Talk:Mykola Kostomarov

Modification moved to talk

Text below moved from the article. If kept in the article in current form, it would only bring flames. Let's try to moderate and encyclopedize this.

As a historian, Kostomarov was a proponent of populism and federalism; that is, he strove to write the history of the common people, especially the common Ukrainian people, and was very innovative in his use of folksong and ethnography to do this. He believed that folksong revealed the true spirit of a people and thought that both in their history and in their national songs, the Ukrainian and Russian peoples differed from each other, as well as from their close neighbours, the Poles. He thought that the Russians were more autocratic in nature, the Poles more aristocratic, and the Ukrainians more democratic. Kostomarov saw federal principles at work in the early history of Rus', which was a varied and highly decentralized entity before the emergence of the Tsardom of Muscovy in the seventeenth century.

The anon editor who wrote it, please don't take this disagreement personally. Let's work this through. -Irpen 03:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen:

Kostomarov caused a great deal of controversy by his debunking of Russian historical myths during his lifetime, and, as you can see from the passage above, promoted a few of his own. I do not think that we should ignor them as they were very important, if controversial, in his own day, and are still very much operative, if still controversial, in the East Slavic world today.

Author, June 14, 2005—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.194.218 (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

Hi Author (sorry to address you impersonally, but since you chose not to register, there is no WP pseudonym I can use). I agree with you that importance of K was rather profound and we certainly should not ignore his influences. He was one of the pioneers in the East-Slavic historical thought dominated then, and I admit to a large degree now, by russophilic scholarship (and by russo- I mean Great Russian (Velikorossiya)). OTOH, he certainly had his own prejudices. I did not read much of analysis on Kostomarov, but I can certainly tell from his book that he was heavily biased towards Eastern Orthodoxy. I researched very little and recently compiled a brief article on the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius as well as this one. This, and my memories from reading his book, is not enough for me to write anything else. I opposed the text you included in that form (and moved it to the talk page) because I would like to see more sources if we are going to include the text that may seem inflammatory for revert wars. "Russians autocratic, Ukrainians democratic and Poles aristocratic" seems like stereotyping and oversimplification even if he thought along these lines. The Brotherhood article briefly mentions his Slavophile federalism ideas. Perhaps we should stay within those limits also here unless we are ready to dig deep in research. Regards, -Irpen 04:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen:

I have taken your comments into consideration in my rewrite and additions to the Kostomarov article. I trust that it is now "objective" enough and "encyclopedic" enough for your taste. We might not like them today, and they do seem rather out of date after the events of 1991, but Kostomarov's opinions were what they were in the mid-19th century.

I have also deleted the word "Slavophile" from the article as Kostomarov definitely did not fit the profile of the famous Moscow Slavophiles of the 19th century who as a rule were anything but "progressive". He was, however, very much a promoter of Pan-Slav cooperation and this comes out very clearly in his illegal pamphlet generally ascribed the title "The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People" which was the major programmatic document of the Cyril Methodian Brotherhood, and should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on that organization.

Best wishes, author—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.201.251 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

The word "Slavophile" you deleted is mentioned in the Brotherhood article in Encyclopedia of Ukraine [1]. If you think, Pan-Slavism is a more appropriate term, I don't mind that. Are you sure that K. was a "close friend" of Shevchenko? I know Shevchenko joined his "Brotherhood", but it does not mean yet they were close friends. Also, you write "Northern and Southern Rus'". In his letter he seems to freely interchange Northern with Great (Rus') and Southern with Little (Rus'). I included this info in my edit and linked to appropriate terms. I would appreciate if you edit the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius should you like to add the info on the pamphlet you mentioned. Thanks, --Irpen 07:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

His attitude towards religion

I temporary moved to talk the following piece which raises my doubts:

"However, he was quite open towards western forms of Christianity and seldom betrayed any strong bias against Catholicism. At times during his career, he was even accused of being a Polonophile."

If one looks at the last paragraph of his book's chapter devoted to Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski, (K. calls him and the chapter: "Knyaz' Konstantin Konstantinovich Ostrozhskiy"), his misgivings about Catholicism and polonization are very strong. There he present a very negative analysis of this phenomenon. Please see here. Also, this chapter devoted to Peter Mogila reveals similar sentiments. If you can't read in Russian, I will try to provide a brief translation of the most relevant material. Or perhaps the English translation of the book exists. Does it? -Irpen 18:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen: Thank you for your critical comments and the references. I have read that final paragraph from the essay on Ostrozhky (though my Russian is getting a bit rusty, I admit) and my impression is that it is quite typically Kostomarov. Of course, he was critical of Polonization. But what Ukrainian historian wasn't? Well, perhaps Lypynsky, or Tomashivsky to some extent.... But I still believe that Kostomarov did not share that blind hostility to Catholicism and everything Polish that was propagated by reactionary Russian Slavophiles like M.I. Koialovich, who wrote extensively on the evils of the Church Union. Kostomarov too saw many problems with the Union, but he dared to speak Polish in Vilnius on the eve of the Polish insurrection and was critical of Old Muscovy for not allowing the construction of Catholic churches on its territory. He even gave a copy of On the Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis to his fiancee on the eve of his wedding day. In sum, I believe that for all of his undeniable and very sincere devotion to Orthodoxy, Kostomarov knew and was more open to Catholic culture than many of his contemporaries. All good wishes.... Author—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.206.91 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

Hi author, thanks much for improvement to the article. I don't doubt that K. might have expressed less animosity to Poland, the Catholic church and the Union than most of his contemporary colleagues in the Imperial Russia. But his attitude, being less negative than others' and perhaps even tolerant, was still highly critical for very understandable reasons. Leaving the text in the original version may somewhat mislead the reader who is likely to be unfamiliar with the details of that time's debates among Russian historians. So, we should either bring this into the full context of strong anti-Catholicism of mid-19th century Russia (which would be not easy to do in a couple of sentences) or just leave this part out of the article, at least for now. I changed "debunked" by "doubted" for Susanin because the issue wasn't settled neither then nor now. I also added an image. The article doesn't seem to be a stub anymore, but of course it can use some expansion. There is plenty of info, even on the internet. Hopefully, other editors will join. -Irpen 06:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Name

Mykola seems more common in English than Nikolai or Nikolay. Page should be moved. Ostap 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you show any comparison that would lead to such conclusion? --Irpen 06:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Google searches. Ostap 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Links? Also, how about books and scholarly articles? --Irpen 19:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[2] 7 results for Nikolay, [3] 108 results for Nikolai, [4] 309 for Mykola. Magocsi and Subtelny and Andrew Wilson all use Mykola. Also see a recent (1996) biography Mykola Kostomarov: A Biography University of Toronto Press. This work is cited in numerous scholarly works.

And is there a reason why the article has this specific image? Encyclopedia of Ukraine has a few that I would consider better. Maybe this one. Ostap 22:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it is more likely that Ukrainian historians would use a Ukrainian form of his name while the Russian historians would use the Russian form. Google Books and Google Scholar show that Nikolai is used more often. I checked JSTOR and it gives to Nikolai a similar advantage (JSTOR requires subscription to access but I can provide the results if requested.) --Irpen 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for me. Google books and scholar shows me that Mykola is more common. JSTOR also gives me more results for Mykola. Ostap 21:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There must be a problem. I receive more results for "Mykola Kostomarov" than "Nikolai Kostomarov" in goolge books, google scholar, and in a basic search of JSTOR. This is apparently the opposite of what you are getting. Ostap 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, tell me your results. If they are in agreement with mine, then I believe this page should be moved. Ostap 19:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved. I did a Google search and got 2,680 results for "Mykola Kostomarov" [5] while "Nikolai" yielded 218 [6] and "Nikolay" yielded 557[7]. --BoguslavM 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, given the results that I get, I think this page move would be uncontroversial and I would move it right now. But, Irpen has not only contested the move he has also claimed to get opposite data. I think I will have to request a move. Ostap 03:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I searched JSTOR again and no matter how you look at it, Nikolai has an advantage. Additionally, several uses of Mykola are in fact reviews of Prymak's book titled "Mykola Kostomarov: A Biography" (Buffalo, U. Toronto Press, 1996). Obviously, the authors of the reviews would not alter the title of the book they are reviewing in the titles of their reviews. (Also, this book collects a good share of google and google book hits. Whenever other books refer to it, they spell its title and this gives google hit to book title even if book's authors actually don't use Mykola.) Also, some of the Mykola hits in JSTOR are to articles which in fact use Nikolai throughout the text and Mykola is an author or a title in the references list. I searched for entire JSTOR archive or for the last 15 years only (in case Mykola prevailed lately) but it got no advantage in any search. I can bring in detailed results if none of the move's proponents has JSTOR subscription to check for themselves. --Irpen 08:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is a scholarly source. I just conducted a search there, and although there is no separate article about him, he is mentioned there four times as "Mykola Kostomarov" and not mentioned as "Nikolay" or "Nikolai". --BoguslavM 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My searches of jstor, google books, and google scholar show opposite results. Boguslav's example of Britannica shows that Mykola is indeed used in English language. Ostap 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Nikolay Kostomarov → Mykola Kostomarov – WP:COMMONNAME. See the talk section above for previous discussion.

Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that this spelling is used more than others since the 1950s,[8] from about 63% to 83% of the total in recent decades.[9]

Google Books Search (per WP:SET, linking last page of results)

• "Mykola Kostomarov" -Wikipedia Page 47 of about 166,000 results (467 actually shown)
• "Nikolai Kostomarov" -Wikipedia Page 47 of about 51,600 results (464)
• "Nikolay Kostomarov" -Wikipedia Page 15 of about 2,360 results (141)

Google Scholar

• "Mykola Kostomarov" -Wikipedia Page 91 of 914 results
• "Nikolai Kostomarov" -Wikipedia Page 28 of 285 results
• "Nikolay Kostomarov" -Wikipedia Page 6 of 60 results

(Incidentally, this is another example of a Russian name [Nikolai] that the clear majority of reliable sources spell according to the modified Library of Congress romanization, and not according to one of the obsolescent British systems [as Nikolay] or our non-standard, amateur-created WP:Romanization of Russian scheme, hinting that we should review and retire or change that essay.) —Michael Z. 22:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per strongly-researched and well-supported nomination. The need for the move to reflect the name's specific identity had been the subject of a discussion 14 years ago, above, under Talk:Nikolay Kostomarov#Name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 November 2022 (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.

Kostomarov’s nationality

Collecting a few sources here.

Kostomarov belongs right near the top of the field of Ukrainian national literature and history. He wrote in both languages (Ukrainian was subject to censorship). He was Russian in terms of imperial citizenship. He was apparently of mixed Russian–Ukrainian ancestry. Kostomarov was born in the sloboda of Yurasovka (Yurasivka), Sloboda Ukraine, in Ukrainian-speaking territory of the Russian empire.

Standard histories:

• Orest Subtelny 1988, Ukraine: A History (1st ed.).
  • 641, “Ukrainian historian.”
• Paul Robert Magocsi 1996, A History of Ukraine.
  • 52, “. . . the leading nineteenth- and twentieth-century historians of Russia (. . .) and their successors in the West (. . .), as well as by some Ukrainian historians (Kostomarov, Kulish, Antonovych, Tomashivsʼkyi).”
  • 358, “the Ukrainian writers [3 names] and Mykola Kostomarov.”
  • 361, “. . . three figures who were to become the leading symbols of the Ukrainian national revival: Mykola Kostomarov, Panteleimon Kulish, and Taras Shevchenko. ¶ Mykola Kostomarov was born in far eastern Sloboda Ukraine near Voronezh . . .
  • 368, “Ukrainian writers like Kostomarov and Kulish . . .”
  • 416, “The leading members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia (Shevchenko, Kostomarov, and Kulish) were being exiled from their homeland . . .”
  • 672 “Publicists and historians in particular took advantage of glasnostʼ in order to fill in the ‘blank spots’ in Ukrainian history. Past cultural figures were ‘rehabilitated,’ such as the nineteenth-century national activists Panteleimon Kulish and Mykola Kostomarov, . . .”
• Serhii Plokhy 2015, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine.
  • 156, “a professor of history at Kyiv University, Mykola (Nikolai) Kostomarov—he would later become the founder of modern Ukrainian historiography . . . Born to the family of a Russian noble in Voronezh province on the border of Sloboda Ukraine, Mykola Kostomarov often stressed that his mother was a Ukrainian peasant woman.”
• Serhy Yekelchyk 2007, Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation.
  • 42, “Ukrainian activists, including Shevchenko and Kostomarov . . .”
• Andrew Wilson (historian) 2002, The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation (2nd ed.).
  • 8, “The nineteenth-century Ukrainian historian Mykola Kostomarov. . .“
  • 88, “Even one of the great founding fathers of Ukrainian history and literature, Mykola Kostomarov, . . .”
• Anna Reid 1997, Borderland: A Journey Through the History of Ukraine.
  • 81, “Mykola Kostomarov, a young historian at Kiev’s St Vladimir University. Kostomarov was the leader of the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius, one of the many semi-secret discussion groups which produced the radical political thinking of the time. Comprising only a dozen or so members, the Brotherhood’s utopian aim was to abolish serfdom and monarchy and form a new pan-Slavic democratic federation, with Ukraine at its head. The program was set out in ‘The Books of Genesis of the Ukrainian People,’ . . . ”

Bibliographic databases:

• VIAF:[10] About/Nationality or associated country: RU – Russian Federation/UA – “RU - Russian Federation,” “UA - Ukraine,” “Russian Empire”
• ISNI:[11] “Russian-Ukrainian historian,” “український і російський історик, поет-романтик, мислитель, громадський діяч, етнопсихолог,” “украинский и российский общественный деятель, историк, публицист и поэт”
• Deutsche National Bibliothek[12]: Russian–Ukrainian writer and historian (“Russ.-ukrain. Schriftsteller und Historiker”)
• National Library of Poland:[13] Russian and Ukrainian historian, writer and ethnographer, and one of the first critics of Ukrainian literature. (“Rosyjski i ukraiński historyk, pisarz i etnograf oraz jeden z pierwszych krytyków literatury ukraińskiej.”)
• Bibliography of the Czech Lands:[14] Ukrainian writer, professor of history at the University of Kyiv and St. Petersburg. (“Ukrajinský spisovatel, profesor dějin na univerzitě v Kyjevě a Petrohradě.”)
• Brockhaus:[15] Ukrainian historian and writer (“ukrainischer Historiker und Schriftsteller, * Jurassowka”)
• Consortium of European Research Libraries Thesaurus:[16]  ? ? Russian–Ukrainian writer and historian (“Red. SSG. Russ.-ukrain. Schriftsteller und Historiker.”)
• Sapere.it (De Agostini):[17] Ukrainian historian, poet, and patriot (“storico, poeta e patriota ucraino”)
• Lexok:[18] Russian–Ukrainian historian (“russisk-ukrainsk historiker”)
• Fundamental Electronic Library of Russian Literature and Folklore:[19] Famous historian, Ukrainian-Russian poet and fiction writer (“известный историк, украино-русский поэт и беллетрист”)
• Open MLOL:[20] Ukrainian historian and writer (“uno storico e scrittore ucraino”)
• Store Norske Leksikon:[21] A Russian–Ukrainian historian, publicist, and poet (“en russisk-ukrainsk historiker, publisist og dikter”)
• Treccani:[22] Russian–Ukrainian historian and poet (“Storico e poeta russo-ucraino”)

 —Michael Z. 00:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• • Actually, in the text of the article it is already written that Kostomarov had Russian and Ukrainian roots. I quote: “His father was a Russian landlord, Ivan Petrovich Kostomarov, and he belonged to Russian nobility. His distant family roots were in the Grand Duchy of Moscow from the reign of Boris Godunov. His mother Tatiana Petrovna Melnikova, was an ethnic Ukrainian peasant and one of his father's serfs”.
  • In the text of the preamble is also clearly written that he was a Russian Imperial historian and at the same time a member of the Ukrainian national revival movement. So I don't understand what else can be said or improved here. References to bibliographical catalogs are of no help here at all. The goal of catalogs is to mention all reliable transcriptions of the name and to give a short information about the field of knowledge to make searching possible.
  • The mention of the Sloboda Jurasovka in relation to Kostomarov's language skills is absolutely irrelevant for two reasons: 1) The term Sloboda-Ukraine in the Russian Empire had no relation to the Ukrainian people as a modern nation. It is only the designation of the border area; 2) Kostomarov has lived in Moscow since his childhood and received his first education there. It is known from his letters that he was already an adult when he started learning Ukrainian. He used this language primarily in his folkloristic investigations. All of Kostomarov's historical writings are written in Russian.
  • The reason why Kostomarov is significant in Ukrainian history is primarily his participation in the so-called Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius from January 1846 to March 1847 and his reflections about “Southern Russians” and “Northern Russians”. But it is only a part of his research and it is clear from the list of his writings mentioned in Wikipedia.
  • In Summary: The current version of the preamble describes the subject in detail (including the question of his national identity) and I see no reason to speculate about it here. Best regards, Ушкуйник (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

    Reliable sources define Kostomarov as Ukrainian. This article is flawed as long as it does not. No amount of verbally dancing around the subject justifies your relentless campaign of Russification of Ukrainian subjects.  —Michael Z. 17:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Above, I’ve listed the standard Ukrainian histories that I have access to. To compare, I went through the list of sources at History of Russia#Surveys and searched the ones I have access to to see how they define Kostomarov.

• Bartlett, A History of Russia: 0 results[23]
• The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union: 0 results[24]
• Bushkovitch, A Concise History of Russia: “back in Kiev [Taras Shevchenko] soon joined the historian Nikolai Kostomarov and other local intelligentsia who were dreaming of Slavic federalism. . . . the tiny Ukrainian intelligentsia . . . the nascent Ukrainian intelligentsia . . . small groups of intellectuals with a Ukrainian cultural orientation,” and “the Ukrainian movement” in contrast to “Russian radical groups.”[25]
• Harcave, Readings in Russian History: N. I. Kostomarov is only named in passing.[26]
• Hosking, Russia and the Russians: footnotes two works by N. I. Kostomarov on Ukrainian history[27]
• Kort, A Brief History of Russia: 0 results[28]
• Millar, ed., Encyclopedia of Russian History: “The first Ukrainian political organization in the Russian Empire . . . was led by the historian Mykola (Nikolai) Kostomarov . . . This organization of young Ukrainian patriots . . . ”[29]
• Pares, A History of Russia: 0 results[30]
• Paxton, Encyclopedia of Russian History: 0 results[31]
• Paxton, Companion to Russian History: 0 results[32]
• Riasanovsky, A History of Russia: “Kostomarov, Nikolai Ivanovich (1817–1888) Ukrainian historian.” (He is also quoted as a source on p 175.)[33]

My impression is that Kostomarov is a very important subject in Ukrainian history (Magocsi 1996: one of the “three figures who were to become the leading symbols of the Ukrainian national revival”), but only a notable subject in Russian colonial history when it considers the Ukrainian national movement. (He is also used as a reliable source on history of Russia and Ukraine.) —Michael Z. 18:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• • • That's really funny! You made so many efforts to find the sources where Kostomarov was not mentioned! It may impress people who have no knowledge of Slavic Studies, but it has absolutely no relevance to the topic of discussion. In fact, what you're doing here is some sort of politically-committed original research. There are a number of facts that cannot be doubted: 1) Kostomarov was born in the area of modern-day Russia and he died in Russia; 2) He wrote about all areas of the Russian Empire: from northern Russia, Moscow and Central Ukraine to regions of the Ural and Siberia; 3) The language of all his main writings about history was Russian. One cannot doubt these theses, so there is no point in further discussing of the topic at all. Ушкуйник (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

      Of course he wrote in Russian because publishing in Ukrainian was banned in the Romanovs’ empire, as you know.  —Michael Z. 21:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

      After he was allowed to return from exile, Kostomarov was still prohibited from teaching in universities in Ukraine, so he was forced to work in St. Petersburg (doi:10.2307/131577:600).  —Michael Z. 19:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

      For completeness, I added Reid 1997: that’s all of the standard Ukrainian historical surveys I have access to, and they all mention Kostomarov.

      Kostomarov was also internally exiled because Shevchenko, with Kostomarov’s Brotherhood, could induce thoughts of “the possibility of Ukraine’s existence as a separate state,” in the words of Alexey Orlov, head of Nicholas I’s secret police. —Michael Z. 21:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

      @Ушкуйник, since we’re not getting any closer to consensus, I have posted a request at WP:3O.  —Michael Z. 22:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

      • • There were some bans on printing in the Ukrainian language, especially after the Polish resistance, it’s true, but these prohibitions were not total and this topic has nothing to do with Kostomarov's national identity at all. You cannot know if Kostomarov wanted to write any of his historical writings in Ukrainian or not. It is pure speculation about the author's motives and cannot be taken seriously. With the same success it can be said that Gogol wrote his writings in Russian just because of the Romanovs’ policy, which of course is nonsense.
        • As I have already said, since his youth lived Kostomarov in Moscow, then in Voronezh. He did not know the Ukrainian language (at least at a higher level) since his childhood. His first languages were Russian and French. So it is not surprising at all that the number of his writings in Ukrainian is very small. As a historian and folklorist, he used Ukrainian to collect stories and write poetry. However, by that time he was already recognized as a specialist in Slavic studies.
        • If we take a look on the writings of specialists in Kostomarov's legacy, we find the following information about him: “Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov – Russian historian, ethnographer, publicist, literary critic, poet, playwright, public figure, corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, author of the multi-volume publication "Russian History in the Biographies of Its Main Figures", researcher of the socio-political and economic history of Russia and the modern territory of Ukraine, called by Kostomarov "southern Russia". Pan-Slavist”. See: [1]. It is a quotation from the work about Kostomarov by Dr. Elena Shirokova. She serves as a historian of Jurasovka, where Kostomarov was born.
        • We can easily find pretty similar definitions in the New Literary Dictionary, 2009 (see: [2]) by Prof. Tatyana Guryeva, in studies by Prof. Dr. Raisa Kireeva (she is known as a professional researcher of Kostomarov's life), Dr. Jaroslav Butakov, Prof. Alexander Kamenskii, etc.
        • So I repeat again: it is an article about the author who was born in Russia and died in Russia. He wrote his writings in Russian, at least almost all of them. He had Russian roots on his father's side and he was even recognized as an Active State Councilor of Russia. Nobody doubts that he liked Ukraine, but that doesn't mean that we should only see Ukrainophilia in Kostomarov's legacy now. His contribution to Russian intellectual history is evident and unquestionable. Ушкуйник (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

          Academic writing in Ukrainian was totally banned. You’re the one who first speculated that Kostomarov is “Russian” because he wrote in Russian (fallacious logic anyway). I provided the absolute factual explanation for it.

          Anyone can cherry-pick Russian sources that call Kostomarov Russian, period. Might be hard to find Russian sources that don’t. But I have a problem with your go-to online sources.

          The Russian Hrono “history” website you cited has genocide denial literature.[34][35][36]

          The Azbyka monastic website you linked to has religious teachings that demonize Ukrainians as “demons and secret atheists,” and deny Ukrainian nationality: “Kyiv without great Russia and separately from Russia is unthinkable.”[37]

          Hate speech.  —Michael Z. 16:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

          • • Another nice example of demagogic manipulation: I mentioned concrete reliable sources on Kostomarov and I clearly explained why his heritage cannot be reduced to Ukrainian motives. Instead, you criticize the websites on which these sources are present. Just out of interest I opened some of the links you mention: There are a number of sources from different time periods, including a work by Leon Trotsky and they are all unrelated to the topic of discussion at all. Since the sources you mention are unrelated to the topic of discussion, I think we should wait for the third opinion. Ушкуйник (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

              I referred to the sources you cited. If those are copied from elsewhere, I can’t identify the original sources from there, and you haven’t provided anything else. You’ve shown no evidence that these are reliable sources or “specialists,” and they don’t negate the body of citations I’ve provided above.

              It is disturbing that you refer to and approve of sites that publish unabashed hate speech and approve of them.  —Michael Z. 20:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

              And there is absolutely a relationship evident between the anti-Ukrainian sentiment evident in your sources and the systematic campaign of de-Ukrainization that you have waged in Wikipedia articles since 2014.  —Michael Z. 20:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

              • • I have only quoted and mentioned specialists directly investigating Kostomarov's legacy. Instead, you quoted only authors from the research field Ukrainian Studies. So it's not strange that in the essays by these authors you will mainly find references to Ukrainian topics. I have already formulated everything clearly and see no point in further discussion: 1) Kostomarov was born in Russia and died in Russia; 2) He had Russian roots, at least on his father's side he was a Russian nobleman; 3) He wrote his historical writings only in Russian. Thematically, his writings concern all areas of the Russian Empire, not just the territory of Ukraine; 4) He loved Ukraine, but nowhere did he say anything against the so-called Great or Northern Russians. His love for Ukraine was an organic part of his Panslavism. Because of this, Kostomarov viewed the concept of federalization positively, at the same time he was a strong critic of separatism in the Russian Empire. Ушкуйник (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I am Springnuts, a formerly uninvolved editor. I have not, AFAIK, previously interacted with any other editor involved. Michael and Ушкуйник have a disagreement about whether Mykola Kostomarov should be described as Russian or as both Russian and Ukrainian. See for example this diff [[38]] where Ушкуйник changes “one of the most distinguished Ukrainian and Russian Imperial historians …” to “one of the most distinguished Russian Imperial historians …” As is noted in the article, “the question of whether he was more "Russian" or more "Ukrainian" first arose while he was still alive and is still a matter of some dispute”. The two editors involved have discussed the matter in some depth (and generally with respect) on this talk page, under the somewhat misleading section heading “Kostomarov’s nationality”. A 3O request by [[user:Mzajac|Michael] ] asks for a 3O on “Should the lead be changed to first establish the subject’s identity as a Ukrainian historian and explain his notability as a symbol of the Ukrainian national revival?” The Lede should “give the basics in a nutshell”, therefore my opinion is that, because the subject is clearly established as important as a “Ukrainian historian”, and accepting and welcoming the ambiguity in that language, the subject should be so described in the Lede. The Lede here is not about establishing legal nationality, but locating this subject in the appropriate cultural settings. In my opinion “one of the most distinguished Ukrainian and Russian historians …” would fit the requirements of Wikipedia policy here. In so far as his notability as a symbol of the Ukrainian national revival is covered in the body of the article that information should be noted in the Lede. This is only my opinion, and editors are free to ignore it :) Springnuts (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Springnuts, thank you for taking the time to look into the details and respond. The recommendations suit me. @Ушкуйник, do you agree in principle? If so, I can make an edit that I think should be acceptable, and see if you approve. —Michael Z. 18:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Springnuts, thank you for participating in the discussion. The problem lies in the fact that we then relativize his state affiliation and even underestimate his importance for Russian history. Regardless of his Ukrainophilia, Kostomarov was a Russian statesman and was a patriot of the Russian Empire in its borders. For Kostomarov, his love for Ukraine was an organic part of Pan-Slavism. However, I assume that we have to find a compromise. I would support the following formulation: Kostomarov was “one of the most distinguished Russian Imperial historians, who made a significant contribution to the development of the Ukrainian national movement. Kostomarov was critical to the history of both modern-day Ukraine and Russia, with both nations claiming him as their own”. I think this version of the preamble should be acceptable to all sides. Ушкуйник (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not what the 3O recommended. It is not what sources say.  —Michael Z. 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing when a Russian historian receives a Ukrainian name in a foreign Wikipedia only because Ukraine was one of his main historical directions and therefore many sources called him Mykola through the prism of this. It is even strange that Gogol is still Nikolai here, and not Mykola. And yes, Kostomarov was one of my favorite historians since childhood. Unlike you, I read it practically in the original and even ethnically close to him (I also have Russian-Ukrainian roots). Kostomarov was never a Ukrainian nationalist. He is a typical left-wing Russian pan-Slavist who loves all Slavs, especially those to whom he belongs. His "History of the Russian State" is one of the best works on the history of Russian statehood that I have ever read in terms of patriotism and neutrality. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your amusement, but that is not why the current spelling was chosen. See #Requested move 13 November 2022 above. —Michael Z. 23:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving you the opportunity to portray an unbiased person, but I am well aware of this discussion. And that was exactly what I'm talking about. Blindly choosing a more "common" variant without considering why this variant was more common. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s innuendo. Just say it, and relate it to our guidelines, or it’s just a waste of attention.  —Michael Z. 04:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Kostomarov was no “typical Russian.” Serhii Plokhy 2021, The Frontline:

3: “National historians revolutionized historiography by abandoning the annals of dynasties and empires and studying the people. While they endowed their prospective nations with separate and unique pasts, their anti-imperial project also allowed for an element of universalism. Thus, most Ukrainian historians from Mykola Kostomarov to Mykhailo Drahomanov and Mykhailo Hrushevsky imagined their land as part of a future federation—Slavic in Kostomarov’s case, European in Drahomarov’s, and Russian in the case of early Hrushevsky.”

291: “The first to declare the pan-Russian nation obsolete were the members of the first Ukrainian political organization, the Brotherhood of SS. Cyril and Methods, which was led by historian Mykola Kostomarov and included Ukraine’s leading poet, Taras Shevchenko. These were intellectuals mobilized by the empire to fight for the pan-Russian idea against the Polish threat. Instead of being inspired by loyalty to the empire, these Romantics imagined Ukraine as the cornerstone of a federation of Slavic nations, on a par with Russia and Poland.”

Which History of the Russian State, is that? Are you sure you’re not thinking of Karamzin? —Michael Z. 02:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to quote a Western Ukrainian historian as a more authoritative source on Russian history than Russian @ not even hearing about Kostomarov's magnum opus as a historian, arguing about him - is a classic (especially considering that Kostomarov never identified himself as a Ukrainian historian and was a patriotic pan-Slavist all his life). Obviously, Kostomarov's nationality is more important to you than his real historical contribution, about which you really know little. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s wrong on several counts, and carries little weight without sources to back the claims. Certainly a new Harvard University Press publication is more authoritative on both Ukrainian and Russian history than the popular notion of history in Russia on Ukraine, much less what passes for it under current Kremlin censorship. It’s 2023, decolonization has been under way for decades, and even much of Western academia is only just catching on.[39]

The reliable sources, and discussion on this page, have established MK’s singular notability in the Ukrainian National Revival and top prominence in Ukrainian nation-building. In contrast, none of the major Wikipedia article on Russian history cite Kostomarov, only mention him as a subject of Ukrainian history.

Regarding what you misleadingly called “Kostomarov’s History of the Russian State”: it discusses Rusʼ, Kyivan Rus, Southwestern Rus (Galicia), Eastern Rus, Southern Rus, Northern Rus, and Western Rus, but doesn’t mention any “Russian state,” and only refers to Russia in the context of Muscovy or as contemporary “today’s Russia,” or European and Asiatic Russia.

Building an encyclopedia based on WP:reliable sources and not imposing Russian imperial history to WP:right great wrongs is what’s important to me.  —Michael Z. 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the lead

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 lead clearly establish the subject as important as a Ukrainian historian with “one of the most distinguished Ukrainian and Russian historians” and note that he is a symbol of the Ukrainian national revival?  —Michael Z. 16:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussed above in #Kostomarov’s nationality. —Michael Z. 16:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Also directly relevant but not yet mentioned in so many words is the fact that the majority of reliable sources, especially academic sources, refer to the subject by his Ukrainian name “Mykola Kostomarov” (evidence in #Requested move 13 November 2022, above). This is very unusual for a subject of the Russian empire, and is an indication of his primary association with and vital importance to Ukrainian history and culture.  —Michael Z. 16:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Lead should mention both Russian and Ukrainian, since consensus is split, and both are important to his identity.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Ortizesp, if you think it's the best solution, let's leave it as suggested. Ушкуйник (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

    The baseline text should reflect the suggestion in the 3O above, and not the article’s current state.  —Michael Z. 23:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, You appear to be arguing about - and the sources discussing - two distinct things. Firstly whether his nationality and/or ethnic identity was Ukrainian or Russian or both, and, secondly, whether his area of interest/speciality was Ukrainian or Russian history and/or culture etc. The two are not necessarily synonymous. Pincrete (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  No. I’m arguing about whether sources define Kostomarov as a Ukrainian historian and writer. And whether they support his encyclopedic notability and influence in the subject of Ukrainian history during the National Revival. That is all, and they clearly do, the latter being his primary reason for encyclopedic notability. (His political activities led to the development of modern Ukrainian identity, not Russian identity, and several sources quoted above name him as a critical figure in this.)

  He is also notable for his contribution as a historian to Ukrainian and Russian historiography by the articles he wrote, but that is not in question here. (And he is only one among multitudes in this. His academic career was curtailed because of his political activity.)

  I don’t believe sources do explicitly break out all those things you mention.  —Michael Z. 14:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  You are still not stating explicitly whether you mean his nationality (ethnicity?) , or his historical speciality. A Russian (or German, or Pole or whatever) can have "encyclopedic notability and influence in the subject of Ukrainian history during the National Revival.". Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I am trying to relate what the sources say when they define the subject, and not add my own interpretation. I don’t think I’ve seen any that use the term ethnicity (and I don’t know editors want to introduce it all the time). And this is clearly not about his area of study, but about how we identify him.

  See my quotes and links in the section #Kostomarov’s nationality above for more specific details.  —Michael Z. 17:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Lead should mention both Russian and Ukrainian. His works (in Russian) deal with both Russian and Ukrainian history and he's of mixed ancestry. The current lede seems to be fine btw. Alaexis_¿question? 10:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Lead should mention both Russian and Ukrainian, per Ortizesp. Nemov (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2022 (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.

RFC on the lead 2

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 lead describe Mykola Kostomarov as “a leading symbol of the Ukrainian national revival and one of the founders of modern Ukrainian historiography and literature” in the first paragraph, before listing his individual accomplishments? —Michael Z. 06:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see some more publicly accessible sources before coming to a view. By that I mean in authoriative publications that users can review without having to buy the books to which you refer.

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve quoted the cited sources and others above in #Kostomarov’s nationality.

Freely available is Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which notes his significance, discusses where he published the ides he originated, and (showing it is not hagiographic) also frankly assesses some of his other creative works as less significant:[40]

In Knyhy bytiia ukraïns’koho narodu (Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People), Ustav Slov’ians’koho tovarystva sv Kyryla i Metodiia: Holovni ideï (The Statute of the Slavic Society of Saints Cyril and Methodius: Its Main Ideas), and two proclamations, Kostomarov formulated the society’s program and basic ideas: Christian piety, democratic republicanism, a Ukrainian national renaissance, Ukrainian messianism, and Pan-Slavic federalism. . . .

Kostomarov wrote a number of fundamental works on the history of Ukraine in the 16th–18th centuries. . . .

Kostomarov was the founder of the populist trend in Ukrainian historiography.

Do you have access to a library? If it doesn’t have print editions it may give you online access, if you want more than the quotations i gave here. —Michael Z. 18:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The Magosci book is available via OpenLibrary. Here's a link to the cited page, and anyone can register an account to read the rest for free. Only one person can have it checked out at a time, so please return it when done.

I can confirm the Plokhy quote via Google Books preview, though those links sometimes don't work for everyone.

Wilson's book is also on OpenLibrary: page link (88). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have access to Prymak’s biography of Kostomarov, but here’s an excerpt from an academic review of it that speaks to Kostomarov’s significance as cultural figure vs. historian as such:

Edward A. Cole, Grand Valley State University (doi:10.1163/221023997X00861):

According to its author, although [the biography] evolved from a “project concerning nineteenth-century Russian historiography and the national question,” this study is actually “a biography written with an emphasis on Kostomarov’s role in the cultural politics of his day and on his place in the Ukrainian national awakening.” The book tends to persuade the reader that this was a correct choice of emphasis, for despite the fact that Kostomarov obviously considered himself above all to be an historian, over the course of time most of his historical hypotheses (for example the “two nationalities” premise) were modified by the profession, some (such as the “Zhmudic” theory of origin of the Russian state) were proved to be untenable, and those which were of lasting value survived largely because Ukrainian historians like Mykhailo Hrushevsk’kyj took them up. ...

Had it not been for his ethnographic passion for Ukrainian culture, he probably would be easily classified among the historically marginalized moderates such as his fellow historians Granovskii and Chicherin. . . . For most of us, Thomas Prymak’s biography will long remain the best means whereby to appreciate this irony and the greater importance of the remarkable Mykola Kostomarov.

 —Michael Z. 19:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)  —Michael Z. 19:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Another review by Stephen Velychenko, University of Toronto (doi:10.1086/ahr/102.5.1529-a):

Kostomarov came to be regarded as the founder of the populist school of Ukrainian historiography, however, because he provided a theoretical rationale to explain why the ruled rather than rulers should be the object of historical study, and he made “the people” the subject of most of his published work. Similarly, although A. P. Bestuzhev-Riumen had noted the decentralized nature of Kievan Rus before him, Kostomarov figures as the founder of the "federalist" trend in Russian historiography. . . .

Half-Russian by birth and brought up as a Russian speaker, . . . Finishing university in Kharkiv and then getting his first jobs in Ukrainian provinces, can account for Kostomarov’s becoming a Ukrainian with dual loyalties rather than a “Little Russian.” A nationalist in his youth, he was a founder of the first modern Ukrainian political organization . . . and the author of its manifesto.

 —Michael Z. 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Review by David Saunders, University of Newcastle (doi:10.1179/sla.2001.7.1.7):

Kostomarov was primarily responsible for inaugurating a tradition of federalism in Ukrainian political thought which, insofar as it contributed to the genesis of Ukrainian separatism, played a part in events on the southern front in the so-called ‘Russian’ civil war of 1917–21.

 —Michael Z. 19:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not see, such a necessity. There is no contradiction between the both informations (Kostomarov being accomplished academic and leading figure of Ukrainian movement, what's more both are complementary); neither of them seems to be more exposed than the other. Marcelus (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As a general guideline, we should try to avoid using the word "leading" as it can come off as a form of puffery. Instead of "a leading symbol" perhaps aim for something like "a notable figure": MOS:PUFFERY, MOS:WORDSTOWATCHWritethisway (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it forbidden to use this word on a talk page? Marcelus (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus 🙂 of course not. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There are thousands of notable figures in Ukrainian culture. Kostomarov was a founder, the author of the manifesto, an originator of the historiography, and among the most important handful in modern Ukrainian identity. He’s not just notable for being a cultural figure, he’s notable for his place amongst them.

I don’t mind using a different synonym, but if you scan the quotations from sources above, at least three or more use “leading.”  —Michael Z. 06:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a huge tug of war. The initiator of the discussion constantly pursues the goal of making Kostomarov a sovereign hero of the Ukrainian national movement. For this reason, he first ukrainized the name of the historian who lived in the Russian Empire, belonged to Russian nobles (at least on the father's side) and wrote practically all his writings in Russian and about all regions of Russia (see the list of his writings). Then attempts were made to question his nationality. For this, the texts such as the so-called Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People were used, which were only published after the death of Kostomarov and attributed to him without evidence, although their true authorship is unknown. Kostomarov himself claimed that the story of the so-called Brotherhood of Kirill and Methodius was mystified. Now Mzajac is trying to change the order of sentences in the text of the preamble in order to further underline the affiliation with Ukraine. The text of the preamble has already been discussed several times and I personally see no reason to change anything, since everything has already been formulated very precisely. In summary, I see a purely politically motivated discussion here that has no relation to improving the essay about historian. Ушкуйник (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not “ukrainize” Kostomarov’s name, and I’m not trying to turn him into anything. I just want this article to reflect what reliable sources write about him. I have been trying to write about sources, and not indulge in speculative theories, cast aspersions on other editors, nor edit-war over the lead while it’s being discussed[41][42][43] in an article that’s subject to discretionary sanctions.  —Michael Z. 23:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ушкуйник, thanks for moving the foreign names next to their corresponding English renderings.[44]

Of course that has no bearing on the recent edit warring I refer to. What is under discussion here is the priority of the reason for his notability and his identification. —Michael Z. 00:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose — Mzajac and his heroic patriot buddies have done more than enough damage to enwiki already. — 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

“Russo-Ukrainian historian”

The lead defines the subject as “one of the most distinguished Russo–Ukrainian historians.” It cites four sources, but none of them says “Russo-Ukrainian.” The first[45] lists his places of birth, education, work, and notable activity with the Brotherhood of SS Cyril and Methodius and his arrest, calls him “historian, publicist, and writer.” The second mentions him in two articles[46][47] both placing him among “authors” in the context of literature of Ukraine, specifically Ukrainian Romanticism. The third, a Russian state encyclopedia (notable for propagandizing the borders of Ukraine and Russia), has deleted its article,[48] but formerly described him as a “ historian, ethnographer, publicist, writer, corresponding member” of the Russian state, “ros.”[49] but this is probably not a reliable source on this subject. The fourth, a Russian Biographical Dictionary (2000) of unknown provenance, calls him an ethnic-Russian historian (“russkiĭ istorik”).

See MOS:CONTEXTBIO for guidance on context. His ethnicity shouldn’t be featured. The “context for the activities that made the person notable” is Ukraine and Russia in the Russian empire: Kyiv, where he taught and was arrested, St. Petersburg and Saratov, where he was imprisoned and exiled.  —Michael Z. 07:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Before, the lead was “Russian-Ukrainian”, I was the one who truncated it to Russo-Ukrainian. Nonetheless, it should be reverted if necessitated for precision. Raulois (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see sources defining him as “Russian-Ukrainian” either. I realize some sources might refer to him as Russian meaning “in the Russian empire,” and Ukrainian meaning “active in and important to Ukraine” or some such, and one might be tempted to define his ethnic ancestry as Russian-Ukrainian based on his parentage. But this label is an example of WP:SYNTH if sources don’t use it, and it is vague and can be interpreted in different ways as I’ve outlined.

I think the label is not supported by the cited sources and should be removed.

Per the MOS, we shouldn’t try to define his ethnicity unless it’s significant. We should give context by stating where he was born and active, and convey his national significance, clearly, using referenced facts. In this case, I don’t believe an ambiguous adjective like “Russian” or “Ukrainian,” which can be interpreted as geographical, ethnic, civil, national, or other kind of designator, is at all helpful for this person in the context of the Ukrainian National Revival in imperial Russia and colonial Ukraine, where national identity was not straightforward and not defined the way it is today.  —Michael Z. 18:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)