Talk:Arkhip Kuindzhi

Incorrect edit reversal

I have recently made 2 changes: 1. Highlighting the fact that the painter is considered to be not only Russian (being born and active in Russian empire), but also Ukrainian (being born in Ukraine, although under Russian control, and depicting Ukrainian landscapes). This is also supported by some of the links already provided on the page. 2. Fixed juxtaposition, between the place of birth and the place of youth - in fact they were both parts of Ekaterinoslav Governorate.

However, both of my changes were reverted by JJMC89 bot III.

Can the bot be stopped from making the reversal? Igorre25 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No, becuase JJMC89 bot doesn't do that. I did, because it's introducing an anachronism, as it says twice already. Calling him Ukrainian would be like calling Trajan a Spaniard. The country simply did not exist at the time. It may be unfair, or even wrong, but it's history, and it's been already discussed on this very talk page twice in the last six months. Re-litigating this won't do anyone any good. Sumanuil. 06:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sumanuil, but your analogy is not correct. The fact that Ukraine was occupied by the Russian Empire does not mean that people born there stop being Ukrainians. The fact that Poland was occupied and didn't exist for more than a century doesn't deny the fact that Chopin, who was born when there was no Poland, is considered Polish composer. As I mentioned earlier, some of the links provided on the page also state that Kuindzhi is considered to be a Ukrainian painter. The same approach is applied to many people born in imperial states - they could be considered not only a part of imperial heritage, but also of the colonial one.

Also, why the correction about the Taganrog was reverted? Igorre25 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Being born within the borders of modern-day Ukraine does not automatically make someone a Ukrainian, sorry. We do not say Kant was a Russian because he was born in modern-day Kaliningrad. Also because of WP:V. Mellk (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And using the term "occupied" is some kind of WP:FRINGE. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I should have used the term "colonized" instead of "occupied".

Your arguments seem to imply that colony doesn't have any claim on any cultural heritage on its territory for the period of being a colony, but it doesn't make any sense.

For WP:V see references 1 and 11.

Igorre25 (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The example of Kant perfectly contradicts the reason provided for the reversal of my edits. When Kant lived, there was no such country as Germany, but he still is considered a German philosopher. Igorre25 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

And we have WP:POV. Mellk (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

How my changes would contradict that? I'm just confirming that Kuindzhi is not only Russian, but also a Ukrainian painter. How that breaks WP:POV? Igorre25 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The relevant guideline for that is MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Mellk (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Which says “country, region, or territory … where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident.” Ukraine is a country, region, or territory which was colonized by Russia. Ukrainian artist and others have been traditionally called “Russian” according to colonial-era historiography, but this has been changing in recent decades of post-colonial academic practice of history, especially after the collapse of the Soviet empire, and increasingly after the 2014 start of the war and the 2022 invasion.

So Ukrainian and Russian may either or both be valid identifications for subjects. The guideline doesn’t help determine how to resolve the question in individual cases. Best consult recent reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 15:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

He wasn't a citizen of Ukraine, which did not exist at the time, he wasn't ethnically Ukrainian, he did not, to my knowledge, use (or know) Ukrainian in any capacity whatsoever, and (again, to my knowledge) he did not express any desire for Ukraine to be an independent country (and to be a part of that polity). How can he be labelled Ukrainian? Because the city he was born in ended up in independent Ukraine after 1991? Just because some sources call him Ukrainian do to them projecting the present-day nation into the past, which is wrong, doesn't mean we should do the same. As mentioned by another user, we do not call Trajan a Spaniard because Spain did not exist at the time (in spite of the region of Hispania being a thing), even though some sources actually (and mistakenly) do so. Ostalgia (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your WP:OR interpretations and second-guessing of the sources doesn’t change that they are reliable, or change what they say. You have no basis to discount them.

@Ostalgia, this page is under WP:ACDS (Eastern Europe and the Balkans). Please undo your revert and we can continue the discussion. —Michael Z. 22:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR to look at a source and notice that factual, easily verifiable information contained by it is inaccurate, otherwise we would have to add, as mentioned, that Trajan was Spanish on the basis of reliable sources having done so. As stated by WP:MOS, Avoid anachronism. An article about Junípero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico, not in California, because the latter entity did not yet exist in Serra's time. Perhaps ironically, that particular statement might be challengeable, but the underlying logic is still sound. Ostalgia (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That is quite wrong, to put it politely.

Why don’t you set a precedent correcting major articles like the one about “Italian” sculptor Michelangelo, who died centuries before there was a state called Italy. And the one about “German” composer Johann Sebastian Bach, who was never a citizen of Germany. Explain to other editors how all the sources are wrong about them.

Then move on to articles about “Russians” who never lived during the existence of a state called Russia, like Mikhail Kaneev, Lev Russov, etcetera.

It’s unfair to start by picking on an until recently colonized nation like the Ukrainians. —Michael Z. 03:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Because Michelangelo can be considered an ethnic Italian, used the Italian language, and considered himself and was considered by contemporaries to be Italian, even when there was no independent polity that united all the tiny principalities (as an aside, the notion of a Kingdom of Italy did exist on paper, even if not independent). Furthermore, Michelangelo, as did many of his contemporaries, did not stay in one principality but moved around the territory of present-day Italy. I don't think anyone will object to stating that an ethnic Italian who spoke Italian, considered himself Italian, was considered Italian by his contemporaries, and was important throughout the Italian peninsula is Italian. Same goes for Germans.

A similar, but not necessarily equivalent, case is that of members of nations/ethnic groups within larger, multinational empires who nevertheless stressed that they were a distinct people. One such case is that of ethnic Poles born within the Russian Empire, Prussia or the Habsburg Empire after the partitions, or (closer to your heart) that of people like Taras Shevchenko - an ethnic Ukrainian who actively stressed his "Ukrainianness", which clearly takes precedence over the fact that he was also a Russian subject and a member of the Russian Imperial Academy of Arts.

For both sets of situations mentioned above the relevant guideline, I believe, would be MOS:ETHNICITY, because it's their ethnicity/"nationality" that is relevant to the subject's notability.

In every other case the guideline says to mention the country where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. As the article clearly states, Kuindzhi was not an ethnic Ukrainian (and he did not become famous due to his Greek origins), nor was he a citizen of Ukraine (easily verified by checking the fact that no independent Ukrainian state existed until years after Kuindzhi died). There are no grounds to call him Ukrainian except for the fact that he was born in territory that today is part of Ukraine.

And by all means, don't "put it politely". I much prefer sincere bluntness to hypocritical innuendo. Ostalgia (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking different criteria where it suits your argument, so it is inconsistent.

And misquoting the guideline, which actually says “the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen . . . where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.” Although known by several names, Ukraine has always been a definable country, region, and territory during historical times, and Ukraine is the homeland of Pontic Greeks, as well as of Ukrainians in the ethnic, cultural, regional, and civic senses.

That is why these authoritative and relatively recent sources identify him with the country where he came from and executed his important and characteristic works, not the empire it was colonized by.  —Michael Z. 16:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I had not replied to this as I was busy at ANI, as you know, where you seem to have dropped all semblance of civility to baselessly accuse me of echoing calls for genocide in Ukraine. I do prefer sincere bluntness but accusations of genocide are a bit over the top, don't you think?

First of all, I will address the issue of sources, starting from the fact that the quote "The most prominent Russian artists of the 1870s and 1880s, including Ivan Kramskoy, Ilya Repin, Vasily Surikov, Vasily Perov, and Vasily Vereshchagin, belonged to this group, as did the lesser known Arkhip Kuindzhi" excludes Kuindzhi from the group of "Russian artists", when it quite clearly excludes him from the "prominent" category, not from the "Russian" one. Plenty of other sources call him Russian: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I do not know why you seem it feet to override all other sources to impose your own.

Secondly, you make a bizarre claim here by stating that [a]lthough known by several names, Ukraine has always been a definable country, region, and territory during historical times. This is a bizarre claim. Literally no country in the history of humanity has always been definable. The claim that this is so even though it's been through many names is quite literally what MOS:PLACE is about - Gaul may roughly correspond to the territory of France, but it is not France. You're freely projecting the present into the past as if the current state of affairs were inevitable. Do you think Pavlo Skoropadsky thought of being Hetman of an independent Ukraine (which, by the way, had different borders to modern-day Ukraine!) while Major General in the Russian Imperial Army and a member of Nicholas II's retinue in 1912? He probably would've laughed at the proposition.

Third, regarding MOS:ETHNICITY, I do not understand what is unclear. Arkhip Kuindzhi was a subject of the Russian Empire at the time, I do not think that fact is up for discussion. He was also an ethnic Greek, but he did not become notable on account of his ethnicity, although it is worth having it listed (and it is). He is not, to my knowledge, known to have used the Ukrainian language, or to have expressed an opinion favourable to the independence of Ukraine, or to have expressed himself on the topic at all (unlike, say, the ethnic Pole Antonovych, who actively chose "Ukraininanness"). I repeat: what makes him Ukrainian, other than the fact that the city where he was born would be part of Ukraine years after he died, something that was not only not a given, but that he played no role in (nor intended to play a role in, AFAWK)?

Finally, you are literally claiming that Ukraine is the homeland of Pontic Greeks. This is a frankly insane claim in that not only does it ignore centuries, even millennia of history (Greeks have lived around the Black Sea from way before Ukraine, or Rus' for that matter, was even a thing), but carries the tacit implication that every Pontic Greek is theoretically Ukrainian, which is mindblowing and fundamentally denies every sort of agency to these people. The fact that you want to shed the "Russian" label from people you perceive as Ukrainians, but don't see the contradiction in imposing the "Ukrainian" label on people who are not Ukrainian by any rational, not anachronic metric, particularly when they belong to a minority, shows an astonishing lack of self awareness. Ostalgia (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I won’t repeat myself by pointing out several problems with your arguments. I’ll just point out that your conclusion seems to denigrate the published statements of Getty Research, Oxford Art Online, the Benezit Dictionary of Artists, and curators at the Metropolitan Museum of Art as not “rational.”

I did not accuse you of genocide. I pointed out that offensive statements about Ukrainian nationality like the ones you insist on using as guidance in writing articles have now become part of genocide incitement by the Russian state, according to reliable sources, and one is definitely unlikely to continue getting away with such public speech for much longer.  —Michael Z. 18:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, you accused me of, and I quote, echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine. You can flip it around all you want, but that is quite literally what you said. If you reread it and understand it, I hope you'll strike it through at ANI.

Secondly, the fact that you find my comments to be "offensive statements about Ukrainian nationality" shows just how invested you are into the topic, and how far from neutral your position is. I would advise you to step back, take a deap breath, and think of similar situations not related to Ukraine to see if your position would be the exact same. They don't have to be identical, in fact, think of different scenarios. Can we call Vercingetorix French, or Julius Caesar Italian? Should we say the Red Baron was Polish? Was Kant Russian, Sacher-Masoch Ukrainian, or Túpac Amaru Peruvian? Perhaps take a break for a couple of days to think it over - I will not revert or edit the article in the meantime (does 48h sound reasonable?). I cannot speak for anybody else, but I can certainly speak for me.

If you give it a couple of days and look at other examples, I doubt you'll maintain such a radical position, but if it still is the same then I believe all possibility of agreement on any topic will have gone out the window. I am hopeful this will not be the case. Ostalgia (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Follow the sources. I offered four excellent ones and accepted one of your two (see below), which is not irrational nor radical. —Michael Z. 21:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I quite literally have no idea what you're talking about. You did not engage with my sources at all. Secondly, as mentioned plenty of times, a source can contain erroneous information and/or anachronistic claims. We are not expected to just post that without any prior assessment. I maintain you need to take a break, my offer still stands. Ostalgia (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I also resent the repeated condescending language. Not “rational,” “radical,” “you need to take a break,” and the assertion about “just how invested” I am because you repeat offensive remarks. You’re obviously not trying to convince me that your view is sound, merely bludgeoning and baiting, and repeating your original research about the Red Baron. It won’t work out.

Follow the sources. Get consensus. Don’t revert without it. This article is subject to WP:ACDS.  —Michael Z. 23:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the sources I provided and that don't say what you want, and you continue to argue that applying policy is somehow OR. You also claim that me telling you to take two days to think over your position while maintaining status quo is somehow condescending. Lastly, you claim that I need to find consensus after you introduced a bold change not only without consensus but against what seems to be the majority position in this discussion. You're acting in a deliberately obtuse manner, and your over the top accusations and innuendo bordering on threats are becoming tiresome. I once again urge you to take a break. The offer still stands. Ostalgia (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I also resent your accusation about what I “want.” You can criticize my what I write or do, but please think twice before accusing me based on mind-reading.  —Michael Z. 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at the list of the Ukrainian painters of the same period: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_artists. Why Apollon Mokritsky is specified as Ukrainian, but Arkhip Kuindzhi from the same list cannot be identified as such? Igorre25 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

These pages are always subject to edit warring and POV pushing, so one day a certain page may say "Ukrainian", other day "Russian", other day "Russian–Ukrainian", other day "Soviet" etc. Mellk (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Still, in this case we're talking about an ethnic Greek who never lived in an independent Ukraine. Sumanuil. 20:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

so maybe you need to change category of "russian painter" because he also never lived in federal russia easer 50.99.233.150 (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

His father was Greek, but his mother, according to some websites, and which is very likely, was Ukrainian. So, he can also be considered ethically Ukrainian. Igorre25 (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Please provide those sources. Sumanuil. 04:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The cited sources keep being removed. Here they are for posterity:

Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi . . . was a Ukrainian landscape painter of Pontic Greek descent active in the Russian Empire.

Some arguments made above are straw men or otherwise irrelevant:

• “Wasn't a citizen of Ukraine, which did not exist at the time”
• “He wasn't ethnically Ukrainian”
• “He did not express any desire for Ukraine to be an independent country”
• “An Ethnic Greek”
• “Never lived in an independent Ukraine”

These are colonial arguments that denigrate Ukrainian identity. They are not a basis for disqualifying sources inconvenient for WP:righting great wrongs. Furthermore, they are offensive and should not be tolerated in discussions, much less on an article subject to discretionary sanctions. —Michael Z. 22:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Oxford Art online source is sufficient for me. Volunteer Marek 14:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica and the Metropolitan Museum of Art both explicitly title him as Russian. I don't see why these sources are being removed from the article. Q-Wert-273 (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In the days of Kuindzhi the area of Mariupol where he was born was considered a part of newly-settled multiethnic territory called Novorossiya, and whether Novorossiya (or specific areas of it) was a part of Ukraine was an ambiguous question, because there was no unit called Ukraine back then. The idea of defining some historical figure's nationality by the present-day borders is very dubious. Extrapolating borders drawn by the Soviet authorities in the 20th century into the 19th century is anachronistic. And there is nothing "offensive" in stating that.

Take as example German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who was born in the present-day Russian city of Kaliningrad (and he even was a Russian subject during Russia's control over Prussia). We wouldn't rebrand him as Russian, right? Q-Wert-273 (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Britannica does not have an article on Kuindzhi. The site’s own text search returns no results on his name. The link you cited is a placeholder, not a source for any information: there is no authorship, no article history, no references. Britannica mentions him in passing in only one article, on the Peredvizhniki, text apparently last updated in 2000,[6] where it says “The most prominent Russian artists of the 1870s and 1880s, including Ivan Kramskoy, Ilya Repin, Vasily Surikov, Vasily Perov, and Vasily Vereshchagin, belonged to this group, as did the lesser known Arkhip Kuindzhi,” explicitly excluding him from “Russian artists.”

The Met link is not bad (not sure if it’s a secondary source). It says he was “born along the coast in Mariupol, when the Ukrainian city was part of the Russian Empire. . . . Today, Kuindzhi is celebrated in both Ukraine and Russia.” And look at the sources it cites, including these:

• Mariupol museum dedicated to 19th-century artist Arkhip Kuindzhi destroyed by airstrike, according to local media, which notes his Greek descent and both Russian and Ukrainian claims to his cultural legacy.
• How the Ukrainian painter Arkhip Kuindzhi laid out the spirituality in nature before Russian eyes – “his homeland, Ukraine”
• Ukraine’s cultural casualties, which includes Kuindzhi’s work among Ukraine’s cultural heritage.
• Visual Arts Interview: Oleksandra Kovalchuk on “Saving Ukrainian Art” – quotes a curator about the Met’s own label on this very painting: “‘It took us some time to make sure that the label on the work mentions that Arkhip Kuindzhi is a Ukrainian artist, because he was always labeled as Russian,’ Kovalchuk said. ‘In this way, Russia has always been not only trying to steal our art but also to steal Ukrainian artists.’”

 —Michael Z. 17:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your own argument denying Ukraine’s existence and touting “Kaliningrad” (ethnically cleansed of Germans by the Soviets, as was Crimea of Crimean Tatars) and “New Russia” are poorly formed and somewhat offensive colonial rhetoric. —Michael Z. 17:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Britannica does not have an article on Kuindzhi. — It is some kind of a stub, as I understand. Still, he is titled by Britannica as a Russian painter.

The site’s own text search returns no results on his name. — It does for me. (The query should be the full name.)

The Met link is not bad — But still you deleted it.

It says... — It says that Arkhip Kuindzhi is Russian.

Your own argument denying Ukraine’s existence... — What are you even talking about? I just stated a fact that in the 19th century Ukraine was not some organized territory or national state with precise borders, but a historical and cultural region. Ethnic Ukrainians (Malorossians or Ruthenians, as they were called back then) along with other peoples of the Empire took part in settling newly-acquired territories, from Novorossia to Siberia to the Russian Far East. But any territory with some percentage of Ukrainians was not obviously considered a part of Ukraine.

poorly formed — In what way is it poorly formed? Königsberg wasn't Russia back then, and Mariupol wasn't Ukraine. And Kuindzhi wasn't obviously only active in his native region. He lived and studied in Saint Petersburg, he painted sceneries of Northern Russia and Caucasus.

somewhat offensive — "What you're saying is offensive" is a convenient way to discard an argument. But the point stands: Arkhip Kuindzhi is being retroactively made Ukrainian. And before you say that me mentioning historical ethnonyms like Malorossians is colonial and offensive, I remind you that the idea of Little Russia was developed in Kiev, not in Moscow. Q-Wert-273 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Q-Wert-273, I have to apologize. Reviewing the above, I see that I originally used it to refer to another’s comments, and then it got scrambled into our discussion after you joined. I take back that you said something offensive. I’m sorry.

But I am still unsatisfied with your edit “restoring sources,” which, whether knowingly or not, followed two sneaky anon deletions and left the article worse than before.

I only discovered the hidden tabs in the Met link after I removed it and we had the discussion above. I don’t mind restoring it, but I think its cited sources are even better because they speak directly and in more detail to the subject of Kuindzhi’s identity and his art being part of Ukrainian art.

And I still believe your understanding of “New Russia” is incorrect, and the analogies of Kaliningrad and whatnot are not good parallels. Parts of it were already inhabited by Ukrainians under the Zaporozhian Cossacks, its colonization by the empire was largely with Ukrainian settlers, and it was documented as chiefly Ukrainian ethno-linguistic territory during the empire and afterwards, and then belonged to the Ukrainian People’s Republic.

And by the way, the medieval and Early Modern idea of Mala Rusʹ or Malaia Rusʹ is different from the restricted Russian imperial one of Malorossiia and malorossy, and even more so from any non-historical use after 1917 and through today.

You say he is being “retroactively made Ukrainian.” The Met’s sources support that he is being belatedly shed of a colonial identity that was imposed by Russian historiography, including in Western academia. In case I haven’t drawn it to your attention already, RFE/RL has a decent story on the general subject, and I can show you some other readings.[7]  —Michael Z. 20:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I believe this is a case when some sources mention him as a Russian artist, while other sources mention him as a Ukrainian artist. I also believe that citing EB above is valid. On the other hand, someone being born in Russian Empire does not need be described as "Russian". Consider someone like Sholem Aleichem. So whatever. In my personal opinion, that does not matter at all. What matters is his art. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  For the encyclopedia it does matter that the article reflects the most specific and current sources with due weight. It also matters that it represents a neutral POV, meaning not an outdated colonial one. It is not just some versus some others, which can lead us to adopt a majoritarian view or false balance that does not fulfil the quality metrics I mentioned.  —Michael Z. 23:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That "colonial" thing... Yes, Mahatma Gandhi was Indian, even though he was born in the British Empire. But would same logic apply to Ukraine or Finland as former colonies of the Russian Empire? Well, someone like Ragnar Granit is described as a Finish scientist. OK, that's fine. But then, according to such logic, everyone born in the Russian Empire but at the territory of contemporary Ukraine should be described as "Ukrainian". Let's say Nikolai Gogol. Is that what you are saying? My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s a straw man to imply I said that there is one rule like that that should be applied indiscriminately.

I say follow specific, current sources. Be aware of the colonial bias in many outdated sources, including recent ones, and select the best. Try to understand what they are actually saying.

I also have a problem with the completely un-discriminating use of the adjective Russian without concern for its meanings and as if it overrode everything, with a colonial bias in contrast to the way other national identifications are used. Again, decolonized sources should be preferred. Russian was chiefly an imperial identity, not a national one, referring to colonial subjects.

Are you saying Gogol should be called “a Russian writer,” period? (Perhaps because Ukrainians shouldn’t receive the same treatment as Finns?) I hope not. Britannica doesn’t call him that,[8] and it further explains him as “a member of the petty Ukrainian gentry and a subject of the Russian Empire,” as of a 2017 update.[9]  —Michael Z. 16:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, that was simply a provocative question. No straw man because I only asked you a question, you responded "no", and I agree with your answer on the content matters. I also did not say that Gogol should be described "Russian" period. To the contrary, I think he should be described as a "Ukrainian-born" writer, exactly as in EB entry you linked to. But I am leaving this page. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, I didn’t think you literally advocated that, but responded to the literal words. Cheers. —Michael Z. 17:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A better comparison to the treatment of Gogol and many other Ukrainian subjects of the Russian and Soviet empires are members of Category:19th-century Finnish writers, many of whom were Russian subjects.

But their articles don’t call them “Russian,” or “Finnish-born Russian,” nor for the most part even mention Russia at all. Ukrainian nationality has been largely treated through the lens of Russian historiography, as attested in numerous sources (I refer again to an overview article in RFE/RL).

In Kuindzhi’s case, he is from Ukrainian-inhabited Ukraine, of Greek ancestry, and subject of the Russian empire. Specific, up-to-date sources, and the lead of our article make this reasonably clear. —Michael Z. 17:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the case of Finnish writers is instructive and can be followed. And yes, the descriptions in RS and additional considerations may apply. In the case of Gogol, this is Ukrainian culture in his writings. Personally, I think he was the greatest Ukrainian writer who ever wrote in Russian language. I do not think that language is completely defining here. For example, I think Nabokov was a Russian writer even though he wrote many books in English. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I just saw this discussion today and I have to say that I am amazed at all how Kuindzhi could be viewed in relation to Ukraine. During the painter's lifetime, the Black Sea area did not yet belong to historically Ukrainian areas, at least Kuindzhi did not know that he was born in the Ukraine. He was a Greek but considered himself a Russian painter as he lived and worked in the Russian Empire. Even more, his career was immediately connected with St. Petersburg, where he was one of the best friends of Dmitry Mendeleev. The last one even helped the painter to get different colors for his artworks. Politically, Kuindzhi was absolutely indifferent to Ukraine. So I see no reason to "ukrainize" this Greek-born painter from the Russian Empire today. Ушкуйник (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources say he was a Ukrainian painter. By way of explanation (and not as a substitute for the sources):

The culture of Mariupol and its Azov coast surroundings was a product of Crimean Tatars, Pontic Greeks, Zaporozhian Cossacks, Germans, Bulgarians, and Albanians, and settlers from parts of Russia and other Russian colonies. It is a cultural milieu of Ukraine.

Pontic Greeks, Crimean Tatars, and their ancestors were already there for centuries.

Zaporozhian Cossacks sailed the Black Sea, established an outpost at Maripol, and the tsarina officially gave them right to the land in 1746. They established the Black Sea Host in 1787.

Kuindzhi was born in Mariupol in 1841. Amazing! —Michael Z. 23:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see you edited this while the discussion is in progress. I’ve reverted. The sources you cited are not reliable source on Kuindzhi’s identity. The Britannica link is not an article, as discussed above. The Met link and its citations support “Ukrainian painter,” as discussed above. What is the Art Renewal site? One has been identified as a circular reference.[10] Google Doodle? News items in NDTV and ABC News? Another supports his identity as Ukrainian, not Russian: “Numerous anecdotes about his boorish conduct emphasize his un-Russianness: he was of Greek descent and came from southern Ukraine,” “the young transplant from Ukraine.”[11]  —Michael Z. 03:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That's funny to read such a politically engaged monologue, but all these speculations about the Mariupol region belonging to Ukraine have no relation to the history of Russian culture of the 19th century. With the same success it can be said that Ivan Aivazovsky is a Ukrainian painter, since he was born in Crimea. Both artists were not Russians in the ethnic sense of the word, but neither were they Ukrainians. At the same time they were Russian citizens and became known as artists in the Russian Empire. So I see no reason to call Kuindzhi a "Ukrainian" and I completely agree with colleagues Ostalgia and Mellk on this point. If we consider the majority of reliable sources on the subject, we can easy find out that Kuindzhi is recognized as a Russian painter. See for example: [Masterpieces of European Painting, 1800-1920, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art], [Artcyclopedia], [Great Russian Encyclopedia], [Encyclopedia Krugosvet], [Great Soviet Encyclopedia], Peter Leek's Russian Painting, Britannica, and [the whole number of articles (about eighteen) about Kuindzhi from various Encyclopedias]. In summary: Kuindzhi was a Russian painter directly associated with St. Petersburg and a friend of Dmitry Mendeleev who was a Russian monarchist. Like Aivasovsky, Kuindzhi did not have Slavic roots, but identified himself directly with Russia as a citizen of the empire. As a result, in the majority of encyclopedias he is labeled as a Russian painter and his reference to Ukraine today looks just ridiculous. Ушкуйник (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve already addressed above how the Met decolonized Kuindzhi only in 2022, years after the 2007 catalogue you cite. Some of your politically approved Soviet and Russian sources seem to call him an ethnic Russian (russkii), clearly not reliable on nationality in the Russian empire. Addressed Britannica which is not an article. Artcyclopedia web directory a reliable source to contradict the Oxford references, you think? —Michael Z. 13:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Another nice example of manipulation with terms: "Some of your politically approved Soviet and Russian sources seem to call him an ethnic Russian (russkii), clearly not reliable on nationality in the Russian empire". The word russkii in relation to the history of the Russian Empire is not related to questions of origin in terms of ethnicity (blood), it is only about nationality (citizenship). Cf. the designation "russkij philosoph" (Russian philosopher) in relation to Semyon Frank, or "russkij poet" (Russian poet) in relation to Osip Mandelstam. Secondly, it is not at all strange that the majority of information about Kuindzhi is presented in encyclopedias written in Russian. In the same way, it is not surprising that the majority of information about James Abbott McNeill Whistler is present in English-language sources. Of course, I can imagine that some colleagues who will read these lines are not familiar with the Russian-language sources. Especially for these colleagues, I try to formulate everything clearly: 1) The essay is about a person who did not have Ukrainian roots (at all); 2) He did not know Ukrainian and did not belong to the so-called Ukrainophiles; 3) He was born in the Russian Empire, studied in Russia and died in St. Petersburg, then the capital of Russia; 4) his best friend was the Russian chemist Dmitry Mendeleev, who belonged to the Russian monarchists; 5) Kuindzhi is related to Ukraine just like Ivan Aivazovsky. Based on these arguments, I see the current version of the preamble as entirely politically motivated. Ушкуйник (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a chaotic argument. You are putting forward arguments that the Soviet and Russian Federation sources you promote do not. You do realize that Kuindzhi did not live in either the Soviet Union nor the Russian Federation, right? You are aware of the colonial bias in imperial, Soviet, and Russian Federation sources, especially concerning Ukrainian history, aren’t you?  —Michael Z. 17:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a source on the difference between Russian wikt:русский (russkiĭ) and wikt:российский (rossiĭskiĭ).  —Michael Z. 17:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't use such clichés like "colonial bias in imperial" etc., it's all about the sources. The distinction between "russkii" and "rossijski" did not yet exist in the Russian Empire. I don't mind at all if you consider persons like Taras Shevchenko as a Ukrainian painter and poet, it's totally correct regardless of the fact that they grew up in the Russian Empire. However, I believe that under no circumstances should people be ukrainized just because they were born in areas that are now part of Ukraine but have no connection with the history of Ukraine at all. It is precisely the case of Kuindzhi, Aivasovsky, Bulgakov etc. I have already proved that Kuindzhi is referred to as a Russian painter in the majority of encyclopedias and I see no reason for further discussion. Ушкуйник (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it’s about the sources.

Current sources use those “clichés” that you denigrate because they represent the recognition of human rights in the academic practice of history: decolonization, decolonization of knowledge. They tell us that the history of Ukraine has been subject to the Russian and Soviet POV. Yet again: an overview in RFE/RL.

“Did not yet exist” is you literally advocating for the 19th-century POV of the Russian empire. We don’t live there, the difference exists now, and it is very important for identification today of people from former (and current) colonies of Moscow.

So you can’t stop some Ukrainians in Russia being “ukrainized,” but an ethnic Greek from Ukraine necessarily must be Russified?

The sources say he is part of Ukrainian history.

You have not proved that about the majority of encyclopedias, you’re insisting on including POV encyclopedias that are un-reliable sources on Ukrainian identity, and you’re ignoring my argument to prefer up-to-date sources that incorporate current academic practice.  —Michael Z. 19:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Bla-bla-bla.., you have already seen that in most encyclopedias Kuindzhi is called a Russian painter and now you are trying to draw attention to the general ideological problems of Ukraine, which are irrelevant to the topic at all. I already said everything clearly: 1) Kuindzhi is not Ukrainian, he hasn't Ukrainian roots; 2) He was not a citizen of Ukraine and he did not know that he was born in the area of Ukraine, instead he was a citizen of Imperial Russia; 3) he did not know Ukrainian and did not belong to Ukrainophiles; 4) his painting career was connected with St. Petersburg, Russia. In summary: Kuindzhi is internationally recognized as a Russian painter (It is the same situation as in the case of Ivan Aivazovsky). I have already demonstrated a large list of encyclopedias that prove it here and don't see any reason for further demagogy about problems of colonialism. Ушкуйник (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Bla-bla-bla.  —Michael Z. 16:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ушкуйник you’re now blatantly edit warring.[12] I performed a number of edits with explanations in the edit summaries of how they improved the article, and you just nukes it all back to where you had it before. This is not good-faith editing. Please restore back the the state it was in when you joined the discussion in progress.  —Michael Z. 16:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "edit-waring"? I have already seen more than eighteen encyclopedias, all of them mention Kuindzhi as a Russian painter. I can, of course, wait for the opinion of other members like Ostalgia, Mellk, Ymblanter etc., but I think that everything is absolutely clear here. The majority of encyclopedias clearly support the version of the preamble I wrote. Ушкуйник (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Calling someone who spent the entire career in Saint Petersburg "Ukrainian painter" is a pretty clear cultural appropriation. Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation by Getty Research, Oxford Art Online, and the Benezit Dictionary of Artists? Seems dubious.

The article text says “active in the Russian empire,” following the sources and precisely addressing your concern.  —Michael Z. 21:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also seems doubtful that he painted Red Sunset on the Dnipro and Evening in Ukraine just sitting in a basement in St. Pete.  —Michael Z. 21:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I've not been around lately because I waited for the case at ANI to close before intervening again, but I don't see that happening any time soon, and quite frankly the experience has resulted in my interest in this encyclopedia drying out during the last couple of weeks. Before taking my leave, however, I just wanted to clarify a few things about this entire discussion, namely that, while you ask others to follow or form a consensus, you introduced bold changes not only without consensus but even against consensus (the discussion was 3-1 "in favour" of the previous version before you intervened, after all), and you've spent the best part of a month almost single-handedly reverting 6 different users (disregarding IPs) who may not entirely agree with one another, but most importantly with nobody supporting your maximalist views (except for Marek, who only came here to screw with me, dropped a one liner and left). You insist on your position based on quoting sources that make an anachronistic claim that goes against Wiki policy, and you don't even bat an eye. You have consistently ignored some sources you don't like, misrepresented others, and made some completely outlandish claims like Ukraine is the homeland of Pontic Greeks, basically appropriating an ethno-cultural group which has had a presence in the region for millennia before Ukraine came to be (and several centuries before any Slavs reached the shores of the Black Sea). At ANI you've accused me of echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine, hinted at me having a colonial mindset, and goodness knows what you have said to other users. I'm not going to be around much for discussion (I will respond to a ping if necessary, though), I won't edit the article, nor will I revert you if you insist on your position, because I'm uninterested in starting a shitfest (especially if I'm not going to be around to deal with the consequences), but I'll repeat that I think you're too invested in this topic and need to take a step back. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe it’s editors who want to WP:RGW because they’re too invested in the topic that insist on ignoring current sources and more detailed descriptions and instead stick to the documented old imperial bias in the history of Ukraine. They underline their non-neutral POV by scoffing or discounting any mention of decolonization of the topic of the history of Ukraine, and pad out their responses with a lot of logic based on their own personal opinions instead of the sources. Some of them repeatedly pad the article with poor sources and redundant sources, then revert without comment when I remove them with solid rationale.

This is not a vote. I’m bringing good, current sources, but there are more of you who just want to see it say “Russian painter”: damn the scholarship in evidence, and don’t bother engaging a single argument based on the best sources. It’s a gang of ILIKEIT. —Michael Z. 21:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ostalgia and I can only say one thing: It's not the first time you've tried to rewrite the history of art. Before that, there was already Ilya Repin, Marie Bashkirtseff and so on. In the case of Marie Bashkirtseff ([1]) it was again a struggle against consensus and such reliable sources like Britannica [2]. Who is next, Ivan Aivazovsky or perhaps Victor Arnautoff? I'm not as experienced as members of the project like Ymblanter, but I see a systematic fight against history here. In the case of Kuindzhi, everything is so clear that I even wonder how one can fight against the sources for so long. Probably it would make more sense to devote such a great energy to issues that are much closer to you, for example politics? I think it might make sense. Cheers. Ушкуйник (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's funny to see you call out a "politically charged monologue" while spewing the most politically charged, biased, and POV-pushing nonsense ever.

Out of curiosity, I have looked at your user page, and I have noticed that you do this all the time.

You are trying to steal Ukrainian culture and claim it as russian. You try to russianize everything and then claim that it has been "unfairly" "Ukraineized" and you get blocked from editing. Then you try to bypass the block and continue to disruptively edit articles while drawing yourself as the victim of "unfair" "bias" and "judgement". You claim everything to be "anachronic", "fallacious" and "political" while trying to push your biased political nonsense.

You are trying to denigrate Ukraine and claim its culture as russian.

This is not just an ad hominem, you are doing this here too.

Them you spew lies like "he was completely indifferent to Ukraine".

Did you just decide to ignore one of his notable artworks "Evening in Ukraine"?

How can you be this stupid? I cannot comprehend that.

The museum named after him was destroyed during Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

You have a clear and strong bias against Ukraine because you are probably russian.

Now because of the Russia-Ukraine war, your bias is even more aggressive and strong. You probably enjoy seeing Ukrainian children's hospitals be bombed. You are probably on Putin's side, claiming that Ukrainian culture is your and Ukrainians are cultural thieves.

But the truth is much more complicated to understand, especially for russians. Some of them just refuse to understand the truth and continue supporting the genocide.

The truth is that Ukrainian culture is getting stolen from russians, and Ukraine before russia. Kiev was founded in c. 482 (but Archaeologists have dated the oldest known settlement in the area to 25,000 BC.)

Kievan Rus' (very old Ukraine) in c. 880

Tsardom Of russia in 1547

Cossack Hetmanate in 1649 (Was colonized by russia in 1667)

russian Empire in 1737

And one notable thing is that

Ukrainian SSR was founded in 1919

While the Soviet Union was founded in 1922

So yes, Ukraine existed before russia. Raendomcat (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

References

A general comment

I understand that the question that I want to discuss is somewhat broader than just Kuingzi case, and it relates to a history of Ukraine as a whole, but I have no idea where could we discuss it. Present-days Ukraine is a country that formed as a result of breakup of the Russian empire (as UNR and later UkrSSR), and then became fully independent after dissolution of the USSR. That means, both Ukraine and Russian Federation are new states. Both or them have rights to the legacy of the Russian Empire and the USSR. A situation when Russia pretends to be the only successor of the Russian Empire and USSR is absolutely ridiculous. However, a way pro-Ukraine users claims Ukrainian rights on the part of the Russian Empire's and Soviet legacy is also incorrect, inconsistent and selective.

Thus, in the above section, "pro-Ukrainian" (I use this term just for convenience) users are trying to prove that some ethnic Greek who had no linkage to ethnic Ukrainians, who was born in the city that never belonged to a historical Ukrainian mainland, and who has never been a citizen of Ukraine should be considered Ukrainian. The rationale is that the place where he was born is now a territory of Ukraine, and he spent some time in Ukraine.

However, I am sure the same users would strongly oppose to a description of such politicians as Leon Trotsky or Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko as "Ukrainians". However, based on the above criteria, both of them should be considered "Ukrainians" (the former was born in Odessa, now in Ukraine, the latter was born in Ukraine and was an ethnic Ukrainian).

It seems that is because these users implicitly separate "true Ukrainians" and "inconvenient Ukrainians". The first category includes those who supported Ukrainian independence, and those who were politically neutral, but who were prominent according to some criteria, so by declaring them "Ukrainian", the historical and cultural heritage of Ukraine becomes richer. The second category includes those who didn't share Ukrainian nationalist views, was not of Ukrainian ethnicity, criticized Ukraine etc. In other words, "pro-Ukrainian" users cherry-pick some jewels from the common Russo-Ukrainian heritage (I mean the history of Russian Empire and USSR) that fits their nationalistic narrative, but they reject other parts of it that contradict to their POV.

This approach is deeply flawed. If some Pontic Greek, who was born on a territory of present-days Ukraine is "Ukrainian", then an ethnic Jew who was born in Poltava or Khorol should be considered as "Ukrainian" too. And if he never spoke Ukrainian and, e.g. joined the Red Army and participated in the war against Petliura - that hardly change anything. If some ethnic Jew was born in Odessa and wrote about a civil war in Ukraine (this term is more popular in Western literature than "Ukrainian-Soviet war"), he should be considered "Ukrainian writer" too. Even if he wrote it from the Soviet perspective.

Furthermore, in Russia, Red Army, supported by Red Estonians, Latvians, Poles, Jews, Ukrainians etc, was fighting against Whites - but that was a pat of a Russian civil war. Why the war between (Soviet supported) Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists is described as "Soviet-Ukrainian war" in Wikipedia?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not taking that approach – a detailed personal interpretation of history (starting from the only “right” conclusion?). My direct rationale is that up-to-date de-colonized sources say Kuindzhi is Ukrainian, of Greek descent, and worked in the Russian empire.

I’ve already explained my interpretation of why they put it that way several times, so I’ll try not to repeat myself.

Your own analysis starts with a colonial fallacy: “Ukraine is a country that formed as a result of breakup of the Russian empire.” That’s imposing the definition of “political state” on country. You know there was no state of Italy before 1861 and no state of Germany before 1871 either, right? Ukraine as a country existed from the sixteenth century. People from that country have been called Ukrainians (Ukraïntsi) since the sixteenth century, including people whose ethnic heritage is non-Ruthenian/Ukrainian or undefinable.

Was Mahatma Ghandi “British”? The Russian empire is an empire. People from colonized countries do not belong to the metropole forever. The Russian empire has been treated differently than most other empires in historiography for several reasons I could get into (again), but that biased view is being corrected since the mid or late twentieth century in two ways: gradually, then suddenly.

Anyway, I’m now just trying to say the same things again with different phrasing, because a number of editors here have declined to acknowledge it before, so I suspect it won’t be heard again. —Michael Z. 02:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what does "de-colonized" mean in this context. Maybe, the sources that you like?

Re Italy and Germany. "Italics" is a group of tribes that are known under that name since ancient times. "Germaina" is a Latin word that denoted some land East of Gallia. Therefore, we are just using ancient names, which, by the way, were introduced by "conolizers" (using your terminology). There was no common ancient name for people who lived in the territory of modern Ukraine (and Russia). The word "Rossia" is a Greek name that they used as a name for the land of Rosses (in the same way as "Germania" was the name for the land of "Germans"), and in both cases these were exonyms, and old common ancestors of modern Russians and Ukrainians used many different names.

I am greatly disappointed by your approach. You really refuse to listen to what people say to you. Do you remember the comments made on your recent ANI request? You repeat absolutely the same "mistake" again. I wrote Present-days Ukraine is a country that formed as a result of breakup of the Russian empire (as UNR and later UkrSSR), and then became fully independent after dissolution of the USSR. That means, both Ukraine and Russian Federation are new states. Both or them have rights to the legacy of the Russian Empire and the USSR. It is obvious that I didn't mean only Ukraine: it is clear from my post that new Ukraine and new Russia are in the same position: they are two largest pieces of the former empire that broke along some relatively arbitrary borders, and now they have to build new national identities within these internationally recognized borders. This is a very complex and painful process, and your primodrialist and ahistoric position by no means makes this process easier.

I propose you to stop throwing totally irrelevant arguments, which just demonstrate your ignorance. "British" refers to British citizens (those who are under jurisdiction of the British government), but that category is just a subset of His Majesty subjects. Ghandi was not British, but he was a subject of the King of the United Kingdom.

I suggest you to answer a different question: was Charlemagne a Frenchmen, a Dutch, or a German?

With regard to treatment of the Russian Empire, every empire was treated by historiography differently. Even when we speak about a classical empire (Roman empire), there were actually two different empires, Octavian's empire and Caracalla's empire. In the first one, there were two major types of citizens: Roman citizens and others. In the second one, every free man in the empire was a Roman citizen.

Was Plutarch a Roman or Greek author? Actually, he answers to that question by himself, just read him, it is interesting. And his answer will surprise you. Paul Siebert (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ve already linked above to decolonization of knowledge, and decolonization.

You are not listening. I am following sources. Everything else is my explanation of why I believe the sources say what they do. You don’t agree with my interpretation that’s your prerogative.

I am not making up my own arguments about tribes or ancient names. I am not holding contrary views like Russia and Ukraine are equally new, yet for some reason this artist who sources say is Ukrainian from Ukraine must be called Russian and not Ukrainian.

I am not “primordialist.” Stop repeating that label already. I am not labelling you. Please write about the subject and not about me.

You started this new heading. Please don’t criticize me for responding. It is not fair. If you don’t like what I write about the subject you needn’t participate. —Michael Z. 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And I notice your argument is back to there was no state called “Ukraine,” which is again ignoring what I wrote and ignoring the sources.

Russian scholar Dmitrii Likhachev tells us that Kuindzhi was from Ukraine (and so was Bortnianskyi, b. 1751).[13] Obviously, your very restricted definition of Ukraine is not the same as his. Can you account for the difference?  —Michael Z. 16:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

First, I by no means criticize you for responding, I am criticizing your response (i.e. what you are saying). There is a big difference between these two things.

There is no doubt that colonialism is a well known phenomenon, and colonial thinking is something that humankind should abandon. However, whereas the term "decolonization of knowledge" is quite legitimate, it is a big question if it can be applied to this case.

If some bigger state falls apart, it is not necessary that some parts should be considered as former colonies. Actually, there is a strict definition of "occupied", "colonized" and annexed" territories. In contrast to colonies, annexed territories become an integral parts of the annexing state (examples are annexation of Texas by the US). In a modern law, annexation is illegal, but in the past it was quite acceptable (actually, that is how big modern states formed). In contrast to annexed territories, a legal status of a colony is different from that of the colonized state. Your example with Ghandi brilliantly demonstrated that. As you probably know, a start of Ghandi political carrier was his protest against discrimination of ethnic Hindu in the British Empire. They had a different legal status, and different rights than British citizens, and that is a serious reason to claim that Ghandi was not British. Can you say the same about Ukraine when it was a part of the Russian empire? I anticipate two arguments from you: that Russians refused to consider Ukrainians as a separate nation and that they suppressed Ukrainian culture. However, Russian imperial authorities refused to recognize any nations, and they were trying to force everyone to use Russian just for bureaucratic reasons. They wanted people to speak the same language and to be Orthodox, because that, in their opinion, would make a population more manageable. And they were suppressing Russian culture in the same was as they suppressed Ukrainian one. Shevchenko was exiled, but what about Pushkin, Lermontov, Chernyshevsky, Dostoyevsky, etc?

I never called you a primordialist, I said that your approach is primodrialist, i.e. I commented on your contributions, not on you. If you do not share ideas of primordialism, then, please, explain, what do you mean under "Ukrainian" in the context of Kuindghi? "Ukrainian" can mean two different things: ethnicity and citizenship/nationality. Do you claim that Kuindzhi was an ethnic Ukrainian, or you claim he was a Ukrainian national/citizen? Please, explain.

Kuindghi was an ethnic Greek, so the term "Ukrainian" by no means reflected his ethnicity. That means by saying Kuindghi was Ukrainin, we mean his nationality/citizenship. Yes, some Polish province, which they named "Ukraine", was acquired by Russian czars, but that have nothing to do with Mariupol, a city that was built by Russian czars on the land they conquered from Crimean tartars. This land would become a part of modern Ukraine much later, after Kuindghi's death, and there were no single state entity that spanned from Azov sea to Carpatian mountains that was colonized by Russians.

In contrast to the term "Ukrainian" the English word "Russian" has four (not two) meanings: 1. Ethnicity (Russkiy), 2. Nationality (Rossiyskiy, modern Russian federation), 3. Citizenship of the old Russian empire (Rossiyskiy). 4. A subgroup of Slavic population of the Russian empire (Velikoross). Clearly, when I mean that Kuindghi was Russian, I use this term #3. He by no means was an ethnic Russian, but he was not an ethnic Ukrainian either. Actually, he was living during the time when the society was divided not by national or ethnic criteria, but by estates. And he by no means would call himself Ukrainian.

Again, if you are not standing on primordialist positions, why do you project modern time terms onto the past?

In contrast to your approach, my approach is much more universal: I am against any attempt of modern Ukraine and Russia to exclusively appropriate the Russian empire's and Soviet heritage. That would be utterly ridiculous, and that would lead to numerous problems. Modern Ukraine and Russia share common, imperial and soviet past, and they have a right to its legacy. Therefore, unless we a speaking about some person who actively identified themselves with Ukraine, it would be ridiculous to disassociate them from the Empire/USSR as a whole. And, of course, if some person was an ethnic Ukrainian, that information should be provided too. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

To summarize, unless we are speaking about a person who had strong nationalist and separatist view, it would be correct to describe them as "Russian Imperial" (not "Russian", for that would be highly misleading) painter (musician, physicist, etc) of "Ukrainian" (Russian, Tatar, Armenian etc) ethnicity. When we are speaking about the Soviet period, "Soviet" should be used instead. In both cases, ethnicity is optional (actually, in many cases, ethnicity was mixed). Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Likhachev, it is hard to understand the author's general idea from the snippet view provided by you. And, keeping in mind how frequently you take my words out of context, it is highly likely that Likhachev's words had been taken out of a context too. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems harsh.

Likhachev relates his personal theory of cultural brotherhood. Here’s the part on Ukrainian artists’ influence on Russian art. Reflections on Russia, page 74–78:

Over the course of the centuries following their division in two entities, Russia and the Ukraine have formed not only a political, but also a culturally dualistic unity. Russian culture is meaningless. without Ukrainian, as Ukrainian is without Russian.

Artists Dmitrii Levitskii, Vladimir Borovikovskii, Anton Losenko and Arkhip Kuindzhi came from the Ukraine, but is the history of Russian painting conceivable without them? Ukrainian blood flowed in the veins of both Petr Il’ich Tchaikovsky and Mayakovsky. Perhaps it also flowed in Dostoevsky’s. Anton Chekhov, Anna Akhmatova and Konstantin Paustovskii came from the Ukraine.

Composers Dmitrii Bortnianskii and Sergei Prokofiev were also from the Ukraine. The Ukraine and the Ukrainian language and folklore were extremely important to Lermontov, Nekrasov and Leskov (the latter especially sensed the beauty of the Ukrainian language and of the Ukrainian character, the beauty of its nature and of course of Kiev itself!). Pushkin wrote in the Ukraine, and Ivan Aivazovskii, Ivan Vishniakov, V. Andropov, Viktor Vasnetsov and Mikhail Vrubel’ all worked in the Ukraine.

Russian culture of the seventeenth century would have been impossible without the Ukraine, without Kiev, without the Kiev Caves Monastery and the Kiev-Mogilianskii Academy, without Ukrainian baroque, without Ivan Zarudnyi in architecture and applied art, and the Ukrainian baroque school in literature and the theatre.

Could anyone have written the history of Russian poetry of the nineteenth century without taking into account Shevchenko? Would Gogol’s works have been possible without the Ukraine, without the extensive and positive influence of Ukrainian humour, Ukrainian folklore or the rich and varied speech of Ukraine?

But it is also true that there is no Ukraine without Russia! . . .

(Interestingly, the arguments that follow are significantly fewer and less convincing.)

 —Michael Z. 01:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the current line of a dozen “sources” on the identification of Kuindzhi is an embarrassment. ABC news an expert on his identity? Google Doodle? One of the sources doesn’t identify him as Russian at all and makes several statements that cast doubt on his “Russianness.” If that is the resulting state of the article after a huge discussion on the topic, it just shows a desperation to “prove” a point at any cost, and utter lack of encyclopedic discernment. Is the consensus pleased with the current state of the lead??? —Michael Z. 05:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we need a dozen, here are some better sources than most or all of the ones in the article. (Some of these were there before, but were removed for some reason.) Even earlier sources say Kuindzhi came from Ukraine, because there is no doubt it existed.

1. 2023: “Ukrainian artist Arkhip Kuindzhi”[14]
2. 2022: Archer, Kenneth (2003), "Kuindzhi, Arkhip", Oxford Art Online, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.t048219, retrieved 2022-12-17, Ukrainian painter, active in Russia.
3. 2022: “Ukrainian landscape painter Arkhip Kuindzhi”[15]
4. 2022: “The Ukrainian painter Arkhip Kuindzhi”[16]
5. 2022: “Kuindzhi was born in Mariupol, yet "Russians claim that he is a Russian artist, and museums and institutions write about him as Russian," Semenik says. "I am trying to show the historical context and decolonize Russian art."”[17]
6. 2022 (cited by the Met): “It took us some time to make sure that the label on the work mentions that Arkhip Kuindzhi is a Ukrainian artist, because he was always labeled as Russian”[18]
7. 2021: "Kuindzhi, Arkhip: ULAN Full Record Display". Union List of Artist Names (Getty Research). Retrieved 2022-12-17. Ukrainian painter ... Nationalities: Ukrainian (preferred) / Russian
8. 2016: "Kuindzhi, Arkhip", Benezit Dictionary of Artists, Oxford University Press, 2016-01-20, doi:10.1093/benz/9780199773787.article.b2290268, retrieved 2022-12-17, Russian/Ukrainian ... Of Greek Ukrainian origin
9. 2008: “Kuindzhi, the founder of the society was a Ukrainian painter active in Russia”[19]
10. 2003: “Arkhip Kuindzhi came from the Ukraine”[20]
11. 1999: “Russian-trained, Ukrainian artist, Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi”[21]
12. 1994 (quoted in 2021 source): “other famous products of Ukraine such as [the artists] . . . A. Kuindzhi”[22]
13. 1993: “Some members of the St Petersburg Academy of the Arts were Ukrainians by descent or by place of birth, among them A. Kuindzhi . . . ”[23]
14. 1993: “. . . and A. Kuindzhi, who painted Romantic moonlit scenes. Other Ukrainian artists . . . ”[24]
15. 1991 [2019 reprint, translator Christina Sever]: “Arkhip Kuindzhi came from the Ukraine”[25]
16. 1977: “the Ukrainian Kuindzhi”[26]

[updated] —Michael Z. 17:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Good job. But how about this:

google scholar [27], [28], [29].

Google: [30], [31], [32]. Note, that "Ukrainian" frequently appears on some pages in a context of one Kuindzhi's painting (Ukrainian night). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know exactly what you think those searches demonstrate. Google web search is not reliable sources. Both “Russian” and Kuindhzi’s name appearing in a source is meaningless. And finally, of course you will find him called a “Russian artist” in more sources than anything else, because that is the old colonial view that has been the majority since the nineteenth century and probably still today.

This is an anti-intellectual argument against any discernment or understanding of the content of sources at all.

Just throw darts at a wall with “Russian” written 1,000 times and “Ukrainian” written 20 times and your demonstration is just as meaningful. Here, you could have save some trouble with just three links that prove your “point” beyond any doubt: [33] [34] [35].

I’ve written a bunch of important things in this discussion that you have never acknowledged. You criticized me for using “decolonization” implying it means whatever I want, I provided links again that explain it, and you continue arguing as if you still don’t know or care what it means. I don’t see evidence that you have understood or even read a single point I’ve made. I thought you posted your A general comment, above, to continue the dialogue. I guess not.

Anyway, the dozen sources in the lead remain fair to poor. They’re so blatantly biased and poor that they can’t be called “cherry-picked” to support him being labelled exclusively Russian, merely picked because they don’t say Ukrainian. I can’t believe anyone would expend so much energy supporting such a bad article lead.

I can’t believe I’m expending so much energy speaking into a void. I’ll stop now. I suppose I might try an RFC. —Michael Z. 22:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I can explain it. Internet is huge, and if you want to find some source that supports your POV, you almost likely succeed. The problem is, however, not in where the sources calling Kuindzhi "Ukrainian" exist, but if they express the majority viewpoint. To demonstrate that, you should show that, e.g. 70% sources that you find using some neutral search procedure characterize Kuindzhi as a "Ukrainian" painter. That would be convincing.

If I missed some important things and didn't respond to them, just let me know, and I'll gladly comment. I thought I responded to most of the points you made.

And, please, keep in mind that I am not interested in Kuindzhi as a specific topic, I am discussing a general approach to treatment of the Russian Imperial and Soviet legacy in Wikipedia articles about Ukraine and Russia.

In addition, due to the war unleashed by Putin, everything that relates to Russia and Russians is seen as somewhat toxic, so I would try to avoid recentism and focus on the sources written before the war started. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And, yes. I totally agree that the long trail of references after the word "Russian" in the lede is unacceptable (I've just noticed them). First, it is against WP:LEAD, second ... why so many? Second, the fact that he was a Russian Imperial (not "Russian") painter of Greek ethnicity, who was born on the territory of present-days Ukraine is obvious and uncontroversial. I suggest to remove it completely. What do you think about that? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggested phrasing with references on January 8, above. I’ve presented some more decent sources that might be useful since then, but no one’s offered a better alternative.  —Michael Z. 04:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand what does "Ukrainian" means in that context. As I already explained (and you ignored that my explanation), that may mean either "ethnicity" or "allegiance (aka citizenship)". Please, explain. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that it is neither in the case of Kuindzhi, so some other possibility must be considered?

(The walls of text are multiplying too fast for me to keep up now.)  —Michael Z. 17:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, do I understand you correctly that it is not obvious to you that Kuindzhi was not an ethnic Ukrainian, or that he was not a Ukrainian citizen? Then, please, explain how a Pontic Greek could be an ethnic Ukrainian, or how could he be a citizen of the state that never existed before (or never included Mariupol before)?

You mentioned other options. Please, elaborate.

WRT "walls of text". Take your time. I understand that you are a little bit nervous due to the last AE case, but I am sure it will be closed with no action. In addition, I'll be busy during next several days, so you have plenty of time to read my posts and respond. Good luck. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No one and no source cited here has so much as implied that Kuindzhi is ethnic Ukrainian or citizen of the state of Ukraine. There are over 11,000 words on the subject here now and many reliable sources. Yet you refuse to allow that any but those two possibilities can be valid. I have spent more than enough time, and I don’t believe I can overcome your WP:HEARing problem.

And I’ll reply once more: please stop implying that I am a person with “primordialist” views because I am not, and I have not written anything implying that. The condescending tone about my presumed “nervousness” is another reason I am not interested in spending my time continuing with this futile discussion. —Michael Z. 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Michael, this your post is a totally enigmatic for me. You write: you refuse to allow that any but those two possibilities can be valid. How have you come to that conclusion? Where did I say that? I wrote that I see no other interpretation, but I doesn't mean that I said There could be NO other interpretation. Not only I am open for a discussion, I explicitly asked you if you can propose another interpretation of the term "Ukrainian" in a context of Kuindzhi. You refuse to answer, and instead you claim I am not open for collaboration.

Furthermore, you write And I’ll reply once more: please stop implying that I am a person with “primordialist” views because I am not, and I have not written anything implying that. However, I don't remember when I said that you are standing on primordialist positions after you asked me not to do so. I just asked: "if you do not share primordialist views (and I assume you do not), then why do you refer to the person who never lived in a present-day Ukraine, had no Ukrainian citizenship and was not an ethnic Ukrainian as a "Ukrainian" painter?" That is not a rhetorical question: please interpret it literally. If you have some other explanation (and I assume your explanation is different, for, as you explained, you do not share primordialist views), please, provide it.

So far, you are just throwing slogans like "decolonization" or presenting cherry-picked sources that support your POV, and when I am politely asking you to elaborate on your position, you refuse to respond in a productive and collaborative manner. I will lose Internet soon, so I may stop responding to your posts. Please, use this break to think about my posts.

WRT "nervousness", keep in mind that I was the first person who objected to any action against you as a user during the last AE, because I conclude you were right in that conflict, and your opponents were not. That doesn't mean that I support everything what you do, but I could not agree with totally unjustified accusations. Therefore, I am not sure I understand what are you talking about. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And, let me reiterate it: I am here primarily because I want to come to some general agreement on how should we describe artists, politicians, scientists etc., who were living in the Russian Empire or USSR. This description should avoid projection of present-days political realities on the past. It should also make it clear that Russian Federation is not the only successor of the Russian Imperial and Soviet legacy.

In connection to that, I am asking you:

• Do you know some more appropriate place where we could start this discussion (some portal, like "Russia" and/or "Ukraine" project)?

Keeping in mind that you yourself already accused me of ignoring some important points made by you, I expect you give me an example of a correct and polite addressing your opponent's questions.

And, by the way. Your example (Ghandi) is hardly relevant, but let's take a look at another example, Tagore, which is closer to our case. As you know, Tagore lived in the Bengal region, which is now partially Bangladesh and partially India. In connection to that, would it be correct to describe him as "British", "Bengal", or "Indian" poet?

He lived in British Raj, a separate entity, so, although he was His Majesty's subject, he was not British, so the first option would be incorrect.

With regard to the latter two... Although some independent kingdoms existed on a territory of modern India or Bangladesh, these two entities are pretty recent: they formed in XX century, and it would be totally ridiculous to characterize Tagore as exclusively Indian or Bangladesh poet. People frequently use the term "Indian", but it refers not to the modern India (as a state), but to the Indian subcontinent ruled by the British Crown (i.e. British Raj). IMO, the Wikipedia article about Tagore uses the most balanced approach: it describes him as a Bengali polymath who worked as a poet, writer, playwright, composer, philosopher, social reformer and painter. He reshaped Bengali literature and music as well as Indian art with Contextual Modernism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Note, in this description, only two aspects are presented: his ethnicity and his contribution. That may be a very good approach, which can be applied to all Ukraine-Russia articles.

And now, if you replace "British Raj" with "Russian Empire", "Bangladesh" with "Ukraine", and "India" with "Russia", we get something like.

Kuindzhi was a Pontic Greek painter who was a member of a group of realist artists of Russian Empire. He is famous in using new light effects that created the illusion of illumination, which he used for depiction of Ukrainian and Russian landscapes.

My wording is far from perfect, but I am writing that just to give you the general idea. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My strong impression after reading a lot of sources about artists is that when they include a single adjective like Russian or Ukrainian they are generally referring to country of origin, although when they name the quality it is usually called “nationality.” For example, the ULAN.[36]

My impression, consistent with everything I’ve seen, is that recent sources are switching to referring to the country rather than the colonizing empire, so Kuindzhi is Ukrainian or from Ukraine rather than Russian.

Further consistent with this, some sources go into more detail, especially with artists that emigrated or were active internationally. So Kuindzhi is a Ukrainian artist active in the Russian empire. Some sources refer to an artist’s cultural background, so Kuindzhi is a Ukrainian landscape painter of Pontic Greek descent active in the Russian Empire.

Adding “Russian” to that is redundant: we wouldn’t need to say an artist is “a Russian painter active in the Russian empire,” and if we applied the same logic to Kuindzhi we would have to write “Russian and Ukrainian painter active in Russia and Ukraine.” He did work (paint, exhibit, and teach) in both Ukraine and in Russia.

Some artists adopted a new nationality when they moved. So, for example, Jacques Hnizdovsky is Ukrainian-American, while Alexander Archipenko is Ukrainian and American.

And of course this varies somewhat according to the details of individual cases and the styles of individual sources. I don’t believe there is one perfect pattern that can be applied universally (or maybe only after a much, much bigger discussion). [Edited.] —Michael Z. 01:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You are evading answering my questions, and put forward totally irrelevant arguments instead. Your examples are totally irrelevant: they are crystal clear and allow no double interpretation. The first artist (Hnizdovsky) was ethnic Ukrainian who emigrated to the US and became an American citizen. Therefore, it would be reasonable to describe him as Ukrainian-American painter, although it would be even more correct to say "American painter of Ukrainian origin". Because "Ukrainian" means ethnicity and "American" means nationality. Usually, two terms belonging to different categories are not combined using a dash. Therefore, "American artist of Ukrainian origin" is preferred. By the way, I fixed an obvious bullshit in the article about Hnizdovsky.

The situation with teh secont artist was the same: he was an ethnic Ukrainian who became a US national (I fixed that).

All of that does not answer my two questions:

• What makes a Pontic Greek, who lived in the territory that had never been a part of Ukrainian provinces during his life a Ukrainian painter? Mariupol was a Greek city, and this area was not populated by ethnic Ukrainians during Imperial times. Note, I disagree with his characteristic as a "Russian painter" either.
• Should Tagore be considered a Bangladesh poet or Indian poet?

Please, answer my questions first if you want to obtain my comments on your posts. Paul Siebert (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The Met has updated its record

The Met has updated its record for the painting Red Sunset. It’s now headed:

Red Sunset

Arkhyp Kuindzhi (Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi) Ukrainian

The entry now uses the Ukrainian-derived spelling for his name, and calls him Ukrainian. Presumably they finally caught up to the gallery labelling mentioned in one of the references that’s been on that page for some time.

The web page is still cited in the first sentence of this article, which does not reflect its contents (and still has a dozen references several of which I have challenged). —Michael Z. 01:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that, I would still suggest the same wording and sources I did a month ago, removing the RFE/RL news article which is not really a top RS on the artist’s identity (the Benezit Dictionary supports his Greek ancestry), and with the additional citation of the Met’s record for Red Sunset, which several editors have advocated above.

Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi . . . was a Ukrainian landscape painter of Pontic Greek descent active in the Russian Empire.

 —Michael Z. 17:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the ongoing aggressive war waged by the Russian federation against Ukraine, the attempt of the Metropolitan museum to support Ukraine is quite understandable. However, you still failed to answer my questions: what does "Ukrainian" mean in the context of Kuinrzhi: his nationality (a.k.a. citizenship), his ethnicity, or something else? If we decide that every person born in the territory that now belongs to Ukraine should be considered Ukrainian, then, for consistency, we must declare Michail Bulgakov, Ilya Ilf, or Leon Trotsky Ukrainians too. However, nobody claims them to be Ukrainians. In connection to that, I am wondering what makes Kuindzhi different? Please, answer this question before attempting to implement your edits. Paul Siebert (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

(I’d ask you to support your assertion that no one calls those others Ukrainians before we accept it as given.)

But regardless of that, Kuindzhi is Ukrainian because experts on artists say this artist is Ukrainian, and reliable sources report that they do. If you want more detail on their rationale, it is given in the sources, and I think some of that belongs in the article too. (You keep asking for our rationale as a way to disregard the sources. Seems like a rhetorical trick to me.)  —Michael Z. 18:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there are many historians who assert that Trotsky, Lazar Kaganovich, Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko and many others were Ukrainians, and that what Wikipedia call the Ukrainian-Soviet war was de facto a civil war in Ukraine (supported by external powers). Do you want to continue this discussion in this vein?

I am not proposing to disregard the sources, I am just asking for a proof that the POV you are advocating is a majority POV, and this POV is a stable viewpoint, not just a random fluctuation caused by the recent aggressive war waged by Russia (which makes it tempting to cancel everything related to Russia). Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Kuindzhi is Ukrainian because experts on artists say this artist is Ukrainian" I would say, some experts. And they started saying that just recently. Their assertion sounds very odd, and it has a strong smell of primordialism. Let's wait and see if this POV become a majority view.

By the way, if you do not share primordialist views, how do you answer to the question in my previous post? For your convenience, I reproduce it again:

What does "Ukrainian" mean in the context of Kuinrzhi: his nationality (a.k.a. citizenship), his ethnicity, or something else?

Please answer to this question before we continue. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop labelling me. I fully respect your right to stop participating in this discussion.  —Michael Z. 11:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yours "I fully respect your right to stop participating in this discussion" looks suspiciously close to a passive aggression. Not wise.

With regard to "stop labelling me", please, re-read what I wrote and, please, understand it literally. I wrote "if you do not share primordialist views, how do you answer to the question ....?" That means, I AM assuming that you, like me, are not a primordialist, which means that you are standing on modernist positions (which is highly commendable). In connection to that, I am repeating my question, which I rephrased for your convenience:

How can we interpret the term "Ukrainian" applied to Kuinrzhi from the point of view of the modernism theory: should we conclude that he was a Ukrainian national (i.e. a citizen), or he was an ethnic Ukrainian, or something else?

I fully respect your right not to answer to this my question. The absence of the answer will mean that you have no counterarguments, and our dispute should be considered resolved (which means there is no reason to consider Kuindzgi a Ukraininan artist).

By the way, I have a strong reason to believe Metropolitan museum staff members are hardly good experts in sociology of nationalism, so their good faith mistake is quite understandable and forgivable. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No, that is a lot of nonsense. I will not humour your demands and you don’t win arguments just by saying so.  —Michael Z. 07:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked some very concrete question. I am respectfully asking for a clarification of your statement. I want to know what exactly does "Ukrainian" means when it is applied to Kuindzhi. You refuse to answer, and you declare (without any evidences) that my question is a nonsense. Do you really believe that you will be able to convince other users if you are acting in that way?

You either answer my legitimate question, or your proposal will be rejected. Please, don't try to unilaterally implement the changes until my legitimate concern has been addressed: that would be against WP:CON.

I am asking again: if we write that Kuindzhi was Ukrainian, what do we want to say by that? That he was an ethnic Ukrainian? No, he wasn't. He wasn't a Ukrainian national (a.k.a. a citizen) either: there were no such thing as "Ukrainian citizenship" during those time. In that situation, we can claim that Kuindzhi was Ukrainian only if he, like Taras Shevchrenko or Lesya Ukrainka, was feeling some strong connection to such an entity as "Ukrainians". Was that the case? I am not aware of that?

Do you have any evidences of Kuindzhi's self-identification as Ukrainian? In other words, what would he say if somebody told him that in XXI century people are trying to describe him as a "Ukrainian artist"? Paul Siebert (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yeh, [37]. I thought Kuindzhi was Russian artist. Indeed, he was. Not any more. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Kuindzhi is not changing. The academic consensus is becoming aware of its own historical biases and correcting itself. This is an important distinction. We’re not going to write in this article that he was Russian until 2023. In a historiography article we might write that his Ukrainian identity was often denied until 2023.  —Michael Z. 09:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  So, this consensus is only "becoming aware"? It hasn't already happened? Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well it is not a single person of a single mind, and sources published in the past will remain in the past. So the consensus has always been in the process of becoming and always will be.

  Innit?

  But if you are aware of newly published reliable sources that are positively rejecting Kuindzhi’s Ukrainianness in light of recent reassessments and reasserting his Russianness in opposition to them, why have you not cited them here?  —Michael Z. 21:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  So, there was a widely acceptedconsensus about his Russianness, and it has not yet changed to a new, widely accepted one. Why hurry and change this article? As you can see with Aiwazowsky, things like Met labels can change quickly. Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Smeagol, as I already explained, during Kuindzgi's times, the term "Russian" had a different meaning: "An Orthodox subject of His Majesty Russian Emperor": ancestors of modern Russians were called Velikorossy (Greater Russians), ancestors of modern Ukrainians were called Malorossy (or Ukraintsy "Ukrainians"), etc. And these terms were not mutually exclusive: people living in a territory of modern-days Ukraine (its central and western parts) called themselves "Malorosses/Ukraininas", but they wouldn't disagree is somebody called them "Russian" (for they were the subjects of the Russian Czar). However, they never called themselves "Velikoross", because the difference between Malorosses and Velikorosses had always been significant, and they had never been the part of the same ethnic group.

  Actually, Ukrainian nationalists and Russian nationalists make the same mistake: they are trying to appropriate their common historical legacy, and both of them assume their nations existed since Medieval times (which is a ridiculous primordialim). In reality, both Ukrainian and Russian nations formed very recently, they both formed after the split of Russian Empire (and its reincarnation, the USSR), and they both have some rights on its legacy. But these rights are not EXCLUSIVE.

  Arkhip Kuingzhi was neither a Russian (in a modern sense of this word), nor a Ukrainian artist. He was a Russian Imperial artist of Pontic Greek ethnicity. He was born in Mariupol, which was a Pontic Greek city, which was not a part of Ukraine (as a province of Russian Empire). Therefore, the most correct wording is the current wording: in XIX century, when neither Russian nor Ukrainian nation existed yet, the term "Russian", "Ukrainian"< "Jew" etc, meant only ethnicity. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources do not say that. It is a little essay representations Paul Siebert’s personal views. It’s not really appropriate for the talk page on this subject and doesn’t suffice as rationale to continue interfering with the introduction of current sources into the article.  —Michael Z. 07:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do not say what? All what I am saying is a mainstream scholarly views. You may familiarise yourself with, for example, this, and when you finish reading, we may continue. Paul Siebert (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn’t seem to mention Kuindzhi’s nationality or discredit experts at the Met. Please quote the part relevant to this article.  —Michael Z. 15:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I do not have to provide a proof that someone is discredited. In contrast, your mush provide a proof of a broad acceptance of the views you are advocating. Taking into account that your claim challenge a broadly accepted views, and that I have a quite legitimate concern on validity of your claim (which you seem to be unable to properly address), your evidences mush be very serious.

  As a first step, please, answer to my question (see above), which I repeatedly asked in a polite and logically uncontroversial manner, and which you refused to answer in a quite rude form. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Let me reiterate: people in Met may be top experts in art, but they are hardly experts in sociology and history. Therefore, their opinion on Kuindzhi nationality is hardly relevant. They even attempted to describe Aivazovsky and Ilya Repin as Ukrainians, just because they were born on the territory of present-days Ukraine. That tells about the level of their expertise (which seems to be miserable). Paul Siebert (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would not say the meaning changed all that much, especially in English. See the first sentence of this artcle, or this one, for example. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  In English, the word "Russian" has three different meanings: "Imperial Russian/Soviet", "Russian" (ethnicity), it is an equivalent to "Russky", "Russian" (citizenship a.k.a. nationality), it is equivalent to "Rossiysky". In your examples, Makhachev or Habob are not described as "Russky", they are "Rossiysky".

  Therefore, when we speak about Kuindzhi as "Russian", we may mean either his ethnicity or his linkage to the Russian empire. The former is wrong (he was not an ethnic Russian ("Russky"), the latter is correct, he was a citizen of the Russian empire.

  When we speak about Kuindzhi as Ukrainian, we also may mean either his ethnicity (Ukrainian), or his linkage to Ukraine as a state. The former is definitely wrong (he was not an ethnic Ukrainian), and the latter is wrong too (the Ukraine as a state never existed in XIX century, and even if we consider Sich as her predecessor, the region where Kuindzhi was born never belonged to Sich: during the Sich time, it was under control by Porta.

  That means, although "Russian" is not precise and ambiguous in a context of Kuindzgi, "Ukrainian" is just absolutely wrong. "Russian imperial" is correct, so the current wording is perfectly ok. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  No it is not, because sources don’t say that, and your personal logic, with its restricted definitions of nationality, reflects a non-neutral POV, and not the sources nor the guidelines like MOS:NATIONALITY.  —Michael Z. 09:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is good that you pointed my attention at MOS:NATIONALITY.

  In connection to that, can you please explain what clause in this MOS supports your POV?

  Obviously, the rule for living people is not applicable to the Kuindzhi's case. With regard to historical figures, which example listed in the MOS is closest to our case?

  • The Daniel Boone's case is an example of a person who continued to reside in his country of origin. What was Kuindzhi's country of origin? Russian empire.
  • Isaac Asimov's example is not applicable, because Kuindzhi never emigrated.
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger's example is not working either, for Kuindzhi had no dual citizenship.
  • Peter Lorre's example is not applicable too, because Kuindzgi never established his career as some foreign national.
  • Even if we equate Pontic Greeks with Native American and Indigenous Canadian, the status of the latter is determined by their citizenship. Kuindzgi was a citizen of Russian Empire.
  • The last option is to omit nationality, which seems to be the most logical.

  "Arkhip Kuindzhi was a landscape painter from the Russian Empire"

  That says nothing about his nationality, just about his counytry of residence. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I can barely begin to list the problems with your logic.

  But do you not know that Boone grew up and started his career in British North America, before the USA existed? He is associated with his country of origin and notable activity, not the empire that ruled it.  —Michael Z. 23:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. He was born in British North America, but he considered himself an American colonist and pioneer. As I already said, the Ukrainian analog of Boone would be, e.g. Taras Shevchenko, who was born in Russian Empire, but who considered himself not just a Russian (His Majesty's subject), but, primarily, a Ukrainian. More importantly, Boone was born in British North America, but he continued to live in independent United States, and he considered himself an American, not British citizen.

  In contrast, Kuindzhi was born in Russian Empire, and he died in Russian Empire. He never associated himself with Ukraine, although he loved Ukraine. Which is not a surprise, keeping in mind that a significant part of Russian intelligentsia (especially, many slavophiles) loved everything related to Ukraine.

  And, in addition, British North America had a different legal status than the United Kingdom proper. Remember: "No taxation without representation"?

  In contrast, the territory of Mariupol uezd was an integral part of Russia, in was not a colony. And Kuindzhi had the same political rights as other Orthodox citizens of the Empire. The same cannot be said about British North America, British Raj etc. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  And, in addition, had Boone moved to London, made his career there, and died in London, it would be probably more correct to describe him as a British. That is exactly what Kuindzhi did: he started his career in Crimea (which was a territory of Russia until mid XX century, and had never been a territory of Ukraine before that), and then moved to Saint Petersburg, were he died. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I think you should stop. Not only you are rude, your posts are self contradictory. You provided a link to MOS:NATIONALITY, but have you bothered to read it? It says:

  • The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.

  Where did Kuindzhi become notable? In Russian empire, more specifically, in Saint Petersburg.

  • Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability.

  Is Mariupol relevant to Kuindzhi's notability? I see no evidences of that.

  I think, if you want to begin listing problems with logic, start with your own posts. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Again, ignoring sources, and a personal essay with so much factually wrong, even when you literally quote the contradicting passages from the guideline. Skewed specifically to justify omitting Ukraine.

  Kuindzhi was famous for painting his country, region [and] territory, Ukraine. Reliable sources say so. Media is reporting it.

  • “Museums Rename Artworks and Artists as Ukrainian, Not Russian,” NYT, March 17, 2023.

  You’ve spent most of two months filling this page with personal essays aimed at ignoring the sources. It is disruptive, but you won’t get your way.  —Michael Z. 08:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sources supporting your position are clearly still a minority, even among recent ones. I ask again, why not wait? Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Michael, you’ve spent most of two months inventing new arguments after your previous arguments have been refuted. And you even do not bother to acknowledge the fact that your previous arguments have been properly addressed by me.

  I find your behaviour quite inappropriate.

  However, I am ready to address your fresh argument. You argue that Kuindzhi should be described as "Ukrainian" because he was born in the territory that belongs to the present-days Ukraine and become famous because of painting of Ukraine. I find several factual errors here, and one logical flaw.

  First, he was born in the enclave populated by Pontic Greeks (Mariupol was a Pontic Greek city). In that sense, it was closer to, e.g. Goa or Hong Kong during colonial times.

  Second, you assume that Kuindzhi's country was Ukraine. Is there any evidence that Ukraine (as a country in her present-days borders) existed in XIX century, and Kuinndzhi associated himself with that (non-existing by that time) political entity? There in NO such evidences.

  Third, I am not sure majority of Kuindzhi works are devoted to Ukraine (the article shows 9 paintings, only 4 of them are linked to Ukraine).

  Finally, following your logic, Rudyard Kipling should be considered an Indian novelist: he was born in India, and India inspired much of his works. In contrast to Ukraine, India did exist before her conquest by Britain, so it seems "logical" to "decolonize" Kipling.

  Speaking seriously, Kuindzhi's case, per MOS, "unclear", and MOS recommend not to mention nationality at all.

  Please, stop denying the obvious. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  No. My pointing out your misinterpretation of the facts does not change that my argument remains that recent reliable sources say so.  —Michael Z. 23:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Then let's summarise it as follows. Some recent sources characterise Kuindzhi as a Ukrainian, other sources as a Russian/Russian imperial artist. That means there is a controversy here, and, per MOS:NATIONALITY, Kuindzhi's nationality should be omitted (and that is exactly what I did).

  If you are going to continue pushing your POV, we should probably move our dispute to a more appropriate forum. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  The topic of Kuindzhi’s decolonization is an important one currently being discussed by sources. If it is actually a “controversy,” then it is all the more notable. Wikipedia is not censored, and I’ll ask you to please stop bowdlerizing this article by censoring a topic that apparently upsets you.  —Michael Z. 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  That belongs to the article about decolonisation, not about Kuindzhi. We cannot present some emerging trends as universally accepted opinia.

  In addition, "decolonisation" is some modern leftist trend that is becoming popular among some specific category of authors, but we have no reason to claim they express majority views. It may be equally likely that the tide will turn back, and the humankind will arrive to some reasonable midpoint.

  Again, do not present some recent, emerging trends as a majority viewpoint. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  And, yes, I agree that the fact that Metropolitan and other museums started to describe Aivazovsky of Kuindzhi as Ukrainians IS important, and it is a form of a support these institutions demonstrate to Ukraine, which is a victim of a totally unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russia.

  However, that is more relevant to articles about that war, not about the artists. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, the museums are not saying we support Ukraine. They are saying we have reassessed the academic view of these artists.  —Michael Z. 10:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  They cannot reassess the "academic view" by themselves. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  That’s what they are quoted as saying in the media,[38] and not what you made up about “support … demonstrate to Ukraine.” Your comment about “universally accepted opinia” is also strawman stonewalling, as I never suggested that.  —Michael Z. 01:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, if you are not suggesting the opinion you are advocating is universally accepted, then I don't see any disagreement among us: we all agree that Kuindzhi is a controversial case, so, per MOS, his nationality should not be mentioned in the lede.

  That is exactly what I did. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know. You are correct, in my opinion. But I am not a native English speaker. (I may add that he can be called a Russian painter because he belonged to the "Russian School of Painting", but not a theorethical Ukrainian one. But this has nothing to do with nationality.) Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

it is not ethnicity when Getty Research, Grove Art Online, the Benefit Dictionary of Artists, and the Metropolitan Museum call Kuindzhi Ukrainian

This edit summary says that "Ukrainian" in a context of Kuindzhi is not ethnicity. In connection to that, I am wondering what it is? I asked this question several times, but I still got no answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

How many times must I cite these sources? See immediately above. For example, “Nationalities: Ukrainian (preferred)/Russian.” Kuindzhi is Ukrainian because he was from the country Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 23:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In other words, is your rationale that this Pontic Greek was a Ukrainian citizen? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No. My rationale is that sources say his nationality was Ukrainian. If you want to understand it, you’ll have to accept that ethnicity is not nationality is not citizenship, and that country is not the same as state. But we’ve been at this for six months, so I have no expectation that you will.  —Michael Z. 02:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then I respectfully request you to educate me. I thought I understood a difference between "ethnicity" and "nationality" pretty well, but a difference between "nationality" and "citizenship" seems somewhat obscure to me.

As far as I know, the difference between "nationality" and "citizenship" existed mostly in the Soviet Communist political paradigm: according to the Soviet concept, the Soviet Union was composed of multiple "nationalities" (Russian, Jewish, Ukrainian etc), whereas the "citizenship" was "Soviet".

In a modern "nation state" concept, there is no difference between "nationality" and "citizenship" (although, according to Webster, "nationality" is sometimes used as a synonym for "ethnicity", which is pretty close to the Soviet interpretation of that term).

In the old Russian Imperial political concept (and that was pretty common in the rest of Central Europe, which was divided among three big empires), neither "nationality" not "citizenship" existed: each person was not a "citizen" of some country, and not a "national", instead of that, each person was a "subject" of some monarch, and belonged to some "estate" and "confession". The last trait, ethnicity, was of a secondary importance.

In connection to that, what "nationality" are you talking about: a modern "nationality" (a.k.a. "citizenship"), a Soviet "nationality" (i.e. "ethnicity"), or about something else? Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ops... I forgot one more possibility, namely, a primordialist concept that Ukraine (as a nation and a country in her present days borders) existed long before XX century, and it was colonized by a more developed and educated Russia (which also is considered as a nation). This concept draw parallelism between a colonial nation-states like France, which colonized underdeveloped territories of Africa or Asia. But I am not sure the modern historical science supports such ideas. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WRT "Country is not the same as state", Wikipedia says that "A country is a (...) political entity.". Britannica redirects me to "nation-state". Maybe, you will explain me what is wrong with my understanding of that concept? Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I am expecting to get clear explanations from you, otherwise I will interpret "Ukrainian" in the lede as "ethnicity", and will remove it as dubious. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I recommend you to read this. It is a captivating reading. If I understand your position correctly, it coincides, almost literally, with Lenin's views. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks, now and permanently. You recently showed exactly how insiteful your analysis is when you wailed “primordialism” because I treated a Russian name as a Russian name.[39]  —Michael Z. 17:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? That was misunderstanding from my side, and I conceded later that I was not right.

I still got no answer from you. The article cited discusses Lenin's and Stalin's view of the concept of "nation"/"nationalities", and, if my understanding is correct, that is exactly what you say. In connection to that, do me a favour: please, read this article and explain what is the difference between the modern vision of the term "nationality" and Lenin's vision? I by no means consider Lenin's view as something that reflects modern views, therefore, I genuinely believe that I am just misunderstanding what you say. In connection to that, I beg you to be more clear.

Take your time, read the article, and explain me what exactly did you mean under "nationality". If it is neither "ethnicity" nor "citizenship" then what did it mean in a context of XIX century realities of the Russian Empire? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, a misunderstanding because you habitually slag me with that label so much you don’t even bother reading what I read. Just fixate on a few keywords.

As to nationality, Kuindzhi was Ukrainian because he was from Ukraine. Authorities are reassessing traditional views coloured by colonial Russian influence in scholarship that denied the nationhood of Ukraine and Ukrainians. It is non-NPOV to favour old sources and prevent current views from appearing in the article.  —Michael Z. 21:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you want a serious discussion, I can explain my views. I hope to get an equally serious, thoughtful and respectful answer. Don't answer immediately, take you time.

I think we can speak about "Russian colonialism" in a context of Central Asia (that was a clear colonial conquest, similar to the British conquest of Afghanistan or India), Poland or Finland (more developed provinces with preexisting elements of national consciousness and with ethnoconfessional specifics).

However, how can we speak about "colonialism" in the case of Russo-Ukrainian situation? (Pre)-Ukraine and (pre)-Russia (both were medieval feudal states during that time, with no national consciousness) united even before Anglo-Scottish union was signed, and both countries had approximately equal political and social development level. They both were developing under each other's influence: thus, Russian Schism was caused by adaptation of Ukrainian (more advanced) liturgy protocols and spelling, but its effect on the Russian society was tremendous. Russian literature originated from a Ukrainian writer Gogol (the fact that he wrote in the Imperial language doesn't change the fact that he was a Ukrainian author).

Even the Ukrainian-Russian border is something poorly defined: I can easily imagine historical scenarios when, e.g., Donetsk, or Kharkov, or Crimea during the initial adminisytrative division in 1922 would become a part of RSFSR. Similarly, I can imagine scenarios when Krasnodar, Kursk or Belgorod would become parts of UkrSSR. In both scenarios, we would be speaking now about "Russian Crimea, Kharkov and Donetsk", or, equally, about "Ukrainian Krasnodar, Belgorod and Kursk". Again, both situations were equally probable, because the process of nation building was just at very beginning during those times. It hasn't finished even now.

There is no "Great-Russian chauvinism" or "Bandero-Nazism" in my words: both scenarios were equally probable in the past: remember, Khruschev, whom some "Russian patriots" blame for "betrayal of Russia" (by "donating" Crimea to Ukraine), was born near Kursk, but he loved "vyshyvanka" and, under different circumstances could call himself (and could be called) a Ukrainian.

Why am I explaining that to you? Because it seems that your view of colonialism is too primitive and non-nuanced. For some reason, you believe that an "empire" is something intrinsically bad, whereas a "nation-state" is something intrinsically good. In reality, these are just different stages in a history of Europe: there is no state in Europe that hasn't passed through the stage of empire: Greater Moravia, Greater Hungary, etc. Some of these states (like Austrian or Russian empires) fell apart, others (like France or Germany) didn't, some of them (Spain and the UK) are still in an unstable state: if separatist movements prevail, future historians will speak about them as "empires", if unification trends appear to be stronger, future textbooks will be telling about "a successful nation-building processes".

Thus, the modern nation-state France inherited the name of the Kingdom of France, but that name should not mislead us: as virtually every kingdom, it was de facto an empire that combined totally different ethnic groups, speaking totally different languages (people speaking Provencal do not understand those who speak Breton). Even if we return back to the history of Ukraine and Russia, do you remember one of the first event described in Primary Chronicle? It describes an imperial conquest of the tribe of Drevlians by an imperial forces led by Olga.

Formally speaking, Polians, Drevlians, and other East Slavic tribes were united by a foreign military force, and it may be correct to speak about Rus' as an empire.

Again, I doubt it is possible to name a European state that hadn't passed through an imperial stage during its history. But these were medieval style empires, which were united on feudal principles, and there were no dominating nations or oppressed nations there, because there were no nations at all during those times.

Medieval empires served as a melting pots, where new European nations emerged. Before Roman imperial conquest, Italy was populated by Etruscan people, Umbrians, Ligurians etc. What happened to them when the Empire fell apart? How successful was a "decolonization" process?

In reality, no "Ligurian nation" ever existed. No "Drevlian nation" ever existed. No nations existed at all during those times.

Medieval empires served as a cradle where new European nations formed. And modern Ukraine and modern Russia share the same cradle: the Russian Empire. (Ops. I forgot about Austria. If you want, we can discuss it separately. Interesting, should we describe Stanisław Lem as a "Ukrainian writer" and Stanisław Kaczor-Batowski as a "Ukrainian artist"? Following your logic, we should).

I always objected to a new Russian nationalistic discourse, which includes persistent attempts to appropriate Imperial Russian and Soviet legacy. And I am equally objecting to Ukrainian attempts to appropriate it.

A dispute about Gogol is senseless: he was neither Russian (in a modern sense) nor Ukrainian writer. A dispute about a huge number of writers, artists, composers, who were born in Russia but spend more time in Ukraine (or vise versa) is totally senseless: no matter if they speak Russian, they belong to a (common) Russian and Ukrainian past, which, during some period of their history, is unseparable from each other.

Recent attempts of modern Russian propaganda to appropriate the historical legacy of the Empire are ahistorical and disgusting. But some Ukrainians are acting in the same vein. As you probably noticed, I always opposed to the attempts to describe Kuindzhi as exclusively Russian (in a modern meaning of that word) artist. And I equally oppose to similar attempts to depicts him as a Ukrainian. Kuindzhi was neither Ukrainian nor Russian, he was a "Russian Imperial" painter of a Greek origin. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Just in a case if you prefer a short reply. Your "As to nationality, Kuindzhi was Ukrainian because he was from Ukraine" does not clarify anything. Yes, it works fine when we speak about some present-days person, e.g. "As to nationality, Zelenskiy is Ukrainian because he is from Ukraine.". In that case, it is clear that we speak about some person as about some country's national, because he associates himself (is a citizen) of that country.

However, that doesn't work for Kuindzhi. His "nationality"... if it is neither "ethnicity" nor "citizenship", what does it mean? I still do not understand. Maybe, you may find some source (e.g. memoirs of official documents) were he described himself or was described as Ukrainian? Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see you cannot explain what "Ukrainian" means in this context. Therefore, I think that removal of this word would be a correct step. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you persist in long-windedly arguing your personal theories with me? Argue with Getty Research, Grove Art, the Benezit Dictionary, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which call Kuindzhi Ukrainian because he was from Ukraine. I’ve posted plenty of links before to “educate you,” although that’s not my job, including articles that quote curators and experts specifically about this. but you refuse to WP:hear and understand, which is an issue of your WP:competence to participate in productive discussions. Other editors either lose patience with your untiring obstructionism or passively accept it.  —Michael Z. 17:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with Getty Research. We have reliable sources saying that Kuindzhi was an ethnic Greek, that he was born in present-days Ukraine, spent his childhood in Russian/Crimean Tatar populated Crimea, which was transferred to Ukraine almost 100 years after that (I am by no means questioning that Crimea belong to Ukraine NOW, but noone in clear mind may claim that it was Ukrainian in XIX century), where he worked under supervision of ethnic Armenian, and that he spent the rest of his life in Russian populated provinces of Russian Empire. From that, some sources conclude he was Ukrainian (although noone can explain me what does it mean).

Note, in contrast to you, I am not proposing to add any mentioning of any ethnicity (be it "Russian, "Ukrainian" or "Greek") to the first sentence of the lede. I am just demanding to remove the word that sounds ambiguous, contradictory and redundant.

However, I may be wrong, and if you explain me what exactly the word "Ukrainian" means in this context, I may agree with you. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Looted" "prior to the bombing"

This new edit looks somewhat odd. It implies that Russian troops invaded the city, then looted the museum, and after that bombed it. Did they really bomb the city after they occupied it? I agree that they've done a lot of stupid things during this war, but bombing the city after they have already captured it sounds too silly even for them. I briefly looked through the source, and I am not sure the source says so. In addition, we need to be logically consistent: if the painting was moved to Donetsk (as "DNR authorities" claim), that means the paintings never left the territory of Ukraine (Donetsk is a part of Ukraine). Therefore, we can speak about illegal displacement of the paintings in the territory of Ukraine, not about their transfer to Russia. I am not insisting my interpretation is correct, I am just proposing to double check what the sources say. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The edit is wrong. The worker of the museum moved the paintings to her home before the bombing (or after, and before that it was in a secure room - unclear). The museum was bombed in March, and in April DNR officials retrieved them from her and moved them to Donetsk. At least it is what the sources say. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Michael, it light of two above posts, can you please kindly self-revert? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No. If that description is accurate, then they looted them from safe-keeping, didn’t they? I’ll review the sources when I have a chance and improve the wording if necessary. (“Retrieved” Is an odd way to term stealing, unless one is trying to excuse the crime.)  —Michael Z. 15:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving a painting from one part of Ukraine to another (not even from an official museum or storage facility), is not looting, I would say. If it remained in some flat in Mariupol, it would not be under the control of Ukraine either. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Your text says "had been looted by Russian invaders and their collaborators prior to the bombing". Not only tat is not true, it implies that Russian invaders looted the museum and after that they bombed it. That means they occupied Mariupol first, and they bombed it after that. I think, you realize that is a pure nonsense. The sources say the paintings were relocated to a safer place by the museum's staff, and after that they were moved to another part of Ukraine (Donetsk) by pro-Russian administration.

The first source (ref #11) uses the word "looting" twice, and both times not in a context of Kuindzhi. It says:

"But the targeting of works by world-renowned Kuindzhi in Mariupol and the significant damage to both the Kuindzhi Art Museum and the Kuindzhi Center for Contemporary Art and Culture – the only museums dedicated to Kuindzhi in Ukraine – is particularly symbolic as Russia seizes swathes of Ukrainian territory, portrays the Ukrainian leadership as “Nazis” and questions the existence of a distinct Ukrainian identity.

Kuindzhi, whose father was a Pontic Greek, was born and spent his childhood near Mariupol and is considered by many to be a Ukrainian artist.

But because he studied at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, many Russians also see him as part of their artistic canon.

Kuindzhi was “certainly not Ukrainian,” according to Mozgovoi.

In fact, the artist worked in both countries, which were then part of the Russian Empire, and painted both Ukrainian and Russian landscapes.

"Kuindzhi’s paintings are very much rooted in a specific sense of place – the banks of the Dnipro, Lake Ladoga and the forests around it, [and] the steppe of southern Ukraine," said art expert Arbuthnot.

"We do not need to insist on the ‘Ukrainianness’ of Kuindzhi’s works to argue that such an act of vandalism is wrong, or that viewing his history through a Russian nationalist lens is misguided."

Kuindzhi’s “Red Sunset on the Dnipro” and other paintings removed from Mariupol are currently in the Local History Museum in Donetsk, according to Mozgovoi and a spokesperson for the museum."

In other words, the Kuindzhi's painings were not "looted", according to teh source, but relocated to another part of Ukraine.

In addition, the source correctly points at nearly equal right of Ukraine and Russian federation (as successor states of the Russian empire) on the Kuindzhi's legacy, which makes the whole dispute about his "nationality" senseless and ahistorical (he had NO nationality, because both modern Russian and modern Ukrainian nations were just in a process of formation).

With regard to the second source (#12), it says:

"On April 27, a video appeared in Russian media. In it, Buliy’s boss, Nataliya Kapustnikova, director of Mariupol Local History Museum, unwrapped a bundle of pictures and showed them to the camera — small, jewel-like landscapes and seascapes by 19th-century masters Arkhip Kuindzhi and Ivan Aivazovsky.

The art had been hidden by the head of the gallery, Kapustnikova explained in the video. Now the Russians had them and they were destined for Donetsk, a Ukrainian city that has been under Russian control since 2014.

The source does not apply the term "looting" to these paintings, and it also says Kuindzhi's paintings remain on a territory of Ukraine (in Donetsk).

That means your edit is a direct misinformation. Please, self-revert. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it not misinformation irrelevant to this discussion thread when you write that Kuindzhi “had NO nationality,” in contradiction to many, many sources already mentioned above?  —Michael Z. 22:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The term "looting" would be quite appropriate to describe stealing of microwave ovens or TYs by the Russian solders from abandoned buildings in Ukrainian cities (followed by their transfer to Russia). However, if some piece of art was removed from one place in Ukraine and placed to another museum in Ukraine, that is hardly an act of looting. And, it is not a surprise that the cited source do not use this term. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The articles make it clear that museum workers had removed the Kuindzhis for safekeeping before the museum’s destruction, but a collaborator turned them over to Russian occupation authorities. And that this is only part of Russian looting and destruction

Invaders and collaborators illegally taking things during wartime is looting. It is a war crime, whether it’s a TV or priceless art. The sources make it clear.

The Moscow Times article[40] says:

As street fighting raged, valuable museum exhibits – including Kuindzhi’s works – were tracked down and removed by Russian forces in what appears to be a coordinated effort to strip the city of its cultural heritage.

The cited Politico article[41] says:

Amid the mass destruction of the city after Russia’s invasion, fire destroyed most of the collection, which no one had time, or orders, to evacuate. And in a scenario repeated throughout occupied Ukrainian territories, Russia — sometimes with local assistance — deliberately looted the rest. . . .

In the latest mass looting to emerge, Russian forces emptied Kherson’s local history museum and art gallery before being forced out of the city in early November.

Forbes[42] says:

Russian forces have stolen thousands of pieces of Ukrainian artwork and damaged hundreds of cultural sites since the beginning of the Kremlin’s invasion nearly 11 months ago—from ancient gold, to paintings and bones—in one of the biggest mass looting events since the Nazis plundered Europe during World War II.

In addition to the theft of the Kuindzhis, systematic looting of art in occupied territories of Ukraine by Russia has been widely reported since 2014.  —Michael Z. 23:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You are talking about new sources. The problem is that you added a new text without adding new sources. That is a falsification of what the sources (ref ##11, 12) say.

In addition, you cite the sources that say about deliberate looting by Russia (which seems to be correct), but they do not say that specifically about these three painting. That means you engage in OR. Do these sources say that these three Kuindzhi painting were looted by Russia and removed from Ukrainian territory?

Actually, if we assume that any displacement of any item in Russia occupied territories that occurred without an explicit consent of the item's legal owner should be considered as looting, then virtually any action of Russia in occupied Ukrainian lands should be considered as looting.

In this concrete case, Kuindzgi's painting were transferred from one Ukrainian city (Mariupol) to another Ukrainian city (Donetsk), and that was done by Ukrainian citizens (representatives of "DNR"). Are you sure we can speak about looting in this particular case? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I added new text with new sources.

Exactly which individuals’ citizenship are you referring to, how do you know what their citizenships are, and why does it matter? (Please refer to reliable sources.) As far as I know, Russia has illegally pressured hundreds of thousands or millions of people in eastern Ukraine to accept Russian passports.

“Displacement” is another cute euphemism for looting. The legal term is pillage. Yes, it makes sense that everything Russian military and occupation officials steal in Ukraine is looted. Every incident of theft, invasion, coercion murder, torture, destruction, etcetera is a crime. How is this not completely self-evident? Are you unable to call a spade a spade when it comes to Russian crimes in Ukraine?

“DNR officials” are agents of the Russian Federation. The “DLNR” have been under overall control of Russia since mid May 2014, according to the courts. The paintings were taken by Russian occupation authorities. They were taken illegally. They were taken during wartime. Looting. Sources tell us that Russia has been systematically looting and destroying Ukrainian art and cultural assets, in so many words.  —Michael Z. 03:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It is better, but I still have questions.

• You cite one source that says the current location of the paintings is unknown, but you ignore another source that says they are now in Donetsk museum (Ukraine). What is the reason to ignore the latter source?
• You list some other paintings (not by Kuindzhi). I think their theft is relevant to other articles, not this one.

Actually, by joining this discussion, I broke a self-imposed rule: do not engage in editing the topics covering recent events: usually, these topics have insufficient amount of good quality sources, and it is hardly possible to write a good content using existing lousy sources.

I just pointed at inaccuracies and bias in your editing, you fixed part of them (thanks for that), and I hope you will resolve other problems too. Good luck. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Early source says location is unknown. [43] Later sources[44][45][46] quote various people saying the works were taken to Donetsk but say it is unknown whether they stayed there. Sources also say that other looted works have been taken to Russia, quoting a source that says the more valuable the work, the more likely it is to end up in Russia. I welcome suggestions for better wording to sum this up.

Which paintings by other artists did I list? The theft and destruction of cultural properties is part of a systematic campaign since 2014 and a centuries-long historical pattern, so I think a lot more related background could be relevant too.  —Michael Z. 05:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, the last sentence ("Among the works believed to have been destroyed were paintings by Kuindzhi’s peer Ivan Aivazovsky, a Russian Romantic painter, as well as pieces by contemporary Ukrainian artists.") tells nothing about Kuindzhi, and, therefore, belongs to some other article, which described looting by Russia in general.

WRT the location, your words ("were taken to Donetsk but say it is unknown whether they stayed there") is a correct summary of sources. Why didn't you includ into the text? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The former gives context to the theft of Kuindzhi’s works and the destruction of the museum that holds them. The theft is part of a systematic campaign, and the works were specifically targeted as part of it, according to the sources.  —Michael Z. 20:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding location, it was “DLNR” people who said the works went to Donetsk. Mozgovoi says they are in Donetsk but hasn’t seen them.[47] Months later: “There is no information about whether the items are still in Donetsk, or have been moved on to Russia. Russian officials claim cultural treasures from occupied territories are being removed for safekeeping. But Russia has been moving art and archaeological finds from its colonized lands to the central museums of Moscow and St. Petersburg for centuries.”[48]

Would require attribution as in the sources, but I don’t know why we should bother saying so, since the sources either cast doubt on their statements as above, or don’t even bother citing them.[49]  —Michael Z. 20:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, it is not my intention to present modern Russia in a better light than it deserves (all what it is currently doing is disgusting). The primary reason why I initiated this section was an obvious logical contradiction in the test (looted and THEN bombed). It seems you fixed that.

In contrast to you, I am trying to let my opponent know if their arguments satisfied me (in contrast, it seems that in a similar situation you just stop responding). That is why I am explicitly letting you know that you addressed my major concern.

There is still some minor question. I always believed that "looting" refers to some uncontrolled and undocumented taking of goods, and usually it refers to the actions by individuals. It this concrete case, the paintings were taken by some representatives of the occupying authorities, and there is a reason to believe that that action was documented.

If that action is considered as looting, then every action of the Russian authorities in the occupied territory (including Crimea) should be considered as looting.

Smeagol correctly pointed at the difference between journalistic and encyclopedic style: whereas we can and should use newspapers or magazines as sources, we should present the information in an encyclopedic form, which includes some modifications of a vocabulary.

And that is a reason why I hate editing articles devoted to recent events: usually the body of sources about those events is dominated by newspapers, magazines and similar sources that describe them superficially, inaccurately and using a non-encyclopedic language. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I always believed that "looting" refers to some uncontrolled and undocumented taking of goods, and usually it refers to the actions by individuals: that belief is wrong. My dictionary says loot means to steal in a riot or war, but nothing implying that it’s restricted to “uncontrolled” stealing or “by individuals.” It seems to be self-evident from all three cited sources that references to “mass looting” by Russian forces and by the Nazis in WWII indicate the existence of systemic looting. The international laws against pillage do not absolve anyone of the crime when it is conducted in a controlled or documented fashion. I could also refer you to the systematic looting of Eastern European industry by the Soviets from 1945, and the systematic looting of entire enterprises in Crimea and the Donbas by Russia from 2014 as examples that are documented in sources.

If you hate this, why do you continue with it? Perhaps your time is better spent on enjoyable editing of historical articles.  —Michael Z. 17:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"If you hate this, why do you continue with it?" Are you sure this type phrases are appropriate?

WRT "looting" of Germany by the USSR, I am interested to know if scholarly sources describe properly documented taking of German industrial equipment or pieces of art by Soviet occupational authorities as "looting". I never saw that. Can you please provide examples found in scholarly sources?

By asking that question, I by no means am going to draw any analogy between modern Russia and the Soviet Union and between Ukraine and Nazi Germany. Such an analogy would be utterly inappropriate and incorrect. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s Forbes that compared Russian forces to the Nazis in its lead paragraph: “in one of the biggest mass looting events since the Nazis plundered Europe during World War II.”[50]  —Michael Z. 17:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait, you switched the topic. You said " I could also refer you to the systematic looting of Eastern European industry by the Soviets from 1945", and I asked you to provide an evidence that this activity is described in scholarly sources as "looting". Can you please stay focused? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me Google that for you.[51][52]  —Michael Z. 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

By providing these two poorly formulated search results you have shown an utter disrespect to you opponent. What is even worse, you presented himself as a person who is unable to use search engines properly.

Thus, the second result from the google scholar search does not use the word "looting" at all, and it discusses "robbery" (by individuals) in Western and Eastern cities.

The next peer-reviewed publication in the list does not discuss "looting of industry" either.

It seems I am wasting my time with you. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

These searches give you a whole lot of results that answer your question. That you couldn’t bother to find them yourself but demanded I do so speaks to whose time you’re wasting.  —Michael Z. 20:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, it is quite possible that some of sources in those extremely long list may contain the answer. However, you even haven't bothered to check in that is the case: you yourself do not know that. Dropping links to such huge lists is tantamount to saying: "google it by yourself". And, in addition, do you really believe I haven't tried to google it by myself before asking this question? Of course, I did, and I found that it is not easy to find this information.

However, since you made this claim (that sources describe the relocation of industrial equipment from former Axis countries to the USSR as "looting"), it was you who was supposed to provide an evidence. If you are making claims that you are not ready to support with sources, please, stop spamming talk pages. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I checked.  —Michael Z. 21:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you checked, but you decided not to give an example (with a concrete page) and preferred to give a long crude list, than that is an utter disrespect. In addition, that doesn't answer my question: I expected to see a proof that scholarly literarure describes it as looting: to prove that, you must present an evidence that several randomly picked sources describe it as such.

However, I suspect no sources say that. See, for example, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc.

Please, provide a proof of routine usage of "looting" in the context of the USSR, or concede that you lied. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Your demands are not respectful.  —Michael Z. 22:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like your terminology clarification. If those works were moved by the Russians/DNR to some new museum in Mariupol, would you term this 'looting', too? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources said so, or if the specific details met the international legal definitions of pillage.  —Michael Z. 20:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You know that reliable sources are reliable in a specific sense (usually factual), not in the sense that they always use the most fitting terms. Given that we can't usually literaly copy their phrasing (and they are usually not writing an encyclopedia, anyway), we sometimes need to choose most fitting encyclopedic terms themselves. Also, as our own article on pillage states, the Hague Conventions "oblige military forces not only to avoid the destruction of enemy property but also to provide for its protection". This can shield them from some accusations of pillage when moving works of art to a safer location, no? Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? “Phrasing”? Stealing is not protecting.

Multiple reliable sources say the Russians are systematically looting and destroying Ukrainian cultural properties, and sources are even connecting it to historical colonial violence and the risk of another genocide by Moscow today.

No source says Russia is protecting the three paintings it looted when it destroyed an entire museum full of art. No source says they are shielded from any accusations. You ask “no?”, but you offer no source that says no. The clear answer is no.  —Michael Z. 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Serious? Yes, journalistic style and encyclopedic style are different.

We are talking about specific paintings here. In sources, the direct claim is that "they were later handed to Russian forces", if we are speaking about direct citations from RSs.

This was in response to your mention of "international legal definitions of pillage". Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but it has nothing to do with style when you suggest that Russian invaders might be seen as protecting art when they illegally took possession of/stole/looted it. No sources in evidence say that, in any phrasing. You haven’t even offered any logic by which it can be considered WP:SYNTH, merely stated it without backing.

Not bombing art museums would be an example of protecting art. Stealing it when you find someone has protected it by hiding it from you remains a war crime. The Russians are systematically destroying and looting art all over Ukraine, according to many sources. To pick one example and suggest it’s protecting based on nothing is nonsense and POV.  —Michael Z. 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say "not invading a peaceful country would be even a better example of protecting art". However, as soon as the invasion (quite unlawful invasion, btw) had occurred, what action would be more appropriate: to leave these peaces of art in a destroyed museum (or in another place non-suitable for prolonged storage of paintings), or to move it to another museum in the territory of Ukraine?

In this my post, I assume that the information about moving these paintings to Donetsk is correct. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I decline to argue against this sloppy defence of war crimes.  —Michael Z. 18:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael:, you've accused me of defending war crimes. Please, apologize. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You’re arguing to disprove statements that reliable sources make about war crimes. If that doesn’t constitute trying to defend them, obscure them, overlook them, or otherwise deny their significance, then I apologize.  —Michael Z. 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies have not been accepted.

I wrote, repeatedly, that this war by itself is a single big crime. However, that doesn't mean we can apply whatever term we want to any action taken by the Russian occupation authorities. Thus, if we compare modern Russia with Nazi Germany, and the German invasion of the USSR withe the Russian invasion of Ukraine, some actions of the Nazi occupation authorities were quite legitimate. Thus, the initial investigation of the Katyn massacre was done by Nazi, and that was a quite legitimate investigation.

In connection to that, I am reiterate: "What would be more appropriate: to leave the Kuindzgi's painting in the devastated city of Mariupol or to move them to a more safe place in Ukraine?"

What in this quite legitimate question can be seen as my attempt to disprove anything? I expect you to explain that, or I am expecting apologies from you. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources list the Russian looting of the Kuindzhis as part of a systematic campaign of looting, i.e., war crimes. Whether your bad logic determines that it is “appropriate” for the Russians to “move them to a more safe place” is irrelevant. It remains a war crime, according to the sources, and according to me. I will not apologize for saying so.

Please stop this line of enquiry. It is bad logic. What next, asking editors to rule whether it’s “appropriate” for the Russians to kidnap hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children in discussions about evidence of genocide?

Or don’t stop, but don’t have time for this, so I am out.  —Michael Z. 21:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a bad logic to say "It is bad logic" and provide no logical evidences. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't suggest we write they are protecting them. I suggest that the needed sources to write 'they looted Kuindzhi's paintings' (which are the only ones we are going to mention in this article) are lacking. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There’s no lack. The cited sources all discuss Russia’s theft of the Kuindzhis in the context of its systematic campaign of looting Ukrainian art.  —Michael Z. 20:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It can’t get any more explicit than Forbes, ¶ 2: In May, local officials in Mariupol said Russian forces had looted more than 2,000 pieces of art from three museums and took them to the Russian-occupied city of Donetsk, after troops captured the city, including paintings by Ukrainian artist Arkhip Kuindzhi and Russian romantic painter Ivan Aivazovsky.[53]

I’m wasting my time reading the text of the sources for you, because you refuse to WP:LISTEN to what they say. I think I’ll decline to discuss this any further because we are going round in circles.  —Michael Z. 20:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is citing "Mariupol officials", not Forbes's own voice. And when the sources speak about those paintings directly, they (at least some of them) used 'handed to'. (Also, Mariupol is as occupied as Donetsk.) But if you think the mention of looting improves this article as compared to 'taking/moving them to Donetsk', even given that the context (this was not approved by the Ukrainian state) is obvious, then be my guest. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Forbes’s own voice: Russian forces have stolen thousands of pieces of Ukrainian artwork and damaged hundreds of cultural sites since the beginning of the Kremlin’s invasion nearly 11 months ago—from ancient gold, to paintings and bones—in one of the biggest mass looting events since the Nazis plundered Europe during World War II.

Funny: “not approved by the Ukrainian state.” Stealing in wartime is looting. Looting and destruction of cultural heritage are war crimes, a category of atrocity crimes. These are systematic, organized, intentional atrocities which continue to be committed at scale.

WP:EUPHEMISM suggests we should not bowdlerize references to them. It is not objective to obscure their nature and reduce them to “taking.”  —Michael Z. 21:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In this citation, the paintings we are talking about are not mentioned, even among others. But this is not a very productive discussion. I would just note that part of the encyclopedic style is not using stronger language then is neccesary to be clear, especially when speaking in encyclopedia's own voice. You clearly have a side here, and this is ok. But I suggest you express this with about what you write, not how. Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Portrait

Is ot better to have the photograph as the main image? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say if at least the portrait by Vasnetsov is still included somewhere in the article. Mellk (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, of course. I just don't know the current policy for such things. The portrait by Vasnetsov has greater artistic value, but does this justify using it as a main image when we have a high quality photograph? Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)