Jump to content

Talk:Catherine the Great/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrannischgott (talk • contribs) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

- could be expanded on, because it touches on her rumored behavior and is specific as to how she is depicted in pop cult. --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. 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. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.174.86 (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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'. 58.174.193.4 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Catherine the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 17 November 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). Ctmuva2000 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the observation, 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. --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. 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! Ctmuva2000 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ISBN* Ctmuva2000 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ctmuva2000 and 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. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Children?

Who were her descendants? There were two sons named in the article, but were there more? 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.194.133 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.242 (talk)

"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 --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. 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."--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'. --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"? 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). --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.Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done --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? 71.233.90.196 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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. 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 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. 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? Tony Fox (arf!) 03:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I lack access to a good library :( According to [1], Catherine the Great: Life and Legend by Alexander, John T. treats the issue. 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. 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.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? cojoco (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Because articles should not be too long. See WP:spinout. 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. 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. 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.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. 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.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.Vendrov (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Death on a Toilet?

The source for this seems specious. While I don't think this authoritative also, I think History.com appears more authoritative than the 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" wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129Editor (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Er, yes. The source for this 'fact' is by no means a 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? --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. --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. Thinker78 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:51B4:9B90:C09F:1253 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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 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)
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. --AVIosad(talk) 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 (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)

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.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!" — O'Dea (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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.--SCJE (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, some of the weirdest POV ever. First cannibals, then that self-contradicting POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.175.143 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6020:18A:D1A9:7FC2:17AD:2064 (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Her Plans for Constantinople

In the book Modern Greece: A Short History by the eminent Oxford scholar 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). --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. 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. Lizfran (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is really dumb do not use this article it dies not help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.45.173 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaghettyirish (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
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! 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 --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. Dakinijones (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation

"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."

Can anyone helps me in finding citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desa scholar (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated, unexplained discussion about a "constitution"

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:

In the 1770s, a group of nobles connected with Paul, including her first wife, 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.[1] Nothing came of this, however, and Catherine reigned until her death as an autocrat without any Constitution introducing human rights to Russian legislation.

MMc (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Memoirs of 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]

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.-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.-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. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.223.139 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Poniatowski (subsection of Personal Life)

The subsection could benefit from more citations added (the only one here does not concern Poniatowski personally). I have raised a citation need against this sentence, which as a British reader particularly alerted me, as it's not something I heard of:

In 1757, Poniatowski served in the British Army during the Seven Years' War, thus severing close relationships with Catherine.

No mention of this is made in Poniatowski's own wiki article. If he did, then more detail would be appreciated which could go into his biography - was he combatant volunteer in British uniform or just an attached military observer, where was he on the field and what formation/unit was he with?Cloptonson (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Belated signature

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_the_Great/Archive_2&oldid=1205791147"