From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich of Russia is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
The following fragment is a laughable POV: "the great champion of the Poles. His love for a Polish woman cost him the Russian crown." For reasons why, see references that I recently added, for example, this (which seems to be written by a Russian, too). As Balcer pointed out, the Britannica article is almost a 100 years old, uses even older, imperial Russia references and thus should not be considered NPOV when it comes to Poland. In addition, Ghirla's revert, which removed my reference as well as copyedit changes (adding caption, removing empty section, etc.), is borderline 'v'-word - please refrain from such blatant reverts, and discuss your POV here first, preferably citing modern academic sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, it appears Ghirla has forgotten about the talk pages. Edit summary is not the best place for discussion, Ghirla - please reply here instead of waging a revert war.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
So, I see we have no concensus for moving the article. Fine. Let's discuss this then. Ghirlandajo cites some elaborate guidelines for naming articles about royalty. Care to point me as to where they are? As far as I can tell, even Russian Tsars don't have that title indicated in their article titles (Nicholas II of Russia, Alexander III of Russia etc.) Why should Grand Dukes be superior? Also, what is wrong with Russian Wikipedia that it simply titles this article Constantine Pavlovich? Balcer 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) notes that it covers Western nobility, but may be applicable. I don't think that the issue is related to Wikipedia:Transliteration of Russian into English. Let's wait for Ghirla to enlighten us about the specific policy he is relying upon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The list of Grand Dukes and Grand Princes who do not have that title in their article titles seems extensive: Yuri Dolgoruki, Mikhail Yaroslavich, Vladimir II Mstislavich, Andrei Bogolyubsky,Sviatoslav Vsevolodovich of Vladimir and so on. So at the very least we have a giant mess of inconsistency in this area. Still, I am not keen to have a fight over this. I just assumed that Russian Wikipedia is probably as neutral and accurate as can be in this matter, and attempted to follow its convention. But apparently they are wrong. Balcer 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Viceroy?
My current research indicates there was never a viceroy of Congress Kingdom. There were Namestniks of Kingdom of Poland, but Constantine was not one of them. He seems to have held the posistion of commander-in-chief of the Kingdom's army, and while he was de facto 'second in the country after the tsar', there is no 'viceroy' posistion mentioned in the pl:Konstytucja Królestwa Polskiego. While Constantine might have been de facto viceroy because of his royal bloodline, namestniks were the official viceroys; I'll see if I can find info on his exact position and title (help appreciated).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why did he turn down the Russian throne?
The trigger for the Decembrist revolt appears to have been Constantine's refusal of the imperial succession. Why did he do it? Was it an apparently exceptional moment of awareness of his own undoubted limitations, or was he persuaded by Nicholas? And why did the Decembrists back his accession, since his policy as ruler of Poland seems to have been as reactionary as Nicholas could wish? I assume these interesting questions are discussed in the historical literature, and should at least be raised in the article. JamesWim 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
