Talk:Murder of the Romanov family/Archive 1

Who Ordered this Execution?
From research on the internet, I have heard 4 different accounts of why this atrocity was committed. I call it an atrocity because it seems like it was carried out in the most violent, disorganized way possible. I imagine in my mind, the girls diving into the corners of the rooms covering their ears.

1. The execution was ordered by Lenin from the top, via telephone or wire. This is usually followed up by all manner of speculation on the part of the author about what Lenin was "thinking" when he made this order. The current article takes this position, by quoting the so-called "diary" of Trotsky.

2. The execution was planned suddenly since the Chech soldiers were coming to rescue the czar. The decision was local, made in haste, and due to the possibility of losing the family to the custody of the Whites. The quote below agrees with this account.

3. There were very ruthless negotiations between Leon Trotsky and the Germans at the end of World War I.  Some of these negotiations failed at first. Eventually the Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk was signed. One "deal" of these negotiations was that the entire Russian monarchy line was to be executed. Literally, what I'm claiming here is that the idea to execute the Romanovs was a German idea. Trotsky agreed with this only as part of the ruthless negotiations involved. I have two sources that back this up. The Leonid Perfenov documentary of the Russian Empire say this very briefly on the final DVD. Also, the quotes below indicate a larger plan to exterminate the monarchy and all those involved.

4. Noone really knows for sure who ordered the Romanov's execution. This is the interpretation given by a wikipedia author below.

This is taken from the article right here on wikipedia of Lenin :

This is a quote taken from the book titled Lenin: A New Biography (1994) by Dmitri Volkogonov, pg. 212

Some authors cite these simultaneous murders as "evidence" that there was a large-scale plan to exterminate every person in the monarchy apparatus of Russia. Volgonov himself uses this argument. There are other ways to interpret this evidence, as I have already indicated. Miloserdia (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that 4) is right. Nobody knows for sure who ordered this terrible unprecedented act. It seems most likely, that the Ural Executive Committee made the decision, Yurovsky and Sverdlov could, but do not have to be involved in the decision. Leon Trotsky in his diary mentioned Lenin, however not in connection to direct order, only reminded that according to Sverdlov, Lenin believed that the Tsar is more beneficial for Soviet Russia dead than alive. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

the skeletons

 * The tests concluded that five of the skeletons were members of one family and four were unrelated. Three of the five were determined to be the children of two parents.

Most vertebrates are the children of two parents! Does this mean to say that the three are children of the other two (out of five skeletons), or merely that they are full siblings (children of the same two unspecified parents)? —Tamfang (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction to accompanying photo
(Although it seems out of place to me here, I address this subject because Wikipedia's guidelines require that requests for corrections to photos be handled in discussions of an article which carries said photo.)

I note an apparent discrepancy in the accompanying photo's title and it's description. The title indicates the photo was taken in 1911; while the description gives 1913 as the date. Unless I have somehow misunderstood these dates, one of necessity must be incorrect, and for the sake of accuracy should be changed. Jum1801 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Murders, Killings, or Executions?
Several articles state that the Romanovs and their servants were "executed". I find that this is only true of the Czar, to whom the order of execution pertained. Considering that several articles have stated that the Russian government has official called the killings "political repression", I feel that this also makes illegitimate claims that the family was executed.

Execution gives the idea of sanctioned, orderly, "formal" killings. It might infer ideas that the one executed is guilty of something, or that an executioner was "doing their job" or in some way not morally responsible for the killing.

However, these killings resonate more with a purge or massacre. They were unjustified, as stated above: The family itself, nor their entourage, were sentenced to death. The killings did not take place in an orderly manner, but in an impromptu situation that broke out into melee attacks upon the victims. Just because the event took place under the guise of an execution, does not make it an execution. That's why they call it "execution style murder", such as the Saint Valentin's Day Massacre. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that the famous adventure writer Richard Halliburton interviewed one of the  assassins of the Romanovs Peter Zacharovitch Ermakov just before his death by cancer in early 1933 in Ekaterinburg Russia. This account takes up 45 pages of Halliburton's book "Seven League Boots" c 1935 the Bobbs Merrill co. I have it in my library. Quite an interesting account.Lewisharry (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The predominant historical narrative as supported by wp:rs compliant secondary sources describes the event as an "execution".  Wikipedia should also reflect this rather than personal value judgements of the editors. This article carries many other POVs . Hope they will be corrected by knowledgeable editors. One could argue that Che Guevara was also not executed but murdered. His execution was no more orderly than that of Romanovs. Actually, in his case there was no formal orders issued. --History Sleuth (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is worth pointing out that one of the definitions of execute in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is "kill as a political act". It would therefore appear to be the mot juste. Wally Wiglet (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The individual Wikipedia articles on Anastasia and Alexei for instance describe them each as having been "murdered." However, later in the Anastasia article there is is a section on her "execution," while in Alexei's article the corresponding section is about his "death," with later reference within to his "killing." So there is little consistency across these articles or even within them, except that the current article seems to insist on "execution."
 * The article on the Young Princes (nephews of Richard III of England, who has long been suspected of killing the boy princes to clear the way for his own succession to the throne) refers to their possibly being murdered. "Executed" is never used. If the young Romanovs can properly be described as having been executed, then every Wikipedia article dealing with similar homicides of children (or others) for the sole or main purpose of clearing the way for some other ruling aspirant should be changed to reflect this, in order to maintain consistency. Alternately, the present article should use "murdered."
 * "Execution" on Wikipedia redirects to Capital Punishment, which opens by defining the subject thusly: "Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for a crime." Since the Romanovs were not killed by the state but by a group of militants not at that point recognized by anyone inside or outside of Russia as the state of Russia, and since they were not killed as a punishment for a crime but simply in order to clear them out of the way to further the Leninists' ambitions, the killings of the Romanovs do not conform to the Wikipedia definition of executions but should instead fall under the heading of murder, defined by Wp as "Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being..." The deaths of the Romanovs were certainly unlawful by the laws of Russia at the time of the killings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaale (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a citable source for wikipedia article. We need to be consistent. If you change it here, you have to change it all across for other articles too. How would you describe Che Guevara's execution? In his case , he was killed by a single Bolivian soldier in a remote hut. There was no trial or  formal orders of any kind (Romanovs at least had orders by a revolutionary army). Yet the word execution (correctly) is used for Guevara's killing. All secondary sources which can  be considered reliable use the word "execution".--History Sleuth (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

changed to murder permitting of Russian court and subsequent see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3115053/Russia-exonerates-Tsar-Nicholas-II.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.128.40 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be murder, or mass murder, definitively. It cannot be execution given the circumstances. There was no trial, no passing of a verdict, arguably a 'summary execution by kangaroo court' could be argued but that would be clutching at straws. There's also the time honored argument that a monarch cannot be tried as there is no jursidiction above them, therefore deposition must be conducted by exile or by murder. Rumor has it you can assume their powers if you kill them too, but that rumor is Highlander, so ignore the preceding sentence. ;) But especially given the exoneration, and the fact that the entire family cannot be guilty of a crime even if arguably the Tsar was seen to be, it is absolutely improper to named this an execution rather than mass murder. &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Richard Halliburton's account of his audience with Peter Zacharovitch Ermakov is an accomplished exercise in grinding verisimilitude, which can be anticipated to be read with a continually wincing struggle – for a comparable near-death scene described as an unending agony see Dumas fils, Marguerite Gautier's, La Dame aux camélias.
 * Halliburton's extensive engagement of the occasion (contemporary terminology, the day now, would be longform), though with some unshown pages, is in a Google Books preview here > _ "Seven League Boots : Adventures Across the World from Arabia to Abyssinia" 1936; Chapters Eight — Twelve: The Massacre of the Romanoffs.
 * For further immersion in the subject toward a final view of the Halliburton presentation see > _ "A Reconsideration of Richard Halliburton's interview with P.Z. Ermakov as Evidence for the Murder of the Romanovs" – Donald Ostrowski, Cambridge, MA USA. –Fall 1999. --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be murder. Some brave soul should rename.W. M. Martínez (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely should be murder. The Russian Federation as well as this article have so far failed to provide an explanation as to what crime the tsar's five children committed to condemn them to 'execution', the youngest of whom was only thirteen. Wolcott (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of tendentious editing over the use of the words 'murder', 'executions' or 'killings' in this article. Given that consensus last established an acceptance of the term 'execution' in the title of the article, it seems very inappropriate to me for individual editors to attempt to establish a preference for the term 'murder' in the body. Can the parties in favour of 'murder' at least agree with 'killing'/'killings' as a neutral term by which to describe the incident in instances where they dispute the use of 'execution', until such time as a more robust consensus is formed? Or would this be unacceptable to either side of the debate, and for what reasons? Seggens (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm willing to accept that compromise, but I'm no expert in English so I can't tell if killing/killings is a suitable substitute for execution/murder. Killing of the Romanov family sounds acceptable, but 'Killing' as a subheading instead of 'Execution' which this article currently uses? Out of curiosity, does the term 'killed in cold blood' count as neutral? Wolcott (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. FactStraight (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously these were executions, not murders. The order came from the Soviet, hence was legal. The crimes of the Romanovs hardly need restatement here. This entire article is non-neutral and belies a very strong western, anti-communist bias, and is littered with revisionist statements the stem from the corrupt Yeltsin era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.197.154 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Last Days of the Romanovs
Edmund Wilson Atlantic Monthly 1928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.6.12 (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale copy and paste of the above by long term plagiarist 50.68.6.12 removed. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rehabilitation
The imperial family were never charged with any crimes. So how could the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rehabilitate them?Royalcourtier (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a clear consensus that "execution" is the most common and accurate term to describe this event. Jenks24 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Shooting of the Romanov family → Execution of the Romanov family – "Shooting" does not really summarize this event adequately. People can survive shootings with injuries (see all the mass shooting articles). This was an execution or murder. The reliable sources state they were executed. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator of course. Reliable sources such as NY Times, CNN and The Guardian state the whole family was executed. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reliable sources such as The Independent, The Guardian, and RT also state the family was murdered. It is best to use a neutral term rather than one of two options that can be seen as non-neutral. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support they were executed, shooting can be survived as is therefore ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – See the article about the decision from the Russian courts: Russia exonerates Tsar Nicholas II: "...the last tsar and his family must be recognised as victims of Soviet repression 90 years after they were executed by a Bolshevik firing squad". Aso see this article on DNA testing of the two Romanov childred: it also uses 'execution', so this term seems to be more acceptable in the scientific community. (In any case, I think both are fine: 'shooting' seems to be more colloquial, while 'execution' is more technical). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – I would support the move, since there appeared findings, that some members of the family were bayoneted after they survived shooting. Execution looks like more accurate term. Jirka.h23 (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support DrKay's attempt to preserve neutrality using a compromise term found in the sources deserves careful consideration, but because "shooting" lacks the crucial element of fatality, the word succeeds in being neutral at the expense of omitting the irreparable impact of the act perpetrated against the victims. Besides, the subject matter deserves that we resolve the underlying issue: the usual alternative suggested to "execution" is "murder", and the reason either verb evokes edit wars is because the former is said to "dignify" the infliction of death by portraying it as an act of government, while the latter connotes the uncivil mayhem many associate with the Russian Revolution and its bloodthirsty Bolshevik leadership. Of the two, the latter seems more impermissibly POV, not because the act lacked the uncivil criminality of murder, but because historically we use "execution" to describe not only lethal actions taken by lawful government, but also death inflicted by dubious and blatantly illegal authorities (at least, as assessed retrospectively) if committed under color of authority. As vengeful and vicious as the family's slaughter was, the shooting was done to persons long held in captivity and by individuals acting on orders from superiors exercising the authority of governance. It smacks of a judgmentalism from which Wikipedia should refrain to avoid calling that an execution. Although "killing" would be less weasely than "shooting", it's not the option before us and execution-style murder would be simultaneously an anachronism and a neologism in this context. FactStraight (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. "Shooting" is a poor calque from Russian "rasstrel", which exactly means "execution by shooting". - üser:Altenmann >t 06:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per the explanation given by . Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Altenmann's opinion seconded.--Galassi (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment will need an admin to close as page is currently protected against moves. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2016 (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.

Why did this move entirely ignore the fact other users had raised that the term should be murder, not execution? This doesn't make any sense. &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory
"A recent investigation led by Vladimir Solovyov concluded that, despite the opening of state archives in the post-Soviet years, there is yet no written document found that indicates that either Lenin or Sverdlov instigated the orders; however, they did endorse the executions after they occurred."

"The opening up of the Soviet archives in the 1990s showed that, in fact, the decision to execute the Romanov family was taken by Lenin in the first week of July 1918, as he was advised to by Filipp Goloshchyokin. Goloshchyokin had been sent to Ekaterinburg to organise the execution, and had sent Lenin a coded telegram on 16 July 1918 informing him that the execution had to take place because the Czech Legion was surrounding the city."

Which of these two obviously contradictory statements is wrong? DrKay (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The one I added comes from a GCSE textbook, . Reliability is not an issue with the aforementioned source. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The former statement? That comes from the Daily Telegraph and corroborates with a few Russian sources. If there was somebody here who could speak fluent Russian, and could determine the reliability of those sources, that would be profitable. I'm unsure if the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

& : Here's the relevant passage (this is from an interview with the Special Investigator Vladimir Solovyov):

A: ...In early July of 1918, Filipp Goloshchyokin was in Moscow, where he met with Lenin and once again raised the issue of executing Nicholas and, possibly, his family. One of the participants of the meeting later recalled in his memoirs: "At the conclusion of the meeting, Sverdlov said: 'Tell the Ural comrades: we do not authorise the execution'." At the same time, Lenin suggested that Tsar's family be moved to Moscow. This probably sealed their fate.

Q: What about the telegram that the Ural Soviet sent to the Kremlin, requesting an authorisation for the execution?

A: The telegram was sent after all of the preparations for the executions had been completed. The investigation was unable locate any documentation supporting the suggestion that Lenin and Sverdlov received this telegram before the execution and authorised the killing.

Q: So, they bear no responsibility?

A: Quite the opposite, in my opinion. On 18 July, when they learned that the entire family had been killed, they officially approved this act, and none of those who organised it or participated were punished.



...В начале июля 1918 года военный комиссар Урала Филипп Голощекин был в Москве, встречался с Лениным и в очередной раз завел разговор о расстреле Николая II, а возможно, и царской семьи. В воспоминаниях одного из участников расстрела есть такая фраза: "На прощанье Свердлов сказал Голощекину: "Так и скажи, Филипп, товарищам: ВЦИК официальной санкции на расстрел не дает". Ленин тогда предложил перевезти всю семью в Москву. Это скорее всего и решило ее судьбу.

И: Но ведь существует и телеграмма, которую уральцы послали в Кремль, - формальный запрос о возможности расстрела?

Соловьев: В Кремль телеграфный запрос направили уже тогда, когда все было подготовлено к казни. У следствия нет никаких доказательств того, что Ленин и Свердлов получили эту телеграмму до казни и дали санкцию на расстрел.

И: Значит ли это, что их вины в расстреле нет?

Соловьев: Я считаю: безусловно, она есть. 18 июля 1918 года, узнав, что убита вся семья, они официально одобрили расстрел, ни один из организаторов и участников расстрела не понес никакого наказания.



http://izvestia.ru/news/370107

The Telegraph article references the Izvestia source used in the article. In it, Solovyov argues that it's quite possible that the Ural Soviet acted on its own initiative. He gives several examples of them being "anti-Leninist" and diverging with Kremlin on policy issues, such as not observing the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Germany. He also states that the historians and archivists have found no evidence that Lenin or Sverdlov gave permission for the family to be shot in 1918 (same as what Telegraph reports), but couches that by adding that a criminal investigation needs to fulfill the burden of proof that they were responsible, by producing documentary evidence. He states that no such evidence was located (i.e. it does not necessarily mean that none existed, just that none was found).

Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, . So which source do you think would be better within the article? Is it acceptable to use the two? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go with the first interpretation. It appears that the second one refers to the same telegram, but interprets it differently (unless they imply some other documentation?). I'd consider the criminal investigation to be reliable, or at least I've not seen references in majors news sources commenting on the investigation being a sham or painting Solovyov as a Kremlin mouthpiece. I've seen major newspapers refer to him neutrally, such as The Washington Post or They New York Times. Admittedly, I've not followed the coverage closely, so I can't comment on how other sources may have treated the investigation. But I assume we would have heard something if there were concerns about it or its conclusions. Have you seen anything along these lines?
 * Add: the article should probably state that it was a criminal investigation and give Solovyov's position as Special Investigator with the Main Criminalistics Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia, so readers know that it was an official criminal investigation. When I read the passage I was wondering was kind of investigation it was. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

--

I will go ahead and remove this contradictory statement, as this is probably what the article tag refers to:
 * The opening up of the Soviet archives in the 1990s showed that, in fact, the decision to execute the Romanov family was taken by Lenin in the first week of July 1918, as he was advised to by Filipp Goloshchyokin. Goloshchyokin had been sent to Ekaterinburg to organise the execution, and had sent Lenin a coded telegram on 16 July 1918 informing him that the execution had to take place because the Czech Legion was surrounding the city.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving to a new title
The current title is unacceptable in the light of fact. I would like to ask what would be preferred. Some ideas: 'Killing of the Romanov family', 'Murder of the Romanov family', or 'Massacre of the Romanov family'. Please reach a consensus. If we are unable to come up with a consensus my move will likely be reverted back to the current unacceptable title. W. M. Martínez (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the results of the move request proposed, discussed and rejected earlier this year, which is detailed above on this page here. I support the decision to continue to refer to the violent death of Romanov family members and entourage as an execution for reasons stated in the previous discussion. Since decisions about moving articles are made by consensus, and no new discussion here has reversed the most recent consensus, it cannot be unilaterally declared "unacceptable" and the article moved. Please respect your fellow editors. FactStraight (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'discussion' above did not at all consider any of the previous discussion which can be read on this very page. Please do not tell me to 'respect' anyone when you yourself have no intent on respecting others who do not share your opinion. Most of the those that supported the move did so because 'shooting' was an obviously stupid an inaccurate term, not because they felt that 'execution' was the best term. There are a number of valid questions about why 'execution' should be used, none of which have been satisfactorily answered. W. M. Martínez (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to initiate a new move request and launch a discussion for a new consensus in favor thereof. FactStraight (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is clearly murder. I've never heard of an 'execution' that involved taking a family to a basement under false pretences, shooting unarmed women and children, stabbing them, stripping them of their clothes and belongings, mutilating them and then burning two of the bodies (the youngest of whom was only 13). This new BBC article repeats it, "Communist revolutionaries murdered the royal family in 1918." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38469903). Wolcott (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems more an appeal to emotion and the apparent immorality of the killings, than an actual consideration of usage. Executions are generally performed on unarmed individuals (including women and, sometimes, regrettably, children) and aren't by any means incompatible with the mutilation or destruction of the bodies of those executed. There were many sources provided in the move proposal which refer to these killings as executions (or an execution, in the singular), and in fact many of the sources cited used both 'murder' and 'execution' to refer to the killings, so they're not incompatible, at least in common usage. 'Execution' is an appropriate word to refer to this incident by the standard that it is commonly used in reputable sources. Disputing it on NPOV grounds would be a different matter, but I think you're starting from a dubious position when you do so on the basis that the term's not sufficiently damning.Seggens (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As there was no trial it was clearly murder. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:FC84:8899:3CCF:C062 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC))
 * That's not the defining aspect of a murder. Regardless, we shouldn't need to fight over individual interpretations of definitions because common usage is the overriding concern. Seggens (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seggens, sorry to say but I'm not convinced. I don't see any complaints over these articles being titled murder: Murder of Jessica Lal, Murder of Tupac Shakur, Tate murders, Hi-Fi murders etc. Could you kindly explain how the Romanov family is an exception please? Wolcott (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with Seggens view. Historically we use "execution" to describe not only lethal actions taken by lawful government, but also death inflicted by dubious and blatantly illegal authorities (at least, as assessed retrospectively) if committed under color of authority. As vengeful and vicious as the family's slaughter was, the shooting was done to persons long held in captivity and by individuals acting, not out of personal malice or venality, but on orders from superiors exercising the authority of governance. It smacks of a judgmentalism from which Wikipedia should refrain to avoid calling that an execution. FactStraight (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Execution is playing into Soviet hands that the Romanovs' deaths were legitimate, which is why I disagree that the term is neutral. When I first came across this article, the title gave me the impression that a trial must've taken place and I was interested to know what crimes the women and children (the youngest only 13) were guilty of. But I found nothing, just a sentence Yurovsky invented seconds before the bloodbath began. Heck, both Charles I and Louis XVI have their own trial articles which justifies the use of 'execution'. The Romanovs, on the other hand, do not. Yes, Trotsky did propose a trial which never happened because Lenin opposed it. Keep in mind that this 'trial' was only meant for the tsar, not the family. TLDR, execution is not a neutral term, killing is. If it must be titled execution, there must be a trial article or subsection. Wolcott (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That it's a commonly used way to refer to the killings in reliable sources demonstrates that, in common usage, an execution needn't necessarily be preceded by a legitimate or judicious trial. Seggens (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Limiting myself to usage of languages I can discern, the titles go as follows:
 * the French article labels the event as the murder of the Romanov family;
 * the Spanish article, ditto;
 * the German article, ditto;
 * the Italian article uses "End of the Romanovs" and justifies this phrase by pointing out in the lede that this expression is found in various historical works.
 * It's so bad when ideology taints the English-language Wikipedia :((((( --79.27.56.58 (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is likely that no order was ever given for the murders. The guards just decided to kill the family as the Czechs approached the town. (86.144.84.138 (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC))
 * However, your personal opinion is of no value whatsoever to the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As the article makes clear, no evidence has ever been found linking Lenin to the murders. Therefore the title should be changed to "The Murder of the Romanov family". (86.133.85.243 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC))
 * The only grounds I understand for objecting to the article title other than common usage is whether it's a neutral, non-judgemental description. But if 'execution' doesn't satisfy that condition, 'murder' definitely doesn't. Seggens (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was clearly a case of murder, as no trial was held. In any case the children and the servants were not guilty of anything. Articles on genocides like the Holocaust use the term murder. At the very least the title should be changed to a more neutral "Killing of the Romanov Family." (2A00:23C4:638C:D800:C9D7:3A0D:7AF2:51DD (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Articles on the Holocaust also use the term 'execution' to refer to the summary killings of Nazi victims, because the term can refer to state-sanctioned killings done by individuals authorised and within the state's jurisdiction, unsanctioned killings done under colour of authority or even potentially outright unlawful killings done 'execution-style'. I would argue the first applies to Nicholas (and probably his children), but it's uncontentious that the second and third sense apply to the entire household. It doesn't make a judgement on whether the killings were right or justified, which 'murder' does. Seggens (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My objection to the present title is that it ignores the fact that it was not only the Romanov family who were executed, or murdered, but their attendants also. People always forget about them, it is like they did not matter somehow because they were not royal. IMO the title should be changed to something like "Killings -(that is neutral) - of the Romanov family and retinue" Smeat75 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Terminology aside (I've said mine on that by now I reckon) - specifying 'the Romanov family' is sufficient to identify the subject of the article without ambiguity IMO so further mentioning their extended household is inappropriate per WP:CONCISE. The executed servants are all already specified by name in the opening sentence and have prominently displayed portraits in the intro anyway. Seggens (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Going back to an earlier quote: "the shooting was done to persons long held in captivity and by individuals acting, not out of personal malice or venality, but on orders from superiors exercising the authority of governance". That being the case, kindly explain how the Stalag Luft III murders does not "smack of a judgmentalism", even though the prisoners were also "long held in captivity" and any recaptured were shot under "orders from superiors exercising the authority of governance"? Wolcott (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a war crime.Seggens (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the Romanov executions doesn't count as murder because the Bolsheviks won the war, thereby escaping punishment? Ironic isn't it? Wolcott (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * War crimes have been committed without anybody being convicted for them, including by the Soviet Union (e.g. the Katyn massacre). Establishing that the bulk of reliable sources regard the executions as having been criminal acts is sufficient to regard them as murder, although not to wield as an impetus to change the title if 'execution' is still the more commonly used term. Seggens (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing double standards here. You say 'execution' is the "more commonly used term", yet 'murder' is also used in articles like BBC and TASS, the former not once mentioning 'execution'. In spite of this, 'murder' is considered inappropriate despite the Stalag Luft title, which also has its fair usage of the word 'execution'. Wolcott (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Russian state archive officially calls it murder (http://statearchive.ru/intro.html). So does a new BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Red_October). 119.74.246.213 (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Execution of the Romanov family. 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: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501105506/http://www.dostoinstvo.zolt.ru/index.php?module=articles&c=articles&b=1&a=16 to http://www.dostoinstvo.zolt.ru/index.php?module=articles&c=articles&b=1&a=16

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Romanov family?
The House of Romanov, i.e. Romanov family, had many more members than these people, some (more) of them executed/murdered in that era, some who've died later & some who are still alive today. Thus the name of the article is wrong & misleading. This family is normally, and more specifically, called the family of Tsar Nicholas II. Move? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wounds Locations
This article stated that Nicholas was shot many times. Apparently, his skeleton was analyzed, and there were no more than three (I repeat three) bullet markings, all in his chest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:131F:EFB7:E024:20B1:8087:5EAE (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Weren't most of the Executioners of the Romanov Family JEWISH?
So according to english Wikipedia, we have the claim:

"Ivan Plotnikov, history professor at the Maksim Gorky Ural State University, has established that the executioners were Yakov Yurovsky, Grigory P. Nikulin, Mikhail A. Medvedev (Kudrin), Peter Ermakov, Stepan Vaganov, Alexey G. Kabanov..." etc.

However, a document that would starkly question this can also be found on Wikimedia Commons, namely this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Yurovsky_Document.jpg

...which, after the night of July 16-17th, during which the Romanov family was murdered in the basement of the Ipatiev house, is a report Yurowski allegedly made on the following day to Sverdlov on the perpetrators, stating the following (very Jewish sounding) names:

Horvat Laons, Fischer Anselm, Edelstein Isidor, Fekete Emil, Nad Imre, Grünfeld Viktor, Verházi Andras.

And this second List is even part of the German Wikipedia Article on Yakov Yurovsky: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakow_Michailowitsch_Jurowski

So who were the executioners really? Professor Plotnikovs list of Russians, or the document's list of Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:541:E300:B0F5:8E31:24F2:AD24 (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This "list" was falsified in the "memoirs" of a certain "Meyer" that appeared in 1956. Well known fake, but very beloved by crazy anti-Semites, who even in the name "Nad Imre" see something "Jewish".--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)