Talk:Doctor Zhivago (novel)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Both novel and film have historical significance, and the usage indicates no primary topic. (And as LtPowers points out, original uses are not always primary uses.) It could be that the new arrangement may indicate that the film is primary by usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

– Before "My Sister's Keeper" became "My Sister's Keeper (novel)" on April 20, 2012, numbers were about the same as the film. Now the novel lost 65-80% of Wikipedia viewership, while the film stayed the same. I bet: similar situation could go to "Doctor Zhivago", even when it is less ambiguous than "My Sister's Keeper". relisted per request of nom --Mike Cline (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doctor Zhivago → Doctor Zhivago (novel)
 * Doctor Zhivago (disambiguation) → Doctor Zhivago

Numbers on the film (along with other redirects: Dr. Zhivago (film)) is almost the same as the novel (with an addition to other redirects: "Dr. Zhivago" before I redirected it to the disambiguation page today, Doctor Zhivago (novel)). Google is mixing the film and the novel results in the first and second pages, so there is no determining whether either is the primary topic there.

According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is "no single criterion" to define the primary topic, even when "usage" and "long-term significance" are most discussed criteria. To use those criteria:


 * usage - Both are useable and easy to navigate by statistics and search engines.
 * Long-term significance - Both have been awarded accolades, and many have been familiar with either one or both.

However, both conclude that novel and film are equally met. Now for other criteria:


 * Familiarity - Both are familiar to people's eyes, even when people have not read or watched.
 * Navigation - Easy to navigate.
 * Interests- Seriously, both articles need some cleanup, and I wonder if anyone is interested on either topic enough to skillfully edit either article.

Must I address other criteria further? --George Ho (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If you google, it's clear that most readers are looking for the film. Page views for the novel and the film are about the same, which suggests that a significant number of readers who would prefer the article on the film are now going to the article on the novel. But the proposed solution is a most peculiar one. It amounts to an effort to drive these misdirected readers away. The film should be made primary topic so that the majority of those who search for this term will be sent directly to the article they seek. Kauffner (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That won't work for me. "Doctor Zhivago (film)" should not be primary just because it's popular and easier to navigate. Any searcher may go for either the novel or the film. Who knows? I don't request a move for the film to be "My Sister's Keeper" just because it's the most viewed of all topics with same name; I don't do that in this proposal either. Why trusting Google? Even with personal searches off, we might never know if readers intend for either the novel or the film in Google. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We can either worry about what don't know, or we can make decisions based on what we do know. Here is a page view graph for My Sister's Keeper. The numbers are still bouncing around. The disambiguation page is currently a top result on Google, presumably carry over from when this lemma was used for the novel. Kauffner (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The novel is a clear primary topic, from which all other items are derived. Here's a simple test: how many articles list all of the other articles that have this name? One, under Doctor Zhivago. Every other topic is directly derived from this one. Nobody is surprised to land on a novel when they are looking for a film or play based on it. Put the film and dab page in the hatnote and be done with it. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not the same as Pride and Prejudice; the novel is hitting 4000-5000 per day average. The 1995 miniseries is hitting 800 per day; the 2004 film 1000 per day. This case is different; we have 800 each for a novel and 1965 film, and the "Doctor Zhivago" stats is harder to interpret. If moved to "Doctor Zhivago (novel)", I bet it may follow the same route as "My Sister's Keeper (novel)", but that's my hypothesis. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My point being that if you are looking for a play or a film, you will not be surprised to find the novel it was based on. If you are looking for the novel or a play, you might be surprised to find the film. And everyone would be surprised to find a disambiguation page. Further, most people get to Wikipedia by searching, right? Have you tried searching for Doctor Zhivago? Novel, film, tv serial, and that seems to be it. The dab page does not show up. You move that page to the novel spot, and the dab page will be getting all of the google ranking that novel had. You will be forcing readers to a dab page, and the novel will (for a while anyways) drop off of Google. How does that help? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Does anybody have to learn more about the novel than what the novel already inspired? As for the Google, as I said before, I don't call it very reliable enough to verify popularity and primacy. Well, I used only the first and second pages as sources, as searching further takes forever. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First, are you saying that the only information of value about the novel is to find out how it was adapted? Second, are you saying that your methods of interpreting what people want when they look for specific phrases is more accurate and reliable than Google's? "we might never know if readers intend for either the novel or the film in Google" We know because they click the link, Google isn't just a list of URLs, the description clearly says "is a 20th century novel". Google puts that page at the top based on traffic and inbound links, which equals popularity. Search for "Starhawk" and you find our videogame page ranking higher than Starhawk. This is what Google does. You are not a better search engine than Google. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Starhawk" is different from "Doctor Zhivago"; Starhawk is some person that I began to acknowledge, while the 2012 video game is too current to be primary. As for the popularity, both the film and the novel are getting popular for years and will be more popular than Starhawk person or video game in the next five years. Why comparing Starhawk to Dr. Zhivago? I wonder whatever you are saying falls under either or not straw man argument. Scratch that: never mind the "straw man" thing. Is Google a better searcher than I? --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that Google ranking directly relates to popularity (not primacy), even when the most popular article isn't at the primary name. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  20:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to say that I disambiguated links to "Doctor Zhivago (novel)" in other pages, so statistics may change. Again (for latest 30 days every day): current title of the novel and its redirect. --George Ho (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if you ask people what Doctor Zhivago is, any reasonably educated person will answer that it is a book. Reminds me of when fans got Avatar moved to Avatar (Hinduism) because of the James Cameron movie, luckily that has been corrected now. Smetanahue (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Once again, the artificial quest for a "primary topic" where there can be no useful or clear outcome. Let's take a couple of steps back, and look at the big picture:
 * No calamity ensues if the bare title "Doctor Zhivago" is unused, or serves for a DAB page.
 * No readers are genuinely assisted if the bare uninformative title "Doctor Zhivago" leads them to the novel, or the film. How, after all, do readers consult Wikipedia? Usually through a Google search or by searching internally on Wikipedia. In either case they are clearly informed and directed by titles like Doctor Zhivago (novel), Doctor Zhivago (film), Doctor Zhivago (musical), Doctor Zhivago (TV serial), and so on. By what other route do they arrive at articles? Is any other route more common than those two? I'd like to see that explained.
 * The mere existence of stated principles like "primary topic" is seductive. Some people are tempted into service of them as if they were ends in themselves. They are not. Wikipedia aims to serve the needs of readers – which are not like the needs of editors, who have a different feel for Wikipedia and different ways of navigating in it.
 * It is easy and comfortable to follow rules (even the contested ones appealed to in RM discussions) as a substitute for thinking; but it is often counterproductive to do so.
 * It is difficult to analyse and meet the needs of readers, which are uncomfortably complex; but it is never counterproductive to do so.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (♫♪?)


 * Support – the contradictory "oppose" comments make it clear that there will be no agreement on a primarytopic, so the base name should be the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The film (and TV series, etc) is a derivative of the novel, therefore the novel MUST be the primary topic.  Look at the example regarding An American in Paris on WP:NCF, which describes the Gershwin musical piece, and not the film as the primary topic, despite it following the same arguments above.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NCF is just giving an example to illustrate how disambiguators are used. There is no general rule that the original has to be primary. Of course, in this case the novel is extremely well known and even readers who are looking for the film will not be surprised to find that the novel is primary. Kauffner (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but as an illustration in this case, it mirrors the situation we have here. My main point being that as all other articles needing disambiguation are derived from the novel, the novel has to be the primary topic.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that kind of logic has ever been part of the primaryname guideline. Why not just accept that it's ambiguous, and not guess where the reader might prefer to end up?  Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because, to my mind, this makes it the clear contender for primary topic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put the example that you mentioned under discussion in the guideline talk page. --George Ho (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Now "Dune" and "An American in Paris" are under discussion to debate them as examples of primary topics in WT:NCF. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we getting borderline WP:POINT here? Let's wait to see what happens with the outcome of this, and if necessary have a look at An American in Paris and Dune.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The novel is the original/primary subject and shouldn't be made to give way to derivatives such as the film or to the already aptly named dab page. Without Pasternak there would be no Doctor Zhivago and none of these other pages would exist. INeverCry   06:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all original topics are primary topics. The Boys in the Band, the film is the primary topic, while The Boys in the Band (play) is an original topic but not primary. However, I will request a move in Talk:The Boys in the Band. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment Nom requested relisting instead of closure at this time --Mike Cline (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; the film is sufficiently well known that it's odd to assume the novel is what a reader is looking for. Original uses are not always primary uses.  Powers T 19:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Smetanahue and JohnnyMrNinja. Besides, I think it is bad practice to move a page every time page view statistics change. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plot summary
I am afraid that the plot summary section is filled with errors. I have not seen the movie but perhaps the summary is that of the movie?

Having only read the book once and in an English translation, I am reluctant to correct the summary. If someone familiar with the novel were to fix the errors, I imagine hundreds of term paper writers would be grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinfreeman (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In particular, the plot summary fails to mention or capture the emotional power of the book, instead giving a mechanical summary of actions. This book is about love. 80.189.78.34 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I have tried to correct the errors in the Plot Summary, mostly in Parts 1 - 5. I stuck to recounting the story as it is told, though, and did not add my opinions regarding what the story is "about" thematically.Drochtegang (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Th plot summary is absurdly long. Most Wikipedia book articles have plot summaries of a paragraph or two.--23.119.205.88 (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A funeral service is the burial service of the dead person; a panikhida is a memorial service, after the burial. The opening scene is not a panikhida. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete Section titled "Characters"?
Currently, the Section titled "Characters" contains three paragraphs. Most of the information contained in the second and third paragraphs is now available in the Plot Summary, so these paragraphs are largely redundant. The first paragraph contains information regarding Yuri that is, in my opinion, inaccurate. That paragraph states, "Yuri Zhivago is sensitive and poetic nearly to the point of mysticism. Zhivago's idealism and principles stand in contrast to the brutality and horror of World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the subsequent Russian Civil War. A major theme of the novel is how mysticism and idealism are destroyed by both the Bolsheviks and the White Army alike since both sides commit horrible atrocities." I do not see support in the text of the novel for the statement that "Yuri Zhivago is sensitive and poetic to the point of mysticism." He is, of course, a poet, but he is also a realist surrounded by idealogues, in my view. He criticizes the Bolsheviks, but he also doesn't show any enthusiasm for the Tolstoyan Movement (which is mentioned several times). In general, he is not a religious man. I also think it is no accident that Yuri's greatest skill as a doctor is diagnosis: that is, analyzing reality clearly and naming malfunctions. He does not seem "sensitive" either: he is remarkably resilient when faced with physical and psychological hardship and he speaks vigorously and fearlessly with his friends and others. Finally, what "mysticism" and "idealism" exist at the beginning of the novel, under the Czars, which are then destroyed by the various wars? I therefore think the "Characters" Section should be deleted.Drochtegang (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been two weeks and there have been no objections to deleting the "Characters" section. So I'll delete it, for the reasons stated above.Drochtegang (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to make a post asking why a 'characters' section is absent from the article. This seems to me most singular, given that the Wiki article for almost every other comparably important novel contains such a section, as far as I can tell. Of course, some of the material would be repetitive, but different people come to these articles for different purposes. Much critical analysis of important literary works centres around their characters, and in my view, one should not need to scour through paragraphs of plot information in order to access the relevant material. I have inspected the French and German versions of this article, and have found the section in question to be intact in both; I suggest that it is restored here, as I should not be forced to use second languages to access such basic information. Daedalus 96 (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

There's another book on the alleged CIA connection.
An adapted excerpt from the book is viewable on line here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/during-cold-war-cia-used-doctor-zhivago-as-a-tool-to-undermine-soviet-union/2014/04/05/2ef3d9c6-b9ee-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html?wpisrc=nl_most 211.225.33.104 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

CIA Publishes Doctor Zhivago in Russian and Exposes Life in USSR under Communism

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/doctor-zhivago

The CIA has declassified 99 documents describing the CIA’s role publishing Boris Leonidovich Pasternak’s epic novel, Doctor Zhivago, for the first time in Russian in 1958 after it had been banned from being published in the Soviet Union. The Zhivago project was one of many CIA-supported covert publishing programs that involved distributing banned books, periodicals, pamphlets, and other materials to intellectuals in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. This collection provides a glimpse into a thoughtful plan to accomplish fast turn-around results without doing harm to foreign partners or Pasternak. Following the publication of Doctor Zhivago in Russian in 1958, Pasternak won the Nobel Prize for Literature, the popularity of the book skyrocketed, and the plight of Pasternak in the Soviet Union received global media attention. Moscow had hoped to avoid these precipitous outcomes by initially refusing to publish the novel two years earlier. There is no indication in this collection that having Pasternak win the Nobel Prize was part of the Agency’s original plan; however, it contributed to appeals to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, and it was a blow to those who insisted that the Soviets in 1958 enjoyed internal freedom. Of note, the documents in this collection show how effective “soft power” can influence events and drive foreign policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.146.128 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

translations
The pedigree of the Russian editions is obscure. Were any of them translated from the Italian, or were they all copies (of varying fidelity) of the original Russian? 207.192.243.66 (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a long history with Russian culture although I do not speak the language, am not Russian, and have never been there. From memory I put this out: Boris Pasternak, the author had three siblings. Two of them fled to the West. It was believed that one of the siblings smuggled Pasternak's novel, written in Russian, out because after Stalin's death a visit was possible, although the publisher's left leanings could have meant that he visited. The book/Pasternak won a Nobel Prize for literature. I have seen credible stories some years ago that the CIA (or some organisation related to it) pushed for submitting to the Nobel. Then somebody discovered that the old cyrillic characters were used in the text (the Soviets had abolished 2 or 3). It would make the book look like 'old' when the submission would have needed to be of a contemporary book. A plane with the publisher was held up in Malta and the secret guys photographed the whole book. Then there was also an issue with Soviet style paper, cannot remember details. They did manage to typeset and print a modern looking Russian version, submitting shortly before the deadline. I know this sounds bizarre but the source that I read at the time looked sound. How the good people of Stockholm were able to assess a book in Russian, no idea. Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1970 wrote that the book was more famous for the way it got out and got the Nobel than for the book's quality itself. It is somewhat longwinded, I found, so I did not read it all. 2001:8003:A928:800:44C:58D9:1E16:3C31 (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Doctor Zhivago (novel). 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/20120813175527/http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/slide-shows/28537 to http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/slide-shows/28537
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101062612/http://www.eastviewpress.com/Files/SS_FROM%20THE%20CURRENT%20ISSUE_No.%203_2011_small.pdf to http://www.eastviewpress.com/Files/SS_FROM%20THE%20CURRENT%20ISSUE_No.%203_2011_small.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418090833/http://www.malmoopera.se/forestallningar/doktor-zjivago to http://www.malmoopera.se/forestallningar/doktor-zjivago
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007123937/http://english.mn.ru:80/english/issue.php?2006-17-19 to http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2006-17-19
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926164133/http://www.drzhivago.com.au:80/home.html to http://www.drzhivago.com.au/home.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110205814/http://www.utoronto.ca:80/tsq/10/barnes10.shtml to http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/10/barnes10.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The German language page (Doktor Schiwago, Roman) has this link (No.10): https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2014-press-releases-statements/cia-declassifies-agency-role-in-publishing-doctor-zhivago.html

Diagram of relationships should be removed
The diagram of selected relationships is totally unreadable and useless and should be removed or created at a useable resolution. 83.58.131.233 (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Looking at the file history, the current 316 × 316 image was reduced from 1,728 × 1,728 by a bot, apparently due to a licensing concern, which seems to have been a mistake &mdash; the original uploader said so (and said it was their own work) and reverted, but the bot struck again. Perhaps the original uploader will be prepared to intervene again... message left with User:Drochtegang. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 08:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys. I uploaded a full-res version of the file. It appears to be working, at least when you select the image, then "More Details", then "Open in Media Viewer." Let me know if you see any problems. And does anyone know how to turn off this bot?? CheersDrochtegang (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ugh it appears a bot has hit already. It reduced the resolution to 768 x 768, but that resolution appears to me to be sufficient for clear reading (especially if you use "Open in Media Viewer"), so I don't see a reason to contact the owner of the bot. Please let me know if you disagree and think it is still unreadable.Drochtegang (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: the diagram was deleted by a bot. After much discussion with a WP administrator, I have restored the diagram. This time it is in SVG format, which I think will make it much more readable yet also a smaller file size. I am working on protecting it from bots in the future.Drochtegang (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doctor Zhivago (novel). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2006-17-19
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708232146/http://pasternak.dark-corporation.com/ to http://pasternak.dark-corporation.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.drzhivago.com.au/home.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/10/barnes10.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Doctor Zhivago (novel) (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Doctor Zhivago (novel) (redirect). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Misleading sidebar
While the facts are presented in the article itself, the sidebar is extremely misleading:

Author	Boris Pasternak Original title	Доктор Живаго Country	Italy Language	Russian Genre	Historical, Romantic novel Publisher	Feltrinelli (first edition), Pantheon Books Publication date 	1957

The first Russian-language edition was published in Holland by the CIA in 1958; the title page misleadingly suggested it was a Feltrinelli edition, and this (illegal and sub rosa) publication is what is shown in the photo, implying it is a Feltrinelli Russian-language edition from 1957, when such a thing does not exist. Feltrinelli published it as Il dottor Živago in 1957. I leave it to a more experienced editor to fix this mess. Languagehat (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Independent-minded"?
Saying that the book was refused publication for being "independent-minded" seems like an editorial statement, rather than one of fact. There are no sources suggesting this was the reason, other than those that seem to be plagiarized from this very article. Instead, I'd suggest that the word "critical" is more appropriate. Although the Soviet system of censorship was often laughably domineering and illogical, asserting that the book was stifled because it contained free thought seems like a cartoonish Cold War-era description of the issue. 2600:1700:1420:E9E0:E966:38DC:B8C6:362C (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)