![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a number of references indicated that his mother was an Armenian. So far I have not seen a single reference indicated she was Georgian. Please provide refs and we would put by such and such refs she was Georgian. Or if the new refs would certainly trump the old ones, we would remove the Armenian part Alex Bakharev 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Russian Wikipedia says he was shot for propagating mysticist ideas that heaven located in superluminar velocities which he described in his book under impression of Einstain's Theory of Relativity.-- Dojarca 03:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the following recent edit from the article pending discussion. It is not clearly obvious to me that Florensky's apparent antisemitism is a sufficiently notable aspect of his life and thought as to to need a whole section devoted to it. As regretable as it is, such antisemitism would not have been uncommon in Florensky's time and society. What do others think about including such information in this way? Afterwriting ( talk) 10:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Florensky is regarded by several sources as being thoroughly antisemitic: his private letters written at the time of the ritual murder accusation or blood libel laid against Menahem Mendel Beilis, show clearly that he believed Jews murder Christians to obtain ritual blood. (Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism, Penn State Press, 2010 p.167.) Florensky’s influence has been detected in the vociferous anti-Semitism of Vasily Rozanov. Rozanov's 'The Tactile and Olfactory Attitudes of the Jews towards Blood' acknowledges the help of a friend whom historians suggest was probably Florensky.(Judith Deutsch Kornblatt 'Russian Religious Thought and the Kabbala,' in Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, Cornell University Press, 1997 pp.75-97, pp.90-91 & n.38.) For his biographer Avril Pyman, Florensky contributed two essays to Rozanov's tract, a critique of Daniil Khvolson's thesis that blood sacrifice did not form part of ritual practice in ancient Israel, and a 'Letter from the Caucasus'. (Avril Pyman, Pavil Florensky: A Quiet Genius: The Tragic and Extraoerdinary Life of Russia's Unknown Da Vinci, A & C Black 2010 p. 104.) Both Florensky and Rozanov have been described as sufficiently extreme in this regard that they incited direct violence against Jews. (Vladimir M. Paperni, 'A Philo-Semitic Narrative in the Anti-Semitic discourse: The Case of Vyacheslav Ivanov,' in Alexander Kulik (ed.) Jewishness in Russian Culture Within and Without, BRILL 2014 pp.93-108 p.105.) Responding to claims that Florensky used Rozanov to publish his own views under the latter's name, in order to avoid giving a public impression he, Florensky, was associated with the Black Hundreds, (Edith W. Clowes, Fiction's Overcoat: Russian Literary Culture and the Question of Philosophy, Cornell University Press, 2004 p.177.) Pyman counters that Florensky expounded his views in a climate where, regarding the Beilis case, Russian liberals on the one hand excoriated the country's backwardness while groups like the Black Hundreds went to the other extreme of instigating pogroms: Florensky he claims, did not regard rituals of sacrifice involving blood in themselves to be superstitious. (Pyman p.104.)
If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it.
AntisemitismFlorensky is regarded by several sources as being thoroughly anti-Semitic, though others consider his remarks evidence of naivity. [1]Florensky had a tendency to think of ideas in racial terms, [2]His private letters, written at the time of the ritual murder accusation or blood libel laid against Menahem Mendel Beilis, a case on which he himself never commented, [3] show clearly that he believed Jews murder Christians to obtain ritual blood. [4] Florensky’s influence has been detected in the vociferous anti-Semitism of Vasily Rozanov. Rozanov's The Tactile and Olfactory Attitudes of the Jews towards Blood acknowledges the help of a friend whom historians suggest was probably Florensky. [5] For his biographer Avril Pyman, Florensky contributed two essays to Rozanov's tract, a critique of Daniil Khvolson's thesis that blood sacrifice did not form part of ritual practice in ancient Israel, and a 'Letter from the Caucasus'. [6] Both Florensky and Rozanov have been described as sufficiently extreme in this regard that they incited direct violence against Jews. [7] Responding to claims that Florensky used Rozanov to publish his own views under the latter's name in order to avoid giving a public impression he, Florensky, was associated with the Black Hundreds, [8] Pyman counters that Florensky expounded his views in a climate where, regarding the Beilis case, Russian liberals on the one hand excoriated the country's backwardness while groups like the Black Hundreds went to the other extreme of instigating pogroms. Florensky he claims, did not regard rituals of sacrifice involving blood in themselves to be superstitious. [9]
References
‘extremist Anti-Semitic attacks against Jews that were committed by his close friend and disciple P.A. Florensky and his fellow VV Rozanov (Anti-Semitism of both of these Russian philosophers reached the level of direct instigation to violence against Jews).’ p.105
Just as a technical note: since there are way more than two editors involved now, WP:3O does not apply and has been declined. Hopefully people can come to a consensus one way or another. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
According to some historians, he also secretly contributed to antisemitic writings by Rozanov during Menahem Mendel Beilis
I have removed the section again. As per WP:STATUSQUO and other policies it is not acceptable for disputed material to be added back to articles while there is a consensus discussion process still in place. Therefore this section must remain out of the article until there is an actual consensus. This is a policy matter so must be followed. "Consensus" does not just mean a majority opinion at any given moment. Afterwriting ( talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not policy. However WP:ONUS is policy: the responsibility for getting consensus rests on those wishing to add content. I see 3 to 2 in favour of the content, which is rather hard to interpret as consensus one way or another. UNDUE is rather in the eye of the beholder and there's no real right or wrong (though there are better and worse arguments). I am not neutral and I have no knowledge of this Florensky, so I am not commenting on the arguments and consensus. Afterwriting seems to want to keep out the section altogether, while MVBW wants to (at most) integrate the section with earlier content and not have a separate section (correct me if I'm wrong). I see that an RfC has been opened. The header is too vague for my liking, but hopefully something will come out of it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Somebody keeps adding a false antisemitism diatribe about Florensky. No doubt someone with a dog in this fight. Smahthistorian ( talk) 23:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The way in which inclusion of information in this article about Florensky's alleged antisemitism is currently under dispute and attempts to seek consensus are not proving useful. I would appreciate responses from uninvolved editors and administrators on the relevant content policies and the consensus processes required to resolve matters. Afterwriting ( talk) 22:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the Russian article has had a paragraph, stable for years, on the issue of his anti-Semitism, we shouldn't be bickering here about inclusion/exclusion. A compromise was offered - a few sentences, with details in a footnote. All that is needed is to craft those sentences. I suggest
Recent research by Michael Hagemeister has authenticated that antisemitic material, written under a pseudonym is in Florensky's hand. His biographer Avril Pyman evaluates Florensky’s position regarding Jews as, contextually for the period, a middle way between liberal critics who excoriated at the time of the incident Russia’s backwardness and the behaviour of instigators of pogroms like the Black Hundreds.
Comments? (forget exclusion. The opposition to any mention of this cannot be defended on policy grounds). Nishidani ( talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Michael Hagemeister, unsurprisingly nominated for deletion by Wishes shortly after his scholarship was cited here, is of course no virgin when it comes to Florensky studies 1 2 3 4 5. Not surprising, since turn of the century Russian mysticism and anti-modernism seems to be his specialty. Anyway turning to MVBW's claim—that Hagemeister was not the first one to prove the authorship—it is clearly correct:
Footnote 48: Впервые материалы Флоренского, использованные в книге Розанова, были однозначно идентифицированы игуменом Андроником (Трубачевым) — на основании хранящихся в архиве Флоренского его корректур, писем и набросков — в комментариях (в целом крайне скудных) к новому изданию: В. В. Розанов. Сахарна. Обонятельное и осязательное отношение евреев к крови. // Собр. соч. под ред. А. Н. Николюкина. М., 1998. С. 438. Авторство Флоренского в отношении предисловия к сборнику “Израиль” было впервые подтверждено С. М. Половинкиным: Флоренский П. А. Соч. в 4-х т. Т. 2. С. 808. Немецкий перевод указанных текстов Флоренского: Hagemeister M., Metelka T. (Hg.). Appendix 2. // Materialien zu Pavel Florenskij. Berlin — Zepernick, 2001.
Zvezda
While it is not clear at all that Hameister did no corroborative research on the issue of authorship (I am not sure what "letter" signed with w (Щ?) Svetlikova is talking about) but it is true he was NOT the one who made the discoveries about the authorship of the published pogromist texts. It is also clear that the evidence for authorship is clearly presented in Hagemeister's essay (it is not something that Hagemeister merely asserts). Finally Guccisamsclubs ( talk) 18:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not usually intervene in debates on the internet, but given the repeated references to my work, I would like to clarify a few points:
1) I never pretended to have “detected” Florensky’s letters to Rozanov, although I knew them long before they were published in 1998 by Nikoliukin in Rozanov’s Collected Works, nor was it me who “corroborated” their authenticity. This was sufficiently done by the leading Russian Florensky expert (and grandson) Abbot Andronik (see Nikoliukin’s edition p. 438) and has never been questioned, as far as I know, by any scholar.
2) I was probably the first to initiate a discussion on Florensky’s anti-Semitism at the International Florensky Conference in Potsdam in 2000. My paper was then published in the conference proceedings and an authorized Russian translation appeared under the title Novoe srednevekov’e Pavla Florenskogo, in: Issledovaniia po istorii russkoj mysli. Ezhegodnik za 2003 god. Pod red. M.A. Kolerova (Moskva: Modest Kolerov, 2004), pp. 86-106. The publication in “Zvezda” (which, unfortunately, was released on the web) is a pirated one based on an unauthorized translation.
3) Since then, a lot has been published concerning the question of Florensky’s anti-Semitism. See, e.g., the substantial contribution by Dominic Rubin: Holy Russia, Sacred Israel: Jewish-Christian Encounters in Russian Religious Thought (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies, 2010). See also the revealing correspondence between Florensky and Rozanov (V.V. Rozanov: Literaturnye izgnanniki (Moskva-St. Peterburg, 2010). If you read German, you may also have a look at a book I co-edited on that subject: Appendix 2. Materialien zu Pavel Florenskij (Berlin-Zepernick, 2001) with translations of all the relevant material.
4) The question of Florensky’s anti-Semitism may be an open one for some people. For me it seems to be clear that somebody who accuses the Jews of deliberately poisoning the blood of the Gentiles (see Florensky’s letter to Rozanov, 26 October 1913) is not a Judeophobe in the old Christian tradition of framing the Jews as “perfidi Iudei” (who will repent and be saved at the end of the times), but a modern racist anti-Semite.
Michael Hagemeister (no user name) 7 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:47:6C0F:A001:4133:1220:B197:A074 ( talk) 14:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pavel Florensky. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pavel Florensky. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what this part means and it does not appear to have a citation
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a number of references indicated that his mother was an Armenian. So far I have not seen a single reference indicated she was Georgian. Please provide refs and we would put by such and such refs she was Georgian. Or if the new refs would certainly trump the old ones, we would remove the Armenian part Alex Bakharev 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Russian Wikipedia says he was shot for propagating mysticist ideas that heaven located in superluminar velocities which he described in his book under impression of Einstain's Theory of Relativity.-- Dojarca 03:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the following recent edit from the article pending discussion. It is not clearly obvious to me that Florensky's apparent antisemitism is a sufficiently notable aspect of his life and thought as to to need a whole section devoted to it. As regretable as it is, such antisemitism would not have been uncommon in Florensky's time and society. What do others think about including such information in this way? Afterwriting ( talk) 10:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Florensky is regarded by several sources as being thoroughly antisemitic: his private letters written at the time of the ritual murder accusation or blood libel laid against Menahem Mendel Beilis, show clearly that he believed Jews murder Christians to obtain ritual blood. (Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism, Penn State Press, 2010 p.167.) Florensky’s influence has been detected in the vociferous anti-Semitism of Vasily Rozanov. Rozanov's 'The Tactile and Olfactory Attitudes of the Jews towards Blood' acknowledges the help of a friend whom historians suggest was probably Florensky.(Judith Deutsch Kornblatt 'Russian Religious Thought and the Kabbala,' in Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, Cornell University Press, 1997 pp.75-97, pp.90-91 & n.38.) For his biographer Avril Pyman, Florensky contributed two essays to Rozanov's tract, a critique of Daniil Khvolson's thesis that blood sacrifice did not form part of ritual practice in ancient Israel, and a 'Letter from the Caucasus'. (Avril Pyman, Pavil Florensky: A Quiet Genius: The Tragic and Extraoerdinary Life of Russia's Unknown Da Vinci, A & C Black 2010 p. 104.) Both Florensky and Rozanov have been described as sufficiently extreme in this regard that they incited direct violence against Jews. (Vladimir M. Paperni, 'A Philo-Semitic Narrative in the Anti-Semitic discourse: The Case of Vyacheslav Ivanov,' in Alexander Kulik (ed.) Jewishness in Russian Culture Within and Without, BRILL 2014 pp.93-108 p.105.) Responding to claims that Florensky used Rozanov to publish his own views under the latter's name, in order to avoid giving a public impression he, Florensky, was associated with the Black Hundreds, (Edith W. Clowes, Fiction's Overcoat: Russian Literary Culture and the Question of Philosophy, Cornell University Press, 2004 p.177.) Pyman counters that Florensky expounded his views in a climate where, regarding the Beilis case, Russian liberals on the one hand excoriated the country's backwardness while groups like the Black Hundreds went to the other extreme of instigating pogroms: Florensky he claims, did not regard rituals of sacrifice involving blood in themselves to be superstitious. (Pyman p.104.)
If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it.
AntisemitismFlorensky is regarded by several sources as being thoroughly anti-Semitic, though others consider his remarks evidence of naivity. [1]Florensky had a tendency to think of ideas in racial terms, [2]His private letters, written at the time of the ritual murder accusation or blood libel laid against Menahem Mendel Beilis, a case on which he himself never commented, [3] show clearly that he believed Jews murder Christians to obtain ritual blood. [4] Florensky’s influence has been detected in the vociferous anti-Semitism of Vasily Rozanov. Rozanov's The Tactile and Olfactory Attitudes of the Jews towards Blood acknowledges the help of a friend whom historians suggest was probably Florensky. [5] For his biographer Avril Pyman, Florensky contributed two essays to Rozanov's tract, a critique of Daniil Khvolson's thesis that blood sacrifice did not form part of ritual practice in ancient Israel, and a 'Letter from the Caucasus'. [6] Both Florensky and Rozanov have been described as sufficiently extreme in this regard that they incited direct violence against Jews. [7] Responding to claims that Florensky used Rozanov to publish his own views under the latter's name in order to avoid giving a public impression he, Florensky, was associated with the Black Hundreds, [8] Pyman counters that Florensky expounded his views in a climate where, regarding the Beilis case, Russian liberals on the one hand excoriated the country's backwardness while groups like the Black Hundreds went to the other extreme of instigating pogroms. Florensky he claims, did not regard rituals of sacrifice involving blood in themselves to be superstitious. [9]
References
‘extremist Anti-Semitic attacks against Jews that were committed by his close friend and disciple P.A. Florensky and his fellow VV Rozanov (Anti-Semitism of both of these Russian philosophers reached the level of direct instigation to violence against Jews).’ p.105
Just as a technical note: since there are way more than two editors involved now, WP:3O does not apply and has been declined. Hopefully people can come to a consensus one way or another. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
According to some historians, he also secretly contributed to antisemitic writings by Rozanov during Menahem Mendel Beilis
I have removed the section again. As per WP:STATUSQUO and other policies it is not acceptable for disputed material to be added back to articles while there is a consensus discussion process still in place. Therefore this section must remain out of the article until there is an actual consensus. This is a policy matter so must be followed. "Consensus" does not just mean a majority opinion at any given moment. Afterwriting ( talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not policy. However WP:ONUS is policy: the responsibility for getting consensus rests on those wishing to add content. I see 3 to 2 in favour of the content, which is rather hard to interpret as consensus one way or another. UNDUE is rather in the eye of the beholder and there's no real right or wrong (though there are better and worse arguments). I am not neutral and I have no knowledge of this Florensky, so I am not commenting on the arguments and consensus. Afterwriting seems to want to keep out the section altogether, while MVBW wants to (at most) integrate the section with earlier content and not have a separate section (correct me if I'm wrong). I see that an RfC has been opened. The header is too vague for my liking, but hopefully something will come out of it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Somebody keeps adding a false antisemitism diatribe about Florensky. No doubt someone with a dog in this fight. Smahthistorian ( talk) 23:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The way in which inclusion of information in this article about Florensky's alleged antisemitism is currently under dispute and attempts to seek consensus are not proving useful. I would appreciate responses from uninvolved editors and administrators on the relevant content policies and the consensus processes required to resolve matters. Afterwriting ( talk) 22:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the Russian article has had a paragraph, stable for years, on the issue of his anti-Semitism, we shouldn't be bickering here about inclusion/exclusion. A compromise was offered - a few sentences, with details in a footnote. All that is needed is to craft those sentences. I suggest
Recent research by Michael Hagemeister has authenticated that antisemitic material, written under a pseudonym is in Florensky's hand. His biographer Avril Pyman evaluates Florensky’s position regarding Jews as, contextually for the period, a middle way between liberal critics who excoriated at the time of the incident Russia’s backwardness and the behaviour of instigators of pogroms like the Black Hundreds.
Comments? (forget exclusion. The opposition to any mention of this cannot be defended on policy grounds). Nishidani ( talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Michael Hagemeister, unsurprisingly nominated for deletion by Wishes shortly after his scholarship was cited here, is of course no virgin when it comes to Florensky studies 1 2 3 4 5. Not surprising, since turn of the century Russian mysticism and anti-modernism seems to be his specialty. Anyway turning to MVBW's claim—that Hagemeister was not the first one to prove the authorship—it is clearly correct:
Footnote 48: Впервые материалы Флоренского, использованные в книге Розанова, были однозначно идентифицированы игуменом Андроником (Трубачевым) — на основании хранящихся в архиве Флоренского его корректур, писем и набросков — в комментариях (в целом крайне скудных) к новому изданию: В. В. Розанов. Сахарна. Обонятельное и осязательное отношение евреев к крови. // Собр. соч. под ред. А. Н. Николюкина. М., 1998. С. 438. Авторство Флоренского в отношении предисловия к сборнику “Израиль” было впервые подтверждено С. М. Половинкиным: Флоренский П. А. Соч. в 4-х т. Т. 2. С. 808. Немецкий перевод указанных текстов Флоренского: Hagemeister M., Metelka T. (Hg.). Appendix 2. // Materialien zu Pavel Florenskij. Berlin — Zepernick, 2001.
Zvezda
While it is not clear at all that Hameister did no corroborative research on the issue of authorship (I am not sure what "letter" signed with w (Щ?) Svetlikova is talking about) but it is true he was NOT the one who made the discoveries about the authorship of the published pogromist texts. It is also clear that the evidence for authorship is clearly presented in Hagemeister's essay (it is not something that Hagemeister merely asserts). Finally Guccisamsclubs ( talk) 18:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not usually intervene in debates on the internet, but given the repeated references to my work, I would like to clarify a few points:
1) I never pretended to have “detected” Florensky’s letters to Rozanov, although I knew them long before they were published in 1998 by Nikoliukin in Rozanov’s Collected Works, nor was it me who “corroborated” their authenticity. This was sufficiently done by the leading Russian Florensky expert (and grandson) Abbot Andronik (see Nikoliukin’s edition p. 438) and has never been questioned, as far as I know, by any scholar.
2) I was probably the first to initiate a discussion on Florensky’s anti-Semitism at the International Florensky Conference in Potsdam in 2000. My paper was then published in the conference proceedings and an authorized Russian translation appeared under the title Novoe srednevekov’e Pavla Florenskogo, in: Issledovaniia po istorii russkoj mysli. Ezhegodnik za 2003 god. Pod red. M.A. Kolerova (Moskva: Modest Kolerov, 2004), pp. 86-106. The publication in “Zvezda” (which, unfortunately, was released on the web) is a pirated one based on an unauthorized translation.
3) Since then, a lot has been published concerning the question of Florensky’s anti-Semitism. See, e.g., the substantial contribution by Dominic Rubin: Holy Russia, Sacred Israel: Jewish-Christian Encounters in Russian Religious Thought (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies, 2010). See also the revealing correspondence between Florensky and Rozanov (V.V. Rozanov: Literaturnye izgnanniki (Moskva-St. Peterburg, 2010). If you read German, you may also have a look at a book I co-edited on that subject: Appendix 2. Materialien zu Pavel Florenskij (Berlin-Zepernick, 2001) with translations of all the relevant material.
4) The question of Florensky’s anti-Semitism may be an open one for some people. For me it seems to be clear that somebody who accuses the Jews of deliberately poisoning the blood of the Gentiles (see Florensky’s letter to Rozanov, 26 October 1913) is not a Judeophobe in the old Christian tradition of framing the Jews as “perfidi Iudei” (who will repent and be saved at the end of the times), but a modern racist anti-Semite.
Michael Hagemeister (no user name) 7 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:47:6C0F:A001:4133:1220:B197:A074 ( talk) 14:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pavel Florensky. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pavel Florensky. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what this part means and it does not appear to have a citation