Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rape

Where is the discussion about D's rape of young women and his indirect confession through Crime and Punishment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.190.200 (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

While the article is a good and fair one (according to its own lights) I'd suggest it's suffering from a sort of peculiar myopia. That's to say that the fashionable view of FD as a primarily psychological and existential writer pretty well colors and determines its content from top to bottom.

This is certainly a very worthwhile and informed view, but it's far from the only one. I'd hazard a (somewhat informed) guess that FD himself would say that his primary subject was truth and goodness, or man's relationship to such, rather than psychology. If nothing else the startlingly anachronistic nature of the contemporary reading of the term 'psychology' when applied to a writer of his time suggests as much. Which is not to say that he didn't also concern himself with things that many would now call psychology, but rather that it's reductionist to slap that label on him and call it a day. One further imagines that the writer of Demons would be somewhat bemused about his wholesale appropriation by the existentialist, noting their particular affinity for nihilism (vis-a-vis Sartre).

For example 'FD and existentialism' apparently merits its own section but 'FD and orthodoxy' or 'FD and christianity' is mentioned only in passing. Given the fascinations of the author and his almost monomaniacal focus on these philosophical concerns through his major works that's a bit hard to swallow.

All that's to say that this article is very good, but also terribly narrow (and specifically chronocentric) in its orientation. It's much akin to analyzing Shakespeare from a specifically Fruedian perspective, while that's all apropos for devotees of that particular school of thought with its own (somewhat debatable) merits it's a bit much to have a purportedly encylopedic source such as wikipedia present that as if it's objectively true and a definitive view. It's more reasonable to take the author somewhat on his own terms rather than simply reading them as an early examplar of schools of thought that have become fashionable for us. In fact it vastly reduces the relevance and power of works to read them as chiefly historical curiosities in that manner.

I hope the irenic spirit I was aiming for there was properly conveyed... and maybe, just maybe, this article could eventually be reconstructed with a more balanced emphasis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.251.201 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Please sign up and join in. Dostoeyevsky + Orthodoxy + Russian autocracy is a topic that definitely needs elaborating. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. The article needs a substantial rewrite to broaden its scope. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Spelling

I've scanned the archive but apart from this very brief mention back in 2005, there appears never to have been any discussion about how best to spell his name. Given the variations we find in the real world, this is very surprising.

I'm unhappy with Dostoevsky, because it looks like it's pronounced dos-tow-evsky; whereas, it's actually much closer to dos-toy-evsky, and the spelling Dostoyevsky is more faithful to that. I'd like to move it to Dostoyevsky, but will await comments before doing so. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is erroneous to write the name without i or y in the middle, so I suggest Dostoyevsky.--Miacek (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be, however I have only seen the spelling Dostoevsky on every novel of his that I have read and it seems too impertinent to make the transition the the pronunciation favored spelling when it may have been his family's goal to make the distinction between their name and their town of origin.--Loonybin0 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it has anything to do with that. Regardless of how it came to be that way, his name in Russian was Достоевский. The issue for Wikipedia is this: How best to transliterate the Russian word Достоевский into Latin characters suitable for an English-speaking audience? The only real matter of debate is the letter E/е. It is sometimes transliterated "e" (Ленин becomes Lenin) and sometimes "ye" (Ельцын becomes Yeltsin). Some transliteration systems arbitrarily render it as "e" in all cases, which can lead to absurd outcomes such as Mendeleev (Dmitri Mendeleev), which looks for all the world as if it's pronounced as the 3-syllable Men-del-eve (because double "e" has a special meaning in English), whereas it's actually a 4-syllable word Men-del-ey-ev. I have a friend whose surname is spelled Matveev, and he pronounces it Mat-vey-ev, but most people call him "Mat-veev", to his eternal chagrin. He would like to change the spelling legally to Matveyev but his family is happy the way it is and so he defers to them. With Dostoyevsky, it's pronounced do-sto-yev-ski, and the "e", because it follows another vowel, should be spelled "ye" to ensure it's not perceived as a diphthong, which is why it's often seen that way. Anyone who's never heard of him and encounters this article may well think it's pronounced "dos-tove-ski", or the "dos-tow-evski" I referred to earlier. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree as far as the rule - i.e., it should have been ye. However, there is something to be said for standardization and every book I've seen as well ommitting the y. See, for example, Image:0374528373.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg and http://www.amazon.com/Punishment-Bantam-Classics-Fyodor-Dostoevsky/dp/0553211757. While past use may not determine future use, the most common search term will be Dostoevsky because the majority of books bare that spelling. --RossF18 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'best' example of the so-called transliteration often used is the Russian ё transliterated simply as e. E.g. 'Gorbachev', 'Grachev', whereas the last syllable is actually stressed in Russian and realized as o. --Miacek (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be more relevant here, per Wikipedia:RUS#Romanization table, Russian e is romanized as ye after vowels. Which is the case here. --Miacek (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That applies where there's doubt. There are special rules for people, which include:

• If the person is an author of works published in English, the spelling of the name used in such publications should be used. When multiple spellings are used and no single spelling clearly predominates, use the one closest to the WP:RUS romanization guidelines.
• If the person is the subject of English-language publications, the spelling predominantly used in such publications should be used. ... When no single spelling predominates, use the one closest to the WP:RUS romanization guidelines.
• Selecting the most frequently used variant based on a search engine test is not acceptable.
• When in doubt, use WP:RUS.

The first two point merge, since he never wrote in English, but his works were certainly published in English translations, where the Romanization of his name was as much left up to the translator as was the text itself. Loonybin0 and Ross F18 say they only ever encounter Dostoevsky. I've certainly seen that, but most times in my travels it's been Dostoyevsky. We can't use a google search to test this objectively (and it might be meaningless anyway). It seems to me there's sufficient doubt, which means we go to the Romanization table, which requires -ye. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

At present, it appears as Dostoyevsky in the title and first sentence of the article and Dostoevsky thereafter. I don't care either way, but it should be consistent. —Caesura^(t) 13:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll make the necessary changes. --Miacek (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should be changed back to Dostoevsky. After taking Russian in college, I believe it is incredibly more common. Also, it is the more agreed upon transliteration. Looking at the Romanization of Russian article every style goes from russian e, to e not ye except for only one system. As a site based partially on consensus, how can there be a better arguement for Dostoevsky over Dostoyevsky? The odds are that most academic literature will use Dostoevsky because they will transliterate with one of the at least seven other transliteration standards. Plus, it will proliferate poor pronunciation. The average reader will want to pronounce (toy) as one syllable due to its common occurrance as an english diphthong. 199.248.185.22 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How can the present form “proliferate poor pronunciation.” if it reflects more closely the Russian spelling of the name?Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How it looks is just my opinion. My arguement is based on the fact that there are far more transliterations as dostoevsky. Why shouldn't we use ALA-AC (american libraries) or British Standard (libraries). Dostoevsky is an author, not a geographic location. 199.248.185.22 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously mistaken. Books.google.com has merely 1,862 hits for Dostoevsky ([1]), but 38,239 for the spelling dostoyevsky [2]. The argument voiced by many that “that there are far more transliterations as dostoevsky” simply doesn't hold. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Click on some of the pictures that accompany your search of "Dostoyevsky". Some are actually Dostoevsky or Dostoievsky ... so I don't see how that method for determining relevance is good. Searching "dostoevsky" in google aslo turns up this very article labeled as "Dostoyevsky". Seeing as this is an english encyclopedia why not use the "library" standards?

I can't find any such occasions at first glance. True, search 'dostoyevsky -dostoevsky' and 'dostoevsky -dostoyevsky' both reduce the number of hits, so sometimes both variants may occur within one result, as you did point out. However, the 'dostoyevsky -dostoevsky' still had many times more results than the second one, with the ratio similar to that of my search linked above. So, I can't see how Dostoevsky could be more commonly used by library standards. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, even on wikipedia itself, he is referred to as "Dostoevsky". I just looked at 4 of his novels' articles and in each one it is "Dostoevsky". A wikipedia search favors Dostoevsky 3 to 1. Its that standard that makes the most sense in terms of the other standarization rules I mentioned. 199.248.185.22 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The version "Dostoevsky" even wins out in the article's own reference section, and in Google Scholar "Dostoevsky" returns results nearly 3 to 1 over "Dostoyevsky". 199.248.185.22 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but in the context for using the name in writing papers, furthering research, or gaining some common knowledge I believe seeing "Dostoevsky" followed by a phonetic pronunciation is the most helpful to people. Honestly, Dostoyevsky versus Dostoevsky does not help anyone correctly pronounce the name. If unknown to the person they would still need to see it as das-ta-yev-ski. 199.248.185.22 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tried google.scholar, indeed this one got ratio about 2.3 : 1 for 'Dostoevsky'. Which doesn't change the fact that google.books gave some 10 times more hits for the latter one, whichever way you search. It generally seems that titles by mr. D himself have much more often the version with 'ye' ([3] / [4]). In books about him, the variant without y is apparently more common. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an article about him so shouldn't it be "Dostoevsky"? Also, I'm not sure if google books is the best marker. Apparantly Penguin publishes with the "oye" version and they have a ton of editions. I'm not sure the best wway to find out what the most common modern method of the transliteration of his name would be. All of my books at home have it as "Dostoevsky". Either way I wanted to see what the other opinions on this matter were.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk • contribs)

"Dostoevsky" is a more modern transliteration. During my PhD studies on the author, it seemed to me that the "-ye-" spelling was more common in older editions of his works and criticism, while transliteration without the "y" has become predominant over the last couple of decades or so. While this may be a rather unscientific basis on which to change the spelling, it was certainly notable to me. Plus, as previously stated, "Dostoevsky" conforms more closely to the major academic forms of transliteration. Jfz77 (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I also love how most the discussion section uses the variant Dostoevski. It is as if for some reason the article has belabored to use the spelling that most contributors are unfamiliar with. 199.248.185.22 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Family Size

Of all the Dostoevsky's siblings, only his brother seemed to have any profound impact on his life. Yet it would be important to distinguish one fact: were there six children or seven? According to David Magarshack and Random House, there were only six in the Dostoevsky household. I am going to make this change in the article unless someone finds any evidence to the contrary.--Loonybin0 18:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loonybin0 (talk • contribs)

• this says seven; so does this. Are you sure of your source? --Rodhullandemu 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, no I'm not totally sure of it, though I think it was reasonable for me to trust the publisher and author (cited reference number four in the main article). I see that both of the items you mentioned are web summaries, which I tend to trust less, particularly if they come from quick and dirty text references like in the first link. I may be wrong though because it does seem very well supported, and I will be happy to change it back or you can feel free to.--Loonybin0 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loonybin0 (talk • contribs)

Joseph Frank, currently the most authoritative (and exhaustive) biographer of D, has eight children in the D household, with one twin daughter dying a few days after birth. p. 18 here Jfz77 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Theodor

Is Fyodor mistakenly referred to as Theodor, or was there a less known writer known as Theodor Dostoyevsky? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried googling [5] - Tеодор Достоевский would be cyrillics of this, presumably? - and the results I glanced at were stuff that had F. Dostoyevsky's titles mentioned. Where did you come across such a variant? Феодор (Feodor) is an older (Russian) version of Фёдор (Fyodor), and I think variant Теодор (Teodor) has never been used by Russians (?). --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A few rare Polish sources discussing the concept of samodzierżawie.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Фёдор is the Russian form of Theodor. There is no separate author called Theodor Dostoyevsky, this is just an anglicisation of the author's name. Jfz77 (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In Dostoyevsky's day, his name would have been written Ѳедоръ Михайловичъ Достоевскій. The first letter of his first name is the now obsolete letter fita – abolished, along with other orthographical changes, in 1918 – which etymologically represents (and visually resembles) the Greek theta but had long since merged in Russian pronunciation with Ф. Vilĉjo (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to move the page to Feodor Dostoyevsky

Because it is more accurate.--Dojarca (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Epilepsy

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that D had his first epileptic fit at the age of nine; in fact, most commentators place his first fit either in the 1840s, or during his imprisonment or subsequent exile in Siberia. Regardless, there is a great deal of confusion over when D was conclusively first diagnosed as an epileptic, and this should be stated in the article.

Furthermore, epilepsy played a huge role in D's life, influencing not only his work but his daily behaviour and mannerisms. I suggest creating a separate section on D's epilepsy and its influence. Jfz77 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

D's father

Dr. Mikhail D was NOT a violent alcoholic in the family household, as the article suggests and provides no reference for. He was certainly a strict disciplinarian and prone to mood swings, and the family was undoubtedly patriarchal, but there is no evidence of any alcoholism, or any violence exhibited toward his wife and children. Following his wife's death, there is good cause to believe that he became a "violent alcoholic" among his serfs when he retreated to the family's country estate, which may have been a factor in his alleged murder. I will change this if it's okay. Jfz77 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The names of work (order)

When looking at the names of the works of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky I've noticed that they are in different order:

For Tolstoy the first name is in English (as it is EN Wikipedia), and only then follows the name of the original in RU and then a transliteration into Latin alphabet

For Dostoyevsky it's the opposite: first comes transliteration & original RU and only then "English translation: xyz"

Shouldn't the bibliography of the Russian authors (or any non-EN authors) follow a consistent look & feel in the same EN Wikipedia?

Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It should. The relevan guidelines are at WP:LOW. The way it's done for the subject is the agreed upon way. Tolstoy's list of works should be corrected.Henry Merrivale (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The ogg-file in the first paragraph of the article contains wrong pronunciation. You may see that it differs from the IPA transcription (which is correct). The surname Достоевский sounds with last [ij], while the ogg-file ends with [i]. Pasteurizer (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes and Bibliography sections

I'd like to expand the Family Origins section and was wondering: would anyone object if I added Notes and Bibliography sections to the end of the article? (For quick examples of what I'm thinking, please see the Featured Articles William Shakespeare and Mary Shelley – examples explain it much better than I can.)

While it may seem like unnecessarily complication, the proposed addition would not require any changes to the existing References section. Nor would it require editors to cite differently, unless they wanted to.

For those that are unsure, I think a 3-part Notes / References / Bibliography structure would be more flexible than a lone References section. As we add more citations (the article is flagged, after all), it could help:

• streamline the article by optionally combining consecutive footnotes into a single, short, easily readable footnote
• avoid repetitive full citations when the same source is cited many times with different page ranges (especially applicable with citation templates)
• make the article easier to edit, since the clutter of full citations can optionally be moved to the Bibliography section at the end
• make notes meant for clarification (rather than citation) easier to read, since they're segregated into the Notes section and can even contain their own footnotes

Does that sound reasonable? Thanks! -- Pslide (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Works and influence" poorly written

The "Works and influence" section is poorly written. It has several run-on sentences that are patched together with semi-colons. It also features numerous obscure references. Finally, the style generally is pretentious and overblown. It would be a great service to the Wikipedia project if someone would edit it with an eye toward clarity and concision. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a freshman comparative literature essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.53.69 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree! Case in point: "...while others like Vladimir Nabokov maintain that from point of view of enduring art and individual genius, he is a rather mediocre writer who produced wastelands of literary platitudes." This is pretentious, at the very least. There is a difference between Nabovkov maintaining anything of the sort and having once made an assertion to the effect. And phrases like "wastelands of literary platitude" are best left within quotes, that the reader might read into the analogy what he or she will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.71.186 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive, argumentative and unproductive behavior

The continued disruptive behavior of editor RossF18.

---

RossF18 posted
As you can all see, USER:LoveMonkey deleted his portion of the e-mail because apparently, he thought the e-mail was private - nevermind that it regarded a very public discussion online. It was posted because I do not subscribe to the policy of back room dealings on wikipedia and if USER: LoveMonkey thinks that it's appropriate to engage in private side choosing, he is welcome to delete things. Although the e-mail is in the page's history, for those interested. --RossF18 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC) And
If my mistake was to post the e-mail in its entirety without summarizing it first, you've went several steps beyond that since with name calling and accusatory remarks.

---

LoveMonkey's response
As noted above. Broke email privacy policy by not asking permission. Broke assume good faith policy by ascribing to my behavior nefarious intent (USER: LoveMonkey thinks that it's appropriate to engage in private side choosing). Broke policy in remain civil by not showing common courtesy and pointing out that the email can still be read for those interested(from talk history). Broke talkpage policy on what content belongs on talkpage. RossF18 states that they should have posted a summarized section of something that by policy does even belong here and when told this over and over again that even they admit it, does not acknowledge this second policy vio and instead remains argumentative.

---

RossF18 posted

First, and I quote: "You should not post the e-mail itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows)."

---

LoveMonkey's response
While stating policy of posting private email content RossF18 remains argumentative. Seeming, wishing to diminish the policy violation as a mere over-sight while refusing to address their continuing other policy violations nor addressing their attack at me implying I have nefarious intent:"It was posted because I do not subscribe to the policy of back room dealings on wikipedia and if USER: LoveMonkey thinks that it's appropriate to engage in private side choosing, he is welcome to delete things. Although the e-mail is in the page's history, for those interested."

---

RossF18 posted
Second, you have to be careful in how you phraze things given that you said that and I quote "your inability to do an unequivocal apology cast doubt on the sincerity of your apology." Unequivocal apology was read to subscribe to your opinions as well. If you meant something else, that was not conveyed by your writing.

---

LoveMonkey's response
Again attempting to justify bad behavior as a deficiency to understand on their end. While ignoring their many other infractions. As unequivocal would be clear and RossF18 is unclear on if they are apologizing for not summarizing (which means they do not care that they are wrong) or if they are apologizing for not asking and then getting permissions from me 1st, or if they are sorry they got caught and consider the notices nothing but formality.

---

RossF18 posted
Third, you did not write everything in the section as I was the first person to even bring up the subject and my historian was Joseph Frank.

---

LoveMonkey's response
Again attempting to justify bad behavior by pointing perceived deficiency in my sources, will not justify your obstinance. Never said I wrote "everything", but you stated that I was using only one historian on the subject. When at that point I was using two Goldstein and Frank. I also added the source from Goldstein that quotes Frank.[6]. You did not do this. I again noted and added Cassidy. You did not do this. So again post your historians and your sources. Your addition of Frank is what I am addressing as you misquoting and misrepresenting. As if was what prompted me to add additional sources and information that you'd have to ignore to have said: :

---

RossF18 posted
By siting a single historian and than calling me uninformed and later still calling to have me banned from editing the article solely because of your opinion is a bit of hubris, I think. The point is your e-mail is no longer there and if you want to keep making an issue out of that, that's your business.

---

LoveMonkey's response
Again I have cited Frank, Goldstein and Cassidy as sources. As for the email as you now again contradict yourself, since you also have posted: "Although the e-mail is in the page's history, for those interested." --RossF18 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

---

RossF18 posted
You haven't improved the article since adding your Goldstein comments and have yourself noted that you've "retired" from Wikipedia.

---

LoveMonkey's response
Then what about my Cassidy ones? And also how pathetic and sad you point out I've retired as that was the reason for the private email to you in the first place.

---

RossF18 posted
Our discussion had nothing to do with the article, it seems, or you would have discussed on the talk page to begin with.

---

LoveMonkey's response
Unless I'm retired. RIGHT. Want it both ways but want everyone else to be above par, now that's hypocrisy. But you keep trying, instead of going back and read that I've already said this and instead keep cluttering up this talkpage with things like: "It was posted because I do not subscribe to the policy of back room dealings on wikipedia and if USER: LoveMonkey thinks that it's appropriate to engage in private side choosing, he is welcome to delete things. Although the e-mail is in the page's history, for those interested. "
Comments and behavior you have yet to apologize for and you have no excuse for.

---

RossF18 posted
I'm not arguing with you just about Goldstein while defending "your" additions to Dostoyevsky. I'm just replying to your own mention of Goldstein as the sole historian who discusses Dostoyevsky's character who viewed Jews in a positive light.

---

LoveMonkey's response
Your policy violations and policy policing behavior hardly reflect this.

---

RossF18 posted
For me to present other historians, we would actually have to have a discussion that deals with various views of historians about Dostoyevsky. Currently, the discussion focuses on my alleged faults and on how you've found that you agree with Goldstein.

---

LoveMonkey's response
Blowing smoke. Cassidy is but one example that shows you are not at all about adding more historians. Your comments amount to an insufficient excuse. You miss represented Frank and now are undermining Goldstein. How you continue to claim you are not, as your not being hear but obviously refuse to listen is just unacceptable. Post your sources post historians and material you have read on the content. Your comment does not absolve you from policy. If you are uniformed it is not other editors role here to inform you.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Removals by User:Bureaucracy

To User:Bureaucracy: please do not remove cited and discussed information just because you disagree with it without any discussion on the talk page. See above discussion regarding this particular paragraph and if you disagree, build a consensus or add another cited sentence. Do not just delete things or revert things because you disagree with them.--RossF18 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, for future reference, here's the deletion (diff):

"Frank notes that Dostoyevsky did make antisemitic remarks, but that Dostoyevsky's writing and stance by and large was one where Dostoyevsky held a great deal of guilt for his comments and positions that were antisemitic."

User Bureaucracy asks for "proof". Here's all I could squeeze out of Google Books snippet view:

"... a certain sense of guilt. Perhaps in this respect also, as in the case of his novels, it is necessary to invent a new category for Dostoyevsky - the category of guilty anti-Semite. In relation to the Jews, I would suggest, he could never reconcile himself inwardly to his ..." [emphasis in original]

Some may disagree with Frank, but that doesn't mean the line should be removed so much as expanded; Frank's opinion as a leading Dostoyevsky scholar is worth mentioning. But to remain neutral, we might also note his potential POV, what the NY Times called "reverent devotion to his hero". I would support balanced, sourced improvements to this section. Pslide (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But my point was that this line shouldn't just be deleted without explanation for why the deletion is made. If the sentence needs more explanation or is unclear, that calls for a call to improve the section, not deletions of sourced information - leaving all of the personal opinion out of it. As an example, I personally have no problem of seeing the sentence going away, but that doesn't mean I would delete it just to suit my dislike for a certain cited material. That's how wikipedia works, and that was my point - don't delete without explanation and Bureaucracy's call for proof was odd given that the sentence was sourced. If the user would have said that the source doesn't adequately back up the sentence, that would be another matter. But that was not the case, as far as I see it. So, yes, I agree with user Pslide that the section can be expanded, but the flip side of it is whether expanding the section would be viewed as putting unwarranted emphasis on a particular section given the length of the article as a whole. One might say that if the section gets too long, then it might need to be samarized. So, expansion must be within reason before it gets its own article, which I don't think would be warranted.--RossF18 (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On another point, if you're going to delete Frank's point regarding one aspect of Dostoyevsky, well, how does leaving all of the other points made by Frank in any way justify a point of view that Frank is either not an expert or that this is not a place to summarize Frank's "opinions." I find it odd and a little convenient that User:Bureaucracy would delete Frank's points that he disagrees with but leaves all the rest, which presumably he has no problem with. You can't support Frank's opinions when you agree with them and then delete the things that you don't like, especially when they're sourced. That's not how it works. Unless, User:Bureaucracy still mantains that the sentence doesn't have proof, which it does. If you disagree that the source adequately sources the sentence, please explain, instead of just deleting a sourced line of text. --RossF18 (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

- Criticism of Jews = Guilty Feelings?

Dostoevsky's support of equal rights for Jews in Russia does not prove he had "guilty" feelings for his views on Jews. Equal rights, expressed over time, could result in assimilation, i.e. destruction of the ethnic Jew. I am in full support of removing all "expert" theory, especially theory which equates criticism of Jews with guilt.

Allow Dostoevsky to speak for himself:

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

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

"Now, what if somehow, for some reason, our rural commune [i.e., the institutionalized system of Russian peasant society] should disintegrate, that commune which is protecting our poor native peasant against so many ills; what if, straightaway, the Jew and his whole kehillah [i.e., organized Jewry] should fall upon that liberated peasant -- so inexperienced, so incapable of resisting temptation, and who up to this time has been guarded precisely by the commune? Why, of course, instantly this would be his end; his entire property, his whole strength, the very next day would come under the power of the Jew, and there would ensue such an era as can be compared not only with the era of serfdom but even with that of the Tartar yoke."--Bureaucracy (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE READ ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING

You're missing the point. You've removed sited information without explanation. You've claimed that the author was wrong, but kept his views that support your own opinion. If the author is wrong, he's wrong entirely, even about things that you support. You cannot pick and choose which point you agree with and delete the rest and then claim that the author was wrong about that one single point you disagree with. Either keep it all or delete it all and explain. That's not what you've done. You've deleted just one point from the same author that you didn't like. I thought my point was fairly obvious from my posts. I'm not arguing with you about Dostoyevsky's views. No personal opinion matters in Wikipedia. Only written information by actual historians and authors matters and if you disagree with an author, picking and choosing which point you disagree with is silly. If the author is a hack in your opinion, then make your case to delete all of his points, not just the one single point that you disagree with. As you can see, I'm repeating my point over and over hoping that you'll get what I'm talking about. If you disagree with his point of view, that's not a reason to delete it, but a reason to add more research. I applaud your desire to add actual quotes from Dostoyevsky. If these quotes are sourced, go ahead and add them into the article. But otherwise, unsourced quotes and deletions that make no sense and have no rational explanation will not fly.--RossF18 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And if you are going to delete everything as I've seen you've done, you cannot do that without discussion and consensus. This is not your article. The information you've deleted was sited. If you think that the information was unbalanced, then add your own sourced information. Deleting things that are sourced just because you don't like them is a sure fire way to be blocked from wikipedia. Sorry to be a policeman but rules are rules. We can't be deleting sourced information without a consensus just because we don't like them. Fringe views are one thing, but they have to be proven as fringe. If you think that the information you've removed is fringe, prove it in the discussion page before deleting and if you make a good case, I'll support you. But, all you've done is say that the author doesn't know what he's talking about and provide some unsourced quotes from Dostoyevsky in a discussion page. That's not how things are done. Sorry. They'll keep being reverted if you don't try to get a consensus on this disputed point. And if there is no consensus, the policy of wikipedia has been to keep the sourced information. Sorry to tell you, but only unsourced information has been known to be deleted wihtout a consensus, which is not true in this case. This is not about attacks on you or on Dostoyevsky. But, if something is sourced, you can't be deleting things just because you don't like it. --RossF18 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And as far as your point regarding the fact that supporting Jews doesn't equal having guilt over how he treated them, well, again, that's not something we can decide on our own. If an author says that, he says it. If it's sourced, it has to stay even if you disagree with it. You'll have to find another source that refutes it. I, for example, have plenty of opinions regarding how a person can in fact go out of his way to support someone to make up for how he treated that person in the past. So that's not so far fetched. But, that's just my opinion. I'm not a "licensed" historian so to speak and neither are you. And even if you are, you shouldn't be sourcing your own theories anyway, since that is again against Wikipedia policies. But if you're just like me, i.e., an editor who wants to improve this article, then your opinion and my opinion doesn't matter. If something has been said by a noted historian and biographer of Dostoyevsky, it doesn't matter whether you or I agree with him. He said it, he had support for it, and his statements are sourced. If you seek to refute his statements, provide other sources. But, your personal opinion that Dostoyevsky's support for Jews doesn't equal having guilt is inconsequental. It's nice for you to have that opinion, but we don't delete sourced information out of personal opinion. P.S. and I hope you're not suggesting that Jews had equal rights in Russia - that's just not true. They may have been allowed to do business in Russia, but it's fairly well known that they were restricted to areas where they were allowed to live, and do business and were hated by many - thus Dostoyevsky, ever the Russian and proud of it, also wrote things that were anti-semitic. If he changed later in life, I don't see why he wouldn't do something that would show his guilt over treating other people with disdain. Again, that's my opinion, but there is that source. And I don't know what makes you an authority, while at the same you mock historians as some fake "experts." This is not a fringe historian. An expert is an expert and we should have sourced information from an expert on a subject. What would you have otherwise? An unsourced opinion by a person who doesn't know anything. If you want sourced information, I'd think an expert is the first person you'd go to. Unless, you're disputing the fact that this author is an expert, in which case you'll have to prove it.--RossF18 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me through redundancy. This calls for a new section for Dostoevsky's views on Jews, including the aforementioned quotes from, Diary of a Writer. The section will briefly list the names of historians, Frank, Goldstein, Morson, Dreizin, etc. who all offer unique insights into Dostoevsky's views on Jewry. No theory will be privileged over another, especially theories which equate criticism of Jews with shame/guilty feelings. This is a neutral solution.--Bureaucracy (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be agreeable to this. A fair warning, though, while I will support a new section discussing Dostoyevsky's views on Jews, I can foresee on the horizon that some editors might view the section as being overly long in relation to the article itself, thus necessitating further discussion as to either creating a separate article or trying to be more succinct in presenting various view points. And I understand your feelings regarding redundancy. However, redundancy was a mutual problem given the number of deletions you've made before you were willing to discuss this. Hopefully, we've reached an understanding that we discuss before we delete and that we need to respect the various viewpoints of noted historians, regardless of our own personal views. --RossF18 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now you're concerned with length. The section will not include any theories. The section will focus on Dostoyevsky's criticism of organized Jewry in Russia, evidenced by concise excerpts from his later writings. "We" have understood nothing. In the spirit of truth and Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, I will continue to remove conjecture from Wikipedia articles - that is my motive; I can only guess what yours may be.--Bureaucracy (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'll keep reverting deletions of sourced information that you've taken upon yourself to label as conjecture. I don't think I've ever said that I'm concerned with length. As ever, you're showing that you don't read carefully. I have no problem with the section being as long as you want it to be - and I'll leave it at that in order to avoid risking you misreading what I wrote again. You've yourself referred to theories and then go back and point out that there will be no theories. Sadly, you seem to believe that history is written in stone and that everything is known. You also don't seem to know the meaning of the word theory. If you are bent on putting your own opinion into the article, please don't be then upset if you're reverted. Once again, sourced information is not conjecture. So, if there is something not sourced, by all means remove it. But if you keep removing sourced information, well, you're not removing conjecture, you're removing valuable researched and factual information. That's in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please also educate yourself regarding neutrality on Wikipedia. Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal weight to all ideas, no matter how outlandish they may be. Neutrality only means that historically accepted theories are represented, and theory doesn't mean something that's not true, i.e., "it's just a theory," but something that has been verified and tested and is accepted. After all, gravity is a theory and just because it's a theory doesn't make you fly out into outerspace. You seem intent upon inputting your own private opinions into the article no matter what anyone else does and sowing discord. Even after you've agreed with what I was saying about providing equal weight to various historian, you went back and started claiming again that a sourced information is a crock. That's not how things are done. --RossF18 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article with your additions Bureauracy. But why the need to delete sited information without first getting editor consensus? Added back deleted information. Further deletions without discussion and more importanly, consensus, can only be viewed as vandalism, as you have done so repeatedly without a valid reason beyond your own disagreement. That is not to say that I myself support the views of historians that you keep deleting. I myself may disagree with them and might privately think that they are wrong. But that doesn't mean I have a right to delete them without a consensus, especially given that all of the additons and edits to that particular paragraph have been discussed previously. Go read the archived history of this talk page. --RossF18 (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for consensus, then.--Bureaucracy (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky on Jews: ought only to list the names of notable historians/writers who've opined on Dostoyevsky's views/criticism of Jews in Russia. Including detailed theories and suppositions, especially ones which call Dostoyevsky a racist, and ones which equate criticism of Jews with guilt, is far from neutral. It's not wikipedia's purpose to explain away Dostoyevsky's views or to associate them with shame.--Bureaucracy (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thus the crux of our disagreement, Bureauracy. I don't think that just including a list of names is neutral, as the mere fact that we ourself choose historians is not neutral. There is nothing not neutral about presenting thoughts of historians on the subject as long as those thoughts ("theories" as you call them) are accepted by the historical community. Yes, I agree that inclusion of ideas that Dostoyevsky is a racist and the ones that equate criticism of Jews with guilt would be wrong if they were written by fringe historians that have no support in the historical community. But, by the same token, inclusiono of sited ideas by accepted historians, regardless of where they place in their thoughts of Dostoyevsky, is neutral. You may disagree with them and I may disgaree with them, but inclusion of thoughts by accepted historians is neutral and is found in majority of feautred articles here on wikipedia. How do we prove anything about Dostoyevsky without the use of history and what historians wrote about him. Sadly, we do not get to choose how history is written. If the ideas of a historian is truly fringe, well, by all means, that's something that should be deleted. But, from what I can tell, there is nothing in the article that's a fringe view by a historian that is not accepted by the historical community. If you have an argument as to one historian having fringe views, please present those arguments. But, my opinion is that there is nothing not neutral about presenting how historians view Dostoyevsky. Thus, our dispute.--RossF18 (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "historical community". You're using this phrase to defer power to an undefined authority - one which conveniently bolsters your position of favoring speculative theories in Dostoyevsky's biography. It's clear there is no consensus among the historians listed regarding Dostoyevsky's criticism of Jews in Russia. Thus, including theories which condemn or explain away Dostoyevsky's own words is not neutral, especially when the theories included associate criticizing Jews with shame or guilty feelings. It reeks of political correctness.

Your point about choosing historians is nullified by your submission to the paradigm of "established" and "fringe" historians. By default, you bow before the court historian. So, including a list of notable historians should suit you just fine.--Bureaucracy (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that just because there is no consensus about something among historians automatically precludes us from including the views of historians. Also, I'd love to include in the article all instances of Dostoyevsky being boh supportive and non-supportive of the Jews - but that would be original research by us. Instead, we include the research by historians. As far as the paradigm of established and fringe historians, I'm not against a list of historians, just not a list by itself since a mere list is subject to the same debate as to which views to include and not to include as one person's established historian is another's fringe historian. If we can all agree on a list of established historians, that'd be great.--RossF18 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

unproductive

moved

assimilation, i.e. destruction of the ethnic Jew well, what's wrong with that? I don't mean it anti-semitic, but if people fully assimiliate into the majority culture, I can't see the wrong in it. 88.73.142.223 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a fair representation of his views, that's fair enough. Anti-semitism wasn't uncommon in the 19th century more or less anywhere. As for assimilation, that's a different issue; if jews were forced to "assimilate", for which, incidentally, I see very little historical evidence, that would be unacceptable. On the other hand, my impression is that they have (perhaps loosely) formed communities of their own within which they have traded with those around them. Remember I come from York, which has a particular place in Jewish history, at least in the UK. Rodhullandemu 23:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Email

Got this email from a user pertaining to this discussion so I thought I'd post it for consideration and my reply. I've taken out the e-mail addresses for privacy's sake and incerted USER names, just in case. --RossF18 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

> This e-mail was sent by user "LoveMonkey" on the English Wikipedia to user "RossF18". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. > > The sender has not been given any information about your e-mail account, and you are not required to reply to this e-mail. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

And this was my reply. --RossF18 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure why you choose to e-mail me as opposed to post this on the talk page, but regardless, I don't think I've ever said that Karamazov wanted to kill all the Jews and would have supported Nazi final solution. I have absolutely no idea where you got that idea and your lengthy argument to the contrary is a bit preaching to the choir. But by definition, if a person makes remarks that are negative about an etire group of people, without distinction, that's a type of racism, in this case anti-Semitism. And yes, I understand that Dostoyevsky usually had pesants say disparaging remakrs about Jews in his works. But from what I read, he never had anyone say that the peasants' views were wrong and from what I understand, Dostoyevsky always thought that the peasants were the back bone of Russia - so that would mean that he supported the views of the peasants. You may disagree, but that's my reasoning.

As far as the whole idea of judging the person solely by the times, I personally disagree, but I have no problem with putting that into the article. Personally, I think slavery was just as wrong 400 years ago as it is now and there were people 400 years ago who thought that too. Equally, I think anti-Semitism is just as wrong 200 years ago, as it is now. And there are people 200 years ago who thought that too. So, to say that you've got to judge Dostoyevsky by his times - that's fine. But if you're judging Dostoyevsky by his times, well, there is nothing wrong with pointing out his anti-Semitic points in his writings, because there were people in his time who thought that anti-Semitism was wrong. It's not like every single person in Russia and everywhere else that thought that Jews were bad, so that Dostoyevsky's thoughts were somehow natural. That's just not the case. If Dostoyevsky was struggling with his views and if there is evidence both of his anti-Semitism, which there is, and his attempts to help the Jews, well, I don't think anyone would disagree with putting that into the article, much less me. I'm all for having a balanced article and for keeping personal views out of it. But, to say that Dostoyevsky was not anit-Semitic, even for his time, will also be disingenuous. And the fact that there has been "no academic blanket dismissal of Dostoevsky's works," goes more toward Dostoyevsky's brilliance as a writer than his views on Jews. I don't think that there has been an author who is as talented as Dostoyevsky who has ever been dismissed entirely because of their views. Look at Jack London. But, his views, especially given that he did put his views in writing, much sooner than just in his diary, should not be glossed over. It doesn't make him any less of a great writer, but it does make him human and a better understood human. I don't think there is a problem with that. And given that this discussion would be helpful to the discussion as a whole, I'll post it to the discussion page. -RossF18

I don't think there is anything new here as far as things having been discussed, but for what it's worth, I though I'd post it. --RossF18 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can all see, USER:LoveMonkey deleted his portion of the e-mail because apparently, he thought the e-mail was private - nevermind that it regarded a very public discussion online. It was posted because I do not subscribe to the policy of back room dealings on wikipedia and if USER: LoveMonkey thinks that it's appropriate to engage in private side choosing, he is welcome to delete things. Although the e-mail is in the page's history, for those interested. --RossF18 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

---LoveMonkey's response---

All of your actions here Ross are representative of a lot of bad ideas. Very destructive and bad ideas. Heres some, RossF18 is now not only not assuming good faith and misrepresenting peoples intentions (which Ross has no reason to speak too since Ross does not know) in making posts like.

"I do not subscribe to the policy of back room dealings on wikipedia."

RossF18 is also misusing this talkpage to post useless content.

I don't think there is anything new here as far as things having been discussed, but for what it's worth, I though I'd post it. RossF18

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The talkpage is not for re-posting private correspondence. RossF18 who appears to be very quick to reprimand fellow editors for wiki policy violations has violated several himself, most importantly E-mail privacy..

If you receive an objectionable e-mail through this system, you should contact an administrator, possibly by e-mail, to ask advice. In serious cases you may wish to escalate the matter, especially if there is a pattern of harassment involved. Please note the following:Do not post the e-mail on-wiki without permission.[7]

It (the talkpage) as is wikipedia, is not a battleground. Let alone for correspondence that does not add anything new here as far as things having been discussed (as RossF18 stated already themself). I am retired from wikipedia and do not desired to get once again entangled in a protracted debate. I wrote Ross to try and clarify what I thought was missing or not clear in what I contributed to this article. When I wrote a good bit of what Ross F18 and Bureaucracy are deleting and re-adding I was trying to post bothsides. I however do feel that it was rather incomplete. In that it did not give context to Dostoevsky's comments.
You see (I'll say this in a Western way) by RossF18's Moral absolutism here...

But if you're judging Dostoyevsky by his times, well, there is nothing wrong with pointing out his anti-Semitic points in his writings, because there were people in his time who thought that anti-Semitism was wrong.

RossF18 makes Mark Twain and Huckleberry Finn racists, because by them repeatedly using a (now in modern times) racial slur they are by modern morality standards racist. As such Huckleberry Finn doesn't belong in public schools since by using words that are now considered racist the work itself is racist. By this shameful Politically correct argument even US President Abraham Lincoln is also a racist[8]since yes Lincoln also used the same racial slur. The only back dealing here is Ross F18 violating wikipedia policy by misusing the talkpage here for a battleground to impose really really bad ideas that are academically and intellectually wrong. Considering editor RossF18's conduct I think reporting RossF18's hypocracy is in due order.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the one to claim to be always in the right, I can always appologize for impoper action. And I can appologize in this case for posting LoveMonkey's e-mail. I should have summarized it, as guideliness state. However, as to LoveMonkey's other points regarding Dostoyevsky, well, we'll always disagree on that point. He seems to think that holding a particular view makes one person bad, and seems to subscribe to me views never expressed, as his points regarding Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln. Allegedly a person of literal knowledge, LoveMonkey fails to realize that by the mere fact of writing Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain was not a racist given the fact that despite having Huck use the racial slur, the whole novel is about the growing friendship between a white boy and a black man that transcends racial lines. What is racist about that? That's a bit different than Dostoyevsky having, as you've pointed out in that e-mail you deleted that I should have summarized, peasants in his books expause anti-Semitic views without any lesson learned in the end so to speak. There is a difference between using racist language in books in order to teach a language of tolerance and quite another to do it and leave it at that. As far as Abraham Lincoln, your comment about him seems to indicate that you might actually think that Civil War was only about slavery, which is hardly true. I say that because Lincoln freeing the slaves does not somehow make him free forever of being called a racist, because there is some evidence of him actually being a racist, and saying disparaging things about the slaves in his speaches, as recent as 1861. But that of course doesn't diminish his act of freeing the slaves, and neither does anything Dostoyevsky may say in his work diminish him as a writer. But if a writer is anti-Semitic, he's anti-Semitic. There is really nothing ambiguous about that. If Dostoyevsky merely used slurs for Jews in his writings as a lesson for injustice that the Jews suffered, that'd be one thing, but that's really not what he did. And let's not call each other black cettles as you accuse me of subscribing views to people not expressed and then subscribe to me moral absolutism. I don't think that everything morally wrong now is morally wrong always - which is the phylosophy of moral absolutism. I only think that one single thing is always moraly wrong - and that's hate.--RossF18 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, but" undermines the validity of your apology. I feel your disrespectful behavior and your inability to do an unequivocal apology cast doubt on the sincerity of your apology. I have a right to that. My email should not have been posted in whole or part without asking me first. That's common courtesy thats to assume good faith, your instead wasting time attempting to justify your wrong behavior. Tisk, tisk. I find your comments uniformed. If you have "Dostoevsky and the Jews" and or if you were actually informed you would know how Goldstein uses the character Fomitch to invalidate your remarks on Dostoevsky. As once you understand or should have understood this you would have seen the co-relation I made. Which of course through the character Fomitch Dostoevsky does exactly what you claim he never did and does not. RossF18 being uninformed in his ideas and his brazen hypocrisy should not be editing this article. And RossF18's behavior to quite counter to that needed here at Wikipedia's cooperative community. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what my opinions on the subject have to do with your e-mail. I do not know how, by appologizing for posting the e-mail, I should have also subscribed to your point of view. I don't think I ever appologized for saying that you were incorrect, which I still think you are. And in the very policy you sited, it says explicitly that if I had summarized your e-mail, you would have no case for a greavance. As far as my points, I stand by them since siting one historian does not necessarily prove a point, aside from that there are many historical views on the subject. Besides, the goal, at least in my mind, was the improvement of the article, not getting justice for your own preserved slights. Besides, the best way to get revenge, it seems, would be to convince me. By siting a single historian and than calling me uninformed and later still calling to have me banned from editing the article solely because of your opinion is a bit of hubris, I think. The point is your e-mail is no longer there and if you want to keep making an issue out of that, that's your business. I'll only reply to actual points that go to improving this article. It's easy to get upset and allow that to cloud any semblance of reason. If you can't forget and are intent on lecturing, then I don't see a point of an argument, since the person shouting will always be heard loudest, no matter the subject. I'm glad that you were able to find a historian who agrees with you. We all have that one historian that validates all our views. The point remains, however, that the whole point of this discussion is that we are trying to find balance between a number of different historians who all have different points and if you think that this article will rely solely on Goldstein's thoughts on one of Dostoyevsky's characters, well, keep at that. If my mistake was to post the e-mail in its entirety without summarizing it first, you've went several steps beyond that since with name calling and accusatory remarks. Finding a single historian that agrees with you does not make you informed and if you think that, well, please call me a hypocrite all you want. That'll just make it more funny. The goal is balance. One historian does not an article make. If someone doesn't understand or agrees with a point, it's easy to condemn the person making that point. It's much harder to actually debate the point and to convince others. Which road will you choose?--RossF18 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Post here were in the Wikpedia policy that states that you can post a partial of a private email to a talkpage (which is misuse of the talkpage) without permission, post it here. You seem pretty consistent in not knowing but very ardent in fighting for knowledge content to be included here at Wikipedia which is a knowledge source. Post here, as the talkpage is designated, post here what Goldstein, Frank and Cassidy wrote about this specfic topic. Post here what other sources you have and what they have stated on the matter, so that the article could be improved. I already posted mine to article before you got here. You do not know even alittle or have a surface knowledge of this subject and yet you are fighting over its content. Name your historians. I have already included Joseph Frank, David Goldstein, and of course Cassidy hardly just one. So far you've contributed none. You did not know about Fomitch, Joseph Frank's remarks on the character, nor Goldstein's remarks on the character. You don't have any historians of your own. Your not only contradicting yourself and asking others to not do the same, your also pushing onto others motives and comments and positions that you have no evidence to justify in doing. Never did I, nor can you quote me stated you have to agree with my opinion since my opinion did not make Goldstein, Frank, Cassidy write what they wrote nor is it attempting to persecute you by getting you banned. Your actions are yours, you seem to be unable to acknowledge or correct for your bad actions. Your behavior here so far in it's disregard for policy, coupled with your blatant inability to compromise would give you the default characteristics of the usual suspects that get WP:ANI. Arguing with Bureaucracy for my sources and arguing with me that I am only using one, and then not providing your own and then misrepresenting those sources and then making absolute statements like Dostoevsky does not have a character that gives a positive portrayal of Jewish people and then arguing when you are shown as wrong arguing that it doesn't matter. Well all this makes your position one that should not be here arguing for this article's content. Your pride is misplaced your bad and incomplete fragmented informed opinion makes bad ideas and is making this article your battleground and that is exactly what wiki is not. The fact that you are fighting more then just me and are rigid in your inability to questions yourself and unable to contribute y8ur own sources and or solutions reflects you are here for (whatever) the wrong reasons. Post your sources.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First, and I quote: "You should not post the e-mail itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows)." per your own site [9]. Second, you have to be careful in how you phraze things given that you said that and I quote "your inability to do an unequivocal apology cast doubt on the sincerity of your apology." Unequivocal apology was read to subscribe to your opinions as well. If you meant something else, that was not conveyed by your writing. Third, you did not write everything in the section as I was the first person to even bring up the subject and my historian was Joseph Frank. I do not add anything more at this point because currently I think what's included is quite enough and the current debate, to which you aren't even a party, is to whether to delete the entire section and to just rely on Dostoyevsky's own words, both for and against Jews. And as I can see, you've continued with personal attacks, to which I of course have no reply because you'll just invent more of them with no end in sight. You haven't improved the article since adding your Goldstein comments and have yourself noted that you've "retired" from Wikipedia. Our discussion had nothing to do with the article, it seems, or you would have discussed on the talk page to begin with. I'm not arguing with you just about Goldstein while defending "your" additions to Dostoyevsky. I'm just replying to your own mention of Goldstein as the sole historian who discusses Dostoyevsky's character who viewed Jews in a positive light. I don't see how replying to your own post is somehow becoming disregard of the article. I don't think I've shown pride anywhere in my comments before you've brought up your authorship of the section, quite the opposite it seems as you've claimed authorship of the entire section and appear quite proud of all your alleged knowledge on the subject, while at the same time pointing to alleged lack of knowledge by others. For me to present other historians, we would actually have to have a discussion that deals with various views of historians about Dostoyevsky. Currently, the discussion focuses on my alleged faults and on how you've found that you agree with Goldstein. If you want to actually discuss historical views of Dostoyevsky, please join my discussion with Bueracracy. Otherwise, you become the victim of your own accusatory remaks.--RossF18 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)