Talk:Marina Tsvetaeva

message: Regarding the new version of the first paragraph: is it known that Stalin personally presented any opinion of Tsvetaeva's poetry? And the word "bolshevik" there is an anachronism. 
Generally, the article is much too biographical for my taste. Of course, it's nice of me to talk the talk while I don't change it, and perhaps I'll try. --AV
Difficult to say, and I am trying to interpret history intelligently here; the odds are that Stalin was certainly aware of her work, and if so would have been critical. If you look at what happened to her peer, Osip Mandelstam, for example, who admittedly was openly explicitly critical of Stalin (he was eventually executed for writing poetry), or the obloquy into which Anna Akhmatova was forced, and also consider the significance of peotry within Russian culture, you will realise immediately why he would have been interested. Her work was personal and certainly attracted considerable opprobrium from the official Writers' Guilds (pah!), but just how far up the greasy pole this goes is (probably) impossible to ascertain (but I will see if I can nail this one: I remember Elaine Feinstein saying something about it and I will write to her; also I will dig out the V, Schweitzer biography and see what I can discover). The policy, however, did come all the way from the top. 
On your second point, the biographical framework is just a beginning. I will deal with the poetry and her work as I go along. Your contributions will be greatly appreciated. sjc
OK: the Stalin letter of 1930 in Bolshevik which concerns "superstructure" effectively gave explicit voice to a policy which had previously been unspoken: nothing could be published which was at variance with the official point of view. This, as Nadezhda Mandelstam points out in Hope against Hope, effectively made censorship unnecessary. Given that Tsvetaeva's work was primarily personal and thus "manifestly un-Soviet", QED. sjc
:It's just that, well, Stalin's explicit remarks about and interest in, say, Pasternak and Mandelstam are well-known, but I recall no evidence for his explicit interest in, or pronouncement on, Tzvetaeva's poetry. That it was the kind of poetry that was made unwelcome by Stalin's policies is clear, but did he specifically mention her or her poetry at any time? -- I don't think so, though I'm no expert in the field. --AV
 
You don't think the arrest and execution of Sergei Efron and the arrest of Ariadna were purely coincidental do you? Particularly since Efron by this time was a puppet in the hands of the NKVD? It was clearly orchestrated to remove her sources of support. Moreover, she was sent to Yelabuga and not allowed to remain with the other evacuated writers. The Writers Guilds closed all their doors. She was being made a non-person at someone's behest. Given what we know about Stalin and his attitude towards poets it doesn't take a lot to start to put the pieces in place. But I will endeavour to locate the concrete evidence as you are so insistent on the subject, and not because I think Stalin deserves even the remotest hint of the benefit of the doubt. I think common sense indicates that the instructions came right from the top: in Mandelstam's case we have documentary evidence; ditto the obloquy to which Akhmatova was consigned. What on earth makes you think he would have nothing to do with arranging an unpleasant fate for Tsvetaeva, who was as important a poet? sjc
This article was taken practically verbatim from: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Biographies/MainBiographies/T/tsvetaevavanovna/1.html Some cosmetic changes were made, but large sections were copied word for word. I wonder of the additional material was also taken from a copyrighted source. Danny
:This article has been around for some time -- who is to say that they didn't take the text from us? I vote to keep it. The worse case scenario is that they either are the copyright owners or think they are and tell Jimbo to remove it -- which he will. I only say this because the article was created in the old UseModeWiki days (back in February). --mav
::My guess is that we took it from them just because of the material that was removed to shorten it to a more Wiki format. Also, the absence of key links. I will put it back if you think it is okay, but we should be careful. Danny
:::I say we put it back and give the original contributor the benefit of the doubt. Even though you are probably right this really isn't a clear enough case for me to justify deletion and the consequences if I am wrong are minor (that's if the other website ever notices). However, you probably already know that I check for and delete a lot of copyright violations -- but these are found quickly after they are created so there is no question that they are in fact violations. --mav
::::Well, since I wrote the body of this essay over 12 years ago, and it has been generally in the public domain for that time, I think we can safely say that the reason that this has turned up in another place is that someone has borrowed from those notes. I don't personally hold any copyrights on this since it was largely in a handout form I dished out when giving talks on Tsvetaeva. User:Sjc
::::This also raises the interesting question: just exactly how do we protect our backs when something like this occurs? User:Sjc
:::::Now that is a very good question. Since we have edit histories for everything marking the exact time and date of article creation and edits (even the old UseMod ones), then I would say that in a case like this another website would have to conclusively prove that we stole from them and not the other way 'round. I will ask the list this question. --mav
::::::I've been thinking about giving this a good going over for some time, in any case. Probably now is as good as any. It recycles a couple of canards which I regret (particularly the Lily Feiler comments about the abuse of her daughter); also the section on her poetry needs more structure to it, it's just a bit more of a biography on  wheels. user:sjc
:::::: About the last paragraph ("What other writers have said about..."): this seems rather selective and is not a really useful section to me. I'd like to read "negative" or at least some criticism here, to keep the article neutral. I'd even vote to delete the section alltogether, since Boris Pasternak's opinion on Tsvetajeva's work is as useful to me as of fellow Wikipedians or my next-door neighbour - and we're certainly never going to list those. But guess that opinion will not be shared by everybody. Jeronimo 00:33 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)
::::::: OK, there were plenty of people ready to denigrate Tsvetaeva. I'll try and balance it out. But I do think that Pasternak's views on anything are interesting. He has a rare and penetrative mind. user:sjc
:::::: Thanks for the effort - my point regarding Pasternak was that interesting is not the same as "encyclopedia-worthy". See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (shouldn't that be in the Wikipedia namespace?, btw) points 1, 7, 8 and 9. Jeronimo 00:50 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)
:::::::The point I would make is this: if it serves to throw light on the subject, there is no reason not to include it. If I hadn't thought that it might conceivably be useful, I wouldn't have put it in. user:sjc
-----
My apologies to sjc and everyone for removing it in the first place. The similarities were such that I was convinced that was the original source. At least the piece got a working over. Danny
:'s cool. I would have drawn the same conclusions myself, and certainly would have raised the question. It's kind of interesting though, I wonder how much of stuff I've done for various poetry events etc, is or has been scattered or agglomerated over the net. If push had come to shove we'd have slaughtered 'em, in any case. There is a lot of detail in the article that probably only I and a handful of Tsvetaeva scholars would have known at the time of writing in any case; much of it has subsequently entered the public domain courtesy of the Viktoria Schweizer biography (published 1992). I will watch their article and see whether they revise it to take on board the inaccuracy in the dates (for example). :-) user:sjc
:Take it as a compliment. I read the article there a while ago and found it sufficiently memorable to want to check it against the Wikipedia version, when I first saw it. :-) Danny
:Have you read Viktoria's book, Danny? It is quite the most fascinating biography I have ever read. sjc
No, but I will certainly look for it. Danny
you should added that Marina Tsvetaeva hanged herself in Yelabuga. Because it seems in article that she died in Chistopol. But she died in Yelabuga. --Debora 13:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier comments 

message: I kind of wondering, why there are no link to article about Sophia Yakovlevna Parnok? 
Tsvetaema and Parnok had an affair, just a year after she married Efron and born him a daughter Alya.
Tvetaeva dedicated a book of poems to her, entitled "To Girlfriend"(Podruga in Russian)
Also, may be this is enough to include Tsvetaeva to the list of lesbian writers?
: There's no mention since no one has gotten around to it yet, I suppose. Tsvetaeva cannot be added to the list of lesbian writers, since she was not a lesbian. While she had relationships with two women (Parnok and Sonya Holliday), she had many relationships, probably dozens of them, with men. CRCulver 08:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsvetaeva acknowledged a sexual relationship in letters. As did Parnok. No biographer of her denies a sexual relationship. CRCulver 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Tsvetaeva lesbian affairs 

message: .Biophys (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some sources

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Tsvetaeva.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: quote: "USSR stamp featuring Tsvetayeva (1992)". This caption may be incorrect: are we saying the stamp was designed before the demise of the USSR? Am I wrong in thinking the USSR no longer existed after 1991? G. Robert Shiplett 14:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, I imagine the stamp is so titled because this is the description given to the file. "Thsvetaeva USSR original stamp 1992". It's entirely possible it is wrongly attributed.Span (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR stamp 1992? 

message: I do not think this is really important, but he could not be homesick for the Soviet Union because he never lived in the Soviet Union. I am going to make more edits here, and your input is certainly appreciated. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He was born in Moscow. Are concerned about the distinction between Russian and the Soviet Union? He was homesick for Moscow, certainly. Please note that you are deleting referenced material. Span (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He left Russia around ~1920 when Soviet Union did not exist (it was established in 1922). So writing that he was homesick for the "Soviet Union" is nonsense, and I doubt that the quoted tertiary source claims exactly this. Of course he was homesick (if he was) for Russia. But this is just a minor thing. There are more serious problems here.My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New edits

message: Why this revert? What "POV edit" and what "editorial commentary"? I only looked more carefully at the source (book by Kudrova) and summarized what it tells. According to the previous version, 
"Kudrova in The Death of a Poet: The Last Days of Marina Tsvetaeva posits three causes for Tsvetaeva's death: that her sister Anastasiia insisted that she kill herself to save her son, that she suffered from mental illness, or that she feared recruitment by the local NKVD."
No, that is not what Kudrova tells in the book. Indeed, she mentioned various versions of Tsvetaeva death in a couple of phrases (as above), but then she discusses only one version (by Khenkin) as a relatively new and credible in the whole chapter. So, what I did was an adequate description of the whole chapter by Kudrova about Tsvetaeva death, instead of cherry-picking one phrase in previous version. Perhaps we must describe the version by Kudrova (and Khenkin) in more detail, that's fine, but this part must definitely be improved. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, according to a more credible version that was put forward by former NKVD agent Khenkin and supported by notes in diary of Mur and other circumstantial evidence..." This is the POV, editorialising part. Span (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have just commented at Anna Akhmatova, WP is not interested in editorialising commentary. Text is based on what can be verified in reliable sources. We give citations and the reader can go off and find out for themselves what they make the evidence. This is an encyclopaedia, not a personal take on history; not a blog, a text book or an attempt to set any kind of record 'straight'. We just cite secondary sources. This is all the more important with highly emotive subjects like these. We have to let texts speak for themselves.  The article says Kudrova mentions three versions of events, as she does. She may develop one theory over others but this article cites many biographies. Adding our own personal conclusions counts as original research. See WP:NOT for more details. Span (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded about Akhmatova . Please note that books by Kudrova qualify as secondary RS, and she is one of the leading Russian biographers of Tsvetaeva, while books by Khenkin (I can easily quote them too) probably qualify as primary sources. I do not mind mentioning several different versions, providing that they are given appropriate weight per source. Let's do it. No problem. If you claim that I am making OR here (of course I do not), I can quote Kudrova like this "...". Is that what you suggest? My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You tell: "She may develop one theory over others but this article cites many biographies." Fine, let's describe one theory that she (and Khenkin) developed, along with others that are already mentioned above. I summarized her theory as follows: "However, according to a more credible version that was put forward by former NKVD agent Khenkin and supported by notes in diary of Mur and other circumstantial evidence..." and so on. If you can summarize her chapter better, that's fine. Do it. But telling about three versions is obviously an entirely wrong way to summarize her chapter. P.S. I am telling that her version is "more credible" than version that Tsvetaeva was directly killed by NKVD agents, which is apparently "fringe" (described as "rumors"). My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the most concise way to tell it: according to this version, Tsvetaeva was forced to commit suicide by NKVD. However, we must explain how and why - per sources like the book by Kudrova. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I should fix it at some point. BTW, here are links to the best ever songs (Russian) created on the poetry by Tsvetaeva (My Tsvetaeva Disk 1 and Disc 2 by Elena Frolova). Would be any objections to using them as links/refs in the page? My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Book by Kudrova

message: writing about how worry and starvation affected her "looks"?!  This is unbelievably sexist.  Nobody would ever write this about any man, ever. --so very tired of (unconscious?) misogyny  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.88.22 (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your removal of that remark.  Rebbing  07:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexist language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marina Tsvetaeva. 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/20160306083656/http://www.russiandvd.com/store/product.asp?sku=56344&genreid= to http://www.russiandvd.com/store/product.asp?sku=56344&genreid=
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) 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On reading this useful and informative article, I noticed that although David McDuff (the author of this comment) is mentioned with Elaine Feinstein as a Tsvetayeva translator, there is no bibliographical reference to his volume of Tsvetayeva translations (Bloodaxe, 1987). For the sake of completeness, I suggest that the reference be included, and the edit not reverted - as it was today - on the grounds of 'self-promotion'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwmcduff (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to McDuff translations 

message: Does "Frantz Shubert" come from some authorized English text that ought not be changed, or was it just translated by someone who didn't know who Franz Schubert was? --146.255.181.43 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frantz Shubert?