Talk:Catherine the Great
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 23, 2011. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 17, 2007. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Opinion, lack of citation / sources
[edit]This entry is riddled with opinion and large sections of it have no underlying source material. Needs to be flagged as problematic and re-written 193.119.103.214 (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Lots of political slant here
[edit]This appears to be written by UK IQ ? Time to ground the narrative to documentary source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Confusing sentence
[edit]I do not understand this sentence:
The global trade by Russian natural resources and Russian grain provoked famines, starvation and fear of famines in Russia.
Is this merely an error of preposition (e.g. by->of) or is there something missing (say, “The global trade by Catherine’s Trade Ministry of Russian natural resources” &c.)? 136.56.21.109 (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Serfdom Section is Poorly written
[edit]The section on Catherine's policy toward Serfs reads like a bad high school history essay, or something translated by Google from another language. Its repetitive, overly wordy and yet somehow still unclear. Three consecutive sentences begin with the word "however." Its unclear what the passage means when it discusses the serfs wanting to replace Catherine with the "true" empress, and contradictory in that it begins saying that serfs viewed her positively then ends by saying she was viewed negatively. 2603:7000:8303:E89B:9925:C36B:90A6:FD64 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Ballet in Arts and Culture
[edit]This sentence (citation 86) is poorly written: It entered into a contract with the Italian teacher-choreographer Filippo Becari, who must was “the most capable of dancing” children to learn “to dance with all possible precision and to show themselves publicly in all pantomime ballets”. 89.240.42.140 (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]@Walter Tau made a series of clearly deleterious changes to article lead in the past year, including splitting out stub paragraphs, adding an inappropriate level of detail for the lead, and removing serial commas purely on the basis of their personal opinions. I've undone them. I do not have the energy to fight with them about their changes if they're going to act similarly to our previous interactions, so I'm posting this here so others can see it and maybe talk to them. Please consult the linked policies. Remsense ‥ 论 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Relevance of Content & References As “ Rumour.”
[edit]It is important to note opinions of “ others” have become fact of Wikipedia using citations from clearly biased sources to back “ rumours.” Even within the body of the contiguous post i.e. Catherine the Great is full of problems, the very statement that “ rumours” are counted is not laudable at the least. This post has numerous “talks” regarding of being problematic plus disparaging an entire Nation based on a biased book reference of non validated historical relevance. Catherine the Great is wholly a problematic post for years. Wikipedia in its desire to proffer free speech sacrifices quality and reliability. Free speech used to disparage or cause harm is not Constitutionally protected. The Author appears uneducated, or as an old woman sipping tea “ gossiping” with others about others, hardly a note worthy Catherine the Great rendition. However, the “ harm “ would be debated by so called literate creators or posters of same litany. It is best to forward Catherine the Great post to the Russian Embassy for review, as it is an attack upon the culture of the Russian people, and is not constructive nor qualitative in content in many points questioned by others as seen in previous talks. Wanting to appear intellectual at the expense of civil responsibility is not “ intellect.” The Catherine the Great post should be classified as “ gossip.” MariaJordanaGuevara (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in People
- C-Class vital articles in People
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- C-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Top-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- C-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (language and literature) articles
- Language and literature of Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (performing arts) articles
- Performing arts in Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (science and education) articles
- Science and education in Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- High-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- C-Class Germany articles
- Mid-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- C-Class Women in Religion articles
- High-importance Women in Religion articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press