Talk:Bruno Schulz

message: Non-spoiled version: Suffice it to say that there is a character named Bruno in Nicole Krauss' The History of Love.  This character is named after Bruno Schulz.
--Superluser 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schulz referenced in Literature 

message: My family's from Schulz's Home Town--and knew him personally!
Yours truly, Ludvikus 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludvikus 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And his Jewish identity--for which he was murdered by the Nazis--cannot be denied him! --Ludvikus 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Drohobytsch]], [[Drohobycz]], [[Drogobych]], . . ., [[Drohobych]]

message: Klepsydra was a word used for a sandclock as wel as for obituary - small prints that used to be sticked to a wall in public places like market or church walls in small towns those days.
I guess the better translation is " Sanatorium under the sight of obituary"87.160.208.11 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sanatoruim Pod Klepsydra" 

message: His name is occasionally spelled "Szulc" (the Polish phonetic equivalent of Schulz). It might be a good idea to note that in the intro. Any comments? --24.58.3.248 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Szulc is a very popular name in Poland, but it is a different name than Schulz. Bruno's name wasn't polonized and should be spelled Schulz.69.235.83.0 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Para 3 reads: 
One might say that Schulz became a writer by chance, since he was discouraged by some influential colleagues to publish
- should this be " he was encouraged to publish " or " he was discouraged from publishing"
In either case, he was already writing, so this has no bearing on the chances which made him a writer, but only on his being published, so perhaps the start should read "... became a published writer by chance"--Cookingwithstring 08:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content query 

message: I'm just wondering why Schulz is defined first - and therefore perhaps, implicitly most importantly as "a schoolteacher"?
Johncurrandavis (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content query 

message: OK. I note that Bruno Schulz's day job as a teacher has crept back into the first, the defining sentence. This is ridiculous. I'm sorry for this to all who pursue the responsible, creditable, stressful and noble profession of schoolteaching, but... being a schoolteacher does not warrant an encyclopedic or wikipedic entry. And so, once more. I shall await any comment here. And if there is none, I will once more make the necessary change.
:Umm, well since you appear to feel strongly about it. I don't see really why it couldn't be mentioned or what the big deal is. But ok. BTW, Kafka's profession does tend to figure prominently in a lot that is written about him. So maybe not the best comparison.radek (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure how his profession of teacher belittles his achievements. But like I said, it's no big deal either way. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, while we're here and since you seem to have a deep interest in Schulz - I think this article is pretty close to achieving Good Article status though it would need a bit extra work. I'm pretty busy myself but if someone else is also interested I'd be willing to work on it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). I don't think the comparisons to Joyce or Elliot are valid. Schulz being an art teacher for 15 years was much more important, specifically because he disliked it so much. It's a manifestation of his personal tragedy and an important aspect of his life. The article is about his life, not just his art. It's also notable, as well as interesting, that it was during the same period that his own art flourished. One can easily argue that his involvement in teaching propelled his own work, whether or not he was able to recognize that. Finally, there is no clear consensus on this page for your change. The other editors involved in this discussion have expressed reservations, but seem to have given up on changing it, due to your persistence. However, that's not how Wikipedia works. You're not supposed to remove sourced material without fully discussing on this page and getting a clear consensus. You don't own the article, as described in Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You might like to review the page if you haven't already. I'm going to restore my edit. Please seek consensus before changing it. Thank you. Greatsouthbay (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alteration, continued 

message: In regard to the whole mural controversy, it'd be nice to find out what, if any, the conclusion of it was. As I recall there were some talks, agreements, etc. but I don't know what finally happened. As is, the section on it is currently pretty out dated. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  mural controversy 

message: I do intend to "un-restore" Greatsouthbay's edit, on grounds of notability. Bruno Schulz is/was a notable writer and artist. He was also a schoolteacher, but not a particularly notable one. He is certainly more famous, and should be remembered, for his writings and drawings, not for the fact that he didn't like his day job very much. Gsb writes: "It's a manifestation of his personal tragedy and an important aspect of his life" - no it isn't, he just taught in the local school, and he was, incidentally, commended for his dedication to the job. The fact that he was a holocaust victim is "a manifestation of his personal tragedy". Gsb writes: "The article is about his life, not just his art." - yes, but the lead sentence should not be. And yes, I have read the guidelines. Gsb writes: "It's also notable, as well as interesting, that it was during the same period that his own art flourished." - you mean, during his adult/working life? no, it is neither notable nor interesting. Gsb writes: "One can easily argue that his involvement in teaching propelled his own work, whether or not he was able to recognize that" - Nonsense. I would like to see where this "argument" appears in the rather large amount of commentary that exists on Schulz, his life and art. I have read, I daresay, as much of it as most people can claim, and I am unaware of this argument, that his art sprang from his job at the school, as opposed to, for example, his cultural heritage, the political volatility of his homeland, his religious views and identity, his childhood home life, his father's illness and death, and lets not forget his sexuality. I shall leave a respectable interval of time to elapse, as I always do, to allow others to comment here before I make any change. I shall, as soon as I have the time, put my efforts into happier improvements. The Polish page on Schulz is in much greater detail, and I shall be looking there. I do note with appreciation that Greatsouthbay has made quite a number of other, positive improvements to the page recently. But then, it seems, he/she is now blocked for misconduct..?
Johncurrandavis (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  on and on it goes 

message: This article popped up on WP:POLAND article alerts as a GA nominee. I've reviewed this article for our project and sadly it does not pass our B-class requirements. Primary problems: 1) not enough references (many unreferenced sentences, entire paras, sections) and 2) structure (there should be a unifying section about his works, not a bunch of smaller, not connected sections). The "mural controversy" section looks out of place. Coverage is probably fine for B-class, but certainly not for GA-class. Polish Wikipedia article is much more extensive and has a better coverage, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: GAN withdrawn. Sindinero (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class review: failed 

message: While the edit summary here is correct , the change is not. The way to describe Bruno Schulz (and Kafka) in a Wikipedia article is based on how reliable sources describe him. I am not aware of any sources which describe Schulz as "Galician". Sources describe him either as "Polish", "Jewish" or "Polish-Jewish".VolunteerMarek 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such nation as Galician and separate unified culture. Galicia was just historical region populated by people of so many different cultures and religions. --Matrek (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galician? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bruno Schulz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429174113/http://www.complicite.org:80/productions/detail.html?id=14 to http://www.complicite.org/productions/detail.html?id=14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bruno Schulz. 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  tag to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_HOLOCAUST_ART?SITE=CAANR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040914204410/http://www.schulzian.net:80/ to http://www.schulzian.net
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bruno Schulz. 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/20031203172735/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/schulz.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/schulz.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schulzian.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bruno Schulz. 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/20141110070057/http://www.sztetl.org.pl/en/article/drohobycz/5,history/ to http://www.sztetl.org.pl/en/article/drohobycz/5,history/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified