Ukraine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

copypasted from my talkpage:

Thank you for upgrading the level of the article i've created, Russians in Ukraine, i liked most of what you added there, but yet there are a few things i would like to talk to you about: 1. Why did you delete the section of "Relationship with other Ethnic Groups"? I came from Ukrain, and i'm half Russian (By the father, Jewish by mother), and what i wrote there was not a personal view but the truth. The Tatars in Criemea threaten to kill Russians, while Russians dont like Tatars there (And for a good reason, remember how they killed our people in the middle-ages, the Tatarian basterds occupied most of our lands). The Russians and the Russian-Speaking Ukrainians see themselves as a Slavic Unity. The Russians and Jews are really allied, and on an "orange" demonstration in Lviv in 2002 Yuchenko supporters shouted: "bey judiv i maskaliv " ("beat Jews and Russians"). M.V.E.i. 15:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all tone the politics down. comments like Tatarian basterds should be avoided at all costs, just because some degenerates use offensive language (like your example with Lviv) that does not mean you should. It gives me no sympathy and it will only destroy the image of the article

Second of all, spelling, do make an effort

Thirdly, you can't just say things X and Y see themselves as a Slavic Unity or Z try to kill X. This is but a POV and the article should be free of it.

Fourthly again Jews supported both Yushchenko and Yanukovych, and the quasi-anti-semetic people made up both Yushchenko's and Yanukovych's electorate.

So really the heading that I removed was just a piece of aggravated opinion, nothing else nothing more. --Kuban Cossack 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of archaic imperial terminology if unacceptable, this is 21st century. Besides, modern Ukrainians consider reference to them as Little Russians insulting. While I understand that this imperial name for Ukrainians should be explained, use of it in a 21st century article instead of modern terminology is clearly over the top and biased. Besides, Little Russia historically meant the area of former Cossack Hetmanate and is clearly inappropriate in description of Southern (New Russia), Western and Sourh Eastern regions of the country. --Hillock65 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban Kozak used this terminology because it was importent in the historical part so we could understand the time. The names of the peoples was an importent part of that time, you cant ignore them. If you would like to explain them you are welcome to do so. And Little Russians doesnt mean they are little but that the Ukrainian people are little by the number reletively to the Russian people. M.V.E.i. 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Little Russian meant as the source of the area. Moreover there is a distinct difference between Little Russia and New Russia and this is important to stress. Finally even though it is archaic at present, when discussing the 19th century it is important. Last but not least it is Kazak not Kozak. --Kuban Cossack 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Russia does not refer to the whole of modern Ukraine, but to a limited area of Cossack Hetmanate and is not related to the Donets basin and the New Russia. It is just as improper to use it to describe people as if we were talking about Muscovites, a name often substituted for all Russians. So, explain the terminology but please stick to the modern term, especially in the title to avoid bias.--Hillock65 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a loose term that is applied to all ethnic Ukrainian land. I am not using Little Russia to describe New Russia, and the border between Little and New Russia can easily be seen on the election results and the map of the Soviet Republics I published here. Yes using it in modern day is incorrect and wrong, however we are describing a period of time when that definition was used. Particularly for the 1897 census. In 14th century history it is alright to refer to Russia's progenitor Muscovy as such. --Kuban Cossack 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explaine why is the current title better than the original Russians in Ukraine? What was the rationale behind renaming, besides I don't see any discussion about it. Was the name changed without any warning and discussion whatsoever?--Hillock65 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article with the title Russians in Ukraine. When Kuban Kozak moved it i didn't think it's a problem but now when i think of it, your right. Once you say "Russians" it's already understod your talking about Ethnic Russians. For example in the article of Russians in Kazahstan its not said Ethnic Russians in Kazahstan. Lets wait for Kuban Kozaks reply before we move it anywere. M.V.E.i. 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Russian can also mean Russian citizen who could be Tatar, Yakut, Chuvash, Chechen and even Ukrainian for all we know. --Kuban Cossack 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should change the name to the previous one, but type beyond that this article is about Ethnic Russians in Ukraine and not about Russian Citizens who are not Ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine. Please response to that offer. M.V.E.i. 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the move, this title is to clumsy, I don't think anyone will think of Russians as tourists or someone else. Will a title Swedes in Finland confuse anyone? I wonder why neither Swedes nor Finns saw it necessary to write an article like this. And there are ethnic Swedes in Finland. --Hillock65 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see i moved the page. M.V.E.i. 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Making assertions that Russians in Ukraine support one particular political force is blatant POV. One can talk of regions that give preference to certain politicians but to claim that Ukrainian politics are divided along ethic lines is wrong. There are plenty of Russians in all political parties of Ukraine as well as Ukrainians in the Party of Regions and others.--Hillock65 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the election distribution map the borders of New Russia become all to visible. --Kuban Cossack 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any factual data that support destribution of vote by ethnicity? Read WP:OR.--Hillock65 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but one needs not be a genius to see how the Donbass, New Russia and Crimea chose not to support the Ukrainian nationalists. What makes you think they will?--Kuban Cossack 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts as well as yours are irrelevant. This is Original Research. Please present facts and not your thoughts or assertions.--Hillock65 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or do I see the same line forming, cutting Ukraine in half... I wonder why? Same wrt the political maps, AND to the historical map of the DKR, OSR and the UPR. --Kuban Cossack 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me assure it is you. If you have a reliable data on ethnic vote supply it, otherwise it is just waste of time. --Hillock65 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you want proof of? You mean that Russians in Ukraine do not support UNA-UNSO and the like? --Kuban Cossack 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be of some assurance: http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/results/general/nationality/ ?--Kuban Cossack 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite positive that out of millions of Russians there were some, who supported UNA-UNSO, rest assured. The map and the census source do not prove that ethnic Russians voted one way or another. It only proves that in some areas, where ethnic Russians predominate, certain political parties had more success than in other areas. That is all. Claiming that people vote because of their ethnicity is hard to prove, as even in those areas only in Crimea do Russians have absolute majority. --Hillock65 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Please do tell me of ethnic Russians who support UNA-UNSO... I would very much like to hear about that. --Kuban Cossack 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By pure statistical probability, it is quite conceivable that out of 18 million there was at least one Russian, who voted for them. BTW I trust you know that an ideologue of Ukrainian integral nationalism Dmytro Dontsov was an ethnic Russian from Donbass? That is beyond the point, however. Let's stick to the main argument I expressed above.--Hillock65 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dontsov was ethnic Russian? Now that is news for me. Do please tell me more.--Kuban Cossack 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from a Cossack famility too. Read the link above. Can we stick to the point of discussion and not digress?--Hillock65 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a complete Ethnic Russian, but he has a Russian lastname, so he shurely had Russian roots (Or Bulgarian, but what are the chances), but nevertheless, Dmitro is a pure West-Ukrainian name. M.V.E.i. 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee, why West and not Northern Ukrainian? How can you tell?--Hillock65 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro is simply the Ukrainian version of Dimitros, which is actually a Greek name originally. --Kuban Cossack 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, making claims that transfer of Crimea was illegal is controversial and not supported by any official decision acceptable both to Ukraine and Russia. We are not here to make assumptions but to represent facts. The assumption that it was illegal has not been established with certainty and should be kept out of this article.--Hillock65 14:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the prosecutor's office in Simferopol back in 1991 established that the transfer was not fully legal, however to avoid conflict they agreed to remain within Ukraine as an autonomous republic. --Kuban Cossack 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so..

Kuban Cossack has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

}. Again to avoid OR, these unsupported controversial assertions should be kept out of this article. --Hillock65 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important part of the history of the article. The fact that the transfer of Crimea remains controversial to this day says something about it. As opposed to say the transfer of other provinces within the USSR's republics. --Kuban Cossack 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one argues that it is not a controversial point, however, to put it in the article you have to present factual data that supports your original research. Please present facts that are provable and supported by serious sources.--Hillock65 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea was transferred in three steps. First, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation proposed the transfer. Second, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union made the decision by a Decree on April 26 1954. Third, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR accepted the transfer by a Decree dated June 17 1954.

However, in the context of the 1950s Soviet Laws, the method of the transfer of Crimea violates the Soviet constitution. For any transfer of territory, the highest ruling body of the USSR, the Supreme Soviet, must conduct referendums in both republics, the territory in question, and the whole country. However, this was not done, thus violating the Soviet constitution, which states:

• Article 15: The sovereignty of union republics is limited only by the constraints mentioned in article 14 of the constitution of the USSR. Aside from these constraints, each republic can carry out its state power independentely. The USSR defends the rights of union republics (this was not done in the case of RSFSR, thus violating its soveriegnity).
• Article 18: Territory of all Union republics may not be changed without their consent.

(Source: The 1936 constitution of the USSR) Also puzzling was the rush with the transfer procedure. The whole decree was prepared in near secrecy, and the residents of Crimea found out that they were part of Ukraine only after the oblast was transferred.--Kuban Cossack 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in what capacity, if I may ask, you are interpreting (see WP:OR) the data? Where does it actually say, word for word, that the transfer was illegal? And in the unlikely case that it did, it would only represent one point of view that is far from being recognised as an unquestionable fact.--Hillock65 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.newsru.com/russia/04oct2005/krym.html --Kuban Cossack 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of this source? What does it change?--Hillock65 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that there is still enough to go on that people are considering that the transfer is illegal. Like I wrote the critical piece is with respect to acting Soviet law. Not wrt the present Russo-Ukrainian agreements, that recognise Crimea as part of modern Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"people are considering" is the wrong reason for it to be a fact in encyclopedia. People are considering a lot of things and we should be considering reliable, well-sourced facts. --Hillock65 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when a Ukrainian state institution confirms that Russia has territorial rights to Crimea, that is not enough for you... What is? --Kuban Cossack 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What enough for me is that Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine even by Russia in the treaty of 1997. That is all, everything else if folklore, which should not be here.--Hillock65 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the locus of the problem, it was the transfer that matters, did the fact that the USSR used military means to annex western Ukraine in 1939 put the question of Lvov not being a Ukrainian city? No. I for one recognise Crimea to be part of Urkaine, however I do acknowledge that the method used in for Crimea becoming part of Ukraine is questionable, and it seems I am not the only one. --Kuban Cossack 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You very well may call it questionable, I wrote myself, that it was controversial, but there are no grounds to call it illegal. Questionable and illegal are two very different words. To prove illegality with sources is next to impossible, it would be advisable not to go into that area altogether.--Hillock65 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crimean prosecutor's office proved it so...but if you insist, for sake of consensus I would not mind to rewrite it slightly and remove the term of legality.--Kuban Cossack 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seem to be abounding with original research (see WP:OR) and baseless assertions in regards to transfer of certain regions to Ukrainian SSR. This being a controversial point, assertions like these without any historiographical data or relieable sources is unacceptable. This smacks of Russian nationalist revisionism, for which there is no place here, at least not in this article.--Hillock65 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your conspiracy theories are equally assertions and original research. For example do you disagree that Southern Ukraine was victim of Ukrainization in the 1920s? --Kuban Cossack 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial difference between my conspiracy theories and yours is that I do not try to put them into an encyclopedia article. As well plese discuss article and not me or my theories (see WP:NPA). --Hillock65 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identify the theories and discuss them, don't revert war.--Kuban Cossack 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already identified them, several times actually. Read above. --Hillock65 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried listing all of the points let's work through them:

Use of Little Russia

Explained above

The use of Little Russia and Little Russian should be limited to explaining the official Russian Imperial policy. The name Ukraine and Ukrainians was used well before the census and the described events. We are here to represent the neutral point of view not the one of the Imperial Russian government.--Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True as that may be, however the use of these archaic terms is justified when describing the period in question. You can disagree with them, however replacing them with their modern equivalent is not correct, because in case of Little Russians many other regions which labeled their tongue as such would become ethnically Russian territories. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Little Russians to generally describe Ukrainians is not acceptable in any historiographic literature of any period of Ukrainian history. It should be explained, but used instead of "Ukrainians" is very biased.--Hillock65 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source this then, like I said before prior to 1918 Ukrainians as such did not exist, only their progenitors. The affiliation with being Russian or Ukrainian came from language. However language alone is insufficient to class one as bellonging to a separate ethnic group. Did the fact that in 1897 my Kuban spoke in Little Russian make as Ukrainians? No, we are Russians. Did the fact that northern Polessia spoke Little Russian in 1897 make them Ukrainians? No they are Belarusians. Same with New Russia, this is an important historical term and is applicable here.--Kuban Cossack 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians existed well before 1918. Here is the source:

Як умру, то поховайте

Мене на могилі,

Серед степу широкого,

На Вкраїні милій,

Щоб лани широкополі,

І Дніпро, і кручі

Було видно, було чути,

Як реве ревучий.

Як понесе з України

У синєє море

Taras Shevchenko, December 25, 1845

Again, it is not for us to decide who and why became Ukrainian and why didn't. Treat Ukrainians with respect, use the universally acceptable terminology in all historiographic literature and this issue will be closed.--Hillock65 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Bolshevik government tolerated the UPR

1. It never did, the provisional government did, but not the Bolsheviks, Trotsky simply used the creation of the USPR on paper. De facto the USPR was run by the SNK and was at war with the Ukrainian states from day one.

   It actually did tolerate it. During German and Austrian occupation there were no attempts to regain the territory, only after the Axis left. Toleration is not recognition. --Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Axis refers to WWII, we are talking about post-WWI. At least let's agree on the history frame, and then on the fact. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, I meant Central Powers, my mistake. This slip, however, does not change the above argument of time frame for Bolshevik involvment.--Hillock65 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually if you look at the maps of WWI then really it just follows through the Red Army began around Moscow and moved all the way into Ukraine...without stopping. [2] --Kuban Cossack 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

claiming their borders based on the 1897 census.

1. This is true, the UPR even demanded regions such as eastern Sloboda and my Kuban.

   Well, if this is true, then support it with credible documents and sources. Who says that it is so, you?--Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Who says it was not so you? You support with sources that it was the opposite way around

   No logic here, I am not making any claims, you are. And please support them with sources.--Hillock65 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You want to remove something that is not sourced, you too source the alternative. I think for common sense, why did the UPR not claim...Karelia for that fact? --Kuban Cossack 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry I don't follow the argument, what is so unusual about asking not to insert unsupported claims? If you want, I will not put a word of my own but will erase all unsupported assertions. That will not be very helpful. Let's write a neutral article, not one replete with original research. If you want to make a point, be my guest, but do not make outlandish claims and ask someone else to disprove it. If you write something, the onus is on you to support it with factual data. --Hillock65 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one of the most hit areas were the south and eastern Ukraine

1. Do you disagree? Well so do I the most hit areas were actually the Don, and Kurgan as well as Northern Kazakhstan which saw cannibalism emerging, but with respect to this article the scope is too wide to cover.

   Again, see the above response, the bold part. Please no original research, present facts not your thoughts or dreams. If you have documents to suppot your assertions, please provide them, otherwise keep OR out of the encyclopedia article.--Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Read Holodomor article, I discussed this on the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Let's stick to the subject at hand and this article. At the moment, I am interested in this one. If you make controversial claims that casualties were higher somewehre else, support them. As simple as that..--Hillock65 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I can't be asked to write it out again: Talk:Holodomor#Was the Holodomor genocide?#A few questions--Kuban Cossack 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   By all means, if you found a reliable source that says that Crimea, Southern and Eastern Ukraine was hit more than any other area, please insert it.--Hillock65 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It is all there. --Kuban Cossack 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean Tatars

1. How are they relevant? In 1939 they only made a fifth of the Crimean population.--Kuban Cossack 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Why shouldn't they be relevant? If the ethnic cleansing hadn't happened we could talk about different ethnic balance in Crimea. The proportion of tatars in Crimea before deportation is questionable and should be supported by documents. --Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   1939 Soviet census is questionable? Find it in www.demoscope.ru --Kuban Cossack 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The census is a good source, you should cite it there. This however, cannot exclude the part about ethnic cleansing, since however small their percentage was, Russians coming to replace them in Crimea increased their proportion there and shifted the balance of ethnic groups.--Hillock65 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As you have noticed, this article is in an extremely early stage, and wrt comments that the creator wrote at the very top...about Crimean Tatars... I reckon it is easier to deal with things one step at a time than with 50 issues. --Kuban Cossack 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-drawn picture

This hand-drawn elementary school illustration with unknown origin should be kept out of encyclopedia article. There is no proof that it represents real and not imagined facts. I could do a better one, can I post it too?--Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could make a bettern .png one, if you want me to.

Sure, let's all post hand-drawn pictures of what history should have been like! Whouldn't that be fuuunnnnn!!!!--Hillock65 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see your reasoning. According to ru-wikipedia: ru:Донецко-Криворожская советская республика, Создание Донецко-Криворожской советской республики противопоставлялось буржуазной Украинской Народной Республике, претендовавшей на территорию Донбасса, Харьковской и Екатеринославской губерний.. According to the Large Soviet Encyclopedia: Объединяла территорию Донецкого и Криворожского бассейна (Херсонская губерния), Харьковской и Екатеринославской губернии; входила в состав РСФСР. [3]. So the borders were simply determined by the borders of the governorates. --Kuban Cossack 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute the fact, although Russian Wikipedia can hardly be a reliable source for one, my objections is with the use of this amateourish drawing. It is not for me to decide if it is true or not, there should be no questions as to its reliability. As it is, there are.--Hillock65 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Russian wikipedia less credible? It is simply a statement of how the borders of that republic was aligned do you question the borders? The map was simply drawn out based on that evidence. Like I said would you like me to make a .png of it? --Kuban Cossack 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, a map like any other source or illustration should have a source. And where is this drawing coming from? In regards to Russian Wikipedia, it cannot serve as a source for this one. A quotation from a scientific article or research is a different matter. Since its source is unknown, depiction of territories there should be questioned and supported with sources. Like I said, I can draw or make /png file with slightly differnt outline of territories, would that be acceptable too?--Hillock65 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Large Soviet Encyclopedia is that too amateurish? --Kuban Cossack 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this map is exelent. If anyone will find a better one he could uploaded here and we will talk about it here, while know i support the current map. M.V.E.i. 19:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The underlying and very justified question is where this map coming from and therefore, how trustworthy is it? Will the one done by me be just as reliable?--Hillock65 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked in some Universities web-sites, and i can say that their map-qualities ain't better. If you find a better version your welcome to upload it hear, but while thats all we have, thats what we have. And as i noticed, thats only the three of us working on this article for now, but there will be more M.V.E.i. 19:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAITH

1. It helps not to have a skeptical view on things. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have this map in the New Russia section: http://karty.narod.ru/great/nvr/nvr.html P.S. What kind of licence fits a public domain taken from the internet? Its not copyrighted. M.V.E.i. 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For now you can upload it as fair use, but I would look around for something better.--Kuban Cossack 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is replete with incorrect and tendetious statemets, virtually none of which are supported by any sources. Because of the constant revert warring whole paragraphs are being deleted without discussion. That makes improving this article very difficult. I would be interested in other users to express their opinions on this article as we clearly have hit an impasse. Hope good faith prevails and meaningful contribution from all parties can continue. --Hillock65 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is very difficult to search for compromise and consensus without the list of the contentious points. Can you provide the list of the "incorrect and tendentious statemets" and when we can deal with them one by one. Alex Bakharev 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the contentious points have been listed above, in particular the other editor insists on using the imperial term for Ukraine and Ukrainians in virtually all contexts (see above).

• Ukraine is viewed as Little Russia not in terms of imperial terminology but geographical terms (see map) even though it was never outlined with this name or had an official status.
• There is no controversy of when Ukrainians and Russians separated, the dates are quite clear from the History of Ukraine.
• Claims are made that "Southern and Eastern regions which were nominally under the RSFSR" while the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was never recognized by the Soviet Russian government (see Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic) and this republic lasted only 4 months. There are no sources to support these claims.
• There is no source on reference on Odessa republic.
• There is no source or reference that borders were based on the 1897 census.
• There is no source or reference that one of the most hit areas were particularly the south and eastern Ukraine.
• On what documents or data is based the assertion that surzhyk was listed as Ukrainian?
• Original researcn in assessing that transfer of Crimea was "contradictory with respect to acting Soviet law". No sources or reference as well.
• As well on what factual data or sources all this article is based on, on ideas of some editors?
• In addition, the other editor does not tolerate additions or comments from other editors whatsoever. Revert war is waged over every single sentense and frase. Additional info on deportation of Crimean tatars, reworked paragraph on growth of Ukrainian identity are mercilessely reverted without discussion. My suggestions to use neutral terminology are termed as pushing nationalist sentiment User talk:Kuban kazak#Revert war. Basically, one sided, absolutely intolerant attitude to opposite view done in extremely bad faith made editing this article almost next to impossible. This article is still very raw, twisting arms and forcing other editors out by constant revert war is very detrimental to its quality. As you can see from discussion above, I made every effort to negotiate and plead for moderation and compromise. My only hope is that with outside intervention this impasse can be resolved. --Hillock65 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We write Ruthenian do describe the people living in modern Ukraine and Belarus in the medieval and renaissance times. We use Ruthenian to describe the Zaporozhian Cossacks. We use Ruthenian to describe the inhabitants of Galicia right up to World War I. Why is it that Little Russian should be different? Just like Ruthenian it is a term that is archaic, vague and abstract in the modern sense. HOWEVER in the historical time frame of 19th century pre-1917, just like the term it was the term that was used, not only in Russia but in English Encyclopedia Britannica ref. So why is it we have to have double standards on the terms which are to a degree, essentially mirrors of each other? --Kuban Cossack 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's write Malorossiya instead of Little Russia and write (literally Little Russia) when this word occurs for the first time. Alæxis_¿question? 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, but theres a problem. You don't have an article named Molorossa while you do have an article called Little Russia. Besides, this name doesn't want to insult anyone, i think Little means the reletively size of Ukraine in compare to Russia, or/and the reletively little number off Ukrainians in compare to Russians. M.V.E.i. 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't offend anyone there's no reason to change it )) Alæxis_¿question? 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand, why is it so difficult to use the neutral terminology that is common to other articles about Ukraine? Noone objects to explaining this term, but using it in place of generally accepted and neutral terms in my opinion is a provocation. Pure and simple. It is designed to imflame passions and push people, who feel insulted by imperialist terminology into revert war. This article needs a lot of work, and endless discussions about this name cannot go forever. Let's use neutral terminology and move on.--Hillock65 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by neutral terminology here? What exactly do you propose? Alæxis_¿question? 12:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper name for the country is Ukraine. It is neutral. The name is used to describe Ukraine since middle ages, why do we need to drag in Russian imperial terminology all of a sudden? All I am asking is that we use terms used in EB [4] and in other articles on Ukraine in this ecyclopedia. --Hillock65 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is contesting the modern name for the country.--Kuban Cossack 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you interpret it as provocation that is your personal problem. Interesting why do Belarusians not mind being reffered to as Belorussians or White Russians for different historical periods? --Kuban Cossack 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Little Russia" is used only a few times:

• The territory of Ukraine was called [by] Imperial Russian authorities Little Russia and its people Little Russians - That's true, isn't it?
• In these circumstances, during the Russian Empire Census of 1897, most mixed families in many regions of the country, listed their language as "Little Russian". Even though mixed Russo-Ukrainian dialects such as the surzhyk were listed as Little Russian as well,[citation needed] nonetheless this key piece of evidence would be one of the decisive factors for New Russia ending up in Ukraine. - Do you want to change Little Russian to Ukrainian here?

Let's bracket it and drop the unsupported claims: In these circumstances, during the Russian Empire Census of 1897, people in many regions of the country, listed their language as Ukrainian ("Little Russian"). The result of the census determined which parts ended up in Ukraine.--Hillock65 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I disagree with this point, because it is bordering WP:NOR to say that Little Russian WAS the same as modern Ukrainian. First of all the literacy rates were low in the Russian Empire, thus to say that the language village X spoke in 1897 would be the same as it would speak in 2007, with identical vocabulary and intonations. We know that is simply not true, and one needs not references. In particular this affects the dialects in border and mixed regions such as New Russia. Even the proper Ukrainian in 1897 would not be the same as the modern Ukrainian. For one there were several orthographic revisions during the Soviet times like the loss of the letter ґ for example. So one cannot assume that the Little Russian dialect of 1897 is identical to the contemporary Ukrainian language.--Kuban Cossack 20:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Initially the Bolshevik government treated Little Russia, now officially recognized as Ukraine, separately from the Southern and Eastern regions - How would you reformulate this sentence?

What is the rationale for the use of imperial terminology here? Initially the Bolshevik government treated the Ukrainian People's Republic separately from the Southern and Eastern regions of the country. This however, is far from being true, since Lenin and Trotsky were against deviding Ukraine. There are documents that support that. Let's leave it like that for now.--Hillock65 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The (rough) borders between the Ukrainian People's (УНР) and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog (ДКР on the map) and Odessa Soviet Republics represent the old Russian Imperial definition of the borders between "Little Russia" and New Russia(map legend) - the source supporting this statement should be presented first, imho. Alæxis_¿question? 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only place by far where sources are needed. For now let's drop out the non-neutral terminology:The (rough) borders between the Ukrainian People's (УНР) and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog (ДКР on the map) and Odessa Soviet Republics.--Hillock65 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the possible need for this encyclopedia entry, however why not rely on published scholarly sources? Is there a book or two that deals with this subject in English preferably? Use sources instead of writing from personal background knowledge. I have no desire in getting dragged into these edit/revert games that are a complete waste of potentially productive time. So, if you want to develop this piece further then citing published sources in English ought to be the first step. --Riurik^(discuss) 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is reletively new and there are only few people working on it. Besides, this article is based entierly on facts. M.V.E.i. 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Normally, the first step in writing an article the writer lists sources it will be based upon. It hasn't happened here, and I don't see what scientific literature it is based on, just on imagination of some users. That's all.--Hillock65 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source or reference that borders were based on the 1897 census.

This is taken from here (Ukrainian source).

This is taken from here. (Russian source) .

I'll post a map of the distribution of different peoples in Russia according to 1897 census shortly. Alæxis_¿question? 11:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent map! Here is a fine example of several provinces that were populated by Little Russians. If you draw a similar map of lands populated by Ukrainians the borders will shrink. That is my point that Little Russian is not the same as Ukrainian, it was a progenitor of the language:Proof:ru:Малорусское наречие.--Kuban Cossack 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the (il)legality of the transfer relevant to the topic of the article? It should be mentioned in the article about Crimea, not here.

ps. Its legality is indeed questioned.

See: Our Security Predicament, Vladimir P. Lukin, Foreign Policy, No. 88 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 57-75

US Department of State Daily Briefing #81: Friday, 5/22/92

It's illegel because it has nothing to do historicaly with Ukraine, it's historicaly Russian. M.V.E.i. 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The immage is completelly untrustable. The people who made it were even unaware that Lugansk is another city, rather than another name of Donetsk. A correct map of Novorossia have to include the city of Novorossijsk. The present map does not. I think, it's completely untrustable and has to be removed from the article. Let's keep in mind that WP articles should be based on reliable sources.--AndriyK 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This map at least gives people a sence of what New Russia is, and by the way, the mistake you mentioned is the only mistake there. Besides, Luhansk was New Russia to. Donetsk was then Yuzovka by the way. Anyway, Kuban Kazak said he'll find a better one, so we keep this only for a while. Nevertheless we need it. M.V.E.i. 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's it, i fixed the mistake on the map. Nevertheless, Kuban Kazak said that this one is here only till he finds a better map of the region. M.V.E.i. 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the borders are wrong. Do you know where Novorossijsk located? Or you believe that Novorossijsk was not a part of Novorossia? ;) I think, better to give less information rather then misinform the reader. But it's your choice.--AndriyK 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right here to, but its a temporrary one. But the message is clear, it was kind of a backwords rainbow starting in the Dondass, and coming down to Cremia and continuing thru Odessa. If you wish you might try to help us find a better version of this map, i agree that this map is not a proffesional one, but i yet found a better one in Google. M.V.E.i. 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the map is erroneous, although I disagree with AndriyK. There is a Novomoskovsk in Ukraine and that does not make the region part of Muscovy. I think the best way to go about this is to make a map similar to what was have of Siberia with a macro and microscopic definitions. --Kuban Cossack 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article entitled Ukraine is not Russia, Ukraine is a disease (Украйна» — не Россия, «Украйна» — это болезнь) is considered to be a reliable source for reference? Are we writing an article about ukrainophobia?--Hillock65 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The historical inferences it makes are justified, it has its own references. И пожалуста детские капризы о т.н. Украинофобии не нужны, без них хватает. --Kuban Cossack 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]