Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky/Archive 3

Nabokov
Vladimir Nabokov's opinions are given far too much space in this article, so I removed it from lead. Should a competitor's opinion, one that probably was jealous of Dostoyevsky's success, really go in lead? In terms of enduring art, I think it's safe to say that Dostoyevsky's literary output has hold up rather well.–FunkyVoltron talk 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Competitor? How is an author who has died a competitor? You can't compete with the dead, their work is already set in stone. If you mean a competitor in the grand scheme of things as a writer, well in that case every single writer, dead or alive is each other's competitor. Are you suggesting then that no fellow writer's opinion is valid because he is also a writer. Nabokov is fairly well respected as a commantator on literature and his "opinion" is respected. If something is sited, you should really get a consensus before deleting. If something is not sited, removal can me made without consensus, though of course it's always to discuss to before deleting.--RossF18 (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not important enough to go in lede. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Well, the thing is that everyone has an opinion and there are many commentators whose opinions are as respected as Nabokov's, many of whom think Dostoyevsky is a pretty good writer. I think it's acceptable to include it in the influence and legacy section but not in lead.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's unsuitable for the lead. One could just as easily cite the multitudes of writers, critics, etc. who laud Dostoevsky.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor Folk
Is the comment about the first appearance of Poor Folk "In 1845, his first work, the epistolary short novel, Poor Folk, published in the periodical The Contemporary (Sovremennik)" verifiable? From what I can find the novel appeared in literary circles, then as a novel, and then was reviewed in 'The Contemporary'. Also, according to Joseph Frank's Seeds of Revolt (p. 159) "in January 1846, [the novel] was published in the Petersburg Almanac, a collection of new writing edited by Nekrasov to represent the work of the Natural School". WikiTampa (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)WikiTampa


 * Yes, you're right. Fritsly Poor Folk was printed in the almanach "Petersburg Collection", published by N. Nekrasov, 1846, p. 1-166. In the next year there was a separate edition.--Чупакабр (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dostoevesky in Florence
Opposite the Pitti Palace in Florence a building has a reference to Dostoevsky and "The idiot" however there seems to be no reference to Dostoevsky in Florence in the Wikipedia section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.93.36 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Material
I've just noticed that there is a substantial, verbatim overlap between much of this article and the introduction to Crime & Punishment at EBook Eden: Crime & Punishment. Is this copyvio, or them ripping from WP?

--The Rhymesmith (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche Quote Citations
The two Nietzsche quotes are unsourced, and are copied all over the internet directly from here. Are they supposed to also be from the Mihajlo Mihajlov book cited in the next sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.24.175 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many references on Google Books. Apparently, Nietzsche said that in Twilight of the Idols after having read Crime and Punishment (see ). Laurent (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to find the scene at the moment, but I recall reading a passage in "Confessions of an Opium Eater" that Dostoevsky put almost word for word into "Crime and Punishment." When I find it, I'll post it here. Dick Scalper (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dostoevsky may have used De Quincey's essay as a guidebook for his central character in Crime and Punishment:

ON THE KNOCKING AT THE GATE IN MACBETH. MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS BY THOMAS DE QUINCEY. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10708/10708-8.txt "Now it will be remembered that in the first of these murders, (that of the Marrs,) the same incident (of a knocking at the door soon after the work of extermination was complete) did actually occur, which the genius of Shakespeare has invented . . . Murder in ordinary cases, where the sympathy is wholly directed to the case of the murdered person, is an incident of coarse and vulgar horror; and for this reason, that it flings the interest exclusively upon the natural but ignoble instinct by which we cleave to life; an instinct, which, as being indispensable to the primal law of self-preservation, is the same in kind, (though different in degree,) amongst all living creatures; this instinct therefore, because it annihilates all distinctions, and degrades the greatest of men to the level of "the poor beetle that we tread on," exhibits human nature in its most abject and humiliating attitude. Such an attitude would little suit the purposes of the poet. What then must he do? He must throw the interest on the murderer. Our sympathy must be with _him_; (of course I mean a sympathy of comprehension, a sympathy by which we enter into his feelings, and are made to understand them,--not a sympathy[1] of pity or approbation.) In the murdered person all strife of thought, all flux and reflux of passion and of purpose, are crushed by one overwhelming panic; the fear of instant death smites him "with its petrific mace." But in the murderer, such a murderer as a poet will condescend to, there must be raging some great storm of passion,--jealousy, ambition, vengeance, hatred,--which will create a hell within him; and into this hell we are to look. . . The murderers, and the murder, must be insulated--cut off by an immeasurable gulf from the ordinary tide and succession of human affairs--locked up and sequestered in some deep recess; we must be made sensible that the world of ordinary life is suddenly arrested--laid asleep--tranced--racked into a dread armistice: time must be annihilated; relation to things without abolished; and all must pass self-withdrawn into a deep syncope and suspension of earthly passion. Hence it is, that when the deed is done, when the work of darkness is perfect, then the world of darkness passes away like a pageantry in the clouds: the knocking at the gate is heard; and it makes known audibly that the reaction has commenced: the human has made its reflux upon the fiendish; the pulses of life are beginning to beat again; and the re-establishment of the goings-on of the world in which we live, first makes us profoundly sensible of the awful parenthesis that had suspended them."

Compare to this scene: "Raskolnikov stood keeping tight hold of the axe. He was in a sort of delirium. He was even making ready to fight when they should come in. While they were knocking and talking together, the idea several times occurred to him to end it all at once and shout to them through the door. Now and then he was tempted to swear at them, to jeer at them, while they could not open the door! "Only make haste!" was the thought that flashed through his mind." http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2554/2554-h/2554-h.htm (post by Richard Scalper) Dick Scalper (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Moscow Subway Station named for Dostoyevsky
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dostoevsky-images-on-metro-lsquocould-cause-suicidesrsquo-1973964.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128954859

I'm not much of an author, but someone who is might want to work this into the article. Of course the suicide angle of the articles on this isn't worth the main article, but the fact that he's been memorialized with a subway station could be worked into the main article pretty nicely.

Gary Allen Vollink 167.206.189.6 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Radwan Coat of Arms -- Dostoyevsky
One ThePiedCow took it upon themselves to remove the reference to the fact Dostoyevsky bore the Radwan Coat of Arms. One can read it on Google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=n7fb7eH6nRUC&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

This ThePiedCow boldly presumes the reference is "unscientific," deems it "guessing," and presumes to have sufficient acumen and personal knowledge to come to such a conclusion, and act upon it.

I'll stick to the published source, thank you very much.

Produce a published source unequivocally stating the opposite, and then this editorial move of ThePiedCow might assume validity, although I doubt it.

Have the courtesy and respect for the public to allow them to read the reference, instead of leaving them completely in the dark in regards to this matter.

ThePiedCow obviously does not understand that, unlike Western European heraldic practice, ENTIRE NOBLE FAMILIES IN EASTERN EUROPE BEAR THE COAT OF ARMS, which means ALL DESCENDANTS are entitled to bear the coat of arms. Do not confuse Eastern European heraldic practice with Western European heraldic practice.

Dostojewski (Polish spelling) a.k.a. Dostoyevsky is listed in armorials as belonging to the Radwan knights clan, with the right to bear the Radwan Coat of Arms, meaning there are other published sources independently confirming Aimée Dostoyevsky's assertion.

Aimée Dostoyevsky states in her book the Radwan armorial bearings were drawn for the Dostoyevsky Museum in Moscow, and she has personal knowledge of seeing them. Before one ThePiedCow implies Aimée Dostoyevsky is a fool and perhaps a liar spinning old wives' tales, this ThePiedCow should personally visit Moscow and file a report. I think it safe to say Aimée Dostoyevsky is closer to the topic and source regarding Dostoyevsky, then non-entities like ThePiedCow, more of a nuisance than a help.

This editorial move of ThePiedCow displays a wanton ignorance and disregard of the complexity of Polish and Russian history, which also includes Lithuanian history, particularly as one moves further back in time.

On a personal note, I'm tired of these knee-jerk editorial moves by the uninformed and arrogant who've not put in the time to do their homework, so all the world becomes subject to their ignorant opinions. Although I strongly doubt it, even if Aimée Dostoyevsky is incorrect in her assertion, her assertion sheds more light on Dostoyevsky's origins than this editorial blunder, which is a result of ThePiedCow completely confusing Eastern European heraldic practice with Western European heraldic practice. -- Exxess (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Death?
There is nothing in the article about his death/ 109.255.121.55 (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to editor: Improper references
The references 2 and 3 actually do not appear anywhere in the article Adityam00 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

tidy and grammar
Just been tidying up mostly grammar and a bit of formatting - including adding 'Death' section. Also added photo of signature further down in article - didn't notice the image was already in the infobox till much later. teinesaVaii  (talk)  12:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Last name spelling?
Everywhere else his last name is spelled "Dostoevsky", and not "Dostoyevski." Adding a "y" to help with pronunciation is irresponsible I believe. The historical spelling should be used.76.113.225.188 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but perhaps this question has already been discussed by the article's editors and they settled on the "Dostoyevsky" spelling for some reason? I don't feel like sifting through all the archived discussions. Anyone know for sure why this article has Dostoyevsky instead of Dostoevsky? --Garik 11 (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with using Dostoevsky (it's used in the infobox) - or at least need to mention different spellings to avoid confusion. Wondering whether the page should be moved....? If so, the other articles in Dostoyevsky (disambiguation) will have to be moved, also. teinesaVaii   (talk)  06:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the above. I was actually coming here to suggest a rename.  Them  From  Space  18:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added a template notifying editors of this discussion. If there's no objection in a few weeks I'll go ahead and make the change.  Them  From  Space  18:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In reference to Dostoevsky being used in the infobox, it was actually only changed recently (here, on 11th December).
 * The question has been discussed before. There are one or two mentions elsewhere, but for reference, this is the main discussion in the archive: Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/Archive 2. --David Edgar (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the spelling Dostoyevsky should be kept because it comes closest to the Russian pronunciation of the name. In Russian it's pronounced "DastaYEVsky". Tikhon1925 (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pronunciation is not generally one of the criteria used to decide article titles (for this, IPA should be used). See the WP:NAME policy. I think the most important criteria here are "Recognizability ... use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject" and "Naturalness ... use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article.", with the additional comment that WP:UE would favour a "systematic transliteration", unless there's a more common unsystematic name.
 * So to me, it really comes down to whether reliable sources more commonly use Dostoevsky or Dostoyevsky. --David Edgar (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I lean toward Dostoevsky, but I agree with David Edgar, we need to check the reputable sources. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't these *the* reputable sources which prove "recognizability"?

Garik 11 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I would say that it's Dostoevsky, as opposed to Dostoyevsky, I must add that the four editions of his books I own (The Possessed, The Idiot, Crime and Punishment, and The Brothers Karamazov) have his name spelled as Dostoyevsky. An interest note is that all of these editions were published before 1980, while the covers that Garik 11 showed are perhaps recently published. Perhaps Dostoyevsky is the "old" spelling, but now Dostoevsky is more popular? Wolfehhgg (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the above cover for Crime and Punishment is from 1956, while the three others are indeed newer publications. --Garik 11 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My old books say Dostoyevsky. My old course guides from UCLA and Stanford say Dostoyevsky.  Stanford and UCLA now use Dostoevsky.  Google redirects the search of Dostoyevsky to Dostoevsky.  It seems there has been a change to the latter accepted. PPdd (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that Wikipedia would want to represent the current consensus (e.g., Dostoevsky), so I vote to change the page to Fyodor Dostoevsky. Wolfehhgg (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We do have copies of his signature, should we let him have the last word himself?(Nimbus451 (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Do we? His signature in the English/Latin alphabet? I didn't think the Russian spelling of his name is in doubt, it's only the transliteration to use which is in question. --David Edgar (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DOSTOEVSKY!
 * This discussion has been going on for ten weeks, without much progress. Transliteration of non-English names is particularly fraught by interpretation, as evidenced by the common error of naming the film Battleship Potemkin. The guideline we have here, from an English language viewpoint, is WP:COMMONNAME, and in that regard, "Dostoyevsky", i.e. the status quo, would seem to have the upper hand. "Dostoevsky" redirects here, so there is little chance of confusion to those readers seeking this article (in an English language encyclopedia). Accordingly, I'm closing this discussion because it seems that there is no consensus to move the article. Rodhull  andemu  02:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian monarchist ?
He has been categorized below as a "Russian monarchist" which does not concord with his support of abolishing serfdom which happened during his lifetime. Also, he belonged to a circle of dissidents (around Petrashevsky) and worked his experience of the mock execution into "The Brothers Karamazov" (also cf. the article on parricide). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.43.39 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dostoevsky was not only a dissident but a revolutionary in his twenties. But his experiences in a Siberian prison-camp caused him to undergo a "conversion experience," where he rejected his earlier romance with Utopian Socialism, and decided that the only hope of freeing the serfs lay with the Tsar. He turned out to be right about that.

D. continued to oppose the Socialists and developed a deep mystical faith in Christianity and the soul of the Russian peasant. Although he had sympathy for the young radicals (he'd done that himself), he was strongly opposed to them, especially when their Utopian socialism suddenly became atheistic. Chernyshevsky was the point man for this change, a stout atheist who denied free will and God.

In summary, although D. was a very complex man, he was much more a Tsarist than a revolutionary or a Socialist. See Joseph Frank's definitive biography for a lot more detail on all of this (it's five volumes, so I do mean "a lot.")

As for your reference to "parricide," I can only imagine that you are referring to Freud's thoroughly discredited "case history" of D. Again, Joseph Frank has the details.58.9.236.165 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Idiot
Should The Idiot be added along with his best known novels? --GoldenGlory84 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject: Russian literature
Hello,

See WikiProject Council/Proposals/Russian literature. Yann (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Errors about Dostoevsky's father
The article currently states: "Dostoyevsky's father Mikhail was a retired military surgeon and a violent alcoholic, who had practised at the Mariinsky Hospital for the Poor in Moscow." This is almost entirely inaccurate.

First, he was not a "violent alcoholic." Second, he was not "a retired military surgeon." He was currently working at the Hospital for the Poor, so "had practised" is inaccurate as well.

Mikhail Dostoevsky was a rigidly moral and Christian man who did his very best to raise his family well. He never physically abused his children, and even sent them to private schools to make sure they would not get whipped at school. His career began with practice as a military surgeon; he left the military and began working at the Hospital for the Poor, but remained an employee of the State.

He only retired after the death of his much-beloved wife, and after he sent his sons off to St. Petersburg to study. He never saw them again. He retired to the tiny family estate and went quietly to pieces without his work and his family. It was at this time that he began drinking heavily, and fathered an illegitimate child on a local girl. It was long believed that he was murdered by the local peasants, but this is now regarded as uncertain. He was surely dead, however, but it is important to realize that his sons never saw him in this miserable last phase of his life.

See the definitive biography, Joseph Frank, "Dostoevsky: The Seeds of Revolt" (Princeton, 1976) for any additional details.58.9.236.165 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you still want to learn more about the father of Michael Dostoevsky, you just stop by here. There are actually other biographers who find not the violent death of his father confirmed. By clicking the page in the English language is translated. http://dostojewski.npage.de/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.241.14.42 (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An Error
"That year, influenced by the German poet/playwright Friedrich Schiller, he wrote two romantic plays: Mary Stuart and Boris Godunov." "Mary Stuart" was written by Schiller and "Boris Godunov" by Pushkin (later, a russian opera by Glazunov). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.36.231 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky on Jews in Russia
I find this entire section to be problematic. For one thing, the very first paragraph is nonsensical. E.g., "Several writers...have offered various insights and suppositions regarding Dostoevsky's views on Jews... specifically, that..." How does one extrapolate "various insights" into a singular view, except by way of WP:SYN or WP:OR? Or maybe these authors do not really offer various insights? It would help if any of this was actually sourced. Secondly, I am not sure how helpful or appropriate the direct quote from A Writer's Diary is. Beyond the more obvious problem of primary sourcing, it should have page numbers in the reference, and the fact that it is preceded by wording to show that it is an "example" of something - namely what whoever wrote this thinks it should be an example of - constitutes a bit of a WP:POV/WP:OR problem. Thirdly, someone put the commentary of Orlando Figes in the mouth of Joseph Frank in a review by Figes of Frank's book. In this case, it is simply incorrect sourcing.

I will work on fixing some of these problems, I just state this here so that fellow Wikipedians can see why I may be making some of the changes that I do. 24.16.133.58 (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is part of a bigger problem with Wikipedia. I see way too much Judeocentric editing here. It seems more and more when I read Wikipedia I find in the introductory text names dropped like Walter Kaufmann. Chris65536 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, the entire section seems out of place here. Yes, that is a quote from a Writer's Diary. Yes, Joseph Frank wrote a review of (and evidently the forward to?) a book on the subject by Goldstein. My problem is that the section exists here at all. The length of this section exceeds that of a section on his relationship to Existentialism? It almost exceeds the length of a section on influence? The priority here just seems so far off. No one who is not on some fringe would ever suggest that this is a defining characteristic of Dostoevsky, would he?

--AwakeInNYC (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved. The discussion below shows no consensus for the suggested rename, and the current name doesn't seem to be very problematic. - GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky → Fyodor Dostoevsky –

The most recent discussion of the spelling of the name was most dissatisfying. Most of the participants agreed that "Dostoevsky" was better, on the grounds that the most recent editions of his books generally use that name. Note that the recent Pevear and Volkhonsky translations use "Dostoevsky." Looking on Amazon, so do Oxford World's Classics, Norton, Modern Library, and Everyman's Library (which, indeed, use the Pevear and Volkhonsky translation, so that might be double counting). So also Bantam Classics, Wordsworth Classics, Barnes and Noble Classics, Perennial Classics, and others. The only major editions I can see that use "Dostoyevsky" are Penguin Classics and Signet Classics (also the Kindle editions, but those are probably just reprintings of old, public domain translations). The argument for "Dostoyevsky" relies heavily on its prevalence in older printed editions and that it is more "accurate" to the Russian. I don't see how either argument holds water. The substantial majority of recent printed editions of Dostoevsky's work use "Dostoevsky." Only a few holdouts still use "Dostoyevsky," and the argument about pronunciation is utterly irrelevant. There has never been anything close to a consensus for the current title. Whenever it is brought up, it seems like a majority favors "Dostoevsky." And our own policies suggest that "Dostoevsky" is the correct location. It should be moved. john k (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, leaning oppose . Nominator seems knowledgable about the subject, but a layman's search of google books and google scholar gives different results. For example, I get 245,000 gbooks results for "Fyodor Dostoyevsky", compared to 22,900 for "Fyodor Dostoevsky". Gscholar also favours the current title, but not to such a significant extent: 6,790 vs 4,280. In addition, I can only ever recall seeing his name spelled Dostoyevsky and the one novel of his that I own, Crime and Punishment, spells the name Dostoyevsky. I'm willing to be persuaded, but at the moment I can't see the current title not being the most common name. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Books is full of old editions. We should be basing our title for an author on the most common name used in current published editions, not counting decades old ones.  Google Scholar will also give you a lot of old hits. john k (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I think 'Dostoyevsky' is the more recognisable name, yet John K's arguments are convincing that perhaps this is currently in the process of changing. I can honestly see the merit in having the name at either title and so I'm neutral. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried looking through the archives for sources given. Can you provide a source for the claim that a majority of recent editions use the proposed spelling? Rennell435 (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained what each recent edition does. I found this out by going to Amazon and typing in "Dostoevsky" and the various editions.  (I also used a general search of "Dostoevsky" or "Dostoyevsky" and "Classics"). Penguin, Oxford, Modern Library, and Everyman's Library are probably the main "classics" imprints, and only Penguin uses "Dostoyevsky."  In addition, Joseph Frank's recent multi-volume biography uses "Dostoevsky."  Using "Dostoyevsky" is favoring an older usage over the contemporary one. john k (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This ngram shows recent usage evenly split. If I transliterate his Russian name, I get "Fjodor Mihájlovich Dostoévskij". I suppose the reason for the "y" is to prevent readers from assuming that oe is substituting for ö, as it does in German. Perhaps modern readers don't know enough about foreign languages to be confused. Kauffner (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that modern readers don't know enough about German to be confused. As far as the ngram goes, personally, I prefer to try to make a judgment of actual, named sources rather than a pure quantitative figure, although the quantitative stuff is interesting.  Most of the major "classics" publishers use "Dostoevsky," including both popular ones like Modern Library and more scholarly ones like Norton. So does the major, recent, multi-volume biography of Dostoevsky.  Whatever the raw numbers may say, I think quality of sources points very strongly towards "Dostoevsky."  As I said before, of recent sources, only Penguin's use of "Dostoyevsky" holds any real weight, I think. john k (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me, I'll give this my support. Kauffner (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If searches show anything, it's that the name can be spelled in more than one way. Plus, this is purely a spelling/transliteration issue rather than a "name" issue. There are gazillions of ways any Russian name can be transliterated, and no one standard that's more correct than any other. "Dostoyevsky" is just as correct as "Dostoevsky", and how the chips fall in real world is pretty much a random outcome, influenced mostly by such non-encyclopedic factors as the publisher transliteration preference, the size of the print run, what kind of books google has scanned so far, or what kind of books amazon decides to be selling. Are we going to move article back and forth every time someone comes up with a handful more of google or amazon hits arranged just the right way? What problem are we going to solve by this move, anyway?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2011; 15:36 (UTC)
 * Do you have any arguments for why "Dostoyevsky" is better than "Dostoevsky", or just generic arguments in favor of wherever the article happens to be right now? And no, we aren't going to move the article back and forth based on handfuls of google results.  As I said, my move request is based on the fact that the better sources, like the main published editions of Dostoevsky's works in English and the main recent biography of Dostoevsky, use "Dostoevsky."  That is unlikely to change in the near future. john k (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No; my argument is that neither spelling is better than another (and we don't normally move articles around when that's the case, if only for maintenance reasons). A part of my problem with this RM, I guess, is that you were looking only at how the name is spelled on the cover of most recently published works. While that's an important factor to consider when making a decision, it's hardly enough. What about works of literary criticism, for example? Academic tradition? What spelling(s) do other encyclopedias use? Apart from a mention of the most recent published biography, I don't see any of these properly weighed in, and at any rate I'm not sure recentism alone is a good enough reason to perform the move. Not all readers search for our articles based on the most recent publications; some actually draw on their past knowledge. I just don't find the reasoning behind this RM satisfactory, is all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2011; 20:18 (UTC)
 * I also noted that Frank's recent multi-volume biography, which appears to be one of the main sources for this article, uses "Dostoevsky." Great deference should be paid to the form used by the actual main source of the article. The Literary Encyclopedia also uses "Dostoevsky."  Britannica, which tends to be fairly old fashioned about orthography, uses "Dostoyevsky."  If you look through the footnotes of this article, it appears that most of the cited sources use "Dostoevsky."  The issue of readers searching for articles seems totally irrelevant to me.  There are redirects, and nobody is likely to be confused by either title.  But we should endeavor to model our usage on the best and most recent sources, especially in a case like this where there's no real danger of confusion. john k (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I disagree. I don't believe that giving such huge priority to the most recent sources is the best approach to deciding what an article title should be, especially when the choice is between the spellings neither of which can be substantiated to be "better" (both spellings are merely alternative transliterations of the same name, and both are normally given in the works of reference, although, of course, exceptions can be found either way). The list of footnotes is also not necessarily indicative of usage&mdash;it would be if the list were exhaustive, which it isn't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point and let others have a say.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2011; 21:28 (UTC)
 * This is all fair enough, and I see where you're coming from. I'm just not sure I understand why it results in an "oppose" rather than a "neutral." john k (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more clear. Here's how my thinking goes. Since the two spellings are basically alternative transliterations, neither is better than the other. In general, no serious reasons to strongly prefer one spelling over another exist; it's mostly a matter of taste and preference. The y-less spelling's recent surge in popularity which you have demonstrated can be caused by a number of reasons, yet you choose to interpret it as if there is a fundamental shift. If such a fundamental shift is indeed occurring, there should be some evidence (i.e., something that can be cited), and in this RM the only evidence presented is your empirical observations; i.e., original research. This, plus the fact that I don't think recent trends alone constitute a convincing substantiation for any move, plus the fact that there will be maintenance involved after the move, plus the fact that I don't see what problem is going to be solved by the move, results in my "oppose".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2011; 15:02 (UTC)
 * Original research is about what material goes in articles. Synthesizing material to determine what is the most commonly used name by reliable sources in English is what is always done in move discussions. But I can see this is hopeless.   john k (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this would be some new scientific views or recently reviewed facts, I could agree to rely on the most recent sources. But this is just a question of transliteration, and I don't think that Dostoevsky is better than Dostoyevsky. While the former looks nice, the latter follows more consistent Russian transliteration system. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC) ( Ah, sorry for removing some comments, it seems I have edited some old revision of the page instead of the most recent one.  Grey  Hood   Talk  15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) )
 * The former is currently the most commonly used form in English, which is how we're supposed to name our articles. But who cares, right?  "The proposed title is no better than the current title" isn't really a very good reason to actively oppose the move, and yet that seems to be the universal motive for oppose votes here. Sigh. john k (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It does sound like a terrible reason when you put it like that, but in truth it's only a part of the reason. The other part (for me, at least) is that I find your analysis unsatisfactory and see no problem which this RM, if successful, would fix. Others, of course, are free to disagree.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 14:34 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not convinced that the case for Dostoevsky is strong enough. I took a look at the listings at three major libraries (Columbia, the New York Public Library, and the British Library) and all list the author as Dostoyevsky over Dostoevsky by a huge margin. A keyword search on the Columbia catalog yielded 26 titles with the y in 2010 and 2011 and 21 titles without the y. Perhaps the change is afoot, but I don't think we're at the point where a title change is necessary. --rgpk (comment) 16:52, 30 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Shame I missed this by a few days. I've long wondered why we use the older spelling of his name instead of the contemporary spelling. As pointed out above, most recent scholarship on Dostoevsky does not use the spelling that we use on Wikipedia. Oh well, perhaps there will be a consensus to perform the move in the future.  Them From  Space  10:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The people who opposed the name change are incorrect. John K made his point and then some. All major editions used Dostoevsky, except Penguin. Dostoyevsky is an anachronism, and when I just typed the word it showed up as a spelling error; I right-clicked it, and it told me to change it to Dostoevsky. Point proven? Probably not enough for the pedants out there.  Honestly this wouldn't be an issue if the proper new spelling was at least prominently featured at the start of the article, but it is nowhere to be seen! Ridiculous. Not a major issue, but still. Leecharleswalker (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Novel In Nine Letters
I was trying to check when this work was first published, and the Spanish wiki says it was first published in 1845. Then here it says 1847, then this source: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/dostoevsky.shtml says it's 1846. Here: http://www.fedordostoievsky.com/ingles/ingles2.htm it also says 1845. Which one is correct and why? Here this book cites it as published in 1847. I don't know which one I should believe in.

Robmdza (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted an add by UAKasper today. Its content is skewed towards advocating inherent national stereotypes, praising D's inherently Ukrainian poetic gifts. WP:NPOV says we keep a neutral point of view in the articles whether sourced or not. Adding a source does not make it neutral.


 * "Poetic talent existed in his father's Ukrainian family and was not the gift of his Russian (Moscovite, aq.) mother. The emigration of Dostoyevsky's ancestors to Ukraine softened their somewhat harsh "Northern character", and awoke the dormant poetry of their hearts. Of all the Slavic countries which formed the Russian Empire, Ukraine was certainly the most poetic... Ukraine is the only country in Europe which possesses a theatre created by the people themselves and not arranged by the intelectuals to develop the taste of the masses, as elsewhere. The Ukrainian theatre is so essentially popular that it has not even been possible to make a bourgeois theatre of it... Dostoyevsky's ancestors must have been dazzled by the Greek poetry of Ukraine... According to experts, the Russians are not realists ; they are dreamers and they like to exaggerate (majestic). They love to lose themselves in visions instead of studying life. When they try to be realists, they fall at once into Mongolian sikhism and eroticism."

This is the rationale for removing the edit. Span (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The entire article below is the work of an experts in history and literature.
 * Background studies:

''As Dostoyevsky's literary friends have suggested, that poetic talent existed in his father's Ukrainian family and was not the gift of his Russian (Moscovite, aq.) mother. The emigration of Dostoyevsky's ancestors to Ukraine softened their somewhat harsh "Northern character", and awoke the dormant poetry of their hearts. Of all the Slavic countries which formed the Russian Empire, Ukraine was certainly the most poetic. According to researches of Aimee Dostoyevsky (FD: A study) from Yale University Press in Great Britain, Ukrainian culture has had a considerable influence on Dostoyevsky. As recorded in the study, all is poetry in Ukraine: the costumes of the peasants, their songs, their dances, and above all their theatre. Ukraine is the only country in Europe which possesses a theatre created by the people themselves and not arranged by the intelectuals to develop the taste of the masses, as elsewhere. The Ukrainian theatre is so essentially popular that it has not even been possible to make a bourgeois theatre of it. In early days Ukraine was in close contact with the Greek colonies on the shores of the Black Sea. Some Greek blood flows in the veins of the Ukrainians, manifesting itself in their charming sunburnt faces and their graceful movements. It may even be that the Ukrainian theatre is a distant echo of the drama so beloved of the ancient Greeks. ''

''As stated in the same expert study, emerging from the dark forests and dank marshes of Lithuania, Dostoyevsky's ancestors must have been dazzled by the Greek poetry of Ukraine. Their hearts warmed by the southern sunshine, they began to write verses. Dostoyevsky's grandfather Mihail carried a httle of this Ukrainian poetry in his poor student's wallet when he fled from his father's house, and kept it carefully as a souvenir of his distant home. Later, he handed it on to his two elder sons, Mihail and Fyodor. These youths composed verses, epitaphs and poems; in his youth his father wrote Venetian romances and historical dramas. He began by imitating Nikolai Gogol, the great writer from Ukraine, whom he greatly admired. ''

''In Dostoyevsky's first works experts note a good deal of this naive sentimental and romantic poetry. It was not until after his imprisonment, when he became „Russian“, that we find in his novels the breadth of view and depth of thought proper to the Russian nation. And yet it is not right to say that Dostoyevsky's powerful realism is essentially Russian. According to experts, the Russians are not realists ; they are dreamers and they like to exaggerate (majestic). They love to lose themselves in visions instead of studying life. When they try to be realists, they fall at once into Mongolian sikhism and eroticism]]. Dostoyevsky's realism is an inheritance from his „normanised ancestors“. It was not for nothing that Dostoyevsky admired Honoré de Balzac so heartily, and took him as his model. ''


 * Thank you!--UAKasper (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Spanglej, can you suggest a short article from my text? You can write it here ... I believe that is worth to write something about Ukraine, Gogol and Balzac. Thanks!--UAKasper (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Wikipedia community, Kasper. As I say, if a view has a source it does not make the article addition neutral. Sentences such as "Poetic talent existed in his father's Ukrainian family and was not the gift of his Russian (Moscovite, aq.) mother" and "Of all the Slavic countries which formed the Russian Empire, Ukraine was certainly the most poetic" could not be construed as encyclopedic or objective. Yes, I'm sure there are useful neutral things to say about the relationships with Ukraine, Gogol and Balzac. The article does need work. I'll have a look and see what I find.  Span (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations are a little too hard because text is a work from professional authors, and not my opinion. OK, I will wait for your suggestion. Five to six sentences would be enough, but it is important to shortly explain the relationship between Dostoyevsky - Ukraine, Gogol and Balzac. Thank you!--UAKasper (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nabokov: Elementary envy.
Nabokov is a stylistic artist and one of the best. But with substance he falls terribly short. He disdains the intrusion of spiritual conflicts in literature, especially those of his native land, Russia. Not only does he eskew Doestoevski, but also Solshenitzen as both deluded and unrealistic, though both had changed the world they lived in. His criticizm and his subject matter for his own literature reveals a scholar who has all the potential of a great writer, except that of a great 'heart'.

M.Donohue, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.51.51 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you have a comment to improve the article? Span (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Atlantic column referencing this article
FYI, this column from the Atlantic features some comments/criticisms of this article. (Actually, the criticisms are of Wikipedia in general.) - http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/why-wikipedias-fans-shouldnt-gloat/254584/ KConWiki (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I can't imagine who would gloat, though. Printed Britannica a sad loss. Span (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Childhood
The first passage in this section appears to be somewhat garbled and contradictory. For instance as it stands, his family cut ties with him, then "subsequently" he escapes from home. This is nonsensical. Dlv999 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that I forgot to review all revisions since my overhaul. For example there is currently standing that the family "cut ties with [Mikhail]", but none of the sources state such thing; they just "divorced", and he might even had contact with the family.-- GoP T C N 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One other thing. The passage states "His father, who descended from a Lithuanian noble family, resided nearby in the Belarussian city of Pinsk.". Well, when did his father reside in Pinsk? It is my understanding that most of his life he resided in Moscow. I think what we should say here is where he was born. According to the Frank Biography he was born in the Ukranian town of Bratslava. I don't have access to the other sources, so maybe you could check if they all agree. Dlv999 (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Belarusian decent
I'm not sure I know what the issue is here. From the Frank biography:-


 * Originally, on his father's side, the Dostoevskys had been a family belonging to the Lithuanian nobility, whose name comes from a small village (Dostoevo, in the district of Pinsk) awarded to an ancestor in the sixteenth century.


 * Dostoevsky's paternal great-grandfather was a Uniat archpriest in the Ukrainian town of Bratslava; his grandfather was a priest of the same persuasion; and this is where his father was born. Dlv999 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a proof, sorry. Show me the evidence that he was of Belarussian and Ukrainian descent, not nationality. -- GoP T C N 18:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Influence????
What's up with the "influence" section of this article? Some unknown journalist is the only person we can quote that says Dostoyevsky was great? He's one of the WORLD'S great novelists, by the way, not just Europe. Then we have the ridiculous comment by heartless old Nabokov which stands out like a sore thumb. I'm too lazy myself, so can someone get to work on fixing this? 71.94.3.209 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hided most of the content because of WP:COPYVIO. Someone just copied and pasted from a copyrighted book and nobody noticed it. The Legacy section will be my next step. Regards.-- GoP T C N 20:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

'Influences' and 'Influenced' fields
They were long ago deleted by a user who claimed "enough sources were lacking" (actually most of them are obvious and I've never seen an article in which sources are provided for every single autor cited as either an influence or influenced). I see that there are now some authors on those fields, but a lot more are missing as well. I'll provide here the old list, since I'm not willing to just add it to the article, so that it can be discussed and eventually added again.

Influences

Writers: Alexander Pushkin, Nikolai Gogol, Miguel de Cervantes,[1] Charles Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe, Mikhail Lermontov, Friedrich Schiller, Honoré de Balzac, Vasily Zhukovsky, Victor Hugo, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Adam Mickiewicz, Philosophers: Mikhail Bakunin, Vissarion Belinsky, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Aleksandr Herzen, Konstantin Leontyev, Sergei Nechaev, Mikhail Petrashevsky, Vladimir Solovyov, Tikhon of Zadonsk

Influenced

Knut Hamsun, Richard Brautigan, Charles Bukowski, Albert Camus, Orhan Pamuk,[2][3] Sigmund Freud, Witold Gombrowicz, Franz Kafka, Jack Kerouac, James Joyce, Czesław Miłosz, Yukio Mishima, Alberto Moravia, Iris Murdoch, Friedrich Nietzsche, Marcel Proust, Ayn Rand, Jean-Paul Sartre, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Wisława Szymborska, Irvine Welsh, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Cormac McCarthy, Ken Kesey, Albert Einstein, Leonid Leonov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.222.31 (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A plethora of authors and what not were influenced by Dostoevsky. I believe the most important are listed currently. "enough sources were lacking" is a lame claim usually made by users who are lazy to find sources (there are plenty viewable copies of books at Gbooks). I will find a solution. Regards.-- GoP T C N 07:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky/Dostoevsky
I have a book by Dostoyevsky, where his name is spelt Dostoevsky, should there be some mention of the different spelling of his name in the lead? VenomousConcept (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While "Dostoevsky" is the most common English variant, "Dostoyevsky" is a correct transliteration of his name, as "е" in Russia equals to "ye", not "e". Also, the spelling is difficult to understand for English speakers, as most would pronounce it "Dostoivsky", which is of course incorrect. I am not sure if this should be mentioned. Let's see what others say. Regards.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 19:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that "Dostoevsky" is not the most common variant but it is certainly common enough to deserve being mentioned, even though I agree that the current spelling is a better choice to use as the article's title (there was an RM a few months ago arguing about just this). Regarding how to do it, the article already has a footnote discussing the first name; perhaps the other spelling of the last name could be covered there as well?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 11, 2012; 20:41 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting to change the article name, just that the alternate translation should be mentioned, as someone might come across the alternate name and wonder if it's the same person. I'll go ahead and change the article, then if anyone wants to revert it they can do. VenomousConcept (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, probably we need to keep it as Dostoevsky - that's the official transliteration from Russian. Also, Google returns 13 800 000 results for Dostoevsky and only 3 100 000 for Dostoyevsky. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...except there is no such thing as "the official transliteration from Russian". So, we either try to adhere to one romanization system (when doing so makes sense) to maintain some semblance of order and uniformity, or we mindlessly count ghits for every possible transliteration variant of each individual article&mdash;not the most prudent approach (should we also count all variants using Fyodor/Fedor/Feodor and pick the most used first/last name combo? Should we do a recount every now and then to make sure it still holds? Or are we better off with picking one fairly common romanization scheme and sticking with it?)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 7, 2012; 14:33 (UTC)

Copyedited
Richard asr (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope I've been able to help with this article. I've thoroughly enjoyed copy editing it, I have to say. Five points I need to mention, all of which I think should be addressed, but none of them should be too onerous.

In the section 'Youth', 3rd paragraph, the sentence on the cause of the death of Dostoyevsky's father. I have inferred what is supposed to have happened from what was written but might have got it wrong. Someone might like to check. Also, there seems to be doubt about these circumstances, mentioned later in the article, which might possibly need to be reflected in this sentence as well.

Same paragraph. Dostoyevsky's epilepsy is discussed much later, in the section 'Personality and physical appearance'. Here it appeared following news of the death of his father, there it seems to be the case that there is a lot of doubt about when it started. It seems only Freud believed it was following the death of his father. Dostoyevsky himself remembered it beginning directly after the mock execution, that section tells us. This brief statement in 'Youth' should agree, in broad terms at least, with the later discussion in 'Personality and physical appearance'.

In the sections 'Crime and Punishment' and 'The Idiot' the chronology of Dostoyevsky's four-year honeymoon was difficult to follow in parts and I have made some assumptions about the year in which some of the months mentioned took place. I remember altering one year because it couldn't possibly have been right. Someone may wish to check that I haven't introduced any errors.

'Early career' end of the third paragraph. '...the nature of human coexistence, the requirements of fraternity, and the coherence of freedom and fortune.' This sentence can surely be improved! Plain speaking would be great. I can't help because I don't have the sources.

In the section 'Stance on Jews in Russia' I have taken 'border regions' to mean poorer areas of the country, although I wasn't quite sure whether it was meant to be taken geographically or perhaps to mean the social borderland or something else.

Hope this helps and good luck with the article. Richard asr (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your copyedits and comments. I won't be able to do all the points you raised for now, as the library where I picked the Kjetsaa book (which has exactly this information) will be closed until October this year. I hope I can find the information in the Frank books. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Belinsky
Does Belinsky's Polnoe sobraniye need to be in the bibliography? If we are including it, I'd like the publisher name. And I'm assuming "sobranye" is a typo. Overall, though, great work on the article improvement! Lesgles (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I did not read Polnoye sobranye yet (and can't find this anywhere at the moment) and yes the transliteration is incorrect, will change it. Also good work on the American! :)Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Russian transliteration system is very odd, perhaps Ezhiki could explain it here. I think it should be "Polnoye sobranye" per WP:ROMRUS. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Legacy
I haven't read through the archives so I'm just going to put this here and hope it's not redundant. The section reads like hagiography and needs some counterbalancing criticism. For instance I know that Nabokov considered him overrated and ranked him a step or two below Tolstoy and Chekhov in the important Golden Age fictionists. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed your large, undue section. First, legacy should not contain any criticism; it should summarize why and what he influenced. Second, Nabokov is simply overrated; there are really better critics out there. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoah. You response to the above concern is simply remove the entry? Also, what possible relevance does your personal opinion of Nabokov have? I noticed in the history that there was a section called "Criticism" that was deleted several months ago. It contained some good counterbalancing critiques. I'm wondering what the reason was for its deletion. Barring any valid one, I'll go ahead and restore it and add in the Nabokov stuff. Am I detecting a bit of wp:own here? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "You response to the above concern is simply remove the entry?" - uhm, yes, as was decided...
 * "Also, what possible relevance does your personal opinion of Nabokov have?" - because he is overrated and not a literary critic. He is known for having written some pervert book. There are far better critics then just him, and writing one section as he was a something special is odd. He is for me like "Freud of literature", there is almost no Russian literature article without a mention of his name.--Kürbis (✔) 19:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * whatever the merits of the add/remove discussion above (about which I've no opinion), Nabokov is one of the most brilliant and influential writers of the 20th century, writing in both Russian and English, a teacher, lecturer and critic also, and certainly not to be dismissed as "overrated" and "having written some pervert book". Lolita is a masterful work, in the opinion of many. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest removal of a section
Hello,

I propose a removal of the section "Stance of Jews in Russia". Many Russians at that time held similar views towards Jews (Pushkin, Gogol, etc) and the section gives undue weight to the article. Alternatively I suggest a re-creation of the "Criticism" section and include a very short summary of his stance towards Jews. I don't want to do this myself and instead want to hear suggestions from other people. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm good with this suggestion. I think that much of the content in the entire "Beliefs" section can be folded into other parts.  I can also see some major structural changes happening to the entire article.  I can work on this some, after I finished what I started with Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings.  Perhaps when User:Wadewitz gets here, she can give up input about how to better structure things, and then some other lit experts can weigh in as well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So I went ahead and cut the section as requested. As I state above, I think that some of its content can be folded into other sections of the article, so I paste it here.  Next, I'll do a copyedit, as promised, and may be able to include the content below as I go.
 * I respect your work, but I put this RFC to create a community consensus... Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that. This is just me, being bold. Removing it doesn't mean that I've bypassed consensus; anyone can replace the removal if they want.  As I state above, I'm for removing the section and folding the content into the rest of the article, or perhaps putting it in the new Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not really part of "themes in his writings, " but a theme in his thought in general, and was appropriately located in the section on beliefs,though perhaps it should go best as a subsection of political rather than religious beliefs--he seems to be referring to their political/economic influence, not their religion. The section as it reads below seems very well balanced, and belongs in the main article.   The argument that other Russian writers thought similar is an argument for including similar material there also, not for eliminating it here. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Stance on Jews in Russia
Several writers and critics (including Joseph Frank, Maxim D. Shrayer, Stephen Cassedy, David I. Goldstein, Gary Saul Morson and Felix Dreizin) have offered insights and suppositions regarding Dostoyevsky's views on the Jews and the presence of organised Jewry in Russia. One view is that Dostoyevsky perceived Jewish ethnocentrismand influence to be threatening to the Russian peasantry in poorer areas of the country. In A Writer's Diary, Dostoyevsky wrote:

"Thus, Jewry is thriving precisely there where the people are still ignorant, or not free, or economically backward. It is there that Jewry has an open field. And instead of raising, by its influence, the level of education, instead of increasing knowledge, generating economic fitness in the native population – instead of this the Jew, wherever he has settled, has humiliated and debauched the people still more; there humaneness was still more debased and the educational level fell still lower; there inescapable, inhuman misery, and with it despair, spread still more disgustingly. Ask the native population in our border regions: What is propelling the Jew – and has been propelling him for centuries? You will receive a unanimous answer: mercilessness. He has been prompted so many centuries only by pitilessness to us, only by the thirst for our sweat and blood.

And, in truth, the whole activity of the Jews in these border regions of ours consisted of rendering the native population as much as possible inescapably dependent on them, taking advantage of the local laws. They have always managed to be on friendly terms with those upon whom the people were dependent. Point to any other tribe from among Russian aliens which could rival the Jew by his dreadful influence in this connection! You will find no such tribe. In this respect the Jew preserves all his originality, in contrast to other Russian aliens, and of course, the reason therefore is that his status, that spirit of which specifically breathes pitilessness for everything that is not Jew, with disrespect for any people and tribe, for every human creature who is not a Jew ..."

- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Dostoyevsky expressed antisemitic sentiments such as these, but he also stood up for the rights of the Jewish people. In a review of Joseph Frank's book, The Mantle of the Prophet,Orlando Figes notes that A Writer's Diary is "filled with politics, literary criticism, and pan-Slav diatribes about the virtues of the Russian Empire, [and] represents a major challenge to the Dostoyevsky fan, not least on account of its frequent expressions of antisemitism." Frank, in his foreword for David I. Goldstein's book Dostoevsky and the Jews, attempts to paint Dostoyevsky as a product of his time, noting that Dostoyevsky made antisemitic remarks, but that these views were ones which he was not entirely comfortable with.

Dostoyevsky expressed support for the equal rights of the Russian Jewish population, which was an unpopular position in Russia at the time. Dostoyevsky stated that he did not hate Jewish people and was not antisemitic. He spoke of the potential negative influence of Jewish people, but advised Emperor Alexander II of Russia to allow them positions of influence in Russian society, such as access to professorships at universities. Labelling Dostoyevsky as antisemitic does not take into consideration his expressed desire to reconcile Jews and Christians peacefully in a single universal brotherhood of mankind.