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 | → | Archive 10 |
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/Archive 4. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Bogdan що? 11:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to substitute the paragraph
In 2004, Kuchma's regime was removed through the peaceful Orange Revolution. The revolution brought Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko to power, while casting Viktor Yanukovych in opposition.
with the thу next one:
In 2004, Viktor Yushchenko was elected as the President in controvercial elections accompanied by a series of protests and political events known as The Orange Revolution. Yulia Tymoshenko was appointed as a Prime-Minister while Viktor Yanukovych was cast in opposition.
I believe that there was no Kuchma's regime (Kuchma is not Saddam Hussein or Augusto Pinochet) and even if it was Kuchma's regime it wasn't removed through the peaceful Orange Revolution, because there were elections and there was elected a new President. And it was not a revolution that brought Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko to power, but people who elected Yushchenko as the President. Elefante bianco 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You can edit an article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca N K ( talk • contribs)
Yeah Kuchma was not like Saddam Hussein. But he was really close)) Vinnitsa
Reverted back to original statement, the proposed one is blatantly incorrect and glosses over an important area in Ukrainian history. The first election was controversial and was decided to be corrupt and therefore void by the Ukrainian supreme court ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101384864687_165/?hub=CTVNewsAt11) which lead protests and political events known as The Orange Revolution and subsequently to the second election, which removed Kuchma's regime. ~ AndrewUofT
I'll change 'regime' to 'government' ~ AndrewUofT
It's still misleading. Kuchma would not remain president regardless of the Orange Revolution. Sergivs-en 21:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you really don't understand what the Orange Revolution was about ~ AndrewUofT
I'm sorry. I actually don't fully understand what it was all about, and am amused by the fact that so many people think that they do. However, all of that is irrelevant here. What you wrote is literally incorrect, regardless of political sympathies and views on the Orange Revolution. I'm changing the text to the following: In 2004, Victor Yanukovich, then Prime Minister, was declared the winner of the presidential elections, which had been rigged, as many observers agreed. The results caused a public outcry in support of the opposition candidate, Victor Yuschenko, who challenged the results and lead the peaceful Orange Revolution. Sergivs-en 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Ukraine or Poland, but it seems odd that the history section contains no mention of Polish-Ukrainian strife. Anyone ever heard of OUN? Stepan Bandera? Sca 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is seriously deficient in that is has no section captioned People near the top or at all.
All articles on geographical regions or countries in any kind of publication anywhere have a section captioned People that tells about the people who live there-their ethnicity, religion, employment, outlook on life, etc.
Could it be because of the elimination of the local population as distinct from Russia be the reason for this? "There is no such thing as a Ukrainian. Ukrainians are Russians." Put that in there then.
Also the introduction includes language that effectively says that Ukrainians were happy to be subjugated by the Russians: "After a brief period of independence (1917–1921) following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Ukraine became one of the founding Soviet Republics in 1922. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic's territory was enlarged westward after the Second World War, and again in 1954 with the Crimea transfer. In 1945, Ukrainian SSR became one of the co-founder members of the United Nations. It became independent again after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991"
There is so much wrong with the preceding quote that it is hard to know where to begin.
That Ukraine became on of the founding republics of the Soviet Union was such a point of pride among Ukrainians that they got out as soon as they could--risking their lives to escape being murdered or imprisoned--and then fnaly the whole country escaped in 1991. But they sure were proud to become a founding member of the CCCP! "Why did we fight a war to become independent in 1917, when we are so happy now as slaves to the Russians," they said as they became a founding CCCP member.
"The Ukrainian SSR was enlarged westward," it says. YES, but this was further genocide and mayhem against free non-Russian Europeans who were not exactly overjoyed at "Ukraine's expansion" in reality Russia's expansion of its sphere of oppression. Do Ukrainians today see that expansion as their expansion, or just the expansion of their oppressor?
This article should be deleted until a reasonable facsimile of the truth can be produced. It is horribly, horribly wrong to present these lies as the truth about the site of such atrocities. That is this is a MORAL wrong. Lest there be any doubt about what I mean. RUReady2Testify 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have some photos of Ukraine that may be of interest to readers, but unfortunately I cannot release them for use on Wikipedia itself. How would people feel about linking to them? The URL for the page is http://www.slayman.com/images/europe/ukraine/ . Astigmat 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a huge reappearing gap in the begining of the article, people seem to be removing it but it just keeps coming back...why can't we get rid of it Permanently? bogdan 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
To all: The name of the 9th century sate was Rus’. The Kievan Rus’ never existed through the history of Europe. The Kievan Rus’ name was coined in fairly recently in a way to emphasize the historical differences between Russia (which is Russian Federation now) and Rus’, presently Ukraine. It always was Rus’ with a capital city of Kyiv (also known by a distorted name Kiev). At least these two corrections: Rus’, not the Kievan Rus’ and Kyiv, not Kiev, in the Wikipedia article about Ukraine have to be made now. Obviously, the distorted names the Kievan Rus’ and Kiev have to be mentioned in brief explanation, if any, as a historical ineptitude. More corrections are necessary. smk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username smk ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose to move the whole section to the bottom of the article. Which word does the Kyiv Chronicle mention: Krayina or Ukrayina? Please clarify. Addded citation needed. The referenced text Ukraine or The Ukraine by Andrew Gregorovich is clearly biased: A few neanderthal writers in the past have even promoted "the Ukraine"... Please provide a better reference to support the krajina theory. I added a link to the online version of Vasmer's etymological dictionary of the Russian language. I wonder if Vasmer is one of the Neanderthals Gregorovich is referring to. Sergivs-en 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A few neanderthal writers in the past have even promoted "the Ukraine" to reflect the original meaning "the borderland" in order to diminish the international political stature of Ukraine. That's not bias if it is indeed true. He is trying to promote correct English, not promote a usage deprecated from the Ukrainian SSR. But the Russian Xenophobe around here never ceases to amaze me. If you're looking for an authoritarian source: http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805717 http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184825,00.html
However, calling people with whom you disagree Neanderthals (or xenophobes, for that matter) or assuming their motives is bias, to put it mildly. The Economist style guide is more impressive to me than the article by that linguist/historian/anthropologist, but it's still not the ultimate authority on the English language. Sergivs-en 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Can any of you provide any real sort of justification for using "The Ukraine" besides your own personal preference? andrewuoft 11:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not just leave it up to Ukraine to decide what it calls itself in English. http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en andrewuoft 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The current version of the etymology section is confusing. It starts with According to one theory... and then the two contradicting points of view are lumped together in one paragraph. Then, in the next paragraph, According to another..., the borderland version is explained again, more clearly. And, leaving scientific credibility and personal convictions aside, the borderland version is older and should probably be mentioned first. Sergivs-en 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in Polish "ukraine" means "borderland" or anything else, I don't care. But, in Ukrainian it literally means "inland" where u = in, kraina = land... quite obvious to any native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.102.250 ( talk) 15:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I was always told in English it's The Ukraine and The Lebanon. That doesn't make it true, but I see no proof to claim "In English, the country is referred to without the definite article, conforming to the usual English grammar rules for names of countries[2]." Ukraine would be an exception, that is all. The reference is not reliable, as is a very basic usage of The, and nothing to do with Geography. And the issue here is English language and usage, not etymology surely? (Incidently, I don't see why Ukrainian people mind, it's not degrading in any way. On the contrary, an archaic naming form is the proof of a very long and important history... Hrcolyer ( talk) 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Elena Filatova has released all of her photography on her website into Public Domain. http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/afterword.html Scroll to the bottom. Good high-resolution photos! TheQuandry 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason to change the section title comes directly from WikiProject Countries, which specifically says:
So the name of the administrative subdivisions, technically, is Oblasts. I don't want to hear nitpick about having two cities and a republic, that is covered within the section (the primary unit is Oblasts). Also, as far as it being an "exotic" name - taken directly from the actual article, you can see it says:
So it isn't an "exotic" name, it is a formal and proper name to use. That is why this edit should be made. Thanks! :) Rarelibra 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The Russian Xenophobe here never ceases to amaze me. How long will the struggle of trying to make Ukraine look like a military outpost go on for? andrewoft 9:29, 13 April 2007 (EST)
andrewuoft, please cut your xenophobia rhetoric. It will get you blocked.
Rarelibra, no one is arguing here that Oblast is an improper term in English. However, its being proper does not mean its being the only proper term or that it is not exotic. The truth is that the term is not familiar to the English speakers and the section titled with it is confusing as the reader would have no idea what the section is about. Further, Ukraine has three, not one, types of the first level national subdivisions, Oblasts, an autonomous republic and two cities with special status. Thus, "Obasts" is not only sloppy but inexact. -- Irpen 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Rarelibra, please note that your suggested change is opposed by several editors who reverted you and supported only by some trollish user whose only contribution has been so far the inflammatory talk page entries. Your trying to persist with it via a revert war in unproductive, please discuss and try to convince the majority of editors. Further, you are so eager to revert [1] that in your last revert you did not even bother to check what you are reverting to and restored some vandalism. Until you are lone in instisting on this change, please do not make it. Thanks, -- Irpen 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Previously I changed "the country is sometimes incorrectly referred to with the definite article" to "the country is sometimes referred to with the definite article" on the basis that we reflect usage rather than set the rules on usage. This was reverted by User:Andrewuoft with the edit summary "Who's usage, yours? POV!". Clearly, either statement implies that the usage with the definite article has some currency and so it's not just my usage. Furthermore, I have not added my point of view on usage to the article; rather, Andrewuoft's revert has put a point of view back in. If a particular organization regards the usage with the definite article as incorrect then that certainly can be added (with a citation). Accordingly, I have marked the above statement as requiring a citation. In order for the current wording to be verifiable, it would need to be shown that virtually all relevant authorities on English usage agreed on this point (which I very much doubt). Finally, I suspect that many (maybe most) English-speaking Ukrainians dislike the usage with the definite article. Words to that effect could perhaps be added, although, as with all Wikipedia content it should be verifiable. Greenshed 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
People are putting fake information about the Ukraine GDP, its really getting annoying.
What guidelines are there, and on what basis, for adding the definite article to the country's name (i.e. "the Ukraine") when writing in English? I'm inclined to use "the Ukraine" [sic; without quotation marks] in text referring to the country prior to its 1917 independence and subsequent identity as a Soviet Socialist Republic. Would this be correct, or not? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify I am going sum up this debate and will close all loopholes that keep coming up: Usage of "The Ukraine" has been deprecated officially since 1991 when the region was commonly referred to as The Ukrainian SSR which would be given the short form of "The Ukraine" because it was just too long to use in normal conversation. When the USSR collapsed the country dropped the SSR part and just became Ukraine. Having many Ukrainians in the diaspora with English as a second language, without applying any English syntax they called it "the Ukraine". Very simply: "The Ukrainian SSR" -> "The Ukraine". For those of us who have mastered the English language we should realize having "the" there in the title is incorrect usage just like there is no "The Canada", "The India", although "The United States of America" is correct but not "The America". Is there an authority on the matter? Yes, proper English tells us what should be given the title "the" in usage. If you were to start saying 'The Cuba', would you tell people that that's the way you say it and it's correct? I apologize I am unaware of proper Wikipedia notation, from http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html:
That Ukrainian authorities consider such usage incorrect should be referenced' How can you reference incorrect usage? Infinite possibilities can exist for incorrect usage, and how do you reference them and where?
Such body, however, is 'not the Ukrainian government but the proper branch of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine Nope. A name is a name, but this is a name translated to proper English and is outside the jurisdiction of a certain group but rather the set of rules that make up the English language. Any online search of 'when to use the' will tell you when the use of "the" is proper!
There, an entire debate without any mention of ill-intentioned people, neanderthalism or xenophobes but that's of course not to say that they don't exist here. -- andrewuoft 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Having many Ukrainians in the diaspora with English as a second language, without applying any English syntax they called it "the Ukraine". Very simply: "The Ukrainian SSR" -> "The Ukraine"." I would simply like to say that as an explanation this overlooks the thousands of Ukrainians in (say) Canada who came as native Ukrainian speakers before the Sovietization of Ukraine, and who nonetheless called their homeland 'the Ukraine' in English. just a small point. 142.68.44.16 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The rules on the use of "the" in English are anything BUT simple, as any native English speaker who has attempted to explain to a native speaker of any Slavic language would know. As a speaker of both languages, I have tried to explain this to native Ukrainian speakers and have been astonished at the number of exceptions astute non-native-English speakers manage to come up with that no English speaker would think of. Further, despite many searches, I have never managed to find anything but the most rudimentary explanation of the use of articles in any English grammar text or style manual --- something akin to "use a when one member or an indefinite member of some group is the subject, and the when a specific item is the subject". This explanation is identical in 4th grade language texts as in college-level ones. One is expected to learn further by "feel".
Just to cite one example: why do we use the article in "the Charles Bridge" (in Prague) but not in "Charles University" (in the same city)? How are these inanimate objects so fundamentally different that one requires the article? Why is it "the Pennsylvania State University", with the article, but "Franklin and Marshall College", without it?
The use or non-use of "the" has nothing at all to do with Ukrainian grammar; still less Russian grammar. Nor should it. It's an issue of English grammar. The issue of the correct Russian preposition to use (as asserted by user Glensky8665, above) has no relevance to the need or absence for an article in English. For completeness, I'll note that diaspora Ukrainians themselves used "HA" (= Eng. "on", literally or approximately) with Ukraine until recently, when a large influx of Ukrainians from all of Ukraine, not just western Ukraine (Halychyna/Galicia) revealed that the use of "HA" was a localism (or at least it is now).
Having thought about this a lot, the best rule I can come up with is:
"The" is used for countries if the country name contains what I'll call "a regular English word". By this I mean a word that exists natively and has some intrinsic meaning in the English language. "The" is NOT used for all other countries, where the name is simply (from the perspective of English) a succession of phonemes with no other intrinsic meaning.
User andrewuoft gave a good example above, upon which I will expand:
The United States ... "states" is a normal English word; The United Kingdom ... "kingdom" has an English meaning ... but cf. England, Britain - strictly proper names; The Union of South Africa ... but South Africa The Netherlands remains with "the" because of, I suspect, its older form "The Nether Lands". The Philippines ... because that word literally means "the items [islands, in this case] of/posessed by/named after Phillip", similarly as one may talk about "the Marshalls" (meaning "the Marshall Islands") or "the Maldives" or "the Azores".
Note that the use of the "the" has nothing to do with the plural number, as the UK and South Africa examples above demonstrate (and in contrast to what user andrewuoft asserted above).
"The" is also used with political regions or natural/geographical regions spanning political entities, which may be, but generally are not, political entities in themselves, regardless of whether the main noun is a "regular English word" or not, thus:
the South the Midwest the Middle East the Bible Belt the Crimea the Sahel
However, we have
French Canada New England
which are written without an article; why? Have to think about that one.
Now to deal with the apparent exceptions: The Sudan, The Ukraine.
I contend that the reason for the article in both of these cases was that, when the terms were created, they were perceived as being regions. Let us recall that Sudan, some time ago, was part of British Egypt and administered therefrom. Thus, it was a region of that colony. The same view was surely held by western Europeans vis-a-vis Ukraine, where its status was viewed though a Russian lens. A review of English-language texts of Russian history will demonstrate this immediately, with their view of all of the history of Rus' as the history of Russia alone, with Ukraine magically and suddenly appearing on the scene sometime between 1600 and 1850, depending on whom one reads. No explanation is ever offered for this occurrence. The reality is that the area had always been populated by the same folk, albeit with various migrations of various other peoples in and out at different times.
Once the term with the definite article began to be used, it of course "stuck" just as other things in English tend to get stuck with use. With time, this form starts to sound "normal", and the newer form to sound "weird", simply because the ear is not accustomed to the latter.
The "the" certainly was not added by Ukrainians, few of whom would have known any English when the noun "Ukraine" started filtering into the English language (in the mid-1800s). In contrast to what user 142.68.44.16 writes, "the Ukraine" was never widespread among Ukrainians who became or were natively literate in English. Please review the English-language Ukrainian press going back several decades to confirm this for yourself. Once the significance of the "the" was understood, it was distinctly not used. Note, however, that some were forced by their editors to use the article, in scholarly journals, periodicals, and the like, when the editor was not Ukrainian and imposed "standard usage".
At any rate, at present, post-independence (1991), saying "the Ukraine" is no more sensible than saying "the Wales" or "the Scotland".
Note that "the Gabon" is an exception. In this case, the addition of the "the" was requested by the country itself. However, in insisting on this, they are making the mistake of projecting or forcing French grammar onto English. In French, of course, an article is used with every country name, so it is no insult to be told that one is from "l'Ukraine". But apparently the Gabonese felt that the lack of an article in English somehow made them less of a country, which can only stem from an ignorance of English.
Bejmark 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)bejmark Clarified and expanded 26 Nov 2007 by the same author.
Use "the" if the name of the country is plural or indicates a group (of states, islands, etc.) * the United States * the Netherlands * the Phillipines
The same view was surely held by western Europeans vis-a-vis Ukraine, where its status was viewed though a Russian lens.
andrewuoft 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I happen to be skeptical when a pseudonymous Wikipedia user asserts to judge the professional writers of mainstream media to be "incorrect". Certain things are correct in more than one way and the best example is the name of the capital of Ukraine. Both names Kiev and Kyiv are correct. We are talking commonality rather than correctness. As for what the country was (or is) called, no matter what its full name was, the usage of "the" I am talking about is with the word "Ukraine", not with "UkrSSR" or "UNR". "The" was used with "Ukraine" predominantly, now the situation is changing and the usage without the definitive article is becoming more common. This does not render the other usage "incorrect". And especially the UA government or a Wikipedia user andrewuoft asserting something about English does not make anything "incorrect". Ukrainian governemnt (or any other government for that matter) has no authority over the rules of the English language. -- Irpen 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Per your "English grammar" The Gambia would also be incorrect. Your "English grammar" never mentions Ukraine by name. If you want "actual proof" in terms of analysis of the common usage in the media year by year (I have premium access to Lexis Nexis), I can provide you with such. I assure you that you won't like the results. The English usage is a fact. What's correct and what's not is your own interpretation of "English grammar". This discussion should not be presented in terms of "correct" vs "incorrect" because but "more common" vs "less common". This is exactly what is done in the current version. Please try to concentrate on content writing, like adding referenced material to articles instead. -- Irpen 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Gambia, officially the Republic of The Gambia, commonly known as Gambia, is a country in Western Africa.
Names of Countries
Use "the" if the name of the country is plural or indicates a group (of states, islands, etc.)
* the United States * the Netherlands * the Phillipines
Don't Use "a," "an," or "the" * Russia * South Africa * Holland * Canada * Great Britian * England
Riurik, thanks for your effort to tone andrewuoft down. Actually, I don't mind his tone much, I've seen worse around here. My main concern at this web-site is the content of the articles and I learned to ignore the offensive stuff for the most part.
Now, to answer your point, I fully agree that the usage without "the" is now becoming more common. That CNN piece just popped up in Google News. Perhaps it is an exception for this particular source but the fact is that while more and more English language sources explicitly call for the absence of "the", a lot that still do are not some obscure irrelevant blogs but pretty mainstream sources. My main objection is to judging what is correct and what's not by the Wikipedia users thus arguing with respected sources based on the "rules of English grammar".
Personally, I never use "the", but, curiously enough, native speakers, including one professional linguist, not once attempted to correct my non-usage of "the" (I usually ask native speakers to copyedit my text when I am writing something RL important.) Why do they do it? Because traditionally Ukraine was used with "the". How else would you like to put it? We are not talking "correctness". We are talking the custom. The long-established custom is now being gradually phased out. It happens as the languages evolve. I don't see a better way of putting it. -- Irpen 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is disputed? I think "In English, the country was occasionally referred to with the definite article as the Ukraine" is the best, but without the occasionally is fine too. Perhaps "sometimes"? Saying "traditionally" is not true, and not verifiable. Ostap 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ukrainian SSR was renamed Ukraine on August 24, 1991
I will just respond to this:
Self-evident to user:andrewoft is not enough to be considered verifiable. Nor personal opinions by user:andrewoft posted to the talk page qualifies as a reliable source. Ukraine and the Ukrainian SSR was not one and the same thing. There were plenty of usages of the word "Ukraine" where it was not synonymous with the UkrSSR. In any case yours, or mine, speculations are irrelevant. The rest of the rant above does not need a response. -- Irpen 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with this version and agree with the removal of the tag. Thanks Ostap. -- Irpen 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi everybody! I propose the addition of the following external link about Ukraine.
http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/Ukraine/Ukraine_01.html
Please, let me know what do you think. Panex 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is too concentrated on political aspect of Ukraine, I've added Eurovision 2005 and Euro 2012 into it, but it's still over-politiczed with details that don't belong on the front page. -- 24.185.5.42 06:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"In late March of 2007 and early April the Ukrainian political system dealt with another constitutional crisis. President Viktor Yushchenko dissolved the Ukrainian parliament and ordered an early election to be held May 27, 2007. Crowds of about 70,000 gathered on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square of Kiev, and supported the dismissal of parliament, with 20,000 supporting Yanukovych's plan to keep the parliament together.[3] On April 3, 2007, President Yushchenko signed the bill into existence. Two hours later on Kiev's Maidan, it was announced to the crowds that Parliament no longer existed.
Immediately the Verkhovna Rada was called in emergency session and voted against Yuschenko's decree 255 to 0. Yushchenko then took his case to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. A political struggle ensued between the Parliamentary coalition and the opposition.
A compromise between Yushchenko and Yanukovych has been reached to reschedule parliamentary elections for September 30, 2007. [6] "
Into Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007, because it's an awfully too specific information for a front page on Ukraine.
There were several misguided uses of the {main} template here. {main} is intended to point to sub-articles. Typically, these occur when one article gets quite long, and sections are pulled out into their own articles. Most of the {main} links here are quite well-founded. However, World War I, World War II and Russia are not sub-articles of Ukraine, so I removed those {main} links. — johndburger 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a big and endlessly contriversial topic and I hate to bring it up, but, when I read the following, I just can't help it... In my opinion following lines contain some russophillic bitterness towards the Ukrainization.
The government follows a policy of Ukrainization—the increase of Ukrainian language, generally at the expense of Russian. This takes the form of use of Ukrainian in various spheres that are under government control, such as schools, government offices, and some media. This is even done in areas which are largely Russian-speaking. However, in non-government areas of life, the language of convenience (usually Russian) is used.
Some of the words here kind of burn my eyes reading them. I propose to consider following changes.
The government follows a policy of Ukrainization—the increase of Ukrainian language, generally at the expense of Russian which was still the dominant language at the official level in parts of Ukraine. This is slowly taking the form of use of Ukrainian in all spheres that are under government control such as schools, government offices, and some media. ("This is even done in areas which are largely Russian-speaking." - this needs to be removed for it makes no sense) However, in non-government areas of life, the languages of convenience are welcome to be used such as Russian, Tatar, Hungarian etc.
In a lot of parts of Ukraine, and especially where I'm from, the language of convenience anything but Russian such as Gutsul dialect. A "wujko" from Donetsk might have to scope some pages of the "Tlumachnyi" dictionary to figure out that one:) Aleksandr Grigoryev 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, may be you right, I'm no sure. But first version give it a meaning, that this process meets resistance from the East, South, Central regions. And this should be mentioned in some way. Waiting for your response.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans. Badagnani 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian Americans. Badagnani 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed a very much increased amount of vandalism on this page, what would it take to get it semi-protected? Regards, Bogdan 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, the user attempts to bring original research into the article. He/she is comparing Ukrainian service and agriculture sectors of economy with those of Russia and USA. Why should we compare with these two particular countries (among 190+ world countries)? Why should we compare it at all in this article? I don't really see any appealing reason.
Second, Miyokan insists on writing "Stalin made Socialist Realism the state policy" instead of "the Soviets began enforcing socialist realism art style in Ukraine". If there is such need it can be written "Stalin initiated policy", however, the main point is that the policy was introduce in Ukraine (in Ukrainian SSR to be precise) by Soviets.
I believe that in the English language the proper usage is "the Ukraine." In particulat, we have
More particularly, we would not say,
But like saying, "I wany to live in the United States" we should say, "I want to live in the Ukrain."
the English usage "I want to live in Ukraine" does not sound proper English. -- Ludvikus 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I ended this debate along time ago as noted above in Talk:Ukraine#.22The.22_Ukraine, all your questions can be answered there by my additions Andrewuoft 1:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The demographics crisis is not even mentioned here, astonishing considering that the population is falling at an even faster rate than Russia, and the population has decreased by 6 million from a peak of 52 million last decade to 46 million today.-- Miyokan 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Jacob Frank is believed to have been born in Koroliwka, Podolia (Ukraine) about 1726. Can anyone provide a current name for this locality? __ meco 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The most likely location seems to be Korolivka (Королівка) in Ivano-Frankivs'k oblast [=county]. Mapquest (R) gives it here:
* http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=UA&addtohistory=&city=korolivka
, an area of Ukraine (ethnolinguistically speaking) that would have been controlled by Poland, then by Austria-Hungary.
However, Mapquest has some very odd spellings still lying around (note "Bucac" near Korolivka, which should be spelled "Buchach" for English; the letters c are missing the "hachek" symbol (č) if using Czech/Slovak-style transliteration; it would be Buczacz in Polish.
This prompted me to do a wider search for what would be Russian version of the name, viz., Korolevka. This comes up with multiple possibilities:
* http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=UA&addtohistory=&city=korolevka
Of these, only 2 or maybe 3 were in what would have been Polish/Austrian-controlled territory in the year in question. Specifically, these 2 or 3 are those west of Zhytomyr. The remainder are in what would have then been Russian territory.
-- Mark 208.66.211.68 ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that he was a Jew (whom I don't know), it's very possible for him to be born upon Podillia and the fact that Koroliwka or Korolivka was there as well. Since 18th century, a lot of events passed through that region coserning particularly the Jewish population, which possibilly influenced the disappearence of, what I believe, the village. Buczacz, Ternopil oblast is considered to be kind of close to the region ( Podillia), but as far as I know it is Prykarpattya. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Miyokan, I know you want sources, but your recent adding of around twenty {{fact}} templates was not necessary. Please read the citations that are given, such as at the end of the Islam sentence. You requested citations for all those numbers, but the citation at the end of the sentence gives you the numbers. All that information for you requests can be found on these two sites: [3] and [4]. I don't know how to please you, should I add these citations to every place you added a citation needed tag? Or is one citation at the end of a sentence or paragraph enough? If you know how to do this effectivly, please do it. Thanks, Ostap 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone happen to have any referenced numbers for the amount of Ukrainians in the Soviet Army and in the Ukrainian insurgent army? I'm having some trouble finding these figures. Regards, Bogdan що? 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC) "Soviet troops who fell in battle against the Nazis, about a quarter (2.7 million) were ethnic Ukrainians", where is this from? Bogdan що? 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am amazed at how one of the first things an English speaking user of the English wikipedia learns about Ukraine is how to spell it in Russian. Why on earth is this here? Russian is not an official language in Ukraine. Despite the fact that Spanish is widely spoken in USA, we don't see the Spanish spelling in the article's lead, do we? This is of no benefit to anglophone users. This is not the Russian wikipedia. This is the English wikipedia. Having Russian spelling in the lead has absolutely no benefit to the English speaking users of ENGLISH wikipedia. If there are no objections, I will remove it. Ostap ( talk) 07:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, when you first brought this up I thought it would spark something close to an RfC, obviously that wasn't the case. Regards, Bogdan що? 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
KEEP IT Although Russian is not an official language half the country speaks Russian in their every day lives. Ukraine is extremely russified it’s an unfortunate fact but it’s a fact. In a few years USA will have its name spelled in Spanish as well. : ) Gregoriy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.130.129 ( talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree - Russian is a language of great part of Ukranians and if they call their country by this language it deserve /if I can say so/ to be here. General line of ukrainian polititians /official language/ has nothing to do with Wikipedia. As for the "we dont use Spanish in USA page" - Russian speaking ukrainians are natural part of Ukraine, they are not immigrants. No matter if present polititians or some users want to see it or not. Weight how much they done for their country and so on and so on. And Russian is oficial lanuage in Crimea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.111.199.30 ( talk) 09:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) So I ready to hear what do you think about such arguments.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 10:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the subject of a diet imposed by Christianity never has been discussed in Wikipedia. However, reading the main article about Ukraine, I stumbled upon the lines "Ukrainians cuisine is, in fact, generally pre-Christian in origin."(C) I consider this line as the intention of the author(s) of the article to ridicule Ukrainians for their research on early inhabitants of their terrains. Yes, such research has not always been done on the professional level and has not always operated with credible facts. But it has nothing to do with the main article about a large European country. The author(s): move these lines to some other linked-in article, if you are such stong proponent(s) of pre-Christian diet (who knows what it was made of). Best of luck. 24.5.244.244 ( talk) 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)A.Pilipenko
Bogdan, I am confused how to clarify the weasle words about soviet athletes. The list of them here: Category:Olympic_athletes_of_the_Soviet_Union contains many of them. Knowing this, in what way should this be clarified? Ostap ( talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
SriMesh | talk 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised by the link for photos of Ukraine. Is that really the best collection out there? Mine at TryUkraine.com has 1500 pictures, and with captions, too. There are a few other decent collections out there as well. ( Rick DeLong ( talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
The list as of now, judging from the selection, is more appropriate for a narrower History of Ukraine article rather than for the most general article about the country as pretty much all of these books are on history. Speaking of the English books on history of Ukraine three books by Andrew Wilson were important recent studies. Those are "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation", "Ukraine’s Orange Revolution", and "Ukrainian Nationalism in the 1990s: A minority faith". Reviews and full data are easily googleable and these books are already listed as refs in several articles. -- Irpen 06:23, 21 December 2007 (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 | → | Archive 10 |
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/Archive 4. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Bogdan що? 11:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to substitute the paragraph
In 2004, Kuchma's regime was removed through the peaceful Orange Revolution. The revolution brought Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko to power, while casting Viktor Yanukovych in opposition.
with the thу next one:
In 2004, Viktor Yushchenko was elected as the President in controvercial elections accompanied by a series of protests and political events known as The Orange Revolution. Yulia Tymoshenko was appointed as a Prime-Minister while Viktor Yanukovych was cast in opposition.
I believe that there was no Kuchma's regime (Kuchma is not Saddam Hussein or Augusto Pinochet) and even if it was Kuchma's regime it wasn't removed through the peaceful Orange Revolution, because there were elections and there was elected a new President. And it was not a revolution that brought Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko to power, but people who elected Yushchenko as the President. Elefante bianco 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You can edit an article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca N K ( talk • contribs)
Yeah Kuchma was not like Saddam Hussein. But he was really close)) Vinnitsa
Reverted back to original statement, the proposed one is blatantly incorrect and glosses over an important area in Ukrainian history. The first election was controversial and was decided to be corrupt and therefore void by the Ukrainian supreme court ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101384864687_165/?hub=CTVNewsAt11) which lead protests and political events known as The Orange Revolution and subsequently to the second election, which removed Kuchma's regime. ~ AndrewUofT
I'll change 'regime' to 'government' ~ AndrewUofT
It's still misleading. Kuchma would not remain president regardless of the Orange Revolution. Sergivs-en 21:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you really don't understand what the Orange Revolution was about ~ AndrewUofT
I'm sorry. I actually don't fully understand what it was all about, and am amused by the fact that so many people think that they do. However, all of that is irrelevant here. What you wrote is literally incorrect, regardless of political sympathies and views on the Orange Revolution. I'm changing the text to the following: In 2004, Victor Yanukovich, then Prime Minister, was declared the winner of the presidential elections, which had been rigged, as many observers agreed. The results caused a public outcry in support of the opposition candidate, Victor Yuschenko, who challenged the results and lead the peaceful Orange Revolution. Sergivs-en 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Ukraine or Poland, but it seems odd that the history section contains no mention of Polish-Ukrainian strife. Anyone ever heard of OUN? Stepan Bandera? Sca 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is seriously deficient in that is has no section captioned People near the top or at all.
All articles on geographical regions or countries in any kind of publication anywhere have a section captioned People that tells about the people who live there-their ethnicity, religion, employment, outlook on life, etc.
Could it be because of the elimination of the local population as distinct from Russia be the reason for this? "There is no such thing as a Ukrainian. Ukrainians are Russians." Put that in there then.
Also the introduction includes language that effectively says that Ukrainians were happy to be subjugated by the Russians: "After a brief period of independence (1917–1921) following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Ukraine became one of the founding Soviet Republics in 1922. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic's territory was enlarged westward after the Second World War, and again in 1954 with the Crimea transfer. In 1945, Ukrainian SSR became one of the co-founder members of the United Nations. It became independent again after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991"
There is so much wrong with the preceding quote that it is hard to know where to begin.
That Ukraine became on of the founding republics of the Soviet Union was such a point of pride among Ukrainians that they got out as soon as they could--risking their lives to escape being murdered or imprisoned--and then fnaly the whole country escaped in 1991. But they sure were proud to become a founding member of the CCCP! "Why did we fight a war to become independent in 1917, when we are so happy now as slaves to the Russians," they said as they became a founding CCCP member.
"The Ukrainian SSR was enlarged westward," it says. YES, but this was further genocide and mayhem against free non-Russian Europeans who were not exactly overjoyed at "Ukraine's expansion" in reality Russia's expansion of its sphere of oppression. Do Ukrainians today see that expansion as their expansion, or just the expansion of their oppressor?
This article should be deleted until a reasonable facsimile of the truth can be produced. It is horribly, horribly wrong to present these lies as the truth about the site of such atrocities. That is this is a MORAL wrong. Lest there be any doubt about what I mean. RUReady2Testify 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have some photos of Ukraine that may be of interest to readers, but unfortunately I cannot release them for use on Wikipedia itself. How would people feel about linking to them? The URL for the page is http://www.slayman.com/images/europe/ukraine/ . Astigmat 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a huge reappearing gap in the begining of the article, people seem to be removing it but it just keeps coming back...why can't we get rid of it Permanently? bogdan 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
To all: The name of the 9th century sate was Rus’. The Kievan Rus’ never existed through the history of Europe. The Kievan Rus’ name was coined in fairly recently in a way to emphasize the historical differences between Russia (which is Russian Federation now) and Rus’, presently Ukraine. It always was Rus’ with a capital city of Kyiv (also known by a distorted name Kiev). At least these two corrections: Rus’, not the Kievan Rus’ and Kyiv, not Kiev, in the Wikipedia article about Ukraine have to be made now. Obviously, the distorted names the Kievan Rus’ and Kiev have to be mentioned in brief explanation, if any, as a historical ineptitude. More corrections are necessary. smk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username smk ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose to move the whole section to the bottom of the article. Which word does the Kyiv Chronicle mention: Krayina or Ukrayina? Please clarify. Addded citation needed. The referenced text Ukraine or The Ukraine by Andrew Gregorovich is clearly biased: A few neanderthal writers in the past have even promoted "the Ukraine"... Please provide a better reference to support the krajina theory. I added a link to the online version of Vasmer's etymological dictionary of the Russian language. I wonder if Vasmer is one of the Neanderthals Gregorovich is referring to. Sergivs-en 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A few neanderthal writers in the past have even promoted "the Ukraine" to reflect the original meaning "the borderland" in order to diminish the international political stature of Ukraine. That's not bias if it is indeed true. He is trying to promote correct English, not promote a usage deprecated from the Ukrainian SSR. But the Russian Xenophobe around here never ceases to amaze me. If you're looking for an authoritarian source: http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805717 http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184825,00.html
However, calling people with whom you disagree Neanderthals (or xenophobes, for that matter) or assuming their motives is bias, to put it mildly. The Economist style guide is more impressive to me than the article by that linguist/historian/anthropologist, but it's still not the ultimate authority on the English language. Sergivs-en 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Can any of you provide any real sort of justification for using "The Ukraine" besides your own personal preference? andrewuoft 11:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not just leave it up to Ukraine to decide what it calls itself in English. http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en andrewuoft 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The current version of the etymology section is confusing. It starts with According to one theory... and then the two contradicting points of view are lumped together in one paragraph. Then, in the next paragraph, According to another..., the borderland version is explained again, more clearly. And, leaving scientific credibility and personal convictions aside, the borderland version is older and should probably be mentioned first. Sergivs-en 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in Polish "ukraine" means "borderland" or anything else, I don't care. But, in Ukrainian it literally means "inland" where u = in, kraina = land... quite obvious to any native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.102.250 ( talk) 15:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I was always told in English it's The Ukraine and The Lebanon. That doesn't make it true, but I see no proof to claim "In English, the country is referred to without the definite article, conforming to the usual English grammar rules for names of countries[2]." Ukraine would be an exception, that is all. The reference is not reliable, as is a very basic usage of The, and nothing to do with Geography. And the issue here is English language and usage, not etymology surely? (Incidently, I don't see why Ukrainian people mind, it's not degrading in any way. On the contrary, an archaic naming form is the proof of a very long and important history... Hrcolyer ( talk) 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Elena Filatova has released all of her photography on her website into Public Domain. http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/afterword.html Scroll to the bottom. Good high-resolution photos! TheQuandry 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason to change the section title comes directly from WikiProject Countries, which specifically says:
So the name of the administrative subdivisions, technically, is Oblasts. I don't want to hear nitpick about having two cities and a republic, that is covered within the section (the primary unit is Oblasts). Also, as far as it being an "exotic" name - taken directly from the actual article, you can see it says:
So it isn't an "exotic" name, it is a formal and proper name to use. That is why this edit should be made. Thanks! :) Rarelibra 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The Russian Xenophobe here never ceases to amaze me. How long will the struggle of trying to make Ukraine look like a military outpost go on for? andrewoft 9:29, 13 April 2007 (EST)
andrewuoft, please cut your xenophobia rhetoric. It will get you blocked.
Rarelibra, no one is arguing here that Oblast is an improper term in English. However, its being proper does not mean its being the only proper term or that it is not exotic. The truth is that the term is not familiar to the English speakers and the section titled with it is confusing as the reader would have no idea what the section is about. Further, Ukraine has three, not one, types of the first level national subdivisions, Oblasts, an autonomous republic and two cities with special status. Thus, "Obasts" is not only sloppy but inexact. -- Irpen 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Rarelibra, please note that your suggested change is opposed by several editors who reverted you and supported only by some trollish user whose only contribution has been so far the inflammatory talk page entries. Your trying to persist with it via a revert war in unproductive, please discuss and try to convince the majority of editors. Further, you are so eager to revert [1] that in your last revert you did not even bother to check what you are reverting to and restored some vandalism. Until you are lone in instisting on this change, please do not make it. Thanks, -- Irpen 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Previously I changed "the country is sometimes incorrectly referred to with the definite article" to "the country is sometimes referred to with the definite article" on the basis that we reflect usage rather than set the rules on usage. This was reverted by User:Andrewuoft with the edit summary "Who's usage, yours? POV!". Clearly, either statement implies that the usage with the definite article has some currency and so it's not just my usage. Furthermore, I have not added my point of view on usage to the article; rather, Andrewuoft's revert has put a point of view back in. If a particular organization regards the usage with the definite article as incorrect then that certainly can be added (with a citation). Accordingly, I have marked the above statement as requiring a citation. In order for the current wording to be verifiable, it would need to be shown that virtually all relevant authorities on English usage agreed on this point (which I very much doubt). Finally, I suspect that many (maybe most) English-speaking Ukrainians dislike the usage with the definite article. Words to that effect could perhaps be added, although, as with all Wikipedia content it should be verifiable. Greenshed 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
People are putting fake information about the Ukraine GDP, its really getting annoying.
What guidelines are there, and on what basis, for adding the definite article to the country's name (i.e. "the Ukraine") when writing in English? I'm inclined to use "the Ukraine" [sic; without quotation marks] in text referring to the country prior to its 1917 independence and subsequent identity as a Soviet Socialist Republic. Would this be correct, or not? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify I am going sum up this debate and will close all loopholes that keep coming up: Usage of "The Ukraine" has been deprecated officially since 1991 when the region was commonly referred to as The Ukrainian SSR which would be given the short form of "The Ukraine" because it was just too long to use in normal conversation. When the USSR collapsed the country dropped the SSR part and just became Ukraine. Having many Ukrainians in the diaspora with English as a second language, without applying any English syntax they called it "the Ukraine". Very simply: "The Ukrainian SSR" -> "The Ukraine". For those of us who have mastered the English language we should realize having "the" there in the title is incorrect usage just like there is no "The Canada", "The India", although "The United States of America" is correct but not "The America". Is there an authority on the matter? Yes, proper English tells us what should be given the title "the" in usage. If you were to start saying 'The Cuba', would you tell people that that's the way you say it and it's correct? I apologize I am unaware of proper Wikipedia notation, from http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html:
That Ukrainian authorities consider such usage incorrect should be referenced' How can you reference incorrect usage? Infinite possibilities can exist for incorrect usage, and how do you reference them and where?
Such body, however, is 'not the Ukrainian government but the proper branch of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine Nope. A name is a name, but this is a name translated to proper English and is outside the jurisdiction of a certain group but rather the set of rules that make up the English language. Any online search of 'when to use the' will tell you when the use of "the" is proper!
There, an entire debate without any mention of ill-intentioned people, neanderthalism or xenophobes but that's of course not to say that they don't exist here. -- andrewuoft 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Having many Ukrainians in the diaspora with English as a second language, without applying any English syntax they called it "the Ukraine". Very simply: "The Ukrainian SSR" -> "The Ukraine"." I would simply like to say that as an explanation this overlooks the thousands of Ukrainians in (say) Canada who came as native Ukrainian speakers before the Sovietization of Ukraine, and who nonetheless called their homeland 'the Ukraine' in English. just a small point. 142.68.44.16 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The rules on the use of "the" in English are anything BUT simple, as any native English speaker who has attempted to explain to a native speaker of any Slavic language would know. As a speaker of both languages, I have tried to explain this to native Ukrainian speakers and have been astonished at the number of exceptions astute non-native-English speakers manage to come up with that no English speaker would think of. Further, despite many searches, I have never managed to find anything but the most rudimentary explanation of the use of articles in any English grammar text or style manual --- something akin to "use a when one member or an indefinite member of some group is the subject, and the when a specific item is the subject". This explanation is identical in 4th grade language texts as in college-level ones. One is expected to learn further by "feel".
Just to cite one example: why do we use the article in "the Charles Bridge" (in Prague) but not in "Charles University" (in the same city)? How are these inanimate objects so fundamentally different that one requires the article? Why is it "the Pennsylvania State University", with the article, but "Franklin and Marshall College", without it?
The use or non-use of "the" has nothing at all to do with Ukrainian grammar; still less Russian grammar. Nor should it. It's an issue of English grammar. The issue of the correct Russian preposition to use (as asserted by user Glensky8665, above) has no relevance to the need or absence for an article in English. For completeness, I'll note that diaspora Ukrainians themselves used "HA" (= Eng. "on", literally or approximately) with Ukraine until recently, when a large influx of Ukrainians from all of Ukraine, not just western Ukraine (Halychyna/Galicia) revealed that the use of "HA" was a localism (or at least it is now).
Having thought about this a lot, the best rule I can come up with is:
"The" is used for countries if the country name contains what I'll call "a regular English word". By this I mean a word that exists natively and has some intrinsic meaning in the English language. "The" is NOT used for all other countries, where the name is simply (from the perspective of English) a succession of phonemes with no other intrinsic meaning.
User andrewuoft gave a good example above, upon which I will expand:
The United States ... "states" is a normal English word; The United Kingdom ... "kingdom" has an English meaning ... but cf. England, Britain - strictly proper names; The Union of South Africa ... but South Africa The Netherlands remains with "the" because of, I suspect, its older form "The Nether Lands". The Philippines ... because that word literally means "the items [islands, in this case] of/posessed by/named after Phillip", similarly as one may talk about "the Marshalls" (meaning "the Marshall Islands") or "the Maldives" or "the Azores".
Note that the use of the "the" has nothing to do with the plural number, as the UK and South Africa examples above demonstrate (and in contrast to what user andrewuoft asserted above).
"The" is also used with political regions or natural/geographical regions spanning political entities, which may be, but generally are not, political entities in themselves, regardless of whether the main noun is a "regular English word" or not, thus:
the South the Midwest the Middle East the Bible Belt the Crimea the Sahel
However, we have
French Canada New England
which are written without an article; why? Have to think about that one.
Now to deal with the apparent exceptions: The Sudan, The Ukraine.
I contend that the reason for the article in both of these cases was that, when the terms were created, they were perceived as being regions. Let us recall that Sudan, some time ago, was part of British Egypt and administered therefrom. Thus, it was a region of that colony. The same view was surely held by western Europeans vis-a-vis Ukraine, where its status was viewed though a Russian lens. A review of English-language texts of Russian history will demonstrate this immediately, with their view of all of the history of Rus' as the history of Russia alone, with Ukraine magically and suddenly appearing on the scene sometime between 1600 and 1850, depending on whom one reads. No explanation is ever offered for this occurrence. The reality is that the area had always been populated by the same folk, albeit with various migrations of various other peoples in and out at different times.
Once the term with the definite article began to be used, it of course "stuck" just as other things in English tend to get stuck with use. With time, this form starts to sound "normal", and the newer form to sound "weird", simply because the ear is not accustomed to the latter.
The "the" certainly was not added by Ukrainians, few of whom would have known any English when the noun "Ukraine" started filtering into the English language (in the mid-1800s). In contrast to what user 142.68.44.16 writes, "the Ukraine" was never widespread among Ukrainians who became or were natively literate in English. Please review the English-language Ukrainian press going back several decades to confirm this for yourself. Once the significance of the "the" was understood, it was distinctly not used. Note, however, that some were forced by their editors to use the article, in scholarly journals, periodicals, and the like, when the editor was not Ukrainian and imposed "standard usage".
At any rate, at present, post-independence (1991), saying "the Ukraine" is no more sensible than saying "the Wales" or "the Scotland".
Note that "the Gabon" is an exception. In this case, the addition of the "the" was requested by the country itself. However, in insisting on this, they are making the mistake of projecting or forcing French grammar onto English. In French, of course, an article is used with every country name, so it is no insult to be told that one is from "l'Ukraine". But apparently the Gabonese felt that the lack of an article in English somehow made them less of a country, which can only stem from an ignorance of English.
Bejmark 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)bejmark Clarified and expanded 26 Nov 2007 by the same author.
Use "the" if the name of the country is plural or indicates a group (of states, islands, etc.) * the United States * the Netherlands * the Phillipines
The same view was surely held by western Europeans vis-a-vis Ukraine, where its status was viewed though a Russian lens.
andrewuoft 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I happen to be skeptical when a pseudonymous Wikipedia user asserts to judge the professional writers of mainstream media to be "incorrect". Certain things are correct in more than one way and the best example is the name of the capital of Ukraine. Both names Kiev and Kyiv are correct. We are talking commonality rather than correctness. As for what the country was (or is) called, no matter what its full name was, the usage of "the" I am talking about is with the word "Ukraine", not with "UkrSSR" or "UNR". "The" was used with "Ukraine" predominantly, now the situation is changing and the usage without the definitive article is becoming more common. This does not render the other usage "incorrect". And especially the UA government or a Wikipedia user andrewuoft asserting something about English does not make anything "incorrect". Ukrainian governemnt (or any other government for that matter) has no authority over the rules of the English language. -- Irpen 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Per your "English grammar" The Gambia would also be incorrect. Your "English grammar" never mentions Ukraine by name. If you want "actual proof" in terms of analysis of the common usage in the media year by year (I have premium access to Lexis Nexis), I can provide you with such. I assure you that you won't like the results. The English usage is a fact. What's correct and what's not is your own interpretation of "English grammar". This discussion should not be presented in terms of "correct" vs "incorrect" because but "more common" vs "less common". This is exactly what is done in the current version. Please try to concentrate on content writing, like adding referenced material to articles instead. -- Irpen 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Gambia, officially the Republic of The Gambia, commonly known as Gambia, is a country in Western Africa.
Names of Countries
Use "the" if the name of the country is plural or indicates a group (of states, islands, etc.)
* the United States * the Netherlands * the Phillipines
Don't Use "a," "an," or "the" * Russia * South Africa * Holland * Canada * Great Britian * England
Riurik, thanks for your effort to tone andrewuoft down. Actually, I don't mind his tone much, I've seen worse around here. My main concern at this web-site is the content of the articles and I learned to ignore the offensive stuff for the most part.
Now, to answer your point, I fully agree that the usage without "the" is now becoming more common. That CNN piece just popped up in Google News. Perhaps it is an exception for this particular source but the fact is that while more and more English language sources explicitly call for the absence of "the", a lot that still do are not some obscure irrelevant blogs but pretty mainstream sources. My main objection is to judging what is correct and what's not by the Wikipedia users thus arguing with respected sources based on the "rules of English grammar".
Personally, I never use "the", but, curiously enough, native speakers, including one professional linguist, not once attempted to correct my non-usage of "the" (I usually ask native speakers to copyedit my text when I am writing something RL important.) Why do they do it? Because traditionally Ukraine was used with "the". How else would you like to put it? We are not talking "correctness". We are talking the custom. The long-established custom is now being gradually phased out. It happens as the languages evolve. I don't see a better way of putting it. -- Irpen 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is disputed? I think "In English, the country was occasionally referred to with the definite article as the Ukraine" is the best, but without the occasionally is fine too. Perhaps "sometimes"? Saying "traditionally" is not true, and not verifiable. Ostap 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ukrainian SSR was renamed Ukraine on August 24, 1991
I will just respond to this:
Self-evident to user:andrewoft is not enough to be considered verifiable. Nor personal opinions by user:andrewoft posted to the talk page qualifies as a reliable source. Ukraine and the Ukrainian SSR was not one and the same thing. There were plenty of usages of the word "Ukraine" where it was not synonymous with the UkrSSR. In any case yours, or mine, speculations are irrelevant. The rest of the rant above does not need a response. -- Irpen 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with this version and agree with the removal of the tag. Thanks Ostap. -- Irpen 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi everybody! I propose the addition of the following external link about Ukraine.
http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/Ukraine/Ukraine_01.html
Please, let me know what do you think. Panex 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is too concentrated on political aspect of Ukraine, I've added Eurovision 2005 and Euro 2012 into it, but it's still over-politiczed with details that don't belong on the front page. -- 24.185.5.42 06:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"In late March of 2007 and early April the Ukrainian political system dealt with another constitutional crisis. President Viktor Yushchenko dissolved the Ukrainian parliament and ordered an early election to be held May 27, 2007. Crowds of about 70,000 gathered on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square of Kiev, and supported the dismissal of parliament, with 20,000 supporting Yanukovych's plan to keep the parliament together.[3] On April 3, 2007, President Yushchenko signed the bill into existence. Two hours later on Kiev's Maidan, it was announced to the crowds that Parliament no longer existed.
Immediately the Verkhovna Rada was called in emergency session and voted against Yuschenko's decree 255 to 0. Yushchenko then took his case to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. A political struggle ensued between the Parliamentary coalition and the opposition.
A compromise between Yushchenko and Yanukovych has been reached to reschedule parliamentary elections for September 30, 2007. [6] "
Into Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007, because it's an awfully too specific information for a front page on Ukraine.
There were several misguided uses of the {main} template here. {main} is intended to point to sub-articles. Typically, these occur when one article gets quite long, and sections are pulled out into their own articles. Most of the {main} links here are quite well-founded. However, World War I, World War II and Russia are not sub-articles of Ukraine, so I removed those {main} links. — johndburger 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a big and endlessly contriversial topic and I hate to bring it up, but, when I read the following, I just can't help it... In my opinion following lines contain some russophillic bitterness towards the Ukrainization.
The government follows a policy of Ukrainization—the increase of Ukrainian language, generally at the expense of Russian. This takes the form of use of Ukrainian in various spheres that are under government control, such as schools, government offices, and some media. This is even done in areas which are largely Russian-speaking. However, in non-government areas of life, the language of convenience (usually Russian) is used.
Some of the words here kind of burn my eyes reading them. I propose to consider following changes.
The government follows a policy of Ukrainization—the increase of Ukrainian language, generally at the expense of Russian which was still the dominant language at the official level in parts of Ukraine. This is slowly taking the form of use of Ukrainian in all spheres that are under government control such as schools, government offices, and some media. ("This is even done in areas which are largely Russian-speaking." - this needs to be removed for it makes no sense) However, in non-government areas of life, the languages of convenience are welcome to be used such as Russian, Tatar, Hungarian etc.
In a lot of parts of Ukraine, and especially where I'm from, the language of convenience anything but Russian such as Gutsul dialect. A "wujko" from Donetsk might have to scope some pages of the "Tlumachnyi" dictionary to figure out that one:) Aleksandr Grigoryev 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, may be you right, I'm no sure. But first version give it a meaning, that this process meets resistance from the East, South, Central regions. And this should be mentioned in some way. Waiting for your response.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans. Badagnani 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian Americans. Badagnani 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed a very much increased amount of vandalism on this page, what would it take to get it semi-protected? Regards, Bogdan 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, the user attempts to bring original research into the article. He/she is comparing Ukrainian service and agriculture sectors of economy with those of Russia and USA. Why should we compare with these two particular countries (among 190+ world countries)? Why should we compare it at all in this article? I don't really see any appealing reason.
Second, Miyokan insists on writing "Stalin made Socialist Realism the state policy" instead of "the Soviets began enforcing socialist realism art style in Ukraine". If there is such need it can be written "Stalin initiated policy", however, the main point is that the policy was introduce in Ukraine (in Ukrainian SSR to be precise) by Soviets.
I believe that in the English language the proper usage is "the Ukraine." In particulat, we have
More particularly, we would not say,
But like saying, "I wany to live in the United States" we should say, "I want to live in the Ukrain."
the English usage "I want to live in Ukraine" does not sound proper English. -- Ludvikus 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I ended this debate along time ago as noted above in Talk:Ukraine#.22The.22_Ukraine, all your questions can be answered there by my additions Andrewuoft 1:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The demographics crisis is not even mentioned here, astonishing considering that the population is falling at an even faster rate than Russia, and the population has decreased by 6 million from a peak of 52 million last decade to 46 million today.-- Miyokan 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Jacob Frank is believed to have been born in Koroliwka, Podolia (Ukraine) about 1726. Can anyone provide a current name for this locality? __ meco 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The most likely location seems to be Korolivka (Королівка) in Ivano-Frankivs'k oblast [=county]. Mapquest (R) gives it here:
* http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=UA&addtohistory=&city=korolivka
, an area of Ukraine (ethnolinguistically speaking) that would have been controlled by Poland, then by Austria-Hungary.
However, Mapquest has some very odd spellings still lying around (note "Bucac" near Korolivka, which should be spelled "Buchach" for English; the letters c are missing the "hachek" symbol (č) if using Czech/Slovak-style transliteration; it would be Buczacz in Polish.
This prompted me to do a wider search for what would be Russian version of the name, viz., Korolevka. This comes up with multiple possibilities:
* http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=UA&addtohistory=&city=korolevka
Of these, only 2 or maybe 3 were in what would have been Polish/Austrian-controlled territory in the year in question. Specifically, these 2 or 3 are those west of Zhytomyr. The remainder are in what would have then been Russian territory.
-- Mark 208.66.211.68 ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that he was a Jew (whom I don't know), it's very possible for him to be born upon Podillia and the fact that Koroliwka or Korolivka was there as well. Since 18th century, a lot of events passed through that region coserning particularly the Jewish population, which possibilly influenced the disappearence of, what I believe, the village. Buczacz, Ternopil oblast is considered to be kind of close to the region ( Podillia), but as far as I know it is Prykarpattya. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Miyokan, I know you want sources, but your recent adding of around twenty {{fact}} templates was not necessary. Please read the citations that are given, such as at the end of the Islam sentence. You requested citations for all those numbers, but the citation at the end of the sentence gives you the numbers. All that information for you requests can be found on these two sites: [3] and [4]. I don't know how to please you, should I add these citations to every place you added a citation needed tag? Or is one citation at the end of a sentence or paragraph enough? If you know how to do this effectivly, please do it. Thanks, Ostap 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone happen to have any referenced numbers for the amount of Ukrainians in the Soviet Army and in the Ukrainian insurgent army? I'm having some trouble finding these figures. Regards, Bogdan що? 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC) "Soviet troops who fell in battle against the Nazis, about a quarter (2.7 million) were ethnic Ukrainians", where is this from? Bogdan що? 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I am amazed at how one of the first things an English speaking user of the English wikipedia learns about Ukraine is how to spell it in Russian. Why on earth is this here? Russian is not an official language in Ukraine. Despite the fact that Spanish is widely spoken in USA, we don't see the Spanish spelling in the article's lead, do we? This is of no benefit to anglophone users. This is not the Russian wikipedia. This is the English wikipedia. Having Russian spelling in the lead has absolutely no benefit to the English speaking users of ENGLISH wikipedia. If there are no objections, I will remove it. Ostap ( talk) 07:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, when you first brought this up I thought it would spark something close to an RfC, obviously that wasn't the case. Regards, Bogdan що? 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
KEEP IT Although Russian is not an official language half the country speaks Russian in their every day lives. Ukraine is extremely russified it’s an unfortunate fact but it’s a fact. In a few years USA will have its name spelled in Spanish as well. : ) Gregoriy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.130.129 ( talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree - Russian is a language of great part of Ukranians and if they call their country by this language it deserve /if I can say so/ to be here. General line of ukrainian polititians /official language/ has nothing to do with Wikipedia. As for the "we dont use Spanish in USA page" - Russian speaking ukrainians are natural part of Ukraine, they are not immigrants. No matter if present polititians or some users want to see it or not. Weight how much they done for their country and so on and so on. And Russian is oficial lanuage in Crimea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.111.199.30 ( talk) 09:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) So I ready to hear what do you think about such arguments.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 10:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the subject of a diet imposed by Christianity never has been discussed in Wikipedia. However, reading the main article about Ukraine, I stumbled upon the lines "Ukrainians cuisine is, in fact, generally pre-Christian in origin."(C) I consider this line as the intention of the author(s) of the article to ridicule Ukrainians for their research on early inhabitants of their terrains. Yes, such research has not always been done on the professional level and has not always operated with credible facts. But it has nothing to do with the main article about a large European country. The author(s): move these lines to some other linked-in article, if you are such stong proponent(s) of pre-Christian diet (who knows what it was made of). Best of luck. 24.5.244.244 ( talk) 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)A.Pilipenko
Bogdan, I am confused how to clarify the weasle words about soviet athletes. The list of them here: Category:Olympic_athletes_of_the_Soviet_Union contains many of them. Knowing this, in what way should this be clarified? Ostap ( talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
SriMesh | talk 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised by the link for photos of Ukraine. Is that really the best collection out there? Mine at TryUkraine.com has 1500 pictures, and with captions, too. There are a few other decent collections out there as well. ( Rick DeLong ( talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
The list as of now, judging from the selection, is more appropriate for a narrower History of Ukraine article rather than for the most general article about the country as pretty much all of these books are on history. Speaking of the English books on history of Ukraine three books by Andrew Wilson were important recent studies. Those are "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation", "Ukraine’s Orange Revolution", and "Ukrainian Nationalism in the 1990s: A minority faith". Reviews and full data are easily googleable and these books are already listed as refs in several articles. -- Irpen 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)