Talk:Nicholas II

message: I read somewhere in the internet, that Nicolas II was sending soldiers to the battle with no uniforms, no boots, and no rifles. The slaughter was so bad, that there were days he was losing up to 100,000 people per day! Can someone help find this information?
It would be interesting to think, what kind of a person would:
1. Celebrate his marriage, having a few thousand people stomped to death, (this is why he was called "bloody" first time)
2. Have peaceful demonstration of peasants executed,(this is why he was called "bloody" second time)
3. Send millions to their death just for his pleasure,
and finally be canonized as a saint, just because he happened to be killed by the bolsheviks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.160.250 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, Wikipedia is a place where facts presented, not propaganda. If you "read something somewhere" it does not necessarily proves to be true. The Great War was a disaster for all the world, and Russia lost less lives than most of its enemies and allies. Max (Moscow, Russia) 62.231.5.194 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Russia lost more soldiers than any other country in WW1 except Germany (and the second most civillians and total lives after Turkey), as can be found on the WW1 Casualties wikipedia page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.200.129 (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One can also read claims that holocaust did not happen. That can be read somewhere.--85.164.223.189 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 100,000 dead soldiers per day

message: The article became a mess with chunks using the American English Czar and other chunks and headlines, as well as footnotes, using the International English Tsar. They should all be in one style. As the article was originally written in International English, and is not an American English topic, I have changed the spelling back to the International English version, Tsar, Tsarevich, etc. It was ridiculous to have an article calling Nicholas Tsarevich and his son Czarevich with footnotes to Czarevich written as Tsarevich. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The usage of Tsar is more accurate than Czar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's even changed the spelling of the place Tsarskoe Selo to Czarskoe Selo.  Absurd.  Unfortunately, they've changed every other instance of Tsar to Czar as well, inclding words in book titles that were actually spelled "Tsar".   What a schemozzle.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  06:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea. I hope nobody changes them back to czar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear we'll have to remain on permanent vigil, Jeanne.  This "Czar" thing is just rubbish: a lot of Americanisms are based on simplification, and making words look like the way they're pronounced, which can be generally supported as a concept.  "Czar", unfortunately, goes in the opposite direction, but it is, for some unfathomable reason, the way many Americans spell the word "Tsar".  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not this American!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just risen 1000% in my estimation.  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should use American English. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:4943:17F5:9E2A:F025 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsar / Czar 

message: Again, the edit of replacing the political term used by the soviet "execution" in the Page have been undone. Following the NPOV rule of Wikipedia, it must be considered a murder since it had no legal means and was plut recognized as such, on 1 October 2008, as the Supreme Court of Russia ruled that Nicholas II and his family were victims of political persecution. No matter what your politics are we, as neutral Wikipedia users, should not confuse a term that denotes guilt with what actually occurred. "Execute" denotes a formal punishment for a crime. Nicholas and his young children weren't "executed", they were murdered by extremists, whom then made up 80 years of propaganda against these people. Also, these murders were made informally and not in a cuntinual way, to not mentions the inhumane details of that event, so this made even more useless using the outdated word, my idea is that the term used should be assassination or either murder, and this should applied in the future on the following pages: The Russian empire, the page about the killings, and all the pages about the members of the Imperial family that were murdered. I seen my cheers, thanks for reading my proposal!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattia332 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should follow the sources here. Service 2012 uses "killing" repeatedly, "execution" a couple of times but not "murder". I don't have access to other sources at the moment.  Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that we should follow the russia's supreme courthouse, but there are many reasons to follow this too, sadly i can not find the other sources but im sure that after a fast research anyone coult get to that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattia332 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with this. Russia's supreme court's decision should be taken into consideration. And seeing how the Soviet Union wasn't widely recognized as a nation, its decision had no legal standing, so their "execution" is nothing else than murder. Joker0002710 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Executed/ion" 

message: :Just to point it out, this is a photo of Nicholas II, Stolypin and the Jewish delegation during the Tsar's visit to Kiev in 1911... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stolypin,_Nicholas_II,_jewish_delegation.jpg (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2020 (CET)
:Him being a supposed "anti-Semite" has nothing to do with his administration skills or the reason for his downfall. Tsar Alexander III was the one who called the Jews "Christ-killers" and  Nicholas II met one of the Rothchilds with George V (before he became king), and he didn't like the conversation they had; he had nothing against the Jews (Carter, Miranda. George, Nicholas and Wilhelm...., 2009). If you're talking about the pogroms, the government was responsible for none of them, but rather mobs of peasants by definition. Joker0002710 (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with Joker0002710 and Mattia332. One cannot deny the accomplishments of Nicholas II, as the fall of the Tsardom is not related to his supposed "failures" Mr nick man (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Since a comment was requested, my best response is to cite the judgements of my father and grandparents who lived in Russia during Nicholas' reign and served in the military and government, respectively.  Nicholas was a "good man" who cared deeply for his people and country.  However, his personal administrative skills left very much to be desired and his military skills even more so.  The advances accomplished during his reign are the product of able ministers as also are the failures the product of incompetent/corrupt ministers.  One specific failure which was paramount in the fall of the dynasty and government was the preparation of the Russian Army for war and then followed by its conduct of it.  Mismanagement of military technical development and supply left the Russian army inferior to the foe it faced in WW-I.  Of course that was also connected with the treachery of the actions of "Cousin Willy" Kaiser Wilhelm (cousin of Nicholas).
My bottom line is that an assessment of the reign of Nicholas II is complex and not conducive to one word "good" or "bad", "successful" or "unsuccessful" characterizations.  A more comprehensive and nuanced assessment (alluded to in the above discussion) requires a more detailed explanation - often not easy to accomplish within a Wiki article.Moryak (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I’m surprised that there is no mention in this article of the fact that Masonic rituals were performed over the bodies of the Romanovs after their death. Swehlam (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * Adding in the relevant information with a source is more effective than a talk page comment. Although I don't see anything special about that information. Jon698 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Execution details

message: I think this recording should be replaced by the confirmed 1902 French speech, if the general feeling is that a voice recording should be included. This Russian speech is a bit problematic—the description of the Wikimedia file even says as much:
"Сотрудники Российского государственного архива фонодокументов (РГАФД) высказывают сомнение, что голос в данной записи принадлежит именно Николаю II, а не, например, командующему парадом."
"Employees of the Russian State Archive of Phonodocuments (RGAFD) express doubt that the voice in this recording belongs to Nicholas II, and not, for example, a commander of the parade."
Apologies if this comes across as rude, but it feels somewhat below standards to include something like this as though it's fact. Zinalova (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice Recording 

message: Please change this short description to "Emperor of Russia from 1894 to 1917" which is exceeded more than 40 characters. 2001:4451:8272:C000:284C:2E39:ABD0:3DEA (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinchme123 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023 

message: Hi, there. I am just wondering, is there a reason the infobox doesn't give his title as "Emperor of all the Russias"? From my understanding, the article title normally says "of [country]", but the infobox gives the title in its full. What I mean, for example, see Constantine II of Greece. The article title says "of Greece" and the infobox gives his proper title, "King of the Hellenes" (as per WP:COGNOMEN). So, yeah, if anyone knows how come the Russian emperors' pages don't follow this, please let me know! Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The observation appears quite reasonable. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "Emperor of Russia", is more common. If we use the Greek example? the  infobox would have "Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias", "King of Poland" & "Grand Duke of Finland". GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could always write "Emperor of all the Russias" with a small "(see more)" that links here. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda extra long title, for an infobox. Recommend opening an RFC on the matter, as we're dealing with 14 bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title in infobox 

message: Says 1981 and should be 1918 2601:2C4:4302:FB50:881:35A2:2B8C:BF76 (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 1981 is correct. DrKay (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Says 1981 and should be 1918