Talk:Maxim Berezovsky

File:Berezovskiy.jpg Nominated for Deletion
How could he have been a Ukrainian composer if there was no Ukraine, he was a Russian subject, lived in St. Petersburg, wrote in Russian and spoke Russian? For all other countries the citizenship determines the identity, why should here be a postfactum invented ethnicity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.162.168 (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maksym Berezovsky. 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/20100614110655/http://www.claudiorecords.com/detail/berezovsky.html to http://www.claudiorecords.com/detail/berezovsky.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) 05:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Name of the article
Could we have please more arguments that Berezovski is the most common spelling than just one source? WP:RUS would give Berezovsky, and if we have decided not to follow it, we must have good arguments that Berezovski is way more common than Berezovsky in modern reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be Berezovsky by all translit standards.--Aristophile (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian composer again
We already had one user who was indefinitely blocked for persistent addition of claim that Berezovsky was an Ukrainian composer, without reliable sources. Now we have a brand new user adding the same claim, again without sources, and edit-warring. I am afraid one more revert and we go off to arbitration enforcement again.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We now have plenty of sources, but the user Ushkuynik is not interested is discussing the matter.--Aristophile (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ymblanter, if someone was blocked for adding that fact, perhaps they ought to be unblocked. —Michael Z. 02:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the user behaved inappropriately, was taken to arbitration enforcement, got a topic ban from Ukraine, completely ignored it, was taken to the arbitration enforcement again, and got an indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For “persistent addition of claim that Berezovsky was an Ukrainian composer”? That’s not inappropriate. Who was it? We can appeal arbitration enforcement’s decision. It’s never to late to right a wrong. —Michael Z. 06:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That was User:KHMELNYTSKYIA, however, if you want to appeal the AE, I would really recommend you to look at their contributions first. I personally think that the English Wikipedia is better off without this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, neither Ukrainian identity, nor Ukrainian state existed when this man was still alive. Let's stick to historical reality. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

“Some researchers claim that Berezovsky was born in Ukraine”
“Claim” is a loaded word for the only theory presented. Are there any hypotheses or claims he was born in Russia? —Michael Z. 23:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm anxious to know too.--Aristophile (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked through the cited sources. This is ridiculous. Not one says any of this:
 * “Some researchers claim”
 * “this hypothesis”
 * “no hard evidence exists for this information”
 * “the place of his birth [is] uncertain”
 * “The question of whether Berezovsky was born in Hlukhiv or studied there could not be resolved and is still a matter of some dispute”
 * Many sources say he was born in Hlukhiv. Some don’t say where he was born. The rest is bunk. I am cleaning this up. —Michael Z. 02:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ушкуйник, Please participate in the discussion instead of reverting to an article intro that ignores its own sources by including patent nonsense. We’ve been through this before, and refusing to discuss has only wasted your time and a lot of everyone else’s. —Michael Z. 16:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Michael Z., it's absolutely unknown where he was born. His life story was reconstructed in a short novel written in 1840 by Nestor Kukolnik, but there is no any historical evidence about Berezovsky's life in Gluchov/Hlukhiv. It is even not clear whether he was in the area of Ukraine at all. Ушкуйник (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s absolutely known that reliable sources say he was born in Hlukhiv. You’ve literally just summarized some historical evidence on this page. If you have a source that says “there is no historical evidence” and “it is not clear whether,” then please share it. Otherwise, please don’t add your WP:Original Research in the form of this synthesis to the article. —Michael Z. 18:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Listed here as among "best Ukrainian composers] with strong childhood connection to eastern Ukraine. Since both Ukraine and Russia claim him, why not have a shortdesc of "Ukrainian and Russian"? HouseOfChange (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ::::That above is not wp:reliable source. Please check the article Name of Ukraine. From the 18th century on, Ukraine became known in the Russian Empire by the geographic term Little Russia. At the turn of the 20th century the term Ukraine became independent and self-sufficient, pushing aside regional self-definitions. In the course of the political struggle between the Little Russian and the Ukrainian regional identities, it challenged the traditional term Little Russia and ultimately defeated it in the 1920s. The composer is described in many reliable sources as Russian, Ukrainian or even as Russian*Ukrainian. However per historical reality in his own time the term Ukraine was very rarely used if ever used and had different geographic meanings. Jingiby (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Per Short History of Opera'' by Donald Grout, "Some of the Ukraine's earliest operatic composers were Maxim Berezovsky .. and Dmitri Bortnyansky...Although their models were Italian opera, they were nevertheless able to introduce aspects of their native culture into the scores..." Bach is a "German" composer even though modern Germany didn't exist in his day, says Gerda Arendt. The arcana about little Russia and Russia's past and present claims that Ukraine is part of Russia shouldn't erase Ukraine from his biography when many RS attest it. Update, "Russian and Ukrainian" looks like a good solution, thanks. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess by the time of Bach’s life, the Holy Roman Empire was mainly a German state. But Chopin was born in the French empire, grew up in the Russian empire, then lived in France, but he’s not a “French, Russian, and Polish composer.” Liszt is not an “Austrian, German, and Hungarian composer.” There’s a broad inconsistency in the imposition of colonial labels onto Ukrainian figures. —Michael Z. 20:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems a contentious matter that won't go away, as new editors arrive here from RS that say different things. Maybe somebody could create a neutrally-phrased RfC to get broader input, after which we could point to the consensus there in future disputes. Classical composers are not my specialty (tho I reviewed a DYK that mentioned Berezovsky) so I am taking this lively dispute off my watchlist. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Maxim Berezovsky
Dear Yezheha, I would kindly ask you to stop changing the title of the article. The current transliteration is based on encyclopedias and studies by specialists in musicology (e.g. Marina Ritzarev) written in English. Ушкуйник (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hlukhiv
Hey @CurryTime7-24 why did you revert the correct spelling of Hlukhiv? There’s no reason to use the Russian exonym for a city in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 00:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Usage at the time was likely based either on the Polish or Russian names for the city, if historical names for cities presently within the boundaries of modern Ukraine are any indication. Save for the section on Berezovsky's legacy, this article discusses events that occurred while Glukhov was a city in Russia, not modern Ukraine. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s imposing a colonial POV, and violating our guidelines.
 * Ukraine was a country in the Russian empire. Hlukhiv was in the Cossack Hetmanate, the Little Russian gubernia, then the Chernihiv gubernia, all recognized as parts of Ukraine including while it was colonized by the Russian empire. But this is not how we choose names. “Usage at the time” (“was likely”!?) is not really relevant.
 * WP:USEENGLISH
 * MOS:GEO: “A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article (see Naming conventions (geographic names)). An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context.”
 * WP:MODERNPLACENAME: “older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same.”
 * I went through the cited sources, and found English-language ones that give his birthplace or refer to the Hlukhiv Singing School:
 * Hlukhiv:
 * Encyclopedia of Ukraine (updated 2011)
 * Grove Music Online (2001, Oxford): “(b Hlukhiv, 16/Oct 27 . . .”
 * Glukhov:
 * Historical Dictionary of Russian Music (2012, Scarecrow Press), p 145, uses Glukhov but glosses it as “Glukhov (Hlukhiv)” in the main entry
 * CD notes (2003, The Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Moscow)
 * The MODERNPLACENAME requirement for an exception is not met according to this small survey of directly relevant sources. —Michael Z. 18:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Friend, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Historical place names are typically used within articles when chronologically appropriate. Otherwise, Béla Bartók would be born Sânnicolau Mare, not Nagyszentmiklós; or Immanuel Kant in Kaliningrad, not Königsberg. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. For example, we don’t refer to Kyiv as “Kiow” or “Kiovia” in articles about the centuries before it was called either Kyiv or Kiev in English.
 * And Hlukhiv’s name never changed. You are trying to impose a colonial Russian exonym on a place in Ukraine, when the majority of reliable sources do not do so. Berezovsky was from the city that was called both Глухів and Глухов in the respective languages when he was born, and is has been called both Hlukhiv and Glukhov in English recently. Guidelines say to use the modern English name unless the substantial majority of sources do otherwise.
 * (If you’re arguing that we should call it what it was called in English in 1745, know that no guideline says this and by the way, it was Gluchow.) —Michael Z. 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with Gluchow, no problems there. It also confirms my belief that usage at the time was probably derived either from the Polish or Russian names. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, not related to the guidelines and MOS. —Michael Z. 20:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which are ambiguous. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It also confuses matters when you say that this locale's name "never changed", but then later write that it did have a different name in English after all. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What seems ambiguous in the guidelines?
 * The name has different spellings in English. The city hasn’t been renamed in its recorded history. —Michael Z. 23:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So the English spelling matters, but also doesn't matter. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you like.
 * What seems ambiguous in the guidelines? —Michael Z. 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "if I like"? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean call it whatever the heck you like. It doesn’t matter if you aren’t interested in discussing this constructively.
 * I’ve taken the trouble to quote the relevant guidelines, gone through all of the sources cited, and put together an argument. You don’t care. You continue to not WP:LIKE what I’ve given, have settled on your argument without reference to any guidelines, and insist there’s something wrong with the guidelines but refuse to say what. We are clearly at an impasse.
 * I will proceed with WP:DR. —Michael Z. 02:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously by looking at your personal page and edit history, you have an ideological/nationalist agenda. I don't (at least I think I don't). My only interest here is in recording history accurately, not re-writing it in order to flatter my pet conceits.
 * Lord knows I try to be as objective as I can, but maybe I'm not. However, you make it very difficult to reach an agreement about anything. You and I have had other discussions in the past. For whatever reason you are a very querulous person, even when we happen to be in near or total agreement about something. (For example, you were also snapping at the other editor who agreed with you on the talk page at Koryo-saram.) Which is why I did not want to deal with another tiresome back-and-forth with you.
 * Maybe you don't mean to be this way. Who knows? Whatever the case, this issue seems to be of vital personal importance to you. It truly is not to me. So I'll go ahead and let you have your preferred transliteration. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask for a WP:3O. I think it would be good to settle this according to some consensus and relation to the guidelines and sources.
 * I have tried to comment on your argument and not label you personally, but my frustration showed. I reject your characterization of my “agenda.” —Michael Z. 16:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's OK. I was unfair to you and spoke out of frustration. So I apologize. I no longer dispute Hlukhiv, so a third opinion isn't necessary for my sake. However, it might be useful in case this issue comes up again with other editors. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will leave the 3o request up, and we’ll have a better indication of a consensus. —Michael Z. 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: This discussion was listed at Third opinion and I am commenting in response to that request. I have never edited this article before and am commenting as a third-party, though the last few comments do give the impression that the need for a third-party is almost pro forma at this point as the dispute seems more or less resolved. However looking through the discussion I do concer with Michael Z's assessment of the relevant MoS and naming conventions here. Unless the Russian name is the common name for the city that is used in English, it is generally best to use the name that is used in modern English, barring the exceptions alluded to, which do not seem to be met in this case (though I'm going off the talk page and a look through the article for that assessment). However the only thing I would note when looking through the article is that Glukhov is mentioned in Maxim Berezovsky but more importantly also in an image of a map; I think with the map some contextualization either in the prose or the caption might help explain the connection between Hlukhiv in the prose and Glukhov in the accompanying map, because without the understanding that those are the same place, the map being there seems almost unrelated. - Aoidh (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)