Talk:Murder of the Romanov family

Rappaport's account seems to lack credibility

A good deal of the article relies on Helen Rappaport's accounts, especially the book The Last Days of the Romanovs: Tragedy at Ekaterinburg. However, I must question her trustworthiness in the matter of the Romanov family.

First, the article is peppered with notes pointing to the exact pages of The Last Days... where each development is written. While such numerous noting would usually be laudable, they mean little in this case, as the book itself doesn't have notes at all, having only an alphabetically sorted bibliography at the end. This makes it virtually impossible to know which source(s) made which claim(s), and thus each individual development immediately has a shadow of doubt cst upon it. Further, the high number of notes in the article in the face of the complete lack of notes in the book does raise a suspicion of attempting to lend credence to Rappaport to divert from the severaly flawed historiography of her book.

Second, since virtually every claim made in The Last Days... can't be individually sourced and checked and thus are less-than-solid, we can't help but trust the claims that are echoed by the field of history at large. Meaning, claims made by Rappaport and uncorroborated by others are the flimsiest of all, and among them is her accusation that Lenin et al had foreknowledge of the Romanovs' execution, one has been levied time and again the past century. Thanks to her inexistant notation, we can't verify that event's sources either, whereas just a year after her book's publication, The Daily Telegraph reported categorically that there was "No proof Lenin ordered last Tsar's murder" according to a long-running criminal probe by the Russian government itself. Worthy of note is that the chief investigator himself suspected of Lenin's guilt, but conceded there was no evidence to that effect (this article is present in the Wiki article, but its note seems rather drowned by the numerous ones dedicated to Rappaport).

Third, I'm afraid Rappaport herself has displayed bias both against Vladimir Lenin and in favor of aristocracy in general. Most of her literary output narrates the lives of European royalty, with no small amount of relish and admiration. But probably most damning of all is a claim made in her book Conspirator: Lenin in Exile, echoing a rumor as long-lived as it is unproven, that Lenin died because of syphillis as opposed a stroke. I need hardly point out how carrying this disease casts clear aspersions on his character, and as polarizing as his figure is, it's all the more likely that the claim is made out of malice. Besides going against all authoritative historians and biographers (his personal life reveals an extremely prudish man), this conclusion itself lacks direct evidence, and in fact has very strong evidence against it. It has long been known that, during Lenin's autopsy, the various people in attendance testified to his brain arteries having calcified to the point tapping them with tweezers produced a sound akin to tapping stone. In a relatively recent study, physicians put forth the theory that his several strokes were caused by early and advanced atherosclerosis caused by a very specific genetic mutation, which could also neatly explain the sudden death of his father, of similar causes, at almost the same age.

So then, to sum up, I say that Rappaport's book The Last Days... is far too compromised to be a source on the events surrounding the Russian Revolution, and that the parts of the article that crib from it are stricken.187.114.76.193 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We usually don't exclude sources unless there are other reliable sources that specifically criticize them. To exclude Rappaport, I think you'll have to provide sources that say she is unreliable. DrKay (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regardless of whether Lenin ordered the Romanovs killed does not change the fact that he started Red Terror and his rule gave rise to Stalin. As the article already notes, "Lenin regularly insisted that no written evidence be preserved". Thus that Russian chief investigator declared Lenin innocent simply because he couldn't find proof, not taking into consideration that he may have destroyed them! No head of state would be stupid enough to keep such a sensitive document that would implicate them, Lenin's Hanging Order being a rare exception, though even that has done nothing to change Russia's attitude towards the monster anyway. Wolcott (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition, the Slater book from which most of the "color" of the executions comes from is a "narrator [which is] a composite figure, whose experience, related here has been imagined from the evidence supplied in the eyewitness accounts..." (Slater p.157) Not to challenge the rest of the book's veracity, but it hardly seems appropriate to quote an author's recreation of a first-person narration as a valid source of what happened. If the individual accounts can be cited, that's better. 5.93.23.190 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• • • • Rappaport is really a very bad historian, almost the entire article should be rewritten. For example, "After Yekaterinburg fell to the anti-communist White Army on 25 July, Admiral Alexander Kolchak established the Sokolov Commission at the end of that month to investigate the murders."

There are a lot of mistakes.

• On July 25, 1918, Yekaterinburg was occupied with parts of the Czechoslovak Legion under the leadership of Sergei Wojciechowski, and not Kolchak.
• The Czechoslovak Legion created the Provisional Regional Government of the Urals, in which Kolchak was not; which was abolished only on October 26, 1918.
• Kolchak appointed Sokolov as an investigator only in February 1919 Wlbw68 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• There are a lot of mistakes. Some are quite amateur. The Romanovs were Russian Orthodox and would not have attended Mass at a nearby church. (Wrong religion...)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.88.179 (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the "Rappaport" reference? The full citation is missing.

A full citation should be given the first time it is used in the 'References' section, not just "Rappaport." Two separate preferences are cited in the 'Further reading' section. Embram (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the book of 2010 The Last Days of the Romanovs: Tragedy at Ekaterinburg.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Could someone who remembers how please correct the first reference citation for it? Embram (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have this book (only Google book preview) and therefore I can not specify the correct pages.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

describing them as Letts - a term commonly used in Russia to define someone of European, non-Russian origin

OMG... {facepalm} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.139.174 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So in the book of Rappaport. "Латыши" (latyshi) in the original.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Tsar family expertise skulls 4.jpg
• Tsar family expertise skulls 4a.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The Lead is much too long

The Lead is supposed to be a summary, not a detailed account of the article. Needs to be severely edited, as the article should also be. Parkwells (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

DrKay, thanks for your help in editing the Lead. I think it could be improved with more deletions. For instance, the body of the article says that Sokolov was mistaken in some of his conclusions, and accounts changed after 1989 and new evidence. Shouldn't the Lead be a summary of the current consensus about the executions, rather than first writing what is attributed to Sokolov, and trying to account for other info? Maybe I can work on a summary later and show you what I'm thinking. It also seems as if there is excessive detail about what the government published; maybe there is a way to make that shorter. Thanks again, and sorry about "Princess Alexandra" - I meant to go back and fix that.Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

agreed, it repeats itself. Also, "was killed by ... Yakov Yurovsky a Jew on the orders of the Ural Regional Soviet" Should this read "Yakov Yurovsky, a Jew, on the orders of the Ural Regional Soviet" or "Yakov Yurovsky. a Jew on the orders of the Ural Regional Soviet"? If the latter, it should be "a Jew under the orders of...." And on second thought, why mention that he was a Jew at all?

Execution of the Romanov family Title Change and Content Review

"Execution"

The carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person. The killing of someone as a political act.

This was a murder and a massacre, not an execution. Russia was in a civil war for ten years (1917-1922) and was ruled by the Russian Republic during which the family was murdered by their captors the Reds (Bolsheviks) who where fighting both the Greens (Rival Socialists) and the whites (loosely allied forces). The entire family (children included) and their retainers where killed. There was also no 'official state' version of the 'execution' by the USSR as they didn't exist at the time (1922–1991) and when they came to power had denied it happened at first, the Russian Republic was in power and as such had no right to 'officially' execute anyone by law at the time (execution was officially outlawed on March 12, 1917 by the Russian Republic after the abdication of the Emperor Nicholas II)).

I Request help with the change of the title of this article appropriately and the review of content under the fact that the USSR where not in power at the time of the Romanov family Massacre. Reformation Society (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I always knew the word "execution" was inappropriate. Wolcott (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Reformation Society, I think this is the same situation with the Killing of Muammar Gaddafi.

It's the least biased choice of wording to just go with "Killing" or "Execution". Otherwise you're stuck with WP:NPOV. Dunutubble (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for discussion: change article name to Assassination of the Romanov family. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The Romanovs were murdered by people who acted on authority, rather than assassins secretly planning to kill someone in public and then flee from the authorities like the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. But better than the word execution. Wolcott (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your input! I do not believe, however, than a murder requires secrecy and flight to be called an assassination. Thugs grabbed a ruling family, incarcerated them and then murdered them without trial. That's a genuine assassination. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

But why is it so hard to just call it murder? Wolcott (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Murder is the unlawful killing. There is an implicit legal judgement, right or wrong, in using 'murder'.

100% agree, this was an extrajudicial or however they call it murder. There was no tribunal, no legal status to this, and execution is definitely not the right term to describe murder of literal children. I think it should be changed immediately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 04:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Killing"? 142.163.195.221 (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for discussion: change article name to Death of the Romanov family. This is the neutral position an encyclopedia should take. Article can state the facts and prominent opinion but it does seek to imply the legal status (murder/execution) of the deaths. Precedent on a similar historic event is the Death of Mussolini: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Benito_Mussolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming Shniken (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I prefer "Death of..." and completely agree that an encyclopedia should avoid using "charged" words in favor of a more neutral and factual style. Perhaps a section could be added that outlines the differing opinions on execution vs murder? Clofback (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Pringle" reference.

I don't understand reference number 9: "Pringle, p. 261.". I am not sure who the author is, not even talking about what book. All I could find remotely fitting was "The Murder of Nikolai Vavilov" by Peter Pringle. Is that the one? Would hate to buy this book just to find out it's the wrong one. Could someone who knows wikipedia better than I do improve the reference, actually naming the author and the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.46.134 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

edit title

This was not an execution, this was murder. Pyromilke (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Murder is a biased term. It may not have been justified or even legal, but "murder" is seldom used to refer to the killings.

It's very similar and most comparable to the Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. He was killed without trial, but it doesn't make it a "murder". And anyways, according to this statement, the thousands of people killed by the Gaddafi regime (or in our case, those killed by the Tsarist regime) would count as murder- maybe even mass murder. Dunutubble (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding Tsarina Alexandra's body

Did a Soviet guard or soldier sexually fondle Tsarina Alexandra's corpse after her death, according to at least two or three websites I've stumbled upon? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's in the Disposal section. DrKay (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. As pointed out below, WP:DEATHS doesn't apply because it has a common-sense common-name exemption, which applies in this case; some of the options suggested by the WP:DEATHS flowchart are clearly deficient due to how inappropriately euphemistic they are for a case of what was, after all, an extrajudicial execution. There is a case to be made for "Murder of…", but there isn't a consensus in this discussion yet. Sceptre (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Execution of the Romanov family → Death of the Romanov family – This nomination carries with it some of the experience gained from recent successful nominations Death of Osama bin Laden → Killing of Osama bin Laden at Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 5#Requested move 6 September 2020 and Death of Muammar Gaddafi → Killing of Muammar Gaddafi at Talk:Killing of Muammar Gaddafi#Requested move 18 September 2021 as well as the unsuccessful Death of Benito Mussolini → Killing of Benito Mussolini at Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini#Requested move 18 September 2021. The nominated header "Execution of..." is obviously unsatisfactory to a number of users, as evidenced by previous discussions on this talk page. There is clearly a difference between what happened at Trial of Saddam Hussein / Execution of Saddam Hussein and what happened to bin Laden, Gaddafi, Mussolini and the Romanov family. Based upon the discussion at Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini#Requested move 18 September 2021, Death of the Romanov family may have a greater probability of replacing the disliked Execution of the Romanov family than such other options as Assassination of the Romanov family, Killing of the Romanov family or Murder of the Romanov family. Having stated that, it should be noted that if consensus can be obtained for any among the latter three options, I would support each one. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "Death of Romanov family". Sounds like they ate some poisoned mushrooms or something. They were executed, assassinated, murdered, and/or massacred, not necessarily in that order. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Execution implies the carrying out of a death penalty ordered by a court, after a trial for some specified offence. The Romanovs were never charged with or tried for anything. They were simply murdered; the murder of high personages is usually called assassination. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  An assassination is a political killing by surprise attack, not slaughtering a helpless prisoner. An execution can be carrying out a death sentence (not necessarily with trial or court), or a political killing – my dictionary has these sense and sub-sense. —Michael Z. 19:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Undecided  The nomination doesn’t explain why these killings ordered by a government entity belong to the one category and not the other. Literally millions of Soviet executions were arbitrary, unjust, or technically illegal. There’s lots of links I haven’t read above: is there a particular one that indicates a consensus definition for titles with execution, death, killing, murder, assassination, &c? —Michael Z. 19:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was created in 2008 (12:42, 12 December 2008 Brandmeister (old) (talk | contribs) (13,956 bytes) (+13,956) splitting from Nicholas) under main title header Shooting of the Romanov family.

In 2011, a competing article — Murder of the Romanov family — was created on this subject. That article was merged into Shooting of the Romanov family (06:20, 4 December 2011 Anthony Appleyard (talk) (contribs) (44 bytes) (+44) moved Murder of the Romanov family to Shooting of the Romanov family: histmerge).

The sole RM on this subject — Talk:Execution of the Romanov family/Archive 1#Requested move 1 January 2016 — was six years ago and only presented the option Shooting of the Romanov family → Execution of the Romanov family, although three months after the RM a user wrote, "Why did this move entirely ignore the fact other users had raised that the term should be murder, not execution? This doesn't make any sense."

Also, a main header using the form — Template:Murder of the Romanovs — has existed since July 2019.

There were three extended talk page discussions on this subject:

Talk:Execution of the Romanov family/Archive 1#Murders, Killings, or Executions? (first posting October 2010 – last posting June 2017)

Talk:Execution of the Romanov family/Archive 1#Moving to a new title (first posting December 2016 – last posting November 2017)

Talk:Execution of the Romanov family#Execution of the Romanov family Title Change and Content Review (first posting July 2020 – last posting July 2021)

An interesting point about the term "Romanov family" was raised in January 2018 under Talk:Execution of the Romanov family/Archive 1#Romanov family?

As for the detail regarding "Literally millions of Soviet executions were arbitrary, unjust, or technically illegal", at least the Moscow show trials of 1936–1938, provided some putative form of legal foundation for the ensuing executions of high officials, but the killings/murders that were arbitrary, unjust, or technically illegal should not be even referenced as "executions". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, looking at the terms it seems Massacre of the Romanov family fits best (see the opening of Massacre). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Massacre of the Romanov family does indeed fit best and, if consensus skews towards that form of this article's main title header, I would certainly support it as a personal top choice. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support "Killing of the Romanov Family", per WP:DEATHS; based on Google Scholar results, there seems to be a dispute over what to call this. However, I believe it might be better to update the text of the article to match this dispute, if it is real, and then correct the title. Oppose massacre, as per WP:POVNAMING we should only use terms like massacre (see example "Boston Massacre") when it is the common name, and that does not appear to be the case here. BilledMammal (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As already stated in the nomination, I would likewise gladly support Execution of the Romanov family → Killing of the Romanov family. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any move. Per my Google scholar search, there are significantly more results for execution (62) compared to murder (38), massacre (9), killing (8) or assassination (5). I particularly oppose "massacre" as it's a POVNAME that is not the common name in reliable sources. (Also, for me "massacre" implies more deaths than occurred in this incident.) I also oppose "murder", as there was no murder conviction. Neutral on "killing" or "assassination". (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Prefer Murder of the Romanovs, dropping the "family" since their retainers and servants were also murdered. Per WP:COMMONNAME the following searches reveal

Google books search shows:

• "murder of the Romanovs" 5110 books
• "execution of the Romanovs" 1980 books
• "killing of the Romanovs" 537 books

Google scholar search shows:

• "murder of the Romanovs" 103 hits
• "execution of the Romanovs" 49 hits
• "killing of the Romanovs" 12 hits

--Nug (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This illustrates the stupidity of WP:DEATHS's illustration when it comes to murders and executions. Note that the illustration doesn't apply because WP:UCRN applies, as is always the case if there is a case for murder or execution. The title should be decided on references #1, #2 and #3, while paying attention to results such as by User:Nug above. I can't read #1, #2 uses "execution", #3 uses "murder". It needs to be "execution" or "murder" or at the most benign, "killing". It's not as if they accidentally ate poisoned mushrooms at their dacha. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Contrary to what SmokeyJoe stated above, the WP:DEATHS flowchart provides fairly good guidance here. It hinges on whether this extrajudicial killing can be considered "capital punishment"; the chart may need to be updated to include extrajudicial executions, as the term "execution" is often used a little more broadly than strict cases like Saddam and Louis XVI. If that argument is rejected, the title should be Killing of the Romanov family according to the flowchart. — Goszei (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just like we no longer use "Death of" for the article title when an individual has been murdered or intentionally killed, we should not use it here. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The precedents cited in the original justification moved those pages with titles similar to this one, unless I'm going crazy.Mozzie (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose while the proposed title isn't unconstructive in any way, "Death" seems to be normally used in page titles whn a single person died. "Killing" or "Execution" would be more appropriate in this case. Dunutubble (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Prefer Murder of the Romanov family. Per Nug and per Stalag Luft III murders. Wolcott (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support 'death' or 'killing'. Both 'murder' and 'execution' are a bit POVy—blindlynx 22:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

POV? They walked into the room and shot them all down, then kept at it stabbing and mutilating the family with bayonets, then shot them again, all in obedience of other people's orders. This was mass butchery, if anything "death" would be POV for ignoring the obvious. If not massacre then the present name, "Execution..." seems most applicable, but 'death of' would include the renaming of the section 'Executioners' to...what? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and Comment. Then why dont we have the articles named "Death of Osama bin Laden" and "Death of Muammar Gaddafi???? 152.130.1.19 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Personally I would prefer Murder of the Romanov family, which it very clearly was, but if not then the current title, as an "execution" doesn't actually have to be judicial and this is probably the commonest name in the sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose death. The Romanovs did not die in a mundane way like a car crash or from disease. They were killed/murdered/executed - I don't have a particular preference out of that bunch - but "death" is not appropriate here. Calidum 18:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 January 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Murder of the Romanov family. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Execution of the Romanov family → Killing of the Romanov family – The arguments were already presented a year ago in the related Execution of the Romanov family → Death of the Romanov family, above at Talk:Execution of the Romanov family#Requested move 6 January 2022. English Wikipedia main title headers "Execution of..." imply some form of judicial proceeding such as in the separate article headers Trial of Saddam Hussein and Execution of Saddam Hussein. There is likewise a good reason why English Wikipedia articles delineating the following events do not use headers "Execution of Osama bin Laden" (redirects to Killing of Osama bin Laden), "Execution of Benito Mussolini" (redirects to Death of Benito Mussolini) or "Execution of Muammar Gaddafi" (this potential redirect is currently a redlink, but it would be expected to flow to Killing of Muammar Gaddafi). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Execution" in English can mean judicially-sanctioned executions or extra-judicial executions such as murder or assassination.[1] And on Wikipedia, the "Killing of" titling is more often used for legally justified killings. Based on the historical accounts, this family was killed in a manner that is often termed "execution style", so I think the term "execution" in the title of this article is the most appropriate term to use. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Rreagan007: I see killing as the top of this meaning tree, with executions and murders/assassinations being the two key branches, the first legal, the second not. For reasons presented above in the lead and below in my comments, I think legally sanctioned 'executions' should be clearly distinguished from legally unsanctioned killings such as murders and assassinations. As to your assertion RE: 'killing of" - honest question: is it really the case in your experience that 'killing' is frequently used on English Wikipedia for legally justified killings? I would more expect 'killing' to be used where the motives /intentionality /legality are unclear, making it hard to categorize any further. What is an example of a 'killing of' page where the taking of life was legally sanctioned? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Murder of the Romanov family. It was very clearly a murder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't normally title an article "murder of" unless there has been a judicial conviction or murder, which I don't think there ever has been in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

So Jack the Ripper wasn't a murderer? Sometimes it's blatantly obvious even without a judicial conviction. The Romanovs were hardly killed accidentally! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Killings can still be done intentionally and not be murder, which is a legal term. Manslaughter, self-defense, and war killings are intentional killings that are not legally murder. And the Jack the Ripper murders weren't done execution style, as was the case with the Romanovs. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The gangland murders known as Saint Valentine's Day Massacre were committed execution style as were other organized crime murders along with various contract killings and murder for hire plots, with the press using terminology such as, "shot in the back of the head, execution-style", but nonetheless not referencing such events as "executions", but as "murders". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Murder of the Romanov family. Indeed. Without out even a show trial lending a fig leaf of legality to it, all this actually was was premeditated murder. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Except, murders of high-profile people are usually termed "assassinations". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Not usually when carried out in that way. I don't think assassination would be a good description of this particular incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

      Yes, it's definitely not an "assassination". Either "execution" or "murder" accurately describes it, and I think the former is more accurate in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      'Execution' is the most formal term available, and, for me at least, there are consistency reasons why this should not be used. As noted in the lead, 'executions' of even the most despised heads of state are typically preceded by a trial, e.g. Execution of Louis XVI, Execution of Charles I. But this bypassed any sort of judicial proceeding. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      Considering it was likely ordered by Lenin himself, "execution" strikes me as more accurate – I don't think executions require trials (e.g. "summary executions"), but they do require somebody "ordering" it. "Murder" is generally carried out by a lone individual, or maybe a pair, not a group. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      @IJBall: The article itself makes clear that there is extant historical uncertainty over whether Lenin's cabinet issued the order, for which there is no proof in state documents. All that is known is that Lenin had been in favour of conducting a trial, and yet he nevertheless endorsed the murders in the aftermath. That is all. In addition, a summary execution is an execution where the accused has not benefitted from a "full and fair trial", not no trial at all, e.g. with Benito Mussolini, whose death was simply ordered. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      It was still ordered by higher ups (Lenin surely did order it, but destroyed all records of that, but it doesn't matter even if he didn't), as part of a political process, so everything I said above still stands. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      Be that as it may, even if that is your opinion, the existing title of this page is not 'Summary execution of', and summary executions really are quite a different beast than a trial plus execution. They lack legality and human rights. Hence why the UN has a "Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions" [2] that investigates such things as war crimes in times of conflict. 'Execution of' alone implies process, while a summary execution is a killing without process. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      You can agree to disagree, but there was a process – it was a political one, not a "legal" one. Regardless, I believe that "execution" best describes the events here, so I will formally oppose this RM proposal, with "Murder" instead of "Execution" being the runner-up choice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      Yes, a legal process is what I meant, but we can agree to disagree - it's certainly a grey area with ample scope for that. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: To provide some context for the alt title of 'Murder of', references for it being a 'murder' range from Andrew Cook's The Murder of the Romanovs to scholarly references such as these: [3], [4], [5], and New York Times coverage at the time. It was also officially opened as a murder case in 1993, to be closed in 1998 and reopened again in 2015 [6]. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. As the nominator, I would fully support the proposed alternative form of the main title header: Execution of the Romanov family → Murder of the Romanov family per Necrothesp and Iskandar323. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support "Murder of the Romanov family" per Necrothesp and Iskandar323. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Murder... most foul, per above. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Both “execution” and “murder” work well. They were murdered execution style. “Killing” is too bland, as if we don’t know who or why or even if it was a reckless accident. The decision should be made based in reliable sources, probably with heavier weighting to Russian sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Murder of the Romanov family. As per nom. Elme12 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assassination?

One would normally use assassination rather than murder when it comes to people of this stature. Am I wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that; doesn't "assassination" imply a surprise, sudden attack rather than killing people who have been taken prisoner?

I agree that "murder" seems dubious. "Execution" or even simply "killing" seems like a more neutral description. "Murder" suggests it was a crime for which someone has been charged, tried, and sentenced. As far as I know, that's not the case; no-one has been sentenced for the crime of murdering the Romanovs.

I'm aware that sources were cited for calling it "murder", however, it doesn't seem like any effort was made to establish neutrality; Western press coverage, for example, is hardly neutral in regards to the Russian Civil War.

Arguably it was an act of war; the killing of enemy leaders isn't usually designated a "murder". The article labels it a "war crime", but there's no reference given for that. – Scyrme (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That's rather the point - it wasn't just the leader who was killed: it was men, women, children, indiscriminately shot and bayoneted to death in cold blood, without trial, and for no crime other than having been born into the Russian royal family. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

They were killed because they were royalty, not only the reigning Tsar but also his immediate hiers, to prevent the possibility of the restoration of the monarchy. That's not "indiscriminate", that's targeted. As an act of war/revolution, the rationale is clear. The cruelty and brutality of it makes it an atrocity but doesn't make it "murder". That it should have been a crime doesn't mean it was a crime. No-one was charged, let alone convicted unless I'm mistaken. If this had occurred outside of war it would obviously have been a crime but it didn't, and I'm not even aware of any international law that would have made this a war crime, although plausibly it was a war crime; I don't know enough about laws in regard to warfare to say. – Scyrme (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes it murder is that it was premeditated and unlawful. The argument that someone needs to be charged for it to become murder is a straw man. There have been plenty of mass murders, as this was, in history for which no one has ever been charged of a crime. In fact, mass murders quite often go uncharged given their out-of-process nature and the general rule that no one involved is interested in self-indicting. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Did both sides of the civil war regard it as "unlawful"? My understanding is that the revolutionaries (and subsequently the Soviets) regarded it to be an summary execution which, although unjust, is not unlawful. – Scyrme (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Lawfulness is determined by laws, and AFAIK the Bolsheviks never changed Russia's laws to make killing children lawful. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Summary executions aren't normal circumstances. Was there a law limiting who could be summarily executed? Summary executions in general are illegal today, regardless of who, but the relevant laws wouldn't be written until long after 1918. AFAIK, it was not unlawful at the time. To be clear, I would rather learn that it was definitely unlawful even then. – Scyrme (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not an obvious summary execution either. On the Wiki page: "A summary execution is an execution in which a person is accused of a crime and immediately killed without the benefit of a full and fair trial." - so even a summary execution is presumptively preceded by the accusation of a crime, of which, here, there is no evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK that's what they called it, regardless of Wikipedia's definition. Establishing that "execution" is also questionable does not make "murder" any less questionable. If there is doubt as to whether this is properly called an execution, an act of war, or a murder then it seems best to go with the unambiguously correct "killing", for the title at least. – Scyrme (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I second the change to "killing", as there remains a great deal of political and emotional charge surrounding this case. "Murder" could be seen as overly sympathetic to the Romanovs, "execution" could be seen as legitimizing the actions of the Bolsheviks, "assassination" is misleading and inaccurate, and so on. In any case, as others have said, the inclusion of the children means that there is no means of squarely classifying the event as either execution or murder regardless of opinions on legitimacy. Gvbox (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I too support the change to "killing" to preserve NPOV. It's clear some of the other contributors are emotionally invested and no writing from a neutral perspective. RedKaladin (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Only the seriously old or nostalgic could possibly be emotionally connected to this. It happened over a century ago. Daft aspersion. No. Editors have just preferred to call murder (and particularly child murder) in cold blood murder, as it was widely reported to be at the time, and is still widely called. A murder case was opened. The only entity that has ever attempted to cover up, deny or deflect from the homicidal nature of the incident was the Soviet Union, which did so because it was one of the skeletons in its closet, figuratively and literally. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

There are editors on this very page displaying very obvious emotional responses to its content; in fact, you seem to be one of them, employing emotive language such as "it was men, women, children, indiscriminately shot and bayoneted to death in cold blood, without trial, and for no crime other than having been born into the Russian royal family". Aspersions indeed!

In my view the only titles proposed so far that indulge in no unecessary editorialising viz. legality, morality, and ultimate responsibility are "Killing of" and "Death of". Anabasis94 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I also support the change to “killing” for Npov with your and RedKaladin’s reasoning Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the title should use the word "Killing" rather than "assassination", "execution", or "murder", per titles of existing articles such as Killing of Osama bin Laden and Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Title should be "deaths of..."

-An encyclopaedia should use neutral language.

-No trial for those who died was performed, thus not an execution

- No judicial ruling or trial on the perpetrators, thus not a murder. 2001:8003:280E:5A00:9DF0:815C:C55B:742F (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It was ordered by a government, and as such it was an execution.--Aristophile (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral with respect to the wording in reliable sources, and the vaguery that is "killing" is not obviously preferred in the preponderance of such sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Using murder is not a neutral term. Wikipedia does not use murder to describe extrajudicial killings of disposed Gaddafi, nor does it use it to refer to the death of Patrice Lumumba, the Derg's killing of Selassie, nor the 14 July Revolution in Iraq. In these cases we have events where whole families were killed in a coup (Iraq), the monarch was killed after disposition (Ethiopia), and killings done under unclear authorization. The one exception to this is the death of most of the Nepalese royal family which was clearly a murder committed from within the family. 2601:541:480:18A0:198D:B995:53C6:3056 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Gaddafi died in the chaos of capture by an angry mob: his exact cause of death will never be known. Patrice Lumumba's death is listed as an assassination. Selassie's was a mystery. It's unclear how any of these relate. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, "Murder" is clearly inappropriate here. The title of this page has been influenced by editors who have strong feelings that the killings were unjustified, and is not consistent with an encyclopaedic tone. Compare, for example, the titles of "Death of Benito Mussolini", or the "Execution and Aftermath" section of Rosa Luxemburg's english language page. Anabasis94 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Despite some similarities, in the sense that all were forms of summary executions in times of civil conflict, the details context and reporting are all different. Overall, this is a WP:WAX argument, and of little merit here. But for what it's worth, Death of Benito Mussolini probably should be Execution of Benito Mussolini, since there is little quibbling in the story or the sourcing on this. Rosa Luxemburg's summary execution is meanwhile widely regarded as a murder, and was reported as such at the time, and all four men implicated in issuing the orders for it were in turn shot, so there is all the air of the subsequent criminalization of the deed in the aftermath. There are more sources describing it as a murder than an execution. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• It was clearly and neutrally an EXECUTION, state sanctioned etc, etc. The current wording is clearly hagiography.--Aristophile (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well more reliable sources call it a murder, so it's WP:NPOV, which is policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source."

  The title "Murder" clearly represents an editorialised statement about the (legal and ethical) substance of the acts that goes beyond bias attributable to sources (even reliable ones!). Anabasis94 (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I fail to see how the subject here can be disparaged. The subject here is a killing. It is also long dead history. It is naturally dispassionate. WP:NPOV also says to represent sources "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", and below what you have quoted it says "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". Here, the balance of the sources already use 'murder', so this cannot be editorialization. Editorializing would be using "execution" because one thinks it more fitting even though the balance of sources present it otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  What you are seeing is a bias of American/English sources which likely refelcts anti-sovietism. Please note, I do not believe the Soviets were anything else than an empire which committed genocides against those it felt did not meet a soviet identity. That being said, there also has been a lot of eulogizing the Romanovs positively in English. If I go to the German, French, or Spanish pages for the same topic they use assassination execution for the title. I would even be more in favor of the term regicide or naming this "regicide and killing of..." or something like that. I would challenge you to find a similar killing that uses such verbiage on wikipedia. 2601:541:480:18A0:D093:64CA:C98A:ECC (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Garbled paragraph

The paragraph starting "The reason for the lack of jewels in Maria's underwear" in the disposal section is completely nonsensical/unintelligible and seems to contain broken/non-matched quotation marks. 130.246.57.110 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)