Talk:List of Russian monarchs

message: Ladislaus IV of Poland(1610-1613, 1634 he officially ended his claims) This entry is highly dubious since he never even visited Moscow, let alone ruled it.
The current listing of Ladislaus IV of Poland as tsar in 1610-1613 is certainly misleading, if not outright wrong. --Gene s 05:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: They are not rulers. You are welcome to put them into whatever separate article. Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the pretenders showed up again about a week ago.  Pretenders are fine, but they're not Russian rulers.  Recently I moved all information about pretenders to Line of succession to the Russian throne.  Unless someone objects, I'm soon going to get rid of the pretenders here and link to that page "for information about post-1917 claimants," as I did a while ago before this new reversion. Chaucer1387 15:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed pretendents 

message: In 1924, Nicholas II's cousin Cyril Vladimirovitch declared himself emperor. Here are the claimants to the throne since his death:
*Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovitch (1924-1938)
*Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovitch (1938-1992)
*Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna (1992-)
*Tsarevitch Georgiya Mikhailovich (Heir-Apparent)
In addition, "Prince" Nicholas Romanov, who product of a morganatic marriage between HH Prince Roman Petrovitch and Countess Praskovia Cheremeteva, was elected President of the Romanov Family Association, and thus could also be considered the Head of the Imperial Family of Russia.
Mikkalai 06:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the pretenders showed up again about a week ago.  Pretenders are fine, but they're not Russian rulers.  Recently I moved all information about pretenders to Line of succession to the Russian throne.  Unless someone objects, I'm soon going to get rid of the pretenders here and link to that page "for information about post-1917 claimants," as I did a while ago before this new reversion. Chaucer1387 15:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titular Emperors of Russia 

message: Should this page be renamed to List of Russian monarchs?  It will correspond to other lists similarly named and avoid confusion with later republics.
:I concur. john k 00:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  Calling this "List of Russian rulers" -- as opposed to "List of leaders of Russia"???  Stalin led Russia; he also ruled Russia.  Or, to avoid Russia/USSR issues: Putin leads Russia; he also rules Russia.  Monarchs would be much better. Chaucer1387 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that this rename already happened, but on 27 July 2005, Mikkalai renamed it back.  Why?  I propose to do the rename again, unless someone protests within the next couple of days. Chaucer1387 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: *To User:Ghirlandajo. Don't lie about Władysław IV Waza. He was really the Russian tsar 1610-1613 by Roman Pope. Read history.--Maliuta 09:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish tsar?

message: Why does this list end at Peter the Great? --Jfruh 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was vandalized by an anon. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending at Peter? 

message: We'd better creat a independent article about them. Now many Princes who had owned the title "Grand Prince of Vladimir" can't be found in the list. A list has existed in Chinese Wikipedia, See here(Grand Prince of Vladimir). --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 06:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Grand Prince of Vladimir]] 

message: On this page, there's a division between "Princes of Moscow" and "Grand Princes of Moscow" at 1359.  But on the Grand Prince of Moscow page, the division comes before Daniel at 1283 (there's a gap between 1263 and 1283).  This inconsistency is bad enough... but if you look at the underlying articles, Daniel of Moscow, Yury of Moscow, and Ivan I of Russia (Kalita) are just described as "Princes"; Simeon of Russia is the first to be described as "Grand Prince of Moscow" in his article, which would put the division at 1341.  Meanwhile, if you look at the "preceded by/succeeded by" boxes at the bottom, Yury of Moscow is the first person to be labeled "Grand Prince of Moscow" by that method, which puts the division at 1303!  Really, I think this calls for some standardization. Chaucer1387 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand Prince of Moscow/Prince of Moscow?

message: Russian Tsars redirects to Tsar.
Russian czars redirects to List of Russian rulers.
I don't know which is the better target - they both have merit - but it seems very wrong that they lead to different places.  Any comments?  Let's discuss at Talk:Russian Tsars.
Jordan Brown 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent any comments, I decided that if somebody really wanted generic information on Tsars they wouldn't say "Russian", and so changed Russian Tsars to redirect to List of Russian rulers, matching Russian czars. Jordan Brown 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Russian Tsars]] vs [[Russian czars]] 

message: Should we have the rulers of the Khazars, Golden Hoard Mongols and the Goths listed as well here?Ericl 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Russian rulers of Russia 

message: Nicholas II passed the crown on to Michael, but Michael never accepted it. He was not truly the Czar- he did not accept, was never accepted as Czar, never acted as Czar in any capacity. He needs to be removed/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockStarSheister (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He abdicated the next day, which is not quite the same thing. Richard75 (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael not Czar 

message: Can anyone suggest why he is also listed in the section on pretenders to the throne? Having abdicated, and kept prisoner by the Bolsheviks, he could hardly have been a pretender, and I am unaware of him expressing the desire to regain the throne from the time of abdication to his death.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicholas II  

message: It seems to me this entry does not belong in the list. Aside from the already noted suggestion that the Catholic Pope can not appoint an Eastern Orthodoxy ruler, the individual in question never lived in Russia, never assumed even the title of Grand Prince, never mind Tsar, and was discouraged from doing so by his father. Regardless of being elected by the seven boyars, he never held the power literally or figuratively, or the rank, which seems important, or tried to take the role by force or political manipulation. The acceptance of the rank of Grand Duke also suggests there was no serious intention in pretension to the throne of Russia, and only a half-hearted one to the throne of Moscow, which is not the same. I will be deleting this entry unless someone can offer a really good reason for keeping it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing, as the claim to the throne, even by election, was not serious since the claimant was never asked to convert to the Eastern Orthodoxy, which would have been the requirement, and was undertaken by several later Romanov monarchs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Vasa 

message: Why is Ivan V listed after Peter the Great when they began their joint rule on the same day and Peter outlived his half-brother for three decades? Shouldn't Peter be listed after Ivan? To me it just makes more sense. 205.244.113.226 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivan and Peter the Great 

message: On our recent Viking Russian Rivers cruise, we were shown the portrait shown on this page for Alexei Romanov as that of Mikhail Romanov. Should these two portraits be reversed?
Wakchil (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portraits reversed? 

message: He had two fourth sons?
* Mikhail Khorobrit (1248), 4th son of Yaroslav II
* Andrew II (1248–1252), 3rd son of Yaroslav II
* Alexander Nevsky (1252–1263), fourth son of Yaroslav II
Don't know which is correct, so I'm just flagging it up for someone to fix. Bazj (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yaroslav II 

message: In 1922, a Zemsky Sobor created by General Mikhail Dietericks declared Grand Duke Nicholas Czar. Shouldn't this be mentioned at least in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.72.143 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That entry is ridiculous, and there's already another section for pretenders after 1917, which makes it all the more absurd that the list ends with someone who ruled nominally in 1922. I'm deleting it from the list. Richard75 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He was officially recognized as Tsar by the White movement government in eastern Russia in 1922, and remained emperor there until the White Russian government was overrun later that year. As such, he was not a "pretender", in that he was legally the sovereign monarch over a government controlling territory.XavierGreen (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still a bit POV I'm afraid. The Whites were not the legitimate government of Russia in 1922 but a group of rebels in a civil war who happened to control some territory. Their "tsar" wasn't the recognised ruler of all Russia. So he belongs on a list of pretenders, not on the list of regular tsars, which is recognised by all historians as ending in 1917. Richard75 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There were governments which did not recognize the Reds as the official government of Russia, but instead recognized the White government, such as Japan. As such, it is POV to not include him here.XavierGreen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich Romanov: Czar Nicholas III? 

message: Full text from The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 3 June 1854, p. 3 : TITLES OF THE CZAR.-“The following is a list of the Czar's titles, which always head every ukase : Nicholas, by the grace of God Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kieffs, Vladimie, and Novgorod; Czar of Kasan, of Astrachan, Poland, Siberia, and the Taurian Chersonesus ; Seignior o Pskoff, and Grand Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Wallachia, Podolia, and Finland ; Prince of Esthonia Courland, and Semgalia, of Bialystok, Karelia, Tver, Jougria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria, and many other countries ; Seignior and Grand Prince of the territory of Inner Novgorod, Tshernigoff, Riaizin, Polotsk, Rostof, Jaroslaf, Bielozero, Oudoria, Obdoria, Koudina, Witebsk, Mtislaf, and Lord of all the hyperborean region ; Seignior of the land of Heria, Kartalina, Grousinia, Kabardinia, and Armenia; Hereditary Seignior and Suzerain of the Circassian princes, of those of the mountains, and others : Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Saint Ormarn, Ditmarseu, and Oldenburg, &c., &c." To these titles must now be added that of "Lord-fearing God," which the Czar has recently assumed. The heraldic blazonings correspond to the description given above.”  --Jaanusele (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TITLES OF THE CZAR  1854 

message: Why is the table for the Tsars completely different from the table for the Emperors? john k (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense. Alexander I was called Emperor all the time. It was his main title. john k (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table (!) 

message: "The history of Kievan Rus (882–1240) has remained at the center of Russia's search for identity ever since the emergence of historical studies as a scholarly discipline in the Russian Empire" - What is the point or the function of this phrase in this article? To reduce Russia's obvious, manifold and traceable relationship to Kievan Rus to just "Russia's search for identity"? This phrase does not reflect the worldwide view on this issue, but tries to POV-push fringe theories of marginal Ukrainian ideologists. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to understand that mess, one should be aware about the difference between two main and very similar concepts. In Russophone world there are two different words that in English both are translated simply as Russia, one is Rus (such as Ruthenia or Rhos) and today's Russia (as Rhossia, a name that was established by Peter the Great). That article, of course, needs to be split as it does not correspond a historical reality and simply promotes the Russian national identity. During the 13th century there were at least five (5) sovereign states across the Eastern Europe that related themselves to Rus such as Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia; Kingdom of Rus; Grand Duchy of Ryazan and many others. In reality the unified Russia of today can be traced no earlier that the rule of Ivan the Terrible who was the first to be crowned as Czar. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with . This lack of distinction is equally evident in lists of Russian writers (Nestor the Chronicler was RUSSIAN?). Playing on the non-Slavic lack of comprehension of Rus' and Russia is a blatant POV-push from your side, . Bringing up biased concepts such as "marginal Ukrainian ideologists" is certainly a POV-push when you'd know perfectly well (or, if you are a scholar in the field of Ancient Rus'/Kievan Rus') there are a plethora of Belarus, Polish and highly respected, verifiable and reliable non-Slavic scholars (i.e., disinterested parties) who differ greatly from your opinion.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Aleksandr Grigoryev has a good point there. I support the split. Lifeglider (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivial Western Ukrainian nonsense

message: Looking at the history of this article, there's been nothing no attempt to address issues brought up on the talk page for years. All I can see is a few tweaks, reverts post-vandalism, and the expansion of sections that have been questioned without any dialogue with other editors/contributors.
Interestingly enough, in tracking quite a few of the major contributors, I've discovered that they've been indefinitely blocked for edit warring and similar contraventions of Wikipedia policy. The entire article suffers from extreme POV bias (the lead in itself is blatantly POV with absolutely no citations)... In fact, the whole entry reads like a schoolchild's essay after asking for assistance from their parents (who happen to have subjective, unsustainable views).
Add to this the fact that reader feedback has been disabled and a good case for deleting the entire article starts to come together! Naturally, there are going to be stupid remarks in the feedback, however disregarding feedback is also a disadvantage when constructive criticism/suggestions are blocked.
I'm tagging the article as suffering from multiple issues: lack of inline citations; two texts as references (Latopis hustyński. Opracowanie, przekład i komentarze and The Hustyn' Chronicle, both of which deal with Rus', not Russia) with no inline citations or page numbers; non-neutral POV; weasel words; etc. Basically, as it stands, it simply isn't a defensible, encyclopaedic entry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good research! The split of the article would be great for all of us. Specially in a historical pesprective. Lifeglider (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Lifeglider, I've only just tagged it for multiple issues, so I'll allow a few weeks for interested parties to state their case. I doubt that I'll be hearing from anyone until I actually start working on it :) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anyone addressing serious issues brought up regarding this article? 

message: Why is there no mention of the Kingdom of Khazaria, the Khazars in this article? 
They appeared during its time-frame. They covered Russian land.
I hope it is not because their religious conversion from paganism was not to Christianity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.100.92 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, IP 73.193.100.92. No, the article is actually a mess that needs to be deleted and merged into other appropriate lists. It confuses "Russian" with the much later entity known as "Russia" (from whence the contemporary country known as "Russia" takes its name). Up to the Middle Ages, the people were known as the Rus', which covers contemporary south-western Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and eastern parts of contemporary Poland. Essentially, the Rus' were Eastern European Slavs whose leaders came from Scandinavia and became Rus'-ified. Originally, none of them were Christians, so this doesn't have anything to do with any religious affiliations but original research and WP:SYNTH. Hope that helps! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of the Khazars? 

message: There was never a Michael II or Alexis II, so there's no need to call them Michael I or Alexis I. (I have left in Paul I however, as he insisted on being called that in his lifetime.) Richard75 (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael and Alexis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Russian rulers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230631/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Kievan.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Kievan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is accepted by all normal people that Nicholas II was the last emperor. I'm not against mentioning later claimants, but they do not belong on the same list / table as acknowledged rulers. Richard75 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emperors after Nicholas II 

message: Alexander III does not have a portrait, I tried to add one (Alexander III, Emperor of Russia (1845-94).png) and saw that that file was already in the table, it just was not showing up, what is the cause of this? Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it's an error with the template not allowing .png files. I've posted a message on the template talk page asking them to fix it, but in the meantime we'll need to use a .jpg file. Richard75 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Alexander III not have a portrait 

message: By conflating the history of Kievan Ruś with that of Muscovy the entire article is rendered a fabrication of modern Russian propogandists.  Their respective histories are separate until a fully-formed democratic nation of Kievan Ruś's Bogdan Khmelnitsky met with representatives of the Tsar of Muscovy to seek an association with Muscovy, in 1654, in order to gain military protection from the suppression upon it caused by the Kingdom of Poland. 
Before that time there was no "Russia", but only the city-state of Muscovy. It was Peter the Great who took the name, "Ruś", latinized it into "Russia", while renaming Ruś "Ukraine", which means, "borderlands", and sought thereby to gold plate the autocratic Muscovy, which had been colonizing and subjugicating it's neighbors, into the the completely fabricated myth of her being a direct discendant of a democratic, Hellenic, glorious nation of Kievan Ruś.
This is settled history for which independent historical sources exist, the most famous of which is likely Michael Hrushevsky's, "A History of Ukraine", 1941, Yale University Press. 
Indeed, in 1665, King Charles of Sweden, attempted to warn away Khmelnitsky from alligning Ruś with Moscow, saying that the Tsar would never tolerate a free people bordering his state, and indeed, 400 years of history have shown King Charles to have seen the future very clearly.
Russian propaganda ever since Peter the Great has not ceased to put forward the myth that modern Russia is the child--or indeed, the older brother!--of Kievan Ruś.
Dalton Garis Malugssuak (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, complaining about alleged propaganda while introducing your own propaganda. Is that all, or did you just create this account to make that comment? Mellk (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Russian Tsars 

message: u 64.209.159.7 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  gu 

message: The Romanovs were more "Ruthenian" than the Princes of Kyiv were "Russian". This is just nationalist Russian historiography being presented as fact. Volunteer Marek  16:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are going to raise the same issue at list of Ukrainian rulers then? Mellk (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that list include rulers of Russia or Muscovy? No? Then please stop trying to deflect. Volunteer Marek  18:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not deflecting, because these articles need consistency as they overlap. Your answer suggests that you are OK with the article about Ukraine including Rus' rulers, is that correct? Mellk (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. As long as it doesn't try to include rulers of Muscovy. Same thing here. Volunteer Marek  17:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So you complain about this article including Kievan Rus' as Russian irredentist nationalist POV but Kievan Rus' is OK to include in the article with the Ukrainian rulers, as if that isn't pushing a POV. Riiiight. Mellk (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Where is Kyiv located?  Volunteer Marek  15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is Novgorod located? And why is this relevant? Mellk (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: its relevant because rulers of the Novgorod wrote in letters that they are going to visit Rus', so at that time Novgorod-Suzdal kingdoms wasnt being called Rus' at all and this fact is main issue for controversy for this article to name rulers of kievan Rus "Russian". 109.86.217.24 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian irredentism