Talk:Catherine I of Russia

message: I corrected a few typos and added what I thought was linguistic accuracy to Catherine's earlier name. These were reverted by Ghirlandajo, and called "ridiculous", without further explanation or discussion. I feel that within reason, most reversions, deletions and such should be addressed on the talk page. Otherwise "editors" might feel the "Royal Perogative" to do as they please, without question. My full position on the matter of the Catherine edit ( a matter which will not stop the world from spinning, by the way ), was posted on Ghirlandajo's talk page, at the bottom of "Link", under "RIDICULOUS"?... if interested, it is there.
First of all, articles must be duscussed at article's talk pages, not at user's so that other people could join the discussion.
Second, when you change something, and others disagree, it is your duty to provide proofs of your version, not previous authors (who may be long gone). 
Now, you wrote "I asked a Lithuanian friend of mine, to tell me how they would spell and pronounce her name". This is not how it works. You should have found a friend that could have answered you how it was spelled". And preferrably both in her native language and in English traditional rendering. I see no evidence presented that her Slavic name was Lithuanized. 
Your efforts in English langage are enormously appreciated, but please be careful with other languages. 
P.S. The above doesn't mean that you are not right. A hint would be that her name was Ska.... If it were truly Polish, it would be Sko... (it comes from the name of the bird, "skowronek", hell, forgot it in English ). (I don't think it was Belarusian; otherwise all Belarusian neonationalists weree full of pride by now.) mikka (t) 00:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no doubt that his name could have been Russified in course of Russian rewriting the history of Eastern Europe in the end of 19th century. I'm not sure what can be done about that, though. --Lysy (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Skavronskaite

message: I find it suspicious that a "daughter of peasant" was born in a town (Jakobstadt). mikka (t) 17:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not so suspicious if he was Jewish ? --Lysy (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious statements 

message: Cleanup tag was added because of the general style of the article: although its information is generally correct, the sentences are generally short and choppy, and many of the paragraphs are not well organised.  Some of the sentences really belong elsewhere than the paragraphs where they are.  Also: we probably ought to have section headers on the article.  Nyttend 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: In the article, it states that "Catherine and Peter has three children, none of whom survived."  The next sentence states that two of her children lived to adulthood.  Could someone please clarify.  If none of her three children survived, how can two live to adulthood.  Also, a side note: I fixed the strikethrough in the talk page, because it was annoying (going through the second half of the page). 69.27.229.11 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: "The commonly accepted version is that Catherine was born in Ringen (Röngu), in present-day Estonia." Where does you found somthing like this?  WberПо словам Вебера, Екатерина родилась в деревне Рингене, Дерптского округа, и была незаконной дочерью крепостной девушки и шведского подполковника Розена 12 . According to Weber, Catherine was born in the village Ringene, Dorpat County, and was the illegitimate daughter of the land girls and Swedish Colonel Rosen 12. Но Вебер, передавая это известие, сам находил его довольно сомнительным, судя по тому, что в своем обширном сочинении — “Das veranderte Russland”, он нашел нужным сделать такую оговорку: “Сознаюсь, что относительно происхождения Екатерины я не знаю ничего основательного и заслуживающего доверия, потому что сообщаемые известия крайне противоречивы” 13 .  But Weber, conveying the news, he found it very doubtful, judging from the fact that in his extensive essay - "Das veranderte Russland", he found it necessary to make such a declaration: "I confess that the origin of Catherine I do not know anything substantial and worthy of confidence, because the reported news is extremely controversial"in 13. "Das veranderte Russland", 1740, III, s. 6. 6.
It is listed in The life and Reign of Catherine vol 2 Motley 1744 and he probably has references. it is likely he is wrong and she was born in Latvia the town of  Vishki claims she was born there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.64.75 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: I have removed the title of the first section. The title breaks wikipedias rules of NPOV, as no social class should be considered as "lowly". Of course, historical notions should be included in the article. But historical notions should be described in a neautral way, and to follow historical notions in the titles of sections is not very neutral, as it gives the impression to agree with these notions. The title "origins" is sufficient and completely neutral in every way. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lowly origins" 

message: Were the deaths of Peter and Catherine's children caused by some epidemic like diphtheria, etc.? 
Musicwriter (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juvenile mortality 

message: Was she a Catholic or Lutheran before her conversion? Her parents were Catholics but she was raised by a Lutheran pastor and I remember a documentary on Peter the Great that said she was Lutheran.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion