This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ukraine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece: Byzantine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Cyril converted the nobles in 988? That was Volodymyr. Cyril was about 120 years earlier, he might have converted a few, I don't know.

The history section of the main country page looks like it has about as much information as does this page. Someone should move over whatever's missing here. --Shallot 17:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this piece is twice as long, but, you're right,we need some expansion here. Genyo 03:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This passage is factually inaccurate: "In the 14th and 15th centuries, the majority of Ukrainian territories became part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia, while Galicia and Transcarpathia came under Polish and Hungarian rule." No, Kárpátalja (Transcarpatia) was under Hungarian rule from 896. Yes, it did belong to the Principality of Transylvania, but to Ukraine only after 1991. Before that it belonged to Soviet Union.

Dear wikipedians,

there is the following text in the article:

In the 11th century, Kievan Rus was, geographically, the largest state in Europe. During this time, Kievan Rus became known in the rest of Europe under several names derived from Rus. In addition, the name "Ukraine" first appears in recorded history on maps of the period.

Can anyone point me to the map that uses Ukraine that time? As far as I know, there are just few disputed references to this word in Chronicles at the best!

Thanks!

Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'd better write your version. --Vasile 00:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you want to sustain this important modification. --Vasile 04:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your version: The Russians in particular imposed strict limits on attempts to elevate Ukrainian language and culture, even banning its use in official documents. Due to political processes in Austro-Hungary, the people of Ukraine began to accept a change of their name from Rus/Rusyny to Ruthenia/Ruthenians and then to Ukraine/Ukrainians.

The actual version: The Russians in particular imposed strict limits on attempts to elevate Ukrainian language and culture, even banning its use and study. The fate of the Ukrainians was much more positive under the Austrians. During this time, the people of Ukraine began to accept a change of their name from Rus'/Rusyny (Ruthenia/Ruthenians) to Ukraine/Ukrainians.

--Vasile

Dear Vasile, it's because there are no evidences of any decisions of Russian tsars or Russian government against the Ukrainian language use in common literature. However, I will check documents and update with details. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For those who read Russian I'd like to cite both infamous documents often used by modern Ukrainian nationalists to support their opinion that Ukrainian was banned in Russia (I don't wish to waste time to translage these w/o specific request):

1863 Valuev's circular:

Давно уже идут споры в нашей печати о возможности существования самостоятельной малороссийской литературы. Поводом к этим спорам служили произведения некоторых писателей, отличавшихся более или менее замечательным талантом или своею оригинальностью. В последнее время вопрос о малороссийской литературе получил иной характер, вследствие обстоятельств чисто политических, не имеющих никакого отношения к интересам собственно литературным. Прежние произведения на малороссийском языке имели в виду лишь образованные классы Южной России, ныне же приверженцы малороссийской народности обратили свои виды на массу непросвещенную, и те из них, которые стремятся к осуществлению своих политических замыслов, принялись, под предлогом распространения грамотности и просвещения, за издание книг для первоначального чтения, букварей, грамматик, географий и т.п. В числе подобных деятелей находилось множество лиц, о преступных действиях которых производилось следственное дело в особой комиссии.

В С.-Петербурге даже собираются пожертвования для издания дешевых книг на южно-русском наречии. Многие из этих книг поступили уже на рассмотрение в С.-Петербургский цензурный комитет. Не малое число таких же книг представляется и в киевский цензурный комитет. Сей последний в особенности затрудняется пропуском упомянутых изданий, имея в виду следующие обстоятельства: обучение во всех без изъятия училищах производится на общерусском языке и употребление в училищах малороссийского языка нигде не допущено; самый вопрос о пользе и возможности употребления в школах этого наречия не только не решен, но даже возбуждение этого вопроса принято большинством малороссиян с негодованием, часто высказывающимся в печати. Они весьма основательно доказывают, что никакого особенного малороссийского языка не было, нет и быть не может, и что наречие их, употребляемое простонародием, есть тот же русский язык, только испорченный влиянием на него Польши; что общерусский язык так же понятен для малороссов, как и для великороссиян, и даже гораздо понятнее, чем теперь сочиняемый для них некоторыми малороссами и в особенности поляками, так называемый, украинский язык. Лиц того кружка, который усиливается доказать противное, большинство самих малороссов упрекает в сепаратистских замыслах, враждебных к России и гибельных для Малороссии.

Явление это тем более прискорбно и заслуживает внимания, что оно совпадает с политическими замыслами поляков, и едва ли не им обязано своим происхождением, судя по рукописям, поступившим в цензуру, и по тому, что большая часть малороссийских сочинений действительно поступает от поляков. Наконец, и киевский генерал-губернатор находит опасным и вредным выпуск в свет рассматриваемого ныне духовною цензурою перевода на малороссийский язык Нового Завета.

Принимая во внимание, с одной стороны, настоящее тревожное положение общества, волнуемого политическими событиями, а с другой стороны имея в виду, что вопрос об обучении грамотности на местных наречиях не получил еще окончательного разрешения в законодательном порядке, министр внутренних дел признал необходимым, впредь до соглашения с министром народного просвещения, обер-прокурором св.синода и шефом жандармов относительно печатания книг на малороссийском языке, сделать по цензурному ведомству распоряжение, чтобы к печати дозволялись только такие произведения на этом языке, которые принадлежат к области изящной литературы; пропуском же книг на малороссийском языке как духовного содержания, так учебных и вообще назначаемых для первоначального чтения народа, приостановиться. О распоряжении этом было повергаемо на Высочайшее Государя Императора воззрение и Его Величеству благоугодно было удостоить оное монаршего одобрения.

1876 Emskiy Decree:

1) Не допускать ввоза в пределы Империи, без особого на то разрешения Главного Управления по делам печати, каких бы то ни было книг и брошюр, издаваемых за границей на малороссийском наречии.

2) Печатание и издание в Империи оригинальных произведений и переводов на том же наречии воспретить, за исключением лишь: а) исторических документов и памятников и б) произведений изящной словесности, но с тем, чтобы при печатании исторических памятников безусловно удерживалось правописание подлинника; в произведениях же изящной словесности не было допускаемо никаких отступлений от общепринятого русского провописания, и чтобы разрешение на напечатание произведений изящной словесности давалось не иначе, как по рассмотрении рукописей в Главном Управлении по делам печати.

3) Воспретить также различные сценические представления и чтения на малороссийском наречии, а равно и печатание на таковом же текстов к музыкальным нотам.

I'd like to mention, that item 2) prohibits use of the spelling newly invented in Austro-Hungary, not use of old spelling used in Ukrainian territories inside Russia.

Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 09:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) NOTE the above documents are NOT in original wording! They have been essentially modernized. Ángel.García ~ ~ ~ ~

"The first identifiable groups to populate what is now Ukraine were the Trypillians, followed by the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Goths, among other nomadic peoples who arrived throughout the first millennium BC. During this period, Ukraine served as a super highway for the migration for peoples from Asia into Europe. These people were known to colonists and traders in the ancient world, including the Greeks and the Romans, who established trading outposts, and which eventually became city states. Of particular interest was the Antes civilization, which, during the common era, left its mark upon the territory of Ukraine. The Antes were thought to be an early Slavic or pre-Slavic civilization in the area."

Could somebody please explain to me this paragraph's subtle sense metaphoric "relevance" for the article? --Vasile 00:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but i'mnont sure logic will do.

Most of the first 4/5ths of the article speak of the history of the territory of today's state of Ukraine. The final several sentences speak of the early history of the ethnos of today'ssUkrainians.

Thanks for the chance to educate you.

Genyo 00:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. If you write about history of the "territory", what's the reason you mentioned those peoples? Why are they important for Ukraine history? For example, please write more about the importance of Roman colons in Ukraine history. Where these colons were located? --Vasile 02:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If anything, previous settlements are important because they show why the current population settled the same area. Pre-historic, Greek and Roman colonies were all generally built next to notable landforms: arable land for agriculture, or rivers for water or seas for trade or easily defensible hills where one can build forts, ... and then they probably also left traces of their culture/civilization that was inherited by those that came later. There can be any number of notable historical factoids in the old periods. (I never thought I'd have to explain this kind of thing...) --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying what/who was in today's Ukraine before the Ukrainians? Even though it may seem anachronistic to put this under the modern-day title, history doesn't begin in the 6th century AD. --Joy [shallot] 01:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I would even prefer more information about the history prior to the 6th century. Juro 03:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I should also probably note my semi-bias given that I've recently created Croatia before the Croats with just this line of reasoning in mind. --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you think we shold add something about Ukrainian Waffen-SS division? Some of its units killed Jews in Lviv (in 1941), took part in Warsaw Uprising (on German side), murdered civilians in Slovakia...

• YES THERE WAS A UKRAINIAN ss DIVISION, BUT THERE WERE ALSO JEWS WHO BETREYED THEIR OWN PEOPLE, MANY SLAVIC NATION AND NOT ONLY SLAVS, TATARS FOR EXAMPLE, THOUGHT THAT GERMANS WERE BETTER THAN COMMUNISTS, (DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE RIGHT) BUT THE FACT IS MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WANTED TO FIGHT COMMUNISM SO DON'T CONFUSE UKRAINIAN SS DIVISION WITH THE REST OF THE UKRAINAINS, ANYWAY WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH UKRAINIAN ORIGINS?????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.149.200.191 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 11 October 2004

1) I believe, that the fact of existence of SS (Galizien?) Division should be mentioned, as well as similiar engagemnets should be noticed eg. in case of Latvia or Estonia. 2) Please note, that the description of facts does not judge the motives of SS-volunteers - it should only states that the fact took place. 3) I wonder, why the discussion regarding SS Division is under "early history" heading. --MWeinz 10:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172, I'm glad we're working this out. But your description of the conflicting opinions is unbalanced. For now I'm reverting this paragraph (my emphasis).

Some Ukrainian nationalist historians, along with some Western writers, consider the famine of 1932-33 a deliberate act of genocide. However, some Western Soviet specialists writing more recently such as Moshe Lewin, Alexander Dallin, and Alec Nove dismiss the idea that the famine was a deliberate act, but rather the consequence of Stalin's program of industrialization and collectivization.

I thought that simply noting that there are conflicting opinions would be suitable here, without spending several paragraphs analysing the respective arguments or posting résumés of all the proponents. I'm thinking those details belong at the Collectivization article, but maybe here is better. We could easily get into an edit war adding our favourite supporters to the lists:

Ukrainians, non-Ukrainians including westerners, nationalists, non-nationanalists, historians, Soviet specialists, and writers, consider the famine of 1932–1933...

However, some Western Soviet specialists writing more recently, as well as in earlier times, staunch communists, hack journalists, Stalin apologists, Ukrainophobes, nostalgic Marxist-Leninists, easterners, westerners, nationalists, historians, school marms, and teacup poodles dismiss the idea...

Anyway, I suggest that this be kept simple and neutral, or addressed in detail, perhaps in a subsection titled Was the famine deliberate, or some such thing. At the very least, let's not start with the label "Ukrainian nationalists", which is ungenerously limited at best, and pejorative at worst. —Michael Z. 2005-01-31 16:55 Z

Recently, an anonymous editors, who seems to have a good grasp on some facts but somewhat partisan views edited the article extensively. I would like to call this and other editors for the usual caution we should all use in all WP articles, but especially on the wide topic articles like this one. The edits were done hastily, were not proofread, while some info was actually useful. The article simply could not remain in that form. It either had to be quickly moderated (speed at the cost of quality, unfortunately) or get a POV tag, which would be even a bigger shame. I chose the first solution. I am not sure, the article is better now, than it was before the recent set of edits, but that's OK. It will get improved with time. It would be more convenient to communicate if the anon editor chooses to register. registering does not compromise the anonymity in any way. To the contrary, since IP points to an approximate location, while the username does not. But that's just a request of course. I hope, with everyone's cooperation, the article will improve. Regards, --Irpen 23:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

We have an edit war over inclusion of two photos showing Ukrainians celebrating the Nazi rules. I think it is unfair and an undue weight to a point of view. At least 3.5mln Ukrainians were with the Red Army and Soviet Partisans, at least 250thousand with OUN, 20 thousand with SS Halicia+local police ~ <100K with Germans. I think the allegiances were divided accordingly. At any rate it was not a happy time for the majority: World War + Underground War + Foreign Occupation+Slave labor. Thus I think to have 2 photos out of 3 in the section showing Ukrainians happily embracing German rule is biased and not-neutral. Lets hear other opinions Alex Bakharev

The page says "The Ukrainians reached their peak when extending rule to Wallachia/Bessarabia, until the shores of the Black Sea". Can someone show me a proof of this? I really, really don't believe this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.184.91 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 January 2007

As mentioned earlier, we have now had numerous POV changes made to the article over the past year. In a previous discussion, Alaexis stated that it should not be written in wikivoice that the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia was the "successor" to Kievan Rus'. This was changed anyway despite the discussion on this. The massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia now also follows the nationalist line, using terms like "Volhynian Tragedy" and overemphasizing the Polish role in the killings of civilians. Now we have IPs trying to make blanket Russia -> Moscow changes.[1] Mellk (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True enough... Alaexis_¿question? 18:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mellk & Alaexis, this article has been tagged as disputed NPOV for about a month now. Is there still an active dispute? If not, the tag should be removed or replaced with a template that describes a more specific issue to be addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the article again. The part about massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia was changed to "Volhynia genocide", which is also a POV term, but the other issues about WWII have not been addressed yet. There is also POV-pushing in the independence section regarding Ukraine being a successor state to the Ukrainian People's Republic, with the important part about succession to the Ukrainian SSR being hidden in a footnote. It may be possible to tag specific sections or sentences, though. What do you suggest?

I should also note that Pravoved198X was confirmed by CU to be a sock of Smm380. The same editor has been POV-pushing on other articles and editing while logged out, so it makes it difficult to track all their edits. Mellk (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to look into this. We can't leave such an issue unaddressed in a high-traffic article. NLeeuw (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed 3 instances of Tsardom of Moscow back to Tsardom of Russia. All other mentions of Moscow seem contextually appropriate to me.

I have not really seen any examples in wikivoice that the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia was the "successor" to Kievan Rus'. Some sentences say it was a vital repository of Rus' heritage, which is true; it doesn't make an exclusive claim to that heritage (which has also been preserved elsewhere, such as in Vladimir-Suzdal, the Novgorod Republic, the Polotskian principalities, the GD of Lithuania, the Golden Horde etc.). At most, I think we should use the term Kingdom of Ruthenia a bit less than we are currently doing, as it is a relatively new, and not broadly applied term in historiography. On the other hand, we may simply have to give more attention to other parts of post-1240 Ukraine, as far as anything can be said about it. E.g. very little is known about what happened to the Olgovichi of Chernigov, except that some of their descendants probably became the princes of Kursk, Bryansk and the Upper Oka Principalities, but those all fall outside the current territory of Ukraine. The Principality of Pereyaslavl also fell into obscurity after 1240.

So what could we talk about more, so as not to put too much focus on Galicia-Volhynia? Well, I think that the section History of Ukraine#Foreign domination lumps a lot of disparate entities and periods together under a questionable heading of "foreign domination". (By extension, this suggests that Galicia–Volhynia was not under "foreign domination", even though it was a tribute-paying vassal of the Golden Horde from 1246 until the end, Danylo's efforts at independence in the 1250s notwithstanding. Arguably, this juxtaposition is POV.) But more than that, I believe for navigational purposes, we better subdivide it into several sections, including at the very least a section about Crimea (Crimean Khanate, Genoese Gazaria, Principality of Theodoro), a separate section about post-1240 Kiev and central Ukraine (I've just published a new article on Kiev in the Golden Horde period for that time and place), and perhaps a separate section about the rise of Lithuania and Poland, which would come right after that. What do you think, @Mellk?

Lastly, it seems that the edits about Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia have already been rectified. There is no more mention of "Volhynian Tragedy", and there is a clear indication that the majority of victims were Polish, not Ukrainian.

So aside from some division of the Foreign domination section to slightly de-emphasise Galicia-Volhynia, I think the POV tag is no longer warranted. NLeeuw (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No response so far? I'll just be WP:BOLD and split up the "Foreign domination" section in the way I proposed 2 days ago. It will almost certainly be an improvement for neutrality and navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I think the tag can be removed now. NLeeuw (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict between Tymoshenko and Yushchenko should be better explained, imho. As it is, it remains too 'abstract', devoid of content and thus unplausible, despite its stressed importance... HilmarHansWerner (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here, as I believe that most of the content additions by Smm380 and the IP mentioned above are LLM text -- they contain many of the usual tells. (They're blocked for sockpuppeting so we can't ask).

The text would need review regardless for factual accuracy, source-to-text integrity, original research/editorializing issues, but given that this is a contentious topic, the amount of review needed is even higher. There's been a lot of discussion of the POV issues but I don't know whether the text has been reviewed from an "is this hallucinated AI slop" perspective. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest restoring this version of Jan 2, 2024, the last non-IP version before Smm380 came in. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. This is not Grokipedia. But we can restore certain passages once they have been verified with the source and have been rewritten to ensure that we are not relying on LLM outputs. Mellk (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that we are at 24,000 words, so we must significantly trim the article anyway. Mellk (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the version from 2 January 2024. I will take a look later to see if there is anything we can salvage from later versions. Mellk (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time engaging with that user and with the content they added. I didn't always agree with them but I don't remember them adding outright fakes. I think that the changes have been reviewed by many users who have this article in their watchlists - but I agree that the level of scrutiny might not have been sufficient.

Maybe we can choose a random section (e.g., History_of_Ukraine#Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth) and check whether the content matches the sources. If it does we can be reasonably sure that the sources haven't been misused/hallucinated. Alaexis_¿question? 15:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, Smm380 added text about how Khmelnytsky engaged in state-building across multiple spheres: military, administration, finance, economics, and culture and also invested the Zaporozhian Host under the leadership of its hetman with supreme power in the new Ruthenian state, and he unified all the spheres of Ukrainian society under his authority. The cited source only refers to him having captured Nikopol in 1648. Nothing about him engaging in state-building. Mellk (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a pattern I have seen recently. Someone adds AI-generated text and then finds a source that only vaguely addresses the topic and does not directly support what was written. Mellk (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]