Jump to content

Talk:Ivan III of Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolute rubbish as usual

[edit]

Well, wikipedia is up to it's standards! Double-headed eagle was used first by princes of Tver hundred years before, not by Ivan III. There were no "the curtain between Muscovy and the west", there was a flow of Italians coming to Moscow during his reign. It seems the whole article is written based on a single unpublished book of some nutter from Cambridge who did not even spoke Russian. Well done, wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk

[edit]

Talk about Partisan!!!! I don' think the poor dead souls of Novgorod would believe any of this tripe! Meika 00:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know more about his contributions to society. If you added a section like that to the article that would be great.

The article constitutes a gross act of misrepresentation, indeed it is a ham-handed hatchet job, interpreting Ivan's record according to the bias of his enemies, both foreign and domestic. He deserves better as does any human being. I direct the author's attention to John Fennel's book, Ivan the Great of Moscow, where the legends of Ivan's supposed timidity are put to rest. What emerges is a consummate diplomat and strategist who never took foolhardy risks but who never shied from a fight when challenged. The article reflects an innumerate level of ignorance regarding Ivan's actions let alone their underlying reasons. When I find the time I shall rewrite it completely on the basis of Fennel's work. So long for now. Soz

You are welcome. The article was imported from the 1911 Britannica and as such is understandably outdated. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Ruler Ever?

[edit]

This needs to include a reference or something, it doesn't even have dates. I won't call it bogus but it also sounds fishy, though the ruling family certainly enjoyed a lot more stability during these years I can't believe it without dates at the very least. Guess tomorrow I'm pulling out the old history books!--JaymzRR 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick search and, though not as straight forward Peter the Great did suedo-rule for an identical 43 years, for now I am removing the reference since it lacks any real information, reference, or very likely truth.--JaymzRR 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albus Rex or Albus rex

[edit]

There's no entry regarding the alleged alternate name, Albus Rex or Albus rex - but it's used under the image. Will someone write about this name in the body of the article - and give a reference please? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some what? =

[edit]

"The boyars naturally resented this revolution and struggled against it, at first with some ." With some what? Some success? ConjurerDragon (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fennell

[edit]

The late British historian John Fennell, professor at Oxford, was a leading authority on Ivan III and is widely cited by recent scholars, see dozens of citations to Fennell " the best available treatment" says Wieczynski - 1994 -p 243; "First and foremost, John Fennell's history which unfortunately was incomplete at the time of his death" (introduction to reprint of Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich Solovʹev - 1999); "John Fennell, who is the leading authority on the medieval Moscovite state" (Colliers Encyclopedia) Rjensen (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's from the modern introduction online at online p xxii Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fennell's conclusion was presented totally out of blue. In the article nothing suggest, that this point of view ever have right on existance. More of that, part "A period of cultural depression and spiritual barrenness. For the sake of territorial aggrandizement he deprived his country of the fruits of Western learning and civilization" contradict part "Ivan did his utmost to make his capital a worthy successor to Constantinople, and with that object invited many foreign masters and artificers to settle in Moscow. The most noted of these was the Italian Ridolfo di Fioravante, nicknamed "Aristotle" because of his extraordinary knowledge, who built several cathedrals and palaces in the Kremlin. This extraordinary monument of the Moscow art remains a lasting symbol of the power and glory of Ivan III." For the sake of internal consistency of this article better would be update sections "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" with his facts and arguments first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.3.193 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No -- Wikipedia NPOV rules require inclusion of serious viewpoints by Reliable Sources (Fennell was an Oxford professor who wrote the often-cited standard English language biography of Ivan) whether a wikipedia editor likes them or not. The cite evaluates Ivan's major strengths and weaknesses -- the latter indeed belong in ths article. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you answer? I am not arguing against inclusion Fennel viewpoint in the article. But his viewpoint totally lack context and need be better integrated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.3.193 (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fennell is the leading British expert and he has summarized the scholarship about Ivan's overall role in succinct fashion. That is what the lede is for. There is no need for Wiki editors to disagree with the experts. Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A single person's opinion, however expert, should not be included in the introduction section. Doubly so, considering its unneutral and unencyclopedical wording like "bigoted" and "barrenness", as well as its undue concern of one single (and debated) aspect. It may be present in a "Legacy" section, not in the intro section. Your edit was reverted and going to be again if you put it out of place again.Beaumain (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
when we compare a "single person's view" then it's Fennell with a lifetime of scholarship and many leading students versus Beaumain, with what credentials???? The wiki rules: report what the experts say. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivan III of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan III of Russia to Ivan III of Moscow

[edit]
A fracas.

Naturally one would think this adaptation would be self-evident, but it seems a discussion is requisite by @Mellk. Mellk, what’s your rationale for dissenting this change? Okiyo9228 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has long been Ivan III of Russia until it was recently changed without discussion, and I do not see a good reason to change this, see for example WP:TITLECHANGES. Maybe there will be a good argument to change this, but this needs to be discussed first. But since you have never edited this article before nor this talk page, I should inform you about WP:HOUNDING. Mellk (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the title has acquired stability but is erroneous and I should let you be cognizant of this as well. Okiyo9228 (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your first edit in several days was starting this topic and tagging me, but you just so happened to stumble across the move in recent changes, sure. Mellk (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A busy man has busy man things to do. Nevertheless, the locus of this discussion should be pertaining to this topic. I assume this to be resolved in no matter of time unless you desire to forestall the change. Anyways it wasn’t until Ivan IV came to the the throne by which it one could declare it Russia. Okiyo9228 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken, this has been the title since the article was created and not moved since (until recently). You are going to need to do a lot better than saying what your personal opinion is. Mellk (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRITERIA says

Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

The Vasily II of Moscow article perspicuously denotes “of Moscow” thus changing this will help the consistentency between the former and subsequent articles that have fallaciously “of Russia” instead “of Moscow”Okiyo9228 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will pursue another adaptation, namely, Vasili III. Okiyo9228 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in case it was not clear enough, I will say it plainly: leave me alone. Mellk (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The truth must be sustained ubiquitously in Wikipedian articles, if you are exasperated then I have no claim to your passions. Okiyo9228 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh more "truth" talk, OK, I am done. Mellk (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Truth cannot speak for itself, one must intercede for the truth… Okiyo9228 (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is called disruptive editing. Mellk (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re self-evident not responding. @User:Nederlandse Leeuw what do you think on this matter since he said I haven’t acquired consensus. Okiyo9228 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So let us see, you were presumably tracking my edits (again) to see when I resumed my activity, and as soon as I did and did not immediately respond to you, you decided to make the "harmonious" move. Yikes. Mellk (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to add, Ivan III or Ivan the Great is probably a better title. Mellk (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about??? Okiyo9228 (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re making presumptions only now. Okiyo9228 (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Okiyo9228 I don't know who you are or why you are tagging me, but your general behaviour here is not conducive to establishing a consensus. I suggest you calm down and stop being hostile to Mellk, and to stop your disruptive editing. Saying you should realize that Mellk is just forestalling the change is also in violation of WP:AFG. We need to work together here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need not know me as I was attempting to receive your opinion on the matter as I checked the history of this article and saw you made a change to it. As can self-evidently be seen I have come to Mellk with “good faith” or good manners as you can see in the beginning of the discussion. Yet, Mellk continues to assert presumptions and seems exasperated so you should assert most of that hostilty-ness to Mellk. Nevertheless, I am open for a discussion. Okiyo9228 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not buy your claim that you stumbled across my edits on recent changes. Especially when you decided to write: truth must be sustained ubiquitously in Wikipedian articles. But congratulations, I cannot be bothered to deal with this anymore. Mellk (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no excuses for responding without virtue as one can easily indulge in their preconceptions. Thus, your bad faith isn’t requisite also redundant. Okiyo9228 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Okiyo9228 I have come to Mellk with “good faith” or good manners as you can see in the beginning of the discussion. Not really, you're starting with poisoning the well by implying that Mellk is unreasonable for requesting a discussion before moving a page, and that we should all believe your opinion that he is unreasonable. In the meantime, Favonian has already acknowledged that an RM is now required because the renaming is controversial, yet you still tell Favonian that Mellk is unreasonable because the renaming will take place sooner or later. That's not assuming good faith.
Besides, you're implying that you've got no prior history of interaction with Mellk, but Talk:Alexander_Nevsky#Alexander_Nevsky_dispute/_Anachronistic_“Russian_princes” shows otherwise. Moreover, you started that discussion with assuming bad faith on Mellk's part as well: I anticipate you’re going to revert my edit again therefore expound on your rationale for doing it. If you are unable to cooperate with another user, I suggest you go work in some other area, or at least take some time to cool down and try again with more patience. I have reason to suspect that Mellk might be right about you hounding him. If that is true, you should stop that.
Please be respectful to other users, even if you disagree with them. We do not engage in bullying here, and I will not tolerate you doing that. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with Mellk and I am not “bullying” Mellk as I said in the aforementioned, I am open for a discussion but it seems like no one wants to rectify this situation. Nevertheless, we can proceed to what Favorian was espousing.Okiyo9228 (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's safe to say that renaming the article is controversial. The correct approach is described in WP:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Favonian (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, you should be cognizant of the fact that Mellk is just forestalling the change.Okiyo9228 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I have personally not ruled out "Ivan III of Moscow". I already said initially that there might be a good argument for it. But I want to see what other options there are first instead of just moving it because it is "self-evident" and "erroneous". Mellk (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at the history of the article, I noticed that it deviated from the previous article names and I also noticed that someone had tried to change it but didn’t advance in doing anything about it. Okiyo9228 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I've begun the WP:RM process. Please comment below. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 May 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus for moving to Ivan III of Moscow. General consensus against moving to Ivan the Great. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan III of Russia → Ivan III of Moscow – Per WP:COMMONNAME. See talk section above for some background. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) PS: I would add WP:SOVEREIGN #3 as a supporting reason for "Moscow" (per Grand Duchy of Moscow) rather than "Russia" (the Tsardom of Russia was not established until 1547), and WP:NPOV as a reason against "the Great" (see #The nickname the Great below). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. This whole "renaming/removing spree" is not only trampling on well established and recognizable names, but is also very disrespectful to the readers of Wikipedia, who are most likely already fed up with endless attempts to stuff some new "correct terminology" down their throats. This is extremely annoying.
You are misrepresenting historical facts by portraying Muscovite princes as crazy guys who "called themselves" tsars of all Rus' without anyone else taking it seriously. In reality, many called them by this title, in foreign affairs too, and this is very well documented. As for Ivan III, "Prince of Moscow" or "Duke of Moscow" was just one of his titles. Here are some examples of his other titles from various documents:
1) "Epther Gudz willie oc paa the stora herrens willie, Rysse keysere store försten Iwane Wasillewitz ofuer alt Rysseland och hans son then store försten Iwane Iwanewitz ofuer alt Rysland", in 1482, in a treaty with Sweden, page 360
2) "Na den willen Godes, vn na befelle des groten Koniinges, Keijser ower alle Rwslant, Grot Förste Iwan Wasiliiwitsij, vn siin de grote Koniinges [sone] Iwan Iwanewitsij ower alle Rwslandt", in 1487, in another treaty with Sweden, page 404
3) "duca zuane signor de gra Ruscia biancha", in 1487, by the Venetian diplomat Ambroggio Contarini, in his "Travel to Persia", page e3v
4) "Van der gnade Godes eyn here aver alle Ruszlande des grothforsten Iwane Wassilivittzen eyn weldigher over Muszkow unnd Nowgarden unnd ok over alle ander Russzen", in 1487, in a treaty with the Hanseatic League, page 67
5) "Na Godes bevelinge unnd nades grothen herenn bovelinge, des keysers der Russzen, des grothforsten Iwane Wassilievittzen aller Russzen unnd syme sone, des grothforsten Iwanen Iwanevitzen aller Russzen", in 1487, in another treaty with the Hanseatic League, page 117
6) "illustrissimo et potenti domino Johanne, tocius Rutzsie imperatore, magno duce Volidimerie, Muscouie, Nouogardie, Plescouie, Otpherie, Yngærie, Vetolsy, Permie, Bolgardie etc." in a treaty with Denmark
These are just some of the numerous examples. And it doesn't even matter that they refer to the time before 1547, since both the country's name and title of its ruler were obviously already well known anyway. Alexschneider250 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a starter, you should insert a English translation of what you cited since not everyone will find those languages accessible. Also, I don't know if you meant to reply to one of the users below and finally, yes, many monarchs called them by this title in foreign affairs such as when Maximillian I sent his delegate to Ivan III and called him "Tsar of all Rus".
Response:
Your expostulation and assertions are reasonable and sensible and the problem that you asserted is quite hard to penetrate. However, I believe that the title wasn’t formalized and promulgated until Ivan IV was crowned Tsar of All Russia. it’s putatively acknowledged by historians that the crowning of Ivan IV as Tsar of All Russia was the turning point in the creation of the Tsardom of Russia in which one could the call the Tsars thereafter as “of Russia” instead of “Moscow” by the virtue of the title being definitively formalized in 1547 when it ceased to be used tentatively.[1][2]}}. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire (Empire of Romans), there seemed to be a fluctuating political notion that due to Ivan III being married to Sophia Palaiologina (niece of the last Byzantine Emperor) that Orthodoxy had passed onto Moscow (Translatio imperii) from which can be perspicuously seen when Ivan III started making titular changes by calling himself Tsar with vigilance since “it did not prove easy to get other European states to accept the new title of tsar, let alone the implication that it equalled that of emperor, either in form or in content.”[3]}} As you said the title was used in foreign affairs by Ivan III and Also, Ivan III used Tsar of “all Rus” by which granted him the recollect the principalities. Futhermore,

Ivan the Terrible took the claim to the imperial title of the ruler of Russia a stage further. He was the first grand prince to be crowned tsar, in 1547 (before the conquest of Kazan' and Astrakhan'), in a ceremony which deliberately drew upon Byzantine precedents, and in which Ivan was anointed and took communion at the altar. The Orthodox Christian theory of imperial government as expounded by Agapetus to Justinian was developed by the Metropolitan Makarius (a notable exponent of the theory of Moscow as the third Rome) in an eloquent address which had remarkably little influence on the actual conduct of the new tsar. Logically enough, Ivan IV turned to the patriarch of Constantinople, the ecclesiastical superior of the Russian Orthodox Church, for confirmation of his right to the title of tsar. In the synodal letter of 1561, drafted by the patriarch and signed by most of the Greek hierarchy, the patriarch stressed that only the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople could grant the title of emperor. Since Ivan IV was of 'imperial descent' he was authorised to be and to call himself legitimate basileus. In a second personal missive, the patriarch addressed Ivan as 'basileus of the orthodox christians of the universe', thus recognising the role of Russia as heir to Byzantium.[4]

“Although Ivan IV, like his father Vasily III and his grandfather Ivan III, did not use the title tsar of all Rus in all communications with the western world, and it was not generally acknowledged.” [5] Therefore, one can judiciously say that it wasn’t formalized and actualized until Ivan IV was crowned with that title As I've stated in my claim, it's acknowledged by historians that this was the turning point in the creation of the Tsardom of Russia and also concerning the usage of the title.Okiyo9228 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole affair is quite reminiscent when the Byzantines decided to take up the mantle of their predecessors in collecting their former lands. Okiyo9228 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) I answered to Nederlandse Leeuw, who can understand many languages, judging from my previous discussions with him about the Old Norse literature. Besides, the title of Ivan III is pretty well recognizable in those citations even without understanding those languages, since all of them are using Latin script. Anyway, I have highlighted the titles of Ivan III in the original quotations and also provide you with their translations into English right here:
  • "Rysse keysere store försten Iwane Wasillewitz ofuer alt Rysseland" - Russian emperor Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia
  • "Keijser ower alle Rwslant, Grot Förste Iwan Wasiliiwitsij" - Emperor of all Russia, Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia
  • "duca zuane signor de gra Ruscia biancha" - Prince Ivan sovereign of the great white Russia
  • "grothforsten Iwane Wassilivittzen eyn weldigher over Muszkow unnd Nowgarden unnd ok over alle ander Russzen" - Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich ruler of Moscow and Novgorod and also of all other Russia
  • "keysers der Russzen, des grothforsten Iwane Wassilievittzen aller Russzen" - Emperor of Russia, Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia
  • "Johanne, tocius Rutzsie imperatore, magno duce Volidimerie, Muscouie, Nouogardie, Plescouie, Otpherie, Yngærie, Vetolsy, Permie, Bolgardie etc." - Ivan, the emperor of all Russia, Grand Prince of Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Tver, Yugra, Vyatka, Perm, Bolgar, etc.
2) I answered to Nederlandse Leeuw, since he requested this move referring to the "talk section above", where he wrote "Historiography is pretty clear that the claims of the 15th-century Muscovite princes to be the Foo of all Rus'/Rusyia/Rossiia/Russia are problematic, to say the least". He didn't provide any references to support that claim, neither you did. Unlike you and him, I provided references to reliable sources with the text of several international treaties between Russia and other countries. Such treaties were prepared by both sides, so the title "Russian emperor Grand Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia" was used not only by Ivan III, as you wrote for some reason, but also by all the parties of the respective treaties. You wrote "As you said the title was used in foreign affairs by Ivan III", which is a misrepresentation of my words, since I actually wrote "many called them by this title, in foreign affairs too".
3) Excuse me, but a well established and recognizable name in Wikipedia cannot be changed simply because you "believe that the title wasn’t formalized and promulgated until Ivan IV was crowned Tsar of All Russia".
Alexschneider250 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos to 3, it’s a general statement, didn’t mean to make it seem opinionated by saying “I believe” and if you’d read the whole paragraph it’s putatively seen as the definitive change in constituting the formation of the Tsardom of Russia. I’ll provide some sources soon. Okiyo9228 (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified the paragraph. Okiyo9228 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the quotations you have recently added your response is not persuasive. The first one (by Robert Payne) is looking merely as an assumption, that the title was used "tentatively and discreetly in the past," and the second one (by Isabel de Madariaga) doesn't refute the official use of "of all Russia" in the title of Ivan III. What these 2 authors putatively acknowledge cannot beat this straightforward, descriptive statement of fact: "of all Russia" was used by foreign powers when referring to Ivan III. Alexschneider250 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Madariaga herself writes in that very book: "...the unification of almost all the Russian principalities (except for those incorporated in Poland-Lithuania) under the authority of the grand duke of Moscow, and the formal emancipation of Russia from the Mongol yoke (dating officially from 1480), fostered a sense of the imperial role of the Muscovite grand duke as the independent ruler of All Russia" (pages 20-21).
Then she writes: "Finally, the marriage of Ivan III to the niece of the last emperor of Byzantium in 1472 led Ivan III to contemplate the possibility of inheriting some part at least of the Byzantine political and religious legacy. Thus, from 1473 he began to use intermittently, thogh not in his relations with western powers, the more imposing Old Church Slavonic title of 'tsar' (in the sense of basileus, emperor), since there was no longer a tsar in Tsargrad."
So, according to Madariaga, he started to use this title in 1472, when Rus' principalities were still formally under the Mongol yoke (until 1480). And already in 1480s (as it can be seen in the examples I provided) western powers too started to use that kind of title to call Ivan III: "Keijser", "imperatore" etc. And they also started to add "of all Rus'/Russia" to that title. You see, we cannot just pick up some of the Madariaga's quotations and portray them as a coherent proof of Ivan III not being called the ruler "of all Russia". Alexschneider250 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Okiyo9228: In 2016, Danish researcher Carsten Pappe published his article The title of Ivan III according to late-medieval Danish sources (in Russian with an abstract in English), where he translates the Latin title "tocius Rutzsie imperator" as "tsar of all Rus'" and states that Ivan III first used this title only in foreign affairs involving not-so-sovereign countries of the Baltic region, but then insisted on using this title also in the treaty with Denmark of 1493, and the Danish monarch accepted it, thus recognizing Ivan III as an emperor: "As it turns out, however, he used it consistently in his diplomatic dealings (through his Novgorod namestniki) with the less sovereign political subjects of the Baltic region, and there is reason to conclude, as does the article, that he persuaded or forced the Danish envoy to Moscow in the summer of 1493 to include the term in his full title ― a fact which would mean the recognition by the sovereign monarch of Denmark, Norway and (soon-to-be) Sweden of the Muscovite Grand Prince as co-equal with the Holy Roman Emperor in terms of rank. This was a first step on the road to general European recognition of the imperial title of the rulers of Russia — and no mean achievement on the part of Ivan III", on page 1. Alexschneider250 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe Payne was simply assuming that the title was used “tentatively and discreetly in the past” then that’s fine. But, you’re hyperbolizing nay deviating from the claim I had made; both Ivan’s father and grandfather occasionally used the title of Tsar and were addressed as Tsar. But Ivan was the first to be crowned officially as Tsar of all Rus’/Russia. I am not denying that his predecessors used Tsar of all Rus’/Russia in foreign affairs but were they formally crowned Tsar of all Rus’/Russia like Ivan IV? No. Recall that you started by saying: “You are misrepresenting historical facts by portraying Muscovite princes as crazy guys who "called themselves" tsars of all Rus' without anyone else taking it seriously. In reality, many called them by this title, in foreign affairs too, and this is very well documented” Are you dissenting from recognizing the fact that Ivan IV was crowned Tsar of all Rus’/Russia unlike his predecessor which subsequently created the Tsardom? They may have used the title but they were never crowned formally the title. Okiyo9228 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Ivan III wasn't formally crowned, he was officially called the ruler "of all Rus'/Russia" and he, in fact, ruled that country, which included not only the Grand Duchy of Moscow, but also the territories of Vladimir, Novgorod etc. And my point is that replacing "Russia" with "Moscow" in the article's title will introduce confusion and deprive the readers of clarity about who Ivan III actually was. Alexschneider250 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, are you dissenting from recognizing the fact that Ivan IV was crowned Tsar of all Rus’/Russia unlike his predecessor which subsequently created the Tsardom? They may have used the title but they weren’t crowned formally the title. By no means will it “deprive the readers of clarity about who Ivan III actually was” since he was never crowned Tsar of all Rus’/Russia also the crowning of Ivan IV is the raison d’être of the Tsardom of Russia. Ivan IV was the only one formally crowned the title which subsequently gave birth to the Tsardom. Ivan's father is not the Tsar but Grand Prince, and Tsardom belongs to Ivan alone despite of Ivan III using the title in foreign affairs, he wasn’t crowned Tsar of all Rus’/Russia, for by denying this would be disregarding the periodization in which the Tsardom was officially created by virtue of Ivan IV being crowned Tsar of all Rus’/Russia. As it seems to me, albeit not cognizant of this fact, you want to regress and periodize the creation of the Tsardom to when Ivan III used the title Tsar of all Rus’/Russia in foreign affairs before 1547 as a means of permitting the usage of “of Russia” instead “of Moscow”. Such postulations aren’t allowed on Wikipedia and would be defined as discrepancies within Wikipedian articles which would thus cause confusion to Wiki users. Okiyo9228 (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Ivan III using the title in foreign affairs was a precursor to the culmination and actualization of the crowning of Ivan IV and the usage of it within the coronation. But, we shouldn’t complicate the creation of the Tsardom due to the fact Ivan III used it in foreign affairs. Ivan IV took the title a step further when he was coronated with the title which subsequently created the Tsardom of Russia. Okiyo9228 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you connect the matter of coronation and Tsardom with the name of this article? It doesn't matter at all, whether Ivan III was crowned or whether his realm was called precisely "Tsardom of Russia". The important thing is that he was the sovereign of Rus'/Russia, which is reflected both by the documents of that time (primary sources) and by the bulk of modern research/literature on the topic (secondary sources). So "Ivan III of Russia" is a commonly recognizable name and it should not be changed. Alexschneider250 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a complete difference between using Tsar of all Rus’ in foreign affairs and being crowned Tsar of all Rus’. But, what is paramount is that Ivan IV was formally crowned Tsar of all Rus’, an event which you try to seem to disregard.Okiyo9228 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peter the Great was never crowned emperor, is 1721 a wrong date to use then? Mellk (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already said this already: “it’s putatively acknowledged by historians that the crowning of Ivan IV as Tsar of All Russia was the turning point in the creation of the Tsardom of Russia in which one could the call the Tsars thereafter as “of Russia” instead of “Moscow””. For by denying this would be disregarding the putatively acknowledged periodization in which the Tsardom was officially created by virtue of Ivan IV being crowned Tsar of all Rus’/Russia. Further means of neglecting this would be an attempt to emasculate this article and postulate one’s own views on Wikipedia which subsequently causes discrepancies.Okiyo9228 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to these "historians" without any evidence. Mellk (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can pull an abundance of sources but what will that do? Verify my claim? You’re acting as if that person is incognizant of the periodization. Okiyo9228 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Okiyo9228: You are missing my point. It doesn't even matter whether Ivan III was called exactly "Tsar of all Rus’/Russia" (although he was officially called that way, according to Carsten Pape, who translates "imperatore" from the treaty with Denmark as "tsar"), since our argument is more about the second part of Ivan's title, i.e. about "of all Rus’/Russia". This second part was present in a variety of his titles including "Sovereign of all Rus’", which was an official title of Ivan III. Many sources mention that title, including the article The Title of Ivan III According to Late-Medieval Danish Sources by Carsten Pape and the book The Titles of Russian Rulers by Alexander Filjushkin. Here are some quotes from the Filjushkin's book:
  • Page 169: "... титул всея Руси сразу и безоговорочно признали турки, причем уже в первой пришедшей на Русь грамоте от султана Баязета 1498 г." (in Russian)
Translation: "... the title of all Rus' was immediately and unconditionally recognized by the Turks, and already in the first letter that came to Rus' from sultan Bayezid in 1498"
  • Page 173: "Литва признала титул Ивана III государь всея Руси, что и было зафиксировано в перемирной грамоте" (in Russian)
Translation: "Lithuania recognized the title of Ivan III, sovereign of all Rus', which was stated in the peace treaty"
In his book, Filjushkin demonstrates very clearly how this title first became official in the lands of Rus’, and how it was recognized by the major foreign powers of the time. Many books and articles in English use the title Sovereign of all Rus' when referring to Ivan III. So the current title of this Wikipedia article ("Ivan III of Russia") is absolutely correct and recognizable. Alexschneider250 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Okiyo9228: It is very surprising to see what you have done in your recent editing of 03:42, 22 May 2023: you have reverted an exact quote to its previous wrong state. In this revision, preposterously reverted by you, I provided an exact quote from page 354 of the book Ivan the Great of Moscow by J. L. I. Fennell:
"These may indeed be called the works of a great ruler. Yet it should never be forgotten that militarily glorious and economically sound though his reign may have been, it was also a period of cultural depression and spiritual barrenness. Freedom was stamped out within the Russian lands. By his bigoted anti-Catholicism Ivan brought down the curtain between Russia and the west. For the sake of territorial aggrandizement he deprived his country of the fruits of Western learning and civilization"
Let me repeat it for you: it is not my "postulation", it is an exact quote from that book by J. L. I. Fennell. If you don't believe me, you can verify the quotation yourself either in that very edition of the book (1961) or in this edition of 1962. Even if Google doesn't let you preview that page you can always search some key-words in the book (e.g. "anti-Catholicism") - this will show you the required excerpt. Moreover, if you check the version of this article as of April 2014, you will see how the text about Fennel looked like (Section "Legacy"):
Fennel, the leading British biographer, concludes that his reign was "militarily glorious and economically sound," and especially points to his territorial annexations and his centralized control over local rulers. However Fennell adds that his reign was also "a period of cultural depression and spiritual barrenness. Freedom was stamped out within the Russian lands. By his bigoted anti-Catholicism Ivan brought down the curtain between Russia and the west. For the sake of territorial aggrandizement he deprived his country of the fruits of Western learning and civilization."
As you see, this text looked quite differently from what you "brought back". Don't you see that what you "brought back" doesn't even look correctly? "By his anti-Catholicism." - does this sentence look OK, in your opinion? Are you trying to kid me?
But seriously, that difference was introduced by some dishonest editor (who simply distorted the original quote by replacing "Russian" with "Muscovite", and "Russia" with "Muscovy"), and remained unnoticed for some years. I verified the quote, found the distortion, and did the following:
  • I restored the original quote
  • I added the preceding part of the quote from the book, regarding the military and economic success of Ivan III
  • I modified the text in the article so that it matched the full quote
  • I placed the quote to a footnote, since it wasn't right to leave such a lengthy quote directly in the article's text
I realized, however, that my decision to get rid of the "centralizing control over local rulers" was too quick. Even if it cannot be directly supported by that quotation, someone will probably find some other quotation for that. So placing "citation needed" seems to be a better way to deal with that. If you wish to keep that Wikilink to anti-Catholicism in the text, then we have to think about how we can do it (maybe by adding a special piece of text about that), because placing Wikilinks directly in quotations is not allowed.
Be cooperative, please. You can insert "Muscovy" 1000 times throughout the text of this article, if you find it necessary, but please don't modify original quotations. Alexschneider250 (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Okiyo9228: Regarding the name "Russia" for the state of Ivan III: you don't believe me, OK. But what about the opinion of Paul Bushkovitch, a history professor at Yale:
"At the end of the fifteenth century, Russia came into being as a state – no longer just a group of related principalities. Precisely at this time in written usage the modern term Rossia (a literary expression borrowed from Greek) began to edge out the traditional and vernacular Rus. If we must choose a moment for the birth of Russia out of the Moscow principality, it is the final annexation of Novgorod by Grand Prince Ivan III (1462–1505) of Moscow in 1478"
(A Concise History of Russia by Paul Bushkovitch, 2012, p. 37)
What would you say? Alexschneider250 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, as I am no logician nor perspicuous writer, I must do my best to help you understand where I am within my thoughts. I am willing to be cooperative but where I believe you’re exerting your own postulations is when you try to neglect the putatively understood periodization of when the Tsardom of Rus’ Let me know if you desire the plethora of sources. Apropos to

“Why do you connect the matter of coronation and Tsardom with the name of this article? It doesn't matter at all, whether Ivan III was crowned or whether his realm was called precisely "Tsardom of Russia". The important thing is that he was the sovereign of Rus'/Russia, which is reflected both by the documents of that time (primary sources) and by the bulk of modern research/literature on the topic (secondary sources).”

Can you elucidate on this reasoning? For, there’s a reason on why I’ve been simply reiterating what I’ve said; Ivan III wasn’t crowned Tsar as was Ivan IV which historians believe to be the turning point in which the Tsardom was created (Let me know if you desire the plethora of sources) therefore he shouldn’t have “of Russia” but instead “of Moscow” since it’s in accordance with the periodization of the Tsardom, this is the reason why I’ve said you’ve been postulating your historical notions. Removing “of Russia” grants concinnity within this article without it having dissonance. Ivan III was a forerunner of the actualization of the title being crowned onto Ivan IV. Ivan III was a Grand Prince who used Tsar of Rus’ in foreign affairs and the Tsardom belongs Ivan IV by virtue of him being crowned Tsar of all Rus’/Russia in 1547. I feel like if you ceased disregarding the periodization of Tsardom of Russian then this would be capable of being cohesive... If this is truly hard to grasp then see below since it seems you're the only person grappling with this albeit not willing to assent to this matter. Okiyo9228 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The reasoning is quite simple: Wikipedia articles should have commonly recognizable names. The name "Russia" has been used for ages to refer to a variety of states and polities with social and geographic continuity, regardless of their exact official names. As for Ivan III, in many books and articles in English his realm is called simply "Russia" along with "the Muscovite state" or the more colloquial "Muscovy". These terms are used interchangeably, and everybody understands what is meant by "Russia". So are the titles of its rulers: e.g., Ivan III is called "Sovereign of Russia", "Grand Prince of Moscow", "Grand Prince of Vladimir" etc., depending on the context and time period. If you know why the title "Grand Prince of Vladimir" is important, then you could probably insist on naming this article "Ivan III of Vladimir" too, which would be strange though, since the major title of Ivan III is undoubtedly "Sovereign of all Rus'" or "Sovereign of all Russia", which appears first in the long list of Ivan's titles. So this article should retain its current name "Ivan III of Russia".
2) If you need more specific names for the state ruled by Ivan III, I can refer you to Russian sources, where the realm of Ivan III is often called "the Russian State" (Русское Государство). Alexander Filjushkin sometimes uses also the term "the state of all Rus'" (государство всея Руси). In the book The Titles of Russian Rulers, Filjushkin provides some quotations from the diplomatic correspondence of Ivan III, where his state is called the "state of Russian lands" by his counterpart from the Holy Roman Empire:
Page 171: "... к твоему государству Русских земель..." (in Russian)
Translation: "... to your state of Russian lands..."
3) You are talking about "the plethora of sources", while failing to respect even one particular source whose exact quotation you tried to modify. Could you elucidate this strange behavior of yours? Even if you provide me with quotations from all those sources, how can I trust you now?
4) Even if I am "the only person grappling with this", you should join me, rather than staying in the company of removers, renamers and secret modifiers. We could really make Wikipedia articles much better. But, anyway, I'm not alone, since at least Paul Bushkovitch, a history professor at Yale, is on my side. Let me repeat his opinion on the matter:
"At the end of the fifteenth century, Russia came into being as a state – no longer just a group of related principalities. Precisely at this time in written usage the modern term Rossia (a literary expression borrowed from Greek) began to edge out the traditional and vernacular Rus. If we must choose a moment for the birth of Russia out of the Moscow principality, it is the final annexation of Novgorod by Grand Prince Ivan III (1462–1505) of Moscow in 1478" (A Concise History of Russia by Paul Bushkovitch, 2012, p. 37)
Alexschneider250 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* I would support a move to Ivan the Great (which redirects here) per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Scholar returns 1680 results for ""Ivan the Great", 326 results for "Ivan III the Great", 214 results for "Ivan III of Moscow", and 78 results for "Ivan III of Russia". Mellk (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC) See below. Mellk (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support. I would like to be clear about the transition from Moscow to Russia. Are we dating in 1547? If so then, his successor Vasili III of Russia should also be moved to Vasili III of Moscow. Not keen on "the Great" in either case, and prefer to retain numerical in title. Walrasiad (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In accordance with @Walrasiad also apropos to the consistency of WP:CRITERIA. Okiyo9228 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1547 refers to when "tsar" was officially taken as a title, which was "tsar of all Rus'", but in English is usually translated as "tsar of all Russia". In the case of Ivan III, he had the title of "Sovereign of all Rus'", usually translated as "Sovereign of all Russia'". Ivan the Terrible as a result is generally known as the first Russian tsar, not the first Russian monarch or monarch of Russia. Ivan III also used "tsar", but not consistently. Mellk (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. That's why I'm asking what is the criteria we're using for the transition in the article titles from "X of Moscow" to "X of Russia"? Because "Sovereign of all Rus" is not a novelty with Ivan III, but a title also borne by his predecessors. And of course "of Moscow" is commonly found for Ivan the Terrible in both contemporary and modern RS. It seems to me that we need to settle on a transition date for article titles. Otherwise it feels a bit arbitrary who we are calling "of Moscow" and "of Russia". And 1547 seems like a good transition date for article titles. Walrasiad (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad Per main articles Grand Duchy of Moscow and Tsardom of Russia, 1547 is already the transition date. (We're fortunate that Ivan IV is commonly known by his nickname "the Terrible" so that we don't have to choose whether he was the last of Moscow or the first of Russia, though convention would favour the latter).
Mellk and I observed earlier that most names of wars also already follow this 1547 transition, with two exceptions on either side: the Russo-Swedish War (1495–1497) (which technically should be Muscovite–Swedish War (1495–1497)), and the Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618) (which technically should be Polish–Russian / Russo-Polish War (1605–1618)). I've been putting them into newly diffused categories: Category:Wars involving the Grand Duchy of Moscow goes until 1547, and Category:Wars involving the Tsardom of Russia picks up in 1547. Obviously there is some overlap like Russo-Kazan Wars (1437–1552), which fits both cats. Hope this helps, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acute observation, I didn’t realize that. Are you espousing a change in both of those article titles? Okiyo9228 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Okiyo9228 I was. I did actually BOLDly rename Russo-Swedish War (1495–1497) to Muscovite-Swedish War (1495–1497), but then Mellk reverted it as an undiscussed move with WP:COMMONNAME as an argument. I decided to leave it there because I was busy doing something else in between, but we could still do this.
On Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618) I haven't got a firm view, but the talk page shows that the name is actually heavily debated. After fience discussions between November 2005 and December 2007, the current title emerged. A few more suggestions to change it flared up, but this is probably also a case of WP:COMMONNAME. Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) and a few other links already redirect to it. I would say: don't wake a sleeping dragon. As has been discussed there and also on this talk page, 'Moscow/Muscovy' and 'Rus'/Rusiya/Russia/Rossiia' etc. were and are used interchangeably in both Russian, English and other languages from roughly 1400 to 1700. It's useful to keep 1547 as the transition date for most things, but these 2 wars can remain an exception to that rule of thumb as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have only seen mentions of a "Muscovite-Swedish war" referring to 16th and 17th centuries wars. Yes it would be nice if all sources were consistent with this but I think it is one of things we have to live with. Mellk (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. These are acceptable exceptions to the 1547 transition date rule from Moscow/Muscovy/Muscovite to Russia(n). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the change in those two titles but to my knowledge historians who concern themselves with the history of Russia haven’t been so prudent with terms thus far, say for a small percent. Okiyo9228 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. Favonian (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There’s a lot of confusion about the state identities of Rus vs. Russia being foisted on scores of articles. Sources tell us that the name Russia (Rossiia) wasn’t officially adopted until 1721. But now it’s hard to even find out what “Muscovy” means using Wikipedia, because a combination of dated, undisciplined, and poorly interpreted sources going back to the 1950s are used to support statements in important articles where Rus′ is pretty blatantly misrepresented as meaning “Russia.” Enough is enough: please stop humouring the Russian nationalist POV and call things by their proper names.  —Michael Z. 16:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Next. Mellk (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well, I wouldn’t disregard Micheal’s and say it’s a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT since

Beginning in the early fourteenth century, Muscovite monarchs referred to themselves as grand princes, then tsars of all Rus' (useia Rusi), and by the mid-seventeenth century, their title had been reformed as Tsar of All Great, Little, and White Rus' (aseia Velikiia i Malyia i Belyia Rusi). Tsar Peter I turned the tsardom of Muscovy into the Russian Empire during the first half of the eighteenth century, and the previous title Rus' was transformed into Russia (Rossia).

Furthermore, as the English-speaking historians did not distinguish the name Rus' from Russia, with the result that in descriptions of the pre fourteenth century Kievan realm the conceptually distorted formulation Kievan Russia was used. ” As I said in the last dispute the English-speaking historians did not distinguish the name Rus' from Russia was used . Thus, one could say it’s a problem that historians of the 19th century to 20th century has left to us even though it hasn’t been predominantly changed when I consider all of these notions and considerations I am thus resolved to support this change unless someone can induce me of thinking otherwise. Okiyo9228 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically another opinion without citing policy. Please refer to WP:RGW. Mellk (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to put quotations Okiyo9228 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, most of the books of the 19th century were largely translated from Russian into English whence we should take into account of Russian historiography, which were plagued by nationalism is pertinent to that of Swedish history in the 19th century which posited ultra-royalism, ultra-nationalism, ultra-patriotism, ultra-heroism, and historical casuistry... Seems to be the effects produced from the birth of nationalism rather than of sentiments of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Okiyo9228 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be clear and elucidate the fact that I hold no contempt towards you, the Russian folk and Russian history since it may seem to be so due to our past interactions. However, I believe that we should be lucid and coherent when it comes to historical matters such as this one even if it seems trivial. Okiyo9228 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree with Michael Z. and Okiyo9228, but for more pragmatic reasons, namely that the Tsardom of Russia was not established until 1547, and the Russian Empire not until 1721. Ivan III reigned the Grand Duchy of Moscow, so of Moscow is the appropriate title connected to that country per WP:SOVEREIGN #3.
While it is true that we see some Muscovite princes calling themselves grand prince / gospodar / tsar of (all) Rus' etc. in the 15th century (such as on coins), these are claims that we do not always need to take seriously as if they were factually correct. Just like we do not (and cannot) accept the legitimacy of every pretender per WP:SOVEREIGN #6.
For example, Dmitry Shemyaka was one of the participants in the Muscovite War of Succession with Vasily II of Moscow. The fact that Dimitry doesn't get "II of Moscow" in this name means we regard him as a pretender, and "Vasily II of Moscow" is regarded as legitimate. (I think there is a serious WP:NPOV issue in this case, which I've already partially sought to address, but from 1453 onwards Vasily's legitimacy was universally accepted, so the title "Vasily II of Moscow" is acceptable because of that fact). Meanwhile on Commons, his category is named Commons:Category:Dmitry II, Grand Prince of Moscow, which should already tell you a lot about what the POV on his legitimacy is of whoever gave his Commonscat that name. Meanwhile, Dmitry himself issued coins such as File:Оттиск монеты Дмитрия Шемяки "Осподарь всея Земли Русской".jpg, calling himself "чосподарь всея Русиіа" chospodar of all Rusyia. Are we to take that seriously if his reign was even contested within Muscovy itself, and is currently apparently not accepted as legitimate by English Wikipedia per WP:SOVEREIGN #6 (Commons notwithstanding)? I don't think so. People in history and in the present claim lots of things that aren't true, or heavily contested. Wikipedia shouldn't take them at face value, but make a reasonable decision.
Historiography is pretty clear that the claims of the 15th-century Muscovite princes to be the Foo of all Rus'/Rusyia/Rossiia/Russia are problematic, to say the least. From when Ivan IV makes tsar his official title in 1547, it's reasonable to add of Russia in article titles. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad Here is my longer argument in favour of 1547 as transition date. I think you and I strongly agree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, it would not make sense to put "of Russia" in the title of Ivan III's predecessors because the Moscow principality was still competing. We can look at a map before his reign as an example.[3] Sources also probably would not describe any predecessor as a "national ruler". But I think as Ivan III conquered most of the principalities and started building a centralized state, this starts to change. On the other hand, even if he did become the first "national ruler", he can still be most associated with Moscow (though arguably it could apply to every Muscovite tsar). So it is not so simple. Sources seem a bit split on this (on how to call him). Mellk (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a book by Alexander Filyushkin that is very detailed on the titles including foreign correspondence. Mellk (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the 1547 date. It's completely arbitrary (the word Rus had been in the title before that and the territory controlled by the state had not changed significantly between the end of Ivan III's reign and 1547) and it cannot override the relevant Wikipedia policies like common name. Alaexis¿question? 10:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is not arbitrary is that 1547 is the first time a Rus'/Russian ruler is crowned tsar. Tsar#Russia clearly states: However, the first Russian ruler to be formally crowned as tsar of all Rus' (Russian: Царь Всея Руси) was Ivan IV, until then known as a grand prince and sovereign. The words Rus', Rusyia, Ruscia, Rhuthenia, Russia, Rusia etc. were all used before and after 1547, so that political term is nondefining in this case. The title of tsar is what makes 1547 a defining moment, and that is why the article Tsardom of Russia starts in 1547 as a successor state to Grand Duchy of Moscow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true, so the argument that can be made (and that you're probably making) is that it would be more consistent to call Ivan III of Moscow given that the article about the state is called Grand Duchy of Moscow. However the internal consistency of Wikipedia cannot trump policy, in this case WP:COMMONNAME. Alaexis¿question? 14:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Alaexis A decision had to be made, and 1547 is not arbitrary. It is being proposed as a guideline, to resolve consistency problems. As far as dates go, 1547 is better than any other I can think of. Granted, it should not trump common name, but it should shift the weight of evidence. Meaning: it should be "Moscow" before 1547 unless there is great preponderance of evidence for using "Russia" instead. So borderline cases (like Ivan III here, and Vassily III) should default to "of Moscow", unless mass of evidence clearly proves otherwise. Walrasiad (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with using "Muscovy/Moscow" to refer to the grand duchy before 1547 and "Russia" thereafter. My point is that it should shift the weight of evidence only very slightly. When it comes to evidence, it's at best ambiguous ("Ivan III of Russia" > "Ivan III of Moscow" per Google books, "Ivan III of Russia" < "Ivan III of Moscow" per Google Scholar), and the most common name by far is "Ivan III the Great." Alaexis¿question? 08:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is ambiguous. But not finding great preponderance for either way, I think the 1547 criteria should be the deciding factor here, and go with "Ivan III of Moscow". Or to use a sporting analogy, there is not enough evidence against it. Walrasiad (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced of the preponderance of "Ivan III of Russia" over "Ivan III of Moscow" since the former reflects political reality of that time (Ivan III ruling over Moscow, Novgorod, Vladimir, and other principalities), while the latter is misleading. Please think about the readers of Wikipedia. Alexschneider250 (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: Frequent occurrence of "Ivan III of Moscow" on Google Scholar alone cannot be used as a pretext to hastily impose this article title on everybody, since this is just one of many titles of Ivan III of Russia, which can be used by a certain scholar in a certain context or simply as one way to refer to Ivan III of Russia. In the discussion above (in section "Requested move 5 May 2023") I provided 5 examples from international treaties, where "of all Russia" is used when referring to this monarch, sometimes along with his other titles like "Grand Prince of Vladimir", "Grand Prince of Moscow" or "Grand Prince of Novgorod." Alexschneider250 (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw:,
1) My examples adhere to the WP:PRIMARY policy, since they are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So "of all Russia" was used by foreign powers when referring to Ivan III - it is as simple as that.
2) It looks like you are missing the main point of my remark above. What I mean is: you cannot use Google statistic to make any conclusion about one term being more common/appropriate/better than the other one. As an extreme example (but a very illustrative one), you can imagine someone writing a book on how wrong it is to use the term "A". Such an author may repeat statements like "A is wrong because..." 20 times and write only once something like "It is much more correct to use the term B" at the very end of that book. But Ngram Viewer will count "A" 20 times more than "B" making you rush to a wrong conclusion. So it is obvious you have to take the context into account too. Besides, what you see in Ngram Viewer depends on the corpus of books you choose, smoothing factor etc. E.g., if you choose "British English" there you will see roughly the same number of occurrences of "Ivan III of Moscow" and "Ivan III of Russia."
3) Last but not least, WP:INVALIDBIO says "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics." Alexschneider250 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" because Tsar#Russia points out that "tsar"/"czar" is not straightforward to translate into other languages at all. Options mentioned in this section include:
  • "Great Emperor", apparently because "emperor" alone was not high enough
  • imperator, from which the word "emperor" is derived, but originally just meant "commander" (of the army)
  • keyser/kejser/Kaiser/cesar, from caesar, traditionally a rank below augustus
  • king/rex/kirrol/karol/król, commonly understood to be below "emperor"
  • basileus, more commonly translated as "king"
Statements made in this section indicating that it was difficult to translate:
  • Mikhail of Tver, assumed the title "basileus of Rus" and "tsar" So apparently "tsar" is on the same level of "king"
  • Sigismund von Herberstein observed that the titles of "kaiser" and "imperator" were attempts to render the Russian term "tsar" into German and Latin, respectively. So apparently these were "attempts" at translation, it was not "straightforward"
  • Kayser vnnd Herscher (is) Imperator et Dominator So apparently "tsar" is on the same level as "Kaisar" (emperor, above king)
  • Some foreign ambassadors—namely, Herberstein (in 1516 and 1525), Daniel Printz a Buchau (in 1576 and 1578) and Just Juel (in 1709)—indicated that the word "tsar" should not be translated as "emperor", because it is applied by Russians to David, Solomon and other Biblical kings, who are simple reges. So apparently "tsar" is on the same level of "king"/rex, and below the level of "emperor"
  • On the other hand, Jacques Margeret, a bodyguard of False Demetrius I, argues that the title of "tsar" is more honorable for Muscovites than "kaiser" or "king" exactly because it was God and not some earthly potentate who ordained to apply it to David, Solomon, and other kings of Israel. So apparently "tsar" is above the level of "king"/rex, and above the level of "emperor".
  • Samuel Collins, a court physician to Tsar Alexis in 1659–66, styled the latter "Great Emperor", commenting that "as for the word Czar, it has so near relation to Cesar... that it may well be granted to signifie Emperor. The Russians would have it to be an higher title than King, and yet they call David Czar, and our kings, Kirrols, probably from Carolus Quintus, whose history they have among them". I think no further comment is needed to explain that there is disagreement about what the title means, what its rank is and thus how it should be translated.
  • By 1815, when a large part of Poland was annexed, the title had clearly come to be interpreted in Russia as the equivalent of Polish król ("king"), and the Russian emperor assumed the title "tsar of Poland". So apparently "tsar" is on the same level of "king"/król.
Yet you confidently translate every single case of keysere, Keijser, keysers, imperatore as emperor. You can't. That's WP:OR. This requires further, specialized knowledge. The same goes for your attempts to translate Rysse as Russian (why not Rus'?), Russzen as Russia (no, this is a plural demonym meaning "the Rus' (people)" or "the Russians"), and toponyms such as Ruscia, Rutzsie as Russia (possible, but it could also be Ruthenia; Ruscia biancha clearly means White Ruthenia or just Belarus, not "White Russia"). You can't. That's WP:OR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can try to find some good secondary sources, but it will take time. Anyway, regardless of those details, I think we both can agree on Ivan III being officially called "X of all Y", where X is something like "the ruler", and Y is the territory he rules, which comprises not only Moscow but other Rus'/Russian lands too (Vladimir, Novgorod etc.). So using "of Moscow" in the article's title would be simply confusing and would make it harder for the readers to understand the matter and correlate it with their prior knowledge of this topic. Alexschneider250 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: I have found a pretty good secondary source: The title of Ivan III according to late-medieval Danish sources by Carsten Pape (In Russian), with research about the treaty with Denmark in 1493, implying that Ivan III insisted on using "imperator (i. e. tsar)" in his title in that treaty, and the Danish monarch accepted it, thus recognizing Ivan III as "co-equal with the Holy Roman Emperor in terms of rank".
The author, a Danish researcher Carsten Pappe, also says that before that treaty, Ivan III used that kind of title only in foreign affairs involving not-so-sovereign countries of the Baltic region as well as organizations (like the Hanseatic leaugue): "As it turns out, however, he used it consistently in his diplomatic dealings (through his Novgorod namestniki) with the less sovereign political subjects of the Baltic region, and there is reason to conclude, as does the article, that he persuaded or forced the Danish envoy to Moscow in the summer of 1493 to include the term in his full title ― a fact which would mean the recognition by the sovereign monarch of Denmark, Norway and (soon-to-be) Sweden of the Muscovite Grand Prince as co-equal with the Holy Roman Emperor in terms of rank. This was a first step on the road to general European recognition of the imperial title of the rulers of Russia — and no mean achievement on the part of Ivan III", on page 1.
Pappe also says that this information is new to modern historians: "Для Ивана III признание императорского титула датским суверенным королем — который являлся и королем Норвегии, и избранным королем Швеции — было немалой дипломатической победой, а для историков наших дней — новостью [For Ivan III, the recognition of his emperor title by the Danish sovereign king, who was also the king of Norway as well as elected king of Sweden, was a considerable diplomatic victory, and for the historians of our time - something new]", on page 72.
The Pappe's artcile is published in Russian with an abstract in English. Page 69 provides a translation of the Latin title "tocius Rutzsie imperator" as "tsar of all Rus'": "Так, датский текст, как уже показано, называет Ивана III tocius Rutzsie imperator, т. е.«царь всея Руси» [In this way, the Danish text, as it has been already shown, calls Ivan III tocius Rutzsie imperator, i.e. "tsar of all Rus'"]".
In my opinion, this means that at least at the end of his reign Ivan III was internationally recognized as the emperor of all Rus'/Russia. Alexschneider250 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: and if you determine on getting rid of "Russia" in the article's title, please don't hurry, since many Old Russian documents of that time start to mention "всея Русии" (i.e. literally "of all Rusia") along with "всея Руси" (i.e. literally "of all Rus'"), which could mean that the country name "Rusia" (which is already quite similar to "Russia") started to be used as a part of that title more and more. I believe this means that in modern English the country can be called Russia already when referring to the time of Ivan III. I guess more calm reasoning and research is required. What is all this rush? Alexschneider250 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: "White Russia" started to refer to Belarus only at the end of the 16th century. Before that time, the term was used as a name for Northern or North-Eastern lands of Rus' (Russia Alba in Latin) - you can see that in numerous documents and maps. Ambroggio Contarini wrote quite a lot about Russia, not only that single line ("duca zuane signor de gra Ruscia biancha"). So the report about his travel to Persia in 1474—1477 undoubtedly mentions Ivan III and his realm.
Alexschneider250 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: "Russzen" is not only a demonym, it is also a toponym, used in older versions of German to denote Russia, esp. in titles. Its somewhat more precise translation into English is "Russias", i.e. literally the plural form of "Russia".
This is also reflected by the titles of other Russian monarchs in German, e.g. in the title of Catherine the Great you can see: "Kayserin und Selbstherrscherin aller Reußen", which is usually translated into English as "Empress and Autocrat of all the Russias". In Russian this is written as "Императрица и Самодержица Всероссийская", where "Всероссийская" is an adjective, which literally means something like "of all the Russian lands". Alexschneider250 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nickname the Great

[edit]

In response to the Alt proposal by @Mellk per WP:COMMONNAME, which I think we should take seriously, I would like to have a separate discussion on the pros and cons of that alternative, so I'm making that a separate section here to keep it readable.

  • Personally, I am opposed to the nickname or epithet "the Great" in general per WP:NPOV. Unless by "great" we mean "tall" or "large" (e.g. Bolesław I the Tall, see List of people known as the Tall), whether someone was "great" is by definition always a point of view (POV). As far as I can currently see on English Wikipedia, "the Great" is only accepted in article titles on (Christian) saints like James the Great or Albertus Magnus (Latin for "the Great"), or military figures such as Alexander the Great. Of course, people of a different religion (especially certain non-Christian denominations which have historically been persecuted by certain Christian denominations, and may thus be considered "victims") and their descendants will likely not agree with calling such representatives of the Christian religion (whom they won't consider "saints") as "great" men. Likewise, of course, opponents/victims of Alexander – not just the Persians he invaded, but also the Greeks of cities such as Thebes (335 BCE) which Alexander utterly destroyed to crush rebellions against his reign – and their descendants will not (want to) remember him as "the Great". That Ivan III Vasilyevich also had such opponents/victims of his military expansionism and their descendants need not be argued here; it is well-established in historiography. Most of the basic arguments that have also been levelled against the title of the article "Alexander the Great" (as it appears often by users from Iran and India, which should not surprise anyone, but also from other users concerned with WP:NPOV) can be readily applied to Ivan III Vasilyevich. To summarise that argument (which I've put in a collapse template for readability of this subsection):
Past arguments against and in favour of "the Great" in Alexander the Great
* Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 1#I think this page should be moved to Alexander III of Macedon
(against "the Great") "because native people of areas around Persia do not consider him to be "the Great." They really dont like him and think he's "the Terrible". - Fonzy 2 March 2003"
(against "the Great") "Alexander the Great is a title of racism. Since he has defeated a lot of kings of Asia it just want to show that he (a representative of Europeanism) is superior to all other people. It is immediate, because thousands and thousands of people trust Wikipedia and [we shouldn't] give them wrong information" Jayanthan 22 October 2007
(for "Alexander the Accursed" as an WP:ALTNAME) "Besides Alexander III and Alexander the Great, Alexander the Accursed (which was a very common term that many of the citizens of his Persian and Indian empires used to refer to him)should be added to the main topic. Though you only hear Alexander the Great, Alexander the Condemned was all to common and not including it as one of his key "nick names" is biased. (...) The invasion [of Persia] was one thing, but the burning of Persepolis didn't go over too well with the citizens either. BTW in terms of current use of the word, he's not just referred to as "Alexander the Accursed" by very nationalist citizens, he's also referred to by that name (or as just "Alexander") in History classes and other areas of debate regarding the topic in Iran." Xeraxes 11 December 2007
(against "Alexander the Accursed" as an WP:ALTNAME) "Iran demonizes Alexander as the evil westerner....Modern Politics ad nationalism more than objective history. The burning of Athens and the utter annihilation of Eretria among many other instances of butchery didn't go well with the Greeks as well...But today we don't adopt views such as those the Iranians do." Megistias 11 December 2007
Note: As of 7 May 2023, the article Alexander the Great does indeed mention: In pre-Islamic Middle Persian (Zoroastrian) literature, Alexander is referred to by the epithet gujastak, meaning "accursed", and is accused of destroying temples and burning the sacred texts of Zoroastrianism.(304) In Islamic Persia, under the influence of the Alexander Romance (in Persian: اسکندرنامه Iskandarnamah), a more positive portrayal of Alexander emerges.(305) Therefore, this is a commonly applied historical Persian epithet in pre-modern times (not a recent "Iranian anti-Western/European" invention) which is still used in Persian-language studies/literature/education today that should serve as some contrast to the commonly applied historical Greek/Latin epithet "the Great" in pre-modern times that has been carried over into other European languages such as English. I, for one, find this a sufficient reason for an Altname. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(against "the Great") "Why does the title use 'Great' in violation of WP:NC? (...) "great" is an honorific of a sort." Regents Park 7 June 2008
(in favour of status quo, open for change) "...traditional historiography resorted to three solutions: Alexander the Macedonian, Alexander III of Macedon, or Alexander the Great, with the last being the most popular. (...) it would be unlikely that the name of the page would be changed to, say, Alexander III of Macedon because the precedent from traditional historiography is strong ... Having said that, it is also true that things can change; for example, Catherine the Great redirects to Catherine II, and Peter the Great to Peter I of Russia, but it could also be that this happened because the last two are more recent figures, or because of some ideological reasons." Fowler&fowler 7 June 2008
(generally against "the Great" unless there are good reasons/sources) "The article does not articulate well why Alexander was called as "the Great" (...). Without these details, the history is lob sided towards opinion." 198.208.46.85 27 July 2021
(in favour of "the Great") "Exactly what proof would you require that Alexander was, himself, "Great"? I mean, I find his exploits fairly worthy of the title. As to other rulers, both Catherine and Peter of Russia come to mind, as does Alfred of England (well, Wessex at least) and Ashoka of India. Do give them a look and tell us if they deserve the moniker. Until then, I think it's safe to go with this guy's far and away most common title." Dumuzid 27 July 2021
(generally against "the Great" unless there are good reasons/sources) "The problem with using the "the Great" is with that word meaning - someone achieved distinction and honour in some field. (...) Details on why 'the Great" is used for Alexander should be added to the article. Without that it just becomes a bombastic word conveying wrong precedence. (...) Without any such reference, it makes no sense to record Alexander as "the Great". He was just another king who wanted to expand his kingdom, which is nothing but a want or wish of Alexander." J (28 July 2021?)
To be clear, I am objecting to changing the title of an article, which up until now did not include "the Great", to include "the Great". This is a change of the status quo which I think is incompatible with WP:NPOV, which I think should take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME. I'd like to remind everyone that the subject of our discussion is the title of this article about Ivan III Vasilyevich. It's not about whether we should change the title of Alexander the Great; I'm just using it as a comparison. Per WP:FORUM I would also request users not to start debates about details of the life of Ivan III Vasilyevich and subjectively assess whether he could be called "the Great" or not. The question is whether WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NPOV takes precedence in the case of the Alt proposal. I'm also not opposed to keeping "Ivan the Great" as an WP:ALTNAME, I just think it should not become the title. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I might strike that option then. We also have a similar Roman the Great but perhaps that title also isn't the best. Mellk (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I would support renaming that one, too, but perhaps we should complete the current 3 RMs first. (I responded more at length to you on my talk page). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your notion that there should be objectivity in history and neutrality concerning historical facts such as the example you presented in Alexander. As the historian’s duty is to project a clear and coherent structure by which people may assimilate historical facts without subjectivity. Self-evidently, there will be subjectivity in the historian which can be seen as the culmination of this discussion; this incomplete objectivity brought about by ideologies gains its continuity by the zeitgeist in which historians must live, such as that of a philosopher by which the philosopher must be inserted in the civilization of his epoch if that philosopher is to concern himself with truth. Notably, the imprudent nationalistic decision to find a nomenclature by which to promulgate and distort historical events for national ends, subsequently leading to the osmosis of a caricature of history. Nationalizing history is absurd, if such a locus is intended then we need not learn about history since history would be serving as a instrumentality. Okiyo9228 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you would be in favour of renaming Roman the Great as well? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this should be the name if we follow the WP:COMMONNAME. There are dozens of other articles about royalty who have "the Great" in their names (see List_of_people_known_as_the_Great), so I don't think that the WP:NPOV is applicable. We are not saying that Ivan III or any other of them was particularly great but just using the commonly accepted name. However, I don't see a problem with retaining the current name either. Alaexis¿question? 11:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but so does precedent. Apparently the community does not consider this a violation of WP:NPOV or all of these article would have had other names. Alaexis¿question? 14:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it has been heavily disputed on Alexander the Great's talk page archives, as I've shown above, although in that case the Great has persisted. Would you like me to find examples where a move away from Foo the Great towards some other title was made because of WP:NPOV concerns? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that there are dozens of articles that have epithets like "the Great", "the Wise" and even "the Fat" in their names without anyone complaining, you'd need to show a large number of renaming to demonstrate that the community consensus is shifting. Alaexis¿question? 08:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A "the Great" controversy and renaming survey Well, I've done some digging, and so far it doesn't happen as often as I thought. What I have found is that there is a general pattern of comments in many of these talk pages which suggests that the epithet "the Great" is an "honour" (which some connected to WP:HONORIFICS). The question who "deserves" such an "honour" or not is quite often heavily disputed, but I haven't found evidence of anyone directly invoking WP:NPOV against the words "the Great" in a biography title. It may be that I am the first Wikipedian to do so explicitly. More frequently, WP:NCROY was invoked against a "the Great" title, to which WP:COMMONNAME was often a reply, though the latter could be undermined by other considerations such as WP:AGEMATTERS. E.g. Cnut the Great was recently moved to Cnut per implicit WP:COMMONNAME + WP:AGEMATTERS arguments: Talk:Cnut#Requested_move_2_January_2022.
    The Cnut renaming is partially the result of a long-running "competition/controversy" on English Wikipedia between Cnut the Great and Alfred the Great. Talk:Alfred the Great/Archive 1#Article title. Long story short:
    • A first group of users (apparently the majority) finds it important to keep it Alfred the Great, because it is allegedly "the only English monarch" who has ever deserved the honour of being awarded the title "the Great", and this should be respected, for it is not easily given. One even said: "unlike the Russian's [sic] who frequently handed themselfs [sic] impressive titles". Paradoxically, keeping at least one English monarch with an "impressive title" like "the Great" is cited as evidence that all English monarchs, or the English people in general, were/are humble and not as arrogant as those Russian monarchs like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great "who frequently handed themselfs [sic] impressive titles". I think these arguments are pretty self-defeating, and evidently WP:POV.
    • A second group of editors argues that actually Cnut the Great was also a "king of England", so Alfred wasn't the only "the Great". The first group then goes to argue that Cnut isn't actually commonly called "the Great". Disputes rage regularly between Alfred-only'ers and Cnut-too'ers.
    • A third group of editors appeals to regnal naming standards, saying that he should be called "Alfred I of England", but then others point out there has only ever been one "Alfred", so there is no need for a number "I". A sober few editors then point out that the epithet "the Great" is thus unnecessary for identification of this particular Alfred as opposed to other Alfreds, and thus that the title could or should simply be "Alfred of England" or "Alfred of Wessex".
    • A fourth group, which often overlaps with some of the others above, invokes WP:COMMONNAME implicitly or explicitly in favour of "the Great".
    • Finally, a small fifth group of editors sometimes points out that "the Great" is rather subjective, "it is the victors who write the histories", "being known as "the Great" may have more to do with the Victorians' fanatical admiration for him" etc. This group overlaps with the third group in regarding the regnal naming conventions important. But none explicitly invokes WP:NPOV.
    The final case I've studied is Ashoka, which began under that title in 2001 until a 2006 undiscussed move to Ashoka the Great. Since 2007 several people wondered why it wasn't just called "Ashoka". On 18 May 2010 it was moved back to Ashoka with the argument: "Ashoka already redirects here and there is no need for the great" . It has been repeatedly requested to be renamed to Ashoka the Great ever since. The redirect "Ashoka the Great" has been edit-warred over in 2012. The most recent request was rejected per WP:HONORIFICS and WP:COMMONNAME.
    I hope that gives some insights. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: The 2 January 2022 RM from Cnut the Great to Cnut seems to mark the definitive victory of the Alfred-only'ers over the Cnut-too'ers, who have been arguing since 2003. But I suspect they have been motivated more by pro-Alfred English chauvinism against the "Danish" Cnut than any serious concerns about neutrality. Although not directly supporting my argument here, I think the case does should just how subjective the epithet "the Great" is, and that people will argue over it for almost 2 decades based, at least in part, on who they feel deserves such an honour. I think it would be difficult to deny that this has everything to do with one point of view (Alfred-only) versus another point of view (Cnut-too). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an impressive piece of research and it also gave me a few chuckles. The Alfredians should be proud of themselves and surely deserve to append "the Victorious" to their usernames :) Alaexis¿question? 05:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahaha I guess they do! :D I also found it pretty funny to read and summarise here. It didn't quite give me the results I expected, but it sure gives interesting insights in how Wikipedians use and perceive the epithet "the Great", and who does or does not deserve such an honour. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really a NPOV question, but a question of COMMONNAME. Calling Alexander, or Charlemagne or Peter as "the Great" is simply reflecting their common name as used in secondary texts, not judging their feats.
Every pre-modern king had some sort of nickname - some more flattering than others. There are lots of "the Cruel", "the Good", "the Pious", "the Handsome", "the Bold" and yes, "the Great". Were they cruel? Were they pious? Were they handsome? I don't know and frankly it doesn't matter if they were or weren't. These nicknames is what they were called by contemporaries and later historians. A lot of these nicknames have since faded in modern histories, and most monarchs are now known primarily by their numbering (e.g. "Philip IV of France" rather than "Philip the Fair"). But some of them remained better known by their nickname ("Alexander the Great" is much better known than "Alexander III of Macedonia", "Ivan the Terrible" more than "Ivan IV"). Its not whether Alexander III was really "great" any more than Ivan IV was really "terrible". Its just that their nicknames happened to remain prominent in written histories.
For this case, it is not the question of whether Ivan III was really "great" or not. That is simply his nickname. But is "Ivan the Great" more common and recognizable to general readers than "Ivan III of Moscow"? I don't think so. Walrasiad (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • support how can he be king of russia if it didn't exist—blindlynx 16:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query There does not appear to be consistency about how we name rulers of Moscow/Russia during this period, some of them are named using cognomens. However when did the Grand Duchy of Moscow turn into the Tsardom of Russia, at least for the purposes of Wikipedia title naming? If it wasn't during the reign of Ivan the Terrible then when was it? Also, "Ivan the Great" is problematic, for various reasons, among them that it creates confusion with Ivan the Terrible. PatGallacher (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The realm of Ivan III was not yet the Tsardom of Russia, but it was literally called "the state of Russian lands" or "государство Русских земель", both by Russian and foreign officials at the end of the 15th century (The Titles of Russian Rulers (in Russian) by A. Filjushkin, 2006, p. 171):
    "... к твоему государству Русских земель..."
    ("... to your state of Russian lands...")
    It could no longer be regarded merely as the Grand Duchy of Moscow when it started to include vast territories of other Rus' lands such as the Novgorod Republic (Filjushkin, 2006, p. 164):
    "В плоскость политической практики строительства единого Русского государства титул всея Руси был перенесен в связи с наступлением Москвы на Новгородскую республику"
    ("The title of all Rus' was transferred to the field of political practice of building the united Russian state in the context of the Moscow's advance on the Novgorod Republic")
    This is reflected by the title "Sovereign of all Rus'" or "государь всея Руси", an official title of Ivan III, which was frequently used in domestic documents already in the 1480s (Filjushkin, 2006, p. 167):
    "После 1479 г. данный титул в общерусских документах также употребляется не каждый раз, хотя и с гораздо большей интесивностью, чем в предыдущие годы"
    ("After 1479 this title was not used constantly in all-Russian documents, yet much more frequently than in the previous years")
    The title "Sovereign of all Rus'" was sporadically used by other Rus' princes in the past too, mostly in the context of their fight over the Principality of Vladimir (Filjushkin, 2006, p. 161):
    "... борьба шла за владимирский великокняжеский престол, но не за государство всея Руси, которое появляется только при Иване III"
    ("... the fight was for the throne of the Grand Prince of Vladimir, but not for the state of all Rus' which emerges already in the time of Ivan III")
    But none of them ever actually ruled over that vast territory (lands of Rus'). And it was Ivan III who united many Rus' lands and whose title became official (Filjushkin, 2006, p. 196):
    "Более оформленным титул становится при Иване III, в 1480-е гг., когда уже складывается основная территория владений государя всея Руси"
    ("The title became more formalized in the time of Ivan III, in 1480s, already when the main territory of the Sovereign of all Rus' was established")
    The title was gradually recognized by foreign powers in the following years (Filjushkin, 2006, p. 169, p. 173):
    • "титул всея Руси сразу и безоговорочно признали турки, причем уже в первой пришедшей на Русь грамоте от султана Баязета 1498 г."
    ("the title of all Rus' was immediately and unconditionally recognized by the Turks, and already in the first letter that came to Rus' from sultan Bayezid in 1498")
    • "Литва признала титул Ивана III государь всея Руси, что и было зафиксировано в перемирной грамоте"
    ("Lithuania recognized the title of Ivan III, sovereign of all Rus', which was stated in the peace treaty")
    The title was also officially used in the seal of Ivan III (History of the Title of Rulers of Russia (in Russian) by A. Lakier, 1847, p. 105):
    "... когда въ титулѣ Iоанна III явилось наименованiе Великаго Князя всея Россiи, то и вокругъ герба стали изображать съ одной стороны печати: «Iоаннъ Божiею милостью Господарь всея Руссiи, Велики Князь Владимірскій и Московскій и Новгородскій и т. д.»"
    ("... when “Grand Prince of all Russia” appeared in the title of Ivan III, they started to write “Ioannes, by the Grace of God, Sovereign of all Russia, Grand Prince of Vladimir and Moscow etc.” around the coat of arms on one side of the seal")
    The Danish king even officially recognized other titles of Ivan III, which could be translated as "Emperor of all Rus'" or "Tsar of all Rus'" (The title of Ivan III according to late-medieval Danish sources (In Russian) by Carsten Pape, 2016, p. 69, p. 72):
    • "Так, датский текст, как уже показано, называет Ивана III tocius Rutzsie imperator, т. е.«царь всея Руси»"
    ("In this way, the Danish text, as it has been already shown, calls Ivan III tocius Rutzsie imperator, i.e. “tsar of all Rus'”")
    • "Для Ивана III признание императорского титула датским суверенным королем — который являлся и королем Норвегии, и избранным королем Швеции — было немалой дипломатической победой, а для историков наших дней — новостью"
    ("For Ivan III, the recognition of his emperor title by the Danish sovereign king, who was also the king of Norway as well as elected king of Sweden, was a considerable diplomatic victory, and for the historians of our time - something new")
    In Russian sources the realm of Ivan III is often called "the Russian State" (Русское Государство), although Alexander Filjushkin also uses the term "the state of all Rus'" (государство всея Руси). In many books and articles in English that state is called "Russia" along with "the Muscovite state" or the more colloquial "Muscovy". Some sources explicitly state that Russia emerged from the principality of Moscow in the time of Ivan III, for example:
    "At the end of the fifteenth century, Russia came into being as a state – no longer just a group of related principalities. Precisely at this time in written usage the modern term Rossia (a literary expression borrowed from Greek) began to edge out the traditional and vernacular Rus. If we must choose a moment for the birth of Russia out of the Moscow principality, it is the final annexation of Novgorod by Grand Prince Ivan III (1462–1505) of Moscow in 1478"
    (A Concise History of Russia by Paul Bushkovitch, 2012, p. 37)
    Given all this, it's pretty natural to call that state "the State of all Russia", or "the Russian state", or simply "Russia". But regardless of how you decide to call that state, "Sovereign of all Rus'" or "Sovereign of all Russia" was an official title of Ivan III. Alexschneider250 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious oppose Although this isn't a clear-cut issue, following all the arguments here I would say that he is the first ruler we can regard as ruler of Russia. We should oppose "Ivan the Great". PatGallacher (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ivan the Terrible by Robert Payne pg. 67 "The title had been used tentatively and discreetly in the past. Henceforth the ruler of Russia would be known as Tsar and Grand Prince, and the title was in no way tentative. This was what he called himself and how he expected to be addressed. [...] What in the past had been called the grand princely crown has become the Tsar's crown, and what is now the Tsar's throne is described as the grand princely throne. Ivan's father is not the Tsar but Grand Prince, and Tsardom belongs to Ivan alone."
  2. ^ Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia by Isabel de Madariaga pg. 23
  3. ^ Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia by Isabel de Madariaga pg. 21
  4. ^ Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia by Isabel de Madariaga pp. 22-23
  5. ^ Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia by Isabel de Madariaga pg. 23
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ivan II not Ivan III

[edit]

Under marriages and children this article claims "Eudoxia Ivanovna (1492 – 1513); married Peter (born Kudaikul), son of Ibrahim, Khan of Kazan. Had issue, one daughter: Anastasia Petrovna, wife of Fyodor Mstislavsky, and later of Vasily 'Nemoy' Shuisky. Through her daughter, Anastasia Petrovna, wife of Prince Fyodor Mikhailovich Mstislavsky, Eudoxia is the ancestor of all living members of the House of Galitzin, and of Prince Rostislav Romanov and his siblings."

Ivan III has no living descendants from either of his wives- his line died out in the 1600's. The ancestor of the Galitzine family and Prince Rostislav Romanoff is Ivan II of Moscow and his wife Aleksandra Vasilievna Veliaminova. Their granddaughter Anna of Moscow married Prince Yury Patrikeievich, and they are the ancestors of the Galitzines. Also, the sources listed do not show Ivan III as the ancestor of the Galitzines. I would like to remove this from the article and have provided below sources that prove my point. Thoughts?

https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00295162&tree=LEO.

http://w.genealogy.euweb.cz/russia/rurik15.html.

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/RUSSIA,%20Rurik.htm#_Toc481496241. 2600:8800:2191:2400:756A:32E5:9B62:89CE (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivan_III_of_Russia&oldid=1228766305"