Talk:Catherine the Great/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Catherine the Great. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ugh... as pointed out, the page was somewhat of a mess stylewise. Hopefully I've made the sentence structure flow a bit better, and anyone else who wants a crack at it is welcome.. That's what comes from looking at 2-3 sources simultaneously and attempting to combine them in your own words in one draft. I'm afraid to look at my other entries now... Rgamble

Note: A common urban myth states that Catherine died as a result of her voracious sexual appetite while attempting sexual intercourse with a stallion - supposedly the harness broke and she was crushed. There is no truth to this fable and the myth likely spread through the noble classes as just another political intrigue.

I don't believe such staff is relevant for an encyclopedia article. --Ghirlandajo

It is relevant because it is widely believed in the West. It has a long history. It is not just the U.S. In fact, the source discusses that the myth arose in the European nobility for political reasons. The information is sourced. This insertion, which I did not add and only edited, debunks the myth. Don't accuse someone of vandalism for this. If you want to accuse someone of vandalism, you are a couple hundred years too late and you must blame it on the nobility and intrigue in your own country along with the monarchs of Europe. --Noitall 17:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

What is the evidence that this is a myth with a long history? It should be noted that the source at the about.com link appears to be a medieval historian, and he presents no specific source for his discussion of the horse rumor. john k 05:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a rumor, an urban legend (though a widely known one). If presented not as a fact, but as a rumor clearly stating that there is no factual basis, it can stay, I think. Legends so widespread are worth mentioning, similar to St. Andrew's prophesy of Kiev (another legend) while it is known that he never reached that far north (of course if he existed at all). Just my 2 cents. --Irpen 17:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against urban legends, and I even contributed one about Gogol's being buried alive. But such kind of zoophilic insinuations is so absurd that it may hardly be acceptable for the article on the great empress, which could be consulted by minors. --Ghirlandajo

I think that is the intent. This rumor it should be noted can has quite a history, originating in the time of Catherine herself. So it is quite notable. --Noitall 17:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense, but it is absolutely necessary to educate people about such things, so they would not act surprised and take it as thruth when finaly read it from other source. Hmm, the toilet myth also has a following, I remember hearing it in Russian historical show Namedni on NTV, and IIRC even Pushkin used to joke about that.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the possibility of browsing by minors is not the reason to modify anything per se. Any encyclopedia, even the Soviet GSE had info on topics, I would not want my children to see. This is not PBS-kids or Soyuzmultfilm site. However, Ghirlandajo has a point that we want to keep this serious and I doubt, serious encyclopedias mention this legend. I suggest a following compromise. We can spin this off to a separate article about this urban myth. Itself, this is a notable myth and will survive any VfD attempt. A new article will then be mentioned in "See also" section of Catherine's article. Actually, such section is missing and there are several topics worth to be put there, like an article about her government reform (is there one yet?), about Potyomkin Village, etc. I am not sure, how best to title the article about the myth, but something could be invented for this. How would this sound? --Irpen 17:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is serious (in Russian) if that survived that long.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 18:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion started because someone thought the issue not notable enough to include. Now it is so notable that you want an entirely separate page? Maybe the myth has more to it than is already stated, but to my knowledge it is enough. I don't see a reason to change it. --Noitall 21:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

So we may end up starting a whole trivia section.

A common urban myth states that Catherine died as a result of her voracious sexual appetite while attempting sexual intercourse with a stallion - supposedly the harness broke and she was crushed. There is no truth to this fable and the myth likely spread through the noble classes as just another political intrigue. . *Another myth that she died on a toilet. This myth was even jokingly referred by Pushkin in one his unnamed poems. ("И умерла, садясь на судно.", "...And died boarding a vessel" or can be translated, "Sitting down on the toilet")
The Russian slang word for money "babki"(old women), refers to the portrait of Catherine II printed on pre-Revolution bills.

The only question to ask is why nobody, mentions the toll tale how Peter III of Russia, played "toy soldiers and hung rats", basically several century-old rumors strike back at history courses. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 22:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Re reply by Noitall: WP is pretty inclusive. So, if something is mentionable in an article, most likely it is OK as a topic for a special article. The reason I advocate that this myth be placed in a separate article is to keep disputes localized without sacrificing the completeness of info. A notorious example of how this works is an Evacuation of East Prussia article. Until its coming into being there was a whole bunch of edit wars about insertion of these events into a whole bunch of articles, such as Red Army, Military history of the Soviet Union, etc. Controversial issues should not be stricken out from WP but keeping them localized is probably a good idea. The best way to localize them is to create narrow articles. This is not to say that I staunchly oppose to this myth in Catherine's article. I would just prefer separating it and this would be a reasonable compromise with the purists' opinion and it would also work. I don't feel strongly enough about this, to write a separate article myself though. I just wanted to propose the resolution that would cool down quarrels without sacrificing the informativeness of Wikipedia. --Irpen 23:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Most times they are not in a separate article. Almost all notable people have a "trivia" section for such items, which also shows they are notable, but less so in the context of the person. --Noitall

Separating this BS into its own section is better, I agree. But I would still favor a separate article like Urban myths about death of Catherine II of Russia because of sensitivity and vulgarity of these particular myths. The article would be linked from "See also" section of course. I might actually end up doing it myself, but maybe someone will do that first or proposes a different option. To summarize, I strongly oppose against total deletion of the notable info from WP, but OTOH for the sake of minimizing conflicts I favor creation of narrow articles for the cases like this one. Others are free to disagree with me, call me a puritan or whatever. Regards, -- Irpen 02:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to tell you, the standard here on Wiki is pretty low. I am currently trying to delete a sick image here Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, and am losing badly (don't look if you shock easily). --Noitall 04:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's strange, but not entirely surprising taking in account that's pron, but you hit interesting point — arent we are giving to pr0n, beacause this though a notable trivia, is deliberately obscene (that is what I see the reason for its longevity - exploitation of person's interest to obscene detail), so if someone is browsing after hearing this myth, we may see it added by that person, so it might need to be addressed somehow –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 05:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue on how to address it is quite important. I think the myth can be described in such a way as to not be too graphic but still state the obvous, sex with a horse. It can also shoot down the myth and state how such silly myths get started in the first place. This is no different than the discussions I get in on conspiracy theories where it seems like people will believe anything. Well, many believed this one (and I am embarrassed to say I did also, learning it many many years ago). And there is nothing really countering it. This is the best way to shoot down the myth.

--Noitall 05:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

My concern is not pornography. I care little (do care though) about this threat to WP. Besides, this episode isn't porn at all. I would like to make this article less offensive not for puritans and prudes but for someone who respects the Russian statehood reformed by this empress. OTOH, I do consider these myths encyclopedic and they do have a place here. This place is called a separate article mentioned in Catherine's article casually. And the last thing, I want the feeling of the patriots considered in this not because I find these feelings to be in a special need for protection but because such a separation of wheat and chaff will prevent the offended readers from removing encyclopedic info from WP. I hope others can find this convincing. Regards, --Irpen 06:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the proportion of history/trivia in an encyclopedic article is not good - trivia takes as much as 1/4 of Internal policies. This is not fair, so I would support separating that in a separate article, I fail to come up with a title which would clearly mark such as unworthy trivia, but would be inclusive enough for all the things which survived so far. Even this , and next time someone tells this myth - the main thing that he must be pointed to Wiki. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 16:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW - the Straight Dope article states that the toilet myth as true, while the article you found does state it is only partially so.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 17:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the title for the separate article, how about Urban myths about death of Catherine II of Russia? We can then do the following: (1) Paste the horse and toilet stuff in their current form there /they may get expanded though at some point/; (2) leave "babki" in trivia section and also say in the section that there are several urban myths about her death (see separate article), all untrue, likely created by her political adversaries or cheap clowns or whatever (I don't know the details). --Irpen 18:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I oppose it and will put it up for deletion. This is simply an attempt to censor this article and inappropriate for its own article. --Noitall 02:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Look, you and I know for sure that, if created, this would survive VfD. There is still a debate going on, you made your point. We'll wait for more opinions. There nothing that can be done to prevent a separate article creation and there is no way that it will be VfD'ed. The real problem is to avoid edit wars in this articles with insertion and deletion of this stuff. If anyone, myself included, would feel like moving this into a separate article, all you can do is keep pasting it back here. I would like to avoid these fights, that's why we are talking here. There is no need, really, to be combative. --Irpen 02:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am not attempting to stop you from creating any article. I will oppose changing this article, however. Unless you have some other info, I do not think such an article will survive a vfd because there is nothing new and thus my comment. --Noitall 02:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The myth of the horse is widespread enough to be commonly heard, and widely referenced as true. It is commonly mentioned as a factual historic event in Catherine's life in newspapers when the subject of unusual sex or macabre deaths is under discussion. The wikipedia standard is on the whole includivist - if a myth is specific to catherine, it is relevant to mention in passing, although not exaggerating it. Unfortunately the contributors here do not choose what is said of a person, but if a matter is said, and referenced widely, and incorrect, then a brief comment stating the correct information is appropriate. Dumping it in a separate "urban myths" page because somehow this article should be exempt from the inclusion criteria that the entire whole of the rest of wikipedia are edited by, is not appropriate. FT2 03:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I am too thick skinned, but I do not feel offended by the article with trivia section, as it is now. Morover I feel like creating a separate article Urban myths about Catherine, her sexual life and deaths that will be in Category:Imperial Russia, will be the first article that most of the users will look into (especially the minors) - so it will actually make the things worse. Besides, as it is now it is too short for an article and filling it with juicy extension is probably not that irpen wants to see. My vote: leave it as it is now. abakharev 06:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Alex, One correction, I would not mind juicy details. I am not easily offended. My reasons to move this stuff to a separate article is to prevent edit warring in this one and nothing else. Also, I believe there is more to it for an article, like history of origination of these myths. Analysis of possible inventors, etc. (I don't mean analysis by Wikipedians of course but probably there is some research on this already). --Irpen 07:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you have more material for the Urban Legend , I am for separating it into the new article, and exclusion the duplicated material from here. Write the article first, then exclude the duplications from here abakharev 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

By this logic, GKO, you vote "extend" (=keep), should first be "written" and then posted, and for now deleted. It's fine to have short article that may get expanded later. --Irpen 07:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

There were some subtle differences in these cases:

Even as it was the GKO article provided some additional information - e.g. if a user would read a phrase like Anatoly Chubais was the futher of infamous GKO, that caused a finnacial crisis in 1998, then the article would help him to understand that GKO is not a young CIA operative of Russian-Korean origin. As according to your proposal, we do not put new information onto wikipedia, just rearrange the current one (IMHO in an unhelpful way).
If GKO will be VfDed, then there would be need for an additional voting to create a new article on it. So even the placeholder has some value, anubody at any time can create Urban legends about Catherine II at any time.

Since my aesthetic sences maybe somehow flawed, and I do not have strong feeling about the proposed changes, I promise to abstain from any edit wars between the two variants.

OK, I was just being bold and created an article as per above. (See Urban myths about death of Catherine II of Russia). I added a little bit to the stuff that was originally here, but it is certainly based on the content of this article. This is no way an attempt to censor anything (I hope it is clear). Moreover, the reference to the article with this stuff is deliberately teasing enough, so that anyone interested will certainly click and read (I would have clicked for sure). Now, I would only encourage if anyone submits a new article for VfD, since it would help determine a wider consensus. I will not revert if anyone pastes the material back here. I don't mind to see such stuff at all, I just thought it is kind of strange that it takes a significant portion of the article compared to her legacy. Anyway, please do not flame on me and, as I said, feel free to revert my changes to this article, rename/edit my new article or submit it for VfD. Thanks, --Irpen 22:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

BTW - Potyomkin's most popular spelling Potemkin and there is Potemkin village –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 18:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you know, it looks like Trivia section grows filling up with ancient rumors, this is double-plus ungood, that rumors about Catherine's rule had so much cultural impact, maybe it begs to to be separated.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

As for Potyomkin, I also had the impression that YO is more common, but Britannica and most other ref books call him Potemkin. That's why I ended up not raising the issue.

As for separation, I am all for it but since Noitall seems committed to keeping this stuff here, I am not motivated enough to fight now over this issue, though I will support whoever takes it upon themselves. I would like to see Noitall hold on to his word and VfD the myths article. With the consensus of keep it would be harder to justify leaving the duplication here too in those juicy detail (which, I repeat, I don't mind to read). It would be too strange if I, who created the myths article, VfD it myself and that would also be a WP:Point. Perhaps, we should broaden the name from "myths about death" for it to include other mythical stories. Personally, I know a couple of more Catherine related stories at this level of credibility. --Irpen 18:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I spoke too quickly before. I am not concerned about another article. I am not an Admin who goes through cleaning up Wiki if there is no real reason for it. This is the article I am interested in. I simply want the articles that I am interested in to be accurate and complete. The fact is, you are not creating a new page because you think you have a new page full of ideas, but because you disagree with including such information in this article. Every major article about people has a Trivia section with notable items. This one is consistent with those. --Noitall 19:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain the Potemkin assertion is correct. I will need to read up on this subject. Anyone who wants to elaborate with more references than this cite, please do. --Noitall 19:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Too bad you "spoke quickly" and weren't serious though. VfD would have helped to determine a wider consensus. Anyway, whoever wants to expand the myths article and argue to keep zoophilia separate from the state and government reform will get my support. As for the issue of "Potemkin assertion", one doesn't have to "read up" much, just check other encyclopedias. I have full access to several and I will be happy to provide screenshots to whoever doubts my word:

Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia all use Potemkin.

I don't think there is any issue left in view of WP's own policy:

"If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias)."

--Irpen 22:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issue is about the untruth of the Potyomkin village, it is undisputable that Potemkin tried his best to make everything look good, but to create whole fake villages. My history teacher used to say it is true in this exaggerated form, but it could be part of his Soviet education to mar the history of Imperial Russia, he also wanted me kicked for not loving Stalin–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 00:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Obviously this is another legend. Interestingly, the Soviet historians didn't mind the results of her expansionists policies, that brought the Crimea and territories of modern Ukraine under the firm rule of the empire. One variations of the village legend I heard, is that the fake villages constructed along the road she was travelling, consisted only of pretty looking fake building faces, freshly painted, and made out of plywood or something with no real houses behind. This legend is encyclopedic, but not in this article and not even in the trivia section.

Besides, the Trivia article in WP says:

"The term trivia is widely used to refer to tidbits of unimportant (or trivial) information, but it can also refer to questions concerning general knowledge. Generally, the latter definition prevails when people "play trivia".

I don't see how Urban legends fit into "trivia" any more than elsewhere in the article. Her portrait on the money giving them a name is a true and little known fact, it is a trivia all right. But sex with the horse, death from it, death on the toilet is not trivia. It is not information about Catherine, but urban legends perpetuated with time. They don't belong to trivia for sure. Other legends I heard include Potemkin finding and approving lovers for her, once they peacefully parted. Also, there was a widely circulated book called "Lovers of Catherine" with other seemingly supported stories. I do believe the widely known stories, true or not, deserve to be told in WP. OTOH, I don't see their place here. --Irpen 03:01, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I support, it is my fault, that this was mixed together, this is not trivia, the of existence of untrue rumors is an unimportant fact, but rumors themselved are not a facts. Lets mention them in trivia so we have more space to elaborately discuss them in a separate article - I guess nothing requring a separate article is trivia–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 03:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel that I am on this article with a bunch of newbies. If so, I apoligize for being short with you. "Trivia" on Wiki is the normal category for lumping in notable items that don't really fit elsewhere. The issue is notability (for the millionth time) and at least the Catherine sex issue is notable. The Potempkin issue is notable, but as it is written now, is notable for Potempkin, not Catherine. More would have to be written about the reasons for doing this for Catherine or his relationship with Catherine. Otherwise, it could move to a Potemkin article. Finally, on the use of other encyclopedias, some of them were written a century ago. Their use is only appropriate if appropriate. On an issue of history, it should be the most accurate and up-to-date, which is likely not the old encyclopedias. --Noitall 04:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The encyclopedias I quoted above are modern 2004-2005 editions. Trivia on wiki is what Trivia article says, first of all. I am not a newbie here but I am not a native speaker in English, I admit. While I see how "babki"/money fits into trivia, I don't see how rumors known to be false also fit there. The Potemkin village legend is no less related to her than to him, because it shows her being so foolish as to be fooled or pretend to be fooled by empty facades. Anyway, I expanded and renamed the rumors article to Urban myths related to Catherine II of Russia and even provided a reference there to an academic book on the issue. I don't see what sacrifice for the completeness of Wikipedia is done by describing the urban legend separately from the true facts with the link conspicuously placed into the main article. I agree with Noitall that Catherine sex issue is notable and there is an adequate discussion already in the article. I also agree that so wide rumors, even known to be false, are somewhat notable and for that very reason I started an article, an not to sensor them.

I would be interested to see other articles devoted to people of similar legacy, with comparable share of an article length describing the BS stories perpetrated for whatever reasons, even if the article says that this is all BS. Anyway, with this info in another article, I will again remove this from here.

Not only I would welcome VfD, as I said earlier, I would welcome an official request for the third opinion (Wikipedia:Third opinion) or even Article RfC (RfC#Article_content_disputes). Since no user accuses any other user in anything here, this would be not a controversial "user RfC" (RfC#Comment_about_individual_users), but rather a simple determining a Wikipedia consensus on the content. If no one is willing to do this opinion solicitation, I might do it on my own. I feel no personal animosity to Noitall, who is entitled to his opinion, but I believe this issue needs to be resolved by the wider consensus than the arguing in circles between two-three users and reverts just under WP:3RR.

If my changes are reverted again, then I would simply accept my arguments' being unconvincing to another editor. Please, however, don't revert with condescending "See NPOV" remark. This is obviously not a POV dispute. Regards, --Irpen 05:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I accept a change to the section title "Trivia". There is no Wiki requirement to name it that, it is just the most common thing to do on Wiki. If a better title fits, I have no objection. And as for the issue on Potemkin, I said that I still needed to research it. The encyclopedia is useful, but I am still not certain they update the articles to reflect the latest research since there is not nearly as much money in encyclopedias as in the past. Maybe they have the best info, I'll see. --Noitall 06:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I tell you what. You put a lot of work into that article. I guess I don't particularly oppose moving the info. Maybe you convinced me since I feel not as strongly that it is deleting important info (by moving it) as it seems you are adding to the body of knowledge. Keep working on it though. --Noitall 06:04, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no problem with having any good faith disagreements. I would appreciate if anyone else also contributes to the myth article and I do believe that it should be linked conspicuously from Catherine's article. Regards, --Irpen 06:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Look I once saw a television doc on National Geographic channel, they searched after the secret sexrooms off Catherine, it was amazing what they found, trough the daughter of an old cleaning woman they got to see the rooms in that palace, all the walls were decorated with erotic and pornographic material. The furniture however was largerly disappeared, they refound some pieces that had been photographed before WWII on a "marché aux puces" in Paris. Other pieces are rumoured but this was not confirmed, but it was mentioned by a niece of a conservator in the Vatican city, that a part of this furniture is hidden in the rooms of the Vatican. So you can guess were the rumours started from....

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Catherine the Great/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA list. Badbilltucker 00:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 08:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Some contemporary memoirs I've read (those of Princess Dashkova, an important figure under Catherine II) indicate that Peter wasn't chased from the palace by an armed force under Grigorii Orlov, but that he was with a fleet en route to Denmark for a minor war. Supposedly he was prevented from landing on his return and put two and two together, eventually abdicating willingly in exchange for a comfortable estate.

Additionally, I have heard nothing about a death by illness, unless you would consider homicide an illness: he was killed by Alexei Orlov (not to be confused with Grigorii) in what was apparently a drunken confrontation. The rumors of foul play on the part of the Empress, which may or may not be legitimate, were as to whether she was involved in motivating Alexei to commit the act. I'm something of a newbie, or I'd probably be able to check the history of edits--does anyone know if this information is from the 1911 source, or from an editor? Because it would seem very much to be inaccurate. If there are conflicting sources, I'd be happy to know what they are. I can't imagine someone just made this up. Fearwig 06:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, looks like there's a full article on Peter III with accurate and mostly-complete information. I still have no clue where the bozo who made the edit to this one got his facts. 69.137.157.78 10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearwig (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

fourteenth generation from a king of Ruthens, from a Grand Duke of Tver

15) Catherine II of Russia

14) Johanna Elisabeth of Gottorp m Christian August of Zerbst (A)

13) Christian August of Gottorp m 13) Albertine Frederikke of Baden (B)

12) Frederikke Amalie of Denmark m Christian Albrecht of Gottorp (son of Marie Elisabeth of Saxony (B) m Frederik III of Gottorp (C))

11) Sophie Amalie of Brunswick

10) George of Brunswick Kalenberg

9) Dorothea of Denmark

8) Dorothea of Lauenburg

7) Catherine of Brunswick

6) Catherine of Pomerania

5) Sophia of Pomerania

4) Maria of Masovia

3) Alexandra of Lithuania

2) Uljana Alexandrovna of Tver in Russia

1) Alexander Mihailovich of Tver

St Mihail Jaroslavich of Tver m Anna Dmitrieva of Rostov

Jaroslav Jaroslavich of Tver and Novgorod

Jaroslav Vsevolodovich of Perejaslavl and Kiev m Fjodosia Igorjevna of Rjazan

Vsevolod Yurievich of Vladimir

Yurij Dolgorukij of Kiev

Vladimir Monomah of Kiev

A: John Louis of Zerbst

Sophie Auguste of Gottorp

Marie Elisabeth of Saxony (B) m Frederik III of Gottorp (C)

B: 12) Auguste Marie of Gottorp

11) Marie Elisabeth of Saxony m Frederik III of Gottorp (C)

John George of Saxony m 10) Magdalena Sibylla of Prussia (D)

Christian I of Saxony

Anne of Denmark

Dorothea of Lauenburg (above)

C: Auguste of Denmark

Frederik II of Denmark

Dorothea of Lauenburg (above)

D: 9) Mary Eleanor of Cleves

8) Mary of Austria

Ferdinand of Austria m 7) Anna of Hungary (E)

Philip of Austria and Burgundy

Maximilian of Austria

Frederick of Austria

Cimburga of Masovia

Ziemowit IV of Masovia

Ziemowit III of Masovia

Maria Jurjevna of Halicz

Jurij Lvovich of Halicz

Leo Danilovich of Halicz

Anna Mstislavna of Novgorod m Danil Romanovich of Volhynsk

Roman Mstislavich of Kiev

Mstislav Izlaslavich of Kiev

Izjaslav Mstislavich of Kiev

Mstislav Vladimirovich of Kiev

Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomah

E: 6) Vladislav of Bohemia and Hungary

5) Casimir of Poland

4) Jagailo Vladislav of Lithuania (m Zonka Andrzeievna Holszanska, great-granddaughter of Svjatoslav Ivanovich, Grand Duke of Smolensk)

3) Uljana Alexandrovna of Tver

Alexander Mihailovich of Tver m 2) Anastasia Jurjevna of Halicz

1) Jurij Lvovich of Halicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.199.247 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Six months after her ascension to the throne, on July 17, 1762, Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov (younger brother to Gregory Orlov, then court favorite and a participant in the coup) in what was supposed to have been an accidental killing, the result of Alexei's overindulgence in vodka. During the Soviet period it was assumed proven that Catherine ordered the murder. Now, some historians tend to doubt her involvement because of the long-running tensions between Alexei Orlov and Catherine - he eventually killed her husband."

Doesn't "- he eventually killed her husband" seem a bit repetitive, since at the beginning it states, "Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov"? Its already been stated that Peter III was killed by Alexei Orlov, and "- he eventually kiled her husband" makes it sound funny to me. I definitely think the paragraph could do without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KEB (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Disputed-Catherine didn't add virgin geographic territory but territories of other countries.Furthermore the terminology "absorb" is POV. Russia annexed those territories not "absorbed" them. No mention of Khanate of Crimea or Duchy of Courland is in the text. Did Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union absorb territories of Greater Poland, Little Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine ? Let's not be absurd and use proper terminology. Absorbing is not the correct term. According to definition: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=absorb 1 : to take in and make part of an existent whole Which would imply that the territories in question themselves entered Russian Empire rather then be taken by it with force. --Molobo 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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. 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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is so little, if anything, in the article about her domestic policies! I suggest we get to work on that! Cleanup of the excessive and disproportionate repetitions of the effect of her rule on Poland that is kept being readded can be done later and it harms the article's quality much less than a total blank spot as far as her domestic policies were conserned. There are plenty of info, including much being available online, in English, Russian and many other languages. --Irpen 04:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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. --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 various Polish former states). As far as point two, it is fairly debatable whether Poniatowski was 'a weak man entirely devoted to Catherine' - while some historians argue that, other have a rather contrasting view of him. Considering our current article about him is mostly 1911 EB based, this is something that definetly has to be expanded sooner or later. Finally, point number three is mostly correct. As far as your other point, I definietly agree that the article should speak much more about her non-Poland related policies and such - but that is no reason to remove current Poland-related details. If one section is better than the other one, you don't dumb it down to the levels of the others, you expand the others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dateof Birth is in questiosovpage more than once refers to her death on 6th November.

Which is correct ? - unsigned

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

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: akela3@freemail.hu (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. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

This link Battle of Svenskund and the war is broken. [Anonymous] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.176.187 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Article has been nominated for consideration by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA. Badbilltucker 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unreferenced"? Most of the text is copied verbatim from 1911 Britannica. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 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.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following passage should be moved to Russian Enlightenment:

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

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

Now that Władysław II of Poland got moved to Jogaila shouldn't we move this article to Sophie Augusta Fredericka von Anhalt-Zerbst? //Halibu tt 09:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind WP:POINT. And remember the not feeding advice before responding. --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.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 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. --Irpen 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No wiki article is stable - and apparently no monarchy-related. //Halibu tt 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The statement that Catherine the Great founded the Imperial Ballet School is contradicted by Vaganova Ballet Academy. The latter article states that Anna of Russia founded the school in the Winter Palace. Which article is correct?

The standard of English in this article is just terrible. It really is hard to understand anything that is being said it's so full of sub clauses. Read the opening sentence for an idea of what i mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.134.28 (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.74.109 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Guys, please stop adding all sort of portraits to this article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an image gallery. The article links to the appropriate Commons page, is it not enough? Our readers may view all your images there. Now I see that someone started a gallery. Though it has only four images and does not appear to be pesky, I predict that in a few months it will grow to include many more and will look silly indeed. Once you start a gallery, every passerby would want to add a couple of images from Commons. This biography can't have all the possible images of Catherine II. Please stop. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have solved this problem in some other articles by moving the entire gallery to the talk page. Sometimes that works, particularly when it is viewed as a "sandbox" of sorts for images that may become useful in the article as it evolves. Another job for those who care is to organize whatever images are over in commons so they are in a useable form. However, many images in these articles are not eligible for posting there, so a "sandbox gallery" of images contained within wikipedia only can be helpful. Anyway, all I did was try to put the drawing of her in men's clothing into the article (far more in character than the frilly maiden equestrian portrait there, but apparently people like the pretty picture better, oh well), and it would be nice if it could at least be tucked here somewhere, as such images of "warrior queens" riding astride in that period are not easy to find. Montanabw 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

From my talk page

Ghirlandajo constantly deletes information that she annexed territories of other countries. --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. 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 ? --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. --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.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 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. Cerowyn (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

In the last sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction

"She was suppose to have had many lovers, and was held responsible for the planned murder of her husband."

Please change suppose to supposed

Johns860 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Changed suppose -> believed. Sounded better.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

changed beginning to "She frequently leaned towards scandal given her propensity for relationships which often resulted in gossip flourishing within more than one European court." from "She frequently leaned towards scandal given her enlightened propensity for relationships with daring figures which often resulted in gossip flourishing within more than one European court." cause it's not NPOV. Enlightened, daring figures? not writing for romance novels. 70.240.50.188 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the text in the article may be from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which would explain its somewhat antiquated language and viewpoints in that regard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

A large "Daily life during Catherine's reign" section was added by an IP user. While the section is informative and well-written, I don't think it has any place in a biographical article, there is simply too much general information about Russia and too little about Catherine.

To the IP that added this: Perhaps you should consider adding it to either the Russian history, 1721–1796 article or the Serfdom in Russia article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. 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. NW (Talk) 03:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Catherine II of Russia → 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", and only 965 for "Catherine II of Russia" . 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. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, should be uncontroversial, this is the name by which we all know her.--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. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - No reason at all to go against article naming conventions in this case. Deb (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "Support", then? Article naming conventions in this case (both general and particular) would lead to "Catherine the Great" as the title.--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 JDLI argument, and should be given zero weight accordingly.
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. --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? 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. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, and such a move is not at all against "article naming conventions". Powers ^T 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. --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. Powers ^T 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. --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. john k (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Now, that's a well-argued statement. Thank you, John. --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. 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. 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). GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and Peter the Great. --Folantin (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Support, per WP:NCROY and WP:COMMONNAME. Plus precedent cited above. Nightw 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.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.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to Charlie and Alex. ^walk victor falk^talk 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 (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. --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. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw some more evidence intot he mix: it would 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". - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 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. --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.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This push for article nicknames titles is tiresome. Stick with the more monarchial titles. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? Powers ^T 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuz, when one sees Catherine I of Russia, one assume there's a Catherine II of Russia. 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. --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. 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 uncivil. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologies. It's very frustrating being on the minority bench. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. We should be using names commonly used in English, not artificial contraptions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (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 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. 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.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (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". 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.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Specific searches: "catherine+II"+Russia Scholar for "Catherine II" Russia, Scholar for "Cathering the great" Russia--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. ^walk victor falk^talk 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. Taemyr (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first page of the "Catherine II" Scholar results has "Catherine the Great" in the article/book title three times out of ten.... 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. 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.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. --Taivo (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Support definitively, per WP:COMMONNAME, like Alexander the Great, Constantine the Great, etc. Constantine ✍ 16:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
SUpport Clear application of WP:NCROY and WP:COMMONNAME. A definite no brainer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Sovereign commonly distinguished by epithet, like Alexander, Carolus Magnus, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great. ^walk victor falk^talk 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. 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. Alkari (?), 22 January 2011, 21:19 UTC
Support per WP:COMMONNAME, it is like Peter the Great. James Michael 1 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

According to Stephen Fry on the BBC TV show, QI which I've just been watching, Paul I spread the rumour to damage his mother. I've not heard that before, but if true it actually warrants a mentioning the story in a more mainstream way (eg in the Succession to the Throne section) rather than the current urban myth treatment. DeCausa (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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.Федоров (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. I was just seeing if anyone has seen an 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 for his own purpuses. The latter is of historical interest, the former is not. 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. ^walk victor falk^talk 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. 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. ^walk victor falk^talk 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Catherine the Great: Love, Sex, and Power by Virginia Rounding. No preview. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

moved here in all innocence by myself 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." .

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. 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. --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. 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]] (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. 94.175.239.226 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim that her death was caused by a sexual incident involving a horse is a myth and has no basis ^[1], but could have to do with the Marquis de Sade who presented her in his pornographic novel Juliette.^{[citation needed]} I read a Dutch translation of his book, but could someone check the an English translation of Juliette? 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. 94.175.239.226 (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

References

[1]
Barabara and David P. Mikkelson (29 February 2012). "Barenaked Lust". Snopes.

"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. 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!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 8, 2013; 19:42 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.15.233 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The word criticism is not exclusively negative. For example, many literary criticisms are quite positive. --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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.16.133 (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two mutually contradictory accounts of Catherine's coup d'etat in this article. This needs to be corrected; I am personally unsure of which is correct. 206.16.109.32 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is pressing. I think the discrepancies may have something to do with the Old Style and New Style dates. Peter III reported death is the 17th of July N.S. which is 6th of July O.S. ... 8 days after the coup (if the 28th of June is in fact in O.S.); which is reported in the first account. Lenny (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

[1] [1]
Barabara and David P. Mikkelson (29 February 2012). "Barenaked Lust". Snopes.

[1]

Styling

Catherine and the horse

Potemkin

Assessment comment

The dethroning and death of Peter III

A constitution?

her ancestry among ancient rulers of Rus

Repetition?

Is Białowieża part of Belarus or Ukraine

Absorbing other countries is usually called annexation

Domestic policies

Date of Birth

Please stop revert warring

Vladimir Monomakh of Kievan Rus- Russian monarch???

Unreferenced Good Article

Removed

Cultural depictions of Catherine II of Russia

Move?

Imperial Ballet School

Imperial Ballet School 2

Why Alexeyevna?

Revert warring and internal policies

Image gallery

Any direct relation to the significance of Catherine to the enlightenment?

Citations

Foregn Affairs

Copyright Violation?

Catherinian?

Edit requested

sexism

uprising details

Empress consort, empress regent, empress dowager and empress regnant

Removed Daily Life section

Requested move

Paul I &amp; the 'death by horse' myth

IP comment in article space

Horses Redux

mutually contradictory statements

Crtiticisms?

Coup D'etat Contradiction

Paul I & the 'death by horse' myth