Talk:Ukrainians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

rest of the Russians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukrainian and Russian languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian language

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

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

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

Russian language in Ethnic Group table

Hi, thanks for adding ukrainian census data as a source [1]. There are 3 issues with these edits. First off the source doesn't give clear conditions on what language can be considered Ukrainian's language, to be more precise, as Ukrainian's language in terms of ethnic identity. Second, it is ukrainian census and it doesn't cover Ukrainians in other countries. Third, edits [2] adding Russian as a "language" of Ukrainians make the article to contradict with encyclopedic sources [3] [4] [5] and so on which clearly state the language of Ukrainians is Ukrainian only. I will move that source with correct text to the Language section. Please don't add this info into infobox again until these 3 issues are resolved. --windyhead (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi, I don't see what you agree with Эшер on, because he didn't made any meaningful statements. The term Ukrainians, as well as Germans, Poles and so on, has its primary meaning as an ethnic group, or a nation in terms of Ukraine's native population, as you will find in encyclopedic sources [6] [7]. "Citizens of Ukraine" is a secondary meaning and is less used . And the infobox template we are talking about has the title "Ethnic group". And yes, the "lot of citizens of Ukraine speak Russian in there daily life" can be covered in article body in Language section --windyhead (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please see this [8] regarding your source , a reliable source saying that the Ukrainian is the only language of Ukrainians in terms of ethnic identity , and census data --windyhead (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I'm removing disputable info again because those 3 problems [9] are not addressed. Please don't add disputable info again until these issues are resolved. --windyhead (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Religion

The follwing was cancellrd out[10]

There are also ethnic minorities who practice Judaism and Islam.

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

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

List of countries with Ukrainian population

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

Table of Ukrainian diaspora is unclear

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

"Ukranians" picture in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obvious one-click away facts are called OR

Additional French ethnic map of Russia, made in 1898

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV and current disputes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me quote Magosci ?

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

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

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

HELP in fight against Antiukrainian sentiment!

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

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

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

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

Administrators - please check article about Ukrainians

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

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

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

Vladimir I and Yaroslav I

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

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

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

Map of Russia of A. Jenkinson, 1598

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

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

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

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

Total population

User SeikoEn has recently changed the number of the total population of Ukrainians from 45,551,667 to 57,500,00 [11], using sources stating that the number of Ukrainians living abroad is 20 million as the basis and adding that to the number of Ukrainians living in Ukraine. However, these sources fail WP:VERIFY, because the official statistical information given in the infobox shows us a much more smaller number (less than 10 million) of Ukrainians in diaspora. It is written in the first source that “The Ukrainian World Congress states that the Ukrainian diaspora abroad makes up over 20 million”, so it is only a statement made by the Ukrainian World Congress and can't be interpreted as a fact. In addition the website www.ukraine-travel-advisor.com fails WP:RS as a self-published personal website. Therefore we should restore the previous number in the infobox. --Glebchik (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The article describes the topic as follows: "Ukrainians are an East Slavic ethnic group primarily living in Ukraine, or more broadly—citizens of Ukraine (who may or may not be ethnic Ukrainians)". So let we try to analyze these definitions:
  • in the narrow sense - ethnic Ukrainians (not Ukrainian Jews, Poles, Russians, Roma etc) present in every country of the world.
  • more broadly - Ukrainian nationality (citizens of Ukraine) of every ethnicity (etnic Ukrainians, Jews, Poles, Russians, Roma, Tatars etc.
• Are the first definition a "narrow" one as the second one in the article preamble is defined a "more broad"?
• We know the official Ukrainian citizens value estimation: 45,822,214 as of October 2010. This value in the article is defined "more broad" and includes a lot of ethnic groups, but we have Census 2001 ethnic composition only: 77.8% ethnic Ukrainians (or 37,541,700). The rest - Russians, Jews, Belarusians, Tatars, Bulgarians, Hungarians etc.
• Are the Moldovans, Tatars, Bulgarians, Hungarins, Romanians, Poles, Jews, Armenians, Greeks, Roma, Azerbaijanians etc "an East Slavic ethnic group"? No, they aren't. so using etnic definition of the Ukrainians we can find 37.5 mln in Ukraine. The rest of the ethnic Ukrainians are out of the Ukraine. But where and how many?
• Let us look at the latest Canadian Census 2006: 300,590 of Canadians declared pure Ukrainian ethnic origins. Three times more (908,495) declared mixed ethnic origins with the Ukrainian origins presence. But are these values an etnic Ukrainian population figures? The 2006 Census ethnic origin question asked "What were the ethnic or cultural origins of this person's ancestors?"[12]. So the values listed were the ethnic "roots" of the Canadian citizen ancestors, but not a citizen ethnicity. The ethnicity was not studied in the Census, but was a mother tongue question[13]: 141,805 of respondents declared Ukrainian as a mother tongue. But 100,000 were Canadians, but 40,000 were Ukrainian citizens[14] (were counted in Ukraine).
• But why only 100,000 of Canadians have Ukrainian mother tongue? Canadians with ethnic Ukrainian parents (or one parent) 353,270, with Ukrainian grandmother or grandfather 212,860 and with grand-grand parent(s) (or even grand-grand-grand and more) 642,955[15]. We see the majority of Canadians have weak relation to the ethnic Ukrainian ancestors. Ukranian language was not used by the pure Ukrainian ancestry Canadians (100,000 speakers of 300,000 pure Ukrainian ancestry). Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be also noted that the Joshua Project gives 39,804,000 as the total number of Ukrainians, which was derived by summing up the number of Ukrainians in 43 countries. [16] --Glebchik (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Having done some research, I believe that mentioning 57 million would be appropriate. Here's why, in the article on Germans, or Poles, the census data does not add up anywhere near the number stated (160 million for Germans, and 60 million for Poles.)

In fact, practically all ethnic articles use the maximum (approximated) numbers.

I think that picking out this particular nation is inappropriate. If anyone has problems with this approach, why don't they start with Germans, Poles, or Irish people first. Otherwise, it makes no sense to pick apart this particular article.

The Irish one is particularly funny as the census numbers add to about 60 million, but the total is 80 million.--Therexbanner (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

“I think that picking out this particular nation is inappropriate.” This is not actually correctly said, because until SeikoEn's non-consenus edits it was 45,551,667. And so what I'm trying to do is just to restore the previous state, not picking out one particular ethnicity. And if you compare, e.g., the total number of Russians estimated by Joshua Project (131,815,000) with the current number in infobox, the difference is 12% (18 million). But if you do the same for Ukrainians, the difference is already 31% (also 18 million). The number 57 million is obviously an exaggeration. But, I'd like to suggest a compromise. What if we write just “c. 50 million”? --Glebchik (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be ok. Seems like a fair way of phrasing it.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, now let's wait a while for what others say. --Glebchik (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I do NOT agree with you! Your suggestion is inventing and a current figure has a source! In Ukraine lives 37,5 milions Ukrainians and we have clear number of 20 millions Ukrainians abroad. According to this number is very clear and it is 57,5 million people. I have already warned administrators to vandalism and and I will warn them in the future. Sources should be respected and political interpretation are not needed! This discussion is no longer needed, it is obvious! --SeikoEn (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• • All reliable sources used in Wikipedia have to be neutral and verifiable. Just now we don't have any neutral and verifiable sources supporting 20,000,000 value - no censuses or official/scientific estimations. We have verify sources, isn't it? Otherwise we can use 20,000,000 as unsupported opinion but not a fact. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The only source that gives the total number of Ukrainians is the Joshua Project, and it's 39,804,000 [17]. The number made by you, by using the unverifiable number of 20 million stated by the Ukrainian World Congress, – 57,5 million – is 31% bigger than that. So I suggest a compromise round figure: 50 million with the addition of presposion “c.” (circa). This figure is even closer to the one demanded by you than to the Joshua Project's data. --Glebchik (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • Yes, 20,000,000 Ukrainians outside of Ukraine is obviously a bogus figure just like the Norwegian article who claims a total of 12,000,000 people and that includes the whole Icelandic population in that figure! I must say it's hard to find realistic figures in any of the articles about different peoples. For some reasons everyone seem to exaggerate the figure for each group. Närking (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I know, I really don't understand why they do it. Take a look at Han Chinese, I mean they are huge already, and yet the census adds up to about 1250 million, but the total number shows 1310 million. Or look at Bengali people 210 million from census data, and the total shows 300 million (!!). That's a 50% increased "estimate" with no source provided whatsoever.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia, Bogomolov.PL, Therexbanner and other users, I believe in your honest and objectiv side! I only wish that Ukrainians have the same criteria and standards as well as articles about the Russians or Poles. You are aware that some users deliberately fakes data about Ukrainians. Some users are not aware of that! I have already reported those vandal acts to several administrators and I will do it again and again. I want to gather a group of users who would protect sources and facts when it comes to sites dedicated to Ukraine and Ukrainians. On Wikipedia there are many outstanding and questionable topic about Ukrainians and the question of Ukrainian population is not problem. I call on all partners in the fight against vandalism!!--SeikoEn (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• My behaviour is the same to Poles, Belarusians etc. It was my (not only my, but my too) activity in precising ethnic Poles number, so in the enwiki article this number was reduced as reliable sources declared less Poles. You will be surprized but the the best results were in plwiki. So my position is the same for every ethnicity: reliable sources only. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Glebchik you have double standards! You deliberately don't react when it come to Poles (38,5 millon) or Russians (131,8 million), and you don't present their number from Joshua Project. On the other side, Ukrainians realy have huge diaspora, but they are not all citizens of Ukraine. The process of migration linked to Ukraine is very intense the last 20 years. Their number in the state is drastically reduced by several millions ... 20 million Ukrainians is not a huge number for Ukrainian diaspora. Ukrainians as victims of political and others persecution, created a large diaspora in past 2 centuries. Huge nummber is long standing 150 million Russians or 60 million Poles and without one single fact! All users need to know that this is an open lynching against Ukrainians - only 50 percent of information about Ukrainians and their culture is correct on Wikipedia, the rest is propaganda of a few permanent users. Glebchik your work on Wikipedia is not objectiv, in your writing can be seen hatred of Ukrainians. I see it very clearly, no offense! --SeikoEn (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you continue your aggressive behaviour towards other users, I'll be forced to report it to administrators. I've already shown above that the number of 57 million is too exaggerated if we compare to the number of Russians in their article, see my comment at 16:04, 17 December. 50 million would be an optimal number here. --Glebchik (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not aggressive as you interpreted me, but I have my own style of writing. On other side, behind you stands the work in which administrators can find traces of aggression and vandalism! Not to run unnecessary debate, here is my sugestion: we can reach an agreement if both numbers are represented. All 4 sources must remain listed. Can be written as: 50-57,5 (sources). The possibility that there's probably a 57.5 million Ukrainians can not be reject!! In this case I expect from you personaly Glebchik that you first intervene in the case of the Russians: 135-150 million, and especially Poles: 50-60 million (lot's of statistics presents that there are less Poles than the Ukrainians). In any case, the number of 57.5 million must remain as an relevatn indicator. Your interpretation could not be better than the World Congress of Ukrainians! --SeikoEn (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources: ~57,500,00--SeikoEn (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is “style of writing” cannot be used in Wikipedia according to WP:Civility. I would propose then to write “39,804,000–57,500,000”. I didn't include two other sources because of their unauthoritativeness. --Glebchik (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Glebchik, I do not agree with your modification. You mix two different concepts and their sources: on the one side there is citizenship and on the other side nationality based on ethnic background. If you do not understand two different words (with different meanings) then you better do not agitate. It is the manipulation and unfairness of which I spoke before. It is better for you to check the details of other nations who have no sources for theirs total number, then you will be useful. --SeikoEn (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Seiko, before you state something and moreover embolden it, please, make sure that you're right. The Joshua Project gives information exactly about the ethnic groups: “Joshua Project is a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups...” [18], definitely not the citizenship. I think it's quite obvious when you look at the number of entities and date they have. --Glebchik (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Glebchik you become more and more ridiculous, no offense! According to your instructions (39,804,000 Ukrainians) outside of Ukraine lives only around 2 million Ukrainians and it is clear that this is not correct. Therefore, only Russia has a population of almost 3 million Ukrainians. This is proof that your source is not relevant, and that it is a clear error. Do you know for sources where authors estimated that 4 379 690 million Ukrainians are living in Russia. This source is Ukrainian Govrement portal, perhaps this fact should be written in article about Ukrainians? The same article says that outside of Ukraine lives 10 million Ukrainians who were born in Ukraine. The rest of the Ukrainian diaspora has a similar number so it is not wonder you got the number from 57,5 million Ukrainians. Give up your modification and confess that I am right. If you want I will find lots of sources specily for you! No need to litigate, we are stronger together! :-)--SeikoEn (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Be careful with numbers: 4 379 690 million Ukrainians are living in Russia is too much, isn't it? The source you provided clames 1,000,000 times less value. The main problem with this number are the Kuban Kossaks: are ethnic Ukrainians or not. As of Russian censuses this ethnic group is not concidered Ukrainian. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry! I have no interest in ukrainization of the Russian Federation. I just want to defend the objective data about the Ukrainians. I expect the same from other users. :-) --SeikoEn (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about a ukrainization, I'm just verifing the data you provided, this source declares Kuban Kossaks are ethnic Ukrainians so the Ukrainians in Russia total is larger. But modern Kuban Kossaks' Ukrainian ethnicity is not indisputable, I guess. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I have reported your behaviour on talk pages to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Second, your statement is based on the assumption that the number of Ukrainians in Ukraine is 39,804,000, however, the Joshua Projects gives the number of Ukrainians for each country, and for Ukraine it gives 34,214,000[19], i.e. the up to date date, which differs from the 2001 Ukrainian census. Therefore, I advise you again to read carefully the source before making such statements. There is no error there, in addition there is a page dedicated to date sources [20]. Finally, about the Ukrainian Government portal. Numbers mentioned there (Russia 4,3 million., Kazakhstan 900 thousand, Moldova 600 thousand, Bilorus’ 300 thousand, Uzbekistan 150 thousand, Kyrhyzia 100 thousand inhabitants of the Ukrainian origin, etc.) are obivously exaggerated or just out of date, if you compare them to the data taken from the official sources of these countries (which are already in the articles, although some countries need update) or to the data at the Joshua Project. See. e.g., 2009 Belarusian census, where we have 158 723 Ukrainians, which is two times less than then your source says.

I would like you to use reliable neutral sources and adhere to WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies to make mine and others' cooperation with you easier. --Glebchik (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Glebchik, you can not intimidate me with your reports because any contact with the administrators is favor for me. Unlike you, I have nothing to hide. - We can finish this conversation in a very peaceful manner. This whole conversation with you is not needed, we are both aware that truth is somewhere in the middle. I want you to think about your actions in the future. It's not nice to speak untruths about other peoples and it is not nice to create animosity between Ukrainians and Russians. Try to be objective and try not to hate, it will be easier for you, and it will be easier for nations. If you are willing to accept my next suggestion, we can solve this problem. Leave all sources as clear indicators and put the total number of Ukrainians like: 50-55 million. This is for me a realistic compromise, I hope it is for you also?! Below that I will not go! --SeikoEn (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have to give a reason, why you we can't put the number of Ukrainians estimated by the Joshua Project, which gives their data for every country and has its sources' page, and why we on the other hand should leave the number derived by using the unverifiable number stated by the Ukrainian World Congress. You should provide arguments, not just demand anything just because of your will, and also listen to the arguments of your opponents. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be based on reliable sources and verifiable facts, whether it's pleasant to some nations or not. --Glebchik (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not know were a truth is, but Wikipedia is a verifiable facts coming from reliable sources publisher. If a source is reliable - ok, we are using it, if no - no. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Glebchik, you are reported for vandalism. I am sorry that I had to do it, but you are obviously distracting other co-workers such as me and your intentions are not honest. Only this one topic has clearly shown that you do not want to find a compromise. I apologize to other colleagues who had to endure this unnecessary "misunderstanding". --SeikoEn (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• A compromise is possible if both sides are providing reliable neutral verifiable sources, but now we have a problem with some sources verifiability. In my opinion we have a single task to find reliable sources, analyze them and use in the article. And nothing more, isn't it? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  I fully agree with you, but if you look at the work of Glebchik you will see that this user is dishonest in his work ... Complete Category Russians of Ukrainian descent is deleted. For me this and lot's of other things is the pure antiukrainian work of Glebchik, here is example of his work: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeikoEn (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I've checked the first mr. Glebchik edit you listed: mr. Glebchik removed tautology as the sentence removed is present in the article (cited in the 'early life' chapter). So what is the problem with this normal editor's correction? This sentence was cited, we don't need it again in the same article. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's very sad when a user, instead of trying to ground his position in a discussion with arguments, resorts to accusing his opponents in different deeds having nothing to do with the subject of discussion itself, and calling reverting vandal IP edits such as this [21] (that falsifies the name of a source, falsifies the information given in another source and completely changes the meaning of a sentence) a vandalism, violating WP:Civility. And your report is already fairly declined. So, if you don't have any reasoned arguments against, I'm implementing the version of the total number proposed by me at 21:29, 18 December 2010, where both statement of the Ukrainian World Congress and data from the Joshua Project are taken into consideration. --Glebchik (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can agree on those two nummbers and three sources: “39,804,000–57,500,000 Before changing, everyone who participated in this discussion should support these conclusions in the next 24 hours. In the future, do not be intolerant and fairly use the sources Glebchik. Nobody here is fool and I personally do not enjoy to write bad about someone else or even some nation. I will follow your work and be confident that I will intervene if it is necessary. I respect all people equally and I have no patience to propaganda of any kind. I hope you understand my point of view. --SeikoEn (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this version could do. --Glebchik (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Footnote

I am thinking that placing a footnote in the infobox with the number of Ukrainian citizens is a good idea of me . That can also contain the percentage of ethnic Ukrainians of them. Although I think that the figures given in the Ukrainian Census of 2001 are completely outdated; I suspect that more Ukrainian citizens consider themselves ethnic Ukrainian then 10 years ago.
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 16:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen such footnoting in the infoboxes before. The number of Ukrainian citizens approximately equals the number of Ukraine's population. So perhaps it would be a little redundant, however, I'm not against your proposal. “I suspect that more Ukrainian citizens consider themselves ethnic Ukrainian then 10 years ago” I haven't seen newer available data, but I doubt that the number of ethnic Ukrainians has risen because of the overall depopulation in the country. But if we speak about the percentage, then yes, it's more than likely true. --Glebchik (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant percentage. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 16:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fascist presentation of Ukrainians

Appeal sent to administrators: This issue is known to everyone who had honestly edited the page related to the Ukrainians and Ukraine. Almost to all relevant users, it is clear that the site of Ukrainians is arranged in a way that degrades the Ukrainians. Ukrainians are presented as they are not a nation but multiethnic part of the Russian people and thats open border with fascism on Wikipedia. There is no similar examples when it comes to articles on other nations. Several well known users are persistent in these efforts to show that Ukrainians are not separate nation. At the same time reliable information is deleted and replaced with the interpretations without a source. Almost every trace of Ukrainians in Russia's history has been cleared and lot's of Ukrainian artist referred to only as a Russian (with my respect to Russians). Users of this work are obviously in anti Ukrainian mood to such an extent that they intentionally write untruth or deliberately erase the facts and finaly damage the work of Wikipedia as an objective media. My suggestion is to devote greater attention to articles related to the Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture in general. We should especially pay attention to several users who are falsely presenting themselves as neutral. Their hatred of Ukrainians is obvious and I do not need to name them. They are very familiar with their unhonest work! I hope that administrators will begin to act and punish those users who spread hatred among the peoples! --SeikoEn (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of Ukrainians in Russia

One more thing Glebchik. If you worry about the assimilation of Ukrainians in Russia, then together we can handle this topic. To me is specialy interesting decreased number of Ukrainians in Russia (table):

N	Census year	Number	Percentage (%)
1	1926	6871194	7,41
2	1939	3359184	3,07
3	1959	3359083	2,86
4	1970	3345885	2,57
5	1979	3657647	2,66
6	1989	4362872	2,97
7	2002	2942961	2,03

It is up to you, if you are interesting in those subjects ... There are lots of topics to be open. I speak several languages, including Russian and Ukrainian so we can bring topics together with more objective attitude. --SeikoEn (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• A lot of Ukrainians migrated to Russia, so assimilation was dynamic in Russia. In Kazakhstan and Belarus was Ukrainians assimilation also. This is a common process - ethnic minorities are assimilated: Russians in Belarus and Ukraine, Ukrainians in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Poles in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine, Belarusians in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ukrainians assimilate in Russia as quickly as Bavarians in Thuringia. No wonder, this is the very same nation. --Voyevoda (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• In this case, I don't see any meaning in adding obviously out of date data to the infobox [22], when we have an official figure from the Russian census. --Glebchik (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Results of the Russian Census of 2010 should be available in the near future. Bavarians are not considered an ethnic group in wikipedia by the way File:Navy.gif. Glad Ukraine got rid of Anna Chapman ... I'm thinking of creating a "Yes there are ethnic Russians in Ukraine! I have met them both!" userbox, anybody interested in that? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian diaspora in Poland

Ref says 27k but the UKR gov ref used on the Russian figure states 300k for the UKR diaspora in Poland. Which is it? The difference is 10 fold.--Львівське (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Poland National Census 2002 data are the number of Polish citizens with Ukrainian ethnicity declared. It is possible that larger numbers consider as Ukrainians the Polish citizens with partially Ukrainian roots, or a number of Ukrainian labour immigrants (with Ukrainian nationality) can be added to the Ukrainians with Polish nationality. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Page content

Page content about Ukrainians should bi filled with the themes of culture and customs of the people. Genetic origin is "genetic stupidity" (good part of Russian propaganda), the invention and interpretation of few users - without sources. If we look at other sites, people write about the history, culture, and a similar things, but not the blood group.--Vitaly N. (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest additions

Hi all

Vitaly's latest additions seem a little off. Though I have only cursorily glanced at them so far, these latest ones, such as saying the Varangians "conquered" the Rus, rather than the already established and ref'd "were invited" need some serious looking into. Is it me or is there some POV pushing going on here? Chaosdruid (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Vikings in Ukraine and ethnic origin

SeikoEn has tried several times to add this paragraph to Ethnic origins:

"In the early 9th century Vikings as Nordic warrior-traders established themselves in modern central Ukraine. Their adventurers were called "Varangians in Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire". In the 9th to 11th centuries Vikings served as key mercenary troops for princes in mediaeval Kiev and also hired themselves out to Byzantine emperors. They occupied key administrative positions in Kievan Rus’ and engaged in trade in the towns. During this period the Ukrainian ancestors were mixed with a large population of Vikings. After several decades, the large nummber of Vikings have adopted local customs of Ukrainian ancestors and they have become slavicized. Today among Ukrainian names there can be notice a number of those who have Germanic origins as a result of mutual influence from that period."

I find it unnecessary, it places undue weight on Vikings. Why a whole paragraph on Vikings while Sarmatians/Scythians are only mentioned in passing? Is there evidence that they had had a greater impact on Ukrainian ethnogenesis than Scythian-Sarmatians? I don't think so, Iranic languages were spoken in Ukraine longer and by more people. Vikings were a smaller part of the population. Also, compare to the "Russians" article. Vikings are mentioned briefly, not a whole paragraph. Why does the Ukrainians article need to spend more time on them? Is there evidence that they had a greater impact on Ukrainian ethnogenesis than they did on Russian ethnogenesis? Aftesk (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. Sounds marginal and unscholarly.--Galassi (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The population of Vikings was politically influential but surely not large, as Seiko portrays it. A far larger impact on Ukrainian genes had different Turkic nomads peoples from the southern steppes that raided the Kiev area for centuries (Pecheneg, Kumans, Torks, Berendeys, Crimean Tatars etc.). No wonder that in his poems, Taras Shevchenko often spoke of typical Ukrainian as chornobryvyy (black-eyebrowed) in contrast to a Russian. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You would need to document that as well, per WP:RS, if not WP:REDFLAG.--Galassi (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

SeikoEn is right, Vikings have importan role in the early formation of Ukrainians and that is fact. He also included some important and relevant sources about same topic ... I think that this is no longer subject to debate! Ukrainophobia is not welcome here! My brothers name is Askold and this name is also of germanic origin ... so please do some constructive work here!--Vitaly N. (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I guess there are slightly more Ivans among Ukrainians than Askolds. Is this a reason to assume that most of them are of Hebrew origin? Vikings were not numerous in Kiev and their very rapid Slavicization is a good proof of this. :)--Voyevoda (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Several users here are clear evidence of Ukrainophobia on Wikipedia! There is nothnig to discuss with them because they know their unhonest work very well! I can only say that I will not allow them to write lies and distorted sentence! From now on, I will care about this page! I will keep an eye on your dishonest work! This I promise you!--Vitaly N. (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hysteric accusations are not helpful. --Voyevoda (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your work is not helpful!--Vitaly N. (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edits. I just pointed at the weakness of your arguments. But the weakest argument is your hysterical cry of Ukrainophobia to escape a discussion. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

More work and less discussion but if you like unnecessary debate go to chat or some forum to disscus! I checked your previous work and I'm not sure why you're here at all! Make yourself useful while you're here!--Vitaly N. (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is a vital part of Wikipedia, dude. My contribution to Wikipedia since 2005 is surely more extensive than yours. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd use the term Varangians instead of Vikings. And the fact is that Varangians came to the territory of modern Ukraine when East Slavs were already there, so it is not entirely correct to say that "Vikings" preceded "Ukrainians". That's why these additions about Vikings may be considered dubious. GreyHood ^Talk 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a lengthy unnecessary conversation, no real problem ... There are a number of articles about the great role of the Vikings in the Ukraine but not in English. I've put there several sources which spoke about the Viking role and I do not understand why some users want to delete them. There are several reasons why Vikings should be mentioned and one of them is that they established the medieval state in the centar of Ukraine. The Vikings have left many traces in the cultural script, customs, architecture, toponyms, etc. Why to erase this fact and four reliable sources and who has the right do it? There is no claim that the Vikings were not important in the formation of old Rus' or modern Ukrainian identity. Some historians like Peter Sawyer certainly are interested in the role of the Vikings in the formation of Ukrainian identity. I ask you one more time for your cooperation! I accidentally stumbled on this video, maybe some will be interesting, although there is no scientific base ... http://www.vikings.co.uk/Viking_Videos--vv-vikings-Education-1-PEoKhC4R3eg.htm Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Vikings are mentioned - alongside other groups who also influenced Ukraine. The question is, why should the article devote MORE space to Vikings than to other groups? You have not established that they're more important than, for example, Scythian-Sarmatians and Turkics. The Vikings had a smaller population, their language was spoken by fewer people and for a shorter time, so it's doubtful that they had a bigger contribution to Ukrainian ethnic origins. I'm not arguing they had no influence. I'm saying there is no evidence it was more substantial than other groups, so there is no reason to give them more attention. Aftesk (talk)

I totally agree that this has become an issue of weight and overbearing addition of "Viking" rather than Varangians. For a start the Varangians article says "people from the Baltic region, most often associated with Vikings." Put simply, that means they were not Vikings at all. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Several users like Aftesk wants to put the Turks ahead of the Vikings as part of Russian propaganda, it is ridiculous and racist interpretation! If someone wants to write about Scythians and Sarmatians, it is OK, but there is no reason to erase data about Viking. Sentences about Vikings are clear without any speculations ... These are the facts: the Vikings were influential in Ukraine (co-founders of the state), it is known that they were mixed with the locals (especially medieval elite) and today there are some names from that period (Ingvar or Igor, Helgi or Oleg, etc.). I want to agree with you, so please tell me exactly which sentence bothers you? Can you write your proposal of a sentence ... Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, everybody can freely write Varangians, it is OK! Minor changes are welcome, it is important not to change the meaning!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit warring has to stop. The additions were boldly made, reverted, and we are discussing. That means that the addition is in dispute. The article should be left at the pre-disputed version until consensus is found.

The Varangian Guard were called that because of their Varangian-ness, not the Viking guard. As for any other issues, the main one is weight. The grammar is poor, there are too many uncited claims and the ones that are there need looking at thoroughly so that we can all find consensus as to what should and should not be included. I suggest that the disputed text is placed here, amended until an agreed consensus version is found, and then put back in. This is not something that can be sorted out in one or two days, and the disputed version has to remain out until the agreed version is placed back in. (The refs are also in dispute, for example the site www.wumag.kiev.ua needs to be researched and proven to be an acceptable reliable source.) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Chaosdruid and with your more objecitv interpretation. Something has to be written about the Vikings because they had an important role. Your changes are similar and I can agree with them. I believe that others will agree with you ... SeikoEn noted that Vikings should be mentioned in any case because in several ways they are essential for early formation of Ukrainians, and I agree with that. I do not support completly deleting the section about the Vikings as some of users would like to do ... Sources must remain present because they are reliable!--Vitaly N. (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This first edit is based mainly on three reliable books: A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples by Paul Magocsi [23] ISBN 9781442610217 ; Medieval Russia, 980-1584 By Janet Martin [24] ISBN 9780521368322; and Ukraine by Andrew Evans and Marc Di Duca [25] ISBN 9781841623115.

While I appreciate that the refs used so far are from nearly reliable sources, one is a from a magazine that could be anything as it does not even say who they are, and two from the EOU. While the EOU is pretty well-known, it does not carry as much weight as the books, in my opinion. Magosci in particular is a very well known and reliable source, and although Evans is a reputable guide book author, his work is renowned for being accurate. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In Encyclopedia of Ukraine can be found an interesting article that may help in solving our problems:

Varangians (from Norse waering ‘one who has taken an oath of allegiance’ or war ‘oath, sworn fidelity’; Ukrainian: variahy). Nordic warrior-traders who established themselves in Rus’ after first appearing there in the early 9th century. Known as Normans or Vikings in other parts of Europe, those adventurers were called Varangians in Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire. In the 9th to 11th centuries Varangians served as key mercenary troops for Rus’ princes (eg, Prince Ihor, Volodymyr the Great) and also hired themselves out to Byzantine emperors (eg, Basil II). They occupied key administrative positions in Kyivan Rus’ and engaged in trade in the towns. The Varangians are associated particularly with the use of the Varangian route, which provided an eastern access for traders from Scandinavia through Kyivan Rus’ to the Byzantine Empire.

The extent of Varangian influence in Rus’ has been debated for several centuries in connection with the controversial Normanist theory. The kernel of the debate is accounts of contemporary chroniclers that credit the Varangians with establishing a state structure in ancient Rus’. Certainly the Varangians assumed a leading role in the running of the Rus’ state; the Riurykide dynasty, in fact, is descended from a Varangian. But the extent of their influence beyond that is difficult to ascertain, notably because the Varangians assimilated rapidly with the local population; their influence in Rus’ was particularly evident in military organization and in personal names. In Novgorod the Great they built a church which is mentioned in chronicles as the Varangian Church. Later archeological expeditions unearthed large Varangian grave sites in the Kyiv region and Chernihiv region (see Shestovytsia fortified settlement and burial site) containing well-preserved caches of grave goods and weapons. (http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\V\A\Varangians.htm)

From this text we can draw a few sentences because it contains reliable sources! I have marked some of the sentences that I think are important!--Vitaly N. (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for moving your text (and mine), but the section below is for suggested edits, rather than putting forwards other ideas - I had incorrectly put some of my text there that was supposed to be in this part.

Unfortunately I cannot agree that the OEU is a very reliable source. For one thing it is not published, secondly we do not know who edited and wrote it, and thirdly they have not provided any references to see where their statements come from. On the other hand, we have lots of good book references. I am a personal fan of the OEU, but I would not use it as a reference when there are so many out there that are far more reliable and are from trusted, well-respected sources.

Also, do not forget that linking to the Varangians means that someone can go there and look at it, we do not have to put lots of info on here when it is already at the Varangian page. We also need to be careful to keep Varangians and Vikings separate. The Vikings were spread more North and West than the Varangians and would have undoubtedly had less influence. Indeed the Varangians would have been the main link between the Rus and Scandanavia. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Chaosdruid! I would not say that Ukrainian encyclopedia is unreliable because it is the most comprehensive work in the English language on Ukraine, its history, people, geography, economy, and cultural heritage. This site was created and is updated/maintained by a team of scholars and editors from the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) (University of Alberta/University of Toronto). Hundreds of specialists from around the world have contributed and continue to contribute to the Encyclopedia, they wrote themselves. (http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/info.asp) In our case about Varangians article the author Arkadii Zhukovsky is visibly signed and he listed all the sources, please check Bibliography below (http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\V\A\Varangians.htm). Think please again about my proposal to incorporate the essential sentences or maybe a few words ...--Vitaly N. (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please stop to sabotaging some of solutions and sources. Some of you deny reliable sources ant text with signed authors and that is not fair or productive! If the article is in the magazine it does not mean that it is not reliable. In our case magazine and the signed author states: “Based on the materials supplied by the Kyiv Pechersk Historical and Cultural Preserve”. For further, to say that the Ukrainian encyclopedia is not reliable source reveals an entirely different goal of a user if we consider that all the articles are signed and supported by a recognized Canadian university in Toronto ... So please stop with any kind of sabotage any more! Those who are here with the intention of introducing a mess, I ask them once more to go from here ... My proposal has already been here since the beginning and I respect the current proposals from Chaosdruid and I hope that you Vitaly N. will give us other very soon ... I see that others are not so interested in finding solution or maybe I am wrong?!

This are certainly a reliable sources (with signed authors) and should be used and summarized in a already proposed smaller section about Varangians ...

• 1) http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\V\A\Varangians.htm ,
• 2) http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/wumag_old/archiv/2_98/lavra.htm,
• 3) http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2005/280528.shtml

Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the EOU does not give specific references, just a bibliography - I certainly did not say it was not reliable, just not very reliable. I do not wish to go into details of all the editors they use, but some are not as "top quality" as those that have written books - such as Magosci and the books EOU uses as their bibliographies - rather than use the EOU as a ref, why not use the book itself? To use someones synopsis is never as good as reading the original and using that, or even directly quoting it. For example the "very large grave sites" does not say how large, whether it was in bodies or area - this can all be got from the original books.

"In total, Scandinavian objects from inland Old Rus' have been found in 107 female graves, 84 male graves, and 36 graves with two or more individuals regardless of the cultural identity of the grave. Based on an analysis of the grave goods and the ritual associated with these graves, 41 female, 18 male, and 21 couples seem to be Varangian graves (the numbers may not be exact because of... " [26] Gender and the archaeology of death by Bettina Arnold, Nancy L. Wicker.

(Bettina Arnold is a Professor at the Department of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [27])

Similarly with the wumag article. Surely using an original would be better, also what exactly does that mean "Based on the materials supplied by the..."? It could even be a brochure, it is still only "based on" and not from them themselves - we have no clue as to what has been changed without the originals or material from the sources. The website, though it appears to be only in Ukrainian [28], should surely be a better source?

If there are high quality very reliable sources, why use ones that are not? The original books, and original material from these places themselves has to be better. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As I already wrote, the Varangians or Rus were politically influential but never numerous. The very rapid Slavicization could not happen that way if their number was big. Here is a source: Славянская энциклопедия. Киевская Русь — Московия: в 2 т. / Автор-составитель В. В. Богуславский. — М.: ОЛМА-ПРЕСС, 2001. — 5000 экз. — ISBN 5-224-02249-5: "Несмотря на большое значение Русов в развитии восточнославянской державы, с этнической точки зрения их влияние было ничтожно. Их было слишком мало и поэтому они вскоре растворились в море славян. Род русских князей уже в 3-м поколении отказался от языка и традиций своих отцов. Внук Рюрика получил уже имя Святослав." --Voyevoda (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please write on english or translate every sentence because of all users who don't use Russian or Ukrainian language. Maybe your assumption is right, but it is irrelevant because there are no any data on the number of Vikings! The fact is that they had a big impact on medieval Ukrainian society and relatedness of people can also create fast assimilation ... In our case, we write about Ukrainians and I think it is okay to use their resources, not russian ones because of the animosity. On the other hand we have already concluded that the three selected sources in English, signed with the authors, are good sources and can be used by English speakers. This article is in English and desirable sources are English ones! In order not to complicate further discussion, what was clearly intended, please write your proposal below if you have it! We do not intend to enter into new political discussions! Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Which animosity, dude? I don't share your obscure dismissal of Russian sources which only shows your lack of professional relationship to the matter. Also, one can't be real expert on East Slavic history without the knowlegde of an Eastern Slavic language, be it Ukrainian or Russian. So, in the interests of encyclopedic quality, I kindly ask you to stay back from this discussion among people with more solid background on the issue. Consindering the Varangians, their cultural and genetic influence on Eastern Slavs (there were no Ukrainians or Russians at that time) was very low. However, their political influence as state-founders was enormous. This is what should be written in the article. --Voyevoda (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about Ukraine though, so there is no real need to talk about political influence. This article is about Ukrainians and their heritage. To that end, a few sentences talking about the Varangians should be included - the links are there so that people can go and read the Varangian article to find out more if they want to, if they do not then we do not need to put too much detail in here as it would give an excessive weighting. I do agree that the trade route should be included, it was possibly as much influence on Ukrainian culture as the Varangians themselves. I have also added some naming examples to my suggested version (now 2nd draft). Chaosdruid (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion about three suggestions: Vitaly N. your passage is good and clear (especially the first sentence), Chaosdruid your passage would be also good with minor changes, and Voyevoda I can not accept your passage because subject is ethnic origin of Ukrainians and there must be connection with that, and not with East Slavic or Kievan Rus' history (I hope you understand what we write here?). According to historians some people from Scandinavia came to central Ukraine and Kiev much earlier so there are germanic (Varangian) traces for several centuries before the 9th century. Goths have also left their traces several centuries before, but for now they are not the subject ... Try to write something that would be similar to other three possible solutions or your suggestion will not pass for sure! Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@SeikoEn - The only problem I see with Vitaly's opening sentence is the use of "significant" - it does not really add anything and only suggests more questions as to what the significance was and to what it was significant. When we cannot say how many, or measure the absolute significance, it is best to leave them out.

What small changes do you feel would help my version? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There were no any Ukrainians in the Varangian times, there were East Slavs which first called themselves Slavs or used their tribal names, and later called themselves Rusichi or Rus' . So in order to discuss ethnic origin of Ukrainians we either should start from about the 14th century, or to discuss ethnic developments among East Slavs in the Kievan Rus'. In this light Voyevoda's suggestion is not really problematic. Also, Goths, the Germanic tribe who came from Scandinavia to Eastern Europe in the late Antiquity are not considered Varangians. Varangian period is confined to the 9th-11th cc. in the Eastern Europe and arguably somewhat longer in Byzantium, generally corresponds to the timeframe of the Viking Age. GreyHood ^Talk 23:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is spam and it is not true! The oldest recorded ethnonyms used for Ukrainians are Rusychi, Rusyny and Rusy (from old term Rus'). In the 10th to 12th centuries those names applied only to the Slavic inhabitants of what is today the national and ethnic territory of Ukraine. Similar designations were adopted several centuries after by the proto-Russian inhabitants today known as Russkie. This is not the issue!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Real spam are your incompetent nationalistic wrtings. If you take Russkaya Pravda, the legal code of Yaroslav the Wise written in 1030s, there is still a separation between "Rusins" (Scandinavians) and "Slovens" (Slavs). This separation slowly disappears only in the following epoche, when the name Rus' started to be applicated to all inhabitants, including Slavs. There are chronicles that apply the term Russian and Russians to the lands of Suzdal, Tver and Ryazan as early as 12th century when these lands started to be intensively populated by southern refugees from Polovetsian raids. --Voyevoda (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very simple thing to take old medieval names, re-write them into modern Ukrainian, transliterate the result into English and pretend this is history. Rusins, Rusichi (The Tale of Igor's Campaign) or Rus'skyi (the Primary Chronicle, the word basically corresponds to the modern "Russkiye") were the names for all inhabitants of Kievan Rus', and the people on the territories of modern Ukraine had no particular preference. GreyHood ^Talk 14:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hysteric nationalists don't understand that to claim that "Volodymyr" was a Ukrainian ruler (see pic) is like the claim Julius Caesar was an Italian emperor. Analogically, the claim that Rusichi were exactly the Ukrainians is like to claim that ancient Romans are exactly the Italians. Inferiority-complexed trolls: let Rusichi be Rusichi and don't mix them up with the modern splinter group called "Ukrainians" ("border people" in English). --Voyevoda (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have so much problem with Ukrainians please go to some other sites. Don't teach us our history!--Vitaly N. (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't noticed you are addressing to Ukrainian person. And while Voyevoda should better use more neutral language, he is nevertheless perfectly entitled to express his opinion here and to correct other editors if their suggestions are inaccurate or erroneous. GreyHood ^Talk 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, I agree with you! In your suggestion I would like to change first sentence. Vitaly N. also has a good conclusion. Please, try to write something that connects your two suggestions and I will gladly accept it. If the three of us agree together, I believe we have a final solution. I hope that Vitaly N. also agrees with that? Thanks for your effort!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, make some minore changes suggested by SeikoEn and then we can take your example as final solution. Please include all sources so others can continue to study this subject more detail. My first proposal was also a combination of your work and those one of SeikoEn but I am willing to accept your proposal too. Please consider my suggestion once again because I think that it is not bad at all!--Vitaly N. (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I was out all day... I do not really know how to make my first sentence like Vitaly's unless I drop the "keep order between the various tribes in what is now central and western Ukraine." Is that what you meant Seiko? - I would rather have an explanation as to why they were there or else someone else will put one in.

I have only been back for 20 minutes, and my food is nearly ready, so I will get back to you all in the next hour or so...sorry guys (and gals?). Chaosdruid (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed text and suggestions for addition so that consensus can be found

In the early 9th century Vikings as Nordic warrior-traders established themselves in modern central Ukraine. Their adventurers were called "Varangians in Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire". In the 9th to 11th centuries Vikings served as key mercenary troops for princes in mediaeval Kiev and also hired themselves out to Byzantine emperors. They occupied key administrative positions in Kievan Rus’ and engaged in trade in the towns. During this period the Ukrainian ancestors were mixed with a large population of Vikings. After several decades, the large nummber of Vikings have adopted local customs of Ukrainian ancestors and they have become slavicized. Today among Ukrainian names there can be notice a number of those who have Germanic origins as a result of mutual influence from that period.

First suggested edit (2nd draft), by Chaosdruid - fixing grammar and prose - Vikings to Varangians.

• In the early 9th century Varangians were invited to help keep order between the various tribes in central and western Ukraine. In the 9th to 11th centuries the Varangians served as key mercenary troops for a number of princes in mediaeval Kiev, as well as for some of the Byzantine emperors, while others occupied key administrative positions in Kievan Rus’ society. They were responsible for the consolidation of the Varangian-Byzantine trade route, which brought in trade and influences from Scandinavia and the Byzantine Empire, further influencing Ukrainian culture. Some modern Ukrainian names have Scandinavian and Byzantine influences as a result, such as Ihor, Alexander and Ruslan.

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Second suggested edit, by Vitaly N. - I tried to consolidate the work of Chaosdruid and SeikoEn.

• At the beginning of 9th century a significant number of Varangians was present in central Ukraine. Until 11th century these Varangians served as key mercenary troops for a number of princes in mediaeval Kiev, as well as for some of the Byzantine emperors, while others occupied key administrative positions in Kievan Rus’ society. After a few centuries those Varangians have adopted local customs of Ukrainian ancestors and they have become slavicized. Today among Ukrainian names there can be notice a several of those who have Norman origins as a result of mutual influences from that period. Accoridng to some researchers such as Andriy Pyrohiv and Peter Sawyer, Varangians’ role in the early history of Ukrainians had been a particularly significant one.

--Vitaly N. (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources:

• 1)http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\V\A\Varangians.htm
• 2)http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages%5CK%5CY%5CKyivanRushDA.htm
• 3)http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2005/280528.shtml
• 4)http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/wumag_old/archiv/2_98/lavra.htm
• 5)http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/677091.The_Oxford_Illustrated_History_of_the_Vikings

--Vitaly N. (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Third suggested edit, by Voyevoda?

A significant political role in the consolidation of Eastern Slavic tribes into a common ethnicity (which later became the basis for modern Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians) was played by the Rus people of most-probably Varangian descent. This group of skilled warriors and mercenaries used the water ways of Eastern Europe for military raids and trade, particularily the Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks. After having gained the full control of the route, the Rus established a vast Eastern European polity which inherited their name. However, their small population led to a rapid assimilation of the Rus elite with the Slavic majority. Aside from the key political significance in the early epoche, the cultural heritage of Rus today is limited to some popular names among Ukrainians (Oleh, Olha, Ihor). Also, their genetic impact on Ukrainians as well as on other Eastern Slavs can be regarded as negligible. --Voyevoda (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sources: Славянская энциклопедия. Киевская Русь — Московия: в 2 т. / Автор-составитель В. В. Богуславский. — М.: ОЛМА-ПРЕСС, 2001. — 5000 экз. — ISBN 5-224-02249-5:

Fourth suggested edit, by SeikoEn and Vitaly N. (final suggestion)

At the beginning of 9th century a significant number of Varangians was present in central Ukraine. They used the water ways of Eastern Europe for military raids and trade, particularily the Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks. Until 11th century these Varangians also served as key mercenary troops for a number of princes in mediaeval Kiev, as well as for some of the Byzantine emperors, while others occupied key administrative positions in Kievan Rus’ society. After a few centuries those Varangians have adopted local customs of Ukrainian ancestors and they have become slavicized. Besides the other cultural traces, today among Ukrainian names there can be notice a several of those who have Norman origins as a result of mutual influences from that period.

Sources:

• 1)http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\V\A\Varangians.htm
• 2)http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages%5CK%5CY%5CKyivanRushDA.htm
• 3)http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2005/280528.shtml
• 4)http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/wumag_old/archiv/2_98/lavra.htm

As you can see, all users who initially created the problems were never even wanted to engage in serious discussion ... This is example of final solution if you agree Chaosdruid and Vitaly N.? It is possible to change it little bit, but it is important that the form and meaning stays the same ... This section is the work of four of us (including Voyevoda to a lesser extent) who have made proposals. Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the first sentence and last two are directly related to the topic and is not advisable to change them!--SeikoEn (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with final example, it is more objectiv!--Vitaly N. (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox picture

I seriously think this box is in need of review. There are a lot of less than notable inclusions, and I move that the fat be trimmed or more relevant Ukrainians be added.--Львівське (говорити) 06:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Etymology; Ownage of the page and edit warring

A number of users who regularly edit this page seem to try to prohibit adding any information about Ukrainians that don't suit them for some reason, even if it is sourced, uncontroversial (except perhaps for ultra-nationalists) and extremely well known facts, such as etymology of Ukraine and Ukrainians. This is not a way of handling Wikipedia articles, and there is no good in accusing other editors in propaganda. Instead one should bring more sources or serious arguments into discussion. Please avoid WP:OWN and WP:EW. GreyHood ^Talk 20:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but also use reliable english or ukrainian sources, not russian ones!--Vitaly N. (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why such a discrimination? GreyHood ^Talk 20:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Vitaly N.! We can use every reliable source - even Chinese, isn't it? But English sources are more comfortable for the Wikipedia visitors. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Vitaly N. was identified as a sock puppet of User:SeikoEn. --Voyevoda (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable Russian source or a POV pushing Russian source? Maybe it would be best to disclose the source in the prose if the disputed content isn't a universally accepted view?--Львівське (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The author Fyodor Gaida is more than reliable; there are plenty of primary sources given in his work and this is the worldwide accepted view except for a series of unprofessional OR pushers from Ukrainian side. Their failure of argumentation (Ukraine is always separate from the meaning Okraina) is shown. If you can point at weaknesses in the argumentation of Gaida, please do so with facts. But please let us alone with abstract propaganda accusations. It is the easiest in the world to throw with dirt without getting precise. --Voyevoda (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This research and scientific article «Україна» — це не «окраїна» proves that Russia's theory by Voyevoda is not correct and only political interpretation! This section should go back to the beginning because it has the highest authenticity and objectivity!--SeikoEn (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is first and no political sugesstion:

The modern name Ukraintsi (Ukrainians) is derived from Ukraina (Ukraine), a name first documented in 1187. The term is also mentioned in the years 1189, 1213, 1280, and 1282, in various medieval chronicles (for example, Galician Ukrayina, etc.), referring to the southern territories (principalities) of Kievan Rus'.

There are several theories about the etymology of the term, Ukrainian historians often translate the term "u-kraine" as "in-land", "home-land" or "our-country". The traditional Russian theory (widely supported by Russian historians) is that the modern name of the country is derived from the term "o-kraina" in the sense of "periphery", "borderland" or "frontier region" etc.

The appellation Ukrainians initially came into common usage in Central Ukraine and did not take hold in Galicia and Bukovyna until the latter part of the 19th century, in Transcarpathia until the 1930s, and in the Preshov region until the late 1940s. Those Western Ukrainians have used the name Rusyny (Ruthenians) until national revival.

Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, between SeikoEn's version and Voyevoda's version, there seems to be A LOT that is contested and could change if either user gets their way. Can both of you list your grievances / sources or the specific points of contention? Maybe there's more room for compromise here than you're seeing or some facts aren't necessarily mutually exclusive?--Львівське (говорити) 07:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Heavy POV section on identity

I put a POV template there. The main problems are:

• A one-sided view on Bolshevik policies, completely ignoring the fact that the early policy of Korenizatsiya und Ukrainization helped to strengthen many of the new ripening Ukrainian cultural raw parts, e.g. the usage of the term Ukraine itself.
• Presenting the interpretation of Holodomor as genocide as a hard fact.--Voyevoda (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• What in particular about the current article is "one-sided"? Both Korenizatsiya and Ukrainization are good & relevant topics to mention in the article, however.--Львівське (говорити) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Holodomor isn't mentioned in the Identity section, but the paragraph on it in the History section seems 100% factual and objective to me. Historians have written on the topic of Holodomor as genocide, and it is recognized. These are facts. Figures and other statements are also factual, doesn't seem POV'ish to me.--Львівське (говорити) 08:03,28 October 2011 (UTC)

• The claim that non-Russians became second-class is POV in my eyes. The Ukrainians were always regarded as one of the most important ethnic groups of the Soviet Union. The state spended a lot of money on Ukrainian-language culture, be it literature, TV, festivals etc., sometimes even more than it was demanded by the population. Also, expressions like "the failure of the policy of the merging of nations" are quite problematic, unsourced and POV. Many people feel differently and see the reasons for the dissolution of the USSR primarily in other spheres. Moreover, I expect a diversification of sources. The whole section cannot be based almost solely on the Encyclopedia of Ukraine which writes in the national patriotic style. The text needs to be balanced.
• The text speaks of famine-genocide which is a tendentious term. You are right that this interpretation is accepted in a part of the scientific world but in the other one it is not accepted. We need to use a balanced terminology without favouring one certain concept. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"famine-genocide" is a common use descriptor of the Holodomor. If a phrase keeps the genocide part in context, ie, stating how many nations consider it so, or other support, then that should be fine. The Holodomor article is in mediation right now so hopefully when that's done with we can come up with some acceptable phrasings that will branch out to articles like these and avoid future disputes.--Львівське (говорити) 22:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Famine-genocide is not common even in the literature about Holodomor, except its less scientific and more propagandistic part. The term "Holodomor" with its forced resemblance to Holocaust is non-neutral enough, no need to use "famine-genocide" on top of that. GreyHood ^Talk 20:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"famine-genocide" just describes the type of genocide that it was (and context/description is always better than ambiguity). Making connections between 'forced resemlance' to the Holocaust is just weird WP:SYN on your part...--Львівське (говорити) 01:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Livivske. Also, we must write from ukrainian point of view because there is to many different ponit of views, including russian one. To include everyone's opinion, sometimes it would no longer make sense, it is essential that we stick to facts and sources, primary Ukrainian sources because page is about Ukrainiansand their tragedy . There is no POV here, I believe Voyevoda understands that. Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think we should stick to any POV, but leaning on ukrainian and the consensus of western / respectable sources is the proper way. Obviously it goes without saying that the Soviet/Russian POV is problematic and contradictory.--Львівське (говорити) 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposition

I offer you the hand of reconciliation, if you want? Respect my views and citations and I will certainly respect yours. It is essential that we separate two different positions in the text (for any subject) so that the readers understands the two opposing viewpoints. It is not difficult and I do it constantly, this will create an objective text which will include russian and ukrainian point of view. I hope you understand that it is not justice what you are doing, and on the other hand, I do not think to write Russian history from the Ukrainian perspective. Also you have unnecessary violated several rules of Wikipedia. All this is not necessary, I believe that we can find common ground. Of course, if you want to? Understand this is a reasonable offer and not a weakness.--SeikoEn (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your proposition and your cooperation offer. This sounds significantly better than earlier allegations of Ukrainophobia and blind reverts. I'm ready to discuss any issue with you as Wikipedia rules demand it. I also agree that equal-valued points of view need to be written besides each other and we should not exclude one of them. Concerning the disputed issues in this article, you need, however, to persuade me.

1) For example, on the etymology question, there are no two equal-valued points of view but one unprofessional that is being heavily contradicted by the primary sources. I already showed you that even Encyclopedia of Ukraine backs the "frontier version" and I can give you hundreds of primary sources where "Ukraina" has the meaning "borderland" thus directly disproving Pivtorak's claims of strictly separate meanings. I only can accept the mentioning of his view in combination with putting them in the right light.

2) My problem with the identity section is being discussed above and there are stll no persuading arguments against both of my objections. One is obviously being completely ignored. --Voyevoda (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

3) The picture is removed for three reasons:

a) Largely oversized

b) Some illustrated persons were not Ukrainians, for example Vladimir the Great, Yaroslav the Wise etc. This is anachronistic and is equal to calling Julius Caesar an Italian.

c) Extremely questionable selection of persons by their relevance. I myself, can suggest that triple Field Marshall Ivan Paskevich, Chancellor Alexander Bezborodko, reknown painter Vladimir Borovikovsky, rocket engineer Sergei Korolev or fighter ace Ivan Kozhedub are more significant sons of the Ukrainian people than Sergiy Stakhovsky, Alona Bondarenko, Ruslana Lyzhychko or Oxana Zabuzhko. We need to resolve this. --Voyevoda (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think there is mostly no problem in retrospectively considering Vladimir the Great simultaneously Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian person when speaking of the history of those countries, but this is more about national than ethnic history. And this is not accurate of course, so this article better should follow the example of the Russians article: there are no persons before the 14th century on the lead image. GreyHood ^Talk 16:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also agree with c), I do not know many of those pictured Ukrainian persons at all, while there are obviously more famous ones. GreyHood ^Talk 16:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Volydymyr...I mean he's on the currency so its not like a synthetic connection is being made. If Ukrainians were still calling themselves Rusyny, would that be okay then? Like, is it a matter of semantics? Also agree with C and we should go to the talk I set up there and maybe floor some suggestions?--Львівське (говорити) 17:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Voyevoda, Greyhood, and other users, please leave the page about Ukrainians until we reach a mutual agreement. I believe we will achieve it!! Voyevoda, please specify exactly your change examples of certain sentences but still be aware of our agreement - be objectiv, with facts, names and sources!! 1) As for the etymology; You can contradict the Ukrainian version, but you can not deny it. We can write Ukrainian historians tell this, and Russian historian tells that. That can be objectiv. Think about it, and you can write here some sugesstion for both sides. 2) For identity also please write here some sugesstion, what exactly bothers you? 3) The image can be reduced, there is no problem with that. Some people can be throw out from picture, your suggestions are not bad. But think about it; that Vladimir the Great is on the hryvnia bill, and he is considered an important national figure among Ukrainians. It can be included among the Russian historical figures, I would not have anything against it. ... One more time, if your proposals are in objectiv terms I will not change them: it includes facts, sources and names, and sometimes two versions like in etymology case.--SeikoEn (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I want to restore to the stable version before Voyevoda reignited his edit war with seikoen, and then just inline-tag the crap out of the article with every discrepancy and hash it out on here. He removed quite a few refs in his edits that I don't think was necessary. --Львівське (говорити) 18:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions

The edit-warring on this article has become intolerable, so I'm imposing a couple of sanctions on several participants.

• Voyevoda (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely, owing to his long history of disruption, the persistence of his edit-warring and the recent personal attacks (e.g. [29]).
• Bandurist (talk · contribs) is blocked for 48 hours for breach of his topic ban (on Russian-Ukrainian ethnic conflicts), in this edit [30].

I am also concerned about the reverting behaviour of other participants. In particular, I find it worrying that the dispute over the wording regarding migration ("Ukrainians under Russian rule were forced to emigrate to the Asian regions of the empire" vs. "Ukrainians took part in the colonization of its Asian territories") was handled through repeated, sterile reverting by several users on both sides, when it had to be blindingly obvious to any rational observer that both versions were unnecessarily tendentious, and nobody (except Greyhood [31]) made any effort at all to come up with some alternative, more neutral wording, which would have been extremely easy (see tag-team reverts by Lvivske [32], SeikoEn [33], Galassi [34], Bandurist [35]). It also seems quite clear that the reverts by SeikoEn (talk · contribs) [36] have been disruptive in giving obvious undue weight to fringe theories. Moreover, edits by Galassi such as [37] reintroduced tendentious "original research". Therefore:

• Given the extensive history of disruption by SeikoEn (talk · contribs) and his aggressive battleground attitude, SeikoEn is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Ukraine.
• The other participants (Galassi (talk · contribs), Bandurist (talk · contribs) and Lvivske (talk · contribs)), all of whom have had prior sanctions and/or warnings under the "Digwuren" Arbcom rules, are placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, my DIG warning isn't "real" and I only reverted Voya once in hope of spending some time going back and forth and sorting through this (since his edits were the same from the talk page discussion he was involved in that he clearly figured he'd ignore). I wasn't tag teaming...despite SeikoEn thanking me on my talk, we're not exactly on the same page and I intended on doing some review to both sides here. I think to get through this we should stick to...I guess the current version and just tag the crap out of it, and mediate on here piece by piece. Anyone just trying to be bold will just end up getting reverted mroe, I'm afraid. --Львівське (говорити) 21:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Tagging the crap" out of an article is just as disruptive as reverting. Leave text in place, discuss, come to consensus, then change, but "tagging the crap" out of something is vandalism IMHO. --Taivo (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If something is up for dispute, POVy, or needs clarification / sources, it should be tagged in addition to discussing it. It would help, IMO, to ease the process of tracking & identifying the problematic areas so we can address them....since these discussions tend to get off track.--Львівське (говорити) 00:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've left an appeal support message at User talk:Voyevoda. I also think that user Lvivske's conduct wasn't really problematic here, at least for me, and I'd like to kindly ask the involved admins to reconsider the restrictions on him. All those sanctions might be justified to a great extent, but they did come right in the midst of an interesting and promising discussion, and they may leave us without some valuable editors and contributors to specific and often neglected topics. Please let me know if I should voice my concerns not here but on some other page. GreyHood ^Talk 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Somehow there is a sizeable doubt that an editor referring to Ukrainians as "svidomites" could make a promising contribution.--Galassi (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the terms. Voyevoda is Ukrainian himself, and the terms "svidomyj" and "свидомиты" do not have such a wide meaning, being used only for a certain kind of Ukrainian nationalists. GreyHood ^Talk 10:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, Greyhhod! We were'nt born yesterday...--Galassi (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please express yourself in more clear way. Returning to the terms, you are perfectly aware that "svidomyj" means not every Ukrainian, but an "ethnically-concious" Ukrainian as opposed to the majority.GreyHood ^Talk 12:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that it's a pejorative for Ukrainian nationalists, correct? I don't see how that makes it any better...--Львівське (говорити) 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a nasty wordplay/conflation of SVIDOMYJ and SODOMITE. Greyhood has no apparent sensitivity to this term.--Galassi (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the dodgy quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greyhood&diff=458144140&oldid=458142617 --Galassi (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Googl'in the term yields some pretty disgusting stuff. Lots of hate speech.--Львівське (говорити) 14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the promising contributions, Voyevoda already did make them, writing and editing articles related to medieval Russia and Ukraine. GreyHood ^Talk 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Svidomite" is no better than "ethno-fascist" and similar derogatory terms alleging ethno-supremacist sympathies. Unfortunately, positive contributions elsewhere eventually erode "ignore that behavior over there" WP:AGF. I'd also suggest that sometimes it's better to conduct talk page conversations in English so the tone of conversation is less open to personal interpretations; water under the bridge in this case, however. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

@Greyhood, I would also suggest that we stay away from suggestions that one's identified ethnic group has any significance when it comes to editorial opinion or intent. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You've posted into the wrong part of the discussion; and there is no need to overblow the problem even more and continuously return to this question. As I've already said the term is less so ethnic than political, referring to certain groups of Ukrainian nationalists and their supporters. And I've just pointed out that Voyevoda, who claims being proud of his Ukrainian heritage, is very far from insulting Ukrainians as an ethnic group. This is kind of obvious. GreyHood ^Talk 15:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

My suggestions on Voyevoda, while recognizing that several instances of his rudeness are totally unacceptable (and I see no point in further discussing this), is to allow him at least the editing of articles related to medieval history, where he was productive and not prone to conflict. GreyHood ^Talk 15:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As in other cases, I usually have no objection to editors contributing where they can keep the discourse positive. On the other, I have learned that the ethnic card, and even ethnic pride, aren't always predictable with regard to expectations, regardless, agreed enough said on that. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)