Talk:Alexis of Russia

Old talk
This should be at Alexei/Alexey or Alexis. He is not well known as "Aleksey" in English. john k 16:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should he be numbered - I can't find a Tsar Alexis II, so shouldn't he just be Alexis? 172.202.230.150 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course he is Tsar Alexis in every reputable source, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica. I tried to eliminate the numbering but was reverted. --Ghirla | talk 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alexis I The Quietest--Юе Артеміс (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Flowery POV passage
The following passage struck me as too flowery and partial for an encyclopaedia. For it to stay in, in my opinion, it needs specific citation from a historian (did this Sergey Platonov say all this?) and, preferably, to be put in quotations, because it is emotional rather than factual. Any opinions?

"But it is sufficient for Sergey Platonov to proclaim him the most attractive of Russian monarchs. He acquired the moniker Tishayshy, which means 'most quiet' or 'most peaceful'. Certain aspects of Russian Orthodoxy, not its most purely spiritual, but its aesthetic and worldly aspects, found in him their most complete expression. The essence of Alexei's personality is a certain spiritual Epicureanism, manifested in an optimistic Christian faith, in a profound, but unfanatical, attachment to the traditions and ritual of the Church, in a desire to see everyone round him happy and at peace, and in a highly developed capacity to extract a quiet and mellow enjoyment from all things." --qp10qp 15:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a direct quote from D.S. Mirsky who analyzes Alexis's letters in his History of Russian Literature. He is indeed known as Tishayshy in Russian historiography, so this sentence should stay. -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly sounded like a direct quote, but that's the trouble: it's presented as part of the text, in which case it merely seems a random contradiction of what went before about the tsar's wars and comes over as unencyclopaedically sentimental. If you have access to the source, could you possibly put it in quotes and give an inline reference? If not, I will reframe the passage as a paraphrase and broadly ascribe it to the historian you mention.qp10qp 12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * D.S. Mirsky. A History of Russian Literature. Northwestern University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8101-1679-0. Page 27. -- Ghirla -трёп-  13:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I've gone ahead and put the paragraph in quotes. Please correct me if I've put too much in. qp10qp 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Return of Boris Morozov
According to Boris Morozov and Salt Riot, Morozov was returned to his post a few months after his removal. However, there is no mention of this in the current article.

Top.Squark (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence to the article about his return. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nikon's downfall
The article mentions "Nikon's disgrace" (see also Patriarch Nikon) but no details are provided. This has to be amended. Top.Squark (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here to say the same thing. It is absurd that a vague mention of "the disgrace of Nikon" is the only reference in the article to one of the most important features of Alexei's reign.  As a matter of fact, I cannot find any decent Wikipedia treatment of the schism; the Old Believers article is simultaneously too vague (hardly any dates) and too detailed, and I suspect it of being unacceptably POV. At any rate, there should be at least a brief description of the events of 1666-67 here. Languagehat (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes articles languish, this appears to be one of them. I don't know what happened in 1666-67 but apparently something of some importance, I just came here to note that this article doesn't describe in any way the circumstances of his death. --BHC (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a section on the schism with the Old Believers (which was probably the most glaring omission from this page), where I also explain how Nikon fell from power (though there are conflicting sources).OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

When was he born?
The first paragraph says "(9 March [O.S. 19 March] 1629". That can't be right, but are the N.S. and O.S dates reversed, or is there an error in the conversion? (The converter at http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ says 9 March 1629 N.S is 27 February 1629 O.S.). Also, Michael I of Russia says 9 May 1629, no indication whether it's N.S or O.S 64.253.109.104 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/14522/Alexis says: (born March 9 [March 19, New Style], 1629, Moscow, Russia—died Jan. 29 [Feb. 8], 1676, Moscow), so it looks like the N.S. and O.S dates were reversed. 64.253.109.104 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. I sympathise about the concern for consistency but it's clear we haven't got a consensus here. No prejudice against revisiting them individually. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

– Right now, we have two different pairs of naming conventions with these three articles. On one hand, we have an Alexis and an Alexei, while on the other hand we have Michael I (not Michael) and Alexis (not Alexis I). We ought to have the "I" following both or neither tsars' names, and Алексе́й ought to be Alexis or Alexei both times; whether we use Alexei versus Mikhail is a completely different issue, so please don't bring that in. A simple search, even of scholarly literature, wouldn't be hugely helpful here, because it would quite possibly return results that discuss just one or the other: either we need to rely on sources that discuss both men, or we need to consider one-man results as applying to both. I've not read much scholarly stuff that discusses them, so I can't bring any solid examples to the table; all that comes to mind is Robert K. Massie's biography of Peter, in which both men are Alexis. I have no opinion on either pair of moves, i.e. I don't care whether they're both Alexis or Alexei and whether or not we include the "I" (the proposed new names up above are simply to ensure that the WP:RM bot doesn't get confused), as long as we have consistent transliteration of Алексе́й and consistent usage or non-usage of "I". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alexis of Russia → Alexei of Russia
 * Alexei Petrovich, Tsarevich of Russia → Alexei Petrovich, Tsarevich of Russia
 * Michael I of Russia → Michael of Russia
 * The move proposal has no merit. We have Peter I of Russia not Pyotr I of Russia, Catherine II of Russia not Ekaterina II of Russia, Nicholas II of Russia not Nikolai II of Russia, etc. One cannot override the centuries of English-language traditions. The Britannica uses "Alexis". --Ghirla-трёп- 06:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand the nominator's proposal ("I don't care whether they're both Alexis or Alexei", ignoring the bit about the "I"s for the moment), he suggests two options:
 * moving both to Alexis, or
 * moving both to Alexei
 * Since you're opposed to #2, does that mean you support #1, or that you support leaving them at inconsistent titles (e.g. on WP:COMMONNAME or some other grounds)? quant18 (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regnal numbers do not make much sense when applied to pre-Petrine Russia. In the Russian tradition, these numbers have never been used to refer to the early Romanov monarchs. The tsar in question is known in Russian-language texts as "Aleksei Mikhailovich" rather than "Aleksei I". "Alexis of Russia" is a form traditionally used in English-language historical literature. I see no reason for changing the status quo. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ghirla, I think you misunderstand me somewhat, since the status quo has the regnal number for Michael and not Alexis; is this what you think makes sense? Meanwhile, quant18 correctly understands that I'm not specifically advocating "Alexei".  I'm simply saying that grandpa and grandson ought to have the same name format, and asking that you support calling both of them "Alexei" or that you support calling both of them "Alexis".  In short, the status quo is very much unsystematic, and I'm asking that we make things systematic.  Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Neither scholarly literature nor Wikipedia is consistent with royal naming schemes in English.  Unfortunately a "simple search of literature" is in fact what should be done to decide the names; if they're inconsistent, so should we, just as we have Juan Carlos I of Spain *and* Charles II of Spain.  See Talk:Peter III of Portugal's RMs for an example.  Alexei Petrovich is an especially bad example as all sorts of weird naming conventions change when someone goes from being in line for the throne to ruling, so it isn't really relevant even if we wanted to enforce consistency.  (Note: It's possible some of these moves SHOULD be done, but that'd only be if someone can show that "Michael" is preferred to "Michael I" or the like, rather than arguing consistency.) SnowFire (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.