Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Unbridled to homosexuality"????

This is not English. I presume it means "left vulnerable to homosexuality" but I'm not going to change it myself for two reasons. One is I see there have been edit wars over this topic. But more importantly, the sentence and indeed the paragraph don't reflect any of the current psychological or medical understanding of human sexuality. People don't 'become' gay more easily if they are left 'unprotected' by their mother's love, like you get hypothermia by being left out in the cold. I trust JackOfOz on these issues, so Jack, what is that doing here? 76.103.12.193 (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NB, the sentence actually reads "unbridled to same-sex practices." Bridge practice? Poker practice? Jeez. 76.103.12.193 (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have no better an explanation for what this is doing here than anyone else does, since it wasn't of my doing. I ***suppose*** what the editor was trying to get at was that, in his grief at the loss of his mother, Tchaikovsky was emotionally vulnerable, and allowed himself to become exposed to same-sex practices as a sort of emotional comfort. I guess. But there’s no evidence that his mother’s death had anything to do with his sexual preference, and I think we should remove all links between the 2 things. The word "unbridled" is somewhat loaded in a sexual context; it's usually used in the expression "unbridled lust", which is another good reason to get rid of it. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, your supposition is entirely correct. This doesn't excuse a poorly-written sentence, but I'm glad you saw the intent through it. The footnote attached to that sentence is from Poznansky's Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man. Poznansky, Holden and Warrack all make the claim of the loss of Tchaikovsky's mother, as well as his close emotional connection to her, as being formulative in his sexual development. The sentence could (and should) be rewritten to make things more clear. I have been leery of going through a probably-much-needed copy edit of this article myself, though, not just because of the amount of time I have already put into it but also the amount of controversy that has arisen over the course of it. If any Wiki article is a "sacred cow," this is apparently one. Jonyungk (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the way you put it is pretty good. How about something like this: "several writers, including Poznansky, Holden, and Warrack, have claimed that the loss of his mother was formative on Tchaikovsky's sexual development, in particular because of the close emotional connection he had to her." I'm not familiar with the exact way they put it in the sources, but that can probably be refined. As a side note, over the years editing at Wikipedia I've noticed that when you spend a lot of time labouring over an article, sometimes the right words come to you when you write 'off the cuff' on the talk page.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I've made the change. Jonyungk (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The FACT is that the evidences about Tchaikovski EXIST !!! Lischké and other biographer SAW IT : Modest's very EXPLICIT biography -still not published, Lischké was not allowed to reproduce the text literaly, and the BROAD CENSURED CORRESPONDANCE, that Lischké SAW TOO. So, the biographers who say the contrary are SIMPLY WRONG and we're allowed to write it and, I must add, these people are the most DISHONEST PEOPLE existing, they are not real scholars ; they assert the proofs are non-existent, it is simply a BIG LYE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.13.126 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So, we know EXPLICIT DOCUMENTS exist : this is a FACT and denying their existence is therefore a COMPLETE NONSENSE : if so-called scholars said : there is no proof of the sun's existence, we could say that it is a point of view too. THE PROOFS ARE KNOWN, it is enough to name them and not to let people believe that they don't exist, because it would be a very bad travesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.13.126 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody in their right mind is denying that Tchaikovsky was homosexual. That's a given because the evidence is overwhelming. What I question, though, is that the loss of his mother sort of made him "more homosexual" than he would otherwise have been. I know her death had a huge emotional impact on him, but the evidence suggests to me that homosexuals are born, not made (I know some people disagree with this), and in my view he would have been homosexual even if she had lived to a ripe old age. Poznansky et al are entitled to their opinions, but they're historians, not sexual identity experts, and they have no more expertise in determining what factors contributed to Tchaikovsky's sexual orientation than anyone else does. In my view, it's not the job of an encyclopedia to even attempt to answer the question of what "made" any of our subjects gay, since it's such a controversial topic even today. JackofOz (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote that we have to point out the fact that so-called scholars like Beckmann assert falsely that "there is no proof" ; this is simply intrue and THEY have in their mind to assert that, "you know, actually, there is no proof, so he was not, so he was straight", blablabla. I am fed up with that. This is untrue and their travesty must be CLEARLY denonced. Their theory is that "there is no proof" Well, it is enough to name them, this is not a point of view, this is falsehoods, so it must appear clerly in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.13.126 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have the book of Lischké in my hands. This is one of the best Tchaikovsky scholars. If he said that he SAW the extensive and broad proofs that Tchaikovski is gay, it is true, point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.13.126 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Incendiary edits are not helpful.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be helpful would be to present the reality and not give UNDUE importance to factual falsehood. The use of the word "possibility" for T homosexuality is particularly sad. "O you know, this is only an interesting theory, just a possibility among other. No, it is a documented fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.13.126 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tartuffe is still among us. So, actually, you're wright, I made a mistake : there is no proof of T homosexuality, this is an alleged one and, I must add, it is actually a horrible CALOMNY, I didn't realize : I just discovered that Modest's autobiography was nothing but a FORGERY, yes : it deals with homosexuality, so it must be so. Congratulations to the enlightened DR Beckman who uncovered the plot before all of us and established for sure that if T was an alcoholic -nobody is perfect-, he was heterosexual, because an orthodox can't be homosexual : he is not allowed by his religious faith to be. So actually, T was heterosexual. He was married, don't forget it, after all.

You're arguing on the wrong topic. This thread is not a debate about whether he was or wasn't gay. This thread is about certain wording that seemed inappropriate. If you want to argue that he was heterosexual, please start a different thread. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Time for rerating?

Does anyone else think it may be good for this article to be considered for higher than a B rating? Jonyungk (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• It does not even deserve a B-rating. It would at least need to have specific sections on the composer's symphonies and operas, and some consideration of his chamber music, as opposed to the generalisms it presently contains.--Smerus (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rating hasn't really started for the Composers Project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Assessment. If you want to begin it might be an idea to discuss it on the project talk page. There are only 38 nominal B-class articles so that might be a good place to start. --Kleinzach 07:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions but one word: SPACE. It is limited. There is alsready a linked article to Tchaikovsky's music which could cover these areas.Jonyungk (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I disagree with Jonyungk. There is a link to a list of T's compositions but that could hardly do. The present part of the article on T's music (rather pretentiously headed 'Aesthetics') is an opinionated and largely unsourced (or, what comes to the same, almost entirely sourced from Maes :-))ramble which really ought to be struck out as WP:OR and replaced with summaries describing T's actual works by category, as exists for almost every other major composer.--Smerus (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from doing exactly that. Why don't you go ahead? Jonyungk (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says I won't, in time? I wasted, ahem, spent much careful time last weekend tidying up the article as a whole. But I also have a life to lead :-} .....But thanks anyway for your confidence in me.--Smerus (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I was actually impressed with the job you had done. Wish you did not see it as a waste, but we all have our opinions and other differences. Hope to see you follow through as time permits. I really mean that as an encouragement. Jonyungk (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks - I will rise to the task at some point in time! --Smerus (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How many categories of Tchaikovsky's music should be covered? Symphonies, operas, ballets and chamber music are currently mentioned. Should piano music and songs be covered as well, or is there enough in the article as is? Jonyungk (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Composers project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project B-class article review. My detailed review is on the comments page. My opinion is that the article is still B-class, with some obvious room for improvement. If you have comments, feel free to leave them here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 16:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonyungk asked me to revisit this review. I find that most of my content-related objections (to do with compositional details in the biography as well as critical and popular reception) are adequately answered. The lead also reads pretty well, in my opinion.

The article is still likely insufficiently inline-cited for a GA/FA review; this can be hard to do for an article this rich. It also might merit a "References" or "Further reading" section; much ink has been spilled about the man, even if you don't use it as source material here. (I can imagine an FA reviewer complaining about this.) It will also require thorough copyediting, probably best done shortly before a GA or FA review is attempted. Some of the editors are clearly better at adding content than spelling it consistently correktly. :) (It may be worth asking someone very familiar with the FA process like Brianboulton to specifically go over the article at that time, to head off common FA-related writing objections.)

I note the previous (now partly archived) discussions about splitting the article; the Music section is probably large enough to split (Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky) and summarize, since it seems overlong relative to the other parts.

The article might merit an A rating from the Composer project at this point (since we are less picky about the inline citations). Comments? Magic♪piano 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

The following paragraph seems to me to fail WP:NPOV pretty clearly:

Since his death Tchaikovsky's music has gained great popularity. Nevertheless, its emotional directness, founded primarily on its composer's ability to fashion themes of remarkable eloquence and emotive power supported by matching harmony and rich orchestral resource, has often been interpreted as a sign of essential shallowness. Likewise, the way in which Tchaikovsky's realm of strong emotion has been freely plundered by composers of lower intent has proved a detriment to his reputation. However, popular adulation and critical prejudice aside, Tchaikovsky can be seen as a composer of wide range both in genre and type of expression who toiled unceasingly over creative problems and whose professional competence remained the highest.

Deriding "critical prejudice" fails WP:NPOV almost by definition. I could take a crack at reworking the paragraph, but I'm hopeful that someone more knowledgeable than I am will do it instead. My inclination would be to delete most of it, and I suspect that others may not agree with that judgment. SlubGlub (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be tempted to ditch the whole paragraph. The whole critical backlash against Tchaikovsky's music peaked in the mid-20th Century. His greatness as a composer is almost universally lauded. True, he wrote a few works that were less than masterpieces, like the 1812 Overture. But most of his work is masterful. Take, for example, his ballet scores. Compare Beethoven's score for The Creatures of Prometheus with any of Tchaikovsky's ballet scores. Beethoven couldn't write one note in this genre to compare to Tchaikovsky. Excuse my rant.THD3 (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not being very fair to Beethoven since ballets in his time weren't the same, not to mention the fact he was German (can you name a ballet before Giselle that even comes close? Especially by a non-French composer?). But that aside, there's no reason mention of the criticism of the mid-20th century just as you say can't be in the article -- but in general any sort of language like that needs to be backed by sources. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the material should be ditched. First of all, it is in the lead, and is a generalized description of detail expounded later in the article. Second, it has a citation attached. Does this paragraph (1) not accurately summarize content in the article, and/or (2) incorrectly reflect the source cited? Magic♪piano 13:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the lengthy Grove article before me right now. So far, I am unable to find anything in the source that aligns with the comments in this paragraph about critical prejudice, but I have found several bits that have clearly been plagiarized from the Grove dictionary. I'll go put some quotation marks around the plagiarism and add a citation. SlubGlub (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I found it at the end of the article. It looks like the paragraph is lifted more or less word-for-word from the Grove dictionary, as are other phrases and bits from the article.SlubGlub (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste from New Grove Dictionary

I've started this new section, but it stems from the POV discussion above.

It appears that all of the paragraphs (at least in the lead section, but I suspect later on as well) that cite New Grove Dictionary as the source actually copy from New Grove Dictionary almost (but not quite) word-for-word. These paragraphs need to either be drastically reworked, or else blockquoted with the text presented exactly word-for-word. I did the blockquoting thing for the last paragraph in the lead section, but doing that for the preceding two paragraphs as well would probably be silly. (In fact, doing it for that last paragraph was kind of silly anyway. But it was a relatively quick fix.)

SlubGlub (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course, another option is to remove some or all of the paragraphs entirely. Of course, that would also remove a substantial chunk of the article.

SlubGlub (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think that we shouldn't be quoting Grove wholesale (WP:COPYVIO, anyone?); things should be (as you say) paraphrased or rewritten using other sources. How bad does the article look if the offending paragraphs are simply removed (and/or can they be replaced by shorter paraphrases of those paragraphs)? Magic♪piano 17:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Before checking whether this topic had been mentioned in discussion, I rewrote the offending paragraphs; hopefully, that should take care of the problem. If not, I don';t mind continuing to work on them until they are relatively inoffensive, POV- and copyright-infringement-wise. Jonyungk (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Désirée Artôt

I've created an article on Désirée Artôt, a rather significant lady in Tchaikovsky's life, of whom we currently make no mention in his article. I'm somewhat undecided how much of it to include, so I'd be grateful for some opinions. There's quite a bit about the 1st Piano Concerto and Romeo and Juliet, and some mentions of Fatum and the 3rd Symphony as well, so maybe those articles should also have some mention of her. I suspect it's a little over-detailed, but rather that than not enough. And maybe some of what's in her article should be in the Tchaikovsky pages only, as it's more about his response to her than about her herself. Thoughts? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a precis of the relevant facts to Tchaikovsky's article. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Personality of Tchaik?

I've noticed a section on "Personality" in featured articles such as Igor Stravinsky and Dmitri Shostakovich. Should there also be one in the Tchaikovsky article, as well? Jonyungk (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Operas

Very little in this article now on the operas, and only a short paragraph in the article Operas of PIT. Yet these works contain some of his most famous music and some of his most original inspirations......--Smerus (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

More info would be nice in the article Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, in which more detail could be given. However, who is familiar with the operas and willing to put the time into writing it? I'm not; though I'm willing to do some research and see what I could do, it's not the same as someone who actually knows the music. Jonyungk (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see comments below under Navbox. Maybe someone could contribute an article? :) Jonyungk (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary while copyediting

Jonyungk asked me to copyedit and comment on the article. I'll put my comments in this section, the full reading will take a few days.

• Agree with Smerus, above.
• Nowhere is there a 1-2 paragraph summary of his works list (how many of what type of works). This should be in one or both of the Works section of the main article, and the first section of "List of compositions...".
• In Turmoil section, the "rest cure" is mentioned without being properly introduced. "The brief time with his wife drove him to an emotional crisis, because of which he went to Clarens for rest and recovery." Or something like that.
• I wikilinked Kamenka (in Later Career). This is a DAB page; the correct Kamenka should be linked.
• Melody subsection: "He also allowed modal practices to influence his original melodies repeatedly, though not very strongly." Awkward sentence, please rephrase.
• Tenses in "Compositional Style" are sometimes confused. The language may need to be clearer about what is a composing activity (past tense), and what is a musical description (present tense). (I'm not sure the changes I made are necessarily consistent or desirable -- please read carefully...)
• I moved the media box to a more appropriate location, and added a few things to it.
• I'm concerned that the section on compositional style cites only one source (Grove) -- this should be diversified. (I'm not laying down an accusation of copyright violation here; I'm pointing this out because I think it will also be raised in an FA review.)

I've tagged everything that I think still needs citations or clarification. Nice job. Magic♪piano 14:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Talent

It says here that "Tchaikovsky became a dominant figure in 19th century Russian music and known both in and outside Russia as its greatest musical talent." Well, "its greatest musical talent" is debatable. Perhaps in the 19th century he was regarded as such because no music by Mussorgsky was heard outside Russia until the premiere of Boris Godunov in 1908. Moreover, since the beginning of the 20th century there appeared some new Russian composers, such as Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich, who are also rivals to this title. Tchaikovsky is still the most popular Russian composer, but even this is not entirely correct. In the metropolitan opera, for example, Boris Godunov has been staged more frequently than any of Tchaikovsky's operas (BG is actually of the 30 most performed operas there). I suggest that this sentence shall be rephrased to point out that Tchaikovsky was indeed the one and only important Russian composer with international reputation during the 19th century, and although he has competition today, he is still the most frequently performed in concerts (but not in opera). AdamChapman (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "... as a great musical talent"? That would seem to make things less absolute. Jonyungk (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. AdamChapman (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Navbox

Per Magicpiano's suggestion I have added a navbox at the end of the article. Among the articles listed is one, not yet written, for Operas by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Jonyungk (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

During the next few days the article will undergo a substantial copyedit. The lead, where a significant amount of rewriting looks necessary, will be tackled last. To avoid edit conflicts I will use a temporary "in use" banner while I am actually working, and will leave a note here when I have finished. Brianboulton (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have finished copyedting for the moment. Here are some observations:-

• I have rewritten the lead to accord with the Wikipedia principle that a lead should be a concise summary of the article. The previous version was a generalised comment about Tchaikovsky's music which said nothing about his life. I'm not an expert on Tchaikovsky, so some changes may be required, but I strongly advise that this format and character of lead be retained.
• There is a four-year time gap between the end of the Childhood section and the start of the Adolescence section. This needs to be bridged by a couple of sentences.
• "Music was not considered a high priority at the School". This statement is at odds with what I found here]. Can you check back with your sources; do they use terms like "not considered a high priority"?
• Relationship with The Five : This section looks like it's been pasted in from somewhere (it is in fact the lead of the Tchaikovsky and the Five article) I've not copyedited it much, but seeing that there is a main article dealing with this topic, I believe the section ought to be considerably reduced. I reckon it could be cut by about two-thirds – I will do it if you like, but you may wish to do it yourself.
• "...his orchestral works had been given performances that allowed them to be sympathetically received." Very odd phrasing - is it a quote? I don't know what it means, but I've left it in the hope that someone will clarify.
• There needs to be a proper explanation of how Tchaikovsky and Mme von Meck became acquainted. I have said "possibly through Kotek", but this is inadequate.
• Music section: apart from a few bits in the preamble I have not attempted to copyedit this. The highly assertive style is alien to the rest of the article, and looks to have come more or less directly from the sources, particularly New Grove. I suggest a complete reconsideration of this section: much more use of the "according to X" formula so that these assertions don't come across as editorial opinion; more use of quote marks to identify obviously verbatim phrases; more use of paraphrase to get a consistent prose style within the article, and more generous use of in-line citation. Other parts of the article, as indicated by tags, are likewise in need of citation.

I hope you can consider my contribution as a step towards improving the article, but I think it falls to someone with a better knowlege of the composer than mine to take it to the next stage. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename

I suppose to rename the article. There is only one famous Pyotr Tchaikovsky, like Yuri Gagarin, Alexander Pushkin, etc. --85.141.122.98 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: I would normally agree with such a proposal. (I have myself renamed various articles on Russians by removing the patronymics that we don't normally use.) However, Tchaikovsky is, for some reason, more often referred to as "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" than as just "Pyotr Tchaikovsky". We sometimes see it as "Peter Tchaikovsky", but that's not generally supported. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You probably right. If he more known as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, so be it.) But it still open question for other editors. --85.141.122.98 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DisagreeTHD3 (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: Tchaikovsky is far more often referred to as "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" than as "Pyotr Tchaikovsky". Jonyungk (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - it is disrespectful to Russians to drop their patronymic - he might be long dead, but worthy of respect nonetheless. I see the suggestion has been struck. Let's move on. PS. well done to all editors of this FA. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Graham, I agree with your disagreement, but I disagree with your reason. We don't usually refer to Alexander Pushkin as "Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin", or to Mily Balakirev as "Mily Alekseyevich Balakirev", etc., and there's nothing disrespectful about using the patronymic-free form. It's only because the form "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" for Tchaikovsky has become set in stone that I'm opposing this proposal. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - per JackofOz. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image salvation attempt

Transfered from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

In relation to my oppose. I am listing them here so as to obtain help on ascertaining their status.

• File:Piano Concerto No. 1 (Tchaikovsky).png: I am ignorant in music, so was this reproduced by ear, or transcribed from one of Tchaikovsky's scores? When was the first non-Tchaikovsky performance—a concert conducted or produced by Tchaikovsky is not considered the first "publication"—of this score (hence establishing its "publication")?

Re-added: turns out this was performed in the United States before Russia, performed by Bulow and conducted by Johnson Lang! Jappalang (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Tchaik3.jpg: this was taken in 1892,[1] which means that a 30-year-old photographer at that time could still be a doddering (but alive) 80-year-old in 1942. Where is the proof that he or she had died 100 years before? Since this is a private photo, the best bet is to prove that it was published before 1923, or in a foreign (to US) publication during 1927–77 that had not complete copyright formalities with the US.
• File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg: same as above. Private photo taken on 24 July 1877.[2] Who said the photographer has died 70 years ago?

This may be stretching things a bit, but going by your thread of logic above, if the photographer were 30 years old in 1878, he would have been a possibly doddering but alive 80-year-old in 1928. Provided he lived through the immediate Russian Civil War era and the early Stalinist purges, he would have been 90 in 1938. That still leaves 70 years for him to have been dead to reach 2008. Jonyungk (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, wouldn't the same rationale apply to the photographers of File:Tchaik3.jpg and File:Tchai Cambridge.jpg? Even if they were octogenarians in 1943, that still leaves almost 70 years for them to be dead. Just a thought. Jonyungk (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The key is for their passing to be reasonably 70 years ago. Photography (as a profession) can be taken up around 20–30 years old and the longest lived in those periods are octogenarians. The problem comes with "first publication". The photos were published within the "life + 70 years" period, i.e. when they were still possibly protected. Publication extends the copyright protection, especially under US laws (which Wikipedia and Commons, having their servers located there, have to abide). The best bet, as stated above, is to prove their publication before 1923 or in a publication that did not follow copyright formality. Jappalang (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Tchai Cambridge.jpg: Taken in 1893, in which pre-1923 publication was this printed? A site points out that this picture is found in Warrack's Tchaikovsky (1973);[3] since this book is referenced in this article, does it state the photographer? Very likely, this is a UK copyright (what with Cambridge and such),[4] and UK-PD is mainly focused on the 70-year since author death. Furthermore, since this is an illustrated biography (some of which are in colour), could it not be used to help fill out the information for other photos?

The pre-1923 publication would have been any newspsper or other publication that might have covred the event, either at the time or later, and possibly printed the photo to accompany the story. At least that was my assumption at the time the image was found. Jonyungk (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

They might not have printed such a photo as well. For all we know, this could be a private photo taken by a student during the ceremony that only got published several decades after the event. As much as I have searched through Google, none of the pre-1973 books have printed this picture, even though they have mentioned Tchaikovsky's degree at Cambridge (and there may be good reason why). As said, Warrack's book (referenced for this article) should be consulted for any information (if it has any) on the images that are in this article. Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Warrack's book, the source was the Novosti Press Agency (USSR). No idea what its successor organisation would be. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Russia-Moscow-Cathedral of Christ the Saviour-8.jpg: to avoid any problem of Vitt Guziy suddenly coming down on any innocent publisher, "the friend" should grant an OTRS. We have File:Katedra Chrystusa Zbawiciela w Moskwie 2.jpg and File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg that do not have such problem. The best, however, is to use File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour 1903.jpg—taken before its demolition; hence, the most authentic.

This image has been replaced per your suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Nadezhda von Meck.jpeg: is this scanned from Evelyn[5] or Alexander[6] Waugh's book? When was this taken? Photographersdirect.com claims the colourised version is "based in the UK".[7] Does this mean the original is taken by a UK citizen and should be treated per British laws—70 years pma; hence, the photographer's death date again comes into play.

The source listed is La musique comme vous ne l'avez jamais écoutée - Editions Gründ - p67 Jonyungk (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the links provided. Both Alexander's and Evelyn's books are titled that; which book is it, or are they the same? Jappalang (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Editions Gründ is apparently Evelyn, going by your links. The photo has been removed, in any case. Jonyungk (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with File:Von Meck.jpg: I suspect the picture could have been published in a European book (probably German or French), but am unable to prove it so. Nonetheless, there is this drawing of a portrait that is (as far as I can find) published in an unrenewed book. If a photo of this portrait can be obtained and used, that would be better. Jappalang (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Tchaikovsky-Pathetique-Symphony-4mov.JPG: missing all the basic information (source, author, date)

Tagged with {{nsd}}, and User:Hapless Hero notified. The danger comes if this was scanned from a recent publication. Even though the score might be public domain, the layout might not be. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Jappalang (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Sleeping beauty cast.jpg: source (where this jpg came from), please! Is this picture truly of the original cast in that production?

Tagged with {{nsd}}, and User:Queenofthewilis notified. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Readded: it is a publicity shot (from the pose), so it would have been published just after it was taken. What was needed was the source of the photo, and to confirm it is the original cast. The details (and publishing) in the Warrack should be enough. Jappalang (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:Vzevolozhskys costume sketch for Nutcracker.jpg: Wikipedia is not a source. Where was this image obtained from?

Wikimedia Commons. Jonyungk (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By source, we mean where did the uploader obtain the image from. Any form of Wikipedia (in all its language versions and mirrors) and Commons is not applicable as a source. Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagged with {{nsd}}, and User:Queenofthewilis notified. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• File:SB film03.JPG: what is the point of this screenshot in an article about a music composer? Where is the critical commentary for this in this article? Where is the FUR?

It is a screenshot of a ballet which Tchaikovsky wrote and his impact on ballet is mentioned in the section where the screenshot appears. Jonyungk (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is decorative in the form of "this is a scene from the The Sleeping Beauty", and is not a good rationale for fair-use. Non-free images claimed for fair-use are to help readers further understand a significant idea written in the article, i.e. text cannot fully express what is described and requires illustration, e.g. art styles, subjective opinions, concepts, etc. Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Let go: unless the article talks about how this scene illustrates Tchaikovsky's score for the ballet and such (which I truly fail to see how at the moment), it is not fair use. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the images were taken either from related articles on Wikipedia or from Wikimedia Commons, so PD was assumed. I confess my ignorance about these details. Should I withdraw my nomination of this article? This question is not asked in a fit of pique, but I am honestly blindsided when it comes to these questions. Jonyungk (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the concerns over the images can be resolved through investigation. As pointed out, books are one way to go. When investigation is exhausted, images that lack information to verify their status should, at the least, be removed from the article. Jappalang (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All images questioned above have been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is drastic. Some images could have been "saved"; I am continuing this ("rescue" attempt—finding out if they are definite public domain image and such) on the talk page if anyone is interested. Do you not have the Warrack book? Jappalang (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate your continued efforts and would be open to re-adding whatever photos are definitely in public domain. I do not have Warrack available to me currently but know where I can find it and will search it out. Jonyungk (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I found in Warrrack:

File:Tchaik3.jpg (Tchaikovsky with Bob Davydov): Novosti Press Agency, from the Tchaikovsky House-Museum at Klin. It is also shown at this page on tchaikovsky-research.net.

File:Tchaikovsky with wife Antonina Miliukova.jpg: Collection of John Warrack. It is also shown at this page on tchaikovsky-research.net.

File:Nadezhda von Meck.jpeg: Novosti Press Agency, from the Tchaikovsky House-Museum at Klin. It is listed in RIA Nostrovi archives as [8]

File:Tchai Cambridge.jpg: Novosti Press Agency, archives. It is listed in its archives at [9]

File:Sleeping beauty cast.jpg: Novosti Press Agency. Warrack claims on p. 224 of Tchaikovsky that this is a picture of the principals from the first production of The Sleeping Beauty.

Novosti Press Agency is listed on Gooogle and Wikipedia as RIA Novosti at this link. There is no indication as to whether any of these photos are in public domain. Jonyungk (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is some good news, especially since I think the copyright of Warrack's book has not been renewed (the Copyright Office website, however, is fritzing on me, so I cannot confirm this yet). Can you provide the page numbers for each of the photo above? As for the cast photo, was it published in Warrack's book, or was it just mentioned that "there is a photo of the principal cast"? Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn, just noticed that his book was published in both New York and London (1973),[10] which means that if copyright notice was provided, the contents (photos included?) would be copyrighted 95 years from that first publishing.[11] Jappalang (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The copyright page reads, "Copyright under the Berne Convention." The US did not join the Berne Convention until 1988. Jonyungk (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the book is also published in New York within a month of the London publishing; I presume you are reading from the one published by London: Hamilton? Jappalang (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's, which makes it the Anerican edition. Jonyungk (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the indication that it had a copyright notice means that the work (and any contents that were published for the first time) are protected for 95 years (see "Works First Published in the U.S. — 1964 through 1977"). Jappalang (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(reset indentation) Ran into problems for the von Meck and Antonina image. I was originally hoping to get them qualified by first publishing outside US without copyright formalities. There might still have been progress above, but I found their publication in The Triumph of Tchaikovsky by John Gee and Elliot Selby. The book was published in 1959 London and 1960 New York, and has been renewed by Gee in 1987 (RE0000364074). Hence, first publication must be proved for these two photos elsewhere... Jappalang (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have discovered the photo of Tchaikovsky and Antonina in Beloved Friend by Catherine Drinker Bowen and Barbara von Meck. This book was published in the United States in 1937. The photo of Mme. von Meck from which the sketch currently in the article was taken is also in this book. Jonyungk (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I had my suspicions they were possibly in that book (so you have confirmed that at the least), and had held hopes that the copyright of Beloved Friend was not renewed, but unfortunately... prev. reg. 1937, A103175; renewed 1964, R334060. This means the photos first published in them would only be PD (US) from 1937 + 95 = 2032. Disappointing... (I still suspect Von Meck's photo could be in an earlier continental European book—German, France—but I have no means to prove that.) Jappalang (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to {{PD-RusEmpire}} - photos published in the Russian Empire and which weren't published within 30 days on the territory of Soviet Russia are not eligible for copyright. Hence, any photos pre-1917 which were first published in the Russian Empire are public domain -- even those which come from Novosti. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To qualify for this template, the photo has to be first proved to be:

1. taken by a Russian (pre-1917) and
2. published in Russian Empire (pre-1917).

Hence, that is why the ballet cast publicity photo qualifies for it, but not automatically for the others. For example, the photo of Tchaikovsky and his nephew was taken in Paris by Von Bosch, not in Russia.[12] In any event, the problem with these photos is that current evidence suggests their first publishing is copyrighted. To overcome this issue, they have to be proven to be published before 1923, or were in public domain before their first publishing. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Was he Ukranian?

After the FAC, some one user has added that Tchaikovsky is Ukranian, and then a Anonimous has deletes that in the introduction. Can somebody check this please? OboeCrack (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in some detail in the archives for this talk page, under the heading "Russian vs. Ukranian". The consensus at that time, I believe, was that Tchaikovsky was Russian. Jonyungk (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

Why is homosexuality even mentioned in this article? It has nothing to do with what made Tchaikovsky famous in the first place, his music. It seems that every single famous thinker has been labeled a homosexual. It is just a method used to gain credibility for homosexuals - that homosexuality does not hinder great accomplishments. But still, homosexuality should be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be right in some cases, but in Tchaikovsky's case, he IS famous for it -- he died most likely because of suicde because of it (which was covered up) and it plagued his life, affected his marriage, etc etc etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

While the suicide theory may never be solved conclusively, most biographers agree that homosexuality was a major factor in Tchaikovsky's personal life. The question then becomes how or to what degree it affected his life. The homosexuality section in the article addresses this point in a balanced fashion—somethng that should be obvious on reading through it instead of falling back on a knee-jerk reaction to the heading. Granted, Tchaikovsky's music is what made him famous, but since the article discusses his life as well as his music, mentioning his homosexuality to some degree is unavoidable and relevant. Jonyungk (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would add, BTW, that blanking out an entire section without discussion because one does not agree with the subject matter is unwarranted and reckless. I have replaced the section for reasons stated above, pending further discussion. Jonyungk (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Homophobes periodically coming along to try and remove any mention of Tchaikovsky being gay is a common occurrence on wikipedia. --feline1 (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

this research: http://www.tchaikovsky-research.net/en/features/life1.html says he was a widely respected composer until 1900s US homophobia affected reviews of his music. The fact that its rumored he died of suicide due to his grief of being gay is reason for clarification, and the linked research suggests that the climate in 19th century russia was wholly accepting of homosexual activity, or at the least not demonizing. It could be that outdated psychological analyzing merely assumed that due to his homosexual activities, he MUST have dealt with depression, where it seems that there might not be much reason to believe so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.127.85 (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vanadalism (Rule 34)

The last paragraph under "Death" ends with mention of "Rule 34", a meme. I assume this is vandalism. I would remove it, but I am unsure if the entire paragraph should be removed, or just the final sentence. Can someone look into this? Ennen (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Form of name

If his surname is to be spelled "Tchaikovsky" his first name should be given as "Peter." For consistency it should be either "Peter Tchaikovsky" (the Library of Congress standardization) or "Pyotr Chaikovskiy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.152.236 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I don't agree with the above is because "Tchaikovsky" and "Chaikovskiy" are pronounced in roughly the same way, whereas "Peter" and "Pyotr" have markedly different pronunciations, even a different number of syllables. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they have the same number of syllables if you pronounce "Pyotr" as a Russian would - the first syllable is "pyo" (like "yo" with a "p" tacked on front, as in Pyongyang), the second is "tər". It's virtually impossible to explain this properly in writing without using IPA symbols, which I refuse to use, but take my word for it. True, he is sometimes referred to as "Peter Tchaikovsky". But the more common form is the one with the patronymic - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. It's crazy to mix an anglicised given name with a non-anglicised patronymic, so Pyotr it is. As for the spelling of the surname, many variants are known. The one that's become standard is a sort of hybrid, conforming to no one language's normal romanisation rules. But that's the form by which he is by far best known in the English speaking world. This is English Wikipedia, so that's the form we use. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New Images

I've uploaded these images of Tchaikovsky and wandered if anyone wanted to include them in the article.

Etincelles ♬♬^(talk) 08:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol I have doubts whether the first photo is truly of Pyotr Tchaikovsky. The second one, looks great, though. I'll take a look at the article tomorrow with it in mind. Nice work.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, it says on the website that the first photo is "N. Tchaikovsky".

Etincelles ♬♬^(talk) 08:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any info about the second one? Like the date it was snapped?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The photo was taken between 1880 and 1886, thats all the info I could find.

Take a look here.

Etincelles ♬♬^(talk) 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I did it. Will you let me know what you think? I'm concerned about whether I put it in a suitable spot and whether the caption is okay.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It looks great, and the caption is fine.

I didn't want to do it myself, being as it's a FA class article.

Etincelles ♬♬^(talk) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That worked out nicely, additionally because I don't know how to upload photos.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we make a great team.

Etincelles ♬♬^(talk) 16:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is one potantial problem—that is whether the image is actually public domain. If it isn't, it can't be used in the article, especially since it is FA. The LoC heading on the image page states that even if photo is from the LoC, this does not mean it is in public domain. What needs to be determined is whether the photo was actually published prior to 1923 in the United States; if it was, then it is in public domain. If this is not the case and the photo is actually under copyright, it needs to be removed from the article. Sorry about that. Jonyungk (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Do you know where that info can be verified?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be able to find the image through Google Books. If not, you could always ask Jappalang how this could be done, as he checks images for FAC all the time. Jonyungk (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It says here "No known restrictions on reproduction." Etincelles ♬♬^(talk) 14:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"No known restrictions" means only that they do not know of any restrictions. This does not mean the image is in public domain. It could still be under copyright; they just don't know about its current status. Just to be certain, the image should still be checked. Jonyungk (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

section headings

Good work, Jonyungk, on repairing the section headings to a more simple/manageable form. You finished the job I couldn't handle at the time. Sorry my tone came out roughly, I meant only to serve the article. :-) Carry on. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The changes you made today were superb. With that said, I have two suggestions, the first being: Is "The Five" not preferable to "the Five"? And secondly, the size of some photos seem a bit large, for example Glazunov's, while some photos seem a wee bit small. Shall I make these changes to see what yall think?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Both your points are good. However, on the first, "the Five" is consistent with the articles Tchaikovsky and the Five and Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle, so the usage should be the same. On the second, all the photos are set to a default of 180px per FA guidelines, and on smaller computer monitors, larger photos can crowd out text very easily. Why the photos come out to different sizes when there is a default setting being used is beyond my comprehension, but if you want to play around a little bit, go ahead. Jonyungk (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, Jonyungk, about the lowercase article in "the Five", and I agree. I made the changes to Glazunov's portrait, and am curious how it comes across on your screen, as well as those of others. Cheers! --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Glazunov looks fine to me. Good work! Jonyungk (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I didn't know about FA guidelines, so I made sure all images were set at 180px. Hope this works for everyone!!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

rictornorton.co.uk/tchaikov.htm

Andrewlp1991 has reverted a recent edit which added http://rictornorton.co.uk/tchaikov.htm to the external links section. I am not objecting, though I am asking for a rationale.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like a rational. It seems to be an ok link at first glance, with the only real non-homophobic reason for removal being a concern about too many ELs. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the information on the site were unsubstantiated, that would be one thing, but if the link was removed because of a homophobic knee-jerk reaction (as has happened a couple of times with people editing out sections of this article in the past), then the action is little more than vandalism. Jonyungk (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

New images

I have added an image of Tchaikovsky with his nephew "Bob" Davydov and will also add an image of Tchaikovsky with his wife once that image is re-uploaded onto Wikipedia (it is on Commons now but I cannot use this image for licensing reasons). I am using both of these images as fair use, non-free historic images for exclusive use on Wikipedia, which is allowed under US copyright law (hence my inability to use the image on Commons, which has its images available internationally). Since there are no other fair-use images being used in the article, the images are irreplacable and the article discusses both Davydov and Tchaikovsky's wife in some detail, it is probably alright to use these as non-free historic images in the article. Jonyungk (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the outcome of your efforts thus far, Jonyungk. The image seems tastefully inserted, and image licensing is one of my many weak points, so I commend you.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks—I'm still much more competent with words than with images. The second picture is up and hopefully both pictures will stay up. I have been informed that for fair use, "sources would have to discuss the content in those pictures to lend them contextual signficance", and to show that the photos are not merely serving a decorative purpose. I know the picture of Tchaikovsky and his wife has been discussed in more than one biography of the composer; though I'm more shaky on it, I would be surprised if the image of Bob and Tchaikovsky has not been discussed, given also Tchaikovsky's letters to and about Bob and the fact they're for some reason wearing matching outfits. If anyone has more information to add from viable sources that would lend credence to the context of these images, I would greatly appreciate it. Again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a little more explanation of what I need, and it's explained so well that all I can do is quote it: "Basically, if sources comment on the photos, specifically stating such stuff as 'note the poses he and Bob hold; they are similar and suggest a relationship that ...' or 'the antagonism between the composer and his erstwhile wife is evident in this portrait. Note their expression, see the ...' and such. Without such commentary, the photos serve illustrative purposes (showing two persons) instead of lending contextual significance (thanks to the commentary) or helping to show what words cannot express." So if you know of a source that has such commtary, please list that commentary and the source here. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) I have looked through Brown, Holden, Poznansky and Warrack. None of these discuss the photos, though the photos themselves appear in all four biographies. Therefore, I cannot prove their contextual signifiance; they remain mainly illustrative, which is not sufficient grounds for fair use. The problem with proving public domain in these photos is that, although they were taken in 1877 and 1892 respectively, they were apparently not published unti the Warrack biography in 1969. They would therefore be protected under copyright until at least 2039. I am (reluctantly) removing the images but would not be adverse to replacing them if it turns out they are PD or if another biography does lend them enough contextual significance to warrant their inclusion under fair use. Sorry. Jonyungk (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I admire your adherence to policy. Thanks for your efforts. And, yes, I too hope someone will step forward with info regarding the photos' public domain status, or of their being published prior to 1969. :-( --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forster's "Maurice" - a question

I don't find any purpose to the sentence about Forster's novel referring to Tchaikovsky's homosexuality. Is it to add credibility to the theory? If so, a posthumous novel doesn't seem to be significant enough for inclusion. Maybe it would work better later in the section? Or is it to show that Tchaikovsky's sexual preference was known even at that time? If so, I think this intention should be spelled out more definitely.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it was added to give credence to the theory about Tchaikovsky's sexuality and to show that Tchaikovsky's preferences were known at the time. In any case, I agree that using a fictional work as a reference source is a bit shaky, especially for an encyclopedia. Poznansky and Taruskin would be much better sources, although Taruskin mainly comments on key points in Poznansky's book. The part of that section which mentions Maurice would be better reworked, but since I haven't read Poznansky in great detail, I'm not the person to do it. Perhaps someone better informed in this area could add the information? Jonyungk (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice work. What's the assessment rating above FA? Wouldn't it be EA, for excellent? Thank you again for accomodating my gripe.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was actually more a legitimate concern than a gripe, one that has bothered me off-and-on for a while but one I left to see who else would comment. After all, consensus rules. As for ratings, FA is as high as you can go. BTW, if anyone can improve on what I have added, please go ahead, as I am sure there are other, more knowledgeable editors who can add to or refine it. Jonyungk (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Poznansky's 6th Symphony breakdown

I actually didn't mind the passage which Jonyungk recently removed for fear of "overdetailing". It was nice to hear a description by a Tchaikovsky scholar about the 6th symphony, and in a way that really characterizes a part of the Tchaikovsky persona: "the anguish of unrequited love, a conflict between platonic passion and the desires of the flesh", "a perennial spiritual delemma reformulated by the Romantics ... the secret and proud struggle with one's own sensual appetites for the sake of the beautiful and the good."

That's tasty stuff. Would you mind reinserting it?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tasty, yes, but is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article on Tchaikovsky? I can see it more easily in an article on the Pathétique Symphony, but even then, it really crosses the line from fact into supposition. Let me give it some thought, but at this point I would say no to reinserting it. Besides, that section is really supposed to be talking about Tchaikovsky's relationship with Bob, not about the symphony. Jonyungk (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Yet, for some reason I feel that Poznansky's description of the Pathétique somehow redirects the music back to Tchaikovsky's sexual inclinations. Which I think is an important point about the symphony, that it is particularly personal. As you had it, I maintain, was perfect.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's one way of thinking about it. Let me ponder the matter some more. My inclination is still that the material would be better served in an article about the symphony. Jonyungk (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a version of the information to the article on the 6th symphony. I hope you will comment on that article's talk page, as to whether it was a good edit.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky's ancestry

Here we go again. When I saw the edits by unregisterd user 67.246.147.61, I pulled out my copy of Poznansky's Tchaikovsky Through Others' Eyes to check things out for myself. Otrher than there being no page citation in Reference 5 for this book, the book says on page 1 that Tchaikovsky's great grandfather was a Ukranian cossack named Fyodor Chaika, and that the spelling of the family name was later changed. The book says nothing about the nationality of Tchaikovsky's father, only that he was a mining engineer and manager of an ironworks. The edits by 67.246.147.61 are therefore correct—there has been a misuse of sources in this part of the article.

I will go through the section myself to check refs and information. Please refrain from misusing information for the sake of any personal agendas. FA status is not permanent for any article and can be revoked by Wikipedia at any time. Thank you. Jonyungk (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment and your proposed actions. And, by the way, I want a copy of that book.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

While I have no problem per se with Joachim.11's recent edits, I have a challenge with his rationale: "I fixed sexual inclinations to sexuality. I changed the part about that is old fashioned and homophobic. You are either born gay or you are not. You can't "cure" being gay or "make" someone gay." There is currently no proven medical or genetic research to being "born gay" versus being "made gay"; moreover, the material that was cut was appropriately cited. In other words, we have what appears to be another case of a personal agenda being played out. If there was a challenge to the material on personal grounds, the matter should have been discussed here before being acted upon. Jonyungk (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any signs of personal agenda in Joachim.11's edits, and for the most part think they were good, though I do see some sloppiness. Firstly, they were a touch heavier than was explained in the edit summaries. In particular, there are two things I think should be worked back into the article.

• In Joachim.11's first edit, it's the mention that their love was not consummated, that it had begun when Bob was 13 and lasted until the end of Tchaikovsky's life. And that Tchaikovsky dedicated his last work to Bob. As far as the description of Poznansky goes, I would reinsert "biographer".
• In the second edit, I'm not sure how important it is, but mention of the considerable homosexual population at the School of Jurisprudence could be made.

Other than these few concerns, I am pleased with the edits. Nice work, Joachim.11. And nice call for closer inspection, Jonyungk.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm going to have to agree with Jonyungk -- whether or not What Joachim says is true, the fact is that we are not SAYING that, we are SOURCING from others the info. It's OTHERS that say that, and that's what we have to use, as we're anencyclopedia. I was tempted to revert the edits, but wanted to see what others said about it. It certainly should never have been deleted wholesale like it was. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the edits with which I have a problem, but the way in which they were done. The material really should have been discussed before it was eliminated wholesale. Melodia's explanation is a good one—that we are not stating facts so much as we are sourcing or reporting information put out by others—and if two or three biographers agree on a piece of information, as I believe was the case with one of the passages edited out, then it might be a point generally agreed upon. As much as I was tempted to revert the edits myself, I'm agreeing with Melodia to get consensus before acting one way or the other. Jonyungk (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we should keep in mind that some people aren't as strong as others at explaining intentions, rather some are better at demonstrating. In such cases, I think it is up to us to reach for the finer "blade" with which to slice out the aspects that aren't improvements, while leaving in the aspects that are. For example, as a description of Poznansky, Joachim.11 preferred "the writer" over "Tchaikovsky scholar and biographer", which calls to my attention the varying descriptions for biographers throughout the article. "Tchaikovsky scholar", "biographer", "authority". Does anyone know whether these descriptors differ with good reason? Also I think the changes to the section titles were an improvement. Shan't we not go line by line, like this? I think surely a featured article in a free encyclopedia would warrant such a measured response.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the intention was explained very well, actually. Joachim.11 said he saw parts of the article as "old-fashioned and homophobic", then added a personal opinion about why gay people are gay. His editing was a knee-jerk reaction in the other extreme than to homophobia. What needs to remain important in this article above all else is balance, weighing both sides of an issue and letting the reader decide for himself or herself. Balance is extremely hard to achieve and just as diffficult at times to maintain. By making the edits that he did without consensus, Joachim.11 took away that option in a personal disagreement over content, not for primarily editorial reasons, as was the case of the section headings.

Let me repeat: no one is disagreeing with editing this article. The disagreement is over why it was edited. Just because it is a featured article should not make it a sacred cow; neither should the fact that it is about one of the more prominent gay composers of the last 150 years. In his actions, Joachim.11 treated this article as a sacred cow. That is wrong. If an editor should go through this article line by line, it might actually be improved in the long run, provided it is done for the right reasons and with an eye toward balance. As for why there is a variety of titles for different people, such as "Tchaikovsky scholar", "biographer", "authority", the people involved are scholars, biographers and authorities—they are more than simply writers—but it is better to vary the terms than to always say "authority" or "biographer" so as not to unduly fatigue the reader. If you think it is better to use one term for all writers mentioned in this article, that is fine. But that is a purely editorial decision; it does not change content. Jonyungk (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'm coming around now, though there are only two remaining issues for me regarding a wholesale revertion. One is the capitalization of "School" and the other is the matter of section titles. Beyond these trifles, I agree with a revertion. Thank you for taking the time to answer my qualms.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are both relatively minor points. I'm willing to leave them with Joachim.11's changes but am flexible either way. The question to me is what to do with the larger edits, especially since I agree with you that Joachim.11's work is actually well done. We have three choices: leave as is, revert wholesale, or reinclude at least some of the information but possibly rephrase so as not to seem biased. As much as I am tempted to revert, I'm leaning toward reincluding and rephrasing. It's more work but I think the article would be better in the long run for it. Jonyungk (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems almost as if you and I have swapped positions. I don't any longer see use in any of Joachim.11's edits except those relatively minor points mentioned above. What aspects are you considering reincluding?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Once again, excellent work. I think even vandals who would come here, would only succeed in effecting a better article.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess we did switch positions. Before my last post, I looked once more at Joachim.11's edits and did not want to throuw out the good with the bad. That left replacing content on the two major edits, which I rephrased to make authoritative yet as inoffensive as posssible. Glad you approve. :) Jonyungk (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail?

This may sound funny, coming as it does after the question over Joachim11's edits of a few weeks ago, but in retrospect, I'm concerned whether there is currently too much detail about Tchaikovsky's ancestry and his relationship with Bob Davydov. Before editing these sections or even eliminating the ancestry section entirely, I wanted to voice my concerns here and see whether anyone else feels the same way. Jonyungk (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the same way, it is too much detailed in Ancestry. Smetana is 80 Kb and this one is 83 Kb, for example. Is it relevant to the further development of the article? If yes keep, otherwise is not worth reading. OboeCrack (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish roots of Czajkowski

Hi. Have anybody found anything about his Polish roots? The very name sounds evidently as if it was of polish origin. He happened to live in the era of Poland's partitions, Poland was partly under russian occupation, so I bet his father must've been Polish himself, or his father's father probably was sent into deep Russia for, say, taking part in one of the polish uprisings, be it Kościuszko, November or January Uprising. I'd be thanfkul for any info about this. Greetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)