Talk:Petro Prokopovych

message: Ukrainian categories categorize by nationality. People in the 19th-century were not nationals of Ukraine. Nationality categories reflect the reality of what nations existed at the time. They should not be used anachronistically.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, look at the source that is used: Petro Prokopovich – Ukrainian beekeeper, teacher and scientist. American Bee Journal 97(12): 474-475. If the source calls him a "Ukrainian beekeeper", then so can we. We follow sources, not what your own detective work can figure out. (Though I have no objection to his being described as an "Imperial Russian beekeeper" as well.) There are multiple ways to think about nationality. There is "legal" nationality, but there is also an "aspirational" or "self-identification" nationality. We don't need to be restricted to one or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time that was written, Ukrainian would have been used as an ethnic identified, not an identifier of nationality. He is not Ukrainian by nationality, although he may be by ethnicity. The category is a nationality category, and should not hold people who were Imperial Russian subjects. This is a total misuse of nationality categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. There was a legal—and certainly an aspirational—"Ukrainian" nationality when the Ukrainian SSR existed. I've invited input from the WikiProject Ukraine on how they deal with such issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: he died in 1850. The Ukranian SSR is not formed until 1918. Thus, there is no way to claim he could have belong to any Ukranian nation. It does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to your statement of "at the time that [the reference] was written"—which was 1957. At the time it was written, it may well have been referring to the fact that he was of Ukrainian nationality. And that's what counts—sources, not your own research on the matter, as below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

message: Ladies and gentlemen, I've tagged the claim that Prokopovich was of "Russian descent" as highly dubious. It's also undersourced - supported only by an amateur grave database. Everyone is free to change to "Ukrainian" unless someone brings up an RS. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Brunei (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Russian descent claim