Talk:List of people from Ukraine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Andy Warhall (Worholl)

Is the "Andy Warhall (Worholl)" referred to Andy Warhol? If so, he was born in Pittsburgh (making him ineligible for this list), and his parents considered themselves to be from Slovakia, not Ukraine, even though they were Rusyns. Beginning 04:45, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

==========

Rusyn = Ukrainian. This old name of the nation came out of use under the pressure of some circumstances, connected with similarity with the name of the russians. The process of the change was not fast and started in Carpathian areas later than in other Ukrainian lands, in the XX century. ~A.K.~

Very incomplete

This list is highly incomplete. It should be given priority over others.

List of famous Ukrainians?

Shouldn't the name of this article be List of famous Ukrainians. simply calling it List of Ukrainians is a little missleading: you can't possibly list all forty something millions of Ukrainians in this article. Does anyone mind if I change it to "List of famous Ukrainian" or maybe "List of noted Ukrainians"? --Berkut 06:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainian? In the List?

• Nina Koshetz
• Marina Koshetz

--Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How about adding Dmytro Doroshenko, politician, and major emigre historian. There is an article on him in the Wikipedia.

Ukrainian descent?

• James Steranko

Lewis Milestone?

I've accidentally taken a look at his page and found no mention of him being a Ukrainian. If the author of the link meant that he (Lewis) was born on the territory of Moldovian ASSR (within Ukrainian SSR) - please note it somewhere. AlexPU 19:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

General criteria for the list

I removed Lewis Milestone from the list. I think we should stick to those born within the current borders of independent Ukraine. If there are other opinions, let's discuss them here. --Pecher 10:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree with the idea of sticking to the current borders of independent Ukraine. This is an ultranew country populated by a superold nation (nations). So such a limitation would not add to Wiki informativity. However, we do need to resort and split the list. Or may be we should turn it to a category of lists? Particularly, I suggest a temporary and work-oriented ethnic and historical segregation. You see, the persons in the list are predominantly Jews, originating form Ukraine. So we should somehow recruit Jewish Wiki fellows to develop these articles (and to actually prove wether these people fit the criteria). Next, some Soviet Ukrainians list would be useful. Let's discuss further. AlexPU 17:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the current borders of independent Ukraine, I see no other viable geographical criteria. We may, of course, create two separate lists: "famous ethnic Ukrainians" and "famous people born in Ukraine" with Ukraine understood as the independent Ukrainian state within its current borders. The latter list may or may not include ethnic Ukrainians and will include the existing List of Ukrainian Jews as its part. However, we will first need to sort out how we define an "ethnic Ukrainian" because determining ethnicity may be tricky for many famous people.

On a related note: someone removed Bruno Schulz from the list. I will restore him and will persist in doing so until proven wrong. I see no reason why Bruno Schulz, who was born and lived nearly all his life in Drohobych, doesn't fit into the existing list.Pecher 16:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Born in Ukraine or ethnic Ukrainians?

The brief summary says it is the list of people "from Ukraine", i.e. those born in Ukraine. However, now the list includes many ethnic Ukrainians who were not born in Ukraine. What shall we do: restrict the list to only those born in Ukraine or include ethnic Ukrainians as well? I believe we should include both categories of people, but state our criteria clearly in the summary. The matter is very important, so let's share opinions. --Pecher 10:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should ONLY include ethnic Ukrainians in thist list - for it is the only way this list will ever work and not end up repeating names. I also think we should move all non-ethnic Ukrainians from this list to their corresponding lists: like list of Belarusians, list of Russians, list of East European Jews, List of Poles etc..

Most nationality list include people of that nationality who were born outside of the corresponding country - therefore it makes the most sense to just include ethnic Ukrainians on a list such as this. HotelRoom 00:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently, this is the list of people born in Ukraine. This is normal practice in Wikipedia; see, for example, the List of Poles. The List of Russians even goes so far as to include people associated with Russian empire or the Soviet Union. If you believe that there should be a list of ethnic Ukrainians, feel free to start a new list. Please respect the work of other people and do not delete it in an arbitrary fashion.--Pecher 09:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I implore you to be logical here. Starting a WHOLE new list of list of Ukrainians is just a joke as no one will use this original list for anything - if someone comes to wikipedia to look where someone was born regardless of their ethnicity, they'll look at their specific article and not a list. There are many lists that include just ethnic peoples associated with the nationality list of Poles doesn't include people who aren't Poles - where do you get that? list of Germans includes all Germans List of Italians includes all Italians list of English people include all English people -- why should list of Ukrainians be different? Only because list of Russians started that bad trend?! HotelRoom 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The List of Poles does not include only Poles. Just a couple of obvious examples: Klaus von Klitzing, Maria Goeppert-Mayer - Germans, Benoit Mandelbrot, Józef Rotblat, Arthur Rubinstein, Shimon Peres, Isaac Bashevis Singer - Jewish, Nikifor Krynicki - Ukrainian (Rusyn). There are much more examples to find if you look at the list carefully.

The same is true for the other lists you mention. The List of Germans includes, among others, Albert Einstein; is he an ethnic German? The List of Italians features economist Franco Modigliani and painter Amedeo Modigliani, both Jewish. So, why should the List of Ukrainians be different?--Pecher 09:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I invite everyone to join the struggle for the preservation of the list and against the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by HotelRoom. If you want the List of Ukrainians not to be debased, please voice your opinions here, on the discussion page, so that your voice is heard. On my part, I solemnly promise again that I will keep reverting any deletions of non-ethnic Ukrainians (Jews, Poles, Germans, Russians etc.) from the list.--Pecher 10:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with Pecher. The list should include all people somehow related to Ukraine: all who was born there, or lived and worked there, and ethnic in diasora Ukrainians as well. If somebody is particlularly interested in the ethnicity of the person, s/he may follow the link and read the appropriate article.--AndriyK 10:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Andriy, and some editor judgement should probably be used. Germany and Italy are not good examples, compared to Ukraine which has a history in the Soviet Union, Russian Empire, Austro-Hungary, etc, although even those countries have non-ethnic countrymen listed. As a counter-example, see List of Canadians and List of Americans. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 17:11 Z

Since you all agree with eachother and there's no way for me to stop that, the only fair thing for you all do is rename this article to something like List of people associated with Ukraine, List of people born in Ukraine, or whatever else you want - and replace this list with List of Ukrainians/temp. HotelRoom 20:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Why give it a more complicated title? A Ukrainian can be a citizen of Ukraine or an ethnic Ukrainian, such as a Ukrainian Canadian. List of Ukrainians follows the pattern of other Wikipedia article titles, including for multicultural countries, like Canada, the USA, and Ukraine. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 20:10 Z

How in the hell is Ukraine multicultural? ESPECIALLY in comparison to the USA and Canada. It's 77% Ukrainian, and 16% Russian. As you are not representing ethnic Ukrainians (the type listed on Ukrainians page) I suggest you replace this article with List of Ukrainians/temp - renaming this one - as there is no point to make this list vastly different from the others. 72.144.68.52 21:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many famous Ukrainian Russians and Jews, born and raised in Ukraine. Please try to express your disbelief a little more moderately. And I don't understand what you mean when you say that I am not representing ethnic Ukrainians. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 22:52 Z

The page that you created - List of Ukrainians/temp - is redundant and I have marked it for deletion.--Pecher 21:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all the user who posted above isn't me. Secondly, you explicitly stated that if I wish I could make another list which only contained ethnic Ukrainians - now that I have, you put it up for deletion. You leave me no option but to continuously revert the main Ukrainians page. HotelRoom 22:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You suggest quite the opposite, namely that we should rename the present article, and we are not going to do that. If you revert your changes to the article against the wishes of other editors, you will be starting an edit war, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia.--Pecher 22:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to create a list of ethnic Ukrainians, please create a page with such a name and proceed. Needless to say that I have reverted your reversions.--Pecher 22:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Let my try again: Why give it a more complicated title? Citizens of Ukraine, ethnic Ukrainian emigrants, Canadian-born Ukrainians—these can all be called Ukrainians. List of Ukrainians follows the pattern of other Wikipedia article titles, including everything from nation-states (like Germany, whose list includes Einstein of Jewish background) and multicultural countries like Canada and the USA. Is there a precedent for breaking this up into several lists? —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 22:52 Z

Looking at Category:Lists of people by nationality, it appears there are precedents. The larger main list should remain at List of Ukrainians, and qualified lists should have more specific titles. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 22:58 Z

I will compromise if you at least prune SOME names that have no association with Ukraine. Also, if you add enough true ethnic Ukrainians to counterbalance the none then ok - but Bruno Schulz needs to go as he has no association with Ukraine whatsoever - only border changes. HotelRoom 01:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

How's this: if we can make it so that Ethnic Ukrainians greatly outnumber nonethnic Ukrainians on this list then fine - I'll be cool - but as of now this list is farfetched. I will help to improve the list - IE: adding people, making articles - but will continue to revert if we do not fix up this list quick. HotelRoom 01:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

We won't make "it so that Ethnic Ukrainians greatly outnumber nonethnic Ukrainians" solely to please you. The only criterion for the inclusion in this list is the importance/fame of the persons in question, not their ethnic origin. I will revert any ethnicity-biased changes that you make to this list, and I am asking everybody else to do the same.--Pecher 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the particular case of Schulz, and I don't think that we can agree to the principle of a majority of ethnic Ukrainians; if e.g., there were more encyclopedic Jews and Russians from Ukraine, so be it (but I would guess that ethnic Ukrainians are likely to be the largest group here). To be clear: I won't support the position that there's something wrong with a list because there aren't enough of a particular group on it.

On the other hand, it seems to make sense to create additional lists, such as List of Ukrainian Canadians or List of Ukrainian Jews which could capture the marginal cases.

But why is Shulz not appropriate? From a quick scan of the article it appears that he lived and worked in Galicia all his life. —Michael Z. 2005-11-26 16:57 Z

First of all I don't see why on earth a list of Ukrainians should not have ethnic UKRAINIANS be the majority on there - that is the point of making these lists. We don't make List of Chinese people to put English architects. There certainly is something wrong with this list if there isn't enough of a particular group on it - WHEN THAT GROUP IS IN THE TITLE. There is no need to create additional lists as they already exist (except Ukrainian Canadians as far as I know). That's why all the nonethnic Ukrainians should be transferred to their

According to my Canadian Oxford Dictionary:

Ukrainian • noun 1 a native of Ukraine. 2 the Slavic language of Ukraine. • adjective of or relating to Ukraine or its people or language.

It says nothing about ethnic Ukrainians being the only Ukrainians, or the best Ukrainians, or it being bad if they're in the minority. If Ukraine had a 99% or 10% ethnic Ukrainian population, that wouldn't change who belongs on this page at all. This page titled List of Ukrainians is simply and precisely a list of Ukrainians, just as List of Germans contains a list of Germans. I don't see any reason for the majority on this page to be or for it not to be ethnic Ukrainians; there are however many there are. It's not a popularity contest; it's a list of links to biographic articles. If ethnic Ukrainians do indeed end up as the the minority here, then I respectfully suggest that you just learn to live with it. —Michael Z. 2005-11-26 22:34 Z

PS: thanks for noticing the omission; I just added "I. M. Pei, Chinese-American architect" to the List of Chinese people. —Michael Z. 2005-11-26 22:45 Z

It's quite simple: I will continue to revert additions of people who have barely anything to do with Ukraine. I will try to add as many ethnic Ukrainians as possible (considering this list is seriously lacking in important people).

Secondly, if you feel that this list should INCLUDE Ukrainian Jews and Russians - please explain to me why it's ok for them to have their separate list -----> List of East European Jews, List of Russians but not ethnic Ukrainians? Is it bias or just foolishness? HotelRoom 07:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to have a separate list of ethnic Ukrainians, although maintaining two lists will be an additional burden. And additions of any Ukrainians are welcome, of course. (I don't believe there is a list of ethnic Russians—please read the intro paragraph of list of Russians; it's a good example to follow) —Michael Z. 2005-11-27 08:11 Z

Ukrainians Born Outside Ukraine

Ever thought of this one? Nikita Khrushchev amongst others. We include those into List of famous from whatever country they were born and raised? or here? --Kuban kazak 12:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev was not an ethnic Ukrainian (his wife was). But he may be included in this list becose he lived and worked in Ukraine for substential period of time.--AndriyK 15:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to dissapoint you but on all nationality records Nikita Khrushchev appears as ethnically Ukrainian. Leonid Brezhnev on the other hand is the opposite, Russian born in Ukraine. -- Kuban kazak 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, you are mistaken about Khrushchev. It is a rather common error which is often brought up in connection with the purported reasons behind his transfer of Crimea to Ukraine but he was ethnically Russian, born in Russia and he didn't speak Ukrainian. He wrote about this in his memoirs. This was discussed the Khrushchev's talk some time ago. Please take a look at Talk:Nikita_Khrushchev#Is_Khrushchev_of_Russian_or_Ukrainian_ethnicity.3F. --Irpen 19:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, actually he was from Slobodyanshchina-border territory between Russia and Ukraine (Kursk Gubernia) modern Kursk Oblast, not far from the current border. Kuban kazak 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's where he was born. The language and culture didn't change drammaticallu at the current border and he might have spoken the same Surzhik as people of [Slobozhanshchina]] areas that became today's Kharkiv Oblast. However, he viewed himself Russian, didn't speak Ukrainian and wasn't an ethnical Ukrainian, so he doesn't qualify for the article by birth. Whether he qualifies by the fact that he worked many years in Ukraine, is a separate question and I am not sure of the answer. --Irpen 01:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars

Since the content of this page is becoming controversial, please observe wikipedia conventions, or I may revert your edit, whether I agree with your edit or not. In particular:

• Please enter a meaningful edit summary, as required by Wikipedia:Edit summary, or I may revert your edit.
• Please describe the content of your edit in the edit summary, do not argue or make statements about other editors, or I may revert your edit.
• Please do not claim "vandalism" or enter "rvv" ("revert vandalism") in your edit summary, unless you are responding to an edit that fits the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Vandalism, or I may revert your edit.
• Please consider working things out on the talk page rather than reverting.

Thanks for listening. You may now return to your collaborative encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 2005-11-26 22:40 Z

Military

Here is an excellent site, apply a filter and move the data to the list http://www.warheroes.ru/main.asp --Kuban kazak 12:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link directly to the 253 Ukrainians. I've also created a slightly processed version of the list at Talk:List of Ukrainians/Military—someone may find this useful. —Michael Z. 2005-11-27 19:34 Z

Btw here is another sorting (took me ages to get the filter) of all people born in Ukraine but not-Ukrainians [[1]]

-- Kuban kazak 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Who belongs to the article

1. First of all, there is no questions that all ethnic Ukrainians do belong here even if their relation to Ukraine in their lives is zero (like Stephen Timoshenko, and I hope a certain individual is not planning to change his article name to Ty.. and he can rest assured that OTOH, Yuliya Tymoshenko will never become Ti... in WP).

2. Also, people born if Ukraine, even if from a different ethnicity do belong here if:

1. they contributed to Ukrainian culture
2. they ae not clearly associated with another culture more than with the Ukrainian one, that is I won't include Sholom Aleichem, who, being born in Ukraine, is not an ethnic Ukrainian and who is rightfully claimed by the Jewish culture. Having him in the list of Ukrainians makes no sense despite him being born in Ukraine and even despite some of his contributions are associated with Ukraine. Of course Milla Jovovich (born in Kiev) belongs to this list even less.

3. People who aren't ethnic Ukrainians and also born outside of Ukrane but whose notability is associated with what they've done in Ukraine, especially after independence, (like Yekhanurov) should also belong to the lits.

--Irpen 17:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I highly second Irpen's approach! HotelRoom 02:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Such approach would not be consistent with other lists of famous people in Wikipedia. For instance, the List of Poles includes "famous Polish or Polish-speaking/writing persons, or persons born in Poland" - no reference to the sophisticated criteria proposed above. List of Poles features many people who were not ethnic Poles and have no relation to the Polish culture, e.g., Anastasia Lisovska, Max Factor, Klaus von Klitzing, Isaac Bashevis Singer etc. One can see a similar picture in the List of Belarusians: Irving Berlin, Noam Chomsky, Shimon Peres etc. Thus, I do not believe it is reasonable to exclude people from the list simply because they contributed to cultures, other than Ukrainian.--Pecher 19:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen's criteria sound reasonable, but may be difficult to test. Should someone appear on this list if, e.g., they were born in Ukraine, but have no Ukrainian ethnicity, self-identity, or citizenship? I would say: if in doubt, then leave them in.

Remember that other more specific lists can partly overlap with this one, and capture any people who drop off of this list, e.g., Category:Ukrainian Canadians or List of Jews. —Michael Z. 2005-11-27 19:44 Z

Someone repeatedly deletes Bruno Schulz, Ludwig von Mises, and Abram Ioffe from the list. I am not sure why these specific individuals are targeted, but I will keep reverting these deletions, as promised.--Pecher 21:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Bruno Schulz --- no association with Ukraine but territorial change birth
• Ludwig von Mises --- no association with Ukraine but territorial change birth

Signing comments

I am asking all particpants in the discussion to sign their comments. This request is particularly relevant for HotelRoom, who left the comment above without signing it.--Pecher 15:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There are four people who frequently add to this discussion, you're smart, figure it out. Also -----> history <---- tab HotelRoom 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of courtesy not to make people look into the history tab to find out who said what.--Pecher 22:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Approach

Can we agree to go by Irpen's approach. It seems the best as of yet. HotelRoom 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Rules for adding people

• 1) Must have contributed to Ukriane significantly (aside from just being born there)
• 2) Must not be claimed more by another nationality (like Jovovich)
• 3) Can be another nationality as long as they contributed significantly to Ukraine culture/science/etc

Good? HotelRoom 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the above points:

1) I am not sure what "contributed to Ukraine" means. How can one possbily contribute to a country?

2) There are lots of examples when some people are claimed by different nations simultaneously. I am already tired of repeating the examples from the List of Poles and other similar lists, so I will not cite them again.

3) I am not sure there is anything we can call "Ukraine science". I have always thought that science is universal.

Pecher 15:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just an example. Taras Shevchenko was an ethnic Ukrainian and one of the greatest contibutors to the Ukrainian culture ever. OTOH, he also wrote some nice prose and poetry in Russian. He lived and painted in Russia too, and not just in exile but in the capital. Does he belong to the List of Russians? Doubtful.

Gogol, an ethnic Ukrainian. One of the greatest contributors to the Russian cultures. Does he belong to the List of Ukrainians? Of course he does! He belongs to both lists, but Shevchenko belongs just to one. --Irpen 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing

Recent edits have made it clear to me that there might be ulterior motives associated with this list - in which case we will have to take up this dispute the to heads of wikipedia. This list from now on will on hold people who are fully or partly ethnic Ukrainians, Ukrainian-speaking, or contributed significantly to Ukrainian culture. This version includes Jews, Poles, and Russians who hold their allegiances to Ukraine as part of that nationality - but not people who were randomly born in the territory. Pecher's poor examples of other ethnics on lists such as List of Poles and List of Russians does not hold - for those people were either partly of the nationality or held allegiances to the nationality culturally as well as ancestry-wise.

to clarify: Russians who were born in Russia but worked in Ukraine do not go on this list, however, Russians who were born in Russia but held allegiances to Ukraine as a nation or separate culture do. HotelRoom 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The claims about "allegiance" make very little sense. First, neither List of Poles, nor any other similar lists mention any "allegiance" as their criterion. Thus, HotelRoom's opinion that Jews or Germans included in the List of Poles "held allegiances to the [Polish] nationality culturally as well as ancestry-wise" is just a speculation. Secondly, "allegiance to Ukraine" is a highly subjective criterion. If it becomes the main criterion for the inclusion of people in the list, it may lead to permanent conflicts of opinion.

Finally, Ukraine is already featured in the lamest edit wars ever with a controversy over Kyiv v. Kiev spelling. It would be sad to have another Ukraine-related edit war on that list.

--Pecher 09:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Russians who were born in Russia but worked in Ukraine do not go on this list, . . ." But, for example, a Russian-born Soviet engineer who worked in Kharkiv and contributed to establishing an industry or technological expertise should be on this list. I don't know where Malyshev or Morozov were born, but they are immortalized in the names of the Malyshev Factory and Morozov Design Bureau. I haven't seen anything attesting to an ethnic or political allegiance to Ukraine, but they belong, even if Russian born. This probably would also apply to others who worked in Ukraine, but who didn't have industries named after them.

Simplistic rules like this will always find exceptions. Guidelines are just that, and some kind of interpretation will probably be necessary in every single case. —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 09:39 Z

I am once again startled to see that someone keeps removing certain people of non-Ukrainian ethnicity from the list; the sheer arbitrariness of those deletions highlights the correctness of the point I have made above: the introduction of "allegiance to Ukraine" or similarly vague criteria will remove any semblance of order from the list and make any agreement all but impossible. It should be obvious that those deletions will be reverted.--Pecher 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, Pecher, you have no idea what you're talking about. I have made any deletions I've conducted rather clear, and agree completely with HotelRoom's criteria - which makes perfect sense to me. I also do not agree with some additions of ethnic Germans to the list of Poles and have made sure ethnic Germans like Nernst (apparently he had Polish ancestry though), Fahrenheit, and Klitzing have been removed from the list. Antidote 21:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Page is protected

Please work out your differences. Use dispute resolution if need be. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

People to add once disputes are over

• Eduard Bagritsky
• Peter Wilhousky
• Vladimir von Pachmann

Composers

• Alexander Zlotnik
• Alexander Sparinsky

Sculptors

• Victor Konoval

Painters

• Petro Bevza
• Igor Gorin (painter)
• Alexander Klimenko

Historians

• Dmytro Doroshenko
• Volodymyr Antonovych

Uncompromising Nature of User:Pecher

Though I have attempted to find a consensus with him by requesting a page lock, he refused to respond during the entire page lock time and instead just waited until the page lock was taken off to revert to his original list, in the process deleting many new additions and readding peoples who have been certified as part of another nationality. It is beginning to appear that User:Pecher has very limited knowledge of Ukraine and may just be a user who likes to revert a lot, otherwise he would understand the - pretty much so - logical reasoning behind the exclusion of some Poles and Russians on this list. Another page lock will be requested if User:Pecher does not respond on the talk page and attempts to find a consensus with me and the others. Antidote 21:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Antidote aka User:HotelRoom is subject to a request for comment for repeated violations related to lists by country and sock puppetry, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. Arniep 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you have no comment in reference to this list. I can only assume you wish to contribute nothing further to this list. Any further reverts will simply be reverted back unless you explain exactly why you wish to delete my Ukrainian additions and replace them with Poles and Russians. I doubt you even realize (or care about) what you delete in the process. Antidote

Reasonable deletions

The following names are completely reasonable deletions

• Stanislaw Lem, Polish science fiction writer, author of Solaris

A Pole in every definition - he wrote in Polish, believed himself to be a Pole, has a more stereotypical Polish name (Stanislaw is more common in Polish than Ukrainian). It seems completely reasonable to remove him from this list as he has nothing to do with Ukraine.

• Juliusz Schauder

Also a Pole - Polish first name (analogous to Tadeusz)

• Bruno Schulz, one of the greatest Polish prose stylists of the 20th century, painter

Polish in every way - just because he's born in Ukrainian territory doesnt mean anything. Prior to 1930, Poland was a huge landmass stretching to Russia and incoporating Ukraine - where many Poles had settled and where many Polish cities resided.

• Ilya Ehrenburg, publicist

According to the Russian pages, Ilya was a certified Russian.

• Emanuel Feuermann, cellist (born in Austrian Galicia)

It says right in the description he was born in Galicia - which is hardly Ukrainian historically. His name is clearly of Germanic origin, hinting at obvious Austrian settlers in Polish Galicia of Austro-Hungarian Empire.

• Stanisław Marcin Ulam

Again the name and the allegiance, the language, everything - territory shifts do not change a persons nationaltiy or identity!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antidote (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 December 2005.

Unreasonable deletions

These names were deleted without any foreseable reason as both are ukrainian and have implied allegiances to Ukraine.

Errors

• Lev Kopelev
• Vasily Grossman
• Solomon Nikritin

As far as I have researched these people are Ukrainian in some way - but Nikritin may have been of Russian origin.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antidote (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 December 2005.

Empty additions

In their edits, User:Antidote has made a number of additions of people to the list most of which fall into two categories:

1. People already on the list (e.g., Elena Vitrichenko);
2. Pages not existing in Wikipedia (e.g., Konstantin Dankevich, Stepan Degtiarev, Yuli Meitus etc.), the latter representing the overwhelming majority of their edits.

Therefore, I find little basis for claims by User:Antidote that their additions are of value and should not be reverted together with their arbitrary deletions of people from the list.--Pecher 09:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Good excuse. Lists are made for adding people without articles last time I checked. I may have overlooked Elena Vitrichenko if I added her twice. Nice try. Antidote 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You never bother to say in the edit summary who those people are and why they are important. Moreover, you keep deleting description from a number of people without explanation. Your "additions" appear to be just a ploy aimed at making it more difficult for others to revert your deletions.--Pecher 11:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Standard for lists in Wikipedia

This is what Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists_of_people says: "List of Elbonians would include persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Elbonia. The criteria for identifying as an Elbonian may not depend on the official citizenship laws of that country - the person could be related to the place by birth, domicile, parents, or by his personal admission, consider himself an Elbonian at heart." That's very similar to the views of editors of this and similar lists, but never mentions that "allegiance" should be a defining criterion as User:Antidote advocates.--Pecher 11:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you take a gander at List of Germans the heading simply states Here is a list of famous Germans: Does this page follow the so-called "standards"? A quick overview of the entire list tells me that almost all (perhaps with the exclusion of a few Germanized peoples, like Liebniz and others) are, in fact, Germans in any definition. Now, take another gander at List of French people. There the heading says This list includes persons of French ethnic origins, which includes factors such as language, nationality and culture.. This list is no different from List of Ukrainians, for List of Ukrainians includes people who are ethnically Ukrainian (French ethnic origins, which includes factors such as language, nationality and culture.), Ukrainian-speaking (French ethnic origins, which includes factors such as language, nationality and culture.), alleged (French ethnic origins, which includes factors such as language, nationality and culture.) or have contributed or been associated with Ukraine significantly (French ethnic origins, which includes factors such as language, nationality and culture.) Antidote 18:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am struggling to see your point. Instead of drawing parallels between factors that you propose for the List of Ukrainians, you just repeat the whole description for List of French people. I think I know why you do so: because there are no parallels to your favorite "allegiance", which is central to all your arguments. Neither List of French people, nor List of Germans, nor any other list mentions "allegiance" as a factor. These lists certainly follow the accepted "standards" because they do not exclude French or German Jews for some whimsical reason.--Pecher 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You continue to fail to understand simple reasonings. Allegiances are the same thing as being "Ebolians by heart" as stated above. Maybe you did not understand this, and if so, I'm sorry for not being more specific. There is no "whimsical" reason for these deletions, they have been nicely addressed above your comments. What's quite whimsical is your complete disregard for the additions that have been put here since, and your dwelling on the deletions just to prove a point or win your position. As a matter of fact, List of French people addresses my factor quite adequately (and the point of mentioning List of Germans was to show not every list goes by your "Wikipedian" standards). It implies that there might be a disparity between "French as a nationality" and "French as an ethnicity". Just to give you an example: there is a debate over what allegiance people like Chopin had. He was a Pole by partial-blood and allegiance (as shown by his nationalistic compositions), but is also frequented as a Frenchmen for his time spent there etc... There are plenty of parallels to my allegiance comment and the most obvious one was in your "Elbolians" example above. I just may have phrased it differently than everyone else. Antidote 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Ebolans by heart" goes after the conjunction "or", i.e. it is one of the criteria sufficient to qualify for the list. You, however, insist that it should go after the conjucntion "and", i.e. no one can qualify unless he or she meets this criteria.--Pecher 22:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing binding to having a list made in any which way. Editors use their own discretion to decide what is suitable for a list. As stated above, this can be seen in the headings of many lists. I haven't seen a single reason why you could disagree with the deletions that were made here, nor have I yet to hear why you so desperately want to have them here in the first place. A quick search of some of these names (take Ulam for example) shows where they were born.

From MacTutor Archive:

Born: 3 April 1909 in Lemberg, Poland, Austrian Empire

Which happens to be Lvov Ukraine today, but a quick biography scan reveals that Ulam was Polish. So because a certain town is Ukrainian today, we must include all their inhabitants? In that case, why aren't all famous Romans born in Gaul listed in List of French people? Antidote 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Form Wikipedia article on Ulam: "Stanisław Ulam was born to a Jewish family in Lviv (German: Lemberg; Polish: Lwów), Galicja, in Austria-Hungary, now in Ukraine." The article thus reveals that he was Jewish, although Polish-speaking. Why a person born in Ukraine cannot be included in the list still eludes me.--Pecher 07:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As explained above, territorial shifts happen all the time, leaving many people of one nationality under the sovereignty of another. For example, the Netherlands were once part of Spain, but does that qualify us to put all Dutch people born during that time under List of Spaniards? Probably not. Ukrainian territory has shifted MAJORLY and so has Polish territory, which may explain how these people can get mixed up. Antidote

I don't find the example instructive. The Netherlands were a domain of Spanish Habsburgs for a historically brief period; no one claims that some Dutch city could just as well be called Spanish. The case of Lviv is entirely different. It is a historical Ukrainian city located on a historical Ukrainian territory, even though the majority of Lviv's population was Polish-speaking for most of the city's history.--Pecher 10:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Claiming a city as part of nation does not automatically deduce that the people born in that city should be listed under that nationality. You claim that Lvov could be considered just as Polish as Ukrainian because today it is Ukrainian. Fine. Well, take the Crimea for example. Today, it is Ukrainian, but historically it certainly was not (this is stated directly on the Ukrainian article). So, using your same logic, any person that was born in the area of Crimea (whether it be a Roman, an Ottoman, etc..) should be included in List of Ukrainians because today Ukrainians consider the Crimea theirs. There are many examples to give. Ragusa (or Dubrovnik) was for a hefty amount of time under the sovereignty of Italy, but I really can't see many Italians demanding that the Croatians born there at the time be included in List of Italians. (or vice versa) It may be true that some Italians still see Dubrovnik as theirs, but how does that lead to the inclusion of all those others born in Ragusa? Your rational for these additions is unsound, and only seems to be a method to get your way. Antidote 21:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If you sincerely believe in your argument regarding the Crimea, why don't you delete Ivan Aivazovsky, who was an Armenian born in the Crimea? It looks like you just have a grudge against several people. I find your addition of "allegiance (by heart)" to the page summary especially amusing.--Pecher 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Because Ivan Aivazovsky contributed significantly to the art of Ukraine, and because he spoke Ukrainian as his native language (both discussed in the heading). I'm glad you find the addition amusing. I had to put it up there in order for you to understand what allegiance meant and how it's analogous to the "Ebolians by heart" standard, and in order for all the tons of others who you imply will get confused by it. Antidote

Where did you find that Aivazovsky spoke Ukrainian as his native language? And what is "art of Ukraine" from your perspective, especially with regards to painting?--Pecher 22:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I may obviously overlook some people, but there is some reason to include him on this list (though he may be more appropriate on list of Russians). First of all he Slavicized (or however you want to put it) his name (Aivazovsky). He has the Russian (im saying Russian to be inclusive here) first name 'Ivan'. He was under the apprenticeship of several peoples from Ukraine and Russia, and his tombstone is in both his ancestral Armenian and Russian (remember at this time the term Russian was delineated to anyone from Ukraine, and he worked in Russia). Therefore, it is safe to say he knew the language just as well as his ancestral Armenian, otherwise he just wouldnt function in his area of birth. Art of Ukraine is simply any art that is made by a countrymen and is categorized under that nationality. Aivazovsky was a Ukrainian (or at that time Tsarist Russian) countrymen and knew of it. People simply born in Ukraine through territorial changes over a period of time are usually not aware of it (a Roman born in Crimea) and often don't speak the language or sport anything in relation to the culture. There's absolutely no reason to include them. Aivazovsky was a representative of Tsarist Russian culture (which at that time included Ukrainian). He may belong more in the Russians list than Ukrainians list, yes, but he has cultural association enough with Ukraine to keep him here (but I wouldnt' necessarily object to moving him to list of Russians if he's not on there). Significant people who happen to be born in today's Ukrainian territory but don't sport anything of the culture of that area at that time don't. I have said it over and over again and explained it over and over again. You are simply dwelling on anything at this point. Antidote

Funny logic: "the term Russian was delineated to anyone from Ukraine", Aivazovsky spoke Russian, thus Ukrainian was Aivazovsky's native language. I also marvel at your discovery of the hitherto unknown Tsarist Russian culture, which not only existed, but also "at that time included Ukrainian" (probably, culture?).--Pecher 20:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My logic wasn't that at all. You're misunderstanding - perhaps on purpose. I stated above that he probably DOES deserve to be on the Russians list much more than this list, but given the fact that he grew up in Ukraine, worked under Ukrainian apprentices, and there is significant implications that he spoke Ukrainian - he COULD be left on here -- if I must simplify it for you. Tsarist Russian culture is different than Communist Russian culture - I figured you would know this -- that's why there exist period delineations. I also thought you would know by now that there are countless Russian significant figures who were actually Ukrainian by heritage/culture/etc.. -- that is why it is difficult to distinguish between a historic Ukrainian or a historic Russian during certain time periods. It certainly isn't that hard to distinguish between other nationalities though. Antidote 05:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "there is significant implications that he spoke Ukrainian"? The sentence makes no sense to me. If you want to say that there are "indications" that Aivazovskiy spoke Ukrainian, I wonder what these indications are. More importantly, I earlier required people on the list to show allegiance to Ukraine; now you want them to be "Ukrainian by personal admission". So, when did Aivazovsky admit to being Ukrainian? In addition, you argued above that people born in the Crimea do not automatically qualify for the list by the place of birth, but now you say that Aivazovsky "grew up in Ukraine", i.e. the Crimea was part of Ukraine in XIX century. When did you change your mind? And if Crimea was part of Ukraine at that time, why Lviv wasn't?--Pecher 08:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I do however wish to add that if you see people on this list that you believe do not belong here, then I don't see why you can't delete them. Antidote

Problems with names

We might need a Ukrainian name expert to help us with this. This list has a lot of people with the name Mykaylo, Myhailo, Nikolai, Mykola, and/or Mikhail. I'm not sure which is the most appropriate transliteration into English. An example of this problem is shown below with several Ukrainian historians:

1. Mykhaylo Drahomanov
2. Mykhailo Hrushevsky
3. Mykhaylo Maksymovych

Also Oleksandr and Alexander are also similar naming problems. Can anyone help? Antidote

In cases above, Mykhaylo and Oleksandr should be used unless another speling is widely accepted in English. See Romanization of Ukrainian.--Pecher 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Shchukarev and Kruschev are unimportant people?

They were highly regarded and VERY important computer pioneers who also contributed to the fields of chemistry:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5] (pdf)

Antidote

Not impressed. "Pavel Dmitrievich Khrushchev (1849-1909) - professor of Kharkiv University. In 1897 reproduced the "logic piano" - a computer invented by English mathematitian William Stenly Jevans (1835-1882) in 1870." [6] Shchukarev made only marginal improvements to the machine: "I have made an attempt to construct a somehow modified model bringing some improvements into Javons's structure. However, those improvements were not of principal character." [7] These are hardly achievements that make people onto a Wikipedia list. Nearly all of Shchukarev's works were related to chemistry, so it can be argued that he could be put into the Chemists section, but not in Computer scientists. Furthermore, I do not believe we can speak of computer science as a separate field when those two scientists worked.--Pecher 22:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Krushchev; you make a good point - he probably should not be included. However, I am doubtful of your claim that Shchukarev's computer science work does not merit inclusion. The fact that there are sources which speak highly of Shchukarev's work in computer technology makes me think he should definitely have an article and one with a mention of his work in computing. Again if his successes are outweighed in chemistry than yes he can be put under chemists. For now, I'll leave him under the computer science section. Antidote

Descriptions

Brief descriptions in the list found after a person's name serve a very useful purpose of briefly stating who the person is and why he is important. Descriptions are even more useful for people with no articles because there may be no other Wikipedia source providing information on that person. Antidote, however, persistently removes descriptions from many people in the list, such as Opanas Slastion, Kazimir Malevich, David Burliuk, to name just a few, without explaining why he does so. That is hardly a sound approach and any such deletions should be restored. Furthermore, it is advisable to provide such brief descriptions when a person without article is added to the list, so that readers and other editors had some idea as to who that person is.--Pecher 22:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you can add the description, but not in the reverts. Just do it manually. I don't care about those. Antidote

If you didn't care, you wouldn't delete them. You know very well that it's more difficult to add something than to delete it. This is simply yet another action on your part aimed at making the work of other editors more difficult.--Pecher 16:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone makes work more difficult its you for me. In the process of reverts you delete plenty of material for the sake of a lot less (most of which takes no effort to put back in manually). Antidote 05:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Andy Warholic

This subject is a good example of the obfuscation that has been targeted at things Ukraine. As a matter of fact, the Rusyns no longer exist as they did in the 30's when they became the first of WWII. [8] These people emmigrated out of the Carpathians prior to the war or were forcibly relocated to Ukraine after the war.

The bottom line is that the Rusyns no longer exist geopolitically and they are largely living in Ukraine - that place which most approximates their language, culture, and geneology.

Re: Warhol, I am led to understand that the family name prior to americanization is "Warholic" and that besides name changing at Ellis Island, Rusyn immigrants were subject to genological brainwashing by various US institutions. As such, they came to "learn" that they were (alternately) "Hunkeys" (stemming from a long occupation by Austro Hungarians), "Pollacks", Lemkos, Little Russians, Rusyns, Carpatho Russians, Carpatho Rusyns, Ukrainians, etc. In this way, one of the last sizable waves of prewar immigrants was splintered and precluded from developing critical mass - socially or politically.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spanalot (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 December 2005.

The Rusyns biography says they are simply Ukrainians who were historically under the hegemony of Austria-Hungary and then Czechoslovakia. They developed a separate culture from their fatherland but since they no longer exist as an entirely separate entity. It's probably best to put them in here. Antidote 05:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

===Conclusive Talk to end edit war=== Antidote

Poles born in Lwów, Poland (now Ukraine)

Marian Cardinal Jaworski is not a Ukrainian, he is Pole by language and ethnicity born on former Polish-ruled lands. If he would be included on this list, perhaps Paul von Hindenburg should be included in the list of Poles for having been born on current Polish terrority.

This is what I've been trying to establish for a month now. Pecher is acting completely unreasonably, filing false suits against 3RR violations just so he can revert to his previous edits. (according to 3RR - one would have to revert the same page three times in one day. Pecher, please show me the two instances i reverted three times in one day on this page. Thanks.)

In the proces of his reverts - he deleted many additions and deletions that have been verified since. I have attempted to stop him from doing this by providing the disputed names to him manually but he ignores this. Antidote 18:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly explained in the lead, which reads: "This is a partial list of famous or notable people of different ethnicities who were born and/or spent an essential part of their life on the territory of the present-day Ukraine, as well as people of Ukrainian ethnicity born in other countries." Therefore other nationals born in the territory, including Marian Cardinal Jaworski perfectly match the list. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, but it could simply be made exclusive if the heading was changed to only reflect historical border shifts. If that were done then no people of another nationality have to be listed, and we wouldn't have to go through the trouble of listing infinite amounts of people who could have been born in a territory now in Ukraine. If we were given the heading above, then we better include Diophantus (general) - he qualifies. As well as any qualifying Sarmatians. Antidote 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Found Compromise

A section like on List of Poles called "Poles born on Ukrainian territory" could be made and hence include those disputed names. I would appreciate if you would revert back to my version (because of all the names you deleted in that revert) and I will add the disputed names under the new section. Antidote 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Baal Shem Tov

Was Baal Shem Tov born in Poland or Ukraine? It seem Wikipedia lists him as being born on a border-town.

This is a source that says the Baal Shem Tov was born in Poland http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/b/baal_shem_tov.html "He was born in Poland".

Informationguy

He was born in Okopy Świętej Trójcy, near Kamianets-Podilskyi in Ukraine. The place was part of Poland at the time of his birth.--Pecher 10:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have temporarily protected this page to deal with the mind-boggling edit warring that has been taking place here. Please discuss your changes on the talk pages rather than reverting; uncivil edit summaries aren't that productive either. I urge you to consider Mediation or another form of dispute resolution. If you have reached agreement or want the page unprotecting, please post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Izehar 11:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A page lock at this point is unncessary because the edit war is over. A compromise that will probably satisfy both parties was created but a revert was instated before anyone realized. See the above comment. It needs to be reverted to my version though because there were many deletions made in the process of the reverts, and the names that are disputed can just be added manually. Antidote 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not unusual for Antidote to claim that there is a compromise where non is reached.--Pecher 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would have been paying attention instead of just blindly reverting you would have noticed I added the names we disputed to the page but under a new heading (which satisfied your complaint of not including these people in the list. I also rewrote the heading with a mix of the one I prefer and the one you prefer). Hence, this edit war could have ended if the page wasn't just locked. You cannot revert to your last version however because it is way too outdated. In the midst of the edit war there were many contributions, additions and deletions, which cleaned up the list. Antidote 20:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking Antidote's word at face value and have unprotected page as well as reverted to his last version. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Skovoroda shame

In a fierce fighting over including m-m-much less important figures, nobody noticed that Hryhori Skovoroda is linked twice on the page: in different spellings and separate sections. Shame on us! And of course, cleaning such a mess is an urgent task when the page will be unprotected. Ukrained 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because in the process of all these reverts to much older versions, names that were deleted for being duplicates or names that were deleted for not being notables are being readded. In order to reach a compromise we must revert to the version that was the latest in being edited for these mistakes. Antidote 20:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not talking about the version in which you added "Elena Vitrichenko" just on top of "Olena Vitrychenko"? :)) You never corrected the spelling of Skovoroda's name, as anyone can see from the edit history. Now the article on Skovoroda is titled Hryhori Skovoroda with redirects from other spellings.--Pecher 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall you adding a remark in here that stated adding people who don't have articles is "worthless". It's funny how you cling to whatever you can find to justify your ego-driven reverts. I was not aware there were separate spellings of her name until later and had originally assumed they were sisters in the trade without paying attention to their first name. Later I changed it back. I redirected Skovoroda to his Englishified name, and deleted the duplicate entry under the wrong heading. This would have stayed had your not continually reverted back to the outdated version that suited your fancy. The name on the article was not my doing..I only added redirects. Your version has many more errors and if we simply MANUALLY add the names you dispute to my version the whole problem of recurring errors would be solved. But that would just ruin the principle you are fighting for, right?

Anyone can see from this talk page that I have tried to find a consensus with you, but you just won't have it. Even from the beginning you stated you would "revert" any changes made to the page without a second thought. Antidote 12:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take time to read WP:CIVIL. Thanks.--Pecher 14:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The famous Ukrainian In the List

How about adding Oleg Ryabets, sopranist? His worldwide activities make more and more famous his native country, especially his home town, Kiev. And if Alfred Deller opened the door of counter-tenor, Ryabets is the first to open widely the door of male-soprano. <by his Japanese admirer, A.>

( I write that article also in French: Je vous demande d'ajouter à cette liste Oleg Ryabets, sopraniste. Ses activités à l'échelle mondiale permettent de rendre beaucoup plus fameux son pays natal, surtout la ville de Kiev. Et si Alfred Deller a ouvert la porte de contre-tenor, c'est Ryabets qui est le premier à ouvrir largement la porte de soprano-male. <Ecrit par son admiratrice japonaise, A. >

Feel free to add them - translate if you can. Antidote 12:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have protected the page AGAIN. Why must you edit-war? Discuss HERE, you are both calling each other to use the talk page, why don’t you use it? Izehar 22:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There SHOULD NOT be an edit war. User:Pecher is pointlessly reverting to his old version without given explanation. The whole dispute does not exist anymore. Antidote 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are they reverting then? Please consider WP:DR - for them to be reverting, there must be some kind of dispute! Izehar 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There isn't to my knowledge, since no reason is provided. I've explained many times that the whole page needs to be reverted back to the most updated version, not one where tons of names are deleted and misspellings returned: [9] Antidote 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see that - could you name all involved parties. Have you defended your position elsewhere, so that I can have a look at it. Have Pecher, AndriyK etc ever done the same? I'll have to read this talk page, so as to get to the bottom of what's going on here. Izehar 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User:AndriyK is not involved in this. He simply reverted because he thought I had dropped out people in my revert.

To give you a summary:

Pecher and I have been having a revert war over the inclusion of Poles/Russians/Austrians who were born on Ukrainian because of border shifts and whether or not we should include them in this list since they do not fit the criteria of an ethnic/culturual/or linguistic Ukrainian. After a long edit war, I moved the names to a section called "Foreign Nationals born in Ukrainian soil". However, in the midst of the edit war many names were added and deleted and hence the version Pecher is reverting to is outdated. See [10]. I am simply trying to revert back to my version (which has the Foreign Nationals that were disputed on it) to keep the page updated. I do not know why Pecher keeps reverting to his old version anymore. Antidote 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Pecher to comment - hopefully, he'll give us his side of the story, so that we can get to the bottom of this. Izehar 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Famous Foreign Nationals

I do not see any reasons why "Famous Foreign Nationals born on Ukrainian soil" should be in a separate section. The division is made by profession or similar. "Foreign Nationals" is not a profession. It destroys the logic of the list.

So I tend o agree with Pecher.--AndriyK 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If so, then at least agree to revert to my version (which is the most updated) and then simply add in the disputed names manually with "<--- --->" before a consensus is reached. It is controversial to have foreign nationals on a list such as this. They are in no way Ukrainian except in terms of today's border territory. To include them we would have to include EVERYONE born on modern Ukrainian territory including Greeks from Ancient Times. There was a Greek colony in modern Ukraine. Antidote 23:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If there were famous Greeks born on modern Ukrainian territory in Ancient Times, they clearly belong to the list according to the definition in the leading paragraph. I do not see any problem here.--AndriyK 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that eventually defeats the purpose of having a list of Ukrainians ---- we might as well just make a list of all people born somewhere around that territory -- especially when so many of these people are not Ukrainians in any way shape or form. The problem also is that in the middle of all this edit warring, many names have been deleted through reverts. This needs to be stopped. Antidote 23:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with Pecher and myself about the definition and the structure of the list, try Request for Comment. Let's listen other people's opinions.

If the issue is merely adding the names to the list that were lost during the edit wars, it's not a problem. Please, discuss it with Pecher. I hope he agrees.--AndriyK 23:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Antidote, why don't you create a duplicate article of how you think the article should be and ask everyone else to comment. Make it at /Antidote's proposal. Izehar 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that but the version will be almost identical to how it is here except without about 6 names and with the readdition of deleted names. Antidote 23:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago, Antidote created a page List of Ukrainians/Temp. Instead of asking for comments, he simply proposed the current page should be replaced with List of Ukrainians/Temp. Antidote also suggested that everybody else sould move to some other article like List of people associated with Ukraine "since you all agree with eachother" (sic), so that he alone could reign supreme on the List of Ukrainians. Obviously, nobody agreed to do that.--Pecher 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that Pecher and whoever else is disputing your version will be able to give their reasons why they don't like it without having to worry about the revert war. I hope he/they will. Izehar 00:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How about we unlock the page, revert it to my version but readd the names in their respective positions with a "disputed" next to them. I would agree with that for now. Antidote 00:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not just an edit war between me and Antidote, this is Antidote acting against the consensus of other editors. See, for example comments by Michael Z. above, or recent comments by AnriyK. So, it is wrong to assume that I am not responding to Antidote on the talk page: I am just tired of repeating my and other editors' arguments for the umpteenth time. Currently, I am trying to preserve the page in the state it had been before Antidote, or rather his sockpuppet HotelRoom, began to change it beyond recognition to suit his POV. Nor do I "blindly revert": as you can see from the edit history, I restore those people that I find notable. The problem, however, is that the notability of many people added by Antidote is dubious, see this discussion, for example. Finally, not only does Antidote delete people from the list against the prevailing consensus, he also deletes many descriptions without providing any explanation whatsoever why he does that.--Pecher 13:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

From the very beginning, you stated you would not allow any other viewpoints on how this list should be formatted. This can be seen above. The other editors you claim disagree with me never fully agreed to include other foreign nationals on this list; you just assume that. In fact, one user wanted to set some standard for inclusion in this list but was ignored. In fact, there are no other strong opinions on this page now, except yours and myself since all other Users apparently (Michael, Irpen, HotelRoom) aren't getting involved. Only you and I dispute whether or not it is ok to be so inclusive. If instead of just proclaiming "I will revert whoever changes this list" as you did above, we could have came to a consensus with the other users who disagree with including Poles and Russians (a comment above shows not everyone is satisfied with that). You say you "restore" people who are notable yet for the last four or five reverts, I made sure that no people were deleted from the list -- the only difference was that they were under a different section in my attempt to compromise. This came off as blind reverts on your part (i'm not saying it was on purpose) because nobody was deleted. In fact, you delete numerous people when you revert to your old version. Many who have been on this list for a while and almost all who are very notable. We may have had a dispute about the two computer scientists above but thats hardly evidence to say that all my additions are "unnotable".

If these nationals are in such dispute then I ask why is it such a big deal if they are in a sublist? It should make absolutely no difference and saves from the inevitable controversy that would insue. Everyday a user removes someone from a list because they believe they are part of their nationality and not the listed nationality --- why risk this controversy when the Poles born in Lvov you dispute can simply be listed separately? I would appreciate an answer to this, as it will help in reaching a true compromise. Antidote 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Having a sublist of people whom you do not want to see on the list violates the logic of the list, which is structured by occupation. AndriyK has made that point above, but you seem to ignore his opinion. You are the only user with whom we "risk this controversy", which just underscores the point I have made above: you are acting against the consensus of other editors and there had been no controversy before you began pushing your POV.--Pecher 20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because beforehand this list was practically empty and no one working on it, hence, ofcourse back then there was no controversy -- most of these names weren't even on the list then. I don't see why you would have a problem with sublisting these people but not have a problem with sublisting "Parents born in Ukraine," which also isn't an occupation. I didn't ignore AndriyK's opinion either. I discussed it with him as you can even ask him. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Antidote 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "beforehand this list was practically empty"? I do have a problem with "Parents born in Ukraine," but that's a separate issue. We have not been able to approach it because the edit war that you started leaves little space for more constructive work.--Pecher 09:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you also explain here why you keep deleting descriptions of people? What was wrong with the descriptions of Tchaikovsky or Malevich or with others that you removed?--Pecher 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

They were deleted in the process of cleaning up the sections because they initially looked untidy but like I said above, you can return them. I really have nothing against them it was just part of the revert war that got tangled up. That's not a problem. However, I ask that you do it manually and not through the reverts which deletes other work. If you added them manually in the most updated version of the list I wouldn't delete them. Antidote 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please respect the work of other editors, who have spent their time inserting descriptions. They are not going to spend their time again manually restoring your deletions.--Pecher 09:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So I'm disrespectful for deleting their contributions by accident but its ok to delete my contributions in your reverts on purpose? Antidote 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What I figured would be a good way to conclude this for now is to revert to the most updated versiona and manually readd the people from the "Famous Foreign Nationals" Section to the list (in their appropriate sections) with a note that the names are disputed. I would be fine with that for now and not continue any revert war. I want to know if and why you would disagree with that. Antidote 04:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would more appropriate to:

1. Keep the locked page as is, even though it's inevitably in the wrong version.
2. Add any people with articles in Wikipedia who were accidentally deleted.
3. On the talk page, provide justification of the notability of all the people without articles in Wikipedia who were accidentally deleted. They may be added later if found notable as a result of consensus.

--Pecher 09:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good enough. I can't really see the point of this dispute. Both version seem almost [11] identical to me. Why don't you do it this way: remove all people someone disagrees with and then have an approval poll for each other name (consensus test). Izehar 11:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Izehar, the following people are all the people deleted (some may have been moved without me noticing) from the revert from my version to Pecher's:

• Stepan Degtiarev
• Konstantin Dankevich
• Yuli Meitus
• Levko Kolodub [12] [13]
• Lubka Kolessa [14], [15], [16]
• Vladimir Zubitsky, accordinist [17], [18]
• Anton Losenko
• Volodymyr Shayan [19], [20]
• Tatiana Davydova [21]
• Nikolay Krylov
• Omeljan Pritsak
• Volodymyr Antonovych
• Dmytro Doroshenko
• Viktor Kyrpychov
• Valentin Glushko
• Alexander Shchukarev [22]
• Alex Trebek (Ukrainian father)
• William Tytla [23]
• Kliment Red'ko
• Ludmila Morosowa [24]
• Anatole Jakovsky
• Nina Genke-Meller
• Aleksandra Ekster

I have added a source to each name. At this point, I can't see any reason why the page lock can't be taken down and returned to my version with the addition of the moved names. Antidote 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to this the revert from mine to Pechers messes up alphabetization, returns misspellings, moves people, and deletes sections.

Yet the names Pecher disputes aren't even DELETED from my list - just in a different part of it. I agree to return them to their original place (with a notice that they are disputed) but I disagree in keeping this version of the list as it is. I don't see it as fair in anyway. Antidote 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, if a page or part of it is diputed, an appropriate tag is placed on top of page or section. I do not believe, however, that this is necessary in this case. All we probably need is to denote clearly the connection of those people with Ukraine, like "born in Lviv".

The list above includes some people included in the current version, e.g. Kyrpychov or Kolodub, but these are details. As I said above, I have no problems with people who have articles in Wikipedia, but please explain the notability of those without articles.

You did not move each person that you dispute to a different section. For example, you deleted Ilya Ehrenburg and Ivan Aivazovsky.

--Pecher 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Those two were lost in the midst of all these reverts. We can return them until further deliberations are met. Antidote 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To be added when lock is removed (probably belongs under historians): George S. N. Luckyj. —Michael Z. 2006-01-17 00:50 Z

To be added under other academics: Robert Klymasz, Ukrainian Canadian folklorist. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 06:44 Z

Unprotecting

Been 2 weeks. No discussion for over a week. Let's give it a whirl. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Singers

I broke out singers. Promise to put up stubs this week for new opera names.--tufkaa 04:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Talking about it"

• 1. Removing red links - no way for Wiki community to judge if these people are notable if they don't have articles. Sure, red links "may encourage someone to write an article about it", but A. These lists aren't here to encourage people to write articles and B. removing the links encourages people to write the articles so they can be included. :)
• 2. You can not have "Americans" or anyone else here if the list is called "List of Ukrainians". What is the point of a list of Ukrainian-Americans if you're just going to stick everyone on it here? Per WP:NOR, you can't include any non-Ukrainians here unless they have been described as "Ukrainian" by a reliable source. Not Ukrainian-American, not Ukrainian father, ancestry, "Ukrainian".
• 3. As for "exclusionist", we're not here to include as many people as possible

Mad Jack 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Removing read links: I don't see how removing links encourages people to write about subjects they may not know have yet to be written. I'm missing your message of encouragement. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics is working very hard to catalogue Olympic medalists, and your deletion of Ukrainian Olympic medalists based on not currently having an article seems rather unnecessary, as well as an affront to the vision of that Wikiproject.
2. Please feel free to come up to Jack Palance and tell him he's not Ukrainian.
3. When I delete names added to lists, I courteously try to look up the names (try Google) to make sure I know the difference between someone who is noted, and someone who listed there only as vandalism. When I can't find out who is notable, I give my fellow Wikipedian editor the benefit of the doubt.

Please give your fellow Wikipedians the benefit of the doubt.--tufkaa 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Jack Palance is a Ukrainian-American and he is on that list. If you have a reliable source that calls him just "Ukrainian" (or anyone else), which you may well have, then you can put him or those anyone elses on here with the source and I can not object. As for red links, again, even if someone pops up on Google, it does not make them immediately notable. No one or two people can decide if someone is notable, which is why red links are a problem. If someone has an article and its notability is in doubt, then at least we can have a vote by several people on whether it should or should not be kept. With red links - they take up space and don't help the reader of the article, who sees a name but has no further info on the person. Mad Jack 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What space issues? It sounds like the servers are overloaded because of red links, when in fact there is no "space issue". There is no harm done by leaving a red link. The harm is in removing the link so that now people have a lesser understanding of who is Ukrainian. Before, they at least knew that Valentin Mankin was Ukrainian, even if the link offered "no futher info on the person". Now, You don't even have that information. How is that helpful? Again, plase give your fellow Wikipedians the benefit of the doubt, that maybe someone out there knows what they're talking about.

Here is my source on Jack Palance: Jack Palance.--tufkaa 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "space issue", I said they take up needless space. Who is Valentin Mankin? Why would anyone be interested in knowing that a person named "Valentin Mankin" is Ukrainian if they can't find out who he is or more info about him (i.e. through Wikipedia). So, essentially, if we have Valentin Mankin on this list, then the only information Wikipedia has on Valentin Mankin in general is that he is Ukrainian. Which is not helpful. I do not understand your comment on Palance. If you have a reliable source that says Palance is "Ukrainian" (not Ukrainian-American, etc. but you get the point), then you should re-add him with that source attached. A reliable source would include Palance's own words, of course. What is this benefit of the doubt thing? All I'm doing is clearing the lists of excess names that either outright don't belong on the lists or whose notability has not been confirmed through due process of article creation/survival. Mad Jack 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"See talk", he says, but yet, no further reply here. Anyway, never mind the red links. You need to source the following people to reputable sources that call them "Ukranian". Not Ukrainian father, mother, ancestry, Ukrainian-American. "Ukrainian", per this list's title.

• Nick Adams
• George Dzundza
• John Hodiak
• Paul Muni
• Jack Palance
• John Spencer

Mad Jack 06:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about me? I was not involved in the last set of edits, but you seem to have a policy of not believing other editors when we add information to an article. My reputable source for Jack Palance is the man himself. If he tells me he's Ukrainian, are you telling me that his say-so isn't enough?--tufkaa 15:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have a source where he says he's "Ukrainian"? That's what you need. What do you mean "tell me"? We can't really do "I know this person and he told me this or that". Mad Jack 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Klychko vs. Klitschko

Why this page does not use internationally recognized spelling for the surname of Klitschko brothers?

Was Chekhov Ukrainian?

On the face of it, no: he was from Taganrog, which is not in Ukraine, even though his grandmother Efrosinia (née Shimko), whom he often stayed with at Kniazhaia, was Ukrainian, and though he said he spoke Ukrainian as a child (Rayfield, Anton Chekhov: A Life, 1998, p 4 and p 605). But it is possible to be both Russian and Ukrainian, of course. I would not raise the matter had I not come across the following in a letter from Chekhov to Alexei Suvorin: "...the trip will be an uninterrupted six months of labor, physical and mental, and for me this is also also essential, for I'm a Ukrainian and have begun to grow lazy" (quoted by Ernest.J.Simmons in Chekhov: A Biography, 1962, p 212). The letter was written in 1890, long before Chekhov became a permanent resident of Yalta. Is he really saying here that he is a Ukrainian, or is there some in-joke involved, which I don't grasp, about Ukrainians being lazy? (Or both?) qp10qp 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it seriously. Chekhov is joking in his letters most of the time. The original word he used humorously is khokhol. It is not quite the same as Ukrainian, and the translator should have known that. Chekhov used this slightly disparaging (bot mostly, humorous) term to refer to Gilyarovsky or Potapenko, among others. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed, I very much suspected that this was a form of joke. This is what I needed: someone to go back to the original Russian and explain the wording. I am very much at the mercy of translations, and they don't always quite make sense or agree.qp10qp 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla Alex Bakharev 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Heading

I think that the present previous lead makes made a problem by simply including those who have just been born on today's Ukraine territory. For example, there were many Galicians not that much related to the Ukraine (if at all). Well, putting them or other "foreigners" here at the same level as ethnic Ukrainians makes as much sense as putting Friedrich Bergius or Edith Stein on a list of Poles. It is incorrect, misleading and in practice it provoked long lasting revert wars. Now, when the conflict has been resolved, I'd suggest not to annouce "those who have been born" in the lead. On the other hand, if someone finds it usefull, we may create a separate section, clearly decribed as a list of people that are not just "simply Ukrainian" but "of different ethnicity and heritage, and born on today's Ukraine territory". --Beaumont (@) 11:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of Eastern Galicians are strong related to Ukraine, irrespectively of ethnicity or religion. Culture is wider than the tight nationalism. For example, Bruno Schulz simultaneously belongs to Jewish, Polish, and Ukrainian culture, as a Galician painter who was born and lived in Ukrainian-Jewish-Polish town Drohobycz. In that case, Galicians are similar to Silesians. Greetings, an Eastern Galician. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.106.179.88 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, the page got a new dynamic. However, under the present lead and with the present content the page probably should be moved to "People of Ukrainian roots" (and so it will be). But even then it would be problematic to include certain names. What is the real connection for Adam Rotfeld, say? Just to be born there (yet when it was in Poland) does not seem to be enough. Anyway, it should be decided what we want: either a large list under a vague title or more closly connected people under quite strict heading of "Ukrainians". --Beaumont (@) 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Adam Daniel Rotfeld ought to be among "People of Ukrainian roots" like other persons who were born and/or lived in Eastern Galicia (i.e. Shevakh Weiss, Simon Wiesenthal, Bruno Schulz, etc.). What does that mean: "more closly connected people under quite strict heading of "Ukrainians" ? Kuroń or Wasilewska are o.k., and Rotfeld not ?! Nonsense. -- 17:50, 13 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.106.179.88 (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I did not performed consistency test (I suggest it should be done). I've just looked at Rotfeld's bio and saw no relation to Ukraine. Is he ethnic Ukrainian important to development of the country? Does Friedrich Bergius from Breslau belong to a list of Poles(or people of Polish roots?)? More precision is needed. Well, eventually I have nothing against putting Rotfeld here. But if you want to include people of this kind (related just by the birthplace that now belongs to Ukraine), make for them a properly commented separate section (as the one that was recently deleted, probably by you). This would be a clear, fair and precise representation. --Beaumont (@) 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your nescience of Adam Daniel Rotfeld's bio is undisputed. I think you know Polish language, so I suggest you to read an articule "Ocalony minister" [25]

--Mibelz 23:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The article just confirms what I said. This episode would be extremely interesting in his bio, but does not qualify him to the list of Ukrainians. BTW, did you read the article? Did you know that the Ukrainian police arrested and executed his parents? Yet, he was Ukrainian?? Such a representation looks offending. Maybe we should ask him first? He is a living person and you have to be careful! See WP:LIVING! If you want to include people related to the Ukraine just by the birthplace, please do it in a separate section, clearly labelled to avoid inaccuracies. Until you restore this section (you deleted), there is no place for Rotfeld here. Probably your other additions should be revised as well. Please consider doing it yourself and properly sourcing the results. --Beaumont (@) 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Beaumont ! It is your thinking, and your thinking is supposedly different from another's. During WW II, Adam Daniel Rotfeld, a Galician Jew, survived thanks to the brave Ukrainians (Blessed Klement Sheptytsky and others).

Do you intend to remove from the list such persons as Natan Sharansky, Shevakh Weiss, or Grigory Yavlinsky (“qualification of a living person”) ?! Maybe we should ask them first ? And what about your other additions ? As a result of your nationalistic point of view, we could have “List of Poles” without such persons as Andrzej Schally, Richard Pipes, Jaroslav Rudnyckyj, etc. Please open your mind ! By the way, it is interesting to know what you have written for Wikipedia. -- Mibelz, PhD, 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PhD! It is your thinking, and your thinking is supposedly different from another's, too. I'm afraid what you propose would be much different from what would think _many_ others. Since I presented my arguments and heard no real reason to include Rotfeld here, I'm no no longer interested in the discussion that turns out to be a waste of time. If you reintroduce Rotfled, I'll just challenge it on grounds of WP:LIVING by reporting to an admin (and he would be of neither Polish nor Ukraininan nationality). EOT. --Beaumont (@) 09:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedians are supposed to comment on the content, not on the contributor. No personal attacks is an official policy so I suggest that you would benefit from reading it.

Mr. (I do not know what is your scientific title) Beaumont ! You have written: "Wikipedians are supposed to comment on the content, not on the contributor. Guess who wrote this: "Probably your other additions should be revised as well. Please consider doing it yourself and properly sourcing the results."

You have not yet answered what difference is there (List of Ukrainians) between Adam Daniel Rotfeld and Jacek Kuroń, Shevah Weiss, or Grigory Yavlinsky. Have not you ? -- Shalom, Mibelz, PhD, 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Re-read the text if you do not understand it. EOT. --Beaumont (@) 09:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Stefan Banach entry: Vandalism by Polish ultra-nationalist chauvinists

The current List of Ukrainians has become a subject of systematic vandalism attacks by a small clique of Polish ultra-nationalist chauvinists.

E.g., the eminent Ukrainian and Polish mathematician Stefan Banach has taught at the university of Lviv, Ukraine most of his life, including the periods of time, when Lviv was occupied by dictator-ruled militarist Poland or Nazi Germany. Banach was a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Science and he became a full professor at Lviv university after the city of Lviv, Ukraine was finally liberated from German and Polish occupation.

Ukrainian Wikipedia correctly lists Stefan Banach as Ukrainian and Polish mathematician, taking into account both his origins, place of work and the contribution to the mathematical school of Lviv University, Ukraine.

Despite that, the List of Ukrainians has been systematically vandalised by Polish extreme nationalist characters. Their purpose is to erase and to distort the record of the Ukrainian roots of Stefan Banach and many other mathematicians who lived and worked in the city of Lviv, Ukraine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.67.179 (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

If I could just suggest somethig to Mr. Anon.

Why don't you add Karol Wojtyla to the list of the Ukrainians? In the summer of 1939 he spent some time in the area of Lwow, well it was then occupied by dictator-ruled Poland, but who cares? Then, a few years ago he visited Ukraine on a pilgrimage. He was born near Krakow (Banach was born in Krakow), Wojtyla's parents were Polish (just like Banach's parents, who came from Podhale). It all means that he was Ukrainian, so go ahead, dear Anon.

Fortunately, in 1939 Lwow was finally liberated from Polish occupation, and we all know how Soviet authorities treated the Ukrainians (just look at the 1930s famine). Tymek 19:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Lviv, Ukraine grew a sizable Polish population during the years of occupation by Nazi Germany and dictator-ruled militaristic and anti-Semitic Poland (1918-1944/45). According to many historical records, the Polish population of Lviv, Ukraine was poor and suffered from various diseases as a consequence of poverty and malnutrition. It is plain ridiculuos to view a temporary presence of these misfortunate Poles on the Ukrainian soil as a justification to any misguided claims of our contemporary Polish partners to any place in the history of Lviv, Ukraine.

If our Polish partners think otherwise, they should be advised to claim themselves a place in the history of London, Paris or any other European city, based on the current European omni-presence of numerous Polish un-skilled laborers, beggars and prostitutes.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.67.179 (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

For more details on Banach, see Talk:Stefan Banach, sigh. If I might suggest something to our dear Anon, it would be to give up Lwów School of Mathematics. It is hopeless to fight against Polish chauvinists. --Beaumont (@) 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Cholesky was French. Full French AFAIK, with no special relation to Ukraine. Possible Ukrainian ancestry does not qualify for this list. Anyway, it should be sourced first.

Current dispute

Now that the article is protected, hopefully we can all cool down and a compromise can be reached.

Here is my proposal. If anyone wants to make any claim about someone in this list (that the person was Polish, Ukrainian, Rusyn, or whatever), and if that claim is disputed, let it first be settled at the article page of the person involved. Fighting revert wars over the issue here is not the way to go.

So, let this discussion continue at Talk:Stefan Banach. Sources should be presented for his Ukrainian nationality. If and when that is satisfactorily established, we can call him a Ukrainian and Polish mathematician here. Balcer 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems a good idea to me. I am for inclusion either people who were citizens of the indepndent Ukraine or people who self-described themselves Ukrainians. Alternative we could use my Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies despite this not been an offcial policy. Alex Bakharev 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Banach and Tchaikovsky

Good to see you at least attempting to provide references now, Mr 98..., but I can't see anything in those sources which would imply that either of these two people were Ukrainian (as opposed to having spent time in Ukraine, admired Ukrainian freedom fighters, etc.). Oh, and the "list of famous Ukrainians" link seems to be broken.--Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kotniski: It is encouraging to see you finally abandoning your usual anti-Ukrainian, anti-Western and anti-Semitic rhetoric. The references on Tchaikovsky and Banach contain a wealth of information on their connections to Ukraine and their contribution to the pro-Western Ukrainian cause. As another editor suggested above, make sure you also read the following comprehensive document Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies before coming here again with pieces of wisdom that made you Poles and your country oh so famous throughout the civilized world. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk • contribs)

First, anonym, I would ask you to avoid personal attacks. It is not nice and does not contribute to the discussions. The second your references are seem to be bogus. http://www2.uwindsor.ca/~hlynka/ukfam.html is a reference to a personal website of a University of Windsor student and is not a reliable source (it does not seem to open, BTW). The Zerkalo Nedeli article does not talk about Banach being Ukrainian. The question was intensively discussed on the Talk:Stefan Banach and your point of view does not seem to be supported. I happen to be the original author of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels in biographies and does not see how it supports any of your suggestions. At any rate it was not accepted by the community, so it at the best a sort of essay, not a guideline or policy. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bakharev: You are certainly wrong on many counts here. For instance, the link to "Famous Ukrainians" list is maintained by the eminent Professor of Mathematics, the world-famous pro-Western Ukrainian mathematician. He comes from a distinguished family of Canadian Ukrainians, prominently featured in this and other lists of famous Ukrainians. You ruskies and polacks should stop being anti-Ukrainian anti-Semites at last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a question. Does the people on the list really have to be ethnic Ukrainians? If you compare this list with List of Finns you will find many ethnic Swedes there. So what's the problem with having ethnic Poles and Russians in the list of Ukrainians if they actually lived and worked there, and perhaps even were born there? Narking (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Narking: you are absolutely right, people do not have to be ethnic Ukrainians to be listed here. In fact, one can easily find many ethnic Jews, Poles and Russians on this list. The current argument is a consequence of a manifestation of a mis-guided Polish chauvinism by several anti-Western and pro-Russian anti-Semites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

98.210.14.5: you are half right, people do not have to be ethnic Ukrainians to be listed here. But this current argument is not a consequence of Polish chauvinism by several anti-Western and pro-Russian anti-Semites, and you need to stop saying things like that. And get an account. Ostap 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon has a point and I have restored both Tchaikovsky and Banach. Ostap 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ostap: thank you for restoring Tchaikovsky and Banach. These edit wars with Polish anti-Semitic chauvinists were going on for months. Because of this, it may make sense to restore both the entries in the List AND the references to the sources confirming the connections of both individuals to Ukraine.

What "point" does Anon have exactly? This is a list of Ukrainians, right? So what is the point of adding people who are not said to be Ukrainians, in any sense of the word, by any reliable sources whatever? I have removed these two again (there are probably more people on this list who should also be removed, but that's no excuse for adding more inappropriate entries). Please don't put them back unless reliable sources for their being Ukrainians can be found. This isn't about being pro- or anti- anything, just about factual accuracy. You are actually damaging the value of this list as a whole by apparently adding anyone you like to it.--Kotniski (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should not look into the ethnicity only. But if we look to the place of birth only the results will be very strange (especially if we use the "localization" of people's names as the anonim did). Do we really pipe Immanuel Kant to Immanuil Ivanovich Kant and put him in the list of Russians? Or pipe Adam Mickiewicz into Adam Mykolayich Mitzkevich and put him in the list of Belarusians? Both were born on the modern territory of Russia. Or pipe Golda Meir into Olga Moiseyevna Meir and put in the list of Ukrainians? Surely there should be some strong connection to the culture, education, language so that a person can be put into the correspondent list. Those connections were not demonstrated in the articles. Alternatively we can look into the source data? How many sources label Banach or Tchaikovsky Ukrainian? I do not many of such sources. I have no objection to rename List of Ukrainians into the List of people born on the territory of modern Ukraine it would include Meir, Banach, Tchaikovsky, Bulgakov, Akhmatova, Kievan Rus princes, rules of Crimean Tatars and many other interesting people Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Banach and Tchaikovsky don't even qualify by that criterion. They were born in present-day Poland and Russia respectively.--Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm comparing with the List of Finns again. There you will find the Finnish national poet Johan Ludvig Runeberg who actually was an ethnic Swede, but born in Finland just like many other ethnic Swedes. When he was born in 1804 Finland was part of Sweden, and when he died in 1877 it was part of the Russian empire. What's more interesting is that he wrote in Swedish, and probably didn't even know much Finnish. But he is on the list of Finns and not Swedes. Narking (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this is a matter you should take up at Talk:List of Finns. Misinformation on one page is no justification for misinformation on another.--Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter to take up at the List of Finns since it's correct that those ethnic Swedes are mentioned there. I just mentioned Finland because they have a simular history as Ukraine, with different ethnic groups in one country. And both have also been part of the Russian empire. Narking (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine if the list includes people who aren't "strictly" Ukrainian in some sense but who just have a significant connection to Ukraine. But Banach was born in Krakow, his parents were Poles from Podhale, and he didn't make it to Lviv until he was 18 (for his studies). He might have been sympathetic to the cause of Ukrainian independence but so were a good number of Poles. Likewise, some of them were in favor of Irish independence but that did not make them Irish. Like I said, I don't think that there needs to be some litmus test to be included on this list but there should be some significant connection.radek (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian editors: please watch for the Russian and Polish editors who maliciously remove the sourced edits, continuing the XX century tradition of cultural imperialistic oppression of Ukrainians

Ukrainian editors: please watch for the Russian and Polish editors who maliciously remove the sourced edits, continuing the XX century tradition of cultural imperialistic oppression of Ukrainians.

Please pay particular attention to the entries for Stefan Banach and Petro Tchaikovsky. See the discussion above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue links not red ones

List of Ukrainians is written in English for people of whole world. It is important to present names with blue links which show articles on famous persons in Wikipedia. Red links mean a lack of articles. So, if somebody wants to write names in an Ukrainian transcription, ought to use double form, i.e. Mykola Berdyaiv, Lev Shestiv, etc. --Mibelz 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

George Gamow

George Gamow was, according to the article, ethnic Russian.Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nykifor ?

The painter had two names - Epifaniy Drovnyak and Nikifor Krynicki. Nykifor is individual creativity.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

uk:Ахматова Анна Андріївна

Ukrainian Wikipedia describes her as Russian and uses the form Ахматова.Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't take this list so serious since it includes the information (I must admit it was funny to read but of course it doesn't belong there): Viktor Yanukovych, prime minister, presidential candidate in 2004 elections, anti-democratic, pro-Russian, mafia links alleged, criminal Russian-style past. This article is a playground for some, not an information tool... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Stepan Bandera supporter of Western-style democracy

According to this article he was that. Did he even know this? I urge the editors who but this wp:pov in to remove it themselves, or I will do it for them in a couple of days... This is suppose to be a list of Ukrainians, not an Idol series. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC) PS Hrushevskyi could not have been an Euro-Atlantist since it didn't exist in his lifetime. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)