Talk:Paul I of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul I of Russia is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

Did this ruler actually have his natural hair curled up (as in the picture)? --Marcus2

No, it was a wig. Wearing wigs was a common practice at that time. — Monedula 13:27, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mozart did not wear a wig, and his hairstyle was very similar. How do you know it was a wig? --Marcus2

It's common knowledge... ☺ — Monedula 15:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Common knowledge? What is that? Have you any sources or not? (not to be rude or abrupt) --Marcus2

Wig is mentioned here: http://www.roca.org/OA/51/51f.htm — Monedula 19:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That, is just one person's view while he/she is looking at the portrait. Thanks for showing me the source though. --Marcus2

[edit] Breach of copyright

The passage outlined below represents a breach of copyright and has been lifted from a Manuscript I have been working on for the last five years. Sufficient copies of the Manuscript are in the hands of friends to estbalish my authorship. Dr Michael Foster. The passage was intruded into the text on 16:56, 24 Nov 2003 by 213.122.182.121

"The common popularist and unresearched view of Emperor Paul I, is that he was mad, that he had a mistress, that his fascination with, and subsequent adoption of the Order of St John and his induction into the office of Grand Master, are seen in this context as indulging further his delusions, and that these eccentricities and his unpredictability led to his assassination. Such a portrait of Paul is a gift to those who seek to discount and ridicule the reign of Paul I. Given that as histories are often written by the victorious or dominant party to any conflict, in this context, how true is that picture of Paul?

Comparatively recent research has rehabilitated the character of Paul I. The popularist view of Paul was originally generated by his assassins in justification of their actions. It would be easy for authors writing about Paul I to follow the propaganda uncritically, ignoring new research, which has been available for over two decades. It is as if the propaganda has become accepted historical fact through being venerated by age.

In the 1970s, two academic Panels provided the assessments of new research into Paul I. These were at Montreal in 1973 and St Louis in 1976. Some of the findings were presented in a book edited by Hugh Ragsdale in 1979; Paul I: A reassessment of His Life and Reign, University Center for International Studies, University of Pittsburgh, 1979. The reappraisal of Paul I has demonstrated his character as someone of high morals, who followed his conscience. Dismissed as unlikely is Paul's infidelity in having a mistress, and the involvement with the Order of St John is understood against a background of his idealising their history as a lesson in high chivalric ideals, he wished the Russian Nobility would adopt. Paul saw in the Russian Nobles an element of degeneracy, and introducing the high ideals of the Knights of Malta, was Paul's method of reform. Paul suffered a lonely and strict upbringing and whilst he was eccentric and neurotic, he was not mentally unbalanced. Whilst an analysis of his biography reveals an obsessive-compulsive personality, what the evidence reveals is that he had "characteristics fairly common in the population at large". Where Paul differed, was that by 1796 he had to manage the whole of the Russian Empire."

Well, you go ahead and remove it, then; it looks highly POV anyway. Everyking 21:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was dismayed to see the above text still in this article nearly four months after it was brought to our attention. I've removed it. If these views of Paul are common, they should be included (and possibly refuted), but not until someone can provide definitive statements without violating anyone's copyright. They should also be made much less POV. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The section marked Legacy seems POV and is not an unbiased account of the academic debate. In 1800, for example, the British minister in St Petersburg, Sir Charles Whitworth, wrote that 'the Emperor is literally not in his senses' (http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=16841&g16841=x&g17667=x&g30028=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x&amid=16841). The issue of Paul's sanity is not as cut and dried as presented. Coricus 07:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)