Talk:Ukraine/Archive 4

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)

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 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)

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?


 * 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)

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)

Yea, but isn't Sevastopol under special administrative status? I think it should be something like Sevastopol City rather than Crimea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-20_Russian-speaking_countries_and_territories for details. --Greggerr (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Ukraine
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)

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)

Latin Europe
Hello ! 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)

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

Firstly, I have removed the book reference: ref name="Hamm"> 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)

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

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" --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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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.Ukraine is the best country.

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)


 * WHAT IS THAT??? STOP THE STUPID STATISTICIAN DECLARATIONS. The only language in Ukraine is Ukrainian. Are you implying that because of those numbers everybody just should, like, stop speaking Ukrainian and talk in the language that you prefer? STOP WRITING THIS NONSENSE! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"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 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: 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. 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)

We can definitely do a footnote. But I would not put christianity as a foundation, I think it is definitely something different and somewhat unrelated. I actually like how Lithuania did their thing. Of course without occupation stuff but the stages are very relevant to Ukrainian development, that is why we are where we are now. I thin it shouldbe reflected. What you think. Ivan2007 (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Christianity was the foundation to the Kyivan Rus and to Ukraine. Christianity has shaped the Kyivan Rus as a state and its history. Due to that Christianity the Moscow Principality traces its modern name of Russia back to Kyivan Rus. Due to the same Christianity the Cossacks fought against the Polish Catolicism and the Turkish Islam. The same Christianity gave birth to the first Ukrainian University. Ukraine as a state definitely was developed on the christian priciples that are deeply entwined into the Ukrainian history, culture, and traditions.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"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)

So Novorossiya is also part of "the Ukraine" (as in the historical region before 1991 or before the Soviet Union)? I always thought it was not... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an invented name given to the newly acquired lands from the Ottoman Empire by Russia. I find it highly disrespectful to call certain parts of Ukraine Novorossiya. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

National motto
I found an article which mentions national motto of Ukraine - volia, zlahoda, dobro.eurominority.org First of all if it's true it should be noted in the main article, I am talking about Ukraine. Second of all if I am not mistaken the motto actually reads as volia, zlahoda, dobrobut. What are your thoughts on that? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would start with searching more reliable (preferably official) sources. There are many vane people inventing non-existent national mottoes, coats of arms, national minerals, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2 flags used
just want to point out that the flag on the main article doesn't match the flag on the page about the flags of ukraine (the blues are different). --Lvivske 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New count by the official information of the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine
As of January 1, 2008 – 46 million 192.3 thousand Ukrainian citizens. See here. - Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we put this new numbers in the article? - Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of murders in Ukraine during the first six months of this year
1317, according to Interior Minister Yuri Lutsenko, interesting enough to put in this article? If no, in another wiki article? —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  12:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Languages of Ukraine
Wanted to see what people thought regarding this GALLUP poll:

Specifically the mother tongue section regarding Ukraine. It seems that the official poll vs. this independent poll do not are wildly different. Should this be included as an alternative source? I would think that GALLUP has no inherent bias in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.92.239 (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GPS Coordinates
The coordinates indicate Israel, not Ukraine. Someone did this to Pakistan article too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.170.134 (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

gdp
"But since then, the economy has been experiencing a stable increase with GDP growth averaging 24 percent annually."

This is not right, not even closePeppermintschnapps (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Language section needs update?
The Language subsection (subsection of section "Culture") now reads: With all Russian films being subtitled in Ukrainian these days I am quite sure there is no subtitling in Russian any more. I also doubt that there are any films dubbed in Russian left. Can anybody living in Ukraine confirm that (I do not) please? Is it not also so that most TV-presenters speak Ukrainian but that some guests in there show speak Russian? All in all the section now makes it look like there are is almost no Ukrainian to be heard on Ukrainian TV while I got the idea Ukrainian is getting more and more dominant (or at least gaining ground) on Ukrainian TV. Sentences like: "This is why a language protection policy makes sense in the case of Ukrainian" don't belong in an encyclopaedia by the way. Wikipedia is not the place to justify politics. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This would, in principle, mean that Russian-language programmes need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles, although excluding Russian language media made during the Soviet era. In practice, however, there is only one channel in Ukraine which broadcasts everything in Ukrainian. Tha majority of other channels are either in Russian, or broadcast varying amounts of Russian programs. In fact, the majority of films available on television are originally in Russian, subtitled in Russian or dubbed in Russian. This is why a language protection policy makes sense in the case of Ukrainian.
 * Indeed, there is no subtitling and dubbing of films in Russian on Ukrainian TV channels anymore. Films originally made in Russian are subtitled in Ukrainian. So this sentence is just wrong: "In fact, the majority of films available on television are originally in Russian, subtitled in Russian or dubbed in Russian". It should read: "In fact, the majority of films available on television are originally in Russian, BUT subtitled in UKRAINIAN or dubbed in UKRAINIAN. " Garik 11 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the majority of films/tv-series on Ukrainian TV not made in Hollywood (as in Western-Europe) these day's? I also think that the fact that they used to be subtitled in Russian or dubbed in Russian is worth mentioning. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  17:43, 28 October 2009
 * No, the majority of films, especially TV series on major Ukrainian TV channels such as Inter, 1 plus 1, STB are from Russia. Western films were never subtitled in Russian, only dubbed in Russian (That old-school dubbing was often work of art, by the way. Now it's like amateur actors dubbing of unprofessional Ukrainian translations). Garik 11 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that info! —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Legatum Prosperity Index 2009
Ukraine 61st world’s most prospering nation according to the 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index produced by experts from Britain’s Legatum Center and published on October 27, 2009. A total of 104 countries were ranked by 79 factors, particularly material wealth, quality of life, personal freedom, safety and security, etc. Is this interesting enough to put in the article, and if so where? The lead or the "Demographics" section? —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  22:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Russai also took over and ruled Ukraine in the olden days.Russai were mean to people in Ukraine and also started commanding people from Ukraine to do stuff for the Russai people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.105.177 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Kyiv vs. Kiev
Since the actual Kyiv page has no way to from consensus on the proper naming for our capital, I as to change the article the reflect the correct name for Ukraine's capital. Shortly after independence 18 years ago the Rada gave specific guidelines on translating Ukrainian cities and phrases. The argument on the Kyiv talk page is that "Kiev" is much more widely used, while that used to be true more outlets are finally using the correct Ukrainian spelling rather than the Russian spelling. I would like the wikipedia article to be CORRECT UkrNole 485 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

furthermore the US State Department uses the correct spelling of Kyiv UkrNole 485 (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kiev is the standard English language spelling of Kiev. See: Talk:Kiev/naming--Toddy1 (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple grammar and structural corrections
The paragraph titled "The 19th Century" now reads:

"In the 19th century the Ukrainian was a rural area largely ignored by Russia and Austria."

Should be:

"In the 19th century Ukraine was a rural area largely ignored by Russia and Austria."

Etosamoe (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Third paragraph under "Independence:"

"Kuchma was, however, criticized by opponents for concentrating too much of power in his office, corruption, transferring public property into hands of loyal oligarchs, discouraging free speech, and electoral fraud"

Kuchma is not mentioned previously. it is not clear who he is. He succeeded Kravchuk as President. He should be linked to his article too.

Etosamoe (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Regionalism" paragraph is out of place under the "Geography" heading.

Etosamoe (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New elections
They just elected a new President. Is it time to make it official? USchick (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it’s better to wait till “the dust has settled” (court cases against the result might be a reality soon). —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  08:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this edit by me is enough for now (no need to update every action of every Ukrainian politician in this article). —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  14:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He is the president! There is no disbelief.--Saiga12 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Removed two of the categories. Ukraine was around long before 1991 (it was a country for some time before USSR came about). Also it's not exactly a "liberal democracy" compared to, for example, France or Germany. ProGloriaDei (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Republic???
Why is Ukraine referred to as a "republic" instead of "a country" in the first sentence of the article? If you are referring to the government system, that's not the place to do it. I just checked other countries with the same system (Albania, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium... and on and on) and all of them are called "countries" in their respective articles. I'm afraid this is simply a mean spirited vandalism designed to portray Ukraine as still a part of the old Russian system. Please change it back immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykyta (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Fixed Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks both [[File:Waving.png]]. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  07:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"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 

WOW! The country exists already for almost 20 years and people still are asking the same question regarding its name. No one says the Belarus or the Russia, although, technically that would be the right name in proper English. The Kyivan Rus was called that way not accidently. It encompassed various other Rus-lands: Chervonarus, Belarus, Chornarus etc. Yet today calling Russia as the Russia sounds kind of akward. I do not see why it is so difficult to say Ukraine instead of the Ukraine. There is nothing wrong with that. Some people argue something about geography or whatever. But there is nothing to argue - it is what it is. Ukraine is Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with whether or not it's an independent country. Some Ukrainians seem to perceive that a slight is intended by the use of 'the'. Such perceptions seem quite odd to native English speakers. Many countries have names in English which end in '-nia' (Albania, Estonia, Macedonia, etc), and somehow the 'ain' ending sounds as if something is missing. Lebanon and Sudan are other countries which, at times, have been preceded by 'the' in English. It would sound more natural in English if 'Ukraine' was called 'Ukrainia' - which would be closer to its actual name in Ukrainian anyway.210.10.106.195 (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is purely a linguistic phenomenon, one of actual practice. There is no value judgement involved, no technical distinction being made, and therefore there is no PC issue one way or the other. There is also no officially correct answer: the constitutions of countries give them an official name form in their official language, but there is no officially correct translation into other languages. Like anything else in language, country names just are. Some country names have definite articles for no particular reason. In English we also have "The USA", "The UK", and (often) "The Gambia", as well as the examples already mentioned. In German, the Ukraine, Switzerland and Turkey have definite articles, and traditionally so does the Tirol, though that is gradually disappearing. It is just a question of linguistic variation, and certainly has nothing to do with politics, national status, or any other concrete factor. It can be influenced by purely linguistic factors (English is more likely to do it when the country name involves an adjective-noun combination, German tendentially when it is grammatically feminine) so the last contributor's hypothesis about the -aine ending being a factor is possible, though the US state of Maine doesn't have an article, nor does Spain. Anyway the point is, we should test and see what actual current usage in English is, and follow that. And I THINK that what I ususally hear on the BBC and CNN is still "the Ukraine". --Doric Loon (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I just checked some of the other language Wikis and see that Wikipedia gives the Ukraine an article in French, German, Italian and Gaelic, but not in Spanish or Dutch. Clearly not something to get worked up about. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be a linguistic phenomenon sometimes where English users like using the definite article, but the whole "the Ukraine" issue can be taken from a political standpoint (c.f. Name of Ukraine). I watch and read the BBC and never hear them using "the Ukraine." That usage is anachronistic (and sometimes offensive) and not used by many mainstream English sources. ddima.talk 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is "Ukraine" not "the Ukraine"... I find it offensive and so does most of my family in L'viv. UkrNole 485 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is sometimes called "The Ukraine" because "Ukraine" comes from the Slavic word for "edge" (see wiktionary). The first people to translate the word into English translated it as "The Ukraine" rather than just "Ukraine", because it makes grammatical sense in English ("the Edge" rather than just "Edge"). But being a proper noun, it shouldn't actually be preceded by an article. Hypershock (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not say "the England", but it is mean "the English land" ;) UeArtemis (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's 'The Ukraine'. Simple as! It's not offensive it's just the way it is. Who the hell says "I just got back from Ukraine"?! If somebody said that to me I'd think they don't speak English properly! (86.1.97.190 (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Ukrainians believe that "the Ukraine" is offensive like Russian "на Украину".UeArtemis (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only conclude from that: You think at the BBC the don't speak proper English... Interesting, but not relevant. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  15:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think people are being hypersensitive. It's not an insult whatsoever. I don't even understand why you think it is an insult. It naturally comes to mind for native English speakers. In fact, 'the' Ukraine sounds good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.148.111 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My belief is it's a linguistic curriosity, resulting from the use of "The UK." We say: "I'm travelling to the UK," so we naturally want to say "I'm travelling to the Ukraine." "I'm travelling to Ukraine," sounds a little odd because our more common experience is with "the UK." Despite this, I think Ukraine on its own is the correct form. --212.192.251.38 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.infoukes.com/faq/the_ukraine/ End of discussion. 74.78.240.25 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there is a lively debate on the issue shows that it IS an issue. Regardless of the "correct" form, I found it surprising that there is no mention of this issue in the article, in fact "The Ukraine" is not mentioned at all. Would it not at least warrant insertion, perhaps as an alternative name, or a historical name? Also, I believe there is no etymology of the name either, which one would expect. My personal recollection is that the definite article was exclusively used in English until the breakup of the Soviet Union, when it began to be eliminated as "demeaning". My feeling is that the usage of "The Ukraine" reflects a slightly "colonial" mentality and has thus been dispensed with, partly for PC reasons if you like, much like Africa is no longer referred to as the Dark Continent Markowe (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mistake on Anthem
The infobox calls the anthem "Shche ne vmerla Ukrayiny i slava i volya" and it's actually "Shche ne vmerla Ukraina". Also, even if you added the last four words it's "ni slava ni volya" not "i slava i volya". It's a mistake, can someone please fix it? --Leomir Lionheart (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not a mistake, http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=602-15 Ceriy (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The words of the anthem were changed slightly to accomodate some updates. The current version is "Shche ne vmerla Ukrayiny i slava i volya" --Bandurist (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kyiv is correct spelling!!!
Change from Kiev to Kyiv as it's correct spelling of the capital of Ukraine. http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm#r9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWC (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The name of the article Kiev is the result of long discussions and evidence gathered based on WP:NCON. Do not change it to Kyiv.  You can read the latest discussion and decision here.  It doesn't matter what the Rada wants, common English usage is all that matters.  (Taivo (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC))


 * SWC, if after reading the last discussion on the issue (October-November 2009) you still want to argue for changing the spelling, please do so at Talk:Kiev/naming, a talk page created to centralize all discussion on this recurring topic. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SWC, I have just noticed that you already did so. :-) Ev (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

saraiki
Saraiki is spoken also by 50000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.15.247 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I don't matter what English want to talk. KYIV - this is the capital of Ukraine!! And no other!! I don't tell that the capital of USA is Wusheengtan or other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.135.214.176 (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

--> According to the Constitution of Ukraine the official language is Ukrainian. Please, see the Article #10 of the Chapter I

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.

--> Ukrainian is more widely spoken in rural settlements both on left and right banks of the Dnipro. The western part of Ukraine is commonly used Ukrainian, whilst Zakarpattia and Chernivtsi have their own specialities - large hungarian and romanian speaking communities. I am not convinced that Lviv is more Russian than Ukrainian. Currently it is more Ukrainian. Kyis is bilingual city, where the native elders use Russian, whilst the youngsters use both Ukrainian and Russian.

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.

--> I am not agree about the discouraging of Russian, it is widely used in all media, especially dominating in printed ones. During the Soviet time the Soviet government proclaimed the equality of languages on paper, however in real life the Russian is dominating.

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]

Russian and Crimean Tatar language - a language of national menshyn.They not recognized regional languages. Російська і Кримсько - татарська мови - це мови національних меншин в Україні.Вони не є визнаними,як регіональні. Vitaliy(Ukraine.Lviv). віталій(Україна.Львів) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.74.75 (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

An-225
It was build in the SOVIET UNION which official follower is Russia. So it is not a Ukraine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) --Saiga12 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really; see the Antonov article's details on its Ukraine-based nature with manufacturing in Ukraine, Russia, and Uzbekistan. Things that happened in Ukraine when it was an SSR nevertheless happened in Ukraine. By your reckoning, a knife made in French-ruled Vietnam could not be described as Vietnamese but would have to be called French. And a tea pot made in British India could not be described as Indian but would have to be called English. I'm sure that when you see it that way, you will see the weakness of such reckoning. — ¾-10 17:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well and this is a jerk comment! You know that Russia is planning to produce the An124 in Uljanowsk?!--Saiga12 (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The comment is not meant to be jerky (but I have retracted the closest-to-jerky part of it using tags). All I am saying is that, according to the Antonov article, Antonov ASTC is a state-owned company of Ukraine. If that is incorrect, then the Antonov article needs to be fixed. I'm not saying that there's no Russian component to the company (which is apparently a Ukraine-based multinational corporation), I'm just saying that I don't think you can call it a "Russian company" based simply on the logic that "It was build in the SOVIET UNION which official follower is Russia". — ¾-10 19:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it is produced in both Ukraine and Russia at two seperate factories Chaosdruid (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion tables.
I have hidden two references used in the table "religions of Ukraine"

1 Numbers do not reflect facts in survey - see talk page: "What religious group do you belong to?". Sociology poll by Razumkov Centre about the religious situation in Ukraine (2006)


 * The survey states a total of 36.9 religious and 62.5 Atheist/do not know which denomination they are*:


 * 14.9 percent of believers identify themselves with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate;
 * 10.9 percent are adherents of Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (which has the largest number of churches in Ukraine and claims up to 75% of the Ukrainian population[3]);
 * 5.3 percent belonged to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (sometimes referred to as the Uniate, Byzantine, or Eastern Rite Church);
 * 1.0 percent belonged to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church;
 * 0.6 percent belonged to the Roman Catholic Church;
 * 0.9 percent identified themselves as Protestants (Pentecostal, Baptist, Lutheran, Mennonites, Adventists);
 * 0.1 percent follow Jewish religious practices;
 * 3.2 percent said they belonged to "other denominations".

Of those that are religious the figures should be (Number/36.9)x100


 * 40.38 Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate
 * 29.54 Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate
 * 14.36 Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
 * 2.71 Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
 * 1.63 Roman Catholic Church
 * 2.44 Protestants
 * 0.16 Jewish
 * 8.67 other denominations


 * Figures are NOT representative of those given in the box - it would be misleading to simply state that "40.38% are Kiev patriarchate Ukrainian Orthodox" as this would lead the reader into thinking this was of the total population.

2 Needs membership - see talk page : Countries in Crisis: Ukraine Part 3


 * First of all it is a bit of a bad show to expect someone to give their email address before getting a document simply to check a link for facts; and then only 7 days before they lose access.
 * Secondly this source only mentions religion in passing and says "more than half of the country belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarch."
 * Thirdly this source is really out of touch with reality - it discusses how "Russia has a slew of levers inside Ukraine to keep the country unstable. It also has quite a few tools it could use to either pull the country back into Moscow’s fold or break the country apart."as well as saying "The battle for the soul of Ukraine is on. The country is shattered internally in nearly every possible way: politically, financially, institutionally, economically, militarily and socially. The global financial crisis is simply showing the problems that have long existed in the country. In the near future, there is no conceivable or apparent way for any force within the country to stabilize it and begin the reforms needed. It will take an outside power to step in"


 * In my opinion it is obviously pro "invasion from the West" and is a POV source trying to influence America to somehow take control of Ukraine.

These figures need to be verified - the CIA fact book does not mention atheist in its figures either and uses 2006 survey as its statistical refernce.

According to the US department of State there were previous surveys:

" A nationwide survey conducted in 2001 by the research center SOCIS found that over 40 percent of the inhabitants considered themselves to be atheists;"

There is an obvious discrepancy between all these facts and figures - the only one which was a national survey was the one referenced by the US stated department.

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps and description of Kievan Rus
(original message from users talk page) Hi There has been somne problems previously with your edits. Now you have edited the Ukraine page to remove any record of the Keivan Rus in the West and have limited them to the north only. Your comment "Stop the Russification of Ukraine" is not related to Kievan Rus I hope. The Kievan Rus and other Rus were the start of the Ukrainian and Russian countries and there should be no shame in that. This is against everything in the other articles on the Kievan Rus. I have reverted your edits and to continue you must do so by discussing such big changes on the Ukraine talk page. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think this statemant is correct then you dont know the historic facts: "But it did not include modern central, eastern, and southern Ukraine, which were inhabited by nomads and had a different history." Dont reverse the truth about Ukraine, nobody is stupid. Try to be honest next time! --SeikoEn (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Take some time and learn something about Ukrainians and Ukraine because some of Wiki english articles about Ukraine are disgrace for your media. I am not important, but it is awful to read untruth and rubbish articles. Read and learn something new: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/alphasearch.asp or http://www.ukrainians-world.org.ua/ or watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ll32qkeAI&feature=related, but please dont leave this rubbish on the net ... Sincerely, best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said - discuss on the article talk page please, not my talk page, before making those changes. There are many editors to the Ukrainian articles that would need to see this so I will copy it to there.
 * Also you have put the edits back in again without discussing on the talk page. Edits that are massively contraversial, such as yours, should be discussed first after another editor has challenged them before being replaced. I have already asked another editor to look and assess if my reversions were in fact correct and would appreciate it if you did not revert them again - until they have been discussed on the article talk page.
 * (copied to users talk page and Ukraine talk page )Chaosdruid (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didnt change anything important; only few photos. Ukrainians are not only cossacks as I asume you allready know that fact. There are lots of other Ukrainians who are not warirors or some savages like some of your useres like to present them ... Second; Grand Duchy of Lithuania was founded also by Ruthenians (Ukrainians); first Constitution of that state was writen in old ukrainian language: I hope that you are familiar with this simbol Укра-ї-на on the title od the Constitution, today it is ukrainian simbol only!

As for Kievan Rus map; you can see very clearly that previous map is almost absolutely uncorrect. Second, why this important map on the right is being erased all the time from english Wikipedia? Sources like this: Ukraine map are great to have for your media. You can see on this page that Kievan Rus was much biger state and when I say northern Ukraine I think about all geographical north including modern politicaly saying western Ukraine. Because of that map on the right is important to realase this fact ...

This is correct or at least ukrainian historical map about Kievan Rus.

Try to do something about anti-ukrainian sentiment on this media, Ukrainians usually don't refer them selfs like Russians or Americans. They have real and rich etno-cultural tradition, old for at least 1000 years or back from Kievan Rus ... I am reading lots of rubbish on english Wikipedia, and I will realy like to change a little bit of that because I don't have time for child things like this. Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

KYIV not kiev
PLEASE CORRECT THIS IMMEDIATELY.

The correct way of spelling the capital city of Ukraine in English is KYIV. It is not Kiev.

Thank you, Mariyka 75.158.82.24 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You should read this Talk:Kiev/naming and raise this matter on the talk page of Kiev or there. Thats where this is decided. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Update is required on the political status of Ukraine.
Ukraine is a presidential republic, not a semi-presidential republic since the fall 2010 after the parliament has canceled the political reform of 2004. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or is it? "The president of Ukraine has a certain Constitutional right to appoint the prime minister of Ukraine with the consent of the Verkhovna Rada; then according to a motion by the premier, all members of the cabinet are appointed, as well as heads of central agencies of the executive branch." Sounds to me that Ukraine is still a "semi-presidential republic" since parliament and Prime Minister also have power (at least in theory...). —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  17:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This essay backs my points. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Berkut special operations units and internal troops attempted to end the Orange Revolution?
Fine piece of work this new subchapter "3.1 Courts and Law Enforcement". I recognise some of my own edits in other articles about Ukraine’s Ukrainian Russian roulette with judges and cops Courts and Law Enforcement. One thing though: I am not sure about this "Berkut special operations units and internal troops attempting to put an end to demonstrations on Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti during the Orange Revolution" information in it. As far as I know there where only rumours to where gonna do something while in reality they never did anything let alone trying to end something. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'
Hi all

There seems to be a concerted effort to wipe the Keivan Rus' from the Ukraine page (I will check to see if this runs through other pages also). I am not sure how the editor(s) in question can support this but I am pretty sure that if this is one editor then it is merely POV, and if it is more then it is a group trying to undermine the history of Ukraine.

Let me just state that any removal of Kievan Rus' would be against consensus, this means that any further edits whcih remove the material must be discussed here on this talk page first. Failure to do so would be aginst normal etiquette and would be considered against good faith and would mean edits would be reverted.

The "Slavic Peoples", that the links redirect or link to, came after the Kievan Rus'. In most cases the "East Slavs" or "Slavic people" that are linked to come from the Kievan Rus or after them in the timeline. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Page size
Hi all

The page is getting a bit big !


 * File size: 555 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 127 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 15 kB
 * Wiki text: 151 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 69 kB (10890 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 1126 B

I will compare the Ukraine page to some others to see if it is normal. If it is we can justify it.

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascist presentation of Ukrainians
Appeal sent to administrators: This issue is known to everyone who had honestly edited the page related to the Ukrainians or Ukraine (history, culture). Almost to all relevant users, it is clear that the site of Ukrainians is arranged in a way that degrades the Ukrainians. Ukrainians are presented as they are not a nation but multiethnic part of the Russian people and thats open border with fascism on Wikipedia. There is no similar examples when it comes to articles on other nations. '''Several well known users are persistent in these efforts to show that Ukrainians are not separate nation. At the same time reliable information is deleted and replaced with the interpretations without a source.''' Almost every trace of Ukrainians in Russia's history has been cleared and lot's of Ukrainian artist referred to only as a Russian (with my respect to Russians). Users of this work are obviously in anti Ukrainian mood to such an extent that they intentionally write untruth or deliberately erase the facts and finaly damage the work of Wikipedia as an objective media. My suggestion is to devote greater attention to articles related to the Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture in general. We should especially pay attention to several users who are falsely presenting themselves as neutral. Their hatred of Ukrainians is obvious and I do not need to name them. They are very familiar with their unhonest work! I hope that administrators will begin to act and punish those users who spread hatred among the peoples! --SeikoEn (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article?
I wonder how it can be a good article, if only in the "Religion in Ukraine" the data contradicts to what it is written in the references? The article states "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Patriarch of Moscow - 50%, Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate - 14.9%". But all links to this statement present the opposite information: "Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Patriarch of Moscow - 14.9%, Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate - 50%"...--Ukrmap (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agriculture?
And what about Ukrainian agriculture production and population? It seems that both don't exist... This is the main negative aspect abut this topic in Wikipedia.

Zub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.16.141 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please change
in the links section "Portals to the world" the link to the Library is working but they have closed the service so it does not bring much to go there. Thanks. (Polish IT) (Could not change it by myself because article is protected.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.93.123 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to Size of Other "East European" Countries is Meaningless
I removed the (slightly boasting) statement that Ukraine is the second largest country in Eastern Europe. Even if it didn't smell of POV, it is meaningless for two reasons: 1) nobody knows for sure what "Eastern Europe" is, and the entry on the topic makes it very clear that this is a problematic term. Second, even if the region were well defined (although it is not), what is the implication of being second largest country is some small geographic area? How does it matter? How does it have any practical implications? If not, why do we need it? TippTopp (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not POV, it is not boasting. It is a statement that helped clarify the country's size. Giving someone the figures of so many km2 doesn't really convey how large the country is. Stating how large it is gives an idea of how it fits in to those around it. To say of Canada " It is the world's second largest country by total area" is not boasting.
 * The fact that you are saying it is boasting means that you perhaps have a POV ?
 * Look at other articles and see how they are written before making such a change. Asking "does anyone else think it is strange" or "should we really have this here" next time will go much further.
 * In conclusion - many other country pages use a similar sentence to show their size, ask before such changes to gain consensus and try not to get up ion aarms when someone re-introduces the material you have removed.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the sentence - Ukraine is the largest country on the European continent. Russia and Turkey are bigger only if you include their Asian territories and Greenland is physically part of the North American continent. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of size is fine and commonplace, as you write. I have done it myself by noting that Ukraine is of size similar to that of France. However, Ukraine is not the largest country in the European continent for the simple reason that nobody knows for sure what the borders of Europe are. Geographically, Europe is not a continent but a region. You may wish to read the entry on Europe to understand that geographers speak of Eurasia as the relevant continental unit. If Ukraine were really the largest European country, we wouldn't need all of the disclaimers regarding Russia, Turkey and Greenland (and France, which is larger than the Ukraine). Let's leave the local patriotism to other venues, outside Wikipedia. Thank you! TippTopp (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the beginning of this Ukraine article poorly written. Generally an article about a country starts with a sentence. Here we only have one word with its pronunciation brackets. First sentence is about the erroneously calling of Ukraine. Second sentence compares it to two states which have historically very little in common with Ukraine. Third sentence about size claims is naught. The real Ukraine article only starts at the fourth sentence. Before making any corrections, I would appreciate to have your views on it. Couldn't we just skip the three first sentences in order to have a better version (compare it to Spanish or German versions which have better starts). --Arjen Dijksman (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Subject closed thanks to edits of Chaosdruid and Swearingmonk. --Arjen Dijksman (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no "the" there, but there used to be
Based on the discussion above, I've added a brief note about the usage of "the Ukraine" until the end of the 20th century with a simple, non-judgmental comment that it is no longer considered accurate or appropriate. Many of our English-speaking readers will be curious about usage and this note directs them to the new usage. I added references to the OED as well. --Taivo (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, there are two references to "the Ukraine" in the article. A brief one in the lead with a reference and a more extensively referenced sentence in the Etymology section.  These should be appropriate to direct our English speaking readers who are wondering what happened to the "the".  --Taivo (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, good piece of editing (by you)! —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  18:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "Little Russia"?
I'm not trying to upset the anybody again, (read this for proof and Dancing Lasha Tumbai is one of my favorite songs of all time (I like the lyrics especially !)). But I can remember in reading in a 1920's Dutch book about the Soviet Union Ukraine that Ukraine was being revert to as "Little Russia" in that book. I think this too should be mentioned in the Etymology section also. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  18:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC) See globe. "Russia" just big Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.231.236 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was in older books from the late 19th and early 20th century. Also was favoured by nice Russian writers who wanted to make the Rus not be originally from Ukraine lol :¬)
 * Also was the White Russia reference, my father was one, as was my girlfriends father although she did not know her grandfather had changed the family name in the 40s to Murray from Morrisov until she was 32 yrs old. Little_Russia Chaosdruid (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

kiev
"kiev" - wrong. This soviet-russian pronunciation.

Київ=(to sound how)Kyiv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.231.240 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Go check this out. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 1, 2011; 19:55 (UTC)


 * I have had enough so have added the bigish text above and below the banners at the top of the page (If you are looking...) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ukraine
The article has no discussion of the change in usage from "the Ukraine" to plain "Ukraine", the politics of that, the Russian perspective, etc. etc., and it should.

My Ukrainian-Canadian family still says "the Ukraine" as we have for nearly a century at this point.

Varlaam (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankfully the word "the" doesn't exist in Russian or Ukrainian (so Russians can't call anything "the" 718smiley.png); but you probably refers to a new topic I just opened. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I also do believe that "the Ukraine" should be used wherever the article deals with any part of the modern state while it was under the Russian, Polish or any other rule. --Garik 11 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that 100%.
 * Certainly, some Ukrainians here were using plain "Ukraine" prior to independence, maybe as part of traditional Russian-bashing, but that was not correct English usage.
 * I don't drop the article until independence, and even then I've been so thoroughly inculcated in "the" that I still use it automatically.
 * Force of habit. Varlaam (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY disagree. What the ...?! It was never, is never, & never will be "The Ukraine." It's preposterous to prepend the article "the" before "Ukraine." Using "the" is in fact INCORRECT English. There is no reason for the "the." The history timeline does not matter either. It's just for your convenience, because you are used to it, & "force of habit"...?! Very flimsy arguments. It's insulting to Ukrainians to continue to use the INCORRECT "the." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.193.123 (talk • contribs)
 * Ah, finally&mdash;an opinion of a native speaker, and a learned linguist at that! Also, would somebody please inform the residents of The Hague about this thread? They had to put up with a similar offense for even longer than the (sorry) Ukrainians!
 * With this matter settled, let's now think about how to explain the Anglophones that their silly alphabet is completely bonkers, and that they should've switched to Cyrillics years ago. How else will they ever learn the correct spelling of "Ukraine"?!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 13, 2010; 14:36 (UTC)

Why is there still a reference that, Ukraine is sometimes incorrectly referred to as "the Ukraine"? That's absolutely ridiculous. It is wrong and ungrammatical in English and we don't refer to many different ways people debase the English language. There is no need to refer to it. While we're at it, maybe you want to add that it is sometimes incorrectly referred to as "Ukriane" and "Ukrane", maybe even Yukraine and Ukrine. The only way I think that you could refer to it if you add some context, such as how various enemies of the country are continuously propagating the incorrect usage of "The Ukraine", in order to imply that Ukraine is not an independent state, but just a region that's part of Russia. Mykyta (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh chill out. First, it's not as "wrong and ungrammatical" as you might think; it's merely being enthusiastically phased out. Second, it is mentioned because the usage with the article was the norm in the past. Obviously, no dictionary ever recommended using "Ukriane" or "Ukrane" or the rest of the ridiculous examples you provided, so those are not included in our article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2011; 14:20 (UTC)

Well, according to the English language grammar rules, the article "the" can only be used in front of proper country names, when the name is plural, hence "the United States"; or when it includes "Republic" or "Kingdom" like "the Republic of China" or "the United Kingdom". Since Ukraine is neither of these, I would say that yes, it is as "wrong and ungrammatical" as that. Mykyta (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Mykyta, it's not "wrong and ungrammatical". It was accepted usage for most of the 20th century.  While it is no longer considered to be "appropriate" at this time, that does not make its historical usage "wrong and ungrammatical".  Other countries that have gone through this "loss of 'the'" process are Sudan, Congo, and Gambia, which have, in the past, been referred to as "the Gambia", "the Congo", and "the Sudan".  --Taivo (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the topic: I think if we should start using "Ukraine", "the Ukraine" and "Ukrainian SSR" throughout this article things would get overly confusing (and inconsistent) for casual readers who at the end of reading the article would likely think "Is this country now called "Ukraine" or "the Ukraine"?". I believe the current Etymology-section at the start of this article should have a line (I'm surprised it hasn't) that says something like this: Ukraine used to be known as "the Ukraine" but since it's independence in 1991 has been revert to simply as Ukraine; for the sake of consistency as not to confuse the reader only "Ukraine" is used in this article. (just like the Webster-link Ezhiki provided). —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  22:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a perfectly acceptable usage here--"Ukraine" throughout with "Ukrainian SSR" where appropriate in the history section and "the Ukraine" explained in the etymology section. My main objection was to the characterization of "the Ukraine" as "wrong and ungrammatical".  --Taivo (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Taivo, but which part of the English grammar rules seem to go over your head? Once more, the only way you could use "the" in front of the term "Ukraine" is in these cases: 1) the name is plural, 2) the name contains "Republic" or "Kingdom", 3) the name does not refer to a country, but a republic or region that's part of a greater empire.

So under which of these 3 cases does Ukraine currently fall to make this term grammatical in the English langauage? Or are you in a position to rewrite the English language rules?

As to reference about placing the older name "the Ukraine" in the body of the article, that's just so mean spirited I don't think I can even address it here properly. Yes, Ukraine wasn't an independent country and was part of the Soviet empire for many years, but that's written in the history section which includes the proper name "the Ukrainian SSR". I fail to see why the colloquial term "the Ukraine" needs to be referred to. It's not like someone reading some older books will see the term and not understand that "the Ukraine" is the same as "Ukraine"- that's just too ridiculous for words. The only motive I can think of for including this currently UNGRAMMATICAL term is to keep it "out there" for others to see, so that the term will continued to be used, never quite being phased out. Mykyta (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mykyta, be civil in your comments. English grammar is not defined by some academic dilettant writing rules somewhere.  Show me one single solitary grammar reference from 1980 that says "the Ukraine" is an ungrammatical usage.  You can't.  "The Ukraine" is a historical usage that was considered perfectly acceptable until only recently.  Even today, many English speakers still use "the Ukraine" so it is not "ungrammatical", but "inappropriate".  Grammar is defined not by academics, but by usage.  If English speakers use a term regularly, it is grammatical no matter what you think.  Indeed, just yesterday I heard a news reporter refer repeatedly to "the Sudan", and still hear "the Congo" occasionally.  As an encyclopedia, we document these things.  "The Ukraine" should be referred to in the etymology section with a comment that it is no longer considered "acceptable", but it is not now and never has been "ungrammatical".  --Taivo (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In adding references to the etymology section, I happened to notice that the OED uses "the Ukraine". If the OED uses it, then it's definitely not ungrammatical.  It is still not accurate, and is not appropriate given official Ukrainian usage and desire, but it's not ungrammatical.  --Taivo (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Mykyta suspects that we are trying to make it look like Ukraine is still a part of Russia... having been around on wikipedia for a while is can honestly say I never had the idea that there are no wikipedia editors who are trying to weasel this in. You surely can't accuse me of doing that. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  18:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When referring to Ukraine, the independent nation, "the Ukraine" IS incorrect in English. "The Ukraine" refers to the region, like "the Midwest". The only time you should use "the" in front of a country's name in English is when you refer to "the United States" or "the Netherlands" or when using a country's full name like, "the Russian Federation" or "the Ukrainian SSR". On top of all that, the Ukrainian language doesn't even have articles. Here is an short article on the matter: http://www.infoukes.com/faq/the_ukraine/. Unlike the poor citation on in the Wiki article, the infoukes.com article actually has an author and goes into detail. Extermino (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that Wikipedia usage should be "Ukraine" and "the" is not appropriate. There is no "region" called "Ukraine" that is not also the country of the same name.  That's like saying that Germany is a "region" and should be "the Germany".  The earlier question, however, was grammaticality.  It's not ungrammatical to say "the Ukraine", it's just not correct.  Those are two different things.  --Taivo (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not too sure on that one (ungrammatical) lol. Argentina used to be referred to as "the Argentine" as it was a couple of territories put into one, similarly "the Ukrainian SSR" over the past 50 years of use gets cut down to "the Ukraine"
 * The United States isn't a country name, it is a collection of states, the Netherlands (North Holland+South Holland+some other bits) so that one is right, the United Kingdom is the same also (Britain+Northern Ireland+others), apart from those types (amalgamations) I cannot think of a country that IS called "the something". Can anyone else? Chaosdruid (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think far too much is being read into the use of the definite article before the name Ukraine. This is simply an idiosyncracy of the English language and carries no political meaning. Other countries and places take, or have taken the definite article, including the Argentine, the Congo, the Hague, the Gambia and the Sudan. While "the Argentine" now sounds decidedly archaic, "the Congo" is still widely used enough to not sound odd. Interestingly in my opinion this idiosyncratic use of the definite article is found in other Germanic languages too. For example German and Afrikaans do not usually use the definite article for placenames, but Switzerland is "die Schweiz" in German and Paarl is "die Paarl". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is the definite article though. It is incorrect. If used to refer to an area or collection then it is correct. Now that Ukraine is not an "area of the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR" the is no long necessary.
 * It is, and heaven forbid me using this term except in example, similar to "he is black" and "he is a black". I cannot think of any others right now, but if I do I will come back and put them instead of that one. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please delete the name of Ihor Pavlyuk from the list of the greatest Ukrainian authors.
No bother, certain author is a talented writer, however his works has no relation to classics of Ukrainian literature (Taras Shevchenko, Lesia Ukrainka, Ivan Franko). Dear Wiki-editors, please delete his name from that list, otherwise you are to fix there names of all contemporary writers (talented or not). Regards to Mr. Pavlyuk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.52.111.114 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Undoing of Info box
Hi all

I have just undone and edit, at 2RR now. The user seems relatively new, only a little over 100 edits, so am going to give it one paragraph here.

Linking to a redirect page is not really recommended, especially when you undo something back to the redirect link. We also have a WP:3RR rulw, and we are already at 2RR. Normal procedure is boldly change, reverted, discuss WP:BRD. There are many pages about usage on the other matter (that which shall not be named) but I suggest starting here. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms
The coat of arms shown in the infobox is actually the Lesser Coat of Arms (malyi gerb). I propose this to be reflected in the caption there (currently reads just Coat of arms). Magicoast (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Even though it is the lesser coat of arms, it's still the only one that is officially recognized and as such the only CoA Ukraine currently has.. The greater one is only a proposal and probably won't be adopted anytime soon (not with the current government, anyways). --ddima/talk 22:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine
Hi. Who put "Typical Ukrainian dessert: the Ruskie"??? First of all, pierogi ruskie is a Polish dish, and a similar dish (might look the same) in Ukraine is called vareniki (they're also mentioned in the article). Second of all, why the earth would anyone call in a "dessert"? I'm not editing, because it would be rude of me (I'm not Ukrainian, neither I think I have enough proper knowledge of their cuisine), but someone should do it. Thank you. Zapasiewicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapasiewicz (talk •

The word "pierogi" or "perogy" has already entered the English vocabulary and it is silly to call them anything else without translating the word into "perogy", unless you call them dumplings. Anyway, English speaking Ukrainians in Canada and US call them perogies. As to pierogie ruskie being a Polish dish? -that's the first I heard of this - just the name itself indicates that it came from the East - Rus' or Ukraine.Mykyta (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

World War II and war crimes
A short mention of war crimes, resettlement and ethnic cleansing of local polish minorities/majorities by the UPA should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.100.189 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion in Ukraine
Religious adherence poll based on CIA factbook is very misleading and needs to be removed or balanced with alternative polls and statistics. The biggest problem is the religious split between two largest Ukrainian Orthodox Churches - Ukrainian Orthodox Curch-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP). Razumkov Centre provides the following statistics : 10.9 % of Ukrainians identify themselves with UOC-MP, 14.9 % of Ukrainains identify themselves with UOC-KP while 62.5 % of Ukrainians do not identify themselves with any church organization mentioned in the poll, ["What religious group do you belong to?". Sociology poll by [[Razumkov Centre]] about the religious situation in Ukraine (2006)]]. This poll, however, is also misleading. Majority of these 62.5 % of Ukrainians who were not able to identify themselves with a particular church organization, consider themselves Orthodox Christians (even if they only attend church services few times a year or not at all). Majority of this 62.5 % of Ukrainians were also baptized in UOC-MP churches and attend church services (even if only during Easter mess) in UOC-MP churches. This is simply because great majority of Ukrainian Orthodox churches and clergy belong to UOC-MP (approximately 68 percent of all Orthodox Christian communities in the country - see Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)). The trick that allows UOC-KP to make claim to be the largest church in Ukraine is that the majority of their adherents clearly indicate they belong to UOC-KP (which is generally more nationalist and politicized), while most people who were baptized by UOC-MP and attend UOC-MP church services simply state they are Orthodox Christians. UOC-MP also often portrays itself as the canonical Orthodox Christian church in Ukraine rather than the "Moscow church", downplaying its connections with Moscow Patriarchate (esp. in Central and Western Ukraine) and this also contributes to the confusion polls on church allegiance in Ukraine create. In addition, many of the UOC-MP churches and majority of people who identify with UOC-MP are in the more urbanized South and East Ukraine where church attendance is low compared to the rural Central and Western Ukraine where UOC-KP is the strongest. If the pollsters would have used a different methodology that would explained the differences between the two churches and really press the Ukrainians to choose between the two more than 50 % of Ukrainians would likely identify with UOC-MP while only around 15 % with UOC-KP, yet the CIA Factbook statistics paint the picture which is almost the exact opposite. The religious divide in Ukraine is not exactly the same as a linguistic, political, cultural and historical divide in Ukraine between Russian-speaking south-east(majority of Yanukovych voters in the second round of the recent presidential poll) and Ukrainian speaking north-west (mostly Tymoshenko voters), there is an Orthodox Christian majority in the North and Central Ukraine and a sizable Orthodox minority (including the UOC-MP laity) in the West, yet there is a relation to the overall split which divides Ukraine in two. Roughly 55 to 60 % of more or less religious Ukrainians identify with UOC-MP (or the canonical Orthodox Ukrainian church as many know it) while the rest are members of UOC-KP church, Greko-Catholic church, Roman Catholic church, various Protestant churches and so on. --Fisenko 02:16 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Chart shown on this page does not match the statistics cited in the footnotes! Qe2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC).


 * I edited the numbers in the chart to match the 2006 Razumkov survey, which is one of the surveys previously cited, and that used in the Demographics of Ukraine article. I would suggest that the 2007 Ukrainian Sociological Service data be used, though, as it is newer and more widely cited by independent media, such as the BBC. Mr. or Ms. Fisenko's arguments above are Original Research; the article must be based on verifiable sources. Qe2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Regarding the Stratfor source, does anyone know what it says? It is behind a paywall. Does Stratfor qualify as a reliable source per Verifiability? It is not a peer-reviwed publication or a reliable media source.Qe2 (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Qe2, you don't know whether or not the source passes muster as a WP:RS unless you read it, examine it, and learn about its provenance. In these cases in Wikipedia, unless you have exact knowledge of a source or its contents, it's best to leave it alone.  Just because it's behind a paywall doesn't make it an unreliable source.  --Taivo (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The wrong name of picture
'A uniformed officer of the Highways' Police (ДАЇ)' While I've read the article, have found out one mistake. The name of subdividing of militia into signature to the photo is not correct. In Ukrainian language exists two very similar on writing letters - "І" and "Ї". In abbreviation of the Ukrainian "Державна автомобільна інспекція" - State motor-car inspection - (namely about them my speech goes), exactly the letter "І" is used, but not "Ї" as it was made in a signature. So, that signature has to be smth like this: 'A uniformed officer of the Highways' Police (ДАI)' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierwolf (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine was divided between a number of regional powers and, by the 19th century, the largest part of Ukraine was integrated into the Russian Empire with the rest under Austro-Hungarian control.

[Austria-Hungary] was founded in 1867 and existed 51 year. Where was the "rest" up until 1867? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.226.63 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Fix this please
Under tourism it says "Ukraine occupies 8th place in the world by the number of tourists visiting, according to the World Tourism Organisation rankings." The World Tourism Organisation rankings for 2010 say its 8th in europe, not the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.181.132 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Slightly wrong colour of flag/coat_of_arms.
The blue is supposed to represent the sky ("Блакитний"), so it should be closer to "cyan", or using HTML, "#00FFFF". If you look at the pic of the Mig jet fighters you can see a more correct colour there. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on possible mass immigration out of Ukraine
According to a November 2011 poll by Razumkov Centre "52.5% of respondents have a negative answer to the question whether they would leave Ukraine for permanent residence in another country if there was such an opportunity"; that means almost 50% would leave if there was such an opportunity. Is this remarkable enough to mention in this or another Wikipedia article? —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  18:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Bit strange.... (president's New Year speeches)
71.5% of Ukrainians plan to listen to Ukrainian president's New Year speech, 38.1% to listen Russian president's speech. Although the parts of Ukraine where they will listen the most to the Medved are also the parts where they listen the most to Yanu... People in East and South Ukraine like speeches? —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Economy
Ease of doing business in ukraine for the last 7 years:

Source: wikipedia's ease of doing business archive

menkaur 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that information isn't entirely relevant to the economy section. It can be included on the main article Economy of Ukraine page, but not a whole table in a section summary, which should just be an overview of the Ukrainian economy and not a collection of all of the economic data. --ddima (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Chzz  ► 02:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

QuickInfo Updates
Update Gini index. As of new CIA Factbook data, "Distribution of family income - Gini index: 27.5 (2008)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.221.56.166 (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for catching that. (Shredder2012 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

Minor detail mistake?
Didn't the Kievan Rus disintegrate in the 13th century not in the 12th as stated in the first short statement of the article? Somebody change that if I'm correct please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.207.26 (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Long Name?
I thought that this country's conventional long name was "Republic of the Ukraine". What happened, and why was it removed? -- 92.4.52.66 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine specifies that the country is a republic, the document does not mention any other names other than simply "Ukraine". I don't know whether this is the reason why the long name was removed, but it seems to have been removed properly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2012; 20:53 (UTC)
 * PS The word "the" does not exist in Ukrainian (nor in Russian). (The SFriendly.svg) conventional long name could never have a "the". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, "the Ukraine", as a phrase, exists in other languages like French ("L'Ukraine"), German ("Die Ukraine"), Welsh ("Yr Wcráin"), Galician ("De Ucraína") and Italian ("L'Ucraina"), and the CIA World Factbook used to have a reference to "Republic of". There is even also a redirect to this article from Republic of Ukraine. Some other examples:
 * Japan is sometimes called "the State of Japan" after its Japanese name.
 * In Libya, the National Transitional Council has sometimes called it "the Libyan Republic".
 * The Irish State uses "the Republic of Ireland" as a description.
 * Iceland is often called "the Republic of Iceland" (a) many foreign authorities, and (b) even by the CIA.
 * Particularly from the ex-reference by the CIA World Factbook, why can't we have a "sometimes described as the Republic of the Ukraine (Республіка Україні) by foreign authorities" phrase somewhere in the lede ("the" shall now be presumed optional). -- 92.4.52.66 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(English is not German) "The Ukraine" is not common English usage; I have never seen any (Government) using Republic of Ukraine (let alone Republic of the Ukraine). According to the USA Government (the boss of the CIA): "Official Name: Ukraine". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that (very) few people/officials refer to it as "Republic of Ukraine" seems not noticeable to me... The "The Ukraine-saga" is already in the article at Ukraine. Besides according to the CIA World Factbook Ukraine has no conventional long form... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  19:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring from a POV Pusher
Blast Furnace Chip Worker, stop your POV pushing here by changing the name of Ukraine's capital from Kiev to Kyiv. See the note at the top of this page. Click on the link to read the discussion and consensus. It's not up to you to decide to change Kiev to Kyiv. --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Two pronunciations?
Although I've usually heard it pronounced YEW-KRANE, I recently head a British historian say YEW-KRINE. If the latter is a valid, second, pronunciation, it should be mentioned in the lead. On the other hand, maybe that historian was just saying it wrong. --Noleander (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You sure he was British and not Australian? :) And come to think of it, I believe the /eɪ/ sound is pronounced closer to /aɪ/ in some dialects even in Britain.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 28, 2012; 17:35 (UTC)

Transportation
Rail transport is heavily utilised in Ukraine - let's use modern photo here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenyzzB (talk • contribs) 09:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please tag outdated information in "Foreign relations" section
Hi,

can an administrator please add the  tag to section Foreign relations, second paragraph, last sentence ("The Association Agreement with the EU is expected to be signed into effect by the end of 2011 [...]")?

Thanks a lot,

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The next Georgia-style breakup of the former Soviet states
Should we cover all the Russian attempts to foment a break up of Ukraine, or is that just election year politics? Hcobb (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As for "1649", "November 7" & "December 30, 1922"
For three errors that you may see underlined on this scan.

1) Cossak Hetmanate emerged in 1648 (and it is stated in German & French Wiki) and 1649 is the year of recognizing it by the King of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

2) Ukrainian National Republic was proclaimed November 20, 1917 and November 7, 1917 corresponds to this date in Julian calendar which in those days was used in the former Russian Empire.

3) Ukrainian SSR emerged January 6, 1919 and December 30, 1922 is only the date of joining the USSR.  Pamerast (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Time Zone
It would be great if someone changed the following:


 * Eastern European Time (UTC+2)
 * Eastern European Summer Time (UTC+3)

To:


 * EET (UTC+2)
 * EEST (UTC+3)

It would make it consistent with the majority of the other country articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.133.253 (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Misleading "historical" maps
At the moment a section of the article titled Historical Maps of Ukraine states the following: "The Ukrainian state has occupied a number of territories since its initial foundation. Most of these territories have been located within Eastern Europe, however, as depicted in the maps in the gallery below, has also at times extended well into Eurasia and South-Eastern Europe. At times there has also been a distinct lack of a Ukrainian state, as its territories were on a number of occasions, annexed by its more powerful neighbours."

This as such is all well and fine, but I sincerely think that with that formulation it should stick to maps that strictly present the predecessors of modern Ukraine as they were.

At the moment however there is for example the map of the "Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth or Commonwealth of Three Nations (1658)." The problem is that this Commonwealth was only a proposal that was never realised in any form. This should be clearly stated if the map is to be presented in such category.

As a lesser problem it is a bit far-fetched to state that any sovereign predecessor would have "extended well into Eurasia and South-Eastern Europe". Some did extend somewhat beyond the borders of modern Ukraine, but never really penetrated the natural borders such as the Carpathian mountains. That is to say, the extent of extension was rather tens, sometimes perhaps hundreds of kilometres rather than a whole different part of the continent.

I would like to state that I don't mean this feedback as an attack on Ukrainian history or cultural heritage or mean to offend anyone, only would like to suggest a review of this section and perhaps a formulation that gives a more realistic image to the average reader. -188.146.151.149 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Remark from Ukraine
then it was reoccupied again by the Soviet Union.

English-speaking, you gone mad? The term "occupation" (finding of Ukraine in the Soviet Union) is incorrect.--79.124.183.105 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Literature
Reading through this I noticed that Bulgakow is notably missing from the literature section. I was going to add him, but then remembered the minefield of wiki-politics & wondered whether there is contention or deliberate omission in this case. - So the question is: Does Bulgakow deserve mention in the Literature section & can I go ahead & add him?

Xuancris (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you start with lower-level pages like Ukrainian literature and Kiev first. Bulgakov is a Russian-language author who moved from Ukraine later in his life and therefore might be considered "in second line" of authors for the main, overloaded article. No Wikipolitics or personal opinion on writer here, just a matter of strict prioritization. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ukraine stamp 2011 (Geography)


I think this image is suitable for the section "Geography". -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * According to policy WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE simply using this image as an illustration is not appropriate because the image is a stamp. See the explanation about rice/fried rice. USchick (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Falsification
This map falsifies history. Kievan Rus disintegrated before the advent of cities Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod. The name " Belgorod Dnestrovsky" appeared in the Soviet Union (1944). The name "Vladimir Volynsky" -1795 year. ... ... Michaila vnuk (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested change reflects percentage and proportion of religious groups
Existing

The dominant religion in Ukraine is Orthodox Christianity, which is currently split between three Church bodies: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous church body under the Patriarch of Moscow, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Change to:

The dominant religion in Ukraine is Orthodox Christianity, which is currently split between three Church bodies: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomous church body under the Patriarch of Moscow, and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

99.6.18.66 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks for being so specific. Sai Weng (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Euromaidan pic introduced without context
I see that a photo of Euromaidan has been added to the "Independence" subsection in the "History" section.

While I haven't removed it for the moment, it doesn't make sense there without being given some form of context. I'd suggest that "Independence" should encompass only information on that subject alone and that, anything that doesn't fit into the broader sections of "Politics" and "Economy" should be given a further subsection within history as "Post Independence". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction: Too detailed - too nationalistic
Following Polish partition 1795/1815:

"A chaotic period of incessant warfare ensued, with internationally recognized establishment of independent Ukrainian People's Republic. Independent Ukraine emerged from its own civil war. Then Soviet aggression and the Ukrainian–Soviet War followed, which resulted in Soviet victory. Ukrainian People's Republic was occupied and a puppet state called Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was created. On December 30, 1922 it became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government was hostile to Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture; there were mass repressions of Ukrainian poets, historians and linguists. Then there was a genocide of Ukrainians: millions of people starved to death in 1932 and 1933 in the Holodomor."

1) For an introduction far too détailed - belongs into section History.

2) Wording misleading. Was WW I "incessant warfare"? Why not call the civil war Whites against Bolsheviki by its standard English term? The adversary were, in contemporary language, not the Soviets but the Bolsheviki.

3) Wording too partial. Both the Whites and the Reds wanted to force ALL independent republics back into "Mother Russia". - And wording too strong for an encyclopedia.

Needs rewriting. Nuremberg Ángel.García 131.188.3.21 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could draft something that you think better, and post it here in the talk page so that we could see what you have in mind. That way it would be possible to build some of your ideas into the article.  It is probable that some things that you do not think are important, other people think are important.  Through dicussion, understanding would be improved, and we might move to an improvement that could then be moved into the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Knowing little about the country, I too think these paragraphs go on too long about how Soviet rule was established and how evil it was. Presumably it's all true, but introductions need fewer words and more balance than that. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With regards to the IP contributor who introduced this section, I'm a little dubious as to their intent and neutrality considering the rather strange POV pushes on talk pages (per their contribution history).
 * However, as interest seems to have been revived here I'd suggest that, as per Toddy1's observation, perhaps it would be more useful to identify precisely what the perceived imbalances are and make suggestions rather than generalised statements that it's too long and... boring(? I'm not quite certain as to how to construe the "too long about Soviet rule was established and how evil it was." (sic), so am having to interpret it myself). Could you point to areas you have issues with and make some specific suggestions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead I shall follow a previous suggestion and propose a revision, using three sentences to replace three paragraphs:
 * Early in its history the territory that is now Ukraine was inhabited by various ethnic groups, under various native and foreign rulers and empires. During the 19th century the Russian and Austrian Empires ruled different parts. In most of the 20th century it was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union when Ukraine became an independent republic.
 * Yes, this omits warfare both incessant and intermittent, and famines, aggressions, repressions and other dreadful and important events that belong in the body of the article rather than in the intro. If the history paragraph needs a fourth sentence, perhaps it ought to be about how the country became Slavic. A short sentence. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "During the 19th century the Russian and Austrian Empires ruled different parts." -- but shouldn't we say what these different parts were called? -- Alarics (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think the introduction is the wrong place to discuss such matters. They belong elsewhere, such as in the body of this article, or in the history article. Today I looked at Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine–Central Powers) and Peace of Riga and related articles about neighbor countries. Looking as an outsider, such topics seem fraught with complex disputes that a sentence or part of a sentence cannot treat properly. Of course, I am open to dissenting views, but I think we will be more succesful if we discuss those later, after we agree on a basic version of the history paragraph. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We seem to have moved from excessively detailed to excessively vague, Jim.henderson. "... was inhabited by various ethnic groups, under various native and foreign rulers and empires.", "During the 19th century the Russian and Austrian Empires ruled different parts." The repetitions of 'various', 'foreign', 'different parts' in a mere three sentences doesn't qualify as an encyclopaedic lead but, rather, reads like a template to build on for any number of nation-states. The lead needs to be informative to some degree. Sorry, but I don't see this as being an informative introduction to the body of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite right, thank you; my repetition of "various" is entirely unnecessary. As for specific facts to be added to the history paragraph, perhaps someone can contribute more specific suggestions. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with this article (and dozens of other articles trolled by interest groups pushing their POV) is that they're subjected to so many hit and run edits that regular contributors/editors get tired of being involved in cleaning them up (I'm sure you're well acquainted with how these messes happen: just mentioning it for the sake of others following the talk page). I'll take a look at the lead in the next few days and see if I can construct a reasonable skeleton which can be worked on here, on the talk page, allowing for some genuine consensus version to be constructed. Alternatively, we could use your 'template' and start building from there. I doubt that anyone would interpret a lead that bypasses the minimum requirements for a stub could be understood to be anything other than verbose (but if they do, they're welcome to say so at this point).


 * If no one objects in the next few days, I'd take that to be understood as consent to rework it (naturally, meaning that any relevant V and uncontroversial RS belonging in the body would be moved into the relevant section). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So, we have two appoaches to the summary mentions of history in the introduction; you prefer to trim and neutralize the existing three paragraphs; I prefer to delete and rebuild from a small seed. Either approach can work, so we can present our respective revisions until one becomes clearly better or the differences dissolve. Alas, only today did I finally look at the History of Ukraine article which has an excellent intro, apart from a small paragraph alleging a stolen election a decade ago. Perhaps that introduction has also been used as a battleground. Lest that intro become unstable, I quote it here. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The territory of Ukraine has been inhabited for at least forty four thousand years. It is where the horse was first domesticated and a candidate site of the origins of the Proto-Indo-European language family.

In the Middle ages, the area was a key center of East Slavic culture, before being divided between a variety of powers. A Cossack republic flowered for a century in the early modern period, but Ukraine remained otherwise divided until its consolidation into a Soviet republic in the twentieth century, becoming independent in 1991.

This intro is perhaps too short for the History article, but as a history paragraph for the general Ukraine article it looks like the best one proposed yet. Including, of course, it's better than mine, and should be put into the article and be the basis for future improvements. For the first two minor minor improvements, I prefer to join the two paragraphs into one, and dislike its use of the word "variety" but such questions can wait until after adoption. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So, besides doing that, I have moved the old, oversized history paragraphs to the History article, with small changes. They do not entirely satisfy me. I hope editors with greater topical knowledge will offer suggestions or WP:BOLDly make improvements directly. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers for your work so far, Jim. Apologies for not getting back to this discussion earlier. I've been immersed in some hefty clean ups and also wanted to see whether anyone else was going to join in as (sometimes) many hands make light work (if it doesn't lead to edit warring!). Hopefully, the bold, revert, discussion cycle will get some qualitative changes happening.


 * I'm going to look through comparable articles for other countries for a few ideas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of definite article
Geographic uses In English most cities and countries never take the definite article, but there are many that do. It is commonly used with many country names that derive from names of island groups (the Philippines), mountain ranges (the Lebanon), deserts (the Sudan), seas, rivers and geographic regions (the Middle East).[4] Such use is declining, but for some countries it remains common. Since the independence of Ukraine (or the Ukraine), most style guides have advised dropping the article,[5] in part because the Ukrainian Government was concerned about a similar issue involving prepositions. Another example is Argentina, which is now more usual than 'the Argentine', which is old fashioned, although others continue, such as The Bronx and The Hague. The definite article is always used for countries whose names are descriptions of the form of the state rather than being purely geographical; for example, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Czech Republic. The U.S. Department of State[6] and the CIA World Factbook[7] show the definite article with only two countries: The Bahamas and The Gambia. Although in title, these references do not include the definite article for the Netherlands, in the text description the name of the country is never used without it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_articles#Geographic_uses

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Trim
Now we've got a slightly shorter and, I think, better introduction. The article remains, in my opinion, WP:TOOLONG and can be much improved by careful application of WP:SUMMARY. The first section goes on and on about the origin of the name, to no good purpose that I can see. My guess is, its actual purpose is to defend the legitimacy of the country. However, attacking or defending anyone's legitimacy is not an important purpose of Wikipedia, so I think it can be trimmed to a single sentence, like the one in Ukraine but with an internal link to the article on that topic, and no header. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better. I'll see whether there's anything salvageable in the 'summary' here for the main article Name of Ukraine (although it is self-serving, I can check the references for WP:V & WP:RS). Unfortunately, the main entry ended up being developed as being uninformative and self-serving, then was recently mashed by a self-serving Russophile POV editor who's been blocked from editing Ukrainian articles for edit warring. Result = mainly unusable mess rife with weasel words, shoehorning, cherry picking and every other form of gaming the system. I've had intentions to do an encyclopaedic, well referenced 'from scratch' rewrite on the backburner for a couple of months. Sigh. Time to get it off the backburner and roll up my sleeves.


 * Considering that much of the content in this article does have a detailed corresponding main entry, you might want to cut and paste extraneous information into those main entry talk pages and ping me to let me know. In light of your having a good grasp as to how it ought to be presented, I suspect I'd be more effectively used in cleaning those entries than focussing on this article . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Much work to be done, and few ready to do it. As in many articles, we have had editors who are passionate for one side or another of controversies that are near and dear to them, which to us far away seem small. When they see something as unfair they react quickly, and assume that any way to victory for justice is justified. Fewer know or care about issues that make a good group of encyclopedic articles. As usual. A couple years ago another editor drew my attention to History of the United States Constitution and I did something rather drastic, swapping almost the entire article with the history section of the parental United States Constitution which had suffered from somewhat similar warfare. This created something of a mess, which over a few months was cleared up by several patient and non combatitive editors.

Our present article suffers a similar imbalance between the History section and the History article. However, I don't expect a similarly able and attentive crew to volunteer for cleanup efforts on a part of the world where few speak English, so smaller steps will probably be more successful. One way to prepare for such smaller steps is to align the sections of the History article with the subsections of the History section, with the intention of swapping when this creates a more favorable balance. This will require more careful reading, which has been difficult this week due to my Real Life interfering, but perhaps the remainder of the month will present fewer distractions. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It won't be that easy to align them as, even in cursory readings, I've discovered that many have evolved as almost disparate entries! Add to that the fact that I've also been discovering more than one variant on any given theme (much is flying under the radar by playing with WP:COMMON conventions and article splits over POV issues) and there's a major clean up ahead to contend with.


 * I'm labouring over some Hispanic and Latino articles that have fiddled over the last couple of months (i.e., outright falsification of information using legitimate sources), but will get back to working through these articles and aligning the info ASAP. I'm entirely at ease with long term projects: I've been led to believe that it was the tortoise who won the race.


 * If you encounter any sources in Ukrainian, Russian or Polish which need to be fact-checked and relevant section translated (I've encountered plenty that simply don't tally with the assertions being made), feel free to give me a yell or leave a cite check or cite translate tag. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit more comparing of this article with the History article and the SSR one has revealed that I overestimated the relevance of my proposal. The History section is not conspicuously bloated. Some details, I think, should be moved to the SSR article, from here and especially from the History article. I shall look more closely at the Economy, Military and other sections, seeking similar but greater opportunities to apply WP:SUMMARY. My goals do not include checking whether the material I am rearranging is a pack of lies supported by abuse of sources, as I completely lack the relevant languages and my knowledge of history here is skimpy, mostly popular accounts, especially dimly remembered Cold War propaganda in English from various sides. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think it would be futile to attempt to cite check thoroughly. I've encountered numerous highly dubious interpretations of sources and could easily go through tagging every second instance. Considering the rapidity with which the article changes, it doesn't merit the headache. It'll be rife with POV WP:WEASEL and WP:OR (much of it hidden in misused sources) before you can blink. The best case scenario is keeping the bloat down. If readers are going to be misinformed, better that it be over with quickly. Apologies for sounding dismissive of an article... but, having read it in multiple forms, there's more guerilla warfare than substance going on here. I'd rather save my time and energy on articles not suffering from bipolar disorder. EDIT Being bipolar, I am entitled to toss the term into the mix gratuitously. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv naming issue
Yesterday I tried to change the outdated (Russian) spelling of the Ukraine's capital "Kiev" to the correct Ukrainian one - "Kyiv", and I see that the change I made yesterday has been reverted. I found this page with the discussion on the topic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev/naming. The discussion has been closed and archived and I was wondering if it were possible to reopen it. The argument from the side opposing the change seems to be that "Kiev" is still a more commonly used name (despite the fact that all official US and Canadian documents now say "Kyiv"). To prove it they use the number of Google hits on either word. What they fail to understand is that a lot of people use Wikipedia to find the correct spelling of the word, so it ends up being a vicious cycle: the Wiki won't change the name until people start using the new one, and the people won't start using the new one until the Wiki changes it. Not to mention that Google underlines "Kyiv" as a grammatical error and corrects it to "Kiev" (I don't know whether this has anything to do with one of the Google founders being from Moscow). For a lot of Ukrainians it is important to set their country apart from Russia, which has dominated Ukraine for centuries both politically and culturally, as well as did everything possible (down to a direct ban) to suppress the Ukrainian language. Not to mention, that writing the name of the Ukrainian capital in English using Russian transliteration is downright offensive to those who have been trying to revive the Ukrainian culture and establish it as an independent entity. Independent specifically from Russia.

Thanks much, Valentine Azbelle. (born and raised in Kyiv) Azzzy (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly support "Kyiv" spelling. That's how it's pronounced in Ukrainian.
 * Same as it's the capital of Kazakhstan is written "Almaty", not as "Alma-Ata"(soviet variant)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaty
 * Thanks
 * Denys Zalizetskyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.42.204 (talk • contribs)


 * I suggest starting discussion on Talk:Kiev specifically. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The word Kiev is a transliteration of the Russian pronunciation. Ukraine is not Russia. Russian is not the official language. The official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. The word Kyiv is a transliteration of the Ukrainian pronunciation. Kyiv is now used by the UN and many other official bodies as the correct name for the Ukrainian capital. In short, Ukraine is not a satellite, a region, an affiliate, or part of Russia, and most Ukrainians concur that the Russian spelling and transliteration is incorrect. Eastern parts of Ukraine, where much of the native population was removed and repopulated with Russian speakers by the Soviet government, is still primarily Russian speaking, and many in that area may disagree. Those who insist that changing the spelling is a crime against historical spelling: please remember that history is the past. Those who are reluctant to change, because it is the historical English spelling: please examine your privilege. Simply out of respect for Ukrainian citizens, their autonomy and their ideals, please use Kyiv, the proper name of the capital city of Ukraine. VeselkaInExile (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)VeselkaInExile Please take this to Talk:Kiev/naming. There is a long, long, loooong talk page dedicated to the subject. Read all of the archived discussion and current discussion before you raise an issue that's been addressed dozens of times over. Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion on Kiev/naming (I cringe writing it that way) - I have a few points to make. But on the page it says the discussion is archived, do not modify. I would like to contest the decision. How do I do that? Azzzy (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the best way is to start a new section saying something like "Kiev/Kyiv Naming Discussion Again" or something as descriptive. In your initial post, it would help your case if you (1) said you read the archived discussion and link to it, (2) lay out your arguments clearly and concisely as to why you feel it should be changed, (3) address anything that has changed since the last discussion, and (4) cite any Wikipedia policies that would bolster your argument.  My guess is that people against the name change would point to WP:COMMONNAME, so you might want to read that and give a reason why you disagree with it.  I've also see people be proactive and start subheaders for voting and discussion (e.g., File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/Archive_9 by Info por favor and Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States).  Things that can help bolster your argument is if you know of any other pages that have been moved/renamed in a similar fashion (someone mentioned Almaty above) or if any official bodies (UN, governments, Red Cross, whatever) have changed their use of the name recently.  Since Wikipedia is built on consensus, that's a good chance the page won't be moved.  But your discussion may lead to some other changes in that direction.  Other links to read: WP:DEM, WP:DR, WP:DISENGAGE, and WP:HORSE (last two because I've seen editors essentially sabotage their own efforts by fighting every comment made by users like Bruce Campbell in The Evil Dead). Best of luck. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @EvergreenFir Thank you, very much, for the pointers - very helpful. I'll get to it tomorrow (if I have time). Making decisions based on consensus is wonderful but I wonder who are the people whose opinions go into the consensus? I.e. what qualifies them to make these decisions? Any of these people linguists or at least political scientists? And shouldn't all of them be well-versed in the subject? Just idle pondering, that's all. :) Thanks again. Azzzy (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, and that's where WP:DEM comes in. It's an odd balance.  I think the problem is that the encyclopedia goes by what people best know something as, even if it's wrong.  We call it "Japan", not "Nihon".  Check out List of country names in various languages to see what I mean.  EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What you called the "outdated (Russian) spelling" is the English language name. Your objection is really that you do not like English people speaking their own language.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Toddy1. I've directed the newbie to the correct talk page and have pointed out that the latest round was quashed by the unequivocal, universal use of 'Kiev' in all reportage surrounding EuroMaidan... and that any refactoring of old arguments will be greeted as WP:SNOW. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an exonym though. We should strive to balance WP:COMMONNAME with respect for endonyms and sovereignty. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EvergreenFir. I fully acknowledge that you are acting in good faith, but I would urge you to go to the correct page and check through the discussions there. The exonym issue has been tackled over and over, i.e. "Saint Petersburg is still Saint Petersburg, not Sankt Peterburg; Moscow is still Moscow, not (Muskva); Germany is still Germany, not Deutchland; Greece is still Greece, not Ellas." Believe it or not, many of the participants there are Ukrainian and not 'phobes', 'philes', '-ification'/'-ization' advocates of any persuasion. There is more than one policy and guideline to be invoked... but the most salient of these is WP:COMMON, as in common sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Was just a thought really. I have no real position on this issue but WP:COMMON makes the most sense to me.  I do find exonyms/endonyms fascinating though. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, . I suspect that the talk pages are more illuminating and fascinating than the articles themselves. I'm engaged in a lengthy and long time discussion of the use of the definite article with a couple of editors. (Whoops, my syntax has taken on a life of its own!) For all the aggravation it can cause, Wikipedia is a marvellously engaging and rewarding experience. Finally, there's a place for every form of pedant in the world to find like-minded enthusiasts! Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan
Currently, 19-Feb-2014, the section, Euromaidan is vague in the use of English.

Second sentence:

"Demonstrations were caused by refusal to sign an association agreement with the EU, Yanukovych described it for Ukraine yet disadvantageous ."

"described it for" has too many meanings. Perhaps, this was meant: "Demonstrations were caused by Yanukovych's refusal to sign an economic agreement with the EU which protesters supported but the President considered disadvantageous."

Fourth sentence:

"Violence escalated after 16 January 2014 when the government accepted Bondarenko-Oliynyk laws, also known as Anti-Protest Laws."

The word "accepted" is probably intending, "enacted."

I would make the changes if I knew enough of the subject to be certain my interpretation is correct.

-- cregil  (talk)  17:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Size of Military
The article says:
 * Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine continues to maintain the second-largest military in Europe, after that of Russia.

Second-largest by what measure? Various lists rank the Ukraine behind European states like the UK, France, and Germany in number of active personnel or military spending. If this "second-largest" is true at all, it needs clarification. —Naddy (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you include the 1 million reserves, and other 'paramilitary' personnel, then it does have a larger number of personnel than all the other European states aside from Russia. Gabhala (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added a clarification and a citation from this article Gabhala (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Naddy. In total power Ukraine ranks lower than many 21st vs 6th for France. SaintAviator (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no problem either way, it boils down to whether we decide to include reserves etc. or not - but we should in mind that political events within Ukraine will effect this information on a daily basis - e.g. the disbanding of the Berkut, just yesterday will affect this number (if they were counted, in the first place). I merely tried to provide context and a source for the statement in the article, but we should/need to be very careful when editing around something that is currently evolving.  Thank you. Gabhala (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good. What you say is true. Yes. There will be a need to be careful here as this evolves since some POV edits will be politically motivated.   SaintAviator   talk  04:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Outdated
From the article: "Ukraine's economy is still expected to grow by around 3.5% in 2010."

Could someone please update this article? . . . Many thanks. 07:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.23.76.255 (talk)

Editors may be busy on other issues at the moment. Russian stock dropped. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

By this I mean: You may be interested in following and contributing to two new Wikipedia articles: Some day after 'things resolve' these two article might be merged, but not now, IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC) —  (In My Opinion)
 * Talk:2014_Crimean_crisis
 * Talk:2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine

What will happen in March, 2014 ?
As history evolves, this article can also record what happens (sooner or later) as Russia moves to take over the Crimean peninsula.

Headlines: "Leader Asks for Help" & "Prime Minister: Ukraine on Brink of Disaster" "Arseniy Yatsenyuk said that Ukraine was "on the brink of disaster" and blamed Russia's Putin for bringing the two nations to the verge of war. He called on the international community to rein in Putin." — "Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Sunday that his country was "on the brink of disaster" and personally blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for bringing the two nations to the verge of war.  Speaking to reporters at the Ukrainian parliament, Mr. Yatsenyuk called on the international community to rein in Mr. Putin and pressure him to remove troops from the Crimean peninsula, where a majority of residents are ethnic Russians but have Ukrainian passports." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Online WSJ: (48 min ago)

With respect Charles, this is neither the place not time for such posts. It is not a carefully considered fact but a politically based post. Please read the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." For that reason, I would ask you to remove it along with my post. 80.1.50.88 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The TALK page is the place to document the news as it becomes history. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors and non-editors may want to take their TALK-discussion over to 2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree way to much off topic fringe soap here.  SaintAviator   talk  22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)