Talk:Elizaveta Vorontsova

"Emperor"
The English speaking world is long well aware the the Russian emperors were called tsars (although it's usually spelled czar). It's is not a good idea to use the term "emperor" in the context of Russian history of the "Imperial" period. Hurmata (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegation that Catherine took part in deposing her husband
Ghirlandajo, the editor who brought the article to the version as of early today, has even more recently reverted several of my edits. We need to take note that Gh. writes in broken English (although it is quite good), he/she overestimates how much Russian history the readers know, Gh's citations were incomplete, and almost all Gh's sources were in Russian. Wikipedia guidelines discourage articles based almost entirely on non-English language sources. Perhaps there's a dearth of info in English about this person; but Gh. didn't even have the courtesy to translate the Russian language titles. In reverting my edits, Gh. made the disingenuous and inexcusable claim that discussing the truth of an allegation about person X is out of place just because the article is about somebody else (in this case, person X is Empress Catherine II and the article is about Elizaveta Vorontsova). (BTW, we have seen similar sophistry in comments about other en.wikipedia articles on Russian history.) In any case, the allegation as presented by Ghirlandajo was unsourced. Saying Catherine plotted to depose her husband the tsar is a huge allegation, and the truth seems to be that the claim is not generally accepted, but instead remains one of the more significant controversies in Russian history. The way Gh. wrote things also created confusion as to at what stage in her life Catherine made one remark or another. Gh. insists on calling her Empress, but she was not always the Empress of Russia, and going just by the text as composed by Gh., it is possible that some of the remarks attributed to her were made before she became Empress. Hurmata (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

When was she relevant
She is relevant because she was a royal mistress, so it is therefore important to state exaclty which years she was a favorite. The article does not say which year she became mistress to Peter, only that she was already his mistress by the time he became monarch. The year must be added. --Aciram (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)