Talk:Ukrainian Dancers

Move to "Russian Dancers"

The name given by the author is 'Russian Dancers', so the title must be consistent.

• "Degas himself (mistakenly) titled a series of works with this name".[1]

Mhorg (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No, we title articles by the most WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RELIABLESOURCES, giving weight to names used after WP:NAMECHANGES. RS clearly state that the name was wrong and have retitled it to respect Ukrainian identity.

Why would we want to intentionally disrespect that? While the change is absolutely supported by the content guidelines, it is also in line with the Wikimedia:Universal Code of Conduct: people may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, e.g., ethnic groups may use a specific name to describe themselves, rather than the name historically used by others.  —Michael Z. 16:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here, as the extremely most used name is 'Russian Dancers':

• Russian Dancers 15000
• Ukrainian Dancers 4800

"Why would we want to intentionally disrespect that?" This is no disrespect, it is literally the name given by the author to one of his works. We are disrespecting the author the moment we alter the title given by him.

About Wikimedia:Universal Code of Conduct, if I am not mistaken, these are the guidelines on how we Wikipedia editors should behave among ourselves. I think it has nothing to do with the topic. Mhorg (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean by “COMMONNAME does not apply,” but anyway I disagree.

I have also read that Degas didn’t formally title these drawings but that museums named them. The Met recently renamed one “Dancer in Ukrainian Dress.”[2] I think you’ll need more sources to confirm this is the artist’s formal title.

In case you’re not aware, different terminology was used for Ukrainians under Russian imperialism than is today, but it is obsolete. We can refer to it in a historical context, but we don’t use it. We don’t refer to Ukrainians as “Russians,” “Little Russians,” or “Khokhols,” all of which are seen as expressions of diminishment or denial of Ukraine and Ukrainians.

Regarding the UCC, seriously, now it’s as if one was looking for excuses to sneak disrespect into article copy. Article copy incorporating prejudice does not make this an inclusive and positive environment, but the opposite.

But I see it say:

• “avoid bias and prejudice”
• “applies to . . . aspects of content contribution”
• “when communicating with or about these people”
• “content vandalism and abuse”: “deliberately introducing biased, false, inaccurate or inappropriate content” . . . “systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view”

 —Michael Z. 20:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strange thing, I didn't find the source about Degas himself naming the series, while writing this article last year. It seemed to me he was half-blind that time and more interested in finishing works than naming or disignating them as series. As far as I understand, Lisa Bixenstine in 1980s was the first to prove it is really one series, not artificial collection of items. I cannot remember her writing "this is how Degas called it". So anonymous note from Getty.edu looks confusing itself to me. --Brunei (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  The Getty’s description does say he named them thus,[3], although I’d like to see that confirmed by some other source.

  The only direct quotation I’ve found is in the Bixenstine PhD dissertation, where he asked someone to come see his “orgy of colour.”

  Of course it’s quite possible that he referred to the drawings or the subjects as danseuses Russes, as they came from the Russian empire, and Ukrainians in Europe were commonly referred to as Ruthenians, Russians, or “Little Russians” at the time. But current sources are renaming them.

  There’s no reason to ignore NAMECHANGES, especially since today the old name disrespects Ukrainian self-identification and culture.  —Michael Z. 22:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it is important to look for additional sources for Degas' names or attributions. Maybe he called several of the pastels danseuses Russes, and then art curators approximated it to others? I am not an art historian, but can ask someone closer to the field. --Brunei (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  For me there is nothing derogatory about it, if the artist has given that name to one of his works of art that name should not be altered. That would be manipulation and a derogatory act towards the author.

  I agree with Brunei, in my opinion we need to show this discussion to other users, perhaps art experts. Mhorg (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Mzajac the destructive work you are conducting here is against wikipedia policies. The "cancel culture" you are trying to impose on the name of the series and to push the WP:OWN is beyond any normal conduct.

  Given the time the painting were created 1890, and autor namimg them danseuses Russes the post february 2022 articles are not reliable sources Pixius talk 10:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Masterworks of European Painting in the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston p190 print 2000

  Describes that Degas was fascinated with then emerging popularion from the Tsardom of Russia. The book explicitly said the Russian culture and Russian dancers.

  The post 24.02. events cannot rewrite what is written in the past and alter the history.

  You behave like in 1984 novel the ministry of truth Pixius talk 13:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Pixius: The tone of your comments are an inappropriate escalation. Others are citing sources and policy focused on the topic itself, not using emotional language, buzzwords, or commenting on editors' motivations. Please keep the discussion civil and assume good faith. DMacks (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, the tone is quite fine. None of the changes are done in WP:AGF, which is clearly seen form the sources, tone and discussion on the page. The mantras of "Russina Imperialism","self-identification" from MSM is entwined in sentences like: "...In case you’re not aware, different terminology was used for Ukrainians under Russian imperialism than is today...", " especially since today the old name disrespects Ukrainian self-identification and culture" are not in good faith, but used as a cover for the wrong doings.

  "...But current sources are renaming them..." Every single source prior to the 24.02. is calling these paintings "danseuses Russes". The getty.edu change of ".. Degas's "mistakenly" naming them Russian.." is as well made post 24.02. events. How do we know that he was mistaken?

  As the matter of fact, no one has proven these people are Russians/Ukrainians. What if they were Gypsies form Russian Tsardom, what if they were the people identifying them self as a Russian, or were they Novo Serbians in todays Luhgansk, Donetsk and Zaporozije Oblast in than common attire?

  Degas catalogue (https://www.degas-catalogue.com/danseuse-russe-394.html?direct=1) is naming also these paintings as Russian Dancers. The Bing search Russian Dancers returns pictures with the same combination of pastel, white, reddish attire and red boots [4]https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=russian+dancers&qpvt=russian+dancers&form=IQFRML&first=1

  Also fyi Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF.

  Cheers

  Pixius talk 15:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wow.

  I suggest you read the article and look at its sources instead of indulging in pure speculation about Romani people (“Gypsies”: “In the English language the Romani people are widely known by the exonym Gypsies [or Gipsies], which is considered pejorative by some Romani people due to its connotations of illegality and irregularity as well as its historical use as a racial slur”).

  This article cites a 36-year-old PhD dissertation that proves they were Ukrainian and not Russian.[5] The dissertation even disproves older speculative previous theories, but doesn’t refer to any “Gypsies.” (Nor does it seem to say that Degas titled the series.)

  The National Gallery said “The title of this painting has been an ongoing point of discussion for many years and is covered in scholarly literature; however there has been increased focus on it over the past month due to the current situation so therefore we felt it was an appropriate moment to update the painting’s title to better reflect the subject of the painting,”[6] and “these dancers are almost certainly Ukrainian rather than Russian”[7] The Getty Museum appended to an old essay acknowledging the misnomer and referring to Russian-empire Russification policies.[8] The Met has renamed a pastel in its collection.[9][10]

  Sources since say they were Ukrainian. Sources that reconsider the name are changing it. This is all happening late, finally prompted by the nine-year Russian war, but it is happening.

  Seriously. I’m literally just reading the article for you here.

  (Please try to write about the subject and not about me.)  —Michael Z. 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Mzajac this is one PhD thesis, and PhD thesis doesn't prove anything.

  And just like a thesis it does not examine whose these people are. You can wear Irish attire, it does not mean you are an Irish

  In a light of a post 24.02. events this is taken as a Strawman argument.

  Again, as yiu went off-topic, in my land, call a Gypsies as Romani, they will smack you.

  And one of the pillars of Wiki is objectivity.

  You being an of Ukrainian descent disqualify you from being objective, thus pushing a single 36 y.o. thesis as the only valid source of information.

  And I can be sure, the same gymnastics will be applied to the regional national attires worn by multiple ethnic groups. And no, it is not a slippery slope fallacy

  Pixius talk 19:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Pixius, you don’t have permission to speculate about my descent or any other personal details about me, per WP:PRIVACY. You don’t have the right to disqualify editors based on your speculations about their ancestry. Please delete or strike those offensive remarks.  —Michael Z. 19:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Mzajac I am not disqualifying you.

  I am writing about you not being objective. Taking only one dubious source and build a narative around it post 24.02. is a part of canceling culture.

  Your bias disqualifies you. Pixius talk 21:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Mzajac and please read the WP:Privacy again Pixius talk 21:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The origin of the name

Hi @Brunei, could you show what part from this source[11] is used for the text below? Thank you!

• "so throughout the 20th century these paintings were attributed as "Russian dancers" in English and French sources, despite vast ethnographic and art historical evidence for the Ukrainian origin of the women."

Mhorg (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You can browse through pages 105, 107, 109 and several next ones. Degas' dancing Russians are Ukrainian (p. 107). --Brunei (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I replaced the source.[12]  —Michael Z. 16:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn’t notice the PDF link on the cited page before. The dissertation discusses the ethnography and Degas’s subject in detail on pp 102–160. I will restore the citation.  —Michael Z. 17:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)