Talk:Time of Troubles

message: It is ghost date. Battle for Moscow  took place on October 22 Old Style. Now (In 2006 year ) October 22 by Julian calendar correlates to 4 November by Gregorian calendar, but in 1612 gap between Old Style and New Style was smaller, it was November 1 by Gregorian calendar. 
See en Russian ru:День народного единства and "ЧТО БУДУТ ПРАЗДНОВАТЬ В РОССИИ 4 НОЯБРЯ 2005 ГОДА?" --ajvol 18:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Great Soviet Encyclopedia : "...победа предрешила судьбу вражеских гарнизонов в Кремле и Китай-городе, которые капитулировали 22-26 октября 1612" --ajvol 10:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[4 November]]

message: Instead of revert warring over tags, please adopt my strategy and reference the article with proper reliable and verifiable references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your tags are pure and simple WP:POINT so far, as you didn't produced any evidence backing up your statement (aside from a WP article which is a forbidden self-ref). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to: you have to provide reliable sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And who decides what sources are reliable? Certainly not you, but the policy. And the policy says nothing against using Solovyev as a source. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my comment above: WP:RS: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No revert war please

message: These aren't. It's you turn to prove they are reliable. Xx236 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv these are fully reliable sources 

message: and don't use offensive language.Xx236 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not be ridiculous 

message: Piotrus, did you read the Muscovy article? Both in WP and in EB? Also check Tsardom of Russia. Please do not reinstall the anachronistic term. Thank you. --Irpen 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An acceptable compromise on this would involve you piping each changed Muscovy link to Russia. Links to Russia are much less helpful to the reader than links to Muscovy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muscovy

message: Chester Dunning's Russia's First Civil War would be an excellent source to update this article.--Mcpaul1998 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  updated history of Time of Troubles 

message: The article is very good. But! Where is the describing of the Bolotnikov's uprising? It was a very important part of the time of troubles.
Chulman (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolotnikov's uprising 

message: I'm not an expert here but just a reader.  However, the term I have usually seen (in other cultures and histories) is always given as "Master of the Horse," not "Master of the House."  It's possible "Master of the House" is a translation of a legitimate Russian term, but followed by the word "equerry" it makes me think this is either a typo or a flat-out mistake and should be "Master of the Horse."  Just putting this here for the experts to review. 2601:5CC:C900:345:50F1:ABA9:666:8826 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master of the...