Talk:Wisława Szymborska

NPOV Discussion
It's me complaining again. I'm a big fan of this poet, but this page is very NPOV. The POV happens to be my own, as far as I know about it, but I don't think this gushing tribute is not an enclycopedia article. Anyone wanna take a look? Ensiform 02:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Perhaps everything below the list of her works should be deleted.  I'm not sure one could rewrite it to be neutral.uncutsaniflush 02:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried to do a little cleaning, but you may be right about a mass delete. What I left is both jarringly bare-bones and still uncyclopedic in tone with respect to subject.  Ensiform 02:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You have cleaned it up a bit. But I agree with you on your assessment. The more I read the article the less I like it.  I think it needs to be completely rewritten.  I think I could do an effective rewrite but I don't have the time tonight.  Plus, as a newbie here, I'm not sure how comfortable I am doing a complete rewrite of an existing article.  uncutsaniflush 02:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The stuff below the work list sounds like some fan chatting about her over the phone. --Menchi 02:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It took me about 30 seconds to do a small edit to make it WP-style!
 * Adrian Pingstone 06:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's much better now, yes, though a bit sparse for a full article on a major poet. and, for example, are these factoids true?  her collections of poems regularly reach the circulation of some popular novels.  or that she writes limericks?  Ensiform 22:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've done a somewhat major rewrite of the Szymborska article. But I am a bit afraid to replace the existing version without getting some input. So I invite comments and suggestions.  As to Ensiform's questions, I believe one of her books is a book of limericks. uncutsaniflush 01:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for a mistake in redirect. Please revert. --Tbonefin 06:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed the beginning a bit to avoid weasel words, still doesn't look quite right... Also organized the talk page a bit.--darkskyz 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Szymborska and Stalinism
Sorry Molobo, but I had to revert your politically motivated, confrontational and incompetent edits - let me briefly explain why. In the edit history you asked "Renounced her early work ? Can I see the source ?" I am certain that there is such a source somewhere. I could easily look it up, but I do not think this is at all necessary in the face of the circumstancial evidence that we have. Szymborska quit the party, published in the underground and in Kultura. If anything, it is you who should produce evidence that Szymborska remained a Stalinist, since you seem to believe so. "Szymborska in that period worked at implementing Stalinist regime". This is a ridiculous overstatement. Firstly, the Stalinist regime was already well in place by the time Szymborska even began to make a name for herself as a poet. You may be too young to realise how people change, but in the early 1950s, Szymborska was certainly not the established figure you know her as. She was not a best-selling Nobel Prize winner, but a struggling young poet. While her eulogies on socialist society are nothing to be proud of, Stalinism did not really depend on the likes of the young Szymborska. That you insinuate otherwise just goes to prove how incredibly unaware of the realities of 1950s Poland you are.

The following statement is even more outrageous: "During the so callled "Cracow trial" in 1953 she and several other communist intelectuals as well as writers signed a petition condemning several imprisoned catholic priests sentenced in three cases to death as american spies, sabotagists and traitors.In the same petition they promised to be more active in condeming traitors and fighting for socialism." Quite apart from the fact that the details of the case add nothing to Szymborska's description as a person, you are making it sound as if she was in some way to blame for the death sentences. This is completely ridiculous. Such declarations came a dime a dozen in Stalinist Poland and had absolutely no political import.

Once again, I strongly urge you to stop your politically motivated, confrontational editing. You are seriously compromising Wikipedia's quality and NPOV standard. Your time will be much better spent on improving your English. --Thorsten1 19:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "I am certain that there is such a source somewhere. "
 * That is not enough I am afraid. As you have proven in the past to be highly emotional I can't take your word for it.Please provide a souce.


 * "Quite apart from the fact that the details of the case add nothing to Szymborska's description as a person, you are making it sound as if she was in some way to blame for the death sentences."
 * The fact that she signed the petition is important.If the petition did happen I see no reason not to mention it, since it shows how deeply Szymborska supported the regime in her youth.
 * "since you seem to believe so."
 * What I believe is unimportant and left to me.What is important is the source, where she apologizes for her stalinist era propaganda.
 * "While her eulogies on socialist society are nothing to be proud of, Stalinism did not really depend on the likes of the young Szymborska. "
 * Each regime is build on the work of obedient avarege people.I'm sorry if it disturbs you, but Szymborska did write stalinist propaganda.
 * "This is completely ridiculous."
 * It didn't happen ? --Molobo 20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "That is not enough I am afraid." That is not up to you to decide. If you claim that Szymborska remained a Stalinist to this day, kindly provide a source. "The fact that she signed the petition is important." No, it is not, as such declarations were the order of the day back then. It would have been more remarkable if she refused to sign any such declarations. That she supported the regime is already in the article. "What I believe is unimportant and left to me." That is precisely why I ask you to keep it out of the article. "she apologizes for her stalinist era propaganda". You see, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place where you can publicly demand apologies for things that happened 50 years ago. (Quite apart from the fact that such demands appear highly ludicrous when coming from someone in their 20s). "Each regime is build on the work of obedient avarege people." That is true. So shall we publicly denounce all 30 million Poles or so who simply did what was expected of them at that time? "I'm sorry if it disturbs you, but Szymborska did write stalinist propaganda." It seems to disturb you much more than it disturbs me. However, we already have that fact in, and we do not need to go into irrelevant details that only serve to turn an encyclopedia article about a Nobel Prize laureate into a sloppily written political indictment.--Thorsten1 21:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"If you claim that Szymborska remained a Stalinist to this day, kindly provide a source." No I am only asking for source in which she renouced her works.Since you can't I think It has to go.

"That is precisely why I ask you to keep it out of the article." That the trial and petition happened and she is crticized for it is a fact.Not my POV.

"You see, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place where you can publicly demand apologies for things that happened 50 years ago." Exactly, and your statement demands a source.That is why I asked for a quote or some source of your claim. " So shall we publicly denounce all 30 million Poles or so who simply did what was expected of them at that time? " Who denouces Szymborska ? Nobody here.I am just putting in facts.The reader can judge himself what to think of her. " However, we already have that fact in, and we do not need to go into irrelevant details " I only added links to examples of her early work.Nothing big. "into a sloppily written political indictment" So far no such thing has been done.--Molobo 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is going round in circles. As for the links - feel free to put them back in. --Thorsten1 21:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You could also try a little bit more Thorsten, I already found an example of her critic of Stalin. Perhaps if you concentrate more on article then on attacking other people ? --Molobo 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Then you put it in if you think it is important. Since I feel your accusation was laughable in the first place I see no reason to waste my time looking for any exonerating evidence. --Thorsten1 12:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Most Polish intelectuals ? That is rather debatable ? Who determines who is intelectual and who is not ? And I don't think we have any numbers in order to give such statement.--Molobo 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Most Polish intelectuals?"... Please read more carefully. The sentence says "[...] as many other intellectuals [...]." Polish intellectuals who initially supported the new system and were later alienated by it include Zygmunt Bauman, Leszek Kołakowski, Jacek Kuroń, Adam Michnik, Czesław Miłosz, Adam Schaff - to mention just some that come to mind spontaneously. --Thorsten1 12:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Adam Michnik was person from later period.Zygmunt Bauman was working in the military at the time(In counterintelligence IIRC),and naming him Polish intelectual is rather controversial I think.--Molobo 14:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Cracow Trial
Since you claim Cracow Trial didn't take place-can I see sources ?--Molobo 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it didn't take place. I said it was not relevant to the article, at least not in the form you proposed. And, not that it matters, but: How am I supposed to provide sources for an event that allegedly did not place?! This is ridiculous! --Thorsten1 00:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't, since they are online claims of the trial taking place, I would expect somebody to disprove it, if it didn't exist.But since you don't dispute the event taking place I see no problem. We can argue about the form.Since it was a source of crtiticism of Szymborska in modern Poland by Polish catholic media I think it deserves to be mentioned.--Molobo 10:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Since it was a source of crtiticism of Szymborska in modern Poland by Polish catholic media I think it deserves to be mentioned." -- this sounds a lot like potential POV and agenda pushing. The article clearly points out that by the 1950s she began "gradually [growing estranged] from socialist ideology and renounced her earlier political work. Although she did not officially leave the party until 1966, she began to establish contacts with dissidents.." As far as the priests go -- I am the one who first hid that portion of text for lack of valid sourcing, as the sole reference cited (with no ISBN# or page numbers) for the accusations that Szymborska somehow abetted in the priests' receiving death sentences, which is what is clearly and overtly indicated, is not accessible (inaccessible) online, and has no exact text quotation and accompanying translation into English regarding the allegations against Szymborska. Quis separabit?  18:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, the above applies to all editors. Quis separabit?  00:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Anyway, I added refs to that claim. It is a sad footnote in a history of an otherwise great person, and it should not be blown up from its small proportions. At the same time, as her most controversial or infamous deed, it seems notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus: Well, the reflink you provided is far superior to the prior one used to make the same accusation about the priests, i.e. ''Wojciech Czuchnowski Blizna. Proces kurii krakowskiej 1953, Kraków 2003'', which is not accessible online. I left a request on your talk page for a translation of the excerpt from your reflink which confirms the accusation. I think it'll be faster that way. I can try Google Translate (GT), but I have had problems in the past using GT with Polish syntax. Quis separabit? 01:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Szymborska's style and influence
I know Szymborska through English translations (three so far). I suspect that some of the comments on her style were written by non-English native speakers, so I did a little nip and tuck and added a few thoughts of my own. It's interesting how Szymborska's voice and tone is conveyed across other languages, and how people of different cultures share enthusiasm for her work. I think she's as important a poet as Elizabeth Bishop, perhaps more so because she's so quickly become internationally known. Is it premature to call Szymborska an influential poet? Sandover 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What the...?
"Szymborska is a miniaturist, whose compact poems often conjure large existential puzzles. Although most of Szymborska's poems are barely a page in length, they often touch on issues of ethical import". The first sentence already makes me cringe, but the second one is really idiotic. Almost _all_ modern poems are "barely a page" in length (and Szymborska's are probably still among the longer ones), so the statement is, at best, confusing. Secondly, who said that it takes many words to "touch on issues of ethical import"? More often than not, the "ethical import" of a problem is inversely proportional to the minimum amount of words required to describe it. 213.76.10.24 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

About how many people care for the art
I'm not sure, but it maybe a mistranslation. I've read "Some like poetry" in Russian, and it's not clear there whether there is 2/1000 people who like poetry or 2/1000 people who are poets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.40.13 (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It goes like: "Some like poetry. [...] Not counting schools, where you have to [like poetry], and poets themselves, there are some 2/1000". (Square brackets are mine.) It is therefore clear, at least in the Polish original, that the number has nothing to do with poets. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

B-class review
For WP:POLAND - failed, due to insufficient inline citations and too short section about her works. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Themes
I'm troubled by the sentence in this section; 'Her reputation rests on a relatively small body of work, fewer than 350 poems'. It introduces a nice anecdotal quote but 350 poems is not a small body of work by any relative standard I can think of in the world of poetry. It is more than Sylvia Plath, T.S. Eliot and Philip Larkin for instance, who have the highest reputations. Can an editor consider this? I also think that it would be appropriate to include a line or two about her writing style since she is a Nobel Laureate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barway (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wisława Szymborska. 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/20071224170132/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article319509.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article319509.ece

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) 17:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)