quesyions is a fact that Malevich worked in Russia most of the time. He also worked in Belarus/Byelorussia and in Ukraine.

Your sources are non-factual simplifying formulations in general encyclopedias. I can't see why we should build on them. I think the best solution would let the facts speak for themselves and give up trying such formulations. Andres 4. november 2010, kell 01:38 (EET)

Because this is the way how the lead of an article is written in the encyclopedias. It should give the short definition. More precise information should be given below. Wikipedia is based on the authoritative sources, and if encyclopedias prefer such formulation, it should be reflected here too. --Gleb Borisov 4. november 2010, kell 01:45 (EET)
I don't agree. Encyclopedias are not authoritative in questions of formulations, and even in questions of fact they have little authority and are not favoured as sources. What can be done is citing encyclopedias as evidence that such-and-such formulation has been used but then we should write that.
If a formulation contains two more words, it remains short. And in complicated cases short formulations tend to be misleading. Andres 4. november 2010, kell 08:21 (EET)
"in questions of fact they have little authority and are not favoured as sources." Sorry, but your opinion is not supported by the rules of of the project. However, I will agree with your formulation if you agree to move mentioning of his Polish origin to the paragraph below. He is famous as a painter and he is considered to belong to the Russian art, and the ethnic origin doesn't play an important role in his career of a painter, so it's not notable for the first paragraph. --Gleb Borisov 4. november 2010, kell 11:09 (EET)
I don't mean that general encyclopedias are absolutely unreliable nor that they are not permitted as sources in the Wikipedia but I think it's obvious that there are other sources, such as monographs and research papers, that are more reliable and therefore more preferable. Encyclopedias are not favoured as sources in students' essays.
The formulation you changed is not mine but by Metsavend. I think it's better than yours, this is why I object to your edit; I don't think there was the best possible wording there. Anyway, I would prefer omitting mentioning the country to just "Venemaa" because the circumstances are too complicated and this wording is misleading.
For the Estonian reader, mentioning ethnic origin in the first sentence is a must if it is known and can be shortly formulated. This is why it's notable. By the way, it doesn't read "poola" (Polish) but "poola päritolu" (of Polish origin, of Polish descent).
What is "Russian art"? If it's art done in Russia then enough was said. If it's something else then what is it? It makes no sense to refer to something we cannot define, since that would be uninformative. Andres 4. november 2010, kell 14:26 (EET)