This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Peter Gelman wrote the "interpretation" section of the Gogol text. gelman_commerce@yahoo.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.224.188.58 ( talk) 18:01, 12 December 2003 (UTC)
There's an essay by Yuri Druzhnikov that makes a convincing argument that the alleged friendship and exchange of literary ideas between Pushkin and Gogol is actually a myth that was largely created by Gogol himself. I haven't done any actual research on this, so I can't really make any edits, but perhaps someone knows more about this? -- Maralenenok — Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 12 April 2005 (UTC)
I changed it. Feel free to modify, if this still seems misleading. - Irpen 00:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I can see both of your points. I think the current language is okay, but it may be better to write a longer sentence or two. Maybe something like this:
or just
Why can't we just say he was a Ukrainian writer of Russian Literature? I guess because his works belong to the body of Russian literature, or simply because he wrote in Russian? — Michael Z. 2005-06-15 03:40 Z
It's just a little short, isn't it? Usually for a longish article like this you'd want one more paragraph, or so I'd have thought. Moreschi 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm failing this article for GA for one big problem: POV. There are just way too many POV assertions that are unreferenced by inline cits, which are required these days for GA. A sample of these problem sentences might be:
Basically what I'm saying is that there are other ways of pointing out how wonderful Gogol is thought to have been without violating WP:NPOV. Moreschi 19:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I agree. The line "he had no inner impulse towards Christ" is particularly unnecessary. How can any 21st century writer have any idea about Gogol's "inner impulses"? That is simply reckless writing. This is a fine example of trying to inject a personal opinion into a (very) general biography. To say that he was merely afraid of devils and witches is at best reductive and at worst cynical beyond belief. Please avoid such POV assertions in future editing.
I agree with Moreschi on his analysis of the point of view. The documentation states that much of the text was taken from "A History of Russian Literature," and I believe many ideas were added from this work that were simply opinion and not properly referenced. Oshibka 06:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the article in English and in Russian I found that Gogol has different last words associated with his death. The Russian version tells of his his grandmother telling him how angels carry the souls of the dead on stair up to heaven and Gogol's last words were (roughly translated) "The stairs! Let the stairs come faster!" while the English article claims his last words as "And I shall laugh with a bitter laugh." which were then engraved on his tombstone. The best information I could find on this comes from the Introduction by John Cournos to "Dead Souls" translated by D.J. Hogarth (Publisher: The World Wide School, Publication Date: November 1997, Published: Seattle, Washington, USA):
"His last words, uttered in a loud frenzy, were: "A ladder! Quick, a ladder!" This call for a ladder--"a spiritual ladder," in the words of Merejkovsky--had been made on an earlier occasion by a certain Russian saint, who used almost the same language. "I shall laugh my bitter laugh"[3] was the inscription placed on Gogol's grave.
JOHN COURNOS
[3] This is generally referred to in the Russian criticisms of Gogol as a quotation from Jeremiah. It appears upon investigation, however, that it actually occurs only in the Slavonic version from the Greek, and not in the Russian translation made direct from the Hebrew. "
Secondly, the English article gives the date of death as March 4 while in the Orthodox calendar his death was on the 21st of February. I'm unsure how the Orthodox Calendar is dealt with on Wikipedia, but just making note.
Oshibka 07:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else think that his works are somewhat anti-Russian in content? I would consider something like that from a Ukranian writer.
-G
Gogol certainly made anti-Russian statements at times, such as in the company of Polish exiles whom he befriended in Paris. At other times he demonstrated a very strong loyalty towards Russia and towards the tsar. He was a very complex man with mixed feelings. Faustian 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This article plagiarizes the book A History of Russian Literature by D.S. Mirsky all throughout the article. The phrasing, structure, and even whole sentences are the same.
Abriefsmile
03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The tone here seems more suited to a literary review instead of an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.108 ( talk) 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I also noticed that particularly in the section entitled "Creative Decline and Death" the tone feels more like that of a novel, including more expressive and figurate language than one usually finds in an encyclopedia entry. The comments on Gogol's peculiar evolution of mental state are at best expressed too liberally in style and are at worst completely unverifiable conjecture. It would be wise to review this section, and in fact the whole article, confirming the consistent use of encyclopedic tone and language. 88/rosette/88 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This article seems rather messy and unencyclopedic, including references to The Overcoat as '[Gogol's] greatest short story'. It even includes a line:
"Note: this section represent one failed critic's point of view, and is scheduled for deletion by me, Mike."
Well delete it then, or bring it up on the Discussion page. Don't write a note on the article itself and make it worse. 86.144.56.33 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed a footnote that said Edgar Allan Poe had a collection of similar stories also entitled "Arabesques." This isn't true; the collection is "Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque," both of which were established literary terms for the genres during this time. The note seemed to imply that Poe was trying to rip off Gogol. Feel free to reinsert with clarifications. -- Midnightdreary 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Gogol in pop culture -- it contained nothing but spam for commercial products. The was no genuine relevance to Gogol or his works contained in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.239.195 ( talk) 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the link [1] presents a biased Ukrainian view of Gogol and therefore it should be labelled as such. Nevertheless I oppose the removal of this link. The author of the article is a well-known scholar (even if a biased activist). From the Radio Liberty website [2]: "Yevhen Sverstyuk is a literary critic and publicist, and one of the founders of the Ukrainian national movement in the 1960s. He graduated from Lviv University in 1952, where he studied logic and psychology. A former political prisoner for his samizdat writings, Sverstyuk was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment in 1970. Sverstyuk is editor in chief of the monthly orthodox newspaper "Nasha Vira," founded in 1989, and president of the Ukrainian PEN Club. His works have been published at Harvard University, as well as in New York, Paris, and Kyiv." Obviously the guy is biased, but he is significant and the opinions he presents are significant - they reflect new scholarship on Gogol, such as this work by a Polish scholar: [3] which draws similar conclusions to those of Sverstyuk and which has been reviewed favorably by Western scholars. For example, a reviewer of Bojanowska's work from Johns Hopkins University stated that it was "A major contribution to the history of Russian literary culture. Bojanowska illuminates Gogol's works in a new and interesting way, and makes a convincing case for his identification with Ukraine and his frequent inclination to compare Russia unfavorably to it. Her research is extensive, her argument fresh, stimulating, and controversial. The implications for our understanding of Gogol are enormous." I think that giving readers access to this POV, with a warning that it has its own perspective, is helpful. Faustian ( talk) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are different views whether Gogol/Hohol is to be considered a Russian or Ukrainian writer. Being nor Russian or Ukrainian I might be able to see it from a different perspective. It's true that he wrote in the Russian language, but it's also true that much of the stories had a clear Ukrainian connection. And he was by birth Ukrainian. And is there really a problem to call him a Ukrainian writer just because he wrote in the Russian language? Compare for example with the Finnish national poet Johan Ludvig Runeberg who always wrote in the Swedish language but nevertheless is a Finnish writer. Narking ( talk) 09:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason why Gogol is not a Ukrainian writer is not just that he did not write in Ukrainian. More importantly, there is no connection between Gogol and the Ukrainian literature. There is a lot of literature written in English by the Irishmen that has a clear connection with the rest of Irish literature. This cannot be said about Gogol. I have yet to see a serious work that would describe how the major post-Gogol Ukrainian writers were influenced by Gogol. How he affected the entire Russian literature is easy to find in a preface of pretty much any Gogol's work published today. The Ukrainian literature has a different heritage, different founders and different influential figures. Gogol is simply not there. Yes, he was a Ukrainian person but he was not a Ukrainian writer. -- Irpen 07:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Scarian, I suggest you concentrate on article's improvement rather than on "outdoing" other editors who disagree with you on the issue through following them into topics on which you have absolutely no knowledge and trying to compensate lack of any familiarity with the subject by googling. The Sources you picked through googling the string you want to introduce into an article are indeed completely out of whack lacking any academic standing on the subject in question. LGBT encyclopedia may be an OK source about LGBT issues but not on the literature, especially if it is used to counter the mainstream views. General trend of substituting the familiarity with the subject by googling to justify an injection of the particular point into the article is causing much damage to this encyclopedia already without your invoking the same method through joining the articles on the subject of which you have zero familiarity. To compensate for the latter, I suggest reading a single book on the subject (not three phrases you managed to google) and if you are really interested, I would be happy to give you some references.
Narking, I appreciate your work for Ukrainian topics, but stuff like this is unacceptable and you should stop it immediately. People got blocked for less than direct accusations of fellow editors in xenophobic views.
Returning to the subject at hand, we have a clear guideline in Wikipedia:CAT#Some_general_guidelines item 7:
It is clear that Gogol's being a Ukrainian writer is not a mainstream view. If this is a significant minority view, it should be mentioned in the text and in an attributed form (not even in the lead) and definitely not in the form of the category which, while cannot be even attributed, gets slammed over the whole article. -- Irpen 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Narking, the references that Scarian managed to google in order to revert me were completely wacky in this particular context and their being a horrible source for an encyclopedia article has nothing to do with one of his sources being LGBT-related, but has everything to do with the source' being completely non-scholarly in the matters of literature. LGBT encyclopedia may be a great source to discuss a very non-trivial issue of Gogol's sexuality (and this may belong to the article's body) but I won't even look there to find out any encyclopedic info about Gogol's literary work, especially since Gogol's heritage received many volumes of studies of experts in literature, rather than human sexuality. The latter (human sexuality) is a serious field in its own right, but when I am looking for the info about the great writer, I look for the works written by specialists in literature, rather than LGBT (Just the same way as when I am looking for the info on LGBT issues, I will take the word from a source dedicated to LGBT any time against a word of an amateur in the sexual studies no matter what expertise this person holds in some unrelated field. Curiously, the second site linked by Scarian does not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer anywhere while it does call him a Russian writer explicitly. Quote: "It made him one of the most popular Russian writers." That site just states undisputed facts about Gogol's ethnicity and background (which is in the article anyway) but even that site does not subscribe to the minority view that Gogol is a "Ukrainian writer". Moreover, even the dedicated article in an Encyclopedia of Ukraine (a source whose strong biases where discussed elsewhere) calls him "the most famous Russian writer of Ukrainian origin" and does not call him a "Ukrainian writer".
Scarian, I am really surprised that despite being an administrator you have so large gaps in the policy knowledge as well as serious demeanor problems. First, you accuse me of having a narrow mind. Throwing such stuff around is outright unacceptable. Worse, you praise a user for no less than calling a fellow editor a xenophobe. This is outrageous. Next, where do you see "consensus"? Next, you invoke the notion of allowing the non-mainstream views in articles. No objections per se, but you should know about giving the undue weight to non-mainstream views and slapping them over the whole article in the form of a category is certainly a violation of WP:UNDUE. I am sorry that I was mistaken about your unfamiliarity with the subject. It just seemed so from your edits. Could you elaborate which works on Gogol (or by Gogol) you have read? Your trying to reference stuff to random links you found through googling just suggests that you did not know where to look. The easiest starting point for most stuff is good old Britannica. You review a Britannica article on Gogol at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9037198 as a starting point if you want to edit the Wikipedia article on this writer. While there, note that Britannica also does not call Gogol a "Ukrainian writer". The EB article also has references to a more thorough works in the end. Again, if your knowledge of the subject well-surpasses that, please accept my apology but please use the serious sources that you read on the subject rather than whatever comes up in google to your search string. -- Irpen 08:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Nikolai (Mykola) Gogol - Russian and Ukrainian writer. User:Білецький В.С. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Білецький В.С. ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Golgol was born in the Russian empire. This is as important as the fact that his birthplace is now part of the Republic of Ukraine. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Upon further research, I discover that Gogol was born in Little Russia, and that the term 'Ukraine' came into use after his birth. While Little Russian has accquired perjorative connotations in some circles, is this historical fact worthy of mention? 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Little Russia was a term used for only a brief period of time. Saying that Gogol was from Little Russia would be anachrtonistic and deceptive Bandurist ( talk) 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We do know that Gogol's first language was Ukrainian and that Russian was an aquired language and he frequently reverted to Ukrainian. We also know that there are works which he wrote in Ukrainian, primarilly early works of which most were unpublished, primarilly poems. His father was also a writer and playright but wrote primarilly in Ukrainian. When signing into a pnsionate in Italy he swrote that he was of Ukrainian living in Moscow.None of this so far is visible in the article. Bandurist ( talk) 16:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I am unclear what is meant by this phrase, but it seems to be imposing C21 nationalist views on the C19. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 02:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Great to see this getting solved :) I (too) think a section devoted to his national orientation (and the contrerversiality's presently surouning it), like you suggested below, would be a good adition to the article. — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Read here, it also has some Gogolesq parts :). But are those opinions reflected in the article common opinions among Russians and Ukrainians (scholars and/or all of them) are did the author speak with some hotheads? — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody explain how the Brittanica's "born March 19 [March 31, New Style]" becomes "31 March [O.S. 20 March] 1809" here? I just changed it to what the cited source says, and it was quickly changed back. This has already resulted in the 200th anniversary of Gogol's birthday being missed on the Main Page. Please remove the Brittanica reference if it's merely being used for obfuscation. - Banyan Tree 04:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
yes, there are two different dates of his birth indicated in the beginning of the main article and in the box under Gogol's portrait. I guess the second is correct, so the first one needs to be changed. --
Dimagene (
talk)
20:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Template talk:Lists of Russians most editors seem to be agains this stupid (in my view) template, where the #$$%#@ have we got category's for then? Also we are still not sure if Gogol did not view himself as a Ukrainian, put in a "Ukrainian people template". No cause there are category's for easy browsing through article's.... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Changed the title of the template to make it more neutral. I don't object to it's use here now anymore. Gogol has nothing to do with current Russia, hence he was a great "Russian Empire writer". Changed title of this topic to, although "damn stupid" was meant ironical... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Must admit I lost my temper slightly yesterday and I apologise for that, Currently I am engaged in 3 discussions about ethnicity and since I lean toward territorial nationalisms views (I surtenly do not believe in ethnic nationalism) I do not see why users make such a fuse about some subjects ethnicity and sometimes make stances with look plain stupid to me (and therefore can irritate me). Citizenship is ethnicity free, thank god… — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
come on chaps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.246.76 ( talk) 23:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
In February I added the following: "indeed more recent criticism has noted that he "brought the absurd to Russian literature" ", with the citation from Timothy Snyder: "Gogol Haunts the New Ukraine" in The New York Review of Books. It was good faith reverted:
22:11, February 16, 2011 Garik 11 (talk | contribs) (37,371 bytes) (rv good faith edit - this is what a political journalist says, not a literary critic).
While I would disagree with the statement that Timothy Snyder is merely a "journalist" (he is a professor of history at the top American university Yale), he is somewhat political. But my point stands that Gogol is far from simply a "realist" or "Romantic" and his proto-modernist style is sufficiently evident enough to be mentioned in the introduction. This article itself mentions Encylopaedia Britannica's reproach: "It is one of the most striking (and most Gogolian) ironies of Russian literary history that radical critics celebrated Gogol as a realist."
It takes only a cursory reading of "the Nose" or "Dead Souls" to be confirmed in this sentiment. I'll come back with a modern reading list that demonstrates this point of view, but again this article already notes the Formalists' fascination with his modernist/absurdist aspects. JDnCoke ( talk) 13:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I edited the section on Nabokov's assessment - it inaccurately stated that Nabokov only admired three pieces by Gogol. Also, Nabokov's assessment of Gogol as being, at certain times, "the greatest artist Russia has yet produced," is something that should be included in this article, and I've put it here. Vicpvicpvicp ( talk) 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops. I just re-added a paragraph on Gogol's sexuality. However, I think I phrased it carefully enough to be fair to all parties. Regarding the "credible evidence," I haven't seen it, but perhaps someone else has. Does Karlinsky provide it? I incline to the opinion that a clever interpretation of the work is not enough.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. I've seen this work but haven't read it. Raising questions is of course not the same as giving answers -- and raising questions about sexual orientation is pretty much synonymous with human nature. So I think Fisenko's point is valid and the compromise works. Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia; I assumed it would sign me automatically. Alas, I have no idea what your symbols up there mean. Cheers, GRRueckert.
I removed comments about Gogol's alleged homosexuality until any credible evidence of this statement is presented. ( Fisenko 22:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC))
Try The Sexual Labyrinth of Nikolai Gogol by Simon Karlinsky (reviewed here. - Outerlimits 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I see that the article has again been purged of any mention of his personal life. Some sad individuals seem compelled to suppress this particular category of information in Wikipedia entries. Ilmateur ( talk) 12:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Several times I have tried to show that it is unfair to label Gogol's depiction of Jews as being anti-semitic. The article bases this entire accusation on the depiction of Yankel. Taras Bulba the character is someone sympathetic to Yankel as is the narrator. Throughout Gogol's work, there are references to Jews which are sympathetic. Every time I enter this observation, someone deletes it and lately someone said that I did not show citations. It is for the person making an accusation to prove it, not the person who is accused and Gogol is not here to defend himself. I come from a family of Jews who lived near Gogol. A reasonable person reading Taras Bulba is not likely to come away from it with the impression that Gogol was an anti-semite but perhaps the accusation got someone their Ph.D. or tenure somewhere. But as Gogol wrote: skuchni n'yetom sveta gospoda! Sklaw5 ( talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklaw5 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
To say that Gogol wrote in the Russian language and to say that he was a Russian (linked to Russia) are two different things. Ukranian wasn't used as a literary language at the time, and the Ukraine was not an independent nation, so naturally he wrote in Russian.-- Prosfilaes 21:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article did not say he was Russian. It said he was a Russian writer. These are two different things. He was not Russian but Ukrainian. But he was a Russian writer because he contributed to Russian literature. There were contemporary authors who wrote in Ukrainian at the time. Gogol wasn't. So, the article correctly had it:
It would be more correct to call Shevchenko (who wrote some poetry and prose also in Russian) a Ukrainian-Russian author (this would be absurd of course, I am just making a point), than to call Gogol a Ukrainian-Russian writer. I am going to revert that to an original version. If you insist on the article saying that he was Ukrainian more explicitly, you can change it to "Russian writer of Ukrainian ethnicity" but this sounds clumsy, I think, and "Ukrainian-born" pretty much says the same thing.
Ukrainian literature has many talented authors. It is a big disservice to this literature to assign Gogol to it because it may create a wrong impression that Ukrainian literature itself has no one to offer and has to co-opt Russian writers to make a claim for significance. It doesn't and it is doing well with its own great talents. But the main issue, of course, is that the claim is incorrect regardless of its political meaning. - Irpen 23:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Now I agree, this is a valid point. Myself, like the majority of readers, did not pay attention to what was behind such an obvious link as "Russian". Now I changed that to "[[Russian literature|Russian writer]]". Or perhaps we could change that to "[[List of Russian authors|Russian writer]]". The latter article starts with: "This is the list of authors that wrote in [[Russian language]]. Not all of them are of Russian descent...", which I think is very politically correct way to say it.
With incorrect link, this was somewhat misleading, I agree with you, but still less misleading than the version calling him "Ukrainian-Russian writer" no matter what the hidden links where. Disregarding links, it is more correct to say "Ukrainian born Russian writer" than "Ukrainian-Russian writer" about Gogol. At least this is my feeling and forgive me if I am wrong, I am not a native English speaker. Marko Vovchok, for example, is the one who could correctly be called Ukrainian-Russian writer. Any takers to write an article on this very talented woman highly acclaimed by both Ukrainian and Russian critics? I might do it myself some time. Regards, - Irpen 20:13, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait. Gogol's work was heavily influenced by his time spent in Ukraine. While his works are studied as part many Russian Literature classes, in Ukraine he is considered a Ukrainian author. By the way, Mark Twain is regarded as American, because his works are based around American setting and are about Americans. I don't care that it states in the article that he is a Russian author - that is fair, since it is true. However, in Russia he is considered Russian and his Ukrainian heritage is kind of ignored. On the other hand, Gogol sometimes is studied as part of Ukrainian liturature, but surely in translation to Ukrainian. I just think that to a foreign reader not aware of Russo-Ukrainian politics, it would be important to clarify that both cultures have their claim on Gogol, but on different aspects of his nature. I like the idea of calling his a "Ukrainian writer of Russian literature" - someone came up with that idea before - Anamatv 06:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Gogol was born in Ukraine, as a juvenile composed his first works in Ukrainian, and Ukrainian themes dominated his first works. Indeed, early twentieth century Russian critics have even commented that Gogol's Russian langauge was not quite grammtically correct, and represented aliteral translation from Ukrainian. According to Yosif Mendelshtam, "the spirit of non-Russian speech remained in him," and Vladimir Dal wondered "what would happen if he wrote in [good] Russian." Gogol's biography has parallels with that of Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov. In contrast to Gogol, despite Conrad's never denying his Polish roots, that novelist never used Polish themes in his literature. Nabokov, on the other hand, left Russia at a later age than Gogol left Ukraine. Therefore, Gogol's Ukrainian-ness seems to be somewhere between Joseph Conrad's Polishness and Vladimir Nabokov's Russian-ness. Note that both of the articles about those people emphasize their native ethnicity (Conrad was "a Polish-born British novelist" and Nabakov a "Russian-American author.") in their first sentence. I see no reason why Gogol's article shouldn't follow that precedent. Indeed, this sort of thing has been written before. In a New York Times article from June 14, 1992, 9"What Country do I live in? Many Russians are asking," the NY Times correspondent Celestine Bohlen stated that "Nikolai Gogol was a Ukrainian writer who wrote in Russian". Faustian 14:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
An interesting fact along those lines: "In 1846, when he was in Karlsbad, Gogol wrote down in the guest book, "Nicolas de Gogol, Ukrainien, etabli a Moscou" ("Nikolay Gogol, Ukrainian, living in Moscow") [6]. Faustian 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The article needs to be clear that the writer was Ukrainian, as Ukrainian as Joseph Conrad was Polish (perhaps more so, as the other writer never wrote anything with Polish). At present form this is not clear. "Ukrainian-born Russian writer" makes him seem like Mikhail Bulgakov, while "Ukrainian heritage and upbringing" seems to dilute the fact that the guy was completely Ukrainian. Why not just keep it as "Russian-lannguage writer of Ukrainian origin (or better, ethnicity) which seems most accurate. Incidentally I've recently bought and highly recommend a fscinating book, with good reviews by serious academicians, about the ambivalence of Gogol's relationship to Russia that lasted nearly until his death [7]. Some of Gogol's writings about Russian vs. Ukrainian culture (in the context of his comments defending Mazepa) in his personal letters could have been written by a typical Banderist chauvinist. Understandably this aspect about the writer was heavily deemphasized by Russian and Soviet scholars (and thus Western ones who depended on them as sources) but is not seeing the light of day. Among the reviews:
--Jeffrey P. Brooks, Johns Hopkins University
--Hugh McLean, University of California, Berkeley
Faustian 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Faustian 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are two ways to handle the issue. By logic or by searching references. He was writing in Russian thus, he is a Russian writer, the same was as Joseph Conrad is British writer and Guillaume Apollinaire is a French poet. The other way is to look into references, how the mainstream sources like Britannica, Columbia even Encyclopedia of Ukraine represent him. So far the both methods yield the same result - he was a Ukraine-born Russian writer. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 12:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a simple question. Why Walter Scott and Robert Lewis Stevenson are claimed to be Scottish (not English) writers? According to your logic, they lived in Great Britain, wrote in English. They did not produce a single work in Scottish Gaelic. Should they be considered as a part of English literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.228.110 ( talk) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
SVillain, it seems you are up for issuing ultimatums, rather than initiating discussions. Not having a reference in an article of a long dead author, is no reason to delete anything and plenty of fine articles have some degree of listing. However, since it upsets you, I have rendered the points of legacy into prose. Span ( talk) 18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Wondering on the source of the passage "He traced his ancestry to the great tabla player Bikram Gogoi, who had settled in the Ukrainian steppes after being banished by the Patels of Baguihat." I was able to find information on Baguihat as a neighbourhood of Kolkata, and of course Patel and Bikram are clearly East Indian names. This explanation seems a little strange to me (especially because "hohol" is not an unusual surname in Ukraine) because I can't imagine the difficulty or practicality of immigrating from West Bengal to Ukraine so many centuries ago. Was this something fanciful Gogol made up, a legend, or an actual fact? Sphecidae ( talk) 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nikolai Gogol. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Russians have to understand that Gogol also was a Ukrainian writer, not only Russian. He was born in Ukraine, he wrote about Ukraine, he loved Ukraine. Lets leave Gogol as Russian and Ukrainian writer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.228.126 ( talk) 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There was no Ukraine at Gogol's time :) You should also note that Gogol haven't written a word in Ukrainian language, which I think is weird for a Ukrainian writer...Don't you think? That's all. ISasha ( talk) 07:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
there was also no israel state at that time... does it mean the jews didn't exist also until 1948??? Also Kafka and Albert Einstein didn't speak or write hebrew and used german instead... so that means they are not jews ?? 94.139.128.250 ( talk) 13:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I have little interest in the politically motivated debates regarding Gogol's ethnicity or nationality. It is clear, however, that this article has been subject to a sustained attempted to give a biased take on the writer's work. In its current state it clearly and unambiguously violates WP:undue. In consultation with academic sources that offer the kind of scholarly overview appropriate to an encyclopaedia article, I am removing anything that looks like strained attempts to shoehorn in a politically biased perspective. • DP • {huh?} 17:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for you to pursue nationalistic ideological aims, as I am sure you know very well. I spent some time restoring an appropriately encyclopaedic tone to this article. If you insist on using this article as a political football to kick around your nationalist agenda, I am quite happy to invite the wider Wikipedia community to assist in restoring the appropriate tone. • DP • {huh?} 22:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Fine. I see you are committed to defending your ownership of this article and promoting a view unsupported in sources not affiliated with either sides of the political conflict. I am going to report this behaviour and let the wider community address the problems you are creating.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosProteus ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
To what "personal attack" are you refering, exactly. And what "ethnic name calling" exactly? I have no agenda, other than preserving the article from bias. You simply reverted a significant amount of editing to clean up this article without examining it and without discussion. I appreciate that you are involved in a political and cultural conflict and wish to see your perspective reflected here. This is not an appropriate forum for you to do so, however. • DP • {huh?} 23:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for you to pursue nationalistic ideological aims, as I am sure you know very well."isn't a personal attack?! If it isn't an WP:ASPERSION cast as to an ethnic interest, what 'political and cultural interest' are you possibly be talking about? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not, no, and your suggestion that it is merely supports the sense that you are not editing according to encyclopaedic criteria. I haven't looked at this article for some time and returning to it, it was a mess. You've restored that. The perspective to which I am refering is the one that feels it is necessary to include the word "Ukrainian" in most paragraphs, as if taking on an incantatory effect. The ethnic and nationalist aspects of Gogol's work should not be dominating the article on the subject. Consulting standard works on the history of literature or the history of theatre confirms that the POV you have been promoting on this page is not the non-biased perspective from which the article should tackle the subject. • DP • {huh?} 23:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I should also point out that I did not seek to purge the word "Ukrainian" from this article, only to restore it to a more appropriate frequency, in line with sources precisely like Britannica. Hence "undue". The same is true for the standard works I have in front of me that I consulted prior to cleaning up -- The Cambridge Guide and the American set-text History of the Theatre. My cleaned up version of this article included far more references to that country than any of those works. Either you did not trouble yourself to examine the edit or you wish to promote an emphasis on the Ukrainian aspects of this subject that is, in relation to standard critical treatments of the subject, undue and indicating the promotion of an ideological agenda. When the standard works that are not produced either by Ukrainian nor Russian scholarship include the refrain "Ukraine" in every paragraph, then it may become appropriate for this article to reflect that. Until then, it remains an undue emphasis. I see as I was writing this that you have responded. If you care to look a little more closely, there is no new material (barring a tiny addition relating his work to the broader history of theatre). The anti-semitism charges were there word-for-word -- I moved them to the section "Politics", since this is a political dimension of his work. And this is most certainly not the first time I have involved myself in this article, if you care to look a little more closely at the edit history. The organisation of the article is a mess and I cleaned it up, as an expert in the history of theatre and a very experienced editor on wikipedia. I recommend that you look more closely at the edits and address the manifest problems with this article that I have identified. • DP • {huh?} 00:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The content of the article remains almost entirely entact, which you can see for yourself if you examine it closely. It seems you have not. I separated out the biographic account, the literary development, and the interpretation and influences sections, the material of which remained under a more appropriate organisation. I was detailed, careful, and most importantly neutral with regard to the Russian/Ukrainian issue. You reverted it all. You indicated in your very first message that you were not prepared to countenance anything other than the patently absurd repetition of the word Ukrainian that overburdened the article. There is no "barging" involved. The article in its un-cleaned up state does most certainly not reflect scholarly consensus on the subject and was not well organised. As the Guardian article cited early on makes clear [8] this is a problem indexed to an external political conflict that has no rightful place here. I came to this article having encountered another editor's explicit efforts to promote precisely the agenda I discovered in place here. The article clearly and unambigously reflects an undue emphasis on his "Ukrainian" identity, in a palpably unencylopaedic manner. I read the very very long discussions above and concluded, entirely accurately I must say from your responses and behaviour, that the problem required editors who are affiliated neither with Russia nor the Ukraine, precisely because of the culture-wars being fought out in the world external to Wikipedia over who gets to claim Gogol as their own. The arguments you offer about Dickens or Twain evade that reality. As for "waving the expertise card", I addressed your assumption that the article in its non-cleaned up state was not suffering from undue emphasis and that I have not contributed to this article in the past and that what 'I' consider undue is irrelevant. As I made clear in my first message, I was not making an argument about my authority--though, holding three degrees in Theatre, I can manage that well enough thanks all the same--but one based on the standard academic sources that ought rightly to guide in establishing what is and what is not an undue emphasis. In my experience, when an editor waves around as many WP citations are you have, it usually means they know they are on very shakey ground. When one has reliable third-party non-biased sources, usually such things aren't necessary. It is easy enough to demonstrate the fact that the article is suffering from an undue emphasis: take any treatment of world literature or world theatre, consult the relevant sections on Gogol, and see if the word Ukrainian appears with the same frequency you are attempting to promote here. It doesn't. It is mentioned, of course, which I have both in my edit and in my responses here, made clear ought to be reflected in this article. The point, however, is that the constant intoning of the word throughout the article is an undue emphasis that distorts the encyclopaedic perspective appropriate to Wikipedia. Your assumption that the article is a biography also is not borne out by the actual content of the article, the majority of which is not biographical. The suggestion that critical treatment of Gogol's work belongs in individual articles is quite plainly mistaken--I invite you to look over the well developed articles of major writers to see that for yourself. The well-nigh hysterical tone and accusations of ethnic bias that you continue to repeat only serve to reinforce the impression that you have little interest in an appropriately encyclopaedic treatment. When articles are involved in wider socio-political conflicts, as this one clearly is, editors committed to one position or the other are unlikely to reach the appropriate perspective without external assistance. I concluded from the talk page above and from your decision to revert without addressing the palpable problems that this is the problem here too. Your responses and behaviour have merely reinforced the veracity of that conclusion. The article needs help from editors who have little interest either in promoting or supressing the ethnic or nationalist dimensions of its subject. • DP • {huh?} 01:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please don't be confused: there is no doubt about Gogol's ethnicity. The current squabble is about the cultural association of Gogol: whether he belongs to Russian or Ukrainian culture. This is not unique to russia vs ukraine. for example, Adam Mickiewicz is "claimed" by Belarus, Lithuania and Poland. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Why I removed the phrasing 'leading to his eventual exile' from the sentence about The Governemnt Inspector and Dead Souls (by this edit): Albeit certainly provoked in part by real and potential troubles with censorship or living in Russia in general, Gogol's exile is technically a voluntary one. And it cannot be said to be caused by Gogol writing The Revizor, not to mention Dead Souls, that is chronologically posterior to his leaving Russia in 1836. 'Eventual exile' is also awkward as Gogol did eventually come back to Russia. User talk:Lenny Olsen 10:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nikolai Gogol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nikolai Gogol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I noted that the subject of homosexuality was vetoed. However, there is almost nothing there of his life. Certainly he is in an enigma and a mystery to many, and he had the imagination to create content that does not reveal anything of himself. But the parallels between Gogol the young man and the Overcoat should be mentioned.
What else of the man Gogol can we pick out of his works?
His relationship to food is well described in the Nabokov biography and I did locate one scholarly article on the topic. Food, Orality, and Nostalgia for Childhood: Gastronomic Slavophilism in Mid‐nineteenth‐Century Russian Fiction https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0036-0341.701999070
There are also letter collections published in Russian. Vladimir Nabokov included a few in his book. With one short story published, Gogol was still making a living as a clerk. He was a "chinovnik", going from one government office to another (page 26, Nabokov "Nikolai Gogol"). He attended art classes after putting in six hours "at the office." He claims to have lots of Ukrainian friends. No friend ever reported any love interests that Gogol had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tero111 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't really need Wikipedia to learn about Gogol, but it is nearly as disappointing as the college class I took on him. Except the section on style, which is excellent. In my class the professor took the normal "themes" approach. To me, the words jump out of the page and create a wonderful picture of life in 1800s. He had a way with words, not in any way limited by expected or previous fiction styles. His love for little Russians, peasants, is evident and the more pointed sarcasm and satire is directed at "important people."
As it is, the article would not encourage any new readers of Gogol. Tero111 ( talk) 03:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! I fail to see why Wikipedia would cover any fiction writers in that case. Fiction does not deal with facts. It should be essential to discuss the writer and his back ground to get some idea of the life of a historical figure. We can do this with Shakespeare, why not Gogol. I really do not see any point in having articles on writers at all beyond a list of works. Tero111 ( talk) 14:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Irina, there is plenty of biographical material in the Henry Troyat book, Gogol: The Biography of a Divided Soul Hardcover – January 9, 1975 ( Allen & Unwin) Gogol appears to have been a rather ordinary young man as he arrived in St. Petersburg. The way the Wikipedia articles are structured, there appears to be no way to summarize the character of a writer at the beginning. The early life sections are fine but then you jump into actual works. I've never read the whole of the Troyat book, as I am not particularly interested in criticism of the works. Occasionally they mange to clarify some points of life in the 1800s.
I've put in a blog entry for Gogol in a blog I don't actually use anymore. The text there is an attempt to carve a more colorful caricature and a short introduction to Gogol. It has no references or any factual infromation, more a broad portrait from many sources. http://esajii.blogspot.com/2018/07/nikolai-gogol.html Tero111 ( talk) 11:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Ukrainian culture and language existed long before the Russian Empire spread into the territory of ethnic Ukrainians. How can a descendant of Ukrainian Cossacks and a Polish mother all of a sudden acquire a Russian nationality? If an African person learns to speak English, does that make him British? Being born in the Russian Empire doesn't make anyone Russian. This is an American concept that doesn't translate at all. As proof, a Jewish person born anywhere in the Russian Empire or in Soviet Union didn't have "Russian" listed in their passport under "nationality" and the same goes for Ukrainians. USchick ( talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Why there is no Urkainian version of the name (Mikola) in introduction? Ithink it is usual for "shared" persons like Gogol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.214.187 ( talk) 15:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok Mykola. Still read as Mikola. Old Croatian had y. It`s just I written as y. But "shared" persons often have two names put in introduction. So first how he is called in the English language, than Russian and Ukrainian version ,as both nations claim him to be part of their legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.236.21 ( talk) 15:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn`t refer to chirilic script. Y or i is the same in Slavic languages. Read as i in milk. For example some Slavs write vysoko, some visoko. Same word, same meaning. High. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.239.23 ( talk) 21:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've had enough of this edit warring and adding non-existent information from Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ушкуйник, I don't know where you keep getting this Polen (Polish) gentry business from, but can only assume that you are confusing Poltava with Polish: it's completely unrelated other than consisting of the root word for 'field' in Eastern Slavic languages.
It would also be appreciated if you would stop doubling up on the self same reference to EB as is already in place as your reference. Try reading the EB entry carefully. There is nothing about Polen (EB is not a German publication) or Poland in there. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Gogol is without a doubt Ukrainian. I could easily come up the as much sources saying that he is Ukrainian that you come up with saying that he is Russian. To put it in historical context, Gogol was considered to be "Little Russian", which we all know was the chauvinistic Russian imperial way to say "Ukrainian". The most telling fact about Gogol's identity is that he wrote in the Ukrainian language! I have never encountered a non-Ukrainian who contributed to Ukrainian literature. There are many Ukrainians currently in Ukraine that identify as Ukrainians, yet speak Russian. Who are you to tell them that they are not Ukrainian? The facts that he spoke Ukrainian, AND contemporary sources called him Ukrainian indicate that Gogol was a Ukrainian writer who wrote in Russian. -- Bogu Slav 05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
"my school in Kiev" I don't think that can be considered a reliable source. USchick ( talk) 04:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ушкуйник, I guess your argument boils down to "Gogol is Russian because he wrote in Russian". Using this logic, you are an Englander (or American/Canadian/Australian/etc) because you contribute in the English language.-- Bogu Slav 03:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the formulation from Encyclopedia Brittanica: Ukrainian-born Russian-language author. I once wrote an essay Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies that I still stand for. Gogol is not might be a Ukrainian person or a Ukrainian celebrity but he is not a Ukrainian writer since he did not wrote any significant works in Ukrainian was not a part of a Ukrainian literary school or even a supporter of Ukrainian independence. Since Russian writer is confusing lets use the formulation from Brittanica (that also stayed in the articles for ages) Alex Bakharev ( talk) 06:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Without understanding Gogol’s Ukrainian identity you cannot understand Gogol and his writing, and therefore you cannot fully understand the literature of the Russian empire. Please try to read the introduction to Edyta M. Bojanowska, 2007, Nikolai Gogol: Between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism. [13] — Michael Z. 04:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC) by
This
edit request to
Nikolai Gogol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of Dreizin & Guaspari book should be corrected to 'The Russian Soul and the Jew: Essays in Literary Ethnocriticism'. (in the discussion of antisemitism in the 'Influences' section, currently it incorrectly says 'Literary Ethnocentrism') Nightmare-adventurist ( talk) 21:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
He is Ukrainian, he wrote mostly in Russian but he is ethnically ukrainian and grew up speaking ukrainian. It’s more important than ever to correct this 2A05:9CC4:7A:BE2E:286D:30CB:9A67:694E ( talk) 15:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The Gogol Center (German: Gogol Zentrum) in Moskow closed on Thursday evening 30 June 2022 after a last theater show (title, German: Ich beteilige mich nicht am Krieg. I do not participate in the war. Director: Kirill Serebrennikow. Author: from Ukraine. Based on poetry by Jury/ Juri Levitansky
"One of the best theatres of the continent." ORF, ticker, 3 July 2022.
https://orf.at/live/5237/ Russland: Aus für regimekritisches Gogol-Zentrum. 3 July 2022
The City of Moskow will rename the house (again, as until 2012) to Nikolai Gogol Theatre and establish a conform team.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/06/30/kirill-serebrennikovs-gogol-center-closed-a78154
https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/07/01/im-not-part-of-this-war-play-marks-moscows-gogol-centre-closure-news : I'm not part of this war.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220701-rebel-moscow-theatre-shuts-doors-after-final-show
Helium4 ( talk) 03:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that his name is changed to "Mykola Hohol", because Hohol never referred to himself as a Russian, he considered himself Ukrainian (which he was). Also, he met the same oppression as other Ukrainian authors even after moving to Moscow and writing in Russian . He was called the same slurs Russians used for every Ukrainian person.
It is disrespectful not only to Mykola Hohol, but to Ukrainian people too, seeing as how Russia always stole our culture and history. By describing him as a "Russian" author you are feeding into Kremlin propaganda narratives. I am writing this message with utmost respect, I am not trying to "vandalize" this page, all I want is to bring justice and recognition to Mykola Hohol's nationality, origins and views on himself. Thank you, I hope you will consider my message and see where I am coming from. Софія Макусій ( talk) 12:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The latinized ukrainian name for the writer would be Mykola Hohol. Since he is a ukrainian writer most of all, it seems a bit weird and almost disrespectful to use the russian name for him. Synycia ( talk) 05:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
To change the nationality for Ukrainian 2A02:1210:542A:FF00:F8F4:E59B:C742:1BEF ( talk) 15:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Kolya1384:,
Special:Diff/1114230204, your Revision as of 13:00, 5 October 2022, has this edit summary:
In the revision you describe Gogol as Ukrainian and cite this reference:
Unfortunately, The Slavic and East European Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, 2000 (the Summer issue) is page-numbered 177-374. It has no page 95. Page 95 of vol. 44 falls in no. 1 (the Spring issue) and is part of the article "Faulty Consciousnesses: Milan Kundera's The Joke". Gogol is not mentioned at all on page 95 of vol 44.
Vol. 44, no. 2 does have an article on Gogol on pp. 319-320, but it is not by Kirill Postoutenko and Natasha Drubek-Meyer but by Kirill Postoutenko alone. It is a review of Drubek-Meyer's book "Gogol's eloquentia corporis: Einverleibung, Identitaet und die Grenzen der Figuration". Postoutenko's review describes Gogol as a Russian author on p. 319:
The review does not mention the Carlserg senatorium or the year 1845 at all.
Please, what reliable source are you citing as a basis for your assertion that Gogol is a Ukrainian author? Thank you!
Dieter.Meinertzhagen ( talk) 04:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
because Hohol is Ukrainian writer and his name writes in the rules transliteration from Ukrainian to English languages. 89.28.207.91 ( talk) 18:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The text bolded here: His fictional story Taras Bulba, based on the history of Zaporozhian Сossacks....
links to
Zaporozhian Host although the
Taras Bulba article itself links directly to
Zaporozhian Cossacks when first mentioned. Is this intentional? —
Matuko (
talk)
21:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nikolai Gogol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CHANGE: the Alexandrinsky Theatre in St. Petersbrug, TO: the Alexandrinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg, DLDL1964 ( talk) 18:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 10:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Nikolai Gogol → Nikolay Gogol – per WP:RUROM, the Russian name "Николай" should be spelled as "Nikolay". — Mike Novikoff 04:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). — Mike Novikoff 09:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
> fc/b 1 2 Comparing files 00000006: 69 79 > cmp -bl 1 2 7 151 i 171 y— Mike Novikoff 10:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nikolai Gogol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should we shorten this short description to {{
short description|Russian writer (1809–1852)}}
that exceed more than 40 characters.
112.204.223.162 (
talk)
23:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Peter Gelman wrote the "interpretation" section of the Gogol text. gelman_commerce@yahoo.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.224.188.58 ( talk) 18:01, 12 December 2003 (UTC)
There's an essay by Yuri Druzhnikov that makes a convincing argument that the alleged friendship and exchange of literary ideas between Pushkin and Gogol is actually a myth that was largely created by Gogol himself. I haven't done any actual research on this, so I can't really make any edits, but perhaps someone knows more about this? -- Maralenenok — Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 12 April 2005 (UTC)
I changed it. Feel free to modify, if this still seems misleading. - Irpen 00:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I can see both of your points. I think the current language is okay, but it may be better to write a longer sentence or two. Maybe something like this:
or just
Why can't we just say he was a Ukrainian writer of Russian Literature? I guess because his works belong to the body of Russian literature, or simply because he wrote in Russian? — Michael Z. 2005-06-15 03:40 Z
It's just a little short, isn't it? Usually for a longish article like this you'd want one more paragraph, or so I'd have thought. Moreschi 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm failing this article for GA for one big problem: POV. There are just way too many POV assertions that are unreferenced by inline cits, which are required these days for GA. A sample of these problem sentences might be:
Basically what I'm saying is that there are other ways of pointing out how wonderful Gogol is thought to have been without violating WP:NPOV. Moreschi 19:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I agree. The line "he had no inner impulse towards Christ" is particularly unnecessary. How can any 21st century writer have any idea about Gogol's "inner impulses"? That is simply reckless writing. This is a fine example of trying to inject a personal opinion into a (very) general biography. To say that he was merely afraid of devils and witches is at best reductive and at worst cynical beyond belief. Please avoid such POV assertions in future editing.
I agree with Moreschi on his analysis of the point of view. The documentation states that much of the text was taken from "A History of Russian Literature," and I believe many ideas were added from this work that were simply opinion and not properly referenced. Oshibka 06:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the article in English and in Russian I found that Gogol has different last words associated with his death. The Russian version tells of his his grandmother telling him how angels carry the souls of the dead on stair up to heaven and Gogol's last words were (roughly translated) "The stairs! Let the stairs come faster!" while the English article claims his last words as "And I shall laugh with a bitter laugh." which were then engraved on his tombstone. The best information I could find on this comes from the Introduction by John Cournos to "Dead Souls" translated by D.J. Hogarth (Publisher: The World Wide School, Publication Date: November 1997, Published: Seattle, Washington, USA):
"His last words, uttered in a loud frenzy, were: "A ladder! Quick, a ladder!" This call for a ladder--"a spiritual ladder," in the words of Merejkovsky--had been made on an earlier occasion by a certain Russian saint, who used almost the same language. "I shall laugh my bitter laugh"[3] was the inscription placed on Gogol's grave.
JOHN COURNOS
[3] This is generally referred to in the Russian criticisms of Gogol as a quotation from Jeremiah. It appears upon investigation, however, that it actually occurs only in the Slavonic version from the Greek, and not in the Russian translation made direct from the Hebrew. "
Secondly, the English article gives the date of death as March 4 while in the Orthodox calendar his death was on the 21st of February. I'm unsure how the Orthodox Calendar is dealt with on Wikipedia, but just making note.
Oshibka 07:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else think that his works are somewhat anti-Russian in content? I would consider something like that from a Ukranian writer.
-G
Gogol certainly made anti-Russian statements at times, such as in the company of Polish exiles whom he befriended in Paris. At other times he demonstrated a very strong loyalty towards Russia and towards the tsar. He was a very complex man with mixed feelings. Faustian 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This article plagiarizes the book A History of Russian Literature by D.S. Mirsky all throughout the article. The phrasing, structure, and even whole sentences are the same.
Abriefsmile
03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The tone here seems more suited to a literary review instead of an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.108 ( talk) 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I also noticed that particularly in the section entitled "Creative Decline and Death" the tone feels more like that of a novel, including more expressive and figurate language than one usually finds in an encyclopedia entry. The comments on Gogol's peculiar evolution of mental state are at best expressed too liberally in style and are at worst completely unverifiable conjecture. It would be wise to review this section, and in fact the whole article, confirming the consistent use of encyclopedic tone and language. 88/rosette/88 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This article seems rather messy and unencyclopedic, including references to The Overcoat as '[Gogol's] greatest short story'. It even includes a line:
"Note: this section represent one failed critic's point of view, and is scheduled for deletion by me, Mike."
Well delete it then, or bring it up on the Discussion page. Don't write a note on the article itself and make it worse. 86.144.56.33 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed a footnote that said Edgar Allan Poe had a collection of similar stories also entitled "Arabesques." This isn't true; the collection is "Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque," both of which were established literary terms for the genres during this time. The note seemed to imply that Poe was trying to rip off Gogol. Feel free to reinsert with clarifications. -- Midnightdreary 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Gogol in pop culture -- it contained nothing but spam for commercial products. The was no genuine relevance to Gogol or his works contained in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.239.195 ( talk) 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the link [1] presents a biased Ukrainian view of Gogol and therefore it should be labelled as such. Nevertheless I oppose the removal of this link. The author of the article is a well-known scholar (even if a biased activist). From the Radio Liberty website [2]: "Yevhen Sverstyuk is a literary critic and publicist, and one of the founders of the Ukrainian national movement in the 1960s. He graduated from Lviv University in 1952, where he studied logic and psychology. A former political prisoner for his samizdat writings, Sverstyuk was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment in 1970. Sverstyuk is editor in chief of the monthly orthodox newspaper "Nasha Vira," founded in 1989, and president of the Ukrainian PEN Club. His works have been published at Harvard University, as well as in New York, Paris, and Kyiv." Obviously the guy is biased, but he is significant and the opinions he presents are significant - they reflect new scholarship on Gogol, such as this work by a Polish scholar: [3] which draws similar conclusions to those of Sverstyuk and which has been reviewed favorably by Western scholars. For example, a reviewer of Bojanowska's work from Johns Hopkins University stated that it was "A major contribution to the history of Russian literary culture. Bojanowska illuminates Gogol's works in a new and interesting way, and makes a convincing case for his identification with Ukraine and his frequent inclination to compare Russia unfavorably to it. Her research is extensive, her argument fresh, stimulating, and controversial. The implications for our understanding of Gogol are enormous." I think that giving readers access to this POV, with a warning that it has its own perspective, is helpful. Faustian ( talk) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are different views whether Gogol/Hohol is to be considered a Russian or Ukrainian writer. Being nor Russian or Ukrainian I might be able to see it from a different perspective. It's true that he wrote in the Russian language, but it's also true that much of the stories had a clear Ukrainian connection. And he was by birth Ukrainian. And is there really a problem to call him a Ukrainian writer just because he wrote in the Russian language? Compare for example with the Finnish national poet Johan Ludvig Runeberg who always wrote in the Swedish language but nevertheless is a Finnish writer. Narking ( talk) 09:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason why Gogol is not a Ukrainian writer is not just that he did not write in Ukrainian. More importantly, there is no connection between Gogol and the Ukrainian literature. There is a lot of literature written in English by the Irishmen that has a clear connection with the rest of Irish literature. This cannot be said about Gogol. I have yet to see a serious work that would describe how the major post-Gogol Ukrainian writers were influenced by Gogol. How he affected the entire Russian literature is easy to find in a preface of pretty much any Gogol's work published today. The Ukrainian literature has a different heritage, different founders and different influential figures. Gogol is simply not there. Yes, he was a Ukrainian person but he was not a Ukrainian writer. -- Irpen 07:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Scarian, I suggest you concentrate on article's improvement rather than on "outdoing" other editors who disagree with you on the issue through following them into topics on which you have absolutely no knowledge and trying to compensate lack of any familiarity with the subject by googling. The Sources you picked through googling the string you want to introduce into an article are indeed completely out of whack lacking any academic standing on the subject in question. LGBT encyclopedia may be an OK source about LGBT issues but not on the literature, especially if it is used to counter the mainstream views. General trend of substituting the familiarity with the subject by googling to justify an injection of the particular point into the article is causing much damage to this encyclopedia already without your invoking the same method through joining the articles on the subject of which you have zero familiarity. To compensate for the latter, I suggest reading a single book on the subject (not three phrases you managed to google) and if you are really interested, I would be happy to give you some references.
Narking, I appreciate your work for Ukrainian topics, but stuff like this is unacceptable and you should stop it immediately. People got blocked for less than direct accusations of fellow editors in xenophobic views.
Returning to the subject at hand, we have a clear guideline in Wikipedia:CAT#Some_general_guidelines item 7:
It is clear that Gogol's being a Ukrainian writer is not a mainstream view. If this is a significant minority view, it should be mentioned in the text and in an attributed form (not even in the lead) and definitely not in the form of the category which, while cannot be even attributed, gets slammed over the whole article. -- Irpen 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Narking, the references that Scarian managed to google in order to revert me were completely wacky in this particular context and their being a horrible source for an encyclopedia article has nothing to do with one of his sources being LGBT-related, but has everything to do with the source' being completely non-scholarly in the matters of literature. LGBT encyclopedia may be a great source to discuss a very non-trivial issue of Gogol's sexuality (and this may belong to the article's body) but I won't even look there to find out any encyclopedic info about Gogol's literary work, especially since Gogol's heritage received many volumes of studies of experts in literature, rather than human sexuality. The latter (human sexuality) is a serious field in its own right, but when I am looking for the info about the great writer, I look for the works written by specialists in literature, rather than LGBT (Just the same way as when I am looking for the info on LGBT issues, I will take the word from a source dedicated to LGBT any time against a word of an amateur in the sexual studies no matter what expertise this person holds in some unrelated field. Curiously, the second site linked by Scarian does not call Gogol a Ukrainian writer anywhere while it does call him a Russian writer explicitly. Quote: "It made him one of the most popular Russian writers." That site just states undisputed facts about Gogol's ethnicity and background (which is in the article anyway) but even that site does not subscribe to the minority view that Gogol is a "Ukrainian writer". Moreover, even the dedicated article in an Encyclopedia of Ukraine (a source whose strong biases where discussed elsewhere) calls him "the most famous Russian writer of Ukrainian origin" and does not call him a "Ukrainian writer".
Scarian, I am really surprised that despite being an administrator you have so large gaps in the policy knowledge as well as serious demeanor problems. First, you accuse me of having a narrow mind. Throwing such stuff around is outright unacceptable. Worse, you praise a user for no less than calling a fellow editor a xenophobe. This is outrageous. Next, where do you see "consensus"? Next, you invoke the notion of allowing the non-mainstream views in articles. No objections per se, but you should know about giving the undue weight to non-mainstream views and slapping them over the whole article in the form of a category is certainly a violation of WP:UNDUE. I am sorry that I was mistaken about your unfamiliarity with the subject. It just seemed so from your edits. Could you elaborate which works on Gogol (or by Gogol) you have read? Your trying to reference stuff to random links you found through googling just suggests that you did not know where to look. The easiest starting point for most stuff is good old Britannica. You review a Britannica article on Gogol at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9037198 as a starting point if you want to edit the Wikipedia article on this writer. While there, note that Britannica also does not call Gogol a "Ukrainian writer". The EB article also has references to a more thorough works in the end. Again, if your knowledge of the subject well-surpasses that, please accept my apology but please use the serious sources that you read on the subject rather than whatever comes up in google to your search string. -- Irpen 08:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Nikolai (Mykola) Gogol - Russian and Ukrainian writer. User:Білецький В.С. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Білецький В.С. ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Golgol was born in the Russian empire. This is as important as the fact that his birthplace is now part of the Republic of Ukraine. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Upon further research, I discover that Gogol was born in Little Russia, and that the term 'Ukraine' came into use after his birth. While Little Russian has accquired perjorative connotations in some circles, is this historical fact worthy of mention? 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Little Russia was a term used for only a brief period of time. Saying that Gogol was from Little Russia would be anachrtonistic and deceptive Bandurist ( talk) 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We do know that Gogol's first language was Ukrainian and that Russian was an aquired language and he frequently reverted to Ukrainian. We also know that there are works which he wrote in Ukrainian, primarilly early works of which most were unpublished, primarilly poems. His father was also a writer and playright but wrote primarilly in Ukrainian. When signing into a pnsionate in Italy he swrote that he was of Ukrainian living in Moscow.None of this so far is visible in the article. Bandurist ( talk) 16:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I am unclear what is meant by this phrase, but it seems to be imposing C21 nationalist views on the C19. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 02:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Great to see this getting solved :) I (too) think a section devoted to his national orientation (and the contrerversiality's presently surouning it), like you suggested below, would be a good adition to the article. — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Read here, it also has some Gogolesq parts :). But are those opinions reflected in the article common opinions among Russians and Ukrainians (scholars and/or all of them) are did the author speak with some hotheads? — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody explain how the Brittanica's "born March 19 [March 31, New Style]" becomes "31 March [O.S. 20 March] 1809" here? I just changed it to what the cited source says, and it was quickly changed back. This has already resulted in the 200th anniversary of Gogol's birthday being missed on the Main Page. Please remove the Brittanica reference if it's merely being used for obfuscation. - Banyan Tree 04:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
yes, there are two different dates of his birth indicated in the beginning of the main article and in the box under Gogol's portrait. I guess the second is correct, so the first one needs to be changed. --
Dimagene (
talk)
20:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Template talk:Lists of Russians most editors seem to be agains this stupid (in my view) template, where the #$$%#@ have we got category's for then? Also we are still not sure if Gogol did not view himself as a Ukrainian, put in a "Ukrainian people template". No cause there are category's for easy browsing through article's.... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Changed the title of the template to make it more neutral. I don't object to it's use here now anymore. Gogol has nothing to do with current Russia, hence he was a great "Russian Empire writer". Changed title of this topic to, although "damn stupid" was meant ironical... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Must admit I lost my temper slightly yesterday and I apologise for that, Currently I am engaged in 3 discussions about ethnicity and since I lean toward territorial nationalisms views (I surtenly do not believe in ethnic nationalism) I do not see why users make such a fuse about some subjects ethnicity and sometimes make stances with look plain stupid to me (and therefore can irritate me). Citizenship is ethnicity free, thank god… — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
come on chaps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.246.76 ( talk) 23:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
In February I added the following: "indeed more recent criticism has noted that he "brought the absurd to Russian literature" ", with the citation from Timothy Snyder: "Gogol Haunts the New Ukraine" in The New York Review of Books. It was good faith reverted:
22:11, February 16, 2011 Garik 11 (talk | contribs) (37,371 bytes) (rv good faith edit - this is what a political journalist says, not a literary critic).
While I would disagree with the statement that Timothy Snyder is merely a "journalist" (he is a professor of history at the top American university Yale), he is somewhat political. But my point stands that Gogol is far from simply a "realist" or "Romantic" and his proto-modernist style is sufficiently evident enough to be mentioned in the introduction. This article itself mentions Encylopaedia Britannica's reproach: "It is one of the most striking (and most Gogolian) ironies of Russian literary history that radical critics celebrated Gogol as a realist."
It takes only a cursory reading of "the Nose" or "Dead Souls" to be confirmed in this sentiment. I'll come back with a modern reading list that demonstrates this point of view, but again this article already notes the Formalists' fascination with his modernist/absurdist aspects. JDnCoke ( talk) 13:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I edited the section on Nabokov's assessment - it inaccurately stated that Nabokov only admired three pieces by Gogol. Also, Nabokov's assessment of Gogol as being, at certain times, "the greatest artist Russia has yet produced," is something that should be included in this article, and I've put it here. Vicpvicpvicp ( talk) 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops. I just re-added a paragraph on Gogol's sexuality. However, I think I phrased it carefully enough to be fair to all parties. Regarding the "credible evidence," I haven't seen it, but perhaps someone else has. Does Karlinsky provide it? I incline to the opinion that a clever interpretation of the work is not enough.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. I've seen this work but haven't read it. Raising questions is of course not the same as giving answers -- and raising questions about sexual orientation is pretty much synonymous with human nature. So I think Fisenko's point is valid and the compromise works. Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia; I assumed it would sign me automatically. Alas, I have no idea what your symbols up there mean. Cheers, GRRueckert.
I removed comments about Gogol's alleged homosexuality until any credible evidence of this statement is presented. ( Fisenko 22:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC))
Try The Sexual Labyrinth of Nikolai Gogol by Simon Karlinsky (reviewed here. - Outerlimits 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I see that the article has again been purged of any mention of his personal life. Some sad individuals seem compelled to suppress this particular category of information in Wikipedia entries. Ilmateur ( talk) 12:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Several times I have tried to show that it is unfair to label Gogol's depiction of Jews as being anti-semitic. The article bases this entire accusation on the depiction of Yankel. Taras Bulba the character is someone sympathetic to Yankel as is the narrator. Throughout Gogol's work, there are references to Jews which are sympathetic. Every time I enter this observation, someone deletes it and lately someone said that I did not show citations. It is for the person making an accusation to prove it, not the person who is accused and Gogol is not here to defend himself. I come from a family of Jews who lived near Gogol. A reasonable person reading Taras Bulba is not likely to come away from it with the impression that Gogol was an anti-semite but perhaps the accusation got someone their Ph.D. or tenure somewhere. But as Gogol wrote: skuchni n'yetom sveta gospoda! Sklaw5 ( talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklaw5 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
To say that Gogol wrote in the Russian language and to say that he was a Russian (linked to Russia) are two different things. Ukranian wasn't used as a literary language at the time, and the Ukraine was not an independent nation, so naturally he wrote in Russian.-- Prosfilaes 21:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article did not say he was Russian. It said he was a Russian writer. These are two different things. He was not Russian but Ukrainian. But he was a Russian writer because he contributed to Russian literature. There were contemporary authors who wrote in Ukrainian at the time. Gogol wasn't. So, the article correctly had it:
It would be more correct to call Shevchenko (who wrote some poetry and prose also in Russian) a Ukrainian-Russian author (this would be absurd of course, I am just making a point), than to call Gogol a Ukrainian-Russian writer. I am going to revert that to an original version. If you insist on the article saying that he was Ukrainian more explicitly, you can change it to "Russian writer of Ukrainian ethnicity" but this sounds clumsy, I think, and "Ukrainian-born" pretty much says the same thing.
Ukrainian literature has many talented authors. It is a big disservice to this literature to assign Gogol to it because it may create a wrong impression that Ukrainian literature itself has no one to offer and has to co-opt Russian writers to make a claim for significance. It doesn't and it is doing well with its own great talents. But the main issue, of course, is that the claim is incorrect regardless of its political meaning. - Irpen 23:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Now I agree, this is a valid point. Myself, like the majority of readers, did not pay attention to what was behind such an obvious link as "Russian". Now I changed that to "[[Russian literature|Russian writer]]". Or perhaps we could change that to "[[List of Russian authors|Russian writer]]". The latter article starts with: "This is the list of authors that wrote in [[Russian language]]. Not all of them are of Russian descent...", which I think is very politically correct way to say it.
With incorrect link, this was somewhat misleading, I agree with you, but still less misleading than the version calling him "Ukrainian-Russian writer" no matter what the hidden links where. Disregarding links, it is more correct to say "Ukrainian born Russian writer" than "Ukrainian-Russian writer" about Gogol. At least this is my feeling and forgive me if I am wrong, I am not a native English speaker. Marko Vovchok, for example, is the one who could correctly be called Ukrainian-Russian writer. Any takers to write an article on this very talented woman highly acclaimed by both Ukrainian and Russian critics? I might do it myself some time. Regards, - Irpen 20:13, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait. Gogol's work was heavily influenced by his time spent in Ukraine. While his works are studied as part many Russian Literature classes, in Ukraine he is considered a Ukrainian author. By the way, Mark Twain is regarded as American, because his works are based around American setting and are about Americans. I don't care that it states in the article that he is a Russian author - that is fair, since it is true. However, in Russia he is considered Russian and his Ukrainian heritage is kind of ignored. On the other hand, Gogol sometimes is studied as part of Ukrainian liturature, but surely in translation to Ukrainian. I just think that to a foreign reader not aware of Russo-Ukrainian politics, it would be important to clarify that both cultures have their claim on Gogol, but on different aspects of his nature. I like the idea of calling his a "Ukrainian writer of Russian literature" - someone came up with that idea before - Anamatv 06:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Gogol was born in Ukraine, as a juvenile composed his first works in Ukrainian, and Ukrainian themes dominated his first works. Indeed, early twentieth century Russian critics have even commented that Gogol's Russian langauge was not quite grammtically correct, and represented aliteral translation from Ukrainian. According to Yosif Mendelshtam, "the spirit of non-Russian speech remained in him," and Vladimir Dal wondered "what would happen if he wrote in [good] Russian." Gogol's biography has parallels with that of Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov. In contrast to Gogol, despite Conrad's never denying his Polish roots, that novelist never used Polish themes in his literature. Nabokov, on the other hand, left Russia at a later age than Gogol left Ukraine. Therefore, Gogol's Ukrainian-ness seems to be somewhere between Joseph Conrad's Polishness and Vladimir Nabokov's Russian-ness. Note that both of the articles about those people emphasize their native ethnicity (Conrad was "a Polish-born British novelist" and Nabakov a "Russian-American author.") in their first sentence. I see no reason why Gogol's article shouldn't follow that precedent. Indeed, this sort of thing has been written before. In a New York Times article from June 14, 1992, 9"What Country do I live in? Many Russians are asking," the NY Times correspondent Celestine Bohlen stated that "Nikolai Gogol was a Ukrainian writer who wrote in Russian". Faustian 14:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
An interesting fact along those lines: "In 1846, when he was in Karlsbad, Gogol wrote down in the guest book, "Nicolas de Gogol, Ukrainien, etabli a Moscou" ("Nikolay Gogol, Ukrainian, living in Moscow") [6]. Faustian 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The article needs to be clear that the writer was Ukrainian, as Ukrainian as Joseph Conrad was Polish (perhaps more so, as the other writer never wrote anything with Polish). At present form this is not clear. "Ukrainian-born Russian writer" makes him seem like Mikhail Bulgakov, while "Ukrainian heritage and upbringing" seems to dilute the fact that the guy was completely Ukrainian. Why not just keep it as "Russian-lannguage writer of Ukrainian origin (or better, ethnicity) which seems most accurate. Incidentally I've recently bought and highly recommend a fscinating book, with good reviews by serious academicians, about the ambivalence of Gogol's relationship to Russia that lasted nearly until his death [7]. Some of Gogol's writings about Russian vs. Ukrainian culture (in the context of his comments defending Mazepa) in his personal letters could have been written by a typical Banderist chauvinist. Understandably this aspect about the writer was heavily deemphasized by Russian and Soviet scholars (and thus Western ones who depended on them as sources) but is not seeing the light of day. Among the reviews:
--Jeffrey P. Brooks, Johns Hopkins University
--Hugh McLean, University of California, Berkeley
Faustian 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Faustian 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are two ways to handle the issue. By logic or by searching references. He was writing in Russian thus, he is a Russian writer, the same was as Joseph Conrad is British writer and Guillaume Apollinaire is a French poet. The other way is to look into references, how the mainstream sources like Britannica, Columbia even Encyclopedia of Ukraine represent him. So far the both methods yield the same result - he was a Ukraine-born Russian writer. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 12:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a simple question. Why Walter Scott and Robert Lewis Stevenson are claimed to be Scottish (not English) writers? According to your logic, they lived in Great Britain, wrote in English. They did not produce a single work in Scottish Gaelic. Should they be considered as a part of English literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.228.110 ( talk) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
SVillain, it seems you are up for issuing ultimatums, rather than initiating discussions. Not having a reference in an article of a long dead author, is no reason to delete anything and plenty of fine articles have some degree of listing. However, since it upsets you, I have rendered the points of legacy into prose. Span ( talk) 18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Wondering on the source of the passage "He traced his ancestry to the great tabla player Bikram Gogoi, who had settled in the Ukrainian steppes after being banished by the Patels of Baguihat." I was able to find information on Baguihat as a neighbourhood of Kolkata, and of course Patel and Bikram are clearly East Indian names. This explanation seems a little strange to me (especially because "hohol" is not an unusual surname in Ukraine) because I can't imagine the difficulty or practicality of immigrating from West Bengal to Ukraine so many centuries ago. Was this something fanciful Gogol made up, a legend, or an actual fact? Sphecidae ( talk) 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nikolai Gogol. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Russians have to understand that Gogol also was a Ukrainian writer, not only Russian. He was born in Ukraine, he wrote about Ukraine, he loved Ukraine. Lets leave Gogol as Russian and Ukrainian writer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.228.126 ( talk) 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There was no Ukraine at Gogol's time :) You should also note that Gogol haven't written a word in Ukrainian language, which I think is weird for a Ukrainian writer...Don't you think? That's all. ISasha ( talk) 07:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
there was also no israel state at that time... does it mean the jews didn't exist also until 1948??? Also Kafka and Albert Einstein didn't speak or write hebrew and used german instead... so that means they are not jews ?? 94.139.128.250 ( talk) 13:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I have little interest in the politically motivated debates regarding Gogol's ethnicity or nationality. It is clear, however, that this article has been subject to a sustained attempted to give a biased take on the writer's work. In its current state it clearly and unambiguously violates WP:undue. In consultation with academic sources that offer the kind of scholarly overview appropriate to an encyclopaedia article, I am removing anything that looks like strained attempts to shoehorn in a politically biased perspective. • DP • {huh?} 17:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for you to pursue nationalistic ideological aims, as I am sure you know very well. I spent some time restoring an appropriately encyclopaedic tone to this article. If you insist on using this article as a political football to kick around your nationalist agenda, I am quite happy to invite the wider Wikipedia community to assist in restoring the appropriate tone. • DP • {huh?} 22:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Fine. I see you are committed to defending your ownership of this article and promoting a view unsupported in sources not affiliated with either sides of the political conflict. I am going to report this behaviour and let the wider community address the problems you are creating.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosProteus ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
To what "personal attack" are you refering, exactly. And what "ethnic name calling" exactly? I have no agenda, other than preserving the article from bias. You simply reverted a significant amount of editing to clean up this article without examining it and without discussion. I appreciate that you are involved in a political and cultural conflict and wish to see your perspective reflected here. This is not an appropriate forum for you to do so, however. • DP • {huh?} 23:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for you to pursue nationalistic ideological aims, as I am sure you know very well."isn't a personal attack?! If it isn't an WP:ASPERSION cast as to an ethnic interest, what 'political and cultural interest' are you possibly be talking about? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not, no, and your suggestion that it is merely supports the sense that you are not editing according to encyclopaedic criteria. I haven't looked at this article for some time and returning to it, it was a mess. You've restored that. The perspective to which I am refering is the one that feels it is necessary to include the word "Ukrainian" in most paragraphs, as if taking on an incantatory effect. The ethnic and nationalist aspects of Gogol's work should not be dominating the article on the subject. Consulting standard works on the history of literature or the history of theatre confirms that the POV you have been promoting on this page is not the non-biased perspective from which the article should tackle the subject. • DP • {huh?} 23:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I should also point out that I did not seek to purge the word "Ukrainian" from this article, only to restore it to a more appropriate frequency, in line with sources precisely like Britannica. Hence "undue". The same is true for the standard works I have in front of me that I consulted prior to cleaning up -- The Cambridge Guide and the American set-text History of the Theatre. My cleaned up version of this article included far more references to that country than any of those works. Either you did not trouble yourself to examine the edit or you wish to promote an emphasis on the Ukrainian aspects of this subject that is, in relation to standard critical treatments of the subject, undue and indicating the promotion of an ideological agenda. When the standard works that are not produced either by Ukrainian nor Russian scholarship include the refrain "Ukraine" in every paragraph, then it may become appropriate for this article to reflect that. Until then, it remains an undue emphasis. I see as I was writing this that you have responded. If you care to look a little more closely, there is no new material (barring a tiny addition relating his work to the broader history of theatre). The anti-semitism charges were there word-for-word -- I moved them to the section "Politics", since this is a political dimension of his work. And this is most certainly not the first time I have involved myself in this article, if you care to look a little more closely at the edit history. The organisation of the article is a mess and I cleaned it up, as an expert in the history of theatre and a very experienced editor on wikipedia. I recommend that you look more closely at the edits and address the manifest problems with this article that I have identified. • DP • {huh?} 00:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The content of the article remains almost entirely entact, which you can see for yourself if you examine it closely. It seems you have not. I separated out the biographic account, the literary development, and the interpretation and influences sections, the material of which remained under a more appropriate organisation. I was detailed, careful, and most importantly neutral with regard to the Russian/Ukrainian issue. You reverted it all. You indicated in your very first message that you were not prepared to countenance anything other than the patently absurd repetition of the word Ukrainian that overburdened the article. There is no "barging" involved. The article in its un-cleaned up state does most certainly not reflect scholarly consensus on the subject and was not well organised. As the Guardian article cited early on makes clear [8] this is a problem indexed to an external political conflict that has no rightful place here. I came to this article having encountered another editor's explicit efforts to promote precisely the agenda I discovered in place here. The article clearly and unambigously reflects an undue emphasis on his "Ukrainian" identity, in a palpably unencylopaedic manner. I read the very very long discussions above and concluded, entirely accurately I must say from your responses and behaviour, that the problem required editors who are affiliated neither with Russia nor the Ukraine, precisely because of the culture-wars being fought out in the world external to Wikipedia over who gets to claim Gogol as their own. The arguments you offer about Dickens or Twain evade that reality. As for "waving the expertise card", I addressed your assumption that the article in its non-cleaned up state was not suffering from undue emphasis and that I have not contributed to this article in the past and that what 'I' consider undue is irrelevant. As I made clear in my first message, I was not making an argument about my authority--though, holding three degrees in Theatre, I can manage that well enough thanks all the same--but one based on the standard academic sources that ought rightly to guide in establishing what is and what is not an undue emphasis. In my experience, when an editor waves around as many WP citations are you have, it usually means they know they are on very shakey ground. When one has reliable third-party non-biased sources, usually such things aren't necessary. It is easy enough to demonstrate the fact that the article is suffering from an undue emphasis: take any treatment of world literature or world theatre, consult the relevant sections on Gogol, and see if the word Ukrainian appears with the same frequency you are attempting to promote here. It doesn't. It is mentioned, of course, which I have both in my edit and in my responses here, made clear ought to be reflected in this article. The point, however, is that the constant intoning of the word throughout the article is an undue emphasis that distorts the encyclopaedic perspective appropriate to Wikipedia. Your assumption that the article is a biography also is not borne out by the actual content of the article, the majority of which is not biographical. The suggestion that critical treatment of Gogol's work belongs in individual articles is quite plainly mistaken--I invite you to look over the well developed articles of major writers to see that for yourself. The well-nigh hysterical tone and accusations of ethnic bias that you continue to repeat only serve to reinforce the impression that you have little interest in an appropriately encyclopaedic treatment. When articles are involved in wider socio-political conflicts, as this one clearly is, editors committed to one position or the other are unlikely to reach the appropriate perspective without external assistance. I concluded from the talk page above and from your decision to revert without addressing the palpable problems that this is the problem here too. Your responses and behaviour have merely reinforced the veracity of that conclusion. The article needs help from editors who have little interest either in promoting or supressing the ethnic or nationalist dimensions of its subject. • DP • {huh?} 01:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please don't be confused: there is no doubt about Gogol's ethnicity. The current squabble is about the cultural association of Gogol: whether he belongs to Russian or Ukrainian culture. This is not unique to russia vs ukraine. for example, Adam Mickiewicz is "claimed" by Belarus, Lithuania and Poland. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Why I removed the phrasing 'leading to his eventual exile' from the sentence about The Governemnt Inspector and Dead Souls (by this edit): Albeit certainly provoked in part by real and potential troubles with censorship or living in Russia in general, Gogol's exile is technically a voluntary one. And it cannot be said to be caused by Gogol writing The Revizor, not to mention Dead Souls, that is chronologically posterior to his leaving Russia in 1836. 'Eventual exile' is also awkward as Gogol did eventually come back to Russia. User talk:Lenny Olsen 10:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nikolai Gogol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nikolai Gogol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I noted that the subject of homosexuality was vetoed. However, there is almost nothing there of his life. Certainly he is in an enigma and a mystery to many, and he had the imagination to create content that does not reveal anything of himself. But the parallels between Gogol the young man and the Overcoat should be mentioned.
What else of the man Gogol can we pick out of his works?
His relationship to food is well described in the Nabokov biography and I did locate one scholarly article on the topic. Food, Orality, and Nostalgia for Childhood: Gastronomic Slavophilism in Mid‐nineteenth‐Century Russian Fiction https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0036-0341.701999070
There are also letter collections published in Russian. Vladimir Nabokov included a few in his book. With one short story published, Gogol was still making a living as a clerk. He was a "chinovnik", going from one government office to another (page 26, Nabokov "Nikolai Gogol"). He attended art classes after putting in six hours "at the office." He claims to have lots of Ukrainian friends. No friend ever reported any love interests that Gogol had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tero111 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't really need Wikipedia to learn about Gogol, but it is nearly as disappointing as the college class I took on him. Except the section on style, which is excellent. In my class the professor took the normal "themes" approach. To me, the words jump out of the page and create a wonderful picture of life in 1800s. He had a way with words, not in any way limited by expected or previous fiction styles. His love for little Russians, peasants, is evident and the more pointed sarcasm and satire is directed at "important people."
As it is, the article would not encourage any new readers of Gogol. Tero111 ( talk) 03:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Iryna! I fail to see why Wikipedia would cover any fiction writers in that case. Fiction does not deal with facts. It should be essential to discuss the writer and his back ground to get some idea of the life of a historical figure. We can do this with Shakespeare, why not Gogol. I really do not see any point in having articles on writers at all beyond a list of works. Tero111 ( talk) 14:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Irina, there is plenty of biographical material in the Henry Troyat book, Gogol: The Biography of a Divided Soul Hardcover – January 9, 1975 ( Allen & Unwin) Gogol appears to have been a rather ordinary young man as he arrived in St. Petersburg. The way the Wikipedia articles are structured, there appears to be no way to summarize the character of a writer at the beginning. The early life sections are fine but then you jump into actual works. I've never read the whole of the Troyat book, as I am not particularly interested in criticism of the works. Occasionally they mange to clarify some points of life in the 1800s.
I've put in a blog entry for Gogol in a blog I don't actually use anymore. The text there is an attempt to carve a more colorful caricature and a short introduction to Gogol. It has no references or any factual infromation, more a broad portrait from many sources. http://esajii.blogspot.com/2018/07/nikolai-gogol.html Tero111 ( talk) 11:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Ukrainian culture and language existed long before the Russian Empire spread into the territory of ethnic Ukrainians. How can a descendant of Ukrainian Cossacks and a Polish mother all of a sudden acquire a Russian nationality? If an African person learns to speak English, does that make him British? Being born in the Russian Empire doesn't make anyone Russian. This is an American concept that doesn't translate at all. As proof, a Jewish person born anywhere in the Russian Empire or in Soviet Union didn't have "Russian" listed in their passport under "nationality" and the same goes for Ukrainians. USchick ( talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Why there is no Urkainian version of the name (Mikola) in introduction? Ithink it is usual for "shared" persons like Gogol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.214.187 ( talk) 15:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok Mykola. Still read as Mikola. Old Croatian had y. It`s just I written as y. But "shared" persons often have two names put in introduction. So first how he is called in the English language, than Russian and Ukrainian version ,as both nations claim him to be part of their legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.236.21 ( talk) 15:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn`t refer to chirilic script. Y or i is the same in Slavic languages. Read as i in milk. For example some Slavs write vysoko, some visoko. Same word, same meaning. High. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.239.23 ( talk) 21:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've had enough of this edit warring and adding non-existent information from Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ушкуйник, I don't know where you keep getting this Polen (Polish) gentry business from, but can only assume that you are confusing Poltava with Polish: it's completely unrelated other than consisting of the root word for 'field' in Eastern Slavic languages.
It would also be appreciated if you would stop doubling up on the self same reference to EB as is already in place as your reference. Try reading the EB entry carefully. There is nothing about Polen (EB is not a German publication) or Poland in there. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Gogol is without a doubt Ukrainian. I could easily come up the as much sources saying that he is Ukrainian that you come up with saying that he is Russian. To put it in historical context, Gogol was considered to be "Little Russian", which we all know was the chauvinistic Russian imperial way to say "Ukrainian". The most telling fact about Gogol's identity is that he wrote in the Ukrainian language! I have never encountered a non-Ukrainian who contributed to Ukrainian literature. There are many Ukrainians currently in Ukraine that identify as Ukrainians, yet speak Russian. Who are you to tell them that they are not Ukrainian? The facts that he spoke Ukrainian, AND contemporary sources called him Ukrainian indicate that Gogol was a Ukrainian writer who wrote in Russian. -- Bogu Slav 05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
"my school in Kiev" I don't think that can be considered a reliable source. USchick ( talk) 04:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ушкуйник, I guess your argument boils down to "Gogol is Russian because he wrote in Russian". Using this logic, you are an Englander (or American/Canadian/Australian/etc) because you contribute in the English language.-- Bogu Slav 03:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the formulation from Encyclopedia Brittanica: Ukrainian-born Russian-language author. I once wrote an essay Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies that I still stand for. Gogol is not might be a Ukrainian person or a Ukrainian celebrity but he is not a Ukrainian writer since he did not wrote any significant works in Ukrainian was not a part of a Ukrainian literary school or even a supporter of Ukrainian independence. Since Russian writer is confusing lets use the formulation from Brittanica (that also stayed in the articles for ages) Alex Bakharev ( talk) 06:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Without understanding Gogol’s Ukrainian identity you cannot understand Gogol and his writing, and therefore you cannot fully understand the literature of the Russian empire. Please try to read the introduction to Edyta M. Bojanowska, 2007, Nikolai Gogol: Between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism. [13] — Michael Z. 04:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC) by
This
edit request to
Nikolai Gogol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of Dreizin & Guaspari book should be corrected to 'The Russian Soul and the Jew: Essays in Literary Ethnocriticism'. (in the discussion of antisemitism in the 'Influences' section, currently it incorrectly says 'Literary Ethnocentrism') Nightmare-adventurist ( talk) 21:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
He is Ukrainian, he wrote mostly in Russian but he is ethnically ukrainian and grew up speaking ukrainian. It’s more important than ever to correct this 2A05:9CC4:7A:BE2E:286D:30CB:9A67:694E ( talk) 15:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The Gogol Center (German: Gogol Zentrum) in Moskow closed on Thursday evening 30 June 2022 after a last theater show (title, German: Ich beteilige mich nicht am Krieg. I do not participate in the war. Director: Kirill Serebrennikow. Author: from Ukraine. Based on poetry by Jury/ Juri Levitansky
"One of the best theatres of the continent." ORF, ticker, 3 July 2022.
https://orf.at/live/5237/ Russland: Aus für regimekritisches Gogol-Zentrum. 3 July 2022
The City of Moskow will rename the house (again, as until 2012) to Nikolai Gogol Theatre and establish a conform team.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/06/30/kirill-serebrennikovs-gogol-center-closed-a78154
https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/07/01/im-not-part-of-this-war-play-marks-moscows-gogol-centre-closure-news : I'm not part of this war.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220701-rebel-moscow-theatre-shuts-doors-after-final-show
Helium4 ( talk) 03:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that his name is changed to "Mykola Hohol", because Hohol never referred to himself as a Russian, he considered himself Ukrainian (which he was). Also, he met the same oppression as other Ukrainian authors even after moving to Moscow and writing in Russian . He was called the same slurs Russians used for every Ukrainian person.
It is disrespectful not only to Mykola Hohol, but to Ukrainian people too, seeing as how Russia always stole our culture and history. By describing him as a "Russian" author you are feeding into Kremlin propaganda narratives. I am writing this message with utmost respect, I am not trying to "vandalize" this page, all I want is to bring justice and recognition to Mykola Hohol's nationality, origins and views on himself. Thank you, I hope you will consider my message and see where I am coming from. Софія Макусій ( talk) 12:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The latinized ukrainian name for the writer would be Mykola Hohol. Since he is a ukrainian writer most of all, it seems a bit weird and almost disrespectful to use the russian name for him. Synycia ( talk) 05:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
To change the nationality for Ukrainian 2A02:1210:542A:FF00:F8F4:E59B:C742:1BEF ( talk) 15:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Kolya1384:,
Special:Diff/1114230204, your Revision as of 13:00, 5 October 2022, has this edit summary:
In the revision you describe Gogol as Ukrainian and cite this reference:
Unfortunately, The Slavic and East European Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, 2000 (the Summer issue) is page-numbered 177-374. It has no page 95. Page 95 of vol. 44 falls in no. 1 (the Spring issue) and is part of the article "Faulty Consciousnesses: Milan Kundera's The Joke". Gogol is not mentioned at all on page 95 of vol 44.
Vol. 44, no. 2 does have an article on Gogol on pp. 319-320, but it is not by Kirill Postoutenko and Natasha Drubek-Meyer but by Kirill Postoutenko alone. It is a review of Drubek-Meyer's book "Gogol's eloquentia corporis: Einverleibung, Identitaet und die Grenzen der Figuration". Postoutenko's review describes Gogol as a Russian author on p. 319:
The review does not mention the Carlserg senatorium or the year 1845 at all.
Please, what reliable source are you citing as a basis for your assertion that Gogol is a Ukrainian author? Thank you!
Dieter.Meinertzhagen ( talk) 04:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
because Hohol is Ukrainian writer and his name writes in the rules transliteration from Ukrainian to English languages. 89.28.207.91 ( talk) 18:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The text bolded here: His fictional story Taras Bulba, based on the history of Zaporozhian Сossacks....
links to
Zaporozhian Host although the
Taras Bulba article itself links directly to
Zaporozhian Cossacks when first mentioned. Is this intentional? —
Matuko (
talk)
21:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nikolai Gogol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CHANGE: the Alexandrinsky Theatre in St. Petersbrug, TO: the Alexandrinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg, DLDL1964 ( talk) 18:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 10:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Nikolai Gogol → Nikolay Gogol – per WP:RUROM, the Russian name "Николай" should be spelled as "Nikolay". — Mike Novikoff 04:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). — Mike Novikoff 09:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
> fc/b 1 2 Comparing files 00000006: 69 79 > cmp -bl 1 2 7 151 i 171 y— Mike Novikoff 10:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nikolai Gogol has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should we shorten this short description to {{
short description|Russian writer (1809–1852)}}
that exceed more than 40 characters.
112.204.223.162 (
talk)
23:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)