Talk:Nicholas Roerich

Manchurian Expedition

"Certain activities of Roerich so severely embarrassed the U.S. government politically..."

What did he do?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.135.66 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. That was the whole reason I read the thing. The article feels more like a eulogy than like an encyclopedia entry. 70.117.19.89 (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

YES! Also why I read it. The whole article reads like a wacky Russian hagiography, it's obvious that the guy was pretty out there, so let's hear some more about his wacky beliefs. Hell, apparently they were crazy enough to cost a man the presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.67.128 (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this article reads more like a hagiography than a neutral encyclopedia article. Roerich's association with Vice-President Henry A. Wallace was in itself a major controversy when Wallace made his third-party presidential bid in 1948, and Wallace himself bitterly broke with Roerich in the 1950s, even going so far as to call him a "fraud" (you can read about this in the Wallace biography American Dreamer). This article relentlessly praises the guy and has almost no criticisms whatsoever - and there were numerous criticisms made of Roerich's claims and activities. It needs to be rewritten with far more citations and more balance (neutrality). Just a thought. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's some lengthy information from a source that I don't consider reliable, but since it is mostly factual, it should be easy enough to find sources, if it's accurate:

... the US State Department informed Roerich’s patron Wallace that the Soviets had sent a confidential protest to the American government, complaining that the dangerous émigré Roerich was wandering along the borders of Red Mongolia. The Bolsheviks were worried that “the armed party is now making their way toward the Soviet Union ostensibly as a scientific expedition but actually to rally former White elements and discontented Mongols.”[Meyer, Karl Ernest and Shareen Blair Brysac, Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia, New York: Basic Books, 2006, p. 488] To the last moment, Wallace backed up Roerich and dismissed all insinuations against his “botanist.” Only when he realised the painter was a diplomatic embarrassment and that his own career was now on the line did the secretary of agriculture call off the expedition, cutting funding and terminating all his contacts with his former guru. Eventually, along with Louis Horch, another sponsor who dropped Roerich, Wallace turned against the painter, initiating a tax-evasion lawsuit against him and seizing his properties in the United States. FDR, embarrassed by the whole situation, personally intervened, promising Horch and Wallace to call the judge who handled the case in order to guarantee the “correct” verdict. Sure enough, Roerich, who trusted Horch to handle his finances, was indicted. Betrayed and humiliated by his partners, Roerich never returned to the United States, wisely choosing to settle in India.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I found a source that elaborates on why the expedition was controversial, and contradicts the account of the article about the Manchurian Expedition. "In their sixteen-month journey through Asia, the Roerichs had produced a total of 20 plants-13 grasses and 7 leguminous plants. By contrast, the brief MacMillan expedition had sent back 59 grasses and 41 other plants. Another two-man Agriculture Department expedition , operating in Asia at the same time, sent back more than 2,000 plants, including 726 soil-conserving grasses. Although the expedition had ended, the fiasco was far from over." [American dreamer : the life and times of Henry A. Wallace by Culver, John C., 1932-; Hyde, John p. 143]. The current article doesn't mention any controversy and has a different plant figure. It also doesn't cite any sources. Should I edit it to be more accurate? Kinda new to wikipedia so I dont really know what to do. YesIKhan (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent refs

Have added a new quote to clarify Roerich's position and have also noted that the source in question: Moscow & St. Petersburg 1900-1920: Art, Life & Culture by John E. Bowlt, Vendome, 2008 is one of the best refs I've come across in a long time Re: Russian 'silver Age' art and culture. For those interested. Truly inter/multi disciplinary approach bordering on polymathic (not intended as book review purely enthusiastic NPOV). Ernstblumberg (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

81,000 paintings?

Really? A previous version of the article states 7000 and even that is a lot of paintings.69.149.72.17 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not possible, 81K paintings would mean one painting every four hours of his waking life since age ten until his death... 7,000 is possible. Picasso started in early childhood and painted an estimated 13,000 to 20,000 paintings and total attributed works estimated at 50K but no one is certain (up to 250K pieces of sculpture and prints are attributed to his studio efforts).Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Butchered in Translation

The first of this article is a disaster of translations from Russian with incorrect tenses and word/phrase associations completely incoherent. Either it needs to be rewritten or retranslated by someone who speaks both English and Russian. There is enough information out there on Nicholas Roerich for an english speaker to tackle this portion of the article again.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored an earlier neutral and english-language version of the article rather than the absurdly adulatory and incomprehensible google translate cut and paste version. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Second World War. Service to Russia

This section reads like Propaganda and violates the NPOV at least:

"predicting the Russian people’s victory against the fascism."

"When fascist forces occupied extensive Soviet territories, N. Roerich..."

Despite this language, there's no mention of Roerich's relationship with the Soviet Government at the time, for instance, the name "Stalin" appears nowhere in this piece.

The section was an unreferenced cut and paste from the Russian article and I have removed it as violating copyright as well as being biased and almost incomprehensible. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories

We have categories called Ballets designed by Nicholas Roerich and Ballets by Nikolai Roerich. When these appear in the same article, such as The Rite of Spring, one could almost be forgiven for thinking these were two different gentlemen.

As he is virtually always known in the West as Nicholas Roerich, hence our article name, can the Nikolai category be renamed, please? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

New images of paintings

I've uploaded several images of paintings by Roerich from Google Art Project's collections from the International Centre of the Roerichs and Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya in Barcelona (below). The Centre's are all published in 1922 (with three from the «Sancta» Series), the others are earlier. Feel free to use any of them if useful. Dcoetzee 07:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• 
  And We are Opening the Gates. From the «Sancta» Series. 1922. 739 × 1043 mm. International Centre of the Roerichs
• 
  And We are Trying. From the «Sancta» Series. 1922. 715 × 1017 mm. International Centre of the Roerichs
• 
  And We See. From the «Sancta» Series. 1922. 716 × 1019 mm. International Centre of the Roerichs
• 
  Monhegan. Maine. 1922. 503 × 763 mm. International Centre of the Roerichs
• 
  The Messenger. 1922. 1018 × 739 mm. International Centre of the Roerichs
• 
  Latin Sea. c. 1906. 1210×1505 mm. Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
• 
  Eastern Land. c. 1921.1165 × 1835 mm. Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nicholas Roerich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006071558/http://www.watkinsbooks.com/ushahidi/reports/view/266 to http://www.watkinsbooks.com/ushahidi/reports/view/266
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110150834/http://lebendige-ethik.net/engl/4-Rosovs_books.html to http://lebendige-ethik.net/engl/4-Rosovs_books.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170831131527/http://www.wiki-shangri-la.com/Nicholas_K._Roerich_Lexicon to http://www.wiki-shangri-la.com/Nicholas_K._Roerich_Lexicon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)