Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mikhail Bulgakov. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Clarifications of Old Discussions & Issues with the Article

RE: The dicussion of origins: Russia & Ukraine This seems to be a much debated matter now adays due to the politicized status of the discussion brought on by Russian and Ukrainian relations. An example of political idealogy invading the arts. Historically speaking Russia and Ukraine can be properly regarded as one nation and culture. (I say historically because this is not so anymore). For example if one goes back to 'Slovo o polku Igoreve' what is currently Ukraine is clearly referred to as 'Русь' that is Russia. Historically the capital of Russia was also Kiev it should be said. Essentially the distinction did not exist in the way it does today prior to the split of the Soviet Union, unlike the other countries that made up the U.S.S.R. Ukraine's part in it was quite natural as this is indeed historical Russia. As for Bulgakov given his life, the language he wrote on etc. I think it would be a gross misapprehension to call him a Ukranian author, both because the term does not really and properly exist (at least at the time of his life), he would no doubt consider himself a Russian author (as in his response to the Phone call from Stalin) and further such a label would add certain attributions and referrents that would simply be inaccurately applied. To this end, even the Ukranian wikipidia has him listed as a Russian writer.

Accuracy & Issues: The article states that 'Bulgakov was ambivalent towards Soviet regime' not only is this not sited, but I think this is grossly incorrect. For example Bulgakov's letters were written to the 'Soviet Government' rather than to the politically correct designations of 'Polytbureau' or 'Sovnarcom', furthermore they seem to be quite clearly unrepentant of his inability or refusal to write the communist agenda or the party line. If I have time I'll look into this more and clarify the article properly w/ citations but I though it would be good to point this out to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.70.166 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: I came here to see if anyone else had brought up this point. Writing a play glorifying Stalin, while living in Stalin's shadow, does not show sincere support for the government. Perhaps he supported Soviet /ideals/, but that's a far cry from the Soviet "regime". I'm removing this phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.193.205 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

LOC

How about incorporating public domain text & data from LOC? http://www.loc.gov/rr/european/bulgaklc.html

mikka (t) 20:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I added the English editions, but I left out the adaptations for theater. I guess they should be separated from actual translations. Adrecaled 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed fragment

I have removed the following fragment of the article. It does not go with the rest of the text and if of inferior quality. Please do not insert it wholesale but think how we can incorporate this into the article. abakharev 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Flat or Apartment?

I was under the impression that American terminology was to be used as the standard in Wikipedia. I for one would prefer to keep it as 'Flat' but I feel the rules ought to be followed. Should this be changed? Doktor Waterhouse 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: In Contemporary Literature

An anonymous user has been adding numerous links to Martha Cooley and two of her books including Thirty-three Swoons to a variety of articles--- 1) Mikhail Bulgakov 2) Bennington, VT "Notable Residents" 3) Adelphi University "Notable Alumni" Leading one to question if this is a family member or friend of above author.

Regardless, these links require some sort of outside validation.Euphorya 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Nationalist Army

The article used to say: "He was briefly forcibly mobilized by the Ukrainian Nationalist Army"

An anonymous user changed it to "joined the Ukrainian Nationalist Army".

"Joined" implies that he did it on his own will; i am not sure about that. Since i don't know what really happened, i changed it to "served in the Ukrainian Nationalist Army".

If anyone can write what really happened, with a source, it will be appreciated. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I am also changing Ukrainian Nationalist Army to "the army of the Ukrainian People's Republic". Ukrainian National Army existed at a different time. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalinist Russia -> Soviet Russia

I am replacing this: widespread paranoia of Stalinist Russia -> widespread paranoia of Soviet Russia

Master and Margarita should not be connected so closely to Stalin, because Bulgakov's relationship with Stalin was much more complicated and because Stalin's persona is not referred to directly in the book.

Saying Soviet Russia is much safer.

If anyone can cite a work that describes Master and Margarita as an indictment of Stalinist Russia, then it can be changed back. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ivanvasil2.jpg

Image:Ivanvasil2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New Images

I hope these are satisfactory, given the licensing explanation and high resolution. Fuzzform (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See User:Fuzzform/Bulgakov for more images. Fuzzform (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

References?

There are many, many books about Bulgakov and his works. And yet, not one of them is cited in this article! Here is my current list of sources (extensive, but not complete):

The Master and Margarita: A Critical Companion Weeks, Laura D. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1996.

Three Russian writers and the irrational: Zamyatin, Pilʹnyak, and Bulgakov Edwards, T. R. N. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Bulgakov: Life and Work Proffer, Ellendea. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis, c1984.

A Pictorial biography of Mikhail Bulgakov Proffer, Ellendea. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis, c1984.

An international bibliography of works by and about Mikhail Bulgakov Proffer, Ellendea. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1976.

Democracy or theocracy: Frank, Struve, Berdjaev, Bulgakov, and the 1905 Russian Revolution Flikke, Geir Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, Slavisk-baltisk avdeling, 1994.

Is Comrade Bulgakov dead?: Mikhail Bulgakov at the Moscow Art Theatre Smelï¸ iï¸¡anskiÄ, A. M. (AnatoliÄ M.) London: Methuen, 1993.

Manuscripts don't burn: Mikhail Bulgakov, a life in letters and diaries Curtis, J. A. E. (Julie A. E.) Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press, 1992.

Bulgakov's Last Decade: The Writer as Hero Curtis, J. A. E. (Julie A. E.) Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1987

Mikhail Bulgakov Natov, Nadine. Boston: Twayne Publishers, c1985.

Mikhail Bulgakov : a critical biography Milne, Lesley. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Mikhail Bulgakov: life and interpretations Wright, Anthony Colin Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, c1978.

Mikhail Bulgakov: The Early Years Haber, Edythe C. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Evangelie Mikhaila Bulgakova ("The Gospel in Mikhail Bulgakov's Work") A. Zerkalov [In Russian, unfortunately...]

The Master and the Devil: A Study of Mikhail Bulgakov Andrzej Drawicz and Kevin Windle Studies in Slavic Language and Literature

A Mind in Ferment: Mikhail Bulgakov's Prose Kalpana Sahni (1984)

Hope someone takes the initiative and uses some of these books to reference this article! It might one day be a featured article. (I can only hope...).

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the connection to Satanism?

I found the "Bulgakov's Flat" section a bit confusing. Just because the devil was a character in one of his novels, that makes him some sort of Russian Anton LaVey? Is there any other reason why Satanists would gather at his former place of residence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.73.150 (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Famous Quotes

the translation of the quote

"Not causing trouble, not touching anything, fixing the primus" ("Не шалю, никого не трогаю, починяю примус")

This is incorrectly translated. not touching anything should be not bothering anyone or more literally no one I touch .
fixing the primus in the Russian is said grammatically incorrect on purpose to poke fun at the proletariat. Починяю correctly in Russian is чиню in this case. This is an idiomatic nuance of Russian that is very difficult, if not impossible, to translate into English.
--Czar 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed on the никого.Preobrazhenskiy (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Wife's name given variously as Elena and Yelena. Needs to be made consistent.113.73.127.94 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bulgakov1910s.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Bulgakov1910s.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics

I've removed the diacritics in his name at the beginning of the article (á to a). While helpful for Western audiences in aiding pronunciation, this strikes me as incorrect. IPA characters would be a more appropriate way of indicating his name's pronunciation. As ever, revert if I've missed something (and perhaps give a citation). --BDD (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Political views section needs work

I was recently kindly pointed out to me that I added a unnecessary citation needed tag to the article. I had mistakenly thought that the citation was for one sentence, rather than the two sentences before it. However when I looked into the reference I found that it was not exactly saying what the article claimed. There are 3 points made by the article as it now stands that I'd like to discuss, all seem to be contained in the reference (p6) but not as they are in the article.

Firstly there is the statement that he was a "jingoistic monarchist". In the reference it states that Marietta Chudakova's biography of Bulgakov was likely to be biased towards "over-emphasising the conservationism of Bulgakov's upbringing", it then goes on to quote Chudakova quoting an anarchist schoolboy stating that, as a schoolboy, Bulgakov was considered "jingoistic monarchist". Chudakova then qualifies that with the fact that anarchists and communists would have considered anyone neither anarchist or communist to be a monarchist, and any monarchist to be jingoistic. That is a lot of context that's been left out of the article.

I don't see the fact that Bulgakov was an anarchist anywhere on the referenced pages. I think this was a misunderstanding by a wikipedian who mistook the info about the Chudakova's informant being an anarchist with Bulgakov being one.

The fact about Bulgakov being against the death penalty is suggested by Chudakova based on the fact that one of Bulgakov's "semi-autobiographical heros" was against the death penalty. I do not think that makes it an established fact as the article states it.

So overall I think the Political Views section needs a rewrite. I really don't know anything about Bulgakov other than what I read in the reference and the article, but I do think that it's important that the article reflect what info we have from the references, so I'd be happy to do that. Also, it's just a couple sentences. --Keithonearth (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the section. I can't stand by the validity of the reference, as I don't know anything about Bulgakov. However, I do feel having a reference that agrees with the wikipedia page is a step forward. I hope that step didn't land on anyone's toes, I'll go back to editing articles on things I know about now. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I created this section just in case to cite the categories. One user insisted to do so.--GoP _T ^C _N 10:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Thanks for making a note here though. --Keithonearth (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Book List

It would be helpful if you also included the dates the books were written in instead of just listing and ordering them by modern publication dates.207.237.208.153 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bulgakov's origin

To anyone who ever read Bulgakov's "White Guard" it is rather obvious he considered himself to be Russian rather than Ukrainian writer.

Also he was born in the Russian Empire not in Ukraine which did not exist at the time. (Fisenko 22:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC))

"Although a native of Kiev, he wrote in Russian." This could be a quote from one of Bulgakov's novels. Pronounced with utter contempt by one of the characters, e.g. by Behemot in the "Master" or Myshalyevsky in the "White Guard". Bulgakov did not see anyting unnatural in being a Kievite writing in Russian. --Barabash 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

He was of Russian ethnicity and both his parents immigrated from Russia so it's obvious he has nothing to do with Ukrainians. 94.0.160.176 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Old talk

Ukranian novelist? I wasn't aware of this. I know he lived in Moscow, and was a favorite of Stalin. How are we classifying Soviet authors, which is what he certainly was? Atorpen 05:22 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Well, he was born in Ukraine... -- Zoe

Yes, he was. Learned more, since posting that rash note. But - I'm going to assert that he was a Soviet author. It may be a situation like that of T.S. Eliot, who eventually became a British citizen, I believe, and is studied in university under both disciplines. Atorpen

When I wrote the article on Laurence Harvey, I said he was "Latvia-born" instead of calling him British. Maybe you could say "Ukraine-born Soviet author"? -- Zoe

Done. AT

Very few of his works were published by the "Soviets", most were banned. I will dig out some of my Bulgakov studies and see if I can improve on this, which is not particularly good, be he Ukranian or Soviet. Ortolan88

I agree. Bulgakov certainly deserves more than he's getting; anyone know if the Russian Wiki has anything we can use? Atorpen

Actually about the publishing thing, most were eventually published between the 60's and late 80's so technically the Soviets did publish his work. Grend3l

Can't he just be a Russian writer? No Italian novelist whose work has been published in the 30s is called a Fascist writer and I never heard of "Nazi writer" or "Weimar writer" labels applied without discrimination to authors from Germany. If by "Soviet literature" we mean the kind of literature that passed the censorship during that period of Russian history, than Bulgakov wrote both Soviet and non-Soviet literature, but, in the first place, he wrote in Russian. Adrecaled 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed:

What needs to be added: a real bio, notes about his journalistic career, expansion on his writing career

All articles are under development. Although Stalin looked out for Bulgakov, he also prevented him from emigrating and banned all of his works. It is *very* hard to imagine that Stalin would have been a fan of The Master and Margarita. Ortolan88

Thankfully, I've never been inside Stalins head. Your point is taken; still, Stalin did give a helping hand to Bulgakov from time to time, when he wasn't off killing other people. Without this patronage, Bulgakov would likely have been entirely spurned by MASSOLIT and the Moscow community. Atorpen

You're kidding about that book! A friend of mine has been dogging me for weeks to read it but I've been busy with Orson Scott Card and Stephen King. It's here in hardcover; a black cat holding a gun and wearing a bow tie; the shadow on the wall behind has horns & a pointy tail. I take it that's an endorsement above, if Stalin didn't like it. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

Chances are it will spoil you for Stephen King and Orson Scott Card forever. It is one danged amazing work of literature. Ortolan88

Stephen King, maybe; I've become increasingly tired of him, though he still knows how to turn a phrase (and his description of when he was hit by a van was very affecting). Card is starting to show some common themes IMHO but I admire his skill at creating tension from ethical quandaries. Very humane author IMO, and easy, fun reading. Just the antidote I needed after having too many English classes. I will read the Bulgakov novel, probably when I go to L.A. and San Fran in early February. Koyaanis Qatsi

Darned edit conflicts. Got that version sitting in front of me. its pretty good, but from what I've heard, and the little I've read, nothing compares to the original Russian, which is mind-blowing. Atorpen

It's almost always that way with translations. Threepenny Opera is not near so cute in German. BTW, it is hard to imagine any authority figure, from school principal up to Soviet dictator, approving of The Master and Margarita. One whiff of Bulgakov's prose style, even in the earlier, weaker English translation of M&M would be enough to send the author to permanent detention. Ortolan88

I'm not sure I agree. Yes, it portrays the Devil as an authority figure, and Pilate mostly ineffective in dealing with the high priest. But, it was finally published in Soviet Russia, which is saying something. And it is well loved among Russian speakers I've met. I don't think the novel is entirely anti-Authority. But its been several years, so I should (am) rereading it now. Brilliant stuff. Of course, this is an aside, and probably doesn't belong here. Atorpen

---

Ok, we've got a slight problem. All Russian-language sources, including the Encyclopedia Bulgakov - which is pretty authoritive on his life - say that he could not find any work at all. I put that in the article, but twice it was removed by Wikipedians saying he did indeed work as a "literary bureaucrat". Please give a cite that he did indeed receive work. - User:Kricxjo

I wasn't the one who removed it, but: here, here, [and here], all suggest that he was able to find work, at least by 1930. I'd point out some print sources, but don't have any at hand. While we're at it, I disagree with the large Works heading at the very front. This is not standard for the English wikipedia, although it may be elsewhere, and it seems a bit jarring, especially as the title is used again later to refer to his works. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) suggests that biography come first, which is what I'm all for, although you obviously disagree. Any discussion? Atorpen 20:37 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Who was that mysterious wikipedian? It was I. The biographical note to the 1995 Vintage edition of The Master and Margarita ISBN 0679760806 was written by Ellendea Proffer, translator of several Bulgakov works and author of Mikhail Bulgakov: Life and Work. It states:

In 1930, in a time of despair when he burned his works in manuscript, he wrote his famous letter to the Soviet government, defending his right to be a satirist, and asking that his country let him emigrate if it could not use his abilities. To everyone's astonishment, Stalin, who had seen The Days of the Turbins many times, answered this letter with a phone call, and soon afterward Bulgakov had employment with a small theater. The Moscow Art Theater then found work for him, but most of the projects he worked on came to nothing, and the last years of his life were full of stress and disappointment. He broke with Stanislavsky and the Art Theater after the Moliére debacle [?], and returned to Theatrical Novel (begun earlier, then resumed) as a way of venting his spleen. He went to work for the Bolshoi theater as a librettist, which also proved frustrating, as project after project remained unproduced. From 1928 on, Bulgakov had worked only sporadically on his major work, The Master and Margarita; in 1937 he dropped Theatrical Novel, which would remain unfinished, and concentrated on the novel about the devil in Moscow. In 1938 under pressure from the Art Theater he wrote a play about the young Stalin, Batum, which was not only a compromise on his part, but adversely affected his failing health when it was rejected.

He died two years later, still editing The Master and Margarita. "Literary bureaucrat" may not be the best shorthand for what he was doing, but apparently he was working in the theater during those years, according to this note. Maybe it should say "minor theatrical duties". I didn't stick that bit in to discredit Bulgakov or credit Stalin. I have the greatest disdain for Stalin and nothing but admiration for Bulgakov, but that they should have had any relationship, whatever it was, is fascinating. Like Lenny Bruce says (paraphrase), "Don't look down on people who crack. You don't know what you'll say when they're about to give you the hot lead enema."Ortolan88

---

Thanks for the cite, Ortolan88. I've just rearranged the article hoping it'll conform to the style guide a bit better. - User:Kricxjo

---

I think I've seen The Cabal of Hypocrites filmed as Molière. -Bryce

--- Bulgakov was Russian, not Ukrainian. He wrote in Russian, considered himself Russian, both his parents immigrated to Kiev from Russia, he never even mentioned Ukraine as far as we know and Ukraine didn't even exist when he was born there and it was Russian territory. 94.0.160.176 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

He is born in Kyiv, Ukraine - he should be stated as a Ukrainian writer. Any writer from any country can write in a language from another country, but he is Ukrainian and it should state this fact. My family is Ukrainian and they view him as from Ukraine. - Emily

"Soviet" writer

To call Bulgakov "Soviet" writer is disgraceful to his memory taking account his stand to Soviet government. Didn't he suffer enough during his life to abuse him after the death?

The article is kind of shallow when it comes to his political view and the influence of his political view in his works. I suggests expanding that section. Mikhail.bulgakov (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of sources in Political Views section

I just read the Political Views section and am concerned about two of the latest sentences.

(1)One is: "In The White Guard another one of Bulgakov's semi-autobiographical heroes describes the Ukrainian language of only being understood in the docklands where “ragged men unload watermelons from barges.”

The referenced source is: Conflict Uncovers a Ukrainian Identity Crisis Over Deep Russian Roots by Neil MacFarquhar, Nytimes.com (18 October 2014).

The sentence in the source is: "As for the Ukrainian language, Mr. Bulgakov wrote in the novel that it was only understood in the docklands where 'ragged men unload watermelons from barges.'"

In essence this sentence describes (inaccurately, see below) one of Bulgakov's characters (or narrator) talking about the Ukrainian language and is not directly addressing a political view. The trouble I have is that this can't be used as direct evidence of Bulgakov's political views.

There is even more trouble with the NY times reference.

The referenced sentence from White Guard, where a minor character is described follows: "He spoke a strange and incorrect language--a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian words--a language familiar to inhabitants of the City [Kiev] who had spent time in Podol, on the bange of the Dnieper, where in the summer the wharf's winches whistled and spun and in the summer ragged men unloaded melons from barges." <ref>Bulgakov, Mikhail, Marian Schwartz, and Evgeniĭ Aleksandrovich Dobrenko. White guard. Yale University Press, 2008. pg. 237.</ref>

It is not accurate to say that the main character (semi-autobiographical to Bulgakov) in the novel described the Ukrainian language as only understood in the docklands. It is accurate to say that this is a description of a minor character who speaks a mixed language, which is familiar to inhabitants of the City (Kiev) who had spent time in Podol (on the bange of the Dnieper, where in the summer the wharf's winches whistled and spun and in the summer ragged men unloaded melons from barges).

This severe distortion from the book's original is offensive. I'm going to remove this sentence referencing language.

The (2)second sentence is: "The books also depicts the Ukrainian nationalistic leaders of Ukraine after the Russian Revolution as cowardly, cruel, anti-Semitic and treacherous."

The original text from the referenced NY Times is: "The protagonist, Alexei Turbin, is considered an alter ego for Mr. Bulgakov, a doctor who worked as a military medic. Dr. Turbin, a loyal son of empire, is as hostile toward the Bolsheviks as toward the Ukrainians. The book underscores the revulsion of the urban elite as rural Ukrainian peasants rise up to seize Kiev. Their leaders are depicted as cowardly, cruel, anti-Semitic and treacherous."

The current sentence is inadequate and disproportionate, it only mentions the description of one of the parties involved in the revolution and civil war. It is more descriptive and objective to mention the parties involved as described in the book:

"It is here, in December 1918, that the novel White Guard begins, in a Ukraine damaged by World War I and engulfed in the Russian Civil War, with all of its confusion, violence, and chaos. As the novel unfolds, the Germans have mostly withdrawn and the hetman, essentially a German puppet, is under siege by Ukrainian nationalist and socialist forces led by Semyon Vasilievich Petlyura (1879-1926), who fought unsuccessfully for Ukraine's independence following the Revolution of 1917. Petlyura's nationalism made him an enemy of the Bolsheviks, and his socialist ideas made him an enemy of the Whites, who were opposed to the Communists. The Russian forces (both political and military) who became known as the Whites fought against the Red Army in the Civil War from 1918 to 1921. Their military arm was known as the White Army, or White Guard. Ideologically quite diverse, the Whites were not so much a single army as a confederation of counterrevolutionary forces loosely united by their anti-bolshevism, and to a lesser extent by the idea of preserving and restoring the Russian monarchy and Russian Empire, as well as by their anti-liberalism and anti-Semitism."<ref>Bulgakov, Mikhail, Marian Schwartz, and Evgeniĭ Aleksandrovich Dobrenko. White guard. Yale University Press, 2008. pg. xvii.</ref>

Lastly, White Guard is difficult to use as evidence for Bulgakov's political stance, it is unclear what his position was and has been disputed for decades.

"The debate (which has been going on for many decades) about what exactly Bulgakov's position was, how he resolved this dilemma, and on whose side he was, is endless. White Guard is interesting for the fact that in it (as opposed to Bulgakov's brilliant satirical works) the author had not yet totally defined himself in terms of his political predilections--the Revolution's destruction of the 'nobemen's nests,' and the upheaval that took place as a result of it, were still too recent and traumatic for Bulgakov, and had not yet become 'the past' for him." <ref>Bulgakov, Mikhail, Marian Schwartz, and Evgeniĭ Aleksandrovich Dobrenko. White guard. Yale University Press, 2008. pg. xxxvii.</ref>

Svyatver (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I emailed the NYTimes about the error of the first sentence, asking them to remove it. The editor's response was that they wouldn't issue a print correction because the paper article was from 2014 (too old to be relevant now). I replied that I was still concerned about the web version of the article and asked for a correction to the offensive sentence on the web version (which is much more popular and accessible than the print version). 208.66.130.189 (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the "Political views" section is as skimpy and uniformative as it is because no one has really addressed the comments talked about here - currently there are two bald statements which reference quotations from some of his fiction. Basically, it is Literature 101 that you cannot take the views of an author's characters (even characters called "I") to be any kind of representative of the author's actual views - he's trying to tell a story. Having listened to half of a radio dramatisation of the "White Guard" my impression is that he's trying to create an accurate portrayal of the confusion and danger of the year 1918 in Kiev. Personally I find it quite believable that the nationalists were anti-semitic, and the exiles from Petersburg were self-seeking cowards. And the book is from the point of view of the two brothers who are defending their home city, who may or may not be representative of Bulgakov in 1918 or in 1930. Anyway, I'm not sure why these two useless sentences are still around, and it's a non-starter to try to argue a definitive political outlook by selective quotation from things given to characters to say in a work. If people really want to pin down Bulgakov's political views any such section needs to be based on private letters and other sources where Bulgakov WAS speaking for himself, and thought he was unlikely to be overheard by any dangerous authorities. PaulHammond (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree. In its present form the section says nothing about his political views. And I very much doubt such section could be written at all. Simply because he never expressed them openly, apparently. How do I know, one would be tempted to ask? Simply because a lot of fuss would have been made about them, otherwise. Them, as well as ‘what kind of person he really-really was’ remained a mystery. In Bulgakov’s Encyclopedia there’s nothing on his views and little on his personality. His wives might have had something to say about it, but they chose not too, Tellingly, before his first divorce, in 1924, he made Tatyana Lappa (who was his companion during the darkest years of his life and, allegedly saved him from becoming a morphine addict, in Smolensk) promise him she’d remain forever silent about the things she knew of him. Letters? Bulgakov's second wife Elena Belozerskaya in her book of memoirs quotes one of the many brilliant letters he wrote to her, on behalf of their… cat! Which in itself tells a lot. Those were the times when letters were not for expressing political views… Anyway, I remove this section. Lets see if anybody sheds a tear) -- Evermore2 (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Piznajko's recent activity and what his sources really say

I'm not the one to report vandals and I tried to talk to the user nicely several times despite his obvious fixation on "ukrainophobia", etc. and denial of everything said to him. I created a separate section and rewrote all the legitimate sources to make them look neutral and say what they say, not what the user thinks they should say. Nevertheless, he continues reverting all edits back to his "constructive edtis" and copy-pasting his "message". This is an obvious vandalism. So consider this a warning.

To administrators and whoever reads this: if you compare Piznajko's text to other edits, I think it should be pretty obvious what's wrong with it. Quick summary of all 5 paragraphs:

1) Lead - said multiple times on the talk page and elsewhere, it doesn't belong there, neither per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section nor its neutrality or reliability. Based on one biased and non-neutral source (see p. 4 or some of Myroslav Shkandrij's public speeches where he whitewashes OUN, UPA and far-right Ukrainian nationalists who were "slandered by Russian propaganda" - basically the main point of his works including the book used as a source here).

I have already removed the information about Bulgakov's views on Ukraine from the 1st paragraph, pending RfC from the WP community and awaiting more comments regarding whether to include it or not. ps. Also, please refrain from personal attacks on Myroslav Shkandrij - he's a renowned scholar (whose books had been published in some of the most respected academic publishing houses, including among others McGill-Queen's University Press and Yale University Press), and your personal dissatisfaction with him doesn't allow you to describe him in a derogatory manner and calling his research biased/non-neutral. --Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

2) A simple copy-paste of the same sentence followed by a castrated and edited quote from the Milne's book (per my edit: Lesley Milne of the University of Nottingham argued that since the revolution in Ukraine "took on an essentially nationalistic character", Bulgakov, as a Russian, was "hostile to the ideals of Ukrainian political independence", a movement "which was both social and nationalistic"). "Bulgakov, like most Russians of his time, condemned Ukraine's independence movement" - obvious original research. "through his literary works, Bulgakov disparaged not only Ukrainian language, history and the idea of Ukraine's independence, but also the mentality of its people and qualities of its national leaders" - removed for being a simple copy-paste from this English summary of this obscure Polish article unavailable online (thus the author is not mentioned by his full name, making it impossible to find any information on him). "His literally works, such as for instance "The Days of Turbines" have been described as "anti-Ukrainian" and as such that use "mockery-" - manipulation, even Maximenkov, the only author mentioned as a source, talks about this one single play, not "literary works".

Lesley Milne words ("Bulgakov was hostile to the ideals of Ukrainian political independence") are properly cited, please refrain from calling them original research. If you'd like to expand that section with "reasons for such views" mentioned by Milne, e.g., that according to Milne Bulgakov was hostile to the ideals of Ukrainian political independience, simply because of his Russian-ess (a very questionable statement in itself), feel free to do so in the appropriate 2nd paragraph that talks about how some scholars explained why Bulgakov was against Ukrainian independence; the 1st paragraphs in "Bulgakov's views on Ukraine" section summaries various statement regarding his negative views on Ukraine - please put all objections/rejections/explanations of that into the appropriate paragraph (the one that starts with "Nevertheless, some scholars...". To make sure Milne's words are not tampered, here's the full quote from the 1990 book: Bulgakov's perception of [revolution in Ukraine] was coloured by the fact that he was a Russian, [...] (a position that does not identify his 'politics' since it was held by political groupings across the spectrum, including Bolsheviks").--Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Information from this English summary was not, as you claim, a 'copy-paste, but rather a summary of that abstract that's well within the spirit of how to properly cite works of others. Also Polish researcher Włodzimierz Wilczyński is not obsure, like you claim, but is rather prominent. His article on the subject in Polish can be found on Polona, e-repository of The National Library of Poland: https://polona.pl/item/biala-gwardia-michala-bulhakowa-antyukrainska-strategia-retoryczna,Mzc4MzIyNDU/ --Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

RE:Bulgakov's mockery of Ukrainian language in his works. Thank you for pointing that out. I've added additional sources that describe his views on Ukrainian language in "His literally works" to show reviews of more than one work (The White guard, which is a novel, and The Days of Turbines, which is a play).--Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

3) "Nevertheless, some scholars claim that Bulgakov's position on Ukrainian independence does not command universal approbation, because it was merely a result of his Russian nationalistic views" - first paragraph basically quoted for the third time and downgraded by "some" (despite the user himself insists on generalisation of each of his own points). This is a result of heavy and chaotic editing of my original quote from the book which was, of course, slightly different from his version (see p. 2).

Please see my above comment, originally that sentenced was a paraphrase from Milne's 1996 book, but per Sparafucil's request I paraphrased it again, since it was unclear to the reader what was meant. The original from Milne's book said: Maria Popovich introduces another question and on that has a particular topical urgency since the break-up of the Sovient Union: Bulgakov's Russian nationalism viewed in the context of the debate about Ukrainian independence; [...] she reminds us that Bulgakov's position on [Ukrainian independence] does not command universal approbation--Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

4) "according to his first wife, Tat'yana Lappa, Bulgakov could not bear the thought that Ukraine would ever cease to be part of Russia" - Popovich (36) links to Chudakova on this (37), Chudakova doesn't link anywhere. It's not a quote, not even a paraphrase of Lappa's words. It's Chudakova's own unsourced opinion. And even then it's wrong: The high tension was the result of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that took place during those days; in reality Ukraine had already turned into a state independent from Germany. To Bulgakov the fact that his native city where he was returning to was not part of Russia anymore was equally important and painful.

In WP there's a consensus that we should generally quote the analysis of other's (scholars, researchers), rather than do analysis of literary works ourself (which is considered WP:original research. What you just described above, e.g., your statement above where you yourself analyze the work of the author in question, is the definition of original research. I, on the other hand, merely provided a summary from Popovich's section in Milne's 1996 book as well as Shkandrij's section in his 2001 book. Specifically, Popovich on p52 said: "[...] On the other hand, according to his first wife Tat'yana Nikolaevna Lappa, Bulgakov could not bear the though that Ukraine would ever cease to be part of Russia.", which is exactly what I state in the section, where I cite her. --Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The following summary on Bulgakov's visit to Kiev is based not on the original text, but, once again, on Myroslav Shkandrij's summary of it who even finds an old idiom "Kiev - Mother of Russian cities" from the Primary Chronicle offensive and imperialistic. The word "Kyiv" - Kiev is generally accepted in Wikipedia and was certainly used back in 1923.

Shkandrij's point from his 2001 book about how Bulgakov's statement that "Kiev is the Mother of all Russian cities" is imperialistic and anti-Ukrainian was not quoted or mentioned in this WP article; therefore, I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it.--Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Bulgakov openly expressed his feeling towards Ukraine, its history, its people and culture in a few key essays of early 1920s" - lie, even the only quoted essay "Kiev-gorod" speaks almost exclusively about Kiev itself, not Ukraine or Ukrainians. "Bulgakov openly states his unhappiness with its usage in Kyiv, denouncing its use even on signboards. Despite him personally most likely not knowing Ukrainian language" - manipulation, just compare to what he really wrote:

Bulgakov states that he treats "with respect all languages and dialects, but, nevertheless, Kievan signboards must be rewritten". He describes how Russian words are chaotically substituted by Ukrainian analogues to the point when barbershops or milk shops bear four-five different names. "We may reach uniformity. Ukrainian - alright, then it be Ukrainian. But literate and same everywhere".

Please see my point above. In WP there's a consensus that we should generally quote the analysis of other's (scholars, researchers), rather than do analysis of literary works ourself (which is considered WP:original research and which is what you are doing above. The fact that a few of Bulgakov's essays help understand his views on Ukraine, was mentioned in Popovich's paper, which is properly quoted in that section. Also, I did not myself analyzed the essay "The city of Kyiv" because that would be WP:orignial research, which is exactly what you are doing. Instead, I just summarized the points raised by researchers, namely Popovich on p52 "In his sketch "Kiev-gorod", Bulgakov openly states his feelings toward the city, its history, its people and culture [...] Lacking any knowledge of the Ukrainian languge, Bulgakov denoucnes its use even on signboards. He admits "The things can see written there are beyond humand understanding. I will state once and forever; I treat with respect all langauges and dialects, but nevertheless the Kievan signboards must be changed"." Shkandrij on p219 said "The contempt for the half-baked is evident in his irritation at the appearance of hastily made street signs in Ukrainian, some of which are ungrammatical, although the cause of his infuriation at others appears to stem simply from his inability to understand them. " and then concluded "The trauma of 1919 remained with Bulgakov. His vision of a homogenized and complete Russian culture with long-established norms was thrown into confusion by the appearance of [Ukrainian] national movement whose existence he had not suspected and continued to deny. " --Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

His understanding of languages has nothing to do with chaotic ukrainization of the city. "Bulgakov dismisses the possibility of Ukrainian science, literature or art" - lie, the chapter concerns Bolshevik art in Kiev only. "In this essay Bukgakov also strongly condemns the leader of the Ukrainian independence movement Symon Petlyura" - lie, he mentions Petlyura briefly only twice, and only once in the context "may the memory of Petlyura vanish forever" since it's about the ruined city, not Ukrainian independence.

See above. Please refrain from analyzing works of others yourself - this is the definition of WP:original research, please instead reference analysis of other scholars. In the section you mentioned above, I referenced Popovich p53: "In antoher part of the sketch, subtitled "Science, Literature and ARt", Bulgakov dismisses their existence in Ukraine with the singel word "net" (there is not such thing."). The sketch ends with a strong condemnation of Symon Petlyra - the leader of the Ukrainian independence movement." This interpretation of Bulgakov's essay "Kyiv-city" is also corroborated in Shkandrij's 2001 book's analysis of it (which is properly cited in that section), specifically Shkandrij says " A contempt for what he perceived to be half-educated, wild, primitive, and inchoate seemed to lie at the root of his aversion to things Ukrainian. In “Kyiv-City” (Kiev-gorod, 1923), which was composed during a return to the city, probably [...] He reserves particular animosity for Petliura, who has disturbed the faith in a single Russian identity and, as in his play, he ends with a wish that the tsar-like (tsarstvennyi) city might rise again and “the memory of Petliura might perish."--Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

5) "tentacles of the Russkiy mir [which are] less disgusting and obvious [than Russian "traditional" anti-Ukrainian propaganda]... but equally dangerous" - Viatrovich mentions "sovok" (pejorative name of the USSR) and the Russian Orthodox Church as "obvious tentacles", this has nothing to do with "traditional" anti-Ukrainian propaganda". Also I suggest everyone to check Viatrovych's page to understand the "level" of the whole discussion here. AveTory (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this. This paragraph was written by you, I corrected the section to reference "sovok" rather than "traditional anti-Ukrainian propaganda".--Piznajko (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

AveTory, please refrain from engaging in WP:Original research and WP:POV Pushing, it's against Wikpedia rules. See my comments above and please try to understand them. Also, please stop putting labels on other editors who expand the article with additional information and calling them "vandals" - this is not exactly within Wikipedia spirit and is also not welcome here.--Piznajko (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I think AveTory made a valid point above that it was you who did some "original research" by selecting poor and biased sources and quoting them out of context. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits by My very best wishes

Hi My very best wishes. Please refrain from removing all constructive edits of fellow editors. This is not considered very friendly behavior on WP.--Piznajko (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with My very best wishes. I also made my position clear in the RfC opened above as have other editors. It would appear that consensus does not support your edits Piznajko, and I suggest you establish such consensus prior to inserting material framing Bulgakov in relation to modern Ukraine.Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, consensus has not been reached, please don't provide false statements - there's been different points raised supporting diferent views. There's been discussion about the content of the section "Views on Ukraine" ass well as whether to include a summary from that section into the lead section. My very best wishes's suggestion that this discussion is about whether or not to include "Views on Ukraine" section is intrinsically incorrect as this discussion is about the content of the "Views on Ukraine" and not about whether to include it or not.--Piznajko (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll be more precise - 3 editors in the still open RfC have objected to your proposal - supporting outright exclusion or at most a very brief and much more neutral phrasing in the body. One additional editor (at least) has objected to your edits outside the RfC (reverts, subsequent discussion). While the consensus here may not be final, we are in a situation where we have one editor vs. several others.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I frequently disagree with Icewhiz, but we agree here. This is very simple. A lot of books was written about Bulgakov. If someone can produce good books (e.g. biographies of Bulgakov written not by Ukrainian nationalists) where an entire chapter was dedicated to his views about Ukraine, then the issue will be resolved, and we should keep such section and source it based on the book(s). But if there are no such books, then the section is undue on this page. We should follow best available sources in deciding what belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, please don't misinform the community. Per RfC, it is three editors supporting my version of the section (piznajko, Sparafucil (with reservations and request to improve grammar/style) and Mykola Swarnyk) and four against it (AveTory, Icewhiz, Markbassett, and My very best wishes). --Piznajko (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not constructive. I asked you (or anyone else) to provide a couple of books where an entire chapter would be dedicated to describing the alleged anti-Ukrainian views by Bulgakov (excluding writings by Ukrainian political pundits). If there are such sources, I will agree with you. But if there are no such sources, this section is simply undue per WP:NPOV, and this policy overrides whatever number of votes you counted (this is wrong count, BTW). My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Piznajko, though I have tried giving you every benefit of the doubt, you'll have to count me on the other side. Sparafucil (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sparafucil, no hard feelings. You do what you gotta do. --Piznajko (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Usage of hate speach by AveTory against Ukrainians

Language used by user:AveTory in this edit [1] is politically incorrect, offensive and has signs of xenophobia (ukrainophobia in particular). I'm referring to the usage of phrases like "Ukrainian nationalists" to describe all Ukrainians (it is not okay to describe all Ukrainians as "Ukrainian nationalists"). Also usage by AveTory of phrases like "post-Soviet Ukraine" is highly offensive / Ukrainophobic; it is never okay to call Ukraine "post-Soviet Ukraine"; it's an independent country different geographic areas of which were colonies of different countries over the last 4 centuries (e.g., Russian empire, Polish kingdom, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Soviet Empire etc.), however it is highly offensive to all Ukrainians and not politically correct to refer to Ukraine as post-Soviet Ukraine. You don't refer to America as 'post-British America' just because in the past it was a colony of British empire.

AveTory, please refrain from using hate language in your edits that can offend other people (e.g., Ukrainians)--Piznajko (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not sure whether you are trolling or not, so I will kindly ask you to stop vandalising the page in order to push your "information of great importance to the whole world" to the first paragraph before some admin gets offended (also please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). I already created a separate section for this topic, despite the neutrality of it is very arguable - a whole lot of Russian historical figures have been marked as "ukrainophobic" by Ukrainian nationalists and propaganda in the past 20 years (especially past 4 years), and Myroslav Shkandrij constantly expresses nationalistic views in his Twitter/Facebook accounts. AveTory (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

AveTory, please refrain from using hate language against Ukrainians (e.g., labeling all Ukrainians "Ukrainian nationalists", labeling Ukraine as "post-Soviet Ukraine"). Additionally, please refrain from calling edits by fellow Wikipedia editors trolling and/or vandalism , when those edits enrich the article with important details about the person and are backed by Wikipedia:reliable sources. Lastly, please refrain from personal attacks, this is against Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Piznajko (talk)

Alright, since you don't pay attention to what I write to you and continue vandalising the article to fit your nationalistic needs by changing the lead and adding non-encyclopedic information which turns to be free interpretation of the sources you googlebooked, I won't be engaged in further discussions. AveTory (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

With his recent edits Ave Tory's is trying to picture Bulgakov's Ukrainophobic views as an opinion of only individual researchers - this is a blatant far cry from the reality (there's a multitude of researchers who have written about it) and thus there's no need to single out specific names of researchers cited as sources to show Bulgakov's views on Ukraine. I returned to a version that provides a summary view of Bulgakov's views on Ukraine.--Piznajko (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

AveTory please refrain from engaging in Wikipedia:Edit warring and reverting constructive edits by other users supported by Wikipedia:reliable sources. If you don't believe the section "Views on Ukraine" has enough neutrality - please add additional sources to the claim that " some Nevertheless, some scholars claim that Bulgakov's position on Ukrainian independence stemmed from his Russian nationalism, does not command universal approbation", but please refrain from just blatantly reverting constructive edits by fellow editors. --Piznajko (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edits are not constructive, they invlove a lot of original reasearch, generalisation and straight-up fabrication of facts, even from your own sources. I checked all of them and made changes according to the information given there - I even used same pages you linked to. Did you even read the books by Lesley Milne you personally used as sources? Because that's where the quote "no evidence about Bulgakov's taking any part in discussions dealing directly with the Ukrainian cultural Renaissance, neither do we find any references in Ukrainian sources confirming his opposition to the movement" is taken from. If you are unfamiliar with the subject and have to googlebook sources to support you edits, at least read them first. AveTory (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Your claims of original research on my part are blatantly untrue. If anything, you didn't read the sources and are trying to bring original reasearch to the section by:

* 1) instead of having a summarizing sentence that describes Bulgakov's view towards Ukraine in general, you keep rewriting the section to make it sound like its a one-off claim by just 1 researcher, Myroslav Shkandrij, (that's original research, sources say other researches have mentioned Bulgakov's anti-Ukrainian views too)

* 2) You blame me for not reading my sources, while in fact the opposite is true. When citing Milne's book - by the way section quotes 2 books of her's, 1990 book "Mikhail Bulgakov: A Critical Biography" and 1995 book "Bulgakov: the novelist-playwright" - (e.g., you quote ""no evidence about Bulgakov's taking any part in discussions dealing directly with the Ukrainian cultural Renaissance, neither do we find any references in Ukrainian sources confirming his opposition to the movement"), firstly the section you're referring is NOT written by Milne, but by Maria Popovich in the section entitled "The Days of the Turbins by Mikhail Bulgakov in the Light of the Russian-Ukrainian Literary Discussion ". Secondly, did you read the section immediately preceding that sentence, e.g., it's the section talking about how most Ukrainian/Kyiv-based writers of the time were helping bring Ukrainian cultural Renaissance? That sentenced you quoted talks about a topic that's not even mentioned in the section "Views on Ukraine": e.g, the quote basically says that Bulgakov, unlike Ukrainian/Kyiv-based writers of the time was NOT involved in any discussions of brining Ukrainian cultural Renaissance, and that the author hasn't found evidence that "he was opposed to it [e.g., to Ukrainian cultural Renaissance]. Ukrainian cultural Renaissance is a separate huge topic in itself, not mentioned in the section "Views on Ukraine" and thus this quote is irrelevant. The only relevant part from Milne's 1990 book is the mentioning of Bulgakov's opposition to the idea of politically independent Ukraine - which exactly corroborates the claims about Bulgakov's views on Ukraine made by other sources; the only relevant part of Milne's 1995 book is the section written by Popovich entitled "The Days of the Turbins by Mikhail Bulgakov in the Light of the Russian-Ukrainian Literary Discussion " and specifically the parts of it that discuss the essay "The city of Kyiv". So basically, why bring a quote (e.g., "no evidence about Bulgakov's taking any part in discussions dealing directly with the Ukrainian cultural Renaissance, neither do we find any references in Ukrainian sources confirming his opposition to the movement") when it's not directly relevant to the topic of the section? The section doesn't talk about Ukrainian cultural Renaissance (e.g., when Kyiv-based writers such as VAPLITE members were creating Ukrainian-language novels, plays, translated major world literary works into Ukrianian etc.; all of this is simply irrelevant to the discussion of Bulgakov - he never wrote anything in Ukrainian (in fact researchers said he didn't know Ukrainian language) and thus by definition was NOT part of the Ukrainian cultural Renaissance movement of the early 1920s.--Piznajko (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC about how best to describe Bulgakov's views on Ukraine

Closing this RFC as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure; there have been no comments in three weeks. There is a very clear consensus amongst the participants that Mikhai Bulgakov's views on Ukraine should not be included in the article lead (resolving question 1). As for the second question, thoughts are a little more varied, but still quite clear overall that it is also not appropriate to include them in the body of the article; there are compelling arguments around the strength and reliability of the sources, and the relevance of such views to an article about a non-political figure, with an absence of multiple reliable sources providing any evidence of Bulgakov's views on Ukraine having any bearing on his work. Fish+Karate 13:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the information about Bulgakov's views on Ukraine be included in the leading seciton? I stand by the claim that it is perfectly within Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section given the importance of this topic. In particular, I stand by my claim that including an overview of Bulgakov's controversial view of Ukraine is perfectly within Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section's guidance, namely a statement encouraging "including any prominent controversies" in the leading section..
Should the section Mikhail Bulgakov#Views on Ukraine be written in a more generic way (e.g., my version that talks about his personal views on Ukraine in a summary format) or trying to picture Bulgakov's anti-Ukrainian sentiment as views expressed only by one scholar, Myroslav Shkandrij (e.g., version from AveTory, where he has paraphrased the section entitled 'Views on Ukraine' to make it sound as if Bulgakov's denial of Ukraine's rights to independence is a one-off statement by a rogue academic, Myroslav Shkandrij, as opposed to a claim supported by various academics and Wikipedia:reliable sources).--Piznajko (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

2. I reverted the rewrite of #Views on Ukraine because it is difficult to understand, partly on grammatical grounds ("...views, whereupon he despised...", "...some scholars claim that Bulgakov's position on Ukrainian independence stemmed from his Russian nationalism, does not command... "; 'of the Turbines" must be a Cupertino effect) and because I don't think the average reader can easily figure out why Bulgakov would prefer Kyiv to Kiev in the context of belittling the Ukrainian language. Edit warring is not getting us closer to a better version.
1. Bulgakov's legacy is much larger than the recent banning of his work in the Ukraine, nor was this his first run-in with censorship. To suggest that 'Ukrainophobia' has been the only controversy in nearly a century of critical reception is surely an example of undue weight. Sparafucil (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the source of your claims are. Bulgakov's works were never banned in Ukraine in the past (nor are they banned now - as a matter of fact, his works are part of mandatory foreign literature curriculum in middle school and high school in Ukraine, specifically The Master and Margarita novel is part of mandatory curriculum for the 10th graders). The discussion here is not about banning his works (they aren't and weren't), it's about having a section that provides an overview of his anti-Ukrainian views. Yes, many editors here on Wikpedia might no like this - but it's a fact that he had those views, backed by reliable sources and quotes from his own works/essays. The fact that Bulgakov was a talented writer changes nothing about his personal views on Ukraine, which were anti-Ukrainian.--Piznajko (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The preceding #Film section reports the banning of The White Guard (TV series), citing the Moscow Times. Piznajko, could you address the grammar issues and clarify your 2nd paragraph? I take it as saying pro-Ukrainian scholars do not accept Bulgakov's pro-Russian-ness as an excuse, but that's merely a guess on my part. Sparafucil (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Film and literature are 2 totally separate media. Bulgakov never created any film works, only literature - consequently, none of his literary works have been banned in Ukraine - on the contrary, they are part of the mandatory secondary school foreign literature curriculum. As to films - it's a separate media, not created by Bulgakov himself, but rather "inspired" by his works. In Ukraine since 2015 there's a law і banning all movies that glorify military/policy/special forces of aggressor-countries, e.g., countries that have attacked Ukraine and/or have occupied part of its territory. According to Ukrainian lawmakers, Russia fits that description of an aggressor-country, since it had occupied Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine in ~2014. Likewise, according to Ukrainian lawmakers the tv-series 'The white guards' that you referrensed, and that happens to be based on Bulgakov's work, is deemed to contain glorification of aggressor-countries' military/policy/ or special forces and as such is banned in Ukraine. Again, however, this is not a direct work of Bulgakov - e.g., it's not a literary work created by Bulgakov, and thus when I say none of Bulgakov's works were banned - it's indeed the case, because his literary works are not banned --Piznajko (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Grammar issues in 2nd paragraph addressed to make the point more clear.--Piznajko (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sparafucil: could you please updated the first sentence in your comments to give a short summary of your views. E.g., the way I'm interpreting your comment: NO to including in the leading section ; rewrite grammar/style on the section (this is just my understanding, which could be wrong).--Piznajko (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No in LEDE. Very short revised (more positively toned) blurb in body. Regarding LEDE(1) - I think this would be UNDUE, particularly as worded. Regarding Bulgakov's political position on Ukranian independence (2) - it should be framed in a more positive tone - Bulgakov (and he was not alone in this sentiment) advocated that Ukrainians were part of the Russian nation, and that the Ukrainian language was a non-standard regional variant of Russian that should be dropped for standardized Russian. Obviously, following Ukrainian independence in 1991 (and all the more so post 2014) such views are "out of fashion" in Ukraine - however we shouldn't be framing Bulgakov in the modern context (which should be a brief mention) - but rather use sources that cover Bulgakov in the context of his time.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Summarized and bolded !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree the section can be reworded to be in a more positive tone. However, I'm against AveTory's version, where's he's doing an aggressive POV pushing to whitewash Bulgakov and make it sound like his anti-Ukrainian views are merely one-off opinions of just a few university professors.--Piznajko (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I would frame this as pro-Russian as opposed to anti-Ukrainian, and would try to avoid modern POVish sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

His views were anti-Ukrainian (synonym for Ukrainophobic), sources clearly state that.--Piznajko (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BIASED very modern Ukrainian sources. How about this - give me 2 reputable non-Ukrainian sources describing him in this manner (in their own voice) - and I'll be convinced. I could see how you could say that modern Ukrainian nationalists believe he was anti-Ukrainian, but that view should be attributed and might be UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

See subsection on this talk page, titled 'Additional reliable sources'--Piznajko (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No to LEAD, and generally no to coverage. This just had no significant expression or affect to his life as described in the article, and is not prominent in common coverage so fails WP:LEAD. In general it seems WP:UNDUE the coverage given here from looking at a Google of him gives 438K hits and him plus Ukraine shows only 34K, and in looking at other sites that made sense -- britannica.com, Times literary supplement, and goodreads.com I see no mention at all of this that would indicate it is something commonly mentioned about him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments seem biased and generally against the spirit of Wikipedia. The section about "Bulgakov's views on Ukraine" has reliable sources backing up the claims there (research papers / articles written by university professors from leading Western colleges). The fact that there's little coverage of it in English academia/media doesnt' mean there's little coverage of it in general - e.g., Ukrainian language sources have plenty of converge of this, both academic and non-academic.--Piznajko (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I was a bit startled that WP:uk seems to have a version of the "you can help improve this page by translating from the English article" template! Sparafucil (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not only this should not be included in the lead, but we do not need such section in the body of page. He was not a politician, but a writer of fiction. I think his personal views (whatever they might be) should only be included if they affected his written works, and that was described by literary critics. I reverted this page to last stable version at the beginning of March. Please make an RfC if a section entitled "views on Ukraine" should be included at all. I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the version by AveTory is also unacceptable because he/she is trying to make a mockery of the "criticism". This is just another reason to completely remove this section per WP:BRD and discuss. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No The "views" are not part of his notability at all, nor is he known to any degree for having such views. Nor do we have evidence as to whether such views were dominant at the time. Nor do contemporary sources make a point of him having such views. Nor etc. Not a close call. Collect (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess its' also a NO, I don't like reading the sources used in the section :). Don't see a point in arguing here - you seem pretty set on ignoring all the reliable sources currently used in the section.--Piznajko (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Collect is absolutely right. Since you did not respond below to my request for good sources (books), I checked some sources myself and found essentially nothing on the subject. There is just a few guys who do not like his "White Guards". Sure, the tastes are different. The "criticism" of Bulgakov on Ukrainian wiki is a poorly sourced disgrace. Speaking in words of one of his heroes, this is "разруха в головах". One could make a case that his books, most notably Heart of a Dog, were "anti-Soviet", but not anti-Ukrainian. Once again, this is "разруха в головах". One of admins even wrote an essay about it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Exclude, per WP:UNDUE: not a notable part of the subject's career. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely Yes to including in the lead section and yes to Piznajko's version of the section. It's really important for us to keep the truth as it is., not edited by Soviet and Russian propaganda. --Goo3 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional reliable sources

https://archive.org/details/dilemmasofindepe00moty Dilemmas of independence : Ukraine after totalitarianism by Motyl, Alexander J. 1993. Quote from page 102: "Consequently, the "national liberation struggle" oi the 1917-1921 period is perceived by Ukrainians as a glorious period in their "awakening," while it is condemned by Russians—as, for instance, by the writer Mikhail Bulgakov, then resident in Kiev—as another instance of "German intrigue."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/world/europe/conflict-uncovers-a-ukrainian-identity-crisis-over-deep-russian-roots-.html Conflict Uncovers a Ukrainian Identity Crisis Over Deep Russian Roots ; New York Times By NEIL MacFARQUHAROCT. 18, 2014 ; Quote from the 1st paragraph: Bulgakov [...]a native son who extolled this city’s beauty even while mocking the very idea of a Ukraine independent from Russia.--Piznajko (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The NYT would support some turmoil within modern post-independence Ukraine on how to treat Bulgakov - but does not frame Bulgakov as anti-Ukranian in its own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Not sure if we are talking about the same NYT article. The one I read, unequivocally stated that "Bulgakov [...] mock[ed] the very idea of a Ukraine independen[ce] from Russia."--Piznajko (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Article in NYT describes controversy related to movie The White Guard (TV series). You are welcome to use this publication in article about the TV series. But it does not tell much about Bulgakov. Blaming Bulgakov for a propaganda movie made by someone else is a highly questionable idea. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Article talked about many things. However, when citing the source, I'm only referencing the passage "Bulgakov [...] mock[ed] the very idea of a Ukraine independen[ce] from Russia.", everything else in that article is irrelevant for the section "Views on Ukraine"--Piznajko (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what you do: you intentionally select and quote negative statements about the subject of the page. This is not the way to edit around here. Please post another RfC - as I suggested: "Should we include a section about his (anti)Ukrainian views." This is the way. You must follow WP:Dispute resolution here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to by "around here" but it sure isn't English Wikipedia (or academia in general). I'm not sure how much academic research you've done, but this is exactly how one quotes works of others: e.g., in a book that talks about thousands of things one quotes relevant passages; or another example in an article that discusses different things one quotes relevant passages. ps. Please consider talking to fellow editors in a friendlier manner: WP is build upon WP:Assume good faith and just general goodwill towards other productive editors - and fyi unconstructive accusations and name-calling isn't' considered 'goodwill'.--Piznajko (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

To respond to this question I posted a template on your talk page. Please check the links. You should avoid editing which would be easily seen as promoting certain ideological position. Speaking on the subject, none of the books written by Bulgakov has been generally regarded as an anti-Ukrainian book to my knowledge. If you think I am mistaken, please provide additional sources, as I suggested below [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My edits don't promote certain ideological positions, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Literally, every single sentence that I wrote (the last paragraph in that section about the most recent controversies surrounding Bulgakov and Ukraine was written by AveTory, not me - I don't even support having it there, but I left it for the sake of Wikpedia spirit of including constructive edits of other users) is backed by reliable sources written in respected academic publications/magazines or well-regarded newspapers. Lastly, you completely miss the thesis of that section. E.g., your comment on how "none of the books written by Bulgakov has been generally regarded as an anti-Ukrainian book to my knowledge" misses the point of the section - it is NOT about how Bulgakov's work are anti-Ukrainian (although many of them were), it is about his OWN PERSONAL views on Ukraine and Ukrainian independence movement. --Piznajko (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is simply not true. Your version tells: "Bulgakov has been a controversial figure, particularly in Ukraine, due to his Russian nationalistic and ukrainophobic views, whereupon he despised Ukrainian language and denied the existence of Ukrainian national movement. ... It has been argued that through his literary works, Bulgakov disparaged not only Ukrainian language, history and the idea of Ukraine's independence, but also the mentality of its people and qualities of its national leaders". My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It is true indeed. You still miss the point of the section, it's indeed about his personal views, not about his works being anti-Ukrainian. The passage you quoted is a brief mentioning ( in addition to describing his personal views) of how some of his works were also anti-Ukrainian--Piznajko (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not think you can find any sources, except very recent Ukrainian nationalist sources, which would tell that Bulgakov "despised" and "disparaged" Ukrainian language, history and "mentality of its people". But even if he had such views, his views on Ukraine are not considered as anything significant by his biographers if you check the books (undue on the page).My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken here. It doesn't matter whether individual biographers thought it was important or not - reliable sources cited in the section state unequivocally that he had those views and that's precisely why it should be mentioned in the article. And you whitewashing and trying to delete that information entirely is not helpful.--Piznajko (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it is crucially important what biographers in general (not an individual biographer!) write about the person. What did most of them consider important about the person? That should be included. What most of them even forget to mention? That would be best to omit. This is because our coverage on WP pages must comply with WP:NPOV. Selectively placing non-notable biased claims from partisan sources about people goes against our policies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And additional sourced

In fact, Bulgakovs views on Ukrainian state and Ukrainians, in general, were not sympathetic and not neutral. Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer Prise scholar and journalist, in her last book "Red Famine" cites Bulgakov 5 times, connecting Bulgakov`s views on Ukraine`s independence with Stalin`s views, which led to the horrible Genocide of Ukrainian peasants. It is hard to blame Applebaum as "far right", "fascist" or "one-sided". Also, in Ukraine, a country where Bulgakov`s books were probably as popular, as in Russia, Bulgakov`s "Belaya Gvardiya" and "Dni Turbinykh" are widely discussed and accepted as fine literature examples, but also very much criticized for how he described Petlyura and Ukrainian freedom fighters. It is no secret, that Soviet propaganda used Bulgakov′s talent to suppress Ukraine′s pro-Western tendencies. Some echoes of that discussion appeared even on the ″Radio Liberty" web-version here, in which many people named Bulgakov as "A big writer, but ukrainophobe and antisemite". Radio Liberty is not "the far-right Ukrainian nationalistic media". It is largely pro-democratic and pro-Western. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, what publication by Applebaum are you talking about and what exactly she said? Secondly, Radio Liberty (and other media) do not endorse views by people who have been invited for discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mykola Swarnyk: I agree Anne Applebaum is a respected researcher and her book "Red Famine" would serve as a useful source for the section. p.s. Please, also provide more concrete feedback on the 2 points I've raised in the formal RfC. Thank you.--Piznajko (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Which pages and what did she say? That argument might hold some water if Bulgakov was writing a documentary about Petlura, and it was criticized by historians. But he was writing work of fiction. Soviet propaganda used a lot of writings by good people who should not be blamed for that, unless they were propagandists themselves. Bulgakov was not. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It is known from Bulgakov`s diaries that he had back-and-forth conversations with Stalin and how they co-inspired each other with the vision of "stupid", "inadequate", "caricature" Ukrainians, almost subhuman. It is, probably, much easier to kill 4 of 5 million subhumans than 4 or 5 millions of productive citizens. As known, Stalin really liked Bulgakov′s "Dni Turbinykh" and "Belaya Gvardiya", despite of their non-communist spirit. Propaganda is blah-blah-blah, but killing of millions is not. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What conversations? Any refs about it, please? Are you talking about this play in a theater? This is fiction. The reality was very different [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bulgakov was a Russian writer.

There is a very little doubt, that Bulgakov was not merely a Russian, but a Russian chauvinist that looked down on and had disdain for Ukrainians. The latest attempt to change his nationality to Ukrainian is most likely due to the current Russia- Ukraine conflict. Look at the quotes from the Ukrainian director of the Bulgakov Museum “For me as a Ukrainian, it hurts to read his work,” she said. “He did not recognize Ukraine as an independent state.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/world/europe/conflict-uncovers-a-ukrainian-identity-crisis-over-deep-russian-roots-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by VariableNeznayu (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

This edit request to Mikhail Bulgakov has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov (Ukrainian: Михаил Афанасьевич Булгаков, IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈil ɐfɐˈnasʲjɪvʲɪtɕ bʊlˈɡakəf];[2] 15 May [O.S. 3 May] 1891 – 10 March 1940) was a Ukrainian writer, medical doctor, and playwright active in the first half of the 20th century.[1] Pyynikin torvi (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is clearly a thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Bulgakov was Ukrainian

Being born in Kyiv, this makes Bulgakov a Ukrainian writer under Russian occupation. Wikipedia should acknowledge this. 82.43.77.204 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

He was born into a family of Russians from Russia. George Orwell was born into a British family in Bengal, India. No one would claim him as Bengali. The birthplace is not relevant. 2001:4C4E:2498:4900:3F01:6643:7EF0:E02B (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Bulgakov Katayev Olesha.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Bulgakov -Russian patriot

Bulgakov was a Russian patriot, born in the Russian Empire, as a military doctor, he served in the Volunteer Corps of Russian officers who fought in Kiev against the Ukrainian chauvinists of Ataman Petlura. Then he went into hiding, was forcibly incorporated into the Petlura troops, escaped and was a military doctor in the Cossack regiment of the southern armed forces of the Russian State — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

This edit request to Mikhail Bulgakov has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to change the "Kiev" city's name, where Bulgakov was born, which in fact has a hyperlink attached that leads to article about the city itself, where it is called correctly: Kyiv. Let's not use non-existing names that rewind imperial, occupational past of the city, projecting revanchistic Russian narrative onto Ukrainian capital, especially in the current, extremely turbulent political climate. Fryutr (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)