Talk:Tsardom of Russia

message: Well, I know that this term is completely unusual in English, but one has to admit that it would reflect the intention and the idea behind Царство Русское more precisely. Russia is the word for Rossiya (Россия), not for Rus (Русь). Rossiya started to be used only in 1721 and before that Rus (Русь) was the common word with Russkoye (Русское) being its adjective. Moreover the idea behind Царство Русское was to underline that it represents the "free" parts of Rus, meaning not under foreign rule (Polish or Lithuanian), since ethnic and cultural differences between Orthodox East Slavs were not yet as obvious in the 16th century. Voyevoda 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that the term of Russian is coined exclusively by Peter the Great, scewing the true name by the Germanized version derived from Ruß wich is equivalent to Russ. The Moscovite Rus makes whole lot of sense and also the Rus Tsardom as well. At that time the Moscovite Rus became the only state that was governed by the Rurikid dynasty and independent from any other state. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has to be edited to the right version. Wikipedia shoould be the source of correct information, not amateur gameyard. Lifeglider (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

text: This is recent invention by russians and should not be spread. Moscow Tsardom renamed under this name until 1721, when Peter renamed state into Russian Empire, claiming the history of ancient Kyiv Rus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylo Galyckyj (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsardom of Rus

message: Can anyone help ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps Needed 

message: "The name originated from the fact that it contained all of the Rus lands free of foreign states domination".  This is simply not true.  Right Bank Ukraine was not part of the Tsardom of Russia.  Right Bank Ukraine is Rus' land. It wasn't conquered by the Russians until 1793, long after the formation of the Russian Empire. Ostap 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody claims that Right Bank Ukraine belonged to Russia. You seem to have difficulties with English grammar. Ukraine was Rus land but was not free of foreign domination. Voyevoda (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tried to clarify it a little.  Let me know what you think. Ostap 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's probably better for those who never learned what contact clause is. Voyevoda (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All the [[Rus]] lands 

message: This part jumped out at me as needing a citation...it sounds like something that would be found in a high school report :)
After just two days, he began abusing his power, killing many people. One day he and his son got into an argument, and in an act of rage he killed his son. After that he began to regret his actions. Hoping for spiritual reconciliation, he surrounded himself with mystics. They projected the day he would die. He died close to midnight on that date while playing chess.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.75.199.174 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there is some pretty specific info in there. I think it should be cited or deleted. HotshotCleaner (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of referencing 

message: Flag of Russia states that the first universally-recognized Russian flag was the white, blue, and red tricolor most familiar as the flag of the modern Russian Republic. The cross flag shown here isn't mentioned there; could anyone point me to more information about it? It reminds me of the Byzantine flag, and it certainly looks plausible, but I'd like to know (and see in this article and Flag of Russia) more about its context and use as opposed to the tricolor's. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted you a response below. Seryo93 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cross flag on this page? 

message: Czardom of Russia needs to redirect here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.200.171 (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czardom of Russia 

message: To make it's clear, that tricolor was first all-Russian flag, i would like to post link for photo of Tsar's standard here: http://www.rossimvolika.ru/gos-simv/gos-flag/istoriya/kr-ocherk/20090921121220-8791.jpg
And please, do not put yellow flag again. It was adopted during times of the Russian Empire, not during Tsardom of Russia period. Seryo93 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is oldest survived Russian flag, it's stored in Central Naval Museum. Seryo93 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again...Does a reliable source say its the "oldest surviving flag"? And if it was even used as a  civil or national flag in Russia? Lt.Specht (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here and here (in Russian language, however). 92.100.52.29 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the second page states the flag was the Tsar's personal standard while in Moscow, Standard of the Tsar in Moscow, only from 1693-1700, when it was replaced. I'm not sure why this would make the flag a nationally used flag, or important enough to have it as the article's flag. The book, Yenne, Bill. Flags of the World. Chartwell Books, 1993, p32, states that the the two-headed eagle imperial flag of the Tsar dates back to 1472, and was instituted by the early Romanov's as an official civil flag, until replaced during the empire's time in 1858.  Lt.Specht (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricolor was civil ensign since 1705, so, i've reverted imp.flag edit. Seryo93 (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added info about both yellow Tsar's standard and civil tricolor. I think, topic closed. Seryo93 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A civil flag is more noteworthy than a civil merchant ensign, as with most articles, should establish a broad consensus if the civil merchant ensign is going to be used over the civil flag for the main flag. Still would need a translation to verify this source as well. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. There is no civil flag ever until 1914 and in 1917-20082. Civil ensigns are used more often (because used on generic trade ships), than military naval ensign and tsars only personal standard, and thus, it plays role of de-facto state flag when there is no official state flag.3. there is no tsar's standard in 1472, the earliest tsar's flag is tricolor with DH-eagle in the center, so, English source is (slight) wrong.4.Leader's standard by definition cannot be state flag or ever close to that role, like standard of the German Chancellor is not used instead of Flag of GermanyI hope, that now you understand, why civil ensign is de-facto state flag. I hope, that you now learn why i make my edits (that you reverted). Seryo93 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Empires article's sources do state that the black-orange-white tricolor, and the white-blue-red (alternative), were civil flags until replaced in 1914. I'm not sure if I understand your reasoning behind the civil ensign being used more often on a higher scale, seems to me that the Tsar's standards would of been used more on an official scale, atleast to me anyway. If you read the sentence containing the English source carefully, it does not state that the Tsar's standard featured on this page existed in 1472, whether it did or not I don't know, just that the origin of the flag dates back to then, such as  the two-headed eagle being adopted by rulers. It seems to me that civil flags are the norm for featuring for countries main flags in articles instead of state flags, such as the Finland, Iceland, and Monaco articles. I was also reverting the edits largely because you were flat out removing the material which cited the English source, with no clear explanation as to why it should be entirely removed. As there appears to be no clear burden of proof either way on the flags, and no real consensus, perhaps the previous flag featured, the Standard of Tsar in Moscow, should be restored. Atleast until more sources can be found on this issue, anyway. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsar's standard is specially created for Tsar's exclusive use. It's a just royal flag, and it's used only for purpose of representing Tsar, not all Russia. Russia was represented (at Tsardom time) only by Andreevsky flag (military) and, WBR tricolor (trade and other civil ships). This is reason, but i agree, that until consensus is reached, Standard of Tsar of Moscow (as of 1692-1700) may be putted in infobox. And, black-orange-white tricolor adopted in 1858, so, during Tsardom period, the only civil ensign was tricolor. And for last, civil flag is flag, that flown by citizens, not government or ships. Until 1914 and in 1917-2008, flying Russian flag by citizens meet government sanctions and imprisoning, so there is NO civil flag in Tsardom of Russia, but civil ensign. Do not confuse them, please. Seryo93 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ADDITION: as we have a precedent of showing civil ensign into infobox, i've added tricolor into infobox and explained controversy behind Tsar's Imp. flag info in Flags of the World book. I hope, reasons behind tricolor in infobox finally made clear. Seryo93 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the civil ensign is used on the Austria-Hungary article because there was no civil, national, or state flag  which was jointly used in both the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian Empire. According to the source the Tsar's flag was the civil flag in this case, I've seen no English source that says otherwise. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Per WP:RSUE, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material, in this article's case we have one English source, that is from a published book, which partly covers the topics of flags used during the Tsardom, and another Russian source, a website. Per the policy, the English source should be preferred over the Russian source for what it covers. The Russian source would be a fine addition for anything else, as long as a translation is provided, preferably a translation published by a reliable source, per the policy. I'm not sure whats in disagreement over this policy. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this article covers RUSSIA, i think, RUSSIAN source is more reliable in this cases (Tsardom and Empire disputes) than english, because they (russian sources) are written by those, who born in Russia and knows it's country history more than some (not all!) English historiographers. Anyway, when i got some more time, i will translate source for verification. Seryo93 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In section above, i've futher explained civil ensign's importance in Russian flag history. Also, citizens of Russia, that knows it's country history, may see, that english source is somewhere wrong. (There is no Tsar's flag ever in 15th century, but your source says, that it was yellow banner with eagle in center). Seryo93 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

text:  Russian sorces are more reliable? :) This people at least twice rewrote their history to make it look better. --Vovchyck (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian source 

message: At that time there was no Russia it was Moskovia. Only at the begining of 18 century their tsar (Petter the Great) decided that they need better history and renamed Moskovia into Russia. Even at all European maps the territory is called Moskovia and full stop. Only in 18 century in German maps apears Russia. Before that there was one name "MOSKOVIA" --Vovchyck (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Fringe theories or Ukrainian Nationalist Bullshit (UNB). These historical maps illustrate your lies:
File:FraMauroDetailedMapInverted.jpg|Карта венецианского монаха Фра Мауро, 1475 г. (ориентирована с юга на север)
File:Carta Marina.jpeg|Carta Marina Олафа Магнуса, 1539 г.
File:Russiae Ortelius 162 1575.jpg|"RVSSIA". Карта Ортелия, 1575 г.
File:1589_Europa_Mercator.jpg|Карта Европы, Меркатор, 1589 г. "Russia Moscouia" - Московская Русь
File:CEM-15-Asia-Mercator-1595-Russia-2533.jpg|Карта азиатской части России, Меркатор, 1594 г.
File:Mercator_Septentrionalium_Terrarum_descriptio.jpg|Карта Северного полюса, Меркатор, 1623 г.
File:A map of Russia by Jenkinson from an atlas, published by B. Langens in Amsterdam in 1598.jpg|Карта Руси, Дженкинсон, 1598 г.
File:Blaeu_1645_-_Russi%C3%A6_vulgo_Moscovia_pars_australis.jpg|Карта России, в просторечии Московия (Tabla Russiae vulga Moscovia), Космография Блау, Голландия, 1645 г.
 --Voyevoda (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting, did anybody actually look at those maps? the one for example from 1539 only has Russia Alba (White Russia) and lists Moscovia for the name of the country this discussion is about; the 1589 map has Moscovia written all over it, even the last one from 1645 says vulgo (commonly known as) Moscovia.--Termer (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, these maps are basically the purest example of Original Research. And some of those are still in the article, without any actual academic sources to elaborate on the meaning of the maps. Hence we don't know whether these maps refer to a sovereign state or to a region in Europe.  Fatty Strider (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: What kind of Russia in 17 century

message: My impression (based on a Google Books search; see a histogram) is that tsardom (or czardom) has been used in English traditionally mostly in the following two meanings:
* (a) The most comon, "rule by Tsar" ( - i.e., similar to "tsarism" in English). E.g., "the end of tsardom", "despotism and tsardom", "Russia from Tsardom to Bolshevism", "Russian Tsardom" in the sense of the political system of the Russian Empire) 
* (b) Sometimes, "the position of a Tsar" (comparatively less common meaning of , parallel to English "kingship"). E.g., [anachronistically] "Rurik's election to the czardom"; "assumption of the Tsardom of Russia by the Great Prince of Moscow")
Much less common has been the meaning
* (c) A "country ruled by a tsar" (the usual meaning of , parallel to "kingdom"). It's not like this last meaning never appears - so it is not a "wiki neologism" - but it seems to be comparatively rare, recent, and largely confined to translations from Russian: "from which tsardom" (in a folk tale), "Kazan Tsardom and Polish Tsardom" (in a precise translation of the names of the components of Russian Empire); "Russian Tsardom / Moscow Tsardom" (in a book by a Turkish author).
 
When I actually try to do a Google Books search on "Tsardom of Russia", and to look at individual pages, I see that the great majority of pages where that expression happens are either clones of Wikipedia pages (thanks to parasitic "publishers" such as Alphascript), or books where "tsardom" is used in the senses of (a) or (b) above. Genuine non-Wikipedia examples of "tsardom of Russia" with the meaning (c) are few and far apart, seem to be mostly confined to precise translations of texts from Russian, or in works by Russian authors in English.
 
I am not saying that the expression "Russian Tsardom" or "Tsardom of Russia" is necessarily bad and ought to be abandoned in favor of either the traditional "Muscovy" or the descriptive and precise, but long, "Russian State (15xx to 17xx)", but we at least should realize that it is not (yet, at any rate) widely used by mainstream Anglo-American writers outside of Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia is an influential reference, so maybe we will help the introduction of this expression (which, as Russkoye Tsarstvo [i Moskovskoye Gosudarstvo] is pretty standard in Russian) into the English mainstream, but I am not entirely sure that this is our role. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual usage of ''tsardom''

message: the fact is, the official name of the tsardom can only be derived from the official title of the tsar, which in fact was "tsar of Moscow and all Rus" or "tsar of Muscovy and all Rus" which would make the official name of the state: the Tsardom of Moscow and all Rus at the time when "Русское царство" or "Tsardom of Russia" is just a generic form that can refer to and is used for any period of tsarist Russian history.--Termer (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. unfortunately there's no WP:RS published in English that would spell out the official name "Tsardom of Moscow and all Rus", however there's one saying "Tsardom of Moscow and all Russia". At the same time the source still speaks about "The Tsardom of Moscou, 1547-1682" as the title of the chapter in A History of Russia by George Vernadsky, Michael Karpovich. So "Tsardom of Moscow" or "Tsardom of Muscovy" clearly is the common name for the state in question.--Termer (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. The official title of the Tsars for the most period (1547—1721)  was "Tsar and Grand Prince of Great, Little and White Rus", or optionally, "of the entire Rus". Moscow was mentioned only in the following, mostly even after the historical capital of Vladimir. The official title of Ivan IV (the Terrible) in 1547 was "Божьей милостью царь, и государь всеа Русии и великий князь, Володимерский, Московский, Новгородцкий, Псковский, Смоленский, Тферский, Югорский, Пермьский, Вятцкий, Болгарский.. и иных". You seem to mix up the Tsar with the current title of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all very interesting however, it has nothing to do with me but Princeton University Press, 2006 and other published sources, please follow the links above. At the same time none of your suggestions can be verified by any published sources on google books nor scholar. There are only 3 forums on the entire internet that have spelled out such a name. Unfortunately forums are not WP:RS exactly. Unlike George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich who have listed Tsardom of Moscow and all Russia as the name of the state in their book A History of Russia: The Tsardom of Moscou, 1547-1682, published by Yale University Press. So in case you think someone has mixed up something, you'd need to take it up with Yale University press, not me.--Termer (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Just in case it isn't obvious, one offline source in foreign language that can not be WP:verified isn't enough to list a generic term for the "official name" of this state in the article.--Termer (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you carried out your search, my search in Google books for this title of the Tsar gives at least 358 results (in modern Russian) and 55 results in English. Note that there can be more variants for my search. This is what the official title was. Vernadsky's Tsardom of Moscow and of all Russia is an artificial composition, just like Kievan Rus. Acceptable in the modern historiography, but not really official or in usage by contemporaries. BTW, have you noticed that Tsardom of Moscow and of all Russia speaks for Tsardom of Russia no less than for Tsardom of Moscow (LOL)? I'd say, even more as for the more embracing term --Voyevoda (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks to the links you left I can see now what are you actually talking about. Just that the fact about royalties always apply a long list of additional titles to their name like the Russian tsar had duke/prince of Vladimir, Novgorod, Moscow etc., it has nothing much to do with the name of the state spelled out by George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich. I'm sorry to see that you have not chosen to address the issue instead keep edit warring over a generic name that can refer to any tsarist era in Russian history. Please see the analysis on the question provided by Vmenkov once more.--Termer (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only Tsarist era in Russian history is the period described in this article. Anything else is wrong since the Russian monarchs were called emperors (later) or grand dukes (earlier). I'm sorry but Vmenkov's analysis is irrelevant since it is not sufficient to check the combination "Tsardom of X" only. There has to be an analysis of the overall frequency of English usage of Russia/Muscovy for the period between 1547 and 1721. Google hits with "Tsardom of X" are not more official than others because I showed what the real official name was.  --Voyevoda (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There has to be an analysis of the overall frequency of English usage of Russia/Muscovy for the period between 1547 and 1721. Yes, correct and that's exactly what the  analysis pr WP:RS by Vmenkov has done. Please read it!--Termer (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. For the rest, I can see now why do you think technically "Tsarist era" only may referr to pre Peter I times. Right or wrong "Tsarist era" in published sources still refers to any period in Russian history from Ivan IV to Nikolai II, who is also often referred to as "tsar Nikolai II".--Termer (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From 1721 on Russian monarchs were Emperors, this is a verifiable and incontrovertible fact. Anyone who uses the word Tsar is not precise and accurate enough, he pays tribute to slang. --Voyevoda (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Vmenkov's analysis is not fitting because of a) incomplete b) selective c) many of his arguments are vulnerable. For example, "Moscow authorities" probably means "authorities located in the city of Moscow". I'll carry out my own analysis of scholar books to prove that everything can look the other way round. --Voyevoda 
Here is a set of search queries which relate mainly to the period of 1547-1721.
Search string             	Google books hits for Russia	Google books hits for Muscovy
Seventeenth century X     	5,980                       	1,740
17th century X            	1,120                       	131
Time of troubles in X     	212                         	46
X time of troubles        	325                         	36
Polish intervention in X  	58                          	8
Tsar Alexis of X          	107                         	9
Godunov of X              	12                          	2
Ivan the Terrible of X    	685                         	42
Raskol in X               	14                          	1
Nikon of X                	19                          	2
X conquest of Kazan       	148                         	19
X conquest of Astrakhan   	26                          	3
X conquest of Siberia     	654                         	7
Sino-X treaty of Nerchinsk	789                         	2
X defeat at Narva         	51                          	0
X victory at Poltava      	156                         	0
X-Livonian war            	43                          	0
Expanding is welcome, but please pay attention to time relevance. Regards, --Voyevoda (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I didn't get it what was this search all about? You can go and search "Russia" all the way back to stone age, it doesn't change what historians call the name of the state during the era in question.--Termer (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I'm getting it now. What are you doing here, you're putting together a search for singled out "Russia" in published sources + claim the only tsarist period was pre Peter I era, the rest "is not precise and accurate enough" in your opinion by getting a conclusion = "Tsardom of Russia". This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a position, which is original research on wikipedia. It seemslike the question needs to go to WP:ORN.--Termer (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've done is a more comprehensive analysis than Vmenkov's. I've used search queries which relate exclusively to the period the article is about (1547 to 1721) and examined which name of the country is being used more often. We have seen that both Tsardom of Russia and Tsardom of Muscovy are correct, but it is not enough to compare the frequency of this two combinations only. BTW, you seem to be a quite flexible guy. You applauded Vmenkov's analysis and pointed at it every time, whereas Vmenkov didn't limit himself to the usage of Tsardom, either (Where is Tsardom in the "Muscovite Russia" by Riasanovsky/Sternberg)? You can consider my analysis as an extension of Vmenkov's where not only three/four books are examined and where the period range is not as washy. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: "Officially" or not, but "Russkoye Tsarstvo" definitely was very much in use in the 17th century, as a few examples (e.g. no. 4, 5, 6 out of the 10 top examples in the same list of Google Books hits) indicate. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  officially "Русское царство" {{dubious}} 

message: Here is the problematic section of the "Muscovy vs. Russia" section.
It shows the usual signs of a paragraph reduced to meaninglessness by way of pointless wikidispute:
---
:According to some historians,  the continuous using of the term Muscovy was a result of the traditional habit and the need to distinguish between the Muscovite and the Lithuanian part of the Rus, as well as of the political interests of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which competed with Moscow for the western parts of the Rus. 
:Through the prism of the Commonwealth as well as of the Jesuits, The term Muscovy was also used in many parts of Europe. Some historians, however,  assume that the name "Tsardom of Muscovy", or "Muscovite Tsardom" ().(Vernadsky V. Muscovite Tsardom. in 2 v. Moscow: Agraph, 2001 (Russian). "В некотором царстве, в некотором государстве..." Sigurd Shmidt, Doctor of history sciences, academician of RAN, Journal "Rodina", Nr. 12/2004) corresponds to the Russian historical usage, too.
----
I hope we can agree that this is pure wikicomedy. 
The question is, do we have anything in there that is worth keeping, and if so, what?
Let us ignore for the moment the "According to some historians .... some historians, however, assume ...", which sets up the implication of a dispute and two opposite camps of scholarly opinion, without working out what these opinions are or who has them, or what is at stake.
Let us just see what is said by the unnamed "some historians":
#the term Muscovy disambiguates between Muscovy and Lithuania (which are historically both part of "Rus")
#"Muscovy" was also used in the West
#"Muscovy" was also used in Russia
I don't see what is the problem with any of these three points, and why they must be attributed to "some historians" and connected with "however" clauses.
All of this is extremely straightforward. 
*"Muscovy" disambiguates the Principality of Muscovy from Principalities that are not Muscovy. Big deal, this is what names do. 
*Muscovy remained in use alongside the emerging synonym Russia, and it did so both in Russia and in the West, apparently for the duration of the period under discussion. Again, so what?
If there is any real dispute in this, kindly put the facts on the table and don't embellish perfectly pedestrian facts with smoke-screens such as the "prism of the Jesuits" just to make them sound less than evident or controversial. 
More precisely, if there is any "dispute" in this that you want to cover, state explicitly who disagreed with whom, on what point. Names, and quotes. 
Just saying "according to some historians, Muscovy was known as Muscovy as well as as Russia" is not going to cut it. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is primarily between Anna Khoroshkevich and Sigurd Shmidt. The latter is linked directly behind the description of his view, while Khoroshkevich is linked at the beginning (official name). Probably, she should have been sourced once more. The dispute concerns the question whether "Muscovy" or "Muscovite state" corresponds to the Russian usage in the period of a centralized Russian state (when there was no Duchy of Moscow anymore) or is its extremely prolonged usage merely a foreign initiative. --Voyevoda (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The prism of the Jesuits

message: "The Tsardom of Russia (also known as Tsardom of Muscovy; officially Русское царство[2][3]) or, in hellenized form, Российское царство"
Российское царство is written in cyrillic alphabet not greek.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.24.166 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While they may be available online, in Googling both references used for this assertion ("Россия времени Ивана Грозного" by Zimin and Khoroshkevich +Perevezentsev's "Смысл русской истории") the only thing that can be verified is that select excerpts of the publication can be found all over Russian blogs and forums. No pages for 'Hellenised' (or how how either publication comes to this conclusion) appears to be accounted for. I've tagged it for being potentially original research for the time being, but will remove it if the refs aren't improved ASAP). Furthermore, even if this were the case, there is no reason for any 'Hellenised' variant to be of particular significance over and above other variants. This is not about ecumenical usage, but about common usage as a recognised secular state amongst other secular states. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Hellenised because русское is derived from the native Russian word Русь, while российское comes from its  Byzantine Greek version Ρωσία. Of course, Ρωσία eventually became acceptable in Russia as well, but the word is still Greek in origin. TheImperios (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not hellenised form but slavic 

message: The personal standard of Peter the Great should be replaced by the flag of the Russian Tsardom.  The false flag of the Russian Empire should be removed from the chronological reference: '6.  What is the flag of Russian merchant ships.  - Russian merchant ships should have a striped flag of three colors: white, blue, red.  "- Naval charter of the Russian Empire, January 24, 1720. Eugene of Russia (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: No explanation on why the changes need to be made.  Lightoil (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023 

message: It looks like you may have misformatted your edit request in a way that caused it to not be added. If you would like to reopen the edit request, please set  in the template above and reply to this message with your request. Tollens (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2023 

message: :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. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsardom of Russia →  – "Russkoye Tsarstvo" is corroborated by every major source as the closest the government had to a single official name, "Russian Tsardom" would be the accurate translation here (i. e. the adjective-noun form rather than the noun-of-noun form, "Tsardom of Russia" would be "Tsarstvo Rossiye" instead) Orchastrattor (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Move to Tsardom of Muscovy, which is very widely used. Of course, just Muscovy is by far the most WP:COMMONNAME, but as we have split the subject we have to disambiguate from the Grand Duchy of Moscow. See also Talk: Grand Duchy of Moscow#Requested move 19 August 2023.  —Michael Z. 17:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You included "Muscovy", which has a broader meaning than a state between the years 1547–1721, but conveniently left out "Russia". So, again, no demonstration that it is the common name. Mellk (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Muscovy was a state between the years 1282 and 1721 (I had thought it was 1286, but whichever). We have it split between two articles, apparently because its ruler declared himself tsar at one point. So we need to disambiguate. Russia is a much, much broader name, referring to subjects of many more articles. Muscovy better serves the WP:CRITERION of precision.  —Michael Z. 19:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the article is currently called "Tsardom of Russia", which satisfies precision, because the title of tsar was used during those years before it became emperor. Mellk (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose, we don't translate names here, but you the most common one, there is no substantial difference between both names proposed in terms of popularity in academic texts, so there is no reason to make a move for the sake of it. Plus the current is consistent with the most popular format used in similar article names. Marcelus (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose per above. I don't see a good reason to move. The monarch was the tsar of Russia and typically the format is "tsardom of x" like "Kingdom of x", so it is more consistent. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 September 2023