Talk:Catherine II of Russia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Styling

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

Catherine and the horse

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. [1]

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 [2](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. [3]. *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 [4], 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:

1. 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).
2. 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)

Potemkin

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....