Talk:Petro Prokopovych

Not Ukrainian by nationality

Ukrainian categories categorize by nationality. People in the 19th-century were not nationals of Ukraine. Nationality categories reflect the reality of what nations existed at the time. They should not be used anachronistically.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, look at the source that is used: Petro Prokopovich – Ukrainian beekeeper, teacher and scientist. American Bee Journal 97(12): 474-475. If the source calls him a "Ukrainian beekeeper", then so can we. We follow sources, not what your own detective work can figure out. (Though I have no objection to his being described as an "Imperial Russian beekeeper" as well.) There are multiple ways to think about nationality. There is "legal" nationality, but there is also an "aspirational" or "self-identification" nationality. We don't need to be restricted to one or the other. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

At the time that was written, Ukrainian would have been used as an ethnic identified, not an identifier of nationality. He is not Ukrainian by nationality, although he may be by ethnicity. The category is a nationality category, and should not hold people who were Imperial Russian subjects. This is a total misuse of nationality categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There was a legal—and certainly an aspirational—"Ukrainian" nationality when the Ukrainian SSR existed. I've invited input from the WikiProject Ukraine on how they deal with such issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

he died in 1850. The Ukranian SSR is not formed until 1918. Thus, there is no way to claim he could have belong to any Ukranian nation. It does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement of "at the time that [the reference] was written"—which was 1957. At the time it was written, it may well have been referring to the fact that he was of Ukrainian nationality. And that's what counts—sources, not your own research on the matter, as below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• As I said at the CfD discussion The article on Ukrainians says "Ukrainians became widely accepted only in the 20th century when the land has finally obtained its own statehood in 1918. Since the establishing the Russian control in Ukraine in the second half of the 17th century Ukrainians were better known by their Russian name Little Russians (Malorhosy). On the lands that were not under control of the Russian state until the 20th century (Western Ukraine), Ukrainians were known by their pre-existing name as Ruthenians (Rusyns)." This suggersts that even as an ethnonym it is anachronistic to call Petro Prokopovych a Ukrainian, and even if it was workable, we would have to be willing to categorize a comtemporary of his who was a Tatar or a Moldvin as a Tatar or a Moldvin beekeeper, which I highly doubt we would try. To treat Ukrainian as a workable nationality tag in the early-19th century just plain does not work. When there were manifestations of Ukrainian nationalism in Galicia, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not in the Russian Empire, in 1848, 2 years before Petro Prokopovych died, the Poles in the area insisted Ukrainianism was an identity identified by their German overlords to perpetuate their own power. To call Prolopovych anything but an Imperial Russian is anachronistic in the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That article is not perfect yet, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, and in intself. Ukrained2012 (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your statement that were no manifestations of Ukrainian nationalism in the Russian-controlled Ukrainian lands is not true. Famous 19th century national activists such as Taras Shevchenko, Mykola Lysenko, Lesya Ukrainka and many others were all from Russian-occupied lands. I suggest you read about the Ems Ukaz, which was decree of the Russian emperor aimed at suppressing the Ukrainian national revival and its leading activists.
As for Ukrainian statehood, although it did not exist at the time, there was a semi-autonomous Ukrainian state during the 18th century called the Cossack Hetmanate. Just because the Russian government referred to Ukrainians by the degrading phrase "Little Russians," this did not cause Ukrainians to start identifying themselves as such.--BoguSlav 23:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• • This is a great example of why we have WP:OR and WP:RS, to avoid problems like this. Ideally, we just follow the usage that is used in the sources. In this regard, an interesting (though imprecise) measure is to simply google "ukrainian beekeeper" and see what comes up ... He's clearly regarded by many as Ukrainian. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Out of curiosity, I took a look at some foreign-language Wikipedias to see how they categorize him. In the Ukrainian wiki, he's categorized as a Ukrainian beekeeper ("Українські пасічники"). In the Polish wiki, he's categorized as a Ukrainian beekeeper ("Ukraińscy pszczelarze"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to research some established WP guidelines on ethnicity/nationality and categorization since I suspect nothing is locally-unique in discussions like this) The priority is to mention a person's ethnic (or local cultural) descent in the articles' texts. And I guess that priority is way higher than indicating their "nationality" (or, as we post-Soviets call it more specifically, citizenship). Ukrained2012 (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dubious Russian descent claim

Ladies and gentlemen, I've tagged the claim that Prokopovich was of "Russian descent" as highly dubious. It's also undersourced - supported only by an amateur grave database. Everyone is free to change to "Ukrainian" unless someone brings up an RS. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Brunei (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)