Talk:Ivan I of Moscow

message: Sorry to have caused so much furore. I came here from a WP-space discussion where this came up as an example of error.  I therefore moved it to Ivan I of Muscovy, as what English calls him. 
None of these talk pages was populated, and the articles looked like deserted Britannica remnants. On the merits, of Russia is simply false for Ivan I; he was not ruler of Russia. As a parallel, the Great Elector was, as we have him, Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg; his son was Frederick I of Prussia; his distant descendant, was William II, German Emperor. Ivan I of Russia is exactly like Frederick William of Germany.
ASn editor has suggested, on my talk, that Muscovy is derogatory.  That's news to me, and this is my native language. Muscovy is the English of Latin Muscovia: the region, as opposed to the city, of Moscow. I have no particular objection to Ivan I of Moscow, which is why I didn't move his father, but it is less accurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frederick I of Prussia was actually Frederick I in Prussia, but the article title is of Prussia because that is how scholarship refers to him.  Wikipedia summarizes scholarship; it doesn't correct it.  No evidence has yet been provided about how Ivan is referred to in the scholarly literature.  It matters not one bit if Muscovy is derogatory - IF that is the way he is referred to in the scholarly literature, then that is his name here. Noel S McFerran 12:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was move to Ivan I of Moscow, along with few other things. See the #closer's rationale below. Duja► 11:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that PMAnderson was right in the first place with Ivan I of Muscovy.  Can the charge that "Muscovy" is derogatory be substantiated?  If so, I would favor Ivan I of Moscow.  --BlueMoonlet 05:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer Ivan I of Moscow. Muskovy is certainly a derogative term then used for the modern Russia. It is probably OK in English for the medieval Princedom of Moscow but still of Moscow is less controversial. After all the term Muscovy is a later Polish invention of the time of struggle for the Eastern Slavic lands Alex Bakharev 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence that it's derogatory would be welcome. More below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: They should be of Tver and so on. Novgorod was a republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To whom are you referring, Noel?  --BlueMoonlet 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Muscovy, name of the principality of Moscow (attested in 16th cent. in forms Moscouie, Moscouy, Moscouia, Moscovy, Muscouy, Muskovia, etc.; now hist.) < post-classical Latin Moscovia, Muscovia Muscovy (1543 or earlier; cf. Russian Moskovija Muscovy, the principality of Moscow) < Old Russian Moskov´ Moscow (see MOSCOW n.) + post-classical Latin -ia -Y3. Cf. Middle French, French Moscovie Muscovy (1577 or earlier).] 
The OED does not  derive the word from the Polish, and since England traded directly with  Muscovy, through Archangel, the claim that it is so derived could also use evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Closer's rationale===
Noting the quite clear consensus above that "...of Russia" is inappropriate, and that "of M*sk*w" is called for, we have quite a messy situation at the moment: several articles in :Category:Grand Princes of Muscovy (sic) are titled "...of Russia". The "main" article is at Grand Duchy of Moscow, after quite some Muscovy->Moscow warring which ultimately settled. That being said, I took a look at a bigger picture and decided to apply some "corrective" measures: namely "Muscovy" vs. "Moscow" debate is apparently controversial, at least among respected wikipedians. As long as it's being stable at Grand Duchy of Moscow, I think that WP should pick up one in-house style and stick to it, unless there are compelling reasons (such as prevalence of one common name) to do otherwise. That being said, I'm also moving Ivan II, Ivan III, Vasily II  (sic-See WP:RUS and :google:Vasily blind) and Vasily III to ...of Moscow, as well as :category:Grand Princes of Muscovy to :Category:Grand Princes of Moscow.Note that this does fall into WP:BOLD category rather than into the "admin evaluating consensus" one, thus WP:BRD applies. Duja► 11:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I also moved Simeon of Russia to Simeon of Moscow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, missed that one. I didn't move Ivan III of Russia because he seems to be the first that really earned that title; anyway, that would be far more controversial. Duja► 07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Noting the quite clear consensus above that "...of Russia" is inappropriate, and that "of M*sk*w" is called for, we have quite a messy situation at the moment: several articles in :Category:Grand Princes of Muscovy (sic) are titled "...of Russia". The "main" article is at Grand Duchy of Moscow, after quite some Muscovy->Moscow warring which ultimately settled. That being said, I took a look at a bigger picture and decided to apply some "corrective" measures: namely "Muscovy" vs. "Moscow" debate is apparently controversial, at least among respected wikipedians. As long as it's being stable at Grand Duchy of Moscow, I think that WP should pick up one in-house style and stick to it, unless there are compelling reasons (such as prevalence of one common name) to do otherwise. That being said, I'm also moving Ivan II, Ivan III, Vasily II  (sic-See WP:RUS and :google:Vasily blind) and Vasily III to ...of Moscow, as well as :category:Grand Princes of Muscovy to :Category:Grand Princes of Moscow.Note that this does fall into WP:BOLD category rather than into the "admin evaluating consensus" one, thus WP:BRD applies. Duja► 11:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also moved Simeon of Russia to Simeon of Moscow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, missed that one. I didn't move Ivan III of Russia because he seems to be the first that really earned that title; anyway, that would be far more controversial. Duja► 07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closer's rationale

message: We give elder brother Yuri III with link to Yuri of Moscow in the text; predecessor "Yuri I" with link to Yuri of Moscow in the infobox. --P64 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuri I or III? 

message: This article could use inline citations in many places to show what sources these facts come from. I noticed a Sources heading that includes a couple references that may have been used for some of the article but there are no citations in the article specifying what facts came from which source. There is a Notes heading the has some cited references. I would recommend combining the Notes and Sources into one heading for all references.
ZacharyDickson (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the only sources used are the Dmytryshyn source and Rowell source. There is nothing indicated within the article that the Martin or Kluchevsky sources have been used. As for combining the Notes and Sources, I disagree, since neither the Martin or Kluchevsky have been cited inline. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. Do you know why the Martin and Kluchevsky sources might have been included? --ZacharyDickson (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. They must have been added to the article at some point after its creation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I added a short sentence regarding Ivan having built the Cathedral of Archangel Michael and also being the first to be buried there which is cited to a new reference.
ZacharyDickson (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Info