Talk:Worker and Kolkhoz Woman

Untitled

Should this not be titled "A Worker and a Kolkhoz Woman"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is of course a difficult question as the Russian language does not have definite and indefinite articles. Translation of names like these is therefore difficult, and the use of a definite article or an indefinite article conveys a somewhat different connotation to the title. My gut feeling says that the use of the indefinite article would be more appropriate. Errabee 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some second thoughts: it is also The Thinker, so use of the definite article is not without precedent. Errabee 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not so much concerned with the issue of the definite vs. the indefinite article (which, as you rightfully noted, is difficult to figure out), as I am with the fact that the title mixes the Worker and null article Kolkhoz Woman—this definitely looks and sounds wrong. Are there any English language books about this sculpture that would help us decide which title should be used?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The German entry uses the name without articles: Worker and Kolkhoz Woman. Errabee 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we'd better ask a native speaker what works best. I doubt we can just borrow the rules of the German language :) I'll see if I can find someone.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Having been asked by Ezhiki to put my oar in, I did a quick Google with no definitive results. Neither version gets enough hits outside Wikipedia to be definitive. I'd say either no articles at all, Worker and Kolkhoz Woman, because artworks are often named with no article ("Nude descending a staircase"), or with two articles, The Worker and the Kolkhoz Woman. The current version, The Worker and Kolkhoz Woman sounds likes it's referring to one person who's both a worker and Kolkhoz woman. I think I prefer the version with no articles; the version with two thes sounds more like a story than a statue. User:Angr 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version... sounds likes it's referring to one person who's both a worker and Kolkhoz woman—I got a good laugh out of that one :) Thanks, Angr. If the version with no articles is fine, I'm leaning towards using it. Errabee, what would you say?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll move it. Errabee 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to confuse anything, but this relatively recent (1992), English-language book I have on Stalinist architecture translates it as The Worker and the Collective Farm Girl. Recury 21:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Aarrghh, what a dreadful name! You could easily mistake that for a collective "farm girl", whatever that may be :) Errabee 02:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed :). Recury 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

SI units

This is just a rhetorical question, but if metric units are going to be used, isn't the thing meant to be in mm rather than cm? I know, from an understandability pov mm will not work, and cm is used for ease of understanding (analogue to inches), and that is why its there. But if SI units were to be strictly followed, would mm (or m) be the way to go?

202.89.155.157 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The meter is the official SI unit, but any prefix is allowed as well. See SI#Units. Both cm and mm (or km, or dm) can be used, and the main reason for choosing one over the other should be that the resulting numbers are comprehensible for everybody. Errabee 09:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But these are wrong conversions. I can cope with the difference in the infobox, since it is only 10 cm and 5 inches.

But the header has 24.5 m which is over 80 feet, and 78 feet which is under 24 meters. 82.141.116.243 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Orientation of German/USSR Pavilions at Paris 1937 Exposition

Reading this article, I was surprised to read this sentence: "The symbolism of the two figures striding from East to West, as determined by the layout of the pavilion, was also not lost by spectators."

I was surprised by this because from the Wikipedia photo of this exposition's juxtaposition of these pavilions there's no such East/West orientation. If anything, the figures atop the Soviet pavilion are striding from Southwest to Northeast. Even if the photo were reversed there would still not be a clear political inference. As one looks at the Seine from the Palais de Chaillot today, the positions of the German and USSR pavilions correspond to the lines of the present Avenue de New York, which runs at roughly a 50° angle from East/West.

The reference cited for that comment is "Totalitarian Art, Golomstock, 1990 ISBN 0002721694." If anyone can clarify this or establish accuracy in what was meant, that would help this article.

(My apologies, if I'm not raising this point right -- I've never posted to Wikipedia before and am definitely unsure of protocol and access. =mw= mwalker@jonesandjones.com)

According to Golomstock (p133) in my edition (1990): the Soviet pavilion was "crowned on its main western façade by a tower" which served as a pedestal for "two huge figures, seeming to move from east to west and carrying in their upraised hands a hammer and sickle, the symbol of the Soviet State." If Golomstock is wrong, and the sculpture was on the eastern façade and the striding was therefore to the east, then the source is not reliable and we'd need a better source. Man vyi (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

article

I just stumbled upon a very lengthy article about this sculpture in Russian, [1] that would make a fine source to add. dvdrw 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mosfilm logo old.jpg

The image Image:Mosfilm logo old.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Reich, the country's usual rival

Third Reich was USSR's close cooperant until 1941. Germans bought russian natural resources and trained their army (especially airforce) in Russian teritory from early 30s. These two pavilions in Paris should be read as symbol of two regimes cooperation. 94.42.37.245 (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are also willing to provide a reliable source to back the "should be read as" part up?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 20, 2011; 13:52 (UTC)

Third Reich was NOT "close cooperant" of USSR until 1939. Weimar Republic was, but after Hitler came to power, all contacts came to an abrupt end and two countries fought "proxy war" in Spain.89.75.148.243 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Worker and Kolkhoz Woman. 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/20091213020355/http://rt.com/Art_and_Fun/2009-12-04/second-life-socialist-monument.html to http://rt.com/Art_and_Fun/2009-12-04/second-life-socialist-monument.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140209212605/http://beranger.org/2014/02/07/sochi-2014-in-five-pictures/ to http://beranger.org/2014/02/07/sochi-2014-in-five-pictures/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)