Talk:False Dmitry I

Sources, anyone?

I don't see any sources cited anywhere. Red Plum 22:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move 10 June 2006

THIS REQUEST WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT THE CONSENSUS IS. Philip Baird Shearer 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to move this article to "False Dmitri I" The standard transliteration for the name is "Dmitri," this is the one that appears in publications, such as the New York Times, as well as most articles with this name on Wikipedia. I think it is not good to have three different spellings of the same name in one article.

This is a realtively minror move, that I think I can accomplish myself, without help of an administror, so unless, there is objection here, I shall do so. --VonWoland 20:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard transliteration is Dmitry. This is the spelling used by Britannica, for example. Please find some more useful activity in Wikipedia. Pointless moves are no good. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"More useful activity?" "Pointless moves?" For someone with "a zero tolerance policy towards trolls on Wikipedia," you sure have an interesting way of framing a discussion. Personally, I don't like the fact that the name "Dmitri," is spelled five different ways in Wikipedia, so I am trying to clean it up. Yes, you are right, Britannica does use "Dmitry," but Americana, Colombia U. Press, American Heritage Dictionary, the BBC, the New York Times, and the London Shostakovich Orchersta, as well as many others, use "Dmitri." Why not check the link you provided---Dmitry. Most of the articles there are linked to "Dmitri's." Dmitri Shostakovich and the False Dmitri have the same name, Britannica's use of the more "antique" transliteration notwhithstanding. --VonWoland 00:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the spelling of Dmitriyiwhatevers should be addressed. I would recommend starting a move proposal at WP:RM for all three False D.'s, these seems pretty popular solution recently. For some related policies and moves see the list at Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Related_discussions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I have started a general "Dmitri" discussion on the Dmitri talk page, for those that disagree with my choice of "Dmitri" as a standard Wikipedia rendering of that name. Meanwhile, if the objection is to move any specific historical "Dmitri's" that can be addressed here. Whether we are talking about Sychev or Dmitri of Suzdal, it's the same name in Russian: why should there be four English variants? --VonWoland 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to carry out the WP:RM requestes for

• False Dmitriy I → False Dmitri I … Rationale: Need to standardize the transliteration on Wikipedia. --VonWoland 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• False Dmitry II → False Dmitri II … Rationale: Need to standardize the transliteration on Wikipedia. --VonWoland 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• False Dmitry III → False Dmitri III … Rationale: Need to standardize the transliteration on Wikipedia. --VonWoland 06:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But as the requests have not been formatted as recommended on WP:RM#Steps for requesting a page move; and with the current Survey it is difficult to decide what the consensus if any is. I am removing the requests on WP:RM and suggest that if the moves are still wanted they are resubmitted following the WP:RM steps. If you wish to submit one multiple request see WP:RM#Multiple page moves --Philip Baird Shearer 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Standard name

It would be nice if some standard name could be established; and if the sky was always neon pink :) The title is Dmitriy, many links are given in the form Dmitri, and throughout the article he is referred to as Dmitry. Can we settle on one name to use, and turn the sky pink? •→Iñgólemo←• 23:10, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Rv

I reverted some of the additions made by Piotrus. Although quite informative of itself, they would drown the encyclopedia article in redundant and repetitive information on Polish politics and noblemen. Polish spellings for Russian names (e.g., Czernihow, Godunow) are entirely out of question. I don't know why the Poles want to insert polonized foreign names in English texts. I don't recall the Russian articles in English Wikipedia where the spelling Varshava is used for Warsaw, or French articles spelling Ecosse instead of Scotland. So, please, no Polish names for Russian cities. The history of Marina and her father, full of grammatical errors, is of little consequence to Russian (or Polish) history. Also, we don't know if Dmitry was really murdered, let alone murdered by Boris's agents, and there are modern historians who maintain that False Dmitry was not false but genuine. Generally, I also would like to see more respect for the original text of the 1911 EB, with its impeccable grammar and balanced opinions. Ghirlandajo 15:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why the Poles want to insert polonized foreign names in English texts. - speaking for myself, sometimes I don't know the English spelling of a given place (nor Russian). So I put the ones I know, feeling confident that this will be quickly fixed by ppl like you (tnx :D). I dont mind removing info on Boris actions, if you say they are disputed, but I don't agree that the story of Mariana is of little consequences. I moved most of your deletion changes to Mariana article, as it is as good place as any for them - interested reader can follow her ilink at check it there, if you think it is more suitable then FD1 articl. However I reverted one of your other reverts: I added back a note that Dimitr supported Zebrzydowski's rokosz and pardoned Vasyl - both seem like fairly important facts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Novgorod-Seversky is a Russian city? hmmm.. Part of Poland a that time.--Emax 07:47, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "that time"? Novgorod-Seversky was a Russian city since 1503. It was ceded to Poland a decade after False Dmitriy's death. Ghirlandajo 09:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an English wiki. Not Russian or Polish wiki. It should use English names of the towns. It's irrelevant who owned what town. If there is an English name for it, it should be used. --Gene s 08:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About your laters removal of my addition - do you dispute that FD1 was influenced by Poles and it was one of the things that contributed to his fall? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the reason "nonsensical" given by G, but I think the removed statement "being influenced" is redundant, not too informative, and makes the phrase less clear. The "spreading Catholicism" and "supported by foreign troops" already covers it. And, by the way, Emax continues to act in a disruptive manner. Maybe you can talk some reason to him because he actually hinders any possibility of a compromise. --Gene s 05:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read an article recently and it mentioned all those things we had plus the Polish and foreign influence, so I thought it would be worthwile to add it there - I think that his connections to the Commonwealth (and occupying troops) did more harm to him then accusaitions of homosexuality, for example. As for Emax, well, if you have any specific complains, do let me know what they are - as for his last rv, I would support it, athough he should have wrote in talk as I did. Rv without talking is a good way to start a rv war, and nobody here wants that, right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Emax is that he never ever writes anything meaningful in the summary field and he never participates productively in the disccussions on the talk page. He always acts in antagonistic way "us vs. them". He made a revert. Why does not he come here and write why he supports the redundant statement?

Ok, no problem - i will start to add comments like Ghirlandajo: "rv Russian Propaganda", "rv Russian Nationalism", "rv Russian Vandalism", "rv Russian neo-fashistic claims !!! :), "Why does not he come here and write why he supports the redundant statement?" - Why do You not asking Ghirlandajo the same question?--Emax 08:42, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, do you see my point now? Clearly Emax is not looking for collaboration, he wants to fight and he is looking for an enemy. --Gene s 14:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess, you are talking about Ghirlandajo...? Who always remove parts of articles with his standart comment "rv Polish nationalism" "rv Ukrainian nationalism" "rv Belorusian nationalism" etc., BTW Piotrus is not my mother, if You have a problem with me - use my talkpage :)--Emax 15:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

To make sure we talk about the same thing, this is about the bolded text in "spreading Roman Catholicism, being influenced by Polish and other foreigners and other vices. They gained popular support, especially as Dmitrii was supported by Commonwealth forces". I believe it's redundunt. I.e. it does not add any new insight to the paragraph. It's a minor edit clearly not worth a long discussion. It's easy to reword it for clarily, but Emax's actions turn it into a matter of principle. We have an editor who purposefully act in a disruptive manner. He is not looking for a compromize. He is trying to make a statement that he is going to have his way at any cost. That is wrong.

--Gene s 07:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reverted because the statement was both vague and redundant. False Dmitry was not accused of contacts with foreigners in general: Moscow was a kind of melting pot for Turkic aristocracy, Polish dissidents, Greek churchmen, Kievan scholars, Scottish soldiers, Italian architects, English merchants, etc. He could possibly be accused of bringing to power Polish Catholics, but we have information on this issue in the article, don't we?

A more specific statement would be as follows: "The Muscovite boyars felt offended by his wearing European clothes, shaving his beard, and generally paying little attention to old Russian traditions and customs". Ghirlandajo 11:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wladislaus

Note that this is also discussed at: Talk:Michael I of Russia and Talk:Vasili IV of Russia.

User:Emax: could you please explain your logic. You insist on listing Ladislaus as tsar of Russia when in reality he had no control of the country, but the Template:Kings_and_Dukes_of_Poland does not list Russian tsars as Polish rulers when they unquestionably did controled the territory. Warsaw really was a part of Russia. Why such double standards? --Gene s 08:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved here from User_talk:Gene_s

---

Royal titles in Latin: Vladislaus Quartus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus dux Lithuaniae, Russiae, Prussiae, Masoviae, Samogitiae, Livoniaeque, necnon Suecorum, Gothorum Vandalorumque haereditarius rex, electus magnus dux Moschoviae

English translation: Vladislaus IV by God's grace king of Poland, grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia, and also hereditary king of the Swedes, Goths and Vandals, elected tsar of Russia. is it enough?--Emax 07:51, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Like all her predecessors since 1066, Queen Elizabeth II of England, on her official website, uses the title of "Duke (sic!) of Normandy". Should we list her among dukes of Normandy? After the 15th century, three different dynasties of Europe styled themselves "kings of Jerusalem and emperors of Constantinople" at the same time. All these titles have very little to do with reality. Ghirlandajo 08:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, she should be listed there. At least with a note, explaining this as a historical curiosity. I'd do the same for Wladyslaw as a tzar or Russian tzars as rulers of Poland, add them to a list with ¹ note below explaining that the title is controversial because... Btw, the same thing is with Wladyslaw being King of Sweden, Goths and Vandals - IIRC he never step one foot there, but I hear nobody complaining. The fact is that he had a reason to call himself that. Should we censore it out or explain why he insisted on doing that, even if he wasn't really a Tsar? Are we builing an NPOV Encyclopedia or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are giving evidence that he assumed such title, i.e. made a claim to the thone. That's good for him, but not enough for an encyclopedia article. Did he actually rule Muscovy for 3 years? Is there any evidence that he issued decees and they were followed? And, by the way, use talk page of the article, not my talk page. By writing here you are writing to me alone. By using article talk page you are talking to everybody involved. --Gene s 07:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Russians elected him, so whats the problem?--Emax 08:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Some of them elected him, sure. But was he really the tsar of Russia? A bunch of people also supported various False Dmitrys, some of them even managed to gain control of the country. As far as I know, Ladislaus was never the actual ruler. The actual rulers between 1610 and 1613 were Patriarch and Pozharsky. --Gene s 08:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wladyslaw was elected by the Polish nobility, not by the Russians. Russian tsars were elected by the Zemsky Sobor, and this happened on two occasions only: Boris Godunov in 1598 and Mikhail Romanov in 1613. Ghirlandajo 08:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sigmund or Zygmunt

Acording to the Wikipedia:Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers, I am afraid it is Sigmund. I peronally prefer Zygmunt, but I'd be against rv him to that on any pages not specifically about Poland. I suggest instead of a rv war we have a serious discussion on that and a vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality of Dmitry I

began to plot against him, accusing him of homosexuality, - can anyone prove this? I just cannot believe.

Dmitry was accused of having sodomized young prince Khvorostinin, who followed him day and night. See here, for example. --Ghirlandajo 11:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Various sources confirm this. Dmitry I was accused of almost everything one can imagine by his opponents. Good example of 17th century propaganda... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The text should say, as it is, "accused of" since a notable allegations that played a role in mobilizing avertion to him. It shouldn't and doesn't say whether true or not. Also, "accused" for that time is a correct word for the attitude to homosexuality. Propaganda? May very well be. The fact that his opponents would use anything that could possibly work could also be added in appropriate form. --Irpen 18:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem? The boy obviously liked him. Some guys really like to be bottoms. To them, it may be addictive. Let the boy decide whomhe wants in his arse, not those ignorant masses. Waimea 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's move

What happened to first proposing a move in discussion? Furthermore, I understand why Dmitry might not be the best name, but Demetrius?? That form is not used in any modern sources. I would like to see some justification for using it. Balcer 13:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better place to discuss this would be at Talk:Dmitry?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dmitri's achievement

I noticed that someone reverted the changed I made. Pity. Why anyone would get rid of a link is a mystery. Also, the first false Dmitry wasn't a pretender. He was ACTUALLY CZAR. This is unique in the history of the Common Era of date numbering. Therefore, I'm going to change it to imposter.User_talk:Ericl 317 Nov. 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, he was an impostor, not a pretender. The use of "pretender" probably arises out of a misunderstanding of what the term "pretender" means. john k 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dmitriy II

The current intro mentions the title "Dmitriy II". Wouldn't that be "Dmitriy IV" ? (the first three being Dmitry of Pereslavl, Dmitry of Tver and Dmitry Donskoy) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The current title is wrong. He was never named "Dmitry II" in his life or in Russian historiography. ouital77 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DNA test?

The IP editor 129.237.28.28 added this to the article but did not provide a source: "A recent study of False Dmitri's DNA has demonstrated that he was not false after all. He was in fact the biological son of Ivan the Terrible." A cursory web search didn't show any news about a DNA test, and the addition may well be vandalism, considering the IP's other recent edits. But I thought I should note the addition here. A. Parrot (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Move

Add my voice to the chorus requesting a move (although I'm a bit too busy to corral the multipage mess this is going to be).

The historic name of these people was False Demetrius or Pseudo-Demetrius and that needs to go into the lead. At present, it seems like a toss-up: False Dmitry is a bit more common in particular but Dmitri remains on top in general use. You guys can figure out which you like more. Do we really not have a house style on which romanization of Russian to use? (For what it's worth, the conversation above is off: the historic Britannica use was Dmitri, too.)

No one uses "Dmitriy" except this page. It's got to go. — LlywelynII 15:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been bold and made the move, and consequent text changes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sidenote

Cyrillic isn't a language. Use {{lang-ru}} or {{lang-rus}} for the first instance and {{ lang|ru|??? }} for the ones after that. I'd imagine the Russian word for "imposter" is probably not actually topical (or belongs at the article on the group of imposters), but I'll leave that up to you guys. — LlywelynII 15:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on False Dmitry I. 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/20100528071504/http://www.aquinas.edu/history/research.html to http://www.aquinas.edu/history/research.html

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) 00:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Two different persons

Otrepiev was a dyak in Chudov Monastery of Moscow Kremlin, but no one recognaized him in prince Dmitry, even his mother Maria Nagaya recognized "False" Dmitry as a son. In early stages of invasion of Polish invasion it was two persons and actually real Otrepiev was a clerk of "False" Dmitry I.

Dmitry I?

Both the lead and the "Sovereigns of the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality, Grand Principality of Moscow, Tsardom of Russia and the Russian Empire" list at the bottom refer to False Dmitry I as "Dmitry I". Are there any sources for this? If he had a regnal number as Dmitry, it would at least have been II (after Dmitry Donskoy), although I suspect he didn't have a number at all as Dmitry, as numbers were not typically used at the time of the reign (he would've been known as Dmitry Ivanovich, as is also stated in the lead) and after his death he was widely considered an impostor and not an actual Dmitry. The extensive Russian Wikipedia article on False Dmitry I never makes any mention of him as "Dmitry I," either during his reign or afterward; he is mentioned there only as "Dmitry" (with no number) or "False Dmitry I" (Лжедмитрий I; note that in the Russian "false Dmitry" is one word and thus the "I" here means "first of the false Dmitrys" rather than "someone falsely claiming to be Dmitry I"). 167.24.104.150 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed mentions of "Dmitry I" from the article per above (I am the same editor as the one who wrote the above post); the "Sovereigns..." template used at the bottom of the article had already been updated by someone else. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Catholic conversion?

In the 1911 Encyclopedia, Bain narrates that Dmitry publicly converted to Catholicism in Kraków on 17 April 1604. This article currently suggests he was still assumed to be Orthodox, at least by default, at the time of his marriage in 1606, and neither source suggests any intermediate convenient "conversions". Bain is sometimes criticized for laxity, but he does provide four sources, two of which are about Catholicism. Can anyone access a primary source? David Brooks (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)