Talk:Catherine the Great

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Opinion, lack of citation / sources

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

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)

Serfdom Section is Poorly written

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

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

@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.”

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)