DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 2005 and December 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Ukraine/Archive 4. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. —Bogdan ^що? 11:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to substitute the paragraph

In 2004, Kuchma's regime was removed through the peaceful Orange Revolution. The revolution brought Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko to power, while casting Viktor Yanukovych in opposition.

with the thу next one:

In 2004, Viktor Yushchenko was elected as the President in controvercial elections accompanied by a series of protests and political events known as The Orange Revolution. Yulia Tymoshenko was appointed as a Prime-Minister while Viktor Yanukovych was cast in opposition.

I believe that there was no Kuchma's regime (Kuchma is not Saddam Hussein or Augusto Pinochet) and even if it was Kuchma's regime it wasn't removed through the peaceful Orange Revolution, because there were elections and there was elected a new President. And it was not a revolution that brought Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko to power, but people who elected Yushchenko as the President. Elefante bianco 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can edit an article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca N K (talk • contribs)

Yeah Kuchma was not like Saddam Hussein. But he was really close)) Vinnitsa

Reverted back to original statement, the proposed one is blatantly incorrect and glosses over an important area in Ukrainian history. The first election was controversial and was decided to be corrupt and therefore void by the Ukrainian supreme court (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101384864687_165/?hub=CTVNewsAt11) which lead protests and political events known as The Orange Revolution and subsequently to the second election, which removed Kuchma's regime. ~ AndrewUofT

While I personally supported these events, "Kuchma regime" is a wording that blatantly violates NPOV and cannot be used passingly. I am reverting you change. --Irpen 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll change 'regime' to 'government' ~ AndrewUofT

It's still misleading. Kuchma would not remain president regardless of the Orange Revolution. Sergivs-en 21:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you really don't understand what the Orange Revolution was about ~ AndrewUofT

I'm sorry. I actually don't fully understand what it was all about, and am amused by the fact that so many people think that they do. However, all of that is irrelevant here. What you wrote is literally incorrect, regardless of political sympathies and views on the Orange Revolution. I'm changing the text to the following: In 2004, Victor Yanukovich, then Prime Minister, was declared the winner of the presidential elections, which had been rigged, as many observers agreed. The results caused a public outcry in support of the opposition candidate, Victor Yuschenko, who challenged the results and lead the peaceful Orange Revolution. Sergivs-en 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Ukraine or Poland, but it seems odd that the history section contains no mention of Polish-Ukrainian strife. Anyone ever heard of OUN? Stepan Bandera? Sca 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is seriously deficient in that is has no section captioned People near the top or at all.

All articles on geographical regions or countries in any kind of publication anywhere have a section captioned People that tells about the people who live there-their ethnicity, religion, employment, outlook on life, etc.

Could it be because of the elimination of the local population as distinct from Russia be the reason for this? "There is no such thing as a Ukrainian. Ukrainians are Russians." Put that in there then.

Also the introduction includes language that effectively says that Ukrainians were happy to be subjugated by the Russians: "After a brief period of independence (1917–1921) following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Ukraine became one of the founding Soviet Republics in 1922. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic's territory was enlarged westward after the Second World War, and again in 1954 with the Crimea transfer. In 1945, Ukrainian SSR became one of the co-founder members of the United Nations. It became independent again after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991"

There is so much wrong with the preceding quote that it is hard to know where to begin.

That Ukraine became on of the founding republics of the Soviet Union was such a point of pride among Ukrainians that they got out as soon as they could--risking their lives to escape being murdered or imprisoned--and then fnaly the whole country escaped in 1991. But they sure were proud to become a founding member of the CCCP! "Why did we fight a war to become independent in 1917, when we are so happy now as slaves to the Russians," they said as they became a founding CCCP member.

"The Ukrainian SSR was enlarged westward," it says. YES, but this was further genocide and mayhem against free non-Russian Europeans who were not exactly overjoyed at "Ukraine's expansion" in reality Russia's expansion of its sphere of oppression. Do Ukrainians today see that expansion as their expansion, or just the expansion of their oppressor?

This article should be deleted until a reasonable facsimile of the truth can be produced. It is horribly, horribly wrong to present these lies as the truth about the site of such atrocities. That is this is a MORAL wrong. Lest there be any doubt about what I mean. RUReady2Testify 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have some photos of Ukraine that may be of interest to readers, but unfortunately I cannot release them for use on Wikipedia itself. How would people feel about linking to them? The URL for the page is http://www.slayman.com/images/europe/ukraine/ . Astigmat 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge reappearing gap in the begining of the article, people seem to be removing it but it just keeps coming back...why can't we get rid of it Permanently? bogdan 14:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a bug in the Portal template, which is protected. — Alex^(T|C|E) 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To all: The name of the 9th century sate was Rus’. The Kievan Rus’ never existed through the history of Europe. The Kievan Rus’ name was coined in fairly recently in a way to emphasize the historical differences between Russia (which is Russian Federation now) and Rus’, presently Ukraine. It always was Rus’ with a capital city of Kyiv (also known by a distorted name Kiev). At least these two corrections: Rus’, not the Kievan Rus’ and Kyiv, not Kiev, in the Wikipedia article about Ukraine have to be made now. Obviously, the distorted names the Kievan Rus’ and Kiev have to be mentioned in brief explanation, if any, as a historical ineptitude. More corrections are necessary. smk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username smk (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to move the whole section to the bottom of the article. Which word does the Kyiv Chronicle mention: Krayina or Ukrayina? Please clarify. Addded ^{[citation needed]}. The referenced text Ukraine or The Ukraine by Andrew Gregorovich is clearly biased: A few neanderthal writers in the past have even promoted "the Ukraine"... Please provide a better reference to support the krajina theory. I added a link to the online version of Vasmer's etymological dictionary of the Russian language. I wonder if Vasmer is one of the Neanderthals Gregorovich is referring to. Sergivs-en 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A few neanderthal writers in the past have even promoted "the Ukraine" to reflect the original meaning "the borderland" in order to diminish the international political stature of Ukraine. That's not bias if it is indeed true. He is trying to promote correct English, not promote a usage deprecated from the Ukrainian SSR. But the Russian Xenophobe around here never ceases to amaze me. If you're looking for an authoritarian source: http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805717 http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184825,00.html

However, calling people with whom you disagree Neanderthals (or xenophobes, for that matter) or assuming their motives is bias, to put it mildly. The Economist style guide is more impressive to me than the article by that linguist/historian/anthropologist, but it's still not the ultimate authority on the English language. Sergivs-en 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling anyone neanderthal or xenophobe is borderline offensive and violating wiki policy, at best. Just MHO. Rarelibra 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can any of you provide any real sort of justification for using "The Ukraine" besides your own personal preference? andrewuoft 11:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I also question this (see below, "The" Ukraine), and empirically suggested the distinction being in reference to the geographic entity pre-1917 (i.e. date of the country's independent period and subsequent developments of "Ukrainian SSR" and post-Soviet era "Ukraine)." Leaving aside the prescriptive issue of English usage, I'd appreciate some guidance from the descriptive standpoint of editors familiar with texts in English about this region. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 08:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just leave it up to Ukraine to decide what it calls itself in English. http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en andrewuoft 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the etymology section is confusing. It starts with According to one theory... and then the two contradicting points of view are lumped together in one paragraph. Then, in the next paragraph, According to another..., the borderland version is explained again, more clearly. And, leaving scientific credibility and personal convictions aside, the borderland version is older and should probably be mentioned first. Sergivs-en 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in Polish "ukraine" means "borderland" or anything else, I don't care. But, in Ukrainian it literally means "inland" where u = in, kraina = land... quite obvious to any native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.102.250 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was always told in English it's The Ukraine and The Lebanon. That doesn't make it true, but I see no proof to claim "In English, the country is referred to without the definite article, conforming to the usual English grammar rules for names of countries[2]." Ukraine would be an exception, that is all. The reference is not reliable, as is a very basic usage of The, and nothing to do with Geography. And the issue here is English language and usage, not etymology surely? (Incidently, I don't see why Ukrainian people mind, it's not degrading in any way. On the contrary, an archaic naming form is the proof of a very long and important history... Hrcolyer (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a University English department not a reliable reference? Why is Ukraine an exception, can you (or anyone else fighting for the article) provide any sort of reference yourself? --Andrewuoft (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Read over Name of Ukraine, which has more detailed references. Since Ukrainian independence in 1991, the Ukraine is considered incorrect, as much as the Italy would be.

Incidentally, Ukrainian has only been applied to the Ukrainian nation in the modern sense since the 19th century, when it was chosen as an alternative to Little Russian (and to the related Ruthenian, or Rusyn). To drop the article is to give it equal status with other nation states. To someone familiar with the history of Ukrainians, the Ukraine evokes a historical region of the Great Russian Empire.

Perhaps another reference or two would improve this section. —Michael Z. 2008-05-31 23:53 z

Elena Filatova has released all of her photography on her website into Public Domain. http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/afterword.html Scroll to the bottom. Good high-resolution photos! TheQuandry 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason to change the section title comes directly from WikiProject Countries, which specifically says:

• (Subdivisions) - Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possessions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country. The CIA World Factbook Maps could be used here, but other sources are available.

So the name of the administrative subdivisions, technically, is Oblasts. I don't want to hear nitpick about having two cities and a republic, that is covered within the section (the primary unit is Oblasts). Also, as far as it being an "exotic" name - taken directly from the actual article, you can see it says:

• English recommended (formal use): oblast

So it isn't an "exotic" name, it is a formal and proper name to use. That is why this edit should be made. Thanks! :) Rarelibra 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Russian Xenophobe here never ceases to amaze me. How long will the struggle of trying to make Ukraine look like a military outpost go on for? andrewoft 9:29, 13 April 2007 (EST)

I don't quite understand - what point are you trying to make? The proper English name is Oblast. Period. Just like the proper English name for 2nd-level Polish admin units is powiat, the proper English name for Jordanian 2nd-level admin units is nahia, etc. Rarelibra 13:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

andrewuoft, please cut your xenophobia rhetoric. It will get you blocked.

Rarelibra, no one is arguing here that Oblast is an improper term in English. However, its being proper does not mean its being the only proper term or that it is not exotic. The truth is that the term is not familiar to the English speakers and the section titled with it is confusing as the reader would have no idea what the section is about. Further, Ukraine has three, not one, types of the first level national subdivisions, Oblasts, an autonomous republic and two cities with special status. Thus, "Obasts" is not only sloppy but inexact. --Irpen 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen - I disagree wholeheartedly. If you want to talk about the English speaking world, then a term like "canton" would be "exotic" - since it doesn't exist in an English speaking country. Oblast is only exotic to those unfamiliar with it and unwilling to learn more about a culture. Furthermore, Ukraine does not have three types of first-level national subdivisions - Oblasts is the primary type. Having an autonomous republic is a 'special mention' in the article section, as are provincial-level cities. Check the wikiproject defs again. Rarelibra 18:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you feel it should be named as according to what you want (and not what the guidelines of the wikiproject are)... call for a vote of consensus here on the talk page, and we'll see what the results produce. Rarelibra 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here are my two roubles. "Oblasts" in Ukraine are a type of administrative division. "Autonomous Republic" in Ukraine is a type of administrative division. "Cities with special status" in Ukraine are a type of administrative division. Taken together, they are... "administrative divisions" of Ukraine! This title takes care of all types, not to mention that the main article is located at administrative divisions of Ukraine.

Now, if Ukraine only had oblasts, then using "oblasts" for section titles (and "oblasts of Ukraine" as the title of the main article) would have made perfect sense. Since it's not the case, using "oblasts" overly simplifies the title for no good reason.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just remember that titles of articles have been moved/changed due to the needs... I've seen titles go from "Administrative divisions" to "Subdivisions" and vice versa. Rarelibra 18:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. Such changes, however, were not done via revert wars, but through discussion. I'd really hate to have to protect such a high-profile article just because you folks can't agree on a title of a minor section.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rarelibra, please note that your suggested change is opposed by several editors who reverted you and supported only by some trollish user whose only contribution has been so far the inflammatory talk page entries. Your trying to persist with it via a revert war in unproductive, please discuss and try to convince the majority of editors. Further, you are so eager to revert[1] that in your last revert you did not even bother to check what you are reverting to and restored some vandalism. Until you are lone in instisting on this change, please do not make it. Thanks, --Irpen 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't touch accusations of trolling, however, I am not the only one. Do what you need to do, I have said my say. Rarelibra 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The word "Oblast'" in Ukrainian (and other Slavic languages) literary translates to "province" in English. So I don't know why, the word is transliterated from its language when there's already word for it in English... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.50.111 (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Previously I changed "the country is sometimes incorrectly referred to with the definite article" to "the country is sometimes referred to with the definite article" on the basis that we reflect usage rather than set the rules on usage. This was reverted by User:Andrewuoft with the edit summary "Who's usage, yours? POV!". Clearly, either statement implies that the usage with the definite article has some currency and so it's not just my usage. Furthermore, I have not added my point of view on usage to the article; rather, Andrewuoft's revert has put a point of view back in. If a particular organization regards the usage with the definite article as incorrect then that certainly can be added (with a citation). Accordingly, I have marked the above statement as requiring a citation. In order for the current wording to be verifiable, it would need to be shown that virtually all relevant authorities on English usage agreed on this point (which I very much doubt). Finally, I suspect that many (maybe most) English-speaking Ukrainians dislike the usage with the definite article. Words to that effect could perhaps be added, although, as with all Wikipedia content it should be verifiable. Greenshed 18:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How is mine POV? If I have to re-post every "authoritarian" sources in each section than I will do so:

The following are style guides for popular publications on how to properly address the country:

http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805717

http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184825,00.html

And finally this is how the Government refers to itself in English:

http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en

I don't know what other "authoritarian" sources would convince everyone what the proper usage would be, but let me know and I will go and find it. Otherwise please refrain from using the defense "There is no higher source I won't accept" or the even more ridiculous "I should be able to call it what I feel like".

Also it would need to be shown that virtually all relevant authorities on English usage agreed on this point (which I very much doubt) which I challenge you to prove otherwise!andrewuoft 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the source cited for the statement that declares the "the" unnecessary, and it is clearly a non-scholarly publication riven with mistakes (Canada, for instance, is no longer styled "the Dominion of Canada", and never was in everyday speech; it is officially simply "Canada" now, and unofficially always has been). So, I am removing the highly questionable statement and its reference. I would furthermore suggest that everyone refrain from even debating this asinine topic as it is not worth the trouble. Certain countries' names can take the article — or not, if you prefer — and there really is no definitive authority in the English language for deciding these things. If there were, we wouldn't have differing Commonwealth and US spellings, for instance. Besides, reference to authority is a logical fallacy, anyway, the fact that WP thrives on it notwithstanding. Live long and prosper. Kelisi (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Certain countries' names can take the article — or not, if you prefer — and there really is no definitive authority in the English language for deciding these things. - There sure is!

If there were, we wouldn't have differing Commonwealth and US spellings, - just because US English forked from Commonwealth English doesn't mean they don't follow rules

reference to authority is a logical fallacy, anyway, - The old 'everything is subjective' argument again, can't get enough of that here!

There are tons of links already provided that show how to format the displaying of countries names in English. What no one here has yet to provide is a grammar rule that says these rules allow the definite article for Ukraine in English.--Andrewuoft (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

People are putting fake information about the Ukraine GDP, its really getting annoying.

What guidelines are there, and on what basis, for adding the definite article to the country's name (i.e. "the Ukraine") when writing in English? I'm inclined to use "the Ukraine" [sic; without quotation marks] in text referring to the country prior to its 1917 independence and subsequent identity as a Soviet Socialist Republic. Would this be correct, or not? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well after the fall of the Soviet Union, the definite article was dropped and is more common that use with "the." Major media resources like BBC use Ukraine without "the." But here, we follow established usage in English language, which is now without "the," although some users still prefer to use it. I for one do not use "the Ukraine," and even to some, this usage may considered as offensive. —dima/talk/ 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In your reply, did you intend that the definite article was dropped at that point, even in referring to the area pre-independence (which is my case in point)? -- Deborahjay 08:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here with the same issues, but after reviewing recent articles on the BBC site, I would concur with dropping the definite article. While Irpen (below) is correct that "there is no final authority that defines what's 'correct' in English," I think the BBC is probably as close to an authority on accepted usage as we're likely to get. - Mark Dixon 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also do not use the Ukraine. Point is that despite more and more of the major English media dropped the article, some still use it. That makes both forms necessary to mention with the note that one is becoming rare. However, since there is no final authority that defines what's "correct" in English, we should not make such judgment either. We simply mention that the "the" usage is gradually falling out but continues to be used. That Ukrainian authorities consider such usage incorrect should be referenced, if mentioned, but this is not an ultimate truth wrt to the "correctness" of English usage as the UA authorities are not entitles to regulate the English language. They are not entitled to regulate the Ukrainian language even, although the latter, unlike English, does have the regulating body. Such body, however, is not the Ukrainian government but the proper branch of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine. --Irpen 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am going sum up this debate and will close all loopholes that keep coming up: Usage of "The Ukraine" has been deprecated officially since 1991 when the region was commonly referred to as The Ukrainian SSR which would be given the short form of "The Ukraine" because it was just too long to use in normal conversation. When the USSR collapsed the country dropped the SSR part and just became Ukraine. Having many Ukrainians in the diaspora with English as a second language, without applying any English syntax they called it "the Ukraine". Very simply: "The Ukrainian SSR" -> "The Ukraine". For those of us who have mastered the English language we should realize having "the" there in the title is incorrect usage just like there is no "The Canada", "The India", although "The United States of America" is correct but not "The America". Is there an authority on the matter? Yes, proper English tells us what should be given the title "the" in usage. If you were to start saying 'The Cuba', would you tell people that that's the way you say it and it's correct? I apologize I am unaware of proper Wikipedia notation, from http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html:

Use "the" if the name of the country is plural or indicates a group (of states, islands, etc.)

* the United States

* the Netherlands

* the Phillipines

That Ukrainian authorities consider such usage incorrect should be referenced' How can you reference incorrect usage? Infinite possibilities can exist for incorrect usage, and how do you reference them and where?

Such body, however, is 'not the Ukrainian government but the proper branch of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine Nope. A name is a name, but this is a name translated to proper English and is outside the jurisdiction of a certain group but rather the set of rules that make up the English language. Any online search of 'when to use the' will tell you when the use of "the" is proper!

There, an entire debate without any mention of ill-intentioned people, neanderthalism or xenophobes but that's of course not to say that they don't exist here. --andrewuoft 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The omission of the "the" before "Ukraine" is actually to do with Russian grammar. In Russian there are no definite or indefinite articles ("the" or "a"), but there are two forms of the preposition "in" - "В" and "На". In geography "В" is generally (but not always) used when referring to nations, whereas "На" usually refers to natural regions. Thus, when translating Russian to English "B" is rendered "in" and "На" "in the" - i.e. "в России" = "in Russia", "на Урале" = "in the Urals".

However, when referring to Ukraine, Russians traditionally use "На". After independence in 1991 some Ukrainians started to take offence at this, since - they felt - this implies that Ukraine is not a sovereign state deserving a "В", but still just a province of a "greater Russia". Since Ukraine is a soveregn state, it's probably NPOV to accept their interpretation of the language and omit the "the".Glensky8665 11:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Having many Ukrainians in the diaspora with English as a second language, without applying any English syntax they called it "the Ukraine". Very simply: "The Ukrainian SSR" -> "The Ukraine"." I would simply like to say that as an explanation this overlooks the thousands of Ukrainians in (say) Canada who came as native Ukrainian speakers before the Sovietization of Ukraine, and who nonetheless called their homeland 'the Ukraine' in English. just a small point. 142.68.44.16 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then they would have came from the Central Rada, the Hetmanate, the Directorate, the Ukrainian People's Republic or the West Ukrainian People's Republic. Either way it's deprecated usage that originally contained "the". Regardless people usually refer to it in its present form (much like Beijing is now used instead of Peking) and proper English declares it without 'the'. andrewuoft 8:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All,

The rules on the use of "the" in English are anything BUT simple, as any native English speaker who has attempted to explain to a native speaker of any Slavic language would know. As a speaker of both languages, I have tried to explain this to native Ukrainian speakers and have been astonished at the number of exceptions astute non-native-English speakers manage to come up with that no English speaker would think of. Further, despite many searches, I have never managed to find anything but the most rudimentary explanation of the use of articles in any English grammar text or style manual --- something akin to "use a when one member or an indefinite member of some group is the subject, and the when a specific item is the subject". This explanation is identical in 4th grade language texts as in college-level ones. One is expected to learn further by "feel".

Just to cite one example: why do we use the article in "the Charles Bridge" (in Prague) but not in "Charles University" (in the same city)? How are these inanimate objects so fundamentally different that one requires the article? Why is it "the Pennsylvania State University", with the article, but "Franklin and Marshall College", without it?

The use or non-use of "the" has nothing at all to do with Ukrainian grammar; still less Russian grammar. Nor should it. It's an issue of English grammar. The issue of the correct Russian preposition to use (as asserted by user Glensky8665, above) has no relevance to the need or absence for an article in English. For completeness, I'll note that diaspora Ukrainians themselves used "HA" (= Eng. "on", literally or approximately) with Ukraine until recently, when a large influx of Ukrainians from all of Ukraine, not just western Ukraine (Halychyna/Galicia) revealed that the use of "HA" was a localism (or at least it is now).

Having thought about this a lot, the best rule I can come up with is:

  "The" is used for countries if the country name contains what I'll call "a regular English word".
     By this I mean a word that exists natively and has some intrinsic meaning in the English language.
  "The" is NOT used for all other countries, where the name is simply (from the perspective of English)
     a succession of phonemes with no other intrinsic meaning.

User andrewuoft gave a good example above, upon which I will expand:

  The United States ... "states" is a normal English word;
  The United Kingdom ... "kingdom" has an English meaning 
     ... but cf. England, Britain - strictly proper names;
  The Union of South Africa ... but South Africa
  The Netherlands remains with "the" because of, I suspect, its older form "The Nether Lands".
  The Philippines ... because that word literally means "the items [islands, in this case]
     of/posessed by/named after Phillip", similarly as one may talk about "the Marshalls"
     (meaning "the Marshall Islands") or "the Maldives" or "the Azores".

Note that the use of the "the" has nothing to do with the plural number, as the UK and South Africa examples above demonstrate (and in contrast to what user andrewuoft asserted above).

"The" is also used with political regions or natural/geographical regions spanning political entities, which may be, but generally are not, political entities in themselves, regardless of whether the main noun is a "regular English word" or not, thus:

  the South
  the Midwest
  the Middle East
  the Bible Belt
  the Crimea
  the Sahel

However, we have

  French Canada
  New England

which are written without an article; why? Have to think about that one.

Now to deal with the apparent exceptions: The Sudan, The Ukraine.

I contend that the reason for the article in both of these cases was that, when the terms were created, they were perceived as being regions. Let us recall that Sudan, some time ago, was part of British Egypt and administered therefrom. Thus, it was a region of that colony. The same view was surely held by western Europeans vis-a-vis Ukraine, where its status was viewed though a Russian lens. A review of English-language texts of Russian history will demonstrate this immediately, with their view of all of the history of Rus' as the history of Russia alone, with Ukraine magically and suddenly appearing on the scene sometime between 1600 and 1850, depending on whom one reads. No explanation is ever offered for this occurrence. The reality is that the area had always been populated by the same folk, albeit with various migrations of various other peoples in and out at different times.

Once the term with the definite article began to be used, it of course "stuck" just as other things in English tend to get stuck with use. With time, this form starts to sound "normal", and the newer form to sound "weird", simply because the ear is not accustomed to the latter.

The "the" certainly was not added by Ukrainians, few of whom would have known any English when the noun "Ukraine" started filtering into the English language (in the mid-1800s). In contrast to what user 142.68.44.16 writes, "the Ukraine" was never widespread among Ukrainians who became or were natively literate in English. Please review the English-language Ukrainian press going back several decades to confirm this for yourself. Once the significance of the "the" was understood, it was distinctly not used. Note, however, that some were forced by their editors to use the article, in scholarly journals, periodicals, and the like, when the editor was not Ukrainian and imposed "standard usage".

At any rate, at present, post-independence (1991), saying "the Ukraine" is no more sensible than saying "the Wales" or "the Scotland".

Note that "the Gabon" is an exception. In this case, the addition of the "the" was requested by the country itself. However, in insisting on this, they are making the mistake of projecting or forcing French grammar onto English. In French, of course, an article is used with every country name, so it is no insult to be told that one is from "l'Ukraine". But apparently the Gabonese felt that the lack of an article in English somehow made them less of a country, which can only stem from an ignorance of English.

Bejmark 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)bejmark Clarified and expanded 26 Nov 2007 by the same author.

Just to re-iterate also being a native Ukrainian and English speaker I'm going to poke some holes in your statements :) I don't know why we keep going over this topic, but the rules for using the article "The" are posted at http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html

  Use "the" if the name of the country is plural or indicates a group (of states, islands, etc.)
   * the United States
   * the Netherlands
   * the Phillipines

Your confusion regarding using the article with bridges vs. Universities vs. Colleges is unfortunately just the result of poor grammar.

Also the United Kingdom is not just England/Britain. Rather it is made up of Britain and Northern Ireland. As well the Union of South Africa because it comprised of the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free States. Their combination warrants the use of the article "the" as per the rule I posted. Also The Netherlands is actually an archaic term, referring to the period 1581 to 1795 when the Dutch republic was a loose confederation of seven provinces and The Philippines is compromised of three island groups : Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Therefore my assertion is still very much correct :)

The South, the Midwest, the Middle East and the Bible Belt all refer to regions that are a collection of US States or countries so my assertion is still holding strong! French Canada does not denote a region, rather all francophones in Canada, whether or not they live in communities with significant francophone populations. New England while now considered a region in the North East US was originally a US colony but no longer exists.

All-in-all I think you missed the main conclusion of why the article has stuck around:

  The same view was surely held by western Europeans vis-a-vis Ukraine, where its status was viewed though a Russian lens.

andrewuoft 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your speculations about the "Russian lens" vs "Western Europeans" are interesting and all, but they are irrelevant. "The" was used for a long time and now the usage without the definite article is becoming more common. Thus, we are talking not "correct" vs "incorrect" but "traditionally used" vs "currently more commonly used". While style manuals of more and more media explicitly mention the absence of "the", plenty of usage with "the" in solidly mainstream media still persists to this day. You can still find plenty of "the Ukraine" if you search the news. Check for yourself. Who are we to tell the professional writers at CNN Money, Jerusalem Post, Wired News, etc. that they are "incorrect". We are talking style manuals here and style manuals only. --Irpen 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

By 'Traditionally' do you mean pre-independence when the country was a state called the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic? Or even earlier in the days of the Ukrainian People's Republic, the West Ukrainian People's Republic and the Hetmanate? These require the article 'the', but Ukraine in its current form does not as required by the RULES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! It is the absolute and final authority in the matter. The style guides reflect this so hopefully some media would write their articles properly, but not all publications are of the same quality. Are those authors you linked to incorrect in their writings? Yes! The clearest evidence is how any Ukrainian government website refers to itself as. andrewuoft 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"The" Ukraine (section break)

Well, I happen to be skeptical when a pseudonymous Wikipedia user asserts to judge the professional writers of mainstream media to be "incorrect". Certain things are correct in more than one way and the best example is the name of the capital of Ukraine. Both names Kiev and Kyiv are correct. We are talking commonality rather than correctness. As for what the country was (or is) called, no matter what its full name was, the usage of "the" I am talking about is with the word "Ukraine", not with "UkrSSR" or "UNR". "The" was used with "Ukraine" predominantly, now the situation is changing and the usage without the definitive article is becoming more common. This does not render the other usage "incorrect". And especially the UA government or a Wikipedia user andrewuoft asserting something about English does not make anything "incorrect". Ukrainian governemnt (or any other government for that matter) has no authority over the rules of the English language. --Irpen 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, I accuse you of the same thing. The only difference is that with my argument I provide a *definition* of proper usage as per the rules of the English language which is irrefutable, along with some examples. You on the other hand provide few examples (them being your news articles) but yet no clear definition of where the article is appropriate. I don't think you'll find anywhere where I apply my assertion or opinion, they are all cited by the rules of the English language which is quite straight forward but you fail to grasp (I assume your English is not very good). You on the other hand only provide your opinion backed up with a few erroneous examples, with no clear definition on why you are incorrect with the exception of your assertion lacking any real proof. andrewuoft 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not find myself in a position to make statements based on my own understanding of the rules of the English language. Neither I find you in such position. We can simply check facts and facts suggest that usage of "Ukraine" without "the" has become much more common than it was 10 years ago (Ukraine was already independent back then, btw) but still common enough. Wikipedia users are not entitled to argue with professional writers. We can only present facts. "The Ukraine", along with "The Gambia" are one of the common variants of writing the country's name. "Ukraine" is now more common. This is the fact and the article should relay the fact to the readers. We stick to facts and keep opinions about what's "correct" out. --Irpen 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You speak of these facts, yet you haven't provided them - where is your cited information? This all your POV and opinion until you can prove otherwise. Also why do you assume Wikipedia users cannot be professional writers (although I think you mean journalists here)? As well those professionals do not dictate proper grammar, they reference the ultimate authority: the rules of the English language and yes they are capable of making mistakes just like you and me. andrewuoft 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is my cited information? Check the combination "The Ukraine" at any media indexing sites. Google News is one. I am not inserting my "POV and opinion" at all. In fact, I have no opinion on which one is correct. You do and you are trying to insert it into an article. I simply want the article to stick to facts and keep the opinions out. --Irpen 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly does that Google search prove, that usage with the article has declined and without has increased? Why didn't you make this a reference when you edited the etymology as your proof? andrewuoft 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Google News (not just Google) because the former is more up to date with what's being used now, as well as Lexis Nexis, shows exactly that. That the usage without the definitive article is becoming more common than the usage with the article. LN is even better in this respect because it allows to restrict search to a specific range of dates, say for 1998, 1998,..., 2005, 2006 and 2007. These searches allow to establish the relative commonality. These are facts and this is all that has to be stated. Your (or my) opinion on what is correct does not belong to the article. Stick to facts please and keep your POV out of this. --Irpen 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

These are great websites, but you have to provide any actual proof. If you don't submit a citation to your information, it is still your opinion. Furthermore its correctness (dropping the article) is obviously be the explanation as to why usage has changed so it is quite relevant. Finally please stop referring to my argument as my opinion. I, unlike many others who contributed to this discussion did not post any opinion on the matter (and I challenge you to point it out), rather just referenced English grammar. There is quite the difference, and none of my arguments have yet to be disproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewuoft (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Per your "English grammar" The Gambia would also be incorrect. Your "English grammar" never mentions Ukraine by name. If you want "actual proof" in terms of analysis of the common usage in the media year by year (I have premium access to Lexis Nexis), I can provide you with such. I assure you that you won't like the results. The English usage is a fact. What's correct and what's not is your own interpretation of "English grammar". This discussion should not be presented in terms of "correct" vs "incorrect" because but "more common" vs "less common". This is exactly what is done in the current version. Please try to concentrate on content writing, like adding referenced material to articles instead. --Irpen 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From The Gambia:

The Gambia, officially the Republic of The Gambia, commonly known as Gambia, is a country in Western Africa.

As we can see the article is required, as it is not in Ukraine (and the Wikipedia page reflects that). Please provide me with your proof, I would be more than delighted to read it. Furthermore I merely referenced correct English grammar, even though I have posted it already a few times I will do it once more just to be clear:

From http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/grammar/whentousea.html

Names of Countries

Use "the" if the name of the country is plural or indicates a group (of states, islands, etc.)

* the United States
* the Netherlands
* the Phillipines 

Don't Use "a," "an," or "the"
* Russia
* South Africa
* Holland
* Canada
* Great Britian
* England 

Please let me know if you draw a different conclusion from mine after reading that. The relevance of "correct" vs. "incorrect" is actually the cause of one usage being more common than the other, that is its relevance! Lastly I did reference the line I added, I would appreciate it if you stop spreading lies. My conclusion is not my opinion, rather it is fact as justified above and is clearly referenced. andrewuoft 06:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your conclusion is not and cannot be "fact". It remains your conclusion and nothing but it. I have no intention to "draw" any "conclusions" on my own, different from yours or the same. Mine or your conclusions do not belong to the article as presented in the form of some sort of ultimate truth. We are not entitled to make conclusions. We present facts about usage. Also, please do not repeat yourself and waste space and time. I've read what you said about the Netherlans and Great Britain from the first time. --Irpen 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes we're playing the 'everything's subjective' card again. Why don't we throw out all the rules of the English language than, they mean nothing because any and all usage is only our mere opinion! I don't point out the rules for your approval, just to see your basic knowledge of the language. If the grammatical rules of the English language are outside your understanding, please refrain from editing the English version of Wikipedia for it's integrity's sake. andrewuoft 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I found your statement to be offensive - the one where you told Irpen that "if the grammatical rules of the English language are outside your understanding, refrain from editing the English version"? Who the hell are you? And if you're going to pull the "grammatical rules of the English language" card, you should try to apply them in the same paragraph (e.g. improper usage of than when then is intended).

That being said, I don't buy Irpen's "traditional" phrase (that's like saying "black people traditionally have been slaves, but currently they are free". And the CNN News reference from google search Irpen provided above, falls apart when results are analyzed. The majority of the article on Tymoshenko uses "Ukraine" without "the". The image caption uses it, but that may be already provided by "GettyImages" and CNN cannot be faulted for mistakes of third-party image providers. The article summary also uses "the Ukraine", but in that context that usage is acceptable - "The Ukraine's parliament..."

In the same search result from google, CNN Money had a story on KyivStar. It also appeared as if CNN money uses "the Ukraine", but it really does not. The article is a press release, and mixes correct English language usage with incorrect. It was not a CNN Money authored article. CNN Money is only a platform, and that does not make the content representative of correct English (even though CNN, just like BBC, can usually be counted on that criteria).--Riurik^(discuss) 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Riurik, thanks for your effort to tone andrewuoft down. Actually, I don't mind his tone much, I've seen worse around here. My main concern at this web-site is the content of the articles and I learned to ignore the offensive stuff for the most part.

Now, to answer your point, I fully agree that the usage without "the" is now becoming more common. That CNN piece just popped up in Google News. Perhaps it is an exception for this particular source but the fact is that while more and more English language sources explicitly call for the absence of "the", a lot that still do are not some obscure irrelevant blogs but pretty mainstream sources. My main objection is to judging what is correct and what's not by the Wikipedia users thus arguing with respected sources based on the "rules of English grammar".

Personally, I never use "the", but, curiously enough, native speakers, including one professional linguist, not once attempted to correct my non-usage of "the" (I usually ask native speakers to copyedit my text when I am writing something RL important.) Why do they do it? Because traditionally Ukraine was used with "the". How else would you like to put it? We are not talking "correctness". We are talking the custom. The long-established custom is now being gradually phased out. It happens as the languages evolve. I don't see a better way of putting it. --Irpen 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The real absurdity is that even though my additions are well referenced they are quickly dismissed as my opinion without any real evidence, even for trivial things like English language usage. While Irpen can contribute uncited opinions based on his personal experiences and feelings, trying to convince us it's fact. The fact that those grammar rules were dismissed because Ukraine wasn't explicitly mentioned (along with the hundreds of other countries) really signals a problem with the ability of some people to use the English language properly (are you arguing the name Ukraine is plural or indicates a group of states, islands, etc.?). Since this entry is written in English there is some cause for concern. I apologize Riurik if you are offended by that but the integrity of the article is at stake, also I will try and not write so hastily in the discussion area. Despite what some non-native English speakers might think, the English language is not based on precedent and actually does follow rules. The "correctness" of usage is a crucial part of its etymology because it is the reason why usage without the article is predominant, that's why it belongs in that section.andrewuoft 5:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I agree that Wikipedia users should not engage in original research and pose as grammar judges. However, if their claims are based on authoritative secondary sources, and not their mere opinion, it is a different story. I do recognize that some mainstream sources use the definitive article, yet as my examples above have shown, sometimes the mainstream sources are simple transmitters of messages by not so mainstream authors (the press release case).

I could also relate to a similar experience with linguists and English experts with graduate education. When asked about the relationship between "the" and "Ukraine", very few had a ready, substantiated answer. I think the reason for this is that most people just do not care, whether there is a "the" in front of Ukraine or not. We do though, and so do the editors at the leading publishing institutions. They, as we know from experience, do not use "the" before "Ukraine". Why? I would venture to suggest that it is because those editors follow the rules of English grammar (and sometimes custom if there are no rules for a specific case).

Rather than saying "traditionally", I suggest we use earlier formulation (e.g. "in the past...today usage w/o "the" is more prevailing" or something along these lines).

Andrewuoft, I appreciate your dedication to the English language and Ukraine, and I hope that we all resolve this disagreement from now on with respect, even if this is not something that is given back in return. Regards, --Riurik^(discuss) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

disputed section

What exactly is disputed? I think "In English, the country was occasionally referred to with the definite article as the Ukraine" is the best, but without the occasionally is fine too. Perhaps "sometimes"? Saying "traditionally" is not true, and not verifiable. Ostap 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with "sometimes" because it is an understatement. How about "often" as a compromise between "sometimes" and "traditionally". But I would not have tagged a section because of this point alone. My main gripe is with andrewuoft's persistence insertion of the fantasy that "the Ukraine" was used "as short form for the Ukrainian SSR". He is inserting it three times already. I am not going to revert war with him but this nonsense cannot remain in the section. For now, I tagged it to avoid revert warring that would pollute the article's history. --Irpen 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Either was referred to or was often referred to would work.--Riurik^(discuss) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me but someone has got to do something about andrewoft's aggressive revert-warring. --Irpen 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if Irpin is going to persist his usage of the article is (or was) frequent than some indication should be made that this would have only been true in the past (which I tried to add) and I think that's quite evident with styleguides and such and my comparison of Google queries with and without the article which shows 'with' usage is less than 1%.

Now, 'The Ukraine' as short for the Ukrainian SSR is self-evident. What exactly are you trying to argue here, that pre-Independence Ukraine was not officially titled the Ukrainian SSR as a state in the Soviet Union? That 'The Ukraine' does not refer to the area of the Ukrainian SSR?

From the Ukrainian SSR page here on Wikipedia:

The Ukrainian SSR was renamed Ukraine on August 24, 1991

So I'm not sure what fantasy this is, because it's all layed out very clearly. I already know that some people here will require a more authoritative source, with an explicit entry defining it's usage. And even if that were produced, it's authority would be challenged and they'd require a higher authority, and higher, and higher, etc. Of course some can get away with adding whatever they like based on what they feel like, or fictitious conversations and scenarios that they try to pass off as 'fact'. andrewuoft 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I will just respond to this:

"Now, 'The Ukraine' as short for the Ukrainian SSR is self-evident. What exactly are you trying to argue here, that pre-Independence Ukraine was not officially titled the Ukrainian SSR as a state in the Soviet Union?"

Self-evident to user:andrewoft is not enough to be considered verifiable. Nor personal opinions by user:andrewoft posted to the talk page qualifies as a reliable source. Ukraine and the Ukrainian SSR was not one and the same thing. There were plenty of usages of the word "Ukraine" where it was not synonymous with the UkrSSR. In any case yours, or mine, speculations are irrelevant. The rest of the rant above does not need a response. --Irpen 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

update

I am fine with this version and agree with the removal of the tag. Thanks Ostap. --Irpen 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree "Ukraine" was not always synonymous with UkrSSR depending on how far back in time you go, and these other states should as well be noted (and they all required the article 'The' as they were apart of their names). The reverted etymology is insufficient because it fails to determine what exactly "The Ukraine" is referring to, anyone who reads the article will be stumped in trying to find this country called "The Ukraine" prior to 1991.

Furthermore user:Iprin's explanation is only evidenced by fictitious conversations with "experts", and has determined himself to be the highest authority as in any explanation he does not provide or understand is only mere opinion or speculation. andrewuoft 14:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I propose the addition of the following external link about Ukraine.

http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/Ukraine/Ukraine_01.html

Please, let me know what do you think. Panex 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! If nobody says anything I'll put the link in a couple of days. Thanks. Panex 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm against. It looks like some private web-site and with rather unusual content, not for encyclopedia to broadcast.--Sylius 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Sylius. This is definatly a private web-site. Bogdan 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is to be a private website a problem? There is plenty of private websites in Wikipedia. In my opinion we should see if the link offers some extra information about the country. If most of the people think the content is not interesting for the article and want to revert it, go ahead. Thanks for discuss before revert. Panex 08:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously not an academic style web-site, has some unusual pictures of statues of Lenin and average people walking around on the streets. We might as well provide a link to some 13 year olds homepage with several pictures of his garden in Ukraine. --Sylius 18:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If people think that way, feel free to revert the link, no problem. I precisely found it interesting because shows average people and not "VIP" and may be is closer to the impression you would get being there. The view of some 13 y.o. from his garden could be ineresting too. ;-) Feel free to revert the link, really! Panex 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This section is too concentrated on political aspect of Ukraine, I've added Eurovision 2005 and Euro 2012 into it, but it's still over-politiczed with details that don't belong on the front page. --24.185.5.42 06:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object moving all of this:

"In late March of 2007 and early April the Ukrainian political system dealt with another constitutional crisis. President Viktor Yushchenko dissolved the Ukrainian parliament and ordered an early election to be held May 27, 2007. Crowds of about 70,000 gathered on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square of Kiev, and supported the dismissal of parliament, with 20,000 supporting Yanukovych's plan to keep the parliament together.[3] On April 3, 2007, President Yushchenko signed the bill into existence. Two hours later on Kiev's Maidan, it was announced to the crowds that Parliament no longer existed.

Immediately the Verkhovna Rada was called in emergency session and voted against Yuschenko's decree 255 to 0. Yushchenko then took his case to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. A political struggle ensued between the Parliamentary coalition and the opposition.

A compromise between Yushchenko and Yanukovych has been reached to reschedule parliamentary elections for September 30, 2007. [6] "

Into Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007, because it's an awfully too specific information for a front page on Ukraine.

There were several misguided uses of the {main} template here. {main} is intended to point to sub-articles. Typically, these occur when one article gets quite long, and sections are pulled out into their own articles. Most of the {main} links here are quite well-founded. However, World War I, World War II and Russia are not sub-articles of Ukraine, so I removed those {main} links. —johndburger 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a big and endlessly contriversial topic and I hate to bring it up, but, when I read the following, I just can't help it... In my opinion following lines contain some russophillic bitterness towards the Ukrainization.

The government follows a policy of Ukrainization—the increase of Ukrainian language, generally at the expense of Russian. This takes the form of use of Ukrainian in various spheres that are under government control, such as schools, government offices, and some media. This is even done in areas which are largely Russian-speaking. However, in non-government areas of life, the language of convenience (usually Russian) is used.

Some of the words here kind of burn my eyes reading them. I propose to consider following changes.

The government follows a policy of Ukrainization—the increase of Ukrainian language, generally at the expense of Russian which was still the dominant language at the official level in parts of Ukraine. This is slowly taking the form of use of Ukrainian in all spheres that are under government control such as schools, government offices, and some media. ("This is even done in areas which are largely Russian-speaking." - this needs to be removed for it makes no sense) However, in non-government areas of life, the languages of convenience are welcome to be used such as Russian, Tatar, Hungarian etc.

In a lot of parts of Ukraine, and especially where I'm from, the language of convenience anything but Russian such as Gutsul dialect. A "wujko" from Donetsk might have to scope some pages of the "Tlumachnyi" dictionary to figure out that one:) Aleksandr Grigoryev 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, may be you right, I'm no sure. But first version give it a meaning, that this process meets resistance from the East, South, Central regions. And this should be mentioned in some way. Waiting for your response.--Oleg Str (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans. Badagnani 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian Americans. Badagnani 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a very much increased amount of vandalism on this page, what would it take to get it semi-protected? Regards, Bogdan 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the user attempts to bring original research into the article. He/she is comparing Ukrainian service and agriculture sectors of economy with those of Russia and USA. Why should we compare with these two particular countries (among 190+ world countries)? Why should we compare it at all in this article? I don't really see any appealing reason.

Second, Miyokan insists on writing "Stalin made Socialist Realism the state policy" instead of "the Soviets began enforcing socialist realism art style in Ukraine". If there is such need it can be written "Stalin initiated policy", however, the main point is that the policy was introduce in Ukraine (in Ukrainian SSR to be precise) by Soviets.

I believe that in the English language the proper usage is "the Ukraine." In particulat, we have

• "the United States"; but not
• "the France."

More particularly, we would not say,

• • "I want to live in the France."

But like saying, "I wany to live in the United States" we should say, "I want to live in the Ukrain."

Any opinions on the use of the article with "Ukraine"?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I found the following reference: [2].

But the grammatical question is not answered. Although the country's official name is simply "Ukraine,"

the English usage "I want to live in Ukraine" does not sound proper English. --Ludvikus 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But thats how the government decided, so we shouldn't change it just because we think it is more proper to say the Ukraine instead of Ukraine.Ceriy 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, look in the article under Ukraine#Name_etymology. United States is plural, hence the article. Ukraine is not. There is no grammatical reason to have the article, and because you think it sounds improper is not a reason. It is improper and rarely used. Ostap 18:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I ended this debate along time ago as noted above in Talk:Ukraine#.22The.22_Ukraine, all your questions can be answered there by my additions Andrewuoft 1:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right! The Hague also does not seem as proper English, but that's the name so that is how you accept it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice try, but The Hague is a city, not a country. Its rules are different in the English language andrewuoft 14:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The demographics crisis is not even mentioned here, astonishing considering that the population is falling at an even faster rate than Russia, and the population has decreased by 6 million from a peak of 52 million last decade to 46 million today.--Miyokan 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - more Demographic information! It lost millions in World War II! - that should be interesting and notable--Dwarf Kirlston 15:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Frank is believed to have been born in Koroliwka, Podolia (Ukraine) about 1726. Can anyone provide a current name for this locality? __meco 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The most likely location seems to be Korolivka (Королівка) in Ivano-Frankivs'k oblast [=county]. Mapquest (R) gives it here:

  *http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=UA&addtohistory=&city=korolivka

, an area of Ukraine (ethnolinguistically speaking) that would have been controlled by Poland, then by Austria-Hungary.

However, Mapquest has some very odd spellings still lying around (note "Bucac" near Korolivka, which should be spelled "Buchach" for English; the letters c are missing the "hachek" symbol (č) if using Czech/Slovak-style transliteration; it would be Buczacz in Polish.

This prompted me to do a wider search for what would be Russian version of the name, viz., Korolevka. This comes up with multiple possibilities:

  *http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=UA&addtohistory=&city=korolevka

Of these, only 2 or maybe 3 were in what would have been Polish/Austrian-controlled territory in the year in question. Specifically, these 2 or 3 are those west of Zhytomyr. The remainder are in what would have then been Russian territory.

-- Mark 208.66.211.68 (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that he was a Jew (whom I don't know), it's very possible for him to be born upon Podillia and the fact that Koroliwka or Korolivka was there as well. Since 18th century, a lot of events passed through that region coserning particularly the Jewish population, which possibilly influenced the disappearence of, what I believe, the village. Buczacz, Ternopil oblast is considered to be kind of close to the region (Podillia), but as far as I know it is Prykarpattya. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Miyokan, I know you want sources, but your recent adding of around twenty {{fact}} templates was not necessary. Please read the citations that are given, such as at the end of the Islam sentence. You requested citations for all those numbers, but the citation at the end of the sentence gives you the numbers. All that information for you requests can be found on these two sites: [3] and [4]. I don't know how to please you, should I add these citations to every place you added a citation needed tag? Or is one citation at the end of a sentence or paragraph enough? If you know how to do this effectivly, please do it. Thanks, Ostap 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Miyokan is clearly abusing the fact template (diff: [5]). The statistical data are coming from the State Department of Ukraine on Religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talk • contribs) 11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone happen to have any referenced numbers for the amount of Ukrainians in the Soviet Army and in the Ukrainian insurgent army? I'm having some trouble finding these figures. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC) "Soviet troops who fell in battle against the Nazis, about a quarter (2.7 million) were ethnic Ukrainians", where is this from? Bogdan ^що? 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the mentioned number came from, but there is a section "Втрати народу України" at http://www.peremoga.gov.ua/ with a lot of useful info. Alternatively, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published a memorandum "Українці під час другої світової війни" summarizing that "приблизно 7.5 мільйонів українців загинуло під час другої світової війни в наслідок репресій нацистів та совєтів". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Greger, that link shall be quite useful. Cheers, Bogdan ^що? 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am amazed at how one of the first things an English speaking user of the English wikipedia learns about Ukraine is how to spell it in Russian. Why on earth is this here? Russian is not an official language in Ukraine. Despite the fact that Spanish is widely spoken in USA, we don't see the Spanish spelling in the article's lead, do we? This is of no benefit to anglophone users. This is not the Russian wikipedia. This is the English wikipedia. Having Russian spelling in the lead has absolutely no benefit to the English speaking users of ENGLISH wikipedia. If there are no objections, I will remove it. Ostap (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I feel somewhat compelled to object but your rational seems logical. If we look at it from an Anglophone’s point of view, I guess the fact that Russian is incredibly widely spoken doesn't concern them. A remove would seem reasonable to me, but lets not do anything just yet, give the discussion some time first. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 08:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Russian is not official language in the country so it should be removed. ---MaksKhomenko (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, three editors agreeing isn't too bad. Ostap (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you first brought this up I thought it would spark something close to an RfC, obviously that wasn't the case. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NCGN: quote:Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages:)--Miyokan (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And this is exactly why the Russian name should not be listed. In English language, neither Украина nor Ukraina is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talk • contribs) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GET RID OF IT! You got my vote as well. Russian was the language of RSFSR and USSR. Since none of the entities exist and only the Russian Federation considers the Russian language as of own, no point to use it even as the mediation language. And if I may be sincere, I'm sick of this language issue and any discussion should be ommited. Please! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian is the language of ordinary people and, particularly, most of people in Ukraine. Taking into account that Wikipedia is not controlled by any state, government or official and the fact that Russian is the most wide spread language in Ukraine, it does make sense to mention how Ukraine is written in Russian. The above arguments against Russian do not make sense because Wikipedia is made for people - not for officials and for Ukrainian state. Removing Russian is the same as saying that Kurdish does not exist in Iraq because Saddam Hussein is not Kurd :) Russians and Ukrainians are two major groups of population and it does not matter what is the official language just as we do not care if Kurds are recognized by Saddam or not. Ukraine is objectively two-language country. Notice also that Russian is going to be accepted as the state language soon as part of democratic reforms and transfer to confederation. So let’s make Wikipedia for real people and not for official propaganda (anti-Russian propaganda in this case). Techno.modus (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian is not going to be a state language, and it is not the language of the ordinary people in Ukraine. Ostap 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEP IT Although Russian is not an official language half the country speaks Russian in their every day lives. Ukraine is extremely russified it’s an unfortunate fact but it’s a fact. In a few years USA will have its name spelled in Spanish as well.  : ) Gregoriy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.130.129 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GET RID OF IT! Unless I am mistaken it violates the criteria for the category Andrewuoft (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - Russian is a language of great part of Ukranians and if they call their country by this language it deserve /if I can say so/ to be here. General line of ukrainian polititians /official language/ has nothing to do with Wikipedia. As for the "we dont use Spanish in USA page" - Russian speaking ukrainians are natural part of Ukraine, they are not immigrants. No matter if present polititians or some users want to see it or not. Weight how much they done for their country and so on and so on. And Russian is oficial lanuage in Crimea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.111.199.30 (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) So I ready to hear what do you think about such arguments.--Oleg Str (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the subject of a diet imposed by Christianity never has been discussed in Wikipedia. However, reading the main article about Ukraine, I stumbled upon the lines "Ukrainians cuisine is, in fact, generally pre-Christian in origin."(C) I consider this line as the intention of the author(s) of the article to ridicule Ukrainians for their research on early inhabitants of their terrains. Yes, such research has not always been done on the professional level and has not always operated with credible facts. But it has nothing to do with the main article about a large European country. The author(s): move these lines to some other linked-in article, if you are such stong proponent(s) of pre-Christian diet (who knows what it was made of). Best of luck. 24.5.244.244 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)A.Pilipenko

That particular phrase was introduced here. It should probably be reverted. Alfons Åberg (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bogdan, I am confused how to clarify the weasle words about soviet athletes. The list of them here: Category:Olympic_athletes_of_the_Soviet_Union contains many of them. Knowing this, in what way should this be clarified? Ostap (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole statement just sounds awkward to me. It goes without saying that Ukrainian athletes won medals for the USSR, and is somewhat meaningless without contrast. How about we replace it with something like, "Although many athletes who represented and won medals for the Soviet Union were Ukrainians, all the Soviet achievements were credited to Russia"? Regards , Bogdan ^що? 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead introduces Ukraine history and identification very well, but not the other sections at all.

• Grammar: More than 600,000 Soviet soldiers (or one quarter of the Western Front) were killed or takes captive. Should be taken not takes.
• churhes-->churches
• Are these types of words true to dictionaries? enserfment, Russification, Ukrainization, Korenization, Polonization, unfree .
• The first time abbreviations are used, they should be spelled out in full, like USSR, SFSR, SSR, UEFA, FIFO.
• Nomenklatura should maybe be nomenclature in english, unless it is the name of a party.
• Capitalize Mediterranean

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Submitted to GAN with error tag for citing sources. As well randomly checking sources gives unaccessible URL links for citation 42 and 52

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The fair use rationale for photo Chernobyl reactor number four after the disaster is not stated

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

• Needs a reviewer to double check broad in coverage who is very familiar with Ukraine history.
• Grammar and spelling again:
• This is a sentence fragment -In particular, in Ukrainian krayina means simply "country" consider revising.
• Capitalise pentecostals and cossacks
• Lviv Teological Seminary should this be Lviv Theological Seminary?
• Other groups include Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, Seventh-day Adventists. should have Other groups include Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, and Seventh-day Adventists.
• Change grammar to a sign of improvement, as the birth rate has

SriMesh | talk 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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