Talk:Tsar/Archive 4

message: I've put up an RfC, in the hopes of getting some additional input here, since we seem rather bogged down and arguing past each other. john k 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be helpful if the editors involved in the dispute could summarize their positions; I would like to comment, but the previous discussion is quite long, and I'm having trouble understanding exactly what the problem is. If the dispute is about how specific sentence(s) should be worded, perhaps the editors could post their preferred wording on this talk page? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, that'll take some time. Right now I'll only say that the sentences concerned are too numerous. I suppose the simplest way to see what the discussion between me and Imladjov has been about is to see for yourself the versions that we two have been reverting to. As for John, he supports me, but he has also more "radical" doubts, extending into earlier periods of history. --194.145.161.227 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think my doubts are all that radical.  My basic position is that Tsar (in Bulgarian and Russian) is not an exact equivalent to Emperor, but rather a rough one, especially since 1721, although even before that it was never really considered an exact equivalence, and that, starting in the 19th century, "Tsar" was actually occasionally used in ways which made it equivalent to "King."  That's all. john k 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: One preliminary comment is that everyone seems to be relying on translation/interpretation of primary sources, with very few secondary sources cited. Are there any authoritative secondary sources that can be consulted here, besides dictionaries? Is there, for instance, an equivalent of the Oxford Classical Dictionary for Russian history? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Imladjov has been envoking historical works in general terms (an article in Serbo-Croatian from the 1935, a book about tsar Ferdinand I of Bulgaria), but so far he hasn't quoted them explicitly to explain which of his statements they actually support (despite requests). Besides dictionaries, the 1911th edition of Britannica,  supports, to a great extent, various views that John and I have expressed. Note also that since the edits in the actual revert war (in which John did not participate) were mostly about the modern meaning/usage of the word in the native languages, dictionaries (and perception by native speakers) did seem to be quite relevant as sources.  --194.145.161.227 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I looked at the OED, which does not say that Tsar is equivalent to Emperor, and which provides early English usage which says that Tsar is not equivalent to Emperor. (That is not to say that "Tsar" was not seen by Russians to be equivalent to Emperor, but that Englishmen weren't sure if it was or not.  Since Englishmen presumably get to set English usage, I think this is significant).  Beyond this, you're absolutely right that we ought to look for secondary sources. john k 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Словарь современного русского языка. 1965
царь - 1. Государь, властелин какой-нибудь страны (как общее наименование, не титул). 2. Титул монарха в некоторых странах.
король - в некоторых феодальных и буржуазных государствах - титул монарха.
император - наследственный титул главы монархического государства.
Translation:
A Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language (1948-1966)
tsar - 1. Sovereign, ruler of a country (as a general designation, not as a title). 2. The title of the monarch in some countries. (next come examples from Russia)
king (korol') - in some feudal and bourgeois states - the title of a monarch.
emperor (imperator) - a hereditary title of the head of state in a monarchy.
:Is this a Soviet era dictionary? john k 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's obvious, isn't it? :) I forgot to write the date of edition. Anyway, the language hasn't really changed since that time. In cotrast, Dal's dictionary (1866) that I quoted previously certainly feels like a different era. --194.145.161.227 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsar', korol' and imperator according to a modern Russian dictionary

message: Ghirlandao, thank you so much for telling me to look at Brockhaus and Efron!
By 1890-1906, the academics of the Russian Empire regarded tsar'  as equivalent to korol' , and not to emperor. The following is the unabridged introductory section of the article on tsar in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in these years and known as "the Russian counterpart to the 1911 Britannica"(). The significant parts are in bold.
Translation first.
Tsar 
- one of the monarchic titles, equivalent to the title "king" (korol'). Other languages don't have the distinction that the Russian language makes between tsars and kings, the first word being used almost exclusively for the monarchs of the Ancient Near East and of Classical Antiquity, as well as for the Russian sovereigns after the XVIth century, and the second being used mostly for the West European sovereigns of the Middle Ages and Modernity. The French, the Germans, the English, the Polacks etc. use the same terms roi, König, King, Król both for the Ancient Near Eastern, Greek and Roman tsars and for the modern koroli (kings) of England, Italy etc.. The very word Tsar in the title of the Russian emperor is rendered in Polish with the term Król, i.e. korol' (king). The terminological distinction between the words Tsar and korol' has arisen in our language, depending on which language we have borrowed the term from. The word Tsar is a contracted form of the word cesar' (Caesar); it's equivalent to forms such as kesar', Greek kaisar, German Kaiser, i.e. emperor (imperator). Other Slavic peoples still preserve the form cesar' to designate imperial power: Polish cesarz, Czech císař, Gallician cesar'; the latter word was still used in our language in the XVIIIthe century to designate the Holy Roman Emperor. The Bulgarian language uses the contracted form, too, and it was used to designate the Bulgarian sovereigns of the past. The first sovereigns to be called Tsars in Russian were the ones mentioned in the Holy Scripture, as well as the Byzantine emperor (imperator). The word korol', which we share with other Slavs (Polish Król, Serbian краль etc.), originated from the name of Charlemagne (Carolus), and in our language it came to be used above all in reference to the Western sovereigns. In Russian history, it was only applied to Daniil Romanovich Galickiy in the XVIIIthe century. Thus, the distinction that the Russian language makes between teh two monarchic titles, has no principal significance; we translate the same Latin rex with the one or the other word, depending on whether we are referring to an Ancient Roman king or a Germanic konung. 
Original
Царь
— один из монархических титулов, равносильный титулу король. В других языках нет того различия, которое русский язык делает между царями и королями, называя первым именем почти исключительно монархов древнего Востока и классического мира, a также русских государей с XVI в., и давая имя королей главным образом западноевропейским государям в средние века и в новое время. Французы, немцы, англичане, поляки и т. д. одними и теми же терминами roi, K önig, King, Kró l обозначают и древневосточных, или греческих, и римских Ц., с одной стороны, и современных королей Англии, Италии и т. п. Самое слово Ц. в титуле русского императора передается по-польски термином Kr ó l, т. е. король. Терминологическое различие между словами Ц. и король возникло у нас в зависимости от того, откуда наш язык заимствовал эти термины. Слово царь есть стяженная форма слова цесарь (Caesar); ему равносильны такие формы, как кесарь, греч. καϊσαρ, нем. Kaiser, т. е. император. Форма цесарь сохранилась и теперь у других славян для обозначения императорской власти: польское cesarz, чешск. t ísa ř, малорус. (в Галиции) цесарь; последним именем еще в XVIII в. у нас обозначали римско-германского императора (ср. выражение Цесарская земля). Болгарский язык также знает стяженную форму, каковая и употреблялась для обозначения прежних болгарских государей. Прежде всего у нас царями стали называть государей, о которых говорится в Св. Писании, а также византийского императора. Слово король, общее нам с другими славянами (польск. Kr ó l, сербск. краль и т. п.), произошло от имени Карла Великого (Carolus), и им у нас стали называть главным образом западных государей. В русской истории оно было применено лишь в XIII в. к Даниилу Романовичу Галицкому. Таким образом, различение, которое русский язык делает между обоими монархическими титулами, не имеет принципиального значения; одно и то же латин. rex мы переводим то одним, то другим словом, смотря по тому, говорим ли о древнеримском царе или о германском конунге. Конечно, власть Ц. у разных народов имела разное происхождение, разный объем и разный характер (см. Королевская власть, Монархия, Князь). В дальнейшем даны очерки царской власти: 1) на древнем Востоке, 2) в Греции и Риме, 3) в Византии и 4) в России.
--194.145.161.227 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The final proof 

message: Extract from the article on Emperor (Imperator). 
In the early modern period, the imperial title was restored in some countries, but now it applied to a new, mostly national system. The first rulers to assume the title were the Russian sovereigns: in 1721, the Senate and the Sinode asked Peter I, on the occasion of the Nischtad peace, to accept the title of Emperor (Imperator), Great One and Father of the Fatherland. That act, which made the Russian tsar equal to the only Emperor of the time, the head of "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", caused protests on the part of many European countries."
В новое время императорское достоинство было возобновлено у некоторых наций, но в применении к новому, главным образом, национальному устройству. Прежде всего приняли этот титул русские государи: в 1721 г. Сенат и Синод в ознаменование Ништадского мира определили просить Петра I принять наименование И., Великого и Отца Отечества. Этот акт, ставивший русского царя наряду с единственным тогда И. "Священно-Римской империи германского народа", вызвал протест со стороны многих европейских держав.
--194.145.161.227 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brockhaus on Peter's change of style 

message: Translation:
The tsardom of Poland
(Królewstwo Polskie [Polish: "The Kingdom of Poland"]) - that is the name of the part of Poland that was annexed by Russia on the Congress of Wien. 
Original:
Царство Польское
(Królewstwo Polskie) — так называется часть Польши, присоединенная в 1815 г. на Венском конгрессе к России. 
--194.145.161.227 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! A little appreciation of one's efforts is nice at times, and something tells me I'm not going to get any from Imladjov. :) --194.145.161.227 19:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, excellent sleuthing! I have been following the discussion here, and on and off elsewhere (it has been periodically debated over several years on Usenet, both at alt.talk.royalty and at soc.genealogy.medieval, and I agree with your conclusions, which I think benefit from the strong challenges raised. Lethiere 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brockhaus on [[Congress Poland|The Tsardom of Poland]] 

message: In Russian the term neans ultimate autocratic ruler of a country. The country is either ancient or eastern (Tsars of Rome - pre-republican rulers of Rome), Tsar David etc. Medieval and modern european monarchs (excpt those of Russia and Bulgaria) called korol'. Monarchs of China and Japan called Emperors.--Nixer 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosponse to RfC 

message: *Kievan Rus crumbled a century before the Mongol invasion. Misleading statements with Russophobic overtones should not be tolerated.
::That was another anon IP. --194.145.161.227 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated in the edit summary, I have removed all allusions to the issue of who reflects "the original usage", since this is a matter of interpretation and not of facts. However, I still want to say that I don't agree fully with you. Bulgarian and Russian have departed from medieval usage, because they have come to call most emperors "imperator"; in another sense, they preserve medieval usage by calling Biblical kings "tsar". Serbian has departed from medieval usage, because it has come to call Biblical kings "kral"; in another sense, it preserves medieval usage by calling most emperors "tsar".--194.145.161.227 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the other anon IP again.--194.145.161.227 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant the native monarchs of Bulgaria and Russia (that's the usual definition that you find in a dictionary). As for the Shah, I just didn't feel it was quite relevant, and I saw several problems with the statement. First, I believe that his official title was shahinshah (king of kings, hence emperor), so the fact that the Greeks called him that didn't change that much. Second, you should specify which "Greeks" and at which time you mean. Third, I would be grateful if you would provide a citation for that claim. 
*The lead resulted from a compromise worked out above. Please don't change it at whim. Boris Uspensky presents overwhelming evidence that, before the 18th century, the word "tsar" was construed as "emperor", particularly in the Slavonic discourse. Other meanings of the word evolved in vernacular languages later and have no bearing to the Church Slavonic context. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There was no real compromise, and I was one of the three main actors in the discussion above. When it was finished (as Imladjov abandoned it and John Kenney had shared my opinion all along), the resulting redaction was written by me and had the lead that I have been restoring. The other one was the result of an anon who got reverted twice but somehow sneaked in the third time. Yes, tsar did mean mostly "emperor" until the XVIIIth century or so, and there has always been a consensus about that, but the point is that all interpretations of the title (pre- and post- XVIIIth century) should be included in the introductory sentence. Since the sentence that immediately follows says that the title originally meant "emperor", I think there is no room for misunderstanding. The remaining part of our disagreement seems to be due to our different interpretations of the word "Slavonic". IMO, the editor who included it meant "Slavic" (including Russian, Bulgarian, etc.) and not (Old) Church Slavonic (why limit things to a single language?).
--194.145.161.227 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To anon 

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 06:16, 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: Why Russian Tsar was the "Heir of Norway"? Norway never was Russian territory. Moscvitch 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heir of Norway 

message: The little Empires that flung from the Serbian Empire - where they ruled by tsars too? --PaxEquilibrium 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no Empires that slung from Serbia after 1355. Most of the independent rulers had the titles despot or kral (king); no one remained tsar. --Gligan 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsar? 

message: Hi This is Gaurav  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.243.56 (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaurav  

message: what about modern usage in American politics?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.134.114 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Obama's czars?:
*Energy and environment czar: Carol Browner, Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Clinton administration
*Health czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle, former official in the Clinton administration, overseeing healthcare issues
*Urban affairs czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr., former Bronx Borough president
*Economic czar: Paul A. Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman.
*Regulatory czar: Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law School professor
*Government performance czar: Unfilled since Nancy Killefer resigned after it was revealed she had failed to pay tax obligations for household help --64.85.222.248 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  America 

message: "In contrast to the Latin word "imperator", the white Greek term basileus had..." I am not familiar with the term "white Greek", and googling does not bring any meaningful results. Is this a typo? 88.114.247.8 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed from "Byzantine" to "white" on 14 April by an IP editor without a stated reason. I reverted it. —JAO • T • C 14:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "White Greek" 

message: Tsar: Hebrew word Sar (female: Sarah) means leader or ruler.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.30.10 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation 

message: At least a half-dozen paragraphs of the "English and American usage" section of the current article is directly plagiarized from the Slate article that it cites.  This whole section needs to be rewritten. 129.74.123.12 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I've created Czar (U.S. political term) as a separate article, because that meaning of "czar" can be developed into an extensive, somewhat controversial history which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article.  I've restored what used to be here for a long time, the "Metaphorical uses" section, which gives a brief treatment of such uses including the U.S. political one, and gives a "seealso" note to the new article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split-out article created for U.S. political term 

message: Article says "The modern languages of these countries use it as a general term for a monarch." This is certainly not the truth in Serbian. In Serbian, if there is no specific title for a formal ruler (like king, prince, duke or pharaoh), the ruler will be called "car", but it is not general term for a ruler (it's "vladar", from verb "vladati", "to rule"). That way, since we don't know what was the title of the Babylonian ruler, it will be called "car", but Elisabet II will be always "queen" ("kraljica"). No matter of two references for Russian and Bulgarian, I still doubt if this is correct what's written in the article, as it is not correct in Serbian. Saigon from europe (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that when that sentence was originally written, the phrase "general term" was meant to express something like "default term" or "neutral term" (i.e. precisely what Saigon expressed by saying that "if there is no specific title for a formal ruler, the ruler will be called 'car'"). Certainly the idea wasn't to claim that it is an abstract  cover term or a hyperonym, i.e. that "emperor", "sultan" and "pharaoh" are classified under the common label "czars" - of course, that's not true in either of the three languages. Anyway, I think the article is also accurate as it is now, without the sentence.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "general term for a monarch" in certain slavic languages 

message: Peter the Great is more known as the first Russian emperor rather than as last tsar. Therefore it will be more logical to place a portrait of Ivan the Terrible in the article, as this person associates in Russia with a title of the tsar. --Heller2007 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible 

message: How do we know that "tsar" was in fact a pronounced word, and not a writing fillet until the 17th century, similar to "gosudar" from "gospodar". --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: This first para of the section reads like garble-d-gook.  It even ends with a seemingly unrelated fact about the death of Nicholas II.  I am not a Russophile or anything like that, so I would not know how to write this paragraph; all I can say is it is very confusing and not a bit helpful to the uninitiated.
To begin with, the paragraph seems to lose direction almost immediately.  The first sentence seems to lead us to Latin roots, which is fine, but then immediately switches to discussion of Slavic roots, which is also fine but the structure of the discussion seems to gallop from one point to another.  When I am learning about something, I would like context, and for that context to stay on track for long enough to get the overall idea.  Bee-bopping around only turned me off and not only do I not want to read it, I am done with this entire article for now.  I think I'll return when it gets cleaned up someday.73.90.84.55 (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Meaning in Slavic languages" first paragraph  

message: Well you stated that Tsar came from latin Caesar, but that simply is not true, as the title Tsar or Sar is way older than Caesar. Rulers of Persia and Babylon used title "Sar", "Saru" before Rome was even planed.... This is so dumb....Aryanprince (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesar 

message: Is there a reason why the article is Tsar and not Czar, I couldn't find an explanation in the talk archives.  I was always taught to spell it Czar because it derives from Caesar, which isn't spelled Tsaesar. Hot Stop (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Both forms have been common (and the political nickname is established as czar); but Ц is normally transliterated ts, as in Polevetsian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsar is certainly the modern spelling in UK.  I reagrd czar as a long-obsolete spelling.  Yes, it is derived from Caesar, but probably not direct from Latin by through Greek (of Constantinople) and the Old Russian translation of the Bible.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Czar" is largely an American spelling. It might not have always been that way, but in both the UK and Australia, the spelling tsar is far more common these days. When I studied modern history in high school (in Sydney, Australia, in the mid-to-late 1990s), it was Tsar, and "czar" was unheard of. I'm led to believe though, that in academic contexts even in the US "tsar" is preferred, the difference being that the popular spelling follows the academic one in the UK and Australia, but seems to be lagging in the US - possibly because metaphorical uses of the word have always been more common in the US, so US English has proven more resistant to the scholarly evolution in spelling. ZackMartin (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Scholarly evolution?' In context, it seems that you are implying that evolution is always an improvement. I don't necessarily disagree with you on this particular issue, but it is important to remember that the most vital component in any form of is the presence of variation. Event Nexus (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czar vs Tsar 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Цзар. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Цзар" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]