Talk:Potemkin village

Miscellaneous
That judges bit still needs work to "flow" properly. Too many big words for the sake of big words and it breaks the paragraphs readability.

The sentence on the "Big Fish" means little without giving us some details about the story.


 * I've studied the 'judges bit', think I have understood it now, and have made it a bit clearer, hoping I didn't introduce any errors!Geke 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

sentence fragment
"Modern historians consider this scenario of self-serving exaggeration." is a sentence fragment; what do they consider? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.114.67 (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Modern historians consider this A scenario of self-serving exaggeration." Easily fixed by the inclusion of a particle.  Why didn't you make the edit yourself, instead of being a heavy-handed grammar ninny, when the context was obvious?169.139.217.54 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Article is very weak
More like typical anti-Russian rhetoric.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible false information or misunderstanding.
"Curiously, the term "Potemkin village" is almost never spelled "Potëmkin village," using the Russian letter called "Yo," nor is it ever pronounced "Potyomkin."" I have never heard it NOT being pronounced "Potyomkin." I speak fluent Russian and I lived there most of my life. Either this is some misunderstanding regarding the implied pronunciation by the spelling "Potyomkin" or the author of this section is wrong. In Church Slavonic, it would be pronounced "Potyemkin" because the language has no letter "Yo", but in modern Russian, saying this will sound odd and outlandish. Curiously, Potemkin (the founder of these villages) was the first person to officially use the letter Yo in a surname—his surname. He did this shortly after the letter gained an official place in the Russian alphabet, so it is ironic that the author insists that the letter is not used in this word even though the person who this word came from was one of the most active advocates of implementing this letter. If I am not corrected I will revise the article. —zhukant (Zhukant 03:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

I think this clarifies the case of "ë": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_%28Cyrillic%29#Russian 94.64.17.254 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-contradiction
Currently the article seems contradictory at points... AnonMoos 14:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Image loss
Sorry to see the Auckland facade image go. I know it was not a PV, but illustrated the point nicely. Do any actual real life PV's exist that could be used? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's hope so, and let's hope we can find & photograph some soon. But we should not mislead out of misplaced enthusiasm, and I don't think that a caption "this is what a PV would look like if it was one" would fly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the image being discussed here and I think it belongs to this article as long as there's no better replacement. 85.77.179.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC).

joke source
I take issue with source number five: "Glasnost-Perestroika: A Model Potemkin Village". Its reasonable to cite this as an illustration of *the use* of the term Potemkin village but not as evidence for the assertion that "Given the strict limitations on the movement of foreigners in the USSR, it was often impossible for these visitors to see any other examples." The source does not come from a historian, but from a libertarian Christian fundamentalist who tries to prove that Gorbachev's USSR was a "totalitarian" society. To get a taste of the authors nuttiness go to http://www.geocities.com/athens/crete/4516/?200827#Other%20Resources. There is no way this is a legitimate source, so I think it should be deleted. What's next citing John Hagee on the Israel-Palestine conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.201.93 (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubai projects are not Potemkin Villages
I'm not biased on behalf of Dubai, I think many of their projects are idiotic in scale and expense, and while their projects do act to attract tourists and foreigners, the concept of the Potemkin village as it has unfolded throughout history is a fake settlement, not meant primarily for habitation, that fools visitors into thinking that the poverty of the country is not as bad as it seems. Furthermore, Potemkin villages are almost always for military utility.

Dubai, in contrast, is not a village or settlement; it's an entire city. It does attract tourists, but so do tall buildings and giant malls everywhere else. The primary utility of their projects is habitation, and that is actively being conducted in all of their projects currently. The country is not impoverished by any means; it simply wants to look extravagant and glamorous. There is, obviously, no military motive in their showing off either; their utility is trade. Countries around the world make projects like this on credit to show off; the Moscow International Business Center strikes me as a good example.

Essentially, Potemkin Villages are used for military utility to not look poor; Dubai is used for trade utility to look extravagant, like many other projects around the world which would be unfairly called Potemkin Villages by the Dubai standard. Potemkin Village also has a strong negative connotation of dictatorship and Communism, which Dubai is also not involved in.

Therefore, I am going to remove the Dubai example.--Merechriolus (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: The citation used to justify "economic" Potemkin Villages is an opinion piece. This won't fly either.

DEBATE/REMARK: Though I agree that the Dubai example wouldn't be correct to call "potemkin" just because their aim is to show off, I would rather fare with a meaning for "potemkin" as fake, without strictly being "fake for military utility to not look poor", at least it seems to me, that the word today in common use does not imply this condition of the military utility. 94.64.17.254 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What story?
The (current) article says this in the summary:

According to the story, he erected fake settlements, along the banks of the Dnieper River, in order to fool Empress Catherine II, during her visit to Crimea in 1787.

What story? Aside from this one-sentence summary, there is no explanation about the possible origin of the term, though there's an entire section about whether the purported origin is correct. Anybody care to actually tell the story? Maybe put it right before the "Historical Debate" section. 76.2.63.59 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Would "According to legend" be better? DEddy (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing
Although not totally documented, the story about Russia continues. Headline-1: LDS Church News: President Dieter F. Uchtdorf: 'On Being Genuine' QUOTE: "To illustrate his general conference priesthood session address titled “On Being Genuine,” President Dieter F. Uchtdorf recounted the story of Catherine the Great of Russia visiting the southern part of her empire and being deceived by pasteboard facades of buildings and busy-looking peasants. “Although modern historians have questioned the truthfulness of this story, the term ‘Potemkin Village’ has entered the world’s vocabulary,” said President Uchtdorf, second counselor in the First Presidency. “It now refers to any attempt to make others believe we are better than we really are.” Though it is part of human nature to want to present oneself favorably, “when taken to extremes, this desire to impress can shift from useful to deceitful,” he said." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865625773/President-Dieter-F-Uchtdorf-On-being-genuine.html
 * FYI: Dieter_F._Uchtdorf grew up in Ostrava, Czech Republic and knew of the Potemkin Village (traveling road show, so to speak.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Potemkin village. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120520073525/http://www.keepcincinnatibeautiful.org/index.php/main/show/futureblooms to http://www.keepcincinnatibeautiful.org/index.php/main/show/futureblooms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tibet
Shouldn't Tibet be included here?

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/pelosi-11202015170710.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickencafe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems more an example of stage management in the political sense; there's no mention of fake buildings. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Roe v Wade example should move from "Examples of Potemkin villages" to "US legal system"
All the other examples in the "Examples" section are physical, tangible examples. The Roe v Wade example is both an opinion (that of Rehnquist) and not a physical example. Presenting it here also potentially casts aspersions on Roe v Wade as a judicial decision (suggesting it *is* a Potemkin village) rather than showing how the phrase was used metaphorically (Rehnquist *considered* Roe v Wade a Potemkin village). This example would serve the article better if it were in "In the US legal system" since the usage in this example is quite different from that of the other examples presented. I suggest the example gets moved to that section. Quirkify (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Potemkin village. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4706_133/ai_n6247300
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825023603/http://www.douglassmith.info/28/love-and-conquest.html to http://www.douglassmith.info/28/love-and-conquest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Potemkin village. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150330091343/http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/sundayreader/story.html?id=04826ace-c5ab-4472-9e28-3ab8f8eb8835 to http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/sundayreader/story.html?id=04826ace-c5ab-4472-9e28-3ab8f8eb8835

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thessaloniki subways
I don't think that the recently added and disputed example of the Thessaloniki subways is appropriate. It's become relatively common in modern construction to have large screen-printed false facades for a variety of reasons, of which deception is generally not the primary one. Usually it's because realistic images add to the urban vibrancy and walkability and soforth, as compared to a blank wall (or deteriorating one). Or it can be an attempt to render what something might look like in the future. The July 2013 G8 and Putin Suzdal examples start this article down a slippery slope, and I don't think they are great either. I'm not sure where to draw the line, but I don't think the disputed example belongs in the article. Also, it has the problem of recency (just last month -- this citation has not stood the test of time), and the translated headline falls into hyperbole ("Unbelievable") which is not encyclopedic and makes me question the source. And of course this is the English Wikipedia, and citations to articles in other languages are not preferred. Furthermore, the phrase is primarily used in allegory, not in physical examples, and yet this article is dominated by physical examples, of which this is just one more (perhaps the legal system section should be merged into the modern usage section; that would help a bit). In any case, I would revert the edit. jhawkinson (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this need not be mentioned here. JesseRafe (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Potemkin Venezuela? Source it.
Fourth source for this is invalid. Third source is useless. The second refers to the first. The first is an uncorroberated hitpiece by the NYT. Delete the mention of Potemkinism under Chavez or cite it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.220.255 (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, NYT is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia and, AFAIK, no reliable source has challenged their description. Your other criticisms of the 3rd and 4th sources are simply that you don't like it which isn't a valid criticism. In other words, the content is adequately sourced and there aren't sources challenging it.  So it should stay, in my opinion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Straight Dope URL
Ref 10: is now https://www.straightdope.com/21343610/did-potemkin-villages-really-exist

no longer

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2479/did-potemkin-villages-really-exist which resolves nowhere. I cannot edit this myself. Claverhouse (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)