Talk:Ukraine

If you are here to discuss Kiev vs. Kyiv please click here

If you are here to discuss Kiev vs. Kyiv please click here

Ukraine or Kievean Rus?

(moved to central discussion page)

HDI of Ukraine

The HDI of Ukraine is 0.729 not 0.710 which has been unchanged in the english version of the article for quite some time (In other languages, the article has been updated). It says so in the list of countries by HDI and also in the source. Please change, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.110.118 (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. (Shredder2012 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Ukraine or Kievean Rus?

The article is confusing. Has it always been called Ukraine or not? If not then the article should call it by its old name when discussing it in historical context as it confuses those of us who aren't that familiar with that region's history. MPA 11:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

You may read Name of Ukraine

I fully agree with the above comment. All attempts to retrospective change of history make no good as to its objective understanding. I wonder how long some of modern nationalistic ukrainian history re-makers would have lived had they personally called any of old russian dukes "ukrainian". :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.5.4 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are modern russian nationalist;) Volodimirg (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem. There is considerable confussion which was casued after Peter I made the the Moscovites adopt the ethnonym Russian for self identification. Ruthenians were now constantly confused being with Moscovites, and Ruthenian language consused with Moscovite language because of its similarlity in look and sound with Russian. Indeed, in Shevchenko's poetry writings he never uses the term Ukraininian as an ethnonym, he always uses the ethnonym Kozak for Ukrainian, and Moscovite for Russian, although he uses the term Ukraine often in the geographic sense. This confusion which was brought on by Peter I is the main reason why the Ruthenians adopted the ethnonym Ukrainian. I for one would welcome the return to the old usage of the ethnonyms, with Russian changed back to Moscovite, and Ukrainian back to Ruthenium, however I do not think that is possible in todays society. It would be expensive, and confusing. So in order to avoid further confusion I guess we have to stick with Ukrainian. Bandurist (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What is your original,historical source(chronicle, document et cet.) about Peter I making the Moscovites adopt the ethnonym "Russian"?

The people of Great Russia("Great" in the sense of being the north part of Ancient Rus, with Little and White Russia being the other two parts) have always identified themselves as Russians, with term "Moscovites" being used occasionally as a replacement for "Rus" in 16-17 centuries by some with the aim either to estrange parts of previoulsy united Rus or to minutely identify dwellers around Moscow.The other reason for occasianl usage of term " Moscovites" was the fact that in 16 century, only north part of ancient Rus was an independent state, with Little Russia( modern-day ukraine) and White Russia ( belarus) being under foreing control. Before Peter I many tzars including Ivan the Terrible, were officially called "Grand dukes of Rus". Virtually all ancient chronicles, both russian and foreign, used term " Russian" with regard to people of today's north-western Russia.

Extract from Middle Ages chronicle of Livonia of Baltazar Russow regarding Livonian war:"Russians are very steady as to defending fortresses;if they have flour and vodka they'll stand to the last man." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.5.4 (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So far I cannot make head or tail over what is being said is wrong with the articles.

The history of Ukraine is about the land that Ukraine occupies and the people who identify themselves as Ukrainian. A continuous link going back through the people who lived in the land can be traced all the way back to the Cucuteni. One kingdom that existed in this land in the past were the Kievan Rus'.

How is this changing history? If anything it clearly shows the ancestry of a majority of the eastern Ukrainians as well as some Russians. Please try and explain what you have issues with. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "Kyivan Rus" has political implications. The state was known as Rus' without the modifier "Kyivan" in its various forms. This was added later by Muscovite historians for political reasons. Bandurist (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@Bandurist - Please do not modify the page until consensus has been found, if the most common usage is Kievan Rus then there is no justification to change it.

There is also the problem that the Kievan Rus page is still called that, it makes no sense to be making massive changes to the history of Ukraine without making sure that is the correct name. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For example I am trying to read Magosci to start with and then move to some other books on the history - it would help if we can first establish what constitutes "good reading material" from which we can determine the most appropriate course of action to take.

If the term Kievan Rus is going to be changed to Rus, it must be determined for all articles, and that is such a massive impact on the Ukraine articles we cannot end up with edit warring over page moves and suchlike as it will have a greatly detrimental impact if consensus is not found first. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This piece of land has been through many conquests, border disputes, name changes and legal decrees from various governing bodies. Every new conqueror wants to rewrite history and erase the old one. Today, it is a country called Ukraine. Kievan Rus was a place in history with different borders than modern day Ukraine, and has a place in history in modern day Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. At the time of Kievan Rus, Ukraine was a region at the edge. Rus and Kievan Rus were also different things at different times. Primary Chronicle is a good source and available in major libraries in English. USchick (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is getting out of hand very quickly, similar edits seem to be being made at all Kievan Rus', Rus and history of Ukraine articles: dropping "Kievan Rus'" to "Rus", removing East Slav, adding "Norse" and removing Scandinavian, claiming different religions and languages - it really needs to be discussed in one central location, a consensus found and then for all the articles to correctly reflect the consensus (which may need to be given more than 24 hours to allow a reasonable amount of editors to both find and weigh in on the discussion) Chaosdruid (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the other articles, but his edits in this one were accurate. He has a good point, but it needs to be discussed, because there are different sources and they all say something different. USchick (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will say - Kievan Rus. And, they know why CraigMurray3 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This "civil war-like conditions" are not news for Euro Union. Since 2008, Russia Consulate operate in Brussels, capital of a political party <Jeguminisation and Ariadna Kievan Rus>. The party president, presidential candidate in the future via the Ukraine, has discussed with Politikere place of everything. There were several manifestations and Mitingen to support the modernization of the state border of Ukraine. Now. Military forces are on the stuff. Martelli22 (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

White House means white Politic. Also in question or Kiev Kievan Rus. Future via President Kievan Rus are ye were several years on food subsidies U.S. Baptists .BlueBonet (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Rus' or Kievan Rus'

As this is of high importance to all the Ukraine articles I have made a new talk page here and transcluded this discussion to Talk

Ukraine, Talk:Kievan Rus' and the Ukraine portal. That way we can try and eliminate much of the duplication on all the talk pages.

The term Kievan before Rus' has an anti-scientific genesis.

Note that "Kievan Rus" and "Old Russia" or "Rus-Ukraine" - are all terms that originated in the imagination of researchers and scientists. Contemporaries called this state "Ruthenian land" or "Rus'". According to researchers, the term "Kievan Rus" arose in the bosom of the official historiography of Moscow and St. Petersburg, which was represented primarily works of Karamzin, S. Soloviev, V. Klyuchevskaya and other prominent historians of the Russian Empire. It is known that they defended the concept of genealogical continuity over time the ruling princely family in Moscow [1]. From the second half of the nineteenth century the term became popular in the history that has grown sharply in the intellectual debate on historiography of the state. So, the term "Kievan Rus" originates not from the sources and historical works but from the pages of the imperial era. During this period the historiography, literary aspects of amateurs approached into a serious science, which began to explore the important issues of national history of methodological, conceptual positions.

More can be read from Anatoliy Pavko's article: Інститут державної влади Київської Русі в контексті політичних процесів сьогодення - Серед питань становлення та розвитку Київської Русі найважливішим є історичний досвід формування та функціонування інститутів політичної влади Давньоруської держави. [[1]] You can run it through google translate.Bandurist (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bandurist, we'll take your word for it. :-) According to the Primary Chronicle: This is the tale of bygone years: from whence came the Russian land, who first ruled in Kiev, and from which source the Russian land had its beginning. I understand that you're a scholar, and I'm not trying to argue with you. However, If Kiev is the source of Russian land, I would think that the Russian Federation got its beginnings in what is modern day Kiev, Ukraine. Also, there are other sources that claim different things, depending on what nation is telling the story from their own historical perspective. Please discuss your changes. If Ruthenians called it something, I hope they lived long enough to write it down so we can use it here as a reference. It's great to have a historian contributing to this article, thank you for your contribution! USchick (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a small note from you statement above. It should not be Russian lands but Rus' lands. If you (incorrectly) state that it was "Kievan Russia", then it is easy to infer that the continuation of this state was Russia and then also the the Russian Federation. However this is not so. It is a minor difference, but a valid one, comparible to using other imperialist terms inaccurately. Bandurist (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the problem you have with the usage of the term Kievan Rus'. If you are correct then the page will have to be moved as long as the term Kievan Rus' is NOT the most common name for it.

As this will affect all Ukrainian pages that deal with history and the infoboxes we need to really be careful that this is the best thing to do here. If it is there will be a lot of work to do to make all pages the same and remove the Kievan from them all.

I do not doubt tht what you say is correct, but I need to see it for myself and to find consensus from everyone on the matter, If we cannot get agreement we may need to start a wider discussion or maybe even an RfC on it.

I propose this course of action:

• Discuss here to find consensus on keeping/changing
• If we find consensus, start a requested page move "Kievan Rus' ->" Rus to widen the discusion
• If the result is to move, then we need to assemble a list of pages that will be affected
• Once assembled we will need to change them all with a linkback to the move discussion and note it all on the Ukraine portal and talk pages.

If we can just get an agreement on this course of action first, by signing here and yes no, then I think we can proceed. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify what is in question? Rus is a region. Kievan Rus' is the name coined by Nikolai Karamzin for the state of Rus from approximately 880 to sometime in the middle of the 13th century when it disintegrated. USchick (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to proceed

• Support As nominator Chaosdruid (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Don't understand what the problem is or what is being suggested. Can someone elaborate? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a claim by Bandurist and others that the term "Kievan Rus'" is incorrect and was made up by Russian sources. The editors also claim that the term should be "Rus" and that all mention of "Kievan Rus'" should be changed to "Rus" in all articles. I am suggesting that we discuss this and decide whether such a massive change is to be made before the articles are all changed. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. That move won't happen. The era is called Kievan Rus because that is the time when Rus/Russia was dominated by Kiev (as opposed to Moscow),. It is just a historiographic convention, and has been used since before English writers thought of Ukraine and Belarus as not Russia. In my experience patriotic Ukrainians are usually not OK with "Kievan Russia" but don't mind "Kievan Rus", even though the words have the same historic meaning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between the terms Kievan Rus' and Kievan Russia. The distinction is mnor but it is there none the less. Bandurist (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

East Slavic tribes as founders of Kievan Rus

Why does the intro say that Kievan rus was founded by East Slavic tribes. It doesnt correlate very well with the article. I've tried to fix it but then User talk:Chaosdruid threatens to ban me... Alphasinus (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the article, it was founded by Scandinavian warriors. Slavic tribes lived there, along with lots of other people. USchick (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not threaten to ban you, I cannot ban you. There is a procedure called WP:BRD which states that the first editor changes and article, the next editor disagress and reverts the changes and then we all discuss it on the talk page. THe problem was that you were going to breach WP:3RR which is a rule to prevent edit warring which says that we cannot have 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.

The thing is you need to find consensus by convincing me and other editors that what you are saying is correct, preferably by posting some links here that show your claims to be accurate.

To write the east slavs out of the formation of the Rus is quite a large change. At the moment it seems that you are claiming the "Norse" people, previously we had Varangians, came along and formed a state here without the slavic population having anything to do with it. Previously it was accepted that the article stated that the east slavs formed a state and the varangians were invited to rule. ::I advise you to prove what you are saying by making some posts of text from books or links to sites which support your claims Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The material you are changing to has no sources, is unreferenced and is dubious, please provide proof here before changing again.

Avoiding WP:BRD is not going to get us anywhere and the edit warring is not going to achieve anything apart from making even more problems. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"According to tradition, the Slavs of Novgorod, tired of political turmoil, invited the Varangian prince Rurik to rule the city. He arrived in about 862 and established the dynasty that ruled various parts of East Slavic territory until 1598. After Rurik's death his relative Oleg became ruler of Novgorod and in 882 added Kiev to his domains, making it his capital. This was the beginning of Kievan Rus, the first East Slavic state." Chaosdruid (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(from my talk page)

East Slavic founders of Kievan Rus

Please get a source before you insert claims that East Slavic tribes founded Kievan Rus. It's not even mentioned as a theory in the main article so i see no reason for putting it as a fact in the summary. I've adressed this at the talk page several times but you dont seem to respond. Its hard to get WP:BRD then. Alphasinus (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Slavic tribes occupied central and eastern Ukraine in the sixth century A.D. and played an important role in the establishment of Kyiv. Kievan Rus Prince Volodymyr converted the Kievan nobility and most of the population to Christianity in 988. Situated on lucrative trade routes, Kyiv quickly prospered as the center of the powerful state of Kievan Rus. In the 11th century, Kievan Rus was, geographically, the largest state in Europe. Conflict among the feudal lords led to decline in the 12th century. Mongol raiders razed Kyiv in the 13th century." from [2] --Taivo (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians — Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them further tribute, and set out to govern themselves. But there was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom". Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gutes, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Veps then said to the Rus, "Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us". Three brothers, with their kinfolk, were selected. They brought with them all the Rus and migrated.

— The Primary Chronicle

I would be careful using the United States government as a source since they would probably leave out information that could be of potential poltical dispute. As far as i know, the Varangian role in the founding of Kievan Rus is pretty controversial in the East Slavic countries. Alphasinus (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Primary Chronicle is not a reliable source since it is a primary document, not a secondary source. Thus, while the US government document isn't the best source, it is considered a tertiary source, based on secondary sources. Thus, the Wikipedia hierarchy for quality of sources is 1) secondary source (preferably scholarly), 2) tertiary source (based on secondary sources), 3) primary source. The point is that the role of the non-Slavic Varangians is debatable. While they were involved, their relative level of involvement is in dispute. While you caution about the use of a government document, you use one as well--the Primary Chronicle is, in essence, the official propaganda of the Kievan regime. To quote the Wikipedia entry on the Primary Chronicle: "Nestor worked at the court of Sviatopolk II of Kiev and probably shared his pro-Scandinavian policies." So you choose your propaganda. Find a scholarly source. --Taivo (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Primary Chronicle is not a primary source because it was compiled by monks from much older sources. It is one of the oldest historical documents available, and it does reflect history from the lens of the people writing it. However, together with other historical documents, it's a much better source than what the modern scholars have been able to come up with. USchick (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-Slavic people in this region were nomadic in nature, and much less likely to write their history, since the only people allowed to write were Christian monks. Everyone else attempting to write at that time were killed. What scholarly source wouldn't be considered propaganda? I think the best we can do in this case is go with the policy of: making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered. USchick (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sources of non-slavic non-scandinavian origin

Greek

Further information: Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus' and Rus'–Byzantine War (860)

When the Varangians first appeared in Constantinople (Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus, Siege of Constantinople (860)), the Byzantines seem to have perceived the Rhos (Greek: Ῥώς) as a different people from the Slavs. At least they are never said to be part of the Slavic race. Characteristically, pseudo-Symeon Magister refers to the Rhos as Δρομΐται, a word related to the Greek word meaning "a run", suggesting the mobility of their movement by waterways.

Frankish

Further information: Annales Bertiniani

The Annals are notable, among other things, for containing one of the earliest written references to a group of Vikings who called themselves Rhos, that is the Rus' or early-Russian people. According to the Annals, these had visited Constantinople about the year 838. Fearful of returning home through the steppes, which would have left them vulnerable to attack by the Magyars, the Rhos set out with a Byzantine embassy hoping to obtain the Franks' assent for traveling via Germany. At Ingelheim royal residence, near Mainz, they were questioned by Frankish Emperor Louis the Pious and informed him that their leader was known as chacanus (with no doubt the Latin form for "Khagan" sometimes accordingly emended to chaganus, although formerly held to be a deformation of Scandinavian proper name Håkan)

Arab

The Arab diplomat and traveller, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited Volga Bulgaria in 922, described the Rus (Rusiyyah)

I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy; they wear neither tunics nor caftans, but the men wear a garment which covers one side of the body and leaves a hand free. Each man has an axe, a sword, and a knife, and keeps each by him at all times. The swords are broad and grooved, of Frankish sort. Each woman wears on either breast a box of iron, silver, copper, or gold; the value of the box indicates the wealth of the husband. Each box has a ring from which depends a knife. The women wear neck-rings of gold and silver. Their most prized ornaments are green glass beads. They string them as necklaces for their women.

— Gwyn Jones, A History of the Vikings

Persian

Persian traveler Ibn Rustah who allegedly visited Novgorod (or Tmutarakan, according to George Vernadsky) and described how the Rus' exploited the Slavs.

As for the Rus, they live on an island ... that takes three days to walk round and is covered with thick undergrowth and forests; it is most unhealthy.... They harry the Slavs, using ships to reach them; they carry them off as slaves and…sell them. They have no fields but simply live on what they get from the Slav's lands.... When a son is born, the father will go up to the newborn baby, sword in hand; throwing it down, he says, "I shall not leave you with any property: You have only what you can provide with this weapon."

— Ibn Rustah, National Geographic

Finnic

Sweden is called [Ruotsi|http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruotsi] in Finnish.

Baltic

Sweden is called [Rootsi|http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootsi] in Estonian.

The approximate extent of Old Norse and related languages in the early 10th century:

  Old West Norse dialect

  Old East Norse dialect

  Old Gutnish dialect

  Old English

  Crimean Gothic

  Other Germanic languages with which Old Norse still retained some mutual intelligibility

Merged with kiev culture

Map of Indo European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan model. The Anatolian migration (indicated with a dotted arrow) could have taken place either across the Caucasus or across the Balkans. The magenta area corresponds to the assumed Urheimat (Samara culture, Sredny Stog culture). The red area corresponds to the area that may have been settled by Indo-European-speaking peoples up to ca. 2500 BC, and the orange area by 1000 BC.

• Zarubintsy culture
• Kurgan culture with first strong archaeological evidence for the domestication of the horse from the Sredny Stog culture north of the Azov Sea in Ukraine, 5th millennium BC. The earliest known chariot was discovered at Krivoye Lake and dates to c. 2000 BC.

Nomadic tribes in the area

The approximate extent of East Iranian languages in Middle Iranian times in the 1st century BC is shown in orange

Scythians

For Herodotus, the Scythians were outlandish barbarians living north of the Black Sea in what are now Moldova and Ukraine. (Michael Kulikowski, Rome's Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric, pg. 14)

Herodotus wrote about an enormous city, Gelonus, in the northern part of Scythia "The Budini are a large and powerful nation: they have all deep blue eyes, and bright red hair. There is a city in their territory, called Gelonus."

Excavations near the village of Belsk in Ukraine have led to suggestions by archaeologist Boris Shramko and others identifying it as the Scythian capital Gelonus. It is strategically situated on the exact boundary between the steppe and forest-steppe. Several other locations have been named by Russian archaeologists like Saratov or a location near the Don River closer to the Volga River.

Sarmatians

The descendants of the Sarmatians became known as the Alans and ultimately gave rise to the modern Ossetic ethnic group.

Pecheneg

Eastern Europe, showing the area of main Pecheneg settlement, c.1015.

Pechenegs Turkic tribe: In the 9th century, the Byzantines became allied with the Pechenegs, using them to fend off other, more dangerous tribes such as the Rus and the Magyars. This was an old Roman ploy (divide and rule) continued by their Byzantine successors — playing off one enemy tribe against another. From the 9th century AD, the Pechenegs started an uneasy relationship with Kievan Rus. For more than two centuries they launched random raids into the lands of Rus, which sometimes escalated into full-scale wars (like the 920 war on the Pechenegs by Igor of Kiev reported in the Primary Chronicle), but there were also temporary military alliances (e.g. 943 Byzantine campaign by Igor). In 968, the Pechenegs attacked and then besieged the city of Kiev.

Oghuz

Oghuz Turks joined the Byzantine imperial forces as mercenaries (1065). Their writen documents are Book of Dede Korkut and Epic of Köroğlu.

Kipchak

Kipchak people known in Russian and Ukrainian as Polovtsy, by the 9th century, migrated into the Trans-Volga.

Kipchak-Cuman confederation in Eurasia circa 1200

Cuman

Cuman people of Cumania

Mongol Empire

Eurasia on the eve of the Mongol invasions, c. 1200.

The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous land empire in history at its peak, with an estimated population of over 100 million people. The Mongol Empire was founded by Genghis Khan in 1206, and at its height, it encompassed the majority of the territories from southeast Asia to eastern Europe. After unifying the Mongol–Turkic tribes, the Empire expanded through conquests throughout continental Eurasia.

Expansion of the Mongol Empire

Cleanup effort

Yes, look, this is an article in really bad shape, that linked to terms like stepmother and squabble. In other words, it needs attention and a firm hand from good editors who don't pay attention to the trolling re Normanist vs. anti-Normanist, Russian historians vs. non-Russian historians, yadda

We should treat this britney crespo like any other nationalist-infested topic, reserve a section for "in modern nationalism" and stuff all the disputes in there, clearing the air for writing an article about the actual historical topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

By way of explanation, this is a major WP:LAME wikidispute that goes back to at least 2004. The existence of the separate articles Rus' Khaganate, Rus' people and Rus (name) are all due to this, and probably couldn't be justified in any sober manner. "Rus' Khaganate" is simply the term for the earliest 56 or 40 years of this state. It is silly to treat it as a separate entity unless you care really, really much about whether its rulers were "Viking warriors" or "Slavic Tribes". The two articles Rus' people and Rus (name) both simply treat the name "Rus" and can safely be merged. Note that Rus (name) doubles as the Name of Russia article and as such is legitimate. I sort of watched this from the sidelines in an on-and-off manner in late 2004 but I never had the heart to become involved[3]. But by now I think Wikipedia has gathered enough experience with ethnic nationalism fuelled problems and we should be able to fix it. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is getting the facts right, keeping POV out and ensuring that things are correctly represented as per sources.

As I understand it, the facts of the matter are that the people that lived there established states which fell into disarray with constant warring and they invited the Rus in to rule them and provide leadership which made everything flourish. It was not, as it seems to read now, as if the Rus came in and conquered everybody and started the states on their own.

This situation has to be correctly written about and we should not tolerate anything which detracts from the sourced facts or introduces POV bias. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Coined by Karamzin

The article claims that The name "Kievan Rus'" (Ки́евская Русь) was coined by Nikolai Karamzin. This is possible, but unreferenced. It is also suspicious, because in this copy of Karamzin's "History of Russia", the term is conspicuously absent. Karamzin talks about Русь "Kiev" simply, and about "Varagian-Rus", but never about a "Kievan Rus". --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Been quiet here for quite a while

I'd just mention that Kievan Rus', Kievan Rus, Rus, Kievan Russia, Kiev State, Kievan State are all used in sources to describe the state in question (let's center on mid-11th century although its tenure was much longer and significantly varied in territorial control). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of definite article

Geographic uses In English most cities and countries never take the definite article, but there are many that do. It is commonly used with many country names that derive from names of island groups (the Philippines), mountain ranges (the Lebanon), deserts (the Sudan), seas, rivers and geographic regions (the Middle East).[4] Such use is declining, but for some countries it remains common. Since the independence of Ukraine (or the Ukraine), most style guides have advised dropping the article,[5] in part because the Ukrainian Government was concerned about a similar issue involving prepositions. Another example is Argentina, which is now more usual than 'the Argentine', which is old fashioned, although others continue, such as The Bronx and The Hague. The definite article is always used for countries whose names are descriptions of the form of the state rather than being purely geographical; for example, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Czech Republic. The U.S. Department of State[6] and the CIA World Factbook[7] show the definite article with only two countries: The Bahamas and The Gambia. Although in title, these references do not include the definite article for the Netherlands, in the text description the name of the country is never used without it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_articles#Geographic_uses

Falsification

This map ([4]) falsifies history. Kievan Rus disintegrated before the advent of cities Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod. The name " Belgorod Dnestrovsky" appeared in the Soviet Union (1944). The name "Vladimir Volynsky" -1795 year. ... ... Michaila vnuk (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Introduction: Too détailed - too nationalistic

Following Polish partition 1795/1815:

"A chaotic period of incessant warfare ensued, with internationally recognized establishment of independent Ukrainian People's Republic. Independent Ukraine emerged from its own civil war. Then Soviet aggression and the Ukrainian–Soviet War followed, which resulted in Soviet victory. Ukrainian People's Republic was occupied and a puppet state called Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was created. On December 30, 1922 it became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government was hostile to Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture; there were mass repressions of Ukrainian poets, historians and linguists. Then there was a genocide of Ukrainians: millions of people starved to death in 1932 and 1933 in the Holodomor."

1) For an introduction far too détailed - belongs into section History.

2) Wording misleading. Was WW I "incessant warfare"? Why not call the civil war Whites against Bolsheviki by its standard English term? The adversary were, in contemporary language, not the Soviets but the Bolsheviki.

3) Wording too partial. Both the Whites and the Reds wanted to force ALL independent republics back into "Mother Russia". - And wording too strong for an encyclopedia.

Needs rewriting. Nuremberg Ángel.García 131.188.3.21 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could draft something that you think better, and post it here in the talk page so that we could see what you have in mind. That way it would be possible to build some of your ideas into the article. It is probable that some things that you do not think are important, other people think are important. Through dicussion, understanding would be improved, and we might move to an improvement that could then be moved into the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Knowing little about the country, I too think these paragraphs go on too long about how Soviet rule was established and how evil it was. Presumably it's all true, but introductions need fewer words and more balance than that. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the IP contributor who introduced this section, I'm a little dubious as to their intent and neutrality considering the rather strange POV pushes on talk pages (per their contribution history).

However, as interest seems to have been revived here I'd suggest that, as per Toddy1's observation, perhaps it would be more useful to identify precisely what the perceived imbalances are and make suggestions rather than generalised statements that it's too long and... boring(? I'm not quite certain as to how to construe the "too long about Soviet rule was established and how evil it was." (sic), so am having to interpret it myself). Could you point to areas you have issues with and make some specific suggestions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead I shall follow a previous suggestion and propose a revision, using three sentences to replace three paragraphs:

Early in its history the territory that is now Ukraine was inhabited by various ethnic groups, under various native and foreign rulers and empires. During the 19th century the Russian and Austrian Empires ruled different parts. In most of the 20th century it was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union when Ukraine became an independent republic.

Yes, this omits warfare both incessant and intermittent, and famines, aggressions, repressions and other dreadful and important events that belong in the body of the article rather than in the intro. If the history paragraph needs a fourth sentence, perhaps it ought to be about how the country became Slavic. A short sentence. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"During the 19th century the Russian and Austrian Empires ruled different parts." -- but shouldn't we say what these different parts were called? -- Alarics (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I think the introduction is the wrong place to discuss such matters. They belong elsewhere, such as in the body of this article, or in the history article. Today I looked at Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine–Central Powers) and Peace of Riga and related articles about neighbor countries. Looking as an outsider, such topics seem fraught with complex disputes that a sentence or part of a sentence cannot treat properly. Of course, I am open to dissenting views, but I think we will be more succesful if we discuss those later, after we agree on a basic version of the history paragraph. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have moved from excessively detailed to excessively vague, Jim.henderson. "... was inhabited by various ethnic groups, under various native and foreign rulers and empires.", "During the 19th century the Russian and Austrian Empires ruled different parts." The repetitions of 'various', 'foreign', 'different parts' in a mere three sentences doesn't qualify as an encyclopaedic lead but, rather, reads like a template to build on for any number of nation-states. The lead needs to be informative to some degree. Sorry, but I don't see this as being an informative introduction to the body of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, thank you; my repetition of "various" is entirely unnecessary. As for specific facts to be added to the history paragraph, perhaps someone can contribute more specific suggestions. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this article (and dozens of other articles trolled by interest groups pushing their POV) is that they're subjected to so many hit and run edits that regular contributors/editors get tired of being involved in cleaning them up (I'm sure you're well acquainted with how these messes happen: just mentioning it for the sake of others following the talk page). I'll take a look at the lead in the next few days and see if I can construct a reasonable skeleton which can be worked on here, on the talk page, allowing for some genuine consensus version to be constructed. Alternatively, we could use your 'template' and start building from there. I doubt that anyone would interpret a lead that bypasses the minimum requirements for a stub could be understood to be anything other than verbose (but if they do, they're welcome to say so at this point).

If no one objects in the next few days, I'd take that to be understood as consent to rework it (naturally, meaning that any relevant V and uncontroversial RS belonging in the body would be moved into the relevant section). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So, we have two appoaches to the summary mentions of history in the introduction; you prefer to trim and neutralize the existing three paragraphs; I prefer to delete and rebuild from a small seed. Either approach can work, so we can present our respective revisions until one becomes clearly better or the differences dissolve. Alas, only today did I finally look at the History of Ukraine article which has an excellent intro, apart from a small paragraph alleging a stolen election a decade ago. Perhaps that introduction has also been used as a battleground. Lest that intro become unstable, I quote it here. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The territory of Ukraine has been inhabited for at least forty four thousand years. It is where the horse was first domesticated and a candidate site of the origins of the Proto-Indo-European language family.

In the Middle ages, the area was a key center of East Slavic culture, before being divided between a variety of powers. A Cossack republic flowered for a century in the early modern period, but Ukraine remained otherwise divided until its consolidation into a Soviet republic in the twentieth century, becoming independent in 1991.

This intro is perhaps too short for the History article, but as a history paragraph for the general Ukraine article it looks like the best one proposed yet. Including, of course, it's better than mine, and should be put into the article and be the basis for future improvements. For the first two minor minor improvements, I prefer to join the two paragraphs into one, and dislike its use of the word "variety" but such questions can wait until after adoption. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So, besides doing that, I have moved the old, oversized history paragraphs to the History article, with small changes. They do not entirely satisfy me. I hope editors with greater topical knowledge will offer suggestions or WP:BOLDly make improvements directly. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for your work so far, Jim. Apologies for not getting back to this discussion earlier. I've been immersed in some hefty clean ups and also wanted to see whether anyone else was going to join in as (sometimes) many hands make light work (if it doesn't lead to edit warring!). Hopefully, the bold, revert, discussion cycle will get some qualitative changes happening.

I'm going to look through comparable articles for other countries for a few ideas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested change reflects percentage and proportion of religious groups

Existing

The dominant religion in Ukraine is Orthodox Christianity, which is currently split between three Church bodies: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous church body under the Patriarch of Moscow, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Change to:

The dominant religion in Ukraine is Orthodox Christianity, which is currently split between three Church bodies: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous church body under the Patriarch of Moscow, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

99.6.18.66 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for being so specific. Sai Weng (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Euromaidan pic introduced without context

I see that a photo of Euromaidan has been added to the "Independence" subsection in the "History" section.

While I haven't removed it for the moment, it doesn't make sense there without being given some form of context. I'd suggest that "Independence" should encompass only information on that subject alone and that, anything that doesn't fit into the broader sections of "Politics" and "Economy" should be given a further subsection within history as "Post Independence". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Trim

Now we've got a slightly shorter and, I think, better introduction. The article remains, in my opinion, WP:TOOLONG and can be much improved by careful application of WP:SUMMARY. The first section goes on and on about the origin of the name, to no good purpose that I can see. My guess is, its actual purpose is to defend the legitimacy of the country. However, attacking or defending anyone's legitimacy is not an important purpose of Wikipedia, so I think it can be trimmed to a single sentence, like the one in Simple:Ukraine but with an internal link to the article on that topic, and no header. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Much better. I'll see whether there's anything salvageable in the 'summary' here for the main article Name of Ukraine (although it is self-serving, I can check the references for WP:V & WP:RS). Unfortunately, the main entry ended up being developed as being uninformative and self-serving, then was recently mashed by a self-serving Russophile POV editor who's been blocked from editing Ukrainian articles for edit warring. Result = mainly unusable mess rife with weasel words, shoehorning, cherry picking and every other form of gaming the system. I've had intentions to do an encyclopaedic, well referenced 'from scratch' rewrite on the backburner for a couple of months. Sigh. Time to get it off the backburner and roll up my sleeves.

Considering that much of the content in this article does have a detailed corresponding main entry, you might want to cut and paste extraneous information into those main entry talk pages and ping me to let me know. In light of your having a good grasp as to how it ought to be presented, I suspect I'd be more effectively used in cleaning those entries than focussing on this article . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Much work to be done, and few ready to do it. As in many articles, we have had editors who are passionate for one side or another of controversies that are near and dear to them, which to us far away seem small. When they see something as unfair they react quickly, and assume that any way to victory for justice is justified. Fewer know or care about issues that make a good group of encyclopedic articles. As usual. A couple years ago another editor drew my attention to History of the United States Constitution and I did something rather drastic, swapping almost the entire article with the history section of the parental United States Constitution which had suffered from somewhat similar warfare. This created something of a mess, which over a few months was cleared up by several patient and non combatitive editors.

Our present article suffers a similar imbalance between the History section and the History article. However, I don't expect a similarly able and attentive crew to volunteer for cleanup efforts on a part of the world where few speak English, so smaller steps will probably be more successful. One way to prepare for such smaller steps is to align the sections of the History article with the subsections of the History section, with the intention of swapping when this creates a more favorable balance. This will require more careful reading, which has been difficult this week due to my Real Life interfering, but perhaps the remainder of the month will present fewer distractions. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It won't be that easy to align them as, even in cursory readings, I've discovered that many have evolved as almost disparate entries! Add to that the fact that I've also been discovering more than one variant on any given theme (much is flying under the radar by playing with WP:COMMON conventions and article splits over POV issues) and there's a major clean up ahead to contend with.

I'm labouring over some Hispanic and Latino articles that have fiddled over the last couple of months (i.e., outright falsification of information using legitimate sources), but will get back to working through these articles and aligning the info ASAP. I'm entirely at ease with long term projects: I've been led to believe that it was the tortoise who won the race.

If you encounter any sources in Ukrainian, Russian or Polish which need to be fact-checked and relevant section translated (I've encountered plenty that simply don't tally with the assertions being made), feel free to give me a yell or leave a cite check or cite translate tag. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit more comparing of this article with the History article and the SSR one has revealed that I overestimated the relevance of my proposal. The History section is not conspicuously bloated. Some details, I think, should be moved to the SSR article, from here and especially from the History article. I shall look more closely at the Economy, Military and other sections, seeking similar but greater opportunities to apply WP:SUMMARY. My goals do not include checking whether the material I am rearranging is a pack of lies supported by abuse of sources, as I completely lack the relevant languages and my knowledge of history here is skimpy, mostly popular accounts, especially dimly remembered Cold War propaganda in English from various sides. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it would be futile to attempt to cite check thoroughly. I've encountered numerous highly dubious interpretations of sources and could easily go through tagging every second instance. Considering the rapidity with which the article changes, it doesn't merit the headache. It'll be rife with POV WP:WEASEL and WP:OR (much of it hidden in misused sources) before you can blink. The best case scenario is keeping the bloat down. If readers are going to be misinformed, better that it be over with quickly. Apologies for sounding dismissive of an article... but, having read it in multiple forms, there's more guerilla warfare than substance going on here. I'd rather save my time and energy on articles not suffering from bipolar disorder. EDIT Being bipolar, I am entitled to toss the term into the mix gratuitously. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv naming issue

Yesterday I tried to change the outdated (Russian) spelling of the Ukraine's capital "Kiev" to the correct Ukrainian one - "Kyiv", and I see that the change I made yesterday has been reverted. I found this page with the discussion on the topic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming. The discussion has been closed and archived and I was wondering if it were possible to reopen it. The argument from the side opposing the change seems to be that "Kiev" is still a more commonly used name (despite the fact that all official US and Canadian documents now say "Kyiv"). To prove it they use the number of Google hits on either word. What they fail to understand is that a lot of people use Wikipedia to find the correct spelling of the word, so it ends up being a vicious cycle: the Wiki won't change the name until people start using the new one, and the people won't start using the new one until the Wiki changes it. Not to mention that Google underlines "Kyiv" as a grammatical error and corrects it to "Kiev" (I don't know whether this has anything to do with one of the Google founders being from Moscow). For a lot of Ukrainians it is important to set their country apart from Russia, which has dominated Ukraine for centuries both politically and culturally, as well as did everything possible (down to a direct ban) to suppress the Ukrainian language. Not to mention, that writing the name of the Ukrainian capital in English using Russian transliteration is downright offensive to those who have been trying to revive the Ukrainian culture and establish it as an independent entity. Independent specifically from Russia.

Thanks much, Valentine Azbelle. (born and raised in Kyiv) Azzzy (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly support "Kyiv" spelling. That's how it's pronounced in Ukrainian.

Same as it's the capital of Kazakhstan is written "Almaty", not as "Alma-Ata"(soviet variant)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaty

Thanks

Denys Zalizetskyy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.42.204 (talk • contribs)

I suggest starting discussion on Talk:Kiev specifically. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The word Kiev is a transliteration of the Russian pronunciation. Ukraine is not Russia. Russian is not the official language. The official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. The word Kyiv is a transliteration of the Ukrainian pronunciation. Kyiv is now used by the UN and many other official bodies as the correct name for the Ukrainian capital. In short, Ukraine is not a satellite, a region, an affiliate, or part of Russia, and most Ukrainians concur that the Russian spelling and transliteration is incorrect. Eastern parts of Ukraine, where much of the native population was removed and repopulated with Russian speakers by the Soviet government, is still primarily Russian speaking, and many in that area may disagree. Those who insist that changing the spelling is a crime against historical spelling: please remember that history is the past. Those who are reluctant to change, because it is the historical English spelling: please examine your privilege. Simply out of respect for Ukrainian citizens, their autonomy and their ideals, please use Kyiv, the proper name of the capital city of Ukraine. VeselkaInExile (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)VeselkaInExile

Please take this to Talk:Kiev/naming. There is a long, long, loooong talk page dedicated to the subject. Read all of the archived discussion and current discussion before you raise an issue that's been addressed dozens of times over. Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion on Kiev/naming (I cringe writing it that way) - I have a few points to make. But on the page it says the discussion is archived, do not modify. I would like to contest the decision. How do I do that? Azzzy (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Azzzy: I believe the best way is to start a new section saying something like "Kiev/Kyiv Naming Discussion Again" or something as descriptive. In your initial post, it would help your case if you (1) said you read the archived discussion and link to it, (2) lay out your arguments clearly and concisely as to why you feel it should be changed, (3) address anything that has changed since the last discussion, and (4) cite any Wikipedia policies that would bolster your argument. My guess is that people against the name change would point to WP:COMMONNAME, so you might want to read that and give a reason why you disagree with it. I've also see people be proactive and start subheaders for voting and discussion (e.g., File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/Archive_9#Why is Utah purple? by Info por favor and Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Public opinion map). Things that can help bolster your argument is if you know of any other pages that have been moved/renamed in a similar fashion (someone mentioned Almaty above) or if any official bodies (UN, governments, Red Cross, whatever) have changed their use of the name recently. Since Wikipedia is built on consensus, that's a good chance the page won't be moved. But your discussion may lead to some other changes in that direction. Other links to read: WP:DEM, WP:DR, WP:DISENGAGE, and WP:HORSE (last two because I've seen editors essentially sabotage their own efforts by fighting every comment made by users like Bruce Campbell in The Evil Dead). Best of luck. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir Thank you, very much, for the pointers - very helpful. I'll get to it tomorrow (if I have time). Making decisions based on consensus is wonderful but I wonder who are the people whose opinions go into the consensus? I.e. what qualifies them to make these decisions? Any of these people linguists or at least political scientists? And shouldn't all of them be well-versed in the subject? Just idle pondering, that's all. :) Thanks again. Azzzy (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, and that's where WP:DEM comes in. It's an odd balance. I think the problem is that the encyclopedia goes by what people best know something as, even if it's wrong. We call it "Japan", not "Nihon". Check out List of country names in various languages to see what I mean. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What you called the "outdated (Russian) spelling" is the English language name. Your objection is really that you do not like English people speaking their own language.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Toddy1. I've directed the newbie to the correct talk page and have pointed out that the latest round was quashed by the unequivocal, universal use of 'Kiev' in all reportage surrounding EuroMaidan... and that any refactoring of old arguments will be greeted as WP:SNOW. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is an exonym though. We should strive to balance WP:COMMONNAME with respect for endonyms and sovereignty. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, EvergreenFir. I fully acknowledge that you are acting in good faith, but I would urge you to go to the correct page and check through the discussions there. The exonym issue has been tackled over and over, i.e. "Saint Petersburg is still Saint Petersburg, not Sankt Peterburg; Moscow is still Moscow, not (Muskva); Germany is still Germany, not Deutchland; Greece is still Greece, not Ellas." Believe it or not, many of the participants there are Ukrainian and not 'phobes', 'philes', '-ification'/'-ization' advocates of any persuasion. There is more than one policy and guideline to be invoked... but the most salient of these is WP:COMMON, as in common sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Was just a thought really. I have no real position on this issue but WP:COMMON makes the most sense to me. I do find exonyms/endonyms fascinating though. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, EvergreenFir. I suspect that the talk pages are more illuminating and fascinating than the articles themselves. I'm engaged in a lengthy and long time discussion of the use of the definite article with a couple of editors. (Whoops, my syntax has taken on a life of its own!) For all the aggravation it can cause, Wikipedia is a marvellously engaging and rewarding experience. Finally, there's a place for every form of pedant in the world to find like-minded enthusiasts! Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan

Currently, 19-Feb-2014, the section, Euromaidan is vague in the use of English.

Second sentence:

"Demonstrations were caused by refusal to sign an association agreement with the EU, Yanukovych described it for Ukraine yet disadvantageous."

"described it for" has too many meanings. Perhaps, this was meant: "Demonstrations were caused by Yanukovych's refusal to sign an economic agreement with the EU which protesters supported but the President considered disadvantageous."

Fourth sentence:

"Violence escalated after 16 January 2014 when the government accepted Bondarenko-Oliynyk laws, also known as Anti-Protest Laws."

The word "accepted" is probably intending, "enacted."

I would make the changes if I knew enough of the subject to be certain my interpretation is correct.

--cregil (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Government

Obviously, the situation in Ukraine right now is both somewhat unclear and in rapid flux. We should monitor the situation and be ready to update the infobox when it becomes appropriate to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Violent Coup by Hard-right Extremist Thugs

But the general situation in Ukraine is now reasonably clear. Far from rhetoric about freedom-loving protesters, as presented on the main news outlets, these are nothing more than violent thugs that have been trained and funded by the outside interests. For when do 'peaceful' protesters use fire-bombs and firearms or beat up/shoot at the police? And despite their fantasy about non-violent protesters, how would the US government react if this happened in Washington? Instead of the term "Government", should not a heading reflect on the violent nature of yet another staged Color Revolt? 84.13.14.26 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Severe POV Issues -- current events.

Please read the orange revolution and euromaiden section carefully. There seem to be some POV issues. I already removed this paragraph: "While the above almost sounds like a natural hand-over of power - what really happened was far more brutal. Due to the violent nature of the 'protests', the elected Ukrainian President was forced out-of-power by a group of fascist thugs and bullies." There is more which should be fixed but I am treading lightly since I am editing with an IP. 68.202.71.233 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to change anything that is unmistakeably POV, 68.202.71.233, as it would have been added by a POV contributor... which is the antithesis of what Wikipedia stands for. Cheers for the observation! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am very pleased to see someone actively applying Wikipedia's version of sanity when a dull pleasant place becomes a focus of horrible, hopeful, interesting political news. My own reaction at such times is to run and hide. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I hate thinking about the longer-term outcome. I guess this is what happens when people are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The world's economic system is not a nice place. And then, of course, there are agenda-driven editors (see comment below) who are so blinded by their black and white rendering of the social order that they're incapable of reading a comment correctly and abuse someone who has made a rational edit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What you some of Russians and Soviet lovers want from the world? Stop this! Your time has expired. What do you want?! Another round of Communism-like system shove down the throat of the world?! Aren't you satisfied with the misery you brought to the world during 70 years?! If you didn't know already, you yourself are full of POV. Please come to your senses. Your Russian nationalism and Sochi Olympics is no use to the world. You proved yourselves already. As much as as you try, you are still backward, at least 70 years old. End! end of your time!-Raayen (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Stick to making it non POV and neutral. IMHO the pro West version is far more insidious i.e. is funding Right wing thugs and is to be taken out. SaintAviator (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AKA cherrypicking. Please see top of page. Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Size of Military

The article says:

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine continues to maintain the second-largest military in Europe, after that of Russia.

Second-largest by what measure? Various lists rank the Ukraine behind European states like the UK, France, and Germany in number of active personnel or military spending. If this "second-largest" is true at all, it needs clarification. —Naddy (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If you include the 1 million reserves, and other 'paramilitary' personnel, then it does have a larger number of personnel than all the other European states aside from Russia. Gabhala (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added a clarification and a citation from this article Gabhala (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Naddy. In total power Ukraine ranks lower than many 21st vs 6th for France. [5] SaintAviator (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem either way, it boils down to whether we decide to include reserves etc. or not - but we should in mind that political events within Ukraine will effect this information on a daily basis - e.g. the disbanding of the Berkut, just yesterday will affect this number (if they were counted, in the first place). I merely tried to provide context and a source for the statement in the article, but we should/need to be very careful when editing around something that is currently evolving. Thank you. Gabhala (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

. Good. What you say is true. There will be a need to be careful here as POV will be politcally motivated in some cases. SaintAviator talk 04:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)