Talk:Pavel Florensky

message: 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)
thread_title: Saparashvili/Saparova

message: 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)
replies: text: Good God, now I don't know which Russians to curse. Well, did they give a source? Dawud (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: Note to readers. Florensky's anti-Semitism is not 'alleged'. All scholars concur that he wrote passages underwriting the Blood Libel at a time when pogroms and people could be murdered on suspicion Jews killed Christians for their blood.Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: *This is very simple. Consider this big book about Florensky that you used for sourcing. Yes, it qualify as academic RS. Yes, it mentioned the alleged antisemitism of Florensky. But it mentioned it on only a couple of pages (whole book about him is around 300 pages). Such is relative significance of this. Same should be on this page. This should be one phrase at most in a section about something else, or simply nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: **That is simply disposed of. T. S. Eliot, like Florensky, a dreamer of a return to the Middle Ages who expressed anti-Semitic views, in life and poetry, and just as Florensky gave support to Rozanov, so Eliot touted the execrable anti-Semite Charles Maurras. We have a whole section on it (which could be improved by some additional material). If however you look at a standard biography by an admirer (Pyman admires, with some reason, Florensky) Stephen Spender, the topic is breezily passed over in a few lines (Stephen Spender, Eliot, Fontana 1975 pp.59-60 (mainly an explication of the poem, not its racial innuendoes, and p. 220). Not for that reason do we ignore the substantial literature specializing on Eliot's anti-Semitism, nor should we do so by burying this, as you suggest.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Let's just follow the policy, and it is clearly against including section you want to include on this page. Speaking more human language, as one of people in stories by Dragunsky said, "why are you noticing only my dirty pants if there are so many wonderful things around?" My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: (If you want to continue could you do so above, and leave this reserved to third party comments? Thanks).Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: *This  "proportionality principle" (one that you call "sheer nonsense") is known here as WP:NPOV. Note that current versions of pages must comply with WP:NPOV. This can be achieved either by adding more sourced materials or by removing something "undue". Either way is good if it helps to improve the page by complying better to WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did propose a solution to the WP:BALASP "concerns" from you folks. Narrowly interpreted, with little or no reference to other policies or the nature of the content, BALASP is of course sheer nonsense. If an article begins at "NPOV" (in your static sense) and someone makes just about any non-minor edit, NPOV is violated. The horror! Revert, wikilawyer, stonewall, repeat and call an emergency meeting, repeat. What a great way to help the project! Guccisamsclubs (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is too meta and probably useless, but since I don't know anything about Florensky, this will have to do. The argument about NPOV isn't correct. Let's say the edit is about issue X. Firstly, that edit can render all the different aspects about X fairly, so the overall article is still NPOV. Secondly, and more pertinently for this case, we can think of NPOV as a range, not a point. Suppose we think of something as NPOV if the article is in -0.05 to +0.05 range. In this model, even a pure POV edit can still make an article stay in the NPOV range. In this case, the original article mentioned nothing about the anti-Semitism, so perhaps it can be thought of as +0.05. Mentioning anti-Semitism in a long section pushed it too far into negative. But some people are happy with a small mention of anti-Semitism, provided it stays within -0.05. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: "because everybody else at the time had similar views". Who said such nonsense? I missed it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Pyman more or less thus contextualizes Florensky's remark. I too agree with Guccisamsclubs's compromise, but let's wait for further input.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Quoting Afterwriting from the post that started this whole thing: " 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." Tom Reedy (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Your comment above ("Trying to argue the material out of the article because everybody else at the time had similar views") is an example of improper synthesis. Each separate phrase by Afterwriting was correct, but your synthesis was not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: youre right—its worse.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: :Note to readers. Florensky's anti-Semitism is not 'alleged'. All scholars concur that he wrote passages underwriting the Blood Libel at a time when pogroms and people could be murdered on suspicion Jews killed Christians for their blood.Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is very simple. Consider this big book about Florensky that you used for sourcing. Yes, it qualify as academic RS. Yes, it mentioned the alleged antisemitism of Florensky. But it mentioned it on only a couple of pages (whole book about him is around 300 pages). Such is relative significance of this. Same should be on this page. This should be one phrase at most in a section about something else, or simply nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: **That is simply disposed of. T. S. Eliot, like Florensky, a dreamer of a return to the Middle Ages who expressed anti-Semitic views, in life and poetry, and just as Florensky gave support to Rozanov, so Eliot touted the execrable anti-Semite Charles Maurras. We have a whole section on it (which could be improved by some additional material). If however you look at a standard biography by an admirer (Pyman admires, with some reason, Florensky) Stephen Spender, the topic is breezily passed over in a few lines (Stephen Spender, Eliot, Fontana 1975 pp.59-60 (mainly an explication of the poem, not its racial innuendoes, and p. 220). Not for that reason do we ignore the substantial literature specializing on Eliot's anti-Semitism, nor should we do so by burying this, as you suggest.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Let's just follow the policy, and it is clearly against including section you want to include on this page. Speaking more human language, as one of people in stories by Dragunsky said, "why are you noticing only my dirty pants if there are so many wonderful things around?" My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: (If you want to continue could you do so above, and leave this reserved to third party comments? Thanks).Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: *This  "proportionality principle" (one that you call "sheer nonsense") is known here as WP:NPOV. Note that current versions of pages must comply with WP:NPOV. This can be achieved either by adding more sourced materials or by removing something "undue". Either way is good if it helps to improve the page by complying better to WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did propose a solution to the WP:BALASP "concerns" from you folks. Narrowly interpreted, with little or no reference to other policies or the nature of the content, BALASP is of course sheer nonsense. If an article begins at "NPOV" (in your static sense) and someone makes just about any non-minor edit, NPOV is violated. The horror! Revert, wikilawyer, stonewall, repeat and call an emergency meeting, repeat. What a great way to help the project! Guccisamsclubs (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is too meta and probably useless, but since I don't know anything about Florensky, this will have to do. The argument about NPOV isn't correct. Let's say the edit is about issue X. Firstly, that edit can render all the different aspects about X fairly, so the overall article is still NPOV. Secondly, and more pertinently for this case, we can think of NPOV as a range, not a point. Suppose we think of something as NPOV if the article is in -0.05 to +0.05 range. In this model, even a pure POV edit can still make an article stay in the NPOV range. In this case, the original article mentioned nothing about the anti-Semitism, so perhaps it can be thought of as +0.05. Mentioning anti-Semitism in a long section pushed it too far into negative. But some people are happy with a small mention of anti-Semitism, provided it stays within -0.05. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: "because everybody else at the time had similar views". Who said such nonsense? I missed it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Pyman more or less thus contextualizes Florensky's remark. I too agree with Guccisamsclubs's compromise, but let's wait for further input.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Quoting Afterwriting from the post that started this whole thing: " 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." Tom Reedy (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Your comment above ("Trying to argue the material out of the article because everybody else at the time had similar views") is an example of improper synthesis. Each separate phrase by Afterwriting was correct, but your synthesis was not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: youre right—its worse.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928011447/http://www.crvp.org/seminar/05-seminar/Ekaterina.htm to http://www.crvp.org/seminar/05-seminar/Ekaterina.htm
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) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928090836/http://www.theandros.com/parallelvis.html to http://www.theandros.com/parallelvis.html
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) 18:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't understand what this part means and it does not appear to have a citation
::He defended himself vigorously against the imputations until he realized that by showing a willingness to admit them, though false, he would enable several acquaintances to resecure their liberty --JMWt (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear section