Talk:List of Ukrainian rulers

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

Comments[edit]

What does it mean “Ukrainian rulers”? Rulers on the territory of Ukraine or of the Ukrainian states? Can we included Kuban People's Republic or Green Ukraine? --Riwnodennyk ✉ 11:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on that, for example why not include Polish Kings and Russian Tsars who were also rulers of the territories? Also why do we consider Kievan Rus princes and even Zaporozhian hetmans to be Ukrainian rulers? The continuity of Kievan Rus is not even mentioned on List of Russian rulers. I agree we can begin on Galicia-Volhynia, but lets keep Bulgaria and Kievan Rus separate. Crimean Khanate is also questionable as to whether is suitable to include it in the list again on the Russian page we don't have the Kazan or the Astrakhan khanates. As for the "Ukrainian states" argument of Riwnodennyk, KNR was a Cossack not a Ukrainian state, and both it and the Green Ukraine were located outside modern Ukrainian borders. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point what is a Ukrainian ruler? This is a comprehensive list of rulerts and leaders. My goal was to create a one stop reference point. Regarding Kievan Rus continuity not being mentioned in the Russian rulers page, no problem, mention it. However, in reality the Russian governing tradition (a very cntralized government with most of the power in the hands of a ruler (tzar, emperor, or president)) did not emerge until later, starting generally with Andrei Bogolyubsky --Ivan2007 (По-балакаемo) 19:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the same can be said that the continuity of Galicia-Volhynia from Kievan Rus, and even more after Poland swallowed the former, how do the Hetmans come into play? Andrei Bogolyubsky was the grandson of Vladimir II Monomakh, so there is full continuity there. Indeed, one can argue that it was after Monomakh's death that Kievan Rus began to fall apart, and after that you can trace the earliest fragmentation of the successor states that would emerge into Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
Anyhow Ivan, how do you plan to incorporate List of national leaders of Ukraine? I recommend why not move this page to List of rulers of Ukraine, and merge both articles? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy! There were no Russians or Ukrainians in these times. I have no clue why Russians claim Bogolyubskiy as the Russian tsar. And Ukrainians claiming other members of Rurikind family. The true Russian rulers started with Romanov family and Ukrainian rulers can be traced as far as the times of the Zaporizhian Sich. The Rurikind family occupied Kyiv, then conquered other Slavic tribes to unite them into the super country Rus, and then forcefully converted them into Christianity. It is the Chrstianity that formed the three nationalities out of the Rus and ended or reinterpreted in its manner the Slavic culture and traditions thus basically ending the existence of eastern Slavs. Bogolyubski was more of Tatar by the way then Russian, look at his face. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs to be reformatted. Why no one adds all the khans of Astrakhan, Kazan, Sibiria Khanate, rulers of Manchuria and Sakhalin island, rulers of Sakha and Kamchatka, rulers of Ingria and Karelia as Russian rulers??? Why no one thinks of claiming Roman emperors as the Italian or French rulers, Kings of Obodrites as rulers of the Eastern Germany or Byzantine emperors as Turkish rulers??? It is pure idiocy. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sviatoslav sculputre.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Sviatoslav sculputre.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Thank you all for your good contributions to the list that I created. Please do not reformat the Crimean Khans, I believe that it looks much cleaner as it was and the picture of the Khans provides a good insight. The shrinking of the pictures was a nice touch concidering that the page is so big, thanks. If you are adding to the tables of hetmans, please make sure to go through the effort of finding appropriate protraits for them, otherwise it looks a little silly. Regarding the disclaimer on top about not all of them being sovereigns, it should definitely stay, people will confuse many of the rulers with kings when they were not such, I already had a discussion about this with a few registered wikipedians.Ivan2007 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean Khans[edit]

Why are they in the list of Ukrainian rulers? Ostap 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought a blurb for the Khans section explained it fairly well Ivan2007 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the whole list is totally crazy. I cannot see how the Crimean or Scythian rulers fit here. Why do not we include Russian rulers, and Polish, and Soviet, and German, wait or may be even Swahili... that is totally crazy! The whole article needs to be reformatted as it looses its focus and contains some random information. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Увага и Позор[edit]

Дорогії українці и россияне! Нечерта присваивать клички в википедии. Это Вам не Луркоморье какое-нибудь, держите Ваше мнение и политические чувства при себе. Только факты! Translation: Dear Ukrainians and Russians! Don't nickname anyone in Wikiproject ("Proffessor" for Yanukovych, "Pasechnyk" for Yushchenko etc.). This source is not similar to Encyclopedia Dramatica and keep your political opinion to yourself. Only facts and proofs are allowed here! Dantiras (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantiras (talk • contribs) 21:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article name[edit]

This article should be called 'List of rulers who ruled over the land which is modern day Ukraine.' They weren't all 'Ukranian'Smart Nomad (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. I am afraid your proposed name is too long. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian rulers → List of rulers of present-day Ukraine – Anachronistic name. Scythians, Goths, Huns, Khazars etc were NOT Ukrainians. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 18:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as proposed. The proposed name is incorrect, these people did not rule modern-day Ukraine, they ruled the area now known as Ukraine in the past, so is not present-day Ukraine. The current name is also bad, since most of these people are not Ukrainian nationals/ethnic Ukrainian/Ukrainian speakers. Suggest List of rulers of the region of Ukraine -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look I am not a native English speaker, however I think my suggestion is correct. I understand your reasoning, however the proposed name can refer to the past too. Examples: "The Parthians, rulers of present-day Iran, used both weapons to stop Rome's eastward... " "Etruscans. First rulers of present-day Rome.", "Beginning in 1602, the Dutch slowly established themselves as rulers of present-day Indonesia". Fakirbakir (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, I can accept your proposal. "List of rulers of the region of Ukraine" . Fakirbakir (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a list of the rulers of the territory, known today as Ukraine. The nominator is an ethnic purist if he claims that the ancient peoples of Scythians, Goths, Huns, Khazars are not Ukrainians. Who says that Ukrainians are not the descendants of these ethnic groups (mixed in with Slavs of course)? Ukrainians descended from multiple ethnic groups, which include the above-mentioned tribes. The title fits the purpose of this list perfectly. This is the only comprehensive list of all Ukrainian rulers and should remain a resource for people to access and use.--BoguSlav 04:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment. The nominator's suggestion was, on the face of it, about precision and not "ethnic purity" as suggested by one editor. The first two respondents, picking up on the problem of precision, suggested a title titles that they felt was were better than the one proposed but also dealt with the concerns of the nominator. The nominator also agreed with this title one of the titles. I mistakenly read User:AjaxSmack's comment as having been in support of the title proposed during the discussion, and moved the page accordingly. I am reopening and relisting the discussion now that this problem has been pointed out to me. Dekimasuよ! 18:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being reasonable and reverting the title back. Ukrainians, based on one popular definition, are the inhabitants of Ukraine. The proposal to move the page is based on a flawed premise of ethnic exclusion when referring to the tribes that lived on the land of Ukraine and claiming they are not Ukrainians. In the recent annexation of Crimea by Russia, the Crimean Tatars identified with Ukraine as they celebrated the Ukrainian Independence Day several months ago. [1] Who are you to make the decision that they are not actually Ukrainian, and the title of this article (List of Ukrainian rulers) does not match the content simply because you do not consider the Tatars in Crimea to be Ukrainian? --BoguSlav 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ancestors of the Ukrainians are not themselves Ukrainian, being antecedant to the Ukrainians. The inhabitants of the region before the establishment of Ukraine are also not Ukrainian in and of themselves, since Ukraine did not then exist. This is why Romans are not Spaniards, even though some Spanish ancestors are Roman. That the Crimean Tartars are now Ukrainian is not the same as the Scythians who no longer exist, and did not exist when Ukraine was created, being Ukrainian. It's like saying that all the Amerind peoples that died out before the Vikings arrived in the Americas who occupied territory of the United States are United States people. They never were, thus it is anachronistic to determine that the Scythians are Ukrainian. They are a Ukrainian topic, because some of their territory is in the modern-day Ukraine, but they are not in and of themselves Ukrainian. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ancestors of Ukrainians ARE Ukrainians. We can call them pre-Ukrainians or proto-Ukrainians, but Ukrainians did not spontaneously appear, as is evident from numerous genetic tests that demonstrate the diverse groups that gave rise to Ukrainians, who draw upon the culture and traditions of their ancestors. Alfred the Great identified as an "Anglo-Saxon" not as an "Englander", but this does not stop Englanders for calling him "English" and including him in the List of English monarchs. We can classify him as a "pre-Englander", but he is still belongs in the list of English rulers. The same goes here: being an ancestor of a group [Englanders/Ukrainians] and living in the territory that is now known as the country [England/Ukraine] qualifies you to be in a list of the rulers.--BoguSlav 02:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false analogy, your England list shows no Brythons, only British, English and Anglo-Saxons. It only starts with the hegemony of England under Wessex. This list predates the establishment of Ukraine, while the England list starts with the start of unification of England of the current unified period, it most pointed does not contain the Roman province. Similarly List of French monarchs does not contain the Gualish, it only starts with Francia, the kingdom of the Franks that directly became modern France, the kingdom underwent a name change, but is the same kingdom. If something is pre-Ukrainian, it is pre-Ukrainian. List of pre-Ukrainian rulers of the region of Ukraine can be split off to make this list compliant with the format found at List of English monarchs and List of French monarchs, since those don't list the Celts or pre-Celts or anything ancestral, if the kind of list you want is the kind of list found for the English and French. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list of English monarchs simply points out the fact that a ruler doesn't necessarily have to identify as "English" to be included into a list of English rulers. Being Anglo-Saxon will suffice. Similarly, being a member of a group that predated Ukraine is enough to be included in a list about the rulers of Ukraine.
Also, the ruler doesn't have to have controlled the entire territory of Ukraine to be included in this list, as you claim about the unification of England. For example, the List of rulers of Wales acknowledges that prior to being conquered, Wales was actually a bunch of smaller kingdoms that were independent of one another. In a sense, you can say that the List of rulers of Wales is a list of "pre-Welsh" rulers. However, they are all included into an article summarizing the rulers of the different countries that are known today as Wales. As for the format of this list, it does not match the list of English monarchs or the list of French monarchs because there were many periods when Ukraine was not a monarchy (most notably the Cossack period, but also the modern period). --BoguSlav 05:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that list is for the period after the cessation of Roman rule, and prior to its conquest by England. It most pointedly does not include the post conquest rulers (the English and later British crowns) or Roman and Pre-Roman era rulers. It includes a single ethnic group, in a single historical period, Brythons after Rome and before English rule. If you want to make this list like the Wales list, then we'd have to remove all rulers prior to the Rus or prior to Slavic settlement, and all rulers after Polish/Lithuanian or Moscovy conquest. Yes, the naming of the Welsh list is problematic, it should be "region of Wales", since it is anachronistic, as there was no Wales yet during that period, it was still Brython (Britain) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This list of rulers do not rule "Modern Day" Ukraine. —CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ivan Sirko[edit]

Ivan Sirko was hetman of the Zaporizhian Host and one of the more famous ones, but he's not on the list. I'm unsure of what years he was hetman, so can someone help me out in getting him in the right slot? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Article[edit]

Why not to include Hungarian, Russian, Belorussian, Polish, Romanian rulers? What is Ukraine? Where are its borders? What is modern Ukraine? Is it after 1991 or 1917? What about all the Soviet-puppet states such as Odessa Soviet Republic and such political formations as Shulyavka Republic? Also, why not were included Cuman, Karakalpak and Pechenegs rulers?? Why were not included Bolekhiv and Podolian princes? The whole article is crazy and lacks focus. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

I have moved name of this page to better describe article context. Page is now named: "List of rulers in states compromising today territories of Ukraine". If old name is to be kept most of article should be deleted because they are not Ukraine Rulers. With old article name it would be the same as if you say that Scottish rulers are British rulers or that former Ireland rulers are England or British rulers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loesorion (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed article[edit]

Has anyone yet noticed the error in the April 2018 unilateral re-naming of this article? "List of rulers in states compromising today territories of Ukraine" It's hilarious! FactStraight (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


List of Urkainian rulers → List of Ukrainian rulers – Urkainian is an invalid spelling Dl2000 (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edit[edit]

Removal/alteration of content in a problematic way is not supported.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Clarifying that I am not 'altering' informaton rather I am reinstating and restoring what was published on the 27th June 2020 and that was removed by KIENGIR on 10 July 2020, unexplained, in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines that stiptulate the removal of recent content -"Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal" [1]. The relevant information is simply fact, corroborated by numerous in line citations from impartial sources. Recent attempts to delete heavily cited and corroborated fact and prioritize uncited information reveals a refusal to comply with [2]. The information attempted to be reinstated does not display any of the seven [3] but rather the implicated user exhibits disproportionate focus on certain things that may represent one party more than another. When one removes information that has been sourced but that may not be in favour of one party it is colloquially refered to as politically motivated editing, it means prioristing an agenda over cited information, and is against Wikipedia guidelines. To imply that a piece of information corroborated, cited and backed up should be subrodinate to "The first king, Coloman of Galicia-Lodomeria, was crowned in 1215..." that is unsubstantiated, uncited, raises issues of impractability and is incorrect. DanielLerish (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

Well, it had no doubt why your changes are controversial. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM you cited too early, especially I draw your attention to WP:NPOV, so partially I fixed the problem earlier (but now fully since the sources you claim have been added. Btw, inaccurate content was holding from the "seven".
"When one removes information that has been sourced but that may not be in favour of one party it is colloquially refered to as politically motivated editing, it means prioristing an agenda over cited information, and is against Wikipedia guidelines." -> especially the opposite happened by your addition, that is not just anachronistic
"that is unsubstantiated, uncited, raises issues of impractability and is incorrect" -> similarly, given the fact we have the Coloman of Galicia article even linked even more times, your recurrent removal was very strange.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

With all due respect, I am legitimately struggling to comprehend what you are writing, the numerous grammatical errors and spelling mistakes make it difficult to fathom the points you are tring to construct and understand what you are writing, which I earnesty wish to do, that being the only way a mutual understand can be formed.

  • "Well, it had no doubt why your changes"
  • "so partially I fixed the problem earlier"
  • "but now fully since the sources you claim have been added"
  • "especially the opposite happened by your addition, that is not just anachronistic"
I am not quite sure what you mean by "WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM you cited too early", there is no set time that precludes the inception of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, this is simply a referral point that outlines a set of guidelines conducive to avoiding a tense page. One key quote from which I think is particularly releavant- "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research."
The relevant information is abundantly verifiable, it is not original research and is of a neutral point of view, if shared by dozens of academics (many of which are sourced).
Apologies for the confusion and your subsequent picking up of a wrong guideline, there is a rule of 6 not 7. Which indeed does include 'inaccurate information'-"Information not attributed to a reliable source that is inaccurate beyond a reasonable doubt should be removed immediately. Unless it is clearly a blatant hoax, good faith shall be assumed"
Again, the relevant information is clearly attributed to numerous reliable sources, if necessary I am happy to provide extra, it is not inaccurate beyond a reasonable doubt as it is the basis of a general academic consensus and is written in dozens of articles, books, journals. The fact that 'Ruthenian' was the archaic ethonym for Ukrainians is general knowledge, just as 'Achaens' was used to described Greeks, just as Swabians was a coloquial term for Germans and dozens of other ethnic groups.
As for WP:NPOV, the reference states-"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias". In this instance I have avoided the risk of condensing the information out of a text, and inserting a reductive narrative from a text, rather I have inserted a direct word used by dozens of other academics in conjunction with another direct word from a text. The risk of misconstruing a source is imposssible here, as it is directly based on what they have written. Even if a statement of fact, corroborated by a plethora of sources appears bias to you, WP:NPOV states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased".
I cannot confidently respond to the sentence "especially the opposite happened by your addition, that is not just anachronistic" as the emphasis and intentions behind the sentence are distorted by its incorrect structure. However, if you mean to apply that adding a statement of fact is more prone to being considered 'politically motivated editing' more than one consistently and over zealously removing any mention of the term 'Ukrainian' on a page entitled a list of 'Ukraine rulers' then I would say probably not.
On the topic of the relevant information not being included, though citied, verifiable, and not personal research but due to it being 'anachronistic', it is in parentheses for the very reason you have described, and is used in parentheses by the sources for that same reason as well.
As for the Coloman of Galicia article KIENGIR, it is common knowledge, other wikipedia articles are not credible citations for information in seperate articles, rather they require new citations or those that corroborate the intended information from the relevant article.

DanielLerish (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

Sorry, your actions does not support you would struggling to comprehend anything, since you fail to co-operate of the guidelines of our community and pursuing edit-warring. Let's clarify then once more (I will collect your further contemplations in the respective list where fit all related alltogether):
- * "Well, it had no doubt why your changes" -> You cited "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial" -> there was no doubt
- * "so partially I fixed the problem earlier" -> because of the earlier mentioned, especially restoring WP:NPOV, OR is in real what you did
- * "but now fully since the sources you claim have been added" -> you removed recurrently a section with dubious reasons, finally you claimed it is uncited. I added the citations, though if in a section something is linked more or referred by a mother article which is backed with plenty of citations, this is a very uncommon claim.
- * "especially the opposite happened by your addition, that is not just anachronistic" -> The entity to call as an Ukrainian state is not just inaccurate, but anachronistic, dubious, fails NPOV in spite as well of the recent confrontations of several historiographies which try to claim since the Kievan Rus' cultural, social, ethnic identites, etc. Ruthenian is the perfect designation, which is the predecessor reference not just the ancestors of modern Ukrainians as you say, but several East-Slavic peoples. Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia does not share any academic consensus it would be an "Ukrainian state", it is a clear POV-pushing. On the other hand, noone "zealously removing any mention of the term 'Ukrainian' on a page entitled a list of 'Ukraine rulers'", but of course, we have to be historically accuarate, neutral and avoiding POV-pushing on historiography (anyway, the page have even bigger problems as earlier indicated, since even the title is misleading and as well what you say, since the it does not just contain "Ukraine rulers", etc.)


- * Coloman article -> "it is common knowledge, other wikipedia articles are not credible citations" -> Noone cited here another WP article, you are again totally confusing things, but sources were transferred from there per your claim, despite you again deleted the whole.
On your further contemplations, you are still not properly aware of community guidelines and practices, your interpretations are fallacious at many instances, you recurrently try to infer the opposite they are telling, and you reccurently deny you did something wrong, despite such issues has been discussed and precedented as well in many other issues. Hence there is no CONSENSUS on your changes.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]


To be entirely frank, I too am finding it difficult to read what you have written. No offence intended, but I had to read what you have wrote multiple times over to get an understanding of what you are saying and I believe this is having a large impact on both your abilties to progress from this impasse and even to understand the rules being put forward.

WP:RVREASONS stipulates that "There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal". Meaning that if recently inserted information is considered 'undoubtedly controversial', a discussion should be started on the talk page before removal, upon inspection of the edit history of the page (talk) made the edit on the 26th June of you removed the edit on the 10th of July without any prior discussion on the talk page, hence you are in the wrong in terms of the assumption of good faith and the guideline.
To an individual, oblivious to the idiosyncrasies of Eastern European relations, as I am, as well as the fact the information the edit is heavily cited I would not consider it 'without a doubt controversial'. I believe one would have to be particullary well versed, sensitive or have a dog in the fight to percieve what is writtten as "controversial". Two of the core article content policies include verifiability and no original research, of which this edit is neither.
There also appears to be some confusion regarding using other wikipedia articles and their disambiguation as citations. As it is stated on Wikipedia guidelines "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable."
"Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Wikipedia, Twitter," etc...You proceeded to argue that a piece of information substantiated by a disambiguation was of higher verifiability and more worthy of retention than that cited numerous times, only on the 22nd of July did you insert citations for the sentence after it was pointed out that disambiguations are not credible citations, even then none of the new citations are easily accessible or verify what has been written, I can't find anything in the sources that say what they are allegedly citing.
You have also definitely breached WP:ES, on the 10th of July when you first reverted the piece of information you gave little to no explanation of why- "it is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit"
You have also breached the following guidelines in your most recent edit summary:
  • Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.
  • Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy.
The relevant piece of information is verifiable, not origianl research and to the average and reasonable persons (the standard judgement) not 'controversial'. For that reason I second DanielLerish but agree that it should be in brackets as the citations do.talkNoah221 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Noah221 Blocked sock. KIENGIR (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just from the brief bit of history I know regarding Scythian and Hunnic rulers I believe that they should be moved onto another page possibly called 'Rulers of Ukraine', and those that are East Slavic should be retained and continued to be called "List of Ukrainian Rulers" just as with Polish and Russian articles. Also I am not quite sure whose writing is all crossed out, but to be entirely honest I have to agree with the users advocating for "Ruthenian(Ukrainian)", some of the users on here appear to expect a disproportionate amount of citations evidence and loops to justify using the word "Ukrainian" but dont feel obliged to provide them for any other nations pages of rulers, this is intuitively unfair. If you look at the Austro-Hungarian censuses the word "Ruthenian" came to be only applied to Ukrainian, also the use of brackets clears up any allegations of anachronism. As far as I am aware there is Wikipedia rule stating that two words cited by many sources should not be inserted because of the view of one user. For these reasons I back the other version.BrianTTT (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)BrianTTTBlocked sock.[reply]

Heh, Scythian or Hunnic rulers were never been the "rulers of Ukraine", and even as indicated earlier, the title of this article is misleading. On the other hand, nope, the censuses put Rusyns along with other minorities as well to Ruthenian, this argumentation is again fallacious.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies for the delayed response, I intend on finishing this toxic and combative environment and moving ahead with Wikipedia's 3 pronged policy of content insertion: not original research, verifiability and NPOV. What has been going here is simply the collateral damage of obstinance, targeted and prejudicial editing that articles related to Ukrainians have not only been subject to but Romanians, Croatians, Serbians or anyone that contravenes the POV of the relevant editor. From the 27th June the relevant editor has contravenened Wikipedia's guidelines and blocked any change.
Lets have a look at the behaviour demonstrated on this page and the different ways in which Wikipedia guidelines have been broken:
  • As has been stated numerous times and attempted to be explained by numerous people WP:RVREASONS states: "There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal". Because of the abundantly clear lack of proficiency in English held by the relevant editor, the sentence is continuously misinterpeted. "Well, it had no doubt why your changes are controversial". We are not talking about MY changes, we are talking about your unsubstantiated and unjustified removal of the edit on the 27th June without explanation and in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines-PERIOD.
  • WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM states "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." My edit is all of these things, it is ACTUALLY verified by more citations than any other sentence in the article, it is not my original research and is definitely from a neutral point of view because it is an academic consensus not formed by me.
  • From the 27th June you have removed an edit substantiated by numerous citations whilst retaining and from the 20th July to September reinserting a sentence that until the 22nd of July did not have one citation and now contains citations that do not include the information its alleged to.
  • Encapsulating this whole situation on the 20th July you reinserted a statement about Hungarian royalty (your favorite topic) without a citation. From what I can gather, you have alleged I am inserting a Ukrainian POV on a page entitled 'Ukrainian Rulers' but in conjunction with the constant slander on the 20th of July you removed a piece of information backed more than any other piece of information and in the same edit inserted an uncited, uncorroborated sentence on Hungarian royalty with a history of editing and being banned for writing on Hungary on an article 'List of Ukrainian Rulers'. What you have alleged that I have done, you have done threefold.
  • Finally on the 22nd of July after more than a week of targeting and removing a cited piece of information whilst retaining an opinion based sentence with zero citations you finally gave 3 citations, all in Hungarian and all written by Hungarians, are we really to be instructed by this editor on WP:NPOV.
  • As I have repeatedly written, prioritizing an agenda (uncited information focused on by an editor) over cited information is called politically motivated editing and is against Wikipedia guidelines. To imply that a piece of information corroborated and cited more than any other piece in this article or probably any other article should be subordinate to "The first king, Coloman of Galicia-Lodomeria, was crowned in 1215..." that you continuously restituted even without a citation really exposes the true situation here.
  • Though whilst on the topic of WP:NPOV, lets have a look at what it pertains to, the reference states-"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias". In this instance I have avoided the risk of condensing the information out of a text, and inserting a reductive narrative from a text, rather I have inserted a direct word used by dozens of other academics in conjunction with another direct word from a text. The risk of misconstruing a source is imposssible here, as it is directly based on what they have written. Even if a statement of fact, corroborated by a plethora of sources appears bias to you, WP:NPOV states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased".
  • "no, you are totally on the wrong path" and many other of your edit summaries are in direct contravention of WP:SUMMARYNO, they are completely and errantly uncalled for. For the benefit of this page and others you may come into contact with please familiarize yourself with the following Wikipedia guidelines or rules:
  • "Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.
  • Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy."
  • Wikipedia disambiguations are not citations, its not confusing, citations are citations, disambiguations are disambiguations. Wikipedia itself states "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable". Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Wikipedia, Twitter. Not on one Wikipedia article is a disambiguation been considered on par with a citation or negate a need for one.
As I have repeated numerous times Wikipedia states: "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." The edit is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH and from a NPOV or just as neutral as "The first king, Coloman of Galicia-Lodomeria, was crowned in 1215, although the first nominal king of Galicia was Andrew II of Hungary, the son of Béla III of Hungary, who reigned from 1188 to 1190". And finally it is VERIFIABLE, there are numerous citations substantiating what has been edited.--DanielLerish (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

Sorry, you did not introduce anything new regardign the subject, but you continue to fail WP:LISTEN and simply refuse to accept/undestand, instead you are pursuing personally targeted bad faith rants, unfolded accusations, etc. Not a good direction.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ WP:RVREASONS
  2. ^ WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM
  3. ^ WP:RVREASONS

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To 'merge the lists to List of leaders of Ukraine, which has the broader title than leaders; overlap. Klbrain (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging List of leaders of Ukraine into List of Ukrainian rulers. The content in the former is already included in the much longer list of the latter, the only substantial difference being the tabulation of the Soviet-era leaders. I think it ought to be merged into the latter and, judging by previous talk page comments, it would appear I'm not the only one that thinks keeping both of these lists is redundant. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and rename Sounds reasonable. The result ought to be renamed, List of leaders of Ukraine, or similar: ruler implies authoritarianism, and is inaccurate when applied to either of the current lists (e.g., early modern Cossacks were elected). —Michael Z. 15:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes no sense to keep them separate, fully support the merger! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on LEONID KRAVCHUK[edit]

The article says (born 1934) even though he passed away last week , could somebody please fix it and update? 202.84.42.187 (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Mellk (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Ukrainian_rulers&oldid=1212546537"