This   level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Russia: Language & literature High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force. Poetry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

I honestly have no intrest in the subject either way, but the opening sentence struck me as biased and guilty of using a peacock term Fennessy 04:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

(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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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

Vladimir Soloviev was not an uncle of Blok: Olga Solovieva, a cousin of Blok's mother was married to Mikhail Soloviev, Vladimir Soloviev's brother. Thus, Vladimir Solovie was, in fact, a very distant relative of Blok. ZMatskevich ( talk) 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Poetry centric and I have been having a discussion about the Poetry Lovers Page as a source for external links. I don't support the inclusion for reasons given below. I thought we should transfer the discussion here. Span ( talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Poetry centric, thank you for your message. I removed the Poetry Lovers website from Alexander Blok because there already many translations of his poems posted in the external links and also the PL website doesn't say anything about the organisation running it. It looks like a privately published website run by an enthusiastic translator. There are many thousand of these types of poetry sites out there. So as to use strong, official sources re WP:RS and WP:EL we try and use recognised sites and translators. I am in the midst of trying to cleanup Blok, Akhmatova, Brodsky and Tsvetaeva; trying to use strong sources. I'm happy to discuss this further. Best wishes Span ( talk) 21:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello Spanglej, Is there a reason why you do not like Yevgeny Bonver's translations of Alexandr Blok's poems? You have removed a link to the Poetry Lovers' Page, which is the official site of original and unique translations of Russian poets by Yevgeny Bonver. Poetry Lovers' Page has been around since 1995, is a quite reputable resource. Please consider re-adding the link back to Alexandr Blok's Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry centric ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear Spanglej,

First of all thank you for taking your time to reply and investigate the issue further. I believe the work you are doing is important and necessary and I applaud you for your efforts.

Having said that, below are some highlights of why I still think you should not remove links to Poetry Lovers’ Page (PLP) from Wikipidia entries of Russian poets, such as Alexander Blok.

You might not agree personally with each single argument below, however collectively these arguments should provide a strong case of PLP’s reputation and respect levels.

1. If you search in Google for “Yevgeny Bonver” -site:poetryloverspage.com you will see that over 300 websites (other than poetryloverspage.com) are directly referencing Yevgeny Bonver’s translations which are hosted on poetryloverspage.com.

2. Some of the Links to Yevgeny Bonver’s translation posted on Wekipedia have been around for years.

3. PLP is a trusted source to many home schooling sites.

4. PLP is bookmarked in Delicious, stumble upon, and digg, among others.

5. PLP is listed first in many search engines (Bing, Yahoo, etc.) when searching for “poet_first_name poet_last_name poems”, including the majority of the Russian poets whose translations are published on PLP.

6. PLP carries significantly more translations than the other websites currently listed in the external link section in Wikipedia. For example under Alexander Blok PLP has over three dozen of original and unique translations published so far while the other links provide about a dozen, collectively. By not listing this website you are denying the English speaking world of free and public access to Alexander Blok’s poetry.

To add, to this point, PLP is the official website that hosts Yevgeny Bonver’s translations. PLP does not re-publish translations of Russian poetry found on other websites, or previously published anywhere else – it only features content that cannot be found anywhere else. For example, if you stumble upon any one of the translations from PLP’s Russian Poets section anywhere else on the Internet, and there is no link back to PLP, it means the owners of the site in question have not obtained a proper permission from PLP to publish these translations, and are hosting them illegally.

7. Having said all the above, for comparison purposes I argue that PLP website has significantly more credibility than some of other links, such as the second listing http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/ which is simply a resource hosted in someone’s home directory at a university. As you might well know home directories are temporary while the person works/studies at that university and rarely can be considered as reliable stable and permanent resource. In comparison PLP has been a trusted resource since 1995.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this message these are just highlights. If you are still not convinced and require additional details, let us take this conversation offline and continue via email. For this purpose please feel free to contact me via PLP Contact Us form http://www.poetryloverspage.com/contact_us.html

Regards, Poetry_Centric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry centric ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your message. I would have a look at the conflict of interest guideline. It seems that you are promoting an organisation that you are involved with. External links guidelines state: "You should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". Best wishes Span ( talk) 09:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear Spanglej, Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have reviewed the links to the guidelines in your previous response. You are right, the policies state that one “should not” post links in my situation (the wording does not imply that it is forbidden). However, when in doubt, it states, that other editors should participate in review of the posted links. Given that I am still trying to introduce original material into the common knowledge base, I ask of you to remain objective, and that you once more review the PLP link/site, and please take another look at the arguments I posted in my previous message for keeping the link intact. Please let me know of your decision. In the meantime, in order to clear the conflict of interest issue, I will recuse myself from further postings on this page, and will let other editors step in, if needed. Regards, Poetry_Centric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry centric ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Poetry Centric, the above is my take on things. I suggest we move this discussion to Blok's talk page. I still stand by my above views. I'm sure the site will be a great web resource but I think it's not best as a source of external links on Wkipedia. Best wishes Span ( talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

External links

English translation of Blok's Poems. The New Formalist Press. Retrieved 2010-10-28

Bad link as of 2012-03-01

G. Robert Shiplett 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This was rated b-class, but I've re-rated it start-class. It does not meet the b-class standards as per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#grades guidelines. The article is not suitably referenced. The article does not reasonably cover the topic. The article is not "substantial", considering the importance of Blok and the number of sources available on him, or well-referenced, which would be required even for c-class. INeverCry 23:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Blok was involved here, many authors and books mention it [2], but Irina thinks it should be sourced differently. I have no idea what she wants:

"Blok was drafted and brought in by the Extraordinary Commission to transcribe the Thirteenth Section's interrogations of those who knew Grigori Rasputin. ^[1] In 1919 the report of the Thirteenth Section, nearly 500 pages long, vanished."

Usually people add a template citation needed to the sentence, or to information they are unfamiliar with. Why not here? There are other solutions, is not it? Some help or checking before you delete anything would be helpful. Usually it is possible to improve the article.

Taksen ( talk) 05:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Taksen: Why didn't you use the Edvard Radzinsky biographical WP:RS instead of edit warring by using the sensationalist historical novel "Rasputin's Daughter" by Robert Alexander (which is certainly a fully blown dramatization based on some facts)? I'm not even entirely certain that the Radzinsky information qualifies as WP:RS... but it's certainly closer to the mark.

Do any other contributors have any opinions, one way or the other, as to whether Radzinsky's novel qualifies as a reliable scholarly work? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply

P.S. as regards - Usually people add a template citation needed to the sentence, or to information they are unfamiliar with. Why not here? - 1) A reference was added and it happened to be a bad one; 2) The content you added reads as gobbledygook tacked onto a rational paragraph. One doesn't ask for better sources for content that doesn't make any particular sense. Rather than edit warring without providing a reasonable WP:ES ( here and here, why not come straight to the talk page and let it be known what you are trying to establish and what sources should/could/might be used? You could see clearly that I was asking for RS. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply

You are right, Radzinsky is half reliable, but this is a fact.

• Blok is mentioned in the Russian Wikipedia as being appointed in May 1917. Details are here [3]
• By Orlando Figes here [4]

Taksen ( talk) 07:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I removed a quote from The Twelve (poem). The poem is famous, but this particular translation does not add anything to the page. What it suppose to illustrate? It should not go as the first quotation on the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply