Talk:Peter III of Russia

message: QUOTE Peter was born in Kiel. His parents were Karl Friedrich, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, and Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna, a daughter of Emperor Peter the Great of Russia and his second wife, Catherine I of Russia (a former Latvian peasant, Martha Skavronskaya)UNQUOTE
That's of course all wrong. Martha Skavronska was not a Latvian peasant since even the word Latvian did not exist then. There was no Latvia, no concept of Latvia and no Latvian peasants either.  Martha Skavronska was not a Lettish serf either, she was most likely of free Polish Lithunian descent and came from minor clergy family.
:Where was she from?  Livonia, Courland, Lithuania? At any rate, feel free to change it. john k 19:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was just looking through The Book of Facts Volume 1 by Isaac Asimov.  It's essentially a book of trivia - about the obscure and the weird, "interesting things".  Like many books, it has on the first page an excerpt of the text.
The first part of the excerpt is as follows: "Did you know that Czar Peter III of Russia was murdered before his coronation and was crowned 35 years later when his coffin was opened expressly for that purpose?".  It certainly is the stuff of Trivia books.  This doesn't seem to be at all reflected in the article... Perhaps another source could be found to substantiate it? I'm not going to insert it until I see some form of verification.  A hasty google search indicates he ascended the throne while living... --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumous Coronation? 

message: Eleanor Herman's book "Sex with the Queen" depicts Peter III as a man who was mentally disturbed.  She describes him as having a deformed foreskin which made intercourse impossible, so instead of making love to his wife he forces her to drill with a rifle at night and locked dogs in her closet to defecate on her clothes.  At one point he attacked Catherine with a sword.  She later describes him taking joy in watching buildings burn and makes no bones about calling him a pyromaniac.  His disturbing eccentricities are not really reflected in the article.  Are other sources consistent in this regard?  75.93.59.254 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insanity?

message: Seeing as Peter was born February 21 [1728] & his mother died March 4 [1728]? wouldn't that mean he was just 'bout 2-weeks old, when she died? GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time lapse between Grand Duchess Anna death & Peter's birth 

message: This article has undergone a lot of changes recently, based on information in a recent book by historian Elena Palmer, that takes a revisionist standpoint on Peter. While it is certainly noteworthy to add information about this, and Elenas viewpoints may soon become the generally accepted view of Peter, I fear that it is entirely too premature to rely too much of her work in this article. 
Especially the summary of his reign in the "Overthrow and murder"-section seems to contain swiping generalisations of a very revisionist character, entirely based on Elena Palmer. I am referring to this in particular: "The reign of Peter the Third was certainly progressivePalmer, Elena. Peter III - Der Prinz von Holstein. Sutton Publishing, Germany 2005. and focused on the transformation of feudal Russia, which in its development was clearly behind other countries in Europe, to an advanced economically developed state. His reform efforts were welcomed by society as a whole.Palmer, Elena. Peter III - Der Prinz von Holstein. Sutton Publishing, Germany 2005.. The attempts of clerics to prevent secularization did not meet with a lot of support among the people. The aristocracy was entirely on the side of Peter. The idea that the plot against him brought together members of the government and influential nobles is not justified.Palmer, Elena. Peter III - Der Prinz von Holstein. Sutton Publishing, Germany 2005.." --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that this article seems very POVridden. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the worst weaselwording, and reworded where general statements were made that were clearly based on Elena Palmers interpretations. However this article is still very much slanted towards the revisionist interpretation of Palmer, for example it currently lacks a mainstream description of the overthrow of Peter III. Unfortunately, as I am in the process of doing my own thesis at the moment, I don't have the time and opportunity to acquaint myself properly with the needed sources to fix this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid. Do continue your work of mitigating the revisionism when you can. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elena Palmer 

message: This sentence: "Being a Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, Peter planned the war against Denmark in order to restore Schleswig to his Duchy. He focused on making alliances with Sweden and England to ensure that they would not interfere on Denmark’s behalf, while forces were concentrated in Colberg in Russian Pomerania."
Pomerania was not Russian territory then (or never has been) and the city is Kolberg.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikaard (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian  Pomerania? 

message: I noticed that you were lacking a citation for the statement that Paul III removed obligatory education for nobility and I have the source here. I'm just studying for a test right now and don't have time to figure out how to add the citation myself. 
It is stated in the "Manifesto Freeing the Nobility from Compulsory Service" in 1762
I found an excerpt of the primary document in my textbook 
Kaiser, Daniel and Gary Marker. Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings 860-1860. Oxford University Press. 1994.
It's on page 230
That isn't a proper citation, and I apologize, but that is where the information comes from.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.237 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation found 

message: ... he was transported to Ropsha where he was supposedly assassinated.
What's this, er, supposed to mean? He really wasn't assassinated? Or, we think he was assassinated? Or, we don't know what happened to him? 
How about:  where it is generally supposed that he was assassinated?
OTOH, the entry on Catherine the Great states unequivocally that "Peter III died at Ropsha, at the hands of Alexei Orlov (younger brother to Gregory Orlov, then a court favorite and a participant in the coup)."
Sca (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Supposedly'' — ??

message: This article has a deeply revisionist bias which gives short shrift to, or simply ignores, the negative views of the overwhelming majority of reputable historians relating to its subject. As a serious encyclopedic article it fails basic standards of neutrality and needs to be substantively rewritten.  -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisionist Bias 

message: Something seems missing or disjointed here: "State peasants were given higher social status than estate peasants, and all peasants under the servitude of the church were transformed into the economy peasants similar to the state peasants."
A "state peasant" was one employed by the Russian government? As opposed to "estate peasants," employed by private landowners? My guess is that "economy peasant" is some kind of error, perhaps a place where a few words went missing. Otherwise, what was an economy peasant? (Cheaper to feed?) And in what respects were economy peasants similar to state peasants?
--Jdickinson (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy Peasants? 

message: I corrected the transliteration of the Russian word "великого" (the genitive singular form of "великий"). In the Russian language, the letter г (IPA: /ɡ/) is pronounced like an English "v" (IPA: /viː/) when used in adjectival endings. Google Translate uses the incorrect transliteration I corrected. Matuko (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Transliteration simply means converting from one alphabet to another, so "г" is romanized as "g", though I am not sure what is the norm in cases such as these. I would imagine it is still written as "g" despite the pronunciation as "v". Mellk (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text: It is only a minor issue anyway so I would not worry. The lang-ru template offers a transliteration parameter which is often used in articles (if the name of the subject is not already a transliteration). lang-rus template also offers IPA for pronunciation. So I think it is typical to include transliteration (if it does not become redundant) and also IPA. I think pronunciation should be left to IPA. Wiktionary also does not provide usual romanization (for example velíkij with stress mark rather than velikiy or veliky). I think typical transliteration should be used to prevent inconsistencies or any confusion, for example "Москва" is transliterated as "Moskva" while pronunciation is more like "Maskva", and so on. Mellk (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian transliteration