This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 2005 and December 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Ukraine/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Alex( T| C| E) 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
the following piece removed.
However, since Ukrainian independence, some of the Russian language speakers have begun using a different preposition (в as opposed to на) to emphasize Ukraine's status as a country and not merely a neighboring territory.
First, it is relevant only for Russian language usage, hence only marginal relation to English wikipedia. All languages change all the time, and IMO there is no reason to discuss every language in every other language encyclopedia.
Second, the sentence as it stands is stated in a totally unclear way for an English speaker.
Third, even when you "get it", the "emphasize" part is not totally correct. E.g., there is the usage, e.g., "na Rusi" (English: "On Rus"). The preposition "na" (Eng:"on") is not exclusively used in the cases of territory or direction, as opposed to "in". A seeming confirmation of this theory would be: "na smolenshchine", but "v Smolenskoj oblasti". But this is not a strict rule, often a matter of tradition. "Na Ukraine", but "v Zaporozhye" (in the sense "in Zaporizzhya area"). "V zapolyarye", "v pribaltike", no "na dalnem vostoke", "Na Volge" i "v Povolzhye" are almost synonyms. Anyway, this is a topic of Russian language, not English one. Mikkalai 19:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The text says: Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union on August 24, 1991. But wasn't Ukraine already recognised as an independent country by the International Community? After all wasn't Ukraine or the Ukrainian SSR already a member of the UN since its formation in 1945? Meursault2004 15:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The Ukraine and other Soviet Republics could leave the USSR at any time,so they were in a sense independent. Dudtz 11/27/05 2:27 PM EST
Cross posted from user:talk page:
From the Constitution [1]:
I think the small COA is the trident, here's something else I found [2]:
The current state emblem (officially known as the "small" or "minor" coat of arms) is a gold Trident of St. Volodymyr the Great on a blue shield (much like the one shown on your rendition of the Border Guard Flag). As correctly stated in your excerpt from the Ukrainian Constitution, the small coat of arms is to become the central element in the great coat of arms. However, this decision has become stalled in parliament, mainly due to opposition from the Communists, who would like to see an emblem at least partially recalling the Soviet period.
I don't think the "Great" COA has been adopted yet... -- Berkut 09:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Great CoA has not yet been adopted and even considered by the Verkhovna Rada (unlike the text of the anthem). A bill was proposed by Kuchma (26.09.2002) and another one by Lukyanenko (08.07.2003). None of them is scheduled for consideration during this session [3]. Sashazlv 20:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I tried to verify whether "Воля, злагода, добро" is the national motto of Ukraine and whether Ukraine does have the national motto. I searched the Rada's legislative database, as well as the sites of KMU and the president. Nothing. Google gives a bunch of links, but they are just cross-references to Ukraine or List of state mottos in Wikipedia.
The phrase sounds/looks great, but it does not appear in official documents, on official seals, etc. It seems to be someone's good intention to fill in the "gap", but this does not make it a true fact.
My hypothesis is that the phrase was used as a kind of a motto, maybe, at a regional level. Maybe, it was widely in the diaspora. If you know the original source, please, post it here.
I would suggest changing the National motto to none. At least, this would reflect the reality that no official motto (according to an act of the parliament or president) currently exists. Sashazlv 07:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I have made similar changes to tens of nations and this has been the first objection I encountered. As for the infobox being on top, I find it stylistically superior and was encouraged by the fact it remained in such a key article (as per editorial composition) as the United States. Speaking of the U.S., I agree with its editors' consensus towards the portal being in the external links rather than on top (the initial emphasis should be on the given article, with minimal distractions, although of course protals are beneficial, so I mean that in this sense). I'll use rollback to revert for convinenicne. I don't have a very strong opinion on this, but your edit summary did not indicate any reason for why the current layout is superior. I am, of course, more than open to persuasion on any of this. Thanks for reading. El_C 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good; yes, I take some of your followup points, and I'll try to think of possible solutions/imporvements. As for the infobox, at least, I'm glad you see my point that we might be seeing different things depending on our settings (this is where consensus becomes key for determining which is most suitale, as in, for the majority of readers. As for the portal, we'll see: I'm very open to suggestions on that front (though I note the limitation you alude to). Thank you again for the collaborative and collegial responses. El_C 04:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to add or modify. Sashazlv 03:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This article needs some work. A lot of proper nouns are not capitalized--I'll take care of that. I'm also sensing some POV. Also, is the Rus' spelling supposed to be Ruś? (unsigned by anon)
The Romanian Minority in Ukraine
- 150.989 are Romanian ethnics (0.33% of the country’s population) and 258,619 are Romanians/"Moldavians". Non-devised artificially in two ethnical groups, the Romanian speaking population would have been placed on the third position, after Ukrainians and Russians.
- The numerical distribution of the Romanian ethnics on regions and localities:
- In Cernauti region – 208,800 Romanian speaking population (19.78% of
the region’s population) out of which 141,600 (12.5%) declared to be of Romanian ethnical minority and 67,200 Moldavians.
- In Transcarpatica region – 32,152 Romanian ethnics – mainly living in
Teaciv rayon – 21.3 thousands of persons (12.4% of the rayon population) and Rahiv – 10.3 thousands of persons (11.6% of the rayon population).
- In Odesa region – 724 persons declared to be Romanians and 123.751 –
Moldavians.
A small number of Romanian speaking population live in different other places from Ukraine.
The editing of the books in Romanian for the Romanian teaching schools in Ukraine is being done by the Printing House "Svit" from Lvov. This is also printing books in Polish and Hungarian. The editorial office for the books in Romanian is in Cernauti: chief editor (Director) Mihai UNGUREANU.
The books in Ukrainian are being translated for all the subjects, including the history books (the translators Ştefan BROASCĂ, Dumitru COVALCIUC, Ştefan LAZAROVICI, etc).
The books of Romanian language and literature are edited in Cernauti, the authors being teachers of Romanian origin from Cernauti.
For the elementary school: Romanian language, IInd grade, Alexandrina CERNOV Reading book, IInd grade, Alexandrina CERNOV Romanian language, IIIrd grade, Natalia CIURIM Reading book, IIIrd grade, Ilie LUCEAC Romanian language, IVth grade, Ion BEJENARU Reading book, IVth grade, Alexandrina CERNOV
For the elementary school (the Ukrainian language, Romanian language and the reading books) the Editorial House Bureek has also printed books, their author being Mrs. Serafina CRIGAN.
The Romanian companies are being allocated in Cernauti region, an amount of approximately 22,000 grivne (almost 4,150 US Dollars) that their leaders consider insufficient.
The status regarding the education on Romanian in Cernauti and
Trancarpatica regions
In Cernauti region: In the pre-school education, 1400 children are educated in Romanian language, within 33 pre-school permanent institutions and 175 within seasonal institutions.
In Kindergarten no. 1 of Cernauti, there is a group of 20 children of Romanian ethnical minority.
In the school education, during 2003-2004, in four rayons (Herţa, Hliboca, Noua Suliţă şi Storojineţ) and in Cernauti there are:
- 82 general schools, with Romanian as teaching language, where there are 20,837 students studying, in 1075 classes;
- 10 mixed schools with 130 classes with Romanian as teaching language, where there are 2,246 students studying.
In the schools and classes with Romanian as teaching language, all subjects, except for "the Ukrainian Language and Literature" are taught in Romanian.
Other 363 pupils in the general schools from the region study in Romanian as a compulsory subject and 750 – as optional.
In the schools with Romanian as teaching language there are 2118 educators teaching (19.2% of the total number of educators in the region.
The Romanian language and literature are being taught by 225 teachers.
The universities
The teachers for the schools having the Romanian as teaching language are trained in the National University "Iurii Fedkovici" and at the Pedagogic College from Cernauti, as well as in high education institutions in Romania and Republic of Moldova.
At the Philology Faculty of this university, there is the Department of Romanian and classical Philology, 92 students.
At the Faculty of Mathematics, there are 39 students studying in Romanian groups.
At the Pedagogical College within the mentioned university, educators and teachers are being trained for the education institutions with Romanian as teaching language – 94 students.
In Transcarpatia region
There are 13 general schools in the 13 localities with population of Romanian ethnical minority.
In Teaciv rayon, Slatina locality, there are:
- a high-school – boarding school, human sciences and exact sciences base, with 31 students Xth and XIth grades;
- a middle school of general knowledge with teaching in Romanian language, with 24 classes, 530 pupils.
There are general schools in several localities: Apsa de Jos (4 schools), Stramtura, Carbunesti, Boutul Mare and Boutul Mic.
In Rahiv rayon: At biserica Alba, Apşa de Mijloc, Plaiuţul, Dobric.
Totally there are 4,317 students and almost 380 teachers, in the pre-school education there is a kindergarten with teaching in Romanian language, with 40 children, in Slatina.
In the universities, there is the state University from Ujgorod, the Faculty of Foreign Languages, the Germanic Languages Department, the Romanian language Department, with 10 students.
- Annually, there is a contest for selecting the candidates who wish to
study at the high education institutions in Romania and Republic of Moldova.
- During the last 5 years, through such selection of the Education and
Science Department of Cernauti, 186 candidates have been admitted for studying in Romania and 104 for Republic of Moldova.
In Odesa region there are 9 national schools (174 classes) and 9 mixed schools (122 classes) with teaching on Romanian language (Moldavian language). In 7 schools with teaching in Ukrainian, 1715 pupils were studying Romanian language as compulsory suibject, and 500 – optional, totally over 8000 pupils were studying the Romanian language (2.5% of all pupils in the region). From statistic data it results that only 42% of the Moldavians’ children are educated in Romanian language.
In the village Novoseolovka, Sarata rayon, Odesa region, there was a middle general school with 11 classes, with Romanian as teaching language ("the Moldavian"), with 494 pupils and 48 teachers.
As per provisions of the Collaboration Protocol in the field of education, between the Ministry of education and Research in Romania and the Education and Science Ministry in Ukraine, for the years 2002/2003, starting with September 1, 2003, this school was to be transformed into a high-school.
Starting with the educational year 2003-2004, the progamme of the school was added the functioning, based on the options freely expressed by the students, two classes of Xth grade with teaching in Romanian language, one with human sciences profile, with 15 students and one with a mathematics profile, with 17 students. Under this circumstance it cannot be considered that in Novoseolovka there is a high-school with teaching in Romanian language.
X
One of the main objectives of the foreign policy of the Romanian government is the keeping of the identity of the Romanian communities located outside the boarders of the country, the maintaining and keeping of their connections with the Romanian state, totally in accordance with the provisions and principles of the international law. The issue of the development and consolidation of the relations with the Romanian communities, represents, within the Governing Programme for the years 2001-2004, a priority field, pursuing mainly, "the active support of the interests of the Romanian citizens, of the co-nationals outside the boarders and the encouraging of their relations with the country".
As far as the relations with the Ukrainian side is concerned, the issue of protecting the Romanian minority in Ukraine was constantly on the agenda of the official bilateral meetings, including at the highest level, pursuing the settlement of the existent problems, by bilateral dialogue, in the spirit of the European legal order.
Thus, on the occasion of the official visit in Romania of Mr. Konstyantyn Grischenko, the minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine, which took place on February 18, this year, the Romanian party requested the Ukrainian authorities to prove a wider availability for settlement of the problems of the Romanian minority in Ukraine, among which the returning of some buildings that used to belong to the Romanian cultural institutions until 1944, the representation of the Romanian minority in the Superior Rada in Kiev, more substantial support regarding the publishing of some books in Romanian; there was also discussed the problem on the difficulties that the Romanian party has faced due to the blocking of the donations, especially the ones concerning Romanian books for the Romanian community in Ukraine. These issues are actually permanently on the agenda of the Joint Romanian-Ukrainian Commission for national minorities.
The Romanian party transmitted to the Ukrainian one, a Romanian-Ukrainian Action Programme for Europe, containing a number of concrete proposals regarding the protection of the Romanian minority in Ukraine, including by building monuments or memorial houses or the retrocession of some assets, such as: the building of the monument of Stefan cel Mare si Sfant in Codrii Cosminului, the establishing of the memorial museum "Mihai Eminescu" in Cernauti; the transforming of the headquarter of the present General Consulate of Romania in Cernauti (subsequent to its moving in another place), into House of the Romanian Culture, library or cultural center of the Romanians; the retrocession of some immovable from Cernauti, which until 1944 belonged to the Romanian cultural institutions (the house of Aron Pumnul, the National Palace, the Cultural Palace).
The programme for the year 2004 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regarding the relation with Ukraine, there are in this respect a number of concrete actions, such as:
- building again the bust of the national poet Mihai Eminescu in Odesa;
- setting up some commemorative plaques on he locations where personalities of the Romanian history and culture had lived in Bucovina and naming some streets in Cernauti after them;
- Building a monument of Stefan cel Mare si Sfant in Codrii Cosminului;
- Setting up bilingual signs in the rayons Herta and Noua Sulita from Bucovina and in the regions with Romanian compact population from Transcarpatia (Slatina, Rahiv, etc.)
- Setting up the museum "Mihai Eminescu" in the House "Aron Pumnul" from Cernauti;
- Opening the "Romanian Library in Cernauti", with the support of the County Library "Gheorghe Asachi" from Iasi;
- Building monuments for the Romanian heroes who had died during the second world war in some localities of Bucovina – actions for marking and arranging the places where heroes of the Romanian Army had been berried;
- Renovating the crypts of the Romanian rulers: Stefan Petriceicu and Constantin Serban from the Monastery Starai Stambir from Lvov Region;
- Proceedings for the reconstruction of the former monastery "Peri" from the village Grusevo- Transcarpatia – the oldest Romanian foundation where the first church books had been printed in Romanian language.
Romania pursues the preservation of the cultural and linguistic identity
of the Romanian communities in Ukraine, including of the spiritual and
cultural Romanian patrimony which is in the neighboring country, in
compliance with the provisions of the bilateral legal frame and
international provisions in the field, in force.
The diplomatic missions of Romania in Ukraine organize different actions for commemorating the memory of the ancestors, through commemorative gatherings, religious services, wreaths, etc.
AndriyK, in your edit summary you wrote "rv: why Russia is "country", Poland is "country", and myny other countries in the world are "countries", but only Ukraine is "republic"? Can somebody explain?"
If you don't know what a republic is, then read the article Republic, instead of doing an unjustified revert. If you disagree that Ukraine is a republic, then why do you remove the Ukrainian pronunciation and Russian name in the same edit? — Michael Z. 2005-10-17 17:40 Z
First, I do not remove anything, I just revert to the reasonable changes made by another user. Do you disagree that Ukraine is a country? ;) Yes, Ukraine is a republic and not a monarchy, but this can be mentioned later. The first line should look like in all other articles: Russia is a country, Poland is a country. Do you have any reason why Ukraine should be different? Then please explaine.
Concerning Russian name of the country. OK you can blame me for Ukrainian nationalism (you did not do it yet, did you?). But before you do it, please make a little experiment. Just try to insert the Ukrainian name of Russia into the first line of the corresponding article. And let's see what will happen ;). -- AndriyK 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I do take responsibility for my edits, but I would like to point out that there are other people that share my opinion (or I share their opinion). Therefore your clame concerning consensus is slightly ;) exaggerated. "Republic" is not more informative than "country". This words answer different questions. Please compare: Saudi Arabia is a country, but not a republic. Crimea is a republic (would you clame that this is a monarchy? ;) ), but not a country. The first line should give the answer to the question "What is Ukraine?" Is this country, or perhaps a province, or a region, or an autonomy, or whatever. If the reader is interested in the goverment type of the country, s/he should read further. If you would like to get the explanation, why I deleted Russian name of Ukraine, make just what I asked you in the last message: add Ukrainian name of Russia to the first line of the corresponding article, and they'll explain you everything. ;)-- AndriyK 08:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Various etymologies have been suggested for the name.
I suppose that:
A. The first part of the word, the root "Uk-", is derivated by name "S-ak-a" (i.e. Sacae, Sacians, or else Scythians).
The same root occurs in words:
B. The second part of the word, "-raine", perhaps, is derived by latin word "regnum" (= kingdom, in English)).
-- IonnKorr 08:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Michael Z. 2005-10-30 16:05 Z.
Thanks for your answer. Your arguments seem to be more precious than mine.
You're right I dare say.
-- IonnKorr 16:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Michael's comments. It should also be mentioned the word "Ukraine" is coming from an old-russian word meaning "outskirts, remote borderlands", e.g.: окраина.
~~ Valeri.S.
See also Name of Ukraine, which was compiled since this discussion thread started. — Michael Z. 2006-02-12 19:28 Z
I'm native russian speaker. It seems to me, that first suggestion (separating "uk") is completely wrong. For my opinion, the most probably etimology for root "krai" is edge->country->Ukraine. Today we have word "krai", wich means not only "edge", but also "country", or "place", or "site". Also we have archaic word "krayuha", which means "piece" (of bread). Intuitively it seems, that in ancient times, when Earth was imagined as some God's gift, each country was associated with piece of Earth or edge of Earth. So the word "edge" (krai) took the meaning of the word "country" and then it became evolute separately. So, for me, it seems, that Ukraine is more associated with country, but not with edge.
Dims
20:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Geographic_naming at the proposal of geographic naming convention. -- Lysy ( talk) 18:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
From Ukraine#Ukraine, or the Ukraine?:
Is there any source supporting the assertions which I underlined here? Is the Russian-language usage described universally true, or attested in a source? Have Russian media published editorials questioning a Ukrainian government mandate? This also implies that the Ukrainian government has somehow tried to assert authority over the Russian usage—anyone have details?
I already removed the phrase 'Ukrainian authorities have been pushing the usage of "в"', because it is so vague. Does anyone know how it's being pushed—by use in official documents, new legislation, political pressure, fining or arresting journalists? — Michael Z. 2005-11-15 17:26 Z
PS: also just spotted previous discussion at #In/On, above. — Michael Z. 2005-11-15 17:29 Z
Pan Andriy,
Don't remember.
1) 1941-44
Members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the Ukrainian insurgent army (UPA), Ukrainian troups "Nachtigal" and "Roland", Ukrainian division Waffen SS "Galicia" actively participated in a genocide of the Jewish and Polish population of Ukraine, especially in Galicia and Volhynia. The Ukrainian insurgent army has killed 100 000 Poles of Volhynia in 1942-1943.
2) 1931-1933
The responsibility for famine 1931-33 is carried by Ukrainian communist heads: Stanislav Kosior and Vlas Chubar. The disaster also has captured many regions of southern Russia. An estimated 3-5 million people died.
3) 1919
In the period when the independent Ukrainian government was headed nationalist leader Simon Petlyura (1919), there were numerous Jewish pogroms. 200 000 Jews are killed.
4) 1914-1917
During the first world war austro-hungarian authorities in territory of Galicia subject to repression ucrainians, sympathizing Russia. Over twenty thousand supporters of Russia are arrested and placed in the Austrian concentration camp in Talerhof, Stiria, and in fortress Terezien, Czechia.
p.s Andriy, Please do not privatize this article Ben-Velvel 00:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Mikkalai, why did you remove my parallel between Ukrajina and Denmark? Please use the Talk page before undoing changes that others have used time and energy on. Semantic and morphological parallels are the most important thing in etymology. This is what helps us determine whether an explanation is plausible or not. So please, if you don't like the first of the three given etymologies, don't remove the arguments for this one but provide similar (possibly, better) arguments for the other ones. This dispute is not yet dissolved, so what an encyclopedia article has to do is provide enough information for the readers to decide for themselves. To call an opinion 'silly', as you did, is not a sufficient argument against it, and not very good style. -- Daniel Bunčić 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Hallo, is there an edit war going on? Ghirlandajo, could you please use this Talk page to discuss what is wrong with my following modification?
What exactly is wrong with this? If you want to know if an etymology is plausible, you have to look at other languages to see if something similar has gone on there. For example, the etymology of Ukrainian німець/nimec’ 'German' from німий/nimyj 'dumb' (more properly, of Proto-Slavic *němьcь from *něm-) as a word for all strangers who 'cannot speak (properly)' has to be seen e.g. in the light of the Ancient Greeks calling strangers barbaros, which is onomatopoetic, indicating 'those who can only babble'. Only on the basis of this parallel can we estimate the plausibility of the theory. Which does not mean that it is by all means correct, but this is one argument in favour.
The question with Ukraine is: Why should a nation choose a name that means more or less 'those who live on the edge, in the borderlands'? Would they not always think of themselves as 'those living in the centre'? Well, there are other peoples who use a name like this, e.g. the Danes who call their country Danmark, i.e. the march of the Danes. -- Daniel Bunčić 12:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Ghirla, what's wrong with your usually sharp brains? While all explanations of Daniel are correct, the very start is wrong. Where have you seen "Ukraine" translated as "march"? mikka (t) 17:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I have now introduced another formulation of the semantic (of course not formal!) parallel, which is perhaps clearer for non-linguists to understand. If anyone knows how to say this in an even better, even less misunderstandable way, please do. -- Daniel Bunčić 10:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I ask to take into account my amendments.
1) WW1. The Austrian reprisals in Galicia against Ukrainians, sympathizing Russia 2) An antisemitic policy in days of Petlura 3) A policy of Ukrainization in 20s years 4) Famine is result of collectivization not directed particularly against ethnic Ukrainians. 3-6 millions victims of famine.(The number in article "8-12 millions" is overestimated and contradicts even to calculations of Conquest.) 5) Reprisals against Poles in Volhynia in 1942-1943, lead by UPA Ben-Velvel 13:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I find the following:
misleading. A more accurate would be to say: The term "Rus'" was originally applied to the inhabitants of all Rus' principalities, today comprising Central, Western and Northern Ukraine, Belarus, and Western and North-Western Russia. A map of Kievan Rus would be hlpful, especially because its heritage is disputed by so many countries :) Compay 12:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I think Denis' recent edits to Ukraine#History are highly questionnable and POV-like. He should cite his sources immediately, or I'm going to revert those edits. Not only they contradict to my (vast local) knowledge, but also indirectly support the pro-Russian and separatist-driven POV - which is unuseful and inflammatory here on WP. Anyway, I know few guys who would revert that contributions ASAP, not waiting for explanations - which may not be right . Best wishes, Ukrained 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The following moved from User talk:Ukrained
Dear Denis,
First of all, your post above is your own opinion and your arguments, i.e., speculations. Without any citations and references. That's why your edits were reverted by Irpen. It's that simple.
Next. Regardless of your opinion, please don't you dare to write no way regarding social/historical issues. When dealing with society, with people, there can be no no ways :). You know, some humans eat their own shit, which is definitely a no way for me :))
Next, regarding me and my talk page. I can't remember when and where did I speculate or discuss this issue. Particularly, I've never stated that the whole Urkaine hopes on Hitler, wanting to be separate country, and the idea of representing that Ukraine was almost the only subject bad will of the evil "moscali" . BTW, is that stated in the article itself? But, opposite, stating that the definite geographical part of Europe didn't collaborate with Hitler at all is evidently a propaganda. If you mean Eastern Ukraine or Russia did not - it is a Russian-side propaganda.
What is the "RUH", BTW? Are the members of it the only people who would oppose the Russian shauvenism?:) Where are you from, Denis? Why do you dare to edit important Ukrainian articles without referencing if you are not sure about the subject?
And Denis, since you logged in to Wikipedia, you are supposed to be my colleague, and vice versa. Not only the people who support your opinion. Are we OK with that? Best wishes, Ukrained 18:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Denis, I see your logic and don't find your edit particularly offensive or anti-Ukrainian. As you may expect, people of different views gather here and when you add the info someone might not like, you have to be prepared to back it up with sources.
As for the particular edit, I think the corrections you made are within reason but not perfect. The second one, about the War is totally on the mark. The first one, about the famine is a little more complicated. You see, this is the article about the History of UA and not the History of the USSR. As such, adding that Russia suffered from the famine too in the form you did distorts the balance. The fact is that millions of Ukrainians died due to the criminal Soviet policies. In the USSR article we will write from the Soviet-wide perspective. This one should concentrate more on Ukraine.
Besides, there are two major views on the Ukrainian famine (aside from the lunatic view that it didn't happen at all). One view is that it was a result of specifically anti-Ukrainian policies of the Stalinist government with some scholars subscribing to this view. The other view is that Stalin's policy, being anti-peasant, affected Ukraine disproportionately simply because this was a more agri-cultural nation and some scholars subscribe to this view. You could read more about the debate at the discussion of the Holodomor article as well as in the Holodomor article itself. The latter is being far from optimal or balanced either and several editors are now having the conflicting opinions about the article. -- Irpen 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sincerely, DenisRS 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Created a new section since the old one became too long and refuses to load in my browser. BTW, Irpen, would you please archive the above-located old talks?
Ok now... let's solve problems in order of importance. First, some anonym has restored the edits we discuss. I've reverted that. I hope this is not your IP, Denis: 24.148.169.211. Otherwise, it could be a violation of Wikipolicies. Registered Wikipedians are supposed to be honest and sign their edits.
Next, I suggest a provisional agreement on the issue - until somebody will provide us with sources. So I propose the following edition reflecting the current consensus among Ukrainians:
That's what I call a balanced edition. Sincerely, Ukrained 11:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Uapatriot, that anon user could express the disagreement indeed just like you have done. "To express the disagreement" one edits the article or expresses it at talk (you've done both and it's fine). That anon's "expressing himself" was simply deletion of the phrase from the article without any explanation and without any attempt to raise the issue at talk. Unexplained deletions are generally frown upon. Once he did it for the third time, I saw a "test3" warning appropriate. Now, to your corrections, the difference between "sometimes" and "often" is rather subtle. I specifically searched and read on the issue and I beleive "often" here is warranted. In the western literature the role of Ukrainian collaborators in this crime is considered rather significant. But I need time to come up with refs and until then, or until someone else comes up with them, I will not revert your change. I hope you find this explanation satisfactory. -- Irpen 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I made two changes to this section. One was a correction of the sentence which stated that "the Ukraine" is used "often" in English language. I disagree, but I may be wrong. Please show/cite your references. I used two google searches: 1) "the Ukraine" = 2,360,000 hits & 2) "Ukraine = 119,000,000 hits. Therefore the "often" statement is unfounded.
The second change has to do with a lexical explanation. I cite Dr. Andrew Gregorovich. The following question (and its answer) "Does English grammar require the definite article the before Ukraine?" should be kept under this section as it directly addresses what the section is about.-- Riurik 06:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the the following whole paragraph, since the information there is not correct (and not very relevant anyway):
The Gambia, for example, is neither plural nor an "adjectival or compound form". "The Ukraine" might very well be treated as a parallel to the Gambia.
Apart from that, I have deleted the word "mistakenly". Please provide references, i.e. English dictionaries and/or style-guides that say that "the Ukraine" is wrong. As I see it, there is an overall tendency in English to use country names generally more and more without an article. Therefore the Lebanon and the Sudan might nowadays already seem a bit old-fashioned, and Lebanon and Sudan are preferred. But the Gambia is still the only correct form (and therefore Wikipedia redirects from Gambia to The Gambia). I am not a native speaker of English, but "the Congo" seems to be a similar case (though there are two countries with that name nowadays, which makes the case a bit more complicated), and "the Argentine" for Argentina is an older case where the article-less use prevailed long ago. (Other such cases might be former "the Oman" for Oman or "the Yemen" for Yemen, but I am not sure about them.) The Vatican is a rather different case, but nonetheless another example of a country name with a definite article.
I do not think that any English native speaker who uses the older form "the Ukraine" does so because he considers "the Ukraine" not to be an independent country. This is pure grammar: The Gambia is an independent country with a definite article, and England without an article is only a part of a country.
I have a slight feeling that those people who have written the chapter on the article usage with "Ukraine" are mostly Ukrainians who have seen a parallel to the prepositions in Russian. Be sure, there is no such parallel. -- Daniel Bunčić 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
-- Riurik 20:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Pending the outcome of this discussion, how does this sound:
Grigorovich is still omitted with only a link left for elaboration.-- Riurik 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear all, this is such a minor issue that I don't think it belongs to the top of the article and I am not even sure it belongs to the article at all. Imagine the reader who finds this article and starts reading it. Do you think he expects this long discussion about "the" or is he likely to have come to read about History, Politics, Economy, etc of Ukraine? I cannot think off-hand of another article to include this info right now but so much space at the top of the article devoted to this issue looks odd. Perhaps, we could store this section at the talk page and use it at the future article Etymology of Ukraine to be written at some point, partially based on current Ukraine#Etymology section, Etymology of Rus and derivatives and many references thereof.
Maybe not the best idea but please think about it. -- Irpen 02:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I am with you and any of these names are fine with me. Etymology_of_Rus_and_derivatives#From_Rus_to_Ukraine section has some info to begin the article and we can use the refs there for the start. In the meanwhile, can we move this "the" issue to talk until we create the article? It just doesn't look good were it is. -- Irpen 06:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the sentence about the article re-entered by Michael Z. to the end of the Name section, in order to comply with Irpen's statement above. In my opinion the current state is quite okay. Now let's find more about the etymology to fill up the Name of Ukraine article. -- Daniel Bunčić 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Its "Ukraine," not The Ukraine. The ukraine referred to a territory in the USSR, but all Ukranians refer to our country as Ukraine, becasue we are a free and independent country. To hear anyone refer to Ukraine as "The Ukraine" is an insult and is wrong! Slavko 00:57 12 Feb 2006
My father, a native Ukrainian, is actually offended by the use of the word "the" in front of Ukraine to describe the nation. In addition, the past summer, I was in Ukraine, and many native speakers of Ukrainian told me that when they translate to English, they do not use "the". This is not comparable to France, where it is "la France", because every noun in the French langauge is preceded by an article. Many English speakers in the U.S. assume that "the" must preceed Ukraine because of parallel use of U to begin the national name of "the United States". Unfortunately, this is incorrect, because the full country name, as we know, is The United States of America, so the article is necessary. Nations like Uganda and Iran do not use the article, and from my experiences in a Ukrainian church at home (I'm a native-born English-speaking American), as well as traveling to the country itself, Ukrainians who now speak English do not use "the", and thus, I would say that calling the nation Ukraine is the correct usage. - Greg 2006-04-26 16:30 Z
This article uses it too much. IMO we should cut it down as much as possible and integrate into the tetx. It looks more professional that way. -- Natalinasmpf 06:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this was previously discussed, but please excuse me that I don't understand what division of Ukrainian territory took place and when. There was any ancient Ukrainian state inherited somehow by the modern (Soviet and the new one) Ukrainian state? -- Vasile 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The list is arbitrary. Germany, France, Britain, Republic of Moldova (and Transnistria too), Hungary, Italy, Sweden, Mongolia, apparently almost every European country and some of Asia too, on a particular moment of history, all of them are missing from the list but they "divided" the actual territory of the Ukraine, the ancient land of the great Kievan Rus. --
Vasile
15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I restored the text blanked by Vasile. It is a reasonable issue to discuss but fast hand deletions are unwarranted. -- Irpen 18:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"The territory of present-day Ukraine was a key centre of East Slavic culture in the
Middle Ages, before being divided between a variety of powers, notably
Russia,
Poland,
Lithuania,
Austrian Empire,
Romania and the
Ottoman Empire."
The assertion of "state" for Kievan Rus is unsourced yet, not to mention that of "important European state". Does wikipedia becoming home for the fascist Ukrainian propaganda? -- Vasile 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
and
About the institute:
http://www.ualberta.ca/CIUS/about/about.htm
--
Vasile
12:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a Ukrainian cultural association, it's an academic department of the University of Alberta. You appear to be just making up objections to good sources which don't support your point of view. Next will you claim that all experts on Ukrainian history are suspect, because they are experts on Ukrainian history? — Michael Z. 2006-02-23 17:01 Z
http://www.ualberta.ca/CIUS/about/about-history.htm. Let me extract this part:
Ukrainian Canadian organizations had been urging governments to introduce Ukrainian studies at the secondary and post-secondary levels since the end of World War II. At that time, the very survival of Ukrainian language and culture appeared tenuous in the face of strong assimilatory pressures upon second- and third-generation Ukrainians in Canada, as well as the Soviet regime's brutal persecution of Ukrainians in their homeland.
As it is an appreciation of an academic department, I think it might be useful for the article too. -- Vasile 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo removed the reference to Rusyn or Rusych with the edit summary "wrong: Rusich is a modern invention" [8]. I had found a hidden comment in the text, and restored it with reference to something I had read recently. This really belongs in " Etymology of Rus", but I'd like to clarify.
Magocsi (1996) "The meaning of Rus′" in A History of Ukraine, p. 67, states: "To the concept of Rus′ as the territory of Kievan Rus′ was added another dimension by the Christian inhabitans’ description of themselves collectively as Rus′ (the singular of which term was rusyn, sometimes rusych)." Magocsi is clearly referring to the historical name, and not a modern term. His books is well-researched and carefully written, and doesn't tend to make errors like this. Is there any basis for the statement that the term rusych is modern? — Michael Z. 2006-02-17 20:01 Z
Is Rusyn also not attested in the old East Slavic literature? How far back does it go? — Michael Z. 2006-02-20 07:13 Z
I don't understand how "usage" can be "deprecated". I don't think that is the correct verb because it makes absolutely no sense. What is trying to be conveyed here?
Still, "deprecated" is the wrong word to use. What about "the Yukon". Is it called "yukon" now? I mean I'd hate to offend anyone up there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.0.40 ( talk • contribs)
It's hard to say what word you should use because "deprecated" makes no sense, so the original sentence has very little meaning to me. what are you trying to convey?
The use of "the" is unfortunate, because unlike the Yukon, Ukraine is no longer a territory or part of another country. It is independent.
It's ridiculous how this fight keeps creeping up on the main page. There is no official organization that calls the country "the Ukraine", so get over it. It is "Ukraine" for now, forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewuoft ( talk • contribs)
I asked about sources presenting an independent Ukrainian state at the end of WWI. Especially, is any of the proclaimed states in the Western Ukraine received a particular sign of recognition from some Western states or powers? The simple proclamation of independence is not sufficient, in Europe or North America. The same problem at the article History of Ukraine. If there is no source presenting an independent Ukrainian state, then there were some failed attempts until Ukrainian RSS. -- Vasile 01:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Donald Albury, thank you for your valuable comment. OTOH, please also see WP:TROLL#Pestering. The user above made too many frivolous calls for sources in the past and even when the material was sourced to the most respected encyclopedias user:Vasile persisted with pestering and calling sources like Britannica and Columbia "dubious". Here, he calls for sources not of some obscure fact, but for the most basic info easily foundable in any book about the History of Ukraine. In fact, he can go to the History of Ukraine article and check the refs there. Such basic info would be very easy to find. -- Irpen 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The borders and the national government recognized by Brest-Litovsk is not enough to prove the recognition of the UNR independence by Germany. (Russia admitted its lost of the authority in a former territory.) Germany had the clear and effective control over Ukrainian government. The Hetmanate continued to work under protection of Germany until its overthrown in December 1918. As it presented in various wikipedia articles and in the above citations, in 1918 Ukraine achieved a greatest level of independence as what can be described as a German protectorate until the end of the war. Directorate article is a stub. The "brief period of independence" for Ukraine brought various degrees of independence or political organisation, but never a full and recognized sovereign state over a territory. I still think that "some attempts of independent state" would describe better all those facts. -- Vasile 01:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There are more than 60 North American states and provinces having borders and government but no independence. From the article Sovereignity, "the concept of sovereignty also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs (such as courts of law) possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision."
From the article Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: "Russia's new Bolshevik (communist) government renounced all claim to ... Ukraine... " Renouncing on claims for a territory is not automatically implying the independence recognition of a new state. The final statute of Ukraine was not established by the treaty: "Germany and Austria-Hungary intend to determine the future fate of these territories in agreement with their population."
-- Vasile 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't expect me to lecturize you about notion of "independence" or something else. Also, you can read yourself the entire articles about UNR or Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (though that should include more information about Ukraine).
Back to the subject, I read myself the treaty, and art. 6 is a clear recognition of sovereignity of the Ukrainian state. But you can notice yourself that even the "definitive history" author is using a nuance erased in your version. There is still the problem of the state authority over the territory and you didn't try to contend the idea that independent UNR was under efective protection of Germany. Then after November 1918, from the same Treaty of Brest-Litovsk article: "The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk only lasted eight months. Germany renounced the treaty in November 1918 as one of the conditions for armistice. The Bolshevik government repudiated the treaty following the armistice."
-- Vasile 05:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
While Poland and Finland other former Russian territories were mentioned by the Treaty of Versailles 1919, not a word about Ukraine. -- Vasile 13:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I listed this issue on Requests for comment/History and geography. If your version is acceptable for the rest of the users, so be it. -- Vasile 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
From the introduction:
Did the annexed Polish territory not immediately become part of the URSR in the fall of 1939? The articles on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Polish September Campaign are sketchy on these details. — Michael Z. 2006-03-03 16:44 Z
I removed the "finally-finally" bad-style repetion in the second paragraph. -- Vasile 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The share of high school students receiving their education in Russian has significantly declined from 16% in 1992 to 6 % in 2005
The agitprop of the Party of Regions [9] can hardly be considered as a reliable source.
Let's make a simple estimation: roughly 10% of the population of Ukraine live in Donetsk Oblast. more than 70% of students of this region receive education in Russian [10]. Therefore, the fraction of students receiving their education in Russian in Donetsk Oblast relative to all students in Ukraine is about 7%. But there are also Crimea (almost all schools are Russian-language), Lugansk Oblast (the situation is similar to Donetsk Oblast), the fraction of Russiian-language schools is also high in Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Odessa, etc. So the real number should be much larger than the 6%. BTW, the agitprop tells about all schools, not about high schools only.-- AndriyK 13:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are completely different numbers:
That is more than 26%.-- AndriyK 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
some ethnic Ukrainians while calling Ukrainian as their "native" language are in fact more fluent in Russian than in Ukrainian
The references cited do not contain any comparison of the fluency in Russian and Ukrainian of those ethnic Ukrainians that call Ukrainian as their "native" language. Please provide additional reference or remove unsourced info.-- AndriyK 13:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Clarification in necessary to avoid the readers being mislead by terminology. The numbers from the census native language answers are accurate and should be given. However, the common sense is that the native language is the language in which the person is the most fluent. If for Ukraine it is not always so, the article should state it because if we provide the census native language answers only, we create the false impression of the language usage in the country. Many respondents who wrote "Ukrainian" did so because Ukrainian is indeed their native language in the common sense, that is they grew into it and are more comfortable in it than in any other. However, other reasons may be the legacy of the Soviet tagging everyone by "nationality" (ethnic origin). The common perception is that if your "nationality" is "Ukrainian" (especially if you also live in Ukraine) than you call Ukrainian as your native language. Because Ukraine is rather urbanized and, as the article correclty points, the cities tend to be more Russophone than the villages, many ethnic Ukrainians whose ancestors moved into cities grew up in Russian language environment, including the language they mostly heard at home (we needn't take a position on the reasons behind it to agree on this simple fact). For those people it is easier to talk Russian than Ukrainian (some of them are truly bilingual, BTW, like several Ukrainian wikipedians say on their userpages). Additionally, in the Soviet times the UA Lang at schools was studied by ehtnic Ukrainians, Russians, Jews and Romanians alike as "Ridna Mova" (transation: "native language"). This contributes to perceptions and the answers people give to the "native language" question regardless of their actual relative fluency.
The best indication of fluency would be the answers of people to the question: "In which language you are most fluent". I don't remember seeing this exact question asked in surveys but we have the question for "what language do you use at home (and/or at work)". The home usage numbers are the best indication of people's fluency. This is just common sense and not original research. This data deviates from the "native language" census data. I've also seen a survey with a question: "In what language would it have been easier for you to fill out this very questionary form?" The answer was different from the "native language" answer in this very form. The language speaking situation is a relevant part of Demographic section and should be more representative of reality than just than just both percentage of people who called Ukrainian "native" or percentage of "Ukrainian schools" (I also hope that all "Ukrainian" and "Russian" schools teach Ukrainian well. It is more important than the formal school's designation).
Abuse of "fact" tags in order to strike down a disliked data is extremely disruptive. -- Irpen 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I reedited the section because it was written in very poor English and included statements without any proof. I basically took this section from the "Name of Ukraine" article Any comments are welcome.
Where did the 2005 estimated population figure come from? I ask because the Population decline article lists Ukraine as one of the few countries making a notable population decline, and this contradicts the infobox in this article. Jonathan Kovaciny 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The article as a whole is far too nationalistic and not comprehensive enough. e.g. "For the following several centuries the territory was divided between a number of regional powers as the Ukrainians strived for their own state" ... a sentence added following a previous sentence about Kievan Rus'. Way to backdate a national concept the product of a later era. Why no discussion about the emergence of Ukrainian national identity? Just another case of assuming all present political states are expressions of eternal historical concepts, certainly not the case for the Ukraine. General things, like why is the Russian name not in the opening line, why is Kiev written with just the Ukrainian name beside it when it is a Russophone city? All that aside, the article employs no scholarly references. The sections of religion and culture are tiny, yet the portion of the history section devoted to WWII huge. Definitely not GA material yet. - Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please propose how to fix the issues above. Also, please avoid referring to your opponents by nationalities. Kiev is indeed bilingual with Russian still more widely used according to published surveys. In no way this affects how to write the city name. It should be Kiev as per prevailing English usage. Similarly, Kharkiv should be Kharkiv in modern context , as per English usage, despite the latter is indeed largely Russophone. -- Irpen 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The reaction lays quite clear the tendencies which produce a nationalistic article. Irpen, I know Kyiv is used in English, but only because the Ukrainian government has been pressuring various media organizations to adopt the title. I also see no non-nationalistic reason why the Ukranian name should be there, but not the Russian one. The article has further problems besides this, as I wrote above. Let's not allow this to cloud things. As Irpen acknowledges the problems with the history section and the treatment of identity, and is also in a position to remedy it, maybe the article can attain GA status in the not too distant future. The article also needs to cover things like culture and religion adequately; this should not be hard to do. Also, it could reach GA without them, but you can forget about FA without inline citations and an appropriate bibliography. These should be introduced now before it gets to GA stage. - Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, I don't know what GA or FA is, or what this guy Calgacus is, but don't you worry a bit about either of those. It is a good article generally, and it is getting there as people happen to have "time and inspiration". It may be developing unequally with a better coverage of some areas than of the others, but that depends on the interests of people who contribute. Time will come and someone will join who will write a great piece about culture, and so on. Recognitions are nuisance, the main recognition of the article as well as all other ones here is that they are read by people and give them useful, and as we know well by now, properly verified to the best extent possible for us information. That is the only thing that matters.
Serhiy
21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a little bit strange that nothing has been said about Chernobyl disaster. The chronically ill people and the dislocated people should be cited in this article, as well as the ecological catastrophe itself. Typelighter 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to dispute current content on Chernobyl
Today there were some additions to the list of external links on the "Ukraine" page, namely to various discussion forums. One was by Kuban Kazak, to a place called "Anti-Orange". Having checked some titles and content on the page that opens from that link, I cannot call that site anything but a stinking shithole. Of course, that's my personal opinion, perhaps not all people would agree. But to avoid getting into a protracted debate over which site merits to be shown on the "Ukraine" page and which one doesn't, why don't we get rid of that "Boards" section in its entirety? What is the point of having that section anyway, why does Wikipedia have to advertise various discussion forums? Is that it's purpose? Looking forward to your views. Serhiy 15:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the link from Kiev Chronicle to Primary Chronicle because Magocsi (p. 171) cites the 1187 entry of the "Hypatian text of the Primary Chronicle", and later: "others in the Primary Chronicle (Hypatian text)". — Michael Z. 2006-05-12 18:42 Z
I was putting the name Kiev Chronicle in, and indeed it does exist :) The relationship with the Hypatian text of what you call the Primary Chronicle (have not seen that name in the Chronicles themselves) is simple: Hypathian list ("spysok") consists of three chronicles:
It is the second Chronicle of the three that is called "Київський Літопис" in the literature. I translated that to English as "Kyiv Chronicle". As you can see, this does not involve any contradiction with Magosci. Serhiy 19:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody have factual or POV objections regarding the two paragraphs submitted into revision 16:33, 20 May 2006?
Sorry, I'm not going to apologize until you log in and start signing your posts. And remember: not every editor from Ukraine is a Ukrainian one. Some of them, in my opinion, are anti-Ukrainian. Everybody in Ukraine stating that Russian is oppressed is either a troll or a moron. What I'm going to do is to recheck that contribution. Ukrained 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Concluding the discussion: I consider the four following facts (all substantiated by the linked documents) as a worthy piece of information about the government policy regarding the minority languages:
1. The government does not publish official documents in minority languages.
2. The government resists any attempts to implement the Charter on minority and regional languages.
3. The government considers specifically Russian language as "not endangered and thus not deserving protection", contrary to the Constitution and to the Charter.
4. The government attempted to ban all minority languages from the TV and radio stations that have more than a regional exposure.
I consider the topic of government policies appropriate for this article in Wikipedia. I think listing these facts is absolutely necessary for for the readers to be able to understand the whole complex political environment in Ukraine and get a balanced view, and also extremely noteworthy milestones. As a matter of fact, 3 of these facts have received wide attention in Ukrainian and international media, and so deserve to be mentioned here (the issue with the internet sites is an exception). Also, the points 2 and 3 are a fairly recent policy developement, which the article has not yet included. And I haven't heard any worthy objections in this discussion board. I think it would be good to present more facts showing the government's support of the minority languages, and I welcome everybody to do it. I did present a balanced view in my contribution.
Hmmmmm. I can see that I am jumping into the middle of a very contentions issue here, and care needs to be taken to get the right tone. At this point I don't want to suggest a specific edit to address my concern. But I will say that, as a frequent visitor to Ukraine, I get the feeling that the government is attempting to push Ukrainian (as opposed to Russian) language on me whether I like it or not. I don't think it would be fair to say that they are "repressing" Russian (they aren't). But in areas where Russian is the majority language, it seems that for the most part, anything connected with the Government is most likely going to be in Ukrainian, while something like a restaurant menu is much more likely to be in Russian.
I would like to see the article reflect this somehow. -- William Jockusch
Woah! That is a harsh and uncompromising attitude. To name another linguistically divided country, the article on Canada has a section on Gov't policy towards language, for instance. I can agree with you that the removed edit that was the subject of your previous debate was overdoing it for a general article on the country. But if you are saying the topic should hardly be mentioned, as is the case now, then, well, we have a significant difference of opinion. William Jockusch 06:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:History_of_Ukraine#The_number_of_Holodomor_victims.
Would you mind rephrase or refactor your objections more civilly? I request you do that before I respond. -- Irpen 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Famines in the Ukraine? Historical famines before 1917? Under the Czar any famines?
Ukraine has one of the most steadily declining populations in the world. Its relevant if a paragraph could be added to the page about this and the underlying reasons-mass emigration, low birth rate, abortion, alcohol abuse ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiter8 ( talk • contribs)
it seems not to be "negligible" % of area. Take in account "Kakhovka Sea".-- Sergiy O. Bukreyev 04:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am looking for information on clothing styles in use in Ukraine during the 16th century. I am specifically searching for illustrations/pictures of the clothing worn in each Oblast and social class. Does anyone know of any sites that may have this type of information? English sites prefered, Ukrainian, Russian, Portuguese or Spanish sites are acceptable. Thanks for any help Vivafelis 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Today an anomymous user changed some references to Cossacks to the spelling "cozack". I'm not sure where this comes (not in the American Heritage dictionary, only 422 hits in google...) so I reverted to the usual spelling. Comments ? Nberger 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
"By the 3rd century BC, the Sarmatian name appears to have supplanted the Scythian in the plains of what is now south Ukraine."
Referring only to Scythia glosses over the reality of this time period.
- 68.253.137.137 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, although I am not a Ukrainian, I am a great lover of the country. However, I added this information: Ukraine is the third largest country in Europe (after Russia and France)". My brother from Ukraine Riurik told me that Ukraine is in fact the second largest. But Wikipedia says: Ukraine's land area is 233,090 sq mi, but Wikipedia also says, France's land area is 260,558 sq mi. So after Russia, doesn't France become the 2nd largest country? Or, may be, I am wrong in assuming that European Russia has the largest land area? I will appreciate if Riurik or somebody kindly correct me. Kazimostak 15:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Sharif
Huh? But in school I was always told that Ukraine is the biggest in Europe (and Russia is not European country) so who is wrong? Vinnitsa
why does everyone always argue!
Jeeeze! lets have some peace!
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Ukraine. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 2005 and December 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Ukraine/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Alex( T| C| E) 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
the following piece removed.
However, since Ukrainian independence, some of the Russian language speakers have begun using a different preposition (в as opposed to на) to emphasize Ukraine's status as a country and not merely a neighboring territory.
First, it is relevant only for Russian language usage, hence only marginal relation to English wikipedia. All languages change all the time, and IMO there is no reason to discuss every language in every other language encyclopedia.
Second, the sentence as it stands is stated in a totally unclear way for an English speaker.
Third, even when you "get it", the "emphasize" part is not totally correct. E.g., there is the usage, e.g., "na Rusi" (English: "On Rus"). The preposition "na" (Eng:"on") is not exclusively used in the cases of territory or direction, as opposed to "in". A seeming confirmation of this theory would be: "na smolenshchine", but "v Smolenskoj oblasti". But this is not a strict rule, often a matter of tradition. "Na Ukraine", but "v Zaporozhye" (in the sense "in Zaporizzhya area"). "V zapolyarye", "v pribaltike", no "na dalnem vostoke", "Na Volge" i "v Povolzhye" are almost synonyms. Anyway, this is a topic of Russian language, not English one. Mikkalai 19:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The text says: Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union on August 24, 1991. But wasn't Ukraine already recognised as an independent country by the International Community? After all wasn't Ukraine or the Ukrainian SSR already a member of the UN since its formation in 1945? Meursault2004 15:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The Ukraine and other Soviet Republics could leave the USSR at any time,so they were in a sense independent. Dudtz 11/27/05 2:27 PM EST
Cross posted from user:talk page:
From the Constitution [1]:
I think the small COA is the trident, here's something else I found [2]:
The current state emblem (officially known as the "small" or "minor" coat of arms) is a gold Trident of St. Volodymyr the Great on a blue shield (much like the one shown on your rendition of the Border Guard Flag). As correctly stated in your excerpt from the Ukrainian Constitution, the small coat of arms is to become the central element in the great coat of arms. However, this decision has become stalled in parliament, mainly due to opposition from the Communists, who would like to see an emblem at least partially recalling the Soviet period.
I don't think the "Great" COA has been adopted yet... -- Berkut 09:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Great CoA has not yet been adopted and even considered by the Verkhovna Rada (unlike the text of the anthem). A bill was proposed by Kuchma (26.09.2002) and another one by Lukyanenko (08.07.2003). None of them is scheduled for consideration during this session [3]. Sashazlv 20:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I tried to verify whether "Воля, злагода, добро" is the national motto of Ukraine and whether Ukraine does have the national motto. I searched the Rada's legislative database, as well as the sites of KMU and the president. Nothing. Google gives a bunch of links, but they are just cross-references to Ukraine or List of state mottos in Wikipedia.
The phrase sounds/looks great, but it does not appear in official documents, on official seals, etc. It seems to be someone's good intention to fill in the "gap", but this does not make it a true fact.
My hypothesis is that the phrase was used as a kind of a motto, maybe, at a regional level. Maybe, it was widely in the diaspora. If you know the original source, please, post it here.
I would suggest changing the National motto to none. At least, this would reflect the reality that no official motto (according to an act of the parliament or president) currently exists. Sashazlv 07:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I have made similar changes to tens of nations and this has been the first objection I encountered. As for the infobox being on top, I find it stylistically superior and was encouraged by the fact it remained in such a key article (as per editorial composition) as the United States. Speaking of the U.S., I agree with its editors' consensus towards the portal being in the external links rather than on top (the initial emphasis should be on the given article, with minimal distractions, although of course protals are beneficial, so I mean that in this sense). I'll use rollback to revert for convinenicne. I don't have a very strong opinion on this, but your edit summary did not indicate any reason for why the current layout is superior. I am, of course, more than open to persuasion on any of this. Thanks for reading. El_C 03:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good; yes, I take some of your followup points, and I'll try to think of possible solutions/imporvements. As for the infobox, at least, I'm glad you see my point that we might be seeing different things depending on our settings (this is where consensus becomes key for determining which is most suitale, as in, for the majority of readers. As for the portal, we'll see: I'm very open to suggestions on that front (though I note the limitation you alude to). Thank you again for the collaborative and collegial responses. El_C 04:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to add or modify. Sashazlv 03:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This article needs some work. A lot of proper nouns are not capitalized--I'll take care of that. I'm also sensing some POV. Also, is the Rus' spelling supposed to be Ruś? (unsigned by anon)
The Romanian Minority in Ukraine
- 150.989 are Romanian ethnics (0.33% of the country’s population) and 258,619 are Romanians/"Moldavians". Non-devised artificially in two ethnical groups, the Romanian speaking population would have been placed on the third position, after Ukrainians and Russians.
- The numerical distribution of the Romanian ethnics on regions and localities:
- In Cernauti region – 208,800 Romanian speaking population (19.78% of
the region’s population) out of which 141,600 (12.5%) declared to be of Romanian ethnical minority and 67,200 Moldavians.
- In Transcarpatica region – 32,152 Romanian ethnics – mainly living in
Teaciv rayon – 21.3 thousands of persons (12.4% of the rayon population) and Rahiv – 10.3 thousands of persons (11.6% of the rayon population).
- In Odesa region – 724 persons declared to be Romanians and 123.751 –
Moldavians.
A small number of Romanian speaking population live in different other places from Ukraine.
The editing of the books in Romanian for the Romanian teaching schools in Ukraine is being done by the Printing House "Svit" from Lvov. This is also printing books in Polish and Hungarian. The editorial office for the books in Romanian is in Cernauti: chief editor (Director) Mihai UNGUREANU.
The books in Ukrainian are being translated for all the subjects, including the history books (the translators Ştefan BROASCĂ, Dumitru COVALCIUC, Ştefan LAZAROVICI, etc).
The books of Romanian language and literature are edited in Cernauti, the authors being teachers of Romanian origin from Cernauti.
For the elementary school: Romanian language, IInd grade, Alexandrina CERNOV Reading book, IInd grade, Alexandrina CERNOV Romanian language, IIIrd grade, Natalia CIURIM Reading book, IIIrd grade, Ilie LUCEAC Romanian language, IVth grade, Ion BEJENARU Reading book, IVth grade, Alexandrina CERNOV
For the elementary school (the Ukrainian language, Romanian language and the reading books) the Editorial House Bureek has also printed books, their author being Mrs. Serafina CRIGAN.
The Romanian companies are being allocated in Cernauti region, an amount of approximately 22,000 grivne (almost 4,150 US Dollars) that their leaders consider insufficient.
The status regarding the education on Romanian in Cernauti and
Trancarpatica regions
In Cernauti region: In the pre-school education, 1400 children are educated in Romanian language, within 33 pre-school permanent institutions and 175 within seasonal institutions.
In Kindergarten no. 1 of Cernauti, there is a group of 20 children of Romanian ethnical minority.
In the school education, during 2003-2004, in four rayons (Herţa, Hliboca, Noua Suliţă şi Storojineţ) and in Cernauti there are:
- 82 general schools, with Romanian as teaching language, where there are 20,837 students studying, in 1075 classes;
- 10 mixed schools with 130 classes with Romanian as teaching language, where there are 2,246 students studying.
In the schools and classes with Romanian as teaching language, all subjects, except for "the Ukrainian Language and Literature" are taught in Romanian.
Other 363 pupils in the general schools from the region study in Romanian as a compulsory subject and 750 – as optional.
In the schools with Romanian as teaching language there are 2118 educators teaching (19.2% of the total number of educators in the region.
The Romanian language and literature are being taught by 225 teachers.
The universities
The teachers for the schools having the Romanian as teaching language are trained in the National University "Iurii Fedkovici" and at the Pedagogic College from Cernauti, as well as in high education institutions in Romania and Republic of Moldova.
At the Philology Faculty of this university, there is the Department of Romanian and classical Philology, 92 students.
At the Faculty of Mathematics, there are 39 students studying in Romanian groups.
At the Pedagogical College within the mentioned university, educators and teachers are being trained for the education institutions with Romanian as teaching language – 94 students.
In Transcarpatia region
There are 13 general schools in the 13 localities with population of Romanian ethnical minority.
In Teaciv rayon, Slatina locality, there are:
- a high-school – boarding school, human sciences and exact sciences base, with 31 students Xth and XIth grades;
- a middle school of general knowledge with teaching in Romanian language, with 24 classes, 530 pupils.
There are general schools in several localities: Apsa de Jos (4 schools), Stramtura, Carbunesti, Boutul Mare and Boutul Mic.
In Rahiv rayon: At biserica Alba, Apşa de Mijloc, Plaiuţul, Dobric.
Totally there are 4,317 students and almost 380 teachers, in the pre-school education there is a kindergarten with teaching in Romanian language, with 40 children, in Slatina.
In the universities, there is the state University from Ujgorod, the Faculty of Foreign Languages, the Germanic Languages Department, the Romanian language Department, with 10 students.
- Annually, there is a contest for selecting the candidates who wish to
study at the high education institutions in Romania and Republic of Moldova.
- During the last 5 years, through such selection of the Education and
Science Department of Cernauti, 186 candidates have been admitted for studying in Romania and 104 for Republic of Moldova.
In Odesa region there are 9 national schools (174 classes) and 9 mixed schools (122 classes) with teaching on Romanian language (Moldavian language). In 7 schools with teaching in Ukrainian, 1715 pupils were studying Romanian language as compulsory suibject, and 500 – optional, totally over 8000 pupils were studying the Romanian language (2.5% of all pupils in the region). From statistic data it results that only 42% of the Moldavians’ children are educated in Romanian language.
In the village Novoseolovka, Sarata rayon, Odesa region, there was a middle general school with 11 classes, with Romanian as teaching language ("the Moldavian"), with 494 pupils and 48 teachers.
As per provisions of the Collaboration Protocol in the field of education, between the Ministry of education and Research in Romania and the Education and Science Ministry in Ukraine, for the years 2002/2003, starting with September 1, 2003, this school was to be transformed into a high-school.
Starting with the educational year 2003-2004, the progamme of the school was added the functioning, based on the options freely expressed by the students, two classes of Xth grade with teaching in Romanian language, one with human sciences profile, with 15 students and one with a mathematics profile, with 17 students. Under this circumstance it cannot be considered that in Novoseolovka there is a high-school with teaching in Romanian language.
X
One of the main objectives of the foreign policy of the Romanian government is the keeping of the identity of the Romanian communities located outside the boarders of the country, the maintaining and keeping of their connections with the Romanian state, totally in accordance with the provisions and principles of the international law. The issue of the development and consolidation of the relations with the Romanian communities, represents, within the Governing Programme for the years 2001-2004, a priority field, pursuing mainly, "the active support of the interests of the Romanian citizens, of the co-nationals outside the boarders and the encouraging of their relations with the country".
As far as the relations with the Ukrainian side is concerned, the issue of protecting the Romanian minority in Ukraine was constantly on the agenda of the official bilateral meetings, including at the highest level, pursuing the settlement of the existent problems, by bilateral dialogue, in the spirit of the European legal order.
Thus, on the occasion of the official visit in Romania of Mr. Konstyantyn Grischenko, the minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine, which took place on February 18, this year, the Romanian party requested the Ukrainian authorities to prove a wider availability for settlement of the problems of the Romanian minority in Ukraine, among which the returning of some buildings that used to belong to the Romanian cultural institutions until 1944, the representation of the Romanian minority in the Superior Rada in Kiev, more substantial support regarding the publishing of some books in Romanian; there was also discussed the problem on the difficulties that the Romanian party has faced due to the blocking of the donations, especially the ones concerning Romanian books for the Romanian community in Ukraine. These issues are actually permanently on the agenda of the Joint Romanian-Ukrainian Commission for national minorities.
The Romanian party transmitted to the Ukrainian one, a Romanian-Ukrainian Action Programme for Europe, containing a number of concrete proposals regarding the protection of the Romanian minority in Ukraine, including by building monuments or memorial houses or the retrocession of some assets, such as: the building of the monument of Stefan cel Mare si Sfant in Codrii Cosminului, the establishing of the memorial museum "Mihai Eminescu" in Cernauti; the transforming of the headquarter of the present General Consulate of Romania in Cernauti (subsequent to its moving in another place), into House of the Romanian Culture, library or cultural center of the Romanians; the retrocession of some immovable from Cernauti, which until 1944 belonged to the Romanian cultural institutions (the house of Aron Pumnul, the National Palace, the Cultural Palace).
The programme for the year 2004 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regarding the relation with Ukraine, there are in this respect a number of concrete actions, such as:
- building again the bust of the national poet Mihai Eminescu in Odesa;
- setting up some commemorative plaques on he locations where personalities of the Romanian history and culture had lived in Bucovina and naming some streets in Cernauti after them;
- Building a monument of Stefan cel Mare si Sfant in Codrii Cosminului;
- Setting up bilingual signs in the rayons Herta and Noua Sulita from Bucovina and in the regions with Romanian compact population from Transcarpatia (Slatina, Rahiv, etc.)
- Setting up the museum "Mihai Eminescu" in the House "Aron Pumnul" from Cernauti;
- Opening the "Romanian Library in Cernauti", with the support of the County Library "Gheorghe Asachi" from Iasi;
- Building monuments for the Romanian heroes who had died during the second world war in some localities of Bucovina – actions for marking and arranging the places where heroes of the Romanian Army had been berried;
- Renovating the crypts of the Romanian rulers: Stefan Petriceicu and Constantin Serban from the Monastery Starai Stambir from Lvov Region;
- Proceedings for the reconstruction of the former monastery "Peri" from the village Grusevo- Transcarpatia – the oldest Romanian foundation where the first church books had been printed in Romanian language.
Romania pursues the preservation of the cultural and linguistic identity
of the Romanian communities in Ukraine, including of the spiritual and
cultural Romanian patrimony which is in the neighboring country, in
compliance with the provisions of the bilateral legal frame and
international provisions in the field, in force.
The diplomatic missions of Romania in Ukraine organize different actions for commemorating the memory of the ancestors, through commemorative gatherings, religious services, wreaths, etc.
AndriyK, in your edit summary you wrote "rv: why Russia is "country", Poland is "country", and myny other countries in the world are "countries", but only Ukraine is "republic"? Can somebody explain?"
If you don't know what a republic is, then read the article Republic, instead of doing an unjustified revert. If you disagree that Ukraine is a republic, then why do you remove the Ukrainian pronunciation and Russian name in the same edit? — Michael Z. 2005-10-17 17:40 Z
First, I do not remove anything, I just revert to the reasonable changes made by another user. Do you disagree that Ukraine is a country? ;) Yes, Ukraine is a republic and not a monarchy, but this can be mentioned later. The first line should look like in all other articles: Russia is a country, Poland is a country. Do you have any reason why Ukraine should be different? Then please explaine.
Concerning Russian name of the country. OK you can blame me for Ukrainian nationalism (you did not do it yet, did you?). But before you do it, please make a little experiment. Just try to insert the Ukrainian name of Russia into the first line of the corresponding article. And let's see what will happen ;). -- AndriyK 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I do take responsibility for my edits, but I would like to point out that there are other people that share my opinion (or I share their opinion). Therefore your clame concerning consensus is slightly ;) exaggerated. "Republic" is not more informative than "country". This words answer different questions. Please compare: Saudi Arabia is a country, but not a republic. Crimea is a republic (would you clame that this is a monarchy? ;) ), but not a country. The first line should give the answer to the question "What is Ukraine?" Is this country, or perhaps a province, or a region, or an autonomy, or whatever. If the reader is interested in the goverment type of the country, s/he should read further. If you would like to get the explanation, why I deleted Russian name of Ukraine, make just what I asked you in the last message: add Ukrainian name of Russia to the first line of the corresponding article, and they'll explain you everything. ;)-- AndriyK 08:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Various etymologies have been suggested for the name.
I suppose that:
A. The first part of the word, the root "Uk-", is derivated by name "S-ak-a" (i.e. Sacae, Sacians, or else Scythians).
The same root occurs in words:
B. The second part of the word, "-raine", perhaps, is derived by latin word "regnum" (= kingdom, in English)).
-- IonnKorr 08:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Michael Z. 2005-10-30 16:05 Z.
Thanks for your answer. Your arguments seem to be more precious than mine.
You're right I dare say.
-- IonnKorr 16:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Michael's comments. It should also be mentioned the word "Ukraine" is coming from an old-russian word meaning "outskirts, remote borderlands", e.g.: окраина.
~~ Valeri.S.
See also Name of Ukraine, which was compiled since this discussion thread started. — Michael Z. 2006-02-12 19:28 Z
I'm native russian speaker. It seems to me, that first suggestion (separating "uk") is completely wrong. For my opinion, the most probably etimology for root "krai" is edge->country->Ukraine. Today we have word "krai", wich means not only "edge", but also "country", or "place", or "site". Also we have archaic word "krayuha", which means "piece" (of bread). Intuitively it seems, that in ancient times, when Earth was imagined as some God's gift, each country was associated with piece of Earth or edge of Earth. So the word "edge" (krai) took the meaning of the word "country" and then it became evolute separately. So, for me, it seems, that Ukraine is more associated with country, but not with edge.
Dims
20:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Geographic_naming at the proposal of geographic naming convention. -- Lysy ( talk) 18:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
From Ukraine#Ukraine, or the Ukraine?:
Is there any source supporting the assertions which I underlined here? Is the Russian-language usage described universally true, or attested in a source? Have Russian media published editorials questioning a Ukrainian government mandate? This also implies that the Ukrainian government has somehow tried to assert authority over the Russian usage—anyone have details?
I already removed the phrase 'Ukrainian authorities have been pushing the usage of "в"', because it is so vague. Does anyone know how it's being pushed—by use in official documents, new legislation, political pressure, fining or arresting journalists? — Michael Z. 2005-11-15 17:26 Z
PS: also just spotted previous discussion at #In/On, above. — Michael Z. 2005-11-15 17:29 Z
Pan Andriy,
Don't remember.
1) 1941-44
Members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the Ukrainian insurgent army (UPA), Ukrainian troups "Nachtigal" and "Roland", Ukrainian division Waffen SS "Galicia" actively participated in a genocide of the Jewish and Polish population of Ukraine, especially in Galicia and Volhynia. The Ukrainian insurgent army has killed 100 000 Poles of Volhynia in 1942-1943.
2) 1931-1933
The responsibility for famine 1931-33 is carried by Ukrainian communist heads: Stanislav Kosior and Vlas Chubar. The disaster also has captured many regions of southern Russia. An estimated 3-5 million people died.
3) 1919
In the period when the independent Ukrainian government was headed nationalist leader Simon Petlyura (1919), there were numerous Jewish pogroms. 200 000 Jews are killed.
4) 1914-1917
During the first world war austro-hungarian authorities in territory of Galicia subject to repression ucrainians, sympathizing Russia. Over twenty thousand supporters of Russia are arrested and placed in the Austrian concentration camp in Talerhof, Stiria, and in fortress Terezien, Czechia.
p.s Andriy, Please do not privatize this article Ben-Velvel 00:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Mikkalai, why did you remove my parallel between Ukrajina and Denmark? Please use the Talk page before undoing changes that others have used time and energy on. Semantic and morphological parallels are the most important thing in etymology. This is what helps us determine whether an explanation is plausible or not. So please, if you don't like the first of the three given etymologies, don't remove the arguments for this one but provide similar (possibly, better) arguments for the other ones. This dispute is not yet dissolved, so what an encyclopedia article has to do is provide enough information for the readers to decide for themselves. To call an opinion 'silly', as you did, is not a sufficient argument against it, and not very good style. -- Daniel Bunčić 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Hallo, is there an edit war going on? Ghirlandajo, could you please use this Talk page to discuss what is wrong with my following modification?
What exactly is wrong with this? If you want to know if an etymology is plausible, you have to look at other languages to see if something similar has gone on there. For example, the etymology of Ukrainian німець/nimec’ 'German' from німий/nimyj 'dumb' (more properly, of Proto-Slavic *němьcь from *něm-) as a word for all strangers who 'cannot speak (properly)' has to be seen e.g. in the light of the Ancient Greeks calling strangers barbaros, which is onomatopoetic, indicating 'those who can only babble'. Only on the basis of this parallel can we estimate the plausibility of the theory. Which does not mean that it is by all means correct, but this is one argument in favour.
The question with Ukraine is: Why should a nation choose a name that means more or less 'those who live on the edge, in the borderlands'? Would they not always think of themselves as 'those living in the centre'? Well, there are other peoples who use a name like this, e.g. the Danes who call their country Danmark, i.e. the march of the Danes. -- Daniel Bunčić 12:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Ghirla, what's wrong with your usually sharp brains? While all explanations of Daniel are correct, the very start is wrong. Where have you seen "Ukraine" translated as "march"? mikka (t) 17:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I have now introduced another formulation of the semantic (of course not formal!) parallel, which is perhaps clearer for non-linguists to understand. If anyone knows how to say this in an even better, even less misunderstandable way, please do. -- Daniel Bunčić 10:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I ask to take into account my amendments.
1) WW1. The Austrian reprisals in Galicia against Ukrainians, sympathizing Russia 2) An antisemitic policy in days of Petlura 3) A policy of Ukrainization in 20s years 4) Famine is result of collectivization not directed particularly against ethnic Ukrainians. 3-6 millions victims of famine.(The number in article "8-12 millions" is overestimated and contradicts even to calculations of Conquest.) 5) Reprisals against Poles in Volhynia in 1942-1943, lead by UPA Ben-Velvel 13:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I find the following:
misleading. A more accurate would be to say: The term "Rus'" was originally applied to the inhabitants of all Rus' principalities, today comprising Central, Western and Northern Ukraine, Belarus, and Western and North-Western Russia. A map of Kievan Rus would be hlpful, especially because its heritage is disputed by so many countries :) Compay 12:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I think Denis' recent edits to Ukraine#History are highly questionnable and POV-like. He should cite his sources immediately, or I'm going to revert those edits. Not only they contradict to my (vast local) knowledge, but also indirectly support the pro-Russian and separatist-driven POV - which is unuseful and inflammatory here on WP. Anyway, I know few guys who would revert that contributions ASAP, not waiting for explanations - which may not be right . Best wishes, Ukrained 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The following moved from User talk:Ukrained
Dear Denis,
First of all, your post above is your own opinion and your arguments, i.e., speculations. Without any citations and references. That's why your edits were reverted by Irpen. It's that simple.
Next. Regardless of your opinion, please don't you dare to write no way regarding social/historical issues. When dealing with society, with people, there can be no no ways :). You know, some humans eat their own shit, which is definitely a no way for me :))
Next, regarding me and my talk page. I can't remember when and where did I speculate or discuss this issue. Particularly, I've never stated that the whole Urkaine hopes on Hitler, wanting to be separate country, and the idea of representing that Ukraine was almost the only subject bad will of the evil "moscali" . BTW, is that stated in the article itself? But, opposite, stating that the definite geographical part of Europe didn't collaborate with Hitler at all is evidently a propaganda. If you mean Eastern Ukraine or Russia did not - it is a Russian-side propaganda.
What is the "RUH", BTW? Are the members of it the only people who would oppose the Russian shauvenism?:) Where are you from, Denis? Why do you dare to edit important Ukrainian articles without referencing if you are not sure about the subject?
And Denis, since you logged in to Wikipedia, you are supposed to be my colleague, and vice versa. Not only the people who support your opinion. Are we OK with that? Best wishes, Ukrained 18:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Denis, I see your logic and don't find your edit particularly offensive or anti-Ukrainian. As you may expect, people of different views gather here and when you add the info someone might not like, you have to be prepared to back it up with sources.
As for the particular edit, I think the corrections you made are within reason but not perfect. The second one, about the War is totally on the mark. The first one, about the famine is a little more complicated. You see, this is the article about the History of UA and not the History of the USSR. As such, adding that Russia suffered from the famine too in the form you did distorts the balance. The fact is that millions of Ukrainians died due to the criminal Soviet policies. In the USSR article we will write from the Soviet-wide perspective. This one should concentrate more on Ukraine.
Besides, there are two major views on the Ukrainian famine (aside from the lunatic view that it didn't happen at all). One view is that it was a result of specifically anti-Ukrainian policies of the Stalinist government with some scholars subscribing to this view. The other view is that Stalin's policy, being anti-peasant, affected Ukraine disproportionately simply because this was a more agri-cultural nation and some scholars subscribe to this view. You could read more about the debate at the discussion of the Holodomor article as well as in the Holodomor article itself. The latter is being far from optimal or balanced either and several editors are now having the conflicting opinions about the article. -- Irpen 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sincerely, DenisRS 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Created a new section since the old one became too long and refuses to load in my browser. BTW, Irpen, would you please archive the above-located old talks?
Ok now... let's solve problems in order of importance. First, some anonym has restored the edits we discuss. I've reverted that. I hope this is not your IP, Denis: 24.148.169.211. Otherwise, it could be a violation of Wikipolicies. Registered Wikipedians are supposed to be honest and sign their edits.
Next, I suggest a provisional agreement on the issue - until somebody will provide us with sources. So I propose the following edition reflecting the current consensus among Ukrainians:
That's what I call a balanced edition. Sincerely, Ukrained 11:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Uapatriot, that anon user could express the disagreement indeed just like you have done. "To express the disagreement" one edits the article or expresses it at talk (you've done both and it's fine). That anon's "expressing himself" was simply deletion of the phrase from the article without any explanation and without any attempt to raise the issue at talk. Unexplained deletions are generally frown upon. Once he did it for the third time, I saw a "test3" warning appropriate. Now, to your corrections, the difference between "sometimes" and "often" is rather subtle. I specifically searched and read on the issue and I beleive "often" here is warranted. In the western literature the role of Ukrainian collaborators in this crime is considered rather significant. But I need time to come up with refs and until then, or until someone else comes up with them, I will not revert your change. I hope you find this explanation satisfactory. -- Irpen 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I made two changes to this section. One was a correction of the sentence which stated that "the Ukraine" is used "often" in English language. I disagree, but I may be wrong. Please show/cite your references. I used two google searches: 1) "the Ukraine" = 2,360,000 hits & 2) "Ukraine = 119,000,000 hits. Therefore the "often" statement is unfounded.
The second change has to do with a lexical explanation. I cite Dr. Andrew Gregorovich. The following question (and its answer) "Does English grammar require the definite article the before Ukraine?" should be kept under this section as it directly addresses what the section is about.-- Riurik 06:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the the following whole paragraph, since the information there is not correct (and not very relevant anyway):
The Gambia, for example, is neither plural nor an "adjectival or compound form". "The Ukraine" might very well be treated as a parallel to the Gambia.
Apart from that, I have deleted the word "mistakenly". Please provide references, i.e. English dictionaries and/or style-guides that say that "the Ukraine" is wrong. As I see it, there is an overall tendency in English to use country names generally more and more without an article. Therefore the Lebanon and the Sudan might nowadays already seem a bit old-fashioned, and Lebanon and Sudan are preferred. But the Gambia is still the only correct form (and therefore Wikipedia redirects from Gambia to The Gambia). I am not a native speaker of English, but "the Congo" seems to be a similar case (though there are two countries with that name nowadays, which makes the case a bit more complicated), and "the Argentine" for Argentina is an older case where the article-less use prevailed long ago. (Other such cases might be former "the Oman" for Oman or "the Yemen" for Yemen, but I am not sure about them.) The Vatican is a rather different case, but nonetheless another example of a country name with a definite article.
I do not think that any English native speaker who uses the older form "the Ukraine" does so because he considers "the Ukraine" not to be an independent country. This is pure grammar: The Gambia is an independent country with a definite article, and England without an article is only a part of a country.
I have a slight feeling that those people who have written the chapter on the article usage with "Ukraine" are mostly Ukrainians who have seen a parallel to the prepositions in Russian. Be sure, there is no such parallel. -- Daniel Bunčić 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
-- Riurik 20:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Pending the outcome of this discussion, how does this sound:
Grigorovich is still omitted with only a link left for elaboration.-- Riurik 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear all, this is such a minor issue that I don't think it belongs to the top of the article and I am not even sure it belongs to the article at all. Imagine the reader who finds this article and starts reading it. Do you think he expects this long discussion about "the" or is he likely to have come to read about History, Politics, Economy, etc of Ukraine? I cannot think off-hand of another article to include this info right now but so much space at the top of the article devoted to this issue looks odd. Perhaps, we could store this section at the talk page and use it at the future article Etymology of Ukraine to be written at some point, partially based on current Ukraine#Etymology section, Etymology of Rus and derivatives and many references thereof.
Maybe not the best idea but please think about it. -- Irpen 02:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I am with you and any of these names are fine with me. Etymology_of_Rus_and_derivatives#From_Rus_to_Ukraine section has some info to begin the article and we can use the refs there for the start. In the meanwhile, can we move this "the" issue to talk until we create the article? It just doesn't look good were it is. -- Irpen 06:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the sentence about the article re-entered by Michael Z. to the end of the Name section, in order to comply with Irpen's statement above. In my opinion the current state is quite okay. Now let's find more about the etymology to fill up the Name of Ukraine article. -- Daniel Bunčić 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Its "Ukraine," not The Ukraine. The ukraine referred to a territory in the USSR, but all Ukranians refer to our country as Ukraine, becasue we are a free and independent country. To hear anyone refer to Ukraine as "The Ukraine" is an insult and is wrong! Slavko 00:57 12 Feb 2006
My father, a native Ukrainian, is actually offended by the use of the word "the" in front of Ukraine to describe the nation. In addition, the past summer, I was in Ukraine, and many native speakers of Ukrainian told me that when they translate to English, they do not use "the". This is not comparable to France, where it is "la France", because every noun in the French langauge is preceded by an article. Many English speakers in the U.S. assume that "the" must preceed Ukraine because of parallel use of U to begin the national name of "the United States". Unfortunately, this is incorrect, because the full country name, as we know, is The United States of America, so the article is necessary. Nations like Uganda and Iran do not use the article, and from my experiences in a Ukrainian church at home (I'm a native-born English-speaking American), as well as traveling to the country itself, Ukrainians who now speak English do not use "the", and thus, I would say that calling the nation Ukraine is the correct usage. - Greg 2006-04-26 16:30 Z
This article uses it too much. IMO we should cut it down as much as possible and integrate into the tetx. It looks more professional that way. -- Natalinasmpf 06:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this was previously discussed, but please excuse me that I don't understand what division of Ukrainian territory took place and when. There was any ancient Ukrainian state inherited somehow by the modern (Soviet and the new one) Ukrainian state? -- Vasile 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The list is arbitrary. Germany, France, Britain, Republic of Moldova (and Transnistria too), Hungary, Italy, Sweden, Mongolia, apparently almost every European country and some of Asia too, on a particular moment of history, all of them are missing from the list but they "divided" the actual territory of the Ukraine, the ancient land of the great Kievan Rus. --
Vasile
15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I restored the text blanked by Vasile. It is a reasonable issue to discuss but fast hand deletions are unwarranted. -- Irpen 18:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"The territory of present-day Ukraine was a key centre of East Slavic culture in the
Middle Ages, before being divided between a variety of powers, notably
Russia,
Poland,
Lithuania,
Austrian Empire,
Romania and the
Ottoman Empire."
The assertion of "state" for Kievan Rus is unsourced yet, not to mention that of "important European state". Does wikipedia becoming home for the fascist Ukrainian propaganda? -- Vasile 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
and
About the institute:
http://www.ualberta.ca/CIUS/about/about.htm
--
Vasile
12:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a Ukrainian cultural association, it's an academic department of the University of Alberta. You appear to be just making up objections to good sources which don't support your point of view. Next will you claim that all experts on Ukrainian history are suspect, because they are experts on Ukrainian history? — Michael Z. 2006-02-23 17:01 Z
http://www.ualberta.ca/CIUS/about/about-history.htm. Let me extract this part:
Ukrainian Canadian organizations had been urging governments to introduce Ukrainian studies at the secondary and post-secondary levels since the end of World War II. At that time, the very survival of Ukrainian language and culture appeared tenuous in the face of strong assimilatory pressures upon second- and third-generation Ukrainians in Canada, as well as the Soviet regime's brutal persecution of Ukrainians in their homeland.
As it is an appreciation of an academic department, I think it might be useful for the article too. -- Vasile 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo removed the reference to Rusyn or Rusych with the edit summary "wrong: Rusich is a modern invention" [8]. I had found a hidden comment in the text, and restored it with reference to something I had read recently. This really belongs in " Etymology of Rus", but I'd like to clarify.
Magocsi (1996) "The meaning of Rus′" in A History of Ukraine, p. 67, states: "To the concept of Rus′ as the territory of Kievan Rus′ was added another dimension by the Christian inhabitans’ description of themselves collectively as Rus′ (the singular of which term was rusyn, sometimes rusych)." Magocsi is clearly referring to the historical name, and not a modern term. His books is well-researched and carefully written, and doesn't tend to make errors like this. Is there any basis for the statement that the term rusych is modern? — Michael Z. 2006-02-17 20:01 Z
Is Rusyn also not attested in the old East Slavic literature? How far back does it go? — Michael Z. 2006-02-20 07:13 Z
I don't understand how "usage" can be "deprecated". I don't think that is the correct verb because it makes absolutely no sense. What is trying to be conveyed here?
Still, "deprecated" is the wrong word to use. What about "the Yukon". Is it called "yukon" now? I mean I'd hate to offend anyone up there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.0.40 ( talk • contribs)
It's hard to say what word you should use because "deprecated" makes no sense, so the original sentence has very little meaning to me. what are you trying to convey?
The use of "the" is unfortunate, because unlike the Yukon, Ukraine is no longer a territory or part of another country. It is independent.
It's ridiculous how this fight keeps creeping up on the main page. There is no official organization that calls the country "the Ukraine", so get over it. It is "Ukraine" for now, forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewuoft ( talk • contribs)
I asked about sources presenting an independent Ukrainian state at the end of WWI. Especially, is any of the proclaimed states in the Western Ukraine received a particular sign of recognition from some Western states or powers? The simple proclamation of independence is not sufficient, in Europe or North America. The same problem at the article History of Ukraine. If there is no source presenting an independent Ukrainian state, then there were some failed attempts until Ukrainian RSS. -- Vasile 01:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Donald Albury, thank you for your valuable comment. OTOH, please also see WP:TROLL#Pestering. The user above made too many frivolous calls for sources in the past and even when the material was sourced to the most respected encyclopedias user:Vasile persisted with pestering and calling sources like Britannica and Columbia "dubious". Here, he calls for sources not of some obscure fact, but for the most basic info easily foundable in any book about the History of Ukraine. In fact, he can go to the History of Ukraine article and check the refs there. Such basic info would be very easy to find. -- Irpen 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The borders and the national government recognized by Brest-Litovsk is not enough to prove the recognition of the UNR independence by Germany. (Russia admitted its lost of the authority in a former territory.) Germany had the clear and effective control over Ukrainian government. The Hetmanate continued to work under protection of Germany until its overthrown in December 1918. As it presented in various wikipedia articles and in the above citations, in 1918 Ukraine achieved a greatest level of independence as what can be described as a German protectorate until the end of the war. Directorate article is a stub. The "brief period of independence" for Ukraine brought various degrees of independence or political organisation, but never a full and recognized sovereign state over a territory. I still think that "some attempts of independent state" would describe better all those facts. -- Vasile 01:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There are more than 60 North American states and provinces having borders and government but no independence. From the article Sovereignity, "the concept of sovereignty also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs (such as courts of law) possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision."
From the article Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: "Russia's new Bolshevik (communist) government renounced all claim to ... Ukraine... " Renouncing on claims for a territory is not automatically implying the independence recognition of a new state. The final statute of Ukraine was not established by the treaty: "Germany and Austria-Hungary intend to determine the future fate of these territories in agreement with their population."
-- Vasile 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't expect me to lecturize you about notion of "independence" or something else. Also, you can read yourself the entire articles about UNR or Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (though that should include more information about Ukraine).
Back to the subject, I read myself the treaty, and art. 6 is a clear recognition of sovereignity of the Ukrainian state. But you can notice yourself that even the "definitive history" author is using a nuance erased in your version. There is still the problem of the state authority over the territory and you didn't try to contend the idea that independent UNR was under efective protection of Germany. Then after November 1918, from the same Treaty of Brest-Litovsk article: "The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk only lasted eight months. Germany renounced the treaty in November 1918 as one of the conditions for armistice. The Bolshevik government repudiated the treaty following the armistice."
-- Vasile 05:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
While Poland and Finland other former Russian territories were mentioned by the Treaty of Versailles 1919, not a word about Ukraine. -- Vasile 13:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I listed this issue on Requests for comment/History and geography. If your version is acceptable for the rest of the users, so be it. -- Vasile 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
From the introduction:
Did the annexed Polish territory not immediately become part of the URSR in the fall of 1939? The articles on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Polish September Campaign are sketchy on these details. — Michael Z. 2006-03-03 16:44 Z
I removed the "finally-finally" bad-style repetion in the second paragraph. -- Vasile 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The share of high school students receiving their education in Russian has significantly declined from 16% in 1992 to 6 % in 2005
The agitprop of the Party of Regions [9] can hardly be considered as a reliable source.
Let's make a simple estimation: roughly 10% of the population of Ukraine live in Donetsk Oblast. more than 70% of students of this region receive education in Russian [10]. Therefore, the fraction of students receiving their education in Russian in Donetsk Oblast relative to all students in Ukraine is about 7%. But there are also Crimea (almost all schools are Russian-language), Lugansk Oblast (the situation is similar to Donetsk Oblast), the fraction of Russiian-language schools is also high in Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Odessa, etc. So the real number should be much larger than the 6%. BTW, the agitprop tells about all schools, not about high schools only.-- AndriyK 13:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are completely different numbers:
That is more than 26%.-- AndriyK 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
some ethnic Ukrainians while calling Ukrainian as their "native" language are in fact more fluent in Russian than in Ukrainian
The references cited do not contain any comparison of the fluency in Russian and Ukrainian of those ethnic Ukrainians that call Ukrainian as their "native" language. Please provide additional reference or remove unsourced info.-- AndriyK 13:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Clarification in necessary to avoid the readers being mislead by terminology. The numbers from the census native language answers are accurate and should be given. However, the common sense is that the native language is the language in which the person is the most fluent. If for Ukraine it is not always so, the article should state it because if we provide the census native language answers only, we create the false impression of the language usage in the country. Many respondents who wrote "Ukrainian" did so because Ukrainian is indeed their native language in the common sense, that is they grew into it and are more comfortable in it than in any other. However, other reasons may be the legacy of the Soviet tagging everyone by "nationality" (ethnic origin). The common perception is that if your "nationality" is "Ukrainian" (especially if you also live in Ukraine) than you call Ukrainian as your native language. Because Ukraine is rather urbanized and, as the article correclty points, the cities tend to be more Russophone than the villages, many ethnic Ukrainians whose ancestors moved into cities grew up in Russian language environment, including the language they mostly heard at home (we needn't take a position on the reasons behind it to agree on this simple fact). For those people it is easier to talk Russian than Ukrainian (some of them are truly bilingual, BTW, like several Ukrainian wikipedians say on their userpages). Additionally, in the Soviet times the UA Lang at schools was studied by ehtnic Ukrainians, Russians, Jews and Romanians alike as "Ridna Mova" (transation: "native language"). This contributes to perceptions and the answers people give to the "native language" question regardless of their actual relative fluency.
The best indication of fluency would be the answers of people to the question: "In which language you are most fluent". I don't remember seeing this exact question asked in surveys but we have the question for "what language do you use at home (and/or at work)". The home usage numbers are the best indication of people's fluency. This is just common sense and not original research. This data deviates from the "native language" census data. I've also seen a survey with a question: "In what language would it have been easier for you to fill out this very questionary form?" The answer was different from the "native language" answer in this very form. The language speaking situation is a relevant part of Demographic section and should be more representative of reality than just than just both percentage of people who called Ukrainian "native" or percentage of "Ukrainian schools" (I also hope that all "Ukrainian" and "Russian" schools teach Ukrainian well. It is more important than the formal school's designation).
Abuse of "fact" tags in order to strike down a disliked data is extremely disruptive. -- Irpen 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I reedited the section because it was written in very poor English and included statements without any proof. I basically took this section from the "Name of Ukraine" article Any comments are welcome.
Where did the 2005 estimated population figure come from? I ask because the Population decline article lists Ukraine as one of the few countries making a notable population decline, and this contradicts the infobox in this article. Jonathan Kovaciny 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The article as a whole is far too nationalistic and not comprehensive enough. e.g. "For the following several centuries the territory was divided between a number of regional powers as the Ukrainians strived for their own state" ... a sentence added following a previous sentence about Kievan Rus'. Way to backdate a national concept the product of a later era. Why no discussion about the emergence of Ukrainian national identity? Just another case of assuming all present political states are expressions of eternal historical concepts, certainly not the case for the Ukraine. General things, like why is the Russian name not in the opening line, why is Kiev written with just the Ukrainian name beside it when it is a Russophone city? All that aside, the article employs no scholarly references. The sections of religion and culture are tiny, yet the portion of the history section devoted to WWII huge. Definitely not GA material yet. - Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please propose how to fix the issues above. Also, please avoid referring to your opponents by nationalities. Kiev is indeed bilingual with Russian still more widely used according to published surveys. In no way this affects how to write the city name. It should be Kiev as per prevailing English usage. Similarly, Kharkiv should be Kharkiv in modern context , as per English usage, despite the latter is indeed largely Russophone. -- Irpen 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The reaction lays quite clear the tendencies which produce a nationalistic article. Irpen, I know Kyiv is used in English, but only because the Ukrainian government has been pressuring various media organizations to adopt the title. I also see no non-nationalistic reason why the Ukranian name should be there, but not the Russian one. The article has further problems besides this, as I wrote above. Let's not allow this to cloud things. As Irpen acknowledges the problems with the history section and the treatment of identity, and is also in a position to remedy it, maybe the article can attain GA status in the not too distant future. The article also needs to cover things like culture and religion adequately; this should not be hard to do. Also, it could reach GA without them, but you can forget about FA without inline citations and an appropriate bibliography. These should be introduced now before it gets to GA stage. - Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, I don't know what GA or FA is, or what this guy Calgacus is, but don't you worry a bit about either of those. It is a good article generally, and it is getting there as people happen to have "time and inspiration". It may be developing unequally with a better coverage of some areas than of the others, but that depends on the interests of people who contribute. Time will come and someone will join who will write a great piece about culture, and so on. Recognitions are nuisance, the main recognition of the article as well as all other ones here is that they are read by people and give them useful, and as we know well by now, properly verified to the best extent possible for us information. That is the only thing that matters.
Serhiy
21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a little bit strange that nothing has been said about Chernobyl disaster. The chronically ill people and the dislocated people should be cited in this article, as well as the ecological catastrophe itself. Typelighter 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to dispute current content on Chernobyl
Today there were some additions to the list of external links on the "Ukraine" page, namely to various discussion forums. One was by Kuban Kazak, to a place called "Anti-Orange". Having checked some titles and content on the page that opens from that link, I cannot call that site anything but a stinking shithole. Of course, that's my personal opinion, perhaps not all people would agree. But to avoid getting into a protracted debate over which site merits to be shown on the "Ukraine" page and which one doesn't, why don't we get rid of that "Boards" section in its entirety? What is the point of having that section anyway, why does Wikipedia have to advertise various discussion forums? Is that it's purpose? Looking forward to your views. Serhiy 15:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the link from Kiev Chronicle to Primary Chronicle because Magocsi (p. 171) cites the 1187 entry of the "Hypatian text of the Primary Chronicle", and later: "others in the Primary Chronicle (Hypatian text)". — Michael Z. 2006-05-12 18:42 Z
I was putting the name Kiev Chronicle in, and indeed it does exist :) The relationship with the Hypatian text of what you call the Primary Chronicle (have not seen that name in the Chronicles themselves) is simple: Hypathian list ("spysok") consists of three chronicles:
It is the second Chronicle of the three that is called "Київський Літопис" in the literature. I translated that to English as "Kyiv Chronicle". As you can see, this does not involve any contradiction with Magosci. Serhiy 19:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody have factual or POV objections regarding the two paragraphs submitted into revision 16:33, 20 May 2006?
Sorry, I'm not going to apologize until you log in and start signing your posts. And remember: not every editor from Ukraine is a Ukrainian one. Some of them, in my opinion, are anti-Ukrainian. Everybody in Ukraine stating that Russian is oppressed is either a troll or a moron. What I'm going to do is to recheck that contribution. Ukrained 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Concluding the discussion: I consider the four following facts (all substantiated by the linked documents) as a worthy piece of information about the government policy regarding the minority languages:
1. The government does not publish official documents in minority languages.
2. The government resists any attempts to implement the Charter on minority and regional languages.
3. The government considers specifically Russian language as "not endangered and thus not deserving protection", contrary to the Constitution and to the Charter.
4. The government attempted to ban all minority languages from the TV and radio stations that have more than a regional exposure.
I consider the topic of government policies appropriate for this article in Wikipedia. I think listing these facts is absolutely necessary for for the readers to be able to understand the whole complex political environment in Ukraine and get a balanced view, and also extremely noteworthy milestones. As a matter of fact, 3 of these facts have received wide attention in Ukrainian and international media, and so deserve to be mentioned here (the issue with the internet sites is an exception). Also, the points 2 and 3 are a fairly recent policy developement, which the article has not yet included. And I haven't heard any worthy objections in this discussion board. I think it would be good to present more facts showing the government's support of the minority languages, and I welcome everybody to do it. I did present a balanced view in my contribution.
Hmmmmm. I can see that I am jumping into the middle of a very contentions issue here, and care needs to be taken to get the right tone. At this point I don't want to suggest a specific edit to address my concern. But I will say that, as a frequent visitor to Ukraine, I get the feeling that the government is attempting to push Ukrainian (as opposed to Russian) language on me whether I like it or not. I don't think it would be fair to say that they are "repressing" Russian (they aren't). But in areas where Russian is the majority language, it seems that for the most part, anything connected with the Government is most likely going to be in Ukrainian, while something like a restaurant menu is much more likely to be in Russian.
I would like to see the article reflect this somehow. -- William Jockusch
Woah! That is a harsh and uncompromising attitude. To name another linguistically divided country, the article on Canada has a section on Gov't policy towards language, for instance. I can agree with you that the removed edit that was the subject of your previous debate was overdoing it for a general article on the country. But if you are saying the topic should hardly be mentioned, as is the case now, then, well, we have a significant difference of opinion. William Jockusch 06:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:History_of_Ukraine#The_number_of_Holodomor_victims.
Would you mind rephrase or refactor your objections more civilly? I request you do that before I respond. -- Irpen 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Famines in the Ukraine? Historical famines before 1917? Under the Czar any famines?
Ukraine has one of the most steadily declining populations in the world. Its relevant if a paragraph could be added to the page about this and the underlying reasons-mass emigration, low birth rate, abortion, alcohol abuse ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiter8 ( talk • contribs)
it seems not to be "negligible" % of area. Take in account "Kakhovka Sea".-- Sergiy O. Bukreyev 04:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am looking for information on clothing styles in use in Ukraine during the 16th century. I am specifically searching for illustrations/pictures of the clothing worn in each Oblast and social class. Does anyone know of any sites that may have this type of information? English sites prefered, Ukrainian, Russian, Portuguese or Spanish sites are acceptable. Thanks for any help Vivafelis 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Today an anomymous user changed some references to Cossacks to the spelling "cozack". I'm not sure where this comes (not in the American Heritage dictionary, only 422 hits in google...) so I reverted to the usual spelling. Comments ? Nberger 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
"By the 3rd century BC, the Sarmatian name appears to have supplanted the Scythian in the plains of what is now south Ukraine."
Referring only to Scythia glosses over the reality of this time period.
- 68.253.137.137 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, although I am not a Ukrainian, I am a great lover of the country. However, I added this information: Ukraine is the third largest country in Europe (after Russia and France)". My brother from Ukraine Riurik told me that Ukraine is in fact the second largest. But Wikipedia says: Ukraine's land area is 233,090 sq mi, but Wikipedia also says, France's land area is 260,558 sq mi. So after Russia, doesn't France become the 2nd largest country? Or, may be, I am wrong in assuming that European Russia has the largest land area? I will appreciate if Riurik or somebody kindly correct me. Kazimostak 15:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Sharif
Huh? But in school I was always told that Ukraine is the biggest in Europe (and Russia is not European country) so who is wrong? Vinnitsa
why does everyone always argue!
Jeeeze! lets have some peace!
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Ukraine. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)