Talk:Tsarist autocracy

Name

I couldn't find the proper transliteration of Самодержавие; we certainly need it in the article. Should the article be moved to that name? Once the transliteration (and variants) are presented, we should see how popular they are. Other popular variants include replacing tsarist with Russian, and absolutism, with despotism and autocracy (although I think despotism is technically incorrect, as the tsar was not identified with a god). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I added 'Samoderzhaviye'. I think the main contender would use '-vie' ending. We could ask Ezhiki for his opinion, though.

Furthermore, I suspect that the naming policy requires us to use an English name unless the concept is primarily known in English by a foreign name, which does not appear to be the case here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the literal meaning of Russian 'самодержавие' is pretty much the same as the literal meaning of French 'sovereign'. However, through a lot of history, it has by now come to be that the English idea of 'sovereignty' refers to a considerably more general and somewhat different concept. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

самодержавие is an equivalent for autocracy. само + державие -- αὐτός + κράτος (autocrat/autocracy), both consisting of single/self/same + power. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that ru:самодержавие interwikis to autocracy, but pl and cs wikis have separate articles under those languages rendering of samoderzhaviye. I am glad we all agree it is a notable, separate phenomenon, even if it directly translates as autocracy. Question: in Russian language, is самодержавие specific to Russian system, or is it a general world for autocracy - and if so, how would Russians refer to Russian-only самодержавие? I have noticed on pl Wikipedia that many articles on general subjects discuss primarily Polish specifics, which would be better split off into xxx in Poland type of articles (as it is done on en wiki). Digressing a bit, I guess... PS. Ru article has see also to ru:Единодержавие - I cannot translate this term, perhaps someone could consider stubbing it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Единодержавие" is described as an obsolete term in modern wordbooks. This russian wikipedia page is just a copy of the article from old Russian Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in public domain now). Efron seems to use the therms Единодержавие & самодержавие both interchangeably and differently, without clean-cut definitions. From the texts it seems taht the major distinction is that "Единодержавие" is the power of a single person, while "самодержавие" means the absolute power of a single person. Both Efron articles have interesting remarks about historical evolution of the notions in Russia to be re-usewd in wikipedia, but I am not interseted in writing in this topic, so I am leaving it to someone else `'Míkka>t 20:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And there is plenty of usage of "tsarist autocracy" in wikipedia. I am adding wikilinks right now. `'Míkka>t 20:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, popularity of names on Google Print:

• "Tsarist autocracy": 813
• "Tsarist absolutism" 624
• "Tsarist despotism" 623
• "Russian autocracy" 1,094
• "Russian absolutism" 689
• "Russian despotism" 758
• "samoderzhaviye" 92
• "samoderžavie" 600 - but are they in English?

Should we move the article to Russian autocracy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO insignificant (10:8) advantage; IMO "tsarist" is more specific. `'Míkka>t 20:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with 'tsarist' being more preferable due to specificity. The rest should be redirects. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiny update on old argument: tsar was indentified with god by some. Check out [1], [2] and [3] ("Some of these older peasants had venerated the tsar as a god on earth"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to be very careful with using 'peasant' attitudes toward authorities. Historians generally disagree on how to interpret such utterances, such as the Tsar is a God. In some ways, they might have believed he was, but at the same time, 'peasants' also applied strategies to interact with authorities, often making use of 'intellectual' or 'educated' stereotypes of the Russian peasantry to find easier access. The reference to Tolstoy is illuminating in this regard. This is not definitive or anything, it's just to warn you to be careful. You seem to keen on searching in Google for proof, try to identify the authors and actually make sense of why they're making their argument, also looking at their source materials. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I added on Mongol Empire's

Influence on the tradition of absolutism in Tsarist system.--Molobo (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rurikids?

According to old legends, the Rurikid dynasty began when the Kievan Rus' invited some Vikings to rule over them, because they couldn't rule themselves. My pattern-seeking primate brain finds a certain similarity between that idea, and the latter-day Tsarist idea of Tsar performing a service of micromanaging everybody for the benefit of the country. Is such a connection real -- and is it discussed in the relevant literature? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

micromanaging? you are misapplying the term. Yes, a despot may interfere into minute detail, but it is not traditionally called micromanaging. And by the way, God does not micromanage either. `'Míkka>t 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's like in art sketching: I want to keep the reader focused over the pattern rather than bordering concepts, so I deliberately leave the borders fuzzy. Of course I know that the point of feudalism is delegation so the sovereign does not need to manage minute details, but that's not the point here, and the word is also useful here to convey the basic concept of absolutism.

As for God's micromanaging habits, it's hard to decide considering we are yet to receive evidence of His holy existence. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Putinism

How controversial (and reliable) are connections between tsarist autocracy and modern Putinism? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO all these "connections" are speculations by historians and politologists. But indeed there are plenty of them. And with adding them here, please write clearly who says so. YOu can draw any kind of parallels between any two political systems. It is not math. It is political game. American President has much more real power than Putin had (or has). `'Míkka>t 20:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Any of them notable enough for encyclopædic treatise? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration v. transcription

I believe Miacek has a point. Many Russian letters -- including several we need here -- can't be precisely presented as a single Latin letter, so the more conventional thing to do is transcription rather than transliteration. 82.131.110.99 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep both versions. Why not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked Ezhiki, and he said both are correct under different transliteration rulesets. Thus, it makes sense to retain both ones. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tragignomedy

I'm a bit troubled by some of the recent wikignoming edits on this article. In order:

• in [4], User:DonaldDuck removes a 'See also' reference to Oriental despotism -- a concept that is centrally quite relevant to this topic;
  • Totally irelevant concept.
• in [5], User:DonaldDuck removes a sentence comparing Tsarist autocracy with Enlightened absolutism and replaces it with a content-free statement about delegation;
• in [6], User:DonaldDuck removes a relevant 'See also' reference to Byzantism;
• in [7], User:DonaldDuck needlessly removes Russian despotism from the long list of alternative translations of this concept;
  • "Russian despotisn" is not alternative translation of "tsarist autocracy".
• in [8], User:DonaldDuck counterfactually replaces "... establishing a ... police state" with "... establishing a ... police force, perhaps under the misconception of the meanings of these words;
  • Probably, you are under misconception of what is a police state. Peter I did not establishe police throughout Russia. He established police forces only in two cities - St. Petersburg (with total number of policemen under 100) and Moscow.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• In [9] and [10], User:DonaldDuck adds interesting data about the transformation of Tsarist autocracy over time, but damaging the narrative structure a bit.

Unless somebody explains in detail why those edits should stay, I'm inclined to revert them. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Few comments. No explanation was given for changes in see also, and from removal of Russian despotism (demonstrated above to be a popular alt. name). I have removed the unreferenced (in any case) ref. to police. I have now provided a ref for the "subjects as children of the tsar, the father" concept, which is certainly notable. The reference does not speak of a civil service, but I am inklined to let the link remain; however the reference speaks of bureaucracy, and I don't understand why thsi word is removed. Finally, I don't understand why a relevant sentence about Catherine's reforms designed to placate nobility by giving them fictional powers (when in fact state's bureaucracy (civil service...) was strengthen much more) is being removed. PS. And I agree with Digwuren that we should be careful to avoid transforming this article into a "history of Russian civil service". It's certainly not the same concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposing civil service and nobility is quite strange, because civil servants (at least an Catherine's time) were mostly recruited from nobility and civil service was maybe most common way of getting nobility (any civil servant, reaching some specific rank was automatically ennobled).DonaldDuck (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll remove the unreferenced civil service.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mestnichestvo

It's not correct to say that Peter I abolished mestnichestvo, it was abolished by Zemsky Sobor in 1682.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Says Donald Duck. Not very reliable, I am afraid: a reliable source sais otherwise: "Peter took an important step in breaking with traditional constraints in 1722, when he abolished the feudal system that obligated the tsar to respect hereditary ranks when rewarding service to the state (mestnichestvo). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

..was marked by abolition of mestnichestvo in 1682. The weak and sickly Tsar, Feodor III thus succeded in... DonaldDuck (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Or just look at ru:Местничество.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a source more modern then from 1936? And Wikipedia articles are not a reliable reference. In any case, some reading suggests that we are both correct: Feodor abolished mestnichestvo, but it was Peter who created its successor, the Table of Ranks (ref). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (New Haven & London 1998) 5-6 & 93. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Curious

Should the concept of autocracy (самодержавие) - as it existed in the 19th century - be part of this article or not? It might be rightfully called a fallacy or a propaganda trick, but it runs contrary to the POV presented here. NVO (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think yes, see comments by Mikka above on this subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Those comments were "something completely different". I meant the idea of samoderzhavie of per Katkov and Pobedonostsev as being the opposite of 18th century absolutism. NVO (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oriental despotism

For reasons unexplained, a link to oriental despotism is being constantly removed. This is not an irrelevant see also; this term is used in this context: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and others. PS. I hope that now that a reference for popularity and relevance of "Russian despotism" has been added, we won't see further unexplained reverts of this term.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it's controversial if some editors don't like it. In the see also section it is unannotated innuendo and potentially insulting. Anything that styles a Christian European country as "oriental" borders on being a slur. This is one of the normal allegations in anti-Russian propganda, including British Crimean war speeches and anti-Slavic and anti-Russian Nazi propaganda films. If you weren't aware of such connotations, you would learn from the links you're posting. All of this outweighs the marginal relevance the terms has to the topic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oriental is not a slur. Or if it is, perhaps you should create/expand an article on that use. Poland had some oriental customs, and I have yet to see any Pole be offended with that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume it's, again, incompatibility of concepts - same name means opposite things to different sides. The concept of "autocracy" as it existed under Alexander II and Alexander III, indeed, denounced traces of "oriental despotism" just as it denounced traces of Petrine "absolutism". Quotation marks are there because the words in that particular historical context meant something quite different from today's U. S. college definitions. A person familiar (indoctrinated?) with the concept as it emerged at home, should, indeed, be concerned about linking "autocracy" with either of the two "alien regimes" that "autocracy" was deemed to get rid of. NVO (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain how "autocracy as it existed under Alexander II and Alexander III" was different from absolutism of the previous tsars? Please also see Tsarist_autocracy#Notes. It is my current understanding that the literature, and our article, use autocracy for the more then just the last few decades (century?) of Russian monarchy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The latter concept simply equates "autocracy" for "absolute monarchy" in a particular regional setting. But Russian monarchy wasn't frozen in time. Throughout the 18th century it was existed as "absolutism" - a sort of social contract between the monarch and armed szlachta on his/her payroll. When the monarch (or regent in place) failed, their own guards took action. After Nicholas I came to power in the wake of the 1825 mutiny he then spent the rest of his life turning the tables, from a monarch relying on the ruling class to a "father of the people", "people" including the noble classes. So in the particular context of the middle of 19th century paternalistic "autocracy" that does not rely on a particular social class for its existence was perceived as a clear opposite to "Western" "absolutism" of the "age of the women". There were, surely, economic reasons for the demise of the nobles, but don't underestimate a single man's will to survive (he knew very well who and how killed his father and grandfather). NVO (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian despotism

"Despotism" is a non-neutral term and you have to provide a solid evidence that it was used in scholarly meaning, rather than a slander. I would agree that the usage of the term must be explained in the article, but with a reference more solid than a google search result. - Altenmann >t 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity you've never played Civilization, in which despotism is an important early system of government. Its lack in government bonuses is balanced by its cheap military and the option to invoke martial law at the pleasure of the Beloved Despot. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a playground. - Altenmann >t 02:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This is why despotism is best played with in other videogames. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Google search shows that "Russian despotism" is used by some authors, but no sources support that Tsarist autocracy was also known as Russian despotism as in the text of the article.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

To make an example, first paragraph of the article resembles "dog [reference to the google books search for "dog"] also known as cat [reference to the google books search for "cat"]". Apparently some editors keep asserting that statement "dog also known is cat" is supported by numerous scholarly sources, and oppose it's deletion :).DonaldDuck (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The analogy is incorrect because autocracy and despotism share many of the same features, unlike a dog and a cat. Still, if you do a googles BOOKS search for both you get this: [20]. For example "specificity of Russian despotism, that is, Tsarist autocracy" (not judging the quality of the source here, just noting that it's an academic scholarly one). Or "the Russian autocracy was to be in the West a byword for despotism". A bit of searching turns up more. For better or worse, many scholars have made this link. radekszck|DonaldDuck]] (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dogs and cats are animals, have four legs, fur, heart, lungs, they share many of the same features, but dog is not cat. Alike both autocracy and despotism are forms of government, but it is not the same.

As for this [21] - single occurence in a some neo-marxist source:) This search result only proves that connection between Russian autocracy and despotism is a fringe view and not mainstream one and must not be included into the article.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Despotism is a neutral, academic term. Of course, it can be sometimes used in a non-neutral fashion, but this is not the case here. We are citing examples of the term used in academic works. I have no problems with scholarly works discussing Polish anarchy. Please stop overreacting here with the neutrality issue. As for definitions, yes, some authors may use it in a different fashion, but it is still broadly the same concept. Editions that would illuminate the differences are welcome. Censorship of terms per IDONTLIKE it are not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutism or autocracy is not the same concept as despotism. Unless you provide sources for what exactly your have written in the article, that is "Russian absolutism" is also known as "Russian despotism", not just for some unconnected uses of this terms, this non-neutral original research will be removed.[[User:DonaldDu

As for your neutrality issues, renaming of Golden Liberty to Polish anarchy will be appreciated.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article clarifies that more correctly, tsarist autocracy can see the Muscovite depsotism as its precursor, nonetheless quite a few works mix those terms or use the in similar context. Again, you are welcome to expand on this, and clarify this, but please stop removing information from the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, no references for also known as statement in the article. Removed OR. 12:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I've rewritten lead to address this point. As I've pointed out above, the sources discuss the same (or very similar) phenomenon using those different terms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Periodisation

Period of absolutism in Russia have more or less precise time limits. From 1613 (first tsar of Romanov dynasty) or time of Peter I of Russia to 1905 (revolution and establishment of semi-constitutional monarchy) or 1917 (end of the monarchy). Anything from the period of Mongol invasion (13th century) or Cold war (20th) period is quite irrelevant to the topic of the article and should be removed.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

1905 ?! get real, absolutism was gone in the Crimean War, although Nicholas himself denounced it in the earlier stages of his tenure. Absolute monarchy continued, absolutism was trashed in favor of autocracy. But it's way aside from our Polish friends agenda, so, perhaps, you should find a different venue or some go-around solution. NVO (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to distinguish Muscovite despotism from tsarist absolutism and tsarist autocracy; unfortunately the literature, at least in some cases, tends to confuse those (witness and despair over 200 hits for "Muscovite absolutism"). I certainly invite interested editors to expand the article, clarify the usage of individual terms, and perhaps even split articles into subarticles - but please, let's stop removing content. PS. I tried rewriting the leads and notes again; you are more then welcome to help with that. The note explains why tsarist is the best adjective, but I haven't yet found a good rationale for autocracy, other then the gut feeling it is more general then despotism and absolutism. But if you say that autocracy actually followed absolutism, then I am confused... see also my question here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead and alt names

Should the list of alt names stay in the lead or be split into its own section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the alt names, which use Google book searches as references. Search results are not valid references. I'm going to ask Future Perfect about this, since he has commented about the article.

Move this article to Tsarism - eliminate Tsarism's current redirect to Tsar. There's plenty of scholarly material on Tsarism as a system of government. Put a clear, early link to Tsarism within the Tsar article, that'll get more eyes here. If/when the article evolves and includes scholarly, non-OR linkage of Tsarism to other terms and concepts, add them one at a time. Novickas (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I redirected Tsarism to this article - because it's currently the only WP article, however well or badly written, that discusses it as a system of government. And added a link to Tsarism in the lead of Tsar. Novickas (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is about moving, not removing alt names, which are obviously relevant and used in hundreds of publications. While I think it is fine to redirect tsarism here, I am not convinced it's the right name for the article; per my comments below either current tsarist autocracy is the best of the descriptive names, or we should use the transliteration of samoderzhavie (as defined here, for example). PS. Addition of tsarism makes it even more clear that there is no single, estabilished name in English language for the concept(s) we are discussing. I am actually wondering if Russian monarchy shouldn't be redirect here as well? Although I think that samoderzhavie was only part of Russian monarchy/tsarism, not the same thing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The responses at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) disparaged Google search results as references. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 68#Google_search_results_as_article_references So I'm removing the section, which relies only on Google book searches, and the searches as refs. Novickas (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - you asked the wrong question (those are not google search results but google BOOKS search result - much more reliable). In either case, they are not really references as proof that such terms exist and are used in English literature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I re-posted the question at the village pump policy page. 68#Are_aggregate_Google_book_search_results_valid_in-line_references_-_revisit_last_week.27s_discussion. Novickas (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Despotism

I think that the main reason against use of this term is its current negative connotation, despotism nowadays means tyranny. (Igny (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Sort of, and the southern accent. But dig the worst despot, Peter I, who incidentally also enforced absolutism, and then try to separate both notions ... too many labels blur into one stain and cause indigestion. Better keep it simple. NVO (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the reason why some people don't want to use it, certainly. But wikipedia is not censored to be politically correct :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting to completely censor it. Just remove from the lead as it is clearly a wrong case of "aka". Can you find a source saying that autocracy=despotism, or autocracy=tyranny? Sure some people called it as such but that does not mean equivalence of the terms. Say, if I call some US president a despot, that does not mean presidency=despotism, right? (Igny (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Well, it is an alternative name. Ok, how about this: let's follow MOS on naming to the letter and move all alt names into their own subsection? I didn't want to to this as it will give us to tiny, tiny sections (lead and names) but if this will make people happy and end the conflict on this article, I guess it's worth it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. I would like to point out that there is a difference between two different forms of government, the absolute monarchy and the despotism. I admitted that some people, most notably revolutionaries, called Russian tsars despots, (also enemies of the people, враги народа etc). That does not mean that tsarism was equivalent to despotism. A quote:

According to Montesquieu, the difference between monarchy and despotism is that in monarchy, a single person governs by fixed and established laws, whereas a despot governs by his own will and caprice.

So it is not an alternative name to autocracy. (Igny (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

I fully agree that despotism =/= autocracy (and neither = absolutism, too). But various scholars translate samoderzhaviye in various ways, and some of them do discuss the concept using the word despotism. Hence the alternative names. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to the source? I never thought such translation might exist. (Igny (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

An interesting article. What do you think about that? (Igny (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

With regard to translation of "самодержавие". Literally, "само"=self, "державие"= ruling. So it is precisely "autocracy" without any ambiguity. (Igny (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Interesting; I've written some time ago about something similar, see byzantism. Still, myths or not, if they are notable, they should be described.

Here are some links that are relevant: [22] and [23]. Transliteration is easier in Polish, since there is only one - and here, there are plenty of works which discuss samodzierżawie and despotyzm: [24]. And what about [25], [26] and [27]? Many of those books discuss the concept of samoderzhaviye, too. Here's an academic discussion in the The Journal of Modern History which notes why despotism is related to (but is not) samoderzhaviye; instead it introduces another Russian term (for despotism), samovlastiye. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also oppose to the sentence The Tatar Yoke and the Mongol ideas and administrative system are credited with bringing the culture exhibiting some characteristics of an oriental despotism to Russia, which is not quite the same as the source says. In the source the connection to the mongols was made by Ukrainian nationalists in an attempt to separate Ukrainian and Russian cultures. So I do not think it is any relevant to the notions of tsarism or autocracy, How did you get this source, by googling tsarism together with "oriental despotism"? (Igny (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Apparently just googling for "Russian despotism". How would you rewrite the sentence? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would remove it as irrelevant, or as we say in Russian "за уши притянуто". I do have another question however. We have an article autocracy (the corresponding Russian article, ru:самодержавие, does not distinguish samoderzhavie and tsarist samoderzhavie). En Wiki has tsar (ru:царь), Russian wiki also has ru:Царизм ("tsarism"). Why do we also need "tsarist autocracy"? What is so special about combining the two words? After pondering for sometime I just have a suggestion to merge the despotism claims to tsar (which seems the main point of this article) and redirect. (Igny (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

samoderzhaviye is a notable concept. We could, perhaps, move the article there (to samoderzhaviye). That ru wiki doesn't have a separate article on this doesn't surprise me, my experience with Polish wikis is that commonly it fails to distinguish between a more theoretical concept and a Polish aspect of it. samoderzhaviye is notable as a Russian flavor of autocracy, and as such deserves a separate article, just like tsar is different from king or emperor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Samoderzhavie"=autocracy, ru:самодержавие even says that the word originated from greek autocracy. "Tsarist samoderzhavie"="tsarist autocracy", there is no ambiguity, no special flavor from Russian point of view. Moreover samodershavie and despotism are not equivalent from scholastic point of view either, for I have yet to see the source equating them. I may see however that from Polish or modern Ukrainian or Baltic points of view Russian tsarism=despotism, and I may see how someone may argue they are the same by pointing out the similarities. But you can see that monarchy is similar to despotism too but no one argues that these concepts are the same, right? Try to write for example French despotism where you equate french monarchy with despotism, and you will see weakness of your arguments. Russian tsar was Russian sovereign, or a monarch and in that sense no different from kings. A quote from tsar

In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.

You may also see that tsars had more common with Roman emperors than with oriental despots (whoever they are). (Igny (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Samoderzhavie =/= autocracy, Samoderzhavie ⊂ autocracy :) And no, this is not my OR: [28] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This source is not in a contradiction to what I am saying. When I meant samoderzhavie=autocracy I meant literal translation of the word, translation which has no ambiguity. The way I see it, there was an evolution, Roman emperors->Byzantine autocrats->Russian tsars. And tsarism eventually evolved into a form of absolute monarchy. But of course all kinds of revolutionaries labeled all sorts of monarchy as despotism, which lead to revolutions, republic, democracy, communism, or in some cases they evolved into constitutional monarchy or some such. Saying tsarism $\subset$ despotism is wrong, rather it is tsarism $\subset$ absolute monarchy, and monarchies $\cap$ despotism $\not =$ empty. (Igny (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

I'd agree with the first, not so sure about the second. Anyway, I certainly think what this article needs is more development, not merging into something else. Each monarchy is notable, and this article is about a major feature of the Russian monarchy (which, as a redirect, should probably be re targeted here). That said, Russian monarchy is a separate subject (just like free election should neither be merged to nor renamed Polish monarchy, since it is only a part of the larger phenomenon). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

May be it deserves its own article, but if you insist to keep comparing tsarism to despotism as the main point of the article, I suggest moving such claims from the lead into its own subsection, Despotism claims, or similar. It is not known as Russian despotism, moreover when I see the phrase Russian despotism, I first think of Stalinism, then tsarism, and only because some blame the tsars for despotism, not because tsarism was despotism. You argument that samoderzhavie=despotism or it is translated as such is wrong. So instead of described as I would change it accused of, and properly attribute such claims. Also I want to point out that tsarism stood out among the monarchies because at beginning of 1900s, Russians had a chance to compare their tsars with many examples of less despotic governments.(Igny (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Again, my point is that despotism is not a form of government it was rather a label which was put on different governments at different times. (Igny (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that comparison to despotism should be the main point of the article; it is in fact mostly done in the note. Feel free to rewrite the article to make it apparent that the discussion of why despotism is not the most correct term to use in this context is more apparent. I don't think that the word accused is right in the English language in this context, scholars don't accuse. Again, I do agree that the word despotism is used in common language in a negative fashion, this could be worth mentioning and it should be clear that our article is a scholarly discourse of terms used, not some kind of accusation of criticism. And, ummm, I don't think that even after 1905 Russian monarchy was anywhere near being liberal, it was still the one of most autocratic regimes in the world, and likely the most autocratic in Europe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree in general, I would think of a way to rewrite it sometime later. (Igny (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

My two cents. Article deletion.

Coming across this Wikipedia article, I decided to give my opinion whether the article is sound. I think it's not good at all, it basically tries to compress 'Russian statecraft/political history' into one idea of origins. Dealing with autocracy, the article confusingly mentions other terms as synonyms, such as despotism, and goes on to treat 'despotism' and in the next sentence 'absolutism' (even if the terms are synonymous, which they're not, why not stick to 'autocracy'?). This article is all over the place.

The article does a poor job explaining what differentiated a tsar from, let's say, William I, king of Holland, or Kangxi. It says the 'autocrat' was not bound by law, but of course he was limited in many ways, including custom, albeit in varying degrees across time. In other words, historians are divided on the matter of what 'absolutism' or 'despotism' (the same goes for 'totalitarianism' and the like) actually mean and especially on whether the terms applied to Russia without qualification. Right now, the article does not reflect any historiographical concensus or debate (properly), it simply puts forward one basic view of Russian history. In doing so, it is incredibly misleading in its use of sources, since most of the listed sources are simply used to attest the use of a term and not to support any claims made in the substantial part of the article.

Moreover, the sources that are used are often misrepresented, including Ostrowski and Crews. Ostrowski is heavily concerned with Mongol-Russian relations and with views of these relations among historians throughout the ages. The article cited is a good example of his work, but the point Ostrowski tries to make is not that the Tatar 'yoke' is credited with despotism in Russia. Ostrowski does not state this himself, he simply tries to explain the 'metahistorical reasons' for others to believe this.

Robert Crews is also misleadingly cited here, because the section where he is cited deals with the 'system' of autocracy as well as how the metaphor of Father Tsar reflects the system. To this end, the section cites Crews' work on Muslim citizenship in imperial Russia in which he explicitly referred to 'recent' Orthodox patriotism in the nineteenth century. In other words, to cite Crews' work where he says the Orthodox Church had only recently been propagating patriotism in order to suggest this can be applied to the entire period (the section is unclear about this) of Russian pre-revolutionary history is simply misleading. (This is not to say there are no authors who mention such 'father' imagery in Orthodox primers earlier, e.g. L.A.J. Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (New Haven & London 1998) 92-97)

As far as the Mongol influence is concerned, right now there is no reflection of the historiographical debate in the Wikipedia article. It simply states that the 'Tatar yoke' is credited with bringing 'oriental despotism' to Russia. Now, to reduce the debate on the Mongol influence on 'Russian'/Muscovite political culture to two views, Vernadsky and Riasanovsky (two Russian-American historians) are nice examples. Riasanovsky (and others, including many Soviet scholars) suggested that the Mongol influence on Muscovite administrative practices and such did not exist, but more importantly, when he conceded that there had been any influence at all, this was mostly negative in the form of destruction and cultural isolation. Vernadsky on the other hand claimed that Mongols had in fact had much influence on administrative practices and deemed it positive (because of its 'Eurasian' roots, as opposed to Peter I's western-style reforms). Ostrowski and Halperin may be considered more recent examples of this stance.

Of course there are many more positions, which Ostrowski also covers in his contribution to Gleason, and the evidence can be interpreted in different ways (without discounting evidence), the Wikipedia entry does not try to reflect any of these issues. It simply tries to make the claim that Russian political structures were characterized by the 'Oriental despotism' (a form of government caused by irrigation agriculture, which required lots of central planning, starting in china) of Karl Wittfogel and Bertold Spuler. This concept, however, has been throughly repudiated, Riasanovsky has disproven this especially for Russia.

Regarding Mongol influence, oriental despotism and misrepresentation of sources in this Wikipedia article, in his book on Mongols and Rus' cited here, Ostrowski indeed goes out of his way to define 'autocracy' and 'despotism' (stating any government can be despotic in theory), but he mainly tries to emphasize that the Mongols had by no means been 'despotic' and could therefore not be the source of alleged Muscovite 'despotism' (if anything, Ostrowski points to a shift in political culture from Mongol to Byzantine in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries). Why, then, does this Wikipedia article mention the 'Tatar yoke' as being credited with bringing 'oriental despotism'?

Like I said earlier, the article is all over the place and, as suggested above by other contributors, the article resembles the work of someone who has searched for the terms in Google books simply to add some citations to bolster his or her own argument. There may have been things which are questionable in the article, which I have not mentioned, so please do reply. In my opinion, to single out Russian-style 'tsarist autocracy' is to misrepresent historiography on European/Eurasian monarchies or government. It tries to conflate some five or six centuries of change and adaptations into one static concept. It suggests a Russian Sonderweg where there had been none.

I'd say delete.

2001:1C02:1907:9500:51F2:7E0D:CBB1:26A5 (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This article most certainly does not meet WP:TNT. If you want to delete this, you'll have to use WP:AFD, but I'd strongly suggest instead you try to fix this or expand another article. On to the topic of fixing, I certainly agree this article can be improved, of course, but samoderzhaviye is a notable concept, and I doubt anyone can coherently argue otherwise. Now, I'd appreciate if any Russian speaker could comment on the difference between ru:Царизм this article has interwiki to, and ru:Самодержавие that links to pl:Samodzierżawie. Ping User:Halibutt and User:Altenmann. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the article is extremely faulty and inadequate, but the point is also that the entire concept of 'tsarist autocracy' stands on shaky grounds historiographically speaking. I'd say the problems you have identifying the differences between all those different concepts, even resorting to ask at the Wikipedia Humanities desk for help, indicates that the 'notability' of this article is questionable. Don't you agree? Please respond to my arguments in this post as well as the previous one. Thanks, 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

PS. The Russian 'Tsarism' article states the term is a political cliché which accentuates the autocratic role of its highest ruler, tsar or emperor. It quotes Lenin and also states the term is often used pejoratively (common in Marxist works). (Unsourced) After 1991 the term was used less by Russian scholars, but explanatory dictionaries list 'tsarism' as synonyms to monarchy and absolutism, although in practice the term is not applied to non-Russian or pre-Petrine monarchies.

The 'Samoderzhavie' article claims the term has several meanings. In modern history, the term usually denotes unlimited monarchy, often absolutism or Russian monarchy. It then goes on to explain the reasons or contexts and history usually related to Russian monarchy/samoderzhavie. Sixteenth-century historians tended to trace it to Vladimir I etc., Klyuchevskij defines a samoderzhavets as someone independent of any external figure, not paying tribute to anyone, being a sovereign. The article then says that under Ivan IV however, samoderzhavie was already used to denote unlimited internal power. It goes on to discuss nineteenth-century historians who stated that edinoderzhavie or samoderzhavie was caused by external powers, Byzantine and Mongol; the assistance of different classes in unifying the land of Rus'; the (geographical/natural) conditions of north-east Rus'; the personalities of Muscovite princes. Under Peter I, samoderzhavie was identified more and more with the European concept of 'absolutism' (which wasn't used in Russia). The article states it was in this period that samoderzhavie was finally reduced to 'unlimited power over the interior' of the emperor, whose power was God-given. For some reason, the article then states that according to Speranskij, even under Catherine II, samoderzhavie had two meanings (independence in exterior and unlimited power over interior). Up to 1917, the concept was formally in use and critics equated it with despotic rule.

The article then recounts how slavophiles differentiated between absolutism and samoderzhavie, the former associated with the westernizer Peter I and his bureaucracy the latter with his predecessors who had had a more 'organic' or holistic relation of sorts with their subjects. Some pre-revolutionary (moderate) liberals thought samoderzhavie to be God-given, while absolutism focused on the common good. During the Soviet period, the definition of absolutism was only raised in 1940, when most of the legal experts were inclined not to differentiate between samoderzhavie and absolutism. Historians did and in the context of Russian history they also thought differently of these concepts. The Soviet historians thought independence of feudal relations was important, so they stated that the first samoderzhets in Rus' was Ivan III, because of his independence from the Golden Horde. For the sixteenth century, samoderzhavie was interpreted as edinoderzhavie, which meant that the Muscovite ruler had eliminated the other princes of Rus'. The Soviet historians thought that only under Ivan IV samoderzhavie turned into unlimited power of the prince.

During the 1960s, Soviet historians questioned whether samoderzhavie was a unique form of unlimited power or a regional variation of absolutism. They concluded there were two differences between samoderzhavie and western European absolutisms: its only pillar was the service nobility, whereas in Western Europe, the bourgeoisie was another; there were many unlawful methods of rule which predominated and the personal will of the Russian monarch was more clearly articulated. Some Soviet scholars therefore even said around 1970 that Russian samoderzhavie was a variety of Oriental despotism and they could not agree upon the definition of absolutism.

A.I. Fursov stated that samoderzhavie was unique, the Russian ruler stood above the law, whereas in Western Europe, rulers could make laws, but had to abide the law. He also stated that, although the Golden Horde did not have a tradition of such supralegal rulers, the Mongol rule did throw off balance the usual trinity of balance: prince-boyars-veche by according executive power to the prince (not only to the Moscow prince). In some cases where nobility and empowered princes united, the power and chances of success against other Rus' principalities within the Mongol system increased. (Fursov thus defines samoderzhavie as supralegal rule, in the Russian case caused by indirect Golden Horde rule, which made this type of rule unique to Russia).

In the end, I have not really gotten a sense from the Russian wikipedia articles of what samoderzhavie actually means. Throughout the centuries, different interpretations exist and they all revolve around 'great power' and 'independence' from others, be it internationally or internally. This still seems very 'ideal typical'.

2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to expand this article, seems it seems you have some knowledge of the subject. Just keep in mind your expansion needs to be cited (WP:CITE, WP:V) and not your own thoughts, as WP:OR is not allowed. And once again, let me repeat that the deletion is not the right way of fixing this article, and if you list it at AfD I very much doubt you'll convince anyone this is a WP:TNT case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. Unfortunately, you have not replied to my fundamental objections (I'm sorry if you don't have the time to do so), but I personally do not feel that re-writing the article is the solution. I think that even if it is re-written, the content of this page might fit in better in some other page. However, unfortunately, I disagree with the idea of 'tsarist autocracy' as a separate category in principle. This is why others should try and comment too. Could you comment on why you thought (already a few years ago) this article should exist? 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Simply put, I believe the concept is notable. It is a term used in a number of historical and political science works dealing with the history of Russian political system. If you think the term is mistaken and should not be used, Wikipedia is not the place to argue for that. I'd suggest you write an academic paper arguing so and get it published in a respectable academic journal. Through even if you do so, Wikipedia article won't change except it might add a sentence saying "Foo-ian historian XYZ argues that this term is so mistaken it should not be used". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And how did you get the idea that the term is used in a number of historical and political science works? You googled the 'tsarist autocracy' in google books, noted there were some hits and deemed it notable without looking into what the authors actually meant. Like I said, this article severely misrepresents sources and frankly, I believe some are simply irrelevant in this context. Many of the works do not specify 'tsarist autocracy' as a separate category of rule, they simply say it is autocracy in Russia (often copying opposition/critical ideas). Only in that sense is 'tsarist autocracy' a meaningful combination (unfortunately, Russian scholars have similarly struggled to differentiate between Russian government and other types of government). Otherwise, just go to the autocracy article. The article does not clarify what is special about 'tsarist autocracy' as opposed to 'regular autocracy' and it will not be able to do so even after it is re-written, because the article title already suggests there is some sort of historiographical consensus. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus and 2001:1C02:1907:9500:6DC8:DB74:E72E:310D:, I believe half of the problem here stems from poor translation (even if there is none better) of the Russian term самодержавие, used in political science and history in Russian, Polish and many other cultures as a common noun. Which is why to a Polish or Russian speaker it might seem obvious that it is a notable (see: WP:N), verifiable phenomenon, even if throughout the ages it meant different things.

Polish Wikipedia article makes it clear that the term had two distinct meanings (one to denote simply the suzerainty of the tsars, or better yet, their independence from the Golden Horde; the other was pretty much synonymous to absolute monarchy, Russian style, forgive my mental shortcut here). There even is a short and handy list of what various authors meant by the term and how they used it.

All in all it is true that this article needs a lot of love, that it could be expanded and corrected to include a clearer distinction between various ideas behind the single term. Because whenever a Polish author writes "samodzierżawie", he or she means самодержавие, which is something more than Russian autocracy (to put it down Wiki-way). In English however authors mentioning, say, Russian autocracy or Muscovite despotism might mean either самодержавие, or simply the Russian version of despotism or autocracy, to put it bluntly. I guess it all depends on the context.

Anyway, I corrected the wikidata links slightly to differentiate between links to ru:самодержавие and ru:Царизм; the two ideas are closely related, but are not identical. //Halibutt 21:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Halibutt. I find your reference to Polish usage illuminating, because it illustrates exactly the difficulties historians of all nationalities have had with defining samoderzhavie. You define it in terms of suzerainty and independence. If samoderzhavie could be described in so few words (and if you really insist on it being something fundamentally different from other monarchies already described here at wikipedia), simply remove the article and add a section at autocracy to note the different ways historians have described samoderzhavie. As we have seen, anything more will inevitably lead to so much confusion and, frankly, deception of the reader. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:38A7:F4A6:E30F:3B9F (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to add a few things, I have no problem with Wikipedia reflecting different positions within historiography. However, by titling an article 'tsarist autocracy' or 'samoderzhavie', the author himself has taken a position within this debate and will inevitably focus on the allegedly 'unique' characteristics of 'tsarist autocracy', which does not cover what the historical debate is about; worse, the article will be what Wikipedians usually detest: original research. Now, one can of course try to compensate this by discussing different views on the topic of 'tsarist autocracy' and normally this poses no problem, but in this particular case there already is a location to do so: autocracy. This is to be preferred, because it provides readers with a better reflection of the historical debates and embeds the material covered here within a broader framework all the historians involved in the debate also deal with. This will prevent the isolation of tsarist autocracy and removes any a priori suggestion of uniqueness without claiming any distinct properties are absent from the Russian monarchy. This means the article can be removed and provides everybody with the opportunity to dispose of any irrelevent, misplaced and misused sources of this article in question. My suggestion to anyone who is keen on pointing out the distinctiveness of the Russian monarchy (of course by referring to significant source materials) is to add, for the time being, some words under the header of Nicholas I in autocracy, saying something along the lines of:

Historians of different nationalities have difficulties agreeing whether autocracy in Russia was a distinct form of monarchical rule in Europe. Proponents of this idea have argued that due to wide-ranging reasons, the autocracy in Russia had been different from European monarchies, such as Russia's relationship to the Mongol states and the Byzantine empire. Despite their differing theories, many of them point out the supralegal character of the Russian monarch and distinguish between its powers in the external and internal spheres. Opponents have argued that it is not possible to speak of a standard European monarchy from which the Russian monarchy could have differed. Instead, they see the Russian monarchy as yet another variation of the European monarchy [incidentally, there are even some like Victor Liebermann who see common patterns across Eurasia]. Of course, embed this in sound literature.

Obviously, this is not perfect, but it may be a start toward a more responsible, a more balanced and a more neutral way of discussing the Russian monarchy in Wikipedia. 2001:1C02:1907:9500:9CF9:5773:9F59:2B43 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD and expand the articles, if you have the said sound literature. Otherwise, we will have to wait for someone to do it. That person won't likely bother to read the archives here, particularly as it is likely the next person to want to comment here want stop by for a few years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, because what you said on Sam Sailor's talkpage was kind and understanding, but I feel you missed my point. I thought that Wikipedia was about reflecting (some kind of) scientific consensus, but historians have not engaged in a explicit discussion of 'tsarist autocracy', making the existence of this Wikipedia article 'original research' of the contributors here. There are no real 'camps', as might have been the case with the Historikerstreit for example. I cannot expand this article, but like I said, if someone wishes to incorporate the points you have raised by creating this article with the intentions you had, my section in italics may provide a starting point.

As far as your comment on Sam Sailor's talkpage goes, I understand you Wikipedia 'regulars' know how these discussions may end even before they have started, but I beg you to really consider how you go about in dealing with issues like this and with 'non-regulars'. It is unfortunate that no substantial discussion followed on my initial post, I sincerely welcome any kind of feedback; instead, you repeatedly cited Wikipedia regulations which in my opinion stemmed fruitful discussions. That said, I appreciate your comments. I hope that, at least at some subconscious level, my point about historiographical debates and how they are reflected in a highly popular internet encyclopedia has come across. Thank you for your time, 2001:1C02:1907:9500:C42A:2843:9922:93A3 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you don't log in nor WP:ECHO me, it is a bit difficult to continue (remember of) this conversation. Once again, you are welcome to add your proposed text to the article, as long as you can source it (WP:V, WP:OR). Otherwise it will remain here, and hopefully over the next decade or so someone else may read it and find it useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You know, I cannot believe this page still exists. It suggests that there was a very specific type of 'autocracy', a 'tsarist' one. There is no academic consensus that the Russian autocrats were fundamentally different from others, let alone the discussion whether the Russian rulers were in fact autocrats. If anything, if this page must exist, it should be something like 'monarchy in Russia', just like monarchy in the United Kingdom, which can of course go over the 'autocratic' aspects of the monarchy, but has much broader aims. Now, the article just stands as a monument to people here just googling stuff and confusing that with good and reliable knowledge. 2001:1C02:1990:A900:FCB5:49EC:22CF:E773 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2016

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Tsarist autocracy → Tsarism – Less POV, more common; and besides, there wasn't a tsar in Russia before Ivan IV in 1547 – Yamakkusa (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Sam Sailor 21:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning: The above is not a real signatire/timestamp of user:Yamakkusa; it is copied by user:Sam Sailor. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Please don't cut and paste signatures; this confuses article history searches. Instead, please indicate where this request came from. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Click on "(permalink)" above to see where this request came from. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: What you write does not make much sense, but I'll follow up on your talk page. Please discontinue modifying other editors' comments, read WP:TPO. — Sam Sailor 05:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what was unclear, if you really want to get to the sense rather than just insult another wikipedian. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support, per OP's rationale. FactStraight (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, if this article is about Russian only. See de:Zarismus. The correct title is a reasoneble trancleation of Russian term "tsarskoye samoderzhaviye". Staszek Lem (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment. "Less POV" is IMO an incorrect judgement. In my experience, the terms 'tsarism'/'tsarist' bear negative connotations, like "tsarist russia" instead of "Russian Empire", etc. I.e. "emperor" is a noble, respectable term, while 'tsar' is someone who rules bears, surrounded by 'boyars' in high fur hats and oppresses drunken bearded peasants. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

About your first part, I don't read german so I don't get it, would you mind explain it? Tsarism is the translation of ru:царизм, and for what I think more pertinent to the discussion, both forms either in English or Russian are more common than "Tsarist autocracy" or "tsarskoye samoderzhaviye". About your second point, yes I agree, and I really doubt if Russian government was so much different to deserve an exclusive adjective just for it, but the merit of the article existence is another discussion isn't it? At least Tsarism simple refers to a government ruled by a Tsar and don't make assumptions beforehand, if it was good, bad or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamakkusa (talk • contribs) 03:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think Staszek's point is that there are more then Russian tsars - also Bulgarian, Serbian. The term tsarism is used in literature, but I couldn't find it defined anywhere, and it what I see is used primarily in context of the transition of government from monarchy to revolutionary bolshevism. The move is not backed up by a literature review, so I cannot support it, even through it redirects here and I don't have good enough reason to object. However, I think a better term might be samoderzhaviye, since as pointed out in the note (which I wrote long ago) the term autocracyis not perfect either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment "Tsar" literally is a Slavic term for "Emperor", and derives from the Roman title of Caesar. "Autocracy" derives from the Greek term Autokrator which also means "Emperor". Both terms translate to someone who holds absolute power and/or authority and answers to no superiors. The two terms are synonymous and seeing them combined is somewhat redundant. Dimadick (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, "tsar" does not mean "emperor", neither literally, nor formally. And please read about etymological fallacy. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was somewhat surprising, but this is evidently a well established name for the subject at hand. "Tsarism" is also in wide use, but seems to have a broader meaning that what's discussed here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.