Talk:Ivan III of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Russia / History / Military (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Old talk[edit]

Talk about Partisan!!!! I don' think the poor dead souls of Novgorod would believe any of this tripe! Meika 00:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to know more about his contributions to society. If you added a section like that to the article that would be great.

The article constitutes a gross act of misrepresentation, indeed it is a ham-handed hatchet job, interpreting Ivan's record according to the bias of his enemies, both foreign and domestic. He deserves better as does any human being. I direct the author's attention to John Fennel's book, Ivan the Great of Moscow, where the legends of Ivan's supposed timidity are put to rest. What emerges is a consummate diplomat and strategist who never took foolhardy risks but who never shied from a fight when challenged. The article reflects an innumerate level of ignorance regarding Ivan's actions let alone their underlying reasons. When I find the time I shall rewrite it completely on the basis of Fennel's work. So long for now. Soz

You are welcome. The article was imported from the 1911 Britannica and as such is understandably outdated. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Longest Ruler Ever?[edit]

This needs to include a reference or something, it doesn't even have dates. I won't call it bogus but it also sounds fishy, though the ruling family certainly enjoyed a lot more stability during these years I can't believe it without dates at the very least. Guess tomorrow I'm pulling out the old history books!--JaymzRR 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick search and, though not as straight forward Peter the Great did suedo-rule for an identical 43 years, for now I am removing the reference since it lacks any real information, reference, or very likely truth.--JaymzRR 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Albus Rex or Albus rex[edit]

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

some what? =[edit]

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


The late British historian John Fennell, professor at Oxford, was a leading authority on Ivan III and is widely cited by recent scholars, see dozens of citations to Fennell " the best available treatment" says Wieczynski - 1994 -p 243; "First and foremost, John Fennell's history which unfortunately was incomplete at the time of his death" (introduction to reprint of Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich Solovʹev - 1999); "John Fennell, who is the leading authority on the medieval Moscovite state" (Colliers Encyclopedia) Rjensen (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Your claims that Sergey Solovyov (1820-79) did approve the writings of an obscure Cold War warrior with a pro-catholic, anti-Russian slant are patently false. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
it's from the modern introduction online at online p xxii Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Fennell's conclusion was presented totally out of blue. In the article nothing suggest, that this point of view ever have right on existance. More of that, part "A period of cultural depression and spiritual barrenness. For the sake of territorial aggrandizement he deprived his country of the fruits of Western learning and civilization" contradict part "Ivan did his utmost to make his capital a worthy successor to Constantinople, and with that object invited many foreign masters and artificers to settle in Moscow. The most noted of these was the Italian Ridolfo di Fioravante, nicknamed "Aristotle" because of his extraordinary knowledge, who built several cathedrals and palaces in the Kremlin. This extraordinary monument of the Moscow art remains a lasting symbol of the power and glory of Ivan III." For the sake of internal consistency of this article better would be update sections "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" with his facts and arguments first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No -- Wikipedia NPOV rules require inclusion of serious viewpoints by Reliable Sources (Fennell was an Oxford professor who wrote the often-cited standard English language biography of Ivan) whether a wikipedia editor likes them or not. The cite evaluates Ivan's major strengths and weaknesses -- the latter indeed belong in ths article. Rjensen (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Who are you answer? I am not arguing against inclusion Fennel viewpoint in the article. But his viewpoint totally lack context and need be better integrated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Fennell is the leading British expert and he has summarized the scholarship about Ivan's overall role in succinct fashion. That is what the lede is for. There is no need for Wiki editors to disagree with the experts. Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
A single person's opinion, however expert, should not be included in the introduction section. Doubly so, considering its unneutral and unencyclopedical wording like "bigoted" and "barrenness", as well as its undue concern of one single (and debated) aspect. It may be present in a "Legacy" section, not in the intro section. Your edit was reverted and going to be again if you put it out of place again.Beaumain (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
when we compare a "single person's view" then it's Fennell with a lifetime of scholarship and many leading students versus Beaumain, with what credentials???? The wiki rules: report what the experts say. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)