Jump to content

Talk:Ukrainians/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Are those images gone for good? Varlaam (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Korolyov listed both among famous Russians and famous Ukrainians???

How this can be? See Korolyov is among famous Russians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians and he is among famous Ukrainians? I suggest to replace him, as his last name is Russian and his father was ethnic Russian.

Roman Zacharij (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

His mother was Ukrainian... If he is removed from this article he should also be removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians... The argument that he is more Russian because his father was Russian is not in line with Wikipedia pollicy... I hope.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
His father was Russian and his mother was Ukrainain, that means he belongs equaly to both articles. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think being half Ukrainian and born in Ukraine qualifies one. He is both east-slavic (of Rus ethnicity) and 'Ukrainian' is a geographic ethnonym, so any east-slav of the region should qualify (obviously sources, attribution, and self identification go a long way as well) --Львівське (говорити) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mila Jovovich is not ethnically Ukrainian

I removed Mila Jovovich from the infobox. The reason is because she was not ethnically Ukrainian, her father was Serbian and her mother was ethnically Russian. The article talks about people who are of Ukrainain ethnicity. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I replaced her with Ruslana. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


before I revert, I'll ask the talk page ppl here, did we have consensus on Mila? She is active in Ukraine / a Ukrainian speaker; does she self identify? I forget. Being part-Rus and born in Ukraine should be enough IMO if she speaks the language and/or self identifies. Let's not forget that if we strictly went by blood, then most of the Russian Czars would be German. --Львівське (говорити) 20:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's enough. Ukrainians are not Russians, simple as that, and though she was born in Ukraine, she is not ethnically Ukrainian. It's true that most of the Russian Czars are German, but they were decendents of Peter the Great who was Russian so they still could argue that the Czars were Russian due to the fact they did have Russian roots and they considered themselves Russian, but Mila Jovovich didn’t have any Ukrainian roots as in Ukrainian ethnicity, and the article is about Ukrainians as an ethnicity, not Ukrainians as a nationality. 79.99.144.141 (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You're nullifying Mila because she doesn't have Ukrainian parents, but do you know for a fact that her Russian mother doesn't have Ukrainian roots? Many do, since both nations come from the same Kyivan Rus source.--Львівське (говорити) 17:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
She might have, also, Bach might have had French roots, Beethoven might have had Danish roots, Golda Meir might have had Cossac roots and Muhammad might had Persian roots, everything is possible, but those are called speculations. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the quote talking about Mila’s Russian mum.

[1] “У меня русская мама, она была знаменитой актрисой в СССР (Галина Логинова. — Газета). И первые книги, которые я прочитала, были на русском языке. Я воспитывалась в атмосфере русской классической театральной школы. Искусство, построенное на системе Станиславского, — это наиболее реалистичное искусство. И современное кино стоит на этих же принципах. Ведь русскому человеку важно докопаться до правды. Это и есть основа русской культуры. Я об этом никогда не забываю, тем более что у меня русские корни.”

“I have Russian mother, she was a famous actress in the USSR (Galina Loginova). And the first books, which I read, were in Russian. I was raised in the atmosphere of the Russian classical theatre school. The art, built on the system of Stanislavsky – that’s the most realistic art. And the modern cinema stands on the same principle. A Russian person wants to find the truth. This is the base of the Russian culture. I never forget it, especially since I have Russian roots.”

think Ukrainians are a nation which has a lot of notable people, the contribution of Ukrainians to world culture is not appreciated enough, so I think that putting people who identify with the Russian culture and are ethnically Russian in the infobox is disrespectful to the Ukrainians because it makes it look like Ukrainians are desperate for celebrities (which they are not, because they have a lot of their own). The article is about Ukrainians, after all. By the way, why isn’t the lead singer of Ocean Elzy in the picture? The guy is one of the best rock musicians in the CIS and promoted the Ukrainian culture! Just an idea. 79.99.144.141 (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

From her own article, "I am a strong Ukrainian girl, that is why I work a lot" - she self identifies as Ukrainian, and was born in Ukraine. She meets the qualifications. That she has Russian roots, and acknowledges them, shouldn't nullify her Ukrainian'ness. A lot of Ukrainians have Russian roots, and a lot (a lot!) of Russians have Ukrainian roots.--Львівське (говорити) 17:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
She is Ukrainian by nationality, not by ethnicity. Someone might identify as English, but if they are of German ethnicity, are they English? By nationality, yes, but not by ethnicity. This article is about Ukrainians as an ethnic group, otherwise I think people like Sholom Aleichem, Shmuel Yosef Agnon and Golda Meir should be included. Those who are ethnicaly Russian and identify as Ukrainians are Ukrainians by nationality, you don't become ethnicaly Ukrainian just because you decide so. Kunis was not put in because she's Jewish. Sholom Aliechem is not here because he's Jewish. So how come you want to put a Russian in the picture? The article begins with the phrase Ukrainians are an ethnic group. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no DNA test for "ethnically Ukrainian". Ukrainian blood is a mix of East Slavic (Russian and Ukrainian DNA is virtually identical), Tatar, and a bit of Polish. When a person is born in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian (all Ukrainians also speak Russian), and claims to be Ukrainian in the world's media, that person is Ukrainian. Until you can build a consensus otherwise, then stop removing Jovovich from the collage. There are plenty of old Ukrainians in that collage who are virtually unknown that you can play with, but Jovovich is world famous as a Ukrainian. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? You deny the fact Ukrainians and Russians are separate ethnicities? Jovovich clearly stated her mother is Russian, and everybody knows her father is Serbian. She is Ukrainian by nationality, not by ethnicity. She is not known as a Ukrainian, she is known as American, but ethnically she is half Serbian and half Russian, she has no Ukrainian blood! She is Ukrainian by nationality, ok, though even here there is a problem due to the fact she didn't live in independent Ukraine, and she even said the culture in her house was Russian, not Ukrainian. Do you know that both of her parents were not born in Ukraine and were not of Ukrainian ethnicity? 94.3.21.223 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to make things interesting, are you aware that her mother is from Kuban? It's entirely possible, if not very likely, that she has Russified Ukrainian ancestors. Not that it matters for this article, just wanted to point this out --Львівське (говорити) 17:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's also possible they were Jews who converted to Christianity or Khazars who stayed there, everything is possible, but those are speculations. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If Mila Jovovich who has no Ukrainian blood at all can be in the picture though simply because she was born in Ukrain, I think it's fair if Sholem Aleichem and Golda Meir will be there to. They are world famous, they were born in Ukraine, and in Sholem Aleichem's case he is one of the greatest writers in world literature (and probably the greatest Jewish writer). If nationality is the topic and not ethnicity then it's fair if those two people are included. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If somebody was born in Ukraine is Ukrainian we need add Leon Trotzky too] as he was born in Ukraine,isn't he? But Svyatoslav Vakarchuk can be added as wellknown person in modern definitelly Ukrainian culture. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree about Trotsky, but I think he's a bit too controversial when looking at Ukrainian history. Vakarchuk is a great idea! Who should we add him instead though? I put him instead of Gogol. Gogol was Ukrainain but he didn't speak nicely about Ukrainians! If you want you can return Gogol and put him instead of someone else. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Rather than throwing a fit, anon IP, and ransacking the photos willy-nilly on your own volition, why don't you do what we have been doing for a long time here--propose something here on the Talk Page, we discuss it, and if a consensus builds around the change, THEN we make the change. But that means that if most of the editors here disagree with your assessment, you don't throw a fit (as you have done here), but move on to your next suggestion. There are clear possibilities for improving the photos, but that means talking and realizing that you are not going to get your way in every situation. --Taivo (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
And there is no such thing as "Ukrainian blood". Jovovich claims to be a Ukrainian and she was born in Ukraine. There is no "ethnic purity test" that can objectively distinguish a Ukrainian from a Russian or Belarusian even if you mistakenly think there is such a test. There isn't. 1000 years ago their ancestors were all huddled around their villages surrounding Kiev, so in that sense all Russians and Belarusians are ultimately "Ukrainian" anyway. --Taivo (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Honestly, if BOTH of her parents were Serbian then I could see a case being made; but she's an east slav born in Ukraine who identifies as a Ukrainian - this should be straight forward.--Львівське (говорити) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no such ethnicity as East Slav, it's a group of ethnicities. She is half Russian, not half Ukrainian. Otherwise we might also argue that Germans and Dutch are the same, after all, they are both West Germanic. It's exactly the same situation! Jovovic is Russian and Serbian by ethnicity, not Ukrainian (I'm not talking about nationality). 94.3.21.223 (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
No one talks about ethnical purity, but Ukrainians are a separate ethnicity. If you read the history you can see that the Ukrainians evolved from different Slavic tribes as Russians or Belarusians, Rus were not an ethnicity but a confederate of tribes. Otherwise we can argue that the Dutch and German are the same people or that people in Sweeden and in Norway are the same people. But it's irrelevant because though it should be by ethnicity, in this articlr they pick people by nationality, but them I think it's important to give representation to Ukrainian Jews. You are right about starting a discussion, got a bit confused and did it wrong, opened one here on the bottom. 79.99.144.141 (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Rus were a people as well as a confederation, not of tribes, but of principalities. The only 'true' Russians are the ones who descended from Novgorod, the rest have 'Ukrainian roots' in whatever sense of the word you want to construe.--Львівське (говорити) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah but that way we can argue Jews and Arabs are the same because they are both Semitic. Even though related, Russians and Ukrainians are separate ethnicities. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposition to add Ukrainian Jews: Mila Kunis, Sholem Aleichem or Golda Meir

I propose to add Golda Meir and Sholem Aleichem to the pictures, especially Sholem Aliechem who became one of the best play and short story writers in history and the best Jewish one. They were both born in Ukraine, and I think that the Jews of Ukraine have a long enough history in Ukraine to get representation. Since Jovovich who is not ethnically Ukrainian can be there I see that on this page it's based on where you were born, I think it's fair to give representation to other groups who played a role in the history of Ukraine. 79.99.144.141 (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to adding Ukrainian Jews, but they need to meet the minimum standards that we set for Jovovich--they must claim to be Ukrainians. That may not be the case with most Ukrainian Jews, who might claim their Jewish heritage first rather than their Ukrainian heritage. Jovivich has clearly stated in print that she's Ukrainian. Did Meir or Aliechem ever make that claim? --Taivo (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they ever claimed to be Ukrainian, but I'm sure I'll find someone who did! I will do a search this evening. 79.99.144.141 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
If they didn't claim to be Ukrainian, then we should not add them. Jovovich has said she is Ukrainian. That's the difference here--we don't just add people because they were born in Ukraine, they have to say "I'm Ukrainian" as well. --Taivo (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah but Daniel of Galicia never said he's Ukrainian because that term didn't exist yet, and Akhmatova from what I know is ethnically Russian (well, she also has Tatar or Mongolian blood) and she never called herself Ukrainian, so how come they are in the image? That's the thing, even if a person says "I'm Ukrainian", is it actually enough? Jovovich is ethnically Russian and Serbian, she grew in Russian culture, she doesnt know Ukrainian, so is it enough to put her in? Because I think if the Russians would makea claim on her, they would have a stronger case. What do you think? 94.3.21.223 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You are apparently wrong about Jovovich not knowing Ukrainian: [2]. Jovovich herself says she speaks Ukrainian. Of course, she also knows Russian because all Ukrainians also speak Russian. That's the fundamental problem with using language to mark identification--Ukrainian and Russian are really just mutually intelligible dialects of a single language. So unless you hear her using words like "dyakuyu" or "rozumiyu" rather than "spasibo" or "ponimayu", you can't always tell if she's speaking Russian with a Ukrainian accent or Ukrainian with a Russian accent, since she's probably using "surzhyk" anyway. And we're not talking about "ancient" Ukrainians in this discussion anyway since as Lvivske has pointed out, almost all the East Slavs, whether Belarusian or Russian or Ukrainian have a common origin in the Rus of Kiev anyway and even further back even the Novgorod Rus and the Kievan Rus have a common origin somewhere before recorded history because those three East Slavic dialects (four if you separate Rusyn) come from a single common linguistic ancestor. --Taivo (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You are right about the common origin, but it still doesnt mean Russians and Ukrainians are the same, otherwise, why is Ukraine an independent country? Otherwise you might argue Germans and Dutch are the same, and I don't see Germans putting Dutch in the infobox (unless they have German blood), and the other way round. Germans and Dutch are as close to each other as Russians and Ukrainian. Mila Jovovich knowing Ukrainian still doesnt make her Ukrainian, and her being of Ukrainian nationalisty doesnt make her ethnically Ukrainian. Sholem Aleichem knew Ukrainian, does it make him ethnically Ukrainian? Taras Shevchenko spoke Russian and lived in Russia, does it make him ethnically Russian? Mila Jovovich clearly stated her mother is Russian and her father is Serbian, so no matter if she knew Ukrainian or not or if she considers herself a Ukrainian by nationality or not (she also stated she is Russian many times), ethnically she is not Ukrainian, simple because her mother is Russian and her father is Serbian. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is that Ukranian Jews are not Ukranian per se - they are Jews (a separate ethnic group) from Ukraine, and historically remained separate. As such, it would be hard to find one who self identified as Ukranian in the ethnonym sense (not denonym). --Львівське (говорити) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
But Russians are also a separate ethnic group. They are brothers with Ukranians, but they evolved from different tribes, so according to that logic Jovovic should not be in this image. I think this image should be literally regarding to nationality, otherwise we really get a weird situation. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
What 'tribe' does she belong to? Her mother's side of the family comes from historically Ukrainian territory. She's mixed, obviously she'll have multiple identities, but the relevance here is she has Ukrainian roots & identifies as Ukrainian (even despite being American) --Львівське (говорити) 20:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
But the question I asked earlier still applies, Bogomolov. Did Golda Meir tell people she was Ukrainian and did she ever speak Ukrainian? Jovovich has done both. --Taivo (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If somebody (Chinese) speaks Ukrainian and was born in Ukraine in a Chinese family - is this person an Ukrainian? Are the Ukrainians a territorial group (born in Ukraine), a linguistic group (Ukrainian speakers) or ethnic Ukrainians (born outside of Ukraine, not the Ukrainian speakers)? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
According to the logic they use, apparently it's enough for this guy to say "I'm Ukrainian" to make it to the infobox :-) 94.3.21.223 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You're comparing two different things. There's a difference between an East-Slav moving from one ethnicity to another, and a Chinese person. If having Ukrainian roots disqualified one from being Russian, then the Russian article would be stripped of a lot of people who emigrated there.--Львівське (говорити) 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Having Ukrainian roots doesnt'd disqualify you from being Russian, but if you live in Russia and you don't have any Ukrainian roots we know off, that disqualifies you. An East Slav can't move from one ethnicity to another if he doesnt have roots in that ethnicity! Besides, Jovovich never "moved" ethnicities, she clearly stated she is Russian many times. When she said Ukrainian she obviously ment nationality! 94.3.21.223 (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Her mother comes from Krasnodar Krai, which is Russia, and from what we know she does not have any Ukrainian roots. Saying it's a Ukrainian territory and she's mixed are speculations. Russians in Donbass and Crimea say they come from Novorussia which is a Russian territory (that's why the vast majority in Cremea and in Donbass are Russians). When you start talking about historical territories it always leads to arguments because everyone base it on different time periods mixed together to make it look as big as they can. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Krasnodar Krai is the Kuban, which is part of historic Ukrainian ethnic territory. Yes, it's in Russia now - Ukraine was in Russia at one point too.--Львівське (говорити) 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I read about the subject, and it's not. You base your claim on the fact there were many Ukrainian speakers there, but those were Zaporojiya Cossacs that immigrated there, it still doesnt mean it's Ukraine. A big Jewish community in New York doesnt make it Israel. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm simply pointing out that it's part of the historic region of what constitutes 'Ukraine', regardless of contemporary demarcation. It's akin to saying Crimea is historically a Russian outpost, or Tatarstan being historically a Tatar territory, despite being "in Russia" the country.--Львівське (говорити) 17:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

An aside, but allow me to give a weird example of how things can crossover here. I have a friend, she's Jewish (Ashkenazi) with only known Jewish roots, born in Belarus (USSR) and then emigrated to Canada. She has at times self identified as Belarusian, Russian, and Jewish. She, however, does not speak Belarusian (only Russian), and knows absolutely nothing about actual Belarusian people and their culture. In a twist, her father is a self-loathing Jew who considers himself Russian, whereas her mother is a proud Jew who vehemently hates Russians (and Ukrainians). Figure this one out. --Львівське (говорити) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Sholem Aleichem should be inluced. Though he never stated "I'm a Ukrainian" (which unlike today then was only an ethnic declaration", he was the most important Jewish writer and all his stories were around the Jewish life in Ukraine, he has statues dbuilt in his honour in few places in Ukraine, including Kiev. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

He's a Yiddish-speaking Jew born in the Russian Empire. While he did it works in the territory of Ukraine, that does not make him an ethnic Ukrainian.--Львівське (говорити) 20:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
But it's the same thing about Mila Jovovich, just because she was born in Ukraine it doesnt mean she's an ethnic Ukrainian. Her mother is Russian, her father is Serbian. She doesnt have any Ukrainian roots, except that she was born in Ukraine, but so do millions of others including Russians, Armenians, Jews... who would not be seen in this infobox. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm quoting you from the article about him: "streets were named after him also in other cities in the Soviet Union, among them Kiev, Odessa, Vinnytsya, Lviv, Zhytomyr and Mykolaiv.", "On March 2, 2009 (150 years after his birth) the National Bank of Ukraine issued an anniversary coin celebrating Aleichem with his face depicted on it." If he wouldn't be a Ukrainian writer it wouldn't happen, even though he wrote in Yiddish! 94.3.21.223 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
At this point the discussion has become confused between three different individuals, comparing apples and oranges. The process that worked best the last time this became a problem was to have each proposal for each individual placed in a separate discussion without comparing one person to another. So if you want to include Meir, then discuss Meir. If a consensus is reached to add her, then we decide who to replace with her. Jovovich is in. We built a consensus for her a year or so ago, so she's in. If you figure out who you want to add, then we will come to a consensus on who to remove, but at this time there is no consensus on anyone to add so it's ridiculous to talk about removing someone who speaks Ukrainian, was born in Ukraine, and publicly claims Ukrainian as her ethnicity/nationality. If you can't decide on who should be added to the list (and I haven't been convinced by any of the proposals so far), then it's pointless to complain about someone you personally don't like simply because you don't believe her claim to be Ukrainian. If you have someone specific you wan to add, then start a new section with his/her name and we'll look at the evidence and come to a consensus yea or nay. --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's true it got mixed, but because it's a similar issue when we are talking about people who are not ethnically Ukrainian (Jovovic, Meir, Sholem Aleichem) who are all nominated for the infobox, and due to the have that similarity they cross over. Jovovic never claimed to have Ukrainian ethnicity, she clearly said her mother was Russian and her father was Serbian. When she said she is Ukrainian she obviously ment nationalit, simply because she is not ethnically Ukrainian. I'm British, I cam also say I'm English, but it's obviously when I say English I mean nationality because ethnically I'm Belarusian and Polish. A concensus is not a law which can't be changed, it can always be re-opened. Anyway, I don't mind Jovovich staying, if the infobox is built on nationality and not on ethnicity, that's what you decide, but then I strongly believe there should be a representative of Ukrainian Jews there, and to be honest, it doesnt matter to me who it is, as long that group is represented, when Golda Meir and Sholem Aleichen are really famous representatives. 94.3.21.223 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In my comment, I said that the most orderly way to proceed is to open a new section, propose someone you want to add, then present whatever evidence you have in favor of adding that person. Then if you build a consensus for that person, then we can begin a discussion about who to replace. But the first step is to actually propose one person and we can decide yea or nay on that one person. Once we've finished with that person, we can move to the next one. That procedure has worked very well in the past and kept things from getting out of control (as they have here). --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If you haven't actually read this previous discussion, you should. At least the first bit (like this discussion, it devolved into a confused mess of "X should be there, but Y should not", just like this one did. --Taivo (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed there wes already a discussion about adding Mila Kunis, and most people actually said it's a good idea. She will represent Ukrainian Jews! 94.3.21.223 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you obviously didn't read the whole discussion. Kunis doesn't publicly embrace being Ukrainian. Her most common public statement is along the lines of "I'm a Jew born in Ukraine", not "I'm Ukrainian". But you need to add a new section to this Talk Page, bring forward your arguments and we'll look at the evidence again to see if there is a consensus now. The discussion from the spring did not reach a consensus, but just petered out when some of her public statements were analyzed, such as this one. You still need to be building a consensus here before rampaging through the collage. While you may be able to build a consensus to add Kunis, you certainly did nothing to build a consensus for removing Farmiga. You don't seem to understand this process and think that just because you think it, everyone agrees with you. You need a consensus for both whom to add and whom to delete. --Taivo (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Lisitsa?

Did we have consensus to add Lisitsa? She seems to be a youtube sensation or something...hardly enough to qualify for the 'best of' list. right? --Львівське (говорити) 20:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of her. There's a stronger case for adding Jack Palance than for her. --Taivo (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus that it was OK to replace some people in the infobox from time to time.... (I can not find that right now on the talkpage her... But then there is a lot of writing on it...).

Although I admit that Valentina Lisitsa is not world famous. I also do believe that Ruslana and Vera Farmiga are (also) not so famous.... I am not so interested in films so I could be wrong about Farmiga.... But after 2004 Ruslana has done nothing that was noticed in the English speaking world (where this Wikipedia is for).... Unlike Lisitsa....

Too bad Olga Kurylenko has not been in any successful film lately.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Better replace Ruslana with Sergey Bubka…..

Although I really like Ruslana (as I stated above) I think most people in the English speaking world have no idea who she is... Unlike Sergey Bubka….. I think we better replace Ruslana with Bubka.

Or (an option is) Wladimir Klitschko per earlier consensus "people who the world would recognize and be interested to find out that they are Ukrainian" (per Taivo's words of 17 April 2012). If we wanna have a present day woman in it... they only ones quilifided for that seem to be Yulia Tymoshenko (and mabey Valentina Lisitsa).

But since there seems to be no consensus for Tymo and Lisitsa.... And I think an Wikipedia Infobox is not the place for positive discrimination of woman. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Genetics

I have to agree with the anon in terms of keeping the genetic info in(though I assume good faith by VM and wouldn't refer to his action as vandalism). It is interesting information that is found in many other articles about ethnic groups, such as Armenians: [3], Russians [4], Czechs [5] etc. etc. (sometimes the genetic info is placed in the article about demographics, as in the case of Italians [6], although I think it fits better here). Faustian (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there's some consensus to 'ban' referenced info like this site-wide, i don't see why it should be removed. --Львівське (говорити) 17:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Adding genetic information is 99% nonsense that is a thinly (or perhaps not-so-thinly) veiled attempt for certain parties to push racial purity. Sorry, it might be interesting genetics, but it really has nothing to do with ethnicity. While there might be a sentence or even a paragraph's worth of value in the information, to add multiple sections to an article to push a genetic test for who is Ukrainian and who isn't is not encyclopedic and should not be encouraged in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
How is it nonsense? It seems scientifically valid and pretty interesting. Understanding the genesis of an ethnic group, migration patterns, and distribution falls in line with the history of an ethnic group. I personally don't see it as a 'racial purity' thing. I agree that perhaps it needs to be parred down in size.--Львівське (говорити) 01:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Given the varied and diverse genetic origin of Ukrainians, the info seems to argue against racial purity, if anything. Genetics is interesting, it shows various origins, possible relationships and similarity/dissimilarity with neighbors - what's the problem? As I've demonstrated, there are genetic sections in wikipedia articles about most ethnic groups - why shouldn't there be one about Ukrainians also? And how can the information be interpreted to suggest a "genetic test for who is Ukrainian and who isn't?" The information is referenced, it's encyclopedic, it shouldn't be removed.Faustian (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It's about four paragraphs too much information for this article, even if it is appropriate. That level of detail is not consistent with the level of detail in any other section. Move it somewhere else and very briefly summarize it here. --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It's about the same size as the languages section, I mean, it's not that bloated. Considering it's only 4 paragraphs, being 4 paragraphs too long would mean...oh, I see what you did there ;) --Львівське (говорити) 07:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the article about the Ukrainian people. Genetics is a part of that - 4 paragraphs doesn't necessarily seem too long.Faustian (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't count how many paragraphs it was in a "zero sum" attempt, Lvivske. My point was that it should be at most a sentence or two here--a very, very brief summary, not that detailed and indecipherable alphanumeric soup that all genetics comments turn into if left to their own devices. As editors, it is important to summarize the scientific detail so that it is covered at the simplest and clearest level for our average reader. If you feel that the scientific soup is important somewhere else, then make a new article and link to it from here. That's my point here. Summarize for the average reader in a sentence or two and link to another article for the science nerds who might actually understand the genetic cipher. --Taivo (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that genetics is important enough to warrant more than a sentence or two in an entire article about the Ukrainian ethnic group. One paragraph describing findings about Ukrainians, and another comparing Ukrainians to their neighbors, should be a minimum. I added the comparative information because I came across it and found it interesting and encyclopedic that among UKrainians there are more people with genetic markers linked to the Balkans than there are among Poles or Russians; that among Ukrainians there are fewer people with genetic markers indicative of Finnic origins than there are among Russians, that among Ukrainains there are fewer people with German markers than are found among Poles, etc.
I'm not sure that there is enough info about genetics for an entire page devoted only to genetics. A table, for example, comparing presence of certain markers among Ukrainians with those of their neighbor would be nice, although I'm not technically skilled enough to create tables. Perhaps some of the numbers may be moved into a footnote, although percentage figures are useful in order to provide an idea of the magnitude of similairites and differences.Faustian (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As a percentage of the entire article the gentics section in Belarusians, three paragraphs long, is larger than the one in the Ukrainian article.Faustian (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Then there is too much genetic alphanumeric garbage in Belarusians. Perhaps it is because my primary focus is linguistic, the genetic information about Balkan Slavs and Turks interbreeding with Eastern Slavs really isn't very relative to locating the Ukrainian language in space and time. And it simply points out that there is no such thing as racial or genetic purity when it comes to ethnic groups. --Taivo (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I am a non-linguist, and for me some of the linguistic terms in the article about the Ukrainian language are a bit hard to understand. However, it's the article about the Ukrainian language so I don't think they ought to be removed and I wouldn't dismiss it as garbage or specialized lingo. I'm no geneticist but having done family DNA reearch I've picked up some of the terms used in this article and can understand this article's genetic section without a problem. In an article about an ethnic group genetics is important, which is why most articles about ethnic groups have a genetic section. I agree that this genetic info does indeed highlight that there is no such thing as genetic purity among the various Slavic ethnic groups.Faustian (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
So summarize the most important points in a couple of sentences and move most of the alphanumeric incantation elsewhere. --Taivo (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Every number and letter combination (such as R1a1) describes a particular genetic marker with a certain geographical origin or group. Removing it all you makes the article less clear. Summarizng a topic such as this in "a couple sentences" is basically removing a lot of encyclopedic information from an article that ought to have a lot of such information - genetics is a component of ethnicity and this article is about the ethnic group. It would be like reducing the info about language structure in the article about the Ukrainian language to a couple of sentences. Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is "alphanumeric incantation."Faustian (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You are obviously confusing the general language information in this article with the separate article Ukrainian language where you will find the details of Ukrainian that are not appropriate here in this article. You're just being defensive now, Faustian. That genetic alphanumeric soup can, indeed, be summarized and condensed to be comprehensible to the majority of readers without all the minute details that geneticists salivate over. The details need to be elsewhere, not here in a generalized article. --Taivo (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, I was referring to the Ukrainian language article which includes far more details about language structure than this one has about genetics. Yet, you do not seek to trim the Ukrainian language article of a lot of information about language structure, you do not dismiss it as "minute details linguists salivate over" or ask that the language structure section in the Ukrainian language article be reduced to a summary of only a few sentences. Why not? You know, most non-lingusits have no idea what words such as "declension", "palatalized", etc. mean, yet we no not consider their use in the article to be "alphabet soup" and call for its removal.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
You're confused, Faustian. The Ukrainian language article is exactly the place for details. This article is not the place for such details. A Ukrainian genetics article is also exactly the place for the alphanumeric details of "Ukrainian" genes, not here. That's my point, but you don't seem to understand it. Put a couple sentences of summary here and then place all the alphanumeric incantation that only geneticists will understand or be interested in at an article about genetics, just as the linguistic details that only linguists will be interested in are at Ukrainian language. --Taivo (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Genetic information is as relevant to an article about an ethnic group is lingusitic structures is relevant to an article about language. Banishing details to another article would be analogous to creating a seperate article about Ukrainian language structure filled with lingo that only linguists understand, and summarizing it in a few sentences in the article about the Ukrainian language. Do you understand me now? I am also curious why you arent' calling for the removal of genetic info from articles about almost every other groups and singling out the Ukrainian article for your efforts? Look at the Slavs article, for instance. Or Mexcians. An entire section on genetics - rather than a couple of sentences - is standard for wikipedia articles about ethnic groups. Why single out the Ukrainian article for removal of information?Faustian (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFF, Faustian. We're not talking about other articles, we're talking about this one. This is a summary article that has to briefly cover all aspects of an ethnic group, not give undue detail on any single aspect. Genetics is only one aspect, shared history is another, shared language is another, shared culture is another, etc. Genetics is not the prima facie determinant of ethnicity. This overview article is then supplemented by more detailed articles, such as Ukrainian language, Ukrainian culture, History of Ukraine, Music of Ukraine, etc. Notice, if you will, that nearly every single subsection of this article has a link to a more detailed article. That is exactly how the genetics section should be--a basic summary here, more detail in a detailed article. Genetics is not special, it is just one aspect of ethnicity. --Taivo (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In this article the genetic section currently is not the lengthiest one; it fits in with the other sections. The genetics section has 4 paragrpahs; the following section has 7, the history section has five, others have three paragraphs. Amazingly, you are calling to have the genetic section reduced to a couple of sentences! I do not have time to write a detailed article about Ukrainian genetics (nor am I qualified to do so - I am not a biologist or geneticist); the current genetics section of this article is well within the norm for section length in this article and, as noted, is comparable to genetic sections in other articles about other ethnic groups. It seems like you are simply trying to make excuses about why referenced information that people took the time to read and share, ought to be removed from the article.Faustian (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No, Faustian, it's not about length since there are sections which require longer summaries than others. It is about the level of detail in the section that is irrelevant or overly technical in nature. I could add all kinds of referenced information about the Ukrainian language in this article. To argue that a piece of information belongs somewhere because it is properly referenced is a ridiculous surrender of our editing responsibilities to our readers. I would be willing to put money on the fact that whoever added the genetics section simply copied something wholesale from their source and did not "take the time to read and share", but simply cut and pasted. That is the usual practice nearly every time I have seen genetics alphanumeric incantations added to articles. You keep seeming to not get the point of my posts. The point is that the level of detail and arcane ciphers in that section is inappropriate for a summary level. I don't care whether or not you are qualified to write a detailed article on Ukrainian genetics, the point is that this article is not the place for the level of detail that has been copied from the source. A couple of sentences will be quite sufficient to summarize and encapsulate the big-picture results of DNA testing without all the experimental and sampling details, the alphanumeric coding, and the percentage probabilities that currently clutters the article. I'll summarize the details if you don't feel up to the task. But all your arguments simply fail to deal with the issue I've been raising all along--that this article is a summary and the arcane details need to be in a separate article. --Taivo (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The level of detail in this section is minor and brief while covoering the basics - a summary. There are certain haplotypes in the Ukrainian population, each associated with paticular origins. The article states what they are and describes the origins. Sorry, but haplotypes are written as letters and numbers - it's what they are called. If you want to describe briefly the common haplotypes you have to use letters and numbers. There are certain differences between Ukrainians and neighboring ethnic groups with respect to these haplotypes - the article describes these differences. This is accomplished in four paragraphs. Some trimming is possible but not much - it's rather barebones as it is.Faustian (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) I've trimmed the section to 3 paragraphs from 4, moved a lot of numbers into a footnote, and added a nice picture showing distribution of haplogroup I (demonstrating that Ukrainians share this with people in the Balkans, unlike Poles and Russians). Looking at edit history and the talk page, we have four editors supporting the genetic section, expanding it even (me, Lvivske, Sanya3, and jwkozak) and two seeking to remove information (Taivo and VM, although the latter seems to have stepped away from this). The consensus seems to be in favor of keeping the info in.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

While it is still more detail than I think necessary, it is better than it was. --Taivo (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph should be in a footnote. It is already summarized in the first paragraph and all those percentages are really rather unnecessary. --Taivo (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I think a few sentences describing the specific nature of differences/similarities between Ukrainians and their neighbors is relevent; the percentages are good data for people who want details, but don't belong in the article itself and thus are in the footnote. I think removing the subheading before the third pararaph works. Faustian (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ahem. --Taivo (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think the genetics section should stay. It has recently also been debated a lot in Ukraine after a rather non-scientifical TV-program about the DNA origin of the Ukrainians. The Ukrainian Weekly Tyzhden has recently also published this booklet [7]. Närking (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Ukraine

Why is this constantly used as the main (and sometimes only) source throughout the article? It is obvious after several minutes of browsing it, that it is not a scholarly source. It is of a journalistic level at best -- it cites no primary evidence, whether specifically or generally, and is clearly nationalistic in tone. Just as an example, someone lifted this sentence from the 'encyclopedia' verbatim (without so much as putting quotation marks around it): "Ukraina (Ukraine), a name first documented in 1187." Documented where and by whom? In which document, exactly? Is there no academic source to corroborate this? Frankly, this smacks of nationalist bias, and, unfortunately, the article suffers for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.68 (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mila Jovovich Ukrainian ?

Jovovich not ethnic Ukranian she half Montenegrin (father Jovovich) and half Russian (mother Loginova) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.63.178 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

minor edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Argentine 300.0000-500.000 Ukranian Argentines, in Article says just 300,000, does anyone mind to make that dinky change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariano Menéndez (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Vera Farmiga

Her importance as a representative of the Ukrainian diaspora increased this week as she was nominated for an Emmy award and her film "Conjuring" will be number one in the box office. --Taivo (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainians in Syria

there are close to 27,000 Ukrainians in Syria??? seems like someone added that in recently, because next to it, it says clarification needed, this is the first time im hearing this Nursingxmajor (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

According to UN numbers: 5,000 Ukrainian citizens were still in Syria at the beginning of July 2012; but according to the Ukraine's Foreign Ministry (in March 2013), 568 Ukrainians have already been evacuated from Syria since 2011, and more and more have followed since. Leaving the official number of evacuated to 600 Ukrainian citizens. But it might be the case that former Soviet citizens who are counted as "Russians" in Syria are actually Ukrainian... But even then the number of 27,000 Ukrainians in Syria seems to high and I could not find that number on a Google-search...
Roughly counting up the numbers above seems to indicate 6.000 Ukrainian citizens lived in Syria before the Syrian civil war. Not sure this was the total number of ethnic Ukrainians in Syria... (even less sure how to found out if they were ethnic Ukrainians.....) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Replaced Ruslana with Olga Kurylenko...

today because Kurylenko has a leading part in the next Tommy Cruise film (I assume that because Tommy is in it it will become a big box office hit in the coming months) and thus that (and her 2012 movie To the Wonder) make her a better representative/notable in the infobox then Ruslana who I assume has been largely forgotten in the English speaking world since her Eurovision Song Contest 2004 win. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ruslana is far from being forgotten by the English speaking world. She just had a very successful performance in Belgium on 11 August 2013. She is one of the most famous Ukrainians and I think that it's unfair to exclude her from here. 188.26.165.144 (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia... And Belgium is not part of the English speaking world, if she had a successful performance in Bristol you would have had a point. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Olga Kurylenko or Ivan Paskevich

An IP-editor on 27-8-2013 replaced in the Infobox the picture of Olga Kurylenko with one of Ivan Paskevich... Objections anybody? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox picture

I realise that my introducing Yulia Tymoshenko & Alexandra Shevchenko in the picture in the infobox a few minutes ago might be controversial... I deleted Ivan Kozhedub from it since in my view he is not enough interesting to be in the infobox since he will not attract extra readers to the page since nobody has ever heard of him in the English speaking world (I is following Taivo's think-patron of 18 April 2012). Not sure what is up with the "Milla Jovovich is half Serbian, half Russian, she was born in Ukraine, but she isn't an ethnic Ukrainian so she can not be in the infobox" and "Vera Farmiga is Ukrainian American so she can not be in the infobox" edits of lately... But it is nice to see some new exciting faces in the box that people might have seen on the news a few days ago. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Kozhedub was the greatest fighter ace of WWII and a genuine Ukrainian. If people visiting this page haven't heard of him, it's their own fault. 1982vdven (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The picture is not a representative of "most liked/most special/most respected/did a lot for us/ideal Ukrainians"; it is intended to attract readers of English Wikipedia! Case in point: at Wiki-article Germans Claudia Schiffer and Heidi Klum are in the infobox picture because they are famous (I am sure you can find Germans who have been more important for Germany then them...). And these days Yuri Kondratyuk and Ivan Kozhedub are not known by English speaking people... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Akhmatova - Ukrainian ?

Apart from being Russian she disliked Ukrainians her whole life, please, read her memoirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this the above statement makes sense. However, just not liking Ukrainians does not make anybody not an Ukrainian... Gérard Depardieu is not Russian because he likes Russians... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
She appears to be a Russian, born in Odessa, whose family later moved back to Russia. How does she qualify as Ukrainian? Her family appears to be descended from Russian nobility, according to her wiki. If she self identified as Russian and never Ukrainian, then that's pretty damning. --Львівське (говорити) 18:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I am not part of her fan-club and in fact do not know basicly anything about her... But it would be nice if she would be replaced, for continuation, if we had somebody in the infobox-picture from her era. This website of Famous Ukrainians suggests Serge Lifar. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is correct... Lifar did self identified as Ukrainian and never as Russian... Ukrainian media states he is an Ukrainian dancer and choreographer. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done (Akhmatova replaced by Lifar in Infobox-picture); a few seconds ago per WP:BOLD. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope you will forgive my boldness... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Love the boldness! I really know less than nothing about either outside of glancing at their bios just now, so whatever works. --Львівське (говорити) 00:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
That's nice - he is Jew and as I know he didn't speak Ukrainian but well, he was born in Ukraine. Wait, he wasn't, he was born in Russian Empire! You know, probably Attila the Hun was born on the territory presently occupied by Ukraine - why wouldn't you put him as Ukrainian, he is famous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Vakarchuk in infobox picture

I saw that on 20 December 2013 the infobox picture of A. Shevchenko was swapped with a picture of S. Vakarchuk. Since it seems that Alexandra Shevchenko and her FEMEN (seem to) has stopped being media darlings I am fine with that... But the fact is also that in the English speaking world Vakarchuk and his band Okean Elzy are completely unknown (yes they are huge in Ukraine, but this is English wipedidia for the English speaking world)... And there was consensus established here on this page that the infobox is to create an "I did not known they were Ukrainian too"-effect to get more readers to read the page and to show that there are some famous Ukrainians out there that they had already heard of... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I just swapped the pic of Vakarchuk with one of Ruslana. She is not the most famous person in the world but she did get global media attention the past weeks during Euromaidan (as far as I know Vakarchuk did not). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Russian

Surely Russian should go into the languages box, too? Just because Ukrainian is the only official language doesn't mean Russian should be excluded. A large minority of ethnic Ukrainians and Ukrainian citizens speak it natively, many more speak it additionally and Russian is still an important language in Ukraine. I understand language in Ukraine is a bone of contention, but in an encyclopedia I feel there is no grounds for excluding it.--Cymru123 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of Brazilians can speak Spanish but you don't see Spanish included on their page on top of Portuguese. Just because a Ukrainian can learn Russian, doesn't make it part of the Ukrainian identity - and this article is specifically about the Ukrainian national identity. (which in of itself can be argued as a rejection of Russianness). This seems like it would lead to making the Ukrainian article be like the Little Russian identity article, of which the two are very different.--Львівське (говорити) 17:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned, we list official languages. We do so to eliminate having to argue over how to show other languages, what qualifies or disqualifies other languages to be shown, etc.--trust me, I've been in those debates, they eventually turn personal and ugly and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Best not open that box. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Brazil is hardly comparable to Ukraine. Most people in Ukraine speaks Russian and it plays a huge role, a large proportion of the Ukrainian populace speaks Russian natively. This is not discussing whether Ukrainians are "Russian", but rather the recognition that for many Ukrainians, Russian plays a major role in their lives. And before comparisons with English in Scandinavia come along, remember, Russian is the majority language in many Ukrainian cities and the country is governed by a Russian-speaking party.--Cymru123 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You have some good arguments Cymru123; but please don't resort to simplification... The website of Party of Regions (the govern party in Ukraine now) is in 3 languages... The party may use Russian more then Ukrainian in its communication, but you put it like it uses Russian only. This is simply not the case. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Please explain how I resorted to simplification. Thanks.--Cymru123 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Russian is the native language of 1/3rd of the country, the rest natively speak Ukrainian. Knowledge of language is roughly equal, though. This is similar to Brazil, where most people either speak or understand Spanish as a secondary language due to its similarity to Portuguese. Also, the statement that Russian is the majority language in many cities needs to be qualified, as there is a difference between literary Russian, and street Russian (surzhyk). This article is about the Ukrainian people, not the country.--Львівське (говорити) 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thus a third of Ukrainians speak Russian natively... That backs up my point! The situation is incomparable with Brazil. I have no idea why you have drawn similarities between the two. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18006246 It does not list Spanish as a 'major language' in Brazil. The omission of Russian just seems to be due to Russophobia and irrationality. The truth of the matter is that for many Ukrainians Russian is their main language, but this article does not reflect that.--Cymru123 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with any discussion of language in Ukraine is that, linguistically, Ukrainian and Russian are just divergent dialects of a single language. But since politics defines "languages" as often as science does, such a statement then takes on other ramifications. My wife's mother is Ukrainian and her ancestry on that side of the family is Ukrainian for generations. But they speak Russian, not Ukrainian. The politics of Ukraine and Ukrainian nationalism, however, will insist that they are not Ukrainian, but Russian. Cymru123 is quite right, that a significant proportion of the Ukrainian ethnicity is Russian-speaking (for a variety of historical reasons). The dividing line is, very roughly, along the line between that part of Ukraine that was historically part of Poland and that part of Ukraine that was historically part of the Russian Empire. But Russophobia has become so prevalent in some Ukrainian nationalist circles that it is virtually impossible to discuss the issue dispassionately. Russian should be listed as one of the languages of ethnic Ukrainians. --Taivo (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Just an aside, but why would your wife be considered Russian? I speak English and my Ukrainian is very poor, that doesn't make me British.--Львівське (говорити) 03:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
["But since politics defines "languages"] - politics also defines national groups / ethnic groups. Just because a lot of Ukrainians speak it doesn't make it the language of Ukrainians (the nation, not the citizenry). if 1/3rd the people of Ukraine speak Russian natively, and 17& of the population is ethnically Russian...this is just quick presumption here but that's 13% of ethnic Ukrainians speak Russian natively. Anyway, I think the Brazilian example still holds as the best analog to this since it's also a politically charged polarity. In regards to secondary languages, a lot of the EU as a whole can speak English as a secondary language, does that mean "English is the language of Denmark"? No. Russian in Ukraine, just like English in Europe, is a language of mobility and not one which particularly defines the Ukrainian people (this article's topic).--Львівське (говорити) 03:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Smile-flag Ukraine.gif
Party of Regions is not a "Russian-speaking party"; it is a multilingual party (see pictures above). Claiming they are a "Russian-speaking party" is thus a "simplification" (well actually it is a lie, but "simplification" sounded friendlier.... I don't say you told a lie; I think you have been misinformed by a news outlet that (to make things simpler for them customers) referred to the Party of Regions as a "Russian-speaking party" (well the main leaders of the party speak Ukrainian badly, so de-facto calling them "Russian-speaking party" is not deprived of all logic)). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Wiki-police in action pointing out that Wikipedia is not a forum to have an interesting chat.
Remember people that Wikipedia is not a forum to have an interesting chat about ethnicity... This above arguments of Taivo seem to be all WP:OR and thus unusable in this discussion/in any Wikipedia article... We need wp:references to make a good Wikipedia article, not observations and opinions by diaspora and there families... (I am sure I can find some people who are now living outside Ukraine but who were born in Lviv to tell me the exact opposite of what Taivo points out above; and that would also be unusable for any Wikipedia article...). Just find some references that claim or not claim that Russian is a language of a lot of ethnic Ukrainians and insert these refs in the article... Sorry for playing the Wiki-police... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Tymoshenko

How appropriate is it to include active politicians, especially highly controversial ones like her, in the infobox? What exactly is her contribution to the Ukrainian culture or what are her achievements in general? --Երևանցի talk 23:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There was created a consensus some time ago to only have people in the infobox who will attract extra readers to the page. Hence the infobox is not a place to list people with the highest contribution to the Ukrainian culture or achievements in general; since we then would end up with an infobox of professors and artist nobody outside Ukraine would ever had heard off... Like it or not Tymoshenko is one of the few truly known Ukrainians out there... Especially these days... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Please elaborate on what you mean by "people [...] who will attract extra readers to the page." So what non-Ukrainians do not know about some great Ukrainians? I don't think many English speakers have ever heard of Gogol or Taras Shevchenko (surprisingly, I know them). Does that mean we should throw them out? The infobox should be a place to have people who have actually done something in their lifetime. Tymoshenko is disliked by at least half of Ukrainians and in my personal opinion, she is no different than any other politician (equally corrupt, hypocritical, etc.) The reasons why she should not be in the infobox outweigh her popularity outside of Ukraine, which is primarily because of her imprisonment. --Երևանցի talk 00:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm split. While she is a politician and her WP:N is 100% her being a politician (unlike Klitschko) at the same time, she is a well known Ukrainian in the english speaking world, and probably the only politician people know by memory.--Львівське (говорити) 04:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

encyclopediaofukraine.com

I tagged this for "verify credibility", but it turns out it is acutally a good and academic source which has been sorely mishandled by the editors citing it here.

For example, the article "Ukrainians" is cited for the claim that

"Modern research confirms that Ukrainian origins are predominantly Slavic, while non-Slavic nomads who lived in the steppes of eventually colonized southern Ukraine did not have a significant influence on the formation of modern Ukrainians"

It is quoted verbatim as "The East Slavic nation constituting the native population of Ukraine". This does indeed occur in the article test, simply as the definition of "Ukrainians":

"Ukrainians [are [t]he East Slavic nation constituting the native population of Ukraine".

nothing about "modern research" on the (genetic?) contribution of any non-Slavic peoples. Mis-citations like this are actually vandalism, people attribute statements to sources that do not make them, damaging both the integrity of Wikipedia and the reputation of the misquoted sources. The encyclopediaofukraine.com references in this article need review for accuracy. --dab (𒁳) 15:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Cuisine & Contributions to Humanity

Surprisingly, there isn't a cuisine section in the article. It's topics like that that readers will be interested in. On a side note, there should be a section about the contributions to humanity by the Ukrainian people. Famous contributors could easily include Sergei Korolyov, Anna Akhmatova, Martin Cooper [I'm not sure about this one actually], ad others. Khazar (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"20 million" in diaspora

I am sorry, but this sounds just like a random figure made up one day. It's easy: "20000 billion Ukrainains in diaspora", there I said it. If I had a website, this would now be a "source". In seriousness, even if we add all the populations, to the 40 million in Ukraine+Moldova+Kazakhstan+Russia, Canada 1.2 M, US 0.9 M, Brazil 0.5 M, Argentina 0.3 million, we get a total of maybe 4 or 5 million in diaspora. If anything outside of Ukraine counts as "diaspora", that would be 7 million at the very most. And the US, Brazil and Candada figures include "non-primary ancestory", i.e. anyone who remembers that one of their great-grandparents may have been from Ukraine.

So please explain how from an extremely inclusive estimate of 7 million "in diaspora" anyone could conjure up a figure of "20 million". Or else let's just forget about it as a random thing found on the internet. --dab (𒁳) 07:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Milla Jovovich in the infobox

I know she has a Serb father and Russian mother. But can't we add her to the infobox due to this: Milla Jovovich was born in Kiev, Ukrainian SSR, former Soviet Union, the daughter of Bogić Jovović, a Serbian pediatrician, and Galina Jovovich (née Loginova), a Russian stage actress. She was raised in the Russian Orthodox religion. She considers herself both Russian and Montenegrin, and also Ukrainian. Zyma (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

she qualifies, we've talked about her before if you want to search the archives (she was on it at one point). I think she just got pushed out in favor of historically more relevant people --Львівське (говорити) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's better that infobox includes different people with different titles. A famous actress like her is good for the list. Also in some other ethnic group articles, they created a infobox with people from ancient, medieval, and modern times. So Jovovich can be inserted in the infobox. Just a suggestion. Zyma (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, she qualifies. Although non-quantifiable, Ukrainians in Ukraine also readily point her out with, "You know, she's Ukrainian!" I lost track of this page for a while, so I'm no sure who pushed her out, but this infobox should include some figures that Americans and British should recognize. There are virtually no individuals here that the average American can point to and say, "I didn't know s/he was Ukrainian!" So, in that sense, the infobox fails. This is the English Wikipedia and should include one or two people from the diaspora in the Anglo world. --Taivo (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree. She is not in the Russian ethnicity infobox and Serb ethnicity infobox. It's good for the readers if we add her to Ukrainian ethnicity infobox, because inserting her name and pic in the infobox is reasonable enough and qualifies. It's helpful for the both English Wikipedia readers/visitors and editors/contributors to know about her Ukrainian background. Zyma (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for her inclusion, it's just a matter of who she bumps. Blokhin? Ruslana? Tymoshenko? (is there a no-current-politicians rule?) The sniper Pavlichenko? --Львівське (говорити) 15:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Good. But Yulia Tymoshenko is well-known too. Can we add another row to this infobox or not?
Yulia is, indeed, well-known, but there are some of the people in the "ancient" history that are virtually unknown and can be removed. It's always better to favor contemporaries in the infobox over obscure historical characters. The two guys at the end of the second row, for example. --Taivo (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
ditto on the two randoms at the end of the second you mentioned. --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Instead of removing current persons, Why not having a 6-row infobox like the article Slavs? Zyma (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In the same breath, I can ask "why not a 3-row info box of 9 people like the Americans article"? It's much simpler. Why add even more and make things even more confusing to argue about. Speaking of that article, it's kind of ridiculous that she's there, she's not even that famous, nor is she acclaimed. She's been in a few action movies. Big deal. Case in point in how those big info box galleries turn into an incongruent mess.--Львівське (говорити) 19:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe we're at it once more with Milla Jovovich. The litmus test for her, given the debate, should be (a) self-identify and (b) speak as primary language (could be a polyglot native speaker). If we can answer that then we can put this to bed... again. I would not count claims/contentions of native sons/daughters. That's like Latvians pridefully claiming they had colonies in the New World and Africa. No, it was the Germanic nobles who ruled Latvia who "had" colonies. (I make the claim anyway but I'm careful to say "Latvia" not "Latvians." This article, however, is about the ethnic group not territory of birth.) Making any sense? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And really, we can't come up with anyone in popular culture with Ukrainian roots that any casual reader would recognize? What about Stephen Wozniak? Herb Alpert? 25 pictures and I'll bet the average American (e.g.) recognizes no one, except that anyone who reads seriously (10%?) would instantly recognize Gogol. This isn't about who Ukrainians view as the most important to them, it's about who is the most recognizable. (So, international hockey trumps literature.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to go by diaspora roots (but not necessarily self-identify) then Wayne Gretzky shoots up the list. --Львівське (говорити) 22:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think everything about her is discussed (I review archives too). Finally, So what are your opinions about her? Should we add her or not? My vote is "Yes". --Zyma (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
add her in place of whom?--Львівське (говорити) 07:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
With one of these guys: Andriy Shevchenko, Vitali Klitschko, Oleh Blokhin. OR better suggestions by you and the other editors. --Zyma (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Get rid of either (or both) of the guys at the end of the second row. They are completely unknown outside Ukraine. Jovovich is known by the millions of people (Americans and other English speakers) who have watched any of her films. In addition, millions of Ukrainians are more likely to tell a random American, "You know Mila Jovovich in the films? She's Ukrainian," rather than mentioning just about anyone else on the list. --Taivo (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Klitschko brothers I saw mentioned once in an episode of Tosh.0... So I assume they are known by sports fans in the US. Blokhin is these days unknown by even the most die-hard UK football fan.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Blokhin is my choice. Because Shevchenko is famous in football and between football fans. No idea for Klitschko. Blokhin is not well-know enough, so replace him with Jovovich. --Zyma (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Shevchenko will be known in English speaking Europe for his football career, and Klitschko is very famous seeing as he's arguably a top-10 boxer in history (and Gretzky, #1 all time...just saying; I also often throw a vote at Dariya Werbowy, one of the top grossing models in the world). Blokhin can go or like it was suggested, the two unknowns that Taivo pointed out.--Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Can't get rid of Shevchenko. There's a prominent statue of him in every town in Ukraine and usually a city park named after him. --Taivo (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Taras Shevchenko had a stellar football career as well ;) --Львівське (говорити) 23:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. So please finalize that. All of us supported this addition, I want to close this section and write the result. Result is necessary. Because I don't want her pic removed from the infobox again plus this consensus will be the last one for the Milla (I hope). :-) Thanks guys for your attention. Zyma (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be against filling the infobox with only contemporary Ukrainians. Because I think it is interesting to the English speaking world that Ukrainians have a long history and have produced some interesting people. Lets use only the last row in the infobox for contemporary Ukrainians... Besides there are only a few (ethnic) contemporary Ukrainians who are really world famous right now. (I don't know much about ice-hockey, so I am not sure how famous ice-hockey geezers are in North America...; but in the UK and Australia nobody knows them....) Let's not put people in the infobox who are only known in the US for some TV-show that nobody in Europe or Australia heard of... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Because of Resident Evil series, Jovovich is very famous among both film community and video games community. --Zyma (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That I agree with; I think (right now) the only really world famous people born in Ukraine are Jovovich and Mila Kunis. In the past there was opposition to Jovovich being in the infobox-picture (see talk archives). And if I remember right Kunis was ruled out because she is Jewish... and thus like Jovovich has parents who were not ethnic Ukrainian... (We only can be sure that Kunis her parents were Jews, but they might as well have been ethnic Ukrainians converted to Judaism.) Should we start a vote for Kunis too? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to the Ukrainian topics on Wikipedia. Not a new user (or maybe I'm new) but new to the Ukrainian articles (except this one: Eternal Turn of the Wheel :-D). So I'm not too familiar with them and Ukrainian editors' opinions. In my opinion, Jewish is an ethnicity not just only a religion. If she consider herself Ukrainian, then she is Ukrainian too. But if she only accepts "Ukrainian as her nationality/demonym", then she is not Ukrainian. See French people, editors added the Zinedine Zidane to infobox for some valid reasons. Then we should decide about the persons by using talk page and consensuses like this current one. Because if we have a good archive, the future edits will be easier. First, I should read the archived comments about the Kunis. Second, if other editors interested, we can start a similar consensus for the Kunis. Third, as you said, it's an old issue/dispute, so can a new member (me) participate? Because as you see, this section was just a suggestion by me. I don't have any reason for Kunis. Other editors should talk about her and then if it's necessary, I will write my opinions/reasons. --Zyma (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Kunis does not self-identify as being Ukrainian whereas Jovovich does. That's a key factor to me among diaspora Ukrainians. I also note that my wife, who is Ukrainian, mentioned to me that Jovovich was Ukrainian while we were still living in Ukraine--and she still reminds me whenever we see her in a film. She has never mentioned Kunis. So those are two important distinctions for me--self-identification and identification as a Ukrainian to an American by a Ukrainian. But in response to Yulia's point about historical figures, I think there is an over-abundance of virtually unknown historical figures in the infobox already. Who cares about the last two guys in the second row? Who outside of Ukraine has ever heard of them? There are quite enough historical characters without holding onto these two guys. (And, in fact, we're only talking about removing one of them.) This is the English Wikipedia, so its focus must always be on the English-speaking reader--the vast majority of whom are Americans and Brits (including the former British Empire). So people that Americans and Brits recognize through popular culture, including film, music, and sport, should always be considered higher priority than obscure historical figures, especially those whose historical relevance doesn't extend beyond Ukraine's borders. --Taivo (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Taivo; this is a anecdotic evidence... Kunis is not that long famous and in December 2013 I talked to one lad from Chernivtsi who told me that they consider Kunis an Ukrainian... But this man nor your wife are reliable sources... We can not rule who is "Ukrainian" based on who we just met by accident... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about the Kunis in the future section (if it's really necessary). Okay. All of you agree to remove Oleh Blokhin and replace him with Jovovich? Or other choices? I vote for Blokhin. --Zyma (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
For the record, we've already gone over Mila Kunis ad nauseam, we concluded that she is not Ukrainian and doesn't go in the infobox. (She is Soviet born, and self identifies as ethnic Jewish, and sometimes as Russian; so no connection to the Ukrainian people) --Львівське (говорити) 01:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to rain on the parade but Milla Jovovich has also self identified herself as Russian (rooted). And there seems to be only 1 quote on the internet in which Jovovich refers to herself as "I am a strong Ukrainian girl". If we can found a quote in which Kunis says "I am a strong Ukrainian girl" she is suddenly Ukrainian...? We should not apply double standards. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a quote where Kunis identifies herself as Ukrainian, then yes, that would change the issue. But the last time we talked about Kunis, I did a search on both the web and YouTube and found nothing where she identifies herself as "I'm Ukrainian". She has said, "I'm Jewish and was born in Ukraine", but that's different, that's a geographic reference to "Ukraine", not an ethnic reference to "Ukrainian". But then you wind up with my second criterion. My wife, who is Ukrainian, claims Jovovich as "Ukrainian", but does not claim Kunis. --Taivo (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just found a quote were states she does not identify with Ukraine. I agree that this quote is a good reason not to put her in the infobox... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe being Ukrainian or Russian to be mutually exclusive identities. Jovovich can be both, or three - she has multiple roots and influences to what defines her. Kunis, on the other hand from what we know, only identifies as Jewish and sometimes as Russian. This isn't a matter of jus soli. --Львівське (говорити) 21:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Smile-flag Ukraine.gif

I just found (on her Twitter) a new recent quote where Jovovich identifies herself as Ukrainian: My heart hurts when I see what's happening in the Ukraine! I believe in my amazing people and know they will find a peaceful solution. I assume these my amazing people are Ukrainians and not "inhabitants of Ukraine" or "citizens of the state Ukraine" since the 2 later she was never (In 1980, when Jovovich was five years old, her family left the Soviet Union for political reasons) and she did not permanently live in Ukraine since. I now have no choose the consider Jovovich as (at least partly) Ukrainian. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I already considered her Ukrainian but I think this ices it.--Львівське (говорити) 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

Blood?! Ethnicity is not based on what you said above. You call our opinions as "OR", but your whole comment is just a personal analysis or point-of-view. Zyma (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not a personal analysis. Ethnic groups can be defined by genetics. Look at Ashkenazi Jews, Han Chinese and Russians. All of those articles have a genetics section and this one used to have one until someone deleted it. Khazar (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Result

I think 1 month of waiting is enough, unlikely now others will join the discussion since the so far did not. Hence I just swapped Blokhin for Jovovich. I hope you don't mind Zyma. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Then please make necessary changes. I think we reached consensus. Add her to the infobox. Zyma (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Added Jovovich, No one is removed. Zyma (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath

Earlier today Jovovich was replaced by Daria Werbowy. Obviously this was against consensus (see above)... (But) I was personally unhappy that the replacement was Miss Werbowy (who I never heard of) since she is not famous (in the English speaking world) nor made any significant contribution to Ukraine... Replacing Milla Jovovich with the more famous Vera Farmiga or Oleh Blokhin or even Olga Kurylenko would have made more sense... People who made a significant contribution to Ukraine (and are currently not in the infobox) are Evgeny Paton and Mykhailo Hrushevskyi (although it would be nice if the last line of the infobox would be filled with post-WW2 people) (Yuliy Mamchur could also be an option since he has lots of publicity these days.). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Werbowy is from Canada and is entirely notable in the English speaking world. As one of the top grossing models in the world, I don't see how she is "not famous" seeing as you can find her face in any department store in North America and Europe. Just saying. On the flipside, I've never heard of Farmiga or her b-list movies, Blokhin is unknown out of the Ukrainian world, and Kurylenko is a one-hit-wonder since she was a Bond girl. --Львівське (говорити) 23:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The consensus was based on opinion, not fact. Jovovich isn't an ethnic Ukrainian and everyone knows that and bringing your opinions into the argument rather than facts and sources isn't really doing any good to keep this article from violating WP:OR. Khazar (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
She was born in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian, and self identifies as Ukrainian. We're not here to play biology. --Львівське (говорити) 00:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
So did Trotsky, but he's not a Ukrainian either. Now provide citations with explicit evidence citing her parents as ethnic Ukrainians. Biology has a lot to do with ethnic groups and your opinion violates WP:OR. Evidence to the contrary can be found here Khazar (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
She self identifies as Ukrainian. Your requests for 'genetic verification' are original research and completely out of line. --Львівське (говорити) 01:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't even think about misquoting me.
  1. I've never asked for "genetic verification". I've simply stated that ethnic groups can be genetically distinguished. Since you're in denial, look at the other ethnic groups articles and see the genetics section.
  2. Ironically, you and all the others are the ones guilty of WP:OR by claiming that she's a Ukrainian despite contrary evidence. How you've mustered the courage and arrogance to accuse me of such is puzzling. To add more to this irony, you're the one who cites your own opinion in deciding whether she is Ukrainian or not; not citations and sources. I've yet to cite an opinion of mine stating she's not Ukrainian because of genetics.
  3. I've simply asked for a source that indicates she is an ethnic Ukrainian. Knowing the subject at hand, it's obvious she doesn't. Khazar (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because you make up claims about there being no sources doesn't mean that's the reality we're operating in. Look the sources up yourself, they're on this talk archive and on her own page. I'm not doing the homework for you. So far all you've offered is your unsupported opinion that "Jovovich isn't an ethnic Ukrainian and everyone knows that", back yourself up. -Львівське (говорити) 03:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one making up claims here and I've actually provided a reliable source that backs up my statement. You on the other hand refuse to accept reality and use your own opinions as references. Please keep it WP:CIVIL and understand the situation. Even though you can't back up your statements/opinions [yet ironically accuse me of the same thing] doesn't grant you the right to resort to attacking the proposition. Khazar (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You haven't proven anything, provided a source that isn't even reliable, and haven't bothered to even do your homework on her. I told you the sources are there, and the discussion is here. This issue has already been settled: she's Ukrainian. Now either conduct yourself in a non-belligerent way and do some base level fact checking.--Львівське (говорити) 03:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
An unreliable source? Based on what? Your preference? I've proven more than enough and you still refuse to acknowledge facts. Interesting how you were so quick to drop the case of me violating WP:OR and now you're simply resorting to making desperate accusations of me not proving anything. Khazar (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that Pavlichenko is very obscure, as are Paskevich and Lysenko.....and Kotliarevsky (who?) and Bortniansky (who?) --Львівське (говорити) 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Khazar; Wikipedia:Consensus clearly states: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. The decision was made to include Jovovich in the Infobox. If you don't agree with the consensus... Well... I in the past also did not agree with changes in Wikipedia but learned to move on (and improof other Wikipedia articles)... By the way: so what if Wikipedia gets it wrong sometimes... Wikipedia calling Jovovich a Ukrainian is not an insult in any way.... (we have not put her in an infobox full of Nazi-war criminals...). She self identifies as Ukrainian, so she is still (partly) Ukrainian to me... On a personal not: I believe territorial nationalism is better then ethnic nationalism. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that insightful passage. You're right about the consensus but it's still wrong and violates other Wikipedia policies. Anyways, I'll stand down from this topic because it's so meaningless to argue about. See you later. Khazar (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Львівське; I had never heard of Werbowy, but this proofs I do not know all famous people. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yulia, I did a search to check up on her and ends up she retired / is on haitus, so I guess that hurts her popularity. I don't exactly keep up with modeling news lol source. In 2008 she was the 8th top grossing ref, this 2012 list of net worth has Mila Jovovich at 36 million and another source says Werbowy is worth $30 million, so I guess they're in a similar ballpark. I'm open to change for a more relevant person in light of her retiring so long as it's a globally recognized person as well. Just my opinion, of course. --Львівське (говорити) 18:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm so confused here, I'm the one who changed Milla Jovovich with Daria Werbowy. So let me get this straight, we are keeping Jovovich (half Russian half Serb) considered "Ukrainian American" in the infobox, in favor over Werbowy, because of opinionated matters rather than facts? If there could be a Ukrainian American (again, "considered), tell me what justifies an opposition to putting a Ukrainian Canadian? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Genetics

This section is a mess, and someone had removed the whole thing. It probably needs fixing, and I don't have time to fix it now. But,it shouldn't be simply removed.Faustian (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding Vladimir Kozlov in the infobox?

We only have one athlete (Vitali Klitschko). I really think we should put back Andriy Shevchenko and in addition, put professional wrestler Vladimir Kozlov (real name is Oleg Prudius) in the infobox. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

How well known are these gentlemen outside Ukraine? And do we really want to potentially reduce the number of women in order to accommodate more men? To add, you must propose whom to delete. --Taivo (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Well Vladimir Kozlov was and is well-known in the United States, at least anybody who's watched the WWE, he's the only Ukrainian whose ever wrestled for the company. He currently wrestlers for a Japanese company, so he's also known in Japan. Well Milla Jovovich is really the only person I'd propose deleting. Although she considers herself "Ukrainian", but I think she probably means that in a social sense, as part of Ukrainian society not "literally" ethnically Ukrainian albeit she speaks better Ukrainian and Russian and barely any Serbian. It would be like a Chinese moving to Russia to considering "Russians" his people, though Jovovich is ethnically related to Ukrainians (Russian and Serb). Now, there is a person on here who seems pretty crazy on keeping Jovovich in the infobox. No names will be mentioned.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
We have had this discussion over and over and the consensus has always been to keep Jovovich. My wife is Ukrainian and she always mentions Jovovich as being Ukrainian when asked about Ukrainian actors and actresses. We have consistently presented evidence that Jovovich claims Ukrainian ethnicity when asked. I don't mind adding athletes, but removing one of the few women on the chart and removing someone who is far more widely recognized internationally than any of the athletes you have mentioned, is not the right direction to go. There are plenty of virtually unknown men from the past on this chart who can be removed. I've pointed them out above several times. But continuing to try to remove contemporaries who are internationally known is simply not acceptable. Jack Palance, for example, should be added to the list since he is both Ukrainian and internationally famous--far more than the athletes that you are pushing who are nearly as unknown as the 18th century composers near the top of the chart. --Taivo (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
And as a supplement, Jovovich herself claims to be Ukrainian and speaks Ukrainian: [8]. We've also had the discussion about genetics before and the consensus is that genetics is one of the worst ways to mark ethnicity. [9], [10] --Taivo (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've seen this little big-deal discussion about Milla Jovovich (duh...as if I haven't read the talk page enough), and seems to me per this "consensus" that a few that a few stubborn influentials want to push accepting Milla Jovovich as being ethnically Ukrainian, when for one, she is not is isn't even a citizen of Ukraine anymore. If I'm not mistaken, this article, out of all the ethnic group articles is the only one with people obsessed about this supposed "consensus" with the stubborn intent of keeping one individual that doesn't even belong to an ethnic group. Also judging from this "consensus", it seems that it's all based on opinion and not fact. This now seems to allow a few people on putting whatever they want on an article, "as long as" a few others agree. On here we have Roxelana, Ukrainka, Yulia Tymoshenko and Lyudmila Pavlichenko and if ya'll so obsessed with keeping these, I have no problem with that. Then add a damn section, I've seen bigger infoboxes. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Perhaps you need to chill out a bit, PacificWarrior, with a reading of WP:AGF. This page isn't about Ukrainian citizens, it's about Ukrainians, no matter where they happen to live. Taras Shevchenko spent most of his life in St. Petersburg, so I guess he's not Ukrainian either. Jovovich was born in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian, and has identified herself as "a Ukrainian girl". Here she sings a traditional Ukrainian folk song. Ukrainians recognize her as a Ukrainian actress (while there are some NSFW photos, she's included in a Ukrainian-made list of "Beautiful and Famous Ukrainian Women" here, she is number two on the list of famous Ukrainians in the Movies/TV section here, and also listed here on another Ukrainian-produced website). She is internationally recognized as Ukrainian, so much so that her photo pops up on a Yahoo Search of "Famous Ukrainians" (here) Genetics is one of the least reliable measurements of ethnicity and always has been. So how do you measure Ukrainian? Eastern Europeans in general are a mixed up genetic soup pot. That is especially true in Ukraine with large genetic influences from Polish, Russian, and Tatar populations. So a "genetic purity" test in Ukraine simply does not exist. Other measurements are just as problematic sometimes. In eastern Ukraine the majority of the population identifies itself as "Ukrainian" ethnically, but always at a higher percentage of the population than actually speak Ukrainian as a native language (see the maps at Ukraine). Here's the real irony--the single event that Ukrainians think defines their modern identity, the Holomor, didn't even effect the part of the country that many consider to be the most "Ukrainian"--the west. It was an event that defined Ukrainian identity in the east--western Ukrainians have simply co-opted it as a part of a shared history (while they were safe within the borders of Poland). There is not a "supposed consensus", there is an actual consensus. --Taivo (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I need to chill out? But who was it that started getting into a little panty rage when I mentioned the possibility of deleting Jovovich? Certainly wasn't me. So if this article is about Ukrainians, including non-residents of Ukraine (which I don't mind, only made a mention) then how I come I don't see Wayne Gretzky probably the most famous hockey player who is a Canadian of pretty much majority Ukrainian descent, Roberta Bondar Canada's first female astronaut, Heidemarie Martha Stefanyshyn-Piper an American astronaut who btw.....appears on this Ukraine insight, Leonid Brezhnev who despite denying being Ukrainian was labelled as Ukrainian on all of his IDs? Most importantly, I don't see Brezhnev on the list. Max Levchin from Paypal, oh and this SAME website that lists Milla Jovovich is Mila Kunis who doesn't identify herself with the Ukraine.

I could go on and on and on. What I am saying is very simple. This infobox is missing a lot of potentially great representatives for Ukrainians, whether Ukrainian citizen or not. A great solution? Add another section then we won't have to worry about "deleting" anybody from the infobox. Plain and simple. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Jovovich, unlike Kunis, actually claims to be Ukrainian, so Kunis would be excluded on that basis. Adding one more line to the infobox is fine with me, but a better solution is to get rid of some of the unknown men from the 17th and 18th centuries. The point of the infobox photos is not to present an array of historical figures from Ukraine who no one has ever heard of outside Ukraine, but to present an array of people that readers can look at and say, "Hey, I didn't know s/he was Ukrainian!" Jack Palance should be on there, for example. But this being the English Wikipedia, we need to include those Ukrainians that Americans and other readers from the English-speaking world would recognize. I would also add Karina Smirnova from "Dancing with the Stars". She is very well-known, possibly as well-known as Milla Jovovich. And possibly Maksim Chmerkovskiy. We want people who English speakers will recognize. There is a Ukrainian Wikipedia for Ukrainians and a Russian Wikipedia for Russians, etc. The English Wikipedia must focus on useful information for English-speaking readers. And perhaps it was just an oversight, but in the last line of your first paragraph, it's not "the Ukraine", it's just "Ukraine". --Taivo (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with deleting some of the unknown men neither am I saying that any of your suggestions are inferior to mine. What I'm more worried about is if I add another line, it seems to me that it'll be reverted or deleted.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
SO here's the people I propose adding, Daria Werbowy, Jack Palance, Vladimir Kozlov and Karina Smirnova. Seems to me like a good comprimise, adding two men and two women.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
I don't think there would be a reversion if you added another line with those individuals. If another one of the editors objects, they should be commenting on this thread right about now. --Taivo (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, looks it's like another line it should be.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
I don't believe it is a good idea to keep the picture of F. Prokopovich in this article. He was a fervent proponent of the idea of inseparable unity of the Russian-Belorussian-Ukrainian people. Prokopovich certainly would oppose defining the Ukrainians as a separate people. Whether we share his views or not, we must respect them. (Obvious parallels with Shulgin come to mind.)71.178.188.237 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.188.237 (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Written Ukrainian uses a Cyrillic alphabet

Written Ukrainian uses a Ukrainian alphabet, one of many Cyrilic ones.Xx234 (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get the point you're trying to make. Are you asking for some sort of clarification of the text? The only thing that occurs to me is that, knowing that English is not your first language (and that your working knowledge of English is on the weak side), you're assuming that the fact of their being a number of Cyrillic alphabets is not clarified here. In fact, the use of the indefinite article, 'a', is the qualifier. The sentence, as it stands, reads as, "Written Ukrainian uses a Cyrillic alphabet." It is not defined as 'the' Cyrillic alphabet ('the' being the definite article). Your rendition implies that written Ukrainian uses more than one alphabet, and that it is one of many Cyrillic ones (and, even there, it isn't clear whether it is meant that there are many Ukrainian Cyrillic alphabets, or that there may be other non-Cyrillic alphabets used for writing in Ukrainian). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There is Ukrainian alphabet article which should be linked here instead of or parallely to the Cyrillic alphabet. Xx234 (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed Yes, that's a good point (although the Ukrainian alphabet article in itself needs some cleaning up). I've replaced the former sentence with, "Written Ukrainian uses the Ukrainian alphabet, one of many based on the Cyrillic alphabet." Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is Bandera, who many Ukrainians regard as a traitor, in the collage?

Should we not try and avoid controversy? Why not include Nestor Makhno instead?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.16.192 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Traitor is highly WP:POV. Please define what "many" means. According to whose account of Bandera? Polish? Soviet Russian? Whether or not this is the case is irrelevant: galleries are not a showcase of the prettiest or, by other subjective standards, most acceptable figures representing any ethnicity. In fact, a gallery isn't even a parameter in the Template:Infobox ethnic group, and all it seems to do is cause grief and edit warring on ethnic group articles. My preference is to go the way of Romanians, Russians, and other ethnic groups: that is, get rid of it. If, however, any changes are made, please don't use the talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Your opinion is your opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect any form of objective understanding of reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
"many Ukrainians regard as a traitor". I guess that's why there are statues, busts, and other monuments to his memory all over western Ukraine. (And, otherwise, I agree with with Iryna Harpy.) --Taivo (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Collage

M Amosov, Y. Tymoshenko and M. Jovovich its not Ukrainians. — Green Zero обг 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read the discussions above. I don't recall Amosov, but we've had extensive discussions on Jovovich and concluded that she's as much Ukrainian as anyone else on the list. --Taivo (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Vladimir the Great was not an Ukrainian

Vladimir the Great wasnt an Ukrainian in his time period there were no Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russsians and Ruthenians. And he came from Novgorod by the way so he couldnt been an Proto-Ukrainian or something like that anyway. Calling Vladimir the Great Ukrainian is like calling Caesar Italian. The Kievan Rus was a State of Eastern Slavs and not an Ukrainian State.--Anders Rodger (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ukrainians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked Correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Article about all Ukrainians?

There seems to be a misunderstanding between me and TaivoLinguist. Since over 2 million Ukrainians in North America speak primarily English as their mother tongue in North America, I added English to the languages spoken by Ukrainians. TaivoLinguist disagrees and claims that this article is only about Ukrainians in Ukraine. In my opinion, the article definitely does not look that way. Moreover, the article on Jews does not list Hebrew, but other languages these folks speak both in Israel and abroad. Why is there a different approach towards Ukrainians? Homme (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You are confused by WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is not a different approach to Ukrainians. There is a simple approach. We list the languages that are spoken in the home territory in the infobox. If other articles do it differently, that's their problem. We do not list every single language spoken by every single person in the Ukrainian diaspora--English, Portuguese, Spanish, French, etc. If you want to mention all the places to which Ukrainians have been scattered over the face of the globe in the article, then be my guest, but the infobox is not for every single thing you want to say about Ukrainians, it is for primary information only. Yes Ukrainians who live in the US speak English. Yawn. Ukrainians who live in Brazil speak Portuguese. Ukrainians who live in Mexico speak Spanish. Ukrainians who live in China speak Chinese. We don't put all that in the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Still, 2 million is a big number. The Ukrainian diaspora in North America is huge compared to that in Mexico, China or elsewhere. Perhaps, only the size of the Ukrainian community in Russia is comparable. I checked WP:OTHERSTUFF, but could not find a specific rule that would prove your words "There is a simple approach. We list the languages that are spoken in the home territory in the infobox." Am I missing something? Please advise. Homme (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF refers to your comparison with the article Jews. Stuff that is done in other articles is not always relevant. My point about the diaspora is that if you include one diaspora language then you have to include all of them. And the reference to "Russian" is not about the disapora. The diaspora is about Ukrainians who have scattered beyond the homeland. The homeland, however, is bigger than Ukraine and includes parts of neighboring Russia and Poland. --Taivo (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Taivo. There are articles about Ukrainian Brazilians that do include Portuguese, for example. Faustian (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Vladimir the Great was not an Ukrainian

At first Vladimir the Great was of Scandinavian descent and secondly in this age they were only Eastern Slavs.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You might want to take your arguments to List of leaders of Russia and List of Russian rulers. Now, I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but I have no idea of how he self-identified: do you? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Skipping the fact that ethnicity cannot be determined by self-identification, since the concept of Ukrainians didn't exist at the time, we can be certain the answer to this question is no. --Steverci (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic map

I removed the ethnic map (created by Ukrainian nationalists and Nazi collaborators during WWII) because it is overly inaccurate. I must emphasize that this is not about some minor errors here and there. It is about major errors that conveniently serve to expand the Ukrainian ethnic territory at the expense of neighboring groups. Frankly, anyone who is familiar with the territory of Ukraine and the Russian-Ukrainian borderlands can immediately see the "mistakes" on this map. Namely, entire districts that are predominantly or even purely ethnic Russian are shown as being purely Ukrainian, without any markers indicating any Russian presence whatsoever.

Note that the map is deliberately drawn in such a way as to look realistic and accurate, with many little ethnic islands and details. This is meant to convey the impression that the authors actually studied the territory in question and came up with these results. However, this is not the case. For example, many of the islands are simply fabrications, i.e. they don't actually exist, while others that really do exist (but are not Ukrainian) are not shown or are shown as being smaller than they actually are.

The map contains many obvious "errors" that wouldn't have been made by any serious ethnographer who was actually interested in creating an accurate ethnic map of the region. For example, the historical Russian settlements of Stanitsa Luganskaya and Tryokhizbenka are shown as ethnic Ukrainian territory. In the same vein, the ethnic Russian settlements near Pavlograd are not shown at all. The ethnic Russian settlements in the Danube delta are mostly not shown. The ethnic Russian settlements in the western part of Bryansk oblast are not shown at all. Even ethnic Russian settlements with the word "Russian" in their name (e.g. Russkaya Builovka, Russkaya Khalan', Russkaya Beryozovka) are shown as Ukrainian on this map. And these kinds of "mistakes" are made over and over again. The result is that literally hundreds of ethnic Russian settlements are wiped off the map, i.e. not shown at all - instead their territory is consumed by a large Ukrainian ocean. As someone who knows the borderland region very well, I can identify these settlements specifically by name - we can go over them one by one, if anyone has any questions.

Essentially, people should understand that this map is not a scientific work. It is a piece of political propaganda. It should not be shown as something that is the product of accurate and objective investigation, because it isn't. These guys (Kubiyovych and company) did not actually study the area in question, they didn't know the area in question - and that wasn't what they set out to do with this map in the first place. Their goal was to create a larger Ukraine, at least on paper. 104.172.98.164 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.98.164 (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your rationale for removing the map is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT based on "I'm an authority" on the subject matter. Please present reliable sources to back up your assertions. All I've managed to establish from your lengthy diatribe is that you have (how do I put this politely) WP:POV objections. In fact, your contributions to Wikipedia identify you as a WP:SPA. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh that's rich. First include a "greater Albania"-style "ethnic map" in the article. Then demand "reliable sources" to remove it. OK, so what constitutes reliable sources in this case? I can cite plenty of third party sources (i.e. this is not my own research) regarding the settlements that I mentioned before - there are literally hundreds of them. The map is a propaganda piece full of inaccuracies. And I have no doubt that Kubiyovych and co knowingly misrepresented certain areas on the map. 104.172.98.164 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS, please. I have a distinct feeling that I could find 'literally hundreds' of sources proving that Ukrainians don't exist; that the Ukrainian language is just a half Russian, half Polish dialect; that everything is Russian... using your 'sources'. Bear in mind that cookery books are not written by historians, if you get my drift. Nor are forums or YouTube reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about the literally hundreds of Russians settlements that were wiped off the map by Kub and company in favor of "Greater Ukraine" - not the number of sources. The number of sources for these settlements is probably in the thousands. And this has nothing to do with proving that Ukrainians don't exist. You should also know that no serious linguist or ethnographer in the Russian empire ever said Ukrainians don't exist or that the Ukrainian language is a half Russian, half Polish dialect. Those are political statements and they are not found in the serious academic works of that time. As for "everything is Russian" - do you think for one second that Ukrainians are any better? Here, for example, pure-hearted Ukrainian-Canadian "patriots" claim that Marshals Zhukov, Konev, and Vasilevsky were actually Ukrainians, on the basis of nothing whatsoever or on the basis of falsified nonsense. How do you like that bit about Zhukov's "Ukrainian family"? Here we can see that some Ukrainians are not above completely falsifying someone's ancestry in order to "claim" that person. What I take issue with here is blatantly falsified ethnic maps being presented as reliable sources themselves. Kubiyovych and co are not neutral, objective scholars by any means. Why should their map be presented as if its contents are objective fact? If we can't find an accurate ethnic map of the region (and it's not easy), why do we need to show an ethnic map at all?104.172.98.164 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Many maps roughly correspond to Kubiyovich's map. Here: [11], here is another: [12] and another: [13].Faustian (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
What's most insidious about the Kub map is that it is what I would call a high-level (for petty ethnic nationalists, at least) falsification. People are supposed to look at that map and think "wow, look all these little islands and details! This must be the most accurate map ever!" In reality, many of those islands are outright forgeries, i.e. don't exist (such as most of the Ukrainian islands along the Don river, for example). Some of those islands are literally on the place of well-known ethnic Russians settlements (e.g. stanitsa Kazanskaya, stanitsa Kargalskaya, and stanitsa Romanovskaya). The map was intentionally made to look like this. It's this pseudo-"realistic-looking" nature of it that I'm particularly opposed to. Furthermore, I have no doubt that parts of the map were intentionally falsified, because they contain numerous errors that wouldn't have been made by any competent ethnographer. This is a key difference between this map and the ones you posted. Those others (based on the 1875 Rittich map, I believe) also contain major inaccuracies (greatly exaggerating the Russian presence north of Crimea, for example), but I don't think they are intentional falsifications - I think they are probably the result of sloppiness, incomplete data, etc.104.172.98.164 (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetics Doesn't Belong

Ethnicity is not a matter of genetic purity--ever. Ethnicity covers a variety of issues including language, culture, religion, etc. Ethnic purity is a fallacy promoted by hyper-nationalists. We had removed the genetics section from this article a while back. I'm not sure when it crept back in, but it doesn't belong. There is no genetic marker of Ukrainianness. If you actually read the genetics section here, it consists entirely of "Ukrainians (as a group) have a tendency for X". That's not a genetic marker and it is too commonly used to label people as Ukrainian or not. Just look at some of the ridiculous arguments being made on other sections of this Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Differences in genetic tendencies between peoples is notable information, suggesting ancestral origins and links to other peoples. Such sections are typically seen in wiki articles: here's the section about Mexicans' genetics, for example: [14]. I agree that ethnicity is certainly not a matter of genetic purity, however information about genetics is not irrelevant.Faustian (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, there doesn't seem to have been consensus to remove the section: [15]. You wanted it removed or reduced to a sentence or two, but three others didn't.Faustian (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Once gain, the only person here talking about "genetic purity" is Taivo. It's a strawman argument he set up to distract from the obvious fallacy of including people with no known Ukrainian ancestry as ethnic Ukrainians on the basis of extremely questionable "evidence" such as some general statements made in the media, even though other statements made explicitly contradict those.104.172.98.164 (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
IP 104.172.98.164, this is a talk page, not a soapbox or a vehicle for personalised attacks on other users. Your agenda is showing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
IP, if you think that I object to the genetics here just to make my point that Jovovich should be included in the collage, then you are wrong. I have objected to genetics data on many pages over the years where it doesn't belong as a linguistic marker or ethnicity marker. --Taivo (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ukrainians/Archive_4&oldid=1137280245"