Talk:Ukrainian War of Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

DYK suggestions[edit]

This is a good topic. Let's get it to the DYK nomination.--Riurik(discuss) 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a genuinely new article or is it based on the existing ones? --Irpen 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a new topic that is not specifically covered by any other article, however several parts of it are covered by separate articles which are listed. This article also contains information that is not covered by any existing articles at all. 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My question is whether the article is written anew or is the compilation of the existing enwiki articles. If so, which ones. It is not prohibited to use other articles to write new ones but this should be acknowledged for GFDL reasons if not for any others. --Irpen 05:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the article is written almost entirely anew. There is certain information that is taken directly out of other Wiki articles, and these articles are referenced. There is also information that appears nowhere else on wikipedia. 06:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK suggestion, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created_on_November_1

UWI as a historical term[edit]

This is a continuation of the discussion started on the wp:dyk page under November 1, asked by Carabinieri regarding the usage of Ukrainian War of Independence.

The term is used by:

Regards, --Riurik(discuss) 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just unable to find the term on the first glance.--Carabinieri 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This title suggests a formality and establishment of title that really looks like it's the product of the author creator. Please will someone involved in these article read WP:NOR, esp. WP:SYN. This title makes a mockery of these policy-guidelines. Actual content ... minus the spin ... would appear to be Ukraine in the Russian Civil War. By looking at the War of Independence articles, there needs to be establishment of usage for this term. Also the term suggests 1) the primary theme of the war was one side's struggle for an independent Ukraine (POV) and 2) that the latter were successful (they weren't). And 3) it has to be an established historical term in the lingua anglica! This article may need to go to WP:RFC. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that the title Ukrainian Civil War would be most acceptable. After all Ukrainians fought on all three sides, in the Russian White Army, in the Bolshevik Red Army, were allied to the Poles, in addition to exclusively making the Makhnovschina and the short-lived UNR states. By definition of a Civil War (A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power.), this fits perfectly to the case.--Kuban Cossack 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about using any title which suggests widespread formal use. Description wise, Civil War is appropriate, as it would be to the War of American Independence and the Wars of Scottish Independence among others. However, use of "Ukrainian Civil War" likewise suggests a widespread formality of usage. Ukraine in the Russian Civil War and Polish-Soviet War is, if long-winded, descriptive and not in violation of guidelines. Is "Ukrainian Civil War" more widespread than "Ukrainian War of Independence"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll note, the Castilian wiki has much of the same content under the title Ukraine in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, es:Ucrania después de la Revolución Rusa. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the title of this article acceptable?[edit]

I have to second Kuban kazak's proposition about the Ukrainian Civil War. Inclusion of this war in Russian civil war is improper as at times, hostilities went on without the participation of Russian forces and in Ukraine, which was by then de facto and de jure independent. Moreover, even in relation to those who participated, it is not easy to figure out which were Russian or not. It happened in Ukraine, thus the above title is appropriate. In addition, this title is widely used in English-language historiographic literature [1][2][3][4][5]. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Though the idea that Ukraine experienced civil strife or war in this period is easy to verify, "Ukrainian Civil War" isn't. It has the benefit of naturally following the terminology of Russian Civil War, but beyond that I can't find evidence that English historians have embraced the concept "Ukrainian Civil War" to the extent necessary. The links don't support a wiki title enshrining "Ukrainian Civil War"; I think therefore this title would still be in violation of WP:SYN. Civil war in Ukraine, 1917-1921 or perhaps better Political strife in Ukraine, 1917-1921 would get around that. And again, there is the suggestion of the Castilian wikipedia as a possible alternative. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well with all do respect what other conflict would you describe as the Ukrainian Civil War? Also I have to disagree with Hillock about its non-inclusiveness into the Russian Civil War. Nearly all historians agree that it was part of this large superconflict, and Ukraine without doubt was one of the major theatres of the conflict. Same way Transcaucasia is included as part of the same superconflict although not directly involving "Russia" at times (see for yourself). With Ukraine however, was Crimea not the final stand of the Russian White Army? Was the Polish-Soviet Conflict not the closing phase of the european theatre? The Ukrainian theatre of the Russian Civil War was one of the most important ones. How can you deny that. We are not focusing on individual conflicts involved, but to describe the whole period. In doubt dig into any Military History book on the subject. --Kuban Cossack 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kuban, it's not that Ukrainian Civil War might be ambiguous, it's that wikipedia isn't the place to enshrine terminology before historians do. There's a similar problem with the rather ridiculously named Ukrainian-Soviet War, overly formal (I don't think the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is good or representative enough) and implies that the Ukrainian SSR and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic weren't "Ukrainian". Ukrainian Civil War isn't nearly as bad as the current title ... I won't oppose it if otherwise there's consensus, but I don't really see what problem there is with Civil war in Ukraine, 1917-1921. As it duplicates the content here, if and when the article gets renamed to a more sensible location, we should seriously consider merging the ill-named Ukrainian-Soviet War into this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Woah!!! "...the Ukrainian SSR and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic weren't "Ukrainian"..." Those are your words. How were they Ukrainian? They were contre-Ukrainian and pupet states of the Russian SFSR. The head of their states did not even speak Ukrainian. Russia has become the first soviet state in history. I do not see nothing ill in the name of Ukrianian-Soviet War. It merely implies that it was directed against the expansion of the Soviet Russia. Of course, there are those who trace the meaning of the Soviet State from the establishment of the Soviet Union which is another story. The reason for all of that confusion that took place in Ukraine at that time was primarily due to the government of the Russian SFSR.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Against above comments, I've just discovered for myself that there's already an article called Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, as many here knew and didn't point out. Anyways, this means wikipedia has three articles with pretty much the same content ... two with names in violation of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, and one a with a descriptive name such as the one I suggested:
Ukraine after the Russian Revolution
Ukrainian-Soviet War
Ukrainian War of Independence
So the problem looks worse (to me at least) than it originally did. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, three articles for the same topic is inappropriate. They should be merged somehow. I am not sure about the naming though, either UCW or UWI sounds fine to me, but "Ukrainian-Soviet War" is too specific (it is only a part of a larger struggle), while "Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" is too broad - it doesn't specify existence of a conflict at all. Kami888 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If one article is too specific, and the other is too wide, then please explain why do you want it to be merged? The scope of the articles is different, and that's fine. Why do you think that everything should be in one article? --Greggerr (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I find the topics of all three articles to be too similar, their contents overlap too much. The scope is different but I don't think it necessiates existance of all 3 articles. For example I fail to see Ukraine-Soviet war as a really separate conflict from all the other conflicts which took place in Ukraine at the same time. It can hardly be described even as a separate "front" of the war.Kami888 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically, there are two subarticles, Ukrainian-Soviet War and Polish-Ukrainian War, which cover specific details of the conflict. Both of the articles look well written, and in size are larger than this article. For me it seems acceptable to keep it as it is. There were many conflicts between different parties in Ukraine at that time, and Ukrainian-Bolshevik conflict was one of such conflicts, and actually, an important one. --Greggerr (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I disagree, first of all why do we privatise the terms "Ukrainian" to the UNR? Ukrainians fought in the Red Army, many fought for Wrangel and Denikin (read Bulgakov's White Guard for that fact). There were the Galician riflemen who after Petliura surrendered Galicia to the Poles instead sided with Denikin. However what is true, and would go against the title, was that the one group that had the majority of Ukrainians in it, was neither the Red or the White, or the samostiyniki... the one group that truely holds the title of being a Ukrainian one is the Black Army of Nestor Makhno. Which is why the current title is wrong. I would suggest Ukrainian theatre of the Russian Civil War --Kuban Cossack 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The privatisation of the term "Ukrainian" to the UNR is not due to the fact on which side fought the Ukrainians. UNR supported the revival of the national identity unlike the CPU(b) which supported the Union with the Russian SFSR. What is the reason to be Ukrainian if you refuse to speak it? It is not privatisation. It was the real War that the Soviet Union tried to cover up. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think "Ukrainian theatre of the Russian Civil War" would definitely not look good since it suggests that Ukraine is part of Russia :) Kami888 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Care to explain? The historic definition of the super conflict that this war was part of is the Russian Civil War. Ukrainian here does not necessarily imply in the national or ethnic sense, but instead in regional. Also at present of course Ukraine is not part of Russia, but historically it was (in fact it was a cradle of Russian civilisation mind you!). Transcaucusian thetre is also considered to be part of the Russian Civil War. Yet does not suggest that Transcaucasia was is part of Russia? Does Ukraine after the Russian Revolution suggest anything? Yet that title is universally accepted.--Kuban Cossack 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Cossack! Do you understand the difference between Rus and Russia? Russia is a state the was made out of the Moscow Kingdom; Rus was a predecessor of the Moscow Kingdom. Do you understand how Rus does not automatically means Russia? At the time of the so called Russian Civil War, Ukraine was a recognized indepndent state by the Russian SFSR. Therefore Kami is absolutely right that Russian Civil War couldn't have happened there, but rather it was the war against the independent state. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current title is valid, and the arguments provided by Riurik are convincing. The terms "war of independence" and "struggle for independence" have been used by Britannica, Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and among historians. On the other hand, the title "Ukrainian Civil War" is too narrow to describe the event. German, Polish, and Russian forces payed important, if nor the dominant role in the conflict. --Greggerr (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian War of Independence is a right term. To argue that it isn't because Russian Empire fell is absurd, we could then portay Polish struggle was only part of Russian Civil War. Also a large part of Ukraine came from Galicia region which wasn't part of Russian Empire but Austro-Hungarian Empire.--Molobo (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, all.

I just found this article. It's good, and fills holes in Ukraine after the Russian Revolution. But between these two and Ukrainian-Soviet War there are too many articles with a similar scope (Polish-Ukrainian War covers a more specific topic). I would like to see these carefully merged into one more-comprehensive article with a future as a featured article. Or perhaps reorganized into two: a historical survey, plus a more detailed military history.

Regarding the title, I don't have a problem with associating these events with the "Russian Civil War", since the name refers to the defunct Russian Empire, not to ethnic Russia. However, a more specific and descriptive title would be better.

Searching Google books gives some insight into what are accepted titles or set phrases. Also pay attention to where they are capitalized as the proper name of a conflict, as the Ukrainian Civil War vs. a Ukrainian civil war, and where they are part of a different phrase like Ukrainian civil war hero, or a Polish-Ukrainian civil war.

It looks to me that Ukrainian War of Independence is not common at all, and Ukrainian Civil War sometimes appears as a set phrase in lowercase, but very rarely as a proper name. Lower-cased Ukrainian civil war or Ukrainian war of independence could be acceptable titles.

I've opposed the title Ukrainian Revolution in the past, but I've done more reading and rethought it over the past months. It is used either as a set phrase or as a proper name by many mainstream historians. Subtelny 1988 has a chapter entitled “The Ukrainian Revolution,” and uses the word as a proper name. Magocsi 1996 uses it as a set phrase: "... Thus, in the wake of the first Russian revolution, the Ukrainian revolutionary era began as well. ¶The Ukrainian revolution began in March 1917, when the first political changes took place in the Russian Empire. It was to last until October 1920, when the international situation in eastern Europe finally stabilized. ..." From memory, Yekelchyk 2007 also uses it prominently, although I don't have the reference at hand.

I'd be in favour of using the title Ukrainian Revolution for a combined survey article. Michael Z. 2008-06-11 17:32 z

What about the Ukrainian Theatre of the Russian Civil War? I know its long but it is as acurate as it can be. WRT Ukraine after Russian Revolution, move to History of Ukraine (1917-1921) and that really should deal with that title. BTW in general I support the idea of creating a History of Ukraine (xxxx-yyyy) to deal with all issues involved. Even if we are to have a lot of overlap (which is alright really if one thinks about it). I would rather have a few articles repeat themselves than have the information scattered over ten dozen articles, the trick is to find a balance. E.g. History of Ukraine (1775-1917) and Little Russia would no doubt have strong overlap but IMO that's alright. Its good you brought this up, and feel free to move UaRr to HoU(1917-1921) whenever you feel ready... that needs no time wasting. --Kuban Cossack 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly prefer a title describing what the article is about to just a range of dates, which has little meaning to readers who are not already familiar with Ukrainian history. I don't think anyone uses Ukrainian [t]heatre in the context of the Revolution and Civil War.
Well technically it is correct when focusing on a particular area of a larger superconflict. World War II we have Eastern Front, Pacific Theatre. The Front here is incorrect as there were five or six combatants fighting each other, but the theatre is IMO suitable. --Kuban Cossack 12:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about merging? Michael Z. 2008-06-11 20:20 z
I think that the Ukrainian War of Independence is a good title. First there was proclaimation of independence and then a series of battles took place to overthrow the Ukrainian government. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to start this discussion again. I don't think that the current title is appropriate. It doesn't reflect all the processes that took place. As the Independence of Ukraine was not the only issue on the territory of modern Ukraine during that period. The beligerents were numerous and their ideas were different. Other than that usually people name a war a War for Independence if the independence was achieved. In other cases it can be either an uprising or a civil war. At least it could be called a War for Independence if the majority of population was for the independence. I think, that Ukrainian Civil War would be the appropriate name. I think there is a huge difference between a civil war and a war for independence. Arbiter of Elegance (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Ukraine after the Russian Revolution and Ukrainian-Soviet War[edit]

I've added notices to the relevant articles, to get some discussion going about this initial proposition. Please don't vote yet. (Naming is a separate issue, being discussed above.)

We have three articles with a very similar scope and complimentary content. I think it would be a great improvement to merge them into one article suitable to improve towards FA, or at least to reorganize them into two articles: a general survey plus a military history. What does everyone think? Michael Z. 2008-06-12 04:57 z

You're proposing we merge them into this article with this title? Ostap 05:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Object to merger of Ukrainian-Soviet War (I am not that familiar with the two other articles). UWoI was composed of several smaller wars, and Ukrainian-Soviet is as notable as Ukrainian-Polish War.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, the Ukrainian-Soviet war title is very much open to interpretation. In fact there were two phases of direct confrontation between the UNR and the U(S)NR in 1918, then again after the Germans left, and then as part of the Polish Soviet Conflict. Also Ukrainian-Soviet War could mean the Fascist Insurgency in Ukraine (1943-1950). Also the title is dead wrong, as where we are reffering to Ukraine as a region, in that title Ukrainian Soviet War we are limiting the use of the term Ukrainian to only a couple of governments, which themselves opposed each other and had scarce following. If anyone the most support that Ukrainians gave to was Nestor Makhno, does Ukrainian-Soviet War now mean the two times he and the Bolsheviks went into confrontation? --Kuban Cossack 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This, perhaps, merits renaming the article to Ukrainian-Soviet Wars, but the conflict (or conflicts) between Ukrainians and Soviets in 1917-1921 are certainly notable to deserve a separate article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Again that statement is wrong, not between Ukrainians, but between Ukrainian governments and Bolsheviks, Ukrainians made up sizeble portion of the Red Army and Red Guards, much like the non-Ukrainians made up noticeble portions in the armies of Skoropadsky (for example). --Kuban Cossack 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose merging stuff into this article since the term that comprises its title "Ukrainian War of Independence" is not an established name for these events, but rather a synthesis. There were several wars and each of them deserve an article on its own: the war between Western UA and PL (already has an article), aside from that there was a Polish invasion into Dnieper Ukraine (has an article). Additionally, there was a Ukrainian theater of the Russian Civil war and on top of that a lot of intra-Ukrainian infighting between different warring factions of which pro-Bolshevik faction was only one of many. Add the Anarchists, "neo-Cossacks", etc. and you get a full picture. Calling these events a "Ukrainian War of Independence" is an ORish synthesis. Trying to present this as a "Ukrainian-Soviet" war is also a big stretch, and besides, a minority view. --Irpen 00:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose to any merging as the subjects are different.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no vote in progress. Michael Z. 2008-06-13 22:32 z

Okay, I see there is opposition to eliminating the separate article Ukrainian-Soviet War, so I will retract that part of the proposal, but leave the tags up for a few days to attract editors to this discussion.

I am not suggesting choosing any titles here. The title of this article is a separate discussion, above. I am suggesting merging the very good but incomplete content of both this article and Ukraine after the Russian Revolution. I suppose they would merge into whichever one of these has the longer edit history, but that still won't determine the title of the merged article. Michael Z. 2008-06-13 22:32 z

I think the UA-Soviet war (and its article) is a misnomer although supported by a fringe minority. The problem with this concept that it tries to present this conflict as if there was a "Ukrainian" side vs the Soviet side, while in fact the Ukraine itself was divided between the Kharkiv and Kiev governments that both trace to the Central Rada and both claim to be the only legitimate government of the country. At some point, the Petliura government have tried to reclaim the country through becoming a Polish puppet and calling in a Polish invasion. The events of this invasion are already covered in the article on its own. It is of course titled without the inva.. or occupa.. terms because according to a Wikipedia tradition it is only an invasion or an occupation if the aggressor is Russia or the USSR, but that is a separate issue. In addition to the Petlura-Kharkiv line of conflict, there were other lines of conflicts within Ukraine. The Petlura-Skoropadsky line, the feud between WUNR leadership and Petlura, the Makhno movement as well as many bands of thugs that lacked any clear affiliation. They all fought each other, whites, reds and arranged the alliances. Trying to present these complex as chaotic events as the "Ukrainian-Soviet War" or the "Ukrainian War of Independence" is a minority view that should be perhaps reflected in an attributed form in the article but not serve the titles. Each conflict needs an article on its own and all the review material should be merged into the existing Ukraine after Russian Revolution. --Irpen 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much agree, and I think the main problem with this article is its title. If it is a bit short on the history of the Bolshevik side that merely reflects the emphasis of English-language literature—it's a good collection of facts, and not like any stereotyped bajky about the Ukrainian nationalists vs the Russians. I really think these three articles have the material to make two stronger articles. My only other reservation is the lack of citations. Michael Z. 2008-06-13 23:57 z
I agree that the best option of the three proposed is to merge these two articles into Ukraine after Russian Revolution as its name is neutral and the subject covered is quite broad. I think the necessity of such merging is obvious as in reality there was a patchwork of conflict between beligerents with a very complicated political motivation, so you cannot name it the Soviet-Ukraine war or the War for Independence, I think. Arbiter of Elegance (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusing infobox (Belligerents)[edit]

The layout is confusing. Why is Poland listed twice? Are there 3, 4 or 7 sides? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there were Germans (1) they were initially against the Russians (later White Russians 2). Later they would fight the Bolsheviks (3) and ally with Central Rada (4) and Skoropadsky (5) then fight Makhno (6) and Bolsheviks (7). After the end of their participation they would hand over Crimea to White Russian forces; Odessa to France (8) and leave. There were the Poles (9) they would fight the West Ukrainians (10) and then fight the Bolsheviks (7). There were the Central Rada it would ally with Germans (1) and ... they would fight them, ally with them, Eastasia, Eurasia, Oceania... If your head has not exploded yet, then I will be very surprised... --Kuban Cossack 14:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oof, maybe it's best just to list them all in one column. The arrangement in 7 subdivisions of 3 boxes doesn't express the facts, and having Poland and Germany in there twice with different dates just looks like a mistake. The way it's laid out strongly implies that, e.g., Germany, Poland, France and the Whites comprised an alliance. Michael Z. 2008-06-13 23:35 z

Ukrainian Revolution[edit]

Not a vote.

Okay, it looks like we're not going to move forwards without addressing the title. Here's a bold proposal. Ukraine after the Russian Revolution is a general history article. This one is a military-history counterpart to it. What if we were to rename this article Ukrainian Revolution?

Just discussion for now. I've written my thoughts about this title earlier on this page. Any serious objections? Michael Z. 2008-06-14 00:07 z

To be fair either that or the Ukrainian Civil War will do.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the Ukrainian Civil War is a good title, although there seems to be absense of consensus that the title is in fact disputed. The tag has been here since June and I haven't seen many people actually willing to rename the article. What's the urgency now? --Hillock65 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
None of the links cited above use this capitalized as a proper noun, but the online Encyclopedia of Ukraine does have an article entitled Struggle for Independence (1917–20). I'm not anxious to change it, but let's get rid of the dispute tag, by whatever means. Michael Z. 2008-10-22 20:14 z
With all due respect Encyclopedia of Ukraine is not a good reference for titles, the view it takes is hardly mainstream nor international rather centred on Ukrainian nationalism, after all its founder was a former Nazi collaborator. That's beyond the point, I suggest :Ukrainian Civil War, also known as the Ukrainian War of Independence, refers to the Ukrainian theatre of the Russian Civil War, which took place on the territory of modern Ukraine, from 1917 to 1920. etc. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the dispute tag[edit]

Does anyone still dispute the accuracy of the title? Speak up within two days, or I'll remove the dispute tag. If there is an objection, then I'll post a formal proposal for renaming. Michael Z. 2008-10-22 20:14 z

I agree, and I removed the template. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Ukrainian–Soviet War[edit]

After a year of having a duplicate POV fork, I've redirected the article to Ukrainian–Soviet war. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted you (per WP:BRD); such a controversial merge (see above) should be discussed first. I think this is an important parent article that should not be redirected to Ukrainian–Soviet War. Note, also, that what you did was a redirecting without merging anything; you have also not done any cleanup such as removing "part of the Ukrainian War of Independence" from multiple infoboxes using it (such a removal, of course, should not be done until a consensus is reached here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

B-class review[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian Civil War[edit]

I suspect this term may have to be dusted off and used for a separate war pretty soon. (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


User: Jwkozak91 At first, I genuinely thought this was a rookie mistake by some miss-informed beginner, not something persistently pursued by an actual editor! May I ask, who the heck ever told you that it was the GERMANS who entered Chișinău? The Germans didn't even got around the area until February, but the city was occupied in January, by the ROMANIANS! The Germans never took Chișinău, in none of the two World Wars, as in July 1941 it was liberated by an all-Romanian force. Also it's not "Kishinev", and it never was. It's a Romanian city, please call it accordingly. And don't bring the argument "Oh, it was part of the Russian Empire at that time!" because Moldavia was declared in December 1917, with ROMANIAN as the official language! Can you please just stop?...Look, I don't know what a miss-informed delusional Germanophile/Russophile/Anti-Romanian racist you are, but what you're doing is WRONG and you must STOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)