Talk:Ivan I of Moscow

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZacharyDickson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy

Sorry to have caused so much furore. I came here from a WP-space discussion where this came up as an example of error. I therefore moved it to Ivan I of Muscovy, as what English calls him.

None of these talk pages was populated, and the articles looked like deserted Britannica remnants. On the merits, of Russia is simply false for Ivan I; he was not ruler of Russia. As a parallel, the Great Elector was, as we have him, Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg; his son was Frederick I of Prussia; his distant descendant, was William II, German Emperor. Ivan I of Russia is exactly like Frederick William of Germany.

ASn editor has suggested, on my talk, that Muscovy is derogatory. That's news to me, and this is my native language. Muscovy is the English of Latin Muscovia: the region, as opposed to the city, of Moscow. I have no particular objection to Ivan I of Moscow, which is why I didn't move his father, but it is less accurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Frederick I of Prussia was actually Frederick I in Prussia, but the article title is of Prussia because that is how scholarship refers to him. Wikipedia summarizes scholarship; it doesn't correct it. No evidence has yet been provided about how Ivan is referred to in the scholarly literature. It matters not one bit if Muscovy is derogatory - IF that is the way he is referred to in the scholarly literature, then that is his name here. Noel S McFerran 12:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move to Ivan I of Moscow, along with few other things. See the #closer's rationale below. Duja► 11:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I therefore propose, as a compromise, that this be moved to Ivan I of Moscow; Ivan I, Prince of Moscow would be equally acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that PMAnderson was right in the first place with Ivan I of Muscovy. Can the charge that "Muscovy" is derogatory be substantiated? If so, I would favor Ivan I of Moscow. --BlueMoonlet 05:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer Ivan I of Moscow. Muskovy is certainly a derogative term then used for the modern Russia. It is probably OK in English for the medieval Princedom of Moscow but still of Moscow is less controversial. After all the term Muscovy is a later Polish invention of the time of struggle for the Eastern Slavic lands Alex Bakharev 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that it's derogatory would be welcome. More below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with Ivan Kalita. I don't particularly love Ivan I of Moscow, but it is some ways preferable to Ivan I of Muscovy. His contemporaries will need to be "of Tver" or "of Novgorod" or whatever. Might as well be consistent ("of some city") if it doesn't cost anything. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

They should be of Tver and so on. Novgorod was a republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support the proposal or, better yet, a move to Ivan I of Muscovy which makes it clear that he ruled the entire Grand Duchy and not just the city. So please support the charge that Muscovy is derogatory because it's news to me as well. Citizens of Moscow are still called Muscovites and a duck named for the Muscovy Company is still called the Muscovy duck. — AjaxSmack 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral - I don't think I can vote until the Muscovy issue is settled. Deb 11:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support As Russia didn't exist as a state at the time, it feels quite natural. "Muscovy" is more accurate than "Moscow", and it is not derogatory, as Septentrionalis shows.--victor falk 14:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please stop engaging in original research. If people want to argue about the most accurate name for Ivan, then they should go and publish an article about the subject in a scholarly journal. All we have to do at Wikipedia is determine what scholarship has already written. Noel S McFerran 14:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To whom are you referring, Noel? --BlueMoonlet 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Muscovy

The OED defines this (as an adjective; they rarely do proper nouns) as "Designating things originating in, obtained from, or associated with Muscovy." There is no hint of negativity. They give the following etymology.

Muscovy, name of the principality of Moscow (attested in 16th cent. in forms Moscouie, Moscouy, Moscouia, Moscovy, Muscouy, Muskovia, etc.; now hist.) < post-classical Latin Moscovia, Muscovia Muscovy (1543 or earlier; cf. Russian Moskovija Muscovy, the principality of Moscow) < Old Russian Moskov´ Moscow (see MOSCOW n.) + post-classical Latin -ia -Y³. Cf. Middle French, French Moscovie Muscovy (1577 or earlier).]

The OED does not derive the word from the Polish, and since England traded directly with Muscovy, through Archangel, the claim that it is so derived could also use evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Closer's rationale

Noting the quite clear consensus above that "...of Russia" is inappropriate, and that "of M*sk*w" is called for, we have quite a messy situation at the moment: several articles in Category:Grand Princes of Muscovy (sic) are titled "...of Russia". The "main" article is at Grand Duchy of Moscow, after quite some Muscovy->Moscow warring which ultimately settled. That being said, I took a look at a bigger picture and decided to apply some "corrective" measures: namely "Muscovy" vs. "Moscow" debate is apparently controversial, at least among respected wikipedians. As long as it's being stable at Grand Duchy of Moscow, I think that WP should pick up one in-house style and stick to it, unless there are compelling reasons (such as prevalence of one common name) to do otherwise. That being said, I'm also moving Ivan II, Ivan III, Vasily II (sic-See WP:RUS and google:Vasily blind) and Vasily III to ...of Moscow, as well as category:Grand Princes of Muscovy to Category:Grand Princes of Moscow.
Note that this does fall into WP:BOLD category rather than into the "admin evaluating consensus" one, thus WP:BRD applies. Duja► 11:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I also moved Simeon of Russia to Simeon of Moscow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that one. I didn't move Ivan III of Russia because he seems to be the first that really earned that title; anyway, that would be far more controversial. Duja► 07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yuri I or III?

We give elder brother Yuri III with link to Yuri of Moscow in the text; predecessor "Yuri I" with link to Yuri of Moscow in the infobox. --P64 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations

This article could use inline citations in many places to show what sources these facts come from. I noticed a Sources heading that includes a couple references that may have been used for some of the article but there are no citations in the article specifying what facts came from which source. There is a Notes heading the has some cited references. I would recommend combining the Notes and Sources into one heading for all references.

ZacharyDickson (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the only sources used are the Dmytryshyn source and Rowell source. There is nothing indicated within the article that the Martin or Kluchevsky sources have been used. As for combining the Notes and Sources, I disagree, since neither the Martin or Kluchevsky have been cited inline. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Do you know why the Martin and Kluchevsky sources might have been included? --ZacharyDickson (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really. They must have been added to the article at some point after its creation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Added Info

I added a short sentence regarding Ivan having built the Cathedral of Archangel Michael and also being the first to be buried there which is cited to a new reference. ZacharyDickson (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Mellk (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 14:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Hi, I hope your nomination will be a success for both of us. Failing an article is always a failure for the reviewer as well. I love medieval Russian history. Borsoka (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Mellk (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ivan Kalita.jpg: a source is needed and US PD tag is missing at Commons.
• File:Печать Иван Калита.JPG: a source is needed and US PD tag is missing at Commons.
• File:Духовная грамота Ивана Калиты.jpg: the source link cannot be opened and US PD tag is missing at Commons.
• File:Facial Chronicle - b.07, p.446 - Death of Ivan Kalita.jpg: US PD tag is missing at Commons.
• File:Simon Ushakov - Древо государства Московского (Похвала Богоматери Владимирской) - Google Art Project.jpg: US PD tag is missing at Commons. Is this picture highly relevant in the article's context? Borsoka (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Mainly academic sources of high standard are cited.
• Either mention or delete the place of publication at each title in the bibliography.
• Fennel: Why is the full date necessary? Why "Univ"?
• Gorsky, Kuchkin, and Shaikhutdinov: could you add an issn to each title? Borsoka (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I have added the ISSN for Gorsky and Kuchkin. I do not think there is one for Shaikhutdinov. Mellk (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• I suggest expand the first section with two or three sentences about Russia in this period, expecially explaining the role of Mongols, grand princes, mentioning some principalities, and introduce Novgorod.
• Link "prince of Moscow" in the first section's first sentence.
• Link "grand prince of Vladimir" in the first section's second sentence.
• ...her name may have been Agrippina based on the information of a liturgical text Rephrase. Could you specify the liturgical text or clarify that it is a contemporary/15th-century/16th-century/... Russian Orthodox/... liturgical text?
• ...the birth of another son... Perhaps "the birth of a fourth son"?
• ..., according to the Julian calendar Is this necessary?
• In addition, the conception of John the Baptist is commemorated on 23 September, and Ivan was named after the saint. In addition? Why is this feast day relevant in the article's context. I would only mention that he was named after John the Baptist in the previous paragraph.
• ...was invited to reign... By whom?
• ...the governors of his older brother Andrey were expelled... Does this refer to Andrey's rule in Novgorod? If yes, clarify it.
• Ivan was sent to Novgorod by his father... I assume this means that "Instead of moving to Novgorod, Daniel appointed Iven to rule the city on his behalf."
• ...was again invited to reign in Novgorod By whom? I would rephrase to avoid repetition.
• According to the historian Nikolay Borisov [ru], Ivan was likely born around 1288, as the sons of princes were unable to be given such roles before the age of seven. I would mention this in the first paragraph.
• ...by his son Yury ... Eldest/second/third son? Link Yury.
• I would move the paragraph about his sobriquet to section "Legacy" because it is quite out of context in the first section. Borsoka (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions, I have tried to implement them now. Mellk (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• After the death of his elder brother Yury in 1325, who was murdered by Dmitry of Tver,... Rephrase to be more concise. Also explain the causes of the murder with two or three words.
  • After his elder brother Yury... Delete "his elder brother" and delink Yury (Yury is already linked in the previous section.)
  • Delink Özbeg Khan in the second section.
• ...while the title of grand prince... We were not previously informed that Yury was grand prince. Please also explain the significance of the title of grand princes.
• Alexander struggled to collect taxes for the khan... Who is the khan? Why did Alexander collect taxes for him?
• ...to send a punitive force led by Ivan ... I would mention in a separate sentence that Ivan was appointed to lead the expedition and explain why.
• Russian chronicles say that the deputy had intended to make himself ruler and destroy the Christian faith, though whatever was his intention, he had mistreated the locals and provoked a revolt. This should be mentioned earlier, not after the revolt is crushed.
  • ...deputy had intended ... he had mistreated... Why past perfect?
• ...Ivan presented himself before Özbeg... Rephrase? Why?
• ...he was given... By whom?
• ... for their role in crushing Tver... Alexander Vasilyevich's role in crushing the revolt is not previously mentioned? Did they crush Tver?
  • Due to his failure to deliver Alexander of Tver to the khan, Ivan was denied the full title. Move this before the previous sentence and rephrase.
  • ...at extraditing Alexander of Tver... Extraditing?
  • ...is alleged to have said: "O my brothers ...." Name the primary source of the quote.
  • ...testablished that the princes of Moscow had first claim on... Rephrase.
• ...Ivan became the sole grand prince... We are not previously informed that anybody had been made grand prince.
• The succession and seniority norms which had been honored for centuries... I do not understand. First the norms should be introduced.
• ...the trend of fragmentation started by his father... We are not previously informed that his father had started "a trend of fragmentation". What does it mean exactly?
  • ...Ivan was credited ... Why not future-in-the-past?
  • Although some scholars... Could you name one or two? Alternatively, if theirs is the majority view, mention it.
• Some historians... One or two examples?
  • A number of historians and theories are listed, but they are not associated with each other? Borsoka (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately Fennell does not specify the position of each historian. He lists the theories and in the footnote it says: "Broadly speaking these are the views of Karamzin, Solov'ev, Klyuchevsky, Chicherin, Sergeevich, Lyubavsky, Presnyakov and Nasonov". I will try to do some further reading to see who supported which theory. Mellk (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• ...the princes of those districts were given certain proprietary rights... Perhaps "retained certain proprietary rights". Why "certain"? If the adjective is indeed necessary, add some examples.
• Others... Are these historians/scholars? One or two examples?
• ..., a policy reflected in his sobriquet Delete, because it is explained in the Legacy section.
• The khan at the start of Ivan's reign was content with allowing the Muscovite prince to enjoy undisputed supremacy. Rephrase.
• As a result, Ivan was able to use the funds he acquired to buy out insolvent princes and purchase villages in other principalities. The purchase of principalities is mentioned in the previous paragraph, so the paragraph should be restructured.}}
• ...to have the Mongols... Who are the Mongols. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have tried clarifying the part about succession and the office of grand prince. I added a sentence about his father Daniel being excluded from the title of grand prince due to the practice of collateral succession (if there needs to be a bit more explanation here then I can add some words). I also mentioned when Yury was grand prince and how he lost the title.

  I added more detail about the revolt in Tver and aftermath, the division of the grand principality and why Ivan became grand prince. Fennell and Crummey do not mention Alexander failing to pay taxes, rather they state that that this was a deliberate provocation by Özbeg, so I have removed the mention of this. If there needs to be any additional changes here, let me know. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Try to rephrase the sentences: "Several scholarly theories exist..., with some arguing. Others say..." Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Mellk:, did I miss something? Please ping me if you think all above issues were addressed. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Borsoka, I just need to address the last three points. I'll try to get this done today. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Borsoka: I've tried to address the above issues now. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• The new Russian Orthodox metropolitan, Peter, had found himself caught in the rivalry between Tver and Moscow, as Mikhail of Tver made repeated attempts to unseat Peter. Mikhail died in 1318, and the previous section began in 1325. For me, the second part of the sentence ("as..."), does not explain the first part.
• In 1325, Peter established... Delete "In 1325".
• ..., which was built using stone. Why is this relevant?
• Peter had intended... Why past perfect?
• ..., and therefore the religious center of the country... Why "therefore".
• Moscow would become... Why future in the past? I understand, with the transfer of the seat of the metropolitan it had become the spiritual seat of Russia.
• ..., pursued policies that... Delete.
• During the first four years of his tenure, the Dormition Cathedral was completed and an additional four stone churches were constructed. What is the relevance of this sentence from Ivan's perspective?
• By the end of 1331, Theognostus was able to restore ecclesiastical control over Lithuania and he closed the metropolitan sees of Galicia and Lithuania, thus frustrating the efforts of Gediminas (Gedimin) of Lithuania at territorial expansion. Some context?
• Link canonization.
• Clarify that Calecas was the patriarch of Constantinople and explain the patriarchs' role with two or three sentences.
• Explain why a document was needed from the patriarch.
• ...to recommend the start of liturgical veneration... I do not understand. Perhaps "to sanction Peter's veneration"? Link veneration.
• Introduce Fennel, Meyendorff, and Presnyakov with one or two words.
• Was there only one khan during Ivan's reign?
• ...which refers to the principalities... I guess these were mainly tiny principalities. If yes, this should be clarified? Where were these principalities located?
• ...that had been distributed among... When?
• These include reports of military action by "all the princes of Suzdal" under the orders of Ivan, his right to purchase lands, and Muscovite administration in princely patrimonies and dynastic marriages. Rephrase.
• ...into two halves... Delete "two halves".
• ...was seemingly obedient to... Why seemingly?
• The biographer... Whose?
• When a principality is mentioned, I would link the article about the principality instead of the one about its seat.
• ..., with the exception of Fyodor Ivanovich of Starodub, who was executed in 1330 by the khan for unknown reasons What is the statement's relevance from Ivan's perspective?
• ..., who appeared to have been partisans of Alexander of Tver Why "appeared to have been"?
• What is the vykhod?
• Who is Ivan Korotopol? Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Borsoka, sorry for the delay. The Dormition Cathedral was the first stone church in Moscow, so I think it is worth mentioning that this. In the older cities (Vladimir, Suzdal etc.), there was a lack of new architectural development following the Mongol conquest. The first stone churches in Tver were built in the late 13th century. The large-scale masonry building in Moscow in the 14th century (and the development of a new architectural school) reflects the political power being shifted (at this point, Vladimir was only formally the capital).

  • Somehow the relevance of the building project should be explained in the article. "During Ivan's reign, Moscow flourished/quickly developed, as it is demonstrated by ...", or something similar. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  I also originally linked the seats of certain principalities (e.g. Bryansk) and particularly appanage principalities because, unfortunately, we do not have articles for those and the only information about those principalities is mentioned in the articles about the towns. I suppose we could try interlanguage links if necessary?

  • OK, I understand. I think interlanguage links are not helpful (but this is my very personal opinion :) ). Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  I am currently working through your suggestions and I will hopefully finish this off by the end of the day or tomorrow. Mellk (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)