Talk:Tsardom of Russia

Principality of Moscow
While I generally like the Be bold in updating pages policy, creating a whole new section in our cycle of articles about Russian history should have been done after some discussion and not unilaterally.

Anyway, no sources have been presented for making this rather arbitrary division in historical periods at the year 1547. Balcer 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changes have occurred in 1478, when Ivan III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Валко (talk • contribs) 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ivan-III Валко (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Dimadick, don't be naughty.  Валко (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you decided to keep silent? Валко (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article includes no sources about the Tsardom in the 15th century. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ivan-III, who was? Валко (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear, this edit is not quite correct. If we speak of foundation of a single centralised Russian state (Русское централизованное государство), then 1478 is a valid start point. This is indeed a traditional Russian periodisation, still in use in, say, GRE. But if we speak of a Tsardom (царство), then it is a bit confusing to see 1478 as the date of its foundation. What matters here is which subject is more notable. If 1478-1721 Russian centralised state is more notable subject, then the article should cover it and likely renamed (in that case I would suggest to name it Russian Realm, along lines of translation of Russsian term Русское государство) and reorganised along 1478-1721 topic. If not, then the scope and title of the article should remain as is. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So let's change the name. Grand Principality of Moscow Principality of Moscow under Ivan IIII Russian state. Russian centralised state, or Russian (centralised) state, or Russian state. Валко (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources indicating name for Moscow Czardom to be Russkoye carstvo are fresh and attempt at changing historical name. It's a Grand Principality of Moscow or Principality of Moscow obviously. Changing this name to Russkoye carstvo is another russian attempt at making history to their liking. This should not be supported at least in the English version of wikipedia. Obviously russian version is long forsaken and it's impossible to keep facts there.

Odd sentence
I find this sentence slightly odd:

Some Western sources refer to this state as Muscovite Russia or Muscovy, although the term originally applied to its predecessor, the Grand Duchy of Moscow.

The sentence makes it seem as if there's a contradiction or a mistake somewhere in referring to Russia during that period as "Muscovy"; but I think that was what it was often called by normal English speakers, not just by "sources". The Muscovy Company was, of course, founded at the very time this usage is said to have become inapplicable; and I know that Samuel Pepys referred to Muscovy later still, in his diary of the 1660s—even to the "Tsar of Muscovy". It seems to me that the issue of what English-speaking people called Russia and what it called itself are slightly different and overlap confusingly; the English-language nomenclature lagging behind the change in political reality. I'm in favour of dropping "Muscovy" in favour of forms with "Moscow" or "Russia" from the period indicated (because it sounds antequated; we don't use words like Musselman for Muslim etc. anymore, after all—and British people would not like to be told that they came from "Londony"); but that doesn't mean it's mistaken to use "Muscovy" for that period, given the historical usage in English and in contemporary history books that necessarily use the old term.

Perhaps the sentence can be amended along the lines of: Some Western sources refer to this state as Muscovite Russia or Muscovy, the term originally applied to its predecessor, the Grand Duchy of Moscow. The removal of "although" would make a world of a difference. I'll do it if no-one objects to my comments here. qp10qp 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't object to this change. I consulted several books. Sir John Mandeville speaks about "Prussia and Russia". The Winter's Tale: "My father was the Emperor of Russia". The use of "Muscovy" actually increased in the 17th century, and Daniel Defoe uses Muscovy and Russia as synonyms in Robinson Crusoe Continued. -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they were both used. Absolutely. qp10qp 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Qp10qp, an original article called Muscovy (here as of 19 December 2006) was first moved to Grand Duchy of Moscow and subsequently split in two: Grand Duchy of Moscow and Tsardom of Russia (diff. & diff.).


 * The old Muscovy was thus first a redirect to Grand Duchy of Moscow (diff.), then transformed in two succesive disambiguation pages (diff. & diff.), and again redirected to Grand Duchy of Moscow (diff.).


 * All this was done on December 20 by User:Ghirlandajo, apparently without any previous discussion (see Talk:Grand Duchy of Moscow, permanent link ). Personally, I'm used to see the term Muscovy used in modern English-language history books for the period until well into the 17th century (sometimes until Peter the Great).


 * I know, I haven't really answered your comment :-) I'm restricting myself to giving you the general picture of how this article came to be like you found it. After what this whole episode showed, I don't want to be involved in content discussions here. - Best regards, Evv 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there's room for separate articles on this period and on the earlier period, as well as one on the overall period from Daniel to Peter. This one can be regarded not so much as a fork but as a form of summary style, so long as all the articles build up interlinks to each other and don't contradict each other about the facts. Ghirlandajo may have ignored all rules, but, after all, this is The Glass Bead Game, not chess. qp10qp 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tsardom of Rus
Well, I know that this term is completely unusual in English, but one has to admit that it would reflect the intention and the idea behind Царство Русское more precisely. Russia is the word for Rossiya (Россия), not for Rus (Русь). Rossiya started to be used only in 1721 and before that Rus (Русь) was the common word with Russkoye (Русское) being its adjective. Moreover the idea behind Царство Русское was to underline that it represents the "free" parts of Rus, meaning not under foreign rule (Polish or Lithuanian), since ethnic and cultural differences between Orthodox East Slavs were not yet as obvious in the 16th century. Voyevoda 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the term of Russian is coined exclusively by Peter the Great, scewing the true name by the Germanized version derived from Ruß wich is equivalent to Russ. The Moscovite Rus makes whole lot of sense and also the Rus Tsardom as well. At that time the Moscovite Rus became the only state that was governed by the Rurikid dynasty and independent from any other state. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This has to be edited to the right version. Wikipedia shoould be the source of correct information, not amateur gameyard. Lifeglider (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is recent invention by russians and should not be spread. Moscow Tsardom renamed under this name until 1721, when Peter renamed state into Russian Empire, claiming the history of ancient Kyiv Rus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylo Galyckyj (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Maps Needed
Can anyone help ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All the Rus lands
"The name originated from the fact that it contained all of the Rus lands free of foreign states domination". This is simply not true. Right Bank Ukraine was not part of the Tsardom of Russia. Right Bank Ukraine is Rus' land. It wasn't conquered by the Russians until 1793, long after the formation of the Russian Empire. Ostap 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody claims that Right Bank Ukraine belonged to Russia. You seem to have difficulties with English grammar. Ukraine was Rus land but was not free of foreign domination. Voyevoda (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to clarify it a little. Let me know what you think. Ostap 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's probably better for those who never learned what contact clause is. Voyevoda (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of referencing
This part jumped out at me as needing a citation...it sounds like something that would be found in a high school report :)

''After just two days, he began abusing his power, killing many people. One day he and his son got into an argument, and in an act of rage he killed his son. After that he began to regret his actions. Hoping for spiritual reconciliation, he surrounded himself with mystics. They projected the day he would die. He died close to midnight on that date while playing chess.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.75.199.174 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there is some pretty specific info in there. I think it should be cited or deleted. HotshotCleaner (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The cross flag on this page?
Flag of Russia states that the first universally-recognized Russian flag was the white, blue, and red tricolor most familiar as the flag of the modern Russian Republic. The cross flag shown here isn't mentioned there; could anyone point me to more information about it? It reminds me of the Byzantine flag, and it certainly looks plausible, but I'd like to know (and see in this article and Flag of Russia) more about its context and use as opposed to the tricolor's. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted you a response below. Seryo93 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Czardom of Russia
Czardom of Russia needs to redirect here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.200.171 (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Flag
To make it's clear, that tricolor was first all-Russian flag, i would like to post link for photo of Tsar's standard here: http://www.rossimvolika.ru/gos-simv/gos-flag/istoriya/kr-ocherk/20090921121220-8791.jpg

And please, do not put yellow flag again. It was adopted during times of the Russian Empire, not during Tsardom of Russia period. Seryo93 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states this? All you're doing is posting a link to an image of a flag and saying that it was the state flag. Lt.Specht (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is oldest survived Russian flag, it's stored in Central Naval Museum. Seryo93 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again...Does a reliable source say its the "oldest surviving flag"? And if it was even used as a civil or national flag in Russia? Lt.Specht (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here and here (in Russian language, however). 92.100.52.29 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the second page states the flag was the Tsar's personal standard while in Moscow, Standard of the Tsar in Moscow, only from 1693-1700, when it was replaced. I'm not sure why this would make the flag a nationally used flag, or important enough to have it as the article's flag. The book, Yenne, Bill. Flags of the World. Chartwell Books, 1993, p32, states that the the two-headed eagle imperial flag of the Tsar dates back to 1472, and was instituted by the early Romanov's as an official civil flag, until replaced during the empire's time in 1858. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tricolor was civil ensign since 1705, so, i've reverted imp.flag edit. Seryo93 (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added info about both yellow Tsar's standard and civil tricolor. I think, topic closed. Seryo93 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A civil flag is more noteworthy than a civil merchant ensign, as with most articles, should establish a broad consensus if the civil merchant ensign is going to be used over the civil flag for the main flag. Still would need a translation to verify this source as well. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. There is no civil flag ever until 1914 and in 1917-2008 2. Civil ensigns are used more often (because used on generic trade ships), than military naval ensign and tsars only personal standard, and thus, it plays role of de-facto state flag when there is no official state flag. 3. there is no tsar's standard in 1472, the earliest tsar's flag is tricolor with DH-eagle in the center, so, English source is (slight) wrong. 4.Leader's standard by definition cannot be state flag or ever close to that role, like standard of the German Chancellor is not used instead of Flag of Germany I hope, that now you understand, why civil ensign is de-facto state flag. I hope, that you now learn why i make my edits (that you reverted). Seryo93 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Empires article's sources do state that the black-orange-white tricolor, and the white-blue-red (alternative), were civil flags until replaced in 1914. I'm not sure if I understand your reasoning behind the civil ensign being used more often on a higher scale, seems to me that the Tsar's standards would of been used more on an official scale, atleast to me anyway. If you read the sentence containing the English source carefully, it does not state that the Tsar's standard featured on this page existed in 1472, whether it did or not I don't know, just that the origin of the flag dates back to then, such as the two-headed eagle being adopted by rulers. It seems to me that civil flags are the norm for featuring for countries main flags in articles instead of state flags, such as the Finland, Iceland, and Monaco articles. I was also reverting the edits largely because you were flat out removing the material which cited the English source, with no clear explanation as to why it should be entirely removed. As there appears to be no clear burden of proof either way on the flags, and no real consensus, perhaps the previous flag featured, the Standard of Tsar in Moscow, should be restored. Atleast until more sources can be found on this issue, anyway. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tsar's standard is specially created for Tsar's exclusive use. It's a just royal flag, and it's used only for purpose of representing Tsar, not all Russia. Russia was represented (at Tsardom time) only by Andreevsky flag (military) and, WBR tricolor (trade and other civil ships). This is reason, but i agree, that until consensus is reached, Standard of Tsar of Moscow (as of 1692-1700) may be putted in infobox. And, black-orange-white tricolor adopted in 1858, so, during Tsardom period, the only civil ensign was tricolor. And for last, civil flag is flag, that flown by citizens, not government or ships. Until 1914 and in 1917-2008, flying Russian flag by citizens meet government sanctions and imprisoning, so there is NO civil flag in Tsardom of Russia, but civil ensign. Do not confuse them, please. Seryo93 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ADDITION: as we have a precedent of showing civil ensign into infobox, i've added tricolor into infobox and explained controversy behind Tsar's Imp. flag info in Flags of the World book. I hope, reasons behind tricolor in infobox finally made clear. Seryo93 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like the civil ensign is used on the Austria-Hungary article because there was no civil, national, or state flag which was jointly used in both the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian Empire. According to the source the Tsar's flag was the civil flag in this case, I've seen no English source that says otherwise. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian source
Per WP:RSUE, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material, in this article's case we have one English source, that is from a published book, which partly covers the topics of flags used during the Tsardom, and another Russian source, a website. Per the policy, the English source should be preferred over the Russian source for what it covers. The Russian source would be a fine addition for anything else, as long as a translation is provided, preferably a translation published by a reliable source, per the policy. I'm not sure whats in disagreement over this policy. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this article covers RUSSIA, i think, RUSSIAN source is more reliable in this cases (Tsardom and Empire disputes) than english, because they (russian sources) are written by those, who born in Russia and knows it's country history more than some (not all!) English historiographers. Anyway, when i got some more time, i will translate source for verification. Seryo93 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In section above, i've futher explained civil ensign's importance in Russian flag history. Also, citizens of Russia, that knows it's country history, may see, that english source is somewhere wrong. (There is no Tsar's flag ever in 15th century, but your source says, that it was yellow banner with eagle in center). Seryo93 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Russian sorces are more reliable? :) This people at least twice rewrote their history to make it look better. --Vovchyck (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What kind of Russia in 17 century
At that time there was no Russia it was Moskovia. Only at the begining of 18 century their tsar (Petter the Great) decided that they need better history and renamed Moskovia into Russia. Even at all European maps the territory is called Moskovia and full stop. Only in 18 century in German maps apears Russia. Before that there was one name "MOSKOVIA" --Vovchyck (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories or Ukrainian Nationalist Bullshit (UNB). These historical maps illustrate your lies:

--Voyevoda (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is interesting, did anybody actually look at those maps? the one for example from 1539 only has Russia Alba (White Russia) and lists Moscovia for the name of the country this discussion is about; the 1589 map has Moscovia written all over it, even the last one from 1645 says vulgo (commonly known as) Moscovia.--Termer (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, these maps are basically the purest example of Original Research. And some of those are still in the article, without any actual academic sources to elaborate on the meaning of the maps. Hence we don't know whether these maps refer to a sovereign state or to a region in Europe. Fatty Strider (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Tsardom of Russia???
the discussion up there Talk:Tsardom_of_Russia is right on target. The word Russia was coined by Peter the Great. So why exactly is this article called "Tsardom of Russia"? After all, it's not even close to the most common name in English. The state that existed back then has been always most commonly called Muscovy.

lets WP:GOOGLE: "Tsardom of Russia" on google books About 182 results "Tsardom of Russia" on google scholar about 43

Muscovy on google books About 159,000 results Muscovy on google scholar about 20,900

how about "Tsardom of Muscovy"?

google books About 918 results google scholar about 106

So why exactly is this article called "Tsardom of Russia" if the name Russia didn't exist before Peter the Great and it's far from being the most frequently used to refer to the subject in English?--Termer (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claim that this name didn't exist before Peter I is clearly wrong. Россия as the hellenized form of Русь can be found in chronicles and documents already in the time of Ivan III. There is much information on the naming in the article, including historical maps with "Russia", I wonder why you didn't read it. Also, in the topic above, there are enough historical maps. You seem to have ideologic blinder on your eyes in its direct form. --Voyevoda (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an ideological blinder indeed, it's called WP:COMMONNAME, and that's not "Tsardom of Russia". The thing you claim Россия may have been found in chronicles and documents already in the time of Ivan III doesn't change the fact that this Tsardom has been called "of Russia" by a handful of sources out there. I mean 182 for "Tsardom of Russia" vs. 918 hits to "Tsardom of Muscovy" is quite drastic difference don't you think? So why exactly is this article called "Tsardom of Russia" again once Tsardom of Muscovy is the most frequently used?--Termer (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actual usage of tsardom
My impression (based on a Google Books search; see a histogram) is that tsardom (or czardom) has been used in English traditionally mostly in the following two meanings:
 * (a) The most comon, "rule by Tsar" (царизм - i.e., similar to "tsarism" in English). E.g., "the end of tsardom", "despotism and tsardom", "Russia from Tsardom to Bolshevism", "Russian Tsardom" in the sense of the political system of the Russian Empire)
 * (b) Sometimes, "the position of a Tsar" (comparatively less common meaning of царство, parallel to English "kingship"). E.g., [anachronistically] "Rurik's election to the czardom"; "assumption of the Tsardom of Russia by the Great Prince of Moscow")

Much less common has been the meaning When I actually try to do a Google Books search on "Tsardom of Russia", and to look at individual pages, I see that the great majority of pages where that expression happens are either clones of Wikipedia pages (thanks to parasitic "publishers" such as Alphascript), or books where "tsardom" is used in the senses of (a) or (b) above. Genuine non-Wikipedia examples of "tsardom of Russia" with the meaning (c) are few and far apart, seem to be mostly confined to precise translations of texts from Russian, or in works by Russian authors in English. I am not saying that the expression "Russian Tsardom" or "Tsardom of Russia" is necessarily bad and ought to be abandoned in favor of either the traditional "Muscovy" or the descriptive and precise, but long, "Russian State (15xx to 17xx)", but we at least should realize that it is not (yet, at any rate) widely used by mainstream Anglo-American writers outside of Wikipedia. Now, Wikipedia is an influential reference, so maybe we will help the introduction of this expression (which, as Russkoye Tsarstvo [i Moskovskoye Gosudarstvo] is pretty standard in Russian) into the English mainstream, but I am not entirely sure that this is our role. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (c) A "country ruled by a tsar" (the usual meaning of царство, parallel to "kingdom"). It's not like this last meaning never appears - so it is not a "wiki neologism" - but it seems to be comparatively rare, recent, and largely confined to translations from Russian: "from which tsardom" (in a folk tale), "Kazan Tsardom and Polish Tsardom" (in a precise translation of the names of the components of Russian Empire); "Russian Tsardom / Moscow Tsardom" (in a book by a Turkish author).

Tsardom of Russia vs.Tsardom of Muscovy
it has become evident the name "Tsardom of Russia" (About 182 results) on google books come mostly from clones of Wikipedia at the time when "Tsardom of Muscovy" (About 918 results) is the most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. So why exactly is the article called Tsardom of Russia on Wikipedia?--Termer (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC--Voyevoda (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC))
 * 1) Contrary to your claim, the word Russia was certainly NOT coined by Peter the Great.
 * 2) The wording Tsardom of Russia has its legitimation with regard to content and original historical sources
 * 3) It is found in scientific literature.
 * 5) Czardom of Russia is also being used
 * 6) For a clean comparison, one should also consider cases where Russia vs. Muscovy are being used for 1547-1721 without to add Tsardom of Czardom.
 * 7) A similar discussion was held twice on Russian Wikipedia, but it was decided to leave "Царство Русское". --Voyevoda (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please Voyevoda, I'm already aware of your opinion, an WP:RfC is for requesting outside input.--Termer (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO, there is nothing wrong with "Russia" in the name of the article, but "Tsardom" (or "Czardom", which is overall much less used as per Google Books) in the name of the state seem somewhat awkward, at least to this reader. With respect to the five points above, I fully agree with (1), have certain doubts about the correctness or relevancy of the rest:
 * (1) "Russia" is a legitimate word to be used as [part of] the name describing the state of the late Ryurikids or the early Romanovs, as the 16th- and 17th-century maps presented on this very discussion page (scroll up for a few screens) indicate, and as can be seen in plenty of existing modern historical literature.
 * (2) "Tsardom of Russia" - yes, it appears in original sources in Russian, but is none to common in English (in the sense of the name of the country/state).
 * (3) Uh... Russkoye Tsarstvo may be the standard term in Russian historical literature, but is it such in English? I am sure there are some historians who use this term "Tsardom of Russia" (in English) to refer to the country/state of the period, but they seem to be a very small minority (as compared to those who may say "Muscovy", "Muscovite Russia" [= Московская Русь, I guess], "Russia", "Russian state"... anything, even "Muscovite Tsardom" on a couple occasions!).
 * (4) Certainly, one should not not just look at the number of hits; but a look at the content of books or articles where the term is found certainly should give you an idea what terms are - or aren't - in common use. One can make any other kind of survey - pick a few scholarly journals in related fields for example, or several standard Anglo-American textbooks on Russian history. (Did George Vernadsky, for example, use "Tsardom"? I don't remember).
 * (5) I have no objection to "Царство Русское" in ru.wiki, as it is indeed a standard term in Russian historiography. Here we need to assess the English scholarly use.
 * (In a sense, I wonder sometimes to which extent this periodization, with 1547 as the break point, between the "Duchy" and the "Tsardom" is the most meaningful - I personally would view something like "Pre-Mongol Rus'", "Northeastern Russian principalities under the Mongol domination", "Muscovite Russia", "Russia of the Romanov Dynasty" as a more natural periodization - but that's a different issue, and needs real historians' input). -- Vmenkov (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Vmenkov (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment - Tsardom of Russia is so scarcely used in the English sources that it has no merit to be the article's title. The most frequent versions for this particular time period are "Tsardom of Muscovy" and "Muscovite Tsardom". I personally prefer the first version as it is more natural and thus more likely to be searched for and linked to. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I said above that I can hardly find any non-Wikipedia non-translationese examples of using tsardom to mean a "country ruled by a tsar", but this isn't entirely so. A Google Books search on |"Tsardom of Muscovy" actually does find quite a few bona fide examples of that usage. |"Moscow Tsardom" and |"Muscovite Tsardom" occur as well. Now, |"Russian Tsardom" occur about as frequently, even if not more frequently, than the "Muscovite" alternatives, but with the caveat that many - probably, a majority - of these occurrences have tsardom used in the meanings that I described as (a) [tsarism, tsarist regime] and (b) [= kingship] above, and often don't refer specifically to the pre-Petrine period. Judging by the hits' content, "Tsardom of Russia" seems the worst of the four (or five) alternatives - it primarily occurs in the meanings (a) and (b), plus of course wiki-clones and occasional translations. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, but what do you suggest instead? How would you translate Царство? Judging by the contemporary language of Ivan IV, царство was equivalent to empire (Mongol or Byzantinian rulers have been also called Tsars in Russian) but the term Russian Empire is already occupied. Probably that's the reason why you criticized direct translations of state names and suggested a more "natural" division of history. However, what you have suggested has the disadvantage of ambiguity and partly redundance. For example, most of the 17st century can be assigned to both "Muscovite Russia" and "Russia under the rule of Romanovs", and there is also a crossover between early "Muscovite Russia" and "Northeastern Russian principalities under the Mongol domination". This shows that any other divisions apart from official development stages are problematic. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Tsardom is not a great name. However, the term "Russia" ("Russian") is the widely used term in the literature I've seen, many mentioning about so-and-so being Prince of Moscow, or whatever, and then going on to use "Russia/Russian" when internal politics are not important. However. we need an article title that demarcates that the content of this article deals with the period of 1547–1721. ("Russia" would thus not suffice alone in that regard.) So I'd suggest some term other than "Tsardom" (which, to me, is somewhat confusing since the word "tsar" is used to describe rulers up to 1917), but keep the use of the word "Russia" in the title somewhere; maybe "Pre-imperial Russia"? I do understand that terms are not likely used much outside Wikipedia, but we have a unique requirement here to provide clarity. I'd suggest, therefore, that there are actually two debates: 1) whether the state is best described as Russia or Muscovy during the 1547–1721 period; 2) where such rule is best described as a Tsardom or something else. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vmenkov was actually doing google not Google Books searches as on Books the counts are following: |"Russian Tsardom" - 599 hits, |"Tsardom of Muscovy" - 908 hits, |"Muscovite tsardom" - 944 hits. Anyhow, Tsardom of Muscovy still seems like the best shot as it is the most time-specific one of the alternatives. The rule is definitely best described as "tsarism" and to make the name as time specific as possible "Muscovy" is perfect - thus the article title would denote the close temporal proximity to pre-tsarist muscovy, but underline the difference in the governing system Wladthemlat (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I already wrote, this comparison of google hits is not very clean. More comprehensive and thus reliable results about which name of Russia is being used for the period 1547-1721 should include the mentionings in other contexts, for example "Muscovite army" vs. "Russian army", "Muscovite ambassador" vs. "Russian ambassador" and so on. Such comparison, precisely for the period 1547-1721, is of course very difficult to realize, but would be neccessary, in my opinion. I think, in this very specific and complex case, since the measurement of google hits are not very practicable, we should rather have a discussion with regards to the historical meaning and the factual legitimation of both names. If we do so, we will see that "Muscovy" is the result of ideology and inertness, while "Russia" has the legitimation in the official title of the Tsar and the official state name. --Voyevoda (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Basing the article title on the frequency of uses of terms like "Muscovite army" vs. "Russian army" would be WP:OR, we just have to compare which name is more frequent in the sources while keeping focus on the time period, that's all. You see, that sources would name the state Tsardom of Muscovy and then use 'Russian army' as a trope (or vice versa) is not that unlikely, but the name is what counts here. We must quote source use, not invent a suitable name per our own research. We can use more search sources (e.g. EBSCO or ProQuest, if possible) and specify the search for the given time period only, but that's about it. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OR is certainly something different, but if you insist that army and other state attributes are something too far-fetched, it is at least obligatory to check the usage of Russia vs. Muscovy directly, without "Tsardom". The google expression "Tsardom of .." is too rare and has a too small share of the overall usage to be a basis for a decision. --Voyevoda (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RE:Voyevoda check the usage of Russia vs. Muscovy directly? That's not necessary since in English singled out "Muscovy" (About 159,000 results on google books)can refer to "Grand Duchy of Moscow". I'm missing what's the problem with "tsardom", it's clear that "Tsardom of Muscovy" with its About 918 results on google books and about 106 on google scholar is the most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources and therefore is in compliance with WP:COMMONNAME--Termer (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the frequency of the usage in combination with Tsardom is pretty low so that it doesn't allow to make serious decisions. You should check "Muscovy" or "Russia" not in every case, but for the period 1547-1721. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of a few books. Re: Wladthemlat: what I did was actually a Google Books search, not a general Google search; I must have truncated the URL when posting it. In any event, my focus was on how the word tsardom, and various combinations using it (Tsardom of Muscovy etc.) were used in published books, not on how many times this or that word occurred. Voyevoda asks, "Alright, but what do you suggest instead?" I have to admit that I don't have much intuition on the topic, as I don't read all that much literature on the topic. So what I did, I went to a library and looked at 4 general purpose, academic, histories of Russia, to see what terms their authors (all recognized historians in that field) actually use. Here's the report, surveying both the periodization these authors used, and their terminology. I would summarize the results as follows: All the above is very much IMHO, as I don't claim any expertise on the topic. I however, have tried to fairly describe the terms used by the experts in their books. -- Vmenkov (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of all authors, only George Vernadsky used tsardom much; in fact, he has The Tsardom of Moscow, 1547-1682 as a title of his volume. However, inside the book, the word tsardom does not get that much use: it is mostly concentrated in one chapter, with the meaning varying between a realm ruled by a tsar (parallel to "kingdom") and the institution of rule by a tsar (parallel to "kingship"). When talking about the country, he mostly goes for 'Muscovy.
 * For the other authors (Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, and the Cambridge team), Muscovy is the preferred term. One historian, Sergei Bogatyrev, actually explains, in the context of Ivan IV's realm, that his state received in English the established but somewhat inaccurate name of Muscovy; and, despite the inaccuracy, he keeps using it.
 * What suggestions can I make based on the above?
 * I probably would be most comfortable with period divisions at ca. 1471-1480 and 1682 (as most authors do), i.e. Ivan III / formal independence from the Mongols as the starting date, and the beginning of the reign of Petr I as the end date. The article then can be simply called "Muscovy" (as I think it was before 2006). It could explain that "Muscovy"is a popular western name for the Eastern Russian state of the period, centered in Moscow. (The term "Western Russia" was at the time still commonly used for Ukraine/Byelorussia). The text would explain that the rulers were called both Great Dukes and Tsars from early on (and until pretty late), the second title becoming more official since Ivan IV. Accordingly, the state could be referred to as the Great Duchy of Moscow and Tsardom of Moscow, with "Tsardom of Russia"/"Russian Tsardom" also being a legitimate translation of an alternative Russian name for the latter.
 * Since the editors who actually developed this article chose to have an extra breakpoint at 1547 (as, after all, did esteemed G. Vernadsky), I would like to respect their choice and am not planning to start a merge debate. I would suggest following Vernadsky's titles, "Great Duchy of Moscow" and "Tsardom of Moscow", for the two article. Again, the latter article would explain and interpret "Tsardom of Russia"/"Russian Tsardom" as per above.
 * If the present split into two articles is kept, I would suggest that we follow Vernadsky and don't use the term "Tsardom of Moscow" (or any other "tsardom") all that much outside of the title of that one article. That is, inside the article one ought to talk about "Russia" or "Muscovy", and if one wants to link to this article from elsewhere, it has better be via a piped link, as in Muscovy or Muscovite Russia or even Russia when called by the context.
 * Again, if the split is kept, "Muscovy" should probably be a disambiguation page, explaining that the term has been widely applied to the entire post-Mongol pre-Petrine period of (Eastern) Russian history, and linking to both the Great Duchy and Tsardom articles.

Requested move: Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Muscovy

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page to Tsardom of Muscovy. - GTBacchus(talk) 14:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Muscovy – pr WP:COMMONNAME - the name "Tsardom of Russia" (About 182 results) on google books come mostly from clones of Wikipedia at the time when "Tsardom of Muscovy" (About 918 results) is the most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Please also see RfC Comments, above. + the 182 sources available use the term "Tsardom of Russia" ambiguously, sometimes referring to the 19 century ,.--05:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Termer (talk)
 * I personally object to the term Muscovy being used over Russia. The book that I have read use the term "Russia", "Russian" etc. to describe this period, unless they are dealing with the specifics of the legal or ruling system. I cite one search on Google Books I think may be relevant. If we take the search term "Ivan the Terrible", which will narrow the focus as best we can to this time period, and append "Russia" or "Muscovy", you get 114,000 results for "Russia" and 18,500 for "Muscovy" (about 7 times less). Admittedly, some will be discussing Ivan in books mostly talking about the future, but I don't think this is enough (for books covering the whole of Russian history, you'd expect them to use both if Termer's suggestion is correct). I therefore oppose the move. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: for books covering Russian history please check out the most reliable ones like for example The Cambridge History of Russia Cambridge University Press, 2006 (covers the period from early ('Kievan') Rus' to the start of Peter the Great's reign in 1689).--Termer (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've just picked one that supports your viewpoint. I've already demonstrated the Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Russia", but we could continue all we liked on that thread, we need the bigger picture. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On further research, it seems to mixed as to implausible to hold views either way. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * again, the question is not Russia vs Muscovy but we're talking about "Tsardom of Muscovy" vs. "Tsardom of Russia", later by the way also is ambiguous. A quick look at the non wikipedian sources show that "Tsardom of Russia" is referred to something from the 19 century . here is one that speaks about Marxism that converted the Tsardom of Russia into a socialist state entered the country in the 1860s. If a source speaks about Ivan IV, obviously in the context there's no question what period n Russian history this is about. But in Russian history the period itself is not "Russia" but "Muscovite Russia'. Which BTW, Encyclopedia Britannica also lists as such Russia: The Muscovite period @ Encyclopaedia Britannica--Termer (talk)14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Termer: "again, the question is not Russia vs Muscovy but we're talking about "Tsardom of Muscovy" vs. "Tsardom of Russia"" You are mistaken. The wider question of Russia/Muscovy is very important. If there are many ways people use "Russia" but only one with "Muscovy" that does not mean we should give this Muscovy. Imagine if 70% of sources used Russia, but three different ways, and the other 30% just "Tsardom of Muscovy". We shouldn't title the page "Tsardom of Muscovy", the wider context has to taken into account. The priority is a title people understand. In a different context, I've created Spanish coup of July 1937. I veyr much doubt any historian has called it that, it hasn't been called any specific name. But some people would like to know it as "The Revolution" or whatever. But that's clearly not where the page should be. Ergo, we should decide Russia/Muscovy first, then the exact title. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me try once more, both singled out names "Russia" and "Muscovy" would be ambiguous if taken out of context. "Muscovy" can refer to either the tsardom or the earlier grand Duchy. Russia by itself may refer to anything from the early history til modern times. For the discussion it's important to determine which is more frequently used and less ambiguous for the name of the state that existed at the time, either "Tsardom of Russia" or "Tsardom of Muscovy"? And the evidence show most clearly witch term is used the most and not ambiguously.


 * Now the most accurate title for the article would be "Tsardom of Muscovy and all Rus". Considering in Russian the name used was Руское= of Rus, vs the name taken to use by Peter I, Россия = Russia. Just that there are no sources out there that would spell this "official name" in English other than coupler say Ivan IV was proclaimed as tsar of Muscovy and All Rus and or Tsar of Muscovy and all Russia. "All Rus(sia)" refers to the fact that Ivan IV laid claims over the lands of not just Muscovite Rus(sia) but also of the Kievan Rus(sia).--Termer (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand, I just don't agree. I think Muscovy, to the casual reader, is more confusing, not less. Perhaps the addition of (1547–1721) into the article title could assist. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree to to the move, per the same common English language criteria.--Galassi (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "Russian Tsardom" is a valid synonym of "Tsardom of Russia", and combining the two terms provides |%22Russian+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22Tsardom+of+Russia%22|%22Russian+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&safe=on&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7694d34fae9de011&biw=925&bih=466&safe=on almost 2,000 gbooks hits, which is twice as many as |%22Russian+Tsardom%22+-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&ds=bo&sugexp=ldymls&pq=%22tsardom%20of%20russia%22|%22russian%20tsardom%22%20-inauthor%3A%22books%2C%20llc%22&xhr=t&q=%22Tsardom%20of%20Muscovy%22%20-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C%20LLC%22&cp=20&qe=IlRzYXJkb20gb2YgTXVzY292eSIgLWluYXV0aG9yOiJCb29rcywgTExDIg&qesig=KiSpRJ6tLaTvEIOy6WHJ2w&pkc=AFgZ2tme_LLJjT-6WpqCXZLFRmwSD7ErKTB_ESzYwTQmwccdhkr1ducxCkreMLaD705O4soLvCsvfZ8AK_6lbxTnZk6Zusdkeg&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=bks&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Tsardom+of+Muscovy%22+-inauthor:%22Books,+LLC%22&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7694d34fae9de011&biw=925&bih=466&bs=1&safe=on what "Tsardom of Muscovy" returns. Not that counting gbooks hits like that is a valid approach to establish anything, mind you. Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 27, 2011; 18:28 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the record the term "Russian Tsardom" is ambiguous, in the books listed on the search above it often refers to other periods in Russian history. For example the second book on the list speaks about Russian Tsardom in mid 19th century. about the fifth book on the list The French Revolution & the Russian anti-democratic tradition by Dmitry Shlapentokh refers to "Russian Tsardom" while speaking about Marx, and Lenin's views on pre 1917 Russia etc.


 * At the same time 'Muscovite Tsardom' is a synonym of "Tsardom of Muscovy" together giving |%22Muscovite+Tsardom%22-inauthor%3A%22Books%2C+LLC%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 about 2000 returns on googel books vs. 184 of "Tsardom of Russia" that includes wiki mirrors.


 * Other than that counting gbooks hits is a valid approach on Wikipedia to determine which of several alternative names is most frequently used in English, please see WP:COMMONNAME FFI.--Termer (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per arguments I presented above. WP:COMMONNAME is not valid here, since it's not sufficient to check the strings "Tsardom of Russia" vs. "Tsardom of Muscovy", it is also neccessary to check the overall usage of Russia vs. Muscovy for the period 1547 till 1721. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the question about overall usage of Russia vs. Muscovy in the context is a bit awkward since to specify the period in Russian history it's been also referred to as "Mucovite Rus" and/or "Muscovite Russia". The reason "Mucovite -" is used is due to distinguish it from the Kievan Rus and/or Kievan Russia that was occupied by Poland at the time.--Termer (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

After that, however, it was time to look at the links' content. Based on the first 10 links from the "Tsardom of Russia/Russian Tsardom" query, I have this breakdown: 10%, Wikipedia clones; 50%, books where "tsardom" refers to "tsarism" in general or Russia the monarchy in general (with primarily Russian Empire) in mind; 30%, books that indeed confirm that "Russian Tsardom" (Tsarstvo Russkoye") was used by Russian writers in the right time period (17th century) to describe the country they lived in. Every time, however, the term appears as part of translation or paraphrase of the original Russian work, not as the expression used by the modern author him/herself to name the country when writing in English. In contrast, the books found by Moscow/Muscovy searches were primarily historical works that actually referred to the particular period in question. Details can be found here (second part). -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom's argument about Kiev and Moscow being rivals for primacy in Russia. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These both cities never were direct rivals. There was a period in the 12th century when Kiev competed with Vladimir, but when Moscow became an influential center, Kiev was a second-rank town in Lithuania and later Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.--Voyevoda (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment My own preference, as I stated on May 18, was either in favor of "Muscovy" (if we have a single article for 1480-1700), or "The Tsardom of Moscow" (if we keep the split, with the "Duchy" title for the pre-1547 period, so that we need to use "Tsardom" for the later period). So I am somewhat neutral concerning this particular move request. Ezhiki's queries are certainly very useful. I have applied them (and variants) and here's the overall Google Books hits report:
 * Thanks Vmenkov for such a comprehensive comment to the point! The more modern "Tsardom of Moscow" with 1,040 direct hits may be the winner here over the more traditional "Tsardom of Muscovy" with its about 900 returns?--Termer (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as most of the Tsars ruled more then Muscovy. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. The Tsardom was of all the Russias. The fact that the capital was Moscow and that some writers use the term "Muscovite" to denote a particular period (not the period of the article, by the way), is not germaine to the titling of the article. Please see Voyevoda's comments and Google strings chart at the bottom of this page. Also, please note Greyhood's sensible comments in the second move request, below. Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move: Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Moscow

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

The result of the move request was: '''no consensus to move page to Tsardom of Moscow. - GTBacchus(talk) 14:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Moscow – pr WP:COMMONNAME "Tsardom of Moscow" with about 1,040 hits vs "Tsardom of Russia" (About 185 results) on google books + [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tsardom_of_Russia&diff=431356920&oldid=431356786 "Tsardom of Russia/Russian Tsardom" refers 10% to Wikipedia clones; 50%, books where "tsardom" refers to "tsarism" in general. In contrast, the books found by Moscow/Muscovy searches were primarily historical works that actually referred to the particular period in question.] Termer (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as the Tsars rule wasn't limited to Moscow. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Roman Empire's rule wasn't limited to Rome, Byzantine Empire's to Byzantium, or for that matter, the Grand Duchy of Moscow's to Moscow, either. —  AjaxSmack   00:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - per genius comment by Ajax. Marcus   Qwertyus   02:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer "Tsardom of Muscovy" - it seems almost equally common, and (I suspect) makes it clearer that we're not talking just about the city of Moscow.--Kotniski (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Muscowy is the standard western term, and "всея Руси" is not an equivalent of Russia.--Galassi (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, as per my analysis of usage in standard histories, and my comments on May 18 and May 28. -- Vmenkov (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; the results of Vmenkov's excellent analysis have me convinced.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 15:42 (UTC)
 * Oppose, since the strict combination with the "Tsardom" can't be the only indicator for the country's most used English name in this period. Muscovy is neither the most common nor has it something to do with the original naming. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support pr. Vmenkov.--Termer (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As far as I can see, a significant part of refernces to "Tsardom of Moscow" are actually references to George Vernadsky, which is many references but still just one author. The second problem is that in many cases "Tsardom of Moscow" actually refers to pre-1547 period, or combines pre- and post-1547 periods. That's why I prefer "Tsardom of Russia", because, while also ambiguous, it hints on the larger size of the country by that time - while in the 14th century it was indeed a relatively small state around Moscow, in the 16th-17th centuries it was a large state comparable in territorial extent to Kievan Rus' and, finally, even modern Russia. And, afterall, "Tsardom of Moscow" is just an abbreviated derivation from the "Tsar of Moscow and all Rus" with not only Rus but also such names as Русія», «Росія», or «Россия» (all corresponding to Russia) being used in Tsar titles and quite common names of the country by the 16th and 17th centuries. Grey Hood   Talk  20:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: that's pretty clear some wikipedia editors simply prefer "Tsardom of Russia" for whatever reason. Just that such a preference for the title of this article is not supported by WP:RS out there, Vmenkov has proved that beyond doubt.--Termer (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, voyevoda's arguments are convincing.--HenrichB (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI. we're not here to publish WP:OR but edit Wikipedia according to published WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support pr. Vmenkov. Igqirha (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The Tsardom was of all the Russias. The fact that the capital was Moscow and that some writers use the term "Muscovite" to denote a particular period (not the period of the article, by the way), is not germaine to the titling of the article. Please see Voyevoda's comments and Google strings chart below. Also, please note Greyhood's sensible comments above. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

officially "Русское царство"
the fact is, the official name of the tsardom can only be derived from the official title of the tsar, which in fact was "tsar of Moscow and all Rus" or "tsar of Muscovy and all Rus" which would make the official name of the state: the Tsardom of Moscow and all Rus at the time when "Русское царство" or "Tsardom of Russia" is just a generic form that can refer to and is used for any period of tsarist Russian history.--Termer (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. unfortunately there's no WP:RS published in English that would spell out the official name "Tsardom of Moscow and all Rus", however there's one saying "Tsardom of Moscow and all Russia". At the same time the source still speaks about "The Tsardom of Moscou, 1547-1682" as the title of the chapter in A History of Russia by George Vernadsky, Michael Karpovich. So "Tsardom of Moscow" or "Tsardom of Muscovy" clearly is the common name for the state in question.--Termer (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. The official title of the Tsars for the most period (1547—1721) was "Tsar and Grand Prince of Great, Little and White Rus", or optionally, "of the entire Rus". Moscow was mentioned only in the following, mostly even after the historical capital of Vladimir. The official title of Ivan IV (the Terrible) in 1547 was "Божьей милостью царь, и государь всеа Русии и великий князь, Володимерский, Московский, Новгородцкий, Псковский, Смоленский, Тферский, Югорский, Пермьский, Вятцкий, Болгарский.. и иных". You seem to mix up the Tsar with the current title of the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting however, it has nothing to do with me but Princeton University Press, 2006 and other published sources, please follow the links above. At the same time none of your suggestions can be verified by any published sources on google books nor scholar. There are only 3 forums on the entire internet that have spelled out such a name. Unfortunately forums are not WP:RS exactly. Unlike George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich who have listed Tsardom of Moscow and all Russia as the name of the state in their book A History of Russia: The Tsardom of Moscou, 1547-1682, published by Yale University Press. So in case you think someone has mixed up something, you'd need to take it up with Yale University press, not me.--Termer (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. Just in case it isn't obvious, one offline source in foreign language that can not be WP:verified isn't enough to list a generic term for the "official name" of this state in the article.--Termer (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you carried out your search, my search in Google books for this title of the Tsar gives at least 358 results (in modern Russian) and 55 results in English. Note that there can be more variants for my search. This is what the official title was. Vernadsky's Tsardom of Moscow and of all Russia is an artificial composition, just like Kievan Rus. Acceptable in the modern historiography, but not really official or in usage by contemporaries. BTW, have you noticed that Tsardom of Moscow and of all Russia speaks for Tsardom of Russia no less than for Tsardom of Moscow (LOL)? I'd say, even more as for the more embracing term --Voyevoda (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks to the links you left I can see now what are you actually talking about. Just that the fact about royalties always apply a long list of additional titles to their name like the Russian tsar had duke/prince of Vladimir, Novgorod, Moscow etc., it has nothing much to do with the name of the state spelled out by George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich. I'm sorry to see that you have not chosen to address the issue instead keep edit warring over a generic name that can refer to any tsarist era in Russian history. Please see the analysis on the question provided by Vmenkov once more.--Termer (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only Tsarist era in Russian history is the period described in this article. Anything else is wrong since the Russian monarchs were called emperors (later) or grand dukes (earlier). I'm sorry but Vmenkov's analysis is irrelevant since it is not sufficient to check the combination "Tsardom of X" only. There has to be an analysis of the overall frequency of English usage of Russia/Muscovy for the period between 1547 and 1721. Google hits with "Tsardom of X" are not more official than others because I showed what the real official name was. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There has to be an analysis of the overall frequency of English usage of Russia/Muscovy for the period between 1547 and 1721. Yes, correct and that's exactly what the analysis pr WP:RS by Vmenkov has done. Please read it!--Termer (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. For the rest, I can see now why do you think technically "Tsarist era" only may referr to pre Peter I times. Right or wrong "Tsarist era" in published sources still refers to any period in Russian history from Ivan IV to Nikolai II, who is also often referred to as "tsar Nikolai II".--Termer (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From 1721 on Russian monarchs were Emperors, this is a verifiable and incontrovertible fact. Anyone who uses the word Tsar is not precise and accurate enough, he pays tribute to slang. --Voyevoda (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Vmenkov's analysis is not fitting because of a) incomplete b) selective c) many of his arguments are vulnerable. For example, "Moscow authorities" probably means "authorities located in the city of Moscow". I'll carry out my own analysis of scholar books to prove that everything can look the other way round. --Voyevoda

Here is a set of search queries which relate mainly to the period of 1547-1721. Expanding is welcome, but please pay attention to time relevance. Regards, --Voyevoda (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't get it what was this search all about? You can go and search "Russia" all the way back to stone age, it doesn't change what historians call the name of the state during the era in question.--Termer (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'm getting it now. What are you doing here, you're putting together a search for singled out "Russia" in published sources + claim the only tsarist period was pre Peter I era, the rest "is not precise and accurate enough" in your opinion by getting a conclusion = "Tsardom of Russia". This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a position, which is original research on wikipedia. It seemslike the question needs to go to WP:ORN.--Termer (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What I've done is a more comprehensive analysis than Vmenkov's. I've used search queries which relate exclusively to the period the article is about (1547 to 1721) and examined which name of the country is being used more often. We have seen that both Tsardom of Russia and Tsardom of Muscovy are correct, but it is not enough to compare the frequency of this two combinations only. BTW, you seem to be a quite flexible guy. You applauded Vmenkov's analysis and pointed at it every time, whereas Vmenkov didn't limit himself to the usage of Tsardom, either (Where is Tsardom in the "Muscovite Russia" by Riasanovsky/Sternberg)? You can consider my analysis as an extension of Vmenkov's where not only three/four books are examined and where the period range is not as washy. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you disagreeing on now? "Русское царство" vs. "Руское царство", or English "Russia" vs. "Muscovy"? The state has historically been called either, both Russia and Muscovy, so this is hardly a "dispute", merely a question of informed judgement on relative notability.

I also don't see a problem with Русское царство. Sure, it's a short form, but it is tedious to keep copy-pasting full, lengthy baroque titles. It's enough to mention these once. So while certainly you can continue figuring out the details of this, I really don't see the justification for a giant "disputed" tag in the article.

Regarding "Руское царство", it is easy to establish that the term was in use by at least the late 18th century. Strictly speaking, of course, if the term is to be presented as the "historical native name", we need to find an attestation that predates 1721. This is difficult simply because not anyone has access to a large corpus of early 18th century Russian literature. But I find it highly plausible that the term predates 1721, and if it does not, it is still the historical Russian term for "Russian Tsardom", even if it was coined somewhat later than 1721. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Officially" or not, but "Russkoye Tsarstvo" definitely was very much in use in the 17th century, as a few examples (e.g. no. 4, 5, 6 out of the 10 top examples in the same list of Google Books hits) indicate. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The prism of the Jesuits
Here is the problematic section of the "Muscovy vs. Russia" section. It shows the usual signs of a paragraph reduced to meaninglessness by way of pointless wikidispute: ---
 * According to some historians, the continuous using of the term Muscovy was a result of the traditional habit and the need to distinguish between the Muscovite and the Lithuanian part of the Rus, as well as of the political interests of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which competed with Moscow for the western parts of the Rus.
 * Through the prism of the Commonwealth as well as of the Jesuits, The term Muscovy was also used in many parts of Europe. Some historians, however, assume that the name "Tsardom of Muscovy", or "Muscovite Tsardom" (Московское царство).(Vernadsky V. Muscovite Tsardom. in 2 v. Moscow: Agraph, 2001 (Russian). "В некотором царстве, в некотором государстве..." Sigurd Shmidt, Doctor of history sciences, academician of RAN, Journal "Rodina", Nr. 12/2004) corresponds to the Russian historical usage, too.

I hope we can agree that this is pure wikicomedy. The question is, do we have anything in there that is worth keeping, and if so, what?

Let us ignore for the moment the "According to some historians .... some historians, however, assume ...", which sets up the implication of a dispute and two opposite camps of scholarly opinion, without working out what these opinions are or who has them, or what is at stake. Let us just see what is said by the unnamed "some historians": I don't see what is the problem with any of these three points, and why they must be attributed to "some historians" and connected with "however" clauses. All of this is extremely straightforward. If there is any real dispute in this, kindly put the facts on the table and don't embellish perfectly pedestrian facts with smoke-screens such as the "prism of the Jesuits" just to make them sound less than evident or controversial.
 * 1) the term Muscovy disambiguates between Muscovy and Lithuania (which are historically both part of "Rus")
 * 2) "Muscovy" was also used in the West
 * 3) "Muscovy" was also used in Russia
 * "Muscovy" disambiguates the Principality of Muscovy from Principalities that are not Muscovy. Big deal, this is what names do.
 * Muscovy remained in use alongside the emerging synonym Russia, and it did so both in Russia and in the West, apparently for the duration of the period under discussion. Again, so what?

More precisely, if there is any "dispute" in this that you want to cover, state explicitly who disagreed with whom, on what point. Names, and quotes. Just saying "according to some historians, Muscovy was known as Muscovy as well as as Russia" is not going to cut it. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The dispute is primarily between Anna Khoroshkevich and Sigurd Shmidt. The latter is linked directly behind the description of his view, while Khoroshkevich is linked at the beginning (official name). Probably, she should have been sourced once more. The dispute concerns the question whether "Muscovy" or "Muscovite state" corresponds to the Russian usage in the period of a centralized Russian state (when there was no Duchy of Moscow anymore) or is its extremely prolonged usage merely a foreign initiative. --Voyevoda (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not hellenised form but slavic
"The Tsardom of Russia (also known as Tsardom of Muscovy; officially Русское царство[2][3]) or, in hellenized form, Российское царство"

Российское царство is written in cyrillic alphabet not greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.24.166 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. What is up with this? Does hellenized form mean something different when referring to Russian? I cannot find any other reference of "hellenized forms" of Russian anywhere else on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.9.150 (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While they may be available online, in Googling both references used for this assertion ("Россия времени Ивана Грозного" by Zimin and Khoroshkevich +Perevezentsev's "Смысл русской истории") the only thing that can be verified is that select excerpts of the publication can be found all over Russian blogs and forums. No pages for 'Hellenised' (or how how either publication comes to this conclusion) appears to be accounted for. I've tagged it for being potentially original research for the time being, but will remove it if the refs aren't improved ASAP). Furthermore, even if this were the case, there is no reason for any 'Hellenised' variant to be of particular significance over and above other variants. This is not about ecumenical usage, but about common usage as a recognised secular state amongst other secular states. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is Hellenised because русское is derived from the native Russian word Русь, while российское comes from its Byzantine Greek version Ρωσία. Of course, Ρωσία eventually became acceptable in Russia as well, but the word is still Greek in origin. TheImperios (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2022



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

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there are reasonable policy-based arguments on both sides of the question, but there is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 06:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Muscovy – The name "Tsardom of Russia" is not remotely close to beling the most common form of reference in English-speaking sources. Same precedents exist all over WIkipedia (for example, "Greeks," instead of "Hellenes". Before Peter the Great renamed his state, it was referenced as Muscovy not just externally, but occassionally even by Muscovites themeselves in legal documents (look up Sobornoye Ulozheniye, 1649). According to the common naming policy of Wikipedia, this article should not be named "Russia" as very few English-speaking authors refer to it as such. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME as well as the previous RfC comments.
 * ImperialSam27 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. This state during this time period is known as Russia in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is literally not true at all. It is mostly known as Muscovy. "Russia" is most oftenly used to referred to the Russian Empire or Russian Federation, sometimes, as "Soviet Russia", to the USSR. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RECOGNIZABILITY doesn't even apply here, as that only applies to shortening names. In fact, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY says that the most common name in English should be used, and the previous RfC comments state that Muscovy is the most common name. Multiple pieces of evidence have been provided to show that it should be called Muscovy, yet people like you with false narratives and false reasons keep postponing this fairly necessary change. ImperialSam27 (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The nominator did not provide any evidence whatsoever that very few English-speaking authors call this subject Russia, instead repeating the idea that the state only became known as Russia in exactly 1721 because of Peter the Great (common narrative in Ukrainian propaganda, including state-sponsored propaganda). The name section which is well-sourced also suggests that this is false. So for now this will have to be a strong oppose. Mellk (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This state during this time period is known as Russia only in this English wikipedia article. This is a fact. Numerous articles in English Wikipedia themselves state that the common name in English-speaking shcolarship for this state is Muscovy, not Russia. Moreover, the very article in question admits that "the term Moscovia was used instead of Russia in many parts of Europe where prior to the reign of Peter the Great there was a lack of direct knowledge of the country".
 * Furthermore, the state DID only become known as Russia mostly in 18th century. That is also a fact, like I said, this very article proves this with the aforementioned quotation. This has nothing to do with "Ukrainian propaganda, including state-sponsored propaganda", you are just using nonsensual accusations to render my argument invalid. That is not going to fly.
 * Moreover, the name section does NOT suggest this is false. The Byzantine Empire kept referring to itself as "Roman Empire" through its entire existence; nevertheless, the outside sources using that name are marginal in numbers. Same thing with "Russia/Muscovy" in this case.
 * Also, you have conventiently ommitted the fact that contemporary Russians themselves referred to that state as "Muscovy". Virtually no one except for Russian-speaking scholarship refers to this state as "Russia" on regular occasion (common narrative in Ukrainian propaganda, including state-sponsored propaganda). DoctorWhutsup (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The name section should not be based on what Russians want this page to be named, but on common name policy; and according to this policy, "Tsardom of Russia" has to be present as an alternative name, an endonym if you please, but not as the title. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like you to present evidence that the idea that the state only became known as Russia in exactly 1721 because of Peter the Great has nothing to do with actual history and is a narrative perpetuated by "Ukrainian propaganda, including state-sponsored propaganda." Otherwise, its baloney. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you STILL haven't demonstrated that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Walls of text does not help you. I will reference this recent book which looks into naming from 1400s to 1700s. At the moment your argument is "just trust me it's the common name" and so a snow close might end up being appropriate. Mellk (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is evidence that "Tsardom of Russia" is the WP:COMMONNAME? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please properly familiarize yourself with WP:RM before starting one because you are really just wasting people's time with these. Mellk (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, answer the questions of have been asked. Otherwise, you are relly just wasting people's time with these. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And to add to this: the Time of Troubles is a key event in Russian history that took place during the time of Tsardom of Russia specifically (after death of Fyodor I). Examples of sources from that article, in A Short History of Russia's First Civil War, Muscovy is only used to refer to the principality of Moscow (up to c. 1500) while Russia is used to refer to this state. In The Origins of the Modern European State System, 1494-1618, it is the same thing, with the principality of Moscow referred to as Muscovy while the unified Russian state is referred to as Russia. There is no doubt Russia during this time is also referred to as Muscovy but this is the alternative name. To say that almost no English authors call this state Russia, is really just false. Mellk (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I have said to the previous speaker: in the context of these works, the name "Russia" is only used by scholars when there is a need to distinquish between this state and its predeccessor state. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Muscovy is not the alternative, but the primary name for that state.
 * I should have picked a better wording: Russia is used often enough in modern shcolarship to list Russia in this case as an alternative name. However, it is not the common name, it does not fit the definition for it, and you know it fully well. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidence has been provided multiple times that it is most commonly referred to as Muscovy. You can look at the previous Requested Moves to confirm. ImperialSam27 (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument is worth nothing if you simply say the evidence is somewhere else. You do know how RMs work, right? I am guessing not since you only have 22 edits. And you point to a previous RM, in which there was no consensus to move. You are aware of that right? Mellk (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will repeat an argument from the previous discussion:
 * The overall Google Books hits report:
 * Query1 : "Tsardom of Russia" or "Russian Tsardom"
 * About 1,940 results (+ 803)
 * Query2 : "Tsardom of Muscovy" or "Muscovite Tsardom"
 * About 1,930 results (+ 195)
 * Query3 : "Tsardom of Moscow" or "Moscow Tsardom"
 * About 1,380 results (+ 85)
 * "After that, however, it was time to look at the links' content. Based on the first 10 links from the "Tsardom of Russia/Russian Tsardom" query, I have this breakdown: 10%, Wikipedia clones; 50%, books where "tsardom" refers to "tsarism" in general or Russia the monarchy in general (with primarily Russian Empire) in mind; 30%, books that indeed confirm that "Russian Tsardom" (Tsarstvo Russkoye") was used by Russian writers in the right time period (17th century) to describe the country they lived in. Every time, however, the term appears as part of translation or paraphrase of the original Russian work, not as the expression used by the modern author him/herself to name the country when writing in English. In contrast, the books found by Moscow/Muscovy searches were primarily historical works that actually referred to the particular period in question."
 * It is clear than at the very least good half of the times terms "Tsardom of Russia" or "Russian Tsardom" are used to refer to tsarism in general. In most cases it is used as a translation or paraphrase of Russian works. The sources that use "Moscow" and "Muscovy" are much more closer to actual scholarship. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize this RM is from 10+ years ago? Mellk (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? It IS still on point.
 * You do realize that instead of replying to this RM you are tryng to shift the focus of conversation, nothing more? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Tsardom of Russia" is derived from the title assumed by Ivan the Terrible at the time of his coronation (Tsar of all Rus'). In turn, Peter the Great assumed the title of Император (Imperator, Emperor) in 1721, marking another, different, break. Will we find sources referring to it as "Tsardom of Muscovy" during the period? Sure, and we will also find sources calling it "Tsardom of Russia" (and we'll even find sources using both terms!). For both WP:RECOGNIZABILITY (which has nothing to do with shortening names, as someone suggested - that's WP:CONCISION) and WP:TITLECHANGES I think leaving it as is would be my preferred choice.
 * A few examples of the use of "Tsardom of Russia" in RS from several disciplines, both specific to the subject and more general, and explicitly excluding Russian authors:
 * Alberto Masoero, Italian historian, Università degli Studi di Torino: "In the Sixteenth Century the Tsardom of Russia began its eastward expansion", p. 192.
 * Valerie Kivelson, American historian, University of Michigan, uses "Russian tsardom" and "Muscovite tsardom" interchangeably throughout.
 * Thomas M. Bohn, German historian, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen: "[T]he term 'upir' was replaced in the theological literature of the Tsardom of Russia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries", p. 55.
 * Henrk Ziomek, Polish hispanist, University of Georgia: "[T]he historical background for the play could have been the war between Poland and Muscovy in 1609-1613, which was caused by a dispute for the tsardom of Russia".
 * Manuel Eisner, Swiss criminologist, University of Cambridge: "Tsardom of Russia and Empire (1533-1796, 19)" . Note: Eisner's article is a study on monarchy and regicide (the number 19 refers to the number of rulers in his database), so the start date of 1533 refers to the formal beginning of Ivan the Terrible's reign (at the age of 3), not his proclamation as Tsar.
 * Rafał Lisiakiewicz, Polish political scientist, Kraków University of Economics: "The 16th and 17th centuries were marked by recurrent wars between the Tsardom of Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth".
 * Aneta Pavlenko, Ukrainian-American linguist, Temple University: "The date of Russia's official transformation into an empire, 1721, is selected here as a starting point because prior to the 18th century the Tsardom of Russia had no articulated language policy" . Emphasis mine.
 * Isabel de Madariaga, Spanish-British historian, SSESS (deceased): "[T]hroughout I speak of Russia and not Muscovy. Ivan IV was tsar vseya Rusi, of all Russia". Italics from the original, p. xvii.
 * Needless to say, there are plenty of other examples, but I assume this should suffice to show that the term has more than enough currency in English scholarship and the claim that no one except for Russian-speaking scholarship refers to this state as "Russia" on regular occasion is unfounded. Ostalgia (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ""Tsardom of Russia" is derived from the title assumed by Ivan the Terrible at the time of his coronation (Tsar of all Rus') In turn, Peter the Great assumed the title of Император (Imperator, Emperor) in 1721, marking another, different, break."
 * The problem is that "Russia" is not "Rus'. In 1721, Peter the Great changed the state name officially to Россия - from the Byzantine Greek for "Rus'", Ρωσσία Rossía. Correspondingly, the term "Russia" in English has appeared as translation of "Rossiya" "Россия".
 * I do agree that in English-speaking sources it is a fair occurrance, however, it is mostly used to put a distinction between the Grand Duchy and Tsardom, since both in most contemporary English sources are referred to as "Muscovy", and this is especially the case in your examples.
 * It does not matter whether the claim that no one except for Russian-speaking scholarship refers to this state as "Russia" on regular occasion is unfounded. The currency in English scholarship should suffice as a reason to list this as an alternative name, but NOT as the title of this page.
 * Let us rename "Byzantine Empire" to "Eastern Roman Empire" while we are at it. Why not? Second term has enough currency in English scholarship. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have listed the argument from another editor higher in this section.
 * You cannot argue that while Tsardom of Russia is feferences fairly enough, it is not nearly used enough to put it as the title for this page. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Henrk Ziomek, Polish hispanist, University of Georgia: "[T]he historical background for the play could have been the war between Poland and Muscovy in 1609-1613, which was caused by a dispute for the tsardom of Russia" [12]."
 * Ironically, your own examples refer to this state as Muscovy, though. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Will we find sources referring to it as "Tsardom of Muscovy" during the period?"
 * Yes, we will.
 * As I have already stated, and you so carefully ommitted, Russian contemporary sources themselves refer at times to this state as Царство Московское.
 * Furthermore, will we find sources referring to it as "Tsardom of RUSSIA" during the period?
 * No, we will not.
 * I have offered "Tsardom of Muscovy" as a compromise to differentiate between this state and Grand Duchy. However, both are commonly referred to as "Muscovy". DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please learn to use one single message to reply, whether one long one or adding edits later, otherwise this gets a lot messier than it should be. First of all, Russia is, indeed, not Rus', that's why I said "derived" and not "translated". But Russia is used, both by these reputable secondary sources and by this article, because of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY (although, as we will see, it is also not something they merely applied retrospectively). Allow me to also point out that I also mentioned that many sources use both Russia and Muscovy to refer to this period, and I mentioned explicitly that Kivelson does so as well. There is nothing "ironic" about it - I pointed it out from the very beginning. Secondly, on top of recognizability we find the fact that (in spite of your claims) the term Russia was at this time in fact used by sources both within and without Russia, something pointed out in the article itself - in the 16th century you have people like Giles Fletcher, who after visiting the country wrote Of the Russe Common Wealth, in which the term Russia is used. Even Milton, who died some 50 years before Peter the Great proclaimed the Empire, used both Moscovia and Russia! Maps marking the territory as Russia seu Moscovia or Russia vulgo Moscovia were common as well, as other users have pointed out already. Russian state officials, for their part, occasionally used the term Росия or a variation of it already in the 15th century. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, the resolution of the 1613 Zemsky Sobor that elected the first Romanov tsar does mention Russian land, tsardom and state. I don't know what you mean when you say that we won't find sources referring to it as Russia when I just posted a bunch of them, but in case you're mistakenly referring to primary, contemporary sources, then clearly you are wrong as well. Third, I'd like to point out the quite obvious fact that the term Russia gained in popularity throughout this period. If at first "Moscovia" was more present in maps and texts, by the end of this period "Russia" had more than caught up. Fourth, I would like to stress that contemporary usage alone is somewhat beside the point. You paradoxically bring up the example of the Byzantine Empire, a denomination that is now ubiquitous but was coined after the Empire fell, as "Byzantines" actually referred to themselves as Romans. It is, in fact, a prime example against the renaming of this article, for it is largely scholarship that has labelled them thus, and not themselves or their contemporaries. I don't think anyone would support moving their article to "Roman Empire" purely on the basis of their self-denomination (something they would for sure protest if they were around). I don't think you'd argue the same for Kievan (or Kyivan) Rus', either. Finally, and to sum up, allow me to go back to WP:TITLECHANGES - "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." There is, in my opinion, no reason for it to be changed, and as I see it, there's no consensus either. I believe I have made my position abundantly clear and provided enough evidence to back it, so I see no need to further intervene in this discussion and will wait for the closure of the request. Ostalgia (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "But Russia is used, both by these reputable secondary sources and by this article"
 * Still not a reason for it to be a title of this page.
 * "Russian state officials, for their part, occasionally used the term Росия or a variation of it already in the 15th century. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, the resolution of the 1613 Zemsky Sobor that elected the first Romanov tsar does mention Russian land, tsardom and state. I don't know what you mean when you say that we won't find sources referring to it as Russia when I just posted a bunch of them, but in case you're mistakenly referring to primary, contemporary sources, then clearly you are wrong as well."
 * I am NOT wrong, it is just that this literally does not matter. Byzantine state officials as well as Byzantines themselves have always been referring to their state as Roman Empire and to themselves as Romans (Rhomai, if I am not mistaken). So what?
 * "in the 16th century you have people like Giles Fletcher, who after visiting the country wrote Of the Russe Common Wealth, in which the term Russia is used."
 * Oh, so one person in 16th century England said "Russe" and this means this HAS to be a title? Are you having a laugh?
 * " I'd like to point out the quite obvious fact that the term Russia gained in popularity throughout this period. If at first "Moscovia" was more present in maps and texts, by the end of this period "Russia" had more than caught up."
 * Emmm, no, this is not a fact, let alone obvious one. You have posted few references which in no way imply that "the term Russia gained in popularity throughout this period". English in particular (which is honestly the only example that matters if we are speaking about contemporaries) continued to refer to both the Grand Duchy AND this state as Muscovy (check London-based Muscovy Company). Why do you keep inventing non-existent "facts" based on few marginal quotations?
 * "You paradoxically bring up the example of the Byzantine Empire, a denomination that is now ubiquitous but was coined after the Empire fell, as "Byzantines" actually referred to themselves as Romans. It is, in fact, a prime example against the renaming of this article, for it is largely scholarship that has labelled them thus, "
 * I fail to see any coherence in your efforts in argumentation.
 * My point is precisely that naming an article purely on the basis of their self-denomination makes no sense - and this is exactly the case with the name "Tsardom of Russia."
 * " There is, in my opinion, no reason for it to be changed, and as I see it, there's no consensus either. "
 * THere IS a reason for it to be changed, the reason being that among the most of sources referencing this name, the majority are later translations or derivatives of Russian scholarship. On the other hand, most of the sources referencing Muscovy in regard to this state, are either contemporaries or scholarly works.
 * " I believe I have made my position abundantly clear and provided enough evidence to back it, so I see no need to further intervene in this discussion and will wait for the closure of the request."
 * You did make your position clear. However, you have not provided enough evidence to back it.
 * It is not that you see no need to further intervene, it is that you seem to realize that you cannot invervene anymore, since all your evidence is circumstantial and does not support the validity of "Tsardom of Russia" term at all. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have provided more than enough evidence to back it, both contemporary and scholarly, and I've even catered to your bizarre requests for disregarding all sources coming from the nation that has literally devoted the most time and effort to researching the topic (Russia). The fact that you cannot (or do not want to) engage with it is a wholly different matter. You can keep moving the goalposts all you want, but I do not believe it necesary to keep wasting my time on your crusade. Ostalgia (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Mellk. No evidence has been presented in support of the name change, and from what I can see the common name is the current one as well as being more recognizable, as Rreagan points out. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There WAS presented evidence in support of the name change. The fact that you have decided to ignore does not make any less real. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You copy-pasted someone else's outdated analysis from a previous RM in which there was no consensus to move. Still, you are yet to provide any kind of evidence (even evidence was provided to the contrary) and instead you are WP:BLUDGEONING and making snarky comments. Mellk (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * tsardom of russia - 6,220 results
 * russian tsardom - 4,940 results
 * tsardom of muscovy - 4,440 results
 * muscovite tsardom - 3,170 results
 * You can continue with walls of text, but at this point I am waiting for the closure. --Mellk (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that’s not clear evidence for the name of this specific subject. Looking at just the first page of results, we can see that “Russian /tsardom/ of Russia” often refers to the Russian empire after 1720, or to the institution of tsardom (in lowercase) during the imperial period. —Michael Z. 22:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the results, this is not the case. Tsardom of Russia is usually used to refer to the state before it became an empire. Even if those few results are excluded, this does not change the picture. The results for Russian tsardom are similar to Muscovite tsardom (in terms of how many refer to the system). Mellk (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Ivan the Terrible is called the first tsar of Russia, I wonder why? Mellk (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: after episodes of repetitive blanking and moves against consensus, and per a request at RfPP, as an uninvolved admin I have semi- and move-protected this page for two days. I have no particular interest in the outcome of this process. Any admin is welcome to adjust my protection if needed. BusterD (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support  This is the correct formal name, supporting the WP:CRITERION of precision. For example, the Britannica article “Russia,” in the section “History,” with subsections “Rurikid Muscovy” and “Romanov Muscovy”: it begins with “. . . what is now the territory of Russia . . . ,” never calling the state “Russia” with reference to this entire period, and then explicitly states in “The Petrine state”: “Formally, Peter changed the tsardom of Muscovy into the Empire of All Russias, . . .” —Michael Z. 22:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a weak argument, basically an example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. The Britannica articles for Ivan the Terrible, Fyodor I, Ivan V, Alexis, Peter I, Moscow etc refer to the state as Russia. But again, this is not surprising. The title has been stable for a long time and there is no good reason to change it, still, no evidence has been provided that shows that Tsardom of Muscovy is the most commonly used name (and no one is disputing that it is not an alternative name). Mellk (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s hardly “cherrypicking” to look at the article about the country and find what it says specifically about its name. We know the usage is inconsistent, and those articles were written and edited by different people at different times.
 * And you’re not exactly right, either. The article “Moscow” does not appear to refer to the state as “Russia” in that section. It obviously uses it geographically (“The town was fairly centrally placed in the system of rivers and portages that formed the trade routes across European Russia”) and in various historical/cultural/religious references: (“a unified Russian state,” etcetera). —Michael Z. 23:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "At the turn of the 17th century, Moscow, like the rest of Russia, suffered severely during the Time of Troubles... Russia’s first higher educational institution, the Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy attached to the Zaikonospassky Monastery in the Kitay-gorod, dates from 1687... The first newspaper in Russia began publication in Moscow in 1703." The word Muscovy is not used in the section about this time. Mellk (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So usage is inconsistent, but you support the move using that Britannica article? Mellk (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a specific source easy to find. You have any sources specifically about the name that contradict it? —Michael Z. 02:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Contradict in what sense? Mellk (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One that says it’s not true that “formally, Peter changed the tsardom of Muscovy into the Empire of All Russias.” —Michael Z. 20:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many sources referring to the polity existing during the period in question (i.e. before 1721) as the "Tsardom of Russia" have been provided. Do you expect someone to devote an academic article, or any article at all, to saying that "Peter did not change the Tsardom of Muscovy, but the Tsardom of Russia, into the Empire of all Russias"? I think we can agree that academia doesn't work that way, since there is quite literally zero need to "refute" (big word for the argument at hand) the idea that Russia was not in fact called Russia between 1547 and 1721. It would be a bit of an absurd endeavour given that the term is widely used. However, in the search of something that matches your preferred wording as closely as possible, I found something that perhaps will sate your curiosity - a source none other than Britannica! : "In 1472 Ivan III, grand prince of Moscow, married Sofia (Zoë) Palaeologus, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor. Sofia brought with her the traditions of the Byzantine court and its concept of the exalted nature of monarchical power. In 1547 Ivan IV the Terrible, grand prince of Moscow, was officially crowned “tsar of all Russia,” and thus the religious and political ideology of the Russian tsardom took final form [...] In 1721 Tsar Peter I discarded the title of tsar for that of “emperor of all Russia” as part of his effort to secularize and modernize his regime and assert the state’s primacy over the church." Bolding mine. Can we settle the issue now? Ostalgia (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your quotes above starting with “At the turn of the 17th” are all geographical references. They do not refer to the state. Again, this is clear from the early part of the Britannica article where “most other Russian towns,” “northern Russia,” “other surrounding Russian princedoms,” are used to describe things beyond the Moscow principality.
 * These quotations are similar. In fact, Ivan’s title царь всея Руси, tsar vseia Rusi translates precisely as “tsar of all Rus” or “tsar of all Ruthenia” referring to East Slavic lands including ones that no tsar ever added to a Russian state. It does not refer to the state, but to its regent’s aspirations.
 * Part of the confusion stems from the fact that Muscovy eventually conquered much of Russia, another from the traditional but incorrect and non-neutral translation of Русь, Rus, as “Russia” instead of “Rus.”
 * The issue is that the state was named by the Greek name Rossiia, “Russia,” when Peter declared himself Imperator. —Michael Z. 21:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you completely lost me. I have literally no idea what you're talking about. (Edit - maybe you mistook me for Mellk?) Ostalgia (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to naming in Russian at the time, I will refer to this:
 * "In Russian, the word Rossiia is traditionally used to designate the country and state inhabited by the Russian people. In political terms it was also used, along with the terms ‘Russian state’ and ‘Russian Empire’, to denote all the territory that belonged to the state and was inhabited by Russians and non-Russians alike. In Russian historical sources, from the end of the 15th century onwards, the word Rossiia (Russia) is occasionally used to refer to the country. But the country was more frequently called Rus, the Russian land, Russkaia zemlia, or the Muscovite state, Moskovskoe gosudarstvo, up to the end of the 17th century. From the middle of the 16th century, all the lands that comprised the centralized state were known as Russia or the Tsardom of Russia Rossiiskoe tsarstvo. Later, the word rossiiskii was used for all who were citizens of the state, while the word russkii (plural, russkiie) was applied only to those of Russian nationality. (The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History:Russia, vol. 32, 1983:26)"
 * --Mellk (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not exactly. I’m interested in how we name things now when we incorporate insight on both the historical names and post-colonial (including post-Soviet) historiography. That said, that does look like a pretty good source despite its age. The article “Russia” you refer to is a half-page overview with no author credit. I think the more relevant article is Richard Hellie, “Muscovy” (v 23, pp 214–228):
 * MUSCOVY. The era of Russian history between about 1300 and 1700, associated with the Principality of Moscow, its annexation of northern Russian lands (by the 1510s), the middle and lower Volga River and immediately adjacent areas (in the 1550s), Siberia (beginning in the 1580s) and much of Ukraine (in the 1630s–1680s), to the early years of the reign of Peter the Great.
 * —Michael Z. 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is specifically about naming (and contradicts earlier claims). Again, no one here is disputing that "Muscovy" is also used to refer to this state (which is besides the point). While "Muscovy" is other times used to refer specifically to the grand duchy only. Though it is not the common name. And "Tsardom of Muscovy" is also used at times (at least in old sources) to refer to the state under Ivan III which can be seen in the results I provided. Mellk (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is about naming. You brought this source. It uses Muscovy as the primary, headword name for this subject. Evidence of naming is precisely the point. —Michael Z. 23:11, 13 October 2022 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name section
This edit comes across as POV pushing with dubious reasons for restoring. As is known, Rosiya/Rossiya was "officially" used earlier. See for example. Not to mention it contradicts the rest of the section. Mellk (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by “‘officially’” in quotation marks? Can you support that with an actual citation, or maybe a quote? Just the name of a 300-page book isn’t very helpful for those of us who haven’t yet found time to visit a library and read the whole thing.
 * Please curb your accusations.
 * My addition is supported by quoted sources. What looks like POV-pushing is a series of reverts fishing for a rationale that will stick, without actually bothering to consider the content and supporting reference:
 * “misrepresentation of the source”
 * “undue and contradicts the rest of the section”
 * “yes, "rossiya" was standardized, with two s's”
 * The article’s current text is not NPOV, because it bizarrely derives Great Russian Tsardom from Tsar i Velikiy knyaz vseya Rusi (“tsar and grand prince of all Rus”) in a previous sentence. This addition is good, but obviously the section can benefit from further improvement. —Michael Z. 15:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your first quote is the "Latinate Rossiya was not formally adopted" and your second quote is "Muscovy (which would be renamed "Russia" by Peter I)". What you wrote is synth. Moreover, it is misleading. The official name of the state in 1721 was Rossiiskaia Imperiia. Rus' in Russian was transformed into Rus(s)iya or Ros(s)iya around the 15th century. "The Russians themselves called their country, in the language of the Eastern Slavs, Rus' or ruskaya zemlya... The term Ρωσία was borrowed by the Russians, in the form Rosiya." In the title of Ivan IV he was tsar of "всеѧ̀ рꙋ́сїи". "Officially" is misleading, for example:
 * "The formula 'to all his state of Great Russia' in this preamble replaces that found in other manuscripts -- 'to all the Russian realm' (vo vse Rossisskoe tsarstvo). The former is more typical of the seventeeth century, when the use of the expression 'Great Russia' (Velikaia Rossiia) became widely established".
 * "Standing before his throne on the dais, Fedor proclaimed that all "Great Sovereigns" of "all Great Russia" (Velikaia Rossiia), the word Rossiia having replaced the word Rus' to describe the extent of he tsar's imperial authority in seventeeth-century chiny. Fedor's chin went a step further and referred to the Great Russian Tsardom, Velikorossisskoe Tsarstvie, a term denoting an imperial, absolutist state, subordinating Russian as well as non-Russian territories".
 * Also, you should already know that when your edit is challenged, you should not start an edit war over it, and it reflects poorly.
 * Mellk (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023
The personal standard of Peter the Great should be replaced by the flag of the Russian Tsardom. The false flag of the Russian Empire should be removed from the chronological reference: '6. What is the flag of Russian merchant ships. - Russian merchant ships should have a striped flag of three colors: white, blue, red. "- Naval charter of the Russian Empire, January 24, 1720. Eugene of Russia (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No explanation on why the changes need to be made. Lightoil (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2023
It looks like you may have misformatted your edit request in a way that caused it to not be added. If you would like to reopen the edit request, please set in the template above and reply to this message with your request. Tollens (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  17:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Tsardom of Russia → Russian Tsardom – "Russkoye Tsarstvo" is corroborated by every major source as the closest the government had to a single official name, "Russian Tsardom" would be the accurate translation here (i. e. the adjective-noun form rather than the noun-of-noun form, "Tsardom of Russia" would be "Tsarstvo Rossiye" instead) Orchastrattor (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to Tsardom of Muscovy, which is very widely used. Of course, just Muscovy is by far the most WP:COMMONNAME, but as we have split the subject we have to disambiguate from the Grand Duchy of Moscow. See also Talk: Grand Duchy of Moscow. —Michael Z. 17:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You included "Muscovy", which has a broader meaning than a state between the years 1547–1721, but conveniently left out "Russia". So, again, no demonstration that it is the common name. Mellk (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Muscovy was a state between the years 1282 and 1721 (I had thought it was 1286, but whichever). We have it split between two articles, apparently because its ruler declared himself tsar at one point. So we need to disambiguate. Russia is a much, much broader name, referring to subjects of many more articles. Muscovy better serves the WP:CRITERION of precision. —Michael Z. 19:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hence the article is currently called "Tsardom of Russia", which satisfies precision, because the title of tsar was used during those years before it became emperor. Mellk (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we don't translate names here, but you the most common one, there is no substantial difference between both names proposed in terms of popularity in academic texts, so there is no reason to make a move for the sake of it. Plus the current is consistent with the most popular format used in similar article names. Marcelus (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I don't see a good reason to move. The monarch was the tsar of Russia and typically the format is "tsardom of x" like "Kingdom of x", so it is more consistent. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (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.
 * Oppose. The current title is fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)