Talk:Andrei Navrozov

Untitled
Okudzhavofile added Peacock terms and references alarms in March 2008 without any specific criticism or request for additional information. In good conscience, I reviewed the entry again, looking for possible weak points and have managed to add a couple of references after contacting the subject. I have also removed the peacock and reference labels. I expect them to stay off unless SPECIFIC criticisms/requests are made.Codogan (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A previous edit altered the entry to 'Andrei Navrozov, poet, writer and a Freemason'. There is no evidence for this absurd claim. In all likelihood the earlier text was emended with malice.Codogan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

Documents in "Navrozov family archive" and opinions expressed "to a correspondent in a private letter" do not meet even the most minimal standards of verifiability. Please rewrite with references to sources that meet these standards. Lassirolum (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"The entry has now been amended and flags removed."Codogan (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Looks like autobiography
This article seems to be mainly (or even exclusively) written by a user Cadogan, who contributed to only three articles on Wikipedia:


 * Navrozov
 * Lev Navrozov
 * Andrei Navrozov

It looks like he is Andrei Navrozov himself. He is a journalist and translator (see http://www.snob.ru/profile/7617, for those of you reading in Russian) and deserves a Wikipedia article of a couple of lines long, if at all. The current lengthy and detailed article is a complete disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.4.96 (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
The last section does not look like a neutral encyclopedic article, especially unsourced comparions to Nabokov and praise to the subjects intellect and style.108.66.6.48 (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, removed -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 15:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Claims of insignificance
The article has come under a great deal of scrutiny in the last few years. That does not sit well with the chief claim of its detractors, namely, that my subject is not worthy of scrutiny. “The current lengthy and detailed article is a complete disgrace,” writes one – protesting, methinks, too much. I get the feeling that my critics have taken sides in the various political and social controversies surrounding my subject, yet are reluctant to admit it, presenting their wish to suppress unbiased information about him as a charge of “autobiography.” I reply as follows. I am a British citizen, born in England of Scots stock, and I am not nor have I ever been Andrei Navrozov. I am not nor have I ever been Lev Navrozov. I have followed the published work of Navrozov and Navrozov-pere over the last seven years as a literary amateur with an interest in the history of ideas. This interest has brought me into correspondence with the Navrozov family. As author of the article I categorically reject the claim that it falls with the scope of WikiProject Russia, for the plain reason that Andrei Navrozov has written in English for most of his professional life (1978-2008) and only during the last three years functioned, additionally, as a literary and political journalist in Russia. I have now updated the article to include the latter period, but that hardly brings it within the scope of WikiProject Russia. Claims of my subject’s insignificance are easily countered, for instance, by the fact of his inclusion in The Oxford Guide to Literature in Translation (Oxford, 2000), or by the fact that all but one of the Boris Pasternak poems collected in the Everyman’s Library Russian Poets (New York, 2009) are his translations. I have likewise added these facts to the entry, along with a sample encomium by Prof Angela Livingstone. In the last section of my article there were no “unsourced comparisons to Nabokov”. There was a reference to “the tradition of Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov” – the tradition of writing in a language that is not the writer’s mother tongue – which is a reference to an undisputed fact of literary history. Hence I restore the excised passage. Finally, I wish to note that I am more than willing to address genuine concerns and criticisms in connection with the article, but I have no time for partisan sniping issuing from my subject’s political opponents. Facts will always be answered with facts. Smears will be removed. Codogan (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In reply to Codogan's explanations above. It was me who wrote that "[t]he current lengthy and detailed article is a complete disgrace" and I still think that this is the case. I am taking Codogan's word that he (or she) is not Andrei Navrozov, and in this case I apologize for my false accusation. The rest however is absolutely true, and should be pretty evedent for anybody apart from Codogan himself (or herself) with his (or her) peculiar fixation on the subject. Take the last paragraph: "'In 2009 Navrozov was asked by Vladimir Yakovlev, then heading the new Russian multimedia project “Snob,” to join the publication as one its six weekly columnists, alongside Ivan Okhlobystin, Maxim Kantor, Valery Panyushkin, Michael Idov and Anton Nosik. His “Writer’s Diary” column ran until December 2010, when all the columnists were reorganised out of existence by Yakovlev’s successor, Masha Gessen. A group of “Snob” subscribers then took over the financing of “Writer’s Diary,” and in this format the column ran until August 2012, when the incoming editor, Nikolai Uskov, shut it down, claiming one of Navrozov’s columns to have been anti-Semitic.[11]'" You managed to spend more than 500 characters of discussing something that has no significance *whatsover*! This online magazine is of little importance and does not have a wikipedia article; most of the mentioned people do not have wiki articles either, even though e.g. Anton Nosik is mentioned three times more often then Andrei Navrozov in English internet (as a simple google comparison shows) and is arguably more worthy of an article; all the details of this incident (as well as at least 95% of the whole article) interest nobody apart from Codogan. I find it amuzing that he (or she) cannot see that. 62.28.250.194 (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)