Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky/Archive 5

Influenced section of infobox
To try to avoid this becoming an edit war, I suggest that everyone interested might like to state their reasons here. The question is: what are the arguments in favour of retention or deletion of the Influenced section in the infobox? --Stfg (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why should there not be an "influenced" section? It is well known that Dostoyevsky influenced a number of significant writers, psychologists and philosophers. There is no lack of sources to indicate this. His wide-ranging influence is an important aspect of his notability as a writer and observer of the human psyche. The section gives a brief indication of this wide-ranging influence. I notice that, before the whole section was removed, Kerouac was removed because he "belongs to the beat movement". I'm not sure if it is true that Kerouac "belongs" to the beat movement, but why is it a reason for him not to have been influenced by Dostoyevsky? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.254.173 (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is not known if they were really influenced by his works or just enjoyed reading him. Another problem is how many and which people should be mentioned. I just searched for high-quality literature biographies with infoboxes (Honoré de Balzac, Ian Fleming, Ernest Hemingway, Edgar Allan Poe, Rabindranath Tagore), none of which include that parameter. I don't dislike adding some names, but others will probably. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mariinsky Hospital
I am going to change File:Wki Dostoyevsky Street 2 Moscow Mariinsky Hospital.jpg as it seems people will continuously complain about its copyright status, and whether de minimis applies. I would add two portraits of his parents because they are more important than his place of birth (additionally that picture is not from the 19th century...) Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. And those are nice pictures. --Stfg (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying to avoid a brewing edit war
Through my involvement at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations at has come to my attention that has a long history on wikipedia of doing whatever he wants regardless of the opinions of others. We held a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels regarding a disagreement over whether navbox templates for individual works should be on the authors' pages. I felt they should, but Tomcat7, who feels they shouldn't has been removing them. 4 people (,, , and ) voiced opinions in favor of keeping them on the pages, 2 people ( and ) voiced opinions in favor of removing them from the pages and one person supported a case-by-case analysis of inclusion on each page. Given that we are not dealing with controversial content and WP:BLP issues, there needs to be consensus to not WP:PRESERVE content, be it prose, images, templates, tables or whatever. There was no consensus to remove the content and if a consensus of any kind existed, it was to PRESERVE the content at issue. Nonetheless, after these discussion responses came in, Tomcat7 saw fit to disregard the opinions of others again. I am restoring the content. If Tomcat7 insists on disregarding the opinions of others again and removes the content, I will initiate a discussion on his long history of behavior at either WP:AN or WP:ANI.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * TonyTheTiger, it seems to me that you are trying to get your way by means of a personal attack and a threat. What I see at that page is "no consensus yet". (You haven't included User:Obiwankenobi's comment in your summary, by the way.) The answer to your question raised there -- "Does anyone know how I can get broader participation here" -- is to raise a full RFC, isn't it? Meanwhile, the way to avoid "brewing" an edit war, is not to make edits that fly in the face of the known opinion of an editor who has worked hard to progress an article, before there is a consensus in support of doing so. Imho he is no more disregarding the opinions of others than you are. --Stfg (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do understand that well after Tomcat7 removed the content another editor opined in his favor as a third supporter of his arguments. No one questions whether Tomcat7 is a diligent worker. I have seen this both here and elsewhere. My point is that he has a history of doing things his way in the face of opposing viewpoints, policy and consensus. That kind of hard work should not be encouraged. However, I appreciate the advice to open an RFC. I will do so later today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have commented there. I guess now we may as well leave things as they are until the RFC finsishes, and then implement its conclusion here. --Stfg (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed
During the GA review a number of factual inaccuracies were found. The nominator has checked with sources used, and has agreed that there are inconsistencies with the sources. The GA review has been put on hold to allow the nominator time to consult with sources, and improve the article. In the meantime the article has been tagged as possibly factually inaccurate to alert readers that the contents cannot be relied upon to be accurate, and that they should check sources themselves. This is only a temporary situation, as once the article has been checked through, and any remaining errors corrected, the disputed tag can be removed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC).
 * No, I haven't said that the sources do not support the information. All information should be accurate. The aforementioned examples are very odd. The article says he went to the Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy (an academy is a seminary, right?), and I explained the events with Marei. Before your copyedits, it stated "Mikhail was admitted to Moscow's Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy". --Tomcat (7) 13:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the article is about Fyodor Dostoyevsky, not his father. --Tomcat (7) 13:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a medical college is not a theology college. I think having English as a second language is perhaps what has caused the problems here. Slight misunderstandings of meaning have led to factual inaccuracies. I think on the whole your work on Wikipedia is very good, and you have made many very impressive improvements to articles. But perhaps the nature of the subject matter here, and the complexity of the topic, have led to some misreadings of the source texts. The "dispute" is that one editor (yourself) has interpreted sources one way, and another editor (myself) disputes the accuracy of the interpretation. It's not that I am in dispute with you, or feel that you have done anything wrong. On the contrary, I feel you have worked hard to improve this article to the best of your ability. It's just that due to the language issue, some misunderstandings have occurred. Let me know if you wish me to keep the review open.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A seminary is not always theological .--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also curious why you stick so much to that seminary. The article does not even mention that information.--Tomcat (7) 13:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing the dispute tag is not the way to resolve this matter. The article needs checking against sources. When I checked, I found a very high proportion of errors. I just glanced at the article, and it still states incorrect information about the execution. Sources show that this was a planned mock execution, and not - as stated here - that Dostoyevsky was actually sentenced to death and this was luckily reprieved at the last minute. It was always planned to be that way. Having the tag in place alerts readers to the situation so they can make an informed decision about how much to accept at face value what is said here, and also alerts editors who can assist in improving the article. The tag is designed to be helpful rather than a badge of shame - it just identifies what work needs to be done.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not a mock execution. It was a planned execution which was stopped at the last minute.--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bald contradictions are rude and cut no ice. The GA reviewer has checked several sources and shown good grounds to require further source checks, therefore more sources need checking, period. Simply contradicting and reverting is edit warring. --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that if there is a problem of factual accuracy then a third party, preferably an expert in Dostoyevsky, would have to go through the sources and either list the problems or fix them. It is not fair to expect the nominator to fix factual accuracy problems without letting them know where such problems are found. But of course the article can't be a GA while there are doubts about accuracy. Which sources describe the event as a mock execution and which as an actual planned execution? Which reasons do we have to believe one over the other? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this article since I was asked to review it several months ago. At the time, I had no idea how complex the subject is, which has been compounded by the Wiki-drama that's been well-documented.  It's unfortunate because the subject is important and deserving of a high-quality article.  To answer Maunus' question, though, it's my understanding that if there are two sources that are contradictory, first you accept the most reliable source.  If both are equally reliable, then you state the contradiction in the article.  Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Or you could just explain the conflicting reports in a note. Better than making a call. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think making a call may be OK if there is sufficient reliable evidence for one or the other. But we'd have to see the sources to see whether there is. If they appear more or less equally reliable then yes, noting both is best.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, that is why I am asking which arguments we have to consider one of these sources more reliable than the other.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the question of the mock (or otherwise) execution, SilkTork identified this source in his comment of 22:07, 18 June 2013, in the GA review, transcluded above. Since Tomcat did not reply to that comment, but nevertheless flat-out contradicted SilkTork today (just above here), I assume that Tomcat overlooked that comment and source. If this, then why not more? So I think that this does confirm the need for a third-party, preferably expert, review, as Maunus suggests. --Stfg (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I too have been watching since I did the very first peer review and then one of the FACs. I checked the sourcing then and posted this. (Note change of my user name since). Also there's this thread in the archives,, among others. I suspect the best way forward is to work from top to bottom and verify. Victoria (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that I have used biographies in three languages, among of which was the original Kjetsaa biography. The reviewer still hasn't posted a single error, although he clearly stated there are a lot of them. The banner is meaningless and incorrect, and it distracts the reader from reading it. The aforementioned examples are not grammatical errors, they were probably misunderstood by different English speakers. SilkTork, you meant you have borrowed books from your library. If that is so, you may name a few more errors. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 14, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Time to put the "disputed" tag back?
Before this edit by an IP, the article read "A detective novel,[188] Crime and Punishment describes Rodion Raskolnikov's life...". The source for this was (well, wasn't, more like it) Cicovacki p. 80, which says "... the title may suggest a detective novel. Nothing could be further from the truth", expanded on in a footnote: "... the view that C and P is not a detective novel follows A Cascardi ..." (emphasis mine). Given that SilkTork detected many inaccuracies in their meticulous review – none of which have been addressed – and this glaring factual error, wouldn't it be better to put the tag back again? I mean, how can we be sure, without checking everything against the sources, that there aren't more inconsistencies like this? Best, -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

shorten lead
I think the lead section is extremely long, and should be shortened. Costatitanica (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This article nominated for removal from list of vital articles
I just nominated this article to be removed from the "vital articles" list on the grounds that only one writer should represent the Great Russians and Tolstoy is a fraction more exemplary. See: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles. MackyBeth (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

IPA of Russian name
From the introduction: Russian: Фёдор Миха́йлович Достое́вский; IPA: [ˈfʲɵdər mʲɪˈxajləvʲɪtɕ dəstɐˈjɛfskʲɪj]

The IPA spelling of the the Russian name doesn't seem right. I thought ё was pronounced yo (or IPA: [jo]). And isn't Russian o pronounced [o], not [ɵ]? Omc (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As the transcription has it, ё represents the vowel preceded by a palatalized (soft) consonant. The palatalized consonant here is . The vowel, because it occurs after a palatalized consonant, is fronted from back  to central . That is an explanation of the logic of the transcription; I can't comment on its accuracy, since I don't speak Russian. — Eru·tuon 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Erutuon is right. Russian phonology, subsection Back vowels says that 'following a soft consonant, is centralized to '. That sentence is sourced. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 16:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * But that misses the /j/ part of the sound. Eruton, you're suggesting that "The vowel  ... occurs after a palatalized consonant." But ё represents /jo/ not /o/ ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(Cyrillic) ), so that principle doesn't apply. Similarly, Peter238's "following a soft consonant,  is centralized to ." The sound following the consonant is not /o/ but /j/. Here's the IPA spelling in the German Wikipedia:  [ˈfʲodər]. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fjodor_Michailowitsch_Dostojewski  But I also don't speak Russian, so maybe we should leave it to someone who's more expert than I (we).Omc (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're confusing letters with phonemes. Anyway, the letter "ё" is phonemically and phonetically . — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 17:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP: VS vio
Who is James Townsend? Why is he being used to source statements that contradict statements made directly by peer reviewed sources? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding a full text resouce
Hello, I would like to add this short story by Dostoyevsky to the external links. It's a full text, available in Hebrew, English and the original russian for translation comparison.Oddty (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fyodor Dostoyevsky. 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/20120310104241/http://engl.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_6.php?id_page=561 to http://engl.mosmetro.ru/pages/page_6.php?id_page=561
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201750/http://gazeta-pravda.ru/content/view/115/ to http://gazeta-pravda.ru/content/view/115/

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) 14:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fyodor Dostoyevsky. 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/20120704133104/http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/02/111.shtml to http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/02/111.shtml

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) 14:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fyodor Dostoyevsky. 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/20130901233546/http://dostoevsky.org/English/index.html to http://www.dostoevsky.org/English/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506033225/http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/issues.shtml to http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/issues.shtml

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) 09:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Transliteration: Dostoyevsky vs Dostoevsky
In my humble opinion, the article should use the transliteration Dostoevsky (without the "y"). I own English translations of most of his works from three different publishers (Oxford University Press, Wordsworth Editions and Everyman) and they all use the transliteration without the "y"; as does the award-winning biography by Joseph Frank (published by Princeton University Press). Best Regards. 94.226.77.83 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fyodor Dostoyevsky. 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/20070613172752/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91c/chapter16.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91c/chapter16.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) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: consensus to move the pages, except no consensus to move the Saint Petersburg Metro station article, per the discussion below. There are a lot of instances to be changed on each page; please help with these. Dekimasu よ! 03:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

– The romanization of this famous Russian family's name has resulted in several variants throughout the years, but I believe the proposed move captures the dominant one which is used and to which we should make the move. The bibliography section sources dominantly use "Dostoevsky", Google Ngrams shows 3x the usage in books, Google Scholar shows 61,900 hits vs 32,600, and expert organizations like the International Dostoevsky Society and F. M. Dostoevsky Literary Memorial Museum spell it as such. Netoholic @ 00:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  bd2412  T 00:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fyodor Dostoyevsky → Fyodor Dostoevsky
 * Dostoyevsky (surname) → Dostoevsky (surname)
 * Mikhail Dostoyevsky → Mikhail Dostoevsky
 * Andrey Dostoyevsky → Andrey Dostoevsky
 * Dostoyevskaya → Dostoevskaya
 * Anna Dostoyevskaya → Anna Dostoevskaya
 * Lyubov Dostoyevskaya → Lyubov Dostoevskaya
 * Dostoyevskaya (Saint Petersburg Metro) → Dostoevskaya (Saint Petersburg Metro)
 * Dostoyevskaya (Moscow Metro) → Dostoevskaya (Moscow Metro)
 * Dostoyevsky Museum → Dostoevsky Museum
 * Oppose: the proposed spelling does not reflect how the name is pronounced. "Dosto-evsky", who's that? The purpose of transliteration from another alphabet is to accomplish a spelling that comes as closely as possible to the correct procunciation with regard to the language the name is transliterated to. That is why "Владимир" is transliterated into English as "Vladimir", but to German as "Wladimir" – due to the letter V (named fau, "fow") often being pronounced with an F sound in German, while "W" in German is pronounced as "V" in English. It seems to me that that "Dostoevsky" is just a letter-by-letter replacement of letters in the Cyrillic alphabet by letters in the Latin/English alphabet. The "y" does not have a corresponding letter in the Russian-language spelling, but it's nevertheless a important part of how the name is pronounced. Also, the spelling in the article title should be reflected in the body of text, not the other way around. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is terrible justification for opposing, bordering on original research. It's your personal opinion, and is countered by the expert opinions I've cited. Even using your claim, the current spelling often results in even more frequent mispronunciation (dos-TOY-ev-sky rather than dos-to-YEV-sky) which is even worse. I can assure you that after the page move, all uses of the name will be made consistent. The text will match the title... again, not a reason to oppose. --Netoholic @ 17:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Dostoyevsky" seems to conform to BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian and WP:Romanization of Russian. Will those articles need to be changed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They are a completely separate issue. We need to remember that WP:VERIFIABLE is core policy, whereas WP:Romanization of Russian is just a guidance essay, not even a guideline. Decision on this specific name should only be based on reliable expert sources on this topic. It would be WP:OR to try to use either of those articles on our own, which is why WP:UE says if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic. -- Netoholic @  09:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (edited)


 * Support. Proposed spelling is more common. Srnec (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Netaholic's rationale above, particularly that the majority of sources in the bibliography use 'Dostoevsky'. Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Pronunciation is a red herring, as many names have spellings that vary from what one would expect based on pronunciation. bd2412  T 00:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment no opinion on the rest, but the Saint Petersburg Metro consistently uses the "y" spelling for Dostoyevskaya (Saint Petersburg Metro), e.g. File:Metro SPB Line4 Dostoevskaya Columns.jpg, File:Ligovsky Prospekt (Лиговский проспект) (6162510481).jpg, . 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm fine with the St. Petersburg Metro article staying where it is for now. I checked the online metro map it it spells it with the "Y". The Moscow one, on the other hand, doesn't. -- Netoholic @  10:32, 8 March 2018 (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.