Talk:Catherine the Great/Archive 1

message: Substituted at 08:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comment 

message: Am I missing something? Some contemporary memoirs I've read (those of Princess Dashkova, an important figure under Catherine II) indicate that Peter wasn't chased from the palace by an armed force under Grigorii Orlov, but that he was with a fleet en route to Denmark for a minor war. Supposedly he was prevented from landing on his return and put two and two together, eventually abdicating willingly in exchange for a comfortable estate.
Additionally, I have heard nothing about a death by illness, unless you would consider homicide an illness: he was killed by Alexei Orlov (not to be confused with Grigorii) in what was apparently a drunken confrontation. The rumors of foul play on the part of the Empress, which may or may not be legitimate, were as to whether she was involved in motivating Alexei to commit the act. I'm something of a newbie, or I'd probably be able to check the history of edits--does anyone know if this information is from the 1911 source, or from an editor? Because it would seem very much to be inaccurate. If there are conflicting sources, I'd be happy to know what they are. I can't imagine someone just made this up. Fearwig 06:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dethroning and death of Peter III 

message: Wasn't the proposed code-of-law reform binding to the monarch? If so, wouldn't that make it a constitution, and somewhat more worthy of mention? My memory seems to tell me that this was a more serious matter than the half-sentence mention it's getting here, but I can't find any information off-hand. Please clarify this for me, if you know for sure. Thanks! Fearwig 06:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A constitution?

message: fourteenth generation from a king of Ruthens, from a Grand Duke of Tver
15) Catherine II of Russia
14) Johanna Elisabeth of Gottorp m Christian August of Zerbst (A)
13) Christian August of Gottorp m 13) Albertine Frederikke of Baden (B)
12) Frederikke Amalie of Denmark m Christian Albrecht of Gottorp (son of Marie Elisabeth of Saxony (B) m Frederik III of Gottorp (C))
11) Sophie Amalie of Brunswick
10) George of Brunswick Kalenberg
9) Dorothea of Denmark
8) Dorothea of Lauenburg
7) Catherine of Brunswick
6) Catherine of Pomerania
5) Sophia of Pomerania
4) Maria of Masovia
3) Alexandra of Lithuania
2) Uljana Alexandrovna of Tver in Russia
1) Alexander Mihailovich of Tver
St Mihail Jaroslavich of Tver m Anna Dmitrieva of Rostov
Jaroslav Jaroslavich of Tver and Novgorod
Jaroslav Vsevolodovich of Perejaslavl and Kiev m Fjodosia Igorjevna of Rjazan
Vsevolod Yurievich of Vladimir
Yurij Dolgorukij of Kiev
Vladimir Monomah of Kiev
A:
John Louis of Zerbst
Sophie Auguste of Gottorp
Marie Elisabeth of Saxony (B) m Frederik III of Gottorp (C)
B:
12) Auguste Marie of Gottorp
11) Marie Elisabeth of Saxony m Frederik III of Gottorp (C)
John George of Saxony m 10) Magdalena Sibylla of Prussia (D)
Christian I of Saxony
Anne of Denmark
Dorothea of Lauenburg (above)
C:
Auguste of Denmark
Frederik II of Denmark
Dorothea of Lauenburg (above)
D:
9) Mary Eleanor of Cleves
8) Mary of Austria
Ferdinand of Austria m 7) Anna of Hungary (E)
Philip of Austria and Burgundy
Maximilian of Austria
Frederick of Austria
Cimburga of Masovia
Ziemowit IV of Masovia
Ziemowit III of Masovia
Maria Jurjevna of Halicz
Jurij Lvovich of Halicz
Leo Danilovich of Halicz
Anna Mstislavna of Novgorod m Danil Romanovich of Volhynsk
Roman Mstislavich of Kiev
Mstislav Izlaslavich of Kiev
Izjaslav Mstislavich of Kiev
Mstislav Vladimirovich of Kiev
Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomah
E:
6) Vladislav of Bohemia and Hungary
5) Casimir of Poland
4) Jagailo Vladislav of Lithuania (m Zonka Andrzeievna Holszanska, great-granddaughter of Svjatoslav Ivanovich, Grand Duke of Smolensk)
3) Uljana Alexandrovna of Tver
Alexander Mihailovich of Tver m 2) Anastasia Jurjevna of Halicz
1) Jurij Lvovich of Halicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.199.247 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: her ancestry among ancient rulers of Rus

message: "Six months after her ascension to the throne, on July 17, 1762, Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov (younger brother to Gregory Orlov, then court favorite and a participant in the coup) in what was supposed to have been an accidental killing, the result of Alexei's overindulgence in vodka. During the Soviet period it was assumed proven that Catherine ordered the murder. Now, some historians tend to doubt her involvement because of the long-running tensions between Alexei Orlov and Catherine - he eventually killed her husband."
Doesn't "- he eventually killed her husband" seem a bit repetitive, since at the beginning it states, "Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov"? Its already been stated that Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov, and "- he eventually kiled her husband" makes it sound funny to me. I definitely think the paragraph could do without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KEB (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetition?

message: Again please define if  Białowieża is Part of Ukraine or Belarus.
--Molobo 13:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is  Białowieża part of Belarus or Ukraine

message: Disputed-Catherine didn't add virgin geographic territory but territories of other countries.Furthermore the terminology "absorb" is POV. Russia annexed those territories not "absorbed" them. No mention of Khanate of Crimea or Duchy of Courland is in the text. Did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union absorb territories of Greater Poland, Little Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine ? Let's not be absurd and use proper terminology. Absorbing is not the correct term.
According to definition:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=absorb
1 : to take in and make part of an existent whole 
Which would imply that the territories in question themselves entered Russian Empire rather then be taken by it with force.
--Molobo 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave that particular term to others to work out, but into is short and needs expantion, and the fact that it did not mention that she acquired Polish territories made it very incomprehensive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Absorbing other countries is usually called annexation

message: There is so little, if anything, in the article about her domestic policies! I suggest we get to work on that! Cleanup of the excessive and disproportionate repetitions of the effect of her rule on Poland that is kept being readded can be done later and it harms the article's quality much less than a total blank spot as far as her domestic policies were conserned. There are plenty of info, including much being available online, in English, Russian and many other languages. --Irpen 04:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to remember that our goal is to be better then EB. Nonetheless it is a valuable publication, and so hopefully point 1 will make you stop reverting my addition of Poland to the lead. As was discussed many times, PLC is more correct than Poland both in terms of reality and in terms of wiki syntax (Poland is mostly a disambig in historical terms for various Polish former states). As far as point two, it is fairly debatable whether Poniatowski was 'a weak man entirely devoted to Catherine' - while some historians argue that, other have a rather contrasting view of him. Considering our current article about him is mostly 1911 EB based, this is something that definetly has to be expanded sooner or later. Finally, point number three is mostly correct. As far as your other point, I definietly agree that the article should speak much more about her non-Poland related policies and such - but that is no reason to remove current Poland-related details. If one section is better than the other one, you don't dumb it down to the levels of the others, you expand the others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic policies

message: Dateof Birth is in questiosovpage more than once refers to her death on 6th November.
Which is correct ? - unsigned
6 November 1796 (O.S.) = 17 November 1796 (N.S.). The Old Style date is the one that should be used in "anniversary" type listings, while the New Style one is the one that should be used when trying to ascertain what happened elsewhere in the world on that particular day. In either case, the date should be specified as being in the Julian or Gregorian calendar. Interestingly (or not) she was born in an area that had adopted the Gregorian calendar, but died in an area that had retained use of the Julian calendar. 
- Nunh-huh 07:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth

message: Molobo, Piotrus, please stop your silly revert warring. If you have to attack Russia-related articles, please find another object. I removed my Ferbruary additions to the lead, since they spark Molobo's ire so much. Also, please stop stalking me. These days, it's enough for me to make even a minor edit to an article mentioning Poland but once - such as this one or Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky - and Molobo attacks it within minutes. It's not on and may lead to admin action. Please find Poland-related articles to edit. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop revert warring

message: In XI-XII centuries, when Monomakh ruled, Russia just did not exist yet. Moscow's claims to the legacy of Kievan Rus are largely ungrounded. It was the Eastern Slav medieaval state, only indirectly related to modern Russia. Respectively, the ruler of Kievan Rus by no means may be considered a Russian monarch. I removed the mentioning about Monomakh Morkva 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vladimir Monomakh of Kievan Rus- Russian monarch???

message: Article has been nominated for consideration by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA. Badbilltucker 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "unreferenced"? Most of the text is copied verbatim from 1911 Britannica. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inline citations are becoming increasingly a norm. It should not be difficult to reference all material from EB, and see what was added from other sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced Good Article

message: I suggest the following passage should be moved to Russian Enlightenment:
Also we could call the Catherine II as founder of Russian state university on land use planning, it was announced on May 25, 1779 (on May 14, Julian Calendar) that the Surveying School should be opened. The school was named Konstantinovsky by the name of Great Prince Konstantin Pavlovich, the grandson of Catherine II of Russia who was born in the year. The government and Catherine II of Russia herself patronized and supported the school from the date of its establishing emphasizing a significance of land management and special surveying education. Lack of land surveyors and state importance of land surveying initiated establishing of the school. The legislation of the day emphasized significance of land management: "Current surveying is a business, which is performed not only to the benefit and peace of every holder but the state business containing the Emperor glory and advantage of peace and quiet for all the State." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghirlandajo (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cultural depictions of Catherine II of Russia]]

message: Now that Władysław II of Poland got moved to Jogaila shouldn't we move this article to Sophie Augusta Fredericka von Anhalt-Zerbst? //Halibutt 09:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind WP:POINT. And remember the not feeding advice before responding. --Irpen 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Halibutt is right that Jogaila sets a strange precedence, and this can affect many articles, so that issue needs to be discussed in more detail; nonetheless I'd suggest one discussion at WP:NC instead of several at various monarchs' pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever is the best place to discuss the global issue, the proposal to move this article floated by Halibutt is inappropriate. If he is looking for a similar case with a Russia monarch article, it would be Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse whose title generated much dramma and still makes many people unhappy, not this stable and precise title. Whatever problems this article has, those are not with the title. --Irpen 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No wiki article is stable - and apparently no monarchy-related. //Halibutt 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: The statement that Catherine the Great founded the Imperial Ballet School is contradicted by Anna of Russia and Vaganova Ballet Academy.  Should not the sentence stating that Catherine founded the Imperial Ballet School be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetty2 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial Ballet School

message: The statement that Catherine the Great founded the Imperial Ballet School is contradicted by Vaganova Ballet Academy.  The latter article states that Anna of Russia founded the school in the Winter Palace.  Which article is correct?
The standard of English in this article is just terrible. It really is hard to understand anything that is being said it's so full of sub clauses. Read the opening sentence for an idea of what i mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.134.28 (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial Ballet School 2

message: Does anyone know why did she receive the patronymic "Alexeyevna"? Her father's name was not Alexey. Is it the name of her priest, godfather or guardian saint? --Amir E. Aharoni 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Alexeyevna?

message: As explained in this edit, this article is a biography. It is not expected to provide a detailed coverage of everything that happened in the Russian Empire between 1762 and 1796. Having written a large part of this article, I find it offensive to see my edits unceremoniously reverted. There is no need to reproduce the content of the page Russian history, 1682–1796 in this article. Thanks, Ghirla-трёп- 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert warring and internal policies

message: Guys, please stop adding all sort of portraits to this article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an image gallery. The article links to the appropriate Commons page, is it not enough? Our readers may view all your images there. Now I see that someone started a gallery. Though it has only four images and does not appear to be pesky, I predict that in a few months it will grow to include many more and will look silly indeed. Once you start a gallery, every passerby would want to add a couple of images from Commons. This biography can't have all the possible images of Catherine II. Please stop. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have solved this problem in some other articles by moving the entire gallery to the talk page.  Sometimes that works, particularly when it is viewed as a "sandbox" of sorts for images that may become useful in the article as it evolves.  Another job for those who care is to organize whatever images are over in commons so they are in a useable form.  However, many images in these articles are not eligible for posting there, so a "sandbox gallery" of images contained within wikipedia only can be helpful. Anyway, all I did was try to put the drawing of her in men's clothing into the article (far more in character than the frilly maiden equestrian portrait there, but apparently people like the pretty picture better, oh well), and it would be nice if it could at least be tucked here somewhere, as such images of "warrior queens" riding astride in that period are not easy to find.  Montanabw 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image gallery

message: I'm in an AP European history course and I was looking for some information on the subject, direct subject, of the relevance of Catherine the Great to the Enlightenment.  Any information Available? Yes there is a ton of info there, but what directly relates to the Enlightenment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzly1456 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any direct relation to the significance of Catherine to the enlightenment?

message: Looks like this was discussed briefly before, but the recent removal/restoring of the criticism section got me looking for citations there.  Before I put a citations needed in that section, I scanned the article and saw few reference.  And I suspect our understanding of the woman has changed significantly since 1911?  I've put a refimprove tag at the top.  (John User:Jwy talk) 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I have reverted the recent insertion of text that looks like it is from http://members.tripod.com/~Nevermore/CGREAT.HTM.  Please review WP:COPY and see if there is a way to get this useful text in without violating a copyright.  (John User:Jwy talk) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation?

message: I see a list of them.  But what is one? (John User:Jwy talk) 04:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catherinian?

message: In the last sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction
"She was suppose to have had many lovers, and was held responsible for the planned murder of her husband."
Please change suppose to supposed
Johns860 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed suppose -> believed. Sounded better.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit requested

message: changed beginning to "She frequently leaned towards scandal given her propensity for relationships which often resulted in gossip flourishing within more than one European court." from "She frequently leaned towards scandal given her enlightened propensity for relationships with daring figures which often resulted in gossip flourishing within more than one European court." cause it's not NPOV. Enlightened, daring figures? not writing for romance novels. 70.240.50.188 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a lot of the text in the article may be from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which would explain its somewhat antiquated language and viewpoints in that regard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sexism

message: there's a guard uprising whose details need clarification....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.14.99 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: uprising details

message: The woman subsequently known as "Catherine the Great" held the position of empress-consort during the reign of her husband Peter III. She became empress-dowager following Peter's death. According to legitimist principles she functioned as empress-regent for her son Paul I from 1762 onwards. But in practical Realpolitik terms she reigned as Empress regnant from the deposition of Peter to her death. - All this our article explains in appropriate contexts, while concentrating quite properly on her notability: her character, her rule and her policies. But the lead paragraph of the article merely states that she "was Empress of Russia" from summer 1762 onwards, fudging the precise nature of her title of Empress and begging questions about her former role as empress-consort and her future role as empress-dowager. I suggest that we can clarify the matter accurately - and properly summarize the focus of the article - by stating in the lead paragraph that she "reigned as Empress" from the summer of 1762 until 1796. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Empress consort, empress regent, empress dowager and empress regnant

message: A large "Daily life during Catherine's reign" section was added by an IP user. While the section is informative and well-written, I don't think it has any place in a biographical article, there is simply too much general information about Russia and too little about Catherine. 
To the IP that added this: Perhaps you should consider adding it to either the Russian history, 1721–1796 article or the Serfdom in Russia article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Daily Life section

message: According to Stephen Fry on the BBC TV show, QI which I've just been watching, Paul I spread the rumour to damage his mother. I've not heard that before, but if true it actually warrants a mentioning the story in a more mainstream way (eg in the Succession to the Throne section) rather than the current urban myth treatment. DeCausa (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, when I say it should be developed at "legends of Catherine", I didn't preclude it being mentioned here. It seems entirely plausible given their execrable relation. walk victor falk talk 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Catherine the Great: Love, Sex, and Power by Virginia Rounding. No preview. walk victor falk talk 21:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul I & the 'death by horse' myth

message: There are two mutually contradictory accounts of Catherine's coup d'etat in this article.  This needs to be corrected; I am personally unsure of which is correct. 206.16.109.32 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is pressing. I think the discrepancies may have something to do with the Old Style and New Style dates. Peter III reported death is the 17th of July N.S. which is 6th of July O.S. ... 8 days after the coup (if the 28th of June is in fact in O.S.); which is reported in the first account. Lenny (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Coup D'etat Contradiction