Talk:Karolina Pavlova

Citation Needed and Notability

I have asked for citations for "Karolina Pavlova was an important writer in nineteenth-century Russia" and "For years they ran a brilliant literary salon in Moscow"

While there are a few issues with this article i think the most glaring is - the 2 sentences above are about the only ones that attest to the actual notability of the subject. Most of the article is just giving biographical details about the subject, i think the article needs more focus on WHY the subject is an important author, and (to a lesser extent) the importance of other literary activities she engaged in, such as running a literary salon. And this needs to be backed up with evidence

Brunk500 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources/references

The references for this consist of basically 2 books which are referenced multiple times. I think in order to make sure all aspects are covered and npov is maintained, we need a wider variety of sources.

Also, it would be good to have some links included in the references. The only external link provided doesnt work.

Brunk500 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Main idea

I think that all feminist propoganda should be removed from article. Pavlova was not first and only Russian female poet, there was also several famous poets such as Bunina, Annenkova, Rostopchina, Zhadovskaya and others. Criticism was not directed at her female origin or her works, but at her specific manners, which some considered as arrogance. She left Russia not because of criticism, but for family reasons. There were no "Gender Barriers," she freely print and was quite famous and respected during her lifetime. And so on. Article about poet doesn't contain any information about her poetry, but contains a huge number of complaints about their allegedly misunderstanding. This must be changed.VVPushkin (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this. Here, at least, I found not a single mention of any gender-related problems she might have had. Yes, she's been criticized by Saltykov-Schedrin (in particular, not by Sovremennik in general, as this section tries to make us believe), but his calling hers 'a moth poetry', was obviously an ideological grudge. On the other hand, Belinsky praised her work, which says a lot. There is a line, though, in Krugosvet article, mentioning "the mix of delight and irritation" in critical response to her work, explaining the latter as a possible 'male' reaction "to a 'female' invasion, rather meek, though, in Pavlova's case". If such an opinion deserves a mention, it should be incorporated (equally 'meekly') into a Legacy section, unwritten yet.-- Evermore2 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there's been some polemics with Sovremennik alright. Problem is, her opponent in the magazine was Panayeva. A woman, alas. Who's had problems with Pavlova's being 'too patriotic', apparently. -- Evermore2 (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)