Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies

Comments from Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board#Nationality in biographies

Any comments, suggestions? abakharev 12:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Alex's proposal. Nice job, thanks. --Ghirlandajo 13:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple of the commonsense amendments:

• If a person was persecuted by Russian government for participation in the independence movement. Then the Russians disqualified from claiming him (or her) as a part of their culture. Taras Shevchenko is not a Russian and Ukrainian poet. He is just a Ukrainian poet. For symmetry, if somebody was persecuted by his native government for participation in the Unionist or assimilation movement, then he is not a part of their culture (can not think of an example).
• We are using historical locations not the present ones. So Kant is not a Russian philosopher - he is a German philosopher as Koenigsberg was not a part of Russia in Kant's lifetime. Aivazovsky is not a Ukrainian painter as the Theodosia was not a part of the historical Ukraine at his lifetime abakharev 23:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is probably not as simple as it seems to be. For example, a Ukrainian poet, writer and painter Taras Shevchenko penned several novelettes in Russian, and even kept his personal diary in that language. Does it make him a Russian writer? And, last time I checked, Yiddish was neither nationality nor ethnicity. --Barbatus 00:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yiddish writer is still a perfectly valid Category Category:Yiddish writers as well as the beginning of the first line (actually there is no Category:Jewish writers). Taras Shevchenko is obviously strongly connected to Russian culture and if he had not been persecuted for the Ukrainian half (or three quarters) of the art, then I would think it would be perfectly valid to list him as Category:Russian writers (he still would not qualify for the Russian writer in the first line IMHO). abakharev 00:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly: language used by a writer does [can't spell today!] not necessarily signify his nationality and/or ethnicity. --Barbatus 00:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Here I am looking for an answer not for a complicated question of the ethnical identity but for a simple test what to put into the first line/category of bios. If you do not like nationality/ethincity, please by all means use the term you like abakharev 03:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely what I would prefer (and recommend) to avoid. There's no simple test, or, in other words, where you need such a test, it is not simple. Do you understand what I mean? Sorry I don't have time to give a detailed answer right now. --Barbatus 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If we do not have an established test, than in all questionable cases we would have an edit war of attritions. A couple of weeks some IP number added a number of painters who usually considered Russian as Ukrainians and resist an idea to even add a Category:Russian painters. I really do not want to follow the bad example of our opponents and start a large scale (twenty something articles) revert war with the author of the articles, but if there were an established policy we could negotiate. So far we have problems mostly with the Ukrainian nationalists. But we could soon expect Jewish nationalist (or Russian ultranationalists) demanding to separate all Jews from the Russians; Tatar nationalists demanding to label Zhukovsky and Tugenev as Tatars, etc. etc. It is hundreds revert wars just waiting to happen - do we really need it? abakharev 07:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

And Pushkin of course was a Russian African :) Actually, Turgenev was as Tatar as Lermontov was Scottish: his ancestors had been living in Russia for more than three centuries. It reminds me about Sergey Rachmaninoff: the article about him used to state that Rachmaninov was a Tatar composer. --Ghirlandajo 13:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think any simple test is possible (based on what? name? birth place? citizenship? family ethnic affiliation going back twelve generations? language? personal consideration? passport? friendly opinion? unfriendly?), and would recommend to avoid the issue, or be ready for innumerable conflicts. --Barbatus 07:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed in general, but complicated bios should be dealt with on case-by-case basis. Let's not forget that many such attributes may coexist. For example, Isaac Levitan may be described as a classical Russian painter of Jewish origin. Sometimes it is convenient to mention that a person was born into a Tatar/Moldovan/whatever family. Sometimes ethno-religious roots are an important detail of a bio. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Completly agree that in almost any case of Non-Russian ancestory, we should put the ancestory either in in the first line (say of Jewish origin) or in the first line of the biography (usually the second line of a bio-article) was born to a Jewish family, o to a Russian-German family or to a Russian noble family of a Tatar origin. Exemptions - avoid the ethnic references if they a controversial and was not recognized by the subject of the bio - Shafarevich and Primakov are not Jews, whatever evidence we have to support the thesis. abakharev 03:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Or should we? Probably the only clear-cut cases would be when a person firmly confirmed his ethnic affiliation (in Alexander Suvorov's manner, 'I'm proud to be Russian!'). As for your example with controversial Jews, again, what evidence "supports the thesis"? Soviet passport? anti-Semits? or Halacha? ... "Avoid the ethnic references," indeedy. What difference does it make, anyway, whether, say, Aivazovsky was of Armenian extraction? (Funny ... I mentioned Aivazovsky just because his name popped up in my head, and then looked up the article on him at Wiki. Sure enough, in its first edition the article proclaimed him an Armenian painter. Are there any Armenian nationalists lurking in the dark as well?) --Barbatus 07:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they are lurking in the dark. Please take a look at Bagrationi, where a war between Armenian and Georgian editors is raging. Also, Aivazovsky's name has been repeatedly changed from Ivan to Hovhannes in the List of painters --Ghirlandajo 08:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think these rules are very sensible. For a related discussion, please take a look Talk:Nikolai Gogol. --Irpen 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Two lessons from the Talk:Nikolai Gogol:

1. If the art of a Russian-language writer is strongly and undeniably inspired by his ethnic herritage e.g Nikolai Gogol, Fazil Iskander then it is mandatory to mention it somewhere close to the first line. It is also appropriate to include the ethnic roots in the category.
2. In disputable cases avoid linking e.g. Russian writer to the disambig Russian or Russia, instead link to Russian language, Russian literature, Russian art, etc. Maybe just create redirects Russian writer, Russian painter, etc. abakharev 03:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and this is exactly how it was amiably solved in Gogol's article. That was before the crusaders entered these discussions and all disagreements could be resolved peacefully and productively at those times of peace. Another way to link is [[List of Russian authors|Russian writer]]. --Irpen 06:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a very important question and a great proposal. I am not sure about having writers based just on their language, maybe in difficult cases we could say, on culture they belong to or contribute to? or is it too vague? anyway, it must become really helpful to have something in place what the majority would support, even if not perfect in every detail. Incidentally... noticed a recent discussion on this topic at village pump/policy, where they used articles about 'Russians' as an example too (and came pretty close :). So I just thought perhaps seeing how other folk view this issue now might help get a better feel of how best to gain broader support? - Introvert ^talk 08:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Though the talk at the Village Pump has not been finished yet, I think its main trend is clear: it is inappropriate to state person's ethnicity unless it's important for that person's notability. And because (in our case) there is a confusion about 'nationality,' probably it's better to avoid it completely: When in doubt, don't mention it. --Barbatus 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind, there is a good reason why serious biographies begin with description of a person's roots. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In the so called "perfect world," it would be just natural ... let's keep in mind what all this conversation is about: nationalists' claims on some famous person's ethnic affiliation (or lack thereof), and all those pesky little wars resulting from such claims. --Barbatus 20:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Does Walter Scott was english writer?

Consider the case of no-longer-existing states or nationalisties - or those that changed significantly. Consider how to fit into this proposal the case of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and that to be Polish in the 17th century is not the same as to be Polish today. In several controversial cases my solution was to write 'a citizen of the PLC' instead of 'Polish' (or 'Lithuanian', 'Ruthenian', 'Argentinian (yes, see Ignacy Domeyko :>)'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No original research, please

This is not our job here to develop criteria and decide wich was the nationality of writers, painters, etc. We have to base the WP articles on creadible sources. So we have to look into the articles published by experts in the field. If there are creadible sources stating that painter X contributed to Russian culture, then s/he is Russian painter, if other (or the same) sources state his/her contribution to Ukrainian cultute, then s/he both Russian and Ukrainian painter.

Ethnisity is a separate question. One can be a Russian painter without being ethnic Russian and vice versa.

Place of birth is the next separate question as well as the place of education and the place of work. Musicians that got their education in Italia are not necessary Italian musicians. Painters who contributed to Russian culture working in emigration are Russian painters.

Please do not invent the wheel. Just look into the sources.--AndriyK 12:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention

Shouldn't this be considered a part of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions, just as Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names, a very similar proposal, is?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions, I will move the proposal there abakharev 01:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good

I thought about this for a while and came to much the same conclusions as you. The adjective can be seen as being tightly attached to the following noun, rather than the person. So, an American politician is a person who conducted politics in America, as opposed to a politician who was born in America or had American ancestors. This just seems to be typical usage. On the other hand, I would more firmly emphasize that if there is any conflict or lack of clarity, it's best to be explicit. For example, it might make sense to say Mickiewicz is a Polish poet, but it's clearer still to say he was an author of Polish poetry. An explicit statement that can only be taken literally is much less politically charged (and is a great way to resolve an edit war). Deco 06:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Wernher von Braun a German rocket scientist or an American rocket scientist? (Once the rockets go up/ Who cares where they come down?). Is Luis Bunuel a French filmmaker or a Spanish filmmaker? I think there are too many cases where the criteria don't provide guidance, so I'd rather leave it to editorial discretion.Ferret-aaron 07:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the proposal Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies#Painters, Musicians, Scientists:

1. Both

2. Germany

3. Germany

4. Both

5. None

6. Probably both

Resume: He is German and American Rocket scientist. I think intuitevly the resulne is right. abakharev 03:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Or you could just be explicit, like the article does now: "[...] von Braun [...] was one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Germany and the United States. Originally a German scientist leading Nazi Germany's rocket program [...] he entered the United States at the end of the war [...]". I think any potentially ambiguous case should get the "explicit" treatment. Deco 05:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree abakharev 06:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

At a quick read, the proposal seems reasonable. It also seems rather verbose and confusing, though. Is there any chance of tightening it up? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)