Jump to content

Talk:List of people from Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You call this a ukranian list?

[edit]

Half of these are A: Russian B: Had ukranian parents, but are american, C: Visited Ukraine at least once and D: Are not ukranian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.246.30 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide more constructive criticism and arguments and solutions in future. I will adjust the lead cause you do have some points. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming the article List of Ukrainians/List of people from Ukraine? So that non-ethnic Ukrainians will be properly addressed. Small explanations for persons like Mark Kac (see below) can be put in the article (properly sourced of course).
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about List of Ukrainians/List of people born in current Ukraine? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that specific choice of who to list of any greater historical significance than List of people born between the 34th and 35th parallels? What is the justification for keeping the list as inclusive and unfocused as it currently is? And wouldn't the combination of finding birthplaces in one source and the current country containing that birthplace from a different source lead to massive violations of WP:SYN? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Trust me, as soon as you rename it to "current Ukraine" you will have to admit the whole List of Crimean khans. East of Borschov 10:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Ukrainians

[edit]

I put together a list of people who few will argue are actual Ukrainians and not really displaced Poles, Russians, Germans, and Jews. If anyone can make a "Politicians" and "Academics" section... we might be on our way to a list.

Writers & Poets

[edit]

Composers

[edit]


   Oleg Karavaychuk (Russian: Оле́г Никола́евич Каравайчу́к; 28 December 1927 – 13 June 2016) was a Soviet and Russian composer, author of music for many films and theater performances.Karavaychuk was born on 28 December 1927 in Kyiv, into the family of a violinist who was arrested when Oleg was two years old.

   Yuri Anatolievich Poteyenko (Russian: Юрий Анатольевич Потеенко, born December 5, 1960[1][2]) is a Russian film composer. Four times the winner of the Golden Eagle Award for the best film music (2010, 2013, 2016, 2018).

Born in Molodohvardiysk, Soviet Union (now Ukraine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artixxxl (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Painters

[edit]

Soundsboy (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like it. I'd say go ahead if you can maintain the list from indiscriminate additions. If not, it will swell into its present shape in a matter of weeks. Red links in the list are Konstantyn Dankevych and Maksym Berezovsky. (P.S.: I'm not an Ukrainian and nowhere near Borschiv - no real stake in this mess). East of Borschov 09:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, added some painters. Not easy to distinguish Ukrainians from Poles, Russians, and (in the case of Krychevsky) Jews prior to the 20th century, but I doubt anyone would argue that these new additions are "of Ruthenian descent" - which is the closest way of defining Ukrainian prior to the 1940s. Soundsboy (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Mark Kac

[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please remove Mark Kac from this list. Per the discussion at Talk:Mark Kac and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, he is not really Ukrainian: the town he was born in was Polish for most of the time he lived there, he grew up and was educated as a Pole, and he had already come to the US when his home town was annexed by the Soviets in 1939 and adjoined to the Ukrainian SSR. The discussion on his talk page on this issue has been open for two weeks with no dissenting views, and I've just removed the reciprocal links to here from his article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, this was never ment as a list of ethnic Ukrainians (as since long explained in the lead). I don't see what the problem is anyway, it is not that being labeled a Ukrainian is as bad as being labeled a Nazi... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a idea. See above please. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's not Ukrainian and he's not from Ukraine. His hometown was added to Ukraine after he left Europe. This maximalist version of who should be included makes no sense historically to me and in any case violates WP:SYN. Find a reliable source that calls him Ukrainian or remove him. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the editprotected tag since it's clearly controversial. Gain consensus and then ask again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had gained consensus at Talk:Mark Kac and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia. How many more talk pages do I need to gain consensus at. How about instead of letting a local cabal of Ukrainian maximalists decide their local consensus, we instead try to follow our core policy that "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Clearly, Kac's listing as a Ukrainian has been challenged. So where is the attribution to a reliable source? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In future please let the people of WikiProject Ukraine know there is a discussion about somebody born in a town now in Ukraine on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia. Ask a local Canadian to explain why (I assume they still hate it when Canada and USA get confused as being one country ). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN. There happened to be a discussion at the Russia project, after it was moved there from the Math project. The Russia project does not control the list here, any more than the Math project does, but then neither should the Ukraine project. What is more relevant is the discussion at Talk:Mark Kac and of course here. But, I made a separate talk page section specifically about Mark Kac rather than a continuation of the previous section of this talk page with the intention that we could try to resolve this one case without having to get into generalities, so I am a little disappointed to see that none of your responses address this specific case. Where are the reliable sources I have now repeatedly asked for? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, people with unclear/debated nationality should be removed leaving only actual Ukrainians on the list. These kind of lists will never be complete. They represent "sampling" of the best known people and their most relevant characteristic for this list is being Ukrainian. If that characteristic is doubted - remove from the list. Renata (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone here realizes that maybe 20% of the list so far consists of people who have identified themselves as "Ukrainian" in their life time. Soundsboy (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FIX THE TITLE

[edit]

--68.63.113.121 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "The Ukraine" is blatantly wrong. It should be "Ukraine." I'm guessing whoever wrote this is the same idiot who wrote "Lvov" instead of "Lviv" in an article dealing with Ukraine.[reply]

People: please fight against Russians trying to coopt Ukrainian history and the history of other non-Russian former USSR republics. They'd have you believe that every Ukrainian who ever did anything worthwhile under the Soviet banner was by definition therefore "Russian." This is a very dangerous and historically incorrect idea and represents nothing less than the ugly head of Russian modern imperialism rearing itself on Wikipedia. People who did their work under the Soviet banner were Soviet citizens. They may have been ethnically Russian, but they were not Russian citizens by any stretch of the imagination.


Introduction

[edit]

The current introduction should be removed in its entirety. It advances a number of controversial ideas, all Ukrainophobic and politically motivated. It advances an idea that the very idea of a Ukrainian ethnicity is in question. Since the article is a list of Ukrainians, I propose a very short introduction explaining who is included in this list. The following is my suggestions: "The following is an incomplete list of well known Ukrainians. This list includes people who are citizens of Ukraine, are born in Ukraine and territories it now occupies, or identify themselves with Ukrainian ethnicity and nationality." These are the common, traditional criteria, that are used internationally. --Hatteras (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two questions. Do you realize that using present tense will reduce the list to living people? Just how many entries will remain? Second. Proving self-identification, as usually, is a pain in the ass and a wikibattlefield. That's why it is so rarely used. East of Borschov 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an important paragraph frequently vandalized by crypto-anti-Western pro-Russians:

  • Generally, Ukrainians all support pro-Western democracy and they are no worse than other Europeans, for example Romanians. Ukrainians are as smart and sophisticated, as, for example, Poles. Many good Ukrainians are interested in travel and work opportunities in such developed and very democratic countries as France, Germany or Portugal. Because of this, Ukrainians should be admitted to NATO, which will help the Ukrainians to defend Western interests and also to travel and work in democratic countries, like Romania or Poland. After Ukraine is admitted to NATO and European Union, the average salary in Ukraine should be at least 2000 Euros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.208.200 (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not belong in an encyclopedia, per WP:SOAP. This has nothing to do with one's position wrt Ukraine, Russia, or the west, which should in any case not influence one's editing; we are supposed to be neutral here. And you are in serious danger of getting blocked over your edit warring regarding this paragraph. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, let's edit this paragraph together. It is important to have it in the Introduction, because it provides the reader with the information on the contemporary situation in Ukraine, extending and complimenting the preceding paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.208.200 (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Go edit stuff having nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia until you have a better idea what WP:NPOV means. If you can't edit neutrally, you should not be editing here. The edits you have been making here are not helpful to whatever cause you are trying to promote, and promoting a cause is very much not what Wikipedia is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, thank you for clarifying your position. David Eppstein, Wikipedia indeed is NOT a milieu for promoting one's ethnic hatred towards the things Ukrainian - Ukrainian history, culture or politics. Your mentioning of the WP:NPOV clause is very appropriate. In case you have not noticed, David Eppstein, luckily for us, Ukrainians, we are no longer living in the days of "Komintern" and "Cheka". I hope you understand that the days when Kommissar-steins were deciding what has or has not anything to do with Ukraine, are over. David Eppstein, please consider contributing to Wikipedia constructively, and not destructively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.208.200 (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Narking is "crypto-anti-Western pro-Russian" he deserves an Oscar for fooling me all these years , as a friend of him I can honestly say he is not... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A typical anti-Ukrainian Russian imperialistic claim

[edit]

The current version of the introductory section contains at least one paragraph that is purported to make Ukraine look as a home of all sorts of people, except Ukrainians themselves. Here is what it says, as of today:

Ethnic Ruthenians were frequently a rural people and often formed minorities in their own cities and towns. For example, Kiev in the 1920s was approximately 1/3 Jewish and 1/3 Russian, with the remaining third constituting ethnic Ukrainians, Poles, and Germans. A similar demographic history existed in Lviv with a majority Polish and Jewish population.

Am I the only Ukrainian editor who finds these kind of statements offensive? Not only these kinds of claims have absolutely no ground in the known Ukrainian historical facts, but they, in fact, repeat, almost word in word, the statements made by anti-Western anti-Ukrainian Putin propaganda!

I asked the editors to provide the citations justifying the obviously false claims in these paragraphs. My requests have been deleted and I has been told that they will block my Wikipedia account.

In 1926 3/4 of the Jews in Soviet Ukraine lived in urban areas. For example 27,2% of the population in Kyiv were Jews (36,5% in Odesa, 31,9% in Lviv, 26,7% in Dnipropetrovsk and 19,5% in Kharkiv). The figures for Russians in the same year gives 24,1% in Kyiv, 37% in Kharkiv, 38,7% in Odesa and 31,5% in Dnipropetrovsk. There were 50,8% Poles and only 16,2% Ukrainians living in Lviv. There were 42,1% Ukrainians living in Kyiv. Furthermore I quote from "Ukraine. A concise encyclopaedia" (ed: Volodymyr Kubijovyc): "These figures show that the Jews chiefly lived in cities, that the Russians did so to a significant degree, that every fourth Pole lived in a city, but that only one out of ten Ukrainians did." Närking (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Western editors adding Russian propaganda to this article

[edit]

It looks to me that at least this Ukraine-related article has been monopolized by some editors who created Western-looking Wikipedia profiles. However, these editors keep censoring the article ad adding to it the statements coinciding with the Russian imperialistic anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian propaganda. See the examples in the preceding two sections of this discussion!

NOT "decimated"

[edit]

It doesn't matter if 10% of the population died during the Holodomor, "decimated" is too loaded a word to use with too many judgmental implications for Wikipedia's WP:NPOV restrictions. We must use a non-loaded word without judgmental implications. That is simply Wikipedia policy. I don't care if you think the Holodomor was a bad thing, so do I, but in Wikipedia we keep our judgmental opinions to ourselves. We use NPOV wording. "Reduced" is a neutral term. If you have another neutral term that you might prefer, then offer it here, but "decimated" is not neutral and cannot be used here. Do not violate WP:BRD. You tried changing the wording to introduce your POV and I reverted your change. Do not revert my revert, but bring it here for discussion. --Taivo (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "neutral" does not mean "unemotional", and that using a "neutral" word like reduced is euphemistic and in fact non-neutral, because it is worded to treat the Holodomor as if it were a routine unexceptional thing rather than a major disaster. It misleads by removing the emotional charge from something that, in any truly objective evaluation, should have that charge. Also please note that in this wording I am not trying to ascribe blame for the famine, only to describe its consequences on the population. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutral" in Wikipedia's sense does, indeed, mean "unemotional" and is always the preferred working in Wikipedia to maintain neutral point-of-view. Our wording should not have an emotional charge. I would be happy to entertain any wording that you suggest as long as it is not emotionally charged and is neutral. "Decimated" is just too emotionally charged in English and is, indeed, judgmental in tone. From WP:NPOV: "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)". In this case, we must state what happened in as neutral a tone as possible without introducing judgment. "Reduced" is what happened to the population--the population was reduced by about 10%. In an article about Holodomor, then the moral issues can be discussed, but this isn't an article about the Holodomor. It is simply a list of people born in the territory of modern Ukraine and the intro simply states the factors that have influenced the ethnic diversity of the region--no extended, emotional, or judgmental discussion of the Holodomor is relevant. --Taivo (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem is that "reduced" is uninformative. It doesn't convey the scale of the reduction. Decimated does, quite accurately in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The scale of the reduction is immaterial. This is an article about people who were born in the territory of modern Ukraine, not about the Holodomor. The mention of the Holodomor is simply as one factor among many influencing the ethnic makeup of Ukraine. Emotional invective is absolutely irrelevant here. The scale of the reduction is irrelevant. The population of eastern Ukraine was reduced opening the way for increased russification. That's all that is necessary. Emotionally loading this article is against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. "Decimated" is not a neutral, unemotional word and is not appropriate in this context. --Taivo (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Reduced" is perfectly informative for the purpose here--the population went down. That's exactly what happened. --Taivo (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the scale of the reduction seems important to you, I've added a phrase to mark that. "Decimate" really doesn't mean literally 10% in modern English. --Taivo (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Reduced" seems POV to me, and non-informative. Especially so for something also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" and "famine-genocide in Ukraine", that was of such a great impact.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "reduced" by "reduced by about 10%" is not actually an improvement. The problem with doing it that way is twofold: first (as you should have already noticed if you had actually read the Holodomor article) there is big disagreement over exactly how much the population was reduced, varying by a factor of two or more. And second, because the numbers in that article are for all of Ukraine, not just the eastern part, so the reduction in the east could well have been by a much greater factor. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, therefore, since your argument for using "decimated" was that about 10% of the population died, then saying that it wasn't 10% eliminates that as an argument. "Decimated" is not accurate as a number, and it is not neutral, therefore it is not an appropriate word to use in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia policy is very, very clear--no emotional content. Since you have, yourself, admitted that an exact number is impossible, then "reduced" is the best word to use since the population went down, we just don't know how much. And, Epeefleche, in Wikipedia we do not use "impact" words, or as David Eppstein said in an edit summary, "loaded" words. That is definitely POV. Neutrality demands that the emotional content be reduced. The population went down by some number--that's what "reduced" means. We will not use emotionally-charged vocabulary in Wikipedia. (And, David Eppstein, please observe WP:CIVIL--"if you had actually read...". I have read the Holodomor article, have lived in Ukraine, and am very well aware of the problem with numbers. That's why I wrote about.) --Taivo (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Reduced" inappropriately minimizes the scale of the reduction. And your insistance that nobody should be allowed to notice any emotional impact from so many deaths is a bit odd. But now I'm starting to wonder whether the problem isn't so much the verb but the subject of the phrase. Saying more explicitly that millions of people died, rather than euphemistically as "the population was reduced", might be a better approach. And it avoids the percentage problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like the purposeful avoidance of emotional impact, but that is exactly what Wikipedia policy demands in our writing. Emotional neutrality. I'm not certain that adding the numbers here are really a good idea because in none of the other historical events have we talked about numbers. If we want to write about millions dying in the Holodomor, then we need to talk about millions of Russians moving in or thousands of Poles that were forcibly removed or massacred in the early 20th century in western Ukraine or the untold numbers of Jews that were killed during the Holocaust. If we add numbers to one event, then we need to add numbers to all the events. The Holodomor was not unique in the history of Ukraine. Such a litany of numbers then dilutes the actual overall trajectory of the lead and bogs it down in irrelevant detail for the purposes of this article. --Taivo (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with including a similarly brief mention of the Holocaust, with a link to The Holocaust in Ukraine, since the context is events that caused major shifts in ethnicity and that was certainly one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're going to go through and list the numerical shifts in all the events, then singling out one to put a number on is POV. Until we come to some sort of consensus here, then we should both stop editing in the article. Adding the Holocaust is perfectly appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your "all or nothing" reasoning, and I also don't understand why you think it's a good idea to be more specific about how much the Jewish population was reduced in the Holocaust than about how much the Ukrainian population was reduced in the Holodomor. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Let's put the reduction of the Holodomor in context. The Holocaust virtually eliminated the Jews of Ukraine. That's about a 90% reduction. The Holodomor may have reduced the population of ethnic Ukrainians by 10%. That percentage of reduction wasn't even close to the percentage of reduction in the Jewish population. During the early 20th century when the Ukrainians and Poles were fighting each other, the Polish population of Ukraine also suffered a major reduction of probably at least 50-75%. While the number of deaths in the Holodomor was high, the percentage of reduction was not great at all compared to the virtual elimination of the Poles and Jews at the hands of the Ukrainians and Germans. "Reduced" is a perfectly appropriate word to use in this context since that's what happened--the population went down. But the facts do not justify a loaded, emotional term such as "decimated" and Wikipedia policy prohibits it. I still oppose listing a number unless we're going to list numbers for all the ethnic shifts and that is certainly well beyond the scope of this article. --Taivo (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust losses were on a totally different scale than the Holodomor losses in terms of percentage of loss. The Jewish population was virtually eliminated. The Ukrainian population was reduced by no more than 10% and was not put in danger of extinction. That's a whole different level of reduction between the two instances. --Taivo (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, people are people. Maybe a million people who happened to be Jews died in the Ukrainian part of the Holocaust. Three times that number of people who happened not to be Jewish died in the same event, and a similar number in the Holodomor. These were all horrific events, but frankly I find your minimization of one of them as unimportant because "only" 10% of the population died to be callous and offensive, and your insistence on replacing specifics by wordier bland euphemisms to be unencyclopedic. Anyway, since I have no interest in continuing to participate in an edit war over a subject that I have no personal connection to or expert knowledge of, I'm taking this off my watchlist. The rest of you can continue to decide this among yourselves. —David Eppstein (talk)
I remind you of WP:CIVIL. Just because I refuse to dramatize the Holodomor with loaded, emotional words that Wikipedia prohibits doesn't mean that it wasn't a disaster. Numbers are far more appropriate in another article. --Taivo (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DE. It's mistaken to believe that bland words are NPOV; in situations like this, they are POV, and their use has a feel of censorship them. Let's strive for accuracy, but not confuse blandness with non-POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being NPOV is not censorship, it is unemotional. When you and DE have both used "loaded" and "emotionally-charged" in your comments here, that is a red flag for Wikipedia and is expressly against Wikipedia policy. The population of Ukraine went down because of the Holodomor--that what "reduced" means. If you have a better word that is not emotionally-charged or loaded, then please offer it. Pull out your thesaurus and look one up. But as long as your goal is to bring an emotional charge with a loaded word, then I will oppose it since it is against Wikipedia policy. If you want to express your emotions about the Holodomor, then post it on your blog, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. --Taivo (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree as to what Wikipedia guidelines call for here. But I think that's clear. I agree on this point with DE, and believe that your effort here is one that would have the effect of censorship, in violation of WP guidelines, and therefore be more POV. You disagree. But the consensus does not appear to be in your favor.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand what a consensus is, then, Epeefleche. A consensus is not a majority vote, it is a "coming together". There is no consensus to add an inflammatory, loaded, emotionally-charged word to this article in clear and unequivocal violation of WP:NPOV. Your understanding of NPOV appears to mean, "If you feel the same outrage I do, then it's NPOV." That's not what Wikipedia's NPOV policy means and it's clearly not NPOV wording. --Taivo (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making the title more specific?

[edit]

Perhaps we should change "List of people born in Ukraine" to "List of people of significance born in Ukraine", or something of the sort. I find it confusing, if not insulting, to keep the title the way it is. It sounds like it would be a list of every single person born in Ukraine ever. Seeing as this is Wikipedia, I doubt someone would legitimately assume that, but it doesn't make it any less broad. Yelyzaveta (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Stefan Banach was born in Krakow, not Ukraine (!). There's few more errors like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of people born in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of people from Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people from Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gutting this list

[edit]

Over the next little bit I'm planning to gut this list. I've started by pulling all redlinks or other no-article entries - notability comes first, then an entry. Next plan is to remove people solely of Ukrainian descent who have not lived for a significant time in the Ukraine. Per the article's lead, "This is a list of individuals who were born and lived in territories currently in Ukraine, both ethnic Ukrainians and those of other ethnicities," so the content should match that. After that, I might split the list into separate smaller lists like List of chess players from Ukraine or similar just to cut this down even more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Activists of Ukrainian LGBTQ movement and notable LGBTQ Ukrainians

[edit]

The current list now includes the subject section. The collaborative work of several LBGTQ Wikipedia editors on expanding this section is currently underway.

The current list of names in this section is composed of notable Ukrainian LGBQT activists with established Wikipedia entries and otherwise notable Ukrainians who were or are members of the LGBTQ community.

Any help, additions and constructive criticism are welcome.

Several of the individuals in the section you added are already listed elsewhere in the page. Those who are not already listed should probably be moved to the appropriate section by profession (entertainer/activist/musician/etc.), to match the rest of the page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And puffery is not compatible with our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above suggestions have been implemented in the article. Please review the edits and help us to expand this growing section. Thank you, sweeties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:B077:250F:1BE4:D3D7 (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add

[edit]

Please add

[edit]

--2604:2000:E010:1100:75C8:71C2:3C10:A928 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that counts as vandlism

[edit]

In the politicians section, under Nestor Makhno there is an entry that says: "Esa-Pekka-Jukka-Tanga-Juho-Iida-Anna-Iida Chanel, best ass licker ever, cannot use a tampon properly (1912-1921)" I am maybe not most well versed in history, but im pretty sure its not supposed be there Varangianbum (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for noticing--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the list

[edit]
Since this is a multipart question and subsequent close, I shall break it down below.
  • Citizens or former citizens of Ukraine (past 1991): unanimous include
  • Individuals who lived for a long time at the current territory of Ukraine, even if not ethnically Ukrainian: there is consensus to include
  • Individuals who were born or lived short-term in Ukraine but are only notable for someting not related to Ukraine: no consensus
  • Individuals who have some Ukrainian ancestry but are not directly associated with Ukraine: consensus to not include
--TheSandDoctor Talk 02:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC); clarified 14:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here we go again. Artixxxl is adding to the list people who are not Ukrainian citizens, who were not born in Ukraine (or area which is now Ukraine) and never lived there, on the nasis that they have Ukrainian ancestry (one example of Alexei Navalny spending summers with his grandparents - which I personally find completely ridiculous; in this way everybody who was on holidays in Crimea between 1954 and 2014 - or even possibly after 2014 - can be added to the list) and this would make the list potentially of infinite size - even I would qualify for inclison. Therefore we need to define the scope very clearly. Below I list categories of notable individuals, please argue whether these need to be included.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens or former citizens of Ukraine (past 1991)

[edit]

Individuals who lived for a long time at the current territory of Ukraine, even if not ethnically Ukrainian

[edit]
  • These people were traditionally included to this list, and the current lede allows for this inclusion. I feel that this is more justified for post-1918, or possibly for the 19th century, since what is Ukraine was already reasonably well defined, but the same point also applies to Kievan Rus (which would make Yaroslav the Wise a "Ukrainian"). I understand however that it is difficult to draw a line here and would weakly support the inclusion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per Ymblanter. ~ HAL333 22:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on the individual, if they were alive prior to 1569, I would oppose inclusion categorically. In more modern times, it would depend if they spent the majority of their lives in the territory of modern Ukraine (except Crimea), and spoke Ukrainian or Russian as their principal language and lived in a Slavic cultural milieu. If so, include. If they were born in the Ukraine (except Crimea) and lived significantly past 1917 then definitely include. Crimeans who exercised Ukrainian citizenship between 1991 and 2014 should be included, unless they have since demonstrated they do not wish to be Ukrainian.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include people born in Ukraine. Odd preference: why should Yaroslav the Wise appear in List of people from Russia but not here? —Michael Z. 18:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • An example would be someone like Isaac Stern who was born in 1920 in Kremenets which was then Poland but is now Ukraine, emigrated in 1921 to the US and spent there his entire career (he probably never visited Ukraine but even if he did it would not change my vote). I would exclude these.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include This is similar to the inclusion of people who only shortly attended a college in "List of notable people from so-and-so university". A note should be added qualifying their relationship with Ukraine. ~ HAL333 22:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly Exclude - If I moved to Ukraine for a year just to hang out with friends, and I didn't do anything notable while I was there, would I be "from Ukraine" after I left? No. Obviously not. I do think there should be a separate category for "people born" though. If I was born in Ukraine and lived a year there before emigrating, some people might reasonably say that I was "from Ukraine". NickCT (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Do reliable sources describe the person as being from Ukraine? I think being born in Ukraine makes a stronger case for inclusion than just living there short-term. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually exclude, unless they were born and grew up in the Ukrainian culture and emigrated as adults, or showed some affinity with Ukraine when abroad (membership of political/cultural groups, for example). Boynamedsue (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include anyone born in Ukraine, since this specifically says “from Ukraine,” and List of people born in Ukraine redirects here. —Michael Z. 17:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And especially if they were a member of any of the ethnic or national groups native to Ukraine’s territory: Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, Moldovans, Crimean Tatars, Bulgarians, Romanians, Poles, Jews, Armenians, Greeks, Tatars, Rusyns, Gagauz, Karaites, Krymchaks, and including historical groups such as Ukrainian Cossacks, Ruthenians, Russian Mennonites, Cumans, Pechenegs, Khazars, Rus, the old East Slavic tribes, Scythians &c. —Michael Z. 04:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals who have some Ukrainian ancestry but are not directly associated with Ukraine

[edit]

Other categories

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • Ymblanter,
    I agree with your suggestions, definetly there are problems around these articles, see List of Ukrainian rulers whixch should have been renamed since is falsely suggesting all rulers back in time would be part of the Ukrainian history or would be Ukrainians (starting with the Scythian kings....)....I will now restore to status quo the article, since Artixxxl is adding entries indisciminately like in an online blog, I can hardly tame the user in the Ukrainians in Russia article, well he/she only partially follow what I have asked more times...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • I weighed in on the category that seems to have led to this, so hopefully that helps address the immediate issue. Beyond that, though, this would seem to apply to all "People from X" lists, not just this one, so I'd prefer to see the more general question discussed at a more general venue. The categories folks may have some insights as well, as there are lots of "People from X" categories that I'm sure have created similar controversies at some point. (I've noticed that some other languages don't use those categories at all, instead preferring "People born in X", which seems like a better way to do it.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but tbh I do not know anything about the category, I had this page on my watchlist for ages and got fed up by continued adding people here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent invites to WikiProjects Lists and Biographies, so maybe that'll draw some editors with expertise. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m skeptical that such a set of specific votes is useful. Inclusion criteria should be general enough to state in the article introduction, where editors will actually look a month and five years from now, and simple enough that editors can make the judgment call, as we cannot come close to predicting every consideration. Arguments will ensue anyway. Since this one list includes people from Ukraine as well as Ukrainians, and it is categorized as both a list of people by nationality and by location, should be interpreted liberally, including using geographical, ethnocultural, political, and whatever other criteria, since its job is to ensure that readers can find whomever they expect here. The broadest definition also directly follows from authoritative reliable sources, the very best of which have used varying definitions of Ukraine:
    • Hrushevskyi’s monumental, seminal, and yet-unsurpassed History of Ukraine-Rusʹ (10 vv, 1895–1933), with a recent English translation in print (1997–2014). If you haven’t realized it from the title, he treats Rus as integral to Ukrainian history. Plokhy (below) writes that “Hrushevksy’s students put emphases on the history of Ukrainian statehood.”
    • Subtelny’s Ukraine: A History (1988), in the preface, explicitly defines itself as a “national history,” the history of Ukrainians as a nation, explicitly defining one of its two main themes as “statelessness.”
    • Magocsi’s A History of Ukraine: The Land and its Peoples (1996) “tries as well to give judicious treatment to the many other peoples who developed within the borders of Ukraine, including the Greeks, the Crimean Tatars, the Poles, the Russians, the Jews, and the Romanians,” specifically covering “the past two and a half millennia on the territory encompassed by the boundaries of the contemporary state of Ukraine.”
    • Plokhy, in The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine (2015), writes that “today, more and more scholars are turning to a transnational [contrasted with “multiethnic”] approach,” and places himself in this group. He seeks to define modern Ukraine, and the questions that he asks “are unapologetically presentist,” but he answers them with a “long durée history of Ukraine from the times of Herodotus to the fall of the USSR and the current Russo-Ukrainian conflict.”
  • Collectively, these Ukrainian-history books start in prehistory or the very beginning of written history, treats Rus as a Ukrainian state (all talk about Yaroslav the Wise), and cover the entire territory of modern Ukraine, its nations, and individuals. There is no controversy over any of this in either academic or popular history. To try to remove it is revisionist. We should use this list to offer readers links to articles connected to Ukraine and Ukrainians, not to indulge some individual views about who or what is not. —Michael Z. 19:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no controversy over any of this in either academic or popular history" -> this is not case, indeed Greeks, Poles, Romanians etc. are not Ukrainians, and not all of them are from Ukraine, just because present-day borders encompass some areas.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hm, I think you are disputing an assertion I did not make. Not sure about that, but I will challenge it based on your example: I insist that Greeks from Ukraine are uncontroversially “people from Ukraine,” and should not be removed from this list. —Michael Z. 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I clarify it:
"...should be interpreted liberally..." & "The broadest definition also directly follows from authoritative reliable sources..." & "...the past two and a half millennia on the territory encompassed by the boundaries of the contemporary state of Ukraine..." & "...cover the entire territory of modern Ukraine, its nations, and individuals. There is no controversy over any of this in either academic or popular history..." -> implies/concludes for what I've made my reaction.
Addendum: if that Greek was born in Ukraine, or lived in Ukraine (per the current lead and if I ignore the nor yet closed RFC's future result), yes (or if the subject is a Ukrainian citizen, this is my personal remark). But not those Greeks, who did not born in modern Ukraine, neither lived there (and consequently no citizens, as my personal assertion again).(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Can you offer any specific examples of Poles, Greeks, Romanians, or other people from Ukraine’s territory who should not be included in this list of “people from Ukraine” because of their identity, or language spoken, or real or perceived affiliation with another nationality? My point is that this process predetermines specific resolutions to undefined problems, replacing editors’ judgment. If we can’t discuss examples then I’ll stand by my statements. —Michael Z. 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just four random examples: Ayşe Hatun (wife of Selim I), Meir Eisenstaedter, Heinrich Ritter von Zeissberg, Maria Forescu--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
  • Is Aysȩ Hatun part of the history of the Crimean Tatars, an Indigenous people of Ukraine?
  • The article on Eisenstaedter doesn’t say where he was born, but he was chief rabbi in Uzhhorod (Hungarian Ungvar) and produced some of his works there; is he not part of the History of the Jews in Ukraine?
  • Looks like von Zeissberg spent most of his life in Vienna, but held an academic post for six years in Lviv and wrote some works there. Not sure anyone would be tempted to add him to this list.
  • Forescu was born in Chernivtsi, and is in Category:People from Chernivtsi, a branch of Category:Ukrainian people by location. List of people born in Ukraine also redirects here. Inconsistent understanding of terminology in our category and list titles?
These people aren’t currently on this list. Have they been previously suggested, or removed? Do the votes above help us resolve any of these without research, discussion, or specific judgment? I am not sure. —Michael Z. 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why I opened this RfC, and so far you are the only one to defend the current format. All these people qualify according to the current criteria. Of course for example Eisenstaedter has whatsoever no relation to the history of Jews in Ukraine, because the area only became Ukraine in 1945, and before that it was Hungary, Austria-Hungary, and, way after his death, Czechoslovakia. He probably did not know what Ukraine means.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought history was something we try to understand after it happens, not before. I guess you can just make this list really easy to maintain if we agree Ukrainians didn’t exist before December 1991. —Michael Z. 19:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there is not a single reliable source calling Eisenstaedter "Ukrainian", "from Ukraine", or "living in Ukraine". And thus the list as it currently is laid out is - well, original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Your four questions are an attempt to cement original research and ratify it with some votes. —Michael Z. 20:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, and I’m not arguing for inclusion or not, but please temper your desire to statements that delete Ukraine from its own history. Ukrainians were officially called Ruthenen or Rutén in Austro-Hungary, and rusnaky in the vernacular of their local corner of Ukraine, called Subcarpathian Ruthenia (podkarpatsʹka rusʹ). Here’s a source – Dicker (1981), Piety and Perseverance: Jews from the Carpathian Mountains – that describes Eisenstaedter as a member of one of the “communities of Subcarpathian Ruthenia.” Eisenstadter knew very well what and where Ukraine was, because his little city of 3,000 was in a region of 470,000 Ukrainians (i.e., Rusnaks or Rusyns) in 1843 (Magocsi 1996, A History of Ukraine:403). —Michael Z. 21:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, casting aspersions again. We probably need a full topic ban from Ukraine, you are not capable of editing unproblematically in this area.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have the wrong impression. Reworded. I was pointing out that what you said was factually incorrect and insensitive, and wasn’t referring to anything else. —Michael Z. 03:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now I arrived again here, I think good examples were given to your question. I will react further points:
- Aysȩ Hatun -> irrelevant if he is considered a Crimean Tatar or not, he has nothing do with Ukraine, only his birthplace is today part of Ukraine (current lead would allow inclusion, which is strange, hence the RFC)
- Eisenstaedter -> he was born in Sasvár, Hungary, he is part of the History of Jews in Hungary, as a Hungarian-Jew
- Forescu -> the categorzation you refer is projected to location in present-day Ukraine (I would put here the same as by Hatun), however by the question would arise was she ever had any Ukrainian citizenship, otherwise she has no connection to the subject (and indeed WP categorization is one of the weakest point in this platform, beyond the subject I just tell in general).
The catch of this RFC is to avoid ananchronism or other possible confusions, since e.g. a suject born in Moldavia does not become Ukrainian by any means and will not be from Ukraine, just because the subject's birthplace is today in Ukraine. On the further comments on Eisenstaedter, the statement that Ukrainians were called in Hungary as "Rutén" (not a direct quote, I just projected to Hungary the intended content) is erroneous, Rusyns have been called like that (the question of Ukrainian identity raised a bit later, we should avoid historical and/or contemporary debates of peoples affiliations and/or identities in an anachronistic way).(KIENGIR (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I do not see any evidence that Forescu ever had Ukrainian citizenship - this would have been only possible between 1918 and 1922, and she has no relation to Chernivtsi at the time as far as I see (also not the Soviet citizenship later).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

The following titles redirect to this article, and presumably editors have added names to this list based on it. This list article is not only a list of lists, but constitutes a cross of lists of persons classified by ethnicities, citizenship, place of birth, place of notable activity, both within and irregardless of state, administrative, and ethnocultural boundaries. For better or worse.

Deciding to remove names because “so-and-so isn’t Ukrainian” means discarding this.

If this list article’s scope is changed, then I hope that masses of previously selected names aren’t simply deleted. Any proposal for a change of scope should suggest what happens to these redirects and the sub-lists they represent, and estimate the net improvement by these changes. I’d think it would require someone to commit to some work.

Maybe it’s better to rewrite the intro and even alter the title to reflect what we have, rather than toss what we have to fit some narrower idea of what it is wanted to be? —Michael Z. 18:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait the evaluation/closure of the RFC, and after make the amendments necessary (which in fact are necessary, since i.e. the three examples discussed above are not from Ukraine, as the title would suggest, regardless of the current leads allowance, it's confusing, and many akin subjects may present in the current list). Regarding the issue of the redirects you listed I see less problematic, since those Ukrainians that the result would exclude here could have a separate article, like "List of Ukrainians", as such kind of article we have now does not really exist regarding other countries, but like List of Slovaks or List of Romanians that embrace all, regardless of any location/status quo (that's why it is never a good practise to conflate present boundaries with ethnicity and or national/citizenship affiliations). However, given the complexity of this issue with debates, in that solution as well an appropriate scope-calibraton would be necessary, if not everything is solved in this article, even by renaming, because we don't need necessarily two which would be significantly redundant. All in all, some work will be needed, in either way, and not even all existing redirects are necessary, may be excessive or redundant as well, these should be as well discussed carefully in case (sorry for going such forward, but I think these issues would emerge in the future as well, related).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Which three examples? —Michael Z. 17:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hatun, Eisenstaedter, Forescu.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Those examples are not from this list article, so it doesn’t follow that something is necessary (unless I’m completely misinterpreting your logic).
“It is never a good practise to conflate present boundaries with ethnicity and or national/citizenship affiliations”—well, yes, but a broad statement like this can also be interpreted in a way that systematically denigrates the status of certain nations. I hope you’re familiar with WP:BIAS. I suggest it is good practice to follow reliable recent sources, and be careful applying categories like ethnicity and nationality in ways that mirror historical abuses, or perhaps at all. —Michael Z. 14:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not from the list, but there are akin subjects in the list. My remark should not be interpreted the way you said (yes I am familiar), however the core issueabout is by the way not a really hard issue to conclude - not an RS related issue at all in the end - that present-day boundaries are not decisive regarding the past of people's affiliation (any). Oh, I am very careful about it, especially I detected many imprecise, inaccurate of those, as I referred, many other areas such have been used in a quite sloppy way.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

bolsheviks and soviet politics

[edit]

All of them were born in Ukraine or had ukrainian decent.

Let's wait until the above discussion would clarify more the scope or not, until I suggest you to stop editing the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Ymblanter:,
the user does not stop additions, despite warned here, the edit logs and as well ([1]) here before. The user now appear to be keep our policies in the Ukrainians in Russia article, but here refuse to listen. Please warn him also and/or protect the page at least until the above discussion reach a finite state regarding inclusion criteria. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I may not protect a page I was recently active on as an editor. I would just let it go until the above RfC has been completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter:,
if my understanding is correct, as an involved party your admin tools should not be used at this case. Well, I think if the user understand and follow policy at one page, it should do it here as well. So in case not stopping I consider then an uninvolved party like a simple RFPP, since it is better to check here in the talk first the inclusion criteria of the candidants than afterwards, all the content of a "pumped-up" article...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
We usually do not protect pages against one editor. If this continues, it should be a block (possibly a partial block from this page).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter:,
Ah, I see. So that would mean the options would be here an uninvolved admin or WP:AN3 report. Well, let's hope the user will stop, seems like now.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Military Figures

[edit]
  • Ivan Paskevich, Field marshal of the Russian imperial army.Ivan Paskevich was born in Poltava on 19 May 1782.
  • Vasily Zavoyko – an admiral in the Russian navy.During the Crimean War, Zavoyko led the successful defence against the Siege of Petropavlovsk by the allied British-French troops.Zavoyko was born in Prokhorovka (modern Kaniv Raion Ukrainian: Канівський район was a raion (district) of Cherkasy Oblast, central Ukraine.)
  • Ivan Gudovich, a Russian [noble] and military leader.Ivan's father was an influential member of the Ukrainian Cossack starshina.
  • Pyotr Kotlyarevsky - a Russian military hero of the early 19th century.He was born in the village of Olkhovatka near Kharkiv into a cleric's family.
  • Semyon Timoshenko, marshal of the Soviet Union, added his native village Furmanivka and other western territories in 1939.

Zelenko was born in 1916 in the village of Koroshchine, then part of the Volhynian Governorate of the Russian Empire.

Horyaistivka, Sumy Oblast, Ukrainian SSR

Born on 12 January 1892 Vertiyivka (Verkiyivka) village, nezhinsky Uyezd, Chernigov Governorate, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artixxxl (talk • contribs) 09:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2023

[edit]

On the section "other" you should add the Youtuber Nikocado Avocado (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikocado_Avocado), a very known figure on his genre of videos (mukbang). He was born in Ukraine. Finestbakery (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_from_Ukraine&oldid=1198509358"