User talk:Bluminsint

Welcome![edit]

Hi Bluminsint! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

In this series of edits to the biography of C. J. Hogarth, you have added a significant amount of critique of Hogarth's translations. These critiques appear to be based on your own comparisons of Hogarth's translation of Oblomov to another translator's. This is an example of what Wikipedia terms original research, and it is disallowed here. You may only report what has already been said by reliable sources. I have reverted these edits. (While the information you provided about Semion Rapoport's reaction to Hogarth was properly cited, it was largely redundant with the other material in the "Reception" section, and so was also reverted.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61 I must say that I am very disappointed. This man has done untold damage to the reputation of Russian literature around the world by virtue of his falsification of pretty much everything these authors wrote. Moreover, the sources listed just don't go far enough in exemplifying the damage done, and my attempt at correcting this injustice is me doing a service for everyone who might be interested in Russian literature and might unfortunately read his monstrous attempts at translation. I really don't think it's just to simply delete my entire edit considering the accuracy with which I have quoted a comparative work and the nature of my intent, which was and is to inform the broader public and uphold truth itself. Bluminsint (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Hogarth has done damage to the reputation of Russian literature, you'll need to proved reliable sources to back that claim. If, on the other hand, the extent of damage is your opinion, then that is, as mentioned, original research, and not a thing that Wikipedia will accept. As you say, the "sources listed just don't go far enough". Fine -- find sources that fully exemplify the horror of his bad translations. But not just your own interpretation of the situation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61 I understand. I will find sources or finish the book I am writing on the subject, which contains sources which aren't available on the internet, unfortunately. Thank you for your quick response! Bluminsint (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are writing a book on the subject, you are clearly knowledgeable of the topic. You are free to use sources that are not available on the internet to cite your points on the Wikipedia article. As long as the sources are available to the public in some form (published books, scholarly articles, masters and doctoral level theses, etc., all of which can be accessed from a library if anyone wishes to do so), they are valid as Wikipedia sources. However, if the sources in your book are your own, as yet unpublished scholarship, it will be best to wait until your book is published, and then we can use that as a source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]