Talk:Nicholas II

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.160.250 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.177.164 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia should use American English. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:4943:17F5:9E2A:F025 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:52, 5 April 2023 (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)

"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antigrandiose (talk • contribs) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"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) Executed ? From Executer's ?

Complete eradication of Familia Romanov! Something like a State Program USSR.

Why?

For what reason?

Simply that way. For all cases. Also about 60 years. After the revolution in Russia. Was one of last Romanov - family members. Already quite outdated and impoverished. Loaded off to USSR, and... died suddenly. Whether he even could or would "A Comme Back" for Tsarism.

Here comes a logical question: would they agree? Tsar Nicholas II, for example, - to serve life imprisonment. Against Bolshevik-Communist guarantees. For all his family and relatives. Could the tsar do it? Overwhelm royal pride? relatives and partners. What could she? Do for conditions

of detention / beautification of detention.

For the former Tsar of All Russia.Feodorov Zweite (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2023 (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)

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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

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/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.

Execution details

I’m surprised that there is no mention in this article of the fact that Masonic rituals were performed over the bodies of the Romanovs after their death. Swehlam (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Swehlam: Adding in the relevant information with a source is more effective than a talk page comment. Although I don't see anything special about that information. Jon698 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Voice Recording

I think this recording should be replaced by the confirmed 1902 French speech, if the general feeling is that a voice recording should be included. This Russian speech is a bit problematic—the description of the Wikimedia file even says as much:

"Сотрудники Российского государственного архива фонодокументов (РГАФД) высказывают сомнение, что голос в данной записи принадлежит именно Николаю II, а не, например, командующему парадом."

"Employees of the Russian State Archive of Phonodocuments (RGAFD) express doubt that the voice in this recording belongs to Nicholas II, and not, for example, a commander of the parade."

Apologies if this comes across as rude, but it feels somewhat below standards to include something like this as though it's fact. Zinalova (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Please change this short description to "Emperor of Russia from 1894 to 1917" which is exceeded more than 40 characters. 2001:4451:8272:C000:284C:2E39:ABD0:3DEA (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2024

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: Moved - whilst numerically this is a wash, the move !voters have a firm basis in their arguments based in WP:NCROY and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That Nicholas II already redirects here, and has for a long time without major controversy, was a very strong argument that this page is the primary topic.

Oppose !voters failed to counter this sufficiently. A number of them pointed to the existence of other Nicholas II's but it was taken as read in their arguments that the mere existence of other notable Nicholas II's was sufficient to block the move without regard to whether this Nicholas II was the primary topic. What was needed was a showing that Nicholas II was not the primary topic but instead e.g., Pope Nicholas II was (or nobody was), or otherwise a reason why we should ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case. Even an WP:IAR argument needs a reason to WP:IAR to be given. None was forthcoming.

Other oppose !voters based their arguments on consistency. However, consensus can change and it clearly did change as a result of the discussion about WP:NCROY. Consistency cannot be used as a reason to prevent changes that will necessarily have to be done one-by-one.

This close takes note of the recent move review regarding Ferdinand VI which is a similar case to this. Just as was said in that move review, nothing here precludes a new RM discussion if WP:NCROY again changes. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Nicholas II of Russia → Nicholas II – WP:SOVEREIGN says we should only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. I do not think there is any dispute that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Nicholas II; it has been a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT since 2007. Opening an RM because there was a previous RM for this page (which took place before the recent RfC at NCROY endorsing shorter titles). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Soviet Union has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Finland has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support in line with policies and guidelines cited by nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Disambiguation needed with Pope Nicholas II. Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are numerous other Nicholas IIs – but the point is that this one is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should thus have its disambiguating "of Russia" removed, in line with WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:CONCISE. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Too many Nicolas II's. Doesn't meet criteria. Russia does not have primacy over other countries. Not an improvement, not helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per common name, primary topic, and long-term significance. I'd agree with the oppose views if Nicholas II didn't redirect here, but it does (and should). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  And Einstein redirects to "Albert Einstein". Should that be renamed too? Walrasiad (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  If the name was "Albert Einstein of Germany", yes, although Bob Einstein and others (including Albert's influential first wife) share the name as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Bizarre non-sequitur. You said you'd oppose if the shortened form did not redirect here. But shortened forms often redirect to articles with longer names. Einstein was just an example. Walrasiad (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yet the shortened form, Nicholas II, does direct here and not to the disamb page, and has without controversy since mid-2007, so in this case brevity of title does merit consideration and attention. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  And the shortened from Einstein directs to "Albert Einstein", and not to a disambiguation page. Also without controversy. By your logic that article title should also be abbreviated then? Walrasiad (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  No. WP:SINGLENAME tells us Using the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged, even if that name would be unambiguous, and even if it consists of more than one word. Unambiguous last names are usually redirects: for example, Ludwig van Beethoven is the title of an article, while Van Beethoven and Beethoven redirect to that article.

  In the case at hand, the applicable guideline is WP:NCROY, and specifically point 3 which tells us not to use "of country" when the shorter form is either unambiguous (not the case here) or is the primary meaning (which is the case here). Rosbif73 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  In what way is "Nicholas II" his common name? How often do you see him referred to by that name out of context? It's almost always "Tsar Nicholas II". And it's people who are reading a name out of context that we should be thinking of, not people who already have an encyclopedic knowledge of Russian history. Deb (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SOVEREIGN. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose due to many other articles with the same name, most particularly Pope Nicholas II. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• @Allan Rice, Deb, GoodDay, Dimadick, and Interstellarity: Courtesy ping to participants in previous RM. Srnec (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Allan Rice is blocked as a sockpuppet. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I've given up on these "of country"-RMs. There's no hope of ever getting these page names back to consistency. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

    I'm afraid people are hidebound by the "COMMONNAME" mantra (sorry about the mixed metaphor) and hold a mistaken belief that this is a hard and fast rule, rather than a guideline written by fallible human beings. But if you don't give your opinion, they won't begin to understand. Deb (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    The closure decision to move Ferdinand VI of Spain & Ferdinand VII of Spain to Ferdinand VI & Ferdinand VII, was the back breaker for me. When such a large majority (8–3) of editors are ignored (per the update WP:NCROY)? you know the damage is done. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no reason to have Alexander III of Russia succeeded by Nicholas II as if something changed. As has been pointed out, we routinely go beyond the minimum in article titles of people. Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Oprah, Obama, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, Pasolini, Hitchcock... The list of such PRIMARYREDIRECTs is long. Just as their would be no gain from dropping "Barack" or "Adolf", there is no gain from dropping "of Russia". Srnec (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • As noted above, the key difference is WP:SINGLENAME: Using the last name as the page title for a person, when the first name is also known and used, is discouraged, even if that name would be unambiguous, and even if it consists of more than one word. WP:SOVEREIGN explicitly says we should Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed (emphasis mine). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    • It's part of the main article titling policy. See WP:CONCISE: Exceptions exist for biographical articles. It then gives exaples of the SINGLENAME variety, but nothing suggests that exceptions of the "Nicholas II of Russia" type are out of step with it. Srnec (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
      • WP:SOVEREIGN says that {of country} is not an exception to WP:CONCISE, and this was decided in this recent RfC on the subject. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as strong candidate for primary topic. Killuminator (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and also per WP:SOVEREIGN. Векочел (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's absolutely no justification for this request. Deb (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • As the person who nominated this, I am a little taken aback that you are accusing me of filing an RM without justification. The first sentence in the RM was

    WP:SOVEREIGN says we should only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed.

    How is that not justification? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

    Disambiguation clearly is needed in this case. If you walked down any street and asked someone who "Nicholas II" was, you'd almost certainly get a blank look. But ask them who "Nicholas II of Russia" is, and they might well say "Oh, wasn't he the emperor who got shot?" Deb (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    If you asked them about Pope Nicholas II or these obscure noblemen you'd get another blank look, so just goes to show who the primary topic is. It's an easy enough experiment to leave the ''thought experiment'' realm into the practical real. Random people you'd meet on the street are likely not Wikipedians. Killuminator (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    I feel like this is a fair point for some of the lesser known monarchs like Gustaf IV Adolf, or even Ferdinand VII, but I feel like if you were to walk down the street and ask someone who "Nicholas II" was, you'd problem get a vaguely correct answer, just as would happen if you asked this hypothetical person who Elizabeth II was. Plus, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY doesn't even require a title be sufficiently recognizable for an average person on a street, but rather for someone familiar with, though not necessarily an expert in, the subject area… estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose 'II' Isn't enough of a differentiation from other nicks—blindlynx 15:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It sort of breaks the consistency with Nicholas I of Russia, which means that readers might be left confused as to why one page uses a territorial designation and the other one does not. Keivan.f^Talk 01:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's pretty much the case with every other monarch we've moved like this. One could just as easily wonder why George II of Great Britain uses a territorial designation, while George III does not. Even if a reader noticed, I doubt they would give it much of a thought. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Another reason we shouldn't be moving them. Deb (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  No it’s not a reason against moving them. This apparent inconsistency in related titles is a necessary and unavoidable result of disambiguating only when necessary in accordance with CRITERIA, particularly CONCISE snd PRECISE (but no more precise than necessary). In fact, this exception is explicitly noted at WP:CONSISTENT and is not contrary to policy. — В²C ☎ 20:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, to be fair in the case of George II vs George III the names of the realms changed. It was during George III's reign that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed. I don't think any such changes in names occurred when the Russian emperors were ruling (?). Keivan.f^Talk 21:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are too many other Nicholas II’s. Regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support he is commonly referred to as Nicholas the II and I feel it would be a better title for the page. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Too many Nicholas II. Doesn’t meet criteria. Azarctic (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter how many other Nicholas IIs there are, as this one is the clear primary topic and has been a primary redirect since 2007. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. There are other important people named Nicholas II, that's why we have Nicholas II (disambiguation). 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 15:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Opposition is completely ignoring PRIMARYTOPIC. My goodness. Nicholas II has redirected here for almost 20 years without dispute. That establishes this Nicholas II is the PT no matter how many others are listed on the dab page. Even if that was an error, then opposers have the burden to show this one is not primary. Pointlessly noting the undisputed ambiguity as if that’s relevant here is unhelpful. The closer is required to discount these !votes accordingly. The only substantive opposition is based on COMMONNAME, holding that the proposed title is not sufficiently recognizable. But NCROY flies in the face of this position when it says “of country” is to be included only when necessary for disambiguation. So per NCROY, CONCISE, PRECISE, COMMONNAME, and PRIMARYTOPIC, not to mention a dearth of any opposition that holds up to scrutiny, this article must be moved as proposed. —В²C ☎ 20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  CONCISE, PRECISE, COMMONNAME, and PRIMARYTOPIC support Einstein over Albert Einstein. CONCISE specifically states that axceptions exist for biographical articles and does not limit these exceptions specifically. Srnec (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Albert Einstein is the name of the article per WP:NCP. As a recognised naming convention, there is some primacy given to WP:CONSISTENTcy. At WP:CONCISE (part of the policy, WP:AT) we are also told: ... given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision (with a specific link to WP:NCP) In the case of Nicholas II, WP:NCROY permits the proposed move in the circumstances that apply. WP:P&G does not support Einstein being the article title. The argument being made is a false analogy Cinderella157 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  The point is that prior to the change to NCROY, the current title was as supported as Albert Einstein. In other words, it has nothing to do with CONCISE, PRECISE, COMMONNAME, and PRIMARYTOPIC and everything to do with NCROY—a recenty and highly disputed change. I oppose the move because I oppose the chaneg to NCROY. The current title is as compliant with CONCISE, PRECISE, COMMONNAME, and PRIMARYTOPIC as Albert Einstein is. Srnec (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not at all. As Cinderella157 noted, support for titles like Albert Einstein is explicitly baked into WP:CRITERIA at WP:AT. Support for the current title here is not. The current title was never compliant; even with the former guidance at NCROY it was a begrudgingly tolerated exception that contradicted policy. If fact, that's why it was fixed, with a strong consensus, by the way. --В²C ☎ 21:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have no idea what you mean by explicitly baked into WP:CRITERIA. As for the strong consensus, that has been answered at Talk:Charles XI of Sweden. —Srnec (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  What I mean is that CRITERIA, more precisely WP:CONCISION, explicitly specifies guidance for titles like Albert Einstein: “given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision”, as noted by Cinderella157. Your contention that CRITERIA support Einstein over Albert Einstein is incorrect. However, there is no guidance allowing for “of country” contravening CONCISE there, or anywhere at WP:AT, unless needed for disambiguation.

  The jury is still out at Charles XI, so I have no idea what you think has been answered there. —В²C ☎ 14:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support In these circumstances, the prevailing WP:P&G is quite clear. This article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Nicholas II and Nicholas II is currently a redirect to this article. The of Russia in the present title is therefore redundant. WP:TITLEDAB would tell us to prefer concision over unnecessary precision. While there may be articles for others called Nicholas II, there is no actual conflict in article titles needing to be resolved by a more precise name. The move is also consistent with WP:NCROY. There is no conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. Nicholas II is his commonly used name, not something else like Peter the Great. Whether it is sometimes preceded by Tsar or succeeded by of Russia is immaterial. The use of Tsar would be deprecated by WP:NCROY save in exceptional circumstances and the of Russia is unnecessary precision for the same reason King Louis XVI of France is a redirect and not the article name. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. An emperor ✖ 05:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems to be another in a series of requests triggered by a contentious change to NCROY. While I agree it's generally best to apply a guideline consistently once it's established, not every change to every guideline actually works out — and one of the ways we determine whether it is working out is by observing RMs like these. From what I can see, they've been uniformly contentious with the community widely split on whether the proposed titles are actually better than the existing ones, with policy-based arguments both ways. Given that some such RMs have failed entirely (the Edwards, Richards, Christians, etc.), I think the signs strongly point to revisiting NCROY (and it looks like that discussion may already be starting there).

  A misleading argument I see from supporters is that if a more concise form redirects to a less concise one — in this case Nicholas II redirecting to Nicholas II of Russia — then the more concise form must necessarily be the preferable title, but policy does not assert that. Cézanne, for instance, is more concise than Paul Cézanne; 110th Congress is more concise than 110th United States Congress; Missoula is more concise than Missoula, Montana; and US and UK are more concise than United States and United Kingdom. In innumerable cases Wikipedia redirects shorter forms to longer or more descriptive titles, because there are other relevant factors that policy insists we consider. These sometimes make the less concise form the better/preferable one, and this applies to articles on nobility.

  Per WP:CRITERIA, "the choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." No one has made the case that removing the nation from this title actually serves the reader in any way or improves their experience; including it, though, provides context helpful to the reader and improves recognizability. Also, since WP:COMMONNAME directs us to seek titles "in an encyclopedic register", it's useful to see that the Britannica article includes the clarifier "Tsar of Russia" with the title, again presumably in the interests of their readers. Put simply, and NCROY notwithstanding, I just don't see any benefits to these changes that outweigh the cons. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  So many words to say so little. The underlying issue is about category-specific guidelines merely supplementing CRITERIA (particularly with respect to disambiguation guidance when necessary), or whether it’s acceptable to contravene CRITERIA, and if so, under what conditions. More and more we seem to be moving towards the former view, which basically means disambiguate only when necessary. Regarding benefiting readers, readers benefit the same regardless of what the title is. —В²C ☎ 17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That's demonstrably false and doesn't address the relevant issues, but at least it's concise, which I guess is all that matters. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that readers benefit from "Nicholas II of Russia" as a title more than they benefit more from "Nicholas II" as a title. Please account for the fact that when the article is at "Nicholas II", "Nicholas II of Russia" redirects to this article (and vice versa), and the article's lead sentence specifies the subject is "of Russia". --В²C ☎ 02:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to your claim that "readers benefit the same regardless of what the title is." That's false. There's no technical reason we couldn't title our articles using GUIDs, but doing so would (among other things) make it impossible to search for articles by title, which would worsen readers' experience.

As for royal naming conventions, consider Charles X and Charles XI. Is it sufficiently clear to whom those titles refer? And is it clear that they're monarchs of two entirely different nations? Even as someone familiar with royalty, I'd say no. The titles Charles X of France and Charles XI of Sweden, however, do indicate the subject with sufficient clarity. Including the nation adds important context that helps readers better recognize what the article is about. That other important encyclopedias like Britannica also include such clarifiers with their titles is another good indication that it's beneficial, desirable, and serves an important purpose. (And WP:COMMONNAME specifically encourages us to make such comparisons.)

The same applies to the article we're considering here: simply put, Nicholas II of Russia better meets our standards for a good title than Nicholas II. In part this is because including the nation better serves the interests of our readers, as shown — something that WP:CRITERIA specifically instructs us to consider. In part it's also because doing otherwise fails WP:CONSISTENT, given that we'll apparently be keeping his predecessor at Nicholas I of Russia. Will readers appreciate why they follow different patterns? Unlikely. The reason is a specialist concern of importance only to editors, and (again) policy is clear that that's not our priority. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT tells us that just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc.. Exactly the same logic applies to sovereigns and "of country" descriptors. Readers don't need to appreciate the reasons behind the different patterns, any more than they need to worry about the internal workings of Wikipedia, because the entire system is designed with readers in mind (in particular with redirects and short descriptions to help guide them to the article they are looking for). Rosbif73 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That passage notes specifically that parenthetical disambiguators required for one article don’t need to be applied to all others that are not ambiguous. I agree with that — but that’s not the situation here. Nicholas II, after all, is technically unambiguous (just as UK or Cézanne or 103rd Congress are). The “of country” clarifiers for royal articles exist to help us best meet our good title criteria, and to best serve the interests of our readers — and as such they should be applied consistently. As the policy notes, “we follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical.” It’s clearly not impractical to consistently include the country, particularly if doing so serves a beneficial purpose — and as I and others contend, it does. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I see parenthetical disambiguators and "of country" disambiguators as totally analogous; both can be omitted except when needed to resolve ambiguity. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that, and on whether including the country consistently would serve a beneficial purpose. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be impossible to search for articles by title if we used GUIDs for titles, but it wouldn’t worsen reader experiences, at least not in terms of searching. Because redirects. The only advantage of using the recognizable COMMONNAME for the title rather than a GUID is to inform the reader what the COMMONNAME is for the subject once they land there. In fact, for all intents and purposes for most readers our FLORA articles use GUIDs for their titles, except of course they’re not really GUIDs; they’re the scientific names. But for most of us they’re just as obscure, random and arbitrary as GUID titles would be, EXCEPT, they inform us of the scientific name. Try looking up Joshua Tree, Redwood or Milkweed by their actual titles instead of by these redirects. Good luck. So when you land at Asclepias by searching with “milkweed” does it really matter that the title is Asclepias since it’s in the lead sentence also? In that case I submit the article would be no less helpful with a random meaningless GUID title. However, I still wouldn’t support using GUIDs because for many articles, like John Wayne, the COMMONNAME isn’t as obviously specified in the lead sentence.

1. The main purpose of a title is to be a unique identifier for the article.
2. The secondary purpose of the title is to definitively specify the COMMONNAME to the reader.
3. A bonus function of titles is they inform the reader not only of what the COMMONNAME is, but also if whether it’s primary (or unambiguous), or whether it’s ambiguous and not primary.
4. Nothing meaningful in a title serves any purpose in searching. Just being the redirect target of any likely search term fulfills all search requirements.
5. Due to technical requirements the COMMONNAME may need to be disambiguated
6. If not for #2 and #3, titles could be random unique GUIDs.
7. #2 is also why it’s critical that titles reflect the COMMONNAME per CRITERIA, disambiguated only if necessary.
8. It’s important to only disambiguate when necessary consistently so that our #3 is reliably conveyed to our readers. The current title, “Nicholas II of Russia” is misleading with respect to 3: it wrongly implies this Nicholas II is not the primary topic for this name, and requires disambiguation.
9. Because the only purposes/functions of titles are #1-3, adding “clarity” or any additional information to a title besides COMMONNAME and necessary disambiguation is a disservice to our readers.

— В²C ☎ 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Addressing the argument made in opposition by the OP of this sub-thread:

• No one has made the case that removing the nation from this title actually serves the reader in any way or improves their experience; including it, though, provides context helpful to the reader and improves recognizability. The relevant question is whether it (significantly) decreases the reader experience and conversely, whether it (significantly) increases the reader experience. The WP:CRITERIA must be balanced and not every criterion necessarily carries equal weight. If the title is sufficiently recognisable, then additional precision to improve recognisability is unnecessary and to be balanced against WP:CONCISION Given that Nicholas II is the primary topic, it is sufficiently recognisable for someone familiar with ... the subject area will recognize.
• it's useful to see that the Britannica article includes the clarifier "Tsar of Russia" with the title, again presumably in the interests of their readers This presumption is unsubstantiated opinion. Britannica is but one encyclopedia. There are few online encyclopedias that would be considered WP:RSs but Oxford Reference would use Nicholas II (1868–1918) in four English language publications. Encyclopedia.com here, would similarly give an additional three English language publications. For whatever reasons, of Russia is not considered as necessary. From WP:AT: 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. These other encyclopedic publications do not support the additional precision in the title Nicholas II of Russia.
• An argument falling to other stuff would cite exceptions to using the shorter titles: US, UK, Cézanne, Missoula and 110th Congress. Other stuff arguments lack validity unless such examples are directly analogous and reflect best practice. Simply presenting these examples, as done, is not a cogent argument. On the use of abbreviations as article titles, WP:AT would specifically refer to WP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Acronyms in page titles which states: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title - ie, we are being told by WP:P&G that we generally prefer the expanded names as article titles over abbreviations. For the names of people, WP:CONCISE (at WP:AT) would state: ... given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision (with a specific link to WP:NCP). We are told by WP:P&G that we generally use both the given name and surname of a person in an article title. Missoula, Montana is preferred by the naming convention WP:USPLACE at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is specifically recognised by WP:AT. 110th United States Congress is a numeric sequence consistent with the parent article United States Congress, where Congress is another topic and, while there may not be a need to disambiguate the 110th Congress, there is a need to disambiguate other congresses (eg 1st Congress). There is, therefore, a strong logical argument to maintain consistency across the numeric series of titles. For one reason, a common pattern facilitates the infobox template coding to link to preceding and succeeding congresses in the infobox.

These other stuff examples are a fallacious argument by false analogy.

• A misleading argument I see from supporters is that if a more concise form redirects to a less concise one — in this case Nicholas II redirecting to Nicholas II of Russia — then the more concise form must necessarily be the preferable title, but policy does not assert that. At WP:TITLEDAB (part of WP:AT): According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is specifically referred to at WP:PRECISION (part of WP:AT). It would tell us that while a term preferred for a title may be ambiguous, if there is a primary target for this otherwise ambiguous term, then the preferred term should nonetheless be used for the article which is the primary target. The arguments being made here are that these shorter titles are either unambiguous or that they are reasonably the primary target. WP:OVERPRECISION is an alternative shortcut for WP:PRECISION at WP:AT. It gives the example, ... Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough ... Nicholas II of Russia is a very similar form to Saint Teresa of Calcutta. Just as Mother Teresa is precise enough, Nicholas II is also precise enough because these titles are the primary topics. WP:AT is clearly asserting that we should only apply sufficient precision to resolve ambiguity between titles of other articles, notwithstanding some exceptions that are given at WP:AT or acknowledged naming conventions and like. Names such as this with the pattern X of Y exist because of a somewhat mandatory naming pattern that existed at WP:NCROY which was in conflict with the policy at WP:AT and actual practice. This inconsistency has now been remedied by this RfC.

In summary, there is no substance to the arguments made. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the arguments are quite exploded. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157: Great volume does not an explosion make. A few points:

• Yes, we can safely assume that the presence of the clarifier in Britannica is for the benefit of its readers. Who else?
• The very encyclopedia.com web page you cite as evidence that encyclopedias don't use the clarifier is titled “Nicholas II (Russia)”.
• Further, encyclopedia.com references the Encyclopedia of Modern Europe which includes with the title the clarifier “emperor of Russia”. And the Encyclopedia of Russian History which it also references would not note the country because it's explicitly Russian.
• The most concise unambiguous form is indeed preferred, but policy does not require it if an alternative better meets our criteria. Again, WP practice abundantly affirms this.
• Your comments about PT make my point: in many areas we do indeed follow patterns that redirect more concise unambiguous terms to longer ones because doing so can help us achieve the best and most encyclopedic titles, or achieve sets of titles that are more consistent than they would be otherwise. We refine and adjust these guidelines as needs are identified... and my sense from RMs like this one and others is that NCROY needs such revision.

Finally: it's fine for editors to weight criteria and interpret policies differently, and I appreciate that you and B2C share a different opinion than mine. My posts here are replies to my own !vote, and I have no interest in bludgeoning others. Please show the same courtesy. Cheers, ╠╣uw [talk] 00:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• oppose It makes no sense - but then the naming of monarchs and spouses of monarchs all over Wikipedia are a mess, as are the ridiculous rules which are dismissed as amateurish by historians. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:50, 19 February 2024 (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.

Title in infobox

Hi, there. I am just wondering, is there a reason the infobox doesn't give his title as "Emperor of all the Russias"? From my understanding, the article title normally says "of [country]", but the infobox gives the title in its full. What I mean, for example, see Constantine II of Greece. The article title says "of Greece" and the infobox gives his proper title, "King of the Hellenes" (as per WP:COGNOMEN). So, yeah, if anyone knows how come the Russian emperors' pages don't follow this, please let me know! Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The observation appears quite reasonable. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Because "Emperor of Russia", is more common. If we use the Greek example? the infobox would have "Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias", "King of Poland" & "Grand Duke of Finland". GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: We could always write "Emperor of all the Russias" with a small "(see more)" that links here. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Kinda extra long title, for an infobox. Recommend opening an RFC on the matter, as we're dealing with 14 bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Says 1981 and should be 1918

Says 1981 and should be 1918 2601:2C4:4302:FB50:881:35A2:2B8C:BF76 (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

1981 is correct. DrKay (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)