Jump to content

Talk:Catherine the Great: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
off topic WP:Soapboxing
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Vital article|level=3|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles|anchor=Politicians and leaders (29 articles)|topic=People|class=B}}
{{British English}}
{{British English}}
{{Article history
{{Article history
Line 5: Line 4:
|otd1date=2007-07-17|otd1oldid=145212175
|otd1date=2007-07-17|otd1oldid=145212175
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Catherine 02 Of Russia|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=B|listas=Catherine 02 Of Russia|core=yes|politician-work-group=yes |politician-priority=top|royalty-work-group=yes |royalty-priority=top}}
{{WikiProject Biography|core=yes|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|royalty-work-group=yes|royalty-priority=top}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=Top|hist=yes|sci=yes|lit=yes|perform=yes}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|hist=yes|sci=yes|lit=yes|perform=yes}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=B|importance=|Prussia=Yes|Prussia-importance=}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|Prussia=Yes|Prussia-importance=}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=History|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Women in Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
}}
}}

{{Top 25 Report|Oct 20 2019|May 10 2020|May 17 2020|May 24 2020}}
{{Top 25 Report|Oct 20 2019|May 10 2020|May 17 2020|May 24 2020}}
{{Online source|small=yes|author=Matthew Ricketson and Daniel Ziffer|date=September 12, 2006|url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/viewers-shout-themselves-hoarse-over-abc-/2006/09/11/1157826873972.html |title=Viewers shout themselves hoarse over ABC|org=The Age|section=September 2006}}
{{Online source|small=yes|author=Matthew Ricketson and Daniel Ziffer|date=September 12, 2006|url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/viewers-shout-themselves-hoarse-over-abc-bestiality/2006/09/11/1157826873972.html |title=Viewers shout themselves hoarse over ABC bestiality|org=The Age|section=September 2006}}
{{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}

{{archive box|auto=yes}}
==Archiving==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
[[Talk:Catherine II of Russia/Archive01]]
|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 2
==Any direct relation to the significance of Catherine to the enlightenment?==
|minthreadsleft = 5
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?
|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)
==ON NAMING SEE [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice]]==
|archive = Talk:Catherine the Great/Archive %(counter)d
==Date of Birth==
}}
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.
- [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 07:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

* I think, it is confusing: Exemple: The Russian Revolution of 1917 happened October 26th (Old Style, Julian-calender, i.e. orthodox Russian time). The same day in Europa is November 7th (new Style, Gregorian calender, State Holiday in the USSR in modern times). So the written date in "New Style" is represented by a date "12 days LATER" than the same date in Old Style.
* The date of birth of Catherine the Great is November 6th OLD (Julian) STYLE, and November 17th NEW STYLE (gregorian, western), and not reversed, as specified in the aricle. Similar exemple: Soviet president Brezhniew was born January 1st, 1907 (New Style), or December 19th, 1906, old Julian style. Please verify! Best regards: [email protected] (Akela, Registered in the Hungarian Wikipedia).
*:The date is correct. The difference btw OS and NS was 11 days in 18th century, 12 days in 19th century, 13 days in 20th century, etc. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] <sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 11:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

==Rewrite==
This article is really dumb do not use this article it dies not help. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.134.45.173|75.134.45.173]] ([[User talk:75.134.45.173|talk]]) 22:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This article is full of unnecessary words and phrases, it is typical of a non-English person trying to show that they have a good command of the English language. I will write parts of it in due course. BlueKangaroo.

::I'm not sure how much you have gotten around to, but I see plenty of phrases and sentances that need some editing. I will work on this in the near future. [[User:The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess|The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess]] ([[User talk:The ruggedly handsome pig-tamer's princess|talk]]) 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:::This whole article ought to be deleted and re-made from scratch. The paragraph formatting is incoherent and endless run-on sentences are borderline gibberish. I guesstimate that I have read 15-20 thousand WP pages, and this is, with no hesitation, the worst in formatting and editing I have so far come across. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Spaghettyirish|Spaghettyirish]] ([[User talk:Spaghettyirish|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Spaghettyirish|contribs]]) 16:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::The article does scream out for a fair bit of grammatical correction and editing. I'm rather shocked at how messed up it is, considering the importance of its subject! [[User:Lizfran|Lizfran]] ([[User talk:Lizfran|talk]]) 01:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::One of the most offensive paragraphs in need of serious revision is this:
:::::*"According to Alexander Hertzen, who edited the version of Catherine's memoirs, while living at Oranienbaum, Catherine had her first sexual relationship with Sergei Saltykov as her marriage to Peter had not been consummated as Catherine later claimed.[17][18] But Catherine left to Paul I the final version of her memoirs explaining why Paul had been the son of Peter III. Sergei Saltykov was used to make Peter jealous and relations with Saltykov were platonic ones. Catherine wanted to become an empress herself and did not want another heir to the throne therefore. But empress Elizabeth blackmailed Peter and Catherine that they both had been involved into a plot of Russian military in 1749 to execute the will of Catherine I and to crown Peter together with Catherine. Elizabeth requested for her new legal heir from Catherine. Only when a new legal heir, the son of Catherine and Peter, had appeared to be strong and to survive Elizabeth allowed Catherine to have real sexual lovers just because Elizabeth probably wanted to leave both Catherine and her accomplice Peter III without any rights for a Russian throne in a revenge for the participation of the pair in military plots to crown Peter and Catherine.[19] After this over the years Catherine carried on sexual liaisons with many men, including Stanisław August Poniatowski, Grigory Grigoryevich Orlov (1734–1783), Alexander Vasilchikov, Grigory Potemkin, and others.[20] She became friends with Princess Ekaterina Vorontsova-Dashkova, the sister of her husband's official mistress, who in Dashkov's opinion introduced her to several powerful political groups that opposed her husband, though Catherine had been involved in military schemes against Elizabeth probably to get rid of Peter III at the next stage at least since 1749."
:::::*For starters, a "sexual relationship" is by definition not platonic. The rest of the passage is incredibly confused and confusing. For anyone attempting a rewrite, a good source to refer for facts and details on Catherine the Great would be http://factsanddetails.com/russia/History/sub9_1b/entry-4938.html --[[User:Lizfran|Lizfran]] ([[User talk:Lizfran|talk]]) 03:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Lizfran

Unfortunately neither Catherine’s memoirs or facts and details.com are good reliable sources under Wikipedia policy. The former is a first person account and the latter is by an enthusiastic amateur, relying largely on unquoted internet sources. Ideally we need 3rd party expert sources. Check google books for sources published by mainstream publishers preferably by eg academic authors. Peer reviewed journals are another good source. [[User:Dakinijones|Dakinijones]] ([[User talk:Dakinijones|talk]]) 05:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

==A constitution?==
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! [[User:Fearwig|Fearwig]] 06:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Some factual errors here, I've hopefully cleared them up. Main source was the memoirs of Princess Dashkova, which (while slanted in Catherine's favor in generally predictable ways) gave more than adequate accounts of what would then have been " known" facts, such as the nature of Peter III's death and the circumstances of his abdication.

==her ancestry among ancient rulers of Rus==
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

==Children?==
Who were her descendants? There were two sons named in the article, but were there more? [[User:HiFiGuy|HiFiGuy]] 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Catherine II had three children, if I recall correctly. Paul Petrovich, who became Paul I; Anna Petrovna (died in infancy); and Alexis Bobrinski. I think rumor went that all three were fathered by lovers, despite the fact that Paul became the unchallenged King after Catherine's death.

The page now lists a fourth child with Potemkin - this is a disputed fact, which the Russian page the girl's name links to discusses. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/204.40.194.133|204.40.194.133]] ([[User talk:204.40.194.133#top|talk]]) 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

No one has completed the dubious notation as instructed regarding the fourth child. The Russian article page is quite clear in the possible inaccuracy of this child being Catherine's daughter. 10:11, 29 December 2016 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/136.181.195.242|136.181.195.242]] ([[User talk:136.181.195.242#top|talk]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Repetition?==
"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.

==Foregn Affairs==
''From my talk page''

Ghirlandajo constantly deletes information that she annexed territories of other countries[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine_II_of_Russia&diff=next&oldid=45255118].
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] 12:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:All this information who had owned the lands is already in the article - in the [[Catherine II of Russia#Foreign affairs]]. I am second to Ghirlandajo's opinion that there is no need to duplicate all the article's information in the very first sentence. The second additions consists of two sentences. One stating that annexation of Poland caused keeping of the absolute monarchy that is extremely dubious and unreferenced. The second sentence that the annexation caused tensions and uprisings up to the twentieth century is true but not particular relevant to the biography of Catherine II, though can be added.

:In short, I incline to mostly support Ghirlandajo's version and urge you to discuss your inclusions with him and other editors on the talk page before reverting his changes. [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

''All this information who had owned the lands is already in the article''
You believe that was a land and not countries settled with people, cities and towns ?
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, much of the Novorossiya was taken from Ottomans whoever wrote it that it was from Poland. Second, I kept Piotr's ref to support her emotions towards May conctitution but the rest simply doesn't belong here. This is the Empress article and not History of PL, of RU or of Europe. If we start making it such, it will be a bad article for people who came to it to read about Catherine. Until I spinned of the horse sex stuff into a separate article, it was taking about as much as her legacy. Are we going to expand her stance towards Poland and its implication in the biographical article? Most of what was added was mere duplication. Please feel free to start a separate article pn foreign policy but keep this article on topic. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:The article is not too long, and I see no reason why we should not be more specific, my edit simply is more precize in terms of what specific lands she had acquired and how. Many articles contain duplicate information, as long as they are not too long (pun not intended) there is noting in MoS that would suggest it's wrong. On the contrary, it makes every single article more comprehensive. Once the article gets too long, and the relevant subarticle is created, than certainly some info should be added only there, not here. Until than I see no reason for deletion of useful (referenced!) info.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup style="color:green;">Talk</sup>]] 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The section on "Relations with Japan" is written in atrocious English. (From the tenses, I would suspect that it's translated from Japanese.) It definitely needs to be re-written by someone knowledgeable in the subject. [[User:Cerowyn|Cerowyn]] ([[User talk:Cerowyn|talk]]) 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

==Absorbing other countries is usually called annexation==
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.
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not talking about "absorbing" countries. It is talking about absorbing territory, which is a perfectly acceptable term that has no connotation of approval. There is no need to go into detail on this subject in the introduction. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
: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.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup style="color:green;">Talk</sup>]] 20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

==Is Białowieża part of Belarus or Ukraine==
Again please define if Białowieża is Part of Ukraine or Belarus.
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] 13:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==Domestic policies==
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. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 04:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[http://search.eb.com/women/print?articleId=21807&fullArticle=true&tocId=9021807 Here] is an exact copy of an EB's article on her available at a non-paid site. Poland is mentions there all right (the "Commonwealth" not even once, neither "partition") as follows:
#in intro: ''"...and extended Russian territory, adding the Crimea and much of Poland."''
#in "early years": ''"In 1764 she resolved the problem of Poland, a kingdom lacking definite boundaries and coveted by three neighbouring powers, by installing one of her old lovers, Stanislaw Poniatowski, a weak man entirely devoted to her, as king of Poland."''
#in "Effects of the French Revolution" ''"Next, Poland, encouraged by the example of France, began agitating for a liberal constitution. In 1792, under the pretext of forestalling the threat of revolution, Catherine sent in troops and the next year annexed most of the western Ukraine, while Prussia helped itself to large territories of western Poland. After the national uprising led by Tadeusz Kosciuszko in 1794, Catherine wiped Poland off the map of Europe by dividing it between Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1795."''
At the same time, the article talks at length about her personality as well as her rule. While using much of it directly may not be a good idea (while the article is extensive, we ought to have a more detailed one) to use its structure and chronology may be useful. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

: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 [[:Template:Polish statehood|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.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] [[User_talk:Piotrus|<sup style="color:green;">Talk</sup>]] 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==Please stop revert warring==
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, [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] <sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

''If you have to attack Russia-related articles, please find another object''
Please Ghirla have good faith. We all have objectivity here as goal.
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] 20:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This link Battle of Svenskund and the war is broken. [Anonymous]

==Horse hanky-panky==
I understand that it is addressed in full detail in the related 'legends' article, and I really do hate to say it: however, one of the chief things Catherine is known for is [[Legends of Catherine II of Russia|the horse sex thing]]. A line or two linking to the 'Legends' article, with a brief and tasteful summary of this common urban myth, would seem in order, no? -[[User:JHFTC|Toptomcat]] 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with Toptomcat. I came to this article to see if she was the one I was thinking about and did a search for 'horse' and was dissappointed that only the stature 'Horsemean' came up. I would have spent a lot of futile searching time if I hadn't checked the talk pages. The link should be referenced in the article SOMEWHERE. [[User:207.69.137.35|207.69.137.35]] 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::It is referenced in [[Catherine II of Russia#Personal Life]], and there is a link in the Trivia section. The "horse thingy", or at least its details, is somewhat irrelevant to her rule : ). The current summary seems to me perfect - brief and tasteful, maintaining the encyclopedic tone. --[[User:AVIosad|AVIosad]]<sup>([[User talk:AVIosad|talk]])</sup> 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:::With respect, that's nonsense. The article needs to be an overview of who the woman was, and not conceal those stories told of her of historical value, and not concealed within a link in a section that isn't supposed to be in the article in the first place ([[WP:TRIVIA|trivia]]). If you wish the article to be about her rule, then perhaps what you are looking for is the creation of another article based solely upon her reign. This is an article about her life - her whole life - and the "horsie thing" whether true or not is part of the legend that surrounds her, so it ''will'' be a part of the article. Sorry for the brusqueness, but I don't truck with revising history. - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 07:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I also came here to find out about the horse story, and searching for "Horse" leads exactly no-where. There should at least be a mention of the horse story, especially because it ''is'' relevant that such a historical personage had such stories made up about them. The "legends" page is a bit lacking: while it discusses the legends, it doesn't say much about who put them about, nor their reasons for doing so. Why can't we merge in the "Legends" article in a section on the main page? Why are there two articles anyway? [[User:Cojoco|cojoco]] ([[User talk:Cojoco|talk]]) 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This "horse thingy" just got mentioned in an episode(s05e01) of the Big Bang Theory. This needs to have a section, many people will be looking for this, and they will be looking here. If it was a rumour, say it, but it must be mentioned.[[User:Thoughtbox|Thoughtbox]] ([[User talk:Thoughtbox|talk]]) 07:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to reference "the horse thing" in the main article. One sentence, say it is false, that's all. I literally came to this page, Ctrl-F "horse", Ctrl-F "bestiality", nothing, and wondered whether I had the correct person. It has been ten years, and I know I am not alone. This is, unfortunately, a very prominent urban legend.[[User:Fluoborate|Fluoborate]] ([[User talk:Fluoborate|talk]]) 07:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

:When I studied history at university, a lecturer devoted a class to Catherine the Great. Afterwards, I asked him how she had died and he didn't know.

:I explained that I had heard from multiple sources over time (in the pre-internet era) that she had died while having sex with a horse, that she had a sling made of leather straps so she could be hung under his belly to enjoy his efforts in comfort, and that her final congress with the horse had killed her. I pointed out that I was not inclined to believe it but I did wonder how she died, given how widespread and persistent the depraved story was. He promised to look into it.

:After his next lecture, I approached him again and he said that his research had revealed that Catherine "died of apoplexy while straining at stool on the commode" and that she was found by her maid.

:While it is a matter of proven public record that there are people who enjoy intimacy with the beasts of the field, I judged the explanation that she died of stroke to be more likely, so I believed it.

:That left only the question of how the colourful horseriding story gained so much currency. I speculate that Catherine's enemies might have started it, based on her hearty appetites for men, or it could have been just a dirty joke by her subjects. The origins of such myths can be impossible to trace, so I imagine we will never know. For what it's worth, the actress Helen Mirren, who is playing Catherine in a new television series, has said that the rumour was started by Frederick the Great of Prussia because he hated Catherine. Unlike a Wikipedia editor, however, Mirren did not cite any sources to support her claim.
:To give my lecturer his due, he had the good grace to appear mildly startled by the filth of my lurid story while I, for my part as a non-historian, was surprised that he, a bona fide academic historian, had never heard of it. I thought to myself, "Well, he has now!" [[:File:Usher statue - closeup.jpg|<font color="#2424BD">'''—&nbsp;O'Dea'''</font>]] ([[User talk:O'Dea|talk]]) 23:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

==Vladimir Monomakh of Kievan Rus- Russian monarch???==
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 [[User:Morkva|Morkva]] 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

==Unreferenced Good Article==
Article has been nominated for consideration by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA]]. [[User:Badbilltucker|Badbilltucker]] 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:What do you mean by "unreferenced"? Most of the text is copied verbatim from 1911 Britannica. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|<span style="color:#FC4339;">Ghirla</span>]] [[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|<sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-</sup>]] 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
::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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></sub> 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

==Removed==
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."

==[[ural depictions of Catherine II of Russia]]==
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 [[WP:FA|featured article]] when I created [[Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc]], which has become a [[WP:FL|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, '''[[User:Durova|<font color="blue">Durova</font>]]''' 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

==Move?==
Now that [[Władysław II of Poland]] got moved to [[Jogaila]] shouldn't we move this article to [[Sophie Augusta Fredericka von Anhalt-Zerbst]]? ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 09:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:Mind [[WP:POINT]]. And remember the [[WP:DFTT#Not_feeding_the_trolls|not feeding advice]] before responding. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|&nbsp;Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&nbsp;]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></sub> 19:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
::No wiki article is stable - and apparently no monarchy-related. ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

==Imperial Ballet School==
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?

==Imperial Ballet School 2==
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.

==Why Alexeyevna?==
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? --[[User:Amire80|Amir E. Aharoni]] 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, foreign princesses who married Russian rulers were given Russian names upon their conversion to the Russian Orthodox Church. If their fathers' names were not used in Russia, new patronyms were given. This tradition was followed by all of the following empress-consorts of Russia. For example, the last Empress of Russia, Alexandra (Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt), was known as Alexandra Fyodorovna Romanova. Her father's real name was Louis (Ludwig), not Fyodor.

==Vandalism==
''As is the custom of Russian despots, Catherine had the ability to unhinge her jaw, like a snake. She used this ability to devour Pugachev's head, leader of the failed mass peasant uprising in Russia, who was ironically eaten by the starving peasants. This is further proof of the substantial and legitimate accounts of repeated cannibalism In European History.''

What on Earth is this?

"Catherine the Great was a great leader, proabably the greatest in Russian history. It is roumored that she did not enlighten the lives of peasants she inconvienenced everyone by raising taxes but later improved the lives of everyone by purchasing helpful military technology such as gunpowder. It is also said that she spent too much time doing personal things for her enjoyment and that blocked her from see what was really going on in her country. This is not true for she possessed no talents other than a military ruler and she spent her time thinking of ideas to improve her country. "

I don't know where to begin with this tripe. Firstly it's blatantly POV. Secondly, it doesn't even seem to fit under its triva headline. Thirdly, it is ridiculously childish in its prose as well as irrelevant/contradictory/dubious/untrue. I'm deleting it.--[[User:SCJE|SCJE]] ([[User talk:SCJE|talk]]) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, some of the weirdest POV ever. First cannibals, then that self-contradicting POV. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.234.175.143|70.234.175.143]] ([[User talk:70.234.175.143|talk]]) 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Username SSt001 is clearly vandalizing this article. He has made a serious of changes to the first paragraph that are poorly written and nonsense editorializing. His account starting making edits on 9/24/20, yesterday, on a couple of English language pages relating to Russia. He is clearly some kind of troll. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:6020:18A:D1A9:7FC2:17AD:2064|2001:558:6020:18A:D1A9:7FC2:17AD:2064]] ([[User talk:2001:558:6020:18A:D1A9:7FC2:17AD:2064#top|talk]]) 22:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Revert warring and internal policies==
As explained in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine_II_of_Russia&diff=129853676&oldid=129852851 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, [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

==Image gallery==
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. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Montanabw|Montanabw]] 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

==Citations==
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]] [[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

==Crtiticisms?==
Why? Would Legacy not do the trick? Or assessment? At least taking into account the positives that made her "the Great." Otherwise it only takes the negatives into account. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.100.15.233|89.100.15.233]] ([[User talk:89.100.15.233|talk]]) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The word criticism is not exclusively negative. For example, many literary criticisms are quite positive. --[[User:Kham89|Kham89]] ([[User talk:Kham89|talk]]) 07:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

:Semantics. These criticisms are not only negative, they are wholly negative, without sources. Who do these criticisms come from, what historian complains of them? The author of this article? He is hardly a credible source, not even being one person, who you trust the opinion of someone with multiple personalities. The criticisms also seem to discount the positions she was was in at the time.
It ignores that she did attempt to subvert the serf system, she said "It is, contrary to the Christian religion and justice to make people, who are all born free, into slaves." However, what does one suddenly do with millions of free slaves? Where do they live, how do they work, how do they survive, how does the economy survive? Not to mention the political opposition, clearly a unfeasible goal, and according to a Scottish doctor in Russia at the time, they were actually quite happy, mostly. Most masters were nice, decent, or mediocre, the serfs lived fine. They were not a separate oppressed race. If you had a bad master, you were screwed, but she punished people for that, having a lady arrested for beating one of her own serfs severely. This question also calls into question her being an Enlightened ruler, despite affirming Russias no death penalty (which her husband had hated), improving literature, trade, fire-safety and a number of other things including laws based on treating people humanely.
She did what she could to combat corruption, it was no worse than in any other period of Russian history (they've pretty much always had that as a problem, still do to an extent, was one of Putins big things). She arrested some governors for accepting bribes, others got away. Hardly a Catherine only thing, put it in the "Criticism of Russian Rulers in General" article.
Who cares if she took part in the death of another pretender to the Throne. She died of natural causes, tuberculosis, the wasting disease, after trying to usurp the throne and ally herself with Pugachev, calling him her brother as a recall (which may be bad research on her part as Pugachev claimed to be Peter the III, Elizabeth's heir, but not her son, as she claimed to be Elizabeth's daughter).
The best bit of criticism, in my opinion. Still has some problems, ignores that the murderer was Alexis Orlov, whos brother was her lover Gregory Orlov, who just helped put her on the throne by subverting regiments from the Tsar to her. Also ignores the political reality, he was a war hero (Seven Years War as I recall), had the respect of many troops and powerful people when she just got in and was borderline, something the Orlovs maintained until well after Gregory left her bed, when she essientially bribed him with the title of Prince and many titles. He murdered a guy everyone hated. Given this, she could hardly expect to punish him without expecting another uprising. Theres also that he was a damn good officer and much in need during the current and future wars (Turkey, Chisme).
So yeah, I'm removing the Criticism from the Criticism section, please replace when you have sources aside from yourself and better thought out arguements (less biased). Even worse, I could rewrite the criticism to match what I said above, which is clearly slanted in her favour, by being unbiased is the name of the game, both teams. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/174.112.16.133|174.112.16.133]] ([[User talk:174.112.16.133|talk]]) 09:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

There you have it folks! The Valley Girl Analysis of Serfdom Under Catherine the Great. Read the thoughtful conclusion.."Most masters were nice, decent, or mediocre, the serfs lived fine" Be amazed at the incredibly profound "according to a Scottish doctor in Russia at the time, they were actually happy, mostly".....What can we expect next???? Oh, m'god! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.23.105.146|108.23.105.146]] ([[User talk:108.23.105.146|talk]]) 05:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:I dont know who it is you are talking to, as Wikipedia articles are usually not the work of a single author. I have not written the section in question, I do think though, that the point of the criticisms sections is that, as Catharine is normally íncluded in the group of enlightened monarchs of the 18th century, she is being judged according to the tenets of the enlightenment philosophy that she herself claimed to embrace. Just like Frederick the Great is often critized for not abolishing serfdom and censorship contrary to his beliefs, Catharine is often seen as a hypocrite in this regard that she was only using the excuse of enlightenment philosophy to gloss over a continuation of old practices. I think that it is important to include this fact in the article, as it is a major point for a lot of scholars. However the present criticism section was not sourced, and it did state some points that are disputed among scholars, so I can agree to it being removed in that state.
:As you admit yourself statements like ''"and according to a Scottish doctor in Russia at the time, they were actually quite happy, mostly."'' and ''"most masters were nice, decent, or mediocre, the serfs lived fine."'' and ''"Who cares if she took part in the death of another pretender to the Throne."'' are far from free of unsourced bias either. Please do not add bias to an article to combat bias, as we all know two wrongs doesnt make a right. You do not have to look very far to find reputable scholars airing criticism of Catharine, so a criticism section is definitely needed, it just needs an introduction text stating why that is so. --[[User:Saddhiyama|Saddhiyama]] ([[User talk:Saddhiyama|talk]]) 10:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

==Copyright Violation?==
I have reverted the recent insertion of text that looks like it is from [http://members.tripod.com/~Nevermore/CGREAT.HTM 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]] [[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

==Video game appearences==
I can't think of any reasonable excuse for having that section. I'm going to remove it. If anybody objects, I guess you're welcome to revert it. I think it's pretty dumb though. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tyrannischgott|Tyrannischgott]] ([[User talk:Tyrannischgott|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tyrannischgott|contribs]]) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I just removed a couple of game references. But I am not closed to one reference being included. The following -

* Catherine figures as a leader of the Russian civilization in the video game ''[[Civilization IV]]''. In diplomatic talks, perhaps alluding to her penchant for taking lovers, a "Pleased" or "Friendly" Catherine will wink at the player and make [[innuendo]]es such as "[[Mae West|Is that a treaty in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?]]".

- could be expanded on, because it touches on her rumored behavior and is specific as to how she is depicted in pop cult. --[[User:OrbitOne|OrbitOne]] ([[User talk:OrbitOne|talk]]) 06:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a computer game known for its historicity and one of the best selling game series of all time. It's not a small matter. [[User:Zelani|Zelani]] ([[User talk:Zelani|talk]]) 04:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Zelani, the article has no list of popular culture references. Ideally such lists, if lengthy enough, can be span off into their own articles such as [[Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England]]. I don't doubt that some readers are interested in such lists. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 07:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

==Edit requested==
{{tl|editsemiprotected}}

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

[[User:Johns860|Johns860]] ([[User talk:Johns860|talk]]) 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:{{Resolved}} Changed suppose -> believed. Sounded better.--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] [[User talk:Aervanath|lives]] [[Special:Contributions/Aervanath|in]] ''[[WP:O|<b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b>]]'' 01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==sexism==
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. [[Special:Contributions/70.240.50.188|70.240.50.188]] ([[User talk:70.240.50.188|talk]]) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
: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. --[[User:Saddhiyama|Saddhiyama]] ([[User talk:Saddhiyama|talk]]) 20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

==uprising details==
there's a guard uprising whose details need clarification.... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.61.14.99|24.61.14.99]] ([[User talk:24.61.14.99|talk]]) 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==The horse sex thing==
Pr [[WP:ANI#Persistent vandal on Catherine II of Russia]]. I think the myth is notable enough and covered, debunked, by enough sources that it should be covered. the rumor got quite wide circulation after her death. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 13:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

:We don't do rumour; while it's a well perpetuated myth, I don't see why it should be in the article about the subject of the rumour - which will just continue to perpetuate the incorrect information. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 16:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
::We do rumor. See [[WP:Hoax]]. I disagree that covering the rumour perpetuate it. Saying, "Following her death a rumor was circulated that see died dutring intercourse with a horse. However her death from illness is well documented, and it is supposed that the rumor was started in the french upper class in an effort to downplay her achievements." helps sets the record straight, thus helps stop the rumor. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 03:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
:::"Here's an article about a historical figure, and oh by the way there's people who insist on saying that she was killed trying to schtup a horse, but that's untrue." Are there serious references that say it was started by the French upper class? Are there serious references that discuss it in a scholarly manner? [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 03:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I lack access to a good library :( According to [http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/catherine2.html], Catherine the Great: Life and Legend by Alexander, John T. treats the issue. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 04:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::::There's a brief discussion of it in the preface to Zoe Oldenbourg's biography as well. Origin of Catherine legends is pretty well-established. Definitely French, though I wouldn't say "upper class". It's more a confluence of Polish exiles and supporters of the Revolution, who had a common political interest in defaming Catherine. [[User:Iglew|Iglew]] ([[User talk:Iglew|talk]]) 20:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::On the otherhand I missed that we have [[Legends of Catherine II of Russia]]. which might be a better place to treat this.[[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 04:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::: It ''is'' relevant, because it is one of the most commonly "known" facts about here, and thus needs to be actively debunked, and it is relevant to her story that some felt compelled to spread these rumours. Why does there need to be a separate article about these allegations? [[User:Cojoco|cojoco]] ([[User talk:Cojoco|talk]]) 06:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::: Because articles should not be too long. See [[WP:spinout]]. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 09:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::::: "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary." I don't know why some seem squeamish about this: as one of her chief claims to notability, sad as that is, a summary of the allegations, and their dismissal, should go in the body of the article. [[User:Cojoco|cojoco]] ([[User talk:Cojoco|talk]]) 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::: I think most people would object to the statement "One of Catherines chief claims to notability was the rumor surrounding her death alleging that it occured during intercourse with a horse". The rumor is an incidential thing. Catherine the great's chief claim to notability was taking Russia out of the dark ages.
:::::::::: A summary of the rumors of legends that have been spun around her should perhaps be provided, but [[Legends of Catherine II of Russia]] needs a revamping before such a summary should be written. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: This whole "horse sex thing" just got mention on an episode(s05e01) of the big bang theory. I came here looking for it, as will a million other people. It should be mentioned.[[User:Thoughtbox|Thoughtbox]] ([[User talk:Thoughtbox|talk]]) 07:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::;I'd contend that being silent on it is more likely to perpetuate it, than to deal with it specifically and set the record straight. It's soemthing already out there...it's already been perpetuated. And honestly, for people who know nothing else about her, they know that one "fact". It's not undue to discuss the validity of the myth. Failing to do so leaves it unchallenged. [[Special:Contributions/204.65.34.246|204.65.34.246]] ([[User talk:204.65.34.246|talk]]) 17:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::You should really mention the horse sex rumor, it is extremely widespread. Just one sentence, just debunk it. I came to this page, Ctrl-F "horse", Ctrl-F "bestiality", and then I wondered if I had the correct person. Unfortunately, this is a very prominent urban legend. You could put one very tasteful sentence in the "Legacy" section with the word "horse". I know people are looking for it, and Wikipedia is a trusted source.[[User:Fluoborate|Fluoborate]] ([[User talk:Fluoborate|talk]]) 07:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::;I'd contend that being silent on it is more likely to extinguish it, than to deal with it specifically and set the record straight. It's something that's been out there for too long...it's already being forgotten, just as Catherine herself is. It's not rational to discuss the validity of a slander which has no validity whatsoever. Failing to do so leaves it to fade away as it should.[[User:Vendrov|Vendrov]] ([[User talk:Vendrov|talk]]) 02:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

==Empress consort, empress regent, empress dowager and empress regnant==
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. -- [[User:Pedant17|Pedant17]] ([[User talk:Pedant17|talk]]) 00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

==Her Plans for Constantinople==
In the book ''Modern Greece: A Short History'' by the eminent Oxford scholar [[Montague Woodhouse, 5th Baron Terrington|C.M. Woodhouse]] there is the following passage on '''page 120''' about Catherine the Great of Russia' plans, formulated in 1782, for '''''"[...]a restored Greek Empire with it's capitol at Constantinople, under her grandson Constantine, who was to be brought up as a Greek."''''' It seems to me that a mention of her ambition to resurrect the [[Byzantine Empire]] is certainly in order. With her being the Empress of the Orthodox Russian Empire ([[Third Rome]]), and her hatred of the Muslim Ottoman Empire that had finally destroyed Byzantium with the [[conquest of Constantinople]] in 1453, her motives are clearly understood. She did not give up on this plan until 1792 (ten years). The reasons for it's failure could also be mentioned, such as the Austrian Empress not agreeing to the plan, resistance from the French and the fact that her officer Count Orlov ([[Alexey Grigoryevich Orlov]]) had already roused the Greeks some years prior to uprising (1770) and the failure of the Russians to supply adequate support (see [[Orlov Revolt]]), all contributing to the failure of Catherine's designs on [[Constantinople]]. Again, does anyone concur that this information should be added to this article? An aggressive conspiracy to resurrect the Byzantine Empire is certainly noteworthy. The Russian Empire never gave up on Constantinople; as late as World War I (1914-1918) the Russians were promised the ancient city upon allied victory against the Central Powers (something the civil war in Russia against the Bolsheviks prevented from happening). --[[User:Nikoz78|Nikoz78]] ([[User talk:Nikoz78|talk]]) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:This does deserve mention; I'm surprised it's not mentioned here already. We should also have an article at [[Greek Project]] or [[Catherine the Great's Greek Project]], or some such, to discuss the plan in more detail. [[User:John K|john k]] ([[User talk:John K|talk]]) 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold it! The quoted passage from C.M. Woodhouse's book talks of a "restored Greek Empire", not a restored Byzantine Empire. The term "Greek Empire" is generally understood as another name for Ancient Greece, or the period of history known as "classical Greece". But Nikoz78 goes on to say, "An aggressive conspiracy to resurrect the Byzantine Empire is certainly noteworthy." He seems to be referring to Catherine's plans as cited by Woodhouse, yet the Byzantine Empire is a totally different animal from the Greek Empire. I cannot think why Catherine would want to restore either, not being an expert in her history, but there is no point debating whether to include mention of any such effort in the main article unless and until Nikoz' information is clarified. I suggest he/she begin by verifying and correcting the Woodhouse quote, as the wording "with it's capitol at Constantinople" requires correction - I doubt the original contained the "it's" grammatical error. Even more unlikely is "capitol" (which refers to a central government building) when "capital" (referring to the city serving as a seat of government) is clearly meant. Nikoz should expand and clarify from this point on, ideally with reputable sources.
[[User:Lizfran|Lizfran]] ([[User talk:Lizfran|talk]]) 01:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

==Removed Daily Life section==
A large "Daily life during Catherine's reign" section was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine_II_of_Russia&action=historysubmit&diff=401490101&oldid=401296482 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? --[[User:Saddhiyama|Saddhiyama]] ([[User talk:Saddhiyama|talk]]) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

==Requested move==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''Page moved'''. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<b style="color:navy;">NW</b>]] ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]])'' 03:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

----

[[Catherine II of Russia]] → {{no redirect|1=Catherine the Great}} — Per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] this is by far the most common name by which she is known in English. We get 10,000 scholar ghits for "Catherine the Great"[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22catherine+the+great%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=on], and only 965 for "Catherine II of Russia" [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22catherine+II+of+Russia%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0]. Also, per general naming criteria at [[WP:TITLE]], [[Catherine the Great]] is more ''recognizable'' and ''natural'' (the name readers are more likely to look for). It's also (slightly) more ''concise'' and is ''consistent'' with similar articles about famous Russian leaders such as [[Peter the Great]] and [[Ivan the Terrible]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support''', should be uncontroversial, this is the name by which we all know her.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
* I agree, bit surprised not to find the article at Catherine the Great in the first place. - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]]&nbsp;<sup>[''[[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|Who?]] [[User_talk:Jarry1250|Discuss]].'']</sup> 12:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - No reason at all to go against article naming conventions in this case. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 15:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::Do you mean "Support", then? Article naming conventions in this case (both [[WP:AT|general]] and [[WT:NCROY|particular]]) would lead to "Catherine the Great" as the title.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 19:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:*First, the statement that the proposed move goes against naming conventions, without specifying what those convention are, much less an explanation of how this proposal goes against them, amounts to nothing more than a [[WP:JDLI|JDLI]] argument, and should be given ''zero'' weight accordingly.<p> Second, even if the proposed move was going against article naming conventions, reasons for doing so were given in the proposal argument. Simply stating that there is "no reason at all" without regard to the reasons given for the move is completely ignoring what the proposal is about. It's not even participating in the discussion. Folks, we can and must do better. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 19:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::*First, why don't you stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you, and second, why don't you stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you? [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 04:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:::*My mistake. I assumed taking a position in a discussion like this implies a willing interest to explain your thinking and actually participate in the discussion. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 04:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', and such a move is not at all against "article naming conventions". [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
**To be fair, this comment is not much better than a JDLI comment, but at least in the case of a Support comment it's reasonable to presume that the reasoning presented in the nominating argument is being endorsed. But well-argued statements (per [[WP:JDLI]]), for either side, would be appreciated, and would make these discussions more useful and productive. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 19:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
***When a nomination is as clear and succinct as this one, there's no point in adding superfluous argument to a support recommendation. My intent was merely to provide an indication of where consensus is leading and to point out that I disagreed with Deb's statement. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 23:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
****I know, but since I'm trying to raise the bar in terms of demanding "meatier" arguments from those who disagree, I figured it was only fair to point out arguably similar lightness in statements made by those who support. I mean, we can assume "Support" mean "Support per nom", but it's more clear to be explicit about that. I'd like to get to the point where only well-argued statements are given much weight, so that everyone who chooses to participate will be motivated to participate seriously. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''', this seems like a good case for using the cognomen. By the way, here's [[WP:NCROY]] - ''If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used.'' [[User:John K|john k]] ([[User talk:John K|talk]]) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
**Now, that's a well-argued statement. Thank you, John. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 19:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''', as I'm against all RMs of these articles which suggest movement from ''Monarch # of country''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Much more well known as "the Great". To be honest I had no idea she even was the second until coming to this article, as I'd only seen her referred to as "the Great" before. The nom and John K also make good arguments which I agree with. [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk:Jenks24|talk]]) 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment''', BTW folks, If this article is moved, I hope it's via a consensus. Unlike what occured at [[Juan Carlos I]] (which I had to revert per lack of consensus). [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[Peter the Great]]. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 15:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', per [[WP:NCROY]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Plus precedent cited above. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Night w|<font color="black">Night</font><font color="gray">w</font>]]</span>''' 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', per [[WP:NPOV]], Catherine II may or may not have been great. She certainly was great to her partisans. To her enemies, not so much. These POV political monikers made up by hagiographers, should be avoided in Wikipedia, and the present title does that and identifies the subject.[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:::*'''Clarify''' Also OPPOSE, per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] Based on the Encyclopedia Britannia article linked below entitle Catherine II and a google scholar search for Catherine II, which gets 50% more hits then the proposal.[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 01:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
::*Tell that to [[charlemagne|Charlie]] and [[Alexander the Great|Alex]]. <small>[[Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|<sup style="color:green;">''walk''</sup>]]</small> [[user:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">victor falk</i>]]<sup><small> [[user_talk:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">talk</i>]]</small></sup> 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Agree with Victor. This is a totally spurious argument. The only test, per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], is whether this is the most commonly used name or not - and "Catherine the Great" beats "Catherine II" hands down. You might as well argue that it's not neutral to call [[Edward I of England]] "Edward I" because he wasn't the first King of England called Edward ([[Edward the Confessor|see here, for example]]) and there's some kind of "anti-Anglo-Saxon" agenda going on. But we call him "Edward I" because that's his most common name, just like "Catherine the Great" is the Russian monarch's common moniker. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin|talk]]) 21:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Totally spurious? Really? At any rate, you're wrong. That's not the only test in that rule, nor is your assertion of commonality sourced, the name should be in an "encyclopedic register:" As the rule states, ''Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an '''encyclopedic register''' as well as what name is most frequently used,'' to wit: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/99597/Catherine-II {emphasis added) Catherine II, is at least as common according to this source and without the POV, although they disambiguate with the phrase ''Empress of Russia.'' [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Just to throw some more evidence intot he mix: it would [http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312702/catherinethegreat.htm appear] as though ''Encarta'' went with "Catherine the Great". Maybe someone could confirm. My own paper encyclopedia, the less well known "Encyclopedia of World Biography" also chooses "the Great". - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]]&nbsp;<sup>[''[[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|Who?]] [[User_talk:Jarry1250|Discuss]].'']</sup> 22:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::*The Brittanica reference is the only decent evidence so far in favor of keeping the title where it is, but even that is pretty weak since it doesn't even match the current title. Plus, it's only one encyclopedia, there are others, and that makes it a wash. Doesn't come close to budging the scale considering how much weight there is on the side of moving this title as proposed. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The weight for the title proposed is pretty flimsy when a search for Catherine II in Google Scholar returns 14,700 hits almost 50% more articles than for Catherine the Great.[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::This push for article nicknames titles is tiresome. Stick with the more monarchial titles. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Why? [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Cuz, when one sees [[Catherine I of Russia]], one assume there's a '''Catherine II of Russia'''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::So, when one sees Catherine II of Russia, does one assume there's a [[Catherine III of Russia]]? Doesn't seem like a good argument to me. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::As long as a majority of editors are in the pro-nickname camp (which is obvious in these last few RMs), the ''oppose'' arguments will always be downplayed & pushed aside. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: Mis-characterizing those of us who have the ultimate goal of clarity and stability in WP articles titles in our sights, and so call for consistency in naming across all Wikipedia articles by advocating the following as closely as reasonably possible the principle naming criteria laid out at [[WP:TITLE]], and clarified at general guidelines that apply to all article titles like [[WP:COMMONNAME]], as the ''"pro-nickname camp"'', is trivializing our efforts and feels [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::I apologies. It's very frustrating being on the minority bench. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. We should be using names commonly used in English, not artificial contraptions.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); January 18, 2011; 18:33 (UTC)
:*The present title is commonly used in English, see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/99597/Catherine-II [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 01:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:*I'm not opposed to the move, but I don't understand what you see as "artificial" about the name Catherine II of Russia; her (Anglicized) name was Catherine, and she was the 2nd Russian monarch of that name. [[User:LarryJeff|LarryJeff]] ([[User talk:LarryJeff|talk]]) 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:**The "artificial" part I was referring to is "of Russia". While "Catherine II" is undoubtedly used in English, "Catherine II of Russia" is not. Nor is "Catherine II" ambiguous, so having "of Russia" in the title makes no sense whatsoever.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); January 21, 2011; 17:13 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is consistent with both the Wikipedia-wide common names principle of article titling as well as the exception in the royalty naming convention for well-known names. 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
*We do have a guideline on this. [[WP:NCROY]] states "# If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc. But there must be consensus among the reliable sources so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, "Richard I" is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England.". I am not convinced that Cathrine the Great vs Cathrine II is particularily much clearer than Richard the Lionheart vs "Richard I". [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 16:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - GBooks hits on '"Catherine II" Russia' vs. '"Catherine the Great" Russia' appear to give the edge to "Catherine II". GScholar gives the edge the other way, but not by as much of a margin. GBooks combined with NCROY lead me to oppose.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
**Specific searches: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="catherine+II"+Russia Scholar for "Catherine II" Russia], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22catherine+the+great%22+Russia Scholar for "Cathering the great" Russia]--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 19:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:::*Searches show about roughly equal results, naturally enough since many sources will mention both names. A decisive difference one way or the other would be needed to resolve the issue with numbers, which is not the case here. <small>[[Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|<sup style="color:green;">''walk''</sup>]]</small> [[user:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">victor falk</i>]]<sup><small> [[user_talk:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">talk</i>]]</small></sup> 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
::::*Actually NCROY is fairly clear that a decisive difference in favor of the cognomen is needed before we should go for using it. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:::*Interestingly, the first page of the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="catherine+II"+Russia "Catherine II" Scholar results] has "Catherine the Great" in the article/book title three times out of ten.... [[User:Dohn joe|Dohn joe]] ([[User talk:Dohn joe|talk]]) 22:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I'm convinced (without the benefit of any scientific study) that "Catherine the Great" is much more commonly recognized by the average English-speaking individual than is "Catherine II of Russia." In any case, it's not as if the article name is going to be changed and then anyone seaching Wikipedia for Catherine II is going to be at a dead end--they will simply be auto-redirected to the same article under the name Catherine the Great. And, I'm also convinced that anyone who does know that this individual happens to have been the 2nd Catherine to rule Russia would also be familiar with the name Catherine the Great and not be confused when they see a different article title on their screen. [[User:LarryJeff|LarryJeff]] ([[User talk:LarryJeff|talk]]) 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:*That being said, I also think the infoboxes in the Peter III and Paul I articles should still list her as "Catherine II" as the successor and predecessor, respectively, of those individuals.[[User:LarryJeff|LarryJeff]] ([[User talk:LarryJeff|talk]]) 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[WP:NCON]] clearly says that two of the most important criteria for an article title are 1) the reader must be able to recognize that they have arrived at the right place and 2) the article should be titled in a way that reflects the term that most readers will search for. Since the majority of readers looking for Catherine the Great will have no idea what a regnal number is, let alone whether Catherine the Great has one or not (nor will they care), the titling of this article should reflect the commonly known name of this empress. --[[User:Taivo|Taivo]] ([[User talk:Taivo|talk]]) 01:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' definitively, per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], like Alexander the Great, Constantine the Great, etc. [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]] [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 16:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''SUpport''' Clear application of [[WP:NCROY]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. A definite no brainer. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Sovereign commonly distinguished by epithet, like Alexander, Carolus Magnus, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great. <small>[[Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|<sup style="color:green;">''walk''</sup>]]</small> [[user:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">victor falk</i>]]<sup><small> [[user_talk:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">talk</i>]]</small></sup> 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Few but specialists in Russian history will have heard of [[Catherine I of Russia]]. After a long debate over the appropriate name for the article [[Elizabeth II]], we moved it there. I see no objection in principle to the rename, BUT the opresent form MUST be retained as a redirect. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 20:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and point 2 of [[WP:NCROY#Sovereigns]] (provided, of course, that [[Catherine II of Russia]] remains a redirect). Some measure of consistency in article names is desirable, but inflexible avoidance of clearly prevalent English-language common names, in my opinion, is not. [[User:Alkari|Alkari]] ''[[User talk:Alkari|(?)]]'', 22 January 2011, 21:19 UTC
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], it is like [[Peter the Great]]. [[User:James Michael 1|James Michael 1]] ([[User talk:James Michael 1|talk]]) 23:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

==Paul I & the 'death by horse' myth==
According to [[Stephen Fry]] on the [[QI|BBC TV show, QI]] which I've just been watching, [[Paul I of Russia|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. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not enough to merely have a mention or to have Stephen Fry say it. Where is an AUTHORITATIVE source? Just because reputable historians mention rumors doesn't make he rumors true.[[User:Федоров|Федоров]] ([[User talk:Федоров|talk]]) 00:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. I was just seeing if anyone has seen an [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. And no one's saying the rumour's true. I think you've misunderstood my point. There's a difference between an [[urban myth]] and a rumour started by [[Paul I of Russia|Paul I]] for his own purpuses. The latter is of historical interest, the former is not. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 07:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be developed at length at [[legends of Catherine the Great]]. Whether truth, urban myths or calumnies by contemporaries, it is part of the folk lore about her. <small>[[Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|<sup style="color:green;">''walk''</sup>]]</small> [[user:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">victor falk</i>]]<sup><small> [[user_talk:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">talk</i>]]</small></sup> 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No - my point was that it's a bit more than folk lore if it originated from Paul I (albeit still not true of course). It's a comment on the relationship between her and her son/successor. Actually their difficult relationship is pretty much missing here and could be expanded to something more like its coverage in the Paul I article. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 17:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
: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. <small>[[Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|<sup style="color:green;">''walk''</sup>]]</small> [[user:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">victor falk</i>]]<sup><small> [[user_talk:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">talk</i>]]</small></sup> 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
::[http://books.google.com/books?id=DKXjw2uS4eoC&pg=PA557&dq=%22catherine+the+great%22+horse+sex+%22Paul+I%22&hl=en&ei=ValVTZH7A8aK4QbS4_GxBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw Catherine the Great: Love, Sex, and Power] by Virginia Rounding. No preview. <small>[[Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|<sup style="color:green;">''walk''</sup>]]</small> [[user:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">victor falk</i>]]<sup><small> [[user_talk:victor falk|<i style="color:green;">talk</i>]]</small></sup> 21:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

==Neutral Point of View==
I added the "Neutral Point of View" template because I think this article's tone isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. What's with all the "Some of these men loved her in return," "Catherine's apparent whole-hearted adoption of all things Russian (including Orthodoxy) may have prompted her personal indifference to religion," and my personal favorite "she believed." This looks like something copied off some mediocre high school history book; now, it ''is'' interesting to read but still a bit too opinionated, especially for a reference work. I believe this article needs a major rewrite so that it mentions only the facts and lets the reader decide for himself whether she believed or not. I hope everybody sees it the way I do.-[[User:Kaimoconn|Kaimoconn]] ([[User talk:Kaimoconn|talk]]) 23:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I can see some people agree with me about the need to rewrite this article because of its redundant style as well.-[[User:Kaimoconn|Kaimoconn]] ([[User talk:Kaimoconn|talk]]) 23:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:I have replaced the tag with a copy edit tag. NPOV means that you think the article is biased in some way. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 15:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)



The language in this article is often unclear and of a subjective tone. E.g.

Catherine wanted to become an empress herself and did not want another heir to the throne. But Empress Elizabeth blackmailed Peter and Catherine that they both had been involved into a plot of Russian military in 1749 to execute the will of Catherine I and to crown Peter together with Catherine. Elizabeth requested her legal heir from Catherine. Only when a new legal heir, the son of Catherine and Peter, survived and appeared to be strong had Elizabeth allowed Catherine to have real sexual lovers because Elizabeth probably wanted to leave both Catherine and her accomplice Peter III without any rights for a Russian throne in revenge for the participation of the pair in military plots to have themselves crowned in her stead.[17]

This segment should be rewritten to improve its logic. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.18.223.139|70.18.223.139]] ([[User talk:70.18.223.139#top|talk]]) 19:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Rags to Riches==
"Although Catherine was born a princess, her family had very little money"

This sounds like nonsense to me. She may have had very little compared to a monarch, but compared to anyone else I'd have thought her family was pretty wealthy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.169.174.86|80.169.174.86]] ([[User talk:80.169.174.86|talk]]) 11:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: How much such people have in wealth depends on the size of their duchy. Stettin where she was born is not a traditionally rich area. I cannot quite determine how many inhabitants the duchy had in her time (it's beeen divided and redistributed several times), seems a very small area to me. Since Germany was not united all the duchies were still a 'ruling house', meaning they could supply marriage partners to other ruling houses.

:: I had come here to see if there's a reference to the theatre plays Catherine had written, not here, though. All people are obsessed about is the horse thing. Same thing on the German discussion page; people are very 'peculiar'. [[Special:Contributions/58.174.193.4|58.174.193.4]] ([[User talk:58.174.193.4|talk]]) 06:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

==IP comment in article space==
moved here in all innocence by myself ([[User:Haploidavey|Haploidavey]] ([[User talk:Haploidavey|talk]]) 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)) from the section concerning Peter III and the coup d'état of July 1762. I quote: " Warning: this section is in chaos and offers two paragraphs (separated by a paragraph)about the coup that are somewhat incosistent. The section needs to be rewritten." .

==Horses Redux==
At pain of revisiting the horse issue yet again - the rumor is certainly a salient part of the western cultural representation of Catherine II, and as such should be treated in the article, briefly - as has been the general consensus in discussions above. The inclusion of one line to that effect seems sufficient, noting the existence of the allegation (just as rumours of her human infidelities are briefly discussed). Someone who comes to the article and searches for 'horse' or who reads through should not need to click through to the 'Legends' page to verify that the horse rumor even exists, and there's absolutely no good reason to exclude any specific mention of the horse rumor from the article. There are presumably those who think that mentioning an urban legend impeaches the dignity of the subject or is needlessly trivial or something similar, but it's been established ad nauseam above that the rumor's unsavoriness has no bearing on its relevance. [[Special:Contributions/94.175.239.226|94.175.239.226]] ([[User talk:94.175.239.226|talk]]) 07:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:By consensus established on this page it is covered (among other stories) at [[Legends of Catherine the Great]]. On that ground I have removed your unsourced addition, but added the article in the "See also" section. --[[User:Saddhiyama|Saddhiyama]] ([[User talk:Saddhiyama|talk]]) 09:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

::Please provide evidence to back up your claim that the consensus is that it should be exclusively treated at [[Legends of Catherine the Great]] without mention in this page. Looking above, we have:
::"I understand that it is addressed in full detail in the related 'legends' article, and I really do hate to say it: however, one of the chief things Catherine is known for is the horse sex thing. A line or two linking to the 'Legends' article, with a brief and tasteful summary of this common urban myth, would seem in order, no? -Toptomcat 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)"
::"I agree with Toptomcat. I came to this article to see if she was the one I was thinking about and did a search for 'horse' and was dissappointed that only the stature 'Horsemean' came up. I would have spent a lot of futile searching time if I hadn't checked the talk pages. The link should be referenced in the article SOMEWHERE. 207.69.137.35 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)"
::"With respect, that's nonsense. The article needs to be an overview of who the woman was, and not conceal those stories told of her of historical value, and not concealed within a link in a section that isn't supposed to be in the article in the first place (trivia). If you wish the article to be about her rule, then perhaps what you are looking for is the creation of another article based solely upon her reign. This is an article about her life - her whole life - and the "horsie thing" whether true or not is part of the legend that surrounds her, so it will be a part of the article. Sorry for the brusqueness, but I don't truck with revising history. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)"
::"I also came here to find out about the horse story, and searching for "Horse" leads exactly no-where. There should at least be a mention of the horse story, especially because it is relevant that such a historical personage had such stories made up about them. The "legends" page is a bit lacking: while it discusses the legends, it doesn't say much about who put them about, nor their reasons for doing so. Why can't we merge in the "Legends" article in a section on the main page? Why are there two articles anyway? cojoco (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)"
::"This "horse thingy" just got mentioned in an episode(s05e01) of the Big Bang Theory. This needs to have a section, many people will be looking for this, and they will be looking here. If it was a rumour, say it, but it must be mentioned.Thoughtbox (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)"
::"Pr WP:ANI#Persistent vandal on Catherine II of Russia. I think the myth is notable enough and covered, debunked, by enough sources that it should be covered. the rumor got quite wide circulation after her death. Taemyr (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)"
::""In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary." I don't know why some seem squeamish about this: as one of her chief claims to notability, sad as that is, a summary of the allegations, and their dismissal, should go in the body of the article. cojoco (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)"
::"I'd contend that being silent on it is more likely to perpetuate it, than to deal with it specifically and set the record straight. It's soemthing already out there...it's already been perpetuated. And honestly, for people who know nothing else about her, they know that one "fact". It's not undue to discuss the validity of the myth. Failing to do so leaves it unchallenged. 204.65.34.246 (talk)"
::I cannot see how the quotes above, which constitute the vast majority of comments on the horse issue, support anything other than a brief inclusion of the horse issue in the article, with a more in-depth explanation at [[Legends of Catherine the Great]]. There is certainly no consensus that the horse rumors should be excluded from the main article and ''only'' treated at [[Legends of Catherine the Great]] - the consensus appears to clearly be that the main article itself should cleanly mention the issue. If you disagree with me, please do show me how I've misunderstood the above quotes, or demonstrate in some other way how the consensus is as you claim it is. In the interim, I am adding the statement again - with a source. I won't revert if you revert once again to avoid turning this into an edit war, but the onus is on you to explain why the article's text should exclude any mention whatsoever of such a salient rumor, in light of the general consensus on the talk page. [[Special:Contributions/94.175.239.226|94.175.239.226]] ([[User talk:94.175.239.226|talk]]) 10:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I missed another comment in support of inclusion -
:::"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)
:::[Special:Contributions/94.175.239.226|94.175.239.226]] ([[User talk:94.175.239.226|talk]]) 10:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:::It's further worth noting that the sole media reference to this article quoted the then-version's explicit comments on the bestiality rumors. There is simply no case for removing one line which refers to the rumor - if anything, the line should be more explicit. [[Special:Contributions/94.175.239.226|94.175.239.226]] ([[User talk:94.175.239.226|talk]]) 10:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: The claim that her death was caused by a [[Legends of Catherine the Great|sexual incident involving a horse]] is a [[urban legend|myth]] and has no basis <ref>{{cite web|author=Barabara and David P. Mikkelson|title=Barenaked Lust|url=http://www.snopes.com/risque/animals/catherine.asp|publisher=[[Snopes]]|date=29 February 2012}}</ref>, but could have to do with the [[Marquis de Sade]] who presented her in his pornographic novel [[Juliette (novel)|Juliette]].{{fact}} I read a Dutch translation of his book, but could someone check the an English translation of Juliette? [[User:Taksen|Taksen]] ([[User talk:Taksen|talk]]) 11:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
::::: Above there's speculation the myth was spread by Paul I to discredit his mother; any sourced origin of the story would almost certainly be of historical/cultural interest any worthy of inclusion. That being said, it should be clear that nobody on WP is claiming that the myth is ''true'' - merely that the existence of the myth should be noted in this article. [[Special:Contributions/94.175.239.226|94.175.239.226]] ([[User talk:94.175.239.226|talk]]) 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

==Coup D'etat Contradiction==
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. [[Special:Contributions/206.16.109.32|206.16.109.32]] ([[User talk:206.16.109.32|talk]]) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:*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. [[User:Leonard glas|Lenny]] ([[User talk:Leonard glas|talk]]) 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

== mutually contradictory statements ==
"She levied taxes only on the followers of Judaism; if a family converted to the Russian faith, that tax was lifted.[37] Jewish members of society were required to pay double the tax of their Orthodox neighbours."
If only Jews had to pay tax then Orthodox people didn't have to pay any. Twice nothing is nothing. The second sentence shouldn't be there.
[[Special:Contributions/71.163.114.49|71.163.114.49]] ([[User talk:71.163.114.49|talk]]) 19:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:I've checked the cited source, and the statements are originally not contradictory; they are just not worded well in our article. Jews were required to pay taxes ''in addition'' to those paid by the Orthodox Christians; it is only those additional taxes which were lifted if a family converted. The Orthodox Russian didn't have to pay the taxes the Jews paid, but they were still required to pay other taxes (so it was never "nothing"). I'll make a correction. Thanks for catching this!—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); February 8, 2013; 19:42 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:5|one external link|5 external links}} on [[Catherine the Great]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=714083663 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140627113746/http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com:80/russiancrownjewels.html to http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/russiancrownjewels.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413062625/http://www.somewriters.com:80/2011/09/23/the-truth-about-catherine-the-great/ to http://www.somewriters.com/2011/09/23/the-truth-about-catherine-the-great/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120626020247/http://staff.gps.edu:80/mines/Age%20of%20Absol%20-%20Enlightend%20Despots.htm to http://staff.gps.edu/mines/Age%20of%20Absol%20-%20Enlightend%20Despots.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090121022554/http://members.tripod.com:80/~Nevermore/CGREAT.HTM to http://members.tripod.com/~Nevermore/CGREAT.HTM
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110825023603/http://www.douglassmith.info/28/love-and-conquest.html to http://www.douglassmith.info/28/love-and-conquest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

*http://web.archive.org/web/20140627113746/http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com:80/russiancrownjewels.html
*http://web.archive.org/web/20140413062625/http://www.somewriters.com:80/2011/09/23/the-truth-about-catherine-the-great/
*http://web.archive.org/web/20120626020247/http://staff.gps.edu:80/mines/Age%20of%20Absol%20-%20Enlightend%20Despots.htm
*http://web.archive.org/web/20110825023603/http://www.douglassmith.info/28/love-and-conquest.html

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

*http://web.archive.org/web/20090121022554/http://members.tripod.com:80/~Nevermore/CGREAT.HTM

{{sourcecheck|checked=failed}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 14:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

== Historical Evidence that Catherine the Great Ordered Peter III's Assasination ==

According to historian Norman Davies, who has written extensively on the subject of Russia and Eastern Europe, Catherine II, Empress of Russia, known as Catherine the Great, ordered the assassination of her husband Peter III. Davies believes that not only was Catherine complicit in the coup and arrest of Peter, she also directly ordered his assassination. "She (Catherine the Great) seized the throne through a palace putsch, having incited the royal guards to murder her husband, Peter III," Davies writes in Europe: A History (page 652, Oxford University Press, 1996). [[User:Ctmuva2000|Ctmuva2000]] ([[User talk:Ctmuva2000|talk]]) 01:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:Ah, thanks for the observation, {{u|Ctmuva2000}}. Indeed, it's only Rounding's opinion that she was not complicit. I've read other evaluations by historians who do believe her to be complicit. Do you have the ISBN and page numbers for the Davies appraisal. At the least, both historical appraisals should be presented (and attributed). One source does not make for stating it as fact, and it is certainly not a [[WP:FRINGE]] view. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:ISBN-10: 1847922902
:ISBN-13: 978-1847922908
:page is listed above, 652
:The book has been criticised in Poland as containing many errors. I would prefer a Russia history book, maybe by Simon Sebag Montefiore. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 08:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the ISBM number for Norman Davies' Book, Europe: A History is 0-19-520912-5 The direct quotation is on page 652. Further discussion of Catherine's life can be found on pages 610-11, 649, 652, 654, 658, 692 and 719. Hope this helps! [[User:Ctmuva2000|Ctmuva2000]] ([[User talk:Ctmuva2000|talk]]) 21:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ISBN* [[User:Ctmuva2000|Ctmuva2000]] ([[User talk:Ctmuva2000|talk]]) 21:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
:Thanks {{u|Ctmuva2000}} and {{u|Xx236}}... and for the warning as to the reception of the book in Poland. I'll take a look around and see if I can get hold of Sebag Montefiore's latest offering of "The Romanovs 1613-1918" (he's a preference with me, but it's a hefty read), although Davies can't be overlooked as an historian. I haven't spent much time reading over the article, but many of the references used are weak, non-[[WP:RS]] (personal blogs, etc.), and are in need of being substituted with quality texts by historians. Rounding's work has been overused as a source considering that she isn't actually an accredited historian. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 03:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Catherine the Great]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=750007350 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040327234320/http://members.aol.com/jktsn/manifest.htm to http://www.datesofhistory.com/Catherine-II-the-Great-Russia.biog.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.gorod-geroy.info/2008/07/01/imperatrica_ekaterina_ii.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

== "ruse of equality" ==

in the judaism paragraph it says "ruse of equality", is that intended? I think the intent was to write "rise of equality" but I'm not really sure
--[[Special:Contributions/46.13.177.192|46.13.177.192]] ([[User talk:46.13.177.192|talk]]) 19:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

:"Ruse" is intended, if one follows the source. Catherine's introduction of apparently "egalitarian" legislation was legal window-dressing for the introduction of discriminatory practice. At least, that's my reading; perhaps the article text could be a little clearer. [[User:Haploidavey|Haploidavey]] ([[User talk:Haploidavey|talk]]) 20:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

::I saw "a ruse of equality" referring to the "equality law," which had little meaning, given that she ultimately banned Jews from the middle class. It might make things a bit clearer to say "even under a patina of equality."--[[User:Quisqualis|Quisqualis]] ([[User talk:Quisqualis|talk]]) 22:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure that it is that problematic, although it must be if someone was confused by what is meant. Ultimately, it is grammatically correct to use "under a ruse of...". Would that be satisfactory to all? I honestly don't see that 'patina' is a better qualifier than 'ruse'. It strikes me as being an unnecessarily convoluted way of saying 'under the pretence'. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
::::"an unnecessarily convoluted way of saying 'under the pretence'": exactly! So why not change "a ruse of equality" to "under the pretence"? [[User:Haploidavey|Haploidavey]] ([[User talk:Haploidavey|talk]]) 11:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::Well, there are plenty of reliable sources that would back such a 'plain speak' statement up. Personally, my preference would be for 'guise' over 'pretence' (mainly as a matter of the flow). --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

== Stanisław Poniatowski ==

There existed at least three notable people named ''Stanisław Poniatowski'', so we say ''Stanisław August Poniatowski''.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 12:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
:{{done}} --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

== Conspiracy ==

"On the night of 8 July (OS: 27 June 1762),[22] Catherine the Great was given the news that one of her co-conspirators had been arrested by her estranged husband, and that all they had been planning must take place at once."

Co-conspirators? What conspirators? What conspiracy? This is the first mention in the article of any such thing -- when did it start? Who started it? Why? Who else was involved? Who was the co-conspirator mentioned, and why was he arrested? What were they planning? [[Special:Contributions/71.233.90.196|71.233.90.196]] ([[User talk:71.233.90.196|talk]]) 00:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

== Death on a Toilet? ==

The source for this seems specious. While I don't think this authoritative also, I think [https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-catherine-the-great History.com] appears more authoritative than the [https://web.archive.org/web/20140413062625/http://www.somewriters.com/2011/09/23/the-truth-about-catherine-the-great/ Current Cite] at "somewriters.com," as archived.


I note also that the "toilet" claim appears, and is apparently refuted, on the "[[Legends_of_Catherine_the_Great|Legends of Catherine the Great]]" wiki. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:129Editor|129Editor]] ([[User talk:129Editor#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/129Editor|contribs]]) 04:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Er, yes. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20140413062625/http://www.somewriters.com/2011/09/23/the-truth-about-catherine-the-great/ source for this 'fact'] is by no means a [[WP:RS|reliable one]]. Given that it's been refuted - or, at the least, not confirmed as being the scenario as to where she suffered her stroke - I'm certainly inclined to omit it. People have strokes in all sorts of places, and the implied cause and effect strikes me as being silly. It's a serious section dealing with her death, therefore unconfirmed information is redundant to the fact of the cause of her death (it currently sounds as if using the toilet brought on her stroke). Do any other editors agree that it's [[WP:UNDUE]] in the context? --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
==Life ''and'' times?==
Since this article is not called [[The Life and Times of Catherine the Great]], I'm wondering if quite a few of the images aren't irrelevant to what is supposed to be all about her, not about things that went on in her day in Russia. Just asking. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 11:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
:I checked the images and I think some are relevant. For example, she founded the Moscow orphanage, and the punishment image illustrates the subsection wherein it is contained. I removed a couple of images and added one. [[User:Thinker78|Thinker78]] ([[User talk:Thinker78|talk]]) 05:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


== Opinion, lack of citation / sources ==
== Legal and Administrative reforms ==


The art and culture section currently contains a lot of material relating to legal and administrative reforms. Since this is a different subject I propose that such material be moved to a new separate section.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:51B4:9B90:C09F:1253|2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:51B4:9B90:C09F:1253]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:51B4:9B90:C09F:1253|talk]]) 22:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This entry is riddled with opinion and large sections of it have no underlying source material. Needs to be flagged as problematic and re-written [[Special:Contributions/193.119.103.214|193.119.103.214]] ([[User talk:193.119.103.214|talk]]) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


== Citation ==
== Confusing sentence ==


I do not understand this sentence:
"However, she also restricted the freedoms of many peasants. During her reign, Catherine gave away many free peasants especially in Ukraine, and state peasants of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, emperor family serfs to become private serfs (owned by a landowner), this did not involve Russian state peasants as a rule and while their ownership changed hands, a serf's location never did. However, peasants owned by the state generally and especially free peasants had more freedoms than those owned by a noble."


The global trade by Russian natural resources and Russian grain provoked famines, starvation and fear of famines in Russia.
Can anyone helps me in finding citation? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Desa scholar|Desa scholar]] ([[User talk:Desa scholar#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Desa scholar|contribs]]) 19:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Is this merely an error of preposition (e.g. by->of) or is there something missing (say, “The global trade by Catherine’s Trade Ministry of Russian natural resources” &c.)? [[Special:Contributions/136.56.21.109|136.56.21.109]] ([[User talk:136.56.21.109|talk]]) 23:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
== Unsubstantiated, unexplained discussion about a "constitution" ==


== Serfdom Section is Poorly written ==
I removed this from the article as it makes no sense, is badly written and unsubstantiated. Please feel free to rewrite and add back in if you think it's relevant to the page and can explain this so-called "constitution" that is referred to without any explanation or links:


The section on Catherine's policy toward Serfs reads like a bad high school history essay, or something translated by Google from another language. Its repetitive, overly wordy and yet somehow still unclear. Three consecutive sentences begin with the word "however." Its unclear what the passage means when it discusses the serfs wanting to replace Catherine with the "true" empress, and contradictory in that it begins saying that serfs viewed her positively then ends by saying she was viewed negatively. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:8303:E89B:9925:C36B:90A6:FD64|2603:7000:8303:E89B:9925:C36B:90A6:FD64]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:8303:E89B:9925:C36B:90A6:FD64|talk]]) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:In the 1770s, a group of nobles connected with Paul, including her first wife, [[Nikita Ivanovich Panin|Nikita Panin]], [[Denis Fonvizin]] and Countess Dashkova considered to introduce the Constitution in Russia, and the families of Michael Fonvizin and Ivan Puschin thought that this was the part of something like a new coup to depose Catherine and transfer the crown to Paul, whose power they envisaged restricting in a kind of [[constitutional monarchy]]. But in fact they wrote a Constitution which could be used by Paul without a coup in the case of Catherine's disease/death and to display the ideas of the "Great Russian Revolution of 1762" in their opinion. The Constitution was discussed with British and American philosophers, might have an effect on the US Constitution and it is impossible that the Constitution was to be introduced during the coup. It would not be discussed so widely in this case. The wife of Paul died because of her health and had never been poisoned by Catherine for this coup and for the Constitution.<ref>Memoirs of [[Decembrist revolt|Decembrist]] Michael Fonvizin (nephew of writer [[Denis Fonvizin]], who belonged to the constitutionalists' circle in the 1770s); see: Фонвизин М.А. ''Сочинения и письма'': Т. 2. – Иркутск, 1982. С. 123 [Fonvizin, M.A.: ''Works and letters'', volume 2. Irkutsk: 1982, p. 123]</ref> Nothing came of this, however, and Catherine reigned until her death as an autocrat without any Constitution introducing human rights to Russian legislation.


== Ballet in Arts and Culture ==
[[User:MMc|MMc]] ([[User talk:MMc|talk]]) 13:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


This sentence (citation 86) is poorly written: It entered into a contract with the Italian teacher-choreographer Filippo Becari, who must was “the most capable of dancing” children to learn “to dance with all possible precision and to show themselves publicly in all pantomime ballets”. [[Special:Contributions/89.240.42.140|89.240.42.140]] ([[User talk:89.240.42.140|talk]]) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

Latest revision as of 04:33, 30 March 2024

In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 23, 2011.
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 17, 2007.


Opinion, lack of citation / sources

[edit]

This entry is riddled with opinion and large sections of it have no underlying source material. Needs to be flagged as problematic and re-written 193.119.103.214 (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

[edit]

I do not understand this sentence:

The global trade by Russian natural resources and Russian grain provoked famines, starvation and fear of famines in Russia.

Is this merely an error of preposition (e.g. by->of) or is there something missing (say, “The global trade by Catherine’s Trade Ministry of Russian natural resources” &c.)? 136.56.21.109 (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom Section is Poorly written

[edit]

The section on Catherine's policy toward Serfs reads like a bad high school history essay, or something translated by Google from another language. Its repetitive, overly wordy and yet somehow still unclear. Three consecutive sentences begin with the word "however." Its unclear what the passage means when it discusses the serfs wanting to replace Catherine with the "true" empress, and contradictory in that it begins saying that serfs viewed her positively then ends by saying she was viewed negatively. 2603:7000:8303:E89B:9925:C36B:90A6:FD64 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet in Arts and Culture

[edit]

This sentence (citation 86) is poorly written: It entered into a contract with the Italian teacher-choreographer Filippo Becari, who must was “the most capable of dancing” children to learn “to dance with all possible precision and to show themselves publicly in all pantomime ballets”. 89.240.42.140 (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_the_Great&oldid=1216280686"