Jump to content

Talk:Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 178.92.30.215 (talk) at 19:49, 18 April 2021 (→‎Russia and Muscovy: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former good articleUkraine was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 8, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 30, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

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

Islam

Why is Islam not in the demographics? it's the second largest religion. it shows data for hinduism, budhism but not Islam in the graph

Maidan = square

As noted here: "The Euromaidan (Ukrainian: Євромайдан, literally "Eurosquare")" "maidan" is Ukrainian for the English "square."

Hence, "Maidan Nezalezhnosti square" later on belongs in the Department of Redundancy Department. It should read "Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Nezalezhnosti square)." I didn't notice if that mistake was made other places, but it should be corrected. Thanks.

Minor: link to Wikipedia Podzol page in soil section.

In the soil section podzolized soil is mentioned. Might it not be reasonable to link podzolized to the Podzol Wikipedia page as it is an obscure reference.

"Ukraine also borders Crimea to its south"? It implies that it is not part of Ukraine.

This wording should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTm5 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked, converting that to a efn-footnote on boundaries with Russia. Seryo93 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the country in Russian

According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the only state language in Ukraine is Ukrainian. In May 2019, a law was passed to ensure the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the state language. Thus, there is currently only one single state language in Ukraine. Currently, only the Ukrainian language is used in the work of state and local authorities. The Russian language had a regional status in accordance with the law on the principles of state language policy and decisions of local governments of the respective regions. But at the moment, the law on the principles of state language policy has been declared unconstitutional, and the decisions of local governments have been declared invalid by the courts.

Given the lack of any status of the Russian language in Ukraine, the presentation of the name of the country in Russian in the article is inappropriate.

Please remove the name of the country in Russian. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such a term as "state language" in the Western culture. The term "official language" is used instead. This term defends the right of citizens to communicate with authorities using that language. Other aspects of language usage are not regulated at all. For example, there is NO official language in the US, but local authorities may decide to use some specific language or languages. Thus, in the state of New York, two languages (English and Spanish) are used officially, although that is not defined by law (the state of New York has no official language). That is a big difference between the standard world practice and what happens in Ukraine: Ukrainian authorities take legal steps to force their citizen to change their language preferences, whereas the authorities of an average user-friendly democratic state are monitoring language preferences of their citizens and change the language policy to better accommodate their citizens' needs.
Therefore, it would be totally against the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policy to change our approach to language policy by reflecting the position of Ukrainian authorities.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert In Ukraine, the rights of Russian-speaking people are not violated, you can be sure when you visit the country. Secondly, the Russian language has no official or any other status in Ukraine. Third, giving the name of a country in Russian is just illogical, for the reason that the name of the country is given in a language that has no official status. If we start from the fact that Ukrainians also speak Russian, then as an argument, we can say that Ukrainians also speak Romanian, Hungarian, Polish, Crimean Tatar and other languages. Therefore, in this case, logically and consistently, as well as the rules of Wikipedia, the answer will be that if the name of the country is submitted exclusively in Ukrainian. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about different things. English has no official status in the US either, but that does not prevent us from using it for naming. You probably mix the terms "official language" with "national language": whereas Russian is not Ukraine's official language, it is one of its national languages (probably, at greater degree than Ukrainian, because (for example) Crimean Tatars and Hungarians would prefer to communicate in Russian as a universally understood language, rather than Ukrainian. As you correctly noted, Russian is being widely used in Ukraine (and will be used in future), and our goal is to reflect that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can reflect this fact in the section on demographics. It is up to them to decide which language Hungarians or Crimean Tatars would prefer to speak. As for the language of writing the original name, the language that is official in the country and that is national should be used. As it is given in articles concerning other countries, such as for example Romania where Hungarian is widely used, and or Turkey where Kurdish languages ​​are widely used. Otherwise, in the original name of the country, you should add names. countries in all 16 languages, which until recently had official status in Ukrainian regions. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Give an example where in Ukraine, non-Ukrainian speakers are forced to speak Ukrainian. Because your statements are too politicized and untrue. This is me as a resident of Odessa, which, as you know, is mostly Russian-speaking. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
please, format your posts properly (similar to what I've done for you. I have no idea why you decided I claim people are forced to speak Ukrainian in Ukraine. With regard to the rest, the very meaning of the term "national language" does not necessarily imply a de jure connection with the nation: a de facto connection is sufficient. And Russian is one (out of two) national languages in Ukraine: it is a part of the Ukrainian national culture, it is universally spoken and understood (unlike the languages of national minorities), and no steps taken by Ukrainian authorities can change that fact (at least, now). --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You understand what the problem is, when we find in the article France, we will see that the name of the country is given only in French. When in this country there is a significant Arab diaspora, which is part of French society, popular culture and so on. Therefore, based on this, I believe that the name of the country in Russian should not be given. When we talk about the affiliation of the Russian language to Ukraine, it would be better and more correct according to the same rules of Wikipedia, to give the name of the country exclusively in Ukrainian, while the role of the Russian language should be described in the article separately. For example, the work of Russian writers who were of Ukrainian origin.
And this is not an example of Russophobia or political bias. This format will comply with established Wikipedia rules. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, format your posts properly (by adding ":", like I am doing). Who speaks about Russophobia here? Russian in Ukraine has no direct relation to ethnic Russians: many (if not majority of) ethnic Ukrainians use Russian as a primary language (for many of them it is their mother tongue). That is why any analogy with France is not working here. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the majority of Ukrainians use the Russian language is a myth, which is confirmed by numerous sociological studies, as well as the census. As for Russophobia, I wrote that if I oppose the name of the country being indicated in Russian, then I should not think that I am Russophobic and do not like this language. France is not really an example, but the United States is a clear example. When a significant portion of Americans use Spanish. However, the name of the country in Spanish is not mentioned in the article.
So what do I suggest. The original name of the country in Russian should be removed. In the introduction to the article to note by analogy with how these historical states in the Ukrainian lands, which formed the basis of modern Ukrainian national identity. Thus, it should be noted that Ukrainians are a bilingual nation - bilinguals. Ukrainian and Russian languages ​​are the property of the Ukrainian people, part of Ukrainian culture, etc. Among Russian writers there is a lion's share of Ukrainians, namely Mykola Gogol, Korolenko, Ba is also a writer. who were of mixed origin: Bulgakov, Akhmatova, Chekhov, Mayakovsky, etc.
Moreover, for more information, it would be good to add that such writers as Juliusz Słowacki, Joseph Conrad, Clarissa Lispector also came from Ukraine, although they were not Ukrainians by ethnic origin. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, observe talk page formatting rules if you seriously want to participate in talk page discussions.
I didn't claim Russian is a mother tongue of majority of Ukrainians. I claim that a significant part of ethnic Ukrainians are native Russian speakers, and, Russian is probably still more abundant in Ukraine. If you claim it is a "myth", please provide reliable sources (not associated with some state sponsored mass-media). If you cannot do that, please, stop this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we have departed from the essence of the discussion. The question is not whether some Ukrainians speak Russian, or the fact that the Russian language is widespread in Ukraine. The question is that the very fact of mentioning the name of the country in the article is not logical regarding the rules and customs of Wikipedia itself. Because based on the same, the question arises why the articles on other countries do not give the names of these countries in other languages, which are also widely represented there. Articles about the United States do not give the name of the country in Spanish, and articles about post-Soviet countries, such as Moldova, the Baltic republics, and the Transcaucasian republics, do not name these countries in Russian. This is not logical. I suggested a normal solution to this problem. Remove the title in Russian, instead create a paragraph in the introduction to the article on languages ​​in Ukraine and their role in Ukrainian culture. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the use of Ukrainian and Russian in Ukraine https://prostirsvobody.org/news/0/550/?fbclid=IwAR2Hh0LTtHWqn6okCpzfvQvrTK8bv5Vv_iwbtzAU7JYQ2_QPnfGJfT3ra_o Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense! In Ukraine, there is only one official language - Ukrainian, so the name should be duplicated ONLY in Ukrainian!!!!! WTF?! Yaroslav Dolishniak (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png#mw-jump-to-license Yaroslav Dolishniak (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any arguments above, pro or con, that refer to Wikipedia’s actual guidelines. It doesn’t matter much whether Russian is official, or protected, or widely spoken in Ukraine (it’s spoken by proportionately more people in Belarus, Latvia, and Estonia, by the way). MOS:LEADLANG is the guide: If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. —Michael Z. 02:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 in Ukraine

Covid is in almost every country, so there’s nothing special about the situation in Ukraine. Hikerblunt01 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree way to much information here..... a sentence or two in the normal timeline but its own section is overwhelming.--Moxy- 05:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Russian culture

Big parts of western Russia and it's Old Russian cities and regions which were part of Kievan Rus and need also to be included in this sentence:

~In general it is believed that Kievan Rus' included the central, western and northern part of modern Ukraine, Belarus, and the far eastern strip of Poland~

It's important to be fair because it's better for all. --85.212.61.140 (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't Kyivan Rus' and Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia included as earlier Ukrainian states?

Everywhere Kyivan Rus' is considered as a common ancestor for Belarus, Ukraine, Russia. Why then is Kyivan Rus' included as a part of the russian page, but not ukrainian or belorusian? Make that consistent, please. Then Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia is obviously the next step of Ukrainian history after Kyivan Rus' had separated cause of the raids of mongols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromyk (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above these issues have been discussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Well, I read all of that and it seems to be another one double-standart, as the russian article has got Kyivan Medieval State, but Ukrainian did not. How does it work at all? Ukraine has another continuation of Kyivan state, which was called Ruthenia or Rus' Kingdom. I just consider that as obvious manipulation. Either the mention of Kyivan State should be removed from the russian article, or be added to the ukrainian and belatusian ones. All three states claim the Kyivan State as their predecessor, which surely was a federation created from local principalities. (Gromyk (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I disagree being a double standard/manipulation, all important points are reflected in the discussion, what you state here may be considered as well dubious, regarding the Russia or Belarus article, issues regarding those should be raised on their talk pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Both should be listed. We should have 'formation' in the infobox to keep it in line with other Eastern European country's infoboxes—blindlynx (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian People's Republic

The lead says it was internationally recognized. Is it really the case? What international treaties were signed by that state? Update. Found the source, everything is fine.

In addition, the article says:

"the Hetmanate, the Directorate and the pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (or Soviet Ukraine)"

I am not sure "pro-Bolshevik" qualifier is needed, because it represents Bolsheviks as some external force. Meanwhile, Bolsheviks were very popular in Donbass and Odessa regions, and majority of them were Ukrainian born (Ukrainians, Ukraine born Jews or Russians). If someone believes the qualifier is needed, I propose:

"the Germany supported Hetmanate, Ukrainian nationalist Directorate, and the Bolshevik Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (or Soviet Ukraine)"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is very simple. Before the First All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, military units from Soviet Russia arrived in Kharkiv, and Soviet Russia itself provided financial and material assistance to the Bolshevik Ukrainian government. In addition, if you look at the activities of Soviet Ukraine, it differed little from Soviet Russia and went completely in its fairway. It should also be taken into account that in November 1917 elections to the All-Russian Constituent Assembly were held, where the Bolsheviks in Ukraine took only 10% of the vote. Thus, it is better to leave the wording in the article unchanged.
As for Germany's support for the UPR, the active work of the German government in Ukraine began after January 1918, after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, and ended in November 1918 after the end of the First World War. Accordingly, to say that the UPR was in every way dependent on Germany is not entirely correct. Moreover, the UPR was destroyed by the Germans in April 1918 after the occupation of Ukraine and the establishment of the pro-German Hetman regime of Pavel Skoropadsky.
Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some Bolshevik's opponents in Ukraine, Russia, Finland etc were obtaining massive support from abroad, but that does not make them "pro-German" or "pro-Wesetrn". If you look at the Russian Constituent Assembly election results, you will see that Petliura led socialists won in Central Ukraine, whereas Donbass and Odessa regions voted for Bolsheviks. And, again, many Bolsheviks who invaded Ukraine as a part of the Soviet troops actually returned to Ukraine, because they were Ukrainian born, and their revolutionary activity started on the Ukrainian soil.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You answered your own question. It is one thing to get help, like Haller's Blue Army in Poland, but the Polish government does not do so. It was a different matter when the very activity of the Bolsheviks in Ukraine depended on decisions and assistance from Moscow. The other side is the existence not of a separate political party, but of the Ukrainian branch of the Russian Bolshevik Party. Their ethnic or geographical origin does not matter. Some modern Russian politicians and the military are Ukrainians, but that does not make them their own in Ukraine. The very fact of the formation and continued existence of Soviet Ukraine, whether in the format of the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets, or the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, or any other regional Soviet republic, is characterized by puppetry in relation to Moscow, and set a single goal of establishing Soviet power in Ukraine.
Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mix a government and party policy. There was a Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic and various Communist parties, including the Communist Party of Ukraine, who coordinated their activity with the Russian party, but Ukrainian Communist party was never subordinated to the Russian Communist party. If you check the list of top party officials, you will be surprised: a significant part of Communist leaders in Russia came from Ukraine, Poland, Baltic states and other former provinces of Russian Empire, so it would be equally to claim Soviet Russia was under foreign control (note, I do not claim that).
However, the question is different: we do know Bolsheviks had significant support is some (not all) parts of Ukraine, whereas other political movement were supported in other parts of Ukraine. I see no reason to present Ukrainian Communist state formations as "pro-Bolshevik", because Bolshevism was not an external phenomenon for Ukraine, so they were not "pro-", just "Bolshevik".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the Bolsheviks were not Ukrainians. Trotsky was a Ukrainian Jew, Pntonov-Ovsienko was a Ukrainian, Dybenko, Kolontai, Skrypnyk, Khvylovy, Kotsyubynsky, Petrovsky, etc., were also Ukrainians. But when we talk about the Communist Party of Ukraine, it should be understood that it, a party with such a name, emerged later, directly in Soviet times. Whereas, at that time, it was the center of the Bolshevik Party of Russia, right here in Ukraine. Hence the name Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party (Bolsheviks) - Social Democracy of Ukraine. It arose, again, after the Moscow Bolsheviks agreed to it and sent their representatives to Kyiv, who created the party. in Ukraine. But, as noted by the same Soviet sources, Formally founded in April 1918 as an independent Communist Party, but after 3 months, at its First Congress, the CP (B) U joined the RCP (B) with subordination to the general party Moreover, the First Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine believes that the task of our party in Ukraine is: resolutely breaking with the mistakes of the past, to fight for the revolutionary unification of Ukraine with Russia on the basis of proletarian centralism, in within the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, on the way to the formation of a world proletarian commune. Therefore, in my opinion, Soviet Ukraine is about the Bolshevik government and Ukraine, which was a puppet, although the guardian of formal independence. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At that time, there was an independent communist party in Ukraine - the Ukrainian Communist Party. They opposed the Bolsheviks. Therefore, in the 1920s, it was finally destroyed. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you know the history of Communist parties, you should probably know that they (at early stage of their history) were against formation of parties based on national criteria, so "Russian" Communist party was not a party of "Russians", but the party of all nationalities in the former Russian Empire. Moreover, the old term "Russian" meant all Orthodox subjects of the Russian Empire. The equivalent of modern word "Russian" was "Velikoross". What you call "independent Communist Party" was something different, probably you meant "Mensheviks".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We moved away from the topic of discussion. The question was whether the regime of Soviet Ukraine in 1917-1922 could be considered Bolshevik? Yes! And I answered this by quoting it above. Everything else, namely ethnicity or geographical origin or their personal attitude to Ukraine, is secondary and insignificant. Soviet Ukraine itself, if we read its history from the moment of its foundation to the formation of the Soviet Union, is an exclusively puppet and pro-Bolshevik government, headed by a formally independent state. And this should be emphasized by a formally independent state. There were people who fully and completely defended and pursued the political line of the Moscow Communists. Under no circumstances can they be called an independent force or anything close to it.

By the way, you yourself said that the Ukrainian Bolsheviks belonged to the larger political party of the Russian Bolsheviks.

Wikipedia has an article called The Ukrainian Communist Party. I meant it when I spoke of the independent Ukrainian Communist Party of those years. 

Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

The formation of Ukraine and Ukrainian culture starts in the Kievan Rus’ (established in 879, baptism in 988). This period of history was before the Cossack Hetmanate. 103.137.83.34 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sourcing and the exact text you would like to add, remove or change. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info block Establishment history must be reverted to original state before revision 974052453 that has removed old content without any discussion. User CapLiber who has removed old text, is not neutral towards Ukraine and frequently edits pages related to Russia with edits favorable to Russian policies. His edit on 20 August 2020 is a part of info war that should have no place on Wikipedia. It is also ridiculous how non-neutral user that was warned on multiple occasions can change article once without any discussion, and to revert everything back to initial state community must spend months without any end in sight.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

Yaroslav Dolishniak (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the name of the country in Russian!

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ukraˈjina" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ukraˈjina. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 14#Ukraˈjina until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"COVID-19"

Is COVID-19 anything new or shocking to anybody by now? Its a global pandemic, happening since years by now. And does an article of a country, deserve a separate section for it? I must say I haven't seen many, that have one. Not to even mention that the section is full of old data, from 2020, not even an update of the current situation is found there. It is filled with templates, on top of that. Now, there's a separate article for the exact topic - COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine; there's also COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. But the section remains on the article. Danloud (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this is unneeded on this page. This is the general overview page for the entirety of the country, not a "current events in Ukraine" article. The other articles you mentioned are much better places for any of this that isn't already there. --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and Muscovy

Until October 22, 1721, Russia was called Muscovy, so it is incorrect to use the name Russia until 1721 https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Московія https://sites.google.com/site/kozeletsveterinarylibrary/citalna-zala/istoricna-dovidka/ak-bula-vkradena-rus

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ukraine&oldid=1018572019"