Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:39, 10 September 2013 editCocolacoste (talk \| contribs)1,691 editsm →Time to put the "disputed" tag back?: Ooops.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:17, 8 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,652,731 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(83 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
⚫	~~{{FailedGA\|09:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)~~\|topic=Language and literature~~\|page=5}}~~
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=B\|vital=yes\|listas=Dostoyevsky, Fyodor\|blp=no\|1=
	{{ArticleHistory
		⚫	{{WikiProject Biography\|a&e-work-group=yes\|a&e-priority=top\|s&a-work-group=yes \|core=yes }}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Russia\|importance=top\|lit=yes\|hist=yes\|relig=yes}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Christianity\|importance=mid\|eastern-orthodoxy=yes\|eastern-orthodoxy-importance=Mid}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Journalism\|importance=top}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Philosophy\|importance=Mid\|philosopher=yes\|continental=yes\|religion=yes\|social-and-political=yes}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=low}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Socialism\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors\|user=Stfg\|date=12 April 2013 \|old-user-1=Lfstevens \|old-date-1=17 March 2013 \|old-user-2=Cocolacoste \|old-date-2=13 November 2012}}
		⚫	}}
			{{American English}}
			{{Article history
	\|action1=PR		\|action1=PR
	\|action1date=11:21, 27 June 2012		\|action1date=11:21, 27 June 2012
Line 10:		Line 20:

	\|action2=GAC		\|action2=GAC
	\|action2date=26 ~~Aug~~ 2012		\|action2date=26 August 2012
	\|action2link=Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA1		\|action2link=Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA1
	\|action2result=Failed		\|action2result=Failed
Line 16:		Line 26:

	\|action3=GAC		\|action3=GAC
	\|action3date=10 ~~Oct~~ 2012		\|action3date=10 October 2012
	\|action3link=Talk:~~Fyodor~~ Dostoyevsky/GA2		\|action3link=Talk: Dostoyevsky/GA2
	\|action3result=Failed		\|action3result=Failed
	\|action3oldid=516997899		\|action3oldid=516997899
Line 42:		Line 52:
	\|action7date=16:01, 26 January 2013		\|action7date=16:01, 26 January 2013
	\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive1		\|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive1
	\|action7result=~~not promoted~~		\|action7result=Failed
	\|action7oldid=534996734		\|action7oldid=534996734

Line 50:		Line 60:
	\|action8result=reviewed		\|action8result=reviewed
	\|action8oldid=541185353		\|action8oldid=541185353


	\|action9=FAC		\|action9=FAC
	\|action9date=21:53, 04 April 2013		\|action9date=21:53, 04 April 2013
	\|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive2		\|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive2
	\|action9result=~~not promoted~~		\|action9result=Failed
	\|action9oldid=548729886		\|action9oldid=548729886

⚫	\|currentstatus=~~FFAC~~
			\|action10=GAN
⚫	}}
			\|action10date=09:01, 4 July 2013
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|collapsed=yes \|1=
		⚫	\|action10link=Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA5
⚫	{{WikiProject Biography \|~~living~~=~~no \|class=b~~ \|a&e-priority=top ~~\|core=yes~~\|a&e-work-group=yes \|~~listas~~=~~Dostoevsky,~~ ~~Fyodor~~}}
			\|action10result=Failed
⚫	{{WikiProject Russia~~\|class=b~~\|importance=top\|lit=yes\|hist=yes\|relig=yes}}
			\|action10oldid=562806361
	{{WikiProject Literature\|class=b\|importance=top}}

⚫	{{WikiProject Christianity~~\|class=b~~\|importance=mid\|eastern-orthodoxy=yes\|eastern-orthodoxy-importance=Mid}}
		⚫	\|currentstatus=FGAN
⚫	{{WikiProject Journalism~~\|class=b~~\|importance=~~mid~~}}
		⚫	\|topic=Language and literature
⚫	{{WikiProject Philosophy~~\|class=b~~\|importance=~~mid~~\|philosopher=yes}}
			\|otd1date=2017-11-11\|otd1oldid=809681219
⚫	{{WikiProject Conservatism~~\|class=b~~\|importance=low}}
			\|otd2date=2021-11-11\|otd2oldid=1054542194
	{{WikiProject Lithuania\|class=b\|importance=low}}
		⚫	}}{{press
⚫	{{WikiProject Socialism~~\|class=b~~\|importance=low}}
	{{WP1.0\|v0.5=pass\|class=b\|importance=high\|category=Langlit\|VA=yes}}}}
⚫	{{press
	\| subject = Demise of the ''Britannica'' printed format
	\| authors=Tom Chivers \| title=Why Misplaced Pages's Fans Shouldn't Gloat		\| authors=Tom Chivers \| title=Why Misplaced Pages's Fans Shouldn't Gloat
	\| org='']''		\| org='']''
Line 78:		Line 84:
	}}		}}
	{{backwardscopy\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=8oZYJeQvc2gC&hl=de&source=gbs_navlinks_s\|title=The Brothers Karamazov\|date=Publication date unknown, but after December 2008\|comments=The "about this book" link claims the book was published in 1972, which is ludicrous since the works cited includes books published as late as 2005. And, for that matter, the text itself refers to a TV show in 2008. I didn't put a lot of time into this, but enough to show natural evolution. I seized on the phrase "despotic treatment", which is a striking one. That enters our article in 2006 as a major revision, . We couldn't have copied from a book which mentions a 2008 tv show in 2006. But beyond that, we can see that some of the content that was merely modified is in the book as it was modified: " Dostoevsky below is quoted in describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago." becomes "Describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago", he wrote:" Sure enough, that's what the external source says. And speaking of that 2008 tv show, reference was added to our article . The evidence strongly suggests that we had it first and they took it without attribution. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)}}		{{backwardscopy\|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=8oZYJeQvc2gC&hl=de&source=gbs_navlinks_s\|title=The Brothers Karamazov\|date=Publication date unknown, but after December 2008\|comments=The "about this book" link claims the book was published in 1972, which is ludicrous since the works cited includes books published as late as 2005. And, for that matter, the text itself refers to a TV show in 2008. I didn't put a lot of time into this, but enough to show natural evolution. I seized on the phrase "despotic treatment", which is a striking one. That enters our article in 2006 as a major revision, . We couldn't have copied from a book which mentions a 2008 tv show in 2006. But beyond that, we can see that some of the content that was merely modified is in the book as it was modified: " Dostoevsky below is quoted in describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago." becomes "Describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago", he wrote:" Sure enough, that's what the external source says. And speaking of that 2008 tv show, reference was added to our article . The evidence strongly suggests that we had it first and they took it without attribution. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)}}
	{{GOCE\|user=Stfg\|date=12 April 2013
	\|old-user-1=Lfstevens \|old-date-1=17 March 2013
	\|old-user-2=Cocolacoste \|old-date-2=13 November 2012
	}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 89:		Line 91:
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(60d)		\|algo = old(60d)
	\|archive = Talk:Fyodor ~~Dostoyevsky~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Auto archiving notice \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=60 \|small=yes \|dounreplied=yes}}

	== Legacy section - draft ==		== Legacy section - draft ==
Line 98:		Line 99:
	{{Collapse\|1=		{{Collapse\|1=

			== Pre-reform orthography ==
	== Trying to avoid a brewing edit war ==

	Through my involvement at ] at has that {{user\|Tomcat7}} has a long history on wikipedia of doing whatever he wants regardless of the opinions of others. We held a discussion at ] regarding a disagreement over whether navbox templates for individual works should be on the authors' pages. I felt they should, but Tomcat7, who feels they shouldn't has been removing them. 4 people ({{user\|Sadads}}, {{user\|GimliDotNet}}, {{user\|Edokter}}, and {{user\|Kuralyov}}) voiced opinions in favor of keeping them on the pages, 2 people ({{user\|Deor}} and {{user\|Truthkeeper88}}) voiced opinions in favor of removing them from the pages and one person ({{user\|Drmies}}) supported a case-by-case analysis of inclusion on each page. Given that we are not dealing with controversial content and ] issues, there needs to be consensus to not ] content, be it prose, images, templates, tables or whatever. There was no consensus to remove the content and if a consensus of any kind existed, it was to PRESERVE the content at issue. Nonetheless, after these discussion responses came in, Tomcat7 saw fit to . I am restoring the content. If Tomcat7 insists on disregarding the opinions of others again and removes the content, I will initiate a discussion on his long history of behavior at either ] or ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

⚫	{{Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA5}}

⚫	== ~~Disputed~~ ==

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

	Removing the dispute tag is not the way to resolve this matter. The article needs checking against sources. When I checked, I found a very high proportion of errors. I just glanced at the article, and it still states incorrect information about the execution. Sources show that this was a planned mock execution, and not - as stated here - that Dostoyevsky was actually sentenced to death and this was luckily reprieved at the last minute. It was always planned to be that way. Having the tag in place alerts readers to the situation so they can make an informed decision about how much to accept at face value what is said here, and also alerts editors who can assist in improving the article. The tag is designed to be helpful rather than a badge of shame - it just identifies what work needs to be done. ''']''' ''']''' 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
	:It was not a ]. It was a planned execution which was stopped at the last minute.--] '''''(])''''' 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	::Bald contradictions are rude and cut no ice. The GA reviewer has checked several sources and shown good grounds to require further source checks, therefore more sources need checking, period. Simply contradicting and reverting is edit warring. --] (]) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	*The problem here is that if there is a problem of factual accuracy then a third party, preferably an expert in Dostoyevsky, would have to go through the sources and either list the problems or fix them. It is not fair to expect the nominator to fix factual accuracy problems without letting them know where such problems are found. But of course the article can't be a GA while there are doubts about accuracy. Which sources describe the event as a mock execution and which as an actual planned execution? Which reasons do we have to believe one over the other? ] 14:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	::I've been watching this article since I was asked to review it several months ago. At the time, I had no idea how complex the subject is, which has been compounded by the Wiki-drama that's been well-documented. It's unfortunate because the subject is important and deserving of a high-quality article. To answer Maunus' question, though, it's my understanding that if there are two sources that are contradictory, first you accept the most reliable source. If both are equally reliable, then you state the contradiction in the article. ] (]) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	::::Or you could just explain the conflicting reports in a note. Better than making a call. ] (]) 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I think making a call may be OK if there is sufficient reliable evidence for one or the other. But we'd have to see the sources to see whether there is. If they appear more or less equally reliable then yes, noting both is best.] 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::Of course, that is why I am asking which arguments we have to consider one of these sources more reliable than the other.] 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	::On the question of the mock (or otherwise) execution, ] identified in his comment of 22:07, 18 June 2013, in the GA review, transcluded above. Since Tomcat did not reply to that comment, but nevertheless flat-out contradicted SilkTork today (just above here), I assume that Tomcat overlooked that comment and source. If this, then why not more? So I think that this does confirm the need for a third-party, preferably expert, review, as Maunus suggests. --] (]) 18:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
	I too have been watching since I did the very first peer review and then one of the FACs. I checked the sourcing then and posted . (Note change of my user name since). Also there's this thread in the archives, , among others. I suspect the best way forward is to work from top to bottom and verify. ] (]) 20:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

	== ] to appear as POTD soon ==

			As it's how he would have spelt his name during his day, can the pre-reform spelling of his name, Ѳедоръ Михайловичъ Достоевскій, be included in the article? I'm not sure how to integrate it in the introduction. ] (]) 06:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
	Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that ] will be appearing as ] on August 14, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at ]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the ]. Thanks! — ] (]) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
			: Actually, I just found how to format it from a different page, so I'll add it, I've taken it from the Russian Misplaced Pages page, if anyone has any comments about this let me know. ] (]) 06:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{POTD/2013-08-14}}
			: Okay, sorry, I just found that there is a note at the very bottom of the page about this, linked with a footnote by the name. I feel like the original spelling of his name should be more prominent and displayed in the opening paragraph (see the page ] how this is done for the title of the book). I don't want to mess things up, if anyone has an idea of how to implement this effectively, please go ahead and do it, if you think it would be better not too, please discuss here. ] (]) 06:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

		⚫	== Ancestry ==
	== Time to put the "disputed" tag back? ==

			There is no need to add the opinions of some left-wing media personalities to the article. If you are quoting, then cite a significant source. ] (]) 12:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
	Before by an IP, the article read "A detective novel, ''Crime and Punishment'' describes Rodion Raskolnikov's life...". The source for this was (well, wasn't, more like it) Cicovacki p. 80, which says "... the title ''may'' suggest a detective novel. ''Nothing could be further from the truth''", expanded on in a footnote: "... the view that ''C and P'' is not a detective novel follows A Cascardi ..." (emphasis mine). Given that ] detected many inaccuracies in their meticulous review – none of which have been addressed – and this glaring factual error, wouldn't it be better to put the tag back again? I mean, how can we be sure, without checking everything against the sources, that there aren't more inconsistencies like this? Best, --] ] 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:17, 8 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fyodor Dostoevsky article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Russia: Language & literature / History / Religion Top‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.

Christianity: Eastern O. Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Mid-importance).

Journalism Top‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Religion / Continental Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of religion
	Continental philosophy

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Stfg, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 April 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Previous copyedits:
/
	This article was copy edited by Lfstevens on 17 March 2013.
	This article was copy edited by Cocolacoste on 13 November 2012.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 27, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
August 26, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 10, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 19, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 26, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 6, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
January 26, 2013	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 1, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
April 4, 2013	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 4, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 11, 2017, and November 11, 2021.
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Why Misplaced Pages's Fans Shouldn't Gloat". The Atlantic. March 16 2012. Compare, for example, the depth of the Misplaced Pages entries for Fyodor Dostoevsky (5,542 words, 38 references) and South Park. (12,675 words, 215 references). It's true that the Britannica online academic edition article on Dostoevsky by Professor Gary Saul Morson of Northwestern is slightly shorter than Misplaced Pages's, but is different in kind. It may have fewer facts but it probes the writer more coherently and deeply. Here is the entire Misplaced Pages paragraph on Dostoevsky's literary legacy: 'Some, like journalist Otto Friedrich, consider Dostoyevsky to be one of Europe's major novelists, while others like Vladimir Nabokov maintain that from a point of view of enduring art and individual genius, he is a rather mediocre writer who produced wastelands of literary platitudes.' {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:

The Brothers Karamazov, Publication date unknown, but after December 2008 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Additional comments

The "about this book" link claims the book was published in 1972, which is ludicrous since the works cited includes books published as late as 2005. And, for that matter, the text itself refers to a TV show in 2008. I didn't put a lot of time into this, but enough to show natural evolution. I seized on the phrase "despotic treatment", which is a striking one. That enters our article in 2006 as a major revision, here. We couldn't have copied from a book which mentions a 2008 tv show in 2006. But beyond that, we can see that some of the content that was merely modified is in the book as it was modified: " Dostoevsky below is quoted in describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago." becomes "Describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago", he wrote:" Sure enough, that's what the external source says. And speaking of that 2008 tv show, reference was added to our article here. The evidence strongly suggests that we had it first and they took it without attribution. --Moonriddengirl 11:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section - draft

I think that section is too clunky. I propose a more structured version: {{Collapse|1=

Pre-reform orthography

As it's how he would have spelt his name during his day, can the pre-reform spelling of his name, Ѳедоръ Михайловичъ Достоевскій, be included in the article? I'm not sure how to integrate it in the introduction. 2WR1 (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just found how to format it from a different page, so I'll add it, I've taken it from the Russian Misplaced Pages page, if anyone has any comments about this let me know. 2WR1 (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I just found that there is a note at the very bottom of the page about this, linked with a footnote by the name. I feel like the original spelling of his name should be more prominent and displayed in the opening paragraph (see the page Crime and Punishment how this is done for the title of the book). I don't want to mess things up, if anyone has an idea of how to implement this effectively, please go ahead and do it, if you think it would be better not too, please discuss here. 2WR1 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry

There is no need to add the opinions of some left-wing media personalities to the article. If you are quoting, then cite a significant source. Noraskulk (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories: