Talk:Name of Ukraine/Archive 2

The ethics of 'translate, copy, paste and overwrite existing text' editing
Discussion of why usurping & blanking information with the contents of non-English Wikipedia is unacceptable I'm not about to legitimise any of the edits overwriting the previous version of this entry (that is, the version prior to Shervinsky's en masse edits to this article without addressing the serious ethical questions raised in examining this user's contributions/edits to other articles in English Wikipedia.

While I consider Alex to be a reasonable and valuable Wikipedian and, hopefully, he will attest to the fact that I have absolutely no objections to new articles being created here using RU Wikipedia as the initial resource, most specifically regarding exclusively Russian topics (which may or may not be considered relevant to English Wikipedia), this entry has existed in English Wikipedia for years and has been developed by various contributors outside of the Russian Wikipedia community.

Shervinsky, while on face value your edits may present as being reasonable and useful, your pretence to being authoritative in this area is pure sophistry. EVERYTHING you have 'contributed' to this point has been a direct 'translate, cut and paste and tweak a bit' from the version in the Russian Wikipedia. I don't even believe that you have a working knowledge of any of the subject matter you're tacking outside of what you have sourced from there. The same is evident in every instance of your contributions to any given article you've tackled. All anyone has to do is run the Russian entries for the same articles through a translator and compare them to yours and, hey presto, they are virtually verbatim replicas. To cite a single instance, you have recently created a new page on Triune Russian people. Let's compare this to the the Russian Wikipedia entry and your sandbox. (Incidentally, you should be aware of the fact that, now that you've brought it into English Wikipedia, it is no longer your own personal and protected entry. Once it is in the English speaking public domain, it is up for scrutiny and expansion by any informed contributor, which is as it should be. Note that I am expressing this as a fact, not any form of a threat.)

This is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia. It is not intended to be an English translation of Russian Wikipedia, particularly when dealing with areas that have been identified as being |controversy politically/socially/ideologically problematic by scholars outside of the Russian Federation. The concept of [WP:SCHOLARSHIP|reliable scholarship] may be one thing in the Russian Federation and reflected in Russian Wikipedia, but it does not automatically mean that it can be understood to be reliable or unbiased in English Wikipedia. If I am working on an article on Tamils in Sri Lanka, I am not going to use Sinhalese sources and interpretations as my only references.

Ultimately, I am deferring this dramatic shift of content & potential bias to unbiased moderators as I feel that Shervinsky's using English Wikipedia as a syphon for Russian Wikipedia to be ethically unsound.

P.S. Shervinsky, if you are going to keep contributing to English Wikipedia you need to stop relying on the Visual Editor alone. You are missing hidden comments raising questions as to biased language, clarification and other issues which have been inserted in order to give contributors time to address them rather than simply redact or blank them without any notification. Also note that reinstating your edits before bothering to begin a dialogue with me on this talk page (which you wouldn't have bothered to do had I not requested that you use this talk page) is downright rude, as is your provocative, uncivil method of interacting with fellow contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Iryna. As we say in Russia, you are running against an open door. Of course, my articles or text parts are free for editing to anyone, because that's the norm in Wikipedia. However, I didn't see any factual objections from your side, only abstract protest. You even don't participate in the discussion above, started by Alex. That's not the way it works. BTW, it is not unnatural that some Eastern Slavic topics may be elaborated better and deeper in the Russian wiki (where I use to edit) than in the English wiki. Why do you want to prevent a broader community to participate and profit from this knowlegde? This content consists of FACTS and if you think that they are wrong, please start a qualified concrete discussion. Otherwise, you demonstrate that the only reason for your protest is that these FACTS are inconvinient for you for some reason. FACTS can never be unethical, in contrast to your approach. Cheers, --Shervinsky (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this section IS my response to the pseudo-dialogue you opened AFTER I'd asked for discussion before further editing. The only person who expanded on this in any meaningful way was Alex, however I have also addressed that issue in this section. In the second instance, your insistence on these being valid 'facts' has also been addressed. No, there is no need to fear 'facts', but there is a need to be concerned as to where these purported 'facts' have been sourced from... as well as how they are presented. Where did the this strange quantity named as "the most influential Ukrainian and Western historians" come from? These great Russian and Ukrainian scholars all seem to have links to pages in Wikipedia. Where did the link lead? Surprise, surprise: some page in Wikipedia that has been directly translated from Russian Wikipedia. Hmm, it all seems a little self-serving, don't you think? A fact is not a fact simply because Wikipedia pages feeding off and supporting each other claim themselves to be facts. In fact, the majority of Russian scholars and scholastic material you are presenting have never been peer reviewed outside of Russia. That isn't quite what is recognized as modern global peer review. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "all seem to have links to pages in Wikipedia. Where did the link lead? Surprise, surprise: some page in Wikipedia that has been directly translated from Russian Wikipedia". What exactly was translated about historians from the Russian Wikipedia? I could have listed prominent Russian historians, but I intentionally didn't (to avoid accusation of bias) and listed well-known Ukrainian and diaspora historians. How about learning a bit more about the scientific landscape and big names on the issue of Ukrainian history before accusing me of something that strange? Aren't you ashamed to more and more demonstrate lack of acquaintance with the issue? Moreover, you didn't understand the sentence properly. I didn't declare exactly this list "the most influential", it meant most // influential, e.g. majority of the influential. PS: For a constructive discussion, we all need precise factual objections. Also, you are free to add "balancing" sources if you find any. What we can't use productively, that's your abstract attacks out of abstract discomfort. As long as you can't do it, lean back, read new articles and learn some new things. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have neither the energy nor do I even that I am compelled to counter your snide remark, "As long as you can't do it, lean back, read new articles and learn some new things." Please do not presume that you are able to 'teach' me anything. If you are so intent on 'teaching' via the translate, cut and paste method, perhaps you should apply your ability to 'teaching facts' using your methodology on the Rus' people entry. It should prove to be interesting considering that the Russian Wikipedia entry pays lipservice to the Normanist view (which happens to genuinely be the 'mainstream' academic view), but elaborates at length on the fringe theories in detail. If Russian Wikipedia is 'factual' rather than contentious, you shouldn't encounter any problems with overwriting the article in place. Oh, and by all means, feel free to elaborate on the citations by enumerating ALL of the prominent Russian historians you, personally, have sourced. Don't be shy: we all want to know who they are in order to gain some insight into the academic credentials and how esteemed they are in the global academic world!


 * Having only just begun to work on this entry a few weeks ago, I was at the point of taking notes & making hidden comments (again, I ask that you learn to look at the source text, the talk page (including archived talk pages) and at the page history before you start cutting & pasting. Hidden comments, requests for citations and elaborations are put in place in order to draw contributor attention to problems and address them: they are not an open invitation to overwrite everything in place. Being bold is a suggestion made by Wikipedia, but it is understood to be bold where appropriate and not to assume that you can supplant everything that has gone before you PARTICULARLY when the page is being worked on constantly by multiple editors. We'll forget about the fact that your English is not actually adequate enough to write an article, yet it doesn't embarrass you or deter you from rewriting an an established article on wholesale level whatever state it's in. The fact is that contributors were working on eliminating the blatant Russian bias.


 * Let's begin by parsing the large tract of 'factual' information you added to the very beginning of the entry after the lead - HISTORY - as this was somehow omitted from Alex's comparison and, considering that it is the prominent text in the article after the lead, it deserves to be examined:
 * “According to the most widespread (including Ukraine itself) academic version, the name Ukraine derived from the Old East Slavic word ukraina ("оукраина") which had the meaning "borderland" or "march" and was used for different border regions of the Rus'.” Hmm, a bit of a sweeping judgement call. It doesn't exactly lend itself to any kind of reading of other theories as being anything other than a waste of time. What does the 'including Ukraine itself' mean? You are speaking on behalf of Ukraine? Where's the citation for this being the most widespread academic version (I think you're trying to find the correct term, being 'interpretation', not 'version'). I'm not aware of this; there seem to be a number of Ukrainian academic who aren't aware of this; most importantly, does it even matter? Normanist theory isn't popular amongst Russian or Ukrainian academics, but it certainly doesn't mean that it isn't correct.
 * “The etymology of the word Ukraine is seen this way among Russian1 and the most influential Ukrainian and Western historians such as Orest Subtelny,2 Paul Magocsi,3 Omeljan Pritsak,4 Mykhailo Hrushevskyi,5 Ivan Ohiyenko,6 Petro Tolochko7 and others.” Who says they are the most influential historians? Citation, please! Actually, this is just a list of some of the historians who support this etymological interpretation. There are other, and more contemporary, etymologists emerging who are exploring other avenues. The fact that the science behind this is only a few decades old as the entire region, history, documentation and academic sciences were closely guarded by the Tsarist Russia, followed by the Soviet Regime (actively engaged in Russifying the understanding of the region) only testifies to the fact that we are still only in the early days of unravelling the spin. Some of the academics engaged in reviewing what had been enstated as a given are listed in the section near the end of the article which has laughingly been dubbed Alternative interpretation as ‘region, country’ - and I say 'laughingly' as the content prior has already dismissed it as not being worthy of consideration - where the final nail is driven into the coffin by concluding, "Claims of Pivtorak, Shelukhin and other promoters of Ukraine's alternative etymology have faced critical feedback for methodological inaccuracy."
 * “It's supported by the Encyclopedia of Ukraine8 and the Etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language.” Completely misleading. Which Encyclopedia of Ukraine? You have presented as if it were Ukraine's definitive Encyclopaedia comperable to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica or some other highly respected source in its most contemporary form. In fact, the link is pointing to 'Izbornyk' (which basically translates as 'Miscellany'), a collection of works ranging from the Primary Chronicles to politics to grammar to forums to Pivtorak's paper espousing "that the words Okraina and Ukraine always had strictly separate meanings." The 'Encyclopedia' you're citing is an exerpt from a 1949 publication with minor entries from a plethora of academics. Wow, that certainly lends credibility to contemporaneous thinking or, should I say, now THAT'S an underhanded tactic!


 * Well, that's a quick look at the entire first paragraph of your entry. As already stated, I don't have the energy to keep tweaking at the sweeping generalisations, the deployment of colourful language or misrepresentation of sources. If I applied myself, I'd unravel your exercise in contentious and biased 'facts' you've told me I should 'learn' before you could say, "Jack Robinson." Are you getting the picture?


 * I will be presenting this to a third party moderator in the hopes of resolving this in a reasonable fashion. I've stated it before and will state it again: I'm not interested in having to clean up and refute arguments which, in the interests of a decent and neutral article, should not have been introduced to English Wikipedia in the first place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is a journalist  a reliable source? According to he was graduated in the field of industrial electronics. Smirnoff 80 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that he (Fidel) is cited as one of the two authorities (the other being Gaida who, as far as I been able to establish, is attached to Moscow State University but whose works haven't been translated into any other languages or peer reviewed outside of Russian online forums, one of which he runs himself) are the sources for, "Claims of Pivtorak, Shelukhin and other promoters of Ukraine's alternative etymology have faced critical feedback for methodological inaccuracy.", I find myself dubious as to their authority (Fidel) and their socio-political agenda (Gaida). This may be fine for Russian Wikipedia (which, has informed me, he worked on as an editor in the past) but, as all of his additions/overwrites have been taken directly from their entry, really doesn't sit with English Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Put bluntly, virtually all of Shervinsy's additions smack of a fallacious appeal to authority. Furthermore, a plethora of non-English sources (mainly Russian, but also Ukrainian, Polish & Latin) have been cited without making any attempt to translate relevant passages, the gist of the source, or even the name of the source into English for the benefit of the reader and other contributors. In fact, as there isn't actually a single English language reference in what can only be understood as being an entirely new article written over the previous version. While I have no objection to LOTE (Languages Other Than English) sources being cited, I would ask that some form of translation be provided ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the international peer reviews of Pivtorak, Andrusiak and other pseudo-scientific thimblerigers? If these authors can be presented at Wikipedia without any timidity, why their critics shouldn't? I'm against double standards. Izbornyk is just a library of different stuff on Ukrainian history, nothing more. It's not a scientific journal and your exaggeration of its authority is ridiculous. And the last thing, Iryna: you are neither qualified nor a neutral mediator to make an own moderation and agenda-setting in this discussion. Alex Bakharev was so friendly to take over that function and made the effort to fractionize possible problems which exist in his view. So please follow the given structure istead of flooding the talk page with tons of text and creating chaos. --Shervinsky (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do be cautious about using such loaded remarks as "pseudo-scientific thimblerigers" (sic). Had you approached the talk page prior to being reckless and usurping the article as it stood, you may have been surprised to find that I actually agree with you on most of the factual arguments AND you may have found that I would be more than happy to assist with cleaning up translations, etc. By simply leaping into the editing (without so much as a single edit comment!) when I'd been assembling notes & a list of clean-ups, then being antagonistic from the outset, you've simply cut off your nose to spite your face. You've made assumptions about my position & knowledge of this subject based on your own prejudices. Firstly, you've assumed that I'm a 'Ukrainian nationalist' (you do like banging on about 'Ukrainian nationalists'). What does that actually mean? Obviously, you have some notion as to what it means to you, but it's a meaningless non-descriptor. If you re-read criticisms, you may just notice that it is not so much the content but the presentation of the content that I object to. It isn't Encyclopaedic and it only bears pretensions to being scientific. I see no use in an English reader looking at this and coming out even more confused as to the subject than when they looked it up. How does the Etymology section now sit with the History section? What you've added to the history should actually be under etymology & you've made the already OTT (over the top) statement there has, thankfully, been rendered completely redundant. As for the chaos, I've used the talk page in order to make you aware of where all your 'edits' are flawed so that you can't complain of not being warned of where changes will be made and sources removed. Be certain that I will be reworking the material as per Alex's suggestions in order to create a reasonable, balanced Encyclopaedic entry (as opposed to the 'pseudo-scientific', jingoistic rant you've superimposed). Be equally certain that I won't be consulting with you on how best to do it as you've proven yourself to be an antagonistic person with whom I couldn't collaborate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

See below. Accidentally saved it twice.

More precise explanation of "the" Ukraine
I modified the first sentence very slightly and added a phrase to it. I also deleted "the Netherlands", because this example is incorrect.

"The Congo" was a region of a colony called French Equatorial Africa before it became a separate, independent country of that name. Thus, "the Congo" was a region.

"The Sudan" was a region of the English colony that included present-day Egypt and Sudan (and now South Sudan!) in one entity. Thus, with reference to the larger entity, "the Sudan" was a region.

"The Bronx" is, of course, a portion of New York City.

The example I added -- "the West" -- is a portion of the United States, or the reader's own country of reference.

["The Gambia" I cannot explain. Makes no sense to this native and literate speaker of English. I do recall that they, the Gambians requested the change themselves, and they got it. Or should I have written "they, the the Gambians" ?? ]

Now re: "the Netherlands". One of these things is not like the other. The issue is that "the Netherlands" developed from an actual phrase of separate, individual, actual English words, each of which had its own distinct meaning and could be used as a common noun or adjective (as opposed to a proper noun/adjective). This country -- let us recall that it was also a region! when it was part of the Hapsburg empire -- was known as "the Low Countries" or, alternatively, "the nether Lands". Of course, "land" in English, in the old sense, and in German still, means "country", and not merely the stuff one walks on. This phrase -- "the nether lands" -- demonstrates immediately the need for the definite article: it is modifying the word "lands", indicating to the locutor (whether inter- or auto-) that one has a /specific/ set of nether, i.e. low, lands in mind. "Holland", you will notice, is quite different: apart from naming that same region, this word has no other purpose, no independent meaning, in English.

This same usage explains: "the United States" ("states" is a valid English word in its own right) "the Union of South Africa" ("the" modifies "union", a common noun) -- cf. "South Africa" "the People's Republic of Ontario ..er.. China" ("republic" is a real English word) -- cf. "China" "the Ottoman Empire" ("empire" ...) -- cf. "Turkey" or "Kurdistan" "the United Kingdom" ("kingdom ...) -- cf. "England" or "Scotland" etc.  "the Helvetic Confederation" ("confederation" ...) -- cf. "Switzerland" "The Netherlands" is just a bit of a special case where individual English words, common nouns/adjectives, have mo[u]lded together to form a new word which is now a proper noun.

This might help to explain why the removal of the "the" was contentious: keeping it in implies the property of region-hood. Removing it (given that "Ukraine" has no other common-noun use in English) implies the (relatively new) property of independent-country-hood.

N.B.: ALL of my comments above are directed at English ONLY. The rules are quite different in French, German, and any other language that routinely uses articles with the names of countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejmark (talk • contribs) 03:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement on "The Gambia" (???!!! I've never encountered Gambia as being referred to as The Gambia) and, no, The Ukraine can't be compared to "The Sahara" (for those who comprehend that sahara is a borrowed word meaning desert, therefore The Sahara Desert is tautological). The entire section is uncited and I'm not aware of any specific historical rationale for having used The Ukraine. Ukrainia should have been the norm adopted according to English conventions. All of the information in the section is speculative, i.e., WP:OR. The statement, "This usage implies the borderland etymology (see above), or more precisely, a status as a region or portion of another, larger entity." is very much POV. If there is nothing to substantiate why it was referred to as The Ukraine, the only statement Wikipedia can make on the subject is that it was referred to in the past in that manner but, in general, the use of the definite article has been dropped.


 * This article has been on the backburner of my 'to do' list for some time as it was mutilated by POV alterations earlier this year. Rather than resort to edit warring, I thought it best to leave it until the newbie contributor who'd made a mess of it ended up being blocked from editing Eastern European articles, which has now happened. I guess it's time for me to push this up towards the top of my priority list. Cheers for your work and observations! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"The entire section is uncited" ... do you mean in the main article, or in my Talk paragraph? If you mean the latter, please know that I maintain a strong interest in linguistics in general and in this issue in particular. I have *never* been able to find more than a cursory explanation, in any book, of the use of the definite article in English. Any citations are going to be very hard to come by. Why "the Pennsylvania State University" but "Penn State"? Why "the Pennsylvania State University" but "Fordham University"? Should the bridge in Prague be "the Charles Bridge" or "Charles Bridge"? Why are rivers special ("the Thames", "the Hudson") but counties not ("Middlesex", "Hudson County")? Even explainable things like "the sugar" vs. "sugar" vs. "sugars" vs. "the sugars" is not explained in any of the multiple textbooks of grammar that I have in my possession. It seems that this point of when to use "the" and when not to is simply expected to be understood by all native speakers without further specification. Given that that I was surrounded, in my youth, by non-native speakers who would constantly get this wrong and to whom I attempted to forge an explanation, you can appreciate my interest in the matter.

There may never be an academic/encyclopaedic explanation of why "the Ukraine" was used in the past. Language just sort of "happens", and linguists and grammarians supply the rules, yea even the exceptions, only later. Once that someone has written the "rules" (from their own POV, of course!), others, later, may get the impression that all things in that language develop by adherence to those rules. Perhaps. But perhaps not. Which English rule informs you to say formula -> formulae? or fungus -> fungi? or datum -> data? or stoma -> stomata? You are not likely to find any such rule in any textbook, nor even any mention of of these words as exceptions. The dictionary is where you'll find the plural, just ho-hum, there it is, no rule needed. It just is.

Nevertheless, the usage of "the Ukraine" is very much documented. We can only infer the reasons therefor, and it was likely that the native English speakers (i.e. the English) were getting their POV from the countries (Russia, Poland) in control of those lands at the time.

As to "Ukrainia", you probably mean "Ukraina". However, that was not how English operated. They pulled many names from the French version: Moscow < Moscou, Kieff < Kieff (noting that French tends to transliterate Russian -ев as -eff), Vienna < Vienne, Venice < Venice, Rome < Rome, Cologne < Cologne, Florence < Florence, Geneva < Génève. So Ukraine < Ukraine makes sense for the patterns of the time. Heck, even German spells it this way (albeit with the feminine article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejmark (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did, indeed, mean that the section was uncited and problematic. You've run through English grammatical rules fairly concisely. I do know a little about linguistics and, yes, most of the exceptions to the rules are a matter of morphology (in as much as it depends on the language they were 'borrowed' from). Plurals are also contingent on the root of the word (stoma from Ancient Greek for orifice, although I've yet to find a consistent rule for the use of plural forms ending in 'i'). Considering that a huge portion of English is 'borrowed', it has resulted in a ludicrous number of exceptions to the rules. Penn State is easily accounted for being a geographical name... the rest is a mish-mash the average native speaker wouldn't have a clue about. I had a ridiculous dispute regarding whether the collective noun for crows was a 'murder' or an 'oblivion'. I've often heard 'murder of crows' being used, yet I was taught that it is 'an oblivion of crows'. Both a correct. As they say in the vernacular, go figure.


 * As pertains to 'the Ukraine' and 'Ukraine', it is most likely to be the result of usage in Russian or Polish. That is, however, going on an educated guess. If there is no WP:V and WP:RS, the use of 'the' should only be mentioned in passing as having been dropped: for which there are sources. Wikipedia = no WP:OR. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Congo is a region named for its river, which appears in country names like Republic of the Congo. The Republic of the Gambia’s name also refers to a river – and the official short name the Gambia has apparently been more common in British English than North American. The Republic of the Sudan gets its name from a desert region. The Borough of the Bronx, in the County of Bronx, is named for the Bronx River, whose name comes from Jonas Bronck’s farm. The Hague, Den Haag, is named for a count’s hedge (’s-Gravenhage < des Graven hage) and the Netherlands are “the low lands” – perhaps they retained their articles because Dutch is close to English.


 * By the way both Ukraina and Ukrainia have historically seen a bit of use in English.


 * Ukraine was probably called the Ukraine in English because it was just another geographic region that happened to be home of the rusyny: Ruthenians, Ruthenes, or Little Russians, Malo-Russians. The people didn’t start using the autonym ukraïntsi, Ukrainians, until the beginning of the 20th century, so previously there was no concept of a nation-state named Ukraine. Now the country’s name only refers to its inhabitants, even though it remains as much Europe’s borderland as ever. —Michael Z. 2014-01-29 06:30 z 
 * Interestingly, Michael, according to ngram, Ukraina appears to be more prominent than The Ukraine in the 20th century. Unfortunately, this all calls for speculation/WP:OR... which can't be introduced. I don't think the article should give any prominence to these convolutions.


 * What I do need to concentrate on is cleaning up the POV mess left by Shervinsky (a jingoistic advocate of the Триединый русский народ who has, since, been blocked from editing anything to do with Eastern Europe). His efforts to shoehorn that article were easily pulled apart as he misrepresented virtually every source he cited. Having taken a cursory look at some of his citations here, they're equally suspicious, cherry picked interpretations. Still, it remains a backburner article for me as there are more pressing matters at hand. We don't need to prove that we exist, nor that linguists recognise Ukrainian as a distinct language and not some imaginary dialect of Russian. The article is virtually incomprehensible and can't possibly be construed to be sane by a reader. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Google Ngram is case-sensitive, so by capitalizing The your search probably only captured instances of “the Ukraine” in titles and beginning sentences. Check the box or use l.c.


 * Not much time for Wikipedia these days, but I will look over this article when I have the chance. —Michael Z. 2014-02-03 04:08 z 
 * Goodness, I am a moron. I thought I had checked the case-insensitive box (which is my usual 'searching in brain autopilot mode' default). No wonder I was so surprised at the lack of occurrences of 'the'. I certainly remembered it as being the only representation of the name until relatively recently. Yes, it certainly does make a difference!


 * Nevertheless, I'd still consider that the discussion of the use of the definite article as needing to be cut in half... or more. The subject of the article is speculative and is easily swayed by POV editors finding a plethora of 'Russian' historical and 'scholarly' works in order to create a Russified version of the narrative, easily backed up by the English (French and German) narrative which mimicked information as dictated by a fellow empire. Unfortunately for us, empires were in existence far longer than nation-states, therefore their narrative continues to dominate the realms of 'received knowledge'... and the focal point lies with the use of Rus' and Russia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is an elephant in the room no matter how much the Ukrainian nationalists want to pretend it is not there. If Ukraine means borderlands, i.e. у-край-ина, земля у края, then I don't see how you could avoid the definite article in English and yet insist that the Nether lands should retain it. If, on the other hand, you insist (as some Ukrainians do, and in my opinion on dubious grounds) that Ukraine means homeland, i.e. краiна, then there should be no article before it. It is well known that the latter version has no scientific credibility, and so it should be treated as being purely ideological. Why this has not been mentioned in the main article is anybody's guess, perhaps because the article itself is not exactly even-handed? Alex Shafarenko  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.88.56 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Further exploration and clarification of "v" / "na" distinction
As it stands currently, this section does not really address the political and social ramifications of the "v vs. na ukrainye" debate. Millions of native Russian speakers, and most people who learn Russian abroad (at least in the U.S., as I did) are conditioned to use "na ukrainye," a construction which by its very nature implies that Ukraine is not an independent country, but merely a region or subdivision (of Russia). It is how one would say "in New Jersey" or "from California," and grammatically clearly distinct from how one would say "from the United States" ("v Amerikye"). Most Ukrainians understandably find this offensive, especially because Russians aren't exactly unaware of the distinction; a Ukrainian-American classmate of mine spent two years being marked-off on assignments because he deliberately used the "v" preposition. This distinction is not at all clear in the existing section and, although the other details provided are (to my understanding) factually accurate, I believe that for most readers they serve to confuse and distract from the heart of the issue.

I would propose that someone with the appropriate academic and cultural background rewrite this section to more clearly present this distinction, and provide (verifiable and sourced) commentary on the issue, especially given its relevance in light of recent events. I am not sufficiently qualified or informed to do so, but would be happy to assist in reviewing and fact-checking any proposed revisions. 24.215.190.111 (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Name of Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070411032949/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-581,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-581,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Name of 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/20131101104202/http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/natural/vdu/b/2008_1/texts/08oespnu.pdf to http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/natural/vdu/b/2008_1/texts/08oespnu.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730102538/http://www.bigyalta.com.ua/story/2681 to http://www.bigyalta.com.ua/story/2681

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Name of 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/20080621225146/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a wrong etymology
OU(оу) digraph V/U(У)

оу/въ = у/в - in

Край - Krai - state

Вкраина/Украина - Ukrain = Midle State 95.133.34.228 (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Letter Uk (оук)
In the text, the letter Uk (оу) is sometimes spelled as English ou. In old Slavonic, it was a digraph to spell u (just like ου in Greek produces [u] sound); but there's no need to spell it as a digraph in modern English (or modern Ukrainian). The corresponding letter is u (у). Pavloslav (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Original research in etymology section, should be removed
Some map is claimed to contain "okraina" spelling with no source and no identifiable information other than "published in Amsterdam in 1645". Original research is an understatement. 71.237.223.219 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That version is incorrect. I gave a link that includes the work of scientists at the bottom, and you did not accept it.The reference to the word "okraina" is unfounded, since in Old Russian "o" was read as "u" that read ukraina. Liliylo (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Rise of "the Ukraine"
I have been researching the origins of "the Ukraine" and other linguistic matters concerning Ukraina, largely through Google Books. I'm still figuring out how I will incorporate my findings into the Wikipedia article, and where to draw the line between research and original research. However, these are some takeaways:


 * The use of the preceding definite article goes back to at least 1670-71.

The earliest hit on Google Books is for a bound volume (1670-73) of the official record, The London Gazette. Initially, "Ukrania," the form that had been adopted into Latin, is used. Then, it is replaced by "the Ukrain." Several issues later, "the Ukraine" appears, and the Gazette switches back and forth between the two.

(The issues where "the Ukrain" first appears bear dates from January 1670. However, the Gazette followed the Old Style calendar back then, which started the year on March 25, so we would consider this 1671. But in an age before telecommunications, the reports are sourced to December. I'm boiling down this complicated dating mess to 1670-71.)

It may be that the historic first use of the definite article in print came earlier, in a work yet to be digitized by Google, or even hidden by an OCR error. Even if the Gazette turns out not to be truly first, however, it is still important. Through the Gazette, the new style would have been propagated to the British elite, and even to the British public. Back then, the Gazette was not a collection of boring notices, but more like the BBC News of its day: the British government using its diplomatic network and other sources to bring news of current events from around the globe. Also, as an official publication, it may indicate a broader decision by the government to adopt the style.


 * It may have been a near-run thing that we didn't end up with "Ukrain," no -e.

Since spelling was much less standardized back then, I expected to see variant spellings, and indeed I encountered Ukrane, Ukrayn, and Ukrayne. However, these turned out to be uncommon, and apparently short-lived.

But Ukrain, without the -e, was not only common, but persistent, lasting into the early 19th century. As noted, The London Gazette first went with "the Ukrain," and even after introducing "the Ukraine," the Gazette alternated between them. Text searches of the volume's four years of issues counted 15 instances of "Ukrania," 61 of "Ukrain," and 66 of "Ukraine" (including OCR errors they caught, otherwise the count would be 10, 55, and 58).

Perhaps it was just a coin toss which of the two survived. However, "Ukraine" is the French name, and it was also adopted into German. This international dimension may have given "Ukraine" the upper hand.



EDIT: My theory here is WRONG. I now realize that British officials were not consciously switching from the Latin name to a French name. They thought of themselves as switching from the Latin name to the native name. Shows why Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy!

One of the changes from Latin to French was the replacement of the feminine -a ending with -e. "Ukraine" is derived from this same process, applied to the Slavic (or "Sclavonian," as they would say then) Ukraina. We got it from French.

Indeed, Beauplan's seminal work of 1660 featured "Ukranie" - that is, a frenchification of the Latin name. But French ended up going in a different direction, and when Chevalier [no wiki article] published his seminal work in 1668, he frenchified the Slavic name.

(strikethrough date: Viva(The)Ukraine (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC))


 * The most common translation of Ukraine at the time was "frontier."

One source might speak of "the Marches," another of a "Border or Limit," another might elaborate that it meant "lying upon the Frontier."

But frontier, usually capitalized (as it was the style in the 17th and 18th centuries to capitalize many more words than we do today), sometimes pluralized, was by far the favorite way Ukraine was translated (or "made English" or "English'd," as they would put it) in the 17th century. In fact, that would remain the case well into the 19th century.


 * The word "borderland" did not even enter general usage until later.

From an already-cited 2012 BBC article: "Those who called it 'the Ukraine' in English must have known that the word meant 'borderland', says Anatoly Liberman, a professor at the University of Minnesota with a specialism in etymology. So they referred to it as 'the borderland'."

Today, that is how ukraina is most commonly translated. So it was notable that I wasn't encountering it in any of these 17th century works. This made me curious how common "borderland" or "border land" was in general in those days.

The first genuine result I found was "Border Land" in 1724, in a book that claimed to be a collection of Scots English works written before 1600. Every earlier hit I investigated turned out to be an OCR error, usually caused by problems recognizing columns and side-notes. (You'd think that Google would have made more progress on this issue by now, but apparently their OCR is like so many of their other products: a spectacular start, then stagnation.) The next instance was "border-land" in 1746, and then the hits picked up in the second half of the 18th century.

That the first result would be Scots English is intriguing, and makes me wonder whether "borderland" entered the main branch through the Scotland-mania that kicked off in the 18th century. But it seems clear: "borderland" (or "border land" or "border-land") was not in circulation at the time "the Ukrain(e)" was adopted as the style.


 * "Borderland" becomes the dominant translation in the second half of the 19th century.

Up until around the middle of the 19th century, "frontier" remained the overwhelmingly favored translation of Ukraine. Then, in a change that feels abrupt, it is swept away. In a few decades, a transition in how Ukraine is commonly translated is completed: from "march, border, or frontier land" to "march or border land" to "border land" to "borderland."

As for why this change took place, I can only speculate. I have some hypotheses, but Wikipedia policies would prevent me from putting my personal musings in the article.


 * The most reasonable inference, I've concluded, for why "the Ukraine," is as the equivalent of "the Frontier."

I haven't found a "smoking gun," where someone explicitly explains just why the definite article is being used. Perhaps it exists in an undigitized book, or a document or correspondence, or maybe it is lost or was never written down by the style-setters.

But I believe that Liberman's thesis, modified to account for "frontier" rather than "borderland" being the contemporary translation, is the most likely explanation. It seemed like just about every book that spent more than a sentence or two on (the) Ukraine mentioned what it signified (as they said then, instead of "meant"). So they clearly were aware of Ukraine's definition (though I see that some Ukrainians are now disputing it). It kind of felt to me like they were expecting their readers to deduce from that information why they were using the definite article.

I find it very doubtful that the article was meant as any sort of commentary on Ukraina's nationhood, sovereignty, or anything of that sort. True, it was seen as a Polish province. However, provinces are usually not preceded by "the" in English, just as with nations. So being "just a province" would not be enough to trigger the definite article.

And though it may have been a province, it was known as a rebellious one, with a force famed for its martial prowess; alienated from Poland by language, religion, class, and governance; prosperous and thriving and well-settled, when it was not being pillaged; accustomed to autonomy and privileges greater than Poland's other provinces; and practiced in playing off Poland, Muscovy, Krim, and the Porte against each other.

So I don't think the British of the day would have found it inconceivable that with the right leadership, the right alliances, and the right circumstances, (the) Ukraine might be able to break away, just as the United Provinces had defied mighty Spain. In fact, the Gazette made its switch as it was covering the "Dorosensko" rebellion. If the style-setters really saw "the" as incompatible with independence and sovereignty, why would they adopt it in the middle of a war that had the potential to change (the) Ukraine's status?!

Of course, as a personal opinion, I will not be able to make these points in the article.

I expect to comment further on the historical context and other topics, but this will be it for now. Viva(The)Ukraine (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * THE Ukraine has nothing to with frontier. It is simply inherited from the Romanesque languages in which the articles of definition are standard. In Italian for example even Italy is written as L'Italia.--Aristophile (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's one hypothesis; Liberman has offered another.
 * The counter-argument is that we get other geographic names from French and usually don't use "the" with them, including France itself, and yes, Italy (in terms of its ending, -ia > -ie > -y).
 * One might theorize that those borrowings were "grandfathered," but a decision was made to use the definite article with new names that came from French. But we don't speak of "the Haiti," "the Acadia," "the Louisiana," "the Quebec," or "the Canada," even though the French named those places.
 * As I said, I haven't found an explicit explanation or justification from those times about why the definite article is used with Ukraine. If you've seen conclusive proof for Romance inheritance, we can discuss it and see if it might belong in the article. Viva(The)Ukraine (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm back, after several weeks of absence. In the meantime, after more research and pondering, the pieces have fallen into place. I believe that I have deduced the connections between Dorosensko's revolt, The London Gazette, the British government, Chevalier's book, and the adoption of "the Ukrain(e)." I am convinced that the Gazette's switch represented an official decision by the British government, that it very likely is the first public use of "the Ukrain(e)," and that I understand why the change from "Ukrania" was made.
 * Part of this epiphany, however, is the realization that the British officials didn't consider themselves to be switching from the Latin to the French name. Their perspective is that they were adopting the native Sclavonian name. (It's not clear whether they realized at the time that the word had been lightly francified; likely not.)
 * This means that my theory that the change fit within the broader displacement of Latin by French as the lingua franca was flatly wrong. As frustrating as it is that WP:NOR prevents me from sharing the full fruits of my research here, in this case it prevented me from putting mistaken ideas in the article.
 * However, this also means that the English definite article would not have been inherited from French grammar. I already expressed doubts about this theory with the counter-examples above (Haiti, Quebec, etc.). Since in their minds, the British were not picking a French name, there is even less reason to believe they somehow felt beholden to French grammar - basically, none. Viva(The)Ukraine (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:Lute88: Please don't insert your remarks into the middle of someone else's remarks. This is neither Usenet nor a mailing list. It's bad form to edit someone else's comment; and it makes attribution and threading much more difficult.
 * @User:Viva(The)Ukraine: "I expect to comment further on the historical context and other topics": Please don't post another essay-length comment like this one. And yes: it does sound like WP:OR, and you should try to find secondary sources.
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This article has too much of Russian propaganda
Basically word "Ukraina" has much more simple origin than made up story about borderland.

"Ukraina" = "VKraina" derived from "Kraina"

"Kraina" translates as "Country"

In Ukrainian adding V/U as a prefix is very common.

"U" means "In" or has no meaning at all as prefix.

It has nothing to do with "Okraina" which used different prefix.

Thus meaning of word "Ukraine" is "Country".

2601:600:8D01:10F0:9453:4185:210:B084 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * +1 89.105.240.5 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole Ukraine-doesn't-mean-borderland shtick is a recent political innovation - recently pushed here on Wikipedia by and socks. However, the "borderland" origin has nothing to do with "Russian propaganda": - eg see this from Time and this from Forbes. Defeating the Russian aggression is not advanced by creating these silly spurious etymological fictions. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Controversial etymology: poor reference
A reference is given to counter, or to attest to Russian scholars countering, Pvitorak’s assertion that tsarist Russia imposed a false interpretation on the name. This refers to what I believe to be a Russian article on documents relating to the battle of Molodya?/Molodin? in 1572. It is unhelpful to anyone incapable of studying or unwilling to study the document in the original language. My impression is that the source does not address Pvitorak’s assertion; if so this reference seems to be implicitly proposing an interpretation of some part of the documents to contest Pvitorak’s assertion, which would be an improper use of the source. It needs a translated excerpt and a reformulation to clarify and justify the claimed counter. PJTraill (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)