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 Finalyzer (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 9 July 2018 (→‎Invalid link to runestone G 280: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Ukraine's area needs revision

The current number is not cited. UN gives area as 603,500.

https://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=UKRAINE

"the"

To editor Khajidha: I am trying to find a consensus wording that helps side-step the endless stream of nationalist cranks that seek to impose their version. You might help me out here. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell them what my edit summary said. What is done in English has no bearing on their sensitivities. I can't even understand why anyone would care what another language calls their country (as long as it isn't insulting in that language, like "Shitholia" would be if that were used in English) and have no patience for those whose contradictory combination of arrogance and lack of self-esteem causes them so much distress over English usage that they feel the need to try to dictate said usage. --Khajidha (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents is that Khajidha's wording is accurate. That pesky "the" does, indeed, sometimes still raise its ugly head in English, despite the best efforts of Ukrainian nationalists. --Taivo (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would not you call Mumbai Bombey and Beijing Peking then? Constantinehuk (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do call them Bombay and Peking.
The problem is that there is no word "the" in the Russian and Ukrainian languages. The Ukrainian Rada, which is filled with people who speak Russian and maybe Ukrainian at home, tried to make rules for a language that very few of them speak well.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do use Bombay, but not Peking. My question is "why are you trying to force English usage for place names to follow some general rule?" The English language doesn't follow rules very well. We have language rules with subsidiary rules covering exceptions and rules for exceptions to the exceptional rules and still have exceptions. I also can't understand how a people whose language was subject to attempts to control, change, or eliminate it by outsiders can feel that they have the right to control other languages. --Khajidha (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
English has strict rules, but there are different version of English in different countries. I find ridiculous when people complain their country is called "the Ukraine", and are comfortable with "Ukraine" (or vise versa), and absolutely do not care that the actual name of the country should be like Oukraeenah (which is phonetically much closer). Anyway, people usually do not set foreign language rules: Germans do not complain they are called nemcy (literally, "those who are incapable of speaking properly) in most Slavic languages. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I do use Bombay, but not Peking."
That is nice. But the Wikipedia article is Mumbai (in the first place). Why does Parliament of India, which is filled with people who speak Hindi and maybe some local languages at home (I admit big English influence due to colonialism), tried to make rules for a language that very few of them speak well? Constantinehuk (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't know anything about the use of English in India. Most upper class Indians (including politicians), speak English in near-native competence. So your prejudiced comment is rather ignorant. --Taivo (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it even would be correct to say that majority of native English speakers live in India.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the sources we use in List of countries by English-speaking population, even allowing for reasonable changes in the time since the sources were compiled. --Khajidha (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents

An observation by an outsider that is admittedly not extremely knowledgeable about the topic:

The discussion of the 2014 Revolution describes the ousting of Yanukovych without any real discussion the legal controversy. Obviously that is a point of contention and not even all Western sources agree with the legality of the impeachment process entirely, e.g.

Granted most major Western media outlets chose not to weigh in against the ouster's legality, though noticeably few chose to strongly back its legality either.

At the end of the day this is always going to be a matter of perspective but I rather think, as controversial and pivotal as this event was, perhaps at least acknowledging the controversy is important.

--MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine's language law

To editor SHooZ: This thread is only to enable the process to get you blocked. If you're smart, you'll discuss your objections or perhaps just take your ball and go home. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so mean, I'm just an newbie on Wikipedia. I've created discussion about the law bellow, hope it'd be enough. --SHooZ (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SHooZ: "Why are you so mean" I assume bad faith. You reverted an established Wikipedian twice, which means that you ought to be blocked to prevent further disruption. I'm just trying to reach that point of prevention. "hope it'd be enough" That's not how this works. Other editors can chime in and decide if the article should be changed based on this supposed legal ruling. I don't honestly know, as I know nothing about Ukraine. You'll have to be patient and wait for consensus to emerge. In the mean time, the article remains at status quo ante as the onus is on you to prove your case. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of Ukraine "On Principles of State Language Policy" has been canceled

Supreme Court of Ukraine http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/5029-17 the law in in February, 28th 2018. Thus Ukraine has no "regional languages" in terms of law, but only an official language which is Ukrainian.--SHooZ (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in violation of WP:BRD

An editor who has never bothered to appear on this page before is engaged in pushing a change to status quo wording against WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing "occupied" with "controlled"

I think that the term "occupied" (within the description of the map in the info box) is non-neutral when talking about the Russian policy and hints at an opposing opinion of Russia's policy, specially that a vote was held in the Crimea that supported uniting it with the Russian territory. So it's not really an occupation. Which why I suggest replacing the term "occupied" with "controlled. What do you think? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire world (except Russia, of course) considers Crimea to be illegally occupied and that "election" to have been a Russian-engineered sham. "Occupied" includes "controlled", of course, but the reverse is not the case. Crimea is "controlled" by the Russian military and Russian military law. That's an occupation and nearly the entire world recognizes it as such. --Taivo (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Russia does not consider it to be an occupation then Wikipedia must not consider it as one. Wikipedia must be neutral when there is a dispute between two or more sides! If Russia says it's not an occupation then Wikipedia must not say it is or it is not! Wikipedia does not take the opinion of the majority! Wikipedia describe disputes, but not engage in them. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. "Occupied" is a perfectly accurate neutral word to use. It is, indeed, occupied by Russian troops--even if you accept the Russian narrative that the territory has been "annexed", Russian troops still occupy the ground there in very large numbers. On pages with more than space for one word, the two are labelled separately as "Ukraine (de jure); Russia (de facto)". But I object to the use of "controlled" here since it ignores the military invasion that Russia used to steal it from Ukraine. It sounds like a minor political spat rather than the invasion and conquest that it was. Russia was removed from international organizations as a result of its military violation of international law. So there is no WP:CONSENSUS at this time to change the status quo wording. --Taivo (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you just said above: "The entire world (except Russia, of course) considers Crimea to be illegally occupied". "Of course" means that Russia consider it to be TOTALLY non-neutral. And "illegally" means the term "occupied" was added to support the world's point of view in this case, that they see the Russian actions as illegal! You said that "the world sees it occupied" but "Russia does not "! Plus from the Russian point of view, they think Crimea belongs to Russia in the first place. So we can't use the term "occupied" here as no one can occupy their land! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The non-neutral word is "illegally" (although true). "Occupied", on the other hand, is quite accurate since it is the Russian military that enforces Russia's presence in Crimea. "Occupied" places the burden squarely on the military aspect of Russia's presence in Crimea. "Controlled" is simply too pro-Russia, there's no military occupation implied in such a peaceful word as "controlled". The invasion of Crimea was a military operation and continues to be a military operation. --Taivo (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to most European countries and most English-speaking countries, Russia has illegally occupied the Crimea, but President Putin disputes this analysis. That does not sound like a good reason not to use "illegally occupied".-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Unilaterally annexed by Russia' would be my preferred wording although Russia would dispute the 'unilaterally' part as it would claim that it signed a treaty of with the independent Republic of Crimea to absorb Crimea into the Russian Federation. However, it is more neutral than 'occupied' (which suggests against the will of the population) and is also more neutral than 'annexed by Russia'(which does not make clear that it is a disputed annexation). Birtig (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find the simple "annexed by Russia" the most neutral. It makes no claim as to the legitimacy of said annexation nor to the question of acceptance of same. It simply states the fact that it has happened. --Khajidha (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Annexed by Russia" is not neutral at all, it is a bald statement of Russian POV. No other country accepts annexation whatsoever. "Unilaterally annexed" is better than plain "annexed" because it makes a statement of fact. That's what we're discussing here: a neutral statement of fact versus an acceptance of a Russian POV. Whatever word(s) we settle upon the statement must combine two competing views in order to be neutral. 1) The international view that it was a military invasion and forcible occupation (it doesn't matter what the locals think, Russia took the territory by military force from Ukraine). 2) The Russian view that they were uninvolved in a rebellion and request for annexation. The majority view is the former supported by overwhelming hard evidence. Russia stands alone in stating the latter based upon nothing more than fanciful propaganda. --Taivo (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "annexed by Russia" neither accepts nor rejects the legitimacy of said annexation. It is completely silent on that. All it says is that Russia has taken over the territory in question.--Khajidha (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the term "annexed" implies an accepted formal incorporation into the structure of another country. The so-called annexation is rejected by virtually the entire international community. Using "annexed" without modification is a tacit acceptance of the Russian POV and a rejection of the international POV. While I don't accept "controlled" since it does not adequately reflect the forcible military situation, it is still better than "annexed" since no accepted formal incorporation is implied. The so-called "annexation" must be labelled to reflect its internationally unacceptable nature. --Taivo (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no such implication in the term. And the definitions I have found make no such limitation. --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even our own article on the subject says that annexation "is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state". And that such holding "can be legitimized via general recognition by international bodies" which logically implies that it may not be so legitimized in all cases. --Khajidha (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Even our own article" is baloney. You should know that we never refer to Wikipedia itself as a definitive source for anything. I find the term to be Russian POV without a modifier that indicates its illegitimacy in international law and opinion. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And none of these definitions mentions acceptance or legitimacy: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/annex , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex , https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/annex , https://www.thefreedictionary.com/annex , https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/annex . If anything the phrasings "without authority" and "appropriation" would indicate that annexation is unrecognized and illegitimate by default unless and until it is recognized. --Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

Change the name of Ukraine's capital from Kiev (the Russian spelling) to Kyiv (the Ukrainian spelling). 178.136.75.114 (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See Talk:Kiev/naming. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We use the English spelling. --Khajidha (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardarike_runestones#G_280

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ukraine&oldid=849446838"