Jump to content

Talk:Principality of Moscow

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

Grand Principality of Moscow

[edit]

More correct and consistent than "Grand Duchy of Moscow" and also supported by http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/393443/Grand-Principality-of-Moscow is "Grand Principality of Moscow". Imperium Romanum Sacrum (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Godunov family page needs to be created or link removed

[edit]

Nice catch, SuperJew. Apologies for pinging you on the Sabbath but, hopefully, you will accept this as a good faith attempt to circumvent editing your talk page directly in order to address this issue now rather than risk forgetting to do so. I sincerely hope I haven't caused any offence.

In the context, the reference to the Godunov family should have a wikilink to a Godunov family page. As it's been tagged for disambiguation for a considerable amount of time, rather than one editor after another using precious time trying to find the (non-existent) page, I've created a 'wishlist' red link as I don't have the time to develop the relevant page right now.

If anyone wishes to revert my edit, feel free to do so. I just think it would be more useful to create even a stub than leave the link as it stands for years to come. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tributary of Golden Horde

[edit]

Is there a reason that the infobox doesn't say that the status of the Grand Duchy of Moscow is "Tributary of the Golden Horde"?--BoguSlav 00:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia encourages you to be BOLD Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD) can be explained in three words: "Go for it". The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. So why don't you make yourself useful and "update it" Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Ivanov I'm getting the impression that you're WP:HOUNDING me. Every edit I make on an article is reverted and every edit I make on any talk page is replied to by you.--BoguSlav 02:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are thinking wrongly then, may I inquire you on the definition of WP:HOUNDING which is "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.", I didn't do any of that when I came here, I simply encouraged you to do the edit yourself, since Wikipedia encourages you to be WP:BOLD. You also need to Assume good faith when there are people helping you out on Wikipedia editing guidelines. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! More ridiculing and sarcasm from the user has been reacting to all of my contributions for the past several days! And nice try, misquoting the Wikipedia policy to me. I am well aware of it without the quotes, which makes it a lot easier for me to recognize when you pull a quote from another page. It seems like the nuance has been lost on you (if I assume good faith), OR you have purposefully misquoted (if I assume bad faith). "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." You haven't succeeded in intimidating me, but you have definitely been caught in violation of the policy. I find it interesting that the only place that you haven't WP:HOUNDed me is on the WP:ANI.--BoguSlav 03:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was no ridicule or sarcasm.
>from the user has been reacting to all of my contributions for the past several days
And the same user doing edits in other articles in Wikipedia. Are you implying users are not able to warrant other users advice in time of needs.
>And nice try, misquoting the Wikipedia policy to me.
Where did I misquote it, let me fix it for you.
>I am well aware of it without the quotes
Just making sure that you know you can go ahead and be WP:BOLD
>which makes it a lot easier for me to recognize when you pull a quote from another page.
Yes and post the same page here, did you expect me to hid the Wikipedia editing guidelines from you.
>"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." You haven't succeeded in intimidating me, but you have definitely been caught in violation of the policy.
I actually haven't valuated it, and thank you for putting the rule again, in fact I actually didn't single out you out of other editors, I didn't came here to confront you nor inhibit your work, in fact I have done the opposite, I encouraged you to do the work and be WP:BOLD, if you don't want my help you can say it. I assumed good faith and gave you the tools.
>I find it interesting that the only place that you haven't WP:HOUNDed me is on the WP:ANI
I never hounded you, per the rule. In the Cossack articles you inisiated the disucssion, and the Grand Duchy I gave you tool and recommendation on what to do plus encouraging you to be bold and not to wait on other users. You gave a solid reason for the fact that Muscovy was a tributary state of the Ulus of Jochi, so why not edit Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, is there any progress you are making in this article? Just want to make sure so I can help you out. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag issue

[edit]
Banner of Ivan IV of Russia. 1552

The flag at right was created and uploaded by Лобачев Владимир; it lists no source and states it is possibly a variant. The flag was added to this page by Kammiejr in February 2015, but then removed by Altenmann with the explanation, "Please don't add flags of unknown origin." The flag was re-added to the page by Alexis Ivanov in January 2016. It was removed by Azgar on April 18th with the explanation, "fantasy variant." It has now been re-added by Sigehelmus.

So, is the flag valid? Is it a variant? Is there a source supporting the flag? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue: Banner of Ivan IV of Russia. 1552. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a fantasy variant, Muscovy had no official flag at all. The added variant is just a christian banner used by Ivan IV in 1552, 5 years after he proclaimed himself Tsar (Imperor). Refer to the mentioned source Azgar (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russians did not know the West European concept of the flag until Tsar Alexis. The "flags" of the Russian knyazes and tsars were rather portable icons, something intermediate between the carroccio and the vexillum. It represented neither the knya/tsar nor the country, but protected (in the Christian sense) the army in the battle. The above-mentioned icon banner was ;used particularly during the war with the Khanate of Kazan in 1552.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the info provided, I support keeping the flag with clarification of it being a banner of Ivan IV, with a note added its particular/famous usage during the war with the Kazan Khanate.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the banner was used by Ivan IV in 1552, then it definitely should not be used here. The article dates the end of the GDM as 1547, and Ivan IV is covered in the Tsardom of Russia article. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link cited here clearly says that "К царствованию Алексея Михайловича относится первое упоминание о государственных цветах и государственном флаге России. " (state banners as colors are first mentioned during the reign of Aleksey Mikhailovich (1629-1676), ie at times when Muscovy was already a tsardom rather than principality. The same res says that various Christianity-symbolic flags were used by various Russian armies before. But they were of widely various designs and they were not standard state banners. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In nay case, the issue must also be resolved in List of Russian flags. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Grand Duchy

[edit]

The article has two citation by "The Grand Duchy of Moscow[2][3]":
[2]Plokhy, Serhii (2006-09-07). The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139458924.
[3]Isham, Heyward; Pipes, Richard (2016-09-16). Remaking Russia: Voices from within. Routledge. ISBN 9781315483078.

Citation [2] I did a search for "Grand Duchy" inside the book's text, and found six instances: pages 85, 87 and 114 have references to "Grand Duchy of Lithuania", page 299 "Grand Duchy of Ruthenia", pages 88 and 109 has "Grand Duchy" on its own - though in the case of page 88, the sentence is "Grand Duchy... as the Grand Principality of Muscovy was officially considered to be".

I did a search for "Grand Principality" and found five instances: page 88 "Grand Principality of Muscovy", pages 100, 101 and 109 "Grand Principality of Rus", and pages 111 "Grand Principality of Moscow".

Citation [3] I did a search for "Grand Duchy" inside the book's text, and found one instance "the grand Duchy of Muscovy". I also did a search for "Grand Principality", but the example I found was "the grand principality of Lithuania".

My conclusion is that citation [2] does not support the case that the entity was called the "Grand Duchy of Moscow", and citation [3] is weak evidence for it being called "the grand Duchy of Muscovy". I think both citations should be removed as not providing clear support for the text they are cited for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on those sources, though I'd say that the entity wasn't called this way. This is rather a modern English name coined by modern historians. It is a question of how to translate knyaz/knyazhestvo into English. While "principality" may be more prevalent (e.g. it is used in E. Britanica and in the Cambridge History of Russia), Google Books still gives a few ghits for "duchy" before 2000.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terms for ancient Moscovia

[edit]

Since the term Muscovite Rus' was deleted here, i want to say that i hope that this move wasn't done because of destructive ambitions and motives.

Very important suggestions for this article. First of all Moscovia was Rus' land. Grand Principality of Moscow is the right term and not Grand Duchy of Moscow. Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Grand-Principality-of-Moscow Moskovskoye Velikoye Knazhestvo ( Великое Княжество Московское). Like Київське князівство were translated into "Principality of Kiev" http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Kiev&oldid=500060867, https://www.britannica.com/place/Suzdal, Suzdal, into Suzdal Principality (Suzdalskoye Knyazhestvo)https://www.britannica.com/place/Suzdal, Галицко-Волинскоє князство were translated into (?Kingdom?) of Galicia–Volhynia or Principality of Galicia–Volhynia Kingdom_of_Galicia–Volhynia

Also Muscovite Rus' is a common term, because it was in Rus' lands. Not only that Russia evolved out of it and Russian culture survived because of Muscovy, Muscovite Rus' and Grand Principality of Moscow should be in the introducing sentence because the term Russia evolved out of Rus'. https://www.britannica.com/place/Grand-Principality-of-Moscow.

Let's look at this article and it's formulation: The Kingdom or Principality of Galicia–Volhynia [1] (Old East Slavic: Галицко-Волинскоє князство, Ukrainian: Галицько-Волинське князівство, Latin: Regnum Galiciae et Lodomeriae), also known as the Kingdom (?why Kingdom?) of Ruthenia Kingdom_of_Galicia–Volhynia ( btw: Kingdom is a completely invented addition to the Galicia region, Волинскоє князство does not mean Kingdom ) The term Великое Княжество is translated here in this Moscow article into Grand Duchy of Moscow, Волинскоє князство is translated in the Galicia–Volhynia Wikipedia article into Kingdom and the same Old East Slavic term is translated into Principality of Kiev in the Kiev article. Something is very very wrong with all of this.

The term Kingdom of Ruthenia for Principality of Galicia–Volhynia was not used at all and it is mentioned anyway in the Wikipedia article. Muscovy Rus' for the "Grand Principality of Moscow" is much more common, accepted and more precise (not latinized) and should not be used? That does not make sense. It should be named here. Otherwise many other articles need to be revised soon. --188.108.243.50 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to multiple researches of chronicles by historians, 600+ mentions on Rus' are related only to the lands that are almost completelly in borders of NE of Ukraine. Historically there are no othre Rus-es than so called Kyevan Rus'. It is just Rus - ended by Mongolians in 13. century. And no other Rus-es ever existed after that - only fake ones. 79.132.69.188 (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same words/terms like Великое Княжество should not have different translations in the different articles about Rus' lands, in one article it's Kingdom, others name it Principality and here it's for a couple of years Duchy.--188.108.243.50 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Ruthenia is called like that because of King Danylo (Daniel of Galicia), who was crowned by a papal archbishop in Dorohochyn 1253 as the first King of Ruthenia --Roman Popyk (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will provide at least one normal source, and not an alternative history of a country that has nothing to do with Russia but claims its lands and history, without even knowing about the Ruthenian (Rus) language? 146.158.58.174 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel of Galicia was crowned King of Ruthenia (Korol Rusi), as ruler of the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. There are any number of references in the above reasonably detailed articles. It’s not our job to research facts for other editors.
The terms Rus, and specifically Rus Land (Ruska Zemlia) were initially used for the region around Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslav. See Kyivan Rus#Names. Yaroslav the Wise tried to promote the use of the name for all of Kyivan Rus, without complete success.
After the disintegration of Kyivan Rus, the name was used in southwestern lands: Red Ruthenia (Chervona Rus, first mentioned 1321), Black Ruthenia (Chorna Rus), Carpathian Ruthenia, up to the twentieth century, and even the twenty-first, White Ruthenia (Belaia Rus/Belarus).
Rus Land was also adopted in Muscovy, most of which had been completely outside the bounds of Rus in the Kyivan period, somewhat later, and only until Peter I renamed it Russia.
Let’s close this talk section, because I see no constructive suggestion for changes to the article above.  —Michael Z. 21:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for arguments....

[edit]

....why the sourced version on 6th january 2020 was changed by Wikipedia editors:

Moscovian Rus,[2] Grand Duchy of Moscow,[3][4] Moscovia or Grand Principality of Moscow[5][6] (Russian: Великое Княжество Московское, Velikoye Knyazhestvo Moskovskoye, also known in English simply as Muscovy from the Latin: Moscoviae[7]) was a Rus' principality of the Late Middle Ages centered around Moscow, and the predecessor state of the Tsardom of Russia in the early modern period.

Hope and wait for very strong arguments. I understand that everyone makes mistakes. 

--85.212.187.58 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for arguments from both Wikipedia emplyooe - i suspect that the motives could be counterproductive. I hope its not the case. Like i said the flag is not correct and important historical names are missed. It cannot stay as it is now.--85.212.235.6 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Principality of Moscow Валко (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vif12vf, [1], [2], [3]. 95.110.120.47 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vif12vf, Vif12vf, can you read? [4], [5], [6]. 37.122.13.41 (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 January 2021

[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: Not moved. Although only user !voted, his comment sums up the comments of the other two (and the nominator's implicit admission) well: there seems to be no dispute about what it is actually commonly called in English. If reliable sources discuss the superiority of some translations over others, that should be added to the article. (closed by non-admin page mover) Srnec (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Moscow → Grand Principality of Moscow – Creditable source sources like Brittanica call it principality. Furthermore, the principality is the direct translation of княжество, the Russian word for duchy is герцогство; principality and duchy are not synonymous, this translation takes far too many liberties. I haven't heard any arguments about why it should be duchy. Go-Chlodio (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Moscow is the more common name (per WP:COMMONNAME) if we judge by Google Ngram. And to add, "княжество" is also often translated to "duchy". In Russian, it is "Великое княжество Финляндское" however in English, it is most commonly translated to "Grand Duchy of Finland". Mellk (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mellk, I concur that Duchy > Principality is more common. For what's it worth, Polish term is also 'księstwo', just like in Russian. There is no well-defined difference between duchy and principality, so I'd go with ngram, but if you can show that major scholarly works on Russia history use Principality instead of Duchy I'd be willing to reconsider. PS. Some sources I saw give the impression that duchy>principality and that Muscovy transformed from principality to a duchy as it grew in importance... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ever heard duchies being considered higher than principalities. --Go-Chlodio (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There seems no dispute above that Grand Duchy is the more common term. The rationale for a move seems to be what people should call it. But we go for what they do call it, and Wikipedia is not the place to try to fix that. Brittanica has their own conventions, and ours don't always coincide with them. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Ruthenia Alba

[edit]

@88.71.249.51: You restored your edit saying that my reasoning did not make any sense. "Ruthenia Alba" is how it was known in Latin until the 17th century, not English, according to that particular source. Your example in your edit summary states that "Moscow is the english name for Москва/Moskwa", however "Ruthenia Alba" is not the English name for Grand Duchy of Moscow. This is also not a significant enough alternative name to include in the opening sentence and only creates confusion with White Ruthenia. If you wish to include this, I suggest to mention it in the Grand Duchy of Moscow#Name section instead. Mellk (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenia alba is the historicsl latin name for Muscovian Russian lands, wether you like it or not. By the way, "White Ruthenia" is a new english term. "White" is not a latin word. For Russian topics, the Russian, latin or for example arab terms are very important, since it says lots about history. Especially when a english term like "White Ruthenia" is used, the historical latin name for Russian lands around Moscovia are even more significant --46.114.140.118 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I must tell you about WP:EDITWAR. Please don't continually try to restore your edit, follow WP:BRD. I am happy to discuss this first but if you will continue to edit war, then you only risk getting yourself blocked from editing. You provided one source which states that the Moscow principality was referred to as "Ruthenia Alba" (White Russia) historically in Latin, however this is not an alternative name for Grand Duchy of Moscow in English. In fact, Grand Duchy of Moscow was known as Muscovia in Latin (as mentioned in the lede), this is well known and English name Muscovy is derived from it. If you read the article for White Ruthenia, it mentions usage of "Ruthenia Alba" in Latin. In English, Ruthenia was a term actually used (therefore the article is called White Ruthenia for so long has been used to refer to modern-day Belarus). For more details about White Russia including its usage in Latin, see the article Белая Русь in Russian Wikipedia. I have moved this edit to the name section because it does not belong in the lede but is worth a mention. Mellk (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there is a heart-led truth source, you have to look more into the Russian. I added the source. Ruthenia was used for Moscovia by other sources too in the far away past in different sources and in and around many corners in the world. It is about the Russian history moves in its own history - in history at all.--46.114.140.1 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not exist slavic language sources older than from 1550 AD. Most of so called Kremlin sources are written in 18th century (they call it "a rewrite"). 86.38.215.245 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think...

[edit]

...first i must say that i have the impression that you have not ambitions about to serve facts. I added a good source and you just rejected it unfairly. You must try to order the evolutionary history, facts, even more important in comparison with other articles. It seems not logical from your side and i think you know it. --46.114.140.1 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@46.114.140.1: I did not reject this, I moved this to the name section because I think it belongs there instead. It does not make sense to include names in the opening sentence that are not used or known in English to describe it. Do you think it makes sense to include names that describe Grand Duchy of Moscow from any other language in the opening sentence? Why do we need a Latin name there? Please read MOS:ALTNAME and WP:PLACE for guidance. There are enough alternative names in the first sentence to include enough that doesn't seem appropriate to be placed there. Mellk (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rus is only in Ukraine

[edit]

The fairy tale about Naugardas (Novgorod) being as Rus city was written in 1471-1478 in Muscovy after its annexation and genocide of Lithuanians there. Moreover Gardinas (Grodno in Lith. means Gardinas - a city that is enforced by city walls), NauGardukas (Novogrudek in Lith. means Little Naugardas), Naugardas (Novgorod in Lith. means New Gardinas) all are Lithuanian names to their cities and even a capital city of Lithuania was Naugardukas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.38.215.245 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's right. Novgorod was a tributary of Rus', which was dependent on Rus', but was a different state. He had a different culture, language, the population, unlike Rus' (which was only Kievan), was called not Rusyns, but Novgorodians. Everything else is propaganda of the Moscow tsars to seize foreign lands. 146.158.58.174 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment, “grand” appellation

[edit]

What was the date and event that established the Moscow principality/duchy?

Infobox gives 1263 as establishment, and the body text says in 1263 Daniel I was appointed to rule the newly created grand principality.

But the article is in Category:States and territories established in 1283, and I’ve seen that date mentioned elsewhere. What happened in 1283?

And when did it become a grand duchy? The article says “ Moscow dukes also designated themselves as the "Grand Dukes",” but the biographies of Daniel of Moscow (1263–1303) and successors Yury of Moscow (1303–25) and Ivan I of Moscow (1325–40/41) give their title as prince of Moscow. Only Simeon of Moscow (1340–53) is named grand prince. —Michael Z. 02:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Order of names in the lead

[edit]

The current list of names in the lead do not represent the WP:COMMONNAME. Readers should be given some indication of what names are usually used.

Google Ngram gives us a rough indication of the relative frequency in reliable sources over four centuries,[7] over the last century,[8] and in this century (to 2019).[9] Removing the most common one from the chart helps gauge the relative prevalence of the more specific, academic, and obscure names.[10] (You can set smoothing to 0 to see that the relative proportions are similar even in individual years.)

Given this, I will adjust the lead with the two common names in the first sentence, and move all of the synonyms down into the #Names section. Comments or adjustments welcome. —Michael Z. 20:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When did Moscow become a grand principality?

[edit]

Brittanica tells us “the princes of Muscovy received the title of grand prince of Vladimir from their Tatar overlords (1328).”[11] Is that when grand principality of Moscow became a thing? Or was there a separate title of Grand Prince of Moscow conferred at some other time?

Is it correct to call it just the principality of Moscow in an earlier period? I see this is used a lot in sources, but not sure to what degree it is an abbreviation or just a generic use. Should Principality of Moscow be added as another name?  —Michael Z. 21:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac I think so. We may even rename the whole article to Grand Principality of Moscow. I've just moved Grand Duke of Vladimir to Grand Prince of Vladimir per Talk:Grand Prince of Vladimir#Grand Prince rather than Duke. However, the WP:COMMONNAME may not yet be clear in this case. It will certainly require an RM. I think we should wait with that until the Vasily and Ivan III RMs are over. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, it is not at all clear when Daniel of Moscow's reign began. Some sources say 1263 just because his dad Alexander Nevsky died that year, but then he was just 3 years old. Other sources say 1283. History of Russia#Grand Duchy of Moscow (1283–1547) does so, too. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another point is that its rivals are currently not given the title "Grand", and are called "Principality" rather than "Duchy", even though it is all Великое княжество Velikoye knyazestvo "Grand principality" in Church/Chancery Slavonic, and on Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian Wikipedia:
This Muscovite exceptionalism seems to give WP:UNDUE weight to Moscow. Either we name them all "Grand Principality", or none of them.
Also, before any of them acquired the title of "Grand Prince of Vladimir", it seems that they were all just principalities. We see this all the time with pre-modern nobility; once a guy from country A receives a higher title from country B, he transfers that higher title to A as well. So if Bob was Count of Foo, but then receives the title of Duke of Bar, all of the sudden he starts claiming he is now the Duke of Foo, too. Or: the Duke of Bar-Foo or Foo-Bar.
This is a good reason to make Principality of Ryazan, Principality of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal, Principality of Moscow and Principality of Tver WP:ALTNAMEs in the opening sentence or lead section, and use this form until the "Grand" part is acquired by some lad somewhere being simultaneously the Grand Prince of Vladimir. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:List of tribes and states in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine#Existing English-language groupings I've made a preliminary list of Rus' principalities. Currently, Moscow is the only one with the words "Grand" and "Duchy" in it. Especially "Duchy" does not square well with WP:TITLECON, but "Grand", too, has issues with WP:UNDUE and perhaps even WP:NPOV, namely that it was allegedly the only grand principality and thus superior to all its rivals and "the only true legitimate heir" to the Grand Principality of Vladimir (Vladimir-Suzdal), and by extension to the Grand Principality of Kiev (better known as Kievan Rus'). That this is problematic needs no explaining. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A preliminary look at Google Ngram shows that there was a sudden spike in "Grand Duchy of Moscow", "Grand Duchy of Vladimir" and "Grand Duke of Moscow" in the 1940s (readily explainable by a sudden WW2 English-language interest in the existence of the Soviet Union and its "Russian" predecessor states), but not "Grand Duke of Vladimir". Only "Grand Duchy of Moscow" is still popular in the 21st century. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar patterns can be found if we replace "Duchy" by "Principality" and "Duke" by "Prince". A sudden spike in the 1940s, then a drop, and only "Grand Principality of Moscow" is still popular into the 21st century. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is actually remarkable is comparing "Duke" v "Prince" and "Duchy" v "Principality". In every case except "Grand Duchy of Moscow", "Prince" and "Principality" are the preferred options. As many others will have observed since English Wikipedia began in 2001, there is a strange inconsistency between "Grand Prince of Moscow" (where Grand Duke of Moscow redirects), and "Grand Duchy of Moscow" (where Grand Principality of Moscow redirects). This is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME, but not consistent with, well, WP:TITLECONsistency. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:COMMONNAME is the only argument in favour of Grand Duchy of Moscow, and it's not a strong one. Everything else, ranging from WP:TITLECONsistency, WP:UNDUE to WP:NPOV (and perhaps other policies and guidelines I can't think of now) plead against it. Moreover, specialised studies / standard reference works such as Janet Martin's Medieval Russia 980-1584 always call it just principality of Moscow. No "Duchy", no "Grand", and on her case not even a capital P "Principality". The only states called grand principality in her standard work are Kiev and Vladimir. Others that may call Moscow a grand principality will also call Tver, Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal, Ryazan etc. a grand principality, such as ruwiki, ukwiki, and bewiki. Enwiki is uniquely inconsistent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Prince of Moscow" is far more popular than the alternatives. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 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: moved. This discussion saw a wide variety of policy arguments raised. In particular, the principal arguments were:

  • The question of WP:COMMONNAME. It was argued in the nomination that "Principality of Moscow" was the COMMONNAME; Ngrams were presented to back that case, arguing that – while "Duchy of Moscow" has recently surpassed "Principality of Moscow" in raw usage – that boost can be partially attributed to WP:CIRCULARity. The claim of circularity was challenged by another user who noted that "Duchy" language had other historical spikes, such as in the 1940s, but that claim too was challenged by an argument that the 1940s had specific historiographical circumstances that were no longer applicable. One participant also pulled some Ngrams to filter out usage of "Grand Principality of Moscow" from "Principality of Moscow" results, though the utility of these Ngrams were challenged after it was noted that Ngrams that included compositions could not also be case-insensitive. (For the purposes of evaluating the arguments here, I also examined the lowercase version of the last Ngram mentioned.) As the various claims on this topic all proved to be fraught, I find no consensus as to what the polity's WP:COMMONNAME is.
  • The question of usage in reliable sources specifically. Some participants argued that the rulers of this polity were exclusively or primarily titled "Grand Prince". Other participants noted that the "Grand Prince" title was only adopted in the later years of the polity's existence, and that for more of its lifetime it was known as simply a principality; however, the question of whether to prefer the earlier or later title was not significantly discussed. Though this line of argument led to greater numbers in support of the "Grand Principality..." title, similar levels of sourcing were provided by each side of this particular debate, so I don't see a consensus as having formed on this topic.
  • The question of WP:CONSISTENT. It was demonstrated that "Principality of Moscow" would be consistent with other articles on Rus' principalities, but also that "Grand Duchy of Moscow" would be consistent with other related topics such as Grand Duchy of Lithuania. On this topic, I find a rough consensus that WP:CONSISTENT favors "Principality of Moscow", as I feel that the argument on that side leveled a more plausible claim for a discrete group of articles within which Moscow would fit.
  • The question of WP:CONCISE. The nominating statement argued that "Principality of Moscow" would improve on concision by removing a word from the title, but I don't find this argument to be a particularly strong one, as the total phrases "Grand Duchy" and "Principality" are of comparable lengths. That being said, I will note that concision argument becomes marginally stronger when one compares "Principality" to "Grand Principality"; however, this specific comparison was only raised by one user, so I plan to weigh it only modestly in my evaluation of the arguments.
    • The most concise title to have been raised in the discussion was Muscovy, a title which attracted a brief surge of support but was shot down due to concerns about WP:PRECISION.

Looking over the discussion as a whole, I see a high level of appetite to adopt a title that includes "Principality" rather than "Duchy", but participants were divided on whether "Grand Principality" or simply "Principality" would be the most appropriate specific title. Numbers were close and good arguments were raised on both sides, but I see "Principality" as holding a narrow edge in strength of argument; when considering that factor, in conjunction with the widespread support for moving away from the current title, I see the discussion as resulting in a narrow consensus to move to Principality of Moscow as originally proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Moscow → Principality of Moscow – We should rename this article for the following reasons:

  1. Principality of Moscow is most probably the WP:COMMONNAME. The fact that Grand Duchy of Moscow has seen a steep rise in popularity in recent years can probably be heavily attributed to WP:CIRCULAR: the fact that this Wikipedia page has had the title "Grand Duchy of Moscow" since the mid-2000s. Compare historical trends in Google Ngram. Without this Wikipedia article influencing the Internet for the past 20 years, it's unlikely that "(Grand) Duchy of Moscow" would have seen such a steep rise in recent years. Compare how Grand Principality of Moscow is not nearly as popular (one reason why the Requested move 18 January 2021 was rejected) as Principality of Moscow, while "Duchy of Moscow" appears entirely dependent on "Grand Duchy of Moscow".
  2. WP:CRITERIA Naturalness: Even if it unclear what the state's commonname is, there is no dispute that the associated title Prince of Moscow is the WP:COMMONNAME, far ahead of Grand Prince of Moscow, Grand Duke of Moscow, or Duke of Moscow. Check Ngrams. Per Naturalness, people should be able to associate the title with the state: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles.
  3. WP:CRITERIA Consistency: Not only is Principality of Moscow consistent with Prince of Moscow, almost all closely related states are known as Rus' principalities (see also Category:Rus' principalities) in historiography, and they all follow the Principality of Fooland convention: Principality of Tver, Principality of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal, Principality of Ryazan, Principality of Smolensk, Principality of Murom, Principality of Beloozero, Principality of Yaroslavl, etc. (as noted above). The primary sources all use the same word as well: wikt:княжество knyazhestvo (see also knyaz), so there is no reason for the inconsistent translation "duchy". The fact that relatively late into its existence the last 3 princes of Moscow started calling themselves "grand prince of Moscow" is not that relevant, because those of Tver, Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal, Ryazan etc. would eventually also do so, and yet we just call their articles "Principality of X". Even if we all agree to change "Duchy" to "Principality", there is no reason why Moscow should be the only one with "Grand" in front of it (WP:UNDUE). Note also that the title "grand prince of Moscow" should not be confused with grand prince of Vladimir, which is a separate title only later acquired by the princes of Moscow.
  4. WP:CRITERIA Concision: There is also no need to add the word "Grand" if Principality of Moscow suffices. This is another reason why the Requested move 18 January 2021 was rejected, because it included the unnecessary word "Grand". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Grand Principality of Moscow? The frequency for "Principality of Moscow" in the Ngram viewer above includes "Grand Principality of Moscow", so the results are a bit misleading. This should (hopefully) be the correct notation, for whatever reason "Grand Principality of Moscow" has overtaken in recent years. It is also worth adding that "Principality of Moscow" would be accurate up to the late 14th century. The princes of Moscow became grand princes but "Vladimir" was mentioned first due to it being older. Of course, Moscow's competitors are not called "grand" because... well, they lost. Mellk (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that ngram chart is directly comparable to the other above, because it omits the case-insensitive option.  —Michael Z. 19:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. E.g. Martin 2007 always writes "principality of Moscow" and "grand principality of Vladimir", lowercase.
The fact that other principalities lost to Moscow doesn't mean thet couldn't be called or call themselves "grand". E.g. Mikhail III of Tver and other late Tverian princes called themselves "grand prince of Tver" and "all Rus' " and "tsar". Sometimes they are also described as such in modern historiography. But just "prince of Tver" is the common name for the position, just like "prince of Moscow". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though the Muscovite prince was recognized as magnus dux or dominus totius by other states. Mellk (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only some of the princes of Moscow were recognised by some other states as "grand". "Dominus totius" probably has more to do with the "of all Rus' " stuff. Plokhy 2006 p. 108 noted: In diplomatic negotiations of the 1490s and early 1500s, the Lithuanian diplomats questioned the right of Ivan III to be called "Sovereign of All Rus' ". Instead, the Lithuanians called his state Muscovy - the term that became dominant in European accounts of Muscovy and its people. If Wikipedia was written at the time, it surely would have been the common name.[Joke] Kidding aside, they did that of course because some of the Rus' principalities had been incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so if Ivan claimed to be the "Sovereign of All Rus' ", that was interfering in the internal affairs of Lithuania. They do appear to have been fine with "grand prince of Moscow" around 1500, but that is quite late into the state's existence from 1282 to 1547. For the longest time it was just "prince of Moscow". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania/Poland did not recognize not only "Russia" but also not the title "tsar" until later in the 18th century. It wouldn't make sense to not use "Russia" or "tsar" as a result though. At the time, recognition by the HRE was far more important. Mellk (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well at any rate, that is not about the title "(grand) prince of Moscow". I do know that Dmitry Donskoy did not yet call himself "grand prince of Moscow", and Vasily I probably didn't either. The earliest I have seen so far is Vasily II in a 1451/2 letter calling himself the "grand prince of Moscow"; whether that was recognised by the other side is a different question. People can claim lots of things, but if it's not recognised by relevant foreign powers, then Wikipedia generally doesn't take it too seriously. Earlier today I ran into Urraca of León and Castile, who claimed to be Empress of All Galicia. Well that's nice, but we don't have an article for Empire of Galicia or Galician Empire or something just because someone somewhere sometime claimed to be its empress. That's not how we do things around here. The article in question is called Kingdom of Galicia (not to be confused with Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia alias Kingdom of Ruthenia).
I think the situation is somewhat comparable with Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867). It wasn't called "Grand" until 1765, so it's not in the article title. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The grand principality was passed to Vasily I and so was merged. In terms of the title, it became "grand prince of Vladimir, Moscow..." during the whole period. I guess the question is whether we want the name to be based on its earlier days or later days. Mellk (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More or less, yes. Given that all other related articles are already called "Principality of X", I think it makes sense to treat Moscow the same per WP:CRITERIA Consistency. And there is no serious disagreement that Prince of Moscow is more common than Grand Prince of Moscow, so that would also make sense. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only exceptions to the articles about the principalities (as a whole) are Vladimir-Suzdal and Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia from what I can see. Perhaps also tsardom succeeding principality might look a bit odd based on the titles. But certainly the 15th century Muscovite rulers are typically called grand princes of Moscow in RS, not grand princes of Vladimir. Mellk (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Vladimir-Suzdal" and "Galicia-Volhynia" are historiographic terms that are convenient for us, but were not used at the time. "Kievan Rus'" is another, "Byzantine Empire" is yet another. But we use them for good reason instead of following their likely historic names as with the others, like "Grand Principality of Vladimir" (which would exclude its Rostovian and Suzdalian periods, as well as not accurately describe its later fragmentation into appanages), "Kingdom of Ruthenia" (which leads to lots of confusion and competing claims), "Grand Principality of Kiev" (same, plus the usual number of discussions about how to spel K**v), "Roman Empire" (same, but multiplied by 999[Joke]). "Muscovy" would be great if it wasn't also used for the tsardom that followed it, which is why it is not my first choice. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think "Muscovy" works best in an informal way, in a loose geographical, cultural, religious, dynastic or ideological sense, rather than strictly that of a state. In that sense it is comparable with Suzdalia, Ruthenia, Byzantium, Novgorod Land etc. You can use them politically, but they aren't necessarily political terms. "Muscovy" in the sense of Moscovia is a geographical region, for example. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not my impression. Muscovy, Moscovia, was the the domain of the ruler in Moscow, the Moscow state. Is it used for the Moscow region after Peter renamed the state Russia in 1721? I do not recall ever seeing that.
Ruthenia is quite different because it has been used as a lot of things over time (way back, it was essentially a synonym for Russia, when both were used to translate Rus). I think there are nuances in the historical and modern usage of all those names.  —Michael Z. 22:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Muscovy, with the proposed name as second choice. This is a great, well researched proposal with evidence strongly reflecting the guidelines, and the proposed name is an improvement. (By the way, some naming guideline I can’t be bothered to find at the moment suggests comparing sources over the last 40 years, and a smaller chart may show the trends more clearly.[12]) It only suffers from an important omission.[13] —Michael Z. 19:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Muscovy" would be my second choice, but because it is also an altname for Tsardom of Russia, "Principality of Moscow" is my first choice. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d agree that the other article could and possibly should be Tsardom of Muscovy, but that shouldn’t directly affect this one’s proper title according to WP:COMMONNAME.  —Michael Z. 20:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Muscovy duck" appears more often than the other names,[14] so clearly this is not a good indication of the name for the principality. Mellk (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we also look what we get when we search for "muscovy" as a whole, "muscovy duck" in particular, and "muscovy" minus "muscovy duck"? Like this? I'm not sure if I did it right, but it looks like only 1 in 5 of all mentions of "muscovy" in Google Books in 2019 were about "muscovy duck", is that correct? If we combine the other meanings in Muscovy this way, it should be possible to calculate what the most common meaning is. (But I doubt it will be the medieval state, so it's not my first choice). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Add case-insensitive.[15] more like one in 267 in 2019.  —Michael Z. 20:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, never mind that. Note the error message “Case-insensitive searches and compositions cannot be combined. Ignoring case-insensitive option.” The math expression ignores Muscovy with a cap.  —Michael Z. 20:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go.[16] The duck might comprise one thirtieth to one fifteenth of occurrences.[17]  —Michael Z. 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and how does that compare to "principality of Moscow" / "Principality of Moscow"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Muscovy (not the duck) is used more than 50 times more.[18]  —Michael Z. 21:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Still, calling it "Muscovy" would still not make it consistent with the Principality of Fooland convention, which is my argument no. #3.
I compared "principality of muscovy" with the other 4 options, and it comes in at place 4 out of 5. It can't win the WP:COMMONNAME argument (no. #1) either if we need to add "principality of" in the mix. So I think Principality of Moscow will have to remain my first choice, although "Muscovy" is well-supported by arguments no. #2 and #4. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t principality of only used as natural disambiguation where there are potential conflicts? That would explain why there are the exceptions mentioned above. In the case of Muscovy, the simple name better serves the CRITERION of conciseness, and there is no disambiguation needed currently and until and unless there’s a proposal to rename the other article.  —Michael Z. 22:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Muscovy is a disambiguation page right now demonstrates that there are potential conflicts. This is a good reason to add principality of. And when we compare principality of options, Principality of Moscow wins it from Principality of Muscovy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What conflicts would be created by assigning a primary topic?  —Michael Z. 15:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And let’s count instances of “roast muscovy” and “muscovy recipe” too, to help establish the primary topic for the name.  —Michael Z. 20:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we can choose between "Grand Duchy" or "Grand Prinicipality", but there is no reason to drop "Grand", hence this adjective is used by the most if not all reliable sources. There is no clear translation of the Ruthenian knyaz/knyazhestvo, and Grand Duchy is as good as Grand Prinipality (see: Grand Duchy of Lithuania) Marcelus (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Grand Principality of Moscow. From what I know, the proper term for the rulers is "Grand Prince", not simply "Prince". I agree that any prevalence of "Grand Duchy" could be due to circular. I could also see a reason to discuss Grand Duchy of Finland if this is moved and the sources support that. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was already rejected on 18 January 2021. There is no dispute that the associated title Prince of Moscow is the WP:COMMONNAME, far ahead of Grand Prince of Moscow, Grand Duke of Moscow, or Duke of Moscow. Check Ngrams. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was then but I now count at least 3 editors supporting it and those are @Estar8806@Marcelus and @Mellk. If it helps consensus, I find Grand Principality also acceptable so that's 4 supportive editors. The 2021 discussion is much smaller compared to this one and a consensus is within grasp. Killuminator (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Grand Principality" fails all 4 of the WP:CRITERIA I mentioned, while just "Principality" passes all 4. Besides, you (first choice), Michael Z. (second choice) and I (first choice) support "Principality", while Estar8806 has not indicated a preference for moving from the current title to another, just objecting to the nom, so it's more like 3 versus 2 or 3, depending on how you calculate it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the people I've mentioned are open to ''Grand Principality of Moscow'' one way or another. Killuminator (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Grand Principality" fails all 4 of the WP:CRITERIA I mentioned care to elaborate? How is it failing Naturalness for example if it's literally the name often used in the literature? Marcelus (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the frequency for "prince of moscow" would include that of "grand prince of moscow". For example when capitalized and the notation is correct,[19] then this is different (though I am not sure how to include lowercase). Mellk (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And when we compare "Grand Duke of Moscow" and "Duke of Moscow", the former is dominant.[20] Probably it is the same story with lowercase (but we have to make sure the frequency for "duke of moscow" does not include "grand duke of moscow"). Mellk (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Need to think about it before !voting. The consistency argument actually goes both ways: the contemporary Grand Duchy of Lithuania was also a "великое княжество" in all the East Slavic languages, barring minor spelling differences, and for Lithuania grand duchy is clearly the common name. The two states vied for the domination of the former Kievan Rus and had approximately equal status, I think.
Also, while the Grand Duchy of Moscow variant has gained in popularity recently, it's not a recent invention and had earlier peaks in the 1940-1970s and earlier in the mid-19th century. Alaexis¿question? 08:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above I have made the argument that the sudden 1940s peak of grand duchy is best explained by a sudden motivation amongst English-language writers to explain to the larger public the existence of the Soviet Union, and Russia's position inside it and where Russia itself came from, when Operation Barbarossa happened in 1941. These would probably have been mostly non-specialised historians (if they were historians at all), who sought to translate великое княжество into English in a way that made sense to a primarily North American / Western European audience. By 1941, there were no grand principalities in Europe anymore, let alone Western Europe, but there was still a grand duchy of Luxembourg (which still exists in Western Europe to this day), until 1918 there had been several grand duchies within Germany, and some within the audience may have heard of the grand duchy of Tuscany. As soon as the war was over in 1945, you see the number of books using grand duchy of Moscow immediately drop, and being quickly overtaken again by principality of Moscow (while grand principality of Moscow didn't see nearly as much of an increase in the post-war period). The urgent need to explain the history of Russia and its predecessor Muscovy was gone, the non-specialised writers seemed to move on to do other things, while the pre-war dominance of principality of Moscow by dedicated writers was restored in the post-war period. Throughout all these decades, grand principality of Moscow is very rare.
I've compared all this with the frequencies of "(grand) duchy of Vladimir" versus "(grand) principality of Vladimir", and the latter has also been vastly more the WP:COMMONNAME throughout the 20th and 21st century except for a sudden 1940s peak of "grand duchy of Vladimir". There was no sudden peak in calling all other Rus' principalities the Duchy of Foo; these books sought to explain the existence of Russia and therefore focused on Muscovy, not on every Rus' / (Old) East Slavic medieval state in Eastern Europe, which were commonly called "principalities" in specialised historiography. This peak should therefore be explained by a WW2 anomaly of sudden war-time curiosity in the Soviet Union / Russia / Muscovy amongst the general public of Western Europe and North America that was simply more familiar with "grand duchies" than with "(grand) principalities", and not seen as representative of the larger centuries-long trend amongst dedicated and specialised historians of Eastern Europe. If all other articles of Rus' principalities are called Principality of Foo, then that should guide us, not what a sudden peak of 1940s war-time curiosity produced. NLeeuw (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are overlooking the fact that 'Grand Duke' remained a court title (later a Romanov family title) in Russia until the end of the monarchy. And these великие князья were always rendered in English as 'grand dukes'. I think this is the simplest explanation. There is no big story or conspiracy to be found here. Generally, Slavic languages do not distinguish between prince and duke, so you cannot expect full consistency. Marcelus (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronistic. The House of Romanov and the principality of Moscow didn’t exist at the same time. Imperial-era court etiquette should not determine the title of the article about a medieval principality.  —Michael Z. 14:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are referring to. I was just suggesting why "grand duchy" and "grand duke" might be more popular in English texts. That's all. Marcelus (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understood.  —Michael Z. 22:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject European history has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Greece has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom's arguments and WP:COMMONNAME. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Moscow&oldid=1212560293"