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 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 Jul 2004 and 13 Dec 2004.
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/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Michael Z. 2005-11-15 17:43 Z
However, these "artificial famines" appear to have been themselves, artificially engineered by western historians as slander.
This is ridiculous. I have read translations of documents from Ukraine and Russia about the Ukrainian genocide, and in my travels in the former Soviet Union have spoken to people who lost relatives in it. I don't think the famines were invented by Western historians. -- Ed Poor
As a local journalist, I strongly support Ed's remark. Besides, those famines were anyway artificial since the whole system of Soviet "collectivization" was practically designed to leave peasants with minimal food supplies. -- AlexPU 16:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See: http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/
Starvation was not the goal of collectivization. Starvation was part of the process to colectivization, it was the punishment of the "greedy kulaks" - peasants who were a little richer than other peasants. These famines were artifial because they were created with intent to starve. 209.197.154.195
Dr Bug, Vladimir, aka "Volodymyr." You need to check the link provided above, The famine was artificial: it was created by policies. Mass starvation occured while the borders of Ukraine were sealed and while grain was exported and while the Soviet government induced journalists, including the New York Times' Walter Duranty, to lie about the situation. But the truth leaked out through other journalists, such as Malcolm Muggeridge, of the Manchester Guardian (who became a non-believer in communism as a result of it!) Later, eyewitness survivors gave testimony. And printed newspapers admitted that the goal of the inadequate availability of grain for local use was to break the backbone of the Ukrainian nation! Let's not rewrite Stalin's biography and portray him as "accident-prone!" Genyo 20:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Its not black and white shrone. First, whatever the provocation, the soviet govn't initiated the famines so it can be "pinned" on them. Next, my grandparents lived in Ukraine during the famines, everyone in their village, rich or poor (unless they worked for the soviet govn't) starved. Next, you make it sound like the famines were a reasonable response to the actions of the kulaks, starving and killing them for resisting a system that was forced on them and for disagreeing to give away what they worked for. This is insulting. Lastly, many of the people who were starved were not kulaks. From what I see on your page you seem to be a liberal, so am I, and I dislike aspects of capitalism as well, but again the world isn't black and white, while in theory communism may be better, in practice its another story. 209.197.154.195
Merriam-Webster says Ukraine = The Ukraine [1]. The article currently ardently denies this. What is this contradiction? -- Menchi 22:49, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
>However there is a parallel in concerning the usage of the preposition "на" (na) or "в" (v) with "Ukraine", both in Ukrainian and in Russian. Traditional usage is "на", but recently Ukrainian authorities have been pushing the usage of "в", as this preposition is used with most other country names.
Shouldn't we note that the same preposition is still used in Polish (na Ukrainie)? Rollon
Why no mention of Cossacks in the article? Not even in demographics? Rübezahl 16:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I see the following statement in the article:
Many Ukrainians played important roles in the Russian civil war. Much of the Cossack Army/Clan(Voysko) sided with the Red Army during the conflict.
I know of no evidence for this, and my impression and further consultation indicates the opposite is true. Can anyone support this statement with specifics or references, so that we can move to balance and/or correction? Genyo 20:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Seeing no objection,I'll remove the incorrect sentence. Genyo 03:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Ukrainians lived through a Soviet terror prior to Hitler's invasion, which included genocidal intent, and these events are described in standard histories as "terror" and using the term "terrible" is quite proportionate to the real situation and an accurate reflection of the wide varieties of view that population experienced. If you think this is unbalanced, add some accurate information for balance. Don't delete valuable accurate information in these articles. Genyo 16:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Should we adopt the official system of transliteration adopted by the Ukrainian Legal Terminology Commission in 1996 ( [6])? This would entail slight changes to the current spellings, such as Zaporizhzhya -> Zaporizhzhia. I don't think the transliteration system that the articles now use is so entrenched that the changes would cause any major problems. If no one objects, I will start changing the spellings to follow the official system, as soon as I have some free time. Iceager 16 May 2004
The most important would be changing existing names from their Russian transliteration (or even translation). I believe such names are both offensive and inacurate. So let's make these changes folks. -- AlexPU 16:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The article is not consistent to other articles on similar topics in History section (Ruthenian, etc.), and contains biased view Drbug 11:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The history section needs some serious gutting. This is not only contrary to the template but also something of a flamebait. -- Shallot 10:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a Grand Duke "moving the seat" of Rus' from Kyiv to Russia. This sounds like Russian Imperialism. As the nation of Muscovy was formed from the Suzdal Vladimir on the Klyamza region to the north, their rulers eventually claimed to be ruling Rus', but that was later ambition.
Genyo 17:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hello,
1) ...'the root of the term "Rus'ki" (today 'Russians'), declined during the Mongol invasion'
Actually, it was not declined. Even at the end of the 17th century Bohdan Khmel'nytskyj called himself the 'rus'kyj knjaz' and the 'King of Rus' (Letting alone that in the Lithuanian principality the official language was 'rus'ka mova'). And even after 1721, when Peter I, the Tsar of Moskovia, had renamed his state to 'Russia', there remained such maps as below, on which one can clearly see what was called 'Russie' and what 'Moskovie':
2) ...'Until well into the 19th century, there has been no perception of a "national" (as opposed to regional) difference between these tribes'
It's probably the same if one would say: there were no Germans and Englishmen till 19th century, there was no difference between these German tribes. What is the 'perception of national'? One of the main criteria of national identity is language, and Ukrainian language differed from Moskovian ten centures ago, some researchers even consider them not belonging to the same East-Slavic language group...
I've just wikified the Culture of Ukraine page, but it actually contains very little on Ukrainian culture (food, writers, music etc.). If anyone more knowledgeable than me has time, I'd suggest a quick look. -- EuroTom 02:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I just added quite a bit about some Chirstmas traditions, please have a look at it, for grammar, acceptablitity, adding links, etc. I will add easter traditions, as well as some other stuff at a later date if you would like. --Nathan Jun 3, 2005
You people (especially moderators) note that the image presented here is not an official coat of arms, but a most popular project for it. The actual "small coat of arms" (as stated in constituion) is a trident at the center of the picture that you see. I have a proper picture file but don`t know yet how to upload it to Wikipedia. The "big" coat of arms is still not adopted. -- AlexPU 18:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of what we use in other pages, shouldn't the official listing in the Ukraine country page include the official Ukrainian transliteration in the first place and the more common loanword in English after it? I.e. the edit war should be settled by integrating edits, not by picking one version over the other... -- Joy [shallot] 22:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Naming policy poll dealt specifically with the heading names of articles, and doesn't discourage the use of other versions in appropriate contexts. I'm prejudiced; I prefer Kyiv, which is the most common one used in international relations. That said, consistency in WP is important, and I admit that in most contexts the name used should match the heading of the article. When most major commercial encyclopedias give "Kyiv" prominence, then Wikipedia should at least follow their lead. — Michael Z. 19:31, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Let's not overstate the terminology policy here. While the accepted English form, Kiev, does apply to NAMING an article, the use of more integral and proper native forms is directed in the first line and NOT FORBIDDEN in the remaining article. The suggestion of the official listing of a city in the country page IN THE NATIVE FORM is an allowed way of being progressive and respectful, and in my opinion, highly desirable. In general, topics should be discussed on their own terms, not chained to foreign agendas.
Genyo 13:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://www.rada.kiev.ua/translit.htm
http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html (unsigned by anon user:83.131.3.5}
Why not just put Kyiv(formerly Kiev) and then throughout the article put "Kyiv(Kiev)"? In my opinion that is much more acceptable than using the unnofficial version of the cities name. I find it somewhat unprofessional to use an improper name, no matter how widely used it is. --Nathan Jun 3, 2005.
Why we're still chicken on 'Kyiv' Rollon 04:53, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not disputing User:SecretAgentMan00's figures, it's just odd that this change was marked "minor grammar edits", and this is a potentially sensitive subject. I'm sure it was just the browser's auto-fill putting that there, so forgive me for asking. Is the revised figure a generally accepted one? — Michael Z. 08:46, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
A good place to harvest some information, if someone has the time: BBC Country Profile for Ukraine — thames 14:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ATTENTION PEOPLE!
The worst place to harvest info is Ukraine's governmental portal ( http://www.kmu.gov.ua) Especially good for experiencing bad English, bureaucratic language and confusing with structure of governmental bodies. If you need to extract info from there - use links and alternative sources - not the text first, check everything. Don't you cite this Websource - I'll be ashamed even more than I'm having seen it. Local AlexPU
Re "Ukrainian politics are still troubled by excessive state control...This stalls efforts at economic reform, stifles privatization, and endangers civil liberties." According to....? A-giau 08:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why put the Russian name of the country here? Russian is not an official language of Ukraine.
Statistics shows that they do. See the last paragraph of Ukrainian_language#Independence_in_the_modern_era. Why you worry? -- Irpen 16:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The totally confusing paragraph removed.
First, the region of whole Ukraine was never known as Rus or Ruthenia. hence these names are better discussed in the "History" section. Second, "This gave rise" in wrong conjunction, third, "the others" part is unclear, fourth, "of all the Russias" is an inexact translation of the title, for whatever reason. In Russian it is literally "Of the whole Rus". Fifth, it is not "Tsar" of all. &c.., but "Emperor" of all..&c. Mikkalai 20:59, 13 Dec 2004 (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 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 Jul 2004 and 13 Dec 2004.
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/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Michael Z. 2005-11-15 17:43 Z
However, these "artificial famines" appear to have been themselves, artificially engineered by western historians as slander.
This is ridiculous. I have read translations of documents from Ukraine and Russia about the Ukrainian genocide, and in my travels in the former Soviet Union have spoken to people who lost relatives in it. I don't think the famines were invented by Western historians. -- Ed Poor
As a local journalist, I strongly support Ed's remark. Besides, those famines were anyway artificial since the whole system of Soviet "collectivization" was practically designed to leave peasants with minimal food supplies. -- AlexPU 16:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See: http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/
Starvation was not the goal of collectivization. Starvation was part of the process to colectivization, it was the punishment of the "greedy kulaks" - peasants who were a little richer than other peasants. These famines were artifial because they were created with intent to starve. 209.197.154.195
Dr Bug, Vladimir, aka "Volodymyr." You need to check the link provided above, The famine was artificial: it was created by policies. Mass starvation occured while the borders of Ukraine were sealed and while grain was exported and while the Soviet government induced journalists, including the New York Times' Walter Duranty, to lie about the situation. But the truth leaked out through other journalists, such as Malcolm Muggeridge, of the Manchester Guardian (who became a non-believer in communism as a result of it!) Later, eyewitness survivors gave testimony. And printed newspapers admitted that the goal of the inadequate availability of grain for local use was to break the backbone of the Ukrainian nation! Let's not rewrite Stalin's biography and portray him as "accident-prone!" Genyo 20:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Its not black and white shrone. First, whatever the provocation, the soviet govn't initiated the famines so it can be "pinned" on them. Next, my grandparents lived in Ukraine during the famines, everyone in their village, rich or poor (unless they worked for the soviet govn't) starved. Next, you make it sound like the famines were a reasonable response to the actions of the kulaks, starving and killing them for resisting a system that was forced on them and for disagreeing to give away what they worked for. This is insulting. Lastly, many of the people who were starved were not kulaks. From what I see on your page you seem to be a liberal, so am I, and I dislike aspects of capitalism as well, but again the world isn't black and white, while in theory communism may be better, in practice its another story. 209.197.154.195
Merriam-Webster says Ukraine = The Ukraine [1]. The article currently ardently denies this. What is this contradiction? -- Menchi 22:49, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
>However there is a parallel in concerning the usage of the preposition "на" (na) or "в" (v) with "Ukraine", both in Ukrainian and in Russian. Traditional usage is "на", but recently Ukrainian authorities have been pushing the usage of "в", as this preposition is used with most other country names.
Shouldn't we note that the same preposition is still used in Polish (na Ukrainie)? Rollon
Why no mention of Cossacks in the article? Not even in demographics? Rübezahl 16:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I see the following statement in the article:
Many Ukrainians played important roles in the Russian civil war. Much of the Cossack Army/Clan(Voysko) sided with the Red Army during the conflict.
I know of no evidence for this, and my impression and further consultation indicates the opposite is true. Can anyone support this statement with specifics or references, so that we can move to balance and/or correction? Genyo 20:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Seeing no objection,I'll remove the incorrect sentence. Genyo 03:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Ukrainians lived through a Soviet terror prior to Hitler's invasion, which included genocidal intent, and these events are described in standard histories as "terror" and using the term "terrible" is quite proportionate to the real situation and an accurate reflection of the wide varieties of view that population experienced. If you think this is unbalanced, add some accurate information for balance. Don't delete valuable accurate information in these articles. Genyo 16:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Should we adopt the official system of transliteration adopted by the Ukrainian Legal Terminology Commission in 1996 ( [6])? This would entail slight changes to the current spellings, such as Zaporizhzhya -> Zaporizhzhia. I don't think the transliteration system that the articles now use is so entrenched that the changes would cause any major problems. If no one objects, I will start changing the spellings to follow the official system, as soon as I have some free time. Iceager 16 May 2004
The most important would be changing existing names from their Russian transliteration (or even translation). I believe such names are both offensive and inacurate. So let's make these changes folks. -- AlexPU 16:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The article is not consistent to other articles on similar topics in History section (Ruthenian, etc.), and contains biased view Drbug 11:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The history section needs some serious gutting. This is not only contrary to the template but also something of a flamebait. -- Shallot 10:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a Grand Duke "moving the seat" of Rus' from Kyiv to Russia. This sounds like Russian Imperialism. As the nation of Muscovy was formed from the Suzdal Vladimir on the Klyamza region to the north, their rulers eventually claimed to be ruling Rus', but that was later ambition.
Genyo 17:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hello,
1) ...'the root of the term "Rus'ki" (today 'Russians'), declined during the Mongol invasion'
Actually, it was not declined. Even at the end of the 17th century Bohdan Khmel'nytskyj called himself the 'rus'kyj knjaz' and the 'King of Rus' (Letting alone that in the Lithuanian principality the official language was 'rus'ka mova'). And even after 1721, when Peter I, the Tsar of Moskovia, had renamed his state to 'Russia', there remained such maps as below, on which one can clearly see what was called 'Russie' and what 'Moskovie':
2) ...'Until well into the 19th century, there has been no perception of a "national" (as opposed to regional) difference between these tribes'
It's probably the same if one would say: there were no Germans and Englishmen till 19th century, there was no difference between these German tribes. What is the 'perception of national'? One of the main criteria of national identity is language, and Ukrainian language differed from Moskovian ten centures ago, some researchers even consider them not belonging to the same East-Slavic language group...
I've just wikified the Culture of Ukraine page, but it actually contains very little on Ukrainian culture (food, writers, music etc.). If anyone more knowledgeable than me has time, I'd suggest a quick look. -- EuroTom 02:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I just added quite a bit about some Chirstmas traditions, please have a look at it, for grammar, acceptablitity, adding links, etc. I will add easter traditions, as well as some other stuff at a later date if you would like. --Nathan Jun 3, 2005
You people (especially moderators) note that the image presented here is not an official coat of arms, but a most popular project for it. The actual "small coat of arms" (as stated in constituion) is a trident at the center of the picture that you see. I have a proper picture file but don`t know yet how to upload it to Wikipedia. The "big" coat of arms is still not adopted. -- AlexPU 18:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of what we use in other pages, shouldn't the official listing in the Ukraine country page include the official Ukrainian transliteration in the first place and the more common loanword in English after it? I.e. the edit war should be settled by integrating edits, not by picking one version over the other... -- Joy [shallot] 22:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Naming policy poll dealt specifically with the heading names of articles, and doesn't discourage the use of other versions in appropriate contexts. I'm prejudiced; I prefer Kyiv, which is the most common one used in international relations. That said, consistency in WP is important, and I admit that in most contexts the name used should match the heading of the article. When most major commercial encyclopedias give "Kyiv" prominence, then Wikipedia should at least follow their lead. — Michael Z. 19:31, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Let's not overstate the terminology policy here. While the accepted English form, Kiev, does apply to NAMING an article, the use of more integral and proper native forms is directed in the first line and NOT FORBIDDEN in the remaining article. The suggestion of the official listing of a city in the country page IN THE NATIVE FORM is an allowed way of being progressive and respectful, and in my opinion, highly desirable. In general, topics should be discussed on their own terms, not chained to foreign agendas.
Genyo 13:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://www.rada.kiev.ua/translit.htm
http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html (unsigned by anon user:83.131.3.5}
Why not just put Kyiv(formerly Kiev) and then throughout the article put "Kyiv(Kiev)"? In my opinion that is much more acceptable than using the unnofficial version of the cities name. I find it somewhat unprofessional to use an improper name, no matter how widely used it is. --Nathan Jun 3, 2005.
Why we're still chicken on 'Kyiv' Rollon 04:53, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not disputing User:SecretAgentMan00's figures, it's just odd that this change was marked "minor grammar edits", and this is a potentially sensitive subject. I'm sure it was just the browser's auto-fill putting that there, so forgive me for asking. Is the revised figure a generally accepted one? — Michael Z. 08:46, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
A good place to harvest some information, if someone has the time: BBC Country Profile for Ukraine — thames 14:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ATTENTION PEOPLE!
The worst place to harvest info is Ukraine's governmental portal ( http://www.kmu.gov.ua) Especially good for experiencing bad English, bureaucratic language and confusing with structure of governmental bodies. If you need to extract info from there - use links and alternative sources - not the text first, check everything. Don't you cite this Websource - I'll be ashamed even more than I'm having seen it. Local AlexPU
Re "Ukrainian politics are still troubled by excessive state control...This stalls efforts at economic reform, stifles privatization, and endangers civil liberties." According to....? A-giau 08:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why put the Russian name of the country here? Russian is not an official language of Ukraine.
Statistics shows that they do. See the last paragraph of Ukrainian_language#Independence_in_the_modern_era. Why you worry? -- Irpen 16:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The totally confusing paragraph removed.
First, the region of whole Ukraine was never known as Rus or Ruthenia. hence these names are better discussed in the "History" section. Second, "This gave rise" in wrong conjunction, third, "the others" part is unclear, fourth, "of all the Russias" is an inexact translation of the title, for whatever reason. In Russian it is literally "Of the whole Rus". Fifth, it is not "Tsar" of all. &c.., but "Emperor" of all..&c. Mikkalai 20:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)