Talk:Nicholas II/Archive 2

message: As regards that railway track - my source of information was "The Romanovs" by Robert K.Massie.  He quotes Yurovsky as having given the precise location of that grave - "from where the railroad tracks cross [Koptyaki Road] they are buried about 700 feet in the direction of the Iretsk factory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arno (talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 September 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Railway track

message: : Regicide is a tactic traditionally employed by successful social revolutions against monarchic despotism -- as in the English Revolution, with the execution of Charles I in 1649, and the French Revolution with the execution of Louis XVI in 1793. It also occurs spontaneously throughout history with refreshing frequency, as if history agreed with the Enlightenment aphorism sometimes attributed to Voltaire that humanity would not be free until the last king had been strangled in the entrails of the last priest.
I moved this paragraph here for POV work. It's unworthy of Wikipedia as it now stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollinator (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 July 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV paragraph

message: Footnotes
1Nicholas's full title was Nicholas the Second, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan, Poland ....
Emperor = Tzar
Tzar = King
jarro_1969@op.pl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.245.167 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: The article claims 'several thousand' although I would dispute this. Most historians, for instance J.N. Westwood, agree that it was hundreds rather than thousands that were killed. The only notable historian who puts the figure at over a thousnad is John Hite in his book 'Czarist Russia 1801-1917,' and still this is only 'over a thousand,' not several thousand as the article claims. Sorry if this sounds pedantic. SilhouetteSaloon 02:52, 15 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many people were killed in the coronation disaster? 

message: The sentence "Although by most accounts a kind and competent ruler..." sounds quite hard to believe (the competency bit) seeing how flow of history. I guess "most accounts" are extremely biased, this or that way (and given post-war development they are biased against).
Shoudn't this phrase be removed or replaced by qualified opinion of professor of history? Pavel Vozenilek 19:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - his kindness is questionable, at best (he was personally kind, I guess, but his rule certainly was not). His competence isn't even that - he was utterly incompetent by every measure. I wonder how that got in there. john k 20:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the sentence. (1) It is opinion rather than a fact, (2) the wording "by most accounts" is ambiguous, (3)competency is mostly matter of results, not an intrinsic property written on somebody's head, and Nicholas results were less than stellar, in retrospective. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  competent ruler? 

message: Since his coronation was the first event filmed in Russia, a link to a video of it should be added to the external links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.129.10 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronation 

message: Someone anonymously added the following into the article:
: This article formerly noted that the title Tsar had been officially abolished in 1721 by Peter the Great but was informally used throughout Nicholas's reign. In actuality, Peter never abolished the title. Rather, on 22 October 1721 Julian/3 November 1721 Gregorian, pursuant to a stirring speech by the archbishop of Pskov, Senate Chancellor Golovkin urged--indeed, begged--the then "Tsar Peter" to accept the enhanced title, "Peter the Great, Father of His Country, Emperor of All the Russias." (Let us record passim that the annominative "I" following Peter the Great's name (that is to say, "Peter I") was utterly unnecessary until a second Peter arose: more specifically, Peter Alexeyevich, son of Peter's murdered son, ascended the throne as a teenager on 6 May 1727 Julian/17 May 1727 Gregorian.
Please check if it's correct, and then work it into the article - in the above words it doesn't belong into the article itself. andy 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsar title abolishment 

message: Nicholas II's brother is often referred to as Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaievitch to distinguish him from czar Nicholas II.
I'm new hope I'm welcome 
James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.66.70 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brother

message: Why there is not any mention about the "final" burial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.153.123 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Burial

message: Russian and English versions of this article are completely different. Someone should try and make the best use of both materials either by combining them or by giving "both" versions of the text...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.238.216 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: English and Russian versions

message: Shooting someone in a basement without trial is not an execution, but murder. By killing the non-members of the family as well, like the doctor, cook, and others, this fact is further reinforced. The murderers obviously needed to get rid of the witnesses. Any attempt to call the events of July 16/17 an execution, is simple bolshevik propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.252.186 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an execution according to an order. Buy yourself a better dictioary. Also, I've never heard about a cook and a doctor and a butler and a second butler and a bedroom maid dragged along with tsar. mikka (t) 16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mikka, it is an established historical fact that along with the Tsar's wife and children, others were murdered with them on July 16/17, 1918. They included: Dr. Botkin, Demidova, Khartinov, and Trupp. Even the chief murderer, Yakov Yurovsky, makes mention of some of them in his recollection of the events. I declined to include the little dog that was with them, and probably killed as has been reported, because my point was not to make inflammatory propaganda, but rather to state (on the discussion page), why I made the edit. Why did you add "a butler and a second butler and a bedroom maid dragged along with (the)(sic) tsar," into this discussion. Where did they come from? And why did YOU add them? One can only wonder. I did not. If you agree that others were "put to death", were they on the "execution order" also? If they were not on the "execution order", why were they killed? Please answer these questions, if you can. P.S. I hope you are not getting your information from " better dictioary" (sic), because I'm not only getting mine from other sources than the DICTIONARY, but invite others to judge your, and my remarks. p.p.s. You really need to get in touch with Vladimir Posner, to help you with your spelling and grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.252.130 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I am wrong. So, these people must be mentioned here by name in the article itself, not on the talk page. Also, I apologize for the flaming tone. Also, I see no problem, if this event be described both as and execution and murder, since these are descriptions of different aspects (In fact I myself added the phrase into the intro: He is also known both as Nicholas the Martyr for having been murdered without trial...). What is more, the event, the history of its concealement, and discovery deserve a separate article. My only objection was a one-sided evaluation. Monarchs have been killed all over history: murdered, poisoned, stabbed, beheaded, etc.. It comes with the profession, so to say, so I see no reason of over-exhalted treatment of this case. mikka (t) 19:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that it might be acceptable to say that Nicholas himself was executed, even without trial, since the Bolsheviks immediately announced his execution and said that they had done so, and so forth. The other killings seem much closer to murder than to execution. john k 20:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Bolsheviks did try to obfuscate, but they did admit immediately that the Tsar himself had been killed, and that it had been done in an official context (I do believe they tried to pin the blame on the Ekaterinburg Soviet rather than the central authorities, though). As to the details, most of the details of the killings themselves were exposed by the Whites, who investigated the matter during the period they had control of Ekaterinburg in 1918-19. The role of Moscow, though, did remain rather obscure for some time. Anyway, it is complicated, and I think using the term "killing" or "death" rather than either "murder" or "execution" would make sense. john k 04:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't split hairs over what immediately means, although I still think the "announcement" took some time to be made, and was kind of hidden as an unimportant and small news event. The "execution order" of the "Soviet Government", was essentially a telegram written by Lenin that he gave to his bodyguard, and I believe was not written in plain language, but somewhat cryptically and metaphorically. I'm not completely certain of this, but I am certain that there was not any message to "execute" the above mentioned people (Botkin, et al.) I also lightly disagree with you that they announced it in an official context. Regardless, calling a spade a spade, Nicholas and these people were not charged with anything, they were not put on trial, and they were killed in secret, in the middle of the night, and then secretly disposed of. Kind of reminiscent of gangster or gangland slayings, don't you think? As far as I'm concerned, this fits the pattern of the "Soviet Government" in a historical context. It only got worse, and these deaths preceeded the millions that followed. Some people called these later mass murders, "executions", and that they were " legally" sanctioned by the "Soviet Government" (after confessions were obtained, mind you), and others call them killings and murders. I guess one can take their pick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.246.177 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Christchurch's edit of the 21st Sept. says “This is, however, disputed by telegraphic evidence and the Sokolov Report” directly contradicts eyewitness reports, so should be clarified - I'd like a reference or link for the telegraphic evidence. Is he talking about the tone of the telegraphs sent months before the event? I believe the official line was that there are no direct orders from Moscow to dispose of the Romanovs, and that telegraph lines to moscow were down at the time, meaning they had to seek permission well after the fact. Also, I believe the Sokolov report was compiled by White Russians, who's political interests were best served by villifying the Central Executive Commitee. This should probably be made clear. 82.39.156.12 07:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Execution and murder

message: Removed vandalism ("Nicholas, known as Tron in the streets of A-town ghetto... fearing the Mr. T dynasty) from Family Background section. This s my first time ever contributing to Wikipedia, I hope I did it correctly. --Herculessju —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herculessju (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work. Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope that you enjoy it and that you stay. Prsgoddess187 18:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone else got there first. Good to see other eagle-eyed users out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.74.129 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: What happened to the previous painting of Nicholas II? I believe it was similar to ? The new image seems to have been added by User:Admrboltz, in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshfisher (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Painting of Nicholas

message: It looks like the consensus is to put the Succession Box into the Provisional Government, ignoring Michael. We might put additional comments on the Michael II in the text of the article explaining the matter. Any objections? abakharev 22:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: Not really a biggie I know, but the First World war was not the largest international war to date - that was the Second World War. I did change the text from "It is said that Nicholas proved unable to manage a country in political turmoil and command its army in the largest international war to date" to "It is said that Nicholas proved unable to manage a country in political turmoil and command its army in the First World War" but someone decided to change it back <sigh>, so I have to go and edit it again. - James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.81.95 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I believe you're mistaken. WW2 is the largest international war to date, but prior to WW2 it was not the largest internation war to date. With respect, Ko Soi IX 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The wording made it sound as if WW1 was the largest international war there has ever been, then and since. Keep it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.88.195.108 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First World War 

message: I say that we should add his full title, as stated on the page tsar  
According to the article 59 of the Russian Constitution of April 23, 1906, "the full title of His Imperial Majesty is as follows: We, ------ by the grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Khersones, Tsar of Georgia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Samogitia, Białystok, Karelia, Tver, Yugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria, and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Nizhni Novgorod, Chernigov; Ruler of Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Beloozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all northern territories ; Ruler of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories - hereditary Ruler and Lord of the Cherkess and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Oldenburg, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. 129.8.249.10 16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full title

message: Nicholas, under political pressure from abroad, and military pressure at home, took the fateful step of confirming the order for a general mobilisation.
Who from abroad pressured Nicolas into war? And what would have happened to Nicholas/Russia if they had never entered the war? -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 June 2006 64.231.135.35
: Russia felt an obligation to protect fellow Slavs in Serbia, after they were declared war on by Austria-Hungary. Many people believed that Russia was being 'spat on' because of its Slavic traditions. Russia did not come to Serbia's rescue in the two previous Balkan crises, so it would have been dishonourable to allow Austria-Hungary to annihilate it.
: Also, allies France wanted Russia to enter into the War, since geographically this would split the German army across two fronts– tactically a big advantage.
: There was also the idea that the threat of war from what was known as the 'Russian steamroller', could make Austria-Hungary and Germany rethink what they were entering into (i.e a pan-European war). Unfortunately it didn't work out that way.
: In relation to pressures at home, it was not just the military who wanted war; public opinion was in favour of war, so much so that upon the declaration of war, a celebration took place outside the Winter Palace in St Petersburg. On the flip side, wars tend to generate patriotism among the people of a country, so domestic tensions such as the question of redistribution of land could be concealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.86.175 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Russia were 'friends' with Serbia, Nikolai would have felt complied to give Serbia a helping hand against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And because Nikolai started to mobilize his forces, Kaiser Wilhem II started to mobilize his, so Germany declared war on Russia. It was like a big chain reaction: A-H declare war on Serbia, Russia declare war on A-H, Germany declare war on Russia, GB and France declare war on Germany. --SaraFL 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War 

message: Most biographers have her name spelled as "Marie" but on this website, her name is spelled Maria. Which spelling is correct? Maria or Marie? Sandy June 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her actual name was M-A-R-I-YA in Russian. Many people refer to her as 'Maria' or more commonly 'Marie', the latter I detest as it sounds more like one of the declensions of her name, rather than her real one. Personally, I always use 'Maria', but 'Mariya' is the mroe accurate one. We have the same case with Tatiana 'T-A-T-'-YA-N-A' and Anastasia 'A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-YA' --SaraFL 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maria or Marie?

message: Why is this article including in the Pretender category? Nicholas II was certainly recognized as the legitimate and actual ruler of Russia during his reign. MK2 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I share your puzzlement. I assume it was included because of the pretenders to the Russian throne? Anyway, I've removed it. White Guard 03:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretender? 

message: "In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his family we see people who sincerely strove to incarnate in their lives the commands of the Gospel."
Didn't exactly live much like Jesus did they? Materially I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.147.202 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commands of the Gospel 

message: So I recently read from a rather dubious source that, in 1894, Nicholas II visited a teahouse in Yokohama called "Number 9" and was hit by an American officer, who did so in order to be the only man in the world who has punched the czar of Russia. (Although, strictly speaking, he was only crown prince at the time.) True, false or unverifiable? Could this just be a very confused retelling of the Otsu Scandal? Jpatokal 16:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter, I suspect. For an American officer to have assaulted the Tsarevich would have had serious diplomatic repercussions-not something readily forgotten. White Guard 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently he was hit by a japanese person. Different sources vary on whether it was a fanatic, who hit him with a stick, or a policeman, who hit him with the dull side of his sword. With respect, Ko Soi IX 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punched in Yokohama? 

message: I added a bit in the section about Alexei's condition to build more context about the disease - it is significant to point out that Alexandra passed it on to him because she was a carrier herself; as one of Queen Victoria's unfortunate descendents by whom the disease altered the course of modern European history. See "Haemophilia in European royalty."  M. Buenviaje 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hemophilia

message: Why not a role on his role in pogroms plaguing Russia? MAYBE not as big as Alexander III's, but anyway. --HanzoHattori 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semite 

message: I recently read a book which said that retests were done of Anna Anderson's DNA that proved to match that of the Romanov family. These tests were done in the United States, but the Russians would not believe them. Talzabeth 17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no such tests. That doesn't mean there isn't such a book: what was its title? - Nunh-huh 03:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be fairly certain that this is nonsense. Ever since the original tests, the claim of Anderson's supporters (the Schweitzers, et al) has been that the DNA tested was not that of Anna Anderson, and possibly that there was a conspiracy to insure that the DNA tested was from a relation of Schanzkowska. I've seen some vague arguments, as well, that the tests themselves were not conclusive. At any rate, I'm not sure what this has to do with Nicholas. I'd suggest that any material on this subject would be better discussed at Talk:Anna Anderson. john k 07:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth 

message: The "last words" of the Tsar, as they are presented in this article, should be changed. The source is Yurovsky's report, which is undeniably biased towards accenting alleged cowardice and/or stupidity of Nicholas II: Yurovsky was a Bolshevik writing a memoir pandering to the Bolsheviks' ideological defamation of the Tsar and his family posterity. The other eye-witness accounts (by Ermakov, Kabanov, Nikulin) don't support Yurovsky's story. According to Ermakov, Nicholas' last words were "You know not what you do". See Radzinsky's "Last Tsar" for details. It seems inappropriate to present the defamatory account of the murderer Yurovsky as the true last words of Nicholas II.  --64.191.179.149 21:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last words of the Tsar

message: Someone, for some unclear reason, removed a picture from the article. So it doesn't get lost, I'm putting it here instead, so someone can put it back if they want to. Carcharoth 12:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture removed 

message: Regarding the note added to the statement "Nicholas felt so unprepared for the duties of the crown that he tearfully asked his cousin, 'What is going to happen to me and all of Russia?'". The offered source is Feinstein, Elaine (2006). Excerpt from Anna of All the Russias. Vintage. . This is VERY poor documentation. What is the author's source? Is it reliable? --Peshkov 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious sources 

message: Why has Nikolai's death been recorded as 16th July 1917??? It's common knowledge that the family were awoken at about 12:30am-1am on 17th July and murdered at about 2am. So how can he have died before he was awoken??
I think this should be changed to 17th July 1917 - any one else? --SaraFL 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Death 

message: Can Nicholas be described as an inept or incompetent ruler. He was oblivious to his peoples sufferings, so does that make him a poor tsar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.7.235 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inept?