Talk:Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ukraine has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Photo links

I am surprised by the link for photos of Ukraine. Is that really the best collection out there? Mine at TryUkraine.com has 1500 pictures, and with captions, too. There are a few other decent collections out there as well. (Rick DeLong (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Feel free to select the best ones and upload to Commons under a free license. It would be great to increase the collection of freely available images.--Riurik(discuss) 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

The list as of now, judging from the selection, is more appropriate for a narrower History of Ukraine article rather than for the most general article about the country as pretty much all of these books are on history. Speaking of the English books on history of Ukraine three books by Andrew Wilson were important recent studies. Those are "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation", "Ukraine’s Orange Revolution", and "Ukrainian Nationalism in the 1990s: A minority faith". Reviews and full data are easily googleable and these books are already listed as refs in several articles. --Irpen 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the list is mostly based on Ostap's userpage. I figured, many other countries have these sort of section, so why not Ukraine. When in comes to non-historic literature, what do you think of this, Irpen? It is an investment review on Ukraine, I find it a little short though. Regards, Bogdan що? 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

The article unfortunately does not meet the Good Article criteria at the present time. The grammar and prose is very choppy at times, and the whole article could use a very thorough copyedit. There are lots of sentences that could use commas placed, lots of places missing articles (a/an/the; and yes, I do recognize that 'Ukraine' should not have an article before it, but there are LOTS of other areas where they are missing). The lead section is very choppy, and contains some very awkward phrasing. Watch out for flowery language like, 'The historic city of Kiev' -- I think lots of cities are 'historic', and you really just have to state that, 'the country's capital is Kiev.' The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead also seems to run-on quite a bit, and could be broken up. Please see WP:LEAD for tips on forming a good, well-written, introductory section.

I would recommend moving the 'name etymology' section that's currently under 'culture' to its own main section, and put it right at the beginning before 'history'. This is quite important, and general information about the naming would be sought after by readers early on.

I think the history section covers the history of the nation quite well, and appears to be complete. It seems quite well-cited, but the overall section could really use a copyedit by a good, english-speaking editor, to clean up some rough spots (no offense or anything, but some of it does look like it was written by a non-native english speaker). Also, in the second-to-last paragraph under 'recent history', what does the Yuschenko/orange revolution part have to do with the pop singer? The paragraph starts talking about the politics aspects, and then goes into some pop culture stuff with really no transition, which is really weird.

More sources needed in the 'government and politics' section. This sentence: 'However, the amendments happened to be far from perfect and have created a great opportunity for potential conflicts between the president on one side and the parliamentary coalition on the other.' sounds like an WP:NPOV issue -- there's no source, and it sounds like someone's opinion rather than fact. This is a red flag at GA.

Move the military section into the government section as its own subsection. It's related, and should at least be closer to the government info.

The 'administrative divisions' section is very short. With the large picture to the right, it might help to actually list all of the oblasts/territories below, to take up some space so that the photo doesn't overlap. I'd also put it as a subsection under government, instead of in its own main section.

The 'geography' section needs more information and statistics on climate. There's also an WP:NPOV issue with the following sentence: 'According to some, the geographical center of Europe lies in Ukraine,...' - I'm sure residents of the Ukraine would love to see their country as the center of Europe, but if this is the case, it needs a source.

The photos at the right of the 'economy' section don't seem to match up with the text, and are just there, almost as an assortment of interesting images. Try and see if you can get the text to refer better to the images, and to have it be a little bit more cohesive. The section seems reasonably good, though. You might want to start off with some basic economic statistics like GDP and rankings, etc, instead of having them appear down in the fourth or fifth paragraph below.

You might want to move some of the language information from demographics into a subsection entitled 'language' under 'culture'. It seems like it might fit better there? The demographics section is getting a bit long. I would move the 'religion' section to fall right after 'demographics' as well. It seems like it's related, and could benefit by being closer.

Not sure what the purpose of the 'international rankings' section is. It's just a table, and the data and rankings have no sources. I think it would be better to nuke this whole section altogether and integrate the pertinent rankings into appropriate parts of the text. Any rankings that are included in the article need to be cited.

There are no sections in this article on education, infrastructure (water supply, electricity, healthcare, etc), or transportation. This should be added to satisfy the completeness criterion of the GA criteria.

Images all appear to have appropriate copyright tags, and they appear to be appropriately and usefully used, with the exception of the overuse in the economy section. There is one potential issue with Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry - no watermark.jpg, as it appears to have a 'deletion' tag on it that editors might want to address.

I think that the article in its present state is a good, solid B-class. Can't really say it's "close" to GA, which is why I'm not putting it on hold. I think there are some significant issues with the grammar and language, as well as the WP:NPOV and completeness issues, which absolutely must be addressed prior to GA status. I hope this helps editors improve the article. Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the minor issues remaining were copyediting, and were easier to fix myself. The article now meets the Good Article criteria, and will be listed. Good work!
There's still one minor issue. Please look at the references and formatting. Several references need more information; instead of just a single external link, please provide full citation information -- title, author, publisher, date of publication, and date URL was retrieved. This is quite important, so that if the link is ever inaccessible, the reference is not rendered useless and can be used to track down and verify the information cited. Other than this, the article is good!
Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Size

The article still needs education and health sections and we are already at 97kb. I believe we seriously need to size down the article, and we should start from the 'Current Political Situation' section. My problem with the section is that it no longer 'current', and thus, has lost its significance. I think a paragraph or so in 'Recent history' should be able to cover all the events that took place from the time of the Orange Revolution to December 18. Regards, Bogdan що? 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

+1. --Irpen 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree as well. Let's just nuke the section and write a paragraph in "Recent history" like you said. The economy section is rather long, but all the information seems important to the section to me.. —dima/talk/ 18:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

94kb, still too long. My next proposal would be to further summarize the oversized history section. Preferably, to take the 'Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth', 'Cossacks', 'Russian Empire' and 'Austria-World War I' sections and put them under one heading. Something like, 'Partition of Ukraine'? I figure, 11 sub-heads for history is far too many. No country has such a collection. (p.s. I think 'Economy' is one of the best sections we have, I say leave it be) Bogdan що? 19:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I too agree that 11 subsections for history is too much. Perhaps it would be a good idea... Ok, lets keep the economy the way it is... anyway other country articles have longer economy sections... —dima/talk/ 19:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
An another thing that I think we should do is to expand the Geography section.. for example, look at Germany#Geography which includes a section for climate, environment.. but all of this must be done with the article's size kept in mind.. —dima/talk/ 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
With history, the pre-10th century section can easily go (...under History of Ukraine). Ideally, the broader History section will star with:
  • the birth of Ukraine (at the founding of Rus) and that sub-section could include the polish-lithuanian period/cossacks/and Russian Empire;
  • the next sub-section could be WWI-interbellum-WWII;
  • then post-1945 to 1991;
  • concluding with a short independent Ukraine history.
Let's see what we can do with this, commencing operation "free up kilobytes".--Riurik(discuss) 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I merged some sections. --Irpen 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, looks good so far. I'll start on a 'Education' section, lets put it in 'Demographics'. (Good one Riurik) Bogdan що? 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, everyone, go over the refs and check the ones you added. Refs to books should have page numbers or chapter names save few exceptional cases, refs to web-sites should have something in addition to url. --Irpen 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, a coplete removal of the early history section is too drastic a step to cut on length.
On a different issues, what about putting geography and climate before history? --Irpen 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The article structure is outlined here. Bogdan що? 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I felt the same way about not having Scythians or Vangarians included, and think that we should have a sentence introducing the pre-Rus centuries, however, at least judging by the 4-6 paragraphs guideline from WikiProject Countries, the early history section and really all the rest of them have to go to the main article. Even my own outline by their standards exceeds the length (or we will end up with big paragraphs).--Riurik(discuss) 07:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
While we're still on the topic of History, I tihnk the first part 'Independence' needs a rewrite. Its written like a timeline. Other then that history looks good to me. Bogdan що? 16:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should return the mention of the pre-Slavic history. Scythian and Trypillia culture on the territory of Ukraine are important beyond any doubt. We should not let some general project dictate us what the article should be if we feel they are wrong. In the end of the day, the goodness of the article is more important than a GA label. And speaking of that, Geography before history just makes better sense. If I am reading about the country, I first want to know where it is and after that read the details of its history. EB's country articles are structure that way probably for this very reason. --Irpen 17:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree: geography before history. Will bring back early history material, but still let's shorten the history section somewhat.--Riurik(discuss) 18:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will give it another go. --Irpen 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the article's size may decrease any more; all leftover information is equally relevant. Is 100kb too much? Please note that the referencing format alone, takes up a large portion of the space (cite web). Thoughts? Bogdan що? 16:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to look at other FA country entries and see what worked for them to get an idea. Peru, Lybia, and Belarus are some of the examples. Notice how there is only one section for history in each country. This is the direction we want to go, if Ukraine is to approach FA quality.--Riurik(discuss) 03:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Just one thing I don't understand, our GA reviewer said that Ukraine was lacking "completeness". But all of your FA examples don't say one word on education or infrastructure or health. How can we be certain of what these standards are? Just look at Germany, it is nothing like some other FAs. Regards, Bogdan що? 05:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
True, it just shows the difference between country FA articles.. Perhaps there is no uniform standard as to what a country article should include. I personally like the German example, as it gives an overview of all the topics, not just the basic ones (history, geography, politics, economy, etc.) —dima/talk/ 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And it was just one GA reviewer, whose comments while helpful, do not necessarily carry the day. After working on this entry a bit more, I think it would be worth to resubmit it for another GA review. True, there is no uniform standard as each country is different, but overall, there are similarities among the FA entries. The question is: does an average reader will want to learn about Ukraine's education, infrastructure, health or are these topics better relegated to main articles? I am not casting a judgment, just posing the question which equally applies to other topics. What should be included and what should be excluded are tough questions, but must be answered now so that we can all be on the same page. (An outline?) I am sympathetic to the detailed history section under "Ukraine" since to western audiences the country is relatively new. But I am not sure that we need to emulate the huge culture section, like the one in Germany.--Riurik(discuss) 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dima, in that we should follow the more thorough German example. I like our current history section. While it may be, a little longer than Germany's (Ukraine - 37kb, Germany - 31kb), its mostly because the referencing (Germany - 7 refs in history, Ukraine - 47). Germany's culture section is somewhat unique in its size, and I see no reason why we should expand Ukraine's culture section beyond what it is now. So, what exactly is it that we don't agree on? I personally am satisfied with the existing article structure, and even its size. Bogdan що? 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that all? I think we've addressed all the concerns of the GA review. Does the article need anything more than a copyedit? Anyways, great job on the article guys, I wish you all a happy new year! Bogdan що? 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative divisions spin-off

I don't think we disagree on this topic. Regarding formatting, under "administrative divisions" section is there a way to eliminate the huge waste of space on the bottom right which results from the length of the table?--Riurik(discuss) 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We could put this table under the map. What do you think? Bogdan що? 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would fit the subject, and provide symmetry to the section.--Riurik(discuss) 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sticking to the topic of administative divisions, what do you guys think about expanding the section to include information about the lower divisions (cities, urban-type settlement, villages, ect) —dima/talk/ 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, maybe we should remove the huge table altogether. This way we cut size and can expand the section itself with words. The table would still be available under the main entry.--Riurik(discuss) 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, it probably wasn't a good idea to take tables directly from the main article anyway. Bogdan що? 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking through country articles, I stumbled upon the administrative divisions sect. of People's Republic of China... What do you think about including this in the section instead of the map w/ links?
Administrative divisions of Ukraine
Oblasts
Map of the administrative divisions of Ukraine
Autonomous republic
Municipalities
Yes, I like this table. The current map under that sub-section will have to go to make room, but this will more than make-up for it. We may also need to remove a few sentences in that sub-section since a lot of that information will be contained in the above table.--Riurik(discuss) 05:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks really good. Although, it does bring the size back up to 99kb...Would saving it as a separate template reduce that? Great job, Bogdan що? 06:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe so... I will add it now. —dima/talk/ 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Size is now 97 kb.. —dima/talk/ 13:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Rank Core City Administrative division Pop. Rank Core City Federal Subject Pop.
View of Kiev's banks from the Park Pedestrian Bridge
Kiev
Kharkiv's Freedom Square
Kharkiv
Dnipropetrovsk skyline
Dnipropetrovsk
1 Kiev KIV 2,611,327 11 Luhansk LUH 463,097
2 Kharkiv KHA 1,470,902 12 Makiivka DON 389,589
3 Dnipropetrovsk DNI 1,065,008 13 Vinnytsia VIN 356,665
4 Odessa ODE 1,029,049 14 Simferopol CRI 909,341
5 Donetsk DON 1,016,194 15 Sevastopol CRI 342,451
6 Zaporizhia ZAP 815,256 16 Kherson KHE 328,360
7 Lviv LVI 732,818 17 Poltava POL 317,998
8 Kryvyi Rih DNI 668,980 18 Chernihiv CHV 304,994
9 Mykolaiv MYK 514,136 19 Cherkasy CHK 295,414
10 Mariupol DON 492,176 20 Sumy SUM 293,141
2006 Census

What would everyone think about putting that into the 'Demographics' section? I rather like the Russian one, and we really haven't got much on Ukrainian urban settlement...Bogdan що? 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea.. Let's place it.. —dima/talk/ 16:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] health

Some of the material in the health section is simply repeated from the above demographics section (population crisis, ect). There is no need to state this twice, I think it should be removed from the health section and stay in the demographics section. Ostap 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. If it's still there, please be bold and remove.--Riurik(discuss) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] category:Russian-speaking countries and territories

Recently the article was added to this category. What sort of category is this? How does a country get added to it? Certainly there are Russian speakers in many countries in the world. Should they all be added? Or is this for places where Russian has an official status, which, of course, it does not in Ukraine. I question its use in this article. Ostap 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Russian-speaking means that the country has a sizeble Russian-speaking population. According to census data 30 % of total population regard Russian to be their native language, this mean that Ukraine is one of the biggest Russian-speaking countries with about 8-9 mln of Russian speakers. --Russianname (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct, it's similar to Somalia or Djibouti being Arabic speaking countries - it doesn't have to be an official status. --Atitarev (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The category should not been included per consensus stated as following: Countries by language: "To categorize countries per official language. When a country does not have an official language (e.g. the United States), a de facto categorization is used". Read Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-20_Russian-speaking_countries_and_territories for details. --Greggerr (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I suggest we make the independence part of the infobox more like the one in the Russia article. Notice how that one implies the founding of modern Russia in 862? This one should at least mention the independence of the WWI era states. Ostap 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Defenetly include the Ukrainian People's Republic.. —dima/talk/ 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine#Military

The Military section right now has a whole bunch of text relating to the NATO-Ukraine issue. This article is supposed to be an overview of the country, not going in-depth on issues. We don't even have as much information in article about the Orange Revolution... Check out the article on Germany, where the history section is just an overview stating the basic facts. For the military section in this article, we can just summarize the NATO issue without stating all of these percentages.. —dima/talk/ 05:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Such coverage is not needed. However, the fact that Russia has threatened to target its sovereign neighbor with nuclear weapons if it joins NATO is notable and should be mentioned. Perhaps there is a different article for this? Ostap 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see we have a Ukraine and the European Union article. I say we remove all but one sentence from this article and make a Ukraine and NATO article. Ostap 05:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't have time for this right now, but let's start it soon (should be a pretty interesting article when finished..). —dima/talk/ 05:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I will change it back to what it was before all of these additions. Then all of it can be put into the new article. Ostap 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing paragraph

Could someone edit the paragraph that says:

"According to the UN, most countries in the world have seen an increase in criminal activity. Rape, forced prostitution and drug trafficking is on the rise. These crimes often implicate foreigners and stateless persons, including Ukrainian migrants. These crimes directly violate the rights and freedom of women; they are pertinent to both the legal and illegal emigration of Ukrainian women."

The (unsourced) meaning of the first sentence is clear, as is the second. But why is it in the article on Ukraine? And what on earth are the next ones trying to say? That Ukrainian immigrants are implicated in crimes in foreign countries? How is this notable, and how is it unsourced? And what does the next sentence mean? Drug trafficking violates the rights and freedom of women? And why is this notable for a section on Ukrainian culture? This appears to be nothing more than misplaced (in the culture section??) WP:OR. I will remove it if nobody corrects it. Ostap 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Europe

Hello Ukraine! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interwar period

I have made a few changes to Ostap's revision:

Firstly, I have removed the book reference: ref name="Hamm">{{en icon}} {{cite book | author =[[Michael Franklin Hamm]] | coauthors = | title =Kiev | year = | editor = | pages = | chapter = | chapterurl = | publisher =[[Princeton University Press]] | location =Princeton | isbn=0691025851 | url = | format = | accessdate = }} The correct name of the book is Kiev: A Portrait, 1800-1917 the book says nothing about the Soviet period and at any rate is not a valid source about it.

Secondly the Great Purge refers to 1936, I have changed the reference to Soviet political repressions and changed "quickly started" into "continued".

The section still looks quite awkward like "Khruschev zapustil sputnik i sel'skoye khozyaystvo". Copyediting is welcome. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the reference directly from the article on Bykivnia. I have never seen that book. I used it to say what it says in that article (source 4). If there is a problem with the source, I had nothing to do with it. I always assume good faith. Ostap 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually looked in the source to see what year the event started and was astonished to find that the book does not seem to be relevant at all. Now we do not have the awkward beginning but the section looks like before 1928 Bolsheviks were angels (at least on Ukraine). The were not, there was Industrial Party Trial, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen this book, nor do I claim to have seen the book as it was described in the Bykivnia article. I just took it to use it here for the estimate. Should it be removed from the Bykivnia article also? Ostap 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of wide-scale atrocities of Soviets in 1920s is simply anachronistic. 1930s were indeed pretty bad and it is described in the article. I removed the addition. --Irpen 08:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I should think the atrocities of the 30s were far worse than pretty bad. Our article on the Red terror states that "many historians, beginning with Sergei Melgunov, apply this term to repressions for the whole period of the Russian Civil War, 1918-1922". The article then goes on to state that "in Kiev, cages of rats were fixed to prisoners' bodies and heated until the rats gnawed their way into the victims' intestines." It seems to me these events would then be happening in the 20s in Ukraine. Ostap 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moldavian-Ukrainian relations

Interested users, please do not hesitate to edit and add constructive info. Also check Talk:Moldavian-Ukrainian relations--Moldopodotalk 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian

The Russian language is by no means banned either schools or television (films, yes). There is not a single school in the country which does not have Russian language classes. Yes, it's treated as a foreign language but that doesn't make it banned. Nor is Russian prohibited on television; again, it's discouraged, but not banned. Even the very pro-orange channel 5 has a daily Russian news segment. And if that's not enough, you can always order the real Russian channels via digital cable. --Bogdan що? 09:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why you removed source requests from the article then? Current sentence: the government of Ukraine began following a policy of Ukrainization,[111] to increase the use of Ukrainian, while systematically(source?) discouraging(who's opinion?) Russian, which has been banned(sources?) in various(???) aspects of life is unsourced and POV. --windyhead (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets break it down just of you:

  • Systematically- Adverb, pertaining to system; consisting in system; in an organized manner. The system/policy that is being referred to is Ukrainianization.
  • Discouraging Russian- Russian is official discouraged in Ukraine. There are commercially on TV that call on citizens to converse in Ukrainian (Спілкуємось українською!). That my friend, is common knowledge.
  • Banned- that's what I'm disputing
  • Various aspects of life- just finish reading the sentence. --Bogdan що? 10:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Please remove "banned" then so we can continue. --windyhead (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Windyhead-"stop RV - express your opinion in talks - also no sources" - What the hell are you talking about, again?

  • Source 112- Ukrainian broadcasters have criticised a government order banning national TV and radio programmes in Russian, which is spoken by most Ukrainians.
  • Source 113-They’ve travelled to the capital in protest at a Ukrainian law that bans films in Russian in Ukraine.--Miyokan (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose changing your version of:
[...]while systematically discouraging Russian, which has been banned or restricted in various aspects of life, from the education system[110] and government,[111] to national TV, radio programmes[112] and films.[113]
...to:
[...]while systematically discouraging Russian, which has been banned or restricted in the media and films[112][113]
--Bogdan що? 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The actual sentence you are trying to add to the article is "while systematically discouraging Russian, which has been banned or restricted in various aspects of life", and while you provided sources about government, TV and movies, the "various aspects of life" part is unsourced.
Going forward, the sentences you provided should not be presented as a fact, but as an opinion of broadcasters, russian-speaking students, and so on. see WP:NPOV. --windyhead (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What is fact, is that Russian is strictly restricted in the media and banned in films. p.s. lol see WP:NPOV gotta love that argument. --Bogdan що? 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't claim it as a fact as there are rules requiring you to support your claims with sources. --windyhead (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* --Bogdan що? 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's have a closer look. First of all it starts from "Ukrainian broadcasters have criticised" which makes the "ban" not a fact but an opinion. It continues then with "banning ... programmes in Russian, which is spoken by most Ukrainians" and that "Russian is spoken by most Ukrainians" is untrue - see wikipedia article for reliable sources. It says then that "This will mean that Russian-language films or programmes will need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles" which makes a russian-speaking program with ukrainian subtitles possible, which doesn't corresponds to "ban". It ends with However, the broadcasting council has promised not to neglect the interests of minorities. Local radio and television stations will have the right to broadcast in Russian if they can prove they have a Russian audience. - no ban evidence too. --windyhead (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, so now the BBC isn't reliable enough for you? --Bogdan що? 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just leave Windy, you're against concensus and your ability to interpret logic is heavily flawed.

  • "Ukrainian broadcasters have criticised" which makes the "ban" not a fact but an opinion - No, it would be an opinion if they wrote "...have criticised what they perceive as a ban", but it says "the ban".
  • "Russian is spoken by most Ukrainians" is untrue - see wikipedia article for reliable sources. - No. We are not putting this into the article anyway so I don't know why you brought it up.
Because this sentence degrades the reliability of the article --windyhead (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again. The BBC is certainly a reliable source and Russian is known by most Ukrainians, if not natively then as a second language.--Miyokan (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Well: if you want to add something into wikipedia, it is your task to prove the source you use is reliable. You have some inconsistencies in it already. Please note that we discuss not "Russian is known by most Ukrainians" but "Russian is spoken by most Ukrainians". What "spoken" means here is unclear and the sentence is kinda vague which doesn't add reliability to the article. But definitely it is not "can be spoken". And we have more reliable source which says "67.5% of the population declared Ukrainian as their native language" [1] --windyhead (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to prove anything, everyone knows that the BBC is a reliable source. Trolling is going to lead you no where. BTW Around 20% of Ukrainians are ethnic Russians, yet more than 60% of the population of 51m speak Russian. 75 percent of Ukraine’s population fluent Russian speakers versus 60 percent fluent Ukrainian speakers. Though official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, more than 60% of its population speak Russian. Yanukovych also toned down his demand that more power be handed to Ukrainian regions, and for the Russian language, which is spoken by over half of Ukrainians.--Miyokan (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to prove anything, everyone knows that the BBC is a reliable source - BBC is a reliable source. But BBC NEVER wrote or proclaimed that the Russian is banned by any means. What they wrote is that "some of Ukrainian broadcasters think that the Russian is banned". That's true, some of broadcasters think so. Some people think that the Russian language is banned in Ukraine. Some believe, that the Earth is ruled by little green aliens. BBC can write about those people and their beliefs. But this doesn't automatically mean that all their ideas are true. People you citate are Russian or pro-Russian politicians - their opinions are not balanced by definition. 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMartyn (talk • contribs)
  • It ends with However, the broadcasting council has promised not to neglect the interests of minorities. Local radio and television stations will have the right to broadcast in Russian if they can prove they have a Russian audience. - no ban evidence too - It says local, while the ban is on national broadcasts.--Miyokan (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
OK: then the wikipedia article should talk about "national" and also mention "no ban on local stations". And also you left out a note about "This will mean that Russian-language films or programmes will need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles" which makes a russian-speaking program with ukrainian subtitles possible, which doesn't corresponds to "ban" --windyhead (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:No original research - the source calls it a ban, it is irrelevant whether you think it is a ban or not.--Miyokan (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me point you again that the source also explains "This will mean that Russian-language films or programmes will need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles" - and the possibility of russian-speaking subtitled program puts "ban" into shade . --windyhead (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:No original research - the source says it's a ban, it is irrelevant whether you think it is a ban or not.--Miyokan (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think distinction should be made between an opinion and a fact. If BBC says there is a ban, so you should mention, that according to BBC ... and so on. If you want to treat it as a fact, you need to point out the legislation that in effect forbids or bans Russian. The fact is, there is no such legislation. Current legislation provides quota for the use of Ukrainian. Everything else is speculation, be it from Russian media or BBC. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BBC does not say there is a ban. BBC says (and you can see this in the discussion above) that some of the Ukrainian broadcasters say there is a ban. While BBC is a reliable source, the opinion of some broadcasters (whose business greatly relates on the their ability to put Russia-produced or Russian-translated programs from Russia to Ukraine and who loose profits on translation) is not a reliable source. AMartyn (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is what BBC article proposes: "Our correspondent says that in the run up to the presidential election the ban could be a vote-winner for the current administration in predominantly Ukrainian-speaking areas" (BBC). You can change to "BBC correspondent thinks there is a ban", maybe. Here is what Stratfor has to tell: "Ukraine’s National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting, under orders from Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, banned a number of Russian-language Ukrainian cable television channels Nov. 1"(Stratfor). I wouldn't argue that Stratfor has any pro-Russian bias here. Here is USA Today: "The government’s ban on some foreign-language broadcasting reignites the smoldering debate over the status of Russian." Here is the translation of what UNIAN speaks in Ukrainian of the ban: "Russian TV channels banned in Crimean capital" (UNIAN via Zibb).FeelSunny (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Little Russia"

The current version of the article includes the following passage:

The territory was called this because it was the borderland or "frontier zone" of medieval Russia at the time of the Tatar invasion in the 13th century.[5] It was also known as "Little Russia", so called by contrast with "Great Russia", when the medieval principality here became separated from "mainstream" tsarist Russia as a result of the Mongol invasion.[5]

Are there more and proper sources to confirm this? Because the way I see it it is in accordance with the Russian Empire policy of expansion, whereby western neighbours of Russia were considered parts of the Empire. Thus Poland was named "Western Russia" and Ukraine "Little Russia" as opposed to the Russia "proper". Before the Russian Empire came into being in the 18th century, there was tsardom of Russia, and before that - the Principality of Muscovy, one of MANY political entities occypying the lands of today's Russia (Novgorod etc.) It was the tsars - not in medieval times - that the country was named "Little Russia". In the medieval times there was no "mainstream" or "great" Russia, from which other entities could be separated. Sadly, this kind of thinking has enjoyed long popularity in the west as well. This claim is even more ridiculous when you take into consideration that it was the lands of Ukraine that was the site of the first East Slavic state, so if anything, it is Muscovy that could be considered "separated" from the "mainstream" of the Ruthenian lands (I'm not saying this, I'm just showing how ridiculous this kind of thinking is). Generally speaking, I object to repeating old and compromised imperialistic vocabulary. Dawidbernard (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - how would you improve it? --windyhead (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it was Little Rus in the Greek meaning of Rus proper. It was used indeed by many people in Ukraine, Little Russia, however, is an imperial construct, when Rus became all of a sudden Russia. In the old textbook you will find such curiosities as Kievan Russia and so on. Secondly, there is no unanimity on the origin of word "Ukraine" - borderland is but one of the versions, the other simply "country" (kraina in Ukrainian) as well as parcelled land from the verb krayaty. And if it was a borderland, it would have been hardly in relation to backward Muscovy. All this should be reflected in the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was "Little Rus", not "Little Russia" - the name came neiter from Rus/Ukraine nor from Moscovy/Russia, but from Byzantium. That time word "little" in terms of territory meant the CENTRAL part (like "Little Rome" - the city, and "Roman Empire" - the whole land, etc.), so "Little Rus" means center of Kievan Rus empire versus "Great Rus" - the rest of it's territories (including parts of later Moscovy that became the heart of much later Russia). As for the term "Ukraina" - it is not a "frontier zone". The term first appeared in 12th century, and that time Ukraine wasn't a "frontire zone" of any other country or nation. In fact, the word "U-kraina" or "V-kraina" (other version) means "inner land" (compare to the German term "Inland" versus "Ausland"). So, the term "Ukraina" is pretty cimilar to the Byzantic term "Little Rus" and means the central part of Kievan Rus medieval empire. The "frontier zone" interpratation was invented later during Russian domination that started at the end of 17th century. But the Russian word for "frontier zone" is "Okraina", not "Ukraina", and there is no phonetic transition between "O" and "U" in Slavic languages. There is O-A transition and U-V transition, but no O-U/V transition. Moreover, there's no such word in Ukrainian language as "okraina". Ukrainian word for "frontier zone" is "okolytsia". So, the bottom line is - that interpretation of the term is made up by Russians to justyfy their strive to submit Ukraine/Rus and lower it's hystorical significance. So, please, change the current info in the artical segment according to this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.175.117 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pridnestrovie

Hi, can somebody explain what are reasons to add that "de facto independent Pridnestrovie" borders Ukraine to the lead? --windyhead (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it's relevant information? What reasons would there be for not including it?--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well what are criterias about this or that to be included into lead or not? --windyhead (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's quite common to include neighbouring countries in the lead (at least, you're not objecting to any of the others). Since Pridnestrovie is de facto independent, it could be highly significant to some readers that it (in addition to Moldova itself) is among Ukraine's neighbours. --Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right about countries. And what are rules about entities which are not countries? --windyhead (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't have set rules about such things. If the information seems relevant (as it does to me in this case, since for many practical purposes Pridn. is a country), and is not challenged as inaccurate or unsourced, then it should stay. Wikipedia is about informing people, after all.--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
OK can you find a reliable source saying "Pridnestrovie is a country"? Or can you find an encyclopedia which Ukraine article lead says "Ukraine borders Pridnestrovie"? --windyhead (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Neither is necessary (our lead doesn't say it is a country, and we don't have to structure our articles like other encyclopedias). Why are you so concerned about this?--Kotniski (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose to discussing this matter:) Wow. You people sure choose nice topics to discuss.FeelSunny (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncovered Monetary Emissions

The economy section here mentions subsidization of government owned agriculture and industry through "uncovered monetary emissions". I can't seem to find a definition of this term anywhere on the web or on Wikipedia. Could this phrase be defined, or perhaps reworded in a more layman-accessible way?128.211.237.156 (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Ukraine"

Why is it sometimes called "The Ukraine" rather than "Ukraine"? Tipi Tiki (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that it normally used to be referred to as "the Ukraine" in English, before it became an independent country; now it's a country it's always "Ukraine". But someone may have more reliable information.--Kotniski (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The Ukraine (formerly also Little Russia or Malo-Russia) implies that it is a geographic region, often considered to be a constituent part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union. It may also be perceived as belittling the status of Ukrainians as a people. Ukraine is the name of a nation and sovereign country. The former was quite common in English, but not universal, before Ukrainian independence in 1991. —Michael Z. 2008-12-21 20:54 z

[edit] Ukrainians with Arabian names in the Gaza strip? How come?

I read here that (unfortuntaly) a Ukrainian citizen called Albina al-Jar died. Also I heard on the radio that a lot of residents from the Gaza strip have passports from Post-Soviet country's. I wonder how did they get them? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Language

   Main articles: Ukrainian language and Languages of Ukraine

Percentage of native Ukrainian speakers by subdivision. Percentage of native Ukrainian speakers by subdivision.

Percentage of native Russian speakers by subdivision.[f] Percentage of native Russian speakers by subdivision.[f]

According to the Constitution, the state language of Ukraine is Rusian. Russian, which was the de facto official language of the Soviet Union, is widely spoken, especially in eastern and southern Ukraine. According to the 2001 census, 67.5 percent of the population declared Russian as their native language and 29.6 percent declared Ukranian.[107] Most native Russian speakers know Ukranian as a second language.

These details result in a significant difference across different survey results, as even a small restating of a question switches responses of a significant group of people.[f] Ukrainian is mainly spoken in western and central Ukraine. In western Ukraine, Russian is also the dominant language in cities (such as Lviv). In central Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian are both equally used in cities, with Russian being more common in Kiev,[f] while Russian is the dominant language in rural communities. In eastern and southern Ukraine, Russian is primarily used in cities, and Surzhyk is used in rural areas.

For a large part of the Soviet era, the number of Ukrainian speakers was declining from generation to generation, and by the mid-1980s, the usage of the Ukrainian language in public life had decreased significantly.[108] Following independence, the government of Ukraine began following a policy of Ukrainisation,[109] to increase the use of Ukrainian, while discouraging Russian, which has been banned or restricted in the media and films.[110][111] This means that Russian-language programmes need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles, but this excludes Russian language media made during the Soviet era.

According to the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukrainian is the only state language of the republic. However, the republic's constitution specifically recognises Russian as the language of the majority of its population and guarantees its usage 'in all spheres of public life'. Similarly, the Crimean Tatar language (the language of 12 percent of population of Crimea[112]) is guaranteed a special state protection as well as the 'languages of other ethnicities'. Russian speakers constitute an overwhelming majority of the Crimean population (77 percent), with Ukrainian speakers comprising just 10.1 percent, and Crimean Tatar speakers 11.4 percent.[113] But in everyday life the majority of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea use Russian.[114]

[edit] Language

   Main articles: Ukrainian language and Languages of Ukraine

Percentage of native Ukrainian speakers by subdivision. Percentage of native Ukrainian speakers by subdivision.

Percentage of native Russian speakers by subdivision.[f] Percentage of native Russian speakers by subdivision.[f]

According to the Constitution, the state language of Ukraine is Russian. Russian, which was the de facto official language of the Soviet Union, is widely spoken, especially in eastern and southern Ukraine. According to the 2001 census, 67.5 percent of the population declared Russian as their native language and 29.6 percent declared Ukranian.[107] Most native Russian speakers know Ukranian as a second language.

These details result in a significant difference across different survey results, as even a small restating of a question switches responses of a significant group of people.[f] Ukrainian is mainly spoken in western and central Ukraine. In western Ukraine, Russian is also the dominant language in cities (such as Lviv). In central Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian are both equally used in cities, with Russian being more common in Kiev,[f] while Russian is the dominant language in rural communities. In eastern and southern Ukraine, Russian is primarily used in cities, and Surzhyk is used in rural areas.

For a large part of the Soviet era, the number of Ukrainian speakers was declining from generation to generation, and by the mid-1980s, the usage of the Ukrainian language in public life had decreased significantly.[108] Following independence, the government of Ukraine began following a policy of Ukrainisation,[109] to increase the use of Ukrainian, while discouraging Russian, which has been banned or restricted in the media and films.[110][111] This means that Russian-language programmes need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles, but this excludes Russian language media made during the Soviet era.

According to the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukrainian is the only state language of the republic. However, the republic's constitution specifically recognises Russian as the language of the majority of its population and guarantees its usage 'in all spheres of public life'. Similarly, the Crimean Tatar language (the language of 12 percent of population of Crimea[112]) is guaranteed a special state protection as well as the 'languages of other ethnicities'. Russian speakers constitute an overwhelming majority of the Crimean population (77 percent), with Ukrainian speakers comprising just 10.1 percent, and Crimean Tatar speakers 11.4 percent.[113] But in everyday life the majority of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea use Russian.[114] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.236.244 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "This section isn't made for listing former polities or consolidations"

"This section isn't made for listing former polities or "consolidations". It's made to show to day of independence of the modern nation; which is in 1991 from the USSR"

Ok, but why does the Russia article say 862? That's inconsistent. Ostap 02:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why, change it. --Tavrian 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely we should change one or the other, it is completely unfair. Let;s discuss. Ivan2007 (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is unfair. I believe there was some discussion about this at talk:Russia some time ago but I don't remember where. I just don't think that Kievan Rus' should be listed since it isn't directly related to the modern state of Ukraine. This is an article about the modern nation so it should only go IMHO so far as perhaps the UNR and UkSSR. But then again, there isn't a standard for the "formation" section in the infobox as Germany goes back to the Holy Roman Empire and France to the Treaty of Verdun.. What about including a 1 footnote next to "Formation" briefly describing the Kievan Rus' and its relation to modern Ukraine but keeping the UNR (and UkSSR) since Ukraine is a successor state to them or just keeping it as it is? —dima/talk/ 04:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we could do Kievan Rus - Hetmanate - UNR - Ukraine. Those are very distint periods that characterize Ukrainian Statehood. What you think? And constitution has no business there.Ivan2007 (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would support some form of mention of the Kievan Rus (or the "first mentioned as Ukraine"), but not the XX century entities. In other words, don't say that modern Ukraine is a successor of anything, in the infobox. That way the list stays nice and short. --Tavrian 03:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have looked over a number of articles and I see no common standard. Perhaps we should do something like Poland. But having this and the current 862 Russia article claim is absurd. Ostap 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
How 'bout such a footnote: 1 While not a direct predecessor to modern Ukraine, the ancient state of Kievan Rus' was formed in 882 on the territory of modern Ukraine. From the historiographical point of view, Rus' polity is considered by some historians as an early predecessor of the Ukrainian nation.[1] We can of course also add something about UNR or UkSSR and their relation to Ukraine today?? Just some thoughts, ddima.talk 04:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "The" Ukraine?

Is there any explanation for the difference/preferred usage between Ukraine and "the Ukraine"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Well almost all of countries with one-word names like Russia, Germany, France, Moldova, etc. do not use the, while almost all countries with multi-word names use the: the Soviet Union, the United States, the People Republic of China, etc. AFAIK there is a single exception for the second rule: Great Britain and only a very few exceptions to the former rule like the Netherlands and the Ukraine (as was recommended before 1990ies). The Netherlands, etc. got their articles because historically they were seen as geographic provinces rather than nations akin the Alps, the Highlands, etc. While the the does not seem to bother Dutch it does bother Ukrainians who would rather see their country as a nation than a province. That is why most people now use Ukraine without article and so we do in our articles Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there's also some information about it in the article Name of Ukraine.--Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
That's really interesting. Could Name of Ukraine be linked more prominently via a summary section from this main article? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukraine"
Personal tools