Talk:Alexis of Russia

message: This should be at Alexei/Alexey or Alexis.  He is not well known as "Aleksey" in English. john k 16:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he is Tsar Alexis in every reputable source, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica. I tried to eliminate the numbering but was reverted. --Ghirla | talk 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Alexis I The Quietest--Юе Артеміс (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: The following passage struck me as too flowery and partial for an encyclopaedia. For it to stay in, in my opinion, it needs specific citation from a historian (did this Sergey Platonov say all this?) and, preferably, to be put in quotations, because it is emotional rather than factual. Any opinions?
But it is sufficient for Sergey Platonov to proclaim him the most attractive of Russian monarchs. He acquired the moniker Tishayshy, which means "most quiet" or "most peaceful". Certain aspects of Russian Orthodoxy, not its most purely spiritual, but its aesthetic and worldly aspects, found in him their most complete expression. The essence of Alexei's personality is a certain spiritual Epicureanism, manifested in an optimistic Christian faith, in a profound, but unfanatical, attachment to the traditions and ritual of the Church, in a desire to see everyone round him happy and at peace, and in a highly developed capacity to extract a quiet and mellow enjoyment from all things. --qp10qp 15:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a direct quote from D.S. Mirsky who analyzes Alexis's letters in his History of Russian Literature. He is indeed known as Tishayshy in Russian historiography, so this sentence should stay. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly sounded like a direct quote, but that's the trouble: it's presented as part of the text, in which case it merely seems a random contradiction of what went before about the tsar's wars and comes over as unencyclopaedically sentimental. If you have access to the source, could you possibly put it in quotes and give an inline reference? If not, I will reframe the passage as a paraphrase and broadly ascribe it to the historian you mention.qp10qp 12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D.S. Mirsky. A History of Russian Literature. Northwestern University Press, 1999. . Page 27. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. I've gone ahead and put the paragraph in quotes. Please correct me if I've put too much in. qp10qp 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flowery POV passage

message: According to Boris Morozov and Salt Riot, Morozov was returned to his post a few months after his removal. However, there is no mention of this in the current article.
Top.Squark (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a sentence to the article about his return. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of Boris Morozov 

message: The article mentions "Nikon's disgrace" (see also Patriarch Nikon) but no details are provided. This has to be amended.
Top.Squark (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to say the same thing.  It is absurd that a vague mention of "the disgrace of Nikon" is the only reference in the article to one of the most important features of Alexei's reign.  As a matter of fact, I cannot find any decent Wikipedia treatment of the schism; the Old Believers article is simultaneously too vague (hardly any dates) and too detailed, and I suspect it of being unacceptably POV. At any rate, there should be at least a brief description of the events of 1666-67 here. Languagehat (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes articles languish, this appears to be one of them. I don't know what happened in 1666-67 but apparently something of some importance, I just came here to note that this article doesn't describe in any way the circumstances of his death. --BHC (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a section on the schism with the Old Believers (which was probably the most glaring omission from this page), where I also explain how Nikon fell from power (though there are conflicting sources).OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikon's downfall 

message: The first paragraph says "(9 March [O.S. 19 March] 1629". That can't be right, but are the N.S. and O.S dates reversed, or is there an error in the conversion? (The converter at http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ says 9 March 1629 N.S is 27 February 1629 O.S.). Also, Michael I of Russia#Issue says 9 May 1629, no indication whether it's N.S or O.S 64.253.109.104 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/14522/Alexis says:  (born March 9 [March 19, New Style], 1629, Moscow, Russia—died Jan. 29 [Feb. 8], 1676, Moscow) , so it looks like the N.S. and O.S dates were reversed. 64.253.109.104 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was he born?