Talk:History of Ukraine

"Twentieth Century" in the sidebar

Why is the Chernobyl article not listed in chronological order? As it is, WWII is listed as happening after the Chernobyl disaster. Zaporozhian (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Galicia/Ukraine

The extreme western part of Galicia, incorporated into Poland after World War I, was part of Poland prior to the First Partition of Poland, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was never part of a unified Ukrainian state, and I believe it violates a neutral point of view to call it western Ukraine. There were two ephemeral states there after World War I, the Lemko-Rusyn Republic and the Komancza Republic. Only the latter would have willingly joined a Ukrainian state.Pustelnik 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Conversion in 988

Cyril converted the nobles in 988? That was Volodymyr. Cyril was about 120 years earlier, he might have converted a few, I don't know.

Western betrayal

I'm preparing an article on the concept of Western Betrayal User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. I need someone to drop in and add some info on the meaning of the term in the Ukraine. Did the Ukraine feel sold to Stalin or anything similar during WWII?Halibutt 09:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've seen references in literature to how the population expected Americans to come and rescue them quite soon after WW II. People often idealized America as the place of progress and justice, as in the words of the bard of Ukraine, Taras Shevchenko, "When will we have our own George Washington with his law of righteousness?" Americans did provide support to the resistance armies of UPA after the war (Ukrainians are famous in American military circles as the nation that fought the Soviets for the longest time.) But this effort hurt more than helped: the British spy, Kim Philby conveyed the information to the Soviets. Another betrayal was Operation Keelhaul, by which the Allied armies sent displaced persons from the Soviet sphere back home to death or persecution, usually either under compulsion or without informed consent. Genyo 11:55, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Series on Ukrainian History

We need a series on Ukrainian History on this site, perhaps one separate detailed article for each heading. Any comments? Contributions?

Genyo 11:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Main page history section

The history section of the main country page looks like it has about as much information as does this page. Someone should move over whatever's missing here. --Shallot 17:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this piece is twice as long, but, you're right,we need some expansion here. Genyo 03:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine at maps.

Dear wikipedians,

there is the following text in the article:

In the 11th century, Kievan Rus was, geographically, the largest state in Europe. During this time, Kievan Rus became known in the rest of Europe under several names derived from Rus. In addition, the name "Ukraine" first appears in recorded history on maps of the period.

Can anyone point me to the map that uses Ukraine that time? As far as I know, there are just few disputed references to this word in Chronicles at the best!

Thanks!

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'd better write your version. --Vasile 00:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you want to sustain this important modification. --Vasile 04:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prohibition of Ukrainian language

Your version: The Russians in particular imposed strict limits on attempts to elevate Ukrainian language and culture, even banning its use in official documents. Due to political processes in Austro-Hungary, the people of Ukraine began to accept a change of their name from Rus/Rusyny to Ruthenia/Ruthenians and then to Ukraine/Ukrainians.

The actual version: The Russians in particular imposed strict limits on attempts to elevate Ukrainian language and culture, even banning its use and study. The fate of the Ukrainians was much more positive under the Austrians. During this time, the people of Ukraine began to accept a change of their name from Rus'/Rusyny (Ruthenia/Ruthenians) to Ukraine/Ukrainians.

--Vasile

Dear Vasile, it's because there are no evidences of any decisions of Russian tsars or Russian government against the Ukrainian language use in common literature. However, I will check documents and update with details. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For those who read Russian I'd like to cite both infamous documents often used by modern Ukrainian nationalists to support their opinion that Ukrainian was banned in Russia (I don't wish to waste time to translage these w/o specific request):

1863 Valuev's circular:

Давно уже идут споры в нашей печати о возможности существования самостоятельной малороссийской литературы. Поводом к этим спорам служили произведения некоторых писателей, отличавшихся более или менее замечательным талантом или своею оригинальностью. В последнее время вопрос о малороссийской литературе получил иной характер, вследствие обстоятельств чисто политических, не имеющих никакого отношения к интересам собственно литературным. Прежние произведения на малороссийском языке имели в виду лишь образованные классы Южной России, ныне же приверженцы малороссийской народности обратили свои виды на массу непросвещенную, и те из них, которые стремятся к осуществлению своих политических замыслов, принялись, под предлогом распространения грамотности и просвещения, за издание книг для первоначального чтения, букварей, грамматик, географий и т.п. В числе подобных деятелей находилось множество лиц, о преступных действиях которых производилось следственное дело в особой комиссии.

В С.-Петербурге даже собираются пожертвования для издания дешевых книг на южно-русском наречии. Многие из этих книг поступили уже на рассмотрение в С.-Петербургский цензурный комитет. Не малое число таких же книг представляется и в киевский цензурный комитет. Сей последний в особенности затрудняется пропуском упомянутых изданий, имея в виду следующие обстоятельства: обучение во всех без изъятия училищах производится на общерусском языке и употребление в училищах малороссийского языка нигде не допущено; самый вопрос о пользе и возможности употребления в школах этого наречия не только не решен, но даже возбуждение этого вопроса принято большинством малороссиян с негодованием, часто высказывающимся в печати. Они весьма основательно доказывают, что никакого особенного малороссийского языка не было, нет и быть не может, и что наречие их, употребляемое простонародием, есть тот же русский язык, только испорченный влиянием на него Польши; что общерусский язык так же понятен для малороссов, как и для великороссиян, и даже гораздо понятнее, чем теперь сочиняемый для них некоторыми малороссами и в особенности поляками, так называемый, украинский язык. Лиц того кружка, который усиливается доказать противное, большинство самих малороссов упрекает в сепаратистских замыслах, враждебных к России и гибельных для Малороссии.

Явление это тем более прискорбно и заслуживает внимания, что оно совпадает с политическими замыслами поляков, и едва ли не им обязано своим происхождением, судя по рукописям, поступившим в цензуру, и по тому, что большая часть малороссийских сочинений действительно поступает от поляков. Наконец, и киевский генерал-губернатор находит опасным и вредным выпуск в свет рассматриваемого ныне духовною цензурою перевода на малороссийский язык Нового Завета.

Принимая во внимание, с одной стороны, настоящее тревожное положение общества, волнуемого политическими событиями, а с другой стороны имея в виду, что вопрос об обучении грамотности на местных наречиях не получил еще окончательного разрешения в законодательном порядке, министр внутренних дел признал необходимым, впредь до соглашения с министром народного просвещения, обер-прокурором св.синода и шефом жандармов относительно печатания книг на малороссийском языке, сделать по цензурному ведомству распоряжение, чтобы к печати дозволялись только такие произведения на этом языке, которые принадлежат к области изящной литературы; пропуском же книг на малороссийском языке как духовного содержания, так учебных и вообще назначаемых для первоначального чтения народа, приостановиться. О распоряжении этом было повергаемо на Высочайшее Государя Императора воззрение и Его Величеству благоугодно было удостоить оное монаршего одобрения.

1876 Emskiy Decree:

1) Не допускать ввоза в пределы Империи, без особого на то разрешения Главного Управления по делам печати, каких бы то ни было книг и брошюр, издаваемых за границей на малороссийском наречии.

2) Печатание и издание в Империи оригинальных произведений и переводов на том же наречии воспретить, за исключением лишь: а) исторических документов и памятников и б) произведений изящной словесности, но с тем, чтобы при печатании исторических памятников безусловно удерживалось правописание подлинника; в произведениях же изящной словесности не было допускаемо никаких отступлений от общепринятого русского провописания, и чтобы разрешение на напечатание произведений изящной словесности давалось не иначе, как по рассмотрении рукописей в Главном Управлении по делам печати.

3) Воспретить также различные сценические представления и чтения на малороссийском наречии, а равно и печатание на таковом же текстов к музыкальным нотам.

I'd like to mention, that item 2) prohibits use of the spelling newly invented in Austro-Hungary, not use of old spelling used in Ukrainian territories inside Russia.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 09:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Early History

"The first identifiable groups to populate what is now Ukraine were the Trypillians, followed by the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Goths, among other nomadic peoples who arrived throughout the first millennium BC. During this period, Ukraine served as a super highway for the migration for peoples from Asia into Europe. These people were known to colonists and traders in the ancient world, including the Greeks and the Romans, who established trading outposts, and which eventually became city states. Of particular interest was the Antes civilization, which, during the common era, left its mark upon the territory of Ukraine. The Antes were thought to be an early Slavic or pre-Slavic civilization in the area."

Could somebody please explain to me this paragraph's subtle sense metaphoric "relevance" for the article? --Vasile 00:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but i'mnont sure logic will do.

Most of the first 4/5ths of the article speak of the history of the territory of today's state of Ukraine. The final several sentences speak of the early history of the ethnos of today'ssUkrainians.

Thanks for the chance to educate you.

Genyo 00:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. If you write about history of the "territory", what's the reason you mentioned those peoples? Why are they important for Ukraine history? For example, please write more about the importance of Roman colons in Ukraine history. Where these colons were located? --Vasile 02:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If anything, previous settlements are important because they show why the current population settled the same area. Pre-historic, Greek and Roman colonies were all generally built next to notable landforms: arable land for agriculture, or rivers for water or seas for trade or easily defensible hills where one can build forts, ... and then they probably also left traces of their culture/civilization that was inherited by those that came later. There can be any number of notable historical factoids in the old periods. (I never thought I'd have to explain this kind of thing...) --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying what/who was in today's Ukraine before the Ukrainians? Even though it may seem anachronistic to put this under the modern-day title, history doesn't begin in the 6th century AD. --Joy [shallot] 01:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I would even prefer more information about the history prior to the 6th century. Juro 03:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I should also probably note my semi-bias given that I've recently created Croatia before the Croats with just this line of reasoning in mind. --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you think we shold add something about Ukrainian Waffen-SS division? Some of its units killed Jews in Lviv (in 1941), took part in Warsaw Uprising (on German side), murdered civilians in Slovakia...

• YES THERE WAS A UKRAINIAN ss DIVISION, BUT THERE WERE ALSO JEWS WHO BETREYED THEIR OWN PEOPLE, MANY SLAVIC NATION AND NOT ONLY SLAVS, TATARS FOR EXAMPLE, THOUGHT THAT GERMANS WERE BETTER THAN COMMUNISTS, (DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE RIGHT) BUT THE FACT IS MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WANTED TO FIGHT COMMUNISM SO DON'T CONFUSE UKRAINIAN SS DIVISION WITH THE REST OF THE UKRAINAINS, ANYWAY WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH UKRAINIAN ORIGINS?????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.149.200.191 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 11 October 2004

1) I believe, that the fact of existence of SS (Galizien?) Division should be mentioned, as well as similiar engagemnets should be noticed eg. in case of Latvia or Estonia. 2) Please note, that the description of facts does not judge the motives of SS-volunteers - it should only states that the fact took place. 3) I wonder, why the discussion regarding SS Division is under "early history" heading. --MWeinz 10:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV regarding Holodomor denial

172, I'm glad we're working this out. But your description of the conflicting opinions is unbalanced. For now I'm reverting this paragraph (my emphasis).

Some Ukrainian nationalist historians, along with some Western writers, consider the famine of 1932-33 a deliberate act of genocide. However, some Western Soviet specialists writing more recently such as Moshe Lewin, Alexander Dallin, and Alec Nove dismiss the idea that the famine was a deliberate act, but rather the consequence of Stalin's program of industrialization and collectivization.

I thought that simply noting that there are conflicting opinions would be suitable here, without spending several paragraphs analysing the respective arguments or posting résumés of all the proponents. I'm thinking those details belong at the Collectivization article, but maybe here is better. We could easily get into an edit war adding our favourite supporters to the lists:

Ukrainians, non-Ukrainians including westerners, nationalists, non-nationanalists, historians, Soviet specialists, and writers, consider the famine of 1932–1933...

However, some Western Soviet specialists writing more recently, as well as in earlier times, staunch communists, hack journalists, Stalin apologists, Ukrainophobes, nostalgic Marxist-Leninists, easterners, westerners, nationalists, historians, school marms, and teacup poodles dismiss the idea...

Anyway, I suggest that this be kept simple and neutral, or addressed in detail, perhaps in a subsection titled Was the famine deliberate, or some such thing. At the very least, let's not start with the label "Ukrainian nationalists", which is ungenerously limited at best, and pejorative at worst. —Michael Z. 2005-01-31 16:55 Z

Anon's edit of July 15, 2005

Recently, an anonymous editors, who seems to have a good grasp on some facts but somewhat partisan views edited the article extensively. I would like to call this and other editors for the usual caution we should all use in all WP articles, but especially on the wide topic articles like this one. The edits were done hastily, were not proofread, while some info was actually useful. The article simply could not remain in that form. It either had to be quickly moderated (speed at the cost of quality, unfortunately) or get a POV tag, which would be even a bigger shame. I chose the first solution. I am not sure, the article is better now, than it was before the recent set of edits, but that's OK. It will get improved with time. It would be more convenient to communicate if the anon editor chooses to register. registering does not compromise the anonymity in any way. To the contrary, since IP points to an approximate location, while the username does not. But that's just a request of course. I hope, with everyone's cooperation, the article will improve. Regards, --Irpen 23:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gentry voting to join PLC?

The 'Under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth' section states: After the Union of Lublin in 1569 and the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the gentry of Ukraine voted for membership in the Polish part of the Commonwealth. I find it quite confusing and likely erroneus. First 1) who is 'the gentry of Ukraine'? 2) what 'voting'? IIRC, Ukraine was then controlled by GDL, and GDL was basically forced by the PLC to cede Ukraine to the PLC during the negotations that led to the Lublin Union (the argument flowing along the lines: if you want our (PLC) protection from Muscovy, you have to give us something in return for pulling us into this conflict). True, the Union of Lublin was voted for by the gentry of PLC and GDL (or rather, GDL magnates), but was there really a separate gentry in Ukraine that voted specifically for inclusion in the PLC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, it would be wiser to identify voting magnates that were Orthodox Christians. Sashazlv 02:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Not PLC, but PL. PLC is Poland-Lithuania :) Second, not forced by Poland, by but graand dukje, who, after getting nervous when Lithuainan magnates didn't want the union, decided to transfer Ukraine to Poland :) (and then they commented: why do you need the union with us, if we are already given to you?) But I will search for that. Szopen 17:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

POVed Post-war and independence section

I tagged this section as POV after first reading it. It is clearly biased in the way of not mentioning the massive negative sides of the post-war Soviet rule in Ukraine. E.g., could I have at least short tips on the following issues:

• Russification
• atheism
• poor and subordinated state of social sciences and humanities
• persecution of dissidents
• all massive environment impacts (not limited to Chornobyl)
• militarization of economy and social life
• urbanization and tremendous decline of Ukrainian rural society
• corruption,

and dozens of "etceteras"?

BTW, objections like "it has been an all-Soviet trend" will not be accepted: it is a main article on Ukrainian history. And every each important detail should be at least hinted and linked. Ukrained 11:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please propose your specific changes to the article. The problem of the section stems from its being too brief rather than biased. We have only this many editors interested in Ukraine and they have only this much time. Unfortunately, while some try to add as much info as possible, the coberage of Ukraine lacks significantly. Also, the intrusions of some editors who do nothing but edit warring over names wastes much of the valuable time. If you don't mind, I will remove the tag. The section isn't one-sided. It is simply too brief. This is not a template:POV-section problem bu rather template:expandsect. Finally, the aggressice wording of what "will not be accepted" by you stated in advance is unhelpful. --Irpen 19:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Salvaged form History of Poland

Recent anon edit added some info about Ukrainians to that article. It was stronlgy POVed (for exmple, he changed every single 'Poles' entry to 'Poles and Ukrainians'), but I salvaged some of it and I am moving some other info here, as it seems to belong here more then there. Feel free to go over that edit and HoP article and NPOV it more.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Poland lost about 22 percent of its population, which some suggest was the highest proportion of any country in World War II. Comparably, about 10 million Ukrainians died in the Second World War, the largest overall loss of civilian population in Nazi occupied Europe although Ukrainians, not having an independent state of their own, were often miscounted under other headings, such as "Polish," "Soviet" and even "Russian."

One of the most honourable of those who worked to save the Jews as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Metropolitan A Sheptytsky, of Lviv, although he has yet to be officially recognized for his good deeds.

In territories that interwar Poland occupied, in what is today western Ukraine (Galicia, Volhynia, Bukovina) an extensive anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet resistance movement, crafted largely as a result of the efforts of the Organization of Ukrainain Nationalists, and known as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), continued to resist foreign occupation of Ukrainian lands well into the 1950s. Although this precipated conflict with the AK and other Polish groups in some regions, there was also occasional collaboration betweeen Ukrainian and Polish partisan units in their shared struggle against the Soviet reoccupation. Large numbers of Jews were sheltered by both the UPA and AK, indeed many of the medicial officers and staff of UPA were Ukrainian Jews.

Interwar section

What about the famine of 1921? (G Ranzini 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

You are right. I just started expanding the interwar section. I cannot say how fast I will manage to work on this, but it certainly deserves to be mentioned. So far I wrote on the most important things in the Soviet part of Ukraine that happened at the interwar time that in chronological order would be early-Soviet Ukrainization, industrialization, Holodomor and purge. You may also note that other sections of the interwar period (under non-Soviet governments) are also missing. This needs much work. I just started by writing on the most important things. --Irpen 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

deletion due to populace disagreement

user:TSO1D deleted a certain piece from Ukraine article with the comment: "All of the regions mentioned had Romanain majorities with the exception of the "western part" which ironically was given to the Moldovan SSR)" Indeed, this is true Bessarabia for Hertsa region. But Ukraine incorporated not whole piece Bessarabia, but its southern part, with exactly the pretext that this part was predominantly Ukraininan. Also, I have doubts that Bukovina had Romanian majority.

Can TSO1D please give a bit more support to the edit? mikka (t) 22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Northern Bukovina, which was incorporated in Ukraine had a Ukrainian majority. The only Romanian majority area attached to UA was the Hertsa region. I will correct it. I planned to continue adding some order to this article anyway. --Irpen 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the Soviet data showed that in the regions of Hotin, Akerman, and Ismail 28.4% were of the Romanian ethnicity whereas the Ukrainians only made up 24.5% of the population. In order to make it appear that the regions were dominated by ethnic Ukrainians, data was collected over broader areas, including areas that were already part of the Ukraine. I do not feel too strongly about the issue and I am certain that arguments can be made both ways using the divergent statistic that was compiled in the period mostly for political reasons. Nevertheless, it is only a matter of one sentence and as it is disputed I believe it would be best to ommit it. TSO1D 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting historical question and it deserves further explanation. I can readily believe there were Romanian compacts in the area. Also, what was the remaining 45%? mikka (t) 05:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just check Bukovina and Chernivtsi Oblast articles. The history of ethnical composition of the regions comprise disproportinately much there but info was edit warred much and, since it stabilized, we can be more or less sure it's right. --Irpen 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it will be possible to reconstruct the true demographic distribution during that period. The sources that I have consulted have greatly different statistics (however most of them were Romanian and there is of course a chance of bias). The census carried out by the Soviet government cannot fully be trusted due to the intense politization of the process. Modern sources also tend to be biased (the Ukrainian sources have a higher percentage for Ukrainians, the Romanian one for Romanians). I cannot say that I did extensive research on the subject, I only verified some sources so I suppose the Bukovina and Cernăuţi articles might have more accurate information.

Mikka's question is also interesting, I have no idea what the other 45 percent of the people might have been. My guess would be Russian and Jewish but what else I do not know.TSO1D 23:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine and Nuclear Weapons

I removed the piece below. It is poorly fitted to the article and I don;t think it has any place at all. Even Ukraine would be a better place. The history of UA article just deserves a mention in appropriate sections: mid-century to 70s-80s about nucleazing and 90s section for de-nucleazing. Whoever feels like, is welcome to use it for a separate Ukraine and Nuclear Weapons article. --Irpen 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

When Ukraine gained independence, it inherited a vast arsenal of former Soviet nuclear weapons. Russia and the US soon sought to denuclearize Ukraine. While some in the Ukraine Parliament wanted to keep the weapons for deterrence, most agreed eventually that it was infeasible for Ukraine to maintain the weapons.

Ukraine was alarmed because once it started shipping its nukes back to Russia, Russia started to act more belligerent. There were disputes about the border, the fate of the Black Sea Navy, among other things. The US entered in as a third-party mediator, its interests being to see Ukraine sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Eventually Ukraine agreed to denuclearize, sending their missiles to Russia in exchange for nuclear fuel rods. Ukraine also received security assurances (not guarantees) from the US and more aid. Ukraine's case was a very successful instance of denuclearization by a state eager to join the international community and make allies.

---

The number of Holodomor victims

Please note that Kulchytskyi's estimates are not generally agread by the scientific community. Even his co-author disagreed with him and obtained larger number of victims [1]. Other estimates range to 7 millions [2] and even to more than 10 millions [3].

I think saying "several millions" would reflect our present-day knowlege. More detals (with references to differen aouthors) could be given in the article Holodomor.--AndriyK 17:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no scientific estimations based on the archives other than these that I am aware of. 7, 10 and 14 million numbers are not based on any kind of demographic research and are political and emotional. Kulchytsky is a leading authority on Holodomor in Ukraine. Read his articles linked in the Bottom of Holodomor where he also provides references on how those exaggerated numbers are obtained and how they harm Ukraine's calls to the community. Conquest, another leading authority, obtained 5 million and the archives were not available to him at the time. Another article you link isn't academic and just throws the arbitrary number out of nowhere. Until you site reliable statistical-based calculation by established scholars rather than political calls, the best number we have has to be used. The discussion on other numbers belongs to Holodomor, which I will expand. --Irpen 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Read [4], where Kulchytskyi admits that his co-author did not agree with his estimates, and they obtained another number which is published.

I do not think you are in position to judge about the scientific meritof the estimates.--AndriyK 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read all articles by Kulchytsky. In fact, I expanded the other article based on that and will do more (got data lost unfortunately in a network mishap). His co-author refuses to take into account the migration balance. We can talk about two separate things, number of population Ukraine lost and number of people that died. The former may be taken directly from population decrease estimates and his co-author's opinion is valuable. We are talking of the number of the perished here, so we have to cite the only calculation that accounts for all the available data we have. --Irpen 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kulchytskyi uses migration data in his estimates. Some scoolars (including Kulchytskyi's co-author) consider the migration data unreliable. This means that Kulchytsky's are unreliable and not recognized by his colleagues.--AndriyK 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read a cited earlier review[5] about Kulchytsky before talking nonsense. Also, Kulchytsky admits that migration data lacks precision and therefore rounds his estimates from 3.2+ million to 3-3.5 million exactly to account for this lack of reliability. Please care to read the references before arguing. --Irpen 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Be sure, I read Kulchytskyi's articles an am avare about the way he estimated the number of victims. But as you see, some of his colleagues disagree even after he rounded his estimates. This is not our job here to judge who is right.--AndriyK 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

His colleagues don't cite any other numbers. You can say that "Without the migration balance it is 5 million". We are here to provide the best possible numbers available. However, we can add "estimates vary" remark. I will do that. The rest belongs to Holodomor. Please give me a couple of days to expand the topic there, if you can, before continuing for now. --Irpen 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The colleagues don't cite any other numbers because the relyable data do not exist. This is the reason for larger uncertainties that those provided by Kulchytskyi. Citing only Kulchytskyi's data is clearly a POV.--AndriyK 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite other data that you have which is obtained in some kind of scientific way. I will need it for Holodomor expansion. If no other data is available, we used the only one we have. I added "estimates vary" disclaimer. --Irpen 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to repeat you once more: this is not the job of WP editors to decide wich data are more "scientific". Please do not try to do this. The references were given in my first message (see above).--AndriyK 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there are objective criteria to tell the scholarly work from that of the publicist's or politician's or the politically motivated one. The authors of the former are known for their publications in the peer-reviewed scholarly publications and monographies in the field. If you know works of such authors with different numbers, please cite them instead of trying to exhaust your opponents in endless talk in circles. --Irpen 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine

The article East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine never really got written, and is now redirected here. Here is the text, for future reference. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 00:40 Z

The East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine is rooted in the nation's history and goes well into the medieval times. The issue is largely caused by the fact that, historically, Ukraine was surrounded by powerful neighbors which rivaled for the direct control or at least political domination of the territory. Among the neighboring states with such imperialistic ambitions towards Ukraine, Poland and Russia influenced Ukrainian history the most.

However, other powers at different times, such as Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Austrian Empire also played an important role, as well as the Crimean Khaganate and the Ottomans. At the same time, the Ukraine's own past statehood institutions (examples are the Cossack Hetmanate, Zaporozhian Host and Ukrainian People's Republic) were comparatively short-lived and their influence on the country's destiny could not rival that of the large regional powers located to the East or to the West of Ukraine.

==External links==

*Template:Ru icon Aggressive Ignorance (Ukrayinska Pravda 2006 article criticising the election-driven ideas of formalizing the inter-region dissimilarities)

---

I request this above not to be pasted anywhere in the article please. I wrote this passage and it was suitable for an article on the specifics of the regional differences in UA. However, as several people did not like the article (or its title or its content, not sure) and the issue of the deletion (!) was raised twice over the several months of the article's existence, I gave up on that. I see no need for this stuff to be added to this History of UA or any other article in its current form especially because the particularly History of UA article is currently a mess so much worse of the histories of our neighbors (RU and PL) that I really feel ashamed. What this article needs is not an extra clutter in the form of pasting of a disconnected piece about a narrow issue but major work by committed editors that would structure it better, expand the current sections in the mainarticles, rewrite the former ones into the summaries of the latter for this one. There is also a problem of harmonizing this article with the history section of the Ukraine article as well as the appropriate material from other articles with historic info. Within days I plan to finish a more consistent history section of the Ukraine article but for the major work the History of UA article needs, a set of committed editors is required.

So, let's keep this stuff here at talk (since others found it not suitable for the article on its own) and start the History of UA project at some point, which is no less crucial than the Subdivisions project that gets so much work these days. --Irpen 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi photos

We have an edit war over inclusion of two photos showing Ukrainians celebrating the Nazi rules. I think it is unfair and an undue weight to a point of view. At least 3.5mln Ukrainians were with the Red Army and Soviet Partisans, at least 250thousand with OUN, 20 thousand with SS Halicia+local police ~ <100K with Germans. I think the allegiances were divided accordingly. At any rate it was not a happy time for the majority: World War + Underground War + Foreign Occupation+Slave labor. Thus I think to have 2 photos out of 3 in the section showing Ukrainians happily embracing German rule is biased and not-neutral. Lets hear other opinions Alex Bakharev

Peak of Ukraine?

The page says "The Ukrainians reached their peak when extending rule to Wallachia/Bessarabia, until the shores of the Black Sea". Can someone show me a proof of this? I really, really don't believe this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.184.91 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 January 2007

Don't use Admin powers for something as pathetic and trivial as -ise vs, ize

WP has a policy regarding national varities of English, and that is not to chnage them without reason. Going around and changing them on a protected page is a waste of time and energy and an abuse of the power. Normally I'd revert such a change, but I can't because it's protected, and that's not fair. Kevlar67 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions and dont overgeneralize. Learn to ask quetions before proceeding to accusations. Rgds, `'mikka 05:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I'm not so sure that the statement in the introductory paragraph "[The territory of Ukraine] is also the site of the origins of the Proto-Indo-European language family." is clear enough that this is one accepted theory of several, see Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses for all the craziness involved in the subject. 76.106.103.106 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the phrase a candidate site, and linked the article. Hope it looks okay now. —Michael Z. 2008-07-25 17:05 z

Merger

I agree with the merger, since much of the content in History of Ukrainian nationality already covered here. Anyone else agree? Ostap 19:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As being the nominator of the merger, I would like to add that some of the information on History of Ukrainian nationality may not mandatoryily merged into this article. This article has a lot of forks, so some of the information can go into those {{main article}}s. Also I want to point to History of Ukrainian nationality's history. It was created as an assignment for a university level history class. More information on History of Ukrainian nationality's talk page.174.3.117.120 (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)