Talk:Aleksandra Ekster

I moved this phrase here

so that we could discuss it.

", and one of the founders of Art Deco. "

After searching far and wide and looking at as much of her work as possible, I've been unable to find verification of this claim. I don't mind being wrong if someone can substantiate this claim. Carptrash (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

Note: Since I don't think you've added all of your edits yet, I'm just going to review the article as a whole rather than just your edits. Here are a few places where the article is lacking:

• Firstly, this article is seriously lacking citations. There are whole sections that don't contain any citations, which is pretty problematic and makes the information within the article seem illegitimate.
• Because of the layout/formatting, it seems as if everything falls under the "Biography" heading. This heading could be replaced with Personal Life (or something of that nature) with Childhood, Marriage, and Emigration underneath it. As we have learned in class, the artist's personal life isn't always directly reflected in their artwork, so I think it should be separated from her professional life as an artist. With that being said, I would add a "Career" heading with information about her as an artist, which is the rest of the article (that is currently separated into various cities that seem to have influenced her.)
• As far as the city headings go, I wouldn't necessarily organize an article in this fashion, but if the cities really had profound influences on her artwork or career, then maybe it is the best way. I don't know enough about Exter to really comment one way or another. A "Style" heading would be particularly useful, however - the article states that she was involved in several movements, but I am still left wondering what her particular style was really like. If she was highly influenced by different artistic styles, this may be a better way to structure the layout.
• The Paris heading in particular is really disjointed. I'm not sure that all of the information under this heading is necessary, especially the rather lengthy quote toward the end. Quotes should generally be avoided.
• There are a couple issues with neutrality - ("Aleksandra received an excellent private education," calling her "elite" at several places in the article). Without citations to legitimize these claims, they are simply just claims.

I'm sure you already have an editing plan in place, but these are just some things I noticed. Frankiefillis (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Second Peer Review

I am uncertain of what edits you intend to make and I am unsure of what edits have already been made.

First off there are references but no citations. So it seems as if there are references to use for the page, someone just needs to go through the page and cite where the references talk about this specific aspect.

Secondly, there is a lot of great information about her, but it all falls under one sub header which is a bit weird for a wikipedia page. I would try to make another sub header to make the article seem more thorough

There are three images, which is a good amount for how small length of the article. If there is a lot more information to be added, I would think about adding another image or two.

The writing to me seems pretty well-written.

I think the most crucial issue is added citations, to legitimize the source

Frankie comments about calling her her "elite". I am not sure if that is an issue, I do not see that word as not neutral. Unless one thinks "Upper Class" has a more neutral connotation.

I delayed commenting until the edits were made, but I am sure they will be there soon! Jengoldberg315 (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just added my edits on Aleksandra Ekster's Wikipedia page. I believe that I was able to make improvements, specifically having a more in depth explanation for Ekster's artwork. The article serves as a timeline of Ekster's life, but I believe that it is important to have a full understanding and explanation for her genre, artistic intent, use of mediums, etc. SFerbank (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• Экстер.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Woman with Fish - 1933 - Oleksandra Ekster.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2023 (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:

• Oleksandra Ekster.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

the file had been changed with reference to the source. photo from before 1915, exact date not found Vihola (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationality attribution

The identification of Aleksandra Ekster as Russian is faulty, though the admins continue to reverting the edit from Ukrainian to Russian, without any considerations. There are several ways to identify attribution of an artist from the past, which work when used in combination, taking into account the context of artist's life & work

1) official documents where nationality is stated

2) artist identified herself/himself as certain nationality

3) family ethnicity

2) geographical territory where the artist lived

In case of Aleksandra Ekster, there are no official documents with nationality stated that are publicly avaialble, there are no known sources where Ekster would self-identify as any nationality.

Her parents are of Belarusian/Greek origin. At the same time, she lived 35 years in the territory of Ukraine, and was highly attached to Ukrainian folk art, displaying the pieces of folk-art in her appartment even after immigration to France, which might (might not) mean identification with the culture. She had then spent 25 years in France. The periods of life spent in Russia were limited. Why is she considered Russian? The suggestion, thus, is to identify as Ukrainian, given the time of life in Ukraine and close ties with Ukrainian cultural context (folk art that was used an inspiration, creative class that was gathered around her in Kyiv at the time). Vihola (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You are clearly confusing nationality with ethnicity. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I would challenge the word 'clearly' in your reply. You are right, nationality and ethnicity are different things, though often interchangeable in practice. Some of the criteria that I have outlined above are applied to nationality, some to ethnicity, but thats not necessarily the essence of the question. Most of the articles while describing an artist, attribute her/him to a certain nationality and ethnicity. So would appreciate opinions of what is the right one for Aleksandra Ekster. Vihola (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that you are not extended-confirmed. The community introduced general sanctions, which, in particular, does not allow non-extended-confirmed users to edit contentious topics related to Russia-Ukraine relations. For this reason, I will not continue this discussion. If you survive on the English Wikipedia to the autoconfirmed status, please come back to discuss the issue. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are there more emotionally mature people here, who can actually contribute on the topic, and not attack or change the subject. Would be interested in hearing opinions of other contributors who might have had similar question related to the artists from 19th-20th century in what was then russian empire. Thanks! Vihola (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What about a similar situation: Irish painters from XIX? In Wikipedia they are Irish, not British Smirnoff80 (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Would we ever have a user with more than a hundred edits interested in this question? Are you all here because of some social media campaign again? Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Kyiv

The correct spelling of the Ukrainian capital is Kyiv, not "Kiev". This spelling has been officially adopted by the UN during the Tenth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names in 2012.

It has also been adopted by the United Nations GEGN Geographical Names Database, the United States Board on Geographic Names, the International Air Transport Association, the European Union, English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions and governments, several international organizations, and the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Unlike cities that were known under different names in the past (e.g. Leningrad), the name Kyiv remained unchanged. I do not see any reason why this article would retain the outdated spelling.

All of the above also applies to Odesa, which is mentioned once in this article. Kettle.burner (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is that for the historic period in question the correct spellings are Kiev and Odessa. Please also note that non-extended-confirmed users such as you may not edit the articles related to Russia-Ukrainian disputes, in particular, to change Kiev to Kyiv. Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

do you have anything to substantiate the consensus? because the name of the city hasn't changed, plus at the time the overwhelming majority of Kyiv population spoke Ukrainian (~79% as of 1897).

the Ukrainian romanization of Kyiv has been widely adopted by numerous official organizations, there is no dispute here really. Kettle.burner (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

We had an RfC, and this was the result. Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

according to this: "Rough consensus that "Kyiv" is the better title given usage in reliable, English-language sources." Kettle.burner (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not going to spend my time for this bullshit again. Find the correct RfC yourself please. If there were no consensus to keep Kiev for historical usage, Ukrainian activists would hhave long ago rename every single instance of the usage. Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

plus at the time the overwhelming majority of Kyiv population spoke Ukrainian (~79% as of 1897) - that's not true, according to 1897 census only 22,23% of Kyiv population was speaking Ukrainian and 54,20% Russian. Marcelus (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Ukrainian_in_Russian_Empire_1897.png

data taken from here. Kettle.burner (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The data you show are for Kiev Governorate, which is not the same as the city of Kiev. Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%97_%D1%96%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%96%D1%97_(1897)#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Ukrainian_language_in_the_Russian_Empire_(1897).svg

more detailed. Kettle.burner (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid when you were provided the census data, no amount of material taken from Wikipedia would be more reliable source. There is a good reason why WP:RUSUKR prohibits new users such as you to make edits related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment first, while I understand that emotions can run high around these issues and that it's easy to became frustrated I would ask everyone to to try to stay focused on content.

The choice of Kyiv or Kiev is controlled by WP:KYIV. Since the subject died prior to 1991 that means we use Kiev for this article. Please bear in mind this selection is not intended as a comment on the identity of the individual in question nor on any contemporary events. Further while in this case we have developed a precise location specific consensus a long tradition going back to WP:DANZIG. That consensus is really a reflection of our sitewide style documented at MOS:PLACE. In particular we avoid anachronism, hence in articles covering the interwar period it will Stettin rather than Szczecin. Likewise for articles in the Middle Ages it will be Constantinople and not Istanbul. Sometimes it can get rather complicated (e.g. Lemberg, Lwów, Lvov, and Lviv, all refer to the same place at different times).

The reason we do this is because mainstream English language historiography also does this, and as an encyclopedia we tend to follow the practice of reliable sources. I hope this helps clarify the issue. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Might I wade in with a comment? As someone who is painfully monolingual I can give an English-only speaker's prospective:

"Kyiv" is not very phonetic to someone who speaks only English, when I first saw it circa. 2014 I thought it was supposed to be pronounced something like "Kiv" as a monosyllabic word rhyming with "sieve", or "Kai-iv". Romanizing from Cyrillic can be plagued with difficulty and vastly different results can be garnered depending on how one is Romanizing. Similarly the double S in "Odessa" is more in-line with English orthography; a single S in a word usually sounds more like a "Z".

Kiev is based on an obsolete method of Romanizing Cyrillic, so it is not inherently "Russian" or "Ukrainian". One can also see this in names such as "Rachmaninoff"; Wikipedia uses the traditional transliteration and not the modern method of transliterating Russian, which would be something more like "Rakhmaninov". If one were Romanizing "Киев" from scratch today one would probably write something more like "Kiyev".

Adding to the difficulty is the many different spellings used down the centuries in both Russian and Ukrainian. Until 1918 the Russian spelling was "Кіевъ", and the lack of a standard Ukrainian orthography until the 20th century meant multiple different spellings were current, and none of them resembled the modern Ukrainian "Київ".

I essentially agree with the advice given by WP:KYIV, for unambiguously pre-1991 references use "Kiev". Stolitz (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

And we have indeed consensus for it. Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The original poster claimed that Ukrainian orthography ought to be used because in 1897 it was the majority language of Kiev, but the spelling "Київ" would not, indeed could not, be used; Yaryzhka was the official orthography at the time, and this used only the characters of the Russian alphabet. Stolitz (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

And Ukrainian wasn't the majority language of Kiev in 1897 Marcelus (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts." nuff said.

also, Yaryzhka was forcefully imposed. Kettle.burner (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference subsection

Extended content
References