Talk:History of Ukrainian nationality

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 September 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

Please do not speedily delete this page for its current lack of content. I am in the course of researching the historical background to ukrainian nationality for a course at university, and this is part of my final assessment. This is a work in progress that anyone can contribute to. Please be considerate as this will be added to surely but steadily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmiyeborecz (talk • contribs) 09:34, September 28, 2007

I am interested in Ukrainian nationality (based on Ukrainian citizenship) today. --Тимур (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like antiukrainian propaganda[edit]

This article seems like promoscow and antiukrainian propaganda! Author forgoted to tell and speel about Muscovy state till 1721. year and I believe this is not mistake! This "History of Ukrainian nationality" is not objective work, more like amater prorussian propaganda ... But, maybe I am wrong and author is right and work is objective? Read more about it! --93.138.18.209 (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pechenegs and Polovtsi Mongolians? Seriously?.....

"Academic paper" sections[edit]

Much of the article reads more like a (too abstract) academic paper than a encyclopædia article. I have removed this section which has been there almost from the beginning (second edit):

"Bruaker’s theory of nationalism, which argues that every modern nation has one historically defined identity, is incompatible with the Ukrainian example. Due to the presence of a large non-Ukrainian ethnic community, a more encompassing and possibly dual definition of national identity is required."

This is very airy, and the assertion can hardly be said to be specific for just the Ukraine. Complex and compound identities are a widely described phenomenon, just see National identity#Challenges for a short introduction. By 2022, even most laymen know that the notion of "one historically defined identity" is challenged and many even believe it is obsolete. The conclusion is unclear; what should the "more encompassing and possibly dual definition of national identity" contain? Without questioning its own words, it asserts that Russian-speakers are an "ethnic community", but I don't think there is a general consensus about that, as many would rather see them as a linguistically or maybe even politically defined group. By any means, that ethnic group is difficult to delimit. Who is Bruaker? Probably Rogers Brubaker, but without a source reference the sentence is of little value. Might Brubaker even be misinterpreted here? --Sasper (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sasper's removal. The above interpretation of Bruaker’s theory of nationalism does not look very suited for current Ukraine since it implies that every Russian speaker in Ukraine feels part of the same group.

I personally know many Russian-speaking Ukrainians who identify themselves as "Ukrainian". Are they then also an "ethnic community" (a different one then the Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens who identify themselves as "Russian")? People who feel Ukrainian but don't use the Ukrainian language much don't feel the need for a dual definition of national identity (I assume). (By the way: Russian-speaking Ukrainians are able to speak Ukrainian as all official documents/signs are written in Ukrainian and they learned the language at school).

Also most of non-Ukrainian ethnic community (as in people who identify themselves as Russians) now (since 2014) live in parts of Ukraine that are not under Ukrainian governmental control (Crimea, Donetsk People Republic and Luhansk People Republic). So it is unclear if they are taking part in creating for themselves a dual or any Ukrainian identity. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]