Talk:Ukraine/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 Jul 2004 and 13 Dec 2004.

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/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. —Michael Z. 2005-11-15 17:43 Z

"Artificial famines"

However, these "artificial famines" appear to have been themselves, artificially engineered by western historians as slander.

This is ridiculous. I have read translations of documents from Ukraine and Russia about the Ukrainian genocide, and in my travels in the former Soviet Union have spoken to people who lost relatives in it. I don't think the famines were invented by Western historians. --Ed Poor

As a local journalist, I strongly support Ed's remark. Besides, those famines were anyway artificial since the whole system of Soviet "collectivization" was practically designed to leave peasants with minimal food supplies. --AlexPU 16:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See: http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/

Starvation is definitely was not the primary target of the Soviet collectivisation policy. No doubt, however, it had some very specific priorities and side effects... Dr Bug Volodymyr V. Medeiko 17:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this is it: a pre-designed immanent side effect resulting in genocide AlexPU 10:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Side effect is a bit different than intention. Artificial famine is no doubt the non-NPOV wording implicating that starvation was a primary target of the policy, not a side effect. It's why "artificial famine" is not appropriate term for Wikipedia. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 13:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Starvation was not the goal of collectivization. Starvation was part of the process to colectivization, it was the punishment of the "greedy kulaks" - peasants who were a little richer than other peasants. These famines were artifial because they were created with intent to starve.209.197.154.195

Dr Bug, Vladimir, aka "Volodymyr." You need to check the link provided above, The famine was artificial: it was created by policies. Mass starvation occured while the borders of Ukraine were sealed and while grain was exported and while the Soviet government induced journalists, including the New York Times' Walter Duranty, to lie about the situation. But the truth leaked out through other journalists, such as Malcolm Muggeridge, of the Manchester Guardian (who became a non-believer in communism as a result of it!) Later, eyewitness survivors gave testimony. And printed newspapers admitted that the goal of the inadequate availability of grain for local use was to break the backbone of the Ukrainian nation! Let's not rewrite Stalin's biography and portray him as "accident-prone!" Genyo 20:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your rebuttal, Genyo. There was a resolution passed by Canada's Senate (http://www.ucc.ca/media_releases/2003-06-19_1/) which, among other things, states that it is "to recognize the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33 and to condemn any attempt to deny or distort this historical truth as being anything less than genocide". The US Senate has a similar resolution on the table (http://www.ukrweekly.com/resolution202.shtml), but it's currently being held up by Senator Richard Lugar in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I would like to note that of the 19 members of this committee, 10 of them have co-sponsored the resolution. What's the hold up, Mr. Lugar? -- Eric Pawlyshyn 01:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While a famine did occur, it cannot be pinned on the Soviet government. The kulaks provoked it by hoarding grain, destroying property, killing cattle, attacking people who wanted to join the collectives, and refusing to work the land that they occupied. The claim that Stalin caused a famine is indeed a lie that was cooked up by Western "historians". Shorne 06:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure this Wiki is not the place for personal disagreement so I will say that I can agree to disagree with those who feel the Famine in Ukraina was not induced by Stalin. However, I will submit to everyone that while I am living in America now, my entire family, and many of our friends, were in Ukraine at the time of the Famine. I speak from our collective experience and not from the view of a western "historian" or aged Soviet who thinks that it's too late to blame the current Russia for something that happened decades ago. Whatever your background, if you or someone you know wasn't there, then anything you have to add to this subject is simply conjecture and hearsay. Although I cannot say what was going on in Stalin's head at the time, I can tell you this, "In 1988 the Gorbachev government finally admitted that the 1932 famine had been part artificial, the direct result of Stalin's deliberate use of starvation as a means of coercion and social control." Eric Pawlyshyn 08:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Its not black and white shrone. First, whatever the provocation, the soviet govn't initiated the famines so it can be "pinned" on them. Next, my grandparents lived in Ukraine during the famines, everyone in their village, rich or poor (unless they worked for the soviet govn't) starved. Next, you make it sound like the famines were a reasonable response to the actions of the kulaks, starving and killing them for resisting a system that was forced on them and for disagreeing to give away what they worked for. This is insulting. Lastly, many of the people who were starved were not kulaks. From what I see on your page you seem to be a liberal, so am I, and I dislike aspects of capitalism as well, but again the world isn't black and white, while in theory communism may be better, in practice its another story.209.197.154.195

The Ukraine

Merriam-Webster says Ukraine = The Ukraine [1]. The article currently ardently denies this. What is this contradiction? --Menchi 22:49, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

When Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union it was just called The Ukraine which was short for The Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic. When it gained independence it was called Ukraine. Not The France or The Germany; but France or Germany, likewise Ukraine. This is the usage of the Embassy of Ukraine states [2]. The usage in the CIA Factbook is also Ukraine without the article [3]. Alex756 01:09, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary says Ukraine. Princeton Wordnet says Ukraine or Ukrayina. [4]. CIA World Factbook says Ukraine, and The Ukrainian Republic in one reference to the Ukrainian SSR. [5] —Michael Z. 2005-02-8 17:50 Z

Ok, added that to the intro. --Menchi 01:31, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Do you think that is clear, "Ukraine, formerly the Ukraine"? Maybe we should be more explicit about dropping the "The". Mentioning that people called it "The Ukraine" (with the capital The). What do you think? Alex756 02:32, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. I've made it clear that "The" goes with "Ukraine" as an old name. --Menchi 03:29, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This info seems fairly tangential to be included so prominently at the top of the article. It should be relegated to a note at the right place in the history page. --Shallot 17:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Any relationship to "The Bronx", which is also a concrete political entity? :) Rickyrab 01:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article the refers to the noun Republic. "The Ukraine" is not short for Ukrainian SSR. —Michael Z. 2005-02-8 16:00 Z

You are probably right, it is not short for the UkSSR. It is, however, undeniable, that only "the Ukraine" was considered to be a correct variant during Soviet times. Thus, it is only logical to continue utilizing this variant when referring to Soviet-related topics.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:14, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't refer to 19th-century Islam as Mohammadanism. Negro may have been a neutral term in the U.S. in the past, but it's avoided today unless carefully (or carelessly) adopting a period affectation.

"The Ukraine" was a geographic region in the times of Kievan Rus' and early Cossack times. The usage in English was perpetuated under the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, along with a colonial attitude which was reticent to acknowledge any kind of Ukrainian nationhood. It was never an official name. I don't know what was authoritatively "correct" or not, because neither of my old dictionaries have entries for countries. Although the usage was by far the most common, it was not universal, at least as far back as the 1970s, in my experience.

Today some of us see the usage as either innocently ignorant or mildly pejorative in reference to the native land of an ethnically, linguistically, and culturally distinct people, even when discussing the Soviet period. —Michael Z. 2005-02-8 17:05 Z

I tend to disagree. The words "Negro" and "the Ukraine" refer to completely different situations. Just because a country is called differently now does not mean it cannot be referred by its historical name in an appropriate context. Côte d'Ivoire, for example, is referred to as Ivory Coast when speaking of a certain time period (one can only hope that, by analogy, the Ukrainian government will not go as far as to mandate that the name "Ukraine" cannot ever be translated from Ukrainian). Heck, even "Negro" is still used every once in a while when discussing times of slavery, without giving the word a negative meaning. Why make an exception for Ukraine?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:20, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but maybe the reason that it doesn't win me over is that it's just too close. Ukraine and the Ukraine are not two different names or translations; the latter is the same name with a slightly belittling signifier applied. We still have to regularly explain to people that the modern country is not called the Ukraine, so it doesn't make sense to confuse the issue in descriptions of recent history. When Negro is used it is obviously self-conscious; it strongly brings to mind the very different sensibilities of the times of slavery (yes, it was an extreme example). When the Ukraine is used, it sounds just normal to many people.

And you can't disagree that some of us find it offensive, if only mildly so. —Michael Z. 2005-02-8 19:22 Z

I indeed agree that some find it offensive (although even understanding the reasoning behind it I still do not get what the big deal is—the argument sounds silly at best. "The", to me, gives a name a distinction, not assigns it an offensive meaning—e.g., "The Hague" certainly does not sound offensive). I still believe that when Soviet periods of time are discussed, "the Ukraine" is a more preferable term, but I am just not passionate enough about this whole topic to push my viewpoint or to try to persuade you. I'm leaving this discussion being sure that the subject will be raised at a later time by someone else. Plus, I don't believe this whole issue is worth the time already wasted on it. Anyway, thanks for your comments and willingness to discuss.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ezhiki, and further add that even though the usage "The Ukraine" may be offensive to a modern Ukrainian, if is not a historian's responsibility to keep everyone happy. As Ezhiki mentioned, The Ukraine is more appropriate in certain context, and in such cases the Ukrainians just have to learn not to take offense, just like how *ahem* African Americans learned not to take offense when "Negro" is used in the proper context. Many names of nations nowadays come from ancient words that don't always have flattering meanings, but people have learned to accept it; these words are only as offensive as you decide to make it. Personally, I consider it rather absurd to say that adding a "The" is pejoritve; they'd have abolished all the royal styles with "the" long ago otherwise (e.g. The Prince of Wales). Uly 01:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"The Ukraine" is both a literal translation, and an extremely honorable name. The literal translation of "the Ukraine" is "the Mark". In modern English literature, "the Mark" designates a sovereign nation of the highest honor: In J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth, the Mark of the Riders was a sovereign kingdom that always kept its oaths. Like the modern Ukraine, the Mark was a large land of prairies, bordered by marshes, forests, and mountains. Also like the modern Ukraine, it had great rivers. Unlike the modern Ukraine, it was landlocked and thinly settled.

The ukraine might considered an Anglicization of ukrayina, loosely the marches, or "the mark", of Kievan Rus: a geographic sub-region that existed until the 1200s or so—although that translation isn't perfect since it wasn't a remote frontier, but the region directly surrounding the city-state. However, the modern state Ukraine is not defined by its subordinate relationship to any other entity—as the fictional Mark is a borderland established by the grace of Gondor—nor is it governed by a margrave, marquis, or king. It is certainly not a vassal of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union, or Russian Federation, as that usage implies.

Ukraine is now universally considered a nation-state, with its own ethnicity and language. Ukraine, Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian language are not literal translations of "the Mark", "Markians", nor the "Markian" language. There is no definite article "the" in the Ukrainian language, but even if there was, we wouldn't translate the proper name Ukrayina and add one (even la France is never translated "the France).

Thanks for trying to find a meritorious example in fiction, but it's not an accurate analogy, and the usage "The Ukraine" is simply incorrect. —Michael Z. 2005-03-13 21:03 Z

>However there is a parallel in concerning the usage of the preposition "на" (na) or "в" (v) with "Ukraine", both in Ukrainian and in Russian. Traditional usage is "на", but recently Ukrainian authorities have been pushing the usage of "в", as this preposition is used with most other country names.

Shouldn't we note that the same preposition is still used in Polish (na Ukrainie)? Rollon

Cossacks

Why no mention of Cossacks in the article? Not even in demographics? Rübezahl 16:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see the following statement in the article:

Many Ukrainians played important roles in the Russian civil war. Much of the Cossack Army/Clan(Voysko) sided with the Red Army during the conflict.

I know of no evidence for this, and my impression and further consultation indicates the opposite is true. Can anyone support this statement with specifics or references, so that we can move to balance and/or correction? Genyo 20:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seeing no objection,I'll remove the incorrect sentence. Genyo 03:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainian dilemma during WW II

The Ukrainians lived through a Soviet terror prior to Hitler's invasion, which included genocidal intent, and these events are described in standard histories as "terror" and using the term "terrible" is quite proportionate to the real situation and an accurate reflection of the wide varieties of view that population experienced. If you think this is unbalanced, add some accurate information for balance. Don't delete valuable accurate information in these articles. Genyo 16:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration of Ukrainian place names

Should we adopt the official system of transliteration adopted by the Ukrainian Legal Terminology Commission in 1996 ([6])? This would entail slight changes to the current spellings, such as Zaporizhzhya -> Zaporizhzhia. I don't think the transliteration system that the articles now use is so entrenched that the changes would cause any major problems. If no one objects, I will start changing the spellings to follow the official system, as soon as I have some free time. Iceager 16 May 2004

I agree that we should use a common transliteration. I would extend this to all Ukrainian text, not just place names (e.g. names of people). With my limited knowledge of the various Ukrainian transliteration standards, the one you suggest seems to be most appropriate. --JamesTeterenko 21:28, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The most important would be changing existing names from their Russian transliteration (or even translation). I believe such names are both offensive and inacurate. So let's make these changes folks. --AlexPU 16:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is the English Wikipedia, not Ukrainian one, neither Russian one. We should use the most common names in English, ignoring etymology of those names. It's the Wikipedia policy. Also please refer to Wikipedia:Naming policy poll. Dr Bug Volodymyr V. Medeiko 17:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

History section

The article is not consistent to other articles on similar topics in History section (Ruthenian, etc.), and contains biased view Drbug 11:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How is it inconsistent? How is it biased? The point of the tag is to say it's biased. The point of the talk page is to explain how, not to repeat the same unsubstantiated claim. --Jia ng 23:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The history section needs some serious gutting. This is not only contrary to the template but also something of a flamebait. --Shallot 10:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And it goes on and on and on... *sigh* --Joy [shallot] 23:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a Grand Duke "moving the seat" of Rus' from Kyiv to Russia. This sounds like Russian Imperialism. As the nation of Muscovy was formed from the Suzdal Vladimir on the Klyamza region to the north, their rulers eventually claimed to be ruling Rus', but that was later ambition.

Genyo 17:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello,

1) ...'the root of the term "Rus'ki" (today 'Russians'), declined during the Mongol invasion'

Actually, it was not declined. Even at the end of the 17th century Bohdan Khmel'nytskyj called himself the 'rus'kyj knjaz' and the 'King of Rus' (Letting alone that in the Lithuanian principality the official language was 'rus'ka mova'). And even after 1721, when Peter I, the Tsar of Moskovia, had renamed his state to 'Russia', there remained such maps as below, on which one can clearly see what was called 'Russie' and what 'Moskovie':

[7]

2) ...'Until well into the 19th century, there has been no perception of a "national" (as opposed to regional) difference between these tribes'

It's probably the same if one would say: there were no Germans and Englishmen till 19th century, there was no difference between these German tribes. What is the 'perception of national'? One of the main criteria of national identity is language, and Ukrainian language differed from Moskovian ten centures ago, some researchers even consider them not belonging to the same East-Slavic language group...

Olexij

Culture of Ukraine

I've just wikified the Culture of Ukraine page, but it actually contains very little on Ukrainian culture (food, writers, music etc.). If anyone more knowledgeable than me has time, I'd suggest a quick look. -- EuroTom 02:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just added quite a bit about some Chirstmas traditions, please have a look at it, for grammar, acceptablitity, adding links, etc. I will add easter traditions, as well as some other stuff at a later date if you would like. --Nathan Jun 3, 2005

Also see the article on Ukrainian cuisine. —Michael Z. 2005-06-3 14:13 Z

Attention moderators: Incorrect coat of arms picture

You people (especially moderators) note that the image presented here is not an official coat of arms, but a most popular project for it. The actual "small coat of arms" (as stated in constituion) is a trident at the center of the picture that you see. I have a proper picture file but don`t know yet how to upload it to Wikipedia. The "big" coat of arms is still not adopted. --AlexPU 18:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please find "Uploa file" button (if you use the standard layout, it should be the next to the last button in the left bar). If you experience problems, please ask me at my talk page, I'm happy to help! Dr Bug Volodymyr V. Medeiko 17:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv

Regardless of what we use in other pages, shouldn't the official listing in the Ukraine country page include the official Ukrainian transliteration in the first place and the more common loanword in English after it? I.e. the edit war should be settled by integrating edits, not by picking one version over the other... --Joy [shallot] 22:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words the native form should only be used in articles if it is more commonly used in English than the English form. Google search gives over 4 million hits for Kiev, and only 530,000 for Kyiv. The native form, of course, should be mentioned, but it can in no way take precedence over the established form most commonly used in English.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:14, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Actually that same naming convention explicates that there is precedent for using the more native loanword. Since both are transliterations, I don't see much reason not to have "Kyiv" take precedence on the page about Ukraine where it mentions the country's capital. The early mentions of Kiev and Kievan Rus in the history section can stay "Kiev", but the recent stuff like the infobox should include "Kyiv". --Joy [shallot] 09:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Naming policy poll dealt specifically with the heading names of articles, and doesn't discourage the use of other versions in appropriate contexts. I'm prejudiced; I prefer Kyiv, which is the most common one used in international relations. That said, consistency in WP is important, and I admit that in most contexts the name used should match the heading of the article. When most major commercial encyclopedias give "Kyiv" prominence, then Wikipedia should at least follow their lead. —Michael Z. 19:31, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

While I agree to some extent with both Joy and Michael, I think it would be the best to discuss this issue at the policy talk page, or maybe even devise an exception (to use Kyiv as the main name when it comes to the capital of Ukraine in the modern context). I will probably not participate in the discussion myself (beyond maybe casting a vote), since it's not an issue that's important to me (I was just enforcing the existing policy), but since there are things that are unclear, I think the discussion is in order.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:05, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Let's not overstate the terminology policy here. While the accepted English form, Kiev, does apply to NAMING an article, the use of more integral and proper native forms is directed in the first line and NOT FORBIDDEN in the remaining article. The suggestion of the official listing of a city in the country page IN THE NATIVE FORM is an allowed way of being progressive and respectful, and in my opinion, highly desirable. In general, topics should be discussed on their own terms, not chained to foreign agendas.

Genyo 13:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To me, the policy neither states nor implies this. Moreover, using one name for the article and using (as opposed to mentioning) a different one in the article would create a consistency discrepancy, and this is something that should be avoided like a plague (otherwise it might eventually lead to something like this).

In any case, my opinion is that the policy in its present form is far too vague to competently cover a lot of naming-related situations that periodically arise here and there. That was my rationale for suggesting moving the discussion to the policy's talk page, using Kiev/Kyiv issue as an example.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:27, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

official Ukrainian-English transliteration table

http://www.rada.kiev.ua/translit.htm

Kiev?, Kyiv?! Which is right?

http://www.uazone.net/Kiev_Kyiv.html (unsigned by anon user:83.131.3.5}

Since when does Ukrainian Rada have authority over the English language? They can invent their own version of English, if they so please, but the rest of the world will still use Kiev because this is the variant that's traditionally been in use. When the US Senate or UK House passes legislation mandating use of Kyiv over Kiev, you'll have a point. As for now, there is no official English transliteration, only traditional (which is Kiev). It's unbelievable that such a mundane issue stirs so much controversy... Tell me, would you start saying and writing "Уошингтон" instead of "Вашингтон" if the the US Government passed legislation stating that the name of the US capital must be pronounced and written the same way it is in English all over the world?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

They don't have or claim authority over the English language. The transliteration from Ukrainian Kyiv is the official English-language form used by the Ukrainian government.

But Kyiv is not only a Ukrainian transliteration, it is also an alternate English-language spelling for the city's name. It has been used in some English-language publications, mostly for a Ukrainian diaspora readership, even before 1991. It has since become more widely adopted, and is the preferred form of some English-language publishers, (e.g., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, United Nations mapping, Winnipeg Free Press). —Michael Z. 2005-05-26 17:26 Z

The way the anon put it, "Kyiv" is the only official version to be used, rendering all other options incorrect. That's all I was trying to point out.

While it is indeed true that "Kyiv" spelling is getting more common, even Google search, no matter how inaccurate it might be, shows that "Kiev" spelling is roughly six times more common than "Kyiv". I believe that was the main reasoning why the article still stays at "Kiev". Until the usage evens out, it is quite pointless to try moving the article to "Kyiv", or sneakily insert this spelling as "official" (without mentioning that it is "official" in a very limited number of places).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Michael Z. 2005-05-26 18:50 Z

Another round

Why not just put Kyiv(formerly Kiev) and then throughout the article put "Kyiv(Kiev)"? In my opinion that is much more acceptable than using the unnofficial version of the cities name. I find it somewhat unprofessional to use an improper name, no matter how widely used it is. --Nathan Jun 3, 2005.

Why we're still chicken on 'Kyiv' Rollon 04:53, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev#Please_check_the_past_discussions_of_the_issue_before_raising_it!-Irpen 05:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I dare to respond within Michael's text below. We very well managed to keep our disagreements friendly and I am sure it will stay the same way. -Irpen

While it's nice to see at least one journalist actually addressing the subject, the "chicken on Kyiv" article is actually pretty lame. The writer starts to make a point about transliteration vs. spelling and abandons it, and then refers to the International Phonetic Alphabet without understanding it, and talks about Ukrainian pronunciation without understanding it. She writes:

A new system for Romanizing Ukrainian was introduced in 1996, and that's where we get Kyiv.

Not quite. The English spelling Kyiv has been used in English-language publications since long before the Ukrainian National transliteration system was introduced.

True, but which English L. publications is what matters. It was not major media publications, neither major books on UA-history or at least not the majority of them. Out of three main popular books about Ukrainian History in print today (all listed at History_of_Ukraine#References) I checked two (Wilson and Reid) and they use Kiev. Papers published and read mainly by Ukrainian diaspora are no doubt EL publications, but I can set up a Ukrainian web-newspaper and start calling Вашингтон (Washington) Уошингтон there. That would of course be much more obscure than a number of papers that used Kyiv before 90-s, but this would still be a Ukrainian language publication that calls the city Уошингтон. This would not have warranted even mentioning Уошингтон in UA-L Wikipedia (should it have existed at that time). This is an exaggeration, of course. The situation with major publications changed since that time but not significantly so far. With CBC (Canada) being a notable exception, major EL media and papers use Kiev. One can do a google-news search (not a general google search) for Kyiv and find hits but Google-news covers some rather obscure sources and includes many less-read papers with no consistent editorial style policy. Therefore, it is important to do a Major Media search. Right now a LexisNexis Academic 2-yr search of Major Papers (50 EL papers selected worlwide, all importnat enough to have a style manual and editors responsible for style consistency) gives Kiev an advantage over Kyiv as 842 to 22 for the search of the Headlines and Lead Paragraphs only. Full text major papers search over 24 months finds 206 mentions of Kyiv and too many mentions of Kiev to be able to list them (even too many if reduced from 24 to 6 months). Those who use Kyiv are several Canadian and Australian papers. These are important references but for a reader in Canada it may seem that Kyiv is more used than it actually is. -Irpen

What the "y" in Kyiv does approximate pretty well is the letter of the International Phonetic Alphabet used to represent its counterpart in Ukrainian

Nope. The IPA letter representing the sound of Ukrainian и is either ɪ or ɨ, depending on your interpretation.

But what neither letter ["i" nor "y"] naturally represents to English speakers is the actual Ukrainian sound, a so-called middle vowel that simply doesn't exist in English.

Uh-uh. The sound of the y in Kyiv is just like the i in "kit", common as sparrows.

In other words, she distracts us with a number of inaccurate observations, refrains from drawing them to any logical conclusion, and essentially says "we choose to stay on the bandwagon".

But anyway, the name of the city hasn't changed; just the official language of Ukraine—so Київ and Киев both remain the name of the city, in different languages. The transliteration from Russian Kiev is still the most commonly used English spelling, so it remains the title of the article according to Wikipedia convention; the Ukrainian Kyiv is still just an alternative spelling. Of course there's no convention that keeps you from using Kyiv in the body of an article, where it is appropriate. —Michael Z. 2005-06-7 06:02 Z

I agree here. There is no reason not to use Kyiv in the body of the article should an appropriate context exist. We have to decide, as I proposed earlier, on what context is appropriate and whether it exists at all. Right now, I don't see an appropriate context to use Kyiv in the body of any article as a main name (I see mentioning it in parentheses at least once entirely appropriate). The reason being is that Kyiv has no advantage in English Language sources in any context. Even its being derived from Russian name rather than being used in English for centuries (is that so?) for other reasons is still a matter of debate. If major publications even books on UA-history itself still use Kiev, I don't see any context. But that's just my opinion and there is some room for discussion on this. A good research on the Spelling of the Capital of Ukraine, its origin, evolution, etc. would make a great WP article, may help resolve the issue, and its talk page would be a good single place for such discussions. Regards to all, -Irpen 00:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Revised figure

"Of the estimated 11 7.5 million Soviet troops who fell in battle against the Nazis, about a ~~fourth~~ third (2.7 million) were ethnic Ukrainians."

I'm not disputing User:SecretAgentMan00's figures, it's just odd that this change was marked "minor grammar edits", and this is a potentially sensitive subject. I'm sure it was just the browser's auto-fill putting that there, so forgive me for asking. Is the revised figure a generally accepted one? —Michael Z. 08:46, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Information

A good place to harvest some information, if someone has the time: BBC Country Profile for Ukraine —thames 14:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ATTENTION PEOPLE!

The worst place to harvest info is Ukraine's governmental portal (http://www.kmu.gov.ua) Especially good for experiencing bad English, bureaucratic language and confusing with structure of governmental bodies. If you need to extract info from there - use links and alternative sources - not the text first, check everything. Don't you cite this Websource - I'll be ashamed even more than I'm having seen it. Local AlexPU

"Excessive state control"

Re "Ukrainian politics are still troubled by excessive state control...This stalls efforts at economic reform, stifles privatization, and endangers civil liberties." According to....? A-giau 08:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Acccording to me, thousands of other Ukrainian journalists, and various international experts. Is that enough?AlexPU

Russian name

Why put the Russian name of the country here? Russian is not an official language of Ukraine.

Over half of Ukrainians speak Russian, and a substantial portion of the country speaks it as their only language, especially in the east. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 19:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just because many Ukrainians know Russian and can speak the language (due to massive and aggressive rusification) it doesn´t mean that they speak it their everyday life. (Dynamok)

Still, it is not an official language, so why putting it so prominently? It does look like Russian has equal rights with Ukrainian, which it does not. Can't the fact that over half of population speaks Russian be mentioned elsewhere in the article? (Just for the reference—the original question was not asked by me, but I happen to agree)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a Spanish name in the article about the United States of America (even though that country doesn't have any official language)

Really, why not to put hear a Polish name of Ukraine, or Hungarian one? There are 100+ nationalities in Ukraine, and all their languages have the same rights as Russian according to present time Ukrainian laws. May be we also should place here a Mongolian name (Mongolians seized Kyiv once upon a time)? Or Greek (there were ancient Greek settlements here)? Another good idea: let's put 'Росія in Ukrainian' in the article 'Russia'. Why not? --Olexij 22:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just because many Ukrainians know Russian and can speak the language (due to massive and aggressive rusification) it doesn´t mean that they speak it their everyday life. (Dynamok)

Statistics shows that they do. See the last paragraph of Ukrainian_language#Independence_in_the_modern_era. Why you worry? --Irpen 16:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed para

The totally confusing paragraph removed.

The region has also been known as Rus’ or Ruthenia, and in Russian historiography as Little or Lesser Russia (Малороссия, Malorossiya). This gave rise to the formal title of Russia's Tsar, the "Tsar of all the Russias"—the others being Russia proper and White Russia (now Belarus).

First, the region of whole Ukraine was never known as Rus or Ruthenia. hence these names are better discussed in the "History" section. Second, "This gave rise" in wrong conjunction, third, "the others" part is unclear, fourth, "of all the Russias" is an inexact translation of the title, for whatever reason. In Russian it is literally "Of the whole Rus". Fifth, it is not "Tsar" of all. &c.., but "Emperor" of all..&c. Mikkalai 20:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)