Talk:Ivan III of Russia

message: Well, wikipedia is up to it's standards! Double-headed eagle was used first by princes of Tver hundred years before, not by Ivan III. There were no "the curtain between Muscovy and the west", there was a flow of Italians coming to Moscow during his reign. It seems the whole article is written based on a single unpublished book of some nutter from Cambridge who did not even spoke Russian. Well done, wikipedia!   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolute rubbish as usual

message: Talk about Partisan!!!! I don' think the poor dead souls of Novgorod would believe any of this tripe! Meika 00:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome. The article was imported from the 1911 Britannica and as such is understandably outdated. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: This needs to include a reference or something, it doesn't even have dates. I won't call it bogus but it also sounds fishy, though the ruling family certainly enjoyed a lot more stability during these years I can't believe it without dates at the very least. Guess tomorrow I'm pulling out the old history books!--JaymzRR 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a quick search and, though not as straight forward Peter the Great did suedo-rule for an identical 43 years, for now I am removing the reference since it lacks any real information, reference, or very likely truth.--JaymzRR 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Longest Ruler Ever?

message: There's no entry regarding the alleged alternate name, Albus Rex or Albus rex - but it's used under the image. Will someone write about this name in the body of the article - and give a reference please? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Albus Rex]] or [[Albus rex]]

message: "The boyars naturally resented this revolution and struggled against it, at first with some ."
With some what? Some success? ConjurerDragon (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  some what? =

message: The late British historian John Fennell, professor at Oxford, was a leading authority on Ivan III and is widely cited by recent scholars, see dozens of citations to Fennell  " the best available treatment" says  Wieczynski - 1994 -p 243;  "First and foremost, John Fennell's history which unfortunately was incomplete at the time of his death" (introduction to reprint of Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich Solovʹev - 1999);  "John Fennell, who is the leading authority on the medieval Moscovite state" (Colliers Encyclopedia) Rjensen (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: it's from the modern introduction online at online p xxii Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fennell's conclusion was presented totally out of blue. In the article nothing suggest, that this point of view ever have right on existance. More of that, part "A period of cultural depression and spiritual barrenness. For the sake of territorial aggrandizement he deprived his country of the fruits of Western learning and civilization" contradict part "Ivan did his utmost to make his capital a worthy successor to Constantinople, and with that object invited many foreign masters and artificers to settle in Moscow. The most noted of these was the Italian Ridolfo di Fioravante, nicknamed "Aristotle" because of his extraordinary knowledge, who built several cathedrals and palaces in the Kremlin. This extraordinary monument of the Moscow art remains a lasting symbol of the power and glory of Ivan III." For the sake of internal consistency of this article better would be update sections "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" with his facts and arguments first.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.3.193 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No -- Wikipedia NPOV rules require inclusion of serious viewpoints by Reliable Sources (Fennell was an Oxford professor who wrote the often-cited standard English language biography of Ivan) whether a wikipedia editor likes them or not. The cite evaluates Ivan's major strengths and weaknesses -- the latter indeed belong in ths article. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who are you answer? I am not arguing against inclusion Fennel viewpoint in the article. But his viewpoint totally lack context and need be better integrated in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.3.193 (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fennell is the leading British expert and he has summarized the scholarship about Ivan's overall role in succinct fashion. That is what the lede is for. There is no need for Wiki editors to disagree with the experts. Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A single person's opinion, however expert, should not be included in the introduction section. Doubly so, considering its unneutral and unencyclopedical wording like "bigoted" and "barrenness", as well as its undue concern of one single (and debated) aspect. It may be present in a "Legacy" section, not in the intro section. Your edit was reverted and going to be again if you put it out of place again.Beaumain (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: when we compare a "single person's view" then it's Fennell with a lifetime of scholarship and many leading students versus Beaumain, with what credentials???? The wiki rules: report what the experts say. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fennell

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ivan III of Russia. 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/20081025033234/http://www.scitech.mtesz.hu/51landmark/ to http://www.scitech.mtesz.hu/51landmark
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) 22:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under marriages and children this article claims "Eudoxia Ivanovna (1492 – 1513); married Peter (born Kudaikul), son of Ibrahim, Khan of Kazan. Had issue, one daughter: Anastasia Petrovna, wife of Fyodor Mstislavsky, and later of Vasily 'Nemoy' Shuisky. Through her daughter, Anastasia Petrovna, wife of Prince Fyodor Mikhailovich Mstislavsky, Eudoxia is the ancestor of all living members of the House of Galitzin, and of Prince Rostislav Romanov and his siblings."
Ivan III has no living descendants from either of his wives- his line died out in the 1600's. The ancestor of the Galitzine family and Prince Rostislav Romanoff is Ivan II of Moscow and his wife Aleksandra Vasilievna Veliaminova. Their granddaughter Anna of Moscow married Prince Yury Patrikeievich, and they are the ancestors of the Galitzines. Also, the sources listed do not show Ivan III as the ancestor of the Galitzines. I would like to remove this from the article and have provided below sources that prove my point. Thoughts?
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00295162&tree=LEO.
http://w.genealogy.euweb.cz/russia/rurik15.html.
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/RUSSIA,%20Rurik.htm#_Toc481496241.
2600:8800:2191:2400:756A:32E5:9B62:89CE (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivan II not Ivan III