Talk:Pavel Florensky

Saparashvili/Saparova

There are a number of references indicated that his mother was an Armenian. So far I have not seen a single reference indicated she was Georgian. Please provide refs and we would put by such and such refs she was Georgian. Or if the new refs would certainly trump the old ones, we would remove the Armenian part Alex Bakharev 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence

Russian Wikipedia says he was shot for propagating mysticist ideas that heaven located in superluminar velocities which he described in his book under impression of Einstain's Theory of Relativity.--Dojarca 03:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Antisemitism

I have moved the following recent edit from the article pending discussion. It is not clearly obvious to me that Florensky's apparent antisemitism is a sufficiently notable aspect of his life and thought as to to need a whole section devoted to it. As regretable as it is, such antisemitism would not have been uncommon in Florensky's time and society. What do others think about including such information in this way? Afterwriting (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Florensky is regarded by several sources as being thoroughly antisemitic: his private letters written at the time of the ritual murder accusation or blood libel laid against Menahem Mendel Beilis, show clearly that he believed Jews murder Christians to obtain ritual blood. (Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism, Penn State Press, 2010 p.167.) Florensky’s influence has been detected in the vociferous anti-Semitism of Vasily Rozanov. Rozanov's 'The Tactile and Olfactory Attitudes of the Jews towards Blood' acknowledges the help of a friend whom historians suggest was probably Florensky.(Judith Deutsch Kornblatt 'Russian Religious Thought and the Kabbala,' in Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, Cornell University Press, 1997 pp.75-97, pp.90-91 & n.38.) For his biographer Avril Pyman, Florensky contributed two essays to Rozanov's tract, a critique of Daniil Khvolson's thesis that blood sacrifice did not form part of ritual practice in ancient Israel, and a 'Letter from the Caucasus'. (Avril Pyman, Pavil Florensky: A Quiet Genius: The Tragic and Extraoerdinary Life of Russia's Unknown Da Vinci, A & C Black 2010 p. 104.) Both Florensky and Rozanov have been described as sufficiently extreme in this regard that they incited direct violence against Jews. (Vladimir M. Paperni, 'A Philo-Semitic Narrative in the Anti-Semitic discourse: The Case of Vyacheslav Ivanov,' in Alexander Kulik (ed.) Jewishness in Russian Culture Within and Without, BRILL 2014 pp.93-108 p.105.) Responding to claims that Florensky used Rozanov to publish his own views under the latter's name, in order to avoid giving a public impression he, Florensky, was associated with the Black Hundreds, (Edith W. Clowes, Fiction's Overcoat: Russian Literary Culture and the Question of Philosophy, Cornell University Press, 2004 p.177.) Pyman counters that Florensky expounded his views in a climate where, regarding the Beilis case, Russian liberals on the one hand excoriated the country's backwardness while groups like the Black Hundreds went to the other extreme of instigating pogroms: Florensky he claims, did not regard rituals of sacrifice involving blood in themselves to be superstitious. (Pyman p.104.)

I was given a copy of Florenskii's work 'The column and the foundation of truth' some years ago, read it and got interested in him. I edited the article regarding his tragic end, and indeed admired the man. But some time ago, I saw indications he was a theological anti-Semite, and kept that in mind to examine, and if true, add it to the article. Whatever my personal feelings of sympathy for him and admiration for his gifts, they must not interfere with the correct and comprehensive documentation in the article of his views regarding Jews. I found several sources confirming this, and added them. You protest. On what grounds? Antisemitism is a fundamental litmus test for the 'spiritual' (or moral, if you like) integrity of anyone in the Western tradition. Where attested for someone of Florenskii's stature, it goes in as it does affect how one will read several ideas he had, which, in the absence of an awareness of it as a constituent element in his thinking, would otherwise not be read correctly.Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

My reasons for removing the information for discussion were adequately expressed. If I was protesting then I would have just reverted you. But I didn't do this. The issue is not whether he held antisemitic views, but whether these were an especially notable feature of his life. A couple of brief mentions of his views about Jews in books does not indicate to me that this is clearly the case. Afterwriting (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is a consensus for the inclusion of this information of dubious notability then it must remain out of the article in accordance with editing policies such as WP:STATUSQUO. It should not have been restored. That was not acceptable. We don't include any information we want simply because it can be sourced, it must also be notable as a significant aspect of the person's life. This has not so far been demonstrated in this case. Afterwriting (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't cite policies like WP:STATUSQUO without reading them, because your successive reverting broke the first rule stated there:

If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good faith effort to reword instead of reverting it.

You made no effort to reword the information. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Outline your reasons why both the (a)content and (b) the sourcing fails WP:NOTABILITY. For your convenience I will copy and paste the passage here:

AntisemitismFlorensky is regarded by several sources as being thoroughly anti-Semitic, though others consider his remarks evidence of naivity.Florensky had a tendency to think of ideas in racial terms,His private letters, written at the time of the ritual murder accusation or blood libel laid against Menahem Mendel Beilis, a case on which he himself never commented, show clearly that he believed Jews murder Christians to obtain ritual blood. Florensky’s influence has been detected in the vociferous anti-Semitism of Vasily Rozanov. Rozanov's The Tactile and Olfactory Attitudes of the Jews towards Blood acknowledges the help of a friend whom historians suggest was probably Florensky. For his biographer Avril Pyman, Florensky contributed two essays to Rozanov's tract, a critique of Daniil Khvolson's thesis that blood sacrifice did not form part of ritual practice in ancient Israel, and a 'Letter from the Caucasus'. Both Florensky and Rozanov have been described as sufficiently extreme in this regard that they incited direct violence against Jews. Responding to claims that Florensky used Rozanov to publish his own views under the latter's name in order to avoid giving a public impression he, Florensky, was associated with the Black Hundreds, Pyman counters that Florensky expounded his views in a climate where, regarding the Beilis case, Russian liberals on the one hand excoriated the country's backwardness while groups like the Black Hundreds went to the other extreme of instigating pogroms. Florensky he claims, did not regard rituals of sacrifice involving blood in themselves to be superstitious.

References

Firstly, the WP:NOTABILITY policies do not apply to content within articles. Secondly, while the quoted information indicates that Florensky was anti-Semitic it does not indicate to me that this was such a significant aspect of his life that it requires a whole section devoted to it. For guidelines on this read WP:UNDUE. We also do not use reference tags in talk pages as they cause formatting problems. Afterwriting (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic notability is established by the frequency of mentions of a theme in reliable sources. I have read over a dozen sources from specialists on Russian culture and thought which mention Florensky's anti-Semitism. For the academic literature therefore, this is notable. You must explain therefore why a Wikipedia article on Florensky should not mention what is frequently mentioned in the specialist literature on Florensky. As to a special section on anti-Semitism, it is all over hundreds of articles, and my adoption of it here is not anomalous. Thirdly, the ritual murder case was a fundamental issue for that period, and upwards of 60,000 Jews subsequently were murdered in pogroms some years later in the Ukraine and elsewhere, in a country that produced the Protocols of Zion. Contextually therefore Florensky's use of a highly anti-Semitic theory, nolens volens, fed into that toxic atmosphere and one cannot give an account of his life without mentioning this. If anything, the question is not whether a separate section is undue, but why editors here are laggard in fleshing out a longer article on Florensky's life and thought, much of which had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. I see huge evidence on Wikipedia of removalists, and little show for constructive building of articles which is what the policy you quoted advises (WP:STATUSQUO). I have restored the reflist template, because it does not disturb formatting. All you need do is write underneath the reflist marker. It is there to show the evidential basis you are stubbornly removing, so that third parties can judge without wasting time.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Afterwriting's contributions
• Nishidani's contributions

• • With regard to the objection that a section is inappropriate, I said above my impression was that Florensky was a theological antisemite. let me illustrate with a few wiki parallels. We deal with that at Augustine of Hippo in the section entitled Jews; at John Chrysostom in the section on Homilies on Jews and Judaizing Christians; at Martin Luther in the section on Anti-Judaism and antisemitism; since Florensky was also a Russian writer, see also Fyodor Dostoyevsky which has a section on the author’s attitudes to Jews; T. S. Eliot has a section on Allegations of Anti-Semitism; since he was a thinker, we have an extensive section on Martin Heidegger's attitude toward Jews. There is therefore nothing anomalous in wiki practice in having a section on this aspect. Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It would greatly help matters if you could try to make comments which are not so arrogant and aggressive in their tone. I removed your comments for valid policy reasons for discussion and that it what we should now be doing in a civil manner. The onus, as per WP:ONUS, is on you to demonstrate why such information is significant. The onus is not on myself to demonstrate why it isn't. And your addition of reference tags in your recent comments did in fact disturb the page formatting. Afterwriting (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the evidence demonstrates that Florensky's anti-semitism was a significant aspect of his life. In other words, WP: DUE is satisfied. Florensky's antisemitic views could be discussed in a separate section, or embedded within other section(s), although a separate section may be best. Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Afterwriting. Please do not call outlining the thorough homework behind an edit a form of arrogance and aggression. It is not an index of a civil manner to ignore for a month a request to justify the removal of validly documented material, and then just revert it when an IP removed it and I restored it, since it was stable for that month. I have replied to WP:ONUS above. I have requested counsel from an impeccably neutral editor, and a third party, I have added a further 2 academic sources to underline the notability, for specialists, of this aspect of his thought to Florensky's biography. In the meantime, you keep repeating exactly what you briefly said in your various revert summaries, and have not responded in detail to anything. Citing policy without illustrating where it is being ignored is mere flag-waving. Focus, please on the substance. Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani : You made a number of totally unjustified and false comments based on nothing except your own insistence that your edits should be accepted and you also refused to follow several accepted consensus policies. That is both arrogance and aggressive. You have no excuse for your behaviour. Afterwriting (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You are turning a dispute about content into a hyperbolic agony theatre with me as violent protagonist. I made a detailed sourced edit. You immediately reversed it. I met your brief talk page objection that it might not be noticeable. A dozen sources mentioning this means it is noticed, and notable. I asked around for third opinions, I asked you to respond to several queries. Nothing. Just a repeat of your original objection. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The content that has been excised from the article satisfies WP policies and guidelines (PAG). It appears that the only argument that has been offered for the removal of the content is that one editor just does not like the content. Since no convincing argument, compliant with the PAG, has been offered for the removal of the material, I will now restore the content. Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ijon Tichy  : Your comments are completely false. There was nothing at all in my editing which in any way was an example of "I just don't like it." I sought discussion and consensus on the basis of WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE. That is responsible editing. It seems you don't like it. Afterwriting (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is satisfied, by multiple sources. I proved it was something that was the object of considerable research and comment. WP:Undue is answered by comparing wiki practice on comparable articles. There is nothing undue about noting a theologian's anti-Semitism, particularly when it is theologically grounded. The problem is not this brief section. The problem is expanding the article to make a larger exposition of both his life and his masterpiece, The Column and Foundation of Truth, which merits far more attention that editors have given it. Your edits have consisted of stylistic retouches or a major revert. I'd be happy to pitch in with my own additions to a section on that volume, if you too roll up your sleeves to work on it.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• It appears that Florensky indeed had antisemitic views, as follows from his private letters to Rozanov. However, he is mostly notable as a philosopher, scientist and writer. Did he advocate anything antisemitic in his official writings? If not, such private matters deserve to be mentioned in a book about him, but undue in a brief biography page about him (such as that one). I also checked refs. Text tells: "Both Florensky and Rozanov have been described as sufficiently extreme in this regard that they incited direct violence against Jews.[16]" But this is a misinterpretation of the source. It tells that Florensky held antisemitic views, but does not tell that he actually incited any violence against them. Of course writing by Rosanov were antisemitic, but they were signed by his name, and it actually remains controversial/unknown if Florensky contributed to them, although this possibly could be noted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish that, at least once, when you trail me to a page, you'd exercise sufficient judgement to at least once suggest that I am not, as it would otherwise appear in your view, invariably on the wrong side.

To take the present example, you write of my edit:

"Both Florensky and Rozanov have been described as sufficiently extreme in this regard that they incited direct violence against Jews.[16]"

And say:'this is a misinterpretation of the source. It tells that Florensky held antisemitic views, but does not tell that he actually incited any violence against them.

You're dead wrong. The text says exactly what I reported it as saying:

‘extremist Anti-Semitic attacks against Jews that were committed by his close friend and disciple P.A. Florensky and his fellow VV Rozanov (Anti-Semitism of both of these Russian philosophers reached the level of direct instigation to violence against Jews).’ p.105

When I read that, I remained skeptical, and considered, as is often the case, that the scholar in question was lazily overplaying their hand way beyond what the evidential cards would allow. But reliable sources cannot be manipulated to reflect our skepticism, so I wrote 'have been described' in order to at least caution the reader that this is in the record, whatever its merits.Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"reached the level of" means personal feelings, not an actual instigation. And what "instigation" this author means? But after reading all these sources, it becomes clear what they are talking about. According to the sources, Frorensky probably secretly contributed to antisemitic writings by Rozanov during Menahem Mendel Beilis trail. OK. I included this in a more relevant section that tells abour relationships between Florensky and Rozanov. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Before I edit, I often have trouble parsing closely good sources, to try and figure out what the author said, because (s)he wrote in a way that lends itself to ambiguous reading. I will probably drop an example of this at Black Sunday, 1937 presently, if the book I'm, reading allows me time off. To me that bolded language however unambiguously claims what I wrote it says, 'direct instigation against Jews' means incitement to harm them, in any normal construal of English. Pyman who gives the evidence but is defensive on this arguing 'it was not a deliberate attempt to precipitate action against Jews' )Pyman p.104). Maybe, but in a country of such obsessive pogromic violence against Jews, not to realize the impact of one's words is tantamount to being, at least in religious terms, morally culpable of complicity. That's my view, anyway, which doesn't count. I like Eliot's poetry, and quite a bit of Pound's, but they had in different degrees, an anti-Semitic strain, the latter assumed maniacal depths. I'm interested in Florensky's life and thinking, which was creative, and courageous, but he too had more than a whiff of the pathology. Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Due to the number of debates we've been having across pages, I sometimes check your contribs these days and that's how I got here. It looks like the rather extreme nature of his anti-semitism is not properly specified in your shortened version (though perhaps it was over-emphasized in long one, I dunno). And his anti-Semitism does not appear mild or couched (like Heidegger's). It also appears that the consensus among historians about his authorship of objectively pogromist screeds is now more definite than you make it out to be. I'm going to leave this page alone, since I don't intend to study the topic further, but urge you both to look at my link.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. If only half of the new material there is correct, then his anti-Semitism is understated. That cannot be used in the form given, but if a reliably published work does document this closely, then drop the page a note.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's from a serious journal, so it's very much an RS. The only problem is that it's not EL. Generally speaking, there is no ban on non-EL sources and people cite even the crappiest foreign sources all the time. But since the source in question is a premier literary journal (Звезда), I would not sweat it too much.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Author of the Russian publication is relatively unknown and highly biased according to his colleagues [1]. Do we have any English language RS telling that the authorship by Florensky of these writings was actually proven, rather than suspected? He did not sign them and tried to hide his authorship (if that was him). Then, these unsigned/unofficial/suspected writings could be noted more prominently, but once again, Florensky is not known/notable for his antisemitism. If we had a sufficiently detailed description of his work/publications on this page (now we do not), then including this more prominently would be OK, but this seem to be out of balance in present version - I agree with user Afterwriting. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I stated that that work does not yet get over the RS highbar. But, as to the rest of your queries, as to whether Florensky wrote the specific articles at the Beilis period, the sources provided above conclude he did. Read them.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• If you don't want to use the source because you can't read it, that's fine. But clearly Michael Hagemeister in ru:Звезда (журнал XX—XXI веков) is an RS on the topic of Florensky's anti-semitism, something the—presumably unbiased, reliable and world-famous—T.P. Sergeeva (who??) critiquing him does not even mention. It's actually pretty comical how she just glosses over that little point. Does some conference paper by a random PhD in "Technical Sciences", get to determine what is an RS now? Guccisamsclubs (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the source. My usual practice is to cite books by specialists, mainly academics, under major university or mainstream publication imprint. The second point is WP:Undue, which is what the other editors are citing. The material here is substantial, some of it going over old ground already covered. The third point is that I am not impatient. I usually like to use work that has been subject to peer review. Of course you are yourself welcome to suggest what in that paper merits consideration or addition. I sometimes wonder why, in most articles I work, I seem to be expected to do the legwork, while others sit round checking, carping or reverting. In any case I've added the reference to the page. Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You create problems for yourself and others because of your own inadequate editing and your churlish behaviour. You need to do something about these things instead of blaming others for trying to make improvements. Afterwriting (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

‘arrogant and aggressive’; ‘You have no excuse for your behaviour’;’inadequate editing and your churlish behaviour’, etc. Read WP:AGF.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I believe Guccisamsclubs was replying to MVBW, not you, in the previous comment. Their indentation is out of whack. They can correct me, if I'm wrong. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Just as a technical note: since there are way more than two editors involved now, WP:3O does not apply and has been declined. Hopefully people can come to a consensus one way or another. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As is almost invariably the case on Wikipedia, editors get highly focused on controversy and force the expenditure of huge amounts of virtual space over a few lines, when often, as here, the article requires major expansion generally. For example, there's little on his scientific work, or that he is considered, like his contemporary Nicolai A. Vasiliev, whose work he knew, to be a forerunner of paraconsistent logics.Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that is exactly the problem. This page tells almost nothing about his scientific and other notable work, but you included (without any consensus) a huge section about his alleged antisemitism, which received only very minor coverage in sources compare to other aspects of his biography. Hence your version violates WP:NPOV. Brief mentioning of this (as I did) is enough.My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the two people objecting have contributed almost zero to the content of the text. I have written 25% of it over 2 years. You are complaining about one addition without having worked constructively on the article. When I noted that, you imply in your answer that I bear the onus of improving other sections of the page before I add material on antisemitism. I see no evidence here of the editors who object to my latest contribution having any knowledge of Florensky, or that period. Thirdly, you turn up systematically, in the most diverse pages, and revert or object to what I write. This extends to AE/AI forums. I see this is becoming something of a fashion. For most of my contributions over a dozen topics, I've rarely see my additions reverted, except by the same people, with the same I/P area interest, and it spills over even to topics like this: the fashion has resumed with some intensity over the last three weeks, and it comes from editors without any notable content contribution to Wikipedia. Don't tell me you got here by chance.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter how much anyone (you, me, whoever) worked on page X. I also did not ask you to do anything at all. I only fixed the problem and explained why on article talk page. This is not only my opinion (see discussion above). My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't fix a problem. I added content, 2 editors concur, 2 editors object. 2 in 5. Your edit didn't fix anything.

According to some historians, he also secretly contributed to antisemitic writings by Rozanov during Menahem Mendel Beilis

That elided Pyman's defense of what is, even in the form you boil it down to, a very serious charge, which cannot be mitigated by saying'some historians'. All historians admit Florensky made anti-Semitic comments. Pyman simply tries to contextualize it.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not think so. Judging from the edit history, you was the only one who reverted edits by three contributors. This is excluding one participant who you asked to comment here and who supported you. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the section again. As per WP:STATUSQUO and other policies it is not acceptable for disputed material to be added back to articles while there is a consensus discussion process still in place. Therefore this section must remain out of the article until there is an actual consensus. This is a policy matter so must be followed. "Consensus" does not just mean a majority opinion at any given moment. Afterwriting (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Then dispute the damn material. No consensus not a valid reason for a lack of consensus, no matter how many time you repeat it. When you pair that with edit-warring, utter refusal to discuss sources, and insults—it's disruptive editing in purest form. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly what is meant to be happening. Instead we have some editors who are stubbornly refusing to follow a proper consensus process and who want to insist on including and reinstating disputed information by ignoring the relevant consensus policies and processes. Apart from ignoring the WP:STATUSQUO policy they are also exhibiting WP:OWN editing behaviour. Policies are in place for good reasons and all editors are required to follow them. So do so. There is no urgency for this dispute to be resolved. Afterwriting (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the editors who wish to keep the content out of the article have still not provided valid specific reasons, based on WP policies, for the repeated removal of the content. It is not sufficient for the removalists to just continue to repeat that there is no consensus. The content that was removed adheres to WP policies. The content satisfies V, NOR and NPOV. The inclusion of the content appears to be supported by at least 3 editors (Nishidani, Guccisamsclubs, and myself). The person(s) repeatedly removing the content need to offer significantly more than appearing to only repeat 'there is no consensus.' They need to support their opposition to the inclusion of the content with specific discussion of specific citations from specific sources. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure, there are specific sources that make specific claim. Is that a notable claim that needs to be included (as a big section!) in a brief biography of this person who is notable for something very different? No, it's not. Maybe it should be noted very briefly. I think this is a matter of personal POV: people who edit in ARPBIA area tend to pay a lot of attention to the question if someone was/was not mentioned in a few sources as a semite/antisemite. Yes, that may be important on pages about people who were notable as antisemites like Rozanov. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Compare this section in Mahmoud Abbas (I could name a dozen other articles on Palestinians). That's large, and covers the angles. Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. I checked it. I think this section on Abbas page is way too long and misleading. For example, it incorrectly summarizes info provided on the main page, The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism in favor of antisemitic POV. But this is all completely irrelevant to this page.My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not policy. However WP:ONUS is policy: the responsibility for getting consensus rests on those wishing to add content. I see 3 to 2 in favour of the content, which is rather hard to interpret as consensus one way or another. UNDUE is rather in the eye of the beholder and there's no real right or wrong (though there are better and worse arguments). I am not neutral and I have no knowledge of this Florensky, so I am not commenting on the arguments and consensus. Afterwriting seems to want to keep out the section altogether, while MVBW wants to (at most) integrate the section with earlier content and not have a separate section (correct me if I'm wrong). I see that an RfC has been opened. The header is too vague for my liking, but hopefully something will come out of it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Somebody keeps adding a false antisemitism diatribe about Florensky. No doubt someone with a dog in this fight. Smahthistorian (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The way in which inclusion of information in this article about Florensky's alleged antisemitism is currently under dispute and attempts to seek consensus are not proving useful. I would appreciate responses from uninvolved editors and administrators on the relevant content policies and the consensus processes required to resolve matters. Afterwriting (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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

• This is very simple. Consider this big book about Florensky that you used for sourcing. Yes, it qualify as academic RS. Yes, it mentioned the alleged antisemitism of Florensky. But it mentioned it on only a couple of pages (whole book about him is around 300 pages). Such is relative significance of this. Same should be on this page. This should be one phrase at most in a section about something else, or simply nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That is simply disposed of. T. S. Eliot, like Florensky, a dreamer of a return to the Middle Ages who expressed anti-Semitic views, in life and poetry, and just as Florensky gave support to Rozanov, so Eliot touted the execrable anti-Semite Charles Maurras. We have a whole section on it (which could be improved by some additional material). If however you look at a standard biography by an admirer (Pyman admires, with some reason, Florensky) Stephen Spender, the topic is breezily passed over in a few lines (Stephen Spender, Eliot, Fontana 1975 pp.59-60 (mainly an explication of the poem, not its racial innuendoes, and p. 220). Not for that reason do we ignore the substantial literature specializing on Eliot's anti-Semitism, nor should we do so by burying this, as you suggest.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Let's just follow the policy, and it is clearly against including section you want to include on this page. Speaking more human language, as one of people in stories by Dragunsky said, "why are you noticing only my dirty pants if there are so many wonderful things around?" My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• Comment: As I've said at the very start, it is fine to argue that the text could be trimmed or made otherwise less prominent. It is not possible to argue that his virulent anti-semitism and his objectively pogromist writings can be omitted (Afterwriting) or toned down (MVBW). Doing so means violating multiple RS' on on the issue of Florensky's anti-semitism. The best solution, in my view, is to non-evasively describe the issue in two sentences in the body, and relegate the remaining key details and sources to a footnote (literally). That way much of quality info is kept, but appears less prominent. The argument for striking or toning down impeccably-sourced and incontrovertible information because the article is "too short" is extremely weak. Almost any significant relevant addition to an expanding article can be dismissed as momentarily "disproportional". Florensky is sufficiently notable and complex for this article to be expanded two-fold in the future, and at that point the stuff on anti-Semitism will no longer be so "disproportional". Consider that if we actually followed this "proportionality principle" chop significant contribs—making sure to bicker endlessly, WP:EDITWAR, WP:POLSHOP, WP:RFC, and WP:NOTGETIT every damn step of the way—article expansion would never happen. Of course ordinarily, everyone knows that this "proportionality principle" is sheer nonsense. Nobody would dream of applying it to well-sourced contributions that may be strictly "disproportional", but do not step on anyone's toes. It is only in this latter case that the principle ever seems to be invoked, suggesting that is nothing more than a variant of WP:DONTLIKEIT. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• This "proportionality principle" (one that you call "sheer nonsense") is known here as WP:NPOV. Note that current versions of pages must comply with WP:NPOV. This can be achieved either by adding more sourced materials or by removing something "undue". Either way is good if it helps to improve the page by complying better to WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did propose a solution to the WP:BALASP "concerns" from you folks. Narrowly interpreted, with little or no reference to other policies or the nature of the content, BALASP is of course sheer nonsense. If an article begins at "NPOV" (in your static sense) and someone makes just about any non-minor edit, NPOV is violated. The horror! Revert, wikilawyer, stonewall, repeat and call an emergency meeting, repeat. What a great way to help the project! Guccisamsclubs (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is too meta and probably useless, but since I don't know anything about Florensky, this will have to do. The argument about NPOV isn't correct. Let's say the edit is about issue X. Firstly, that edit can render all the different aspects about X fairly, so the overall article is still NPOV. Secondly, and more pertinently for this case, we can think of NPOV as a range, not a point. Suppose we think of something as NPOV if the article is in -0.05 to +0.05 range. In this model, even a pure POV edit can still make an article stay in the NPOV range. In this case, the original article mentioned nothing about the anti-Semitism, so perhaps it can be thought of as +0.05. Mentioning anti-Semitism in a long section pushed it too far into negative. But some people are happy with a small mention of anti-Semitism, provided it stays within -0.05. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Trying to argue the material out of the article because everybody else at the time had similar views is unacceptable; the material is true, it is properly sourced, and it must be included. However, for an article of this length I agree with Guccisamsclubs's suggestion: baldly and accurately describe the issue in two or three sentences in the body and relegate the rest to a footnote until such time as the article is expanded. After such an expansion, bring it out in its own section. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"because everybody else at the time had similar views". Who said such nonsense? I missed it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pyman more or less thus contextualizes Florensky's remark. I too agree with Guccisamsclubs's compromise, but let's wait for further input.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Quoting Afterwriting from the post that started this whole thing: " It is not clearly obvious to me that Florensky's apparent antisemitism is a sufficiently notable aspect of his life and thought as to to need a whole section devoted to it. As regretable as it is, such antisemitism would not have been uncommon in Florensky's time and society." Tom Reedy (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I see. Your comment above ("Trying to argue the material out of the article because everybody else at the time had similar views") is an example of improper synthesis. Each separate phrase by Afterwriting was correct, but your synthesis was not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Having beliefs regarding the widespread accusation of Blood Libel against jews in a time of increasing antisemitism in the world is not the same as "having a hatred of jews" - or anti-semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.119.145 (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the meantime

Since the Russian article has had a paragraph, stable for years, on the issue of his anti-Semitism, we shouldn't be bickering here about inclusion/exclusion. A compromise was offered - a few sentences, with details in a footnote. All that is needed is to craft those sentences. I suggest

Recent research by Michael Hagemeister has authenticated that antisemitic material, written under a pseudonym is in Florensky's hand. His biographer Avril Pyman evaluates Florensky’s position regarding Jews as, contextually for the period, a middle way between liberal critics who excoriated at the time of the incident Russia’s backwardness and the behaviour of instigators of pogroms like the Black Hundreds.

Comments? (forget exclusion. The opposition to any mention of this cannot be defended on policy grounds).Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

According to article by Hagemeister [2], authorship of these writings by Florensky was not found or established by Hagemeister. He simply tells it and refer to other single Russian language publication that he thinks established it, but does not explain how exactly they established it. Therefore, telling "Recent research by Michael Hagemeister has authenticated that" is wrong. Looking at several RS in your version, it appears that authorship by Florensky is actually tentative and not a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

MVBW is correct in that it was not Hagemeister who authenticated the letters. But he seems to be playing fast and loose with the sources when he says it is "tentative"; I see no textual support for this assertion. If he has any, he should quote the sources directly. I think the short mention of his Anti-Semitism should note the following in the body: Florensky held thoroughly anti-semitic views; that Florensky's contributed blood-libel screeds to Rozanov's volume in the context of the Beilis case and the pogroms. I can't read Pyman due to preview restrictions, but your inclusion of these apparent apologetics at the expense of all other commentary may very well violate NPOV. If that judgement belongs anywhere, it is in a footnote, together with the other comment about Florensky's anti-Semitism reaching the level of "inciting violence"—that seems genuinely NPOV. Being an anti-semite is one thing, inciting pogroms and developing a whole theoretical apparatus for use by pogromists is quite another. But again, all this commentary belongs in the footnote, in my opinion. Finally, I would urge you to move all of your supporting sources and much of the elaboration to the footnote, otherwise your material is guaranteed be "disputed" again in the future. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but from recent challenges to my editing over several pages it appears obvious that anything I edit will be tracked and challenged and subject to an irrational attrition of patience, regardless of the content. I am just targeted, that's all. The issue is basically very simple. I provided bundles of info, and while I am the one making suggestions, compromises, it won't find any acceptance. That's not the point of the 'game.'

I checked my file and I got that phrase about authentication by Hagemeister in Ilona Svetlikova,The Moscow Pythagoreans: Mathematics, Mysticism, and Anti-Semitism in Russian Symbolism, Springer, 2013 n.47 :The letter was signed with “ω”. Its authorship was authenticated by Michael Hagemeister (Michael. Hagemeister,'Pavel Florenskij und der Ritualmordvorwurf,' in Michael Hagemeister, and Torsten Metelka (eds.), Materialien zu Pavel Florenskij, Berlin 2001 Band 2 Kontext, Berlin 59-73 pp.62-64.)This letter (in a slightly different form) was then published in the correspondence of V.V. Rozanov and P.Florenskii. See V. V. Rozanov, Sobranie sochinenii. Literaturnye izgnanniki. Kniga vtoraia (Moskva-Sankr-Petersburg:Respublika; Rostok, 2010), 145.147.'

We always have these source conflicts (that often revolve round different details - we are dealing with several anonymous documents). The sentence can be modulated, along the lines of what Pyman writes p.104, p.283 n.71. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As to including Pyman, well, in my reading, Florensky is a classical theological anti-Semite, no ifs and buts. The evidence is overwhelming and attempts to attenuate it smack of Christian self-defensiveness. But since Wikipedia takes WP:NPOV in terms of giving due weigh to all sides, and Pyman is his major English biographer, that limp, let's say obtuse defense, seemed to be obligatory per policy, even if it sticks in my craw. As to instigation , well he is an Augustinian 'preservationist' - let the Jews be preserved in their disgracefulness to bear witness to the 'immaculate white of the Church of Christ' may be (by fuckwits) cited as proof he didn't think he wanted violence, but in the preface to Израиль в прошлом, настоящем и будущем, again with the cipher , now identified by Hagemeister as Florensky's, he raves on about the Jewish question being the central issue of world history. If Adolf read that 'he wouldn't have strayed far from intuiting a final solution to the 'knot'. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure, this can be noted except that it was not Hagemeister who established authorship by F. - according to Hagemeister himself [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, should not have taken MVBW's word for it—I am no longer sure that Hagemeister says what MVBW claims (will post something shortly to that effect). Pyman's apparent attempt to draw some equivalence between "liberal" and "Black Hundred" attempts to "exploit" the case is ... an unfortunate turn of phrase, let's just say that. As for Pyman's substantive claim hat Florensky's intervention was in no way a deliberate attempt to stir up violence: does Pyman himself present any supporting secondary or primary sources for that claim? I ask because Pyman's apologetics fall squarely under WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which has no escape clause applicable to this case. Of course, this is not an argument for deleting Pyman's apologetics entirely—only for balancing them and moving them to the footnote. (My analogy here would be writing blood libel columns for Der Sturmer during Kristallnacht and then claiming it was nothing more than a philosophical exercise.) I understand your exasperation with this "dispute", but there is no longer any pragmatic reason to compromise the reliable sourced text. The consensus is now 4:1 in favor of the content, now in the forma of a short and blunt statement of the facts plus an explanatory footnote. I say 4:1 because Afterwriting has made no intelligible argument and the only dissenting opinion comes from MVBW. We have already taken a step toward addressing of MVBW's valid concerns about WP:BALASP, can proceed from there. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, we'llo cut down Pyman's vapid claim. Don't need to persuade me its as useless as tits on a bull. I deal with humongous amounts of sources that have to go in but, technically, let's say, in terms of standard quality academic standards, don't bear up. Wiki's not the real world, of scholarship or otherwise. I don't like to hurry, unlike reverters, when there's controversy, but I' ll do a better draft. The only think hindering me is how to format in this medium a footnote. No doubt the magisterial editing prowess of Tom Reedy could fix it, if nobody else wants to. I wish to retain all of that sourced information so readers can follow it up (there's tons more of course, but we have enough) Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to wait a little bit for more comments on the RfC. The RfC bot is currently not working due to a Wikipedia-wide issue. Hopefully, it will be fixed soon. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. My idea was to make another stab and put the draft, like the earlier one, here on the workpage while the RfC continues. I think we have consensus that 2-3 lines goes into the body of the text, accompanied by a note conserving the relevant details of the scholarly literature. I' m busy anyhow, so it will take some time, unless anyone else would like the make a proposal. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note on Hagemeister

Michael Hagemeister, unsurprisingly nominated for deletion by Wishes shortly after his scholarship was cited here, is of course no virgin when it comes to Florensky studies 1 2 3 4 5. Not surprising, since turn of the century Russian mysticism and anti-modernism seems to be his specialty. Anyway turning to MVBW's claim—that Hagemeister was not the first one to prove the authorship—it is clearly correct:

Footnote 48: Впервые материалы Флоренского, использованные в книге Розанова, были однозначно идентифицированы игуменом Андроником (Трубачевым) — на основании хранящихся в архиве Флоренского его корректур, писем и набросков — в комментариях (в целом крайне скудных) к новому изданию: В. В. Розанов. Сахарна. Обонятельное и осязательное отношение евреев к крови. // Собр. соч. под ред. А. Н. Николюкина. М., 1998. С. 438. Авторство Флоренского в отношении предисловия к сборнику “Израиль” было впервые подтверждено С. М. Половинкиным: Флоренский П. А. Соч. в 4-х т. Т. 2. С. 808. Немецкий перевод указанных текстов Флоренского: Hagemeister M., Metelka T. (Hg.). Appendix 2. // Materialien zu Pavel Florenskij. Berlin — Zepernick, 2001. Zvezda

While it is not clear at all that Hameister did no corroborative research on the issue of authorship (I am not sure what "letter" signed with w (Щ?) Svetlikova is talking about) but it is true he was NOT the one who made the discoveries about the authorship of the published pogromist texts. It is also clear that the evidence for authorship is clearly presented in Hagemeister's essay (it is not something that Hagemeister merely asserts). Finally Guccisamsclubs (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I hadn't read the notes. The anonymous Greek sign Svetlikova mentions, as do others is, according to her omega, ω, or the capitalized form Ω, I'll not attribute to him, then, but since Pyman says he is the foremost 'Western' expert on Florensky, perhaps it could be rephrased in that way. In my forced compromises I was forced to cut out the important details, like its context in the Beilis case, so I'll add that in. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not usually intervene in debates on the internet, but given the repeated references to my work, I would like to clarify a few points:

1) I never pretended to have “detected” Florensky’s letters to Rozanov, although I knew them long before they were published in 1998 by Nikoliukin in Rozanov’s Collected Works, nor was it me who “corroborated” their authenticity. This was sufficiently done by the leading Russian Florensky expert (and grandson) Abbot Andronik (see Nikoliukin’s edition p. 438) and has never been questioned, as far as I know, by any scholar.

2) I was probably the first to initiate a discussion on Florensky’s anti-Semitism at the International Florensky Conference in Potsdam in 2000. My paper was then published in the conference proceedings and an authorized Russian translation appeared under the title Novoe srednevekov’e Pavla Florenskogo, in: Issledovaniia po istorii russkoj mysli. Ezhegodnik za 2003 god. Pod red. M.A. Kolerova (Moskva: Modest Kolerov, 2004), pp. 86-106. The publication in “Zvezda” (which, unfortunately, was released on the web) is a pirated one based on an unauthorized translation.

3) Since then, a lot has been published concerning the question of Florensky’s anti-Semitism. See, e.g., the substantial contribution by Dominic Rubin: Holy Russia, Sacred Israel: Jewish-Christian Encounters in Russian Religious Thought (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies, 2010). See also the revealing correspondence between Florensky and Rozanov (V.V. Rozanov: Literaturnye izgnanniki (Moskva-St. Peterburg, 2010). If you read German, you may also have a look at a book I co-edited on that subject: Appendix 2. Materialien zu Pavel Florenskij (Berlin-Zepernick, 2001) with translations of all the relevant material.

4) The question of Florensky’s anti-Semitism may be an open one for some people. For me it seems to be clear that somebody who accuses the Jews of deliberately poisoning the blood of the Gentiles (see Florensky’s letter to Rozanov, 26 October 1913) is not a Judeophobe in the old Christian tradition of framing the Jews as “perfidi Iudei” (who will repent and be saved at the end of the times), but a modern racist anti-Semite.

Michael Hagemeister (no user name) 7 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:47:6C0F:A001:4133:1220:B197:A074 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for others but I would like, and I expect the sentiment would be shared by several editors, to thank Professor Hagemeier for his clarifications. At the same time I would like, as the person who wrote up the original edit indicating Florensky is now widely and authoritatively regarded as an anti-Semite,to apologize for any trouble, with its misrepresentations, and for the personal loss of time better spent on other matters, which my synthesis of the material on this available to me sparked off. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, we cannot engage in personal research, or present our own interpretations of sources, but are strictly bound to the letter of reliable academic sources, at least one of which evaluated Dr Hagemeister as the person who authenticated the identity behind the documented signed Ω (whereas, as his essay translated into Russian, n.48 above, indicated, was authenticated by Abbot Andronik). Indeed a further shackle is that many cannot access directly, as is best practice, the complete original works cited, but only rely on what searching google books reveals, in so far as they are directly linkable to allow others to verify the accuracy of how such texts are reported. From an academic perspective this is, to put it lightly, parlous if not 'insane'. All the more reason to thank Dr Hagemeister for his timely elucidations on a key point.

The valuable notification given above, that the Zvesda piece is a pirated copy, means we cannot use that here. Dominic Rubin's Holy Russia, Sacred Israel: Jewish-Christian Encounters in Russian Religious Thought, sounds, from the description, like an important source to contextualize his anti-Semitism within the wider issue of Christian thought. I hope editors can follow up on it. Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank Prof. Hagemeister for clearing up the confusion and recommending some key sources. Point 4 is clearly an important one and worth mentioning here.

I have not yet browsed Rubin's book, but I have read the section on Florensky in Svetlikova and it also seems like an interesting attempt to place the issue of antisemitism in the broader context of Florensky's (and his milieu's) thought. Indeed, if we can contextualize the issue sufficiently, the case for a full section will be iron-clad (although I don't expect those objecting to be convinced by that, or anything else).

BTW, Nishidani, if you are relying on google books/amazon/your library for all your research here, drop a message on my talk page and I'll suggest other places to look. Although I pretty sure you already know.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have only one problem with this. After reading this article by Hagemeister (sorry, I prefer Russian), it becomes abundantly clear that Florensky was a monster, a racist of the worst kind with convictions of Nazi, someone with very low level of culture and no moral values. However, English language books about Florensky tell a different story. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pavel Florensky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928011447/http://www.crvp.org/seminar/05-seminar/Ekaterina.htm to http://www.crvp.org/seminar/05-seminar/Ekaterina.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pavel Florensky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928090836/http://www.theandros.com/parallelvis.html to http://www.theandros.com/parallelvis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Unclear section

I don't understand what this part means and it does not appear to have a citation

He defended himself vigorously against the imputations until he realized that by showing a willingness to admit them, though false, he would enable several acquaintances to resecure their liberty --JMWt (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)