Talk:Elizabeth of Russia

Untitled

In the introductory paragraphs, "abstinence" from executing people is not the proper choice of words since it indicates a denial of personal appetites (in modern usage it is almost always sexual abstinence). I recommend changing this word choice to something like moderation, restraint, refusal, or temperance. 152.3.68.83 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I have specified the dates as of Gregorian or Julian calendar dates as far as I can, but for some dates, I am not sure yet.--Jusjih 03:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

I just saw a documentary on Catherine the Great on PBS in the USA where i learned that Elizabeth would have a weekly ball where the guests were to dress as a member of the opposite sex; the men hated that, and "The Tsarina's outfit fitted her remarkably well" (http://www.collider.com/dvd/archive_detail.asp?aid=2268&cid=3&tcid=3) --Jerome Potts 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... that's why she patronized Chevalier d'Eon... :) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was Elisabeth so loved by the average people?

Although I don't know either way on the statement, I find it rather farfetched to claim that zero persons were executed during a span of over twenty years. Could someone provide documentation? Nyttend 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't provide documentation. But I read somewhere that although she didn't execute people, she's not above cutting tongues, limbs or something else. As long as that person not dead. Or even exile to Siberia (a favourite pastime of the Tsars) Rad vsovereign 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup -tone

The tone of the article is excessively laudatory. More encyclopedic and less glowing language is needed. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially a section on [Bestuzhev] (does it really belong to the article on Elizabeth?) It's full of peacock words, such as "natural allies": what exactly made Austria and Britain "natural" allies of Russia? --Mzabaluev (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like an undergraduate's history paper and not a particularly well-written one at that. The heavy reliance of four questionable sources only confirms that suspicion.—Fearlessfool (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the other comments here. The language of this article is of poor quality. I tried to clean it up a little, but the task would take quite a bit of time. Beaudoin (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Appart from the language, is it really nescesary to have seven depictions of Elizabeth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.228.154 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 16:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Elizabeth of Russia → Elizabeth, Empress of Russia – per WP:NCROY where it is specified that when a nation had one monarch bearing a specific name, the format John, King of England or Anne, Queen of Great Britain is preferred. – Relisted Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 04:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The article should remain as it is. I don't like this policy. The newly inflicted policy has not taken root on Wikipedia. I see many articles like Joanna of Castile and many others. I feel a full discussion listing all these articles should be made, but I will still oppose it. I have a feeling that this discussion isn't going to attract much attention. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not Encyclopedic

This article is full of adjectives and opinions that are not backed up by any kind of reference. The language is not appropriate for Wikipedia- not how we write things. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BE BOLD --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

2 Different Death Dates

This article gives 2 different dates for her death, which one is correct? 209.51.65.162 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempted edits by ip

Please discuss your edits and references---- Work permit (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

nothing mentioned of her policies during the Siberian conquest

Hugely overlooked (or suppressed) 104.169.21.247 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction over death sentences

After the account of the coup, the article says, "Elizabeth had vowed that if she became Empress, *she would not sign a single death sentence*, an extraordinary promise at the time but one that she kept throughout her life." 2 paragraphs later, discussing an apparent plot to restore Ivan VI, the article says, "Ivan Lopukhin was overheard and tortured for information, with *all of those implicated sentenced to death* except for the women.

I can think of several possible explanations, but it does need sorting out. Jorvikian (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth the Great?

We now have a DAB at the above title, which is someplace problematic as it might be argued that none of its entries are technically valid targets, so we've ended up with something of an indirection for each. And not even the "see also" gets here, as it lists just Queen Lizzes, not Tsarinas. How often is this subject described as 'Elizabeth the Great'? Should it be mentioned here? Should the DAB have such an entry? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A short search in Google, Google Books and Google Scholar only shows results of Elizabeth I of the UK. Thinker78 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's going to be a redirect, I'd certainly point it to Liz1. But that's not ideal according to WP:R#ASTONISH, and there are certainly references to Liz2 as such, albeit these may prove to be WP:RECENTISM. Here's a couple of references to this subject as such: http://hermitage-magazine.ru/articles/peter-the-great-and-the-dutch-influence-on-russian-medicine/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338078577_The_development_of_Russian_Medicine_in_the_Petrine_era_and_the_role_of_Dutch_doctors_in_this_process Quality not vouched for. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

no reference

"as beautiful" by whose opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Each paragraph in which the word "beautiful" appears is well-referenced. Graham87 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The second photograph is Catherine 2nd not Empress Elizabeth. Catherine died of stroke and empress Elizabeth died of kidney stones.

The second photograph is Catherine 2nd not Empress Elizabeth. Catherine great died of stroke and empress Elizabeth died of kidney stones. 2600:1700:EBE0:2EB0:F9E7:CC7A:1B44:1339 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem with Death section

When it tells about the "few people who wanted to be with her" as she died, it lists her father. That's impossible, as her father had died many years earlier. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:14C9:B37A:AC47:4179 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Corrected wikilink, which now directs to her nephew. Buenovale (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)