Talk:Nicholas II

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)

The most famous fake Anastasia was Anna Anderson, who is the "Anna that Hollywood made the movies out of". She was indeed cremated. But not all of her. She had had intestinal surgery during her lifetime, and the surgical specimen that had been removed was still at the hospital where the surgery was done. So she did indeed have DNA testing that showed not only was she not Anastasia or any other member of the Imperial family, but also that she was actually Franziska Schanzkowska, previously a Polish factory worker, with a history of mental illness. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 24 September 2020 (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)

Clearly, people who wish to make vague references to "heard somewhere" or "people have said" definitely should do some reasonably serious research. With today's availability of sources online this is not a hard undertaking. - The reference "1. Celebrate his marriage, having a few thousand people stomped to death, (this is why he was called "bloody" first time)" is totally incorrect. The applicable fact pertains to Nicholas' coronation. What happened was that people were trampled to death when souvenirs were being distributed at a mass gathering in a field on the outskirts of Moscow. The stmapede was not ordered by anyone and the resulting deaths were an unfortunate accident. - Item 2 referring to Bloody Sunday is also more accurately explained above when it is noted that Nicholas wasn't even in St. Petersburg at the time of the demonstration and personally couldn't have and didn't give any orders to open fire on the demonstrators. - Item 3 has absolutely ZERO basis in any fact. Certainly it would have been invented as part of Bolshevik/Communist propaganda - as were any number of seemingly "glorious" revolutionary events, including the "storming of the Winter Palace" which never occurred but was staged for Eisenstein's film on the Revolution. We currently live in a time when truth appears to be whatever is believed. Unfortunately, it has become all too easy to believe what you wish - but that does not make it true.Moryak (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2020 (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)

Sort of. The Pauline Laws (the ones governing succession) barred females from the throne IF, and only if, there were remaining male dynasts. If there aren't, Maria is Tsarina. If not, there are other claims CanadianPrince (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2020 (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)

Well, I'm with the "Tsar" contingent because I ascribe to the transliteration convention that does "ts" for the Russian "ц". I also do understand the "czar" approach because the root for tsar is "caesar." This is further connected to the promoted continuity of the eastern Roman Empire with Moscow being the "third Rome."Moryak (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2020 (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)

"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)

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. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It was a common practice among the pre-World War I monarchs to appoint each other to honorary positions of high rank in their respective armed forces. This involved little more than being entitled to wear the ceremonial uniforms of the other nation on appropriate occasions. Nicholas II was also a colonel in the British Army (of the Scots Greys) and held similar Imperial German ranks. Buistr (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2021 (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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. — [2]. -- 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." — [3]. 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.

Request for Comment: Nicholas II, a "Good Administrator"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) Closed because an RfC summarizing this one (see immediately below) has been closed. -The Gnome (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

---

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)

Support this compromise, but suggest "Russian people" instead of "Russian masses". Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - Aside from the arguments raised by those who agree, this text - for me - captures the evolving perspectives of historians. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:33, 30 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)

@GoodDay: Is it safe to say then that you support the compromise provided above?Emiya1980 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 3 October 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 judgement 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)

here's a 2017 scholarly appraisal by Cambridge U expert Dominic Lieven = "Smith shares the low opinion of Nicholas II as ruler held not just by Service but also by most historians." [mention is made of The Last of the Tsars: Nicholas II and the Russian Revolution (2017) by Robert Service; and Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890-1928 (2017) by S A Smith. source = https://www.ft.com/content/7377905c-f38d-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608 Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• OPINION: It is unclear what Oppose and Support mean, since there is not a clearly stated edit. Emiya appears to want the phrase "good ruler" but also labels this section "good administrator" -- which have different connotations. In general, I think a generalizing adjective such as "good" should not be used except when citing a particular source. In this case, I think it would be totally fine to state that "Some historians have concluded he was well-intentioned, and even a good ruler, who was overwhelmed by his times (citing sources) while others believe he was out-of-touch and inept (citing sources)." Such a statement presents the variety of views of experts without pretending that we, as Wikipedia editors, have the final word on what the "consensus" of experts truly is. In short, any "controversial" assessment (such as good or bad) should be carefully cited, even in the lead section, to reliable sources. It should be clear that it is the opinions of the reliable source we are reporting here, not our own reflection on those sources.--Saranoon (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Saranoon Actually, there is a clearly stated edit under review. It is set forth in the quote box. Additionally,I have never characterized Nicholas as a “good administrator” or a “good ruler”. That would be Mattia332. Moreover, saying it is the opinion of “some historians” that Nicholas was a poor ruler is inappropriate when the majority hold him to be so.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am completely opposed to calling him "a good ruler". He was an atrocious anti-Semite, see for instance Jewish Virtual Library "The czar, whose education at the hands of Constantine Pobedonostsev had made him an indubitable Jew-hater, regarded the Jews as the principal factor in the Russian revolutionary movement. He favored antisemitic statesmen, rejected any attempt to change the anti-Jewish laws in spite of the advice of some of the leading statesmen of his court (such as S. Witte and P. Stolypin), and took under his aegis the violent antisemitic movement, "*Union of Russian People" (popularly known as the "Black Hundreds"), and other organizations formed in reaction to the liberal and revolutionary organizations. The pogroms against the Jews, which were at first due to the free hand given to anti-Jewish incitement and the rioters, were later directly perpetrated by the police and the army, as part of the campaign against the revolution. The Beilis blood libel trial at Kiev, which was designed to set off renewed persecutions of the Jews, was inspired by the czar." I don't actually think the article makes this clear enough. His own mother, brother in law and sister in law, among others in his family,tried over and over to tell him and his insane consort that they were on the path to utter ruin but they would not listenSmeat75 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC).

@Saranoon: Just to clarify, am I correct in saying that you are opposed to representing that most historians consider Nicholas II to be a poor ruler in the lead? Emiya1980 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I am certainly not an expert enough to do a tally regarding what "most historians" believe. And I'm skeptical of the role of Wikipedia editors to declare what "most historians" (or any groups) believe. If you were citing an expert who is stating what "most historians" believe, that is another matter, because that assessment is then being attributed to that particular source. Such a claim of consensus opinion may well exist, but it is not our role to declare the consensus opinion. Does that clarify my distinction? I am fine with "many historians" believe, or "It would appear that most historians agree...", but there should be some qualification of any claim made by Wikipedia editors regarding our judgement of the consensus opinion. And to the degree people read the full article, and study the sources, they can come to their own opinions.-Saranoon (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not decide what the consensus is. The report the fact that reliable source A states that the consensus of most scholars is XYZ. This is a factual statement, and not the "opinion" of editors. In this case see my comment above [23 sept 2020] that in a 2017 scholarly appraisal by Cambridge U expert Dominic Lieven we read "Smith shares the low opinion of Nicholas II as ruler held not just by Service but also by most historians." The "good" designation refers to his religiosity --religious Russians now call him a saint--not his challenge in holding Russia together. Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Just to point it out, this is a photo of Nicholas II, Stolypin and the Jewish delegation during the Tsar's visit to Kiev in 1911... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stolypin,_Nicholas_II,_jewish_delegation.jpg (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2020 (CET)

Him being a supposed "anti-Semite" has nothing to do with his administration skills or the reason for his downfall. Tsar Alexander III was the one who called the Jews "Christ-killers" and Nicholas II met one of the Rothchilds with George V (before he became king), and he didn't like the conversation they had; he had nothing against the Jews (Carter, Miranda. George, Nicholas and Wilhelm...., 2009). If you're talking about the pogroms, the government was responsible for none of them, but rather mobs of peasants by definition. Joker0002710 (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Joker0002710

I fully agree with Joker0002710 and Mattia332. One cannot deny the accomplishments of Nicholas II, as the fall of the Tsardom is not related to his supposed "failures" Mr nick man (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Mr Nick Man

Since a comment was requested, my best response is to cite the judgements of my father and grandparents who lived in Russia during Nicholas' reign and served in the military and government, respectively. Nicholas was a "good man" who cared deeply for his people and country. However, his personal administrative skills left very much to be desired and his military skills even more so. The advances accomplished during his reign are the product of able ministers as also are the failures the product of incompetent/corrupt ministers. One specific failure which was paramount in the fall of the dynasty and government was the preparation of the Russian Army for war and then followed by its conduct of it. Mismanagement of military technical development and supply left the Russian army inferior to the foe it faced in WW-I. Of course that was also connected with the treachery of the actions of "Cousin Willy" Kaiser Wilhelm (cousin of Nicholas).

My bottom line is that an assessment of the reign of Nicholas II is complex and not conducive to one word "good" or "bad", "successful" or "unsuccessful" characterizations. A more comprehensive and nuanced assessment (alluded to in the above discussion) requires a more detailed explanation - often not easy to accomplish within a Wiki article.Moryak (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose "good ruler" or even "good administrator" in the lead. This is pure opinion, and it doesn't seem that it's even a majority opinion. Wes sideman (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

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.

Survey

Option A is the clear favorite. DrKay (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

About a month has passed since this topic was first opened for discussion so I think it's safe to say enough time has passed for contributors to share their views. From what I can tell, general opinion as to how Nicholas's leadership should be characterized in the lead can be boiled down to 3 choices.

• Option A: "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. 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." (Supported by Emiya1980, Rjensen, Alansplodge, Darwin Naz, Smeat75, GoodDay, Moryak and Tfkalk)

• Option B: "Following the end of his rule, Nicholas was reviled by Soviet historians promoted by state propaganda as a tyrant who ruthlessly oppressed his own people while callously sending countless soldiers to their deaths, completely downplaying the progresses made under his reign in political, economic and social terms. More recent assessments have characterized him as a well-intentioned ruler and a good administrator." (Supported by Joker0002710, Mattia332, and Mr nick man)

• Option C: ANY characterization (good or bad) of Nicholas's reign in the lead should be avoided due to potential risks relating to bias and neutrality. (Supported by The Gnome, Saranoon, and Wes sideman)

If the options listed up for review have mischaracterized or left out positions set forth in the thread, please let me know before we start voting on them. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

About a week ago, Moryak notified me on my talk page that he wished to be listed in favor of Option A rather than Option C as indicated in the survey above. Consequently, I am amending the survey results to reflect this. For those seeking confirmation Moryak's request, you can see his post on my talk page here.

Moreover, since two weeks have gone by without any major objections to the three major choices up for selection, I think it's time we start voting on them.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Final Vote

Please cast your votes for one of the three options listed above here.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• I vote for Option A. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Given the boiled down characterizations, I can ascribe to Option A - well-intentioned but poor ruler. I base my assessment on that of my father, a Russian subject, who served in the Russian Army under Nicholas II during WW-I and on the side of the Whites in the Civil War that followed the Bolshevik Revolution. He was on the site of the execution of the tsar and his family within weeks of the event.Moryak (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just for the sake of making sure none of the rest of the contributors in this discussion get left out of the final tally: @Rjensen:, @Alansplodge:, @Darwin Naz:, @Smeat75:, @GoodDay:, @Tfkalk:, @Joker0002710:, @Mattia332:, @Mr nick man:, @The Gnome:, @Saranoon:, @Wes sideman:, and @Nunh-huh:Emiya1980 (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• A - GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• A Thanks for pinging me @Emiya1980:. Tfkalk (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• A - Alansplodge (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have not been convinced about the need to have such a "summary" in the opening section. Some of the justifications offered for having it are, frankly, outrageous, e.g. "most users spend a few seconds on an article and expect answers in the lead, or else Wikipedia is no use to them" by Rjensen. Here we are, busting our backs to have pristine texts and we suddenly learn that "most" people only care about the so-called lead. However, it seems that the compromise motion will be carried and, therefore, it seems beter to have that than something worse. I support the A option. And, if I may say so, this has been good editing work from the people involved. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The average time users spend on a Wiki article is a matter of seconds. if it's not in the lead they leave. Rjensen (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I cannot know what represents "matter of seconds" in your response, Rjensen, but in this research paper the median time spent reading Wikipedia by a user is 25 seconds and the 75th percentile is 75.1 seconds. I have not found data about time spent on the lead section. Do you have something solid about that? -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• A - "A" is the best of these options, though I remain unconvinced that "well-intentioned" means anything in this context except that we want to write something nice to offset the fact that he was a poor ruler. We don't usually read the minds of leaders to infer their intentions (towards who?) but rather evaluate them by the results of their rule. - Nunh-huh 11:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• B. While I favor the need to describe the historians' perspectives on Nicholas II's rule, I am not certain about the use of "most historians". While one or ten sources say so, that statement is still quite sweeping. Saying, "recent assessment" for me is preferable because: 1) it is specific; and, 2) such description is an assessment/synthesis and not a historical account. Darwin Naz (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit: For those looking for a compromise - taking into consideration all three options - here is a suggestion: “Following the end of his rule, Nicholas was characterized by Soviet historians as a tyrant who ruthlessly oppressed his own people while callously sending countless soldiers to their deaths. More recent assessments have focused on the progress made under his reign in political, economic, and social terms." This does away with the use of incendiary adjectives and what some here call as opinion. (I am unsure about the word "focus", however). Darwin Naz (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• B - For the reasons already Listed. Nicholas was a successful monarch, and the February was a event that no one could prevent. It happened only the the Capital Petrograd, because of a mutiny of new levies supported a strike, meanwhile the rest of the country and army didn't revolted at all... Nicholas II abdicated himself "for the sake of a faster military victory". Not need to even list that he agreeded to several political liberal reforms when he could establish a military dictatorship, and "From 1907–1914, Russia was the world's fastest-growing economy." Mattia332 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• B - To be honest, the Bolshevik propaganda machine painted Nicholas as a terrible person, which he was not. Russia's economy was booming under his rule, industrialization and modernization of the economy began, and most of the things he is blamed for were either out of his hand, or he was unrelated to what had occurred. Joker0002710 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Joker0002710 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I do believe option B is correct, the previous discussion favouring this option sum up my thoughts pretty well and his reign was widely beneficial to Russia Asnubo (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Asnubo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• B - Most historians underestimate Nicholas II and picture him as a bad leader, like the Soviets taught them to. I’m a going to give you some examples that historians don’t like to mention. Firstly, the Russian-Japanese war wasn’t lost by the Russians, it was a concession and didn’t hurt Russia at all. Secondly, the February revolution happened in a place called Petrograd, most of the rest of the country was loyalist so that means that Lenin imposed on the majority his regime. Meanwhile the revolutionaries were trying to gain power Russia was fighting constantly against Germany for the sake of Russia and Europe. Nicholas also made reforms that made Russia one of the fastest growing economies. Sardine91 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Sardine91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Notification: A sockpuppetry investigation has been requested here. -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• I vote for Option B for the reasons already listed by Mattia332, such truths can't be denied. Mr nick man (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Mr nick man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Option A seems to support the consensus among historians. - 109.249.185.101 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Notice: I just noticed that User 109.249.185.101 is clearly either a troll or an alt, from what he did in here... https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.249.185.101&oldid=975414479 Mattia332 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• It’s a dynamic IP address, rather than my own personal one. My vote here (in line with several others, not commenting on other people, not making any comments that constitute any disruption) is hardly trolling or evidence of an alt. I think WP:AGF is something you should have a look at. - 109.249.185.101 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• It’s such a disgrace that trolls have to come and deny historical facts. Here we have a user that has no good argument and creates a page where he spams with inappropriate context. Regardless the reason, the user should create an profile to vote, and not use a generical IP. I do not think the vote should be valid. Sardine91 (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, and to quote WP:RFC, all editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. It's input from sockpuppets that we strike out, and rather swiftly too. -The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I vote for Option B because Tsar Nicholas was a well-intended ruler and good administrator that cared about his country. Many trusted sources corroborate that the economy improved under Tsar Nicholas's reign, we can see that Russia had the fastest growing economy in the world between 1907 and 1914 . What we must also bear in mind is that Nicholas agreed to create the first Russian Constitutional Democratic Monarchy . We can blame the economic turn down between 1914 and 1917 on the war, it cannot be blamed on the Tsar and by 1917 Russia was winning the war. Peeragemaster589 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) — Peeragemaster589 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

---

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.

Tsar's voice?

There are a number of brief recordings of Tsar Nicholas's voice, currently available on YouTube. Is it worth inserting a link? Valetude (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. But they should comply with copyright policies. --Thinker78 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, there are none (know) recordings of the Tsar's voice, as the main on know in youtube (and the few ones). That is most likely the voice of one of the Grand Dukes of Russia, because the soldiers reply with "Ваше Высочество" (Your Highness) and not with "Ваше Императорское Величество" (Your Imperial Majesty) to the Tsar/Grand Duke greet, which is the correct form to address the Tsar of Russia. Also, for example in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9hv3ghdSPk the translations and transcriptions are wrong in many places. Here are the corrected ones chronologically: "Братцы! Спасибо вамъ за славный парадъ!" "Здравія желаемъ Ваше Высочество!" "Спасибо братцы, вамъ за отличныя ученія!" "Здравія желаемъ Ваше Высочество". Translation: "Brethren! Thank you for (this) Glorious parade!" "We wish You good health Your Highness!" "Thank you brethren, for the excellent military games (war games)!" "We wish You good health Your Highness!". The original recording is much longer and contains the same voice at the start of the parade saying: "Братцы! Пью за дорогое здоровье нашего державнаго Вождья Государя Имератора Николая Александровича! Ура!" (Brothers! I drink to the health of our sovereign Chief Our Lord Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich! Hurray!). Therefore the voice can not belong to H.I.M. Nicholas II himself. Mattia332 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead rework

Hi all, I've significantly reworked the lead as it was overly repetitive, unstructured and had a number of poorly source statements not reflected in the article body. Please feel free to make adjustments to my wording. One thing to note is that I changed the wording "After the Bolsheviks took power in the October Revolution, the family was held in Yekaterinburg, where they were assassinated in July 1918" back to "they were executed in July 1918". I did this because there doesn't seem to have been any consensus on the wording recently established here on the talk page, and primarily because I believe "assassinated" was less clear (it suggests to me a nefarious, secret faction outside of the main Bolshevik leadership, whereas execution was a decided course of action). Execution is a neutral, accurate term that contrary to some claims I've read above, doesn't inherently imply guilt (it can simply mean the "killing of a person as a political act", which is what I understand it to be in this context: compare with Execution of Charles I and contrast with this dictionary definition of assassinate: "murder ... by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons"). It also provides consistency with the article on the execution. Although I think execute is the clearer term, I don't think "assassinated" is particularly wrong as such, and I don't object to that term (or "murder") if there was a consensus in favour of either. Jr8825 • Talk 13:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Assassinated" in summary

"Murdered", surely.

"Execution"

This article still claims Nicholas and his family were executed, no, they were murdered.