Talk:Nicholas II

Article is not impartial

the deciption of the tsar's death appears to be exaggerated. it says that the princesses were killed by the use of bayonets,but the executioners were using only pistols.

The executioners, as you call them, have used various weapons according to various books and articles. Some have them using pistols, others have them using bayonets, some say they had knives with them as well. I believe, if you read "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter" by Robert Massie, you will find the forensic evidence as to what was done to the bodies (at least as much as science can tell us)

Succession box

We decided quite some time ago that Nicholas II was indeed the final tsar and there is no such thing as Michael II. I have undone the historic vandalism in the succession box. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicholas_II_of_Russia/Archive_1#Michael_II._Protected

Please don't make these controversial edits without consensus, thank you. James5555 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"{{BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" at the start, and is his title REALLY "Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russia's"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.210.162 (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and yes (but note it's "Russias", not "Russia's").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and incorrect

I would like to bring your attention to the fifth Paragraph of "The Final Months and Execution Section" The statement reads: "However, Leon Trotsky stated in his diary that the assassination took place on the authority of Lenin and Sverdlov."

The problem is that it is incorrect and out of context. I would like to cite: "Lenin" by David Shub, Pelican Books, 1966, republished under Penguin (latest 1977). Chapter 17, Page 359.

As stated and cited in the book: "The night following the death of the former Tsar seven other members of the Romanov family were executed in a town in the Urals. Earlier, Grand Duke Mikhail had been shot in Perm. Trotsky asked Sverdlov who had made the decision to kill the entire Royal family. 'We decided it here,' Sverdlov replied. 'Ilyich believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally around...' Trotsky commented later: 'Under judicial procedures, ofcourse, execution of the family would have been impossible. The Tsar's family fell victim to the principle which constitutes the axis of monarchy: dynastic succession." The Citation is No 17 for that chapter: Trotsky's Diary in Exile, 1936, New York, 1963, pp81-2.

If one reads this paragraph without context one could assume that Lenin had a hand in the death of the Tsar and his immediate Family. However, while Lenin may be culpable and accountable for the above mentioned deaths, the problem of who gave the orders to execute the Tsar and his family now comes up.

To read the prior passages of the chapter ( Pages 357-358) To summarize:

1. After the arrival of the Royal Family at Ekaterniburg, the leaders of the local Soviet began discussing thier execution.
2. The Majority however, refused to assume responsibility without Moscow's approval.
3. The Local Bolshevik Leader Goloschokin was sent to settle the fate of the Romanovs.
4. The Central Committee debated the advisability of holding a Public Trail in Ekaterniburg, but the precarious military situation made forced this plan to be abandoned. (The Czechoslovak legion was approaching at the time)
5. Bykov one of the Ural commissars relates the killing of the Royal Family on July 16th.
6. The task of destroying the bodies is not completed until July 18th.
7. This task was carried out by a detachment of Lettish Checkists under the command of Yurovsky, a member of the Ural Soviet.
8. Bykov statement: "The Soviet power liquidated the Romanovs in an extraordinary fashion. The Soviet Power in this incident displayed its extremely democratic nature. It made no exception for the All-Russian murderer and shot him as one shoots an ordinary bandit." Page 357, Citation 15: Bykov, P. The Last days of the Romanovs, 1926 Pg114-121.
9. Official Announcement of the execution was made to the Sovnarcom on July 18th by Sverdlov, the day after Lenin received a full report by Direct Wire.
10. Sverdlov's announcement: " I wish to announce that we have received a report from Ekaterniburg, in accordance with the decision of the Regional Soviet, Nicholas has been shot. Nicholas wanted to escape. The Czechoslovaks were approaching the city. The Presidium of the Central Executive Committee has decided to approve this act." Page 358, Citation 16: Milyutin, V., Pages from a Diary, Prozhektor, Moscow, 1921, No. 4.

To review, if one reads and accepts the chain of events, then there is at the very least, a clear case of reasonable doubt. Furthermore, we do not know if there was an order handed down by Lenin to liquidate the Tsar; whether this order extended to the entire Royal family, children and all. Mens Rea in this specific case, has not been clearly proven. For one thing the regional soviet could have acted o its own, and as Sverdlov states, was then endorsed by the Central committee, or even that it was the act of Bylov and his supporters who then in turn were endorsed by the Regional Soviet in order to save face, etc etc.

Whether Lenin ordered the executions of a multitude of people is not something we need to debate. The bone of contention here is whether or not he ordered the execution of the Tsar AND his family.

I therefore request that this sentence of this section of the page be edited, include additional citation or deleted.

For the purposes of thoroughness a review and its reply on David Shub's book can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol16/no02/shub.htm#top

Removed said statement as stated above. Raven Letters (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Raven Letters (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Trotsky's indictment of Lenin?

"However, Leon Trotsky stated in his diary that the assassination took place on the authority of Lenin and Sverdlov." - I cant seem to find any corroborating information to this statement. Could someone please cite the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.19.213 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fake Anastasia...

In the article it says that there was DNA testing done on the Anna that Hollywood made the movies out of, that wasn't possible she had her body cremated. She did, however have appendicitis (spelling?) forcing her to have her appendix removed. Her appendix was saved and thats what the DNA testing was done on.

I know its just one of those little nit~picky things, but it bothered me.

I don't have a source for this one, I just saw it on an HBO special, Autopsy: A Special. It was something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.105 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read a book about the Anna case (can't remember which; there are so many!), and they mentioned doing a microscopic comparison of photographs of Anna Anderson's right ear, and Grand Duchess Anastasia's right ear. I do not remember the conclusion reached by that book.

Of course, since they have recently found the remains of the missing Alexei Nikolaevich and one of his sisters, isn't the Anna debate now moot?Sdsures (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Peacock and other issues

This article suffers from a considerable amount of creeping violation of WP:Peacock, in that it has been too much edited by people who wish to portray the Tsar as variously a hero, a misinformed but basically good man, a martyr, a victim of the Jewish conspiracy etc. without providing much in the way of solid evidence. It is not the job of Wikipedia contributors to pass judgment on Nicholas II's lovableness, gentleness, good nature etc., or for that matter on his lack of same, but to report faithfully what a variety of existing sources had to say about him. The article is at present too much inclined to argue in Nicholas II's favour, when it should restrict itself to reporting the fact that there are and have always been arguments about him. It is not up to us to tell people what kind of guy he was, but to give them enough hard information to enable them to use their own judgment and make up their own minds. I am accordingly tagging the article. It's also too long, so I'm tagging that too; for example, I am surprised to note that the assassination section does not contain a link to a separate article on the assassination itself. Lexo (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried a little copyediting here and there and remove the most obvious cruft, but the whole article should be reworked by someone who's an expert on the issue and has the necessary sources. Also, some stuff should be moved into the existing sub-pages, and there should not be too much duplication between them... Averell (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Im rather new to Wikipedia and I certainly do not have a PhD on the subject, but I do have somewhere between 20 and 30 books on the Romanovs and Russian history, as it is the topic of my master's thesis. I don't know what kind of sources you need, but if you email me at Keltara@roadrunner.com and know what you are doing with editing the pages, I'll be more than happy to look up whatever I can with and reply with the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltara (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keltara, and thank your for your offer. If you have some knowledge of the topic, just have a go at the article! You don't even need to sign up to edit, and if you should make a mistake people will surely help you out. Maybe you could first check if the current facts in the article are correct, or if important things are missing. You can always use the talk page to discuss things with the other editors. I strongly recommend that you remove your email address from this page, it will get picked up by all kinds of spammers. People can write messages on your user page. You can also enable the "email feature" in your Wikipedia account that will people let you send private mail (without having to disclose your address). It's also good to sign your comments here with four tilde (~) signs - this will "sign your name" Averell (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Murder/Killing/Execution...?

It can't be "murder": murders are committed by private individuals, and there can be no doubt of their illegality. Regardless of process, the killings were sanctioned and performed by the government, and therefore legal. "Assassination" is tendentious, though it has historical momentum behind it, and implies lawlessness committed with a political purpose, while the Bolsheviks were the properly-constituted and de facto government at the time. "Execution" has the problems associated with it that others have pointed out here (lack of process, etc.), but is still the most accurate.Taganguero (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the word "murder" and replaced it with "assassination" or "execution". I wonder if the term "murder" should not apply - this is the term usually used for illegal killings. An "assassination" it is not, clearly. "Execution" implies that the killing was legal under some code of law, which I don't see here (especially since the whole family is included). I'd opt for the term "murder", but if someone finds this too POV we could probably settle for the neutral (but slightly awkward) term "killing"? Averell (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying he was murdered is not POV because murder is what it was...I think. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was essentially a regicide. I find it more interesting to learn how many parlaimentarians signed a document sanctioning his death. The soldiers were as here is said just following orders. BTW was it Lenin who was the (de facto) President--85.164.223.189 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another person writes to agree that this article needs to be re-written by someone who is trying neither to justify nor to damn Nicholas Romanov. It is absurd to credit him personally with the massacre of Bloody Sunday and with Russian losses in the First World Way. One must understand how the world was, and how he was in it. If you want to judge a man you must understand his vision, his hopes, and how he saw the future. It is easy to judge with hindsight, but it is also facile. Because we always see what went wrong, but we cannot see what might have been. While I am not a 'fan' of Nicholas Romanov, I do not see, in this article, his wider vision and his hopes. These were not only his personal hopes and projections, but real potentials that existed in Russia a century ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.100.246 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "assassination" is the correct term, because even if some people may want to de-legitimize the government which ordered the killings, all of the killings were definitely politically motivated.FlaviaR (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly assassination is the most inappropriate word, as it is restricted to political leaders or reigning monarchs and Nicholas had abdicated the throne and was a prisoner for nearly 15 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandalo (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Assassination is obviously what this was. Nicholas abdicated under duress, ie a gun to his forehead. MJFroggie (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Assassination is actually the most appropriate word. They were killed for political reasons. Assassination is not "restricted to political leaders or reigning monarchs".122.106.255.204 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Murder would apply as well in this case as the Bolshevik government was not, at the time, the "offical" government of the new Russian nation. They acted without the full support of the Russia government, as the government did not exist at the time. Therefore the term murder is appropriate in this case. In order for a government to be allowed to kill someone, there has to be laws that exist that make those killings legal. Lenin wanted revenge against the Tsar for his brother... therefore his motivation for the shooting was personal, and not a governmental issue. Also, in order for a government to make an execution legal, a trial has to take place. Nicholas II was never given a trial and he was executed when he was because his "allies" were coming to rescue him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltara (talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Murder is the appropriate word here as the Tsar and his family, as well as the family doctor amd maid were gunned down in cold blood without benefit of a trial.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If, as you say, "murder is only committed by individuals", what do you call what the Nazi regime (okay, on the orders of the individual Hitler) did to the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Slavs, etc in WWII? I do agree that the different words "murder", "execution" and "assassination" are emotive terms rather than objective, but I also agree with MJFroggie that "assassination" fits best: the murder of the Russian Imperial Family was politically motivated, and they were well-known public figures. Let us consult a dictionary and tease apart the meanings of these words before we debate which ones may be most appropriate.Sdsures (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Passion-bearer vs. Martyr

There is no a priori distinction between a martyr and passion-bearer in the case of Nicholas II, as this article claims. We read in the ROCOR version of the prayer at the Litia:

[Molitvami] svyatykh slavnykh i dobropobednykh muchenikov i svyatykh strastoterptsev: Tsarya Muchenika Nikolaya, Tsaritsy Aleksandry, Tsarevicha Aleksiya, Tsareven Olgi, Tatiany, Marii, i Anastasii i vsekh novomuchenikov i ispovednikov tserkve rossiiskiya

[Through the prayers of] the holy glorious and victorious martyrs and holy passion-sufferers: Tsar-Martyr Nicholas, Tsaritsa Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexey, Grand Duchessess Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia, and all the New-Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.161.245 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is not the above debate still emotive rather than objective? On one hand, these distinctions are verifiably present in the ROC, but the application of them (i.e. deciding which to use) is somewhat subjective.Sdsures (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick lookup of passion bearer. I find that martyr is a subset of passion bearer; passion bearer who is not a martyr was not killed explicitly for his/her faith. Carlm0404 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

100,000 dead soldiers per day

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.

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. 62.231.5.194 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Max (Moscow, Russia)

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)

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)

uhhh... waayyy 2 long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.198.83 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you for one, if read this article on him and Bloody Sunday, you'd know that the czarist officials knew of the event several days before hand, and willingly decided to send the czar out of St. Petersburg on vacation without telling him of the event. He never found out about it until a few days later, in which he wasn't happy. His relatives in St. Petersburg wrote him a letter encouraging not to trust the government officials. My point is the actual czar didn't know how to run the country, and other people were controlling it, and even doing things without his permission. As for him having people stomped on his marriage day, I have no clue what you are talking about.

Nicholas II wasn't a saint, but compared to Lenin and Stalin, he a lamb. In the war, Russia lost about 3,000,000 persons against more than 70,000,000 persons during the "Communist peace" between 1917 and 1991.Agre22 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Read Robert K. Massie's book Nicholas and Alexandra for more information on Nicholas' role in Bloody Sunday and World War I; it also contains an extensive bibliography.Sdsures (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What was Russia's real life like with their ruler?

The WWl placed an unbearable strain on Russia's weak goverment(which Nicholas ruled)and economy, resulting in mass shortages andhunger. In the meantime, the mismangment and failures of the war turned people and important soldiers against the Tsar, whose decision to take personal commands of the army seemed to make him personally responsible for the defeats.

In March 1917, the Tsar lost control first on the streets, then of the soldiers, and finally on the Duma, resulting in his forced abdication on March 15, 1917.

The causes of these "Russian Revolution" were the weakness of Russia.WWl because they were badly led and poor equiped. War took also about 15million Russian men from farms and trains.

The Tsar's mistakes. He took personal command of the army without any experience, left the Tsaarina in charge and she was incompetent. Because of that inn February 1917 the goverment was in chaos. The army abandoned the Tsar, and teh Duma followed. The Tsar was forced to abdicate. Later he was murdered or wounded with his family. They found the bodies of the Tsar and his family. But, there was only one problem, the bodies of Anastasia and Alexi weren't found. They found two bodies of some children but they tested the DNA and the DNA wasn;t of them. A mystery still remains!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.244.98 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

These comments are partially on the mark and others way off the mark. The immediately preceding comment is certainly in the latter category. I can only cite what I consider the authoritative word of a first-hand witness to the German front and to the rule of Nicholas II - my father, who serve in the army on the German front until it collapsed. Yes, there was functional chaos at the front due to the incompetence of those who equipped the Imperial Russian Army and who also hadn't taken into account that the Germans had developed effective machine guns. As to Nicholas II, he was a good person and family man but an incompetent tsar. Finally, the entire imperial family and their personal staff were murdered in the cellar of Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg. Today, it has been proved on the basis of exhaustive DNA tests that the remains of ALL members of Nicholas' family, including Anastasia and Alexis, have been found and are currently interred in the Sts. Peter and Paul church in the fortress of the same name in St. Petersburg.Moryak (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Final Months and Murder

I have change this heading to the NPOV "Final months and death". Note that in section headings only the first word should be capitalized. The term murder implies that they were killed by individuals acting on their own initiative in disobedience to the Communist Party. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That article's part is really weak. In this site: [Am] , we can read: "This valuable new account of the murder of Czar Nicholas II and his family contradicts the official Soviet version, in which Siberian Bolsheviks ordered the executions without Moscow's clearance."Agre22 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Recovery of remains, etc.

I've noticed that the recovery and identification of Alexei and his sister's remains is mentioned in two places - under "Death", where there's a valid argument to mention it, and under "Sainthood", where it simply doesn't belong. Bizarrely, the DNA analysis of Nicholas himself isn't mentioned anywhere, including the most interesting part from a scientific basis: that he carried two lines of mtDNA (called "heteroplasmy" and very, very rare), and that this is what convinced the Russian government that his remains had indeed been found, because he shared the rarity with his brother. I'd like to get consensus to edit the article to reflect this. (Incidentally, Nicholas II is the most notable individual whose heteroplasmy has been identified, and according to one source the only one person on earth other than his brother whose heteroplasmy was found incidentally.) --NellieBly (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Family album

Wikipedia is not a photo host. It is enough to give a Commons link. Currently, this photo gallery occupies about a half of the article's lenght.Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Last Tsar?

Wasn't Nicholas's brother Michael technically the last Tsar of Russia? C.L. Sulzberger says this in his The Fall of Eagles. After Nicholas abdicated on behalf of his son, then changed his mind, he passed the empire to his brother Michael who abdicated the following day after being warned that his life could not be protected.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the historians have the final say. They've chosen to ignore the reluctant Michael II. IMHO, Mike was the 'last Tsar', as the Russian succession was automatic & the monarchy hadn't been abolished upon Nicky's abdication. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Michael wasn't crowned isn't a significant factor either seeing as Russian tsars always waited a year following the deaths of their predecessors as that was the period of official mourning. When the full year had passed they were then crowned tsar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, one could add Michael II into the Infobox & Navbox; atleast with 'dispute' next to it. Though, I'd get WP:RUSSIA's opinon on it, first. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

IF the WikiProject approves it, a model to copy from would be the Infobox/Navbox at Charles X of France. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think historians pretty much have spoken (look at the book titles: Nicholas II, The Life and Reign of Russia's Last Monarch; Last of the Tsars; Nicholas II, The Last Tsar: you won't find Alexei or Michael in a historian's list of tsars. The issues around the abdication are manifold, but moot: the fact is that neither Alexei nor Michael ever acted as Tsar. The questions that make the "technical" issue of who was the last tsar are the same questions that make the answer unknowable: does a forced abdication have legal force? could Nicholas abdicate on his son's behalf? does trying to do so violate his oath to defend the fundamental laws of succession? If so, does it carry legal force? can someone who has already abdicated change his mind, given that he's given up the power to make such a decision, which now rests with his son? Does Michael's refusal count? etc. If the technical issues bother anyone, the statement that Nicholas II was the last tsar to rule Russia should finesse the issue. - Nunh-huh 15:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I reckon, the historians have got the final say. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Michael was murdered before Nicholas also needs to be taken into consideration. I suppose all things considered, Nicholas was the last Tsar. I just thought I'd question it, seeing as how author Sulzberger called Michael the last Tsar in his book.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Michael was the last; oh well. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you, however, we do need to take into account the legality of Nicholas' abdication; whether or not it was made under duress, plus the fact that Michael died before Nicholas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually (when ya re-think it), Alexis was the last Tsar, as he never consented to the renouncement of his succession rights. But like I say, the historians have got the upper hand. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that Nicholas was pressured into abdicating; although certainly not with the same strong-arm tactics used against Mary, Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's always a tricky situation, when a monarchy is nearing its end. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was given the final push into the abyss by a lethal combination of Rasputin and German assistance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Republics are much better anyways (not the communist ones, though). GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Now we are getting very much off the subject. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Easy, guys. Mikhail never ruled a minute, nor Alexey. Mike did not accept the tittle. By your reasonin, should we also include Constantine Pavlovich, who similarly abdicated, as an Emperor? I'd say, no. Who does not accept the tittle, is not emperor. Neither army nor parliament have sworn to him. Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The royal/imperial succession is not based upon personal acceptance, but primogeniture.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You propose to list Constantine as well, then? And possibly exclude Catherines I and II as usurpers, who were not in right to claim the throne. Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't propose anything. I was merely posing a question based on the words of Sulzberger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Russian monarchial history, has alot of unexpected twists & turns, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a very turbulent, mysterious and dramatic dynasty interlaced with a great deal of tragedy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Trick question. The Empress of Russia is Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, the Russian realm is just under the occupation of republican forces at the moment. ;) - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Tsar Paul I of Russia impose Salic Law, thus barring female succession due to his neurotic hatred of his mother?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tsar / Czar

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)

I agree. The usage of Tsar is more accurate than Czar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

The article once again swaps back and forth between Czar and Tsar, so I'm going to go ahead and change them all to Tsar. REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I hope nobody changes them back to czar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Not this American!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You have just risen 1000% in my estimation. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I will have to go along with the "Tsar" (NOT "Czar") usage. There is a single letter in the Cyrillic alphabet (used in Russian) which supplies that "ts" sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting details of Nicholas' death

This article states that Nicholas was killed by multiple shots to the head and chest. However, the Wikipedia entry for Anastasia Nikolaevna, in the "Captivity and execution" section, states: "The Tsar had time to say only "What?" and turn to his family before he was killed by several bullets to the chest (not, as is commonly stated, to the head; his skull, recovered in 1991, bears no bullet wounds)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadVI (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC) The analysis of his skull proves/confirms he was NOT shot in the head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.60.33 (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Massie’ translation is not always authentic

Original Russian text:

«Тяжёлый день! В Петербурге произошли серьёзные беспорядки вследствие желания рабочих дойти до Зимнего дворца. Войска должны были стрелять в разных местах города, было много убитых и раненых. Господи, как больно и тяжело!»

—The State Archive of the Russian Federation, ф.601.ОП.1, д.248. Diary of Nickolas Romanov. January, 9, 1905.), in Russian.

Massie:

«A painful day. Serious disorders took place in Petersburg when the workers tried to come to the Winter Palace. The troops have been forced to fire in several parts of the city and there are many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and sad this is.»

— Massie, R, Nicholas and Alexandra, p.125

But Russian: тяжел~ ≠ English: painful! Тяжёлый, тяжело is rather unlucky, sad (literally = heavy).

At the same time Russian: больно is exactly = English: painful, but this word Nickolas uses only once, in the last sentence.

Next, Massie uses a verb 'tried' (russ 'пытались') while in original text there's a noun 'wish' ('вследствие желания рабочих'), literally, 'due to the wish of the workers).

Last, Massie says 'have been forced to fire' though actually nobody forced troops to shoot: neither officers, nor the workers. They fired because there was a routine military order to fire. In Russian Nickolas says definitely: 'had to fire' (должны были стрелять) thus confirming that firing was at least one of expected outcomes.

Thus the whole excerpt may look as:

«Sad day! Serious disorders occured in Petersburg for the workers’ desire to come to the Winter Palace. The troops had to fire in several parts of the city and there are many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and sad this is.»

Also, the whole block was misplaced in the article (it was before the description of what happened on January, 9; I moved it after that paragraph) User:Cherurbino

Regarding the title of the comment, many translations can be authentic but not accurate. Given the passage quoted in Russian, my (native speaker) accurate and unimbellished translation would be:

"Sad day! Serious disorders occured in Petersburg as a consequence of the workers’ desire to walk to the Winter Palace. The troops had to shoot in several parts of the city and there were many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and sad."

In order to render good translations it is always excellent to have original language sources and a good knowledge of Russian in use, not just a good dictionary, is required.Moryak (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Archangel???

Under the World War I section the following is displayed:

"Russia could receive help only via Archangel which was frozen solid in winter, or via Vladivostok"

Is this vandalism or then can you explain what an archangel is.

• Easy. This is a reference to Arkhangelsk, a port on the Northern Dvina River that flows into the White Sea. It was Russia's first sea port able to directly link Russia with Europe via the White, Barents, and Norwegian Seas. The port was named after an archangel - therefore, the simplified English translation.Федоров (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The most disastrous ruler ever

Bullet-pointed speculation on why he was the "stupidest ruler of the 20th century"

Nicholas II gets the title “The most stupid ruler in XX century”. Reasons: Despite a visit to Great Britain before his accession, where he observed the House of Commons in debate and seemed impressed by the machinery of democracy, Nicholas turned his back on any notion of giving away any power to elected representatives in Russia. Despite the onset of the war and the many defeats Russia suffered, Nicholas still believed in, and expected, a final victory. . . As Russia continued to face defeat by the Japanese, the call for peace grew. Nicholas's own mother, as well as his cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm, urged Nicholas to open peace negotiations. Despite the efforts for peace, Nicholas remained evasive. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (Nicholas's sister) wrote regarding the Bloody Sunday: . . . I felt at the time that all those arrangements were hideously wrong. Nicky's ministers and the Chief of Police had it all their way. My mother and I wanted him to stay in St.Petersburg and to face the crowd. I am positive that, for all the ugly mood of some of the workmen, Nicky's appearance would have calmed them. . . The situation turned ugly and bringing the Bloody Sunday. Nicholas' relations with the Duma were not good: Reactionaries such as Prince Vladimir Orlov never tired of telling the Tsar that the very existence of the Duma was a blot on the autocracy. With this attitude, the Tsar was breeding revolutionary thinking in some intellectuals and the poor population. The concept of Pan-Slavism and ethnicity allied Russia and Serbia in a treaty of protection. This treaty forced Russia to get into conflict against Austria-Hungary and Germany. Count Witte told the French Ambassador Paleologue that from Russia's point of view the war was madness, Slav solidarity was simply nonsense and Russia could hope for nothing from the war. On 31 July 1914 Nicholas took the fateful step of confirming the order for a general mobilization. Nicholas was strongly counseled against mobilization of the Russian forces but chose to ignore such advice. Despite the experience of defeat against Japan few years before, Russia got into conflict with Germany, a more powerful adversary than Japan. In July 1915, King Christian X of Denmark, first cousin of the Tsar, sent Hans Niels Andersen to Tsarskoye Selo with an offer to act as a mediator. Nicholas chose to turn down King Christian's offer of mediation. As the government failed to produce supplies, there was mounting hardship creating massive riots and rebellions. Despite efforts by the British Ambassador Sir George Buchanan to warn the Tsar that he should grant constitutional reforms to fend off revolution, Nicholas continued to bury himself away at the Staff HQ. Nicholas couldn't go into exile in the United Kingdom following his abdication due to political sensitivity issues in England. Nevertheless, he was offered exile in Germany but he and his wife rejected the offer indignantly. Later, the revolutionaries slaughtered him and his family. Just imagine, this tsar had the key to start up the war: if he hadn't mobilized the troops (because he knew this would provoke the declaration of war from Germany), the war wouldn't have started! How many calamities the Russians and the rest of the world had ever avoided without this war: the Red Revolution, Stalin, Hitler, millions of dead people, the Holocaust. I wonder, who was worse ruler for the Russians Nicholas II or Stalin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.17.146 (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC) More to the point - just imagine what would have been had not some crazed nihilists assassinated Tsar Aleksandr II, the "Tsar Liberator". It was largely due to that assassination that Russia's successive rulers plunged into deepening conservatism and paranoia. Nicholas II, unfortunately, reigned when the cross currents of a wide range of historical events crashed down upon Russia's ruler.Федоров (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Nicholas could hardly go into exile in Germany while Russia was still at war with the Central Powers. (Jdkd44 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)) How easy to say "most disastrous ruler ever". We really need to study the situation and the period under the rule of Nicholas II at first before judging on anything. This Anti-Nicholas retoric is very much taken from Soviet historical perspective. First of all Russia wasn't doing that bad in WWI. Fighting a war on the broadest front against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey they weren't fighting that disastrous as you are telling here. The Russian were advincing on the Turkish front and had taken out practically the whole Austrian-Hungarian army in one sweep. None of other allies ever managed to achieve such victory as in the Brusilov offensive. The perspective on rebellions and massive riots is also very misleading. As we know the image of the revolution is not the one as it seems in the movie of Eisenstein where rioting people are storming the palace and taking the ruling of the country. We should also ask ourselves the question why the English, French who were fighting together with the Russians against the German enemy, practically supported the revolutionary movement of the provisional government. French general Maurice Janin for example wrote in his diary that the English were heading and supporting the revolution financially. General Gulevich also commented that large funds were transferred to the revolutionaries. Now lets ask ourselves the question why representatives from the British embassy were communicating behind the back of the Tsar with representatives of the Duma who were not supportive of the regime. Kerensky even called several times for the defeat of Russia in the First Worldwar to achieve the goals of becoming a Russian republic. He had always been anti-monarchy. Also on the abdication. The Tsar didn't just decided to abdicate. The Tsar was invited by General Alexeev to go to the Stavka. After the Tsar went away the riots suddenly happened and reports were suddenly coming in. Then the Generals started to ask the Tsar to abdicate. We will never know what happened in that train. What we only have is a typed document with a pencil signature from Nicholas II. But however this was all non-legitimate, because the abdication of the throne needed to go through more complicated judiciary processes. This never happened and the case was never discussed or investigated because the Tsar was arrested by the proclaimed Duma and then he got shot without trial by the bolsheviks. The problem was internal. The generals of the Stavka refused to cooperate and to obey the commander in chief. Instead they gave support to the Duma and arrested the Tsar. This is still a case that needs to be investigated further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3E0E:6E00:EC10:382E:52B6:8340 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. If you wish to discuss how to improve this article, you are in the right place. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

cousinage

An IP recently removed Nicholas from the statement that "Nicholas, his wife Alexandra, and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany were all first cousins of King George V of the United Kingdom", but it's true as written. Nicholas was 1st cousin of George V by common descent from Christian IX of Denmark and his wife Louise von Hessen-Kassel; Alexandra and Wilhelm II were 1st cousins of George V by common descent from Victoria & Albert. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKay (talk • contribs) 06:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Date of Death?

The main body of the article gives the night of March 16-17 while the picture caption gives March 15. 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneCallahan (talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please check this again. For Nicholas II's death, I am seeing July, not March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Executed"

I replaced the word "executed" with "murdered" in the intro. No matter what your politics are we should not confuse a term that denotes guilt with what actually occurred. "Execute" denotes punishment for a crime. Nicholas and his young children weren't "executed", they were murdered by progressive extremists.

"Murdered" yes, whether the murders were "progressive" is highly questionable. More likely they were just politically directed thugs.Федоров (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As soon as I saw the word "executed", I knew that was incorrect. Additionally, this is one of the worst articles I have ever read on wikipedia. Its obvious that there are a great many people editing according to some personal opinion, and not editing according to facts. It needs a good cleaning, and perhaps a lock to prevent excessive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.16.212 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have always felt that the family were murdered, however, considering the political ramifications of the family's deaths, it doesn't seem entirely untrue or even biased to use the word executed. I would humbly suggest that the word murdered is laden with emotional overtones and bias. However, the word execute does seem appropriate when one considers that in killing the Imperial Family the Bolsheviks were eliminating the most potent symbol of Imperial power in Russia. In that sense, the Imperial family were guilty of occupying the supreme position of power under the Imperial regime. I know this can be a hot-button topic, and I'm not trying to provoke anybody. I've just come to look at the deaths from a purely objective perspective, within the frame of the power struggle between an emerging political power structure (Bolshevism-Communism), and the old Imperial power structure. Seen within that frame, it seems to be that the word execute is less suggestive, or emotionally-laden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.179.165 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Date needed

Hello, all,

In the course of working on another article, I discovered that the Czar attended a parade or ceremony in early 1916 during which he came under aerial bombardment by Austro-Hungarian aircraft. Can anyone verify the date and location of this attack, please?

I believe you are thinking about the parade in Khotyn, which took place on April 12, 1916 (new style)/March 29, 1916 (old style), but probably didn't take place the way you found it described :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2011; 16:04 (UTC)

Check those dates again. If March 29, 1916 was the correct old-style date, then April 11 (not 12) is the new-style date. From March 1, 1900 through February 28, 2100 (new style) the old and new style are 13 days apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

How "Bloody" Was Nicholas II?

Tsar Nicholas II was nicknamed "Bloody" Nicholas by Gapon and other revolutionaries after the 1905 "Bloody Sunday" massacre at the Winter Palace, and the moniker was widely used by Bolshevik propagandists in later years to justify their violent overthrow of the Russian government. (A tragic irony, considering the 20 million souls murdered in the Soviet genocide that ensued.) However, there are several historical inaccuracies and omissions in the original draft of this biography. History may be written by the victors, but must we in the modern Wiki-world silently condone such distortions? For example, the "Bloody" Nicholas moniker was attributed by one Wiki-author to the Tsar's "execution of political enemies," and to his alleged role in the tragic Kishinev pogroms. In truth, capital punishment was exceedingly rare in late-19th and 20th century Tsarist Russia, and was reserved for the most egregious offenses, as in the case of Lenin's older brother, who had conspired to assassinate the Tsar. Lenin, himself-- who later ordered the execution of Tsar Nicholas II and his children, if Trotsky is to be believed-- was sentenced by the Tsarist government to a "prison" term at a Siberian dacha, where he was allowed considerable freedom, and correspondence with family and friends. Hardly a case of "bloody" execution of the Tsar's political enemies.

In the case of the Kishinev pogroms, the government of Tsar Nicholas II formally condemned the rioting, dismissed the regional governor, and tried the perpetrators, as described by Robert Massie (op.cit. Nicholas and Alexandra pgs. 94-95.) This documentation should be included in reference to published comments about Tsar Nicholas II and the pogroms. It is true that the Russian Minister of the Interior, Plehve, likely played a role in the funding of anti-Semitic publications prior to Kishinev, but he was condemned for this by his own boss, Prime Minister Stolypin, before being assassinated in 1904.

As for references to the "unprecedented" military campaigns of "Bloody" Nicholas, one can only wonder if the author is at all familiar with the famous battles of Poltava, Austerlitz, and Borodino. However "unprecedented," Tsar Nicholas II sought very earnestly to prevent the outbreak of the Great War, and can hardly be blamed by non-Bolsheviks for its initiation by Germany and Austria-Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravoslavnik (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

About Tsar Nicholas II and the pogroms. June 17 Zloyvolsheb has removed (diff June 17, 2011) the following text (from the section Anti-Jewish pogroms of 1903–1906) :

According to the memoirs of Petrograd chief of secret police General K. Globachev, in early 1917, Nicholas II was planning to lift all restrictions on Jews in April 1917 (ref>Globachev K. Truth about the Russian Revolution: Memoirs of a former head of the Petrograd police department. . - Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN). 2009 (Chapter V) - in Russian</ref): «Justice Minister Dobrovolsky told me personally that the draft law on equal rights of Jews had already been prepared and, in all probability, the law would be declared at Easter 1917".

As the reason for removing my text, Zloyvolsheb wrote: «not in source». However, in the Globachev's book (“Truth about the Russian Revolution: Memoirs of a former head of the Petrograd police department.”) we read: (in Russian): «Министр юстиции Добровольский мне лично говорил (после переворота), что проект закона о равноправии евреев был уже приготовлен и, по всей вероятности, закон был бы объявлен на Пасху 1917 года”

Thus, the RS contains the quote, and I translated it correctly. I restore the text in the article.Борис Романов (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

As till now I do not see any objection, I restore the text in the article Борис Романов (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Борис Романов

July 29, (1914) Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague Conference

July 30 Moxy has removed (diff 30 July, undo) from the section Nicholas II of Russia the following text:

July 29, Nicholas II sent a telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to transmit the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference[1] (in an Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague). Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[2][3][4]

[1]: ref>The Willy-Nicky Telegrams (From World War I Document Archive): Telegram July 29, 1914: “Tsar to Kaiser, July 29, 8:20 P.M. Peter's Court Palace, 29 July 1914: Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship. Your loving Nicky”</ref

[2]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian). 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII)</ref

[3]:ref>Quote: (Palaeologus M.G . Tsarist Russia during World War . Chapter XII. The Forgotten Tsar's telegram to Emperor Wilhelm): “Sunday, January 31, 1915 Petrograd “Governmental Herald” publishes the text of the telegram dated 29 July last year in which Emperor Nicholas suggested that Emperor Wilhelm convey the Austro-Serbian dispute the Hague tribunal. Here is the text of the document: "Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship." - The German government has not seen fit to publish this telegram to the number of messages that are exchanged directly, both the monarch during the crisis preceding the war. <...> And what a terrible responsibility assumed the Emperor Wilhelm, leaving without a word of reply sentence of Nicholas! He could not respond to an offer otherwise than agreeing to it. And he did not answer because he wanted war".(end quote)</ref

[4]:ref>The Willy-Nicky Telegrams (From World War I Document Archive)</ref ref>29 July - 1 August, 1914 The "Willy-Nicky" Telegrams in the original English</ref ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian). 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII)</ref.

The discussion on this telegram of Nicholas II took place in Talk:World War I. Now we have 12 RS, confirming the importance of this telegram. I can agree that the placement of information on this telegram in World War I article is subject to debate, but in the article Nicholas II of Russia the information on this telegram should be clearly posted.

So, I propose to restore the text about the telegram of Nicholas II as follows:

July 29, Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Servian problem to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].

[1]: ref>[The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. by James M. Beck, LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S. Author of "The War and Humanity."] (p.81, p.106)</ref

[2]: ref>Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher "International Relations", 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian); 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.— Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII); Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs (Volume 1, Chapter VIII(see Sunday, January 31, 1915)</ref

[3]:ref>G. Buchanan. «My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories», 1923 (P.200)</ref

[4]: ref>“Fighting for peace” by Henry Van Dyke. – New York. Charles Scribner's sons. 1917 (P.132-133)</ref

[5]: ref>“International Judical Settlement Trends” by James Oliver Murdock, Harold J. Tobin, Henry S. Fraser, Francis O. Wilcox and Willard B. Cowles Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 34, (MAY 13-15, 1940), pp. 125-148

[6]: ref>Arthur L. Frothingham. Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems</ref

[7]: ref>A Handy Reference on the Great War, published in 1918 (War Cyclopedia – N)</ref

[8]: ref>Winston Churchill. The unknown war. L.: C. Scribner's Sons, 1931</ref

[9]: ref>Robert K.Massie. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: 1967</ref

[10]: ref> D.C.B. Lieven. Russia and the Origins of the First World War. L., 1984</ref

[11]: ref>Richard F. Hamilton, Holger H. Herwig. Origins of World War One. Cambridge University Press, 2003</ref

[12]: ref> History of Russia. XX Century/ edited by Dr., Prof. Andrei Zubov.(Volume I, 1894-1939). - M.: AST Publishers, 2010 . (P. 291)</ref

[13]: ref>The data of all secondary sources are confirmed by primary sources (texts of telegrams from well-known Willy-Nicky Telegrams July 29 -1 August 1914).</ref

[14]: ref>The German Foreign Office in publishing (the fall of 1914) the correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar omitted this telegrams (the German Foreign Office has since explained that they regarded this telegram as too "_unimportant_" for publication). On the contrary, Russian Foreign Ministry (Minister Sazonov), as well as French Ambassador to Russia (M. Palaeologus) believed the telegram very important. M. Paleologos (also James M. Beck and others authors) in their books accused Kaiser Wilhelm that he had not supported the proposal of the Russian Tsar to submit the Austro-Serbian problem to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment, and thus Kaiser abandoned the chance for a peaceful resolution to this problem .</ref

So, are all this "insignificant"?! – this is only personal opinion of five participants of discussion on Talk:World War I. The authors of these (12) RS have the opposite opinion: the fact that just only this telegram (one out of twenty) is mentioned in the 12 RS on WWI, proves that this telegram should be mentioned in the WP article on Nicholas II of Russia.

In addition, I'm glad to inform colleagues that the the book ([7] from my list) published in 1918, the newly re-released recently (in 2004):

A Handy Reference on the Great War / by F. L. Paxson, E. S. Corwin, S. B. Harding and G. S. Ford. Honolulu Hawaii USA: University Press of the Pacific, 2004 (1st edition=1918)

Although indirectly, but it demonstrates the relevance of the topic. And two more books from my list ([1], [4]), which were published in 1915-1917, now (in 2006-2010) published as E-book in a part of the projectProject Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ( www.gutenberg.org.)

Thus, once more: I can agree that the placement of information on this telegram in World War I article is subject to debate, but in the article Nicholas II of Russia the information on this telegram should be clearly posted.Борис Романов (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

• So, over the past two weeks none of the participants of this discussion (including on the Addition to "Backgraund": July 29, (1914) Nicholas II...) could not argue anything here. I think it definitely says that the text should be reinstated. I ask Moxy (who had previously removed it) to restore the text now in the form in which I put it here above.Борис Романов (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

Wikipedia is a collaborative community, users whose personal agendas and actions appear to conflict with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed. Are you here to build an encyclopedia. Moxy (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this again - you are fully aware that the community does not think this is reliable nor relevant (plus from what I see he did reply) - this has to stop as it looks like a WP:SYNTHESIS problem.Moxy (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote earlier that the deletion of information about the telegram of Nicholas II in this theme is absolutely unfounded. We can continue to debate whether this is important information for the article World War I in Talk:World War I, but in this article (Nicholas II of Russia) this information is important, without a doubt. By the way, none of the opponents of Talk:World War I did not mind here. Борис Романов (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Your link to WP:SYNTHESIS is incorrect, since all of the 11 RS I write about this telegram, highlighting only one of its total of 10 telegrams of Nicholas William 28-31 July 1914. Please read this carefully:

So, starting from 1915 and throughout the XX century (in 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1922, 1923, 1931, 1940, 1967, 1984 and in 2003 and 2010) there were published at least 12 relevant books (RS) where well-known authors (as, for example, Winston Churchill) have written about this telegram of Nicholas II, dated 29 July 1914, highlighting it out of all correspondence between Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm of 28-31 July 1914 (out of 10 telegrams). I wrote earlier that M. Paleologus (French Ambassador to Russia, a member of the French Academy) has devoted (in his book [2]) the entire chapter for this telegram. James M. Beck (LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U. S), in his book ([1]) - several pages. He even wrote what (in his opinion) Kaiser Wilhelm should was to answer to Nicholas II.

Nearly 60 authors (and half of those with academic degrees of doctors and candidates of Historical Sciences) in these 12 books have found it necessary to emphasize the importance of this telegram. And now, three to five editors of Wikipedia do not seem to understand this and oppose a posting of information on this telegram in WP articles and even removed a short text on the telegram from the WP articles! I think that the position and actions of these editors can not be explained nothing but their personal dislike of Nicholas II, or/and by certain political considerations. Борис Романов (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

I do so unless you get consensus we have a problem for its inclusion - get more involed and see what other have to say. See WP:FAITACCOMPLI. If most think its not reliable for one article what makes you think its reliable here? Again its clear your here to push this POV on our readers in multiple articles. See also WP:SYNTHESIS as this what all this looks like.Moxy (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally, you did not notice that this time I have placed information in another section of the article, which discusses the importance of initiatives Nicholas in The Hague Conference (and Hague tribunal). - . - And you, again and again repeating old (and also wrong) arguments about the unimportance of this telegram to the theme of the First World War! In the new context of my information looked like this (Nicholas II of Russia#Reign):

In foreign relations, Nicholas followed policies of his father, strengthening the Franco-Russian Alliance and pursuing a policy of general European pacification, which culminated in the famous Hague peace conference. This conference, suggested and promoted by Nicholas II, was convened with the view of terminating the arms race, and setting up machinery for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The results of the conference were less than expected, because of the mutual distrust existing between great powers. Still, the Hague conventions were among the first formal statements of the laws of war. Established in 1899 Hague Tribunal is still in effect. In 1905, Nicholas II has submitted to the Hague Tribunal the case of Russian-English Dogger Bank incident[21]. July 29, 1914 (two days before the start of World War I) Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Servian problem to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34].

Борис Романов (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Dear Moxy, do not you understand that the definition of this telegram as "insignificant", "unimportant", "trivial event" (the position of "consensus" in Talk:World War I) - this is the point of view of the German Foreign Office in autumn of 1914, and no more - do you really not understand it ?! More than 60 authors in 11 RS, ranging from 1915 (the book by Dr. James M. Beck) and till now (2009 - the book by Dr. A. Zubov, et al) saw this telegram as important one and wrote about it (emphasizing only just this telegram from all the "correspondence Willi-Nicky" 28-31 July 1914). Among the authors of these 11 RS - many well-known persons (as Winston Churchill), as well as more than 30 doctors and candidates of science.

It is obvious that the position of "consensus" (3-5 participants of the discussion in Talk:World War I) is completely unfounded and in fact a disgrace to the English Wikipedia (Russian Wikipedia has information on this telegram in Первая мировая война, Причины Первой мировой войны, Николай II).Борис Романов (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

I think that the information about the telegram of Nicholas II should be placed also in WP-articles Causes of World War I (section "Web of alliances") Борис Романов (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Борис Романов

Since after September 7, 2011 no one of my opponents did not object to my proposal to add the text of the Hague Tribunal information about the treatment to him Nicholas II, in so far I have made these additions today. Борис Романов (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

"DOUBLE STANDARDS"?:

Moxy, you undid my text:

* July 29: Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II, with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Servian problem to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram [1-12]

Meanwhile, for comparison, we read in the WP article Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon (Sir Edward Grey):

His (E.Grey's) attempts to mediate the dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia by a "Stop in Belgrade" came to nothing, owing to the tepid German response

Why do you think that this action of Sir Edvard Grey deserves a mention in the article about him - but the action (telegram) of Nicholas II is not worth mentioning in the article about him? Moxy, you're using the "double standards"? - I ask you to restore my text. Борис Романов (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Now the detail information of the Nicholas's telegram are posted in the article The Willy-Nicky Correspondence - - in the wording of the participant User: LeadSongDog.

Therefore, this article Nicholas II of Russia is expedient to place the abbreviated information about this telegram:

July 29, 1914 Nicholas II sent the telegram to Wilhelm II (The Willy-Nicky Correspondence), with the suggestion to submit the Austro-Servian problem to the Hague Conference (in Hague tribunal) – Wilhelm II did not respond to this telegram [1-15].

Борис Романов (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Boris Romanov

What your saying is wrongly worded - since he did reply but simply did respond to that portion of the telegram. Is this what you have been trying to say?Moxy (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify old style calendar (still in use in Russia then) and new style calendar (presumably already in use in Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday Death-Toll

The article states that the official death toll was 92, but does not mention that the death-toll was actually much higher than this (I believe around 1000 is the number most agreed upon by historians). If someone is reading this article without any knowledge of Bloody Sunday they will believe this "official number" of 92, instead of the actual estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.115.220 (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

huh?

The DNA analysis revealed that the rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses [68]. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution.

have we not drifted into babble? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.179.142 (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Rasputin

The prime duty of a queen or empress is to produce a viable male heir so the the dynasty may continue. The tsarina had produced several healthy daughters and one sickly son.

The doctors were aware that haemophilia was inherited and that with the birth of her son, it was reasonably obvious that the Tsarina had inherited a defective gene from Queen Victoria. At that time there was no medical remedy of any kind.

As any son born to the Romanovs was likely to suffer the same problem the Tsarina was probably going to have to face up to the possibility of a divorce "for reasons of state" and the Tsar re-marrying for the same reasons.

Natural mothering instincts and this other thought must have played heavily on the Tsarinas mind and made her very vulnerable to any other possibility, such as the bogus "holy men" like Rasputin, that might improve her sons health. It was more like coincidence that her young son did indeed respond how Rasputin prophesised but to a desperate mother it must have seemed convincing as a near miracle.AT Kunene (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

92.7.xxx is banned HarveyCarter

Incorrigibly fractious User:HarveyCarter got banned, but he socks using 92.7.x.x IPs. Please delete his additions on sight, per WP:DENY. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Net worth

I'm not sure where the Daily Mail got their numbers, but the inflation calculator at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics ([1]) as well as Wikipedia's own {{Inflation}} template disagree. BLS result: $900 in 1918 = $13,684.41 in 2012. Wikipedia template: $900000000 in 1918 = $13.7 billion in 2012. Why the huge discrepancy? -- Fru1tbat (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The figures above are the figures in the article, so I'm assuming that the article no longer contains the disputed figures, and I'm going to remove the "disputed" tag. Stuart Strahl (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad linkS

In the list of orders of knighthood there is Italy's "Order of the Most Holy Annunciation". Arguably that should be "Supreme Order of the Most Holy Annunciation". Without doubt, the link should not take us to the article on the RELIGIOUS group "Order of the Most Holy Annunciation", requiring us to then click another link at the top of THAT page to get to the KNIGHTHOOD by that name. It bewilders me why Wikipedia sets things up like that. Why not just make THIS link go straight to the knighthood's page without going through the page on the religious group? As always I don't understand the RATIONALE for what I find here. Please excuse me if Czar Nick II was a Roman Catholic nun.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:1D38:73A9:69D2:E52E (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

And if you click the Order of St. Stanislaus in the above list, you get to a Polish order of knightood, where right at the top it says "click here to get to the Russian one". Well, since this is listed in the "DOMESTIC" list, shouldn't the link go STRAIGHT TO the Russian one without that detour through Poland? Alternatively he received the Polish knightood and the text should be moved from the Domestic list to the Foreign list.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:1D38:73A9:69D2:E52E (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Royal Navy?

Tsar Nicholas II, in the uniform of a Royal Navy Admiral of the Fleet, c. 1909

The infobox shows Nicholas II in a Royal Navy uniform. The link Royal Navy goes to the British Royal Navy. Nicholas II was Russian, not British. Am I missing something here, or could it perhaps be that in the early 20th century, royal families in Europe were quite interconnected and thus it is possible that Nicholas II did indeed have a rank in the British Royal Navy or osmething? JIP | Talk 13:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

He was an admiral in the Royal Navy. (EVanguard (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Appointed Admiral of the Fleet in 1908 by Edward VII. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nicholas II of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31214
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114085646/http://www.time.com:80/time/world/article/0,8599,1846339,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1846339,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

King George V

The offer of asylum in Britain was withdrawn due to pressure from King George V, as Kenneth Rose made clear in his 1983 biography of the monarch. (81.132.49.31 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

Disruptive reverts

A user reverted twice [3] then continued to revert as IP, and the page was fully protected as a result. They argue that the Tsar was the head of state, but the point is he was not always the Tsar (whereas in 1914 he was).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The user has been re-blocked as a sock in a long-term abuse case, so that I am going to rollback as soon as current protection expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Why Nicholas?

His name is Nikolai. Who has been called he 'Nicholas'??? 0x0F (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

His name was Николай. He is known in English as Nicholas. Similarly, his cousin George V is called Георг V in Russian, not Джордж. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Not the last Tsar

Technically Alexis and Michael both reigned for a few hours. (VladIm (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC))

Whether they did or not we will never know, because the argument that they did is questionable, and will never be decided by a competent authority. Nicholas II was, however, certainly the last Tsar who exercised any actual power. - Nunh-huh 20:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your premise seems to be based on "The king never dies" (What, no article?), whereby the heir becomes the new monarch on the instant of the death or abdication of the incumbent monarch. There is never any moment when the throne is vacant. This certainly applies in the United Kingdom, but has it ever applied in Russia? I doubt it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What is differnce between Czar and Tsar ? 86.97.128.39 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Spelling. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, the base word is "царь": "Czar" is an older spelling using a system of transliteration used in Poland; "Tsar" is the newer, more usual spelling based on a now more common system of transliteration used in English, where "ц" = "ts". "Tsar" has been the predominant spelling for over a century; "Czar" has a very old-fashioned feel to it. There may be a difference based on meaning (though it is not strictly observed) where "Tsar" is used for the Russian autocrat, and "czar" (lowercase) is used for appointed officials with great powers (e.g. "drug czar"). - Nunh-huh 23:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Connection to Physiology?

This article is under the domain of WP:Physiology, but I see no connection whatsoever in the article. There is no mention of the words science, biology, or physiology within the article. Are there other sources that can establish a connection between Nicholas and the study of physiology?

Clearly a mistake. I've removed it. - Nunh-huh 07:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"Saint" Nicky and the Occultists/Freemasons

A number of reliable sources discuss in depth Nicholas Oldenburg-Romanov's connections to occultism and quasi-freemasonry at his own court at St. Petersburg. In particular the Lodge of the Cross and Star at Tsarskoye Selo, belonging to the Martinist Order associated with the French occultists Gérard Encausse (alias Papus) and Nizier Anthelme Philippe. Martinism is an occult system derived from the Kabbalah and Rosicrucianism and it grew directly from Esoteric Freemasonry. I feel this is a significant aspect of the life of this person and the culture of the court he ran, we should mention it in the article.

As per:

• Carlson, Maria, "No Religion Higher Than Truth, A History of the Theosophical Movement in Russia, 1875-1922", Princeton University Press, 1993
• Leighton, Lauren G, "The Esoteric Tradition in Russian Romantic Literature: Decembrism and Freemasonry", Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994
• Glatzer Rosenthal, Bernice, "The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture", Cornell University Press, 1997
• Warth, Robert D, "Nicholas II: The Life and Reign of Russia's Last Monarch", University of Michigan, 1997

Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

The article currently claims Nicholas the Bloody was executed with the approval of Lenin and the higher Bolshevik leadership. That is not true and his family has failed to prove it in court. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8264321/No-proof-Lenin-ordered-last-Tsars-murder.html Pickle juice123 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nicholas II 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/20140306192343/http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-167726 to http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-167726
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026154641/http://www.freewebs.com/romanovsisters/romanovsisters.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/romanovsisters/romanovsisters.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208191424/http://www.kingandwilson.com/ to http://www.kingandwilson.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Last ethnic Russian ancestor of Nicholas II

It is well known that Nicholas II's ancestry was basically Germanic, being himself an Oldenburg by patrilineal descent. The article states that his last ethnically Russian ancestor was Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna of Russia, Duchess consort of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp (6 generations and 160 years back), daughter of Peter the Great. However, Anna Petrovna was not ethnic Russian as her mother was Eastern Balt, and her father was of Tatar descent by his mother. This means that the last ethnic Russian ancestor of Nicholas II was the father of Peter I, Tsar Alexis I of Russia (8 generations and 239 years back), as his mother Eudoxia Streshneva was Russian and his paternal grandmother was also a Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.52.180.107 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

change Maria to Anastatia when talking about Tsar Nicholas' families identification. Anastasia was not identified until 2007, not Maria. Dpalmolj (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Each body was incontrovertibly identified as one of the daughters but the remains cannot be distinguished from each other definitively because there are no comparator samples to distinguish one sister from the other. DrKay (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Title between 1906-1917

Sorry, that I'm writing this without the source at hand, but I've recently read that Nicholas'title changed after the creation of the Duma,from Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, to simply Emperor of Russia. Does anyone know where this may be sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.179.165 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Mysterious isolated reference to Lenin

If you search the article in its current form the word Lenin appears once, and with no context or explanation or link, and not even a full name. Is that a vestige of a prior removal of Lenin from the article? Perhaps either this sole reference should be removed, or it should be changed to the correct intended name, or a sentence or paragraph and hyperlink to a Lenin page should be considered. I am unknowledgeable on the subject matter so I am just presenting the finding.2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:C092:12D4:811F:E625 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Though I have not examined the edit history, after writing the above paragraph I see extensive discussion of Lenin on the talk page. I surmise that there is controversy regarding Lenin's role during the reign and lifetime and death of Nicholas II. Did some editor(s) decide to quash all dissent and just delete everything about Lenin, because discussions/theory/evidence of Lenin's role in Nicholas II's death was deemed invalid by an editor(s)? Would not valid historical reporting at LEAST have an italicized article saying "Some speculate that Lenin was involved in the death of Nicholas II. See {link here}" where the link points to a section in the Lenin article that presents the theory or evidence? (I'm assuming that the triggering issue was regarding Lenin and possible assassination role?)

Regardless of that, it would seem to be a *serious* omission to not say *anything* about Lenin, as I see on the Lenin Wikipedia page that he was the actual head of Russia from 1917 to 1924. Nicholas II was the head of Russia until 1917. It is inconceivable that there is no functional overlap or connection. At very LEAST a sentence/paragraph and link to Lenin is appropriate, at bare minimum, for the article to have any serious credibility.

Something is very wrong here. I don't even know Russian history but there is a serious malfunction here. More sinisterly, based on trends of late in Wikipedia, I wonder if encyclopedic journalism is being corrupted by the power of editors who insist on one opinion, and crush even an italicized sidebar that says "(There is some debate about X Y X)" containing footnotes, if not specific links.

That prospect is disturbing. Wikipedia is showing signs of crumbling due to zealous editors essentially bullying across their version of history. I'm seeing it more and more, and after the incalculably great amount of work to build the product, and amazing growth of mainstream acceptance despite mocking cynical public rejection, things like this could send it all crashing down. There needs to be a higher discussion of this apparent trend. (END EDIT) 2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:C092:12D4:811F:E625 (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Does this not merit action?? Lenin was his successor. Why the silence on him? Is there some hesitation to even simply LINK to Lenin's wikipage??2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:7C6A:B0CB:CBBA:FDF2 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

a paragraph now displaying correctly on my tablet

"Russia was defeated in the 1904-1905 ..." paragraph was not displaying correctly, and I could not figure out why even when I viewed it in editor mode. However, I saw 2 places where commas should be inserted anyway, and when I saved those changes, the paragraph then displayed CORRECTLY. Carlm0404 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Assassination attempt in Otsu, Japan

How do we know that the police officer which attacked Nicholas II was "deranged"? Is there any medical evidence to prove this or any symptoms noted by officials during his arrest and detainment? Because it's a big statement. The man might've just been against the Russian Empire and/or it's leadership, not all assassins are deranged but rather some may take their anti beliefs to the extreme and attempt an assassination on the political figure they oppose. Can anyone give any evidence that the officer was deranged?Migboy123 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Most scholars studying the period" agree

here is the full quote from Morrill article pp 296-97 re the call for the Hague conference: " Some individuals have argued that the genuine idealism of Nicholas II contributed significantly to the decision to issue the circular of August 24. The czar sought to lead mankind into a better world. It was just that simple.4 Most scholars studying the period, however, have presented the circular in a different light. To them, what Muraviev handed the diplomats was a document "conceived in fear, brought forth in deceit, and swaddled in humanitarian ideals."5 In short, the circular "sprang from decidedly realistic and practical needs of the Russian government," not from humanitarianism, not from love for mankind.6" Rjensen (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Most Soviet scholars? Or most American scholars? I think you are giving undue weight to Dan L. Morrill's opinion. — [4]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Horrill cites lots of scholars in English and Russian in 78 footnotes. Most are to Russian sources. Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan L. Morrill, "Nicholas II and the Call for the First Hague Conference' Journal of Modern History (1974) — So Dan L. Morrill states that, for most Soviet scholars, the invitation was "conceived in fear, brought forth in deceit, and swaddled in humanitarian ideals...Not from humanitarianism, not from love for mankind." — [5]. I still think it's WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY-PICKING. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:French maneuvers of 1901

There's a draft at Draft:French maneuvers of 1901 if you would like to review it. 80.12.34.66 (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"Executed/ion"

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)

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)

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)

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)Joker0002710

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nicholas II (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 04:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Nicholas II of Russia → Nicholas II – The "of [country]" descriptor seems to be peculiar to Wikipedia and is not used by any published reference work that I am aware of. See these examples. Our guidelines instruct us to use published works as titling models. "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used," according to WP:TITLE. Nicholas II currently redirects to Nicholas II of Russia, so there is no primary topic issue. "Of [country]" descriptors have been dropped off the titles of numerous royal biographies recently, as you can see here. Allan Rice (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose move. The "of [country]" format was carefully thought out and discussed before its introduction early in the history of Wikipedia. It has since been gradually broken down by a preference for "common name" so we now have inconsistent article titles such as "William the Conqueror" and the ludicrous "Queen Victoria". I think it would be difficult to argue that "Nicholas II" is instantly recognisable as the Tsar of that name. The argument that "of [country]" descriptors have been dropped recently is not really an argument at all; each article should be judged on its own merits. Deb (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - A wider discussion needs to be opened at WP:NCROY, per these growing number of RMs on monarch bio articles. Inconsistency is rapidly developing among a number of article titles. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The "of [country]" format is still the best way for disambiguation. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Allan Rice, Deb, GoodDay, and Dimadick: It should also be noted that there was a discussion that rejected the move to a no primary topic situation. Discussion here. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but these RMs are popping up frequently, these last few weeks & it's causing a messy inconsistency, even among monarchs of the same country. Thus my advice for going to NCROY. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment. Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Request for Comment: Nicholas II, a "Good Administrator"? ==

Lately, I have been arguing with editors, Joker0002710 and Mattia332, over whether Nicholas II should be characterized as a "good ruler" in the lead. In light of the sources I've cited as well as the overwhelming evidence set forth in the article, it is my position that such a description is a minority viewpoint which should not be used to sum up assessments of his reign recently made after the Soviet Union's fall. If the consensus among Wikipedia's Community is that this view should be included, I'll yield the argument. However, it seems very inappropriate to do so given the existing consensus on Nicholas's reign. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see the words "good ruler" or even "good administrator" anywhere in the article. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's because I undid the characterization of him as such in the lead. This is how Joker0002710 wants the page to look. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I, personally did not call, Nicholas II a "good administrator", but rather that assessment comes from the provided sources. The article stood like that for around 4 months unchanged, looking at the history of the article, before being changed. --Joker0002710 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Joker0002710

• Oppose on the grounds that any assessment of a political leader's tenure we place in the lead paragragh or the opening section, even though, if done according to procedure, it will be based on reliable sources, is logically bound to be understood as the consensus among historians as to that tenure. Plus, we run the often encountered risk of bias and opinion slipping in under the radar. We better allow the main text speak for itself, where we should, of course, include historians' point of view; we could even state the obvious as the case might be, i.e. when there's evidently an assessment that's overwhelmingly endorsed by historians. But the opening text should be short and dry. -The Gnome (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support most users spend a few seconds on an article and expect answers in the lead, or else Wikipedia is no use to them. The lead will be repeated resources like ALEXA (where you ask the echo machine a question and get a brief answer). After looking at the scholarship I think In this case the consensus among the reliable secondary sources is "very weak leader" and incompetent administrator. Thew Consensus is seen in the very good reviews of the recent book by Robert Service The Last of the Tsars (2018) -- I recommend editors browse the opening chapters at AMAZON -- look for example at pages 7-10. His tolerance of Rasputin is notorious. Rebecca Mitchell (2018), says that he "was utterly out of touch with, and unable to adapt to, the changing world around him." The top generals in 1917 were convinced his leadership of the army was a disaster. [says Grebenkin, 2017] On the other hand ordinary Russians in 2020 love him as a saintly martyr --and that should be in the lead. For the consensus of scholars in Russia today see Russian Studies in History. 2017, Vol. 56 Issue 1, pp 6-50, a roundtable discussion. [for a copy email me at rjensen@uic.edu]. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Gnome: @Rjensen: @Joker0002710: As a compromise, how about transferring the last two sentence of the opening paragraph to the final paragraph so it reads as follows?

Following his death, Nicholas was reviled by Soviet historians and state propaganda as a callous tyrant who persecuted his own people while sending countless soldiers to their deaths in pointless conflicts. In 1981, Nicholas, his wife, and their children were recognized as martyrs by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, based in New York City. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the remains of the imperial family were exhumed, identified by DNA analysis, and re-interred with an elaborate state and church ceremony in St. Petersburg on 17 July 1998, exactly 80 years after their murder. Later in 2000, they were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as passion bearers. Despite being viewed more positively in recent years, the majority view among historians is that Nicholas was a well-intentioned yet poor ruler who proved incapable of handling the challenges facing his nation.

This would keep the opening short and concise while providing users with takeaways summing up the article's content. Emiya1980 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Emiya1980 -- it's a good solution -- HOWEVER, change "Despite being viewed more positively in recent years, the majority view among historians is that Nicholas was a well-intentioned yet poor ruler" to "Despite his new popularity among the Russian masses, the consensus view among historians is that Nicholas was a well-intentioned yet poor ruler" -- I don't find any scholar saying he was competent as a war leader. Rjensen (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support this* as a compromise and a generally good approach. I might not use the word "masses," but I support it beyond that word choice quibble. Tfkalk (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - We usually avoid describing heads of state as being good or bad, it's something that's in the eye of the historical beholder. FWIW, the impression of Nicholas II (I've often got), was that he was in over his head. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • the job of the Wiki editors is to summarize the reliable secondary sources. When they evaluate a historical personage we report their evaluations. In this case he was much more than the honorific head of state--he made the final decisions esp in WWi military affairs. Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

He was a weakling. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion on this issue has come to a halt. For good measure, let’s get the opinions of more editors for a conclusive consensus. @HzgiUU149377: @Jeanne boleyn: @DrKay: @Alansplodge:@El C: @Chewings72: @TheHistoryBuff101: @CapLiber: @Smeat75: @Thinker78: @Nunh-huh: @GiantSnowman:Emiya1980 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I don't think he was a "good administrator" or a "good" anything else. He was a loathsome anti-Semite and would not listen even to his own mother's warnings that the path he was on would lead to catastrophe. However I don't see anything in the article that calls him a "good administrator". The closest is "More recent assessments have characterized him as a well-intentioned, hardworking ruler who nonetheless proved incapable of handling the challenges facing his nation" with references, I don't see how one can object to that. I suppose even the worst tyrants think they are operating on the best of intentions, and anyway the judegement is cited to reliable sources.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References

I would gradly agree with this this "deal" proposal, but Nicholas II's reign (apart the last 3 years of war) saw huge economic growth, (more than the USA at the time, and french economists predicted before the war that "by 1950 Russia shall be the economic powerhouse of Europe") as mentioned nicely-made-administation and stability, yes terroristic anti-monarchists events happened, but really few after 1905, and these happened not in large cities). As war leader, he didn't commanded, as every european head of state, it's army, but to boost it's morale he joined the HQ of the Russian Imperial army and took officialy the charge of the Armed forces, but he didn't of course leaded the army, so the military defeats (altrought 1916 was a militarly succesful year for Russia) can't be listed as "his fault" and/or "poor" management... Nichoals did ultimately lost the throne, but because he refused to attack the capital with regiemnt brought from the front, as it was clearly saw that during the February revolution in Petrograd the rest of the European Russia remained Loyal to the monarchy, as did the troops at the front, but Nicholas abdicated anyway as many misinformed generals suggested him to abdicate, as in these days news were confoused and chaotic, at the end, I must say that Nicholas II was a succesful leader, but he out of well intentions, refused to diretcly crush that new troops of the garrison of the Capital that came up along with workers of factories (for all sources, check the Russian page of Nicholas II) (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (CET)

Looking past your revisionist take on the February Revolution, much of the progress that occurred during Nicholas II happened in spite of his leadership not because of it. It is true that the Russian Empire experienced rapid economic growth during his reign. However, this traced back to policies put in place by his father, Alexander III, and his Finance Minister, Sergei Witte, whose leadership carried over into the early years of Nicholas's reign. Moreover, he enacted political reforms only after Witte strenuously insisted it was necessary to calm the unrest underlying the 1905 Russian Revolution, before reneging on them when the threat dissipated (dissolving the popularly elected Duma, suppressing political parties, crackdown on dissenters, etc.). Furthermore, the riots resulting in his loss from power were triggered by food shortages and low morale among soldiers caused by his regime's mismanagement of the war effort. So "No", I do not see how he could be called a successful ruler. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Migboy123: Jeanne boleyn @GoodDay: @Moryak: @Garret Beaumain: @Sdsures: @Jtdirl: Any thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the "deal". Compromises can be healthy things, especially when the opinions of historians is spilt, though I disagree with Emiya's opinion that Nicholas being a bad administrator is a "minority view" from historians. --Joker0002710 (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Joker0002710

@Emiya1980: I don't take your phrase about my opinion as "revisionists" as in insult... But sorry, but i just listed facts as i must do that happened during Nicholas' reign, as the Country, apart from the capital, remained clearly loyal during the revolution in the capital... About the "riot and bread" myth, altrought there was "mismanagement" of goods, as it happened in every nations in the war at the time, and there are clear sources that deny the "bread" myth (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2020 (CET)