Talk:Ukraine/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Languages in infobox

There's and ongoing minor edit-skirmish on the Languages item in the infobox: should it list Ukrainian and Russian? It might be seen as pro-Russian POV to include this, and it might be seen as anti-Russian to exclude.

Typically, for contentious items in infoboxes, the solution is to leave it out; that's what I've accepted.

But, discussion is warranted. Comments? Pinging @NeilN:. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and note that the last edit of this had the comment 'no need to list spoken languages, "regional languages" already lists them', which is technically true. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no comment on the content. I was just reverting an unexplained deletion I saw no reason for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the infobox item specifies Official languages, the only proper entry is Ukrainian. If you hope to have any of your tasks that require government action approved, your written communication must be in Ukrainian. Everyday life, you will do fine with Russian but they are not the same - though close. After spending days gathering required information, the last thing you want is your paperwork handed back to you because it was not completed in the approved language. You will find the true meaning of bureaucratic apathy at this point. --SlimJim^Talk 09:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit skirmish is escalating. To clarify, note that three different infobox parameters are involved in this: languages, official_languages, and regional_languages. The first is currently blank, because it is disputed. The second is currently "Ukrainian", and the third lists more than a dozen languages; neither of these are disputed. I think the debate can be summarized as "should Russian be noted more than other regional languages in the infobox?". Opinions won't matter much; sources will. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see Languages of Ukraine. "Significant unofficial languages: Russian". Russian language in Ukraine: "Russian is a widely used language in Ukraine in pop culture and informal and business communications". I think that we should add that to the infobox. It's more than just a regional language. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

NightShadow23 reinserted the disputed languages parameter. I don't think that consensus has been clarified, but I don't have strong feelings about this issue. I added a ref for it from Languages of Ukraine. If any feel this is somehow against WP:NPOV, let them speak now, or consider this closed as consensus in favor. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean parameter type "spoken languages"? Why others languages in Ukraine (Hungarian, Crimean-tatar, Polish) are not "spoken"? As for me it's incorrect name of parameter and looks like some kind of original research Geohem (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussions on the parameter intended general use or name belong in Template_talk:Infobox_country. Infoboxes are generic by design, expected to be adapted by editors as needed. For this discussion at least, the languages parameter is being used to mean something like "common languages". More specifically, its used to note Russian falling between "official" and "regional" languages. Since such status is currently cited, I don't see how WP:OR applies. Bringing a source that contradicts this status for Russian would be significant. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean language status between "official" and "regional"? I have never heard about such differentiation. As for me, it's looks like a fictional status with unclear name "spoken". And as we see in other countries templates (for example United States/ Spanish, Denmark/English) it's uncommon practice used only in pro-russian way. Geohem (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, I have no vested opinion in this matter, but I can play devil's advocate and respond to these comments.

"between" question: This is pretty simple to me. Russian isn't official, because only Ukrainian is official. Russian isn't (just) regional, because according to the cite given it's used throughout Ukraine. Less than official yet more than regional = between the two.
"never... such differentiation": I agree it's at least very rare. Normally, common languages are also official languages. But this being a rare exception, or even a unique one, isn't a reason not to accommodate.
"fictional status": We can't call it fictional if reliably sourced.
"unclear name 'spoken'": I agree "Spoken languages" is an odd title that the infobox template gives to this. The parameter name is simply "languages". The link it gives to Spoken languages when displayed is particularly unhelpful. But that's an issue with the template, not the status of Russian.
"other countries templates": What other articles do doesn't have the force of a WP rule, per WP:OTHERSTUFF.
"pro-russian": Is it? That's the whole question I raised in starting this discussion, and, I think, the only one that matters, as it involves a definite and key WP policy: WP:NPOV. If it's pro-Russian, I'd think that at least some sources (even if pro-Ukrainian) could be brought to counter this, and we can evaluate them together.

Are there opposing sources to discuss? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

With this edit, I moved the "languages" parameter to "national_languages" -- the parameter (I just found) that the infobox has designed for just such language status! I am normally against editing something under discussion, but in this case I hope to focus this discussion on the status of Russian, not the infobox, and get it actually resolved. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian is an official and native for most population, but you still keep it as a "spoken" (that, as you said, means less than official). The parameter name is "languages_type". I look through Pavlenko's work and there is no "spoken" status for Russian language. The wide using Russian language in Ukraine's regions is represented as "regional language" status. As a result, I remove from this parameter Ukrainian, as it is an official language, and temporarily set languages_type as "others non-official languages", untill someone provide properly definition, as it used in reliable source or removed it as excess parameter.Geohem (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist jumped in with an edit after mine, confusing the progress here in talk. I've made yet another edit, combining the three edits to be in keeping with the suggestions above. The displayed result is now that Russian, alone, is given in "Non-official languages", listed below "Official" and "Recognized regional languages", and the cite restored. "Non-official" isn't a perfect description for Russian, but unarguably accurate; I'm okay with this. I think all the discussed concerns are now addressed. Thanks to all. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Non-official languages" — Great idea. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is a "non-official language"? Does anyone have a RELIABLE SOURCE that states that using the term verbatim? This is an encyclopedia - not a place for original research. The fact that Russian is widely used in Ukraine can be addressed in the article itself. Putting this item in the infobox looks absolutely ridiculous. 98.67.183.143 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-official language means a language that is not official. This is sourced. To remove it entirely, relegating it to a regional language, would require a source. A source giving it some other status would be helpful also. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What about Latvia where situation with Russian language is similar? What about Albanian in Macedonia, Spanish in US and many others? In my opinion this mark "Unofficial language" is unclear, discursive and unnecessary in infobox.--Dƶoxar (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Maybe other articles need something like this also, but that would be based on sources, not editor's opinions. Bringing a sources that states Russian is just a regional language in the Ukraine, or an official language, would be of interest. So far, we only have a source that states it's neither, giving it this unique status here. However, giving this status the term "Non-official" itself was a compromise; alternate terms can still be suggested. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to discuss an unexistent status if you believe it exists. Well, I'll try.

Russian is widespread more than other regional languages in Ukraine but still mostly in few regions (e.g. here or here).
There's no consecutive practice in English Wikipedia to mark "significant unofficial languages" in infobox for souvereign states. For instance, see Moldova (here), Latvia (here), Macedonia (here), United States (here). This information is important but unofficial, therefore it might be indicated in article but not in infobox.
Compromise term "unofficial language" sounds stupid, as there are at least over 2,000 unofficial languages in Ukraine[1], and even if it's meant "unofficial spoken language" there are at least 17 languages pretending for this "status" [2]. As there's no other status for Russian in Ukraine except of "Regional", all attempts to find this term can be only subjective and relative (unless someone convince Ukrainian Parliament to assign this status).

Could you explain me why the infobox should contain this special line for Russian language at all? All this status-related difficulties can be noted in the term-definition section.--Dƶoxar (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

1: It's in all regions, per the source. Yes, it's the primary spoken language in some regions -- not a reason to diminish its status.

2: The English WP country infobox supports "national languages" specifically for this sort of language status. The reason we didn't use it is because both Ukrainian and Russian are national languages, so both would be listed as such; some felt that seemed to be elevating Russian equal to Ukrainian, which isn't right, since Russian isn't the official language. So, this spoken-throughout-but-not-official status is supported, even if not being used directly.

3: I agree the term "unofficial language" isn't perfect. Is there some other suggestion?

But restating opinions isn't likely to change anything here. Any new sources for the status of Russian? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

So, as term "Non-official languages" only for russian language is not correct, and it is a permanent conflict version. I hide this parametrs, until A D Monroe III will provide correct, based on reliable sources terms for status of russian language in Ukraine.Geohem (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be editing against consensus. We have a source for the unique status for Russian in the Ukraine, and we had an agreement on the term. Disagreeing with the current consensus does not grant the right to select one's own opinion over others. Consensus must be changed before editing. --A D Monroe III (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Aside from POVPUSH, this discussion of 'unofficial' (an OR parameter) for the infobox has devolved from ludicrous to WP:LEWdicrous. Compare countries like Canada, the United States, Germany, and Australia. The 'new' countries (as opposed to calling them nation-states) may only have a "National language" (i.e., English), but more 'unofficial' languages than any European, Asian or other countries could even begin to imagine spoken and used within their borders, but they most certainly don't have them featuring in the infobox unless they are recognised regional indigenous languages. I don't see the point of shoving recognised regional languages into the "Official languages" parameter. Compare the Russia article which only features "Ethnic groups" and discusses regional languages and 'other' languages in the demographics section. WP:COMMONSENSE is supposed to be the order of the day here, folks. Could someone please point to any other article on a country that has had an "Non-official languages" parameter? Can someone please bring an RS to the table that even uses such terminology? The sensible thing to do is to remove regional languages from the infobox and leave that information in the demographics section (where it already exists). If not, perhaps we should consider expanding the country infoboxes in other articles such as the US where Spanish qualifies as a "Non-official language". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

As stated in the opening, arguments of POV can be made either way -- pro-Russian to include this, pro-Ukrainian to exclude. If we rely on sources rather than our opinions (however cunning, spiteful, or sarcastic), we should be able to avoid that on either side. I don't know any other way.

Yes, WP:OSE. This may be the only article to do this, or just the first; it doesn't matter. Again, the infobox was designed to support national yet not official languages, so the concept is hardly new anyway.

I agree that removing all languages from the infobox is an option; that is what we are required to do if no agreement is reached, per infobox guidelines. (That would include removing the official language, Ukrainian, since removing all mention of languages other than Ukrainian would be highly POV.) I'm trying to avoid that.

The comparison of Spanish in the US doesn't apply here, since I can't get by day-to-day with only Spanish in all states of the US. Inside some of the states, it may well have reached a similar status; it certainly has in the south of most Southwest US states. In the next few decades, I'd bet Spanish will go beyond regional status in those states. But their current status of Spanish is a discussion for those states, not here.

Once again, I'm certainly open to a different name to give the unique status of Russian. Perhaps "other common" , "former official", "deprecated", ...?— Preceding unsigned comment added by A D Monroe III (talk • contribs) 14:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No other suggestions for a different term for Russian? I'm guessing that a possible objection to the (demonstrably true) "Non-official" term is in implying that is has some kind of de facto official, ready to take over. That's certainly not intended; I assume that Russian is on its way out, not in (though it may take generations to fall to regional status). It's current mixed status exists only because it used to be an official language, as part of the the former Soviet Union's dominance, which (AFAIK) won't be reimposed. Is calling Russian a "Former official language" better than "Non-official language"? --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: Actually, it is the other way round. If you look at the populations of the cities cities of central, southern and eastern Ukraine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries you will find that in many (but not all) of these cities, the majority of the population were Russian-speakers or Yiddish-speakers; though 20-25% spoke Ukrainian, Polish or German as a first language. By creating the Ukrainian SSR entity, the Soviet Union created government bodies that imposed the Ukrainian language on the cities.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1, you're only accounting for far less than 20% of the population. That was most certainly not the case for the rural majority. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I object to Russian being listed as "special". It's already listed under "recognized regional languages" above. Why are we isolating it for special treatment anyway? Latin used to be the official language of England, but we don't list Latin as "formerly official" or even "non-official". Its special status should be removed and it should be treated as one of the "recognized regional languages". --Taivo (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We've been over this. We're looking for a NPOV way to avoid either under- or over-stressing Russian relative to Ukrainian. Russian is more than just one of a dozen regional languages, because it's commonly found in all regions of the Ukraine. It's certainly less than an official language. That places it above regional and below official. But, yeah, since this status doesn't apply to Latin or French, the term "former official" is out, so leaving it as "non-official". --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

So what is Russian in Ukraine? It is the largest minority language. It bears no special official status other than a regional language. You object to leaving it at that because it has so many speakers (although with the Russian invasion, many Russian speakers are abandoning Russian and switching more quickly to Ukrainian). So it's the largest of the minority languages. Why not list it as such: "Minority language(s)" or "Other language(s)" with approximate number of speakers. Then editor consensus (as it does on so many other pages) can keep the list from growing too unmanageable, but the number of speakers will ensure that Russian stays at the top of the list. That keeps the word "(non-)official" from occurring anywhere close to the word "Russian" and more accurately expresses its role in the country. --Taivo (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(Note: I'm mainly concerned balancing POVs between Russian/Ukrainian language; I have zero ties to either view. So I wouldn't say it's based on a "so many speakers" claim I have, just provided sources. I guess it does end up with some overlap, so maybe it doesn't matter, but I don't want any to think I'm pushing for someone's agenda; I'm trying to do just the opposite -- probably whatever leaves everyone equally unsatisfied, like most belabored compromises.)

I'm okay with term that's about numbers, except for Russian, it's also about it's wide distribution. Maybe something like "Other common languages = Russian (17%)"? (Don't quote me on percent -- just guessed for an example.) But I'll agree with most any term as long as there's some minimal level of acceptance by others. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And I'm also okay with combining as suggested, that is, both the Russian line and "Regional languages = [show]" replaced with something like "Other languages = Russian (x%), Bbb (y%), Ccc (z%), Others = [show]". --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The percentage solution is better than raw numbers. This solution avoids all relationship between the word "official" and "Russian". --Taivo (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I find this 'solution' to be nonsensical. Recognised regional languages is already a subgroup of the official language parameter, and is used to expand on 'official' commonly in other parallel articles. I haven't seen percentages being used in an infobox anywhere simply because such details as dealt with in the body of the article: in this case, as I've already expressed in the discussion above, in spades. Non official languages implies something else altogether. There are literally hundreds of 'em in Australia, Canada, and the US. We're actually depicting recognised regional languages, and Russian is no 'more official' (or should we take it to the superlative?) than other officially recognised regional languages. Changing that parameter title makes it sound as if all of those languages are used, but have no officially recognised status. Just lose the invented "Non-official languages" additional parameter. The next parameter is 'ethnic groups' which speaks for itself. This is getting really ridiculous. Take a look at the demographics section (particularly the 'languages' subsection) again. How much more self-evident does it have to be? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, Russian isn't merely a regional language, per the source given; it's spoken throughout the country. Demoting it to such, leaving only Ukrainian displayed, can be seen as anti-Russian POV, which is bait for edit warring, which is what started all this. Again, this is about the infobox, not the body. Saying "it's in the body" effectively means "why have an infobox?" And that's true; per Infobox guidelines, if we keep getting edit wars over parameters in it, we should remove the parameters involved -- all languages in this case. That is a solution per guidelines, but I'm trying to avoid that. That means coming up with some compromise for the infobox (even if it's something unique), not just claiming a solution isn't needed. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Where did this 'bait for edit warring' business come from? It's been stable for ages, and there are always going to be POV warriors traipsing through this article, the Russia article... and every other on nation-states. The only editor here adamant that some form of elucidation is WP:ITSIMPORTANT is you. If you're forced to create non-RS terminology in order to accommodate your interpretation of 'country' infobox, then I can only understand it as being POINTy rather than an important point. The reverse of what you allude to as being POVPUSH is equally true. As the infobox currently stands, giving such prominence to the Russian language in the infobox smacks of being very, very POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This whole section started with a slow edit-war over this. This item has been repeatedly edited during this discussion, even though that's considered disruptive; we now have a hidden comment asking to stop doing this. Although I've supported different solutions (starting with one agreeing with you), none of the solutions presented here are mine; they are those of other editors, and they conflict. I agree, and have repeatedly restated, that some POV claims exist for both inclusion and exclusion of Russian. Per infobox guidelines, either we come up with a compromise or remove all languages from the infobox. Simply declaring none of this matters isn't helpful. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong about one thing, A D Monroe. The official language piece of information is not subject to edit warring, so there is no need to remove that parameter since it is demonstrable and based on reliable sources that the only official language in Ukraine is Ukrainian. The question is whether or not we list other languages of Ukraine. If you want to delete other languages entirely because of Russophilic edit warring, then so be it, but Ukrainian is the sole official language and it should remain. But your desire to completely and totally eliminate edit warring in this article based on the presence or absence of "Russian language" is unrealistic. Edit warring in the topic space of Ukraine won't end until the real world death or other elimination of vladimir putin and the end of his so-called hybrid war against Ukraine. If you think that Wikipedia is immune to putin's paid internet trolls and his propaganda war against Ukraine and the West, then you are naive. --Taivo (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to the hidden comment you added yourself here, A D Monroe III? That is not an indication of anything other than the fact that you believe there to has been untoward 'edit warring' over the status, and it is indicative of no one's authority other than your own. There is nothing anomalous about POV pushing on any articles surrounding any subject matter prone to edit wars: that's why WP:ARBEE was introduced long before the annexation of Crimea by the RF, the war in Donbass, et al. The fact that we have had years of edit warring over Kiev vs Kyiv does not mean that we are under obligation to include it in the infobox. This is a broad scope article, but has been used as a COATRACK for current affairs and other issues that do not belong, and edit warring does not mean that we are obliged to buckle under the pressure of POVPUSH.

I, too, was befuddled by your comment that we have to eliminate the official languages parameter if we don't include a non-RS parameter tailored to accommodate some sort of special status for Russian. Where is this expressed in the 'infobox country' template? You're making up your own rules as you go. There is no question of removing a reliably sourced parameter as some form of trade-off for getting your way... and this discussion has turned into WP:BLUDGEON. I see no other editors engaging here other than you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. A D Monroe III, it is you who have become the catalyst for edit warring, and are the only editor still defending the 'especially special status of Russian' as being a necessary parameter in the infobox. We now have single edit editors adding percentages based on thin air as to how many Ukrainians 'speak' Russian here (not to mention breaking up the template parameters because they don't know what they're doing). It may be good faith editing, but please show me where this source cited has any information on how many Russian speakers there are? It has now moved on from being WP:UNDUE to a liability, and is going to keep attracting attention until it's removed. If you have no solid policy (or even guideline) to bring to this discussion, I'm simply going to remove it per WEIGHT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. Can we calm down? Again, I didn't start the edit-warring; I was alerted by pending revisions on a page on my watchlist, only, after another editor (an admin) reverted a similar pending revision, which is usually reserved for vandalism or similar disruption. The state of the article at that time is the same as it has just been changed to -- the state that attracted contentious edits. The most "stable" version of this issue had the infobox list Russian with Ukrainian as "Spoken Languages" (stable for months, ending about a mouth ago). The tone of the comments above stress that this issue is contentious; there's even been touches of lack of AGF, attacking editors' motives with no evidence; it sounds like IDONTLIKEIT and POV, which would be proof of it being contentious.

Again, editing during discussions is considered disruptive. But I won't join in this edit war. We can just wait and see. If this current state for languages attracts no editors concerned with the POV presented, then that's a sort of consensus. Not the most civil way to get it, but a way. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if someone wants to change it back to the most stable version during this discussion, I think that would be more constructive. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the boundaries of the nation of Ukraine do not serve as language boundaries in any sense of the word, then including only Ukrainian and Russian as "spoken languages" is POV. --Taivo (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't follow that. The subject of the infobox is Ukraine; I assume it's okay that it has an infobox? Within its boundaries, the country has languages. That's okay for an infobox, right? There are POV issues involved in this discussion (the whole point of it, in fact), but I don't see anything inherently POV about the combination of a country, languages, and its boundaries.

Specifically for this article, I have agreed that "Spoken languages" was an odd title given to the standard languages parameter -- not my choice (it was like that long before I started watching this page). Most of this discussion has been on what to replace that with. If there's no consensus, we may have to leave it as it was. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You are the only person in this discussion who seems to have a problem with removing the "other languages", "non-official languages", "formerly official languages before the fall of the Soviet Union" parameter where the only language you want to include is Russian. You are the one who initiated this discussion because there are occasionally Russian trolls who wander by (perhaps because their country is at war with Ukraine and putin pays them well) to disrupt that parameter. There is no need for a special parameter just so you can list Russian separately and individually. You seem to think that removing Russian is inviting an edit war. I removed it several days ago. So far you're the only person who seems to object. And you don't understand why listing just Russian as a special "other" language with its special parameter in the infobox is POV? Seriously? --Taivo (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Such passion. Anyone who changes this is a troll? Or anti-Ukrainian? Seriously? All this seems to emphasize that it's controversial. I already agreed to wait and see (the former version was stable for months -- have a bit of patience). Why not AGF/CIVIL meanwhile? --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I assume good faith on your part generally. I wasn't accusing you of being a troll, but you know (or should know if you know anything about the current situation in Ukraine) that the paid trolls are active throughout the Ukrainian article space pushing a Russian POV. But my point is that we are not going to include Russian just because Russian trolls are pushing an edit war (which hasn't happened). Wikipedia can survive with the low-volume edit wars from Russian nationalists that are easily dealt with. Just look at the low-burn edit wars that have been occurring throughout the articles on the Balkans for at least a decade (write "Macedonia" anywhere and you can time the first change to "FYROM" on a stopwatch). But we don't change Wikipedia content just because of nationalist POV pushers and the threat of an occasional POV-based edit. --Taivo (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just today you can see an example of a how Wikipedia editors appropriately deal with a nationalist edit in an edit summary at Croatian language from User:No such user: "Balkan business as usual". --Taivo (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Iryna Harpy. I see no argument against Russian language in infobox. See these articles: Tajikistan & Uzbekistan. I propose to add "Significant unofficial languages" (see Languages of Ukraine), which does not cause problems. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:NightShadow23, Russian is already in the infobox under the expandable entry "Regional languages". It does not need to be listed twice. It's not special. Your argument based on Tajikistan and Uzbekistan isn't convincing, first because of WP:OTHERSTUFF and second because Russian is not already listed in those articles as a regional language. Russian is already in the infobox here. --Taivo (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Taivo, "Significant unofficial languages" and "Regional languages" are different things. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you think they are different things. Russian, like other minority languages in Ukraine, gets one reference. And it's not an "unofficial language" since it's an official regional language. --Taivo (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

And if you want to compare Ukraine with other Wikipedia articles from countries in the former Soviet space, then compare it with Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. All have "significant" Russian minorities and not a single one of them lists "Russian" as a "significant unofficial language" in the infobox. Russian is at least mentioned under "Official Regional Languages" in Ukraine's infobox. Since only 17% of Ukraine's population is Russian (per the infobox), then it's not "significant" enough to warrant a second reference. --Taivo (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not the same as spoken languages. We have sources stating Russian is widely spoken without respect to ethnicity, so it is likely much larger than 17%. I don't have a source for the number, however. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, the American research company Gallup conducted a study according to which 83% of Ukrainians Russian is the mother tongue (source). According to Google (the most popular site in Ukraine), the majority of Ukrainians writes the name of their country in Russian (source) Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits were made, while this discussion was in progress, to remove all mention of Russian from the visible infobox. The reasons given were that removing it was not contentious and not POV. This was supplemented by hints that any editor that disagreed with this was a troll or under pay of Putin. I think that not been substantiated.

Despite several versions of the infobox during this discussion, no consensus has been achieved. I suggest we revert the infobox to the most stable version before this discussion started, and open and RfC to finally resolve this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There have not been "several versions of the infobox during this discussion". And since you seem to object to the minority languages of Ukraine being visible, it was a simple edit to make them visible. And when was the "most stable version"? Before or after Russian was given special treatment? --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits have also been made to make the differentiation between the area of Ukraine with and without Crimea as visible as possible. Personally, I think it's messy, but I'm okay with it. It the meantime, there are a number of articles dealing with the size of Ukraine (both by population and land mass) with Crimea subtracted and added to Russia despite the fact that there was consensus on multiple articles that both figures be qualified for both countries. I'm not going to spend my life trying to keep on top of those articles. Neither am I going to keep a count of how many times Ukrainian POV pushers remove or change content, or how many times Russian POV pushers do the same... but after all of these years, I know the majority are Russian POV pushes. The point is that if you involve yourself in editing articles on the subject area of Eastern Europe, POV pushing is par for the course. This doesn't mean that we kowtow to pressure from either side. I could pull up one of the many articles on Russia that I've developed and try to maintain in order to demonstrate the extremities of POV pushing that have to be dealt with on a daily basis. It's a controversial area.

Honestly, A D Monroe III, I understand that you've been around Wikipedia for many years, but only in spates, and not focussing on the Arb Com sanctioned areas. Unless you work in the thick of these, it's difficult for a good faith editor to get a sense of what is really controversial, what needs to be addressed, and what can be given the illusion of being needed to be addressed. Something being discussed or edit-warred over time and time again doesn't make it WP:DUE: it just means that it's being pushed to the fore, or is somehow a truth that must be addressed because someone keeps making noises about it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm, where to start?

First, obviously, there have been several versions -- quite evident from the history log. It's rather odd to deny them, in bold and italic.

Second, I never objected to regional minority languages being hidden; it's an infobox, which is supposed to be concise. I have stated that Russian is not just a regional minority language; per sources, it's neither regional, nor really a minority. Leaving it only as such in the infobox seems POV.

Third, the "most stable version" is the one we had for many months before this discussion started. It had Ukrainian as the official language, and both Ukrainian and Russian as "spoken languages". Again, that's evident from the history log.

Forth, yes, it's a controversial area -- that's the whole point. Saying that only the current entrenched warriors are fit to comment is not only contrary to OWN, but very unlikely to resolve any controversy. That's the whole reason we have RfC -- to get wider views from editors less personally involved, all to better reflect the needs of the general readers. We're about information, not politics.

Fifth, Crimea... ? Um, that's off-topic, right?

If I'm so quite obviously wrong, an RfC will quickly show this, and can be speedily closed; the issue will be resolved with a lot less time and effort than all the above has already taken, which has no real progress to show for it.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

First, you are the only editor who cares. None of my edits to the infobox over the last two to three weeks has been reverted. Not once. So your argument about "stability" is vacuous.

Second, you objected to Russian being hidden, so I "unhid" it. No one has objected (except you).

Third, the "most stable version" isn't necessarily the one you point to, it's just one of a string of stable versions. Which stable version do you care about? The one that fits your POV, of course. It could be argued that the current version is stable. It has sparked no edit wars, so it is, indeed, stable as well.

Fourth, your assertion that Russian is not a minority language in Ukraine is utterly ridiculous and groundless. It's false. Ukrainian is the majority language in Ukraine. When dealing with "majority" and "minority" languages, we don't count usage as second languages. These measurements are based on L1 or native language. Otherwise English becomes a majority language in most countries of the world. The majority L1 in Ukraine is Ukrainian, not Russian. Russian is a big minority language, but it's a minority language nonetheless.

Fifth, you don't seem to have a history on this page so you aren't familiar with the past (archived) discussions, compromises, and consensuses.

Sixth, there seems to be two options: 1) leave it or 2) remove the regional languages list and replace it with "Other important languages: Russian, Crimean Tatar, Hungarian" (or some such shorter list). Listing Russian twice is simply inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, A D Monroe III? Would you care to elucidate on this business of "...the current entrenched warriors..." and "OWN"ership? Looking at the diverse number of editors working on the article, as well as the amount of discussion involving an equally huge diversity of editors on the talk page, your inferences have gotten out of hand. Most of the people who edit this article (as is the case with the majority of Wikipedia) do not engage on the talk page. You have been accorded attention and civility here, yet you've distorted the discussion into a question of ownership because you're the one with an unencyclopaedic agenda (creating extra, extra special status because you believe it to be so is a POV agenda regardless of how you try to justify it). The fact that Taivo and I are still engaging with you speaks to our own good faith foolishness in responding to your bludgeoning rather than ending the dialogue. If you wish to start an RfC, do so. Personally, I've run out of good faith discussion. You will, however, need to provide solid RS for an extraordinary and controversial special status section and why it is imperative that it be depicted in the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine: Etymology

I think a better translation of Ukray would be "the frontier" and a Ukrainian would be a "frontiersman". After all, the Ukraine in the 16th century when the name Ukraine was first used was a frontier between the the Christian Rus and the non-Christian Golden Horde and Tartar area. Borderland is a bit stilted in English and has a less rich connotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourneles (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bourneles: No, that is WP:OR. The meaning is not somehow parallel to the American Wild West, and Ruthenians weren't 'frontiersmen'. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource, so we follow reliable sources and don't create our own lexicology as we go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ugors, Finno-ugric people had their homeland at around the northern part of the Ukraine's territory, even now the area is full of Ugric people (however most of the forgot it and thinks they're ukrainian or russian origin, but their names tell who they are). Is it so impossible to imagine, Ukraine was named from these ugors? It is not hard at all to see Ugoriana, Ugoria, Ugria etc. in the name Ukraine. Just like Siberia got it's name from the Sabirs, Ukraine could have got it from the Ugors. 80.99.83.224 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You're inventing that and Wikipedia does not include personal fantasies, only information drawn directly from reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not only does DNA research make WP:BOLLOCKS of this IP's imagination (unless Russians, Belarusians and Poles are also Finno-Ugric peoples, and the Slavic languages they speak are not Indo-European), can we please stop using this talk page as a forum: i.e., please read the notices at the top of this talk page because it is clearly stated that this is not a blog or forum. The IP's 'observation' in particular reeks of having been picked up from a forum, although, conversely, it's often used to insult Russians to suggest that they're genetically Finno-Ugric or Mongols, while Ukrainians are purportedly Tartars remnant Mongolians left behind by the Golden Horde. Enough of the original research. While there's nothing insulting about being part of any particular haplogroup, the particular direction this is taking is starting to resemble some very, very creepy bigotry out there in 'those' parts of cyberspace. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Population with and without Crimean Republic and Sevastopol

When was the the population in the infobox and in the lead reflecting both with and without the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol changed? I don't remember any such discussion, and recall that both de jure and de facto were the stable representations for a long time. Now this article depicts the population in the infobox as being 42,539,010, while the lead states 44.5 million. Considering that Minsk II still stands, both versions of the statistics should presented. The same thing has happened on the Russia article, except that only the 'with' population featuring in both the lead and the infobox. There is nothing uncontentious about the population estimates therefore, for the purposes of transparency for the reader, both population figures should be depicted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Disputed areas in Donbass

I'm glad to see Crimea is no longer shown as integral part of Ukraine on the map. The same needs to be done for Donetsk & Lugansk People's republics, aka Novorossiya. Though unrecognized, these republics are not part of ukrainian jurisdiction and are now completely separate from all ukrainian infrastructures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congoclash (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Renaming of Cities and towns

Hey Guys,

It's been years since I've edited anything properly on Wikipedia. Would someone be able to add a section to the page with reference to the notable re-naming of a great number of its cities and towns in a decommunisation attempt for the country. http://uatoday.tv/society/decommunization-in-ukraine-cities-and-towns-relived-of-their-soviet-names-in-2016-infographics-651476.html

Using ukrainian media is highly unreliable as the current regime is attempting derussification. As a result history is frequently distorted. For example, Dnipro is a completely new name to remove Peter from Dnepropetrovsk, the original name of this city is Ekatirinoslav or Novorossijsk. Take a look here Dnipropetrovsk. All south eastern regions have Russian history and Ukraine as we know it today was pasted together by Lenin in the 1920s. comment added by Congoclash (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Biased terminology, Reunification not annexation.

Biased terminology is used in relation to Crimea, it should be "Reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation" as it is called in Russia & Crimea. A referendum is a legal democratic process and calling it annexation implies that crimean people have no right to self-determination. Not even the UN has any legal rights to invalidate this referendum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congoclash (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. You're a partisan and not worth discussion. I'm just registering my opposition pro forma. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

19th century, World War I and revolution - many historical fallacies

This section needs a major revision as it is written from point of view of current ukrainian boundaries and therefore contains a lot of historical fallacies. Western Ukraine was historically Poland where ukrainians were a 12% minority. Kharkov was Russia. Donbass and the Black Sea regions were conquered from the Ottomans by Katherine the Great. In fact Ukraine and Ukrainian national identity did not exist before the bolshevik revolution, it was just a geographical area (like the Balkans). The country as we know it today was pasted together by Lenin in the 1920s. The term "ukraina" literally means on the edge or adjunct territory (deriving from Russian "у края"), it was first used by the Russian tsars in the 1700s to refer to all border areas of the Russian Empire. So how could Ukraine loose or gain any territory if it didn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congoclash (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The article is based on sources. You're spouting your own opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Congoclash You have already been warned about using article talk pages as WP:SOAPboxes. Stop it... now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

2015 population

Note that the 2015 population is currently cited to the website of the Statistical Department of Ukraine, which does not list the population of Crimea. Therefore writing that Crimea is not included is fine, and adding the Crimea population pretending it is from the same source means deliberately introduce false info aka vandalism. (Note for vandal User:Ales sandro, next edit will result in a block). In principle, results for Crimean population can be edit from the 2014 Russian census, but adding them with the Ukrainian results from the rest of the Ukraine without comment would constitute original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are an involved editor on this article, Ymblanter, you are not supposed to be acting as an Administrator here.104.169.44.33 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Regional issues:

For both Ukraine and the Middle East (Syriah), there is currently a proxy War to see whom exactly will sell middle eastern & ukrainian gas & oil to Europe & Russia.

A) Ukraine (for what is Ukrainian) B) Syriah (for what is Syrian) or C) United States, Houston Texas, and Wall Street.

Can you reflect the instances of proxy Warfair in this heading (Regional issues). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.240.2 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't post speculative Venezuelan nonsense/rubbish without sources here or engage in Original Research. Follow the Talk Page guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Chronology

This is a poorly written article with serious chronological deficiencies. The Poles held Galicia but it is unclear in much of what is being said here whether the article refers to all of the Ukraine as we now know it, or to "Polish" Ukraine or "Russian" Ukraine. For instance it is recorded that James Francis Edward Keith, brother of George Keith, Scotland's Earl Marischal, was in the service of Russia 1728-47 during which period he was sometime Governor of the Ukraine. Reading this page it is difficult to work out when this could have been. 86.133.117.196 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Where does the article on the Ukraine mention Keith?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion

I noticed in the religion section it said that Eastern Orthodoxy is the most common religion in Ukraine. This is technically not true because multiple polls show that the Kiev Patriarchate is the largest Orthodox body in Ukraine which is not in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and is thus an Independent Orthodox Church; though it uses the same Byzantine liturgy and has the same traditions as Eastern Orthodoxy. The Moscow Patriarchate follows second behind the Kiev Patriarchate, obviously since they're under Moscow they're headed by the Russian Orthodox Church and are therefore recognized in the Eastern Orthodox Church. This technically makes Eastern Orthodoxy the second most followed religion and "Independent Orthodoxy" (as I will call it) the most followed due to the Kiev Patriarchate being the largest group there. We can further add to the "Independent Orthodox" by throwing in the small, but notably present, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The third most followed religion/denomination would of course be Catholicism with almost all Catholics in the country being Ukrainian Greek Catholics aside from the small Latin community that does reside there. Wittgenstein123 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no point making a big deal that "the proportion of believers overall has declined from 76% in 2014 to 70% in 2016". It was 71% in the 2010 survey and 67% in the 2013 survey. I have added a table showing how the proportions have varied in different surveys, and also made the point made on page 22 of the cited document that religiosity varies with region.

I did not see anything linking Rodnovery to the response "Do not consider myself to be any of these creeds' religions" in the citation that sat beside it, so I have removed this allegation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808023040/http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/PXWEB2007/eng/news/op_popul_e.asp to http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/PXWEB2007/eng/news/op_popul_e.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923061703/http://niisp.org.ua/defa~177.php to http://www.niisp.org.ua/defa~177.php
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_n2_v33/ai_18795971
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2008/gdn/reg_zp_m/reg_zpm08_u.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2005/zd/zd_rik/zd_u/gs_u.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2007/ds/nas_rik/nas_e/nas_rik_e.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111217151026/http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/ to http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just protect the page again

To editor Hariachi.Horishky: Please note at the very top of this talk page there's a link about why we spell Kiev K-I-E-V here on English Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223190549/http://portal.rada.gov.ua/ to http://portal.rada.gov.ua/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426235959/http://www.enpi-info.eu/library/ to http://www.enpi-info.eu/library/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Population with or without Crimea?

Is this Ukraine population with or without Crimea added in?? CaribDigita (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The source makes clear that the figure of 42.5M is without Crimea. Lin4671 (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Claimed, but not controlled territory must include occupied part of Donbass.

Claimed, but not controlled territory must include occupied part of Donbass.Constantinehuk (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the map should be changed. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Before the improvements. Recommended to inquire. With which comic arguments support the hypocritical and clowns of Representatives US America the Ukraina Regierung. (in the case of Gaspepeline Nordstreem 2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryia maryia maryia (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The map in the infobox - how the light green area is described

An IP editor wants to change how the light green area in the map on the infobox is described:

Current: Claimed, but Russian controlled
IP's proposal: Annexed by Russia Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

The IP editor says in his/her edit summary:[3]

I changed "Claimed, but Russian controlled" to "Annexed by Russia". Crimea is not claimed by Ukraine, it's internationally recognized (by international law and UN voting) as territory of Ukraine!!! Someone wants me to make this dispute with Wiki public?

A problem with the IP editor's wording is that it fails to recognise that the light green area is part of Ukraine. Instead his/her wording suggests that it used to be part of Ukraine, but was annexed by Russia. His/her edit summary suggests that he/she intended the opposite to what his/her proposed edit would achieve.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor also does not seem to understand that saying that something is "claimed by Ukraine" has nothing to do with whether it is internationally recognized. Both the dark green and the light green areas are equally claimed by Ukraine, the difference being that no one else has entered a competing claim for/taken control of the dark green area. --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

PS--I agree that the IP editor doesn't seem to understand that his/her actions and his/her statements are contradictory and that the status quo actually supports the point he/she is trying to make. This appears to be a question of competence. --Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

History section is too detailed

Just a thought, the history section is too detailed in this article. Sections should be more brief with links to main articles for readers who want more detailed information. Lin4671 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924040357/http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/985411 to http://www.mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/985411

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

GINI rank

To editor Karl.i.biased: I've returned to status quo ante. The onus is on you. Explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Eastern or Central Europe?

On which exactly basis the article defines Ukraine as a part of "Eastern Europe"? I suggest that geographical position of Ukraine is completely suitable to name it a part of Central Europe. And this definition have to be included in Wikipedia as an alternative variant, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

another fight between nationalists

To editor Chester Leszek: Why are you making an edit that a now blocked editor made previously? Are you him? The areas controlled by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Grand Duchy of Lithuania differed and only the latter seems applicable to Ukraine. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Because he was right? Are you attempting to deny Ukraine was under the Poland-Lithuanin Commonwelath? -Chester Leszek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to tell readers what the pro-Russian protesters are doing?

To editor Blast furnace chip worker: I have reverted you because the URL you provided from Hromadske.TV doesn't back up what you claim. Your words evince a partisan outlook. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The the URL I provided from Hromadske.TV do back up what I claim. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Not from what I see. I reverted you again because this cite not only doesn't support your claims, it looks like partisan screed. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

To editor Blast furnace chip worker: You still don't have consensus. Please revert yourself and discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. File:2014-04-17Мітинг у Донецьку 10.jpg has been added with text and link. The original text is added in the comment to the edition. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There is something to discuss. Your edits violate WP:NPOV. You are pushing an anti-Russia narrative. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not do that. I just insert a photo and give a comment to it with a link to the source. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, your edit is unacceptable, and has been reverted. You need to gain consensus for such editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Blast furnace chip worker (talk · contribs) - Can you find another source? Otherwise, please reach consensus before attempting to redo this edit. --KNHaw ^(talk) 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, get us consensus. There is a photo and link. The original text one can see in the comment to the edition and translate it using google translater. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Blast furnace chip worker: Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

For File:2014-04-17Мітинг у Донецьку 10.jpg the text is “A meeting against russian aggression and against separatists (colaborators) in Donetsk in 17th April 2014. Similar rallies were dispersed by local separatists and russian agents with the participation of local police.”

“Перша небезпека: почалися якісь переслідування з боку проросійських активістів, друга небезпека – почалися переслідування з боку міліції.” - “The first danger: some persecution by pro-Russian activists began, the second one is the persecution by the police.” (in Ukrainian) [4] at Hromadske.TV
“В той час саме міліція та проросійські активісти працювали разом.” - At that time, the militia and pro-Russian activists worked together. [5] at Hromadske.TV [6] at 112 Ukraine
“проте на виході з площі Леніна на патріотів напали сепаратисти. Масштабна кривава бійка була досить тривалою, в ній постраждали кілька людей.” and “ міліція цьому ніяк не заважала“- "however, at the exit from Lenin Square, separatists attacked patriots. A large-scale bloody fight was long enough, several people were injured.” and “ the police did not interfere with this” [7] at 112 Ukraine (in Ukrainian) and [8] (in English)
“ завозить автобусами россиян” – “to import russians by many buses” [9] at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (in Russian)
[10] at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. (in Ukrainian)

And the additional text for the another photo in this chapter is “It is characteristic that the meetings in the city of Donetsk were organized by agents from Russia. They were held on weekends only.” or “It is characteristic that the meetings in the city of Donetsk were organized with participation of agents from Russia. They were held on weekends only.”

Links for the first sentence are

”а рядом, в твоем доме, начинается беспредел каких-то заезжих чуваков, которые пришли и начинают топтать своими грубыми и грязными ботинками все, что мы считаем родным.” – "And beside you, in your house, some foreign dudes are starting the chaos, they are those who have come and begin to trample by their rough and dirty boots everything that we consider native. (in Russian) [11]
“Місто вже було затоплено агресивними приїжджіми з Росії” – “The city has already been flooded by aggressive visitors from Russia”. (in Ukrainian) [12] at 112 Ukraine
“значний відсоток людей не з Донецька чи Донецької області, а з Ростовської та інших областей РФ.” – “big percentage of people who are not from Donetsk or Donetsk region, but from Rostov and other regions of the RF.” – [13] at 112 Ukraine (in Ukrainian)
“ Большинство вышедших на площадь дончан тогда еще не осознавали, что против них задействована военная машина России и предавшие Украину местные спецслужбы.” – “ Most of the Donetsk residents who came to the square did not realize then that the Russian military machine and the local special services that had betrayed Ukraine were being used against them” [14] at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. (in Russian)

Link for the second sentence is

“проросійських мітингах щосуботи і щонеділі.” – “ pro-Russian rallies every Saturday and Sunday” [15]

In addition, there is no need to give a link to the photo if there is a simple text, so the photo is added with a simple text. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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

Invalid link to runestone G 280

Should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardarike_runestones#G_280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finalyzer (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2018

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

92.241.61.191 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgj hpjm 07:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No reference and probably wrong information about Ukraine`s lowest GDP per capita

In the preface it is stated that Ukraine has `the lowest GDP per capita in Europe` but the reference there doesn`t contain any information about Ukraine`s GDP per capita.

Michtom (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sadly it is true. Please look at the article List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (nominal) per capita. Moldova's GDP has been updated recently. Oliszydlowski, 23:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The data being used are dated Oct 2017, it might be better to use July 2018 data

The figure ($104 billion) in the infobox for GDP in 2017, is from the IMF and dated October 2017. "Report for Selected Countries and Subjects". World Economic Outlook Database, October 2017. International Monetary Fund. October 2017. Retrieved 11 August 2018.

There are other figures for the Ukrainian GDP in 2017, Tradingeconomics.com quotes $112.15 billion and state that their data on the Ukrainian GDP was last updated in August 2018. "Ukraine GDP", Trading Economics, August 2018 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) This source also gives GDP per capita and GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. The URL is on a Wikipedia blacklist. Tradingeconomics.com cites the World Bank as their source.

The World Bank figures for Ukraine in 2017 are dated July 2018 and can be found in an Excel spreadsheet. "Ukraine", The World Bank, retrieved 11 August 2018 download: CSV XML EXCEL The World Bank quotes

GDP (current US$) $112.154 billion
GDP, PPP (current international $) $368.217 billion
GDP per capita (current US$) $2,640
GDP per capita, PPP (current international $) $8,667

-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! Ukraine doesn`t have the lowest GDP per capita in Europe. I just don`t understand why nobody changes that misleading information!!! Or there is no longer rule of references on wikipedia and every bullshit can be placed here!!? Vodohray (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The right answer appears to be Moldova, which has a slightly lower figure than the Ukraine. I have made an edit to correct the false statement in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Names of the people who set up the underground Ukrainian nationalist movement in Poland in the 1920s and 1930s

I disagree with the deletion of the names of the people who set up the underground Ukrainian nationalist movement in Poland in the 1920s and 1930s from the article. I think that @Aleksandr Grigoryev: was right to add them. You can use the argument that any particular detail is unnecessary - what about the names of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Petro Doroshenko - but if go round doing this too much, in the end it becomes a much worse article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It all boils down to how much the events were due to those specific people as opposed to the movements/organizations/states of which they were part. I maintain that that many individuals being listed for a particular movement is evidence that none of them need to be mentioned individually in an overview article. However, I am willing to follow whatever decision the community here comes to. --Khajidha (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha, the section is pretty small first of all. Second, in English Wikipedia Ukrainian nationalist movement in Poland is being associated purely with a senseless terrorism which is dubious. The movement arose from an environment of Ukrainian war veterans who lost their homes and families. To understand that one should be familiar with those roots. Yevhen Konovalets and Andriy Melnyk are among the better recognized people who fought against the jailbirds of Kerensky and simple-minded sailors like Zheleznyak of the October Revolution and later such criminals like Mikhail Tukhachevsky who used chemical weapons against own people. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Small article size is no reason to fill up with irrelevant details. Just state that the movement arose from such veterans. It isn't important (for an article on the entire history of the country) who each one was and there are many possible viewpoints as to which ones are best known or most important or whatever. --Khajidha (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

When you say that something is irrelevant, it means that it is not related to what is being written about and therefore not important. This is certainly not the case.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the scale of coverage in an overview article of the country's entire history. Perhaps "inappropriate level of detail" would have been a better phrasing. --Khajidha (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral state

"Following its independence, Ukraine declared itself a neutral state" - it is simply wrong. It was Ukrainian SSR and it was prior to the declaration of independence. --Pavloslav (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Discriminatory Practices Against Minorities https://civicnation.org/ukraine/government/law_enforcement_practices/discriminatory_practices_against_minorities/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:9480:8E6:7701:B969:DD0B:E967:879A (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Established events in infobox

The list of established events is too long for the infobox. Template:Infobox country supports up to 15 events, but 17 were given. The list should either be shrinked down or a request should be made to expand the template. Thayts ••• 21:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Dnipropetrovsk to Dnipro as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_toponyms_that_were_changed_as_part_of_decommunization_in_2016#Dnipropetrovsk_Oblast Svagrad (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Svagrad:

Done Chris Troutman (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the beginning of the second paragraph under the heading "Early history" it states: "Modern human settlement in Ukraine and its vicinity dates back to 32,000 BC...." The word "Modern" should be struck, most probably replaced with "Ancient".

"Modern" refers to the most recent centuries. When speaking of times BCE (before the current era), the proper term is "Ancient".

In addition, "BC", here and elsewhere, should be replaced with BCE. "BC" (Before Christ) is no longer correct terminology.

Haydenarch (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Haydenarch (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In the phrase "modern human", the word "modern" is in contradistinction to earlier hominids. "Modern humans" means Homo sapiens sapiens. Also, BC is still used in many sources and Wikipedia has no preference between it and BCE. --Khajidha (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Marking this as answered as

Not done per above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Population of Ukraine excluding/including Crimea

Sentence Excluding Crimea, Ukraine has a population of about 42.5 million, making it the 32nd most populous country in the world. should be changed to Including Crimea, Ukraine has a population of about 42.5 million, making it the 32nd most populous country in the world.

Crimea is still part of Ukraine according to international law, and occupation/annexion of Crimea by Russian Federation still didn't change that fact.--Igorsova (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)igorsova

The problem is that the source used there explicitly does not include Crimea. We CAN'T say that the population including Crimea is 42.5 million when that number is derived from a source that does not include it. The population including Crimea would be higher, but we do not have a source as to what it would be. Find a source including Crimea and we can include that. --Khajidha (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

25 November 2018 Russo—Ukrainian naval exchange

On November 25, 2018, Russia fired on and seized three Ukrainian patrol vessels for allegedly entering disputed maritime territory in the Sea of Azov and Kerch Straits. A UN Security Council meeting called upon by Russia was blocked. Ukraine has declared Martial law as of earlier today. If anyone can add this into the article that would be great.

Thanks,

D. Compton Ambrose (Abbazorkzog) 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Correction to - Article: Ukraine; Section: Economy; 1st paragraph; 4th sentence. Change "... contracted severely following the years after the ..." to "... contracted severely in the years after the ..." Greg Stokley (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Done LittlePuppers (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Flag has wrong colour

The Ukrainian flag is meant to represent blue sky over a golden wheatfield. So the top of the flag should be, well, sky blue. The dark blue as shown at the beginning of the article is incorrect. This also applies to the trident. The correct colour is the sky blue (duh) as shown in the photograph at the beginning of the section on "Armed Forces". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.165.70 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the following update be added

On 28 December 2018, Russia completed a high-tech security fence marking the de facto border between Crimea and Ukraine.^[1]

Birtig (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "Ukraine conflict: Russia completes Crimea security fence". BBC. 28 December 2018. Retrieved 31 December 2018.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2018

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The phrase "sometimes called the Ukraine" is spurious and highly provocative. As the reference shows, "the Ukraine", is used (historically) in certain languages French - l'Ukraine, German - die Ukraine, etc. In English language "the Ukraine" is a gross mistake. Such usage refers to the 19th century south-western part of the Russian Empire, and not to the modern Ukrainian state. Such usage (the Ukraine) underlines its colonial experience and emphasizes the post-imperial Russian discourse of Ukraine as a "failed State". Urkosh (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"The Ukraine" was absolutely standard English usage for many years and is still used by many speakers out of habit. There is no "gross mistake" here. The fact that it is unusual for country names to require the usage of the definite article means nothing. English has many examples of words that do not follow the general pattern of other words of their class. That doesn't make those words wrong. Any perception of "colonialism" or such is entirely in your head and not in the structure of the English language. --Khajidha (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Despite a concerted effort by many, "the Ukraine" is still extremely common in English, even among speakers who you think should know better. --Taivo (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Urkosh, do I understand you correct the The Gambia is considered a failed state in English (in contrast to, for example, Ghana), and The Hague is a failed city (in contrast to, for example, Amsterdam)?

By the way, Russian Imperial authorities never treated the Ukraine as a colony: actually, the legal status of malorosses was identical to the status of velikorosses, and the Ukraine was not more a colony or Russia in 1800 than Canada was a colony of Great Britain in 1947. What Tzarist regime was doing was a total suppression of any self-organisation of local people, be they velikorosses, malorosses or anybody else. In the Ukraine, that manifested in a total ban of printed Ukrainian language, in Russia, slavophiles were suppressed, and narodniks were persecuted. However, whereas all of that was seen as political repressions in Russia, similar activity in the Ukraine is seen as anti-Ukrainian by modern Ukrainian historians. In reality, the legal status of Malorossia was identical to that of Velikorossia, and the Ukraine was not subordinated to Russia in the Russian Empire. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha I do agree "The Ukraine" was absolutely standard English usage for many years, but what was perceived as acceptable changes in time - that is the essence of the "conceptual history". You don't say "Khokhly," "Malorosy," "Zhydy" today, although at some point these names were legitimate or even official. The argument - "it has been used for a long time" is irrelevant. I'm not a great believer in the normative function of the grammar, but "the Ukraine" in English language has the narrow, historical usage, and in the contemporary discourse shows either ignorance or disrespect.

Taivo I could not agree more, indeed, native speakers should know better. So how common is the usage of "the Ukraine" in the contemporary press (NYT, Guardian, FT, Economist, ... - your choice)? I'm afraid it is out of usage.

Paul Siebert To my dismay I am not aware the etymology behind examples you provide. But apparently you missed my point. We are talking not to ourselves, but to others; to interact with others. If you chose to say "the Ukraine" - a historically loaded phrase, which denotes it as the part of the Russian realm - you do not change Ukraine, you simply tell listeners about yourself, and your political preferences. It does not matter how you call me, or how I call you, we remain the same.

As for the colonialism in the Eastern Europe - it is a disputable topic and a number of authors convincingly argue *the Ukraine* (sic! and here i'm talking about the pre-1918 Ukrainian lands where "the" is used correctly) was actually the economic and cultural colony of the Russian Empire. Your example of the ban Ukrainian language is a nice example of cultural hegemony, to put it mildly. Canada a colony of Great Britain? Sure, if the Canadians owed the British landowner 300+ work-days a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urkosh (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There were no Russian realm in the Russian empire. The current meaning of the word "Russian" changed significantly, and, in XIX century, a full equivalent of the modern "Russian" was velikoross. The word "Russian" was equivalent to an "orthodox Christian, who is a subject of the Russian emperor", and "Russians" were subdivided onto "Velikorosses", "Malorosses", and "Bielorosses". In XIX century, to say "Ukrainians are Russians" didn't mean Ukrainians were the part of the Russian nation, it meant Ukrainians are (i) Orthodox Christians, and (ii) they are the subjects of the Russian tzar. Therefore, that statement was just a statement of the fact, it was not a denial of the existence of Ukrainians as a separate ethnic group. In contrast, the statement "Malorosses (or Ukrainians) are velikorosses" (which is an equivalent of the modern "Ukrainians are actually Russians") would sound ridiculously, and everybody would see it as a nonsense, because everybody knew there are several different national groups among the subjects of the Russian tzar, and Ukrainians are not velikorosses. "Velikorosses" happened to speak the language that official authorities selected as an official language of the Empire, and that was the only advantage. In all other aspects, their situation was the same. Yes, Russian language was not suppressed, but Russian literature was. However, repressions against Dostoevsky or Chernyshevsky are not seen as anti-Russian repressions, but repressions against Shevchenko (who did the same: criticized Imperial authorities) are. I see no logic here.

You seem not to understand a very simple thing: in Russian empire, the authorities didn't think in national categories, they preferred to subdivide people onto different estates and other social categories. And, by the way, if the Ukraine was seen as a colony, why did it happen that the best university was in Ukraine (Odessa), the only free economy zone was in Ukraine (in Odessa), the most industrially developed region was in Ukraine (in Donbass), and the greatest (in relative numbers) participation in Black Hundreds (a volunteer monarchist organisation that combined mostly peasantry and low class urban population) was in Ukraine?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

With regard to your ""the Ukraine" - a historically loaded phrase, I don't think there was any load there. Yes, "the Ukraine" relates more to a territory than a country, more concretely, to a borderland territory (judging by etymology of the word), but I see not more load there than, for example, in "Denmark" (literally, "a borderland territory inhabited by Danes"). So what? Do Danish people feel offended? I doubt.

I have a feeling you transfer a current Russo-Ukrainian tensions to the English world. In reality, the current dispute between Russian and Ukrainian nationalists has nothing in common with the situation on the English world: even when some English speaker says "The Ukraine", or writes "Kiev" that does not mean they take "pro-Russian" position and want to insult Ukrainians. In reality, this person just protects their own language: there is a long lasting tradition in English to say "The Ukraine" and to write "Kiev", and that has absolutely no relation to a perceived support of Putin's regime. I would say, if "The Ukraine" is really loaded, this load is rather positive: it makes Ukraine exceptional (along with the Hague and few other names). One more argument to prove "The Ukraine" is not a reference to the country's colonial status is as follows: if "the" is a reference to an ex-colony, why there is no (and there were no) "The Bessarabia", "The Belorussia", "The Kazakhstan", etc?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert You have put so many words in my and Ukrainian historians' mouths, so most of my reply would need to be refuting your (!) arguments about "what I think" and why you can see no logic in (please mind) your own propositions. Example: the reasons for Shevchenko's exile are laid openly in the Ukrainian high school history books and they correlate perfectly with your vision.

You "have a feeling" about the deeper motives/causes of my denial of "the Ukraine". Very nice, but let's keep it simple. The Wikipedia article about the Ukrainian state begins with the false information "supported" by an article, which argues the opposite. (And by no means "the" implies a borderland. Cf. meaning/usage "krajina" for South Slavs. The definite article implies it is a part of Russia.)

"The Ukraine" *in bold* is featured in the first clause of the Wikipedia entry, so it is the first information every person sees using a search engine on the Internet. It complies well with the "Ukraine is a part of Russia" - the Russian propaganda of Ukraine as its "sphere of influence". Wikipedia replicates and helps to spread such perception.

As I said above, the colonial past of the Ukrainian lands is a disputable topic, that is there are good arguments for and against. Odessa - the largest port - is a good argument to consider colonial the past for it became an hub to export the cheap grain from Ukraine. (How many beautiful British ports in India ... but wait ...) As for absence of the national policies in Russian Empire, the best universities in Ukraine (i don't think you meant Odessa, tho) is definitely a lame point. Apparently it had at least a chair for the 20 mln (end of 19th century) Ukrainian-speaking peasants, hadn't it? Or maybe at least secondary education in the Ukrainian language? Not really? Well, in colonial India you could learn your native language in the primary school at least, so how about the Russian Empire? Nope, not really. When you are comparing persecution for political views of some individual and a ban of the language (with a resolution "the Ukrainian language never existed, does not exist, and shall never exist"), I apologize, but you sound a hypocrite to me. Towards the end of the 19th century the national question emerged also for the multinational Russian empire. The Ukrainian separatism was a quite obvious threat for the Imperial machine. The fate of the Ukrainians was to merge with the Russians. Andreas Kappler, on whose brilliant article you most probably ground your juggling with "malorossy/velikorossy" terms circles of identity, does not deny such obvious basic facts.

User:Urkosh, no, the disrespect is shown when you try to tell someone else how to speak their own language. Whether English speakers say "Ukraine", "the Ukraine", or "Susan" is absolutely none of the Ukrainian people's business. --Khajidha (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha I am trying to draw your attention to this issue, and I cannot force you do anything. If I am right, you take my point, if you are right, I take your point. My point was: "the Ukraine" is not an official name to designate the contemporary Ukrainian state (see the reference to the very phrase "sometimes called the Ukraine" in the discussed Wikipedia article). It implies that Ukraine is a part of Russia, which is disrespectful towards the Ukrainians. You chose to keep using "the Ukraine" because either you don't care about the Ukrainians or because got used to saying "the Ukraine"? My point is: of course it is your language and you can speak as you wish, but you are not talking only to/for yourself. If you call a black person "nigger", you can expect some sort of a negative reaction on his/her part. I hope you see my point.

No one said it is an official name, but it is a commonly used one. It implies no such thing. How can an expression in one language have an offensive meaning in another? Offensive meanings only exist within a particular language. Thus, your analogy with "nigger" fails. Nigger is offensive in English, "the Ukraine" is not offensive in English. The "issue" exists only because Ukrainians are improperly applying the norms of one language to another. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha I see your point. "How can an expression in one language have an offensive meaning in another?" One of the opponents in this thread admitted "Yes, "the Ukraine" relates more to a territory than a country..." As the reference to the "sometimes called "the Ukraine"" states, "the Ukraine" connects the contemporary state with its Soviet past. see Please, don't ask about the bright Soviet past.

All of this "history" is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only issue is that "the Ukraine" is still a commonly-used name for Ukraine in English language sources, including media and public speeches by English-speaking politicians. That's all that matters. It doesn't matter whether the phrase is offensive to Ukrainians or not. All that matters in the English Wikipedia is what English speakers use. The title of the article is "Ukraine" since the use without "the" is already widespread enough to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME for the title of the article. But the usage with "the" is still common enough to point out. The history of Russian-Ukrainian relations doesn't matter at all. All that matters is the name(s) that native English speakers apply to the country. Wikipedia is not, by design, the arbiter of English language usage, it is only the descriptor of the usage that exists. End of story. --Taivo (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Urkosh, you may be interested to read this. The author (an American professor) argues that there were no Russian nationalism in Russian empire. By the way, under "empire" he means just a multinational state, not a state where one nation dominated over others.

Regarding denial of the Ukrainian language, it was quite logical for the imperial authorities to select the most abundant language as an official language. By the way, since the upper class was mostly Frankophone (Russian was their second language), that decision was just a question of convenience. Again, you are projecting the modern nationalistic/ethnic stereotypes to the past: one or two hundreds years ago, the language questions were seen more as the tools for political and economical liberalisation, not as siomething that had an independent value.

You example with Odessa is not working, because the ports it India were needed to export colonial goods from the colony to the Britain. In contrast, in Russian empire, there were no economical division among Velokorossia and Malorossia: the same grain production existed in Kherson gubernia and Samara gubernia, the industrially developed regions existed in Saint Petersburg and Yuzovka: there were no economical inequality between Russia ad Ukraine.

I would say, if you want to draw parallelism, the closest analog of Odessa was Danzig in the First Polish Republic: you must agree, that was not a sign of a colonial statust of Poland (before its division).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Taivo I am happy you noticed the discussion of history is pointless. If what you say is true: "Wikipedia is [...] only the descriptor of the usage that exists" I would expect the statement "sometimes called the Ukraine" was substantiated by a reference to some source that does not contradict this very statement, as it is at the moment. The article clearly states that a) according to the authoritative sources (for the English language) the name of the contemporary state is Ukraine; b) usage of the definite article is connected with this land before the breakup of the Soviet Union and gaining the independence.

Such reference would need to show that a) "the Ukraine" "is still a commonly-used name for Ukraine in English language sources, including media and public speeches by English-speaking politicians" b) such usage is not an erroneous convention, a negligence, or ignorance. The second requirement looks problematic according to the reference that "supports" "sometimes called the Ukraine" (see above).

I completely disagree with your statement "It doesn't matter whether the phrase is offensive to Ukrainians or not".

Paul Siebert As for the history, what was "quite logical" and "just a question of convenience" for the imperial authorities in Russia, was not that obvious for the Austrian imperial authorities. Since 1848 the Galician Ukrainians had their primary and secondary education, could communicate with the officials in their native language, had press and literature. And the same "inconvenience" was in place for all other "non-historical nations" in Austria-Hungary.

The national policies towards the national minorities in Russian Empire are all well documented; they had tangible repercussions and therefore make no sense to argue about them. You insist those were not "Russian", but "Imperial" policies? I kindly ask you to point out in what way either of these frameworks (Russian nationalistic or the Russian Imperial) differ in the shared statement "the Ukraine is a part of Russia"?

The same concerns the colonial policies. Colonial goods were not consumed exclusively by the dominion as you suggested above. Should I look up the share of trade, or we agree this was a haphazard statement? The Ukrainian lands were provided most of the surplus grain, more than half of the steel and coal in the empire (1912). Plain numbers.

To sum up your vision of the 1) national 2) colonial policies in Russian empire. You deny the former because the Ukraine was a part of the Russian Crown - therefore no national policies in the class society. You deny the latter because the Ukraine was a part of one Russian polity, which extracted the resources evenly. It is a convenient shifts of premises on your part. The 19th century saw changes in treatment of the national question and there are more aspects to discuss (i.e. conversion of 3 mln Ukrainians/Belarussians to the Russian Orthodoxy; ethnic composition of the Russian Orthodox Clergy in the Ukraine on the eve of the Revolution, etc)

User:Urkosh, First of all, can you please format your posts properly and sign your posts? Second, it is incorrect to compare Russian Empire and Austro-Hungary: there were no major ethnic group in the latter, it was a "patchy empire": no ethnic group, Germans (Austrians), Hungarians, Czech, Poles, Ukrainians or others constituted absolute majority. Second, Austrians were concerned about Ukrainians, because the presence of the same ethnic group across the border was a potential threat for the empire's territorial integrity. That is why they started to promote Ukrainian nationalism. In contrast, overwhelming majority of population of the Russian empire was Russophonic, so the choice of the official language was quite natural.

With regard to "a convenient shifts of premises on your part", this is not a correct way to conduct a discussion. If you want to continue being a Wikipedian, you are expected to assume your opponent are acting in a good faith. There is no convenient shifts here, I am explaining to you that your views are primordialist. In reality, both Ukrainian and Russian nations are relatively new phenomenae. No Russian nation existed before XX century, and the same can be said about Ukrainians. In general, nations emerge after the old estate society disappears, and they are the tool to dismantle the estate society structure (that is why nationalism was a progressive phenomenon in XIX century, and that is why it is obsolete now, when most modern countries have a civil society, where "nationality"="citizenship"). The Russian Empire was an estate society, it saw people as members of different estates and confessions, not as nations or ethnic groups. That means there were no, and there could not have been any national policy in the Russian empire (except, probably, remote areas in Central Asia). I think you should read the article that I recommended to you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

talk I have to stop conversation about the usage of "the Ukraine" in the entry clause of the Wikipedia entry about Ukraine and transfer it elsewhere. I still believe it is not acceptable that the "free online encyclopedia" insists on the statement which is "supported" with the reference to an article, which contradicts this statement.

As for the history, you are wrong about the factual things: Russian Imperial Census of 1897 registered 69 mln non-Russian speakers in the Russian Empire -- 55%. May I ask you, if the Russian Empire was in reality Russophonic, would this explain the official ban of the Ukrainian language in print/church/education in the last quarter of the 19th century? I would also draw your attention to the fact that in Austria Hungary the ratio between Magyar+German speakers and other nationalities was virtually the same - 42% vs 58%.

Next, according to the contemporary Russian and European linguists the Ukrainian peasants spoke dialects of the Ukrainian language - 22mln according to the Russian census mentioned above (available on Wikipedia). You can also google the 19th century language maps and studies, those are abundant in the Internet.

Austria promoted the Ukrainian nationalism? I would like you to explain in what way. Do you, consider the basic cultural rights - to use native language in print/education etc. a promotion of nationalism? Did the Ruthenians (this was the only official name in the Habsburg administration for the Galician Ukrainians until 1918) in Austria-Hungary receive any preferential treatment in their cultural or political rights in comparison to Slovaks, Poles, Romanians? Yes, unlike the the Ukrainians of the Russian Empire in the Ruthenians in Austria-Hungary "had right to exist".

I have to upset your labeling me a "primordialist," as I share the view, that nations are modern phenomena and that national identity is imagined. But I also share the contemporary modernist view that the nations are not created from the thin air and overnight. The nation-construction requires time (phases, Miroslav Hroch), building blocks (ethnic group with homogenous language/culture/history, territory). You are denying the existence of the modern Ukrainian nation in the 19th century? So do I. But it was during the 19th century when the "non-historical nations" in the Central/Eastern Europe developed their identity. The Ukrainian speaking population of the Russia ruled Ukraine (22 mln) were denied cultural and political rights.--Urkosh (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

But the reference doesn't contradict the statement. The article quite clearly states that "English-speaking media can't quite agree " on whether or not to use "the". It also goes on to show that such usage of "the" is rather unpredictable in English. Some things that might seem to need it, don't use it. Some things that use it, don't seem to need it. --Khajidha (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Urkosh, the analogy with Austro-Hungary is not working. First, we have to keep in mind that "non-Russian speakers" included Ukrainians and Belorussians, who actually understand Russian pretty well (and vise versa). In contrast German and Hungarian belong to totally different language family, and Germans and Hungarians absolutely don't understand each other, so the empire had to be at least bilingual. In addition, Austro-Hungarian Slavs could not understand neither German nor Hungarian. There was no problem of that kind in Russian empire: all Slavs were pretty capable of using Russian, because the difference between Russian and Ukrainian is comparable to the difference between different dialects of the German language (hence the need in the High German). Second, the census data include Finns and Poles, who were pretty autonomous.

With regard to cultural autonomy, this idea is a XX century idea. Thus, even during Theodor Roosevelt's times American Indians were being forcefully assimilated. The Wilson's/Lenin's concept of the right of national self-determination had not been proposed yet.

Interestingly, you blame me in "labelling you as a primordialist", but what you say is exactly what primordialists say. Yes, no Ukrainian nation existed in XIX century, and no Russian nation existed too. A famous concept of the role of Russian patriotism in the victory oner Napoleon was an invention of Leo Tolstoy, who projected his own experience during Crimean war onto the 1812 events, thereby creating one of the Russian national mythology. I can give you many examples, but I would prefer if you read the article about Russian nationalism first (I provided the link to this article in one of my previous posts).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

talk The Austro-Hungarian empire consisted of 2 parts with one official language (German or Hungarian) and along with the language of the ethnic minority this (one) language functioned as administrative. After 1848 (at least in Cisleithania) Czech/Ruthenian/Polish/etc children learned the official language and their native language. This and the similar activities (press, literature, reading clubs, theater) are the basic cultural rights. Your persistent attempts to explain/justify the ban of the Ukrainian language in the Russian Empire (Wikipedia: Ems Ukase - a secret decree (ukaz) of Tsar Alexander II of Russia issued in 1876, banning the use of the Ukrainian language in print; according to which "the Ukrainian language never existed, does not exist, and shall never exist") are mysterious to me. So the languages has to be in the same family for the ethnic groups to be assimilated? - "[A]ll Slavs were pretty capable of using Russian" - is an apology of autocracy and/or the Pan-Slavism. I am truly happy (for you) that you did not find Russian nationalism in the Russian army in 1812 or that you did not find Willsonian self determination in the 19th century. I just wonder, why would you try to look for them there? I feel sheer disappointment as you neglect reading my texts ;)--Urkosh (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Urkosh, as I already explained, the difference between Austro-Hungary and Russia was so significant that no direct analogy can be drawn. The existence of two official languages (which belonged to different language families, so Hungarians could not understand Germans and vise versa) created a situation when bilinguality was seen natural. In this situation, the very concepts of local languages didn't look odd to the imperial authorities: you have either to force all ethnic groups to speak a language that was absolutely foreign to them, or to allow some language autonomy. In a bilingual country, a third (fourth, fifths) local language didn't look somewhat unusual. In contrast, in Russia, Ukrainian and Belorussian languages were considered just local dialects (and, frankly speaking, they really form some continuum, an people at the borderland between Russia and Ukraine speak some arbitrarily mixed language, surzhik, and it is hard to say if it is Russian or Ukrainian).

Re "an apology of autocracy and/or the Pan-Slavism", I never claimed that "all Slavs are pretty capable of using Russians". My point was different: all Eastern Slavs are pretty capable of understanding each other, which makes the question of inter-ethnic communication between Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussans much less problematic than communication between, e.g. Austrian or Hungarian authorities and Poles or Czechs, or Ukrainians. A Russian imperial official from Saint Petersburg was pretty capable of communicating with local peasants in Poltava gubernia even without knowing Ukrainian. That situation was not possible in Austro-Hungary. As a result, Russian official believed that Ukrainian is just one out of several local dialects of Russian, and the attempt to publish the books written in Ukrainian were seen as an undesirable attempt of self-organization of local people. I have absolutely no idea why did you find an apology of autocracy here: as I already explained, Russian imperial autocracy had different forms in different parts of the Empire: in Ukraine, it took a form of the ban of printed Ukrainian language, it Russia it took a form of repressions against narodniks, Petrashevsky's group, etc. The key feature of the Russian empire was that it suppressed any form of local self-organization, and it suppressed Ukrainians not because they belonged to some ethnic group, but because they were engaged in an activity that was not authorized by central authorities. Any group in Russian empire could be subjected to repression if its activity was seen as undesirable, but ethnicity was not seen by the authorities as an important factor. In connection to that I am wondering how had you managed to find any apology here. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert The language policies even during one (19th century) changed significantly in the Eastern Europe. The problem with your first proposition ("bilinguality was seen natural") is that the Ukrainian language became administrative language after 1848 - 76 years after the Partition of Poland. The linguistic distance, as you can see, was not an impediment for Vienna to govern the (Eastern) Galicia for that period via the German-speaking officials sent to Lemberg from Austria.

It is not the main question why the Russian was the administrative language, as in 1863 and 1876 the Ukrainian language was not deprived of such function. It was forbidden for the use in print. At least it shows that the Ukrainian was recognized by the Russian Minister of interior and the Russian Tsar. In practice it rendered impossible the development of the literature, press, education in Ukrainian.

You rightly noted that the Belorussian, Ukrainian and Russian form some continuum. I'm sure you know they are classified as Eastern Slavic languages. And I am even more certain you are familiar with the fact that the Ukrainian and Belorussian are closer to some Western and even Southern Slavic languages than to the Russian language (Polish, Slovak) (You will not miss various linguistic diagrams if you search for say: "lexical distance European languages"). No wonder why my friends from Russia do not understand me if I try to talk to them in Ukrainian. Surely I understand Russian, as we were Taught it at school and it is present in print/media.

As for the "Surzhyk" you mentioned occurred not because of language proximity, unless you believe the West African Pidgin English should is similar to the local languages. Surzhyk occurred not in the contact zones (you may have closer dialects there), but in the areas where both ethnic groups occupy the same area. Today Surzhyk is occurs mainly in south-eastern Ukraine, which was not a contact zone during the 19th century, but became such in the first half of the 20th century.

As for the cultural differences, the Ukrainian-Russian intermarriages in the ethnic contact zone (Briansk/Chernihiv, Kursk/Sumy, Belgorod/Kharkiv) become a common phenomenon not until after the World War Two. In other words the distinction between the Ukrainian and Russian villages was preserved in the same way (and roughly the same period) as the distinction between the Ukrainian or Polish in Galicia or Volhynia.

More curious is your explanation of the malevolent attitude of the Russian officials of the Ukrainian question. It is one of the traditional still flawed explanations. "Despite their attractions, they contain internal flaws; they seem not to be enough to explain why St Petersburg treated Ukrainians more severely than certain other imperial minorities; and they do not take account of all the lines of argument suggested by the sources." To learn about the other explanation and why they did not work, please see David Saunders, “Russia’s Ukrainian Policy (1847-1905): A Demographic Approach,” European History Quarterly 25, no. 2 (1995): 181–208.

Last but not least, comparing persecution of Russian groups for any political views and the ban of the language spoken by 22mln people are incomparable. --Urkosh (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"Ukrainian language became administrative language after 1848". Before that, the local population were mostly serfs, who were administered by their landlords (non-Ukrainian), and Vienna authorities had no need to interact with them directly. The interaction was indirect, through educated Polish nobility and Jewish bourgeois, both of whom knew German. Only after the old "new-serfdom" economy became replaced with new capitalist interaction the need of a direct contact between local population and Vienna authorities become important.

"At least it shows that the Ukrainian was recognized by the Russian Minister of interior and the Russian Tsar" My hypothesis is that it was seen as another version of Russian (a rural language of southern provinces). In reality for centuries, Russia was bilingual: it had Russian as a colloquial language and Church Russian as a more formal solemn version of Russian. In that situation, the role of Ukrainian was unclear to imperial authorities, and they saw it redundant.

It is a myth that Ukrainian/Belorussian is closer to Czech/polish than to Russian. In reality, Ukrainian, Russian and Belorussian have common roots, but Russian was significantly affected by the Pskov-Novgorod dialect of old Russian, whereas other two languages were not. Later, Ukrainian and Belorussian borrowed many words from Polish and Czech, but this similarity of vocabulary is misleading. You might be interested to read Zaliznyak about that. With regard to usability of Russian speakers to understand Ukrainian, it is something totally new for me. Any non-lazy Russian is quite capable of understanding Ukrainian, at least after minimal practice. For example, during Soviet times, two famous standup actors, Tarapun'ka and Shtepsel, were very popular in the USSR, one of them spoke Russian, another spoke Ukrainian, and there were absolutely no problem for the audience to understand them. In some Soviet films, main heroes spoke Ukrainian without any subtitles, and there were absolutely no need in translation. Of course, a fast speech of West Ukrainians are difficult to understand, but even Ukrainian speakers themselves experience probl with understanding.

"Surzhyk occurred not in the contact zones (you may have closer dialects there), but in the areas where both ethnic groups occupy the same area" Wrong. For example, people in Kiev speak both Ukrainian and Russian perfectly, and when they speak Russian, their Russian is even more clean and correct than in Russia proper. No educated bilingual Ukrainian speaks surzhik.

"the Ukrainian-Russian intermarriages in the ethnic contact zone (Briansk/Chernihiv, Kursk/Sumy, Belgorod/Kharkiv) become a common phenomenon not until after the World War Two" That contradicts to what I know.

"they seem not to be enough to explain why St Petersburg treated Ukrainians more severely than certain other imperial minorities" Are you sure it did? As I already explained, St. Petersburg had absolutely no ethnic policy at all: it could not treat Ukrainian more or less severely, because it didn't separate them into a single group. Give me an example of "severe treatment", and I'll explain you what your mistake consists in.

"and the ban of the language spoken by 22mln people" Incorrect. No spoken language was banned. It was a printed language which was banned, but, taken into account that only a small fraction of Ukrainians was literate, that affected much less people than you think. In contrast, suppression of peasant uprisings (for example, Pugachev's uprising) were massive, and, had similar uprising occurred in Ukraine, you would claim it was a repression of Ukrainians, despite the fact that pugachevcy were persecuted because they were rebels, not Russians or Bashkirs. Your comparison is flawed because it takes into account only the number of people affected, but it ignores severity of repressions. Whereas a ban of printed Ukrainian caused just a relatively minor inconvenience for majority of Ukrainian population (which was illiterate), political repressions were much more severe. In addition, they were tantamount to a ban of printed Russian too, because only a fraction of Russian texts was possible to print, and it was the worst part of them, which means Russian culture was significantly suppressed too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to request removal of "sometimes called the Ukraine" (sometimes called the Ukraine) clause in the first sentence of this Wikipedia entry. The reasons of such removal are explained in several places of this Wikipedia entry: (1) the reference N11 to the clause "sometimes called the Ukraine" explains why "the Ukraine" is "incorrect both grammatically and politically" providing the expert assessment and authoritative sources, such as the CIA World Factbook, the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World and the US Department of State. (2) the Etymology sub-section of the Wikipedia "Ukraine" entry reads:

"The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty, according to U.S. ambassador William Taylor. The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically."

Since the outdated usage with the definite article is described in the Etymology section of this Wikipedia article, it would be better to remove the problematic clause "sometimes called the Ukraine" from the first sentence of this Wikipedia e. Urkosh (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

ALL of those are presented as the opinions of the person or group quoted. Such opinions are irrelevant to the FACT that it is still sometimes called "the Ukraine". Such complaining about another language does not just imply, but actively demonstrates disregard for the linguistic rights of English speakers on the part of the person making the complaint. --Khajidha (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

All of which means, it's not gonna happen. --Khajidha (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Asking this same thing one week after being told "No" is inappropriate behavior, Urkosh. If you continue to beg, I will file a formal complaint. --Taivo (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

Why would not you call Mumbai Bombey and Beijing Peking then? Constantinehuk (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"the actual name of the country should be like Oukraeenah (which is phonetically much closer)"

Closer to what? To Russian pronounce? Ukrainian is slightly different.

"Germans do not complain they are called nemcy"

Here is the core of the problem: Germans do not complain. Ukrainians do. Is that a problem not to call other people names they don't want to be called? --Pavloslav (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

The cited source plainly states that the usage is "incorrect". Nothing more needs to be said. Using "the" is incorrect. 24.139.51.14 (talk)

No, the cited source says that a particular person considers it incorrect. And, as that person is Ukrainian, her opinion on the matter means just as much as my opinion on grammar questions about the Ukrainian language: jack shit.--Khajidha (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Consider African Americans, for which many derogatory or pseudo-derogatory terms are still in common use. The article mentions these, but largely keeps them in the terminology section. The lede says "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans..." Imagine the uproar if we said "(also referred to as n******s)" That would be accurate: that term is used much more often that "the" Ukraine, but common sense prevails. Even Scottish people demotes the inoffensive but extremely common "Scotch" to a separate graph. The Ukraine article goes into detail of the issue in the first sub-section, which is more than sufficent. By putting an unqualified mention in the lede, we are violating NPOV by suggesting it is an acceptable alternative. It is not; this is not the opinion of some random Ukrainian, but the official position of the Ukrainian government for a quarter century. ghost 12:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It's just too bad for the Ukrainian government that their opinion isn't relevant to whether an English word or usage is acceptable. The examples you mentioned before (nigger and Scotch) are examples of words that have offensive meanings in English. "The Ukraine" has no offensive meaning in English and native speakers of another language have no standing to protest the usage of English. --Khajidha (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

HDI

The intro paragraph states "Ukraine is a developing country and ranks 84th on the Human Development Index," but the factbox states HDI as 88th. I personally don't know which more accurate, but someone with knowledge should probably make them consistent. --2601:204:D980:262B:0:0:0:9C98 (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information about Ukrainian's wealth

One should erase "At US$40, it has the lowest median wealth per adult in the world.[19]". Because it's a wrong information, which was published by famous Credit Suisse due to lack of information about Ukraine. So they tried to guess this value using regression, but anyone in Ukraine could understand their mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLysychkin (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Regional languages abolished.

@Acroterion: If you go to the first link that you restored and you can read Ukrainian, you would find that it's now added on that page that this law has been recognised as unconstitutional. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't read Ukrainian, and you can't use Wikipedia as a source. See if you can find an independent reliable source, preferably in English. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

https://ukranews.com/en/news/550164-constitutional-court-declares-law-on-language-policy-unconstitutional --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful. Use full reference formatting with the fields filled out, not just a bare URL. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Where should I put it? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: When the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declares a law unconstitutional, the law ceases to be active. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sidoroff-B: I stand corrected. I reverted myself. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Declaration of Independence in the right side index frame to read "Act of Restoration", to avoid confusion between the actual Declaration of independence "Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, August 1991" and "Ukranian Act of Restoration, June 1941" Arana1 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Done Thank you. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine is a Central Europe, Eastern Europe or just Europe?

I think conditional division of Europe into the "West" and "East" and sometimes or nowdays in "Central" parts is mostly the result of the last few centuries political games and the Cold War relic, especially. I think geographically there is no more reasons to regard Ukraine and Belarus "Eastern European" than "Central European". For example, if we will draw the line from Lisbon to Ural mountains and divide this line into three equal parts which conditionally stand for the Western, Central and Eastern Europe, then Kiev and Minsk (as well as the largest parts of Ukraine and Belarus territories) will appear in "Central Europe". Therefore I propose to remove word "Eastern" from definition of Ukraine and remain definition that Ukraine is country just "in Europe". No need for Europe partitions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, Central Europe is the region that occupies parts of Southern, Northern, Western, and Eastern Europe, so there is no contradictions or stereotypes here. Central Europe is not a geographical, but historico-cultural term, and this region does not include Orthodox countries. Obviously, despite the fact that Ukraine is situated in the geographical center of Europe, it has much less in common with Germany that with Russia, and it does not belong to Central Europe neither culturally nor historically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If division of Europe into West, Center and East is highly speculative, why not omit such definitions in Wikipedia at all? Why not to write that Ukraine is just country "in Europe"? What is the utmost need in these speculative partitions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing speculative about Eastern Europe just because you don't like it.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that "Easten Europe" isn't always defined as "the eastern portion of the European continent". Several geography texts I have seen start with a "European region" that explicitly excludes Russia (putting it into a "Russian region" instead). If Russia is excluded, Ukraine is then in the eastern portion of the European region. --Khajidha (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

PS - some of these texts even put various other countries in this "Russian domain" as well. Belarus is almost always included, Ukraine is about half and half. And Moldova usually goes along with Ukraine. --Khajidha (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As a rule, the texts that exclude Russia exclude Ukraine too. The division onto East and West is not dictated by geography (Israel is much more Western country than, for example, Morocco). IMO, the only reason why some Ukrainians do not like Eastern vs Western division is that they don't want Ukraine to be listed in the same category as Russia. However, despite all recent events, these two countries are very close to each other in almost all aspects.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So, if Ukraine would be colonized and settled mostly by British at some point of history and till now, it would become once and for always part of Western Europe?! What an absurdity! In times of the Cold War Eastern Germany GDR was shown on the Western maps as a part of Eastern Europe. There was no notion of Central Europe back then, typically, at least not in the West. If GDR would still exist and you live there, would you want to be an Eastern European? It proves this division is a Cold War relic, mostly. Wikeipedia suppose to present only serious data about Ukraine and stick to the facts and not engage in political or cultural speculations. The very notions of the West and East can be related to geography only, not culture by common sense. Well, but the notion "the cultural Center of Europe" sound like an explosive and arrogant speculation, if not even ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think speculation means what you think it does. It is a fact that Ukraine is classified almost universally as Eastern European, which is a cultural and not a purely geographic lable. We're not going to remove it from the article just because you don't like it.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The facts about Ukraine are: (i) according to overwhelming majority of criteria (economical, social, political, religious, cultural, ethnic, linguistic), this country is very close to Russia and Belorussia; (ii) with exception of Russia, it is the most eastern country in Europe. In addition, there is nothing bad or good to be named as the Eastern country.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And which countries than comprise Central Europe culturally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See Central Europe. You can also look here.

All of that is available in a couple of clicks, so you could easily find this information by yourself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you adhere to this article about Central Europe and the map in it, maybe you can explain me why Germany Austria and especially Switzerland are much closer culturally to Poland, Hungary and Slovakia than to Great Britain, France and Beniluxe? Which cultural criterias were used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not "adhere to this article", I just direct you to the sources that define Central Europe (in contrast to your unsourced speculations). With regard to cultural similarities, a significant part of modern Poland was a part of Germany and Austria, Poland is a catholic country (in contrast to Britain). Moravia and Bohemia were the parts of Holy Roman Empire, and then the parts of Austro-Hungarian empire, and Czechs were considered as "Czech-speaking Germans". With regard to Hungary, I think the question is frivolous (taking into account that it was the part of Austro-Hungary). Anyway, this talk page is not a forum, I think it would be better if you started reading history textbooks instead of asking these questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to resist Poles, Slovaks or Hungarians to be called Central Europeans if they want, but if these arguable notions are forced on or denied to someone else, then problems start to appear. Wikipedia article about Germany in English mentions Germany as a country in "western-central" Europe. Doesn't it seem to you it does increase Europe divisions to absurdity? As now we heave not only Western, Southern, Northern, Eastern and Central but also (be prepared!) - "Western-Central" Europe! I do not even talk about Romania and Croatia which are defined in Wikipedia as a "countries at the crossroads between Central, Eastern, Southeastern and... god knows what else parts of Europe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

To me, "western-central Europe" or "the crossroads between Central, Eastern, Southeastern" sound totally weird. This is definitely too much. I think, this is a creativity of some Wikipedian. However, as you can see, "Central Europe" is a widely used term, so I see no problem with it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Germany is said to be "in Western and Central Europe", not "western-central Europe." It's classified in both ways, so I don't think it's a problem--Ermenrich (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It means they've recently changed the article about Germany and they do it constantly! Switzerland is now the "country situated in western, central and southern Europe" according to them. Does it have any relation to the culture? So, majority of countries according to them are cultural crossroads, but only not Ukraine. Even though Ukraine was a cultural crossroad for many centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me see if I am understanding you properly. You seem upset that 1) the English language classifies countries differently than the Ukrainian language and 2) that a wiki page is subject to change. Sorry, but I'm having trouble taking your comments seriously. --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I wonder what non-Europeans could judge about European history and culture, especially if they aren't PhD in European history? That's ridiculous. The Wikipedia article on Eastern Europe presents different opinions on what is Eastern Europe and some of this opinions exclude the notion of Central Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe#Central_Europe For example maps from United Nations Statistics Division, European sub-regions according to Eurovoc, etc. Wikipedia suppose to be based on the consensus between different opinions and if you personally fanatically believe there is "the cultural Centre of Europe" and it includes some particular set of the countries why other people suppose to be forced to this opinion? I think, contradictory definitions which aren't based on any scientific proves would be better to be omitted in Wikipedia at all . Christianity in Germany is divided 50/50 between Catholics and Protestants. The same proximity to both UK and Poland. Eastern France, Benelux and Northern Italy were parts of the Holy Roman Empire together with Germany. So, all your arguments fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We aren't the ones drawing the regions, we are simply reporting on what different systems use. Whether you like it or not there are many sources saying that Ukraine is in Eastern Europe. There's also some that say it is in Central Europe. We have to report both. We cannot simply set up our own definitions (like your "line from Lisbon to the Urals". --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between the facts (which are based on something scientifically proved) and commonly shared beliefs (or cliché). For example, what Chinese, Swiss or Indians would think about categorical statements in Wikipedia chat China is "the Country of the Yellow dragons", Switzerland is "the Country of the Cheese" and India is "the Country of Monkey God Hanuman"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think if some people want to emphasize cultural similarity between Russia Ukraine and Belarus they may use some other term similar to "Russian speaking world", "zone of Russian cultural influence", "the former USSR countries", "the Orthodox countries" or similar. These terms may be speculative, but not as misleading as "Eastern Europe" in this context. Because for majority of people in the World (and especially in the North America or some other "Western" countries and for people of older age) "Eastern Europe" doesn't necessarily mean something culturally similar to Russia. Rather it awoke association with the term: "our (former in the best case) political enemies". 30 years ago "Eastern Europe" included GDR, Poland, Czech republic and was coined during the Cold War. Far not all people in the West are still aware that Poland, Czechs and Slovakia aren't Eastern Europe anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about Ukraine in Ukrainian language states that Ukraine is partially located in Central Europe. If the English page misses the same statement it may means discrepancy and lack of solidarity between Wikipedia editors from different countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladLion (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's called being different languages. English and Ukrainian will characterize things differently. And there is no expectation of "solidarity" between the different language editions. --Khajidha (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Germany is country in Central Europe while Luxemburg is in Western Europe. What is the cultural, ethnic, linguistic, social, political, economic, culinary etc. differences between the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. We don't decide which is which. (Ukraine is east of the Brandenburg Gate so I'd say it's in Eastern Europe.) We look for sources to say what is central or eastern or western. In my experience, only Slavic nationalists will try to claim Central Europe. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Replacing "occupied and annexed by Russia" with "annexed by Russia"

Well, we had a previous discussion on replacing this term (occupied) before and the majority saw not to use the term "occupied", and although they didn't settle upon any specific term to replace it with, they saw the term "annexed" is the most neutral and they agreed that the term "occupied" is the most non-neutral. So what do you think? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You may restore it. since it was the previous version, but after "annexed" was removed and put "occupied" instead of, I tried to balance by adding both...what is sure, that the recently "annexed" holds.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC))

Unfortunately I am not an extended confirmed user, therefore I can't edit this article. Also, the previous version had "occupied" although we had consensus that "occupied" is non-neutral term in a previous discussion. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'd wait more, Paul Siebert's reasoning has a sense. Although then as well we could refer to the referendum, that was the preliminary claim for annexation.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

The referendum should not be taken out of context: actually, that was a referendum under foreign occupation, the practice that was questionable even according to pre 1947 standards. Indeed, the whole scheme was almost identical to Romanian annexation of Bessarabia. By the way, the USSR never recognized that annexation, and some Western counries, for example, USA had not recognised it too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If we are speaking about Crimea, "occupied and annexed" is correct. Russia occupied Crimea, and after that annexed it. The act of annexation ended the state of occupation (the same territory cannot be simultaneously occupied and annexed), however, that does not mean the occupation had never took place. By the way, according to the international law, an occupied territory cannot be annexed, which automatically makes annexation illegal.

Anyway, both "occupied" and "annexed" should stay, although it would be more correct to say "occupied and then annexed".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we are not talking whether the annexation was correct or not, legal or not. We are talking about the most neutral term to use for describing the issue that does not engage in the dispute. I find "annexed by Russia" the most neutral and the most simple. 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. It is just silent on the argument. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the term 'annexed' as neutral in the slightest and of course Russia disagrees with the annexation term being used to describe the events. 'Taken over' is a term that totally describes what happened to Crimea - Russia would claim they took over the territory by a legitimate process (following a referendum) whereas the international community believes it was not a legitimate take over. Birtig (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the opinion of the Russian government is somewhat irrelevant. Even is we decide to reflect the official point of view, we must take into account opinia of both governments, Russian and Ukrainian. In addition, English "annexation" and Russian "annexation" are two different terms: in Russian, two different words exist to describe annexation, one comes from Latin/French "annexation", another has Slavic roots. Both of them are translated to English as "annexation, but the second one sounds neutral to Russians, whereas the first one has negative connotations. However, all these nuances are relevant only to Russian texts, so we can ignore them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2, neutrality is not the only criterion. First of all, we must be factually correct. Had Russia occupied Crimea? Yes, what they did was a pure military occupation. Had it annexed it after that? Yes, it had. Since the same territory cannot be simultaneously annexed and occupied (annexation puts some territory into the same legal space as the rest of the annexing country's territory, whereas the occupied territory by definition has a different legal status), Crimea cannot be considered as an occupied territory anymore. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was occupied in 2014. Therefore, a correct way to describe a situation is "occupied and then annexed".

In connection to that, your reference to neutrality is irrelevant: we cannot ignore the fact that Crimea was occupied under a pretext that the term is not neutral. Occupation did take place, and to say that would be perfectly neutral, because there is no more neutral term to describe occupation. What is not neutral is to say that Crimea is still under Russian occupation: that is both non-neutral and incorrect: Crimea had been annexed, which means it is not occupied anymore. However, we cannot ignore the fact that this annexation was illegal. By adding "occupied", we achieve two goals: first, we describe the history of this annexation, second, we stress the illegal nature of it, because, according to international law, no occupied territory can be annexed.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Y'all are trying to fit too much into the infobox. We do not need, nor do we have room for, a complete history lesson and discussion of international law in the box. The area in question has been annexed by Russia. Whether it was occupied before annexation or whether the annexation is legal is beyond the scope of a simple map caption. --Khajidha (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

agreed with Khajidha. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha, yes, we do not need a complete history lesson in the infobox. However, I believe you know that when some territory is annexed by some country, it becomes a part of the annexed country. Thus, Texas was annexed by the US, and we do not show the map of Mexico that contains Texas (with a footnote "annexed by USA"). If Crimea was just annexed by Russia, I see no reason to mention it at all: just show the map of Ukraine without Crimea. The only situation when Crimea is shown as a part of Ukraine (although slightly differently coloured) is that something was wrong with annexation, and "occupied and annexed" clearly shows what exactly was wrong. In contrast, mere "annexed" means nothing was wrong with annexation, and Crimea is now the part of Russia (which is obviously not the case). I would say, your edit gives an undue weight to the official Russian point of view, which is unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, you may take the different color as disputed recognition, what makes the whole issue easier (also in WWII there are complex issues, where some territorial changes were internationally recognized, some were only recognized by the Allies, some on by the Axis, but also among the Axis Powers there were some issues that were not recognized mutually by all parties...the problem arise always if some would always make equal "international recognition" with the Allied viewpoint, that is fallacious in that context which results sometimes unrealistic de jure/de facto issues...). So I think the issue may move forward in case someting about recognition would be added, if applicable.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC))

Mexico no longer claims Texas. I assumed that anyone would understand that having it in the Ukrainian infobox demonstrated that Ukraine claimed it. As for legal vs illegal, I don't even make that distinction. Whether anyone likes it or agrees with or whether there is "international law" in support of it or not is completely irrelevant to me. The fact remains that Russia has annexed this chunk of dirt. Change to caption to "disputed with Russia". That covers it all pretty well and doesn't take up too much space. --Khajidha (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Paul Siebert the article's title is Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation which means there is a consensus on the term used. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha. "Disputed with Russia" puts the two parties in an equal position, whereas in reality it was Russia who violated the laws. In contrast, "Occupied and then annexed by Russia" is not much longer, but it contains all needed information.

Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2, please, read my posts carefully. I never questioned the fact that annexation of Crimes did take place, and that "annexation" is a correct term. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was preceded by occupation, which is not allowed according to all international laws.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't need all that in an image caption. All that is needed is notice that both Ukraine and Russia claim this bit of land, the rest belongs in the article text. And, again, quoting "international law" holds no sway with me. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, if "international law" is too vague, what about Geneva conventions?

Anyway, I've just realized I broke my own rule not to deal with recent events: as a rule, the body of sources writing about them is far from complete, and they are of poor quality, so there is a great risk of committing a sin of original research. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, it's not that "international law" is too vague, it is that it is irrelevant to writing an encyclopedia (aside from obvious exceptions such as copyright). --Khajidha (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with Khajidha here. In order not to be biased, we should simply note that both countries claim the territory. Attempts to say who is "right" or "wrong" may hold sway in international courts or in the court of public opinion, but they shouldn't affect our portrayal here.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

World War II

Many people in western Ukraine sided with the Axis in 1941, not just some as the article suggests. (86.131.66.197 (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

Both "some" and "many" are vague words, they can each be interpreted as greater or lesser amounts based on the biases of the reader. --Khajidha (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The number of Ukrainians who initially supported the Axis invasion in 1941 is estimated to be in the millions. Saying "some" Ukrainians supported it suggests it was just a handful of people. (86.161.73.177 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC))

If it was just a handful of people it wouldn't be mentioned at all. In this context some obviously is referring to a "significant number, but not a majority, of people".--Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It was a majority in western Ukraine. The wording should be changed to many or a significant number. (86.161.73.177 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There were actually many people in Ukraine who sided with the Axis in 1941-42, in fact in western Ukraine it is estimated that several million supported the invasion when it began. Saying "some" people in western Ukraine supported the Axis is misleading. Defence1 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This would need a citation to reliable sources – Þjarkur (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine has a Jewish President and Jewish Prime Minister

Is this notable enough to have inclusion somewhere in this article? Ukraine is the only state in the world, besides Israel, to have Jews in powerful executive positions in government. The new Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is also using his Judaism to foster connection with Israel. He stated, "We Must Defend Our Land Like Israelis." Some Jews aren't as excited, stating that they are both secular, generally, while others are seeing it as a beacon to embrace a Ukrainian identity, along with their Jewish identity, as the times of pogroms, and antisemitism has passed. 2601:982:4200:A6C:2CAA:B205:8F23:7899 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC) ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

References

Infobox

Paul Siebert, ([16]), regarding this the statement "was not a state, and not even a puppet state" is true, but careful with the rest, because the so-called "international community" does not equal with the Allies, especially in such conditions when practically one side generally recognize some creations whole or partially, and the other systematically not (or in many cases even parties by one side do not recognize some things). I draw the attention to this just becuase if the latter would be applied in the infobox, then the West UPR or Ukrainan People's Rep could be also removed, because they were unrecognized and partially recognized states, respectively. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC))

Well, the Axis didn't recognise the Reickomissariat as a state either. And, if we do that in the Ukraine article, why don't we do the same for Czech republic, Poland, etc? There were several Reichskomissariates in the Third Reich.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I also acknowledged it was not a state. As you can see, I did not contest your edit, just precisity lead me to this issue. In other words, I have no problem if "Reichskomissariat" Ukraine of any of such is present in any other articles as well, but any removal should not be based on just "recognition", because then many other's may fall..(KIENGIR (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "annexed by Russia (light green) --> "Annexed by Russia (light green)" in info box. Tanner^{message me} 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Done--SharabSalam (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

World War II section

I'm not going to try to detract from the murky waters of massacres of Polish people by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, but the WWII section only covers the most cursory details of the massive number of events that took place on (and off) Ukrainian territory. The loss of Ukrainian, Jewish and other Soviet lives are quickly enumerated. In contrast to these salient details, we have a contributor wishing to elaborate even further on details here and here. Not only is it a complex issue, it involved a tiny volunteer army of 100,000 or so Ukrainians. It is certainly a political football still looming (fairly) large in Polish-Ukrainian relations, but it's already skimming being over-stretched in the incarnation it currently appears in. Any more detail is certainly out of scope per WP:WEIGHT. This is a broad-scope article on Ukraine, not Poland and Poles. If Holodomor can be skimmed over in the between the wars section, and the details of the ensuing war barely touched on in general in the section in question, there is no justification for this elaboration outside of coat-racking. Details, including contemporary political issues, are dealt with in appropriate articles. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have any objections to E-960's put in the estimate of how many Poles were estimated to have been killed by the UPA (ergo I self-reverted after asking him to discuss it further here as was originally requested), but I still think that the section is awkwardly written. Any thoughts from other editors who are actually familiar with this area of Eastern European history as pertains to what is relevant to that section, and as opposed to current day political repercussions and ramifications? Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Demographics

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[17] Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I can see what you are getting at with a better date order. But the 2nd para (ethnic groups) sits awkwardly in the date flow. As an experiment I'll bring that out into its own (tiny) section, and also try to reduce the image crunch on the right (though my solution is a bit awkward). What do you think? Rwendland (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Thanks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Foreign relations section

I've just removed the addition of "In the 2011 poll, 49% of Ukrainians said they had relatives living in Russia." to an inappropriate (i.e., WP:UNDUE) addition to the Foreign relations section here, which was quickly followed up by a revert by another editor here. The paragraph has become a hodge-podge of information with the introduced information being gratuitous to more generalized, big picture historical nature of such a section in an article of this scope. Such content may be relevant to other articles specifically dedicated to Russian-Ukrainian relationships, but not in this section (particularly in light of the POINTy source being used). IMHO, it's a perfect example of WP:NOTEVERYTHING when it comes to context.

Are there any editors who'd be kind enough to explain why WP:ITSIMPORTANT and meets with WEIGHT in the manner in which it was placed? Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:, I agree with SharabSalam, the information is very brief, relevant (Russia hosts the world's largest Ukrainian diaspora), the poll was conducted by the Research & Branding Group. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam hasn't responded here, although he (I'm going by his user page where he identifies as a male, so I'm not using s/he) must be aware of your ping as he fixed a minor error through the submission below long after I started this new thread. If he still believes that it meets with DUE, he's welcome to state his case, but there are two other contributors who agree with my interpretation. Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have said my personal perspective: the paragraph is relevant and brief. I understand your argument but this is a subjective argument there is no objective argument here. I was just waiting for more editors to say their own personal opinion about this.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you're implying that your argument is not subjective, and by that rationale all content is subjective. Every article is potentially floating in a sea of potential WP:ITSINTERESTING content, but that doesn't mean that it's right for the scope of the article, or for the very context in which it's presented. You don't see that, as has been noted, it doesn't even work in the context (i.e., it simply doesn't fit with the other information). If it were to have some form of relevance or meaning here, it would need to be balanced out by statistics for the number of Ukrainians with relatives living in Poland (also high, although I don't have recent stats to hand)... and other places in Europe. The only common denominator is that Russia was invoked. How does this 2011 poll talking about 49% having relatives in Russia fit into "Ukraine long had close ties with all its neighbours, but Russia–Ukraine relations became difficult in 2014 by the annexation of Crimea, energy dependence and payment disputes. There are also tensions with Poland and Hungary."? Not only is it taken from a (derisive) opinion piece with a point to make, and qualified by "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.", have you actually looked at the linked article (in Russian, but you should be able to make sense of it with Google Translate) from whence these responses were elicited? There's a fair amount covered, and it doesn't actually mention how many of these people were Russian residents in Ukraine, or first generation Russians, or how long these relatives were going to be living in Russia: in fact, there simply aren't any details as to how many were in the sample group, which part of Ukraine was predominantly represented, or how participants were chosen. It was also taken in 2011, therefore would include a significant portion of those living in Crimea and separatist held areas. So, please explain to me how this fits into the paragraph, and why it is should be included where it isn't significant and tell me that you're following WP:NPOV and just simple WP:COMMONSENSE, please. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Irina Harpy that this is UNDUE and POINTy and should be removed. --Khajidha (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Also agree with Iryna Harpy. It also didn't fit into the paragraph at all.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tobby72: You've probably noticed, as I know the article would be on your watch list, but just to let you know that SharabSalam has added this content to the Ukrainians article where it is actually appropriate. I'm still a little dubious about the use of the Al Jazeera source. My preference would be for using the Russian language article (here) referenced for the figure, but I know that English language sources are preferred on English Wikipedia. I know this is a little off topic for this page but, as there's a new thread here and no discussion on the the article for ages, it might be useful to have interested editors opine as to the source here. If it's preferred that that article's talk page be used, I'm happy to bring it up there. Just thought I'd save myself - and other contributors - a bit of time on having to waffle on through this again. Cheers, all. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I've found another secondary source, but it's from the same author.[18] -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. It's still an incidental in another highly politically charged article, except that this time it targets Putin. I'd prefer to stay away from what is sort of WP:CHERRY, but not (if if you know what I mean). I'm really tempted to use the Lenta source despite its not being in English. We use non-English sources for demographics regularly, so I think that'd be a better way of handling it. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Personally, I have no objections. -- Tobby72 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, on reflection, I don't think it's that big a deal for that article. I'm good with leaving it with your original reference, but I might get around to changing it. I'm certainly not that concerned that I think it's worth bending over backwards to change. Cheers, Tobby72. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

[1] "Ukraine conflict: Russia completes Crimea security fence". BBC. 28 December 2018. Retrieved 31 December 2018.

[2] ttps://forward.com/fast-forward/424610/ukraine-jewish-president-zelensky-defend-like-israelis/

[3] ttps://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-it-s-time-for-jews-to-embrace-our-ukrainian-identity-1.7164862

[4] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/world/europe/volodomyr-zelensky-ukraine-jewish-president.html

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]