Talk:Russians in Ukraine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neutralizing info?

What is this? A euphemism for POV? There is nothing neutralising in revert wars. Removal of information without any discussion is termed "neutralizing"? This is a very counterproductive approach.--Hillock65 17:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Goryuns

What do the sources provided in the article say about their origins? We should write in the article exactly what sources tell us. Alæxis_¿question? 17:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I answered your questions at Talk:Goryuns.--AndriyK 09:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not distort quotation

Please do not change Orest Subtelny's quotation regarding Stalin's fear of nationalism. He didn't mention Ukrainian nationalism, just local nationalisms of other republics. If you have different information on Stalin's view on particularly Ukrainian nationalism, please support that with references. --Hillock65 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale violation

Please note, that the use of image AntiRussianPoster.jpg in contents other than discussing the political movement Svoboda, which issued it, is in violation of the fair use rationale. It is stated that it can only be used for "for the critical commentary on the ultra-radical political movement it represents". This article does not provide the critical commentary on political movement and it is instead used for other purposes. I remove the image per above mentioned reasons. --Hillock65 03:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right that this issue lacked a critical commentary. I added it now. Thanks for bringing the issue connected to the image I uploaded to my attention. It finally motivated me to have a more thorough look at the article where it was used and improve it. --Irpen 09:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very reprehensible ploy to keep this picture in the article. You forked absolutely unrelated text to the body of the article from the Anti-Russian sentiment to justify the picture's presence. That's the wrong way to write articles. Articles are not there to justify presence of pictures, it is rather the other way around, pictures are secondary to the narration. Please don't disturb Wikipedia to suit your POV. One ther editor also complained about your wholesale additions of unrealated text (see below). Leave your vendettas for another medium, not WP articles. --Hillock65 13:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cut down on rhetoric, will ya? The article speaks about the issue of how the radical ua-nationalism is affecting the issue of Russians in Ukraine. This is a very valid issue for the article. The party in question is explicitly mentioned as an example and the poster demonstrates the strength of their xenophobic views by far better than the text. The text goes further as to describe the degree of the support of the particular party, which is thankfully low nationwide but alarmingly high in some localities. This support affects the Russians in Ukraine much more than the silly picture someone publishes in livejournal and you upload to illustrate the Ukrainophobia in Russia. Finally, could you kindly point out who else complained about my addition and about unrelated text "down below". I read the talk page to the end and could not find anything. --Irpen 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sources

The article include a whole lot of well sourced info but its poor organization reflects the fact that it was a subject of a permanent edit war with parties trying to make their POV look strongest (or defending their version) which left them with no time to actually ensure the overall harmonious development of the article. Nevertheless, some sources were dubious and marked as such.

One such source was a personal blog of someone at narod.ru. I was not able to establish any credentials of this author. Dubious sites may publish the info by a notable author that can be otherwise confirmed for an authenticity and credentials but I was not able to confirm anything in this case. Narod.ru is a free hosting site and the fact that some info is found there does not establish anything. Not any more than "publishing" something at the talk page of the Wikipedia user. Who is the author? Was it published anywhere and simply copied there? Please check before returning this.

Another dubious ref was to and article published at this site but for a totally different reason. That the site is of the political organization is alarming but possibly acceptable, especially since the info is quoted to have been come from Medvediev, a rather well-known Political technologist. But the interview is strange, the claim he makes that Russian-native speakers in Ukraine do not speak Ukrainian is very strange. However, the "survey results" he gives are just impossible to comprehend. Here is the quote:

"серед тридцяти найгостріших проблем питання статусу російської мови наші співвітчизники поставили на 26 місце, а української - на 24. Тобто, лише вісім відсотків громадян вважають пріоритетним надання російській мові статусу другої державної чи регіональної (переважно Крим та Донбас) та дев’ять відсотків (переважно Захід України), які виступають за одну державну мову, - українську."

What is "Тобто" doing there. How the second numbers (8 and 10 %) can be derived from the first two (26th and 26th rank.) Moreover, how can this rank be obtained is beyond me. Does anyone have even a hypothesis?

Was the 26th place counted only by the share of people who ranked the problem as their top priority? If so, this is bullshit sociology. If people are asked loosing which part of their body would be most critical to them, certainly no one would put a left-hand thumb fitst in the list. It does not mean that caring not to loose one's thumb is of low priority to most people.

What rank? What was exactly asked? Is it clear to anyone? If so, please explain here.

Overall, some info needs to be moved around between several articles. But it would be wrong to just delete info. I think editors should get together and agree on the scopes and specialization of several related articles, move stuff respectively, preserving as much sourced info as possible, and then keeping it there. --Irpen 10:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Per no answer, this citations are moved here. Please do not re-add it without explaining some rational way to understand this so called "survey". Same applies to the info sourced to an external blog. Unless you can show that this is just a copy of what is published in a reputable source or, at least, that the author is a reputable specialist in the field, please do not return references to his blog into an article. --Irpen 06:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

1. Totally incomprehencible nonsense. Please explain if you think otherwise:

However, in a cross-national survey involving ranking 30 important political issues, the legal status of the Russian language was ranked 26th, with only 8% of respondents (concentrated primarily in Crimea and Donetsk) feeling that this was an important issue.<ref>Олена Паламарчук, "Ще не вмерла Україна…" - "Ничего, мы подождём...", Громадський рух — Не будь байдужим.</ref>

2. Someone wose credentials are not confirmed publishes something at a free-hosting site:

In the parliament (13 Convocation) 19.3% were Russians.[1]

---

Famous Russians from Ukraine

This list does not belong here for obvious reason. This has been discussed before, check the archives. I moved it to a separate list-article and, for now, linked it from "See also" section. --Irpen 11:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt matter, as long as this list exists everything is fine. If it was decided that it deserves a seperate list, then that's how it should be. M.V.E.i. 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian was not taught in all schools

As far as I know, it was not tought in Sevastopol and not everywhere in Crimea. In other regions it was in principle tought, but it was not mandatory. Well, there were some complications, but if the parents insisted, their children were usually alloud not to learn Ukrainian. (I ´did not learn it, for instance.)--Mbuk 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It was taught in every school in Ukraine, but some students in those schools if it's not their native language might have tried to release themselves from it. M.V.E.i. 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. There were plenty of schools in Ukraine, where Ukrainian was not taught, beginning from those where they couldn't find a Ukrainian language teacher, those at military garrisons, where Ukrainian was never taught and in Crimea, where it was taught only in some schools mainly because of the lack of teachers. So, it is not that simple. The preceeding argument is true, especially in respect to Sebastopol and the Crimea as a whole. --Hillock65 19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Crimea has nothing to do with Ukraine, its a part of Russian that was syntheticaly given to Ukrain. Actually, just like Donbass. In the whole "Ukraine" except Crimea Ukrainian was taught in all schools that had at least a few students that could not prove it's not their native language, a different metter is that in some historicaly-Russian parts of Ukraine there were whole classes that had no native-speakers of Ukrainian, so there offcourse it wasnt taught. M.V.E.i. 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was only in 1972 when they brought in legislation that allowed parents the right after signing a document, to wave the attendance to Ukrainian classes for their children. This was mainly for families who often would move about the Soviet Union, primarilly military families. --Bandurist 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the right could be waived only if the valid reason was given. One such reason was having parents in professional military service, and thus being subject to frequent transfers all over the USSR. Children of the military officers were could obtain a waiver. Another possible waiver was health-based, that is if it was found advisable for a pupil to reduce the full school load for health reasons. In practice, how strict it was to get a waiver depended on the particular school and obviously the health path could be misused and could be used as a path to obtain a waiver which should not have been give. But still, being able to not attend was an exception from the rule. Practically, everyone studied Ukrainian and the number of hours devoted to the subject was comparable to the Russian language and literature (vise versa in Ukrainian schools that comprised ~ one third of all schools Ukraine-wide.) The curriculum was very rigorous and a pupil graduating from a good Russian school, by good I mean that the entire curriculum was taken seriously and enforced, was certainly able to read, write, understand and fluently speak Ukrainian. --Irpen 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, again: The article is not about Ukrainians

Please stop adding information about Ukrainians, because the article is not about them. Second, the "hat" of the article that says The article talks about ethnic Rusiians in Ukraine was agreed between me, Kuban kazak and someone else, i dont remember who, when i only created the article and Kuban kazak wanted to change the name of the article to Etnic Russians in Ukraine we agreed that this change will hirt the article, but instead we will add this hat above. M.V.E.i. 11:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This "hat" is a very poor option. It is very difficult to distinguish who is "ethnic Russian" and who is not. There is no blood test for that and even if there was, such test is not given. The article should reasonably cover the issues directly related to ethnic Russians like it does. Also, this "hat" is merely unprofessional --Irpen 07:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you why me and Kuban kazak wanted to add these. Russian American article for example calls "Russians" all Russophonic population, so we wanted to make shure there wont be confusion in this article. M.V.E.i. 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Nevertheless, this poster shows a true side of inter-ethnic relations in Ukraine. It has a rational, go down in the page of the image, under the license box. M.V.E.i. 20:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, i think that how it was in the first place, having two images in the section, was really nice. M.V.E.i. 20:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good that you noticed the rationale on the picture page. Please read carefully the first line: The poster is used the for the critical commentary on the ultra-radical political movement it represents. There is no critical commentary in the article on political movement it represents. None at all, it is not even mentioned. The Svoboda party has nothing to do with Russians in Ukraine. So, the use of this image here violates the copy right law and the fair use rationale of Wikipedia. Please remove it. --Hillock65 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Now its good youve asked it. This is not about the party, its about the poster. It shows the situation of Russians in Lviv. Do you know for example that the Russian Culture Centre In Lvov was burnt down, shot down, and vandalized in many other ways? Its about the Anti-Russian sentiment among the Ukrainian nationalists, and the Russian population suffers from it. M.V.E.i. 20:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. You cannot change the rationale at will. It doesn't work that way. That nonsense that you put is not allowed for fair use images. Please read carefully Wikipedia:Non-free content there is no provision for that rationale. This image still violates the fair use clause. Besides, anti-Russian sentiment is covered in the appropriate article, drawing disproportionate amount of attention only to Lviv and this poster puts undue weight on a fringe political party. In the view of the above, I have no option but to tag this article as NPOV. Please remove the image, it does not belong here. --Hillock65 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti Russian sentiment has place to be here to. Imagine i delete all that has to do with the Holodomor in the Ukrainians article, and say: Its covered in a seperate article, besides, many Russians died in it to. How about that? And then i'll add a POV on it. It's the same logic as yours. The image belongs here. M.V.E.i. 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are struggling with English and don't quite understand what I am writing. I do not object to instances of Russophobia mentined in the article. Not at all. I insist that that picture does not belong here as it violates the fair use rationale acceptable by the rules of Wikipedia. The only place this copy-righted picture can be used is in article on party Svoboda and its activity. Period. Nowhere else. You cannot use it to support any other statements. IT CAN ONLY BE USED IN DISCUSSION OF THE SVOBODA PARTY WHICH ISSUED IT. I hope the bold part will help you understand why it doesn't belong here. Please use a dictionary to help you understand what I wrote. --Hillock65 21:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

IT CAN ALSO BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE OF ANTI-RUSSIAN SENTIMENT. I dont need a dictionary, but you do, because you are repeating one phrase and you ignore all other arguments given to you. M.V.E.i. 21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article discusses the party and its relation to the subject of the article. --Irpen 23:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the provision under which the fair use images are used. The copy-righted images are not supposed to be used in all sorts of articles, where the Svoboda Party is mentioned, but rather in articles about that political party. It's use for all other purposes violates the fair use rationale. The same goes for movie posters, you can use them only in articles about movies, not in any other topics. Please check the policy. And even if it could be used here (which is very unlikely) you have to justify why a party with marginal popular vote of less then a half percentage point deserves such prominence. Please check WP:NPOV#Undue weight --Hillock65 23:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting rules. Its 3-1 in favour of the people, i'm shure that if we will bring Kuban kazak and Alexis it would be 5-1, thats it. In articles about movie history of a country not once i've seen posters of movies as examples of famous movies from those countries. M.V.E.i. 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The image can be used in articles that give a critical commentary of the said party. The commentary is made here and is relevant to the topic. Now, if you say that the party in question should not be discussed in this article, this is another issue. That of content, not copyright. In that case, please explain your position, why the info is irrelevant to the topic. --Irpen 07:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The copyrighted image is used to discuss possible discomfort that Russians of Ukraine may feel from the marginal nationalist parties such as Svoboda that produced the image. It is very similar to the usage of Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg and similar images in e.g. New antisemitism that was intensively discussed (just check [2]) and found to be conforming with wikipedia fair use rules. Alex Bakharev 07:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. What discomfort 8 million Russians are experiencing from a political party with a whopping 0.38% of popular vote? You state yourself that the party is marginal, it is beyond my compehension, how a marginal party can affect or cause discomfort to 8,000,000,000 people! If a political party with 0.38% popularity is mentioned, then there is conceivably a place in this article for other 20 or 30 policial parties, including neo-nazi and skinhead ones with far extremist views then the Svoboda party's. I can't understand how one fails to see, that the only reason this party is ever mentioned is in oder to keep this picture in the text. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON. Your reference to Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg is a faulty one, this image is used in two articles:New antisemitism Anti-globalization and antisemitism — both of these are clearly relevant to the subject matter. If the image in question was used in Oleh Tiahnybok and Svoboda (political party) I wouldn't raise a single objection. Please see if the AntiWarRally image is used in History of the Jews in the USA, History of the Jews in France. If this image has not been abused in articles about the Jews, why is this image about a fringe political party is being used to inflame xenophobic passions in articles about the Russians? Is there any answer to that specific question? --Hillock65 12:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop playing someone who doesnt understand. Its not about the party. The poster represents the Anti-Russian sentiment. Was the Russian Culture Centre in Lvov vandelized by 0.38%?? All those times?? It's not the only party that holds this ideology, but it's posters best represents the other party and people who hold it. M.V.E.i. 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand everything perfectly. You are right, it is not about the party. This is exactly my point. Since it has nothing to do with the Svoboda party, please remove the image as it violates the fair use rationale. Please look at the image talk page. The only reason, why Irpen put this info on marginal party in the text is to justify the picture's presence here. It's a weak ploy, since even you agree it has nothing to do with the party. Please do not remove the NPOV tag, it will not help. There are neutrality issues in this article that need to be addressed, removing the tag and revert-warring will accomplish nothing. This dispute needs to be settled, use WP:DR if you wish, but do not engage in revert warring, it is counterproductive. --Hillock65 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's about the Anti-Russian sentiment that this image is about. It doesnt violates anything. It's not a weak ploy, because the rational he added does justifies its being here. I always said, and will say, tis image here is importent as an example to the Anti-Russian sentiment. Hillock, by majority it was agreed here that this image fits. It has nothing to do with "neutrality". The image is genuine. I'm nor revert-warring, but what the hell does nutrality has to do with the case?? What's nutral for you, hiding facts to show everything is nice and pretty? Again, you cant put a NPOV notice when it's not agreed bu others. On the talk page, here, it's already puted as a contreversial topic. Thats it. This article is neutral and tells only facts. M.V.E.i. 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I am tired already explaining to you why this image and information about the Svoboda party does not belong here and why it is POV. Plese read above. If you don't understand English — get a dictionary. I have concerns as to the neutrality of the article, which I expressed above and these concerns cannot be addressed by removing the tag and revert warring. Please, read WP:NPOV. Only administrators can remove the tag, when discussions are exhausted here. If you cannot address the dispute through normal channels, start a mediation. Please go to WP:DR. By reverting, you will accomplish nothing, I will continue to tag this article today, tomorrow and until the issue is resolved. Removing the tag will accomplish NOTHING. --Hillock65 22:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If only administrators can remove it, than onlt administrators can put it. I, Alex & Irpen explained you why this image does fit here. Seems like your the one needing dictionary. M.V.E.i. 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no Alex here. I explained that presenting a fringe party with less than half a pecentage point of votes as evidence of Anti-Russian sentiment is ludicrous. Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If there is place for a party with 0.38% of votes, than there should be parties with 1% and 2% up to 10% of votes. There are upwards of 30 of them, do you want me to include them all? I can do that, if one with that low popular support is mentioned and its poster is displayed in violation of fair use clause, surely there is place for more. --Hillock65 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I REPEAT. We use this image for an example of Anti-Russian sentiment. This image fits because it gives it without any polit-corectness, so give it a break. If you'll find another poster with brutal Anti-Russian sentiment like in this one, upload it to this talk-page and we'll talk it over. For now i, Alex Bakharev, Irpen, by a majoraty said that the current image fits (and if we invite Kuban kazak i'm shure he will support us to). So for now, case closed. M.V.E.i. 23:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please look at Image talk:AntiRussianPoster.jpg‎. This is a copy-righted image, you can't use it the way you want. There are conditions of its use. They are explained in the image rationale. The use of this image in this article infinges on fair-use provision of image use. Please read the discussion carefully, so that I don't have to repeat it again. --Hillock65 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

By a majority it was decided that the image is importent for the article and that it stayes. M.V.E.i. 13:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot break the law by majority vote. Why don't you rob a bank by majority vote? The copy-righted images are not free to use whichever way you want. There are conditions of their use, which are violated here. --Hillock65 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alex, who is an administrator, explained you that the use of it isn't violating any law. It's not using "wherever we want", it's using it in order ro give at as an example of an Anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine. And as i said, it doesnt metter what party released it and how many precents it recived. And stop playing as if you dont understand whan you say: "a party with less one precent is not a symbol of Anti-Russian sentiment" or somthing like that... You better tell me, when the Russian Culture Centre in Lviv was burned, shott and vandelized, a few times by the way, you want to tell that because the number of the people who did it was "less then 1% of the population in Ukraine" it's not an example of Anti-Russian sentiment?? The fact is that it's their. As i said, an administrator said that it can be used, and by a majority it was decided that it will be used. So again, the discussion at this point is already useless. M.V.E.i. 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV yet again

In my view this article is not neutral mainly because of the following reasons:

1. The use of AntiRussianPoster.jpg is violation of fair use rationale. It has been covered extensively on this page. --Hillock65 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Inclusion of information on the marginal Svoboda party is a WP:UNDUE as the importance of an insignificant party is disproportionally inflated just to justify the above image's inclusion in the article. --Hillock65 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
3. If instances of anti-Russian sentiment are presented, inclusion of the Svoboda party and exclusion of other parties with the same agenda is NPOV again. If Svoboda with 0.38% is mentioned, then all other parties with higher ratings should be mentioned as well. --Hillock65 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Political parties if presented in the article have to be given equal attention, and not marginal parties inflated beyond the coverage of the mainstream and popular ones. --Hillock65 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU ARE A BROKEN RECORD. 1. Alex explained you it doesnt violate anything. I, Alex and Irpen all explain you why it's importent and should be here. 2. Its not about the party, but about the fact that the poster represents an Anti-Russian sentiment. 3. I explained you about the % thing in the previous diolog. 4. WHAT DO YOU WANT??

Hillock, get a rest, case closed. You can put it an an 1, 2, 3, 4 numbering, a, b, c, d, that wont change anything. Its a third time you try to re-start a finished discussion. Case closed, give it a rest. M.V.E.i. 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Russian movement

I think this material belong to the article. Currently, the section covers the radical movements indeed and should be titled as such. Should it be expanded, merged or rewritten is a separate question, but not removed.

As for Kruty vandalism, while reprehensible, there is no proof on who did it, just a hooligan scum or "pro-Russia fascists". Newspapers report about the ongoing investigation which yet came up with no clues. Whether these were pro-Russian vandals or not, last time I checked, the investigation was ongoing (Розслідування триває. --Irpen 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Investigation still continues as to who exactly committed this vandalism, there is however, little doubt that this was done by pro-Russian organizations. The grafitties, among them Long Live Russia and Russian obscenities clearly point in that direction. I can add that it is believed to have been committed by pro-Russian organizations, as there are plenty of statements and news coverage supporting that conclusion. --Hillock65 20:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your having little doubt is not enough. I think those were just scum or hooligans. The only leveled accusations I found was from the politician from the Chernihiv Oblast, again note that not a police investigator, who said that he "thinks" that the vandals were Guests from the east. Even if he was right, there is no indication that this was am indigenous Ukrainian pro-Russian movement. Most news sites speak only about vandals without trying to speculate about their affiliation. I searched very carefully. But even this speculation is nothing but. Wikipedia authors cannot assign the perpetrators of the crime. --Irpen 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not assigning the perpetrators, if you notice those are the statements of other people and news headlines. I added "it is believed" and it is indeed believed that those acts have been committed by pro-Russian vandals. No one points the finger at who exactly, but to classify them as such, based on the news coverage, is quite legitimate. Even during the Oklamoma city bombing, Arab terrorists were believed to be involved and that was a valid news until proven otherwise and is reflected so in the WP article. I think making that connection here, based on news reports is quite appropriate. --Hillock65 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change the title of the subsection, these organization have been classified as extremist. I conceded that that was a loaded word and changed it to radical, which they are and are named so in numerous sources. The mainstream Russian movements are already covered in section Politics. --Hillock65 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I will call the section "radical", it is all right with me. However, if you read the newspaper reports on this event (Kruty), there is nothing like you say that "it is indeed believed that those acts have been committed by pro-Russian vandals" and even if it were, the section is about political movements. There is even less of any connection with any movements as far as we know.

I researched very carefully. Newspapers speak about "unknown vandals". That's all we know and that's all we can say in the article. Until there are some serious reports on the purported connection between those responsible for the incident and the pro-Russian movement, this issue does not belong to the article. --Irpen 21:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, if you looked carefully, you'd notice that almost all reports link it to pro-Russian activists. Given the prominence of this act, pro-Russian graffittis, it is pretty obvious to link it to Russian activists. Indeed the perpetrators are yet unknown, but all reports point at Russian vandals, and based on the news coverage, it is a valid connection. Just as in the Oklahoma City Bombing, suspicion is a valid part of the news and of the artice and it is supported by sources. --Hillock65 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"All reports point to Russian vandals" is a lie. Here are some reports from major sites:

• ProUA: [3][4]
• Korrespondent: [5][6]
• podrobnosti: [7]
• ForUm: [8]
• BBC: [9]
• Ukrainska Pravda: [10]
• Zerkalo Nedeli: [11]
• Glavred: [12]
• Kommersant.ua: [13]

This is a pretty impressive list of Ukrainian national internet news-sites. They all speak about vandals and unknowns.

Please show some respectable sites that speak about pro-Russian fascists. Obkom is one. Anyone else. Also, note, I tried to make a representative list. I did dig to pick only sights that agree with me. I went by google search as well as checking sites that I read from time to time. I have a pretty good familiarity with Ukrainian news sites in general. I may miss some, true. I also did not intend to make a list exhaustive but I tried my best to have it representative and avoided cherry-picking. So, please add what I missed but don't use forums or sites for targeted, local or limited audience. --Irpen 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also didn't find any link that actually says it where Russians. I didn't even find it was Rossiyani, and not talking about Ethnic Russians. P.S. I know many Pro-Russian Ukrainians. I have a friend on the internet who is Ukrainian, and belives that Ukrainians and Belorusians are Sub-groups of Russians who got some different charecteristics because of occupation by others. By the way, if you think about it, a real Ukrainian patriot will be pro Russian. Lviv, Vinitza and the rest of West Ukraine are historicaly Poland and wore given to Ukraine by Russia. What did the Ukrainians do there? Slaves of the Poles, they were sent there to be workers for the Polish pans. East and South Ukraine are historicaly Russian, and infact they still have nothing incomon with Ukraine. So practically, Ukrainian nationalist should not only not vandalize the Russian Culture Centre, but clean it with their tounges. M.V.E.i. 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You are both right, I removed it. It appears User:Ghirlandajo restored that image without discussion. Case closed. --Hillock65 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok here case closed. But i still dont understand the NPOV in the politics section. M.V.E.i. 11:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

This is chosen as one of two images to illustrate the pro-Russian movements in Ukraine. I don't think that anti-Semitism is the characteristic property of these movements and if no refs are brought linking these phenomena I propose to remove this image from the article. Alæxis_¿question? 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism of the pro-Russian movement in Ukraine is not even close to its most prominent feature. Anti-westernness, yes. Pro-Union - yes. My image features just that. The article about the Odessa march clearly says that the antisemitic slogan carried by the demostrators among many others shocked the viewers. An additional proof that it was neither typical nor expected. A lone incident does not signify the trend. The image was added by Hillock to make a WP:POINT against the image that displays the Russophobia of Tyahnybok's party. While radical xenophobia of Tyahnybok is indeed one of its most prominent and discussed in the media features, Russian movement in Ukraine is characterized by other slogans than this lunatic one. Not that their other slogans are "normal", so to speak.

The image of Feodosiya protests I added has all the "right" slogans that typifies the standard pro-Russian protesters. It is also GFDL, which is an additional leverage.

"Burned senter in Lviv" image was added my MVEi as a WP:POINT against the antisemitism image added by Hillock. The article is better off without them both.

"Radical", the organizations are "radical" not because their demands are so radical but because of the methods of their activity. They are certainly radical all-right. This section is not about mainstream Russophile parties of Ukraine that are described in the previous section. You cannot in good faith put Proryv and ESM in the same boat as Party of Regions, KPU or even Vitrenko's nutty screaming. Especially, since lately Vitrenko speaks about importance of the Ukrainian independence as well. Not that we should pay much attention to what she says, of course. --Irpen 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, totally out-of-theme. I also oppose to the image of anti-NATO deminstration, there is nothing "radical" in opposing NATO, it's normal. M.V.E.i. 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is "normal" to support NATO. It is also normal to oppose it. We are talking methods here and the strength of rhetoric. PR also "opposes" NATO. They do not organize violent clashes. I think that we are about to find the right balance and you should not take some bad examples and learn to compromise. I suggest to restore the info you removed yourself. If you won't, I would do that in a couple of hours as I undergo a new once-over to the article that is still too raw. --Irpen 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Irpen here. Alæxis_¿question? 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(After the bombing of Yugoslavia and supporting Bin Laden against the USSR i see NATO as a terrorist organisation but nevermind that). Where exaclly did you see violance on the image there? I saw written slogans. I didn't see a demonstrator throwing a stone at the police, i didn't see a man with a gun, i didn't see anything like that. These picture is not an example of extremism. If you restore it, i will just remove it again. It has nothing radical, while the section is about radicalism. If you want feel free to put it in the "Politics" section. M.V.E.i. 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that the image is adequate for the description of movements described in the section? If you oppose only to applying the word 'radical' to these movements then you should do something with that word and rather than removing totally relevant picture. Alæxis_¿question? 18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree. This image fits the "politics" section, while this section is about "radical" politics. M.V.E.i. 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

MVEi, learn to compromise. True enough, the image of violent protest and face-off with the security force would have been better but we do not have such free image. This one is GFDL and correctly relays the messages by these organizations. --Irpen 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If this protest was organised by the movements called 'radical' in this article than the picture is legitimate even if the protest itself wasn't radical by itself. Alæxis_¿question? 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not because the whole idea of the section is radicalism. It could be moved to the Politics section. M.V.E.i. 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, when i see a color is black, i'm not gonna say it's grey only because you say it's white. "but we do not have such free image", if you don't, then don't upload, thats it. BUT inserting a picture which doesn't fit is just not the solution. It's like looking for a free picture of David Gilnour for a David Gilmour article, not finding it, and then puting a picture of Bono instead and saying: "We didn't find a picture of Gilmour so we put Bono instead". I compromise all the time. I compromised when i agreed on the existence of these radical-movements idiotic section. Your are the one not compromising. "Compromise" is not when someone else agrees to do what you want. For example. I belive the image of vandalized Russian Centre of Lvov should be here, and that the demonstration image wont (unless moved to politics section), you belive the oposite. You do what you belive, and then tell me to compromise. A compromise would be to leave both of them. That would be a compromise! I wish Kuban Kazak would be here, with him a compromise would be reached much earlier. M.V.E.i. 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, you just keep pushing your line. In that case i will push mine. In that case we are going to have these fight till the 15 September. M.V.E.i. 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Could someone answer who organised those rallies against NATO in Crimea? Alæxis_¿question? 06:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proryv, among others, was involved. --Irpen 06:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Крым негостеприимно встретил НАТО: американцам всю ночь пришлось искать ночлег, NEWSru.com, June 2, 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpen (talk • contribs) 06:53, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

So if the organisation described as radical in the article (Proryv) organised (among others) this rally then its photo should be in the section dedicated to these organisations. Whether it's correct to call them radicals is another question. Alæxis_¿question? 07:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! And let's be reasonable here. We can find plenty of refs that call it radical. But some could always say that these refs are cherry-picked, so some common sense and domain knowledge are helpful. We can certainly tell the difference with the mainstream moderately pro-Russian position of some UA political parties and organizations like Proryv (one one side) and Svoboda on the other side. They are indeed radical. Maybe MVEi thinks that they are "soft". That's fine of course. But we have to put them in comparison not with mine or MVEi's views but with the typical Ukrainian politics. Radical does not mean "terrorist" or "extremist", like Hillock tried to use.

Also, for some reason MVEi was undoing my copyediting changes. Why restore typos? Also, the sentence about some Russians feeling "pressured" does belong to the article, I don't mind that. But it is simply now at the more logical place.

I find it much easier to look for a compromise with Kuban kazak than with MVEi. I don't doubt his willingness to make articles better but one should learn to compromise and listen to others. --Irpen 07:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thought, are you really saying that the organizations that openly call for the disintegration of the country are not radical? Note, by calling them radical we are not making judgments whether their goals are good or bad. You might support their goals while I might not. Many people support the goals of radical peace movement, radical anti-globalism movement, etc. "Radical" is not a judgment or a negative term. --Irpen 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who o offered to wait for Kuban to decide, he knows the case best. The slogan Soyuz s Rossiyey on the poster is not radical. Not Obyedineniye, but Sayus, which means Union like working with. Is the idea of Europian UNION radical?? You ignored my offer to compromise and act as you're the one to decide. M.V.E.i. 09:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For example theres a demonstration against making the minimum wage lower, and one of the orgenisers is a Nazi party. We should get photos of Social Democrats from the demonstration to put in the section "radicals on the demonstration??" It doesnt go this way. M.V.E.i. 09:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Proryv calls for unification with Russia is in the article and it is sourced. So, there is a radical goal. I did not ignore anything. I replied to all you said and other users seem to have agreed with me on the particular issue. You fiercely revert war undoing even copyedits, logical rearrangements, typo and grammar corrections. Revert warring will get you in trouble again. We have to find a sensible solution now, not Sept. 15. I won't mind hearing from Kazak when he is back. --Irpen 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then find a picture of Proryv with their slogan, a member with a slogan, do they have a web site? If not you can use google. But on the image i dont see anything from Proryv and anything Radical. M.V.E.i. 10:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

From Irpen's talk

I offered you a compromise, you ignored it. You are not the boss, you cant decide that everything that you want should be here and that everybody should "compromise", which in your vocabulary means to do what you want and forget their opinion. As i said here, I belive the image of vandalized Russian Centre of Lvov should be here, and that the demonstration image should not (unless moved to politics section), you belive the oposite. You do what you belive, and then tell me to compromise. A compromise would be to leave both of them. I offer you to agree to that. If you will continue the revert war and ignoring what others think, i will continue it to, belive me i won't get tired. In that case we will have it till the 15 September when Kuban Kazak returnes, and he will decide (There ain't someone who knows this article and all of the users involved better then him. The article i originaly started had only the Novorossiya, Ukrainization and notable people part. He was the one who evolved it into what it is today). M.V.E.i. 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See above. Please cool down a bit. --Irpen 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm cooled down, but it seems you ignore my opinion and do only what you want. I already offered a compromise for now till Kuban Kazak is back, we leave both of the images here (of the vandalized culture centre in lvov, and of the demonstration), and have a full-scale argument when he returnes. I dont see in you an enemy Irpen, i really dont. You know that not once i called you here to decide, which already shows that i dont mark you as a "persona non grata". If i wouldn't respect you i would'nt have this argument with you. M.V.E.i. 10:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, for now lets keep both of the images

I previously returned the image i support, Lvov RusCulture Centre being vandalised, and now i returned the demonstration image i oppose to but you support. For now lets keep it that way. After Kuban Kazak returnes, we could make a full skale argument on the topic on this talk page. In the argument i know for shure that you, me and Kuban Kazak will take part. You can bring more people if you want, like Alaexis for example. We could also call a nutral administrator that knows about the article and the people involved in it (in case things will start getting out of control could stop this). I propose Alex Bakharev here but i let you to decide here to. What do you say about that? M.V.E.i. 11:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound all too complicated. But fine for now. IMO, the picture of the Lviv center vandalism is totally redundant as it conveys exactly zero additional info. In fact, the whole paragraph about the center Vandalism is WP:UNDUE. Was it the most significant event for the Russians in UA in the period "Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union"? The article correctly describes the Ukrainization of the educational system. This was indeed significant. And then all of a sudden it makes a disconnected statement about the Lviv center as if this particular vandalism is a phenomenon of a comparable scale. This info belongs to the Lviv center article and it is already there. I think the section for this historic period could use some expansion but not the detail of this minor event. Next you will see someone revert warring again to bring in the Kruty vandalism here, also covered in the Kruty article.

But I am tired of this. For now, let's keep both if you insist so much. But please, take care of undoing some spelling a POV corrections that your edit[14] introduced. "seperate" is misspelled and it should really be independent, get real! You don't want to call the Treaty of Pereyaslav as a "Russia's annexation of Ukraine", do you? Yes, Ukraine is indeed "separate" now but mostly people use "independent" in this context. Also please return the better grammar introduced by Ostap's edit. --Irpen 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok with the spelling. About RCC, these is the only centre of it's kind, and it's importent for Russians in Ukraine. The brutal atacks on it show the hate towords Russians and Russian culture from the Ukrainian nationalists. M.V.E.i. 14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you see if the three-paragraph long article (or a section) about the Russian Orthodox Church has one third of it (one paragraph) about its being compromised by the KGB penetration. This is easy to reference, btw.

Same here, vandalism of the RCC in Lviv is a notable event for the center, but not notable enough for this article to be put on par with Ukrainization of state media and educational system. This is a classical WP:UNDUE. Let's remove it and concentrate on an overall goodness of the article rather than making sure that each statement that advance one's POV is included, no matter how loosely it fits. --Irpen 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I belive it should be mentioned. But i have a suggestion. Lets delete the paragraph, but keep the image. M.V.E.i. 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As an an illustration of what? Look, I agree that this was a disgusting incident. Even more so is the disgusting pattern of the center getting vandalized periodically. This belongs to the center article. This also belongs to the Russians in Lviv if it is ever written. This may also belong to the Russophobia in Ukraine if it is ever written while I doubt that such article is needed at the present time, if ever. But how can this image is more relevant than the cherry-picked Hillock's image that presents the Russian movement in UA as an antisemitic one? Both incidents poorly characterize the respective phenomenon. The objective view is that Russians in Ukraine mostly identify themselves as citizens of Ukraine, have a large freedom to pursue their Russian culture, except in some places in Galicia, and the only considerable trend that affects them as a whole are Ukrainization of educational system and state controlled media. With Russian language widely spoken in the streets, widely used in print, internet and non-state media, with people still using Russian not only at home and in the streets but also at the workplace and even in the parliament and the government the situation, while not fully devoid of controversies, is nowhere near what it is in most other post-Soviet republics. So, this image here is out of place.

Also, what is the deal with "separate" vs "independent" and why you keep reverting that? Ukraine is independent in terms of international law as well as in practice, at least no less than most countries who are not geopolitical giants. Why do you return "separate"? Of course this is a synonym but so are "murder", "killing" and "execution" for example. There are reasons people select proper terms depending on the context. Please stop. --Irpen 04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

About the seperate vs. independed it was a mistake bacause i just copied-pasted the scetion from the previous version so for that sorry.

About the RCC, the picture we can keep as example of the Anti-Russian sentiment growing stronger. M.V.E.i. 06:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have the picture of that already about profanity turning one into Moskal? Also, "stronger" is an overstatement. Anti-Russian sentiment always had some limited presence in parts of Western Ukraine. It just became more visible. Same can be said about the antisemitic element of the Russian chauvinist movement. It has always been there. Is the antisemitism the most notable feature of the Russian nationalism. Is vandalism the most notable feature of the Ukrainian nationalism? The answer is no to both this questions.

As for "separate" I told you many times, please no sloppy edits. Take time to edit carefully. --Irpen 06:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But we didn't have pogroms from Russians on Jews in modern Ukraine, but we did have a burning and shooting and whatever on the RCC. The RCC was atacked "ligaly" by offical of the Lvov municipalitet, and different people. It didn't happen one time and thats it. It shows the struggle against the Russian culture. M.V.E.i. 07:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian migration

Irpen, why have you reverted the passage about some Russians emigrating from Ukraine to Russia in the 90s. Consider this source, for example:

“ In the early 1990s, migration patterns in Ukraine were dominated by repatriating

Ukrainians and Russians, Kazakhs, and other Soviet nationalities departing to their titu- lar states.

”

I'm pretty sure one'd be able to find other refs to back this claim (rather obvious for me) up. Alæxis_¿question? 19:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's something at least. So far this claim was not backed by any source, so I removed it because I've never heard of any emigration of Russians from Ukraine at any notable scale, beyond normal statistical people movement. This source allows to say something like

"In early 1990s some Russians moved from Ukraine to Russia but there is no indication that such emigration was of any significant scale"

If you want any stronger statement, I think more explicit source is needed. Thanks, --Irpen 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge the only migration was standard migration with economical roots. Unfortunatelly I don't have a source to back it up at the moment. JAlexoid 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

An unsourced statement

In the section Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union we have the next statment: The independence was supported by the referendum in all regions of Ukrainian SSR, including in those featuring large Russian population.

There ain't given any sources to support that claim, and i doubt it's true in Donbass and shurely in Crimea. Unless given source, i will change it to: At the referendum held, a majority supported Ukraine becoming a seperate state. M.V.E.i. 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the referendum for independance was supported by all the regions of Ukraine even Donetk and Crimea. I suggest that before you make changes such as this you make an announcement , give it a week for a reply before making such cuts. It gives people some time to properly react. Bandurist 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We have an article about it on Wikipedia i already found it. M.V.E.i. 16:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, turns out we have an article on the theme, Ukrainian independence referendum, 1991. M.V.E.i. 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I have added an infobox. I decided to do that after i have seen that Irish American, English American and etc. Large minorities articles have infoboxes and images. Looks much better now. M.V.E.i. 09:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about the "relegion" part in the Infobox

I know for shore that there are some protestant Russians in Ukraine (i myself was born in Donetsk, and i remember that there was a Baptist church there, and a big one. I also read that the whole Baptism movement in Russia started in the New Russia region and then spread to the rest of Russia. note: if someone doesn't know that, baptists are protestant). But i've got a problem with the Old Believers. I added them there, but i'm not shure, are there Old Believers on the territory of Ukraine? Hope someone could answer me on that one. M.V.E.i. 09:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See History of Christianity in Ukraine. Most of the Old Believers are Lipovans who live in the Izmail region around Vylkove. One correction is that currently all Russian Orthodoxy in Ukraine is administered by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchy), and there is no direct ecclestical links that goes around Kiev directly to Moscow for all parts of Ukraine, irrespective of the congregation being ethnically Russian or Ukrainian. --Kuban Cossack 10:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So there are Old Belivers there, thank you. But how can Old Believers be administrated by the offical orthodoxy if they have historical enmity? I mean, the offical orthodoxy persecuted and murdered them for years. P.S. Welcome back. M.V.E.i. 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that all congregations of the Russian Orthodox Church belong to the UOC(MP) and not to the Moscow directly. --Kuban Cossack 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But according to the statistic Poltava an Kiev, middle Ukraine, belng to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate, but the East belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). P.S. I havent known about a Religion in Ukraine article, that could be used to create a relegion section here. The problem is how to write about the Old Believers and the Baptists. We al;so dont know what % of Russians in Ukraine are atheists. M.V.E.i. 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a religion section now, but it came out really primitive (mostly due to the fact i dont have references). M.V.E.i. 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

quote

Quote from the "latter years" section: "Tchaikovsky eventually settled at his sister's estate in Kamenka, just outside Kiev". The list, and image, can include even those Russians who weren't born but lived only a few years in Ukraine. Before deleting names, please first ask on the talk page. M.V.E.i. 17:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Tchaikovsky article, he settled near Kyiv sometime in, evedently, 1880. The exact words are: "Tchaikovsky returned to Moscow Conservatory in the fall of 1879. Shortly into that term, however, he resigned. Tchaikovsky eventually settled at his sister's estate in Kamenka, just outside Kiev." The article goes on to say that he traveled extensively: "He did not stay long in any one place, lived mainly solitary and avoided social contact whenever possible. During these rootless years, Tchaikovsky's reputation as a composer grew rapidly outside Russia.". Then it says that he "In 1885 Tsar Alexander III conferred upon Tchaikovsky the Order of St. Vladimir (fourth class). This gave the composer the right of hereditary nobility. That year, Tchaikovsky resettled in Russia". So he spent less than 5 years in Ukraine, but didn't even live there when he resided there, it is clear he traveled abroad for the most part ("Even with this base, he travelled incessantly.") Does that make him a Russian in Ukraine? Ostap 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And what is Korolyov doing here? He is at least half-Ukrainian ethnically? I am removing the picture until its content is settled. --Irpen 19:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove someone first propose a substatute that has a free image. Korolyov had a Ukrainian mother, but he also had a Russian father (just for the protocol, he was also born in Russia). So according to the father, he can be included in Russians in Ukraine. M.V.E.i. 21:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So if someone is half-Ukrainian and half-Russian, according to you he should be categrorized as a Russian. But even though Kuban Cossacks are at least half Ukrainian, you don't think they belong in the Ukrainian population category. Rather hypocritical of you, no?Faustian 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Now where did you get that nonsense from?? I say that if someone is half Russian and half Ukrainian, he should be categorized both as Russian and Ukrainian.

I agree 100%. And this why the same applies to Kuban cossacks.Faustian 23:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I inserted Korolyov both in the Ukrainians and Russians images. The thing about Kuban Cossacks is different. Only some of their blood is of Zaporozhian Cossacks,

At least 50%, according to census and language data.

the rest is Russian Cossacks and local Russian population, and in addition they themselves view themselves as Russian.

M.V.E.i. 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) 

Not all (the director of their famous choir very much considers himself and his people to be Ukrainians), most currently most, only in the last 60 or so years out of about 200 years of history. In 1926 most still referred to themselves as Ukrainians.Faustian 23:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find me someone who has a free image to place instead of Tchaikovski, give it here and i will upload it. How about Elena Filatova? or Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov? M.V.E.i. 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And again, dont remove image till discussion settles a new lineup. M.V.E.i. 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Khrushchev? Ostap 22:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it to but the problem is we dont have a free image of him, and if i take one when he was young no one understands its Khrushev. I wanted to insert Khrushev or Brezhnev in the place where Voroshilov is now. M.V.E.i. 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Khrushchev was not from Ukraine. He was born in what was then and what remains now Russia. --Irpen 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what is the qualification for being a "Russian in Ukraine". He spent much of his life in Ukraine, right? Ostap 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, true, but on assignment. So did, say, Potyomkin or Peter the Great. It is more natural to stick with Russians who were actually born in Ukraine, had roots here. Ukraine throughout its modern history had a thriving Russian community that produces prominent figures like Bulgakov, Prokofyev and Mechnikov. The number of Russians who worked in Ukraine is huge but let's stick to the ones born here. --Irpen 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So I guess that does mean no Tchaikovsky. I think Mechnikov would be a good candidate, I have always heard of him as a Russian. Ostap 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen i must disagree with you, those who lived a certain time in Ukraine fit as well. M.V.E.i. 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Russians rooted in Ukraine, not necessarily born here, would also be good, I think. Pirogov had a family estate in Ukraine were he chose to retire despite being born in Russia. I think he is OK. Khrushchev was simply dispatched to Ukraine by the party, the same way as Potyomkin was dispatched by the Russian government as the Governor General of Little Russia. --Irpen 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Our article says that he moved to Ukraine when was 14 years, and spent considerable time there. It also says something about him wearing nationalist shirts? Thats unsourced and I would consider it unencyclopedic, should it be removed? Ostap 03:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please say your opinion. It's already agreed that Tchaikovski will be removed, but who will we place instead? Ostap supports Mechnikov (so it's 1-0 in favour of Mechnikov). Who do you support, Mechnikov, Elena Filatova or someone else? note:if you plan to suggest someone else you have to first check that this someone else has a free image. M.V.E.i. 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personaly join Ostap and support Mechnikov, while Elena Filatova might be supported by those who belive that an image should include at least one women. M.V.E.i. 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to put more emphasis on ethnic Russians who have made a significant contribution to Ukrainian culture. Look at Mykola Khvylovy, or the composer Hlib Taranov (Gleb Taranov). And there are others. Having someone on the list because he spent a brief moment in Ukraine, of passed through it, or was just born there and soon moved out should not immediately qualify someone. Bandurist 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Khvyloyovy is a great idea. He is so Ukrainian that I did not even know he was Russian :) --Irpen 06:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Taranov is obviously a Russian surname so it's understood, but Khvyloyovy? I would like to see how it's written in Russian. M.V.E.i. 18:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Khvylovy is ihis pen name. His real name was Nikolai Fitilov. Once again I would focus on those Russians that have made major positive contributions to Ukrainian culture rather than odious ones.Doctors, Scientists, Professors, Composers etc. Bandurist 20:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, i think that the current image is good enough and is not needing extra people. Pluse those who you offered are not internationaly known. And another thing, we need those who the Russian community in Ukraine itself feels solidarity with the most. M.V.E.i. 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with that. We need those who are most important and most known in the Russian community in Ukraine itself. I know about it because i'm a Russian, and i was born in Donetsk. An image which Russian's in Ukraine could feel solidarity with. And dont forget that the image needs to feature those who are most known world-wide. M.V.E.i. 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find articles on them, any chance you haven't written their names the way it is known in English? If there are articles please five me links to those. M.V.E.i. 18:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Filatova is not known widely enough. How about Ruslan Ponomaryov? --Irpen 17:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Filatova is very famous worldwide, esspecialy thanks to her Chernobil images and Gulag images, but she has few other famous projects. Ponomaryov doesn't have free images. M.V.E.i. 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I included Mechnikov. Offcourse the image can be changed if you propose someone a majority supports. M.V.E.i. 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Who judges on being radical?

A radical movement would be one that uses violence, and one that borders on terrorism, none of the movements mentioned have used any violence and do not call for such to be used. As such they cannot be classed as radical. In fact Hillock I would like an example of a radical pro-Russian movement versus a moderate one. If the successful attempt to block NATO in 2006 and restore Russian language in Odessa was radical, then section requires re-writing, otherwise the word marginal has to go. --Kuban Cossack 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they use violence too. If you want to compare, look at Party of Regions' activity and that of ESM. Unlike the latter, PR does not attack public offices, does not desecrate state symbols, is not implicated in acts of vandalism. The fact, that they like PR have the Russian language and anti-Nato stance doesn't make them less radical. Generally, calls for disintegration, separatism and occupation by a foreign country is considered radical the world over. Ukraine is not unique here. --Hillock65 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So who in your opinion attacks state offices and desecrates state symbols? Any examples? Party of Regions might have policies that can be interpreted as pro-Russian, yet it does not openely state that that is the course of its developement. Moreover let's consider from the other point of view, prior to the Ukraine from breaking off from the USSR, would you consider those nationalist groups supproting Ukraine's independence as radical? I.e. disintegration of the USSR, separatism and occupation by a foreign Country (Nato in this case) would rightfully be considered as radical, yet we do not list Rukh as a radical organisation. Now if a party chose that they want to re-unite their country with another one, or cede part of that country where they live to another one, or break away and become independent altogether, they are radical wrt Ukraine, but not radical wrt themselves. If most Russians in Crimea want Crimea to be returned to Russia is that radical? Are they radical? Does that fact that most Ukrainians in Galicia wanted Ukraine to cede from USSR made them radical? Would extend the curtosy to articles on Soviet History in Ukraine by inserting the term radical in all respective articles? --Kuban Cossack 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kazak, there is a difference between the extremist organization and a radical one. Terrorist organizations are extremist but one does not have to be a terrorist ro be radical. I agree that provided we give a reference to these organizations being called "radical" by observers, it is OK to say that these organizations are "considered radical" in a referenced form. What worries me, though, is that this section grew beyond reasonable for the article with such a wide scope as Russians in Ukraine. Could we spin this off into the politics article? Or even start a separate article on the Pro-Russian political movements in Ukraine? --Irpen 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to move some of the stuff to the politics section. For example the picture is misleading as calls against NATO and for slavic unity does not necessarily make them radical. It should be moved. --Hillock65 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Faustian did create a Ukrainian Russophiles articles, however it is narrow towards 19th century Galicia, btw Hillock were they radical? WRT Austro-Hungary? Per your criteria their will to unite with Russia would also class them as radical...Strange criteria you have.--Kuban Cossack 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kazak, the point is that Proryv and ESM are radical compared to the mainstream parties in Ukraine, even those with a Russophile program, like PR. The article now says that these parties are "considered radical by some observers" and gives a reference. I think it is OK. What do you think about spinning off the excessive modern politics section from the articles devoted to the 400 yeats of history of Russians in UA in general? --Irpen 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Were Ukrainian Russophiles radical with respect to Austria-Hungary? You bet, they were repressed for a reason. They sealed their fate by turning on their fellow countrymen in destruction of Ukrainian institutions in Galicia during Russian occupation. That's why they are history. Learn from it. --Hillock65 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, I thought you new history better but that's all besides the point. Let's concentrate on what we are to spin off from this article and where. --Irpen 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then get off the high rostrum and point out which is not true. In regards to the article, I propose we delete insignificant detailes, like who ESM was fighting with and how many people attended the Russian marches. Just outline the main characteristics of these movements, their support and motivation. Shorten up the section. --Hillock65 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok Cathrine the II monument in Odessa, the only violence shown, was from Western Ukrainian groups who tried to interfere with its restoration by using violence, got a good kick up their ahem, by the riot police... Yet the pro-Russian groups showed no violence in the act, including those you named. So who is radical? Are UNA-UNSO and VO-Svoboda radical in your opinion? Is Rukh radical (or was it?) Was Khmelnytsky radical for crying out loud? Are some Crimean Tatar groups radical just because they want Crimea to re-unite with Turkey? --Kuban Cossack 10:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop blaiming Western Ukrainians for everything, the protests in Odesa were organized by Ukrainian Cossacks, who unlike some, do remember injustices committed against them by Catherine. Everything else is subjective. --Hillock65 12:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the media coverage including Ukrainian media. The excessive photographs show otherwise. As for Ukrainian Cossacks, the only "real" Cossacks in Ukraine, are those who live in the far corner of the Lugansk Oblast, yet even they recognise Ataman Volodatsky in Novocherkassk as their head, so I doubt they went to Odessa, also you can include the Cossacks in Pridnistrovye, who formed their own Black Sea Cossack Host, but I have not seen any of their logos in Odessa. Look, no mention of Cossacks, [15]. You still have not answered my questions. --Kuban Cossack 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go about the Cossacks from the same source. [16] With respect to what's radical, I cited two sources — one defines them as extremist, the other as radical. I can find more, if you want. There appears to be a consensus on that issue, what exactly are you after? --Hillock65 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course those Cossacks (or the individual who speaks for them, to be more correct) should say about the Bug, Azov, Yekaterinoslavl and Danube Cossack Hosts, as well as the Black Sea Cossack Host, whose descendants praise Cathrine...And even those who are not their descendants [17]. Anyway fact remains, radicals were those who used violence, only the opposers of the monument turned to it...Not the supporters. BTW my congradulations to Odessa and Ukraine for restoring a monument to such a wonderful person, our Matushka, she gave us the Kuban for eternal use, and legally that still holds. --Kuban Cossack 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you really respect your licentious Matushka, you should at least respect her will: Мы восхотели чрез cie объявить во всей Нашей Империи, к общему известно Нашим всем верноподданным, что сечь Запорожская в конец уже разрушена, со истреблением на будущее время и самаго названия Запорожских казаков, не меньше как за оскорбление На­шего Императорскаго Величества [18] Do her and everyone else a favour, do what she asks of you — stop calling yourself a Cossack and thereby desecrating the name of those, whom she persecuted. Any suggestions about the article, though? --Hillock65 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well being born a Cossack and raised a Cossack, and witnessing how units named in her honour are formed, I think it is shame on those who calls themselves Cossacks but forgets what Cossacks mean. My advice is to publish here manifesto on 1792 as well. As for the article like I said split off the Ukrainian Russophile section and expand on that, also make a clear case of what is radical movement and what is not, because I am having excessive difficulty in following your classifications.--Kuban Cossack 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider the categories to be rather arbitrary and depend on the social context. A typical pro-Communist Russian babushka sentimental towards Stalin would be considered a radical in Iowa, not in Russia. In any context UNA-UNSO is certainly no less radical than the Eurasian Youth organization.

The veneration for Catherine II by Cossacks or some Ukrainians though seems almost comically offensive, like the Russian skinheads with swastikas I saw once in a while when I lived in Moscow, sporting the symbol of the regime that killed millions of their own people. Catherine expanded serfdom in Ukraine and systematically abolished and destroyed all local Ukrainian autonomy. She destroyed the Sitch and threw the Zaporozhians out of the lands they had lived in and fought for for centuries, but when she needed them again she offered them some other lands for their service. Rather humiliating for some of their descendents to be honoring her, in my opinion. I don't recall Cherokee Indians placing statues of Andrew Jackson in Oklahoma for the gift of that land, after having been driven from their homeland by him and forced to move there. Any expressions of gratitude by the Crimean tatars to Stalin for the lands they were given in Uzbekistan?

With respect to the monument, of course Odesa's non-Ukrainian population wouldn't mind it being placed there. However it is a shameful example of a lack of self-respect that the Ukrainian government has allowed this to happen. I can't imagine that the government of Poland would allow a monument for Bandera in Cracow sponsored by the local Ukrainian community there, the Estonian or other Baltic governments to allow local Russians to place statues of Stalin in their communities, or that the Russian government would allow local Germans to build monuments to Hitler. The monument does however seem to put fuel on the fire for those who accuse ethnic Russians in Ukraine of disloyalty - they are, after all, honoring someone who had destroyed Ukrainian autonomy in the past and who helped further enserf the Ukrainian people. Inclusion of this episode in this article is useful, as it demonstrates that the Russian so-called victims of Ukrainization are no angels. Faustian 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A narrow comment. Comparing Catherine with Hitler is off the mark. As for the Ukrainian government's "mistake" to allow the divisive for its population monument, it is by far less controversial for the Ukrainian society than erecting monuments, with the support of the governmental officials of the highest rank, and naming streets to Chuprynka and other Ukrainian freedom fighters who were also Nazi collaborators. --Irpen 20:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the two Germans, Catherine II and Hitler, is indeed vast in terms of the destruction they caused, although both were harmful for Ukraine. The principle of my analogy is however quite sound: a government allowing on its soil the erection of a monument to someone who was very active in harming that nation and in politically destroying it. With respect to Chuprynka, UPA's crimes notwithstanding unlike Catherine the man was not involved in destroying Ukrainian statehood and persecuting its people. With respect to those crimes, they weren't much different from those of the forces of someone whose statue is not Lviv but in the center of Kiev and who has an entire province named after him. Faustian 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, it seems we have digressed just a little bit off the topic of this discussion and this article. Views of some, who call themselves for some inexplicable reason Cossacks and venerate someone, who once persecuted them is strange but not new. Not even for Ukrainians. Let's not turn this into another "settling of accounts". Let's stick to the subject of this article and move away from discussing politics, it will never end. As I proposed before, I suggest cutting out insignificant info from the section we are discussing. There is no need to enumerate all the deeds Russian extremists committed, general overview will suffice. --Hillock65 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I've reviewed this article, and I've decided to fail it.

Issues include:

• Numerous fact tags need to be addressed.
• The references section must be cleaned up; many sources are only a url without any explanation given. Try using the citeweb template to improve this. Print sources should be listed separately with page numbers as citations. See covering of the Senne for an example of proper citation format.
• I'm not sure that Kiev is largely russophone. I'm under the impression that it is highly controversial, even though stated as fact and cited many times. I just wanted to bring this to the surface so it can be reviewed. If I'm wrong, just ignore me.

Once these issues are fixed, it should be good to go. If you wish to contact me to review it again, I would be happy to. Otherwise, you can repost it to the GA nominations board, where it can probably go at the top of its section, as the changes I suggested, though numerous, were comparatively minor.

-Oreo Priest 11:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not knw that the article is up for a review. I certainly did not post it. That Kiev is largely Russophone is a well-referenced fact, controversial or not. Thanks for your suggestions. --Irpen 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"authoritarian"

I removed the word "authoritarian" from this sentence: is somewhat different, especially in Galicia, the only region in the country with the authoritarian tradition of Ukrainian nationalism being present.

At first I had removed it for NPOV reasons, but I have removed it again because it does not make sense as is. I think what you mean to say is "tradition of authoritarian Ukrainian nationalism," but have not added it myself because I'm not 100% sure. Please explain what exactly is trying to be said before re-adding it. -Oreo Priest 08:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think someone should look in the book that is used to reference this sentence and check what is written there. Alæxis_¿question? 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The book says that Galicia is the only region with the tradition of authoritarian UA nationalism. I did check the book before using the word. Otherwise, the phrase simply makes no sense as Galicia is certainly not the only Ukrainian region with some tradition of UA nationalism. Those who want to reconfirm, I gave the page number.

Here is a full quote:

Moreover, western Ukraine is the only region to have a strong authoritarian nationalist tradition (although the far right has also found some support in Kiev) and the conflict between democratic and authoritarian nationalism has reemerged in the 1990s, echoing the interwar conflict between the UNDO and the OUN and the disputes in the mid-1940s between the Banderites and the UHVR

Quoted from: Andrew Wilson, Ukrainian Nationalism in the 1990s: A Minority Faith, Cambridge University Press, 1996, ISBN 0-521-48285-2. P. 195. --Irpen 09:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Good. I've changed it to "tradition of Ukrainian authoritarian nationalism", which makes more sense than what I originally proposed, and is what the author meant. I think that puts this to rest. -Oreo Priest 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Balancing the article

I added a table which describes survey data on discrimination of Russians. The data source is the annual surveys by the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences (this is the same survey based on which it has been argued that there could be a need for the second state language). The section "Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union" states that the Russians feel pressured, but Institute of Sociology survey data show to some extend the opposite. Should the section be corrected toward neutral point of view, or should it stay biased and the survey results be ignored as something which contradicts the desired point of view? Greggerr (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the contents of the table could be summarised in one sentence. Why is it so important to be placed in the very beginning? Alæxis_¿question? 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's the problem with New Russia? It's called this way in scholarly works [19]. Alæxis_¿question? 05:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The table of survey data is both referenced and extrememly relevant. Removing it seems to be an example of censorship. Ostap (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I integrated the table's data as well as plenty of other sociological data into the article from this fabulous source. --Irpen 07:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "slightly" is right to use. The difference is very small although the sign of this difference is certainly notable. We should not replace "joining" by "strengthening", though. The survey asked about "joining" and there was not (and there is not) a union to "strengthen". CIS and other structures are not state unions of any sort. And let's avoid strong words like "bad faith" and censoring, at least unless there is a really messy edit conflict. --Irpen 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, though the specific numbers of people claiming to have experienced discrimination might be more helpful in the article than the less specific "single digits".Faustian (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this off topic? What does opinion of diaspora Ukrainians have to do with Russians in Ukraine? Ostap (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think that quote should not be linked to a diaspora article. The source mentiones Ukrainians living abroad, so lets leave it like that without twisting it. There is a difference between the two. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough difference to justify unlinking. It is practically the same thing. Also, in response to Ostap. We are talking about how much (or little) ethnic Russians are ostracized in UA. As we see, very little. Three least ostracized groups in Ukraine are Ukrainians themselves, the Russians, and the Ukrainians abroad. Adding this little context presents the picture better than a bare number. --Irpen 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about something funny in the source. It says "I agree to accept Ukrainians as…" then gives 0.5 percent as "Would not let them come to Ukraine'". How is this even possible? Is it some sort of paradox? Ostap (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

0.5 % is nothing. Maybe jokers, maybe members of these radical organizations in Crimea, who see the US/NATO submarines popping up from each puddle and Filaret's UNA-UNSO SWAT teams commandeering every church. 0.5 % is nothing to really talk about. --Irpen 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then in light of the aforementioned, why is there such an emphasis in the article on antirussian sentiment? There is a link to Russophobia article, there is Svoboda poster, there is a picture of vandalized Russian centre. It runs counter to what you wrote above, if Russians, according to the source are ostracised very little, why are we trying to present a different picture with this abundance of illustrations and links? --Hillock65 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there is a difference between an ethnic-based discrimination and culture-based discrimination. Please also note that there is a difference between being mistreated by your neighbors and by the state. --Irpen 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't answer my question, can we remove at least one of the pictures and the link in an effort to balance the article? --Hillock65 (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I said earlier that I don't see a picture of vandalized Russian center in Lviv particularly needed for this article. The info that the center is regularly vandalized can be relayed in the text and the picture does not add much to that. --Irpen 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So, then, do we have a concensus for the removal of that picture? Because I know at least of one, who will object. :) He will be here momentarily. :) --Hillock65 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself. Generally, the article is rather good even though it is not perfect. One sure thing is that it is rather well-referenced. It may use some reorganization though. The political issues are now spread between two sections rather arbitrarily. Needs to be consolidated.

Also, the culture pressure from the state needs to be separated from a true Russophobia and the latter is best to be presented in a separate section. Even if a genuine Russophobia in Ukraine is not particularly common, it is notable and warrants a separate section no less than the respective section of the Ukrainians in Russia article. --Irpen 22:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the picture for now. Ostap (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I put the table with discrimination data back into this article based on the following:

• discrimination is one of the key topics when a particular nationality is considered.
• similar tables from the same source seem to be acceptable in the related Russian language in Ukraine article.
• the table does not represent a particular view, providing the actual reality (if the survey is indeed independent and neutral)
• even if the table were to present a particular "minor" point, it should rather be compensated by alternative sources presenting the "major" point (which should exist if the point is indeed "major"), rather than blanking.
• the only argument expressed against the table so far is that the "table could be summarized in one sentence". It could, but it should not, as pointed above.

Best, Greggerr (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything there is in the table can be reduced to one sentence which I've done and removed cluttering the page with tables that basically repeat the text information. I don't care for now for the other article especially the one in much more raw condition. I simply can't afford enough time. The numbers do not represent a particular view but they are already given. I also condensed the data of several related surveys by presenting it together rather than in separate pieces. --Irpen 06:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work

"Especially notorious is the ultra-right nationalist political party "Svoboda" that often invokes the radically Russophobic rhetoric (see poster)"

What a wonderfully written WP:NPOV sentence. Ostap 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fofudja

Should this Fofudja phenomena be mentioned in the article? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it relates to Russians in Ukraine. It was supposed to be taked humorously, not seriously. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Most Ukrainians positive about Russia, but Russia has fewer Ukraine fans"

I saw an article on www.interfax.com with this title. Unfortunatly I'm not subscripted to interfax so couldn't read it... But it could be interesting for this article. Has anybody found a public source with the same info? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please replace Lyudmyla Denisova

1. There should be no politicians in the image, since it is controversial. Can't you find a sportseoman, model or something?
2. She is uuuglyyyy! FcUkrBt (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here is an option instead of Denisova Mariya Dolina. FcUkrBt (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should exist to inform people, not to avoid controversy (in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world (since they only know 3 other Ukrainian politicians in the rest of the world how can she be controversial?)). I put Lyudmyla Denisova in the picture cause she is a government minister, so she proofs that Russians are not discriminated in Ukraine, that was my point of putting here in the picture. Maybe Mariya (who I never heard of before...) can replace one of the men in the picture... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems both Olena Teliha and Mariya Dolina were never ethnic Russian (see there talk pages). But where made Russian by WP:sock puppets of User:M.V.E.i.... (see evidence here), who used the phrase She was born in a city with a Russian majority and she has a Russian surname. Not Ukrainian ethnicity but nationality to proof Yana Klochkova is an ethnic Russian, which should not be good enough for wikipedia (my best friend from Krym has a (ethnic) Russian father but an (ethnic) Ukrainian mother, Yana Klochkova's mother might be ethnic Ukrainian too). I don't dislike like people because of there ethnicity but wikipedia should represent facts where 100% sure of, not the way we think(/would like) things to be. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So it seems Lyudmyla is more ethnic Russian (could be she has a Ukrainian mother too but I don't know if there are that much Ukrainian woman in Arkhangelsk....). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Here I was thinking that all of you where on holiday and I could make all the changes I licked :). But I'm open to suggestions. (Some of) the persons previously in the infobox where not that well known and all born round 1900, I would like to see a better spread in times.

I propose to swap M. Bulgakov & I. Mechnikov with Vladimir Horowitz and Oleg Antonov.

Vladimir Horowitz describes himself as Russian in his autobiography, so I thought he would fit in, I know that in the SU Jewish was his ethnicity, but I think that is nonsense. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely convinced that Bulgakov and Mechnikov must be there by all means! Both were and still are very important and well-known figures in the Ukraine. No one would object that they are Russians too, unlike Horowitz. But it would be great to swap Denisova for Antonov, or, if you want some currently active person, for Azarov[20]. He is way more famous and recognisable in Ukraine. But upon looking at Denisova, the first thought is, "Ugh, who's that?" Garik 11 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I love these discussions! Keep Bulgakov for sure. Ostap 05:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I always start them especially for you (and me and Närking);) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the great writer Bulgakov should stay. Oleg Antonov is also a good suggestion I would say. Närking (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see at least 1 person who represents current Russians in Ukraine (Blokhin represents the 1970' + 80's), right now that is Denisova, who just like Azarov is not that well known outside Ukraine. Anyone got a good suggestion for a current Russian in Ukraine who is also well known outside of Ukraine (since this is English wikipedia)? Too bad there not more woman in the pic, but I couldn't think of any (either)...

Maybe Sikorsky can be swapped by Antonov (who could represent the 1950's + 60's? Sikorsky seem to become famous outside Ukraine and there are already enough people in the pic from his "timeslot". Are we sure Oleg Antonov is 100% Russian? His article is not very specific about it. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep for Sikorsky! Antonov is definitely Russian as well as Klochkova. She will be great to take the place of Denisova. Please note that in Ukraine, Russia and Belorus ethnicity is usually defined either by surname or, more importanly, by the father's ethnicity/surname (so-called paternal line). "Klochkov"/"Klochkova" is surely a Russian surname, her father is Alexander Klochkov, therefore Klochkova is surely Russian, just like your friend from the Crimea is (whether he/she likes it or not). Garik 11 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bulgakov, Sikorsky and Michnikov definitely should stay! Same thing about Prokofiev and Pirogov. I think the one to represent modern Russians from Ukraine is Mila Jovovich. Though he became famous in America, she was born in Ukraine to a Serbian father and a Russian mother and she is a good representative. I had to replace Sergei Korolev with Oleg Antonov because Korolev was half Ukrainian so it's not an obvious example of a Russian in Ukraine. 94.0.160.176 (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Russians in Ukraine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russians in Ukraine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CESOlszańskiUKel12":

• From Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2012: After the parliamentary elections in Ukraine: a tough victory for the Party of Regions, Centre for Eastern Studies (7 November 2012)
• From Party of Regions: After the parliamentary elections in Ukraine: a tough victory for the Party of Regions, Centre for Eastern Studies (7 November 2012)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed a few seconds ago. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)