Talk:Russian nobility

Terrible article, should be removed

The article mixes all categories of nobility in a big pile. First of all, there is a completely separate group of nobility - so called Russian native princes - who are descendants of Rurikidens and few families which actually ruled a principality. Next, descendants of their boyars, lower comes dvoryanstvo which is described in the article. Russian nobility did not have titles, that came with westernization, for example prince Potemkin is a prince of Holy Roman Empire but not Russian prince and in his rank is below them. "Prince" in case of Russian nobility is not a title bit shows that the person descends from the family which ruled principality before the rise of Moscow and abolishment of principalities (udels). In fact it's a part of family name and "prince" or "princess" goes to all children, not only oldest one.

In Russian nobility does not equal to dvoryanstvo, on the contrary, literal meaning of dvoryanstvo are whose who serve to nobility (i.e., serve to Great Prince or udel princes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge with Dvoryanstvo

• I agree that it should be merged. Gryffindor 13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Disagreed. Dvoryanstvo is a special category of Russian nobility. Precisely because these notions are often conflated, the articles must be kept separately and, merge should go in opposite direction, and the current content must be restored to original state (namely, redirect to Russian nobility and royalty) until a good overview written. 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)
• I desagree, aristocracy and nobility are conected conceptions, but the first is more comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.18.166.239 (talk • contribs)

I also disagree because this title may be earned, while nobility connotes a hereditary honor 68.158.188.193 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Andrew

• merge, the Dvoryanstvo page is so vague (and confusing) on the concept. If you look closely you can see that the translations of the two words (Дворянство) is the same on both pages. Unless the base Russian word is incorrect or the translation is wrong, Dvoryanstvo is Russian nobility. I'm tagging Dvo with a cleanup tag for the meantime. Radagast83 00:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and human is animal. why don't you merge the two as well? `'mikka 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge They are one and the same. One just has a Russian language title and the other an English-language one. Clearly, we should merge the Russian-language one to here, as this is the English-language encyclopedia. The unsigned comments from 68.158.188.193 are incorrect, nobility is not just hereditary: nobility can or could be inherited, bestowed, bought, and/or acquired by conquest. DrKiernan 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ever heard about untranslatability? We translate some words into other ones, but if you forget that meanings do not always overlap 100%, we are in a big trouble. `'mikka 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, this article started as a direct translation of ru:Дворянство. It can thus not be about anything else than Dvoryanstvo . -- Petri Krohn 23:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Against merge. Ignorant translation cannot be an argument. Several people objected here. It looks like you don't even understand what nonsense you wrote in several places. `'mikka 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  Just as tsar is neither king nor emperor (despite heavy overlap), "dvoryanstvo" is not exactly "nobility". `'mikka 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not understand why nobility in Imperial Russia is so special, that it cannot be covered in one article. Many Most countries have multiple levels of nobility. There are differences in meaning, this is the place to explain them to non russian or post-soviet readers. -- Petri Krohn 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing over merging two pages that were already merged on the 11th December (on the basis of 4 to 1 in favour of merge). The fact that you do not seem to have noticed that the two pages are now identical, indicates that merging was the right thing to do. The current discussion (below) is about merging Russian nobility and Russian nobility and royalty. DrKiernan 11:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Russian nobility and royalty

• Agree. It is quite short and should be able to fit right in. Radagast83 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Technically it is possible to merge the articles together but the concepts by themselves are so extensive and distinctively seperate so it is better for to keep them the way they are. One more note. It is a common mistake to use a word "ancient" describing Russia of Middle Ages. In English "ancient" clearly describes a period of history from pre-historic time to 5th-6th centuries. That's why "ancient nobility" or even "ancient Rus or Russia" either doesn't make sense (there was no Russian nobility in times of ancient Greeks and Romans) or attribute to that period in history. So it should be not "ancient Russian nobility" but "Early Medieval Russian nobility". Thank you. Evgeny.

The discussion is about "Russian nobility and royalty", where does the word "ancient" come into play? Radagast83 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "Evgeny" is referring to the first class of the aristocracy (the boyars and the noble families established before Peter the Great's reforms). These are referred to in the article as "ancient nobility". DrKiernan 21:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing I do not understand in "Evgeny"'s comments is "the concepts ... are ... distinctively seperate (sic)". How can "Russian nobility" and "Russian nobility" be separate concepts? DrKiernan 21:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobility and royalty are quite different concepts.

Incidentally the introductory statement that the nobility ruled Russia is very doubtful. The Tsars ruled Russia. The nobility were often in conflict with the Tsars.124.197.15.138 (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Privileges

I think the nobility was free from corporal punishments, although this privilege was shared with some other social groups. Does anyone have sources to confirm this? I do not have. --MPorciusCato 07:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Знать -- more comprehensive term

Why should this article cover solely post-Tatar period dvoryanstvo? Nobles (Знать) existed in Rus earlier, at latest since the 9th century. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Westernization

I added a section on the Cultural Westernization of the Russian Nobility. I spent a lot of time researching the topic, and all of the research is from published sources which are all cited in my addition. Thus, this is not "Original Research," as suggested by the person who deleted my addition. Please justify the deletion. Zbluford (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually no. Please read WP:BRD. You need to justify inclusion. → ROUX ₪ 08:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Previously, there was little to no information on the Cultural Westernization of the Russian Nobility, which is an extremely important phenomena to anyone who is interested in the development of the upper classes in Russia. So, I wrote and uploaded my section to explain the historical development. I apologize if this explanation is insufficient; this is my first entry and, to be honest, the pages you keep sending me do not give me a clear understanding of what you are asking for. Let me know if you need further justification and, if you do, please specifically identify what it is about my addition you think is unjustifiable. Zbluford (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that I posted this two months ago and have not received a reply, I will assume that you (Roux) have accepted my justification. If you still disagree with it please explain to me what I am missing. I know that I need to justify the inclusion more than you need to justify the deletion, but I see no reason why my justification is a)insufficient and/or b)anything but inherently obvious to anyone who read my work. Zbluford (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly it reads like a bunch of bullshit original research and synthesis but I don't much fucking care anymore, as you're obviously just going to keep editwarring to keep your pet nonsense in the article. → ROUX ₪ 08:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715225436/http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng to http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)