This   level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Russia: History / Human geography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Discussions: RM, Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Muscovy, No consensus, 27 May 2011, discussion RM, Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Moscow, No consensus, 28 May 2011, discussion RM, Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Muscovy, No consensus, 27 September 2022, discussion RM, Tsardom of Russia → Russian Tsardom, Not moved, 18 September 2023, discussion

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[List of Russian monarchs#Tsars of Russia, 1547–1721|Tsar]] The anchor (#Tsars of Russia, 1547–1721) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

While I generally like the Wikipedia: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) reply

Changes have occurred in 1478, when Ivan III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Валко ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Ivan-III Валко ( talk) 04:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC) reply

User:Dimadick, don't be naughty. [1] [2] Валко ( talk) 15:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Dimadick:, you decided to keep silent? Валко ( talk) 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The article includes no sources about the Tsardom in the 15th century. Dimadick ( talk) 16:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Ivan-III, who was? Валко ( talk) 16:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear Валко, this is not quite correct. If we speak of foundation of a single centralised Russian state ( Russian: 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 ( Russian: 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) reply

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) reply

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.

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) reply

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) reply

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

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#Moving the article, 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Can anyone help ? Ammar ( ^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

"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) reply

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) reply

Well, I tried to clarify it a little. Let me know what you think. Ostap 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, it's probably better for those who never learned what contact clause is. Voyevoda ( talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

I posted you a response below. Seryo93 ( talk) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

This is oldest survived Russian flag, it's stored in Central Naval Museum. Seryo93 ( talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Here and here (in Russian language, however). 92.100.52.29 ( talk) 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Tricolor was civil ensign since 1705, so, i've reverted imp.flag edit. Seryo93 ( talk) 11:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Added info about both yellow Tsar's standard and civil tricolor. I think, topic closed. Seryo93 ( talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Wikipedia:Fringe theories or Ukrainian Nationalist Bullshit (UNB). These historical maps illustrate your lies:

• 
  Карта венецианского монаха Фра Мауро, 1475 г. (ориентирована с юга на север)
• 
  Carta Marina Олафа Магнуса, 1539 г.
• 
  "RVSSIA". Карта Ортелия, 1575 г.
• 
  Карта Европы, Меркатор, 1589 г. "Russia Moscouia" - Московская Русь
• 
  Карта азиатской части России, Меркатор, 1594 г.
• 
  Карта Северного полюса, Меркатор, 1623 г.
• 
  Карта Руси, Дженкинсон, 1598 г.
• 
  Карта России, в просторечии Московия (Tabla Russiae vulga Moscovia), Космография Блау, Голландия, 1645 г.

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

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) reply

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) reply

the discussion up there Talk:Tsardom_of_Russia#Tsardom_of_Rus 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) reply

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) reply

Indeed. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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" ( Russian: 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 Russian: 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

• (c) A "country ruled by a tsar" (the usual meaning of Russian: 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).

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) reply

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)) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

-- Vmenkov ( talk) 20:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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:

• 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.

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) reply

Requested move: Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Muscovy

Requested move: Tsardom of Russia → Tsardom of Moscow

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

"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) reply

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":

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

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.

• "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?

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.

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) reply

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) reply

"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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

This edit comes across as POV pushing with dubious reasons for restoring. As is known, Rosiya/Rossiya was "officially" used earlier. See [26] for example. Not to mention it contradicts the rest of the section. Mellk ( talk) 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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” [27]
• “undue and contradicts the rest of the section” [28]
• “yes, "rossiya" was standardized, with two s's” [29]

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) reply

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." ^[1] 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". ^[2]

"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". ^[3]

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) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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) reply

 Not done: No explanation on why the changes need to be made. Lightoil ( talk) 02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

@ Flags and Geography: 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 answered=no in the template above and reply to this message with your request. Tollens ( talk) 01:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC) reply