Jump to content

Talk:Ukraine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Batfinkw (talk | contribs)
44 edits
Batfinkw (talk | contribs)
44 edits
moved Talk:Ukraine to Talk:CrapHole: official title
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[Talk:CrapHole]]
{{talkheader}}
{{LOCErequest}}
{{ArticleHistory
| action1 = GAN
| action1date = 21 December 2007
| action1link = Talk:Ukraine#GA Review
| action1result = failed
| action1oldid = 179455568
| action2 = GAN
| action2date = 26 January 2008
| action2link = Talk:Ukraine#GA Review
| action2result = listed
| action1oldid = 187111571
| currentstatus = GA
| topic = Geography
}}
{{WPB
|1={{WikiProject Ukraine|class=GA|importance=Top}}
|2={{WPCountries|class=GA|importance=Top}}
}}
{{WPCD|class=GA}}
{{V0.5|class=GA|category=Geography}}

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].

'''Previous discussions:'''

*[[Talk:Ukraine/Archive01|Archive 1 (20 Jul 2004 and 13 Dec 2004)]]:
*[[Talk:Ukraine/Archive02|Archive 2 (Jan 2005 to Dec 2006)]]:
<!--Remember to change "Foo" to the actual title of the article whose talk page you're archiving,
<!--and the DATEs to the real dates. Also, remember to check the [[Wikipedia:Namespace]]: e.g.,
<!--if [[User:Foo]] is archiving her User talk page, the link should be [[User talk:Foo/Archive01]].-->
<!--Then delete these four comment lines. -->

== Modern history - Kuchma's regime ==

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 [[Ukrainian presidential election, 2004|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.
[[User:Elefante bianco|Elefante bianco]] 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can edit an article.{{unsigned|Rebecca N K}}

Yeah Kuchma was not like Saddam Hussein. But he was really close))
[[User:Skazi|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
:While I personally supported these events, "Kuchma regime" is a wording that blatantly violates NPOV and cannot be used passingly. I am reverting you change. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll change 'regime' to 'government' ~ AndrewUofT

It's still misleading. Kuchma would not remain president regardless of the Orange Revolution. [[User:Sergivs-en|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.'' [[User:Sergivs-en|Sergivs-en]] 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

==Ethnic history==

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? [[User:Sca|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. [[User:RUReady2Testify|RUReady2Testify]] 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries ==

<div style="background-color:#e8f0ff;">On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries|Location Maps for European countries]] had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the ''European continent'', and for countries of the ''European Union'' exist in two versions. From [[November 16]], [[2006]] till [[January 31]], [[2007]], a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since [[January 1]], [[2007]] all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of [[February 4]], [[2007]] the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.<br/>As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before [[February 5]], [[2007]] a survey started that '''will be closed soon at [[February 20]], [[2007]] 23:59:59'''. It should establish two things:
*whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
*which new version ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Creator's comment on the whole long lasting discussion/New maps with and without EU-marking available|with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade]]) should be applied for which countries.
Please read the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries|discussion]] (also in other sections [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New maps for Middle East|α]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location maps (again)|β]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Middle East Maps|γ]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#A final solution for the entire maps issue?|δ]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Stop forcing map change|ε]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Gallery of different map formats|ζ]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Greece|η]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Comments from a dazzled Greek|θ]]) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Final survey|presentation of the currently open survey]]. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.<br/>There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote ''for'' one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — [[User:SomeHuman|SomeHuman]] <span style="font-size:.87em;">[[19 Feb]][[2007]] 00:19&nbsp;(UTC)</span></div>


== Photos ==

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/ . [[User:Astigmat|Astigmat]] 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

== Gap in the begining of the article ==

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? [[User:Counterstrike69|bogdan]] 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:It's a bug in the Portal template, which is protected. — [[User:Akhristov|Alex]]<sup>([[User_talk:Akhristov|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Akhristov|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Akhristov|E]])</sup> 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


== Etymology ==
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 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Username smk|Username smk]] ([[User talk:Username smk|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Username smk|contribs]]) 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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 {{cn}}.
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. [[User:Sergivs-en|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. [[User:Sergivs-en|Sergivs-en]] 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:Calling anyone neanderthal or xenophobe is borderline offensive and violating wiki policy, at best. Just MHO. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can any of you provide any real sort of justification for using "The Ukraine" besides your own personal preference? [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 11:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:I also question this (see below, "The" Ukraine), and empirically suggested the distinction being in reference to the geographic entity pre-[[1917]] (i.e. date of the country's independent period and subsequent developments of "[[Ukrainian SSR]]" and post-Soviet era "[[Ukraine]])." Leaving aside the '''''pre'''scriptive'' issue of [[English language|English usage]], I'd appreciate some guidance from the '''''de'''scriptive'' standpoint of editors familiar with texts in English about this region. ''-- Thanks, [[User:Deborahjay|Deborahjay]] 08:40, 26 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
[[User:andrewuoft|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. [[User:Sergivs-en|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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.242.102.250|194.242.102.250]] ([[User talk:194.242.102.250|talk]]) 15:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Lots of public domain images from Ukraine ==
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! [[User:TheQuandry|TheQuandry]] 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

==Oblasts==
The reason to change the section title comes directly from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries WikiProject Countries], which specifically says:
*''(Subdivisions) - Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possessions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country. The CIA World Factbook Maps could be used here, but other sources are available.''
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_Ukraine article], you can see it says:
*''English recommended (formal use): oblast''
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! :) [[User:Rarelibra|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? [[User:andrewuoft|andrewoft]] 9:29, 13 April 2007 (EST)''

:I don't quite understand - what point are you trying to make? The proper English name is Oblast. Period. Just like the proper English name for 2nd-level Polish admin units is powiat, the proper English name for Jordanian 2nd-level admin units is nahia, etc. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 13:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


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. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:Irpen - I disagree wholeheartedly. If you want to talk about the English speaking world, then a term like "canton" would be "exotic" - since it doesn't exist in an English speaking country. Oblast is only exotic to those ''unfamiliar'' with it and unwilling to learn more about a culture. Furthermore, Ukraine does not have three types of first-level national subdivisions - Oblasts is the primary type. Having an autonomous republic is a 'special mention' in the article section, as are provincial-level cities. Check the wikiproject defs again. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 18:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

::Furthermore, if you feel it should be named as according to what you want (and not what the guidelines of the wikiproject are)... call for a vote of consensus here on the talk page, and we'll see what the results produce. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:::For what it's worth, here are my two roubles. "Oblasts" in Ukraine are a type of administrative division. "Autonomous Republic" in Ukraine is a type of administrative division. "Cities with special status" in Ukraine are a type of administrative division. Taken together, they are... "administrative division<u>s</u>" of Ukraine! This title takes care of all types, not to mention that the main article is located at [[administrative divisions of Ukraine]].
:::Now, if Ukraine ''only'' had oblasts, then using "oblasts" for section titles (and "oblasts of Ukraine" as the title of the main article) would have made perfect sense. Since it's not the case, using "oblasts" overly simplifies the title for no good reason.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Just remember that titles of articles have been moved/changed due to the needs... I've seen titles go from "Administrative divisions" to "Subdivisions" and vice versa. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 18:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I know. Such changes, however, were not done via revert wars, but through discussion. I'd really hate to have to protect such a high-profile article just because you folks can't agree on a title of a minor section.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); 18:56, 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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&diff=122549331&oldid=122548601] 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, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:I won't touch accusations of trolling, however, I am not the only one. Do what you need to do, I have said my say. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

==The definite article==
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 [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|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. [[User:Greenshed|Greenshed]] 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:How is mine POV? If I have to re-post every "authoritarian" sources in each section than I will do so:
:The following are style guides for popular publications on how to properly address the country:
:http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805717
:http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184825,00.html
:And finally this is how the Government refers to itself in English:
:http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en
:I don't know what other "authoritarian" sources would convince everyone what the proper usage would be, but let me know and I will go and find it. Otherwise please refrain from using the defense "There is no higher source I won't accept" or the even more ridiculous "I should be able to call it what I feel like".
:Also ''it would need to be shown that virtually all relevant authorities on English usage agreed on this point (which I very much doubt)'' which I challenge you to prove otherwise![[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

==Economy==

People are putting fake information about the Ukraine GDP, its really getting annoying.

== "The" Ukraine ==
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 language|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 [[Ukrainian SSR|Soviet Socialist Republic]]. Would this be correct, or not? ''-- Thanks, [[User:Deborahjay|Deborahjay]] 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)''
:Well after the fall of the Soviet Union, the definite article was dropped and is more common that use with "the." Major media resources like [[BBC]] use Ukraine without "the." But here, we follow established usage in English language, which is now without "the," although some users still prefer to use it. I for one do not use "the Ukraine," and even to some, this usage may considered as offensive. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::In your reply, did you intend that the definite article was dropped at that point, ''even'' in referring to the area pre-independence (which is my case in point)? ''-- [[User:Deborahjay|Deborahjay]] 08:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)''
::I came here with the same issues, but after reviewing recent articles on the BBC site, I would concur with dropping the definite article. While Irpen (below) is correct that "there is no final authority that defines what's 'correct' in English," I think the BBC is probably as close to an authority on ''accepted usage'' as we're likely to get. - [[User:Elmarco|Mark Dixon]] 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

:I also do not use ''the'' Ukraine. Point is that despite more and more of the major English media dropped the article, some still use it. That makes both forms necessary to mention with the note that one is becoming rare. However, since there is no final authority that defines what's "correct" in English, we should not make such judgment either. We simply mention that the "the" usage is gradually falling out but continues to be used. That Ukrainian authorities consider such usage incorrect should be referenced, if mentioned, but this is not an ultimate truth wrt to the "correctness" of English usage as the UA authorities are not entitles to regulate the English language. They are not entitled to regulate the Ukrainian language even, although the latter, unlike English, does have the regulating body. Such body, however, is not the Ukrainian government but the proper branch of the [[National Academy of Science of Ukraine]]. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:48, 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:
: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
''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. --[[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:The omission of the "the" before "Ukraine" is actually to do with Russian grammar. In Russian there are no definite or indefinite articles ("the" or "a"), but there are two forms of the preposition "in" - "В" and "На". In geography "В" is generally (but not always) used when referring to nations, whereas "На" usually refers to natural regions. Thus, when translating Russian to English "B" is rendered "in" and "На" "in the" - i.e. "в России" = "in Russia", "на Урале" = "in the Urals".

:However, when referring to Ukraine, Russians traditionally use "На". After independence in 1991 some Ukrainians started to take offence at this, since - they felt - this implies that Ukraine is not a sovereign state deserving a "В", but still just a province of a "greater Russia". Since Ukraine ''is'' a soveregn state, it's probably NPOV to accept their interpretation of the language and omit the "the".[[User:Glensky8665|Glensky8665]] 11:29, 16 June 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. [[User:142.68.44.16|142.68.44.16]] 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Then they would have came from the Central Rada, the Hetmanate, the Directorate, the Ukrainian People's Republic or the West Ukrainian People's Republic. Either way it's deprecated usage that originally contained "the". Regardless people usually refer to it in its present form (much like Beijing is now used instead of Peking) and proper English declares it without 'the'. [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 8:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:All,
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.

[[User:Bejmark|Bejmark]] 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)bejmark
Clarified and expanded 26 Nov 2007 by the same author.

:Just to re-iterate also being a native Ukrainian and English speaker I'm going to poke some holes in your statements :) I don't know why we keep going over this topic, but the rules for using the article "The" are posted at http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html

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

:Your confusion regarding using the article with bridges vs. Universities vs. Colleges is unfortunately just the result of poor grammar.

:Also the [[United Kingdom]] is not just England/Britain. Rather it is made up of [[Britain]] and [[Northern Ireland]]. As well the [[Union of South Africa]] because it comprised of the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free States. Their combination warrants the use of the article "the" as per the rule I posted. Also [[The Netherlands]] is actually an archaic term, referring to the period 1581 to 1795 when the Dutch republic was a loose confederation of seven provinces and [[The Philippines]] is compromised of three island groups : Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Therefore my assertion is still very much correct :)

:[[The South]], [[the Midwest]], [[the Middle East]] and [[the Bible Belt]] all refer to regions that are a collection of US States or countries so my assertion is still holding strong! [[French Canada]] does not denote a region, rather all francophones in Canada, whether or not they live in communities with significant francophone populations. [[New England]] while now considered a region in the North East US was originally a US colony but no longer exists.

:All-in-all I think you missed the main conclusion of why the article has stuck around:
The same view was surely held by western Europeans vis-a-vis Ukraine, where its status was viewed though a Russian lens.

[[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

::Your speculations about the "Russian lens" vs "Western Europeans" are interesting and all, but they are irrelevant. "The" was used for a long time and now the usage without the definite article is becoming more common. Thus, we are talking not "correct" vs "incorrect" but "traditionally used" vs "currently more commonly used". While style manuals of more and more media explicitly mention the absence of "the", plenty of usage with "the" in solidly mainstream media still persists to this day. You can still find plenty of "the Ukraine" if you search the news. [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22The+Ukraine%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn Check for yourself]. Who are we to tell the professional writers at [[CNN Money]], [[Jerusalem Post]], [[Wired News]], etc. that they are "incorrect". We are talking style manuals here and style manuals only. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:::By 'Traditionally' do you mean pre-independence when the country was a state called the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic? Or even earlier in the days of the Ukrainian People's Republic, the West Ukrainian People's Republic and the Hetmanate? These require the article 'the', but Ukraine in its current form does not as required by the RULES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! It is the absolute and final authority in the matter. The style guides reflect this so hopefully some media would write their articles properly, but not all publications are of the same quality. Are those authors you linked to incorrect in their writings? Yes! The clearest evidence is how any Ukrainian government website refers to itself as. [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

=== "The" Ukraine (section break)===
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. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:That's funny, I accuse you of the same thing. The only difference is that with my argument I provide a [http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html *definition* of proper usage] as per the rules of the English language which is irrefutable, along with some examples. You on the other hand provide few examples (them being your news articles) but yet no clear definition of where the article is appropriate. I don't think you'll find anywhere where I apply my assertion or opinion, they are all cited by the rules of the English language which is quite straight forward but you fail to grasp (I assume your English is not very good). You on the other hand only provide your opinion backed up with a few erroneous examples, with no clear definition on why you are incorrect with the exception of your assertion lacking any real proof. [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::I do not find myself in a position to make statements based on my own understanding of the rules of the English language. Neither I find you in such position. We can simply check facts and facts suggest that usage of "Ukraine" without "the" has become much more common than it was 10 years ago (Ukraine was already independent back then, btw) but still common enough. Wikipedia users are not entitled to argue with professional writers. We can only present facts. "The Ukraine", along with "[[The Gambia]]" are one of the common variants of writing the country's name. "Ukraine" is now more common. This is the fact and the article should relay the fact to the readers. We stick to facts and keep opinions about what's "correct" out. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::: You speak of these facts, yet you haven't provided them - where is your cited information? This all your POV and opinion until you can prove otherwise. Also why do you assume Wikipedia users cannot be professional writers (although I think you mean journalists here)? As well those professionals do not dictate proper grammar, they reference the ultimate authority: the rules of the English language and yes they are capable of making mistakes just like you and me. [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Where is my cited information? Check the combination "The Ukraine" at any media indexing sites. Google News is one. I am not inserting my "POV and opinion" at all. In fact, I have no opinion on which one is correct. You do and you are trying to insert it into an article. I simply want the article to stick to facts and keep the opinions out. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::And what exactly does that Google search prove, that usage with the article has declined and without has increased? Why didn't you make this a reference when you edited the etymology as your proof? [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::The [[Google News]] (not just Google) because the former is more up to date with what's being used ''now'', as well as ''[[Lexis Nexis]]'', shows exactly that. That the usage without the definitive article is becoming more common than the usage with the article. LN is even better in this respect because it allows to restrict search to a specific range of dates, say for 1998, 1998,..., 2005, 2006 and 2007. These searches allow to establish the relative commonality. These are facts and this is all that has to be stated. Your (or my) opinion on what is correct does not belong to the article. Stick to facts please and keep your POV out of this. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::: These are great websites, but you have to provide any actual proof. If you don't submit a citation to your information, it is still your opinion. Furthermore its correctness (dropping the article) is obviously be the explanation as to why usage has changed so it is quite relevant. Finally please stop referring to my argument as my opinion. I, unlike many others who contributed to this discussion did not post any opinion on the matter (and I challenge you to point it out), rather just referenced English grammar. There is quite the difference, and none of my arguments have yet to be disproven. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Andrewuoft|Andrewuoft]] ([[User talk:Andrewuoft|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Andrewuoft|contribs]]) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

:From [[The Gambia]]:
The Gambia, officially the Republic of The Gambia, commonly known as Gambia, is a country in Western Africa.
:As we can see the article is required, as it is not in Ukraine (and the Wikipedia page reflects that). Please provide me with your proof, I would be more than delighted to read it. Furthermore I merely referenced correct English grammar, even though I have posted it already a few times I will do it once more just to be clear:
:From [[English Works! When to use | http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html]]
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
:Please let me know if you draw a different conclusion from mine after reading that. The relevance of "correct" vs. "incorrect" is actually the cause of one usage being more common than the other, that is its relevance! Lastly I did reference the line I added, I would appreciate it if you stop spreading lies. My conclusion is not my opinion, rather it is fact as justified above and is clearly referenced. [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 06:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

::Your conclusion is not and cannot be "fact". It remains your conclusion and nothing but it. I have no intention to "draw" any "conclusions" on my own, different from yours or the same. Mine or your conclusions do not belong to the article as presented in the form of some sort of ultimate truth. We are not entitled to make conclusions. We present facts about usage. Also, please do not repeat yourself and waste space and time. I've read what you said about the Netherlans and Great Britain from the first time. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh yes we're playing the 'everything's subjective' card again. Why don't we throw out all the rules of the English language than, they mean nothing because any and all usage is only our mere opinion! I don't point out the rules for your approval, just to see your basic knowledge of the language. If the grammatical rules of the English language are outside your understanding, please refrain from editing the English version of Wikipedia for it's integrity's sake. [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Hey! I found your statement to be offensive - the one where you told Irpen that "''if the grammatical rules of the English language are outside your understanding, refrain from editing the English version''"? Who the hell are you? And if you're going to pull the "grammatical rules of the English language" card, you should try to apply them in the same paragraph (e.g. improper usage of ''than'' when ''then'' is intended).

::::That being said, I don't buy Irpen's "traditional" phrase (that's like saying "black people traditionally have been slaves, but currently they are free". And the CNN News reference from google search Irpen provided above, falls apart when results are analyzed. The majority of the article on [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/18/ukraine.election/?iref=mpstoryview Tymoshenko] uses "Ukraine" without "the". The image caption uses it, but that may be already provided by "GettyImages" and CNN cannot be faulted for mistakes of third-party image providers. The article summary also uses "the Ukraine", but in that context that usage is acceptable - "The Ukraine's parliament..."

::::In the same search result from google, CNN Money had a story on [http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NYTU01918122007-1.htm KyivStar]. It also appeared as if CNN money uses "the Ukraine", but it really does not. The article is a press release, and mixes correct English language usage with incorrect. It was not a CNN Money authored article. CNN Money is only a platform, and that does not make the content representative of correct English (even though CNN, just like BBC, can usually be counted on that criteria).--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:The real absurdity is that even though my additions are well referenced they are quickly dismissed as my opinion without any real evidence, even for trivial things like English language usage. While Irpen can contribute uncited opinions based on his personal experiences and feelings, trying to convince us it's fact. The fact that those grammar rules were dismissed because Ukraine wasn't explicitly mentioned (along with the hundreds of other countries) really signals a problem with the ability of some people to use the English language properly (are you arguing the name Ukraine is plural or indicates a group of states, islands, etc.?). Since this entry is written in English there is some cause for concern. I apologize [[Riurik]] if you are offended by that but the integrity of the article is at stake, also I will try and not write so hastily in the discussion area. Despite what some non-native English speakers might think, the English language is not based on precedent and actually does follow rules. The "correctness" of usage is a crucial part of its etymology because it is the reason why usage without the article is predominant, that's why it belongs in that section.[[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 5:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

::Irpen, I agree that Wikipedia users should not engage in original research and pose as grammar judges. However, if their claims are based on authoritative secondary sources, and not their mere opinion, it is a different story. I do recognize that some mainstream sources use the definitive article, yet as my examples above have shown, sometimes the mainstream sources are simple transmitters of messages by not so mainstream authors (the press release case).

::I could also relate to a similar experience with linguists and English experts with graduate education. When asked about the relationship between "the" and "Ukraine", very few had a ready, substantiated answer. I think the reason for this is that most people just do not care, whether there is a "the" in front of Ukraine or not. We do though, and so do the editors at the leading publishing institutions. They, as we know from experience, do not use "the" before "Ukraine". Why? I would venture to suggest that it is because those editors follow the rules of English grammar (and sometimes custom if there are no rules for a specific case).

::Rather than saying "traditionally", I suggest we use earlier formulation (e.g. "in the past...today usage w/o "the" is more prevailing" or something along these lines).

::Andrewuoft, I appreciate your dedication to the English language and Ukraine, and I hope that we all resolve this disagreement from now on with respect, even if this is not something that is given back in return. Regards, --[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

=== disputed section ===

What exactly is disputed? I think "''In [[English language|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. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:I disagree with "sometimes" because it is an understatement. How about "often" as a compromise between "sometimes" and "traditionally". But I would not have tagged a section because of this point alone. My main gripe is with andrewuoft's persistence insertion of the fantasy that "the Ukraine" was used "as short form for the Ukrainian SSR". He is inserting it three times already. I am not going to revert war with him but this nonsense cannot remain in the section. For now, I tagged it to avoid revert warring that would pollute the article's history. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Either ''was referred to'' or ''was often referred to'' would work.--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Fine by me but someone has got to do something about andrewoft's aggressive revert-warring. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::I would say that if [[Irpin]] is going to persist his usage of the article is (or was) frequent than some indication should be made that this would have only been true in the past (which I tried to add) and I think that's quite evident with styleguides and such and my comparison of Google queries [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Ukraine%22 with] and [http://www.google.com/search?q=Ukraine without] the article which shows 'with' usage is less than 1%.
::Now, 'The Ukraine' as short for the [[Ukrainian SSR]] is self-evident. What exactly are you trying to argue here, that pre-Independence Ukraine was not officially titled the [[Ukrainian SSR]] as a state in the Soviet Union? That 'The Ukraine' does not refer to the area of the [[Ukrainian SSR]]?
::From the [[Ukrainian SSR]] page here on Wikipedia:
The Ukrainian SSR was renamed Ukraine on August 24, 1991
::So I'm not sure what fantasy this is, because it's all layed out very clearly. I already know that some people here will require a more authoritative source, with an explicit entry defining it's usage. And even if that were produced, it's authority would be challenged and they'd require a higher authority, and higher, and higher, etc. Of course some can get away with adding whatever they like based on what they feel like, or fictitious conversations and scenarios that they try to pass off as 'fact'. [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I will just respond to this:
:''"Now, 'The Ukraine' as short for the [[Ukrainian SSR]] is self-evident. What exactly are you trying to argue here, that pre-Independence Ukraine was not officially titled the [[Ukrainian SSR]] as a state in the Soviet Union?"''
Self-evident to [[user:andrewoft]] is not enough to be considered [[WP:V|verifiable]]. Nor personal opinions by [[user:andrewoft]] posted to the talk page qualifies as a [[WP:RS|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. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

;update
I am fine with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&diff=179327712&oldid=179307618 this] version and agree with the removal of the tag. Thanks Ostap. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:I agree "Ukraine" was not always synonymous with UkrSSR depending on how far back in time you go, and these other states should as well be noted (and they all required the article 'The' as they were apart of their names). The reverted etymology is insufficient because it fails to determine what exactly "The Ukraine" is referring to, anyone who reads the article will be stumped in trying to find this country called "The Ukraine" prior to 1991.
:Furthermore [[user:Iprin]]'s explanation is only evidenced by fictitious conversations with "experts", and has determined himself to be the highest authority as in any explanation he does not provide or understand is only mere opinion or speculation. [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 14:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

== External link proposal ==

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. [[User:Panex|Panex]] 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


:Hi! If nobody says anything I'll put the link in a couple of days. Thanks. [[User:Panex|Panex]] 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'm against. It looks like some private web-site and with rather unusual content, not for encyclopedia to broadcast.--[[User:Sylius|Sylius]] 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'm with Sylius. This is definatly a private web-site. [[User:Counterstrike69|Bogdan]] 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Is to be a private website a problem? There is plenty of private websites in Wikipedia. In my opinion we should see if the link offers some extra information about the country. If most of the people think the content is not interesting for the article and want to revert it, go ahead. Thanks for discuss before revert. [[User:Panex|Panex]] 08:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: It's obviously not an academic style web-site, has some unusual pictures of statues of Lenin and average people walking around on the streets. We might as well provide a link to some 13 year olds homepage with several pictures of his garden in Ukraine. --[[User:Sylius|Sylius]] 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: If people think that way, feel free to revert the link, no problem. I precisely found it interesting because shows average people and not "VIP" and may be is closer to the impression you would get being there. The view of some 13 y.o. from his garden could be ineresting too. ;-) Feel free to revert the link, really! [[User:Panex|Panex]] 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

== Modern history ==
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. --[[User:24.185.5.42|24.185.5.42]] 06:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Does anyone object moving all of this:

"''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.

== ''Main article'' pointers ==

There were several misguided uses of the [[Template:Main|{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. —[[User:johndburger|johndburger]] 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

== Language issue ==

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:) [[User:Aleksandr Grigoryev|Aleksandr Grigoryev]] 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

==Deletion vote==
Please see the deletion vote at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans]]. [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

== Deletion discussion ==

==Deletion discussion==
See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian Americans]]. [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

== Those vandals... ==

I've noticed a very much increased amount of vandalism on this page, what would it take to get it semi-protected? Regards, [[User:Counterstrike69|Bogdan]] 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


==User:Miyokan's contributions==
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.

== Ukraine vs. The Ukraine ==

I believe that in the English language the proper usage is "the Ukraine." In particulat, we have
*"''the'' United States"; but not
*"''the'' France."
More particularly, we would not say,
**"I want to live in ''the'' France."
But like saying, "I wany to live in ''the'' United States" we should say, "I want to live in ''the'' Ukrain."
:Any opinions on the use of the [[article]] with "Ukraine"?
:[[Yours truly]], --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
----
* I found the following reference: [http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ukraine.html].
:But the grammatical question is not answered. Although the country's official name is simply "Ukraine,"
the English usage "I want to live in Ukraine" does not sound proper English. --[[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::But thats how the government decided, so we shouldn't change it just because we think it is more proper to say ''the Ukraine'' instead of Ukraine.[[User:Ceriy|Ceriy]] 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::No, look in the article under [[Ukraine#Name_etymology]]. United States is plural, hence the article. Ukraine is not. There is no grammatical reason to have the article, and because you think it sounds improper is not a reason. It is improper and rarely used. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 18:36, 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 [[User:Andrewuoft|Andrewuoft]] 1:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:That's right! The Hague also does not seem as proper English, but that's the name so that is how you accept it. [[User:Aleksandr Grigoryev|Aleksandr Grigoryev]] ([[User talk:Aleksandr Grigoryev|talk]]) 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::That's a nice try, but The Hague is a city, not a country. Its rules are different in the [http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html English language] [[User:andrewuoft|andrewuoft]] 14:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

== Demographics crisis ==
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.--[[User:Miyokan|Miyokan]] 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:I agree - more Demographic information! It lost millions in World War II! - that should be interesting and notable--[[User:Dwarf Kirlston|Dwarf Kirlston]] 15:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== Koroliwka ==

[[Jacob Frank]] is believed to have been born in [[Koroliwka]], Podolia (Ukraine) about 1726. Can anyone provide a current name for this locality? __[[User:Meco|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 [[Special:Contributions/208.66.211.68|208.66.211.68]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Aleksandr Grigoryev|Aleksandr Grigoryev]] ([[User talk:Aleksandr Grigoryev|talk]]) 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

== Citation needed templates ==

Miyokan, I know you want sources, but your recent adding of around twenty <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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: [http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/major.religions/] and [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90205.htm]. 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, [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
:Miyokan is clearly abusing the fact template (diff: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&diff=171615800&oldid=171614891]). The statistical data are coming from the [http://web.archive.org/web/20050528085728/www.derzhkomrelig.gov.ua/stat_zvit.html State Department of Ukraine on Religious]. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Greggerr|Greggerr]] ([[User talk:Greggerr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Greggerr|contribs]]) 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== World War II ==

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, <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 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? <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know where the mentioned number came from, but there is a section "Втрати народу України" at http://www.peremoga.gov.ua/ with a lot of useful info. Alternatively, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published a memorandum "Українці під час другої світової війни" summarizing that "приблизно 7.5 мільйонів українців загинуло під час другої світової війни в наслідок репресій нацистів та совєтів". <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Greggerr|Greggerr]] ([[User talk:Greggerr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Greggerr|contribs]]) 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Thank you Greger, that link shall be quite useful. Cheers, <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== Russian? ==

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. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] ([[User talk:Ostap R|talk]]) 07:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know. I feel somewhat compelled to object but your rational seems logical. If we look at it from an Anglophone’s point of view, I guess the fact that Russian is incredibly widely spoken doesn't concern them. A remove would seem reasonable to me, but lets not do anything just yet, give the discussion some time first. Regards, <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 08:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:: I agree, Russian is not official language in the country so it should be removed. --[[User:MaksKhomenko|-MaksKhomenko]] ([[User talk:MaksKhomenko|talk]]) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Hey, three editors agreeing isn't too bad. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] ([[User talk:Ostap R|talk]]) 21:33, 29 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, <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

::::From [[WP:NCGN]]: quote:''Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages'':)--[[User:Miyokan|Miyokan]] ([[User talk:Miyokan|talk]]) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::And this is exactly why the Russian name should not be listed. In English language, neither ''Украина'' nor ''Ukraina'' is relevant. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Greggerr|Greggerr]] ([[User talk:Greggerr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Greggerr|contribs]]) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:GET RID OF IT! You got my vote as well. Russian was the language of RSFSR and USSR. Since none of the entities exist and only the Russian Federation considers the Russian language as of own, no point to use it even as the mediation language. And if I may be sincere, I'm sick of this language issue and any discussion should be ommited. Please! [[User:Aleksandr Grigoryev|Aleksandr Grigoryev]] ([[User talk:Aleksandr Grigoryev|talk]]) 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:: Russian is the language of ordinary people and, particularly, most of people in Ukraine. Taking into account that Wikipedia is not controlled by any state, government or official and the fact that Russian is the most wide spread language in Ukraine, it does make sense to mention how Ukraine is written in Russian. The above arguments against Russian do not make sense because Wikipedia is made for people - not for officials and for Ukrainian state. Removing Russian is the same as saying that Kurdish does not exist in Iraq because [[Saddam Hussein]] is not Kurd :) Russians and Ukrainians are two major groups of population and it does not matter what is the official language just as we do not care if Kurds are recognized by Saddam or not. Ukraine is objectively two-language country. Notice also that Russian is going to be accepted as the state language soon as part of democratic reforms and transfer to confederation. So let’s make Wikipedia for real people and not for official propaganda (anti-Russian propaganda in this case). [[User:Techno.modus|Techno.modus]] ([[User talk:Techno.modus|talk]]) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Russian is not going to be a state language, and it is not the language of the ordinary people in Ukraine. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 15:12, 31 January 2008 (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 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.112.130.129|216.112.130.129]] ([[User talk:216.112.130.129|talk]]) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:GET RID OF IT! Unless I am mistaken it violates the criteria for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Countries_by_language the category] [[User:Andrewuoft|Andrewuoft]] ([[User talk:Andrewuoft|talk]]) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

== The ridiculing line needs to be removed ==

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. [[Special:Contributions/24.5.244.244|24.5.244.244]] ([[User talk:24.5.244.244|talk]]) 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)A.Pilipenko
:That particular phrase was introduced [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=161720796 here]. It should probably be reverted. [[User:Alfons Åberg|Alfons Åberg]] ([[User talk:Alfons Åberg|talk]]) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

== athletes ==

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? [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] ([[User talk:Ostap R|talk]]) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
:The whole statement just sounds awkward to me. It goes without saying that Ukrainian athletes won medals for the USSR, and is somewhat meaningless without contrast. How about we replace it with something like, "Although many athletes who represented and won medals for the Soviet Union were Ukrainians, all the Soviet achievements were credited to Russia"? Regards , <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

==GAN==
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk||{{error:not substituted|GAList}}<div style="display:none;">}}
:'''[[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|GA]] review''' (see [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|here]] for criteria)
{{#if:This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.|<hr width=50%>This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.|}}
#It is '''reasonably well written'''.
#:a ''(prose)'': {{GAList/check|nay}} b ''([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]])'': {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:Lead introduces Ukraine history and identification very well, but not the other sections at all.
*Grammar: More than 600,000 Soviet soldiers (or one quarter of the Western Front) were killed or takes captive. Should be taken not takes.
*churhes-->churches
*Are these types of words true to dictionaries? enserfment, Russification, Ukrainization, Korenization, Polonization, unfree .
*The first time abbreviations are used, they should be spelled out in full, like USSR, SFSR, SSR, UEFA, FIFO.
*Nomenklatura should maybe be nomenclature in english, unless it is the name of a party.
*Capitalize Mediterranean|Lead introduces Ukraine history and identification very well, but not the other sections at all.
*Grammar: More than 600,000 Soviet soldiers (or one quarter of the Western Front) were killed or takes captive. Should be taken not takes.
*churhes-->churches
*Are these types of words true to dictionaries? enserfment, Russification, Ukrainization, Korenization, Polonization, unfree .
*The first time abbreviations are used, they should be spelled out in full, like USSR, SFSR, SSR, UEFA, FIFO.
*Nomenklatura should maybe be nomenclature in english, unless it is the name of a party.
*Capitalize Mediterranean|}}
#It is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''.
#:a ''(references)'': {{GAList/check|nay}} b ''(citations to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]])'': {{GAList/check|nay}} c ''([[Wikipedia:No original research|OR]])'': {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:Submitted to GAN with error tag for citing sources. As well randomly checking sources gives unaccessible URL links for citation 42 and 52|Submitted to GAN with error tag for citing sources. As well randomly checking sources gives unaccessible URL links for citation 42 and 52|}}
#It is '''broad in its coverage'''.
#:a ''(major aspects)'': {{GAList/check|??}} b ''(focused)'': {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:{{{3com|}}}|{{{3com}}}|}}
#It follows the '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy'''.
#:''Fair representation without bias'': {{GAList/check|yes}}
#:: {{#if:{{{4com|}}}|{{{4com}}}|}}
#It is '''stable'''.
#:''No edit wars etc.'': {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:{{{5com|}}}|{{{5com}}}|}}
#It is illustrated by '''[[Wikipedia:Images|images]]''', where possible and appropriate.
#:a ''(images are tagged and non-free images have [[Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Use_rationale|fair use rationales]])'': {{GAList/check|nay}} b ''(appropriate use with [[WP:CAP|suitable captions]])'': {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:The fair use rationale for photo Chernobyl reactor number four after the disaster is not stated|The fair use rationale for photo Chernobyl reactor number four after the disaster is not stated|}}
#'''Overall''':
#:''Pass/Fail'': {{GAList/check|nay}}
#:: {{#if:Good luck improving the article|Good luck improving the article|}}<!-- Template:GAList --></div>
*Needs a reviewer to double check broad in coverage who is very familiar with Ukraine history.
*Grammar and spelling again:
*This is a sentence fragment -''In particular, in Ukrainian krayina means simply "country"'' consider revising.
*Capitalise pentecostals and cossacks
*Lviv Teological Seminary should this be Lviv Theological Seminary?
*Other groups include Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, Seventh-day Adventists. should have ''Other groups include Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, and Seventh-day Adventists.''
*Change grammar to ''a sign of improvement, as the birth rate has''
[[User:SriMesh|SriMesh]] | [[User talk:SriMesh|<small>talk</small>]] 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

==Photo links==

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. ([[User:Rick DeLong|Rick DeLong]] ([[User talk:Rick DeLong|talk]]) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

:Feel free to select the best ones and upload to [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Commons] under a free license. It would be great to increase the collection of freely available images.--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

==Further reading==
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 (historian)|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. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:Well, the list is mostly based on Ostap's userpage. I figured, many other countries have these sort of section, so why not Ukraine. When in comes to non-historic literature, what do you think of [http://books.google.ca/books?id=Kpgd8Rz_ZasC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ukraine+Since+the+Orange+Revolution:+A+Business+and+Investment+Review&sig=YDHHr3WtwCk8C8Sfj1MwmPOqEOU this], Irpen? It is an investment review on Ukraine, I find it a little short though. Regards, <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

==GA Review==
The article unfortunately does not meet the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article criteria]] at the present time. The grammar and prose is very choppy at times, and the whole article could use a very thorough copyedit. There are lots of sentences that could use commas placed, lots of places missing articles (a/an/the; and yes, I do recognize that 'Ukraine' should not have an article before it, but there are LOTS of other areas where they are missing). The lead section is very choppy, and contains some very awkward phrasing. Watch out for flowery language like, 'The historic city of Kiev' -- I think lots of cities are 'historic', and you really just have to state that, 'the country's capital is Kiev.' The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead also seems to run-on quite a bit, and could be
broken up. Please see [[WP:LEAD]] for tips on forming a good, well-written, introductory section.

I would recommend moving the 'name etymology' section that's currently under 'culture' to its own main section, and put it right at the beginning before 'history'. This is quite important, and general information about the naming would be sought after by readers early on.

I think the history section covers the history of the nation quite well, and appears to be complete. It seems quite well-cited, but the overall section could really use a copyedit by a good, english-speaking editor, to clean up some rough spots (no offense or anything, but some of it does look like it was written by a non-native english speaker). Also, in the second-to-last paragraph under 'recent history', what does the Yuschenko/orange revolution part have to do with the pop singer? The paragraph starts talking about the politics aspects, and then goes into some pop culture stuff with really no transition, which is really weird.

More sources needed in the 'government and politics' section. This sentence: 'However, the amendments happened to be far from perfect and have created a great opportunity for potential conflicts between the president on one side and the parliamentary coalition on the other.' sounds like an [[WP:NPOV]] issue -- there's no source, and it sounds like someone's opinion rather than fact. This is a red flag at GA.

Move the military section into the government section as its own subsection. It's related, and should at least be closer to the government info.

The 'administrative divisions' section is very short. With the large picture to the right, it might help to actually list all of the oblasts/territories below, to take up some space so that the photo doesn't overlap. I'd also put it as a subsection under government, instead of in its own main section.

The 'geography' section needs more information and statistics on climate. There's also an [[WP:NPOV]] issue with the following sentence: 'According to some, the geographical center of Europe lies in Ukraine,...' - I'm sure residents of the Ukraine would love to see their country as the center of Europe, but if this is the case, it needs a source.

The photos at the right of the 'economy' section don't seem to match up with the text, and are just there, almost as an assortment of interesting images. Try and see if you can get the text to refer better to the images, and to have it be a little bit more cohesive. The section seems reasonably good, though. You might want to start off with some basic economic statistics like GDP and rankings, etc, instead of having them appear down in the fourth or fifth paragraph below.

You might want to move some of the language information from demographics into a subsection entitled 'language' under 'culture'. It seems like it might fit better there? The demographics section is getting a bit long. I would move the 'religion' section to fall right after 'demographics' as well. It seems like it's related, and could benefit by being closer.

Not sure what the purpose of the 'international rankings' section is. It's just a table, and the data and rankings have no sources. I think it would be better to nuke this whole section altogether and integrate the pertinent rankings into appropriate parts of the text. Any rankings that are included in the article need to be cited.

There are no sections in this article on education, infrastructure (water supply, electricity, healthcare, etc), or transportation. This should be added to satisfy the completeness criterion of the GA criteria.

Images all appear to have appropriate copyright tags, and they appear to be appropriately and usefully used, with the exception of the overuse in the economy section. There is one potential issue with Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry - no watermark.jpg, as it appears to have a 'deletion' tag on it that editors might want to address.

I think that the article in its present state is a good, solid '''B-class'''. Can't really say it's "close" to GA, which is why I'm not putting it on hold. I think there are some significant issues with the grammar and language, as well as the [[WP:NPOV]] and completeness issues, which absolutely must be addressed prior to GA status. I hope this helps editors improve the article. Good luck! [[User:Derek.cashman|Dr. Cash]] ([[User talk:Derek.cashman|talk]]) 21:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:Most of the minor issues remaining were copyediting, and were easier to fix myself. The article now meets the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article criteria]], and will be listed. Good work!

:There's still one minor issue. Please look at the references and formatting. Several references need more information; instead of just a single external link, please provide full citation information -- title, author, publisher, date of publication, and date URL was retrieved. This is quite important, so that if the link is ever inaccessible, the reference is not rendered useless and can be used to track down and verify the information cited. Other than this, the article is good!

:Cheers! [[User:Derek.cashman|Dr. Cash]] ([[User talk:Derek.cashman|talk]]) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

== Article Size ==
The article still needs education and health sections and we are already at 97kb. I believe we seriously need to size down the article, and we should start from the 'Current Political Situation' section. My problem with the section is that it no longer 'current', and thus, has lost its significance. I think a paragraph or so in 'Recent history' should be able to cover all the events that took place from the time of the Orange Revolution to December 18. Regards, <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:+1. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
::Agree as well. Let's just nuke the section and write a paragraph in "Recent history" like you said. The economy section is rather long, but all the information seems important to the section to me.. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 18:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
94kb, still too long. My next proposal would be to further summarize the oversized history section. Preferably, to take the 'Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth', 'Cossacks', 'Russian Empire' and 'Austria-World War I' sections and put them under one heading. Something like, 'Partition of Ukraine'? I figure, 11 sub-heads for history is far too many. No country has such a collection. (p.s. I think 'Economy' is one of the best sections we have, I say leave it be) <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:I too agree that 11 subsections for history is too much. Perhaps it would be a good idea... Ok, lets keep the economy the way it is... anyway other country articles have longer economy sections... [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 19:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
::An another thing that I think we should do is to expand the Geography section.. for example, look at [[Germany#Geography]] which includes a section for climate, environment.. but all of this must be done with the article's size kept in mind.. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:::With history, the pre-10th century section can easily go (...under [[History of Ukraine]]). Ideally, the broader History section will star with:
:::*the birth of Ukraine (at the founding of Rus) and that sub-section could include the polish-lithuanian period/cossacks/and Russian Empire;
:::*the next sub-section could be WWI-interbellum-WWII;
:::*then post-1945 to 1991;
:::*concluding with a short independent Ukraine history.

:::Let's see what we can do with this, commencing operation "free up kilobytes".--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I merged some sections. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:Alright, looks good so far. I'll start on a 'Education' section, lets put it in 'Demographics'. (Good one Riurik) <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, everyone, go over the refs and check the ones ''you'' added. Refs to books should have page numbers or chapter names save few exceptional cases, refs to web-sites should have something in addition to url. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

:I think, a coplete removal of the early history section is too drastic a step to cut on length.

:On a different issues, what about putting geography and climate ''before'' history? --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
::The article structure is outlined [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections|here]]. <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

:::I felt the same way about not having Scythians or Vangarians included, and think that we should have a sentence introducing the pre-Rus centuries, however, at least judging by the 4-6 paragraphs guideline from WikiProject Countries, the early history section and really all the rest of them have to go to the main article. Even my own outline by their standards exceeds the length (or we will end up with big paragraphs).--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 07:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
::::While we're still on the topic of History, I tihnk the first part 'Independence' needs a rewrite. Its written like a timeline. Other then that history looks good to me. <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 16:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should return the mention of the pre-Slavic history. Scythian and Trypillia culture on the territory of Ukraine are important beyond any doubt. We should not let some general project dictate us what the article should be if we feel they are wrong. In the end of the day, the goodness of the article is more important than a GA label. And speaking of that, Geography before history just makes better sense. If I am reading about the country, I first want to know where it is and after that read the details of its history. EB's country articles are structure that way probably for this very reason. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 17:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:Agree: geography before history. Will bring back early history material, but still let's shorten the history section somewhat.--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 18:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

::OK, I will give it another go. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the article's size may decrease any more; all leftover information is equally relevant. Is 100kb too much? Please note that the referencing format alone, takes up a large portion of the space (cite web). Thoughts? <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 16:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:My suggestion is to look at other FA country entries and see what worked for them to get an idea. [[Peru]], [[Lybia]], and [[Belarus]] are some of the examples. Notice how there is only one section for history in each country. This is the direction we want to go, if Ukraine is to approach FA quality.--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 03:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::Just one thing I don't understand, our GA reviewer said that Ukraine was lacking "completeness". But all of your FA examples don't say one word on education or infrastructure or health. How can we be certain of what these standards are? Just look at [[Germany]], it is nothing like some other FAs. Regards, <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 05:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:::True, it just shows the difference between country FA articles.. Perhaps there is no ''uniform'' standard as to what a country article should include. I personally like the German example, as it gives an overview of all the topics, not just the basic ones (history, geography, politics, economy, etc.) [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::::And it was just one GA reviewer, whose comments while helpful, do not necessarily carry the day. After working on this entry a bit more, I think it would be worth to resubmit it for another GA review. True, there is no uniform standard as each country is different, but overall, there are similarities among the FA entries. The question is: does an average reader will want to learn about Ukraine's education, infrastructure, health or are these topics better relegated to main articles? I am not casting a judgment, just posing the question which equally applies to other topics. What should be included and what should be excluded are tough questions, but must be answered now so that we can all be on the same page. (An outline?) I am sympathetic to the detailed history section under "Ukraine" since to western audiences the country is relatively new. But I am not sure that we need to emulate the huge culture section, like the one in Germany.--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Dima, in that we should follow the more thorough German example. I like our current history section. While it may be, a little longer than Germany's (Ukraine - 37kb, Germany - 31kb), its mostly because the referencing (Germany - 7 refs in history, Ukraine - 47). Germany's culture section is somewhat unique in its size, and I see no reason why we should expand Ukraine's culture section beyond what it is now. So, what exactly is it that we don't agree on? I personally am satisfied with the existing article structure, and even its size. <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that all? I think we've addressed all the concerns of the GA review. Does the article need anything more than a copyedit? Anyways, great job on the article guys, I wish you all a happy new year! <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

==Administrative divisions spin-off==
::::::I don't think we disagree on this topic. Regarding formatting, under "administrative divisions" section is there a way to eliminate the huge waste of space on the bottom right which results from the length of the table?--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
We could put [[Administrative divisions of Ukraine#Municipalities|this]] table under the map. What do you think? <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:<s>Yes, that would fit the subject, and provide symmetry to the section.</s>--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::Sticking to the topic of administative divisions, what do you guys think about expanding the section to include information about the lower divisions (cities, urban-type settlement, villages, ect) [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Come to think of it, maybe we should remove the huge table altogether. This way we cut size and can expand the section itself with words. The table would still be available under the main entry.--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Sounds good, it probably wasn't a good idea to take tables directly from the main article anyway. <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:Looking through country articles, I stumbled upon the administrative divisions sect. of [[People's Republic of China]]... What do you think about including this in the section instead of the map w/ links?

{| class="navbox" style="width:100%; background:none; border:2px; text-align:left; valign:top;"
!style="width:200px;"|<center>[[Administrative divisions of Ukraine]]</center>
!colspan=6|<center>[[Oblast]]s</center>
|-
|rowspan=5 align="center"|[[Image:Map of Ukraine political enwiki.png|center|225px|border|Map of the administrative divisions of Ukraine]]
|
*[[Cherkasy Oblast|Cherkasy]]
*[[Chernihiv Oblast|Chernihiv]]
*[[Chernivtsi Oblast|Chernivtsi]]
*[[Dnipropetrovsk Oblast|Dnipropetrovsk]]
*[[Donetsk Oblast|Donetsk]]
|
*[[Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast|Ivano-Frankivsk]]
*[[Kharkiv Oblast|Kharkiv]]
*[[Kherson Oblast|Kherson]]
*[[Khmelnytskyi Oblast|Khmelnytskyi]]
*[[Kiev Oblast|Kiev]]
|
*[[Kirovohrad Oblast|Kirovohrad]]
*[[Luhansk Oblast|Luhansk]]
*[[Lviv Oblast|Lviv]]
*[[Mykolaiv Oblast|Mykolaiv]]
*[[Odessa Oblast|Odessa ]]
|
*[[Poltava Oblast|Poltava]]
*[[Rivne Oblast|Rivne]]
*[[Sumy Oblast|Sumy]]
*[[Ternopil Oblast|Ternopil]]
*[[Vinnytsia Oblast|Vinnytsia]]
| valign="top"|
*[[Volyn Oblast|Volyn]]
*[[Zakarpattia Oblast|Zakarpattia]]
*[[Zaporizhia Oblast|Zaporizhia]]
*[[Zhytomyr Oblast|Zhytomyr]]
|-
!colspan=2|<center>'''[[Autonomous republic]]'''</center>
!colspan=3|<center>'''[[Administrative divisions of Ukraine#Municipalities|Municipalities]]'''</center>
|-
|colspan=2|
*[[Crimea|Autonomous Republic of Crimea]]
|colspan="3" valign="top"|
*[[Kiev|City of Kiev]]
*[[Sevastopol|City of Sevastopol]]
|}

:Yes, I like this table. The current map under that sub-section will have to go to make room, but this will more than make-up for it. We may also need to remove a few sentences in that sub-section since a lot of that information will be contained in the above table.--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 05:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::That looks really good. Although, it does bring the size back up to 99kb...Would saving it as a separate template reduce that? Great job, <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 06:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I believe so... I will add it now. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::Size is now 97 kb.. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


{| class="infobox" style="text-align:center; width:97%; margin-right:30px; font-size:90%"
|-
! align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | [[List of cities in Ukraine|Rank]]
! align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | [[List of cities in Ukraine by subdivision|Core City]]
! align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | [[Administrative divisions of Ukraine|Administrative division]]
! align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | [[List of cities in Ukraine|Pop.]]
! align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | [[List of cities in Ukraine|Rank]]
! align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | [[List of cities in Ukraine by subdivision|Core City]]
! align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | [[Administrative divisions of Ukraine|Federal Subject]]
! align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | [[List of cities in Ukraine|Pop.]]
! rowspan=11 | <br>[[Image:View of Kiev's banks.JPG|border|100px|View of Kiev's banks from the Park Pedestrian Bridge
]]<br>[[Kiev]]<br>[[Image:Kharkov Freedom Square.jpg|border|100px|Kharkiv's [[Freedom Square]]]]<br>[[Kharkiv]]<br>[[Image:Dnipropetrovsk skyline 2006.jpg|border|100px|Dnipropetrovsk skyline]]<br>[[Dnipropetrovsk]]
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 1 ||align=left | '''[[Kiev]]''' || [[Kiev|KIV]] || 2,611,327
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 11 ||align=left | '''[[Luhansk]]''' || [[Luhansk Oblast|LUH]] || 463,097
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 2 ||align=left | '''[[Kharkiv]]''' || [[Kharkiv Oblast|KHA]] || 1,470,902 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 12 ||align=left | '''[[Makiivka]]''' || [[Donetsk Oblast|DON]] || 389,589
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 3 ||align=left | '''[[Dnipropetrovsk]]''' || [[Dnipropetrovsk Oblast|DNI]] || 1,065,008 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 13 || align=left | '''[[Vinnytsia]]''' || [[Vinnytsia Oblast|VIN]] || 356,665
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 4 ||align=left | '''[[Odessa]]''' || [[Odessa Oblast|ODE]] || 1,029,049 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 14 ||align=left | '''[[Simferopol]]''' || [[Crimea|CRI]] || 909,341 ||
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 5 ||align=left | '''[[Donetsk]]''' || [[Donetsk Oblast|DON]] || 1,016,194 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 15 ||align=left | '''[[Sevastopol]]''' || [[Crimea|CRI]] || 342,451
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 6 ||align=left | '''[[Zaporizhia]]''' || [[Zaporizhia Oblast|ZAP]] || 815,256 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 16 ||align=left | '''[[Kherson]]''' || [[Kherson Oblast|KHE]] || 328,360
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 7 ||align=left | '''[[Lviv]]''' || [[Lviv Oblast|LVI]] || 732,818 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 17 ||align=left | '''[[Poltava]]''' || [[Poltava Oblast|POL]] || 317,998
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 8 ||align=left | '''[[Kryvyi Rih]]''' || [[Dnipropetrovsk Oblast|DNI]] || 668,980 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 18 ||align=left | '''[[Chernihiv]]''' || [[Chernihiv Oblast|CHV]] || 304,994
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 9 ||align=left | '''[[Mykolaiv]]''' || [[Mykolaiv Oblast|MYK]] || 514,136 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 19 ||align=left | '''[[Cherkasy]]''' || [[Cherkasy Oblast|CHK]] || 295,414
|-
| align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 10 ||align=left | '''[[Mariupol]]''' || [[Donetsk Oblast|DON]] || 492,176 || align=center style="background:#f0f0f0;" | 20 ||align=left | '''[[Sumy]]''' || [[Sumy Oblast|SUM]] || 293,141
|-
| colspan="11" align=center style="background:#f5f5f5;" | 2006 Census
|}{{clear}}

What would everyone think about putting that into the 'Demographics' section? I rather like the Russian one, and we really haven't got much on Ukrainian urban settlement...<span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Bogdan|Bogdan]] <sup>[[User talk:Bogdan|що?]]</sup></span> 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Not a bad idea.. Let's place it.. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 16:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

== health ==

Some of the material in the health section is simply repeated from the above demographics section (population crisis, ect). There is no need to state this twice, I think it should be removed from the health section and stay in the demographics section. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:Sounds reasonable. If it's still there, please be bold and remove.--[[User:Riurik|Riurik]]<sup>[[User talk:Riurik|(discuss)]]</sup> 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== category:Russian-speaking countries and territories ==

Recently the article was added to this category. What sort of category is this? How does a country get added to it? Certainly there are Russian speakers in many countries in the world. Should they all be added? Or is this for places where Russian has an official status, which, of course, it does '''not''' in Ukraine. I question its use in this article. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

* Russian-speaking means that the country has a sizeble Russian-speaking population. According to census data 30 % of total population regard Russian to be their native language, this mean that Ukraine is one of the biggest Russian-speaking countries with about 8-9 mln of Russian speakers. --[[User:Russianname|Russianname]] ([[User talk:Russianname|talk]]) 10:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::Correct, it's similar to Somalia or Djibouti being Arabic speaking countries - it doesn't have to be an official status. --[[User:Atitarev|Atitarev]] ([[User talk:Atitarev|talk]]) 11:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The category should not been included per consensus stated as following: ''Countries by language: "To categorize countries per official language. When a country does not have an official language (e.g. the United States), a de facto categorization is used".'' Read [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-20_Russian-speaking_countries_and_territories]] for details. --[[User:Greggerr|Greggerr]] ([[User talk:Greggerr|talk]]) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

I suggest we make the independence part of the infobox more like the one in the [[Russia]] article. Notice how that one implies the founding of modern Russia in 862? This one should at least mention the independence of the WWI era states. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:Defenetly include the [[Ukrainian People's Republic]].. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== [[Ukraine#Military]] ==

The Military section right now has a whole bunch of text relating to the NATO-Ukraine issue. This article is supposed to be an '''overview''' of the country, not going in-depth on issues. We don't even have as much information in article about the [[Orange Revolution]]... Check out the article on [[Germany]], where the history section is just an overview stating the basic facts. For the military section in this article, we can just summarize the NATO issue without stating all of these percentages.. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 05:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. Such coverage is not needed. However, the fact that Russia has threatened to target its sovereign neighbor with nuclear weapons if it joins NATO is notable and should be mentioned. Perhaps there is a different article for this? [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I see we have a [[Ukraine and the European Union]] article. I say we remove all but one sentence from this article and make a [[Ukraine and NATO]] article. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 05:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:Agree. I don't have time for this right now, but let's start it soon (should be a pretty interesting article when finished..). [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 05:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::I will change it back to what it was before all of these additions. Then all of it can be put into the new article. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

== Confusing paragraph ==

Could someone edit the paragraph that says:

"''According to the UN, most countries in the world have seen an increase in criminal activity. Rape, forced prostitution and drug trafficking is on the rise. These crimes often implicate foreigners and stateless persons, including Ukrainian migrants. These crimes directly violate the rights and freedom of women; they are pertinent to both the legal and illegal emigration of Ukrainian women."''

The (unsourced) meaning of the first sentence is clear, as is the second. But why is it in the article on Ukraine? And what on earth are the next ones trying to say? That Ukrainian immigrants are implicated in crimes in foreign countries? How is this notable, and how is it unsourced? And what does the next sentence mean? Drug trafficking violates the rights and freedom of women? And why is this notable for a section on Ukrainian culture? This appears to be nothing more than misplaced (in the culture section??) [[WP:OR]]. I will remove it if nobody corrects it. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== Latin Europe ==

Hello {{pagename}}! There is a vote going on at [[Talk:Latin_Europe#List_of_Candidates|Latin Europe]] that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. [[User:The Ogre|The Ogre]] ([[User talk:The Ogre|talk]]) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:55, 24 March 2008

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ukraine&oldid=200630670"