Talk:Coronation of the Russian monarch

What about when a woman ruled Russia?

The info I've found on the Russian coronation largely seems to presuppose that the ruler being crowned would be a male (which was virtually certain after Paul I's succession law was promulgated). However, Russia crowned four women as rulers during its history; does anyone know if any aspects of this ceremony were different when a woman was being crowned as sovereign? For instance, did the women enter through the Royal Doors and commune with the clergy inside the altar area? Since women (by and large) are not permitted in an Orthodox altar area, this seems to be a very pertinent question. Would the Tsaritsa's consort have been crowned in the same manner as an Empress-Consort was crowned? I really haven't been able to find anything on this, and I don't really think this article would be complete without it. Does anyone have any information on this, or any other aspects pertaining to the Russian Coronation ceremony? - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The coronation of any woman (ruler or consort) seems to have been problematic for the Russian Orthodox Church. The first crowned tsaritsa of Russia was Marina Mniszech (crowned alongside her husband) and she was followed by Catherine I of Russia (crowned alone). Catherine's coronation violated the Orthodox rules. Anyway, here is the book that should provide answers to your questions. While reading that book, I noticed that it claims that the original Russian word for coronation is the same word used in my language to denote wedding. It seems that the Russian sovereigns really believed they were marryin Russia by having themselves crowned. Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to hit the sack right now, but I'll see if I can't take a look at that tomorrow. Thanks for all your help in this, and for the interesting points you raised about consistency in titles and inclusion of consorts on the table of coronations! I'll take a look at this, and see what I can do with it. Thanks for including it! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Coronation of Emperor and Empress

The account I have of the ritual used for the crowning of the Emperor and Empress differs in some details from that given on the web-site. my account is from A Manual. The Orthodox Church’s Divine Services. Complied by D. Sokolof, Arch-priest and is as follows:

After the reading of the Gospel Lesson, the Emperor is invested with the purple [velvet and ermine mantle—the modern equivalent of the Byzantine imperial chlamys] and the chain of the Order of the Apostle Andrew the First-Called, presented by the Metropolitan with the words, “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Having received the purple [mantle], the Emperor inclines his head, the Metropolitan signs it with the cross, by laying his hands on it crosswise and prays, “O Lord our God, . . . “ After this prayer the Emperor takes the crown from the cushion presented by the Metropolitan and places it upon his head, while the Metropolitan again utters the words, “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” After the Emperor has assumed the crown, the Metropolitan explains the meaning of the coronation rite: “This visible and material adornment of thy head is to thee a manifest sign that the King of Glory, Christ, invisibly crowneth thee, the head of the throne of all the Russias.” Then, from a cushion presented by the Metropolitan the Emperor takes in his right hand the scepter and in his left the orb, while the Metropolitan again utters the words, “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Then the Metropolitan tells the Emperor the meaning of the scepter and orb, as follows: “God-crowned, God-given, God-adorned, most pious Autocrat and great Sovereign, Emperor of All the Russias. Receive the scepter and the orb , which are the visible signs of the autocratic power given thee from the Most High over thy people, that thou mayest rule them and order for them the welfare they desire.” Having assumed the imperial regalia, the Emperor seats himself upon the throne and laying the scepter and orb on a cushion presented to him by dignitaries, calls to him Her Majesty the Empress. Her Majesty rises from her throne and kneels before the Emperor, who takes the crown from his head and touches with it the Empress’ head, then replaces the crown on his own head and places on her head a smaller crown, presented by a dignitary. Then the Empress is invested with the purple [velvet and ermine mantle] and the chain of St. Andrew and seats herself on her throne. A deacon proclaims, “length of days to their Majesties, after which the Emperor kneels down and in a loud voice, offers a prayer in which he beseeches the Lord as follows, “Lord God of our fathers, . . .”

I will leave it to the principle editor to determine which account is most accurate and how much of it to edit into the web-site. I took the Sokolof account from photocopies I made from a book on the Russian Divine Services over twenty years ago for my own use and foolishly failed to include the date of publication and the publisher. I believe the Sokolof account was an appendix at the end of a much larger service book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.212.48 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this information. I've been busy at work, but I'll have some time either tomorrow evening or Sunday, and I'll definitely look it over and see what I can do. Again, thanks for your imput! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I finally got to this today, and I didn't see any tremendous conflict between what was previously in the article and what was in this reference; rather, it seemed to me that this reference simply offered more details than what the other website had. The only real difference was that the above reference spoke of one Metropolitan robing the Tsar (without naming which one it was; there was more than one at the service), whereas the website account speaks of two, and names them as those of St. Petersburg and Kiev. I chose to keep that reference, as it was more detailed than simply the vague "metropolitan" spoken of here. Indeed, there may not even be a conflict between the two references at all, if read in a certain way. Other than that, I couldn't find any great discrepencies between this reference above and the one I used earlier; rather, this one has simply a few additional details that I incorporated into the text on the receipt of the sceptre and orb, and the invocation of the Trinity during that and the receipt of the crown. Otherwise, this reference above seemed to confirm the other reference I used, at least as far as I could tell. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

List of coronations of empresses consort

Shouldn't empresses consort be listed among the persons crowned in Russia? The article describes their coronations in great detail (as it should) but they are not listed along with their husbands. I propose including them either seperately or in one row with their husbands. The former idea could be better because some empresses consort were not crowned alongside their husbands. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That would bear some thought. I would tend to favor the other idea, since this article is primarily about the coronation of actual rulers of Russia, as opposed to their consorts, though I agree that we should list their consort(s) beside the applicable ruler and their date of crowning, if different from that of the ruler in question. That would keep the focus on rulers (rather than consorts), at least in my opinion. But if a concensus favors the other approach, I have no objections to it, either. We could create a separate section for the consorts' coronations below that for the rulers', with its own table listing the consort (with image, where possible), the ruler she was consort to (as male consorts--there were none, actually, if I remember right, to any of Russia's four female rulers--were never crowned), and the date of her coronation. Either way works with me, though I personally favor the first. But whatever the concensus of opinion decides! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked around the articles about Russian consorts and it seems that all of them were crowned alongside their husbands. If that is true, we can simply replace the Reign column with Consort's name column and Other regnal titles column with Consort's portrait column. The Reign column may be beneficial but the Other regnal titles column is empty for most rulers. If you can join the monarchs and their consorts in the same row without removing the dates of their reigns and their other titles, that's OK, but then it could become too crowded because their consorts were not their consorts throughout their whole reign. I hope you understand what I mean. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree with this:

Coronation	Monarch's picture	Monarch's name	Consort's name	Consort's picture
May 26, 1896		Nicholas II	Alexandra Feodorovna

We could put dates below their names if you want. Surtsicna (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it! I think, however, that perhaps the reign dates should remain; as far as the "other regnal titles," I could go either way on that. I was playing around, and created a table that included reign dates in line with the other items (but not the "regnal titles"), just for fun. That table looked like this:

Coronation	Monarch's image	Monarch's name	Reign	Consort's name	Consort's image
May 26, 1896		Nicholas II	1894-1917	Alexandra Feodorovna

I think keeping the reign dates is important historically, but also because it provides a bit more "filler" and separation on the table between the Ruler and his/her consort. But what do you think? I also substituted the word "image" for "picture," as "picture" (to me, at least!) suggests more of a photo than a painting or drawing (whereas most Russian monarchs' images will be the latter)--but maybe that's just me. It's no big deal if you think it should say "picture" instead. I've got to go to work now, but let me know what you think on these issues, and thanks again for all of your contributions! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the Reign column. I was a bit worried about cases when the empress consort died before the emperor; for example, Alexander II of Russia's reign lasted several months longer than his wife's "reign". But I worry too much; go ahead with your idea. Regarding picture vs. image, use whichever word you consider to be best - English is your first language, not mine ;) Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still at work right now, but I'll see what I can do with this today and tomorrow once I get home. Thanks for your imput! I'll let you know when I get it done, and you can tell me what you think. I was hoping someone would rate it (I think it's a definite "B" class, at the very least!), but I'm thinking once I get this all tightened up and a couple of references taken care of that still need tweaking, I might nominate it for GA (per your message to me; thanks for the encouragement!). It will be interesting to see what happens with it from there; maybe someday even FA????? - 63.111.38.122 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If "my" Maria Theresa of Austria, a humble article compared to this one, was rated as GA, this one has to make it to FA status. I'll be bold and make some changes, insert references, etc, if I find something that should be changed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! As always, I appreciate your help! Check out the new section below on the new table, and tell me what you think. I agree with you that this article is at least GA quality, and possibly more, though it still needs a bit more work before I'm ready to nominate it for GA. We'll see what happens!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsar/Emperor and Tsaritsa/Empress

I believe the article should be consistent regarding the titles of Russian monarchs. For example, it refers to Tsaritsa Alexandra and to Empress Alexandra in one sentence, it refers to a tsar and his wife, the empress, in one paragraph, etc. It should be either Tsaritsa Alexandra or Empress Alexandra, not both because it could create some confusion. More importantly, we should use the same title for the monarch and his wife, so it should be either emperor and empress or tsar and tsaritsa. Perhaps it would be best to use tsar for the predecessors of Peter I and emperor for his successors. Comments? Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At first, I didn't think this was that big of a deal, but after re-reading the article, I can see what you mean. I think using "Tsar" for pre-Petrine rulers and "Emperor" for post-Petrine rulers would be yet another potential source of confusion, however. Since most folks generally understand and use the title "Tsar" and "Tsaritsa" to refer to all Russian Emperors and Empresses, I thought that it might be best to use those two titles throughout the article, except for one instance in the first paragraph of the lead section, where I introduce the title "Tsar" as the commonly used term for the Emperor of Russia; and in the last paragraph of the lead section, where I explain the "Emperor" vs. "Tsar" thing and also indicate that this article will use the term "Tsar" and "Tsaritsa" throughout. I made changes to the rest of the article accordingly, changing "Emperor" to "Tsar" and "Empress" to "Tsaritsa," while leaving such terms as "ruler", "sovereign", "monarch", etc. alone for synonym purposes. But this is just my approach to this dilemma; please feel free to suggest another if you think another would be better! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I too was afraid of creating confusion by using two different terms so I agree with using only Tsar and Tsaritsa. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for your contributions and imput!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New Consorts Table

I fixed the table as we previously decided, to include the consort information. Since several Tsars (especially earlier ones) had more than one consort (Ivan IV had seven or eight, I think!), I decided not to include all of their names; also, I could not get images for all of them, and that would have made things rather awkward, as well. The only solution that I could figure out to this dilemma was to incorporate into the table (since it is a table of Russian coronations) only those consorts who were physically present at their particular ruler-spouse's coronation, and were thus crowned with him. Several of the early Romanov Tsars were not married at the time of their coronations (though they married later), while none of the four women rulers had consorts at the time of their crownings. I figured this was the only way to keep the table from becoming too cumbersome. If you or anyone else out there has a better idea about this, I'd be happy to hear it! Let me know what you think. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that only crowned consorts should be mentioned in the table. Wan't Catherine I the first crowned woman in Russia? If she was, previous consorts should be excluded. We should include every person who was crowned Emperor/Tsar or Empress/Tsaritsa of Russia and only those persons (we should exclude those who were only present at their husband's coronation and uncrowned themselves). That's my humble opinion. It's a good thing that Ivan IV's wives were uncrowned! Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point! I just managed to read that text you referenced in an above entry (the "Scenerios of Power" text you referenced above under "What About When a Woman Ruled Russia?"), and I see it now. I'll remove all references to consorts prior to Paul I being crowned, with the exception of Marina (wife to False Dmitri I), who I will list as being crowned, but on a separate date--not "at the side of her husband" as indicated in this reference, but several months later. I'll give an explanation in the paragraph where I described the criterion for inclusion of spouse-consorts on the table, as well. Tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just got done with it. I have to leave for work, but take a look now, and tell me what you think. I apologize for that screw-up on my part; this just goes to illustrate why the "communal" work-nature of Wikipedia is SO important!! Thanks for pointing out my error! - Ecjmartin (talk)

Errare humanum est :) I've changed the table, I hope you are pleased. It seems more clear this way. Surtsicna (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

EXCELLENT! I like it! I think the way you've worded it is much better. On the "Dmitri I the False" entry, however, I thought it might look better the way I put it here; this way, there's just one entry instead of two, and no unnecessary "blank spaces" for the rulers' portraits. But if you like it better the other way, let me know. I'll be home from work soon, and I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks for all your help!! (Ecjmartin) - 63.111.38.122 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Marina, I thought having a seperate entry for her would be better because it is a list of coronations (not of crowned people) and therefore the coronation itself is what we should list. There was one coronation ceremony for Dmitri I the False and one coronation ceremony for Marina, one coronation ceremony for Nicholas II and Alexandra, etc. But you may have a different idea. Perhaps I am influenced by the List of coronations of British monarchs; I think that it is well done, especially the presiding cleric part, and the lack of portraits (because they make the list longer than neccessary and depict rulers, not coronations). Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting when you say you were influenced by the British monarchs coronation list; in creating this table, I was influenced by the Royal coronations in Norway article (which I had worked a little bit on some time back), and indeed, I simply borrowed their format directly for my list. I like having the portraits, as I think it makes the list look a lot nicer than without (and since there's not nearly as many Russian monarchs to list as British ones!!!). Also, I was focusing on the coronation of Russian rulers, as opposed to consorts; I don't disagree with the inclusion of the consorts by any means (indeed, I like the idea!), but I was focusing on the coronations of the rulers. In the end, since only one consort (Dmitri's) of those who were ever crowned was crowned separately from her husband, I thought it made more sense to list her with her husband (showing the separate date of her crowning) so that the focus would still be on the ruler, rather than the consort. However, I can understand your idea of focusing on the "Coronation" part of "Coronation of the Russian monarch," where I've been focusing on the "monarch" part of that (if we could look at it that way, tongue-in-cheek!). But this is all just my personal approach; I'd be more than willing to see it go back the other way (with Marina listed separately, below Dmitri, like you originally had it) if you (or any others out there "listening in" on this conversation!) still think it would be better. Let me know! Hope this isn't all too confusing! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. On the "presiding cleric" part, I'm not sure how many of those we could get for this list; if we could find it, that would be fine, but I think it would prove prohibitively hard (though I may be wrong!!), and is not necessarily essential (though it is nice to have, as you observed with regard to the British list!). What do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, you are right about the cleric part; it would be very hard to find names of all the clerics and we probably have no article about most of them. You are right regarding the portraits too, it does look nicer with the portraits, so let's keep them! However, I still believe that we should list each coronation ceremony seperately, rather than list crowned rulers. If we put the date of the monarch's coronation below the monarch's name, I wouldn't mind putting the date of the consort's coronation below the consort's name. Currently, the date of the coronation of each crowned person (save for Marina) is given in the first column. Besides, a queen consort crowned alone gets her own entry in the article Royal coronations in Norway. Surtsicna (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New Consorts Table II

I think I might have come up with something that will potentially satisfy both of us, in regard to the concerns each has raised: you mention the need to separate Dmitri's and Marina's coronations on the table, as both were separate events (and I agree with you on that). I mentioned the idea of keeping at least a little more focus on the rulers than the consorts. So, what I thought we might try is a separate listing for Marina's coronation, with Dmitri's portrait (and a note below saying "already crowned") together with Marina's in the appropriate places (whereas Marina is not listed in the entry for Dmitri's coronation, since she wasn't his wife at the time). I also added an explanatory paragraph at the beginning of the "Time of Troubles" section of the table, to make the double entry more understandable to the reader. I guess what I was trying to avoid was a break in the row of "rulers" portraits perhaps more than anything, if I could; with this format, Dmitri is still shown as the ruler (which he was) at the time of Marina's coronation--but Marina gets her own entry, for her separate ceremony. Take a look at it, and let me know what you think of it; if you still think it needs changing, please let me know! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is a compromise. Though one could wonder why the uncrowned women married to monarchs at the time of their coronation are excluded. But I don't mind. Surtsicna (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm at work now, but I had a moment and so I thought I'd check to see if you'd written back and what your thoughts were. I've been thinking about the Dmitri/Marina thing on the table, and I thought I might go with your original idea of removing his image from the entry on Marina's coronation, to draw attention to Marina, since it was her that was being crowned that day, not him. I left Dmitri's name in, since he was the ruling monarch at the time, but I thought removing his image would take it more along the lines of what you were thinking. What do you think? As far as the other consorts are concerned (uncrowned ones), I think the table is better as it is now, but I'd be open to other suggestions. GOtta' go; let me know what you think on this! - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All I can say about removing Dmitri's portrait is: good riddance! Surtsicna (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you were right there. I removed the link to Dmitri on Marina's coronation entry, as he's already linked in his own coronation entry; indeed, I think it looks pretty much now as you intended. I think it (the table, as a whole) is fantastic now; what do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy about it! We've spent a lot of time doing the table and it's worth it; all coronation ceremonies in Russia seem to be covered. Surtsicna (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I think personally I've spent more time on the table itself than on the rest of the article combined (or at least I feel that way--I imagine you probably do, too!!)!! Thanks for your imput and contributions; they definitely made it much better! When I get home this evening (God-willing), I plan to give it a "going over" with an eye toward getting it ready for GA nomination. If you wish to do the same, that'd be great! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A few more changes to the table: I finessed the entries for Catherine I and Peter I, as you can't really say their consorts (each other) were uncrowned, nor that they had no consorts. I worked it around this way and that, and I think I came up with about the best way of putting it that I could think of. Take a look, and tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea; you really can't say that their spouses were uncrowned. May I just propose shortening the explanation of Catherine I's coronation a bit - shortening consort to Peter I "The Great"; crowned as co-ruler in 1724; ruled in her own right after his death in 1725, without remarrying to consort to Peter I; crowned as his co-ruler; ruled alone after his death without remarrying? Her husband is already mentioned above with both his nickname and his monarchical ordinal and the date of her coronation is mentioned in the same entry, while the last part is simply shortened. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Well put. - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Surtsicna, I think this article is ready for GA nomination. If you (or anyone) see(s) anything that needs improving or changing, please feel free to make the change, or let me know and I'll do it. I figure the GA reviewer can also tell us if there's anything that would hold it back from GA status. Personally, I think it's ready. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominated. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coronation of the Russian monarch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

As a brief of the article, I find the References section to be a bit cumbersome. May I suggest an alternate citation style? In Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to present citations, I would suggest using shortened footnotes since there are many books cited several times in the references. Tea with toast (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me take a look at this over the next few days, and I'll see what I can do with it. Or, perhaps a different editor might want to have a "go" at it; references aren't my strong suit! But if nobody else addresses it, I'll try to see what I can do in the next few days. Did you find anything else that needs addressing? - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a swipe at what you said, though it still needs work; let me know if this is what you had in mind. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

more initial comments

1. I second TWT's opinion on the refs; not just the form but substance and quality. I see absolutely no point in linking to a fansite at tripod.com or angelfire when the topic itself has been professionally researched in and out. Looking at the latter ref in more detail, it appears that you use description of a single event (and a very abridged, incomplete one), as a generalization of any coronation. Not true even for the 19th century (e.g. you write "The new ruler made a great processional entrance on horseback into the city" but remember, the city grew in size and the railway point of entry was within the city - which raises the question how did they tailor the old tradition to new transportation?). I would advise to take any two contemporary detailed reports on coronations (archive.org definitely has it on Alexander I and Alexander III and then there are Schilder's official biographies with abridged descriptions) and do a line-by-line comparison. There are differences (Museum of Moscow Kremlin has a brief roundup of the differences in the regalia [1] but not the complete events). NVO (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   Nicholas II made the same basic processional entrance as his ancestors; maybe he "detrained" within Moscow and then left to some "assembly point" (as we used to say in the Army) outside the city, from which he ceremonially re-entered it? Whatever the case it seems, from what I've been able to find at least, that the Tsars did execute such a ceremonial entry into the city. But once I'm able to get back to this article (see below), I'll see what I can learn from the sources you mention. Or maybe in the meanwhile, some other editor will be able to do so. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Reliance on modern über-partisan sources ("Royal passion bearer": "Contrary to the popular, and widely taught, belief, Tsar Nicholas II cared for the Russian People" Oh really?) in my opinion discredits the article even when the sourced statements are correct and neutral. All this flattery was inevitable 100 years ago, now it's a red flag.

   I don't think it discredits the article at all, if, as you admit, "the sourced statements are correct and neutral." This article is not describing Nicholas II as a ruler or any of that; it's describing his coronation, and that of his predecessors. And BTW, not trying to start any fights here, but can you say that Nicholas II didn't care for the Russian people? On what basis do you say that? How do you know? I would agree wholeheartedly that Nicholas did a lousy job as Tsar, but can you say that he didn't care for the Russian people? That's a huge stretch, and I think there are several prominent biographers of the man--Robert Massie, Dominic Lieven, Edvard Radzinsky, Sergei Oldenburg and others--who would disagree rather sharply with you, while agreeing (as I do) that he wasn't up to the tasks that confronted him (but, as Winston Churchill observed, "pause, and tell me who else was found capable?" Churchill's comments on Nicholas II are worth reading). Again, not trying to start any fights, but I felt that needed to be said, here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   This is not the place to discuss the dead tsar, but I suspect you give Massie and Radzinsky a credit they never deserved. Oldenburg and Churchill, men of the good old times, are quite different. NVO (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   While I would never place Massie's and Radzinsky's works on a par with Lieven's and Oldenburg's, I don't think they (especially Massie's) were really all that bad: each conducted a fair amount of research; considering that they were writing popular history, not scholarly history, I don't think their finished products were all that poor--again, certainly not on a level with Oldenburg, Lieven or Churchill, but better by far than many other works (pro and anti-Nicholas) I have seen! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3. What is the scope of the article? As I understand, it mixes up two related concepts - the secular coronation (Russian: коронация) and it's part, religious coronation for tsardom (for the lack of a better word; Russian: венчание на царство). They are clearly not the same, just like "wedding" and the sacrament of matrimony aren't. Right now the lead is about a religious ceremony, the text is about the whole package.

   In Russia, they were the same. As a (now, former) Russian Orthodox Christian for twelve years, myself, I have heard (and participated in) many a discussion on the Orthodox abhorrance of the Western tendency to "compartmentalize" everything. To an Orthodox Christian (at least one who is tuned in to the more traditional expression of his or her faith), there is no real division between "sacred" and "secular;" all of life, for them, is meant to partake of an Orthodox ethos. For a Russian Orthodox Christian, there was no "secular" coronation to be distinguished from a "religious" one. There was one coronation, which was both religious and secular in nature, and that's what I've endeavored to describe here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   It's an extremely idealistic view of the past that none of us can reach ... medieval monastic ethos on one side, Khodynka Field on the other (Catholic painters and Lutheran architects in between). Think of the "average readers", are they ready to comprehend a text written from an unfamiliar idealistic perspective ? NVO (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   Again, not trying to be in any way "contrary," but this article was not written about "medieval monastic ethos," Khodynka Field, Catholic painters, or Lutheran architects. It was written to describe the Russian coronation ceremony, a ceremony that was shaped by a specific Russian Orthodox ideal of what the "true Christian state" (which Tsarist Russia imagined itself to be) and the "true Christian monarch" (which the Tsars imagined themselves to be) should be. You may assert that the Orthodox ideal of a world that is not compartmentalized between "sacred" and "secular" is "idealistic" and something that "none of us can reach" (I assmue this is what you were driving at with that comment), but there are thousands of Orthodox Christians, past and present, who would beg to differ--and the vast majority of them were not monastics. You and I might agree that the Tsars never really lived up to this ideal, but that is not the focus of this article--their coronation ceremony is. But we cannot describe that ceremony without describing the ideal that shaped it, regardless of whether this ideal was ever really achieved by any Russian ruler in the "real world." The ideal existed, and it shaped the content, wording and ritual of the Russian coronation ceremony. Thus, it needs to be described, together with its specific conneciton to the ceremony itself, which is precisely what I've tried (and Surtscina has tried; he's the other main editor for this article) to do here. If anything we've described herein in terms of the ceremony itself is incorrect, we'd welcome a correction (such as the very welcome ones you've already offered). However, I fail to see why the question of whether the ideal that underlay the ceremony was ever really achievable has anything whatsoever to do with the content of this article, or why it should form a valid objection. We might legitimately observe, in fact, that the ideal itself might have been eminently "reachable," given the right combination of ruler, ruled and circumstances--at least hypothetically. Furthermore, in terms of "average readers" and "unfamiliar perspectives," is it not the task of any good encyclopedia to familiarize "average" readers with "unfamiliar perspectives?" I agree the perspective is unfamiliar, and I've tried to do just as you said--So I guess I'm not understanding what you're driving at, in terms of the contents of this article. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

4. List of coronations: Where's Simeon Bekbulatovich? He was crowned, wasn't he?

   Don't know, but I'll surely try to find out! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

5. Portraits show monarchs at an old age, not the age of coronation. Wherever possible, please check for better fitting alternatives. Commons have portrait of Nicholas I circa. 1823 - much better than Kruger's 1852 portrait used. The coronation albums recommended in #1 seem to have everything, but they are too flattering, doctored beyond recognition.

   If one can find such portraits, then of course they should be used. Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal, but I'll see what I can do. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

6. If you stick to the "large" scope of coronation as a secular show, rather than a church sacrament, then there's a curious and quite wide topic of coronation art - from Ukhtomsky to Schechtel... NVO (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   Addressed above. In Russia, there was no "secular show" to be distinguished from a "church sacrament;" nor was there in most other European nations after their adoption of Christianity, at least not until recent developments that tended toward the secularization of those societies. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

7. Please check all the internal links - is the target (Sacred Mysteries) indeed what you wanted to link (looks more like Sacrament)?

   In the Orthodox Church, all sacraments are referred to as "Sacred Mysteries;" if you'll ask any Orthodox priest, he'll be glad to explain how they differentiate between the two. The distinction is mostly "mental," but it is there, at least for them. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   It is not a matter of how English-speaking Orthodoxes call it, it's a matter of the current state of the linked articles. Sacred Mysteries is in very poor shape and

   Evidently, the computer must have truncated your sentence here, as it seems to have been "chopped off" (that's happened to me before, too!). I think I understand your point; firstly, all Orthodox refer to them as "mysteries" and not "sacraments," even under the Eastern Orthodox section of the Sacrament article, the main article is given as Sacred Mysteries. I agree that the "Sacred Mysteries" article needs a lot of work, but I still believe the link should be there, as this is the term used by Orthodox to refer to their sacraments. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

8. Please check all image captions. As the uploader of File:Coronation 1896, walking under cover.jpg I cannot vouch that the photo was, indeed, taked after the sacrament. Maybe it was taken before? I'll check the book again but it is merely a photo album, a recent edition that may be incorrect itself. NVO (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   Nicholas is wearing the crown; thus, he couldn't be going to the coronation, as he wouldn't have been wearing the crown then. Clearly, he is coming from the ceremony. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I've gotten myself bogged down in another, non-Wikipedia project that will probably take some time for me to complete, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to address all of the issues raised here, at least not anytime soon. If no other editor is able to take these on, I'd say just fail the article for GA and maybe I (or some other editor, at some later time) can get to these issues (some of which I feel are very legitimate, others a bit less so--but that's just my opinion!) a few months from now when (hopefully) I get done with what I am doing now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to pass judgements; you can move this whole section elsewhere and let TWT proceed with their review. NVO (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor I, either. I hope you haven't taken anything I've said "personally," as none of it was ever meant as such. I think you made several excellent, valid points; I did not agree with all that you wrote, but I would never "trash" you for writing it. I hope nothing I've said has come across any other way; if it has, I sincerely apologize, as I never intended it to come across that way. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

After rewriting the above replies several times to try to make them best convey what I wished to say (I wrote the originals at work today, on my lunch [half] hour, and was extremely rushed!!), I wish to reiterate what I wrote above, about not meaning anything I've said against you personally, and sincerely apologizing if it seemed otherwise. We have each stated our opinions, and I respect yours--and your right to give it--as much as I'm sure you respect mine. I would never want you (or anyone) to feel that I was "trashing" you or your opinions, even if I disagree with them. Whatever I write is in the spirit of friendly discussion, never in bitterness or rancor. Some people might think it a bit silly of me to say this, but having seen the kinds of discussions that can ensue on Wikipedia (and, as a Christian), and knowing how emphatic I can get in defending a point I'm trying to make, I think it ought to be said nonetheless. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing issues raised

Several issues have been raised in this GA review; I wanted to provide a brief synopsis of progress or thoughts on each, so far:

• 1) References - I've shortened several of the references, as requested, changing the title of the former "references" section to "notes" and adding a new "references" section with titles of sources used in the shortened citations.
• 2) Differences between coronations - I wasn't able to find the sources mentioned in NVO's first objection, so I'm not sure what to do, there. If this fails the GA review, I fully understand. Perhaps another editor can provide some information. Everything I saw in my rather limited researc on this topic had me thinking that the ceremony was pretty much the same for every Tsar (including a book I saw several years ago in possession of an Orthodox priest; unfortunately, I don't recall its title, so I couldn't use it in this article!), but if this is not the case, I'd definitely welcome some imput from NVO (specific source information: website info, specific book titles, etc.) or someone else on the subject. NVO didn't provide any information on what was allegedly different, or any particular source info, so I don't know what to say. As I said, if this fails the GA nomination, I fully understand!
• 3) Scope of the Article - With all due respect to NVO, I don't think his objections to the article's scope were well-founded. I think those have been answered, though I'd welcome and consider a reply from anyone who thinks differently.
• 4) Simeon Bekbulatovich - I haven't been able to determine if Bekbulatovich was formally crowned or not; no picture was given for him, and the article's info is scanty. Since he isn't listed on the formal List of Russian monarchs, I see no reason to include him in this article, or to fail it for GA due to his omission.
• 5) Portraits - Don't see any reason to change them, as each portrait does depict the monarch named. If another editor wishes to replace a portrait of any particular monarch with one from an earlier period in their life, this is fine, but I don't see any reason for requiring it, or for failing the article for GA on that basis.
• 6) Internal links and image captions - Addressed above. Don't see any reason to fail it here, either; but the GA reviewer may feel differently on this or any other issue I've raised here, and I defer to and respect his judgment. These are simply my opinions, rightly or wrongly. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to issues raised

All numbered references are given as of the 24 March 2010 version.

First, I'm glad to see that the hearty discussion above was reasonably settled. I initially feared that I had stumbled upon an edit war, which is a quick-fail for GA review, but it looks like this is not the case, so have continued my review. To the list of issues above:

• Thank you for re-formatting the citation style! It's wonderful improvement! Thank you for your hard work.
• I'm not sure about the "Differences between coronations" issue, but as for the "Scope of the Article" issue, the aim of articles on Wikipedia is to summarize the various aspects of a topic in an appropriate level of detail, and so far, I think the article is adequately fulfilling that role.
• I think the images and the captions are appropriate. If a particular monarch has a nice "coronation image", use it, but I would prefer an clear, aesthetically pleasing image that gets the job done over a blurry, hard-to-discern-image even if the latter is more chronologically correct.

Serious issues that need to be addressed before a final review: References

I have concerns about the legitimacy of several references used in the article. Firstly, forums are not appropriate references: Ref 21 should be removed, the first link as a part of ref 12 I think may also not be appropriate. I am confused by ref 12 as a whole since it encompasses 3 url links. Please clarify this. I have marked other sources as "Full citation needed" (Refs 2, 11, 14, 19, 20, 22). I would like to see the authors/publishers given if possible. Some of the websites appear to be self-published, and I'm not sure how appropriate this is for wikipedia, so I may ask for a second opinion from another editor. I'll give you some time so that you can hopefully find better sources for some of the more questionable ones. Let me know when you think you've done all you can, and I'll revisit the article. Thank you for the work you have dedicated to this project thus far.--Tea with toast (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Final review: Article does not meet GA criteria

I'm sorry to see that the problems noted about the References have not been addressed in the weeks since I gave my preliminary review. For this reason, I find that this article does not meet the 2nd point of the good article criteria. I am sorry to have to fail such a nice article, and it is my sincere hope that changes will be made to improve this article in the future. --Tea with toast (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Kremlin Armoury 023.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kremlin Armoury 023.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reopening for GA review

I know that it's been four years since this article was last visited for GA review, but I thought I might reopen it and see what I could do. I will begin by revisiting the final entry from TWT's review (see above for the rest of the entries on this topic), where Tea with toast indicated the following "still needed" items (given in my words, here; see above for his full entry):

• 1) Remove references to forums, and replace with appropriate references.
• 2) Remove reference 21 altogether.
• 3) Address issues relative to reference 12.
• 4) Review references marked as "full citation needed," and correct appropriately.
• 5) Authors and/or publishers given for all sources, wherever possible.
• 6) Self-published websites are questionable, as to their appropriateness for Wikipedia.

I have started tonight by:

• 1) Providing a publisher for the Buxhoeveden book;
• 2) Removing reference 21 and the material it referred to.

I will be getting back to this over the next few days, and I'll make an effort to meet the (entirely legitimate) objections that were raised here four years ago, and we'll see if we can't get this moved on to the next level. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coronation of the Russian monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627113746/http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html to http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627113746/http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html to http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627113746/http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html to http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)