Talk:Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of context statement[edit]

"his mother's reliance on the starets Grigori Rasputin to treat the disease helped bring about the end of the Romanov dynasty."

This seems a rather bold and out-of-context statement for an introduction. I suggest that it is clarified extensively and backed up by adequate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryCorp (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burial place[edit]

Alexis (and his sister Maria) are the only members of the family that where not buried in the 1998 funerals. The government and the Romanov family recognize that. http://romanovfundforrussia.org/family/ce.html

The Wiki article on Nicholas II states that the daughter's remains recovered with Alexei are those of Grand Duchess Tatiana, not Maria, but that information has not yet been transferred to this page. Thoughts? Sdsures (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I seem to remember reading that a later analysis of the remains found revealed them to not be Alexei's. Can somebody please check that?--Stephen C Wells (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This[edit]

This is quite an exercise in speculative history. RodC 23:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the valuable research I have done into the Imperial house of Romanov, it seems fitting that I should add a possible hitch in the history of the Imperial family. As I'm sure you are all aware, the Tsar renounced his throne for himself in one document and for his son in another. However, as the Tsar had already abdicated in the first document, prior to the second document, it brings me to the conclusion that the Tsar's right to relinquish his son's claim was totally and utterly illegal. Having abdicated formally himself, it meant that the Tsar was now the former Tsar and that his son was now the Tsar. Bringing the situation closer to home I will use the example of the Queen. If the Queen abdicates tomorrow, her son Prince Charles will succeeded automatically and should the Queen wish to relinquish his right in the near future, she would not be able to and any attempt to do it will be ignored as she would then have nothing to do with the affairs of state. The same is indeed true in the case of Alexei. Unofficially, Alexei was the Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russia's and more arguably the Tsarevich was Tsar until his death in 1918. Therefore, Michael II was never legally Tsar in the slightest sense of the word. Huw 23:06, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

According to one of Russia's laws of succession, I don't think Nicholas had the right to abdicate in favor of Alexei in the first place. Nicholas could not abdicate on behalf of his son at rate, regardless of whether there are two documents. However, on one hand, it was probably better for Nicholas to have abdicated for Alexei, there's no telling what might have happened to the boy, as his parents would have been forced to leave him behind if/when they went into exile. Morhange 01:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Tsesarevitch Alexei?[edit]

I'm not sure--the title Tsarevitch had gone out of use in the 1700s, and Alexei would have been known as Naslednik Tsesarevitch Alexei, or, The Heir Tsesarevitch, but not Tsarevitch. Google defines Tsesarevich as: "literally, "son of the tsesar") is the term for a male heir apparent, the full title was Heir Tsesarevich ("Naslednik Tsesarevich"), informally abbreviated in Russia to The Heir, 'Naslednik'"

So should this be moved, or stay here? Morhange 21:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article shouldn't be moved, but the title of Alexey must be corrected. Tsesarevich (not tsarevich!) was his official title after all. (ouital77 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Tsarevich is the most widely used title in English and is the correct spelling for this article. Just as his sisters' articles refer to them as "grand duchesses" instead of the more accurate translation "grand princess," Alexei's title must remain "Tsarevich" in his article. I have reverted your changes. --Bookworm857158367 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but this is just a wrong title. He was never styled like this in his lifetime (officially). Do whatever you want, but for the sake to precision and accuracy, you should indicate the basic difference between the two titles - "tsarevich" is an unofficial title for any male offspring of an emperor/tsar, while the "tsesarevich" is an official title for the Heir Apparent. So, if N. II would have had any other male children, every one of them would have been called (popularly, not officially) "tsarevich", while only Alexey, as the first-born son, could have been styled as "Tsesarevich". A few letters, but a world of difference. (ouital77 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This is an English-language article; the only usage I've ever seen in English-language articles is "Tsarevich" or "Czarevich." If the longer, more precise Russian title is included, it should be in the body of the article, not the title, with most references continuing to be to "Tsarevich." It must remain as it is. --Bookworm857158367 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Tsesarevich is all too complex word, and unfamiliar, should be avoided. If other alternatives fail, Alexei should then be Alexei of Russia or Alexei Nicolaievich of Russia. Arrigo 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stay here. Tsesarevich is not widely used, too complex and utterly unfamiliar, as Arrigo points out also. It is not a feasible option. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

can somone please add a explaination of why he was not canonized Zapacna 10:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was canonized. He, his parents and his sisters were all canonized in the Russian Orthodox Church as Passion-Bearers. Ikons of the family show the entire family as saints. I'm going to remove that sentence. Morhange 00:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And did not understand: why not Tsesarevich? This is a title that should not have transferred, in any language. English title, tituty, titles are usually not translated into Russian. So why then should it be otherwise? And here at all "difficult" words? The man was given the title, regardless of whether it is a difficult word or not. Especially the title "Tsarevich" at the time simply did not exist. And the difference between the "Tsetsarevich" and "Tsarevich," - big. It is not even translated into English. You either look for a similar word in the English language, or to correct Tsesarvicha. It does not matter that many are accustomed to "tsarevich". This Wikipedia and here in the first place is important credibility. Sorry for the terrible English :) Google Translator ...

Czarevich or Tsarevich are the commonly used titles in English. The article title must stay Tsarevich, according to Wikipedia convention. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the popular use of tsarevich but it is still inaccurate. The best compromise is to put a footnote explaining the actual title, which I went ahead and added.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no trouble with using the title Tsesarevich instead of Tsarevich because he was the heir, and heirs are titled Tsesarevich not Tsarevich. But this seems beside the point. He was actually either Tsar Alexei - as his father abdicated the throne and Alexei became Tsar - or if you accept that his father can amend an abdication, which seems unlikely as he had no authority to do this once he'd abdicated, then as the son of a Tsar (and no longer heir) he would be Tsarevich Alexei. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be Tsesarevich or something else but not Tsarevich. Wikipedia is supposed to be ENCYCLOPEDIA, therefore, strict attention should be made to factual accuracy. This "well more people know them as this" is bull. They can read the article and quickly become enlightened. Tsesarevich is not particularly hard to pronounce either. If you're interested in an article about Russian history, you probably won't have a problem saying the word. So silly. Wikimandia (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia. "Tsesarevich" is not an English word; "Tsarevich" is. - Nunh-huh 03:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! And in which region of jolly old England did "tsarevich" originate from? They're both Russian words. Wikimandia (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The test is as follows: if a word is in an English dictionary, it's an English word. This is not an exotic concept; it's used by copyeditors to help decide which words to italicize if their style guide calls for putting foreign words in italics. "Tsarevich" is an English word because it appears in English dictionaries, and "Tsesarevich" is a foreign word because it doesn't. Your "LOL", therefore, is not only inappropriate in civil discourse, but wrong. The origins of a word don't determine whether it's been incorporated as English vocabulary. - Nunh-huh 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL again. Why do you say it's uncivil when you make me laugh, which is so joyful for one to do? Someone should tell those people at Merriam-Webster and Harper-Collins to take out that Not English word out of their dictionaries! Somebody, hurry, for the good of humanity and all that is pure and English! Wikimandia (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your incivility is clearly apparent to anyone who can read. - Nunh-huh 08:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "civility" of users have little with the discussion, but nevertheless your knowledge of proper conduct has inspired me to tip my fedora in your general direction. DJ Phylactery (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


So I understand that "Tsesarevich" is a difficult word and a bit of a mouthful, but that was Alexei's title! He was not a tsarevich! He was the Tsesarevich of Russia! The article's title should read as such! 2601:192:8800:9500:CC58:E40D:1FD:F003 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

Is the August 12 date correct? Russia is using the Julian Calendar, so this date might be wrong. Sandy June 05:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is NOT using Juian Calendar. -- tasc wordsdeeds 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Russia was using the Julian calendar when Alexei was born (the changeover to Gregorian occurred when 31 January 1918 was followed by 14 February 1918, though parts of the country lagged behind. So the August 12 date was not correct; Alexei was born 30 July 1904 (OS) = 12 August 1904 (NS). - Nunh-huh 16:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia article is specifying Aug. 12 (and old-style July 30), so should be OK.

Claimants[edit]

I read in a British newspaper some years ago about a man in the Soviet Union who claimed he was Prince Alexai. Allegedly he had been writing letters to his Uncle George in England in perfect English that had been intercepted by the KGB and that he knew his way around the royal palace. His photos of him he had some resemblance to his father. When the royal family's bodies were exhumed and he was missing I wondered if this man might have been him. Does anyone know anymore to add to this webpage? I would be most interested!

Murdered vs Executed[edit]

The reason the Imperial Family were ACTUALLY Assassinated/Murdered was a Legal one : An execution, by definition, is done by the established, recognised government. The accused ALSO must receive Due Process of Law. The Bolsheviks were usurping insurgents attempting to overthrow the recognised Provisional Government duely established. Add to this, the Imperial Family received NO Due Process of Law. Finally, Yurovsky implemented RUSE/Lies to induce the Imperial Family to go down to the Cellar room (under the guise of taking a photo of the Family). Ergo : The Imperial family were ASSASSINATED due to the insurgent/usurping character of the Bolsheviks, and because the Family received NO Process of Law, but instead were surprised with a squad of non-Russians given orders to shoot the Family. When such ruse & surprise are used against a political target, that is tantamount to Assassination. Maj. Jesse Carnes (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A murder is an unflawful killing. When the order is signed by the government it is an execution. Executions can be unjust and inhumane also. You can of course claim that this execution was unlawful, but this is a POV.--Konstable 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit with considerable reluctance, I must agree with the above. Kevin Nelson 06:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some question over whether the Ural Soviet was following the orders of Lenin or decided to kill the family on its own, which would put the legality of the killings in question. There's also the question of whether the government itself was a legal entity. At the time Russia was in a state of civil war, between various White Army forces and the Red Army. I have seen it referred to as execution, assassination, and murder. I am extremely reluctant to label the killing of a thirteen year old boy a legal execution when I don't think it was. A politically-motivated murder, yes. --Bookworm857158367 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an execution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. (92.12.112.25 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Again -- he was a deathly ill 13-year-old boy, without personal power to commit such alleged crimes. Aside from that, there are the arguments made above, which still hold. Do not revert this page again without consensus. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole family needed to be executed for the tens of millions of dead men, women and children they were responsible for. Plus Alexis was about to be captured by the Czechs and installed as a puppet Tsar. (92.12.113.121 (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

and he deserved to be shot because of that? Did his teenage sisters also deserve to be shot? Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the "whole family needed to be executed for the tens of millions of dead men, women and children they were responsible for" is like saying that all the Germans in the world should be executed for brutally torturing and killing up to 17 million innocent people. This kind of comments should be removed immediately, as it is not productive. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status[edit]

The article has passed sections 3), 5) and 6) and needs corrections on sections 1), 2) and 4).

Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD

The assessment is as follows :

1) Written Quality - Well written but the quotes need more prominence as they run into the text.

2) Factually Accurate - Sergey Egornov, Alexei Poutziato, Joseph Veres and Vassili Filatov are all non-existent links. The imposters need to be separated from the "Death" section and put into their own separate section. Add a sentence pointing out the the futility of the imposters trying to impersonate Tsarevich Alexis, the monarchy was so discredited that even if the Royal family had survived, there was no support for the the restoration of a Tsar Alexis, see here for the reference

[1].

3) Coverage - the article is broad in coverage and stays focused on the topic.

4) Neutrality - Some of the language used to describe Alexis as a "naughty boy" , the half paragraph starting "At age seven,,,,,," betrays a gushing sentimentality. It needs to be re-written and the language toned down, don't use a direct quote, just indirectly describe his naughty behaviour. Tsarevich Alexis was not just a boy, he was the heir to the Autocratic Romanovs. The language needs to be more neutral.

5) Stability - Article is relatively stable though I see you have had acts of vandalism by unregistered ISP users. No major edit conflicts.

6) Photos - Good use of photos. Free public domain photos are used. No fair use photos.

Corrections, as specified above, must be carried out within seven days. Contact me when they have been carried out and I will re-assess.

Tovojolo 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia allows seven days for corrections to be carried out, I have been lenient, I have allowed eight days but I am dismayed to note that not one correction was done. Therefore, I have no alternative but to announce that the article has now been assessed as a Fail.

Tovojolo (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the suggestions above: while it would be perfectly reasonable to separate out the pretenders, it's silly to state that their impostures were "futile" because there was no movement to restore the monarchy: that assessment makes the mistake of overlooking the other motivations for their impersonations of Alexei. - Nunh-huh 10:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

The family was Russian by nationality but ethnically diverse. Should we add that to this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.64.209 (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Romanovs from Peter III are Germans. The correct name of the dinasty is Holstein-Gottorp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless sentence in Stavka section[edit]

"Alexei's favorites were the foreigners of Belgium, Britain, France, Japan, Italy, and Serbia, and in favor, adopted him as their mascot."

This looks like the beginning of one sentence combined with the ending of another one. I can't make much sense out of it anyway. (Especially the mascot part.)

Article Title[edit]

He was the Tsesar-evich rather than just a Tsar-evich. He may have become a Tsarevich after his father's abdication, but the Wikipedia article on Edward VIII still uses his regnal title rather than his post-abdication title Duke of Windsor. I don't think the title Tsarevich was even officially used for children & grandchildren of the Tsars, but rather Grand Duke/Grand Prince, with the heir being Tsesarevich. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Oppose votes have valid reasoning. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia → Alexei Nikolayevich, Tsesarevich of Russia – Alexei was The tsesarevich, not a tsarevich. Tsarevich was any son or grandson of the tsar; the tsesarevich was the heir and next in line for the throne. That's a BIG difference. It's been discussed many times before and arguments against it are weak. Wikimandia (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator.

  • It doesn't matter that he was wrongfully called that in the west and so more non-Russians know him by that name - that is just an unacceptable argument for something claiming to be an encyclopedia. If you care enough to look at his article, then you probably care about accuracy. And it's not like they made the clarification in terms in 1915. It was changed in 1721.
  • Secondly, within the first sentence it can be linked to the tsesarevich article, easy enough to click. Within 10 seconds, someone will have learned something! Yay!
  • Thirdly, it's not particular hard to say. It's only one more syllable than tsarevich. If you're interested in Russian history in the least, you probably will not challenged by this word.
  • Fourthly, he was 13-year-old hemophiliac kid shot to death for nothing he'd done. Do we have to knock him down in status too?
  • Fifthly, if you're dead set against it simply because you hate the word "tsesarevich" then it should just be called Alexei Nikolayevich of Russia or Alexei Nikolayevich (period).

Let's get it right please! :-) - Wikimandia (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the English encyclopedia; Tsesarevich is a Russian term, not an English word.
  • we use English terms, not foreign terms, in our article titles. For this reason, we have articles titled "Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia" and not "великий князь Константи́н Па́влович" or "Velikiy Knyaz Constantine". And this is despite the fact that "Grand Duke" is not an exact translation, in the same way that tsesarevich and tsarevich do not correspond exactly.
  • in summary: the English word "tsarevich" means "the eldest son of a emperor of Russia", and is correct to use of Alexei when speaking in English, whether Russians would use the same word for him or not. - Nunh-huh 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah except.... Tsesarevich is in both the Merriam-Webster and Harper-Collins dictionaries, which according to your logic, makes it an "English" word. So glad you'll be supporting this move! Yay! Wikimandia (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might have, if that could actually be confirmed by someone trustworthy in a printed dictionary (since you've provided one link to "cesarevich", not "tsesarevich", in an online dictionary, and one to another online dictionary for a word qualified as "in Russian history" and spelled four different ways. On this evidence, the best you can hope for from me is abstention. - Nunh-huh 08:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make if it's in the online dictionary? It's MW and Harper's, not Urban Dictionary. And the article on cesaevich lists the multiple spellings, the way they always do for most Russian words, eg czar.
  • Tsarevich or Czarevich is the most commonly used English term. This is the English Wikipedia. Oppose. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common name. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tsar[edit]

There is no clear reference to the Tsarevich having become Tsar upon the abdication of his father.101.98.74.13 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's not clear that he did. His father's two abdications and their questionable validity seem to be clearly referenced. - Nunh-huh 04:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Again, another very nice article, but I cannot go higher than B, until it goes through a GA review (or a FAC, when it automatically gets FA status).--Yannismarou 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed[edit]

The sole remaining statement in this article that is tagged "citation needed" is: "It is possible that if Alexei had not suffered so terribly, Rasputin could never have gained such influence over Russian politics during World War I, which is generally seen to have at least hastened the collapse of Romanov rule."

The opinion expressed in this statement remains unsourced. I propose it be deleted in its entirety so that the Citation Needed template can be removed from this article. A discussion of the influence of Rasputin properly belongs in the Wikipedia article for Rasputin (where it is discussed), rather than in the article for Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov. A Wikilink is provided for Grigori Rasputin in this article so that readers may further investigate this matter if they so choose. Mccunney (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion expresed in that statement is also completely uncontroversial and mainstream. It doesn't say everyone believes there's a straight line from hemophilia to Rasputin to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, but many (perhaps most) historians are of that opinion. Removing it to get rid of a citation needed template is exactly the wrong response. The way to remove a citation needed statement would be to find a citation that [1] supports it, or [2] contradicts it – removing the statement as well as the template in the latter case.
I think the foremost proponent of this viewpoint was Robert K. Massie, and that you could find a supporting citation in Nicholas and Alexandra: The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty. To my mind, this passage from page 561-2 fits: "The current struggle dividing the world is not over trade or territory, but over ideology. This is the legacy of Lenin. And also the legacy of Rasputin and hemophilia. Kerensky once said, 'If there had been no Rasputin, there would have been no Lenin.' If this is true, it is also true that if there had been no hemophilia, there would have been no Rasputin...[...]...Had it not been for the agony of Alexis's hemophilia, had it not been for the desperation which made his mother turn to Rasputin, first to save her son, then to save the pure autocracy, might not Nicholas II have continued retreating into the role of constitutional monarch so happily filled by his cousin King George V?" - Nunh-huh 16:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Massie as the "foremost proponent" of the hemophilia/Rasputin/revolution connection because I do agree with your other point that "The opinion expressed in that statement is also completely uncontroversial and mainstream." If Massie's comment is too attenuated, here are others: 1. "Rasputin, Grigori...Before and during World War I, Rasputin gained great influence over Nicholas II, Czar of Russia, who considered him a miraculous healer. The czar's only son suffered from hemophilia, a blood disorder, and Rasputin seemed to be the only person who could alleviate the disease...Russian noblemen murdered Rasputin in 1916, but his direction of the czar's policies was to prove disastrous after his death: Czar Nicholas was overthrown in 1917..." pp. 223-224, The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. Ed Hirsch Jr, Joseph Kett, James Trefil. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, 1988. 2. "The odious Russian faith-healer Grigori Efimovich Rasputin, 45, who has ingratiated himself with the court by promising a cure for the hemophilia that afflicts the czarevich, dies December 31 at Petrograd at the hands of a group of noblemen bent on ridding Russia of the monk's corrupting influence on Nicholas II and the czarina Aleksandra (see 1918: Bolshevik revolution, 1917)." p. 772, The People's Chronology. James Trager. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1979. FactStraight (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Foremost" may have been a bad word choice; I mean only that he is well-known to the public; a popularizer perhaps rather than a proponent. - Nunh-huh 09:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there continues to be discussion concerning the sole unsourced statement in this article, I agree that the statement in question should not have the "citation needed" requirement removed. However, since only one section of the article needs a source, I suggest the "citation needed" template be moved to that section (Historical significance), rather than have it apply to the entire article. Mccunney (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead references[edit]

References 47 to 50 are dead. So the sentence: Alexei became one of the first Boy Scouts in Russia., is now unreferenced. --AMPERIO (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status at death?[edit]

Since Alexei was killed after his father, in the minutes between his father's death and his own, wouldn't he have technically been (very briefly) the legitimate pretender to the throne and head of the dynasty?Aumnamahashiva (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes according to some people, and no according to other people. You won't find an answer that is universally acknowledged to be correct. When Nicholas abdicated, he also purported to abdicate on behalf of his son, leaving Nicholas's brother Michael as next in line. But the Pauline Laws were meant to take the succession out of the hands of the tsars. It's not clear that the tsar can abdicate on behalf of someone else, even if they are his minor son. Other people will say that the tsardom continued after the death of Nicholas, as no one had the right to abolish it. So you will find people who come down on various sides, and no one with the authority to decide which alternative is correct. Some of this is discussed on this talk page above. - Nunh-huh 12:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hemophillia/hemolytic anemia?[edit]

There's a paper that was published in the American Journal of Hematology that examined Alexei's symptoms from a modern perspective. The author concluded that Alexei's symptoms are a much better description of hemolytic anemia.[1]

References

  1. ^ Kendrick, John (2004). "Historical Perspective: Russia's Imperial Blood: Was Rasputin Not the Healer of Legend?". American Journal of Hematology. 77: 92–102. doi:10.1002/ajh.20150. Retrieved 22 April 2019.

Should this be mentioned in the article? I'm not sure whether it would be undue weight since the majority of independant sources agree that Alexei had hemophillia. Clovermoss (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's an article by an obsessed reporter with no particular medical expertise. His "theory" that Alexei didn't have hemophilia came into being because he was an avid supporter of a man who pretended to be the adult Alexei who had miraculously survived the family's slaughter, grown up, moved to Canada and married. But in order to "be" Alexei the uncomfortable fact that the man didn't have hemophilia had to be explained away with hand-waving and medically illiterate fantasies about what other diseases could have produced Alexei's symptoms. God knows how this got published in an actual journal; but there's no serious question that [1] Alexei didn't survive and move to Canada, or the [2] Alexei had anything other than hemophilia B. The specific genetic mutation that caused Alexei's hemophilia has been identified through actual testing [2], so there's no reason to include disproven and bizarre theories about the nature of his disease. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then it's not reliable and covered by WP:FRINGE. I'm wondering how this got published in an actual journal then, too. I was hoping since it was a journal article that it might have some validaty to it, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Clovermoss (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's the fringiest :) - Nunh-huh 00:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nunh-huh Taking a second look at the title of the article, I should have been a bit more skeptical. Argueing that a faith healer who had a disreputation more than 100 years agos for his beliefs might actually be wrong usually isn't a good sign in the strength of your own arguments. Clovermoss (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC) To clarify: it's not news that Rasputin wasn't right, but that shouldn't give leeway to talk about some other absurd belief dismissed by actual doctors and actual evidence because you think you're the one who's right. Clovermoss (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short description[edit]

This is why the current short description for the article is "Last heir apparent of the last imperial family of Russia". Like anything else on Wikipedia, if another editor thinks this can be improved, please do so. Clovermoss (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we add "Russian murder victims" category?[edit]

Hi! :), I know there are controversies as to whether he was executed or murdered, but given the fact that "Murdered children" is already there, shouldn't that category be there too? Agree or disagree? I respect every POV. :) --CoryGlee (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A possible mistake in the title of the article[edit]

The title of the article goes "Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia". Instead of "Tsarevich" (the third word in the title of the article) should be "Tsesarevich"", isn't it? Is there any way to correct the title of an article? Thanks and best wishes, Sergeismart (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, articles can be moved to other titles. But the title isn't wrong. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian one. If we were writing in Russian, a case could be made for Tsesarevich. But we're writing in English, which has a word "tsarevich" which means "the eldest son of an emperor of Russia", and does not have a word "tsesarevich". -Nunh-huh 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh Thanks for your response. I do apologise but the title of this article is apparently wrong - in this "Tsesarevich" article on English Wikipedia (in the "Usage" paragraph) the difference between words "Tsesarevich" and "Tsarevich" is explained in detail (the first sentence of the "Usage" paragraph goes "It (the word "Tsesarevich") is often confused with "tsarevich", which is a distinct word with a different meaning:... "). In the next "History" paragraph in the same article there is a list of all Tsesarevich of Russia and Alexei Nikolaevich is in that list named as the last Tsesarevich of Russia. It does not matter which language we are writing it in - "Tsesarevich" and "Tsarevich" are the words with different meanings. Furthermore, in this "Tsarevich" article on English Wikipedia, it is stated that the title "Tsarevich" is not in use since 1797. Considering all of this, the title of the article "Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia" should be changed to "Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsesarevich of Russia". My apologies for correcting. I wish I could do the change myself but I just don't know how to edit the title of an article. Thanks again and best wishes, Sergeismart (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're using Wikipedia as a reference for the existence of "Tsesarevich" in English? You need a better reference... - Nunh-huh 00:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the English version technically be "Czarevich?" And, I mean, at the end of the day, all of these words derive from Russian, so what makes Tsarevich any more or less English than Tsesarevich? Piratesswoop (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, a word that's been incorporated into an authoritative (printed) English language dictionary - one with an editorial board that makes informed decisions - is considered an English word. That's how you determine whether or not to italicize something as a foreign term or not, and which spelling is preferred, and which are variants. The New Oxford American Dictionary, for example, has the entry: "Tsarevich (also czarevich or czarevitch): noun, historical, the eldest son of an emperor of Russia." So the main spelling is "tsarevich", and there are two other variants also given. The fact that it's an entry tells you it's English. The fact that "tsesarevich" has no entry is an indication it's not English. -Nunh-huh 04:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh, Piratesswoop (talk) Thanks a lot for your responses and for your input. Yes, indeed, I am using the Wikipedia for the definitions of both the "Tsarevich" as well as the "Tsesarevich" terms. The issue in question is not which one of these terms (which, indeed, are derived from Russian) sound or look more English - the Tsesarevich was the title of the heir apparent to the Russian Throne (which was initially introduced by the Emperor Paul I of Russia in the Pauline Laws in 1797, "The Statute of the Imperial Family" enacted on the same day - 05.04.1797 - specifically dealt with the hierarchy, titles of the members of Emperor's Family, etc.). Now I tried to look up the copy of that "Statute" on the Internet, but could not find one in English, however right here there is a copy of that "Statute of the Imperial Family" in the Russian language and the Article 20 of "The Statute" says:

"The titles of members of the Imperial Family are quite diverse. Their difference is determined by the degree of closeness of kinship to the Emperor and the right to succession. The heir to the throne, to whatever degree of kinship with the emperor he may be, bears the titles of the Heir, Tsesarevich, Grand Duke, Imperial Highness; His wife - the titles of the Tsesarevna (since 1841), Grand Duchess, Imperial Highness".

This is basically in line with the information presented by the aforementioned "Tsesarevich" and "Tsarevich" Wikipedia articles - namely, that "Tsesarevich" and "Tsarevich" are not the different spellings of the same word, but rather two words with different meanings. Now to the last point mentioned, namely to the fact that "The New Oxford American Dictionary has the entry: "Tsarevich - the eldest son of an emperor of Russia". I myself have the Second Edition of Oxford Dictionary of English and my Dictionary also has only one entry which is "tsarevich (also czarevich, tsarevish), noun, historical, the eldest son of an emperor of Russia". This, in my opinion, might very well be a shortcoming on the part of the editorial boards of those Dictionaries - they probably just didn't delve deep enough into the issue. But the historical documents (namely the mentioned "Statute of the Imperial Family") as well as the "History" paragraph of this Wikipedia article state that since 1797 the term "Tsesarevich" was in use when defining the title of the heir apparent to the Russian Throne. To conclude: the title of the article "Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia" should, in my opinion, be changed to "Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsesarevich of Russia". Very best wishes, Sergeismart (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that's your opinion. But at Wikipedia, we use reliable sources (two, in this case: The New Oxford American Dictionary and the Second Edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English) rather than the opinions of Wikipedians. - Nunh-huh 19:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh All right, I understand. Thanks for the valuable input. Kind regards, Sergeismart (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your desire for accuracy. But we can only follow the reliable sources! - Nunh-huh 22:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nicholas Alexandrovich, Tsesarevich of Russia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Nikolaevich,_Tsarevich_of_Russia&oldid=1204687762"