I am worried that non-UA speaking readers will have a difficulty navigating through the table. While those looking for Bukovina will always click on Bukovyna, someone looking for Right-bank Ukraine is unlikely to know to click on Pravoberezhna link. Any ideas on how to resolve this for each case? Words like Volhynia and Galicia (again how likely to associate with Halychyna for an en-speaker) exist while they may have multiple meanings. Ideas and proposed solutions are welcome. --Irpen04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have purged loads of Russian lands that are not Ukrainian (or never were). I do not see actually much use of the template. For instance one can make Historical areas of the Russian Empire and that will give quite a lot of people ingulfed in edit wars. I propose a TfD. --Kuban Cossack14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be a hot discussion. I suggest for a time being to not add the template to any more articles until Krys and Kazak figure this out. I would have helped too, but, for now, I am not sure what to do as I expressed in my earlier post. I will follow their discussion.
On a side note, KPbIC, seize stalking Kuban kazak. This is bordeline to harassment if not the harassment already. --Irpen18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am not a big fan of such "historical regions" templates. But, such templates do exist, even at the worse scale, as for example Template:Romanian historical regions, which specifically lists Romanian regions which are currently outside of Romania. If so, then presenting similar information for Ukrainians would not bring any additional harm.
Kuban kazak, please note that the listed regions are not "historical regions of Ukraine", but "historical Ukrainian regions", that is the regions historically populated by Ukrainians.
Irpen, I'm following recently changed Ukraine-related articles, and Kuban has happened to be one of the editors. He does as well contribute to other topics (a recent mediation on Moscow metro is one of the examples), which I have no interest in. It is not a personality of Kuban kazak that I'm following, but Ukrainian articles that I'm interested in, and have some knowledge to contribute. --KPbIC19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Kuban is not a Ukrainian region, historically or not. At least, care to discuss. I also see no reason to load the En-L reader with unfamiliar words, since the English words exist. If you want to add Ukrainian-based words to EN-lang, be it radhosp or Karpats'ka Rus', do it in the books you write.
And don't lie that you happen to notice Kuban's edits as you were watching the article's anyway. For insance, you came to troll to Maladzechna purely through stalking and nothing else. --Irpen19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See 1897 Russian Empire census data for Kuban': [1]
Well in that case it would need to include USA and Canada. As for our dialect, not a single authentic 18th century chronicle which we have preserved mentions the word Ukraine. Also I like the fact of having Kursk and Starodub seriously howabout I make a template historical Russian regions and add Novorossiya, Malorossiya, Tavriya, Donbass to it? Or of course that would mean I would have to put all of the areas part of the Russian Empire: Volyn, Podolia, Privisla... I would think that that is rather chauvinistic...yet you certainly see no problem with doing the opposite. Double standards? --Kuban Cossack20:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, if you have anything new to say about Maładečna, do so on the talk page. How did you find out about a small Belarusian town, Maładečna? --KPbIC19:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said everything I have to say about Maldzechna at its discussion page and will say more there. Here, I am talking about stalking other editors and your counter-question implies your admitting to stalking. I can answer your question still as I don't stalk anyone. I saw an anouncement at RU-portal posted on May 14, 2005 shortly before midnight GMT and posted my first entry seven hours after that. You, OTOH, where there less than an hour after Kazak, reverting him at 22:16 before the issue sparked any discussion or announcements. Same applies to your appearance at this newly created page (immediately after it popped up in KK's contributions list).
What lie? Your talk is on my watchlist and there is nothing wrong with that. I commented to the discussion at your talk that was ongoing and I did not get to the article by stalking on anyone's edits. My original statement was that you stalk people here stands and you cannot deny it. Your attempting to turn the table here won't fly. --Irpen
Your statement that "I saw an announcement at RU-portal ... and posted my first entry ... after that" is incorrect. Your first entry on the subject was before the announcement, as the links I provided above indicates. Now, you say that my talk page is on your watch list. And why is that on your watch list? Neither yours nor Kuban's talk pages are on my watch list. Then who should accuse whom of stalking? And before, accusing me of stalking, at least, please read what is stalking and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talk • contribs)
The reason why talk pages of many people are in my watchlist is explained clearly on the top of my own talk page. My first entry at your page was prompted by the previous discussion already there that I noticed. My first entry at the article's page and its talk followed the announcement as I said earlier. In both cases, I did not stalk you and your accusations are simply a disgusting attempt to turn tables here.
I don't care about you calling me names, even in the edit summaries, where they will stay forever, but as fas as stalking is conserned, you are welcome to do it after me if this satirfies your curiousity. By stalking others you are expanding on your reputation and creating a bad climate all around. --Irpen00:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now I see you making edits to unrelated articles prompted by my contibutions. Personally, I welcome the scrutiny of my edits, especially by the detractors. So, be my guest. However, there are reasons why stalking is considered harassment and is widely frown upon. --Irpen21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, do you have anything to say on "Ukrainian historical regions"? Don't abuse this talk page. "Be my guest", "don't be my guest".. When would you finally realize that this is a voluntary-driven public project? --KPbIC22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say at the talk what I see fit and I reprimanded you for stalking at the page where I encountered it. If Kazak takes it to admin boards and/or RfC it is his business. I only go to those pages when I absolutely have to and, as I don't mind being stalked, I don't care. You asked me how I got to Madzechna in rhetorical form that implied that I stalked you. I simply elaborated on your false asumption.
As for this project being driven by this or that, it is first of all driven by cooperation of editors and your singling out people to stalk and revert them is anything but that. Harrassing other editors this way only earns you more of a reputation. --Irpen22:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't care about reputations and all of such stuff. I care about the project. Espacially recently, you seem to be the one who spend enormous amount of time on all kinds of discussions about personalities of editors. On this talk page you have only written one sentence in relation to "Ukrainian historical regions" moving the discussion away from the topic. And, note that you have brought the issue of stalking here trying to acquire me of such, while in fact people has been pointing out on you that you had been stalking them, and in part following their complains you were given a warning by an admin. You should really stop attacking people, and go back on contributing something, which I know, you are capable to do, and actually, to do well. --KPbIC23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see building a healthy climate no less important than immediate writing. When you attack and stalk people all around WP, including in the edit summaries, I see the need to address that too. It is funny you bringing the "warnings" issue here. I am not really sure what are you talking about, but if you elaborate, you will get a response to whatever you want to know within reason of course. --Irpen00:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, if you want to contribute toward healthy climate, then start with yourself. Avoid accusing others for reason, and no reason. Just above you made a claim that "I attack and stalk people all around WP". Did you think about contributing toward healthy climate when you wrote it? We may spend a few next days, looking under microscope on my actions of "attacking" and "stacking" and the relativity of "all around WP" remark. But you would not get an elephant out of a dog, or KPbIC. If you want a better climate, then avoid such comments as [2], and introductions as [3]. First explain your arguments on the talk page, then revert. You were doing that before. Why did you stop showing positive examples? You went down over the last half year. If you want healthy climate, then start with yourself. This is the last comment I'm willing to make on this unrelated to the main discussion issue. -KPbIC02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Krys, when I don't explain the reverts at talk, I explain them at the edit summaries[4][5][6][7][8] which where much more explained than the reverts like these[9][10][11]. I would have invited you to study my edits under the microscope but I won't only because you are already doing just that, as evidenced again above. Please continue if this is what you enjoy doing. I see your habit of stalking KK as unhealthy and pointing this out is almost the only thing I can do about that. This discussion started at this page only because the conflict was prompted by your edits and reverts through coming her, as well as to other pages, through stalking KK. If I had anything to say to you in general, I would have used your talk, or policy pages if I saw the disruption severe enough to warrant that.
The template is rather controversial by itself. Than you came here and altered the names to the versions totally incomprehensible and useless for the English reader (as you've done before in another article). We will have enough trouble discussing which regions the template should include and WP:Point with UA names is a mere disruption, and unwarranted one too. --Irpen03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to reformat the table to be able to accomodate several names for entries. Some of the words have no meaning for an English reader and some have little meaning and even that one is ambiguous. There is a complete clarity regarding lands like Galicia, Volhynia and Bukovina widely found in EN-lang historic books. It is also entirely clear that Left- and Right- bank Ukraine as well as the Black See have clear meanings, both in English and historically. Similarly transparent are Subcarpathia and Transcarpathia.
Some regions can be covered in full by two names according to their usage. Examples are Novorossiya (New Russia), Sloboda Ukraine (Slobozhanshchina), Dnieper Ukraine (Naddnipryanschyna), etc. However, I don't have a clear picture on what to do with some of the other names, how many we should give and how to format the table. Perhaps Krys wants to think of the table format in his spare time.
Also, the table should include the territorries inhabited by Ukrainians of the time when such consept (of a nation) existed in some form. Example: that Uliches and Tiverians lived at Danube and Dniester hardly qualifies.
DDima borrowed the template from the Ukrainian wikipedia, and I understand it lists the regions which are similar by culture and ethnicity to the regions within Ukraine. I'm satisfied with the list as it was initially. But someone wants it to be Bukovina, not Bukovyna. The second is the historical Ukrainian name of the region. There is some logic for both spellings, but then should not the same logic be applied to Hertza/Hertsa region? Similarly, defending recent census results in Ukraine, and Moldova (which is the action I actively support), should not the results of 1897 census be also recognize as they are, whether someone likes the results or nor. --KPbIC00:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know the answers to all questions here. Certainly the familiar names should be used for the English reader. What other names to use is not so easy to decide and what "regions" to include (Manitoba anyone?) is not so easy to decide. --Irpen00:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bad feeling that this template is not a very good idea, and the edit wars that may arise from it will far outweigh any benefits it provides in organising the information. In general, I am against any templates of the form "Historical regions of country X".
Having said that, I am puzzled by regions San River and Chełm. One is a river and the other is a city, so they are clearly not regions. Please change these names to something more reasonable. Balcer00:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the biggest source of conflicts that I can see is the inclusion in this template of regions that today lie outside the borders of Ukraine. Obviously, such an inclusion would open an endless can of worms. Any thoughts on this? Balcer01:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that this template is informative, just as Russian historical regions or Polish historical regions would be. I can accept the idea of Vistulan Country being a historical Russian region, or Suwałki Lithuanian - but I am afraid some others may not, or from the other perspective, would not accept defining Wilno, Minsk or Kiev as historical Polish regions. If this is the case, then this template would be premature, I am afraid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well see that is the big difference, there is nothing wrong with a template say Guberniyas of Russian Empire, which would include not the modern Polish areas, but articles that are specifically deal with the historic Russian subdivisions of say Poland or Filand or whatever. E.g Vistualan Country, Sedletsk Guberniya, Kholm Guberniya and so on. However here it is a case of neo-chauvinism when people simply group as many regions as possible to show how massive historically the land is. Ukraine never owned Kursk or Kuban. --Kuban Cossack11:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming it would be a good idea. I think that we should just not add this template to lands currently not in Ukraine, but still keep those place names in the template, so as to not create any more conflicts. —dima /sb.tk/ 01:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kuban018.jpgUkraina: Kyiv 1998 (checked and published by command of Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine). ISBN 966-7085-17-1.
I agree with the concept of having such a template, as well as having it somewhat closer to the original version. The "purging" was absolutely unnecessary as we already acknowledge Ukrainian historical regions in WP. I liked that the original version listed the Ukrainian names for the region, because that is something that is worth knowing as well as the "english versions". However, I agree with Irpen that some sort of middle ground should be met for those with no familiarity with Ukraine. Bukovyna is no problem. How about something like [[Right-bank Ukraine|Pravoberezhna Ukrayina (Right-bank Ukraine)]]?
File:P8030058.JPGUSA map Atlas of World History: Harper Collins ISBN 0-72-301025-0.
As for crossing over current national boundaries, this is something that already is done in both Romanian and Polish articles, and so long as we are clear that creating articles on WP are not a declaration of war, everyone should just relax a little. Kuban' has been included on countless Ukrainian maps (I just received an old UPA book from eBay yesterday, and wouldn't you know it, Kuban' is included in the "ethnographic boundary"). It along with other areas that cross current national borders do not in any way represent a change in national borders. But to exclude them is not giving a complete description of the historic regions of Ukraine.--tufkaa16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kuban kazak, I don't know what has got into you lately (uncivility), but please remain civil at all times. I DO NOT consider that Kuban' is Ukrainian territory. But pls see these two maps: One is published in UKRAINE and the other, a world history atlas published in USA. —dima /sb.tk/ 23:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raw sources like original early 19th century chronicles that I can scan in next time I go to Krasnodar. Also an atlas means nothing to me, seeing The Times historical atlas (which has an identical map) which has Kievan Rus maps with rivers that have reservoirs formed from Soviet time Dams...Here is a raw source: [12]. --Kuban Cossack23:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also a little side note on the maps, have a look on the uk wiki talk page and the articles that Yakudza gave, if sources like these [13] are used, they discredit wikipedia English and Ukrainian. Moreover however have a look on the map given there [14]... I could not help but notice the similarities, and that is a worrying thought of just how far are people prepared to step against WP:POINT. --Kuban Cossack01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Kuban, etc. were never territory of the Ukraine, nor Kuban Cossacks consider themself Ukrainian, nor they were considered Ukrainian by any official census or any official classification. If you agree with this, then please stop adding this regions into the template, it might be consider vandalism. If you disagree, please provide Reliable sources confirming Kuban etc to be a Historical Ukrainian Region. abakharev23:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, would you classify the results of 1897 Russian Empire census as a reliable source? While it's only one of arguments, but it's commonly a single most significant argument (as the census results are). If you agree with that, could you withdraw the statement, that the population of Kuban "was never considered Ukrainian by any official census". If not, why do you think the census results are not reliable? --KPbIC00:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the 2002 census? Is that not reliable that the people who listed themselves as Cossacks are exclussively under Russian, or the article [15] which states Интересно, что на заключительном этапе исследования они решили добавить в список Южного региона фамилии жителей Краснодарского края, ожидая, что преобладание украинских фамилий потомков запорожских казаков, выселенных сюда Екатериной II, ощутимо сократит общерусский список. Но это дополнительное ограничение сократило список общерусских фамилий всего на 7 единиц - до 250. Из чего вытекал очевидный и не для всех приятный вывод, что Кубань населена в основном русскими людьми. А куда делись и были ли вообще здесь украинцы - большой вопрос. Ie. Ivanov, Petrov, and Sidorov are still the most common surnames in Kuban, rural and urban alike (and all of the data was collected from rural areas). Moreover the abundancy of -enkos and -chuks (or -enkovs for that matter) is not greater than say in Vladimir Oblast.--Kuban Cossack00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about historical Ukrainian regions.
Nonetheless, as you citation indicates, even in 2002 the inclusion of Краснодарского края into список Южного региона has affected the list by decreasing the number of общерусских фамилий by 7 surnames. That is, even nowadays, Краснодарский край is distinguised from the rest of Южный регион. --KPbIC00:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
by 7 surnames So instead of whatever Kozlov we have a typical Ciracssian name of Magomedov, from intertribe and interhost marriages. ;) --Kuban Cossack11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the dilemma here does exist. There are certainly works by Ukrainian authors where Kuban is mentioned in the context of Ukrainian etnography. There are also works that deny the Ukrainianness of Kuban (without even denying the historical connection between the territory and the Cossacks from Ukraine that settled it), so such inclusion while not entirely out of whack may indeed be disputable. We really have to come up with accepted criteria. Under which ones is Manitoba excluded? This seems very complicated to me and the answers should crystallize from normal and civil discussions. --Irpen00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also said earlier that we need to set some time frames here. Populating of the regions by our ancestors from how long ago should qualify? It is generally accepted that the modern concept of the nation appeared only in the 19th century. Not by coinsidence, the concept of the modern Ukrainian nation also appeared only at that time. However, the clear and straightforward connection between the Ukrainian nation and the the Cossacks of the 18th century is obvious. Gumilyov considers Cossackdom as the foundation of the modern Ukrainian nation. I think this makes sense. Mainstream scholars view Khmelnytsky and his cossacks as unquestionably Ukrainian people, while calling Ostrozhskiy (1526 - 1608) as well as his father, Ukrainians, while occasionally done by some Ukrainian scholars, is at least questionable. --Irpen00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However one can also say that even though Khmelnitsky was cosidered Ukrainian, yet that happened in mid-19th century. Here is another article: [16] which deals with that aspect: В Украине же особенно в 19 веке сложился своеобразный "Запорожский миф" существующий до сего дня и канонизированный учебниками истории, по которому в 1775 году "клятые москали по врожденной ненависти к украинцам разрушили последний светлый луч в темном царстве- Запорожскую Сечь." И все и точка. И ни слова про возрождение казачества, через несколько лет. Про его славную историю. Про то что современные кубанцы и есть те самые запорожцы. Ясно, что правда разрушает миф про "клятых москалив". Умалчивание связи между запорожцами и кубанцами позволяло, всевозможным демократам 19 века, как правило шляхтичам, сидя в теплых усадьбах рассуждать про то "что нема козакив, нема воли". Хотя стоило лишь только съездить на Кубань, и там увидеть и запорожцев и волю сколько хочешь, но для этого нужно было бросить теплую усадьбу, а этого не хотелось, тому паны демократы продолжали как в ничем небывало "нема козакив, нема воли". Сейчас о кубанцах помалкивают потому что в последнее время у нас своих "потомков запорожцев" развелось видимо невидимо которые монополизируют историческую память про Сечь и зачем им еще какие-то конкуренты. Кроме того многие современные кубанцы стоят на русских патриотических позициях, вспомнить хотя бы краснодарского губернатора Кондратенко, и говорят о необходимости восточнославянского единства. Что невероятно нервирует наших слишком "свидомых украинцев", многие из которых любят пощеголять в неких псевдоказачьих мунирах, позвякивая неизвестно за что полученными медальками. Тому и создают украинские историки мифы про окончательный разгон запорожской Сечи в 1775 году. Так спокойнее. --Kuban Cossack00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see, both versions are not vandalism. Should we try to see a compromise first or directly go to some sort of polling? I could lock the template for the time of the discussion? abakharev00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of contemprory evidence is there a need to go through the polling, in fact I know where all of the maps originate from, the 1897 census, but remember back then all of the Kuban Cossacks would have listed their ethnicity as Russian (although not Great Russian, as even now the 2002 census recognises that Cossacks are Ruthenian people but are neither Great nor Small Russians). The census takers would have most likely compared the dialect spoken to determine (as back then there existed no separate headings for Ruthenian ethnicities, only for dialects). As our balachka does have traces of 18th century Malorussian then that would have served as the guide for the census takers. Fact is we are not Malorussians, neither were Zaporozhian Cossacks for that matter. Malorussia is Podolia, Volhynia, Galicia, Sloboda the steppes were not even settled then. Read Gogol's Bulba if anyone has doubts. And Zaporozhian Cossacks consisted of everybody, Belarusians Malorusians, even some Poles and Tatars that took up the Orthodox faith. As for 19th century, hell there is every possible roots from war-brides, interhost marriages and so on. I mean take our Cherkesska dress, or the Lezginka dance, and you will think that you are on the Caucasus mountain aul than in anything resembling Ukraine... Last but not least, map of Russian dialects [17].
Here is another point about 1897 census take the northern Volhynian/west Polessian border region of Ukraine and Belarus. The maps composed of 1897 census put the area as Ukrainian, however keeping the note about dialects take the image, which shows the language spoken in the area as a dialect of ...Belarusian NOT Ukrainian. File:Belarusian dialect map.jpgBelarusian dialects.
I think I can conclude that the 1897 census, that remains the sole piece of evidence for Ukrainian Kuban has enough irregularities to seriously question its accuracy and CREDIBILITY for ethnic determination. However the new evidence like 2002 census and the Russian gene pool investigation article that I gave paints a much clearer picture and further weakens the 1897 census, and certainly old UPA books that Tufkaa brought up...well I will remain civil on what I have to think about that. --Kuban Cossack00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More background on the the population of areas outside Ukraine current national borders consisting of Ukrainian enclaves, from The Second Soviet Republic: The Ukraine After World War II (Rutgers University Press, 1964) by Yaroslav Bilinsky, p.328n81:
See Kubiyovych for a concise discussion of where Ukrainians live in the USSR. In his earlier article in Entsyclopediya ukrayinoznavstva (Encyclopedia of Ukrainian Studies, Munich: Molode Zhyttya, 1949), Vol. I, p. 164, Professor Kubiyovych gave detailed estimates on the distribution of Ukrainians in the Soviet Union as of 1930. He found, for example, that 3.4 million Ukrainians were living in a compact mass in contiguous areas of the Russisan Republic (that is, areas incorporated into the Russian SFSR that were contiguous to the Ukraine). In those areas the Ukrainians constituted about two-thirds of the total population (or, 66.0 per cent). In order of magnitude, those areas were: the Kursk and Voronezh provinces (incidentally, the area in which Krushchev had been born) contained 1.4 million Ukrainians (64.2 per cent of total population); the western part of the North Caucasus region (known as the Kuban region) with 1.3 million Ukrainians (63.8 per cent of the total); the Don region, with about 600,000 Ukrainians (76.8 per cent). Given appropriate conditions those contiguous areas may be claimed by the Ukraine as Ukrainian ethnic territories.
As Kuban Cossack pointed out, these areas did not register Ukrainian pluralities in the latest census. However, historically it seems Ukrainians did populate those areas. There is no territorial claim being made here, just an acknowledgement of what was.--tufkaa04:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the parenthetical mention of Krushchev negates the statistics mentioned. (Thank you for pointing out the common misconception, Irpen. For the sake of transparency, I didn't want to selectively edit the paragraph. I guess I could have added it afterwards.)
What happened to the million+ in Kuban'? I will quote from The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation (Yale University Press, 2002), by Andrew Wilson. First on page 152:
There was a real fear amongst Ukrainian dissidents in the 1960s and 1970s that they were losing the battle. Just as Ukrainian culture had been eradicated from territories beyind the Ukrainian SSR in the 1930s (such as the Kuban, the refuge of many Zaporozhian Cossacks in the 1790s) and eastern Poland in the late 1940s, they feared it would soon disappear in Soviet Ukraine itself.
He goes on to quote some samizdat documents about national genocide, however to further understand what he is talking about, one could look at his description of Ukrainian migration within the Russian Empire/USSR on page 117:
There was also considerable out-migration from the Ukrainian territories in the Russian Empire, but it was of a very different character. First, because it was in the opposite direction - eastwards to agricultural territories in the Kuban and North Caucasus (which Ukrainians call Malynovi Klyn or "The Painted Wedge"), to Southern Siberia (Siryi Klyn, "Grey Wedge") and even the Far East (Zelenyi Klyn, "Green Wedge"), given the popularity of the sea route from Odesa; then to the melting-pot cities in the Soviet Period. Numerically this was a larger movement than that to the New World, at its peak between the abolition of serfdom in 1861 and Krushchev's "Virgin Lands" campaign in the 1950s (which encouraged Slavic settlement in the "virgin" Kazakh steppe). The last Soviet census in 1989 recorded 6.8 million Ukrainians resident in the USSR outside Ukraine, though Ukrainian sources go as high as 12 or even 20 million.
Wilson elaborates on this eastern migration further, with his wonderfully WP-friendly objectivity, which qualifies the "type" of Ukrainians who immigrated to Kuban' and other areas:
Those leaving were not yet Ukrainians, however, but first Orthodox peasants and then Soviet settlers. The communities they helped to create were as much east Slavic or Soviet-Russian as they were Ukrainian. Those who left Ukraine brought with them dialect and folk memory, but they lacked the resources to create truly national communities. Things could have been different in the 1920s. Ukrainian Communist leaders like Mykola Skrypnyk patronised the eastern diaspora and sposored the creation of Ukrainian schools and cultural institutions in neighbouring Russian territory (the eastern parts of Slobidska Ukraine that ended up in Voronezh, Kursk, and Belgorod oblasts), in the Kuban and even in the far east. The experiment came to an end in 1932, because a successful Ukrainianisation was incompatible with the new Stalinist nationalism. Thereafter Ukrainians were extremely vulnerable to assimilation to the new Soviet-Russian culture, especially in third-party environments such as Central Asia or the Baltic Republics.
It is the schools and cultural institutions which are note-worthy to me. The purging of these organizations is the proof of their existence, and their existence served a population. From The Black Deeds of the Kremlin: A White Book, Vol. 1 "Book of Testimonies" (Basilian Press, 1953), Chapter IV "The Struggle for the Independence of Ukraine and Liquidation of Ukrainian Intellectuals", p.337:
Before his arrest Yuriy Samborsky represented the Ukrainian Soviet Government in Moscow in matters touching upon the cultural and national needs of the Ukrainian minority in the Russian SSR. Ukrainians could and did turn to him in Moscow with their problems. When the Central Executive of the All-Union Communist (Bolshevik) Party decided, on December 14, 1932, to liquidate all Ukrainian institutions in the Russian and other Soviet republics and to send Potyshev to Ukraine, Samborsky was arrested.
There was a wave of arrests at that time. All professors and their assistants at the Ukrainian University in Blahovischensk in the Far East ("Zeleny Klyn"), institute in Krasnodar, at the teacher training college in the Potawska settlement in the Kuban region and at the normal school in Bilhorod in Kursk region, were arrested. At the same time many persons connected with Ukrainian high schools and universities, publishing houses, museums and so on, founded by Mykola Skypnuk in territories settled by Ukrainians or separated from Ukraine and included in the Russian Soviet Republic, suffered the same fate.
Later, in Chapter VI "Persecution of Religion in the USSR", the Kuban' community is alluded to on p. 486:
The church, however, had no hierarchy, no metropolitan, or bishops at the head of it. In accordance with canon law, bishops could be consecrated only by bishops, but the Russian hierarchy in Ukrain refused to acknowledge these demands for an independent Ukrainian Church. Therefore, the all-Ukrainian Orthodox Council called a conference of representatives of the faithful and clergy, where definite decisions were to be reached regarding the reforms in the Ukrainian Church and the formation of an hierarchy.
The conference opened in St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev, on October 14, 1921. Four hundred and seventy-two delegates took part in the discussions; 64 priests, 12 deacons and and laymen from different social levels. They came from all over bolshevik occupied Ukraine, including Kuban.
Petro Ver further recounted the "Devastation of Kuban" on page 441:
Pn the orders of the TsK VKP (b)* [*The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of the Bolsheviks)] and the USSR government, the population of thirteen villages in Kuban were exiled for "failure to deliver the wheat quota, and sabotage", to the far north. The exile was directed by the Assistant GPU Chief, Kabaev, authorized by the Politburo. The terrific number of "exiles" or, rather the destruction of several hundred thousand Ukrainian-Kubanese may be determnined by the following figures: the village of Poltava with a population of 17,500, Uman with a population of 45,000, and Myshatiwska with a population of over 40,000 were totally removed. Some of the villages were partially removed, for instance Ivaniw had only 50 per cent of its population exiled.
Farm implements and personal belongings which people had prepared to take along with them were taken away when they were loaded onto trains. Departures were usually conducted with public shootings and bloodshed.
First of all: all of the refereneces you give paint a different question and still do not answer my questions. If there were 1 million people in the Kuban that were Ukrainains, then they would have had some legacy that would have been inherited somehow today. I mean take the Volga Germans, there were many writers, poets famous people of German nationality yet despite the en masse destruction of the Volga German community the legacy lives on. Where is the Kuban Ukrainian legacy? Name me a Ukrainian famous person that was a Kuban native, and not from the Black Sea coastal districts (as that is geographically strictly speaking not part of the Kuban). I mean if we make a list of Russian famous people that were native of the Kuban then the list would be endless. However where are those Ukrainians? Also like I said before, the surname study is also quite convincing, if there were Ukrainians that were forced into being Russians, they would have retained their Ukrainian surnames surely. I mean even in Moscow there are countless Russians that carry Ukrainian surnames (I wonder if that would qualify as a Ukrainian ethnocultural region? ;) However you can go to any stanitsa (and please write them in Russian, the native language of the Kuban) take any family and date its records to mid-19th century with the same Russian surnames. See here is a classical case when there is a lot of foreign published works about a region ... and a compleately different practical picture there. Now the only point I do agree with them was the general migration and encouragement of settlement of Siberia in the Soviet Union and Russian Empire times. Yes this was happening, people were actually paid to go. Many left, and it is true that the Black Sea districts of the Kuban were some of those areas, from where the majority of the census number data comes from, as well as the Urban cosmopolitan areas. However, this took place after the steppes were colonised by Cossacks, and the Cossack host kept a distinct lifestyle, culture and even administration to that of the Black Sea Guberniya. It still points to the same question Does that make Kuban a Ukrainian land? Well in that case, you would have to include all of the cities on the Trans-Siberian railroad, Virgin Lands, even Alaska, and of course Canada and USA for that matter...IMO let's just keep the native Ukrainian lands if we are to keep this template.--Kuban Cossack22:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing a legacy would be rather difficult when people would be forcibly removed from their dwellings, such as the 17,500, 45,000, and 40,000+ removed from the 3 settlements. Additionally, Wilson points out that many Kuban' settlers from Ukraine were not yet Ukrainians, however, but first Orthodox peasants and then Soviet settlers. The communities they helped to create were as much east Slavic or Soviet-Russian as they were Ukrainian. Although Wilson is qualifying their "nationality", it is important to note that he equates both Ukrainian and Soviet-Russian as their background. Continuing on, he states that those who left Ukraine brought with them dialect and folk memory, but they lacked the resources to create truly national communities. Mighty tough to create a legacy with that type of foundation.
Any legacy that we would look for predates the crackdown of the 1930s, a legacy that included Ukrainian churches, schools, and cultural organizations. I've shown that these were founded in Kuban', and that Ukrainian clergy in Kuban' came to Kyiv to take part in a ecclesiastic council whose aim was to separate from the Moscow patriarchate.
Again, this is not in any way a claim that Kuban' should be Ukrainian territory. Kuban Cossack has pointed out time and again that the Ukrainian population is neglible at best in present-day Kuban'. This is jsut an acknowledgement that Kuban' held a considerable Ukrainian population for some time. Much as Lemkivshchyna lacks the the Ukrainian and/or Lemko population prior to Wisła, it is still noteworthy to point out that there was a population there at some point.--tufkaa02:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok people if Tufkaa is right and say in 1930 there were 1.3 million Ukrainains among us then where are they now? were they all exclussively female and married the male Russians to lose the Ukrainian surnames? However Soviet policy on that was father's surname mother's nationality. So the next generation had to do the opposite. Could there really have been a shortage of X and Y chromosomes in the Kuban male population at times? :) However by 1939 [18] the number of Ukrainians already falls to 150 thousand (4.7%). However by 1959-1979 it maintains a steady figure of 2.7% Yet by 1989 rises again to 3.8 %. Which means that ahem the 7 surnames that Krys so wants to talk about are due to migration that took place in the Soviet times. But here is the biggest census show: In 1989 in RSFSR there were 436 thousand Ukrainians by 2002 that number to 294 thousand. In Krasnodar Krai in 2002 there were 131774 Ukrainains down from 195883, however in reality the figure would be a lot lower, as it fails to undertake the influx of migrant workers and general migrants like my wife, who is from Rivne. At the same time there was 430 thousand Russians in 89 a figure that increased to 444 thousand (despite all the talk of falling population in Russia, it speaks for itself). And of those Russians 17.5 thousand enlisted as Cossacks. Of the Ukrainians 0 did so. Эх...
But here is some more Number Crunching, if we take Adygeya, Krasnodar and KChR rural populations we get Ukrainians have 61867 (0.9%) as a fraction of total 6913294. In Russia, as a whole, the rural population is 38737683, of which Ukrainians make 691793 (1.79)%. Thus we expect 123747 Rural Ukrainians in Kuban, and we get -61880 deficiency. I think that speaks for itself. Любо братцы любо...
Last but not least, what happened to that million people between 1930 and 1939? Were they killed in the 1933 famine? Well in that case the question arises from how was their population was distibuted, was it via distinct Ukrainian settlements, well in that case there would be compleate areas with burnt out villages, compleate gaps in the distribtuion of rural settlements, evidence for which does not exist at all. Or were they living amongst the Cossacks, then its not much of a famine if one family is starving in the stanitsa and the others are eating away. Or someone simply wrongly listed them as Ukrainains...I am convinced.--Kuban Cossack11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant, whether you are convinced or not. It doesn't take much to convince yourself. :)
What does matter is historical evidence. Why would the Russian Empire back in 1897 "wrongly list" Russians as Ukrainians? Why would Soviets "wrongly list" Russians as Ukrainians in 1930? Are there any reliable evidence of such systematic "mistakes"?
Same way how Polessia is Belarusian (Pinsk, Brest)... Once again the language is not Ukrainian but a HYBRID of Ukrainian and Russian. Even in 19th century that same hybrid was spoken, if one reads authentic diaries and texts, as well as many songs. --Kuban Cossack14:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the template from all pages where it was added. With the edit war, like now, it is counterproductive to have innocent articles be affected by it. We will discuss readdition once there is an agreement on at least the basic things. --Irpen07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(The discussion below is moved here from user talk:Irpen)
Your removal of the template lacks WP:POINT, and is a wrong respose to WP:Vandalism. If you notice that somebody vandalizes the template, by including Mars, or Jupiter, then you are expected to take the required actions against the vandal. --KPbIC03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Krys, thanks for your valuable feedback. I know I could rely on your friendly attitude. I suggest you consider the harm of adding the rabidly warred template to the whole bunch of articles. I view this template as a flame-bate. I take part in the discussion but until this is settled, there is no need to pollute innocent articles, some of them very good, with a template that takes so much heat and changes sometimes, several times within minutes. Once it is settled, I am all for adding it back to articles, especially those, whose etnographic connection with the Ukrainians is undisputed. --Irpen03:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the next time the template is vandalized, please take the appropriate actions. But, your removal of the template at this point is groundless, my friend. --KPbIC03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is by no means settled. The template is getting exceeding prominence while it has potentially inflammatory content. Once the agreement is reached or at least something crystallizes (and it also includes the name too) we will be able to easily display the template and defend it, when necessary. Until that, subjecting the innocent articles to the effects of the edit wars that have nothing to do with them will harm them. As such, I stand by my decision. Also the Halych-Volhynia is not an ethnographic region at all (those are Halychyna and Volyn, or Galicia and Volhynia). Template is totally out of place at the principality article and belongs to the historical territory ones (Galicia and Volhynia). The articles did without the template for a very long time. They can wait another week or two until some agreement regarding the template's name, names within it and its content crystallizes. This whole discussion belongs to the template's talk, btw. --Irpen03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may remove it from Halych-Volhynia per your explanation, but for the regions you have no questions about, there is no point in removing the template. --KPbIC03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I "may". However, I am tired of edit warring with you. If you want Ukrainian articles damaged by having them affected by the template that is now being under the hot discussion, have it your way. I have better things to do than edit warring with you and feeding you further. --Irpen03:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of compromise, how about separating the template on two parts:
Historical regions of Ukraine
Ukrainian language regions abroad
The latter may include Kuban, etc,, Lemkovschina and even Manitoba?
AFAIK, People in Manitoba do not reject their origins, and do not mind to acknowledge the positive elements that the Ukrainian culture introduced into their multicultural society. If it's supported by census data that at some point a significant number of settlers in Manitoba has been using Ukrainian as their language, then Manitoba should be listed as well. --KPbIC00:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of progress let's get this started. First of all, is it just Kuban' that is disputed? If not, let's name all of the disputed territories. Secondly, we should define the goal of the template. Once we have a stated definition of Ukrainian Historical Regions, we can tackle the previously listed disputed territories.--tufkaa15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also ask if there is Sloboda Ukraine, why have Kursk as a separate region. The problem is that some of the regions simply overlap (as they are from different historical periods). Maybe if one takes care to reorganise the template starting from Kievan Rus principialities then going to the Polish defenitions, then Cossack ones and then Imperial Russian guberniyas etc. and then adding a bit at the end about ethnocultural regions abroad - Lemkos, Preshov and then Cossack regions, of only lingustic influence and nothing more. --Kuban Cossack16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many regions will overlap, by I think that that is often the case with Ethnocultural regions, as they are not official boundaries.--tufkaa21:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Ukrainian Historical Ethnocultural Region is a territory which is or had been inhabited at some previous point by a considerable Ukrainian population. These territories are referred to in Ukrainian writings (songs, stories, historical documents) by a Ukrainian name, and may or may not correspond with current or past national subdivisons, and may cross current or past borders.--tufkaa15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree, but for the sake of less controversy:
Let's agree that "Ukrainian" means Cossack and the post-Cossack people which Ruthenians, both noble and common, before that were not.
I'm agreeable to both, with the caveat "for the purposes of this template, 'Ukrainian' may refer to Cossack and post-Cossack people, and not their Ruthenian predecessors". Let's wait for further comment before adding that in.--tufkaa18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in that case Don, Terek and even Transbaikalian Cossacks would also be Ukrainian? I strongly disagree same with identity of Zaporozhian Cossacks, remember that they did not see themselves as Ukrainains but only in 19th century were people starting to see them. Also the Zaporozhian Cosssack host was really so much dispersed throughout all of Russia that only a fraction (a notable one nonetheless) came to the Kuban. Also unlike in Malorossiya, there were no Ukrainain spirit that came across on the Kuban, partly because of the high living standards, but mostly because of the loyalty that we have for the Empire and the Russian people. Also the 1897 census recorded Malorossian speakers as roughly half of the Kuban, however inside the Kuban Cossacks their ethnic makeup has been mostly constant, for instance if the whole host is sent to war, everybody will bring warbrides back for themeselves or their sons. (And just how many individual wars did Russia fight in the 19th century? That is how many generations?) So Cossacks are not Ukrainains. Here is my assumption (and one that all of the Cossack host share): A Cossack can be of any ethinic makeup including Ukrainian. However he must acknowladge that if he is different from the rest of the Cossacks and is serving in the host by linguistic or religious or other, that the Cossacks are a people that are Orthodox and Russian, and is thus required to adopt both practices in order for offspring to continue serving, failure to do so will result in him being asked to move away out of the host territory on compleation of his service. That logic is actually echoed in Ukraine, where the only real Cossack people live are in the corner of Lugansk oblast. --Kuban Cossack10:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a dispute. The proposed language we've put out is, "for the purposes of this template, 'Ukrainian' may refer to Cossack and post-Cossack people, and not their Ruthenian predecessors". This statement does not dictate any nationality for Kozaky, but rather states that the term "Cossacks" may or may not refer to Ukrainians, much like your statement "A Cossack can be of any ethnic makeup including Ukrainian". Furthermore, I specifically added the caveat for the purposes of this template, in order to quell any assumptions that a precedent was being set here.
Speaking frankly, I think that the people who have been working to get this template active have been very considerate, and would like to move forward. Please help us constructively.--tufkaa14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently saw this dispute, and while I'm a bit confused by the specifics, a possible way to come to some sort of reasonable compromise about what regions to include in the template, it may be best to make a list of each region and go one by one, speaking about each individually to determine whether it should be included in the list or not. Going step by step may let us reach a compromise. For example, we could try a format like this:
It seems to me that this template is inflammatory on purpose. It duplicates the category and as such should be eliminated as soon as possible. Many entries (Marmaroshchyna, marked as part of today's Ukraine, Black Sea Ukraine, etc) smack of nationalistic original research. The guy who added them is obviously not interested in building up an encyclopaedia; he should be either banned from further trolling or submitted to the ArbCom's consideration. --Ghirla-трёп-10:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you people just exactly pointed out why it is not possible to simultaneously have Canada and Volhynia. Because Canada was settled by migrants, whilst Volhynia was an ethnically original region. In such a case Kuban is on par with Canada, Siberia, Alaska and of course Moscow's Tverskaya Street, which is why I can accept Sloboda Ukraine, which does cover Kursk and Starodub thereby not needing for separate distinguishes, however having modern Russian territories with their contemprory names is rediculous and yes it is a pure violation of WP:POINT. --Kuban Cossack14:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine includes a part of the region in the Zakarpattia Oblast. I am not sanctioning the current template in this form or any particular one: I am providing information that may help establish a standard on this topic. I for one agree that inclusion into historical regions should be done only on the basis of current territorial ownership (ie: only those regions nowadays present in X are historical regions of X), and I wonder whether the info qualifies Maramureş as one for Ukraine. I could go either way, but please discuss on the basis of this. Thank you. Dahn11:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the thread above: some of us have already agreed to change the title to Ukrainian Ethnocultural Regions, and express very clearly that this is not an act of war, but rather an acknowledgement that significant Ukrainian populations existed throughout present-day Ukraine as well as outside those borders. Ethnocultural regions are not set administratively and often cross national boundaries. This does not imply that those areas outside Ukraine's borders should be annexed by Ukraine, but rather acknowledges the efforts of millions of settlers who maintained their culture away from their homeland.--tufkaa15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And please read what I have posted before replying. Although I see major problems with viewing as "historical" regions those outside the present-day territory of country X (the implications are grotesque, IMO), I was answering mainly to the Romanian pov, by stating that a part of Maramoroshchyina is in Ukraine - hence, the issue may not apply to it at all (this is because Ghirlandajo has asked for a Romanian oppinon on the Ro notice board). I understand that you did not aim for land-grabbing, but I see no point to "Ethnocultural regions" (destined to be defined by subjectivity) and I see little sense in obscuring the difference between Ukraine and the Ukrainians (people are not regions... regions are part of states... etc.). I have to wonder about the informative value and NPOV quality of something as vaguely defined as this is. Please note that this is not because I would feel threatened by it as a Romanian (otherwise, I would not have provided the NPOV info about Maramoroshchyina), but because I cannot see its logic as a contributor. Dahn15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.. by Kuban kazak is, I think disagreeable as it confuses the state and administrative units with the historical regions. UkrSSR is the state, not a historic region. So were, eg, Halych-Volhynia or Kijow Voidodship. Please fix this asap. --Irpen18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I did not answer... I do not know how to make this template work well, but how about if we keep the current restyled one and rename it to something of the following: Ukrainian historical administrative and ethnocultural regions (or is it too bulky), so as to not give any confusion with state and historical regions. Or how about dividing the template so at the top it says Regions of Ukraine and the first section: Ukrainian ethnocultural regions and the next one Ukrainian historical states and administrative regions or smthing of the sort. What do you think? —dima/s-ko/15:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, if we do not want to separate historical and administrative regions, then the template is fine. Basicaly, either way works for me... —dima/s-ko/04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just expand the Donbass article, its the same topic. In fact Donschina is misleading as it refferes to the Don Cossack land immediately east of the Donbass, which is a Russian, not a Ukrainian, historical region. --Kuban Cossack08:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
![[14]](http://www.banderivets.org.ua/res/ussd.gif){kind=link}
![[17]](http://www.ethnology.ru/doc/narod/t1/gif/nrd-t1_0151z.gif){kind=link}
11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)