Talk:Boris Godunov

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 7, 2009 and January 7, 2010.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Russia: History Top‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Theodore vs Feodor

The Anglicization of the Russian name Feodor into the English name Theodore is exceedingly silly. I've changed all mentions of "Theodore" in this article to "Feodor" to keep it in alignment with the usage in the rest of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.136.39 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should adress your concerns to the editors of 1911 Encyclopedia, whence the article is taken. --Ghirla | talk 08:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Theodore an English name? It hasn't stemmed from Anglo-Saxon, has it?--OlKob (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with the change. We should use the proper names of historical figures whenever possible. DDH89 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare, Pushkin and Boris Godunov

I am aware that the text was taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911, yet I should like to point out that Pushkin was inspired by Shakespeare's "Richard III" rather than "Macbeth". This appears in the opening scene where Boris lets peers and paupers woo him into accepting the crown as well as in the motive of the murdered child, the rightful heir to the throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneliese Krützfeldt (talk • contribs) 17:50, 4 August, 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point. But I think a good case could also be made for "Macbeth", whose main character (unlike Richard) was crippled by guilt. Elphion (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to observe that MacBeth is not crippled by guilt, but obsessed by paranoia, which drives him to murder his friend Banquo and the innocent Lady MacDuff. Shakespeare's Richard III is much the better parallel to Pushkin's Boris. CharlesTheBold (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Something's wrong (or at least confusing) in the dates reported toward the end of the article. Boris's date of death is given as April 13/23, 1605; this is presumably a Julian/Gregorian distinction, since the difference in 1605 amounted to 10 days. But Fyodor's death is given as June 10/July 20, 1605, with no explanation for the discrepancy, and Xenia's birth year given with a much wider divergence as 1582/1591. Elphion (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1580 - 1557 = ?

"In 1580 the Tsar chose Irina (Alexandra) Feodorovna Godunova (1557 – October 26/November 23, 1603), the sister of Godunov, to be the wife of his son and heir, the fourteen year old Tsarevich Feodor Ivanovich (1557–1598);" As far as I know, 1580 - 1557 = 23, not fourteen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.124.189 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Could someone re-write this article in English? There are many examples of tortured syntax.Dennis Slavin (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Dennis Slavin[reply]

I agree, but the problem is vagueness. One paragraph talks about Boris's role under the Tsar -- who was Tsar at that point? Later after talking about Boris's son and widow, the article talks about "their" son, which makes it sound like a case of incest. Why is establishing serfdom listed as a "reform"? It sounds like some of this was translated out of Russian, badly. CharlesTheBold (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Surely this article should be titled "Boris of Russia" in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions? "Boris I" is wrong since there was no Boris II. PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be moved to Boris of Russia for the same reason Agustín de Iturbide shouldn't be moved to Agustín of Mexico.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by this comment. What is the reason Agustín should not be moved? His reign only lasted a few months, there was no Empire of Mexico immediately before or after him, the only other Emperor of Mexico, Maximillian, also had a short and troubled reign. None of this applies to Boris. He ruled Russia at a time when it was undoubtedly ruled by a Tsar, there were no moves to become a republic. He was elected by the recognised procedure, was the generally accepted Tsar for most of his reign, which lasted several years, and was even succeeded by his son, albeit briefly. PatGallacher (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) says: "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them" (my emphasis). I don't know about Agustín and i'm not a native English speaker, but to the best of my knowledge this particular tsar is normally called "Boris Godunov". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native English speaker. English histories of Mexico, even lives of Maximillian (who adopted his grandsons), call him Augustin de Iturbide, except in quoting his own point of view. To call him Augustin I or any equivalent, therefore, is contrary to usage and unneutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Is it inconsistent not to refer to his son as "Godunov". PatGallacher (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the same policy: "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."

The common name of this tsar in English and other languages is Boris Godunov. So "Boris of Russia" may be consistent with other tsars, but inconsistent with the common usage. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boris of Russia → Boris Godunov — Per discussion above; this is English usage. To quote the relevant guideline: If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Who the %^(*&*)* is "Boris of Russia"? But anyone who has heard Mussorgsky or read a version of Pushkin knows who Boris Godunov is. There's even a traditional pun: if we have Boris Badenov (and we do), we should have his namesake. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but that sounds like good reasoning to me. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the rationale above. Knepflerle (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Boris Godunov" is an established English usage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
Support, of course. For years "Boris Godunov" was the stable title and it made a lot of sense. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Which emperor?

He [Godunov] supported an anti-Turkish faction in the Crimea and gave the emperor subsidies in his war against the sultan

Which emperor is that? Did Crimea have an emperor? Who was it?

Top.Squark (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly POV or just ill-informed?

"Boris was one of the greatest of the Russian tsars. But his great qualities were overshadowed by paranoia. His fear of possible pretenders induced him to forbid the leading boyars to marry". First off, who would claim this man to be among the very greatest rulers of Russia, or even in the top third? The only truly significant thing that happened in his reign was that Russia tottered to the brink of the abyss and then fell over. Apart from 1812, there was no point between 1560 and 1900 when the Russian state came so close to final termination as in the years beween 1604 and 1613.

Second, whose paranoia?if it was Boris' paranoia, we need to find out how he could be a great ruler if afflicted by paranois. And if it was the paranois of the boyars, or the people, how do we know theirs was a misreading of events and not an accurate view.

Thirdly, a source is required for the statement that Boris was so scared of pretenders and impostors he would forbid the nobility toi marry?? In a feudal state, there is no way more surefire to destroy the state than to try to push the nobility to extinction or to gravely antagonize it. A monarch in that kind of state can't normally go about exterminating the nobility of the land, or making sure it will disappear. Not unless he is strong enough to attempt absolute monarchy, something Boris never was. Strausszek (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]