Talk:Joseph Brodsky

Russian language editions

It seems that Russian-lang 1998 Works and days consists mostly of memoirs of others about Brodsky and and analysis of his writings. After I listed it here and only then briefly looked at its online edition, I'm not sure where exactly it belongs. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Russian or American?

Why is he listed as Russian poet if he was an American citizen? I think saying Russian American would be more correct What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Northern (talk • contribs) 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

How about Russian born American? That seems to be the standardization per wp:mosbio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

• JB is simply a RUSSIAN poet. He wrote mainly in Russian. His place of residence is of litle importance.Galassi 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Galassi confuses being an English-language poet with being an American poet. The latter does not mean the language, but simply the country of residence. There are, for instance, plenty of Yiddish-language American poets and Brodsky clearly was an American poet. (In addition, I must say he published two books of original essays and at least one collection of original poetry in English, so WHO can judge whether that is or isn't enough to be called American?!)--SimulacrumDP 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I plead total ignorance on this but would ask, what nationality did Brodsky have when he did most of his work or become notable? As pointed out above, it isn't about what language he wrote in, ect but his citizenship/nationality. The article says he became a US citizen in 1980, he would have been 40 years old. This is one of those really dicy ones. I know my good friend JackoLantern would probably ask "What do most reliable sources call him? I won't revert/do anything until we can get more eyes involved, thanks! --Tom 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He lived in the United States since 1972.--SimulacrumDP 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling JB an American poet is a bit притянуть за уши................. Most of his poetic thinking was done in Russian. So there you have it.Galassi 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that in Russian or Russia?? Again, I'm just trying to figure out how to classify his nationality and not his literary genre. Thanks --Tom 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian has 2 forms to distinguish citizenship from culture, русский & российский. It is not easy то convey in English.Galassi 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Galassi, thanks and I sort of get what you mean. We still need to figure out how to mention Brodsky's nationality in the LEAD sentence. Did he have US citizenship? Did he maintain Russian citizenship? What do other reliable sources refer to him as? Again, I am not trying to deny his ethnicity or say he is entirely American, but per wp:mosbio, nationality should be mentioned in the lead. Of what citizenship was he when he did his most notable work. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He was STRIPPED of his Soviet citizenship, was naturalized in the US, was ethnically Jewish, and culturally Russian.Galassi 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's confusing, of course. Yet, not as much as it seems. Brodsky wrote poetry predominantly in Russian (although not exclusively) and he wrote prose mostly in English (although not exclusively). He lived in the US since 1972. He was Russian (language) AND American (residence) author. So, Russian(-language) American author, or Russian and American author both sound fine to me. For the introductory sentence it immediately provides an idea of his linguistic and geographical affiliations...--SimulacrumDP 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Silesian bias

In unfortunately typical Wikipedia style, the article mentions right in the beginning how "He had an honorary degree of the University of Silesia." This is mentioned before we even know anything about his works or struggle with the Soviet government, possibly because a local Silesian patriot meant to emphasize it. The honorary doctorate from Yale is mentioned much further below, although I would believe that university has an unlike greater reputation (this might be different in the are of Russian-language poetry?). I could not find evidence on the web that Brodsky actually has that honorary degree from Silesia, maybe some Polish speaker can verify this? The degree from Yale is mentioned on [2]. 169.237.10.220 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I confirm, that Brodski was awarded by the University of Silesia in 22 June 1993. http://gu.us.edu.pl/index.php?op=artykul&rok=2003&miesiac=10&id=2714&type=no You can read a memoir about that, published in the University Newspaper (pol. Gazeta Uniwersytecka). There also two interesting photos from these days, Brodski with Czesław Miłosz, who was his favourite poet, and with his fans, signing autographs. Unfortunately, we can't publish them here, I think... Kowalmistrz (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He received many honors - do we need the full list of his awards and honors at the beginning of the article, or in the end?130.166.34.168 (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Brodsky

In my opinion, the question "is JB a Rusian Poet?" is a little far-fetched... Let me take a simple example: Irwing Berlin - a Jew, who came to USA from the Russia's Far East - is one of the Greatest AMERICAN composers (and liricists). Like JB, he was russian-born, but nobody ever was trying to call him "Russian" or "Russian-American", even in spite he (unlike JB) left his native land voluntary, as child with his parents. There is a lot of similar examples, especially in America. Today JB known as one of the Greatest poets of 20th Century. It would be never happen if he wasn't an American Citizen. And he was writing in English also. And he has never been in Russia after his exile. And those who wanted see him coming back...now call him "Russian". But it's a wrong idea. Actually, he was a P O E T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.17.125 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Russian listing of works

I suggest cutting the Russian listing of works re WP:RSUE. The sources are available in English and only Russian-speaking editors can maintain this part of the page. Spanglej (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Plaque

In her biography of Brodsky Shtern writes that the plaque on his house reads "In this house from 1940 to 1972 lived the great Russian poet Iosif Aleksandrovich". If there is any query to this, please add a source and /or discuss here. Thanks. Span (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

was an American poet and essayist

are u crazzzy??? how much in english and in russian? "Я чувствую себя русским поэтом, англоязычным эссеистом и гражданином Америки" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6zL8T_ai6U&feature=related "I think I'm a russian poet, an english essayist and US citizen" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.169.44.24 (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead refers to his citizenship. Span (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Russian poet and essayist would be the best opening? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. A poet is normally identified by the language he writes in.--Galassi (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not get the point. Russian poet and essayist as piped to Russian literature does not detail the ethnicity because this would be against the policy, but gives the geographic context. This is what I propose. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A poet is not defined by the language he writes in on Wikipedia. Galassi, we've been here before. See above. He was a naturalised American citizen. Span (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity is politically irrelevant for a poet. There are many Jews among Russian poets, with a number of citizenships. Their Russian Poet title is never disputed, except for some marginal antisemites.--Galassi (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

His English essays are outstanding. That is what brought me here -- where I noticed a mistake about the cemetery in Venice and fixed it. Mballen (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA

WP:OPENPARA says we determine by citizenship. Brodsky was a US citizen. 'Russian-born American' is fine with me. This does not have to do with language, ethnicity or anything else. Just legal status of citizenship. Span (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout "Russian poet and American man of Letters"? That rationally summarizes his literary activities.--Galassi (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about the subject's activity, just citizenship. The idea is to make the article the best and clearest that it can be for readers. Span (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, the policy states normally nationality is defined as citizenship, while the Soviet Union is not a normal case by any means. One could argue that Russia as a nation never ceased to exist. At the breakup of the country, Soviet citizens were automatically entitled to citizenship in a republic of their choice. That would have been surely Russia for Brodsky. I realise this is complicated but someone with more knowledge and experience on this matter could perhaps explain whether it is correct to assign Russian as the nationality during the Soviet Union. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The question before us at the moment is citizenship. Brodsky chose US citizenship. He left and never went back. He was the US poet laureate. I am not American, by the way, I'm just wanting to get clarity that helps the article become stable. Span (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship is secondary for (in this particular case a Russian) poet, especially one who was FORCIBLY EXILED/EXPELLED. There is no conroversy here, he is a Russian poet, and American citizen, and his NOTABILITY rests on the former. --Galassi (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The question before us is not citizenship but nationality. Otherwise we'd just put Soviet and close the case. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In English nationality and citizenship are the same. Ethnicity in English refers to Soviet "Nationality".--Galassi (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, besides belonging to a sovereign state, nationality may denote belonging to a nation. See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom for example. One may easily argue that several nations constituted the Soviet Union, including Russian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several constituent Nations in UK, hence UK nationalities, a very particular case, but there is no difference between Nationality and Citizenship in American English.--Galassi (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just check Nationality#Nationality_versus_citizenship to be convinced in the opposite. Even modern Russia has several nationalities. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

IN the US a "national" is a someone of any ethnos or color born in the US, while a "citizen" may be a naturalized ex-foreigner.--Galassi (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Then we are discussing a U.S. citizen of some other nationality. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In Brodsky's case his Citizenship is American, his Ethnos is Jew (but not Jewish, as he was in all likelyhood a Protestant of some sort) and his Nationality is none, because he was stripped of his Soviet citizenship. All that aside he was a RUSSIAN poet.--Galassi (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why I have proposed already two options: Russian poet or Russian poet. Please acquaint yourself with WP:OPENPARA which warrants only the nationality during the time the person became notable, not later. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The first is more acceptable. Let's get on with it.--Galassi (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Marina Basmanova was the first Muze.

Muze

In 1962, in Saint Petersburg, Anna Akhmatova introduced Brodsky to the artist Marina Basmanova, who was drawing Akhmatova's portrait. Basmanova was an elegant tall lady from an established artistic family (her father, artist Pavel Basmanov, was once arrested by the Soviet Feds and charged with anti-Soviet activity spending time in prison from December 1934 to March 1935, the same prison where Brodsky was incarcerated in 1964). Brodsky was so impressed with Basmanova's talent, charm and natural flair, that for the next ten years she was his one and only love. From then until his exile in 1972 they were partners and together they had a son.

Brodsky dedicated some of the Russian language's most mellifluent and powerful love poetry to Marina Basmanova:

I was only that which

you touched with your palm

over which, in the deaf, raven-black

night, you bent your head...

I was practically blind.

You, appearing, then hiding,

taught me to see."

The first test to their relations was at the end of 1963, when Brodsky left Marina Basmanova in the care of his friend, fellow poet Dmitri Bobyshev. Soon Brodsky had fled to Moscow to avoid arrest, so Bobyshev used the opportunity and slept with Basmanova. As soon as Brodsky heard of this, he hurried back to Leningrad and confronted them, breaking off relations with Bobyshev, and forgiving Basmanova. The most pain to their relationship was inflicted by the powerful KGB. Brodsky later explained how he was victimized by the Soviet KGB when Bobyshev's hitting on Basmanova coincided exactly at the time when Brodsky was intimidated by the Soviet Feds. In November 1963 Brodsky was labeled as "parasite" in the government paper "Evening Leningrad." He was soon arrested and humiliated in an unfair trial during 1964, and Marina Basmanova was helplessly waiting for him. During the year 1965, Basmanova and Brodsky lived together in his sentence in Norenskaya village in Archangelsk province in Northern Russia, before returning to Leningrad in December 1965. Their son, Andrei was born on the 8th of october 1967. Andrey was registered under Basmanova surname, because Brodsky did not want his son to suffer from political attacks that he endured. Marina Basmanova was threatened by the Soviet authorities which prevented her from marrying Brodsky or joining him when he was exiled from the country.

After the birth of their son, Brodsky continued to describe and memorialize his love for Marina Basmanova.

So long and life together been that once

the snow began to fall, it seemed unending;

that, lest the flakes should make her eyelids wince,

I'd shield them with my hand, and they, pretending

not to believe that cherishing of eyes,

would beat against my palm like butterflies.

In 1989, Brodsky wrote his last poem to "M.B.," his old muse, describing himself remembering their life in Leningrad:

Don't get me wrong,

Your voice, your body, your name

mean nothing to me now.

No one destroyed them.

It's just that, in order to forget one life,

a person needs to live

at least one other life.

And I have served that portion.

For many years Marina Basmanova was living in fear of Soviet authorities, until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, only after that Andrei Basmanov was allowed to join his father in New York. Andrei Basmanov later made readings of his father's poetry in a documentary about Brodsky. The film contains Brodsky's poems dedicated to Marina Basmanova and written between 1961 - 1982.

some changes to the Russian years

Brodsky met Akmatova in August 1961, not in 1960. Akhmatova did not introduce Brodsky to Marina Basmanova (at the moment when the introduction took place - beginning of January 1962 - Akhmatova was in a hospital after a heart attack. Most probably it was Brodsky who introduced his girlfriend to Akhmatova). Basmanova was not drawing Akhmatova's portrait, though there is some evidence that she made some sketches of Akhmatova. Bobyshev, not the most popular person in the circles of Leningrad intelligentsia, nevertheless has never been held responsible by anybody for denunciation of Brodsky by the authorities in 1963, this is nonsense. All this apocryphal information came obviously from Keith Gessen's article in The New Yorker in 2011, which article does Mr. Gessen no owner.

"Marina Basmanova was threatened by the Soviet authorities which prevented her from marrying Brodsky or joining him when he was exiled from the country" - this statement is totally without basis.

"Within 10 days [after Brodsky's visit to the Ministry of Interior in 1972] officials broke into his apartment, took his papers..." - this never happened.

Unfortunately the article is based on unreliable sources and sometimes on pure pulp fiction (another example is an article in Interview magazine: http://interviewmg.ru/229/) and it needs to be rewritten.Sergey.leskov (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The text you deleted or changed is referenced by sources including The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English, The Dictionary of literary biography and the New York Times. If you wish to challenge the information they state, please give alternative reliable sources. Using edit summaries also help other editors understand your changes. Thank you Span (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I am new to Wikipedia and there is plenty to learn, e.g. using edit summaries.

The sources you named are relevant to some of my edits, still I will be careful and double-check information provided by sources of compilation nature. My other edits concerned material either without references or with references to articles by Keith Gessen in The New Yorker and Natalia Turovskay in Interview magazine. Honestly, I do not see why these articles are expected to be reliable or even referenced altogether: Google search for "Natalia Turovskay and Brodsky" brings two articles (in Russian media); search for "Keith Gessen and Brodsky" brings three articles in English, two of them are book reviews.

My edits are based primarily on the books by Lev Loseff, Brodsky's close friend of 30+ years and the author of his only biography; Valentina Polukhina, the author of 15 books devoted to Brodsky's life and works; and Solomon Volkov's transcripts of audio recording of dialogs with Brodsky between 1978 and 1992, many of these dialogs were published before Brodsky died in 1996. Some of these works are available in English.

1. Valentina Polukhina, Iosif Brodskii: Zhizn', Trudy, Epokha (Joseph Brodsky: Life, works, epoch. Petersburg: Zvezda, 2008)

2. Lev Loseff, Iosif Brodskii: Opyt Literaturnoi Biographii (Joseph Brodsky: A Literary Life. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardia, 2006)

3. Solomon Volkov, Dialogi s Iosifom Brodskim (Conversations with Joseph Brodsky. Moscow: Eksmo, 2006)

4. Lydia Chukovskaya, Zapiski ob Anne Akhmatovoi (The Akhmatova Journals. Moscow: Vremia, 2007)

5. Lydia Chukovskaya, Otryvki iz Dnevnika: Iosif Brodsky (Excerpts from the Diary: Joseph Brodsky. Moscow: Vremia, 2010)

6. Lev Loseff, Pro Iosifa (About Joseph. Moscow: Novoe Izdatelstvo, 2010)

Since some of my edits are of negative nature - I wanted to remove some bold statements that are not confirmed by any of the above works - sometimes I can not reference specific pages.

- Brodsky met Akhmatova on August 7, 1961 - [2] p.68 and [1] p. 49 (currently article mistakenly states it was in 1960 with reference to The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English)

- Brodsky was introduced to Basmanova on January 2, 1962 ([1] p. 59 and [2] p. 72) and Akhmatova had no part in it - at this moment she was in a hospital after heart atack ([4], record dated January 1, 1962). (currently article says that Akhmatova introduced the two, there's no reference for this statement).

- Regarding current statement that Brodsky "was denied permission to travel..." - it is a common knowledge that Brodsky travelled freely inside the Soviet Union except for 18 months of his exile. Obviously he was denied only travelling outside of the country.

- Regarding "Within 10 days officials broke into his apartment, took his papers..." (in May 1972) - none of other sources mentions this "fact". See for example a transcript of Brodsky's detailed account of his last days in the Soviet Union - [3] pp. 216-233.

- Regarding Basmanova "who was drawing Akhmatova's portrait" - this is not confirmed by any sources. On the other hand Anna Akhmatova in the Visual Arts says: "M. Basmanova indeed made in 1963 a series of drawings from nature, depicting Anna Akhmatova. This is a small work (album sheet, envelope, exercise book, etc.), made in lead pencil, Italian pencil, black or gray pastel. M. Basmanova does not remember exactly how many there were drawings. They are lost in her archives and, perhaps will be found some day. (Information obtained from M. Basmanova.)"

- Regarding "the secret transcription" of Brodsky trial: it is a fact confirmed by many witnesses that Frida Vigdorova, a journalist, were making a short-hand record of the trial openly, for which she was reprimanded by the judge.

- And of course nobody in Russia blames Dmitry Bobyshev for Brodsky's troubles with authorities in 1963-64. This statement is outrageous. It directly refers to Keith Gessen article in New Yorker, but the article says differently: "Almost unanimously, people in their circle condemned Bobyshev. Not because of the affair—who didn’t have affairs?—but because, as soon as Bobyshev began to pursue Basmanova, Brodsky began to be pursued by the authorities". I'd say the phrase doesn't make sense unless the author implied that Bobyshev was responsible for denunciation, but Gessen never says as much directly and I don't think he meant to - he's just fond of being playful in a poor taste. As all sources agree, Brodsky first new of the affair between Bobyshev and Basmanova when he was already in trouble with the state ([2], p. 86), he was in the psychiatric hospital to be exact, and this was a poor choice of moment for one of his best friends to get involved with the woman he loved.Sergey.leskov (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Brodsky's views

I think this article must contain a section on Brodsky's views and how he had expressed it in his poetry. If the poetry contains hate speech, it is unacceptable to hide it. Every wikipedia article should be about facts and not about opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.107.182 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to edit war over this. The question has been raised on the talk page. That is what it's for. If either of you revert again, you will be blocked for 3RR - three reverts in 24 hours, ie, edit warring. e Span (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Spar, first of all I hope you support a point of view that hate speech and xenophoby should not be tolerated in Wikipwdia. Do you? The second, here are translations of just two pieces from the mentioned Brodsky's poem:

      Dear Charles XII, the battle of Poltava is lost.
      Thanks God. As said The Burr,
      "Time will punish you" and show you ruins,
      and bones with joyfull taste of Ukraine.
      That flag is not a green flowered,
      but yellow blue. It flies over Konotop,
      but stored was from Canada.
      It is without a cross, but khokhlos
      dont need it.

      Go away from us, in a uniform, f**k of, away.
      Now let the Hans and Polaks will rape you, bastards.

The poem contains multiple ethnic slurs and obscence expressions. I would not like to translate the rest, the poem is just too disgusting. The authorship of the poem is completely clear, recognized in peer-reviewed journals and the author red the poem at least twice. Because of agruments mentioned above I do not see the objections from user Lute88 as valid and restore the section about Brodsky's xenophoby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.14.20 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2013‎ (UTC)

The problem here is that Brodsky's authorship is not documented. No one ever has seen this poem, it is absent in his collected works. It is merely a rumor. Professional philologists think it is a fake. --Galassi (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Professional philologists think it is a fake" -- source, please. I've put two sources (and I can put much more), including a peer-reviewed journal that prooves the authorship. That is not a unique situation when some poem is ommited from the collection. As for me, even the amount of hate would be a reson to do that for this particular work. Please, stop vandalism.

No answer, just as expected. Therefore I restore the previous version.

That would be nice to protect the corresponding section of the article from vandalism and deletion with comments "it is wrong because it was written by Ukrainian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.177.148 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(sorry, if I write in the wrong place -- that is my first editing experience in non-Russian wikipedia) this statement (allegation) "Bobyshev was widely held responsible for denouncing him" is completely wrong. It is founded only on one source - KEith Gessen' article (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/05/23/110523crat_atlarge_gessen?currentPage=all). Gessen claims that "Almost unanimously, people in their circle condemned Bobyshev. Not because of the affair—who didn’t have affairs?—but because, as soon as Bobyshev began to pursue Basmanova, Brodsky began to be pursued by the authorities", while the opposite was true -- people condemned Bobyshev only for the affair and its unhappy timing. Gessen doesn't give any ground for this allegation. I believe this statement should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grdash (talk • contribs) 15:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

Brodsky's work is seen to have been vitally enhanced by the work of renowned translators.
I think this sentence can be misinterpreted in a way that the English translations are better than the Russian originals. Should it be perhaps rephrased like:
The reception of Brodsky's work by English-speaking readers has been greatly facilitated by the work of renowned translators.
--Off-shell (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Brodsky. 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/20090429104230/http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3493691.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3493691.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Brodsky. 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/20081003134655/http://www.nevanews.com/index.php?id_article=666&section=13 to http://www.nevanews.com/index.php?id_article=666&section=13

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Cencorsing information about Brodsky's Views on Ukraine

The latest edit by User:Biophys/User:Hodja Nasreddin, now editing as User:My very best wishes, where he removed the short section about Brodsky's poem "On Ukraine's independence" seems like a case of censorship. His comment that "Brodsky didn't publish this poem" seems irrelevant - the section mentions that the poem hasn't been published, but it has been recited to the public, thereby it exists. The article also mentions that respectable researcher had mentioned existence of this poem in his book on Brodsky (thus it's existence is beyond doubt), also in 2015 the recording of Brodsky's live performance of "On Ukraine's independence" to 1K+ plus audience in Pal Alto further proved poem's existence. Also, this seems like an important episode of Brodsky's life (which warrants its inclusion in the article and satisfy' s Wikipedia:Notability, particularly since this poem has been mentioned by academics see examples of that here or here).--Piznajko (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I simply think that mentioning a single unpublished poem is undue on the short biography page, even if there is a couple of publications about it. He wrote a lot, and a lot was written about him, which could be included if anyone cared to improve the page, rather than to make a point about something. You tell this poem was "an important episode of Brodsky's life". Tells who? None of the sources above claims such a thing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to convince you of anything. You neither own Wikipedia or have a right to censor articles at your discretion. The poem has significance, it's existence has notability (as is proven by the fact that academics wright about it). You trying to appeal to WP:BRD and simply reverting the entire section doesn't seem like a way to reach consensus. You seem to consistently ignore WP rule of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary by abusing the reverting option and applying it to anything that you dislike. Wikpeidia doesn't work that way, e.g., if I don't like someone's edit, particularly when those edits are backed by WP:reliable sources and expands the article - I don't simply come and delete everything. That's just censorship & WP:POV Pushing, e.g., you're pushing your agenda, whereupon you don't like something in the article (regarless of the fact that that something is backed by WP:reliable sources and just remove that information that you don't like, citing WP:BRD as the excuse to delete other editor's constructive edits, but in reality it's not WP:BRD that's involved here, it's WP:POV pushing --Piznajko (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, you and everyone else needs WP:Consensus to include new content on the page. But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

So, what exactly "agenda" do you think I am "pushing" by removing this material? Please explain. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you're trying to be captain censorship and delete everything you dislike (regardless of the fact that the information is backed by WP:reliable sources. So I guess you have a censorship agenda.--Piznajko (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You are placing content which is undue on the page. This is a prominent poet/writer. If you can find a book (a biography of Brodsky) where his views on Ukraine were discussed in appropriate context, I will agree about the inclusion. Same as with Bulgakov. If not, I would remove it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Undue according to who, you? Stop removing everything you dislike (calling it "undue") and playing captain censorship. It's is not in the spirit of Wikipedia--Piznajko (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

According to the policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. The poem was never published or performed by him later (the author apparently throw it away as something that was poorly written, did not reflect his actual views or whatever). It was only recently that few people brought it back from a garbage bin on the internet forums and wrote about it a in couple of publications. Things like that would be fine to include on a page about a less notable author, but in this case we have books about him. Please use them if you want to improve the page. For example. that might be an OK source, but I can not see online what was written on page 243. Can you see it? My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So why don't you add this book you're referencing here in that section, instead of reverting everything. You have already been informed that Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, a policy you constantly ignore.--Piznajko (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Because I do not know what this book tells on page 243. One need to read whole thing to make correct summary.My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So read it and stop trying to censor information backed by reliable sources. That's called WP:POV Pushing.--Piznajko (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not need to read it because I did not use this book for sourcing. Did you read what was written on page 243? My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I did read p 243, that's why I sourced it. That said though, obviously you think including that section is WP:UNDUE. I have ran out of arguments, so let's wait and see what other community members have to say regarding including that section - maybe you're right and it doesn't make sense to include that section in the article, but I would like to hear community's opinion on that.--Piznajko (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

To put it simple, Brodsky is generally known as an anti-Soviet poet (although even that could be challenged based on sources), not as an anti-Ukrainian poet. What he wrote (but did not even publish) a single poem which was recently regarded by a few people as anti-Ukrainian does not warrant a section about it on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• BTW, it is not only me who previously removed this thing from the page. At least three other contributors did [3], [4], [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reposting from my talk page (also why did you ask the same question both here on the article's talk page and on my TP?):

Upon inspection, it seems that those edits were from 2013; they weren't mine (but what difference does it make?). I'm not even sure why you're mentioning them here - the discussion from 2013 isn't really relevant now, because back then the #1 argument for non-inclusion of this content was that editors were questioning the legitimacy of the poem "On Ukrainian independence"'s existence; in other words, they claimed the poem wasn't written by Brodsky. Since the video-recording of Brodsky live reading of the poem in Pal-Alto in 1992 leaked on the internet in 2015, it became virtually impossible to deny poem's existence, so that argument from 2013 cannot be used any more--Piznajko (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No, there was no any doubts about authorship in 2013. Other contributors could have other reasons than me, but we all agree this should not be included. But of course one could ask these users what they think about it right now. Maybe they have changed an opinion? My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• But I can explain this differently. This is only about a single poem. Yes, some poems, such as Requiem (Anna Akhmatova) or Poltava (poem), are really famous and therefore should be mentioned on pages about their authors. But this is not one of them. What a hell, it was not even published by author, and it was performed by him only once. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I did check sources available online. For example, that one is interesting, despite being a partisan source by someone who looks at the poem from the "Ukrainian position". Author essentially blames Brodsky of Russian imperialism/chauvinism and compare him with "imperialist" Kipling. But here is the problem: this is claim by only one source. Other sources (including ones that mention this poem) do not consider Brodskiy to be a Russian chauvinist/imperialist. In this regard he was very different from Kipling whose The White Man's Burden was famous and widely publicized by him. One of sources you used suggests that Brodsky never published this poem because it was politically incorrect. One of his colleagues said the poem was simply "weak". In any event, by intentionally not publishing his poem someone who works professionally in this area openly admits that the work does not deserve anyone's attention or does not reflect his actual views on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)::

The last sentence that starts with [In any event, by intentionally...] is the definition of what we in mathematics call a "logical fallacy", e.g., it is when someone claims that B must logically fall from A, while in fact that is not the case.--Piznajko (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We know that he intentionally did not publish it. I am just telling that it is typical for writers do not publish something they would rather throw away. Many famous poets were a lot more nationalistic than Brodsky, e.g. Tutchev, even Pushkin (his poem To the Slanderers of Russia). Regardless, we do not have consensus for inclusion right now. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being a nationalistic writer, for both Russian and non-Russian writers. As a matter of fact, nearly every writer by definition is nationalistic - they have to have very strong national price in order to care enough to contribute to that nation's literature. Anyhow, the main thesis of the new section is not that Brodsky was Russian nationalist, it was more about his views about Ukraine.--Piznajko (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all writers are trying to "contribute to [their] nation's literature". The ones I have read talking about their motivations talk at most of adding to literature in general, not that of one country. Most say they write because they have something to say. Many write simply for money. --Khajidha (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we merely discuss what is "due" on the page. Just to put it in a certain perspective, even the highly publicized poem To the Slanderers of Russia would deserve only a very brief mention on a very long page about Pushkin, much longer that we now have in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that including the poem here is WP:UNDUE. At the same time IMO the poem deserves a separate article. It caused a good deal of controversy and finding reliable sources to establish WP:GNG is not a problem. IMO the managers of Brodsky's estate made a disservice to poet by banning the publication of the poem, and as a result, the internets are full of corrupted versions. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well as a matter of fact I also think it's WP:UNDUE to include a whole section about just 1 poem in an article about a writer. But everyone seems to try to ignore intentionally or unintentionally that's the section entitled "Views on Ukraine" is in fact indeed about Brodsky's views on Ukraine and not about that one poem at all. The poem was mentioned only and specifically as an example of writer's expression of anti-Ukrainian views via poetry.--Piznajko (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No, as follows from your main source [6] and others, it is mostly about the poem. There are actually two problems here. First, you are trying to make a point that the poem was significant/notable (no, it was actually bullshit, a slander ridiculous, nothing similar to his other poems; no wonder it was not published by him and his "managers"). And then you are trying to make a point, based on this poem, that he had strongly anti-Ukrainian views, while he was possibly just upset by the separation of the Russian and Ukrainian nations and cultures (as main source actually tells). My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

it was actually bullshit, a slander no it was not. It was "nothing similar" because it was poor poetry of an old sad man.

Brodsky said he did not publish it because it was "politically incorrect". He was a dissident and was not afraid to publish "politically incorrect" stuff in the Soviet Union. But in the West he balked in his feeble age, just as Pushkin, mentioned here ("To the Slandrers), was "sold out" to the powers. In fact, Brodsky turned out to be right: the power in Ukraine is currently grabbed by rabid nationalists who glorify their past Nazi collaborators and Poles' and Jews' slayers. It is only anti-Russian stance of the "West" that makes it close its eyes on the real situation in thoroughly corrupted Ukraine. But all neighbors of Ukraine already know better. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. Here is a reasonable commentary. But Brodsky "was right" about what? "Пусть теперь в мазанке хором Гансы с ляхами ставят вас на четыре кости, поганцы."? Obviously, they would not. Or "Только когда придёт и вам помирать, бугаи, будете вы хрипеть, царапая край матраса..." If that ever happens, it will be due to Russian policies towards Ukraine (btw, Putin just declared a kind of mobilization this summer). This is really a ridiculous poem, not in terms of how it was written (it is actually well written), but in terms of what it tells. Just as "To the Slanderers" by Pushkin. But this piece is absolutely is not typical for his poetry in general, just as no one should ever judge the poetry by Pushkin based on his "To the Slanderers" . My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The poem was way before Maidan. Yes he was right: the West promised LOTS to Ukraine, but so far gave nothing but growing national debt ("на четыре кости", means "doggy-style"). As for "Slanderers", yes we will judge late Pushkin by it: it was way not single ass-kissing poem of his. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand: he was talking that Germany and Poland will f...k Ukraine "doggy-style", and ... you agree with that. ??? What an anti-Western bias! But regardless, all sources tell that the poem was very different from all other work by Brodsky (one of them even thought it was a hoax). Hence it does not belong to the page, and this is something we all agree on this point. For the same reason no one should include discussion of recent anti-NATO poetry by Yunna Morits, for example, on her BLP page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

all sources tell that the poem was very different... Hence it does not belong -- No. It does not belong here per WP:UNDUE: reliable source which discuss Brodsky's biography or work in total (which is subject of this article) do not discuss this poem, hence we should not either. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

you agree with that. What an anti-Western bias This is poetry. Poetry should not be taken literally. Ukraine is f..d up today. Yes, by Russia, but the West did not deliver what Ukrainians naively expected, i.e., the West took some part in f..ng Ukraine. Anyway, we are not discussing Brodski's views in this respect either, and my views do not count. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Staszek Lem what do you mean "It does not belong here per WP:UNDUE: reliable source which discuss Brodsky's biography or work in total (which is subject of this article) do not discuss this poem, hence we should not either"? One of the most extensive biographies on Brodsky, has a whole section dedicated to describing this poem (Lev Loseff. Joseph Brodsky: A Literary Life. Translated from Russian by Jane Ann Miller. New Heaven: Yale University Press. 2012. 352 pp: 241-242 ISBN 978-0300181609). But time and again, you keep ignoring intentionally or unintentionally that the section entitled "Views on Ukraine", which was deleted by the abovementioned editor, is, in fact, about Brodsky's views on Ukraine and not about that one poem at all. The poem was mentioned only and specifically as an example of writer's expression of anti-Ukrainian views via poetry.--Piznajko (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Staszek Lem is completely right. Most books about Brodsky did not even mention this poem. A couple of books do mentioned it, but only very briefly. Hence "undue. And once again, a few sources which mention this poem do not consider it as proof of his hatred towards Ukrainians. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

do not consider it as proof of his hatred -- that's correct. The poem expresses pity and sorrow, not hatred. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The poem expresses pity and sorrow -- that's double correct. I would go even further, the poem expressed love and compassion.--Piznajko (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Also the disputed paragraph grossly misrepresents the source cited, which says not about Brodski's anti-Ukrainian views; instead, it says " it was republished by Ukrainian nationalists and cited as an instance of Brodsky’s extreme pro-Russian views." Clearly Ukrainian neoNazis are not experts in Brodsky's views. Therefore your argument that the section was about Brodsky's views on Ukraine holds no water. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Which source are you referencing? There were nearly 10 reliable sources used in my version , of the section. If you are referencing The New Yorker article, then two points: 1) firstly, it seems you are misinterpreting what the author said in the article 2) plenty of other sources were used to show Brodsky's anti-Ukrainian views.--Piznajko (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a non-notable controversy about this poem, but it is related not so much to views by Brodsky as to views by Ukrainian nationalists about Brodsky. Here is brief summary of this. Main points of this article: (a) "the poem first received wide circulation, after Brodsky’s death, when it was republished by Ukrainian nationalists and cited as an instance of Brodsky’s extreme pro-Russian views", and (b) yes, judging from the poem, Brodsky was unhappy about the breakdown of the Soviet Union (this is not about being "anti-Ukrainian"), which was a paradox since he admittedly was an "anti-Soviet" poet. That does not fit at all the content you are trying to include using selective citation of several sources. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Brodsky died in 1996. He did not have time to form views about (new independent) Ukraine. The poem is no so about Ukraine but about the destruction of a large state. Of course, this can be described as "pro-Russian". Which seems to sound like an insult i.e., it is an example of the modern hatred fomented in Ukraine against its own Russian-speaking population (I am not speaking about separatists) and a proof of Brodski's sad prophecy. Any Russian-speaking person criticizing current ruling clique is automatically labelled "separ" (Ukrainian insult, derived from "separatist") regardless arguments. But again, Brodsky died in 1996, he did nod see Putin, and Gorbachev (who wanted to preserve the state) was a beloved of the West at the time. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, there's zero Wikipedia:Relevance in your above comment regarding the actual content of the proposed section entitled "View on Ukraine" diff.--Piznajko (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It is 100% relevance, explaining why I think this section is low-quality WP:SYNTH based on cherry-picked sources trying to portray Brodsky as "anti-Ukrainian". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Piznajko completely misunderstood the essay. It is about not including content that arguably does not belong to the page (such as the content Piznajko wants to include). Wikipedia:Competence is required. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Per one of the editor's suggestion to ask other editors that were involved in discussion whether to include the section on "Brodsky's views", I'm reaching out to @Galassi: to hear his opinion on whether information on Brodsky's views on Ukraine should be included in the article (with this section referencing the poem "On Ukraine's independence", however with this section being about his views and not exclusively about the poem. In the 2013 discussion, Galassi presented his views how poem's authenticity is questionable - curious to hear your opinion on this newly proposed section on "Brodsky's views" in 2018 (see above for example of why authorship is no longer contested). Based on Galassi's talk page he is of both Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry, so given that we are talking about Brodsky who was of Russian and Jewish ancestry, I believe Galassi can be views as a neutral editor. Thank you in advance.--Piznajko (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What a weird interpretation of neutrality. Formally if discard any other considerations (what the O.P. did above), a Jew speaking about a Jew is not 100% impartial. Similarly, a Russian speaking about an Ukrainian (bearing in mind Russia and Ukraine are at war) is not neutral either. But this is more like a logical curiosity quip, demonstrating poor understanding of Wikipedia ways by our colleague. What is more important, we in Wikipedia do not give any weight to editor's race, gender, sexual preferences, and body fat amount. What only weighs is arguments based on information found in reliable secondary sources independent on subject. Of course Galassi (talk · contribs) is welcome here, but not because he is of Ashkenazi descent. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

IMO - This should be in a separate article, but not in the main one. The poem has indeed caused a lot of controversy to merit its own, but including it in the main article is UNDUE. For example Pushkin also has a couple similar items, insulting to Poles and Jews.--Galassi (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote the same. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On the Independence of Ukraine - welcome to expand. I was extremely reluctant to write it, because I wanted to give a chance of priority to Piznajko. But it seems like our colleague has less interest in expanding Wikipedia, but rather to prove "anti-Ukrainianness" of Brodsky. Well, he has chance to do this in the new article now. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

And how about page about that one by Esenin? This is really a shame that the first page in WP on a poem by B. was that one (we do not have other pages about his poems). This is just another proof that WP content is enormously biased towards views by political activists. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the section in question really about Brodsky's views on Ukraine?

The only text about Brodsky's views on Ukraine in the contested version is "Brodksy considered Ukraine to be part of "Greater Russia"." The rest is about the poem. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Brodsky had views no many things: on Vilnius and on cats, "of cabbages and kings", so to say. We do not have separate sections on each of these. We do have "Views of X on Y" in some bios. But this is typically in cases when X has expertise on Y-related things. Brodsky is not an authority on Vilnius, cats,... Ukraine. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed section "Views on Ukraine" is indeed about Brodsky's views on Ukraine. But chill bro, it seems you're just making a joke out of this whole section, saying Brodsky had opinions on cats and such (who on Earth gives a damn about cats, I definitely don't - let them live in the wilderness, they should've never been domesticated in the first place). Its seem the only appropriate answer to your above comment is What!? Ukraine is game to you!?. ps. 'Staszek Lem' I don't come to Poland-related articles and tell you my opinion on what's important and what's not important as it relates to Poland - then why do you do that in relation to Ukraine? (and FYI I'm half-joking here - I'm very well-aware that WP rules allow anyone, regardless of their race/origins/ethnicity to edit/comment on anything)--Piznajko (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Here is your section. Only first short phrase is not about this poem. Come on. WP:Dead horse. My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You and your other WP:Tag team friends, who find information about Brodsky's anti-Ukrainian views offensive, simply try to block addition that information to the article (information that has numerous RS) by claiming false WP:UNDUE status. So I can say WP:Dead horse to you - stop trying to censor article and prevent important information that you dislike from appearing in it.--Piznajko (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop assaulting other editors and do discuss the substance of the matter.Miacek (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No assaults on other editors here, just mere stating of the facts.--Piznajko (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

=== Question about International Center award ===
This fact looks much recycled on the web, but I can't find documentation on the year and circumstances of the award. Could anyone help? Thanks! Johannes der Taucher (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Unclear sentence needs to be rewritten

Unclear sentence here:

According to Russian literary critic and biographer and friend of Brodsky Lev Losev, Brodsky considered Ukraine "the only cultural space with Great Russia", and the Polish historian Irena Grudzinska-Gross [pl] in her book "Milosz and Brodsky" (2007) Brodsky firmly believed that Ukraine and has always been "an integral part of Great Russia".

VickiMeagher (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of anti-Ukrainianism

This article in The Guardian mentions an unpublished poem with strong anti-Ukrainian sentiments after Brodsky received his Nobel and immigrated to the US. This should be included in the Wikipedia page on Brodsky, but needs to be done by someone more familiar with his work.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/dec/04/our-mission-is-crucial-meet-the-warrior-librarians-of-ukraine

‘ In 1992, Nobel prize winner Joseph Brodsky wrote On Ukrainian Independence, a poem of rage and loathing which he never published. The work possesses a deep desire for the destruction of Ukraine: “Hurry back to your huts to be gang-banged by Krauts and Pollacks right in the guts.” But On Ukrainian Independence is a bizarre kind of love song, too, like the rageful cry of an abandoned husband: “Our love is up, if it at all existed.”’ 2600:8805:5C28:5300:F546:3FE:17C1:A4B6 (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)