Talk:Ivan VI of Russia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Russia: History High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

That Picture

That picture is clearly a woman, something not adequately explained for someone is who is referred to as "he" throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.113 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he was only 1 year old when he came to the throne, I assume that is simply a picture of him at a young, rather androgonous, age. Also, it was apparently not unusual for the European royalty of this time to dress their sons in (by today's standards) quite feminine clothing. For example, see the picture captioned "Louis as a young child" at Louis XV of France. LarryJeff (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel in the extreme

Am I missing something, or is this one of the cruelest tales in history? Throwing an innocent two-year-old child into maximum-security prisons, and keeping him there throughout his adolescence? Isolating him from his family at age three? Ordering him to not be educated? The end of the article even has a sentence fragment claiming that he never saw the light of day for 20 years.

The article implies that there are two villainesses responsible for this: Elizabeth and Catherine II. If these two figures actually deserve any sympathy at all, the article needs a rewrite, because I'm coming away utterly disgusted by these women. 174.24.46.24 (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be professional. Sure it was sad but so many other royal rivals have been locked away, tortured or killed when another line comes to power. Like the Prince in the Tower.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it would be professional to provide enough information to allow the reader to arrive at valid conclusions about the ethics of Elizabeth and Catherine II. 174.24.46.24 (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't they just kill him? I don't get it, you don't want anyone to know he's exists, so you throw him in a maximum security prison for over 20 years and order people to kill him if anyone tries to get him out, why not just kill him in the first place, wouldn't that make more sense? Were they going to keep him in there until he died of old age? Whole thing just seems odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.89.24 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth had strange ideas about humanity. For example, during the coup, she ordered in any case not to wake and not to frighten the child. She did not know what to do with him and came up with the output that it seemed safe. She was quite paranoid. Very afraid of a new coup against her. Neither Elizabeth nor Catherine would not have dared to directly give the order to kill him. They were not Peter the Great. However, it is strange that they have not chosen a monastery for him. (Although, the last man - the pretender to the throne, forcibly made a monk, later became the patriarch and ruled the country for his son, so it is not a safe option in Russian). Кейра (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did actually reign

The statement that he "never actually reigned" is incorrect. He was Tsar, albeit under a regency.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I have copied the following thread from User talk:ImperatorPanda

Ivan VI

You have changed the image there saying that the previous image is actually of Petr Petrovich. The image is from Commons and is used in many projects. If it is indeed mis-attributed then something should be done there.

Why do you think the image is mis-attributed? The original source www.fine-art-images.net/de/showIMG_15300.html attributes the subject as Ivan Antonovich Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is mis-attributed firstly because of this painting officially of Peter Petrovich

The image on the top is the image which I think is Peter Petrovich while the image below that is officially of Peter Petrovich. The panting bears a striking resemblance to the portrait thought to be of Ivan VI. Secondly, The article below says that the portrait reportedly being Ivan VI is actually of Peter Petrovich. https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/ivan-of-russia/

Thanks! It is very convincing! I will think about what to do on Commons Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actions

I think the arguments against the original image are convincing (additionally the original image source www.fine-art-images.net/de/showIMG_15300.html is blacklisted on English wikipedia). I think we should use the proposed substitution Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]