

A real historic claim is good enough to deserve a mention in the encylcopedia. We are not supposed to discuss history, just state the facts here. Something some of people here often tend to forget.

All right, then I ask you - what do you suggest? Censoring out all mentions of Wladislaw being Tsar from Wikipedia? As I have little knowledge of those other usurpers you mention, I can't draw compariosn beteen theirs and Wladslaw situation, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A real historic claim is good enough to deserve a mention in the encylcopedia. I never opposed to such mention. I oppose to inclusion of Ladislaus in the succession. Do you understand the difference? --Gene s 05:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see any attempts by proponents of POV "Wladislaw Tsar of Russia" to update the list of Polish rulers to include Russian tsars. That really makes me question the sincerity of your intentions. --Gene s 15:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you do anything else except objecting and deleting? Yes, write about those others pretenders, or stop obstructing others who are trying to do so. Propose your own compromize - if you know what that word means. What I read from you is only 'no, no, no' and some insults of other discutants. I thought at this Wiki I could find a discussion level above Usenet flames, but seems I was wrong. Goodbye.

I will repeat myself: do it yourself, I wont oppose. Anon has a point - if you have time to complain, you should have time to do sth constructive. And lets work a compromise, whatever our differences are I can easily see that putting Wladslaw on the same level as a real tsar is wrong. Btw, anybody has Britannica access? It would be interesting to see what modern B has to say about the tsar issue - does it mention it and if so, how? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anon has zero point. He did not even look at the edit history before accusing of deleting.

OK, I'll try to do make updates to Polish history pages. We will see how quickly it will be reverted. --Gene s 05:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another attempt at compromize

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)

Explanation and yet another proposal

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. Halibutt 06:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Quite acceptable. Reference to the explanation page could be the best idea here. (I just removed needless ¹ outa there). --maqs 06:54, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Half-way acceptable, except it breaks the purpose of the succession sequence. It's supposed to be used for browsing the sequence of rulers. The proposed solution breaks the sequence. I.e. when a reader, by browsing through the sequence, gets to the page Time of Troubles, he can't browse further. Alternatively, the event Time of Troubles can be included into the sequence as a "ruler", but that seems odd. --Gene s 07:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, let it be that way:

--maqs 08:11, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. --Gene s 08:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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.. There are none of them for the period 1832-1917 and none in the template. I believe Halibutt should have checked that. My accusation of double standards stands. --Gene s 07:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As to the succession box - I believe there should be no problem with adding the Time of Troubles into a succession scheme. After all in most of such lists in history books both time of troubles and similar periods (like for instance regency, election gap and so on) are listed separately. Alternatively (and this could be the easiest solution, I guess) we could prepare a separate article on Russian rulers during the Time of Troubles (or some similar title) and explain the whole controversy there, with all those Minins, Pozharskis, Władysławs, and whomever we had there at the time. There shouldn't be a problem there since apparently we agree on the basic facts, the problem is the wording. What do you say? Halibutt 10:39, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I believe there should be no problem with adding the Time of Troubles into a succession scheme. The current proposal by maqs includes it nicely.

After all in most of such lists in history books. Wikipedia is not a history book or a paper encyclopedia. See WP:WIN. The succession template is a tool for browsing a list. It does not exist on paper. The inclusing of something else in the list would break the concept.

I guess) we could prepare a separate article on Russian rulers during the Time of Troubles (or some similar title). And that would effectively fork the Time of Troubles article. The same data would have to be maintained in synch in two or three places (as Muscovy has it too). Bad idea.

--Gene s 11:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. The current proposal by Maqs is only slightly less misinformative than saying that the country was ruled by Vasiliy or Władysław or anyone.
2. Indeed, wikipedia is not paper, but we don't have to re-invent the wheel just because we don't use paper. Should we also drop the concept of letters just because paper encyclopedias use them? The very concept of regency breaks the concept of succession, so does the concept of civil war and many other such concepts that simply allowed more than one ruler at a time. At times we have to simplify the whole story by saying that the ruler of XXX was YYY. However, in this context such a statement would be a huge oversimplification and should be avoided.
3. I don't see a problem here, since the info would not have to be changed too often, but if you do - no problem for me. We could simply link the Time of Troubles article proper.

--Halibutt 16:07, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

So, let's sum it up. You object to having Vasiliy in that box, I object to having Ladislaus in that box. You do have a valid point that the succession was indeed broken at that time. That leaves the only compromize as to have something else there. I guess that would be Time of Troubles:

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)

Whatever the arguments, this is better then what currently is in the article - for pity's sake, when I see Wladslav listed before Vasily, I know it is not right, last but not least, it should be in alphabetical order. I will change the order to put Vasily first (he was more important after all, anyway) and add the note 'see also'. You can flesh the details later. Btw, I changed see also to small caption and or to and, since they both ruled more or less at the same time (well, Wladislaw didn't rule, but had the insignia etc.). Or suggests that we are not sure which ine of them ruled :>--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This just rehashes a suggestion which was rejected before. If you want to list Ladislaus as tsar of Russia, then I insist on also listing all the others who ruled or claimed to rule Russia at the same time. That includes Pozharsky, Philaret, and a number of False Dmitrys. The solution proposed by User:Halibutt is more acceptable. --Gene s 07:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, that would be basically the same as your proposal from 06:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC), with exception for the some word, which I don't strongly insist on. --Gene s 09:40, 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. Halibutt 02:53, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

We invented it :-). Let it stay for a day or two before we implement it, so other interested parties may add their two groszy. --Gene s 08:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Piotrus

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)

Ivan Susanin

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)

Reference to Brokhaus

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

HORRIBLE SYNTAX

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)

Life and reign

The first task of the new tsar was to clear the land of the robbers infesting it. <-someone please rephrase this

Why is all this here?

"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)

Requested move

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Coronation/Birthday contradiction

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)