Talk:Nadezhda von Meck

message: The following comment was left in the article (under "Relationship with Tchaikovsky"):
"Comment: Pressure from her family together with her failing health is probably the main reason for cutting off her support to Tchaikovsky."
If there's a good source for this, the text should be better incorporated into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.36.52.214 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a fairly well-known fact.  Brown, Holden, Poznansky and Warrack all mention it in their respective biographies of Tchaikovsky.  Jonyungk (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved comment 

message: Quite ambiguous, isn't it? NVO (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: "formidable businesswoman" 

message: "In 1985 Galina donated to Columbia University a collection including her translation of 681 letters written by Tchaikovsky to his family."  Unless I misunderstand, should this not be "her" family (i.e.Galina's)?Hikitsurisan (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Small point

message: The Rubinstein photo appears to be misplaced in the article, as in, in the wrong section. However, the prominence of the photo is, according to wp tradition, far from out of place. In fact it deserves MORE prominence. I suggest putting it at the front of the article and putting the photo of Nadezhda von Meck down at the bottom. Better yet, just remove the picture of her and make the whole article about the female friends of Rubinstein with only a photo of him. Compare discussion about Rachmaninoff and Horowitz. The only thing I can't figure out is why so many people have such a low regard for Wikipedia and why nobody ain't cofin' up no mony fo' the place. i'm just so stooopid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.183.195 (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rubinstein

message: Unsourced claims and especially fecklessly done substantial assertions do not have a place in a encyclopaedic work like wikipedia. This is not the place to just make point of some kind. Furthermore I truly have a dislike of trying label people or retrospectively try to guess, speculate on somebodies inner most convictions. Even a the tone plain speculation is also incorrect when not the slightest substantiation is present. Major Torp (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: A word of caution concerning WP biographical articles 

message: I have come across a number of references, including this one:
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=q8sHfp4YXzYC&pg=PT159&lpg=PT159&dq=tchaikovsky+baroness&source=bl&ots=naK0kaXsIK&sig=dT1e0ExFtj0Exiw5XARhX_kTtDA&hl=mi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhrqbd7IffAhUOVH0KHeKRBhMQ6AEwCHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=tchaikovsky%20baroness&f=false
giving Nadezhda von Meck the title Baroness. Was she indeed a baroness?
47.72.51.146 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Nadezhda a baroness? 

message: I understand why it should be thought that 'Russian' suffices for the lead. But if you read the description of what her husband achieved in building up a business, which she inherited, which was building railways across the expanding Russian empire, then the description makes more sense - although it probably isn't actually necessary.
Sbishop (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian [Empire] Businesswoman