Talk:Ukraine after the Russian Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Please propose better DYK questions. Just off the top of my head, Did You Know:

  1. ... that Ukraine after the Russian Revolution of 1917 was fought over by the forces of three different Ukrainian governments, Russian Bolsheviks and Loyalists, Poles, Germans, Cossacks and anarchists?
  2. ... that despite battles in Ukraine after the Russian Revolution between Ukrainian, Bolshevik, Russian, Polish, German, and Cossack forces, and various anarchist and paramilitary bands, Ukrainian-language publication and education flourished?
  3. ... that Ukrainian-language publication and education flourished in Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, despite battles between Ukrainian, Bolshevik, Russian, Polish, German, and Cossack forces, and various anarchist and paramilitary bands?

Please wikify, improve, or add more proposals. Michael Z. 2006-10-28 00:51 Z

Both are good. Actually, the most neutral title of this artcile is: "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)". 04:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the second DYK entry you wrote. As for the title, "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" does seem to be more defined in scope and not as long so perhaps the current article can be moved there (either now or after the dyk). --Riurik (discuss) 20:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the tone of the second question too. Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:08 Z

Question: my impression is that Ukrainian-language publication and education flourished after the Tsar's edicts banning Ukrainian was no longer in force, under the Centralna Rada and the Hetmanate. The fighting increased later, but I don't know how much overlap there was. Does question no. 2 reflect the reality well enough? Michael Z. 2006-10-28 22:19 Z

I've reworded #2 slightly as #3, so perhaps it implies that there was more flourishing before fighting. I'll propose it to WP:DYK shortly, and of course suggestions for rewording or changing the question will still be welcome. Michael Z. 2006-10-30 03:40 Z
the third is even better.--Riurik (discuss) 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


[in response to comments in #DYK above]

I prefer the current title because it relates to the topic: an unfamiliar reader knows from the title what goes on during the period, whereas the years alone would not carry significance to everyone. I'm now think that "Ukraine in the Russian Revolution" might be a bit better. "Ukraine in the Russian Revolution (1917-1922)" may be the best of both. Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:08 Z
(1) Russian Revolution, by itself, is an ambiguous term.
(2) A part of Ukraine was in the Austria-Hungary Empire, which collapsed due to WWI. As well as, the Russian Empire collapsed in part due to WWI. It may suggest "Ukraine in WWI" title, as a world war is wider recognized than a revolution in Russia.
(3) And why should we prefer "Ukraine in(after) the Russian Revolution", instead of "Ukraine after the collapse of Russian Empire" or, say, "Ukraine before the formation of the Soviet Union"?
All in all, "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" is a neutral way to name the article. Other proposals have a subjective emphasis built in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
My issue was that Ukraine after the Russian Revolution title can indicate the Ukrainian SSR or the independent Ukraine, however I don't really mind your proposed title as long as in the lead paragraph it is made explicit to the reader that the article is about specific events/governments of Ukraine between 1917-1922. --Riurik (discuss) 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Some good points, which require more thought. Some initial responses:
  • I don't think "Ukraine in WWI" is suitable, because most of the activity discussed in the article wasn't directly concerned with the war, and the period covered doesn't correspond to the duration of WWI (1914–1918).
  • "Ukraine after the collapse of the Russian Empire" would be better, but it only defines the period in question by what it followed. In contrast, "in the Russian Revolution" is associated with the events covered herein.
  • I agree that "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" is the most neutral, but that is simply because it avoids saying what the article is about. I think readers appreciate being given a clue to the subject of an article when they see the title in isolation. It would also be good to have a title which can at least occasionally be linked directly, rather than always having to type a piped link: [[History of Ukraine (1917-1922) |Ukraine in the Russian Revolution]].
The first revolution of 1917 is what starts the events here, and Russian Revolution or Russian Civil War can refer to the greater events up to 1921. I also think this article requires an earlier section covering events from the 1905 Revolution, but that will take a bit of reading first.
Is it a problem to associate a Ukrainian history article with the Russian revolution in the title? Personally, I think it's neutral because it doesn't imply that Ukraine was Russian, but merely refers to the defunct Russian Empire.
But as I wrote above, you make some good points. I'd like to get some more input from other editors. Michael Z. 2006-10-30 03:34 Z
See also: Talk:Ukrainian_People's_Republic#more_on_expansion.

I've removed the POV tag from the top of this article. Anonymous, please participate in the discussion instead of just publicly expressing your displeasure. We've taken the trouble to respond to you, you could at least take the trouble to respond in kind. If all of your points haven't been addressed, then let us know how.

And why do you label the title POV? Exactly what is the "subjective emphasis" you think it is suffering from? Michael Z. 2006-11-19 18:04 Z

In my opinion, the current title of this article "Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" is POV because it unnecessary and subjectively overemphasizes the Russian revolution of 1917. Similarly, if it were named "Ukraine before the formation of the Soviet Union", it would overemphasize the Soviet Union creation. The two titles I just mentioned are exactly similar, as they both bring additional focus on some events, which are not actually the main subject of the article. As it looks for me, it’s just that you for some reason like one POV title over the other.
It’s my understanding that the most common practice among historians is naming historical periods by time. For example, History of the United States (1865–1918), History of Canada (1960-1981). If there is a consensus name for a historical period, an article may be named that way. For example, Spain under Franco, or Italy in the Middle Ages.
The way you named the article implies that there is no name for a historical period of 1917-1922. But if so, it should be something neutral like "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)". Second, your title also implies that the only valuable historical event is the Russian revolution of 1917. This is quite subjective in my opinion, as such events as World War I, and Soviet Union formation are of no less value. Third, your title lack any indication of the end point of the historical period you are covering. Ukraine after the Russian Revolution until what? Even the initial historical point is not marked correctly because there were more than one Russian Revolution. Your title is not bringing clues, but rather generates confusions. Lastly, even for Russia, there is no article with the name "Russia after the October Revolution"; the article is named Russian Civil War.
If you agree that the title "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" is the most neutral, then why do you look for excuses to keep it under "not so neutral" name? If it's moved, no need to use piped links. Redirects would work. And piped links, if used, they would be quite different one from the other, like "there was [[History of Ukraine (1917-1922)|short period of independence]]...", etc, etc.
And as a side note, I know, you are an admin, and a long-standing contributor. Yet, your removal of POV tag constitutes vandalism. The tag is there, as it reads, to indicate that "this is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title". To the best of my abilities, I think, I explained why I see your title as subjective. You wrote that you would like "to get some more input from other editors". This is exactly what the tag is intended to bring. And you probably noticed that following the incusion of the tag, one person already voiced his opinion (but unfortunately he did it in wrong way) [1]. I think, the tag is a reasonable way to facilitate the discussion and to get others involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talkcontribs)

Dear KPbIC, I will respond to your message despite your writing it in your usual uncivil attack style. Calling your opponents vandals does not add credibility to your argument. Referring to the actions by true vandals[2] as those that somehow support your POV is plain bad-faith argument. In fact both the vandal and yourself assaulted the well-written article, although in different ways.

The article title is good. The article is devoted to the events in Ukraine prompted and unleashed by a grand event for the time, the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. Has the Soviet Union been not formed, the turmoil in Ukraine unleashed by the RU revolution would have warranted the article in any case. History of UA (XXXX-YYYY) would have made sense if we had written, similarly to our Polish colleagues, the overall series of history of Ukraine articles. Such does not exist. Creation of such a complete series would have been a gigantic undertaking. With 2.5 editors only who regularly work along the topics of Ukrainian history it will take time, especially when editors who write have to spend time fending off the occasional assaults on their work like this one.

I realize from your past edits how eager you are to detach Ukrainian topics from the Russian influences and even purge the very word Russia and Soviet from as many Ukrainian articles as possible. Such an extreme approach is counterproductive. Like it or not, none of the neighbors of Ukraine played a greater role in its history than its northeastern neighbor with Poland's being a clear but very distant second. You want to see an ethnically pure History of Ukraine as a first step to the ethnically pure Ukraine? You will get very little support for that even at uk-wiki. Take care and do not forget to log in if you choose to respond. --Irpen 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, Let me ignore for now the first and the third paragraph you wrote, as they are nothing more than personal attacks. On your constructive point, you seem to agree that the current title put tremendous emphasis on the Russian Revolution. However, you think that such emphasis is acceptable, as the revolution was such a "grand event". While the revolution was, in fact, a significant event (driven by even more significant World War I as well as domestic factors), the article is about a time period. In Russia, the established name for this time period is Russian Civil War, not "Russia after the Revolution".
If the series of History of Ukraine articles is needed, and it’s in fact needed, then this particular article titled in a neutral way as History of Ukraine (1917-1922) is really a good starting point. It does show the right direction to proceed. And you personally did call for such name for the historical article [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talkcontribs)

I thoroughly deny your accusation and stand by every word I said. As for the title, you may note that the entry by me you dug out (I applaud your gruntwork of finding my edits from months ago) is made specifically in the context of such hypothetical series of articles. Until now, we only have one History of Ukraine article. --Irpen 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I overreacted earlier, but it's been my experience that a label goes up on an article when an editor has decided that any further discussion is moot—it's like a second-resort weapon, used when an editor is convinced others are wrong but that his point of view has no chance of achieving consensus. I'm glad we're back to talking, even if it looks like there's a ways to go. It's too late at night for me to read through this carefully and respond, and it may be a day or two before I can. Regards. Michael Z. 2006-11-20 08:11 Z

Before I go, I'll respond to a couple of points...
"Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" refers to the events, Revolutions of 1905 and 1917, which directly led to the major defining happenings in Ukraine covered in this article. "Ukraine before the formation of the Soviet Union" certainly does not. I don't see how this title "generates confusion", nor how it implies that the February Revolution is the "only valuable event" of the period. I think you might consider the possibility that you are inferring too much.
I don't know what basis there is for your understanding that historians prefer titles like "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)", but if you ask me this sounds like something that would be found in a grade-school textbook written by a committee. A listing of Ukrainian history articles with only dates in the titles is completely void of content, useless to any reader who doesn't already know the history. It doesn't show respect for the reader, and it's no wonder the kids would rather listen to gangsta rap.
Cream of wheat is neutral too. It may have its place, but I don't need "excuses" to avoid making it my main course for dinner.
As an example, the excellent reference I am looking at right now has chapters in its part eight ("World War I and the Struggle for Independence") entitled "World War I and Western Ukraine", "Revolutions in the Russian Empire", "The Period of the Hetmanate", "The Directory, Civil War, and the Bolsheviks", and "The West Ukrainian National Republic". The second of these, "Revolutions in the Russian Empire", has the following sections:
  • Russia's first revolution of 1917
  • Revolution in Dnieper Ukraine
  • The Central Rada
  • First Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada [quoting the full text of the document]
  • The Bolshevik Revolution
  • Third Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada (Preamble) [quoted text]
  • The Ukrainian National Republic
  • The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk [quoted text]
I doubt that this guy pitched in thanks to your valuable contribution of slapping a tag on this article, but if you want to claim that as a victory, I won't argue. And finally, please read what constitutes vandalism before you accuse any other editors who may not be as forgiving as I. If you still think I'm guilty, please consult Wikipedia:Resolving disputesMichael Z. 2006-11-20 08:58 Z
"Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled." (Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism)

At this point the article describes the events of 1917-1922. The title "Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" presumably refers to the events after the revolution, but the reader is left to figure out after which revolution. If, instead of clarifying the title, you plan to extend the article by including here events after 1905 revolution, with the sole purpose of validation the "after the revolution" title, then it's nothing more than an attempt of manipulation with the history, known as original research. "After 1905 revolution" and "after 1917 revolution" are the two separate time periods.

I don't see in which way the title "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" brings disrespect to a reader. It covers the well specified period of history, with many events included. Dmytro Doroshenko wrote a two-volume book "History of Ukraine 1917-1923". I don't think, he named it in an attempt to disrespect readers. And actually, a textbook in Ukrainian high schools for 10th grade is named "Новітня історія (1914-1939 рр.)". None of the chapters of the book you cited is named as "Ukraine after the Russian revolution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talkcontribs)

On tag removal, dispute tags may be removed when the user believes in good faith that the tag was added frivolously such as to disrupt or to fulfill one's political agenda especially when the tagger has a history of trolling in the past. WP:AGF includes the following clause specifically to address the issue: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." With the evidence of past history of a tagger to remove any reference to Russian language, Russian names, Russia and USSR (except the strongly negative ones) from all Ukraine-related topics, there was every reason to treat the tagger's action with suspicion, especially since the tagger refused did not add anything to a talk page when tagging the article. A tagger's claim that the vandal's addition of graffittee to an article[4] when it was featured at the mainpage signifies the vandal's support to the tagger's position is not even worthy of a response but it does exemplify the tagger's good faith.
On title, we are not talking 1905 here and the "Russian Revolution" in the title means the events that took place during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and its aftermath. The 1917 events in Russia unleashed the whole bunch of social and national movement in Ukraine that rocked it for the following 5 years, which can be clearly seen as the revolutionary turmoil. The article is specifically about the time of this turmoil and the title reflects that. When it all settled, the new chapter of Ukraine's history started, the interwar period. --Irpen 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been planning to add a preamble about relevant events after 1905 to this article, as you can see from earlier comments on this page, and your preëmptive accusations will not deter me. Please address complaints of my anticipated future offences to Temporal Investigations.
Anonymous, you don't seem to be getting the gist of my reasoning here, so let's just save our bickering for when it really counts. I suggest we see if there is support for a change. I'm not married to the current title, but I haven't yet seen a suggestion which is clearly better. Michael Z. 2006-11-20 20:47 Z
Again, please don't ignore the recommendations of WP:STRAW#Creating a survey. And don't forget to annonce the survey at Wikipedia:Current surveys.

Straw poll regarding the article title[edit]

Poll and discussion closed—a long time has passed, without consensus for a change. Please start a new subheading for further discussion. Michael Z. 2006-12-12 04:44 Z

Please read the discussion above, regarding this article's title. This is intended to be a poll to judge the need for further discussion, and not a binding vote. Michael Z. 2006-11-20 20:47 Z

"Ukraine after the Russian Revolution"[edit]

  1. Support A descriptive title is helpful to readers.[nominator] Michael Z. 2006-11-20 20:47 Z
  2. Ditto. --Irpen 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - per all Irpen's arguments. --Kuban Cossack 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Any ambiguity is clearly dispelled in the lead paragraph which defines the time period as being from 1917 to 1921. --Riurik (discuss) 04:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support This title is more descriptive. --Strothra 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support No need for the dates in the article title --Lostkiwi 04:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak support As much as I like History of Ukraine (1917–1922), I must go with the current one. As Mzajac had said above, the title should be respective to the reader, and it should give some sort of discription of the events. And when there is a series of articles on the history of Ukraine (which will take a considerable amount of time to write), maybe then we could consider the possibility of the article's titles: History of Ukraine (XXXX-YYYY)... —dima/s-ko/ 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. I came here with a preference for History of Ukraine (1917–1922) but the discussion has changed my mind. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak Support. I am here because of the Request for Comments that was posted, I read the discussion, the other option is also reasonable and good, so it is almost a toss-up, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco (talkcontribs)

"History of Ukraine (1917–1922)"[edit]

  • A possibility, at some point if (1) the series of Ukrainian history article is created (like in case of the Russian or Polish histories) AND (2) we end up with naming them all this way, like the Polish editors did but not like the Russian editors did. For now, object. --Irpen 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support per WP:NPOV. -- Anonymous; (all IP edits on this page are mine). 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Why remain anonymous? You got an account, might as well use it. --Kuban Cossack 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support since "after the Russian Revolution" is both ambiguous and seems to indicate history until present day. --GunnarRene 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. This looks much more encyclopaedic. I can't imagine a Britannica article entitled "Britain after the Glorious Revolution". --Ghirla -трёп- 07:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Britannica is a good example, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Please see below. Michael Z. 2006-11-23 16:41 Z
  4. Support. This title is more encyclopedic. CG 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some other title would be better[edit]

Suggestions added by

Ukraine's struggle for independence (1917–1922)[edit]
  1. [your name here]
Ukrainian Revolution (1917–1922)[edit]
Ukraine: War and Revolution (1914–1922)[edit]
History of Ukraine (1914–1922)[edit]
First World War, the revolutions and aftermath[edit]

(this is the name of a section in History of Ukraine)


As Ghirla pointed out, Britannica is a good example. Britannica calls that subsection of the huge United Kingdom article "The later Stuarts". If you expand the history section in the left-hand sidebar, you'll see that the list of subsections (each one page, analogous to a Wikipedia article) gives the reader an overview of the subject, divided up by the tenures of rulers:

United Kingdom > History > The later Stuarts[5]

  • Charles II (1660–85)
    • The Restoration
    • War and government
    • The Popish Plot
    • The exclusion crisis and the Tory reaction
  • James II (1685–88)
    • Church and king
    • The Revolution of 1688
  • James II (1685–88)
    • Church and king
    • The Revolution of 1688
  • William III (1689–1702) And Mary II (1689–94)
    • The Revolution settlement
    • The sinews of war
  • Anne (1702–14)
    • Whigs and Tories
    • Tories and Jacobites

Britannica's organization of Ukrainian history is worth a look, too.[6]

For example, see the table of contents of our History of Ukraine#toc. Pretty good. In time, our listing of Ukrainian history articles should look something like that. Imagine if, instead, a reader was confronted with this:

  • History of Ukraine (before the 9th century)
  • History of Ukraine (9th century–1240)
  • History of Ukraine (1200–1400)
  • History of Ukraine (14th century)
  • History of Ukraine (1569–1648)
  • History of Ukraine (1648–1772)
  • History of Ukraine (1772–1913)
  • History of Ukraine (1913–1921)
  • History of Ukraine (1921–1941)
  • History of Ukraine (1941–1945)
  • History of Ukraine (1941–1991)
  • History of Ukraine (1991–present)

Do you see what I mean by not showing respect for the reader? I still say that anonymous titles like "History of Ukraine (1917–1922)" are unhelpful to the reader, and therefore not encyclopedic. Michael Z. 2006-11-23 16:53 Z

But, Michael, the way you named the article is even worse. I don't have a problem naming "History of Ukraine (9th century–1240)" as "Kievan Rus", or naming "History of Russia (1917-1922)" as "Russian Civil War". However, the current title is particularly bad, as it uses the form "Ukraine after something", where something is ambiguous, as well as it lacks the ending point of the historical time interval. Moreover, such a title implies that something is more important than the historical time period itself.
I'm not saying that each and every article should be named "History of Ukraine (XXXX–YYYY)". But, if there is no established name for a time period, to avoid conflicts, per WP:NPOV, etc, I don't see a problem naming that particular article as "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)", which is actually the title of Doroshenko’s book, that is a somewhat established neutral title. Contrary to that, in my opinion, you peak (1) quite questionable title, (2) conflicting title, and (3) not widely used title. This is what I see as the problem. -- 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, I still don't agree that "after the Russian Revolution" is ambiguous—it clearly refers to events after 1917, and jibes with my dictionary, which defines "Russian Revolution" unambiguously as the 1917 Revolution. And if one is not sure, then "after the revolution" is clearly after both revolutions. I think this is a widely accepted view, and supported by the disambiguation page Russian Revolution.
I also don't agree that the title somehow implies that the Russian Revolution is more important. It merely pegs the beginning of the chaotic period at the clearly-defined event which kindled it.
But anyway, I am open to a better or more politically acceptable title which describes the subject.
Perhaps more examples would help:
  • Britannica subdivides the period, covered in the sections "World War I and the struggle for independence" and "Ukraine in the interwar period" (the latter being further subdivided, geographically).
  • Subtelny's history does likewise, with main sections entitled "War and Revolution", "The Ukrainian Revolution", "Soviet Ukraine: The Innovative Twenties", "Soviet Ukraine: The Traumatic Thirties", and "Western Ukraine between the Wars".
  • Ditto Magocsi, in the main sections "World War I and the Struggle for Independence" and "The Interwar Years" (partial breakdown mentioned previously on this page; perhaps Magocsi was consulted for Britannica).
Doroshenko's book is an exception. As a major work concerned only with the period, it is aimed at a readership who is interested in the specific topic, and presumably would have some understanding of it. Web pages need well-written titles.[7] This Wikipedia article has more in common with the sections in Britannica or the large histories I mentioned: the title should be helpful to a general audience who isn't aren't familiar with topic, and who may find it in an ordered table of contents (e.g.), an alphabetized index (e.g., e.g.), or a web search result (A Google search shows the following result text). [wording clarified  Michael Z. 2006-11-25 00:36 Z]
Ukraine after the Russian Revolution - Wikipedia, the free ...
Ukrainian territory was fought over by various factions after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the First World War, which added the collapse of ...
Couldn't have composed a much better 145-character search result summary if I had tried. Michael Z. 2006-11-24 22:04 Z
If the title is changed, the google could still find the page, could not it? But what if someone searches for Ukraine struggle independence? You think the word "revolution" is cool, and that's what can attract attention. Somebody else may say that the cool word is "independence" and that is what should be in the title. Or "war" is cool, so World War I should be highlighted. By advocating for "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" I'm really expressing NPOV, as contrary to a particular POV, as you do.
And if you share the view that title should be meaningful for wide auditory, then the current title is calling for a change. "... after the Russian Revolution" is not realy that helpful, as for example "struggle for independence", or "civil war" title. "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" clearly defines the time frame, and indicates that many events of different nature took place. And that's what was in fact during that period. There were (1) world war between empires, collapse of empires, (2) struggle for independence, national conflicts and (3) conflicts between classes ("workers" vs. "capitalists").
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I become inclining to "History of Ukraine (1914-1922)", as this was the war period of fighting over the Ukrainian territory. Ukrainian territory was fought over since the beginning of WWI, not just after the 1917 revolution. --23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that the way it appears in Google search results, this article's title doesn't suffer from the ambiguities you thought it would. I'm not saying anything about how the title affects search position. (The word "independence" appears once in the article, "struggle" not at all, "revolution" about four times including in the title, partly explaining the results from different searches.)
Currently this article doesn't talk about World War I, but I urge you to start a separate article or add such a section. It's really a separate topic from what this article is about, but could be added to the beginning if it covered the topic in appropriate depth. "(1917-1922)" does not indicate "that many events of different nature took place"—it indicates nothing at all about events (do you think that the respective navigation templates indicate that the United States and Poland had particularly eventful histories?).
My "POV" is that this article is that this article is about events in Ukraine following the Russian Revolution, and that is expressed by this title. Guilty! I still don't agree that saying nothing should be held up as a good example of NPOV; not even in one history article's title. We now have some other suggestions above, so let's consider if any one is an improvement. I don't understand your argument about "cool" at all, but do you believe this discussion will be fruitful if we each start speculating about what the other thinksMichael Z. 2006-11-25 00:25 Z
The "cool" part was a response to "no wonder the kids would rather listen to gangsta rap". I assumed you were in part driven by the desire to make the title attractive, even for a kid, and the word "revolution" is your tool to get attention. I don't have anything against making a title more attractive. But the costs here seems to be unreasonably high. POV title is like a false advertisement. For example, in the article you are talking about West Ukrainian National Republic, organized on the prewar Austria-Hungarian territory, but it has little to do with the 1917 Russian revolution. And what is the Russian revolution? One point in time? Russian Revolution of 1917 descibes the revolution as the set of events. Then, actually, 1917 events in Kiev were part of the set of events, as Kiev was the part of the Russian emprire. Thus, again, from whatever angle looking on it, the "...after the Russian revolution" title does not realy fit.
If you do want the title to be descriptive, probably, "Ukraine: First World War, the Revolutions and Civil War", "Ukraine: War and Revolution", "Ukrainian Civil War", or their modifications would be better than the current one. These titles are more clear in describing the actual events. -- 02:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm, you know what happens when you assume? At least your suggested titles are better than before. Really, you should leave my tool out of the discussion. Michael Z. 2006-11-25 08:53 Z

Late to the party[edit]

"History of Ukraine (1917–1922)"

  1. Support. A much better (NPOV) title, as the Russian revolution is only one aspect to what happened in Ukraine in this period. Ukraine after (or rather during) the Russian Revolution is as valid as Ukraine after the Peace of Brest-Litovsk or Ukranian civil war or whatever other supposedly meaningful title you can imagine. --Sugaar 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Michael, what would be your conclusion out of the poll? Do you see any other names that may fit this article better, or you stick to the current name as the best possible? --KPbIC 00:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see consensus supporting a change, nor any interest in the alternate proposed titles. Personally, I don't mind "Ukraine's struggle for independence (1917–1922)", although I think the article could benefit from the addition of Revolution-related history going back to 1905.
Honestly, I'm tired of the title controversy, and I'm happy to forget about it for a while. It is still a new article. Perhaps after some significant additions, or upon coming back to it in time, it will be more obvious that the title ought to change. Michael Z. 2006-12-16 01:54 Z
My conclusion would be that there is no strong support for the current title, and there is some recognition of the need to change. I thought more about extending it into "History of Ukraine (1914-1922)", that is for the period of WWI up to the formation of the Soviet Union. But, you are right, let's see how it will develop, and act accordingly. --KPbIC 03:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

History Sections?[edit]

I suggest that we break things down by period, as follows:

  • From the Russian Revolution to the Central Powers' defeat
  • From the Central Powers' defeat to the Polish campaign
  • From the Polish campaign to the Whites' defeat
  • From the Whites' defeat to 1922

What do the rest of you think? Jacob Haller 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A website with former secret documents about Ukraine after the Russian Revolution[edit]

will be available soon. Might come at hand her. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)