Talk:Nicholas II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Railway track

As regards that railway track - my source of information was "The Romanovs" by Robert K.Massie. He quotes Yurovsky as having given the precise location of that grave - "from where the railroad tracks cross [Koptyaki Road] they are buried about 700 feet in the direction of the Iretsk factory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arno (talk • contribs) 09:42, 19 September 2002 (UTC)

Missing

Arno have you ever seen that website that postulates that it's Tatiana that is missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.196.232 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 19 September 2002 (UTC)

No, tell me more. Arno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.104.25 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 September 2002 (UTC)

You never did reply, but I assume that you meant http://www.livadia.org/missing. The story there, whilst it does not quite jell with Massie's account, nonetheless was interesting. Accordingly, I've included Tatiana in the account for Nicholas II.

Arno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arno (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 October 2002 (UTC)

Yes that's what i meant - sorry for not replying - been sick of late.

Paul Melville Austin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.196.232 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 October 2002 (UTC)

English language names

As on english wiki we use english language versions of russian royal names, eg Nicholas II, it is logically absurd to use the russian version of Michael II. English language biographies call him Michael II not Mikhail II. We have got to show consistency. ÉÍREman 21:36 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Arno, you are wrong. The wikipedia Naming conventions for monarchs are explicit and unambiguous. Use the most common form of the name used in English. When it comes to monarchs, it is the english form of name that is used here if that is the general usage. Nicholas is ONLY called Nicholas II in english versions of Russian history. Michael is ONLY called Michael, not Mikhail. That is the agreed formula and the one I am using here.

In addition the version you created here (like the earlier one) is littered with grammatical mistakes, syntax errors and layout mistakes. I am reverting to the form uses the correct nomenclature as used on wiki for monarchs. Whether Russian names are used for non monarchs is irrelevant. Monarchical names are more complicated because they do not use surnames, so the clear unambiguous rule is to use the english name if that is the one english-speakers use. On Russian wiki you can use Russian names. Not here. ÉÍREman 04:40 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

I have put a detailed note [diff] explaining the situation on your talkpage. ÉÍREman 06:39 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

ÉÍREman, Arno did the same over at Romanov - used the Russian names for monarchs like Catherine the Great (Yekaterina) and Peter the Great (Pyotr) when they are most commonly known by the english versions. PMelvilleAustin 04:56 April 19, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, a couple of people have, not just me. Arno 11:17, 5 May 2003 (UTC)

I took out "Pyotr" 'cause ÉÍREman said the English 'pedia uses the English version of the name - and that is Peter the Great. PMelvilleAustin 05:09 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'll put the both of them in. Arno 11:17, 5 May 2003 (UTC)

Otherwise, we might have pages on Irish leaders referring to Liam MacCosgair (W.T. Cosgrave to the entire world), Maire Bean Mhic Robín (Mary Robinson), Pádraig MacPhiarsaigh (Patrick Pearse) and Gearóid Mór MacGearailt (Garret Mór Fitzgerald). On an Irish wiki it would be fine, but not on a non-irish speaking international one. The only exceptions are Irish language names that were used and so because de-facto english by English-speakers; Enya, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, etc. ÉÍREman 06:39 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Well, do that. There is nothing wrong with noting those Irish names in the articles concerned, as long as you do not give the article title that name.

I've now gone over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and what I had there before did not contradict what I had there before. It does say what I said above.

Speaking of Russian names, I'm a tad confused. Should the name of Alexis I and Nicholas'es (yes, I used English!) heir be Aleksey, Alexei or Alexis? You have not been consistent here. Arno 07:56, 29 April 2003 (UTC)

In his instance, Alexei is the version generally used. The use of an english version for the earlier tsar of the same name is nowhere as clear. Why, I don't know but different english versions are used in the earlier case, but primarily one in the case of Nicholas II's son. So I simply left the earlier monarch as it was, to allow someone else who might have more definitive information on the correct translation to add it in. In the case of Nicholas's son, Alexei is by far the widely used and recognised.

BTW monarchical titles are covered under a different naming convention; because so many monarchical names are so complex - often with multiple titles in many languages, etc - and so many monarchs either do not have surnames or have totally mysterious ones (Queen Victoria's surname was Wettin, Prince Charles's is Mountbatten-Windsor) different from the well known Royal House name, a totally different set of naming conventions apply which in effect take priority over all other conventions. This is because so many standard conventions are unworkable in the case of monarchs. Monarchical titles are covered in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) ÉÍREman 14:48 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Aleksey or Aleksei are the common modern transliterations from russian Cyrilic although since most people know Nicky's son as "Alexei" we have to go with that spelling. PMelvilleAustin 18:55 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Then use the translation consistently! At any rate, all of my references have referred to him as Alexis, NOT Alexei. Arno 12:41 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

He was generally known as Alexei in english, NEVER Alexis, which was a French version of his name. Occasionally the French version crept into usage in english, but it was incorrect. Alexei is the correct one. Alexis is unambiguously wrong. FearÉIREANN 18:17 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just don't agree, sorry. A simple Google search just now came up with 3500 examples of the name Alexis in use in relation to the Romanovs in English-language pages. That is hardly "NEVER" or "Unambigously wrong". The google search for Alexei revealed just 2920 entries. If you are going to stick to the most common English version, then use Alexis. It doesn't matter if Alexis came by way of France, Russia or Mars. It's the most common version and the name that writers about the Romanovs like Robert Massie have used. And it's the name that satisfies the criteria that you have so energetically promoted - the most comonly used English one.

Putting all that aside, why haven't you gone and 'corrected' the inconsistent use of this name? It's a point you have not addressed directly. Arno 203.51.28.16 08:15 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BTW Arno, PLEASE stop changing names to their Russian equivalent, such as Mikhail II. You have been told that on wiki we use the version of name generally used by english. And under the naming conventions past empresses are supposed to be referred to by marital title, not Russian regal title. FearÉIREANN 18:56, 12 July 2003 (UTC)

I have told you in turn to stop prohibiting other users from using or referring to non-English names in the articles!!! I have also told you that the rule does not ban references to non-English names, or to say what that name is referred to in other languages. But I just do not seem to be able to get through to you here. You have displayed a truly astonishing stubbornness on this point.

Contrary to what you've said, some English accounts do refer to the 'last' emperor as Mikhail II. 50 English webpages do, anyway, according to a google search I just did. In other words, (yours), " [Some] English language biographies [do] call him Michael II not Mikhail II, [but others do not]". The square bracket bits are, of course, my additions.

Could I ask you when do you or Mr Austin propose to change Mikhail Gorbachev to Michael Gorbachev, and to frustrate any upstart who tries to say in the article that he is referred to in Russia as Mikhail Gorbachev? I'm curious! After all, you've objected to the idea of Mary Robinson being called Maire Bean Mhic Robín. On the other hand, and I am very puzzled by this, you've just created an article called Seán Ó Muireagáin - ie using Irish spelling. You cannot have this both ways!

Yet, a google search has Gorbachev referred to as such in 781 English articles, as opposed to the 67,300 articles that refer to him as Mikhail. If you are going to disregard the above Alexis result, then you'll need to disregard this one too and change Gorbachev to Michael Gorbachev. After all, it is consistent with Mary Robinson.

All that your work on this page has ultimately accomplished has been to remove and rephrase one sentence. The article never referred to him as Nikolai except in that one sentence, but you seem unable to acknowledge even this.

In summary, your stance on this issue is based on some false assumptions about the use of non-English names and a debatable interpretation of a wikipedia rule and not applied consistently elsewhere over the two or so months that have lapsed since you began this campaign here (something that has certainly damaged the acceptablity of your statements).

BTW You are no doubt going to say that the rule does not cover user names, but , as an exercise in general practicality, isn't it time you stopped using Irish Gaelic to cover your real user ID? It always was a bit irritating, but in the above context, it's just plain annoying. Insult to injury, so to speak. Written on the 85th anniversary of Nicholas/Nikolai's assassination ( at least by local time) Arno 203.51.28.16 08:15 17 Jul 2003 (UTC) Arno 08:16 17 Jul 2003 (UTC) [reworded 10:54, 26 July 2003 (UTC) Arno]

Oh come on Arno - Gorbachev is overwhelminly known by English speakers as Mikhail Gorbachev. Anybody who calls him Michael Gorbachev is going to get either an odd look or be subjected to hysterical laughter and pointing. The situation with Nicholas II is the reverse ; you are confusing English names with English usage. Wikipedia aims to follow the dominant English usage as a general rule. The single reference to the Russian form of the tzar's name is more than enough. --mav 11:06 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Except that JTDirl has some trouble recognising even this. That what I had there originally. Nicholas'es name was Nikolai - calling him Nicholas as though that was his real name is as absurd as the Michael Gorabachev example you've rightly criticised.

What are your thoughts on the Alexis/Alexei/Aleksey business - and the google search technique? Arno 11:29 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Again - the name used by most English speakers when referring to him is Nicholas not Nikolai. Same for Gorbachev; English speaker call him Mikhail not Michael. This is about usage not about whether or not the actual word is in English. However this only really affects the more famous examples - we should not make up an English name for people who are not known by that name. Google can give you an idea but I would defer at least a bit to what a real historian has to say (that's not me - but JT is one - so is 172 and JHK). --mav —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 July 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but reference should be made to what his real name was! The interpretation by JTD argue against that. You're supporting a fallacy here! Arno 08:23, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

His real name isn't Nicolai either. As I recall, he spelled it in the Cyrillic alphabet. --Tb 16:05, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It was as spelt using English lettering! Arno 06:50, 31 July 2003 (UTC)

Uh-uh! And where in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) article does it say "Thou shalt not use non-English names in articles about people?" Arno 11:15, 5 May 2003 (UTC)

It says it clearly at the very start.

In general, use the most common form of the name used in English

Normally in practice we use the version of the name most recognised by Engish-language users. That does not mean the english language version, if the native language version is widely used in english, eg. Wilhelm II, Carlos, Franz-Josef. But none of the names you used are used generally in english language histories. Translations are invariably used. Nicholai is not used, Nicholas is. So that is the version wiki used, having debated the issue and reached that conclusion. ÉÍREman 18:30 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

(Of course Nicholai is not used - Nikolai is!)

More seriously, the rule you refer to above says "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem."

It does not forbid references to the original native names within the articles themselves. I have used Nicholas throughout this article, but have referred him once as Nikolai. You say that even this is not on - I say that its pedantric nonsense! Arno 12:41 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

POV paragraph

Regicide is a tactic traditionally employed by successful social revolutions against monarchic despotism -- as in the English Revolution, with the execution of Charles I in 1649, and the French Revolution with the execution of Louis XVI in 1793. It also occurs spontaneously throughout history with refreshing frequency, as if history agreed with the Enlightenment aphorism sometimes attributed to Voltaire that humanity would not be free until the last king had been strangled in the entrails of the last priest.

I moved this paragraph here for POV work. It's unworthy of Wikipedia as it now stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollinator (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 July 2004 (UTC)

Footnotes

Footnotes 1Nicholas's full title was Nicholas the Second, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan, Poland ....

Emperor = Tzar Tzar = King

jarro_1969@op.pl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.245.167 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 September 2004 (UTC)

How many people were killed in the coronation disaster?

The article claims 'several thousand' although I would dispute this. Most historians, for instance J.N. Westwood, agree that it was hundreds rather than thousands that were killed. The only notable historian who puts the figure at over a thousnad is John Hite in his book 'Czarist Russia 1801-1917,' and still this is only 'over a thousand,' not several thousand as the article claims. Sorry if this sounds pedantic. SilhouetteSaloon 02:52, 15 February 2005 (UTC)

competent ruler?

The sentence "Although by most accounts a kind and competent ruler..." sounds quite hard to believe (the competency bit) seeing how flow of history. I guess "most accounts" are extremely biased, this or that way (and given post-war development they are biased against).

Shoudn't this phrase be removed or replaced by qualified opinion of professor of history? Pavel Vozenilek 19:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree - his kindness is questionable, at best (he was personally kind, I guess, but his rule certainly was not). His competence isn't even that - he was utterly incompetent by every measure. I wonder how that got in there. john k 20:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. (1) It is opinion rather than a fact, (2) the wording "by most accounts" is ambiguous, (3)competency is mostly matter of results, not an intrinsic property written on somebody's head, and Nicholas results were less than stellar, in retrospective. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who forced him to abdicate?

Does anyone know who it was who/what forced him to abdicate? I can't find anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applegirl (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Nicholas II chose to abdicate after the great February 1917 strikes in Saint Petersburg. He was away at the front and hatred of the czarina Alix was pretty much universal. The soldiers sent out to crush the strikers instead fraternised with them. With Nicholas gone, authority collapsed and so the strikers (who were pretty much every one in Saint Petersburg by now!) asked the Duma members to support them. They enthusiastically agreed, even though the czar had dissolved it before he left to become Commander in Chief. Nicholas was hurrying home when the Duma delegates went to him and told him of the situation.

First he abdicated in favour of his son Alexei. When he realised that if he escaped, Alexei would be left at the hands of the new provisinal government as a puppet, he abdicated in favour of himself and his son, offering the throne to his brother Michael. Michael refused, and the 300 year rule of the Romanovs had been brought to and end.

Hope it helps! James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.66.70 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The article's summary (the beggining) says he was forced to abdicate after the Bolshevik revolution, contradicting the "Revolution and abdication" 'part' of the same article: "At the end of the "February Revolution" of 1917 (February in the old Russian calendar), on 2 March (Julian Calendar)/ 15 March (Gregorian Calendar), 1917, Nicholas II was forced to abdicate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.172.12.171 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

From my vague recollection of Robert K. Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra, I believe he was forced to abdicate not by a person, but by circumstance and his inherently noble nature. The suprisingly gentle advice given by well-meaning (but ultimately "in over his head") Alexander Kerensky also had some influence. (Kerensky went on to briefly serve as PM under the new but short-lived Provisional Government.) The circumstances enumerated by Massie was a laundry list - there are also a number of sources online attesting to same. [1]

M. Buenviaje 00:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Coronation

Since his coronation was the first event filmed in Russia, a link to a video of it should be added to the external links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.129.10 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A. Bushkov as a source

I've read A.Bushkov Red Monarch (Красный Монарх, it is about Stalin's rise to power), I seriously doubt about the credibility of his theory.

I know nothing about other sources, confirming his findings, but the Red Monarch is a terrible mess, he is not satified with merely reporting some unflattering facts, but he supplements that with very generous name-calling. For that particular fact he cites no sources, but I admit that I did not read any of his references, but he tells that Nicholas and Prince George of Greece got drunk and went hitting bells in Shintoist temple with a stick, the locals were outraged, and one policeman lost conttrol. But for me it is his say-so, because he called Nicholas so many names, that his book would lose half of its content if you just filter words "idiot", "fool", "unworthy" and "spineless" from sentences involving Romanovs, I'm just not content with accepting facts from a name-caller.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please refferrence me a few of these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.129.10 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This one is a loose translation of one pargaraph, suprisingly the source is found on Internet [2](certainly in Russian). I have a lent a hardcopy from a friend, so I can not find out get the numbers until I see the book again, but if you get remarks like "как называть этого козла в короне?!", " на престоле оказался тряпка Николай", "Николай II был бездарностью поразительной.", you hardly can refer serious people to such source. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 18:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

But this one is just my opinion, I just see name-calling as a symptom of extreme POV. So I would like to see some other people agreeing with him, essentially I do not want the article to directly refer to one source, written with POV. If there are other, or there are sources for such findings, we can refer to it with better confidence, or at least we do not have one guy to refer to.

By all means I want his name out of Nicholas' biography, unless it [his book] did a really serious impact on his perception, etc.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 19:51-23:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Historian A. Bushkov speculates that the attack might be due to the actions of Nicholas in a Shintoist temple. Ignorant of local custom and proper conduct in the temple, his actions would brought upon the indignation of many of the locals, offending the honor of one such native that resulted in the aforementioned attack.

I've moved this mention here, unless anyone has a support for this source. It is confirmed that that person was a policeman on the Internet, but the improper conduct in Shintoist temple is not confirmed.

To be used here Bushkov must have some sources like memoirs or something, published this in some article or book on some more serious note, or got accepted by historian community, whatever. Otherwise this can be mentioned in Buskov's personal article on Wikipedia, if anyone wants to write it. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 15:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Come on guys, the Bolsheviks! For instance, Lenin and Trotsky? Yeah, they, among a few other Bolshevik leaders, forced Nicholaus out of power and sent him into exile, where he was later killed with his family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I advise against using Bushkov as a source. He's not a historian per se, although he is a good fiction writer. With respect, Ko Soi IX 12:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tsar title abolishment

Someone anonymously added the following into the article:

This article formerly noted that the title Tsar had been officially abolished in 1721 by Peter the Great but was informally used throughout Nicholas's reign. In actuality, Peter never abolished the title. Rather, on 22 October 1721 Julian/3 November 1721 Gregorian, pursuant to a stirring speech by the archbishop of Pskov, Senate Chancellor Golovkin urged--indeed, begged--the then "Tsar Peter" to accept the enhanced title, "Peter the Great, Father of His Country, Emperor of All the Russias." (Let us record passim that the annominative "I" following Peter the Great's name (that is to say, "Peter I") was utterly unnecessary until a second Peter arose: more specifically, Peter Alexeyevich, son of Peter's murdered son, ascended the throne as a teenager on 6 May 1727 Julian/17 May 1727 Gregorian.

Please check if it's correct, and then work it into the article - in the above words it doesn't belong into the article itself. andy 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Brother

Nicholas II's brother is often referred to as Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaievitch to distinguish him from czar Nicholas II.

I'm new hope I'm welcome

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.66.70 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Burial

Why there is not any mention about the "final" burial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.153.123 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

English and Russian versions

Russian and English versions of this article are completely different. Someone should try and make the best use of both materials either by combining them or by giving "both" versions of the text...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.238.216 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Execution and murder

Shooting someone in a basement without trial is not an execution, but murder. By killing the non-members of the family as well, like the doctor, cook, and others, this fact is further reinforced. The murderers obviously needed to get rid of the witnesses. Any attempt to call the events of July 16/17 an execution, is simple bolshevik propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.252.186 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It was an execution according to an order. Buy yourself a better dictioary. Also, I've never heard about a cook and a doctor and a butler and a second butler and a bedroom maid dragged along with tsar. mikka (t) 16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, it is an established historical fact that along with the Tsar's wife and children, others were murdered with them on July 16/17, 1918. They included: Dr. Botkin, Demidova, Khartinov, and Trupp. Even the chief murderer, Yakov Yurovsky, makes mention of some of them in his recollection of the events. I declined to include the little dog that was with them, and probably killed as has been reported, because my point was not to make inflammatory propaganda, but rather to state (on the discussion page), why I made the edit. Why did you add "a butler and a second butler and a bedroom maid dragged along with (the)(sic) tsar," into this discussion. Where did they come from? And why did YOU add them? One can only wonder. I did not. If you agree that others were "put to death", were they on the "execution order" also? If they were not on the "execution order", why were they killed? Please answer these questions, if you can. P.S. I hope you are not getting your information from " better dictioary" (sic), because I'm not only getting mine from other sources than the DICTIONARY, but invite others to judge your, and my remarks. p.p.s. You really need to get in touch with Vladimir Posner, to help you with your spelling and grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.252.130 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I am wrong. So, these people must be mentioned here by name in the article itself, not on the talk page. Also, I apologize for the flaming tone. Also, I see no problem, if this event be described both as and execution and murder, since these are descriptions of different aspects (In fact I myself added the phrase into the intro: He is also known both as Nicholas the Martyr for having been murdered without trial...). What is more, the event, the history of its concealement, and discovery deserve a separate article. My only objection was a one-sided evaluation. Monarchs have been killed all over history: murdered, poisoned, stabbed, beheaded, etc.. It comes with the profession, so to say, so I see no reason of over-exhalted treatment of this case. mikka (t) 19:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that it might be acceptable to say that Nicholas himself was executed, even without trial, since the Bolsheviks immediately announced his execution and said that they had done so, and so forth. The other killings seem much closer to murder than to execution. john k 20:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not revert my earlier edits concerning "murder vs. execution", IN THE ARTICLE, back to my original statements, in view of this unscholarly (not you john k), resistance to my interpretations of events. However, I am again reverting the heading EXECUTION, back to DEATH, which covers the topic neutrally.

To Mr. Kenney, other monarchs have been executed, e.g., Charles I of England, Louis XVI of France, etc., after trials (not necessarily fair ones, but trials nonetheless). In any case, the bolsheviks did not immediately announce the murders (nor did they later reveal the rest of the killings, for some time). It's probably fair to say that most of the details about the event, from their side, did not come out until after the fall of the Soviet Union. In truth, the bolsheviks attempted to obsfuscate what happened for as long as they could, probably for fear of the internal and external reactions, and to a lesser degree, world opinion. They issued their bulletins about these events cautiously and a little later. During this time of the "Civil War", public opinion still mattered, even to them. On a moral level, if political terrorists illegitimately murder someone without trial, and immediately announce this, and "that they had done so, and so forth", does not make that act an execution. I do not want a digression into semantics, to interfere with the logic of my agrument. Lastly, I want to say even though I'm not a Russian, or a monarchist, that this brutal and illegitimate murder does repel me deeply. I am happy to see that the Russian government and Russian people have taken steps to correct the history of this ugly event in recent times. I hope the neutral aspect of the heading 'Death', rather than "Murder" vs. "Execution" stays in, keeps all parties satisfied, and I will leave my earlier inclusions of murder, and deletions of executions out. <unsigned> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.7.91 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bolsheviks did try to obfuscate, but they did admit immediately that the Tsar himself had been killed, and that it had been done in an official context (I do believe they tried to pin the blame on the Ekaterinburg Soviet rather than the central authorities, though). As to the details, most of the details of the killings themselves were exposed by the Whites, who investigated the matter during the period they had control of Ekaterinburg in 1918-19. The role of Moscow, though, did remain rather obscure for some time. Anyway, it is complicated, and I think using the term "killing" or "death" rather than either "murder" or "execution" would make sense. john k 04:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't split hairs over what immediately means, although I still think the "announcement" took some time to be made, and was kind of hidden as an unimportant and small news event. The "execution order" of the "Soviet Government", was essentially a telegram written by Lenin that he gave to his bodyguard, and I believe was not written in plain language, but somewhat cryptically and metaphorically. I'm not completely certain of this, but I am certain that there was not any message to "execute" the above mentioned people (Botkin, et al.) I also lightly disagree with you that they announced it in an official context. Regardless, calling a spade a spade, Nicholas and these people were not charged with anything, they were not put on trial, and they were killed in secret, in the middle of the night, and then secretly disposed of. Kind of reminiscent of gangster or gangland slayings, don't you think? As far as I'm concerned, this fits the pattern of the "Soviet Government" in a historical context. It only got worse, and these deaths preceeded the millions that followed. Some people called these later mass murders, "executions", and that they were " legally" sanctioned by the "Soviet Government" (after confessions were obtained, mind you), and others call them killings and murders. I guess one can take their pick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.246.177 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Christchurch's edit of the 21st Sept. says “This is, however, disputed by telegraphic evidence and the Sokolov Report” directly contradicts eyewitness reports, so should be clarified - I'd like a reference or link for the telegraphic evidence. Is he talking about the tone of the telegraphs sent months before the event? I believe the official line was that there are no direct orders from Moscow to dispose of the Romanovs, and that telegraph lines to moscow were down at the time, meaning they had to seek permission well after the fact. Also, I believe the Sokolov report was compiled by White Russians, who's political interests were best served by villifying the Central Executive Commitee. This should probably be made clear. 82.39.156.12 07:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Family

When did we lose the section with his kids??? Prsgoddess187 13:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

According to this article, the Romonovs' bodies were disposed of on July 16th, but they were shot by a firing squade on July 17th. Does that not make sense to anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.53.131.154 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

-sorry for this comment, i was incredibly confused... it refers to another article, not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.53.50.223 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant the part of the article that listed his children. I am almost sure I remember seeing one in there somewhere, but I didn't on the 9th so I added one in. Thanks. Prsgoddess187 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

First off, it was not to get rid of evidence, it was to make sure that his numerous supporters didn't use force to get him back on the throne.

Secondly, Anastasia made it out... she lives with us, she is my grandmother. dont tell anyone though, she likes that it is a secret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Three of the five were determined to be the children of two parents". Should it read "of the same two parents"? If not what where the other two children, clones? Sharm 14:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Of the five related bodies, two were the parents, and three were their children. - Nunh-huh 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. Sharm 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I heard that the Romanovs were actually lined up for a family photo and the soldiers acting as guards just lit them up. Is there any truth to this? alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.7.235 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removed vandalism ("Nicholas, known as Tron in the streets of A-town ghetto... fearing the Mr. T dynasty) from Family Background section. This s my first time ever contributing to Wikipedia, I hope I did it correctly. --Herculessju —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herculessju (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope that you enjoy it and that you stay. Prsgoddess187 18:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

-I removed some vandalism too. Someone claimed that "he married me" in between Princess and Helene. -(I'm new to wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.106.107 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In two places this page appears to have been vandalised by someone who has called Nicholas II "Jedi Master Nicholas II of all Japanese Citizens". I've been unable to edit this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.66.144 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps these are valid constitutional terms which have passed me by, but "He ruled his tiny cock from 1894 until his forced neuter in 1917" seems like vandalism to me. I've removed it. -Scott D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.74.129 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone else got there first. Good to see other eagle-eyed users out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.74.129 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I spelled "fervor" correctly, and I am new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.7.235 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Painting of Nicholas

What happened to the previous painting of Nicholas II? I believe it was similar to [3]? The new image seems to have been added by User:Admrboltz, in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshfisher (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Succession

I changed the succession box to show Nicholas II was the last emperor of Russia. There was NO Michael II, as Michael did not ever actually take up the position. He wavered but declined.

The succession box should read: End of the Romanov dynasty, not Michael II.

Who's ever heard of Michael II anyway? It's wrong and misleading. -James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.64.155 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.71.128 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused. The box not about dynasty, it's about emperor of russia. the notion of emperor is quite disputed. i'd say that section in Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia descibes it in all details. --tasc 08:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Nicholas offered the throne, but Michael declined! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.80.115 (talk • contribs) 09:28-09:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Abdication is not about offer. it's about will! --tasc 09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

But how can you call him Michael II if he never actually became emperor? It's like calling the Prince of Wales Charles III before his mother died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.184 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael II. Protected

I have protected the page. Please discuss if we want to have a few hours of Michael II's reign to be included in the succession box or not. It is kind of nice to start the Dynasty with Michael I and finish with Michael II, although the "reign" of the later was measured in hours (if not minutes) abakharev 08:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

it hasn't been measured in minutes (and it's well known). question of wheather he reigned is well discussed in his article. --tasc 08:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

it might be nice to start off with Michael I and end with another Michael but he did not ever reign. He wavered but DECLINED the throne - he never took up the job so how can he have been called Michael II, much less emperor of Russia? Anyway if he were to be called emperor he should be Michael IV, where on earth did you get Michael II from? - James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.80.115 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would he become 4th? Before he declined he might have been considered complitely sound emperor. --tasc 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The succession table actually goes through all the phases of Russian goverment in 1917 and leads to the creation of the Soviet Union. You can not just say the Russian Empire ended.

[interjection] The Russian empire in its old tsarist sense did indeed end. ~James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.184 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I never heard anybody call him Michael IV. Assuming Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov is counted as Michael III, who is counted as Michael I and II? We have articles on Mikhail of Vladimir and Mikhail Yaroslavich but both men were Grand Princes of Vladimir-Suzdal while the numbering of Russian rulers otherwise follows that of the Grand Princes of Moscow. User:Dimadick 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The two Mikhails who preceded Michael Romanov were Michael I and II - look it up in any good Russian history book and it will tell you. ~James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.184 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

They have never been tsars! they were grand dukes. --tasc 08:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that Michael never reigned. He declined the throne. As a de jure matter, it's not clear either, since it's not clear whether Nicholas had the right to abdicate on behalf of his son. Nicholas II was succeeded directly by the Provisional Government. john k 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas was actually violating his own consititution of 1906 by not allowing Alexei to become tsar. I propose a succession box showing the following:

~James 130.216.191.184 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your infobox is planly wrong. Nikolai's abdication wasn't followed by provisional goverment creation, it's hasn't been mention anywhere but in Mikhail's abdication manifesto. --tasc 08:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor was Nicholas's abdication followed by the reign of Grand Duke Michael. And Michael's manifesto was not about abdication (how could he if he'd never been tsar?) it was about his refusal of the throne. -James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.75.28 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael never abdicated. He did not accept the crown. And of course Nicholas's abdication was followed by the creation of the Provisional Government, even if there was a pause for a few hours while Rodzianko, et al, talked thinks over with Michael. But there was no effective government during this brief period - it was an interregnum. If Michael had accepted the throne, he would have become retroactively emperor from the moment of his brother's abdication. But since he didn't, that means that nobody was Emperor during that period. john k 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael was never crowned, never abdicated and never reigned. Nicholas II was the last Emperor of Russia. Please stop this pointless dispute. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you john k and Ghirla, you are correct. Nicholas's abdication was followed by the creation of a provisional government, even if it wasn't immediate. But we really don't need to be splitting hairs over that do we? - James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.75.28 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We do actually. The article on Grand Duke Michael explains the entire situation and then points to both the Provisional Goverment and the following claimants to the title of the Emperor of Russia. Nicholas article does not at this point. The succession table as modified by James renders it useless as it does not reflect the flow of events but skips an important point, does not directly mention Georgy Evgenyevich Lvov himself and does not lead to the following Romanov pretenders.

The phrase that lend legality to the Provisional goverment was not the abdication of Nicholas II but the manifesto of Michael. "Therefore, calling on God's blessing, I ask all citizens of the Russian State to obey the provisional government which has been formed and been invested with complete power on the initiative of the State Duma, until a Constituent Assembly, to be convened in the shortest possible time on the basis of general, direct, equal, secret ballot, expresses the will of the people in its decision on a form of government."

Second point, what does crowning have to do with anything? By monarchical theory, succession is immediate upon death or abdication. Nicholas II became Emperor from the moment his father died , not on his coronation date. All coronation does is confirm the status quo or a claim to the throne in cases like Lambert Simnel. Who was after all crowned in Christchurch Cathedral, Dublin as "King Edward VI". User:Dimadick 15:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Coronation is obviously irrelevant. But that doesn't change the fact that Michael was never Emperor. He refused to take the throne, and, as you note, called on citizens to support the Provisional Government. The so-called "legality" of the Provisional Government is utterly irrelevant. It is its status as the undisputably recognized de facto government of Russia that gives it legitimacy, not any statement from Michael, whose legal status as head of the Romanov house was, in any event, disputable (as noted before, Nicholas was not allowed to abdicate on behalf of his son). I would point you to the situations in France in 1830 and 1848. In 1830, Charles X abdicated in favor of his son, the Dauphin, who thus can be said to have theoretically become, briefly Louis XIX, before he immediately abdicated in favor of his nephew, the Duc de Bordeaux, who may have thus theoretically become Henri V. However, the revolutionary forces and their more conservative legislative allies never explicitly recognized Henri V, and instead proclaimed the Duc d'Orléans as Lieutenant General of the Kingdom. Some days later Orléans proclaimed himself King Louis Philippe I. In 1848, Louis Philippe abdicated in favor of his grandson, the Duc d'Orléans. This youthful prince was never recognized by the Chamber, but his grandfather's abdication occurred rather before the proclamation of the provisional government of the Second Republic. It is to be added that in neither case was there an abdication or a renunciation of the throne. Why should Michael II, who refused the throne, be listed, and not Louis XIX and Henri V? I would say that none of them should be listed, because they were de jure and not de facto rulers. (I'd say the same probably goes for Napoleon II as well, although I'd have to read more details on the June 22-July 7, 1815 period between the abdication of Napoleon I and the second restoration of Louis XVIII to be sure. john k 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The succesion box above is more correct than having Michael II on it. This isn't really something we can dispute - it's a fact that Michael was never emperor! James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.191.184 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

It looks like the consensus is to put the Succession Box into the Provisional Government, ignoring Michael. We might put additional comments on the Michael II in the text of the article explaining the matter. Any objections? abakharev 22:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I have put the new succession box and unprotected the article. abakharev 00:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First World War

Not really a biggie I know, but the First World war was not the largest international war to date - that was the Second World War. I did change the text from "It is said that Nicholas proved unable to manage a country in political turmoil and command its army in the largest international war to date" to "It is said that Nicholas proved unable to manage a country in political turmoil and command its army in the First World War" but someone decided to change it back <sigh>, so I have to go and edit it again. - James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.81.95 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I believe you're mistaken. WW2 is the largest international war to date, but prior to WW2 it was not the largest internation war to date. With respect, Ko Soi IX 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording made it sound as if WW1 was the largest international war there has ever been, then and since. Keep it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.88.195.108 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Full title

I say that we should add his full title, as stated on the page tsar

According to the article 59 of the Russian Constitution of April 23, 1906, "the full title of His Imperial Majesty is as follows: We, ------ by the grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauric Khersones, Tsar of Georgia, Lord of Pskov, and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalia, Samogitia, Białystok, Karelia, Tver, Yugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgaria, and other territories; Lord and Grand Duke of Nizhni Novgorod, Chernigov; Ruler of Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Beloozero, Udoria, Obdoria, Kondia, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and all northern territories ; Ruler of Iveria, Kartalinia, and the Kabardinian lands and Armenian territories - hereditary Ruler and Lord of the Cherkess and Mountain Princes and others; Lord of Turkestan, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Oldenburg, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. 129.8.249.10 16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy to assassinate the Romanovs

please discuss here instead of deleting the whole POV (point of view) described in this category please. thank you. Pepitopax 17:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

do you understand that the section you're inserting is totally insane? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the claims made in this section are a little out there, so before we resort to personal attacks. Pepitopax - Are there any reliable sources for the material that you are inserting? Prsgoddess187 18:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, referenced here for example please feel free to propose some edits or tidy up, but don't just delete a whole referenced section. Thank you. I'm new here and yet I seem to be following the rules better than veterans. Please stop the reverting, I am open to discussion, and would like this wikipedia service to be respected so that it can offer the quality that it has the potential for. Please be constructive, give advice, help meet standards. But please don't just be destructive. Pepitopax 19:00-19:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a source, but a very POV one. Do you have any sources that are NPOV? Prsgoddess187 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This "International Jewry killed the Tsar" theory needs to be either [1] purged from the article, or [2] attributed to whichever antisemite came up with it. Please provide the appropriate required citations, or the unattributed theory will be removed from the article. - Nunh-huh 19:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, since almost all sources are POV. Here is another source, and NPOV http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4277 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepitopax (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Anonymous Andy and Daryl Bradford Smith" are not appropriate "sources": their opinions are completely irrelevant, as they themselves have no credentials, importance, or reputation, and a cursory look at the page you cite indicates they are not terribly careful with facts - the page is riddled with errors and lies. - Nunh-huh 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies - John Robison - 1798 The Life of Napolean - Sir Walter Scott - 1827 Coningsby - Benjamin Disraeli - 1844 The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Martin Malia - 1848 Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry - Albert Pike - 1872 The Rothschilds, Financial Rulers Of Nations - John Reeves - 1887 The Jews and Modern Capitalism - Werner Sombart - 1911 Great Britain, The Jews, and Palestine - Samuel Landman - 1936 Pawns In The Game - William Guy Carr - 1937 Inside The Gestapo - Hansjurgen Koehler - 1940 Barriers Down - Kent Cooper - 1942 The Mind Of Adolf Hitler - Walter Langer - 1943 The Empire Of The City - E. C. Knuth - 1946 The Jewish State - Theodor Herzl - 1946 The Curious History of the Six-Pointed Star - G. Scholem - 1949 Secrets Of The Federal Reserve - Eustace Mullins - 1952 Tales Of The British Aristocracy - L. G. Pine - 1957 Red Fog Over America - William Guy Carr - 1958 A Jewish Defector Warns America (Spoken Word Recording) - Benjamin H. Fredman - 1961 The Rothschilds - Frederic Morton - 1962 The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations (Spoken Word Recording) - Myron Fagan - 1967 Ben-Gurion: The Armed Prophet - Michael Bar-Zohar - 1967 The Hidden Tyranny - Benjamin Freedman - 1971 None Dare Call It Conspiracy - Gary Allen - 1972 The Gulag Archipelago, Vol. 2, Parts 3 and 4 - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - First English translation published 1975. Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler - Anthony C. Sutton - 1976 The Rosenthal Document - Walter White, Jr. - 1978 Two Rothschilds And The Land Of Israel - Simon Schama - 1978 The Six Pointed Star - Dr O. J. Graham - 1984 The Last Days In America - Bob Fraley - 1984 Who Owns The TV Networks - Eustace Mullins - 1985 The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy - Seymour M. Hersh - 1991 A History of the Jews in America - Howard M. Sachar - 1992 Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S. Israeli Relationship - Paul Findley - 1993 Descent Into Slavery - Des Griffin - 1994 Bloodlines Of The Illuminati - Fritz Springmeier - 1995 Jewish History, Jewish Religion - Israel Shahak - 1994 Satan Speaks - Anton Szandor LaVey - 1998 The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK - Robert Gaylon Ross - 2001 Never Again? The Threat Of The New Anti-Semitism - Abraham H. Foxman - 2004 The Elite Don’t Dare Let Us Tell The People - Robert Gaylon Ross - 2004 Codex Magica - Texe Marrs - 2005. Well, those are some of the actual sources Pepitopax 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So you say. But until you make actual citations rather than list a bibliography, we have no way of verifying it. And you'll have to suggest how we can attribute the "theory": "a rag-tag hodge-podge of antisemites, satanists, and conspiratory theorists have written...."? - Nunh-huh 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC). P.S. I think it's quite certain that the KJV of the Bible had nothing to say on the assassination of Nicholas II, don't you? - Nunh-huh 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll check it out ASAP and add citations. I do wish those articles had a more concise bibliography. Any advice on finding actual citations? thanks Pepitopax 01:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My sincere advice is for you to not spend much time doing so. That a random nut-job holds an opinion doesn't make it necessary to include that opinion in an encyclopedia article (except, perhaps, about the nut-job). No responsible historian believes these theories, so they are probably inappropriate in any case for this article: including bizarre theories as though they were reasonable is misleading, and that's not what an encyclopedia should be. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The people who propagate these theories are usually of the neo-Nazi, reactionary, king-loving, and backwoods militia "the government is coming to get my guns" type. One can rewrite history to fit any perspective, especially from the vantage point of the "Elders of Zion." Like Nunh-huh said, "that a random nut-job holds an opinion doesn't make it necessary to include that opinion in an encyclopedia article." I propose to delete this nunsense. Kozlovesred 01:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Holy Bible? Is it still wikipedia? Citation of holy bible to prove smth.? not to mention event of 20th century! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 07:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to consider who and which corporations actually funded Hitler. I think fascism and antisemitism are disgusting, just like any racial or other form of hatred. If we ignore facts of history, it will just repeat itself. I think one must remain cautious and keep an open mind on these matters. It would be good to check these stories, and see what actual reliable information can be gathered. Churchill apparently commented on international financier conspriration, so it's not just some anti-zionist diatribe. Again, it is actually dificult to find any specific information as such. This on a vast array of issues. So how does one check stories? If one just deleted information because it wasn't detailed enough in it's sources and that those are biased, then at least half the information on wikipedia would have to be removed. When people say reliable sources, this is another problem. Politicians lie and so do corporations and even some organisations. So how would one filter these? Take the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 for example, a reliable source some may say and yet outrageously incorrect. I don't know why so many people say that to criticise financial or corporate entities is antisemitic, surely the search for truth in the matters of who started wars and who put which politician in power etc. is prosemitic since it has the objective of preventing such occurences to repeat themselves. I think one needs to be very careful in dismissing these matters. As someone correctly pointed out, it would be useful to have sources clearly archived so as to verify them. I would suggest that it be added as a theory to be verified and encourage readers to contribute in verifying this matter. Pepitopax 19:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

CONTRIBUTION

You mentioned The Six-Pointed Star by Dr. O.J. Graham on your site. Here are the facts:

The Six-Pointed Star: Its Origin and Usage 4th edition is the first book on the history of the hexagram, or six-pointed star otherwise called the Seal of Solomon, and more recently, the star or shield of David. It is a comprehensive and well documented research by a professional journalist who is well known for in-depth research and accurate reporting. Dr. Graham holds seven academic degrees, English, psychology, sociology, two in Biblical studies, and two doctorates in theology.The book reports all the findings which are documented and the author takes no stand on any of the information. First published in 1984, it has received many comments such as "irrefutable." "I checked all the references myself and they are properly documented." "Graham's book takes off where George Orwell's 1984 stopped."The late president of the United States of America, Ronald Reagan wrote: "I loved your book."

Here is what the author has to say:

"Originally pagan, the Six-Pointed star (hexagram), has been used in Baal/sun worship from the days of Genesis. Rebuked in Amos 5:26, it became known as the Seal of Solomon after Solomon married the daughter of Pharoah, built an altar to Astoroth, and entered into Baal worship. Solomon's idolatry split the Kingdom of Israel in two--The House of Israel which went into exile, and the House of Judah which went into captivity in Babylon. Since then, usage has continued in Solomonic rituals in the Craft (freemasonry). Long used in magic and witchcraft, the Six-Pointed Star has been used as the chief symbol of worship to Moloch in burnt human sacrificial rituals. Used by Druids and astrologers, the Six-Pointed Star has been used consistently in the occult, and was used by occultist, Adolph Hitler, during the holocaust (the word holocaust means, burnt offering). In more recent times, it has been used by many secret societies and has almost replaced the Seven-branched Candlestick which was given to the ancient Israelites as an Everlasting Covenant (Lev. 24:8). Is the 666 seen in the Six-Pointed Star, a sign of things to come on the world scene? And there is more--much more!"

The above information will help your readers. The author, Dr. O.J. Graham, may be contacted through the publishers at Box 452, Don mills, Ontario M3C 2T2, Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.154.111.129 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

War

Nicholas, under political pressure from abroad, and military pressure at home, took the fateful step of confirming the order for a general mobilisation.

Who from abroad pressured Nicolas into war? And what would have happened to Nicholas/Russia if they had never entered the war? -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 04:37, 4 June 2006 64.231.135.35

Russia felt an obligation to protect fellow Slavs in Serbia, after they were declared war on by Austria-Hungary. Many people believed that Russia was being 'spat on' because of its Slavic traditions. Russia did not come to Serbia's rescue in the two previous Balkan crises, so it would have been dishonourable to allow Austria-Hungary to annihilate it.

Also, allies France wanted Russia to enter into the War, since geographically this would split the German army across two fronts– tactically a big advantage.

There was also the idea that the threat of war from what was known as the 'Russian steamroller', could make Austria-Hungary and Germany rethink what they were entering into (i.e a pan-European war). Unfortunately it didn't work out that way.

In relation to pressures at home, it was not just the military who wanted war; public opinion was in favour of war, so much so that upon the declaration of war, a celebration took place outside the Winter Palace in St Petersburg. On the flip side, wars tend to generate patriotism among the people of a country, so domestic tensions such as the question of redistribution of land could be concealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.86.175 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Russia were 'friends' with Serbia, Nikolai would have felt complied to give Serbia a helping hand against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And because Nikolai started to mobilize his forces, Kaiser Wilhem II started to mobilize his, so Germany declared war on Russia. It was like a big chain reaction: A-H declare war on Serbia, Russia declare war on A-H, Germany declare war on Russia, GB and France declare war on Germany. --SaraFL 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maria or Marie?

Most biographers have her name spelled as "Marie" but on this website, her name is spelled Maria. Which spelling is correct? Maria or Marie? Sandy June 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Her actual name was M-A-R-I-YA in Russian. Many people refer to her as 'Maria' or more commonly 'Marie', the latter I detest as it sounds more like one of the declensions of her name, rather than her real one. Personally, I always use 'Maria', but 'Mariya' is the mroe accurate one. We have the same case with Tatiana 'T-A-T-'-YA-N-A' and Anastasia 'A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-YA' --SaraFL 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretender?

Why is this article including in the Pretender category? Nicholas II was certainly recognized as the legitimate and actual ruler of Russia during his reign. MK2 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I share your puzzlement. I assume it was included because of the pretenders to the Russian throne? Anyway, I've removed it. White Guard 03:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

First cousins

In the movies Nicholas and Alexandra and The Guns of August it is often said that George V of Windsor was the first cousin of Nicholas II, which I think is not true. In order for George to have been Nicholas's cousin, Nicholas's aunt would been the mother of George V, thus making them "first cousins". George V's mother was Queen Alexandra and she was from Denmark. Nicholas's uncle, Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was the brother of George V's father, Edward VII of the United Kingdom. I don't think we should call Edward VII Nicholas's uncle since literally Edward is his uncle's brother. Sandy June 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

George V and Nicholas II were first cousins. First cousins have a set of grandparents in common. Edward VII was Nicholas's uncle, as he was married to his mother's sister.

(1) Christian IX of Denmark (8 April 1818 - 29 January 1906) & Louise von Hessen-Kassel (7 September 1817 - 29 September 1898)

m. 26 May 1842, Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, Denmark

(2) Alexandra of Denmark (1 December 1844 - 20 November 1925) & Edward VII of the UK (9 November 1841 - 6 May 1910)

m. 10 March 1863, Windsor, Berkshire, England

(3) George V of the UK (3 June 1865 - 20 January 1936) & Mary of Teck (26 May 1867 - 24 March 1953)

m. 6 July 1893, St. James’s Palace, London, England

(2) Dagmar of Denmark, later Maria Fyodorovna (26 November 1847 - 13 October 1928) & Alexander III of Russia (26 Feb 1845 (O.S.) = 10 Mar 1845 (N.S.) - 20 Oct 1894 (O.S.) = 1 Nov 1894 (N.S.))

m. 28 Oct 1866 (O.S.) = 9 Nov 1866 (N.S.), Winter Palace, St. Petersburg, Russia

(3) Nicholas II of Russia* (6 May 1868 (O.S.) = 18 May 1868 (N.S.) - 4 Jul 1918 (O.S.) = 17 Jul 1918 (N.S.)) & Alix von Hessen (6 June 1872 - 17 July 1918)

m. 26 November 1894, Winter Palace, Russia

- Nunh-huh 11:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Commands of the Gospel

"In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his family we see people who sincerely strove to incarnate in their lives the commands of the Gospel."

Didn't exactly live much like Jesus did they? Materially I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.147.202 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Punched in Yokohama?

So I recently read from a rather dubious source that, in 1894, Nicholas II visited a teahouse in Yokohama called "Number 9" and was hit by an American officer, who did so in order to be the only man in the world who has punched the czar of Russia. (Although, strictly speaking, he was only crown prince at the time.) True, false or unverifiable? Could this just be a very confused retelling of the Otsu Scandal? Jpatokal 16:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The latter, I suspect. For an American officer to have assaulted the Tsarevich would have had serious diplomatic repercussions-not something readily forgotten. White Guard 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he was hit by a japanese person. Different sources vary on whether it was a fanatic, who hit him with a stick, or a policeman, who hit him with the dull side of his sword. With respect, Ko Soi IX 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hemophilia

I added a bit in the section about Alexei's condition to build more context about the disease - it is significant to point out that Alexandra passed it on to him because she was a carrier herself; as one of Queen Victoria's unfortunate descendents by whom the disease altered the course of modern European history. See "Haemophilia in European royalty." M. Buenviaje 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semite

Why not a role on his role in pogroms plaguing Russia? MAYBE not as big as Alexander III's, but anyway. --HanzoHattori 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Myth

I recently read a book which said that retests were done of Anna Anderson's DNA that proved to match that of the Romanov family. These tests were done in the United States, but the Russians would not believe them. Talzabeth 17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no such tests. That doesn't mean there isn't such a book: what was its title? - Nunh-huh 03:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be fairly certain that this is nonsense. Ever since the original tests, the claim of Anderson's supporters (the Schweitzers, et al) has been that the DNA tested was not that of Anna Anderson, and possibly that there was a conspiracy to insure that the DNA tested was from a relation of Schanzkowska. I've seen some vague arguments, as well, that the tests themselves were not conclusive. At any rate, I'm not sure what this has to do with Nicholas. I'd suggest that any material on this subject would be better discussed at Talk:Anna Anderson. john k 07:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Last words of the Tsar

The "last words" of the Tsar, as they are presented in this article, should be changed. The source is Yurovsky's report, which is undeniably biased towards accenting alleged cowardice and/or stupidity of Nicholas II: Yurovsky was a Bolshevik writing a memoir pandering to the Bolsheviks' ideological defamation of the Tsar and his family posterity. The other eye-witness accounts (by Ermakov, Kabanov, Nikulin) don't support Yurovsky's story. According to Ermakov, Nicholas' last words were "You know not what you do". See Radzinsky's "Last Tsar" for details. It seems inappropriate to present the defamatory account of the murderer Yurovsky as the true last words of Nicholas II. --64.191.179.149 21:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture removed

Someone, for some unclear reason, removed a picture from the article. So it doesn't get lost, I'm putting it here instead, so someone can put it back if they want to. Carcharoth 12:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich on a visit to Nagasaki, Japan, in 1891.

Dubious sources

Regarding the note added to the statement "Nicholas felt so unprepared for the duties of the crown that he tearfully asked his cousin, 'What is going to happen to me and all of Russia?'". The offered source is Feinstein, Elaine (2006). Excerpt from Anna of All the Russias. Vintage. ISBN 978-1-4000-3378-2. This is VERY poor documentation. What is the author's source? Is it reliable? --Peshkov 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent content removal

In this diff, 71.249.26.181 (talk) removed a chunk of (sourced) material from this article, with no edit summary. This IP address had previously removed the same material, and I reverted that previous edit as suspected vandalism, due to the lack of edit summary on that removal as well. Prior to the second removal, the editor posted to my talk page requesting that I not remove the "unsubstantiated allegation" again. As I am no expert on this subject, I cannot judge the content. I ask, then, that other editors who are familiar with this subject matter decide if the removed content should, in fact, be in the article, and re-add it if you believe it should. It would also, of course, be a good idea to discuss this here, if there is anything that is controversial about this content. I have noted as such on the IP editor in question's talk page. Thanks in advance for any help those of you more familiar with the subject can provide. —Krellis 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the allegations that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were ordered by Nicholas II himself were never proven and seemed completely out of character for him. It is way more probable that he was intended to be the main victim of the hoax, so that it could be used by one ruling fraction against the other (see the sources to The Protocols article. I think that puting non-mainstream ideas of one historian into a not very relevant article is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The hypothesis belong to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article, not the Nicholas II article. Alex Bakharev 07:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Between their concoction in Paris in 1897-1898 and the revolutionary events of 1905, the still-unpublished Protocols did not attract much attention. Without the Russian Revolution of 1917 and Germany's defeat in in the First World War, the Protocols hardly would have become so successful. Seen as a blueprint for world conquest by Jews, the Protocols were widely circulated during the Russian Civil War by propagandists seeking to incite the masses against the "Jewish Revolution." In Germany the myth of Judeo-Bolshevism, together with the Treaty of Versailles and the legend of the "stab in the back" (Dolchstoss), gave the Protocols a particular revival. The documents initially surfaced in Germany in an edition by Ludwig Müller under the pseudonym Gottfried zur Beek. For Segel, the Protocols confirmed for the lower-middle-class parties, organizations, and paramilitary groups everything they believed about the Jews. Segel explained the sponsorship of the Protocols by Prince Otto zu Salm-Horstmar, General Erich Ludendorff, and the Pan-German League out of their political interests in the Weimar Republic. Here Segel acutely touched upon the political function of the Protocols; they exonerated Germany in its defeat in the First World War and were a most effective weapon against the "Jew-Republic". Nils Roemer, Columbia University

Segel and Roemer as sources -against- insertion of propaganda against Nicholas II.

What is your agenda? If it isn't removed within a week, and no substantiated evidence is put forward, I will delete it and expect it to stay that way, in regards to your interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.26.181 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My research on Nicholas has found him saying quite clearly that he admired and believed the Protocols (see his Diary of 27 March 1918, for example), but no documentation at all that he ordered their fabrication. Logically, if he had ordered it, he would have known it was a fabrication and thereforwe not believed it. I agree with the deletion. --Peshkov 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Date of Death

Why has Nikolai's death been recorded as 16th July 1917??? It's common knowledge that the family were awoken at about 12:30am-1am on 17th July and murdered at about 2am. So how can he have died before he was awoken??

I think this should be changed to 17th July 1917 - any one else? --SaraFL 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Inept?

Can Nicholas be described as an inept or incompetent ruler. He was oblivious to his peoples sufferings, so does that make him a poor tsar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.7.235 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)