Talk:Ukrainians: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:16, 10 July 2008 editHillock65 (talk \| contribs)4,431 edits →Separate paragraph needed ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:34, 6 December 2024 edit undoRsk6400 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,279 edits Undid revision 1261372952 by 2607:FEA8:222:9600:591A:8C7F:EBE7:9469 (talk) - that's no edit request and I don't see what it might be instead.Tag: Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{WikiProject Ukraine\|class=B\|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell \|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Ukraine\|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Ethnic groups\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Anthropology\|oral-tradition=yes
			}}
			}}
			{{notaforum}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	==Normanist/Antinormanist debate==
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	This article could do with a little polishing...
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	Scandinavian settled and Kyivan Rus was founded way before Christianity was accepted from Constantinople in 988 by Kievan Rus prince Volodymyr.
			\|counter = 5
	Geraldo
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Ukrainians/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index }}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}
			== Vernadsky ==

			Ukrainian language form of his name is Volodymyr.
	I'd say it needs a lot of polishing, because:
			Vladimir is russian language one. ] (]) 05:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
	* The foundation by the Scandinavians is only a one from three or more ethnological theories explaining the origin of Kievan Rus and Ukrainians (at least I was tought so in Ukrainian university);
	* Like Geraldo says, adopting a Christianity was definitely not a starting point for Kievan Rus statehood. Kiev became a capital of Duchy when still being Pagan, and few Kievan Dukes before Volodymyr are known by their political and military deeds.

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

			Surprised article doesn't mention that Ukrainians are also all the citizens of Ukraine, as all encyclopedias do mention (Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Encyclopedia of the history of Ukraine) right in the lead. Will add that later with sources. ] (]) 16:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
	== Ukrainians in Moldova ==

			:Many articles about European nations have a formula like "are an ... ethnic group ..., who share a common ancestry, culture, and history." I never saw a source for it. From ] this formula was removed after a long and frustrating discussion. In addition to being unsourced, I think this formula is really wrong for Ukrainians. An understanding of Ukrainians as a political nation has a long tradition among Ukrainians and has been strengthened by the Russian aggression. One quote to illustrate this: "According to Putin, Russians and Ukrainians are "one people" because they are close in language, religion and history. He overlooks the fact that in the post-Soviet era, Ukrainians increasingly see themselves as a political nation, a nation by will (''Willensnation'', ]) that includes several ethnic and linguistic groups. That is why he was surprised that most Russian-speaking Ukrainians did not enthusiastically welcome the invading Russian troops, but on the contrary offered bitter resistance."<ref>{{cite book\|first=Andreas\|last=Kappeler\|author-link=Andreas Kappeler\|title=Ungleiche Brüder: Russen und Ukrainer vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart\|quote=Russen und Ukrainer sind laut Putin "ein Volk", weil sie sich in Sprache, Religion und Geschichte nahestehen. Er übersieht dabei, dass sich die Ukrainer in postsowjetischer Zeit zunehmend als politische Nation, als Willensnation, die mehrere ethnische und sprachliche Gruppen umfasst, verstehen. Deshalb hat ihn auch überrascht, dass die meisten russischsprachigen Ukrainer die eingefallenen russischen Truppen nicht begeistert begrüßten, sondern im Gegenteil erbitterten Widerstand leisteten.}}</ref> ], a respected professor emeritus for East European history in Vienna, wrote this a few months after the Russian invasion of February 2022, and ] says something very similar in his Yale lectures.
	According to CIA factbook 2005 estimate (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/md.html) out of Moldova's population of 4,455,421 , there are 13.8 % of ethnic Ukrainians. This gives us 614 848 Ukrainins...
			:{{reftalk}} ] (]) 09:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	(The number includes Ukrainians in Transnistria where they make up more than 25 % of the population). (] 05:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

			:This is conflating two different things, the titular ethnic group and the demonym for citizens of Ukraine, who can of course be multi ethnic since the country is not homogenous. Saying "Ukrainians are an ethnic group that include ethnic groups such as Ukrainians" is convoluted and confusing. ''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 18:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
	Let's use the latest officially available data. For Moldova there's the 2004 census:

			== Languages ==
	* Moldova, excluding Transnistria : 283,000 (8,4%)
	* Transnistria: 162,000 (28%)
	* Moldova: 445,000
	] \| ] 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			@], please see ] . ] (]) 16:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
	CIA factbook is a very credible source. In this particular case I would consider CIA to be more neutral than Moldavian government. (] 04:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

			:{{ping\|Manyareasexpert}} Isn't Surzhyk primarily spoken by ethnic Ukrainians? And Ukrainian is also the official spoken language of Ukraine, I don't think Ukrainian Sign Language should be removed simply because it happens to be the official sign language of Ukraine. Also that discussion didn't reach consensus, no one was involved in it except you. ~Cherri of ] (]) 03:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
	: CIA factbook may be a very credible source, but it still uses the old data from the 1989 census. ] \| ] 07:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|1=Isn't Surzhyk primarily spoken by ethnic Ukrainians?}}<br>No.{{pb}}{{tq\|1=I don't think Ukrainian Sign Language should be removed simply because it happens to be the official sign language of Ukraine.}}<br>Let's just follow sources. ''the Ukrainians are people whose native language is Ukrainian (an objective criterion)''<br> ''Етнічна мова У. — українська мова'' ] (]) 18:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
			:::{{ping\|Manyareasexpert}} I'm not talking about the definition of the term "Ukrainians", I'm talking about what languages Ukrainians speak. And deaf Ukrainians tend to speak Ukrainian Sign Language as a native language. ~Cherri of ] (]) 06:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
			::::{{tq\|1=what languages Ukrainians speak}}<br>Ukrainians speak a lot of languages. Like almost every other nation / ethnic group possibly do. Please see archived topic referenced above. ] (]) 12:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping\|Manyareasexpert}} The difference is that Ukrainian Sign Language is frequently spoken by Ukrainians as a native language within Ukraine, which Ukrainians are native to. And I have seen that archived topic, and again, no one was involved in it except you. There was no consensus reached. ~Cherri of ] (]) 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
			::::::It should also be mentioned that Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine, and spoken by most Ukrainian citizens, even those who aren't ethnic Ukrainians. ~Cherri of ] (]) 16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::This is probably already mentioned in ]. ] (]) 17:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::{{ping\|Manyareasexpert}} It is not mentioned there at all. ~Cherri of ] (]) 23:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::See ''Official language and national language'' ] (]) 06:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
			::::::This article is about all Ukrainians, not only those living in Ukraine. ] (]) 17:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::{{ping\|Manyareasexpert}} The vast majority of Ukrainians live in Ukraine. And besides that, many Ukrainian diaspora populations frequently use the local language of the place they live rather than Ukrainian in daily life. ~Cherri of ] (]) 23:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::... You propose to include English, Portuguese, others? ] (]) 06:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{ping\|Manyareasexpert}} No, of course not. ~Red of ] (]) 00:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

			== Number of Ukrainians in Russia ==
	==Picture for Infobox==
	Please note that contrary to a common beleif, ] is not an ethnical Ukrainian. See his article and his talk page. The picture needs to be modified. --] 00:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
	:Done. Replaced by ] of the same time. --] 03:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

			Data on the number of Ukrainians in Russia do not have a source.
	=== Скорочення ===
			<br>The latest available official ethnic data were obtained during the 2021 Russian Population Census.
			<br>Due to the fact that the census was conducted in 2021, the data should not fall under the WP:RUSUKR.
			<br>There is no more reliable source for Russia than the data from Rosstat, the official national statistical bureau. There are also no alternative sources evidently refuting the data provided by them. So there is no feasible reason for not accounting their data in comparison with the data of other census bureaus. ] (]) 21:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

			:The ] started in 2014. Official sources in a country without freedom of the press cannot be trusted. ] (]) 05:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
	Не можна скорочувати Леся Українка, як Л Українка L. Ukrainka, тому шо це її псевдо. Варто вказати повне ім'я.
			::Your opinion is clear.
			::Firstly, ] is not a press, but a statistical bureau. ]?
			::Secondly, please, provide me a link to the collegial, official decision of Misplaced Pages, in which Rosstat as organization is recognized as an unreliable source of information. Not your personal opinion, but the position adopted by the community. ]?
			::Thirdly, where did the data presented in the table come from? "Russia 1,864,000 (2023)" What is the source? Who made a research in 2023? ]? The only data in the entire table without a source.
			::I will wait for сlarification. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 17:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
			::As espected, no reaction. Then, the data should be changed to the one in 2010. ] (]) 08:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2024 ==
	We musn't cut Lesya Ukrainka as L. Ukrainka, because it's her anonym. ] (]) 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	==Ukrainians ~~in Germany=~~=		{{Edit extended-protected\|Ukrainians\|answered=yes}}
			Add missing template for <code><nowiki>{{pp-extended\|small=yes}}</nowiki></code>, because it's already extended-confirmed protected. ] (]) 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

			:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 00:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
	I've heard alot of Ukrainians reside in Germany; however no numbers are given for Ukrainians in Germany here.

	== rest of the Russians ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	== Requested move ==
	<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #eeffee; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #AAAAAA;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
	:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

	The result of the debate was '''not to move this page''' --] (],]) 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
	----
	] → ] : To follow pattern used for many other articles on peoples.

	===Voting===
	:''Please add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote using "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>"''

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

	===Discussion===

	:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

	== Number of Ukrainians ==

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

	== Ukrainians in Italy and Portugal ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

	== Khazars and Goths in Ukraine ==

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

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

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

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

	== Add Ruslana in the picture with famous Ukrainians! ==

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

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

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

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

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

	== Ukrainians in Brazil ==

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

	:*Just to inform you that ] () has been vandalizing other pages by inflating similar numbers. Please free to revert, after confirmation. ] 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

	:: This is the ]. He's been around for a long time, and unfortunately, he's now using a dynamic IP address. Please block for a few days on sight, and add his IP to the list at the link above. ''—] ] <small>2006-12-12 06:45 Z</small>''
	''Italic text''

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

	== "related groups" info removed from infobox ==

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

	Isnt this article supposed to be about ethnic Ukrainians??

	==How could you not place ] in the image?==
	A great man, an honest man. A hero of many, and were the first to practicaly try to creat anarchism. ] 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I propose to enter ] instead of ]. First, there are license problems with ]. Second, ] is a good footbaler but he's not the greatest in the world. I mean, there were greater Ukrainian players during the Soviet time. The trick is to enter people who are unique, special, irreplacable in the history pages. ] 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
	::I think Makhno should be in the image, but ] must stay.. he is defenetly a well known football player. I believe that we can remove ] (He is part Polish..) and replace him with Shevchenko and remove ] and replace him with ] (more important than Kadeniuk.) ]] 00:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::I agree to that. Give me a few minutes to do that change please. ] 09:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	There is no way we can remove Andriy Shevchenko, he is probably today's the best known Ukrainian. Here is what I propose.
	*T. Shevchenko
	*L. Ukrainka
	*B. Khmelnytsky
	*A. Shevchenko
	*P. Popovich
	*S. Korolyov
	*S. Timoshenko
	...And one more. I won't make any edit until we have some agreement, what does everyone think? ] 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:He is probably TODAYS, and the trick is to place those who are irriplacable not only tody but in the history pages. Anyway, since so much insist i will return him. I just love what DDima suggested. ] 09:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::Popovich i cant put due to the fact we dont have a free image of him, and Makhno we cant not put due to his historical value. Except having Makhno instead of Popovich, as you can see what we have know fits yours proposal :-) I hope it means were near a concensus. ] 10:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	We all due respect to ], he is hardly recognizable. There are actually four modern Ukrainians with a good world-wide face recognition. ], ] and the ]'s. Shevchenko is probably the most recognizable. We can't have more than two modern faces. So, I vote Ruslana, because she is also a lady and a pretty one, with all due respects to the great boxers. --] 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:He is very recognizable. In a few years Andriy Shevchenko wont be known by anybody, while Stephen Timoshenko will be remembered forever. Shure you wont see Timoshenko on the cover of a magazine as one of "top ten sexy man" today and all this celebrity idiotism, but he will always be remembered. I think the current image is the most perfect it can be. ] 10:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::Oh, and please no controversial figures, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc are all divisive enough. If we have room for an older figure, perhaps ] but remember to spread them by time. --] 10:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::Makhno is not controversial and dont compare him to them. He wanted a peasent free state, and he made the first ever attemp to create an anarchist state. He was unbribable. He represent the strong Ukrainian peasent. Someone above already stated he supports Makhno to be here. Dont belive the Soviet propogande about him because it's all lies. I read a huge number off books on him so i know. ] 11:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::P.S. Please notice, since i decided to start improving the image i made alot of hard work. The licenses discription, improving the quality (if you'll notice on the previous image all the colour-images were low quality). You know why i started all that? Se we will have Makhno in the images. So please, lets keep him. An honest unique man, one of it's kind, with a rough destiny. ] 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Dude, calm down. You like him, I don't. Next thing is Yakudza or Hillock from uk-wiki coming here with the lecture that Petlura is also a good guy. Just cut the politics out of the template. --] 11:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Makhno is not politics! Makhno is history, he represent's the cry of the peasent people for freedom. Pitlura is political, currupted, represents only nationalists, and eventually sold himself to the Poles and Germans and fought for them. ] 11:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::You know? It's simple. Lets keep it the way it is for now, and see what others say. ] 11:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	How about this? Add ] and ], a great philosopher and a great war hero who all respect instead of Makhno and Timoshenko. I hope you don't mind Kirponos, do you? If in months or years we get a free image of Ruslana she will be in. --] 11:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::: Skovoroda- YES. Kyrponos- NO. Ivan Franko should be included. Makhno and Mazepa- for sure.] 11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Dont compair Makhno to Mazzepa. Mazzepa is a creep. ] 12:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	Makhno and Mazepa are divisive and not recognizable at all. But I can't imagine anyone having beef against Kirponos. --] 12:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm against! Not recognizable, while Makhno is. And dont compare Makhno to Mazzepa! Mazzepa is a creep. ] 12:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::: I would imagine that for the Russians he is. Mazepa, however, is one of the most recognizeable Ukrainians and is unlike Makhno featured on Ukrainian banknotes. His legacy in Ukraine is just as much debated as that of Khmelnytsky, so his inclusion would be indeed divisive. ] 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::Sorry i cant tell you you have history knowladge. I'm a Russian so ont teach me what Russians think of him. Makhno fought agains Petlura to. Why? He wanted an idnependent peasent state without a government. He has many fans in Russia, why? Till the end he didn't want to fight the reds due to the fact they have poor background. He was anti-racist and he had Ukrainians, Russians and Jews in his army. Mazzepa was a traitor, he fought for the Turks. ] 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::That Russians thought he was a traitor doesn't surprise me. If foreigners are to decide who of Ukrainians are traitors or not, maybe we shouldn't include Khmelnytsky for betraying the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, since that what Poles think about him. What about what other Ukrainian neighbours think? I am sure Germans, Romanians, Turks and Hungarians, just like Russians have their view on Ukrainian personalities — that doesn't mean that all that should be reflected in an encyclopaedia article. ] 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::You dont even know your own history. Betraid Poland? Shure! Be a slave for some Polish pan! I see you really miss those times when a Ukrainian was beatten by a Polish pan every day, and then the Russians gave him freedom! Have you ever read why the Ukrainians started a revolt against Poland?? Now have you read why they needed Russia? They would be all on sharp big stickes in their butts if the Poles would win them (it was one of the punish-ways used by the Poles). ] 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::Now I like Irpen's idea. Ruslana+no politics. Makhno has huge political status. I also like the idea of two modern Ukrainians, Andriy Shevchenko and Ruslana sounds good to me. ] 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::: I also think politics should be kept out of there. If there is a Soviet general featured, so should an UPA general too. Featuring Soviet generals is divisive, even though the majority fought in the Red Army a substantial number of Ukrainians didn't. The matter itself in the present-day Ukraine is not as clear-cut as some would hope and is subject to controversy. Let's not feature divisive personalities and let's concentrate on neutral non-divisive figures. ] 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::UPA are traitors and German spyes, low people. There is no "controversy", only those who had grandpa's in the UPA try to show as if there is a place for a debate. ] 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::: There are up to several millions of Ukrainians, who think them their heroes, they have a veteran status and receive pensions in at least three Ukrainian oblasts, in the areas where they fought, with up to 15 million inhabitants. Shruggin this fact off is not as easy, it is divisive all right, 100th anniversary of ] and the death of Vasyl Kuk were celebrated on the state level. Shrugging them off because some foreighners consider them traitors is not that easy. It is a subject of controversy, so let's keep Soviet and WWII personalities out of the article.] 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Those "several millions Ukrainians" are grandchildren of those traitors who sold out to the Germans, offcourse they will try to rewrite the history. Its hard for them to addmit they have wrotten blood. It eats them from the inside, thats why they are so jumpy about it. ] 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: Please spare us the twisted ] view on history and concentrate instead on topic of discussion. No further comments on history. ] 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ruslana is pro Yuishenko. And there are many people who won the Eurovision, nothing unique in that. ] 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ok, M.V.E.i what do you suggest? ] 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	]
	:::: If I could suggest ] instead of an obscure Tymoshenko, a famous opera singer, known not only in Ukraine. She is also apolitical and non-controversial and will balance nicely the male-dominated picture. The image can be downloaded from Ukrainian wiki since it is old enough to be in commons. ] 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::So, Hillock would suggest something like this?
	:::::*T. Shevchenko
	:::::*L. Ukrainka
	:::::*B. Khmelnytsky
	:::::*A. Shevchenko
	:::::*P. Popovich
	:::::*S. Korolyov
	:::::*S. Krushelnytska
	:::::*Ruslana Lyzhychko
	:::::Lets get this over with. ] 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Tymoshenko is much more famous then her. I dont see the problem. Leave it the way it is now. ] 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	]I don't have a problem with the list. Maybe instead of two people connected to space exploration/cosmonauts (Popov and Korolyov) we could add more historical figures? What do people think about Roxelana if one wants to go further back into history? ] 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I guess popovich could go, but there is no way we can take out Korolyov. He practically built the Soviet space program. As for Roxalana, I wouldn't mind, but I don't think she's very well known around the world. ] 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Roxelana is absolutely a great idea. Our time diversity and gender distribution would be greatly enhanced. I doubt we can find a free image of Ruslana though. It would be great if we do. --] 18:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Have you gone mad?? Roxalena more then Korolyov? I see that the Ukrainian article competes with English and French people on who has the cheapest image. ] 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

	Guys, i think the current image is best and no one can go, esspecially Makhno, who, together with Korolyov, are the two most importent figures here. If you decide to remove Makhno, please delete my name as "author" and "source". You can keep all the work i've done, but if Makhno is removed i dont want my name there. ] 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:P.S. I see you guys compete on how to make the picture cheaper, so i offer (me it discusts but you guys might like it): Verka Serduchka (why not?? thats where it goes), Klichko, Shevchenko, Roxelena. Then you will be in the same line as French people, as those who have the cheapest pictures. In that rythm you will find yourself in the European Union! ] 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::I am also against Makhno. Let's keep it without divisive personalities. If Russians won't object to the inclusion of Korolyov, let him be. Let's get some concensus on who should be in the there and move on:
	:::::*T. Shevchenko
	:::::*L. Ukrainka
	:::::*B. Khmelnytsky
	:::::*A. Shevchenko
	:::::*Roxelana
	:::::*S. Korolyov
	:::::*S. Krushelnytska
	:::::*Ruslana Lyzhychko
	::There is a nice balance of male - female personalities now. Any other additions/changes? ] 19:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::I as a Russian not only don't object, but support you guys having Korolyov. I mean, he's half Russian and half Ukrainian, so both nations can equaly be proud of him. Roxalena instead of Stephen Timoshenko? Ruslana?? Cheap. At least you didn't insert Verka Serduchka. Look, i dont want to take part in this image-murderer. All i can advice you is if you dont want an administrator to delete your image (in case you creat one) make shure there are no license problems (and with Ruslana you will have, they werent taken before 1953 so the images are copywrited). In case you use the current image as a base, please delete my nickname from "author" and "source". ] 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::Ok, so now we have consesus for 6 of the 8 pictures (T. Shevchenko, L. Ukrainka, B. Khmelnytsky, A. Shevchenko, S. Korolyov and S. Krushelnytska) right? The only question is Ruslana or Tymoshenko or Makhno or Roxelana? Of the four I would prefer Tymoshenko and Roxelana. ] 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Krushelnytska is a bad choice. Guys, cant you see Makhno wasnt a politician?? He didnt understand those stuff. He was just a peasent who wanted freedom for the peasents so they could work out of the feeling they are free and wont be controled by parasites. He was offered bribes by the Reds, Whites, Petlura and Grigoryev, and he refused. Thats why he lost. He died in complete poverty. ] 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: I thought we agreed, no divisive personalities - Makhno is out of the question. Tymoshenko is very obscure. My vote is for Roxelana. It is non-political, from a different time frame, and adds another female to the list dominated by males. ] 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

	Although their ancestry is traced back to Scandinavia, would in not be appropriate to include Kniaz’ Volodymyr Velykyy, Kniahynia Ol’ha, Yaroslav Mudryy, or Danylo Halyts’kyy as important Ukrainians? ''—] ] <small>2007-09-16 23:23 Z</small>''
	:That cant be done, they were not Ukrainians. They were not even slavs. ] 09:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	=== Portrait criteria ===

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

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

	I would point out that Makhno can also be considered a bandit leader who murdered Mennonites and burnt their villages. Along with Putlura, Khmelnytsky would be removed from the nomination if we leave out anyone who has been accused of killing Jews. Remove the nationalists, Soviets, and Yushchenko supporters too, and it starts to get watered right down. ''—] ] <small>2007-09-16 21:32 Z</small>''
	::You dont even know who he was. He havent burnt down and images, and he killed those of his men who did that. Makhno haven't killed Jews, it was a lie invented by Petlura. He killed those of his man who have killed Jews. His right hand, Levka Zadov, amd the head of the Gulay Polye soviet, were Jewish. ] 09:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	::I think a number of factors should be taken into account: people well-known in and outside of Ukraine, representative of different time periods and not just men, but female too, and no hugely controversial figures. I guess we can get a few of those out of so many Ukraine has had. ] 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

	Michael, I think we should stay away from the figures that are divisive within Ukraine. Khmelnytsky is certainly controversial, true, and Poles may not like him. But there is no strong dislike of him within Ukraine from any side. The same may be said about Kirponos, an acclaimed and respected war hero. Despite being the Red Army commander, I have never heard any badmouthing of Kirponos from the nationalist circles. And I disagree with pre-Ukrainian figures. East Slavic Princes of 10th-11th centuries were not Russian in modern sense. Neither they were Ukrainian. --] 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree about what you said to Michael. Khmelnitsky should stay, and East-Slavic princes should not be entered due to the fact they were not Ukrainians. They were the people of Rus, Rusachi as they were called. Not Ukrainian nor Russians. Thats why in the Russians and Belarussians images those were avoded. And knyaz Vladimir wasn't even Slavic, he was Varagian. ] 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

	This discusion was interesting but didn't lead to clear portrait criteria... I still don't understand why the English speaking word (this is English Misplaced Pages) should have heard of ]... I sugest we replace his picture with ] or ] they are known politicians. It is not important if they are controversial within Ukraine cause the target of this article is too inform English speakers, not to unite Ukraine. ] (]) 00:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	:I've had another idea (a better one I think) and that is to replace ] with a picture of protesters from ]. ] (]) 10:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
	: And if ] career doesn't improve we should consider replacing his image too. Players who don't play soon lose there fame and I don't think he is a legend like ], mabey ] will be more remembered? ] (]) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

	== Links ==

	The links that are being removed are relevant and helpful to readers. Why remove all of them? ] 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
	: The Kuban Kazak doesn't like Ukrainians, methinks.] (]) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
	::May I remember you both, and the other editors, that we are writing an ] here, ]. Some of the links may be allowable, though most can better be used as references, and some plainly fail ]. Please discuss them here first before readding them.
	::Also, please assume good faith, deleting external links does not mean that someone does not like Ukrainians. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
	::: We do. But Kuban has manifested his antipathy repeatedly. ] (]) 11:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
	::As I can see from the last 25 or so contributions is that ] is, like me, mainly cleaning the huge external links sections. From the edit summaries it looks to me he is quite familiar with ], and with ]. Links are supposed to be on topic, relevant, and the external links section should contain only a few links, not an extensive list of all (??) possible maps that can be linked to. Cleaning such section according to ] is not expressing antipathy. Hope this explains. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Most of those links are on topic and relevant and helpful to people who read this (so-called) encyclopedia. If you or Kuban kazak object to some of them and can show how they are irrelevant, please remove them. But removing all of them is certainly a strange way to enforce a guideline that seems to not even have been broken. ] 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
	:What I am referring to was a policy, ], IMHO, 15 links is not 'a few' .. but that is subject to argument, of course. The other part is that we link to pictures, some hosted on imageshack-like servers, which may be in violation of the ]. Hope this explains. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
	: Don't be such a bureaucrat. And no maybe's, please. We'll talk when you find an actual violation. Bedanckt.] (]) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
	===Section break===
	Ok Galassi please explain how you feel the bulk of the links are useful: and I will explain why I removed each of the links one by one.
	*1.The link right above it is from the same source, and moreover one can navigate from the above link to the map. The article is useful, no question about that, but what makes a map more useful. Moreover the map's sources are sketchy it claims that the contigous territory well into neighbouring countries, however evidence such as census figures directly contradict it. Obviously its not NPOV.
	*2.The English Ukrainian dictionary is relevant to the ] but relevance does it play here. Moreover there are a dozen online translators what makes that one special?
	*3.Whatever the link is meant to represent it should not be in the refrence template...that's just sloppy.
	*4.Famous Ukrainians, with such a small list I would use the word amateurish, its depth is to insignificant to be used as a full refrence here, it might be sufficient for articles on the individuals but we actually have a ] and that is featured in the see also part of the article.
	*5. Scientific articles are justified pieces of refrence, but as external links I doubt an average Joe reading this will have much use for a Ukrianian language article...
	*6 & 7. The next two maps are dialects, again useful for ] and ] but no use for ] same argument as with the translators. Besides very poor B&W quality (particularly #6), there are much more preattier alternatives (and there is only need for one at most).
	*8 Goes from the previous argument, poor quality and also a clear "land grab" attempt by the author who claims it as of 1949 (by 1949 there were no Tatars in Crimea, or Ukrainians in Kuban being majority...again SLOPPY and WRONG!)
	*9 I did not delete the German map, but I did remove the random URL which links completely off topic, a technical correction but was reverted for no reason
	*10 There are four maps based on 1897 census, so the fifth (Slovak) one is really unnecessary as it simply does not show anything new. However I do wonder how the author arrived at such "perfect" border contours (with no overlap as shown elsewhere) between Great Russia and Little Russian zones. Once again rather sloppy.

	So Galassi it's now your job to defend in keeping any of the 9 links in this article. If we agree on keeping a few do put them in, but until then please don't accuse me of POV, as my explanation above shows none whatsoever. --] 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I suggest at the least readding and one. Both are relevant. ] 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The first is already part of the enc. of Ukraine, the second is a good refrence but is a '''useless''' external link. --] 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Ukrainian flag origin ==
	The Poltava battle origin of the blue-and-yelow flag is studied in detail in the classic book of a renowned Russian historian William Pohlebkin: ''Похлёбкин В. В. Словарь международной символики и эмблематики. М. 1995.'' sk 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Yes, but every other source disagrees with this. ] 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

	In conclusion let me express hope for our further cooperation in the issues of Ukrainian-Russian relations. sk 05:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I didn't remove the theory. Its still in the article. ] 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thank you for your cooperation. Regards. sk 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

	== Ukrainians vs. Sitizens of Ukraine ==
	Dear ],

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

	<blockquote>
	''(Українці, Ukrayintsi) are speaking more broadly — citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)''
	</blockquote>.

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

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

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

	:Alas, you are wrong again: I dispute this statement. And this is the reason enough to provide the reliable source. <br/>
	:Please note that I ask you in the third time ''to abide by the rules'' and not to delete the ''citation request''. Please note that such actions can be considered as ''vandalism'' with corresponding dire consequences.sk 14:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	Dear ],<br/>
	In the summary to your last edit, while deleting my ''citation request'' again you wrote:
	<blockquote>
	...this is the ENGLISH wiki
	</blockquote>

	I am glad to agree with you in this point. And please note at long last that this Wiki HAS ITS RULES. These rules are not very numerous so it is not so hard to read them. Plese do before you edit. And when you do please note that one need to provide sources to ALL disputable statements. I insist that the statement
	<blockquote>
	''(Українці, Ukrayintsi) are speaking more broadly — citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)''
	</blockquote>

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

	Dear ],<br/>
	Unfortunately you keep deleting my edits without discussion. Please note that such behavior boils down to ] that does not correspond to the best practice of Misplaced Pages. According to the recommendations for ]
	I propose a ] for a couple of days in order to give other people a chance to participate. In order to attract third opinion I have mentioned our dispute at the ]. <br/>

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

	===Third opinion===
	A ] was requested. Here is my opinion.
	* First, an observation. Both of you are in violation of ]. Any more reversions today and you ''will'' be blocked from editing.
	* Second, the word "Ukrainian" is commonly used in English to mean one of two things:
	# An ethnic Ukrainian (obviously).
	# A citizen of Ukraine (obviously). It is also obvious that not all Ukranian citizens are ethnic Ukranians; I mean, if I moved there and gained Ukrainian citizenship, I'd be a Ukrainian without being an ethnic Ukrainian.
	*That's exactly what the lead sentence says, although it could be phrased better. There is no need to request citations for common English understandings.
	I would recommend the phrasing: "Ukrainians (...) can refer to either an East Slavic ethnic group living primarily in Ukraine, or to citizens of Ukraine" and remove the parenthetical note. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

	I agree that this is a question of time for the the word denoting sitizens of Ukraine to be coined. But before this happens, it is neither right nor correct to list all citizens of Ukraine into Ukrainians. That is my opinion. sk 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Your opinion is the result of limited exposure to current English usage, according to which a citizen of any country could be of any non-native extraction. So a Bosnian born in Germany will be German. We understand that this is difficult to grasp for a Russian, and we all know the ethocentric Russian mindset.] (]) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

	:::::'''Ukrainians''' ({{lang-uk\|Українці}}, ''Ukrayintsi'') can refer to an ] ] living primarily in ], or to the citizens of Ukraine.

	::::There is ''nothing false'' about that statement. It agrees with ''both'' the Russian definition (as an ethnic group) ''and'' the English definition (as someone who lives in Ukraine). ~] <small>(])</small> 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I insist on the current wording or somewthing similar, in order to emphasize the multiethnic reality.] (]) 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

	*I oppose. The current wording in the article is better than the one proposed above. Look at other related articles: ], ], ], ect. I would propose: "'''Ukrainians''' ({{lang-uk\|Українці}}, ''Ukrayintsi'') are an ] ] living primarily in ]. The term can also be used to refer to the citizens of the Ukrainian nation, who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians." Regards, ] 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
	**The current wording of the article is clumsy and awkward. Your suggested revision is an improvement. ~] <small>(])</small> 02:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
	***On second thought, I agree that the current wording in the article is somewhat awkward as you say. I support my version, I wonder what Galassi thinks. ] 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

	Mixing ethnic Ukrainians with Ukrainian citizens in general can lead to misunderstandings and nonsense. For example let us consider the following hypothetical text:
	<blockquote>
	''Mass rallies of Ukrainians took place in Donetsk in protest against rampant Ukrainian nationalism of Ukrainian government and in support for official status of Russian''
	</blockquote>

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

	'''Resume''' </br>
	Distinguishing ethnic Ukrainians from the citizens of Ukraine in general is crucial for understanding current events in Ukraine. That is why I propose to make a dedicated paragraph in the article explaining the difference. sk 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
	: This is pure speculation. In similar situations the NYTimes clearly states unrest among "ethnic Russians". ] (]) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

	Might I suggest that the article "Ukrainians" be about ethnic Ukrainians only and use the work Ukrainians in that sense only. At top, add: "For a discussion of Ukrainian nationals, please see the article ]." —] (]) 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
	: A natural gut reaction for a Latvian, but inappropriate here. Keep the way it is, as it gets all the necessary points across.] (]) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	<blockquote>
	...''the critical analysis of prior work is a necessary part of that process''
	</blockquote>

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

	As a temporary measure we can take the kind advice of ] to delete the disputed statement from the header and make a link to the ] where this issue is discussed in detail. sk 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
	: I strongly disagree, as a native speaker of English. The paragraph in question is neutral and sensitive to all sides.] (]) 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

	::Please note that by the rules of Misplaced Pages, no personal quality of editors such as mother tongue, nationality, religion, etc., is a valid reason for proving an opinion. The only valid argument is a citation of a reliable source.</br>
	::As I have said above, I agree that according to reliable sources (dictionaries), the adjective ''Ukrainian'' in modern English usage can also mean a citizen of Ukraine. This should be stated explicitly in the article:
	<blockquote>
	“...in modern English usage ...(with citation)
	</blockquote>
	::Doing this we should keep in mind that a particular language usage doesn’t always reflect the true state of affairs. One example is the adjective ''Indians'' used in English to denote ''Native Americans''. This was a mistake. The same mistake is to mix multi-ethnic citizens of Ukraine with ethnic Ukrainians. IMHO the earlier this mistake is corrected the better. sk 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


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

Latest revision as of 14:34, 6 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ukrainians article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ukraine Top‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ukrainians. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ukrainians at the Reference desk.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Vernadsky

Ukrainian language form of his name is Volodymyr. Vladimir is russian language one. 77.237.14.246 (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Citizens of Ukraine

Surprised article doesn't mention that Ukrainians are also all the citizens of Ukraine, as all encyclopedias do mention (Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Encyclopedia of the history of Ukraine) right in the lead. Will add that later with sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Many articles about European nations have a formula like "are an ... ethnic group ..., who share a common ancestry, culture, and history." I never saw a source for it. From Germans this formula was removed after a long and frustrating discussion. In addition to being unsourced, I think this formula is really wrong for Ukrainians. An understanding of Ukrainians as a political nation has a long tradition among Ukrainians and has been strengthened by the Russian aggression. One quote to illustrate this: "According to Putin, Russians and Ukrainians are "one people" because they are close in language, religion and history. He overlooks the fact that in the post-Soviet era, Ukrainians increasingly see themselves as a political nation, a nation by will (Willensnation, civic nation) that includes several ethnic and linguistic groups. That is why he was surprised that most Russian-speaking Ukrainians did not enthusiastically welcome the invading Russian troops, but on the contrary offered bitter resistance." Andreas Kappeler, a respected professor emeritus for East European history in Vienna, wrote this a few months after the Russian invasion of February 2022, and Timothy Snyder says something very similar in his Yale lectures.

References

Kappeler, Andreas. Ungleiche Brüder: Russen und Ukrainer vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Russen und Ukrainer sind laut Putin "ein Volk", weil sie sich in Sprache, Religion und Geschichte nahestehen. Er übersieht dabei, dass sich die Ukrainer in postsowjetischer Zeit zunehmend als politische Nation, als Willensnation, die mehrere ethnische und sprachliche Gruppen umfasst, verstehen. Deshalb hat ihn auch überrascht, dass die meisten russischsprachigen Ukrainer die eingefallenen russischen Truppen nicht begeistert begrüßten, sondern im Gegenteil erbitterten Widerstand leisteten.

Rsk6400 (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is conflating two different things, the titular ethnic group and the demonym for citizens of Ukraine, who can of course be multi ethnic since the country is not homogenous. Saying "Ukrainians are an ethnic group that include ethnic groups such as Ukrainians" is convoluted and confusing. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Languages

@Arctic Circle System, please see Talk:Ukrainians/Archive 5#Languages . Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: Isn't Surzhyk primarily spoken by ethnic Ukrainians? And Ukrainian is also the official spoken language of Ukraine, I don't think Ukrainian Sign Language should be removed simply because it happens to be the official sign language of Ukraine. Also that discussion didn't reach consensus, no one was involved in it except you. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Surzhyk primarily spoken by ethnic Ukrainians?
No.I don't think Ukrainian Sign Language should be removed simply because it happens to be the official sign language of Ukraine.
Let's just follow sources. the Ukrainians are people whose native language is Ukrainian (an objective criterion)
Етнічна мова У. — українська мова Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: I'm not talking about the definition of the term "Ukrainians", I'm talking about what languages Ukrainians speak. And deaf Ukrainians tend to speak Ukrainian Sign Language as a native language. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

what languages Ukrainians speak
Ukrainians speak a lot of languages. Like almost every other nation / ethnic group possibly do. Please see archived topic referenced above. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: The difference is that Ukrainian Sign Language is frequently spoken by Ukrainians as a native language within Ukraine, which Ukrainians are native to. And I have seen that archived topic, and again, no one was involved in it except you. There was no consensus reached. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine, and spoken by most Ukrainian citizens, even those who aren't ethnic Ukrainians. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This is probably already mentioned in Ukraine. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: It is not mentioned there at all. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

See Official language and national language Manyareasexpert (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is about all Ukrainians, not only those living in Ukraine. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: The vast majority of Ukrainians live in Ukraine. And besides that, many Ukrainian diaspora populations frequently use the local language of the place they live rather than Ukrainian in daily life. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

... You propose to include English, Portuguese, others? Manyareasexpert (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: No, of course not. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Number of Ukrainians in Russia

Data on the number of Ukrainians in Russia do not have a source.
The latest available official ethnic data were obtained during the 2021 Russian Population Census.
Due to the fact that the census was conducted in 2021, the data should not fall under the WP:RUSUKR.
There is no more reliable source for Russia than the data from Rosstat, the official national statistical bureau. There are also no alternative sources evidently refuting the data provided by them. So there is no feasible reason for not accounting their data in comparison with the data of other census bureaus. Pomoscj (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014. Official sources in a country without freedom of the press cannot be trusted. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is clear.

Firstly, Rosstat is not a press, but a statistical bureau. WP:RS?

Secondly, please, provide me a link to the collegial, official decision of Misplaced Pages, in which Rosstat as organization is recognized as an unreliable source of information. Not your personal opinion, but the position adopted by the community. WP:NOTRELIABLE?

Thirdly, where did the data presented in the table come from? "Russia 1,864,000 (2023)" What is the source? Who made a research in 2023? WP:V? The only data in the entire table without a source.

I will wait for сlarification. Thanks in advance. Pomoscj (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As espected, no reaction. Then, the data should be changed to the one in 2010. Pomoscj (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add missing template for {{pp-extended|small=yes}}, because it's already extended-confirmed protected. 5.58.98.183 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: