Talk:Muscovy

On 18 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Muscovy (disambiguation) to Muscovy. The result of the discussion was moved.

A possible article about the usage of the term

Already by the end of 16th century the term "Muscovy" was recognized as colloquial: "vulgo Moscovia dictae". IMO it makes sense to have an artile about the term, to combat its (ab)use in modern English. `'mikkanarxi 17:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vulgo Russiae vulgo Moscovia dictae, Partes Septentrionalsi et Orientalis (1659)

John Milton, A brief History of Moscovia, and other less known Countries lying Eastward of Russia as far as Cathay, gathered from the writings of several Eye-witnesses which was published in 1682 [1]:

"The empire of Moscovia, or as others call it Russia, is bounded on the north with Lapland and the ocean; southward by the Crim Tartar; on the west by Lithuania, Livonia, and Poland; on the east by the river Ob, or Oby, and the Nagayan Tartars on the Volga as fas as Astracan."

Certainly. I have suggested lately the same thing. An article about the term is in order. --Irpen 17:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the article should definitely include the information provided in the Muscovy article on German Wikipedia: "Geplantes Reichskommissariat Moskowien". Sorry for Ghirla (it takes much time to open), but since some people like references in good books and some German contributors deny the link between Nazi plans and right-wing German publications during the cold war:

[2] --Pan Gerwazy 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert by Iryna Harpy

I believe we are here to make a good compendium of knowledge. At least I'm here for this only reason. I clearly understand I cannot improve everything but if I see a badly written article or, more often, a badly written portion of an article, I try to improve it (of course, if I have a desire and time). As much as I can. I want emphasize that I do only the things that I know well, and try not to poke my nose into that I have a little idea. Now I see the contrary. I improved this disambig page according to the guidelines and according to my very good knowledge of the subject. But someone just does not want improvements, but prefers a garbage.

Disambig pages are usually done for comfortable browsing of readers. They are not articles. They are rather links to articles. They must be as short as possible and rather list than explain. I did this accordingly.
Since August 2012, this disambig page has contained a blatant fringe theory, that cries "it is a trash". Really I hardly believe that this has been existed for 3 years and nobody paid any attention (I must confess even me!). I deleted it accordingly.
Also this is not a dictionary. I deleted the Disraeli part etc.
I deleted the link that lead to nowhere and the red link that lead to nowhere.
Also I did some minor improvements and my linguistic correction (and I know what I'm doing).

What's the result? Just a blunt revert to a much worse version that has been overdue for corrections for a long. No, this is not a good thing. It's simply disruptive. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a NPOV editor expressly here for the purposes of for improvements? Now that's what I call "a rubbish" (sic). 1) Your missive here is expressly a personal attack: even the section header contravenes WP:TALKNEW as, essentially, the entire construct of this section is dedicated to soapboxing; 2) Your objectivity and objectives here are questionable (per your latest few edits), so no puffery about what a great editor you are. I might be more disposed to believing that your content changes "is not a trash" (sic) if you used sources for historical subject matter that weren't exclusively written by Russian scholars, and did not remove references to 'Muscovy' (an English language WP:COMMONNAME perfectly acceptable for the nomenclature in articles correlating to those periods in history) because it doesn't suit your POV. Indeed, you certainly know what you're doing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors

I remind editors that this is a disambiguation page and not an article, which is why the following message appears on the top of the page when you're attempting to edit it: "This is not an article; this is a disambiguation page, for directing readers quickly to intended articles. For a quick guide, see disambiguation dos and don'ts. For more details, see the complete disambiguation page style guideline.

Some noteworthy differences from articles:

Generally only one navigable link (blue link) belongs in each bulleted entry. Keep descriptions short, and organize long lists in sections.The full article name should be visible; do not pipe entry names".

Usually, a typical disambiguation page looks like this one, that is, it should be as short as possible and must not contain too much text related to a particular subject; not to mention that fringe theories, marginal opinions not accepted by scholarship and original research are all prohibited by the rules. Restoring Pages (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling this page

Perhaps to the view of "russian trolls" its a "disambig page has contained a blatant fringe theory" (Iryna Harp), but from May 22 , 2008 till June 5, 2015 https://web.archive.org/web/20150515000000*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy_%28disambiguation%29 it was there as I've stated on my talk page _(talk) without any modification and btw not even started by me. So I still see it like it was reverted by Eriba-Marduk and RestoringPages (which user was created (17:42, 30 November 2016 User account Restoring Pages was created) when I was trying to discuss with Eriba-Marduk and later also RestoringPages (pretending to be adminuser) and both blanked their talk pages instantly and see it as it's now as "russian trolling". Contact admins about that and even .org about that, that soon wikipedia will look like russipedia. Is more then enough evidence for orginal summary : The name of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, changed for Russia by Tsar Peter I in the early 18th century. The goal of this change was to establish a connection between Muscovy and medieval state of Kievan Rus', thus claiming the right of Moscow to possess all the lands of Rus'. Muscovy was officially renamed by Russian imperial decree in 1721. The ethnonym "Russian" was fixed later - only at the end of the century, when Empress Catherine II of "the highest command" Moscow ordered the people called "Russian people" and forbade them to use the title of "Muscovites".

Ceesboogaart (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yuor valuable opinion. Would you please read WP:DAB before you proceed. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spasiba :-) still like I wrote, if a summary is on there from 2008-2015, all users-editors should find other work-hobby, cause all failed. Only when I pointed a redditlink to it, it became 3 times target of "russian trolling", just see history. More or less like when I few weeks ago started site with headlines of news on Ukraine, in few days site/headlines became unaccessable, untill I blocked .RU, and it logged blocked sites coming surprise surprise from St. Petersburg, the trolls of Olgino, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolls_from_Olgino and now untill next time no problem at all. Funny btw like many sites to FACTS are blocked in RF as a friendly russian told me, he got: This resource is blocked by decision of public authorities of Russian Federation on my site the blocked .RU "russian" trolls get: Sorry, this site is blocked by decision of the FREE WORLD to "Russian Federation" (Muscovy), who can't handle facts and the TRUTH anyway! For more information visit: sitename removed ofc

Ceesboogaart (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say, but so far I see all indications that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Would you please stop soapboxing, read the policy I linked above? We have policies here, and if you are not interested with complying these policies, may be you should concentrate on your website.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love encyclopedia's , when I was 8 I got english Encyclopedia Brittancia, have all dutch encyclopedia's and a number of foreign and not just used them for look ups, but also read them all, will list all when i have time on my user page.

What I don't like is russipedia's...no facts at all... have several sites on history (dutch and some on others), and facts are everything for me not ideologies, doctrines, religions, I base my opinions on FACTS so if FACTS change so will my opinions. Ceesboogaart (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add WP:NOTSOAPBOX to the list of policies you need to read to avoid the next block. Veel plezier.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2021

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovy (disambiguation) → Muscovy – At least the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Tsardom of Russia equally often are called Muscovy in RS. Thus wikipedia should not give preference to one target over the other. Delasse (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Delasse (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tsardom of Russia gets more views (19,239) than Grand Duchy of Moscow (13,482)[[3]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support both are commonly called Muscovy—blindlynx (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support no primary topic between the two, and then there are partial title matches like Muscovy duck. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.