Talk:Ukrainians

Normanist/Antinormanist debate

This article could do with a little polishing... Scandinavian settled and Kyivan Rus was founded way before Christianity was accepted from Constantinople in 988 by Kievan Rus prince Volodymyr. Geraldo

I'd say it needs a lot of polishing, because:

• The foundation by the Scandinavians is only a one from three or more ethnological theories explaining the origin of Kievan Rus and Ukrainians (at least I was tought so in Ukrainian university);
• Like Geraldo says, adopting a Christianity was definitely not a starting point for Kievan Rus statehood. Kiev became a capital of Duchy when still being Pagan, and few Kievan Dukes before Volodymyr are known by their political and military deeds.

So let's go off West-centrical position. I`m looking forward to edit&widen Ukraine`s historical stuff radically, but it would take a lot of time since I don`t specialize in history. --AlexPU 17:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainians in Moldova

According to CIA factbook 2005 estimate (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/md.html) out of Moldova's population of 4,455,421 , there are 13.8 % of ethnic Ukrainians. This gives us 614 848 Ukrainins... (The number includes Ukrainians in Transnistria where they make up more than 25 % of the population). (Fisenko 05:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Let's use the latest officially available data. For Moldova there's the 2004 census: [1]

• Moldova, excluding Transnistria : 283,000 (8,4%)
• Transnistria: 162,000 (28%)
• Moldova: 445,000

bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CIA factbook is a very credible source. In this particular case I would consider CIA to be more neutral than Moldavian government. (Fisenko 04:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

CIA factbook may be a very credible source, but it still uses the old data from the 1989 census. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• CIA factbook figures are unrelayable at this regard.--Deguef (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture for Infobox

Please note that contrary to a common beleif, Khrushchev is not an ethnical Ukrainian. See his article and his talk page. The picture needs to be modified. --Irpen 00:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Replaced by Korolyov of the same time. --Irpen 03:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Скорочення

Не можна скорочувати Леся Українка, як Л Українка L. Ukrainka, тому шо це її псевдо. Варто вказати повне ім'я.

We musn't cut Lesya Ukrainka as L. Ukrainka, because it's her anonym. Boduni (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article is in English. Is inpolite the use other languages.--Deguef (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainians in Germany

I've heard alot of Ukrainians reside in Germany; however no numbers are given for Ukrainians in Germany here.

rest of the Russians

Ukrainians used to be part of the Old Russian stock up to the 14th century. However, long history of separation and foreign influences have perceptibly reshaped their ethnolinguistic identity splitting them from the rest of Russians.

What does this mean? Should be removed/reworded if noone can explainIlya K 10:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've improved the wording, but I think it's still over-generalized to the point of inaccuracy. Anyone know more about this? —Michael Z. 2005-11-12 17:09 Z

Actually all the people of former Kievan Rus refered to themselves as Rus'kie and their homeland modern Ukraine, Belarus and Europea Russia as Rus even as late as the 17th century (the term is still in use, name Rossiya (Latin version of Rus) was only popuralized by Peter the Grear). In English language it is called Kievan Russia and Rus' people are called as Russians even in those times in either English or Russian. The only people who are trying to change it recently are often nationalist Ukrainian and Polish academics. Fisenko 20:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In modern English, Rus’ is not the same as Russia, and I think Rus’kie a thousand years ago is not the same asRusskiye or Rossiyskiye today (but I don't speak Russian). I guess your nationalist conspiracy is succeeding, because "Kievan Rus" outnumbers "Kievan Russia" in Google results by a hundred to one. Welcome to the twenty-first century. —Michael Z. 2005-11-12 21:14 Z

The word Rossiyskiye in Russian language applies only to things not to people. The term Rossiyane is only used by politically correct government officials. Majority of Russians always called themselves (and still do) Ruskiye exacly like majoity of Ukrainains called themselves between 11th and 18th centuries. Nobody denies Ukrainians are a separate nation today, however, they didn't existed as a separate nation in the middle-ages. PS I wouldn't call it "conspiracy" but rather a trend or fashion. Fisenko 21:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; sorry if my reply sounded testy. In this sense, neither Belarusians, Russians nor Ukrainians existed as separate nations a thousand years ago, although I understand there were at least regional linguistic differences by then.

I think the words Russkiye and Rusyny were used in much the same fashion, simply to refer to "our people", and of course were sometimes adopted to support national and political points of view. But as far back as the late 1700s the Austrians used Ruthenen to refer to East Slavs who called themselves Rusyny and were obviously different from Russians. The definition of nationality has more to do with politics and self-identification than it does with genetics or linguistics anyway, and today it's polite not to call Ukrainians Russians, nor Russians Ruthenians. Likewise, we (try to) avoid bad feelings by referring to Kievan Rus, and not Russia. I don't see anything wrong with it, if we can leave it at that and get on with contributing to the Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2005-11-12 22:43 Z

We, Russian, still can understand about 70 percent of ukrainian speech and vice versa. You will judge yourself: my father is half-ukrainian, my mother is half-tatar. And the same situation is with an any another family in Russia Ukrain, or Belorussia (я руский) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.19.170.26 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yushchenko in the pic

Looks for me like orange propaganda and POV. It is not politically neutral to place this one-year president among the greatest Ukrainians, since he is highly disputed in the own country and his achievements so far are doubtful. Why was Sergey Korolyov removed?? He is an everywhere respected person and his achievements for the humanity are clear and undisputed.

I suggest to restore the old pic and keep Wikipedia free of political bias and subjecitve preferences. Voyevoda 09:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yushchenko has the advantage that he is possibly the most-recognized Ukrainian in English-speaking countries today, but I agree that Korolyov is more neutral and probably lasting figure. —Michael Z. 2006-01-17 18:30 Z

I think currently Yushchenko is undoubtedly the most recognizable Ukrainian today (possibly just behind Shevchenko) and despite accusations of his progress that kind of popularity should not go unrewarded. This Wikipedia entry should reflect its current status, not be some museum for old Soviet relics! (unsigned)

We need some balance and diversity here with respect to different times and different fields. The modern concept of the nation was born in the 19th century and it seems reasonable to not go any further back. I also doubt Bohdan Khmelnytsky, a notable figure for wure, would be very recognizable and someof his actions ring unpleasantly to our Western neighbors. Taras Shevchenko tops the list without a doubt. Lesya Ukrainka seems the most notable Ukrainian woman. We need one modern very recognizable person, and Andriy Shevchenko (currently) or Ruslana are the obvious choices. I would think that now Shevchenko is the most recognizable but Ruslana's fans may disagree. Having a scientist as a fourth figure seems a good choice for a complete diversity. Besides, it is a good idea to have a person who attained notability in the 20th century (we have 19th and 21st already). To call Korolyov a Soviet relic is an outright nonsense. There is no need to politicize this. Any president is recognizable. I don't see many presidents in other ethnicities' articles. --Irpen 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How about someone of Ukrainian ancestry from outside of Ukraine? Off the top of my head I can think of astronaut Roberta Bondar, current Alberta premier Ed Stelmach, and both William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. I don't think any of these could be considered controversial in a political way, although perhaps the consensus is to only feature Ukrainians born in Ukraine? --Charlene 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not to move this page --Lox (t,c) 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Ukrainians → Ukrainian people : To follow pattern used for many other articles on peoples.

Voting

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"

• Oppose- "Ukrainian people" seems ambiguous. Could mean equally Ukrainians or citizens of Ukraine. OTOH do not see any real benefit of renaming the article (other than the pleasure of consistency with another article that you have renamed :-( --_Lysy^talk 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose—the large majority of articles in category:Ethnic groups in Europe follow the same simple noun form as "Ukrainians", and there doesn't seem to be any advantage to the other form. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 22:33 Z
• Oppose no need for "people" as unlike "English", "Ukranians" can not be mistaken for Ukranian language. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of Ukrainians

Dear User:Lysy 47,425,336 is the number of people living in Ukraine and 77.8 % of them are ethnic Ukrainians (subject of this article) which adds up to about 36,000,000 ethnic Ukrainians living in Ukraine. Reference: CIA -- The World Factbook -- Ukraine Fisenko 02:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainians in Italy and Portugal

Are you serious about 500 000 Ukrainians in Italy and 300 000 in Portugal ?

These numbers seem incredibly high. Obviously there is much bigger Ukrainian communities in Germany, Poland and USA.

If anything these includes all the temprorary guest workers from Ukraine to ever visit these countries (still I doubt the numbers) and defenetly not the numbers of permanent residents of Ukrainian ethnic origin in these countries. Fisenko 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This data on labor migration. Probably they aproximate, but their gives "World congress of ukrainians". Askold Lozinskiy, President of the congress, confirms that this numeral (500 000 in Italy and 300 000 in Portugal) Ukrainians in that moment (2003) in these country. I suppose these numbers can be published with note that data is aproximate.

Here is else reference [2]. On calculation Ministry of Labour overseas constantly work more than 3 million people Ukraines. Of them 500,000 legal (Including in Portugals 80,000). --Yakudza 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Temprorary workers, especially illegal, are very hard to count let's stick to the numbers of Ukrainian diasporas (permanent residents) abroad. Fisenko 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• When we speak of Ukranians in Italy we should first specify if they are ethnic Ukranians or just citizens of Ukraine. In fact, a substantial share (perhaps at least 30%) of citizens of Ukraine living in Italy belong to the moldavian/romanian ethnic group (coming from Northern Bukovina, Transcarpathia and Hertza). So if the figure of 500.000 is true almost 200.000 should be etnic moldavians/romanians.--Deguef (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Khazars and Goths in Ukraine

1) Only Khazar upper class and nobility converted to Judaism the majority of population remain pagan or Christian. 2)Khazars did not remain in Ukraine and Jewish Diaspora was virtually no-existent in Ukraine until the Ashkenazi Jews started to settle in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1500s. Fisenko 12:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Ukrainians are said to be descendants of Goths and Varangians. Even though Ostrogoths settled north of Crimea, they took off long, long before Ukrainians as a distinct nation started to emerge. Varangians were Scandinavian mercinaries in Kievan Rus', and I don't think they arrived in such numbers as to have any effect on the genetic "composition" of present-day Ukrainians. Both these claims need to be supported by some solid evidence rather than someone's imagination. 134.220.203.115 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the article again. It never said that Ukrainians are descendants of Goths and Varangians. On the opposite it implicidly states that Ukrainian origins are overwhelmingly Slavic while non-Slavic nomads who mostly lived in the steppes of southern Ukraine had little influence on the ancestors of modern Ukrainians Fisenko 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the bit: "Ukrainians are the descendants of several peoples who inhabited the vast area extending from north of the Black Sea to the borders of Russia, Poland, Moldova, Belarus and Slovakia. These people included numerous nomadic tribes such as Persian-speaking Scythians and Sarmatians; Germanic-speaking Goths and Varangians" :-))) By the way, if the Slavs and the non-Slavic nomads lived side by side, how can you be sure they did not inter-marry? 84.67.221.237 02:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Ruslana in the picture with famous Ukrainians!

Please add Ruslana in the picture with famous Ukrainians. This is not fair! She deserves it more than the football player!!!!!!!!!!!!

I added Ruslana 2 times in the picture but someone removed it!

Ruslana is much famous than the 4 mens from the picture!! Do you have someting against womans?????

Who thinks that Shevcenko is much famous than Ruslana is crazy!!!!!!!!!!--Alexandru Busa 16:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem may be that putting her in over and over and over again may appear to some to be a bit fanboyish. She's also nowhere near as notable as Shevchenko; believe it or not, she's virtually unknown outside of Europe, and even in Europe she's considered by many to be a one-hit wonder. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a slave to what's hot in pop culture right this exact minute. It would be a bit like putting Barbi Benton (look her up) as an example of a notable American. --Charlene.fic 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainians in Brazil

I've edited the figure for Ukrainians in Brazil to 550,000 per the reference given. There is no evidence for a figure of 1,050,000. --Charlene.fic 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just to inform you that User:200.206.210.76 (see: contributions) has been vandalizing other pages by inflating similar numbers. Please free to revert, after confirmation. Poeticbent 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the Sneaky Stats Vandal. He's been around for a long time, and unfortunately, he's now using a dynamic IP address. Please block for a few days on sight, and add his IP to the list at the link above. —Michael Z. 2006-12-12 06:45 Z

Italic text

And a year later he's back at it! --Charlene 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Isnt this article supposed to be about ethnic Ukrainians??

How could you not place Nestor Makhno in the image?

A great man, an honest man. A hero of many, and were the first to practicaly try to creat anarchism. M.V.E.i. 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to enter Nestor Makhno instead of Andriy Shevchenko. First, there are license problems with Andriy Shevchenko. Second, Andriy Shevchenko is a good footbaler but he's not the greatest in the world. I mean, there were greater Ukrainian players during the Soviet time. The trick is to enter people who are unique, special, irreplacable in the history pages. M.V.E.i. 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Makhno should be in the image, but Andriy Shevchenko must stay.. he is defenetly a well known football player. I believe that we can remove Vladislav Gorodetsky (He is part Polish..) and replace him with Shevchenko and remove Leonid Kadeniuk and replace him with Pavel Popovich (more important than Kadeniuk.) —dima/talk/ 00:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree to that. Give me a few minutes to do that change please. M.V.E.i. 09:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no way we can remove Andriy Shevchenko, he is probably today's the best known Ukrainian. Here is what I propose.

• T. Shevchenko
• L. Ukrainka
• B. Khmelnytsky
• A. Shevchenko
• P. Popovich
• S. Korolyov
• S. Timoshenko

...And one more. I won't make any edit until we have some agreement, what does everyone think? Bogdan 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He is probably TODAYS, and the trick is to place those who are irriplacable not only tody but in the history pages. Anyway, since so much insist i will return him. I just love what DDima suggested. M.V.E.i. 09:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Popovich i cant put due to the fact we dont have a free image of him, and Makhno we cant not put due to his historical value. Except having Makhno instead of Popovich, as you can see what we have know fits yours proposal :-) I hope it means were near a concensus. M.V.E.i. 10:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We all due respect to Stephen Timoshenko, he is hardly recognizable. There are actually four modern Ukrainians with a good world-wide face recognition. Andriy Shevchenko, Ruslana and the Klitschko's. Shevchenko is probably the most recognizable. We can't have more than two modern faces. So, I vote Ruslana, because she is also a lady and a pretty one, with all due respects to the great boxers. --Irpen 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He is very recognizable. In a few years Andriy Shevchenko wont be known by anybody, while Stephen Timoshenko will be remembered forever. Shure you wont see Timoshenko on the cover of a magazine as one of "top ten sexy man" today and all this celebrity idiotism, but he will always be remembered. I think the current image is the most perfect it can be. M.V.E.i. 10:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please no controversial figures, Makhno, Bandera, Petliura, Antonov-Ovseyenko, Kuchma, Kravchuk, Yushchenko, Yulia Tymoshenko, Yanukovych, etc are all divisive enough. If we have room for an older figure, perhaps Skovoroda but remember to spread them by time. --Irpen 10:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Makhno is not controversial and dont compare him to them. He wanted a peasent free state, and he made the first ever attemp to create an anarchist state. He was unbribable. He represent the strong Ukrainian peasent. Someone above already stated he supports Makhno to be here. Dont belive the Soviet propogande about him because it's all lies. I read a huge number off books on him so i know. M.V.E.i. 11:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please notice, since i decided to start improving the image i made alot of hard work. The licenses discription, improving the quality (if you'll notice on the previous image all the colour-images were low quality). You know why i started all that? Se we will have Makhno in the images. So please, lets keep him. An honest unique man, one of it's kind, with a rough destiny. M.V.E.i. 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. You like him, I don't. Next thing is Yakudza or Hillock from uk-wiki coming here with the lecture that Petlura is also a good guy. Just cut the politics out of the template. --Irpen 11:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Makhno is not politics! Makhno is history, he represent's the cry of the peasent people for freedom. Pitlura is political, currupted, represents only nationalists, and eventually sold himself to the Poles and Germans and fought for them. M.V.E.i. 11:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You know? It's simple. Lets keep it the way it is for now, and see what others say. M.V.E.i. 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Add Skovoroda and Kirponos, a great philosopher and a great war hero who all respect instead of Makhno and Timoshenko. I hope you don't mind Kirponos, do you? If in months or years we get a free image of Ruslana she will be in. --Irpen 11:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Skovoroda- YES. Kyrponos- NO. Ivan Franko should be included. Makhno and Mazepa- for sure.Galassi 11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont compair Makhno to Mazzepa. Mazzepa is a creep. M.V.E.i. 12:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Makhno and Mazepa are divisive and not recognizable at all. But I can't imagine anyone having beef against Kirponos. --Irpen 12:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm against! Not recognizable, while Makhno is. And dont compare Makhno to Mazzepa! Mazzepa is a creep. M.V.E.i. 12:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that for the Russians he is. Mazepa, however, is one of the most recognizeable Ukrainians and is unlike Makhno featured on Ukrainian banknotes. His legacy in Ukraine is just as much debated as that of Khmelnytsky, so his inclusion would be indeed divisive. Hillock65 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i cant tell you you have history knowladge. I'm a Russian so ont teach me what Russians think of him. Makhno fought agains Petlura to. Why? He wanted an idnependent peasent state without a government. He has many fans in Russia, why? Till the end he didn't want to fight the reds due to the fact they have poor background. He was anti-racist and he had Ukrainians, Russians and Jews in his army. Mazzepa was a traitor, he fought for the Turks. M.V.E.i. 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That Russians thought he was a traitor doesn't surprise me. If foreigners are to decide who of Ukrainians are traitors or not, maybe we shouldn't include Khmelnytsky for betraying the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, since that what Poles think about him. What about what other Ukrainian neighbours think? I am sure Germans, Romanians, Turks and Hungarians, just like Russians have their view on Ukrainian personalities — that doesn't mean that all that should be reflected in an encyclopaedia article. Hillock65 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You dont even know your own history. Betraid Poland? Shure! Be a slave for some Polish pan! I see you really miss those times when a Ukrainian was beatten by a Polish pan every day, and then the Russians gave him freedom! Have you ever read why the Ukrainians started a revolt against Poland?? Now have you read why they needed Russia? They would be all on sharp big stickes in their butts if the Poles would win them (it was one of the punish-ways used by the Poles). M.V.E.i. 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I like Irpen's idea. Ruslana+no politics. Makhno has huge political status. I also like the idea of two modern Ukrainians, Andriy Shevchenko and Ruslana sounds good to me. Bogdan 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think politics should be kept out of there. If there is a Soviet general featured, so should an UPA general too. Featuring Soviet generals is divisive, even though the majority fought in the Red Army a substantial number of Ukrainians didn't. The matter itself in the present-day Ukraine is not as clear-cut as some would hope and is subject to controversy. Let's not feature divisive personalities and let's concentrate on neutral non-divisive figures. Hillock65 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

UPA are traitors and German spyes, low people. There is no "controversy", only those who had grandpa's in the UPA try to show as if there is a place for a debate. M.V.E.i. 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are up to several millions of Ukrainians, who think them their heroes, they have a veteran status and receive pensions in at least three Ukrainian oblasts, in the areas where they fought, with up to 15 million inhabitants. Shruggin this fact off is not as easy, it is divisive all right, 100th anniversary of Roman Shukhevych and the death of Vasyl Kuk were celebrated on the state level. Shrugging them off because some foreighners consider them traitors is not that easy. It is a subject of controversy, so let's keep Soviet and WWII personalities out of the article.Hillock65 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Those "several millions Ukrainians" are grandchildren of those traitors who sold out to the Germans, offcourse they will try to rewrite the history. Its hard for them to addmit they have wrotten blood. It eats them from the inside, thats why they are so jumpy about it. M.V.E.i. 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please spare us the twisted national-bolshevik view on history and concentrate instead on topic of discussion. No further comments on history. Hillock65 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ruslana is pro Yuishenko. And there are many people who won the Eurovision, nothing unique in that. M.V.E.i. 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, M.V.E.i what do you suggest? Bogdan 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If I could suggest Solomiya Krushelnytska instead of an obscure Tymoshenko, a famous opera singer, known not only in Ukraine. She is also apolitical and non-controversial and will balance nicely the male-dominated picture. The image can be downloaded from Ukrainian wiki since it is old enough to be in commons. Hillock65 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Hillock would suggest something like this?

• T. Shevchenko
• L. Ukrainka
• B. Khmelnytsky
• A. Shevchenko
• P. Popovich
• S. Korolyov
• S. Krushelnytska
• Ruslana Lyzhychko

Lets get this over with. Bogdan 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tymoshenko is much more famous then her. I dont see the problem. Leave it the way it is now. M.V.E.i. 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the list. Maybe instead of two people connected to space exploration/cosmonauts (Popov and Korolyov) we could add more historical figures? What do people think about Roxelana if one wants to go further back into history? Hillock65 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess popovich could go, but there is no way we can take out Korolyov. He practically built the Soviet space program. As for Roxalana, I wouldn't mind, but I don't think she's very well known around the world. Bogdan 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Roxelana is absolutely a great idea. Our time diversity and gender distribution would be greatly enhanced. I doubt we can find a free image of Ruslana though. It would be great if we do. --Irpen 18:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you gone mad?? Roxalena more then Korolyov? I see that the Ukrainian article competes with English and French people on who has the cheapest image. M.V.E.i. 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, i think the current image is best and no one can go, esspecially Makhno, who, together with Korolyov, are the two most importent figures here. If you decide to remove Makhno, please delete my name as "author" and "source". You can keep all the work i've done, but if Makhno is removed i dont want my name there. M.V.E.i. 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see you guys compete on how to make the picture cheaper, so i offer (me it discusts but you guys might like it): Verka Serduchka (why not?? thats where it goes), Klichko, Shevchenko, Roxelena. Then you will be in the same line as French people, as those who have the cheapest pictures. In that rythm you will find yourself in the European Union! M.V.E.i. 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also against Makhno. Let's keep it without divisive personalities. If Russians won't object to the inclusion of Korolyov, let him be. Let's get some concensus on who should be in the there and move on:

• T. Shevchenko
• L. Ukrainka
• B. Khmelnytsky
• A. Shevchenko
• Roxelana
• S. Korolyov
• S. Krushelnytska
• Ruslana Lyzhychko

There is a nice balance of male - female personalities now. Any other additions/changes? Hillock65 19:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I as a Russian not only don't object, but support you guys having Korolyov. I mean, he's half Russian and half Ukrainian, so both nations can equaly be proud of him. Roxalena instead of Stephen Timoshenko? Ruslana?? Cheap. At least you didn't insert Verka Serduchka. Look, i dont want to take part in this image-murderer. All i can advice you is if you dont want an administrator to delete your image (in case you creat one) make shure there are no license problems (and with Ruslana you will have, they werent taken before 1953 so the images are copywrited). In case you use the current image as a base, please delete my nickname from "author" and "source". M.V.E.i. 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have consesus for 6 of the 8 pictures (T. Shevchenko, L. Ukrainka, B. Khmelnytsky, A. Shevchenko, S. Korolyov and S. Krushelnytska) right? The only question is Ruslana or Tymoshenko or Makhno or Roxelana? Of the four I would prefer Tymoshenko and Roxelana. Bogdan 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Krushelnytska is a bad choice. Guys, cant you see Makhno wasnt a politician?? He didnt understand those stuff. He was just a peasent who wanted freedom for the peasents so they could work out of the feeling they are free and wont be controled by parasites. He was offered bribes by the Reds, Whites, Petlura and Grigoryev, and he refused. Thats why he lost. He died in complete poverty. M.V.E.i. 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agreed, no divisive personalities - Makhno is out of the question. Tymoshenko is very obscure. My vote is for Roxelana. It is non-political, from a different time frame, and adds another female to the list dominated by males. Hillock65 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why have we not considered any figures from the princely period? I notice their portraits have been avoided in the articles Russians and Belarusians as well, but I would not have a problem with thoughtfully-chosen East Slavs of this period appearing in any of the three.

Although their ancestry is traced back to Scandinavia, would in not be appropriate to include Kniaz’ Volodymyr Velykyy, Kniahynia Ol’ha, Yaroslav Mudryy, or Danylo Halyts’kyy as important Ukrainians? —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 23:23 Z

That cant be done, they were not Ukrainians. They were not even slavs. M.V.E.i. 09:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Portrait criteria

Can we establish a list of portrait criteria as a basis for discussion?

This seems to be a popularity contest run by a committee, which can only result in a boring list of personalities. There are very few famous Ukrainians who aren't divisive at all. Isn't the idea to have a representative grouping of significant figures for this encyclopedia, not just our favourite folk heroes?

I would point out that Makhno can also be considered a bandit leader who murdered Mennonites and burnt their villages. Along with Putlura, Khmelnytsky would be removed from the nomination if we leave out anyone who has been accused of killing Jews. Remove the nationalists, Soviets, and Yushchenko supporters too, and it starts to get watered right down. —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 21:32 Z

You dont even know who he was. He havent burnt down and images, and he killed those of his men who did that. Makhno haven't killed Jews, it was a lie invented by Petlura. He killed those of his man who have killed Jews. His right hand, Levka Zadov, amd the head of the Gulay Polye soviet, were Jewish. M.V.E.i. 09:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a number of factors should be taken into account: people well-known in and outside of Ukraine, representative of different time periods and not just men, but female too, and no hugely controversial figures. I guess we can get a few of those out of so many Ukraine has had. Hillock65 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind adding some good photos of people who are not as widely-known, to help draw an interested reader in to discover a little-known but interesting personality.

We definitely want diversity in gender, period, and I would say politics. I'd like to see at least one living person. Also, a wide variety of vocations: political leadership, academics, arts, military, music or sports.

I disagree that non-controversy should be a criterion. Naturally, a more controversial or not universally liked figure may be harder to agree on, but how else can the portrait collage represent the tumultuous and diverse history of Ukrainians? Perhaps we can include one or two such figures who balance each other out. —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 22:59 Z

MVEi, you should cut down on providing your eloquent opinions about the people, we are discussing here. Read their articles and suggest some valuable changes. Your comments here are unhelpful.

Michael, I think we should stay away from the figures that are divisive within Ukraine. Khmelnytsky is certainly controversial, true, and Poles may not like him. But there is no strong dislike of him within Ukraine from any side. The same may be said about Kirponos, an acclaimed and respected war hero. Despite being the Red Army commander, I have never heard any badmouthing of Kirponos from the nationalist circles. And I disagree with pre-Ukrainian figures. East Slavic Princes of 10th-11th centuries were not Russian in modern sense. Neither they were Ukrainian. --Irpen 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about what you said to Michael. Khmelnitsky should stay, and East-Slavic princes should not be entered due to the fact they were not Ukrainians. They were the people of Rus, Rusachi as they were called. Not Ukrainian nor Russians. Thats why in the Russians and Belarussians images those were avoded. And knyaz Vladimir wasn't even Slavic, he was Varagian. M.V.E.i. 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This discusion was interesting but didn't lead to clear portrait criteria... I still don't understand why the English speaking word (this is English Wikipedia) should have heard of Nestor Makhno... I sugest we replace his picture with Yulia Tymoshenko or Victor Yushchenko they are known politicians. It is not important if they are controversial within Ukraine cause the target of this article is too inform English speakers, not to unite Ukraine. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had another idea (a better one I think) and that is to replace Nestor Makhno with a picture of protesters from orange revolution. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And if Andriy Shevchenko career doesn't improve we should consider replacing his image too. Players who don't play soon lose there fame and I don't think he is a legend like Johan Cruyff, mabey Sergey Bubka will be more remembered? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Josaphat Kuntsevych doesnt fit

First, he was canonysed only in the Greek-Catholic chirch, which means it represent's only a minority and not the provoslavian majority (not talking about atheists). Second, he wasn't even Ukrainian but ethnicly Belarusian. M.V.E.i. 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Popovich

I noticed we have a license problem with his image. I thing he should be replaced to Korolev, who was half Ukrainian. Please state your opinions. M.V.E.i. 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

License problems solved

If you will enter the image page you will see that a discription and source and license types were all given. I have done it to prevent the possibility of a future administrator deleting it due to license problems. M.V.E.i. 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

The links that are being removed are relevant and helpful to readers. Why remove all of them? Ostap 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Kuban Kazak doesn't like Ukrainians, methinks.Galassi (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

May I remember you both, and the other editors, that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. Some of the links may be allowable, though most can better be used as references, and some plainly fail our external links guideline. Please discuss them here first before readding them.

Also, please assume good faith, deleting external links does not mean that someone does not like Ukrainians. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We do. But Kuban has manifested his antipathy repeatedly. Galassi (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As I can see from the last 25 or so contributions is that he is, like me, mainly cleaning the huge external links sections. From the edit summaries it looks to me he is quite familiar with the external links guideline, and with 'not a linkfarm' in 'what wikipedia is not' policy. Links are supposed to be on topic, relevant, and the external links section should contain only a few links, not an extensive list of all (??) possible maps that can be linked to. Cleaning such section according to policy and/or guideline is not expressing antipathy. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of those links are on topic and relevant and helpful to people who read this (so-called) encyclopedia. If you or Kuban kazak object to some of them and can show how they are irrelevant, please remove them. But removing all of them is certainly a strange way to enforce a guideline that seems to not even have been broken. Ostap 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What I am referring to was a policy, not a linkfarm, IMHO, 15 links is not 'a few' .. but that is subject to argument, of course. The other part is that we link to pictures, some hosted on imageshack-like servers, which may be in violation of the copyright policy. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be such a bureaucrat. And no maybe's, please. We'll talk when you find an actual violation. Bedanckt.Galassi (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Ok Galassi please explain how you feel the bulk of the links are useful: Here is my edit summary and I will explain why I removed each of the links one by one.

• 1.The link right above it is from the same source, and moreover one can navigate from the above link to the map. The article is useful, no question about that, but what makes a map more useful. Moreover the map's sources are sketchy it claims that the contigous territory well into neighbouring countries, however evidence such as census figures directly contradict it. Obviously its not NPOV.
• 2.The English Ukrainian dictionary is relevant to the Ukrainian language but relevance does it play here. Moreover there are a dozen online translators what makes that one special?
• 3.Whatever the link is meant to represent it should not be in the refrence template...that's just sloppy.
• 4.Famous Ukrainians, with such a small list I would use the word amateurish, its depth is to insignificant to be used as a full refrence here, it might be sufficient for articles on the individuals but we actually have a List of Ukrainians and that is featured in the see also part of the article.
• 5. Scientific articles are justified pieces of refrence, but as external links I doubt an average Joe reading this will have much use for a Ukrianian language article...
• 6 & 7. The next two maps are dialects, again useful for Ukrainian dialects and Ukrainian language but no use for Ukrainians same argument as with the translators. Besides very poor B&W quality (particularly #6), there are much more preattier alternatives (and there is only need for one at most).
• 8 Goes from the previous argument, poor quality and also a clear "land grab" attempt by the author who claims it as of 1949 (by 1949 there were no Tatars in Crimea, or Ukrainians in Kuban being majority...again SLOPPY and WRONG!)
• 9 I did not delete the German map, but I did remove the random URL which links completely off topic, a technical correction but was reverted for no reason
• 10 There are four maps based on 1897 census, so the fifth (Slovak) one is really unnecessary as it simply does not show anything new. However I do wonder how the author arrived at such "perfect" border contours (with no overlap as shown elsewhere) between Great Russia and Little Russian zones. Once again rather sloppy.

So Galassi it's now your job to defend in keeping any of the 9 links in this article. If we agree on keeping a few do put them in, but until then please don't accuse me of POV, as my explanation above shows none whatsoever. --Kuban Cossack 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest at the least readding this one and this one. Both are relevant. Ostap 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The first is already part of the enc. of Ukraine, the second is a good refrence but is a useless external link. --Kuban Cossack 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian flag origin

The Poltava battle origin of the blue-and-yelow flag is studied in detail in the classic book of a renowned Russian historian William Pohlebkin: Похлёбкин В. В. Словарь международной символики и эмблематики. М. 1995. sk 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but every other source disagrees with this. Ostap 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ostap,
Verifiability rather then correctness
According to the Wiki rules it is not of importance if the theory or opinion is correct but rather that it is published in a reliable source. I hope you will agree that a book of renowned historian could be concidered as such a source.

Neutral point of view
The version Ukrainian flag Swedish origin is widely known in Russian press and historical science (more citations can be provided on demand). Hence according to the NPOV rule this theory should be present in all articles dealing with the issue.

Encyclopedia Britannica
Thank you for citing the Britannica. Until now I was unaware that there is an article on the history of Ukrainian flag. Now I see a chance to inform the Britannica's editors on the other theory.

In conclusion let me express hope for our further cooperation in the issues of Ukrainian-Russian relations. sk 05:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the theory. Its still in the article. Ostap 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. Regards. sk 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pokhlebkin was famous for cookbooks more than anything historical. The "theory" is only useful to Russian nationalists, who are keen on stressing artificialness of anything Ukrainian.Galassi (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong: W.V.Pokhlebkin was professional historian:

Вильям Васильевич (учился в ) МГУ на факультете международных отношений. Затем - в аспирантуре в Институте истории Академии Наук (с 1949 по 1952 годы). Являлся действительным членом Российского географического общества с 1952 года, кандидатом исторических наук и научным сотрудником Института истории с 1953 по 1963 годы.

Похлёбкин основал журнал «Скандинавский сборник» и был его главным редактором с 1955 по 1961 годы. С 1962 года он был членом редакторского совета журнала Scandinavica, сотрудничал с другими изданиями.

I do not discuss the correctness of his research. But as soon as it was pulished in a book dedicated to the discussed matter it should be present in the article. Such is a rule of Wikipedia. sk 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainians vs. Sitizens of Ukraine

Dear User talk:Galassi,

Please note that by the rules of Wikipedia all disputable statements should have references to the reliable sources. I consider the following statement far from obvious and highly disputable:

(Українці, Ukrayintsi) are [] speaking more broadly — citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)

.

Please provide the reiable source for the statement or, acording to the rules of Wikipedia, I will delete it. sk 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

NB: I have put the template at this statement in order to attract public attention to this issue. Please do not remove it. Such removal is against the rules of Wiki. Please abide by the rules. sk 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No one has ever disputed this paragraph. It is advisable to learn English sufficiently to understand the difference between ethnic origin and common usage. (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, you are wrong again: I dispute this statement. And this is the reason enough to provide the reliable source.

Please note that I ask you in the third time to abide by the rules and not to delete the citation request. Please note that such actions can be considered as vandalism with corresponding dire consequences.sk 14:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Galassi,
In the summary to your last edit, while deleting my citation request again you wrote:

...this is the ENGLISH wiki

I am glad to agree with you in this point. And please note at long last that this Wiki HAS ITS RULES. These rules are not very numerous so it is not so hard to read them. Plese do before you edit. And when you do please note that one need to provide sources to ALL disputable statements. I insist that the statement

(Українці, Ukrayintsi) are [] speaking more broadly — citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)

is disputable.
As soon as you cannot provide a source despite numerouse requests I delete this disputed statement. Hope you will provide the source soon. sk 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Galassi,
Unfortunately you keep deleting my edits without discussion. Please note that such behavior boils down to Edit war that does not correspond to the best practice of Wikipedia. According to the recommendations for Dispute resolution I propose a Truce for a couple of days in order to give other people a chance to participate. In order to attract third opinion I have mentioned our dispute at the corresponding page.

In order to facilitate navigation for the third parties I inserted the sign at the disputed place of the article. Please do not delete it again. sk 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion was requested. Here is my opinion.

• First, an observation. Both of you are in violation of WP:3RR. Any more reversions today and you will be blocked from editing.
• Second, the word "Ukrainian" is commonly used in English to mean one of two things:

1. An ethnic Ukrainian (obviously).
2. A citizen of Ukraine (obviously). It is also obvious that not all Ukranian citizens are ethnic Ukranians; I mean, if I moved there and gained Ukrainian citizenship, I'd be a Ukrainian without being an ethnic Ukrainian.

• That's exactly what the lead sentence says, although it could be phrased better. There is no need to request citations for common English understandings.

I would recommend the phrasing: "Ukrainians (...) can refer to either an East Slavic ethnic group living primarily in Ukraine, or to citizens of Ukraine" and remove the parenthetical note. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear User talk:Amatulic,
Thank you for your opinion. Using the opportunity I would like to ask you a question. Suppose you move from Ukraine to GB and are granted local sitizenship. How does this influence your nationality? And if it will what exactly you will be: Welsh, Scot, or Englishmen? Or will you stay Ukrainian with Brittish passport?

The point of discussion is that there is not yet a single word in English discribing Ukrainian sitizens but not etnic Ukrainians (who are the Ukrainians per se). The reason is simple - Ukrainian state does not exist long enough to acquire a special word in English (and in other languages as for my knowledge) to denote its sitizens. As for the word Ukrainians, I can assure you that at least 30% of Ukrainian sitsens will be surprised to say the least if you call them Ukrainians. They never were Ukrainians and they will never be.

I agree that this is a question of time for the the word denoting sitizens of Ukraine to be coined. But before this happens, it is neither right nor correct to list all citizens of Ukraine into Ukrainians. That is my opinion. sk 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is the result of limited exposure to current English usage, according to which a citizen of any country could be of any non-native extraction. So a Bosnian born in Germany will be German. We understand that this is difficult to grasp for a Russian, and we all know the ethocentric Russian mindset.Galassi (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

sk, I'm happy to answer your question. If I am granted citizenship by a country, my nationality becomes the same as that country. In the case of the UK, I would be a UK citizen; I would not be part of one of the sub-groups there such as Welsh or Scot. Similarly, as a German citizen I could be considered German, as a Singapore citizen I could be considered Singaporean, as a Croatian citizen I could be considered Croatian (and all three are real possibilities in my personal case, given my own family ties).

You are incorrect, there is a word describing Ukrainian citizens. That word is Ukrainian. That's the way English works. Even as long ago as 2006, dictionaries were defining "Ukrainian" as "a native or inhabitant of the Ukraine"[3] (note that we no longer use the word "the" together with "Ukraine" these days). You might argue about the distinction between "inhabitant" and "citizen" but that's too fine a distinction in the context of this article.

Note also, that no dictionary specifically mentions ethnicity, although that is implied. The fact remains, the word is used to refer to citizenship in the English language. No amount of arguing will change that fact. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't special word in English describing sitizens of Russian Federation but not etnic Russians (Tatars, Avars, Lezgins). But such word exists in Russian: "русский" - for ethnic Russian, "россиянин" - for sitizen of RF. Which one corresponds to English word "Russian", dear native English speakers? Which one should Russians ban from their dictionaries (because DEAR ENGLISH SPEAKERS don't need such word :-P )? I think, that it is English trouble and English shame not having such word. The word "Ukrainian" describes first of all ethnicity of the person - this is common practice in modern Ukrainian language. If Englishmen (Americans, Canadians, etc.) don't have their own position, they should honour ukrainian position and say "Ukrainian" for person of ukrainian ethnicity and "sitizen of Ukraine" for any person that has ukrainian passport but isn't ethnic ukrainian. ND 21:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Here, we use English words as they are commonly defined and understood. The fact that the English language may lack some nuances that exist in Russian isn't an argument for avoiding usage of the word Ukrainian as it is defined in English. As I wrote earlier, no amount of arguing is going to change the English definition of the word.

Once again, I recommend changing the lead sentence to be simpler as follows:

Ukrainians (Ukrainian: Українці, Ukrayintsi) can refer to an East Slavic ethnic group living primarily in Ukraine, or to the citizens of Ukraine.

There is nothing false about that statement. It agrees with both the Russian definition (as an ethnic group) and the English definition (as someone who lives in Ukraine). ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I insist on the current wording or somewthing similar, in order to emphasize the multiethnic reality.Galassi (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The revised sentence I proposed in my previous comment does just that. If anyone has a specific objection, please state it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am perfectly happy with current wording, otherwise I believe word "multiethnic" has to be present.Galassi (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose. The current wording in the article is better than the one proposed above. Look at other related articles: Poles, Bulgarians, Moldovans, ect. I would propose: "Ukrainians (Ukrainian: Українці, Ukrayintsi) are an East Slavic ethnic group living primarily in Ukraine. The term can also be used to refer to the citizens of the Ukrainian nation, who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians." Regards, Ostap 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The current wording of the article is clumsy and awkward. Your suggested revision is an improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • On second thought, I agree that the current wording in the article is somewhat awkward as you say. I support my version, I wonder what Galassi thinks. Ostap 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I support Amatulic version, which is straight and simple: "Ukrainians (...) can refer to either an East Slavic ethnic group living primarily in Ukraine, or to citizens of Ukraine". The multi-ethnic reality is discussed within the article itself.--Riurik^(discuss) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Separate paragraph needed

Dear fellow editors,
I agree with you that some English-speaking people may not know the difference between ethnic Ukrainians and the Ukrainian citizens in general. And it is true that this generalizing term is fixed in some dictionaries of English. I can hence agree that this is a fact of English usage.

But we do not write article on English usage but on Ukrainians as a notion and in this we shall be as precise as possible if we want Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. For example the article on Ukrainians in Britannica does not say anything about Ukrainians being considered the citizens of Ukraine in general. And this the only correct approach.

Mixing ethnic Ukrainians with Ukrainian citizens in general can lead to misunderstandings and nonsense. For example let us consider the following hypothetical text:

Mass rallies of Ukrainians took place in Donetsk in protest against rampant Ukrainian nationalism of Ukrainian government and in support for official status of Russian

To make this phrase correct one need to keep in mind that there are not so many Ukrainians among Ukrainian citizens in Donetsk and hence to use the adjective “Ukrainian” properly, i.e. for denoting ethnical Ukrainians only.

Resume
Distinguishing ethnic Ukrainians from the citizens of Ukraine in general is crucial for understanding current events in Ukraine. That is why I propose to make a dedicated paragraph in the article explaining the difference. sk 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is pure speculation. In similar situations the NYTimes clearly states unrest among "ethnic Russians". Galassi (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the article "Ukrainians" be about ethnic Ukrainians only and use the work Ukrainians in that sense only. At top, add: "For a discussion of Ukrainian nationals, please see the article Demographics of Ukraine." —PētersV (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A natural gut reaction for a Latvian, but inappropriate here. Keep the way it is, as it gets all the necessary points across.Galassi (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Galassi,
1. WP:ATTACK
Please note that pointing at other editors’ nationality is not considered the best practice of discussion (please see the rules).
2. Critical analysis is crucial
Please note that the “keeping the way it is” is not considered the best way to write articles. On the contrary (I quote the rule):

...the critical analysis of prior work is a necessary part of that process

Going back to the discussion.
Please note that the opinion stating that (etnic) Ukrainians and citizens of Ukraine are the same however some people believe it, is far from commonly accepted. Moreover, in Ukraine this very opinion is in the center of ongoing political dispute. Hence the header of the article is IMHO not the best place for such a disputable statement. That is why I propose separate paragraph explaining the issue.

As a temporary measure we can take the kind advice of PētersV to delete the disputed statement from the header and make a link to the Demographics of Ukraine where this issue is discussed in detail. sk 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, as a native speaker of English. The paragraph in question is neutral and sensitive to all sides.Galassi (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that by the rules of Wikipedia, no personal quality of editors such as mother tongue, nationality, religion, etc., is a valid reason for proving an opinion. The only valid argument is a citation of a reliable source.

As I have said above, I agree that according to reliable sources (dictionaries), the adjective Ukrainian in modern English usage can also mean a citizen of Ukraine. This should be stated explicitly in the article:

“...in modern English usage ...(with citation)

Doing this we should keep in mind that a particular language usage doesn’t always reflect the true state of affairs. One example is the adjective Indians used in English to denote Native Americans. This was a mistake. The same mistake is to mix multi-ethnic citizens of Ukraine with ethnic Ukrainians. IMHO the earlier this mistake is corrected the better. sk 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling removed.[4] This page is not for political discussions but for discussing ways to improve Wikipedia articles. Please do not abuse it. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guideline: WP:TALK. Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Abuse of this policy will be reported to the administrators. Thank you. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought talk pages are for general discussion. My mistake. Media Sapiens (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Turns out that Media Sapiens was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Oh well. Darth Anne Jaclyn Sincoff (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Smakula to the infobox picture?

Alexander Smakula is world-famous for inventing the anti-reflective coating of lenses. I am not Ukrainian, but I think he is a very worthy candidate for inclusion in the infobox picture. I found an image on the Ukrainian WP [5].

Just a suggestion. Hope you like it. --Azazell0 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but who would he replace? Ostap 02:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the collection we have is much more notable. Although maybe A.Shevchenko, after all he is rather too contemprary. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. If we are going to change the image, there are other, much more worthy candidates for inclusion. My favourites being Amosov and Paton. --Bogdan ^що? 09:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd stick Brezhnev in there as well. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Korolev has a Russian farther and Ukrainina mother and can't be posted as an ethnic Ukrainian

I think Korolev's picture is misleading as he had mixed Ukrainian-Russian ethnicity. Both nations can claim him as his own and it would be misleading. Take the picture down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsosin (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Russian languages

They are mutually intelligible, even for people like me whose Russian is not that good. Lets not use this page as Ukrainian nationalistic outlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.73.246 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that degree of intelligibility depends on the speaker and listener. Someone please find a reference to support the statement. And no more edit-warring. —Michael Z. 2009-01-07 23:11 z

It is simple no original research is allowed on wikipedia, I once heard that a Russian guy didn't understand a word of Ukrainian. Since that is original research too I can't use that as a counterargument, that has nothing to do with nationalism cause I wish they where mutually intelligible.... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This Russian - like many Ukrainians - is a crusading nationalist: I'm not a Russian and I've learned some Russian as a part of my school curriculum years ago but when I first heard Ukrainian I thought it

was a funny Russian. Just asked my Ukrainian colleague Evgeni and he told me it takes one day for a Russian to learn Ukrainian. I don't know that kind of research do you want on this, it's like asking someone to show a research that Singaporean and English are or are not mutually intelligible !?

If it is that obvious it should be written down somewhere, just as it is written down at numerous places that 1+1=2. Besides if Evgeni is from a Russian speaking city (like Kiev of Luhansk) he may be much more enthusiastic to say that "it takes one day for a Russian to learn Ukrainian." then if he would be from a Ukrainian speaking city (like Lviv). I don't say that because I like that, I actually dislike to have to say things like that... please keep in mind that Ukrainian-Russian relations are much more thence then German-Austrian relations. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

“Mutual intelligibility with Russian is disputed by some Ukrainians and accepted by others”—please, could you make it more obvious that this is original research? Why not identify your sample, and refer to “some editors of Wikipedia?”

I am a Canadian who learned to speak Ukrainian before any other language. I have even learned the Russian alphabet lately, but I still cannot understand normal conversational Russian. But I am not going to use this to imply in an encyclopedia that no Russian and Ukrainian speakers can ever understand each other.

Mutual intelligibility refers to both Russian and Ukrainian speakers and listeners. This could include native speakers from Alaska, Tuva, Karelia, Moscow, Kharkiv, Lviv, and the Canadian Prairies. This could include saying hello, reading a newspaper, ordering lunch, or operating a rocket facility. Unless you have a study or a statement by a linguist to refer to, please stop guessing. Neither my opinion nor yours counts here—this is a question for an expert, the answer may not be simple, and so it must be accompanied by a reference. —Michael Z. 2009-01-08 21:08 z

It is pretty clear that just saying 'hallo' the same way does not quite imply mutual intelligibility, but over the weekend I will ask an ethnic Ukrainian linguist who happens to be a very good friend of mines and get the necessary references. Also, Mariah-Yulia says that tense Russo-Ukrainian relations are justification for claiming language differences which is ridiculous, and wikipedia should not be a nationalistic outlet and virtual battle space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.73.246 (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and think I didn't explain myself enough: I'm stating that "tense Russo-Ukrainian relations are justification for claiming language differences" could be done by Ukrainian nationalists. Russian nationalist might do it the other way round.... to support the claim "that Ukraine belongs to Russia". But I'm sure your friend can explain this better then me. I'm afraid that wikipedia is already a "nationalistic outlet" (for some) and "virtual battle space". — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. There are many reasons why someone may in good faith state that the languages are or are not mutually intelligible (and perhaps some self-serving ones). All the more need to have a linguistic opinion. Not a real high priority for this article, though. —Michael Z. 2009-01-09 23:36 z

Хто додумався поставити російську мову як рідну мову для Українців????? Я наприклад російської взагалі не знаю як і більшість моїх знайомих корінних киян!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.218.162 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No Ukrainians in France and Armenia?

• Any data about Ukrainians in France and Armenia? 61.230.74.42 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture for Infobox = 3 rows (12 pics) instead of 2

There is consensus forming on Talk:Ukrainians in Russia to have an Infobox picture with 12 pics instead of 8. I think it should be here also (btw the Poles have 17 pics there :)!
Row 3: Yana Klochkova + Vassily Ivanchuk + Viktor Yushchenko + Yulia Tymoshenko?
And I think Leonid Brezhnev should replace Nestor Makhno! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? The array of portraits in Poles is becoming a mosaic of completely unrecognizable individuals. This is intended to be a representative sample, not an exhaustive List of Ukrainians. Another row of the same size would make it less useful, while pushing more infobox data below the fold.

By the way, I'd like to pare down the list of regions in the infobox too. An exhaustive list is already in Ukrainian diaspora#After 1991. Winnipeg has more Ukrainians than over half of the countries listed. —Michael Z. 2009-02-15 20:30 z

Agree but some of the countries in the infobox are not in the other article and should be copied. Also, keep the image as it is except replace the anarchist with Petliura or Yushchenko. Ostap 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I rather replace anarchist with Tymoshenko cause:

• she is a woman and we all know that it is the woman who keep Ukraine alive
• with Yushchenko ratings he's a dead man walking
• as a result of this gas disputes she gets just as much attention in Western media then Yushchenko...

— Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tymoshenko would be better than Makhno, but I consider your reasons for her over Yushchenko invalid. We really do need to get rid of Makhno. Perhaps we can agree on Petliura? Or Mazepa? Or Franko? But please GET RID OF MAKHNO. Ostap 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I pared down the list to populations of 100k+, copied it all to talk:Ukrainian diaspora.

Yeah, let's remove Makhno. Ukrainian women are underrepresented in the collage, so there is a good reason to add one. —Michael Z. 2009-02-16 15:58 z

This is ludicrous. Makhno is a great man. And Timoshenko is basically an odious and self-serving Moscow puppet.Galassi (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Makhno was a bandit leader who persecuted and murdered Mennonites. Why don't we add portraits of Hitler and Stalin to Germans and Russians Georgians? —Michael Z. 2009-02-16 18:07 z

So what? Bogdan slaughtered Jews and Poles, and he is still in the picture.Galassi (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a good question, and maybe it should be considered. One significant difference is that some victims of Makhno and their immediate families may be counted among the readers of Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2009-02-16 20:09 z

Could someone explain what the criteria for inclusion in the image is? Is it historical notability? Or recognition in the English speaking world? Or is there some sort of feminist quota? Ostap 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the collection of portraits should be broadly representative. So we wouldn't just put in eight hetmans, or eight post-Soviet politicians, etc. Suggesting adding more than one token woman isn't a “feminist quota” in my opinion.

And all due respect, but let's not start labelling each other—all that does is broadcast our own social or political views. [edited my comment] —Michael Z. 2009-02-16 20:43 z

No one is labeling anyone that I am aware of. Do we have to have a certain number of women or not? That is what I want to know. But since you appear offended, I will remove myself from this conversation. Just please get rid of Makhno. Ostap 21:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No of course we don't have to have a certain number of women. But since over half of Ukrainians are women, adding a woman instead of a man would make this more a representative sample. —Michael Z. 2009-02-16 21:20 z

Alright, I went up on the page and found good information (particularly under "Portrait criteria", many of the helpful comments were actually yours). I suppose the best person to replace Makhno would be Yulia Tymoshenko, though since we are on the topic of changing the image I also think we should give thought to perhaps replacing Korolyov with Mazepa or Petliura or Franko. Ostap 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good reminder; I forgot all about that discussion, and it's worth rereading. I'm not voting for anyone in particular, and I don't really want to get deeply into it myself. I'm not even pushing for another female, just saying that there is one good reason to add one. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 00:48 z

What exactly is Yulia Timoshenko's contribution to Ukraine to warrant her inclusion?Galassi (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Especially Yana Klochkova or Oksana Baiul could replace Andriy Shevchenko, although I'm not sure how ethical Ukrainian they are. Although personally I don't give a f$#% (=fedge) about that... I still think a Orange Revolution face should be in the picture case basicly it placed Ukraine on the map (and without it I wouldn't be writing this). Victor Y was the face of it in Western media but Yulia T is since the last gas row about just as much shown as him. Whether they helped Ukraine forward is not important in this case (I think), it can be argument that none of them (in the current) picture help Ukraine forward and that all of them did help Ukraine forward: the same it is with Yana Klochkova, Oksana Baiul, Yulia T and Victor Y (unless you want Kuchma back...) . — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Shevchenko is more famous and deserving of inclusion than Baiul or Yana Klochkova. Ostap 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion regarding the criteria is simple: non-controversial. This means no nationalists, no Soviet generals, and no politicians. I think the idea including the heroes of the orange revolution far beyond POV.

Regarding removals, I think S. Timoshenko and Mahno have to go. Timoshenko because he's just not that notable and Mahno because he's notable for robbing people. I vote for Paton and Amosov to replace them. --Tavrian 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If we should go for writers instead of politicians we have for example Ivan Franko, Olha Kobylyanska (representing Bukovina) and Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky. But why not Volodymyr Vynnychenko who was both writer and politician. And among actors I think Bohdan Stupka is a very good candidate. Närking (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the last candidates mentioned by my dear colleges Narking and Tavrian (great name for a musical duo!) are more noticeable then S. Timoshenko... I also don't see why Bohdan Khmelnytsky isn't a politician... I think attracting people to read the article is the main criteria. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't a newsstand or an advertisement. Attracting people to read it is definitely not the main criteria. And what did precious Yulya contribute to Ukraine anyway? A face in news? And I'd hate to sound politically incorrect but why should we strive to include more women if they're clearly less notable? And what is this about Nikolai Amosov being non-notable; he got around 20% of all votes as the all time The Greatest Ukrainian.

When I say "no politicians", obviously I mean in modern times...because they're controversial and divisive. You might think that Yushchenko and Tymoshenko are great heroes of democracy but half the country would blatantly disagree with you. Bohdan Khmelnitsky, on the other hand, will be seen as a hero by pretty much all Ukrainians. --Tavrian 22:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A "bond girl"? Seriously? That's what Ukraine contributed to the world - a bond girl? --Tavrian 22:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

All I wanted is get rid of Nestor Makhno fast! And free pictures of her aviable. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture for Infobox change

In true Ukrainian democracy style I have replaced Nestor Makhno for Yulia Tymoshenko in the infobox picture. There was consensus to replace Makhno and slight consensus to replace him with Tymoshenko. Of course wikipedia isn't my personal Yulia shrine so I'm open for another (woman) in the picture, but discussion lately was going nowhere, so I have been bold and made the change to move it forward! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Yulia is not that poulair in Kyiv anymore... (ps I knew that...). Replaced her by Olga Kurylenko just to get ride of Nestor Makhno (=not noticable + not nice + no lasting achievement's + (most important)everybody but a banned user User:M.V.E.i doesn't want him in this picture). I'm not saying she has to stay in the picture but 1 more minute of Makno in it and I'm going to scream! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Vote who will replace Nestor Makhno in infobox picture

Not sure this will work but I have been trying to get ride of Makhno since 19 May 2008 and nobody ever defended him, Only banned User:M.V.E.i. seemed to want him in the picture anyhowe. I can see consensus to get rid of him in the infobox picture.

OK, here is the deal, everybody can choose 1 person to replace Makhno, the person with most votes wins.... How simple is that! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with name of person, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Yulia Tymoshenko, she is a woman and we all know that it is the woman who keep Ukraine alive + with Yushchenko ratings he's a dead man walking + one of the few female Prime-Ministers + as a result of this gas disputes she gets a lot of attention in Western media. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  A good idea. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• "the woman who keep Ukraine alive" - do explain!
• "Yushchenko ratings he's a dead man walking" - and that makes Tymoshenko a great contributor to the Ukrainian nation?
• "one of the few female Prime-Ministers" - and Nestor Mahno was "one of few" powerful anarchists in the world, so? They both contributed nothing to the world or Ukraine. --Tavrian 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mazepa, Franko, Skovoroda, Kotlyarevsky, and Hrushevsky are all fit for inclusion in my opinion. Also, I think we have enough 20th century representatives so I would prefer Mazepa, Skovoroda, or Kotlyarevsky. Ostap 04:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Having enough 20th century representatives is a good point! How about Yaroslav I the Wise then, after all he was voted greatest Ukrainian by the Ukrainians themselves (according to some he was not though)! Out of the 3 fave candidates you mention I would prefer Mazepa cause a.o. he got his own opera. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I still prefer a woman though, how about Olga of Kiev? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

WP:DEMOCRACY? --Tavrian 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case I say Wikipedia:IGNORE, nobody wants Nestor Makhno there... If somebody does they should vote for him :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand - it doesn't matter who votes for whom (and what people don't want is a different issue), what matters is discussion. Yulia Tymoshenko does not belong there because: she is a controversial politician, a divisive figure and contributed nothing to Ukraine or the world (a pretty face in the news doesn't count). --Tavrian 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

These discussions have been going nowhere for almost 2 years... for me it's time to act as WP:bold! I don't see any real consensus to put Makhno in the picture here above in the first place.... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion again there was more consensus to put Ruslana in it (then)! If User:M.V.E.i. would have cared about consensus instead of running his Eskimo fanclub she would have been in there for the last 2 years! I do want to find consensus but not over 10 years while bigmouths like User:M.V.E.i. just get there way! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Tavrian, this can be a good way to find consensus for this issue. Ostap 23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a good way to test consensus, but the person with most votes doesn't "win". --Tavrian 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I just assumed that was what we were doing. Ostap 03:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please let's just get rid of of N. Makhno (who judging by the pic is a Eskimo :) ) and since there are no rules on this kind of infoboxes my personal views on it are not the rules, but I do think this is English wikipedia and that the pic should invite English speakers to read the article. So I think recognisability in the English speaking world is the criteria not whatever they achieved in Ukraine. Bohdan Khmelnytsky is less on CNN then Yulia Tymoshenko. Of course this is different in Ukraine, but wikipedia Ukraine can (should?) make it own chooses. As a matter of fact if Ruslana's last album would have been a success in the UK and North America I would rather have her in there. I still think a extra Ukrainian woman should be in the pic. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, so to you contributions to the world are irrelevant but we should measure candidates based on western publicity – right? --Tavrian 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gogol

Does Nikolai Gogol qualify? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For me everybody who could have (if Ukraine would have been independent then)/does have for a Ukrainian passport is a possible candidate! Including Sunday Adelaja! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, interesting, you're very familiar with one Sunday Adelaja, yet you consider Korolyov to be unknown even "in Ukraine"[6]. Tells me a lot. Gogol certainly does qualify on the grounds of being Ukrainian by ethnicity and birth. But I think that you should "cast your vote" for him only if you consider his works to be a contribution to the world, and not a specific nation seeing as he was mainly a Russian writer. --Tavrian 03:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Anywhere?

Is this discussion going anywhere? Can I put Mazepa in the pic(?), he seems to have most concensus.... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for Gogol instead. Not that I have anything against Mazepa, he sure had a great impact in Ukrainian history, but after all I guess far more people in the world know about Gogol than Mazepa. Partly also because we really don't know how Mazepa looked like (thanks to tsar Peter). Närking (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a free image of Amosov so Gogol is fine with me. --Tavrian 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mazepa. Ostap 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I stict Gogol in there based on mini consensus.... Maybe Mazepa can replace Tymoshenko so we have a nice spread in time? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still a little concerned about Mazepa since all pictures of him are just guesses. If we should have more modern Ukrainians I suggest people like Sergey Bubka and Bohdan Stupka (will star in the new Taras Bulba movie that will be released on April 1). Närking (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We have enough 20th century people, that was the point of Mazepa. Ostap 23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ostap in this format (but) I would also like to point out that most country's have more then 8 pics in the infobox, the French People have 27! Spanish people have 18 (that makes more sence) So I still think going to (at least) 12 is a good idea. Then we can make a better mix of old/new/woman (I think). With 18 you can do that even better of course :P — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why not 12 or 18. Americans have 12 also. Swedes have only 8 though, but I guess I will change that with adding world famous Astrid Lindgren and Tove Jansson! 27 is probably too many even for Ukrainians. I guess only the French can get away with it :) Närking (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

12 will just mean another round of this. I say leave it as it is now. Ostap 23:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

100% agree with Ostap there is clearly no consensus here. --Tavrian 01:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

I saw the last days that the Russian language suddenly appeared and disappeared from the infobox. There are a lot of people who speak mostly Russian but who do consider themselves Ukrainian (Kyiv etc.). Just like the Irish people infobox says the Irish (also) speak English. It is not a problem on that article page, so why is it a problem here? Just stick it in the infobox! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The infobox should be corrcted if no contra arguments follow. Сергей Олегович (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see new "Russian language" discussion section below --windyhead (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Religions

I don't think it is for listing every religion that has followers in Ukraine. I think we should only put in religions that have more than an extremely small % of the population that follows it. I would say Eastern Orthodox, with Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic and Protestant minorities. and perhaps also "see Religion in Ukraine". Ostap 02:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the (Crimean tatars 248,200 of them in 2001) moslim's? Is that group big enough to mention? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

According to our article, Islam is only .65% of the population. I would say not big enough. Ostap 16:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They neglected Ukrainian pagans and RUN Vira followers. I am offended. 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In June 2009 the director of the Ukrainian National Security Service publicly admitted that the famine of the 1930ies is to be blamed on the contemporary Ukranian authorities

He blamed Yushenko and Tymoshenko?????? According to Wikidepia he does now! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed it for now. Is it a cause of bad translation? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so surprisingly the IP operated from Moscow. Närking (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How can you see that??? Are you psychic??? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not just a guess. Just check the IP here for example[7].Närking (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. never know when that tool might be handy ;) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Guy can't spell Ukrainian???? ҃҃Bandurist (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Map

Genetics maps should strictly speaking be in articles about Genetics, because placing it here may lead to misinterpretations. Firstly this haplogroup makes up less than 50% of the male gene pool, so there are many other haplogroups in the region. Secondly, this is just for males, must we then include maps for female mitochondrial DNA. The use of the image is being discussed here on the administrator's noticeboard Wapondaponda (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Language

So Ukrainian is a mix between Polish and Russian.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.38 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian language in Ethnic Group table

Hi, thanks for adding ukrainian census data as a source [8]. There are 3 issues with these edits. First off the source doesn't give clear conditions on what language can be considered Ukrainian's language, to be more precise, as Ukrainian's language in terms of ethnic identity. Second, it is ukrainian census and it doesn't cover Ukrainians in other countries. Third, edits [9] adding Russian as a "language" of Ukrainians make the article to contradict with encyclopedic sources [10] [11] [12] and so on which clearly state the language of Ukrainians is Ukrainian only. I will move that source with correct text to the Language section. Please don't add this info into infobox again until these 3 issues are resolved. --windyhead (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So, Russian is not a native language for 14 % of Ukranians? (Not citizens of Ukraine, but Ukranians) It's really funny. --Эшер (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Эшер. The lead states that this article is also about "citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)". A lot of citizens of Ukraine speak Russian in there daily life, a lot of Irish speak English in there daily life... So the band U2 are four English lads cause they never speak Gaeilge? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of them speak a mixture called SURZHIK, in daily life.

Hi, I don't see what you agree with Эшер on, because he didn't made any meaningful statements. The term Ukrainians, as well as Germans, Poles and so on, has its primary meaning as an ethnic group, or a nation in terms of Ukraine's native population, as you will find in encyclopedic sources [13] [14]. "Citizens of Ukraine" is a secondary meaning and is less used . And the infobox template we are talking about has the title "Ethnic group". And yes, the "lot of citizens of Ukraine speak Russian in there daily life" can be covered in article body in Language section --windyhead (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I said that 14 % of Unkrainians (ethnic Unkrainians, I repeate, not citizens of Ukraine) talk on Russian. And it is an official information from official site. So what a problem? That some nationalistic institution from Canada said that Ukrainians are talking only on Ukrainian language? --Usher (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Other studies, however, showed a significant deviation of this numbers from the use in everyday life. In a survey among inhabitants of Kiev (2000), 67% of people called Ukrainian their mother-tongue, but only 18% specified it as their first language in everyday life. Sociologists explain it with a specific perception of the term mother-tongue (рiдна мова) in Ukraine which is understood by many simply as language of ethnic belonging and not in the classical linguistic sense." This needs better reference than some "elektronnyj dowidnyk", neither book nor url.Galassi (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, once again, please don't add Russian language without a reliable source saying it is a language of Ukrainians in terms of ethnic identity. Edits adding Russian as a "language" of Ukrainians make the article to contradict with encyclopedic sources which clearly state the language of Ukrainians is Ukrainian only. --windyhead (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please find the source in the article. I hope you will abide by your own advise and will not remove Russian language without a reliable source saying that the Ukrainian is the only language that (ethnic) Ukrainians cite as their mother tongue. Please note that according to the 2001 census, 14% of ethnic Ukrainians name Russian as the one (pls. see citation in the article). Сергей Олегович (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see this [15] regarding your source , a reliable source saying that the Ukrainian is the only language of Ukrainians in terms of ethnic identity , and census data --windyhead (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Within reason, because this is an artcle on an ethnic group, not a country. The popular languages should be disclosed. Not just the official language from the country of origin. (or mostly of origin) Spitfire19 (Talk) 15:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It is not clear however why "popular" languages should be disclosed in "ethnic group" table, and what languages are to be considered "popular" --windyhead (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing disputable info again because those 3 problems [16] are not addressed. Please don't add disputable info again until these issues are resolved. --windyhead (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Those "3 promlems" are problems only for you. Official Ukranian site wrote that 14% of ethnic Ukranians talk on Russian as native language. As Irish talk on English. So I return info, because official Ukrainian web-site is more correts, that some nationalistic institute from Canada. --Usher (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your "Those "3 promlems" are problems only for you" - if you aren't going to participate in the discussion - please retrain from editing the article. Your approach for filling up the "language" infobox field is not clear. My approach is: the field is not about poll results. The field is about Ukrainian's language in terms of ethnic identity. Please don't add disputable info until this dispute has been resolved. --windyhead (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So, "in terms of ethnic identity" Irish are not speaking English? So please remove English from the article about Irish. --Usher (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion

The follwing was cancellrd out[17]

There are also ethnic minorities who practice Judaism and Islam.

On the ground of "... this article deals with the religious affiliations of ethnic Ukrainians, not the nation of Ukraine", however the lead states that this article is about "citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)". Can anybody comment / explain this? Сергей Олегович (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course the scope of the article (as announced in lead) can’t be changed in the middle of the article without stating that first. Think it would be better to add to ‘’There are also ethnic minorities who practice Judaism and Islam’’ the sub-sentence “however few ethnic Ukrainians practise these religions” (not sure if this makes sence since there are Jews calling themselves Ukrainians (right?; Tina Karol for instance). Suppose some resource is needed ;) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

List of countries with Ukrainian population

Why Brazil is not in the list? The article itself says 1M of Ukrainians live in Brazil.OlexiyO (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Table of Ukrainian diaspora is unclear

• It is unclear wether the figures relate to Ukrainian citizens, people migrated from today Ukraine territory or eventually ethnic Uktainians. It seems wrong to mix ethnic Moldovans/Rumanians with Ukrainian passport and ethnic Ukrainians with Moldovan passport or Romanian passport.--Deguef (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ukranians" picture in infobox

First picture is wrong - Vladimir I, Yaroslav I and Lev I were not Ukrainians, because Ukranians formes as a nation much later. --Usher (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. I'm restoring the previous collage. — Glebchik (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree emphatically. the "Russians" page has similarly preRussian figures.-Galassi (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

“the "Russians" page has similarly preRussian figures” Only one, Dmitry Donskoy, who lived already in the second half of the 14th century. Here we have Vladimir I of Kiev, Yaroslav the Wise (10th–11th centuries) and Lev I of Galicia (13th century), three persons and the ones much further from the emergence of the separate East Slavic ethnicities. And they are not called Ukrainians in the authoritative sources, except, I suppose, some Ukrainian ones. — Glebchik (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So Bohdan Khmelnytsky is OK to be in this picture? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Why not? --Usher (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The paper is about a nation/ There was not Ukranian nation untill early modern period. About Russian Dmitriy Donskoy (XIV c.) - firstly, at his time there wa a Russian nation. Secondly, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? --Usher (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on ethnicity... so I wanted to be polite...

Maybe Vladimir I, Yaroslav I and Lev I can be replaced by Jack Palance, Symon Petliura and Stepan Bandera; last 2 are controversial figures, but well know in and outside Ukraine. I'm only making suggestions... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(I mean) my suggestions are not an endorsement of the actions of Petliura & Bandera. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose for this moment to restore the previous collage. — Glebchik (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this picture looks better then the old one so I don't second that ; do not really see the problem that 3 people look "Ukrainian" for a couple of days.... But I wont 3RR for it... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the discussion about which other three people to include might take a lot of time. For instance, the discussion about the collage of famous Belarusians in Russian Wikipedia lasts from April. — Glebchik (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• If no-one has any serious objections, I'm reverting the old collage back. “do not really see the problem that 3 people look "Ukrainian" for a couple of days” is not a serious argument for an encyclopedia. — Glebchik (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Ukrainian contingent will object seriously, and so shall I, on the Dmitry Donskoy as Russian, Dante as Italian, Luther as German etc. grounds.--Galassi (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, here the arguments count, not the will of some contingent. I also doubt that most of Ukrainians would object it. And again, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. Glebchik (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So, does anybody has any serious reasonable arguments, why we shouldn't remove this collage, which contains misinformation? — Glebchik (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Galassi wrote, “exactly: no serious aguments FOR such reduction”. I'm afraid, but in this case I'm restoring the status quo, and it's you, who has to prove the validity of changing the collage. — Glebchik (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Please, not-Ukrainian reliable sources about "Ukrainian" Yaroslav-the-Wise. --Usher (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted a pro forma notice @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine to get some more people involved in this discussion. For that reason and fort clarity I also changed the name of this discussion. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Obvious one-click away facts are called OR

Additional French ethnic map of Russia, made in 1898

User Galassi reverts a commentary to the ethnographic map of Lubos Niederle where Ukrainians are called Malorusove (Little Russians in Czech), and Rusove (Russians) refers to all Eastern Slavs. While everybody can click on the map and convince himself of that fact, Galassi calls the commentary OR and starts a new edit war. Maybe he does not agree with this century-long perception of the Ukrainians which ist his right. But the existence of this perception is a historical fact. The commentary about this fact and the explanation of the map is no OR!

Please stop edit warring! --Voyevoda (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. You meant century-OLD, as well as NOMENCLATURE, not perception. The latter is not encyclopedic anyway. --Galassi (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Both accusations are not true. There is no synthesis of facts and there are no far-fetched facts. There is simply an explanation of what is written in big letters on the map. This naming has, moreover, a direct relationship to a lion's share of the history of Ukrainians, while the modern name really spread as ethnonym only in the late 19th, early 20th century. Your constant actions of deleting any mentioning of that look like fear and cover-up. --Voyevoda (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The map of Lubos Niederle is not a Russian map, but a Czech one. The view of the Ukrainians as Little Russians was worldwide before (and even after, as we can see) the October Revolution. Here I found an additional French map of 1898. --Voyevoda (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is about Ukrainians and since "Ukrainian" is the modern word for those who were once called "Little Russians" there does not seem to be any reason to keep inserting the words "Little Russians" everywhere. I haven't read the article but I assume that somewhere it's mentioned that Ukrainians were once refered to as "Little Russians."Faustian (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read it, that's it. The only mentioning is about the language. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

POV and current disputes

OK - let me stop this here and now. User:Voyevoda is pushing POV and it must stop. After several blocks and continued disputes the games have to end here.

Your user page states "My deep conviction is that Russians and Ukrainians are one and the same nation". You must stop trying to make Wikipedia follow your personal view. Your POV pushing is going too far and as such if there is any more action like this then I am sure you will be getting into more hot water.

I have not fully read all the goings on but will do so in the next couple of hours and decide what action should be taken if any in the next 24 hours.

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

PS - Kievan Rus and Rus are not Russian either, but it is generally acceoted that the Kievan Rus were the ascendants of the present day Ukraine and as such have a major part in Ukrainian history and it therfore follows that anyone who was Kievan Rus can be called a Ukrainian Ascendant. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, every man has privately a right to have convictions or opinions, this is not forbidden. Your conviction also may be the that Ukrainians and Russians are two different nations, that is your right. The point is not that someone has convictions or opinions. The point is to add only serious information to Wikipedia that can be proved and sourced. This is what I do. I do not add propaganda, but facts that everyone can check in the very same moment. Are you afraid of that because it contradicts your view of the world? But I don't violate any rules of Wikipedia, it's you who tries to draw peoples' attention to something that has not directly to do with the legitimation of my edits. Please, respect the rules of Wikipedia and foreign opinion if it's well-founded. --Voyevoda (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow - lol - let me get a couple of things straight. I am not afraid of anything. I do not have convictions about anything other than facts and the truth. Foreign opinion ? foreign to what ? You need to clarify your POV as even this answer you have made smacks of a minority world view and a will to push it onto others. The fact that you state the "two nations is merely a conviction" on my part is really a little strange.

The fact is that there are two countries - Ukraine and Russia. These two separate countries are separate nations. They have separate histories from a date around 500 or 600 AD apart from the times that the USSR, Poles, Austrians and others assumed power. Do you dispute this ?

If I, or any other editor, find any information added that is incorrect it will be removed, any information that is unfounded, against the facts of separate nations or anything which pushes a "Ukraine is part of Russia" POV will be removed. I hope that you can make sure you follow the rules of Wikipedia in regard to POV, OR, SYN and others and that you will ensure that facts are correctly sourced and do not go against the established separation of Ukraine and Russia which, as far as I am aware, is a return to the situation as it was in the majority of Ukraines history with the joining of the two in the late 1800s only lasted a few years into the early 1900s Chaosdruid (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit was based on the map. There are much more maps and sources where Ukrainians are called Little Russians. This was the dominant view worldwide prior to the 20th century. Regardless of my personal opinions, in the article I do not claim that the two nations ARE the same. What I claim is that they were regarded like one nation for a long time. And this is a fact. And facts can be told instead of being tabooed. Stop accusing me of POV-pushing or OR because this is a heavy logical distortion of what I do. --Voyevoda (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there is nothing discriminatory in the term Little Russians. Little Russia means Core Russia or Core Rus. The term originates from the Byzantine Empire where Rosia Makra meant all East Slavic lands and Rosia Mikra meant the lands around Kiev. This was an analogy to Little Greece and Big Greece. Big Greece was the whole Greek world, including all the colonies. So, there is no reason to be furious. --Voyevoda (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Furious ?? you really either need to check the dictionary or stop mind probing me as no matter how you think I am feeling you are in fact incorrect. I am sitting here chilled out and have been all day working on articles.

"for a long time" - not really true is it ? Are you saying that whilst occupied by Austro-Hungary it was part of Russia, or that while occupied by Poland it was part of Russia ? or do you actually mean that "a long time" is 80 years?

As for the "from a map" that is not really an authoratative source, neither is it a world view. Saying that "Little Russian" means "Core Russian" is really backing up my previous statement that you are, in fact, trying to combine the two nations into one. Not only that but it is much worse than those who say "The Ukraine" which of course implies it is merely a district of the USSR (The Ukrainian SSR). The hole you are standing in is getting deeper.Chaosdruid (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote Magosci ?

"Although Karamazin believed that the inhabitants of what he called Great, White and Little Russia constituted a single Russian people, by the early nineteenth century, linguistic and ethnographic research, together with the publication of contemporary descriptions and travel accounts, was forcing many scholars to realise that there were, indeed, considerable differences among the so-called one Russian people, in particular between the Greeat Russians and the Little Russians, or Ukrainians. The confirmation of such differences not only would undermine the idea of a single Russian people, but also might threaten the link between medieval Kiev and Moscow and thus render precarious the whole framework upon whichthe Russian Imperial conception of history was built." ... "The Russian conception of eastern Europe's history, as presented most elegantly in the works of Solov'ev and Kliuchevskii, continues to dominate most histories of Russia." ... "Consequently, in these works the history of Ukraine, if considered at all, is treated as the history of one of Russia's provinces. Moreover, since the Kievan period is treated as an integral part of Russian history, Ukrainian history is illogical, since it is considered simply a political idea born in the nineteenth century - an idea, moreover, which was used by foreign powers like Germany and Austria to undermine the unity of the Russian state."

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The usage of the term Little Russia was much longer than 80 years. I don't know what you meant by 80 years, maybe the Soviet period, but this is heavily wrong. During the Soviet era the term Little Russian was abolished as "chauvinistic" and "old-regime". The usage of Little Russian dates back to the XIV century and the Byzantine era. It was used until 1917 in the Russian Empire and most of the world except Austria-Hungary and by some Polish activists. I can cite you letters of Ukraine's national hero Bohdan Khmelnytsky (17th century) where he calls modern Ukraine Little Russia. In your excerpt of Magosci, he just describes how he thinks the Russian official history regarded the whole thing but doesn't bring any arguments that disprove it. He doesn't even know that the respected Russian historian's name (much more cited and respected than Magosci himself) was Karamzin and not Karamazin. "Regional differences" that seem to serve as Magosci's sole argument are given everywhere: in Germany, in France, in other countries. But I don't want to start this discussion because I don't want an ideological dispute on how to consider the Ukrainians but that you accept the historical fact that they WERE regarded Little Russians for a long time. If you are, as you say, relaxed, it's just better. --Voyevoda (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

HELP in fight against Antiukrainian sentiment!

This article about Ukrainians needs help in fight against antiukrainian sentiment and often prorussian propaganda. Here are some important facts about Ukrainians: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\U\K\Ukrainians.htm ... Some users of this Wikipedia are trying to set up false antiukrainian interpretation of history and culture of Ukrainians. Please help with facts and sources and punish those who intentionally disrupt the work of Wikipedia! Thanks! --SeikoEn (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. Your pushing of Ukrainian nationalist POV and inaccurate information from dubious sources (such as Volgota.com) is every else than helpful for the work of Wikipedia. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)--Voyevoda (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sending an appeal to the users to write honest, useing sources and facts! Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you please be honest and do one of the two: either revert to the lede by Galassi or remove Tymoshenko who is not an ethnic Ukrainian from the infobox picture (and also probably Vladimir I, Yaroslav I, Lev I as they did not self-identify as Ukrainians). Or else the article looks, as you put it, "a ridiculous interpretation" from "a children's encyclopedia". --Garik 11 (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrators - please check article about Ukrainians

Sorry for any inconvenience, but please check the work of several users when it comes to a site about Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture in general. Results of several users are evident example of intolerance towards Ukrainians and their culture. Users do not use facts and sources and they also deliberately deleted relevant sources. I think that such work is a shame for Wikipedia. Administrators should particularly pay attention on hidden fascism of several users with completly antiukrainian sentiment and their usles interpretations. History of Russia and Ukraine is specialy not objectiv. Incompetent users often delete all traces of the existence of Ukrainians in Russian history and often does not allow others to engage in the work of the development of Wikipedia. I believe in honest and professional work but when I read articles about Ukrainians I realy dont see it. I hope you'll make an exception and help to remove abusers of Wikipedia when it comes to the articles about Ukrainians. Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to insult the other users and to groundlessly accuse them of fascism, as you already did several times, I will be forced to inform the administrators that you violate the rules of Wikipedia:Civility. Calm down and show that you can be taken seriously as a discussion partner. By the way, cloudy complaints about mysterious anti-Ukrainism without concrete examples won't help you at all. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to offend you personally or anyone else on Wikipedia, but your interpretation of history is typical fascist dulling. I am just sorry that administrators do not recognize that fact. You are erasing any trace of the Ukrainian roots in Russian history, article about Dostoevsky is just one example. Mention that Dostoyevsky had roots in Ukraine is no a nationalism and only ignorant person can call it like that. Users like you make this Wikipedia and some articles completly useless. Do not get personally offended, but you are the victim of politics. You and several users are not interested in truth, but propaganda. Good work! --SeikoEn (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir I and Yaroslav I

I suggest to remove the pictures of these two historical figures from the article Ukrainians, because this is as ridiculous as to put Julius Caesar into the article Italians. The two princes surely didn't know they were "Ukrainians" and probably would have even been insulted, if somebody dared to call them like that (considering the etymology of the term). --Voyevoda (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The current version of the article void of ethno-centric POV states among other things, "The oldest recorded names used for the Ukrainians are Rusychi, Rusyny, and Rusy (from Rus')". Vladimir I and Yaroslav I definitely self-identified as one of those ethnonyms. --Garik 11 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Rusychi, Rusyny and Rusy meant not solely "Ukrainians", it was a much broader term that included all Eastern Slavs. This is as to say that Bavarians' were Germans and then to claim that the Germanic leader Arminius was an ancestor of Bavarians. You have to avoid comparisons and parallels between terms of a different width. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend you Voyevoda to write an article about Muscovites and how they accepted the name Russike. Modern Russians did not even know the name until the 18 century. You can write about the origins of Muscovites and Russian emperors, and how they have a different origin from Mongolis, Georgians or Germans. I am sure that kievan rulers Vladimir and Jaroslav were not Muscovites. Be sure it does not matter what you're going to write or paste. Ukrainian history is preserved in a much more difficult moments of these. Be well my brother "from the same genus"! --SeikoEn (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for fringe theries. The claim that “Russians did not even know the name until the 18 century” is not supported by reliable sources and can be easily refuted by quoting the historical sources. Regarding the collage in the infobox, there has already been opened a topic "Ukranians" picture in infobox. --Glebchik (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Garik 11!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seiko, don't make yourself ridiculous and repeat obscure propaganda. Have you ever checked historical sources? I doubt it strongly. Here is a small collection of quotes from chronicles and maps that tears your obscure myths in pieces. --Voyevoda (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Total population

User SeikoEn has recently changed the number of the total population of Ukrainians from 45,551,667 to 57,500,00 [18], using sources stating that the number of Ukrainians living abroad is 20 million as the basis and adding that to the number of Ukrainians living in Ukraine. However, these sources fail WP:VERIFY, because the official statistical information given in the infobox shows us a much more smaller number (less than 10 million) of Ukrainians in diaspora. It is written in the first source that “The Ukrainian World Congress states that the Ukrainian diaspora abroad makes up over 20 million”, so it is only a statement made by the Ukrainian World Congress and can't be interpreted as a fact. In addition the website www.ukraine-travel-advisor.com fails WP:RS as a self-published personal website. Therefore we should restore the previous number in the infobox. --Glebchik (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Glebchik, do not erase sources and do not intentionally violate the rules of Wikipedia! Do you know what does it mean this mark: ~ ? In other side, tell me where are 25,000,000 Russians in est. 150,000,000? I cant count them in the statistic! This antiukrainian propaganda is realy sick!--SeikoEn (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The missing number may be due to the fact that some census information may not include people of Ukrainian ancestry (like the Canadian census), and give them only one option: you're either A or B (like the Russian census.) Personally, I think both 150 million for Russians, and about 60 million for Ukrainians is correct, if we include ancestry (people born in other countries, but with ethnic grandparents/ancestors).--Therexbanner (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Therexbanner. If there are 150 million Russians, then certainly you can write that there are about 60 million Ukrainians. It is the same principle!--SeikoEn (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To SeikoEn. Did I mention Russians somewhere? Please, don't go off the topic. Reverting addition of unreliable and/or doubtful information is not a violation of the rules of Wikipedia, but a right of any Wikipedian. And I've just explained why this number can't be interpreted as a fact and used in the infobox.

To Therexbanner. First, this article is about Ukrainians, an East Slavic ethnic group, not about the people of Ukrainian ancestry. Second, we should use precise, verifiable data from the reliable sources having a certain methodology of calculation, and the official state census suit the best. --Glebchik (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sourcing, don't get me wrong. It's just that if you look at Irish people (80 million), Germans (160 million), you will see that the common method applied is to include people with X ancestry too. That's why the Russians article includes 500000 "Russian" Canadians, many of whom are Russian only because their parents/grandparents are. I think that, to be fair, the rules we use for other ethnicities should apply to Ukrainians as well.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some more sources on the 20+ million diaspora (some citing the Ukrainian World Congress): - University of Alberta/Ukranian National News Agency (http://www.ualberta.ca/~cius/ukrcan/Diaspora/UDSI-News_Views.htm): “Government to Spend UAH 15 Million on Relations with 20 Million of Ukrainians Abroad,” Ukrainian National News Agency, 12 May 2008." & "“Ukrainian population in the diaspora is around 20 mln., most of whom were born outside Ukraine." - Ukrainian Canadian Congress (http://www.ucc.ca/2010/05/25/support-the-ukrainian-world-congress-connecting-ukrainians-around-the-world/): "As the international coordinating body for Ukrainian communities in the diaspora, UWC continually and diligently defends the interests of over 20 million Ukrainians..."--Therexbanner (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

“That's why the Russians article includes 500000 "Russian" Canadians, many of whom are Russian only because their parents/grandparents are. I think that, to be fair, the rules we use for other ethnicities should apply to Ukrainians as well.” But the number of Ukrainians in Canada is taken from the same source. I'm not against citing the Canadian (or American) census and using the number of people of Ukrainian origin/ancestry in this country for this article, because we just don't have other census date about Ukrainian ethnicity. So 1,209,805 Canadians of Ukrainian ethnic origin and 500,600 of Russian can be undoubtedly used in the infoboxes. Yes, the issue of estimating the total number of an ethnic group is complicated, but but it's obviously not correct to take an unverifiable number stated by an organisation (which in addition is doubtfully unbiased about this issue), add it to the number from the official status date, present it as a fact and replace without consensus the number that has been in the article for a long time. --Glebchik (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's also true. Maybe we can put in a range (ex."From 45 to 57 million (est.)"), or just mention (in the header of the article) that "The UWC states that the Ukrainian diaspora numbers approximately 20 million." or something like that, I'm not sure.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to use “c. 45 million” in the infobox, the number that is used in the lead section, or just restore the previous version (45,551,667). Yes, I think we can mention 20 million Ukrainians in diaspora with the attribution in the article, but I don't think it fits the lead section, which should contain only general and trivial information briefly summarising the article and not getting into a deeper discussion. --Glebchik (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• The article describes the topic as follows: "Ukrainians are an East Slavic ethnic group primarily living in Ukraine, or more broadly—citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)". So let we try to analyze these definitions:
  • in the narrow sense - ethnic Ukrainians (not Ukrainian Jews, Poles, Russians, Roma etc) present in every country of the world.
  • more broadly - Ukrainian nationality (citizens of Ukraine) of every ethnicity (etnic Ukrainians, Jews, Poles, Russians, Roma, Tatars etc.
• Are the first definition a "narrow" one as the second one in the article preamble is defined a "more broad"?
• We know the official Ukrainian citizens value estimation: 45,822,214 as of October 2010. This value in the article is defined "more broad" and includes a lot of ethnic groups, but we have Census 2001 ethnic composition only: 77.8% ethnic Ukrainians (or 37,541,700). The rest - Russians, Jews, Belarusians, Tatars, Bulgarians, Hungarians etc.
• Are the Moldovans, Tatars, Bulgarians, Hungarins, Romanians, Poles, Jews, Armenians, Greeks, Roma, Azerbaijanians etc "an East Slavic ethnic group"? No, they aren't. so using etnic definition of the Ukrainians we can find 37.5 mln in Ukraine. The rest of the ethnic Ukrainians are out of the Ukraine. But where and how many?
• Let us look at the latest Canadian Census 2006: 300,590 of Canadians declared pure Ukrainian ethnic origins. Three times more (908,495) declared mixed ethnic origins with the Ukrainian origins presence. But are these values an etnic Ukrainian population figures? The 2006 Census ethnic origin question asked "What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors?"[19]. So the values listed were the ethnic "roots" of the Canadian citizen ancestors, but not a citizen ethnicity. The ethnicity was not studied in the Census, but was a mother tongue question[20]: 141,805 of respondents declared Ukrainian as a mother tongue. But 100,000 were Canadians, but 40,000 were Ukrainian citizens[21] (were counted in Ukraine).
• But why only 100,000 of Canadians have Ukrainian mother tongue? Canadians with ethnic Ukrainian parents (or one parent) 353,270, with Ukrainian grandmother or grandfather 212,860 and with grand-grand parent(s) (or even grand-grand-grand and more) 642,955[22]. We see the majority of Canadians have weak relation to the ethnic Ukrainian ancestors. Ukranian language was not used by the pure Ukrainian ancestry Canadians (100,000 speakers of 300,000 pure Ukrainian ancestry). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was checking other ethnic groups and it seems like many of the articles such as Danes, Norwegians, Dutch and Irish include Americans with corresponding ethnic ancestry that has been given in the censuses. I would prefer counting those with a certain ancestry separately but that should be done in all articles. I doubt anyone seriously would think that Paris Hilton could be said to be a Norwegian although I guess she is counted as such in the article about Norwegians. Nowadays after many generations most Americans have so split ancestry it's really impossible to point out a certain ethnic ancestry. For example what to do with Randy Bachman who is partly German and partly Ukrainian? Should he be counted twice? Isn't the earth already overpopulated? Närking (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is overestimation to use ancestry as an ethnic population data. But it is a common practice in Wikipedia. And lack of this kind of data for the European nations makes total estimations disparate. American censuses are verifiable and neutral, but we see the diaspora congresses are not neutral (naturally) and not verifiable. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that several users with antiukrainian sentiment wants to incorrectly interpret the total number of Ukrainians because it does not suit certain political views. Once again I repeat, if you can write for the Russians that there are 150 million, then there are certainly 60 milion Ukrainians. For Russian figure there is no single source!! On the other hand, the Ukrainians have more relevant sources. Users with suspicious intention such as Glebchik have no right to challenge that fact (several sources) before they challenge total number of Russians, Poles, Germans, or some other more populated nation.--SeikoEn (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the number of 20 million is only a dubious statement of the Ukrainian World Congress and cannot be a “fact”. About the other articles: WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. If you want to make changes to others articles, start discussions on the appropriate talk pages. Perhaps there have already been discussions and consensus about that. Returning to this article, I would advise you not to accuse other Wikipedians in any kind of sentiment, but to suggest you solution. --Glebchik (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we check a verifiability of the Ukrainian World Congress declarations? Can we find a neutral reliable source supporting 20,000,000 value? Are the censuses data supporing these declarations? If we can find censal data supporting 20,000,000 we can use this value as an encyclopedic fact, just now it is a declaration yet, not fact, as facts are verifiable. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I can not undestand the emotional declarations - in Wikipedia we can use the reliable sources only. Even if we don't like an information we have add it to the article as wikipedians never decide were is a truth, but we are reliable sources collectors only. The analysis shows the official Census 2006 ethnic ancestry data is some kind ethnic Ukrainians overestimation, so larger figures are impossible as ethnic ancestry value already includes persons with ethnic Ukrainian grand- grand- fathers.
• Maximum what we can do - to make a source reliability analysis: is a source verifiable and neutral. We can say the Census 2006 data are verifiable and neutral, but the values of Ukrainian ancestry population are not ethnic Ukrainian population, so using these data is an overestimation, real ethnic Ukrainians numbers can be less than 1,200,000 as only 100,000 of Canadians are Ukrainian speakers. But we don't have better estimations, so we are using what we have. And using Census data makes other ethnicities estimations comparable - you SeikoEn are right.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)