Talk:Paul I of Russia

Did this ruler actually have his natural hair curled up (as in the picture)? --Marcus2

No, it was a wig.  Wearing wigs was a common practice at that time. — Monedula 13:27, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mozart did not wear a wig, and his hairstyle was very similar. How do you know it was a wig? --Marcus2

It's common knowledge... ☺ — Monedula 15:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Common knowledge? What is that? Have you any sources or not? (not to be rude or abrupt) --Marcus2

Wig is mentioned here: http://www.roca.org/OA/51/51f.htm — Monedula 19:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That, is just one person's view while he/she is looking at the portrait. Thanks for showing me the source though. --Marcus2

Breach of copyright

The passage outlined below represents a breach of copyright and has been lifted from a Manuscript I have been working on for the last five years. Sufficient copies of the Manuscript are in the hands of friends to estbalish my authorship. Dr Michael Foster. The passage was intruded into the text on 16:56, 24 Nov 2003 by 213.122.182.121

"The common popularist and unresearched view of Emperor Paul I, is that he was mad, that he had a mistress, that his fascination with, and subsequent adoption of the Order of St John and his induction into the office of Grand Master, are seen in this context as indulging further his delusions, and that these eccentricities and his unpredictability led to his assassination. Such a portrait of Paul is a gift to those who seek to discount and ridicule the reign of Paul I. Given that as histories are often written by the victorious or dominant party to any conflict, in this context, how true is that picture of Paul?

Comparatively recent research has rehabilitated the character of Paul I. The popularist view of Paul was originally generated by his assassins in justification of their actions. It would be easy for authors writing about Paul I to follow the propaganda uncritically, ignoring new research, which has been available for over two decades. It is as if the propaganda has become accepted historical fact through being venerated by age.

In the 1970s, two academic Panels provided the assessments of new research into Paul I. These were at Montreal in 1973 and St Louis in 1976. Some of the findings were presented in a book edited by Hugh Ragsdale in 1979; Paul I: A reassessment of His Life and Reign, University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 1979. The reappraisal of Paul I has demonstrated his character as someone of high morals, who followed his conscience. Dismissed as unlikely is Paul's infidelity in having a mistress, and the involvement with the Order of St John is understood against a background of his idealising their history as a lesson in high chivalric ideals, he wished the Russian Nobility would adopt. Paul saw in the Russian Nobles an element of degeneracy, and introducing the high ideals of the Knights of Malta, was Paul's method of reform. Paul suffered a lonely and strict upbringing and whilst he was eccentric and neurotic, he was not mentally unbalanced. Whilst an analysis of his biography reveals an obsessive-compulsive personality, what the evidence reveals is that he had "characteristics fairly common in the population at large". Where Paul differed, was that by 1796 he had to manage the whole of the Russian Empire."

Well, you go ahead and remove it, then; it looks highly POV anyway. Everyking 21:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was dismayed to see the above text still in this article nearly four months after it was brought to our attention. I've removed it. If these views of Paul are common, they should be included (and possibly refuted), but not until someone can provide definitive statements without violating anyone's copyright. They should also be made much less POV. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV

The section marked Legacy seems POV and is not an unbiased account of the academic debate. In 1800, for example, the British minister in St Petersburg, Sir Charles Whitworth, wrote that 'the Emperor is literally not in his senses' (http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=16841&g16841=x&g17667=x&g30028=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x&amid=16841). The issue of Paul's sanity is not as cut and dried as presented. Coricus 07:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

17 April 2006 revisions

There were no deletions, the revisions and the picture moves were explained in the edit summaries. Ordre St Jean 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tis tzar's name was Pavel (not Paul)Vitoldus44 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the ordinal?

Why is this article under "Paul I of Russia" instead of just "Paul of Russia"? There was no Paul II, right? Isn't Wikipedia's style to leave out the ordinal "I" for monarchs if there is no "II"? See for example Elizabeth of Russia. --Jfruh (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The rule is to use the ordinal when it was used by contemporaries, which it sometimes is, and sometimes isn't. I'm not sure what the case is in this instance. john k 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Was he not the ONLY Tsar named Paul?

Why is he called Paul I if he was the only with such a name? Rulers dont get calle "the 1st" until a future ruler by the same name takes the throne as "the 2nd".

--Mrlopez2681 08:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was the only Tsar Paul, but I'm pretty sure that he used the "first". Some rulers I know have done this; I have a coin inscribed "Umberto I, re d'Italia". Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading an anecdote about this once. His daughter Anna Pavlovna asked him why he called himself Paul "the First", even though he was the only tsar of that name so far. "I call myself Paul the First because I'm the first tsar to be named Paul", he responded. 82.161.19.51 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My edits

I removed some of the photos, for example the one of his alleged mistress, which anyone can see by simply viewing the article on her. Since the layout was overly cluttered, and since some images are stuffed into small spaces for rather unnecessary reasons (an image of the child Paul does not need to be shoved into the small space that discusses his childhood). I moved some images into a gallery (the coat of arms in very unnecessary). I removed the redundant list of Paul's children by Maria Fyodorovna in the Early Life section, as this can be viewed twice on this page, and should anyone want to find out who these people married, they can view the article on the person.

Why do wikiperdia users insist on tastelessly cramming images into every article?

--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukase of 1799

I'm doing background for a rewrite of the Alaska boundary dispute article and have come across mention of the Ukase of 1799, which was issued under Paul; see here for one reference to its terms, among which claims in Russian America were asserted to 55 degrees north; the Ukase of 1821 tried to extend that to 44-50 N or so but was quickly challenged by Britain, leading to the Treaty of St. Petersburg (1825). The 1821 Ukase had lots of other items in it, including ecclesiastical decrees, so it seems clear the Ukase of 1799 probably had a lot more in it than just territorial assertions in North America. Anyone here familiar enough with Russian history/specifics or the Ukases to help out?Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More balanced references needed for the whole article

I just added a citation-needed tag to this reference:

1. A reasonable and balanced picture of Paul I, can be gained from: Hugh (Ed) Paul I: A reassessment of His Life and Reign,

University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 1979[citation needed]

A Russian scholar I was just talking to suggested that this article whietwashes Paul's life a bit and may not be a reasonable and balanced picture. I have no way to judge, and can't cite this private correspondence, but it's not really appropriate for the article to describe in those terms its single modern source :-) Even if this is reasonable and balanced, please flesh out this article with cross-ref information from other reasonable and balanced works. 24.61.14.99 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)