Talk:Alexander Blok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

Contents 1 "Night. Street. Lamp. Drugstore." 2 general comments 3 most gifted poet 4 To Ghirlandajo 5 Symbolism of Alexander Blok

[edit] "Night. Street. Lamp. Drugstore."

Just out of curiosity, what was the rationale for the "Street, lamp, the same drugstore." translation? It can't be to preserve rhyme (with "before") since no other rhymes are preserved in the translation (while Blok's poem is rhymed AbAb throughout), and it would be silly to preserve only a single one. I suggest we opt for the literal translation and don't add the superfluous "the same" which doesn't even exist in the original. What is your source for this translation?

Putting the original text side by side seems to make sense -- and furthermore, be an established practice on Wikipedia. This is true not only for poetry, but also for names, etc. Also, since it is English WP, it is natural that the English trans. come first -- and it does. --Mefistofele 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] general comments

To explain my "sloppy" edits, I will go through the begining ones one by one:
probably the most gifted lyrical poet -> one of the most gfted lyrical poets == this is arguable; removed the bias
at Warsaw -> in Warsaw == learn English, guys
of St. Petersburg University -> of the St. Petersburg State University == inserted article
After the parents' separation -> After his parents' separation == grammar
little-known -> obscure == more professional
Verses upon the Fair Lady -> Verses About the Beautiful Lady == not only does "upon" not work in this context, "about the beautiful lady" is the accepted translation for this work -- do a google search if you doubt
His down-to-earth wife was transformed there -> In it, he transformed his humble wife == reworked extremely awkward sentence
Idealized mystical images of the first book -> The idealized... == inserted required aritcle

etc. etc. etc. As you can see, Ghirlandajo, or as somebody with an intermediate command of the English language might be able to see, these are not sloppy edits, but rather, edits that improve the quality of the writing in the article. I realize you created the article, and thus might feel protective of its content -- or insulted that your English needs work. Nevertheless, please understand that I have the best interests of the article in mind when I edit it. --Mefistofele 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] most gifted poet

I just checked the current version of Britannica Online (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9015684> [Accessed April 24, 2006].) and it does not refer to him as the "most gifted lyrical poet" nor does it use any other biased superlative language. Neither should we. And the fact that Britannica did would still not mean that we should. --Mefistofele 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That said, if you can find me quote, we can attribute it, which would be fine. Otherwise, using superlatives is just sloppy and subjective. --Mefistofele 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided a quote for you. It's easy to discard the most respected encyclopedia of the English-speaking world as "sloppy and subjective" when you have written no articles yourself. Instead of gratitude to other users who put their hard work into writing this article, you keep insulting them. It doesn't augur well for your stay in Wikipedia, to be sure. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Ghirlandajo

(Originally posted to Ghirlandajo's talk page, from where it was promptly removed by him. This is getting ridiculous. But OK, let's try discussing it here.)

I think you really need to be more considerate. Your revert was very impolite. I can imagine how chilling it would be for a novice editor. (I'm not a novice, and you probably know me, I just didn't login into my account because I'm not on my own computer right now.) You didn't question the accuracy or NPOV of my contribution; you just reverted it with a very NPOV comment "please start a separate article on The Twelve if you think this ugly poem deserves it". Don't you think that if YOU think it needs a separate article, it's YOU who are supposed to start it and move my edits there? Or at least, ask me to do this WITHOUT reverting? Isn't it just good manners?

So, I would really appreciate it if you now do one of these, i.e. either start a new article on the poem, or at lest revert your revert so I could do this myself. It would be extra nice if you could try to refrain from insulting comments like the one quoted above. It's an encyclopedia. Thank you. Trapolator 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, I await your response. Trapolator 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you bothered to look at the page, you would see that your additions were split into separate article The Twelve on May 1. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Trapolator 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally hear you Trapolator -- as a brand new editor, I can testify that my friction with Ghirlandajo on this page has made me not want to contribute to Wikipedia. Somebody needs to change his attitude. --Mefistofele 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolism of Alexander Blok

I added the section entitled "Symbolism of Alexander Blok" because the user Ghirlandajo disapproved of its deletion from the Russian Symbolism page. I feel that its content is far more relevant to the current page than the one on Russian Symbolism. The only problem is that I feel the passage to be written in unclear language. Could someone more familiar with Blok's poetry try to make it more readable? Thanks.---kmblacksquare