Talk:Ukraine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Map

Why is Crimea on the map now that it is part of Russia? --71.110.129.100 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a disputed territory. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect - it has been part of Russia for nearly 6 months. --71.110.129.100 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Give it up. Volunteer Marek  19:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The map is highly misleading. A casual reader could assume that Crimea is still part of Ukraine. It should be updated to show just modern day Ukraine and not former Ukrainian territory such as Crimea. --71.110.129.100 (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is still part of Ukraine. Volunteer Marek  20:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed in a very large WP:RFC. The current map reflects that consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The map can not stand. Crimea is under military occupation according to international community and it is not disputed.--Tritomex (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think Crimea should be a grey colour on the map. However it would be painful for many Ukranian members, so wiki should reflect that emotion and does do. After all, this is an amateur encyclopedia. Reaper7 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Emotion shouldn't come into it. Wikipedia, like any other encyclopaedia should only publish facts. And the facts in this case state that Crimea is now part of Russia so the map should be changed accordingly.--71.110.129.100 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to proceed another request for comment over the same topic again and again and again for eternity. Wikipedia maximally presents all sides of POVs when all facts are reliably sourced. If you insist on arguing, it will lead you to nowhere. Any persistent attempt to change the current map without presenting new fact/rationale we haven't been discussed will result in instant rollback and full protection of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Really", the last notable event in South-East Ukraine was the Poroshenko election last spring, "Really"

The current status in the Ukraine is adequately updated by Uri Friedman, "A 24-Step Plan," Atlantic, 26 August 2014. There is no reason for this page to claim that the Poroshenko election from last spring is the last notable item in this section. FelixRosch (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Anthem title

I reverted 67.218.88.67's edit which changed the title of the anthem from Shche ne vmerla Ukraina to Shche ne vmerly Ukrainy nee slava, nee volya. The edit does in fact seem to be correct as that is the title used on the Ukrainian language wiki. However, I'd recommend that Shche ne vmerla Ukraina be retitled first before changing it here. Anyone who can read Ukrainian please verify this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You probably recall that this issue has been brought up a couple of times recently (archived here and here. I'd already checked a number of articles, the actual constitution, etc. regarding the matter. The Constitution only calls it the national anthem/hymn without qualifying the name of the song. According to the Ukrainian article on the anthem (which pre-dates its current ungrammatical and redacted version) it is "Shche ne vmerla Ukraina". Per WP:WINARS, the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article gives no citations for the name. Ultimately, per the constitution, it is only known as the national anthem. I've also read the talk pages and there are disputes as to the name, the fact that it's a grammatical fiasco, and that no one actually knows what it's really called other than the Ukrainian Hymn.

What we do have is a plethora of information on the variants on the lyrics over the years up to, and including, the present version under its original title, suggesting that the non-OR title (per the Wikipedia title) is the one to stick with. So far as I'm concerned, the recent vernacular interpretation of is merely the vernacular. To even include that it's the vernacular title, however, in the article Shche ne vmerla Ukraina would also be WP:OR. Let's be conservative and stick to the sourced title. I know we're getting POV pushers telling us what it's called, but they'd have to come up with an RS for their title as I haven't found anything to support it, and the discussions suggest that it isn't even mainstream enough to bother with for the moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Domestication of the horse

The statement that Ukraine "is the prime candidate site for the domestication of the horse" makes it sound like discussion of the future rather than the past.--Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't see it as important enough to belong in the introduction. It can go to the relevant section with, as you hint, a minor rewrite to improve clarity. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it does look like a bit of a remnant (interesting facts about the territory Ukraine is located in) before the mad influx of users wanting to use this article as a surrogate current affairs article. I've moved it from the lead to the 'Early history' section with a slight amendment to wording. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Economy section in need of updating

I've tagged the Economy section for updating. While recent events are not desirable per WP:RECENTISM, the economy section reads as being optimistically upbeat, sourcing mainly early to mid-2000's articles and projections. Certainly, even before Euromaidan, one of the major issues at stake was a steady downturn in the economy from at least 2010.

The section needs to be brought up-to-date, at least in terms of a realistic indicator of the situation... which isn't terribly good when bailouts have been at the centre of the average person's political allegiances. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Certainly, even before Euromaidan, one of the major issues at stake was a steady downturn in the economy from at least 2010." - https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:UKR:BLR:SYR&hl=en&dl=en No it was downturn in 2009 (world cirsis) and growth in 2010-2013Cathry (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

An-225

Isn't the only ever built copy of An-225 was made in USSR? Then, it's not correct to name it "Ukranian-made". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.238.9 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on where the airplane was made or the territorial status, if any, of any such place or places. However, my opinion is that a single airplane, more than a quarter century old, is a very small part of a country's economy and doesn't belong in the national Wikiarticle. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with Jim.henderson. If a plane is really an apt image for the economy section, replacing it with an Antonov An-148 is preferable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Combining sections

Is there any enthusiasm for combining the Euromaidan and 2014 revolution and Pro-Russian unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine sections to present one chronology and eliminate redundant material? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I definitely see value in that. They're all manifestations of growing civil unrest in Ukraine and, in the context of such a broad article, could certainly be pared down in line with WP:UNDUE. It doesn't strike me as being likely that everything will suddenly be resolved tomorrow and tied up with a neat bow marked 'history'. There are main articles specifically dealing with every step of the way, which is where any detailed information belongs. A neutral summary should suffice as the refs are comprehensively listed per each main article.

Any specific ideas on the presentation? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, these are very different events. My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk and Lugansk republics on the map

I think that the both self-proclaimed republics can be coloured light-green as crimea, cause de-facto they are disputed regions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's known as WP:OR. They are not recognised regions, nor are there any sources recognising them as such. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics should be a different shade. They no longer pay tax to kiev, take orders from Kiev or vote in Ukranian elections. Reaper7 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:RS for all of this being?... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no established boundaries for these terrorist states. They claim all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, but the Russians have subjugated only about a third of this area. The fighting continues since the Russians in Donbass never recognized the Minsk ceasefire and putin never ordered them to stop fighting. --Taivo (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely the point. Current reportage indicates that, even if Putin promises to 'recognise' the states in NATO, the only way it can be enforced is by further Russian military intervention. The states have no means by which to be 'independent' as they aren't even in a position to pay pensions to those living there (unless Russia takes on these obligations). The borders? Continued fighting? Reaper7 seems to have made an executive decision regarding their being independent and believes that the entirety of the two oblasts should be in 'colour me non-Ukrainian'. Unless s/he has a crystal ball, I fail to see how this reflects any form of reality. At this point in time, given the fact that the Minsk protocol has been continuously violated, it's completely WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

October election

[4] Quotes, quotes, quotes, again.

• "Poroshenko would be kept in his current position as leader of Ukraine." More text is devoted to describing the source than the actual content. Plus that was not what the election decided.
• Second addition is more of Felix's propensity for building article content though quotes from recent news sources.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is a persistent problem here with some users. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Really", nothing has happened in the Ukraine since the Poroshenko election last Spring, "Really". @NeilN has created what amounts to a blackout on all editing in these two sections other the last 3 months by baiting and edit warring with new editors. Ukraine is going through a civil war representing possibly its largest crisis since Chernobyl and your blackout watch on this section leaves Wikipedia readers baffled by this blacking out of news from the entire summer on this civil war which you have perpetuated. If you do not like my rendering, then apply your own version, but do not blackout the material. Here is the wording from TNYT, "Mr. Poroshenko hailed Sunday’s vote as a resounding endorsement of his government’s efforts to break free of Kremlin influence and shift hard toward Europe. 'I asked you to vote for a democratic, reformist, pro-Ukrainian and pro-European majority,” he said in a statement posted on his website after polls closed. 'Thank you for having heard and supported this appeal.' Mr. Poroshenko said more than three-quarters of those who voted 'powerfully and permanently supported Ukraine’s course toward Europe.' He called the result 'a landslide vote of confidence from the people.' Most read this as a vote of confidence for Poroshenko's government and his position, but use your own words rather than perpetuating your blackout of information for this section for the entire summer since last spring. FelixRosch (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch basically restored the first part of his edit (gave me a chuckle, given what he's written about BRD on other pages). My objection to it still stands. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we going to have to go through this yet again, FelixRosch? It has been made clear throughout the year that this article is WP:NOTNEWS and should not reflect WP:RECENTISM. Continuously pushing your (vast tracts) of current affairs into the content contravenes WP:BALASPS. You've been disappearing and then re-emerging in order to push the same WP:UNDUE content, yet the policies and consensus have not changed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we are. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing Notnews with a blackout of all edits in these two section since the Poroshenko election last May. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, FeliexRosch, it is you who is confusing this article with the multitude of articles about the recent events in Ukraine. If you wish to contribute to those articles, you are welcome to do so. This article is WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine, - Central or Eastern Europe?

Could somebody explain, on basis of which exactly criterions Ukraine is defined as an Eastern European, not as a Central European country?96.127.233.237 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As explained on the page Eastern Europe, there are different definitions and criterions used to defined the different regions of Europe. According to all definitions mentioned on that page (in particular those used by the United Nations Statistics Division and by the European Union), Ukraine is in Eastern Europe. --Off-shell (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Population update from Ukrainian Government

• The State Statistics Service of Ukraine issued a new 'express-release' on current Ukraine demographics. It can be downloaded here, it is in Ukrainian. The Statistics Service claims, as of October 1, 2014, it was 42,973,696 people in Ukraine. Beaumain (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the World Factbook figure being used includes Crimea and Sevastopol, whereas the document you've directed us to excludes them from their estimates. Considering that these are still deemed to be disputed territories, I don't know whether the infobox should divide the stats as being with and excluding. Facts on the ground suggest that dividing the numbers would be acceptable, but I'm not sure how it sits in terms of WP:RECENTISM. Any other opinions on the matter? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Holodomor

10 million ? Holodomor: " Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4[14] and 7.5[15] million".Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeat: Wikipedia is not a reliable resource. You want to argue it at the Holodomor article? Be my guest. Try reading through the archives and you'll find out why the lowest possible figures are given. Here, it is merely stated that "The famine claimed up to 10 million Ukrainian lives..." There are actually much higher estimates backed up by WP:RS which have been kept out of this article in the interests of curbing edit warring. If you're looking to start warring over this article as well, you'd better come well equipped, dear colleague.

Unfortunately, I have urgent matters to attend to tomorrow, so will not be able to log in. When I do log in again, if I find that you've treated the talk page of this article as a graffiti wall for your extremist sites, known hoax site information, etc. (as you have on so many other Ukrainian related articles already), I have that expansive list of your WP:TE, WP:POV Polish propagandist exploits on hand and am taking it straight to an ANI. Your long term contributions speak for themselves as your being a WP:SPA. I've only been staving off because I'm collecting the so-called 'reliable sources' you've introduced which are going to a WP:RSN where they will be examined by neutral editors.

P.S. Please let me know how you go with finding genuinely reliable resources to support any of the information on the Polish Autonomous District article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have listed abowe two genuinely reliable sources in Ukrainian. Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

http://lb.ua/news/2010/01/14/19793_nalivaychenko_nazval_kolichestvo_zh.html 10 million demographic looses not 10 million of dead people. Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeat: Try the Holodomor article. It should be interesting to see how far you'll get using Valentyn Nalyvaichenko as a WP:RS. He's a politician, not an historian. The article you're citing is from 2010, and his position is within the context of a court judgement on Holodomor. Amazing that they've actually managed to get an absolutely precise number of direct and indirect deaths where historians and researchers from around the globe still have found no way of establishing figures, don't you think?

As for your other two sources, feel free to take them to the Holodomor article. WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASPS for this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Should conspiracy theories started by Nazis, then adopted for cold war purposes, then adopted for nationalistic purposes, really be part of the article in the first place? It's an important political propaganda tool, but still. -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.204.165 (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're of the position that it's fiction (per your edit summary), I'd suggest that you take your agitprop to the Holodomor denial article. See WP:NOTFORUM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Gini coefficient probably wrong

Someone should look at that. Its very unlikely to be like that, given current development. 85.167.116.192 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding sooner. I've been checking other parallel articles (United States, Poland, Belarus, Russia, etc.) and there's no use of a consistent source for any of nation-state articles. I do think that there should be a discussion about this. The IMF is used for other stats, therefore a single source should also be used for the Gini coefficient for the sake of parity in all articles of this nature.

Thanks for bringing it up. I'll see if I can elicit more information as to whether there was a community consensus decision made in the past which hasn't been adhered to (or is no longer relevant), or raise a general discussion regarding the matter when I can spare a moment. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Novorossian republics on the map

I propose to paint the territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics into the light green color (like crimea), cause in fact they are not the part ukraine already, their status is disputable like the transnistrian (which aspires to the independence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs)

Do any WP:RS support such a coloring? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How can you possibly color anything on a map that has no defined borders? Also, there is no such thing as "Novorossiya" (except in putin's deranged mind)--there is no common government and no common institutions. --Taivo (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Their borders are the borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblast' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.231.106 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

LOLOL. You are so totally full of pro-Russian bombast. The borders of the so-called people's republics in Donbass are absolutely not the borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. The majority of both those regions are firmly under the control of the legal government in Kyiv and not the Russian mercenaries and Russian regular troops who are terrorizing the region. --Taivo (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be a serious lack of understanding as to the difference between recognised 'states' and unrecognised, self-proclaimed states. Perhaps, IP 85.140.231.106, you could point us to reliable sources demonstrating their being recognised by any nation-states (which excludes recognition by other unrecognised states or 'kind of, sort of recognised' states enjoying very, very, very limited and contentious recognition). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC for including casualty statistics as exceeding casualty statistics for 9-11 (under 3000 at 9-11, just over 3000 in Ukraine)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editor @NeilN has indicated that death-toll statistics for the current civil war in the Ukraine should be excluded and deleted in the section for the civil war in the Ukraine article (section titled "Pro-Russian unrest"). The current death-toll statistics in the civil war in Ukraine now exceeds the casualty statistics for 9-11 in New York. Ukraine is currently going through its largest crisis since Chernobyl and @NeilN appears to believe that deleting information on casualty statistics in Ukraine ought to be done as WP:Notnews. @NeilN has deleted the following one sentence edit. "On 25 October 2014, the news weekly magazine Economist updated the status of Ukraine's casualty statistics in an article titled, The Battle for Ukraine's Future, stating: 'The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives.'" Those who think it is responsible to Support the inclusion of the casualty statistics in the article should indicate their position as a "Support" comment, and those who wish to block the inclusion of the death-toll statistics should indicate this as an Oppose comment. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support, for including the casualty statistics as originating this rfc. Ukraine is currently going through its largest crisis since Chernobyl and information on casualty statistics in Ukraine is of use to historians as representing an historical conflict which exceeds the casualty statistics of 9-11 in New York. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:COATRACK. That info belongs on the article about the conflict, not here. That section is already too long. Compare to Ukraine#Euromaidan_and_2014_revolution and Ukraine#Pro-Russian_unrest_in_southern_and_eastern_Ukraine to the five sentences in United_States#Contemporary_history. This article is about the country in general, not current events. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this addition. Felix cannot seem to grasp WP:SUMMARY and the host of guidelines EvergreenFir has linked to above. I believe his desire to turn this article into a news source is made crystal clear by this statement and what he deems is of "historic proportion" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose if the question is whether to compare the death toll of the current war with that of 11 September 2001. Although the statistic is correct, its inclusion is not encyclopedic. It doesn't need to be included in this article, but only needs to be in the article on the current war. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, COATRACK, etc. already invoked here, and as has been the consensus regarding the WP:UNDUE nature of this form of abuse of this article. To add to this, it would be an abuse of WP:CALC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support; I see nothing wrong with casualty figures (aside from the annoyance of having to update them), but the 9/11 comparison is apples & oranges.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the casualty report is marginally relevant (although see other Oppose votes), the comparison to 9/11 is not encyclopedic. It's also more casualties than the Titanic, than at the Alamo, etc. It's irrelevant information. --Taivo (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo; The issue of 9/11 is not mentioned in the recommended edit at all, and it was mentioned in the RfC announcement only as a comparison to another adverse event with a comparable number of casualties as being noteworthy (Ukraine just over 3 thousand, 9/11 just under 3,000). FelixRosch (TALK) 15:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support per EverGreenFir, the statistics should rather belong in the conflict article, however the 9-11 Statistics are mentioned in the USA Article ... Avono♂ (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose addition of the edit, per EvergreenFir's comments in particular - this information doesn't belong in a summary but as a statistic in the relevant "main" article. Also oppose adding comparisons to 9/11 or any other conflict per WP:SYNTH: no source is making the comparison to 9/11 therefore we can't either. Not on any page. Ivanvector (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC) edited to clarify opposition to both Ivanvector (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ivanvector; The United States Wikipedia article does include the contemporary casualty statistics for its honored casualties in the Military section there. These comparable casualty statistics ought to be included on the Ukraine page as well by consistency guidelines for casualties suffered during the civil war in Ukraine in its Southeast Oblasts of Donetz and Lukhans. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: When you want to alert another editor to your comment, typing @ is insufficient. Use the {{yo}} template. Especially when you're replying to comments made a week ago. I agree with the comment below, this is not the same as 9/11 and I have no idea what "consistency guideline" you're referring to. Add the stats to the conflict page, and stop WP:BLUDGEONing to get the stats onto the Ukraine main page. This section is already too long - it should be a summary properly weighted against the other historical info presented - as it is, the Euromaidan and this section are longer than the section on World War II. It's WP:UNDUE. It's not going in. Drop the stick, man. Ivanvector (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. We cannot compare to 9/11 and cannot note casualties in this article, per WP:UNDUE. If the casualties are shown by WP:RS to alter the demographics or character of the nation or something of that nature, then we add them. Without RS stating nation-defining significance, we cannot. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@A D Monroe; The re-partitioning of Crimea to Russia & the secession of Donbass from Ukraine appear to create new nation-defining geographical borders... FelixRosch TALK 21:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree partitioning and sucession are nation-defining; I assume we can easily find RS for those effects on Ukraine, so those can be in the lede based on those sources (with an eye to WP:BALANCE, as many Ukrainians probably see these as temporary). I assume we won't find any RS for the casualties being nation-defining, so those cannot go in the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@A D Monroe; Yes, that is the case. The New York Times has multiple cites for the Crimea re-partitioning to Russia some of which were front page coverage. The New York Times cites are also available for the Donbas secession, which also co-report the conflict taking place. If you need the actual links now, they can be added here as well. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but this is "RfC for including casualty statistics", not on re-partitioning. Again, I agree with partitioning being included (with weight based on RSs), but that's off-topic. I oppose the subject of this RfC; I've seen no RSs that support the casualties being nation-defining. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@A D Monroe; Separate the off-topic and on-topic; The borders are being re-partitioned on the basis of the civil war and its casualties. Donetz, Lukhash, and Crimea wish to re-define the Ukraine border either by declaring autonomy from Ukraine or re-partition to Russia by the civil war casualties as shown on the maps in the news articles: The reports of casualties are from the United Nations as reported by the NY Times in August was given at 2200 casualties here [5], which was updated by Reuters in September to 3000 casualties here [6], and this was updated in 25 October 2014 by the Economist magazine to 3600 casualties for the civil war in Ukraine here [7]. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources stating casualty counts are off-topic. Only sources saying those counts changed Ukraine are on-topic. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@A D Monroe; Here is the link to the geographical secession map for Donetz and Lukhash supported by Russia and linked in color from the BBC for which the casualties have been recorded in the civil war [8]. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That link is off-topic; it mentions casualty numbers, but says nothing about their significance to the definition of Ukraine. This has gone from WP:UNDUE to WP:SYNTH, bordering on pure WP:OR. I'm done here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I am quite in awe of FelixRosch's chutzpah. He manages to completely disrupt another RFC complaining about neutrality and yet thinks this RFC statement is acceptable. Please ignore his analysis of my opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The conflict in the Ukraine has reached a level of casualties surpassing the level of 9-11 casualties in New York and your edit history shows that you are reverting the edits which post this data. FelixRosch (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No one is debating the number of casualties. We are saying it doesn't belong here... and we've told you multiple times the multiple reasons why. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The content is notable, and should definitely need to be somewhere on Wikipedia. However, given that this is an article about the nation, and not the event which is the civil war, perhaps it is better in an article about that event, and after the event ends (whenever that is), a mention of casualties included at that time. However, now it appears to be premature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) @RightCowLeftCoast; Yes, that's correct concerning the end of the war. The full quote from the Economist citation indicated that a ceasefire, though fragile was obtained stating: "The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives. Crimea is gone; large swathes of Donbas, the industrial region in the south-east, have been seized by separatists; the ceasefire is fragile... Ukraine has lost precious time to reform its economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse." (25 October 2014, news magazine Economist, "The Battle for Ukraine's Future", p.53.) FelixRosch (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The usual practice in national articles is to include casualty statistics only if the casualties were large. Casualty statistics are included in the Ukraine article for the Soviet civil war and for World War Two, which are much larger than 3600. The national article on United States, for instance, only has casualty statistics for the American Civil War, not for World War Two, although more than 250,000 Americans were killed, let alone for the September 11 attacks. The number of casualties in the current Ukrainian-Russian war should only be included in the article on that war. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

America is a very large country which was not under any geographical threat due to the terrorist attack, whereas Ukraine currently has a significant percentage of itself under occupation.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All of these other major issues aside, this proposal is pure, unadulterated WP:OR. I'd be grateful if FelixRosch could point out where even one reliable source uses this comparison, or perceives it to be analogous in any sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The full quote from the Economist citation indicated: "The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives. Crimea is gone; large swathes of Donbas, the industrial region in the south-east, have been seized by separatists; the ceasefire is fragile... Ukraine has lost precious time to reform its economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse." (25 October 2014, news magazine Economist, "The Battle for Ukraine's Future", p.53.) There is no WP:OR in the edit. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Go add it to one of the relevant articles, provided other editors don't consider it being WP:UNDUE there. You'd also have to drop the op-ed voice in order to add it to any of the recent events articles. It's still WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM in an article of this nature as has been pointed out time and time again... Er, but why the comparison of the figure to the 9/11 death toll? That's a one-off attack which is now in the past. This is actually still ongoing (Minsk Protocol or no Minsk Protocol, fighting continues). Further to that, the real figures in terms of casualties has not yet been established, even without prospective future casualties. Feel free to check all of the articles surrounding the various battles: reliable sources aren't in agreement with each other as to the figures, therefore the Forbes estimate is only a guestimate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue of 9/11 is not mentioned in the recommended edit at all, and it was mentioned in the RfC announcement only as a comparison to another adverse event with a comparable number of casualties as being noteworthy (Ukraine just over 3 thousand, 9/11 just under 3,000). Nonetheless, I shall adjust the wording of the RfC title as you request. The recommended edit itself makes no mention of 9/11 at all nor should it. As for your comment on WP:Notnews, no-one is trying to include a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines here. When I returned to this section last week after the summer there appeared to be an effective blackout on everything occurring after the Poroshenko election last May five months ago. Some reasonable consensus is needed here. A blackout of all edits to this section since last May is not useful. FelixRosch TALK 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"no-one is trying to include a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines here". Really? This is your first edit to the article, one that set a pattern. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. No-one is trying to post a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, etc). Nor should they. FelixRosch TALK 18:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead, you are trying to hijack the subject of a broad-based article to include figures on current affairs issues in order to perpetuate the content of this article being used for WP:RECENTISM. The only rationale and function I can see for the introduction of such content, particularly given your editing pattern — as pointed out by NeilN, and which the regular editors on this page can all attest to — is that of being a WP:TROJAN. Whether it is your intention or not, this will simply serve to attract further development of the context (being ongoing current affairs leading to WP:UNDUE section bloat) where it is unwarranted and undesirable for obvious reasons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no "hijack" or any other issue here other than the blackout which has been imposed by other editors here on all edits to this section since the Poroshenko election last May. If you are in such fear and trembling about updating the casualty statistics periodically then let someone else do it. There is no reason to blackout all edits in this section since the Poroshenko election last May concerning the civil war which is the largest crisis in Ukraine since Chernobyl. The casualty statistics have been accumulated over a period of eight (8) months and are the exact opposite of WP:Recentism which you cite. The casualty statistics are informative of the humanitarian losses suffered during the conflict and which are at a significant humanitarian level of concern. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good example, thank you! The Chernobyl incident merits exactly one (1) short paragraph in this article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You do understand that an event over 10 years old like Chernobyl stabilizes historically with time as to how concisely its history is written. The current civil war is still subject to historical development which can be represented responsibly in an on-line encyclopedia without raising undue fear and trembling among editors of the article. A blackout on all data after the Poroshenko election last May is excessively cautious and paints a relatively bucolic view of Ukraine over the last few months which does not represent the humanitarian losses suffered. The casualty statistics should be included. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Stabilizes over time". Exactly. Wikipedia is not a current affairs ledger, so the day-to-day casualty statistics are not appropriate material for this broad-based article. Link to the article on the war and put your statistics there. And since the situation is not stable, it is impossible for a number such as this not to become a daily ledger, since the number must be updated constantly as new numbers are reported. Indeed, we have neither 1) accurate, independently verified numbers, nor 2) numbers from the Russian mercenaries. It's not appropriate for this article, and it's probably not even appropriate for the article on the war since the reported numbers are almost always self-serving and inaccurate--on both sides. --Taivo (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo; My comment was to include a single mention of the statistics after an edit blackout period of 5 months which has been established on this page since the Poroshenko election last May. This is different than a day to day ledger which no-one is supporting here. Leaving out the statistics entirely makes the section look as if it is painting a bucolic picture of Ukraine today which is not accurate. Some mention of the casualties should be made to represent the humanitarian losses suffered. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is your current proposed addition. It's clear from your editing history and comments on this talk page that you wish to add "in the news" events to the article as they happen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Already covered this difference (in a separate Talk section) which you appear to have with Andrew Lih, the admin at Wikipedia who wrote the famous book on Wikipedia. The edit I am presenting is not presented as an "etched in stone" edit, and it recognizes that an on-line open-source encyclopedia can be sufficiently strong to contain current information which is partially in process and can be changed as warranted by responsible editors. If you disagree that Wikipedia as an on-line encyclopedia can represent new material which is partially in process, then there are many who disagree with the "etched in stone" standard of editing which you appear to be enacting upon this section. All that is being stated is that a blackout on all edits since the Poroshenko election last May seems to be excessive, and that without periodic updates to this section on the civil war in Ukraine then a bucolic and unrealistic version of Ukraine emerges on Wikipedia. Such a bucolic version of Ukraine represented by the editing blackout since last May does not represent the humanitarian strife of 3000 casualties taking place in Ukraine for the past numerous months. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is with you picking up on Lih's opinion and saying it is "attributed as stating the correct position." (incidentally Lih has not edited this article once). That's as absurd as your assertion that the section is portraying Ukraine as bucolic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

And, Felix, you completely and totally ignore the problem that there are, at present, absolutely no reliable statistics on losses in Ukraine. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada. It is unencyclopedic to list numbers that you know for a fact are unreliable. That's aside from the fact that listing any number here is simply posting the latest "score" from Kyiv or Donetsk and will be changed daily to reflect the current state of the propaganda war. --Taivo (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo; The Economist news magazine is generally seen as a very reliable source. The full quote from the Economist citation indicated: "The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives. Crimea is gone; large swathes of Donbas, the industrial region in the south-east, have been seized by separatists; the ceasefire is fragile... Ukraine has lost precious time to reform its economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse." (25 October 2014, news magazine Economist, "The Battle for Ukraine's Future", p.53.) This is the opposite of your comment on no sources. This is a reliable source. FelixRosch (TALK) 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you actually believe every word you read? The Economist is "generally" a reliable source, but you have to read the entire article to find where they got the 3600 number--from the Ukrainian government? Well, that's just the Ukrainian government's view on the matter. Is the Economist actually evaluating its sources or is it just putting out a round number based on the latest statement from the Ukrainian defense ministry? And is this piece of information from the Economist found in 1) an editorial (not a reliable source), 2) a summary of the situation (not necessarily unreliable, but just a generalized comment nonetheless), or 3) an actual attempt to make a legitimate piece of information available? Your quote is very clearly just a generalized comment about how sad the situation is, not in any sense an attempt to give an accurate appraisal of casualties. Your argument fails. You are just pushing to put your daily ledger into the article and not evaluating your sources. Such day-to-day news reporting is not encyclopedic. And, even it it were accurate (which it is not), it's still not appropriate in this article. --Taivo (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is why I keep asking you to involve yourself with the current affairs articles, FelixRosch. I haven't seen a single comment from you on the talk pages throughout their development. As Taivo has noted, the Economist is only one RS. Evidently, you have no idea of how many discussions have taken place regarding a multitude of WP:RS and WP:BIASED sources. The WP:CALC we've applied over the months, in itself, does not tally with official figures. The best we can do is use WP:INTEXT attribution for casualties on both sides. Resultantly, we have a sliding scale of figures because we don't use the one source, yet you're proposing to use one source? As for your WP:ASPERSIONS about Ukrainian editors trembling over initiating changes to this article, I construe that to be a personal attack. It is nothing short of arrogant to state that you're intrepid enough to carry the burden of adding content where no one else dares to go. This RfC isn't going your way based on solid policy arguments and thorough explanations as to why your proposal is WP:UNDUE per WP:BALASPS, yet you persist with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT agitation. If you feel that you're an intrepid editor, do join us at the relevant articles. As regards content for the subject of this article, it's time to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo; The reports of casualties are from the United Nations as reported by the NY Times in August was given at 2200 casualties here [9], which was updated by Reuters in September to 3000 casualties [10], and this was updated in 25 October 2014 by the Economist magazine to 3600 casualties for the civil war in Ukraine here [11]. All three of these news sources are seen as highly reliable sources. The data of these statistics for the humanitarian suffering in Ukraine are documented and verified by multiple sources including the United Nations. The casualty statistics should be added to this section which has had a blackout on all edits since the Poroshenko election last May. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get the point--a running tally of casualties is not encyclopedic content and not appropriate for this article. War is a humanitarian crisis, it doesn't need a daily body count to become that. Until the war is over and the butcher's bill tallied with the best, most reliable methods, all numbers are unreliable. It's not appropriate to have a number that has to be updated on a daily basis. --Taivo (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo; It is on a humanitarian basis that this edit addresses the point of representing casualties of over 3000 individuals, and that their being updated once per month or once in two months is informative to persons who have been affected by the civil war. Asking for an update once per month or every two months in an on-line open-source encyclopedia does not appear excessive. It would report multiple reliable sources indicating the level of long standing humanitarian suffering in Ukraine. FelixRosch (TALK) 22:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, additions once per month or every two months are excessive. Look at the History sections of Brazil, United States, Canada, France, Poland, Liberia, Iraq... to see how they are properly summarized. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your own links do not support you as in the United States Wikipedia article which lists casualty statistics in honor of the fallen casualties as follows;

"The proposed base Department of Defense budget for 2012, $553 billion, was a 4.2% increase over 2011; an additional $118 billion was proposed for the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.["Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request Overview" (PDF). Department of Defense. February 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)] The last American troops serving in Iraq departed in December 2011;[Basu, Moni (December 18, 2011). "Deadly Iraq War Ends with Exit of Last U.S. Troops". CNN. Retrieved February 5, 2012.] 4,484 service members were killed during the Iraq War.["Operation Iraqi Freedom". Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. February 5, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012.] Approximately 90,000 U.S. troops were serving in Afghanistan in April 2012;[Cherian, John (April 7, 2012). "Turning Point". Frontline. The Hindu Group. Retrieved December 2, 2012. There are currently 90,000 U.S. troops deployed in the country. {{cite news}}: |archive-url= is malformed: liveweb (help)] by November 8, 2013 2,285 had been killed during the War in Afghanistan.["Department of Defence Defence Casualty Analysis System". Department of Defense. November 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.]"

The edit on casualties for the Ukraine should be added on the basis of the humanitarian suffering of fallen casualties on the example of the United States page section of recording casualty statistics in honor of fallen casualties. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that the content you pulled out was not in the History section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your point being that you want the edit on casualties to go into the "Armed forces" section of the Ukraine page, since the Ukraine page does not have a "Military" section as on the United States page. The United States page does cover the contemporary casualty statistics and the Ukraine page ought to do this as well. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch, a living example of "I didn't hear that". Everyone opposes your edit, Felix. Get over it and move on to more productive pursuits. You're not going to get your way on this because there is a broad consensus against you. --Taivo (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo; You have asked me to provide multiple reliable sources and I have provided three of them including Reuters and the NY Times. You ignore them and make alternative claims without documentation or citation. If you have a source contradicting Reuters and the NY Times then you can cite it here. Otherwise my support along with the other editors for the reports from Reuters and the NY Times continue to stand. The humanitarian suffering in the Ukraine numbering as thousands of casualties ought to be included on the Ukraine page, the same as the comparable contemporary casualty statistics for United States war casualties are reported on that page.. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely not listening to anything I have said, Felix. I have never asked you to "provide reliable sources". I have stated over and over again that there are no reliable sources for casualty figures because there are no independent verifiable sources for the figures at the source. It doesn't matter whether you're quoting Reuters or the NY Times, their sources are unreliable (the Ukrainian Defense Ministry and the Russian terrorists' occasional comments on the subject) because they are propaganda. No third, neutral party is on the frontlines counting bodies. You are just deaf to what others are saying. And there is not a single, solitary editor here who supports your proposal to add these numbers to the article--whether you're getting your numbers from terrorists or Reuters or the Almighty him/her/it/them-self. You are alone in this. Wake up and realize that you will not get these numbers into this article. --Taivo (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch, your refusal to drop the stick is wasting an enormous amount of editor time and energy. You've long been in WP:TE territory, but any more of your battleground attitude will end up at an ANI. Enough is enough. Thank you for your future consideration towards other editors and long time consensus. It should certainly be more than evident that there has been no change to the consensus, or your personal belief in what content is relevant to this article. Previous policy and guideline-based evaluations still stand. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments regarding closing two sections being too lengthy

The comments of @Ivanvector from the week-end suggest that the last two sections of the History section are far too long. This seems an accurate summation and this edit would reduce the size by half:

Euromaidan, Crimea, and the Secession Crisis

Main articles: Euromaidan, War in Donbass, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, 2014 Crimean crisis, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and 2014 Ukrainian revolution

Further information on the ongoing protests: Timeline of the Euromaidan

Euromaidan. State flag of Ukraine carried by a protester to the heart of developing clashes in Kiev. Events of 18 February 2014

The Euromaidan (Ukrainian: Євромайдан, literally "Eurosquare") protests started in November 2013 after the president, Viktor Yanukovych, began shying away from an association agreement that had been in the works with the European Union and instead chose to establish closer ties with Russian Federation. Violence escalated after 16 January 2014 and riots left 98 dead with approximately fifteen thousand injured and 100 considered missing from 18–20 February. Owing to violent protests on 22 February 2014, Members of Parliament found the president unable to fulfill his duties and exercised "constitutional powers" to set an election for 25 May to select his replacement. In the wake of the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the resultant 2014 Ukrainian revolution in February 2014, a secession crisis began on Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula which has a significant number of Russophone people. On 1 March 2014, Russian president Vladimir Putin requested and received authorization from the Russian Parliament to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine and took control of the Crimean Peninsula by the next day.

Demonstration for peace in Ukraine, Republic square, 22 June 2014, Paris.

On 6 March 2014, the Crimean Parliament voted to "enter into the Russian Federation with the rights of a subject of the Russian Federation" and later held a referendum asking the people of these regions whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine. Petro Poroshenko, running on a pro-European Union platform, won with over fifty percent of the vote in the 25 May 2014 election, therefore not requiring a subsequent run-off election. Poroshenko was inaugurated as president on 7 June 2014 and therein was initiated a second phase in the Euromaidan revolution and civil war. Talks in Geneva between the EU, Russia, Ukraine and USA yielded a Joint Diplomatic Statement referred to as the 2014 Geneva Pact. In August 2014, a bi-lateral commission of leading scholars from the United States and Russia issued the Boisto Agenda indicating a 24-step plan to resolve the crisis in Ukraine which addressed insufficiencies identified in the 2014 Geneva Pact. The Boisto Agenda was organized into five imperative categories for addressing the crisis requiring stabilization identified as: (1) Elements of an Enduring, Verifiable Ceasefire; (2) Economic Relations; (3) Social and Cultural Issues; (4) Crimea; and, (5) International Status of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, unrest began in Donetsk and Luhansk starting the third phase of the Euromaidan revolution and there followed the secession of Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine. In several cities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions armed men, declaring themselves as local militia, seized government buildings, police and special police stations in several cities of the regions, and held unrecognized status referendums. More than 3,600 people have been killed in the military campaign. According to the United Nations, 730,000 Ukrainian refugees have fled to Russia since the beginning of 2014 and 117,000 have fled to other parts of Ukraine. In October 2014, Ukrainians voted to keep Poroshenko in power with some recognition of a ceasefire within the political secession declared by the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

References

Agreement with @Ivanvector that the two closing sections may be shortened. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you got your casualty figure in there. Is the above text better than what's in the article? Yes, I think so (aside from the citation overkill) but others should check for POV issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, I'd agree that, for the sake of brevity, it would serve well to outline the issues. Citekill isn't, however, the only concern. The use of "civil war" has already been discussed: it's not a civil war as can be attested to by numerous RS. The use of "Crimean secession" is also bad WP:SYNTH for a sub-header. It may be okay for 'facts on the ground' in the body, but only serves as misleading WP:GEVAL even if only for purposes of this article. Sorry, but I'm not at all convinced that it is a better option to the lengthier version currently in place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

independence

along with Belavezha Accords photo there is an illustration saying 'Victims of Stalin's Great Terror in the Bykivnia mass graves, near Kiev, 2011'. its 1991 and later information may be placed in this part of article, and Terror occurred from 1934 to 1940/ what is this image about? allow me to remove it.

--Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is internationally recognized Ukrainian territory according to UN General Assembly Resolution

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262, Crimea is internationally recognized Ukrainian territory.114.25.11.77 (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Images for article

There have been a couple of large additions of images and a large 'clean up' of images for this article over the last couple of months. I have no objections to additions and removals, however I would deem some of the images redundant and others as being salient. Some of the removals, in particular, strike me as being WP:POV deletions.

Are other regular editors content with images intrinsic to the content being removed, and others that only appear to add to image clutter and the sandwiching of text to continue without any discussion?

Personally, I feel that images should meet with WP:PERTINENCE and not be subject to one user making executive decisions. Could we please try to reach some form of consensus as to what is relevant to the content and what is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I beleive it is inappropriate to show extensive images of atrocities or devastation in an encyclopedic article about any country; and that is also the standard in other articles about countries, because there are other specific articles about topics that describe such images. For the same reason why "Japan" article does not show people burned in nuclear explosions, "United States" article does not show people during Internment of Japanese Americans or violence against black Americans, "Vietnam" article does not show people burned by napalm in Vietnam War, "Somalia" article does not show starving people from the Somali civil war, and "Germany" article does not show piles of corpses from WW2, so "Ukraine" article does not need to show images of dying children or people being shot in front of mass graves- these can be shown in articles that cover that specific topic and can be easily accessed by readers through direct links in the Ukraine article. Putting these kind of images into the article about Ukraine only strengthens the average Anglo-American view of Ukraine as an impoverished country with impoverished history, which is not neutral.

I am not saying that articles should only show positive images, therefore I believe that an image of Kiev ruined by bombing is appropriate to show WW2 in Ukraine (just like bombed Berlin in Germany article). But everything has its limits and articles on English Wikipedia about countries with below-average GDP per capita should not be filled with images of despair when "rich" countries' articles are showing great achievements and famous people. Ukraine article should get the same treatment in an encyclopedia as does Switzerland, South Korea or any other country. I agree with you that many images seem to be randomly thrown into the article and i think many still should be removed or changed. I just changed the ones that i considered to be the most misleading/unencyclopedic, but of course i would welcome if someone fixes the rest.

The reason why I changed the images without discussing on the talkpage is merely that being bold is less time consuming.--Der Golem (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Der Golem. I'm in agreement with you but, rather than an edit war being provoked, I though it best that some form of WP:CON be kept on record here as to why they are not an aid for readers, but are emotionally WP:POV or simply clutter. Thank you for initiating changes to the content. I'll be following suit and removing one or two images which I don't consider to be informative for a broad scope article. I'll leave the ones which I believe to breach WP:RECENTISM for a couple of days. Cheers for your prompt response! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I gladly provide an explanation. No worries about little reverting one another, it's harmless. I understand your concern. Thank you for fixing more photos.--Der Golem (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Language - sentence/paragraph order

Taivo care to explain your edit summary? How is rearranging sentences and removing one unsourced, false statement making the section "too Russian slanted" and less "accurate".

Seriously, my edit was:

• Moved one geo sentence down from first paragraph to geo paragraph (sentence unchanged).
• Moved the "Russian was ... Ukrainian was mandatory." to start of Soviet paragraph (sentences unchanged) & add one word "However". (Thus putting the two Soviet sections together in one paragraph.)
• Moved "Effective in August 2012 ... Turchynov on March 2." to be chronologically after soviet paragraph (sentences unchanged).
• Remove unsourced & false statement "Today, all foreign films and TV programs, including Russian ones, are subtitled or dubbed in Ukrainian." (According to sub-articles, 39.3% of Ukrainian TV content is completely Russian, not counting 23.5% Russian with Ukrainian subtitles.)

So tell me how your preferred version is less Russian slanted? (Yeah, I know removing a false pro-Ukrainian sentence makes it more Russian slanted. How about a real reason?) How is having sentences in random non-chronological order "better and more accurate"? I'm not saying the order I put it in is the best way, but your order makes no sense & your edit summary is junk. Kirin13 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Until you build a consensus here on the Talk Page, then you can expect to have your changes reverted. Discuss it here and reach a consensus. Maybe you have a good point, but your edits consistently place Russian on an equal stance to Ukrainian in the text. Russian is a secondary language in Ukraine--the majority of people speak Ukrainian as their first language. The number of native Russian speakers is much less. Discuss here before continuing to make your changes. If you can convince us here without reverting and using poor edit summaries, then you have done your Wikipedia job. --Taivo (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Umm, I think you won the award for terrible edit summaries. You also won the award for hypocrisy. I recall when you made a bold edit, that you had zero interest of getting talk page consensus and just reverted. You give terrible edit summaries yet criticize mine. You tell me to reason on talk pages, yet you don't. E.g. above, your "explanation" is 'your edit put Russian = Ukrainian'. Really? How? I moved the sentence about Russian further down – how did that give Russian more emphasis? Really? Do tell? How about you actually give a real reason instead unexplained claims of bias. Kirin13 (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. If you make a change to an existing article, then get reverted, it's your job to justify the change and build a consensus on the Talk Page. Please proceed to justify your change. --Taivo (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your bias toward equalizing Ukrainian and Russian can easily be demonstrated by your version: "Ukrainian is mainly spoken in western and central Ukraine. Russian is widely spoken, especially in eastern and southern Ukraine." Ukrainian is spoken throughout Ukraine and is the majority language right up to the edge of the Donbass. Your version makes it sound like Russian holds the same status in eastern Ukraine that Ukrainian holds in western and central. That's simply not true. --Taivo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, Kirin13, your rework (whether intended or not, so I'm assuming good faith) came out as POV WP:SYNTH. Not only did you make sweeping generalisations, you made them using a poll (which doesn't provide any detailed selection criteria for those polled, nor even numbers if participants: a small sample group across major cities, no doubt) dating back to 2008. How does this form of synth, whereby you've excluded changes in policy towards the official language of Ukraine, provide quality to the content? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars

Russia may be tightening its grip on Crimea, with little resistance to date, but they have yet to face the Crimean Tatar factor.

There are 266,000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea, over 13% of the local population. They are Sunni Muslim, traditionally pro-Ukrainian, and much better organised than the local Ukrainians, who make up 23% of the population.

A quick look at history tells you why: Stalin deported the Crimean Tatars en masse to Central Asia in 1944, and half of them died during or after the journey. They were only able to return after 1989; by which time their homes had gone and their culture had been erased.Tatar Sunni Muslims pose a threat to Russia's occupation of Crimea

Is the homeland of the Crimean Tatars .Crimea Population Tatars 301.000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The ukraine

It used to be common in English to call the place "the Ukraine" (like "the Lebanon"). Can someone put in some information on this and whenit chagned?211.225.34.164 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Etimology section already contains an explanation, with refs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 19, 2015; 14:19 (UTC)

Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994

Russia respects the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine and recognizes Crimea is a part of Ukraine according to udapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.25.5.35 (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

The Budapest Memorandum says nothing about Crimea. Santamoly (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Budapest Memorandum says that Ukraine was secure within its borders of 1994. That includes Crimea--there was no exception. --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine was secure until the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea. According to Russia, since the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was Autonomous, it has the constitutional right to vote for independence. Which it did. The fact that Crimea was under siege while the voting took place, makes it controversial. So here we are. USchick (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

„it has the constitutional right to vote for independence” — wrong because parliament of Crimea has no authority to make this „declaration” according to Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, articles 1, 4, 26 and Constitution of Ukraine, articles 5, 6, 73, 85, 92, 134, 135. Also Sevastopol is not a part of Autonomous Republic of Crimea, it's another administrative region. Crimea and Sevastopol is territory of Ukraine also recognized by many other international acts, for example Treaty on friendship, cooperation and partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine (May 31, 1997), ratified by the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (March 2, 1999). 46.63.38.5 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Budapest Memorandum also says nothing about Sevastopol, Donetska, Luhanska, Kyivska or Lvivska oblast (region), so what? 46.63.38.5 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Eastern or Central Europe?

The article defines Ukraine as an Eastern Europe. Which basis is used for this definition? Geographically Ukraine is Central European. Different opinions on this matter have to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.159.167 (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_europe 24.215.169.241 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "geographically"? If you are breaking Europe into regions based solely on measurements, then Ukraine is in the central portion. But this is not how most geographical regions are determined. In most geography texts I have seen, including the one used at the college where I teach, the regions of Europe are defined in a looser manner. Countries are grouped together due to common heritage and histories and these regions are then labelled. Such regions will often even exclude the portion of Russia located on the conventional continent of Europe from consideration. Thus, "Eastern Europe" does not literally mean "the eastern-most portions of the European continent", at least not in English. --Khajidha (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To Khajidhal: Do you know European history deeply enough to be a proper judge in a such things? Which country are you from? So, what is your suggestion about current definition in Wikipedia of some countries as Central European is it correct or not? And which exactly common history and heritage they share to be grouped together? Could you give particular examples? Germany is defined in Wiki as a country in "western-central" Europe. So it could be regarded as either Western or Central Europe. Why exactly Ukraine cannot be defined as a central-eastern Europe or just Central Europe? Could you argument it? In my opinion division of Europe into Western and Eastern (without Central) is most convenient as it reduces number of divisions to a sufficient minimum. However as there is strong lobby for Central Europe and some countries simply do not want to be in Eastern Europe we need to make revision of validity of such claims and come out with plausible definition for Central Europe. For example Poland is defined as Central European. Does it mean it does have common history and heritage with Germany but not with Ukraine??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.194.244 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed to be defining the regions. I said that the regions as defined in sources I had seen were not as simply defined as you seem to want things to be. It is neither my place, nor your place, nor Wikipedia's place to make such definitions. Wikipedia reports the definitions of the regions that are used in reliable sources. --Khajidha (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@192.222.194.244: I suggest you check these move requests to wrap your head around why 'we' (that is, Wikipedia) doesn't make its own rules (know as original research or personal point of view as to defining how regions are commonly interpreted here, the entire talk page here, and the entire talk page here. Stop trying to engage Khajidha with your WP:BATTLEGROUND challenges. Ukraine's location in Europe is based on Anglophone sources because it is English language and culture Wikipedia, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You need just to look at Europe map to understand that Ukraine is located centrally enough to pass for Central European. An article could mean some other definitions under Ukraine been "Eastern European", but it needs to mention that geographically Ukraine is Central European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.194.244 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please drop the stick, 192.222.194.244. You need to understand that you are engaging in original research, and that this talk page is not a political soapbox for you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confusing geography and geometry. --Khajidha (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Crimea no longer part of Ukraine on Google maps

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ukraine/@48.383022,31.1828699,6z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x40d1d9c154700e8f:0x1068488f64010

Seems that it is time to update the map - no matter how painful for some nationalists. Reaper7 (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Google Maps is not the final authority for anything. And Wikipedia does not change maps every six months when an active war is in progress. Indeed, even when a "frozen war" is in progress, we don't "update maps" (cf. Georgia and Moldova). It also seems to be clear that you haven't actually looked closely at the Google Map. The boundary between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine is not a solid international boundary. It is dashed, indicating something less than an international boundary (compare the boundary between Ukraine and Russia, for example). --Taivo (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Even though it is dashed, "indicating something less than an international boundary", nevertheless, it is still some kind of boundary that needs to be acknowledged. For instance, it seems futile now to continue to claim that Yalta is a popular Ukrainian tourist destination, or that Crimea's water and electricity come from Ukrainian sources. Santamoly (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Crimea's electricity and water still do come from Ukraine. Electricity may be changed in 5 years, water won't be changed for decades. Please read up. The boundary is being acknowledged in the article. The current situation is being acknowledged in the map. Crimea is under control of the Russians and most countries don't recognize its annexation. Hence, it is disputed. I don't understand why this is hard for people to understand.Hilltrot (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

2014 Crimean takeover by Russia

As I said before, after a year, one will be able to more clearly find and verify what actually happened. This section needs a complete rewrite as it was mostly written at a time when very little was verifiable. Large portions of this section are just plain false and misleading. Russians started sending troops to take Crimea from Ukraine as early as 21 February 2014. Putin admitted an all-night planning session on 22 February 2014 and stated he personally was in charge of the operation. The vote for a referendum being held at gunpoint is no longer disputed.

I probably won't get to it until next week, but I wanted to give a warning. I don't do stealth edits on major rewrites. I also know that sometimes people get attached to what they write and wanted to give people a chance to speak.Hilltrot (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC) CapsHilltrot (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with you providing some reliable sources that support what you've said. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Which parts do you dispute? You need to be specific. And obviously, I will provide numerous reliable sources for what write. I always have. To prevent knee-jerk reactions, I'm willing to prepost a revision here.Hilltrot (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The part where Putin "admitted" would be a good start. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

These should help you catch up a bit. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/europe/putin-contrary-to-earlier-assertions-suggests-planning-to-seize-crimea-started-in-early-2014.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-was-surprised-at-how-easily-russia-took-control-of-crimea/2015/03/15/94b7c82e-c9c1-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html

Hilltrot (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hilltrot, I'd rather see the content left as is than another outbreak of POV pushing and WP:SYNTH. This is a broad scope article already carrying more abstracts/summaries about WP:NOTNEWS current affairs than it should. If anything, I'd rather just toss the summaries and simply have hatnotes to direct the reader to the information they're looking for. As it stands, the edit warring on all of the current affairs articles has lead to a number having being shut off to admin only protection level because of the traffic. Where do you think the rejects from that traffic go? We can't do justice to the complexity in a couple of paragraphs, so I'm all for calling it a no-fly zone. Let it all stagnate until it's become genuinely historical. The more abstract and non-committal it is, the better. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Suggestions to shrink a section might be profitable. Suggestions to expand, no. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with shrinking or simple hatnotes. I never suggested expansion. Sorry I scratch my cornea and haven't been able to respond. I'll probably be feeling good enough to respond tommorowHilltrot (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here are the primary parts of the Crimea chapter.

A. Because the situation in Ukraine had changed so dramatically, Putin began work on the annexation of Crimea.

B. Under the guise of protection of Russia's military base in Crimea, Putin commanded Russian intelligence, naval, and paratrooper forces to disarm the Ukrainian military and take effective control of the peninsula.

C. In a referendum, a majority of voters in Crimea voted to join Russia. The UN general assembly voted that the referendum was invalid.

Those are the three primary parts which are indisputable. Unfortunately, what is there now, is rubbish. None of the important indisputable parts are covered.

The problem with what is there now.

"In the wake of the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the resultant 2014 Ukrainian revolution in February 2014, a secession crisis began on Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula which has a significant number of Russophone people. "

This is a completely without any sourcing, much less reliable sourcing. "Succession crisis" is a good joke, but jokes are not what Wikipedia is suppose to be about. Sometimes, I feel like wikipedians only require User:Hilltrot to provide reliable sourcing.

"Unmarked, armed Russian soldiers began being moved into Crimea on 28 February 2014.[150]"

Although the sourcing has changed, this short, to the point, sentence has all the trademarks of my input. I insisted on something like being added to stop the complete one-sided PoV that follows.

"On 1 March 2014, exiled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych requested that Russia use military forces "to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine".[151] On the same day, Russian president Vladimir Putin requested and received authorization from the Russian Parliament to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine and took control of the Crimean Peninsula by the next day.[152][153][154][155]" In addition, NATO was perceived by most Russians as encroaching upon Russia's borders. This weighed heavily upon Moscow’s decision to take measures to secure its Black Sea port in Crimea.[156] received by most Russians as encroaching upon Russia's borders. This weighed heavily upon Moscow’s decision to take measures to secure its Black Sea port in Crimea.[156]

All of this is irrelevant clutter. We now know from the horses' mouth what caused Putin to want to annex Crimea. This blind wailing about to "find out" why is no longer relevant.

"On 6 March 2014, the Crimean Parliament voted to "enter into the Russian Federation with the rights of a subject of the Russian Federation" and later held a referendum asking the people of these regions whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine.[157] Though passed with an overwhelming majority, the vote was not monitored by outside parties and the results are internationally contested; it is claimed to have been enforced by armed groups which intruded and enforced voting according to their demands.[158][159][160] On 11 March, the Crimean parliament and Sevastopol issued a letter of intent to declare independence from Ukraine as the Republic of Crimea and requested that they be admitted as constituents of the Russian Federation."

Once again, more irrelevant clutter. What Putin considered to be the most important part was the referendum by the people of Crimea. He wouldn't have finalized the annexation of Crimea without it. If you are trying to make this shorter, the above goes.

"On 16 March, they held the Crimean referendum on that issue. The next day, the U.S. and the European Union started sanctions against individuals who were ‘undermining democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine’ or were ‘undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine’."

The sanctions have been useless and irrelevant to Ukraine. If you feel the sanctions against Russia are important, put them in the Russia article. The referendum is the key point.

"On 18 March 2014, Russia and Crimea signed a treaty of accession of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in the Russian Federation, though the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of a non-binding statement to oppose Russian annexation of the peninsula.[161]"

Treaties by Russia have been irrelevant for a little over a decade now. I'll agree with the PoV pusher for this treaty, if I can add the 40 or so treaties Russia has broken recently in the same section. Or in Wikispeak WP:UNDUE? The second part insults the reader and calls them stupid. All U.N. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding to its member states. Or else the West Bank would have been returned to Jordan among a number of other things.

Iryna, what's currently there is not abstract or noncommittal. I can see this throughout the article. Not just this section.

"Women's rights were greatly increased through new laws." Sounds abstract and noncommittal? If you read the source you understand the writer either pushed a major PoV, forgot to read 9 tenths of the article, or had to be functionally illiterate. Sometimes if someone insists on really abstract and noncommittal, you'll end up pushing a fringe PoV without knowing it. Yeah, I could reduce the holocaust to "Many died during WWII, including Americans, Australians, some Jews, Russians, French and a couple of Gypsies." Abstract and non-committal.

Genuinely historical? It was genuinely historical over a year ago, but now its not? But you're afraid of someone coming over here and trashing article, because it's not old enough . . . you do know what's happening on Savushkina Street? You'll come across the same problems writing about the Russian liberation of Berlin or any other "more" historical article about Russia or Russian interests.

What are you waiting for? Do you think Putin is going to go on television and say, "Wow, that was some wicked acid trip!! Sorry about what I said in the 2-hour documentary I ordered to be made, that wasn't me, it was the drugs talking!" Seriously? And both sides agree with what Putin said. Are you waiting for the end of the frozen war in eastern Ukraine? That's not ending in the foreseeable future. Russia is in de facto control of Crimea. It's over. Most countries don't like it. Ukraine obviously doesn't, but Crimea isn't even coming up in the cease-fire agreements. It will be a disputed area until Putin dies or cronies are overthrown. And this won't happen in the foreseeable future. This is as history as it's going to get unless you're asking me to wait until after I die.

I was not the one rushing to get stuff added to this over a year ago. If you don't like what is now verifiable fact, here are the two other options.

1. Put a box statement saying that no information newer that May 2014 has been allowed into the section and that you are enforcing a stagnation. 2. Delete the section and leave only redirections to other articles.

I'm really not ok with the status quo. I am open to other suggestions if you wish to suggest them.Hilltrot (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Easier, I think, to deal with one section at a time unless there's good reason to do otherwise. Shall we stick to the Crimea section? If so, we can decide what should be dropped and what added. Preferably, in this article, the added material should be the smaller, leaving more details to the detail articles. For example, I think the procedures of Russian law are discussed in too much detail for this article. Those details could be trimmed and replaced with other Crimean material. However, if changes to another section are more urgent, we can start a new discussion section about that one, instead. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted to change the other sections. I only gave them for examples.

These are the three primary parts of the Crimean Annexation. The reason and premeditation behind the annexation, how it was accomplished, and the end result.

A. Because the situation in Ukraine had changed so dramatically, Putin began work on the annexation of Crimea.

B. Under the guise of protection of Russia's military base in Crimea, Putin commanded Russian intelligence, naval, and paratrooper forces to disarm the Ukrainian military and take effective control of the peninsula.

C. In a referendum, a majority of voters in Crimea voted to join Russia. The UN general assembly voted that the referendum was invalid.

These are much shorter than what's there and we no longer have to waste space giving dueling narratives, since Putin has agreed with what happened. As far as what happened, there is no competing narrative among current sources. You won't see Russian news outlets calling Putin a liar. And the western outlets aren't disagreeing with him either. Other parts, such as who protested when, how many guns or bullies were there at this poll or that poll, etc. are "debatable" and should be left out.

The only key "procedure of Russian law" is the referendum. That's what got the vote by the U.N. General Assembly, and that's what Putin also said was important to him. So the importance of the referendum is also agreed upon by both sides. They just disagree upon the legitimacy and result.

I'm not really attached to my wording, except that it really should read Putin and not Russia.

Get rid of everything that's there. I'm sorry but what's there was created at a time when it shouldn't have been created.Hilltrot (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I see sense in what what Jim.henderson has suggested: focussing on one section at a time. Yes, I do have to agree with you, Hilltrot, that the substance of the current 'summaries' have been fiddled with to the point of being mercenary gobbledygook posturing as NPOV. RS on the topics at hand are not mincing words in the manner in which they've been refactored (i.e., WP:GEVAL reinterpretations of what RS are actually saying). Intentions may have been WP:AGF, but I suspect that a lot of minor tweaks have been overlooked (read as 'approved') due to high traffic changes that should not have been allowed to slip through.

I still stand by keeping these summaries terse and avoiding the introduction of extraneous material... so let's keep it on track and allow for a bit of breathing/commentary room here on the talk page.

Given the problems regular editors have faced for ages relating to this article, we're justifiably paranoid as to the smallest adjustment, therefore I'd also suggest avoiding POV language comments carrying value-laden intent raising WP:REDFLAG signals to EvergreenFir and myself for starters. Let's stick to RS representation of concerns surrounding content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So, you like my three primary parts of the Crimean Annexation. Yeah, I know no one has bothered to even mention them. . .

What I have written is not redflag. Not in the least bit. If someone hasn't read up on issues about Ukraine for the past year, it might seem like a Red-Flag. I took the POV language out in my second and third postings of the same ABC.

If you've been paying attention to Ukraine, and I hope you have, you should know my sources on this are more than rock-solid. They are indisputable. Has Russian media called Putin a liar? Has the western media and governments disputed what was said? Do we not also have a ton of collaborating evidence? Do you know of any reliable sources in the past three months which dispute these three points? Any unreliable ones?

That makes it a good base for this section. What was in Crimea before was just an amalgamation of rumors countered by a fact or two. The section should be based on something which all the sources are in agreement with. This section will never be made shorter without using WP:UNDUE or WP:RECENTIVISM.(I think I got those right. Is there a WP:OUTOFDATE?) The old stuff has to be killed. Even "Unmarked, armed Russian soldiers began being moved into Crimea on 28 February 2014." is old and dated. In fact, it was only put there to prevent a PoV clobber.Hilltrot (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hilltrot, not only have I been keeping on top of all of these articles actively since their inception, I continue to be highly involved, which is why it's taken me a few days to respond here... They're all still being edit-warred over despite RS having established far more concrete 'facts' about events and how they've unfurled. If any other editors doubt how involved I am with questions sources, problem users being brought to the ANI, and trying to maintain genuine WP:NPOV over this period of time, feel free to check all of the surrounding articles. I'm high profile in the area pertaining to both article development and talk page consensus 'discussions' (using the term extremely loosely), which is more than can be said about the majority of editors involved in this article.

Nevertheless, I was alarmed about your initial statements regarding changes in content, and can understand why alarm bells went off for other editors. I think that, essentially, your use of language triggered off a backlash. Yes, it is time for the content to be changed as it's outdated, therefore I've tagged the Crimea and 2014-15 unrest sections are needing to be updated. Updated does not, however, mean in-depth analysis or expanding the sections, but the removal of WP:POV and WP:WEASEL language (i.e., the lead-up to "This weighed heavily upon Moscow's decision to take measures to secure its Black Sea port in Crimea"? - no, that's not what RS are saying!). It does need a tidy, but the brunt must be carried by the main article. I still feel that, for the purposes of this article, hatnotes to the relevant articles would be the best compromise for those subsections. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, from his posts, the pine tree clearly doesn't know anything Ukraine and is just shadowing me because he didn't like what I wrote somewhere else or maybe he just doesn't like me personally. Jim has just said he basically wants it shorter. I hate to say this, but what "backlash"? Even from you I don't feel that much backlash. You haven't mentioned a single part of the Crimea section that you feel really needs to be saved. So, I have to assume that you're ok with my getting rid of it? Jim has even been more specific to say that he thinks at least parts should be deleted and seems to be in agreement with me. As for the three primary parts (A,B, and C above.) I want to replace it with, I have received no objection from anyone.

Inflammatory!? Even my original comments haven't brought a tenth the heat that my wanting to removing a passage talking about thousands of fictional Blackwater troops brought. But this was one of my points. The people who were here just because this was news and they wanted to be FIRST!, aren't here anymore for Crimea. In addition, the sources are in agreement. The insanely stupid double narrative is no longer remotely justified. Edit waring on Crimea? There are less that 50 changes in the past month! What are you imagining?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&action=history

Savushkina Street is not going away, but it shouldn't scare us into not making Crimea a decent encyclopedia article section instead of the pile of doodoo it currently is.Hilltrot (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Hilltrot: I just want to make it clear that with regards to EvergreenFir, I don't approve of derision of editors who are most certainly WP:HERE. That said, I do see scope for improving the summaries as they're representative of outdated information. Per Jim.henderson, I agree that this should be done a section at a time, and I have no reason to believe that one section takes precedence over the others with regards to this article, therefore starting with the annexation of Crimea to the RF is as good a starting point as any other.

One section at a time also allows regular editors (who are events savvy) to discuss potentially problematic changes as they occur. In other words, you have my support in reworking the sections one at a time, and allowing a little breathing space for policy and guideline objections, as well as positive feedback on directions taken in the brunt of these summaries. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, therefore no one has the right to prevent you from bold changes so long as the WP:BRD process is followed. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110510093709/http://me.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=115924&cat_id=38912 to http://me.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=115924&cat_id=38912
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101209112933/http://bestofukraine.com/travel-essentials/medical-care.html to http://bestofukraine.com/travel-essentials/medical-care.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140908232006/http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/53483/ to http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/53483/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct x 1; archived access denied replaced with Cbignore until archive can be found x 1; replaced archived redirect to direct archive x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blackseagrain.net/data/news/ukraine-becomes-worlds-third-biggest-grain-exporter-in-2011-minister

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct archive link confirmed. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate Economic Growth Statistic

In the Independence section, the article states that Ukraine's GDP rose by an average of seven percent annually during the 2000s and cites two sources. I checked both sources and did some math and neither agrees with the statement. I don't want to change the article in case I'm missing something, so I'd appreciate if I could get a second opinion. Thanks. 2602:252:D5C:A4C0:2C9D:9EA9:36A7:3AB6 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that your assessment is correct. In fact, I would say that at best this is a poor WP:Synth - at worst original research - assuming good faith of course. It's possible that the original source used got deleted. I'm going to wait a while for a response before I take this out or replace it.Hilltrot (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I recall a discussion of these figures some time ago, but am about to log off for the day. I'll take a look through the archives ASAP. If I don't respond tomorrow, Hilltrot, could you please ping me to remind me? Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've found a better source. I'm going to just change the sourcing to http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/09/underachiever-ukraine-s-economy-since-1991# . An economy expert might be able to get 7% from the sources listed. But that seems too much like original research. But the 7.4% listed from an expert source seems to be a much better way to do it. That, and it basically says the same thing.Hilltrot (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

By all means, go for it. I found the beginnings of a discussion I started in the archives last year, but it didn't develop any further. There was a short-lived period of an upturn after the later 'naughties' world economic slump... but I'm not going to go OR here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ca. 17 000000000000 USD loan to Ukraine. Is it not worthy of attention? It is advisable to mention the names of the generous sponsors. It is pleasant for honored sponsors. Ukrainians it should not forget the names of their virtues. Not today not later. Have jemmand something about it? The Rettere the Ukrainian "finacial ship" Angela_Merkel; Wolfgang Schäuble;Michel Sapin; David Cameron ...A Karjavina (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Er, do tell where your WP:RS for this figure comes from! Being able to communicate in English tends to be useful, too... particularly from someone who appears to be using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on Ukrainian cities' leads

Just a remind. Consensus should incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Some important naming conventions and manuals of style Ukrainian cities' leads do not comply with (WP:LEAD#General guidelines and WP:LEAD#Separate section usage): Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".' If the case is exceptional, common sense may be applied to ignore all rules. Please discuss to see whether there are good reasons to exempt the cities from the general manuals and conventions or not.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What is your point, and how does this relate to this article? This is an article talk page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My question is what is the consensus for alternative names of Ukrainian cities. When proposing the manual of style on Ukrainian cities I was reverted there because of a consensus for cities in Ukraine in general. This consensus exempt the articles from the rules while I remind that consensus should respect policies and guidelines. I suggest users to check if it is best for this consensus to ignore all rules. The consensus may be possibly improved or reconsidered if there are good reasons for this.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS trumps all wikilawyering. This practice of naming for Ukrainian cities has been very stable for several years because of it. --Taivo (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130510032158/http://archunion.com.ua/sovet-2005/gradsovet_05_12_07.shtml to http://archunion.com.ua/sovet-2005/gradsovet_05_12_07.shtml

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition of Chornozem Sub section in Geography Section

Hello editors,

I realized that the wiki Ukraine article did not have a section on Ukraine's chornozem (black top soil).

I would like to add a brief subsection about this under Geography.

Something like: "The chernozems of central Ukraine, among the most fertile soils in the world, occupy about two-thirds of the country’s area. These soils may be divided into three broad groups: in the north a belt of the so-called deep chernozems, about 5 feet (1.5 metres) thick and rich in humus; south and east of the former, a zone of prairie, or ordinary, chernozems, which are equally rich in humus but only about 3 feet (1 metre) thick; and the southernmost belt, which is even thinner and has still less humus. Interspersed in various uplands and along the northern and western perimeters of the deep chernozems are mixtures of gray forest soils and podzolized black-earth soils, which together occupy much of Ukraine’s remaining area. All these soils are very fertile when sufficient water is available. However, their intensive cultivation, especially on steep slopes, has led to widespread soil erosion and gullying." Source: http://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine

The soil (and agriculture) has been an important cultural and economic part of the country throughout the centuries.

"Ukrainian lands traditionally functioned as a source of agricultural products and raw materials. That tradition, which went back to prehistoric times and which characterized as well the period of Kievan Rus' and Polish-Lituanian rule, was to be continued during the long nineteenth century under the hegemony of the Russian Empire.

In effect, Dnieper Ukraine became the empire's most important agricultural land, the proverbial "bread basket of Russia." Wheat, in particular, was the major export commodity and earner of foreign currency. From 1812 to 1859 Dnieper Ukraine accounted for 75 percent of all exports from the Russian Empire; by the last half-decade (1909-1913) of the historic nineteenth century that figure had reached a remarkable 98 percent."

Source: Paul Robert Magocsi. Ukraine: An Illustrated History. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007.

Svyatver (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Added a subsection on soils, describing the chornozems. Used Magocsi's "A history of Ukraine: The land and its peoples" and the article on Ukraine from the web version of Encyclopedia Britannica (Primary Contributors: Andrij Makuch, Ihor Stebelsky, Ivan Alekseyevich Yerofeyev, Lubomyr A. Hajda, Oleksa Eliseyovich Zasenko, Stepan Andriyovich Kryzhanivsky). Svyatver (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111009163812/http://www.tymoshenko.ua/en/article/3o3zxoz9 to http://www.tymoshenko.ua/en/article/3o3zxoz9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bartleby.com/65/ki/KievanRu.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archunion.com.ua/sovet-2005/gradsovet_05_12_07.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Territory of Ukraine not disputed

The map shows Crimea in a different colour, noting its status is "disputed". This is legally incorrect. Only Russia regards its annexation as being legally legitimate. The international community regards Crimea as remaining part of Ukraine, and under international law Crimea is not a part of Russia.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That is still a dispute. Ukraine claims it AND Russia claims it. Whether the two claims are recognized by anyone else is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a definitive list of countries which are members of that nebulous "International Community" club. Have any links?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.245.140 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

[12] --Taivo (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha-ha! What about Kuril Islands? Japan and Russia also disagree about their status - should they be painted in a different color on the Russia map?--V.lukyanyuk (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes--Khajidha (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Khajidha So go for it--V.lukyanyuk (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The light green Crimea territory must be marked as illegally occupied by Russia--Dr. Ombrax (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It is marked as disputed with Russia. That is a fact. The legality of the situation is a matter of opinion. --Khajidha (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts be a different colour as they are too disputed territories, due to the armed insurgency? Cganuelas (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cganuelas: No, they are not 'disputed' territories in that sense. They are unrecognised states. Furthermore, they are considered to be 'illegal' in terms of international recognition per the Minsk II protocols. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Illegally claiming a territory and subsequently annexing it does not make the territory disputed but rather de jure occupied. By granting Crimea a disputed status, Russia is given undue legitimacy for its actions. Furthermore, as briefly mentioned above, the UN has condemned the actions and reiterated that Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukakach (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That is still a dispute. Two countries each claim the same land. Saying so gives no legitimacy to either one. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It is what it is. There is no dispute, that Crimea, through its own legislation and referendum voted to remove itself from Ukraine, to that of the Russian Federation. Any talk of a dispute or it being meaningless to the UN is irrelevant. As far as the provinces of Donestsk and Luhansk, again these were already virtually independent areas to begin with. Through their own legislation and referendum, they voted themselves as a type of confederate state within Ukraine. Again, there is nothing to dispute. It is what it is. Just because some states or even the UN doesn't like it, doesn't affect their sovereignty and/or their legal process. 68.58.26.165 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is what it is: disputed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource which records what mainstream secondary sources have to say on the matter, not my personal POV, your POV, or an other editor's POV. See WP:NOR... and read WP:SOAP. Do not use talk pages as your personal soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

New paragraph not supported by its citations

A new editor has added a new paragraph today[13]

Cancellation of the official status of Russian language, violent behaviour of far right group Right Sector and disagreement with new government's politics caused massive protest in Eastern Ukraine where people organised pro-Russian manifestations.

So let us see whether the citations support this.

• Elder, Miriam (2012-07-04). "Ukrainians protest against Russian language law". the Guardian. Retrieved 2016-06-02. This is an article from 2012. It claims that Ukrainians were protesting against the Russian language being given official status. FAIL
• Kramer, Andrew E. (2014-03-02). "Ukraine Turns to Its Oligarchs for Political Help". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-06-02. This is an article about the choice of governors. FAIL

I am deleting the new paragraph, as it is not supported by the citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to revert information on refugees

Amitashi (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC): Before my entrance there was a long lived information block about refugees that I suggested to revert during my recent edit.
I believe it was accidentially deleted during edit warring by My very best wishes and then by Ian.thomson.
Those deletions targeted my edits but somehow affected information I didn't added. Here is information block:
According to the United Nations, 730,000 Ukrainian refugees have fled to Russia since the beginning of 2014 and 117,000 have fled to other parts of Ukraine.

References

The role of the oligarchs isn't explained

The page doesn't even use the word oligarch.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/mar/09/ukraines-oligarchs-who-are-they-which-side-are-onXx236 (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/22/ukrainian-oligarchs-settle-mine-dispute-worth-billions-out-of-court Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/13/dethroning-ukraines-oligarchs-a-how-to-guide/Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine lost half of its territory

Unsourced. Which Ukraine lost its territory? Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine became a founding member

"The quoted EB says that Ukraine was ruled from Moscow.

According to The Formation of the Soviet Union, Communism and Nationalism, 1917–1923 by R. Pipes the USSR was ruled by the higly centralized Communist party. Please prove that became a founding member was important.

Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant citations

1. The information is not supported by the link provided in the citation to the following sentence: The history of Ukrainian literature dates back to the 11th century, following the Christianisation of the Kievan Rus'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Давид Эвоян (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Climate

I've noted several changes to the 'climate' sub-header. Given that this is a general/umbrella article, I'm pleased to see that the elaboration and new map have been reverted. Further to that, there isn't even an article on Climate of Ukraine hatnoted as the main article: it's a single line in the Geography of Ukraine article: "Ukraine has a temperate continental climate with cold winters and warm summers. Ukraine's climates are influenced by the humid air from the Atlantic Ocean." As I see it, the single line should be in this article, whereas the more detailed information should be in the purported 'main' article. Would anyone object to my literally swapping the contents of these sections over? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Iryna Harpy: I moved the content to geography of Ukraine with these edits (edit 1 for transferring table and edit 2 for moving the content). I do not think the single line should be in this article given that the climate information is very little compared to other countries such as Australia, Argentina (good example), and India (I only searched on google using English phrases since I do not know any Ukrainian or Russian which may contain more info). I think 3 or 4 sentences is good enough (both Australia and India have a similar amount of content dedicated to climate compared to this article) since too little makes the climate section seem irrelevant while too much is redundant. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ssbbplayer: Cheers for that. I've hatnoted the the section to point to the geography article entry, although that may be a little on the redundant side considering that the only difference is a table for the main metropolitan areas. I'm just working on the premise that it may encourage editors to develop the relevant article entry, but it's really neither here nor there. If any other editors wish to remove the hatnote, feel free to do so. I do have it in mind to use the Ukrainian and Russian articles to develop it myself, but that's certainly not on the cards as I'm working on other articles at the moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'

1. Kievan Rus' is part of Russian history, not Ukrainian.
2. The national identity of Ukrainians is supported with no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Давид Эвоян (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WOW!Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Russian trolls make a hit and run. --Taivo (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. The Kievan Rus' cat was just added to the article on "Russia" and "Belarus" here and here. Either the shoe fits for all three articles, or it doesn't. Which is it to be?... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It is part of Ukrainian history, because Ukrainians are Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotaro97 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. That's probably why Russians don't mind calling themselves Ukrainians. Все равно, да. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we are all Africans. I'll be back after I fix a few million categories about this... unless I need sources or something? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Ukraine's displeasure of unpopular Maidan consequences

Pay attention that in current version of article whole "Separately..." paragraph is logically incomplete. It begins with "Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions...". But that doesn't logically link to anything! With new addition it would be logically completed: "Protests... Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions..." Also addition is recommended because of absense of info that corresponds "pro-Russian protest in Donetsk". Here is suggested addition.
"Unpopular language law project, appointments of new governors and rise of far right views caused protest in Eastern Ukraine where people organised pro-Russian manifestations."

So let us see whether the citations support this.

• "Watch Your Tongue: Language Controversy One Of Fundamental Conflicts In Ukraine". International Business Times. 2014-03-03. Retrieved 2016-06-04. This source says that the "temporary repeal of the 2012 law sparked outrage from Ukraine to Moscow and even in the European Union"; but it does not say that it was a cause of protests in Eastern Ukraine. FAIL
• Kramer, Andrew E. (2014-03-02). "Ukraine Turns to Its Oligarchs for Political Help". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-06-02. Just the same as before. Does not support the claim that the choice of governors was a cause of protests in Eastern Ukraine. FAIL
• Ishchenko, Volodymyr (2014-11-13). "Ukraine has ignored the far right for too long – it must wake up to the danger | Volodymyr Ishchenko". the Guardian. Retrieved 2016-06-04. Does not support the claim that the rise of far right views was a cause of protests in Eastern Ukraine. FAIL

-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC):Thanks for your criticism, Toddy1. I ask other users to express their opinions on cites and to revise if Toddy1's arguments are politically affilated chicanery.
And for Toddy1: suggest your version because as I said current paragraph has lack of logic.

Toddy1 has just pointed out that you have misrepresented what the sources say -- in other words, the only politically affiliated chicanery here is your behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1 is right on target. --Taivo (talk) 8:13 am, Today (UTC+8)

Amitashi (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Toddy1 has bold signs of political affilation. First of all she has pro-Ukrainian user page. Also she calls RT unreliable source while it is international worldwide acclaimed agency that is number one in YouTube. Also RT is essential in understannding pro-Russian protests because it was rare agency that had war reporters in Eastern Ukraine who collected exclusive information on locals' views. It's not a secret that situation in Ukraine is contoversial so we should use various sources to get full picture! Despite I used no RT cites in new suggestion Toddy1 still reverted. Article now is pretty one sided! If you want to view my RT cites watch my previous edits. Word "FAIL" Toddy1 frequently uses shows that she gloats at reverting showing no support or welcome to new user. Thanks for your opinion Ian.thomson and let's wait for another comments and suggestions! Article still has lack of logic. If majority would agree with my suggestion I will edit. If in that case you will illegally use your admin power to revert, your action will have consequences. Amitashi (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC): I will accept any result. At least I pointed to article's issues.

Wow. Are you even capable of considering the possibility that you're in the wrong here? That maybe people won't agree with you? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

' Russia Today is internationally acclaimed ...' ha ha ha! PLEASE. If you can't tell a (well-funded by Putin's regime) political propaganda vehicle when you see one, not sure what to tell you. 98.67.2.55 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian Flag: blue and yellow or yellow and blue?

There's a controversy about the flag of Ukraine. Most have blue above yellow, but some insist it's yellow above blue. To a non-Ukrainian, at first glance they may look the same. There's been recent attempts to promote the "correct" version here and in other Ukrainian articles (Flag of Ukraine, National colours of Ukraine). Just FYI. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This Kyiv [sic] Post article will explain. Yellow on top is acceptable in a pre-1918 context.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The recent edits are promoting it to be more current, implying something with equal footing with the blue-on-top. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless parliament itself has enacted a new variation by law, the configuration is 'yellow wheat below a blue sky above'. It represents the bounty of the land. Any other interpretation with yellow on top is OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Asking editors to watch for future attempts to inject this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up, A D Monroe III. I've added the other two articles to my watchlist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And, unless specifically defined (as it is here), the standard ordering of colors in heraldic blazonry is left to right, top to bottom. So, both "blue and gold" and "gold underneath blue" describe the same color combination. --Taivo (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)