Talk:Anna Akhmatova

Lev Gumilyov

Their son, born in 1912, was named Lyov to rhyme with the surname Gumilyov;

What the heck this rhyming thingy could mean? AFAIK, he is known as Lev Gumilyov (Гумилёв). Could it be a fantasy of an english speaker based on a variant of transcription Lev Gumilev (Гумилев), later "fixed" into "Lyov Gumilyov"? mikka (t) 21:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC) I agree -- it makes no sense. Let's chop it. --Mefistofele 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Russian Levs/Leos like to call themselves Lyov (Лёв), including Leo Tolsoy. Hellerick (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Grey-Eyed King

There are many translations of Akhmatova's works into English. It would be appropriate to give credit to the translator after the poem. Samba 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but this translation seems to be copyright. Can't use it without permission... translation source ( I will modify it and make it more exact anyway, this should avoid copyright issues, and I believe this does not fall under the original research provision.) --Mefistofele 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"In 1962, her dacha was visited by Robert Frost."

This wasn't her dacha (she never had a dacha). Here is how poet Joseph Brodsky describes the visit: "she [Akhmatova] was much amused by the entire matter. It all turned out rather comical. Frost requested to meet Akhmatova because he knew that both of them were candidates to the Nobel Price that year. This was also obviously known to the Writer's Union administration. When the idea of a meeting was brought up the organizers realized that bringing Frost to see Akhmatova is impossible. What will he say when he sees her "shack"? This... doghouse? What will the journalists who are going to accompany Frost say? So the meeting was arranged to take place at the academic Alekseev's dacha. They brought Anna Andreyevna there by car. The place was hell let loose - an enormous gathering of idiots, informers, and Writer's Union juniors, which is often one and the same. Anna Andreyevna told later: "Imagine if you will: on the one hand sits Robert Frost, all hung up with every imaginable and conceivable medal and decoration that there are. And there on the other hand sit I, all hung up with every conceivable dog there is. And the conversation goes as if nothing happens. Up until the moment when he asks me "What do you do, madame, with the trees growing on your plot? I, for instance, make them into pencils". Here I couldn't take it any more and told the translator: "Tell Mr. Frost that if I was to cut down a tree on 'my plot' I would have to pay 6,000 rubles in fines". (From "Dialogues with Joseph Brodsky", by Solomon Volkov (1998)

D. Reider

http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Joseph-Brodsky-Twentieth-Century/dp/0743236394/sr=8-1/qid=1157536807/ref=sr_1_1/104-3616308-3279961?ie=UTF8&s=books)

she never had a dacha

Actually, she did. Late in life, after Khrushchev attacked Stalin's excesses (Stalin had had her blacklisted for being visited by Isaiah Berlin, whom Stalin said was a spy), she was awarded a small government pension and a small dacha in the country where she received visitors. --Michael K. Smith 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Chukowskaya

What is the reference for Lydia Chukowskaya accompanying Akhmatova to Europe in 1965? In "Notes on Anna Akhmatova" (a kind of a protocol written by Chukowskaya of almost every meeting that they had since 1936 till Akhmatova's demise), there are no details of the trip and in other section Akhmatova tells her stories of the trip (which would be unlikely if Chukowskaya was also there).

Ustinov

Is she a relative to Peter Ustinov (through Zinaida Serebryakova)?

Old name

She died in Leningrad, not in St. Petersburg, right? What's written in the article is an anachronism. Hellerick (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

"Ingeniously" structured, eh? 143.44.33.124 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian/Modigliani

Why is there no mention of her knowledge of Italian or relationship with the artist Modigliani? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.14.198 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

over imaged

Eight images for so short an article is too many. I've removed these below are least clear of her face or least directly relevant to the text.

Saint Anne Mosaic, Marian Year 1954, by Boris Anrep

File:Monument to Anna Akhmatova (Saint Petersburg) cropped.jpg

Monument to Anna Akhmatova in Saint Petersburg near Kresty Prison

File:Akhmatovamemorial.jpg

Monument to Anna Akhmatova in Saint Petersburg, patio of philological department, Saint Petersburg State University

Ukranian spelling of AK's name

May be there's a discussion to be had here about the Ukrainian spelling and diacritics of AK's name. No edit wars please. Perhaps offer some sources. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject's given name was misspelled in Ukrainian as Га́нна. Her given name in Ukrainian is Анна. I initially changed the above misspelling to Анна. This was undone by user Galassi. I changed it now to А́нна. The insertion of Г is a frank misspelling, likely a typographic error. http://www.ukrlit.vn.ua/zaruba/biography/ahmatova.html http://www.izvestiya.odessa.gov.ua/index.php?go=Newspaper&in=view&id=6698 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=en&q=Анна+Андріївна+Горенко http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=en&q=Анна+Андреевна+Горенко

Also, her birth name in Ukrainian is presented with accent marks as А́нна Андрі́ївна Горе́нко. This is a pronunciation aid, and does not represent common-usage orthography, which would be, Анна Андріївна Горенко. http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ахматова_Анна_Андріївна. The same issue arises with respect to the presentation of her birth name in Russian with accent marks as А́нна Андре́евна Го́ренко. Again this is a pronunciation aid not the common-use orthography in Russian, which would be Анна Андреевна Горенко. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ахматова,_Анна_Андреевна. I also changed the spellings of the subject's birth name presented in Russian and Ukrainian from А́нна Андре́евна Го́ренко and А́нна Андрі́ївна Горе́нко, respectively, to Анна Андреевна Горенко and Анна Андріївна Горенко, respectively. This has been undone by user Galassi, I have left it as such.

However, I disagree with the use of this convention. This convention of presenting subjects' names in Cyrillic with accent marks is not generally followed on en.wikipedia.org with other names transliterated from languages using the Cyrillic alphabet, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tchaikovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Shevchenko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milosevic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitar_Berbatov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko --brimcmike 02:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you for the information. Spanglej (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ганна Ахматова" spelling is not uncommon: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:uk:official&client=firefox-a . -Galassi (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Galassi. I had not run across Ганна in my two years of Russian (taken >30 years ago). Looking for an explanation, I came across this, "Common female first names Анна/Ганна (Anna/Hanna, equivalent to Ann, of Hebrew origin)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_in_the_Russian_Empire,_Soviet_Union_and_CIS_countries I'd like to make a passing explanatory note on this in the article.

What about either dispensing with the accented Cyrillic names, or I think a better tack would be presenting both common-use orthographic and pronunciation aid forms of the names. If so, perhaps it would be best to provide the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) spelling, since not everyone reads Cyrillic, e.g., "Анна Андреевна Горенко Russian pronunciation: [ˈannə ɐndrʲˈeʲɪvnə ɡoˈrʲɪnkə]," etc. --brimcmike (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am awfully sorry, but all of this 'Ganna Theory' it totally irrelevant. See below. -- Evermore2 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes Anna Akhmatova a Ukranian poet?..

She was born in Odessa (a Russian Empire city), her (grand)fathers having come from Sebastopol (another Russian city). Since the old ripe year of 1 (!) Akhmatova lived in Tzarskoye Selo, near St Petersburg. She was speaking Russian and French. In Ukranian she's written not a single word. She's never been an Ukranian citizen. The question is - what actually makes her Ukranian? Let alone - a Ukranian victim of Soviet repression?! -- Evermore2 (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As anyone interested enough to see this extensive bulk of autobiographical prose/notes through would see that she wasn't ethnic Ukranian ("They think I'm Ukranian because my father's second name is Gorenko...", etc). She was 1/8 Tatar (disputed by some, but at least that's what she preferred to believe), 1/8 Greek and 3/4 Russian. -- Evermore2 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I Imagine she is described as Russian/Ukrainian because she was born in Odessa which is in Present day Ukraine. These things are sensitive on WP. Do you feel Ukrainian/Russian doesn't cover it? Span (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it covers it a bit too wide. J. D. Ballard is not a Chinese writer even if born in Shanghai. Incidentally, there's no attempt to declare her either ethnically Ukranian, or a Ukranian poet, or a Ukranian victim of whatever disaster there might possibly be - in the Ukrainian_wiki.... Sensitive on WP: what that could possibly mean? -- Evermore2 (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking of phraseology such as at Herman Hesse or T. S. Eliot. I meant 'sensitive' in the sense that, just because someone left their birth country as a child doesn't mean they have no connection the country. Five countries can make a claim on a person. It's not always straight forward. Are you objecting to the categories added? It doesn't say in the article that she was a Ukrainian poet. As I say, I imagine that the Ukrainian connection comes from being born in Odessa. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What I object to would have been easier done than said, but never mind. I'd rather let this stand - as another grand monument to petty Ukranian nationalism. As for your parallels, they, I'm afraid, are flawed: Hesse was born in Germany which has never been part of Switzerland. While Odessa's been a Russian/Soviet city until... <Dead Kennedys sort of pause> ...1991, cheers. Wishes received, - ciao. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the phraseology in the Hess article "German-born Swiss poet", and to the Eliot article " American-born English poet", to point to the occasional complexity of naming nationalities. I suspect the whole 'categories' idea on WP was ill-concieved. But that's another story. Span (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Eastern Slavic naming customs "the ending -enko is of Ukrainian origin"; her having been born in Ukraine with a Ukrainian name kinda implies some degree of Ukrainian background on her part, to me at least. 70.71.166.230 (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the '…of partially Ukrainian origins' bit, I have no objection to it whatsoever. Except that - if ethnicity is to be mentioned at all in the preamble (which I think it is not) - it should be changed, of course, to: 'of Russian, Greek, allegedly Tatar and possibly Ukrainian origins'. But my initial post had to do with categories: Ukrainian poets, Ukrainian writers... etc. Having 'Ukranian background' and being a 'Ukrainian poet' are not the same thing, aren't they? Mind you, in the Ukrainian article she is being described as 'a Russian poet born in Ukraine' and categorized as: 'Foreign-language writers born in Ukraine' and 'People born in Odessa'. All of this, I think, is absolutely correct. -- Evermore2 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

When you ask what makes her Ukrainian, you need to delineate between ethnicity and language use. And on both counts, she can be considered Ukrainian, inclusively with her other identities. She is both part ethnically Ukrainian AND has written in Ukrainian. She conducted serious work on translation to and from Ukrainian. In particular, she is famous for having translated Taras Shevchenko's massive magnum opus "Kobzar" from Ukrainian into Russian.

Famous she was for many things, but not for the one you've mentioned (which is another myth, apparently). In fact, she's made herself quite infamous - by these words Lydia Tchukovskaya mentioned in her memoirs: In Kiev my life was hard and I never come to love this country and it's language (У меня в Киеве была очень тяжелая жизнь, и я страну ту не полюбила и язык.) Shocked, Tchukovskaya asked: 'What about Shevchenko? He's no lesser a poet than Mitskevich!' but the answer to that was - silence. As for translations - having to earn her living, she did translate 150 poets from 78 (!) languages,[1] including Korean, Chinese and, yes, Ukranian (several poems by Ivan Franko, that was all)[2] but, of course, none of those languages she either spoke or wrote in. -- Evermore2 (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

She was a citizen of the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union when she became notable. In the lede only nationality should be mentioned, not origin/ethnicity according to WP:MOSBIO. --Garik 11 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) NATIONALITY: She is Ukrainian because she was born in Odessa (Ukraine), just like Alphonse Mucha is depicted as Czech painter because he was born in Ivančice (Czech Republic). It doesn't matter that Odessa was part of the Russian Empire as much as Ivančice was part of the Austrian Empire (at the time of being born) because you would never say (or hear) that Mucha is an "Austrian" painter.

(2) LANGUAGE: Also, just because you born in a plane flying over USA, you're given the USA nationality, even if you don't speak a single American English word in your whole live and you live your whole live in China, for example. You would be an American writer (your nationality) that writes in Chinese, not a Chinese writer.

I hope that helps you understand that you must write that Akhmatova is either "Ukrainian" (just like you do with Mucha and many other artists and relevant figures) OR you must clearly specify she is NOT "Russian" but "Russian Empire", which is a completely different country. Saying she is "Russian" is a FALACY.

Franzrogar (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RGW sums up your "arguments". In the same way that Adam Mickiewicz is described as a Polish poet by researchers, Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus that Akhmatova was Russian. 212.3.150.119 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Expand tags

The German article is shorter than this but is FA; the Romanian article is approx double the size of the Russian article and is FA at present but its quality is being reviewed; the Russian article may be the likeliest source of additions.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Students

Anna spoke to some students at one time, while Stalin was alive. She got the impression that they were sent by Isaiah Berlin. He denied this. Possibly others could provide greater detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.183.227 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I quickly looked at the article, and it looks good to me. However, the introductory chapter tells this:

"Primary sources of information about Akhmatova's life are relatively scant, as war, revolution and the totalitarian regime caused much of the written record to be destroyed. For long periods she was in official disfavour and many of those who were close to her died in the aftermath of the revolution.[2]"

First phrase is hardly needed in introduction. As about second phrase, I am really puzzled. Do not you think that we must be more specific in describing this? One husband was executed for no reason, another died in Gulag; her only son was arrested and sent to Gulag, which became main personal tragedy of her entire life. This must be said. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I remember from books, an order to arrest her was already prepared and printed but not signed by Stalin because she wrote a panegyric to Stalin to save her son at the very moment she supposed to be arrested. This did not save her son, but saved her. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The article has recently gone through the process of GA submission. The text is sourced. "For long periods she was in official disfavour and many of those who were close to her died in the aftermath of the revolution." The sentence summarises the situation with her family, colleagues and fellow poets. It seems appropriate to comment on the lack of bibliographical sources in the lead. If you want to add further text please do add it in with reliable sources. We go to great lengths to be neutral in our editing. No editorial comment or bias must enter into the narratives given. We are after writing encyclopaedia articles not making political commentary. Thank you Span (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the text was sourced. This is not an issue. My changes were also either sourced or briefly summarized content already in the article (few phrases I included in introduction). If something was not sourced, please tell what it was, and I will provide sources. This is not a problem. Let's discuss one thing at a time. Why do you object to include more specific information about her husbands and son in the introduction? It does not take more space, but simply more specific. The information I included is critically important for understanding her life and poetry and fully consistent with remainder of article. Is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The info on family is there in the lead. Span (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, this is better. Now, how about this my edit? The campaign against Akhmatova and Zoshenko was described in every book. I only made this a new paragraph and provided an introductory phrase. Do you need a source that campaign was sanctioned by Stalin, rather than by Zhdanov? My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"In 1946 the Central Committee of CPSU, acting on the orders from Stalin, started an official campaign against the "bourgeois", individualistic works by Akhmatova and satirist Mikhail Zoshchenko." It wasn't just about Akhmatova and Zoshchenko. Yes, it would need sourcing as everything in a GA needs sourcing. Britannica, Polívanov's biography, Oxford University Press among many others refer to the period as the 'Khrushchev thaw'. See Khrushchev Thaw. It is the title of a chapter in Feinstein's biography.

So this section suppose to be about Khrushchev Thaw? Then this is completely wrong. It started in 1954, not in 1939. I removed word "thaw" in my edit as obvious typo. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the period starting from 1946 should be made a separate section. It must explain more clearly what Stalin said about Akhmatova at his meeting with writers and how this reflected on the further fate of Akhmatova, her son and Punin, finally leading to the order from Abakumov to arrest Akhmatova (one that Stalin did not sign). Some of that is already included, but without any logic. I double checked in book by Shentalinsky ("Crime without punishment"). Would you allow me to make changes without reverts? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• And just to explain this edit, a reader who does not know the subject and reads this text might be under wrong impression that academics from Petrograd (such as Gumilev) could be indeed in some way related to Khronshtadt rebellion, or that Gumilev was indeed involved in something and the charges were not completely groundless. I only clarified that it was not the case. There is no any controversy about this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Except that I provided wrong wikilink here. We need a page about Vladimir Tagantsev. Double checked. The whole case of "Petrograd Military organization" was described in official rehabilitation statement by Russian authorities in 1992 as "completely fabricated"My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

To respond to the above three points: 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 rely on secondary sources, rather than primary evidence; that is biography, journals and the like. This is all the more important with highly emotive subjects like these. We have to let facts and texts speak for themselves. Adding our own personal conclusions counts as original research. Span (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no WP:EDITORIAL here. To the contrary. We must describe things simply as they are described in vast majority of RS per W:NPOV. This includes wording. If almost every RS, including the official statement by government uses unequivocal language like fabricated, so should we. This is not POV and not WP:EDITORIAL. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to add detail from reliable secondary sources, just not to make pointy arguments. Span (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I also removed the following phrase from intro. "Primary sources of information about Akhmatova's life are relatively scant, as war, revolution and the totalitarian regime caused much of the written record to be destroyed." What this phrase suppose to mean? Which primary sources? Which records? This is completely unclear, and I do not see this described anywhere in the body of article. This should be removed from the introduction. My very best wishes (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The source is given (Wells p2). As the article says, most of the primary evidence based was destroyed. Biographers have had to piece together an incomplete picture. She disappears from the written record all together for years at a time. It's important to flag in this article that the sources given are partial. Wells talks at length on how much biography of her life is essentially 'constructed', often for polemic purposes. Span (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course the source was given, but the meaning of the phrase is completely unclear. What does it mean, "She disappears from the written record all together for years at a time." Does it mean she had no passport? Does it mean her poetry remained published? Does it mean that Soviet newspapers did not write anything about her? My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The article goes into some detail. Much of her correspondence and poetry was burnt. She was not allowed to publish her poetry for a long time and much of her poetry was circulated by word of mouth only. Many of those who knew her died in camps and left no written record of their encounters with her. Official records were destroyed during the revolution, the Terror and the second world war. Many colleagues in the west thought she had died as they had no word about her for so long. You think "much of the written record was destroyed" is unclear? The article does discuss the points in context. Span (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

her first husband was involved in a disputed plot against the regime. The subject has an affair with I. Berlin who was indeed a british spy. There are few segments of truth about the accusations against her. I believe this is not an article for one person but for one hero or about one Saint. With doing nothing the stalists were against her. Why? Ok stalin was for sure a dictator and a criminal but he did things with some reason. She was saved for a reason and was accused for one reason. Its 2018 we dont have to write fairy tales about the good and the bad 70 years ago--Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There are no fairy tales involved. WP works by using reputable sources. If you would like to challenge the sources given in the article please do. Place reliable sources here so that we can discuss the elements you wish to change, and weigh up their relative merits. Best wishes Anna (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Samizdat circulation

Greenwood says that Akhmatova's work was circulated in samizdat form in the Gulags. Booker, M. K (2005) Encyclopaedia of Literature and Politics: Censorship, Revolution, and Writing Vol. 1 A-G. Greenwood p21 ISBN-10: 0313329397. Span (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Canon

I thought nobody talked about a 'Canon' of literature any more and the term was considered ridiculously exclusivist. Isn't there another way of puttuing this? Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sceptic1954:, I'm inclined to agree. I actually think the claim itself is altogether too strongly worded when written in such absolute, overarching, and unqualified terms and supported by only a single source which happens to be a collection of her poetry (rather than supported by multiple sources arising from scholarship or other independent and neutral secondary sources that don't have a stake-in/bias towards her work). I'm going to give both issues some thought and the re-write the statement. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Akhmatova. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hbr/issues/6.1winter05/articles/anderson.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125091902/http://ahmatova.niv.ru/ahmatova/stihi/vecher-1.htm to http://ahmatova.niv.ru/ahmatova/stihi/vecher-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Akhmatova. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.akhmatovafilm.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050428185340/http://www.usc.edu/dept/las/sll/eng/ess/obv99.htm to http://www.usc.edu/dept/las/sll/eng/ess/obv99.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

saved by stalin personally wasnot in the siege

I put in the section that she was witnessed the siege of leningrand. Cause in reality she was from the last who was saved by stalin himself. --Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I will remove the cn tag as a citation is given. Anna (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

she was chosen by Stalin and she escaped the siege. What means she witnessed the siege? For how long and from what distance? It is not true that she was inside the city like others civilians who were not connected with Stalin. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Conforming to Wikipedia guidelines on edit history

Not quite sure whether you frequent Wikipedia policies Anna Roy, however, edit summaries are intended to be "a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page". Bringing the validity of an account into question on the edit history of an article is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policies. What to avoid:

• Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.
• Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy.

As for the edit itself, it has been corroborated and sourced from a reliable and credited book as well and backed by a direct quote from the book. Not quite sure how clarifying the origins of a poet is a 'political edit'. DanielLerish (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

Meeting with Nina Berberova in Paris in 1965

In Berberova’s autobiography, The Italics Are Mine, she describes meeting Akhmatova in the train car in which she was about to leave Paris on her way back to Russia in 1965. I don’t know what use of it could be made here, but it’s quite a touching story. It’s on p. 527-528. Poihths (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)