Talk:Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark)

message: Why did she take the name Maria Fyodorovna when she moved to Russia? Her father's name was Christian, not Friedrich/Frederic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefairy en (talk • contribs) 08:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patronymic name 

message: As with Maud of Wales and Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna of Russia, this page has been protected due to an edit war. Please discuss and come to some sort of conlusion. Craigy (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The likes of tasc" made themself clear immense number of times. If you want to add this info, add it to see also section! Article is only corrupted by your changes. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Stricly speaking, a piece of information about a person (whose biography is at hand) is not to be put into that article if no reliable publication has published that piece mentioning the person in question. A series of edits here according to genealogy, making own deductions based on who are matrilineal ancestresses of certain persons, is more like original research than reporting what is already published. Has that been the reason for those edits? Henq 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: pl:Maria Fiodorowna Romanowa  Bocianski 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki pl 

message: This page has now been protected for three weeks. I have not seen any discussion on the issues in the article in the last two weeks. Unless there are objections, I am going to request unprotection. Calwatch 23:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove protection?

message: "According to the fictional film The Mystery of Anna, Anna Anderson was on her way to see the Empress but this is widely believed to be false". Erm, that's why the film is "fictional"! Fiction generally is false. I've not zapped the section though as I imagine there's a more serious point trying to escape. --kingboyk 11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact and fiction 

message: ...the last Russian monarch, the autocrat Emperor Nicholas II, ... I don't think that autocrat should be used as a title for N2. Of course, his official title was Николай Александрович, император и самодержец всероссийский, etc. and literally this means Nicholas, the All-Russian Emperor and Autocrat, but article Autocrat don't mention this word as a part of the title of the Russian Emperors. IMHO, it's like naming George W. Bush as head of republican state, the President of the USA G.W. Bush. Moreover, the word autocrat in this title is often regarded to have few sense. I seems strange to name Elizabeth II as a Defender of Faith, Queen of the UK Elizabeth II.--87.251.146.107 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --kingboyk 15:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Autocrat formed part of the style of the Russian Emperors. The primary, short titles were Tsar and Emperor of Russia. Charles 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autocrat as a title? 

message: I dopn't really see why some people mind this being mentioned so much: it is a factual event, it was covered by world media and it is a quaint and interesting thing to mention in ana article like this. Ok, maybe it doesn't need most of the space in the reburial section but I really think it is a bit weird not to include it at all, it's the kind of event about which people will ask whether it actually happened twenty years from now. As for the picture it is an official press photo published numerous times in many world media and it reflects a recent event, if we can't claim fairuse for it then we can't for the other burial photos either.Maunus 12:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page uses two images taken by Wikipedians, so no problem there. The image of the diplomat is covered by copyright. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The fallen diplomat event

message: What does she have to do with anything?  Why should there be a section about her?  Why should most of that section be about the discovery of the bodies of the imperial family? I've commented it out, and I think it should be deleted unless someone can explain why it belongs here. john k (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anna Anderson 

message: I think the page requires decision about pseudorelative in Georgia and needs protection because I am sure georgean editor will not be able to understand argumentation and which is more - he (she) misuse Wikipedia having some personal interest in adding irrelevant information (e.g. being a relative to Sharip and trying to show connection to Maria Fedorovna).
:Is it possible to get protection first, then a discussion about the edits can be done. That way it does not keep going back and forth, and we can get some closure on the topic.Millertime246 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war about pseudorelative in Georgia 

message: Dagmar is a great subject, but the article is atrocious, filled with purple prose, POV and unsourced assertions too numerous to list here.  The few things I just corrected are just the tip of the iceberg.  For example, whoever captioned the photo I corrected is obviously more interested in writing a romantic biography than an accurate encyclopedic article.  Please remove speculation about how people thought or felt and your own speculations about events, and stick only to the facts you can cite.  Assertions cannot be your own.  If you don't wish to do this, then I'll do the cleanup myself, which means gutting the thing. J M Rice (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags added 

message: "Dagmar converted to Orthodoxy on 24 October [O.S. 12 October] 1866 and became Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna of Russia the following day."
This statement contradicts what the Titles and Styles section at the bottom of the page says. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that section. It was unverified and added by a LTA sock puppet IP. DrKay (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date she became grand duchess differs 

message: The Tsarevna section asserts that she had a miscarriage in 1866 while horseback riding in Denmark. Given that she had only been married in October 1866 in Russia, this gives rise to the question of when precisely she had the miscarriage and how it happened in Denmark. If it had happened before her marriage, that would have been distinctly scandalous, assuming she was expected to be a virgin when she married Alexander. If it happened after her marriage, the scandalous aspect disappears, assuming the fetus was clearly very immature, but her trip back to her homeland seems awfully quick having just been married. Foreign-born royals could spend many years in their new country before returning to their homelands yet she was back just weeks after the marriage. Does anyone have more detail on this matter? Is it possible the year 1866 is a simple typo? Perhaps the author of this sentence meant a different year? Rhino (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not cited, so I've removed it. DrKay (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1866 Miscarriage