Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tchaikovsky and Ukraine

This entire sub-section was removed here with the edit summary: "Doubtful notability. Half of the section is entirely unreferenced, widely unapropriate secondary source which is a ukrainian nationalist website. Please find an actual scholary source if you intend to reinstall these." Do other editors agree with this appraisal? Could other editors provide any better sources? Some of the material seems to be simple statements of fact which should be able to be easily sourced elsewhere. Without any of this material, there is no other substantive mention of Ukraine in the entire article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Some history: On 2 January 2017 by User:Slavuta33, then on 4 January 2017 by User:Antandrus. Many books comment on Tchaikovsky's musical connection to Ukraine, or Little Russia (see also Symphony No. 2 (Tchaikovsky), The Storm (Tchaikovsky), Petro Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine). I think it would be reasonable to restore that section, plus the one removed by Antandrus in 2017, and request additional citations. BTW, none of this was present in the article when it was promoted to FA on 30 March 2009. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for that clarification. I tend to agree with you about restoring it. I see that the IP editor concerned has been editing only since 11 April 2019 and geolocates to Russia. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with restoring it (thank you Michael for reminding me of the history -- I remember now -- needs to be better cited). I'm always leery of things that look like nationalist pushes, e.g. Tchaikovsky was really Ukrainian, as was Stravinsky, only no he was Polish, no American -- but the Ukraine connection with Tchaikovsky is genuine. Antandrus (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it true he even wrote a wholly unbelievable comic opera?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

in 1862, Ukraine did not exist. The Soviet Union created the Ukrainian Republic. LOOK MAP https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/18500429/

UKRAINE this fool FAKE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine did in fact not exist as a political entity at the time. Rather, it was a subdivision of the Russian Empire. Mentioning a region despite it not having independence at the time that it was mentioned is allowable and helps narrow down the region. If I wanted to say "Tchaikovsky visited the region between Moldavia and the Sea of Azov inhabited by the Ukrainians," it is much easier to say "Ukraine." Lavaminer99 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia must be true. Ukraine and Ukrainians did not exist at that time. This is an artificially created state. So remove the fake from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say. Are you saying that Ukraine is artificial and is apart of Russia?Lavaminer99 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine has never existed. This territory in the Russian Empire was called Little Russia. Then the Soviet Union artificially created Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you then suggesting that our articles on Ukraine, Ukrainian language, and others are also "fake"? Antandrus (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

IP it is difficult to take you seriously at all, when you remove an entire section from an article repeatedly, shout in caps on the talk page, and repeat the same thing over and over again. First of all, Ukraine was not first "created by the USSR", see Ukrainian People's Republic. Either way, the Ukrainian region has always been home to the Ukrainian ethnic group; please refer to Lavaminer's comment above "If I wanted to say "Tchaikovsky visited the region between Moldavia and the Sea of Azov inhabited by the Ukrainians," it is much easier to say "Ukraine."" – and this is indeed how secondary reliable sources refer to the event. You need to provide secondary reliable sources (that apply to Tchaikovsky's life specifically) which align with your perspective here, otherwise your comments will not go anywhere. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

SHOW me Ukraine on the map in the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th centuries. Ukraine and Ukrainians is an artful country created from Little Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky never visited Ukraine, this territory was Little Russia, part of the Russian Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

MAP https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/18500429/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

See Aza24's comment above, please: we need reliable secondary sources or we can't take you seriously.

I can just as easily produce any number of historical Ottoman Empire maps that demonstrate, as reliably as your argument does, that Turkey, Bulgaria, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Macedonia, etc. etc. are "fake". Antandrus (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First see what your source is. This is nonsense of a Ukrainian nationalist. Sheer nonsense that has nothing to do with the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC) I don't want to argue further. Let all English Wikipedia see your shame. And remember, Tchaikovsky did not visit the nonexistent state of Ukraine. Little Russia is part of the Russian Empire.

Just claiming it must be nonsense and nationalism to claim Ukraine existed does not make it that way. Would you also claim Poland did not exist before 1918, Ireland before 1921 or India before 1947? Ukraine does have a different history to Moskow or Novgorod and was treated differently both by the tsars and the communists. Of course they all existed, just different. But that is to be expected. Every nation changes over time even Russia Wilhelm3 (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine existed long before 1862. It appears on maps and in literature in the 17th and 18th centuries, for example the map of Ukraine by Cartographer Johann Baptist Homann circa 1720 (Title: Ukrania quae et Terra Cosaccorum cum vicinis Walachiae, Moldaviae, Minorisq., Tartariae Provinciis exhibita) 50.101.9.121 (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agreee and I suspect this Wikipedia Article has been vandalised in the past. It used to have much more information about Tchaikovsky and Ukraine. When trying to find sources online I even found an interesting Article about this Edit War Wilhelm3 (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

At present the first sentence of the lead is clogged up with six different guides to pronouncing the composer's name. This is not very welcoming to visitors to te page. May I suggest we move most of the variations into a footnote. A comment here seems to me very much to the point. Tim riley talk 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The English IPA seems unnecessary because there is no uncertaintay or doubt about the pronunciation of "Tchaikovsky". The transliteration of Russian adds nothing, and the Russian pronunciation ought to be placed in a footnote, as suggested. IMO the Cyrillic script of his full name is worthwhile having in the 1st sentence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

MB, I suggest we leave this thread open for a week and then if nobody has expressed dissenting views I'll do as discussed above (unless you prefer to do it.) Does that seem sensible? Tim riley talk 21:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me for you to do it; WP:NORUSH. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek and Tim riley, I concur that the inclusion of the Russian transliteration is pointless and have removed it. The English IPA may have a place however, as those not familiar with the composer would find a rather odd name to pronounce. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentence of the laed

The opening sentence here makes absolutely no sense with all these odd dates it's unlegible and needs to be fixed as per MOS:LEADCLUTTER.--Moxy 🍁 16:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The intro is a mess

Regrettably the intro has declined severely in quality since this article was featured.

It is overly long and discursive, while also no longer containing a proper summary of basic details such as the composer's major works and styles or innovations.

The second paragraph in particular is full of dubious, subjective statements, with not a single citation to be seen. For instance, "The principles that governed melody, harmony and other fundamentals of Russian music ran completely counter to those that governed Western European music". This is too vague and smacks of over-exaggeration. Russian music still followed a tonal system, so no, it wasn't "completely counter" to Western melody and harmony. I'm sure it was counter *in some respects*, but which? And it's followed by, "and [this] caused personal antipathies that dented Tchaikovsky's self-confidence". What does "personal antipathies" mean here? Isn't this claim highly subjective? It sounds like original research. What is the evidence? And why is it important enough to be in the lead?

I recommend that the intro is reworked by an expert and the article marked as such. I think a lot of it should be removed, the second paragraph especially, or at least marked as dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denziloe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the intro should highlight (with a source) something that affirms the immense popularity of his work today. 24.80.7.130 (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review

This article does not meet the FA criteria due to being incoherent in places, especially the lead. buidhe 10:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I don't think the article has fallen that short of the FA criteria. It seems like a lot of nonsense was added to the lead over the years since its promotion. Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, after rereading the lead, it seems fine to me. It actually rather elegantly describes the position Tchaikovsky was in and his life struggles. Are there some specific concerns you could point out? Aza24 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not goot at articulating prose issues, the phrasing of the article just seems difficult to understand and unnecessarily convoluted to me. I will put a pointer on FAR talk. buidhe 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Image needs a consensus

The lede image needs to be decided on so it stops randomly changing, this is after all, a featured article. The current image was put in place here with seemingly no request or explanation on the talk page. After scrolling through the history, 4 or 5 images have been put in and then taken out without much, if any discussion. This image was used for a while, but in my opinion the 1893 portrait by Nikolay Kuznetsov is by far the best choice. (And it seems to have been used on this article for a while as well) Tchaikovsky was active until his death and this painting being made in the last year of his life is representative of his 6th symphony, arguably his Magnum opus. Aza24 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky vs Petr Ilich Chaykovskiy

I reverted a move from Pyotr to Petr as it was done without discussion or stating a reason. As this article is an FA, I expect that the name was properly vetted by editors and that a move should be discussed first. Pikavoom (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't even worry about it. It was a sockpuppet troll. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Not worried in the slightest, however felt a note explaining this was necessary as I am 100% clueless here on the correct rendering the name and reverted solely on this being an FA. Cheers. Pikavoom (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no information box?

Beethoven, Bach and Handel have the information box. But then most of the other major composers do not. Like Brahms, Chopin, Mozart, Haydn, and Debussy. Since when are the great classical composers not worthy of an information box? Like why? Cj7557 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cj7557: Hi, infoboxes are a rather contentious subject on Wikipedia (in the articles of classical composers specifically), please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes. Keep in mind that Beethoven, Bach and Handel are not featured articles, where as Tchaikovsky and some you mention like Chopin and Debussy are. Aza24 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

But my question is when did simple convenience to the reader become obsolete? Is it not convenient to see the date of birth and death (and age of death) right there? Not to mention the college that they attend. Spouses and children. And a whole bunch of other things. Cj7557 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cj7557: I am largely impartial to the conflict so I can't give you the answer you seek. The link I put above summarizes the opposition's side well. If other page watchers would like to chime in, they should feel free to. Aza24 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on infoboxes is by individual article. They are neither required nor prohibited. This issue was severe enough to lead to an arbitration case some years ago. To me, they are redundant with information in the lead, which is better nuanced, but lots of people disagree. Antandrus (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24 Well thank you for your time anyway. Cj7557 (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Now the Information box is added. 69.157.67.206 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

3. Tchaikovsky's voice

Tchaikovsky did not want his voice to be recorded. Those who pretend to respect his music should also respect his will. Wikipedia does not do this in this case. Wikipedia's will is to donate money to Wikipedia. I ignore this request just as Wikipedia ignores the will of Tchaikovsky. --2003:D3:DF2C:4C0E:2809:2D29:9C76:642E (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You feel better now? In any case, it looks like Tchaikovsky was rather excited about it all. Aza24 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 13:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky → Pyotr Tchaikovsky – The rest of the world knows his name as Pyotr Tchaikovsky, and this is enough. No need for the middle name "Ilyich" here. It's not necessary to do so. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose – The rest of the world knows his name as Pyotr Tchaikovsky – what's your evidence here for such a statement? I've never heard someone say "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" – I've only only "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" or just "Tchaikovsky". While not a flawless experiment, a simple google search of "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" vs "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" reveals 1.4 mil and 300k results respectively... seeing no reason to move. Aza24 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No opinion - but Google Ngrams shows "Peter Tchaikovsky" as consistently more popular than "Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky", and "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" as slightly more popular than "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" until 2007. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Aza24. Srnec (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose; agree with Aza24. "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" (or Peter) is the most common, at least as long as I've been a musician. Antandrus (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aza24, Srnec and Antandrus. Tchaikovsky's entry appears in 143 Wikipedias and all, except four, use the patronymic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aza24 and WP:UCN. Please WP:SNOW this, as that's where this is headed. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aza24 et al. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aza24 and WP:UCN. second the WP:SNOW request In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's easier to pronounce without the atavism, see Occam's razor. All the classical composers are mentioned with patronymic by Russians which doesn't mean much for the English-speaking world: Modest Petrovich, Nikolai Andreevich, Shostakovich and so on. Thus, it's just a leftover of Tchaikovsky's American popularity in the XIX century which led to a kind of cultural appropriation of his patronymic and not a dogma forever. BTW, it kind of implies all the other Russian composers are not as "respected" in the West (because the patronymic use meant "respect") just by not being as popular which is true but the approach is unreasonable because the whole patronymics-as-respect concept for Tchaikovsky is very archaic: "We, the public, love you so much that we accept all the additional issues because of your patronymic". It's ridiculous because he's a composer, not a Russian language teacher. There's another Tchaikovsky on Operabase but P. Tchaikovsky is good enough for them, Pyotr Tchaikovsky can be good enough for Wikipedia. Tintin-tintine (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if " it's just a leftover of Tchaikovsky's American popularity in the XIX century", it matters what the most common name is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Melodia:, the influence of Wikipedia is exceptionally remarkable in the stats of his brother Modest Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Sooner or later all of his family members will be "Ilyich" in here. This is a pseudo-conservatoire approach as it is. Tintin-tintine (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact the 'influence of Wikipedia' is EXACTLY why it it shouldn't change. Wikipedia's job is to describe what exists, not try to change what exists. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Dębno coat of arms

Before 2007, 'Pyotr Tchaikovsky' was more popular use that 'Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky'. These 13 years only prove the effect of Wikipedia. His first name won't change, the bold first three words "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" won't change. It's just about the URL (of his and his brother's name) and title. Moreover, his connection additional connection to Russia through his aggressive anti-user-friendly patronymic in the title is derogative for his international legacy. Like a woman in 1 Kings 3:26 the infamous "Mother Russia" keepers has to give up Tchaikovsky's patronymic here. BTW, according to Russian Wikipedia, his ancestors had been using the Polish COA of Lithuanian origin. The haters of Russia will make up whatever is possible — from racism to a lack of feminism — to deny his international genius. His brand is safer in Anglosphere with a more "Polish-Lithuanian" tag. Truth hurts. Tintin-tintine (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose The proposal is not backed by sources comparing how often the different renditions of the name are used. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suicide attempt

To add to this article: a mention of Tchaikovsky's wading into the freezing cold Moscow River in 1877, an unsuccessful suicide attempt, prompted by the failure of his marriage. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

How on earth can you have an ENTIRE page on Tchaikovsky and NOT MENTION the Nutcracker ballet??!!

Seriously folks - his MOST BELOVED music. Most people have never heard of the 1812 Overture. Please, someone, don't be so pretentious and snobbish that you completely ignore this huge gift to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.152.163 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. The version of this article from 2009 as promoted to Featured Article mentions it, and other well-known compositions, in the 1st sentence. (Apparently, it's easier to mess with an FA's vital content than to rationalize its citation mechanism.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

Born in Russia. He was very inspirational. 71.58.186.107 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting the implementation of an Infobox

I request that an infobox should be added to accurately summarize the basics of his points. The previous consensus was years ago and there's clearly greater support for the inclusion of IBs in this article. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I personally think an infobox is very useful for summarizing simple, basic but yet important facts of the person, those which somebody may enter the article with the sole reason of reading them; birth, death, cause of death, parents, children (if has), spouse[s] (if has), notable works (or at least the most known ones), influences, signature, etc.

Many times I enter an article only for reading some of those facts, easy thing in Spanish wiki as there the infobox is available in composer's articles, but here it's a somewhat harder task. The Typos Checker (fixed typos) 01:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason for not including a infobox. A lot of information is known about Tchaikovsky so it would be valuable to summarize it all in one place. Roostery123 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly there is interest in making an infobox here, but this needs to go through an RfC process before continuing one way or another. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)