Talk:Principality of Moscow/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

Another example of "we were only defending ourselves" propaganda by Russians. Official language of Lithuania was Rusin. Kisiel, Rusin magnate was in Polish senate. Wisniowiecki was polonized Rusin. What political, ethnic and religious oppression was suffered by Ukrainians, compared to other ethnic groups in other countries? I would say they had it better under Polish rule and that's why they later signed Union of Halicz. szopen

Er...what triggered this comment? Graham Chapman

In 1648 most of Ukrainian society joined the Cossacks in a revolt because of the political, social, religious, and ethnic oppression suffered under Polish rule.

Ok, i overreacted a bit.

• Political: peasants nowhere in Europe had political rights.
• Social: peasants in all Central-Eastern Europe, with Russia included (after Perejslaw too) were oppressed and leaders of uprising don't care much about peasants too.
• religious: well, although level of tolerance in Poland in 1648 was still bigger than in most states of Europe, this is true that tolerance was lowered. But still orthodox can believe anything they want and their beliefs never were any obstacles.
• ethnic: Everyone, who was noble, had the same political rights. Everyone who was not, hadn't. Simple. Nothing to do with ethnicity, although it's true that most of noblemen was slowly polonized (but they weren't forced to do that!) so on Ukraine slowly situation came to point, were most of nobles was Polonized. szopen

Now I see. Overreactions are sometimes useful (I have to say that, because I do it all the time!), and sweeping statements can be a problem. One of my tiny little worries about this material was its sort of classroom bias, where masses of social activity get condensed into 8 words because it was too hard to give a decent description.

You or others will probably rewrite it better than I, but for what it's worth I'll add it to my list to try and add some balance, either in this article or by separate articles on the other states and societies that existed in the area. Graham Chapman

---

In the opener, the successor of Kievan Rus' on the northern lands of the empire, I need "empire" briefly disambiguated there: Byzantine? Wetman 20:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

User:Marcus2 has replaced Muscovy with Russia in a number of articles, such as this one, Peter the Great and the Russian Empire, Imperial Russia, Boris Godunov. Is this a legitimate change? Or do they mean to refer to separate entities? I am not well-versed in this period. Rmhermen 22:09, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is right replacement. The most precise denotion for the late mongol yuke times Russia is Muscovite Russia, but it is long. However, after reunification of Russia under Moscow (i.e. Muscovite) prince Ivan III the Great rule, "Muscovy" term was abandoned.

Please refer to Russian History Harmonization wiki project and participate there. However, Marcus2 is not participant of this project, he/she corrects the problem independently. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 09:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks but if it is complicated enough to need a "harmonization project" (I love that term.) I will leave it to ya. Rmhermen 13:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, absolutely incorrect! Before 1713 there was no state called Russia! There was a nation with a non-Slavic name (Finno-Ugric, perhaps) called "Muscovy" or "Moskva," formed by a Slavic kernel which assimilated a Finno-Ugric majority largely to speak the Old Church Slavonic language, which began as a state under Mongolian polity. In 1713, after gaining control of the Ruthenian regions of Belarus' and Kiev (Rus'propria or menora), Muscovy renamed itself "Russia," though it took Europe a while to accept the name change. In 1721, the name was changed again to the "Russian Empire." One might say, more generally (and with a broader perspective) "Russia, then called Muscovy. . ." There is no dispute that they are one and the same nation, though. Genyo 17:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is an invented story. The name "Russia" is not that young. Since Ivan the Terrible, or perhaps Ivan III, the Russian state no longer contained Moscow exclusively, so it was renamed Russia around that time. I'm siding with User:Drbug. Marcus2 13:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, My God. Genyo means, the Whole World does know nothing about history of Russia, but only western Ukrainians and eastern Poles behold the Ancient Knowledge. I'm really tired by claims like this... :-( [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 09:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Russian Imperialism can be very blinding! Let the locals tell their own story! Their neighbors are not more qualified, even if they think they are! Genyo 01:56, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Genyo, do you really believe that the words of a western Ukrainian or eastern Pole outweighs the word of an admin of the Russian Wikipedia who is more qualified to know the history of his own homeland? Marcus2 23:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

dating

" In the 14th century, the grand princes of Muscovy began gathering Russian lands to increase the population and wealth under their rule. The most successful practitioner of this process was Ivan III (the Great; r. 1462-1505), who conquered Novgorod in 1478 and Tver' in 1485. " Should this sentence not begin with "in the 15th century"?

It's really the 14th century, because Simeon and Dimitry both lived in 14th century... Dimitry doubled territory contraolled by Moscow. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 16:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Time of Troubles needs love

That brief mention of "a patriotic revival" against the Poles doesn't even name the only two figures who rightfully deserved a monument on the Red Square! The rise of the militia led by Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky is considered by many historians as the first time the Russians realized themselves a nation and acted to confirm it.

Time of Trouble section split to a new article

The section content was moved to a new article Time of Troubles. This is a common practice at wiki. When a section grows too large, or has a potential to expand, it's moved to a new article. For example, this happened to the History of Russia before - it was split into a number of articles. Time of Troubles was such a section, which would likely see a lot of improvements. Splitting the section into an article seemed justified. It's also not such a good idea to maintain the full data in two places, thus I reduced the section to a short summary. The duplication of text is not productive. Nothing was "stolen" as User:Ghirlandajo wrote. So, if you object to splitting of the section into a new article, please use this talk page to justify your objections. --Gene s 08:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just think there is no need to snatch a section from a general article and insert it some other place. There's nothing extraordinary in the practice when some encyclopedia articles overlap and duplicate each other. The current edition of Britannica treats the Time of Troubles both in the History of Russia and in a separate article. It's not on to make the reader switch in the middle of reading Muscovy to the Time of Troubles. The article should be comprehesive, i.e. cover all the period of Muscovite history in equal detail. So please leave the Muscovy article as it is now. Ghirlandajo 10:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I recall that Library of Congress data may be used freely under condition of preserving its integrity. Therefore new additions should go to the Time of Troubles, taken from the EB 1911. Ghirlandajo 10:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with duplication is just that - duplication. It's simply easier to maintain one good version of events than to maintain two versions in synch. Duplications seems to be a waste of effort for no gain. There is no malice, it's just convenience. Consider this: you made changes to Time of Troubles. Now it's different from the section in Muscovy. I.e. there are two slightly different versions of evens. The difference would drift bigger over time. I suggest we cull the section in Muscovy to a summary to avoid unnecessary duplication and wasted effort. This is Internet. It's easy to switch to a new article, and then to go back, unlike paper encyclopedia.

Regarding EB 1911. Its copyright has expired. It's now in public domain. The same applies to any materials from the Library of Congress once their copiright expires. As soon as the copyright expires, the work enters public domain. It no longer belongs to anybody. Nobody can claim any control over use (or misuse) of the work. --Gene s 10:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As best I can see, your main argument is that duplication would entail different versions of events. I see nothing criminal here. We cannot make the Wiki completely neutral. EB 1911 has been admired so much, because it was not neutral. "History of Russian" and "History of Poland" will always contain different versions of the same events. The more points of view the better, provided that there is no partisan bias in the articles. Ghirlandajo 11:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We cannot make the Wiki completely neutral. True. But we can try. That's what WP:NPOV asks us to do. This is the basic principle and it should be followed. Forking articles according to--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) one's POV does not help in producing a NPOV version of events.

"History of Russian" and "History of Poland" will always contain different versions of the same events. that's exactly the thing we can avoid by using one article Time of Troubles and linking to it from two other places. As you correctly pointed out, currently there are three alternative versions of events. And it might increase, if, say History of Lithuania adds its own version. This is wrong because it wastes effort. The more points of view the better, provided that there is no partisan bias in the articles. yes, if they are in one article. But it's wrong to have three different articles with different account of events according to a specific POV. It voiolates wiki's basic princple WP:NPOV. --Gene s 11:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is a normal Wikipedia process that when articles grow, they create their own subarticles, which previously could be a redirects or didn't exist at all. Often they are simple duplicates at first, but they are soon expanded. I expect the ToT subarticle to grow over time - surely it will one day be larger then 32kb and even now it has its own subarticles - well, related articles - like that on Dimitriads wars (btw, I invite you to read it and expand it, the battlebox is limited only to the First Dimitriad, for starters, and I'd love to read an article on the Moscow uprisings in 1606 and 1611). Finally, I expect that like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth article, the Muscovy article will eventully evolve into a description of a country, not just its history, and will have an entirely separate history section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

Objective problems of Muscovy in 16-17 centuries

Ancient trading ways to the Baltic and Black seas were also closed by enemies, Livonian knights and Tatars.

Tatars invasions prevented development of southern regions where soils are better and the agricultural season is long enough, and it also strengthened taxation of peasants. Ben-Velvel 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasili - Basil

I propose renaming all the Grand Dukes Vasili to Basil (Vasili III - Basil III, Vasili Tiomny - Basil the Dark, etc.) to fit in with the standard anglicization of monarchical names. Kazak 04:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla rever / Petr pestering

Ghirla, please explain why do you insist on reverting me here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Pan Piotr, I don't like your recent crusade against Russia-related articles which seems to aim on uglifying them with useless refs, which make the text virtually unreadable. Please stop. The article is taken from the Library of Congress Country Studies, which is a solid reference and an academic source in itself. If you want them to reference every word in their articles, please approach the authors of the article not other wikipedians, who have to waste their precious time - which could have been dedicated to creating new content - in order to repel your attacks and decluttering the pages from the mess you keep introducing. Please take a note that I don't edit Poland-related articles, and not pester them with ugly tags, but it seems too much to expect the same from yourself.

For instance, what is the meaning of the pestering tag here - The Polish presence led to a patriotic revival among the Russians - what do you express doubts about? There are hundreds if not thousands monographs about that "partiotic revival" - please take 5 minutes of your time to check any work on the subject. Or - to put it another way - can you cite any reputable work on the subject which denies the "patiotic revival" that brought the Time of Troubles to an end?

Likewise, I fail to see why you insist on including into this general article a link to Treaty of Deulino - rendered in Polish spelling for some incomprehensible reason - while we have main articles about the Time of Troubles and the Polish-Muscovite War, where the treaty and other details are mentioned. Your others edits - such as linking zemsky sobor which is already linked several lines above - make as little sense. From my past experience, I know that you are prone to endless and meaningless discussion. If your intention is to start such a pointless dispute here, I will deny your this favour. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a reference compilation or a chat room. I would like to spend my time doing something more useful than demonstrating the sloppiness of every other edit you make. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If only you could talk without personal attacks all the time... oh well. First, you may want to check Wikipedia:Inline citations. It's hard to verify what content remain taken from Library... source and what was added later, so in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check we are moving towards inline citations. Now, of course, tagging every fact in the article (like you did here) is a clear violation of WP:POINT, but tagging a few facts which one thing would benefit from specific academic citation is perfectly appropriate. While I don't doubht that there are sources using the term 'patriotic revival', I'd like to see it tagged, and as I am not an expert on Muscovy I have a policy of letting experts on such topics (like you) provide the reference they think is best, instead of giving a random ref myself, which can as well be a respected scholar or some controversial upstart. While a second link to zemsky sobor may indeed be unecessary, I see no logical resaons for your revert of my link to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) or the Treaty of Dywilino (although you have a point that Deulion is a better spelling, given the Russian context). I do think that expantion with few details about Zygmunt wanting the trone and the name of Deulino is worthwile - the article is not too long currently.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Pan Piotrus, your understanding of what "inline citations" stand for has already been condemned by an Arbcom member. The worthy project of which you are a member is not an official guideline and I daresay your interpretation of its purpose is somewhat distorted. As for your precious additions, they are arbitary and intended to push a certain POV. I repeat that we have main articles for details, no need to move arbitrary selections from them into a general account of events. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait for reply from Fred on my talk page, where I have a chance to have a meaningful conversation with him without having my comments deleted. Now please explain how my specific edits (listed below) are POVed or overly detailed:

1. replacing the link to Poland with a more specific link to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
2. asking for a citation for a weasel word phrase: Historians speculate that Godunov would have weathered this crisis - what historians?
3. asking for a citation for that the Polish presence in Moscow led to the patriotic uprising? The usage of the word patriotic seems somewhat POVed to me here, as Malec (Szkice z dziejów federalizmu i myśli federalistycznych w czasach nowożytnych, "Unia Troista", Wydawnictwo UJ, 1999, Kraków, ISBN 8323312788) - whom you'll no doubt discard as a minor POVed Polish scholar - writes that the uprising was caused by a faction withing the Russian boyars who wanted to seize power for themselves, and that it became portrayed as a 'great patriotic rising' only in the later (19th c. and onwards) Russian historiography?
4. My addition of links to Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) and the Truce of Deulino? And note that the article has not yet reached the 32kb limit from which splitting is advised.
5. The fact that you ignore bot spelling corrections in your reverts is not going to do much to strenghten your case, btw.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa I'm not on anyone's side. Just don't spam the fact template. Fred Bauder 00:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored to msotly Ghirla's version as follows:

1. I seem to be not alone in thinking that abusing of fact template is disruptive and even unethical. If curious and wowed by something, ask at talk. If find something incredulous, go ahead and use talk. For more see Talk:Cossack.

As per Talk:Partitions of Poland/archive 2, same users argued to use Poland since it is a more common name for the country. Also, importantly, it was how the country was called by its neigbors. One think is to use strive for correct usage in the article devoted to the country itself, and its partitions (although I met considerable resistance introducing the commonwealth there and failed an the first partitions article). Yet another thing is articles related to the non-Polish events. Attackers were seen as Poles and should be called as such, not the Commonwealthers.

"The Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) was ended with Truce of Deulino in 1618, restoring temporarily Polish and Lithuanian rule over some territories, including Smolensk lost by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1509." introduced is disconnected from the rest of the text and brings in the treaty that belongs to other articles where it is covered. Thanks to some Wikipedia trend, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is inserted to most any marginally related to Russia or USSR articles, like articles on obscure cities, non-Political people, etc. Spreading stuff to where it doesn't belong throws the articles off balance affecting the neutrality.

I hope, if anyone has questions, they will be asked at talk rather than in an article-uglifying form. --Irpen 08:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mostly? You have reverted every single of my changes. As this minor archived discussions points out, while Poland is a more generic term for PLC, it is obvious that we should use the correct terms in relevant articles - just as we are using Muscovite Russia or Imperial Russia or Kievan Rus instead of simply Russia (especially when it's ilinked and is the first occurence in text). I honestly don't see how you cna say that this war is irrelevant to the article - I thought it was a major conflict for Russia, in which it was a primary participant? Am I mistaken? Finally, the fact that you have complained about the template (and my use of it) does not mean that you have the right to remove the tags. I would like to have a citation for the single fact template I instered in the text, yes, I find use of words like 'some historians speculate' very bad for wiki and if no citation can be provided this info will have to be deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Transliterations and parentheses/brackets

I just added cyrillic-to-latin transliterations to every cyrillic name I could find; I'm pretty sure they're correct based on the cyrillic given. Also, in the intro there were sets of parentheses inside parentheses, and I changed the inner ones to square brackets as (I'm pretty sure) they should be. Hopefully this isn't disagreeable? T. S. Rice 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make a mess of the opening. I don't think our readers need your transliterations, but they make reading much more difficult. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody correct the infobox, if here is something wrong, and then - put back into the article. --Sigalind 22:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. For further information on the usage of this infobox, please refer to the instructions here, or leave a note on my talk page with any questions. - 52 Pickup 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits are supposed to improve articles. This infobox creates ugly image jams, propagates false information, and ridiculous images. Please don't compromise the integrity of our articles. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox edit/revert

My edit-comment when placing the infobox: "These infoboxes belong on all entries on historical states, so if there is a problem, say so instead of just reverting." Result: reverted 14 minutes later. Okay... So instead of making the edit just to have it reverted again, I'll explain things here a bit more.

Such infoboxes have been designed not only here but on other language wikis, with the intention of summarising information on states that no longer exist. Just as there are infoboxes for all nations that currently do exist, an infobox is the best way to extract vital information from an article without going through a lot of text. Many people know that most users do not want to look through a heap of text to find a certain piece of information and so they have created specific infoboxes for their articles. An infobox is also one of the best ways to present information in a totally neutral way, which is one of the highest rules of Wikipedia.

Some people who have made such infoboxes have expressed a desire for an infobox that is more universal, with the ability to link better with related articles. And so, with the assistance of people on many historical projects, the Former Country infobox was created. The infobox has become an accepted, welcomed and recommended feature for all entries on former states, and is now used in 200+ articles (and rising). Guidelines for its use are part of WP Former Countries, which again has come about after collaboration with other historical and geographical groups, and not simply a one-man show.

The infobox has been welcomed by most people working on historical articles across all periods, and its usage has been widely accepted as the norm (and not just by people who work on the template or are part of WP Former contries). Nowadays, when former country articles are submitted for GA/FA-assessment, it has been known for an article to be rejected because it does not have an infobox (again, not a rejection made by template developers). In short, it is an accepted feature of articles on historical states.

At times, there have been disagreements about its design, or uncertainties about its use. All issues have been considered and agreements have been reached, usually leading to an improvement of the infox's design and implementation. I would like to know what exactly you have against it use. If you have a genuine issue with it, then I would be happy to hear it. But simply reverting it with an "i don't like it" is nothing helpful.

The content of the infobox is not set in stone, it is meant to be built upon by knowledgeable people in each field. I see that I am not the first person to place the infobox here for you to delete, and I can see that the first person made some mistakes. If there is some information wrong in the template, put in the correct information instead of deleting the whole thing. It is clear that the infobox is here to stay on Wikipedia, and that people will continue to place the infobox in this article, and so it is better to make sure that the content is correct, instead of just deleting it every time for the whole cycle to continue. From your history of contributions, I can see that you are a very knoledgable person in this area, and so it would be great if you could put in the right information. - 52 Pickup 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care about WP Former Countries and I don't consider its recomendations imperious. However some people would like to represent Russia as a "former country", they may be suprized to find out that it is still alive and kicking. Your assertion that "the infobox has been welcomed by most people working on historical articles across all periods" is patently false, as I know most people who actively contributes on such topics. I have dozens if not hundreds articles about former states in my watchlist and I have never seen the infobox used before. It contains no useful information, is duplicative, looks ugly, contains sloppy questions marks and an arbitrary list of three leaders, whose criterion escapes me. Furthermore, I don't see why Wikipedia should care for readers who are too lazy to read the article in full and uglify the article on their account. It is an axiom that Wikipedia (like every other encyclopaedia) is not for everyone to read. Some find cartoons easier to read and more entertaining. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia IS for everybody, and there is no need for such elitist remarks abour comic books. If you monitor as many sites as you claim, then i find it hard to believe that you could have missed the use of this template. It is not everywhere yet, but it is used on around 200 pages already, covering all continents list. Of course there is nothing imperious about Wikipedia, so such a request can never be met. Who said anything about Russia being a former country? To the best of my knowledge, the monarchy that ruled Moscow no longer rules, there is now a republic, making the previous monarchy now a former state. Would you delete the infobox for Russia on the grounds that it doesn't make the article pretty? An encyclopedia is not a comic-book, but it is not an illustrated novel either. - 52 Pickup 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Your line "as the state is known in Russian records, has been attested in Polish and some other Western sources as Muscovy. It was the successor of Vladimir-Suzdal and the predecessor of the Russian Tsardom" - is very POV. It is mentioned in numerous Russian sources as Muscovy as well. Let me cite you some sources:

• 1. A famous Russian historian Sergey Solovyov in his work ПРОДОЛЖЕНИЕ ЦАРСТВОВАНИЯ АЛЕКСЕЯ МИХАЙЛОВИЧА in his history of Russia refers to it as Moscow, or Muscovy. Not a single time does he use the word Россия (Russia). You may search the document with the search engine, curiously enough Russian only pops up when he is talking about Ukraine (Малороссия), but contrary to the title of this article, not a single instance of describing Muscovy as Russia. Not even one! And he is a Russian historian, and a famous one too.
• 2. Another Russian historian, Nikolai Markevich in his history also doesn't mention Russia by its present name - it is invariably Moscow. You can view his work here.

I will not tag this article as NPOV, but please consult the sources and consider rewriting the article without bias. Thanks.--Hillock65 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving the article

This article must be moved via a proper WP:RM, and not by a single user without any discussions whatsoever. Let us handle this through proper channels. I would have moved it back to Muscovy, but Ghirlandajo's edits (done on purpose?) to the redirect made that impossible. I hope some administrator does this as soon as possible. Balcer 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to delete anything; it seems Ghirla changed the content of the WP:FORK he created. I restored this page to a proper article (since it is the one which has history and all), and added merge tags so we get rid of the fork; once this is done we should have a formal WP:RM (this move was discussed many times and is obviously controversial).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess technically it can be done, but I agree it needs to be done. Contents can be copied to another page, page name restored and contents pasted back without deleating anything. Uncivilized behaviour should not be condoned just because someone is considered incorrigible. Rules are for everyone, not just some. I support moving the article to its original title.--Hillock65 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are actually ways of preserving history, too. But first we must have Ghirla deceast cease from waging a revert war. Any and all comments at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Mess created, help needed are appreciated, I'd prefer somebody else would clean that up - I am unfortunatly busy with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"First we must have Ghirla deceased"? Is it a veiled death threat? I'm going to discuss the issue with administrators. There are limits beyond which no campaign of bullying and intimidation should go. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How old are you, really? To use a typo of 'desist' as a death threat? Do they let everyone in here? What is going on?--Hillock65 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the not-so-amusing type. I meant cease, but apprarently I wrote a similarly sounding word... ah, where is Dr. Dan, when you need him :) Do note I wrote 'deceast', not 'deceased'... strike one for the English irregularity :/ -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• This controvertial move was done without a proper move request & discussion: all changes should be rolled back and then the proper RM procedures followed. - Evv 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what is happening. The move done previously without a proper move request & discussion is reverted back to its original state. So that discussion can start.--Hillock65 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean that, at some previous point, the article was moved from Grand Duchy of Moscow to Muscovy without a proper move request & discussion ? (page logs only show the moves done today). - Best regards, Evv 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was moved back and forth while everyone was asking to wait and discuss. Please see discussion on this page.--Hillock65 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more precise. The article sat at Muscovy for years. The name was discussed at talk, no consensus for renaming was reached. Today it was split (which I don't think nobody objected to) and renamed, which did cause quite a few objections (why use longer 'Grand Duchy of Moscow' if 'Muscovy' is more popular and shorter)? Although I have to say that making Muscovy a disambig and splitting the article is an interesting solution - however I do wish it was discussed prior to this mess, and I still think a RM should be carried out to ensure we don't return to this again. That aside, a much more controversial move is at Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) (moved from Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618)), where a FA article was renamed again with ongoing discussion at talk and no consensus for move, also leaving double redirects and broken talk templates.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you deal with this, but looks like he gets away with it, and when I did it rashly yesterday everyone was quick to remind me of the policy. Am I missing something, or is he special in some weird kind of way that it doesn't seem to concern too many people. I can't explain why...--Hillock65 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference has been explained to you. The article's split did not create any articles whose titles included POVish and derrogatory terms. The analogy with Little Russia/Ukraine applies. Orginally LR was simply a name of the land. Would you consider the move where Ukraine is replaced with Little Russia acceptable? So was your move of the war title. --Irpen 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, had I seen this move request listed in WP:RM, I may have supported it (I like the new dab page). But this move is absolutely not uncontrovertial, and the way it was done by Ghirlandajo is actually offensive, showing disregard and possibly disdain for all other editors - the whole community. Sometimes the way in which things are done are as important (or more) than the thing itself (among my main objections to ru-sub :-). This is the first time that Wikipedia makes me angry... - Best regards, Evv 03:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

< - - - - - 'reset indent
Evv, please get it. This is not a move but a split. There is nothing controversial in splitting the article into more detailed ones. --Irpen 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Semantics :-) It's a split that implies changing the title's basics. And, again, apparently without consulting anyone first (despite the fact that it was unrevertable by simple means, which should be the limit of boldness). In the end, because of the way in which it was done, it doesn't matter what it should be called: it's wrong anyway. Furthermore, since Ghirlandajo knew very well that such a course of action was controvertial, it's outright insulting. - Regards, Evv 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha, so if I went and split it again into a separate "more detailed" Muscovy article without discussing, that would be OK? Or that provison onle extends to some? --Hillock65 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be a WP:Point. But if you do split the History of Ukraine into respective period articles (one per section), replace each section with a short overview and develop each new article further, you will not get reprimanded. Moreover, I will personally award you a Barnstar for each developed period of the Ukrainian history. Please consider these steps. --Irpen 04:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I had searched the talk pages for any previous discussion on the issue, but didn't find any appart from Hillock65's comment in the "NPOV" section above. As far as I see it, the article was in Muscovy, and suddenly out of the blue Ghirlandajo made the controvertial move without any discussion whatsoever. Am I wrong on this ? - Regards, Evv 03:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not. This is exactly what happened. And unfortunately not only to this article, but to others as well: (Polish–Russian War (1605–1618) (moved from Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618)). And he seems to be getting away with it...--Hillock65 03:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just separate two issues, ok? The old Muscovy article was split into two consecutive terms each devoted to different periods of the History of Russia. The Moscow Principality and Russian Tsardom that followed the former and preceeded the Russian Empire. There is nothing controversial in having the times of Dmitri Donskoy included in a different historic period's article from the times of Alexis I as those two are totally different periods of the Russian history. Pitorus somehow sees nothing wrong with Piasts' Poland and Sigismund's Poland being in different articles (neither do I). This is an exact analogy.--Irpen 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is nothing wrong with the split, the names, as they are currently used, seem acceptable (although I reserve the right to reseach this in the future and change this statement :>).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the other article (about the war), again Piotrus himself said that he did not oppose the proposed title. Moreover, the new title was not chosen to include the highly warranted and supported by sources words like "Polish invasion" or "intervention", while we have the whole bunch of "of Poland" invasion and massacre titles. Personally, I am not as bold as to make many moves but let's just differentiate moves that are simply unproposed (but sensible) from moves that are also controversial. None of the latter took place. Please discuss the war's name at the relevant talk page. --Irpen 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Irpen, I did not said that. I said that it's not wrong to use Russia in historical context, although Muscovy (or Grand Duchy of Moscow, or Russian Tsardom, or Russian Empire, or Rus' Khaganate) are preferable. I have said that many times, so please don't take one of my statements out of contexts to back up your case. The invasion and such is not relevant to our discussion, bottom line is that most editors, including those who voted for FA, supported the title of 'Polish-Muscovite Wars', the 'Polish-Russian War' has not gained consensus on talk and the article should not be moved without a RM.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging two articles.

There is suddenly another article called Muscovy, which is very POV, I propose these articles be merged. --Hillock65 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggested the same thing, however Ghirla revert me. It's hard to work in such conditions, I am afraid - I believe others need to step in and ensure all behave before we can try to work a solution through a proper means (WP:CON, WP:RM, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Golden Horde

How on earth could it be the predecessor of this realm??? Do you see anythin' similar on Wikipedia??? --PaxEquilibrium 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Definition Of Muscovite:

redirect claims?

both Grand Duchy of Moscow and Principality of Moscow have this at the top: “Muscovy” redirects here. For other uses, see Muscovy (disambiguation). Which is it, can it get fixed?--Vidkun 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That was due to cut and paste move attempts. Fixed. --Irpen 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but now there is no Principality of Moscow article, it keeps redirecting here.--Vidkun 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because this article covers both the times of Московское княжество also for the time before it became Великое. In the unlikely case this article becomes excessively long and there would be a need to split it, we can copy part of it to another entry. But the worst case is two duplicate articles under two competing titles (see WP:FORK.) Now the normalcy is restored. --Irpen 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem to you that "Grand Principality of Moscow" would be more accurate name for this article? Russian "князь" is more commonly translated as "prince" instead of "duke" --Alexey.tses (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dmitri Donskoi did not managed to unite anything!

The only thing he managed to do is to gain the support of Sergei Radonezhsky and then defeat Mamai. Kulikovo field was simply part of a series of wars waged between Grand Duchy of Moscow and Gloden Horde out of economical perspective. There is nothing patriotic about the guy. The tale of him defending the Russian Orthodoxy is, of course, nothing but a grandma's tale. There were plenty other Great Russian rulers, but the fact that Dmitri was the Duke of Moscow it is automatically defined him as the superhero. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Principality of Moscow/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think a definition needs to be added so its more to the point

Last edited at 03:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)