Talk:History of Ukraine

"Twentieth Century" in the sidebar

Why is the Chernobyl article not listed in chronological order? As it is, WWII is listed as happening after the Chernobyl disaster. Zaporozhian (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Galicia/Ukraine

The extreme western part of Galicia, incorporated into Poland after World War I, was part of Poland prior to the First Partition of Poland, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was never part of a unified Ukrainian state, and I believe it violates a neutral point of view to call it western Ukraine. There were two ephemeral states there after World War I, the Lemko-Rusyn Republic and the Komancza Republic. Only the latter would have willingly joined a Ukrainian state.Pustelnik 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that as the first 5000 years of history of Galicia are not mentioned you do not consider that before 1914 Galicia was not part of Ukraine at any time in its history. I will research the matter then

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Conversion in 988

Cyril converted the nobles in 988? That was Volodymyr. Cyril was about 120 years earlier, he might have converted a few, I don't know.

Western betrayal

I'm preparing an article on the concept of Western Betrayal User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. I need someone to drop in and add some info on the meaning of the term in the Ukraine. Did the Ukraine feel sold to Stalin or anything similar during WWII?Halibutt 09:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've seen references in literature to how the population expected Americans to come and rescue them quite soon after WW II. People often idealized America as the place of progress and justice, as in the words of the bard of Ukraine, Taras Shevchenko, "When will we have our own George Washington with his law of righteousness?" Americans did provide support to the resistance armies of UPA after the war (Ukrainians are famous in American military circles as the nation that fought the Soviets for the longest time.) But this effort hurt more than helped: the British spy, Kim Philby conveyed the information to the Soviets. Another betrayal was Operation Keelhaul, by which the Allied armies sent displaced persons from the Soviet sphere back home to death or persecution, usually either under compulsion or without informed consent. Genyo 11:55, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Series on Ukrainian History

We need a series on Ukrainian History on this site, perhaps one separate detailed article for each heading. Any comments? Contributions? Genyo 11:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

To which I add there is no mention of the Dukhobors in the History of Ukraine. 2602:306:8039:CC20:7B73:DF23:DAC1:71CB (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The history of Ukraine in modern times is considered to be criminal acts by anonymous wiki editors (less than 5 minutes ago), who were also involved with destroying the history of the US Department of Education and its Institutes, brain injury services through the private sectors in US, and the development of Medicaid and Medicare in the United States (circa 2012). The parties involved are considered lifetime career criminals and "need to be brought to justice at criminal grand larceny-IP" and more serious crimes against the US and its people. Julie Ann Racino, American Society for Public Administration, International, 2021 2603:7081:2040:9200:2D7F:9B6D:E529:CEDD (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)JARacino2603:7081:2040:9200:2D7F:9B6D:E529:CEDD (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Main page history section

The history section of the main country page looks like it has about as much information as does this page. Someone should move over whatever's missing here. --Shallot 17:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this piece is twice as long, but, you're right,we need some expansion here. Genyo 03:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine at maps.

Dear wikipedians,

there is the following text in the article:

In the 11th century, Kievan Rus was, geographically, the largest state in Europe. During this time, Kievan Rus became known in the rest of Europe under several names derived from Rus. In addition, the name "Ukraine" first appears in recorded history on maps of the period.

Can anyone point me to the map that uses Ukraine that time? As far as I know, there are just few disputed references to this word in Chronicles at the best!

Thanks!

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'd better write your version. --Vasile 00:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you want to sustain this important modification. --Vasile 04:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prohibition of Ukrainian language

Your version: The Russians in particular imposed strict limits on attempts to elevate Ukrainian language and culture, even banning its use in official documents. Due to political processes in Austro-Hungary, the people of Ukraine began to accept a change of their name from Rus/Rusyny to Ruthenia/Ruthenians and then to Ukraine/Ukrainians.

The actual version: The Russians in particular imposed strict limits on attempts to elevate Ukrainian language and culture, even banning its use and study. The fate of the Ukrainians was much more positive under the Austrians. During this time, the people of Ukraine began to accept a change of their name from Rus'/Rusyny (Ruthenia/Ruthenians) to Ukraine/Ukrainians.

--Vasile

Dear Vasile, it's because there are no evidences of any decisions of Russian tsars or Russian government against the Ukrainian language use in common literature. However, I will check documents and update with details. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For those who read Russian I'd like to cite both infamous documents often used by modern Ukrainian nationalists to support their opinion that Ukrainian was banned in Russia (I don't wish to waste time to translage these w/o specific request):

1863 Valuev's circular:

Давно уже идут споры в нашей печати о возможности существования самостоятельной малороссийской литературы. Поводом к этим спорам служили произведения некоторых писателей, отличавшихся более или менее замечательным талантом или своею оригинальностью. В последнее время вопрос о малороссийской литературе получил иной характер, вследствие обстоятельств чисто политических, не имеющих никакого отношения к интересам собственно литературным. Прежние произведения на малороссийском языке имели в виду лишь образованные классы Южной России, ныне же приверженцы малороссийской народности обратили свои виды на массу непросвещенную, и те из них, которые стремятся к осуществлению своих политических замыслов, принялись, под предлогом распространения грамотности и просвещения, за издание книг для первоначального чтения, букварей, грамматик, географий и т.п. В числе подобных деятелей находилось множество лиц, о преступных действиях которых производилось следственное дело в особой комиссии.

В С.-Петербурге даже собираются пожертвования для издания дешевых книг на южно-русском наречии. Многие из этих книг поступили уже на рассмотрение в С.-Петербургский цензурный комитет. Не малое число таких же книг представляется и в киевский цензурный комитет. Сей последний в особенности затрудняется пропуском упомянутых изданий, имея в виду следующие обстоятельства: обучение во всех без изъятия училищах производится на общерусском языке и употребление в училищах малороссийского языка нигде не допущено; самый вопрос о пользе и возможности употребления в школах этого наречия не только не решен, но даже возбуждение этого вопроса принято большинством малороссиян с негодованием, часто высказывающимся в печати. Они весьма основательно доказывают, что никакого особенного малороссийского языка не было, нет и быть не может, и что наречие их, употребляемое простонародием, есть тот же русский язык, только испорченный влиянием на него Польши; что общерусский язык так же понятен для малороссов, как и для великороссиян, и даже гораздо понятнее, чем теперь сочиняемый для них некоторыми малороссами и в особенности поляками, так называемый, украинский язык. Лиц того кружка, который усиливается доказать противное, большинство самих малороссов упрекает в сепаратистских замыслах, враждебных к России и гибельных для Малороссии.

Явление это тем более прискорбно и заслуживает внимания, что оно совпадает с политическими замыслами поляков, и едва ли не им обязано своим происхождением, судя по рукописям, поступившим в цензуру, и по тому, что большая часть малороссийских сочинений действительно поступает от поляков. Наконец, и киевский генерал-губернатор находит опасным и вредным выпуск в свет рассматриваемого ныне духовною цензурою перевода на малороссийский язык Нового Завета.

Принимая во внимание, с одной стороны, настоящее тревожное положение общества, волнуемого политическими событиями, а с другой стороны имея в виду, что вопрос об обучении грамотности на местных наречиях не получил еще окончательного разрешения в законодательном порядке, министр внутренних дел признал необходимым, впредь до соглашения с министром народного просвещения, обер-прокурором св.синода и шефом жандармов относительно печатания книг на малороссийском языке, сделать по цензурному ведомству распоряжение, чтобы к печати дозволялись только такие произведения на этом языке, которые принадлежат к области изящной литературы; пропуском же книг на малороссийском языке как духовного содержания, так учебных и вообще назначаемых для первоначального чтения народа, приостановиться. О распоряжении этом было повергаемо на Высочайшее Государя Императора воззрение и Его Величеству благоугодно было удостоить оное монаршего одобрения.

1876 Emskiy Decree:

1) Не допускать ввоза в пределы Империи, без особого на то разрешения Главного Управления по делам печати, каких бы то ни было книг и брошюр, издаваемых за границей на малороссийском наречии.

2) Печатание и издание в Империи оригинальных произведений и переводов на том же наречии воспретить, за исключением лишь: а) исторических документов и памятников и б) произведений изящной словесности, но с тем, чтобы при печатании исторических памятников безусловно удерживалось правописание подлинника; в произведениях же изящной словесности не было допускаемо никаких отступлений от общепринятого русского провописания, и чтобы разрешение на напечатание произведений изящной словесности давалось не иначе, как по рассмотрении рукописей в Главном Управлении по делам печати.

3) Воспретить также различные сценические представления и чтения на малороссийском наречии, а равно и печатание на таковом же текстов к музыкальным нотам.

I'd like to mention, that item 2) prohibits use of the spelling newly invented in Austro-Hungary, not use of old spelling used in Ukrainian territories inside Russia.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 09:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) NOTE the above documents are NOT in original wording! They have been essentially modernized. Ángel.García ~ ~ ~ ~

Early History

"The first identifiable groups to populate what is now Ukraine were the Trypillians, followed by the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, and Goths, among other nomadic peoples who arrived throughout the first millennium BC. During this period, Ukraine served as a super highway for the migration for peoples from Asia into Europe. These people were known to colonists and traders in the ancient world, including the Greeks and the Romans, who established trading outposts, and which eventually became city states. Of particular interest was the Antes civilization, which, during the common era, left its mark upon the territory of Ukraine. The Antes were thought to be an early Slavic or pre-Slavic civilization in the area."

Could somebody please explain to me this paragraph's subtle sense metaphoric "relevance" for the article? --Vasile 00:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but i'mnont sure logic will do.

Most of the first 4/5ths of the article speak of the history of the territory of today's state of Ukraine. The final several sentences speak of the early history of the ethnos of today'ssUkrainians.

Thanks for the chance to educate you.

Genyo 00:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. If you write about history of the "territory", what's the reason you mentioned those peoples? Why are they important for Ukraine history? For example, please write more about the importance of Roman colons in Ukraine history. Where these colons were located? --Vasile 02:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If anything, previous settlements are important because they show why the current population settled the same area. Pre-historic, Greek and Roman colonies were all generally built next to notable landforms: arable land for agriculture, or rivers for water or seas for trade or easily defensible hills where one can build forts, ... and then they probably also left traces of their culture/civilization that was inherited by those that came later. There can be any number of notable historical factoids in the old periods. (I never thought I'd have to explain this kind of thing...) --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying what/who was in today's Ukraine before the Ukrainians? Even though it may seem anachronistic to put this under the modern-day title, history doesn't begin in the 6th century AD. --Joy [shallot] 01:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I would even prefer more information about the history prior to the 6th century. Juro 03:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I should also probably note my semi-bias given that I've recently created Croatia before the Croats with just this line of reasoning in mind. --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you think we shold add something about Ukrainian Waffen-SS division? Some of its units killed Jews in Lviv (in 1941), took part in Warsaw Uprising (on German side), murdered civilians in Slovakia...

• YES THERE WAS A UKRAINIAN ss DIVISION, BUT THERE WERE ALSO JEWS WHO BETREYED THEIR OWN PEOPLE, MANY SLAVIC NATION AND NOT ONLY SLAVS, TATARS FOR EXAMPLE, THOUGHT THAT GERMANS WERE BETTER THAN COMMUNISTS, (DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE RIGHT) BUT THE FACT IS MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WANTED TO FIGHT COMMUNISM SO DON'T CONFUSE UKRAINIAN SS DIVISION WITH THE REST OF THE UKRAINAINS, ANYWAY WHAT HAS IT TO DO WITH UKRAINIAN ORIGINS?????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.149.200.191 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 11 October 2004

1) I believe, that the fact of existence of SS (Galizien?) Division should be mentioned, as well as similiar engagemnets should be noticed eg. in case of Latvia or Estonia. 2) Please note, that the description of facts does not judge the motives of SS-volunteers - it should only states that the fact took place. 3) I wonder, why the discussion regarding SS Division is under "early history" heading. --MWeinz 10:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV regarding Holodomor denial

172, I'm glad we're working this out. But your description of the conflicting opinions is unbalanced. For now I'm reverting this paragraph (my emphasis).

Some Ukrainian nationalist historians, along with some Western writers, consider the famine of 1932-33 a deliberate act of genocide. However, some Western Soviet specialists writing more recently such as Moshe Lewin, Alexander Dallin, and Alec Nove dismiss the idea that the famine was a deliberate act, but rather the consequence of Stalin's program of industrialization and collectivization.

I thought that simply noting that there are conflicting opinions would be suitable here, without spending several paragraphs analysing the respective arguments or posting résumés of all the proponents. I'm thinking those details belong at the Collectivization article, but maybe here is better. We could easily get into an edit war adding our favourite supporters to the lists:

Ukrainians, non-Ukrainians including westerners, nationalists, non-nationanalists, historians, Soviet specialists, and writers, consider the famine of 1932–1933...

However, some Western Soviet specialists writing more recently, as well as in earlier times, staunch communists, hack journalists, Stalin apologists, Ukrainophobes, nostalgic Marxist-Leninists, easterners, westerners, nationalists, historians, school marms, and teacup poodles dismiss the idea...

Anyway, I suggest that this be kept simple and neutral, or addressed in detail, perhaps in a subsection titled Was the famine deliberate, or some such thing. At the very least, let's not start with the label "Ukrainian nationalists", which is ungenerously limited at best, and pejorative at worst. —Michael Z. 2005-01-31 16:55 Z

Anon's edit of July 15, 2005

Recently, an anonymous editors, who seems to have a good grasp on some facts but somewhat partisan views edited the article extensively. I would like to call this and other editors for the usual caution we should all use in all WP articles, but especially on the wide topic articles like this one. The edits were done hastily, were not proofread, while some info was actually useful. The article simply could not remain in that form. It either had to be quickly moderated (speed at the cost of quality, unfortunately) or get a POV tag, which would be even a bigger shame. I chose the first solution. I am not sure, the article is better now, than it was before the recent set of edits, but that's OK. It will get improved with time. It would be more convenient to communicate if the anon editor chooses to register. registering does not compromise the anonymity in any way. To the contrary, since IP points to an approximate location, while the username does not. But that's just a request of course. I hope, with everyone's cooperation, the article will improve. Regards, --Irpen 23:25, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gentry voting to join PLC?

The 'Under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth' section states: After the Union of Lublin in 1569 and the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the gentry of Ukraine voted for membership in the Polish part of the Commonwealth. I find it quite confusing and likely erroneus. First 1) who is 'the gentry of Ukraine'? 2) what 'voting'? IIRC, Ukraine was then controlled by GDL, and GDL was basically forced by the PLC to cede Ukraine to the PLC during the negotations that led to the Lublin Union (the argument flowing along the lines: if you want our (PLC) protection from Muscovy, you have to give us something in return for pulling us into this conflict). True, the Union of Lublin was voted for by the gentry of PLC and GDL (or rather, GDL magnates), but was there really a separate gentry in Ukraine that voted specifically for inclusion in the PLC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, it would be wiser to identify voting magnates that were Orthodox Christians. Sashazlv 02:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Not PLC, but PL. PLC is Poland-Lithuania :) Second, not forced by Poland, by but graand dukje, who, after getting nervous when Lithuainan magnates didn't want the union, decided to transfer Ukraine to Poland :) (and then they commented: why do you need the union with us, if we are already given to you?) But I will search for that. Szopen 17:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

POVed Post-war and independence section

I tagged this section as POV after first reading it. It is clearly biased in the way of not mentioning the massive negative sides of the post-war Soviet rule in Ukraine. E.g., could I have at least short tips on the following issues:

• Russification
• atheism
• poor and subordinated state of social sciences and humanities
• persecution of dissidents
• all massive environment impacts (not limited to Chornobyl)
• militarization of economy and social life
• urbanization and tremendous decline of Ukrainian rural society
• corruption,

and dozens of "etceteras"?

BTW, objections like "it has been an all-Soviet trend" will not be accepted: it is a main article on Ukrainian history. And every each important detail should be at least hinted and linked. Ukrained 11:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please propose your specific changes to the article. The problem of the section stems from its being too brief rather than biased. We have only this many editors interested in Ukraine and they have only this much time. Unfortunately, while some try to add as much info as possible, the coberage of Ukraine lacks significantly. Also, the intrusions of some editors who do nothing but edit warring over names wastes much of the valuable time. If you don't mind, I will remove the tag. The section isn't one-sided. It is simply too brief. This is not a template:POV-section problem bu rather template:expandsect. Finally, the aggressice wording of what "will not be accepted" by you stated in advance is unhelpful. --Irpen 19:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Salvaged form History of Poland

Recent anon edit added some info about Ukrainians to that article. It was stronlgy POVed (for exmple, he changed every single 'Poles' entry to 'Poles and Ukrainians'), but I salvaged some of it and I am moving some other info here, as it seems to belong here more then there. Feel free to go over that edit and HoP article and NPOV it more.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Poland lost about 22 percent of its population, which some suggest was the highest proportion of any country in World War II. Comparably, about 10 million Ukrainians died in the Second World War, the largest overall loss of civilian population in Nazi occupied Europe although Ukrainians, not having an independent state of their own, were often miscounted under other headings, such as "Polish," "Soviet" and even "Russian."

One of the most honourable of those who worked to save the Jews as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Metropolitan A Sheptytsky, of Lviv, although he has yet to be officially recognized for his good deeds.

In territories that interwar Poland occupied, in what is today western Ukraine (Galicia, Volhynia, Bukovina) an extensive anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet resistance movement, crafted largely as a result of the efforts of the Organization of Ukrainain Nationalists, and known as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), continued to resist foreign occupation of Ukrainian lands well into the 1950s. Although this precipated conflict with the AK and other Polish groups in some regions, there was also occasional collaboration betweeen Ukrainian and Polish partisan units in their shared struggle against the Soviet reoccupation. Large numbers of Jews were sheltered by both the UPA and AK, indeed many of the medicial officers and staff of UPA were Ukrainian Jews.

Interwar section

What about the famine of 1921? (G Ranzini 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

You are right. I just started expanding the interwar section. I cannot say how fast I will manage to work on this, but it certainly deserves to be mentioned. So far I wrote on the most important things in the Soviet part of Ukraine that happened at the interwar time that in chronological order would be early-Soviet Ukrainization, industrialization, Holodomor and purge. You may also note that other sections of the interwar period (under non-Soviet governments) are also missing. This needs much work. I just started by writing on the most important things. --Irpen 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

deletion due to populace disagreement

user:TSO1D deleted a certain piece from Ukraine article with the comment: "All of the regions mentioned had Romanain majorities with the exception of the "western part" which ironically was given to the Moldovan SSR)" Indeed, this is true Bessarabia for Hertsa region. But Ukraine incorporated not whole piece Bessarabia, but its southern part, with exactly the pretext that this part was predominantly Ukraininan. Also, I have doubts that Bukovina had Romanian majority.

Can TSO1D please give a bit more support to the edit? mikka (t) 22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Northern Bukovina, which was incorporated in Ukraine had a Ukrainian majority. The only Romanian majority area attached to UA was the Hertsa region. I will correct it. I planned to continue adding some order to this article anyway. --Irpen 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the Soviet data showed that in the regions of Hotin, Akerman, and Ismail 28.4% were of the Romanian ethnicity whereas the Ukrainians only made up 24.5% of the population. In order to make it appear that the regions were dominated by ethnic Ukrainians, data was collected over broader areas, including areas that were already part of the Ukraine. I do not feel too strongly about the issue and I am certain that arguments can be made both ways using the divergent statistic that was compiled in the period mostly for political reasons. Nevertheless, it is only a matter of one sentence and as it is disputed I believe it would be best to ommit it. TSO1D 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting historical question and it deserves further explanation. I can readily believe there were Romanian compacts in the area. Also, what was the remaining 45%? mikka (t) 05:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just check Bukovina and Chernivtsi Oblast articles. The history of ethnical composition of the regions comprise disproportinately much there but info was edit warred much and, since it stabilized, we can be more or less sure it's right. --Irpen 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it will be possible to reconstruct the true demographic distribution during that period. The sources that I have consulted have greatly different statistics (however most of them were Romanian and there is of course a chance of bias). The census carried out by the Soviet government cannot fully be trusted due to the intense politization of the process. Modern sources also tend to be biased (the Ukrainian sources have a higher percentage for Ukrainians, the Romanian one for Romanians). I cannot say that I did extensive research on the subject, I only verified some sources so I suppose the Bukovina and Cernăuţi articles might have more accurate information.

Mikka's question is also interesting, I have no idea what the other 45 percent of the people might have been. My guess would be Russian and Jewish but what else I do not know.TSO1D 23:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine and Nuclear Weapons

I removed the piece below. It is poorly fitted to the article and I don;t think it has any place at all. Even Ukraine would be a better place. The history of UA article just deserves a mention in appropriate sections: mid-century to 70s-80s about nucleazing and 90s section for de-nucleazing. Whoever feels like, is welcome to use it for a separate Ukraine and Nuclear Weapons article. --Irpen 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

When Ukraine gained independence, it inherited a vast arsenal of former Soviet nuclear weapons. Russia and the US soon sought to denuclearize Ukraine. While some in the Ukraine Parliament wanted to keep the weapons for deterrence, most agreed eventually that it was infeasible for Ukraine to maintain the weapons.

Ukraine was alarmed because once it started shipping its nukes back to Russia, Russia started to act more belligerent. There were disputes about the border, the fate of the Black Sea Navy, among other things. The US entered in as a third-party mediator, its interests being to see Ukraine sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Eventually Ukraine agreed to denuclearize, sending their missiles to Russia in exchange for nuclear fuel rods. Ukraine also received security assurances (not guarantees) from the US and more aid. Ukraine's case was a very successful instance of denuclearization by a state eager to join the international community and make allies.

---

The number of Holodomor victims

Please note that Kulchytskyi's estimates are not generally agread by the scientific community. Even his co-author disagreed with him and obtained larger number of victims [1]. Other estimates range to 7 millions [2] and even to more than 10 millions [3].

I think saying "several millions" would reflect our present-day knowlege. More detals (with references to differen aouthors) could be given in the article Holodomor.--AndriyK 17:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no scientific estimations based on the archives other than these that I am aware of. 7, 10 and 14 million numbers are not based on any kind of demographic research and are political and emotional. Kulchytsky is a leading authority on Holodomor in Ukraine. Read his articles linked in the Bottom of Holodomor where he also provides references on how those exaggerated numbers are obtained and how they harm Ukraine's calls to the community. Conquest, another leading authority, obtained 5 million and the archives were not available to him at the time. Another article you link isn't academic and just throws the arbitrary number out of nowhere. Until you site reliable statistical-based calculation by established scholars rather than political calls, the best number we have has to be used. The discussion on other numbers belongs to Holodomor, which I will expand. --Irpen 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Read [4], where Kulchytskyi admits that his co-author did not agree with his estimates, and they obtained another number which is published.

I do not think you are in position to judge about the scientific meritof the estimates.--AndriyK 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read all articles by Kulchytsky. In fact, I expanded the other article based on that and will do more (got data lost unfortunately in a network mishap). His co-author refuses to take into account the migration balance. We can talk about two separate things, number of population Ukraine lost and number of people that died. The former may be taken directly from population decrease estimates and his co-author's opinion is valuable. We are talking of the number of the perished here, so we have to cite the only calculation that accounts for all the available data we have. --Irpen 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kulchytskyi uses migration data in his estimates. Some scoolars (including Kulchytskyi's co-author) consider the migration data unreliable. This means that Kulchytsky's are unreliable and not recognized by his colleagues.--AndriyK 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read a cited earlier review[5] about Kulchytsky before talking nonsense. Also, Kulchytsky admits that migration data lacks precision and therefore rounds his estimates from 3.2+ million to 3-3.5 million exactly to account for this lack of reliability. Please care to read the references before arguing. --Irpen 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Be sure, I read Kulchytskyi's articles an am avare about the way he estimated the number of victims. But as you see, some of his colleagues disagree even after he rounded his estimates. This is not our job here to judge who is right.--AndriyK 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

His colleagues don't cite any other numbers. You can say that "Without the migration balance it is 5 million". We are here to provide the best possible numbers available. However, we can add "estimates vary" remark. I will do that. The rest belongs to Holodomor. Please give me a couple of days to expand the topic there, if you can, before continuing for now. --Irpen 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The colleagues don't cite any other numbers because the relyable data do not exist. This is the reason for larger uncertainties that those provided by Kulchytskyi. Citing only Kulchytskyi's data is clearly a POV.--AndriyK 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite other data that you have which is obtained in some kind of scientific way. I will need it for Holodomor expansion. If no other data is available, we used the only one we have. I added "estimates vary" disclaimer. --Irpen 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to repeat you once more: this is not the job of WP editors to decide wich data are more "scientific". Please do not try to do this. The references were given in my first message (see above).--AndriyK 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there are objective criteria to tell the scholarly work from that of the publicist's or politician's or the politically motivated one. The authors of the former are known for their publications in the peer-reviewed scholarly publications and monographies in the field. If you know works of such authors with different numbers, please cite them instead of trying to exhaust your opponents in endless talk in circles. --Irpen 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine

The article East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine never really got written, and is now redirected here. Here is the text, for future reference. —Michael Z. 2006-08-15 00:40 Z

The East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine is rooted in the nation's history and goes well into the medieval times. The issue is largely caused by the fact that, historically, Ukraine was surrounded by powerful neighbors which rivaled for the direct control or at least political domination of the territory. Among the neighboring states with such imperialistic ambitions towards Ukraine, Poland and Russia influenced Ukrainian history the most.

However, other powers at different times, such as Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Austrian Empire also played an important role, as well as the Crimean Khaganate and the Ottomans. At the same time, the Ukraine's own past statehood institutions (examples are the Cossack Hetmanate, Zaporozhian Host and Ukrainian People's Republic) were comparatively short-lived and their influence on the country's destiny could not rival that of the large regional powers located to the East or to the West of Ukraine.

==External links==

*(in Russian) Aggressive Ignorance (Ukrayinska Pravda 2006 article criticising the election-driven ideas of formalizing the inter-region dissimilarities)

---

I request this above not to be pasted anywhere in the article please. I wrote this passage and it was suitable for an article on the specifics of the regional differences in UA. However, as several people did not like the article (or its title or its content, not sure) and the issue of the deletion (!) was raised twice over the several months of the article's existence, I gave up on that. I see no need for this stuff to be added to this History of UA or any other article in its current form especially because the particularly History of UA article is currently a mess so much worse of the histories of our neighbors (RU and PL) that I really feel ashamed. What this article needs is not an extra clutter in the form of pasting of a disconnected piece about a narrow issue but major work by committed editors that would structure it better, expand the current sections in the mainarticles, rewrite the former ones into the summaries of the latter for this one. There is also a problem of harmonizing this article with the history section of the Ukraine article as well as the appropriate material from other articles with historic info. Within days I plan to finish a more consistent history section of the Ukraine article but for the major work the History of UA article needs, a set of committed editors is required.

So, let's keep this stuff here at talk (since others found it not suitable for the article on its own) and start the History of UA project at some point, which is no less crucial than the Subdivisions project that gets so much work these days. --Irpen 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi photos

We have an edit war over inclusion of two photos showing Ukrainians celebrating the Nazi rules. I think it is unfair and an undue weight to a point of view. At least 3.5mln Ukrainians were with the Red Army and Soviet Partisans, at least 250thousand with OUN, 20 thousand with SS Halicia+local police ~ <100K with Germans. I think the allegiances were divided accordingly. At any rate it was not a happy time for the majority: World War + Underground War + Foreign Occupation+Slave labor. Thus I think to have 2 photos out of 3 in the section showing Ukrainians happily embracing German rule is biased and not-neutral. Lets hear other opinions Alex Bakharev

Peak of Ukraine?

The page says "The Ukrainians reached their peak when extending rule to Wallachia/Bessarabia, until the shores of the Black Sea". Can someone show me a proof of this? I really, really don't believe this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.184.91 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 January 2007

Don't use Admin powers for something as pathetic and trivial as -ise vs, ize

WP has a policy regarding national varities of English, and that is not to chnage them without reason. Going around and changing them on a protected page is a waste of time and energy and an abuse of the power. Normally I'd revert such a change, but I can't because it's protected, and that's not fair. Kevlar67 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions and dont overgeneralize. Learn to ask quetions before proceeding to accusations. Rgds, `'mikka 05:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I'm not so sure that the statement in the introductory paragraph "[The territory of Ukraine] is also the site of the origins of the Proto-Indo-European language family." is clear enough that this is one accepted theory of several, see Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses for all the craziness involved in the subject. 76.106.103.106 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the phrase a candidate site, and linked the article. Hope it looks okay now. —Michael Z. 2008-07-25 17:05 z

Merger

I agree with the merger, since much of the content in History of Ukrainian nationality already covered here. Anyone else agree? Ostap 19:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As being the nominator of the merger, I would like to add that some of the information on History of Ukrainian nationality may not mandatoryily merged into this article. This article has a lot of forks, so some of the information can go into those {{main article}}s. Also I want to point to History of Ukrainian nationality's history. It was created as an assignment for a university level history class. More information on History of Ukrainian nationality's talk page.174.3.117.120 (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to also point out this edit which shows Will Hanley moved Zmiyeborecz's page User:Zmiyeborecz/History of Ukranian nationality, to History of Ukranian nationality. On Will Hanley's user page, it is stated that he is part of the Department of History in the Florida State University system. In the first two sections of his talk page, it seems that History of Ukranian nationality is just another one of his student's assignments.174.3.117.120 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to merge this article into any other.

This is the history of the country of Ukraine. If anything the History of Ukrainian Nationality would be merged with this and others as that article is simply repeats of other forks

I am removing the merge tag as it is very old and, in my opinion, uncalled for

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

History of Ukrainian Nationality is a bad article; I've mentioned above that History of Ukrainian Nationality was an essay assignment. It IS a content fork.

The merge tag is to notify editors that there a is a proposal to merge the articles. In any case, you've removed the tag on this article, but not the other one. I feel that information from History of Ukrainian Nationality should be moved into this article because this article deals with history of ukraine, and that article should deal with the political identity of Ukraine. There is consensus that the articles should be merged. I am putting the tag back up.Hyperpiper (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what a merge tag is for :¬)
Also consensus was not found for the move. More importantly it would be against Wikipedia policy to merge forks into the article WP:FORK and consensus cannot go against policy without a change in policy.

That merge tag was old and should not really have been applied. You are free to move any material to any other but must remember that anything that is inacurate or incorrect should be removed first and refs should be found to support the statements. I suggest you do that in your sandbox.

Secondly, as other editors have pointed out, this article is the history of Ukraine and as such has many sections which have links to "Main" articles and this article only has summaries of those main articles. The material should be merged with those particular articles, not here.

You can do this by using the more appropriate section merge tags in each of the sections and linking them to the other articles. For example:-

• History_of_Ukrainian_nationality#Halych-Volhynia merges to Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia
• History_of_Ukrainian_nationality#Cossacks merges to Cossacks

There are also other problems with the factual accuracy and possible POV

• Massive sections without references
• Apparent errors in facts
• Bad prose and grammar with chronology (in Ukraine instead of in Ukraine at that time)

There are other points as well but for this reason I am once again removing the merge tag. You need to put the tags ontto the correct articles and not really this one. THat is why I left the merge tag there, it needs amending to point to the right places. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(transcluded form HyperPiper talk page) As it stands now this article is causing more problems than it is solving. The article should be moved out of mainspace or renamed so that the disambiguation page can have its correct title.

The page History of ukrainian nationality should be History of Ukrainian nationality but the article we are discussing on the Talk:History of Ukraine page is there and so the db page cannot be correctly named. The history of Ukrainian Nationality refers to the social aspect of the coutries population and their national identity rather than the history of the country per se. That is why the page re-directs to Ukrainians. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Slobodan

I am trying to research the Family surname Slobodan. From what I have found, it was dirived from the word Sloboda which ment freedom or Peace. I know that the name Slobodan is a very comon firts name but from what I read and understand from speaking to people in the so called "Old Country" the name Slobodan is rare as a last name. My family came over from Galicia, Austria in 1909 and setteled in Canada. Can someone please more information on the last name Slobodan and where it may have originated. Thanks, Terrill Slobodan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.159.52 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"vandalism"?

So there was an edit summary calling "vandalism". I am not sure if you perhaps like the Vandals and this was a compliment, but on Wikipedia, the term has a specific meaning. The edit in question basically removed some non-free maps (which also did not work as thumbnail), replacing them with better and free maps, and replaced "Poland and Lithuania" (i.e. links to the modern states in a 14th century context) with "Poland and Lithuania" since there is no way this can be described as "vandalism" in any meaningful sense, I do not know how to reply to this, and do also not think it necessary.

If there is any valid point you would like to make, please calm down and explain what it is. As long as you just keep saying "vandalism" in the obvious absense of vandalism, I am afraid the problem is on your end. --dab (𒁳) 16:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

pan German view of history

" n the 3rd century AD, the Goths arrived in the lands of Ukraine around 250–375 AD, which they called Oium, corresponding to the archaeological Chernyakhov culture.[8] The Ostrogoths stayed in the area but came under the sway of the Huns from the 370s. North of the Ostrogothic kingdom was the Kiev culture, flourishing from the 2nd–5th centuries, when it was overrun by the Huns. After they helped defeat the Huns at the battle of Nedao in 454, the Ostrogoths were allowed to settle in Pannonia. "

?! ?! ?!

so where did the slavs came from - from the moon? And where did the "Oiums" aka "germans" went? Did they went without a fight?

Is this a fairy tale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.78.234 (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead of spreading Ukrainian nazi parols, simply look up these word in wikipedia - if you are able to read. BTW, both Germanic speaking and Balto-Slavic speaking people originate from Indo-European speaking people, probably via a common intermediate ancestor people for millennia of common existance.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:99C1:4837:7C52:EC0C (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"As a result Yanukovych's pro-Russia party had regained power after five years and the Orange Revolution of 2004 was halted, at least temporarily"

Removed above sentence from the article since it seems a bit POV-y and belongs more in a newspaper editorial then in Wikipedia. First of all Party of Regions might be pro-Russian language and culture but there atitute towards the Russian state seems not that different to me then Yulia Tymoshenko's BYuT; and whats with this "Orange Revolution of 2004 was halted, at least temporarily". In my point of view the Orange Revolution ended when Viktor Yushchenko was sworn in President or when he sacked Tymoshenko as Prime Minister on September 8, 2005... Something that has stoped in 2005 can not be halted since it is already stoped... Lastly the Alliance of National Unity was in between the Orange Revolution and Yanukovych's Presidency. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kievan Rus' historical map 980 1054.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kievan Rus' historical map 980 1054.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kievan Rus' Kyivan Rus' early formation 862 912.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kievan Rus' Kyivan Rus' early formation 862 912.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ukrainian Cossack state Zaporizhian Host 1649 1653.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ukrainian Cossack state Zaporizhian Host 1649 1653.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ukrainian National Republic map 1917 1920.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ukrainian National Republic map 1917 1920.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Stalin's goals"

The inclusion of the Stalin quote in this edit [6] is problematic in several respects. Most importantly, it just plucks that quote out of context and presents without commentary and at face value. This might seem shocking to some, but politicians (including Stalin) don't always say what they think and reveal their true motivations readily. It's the job of the historian, or any responsible person writing about the subject for that matter, to consider the context.

And in fact, that's just what the Roberts source does. Roberts comments on the quote that "These statements...require some comments". Then describes the context in which they were made. And then sums them up by saying "Stalin's immediate purpose was to present an ideological rationale for the Red Army's forthcoming invasion of Poland". Volunteer Marek  01:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

well not quite. Volunteer Marek uses a selective quote to omit the main points Roberts was making. Roberts notes that the comments marked a change from the previous "popular front" policy of Communist Party cooperation with other parties. Roberts says Stalin's "main message" here was the need to avoid a revolutionary civil war. Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate wording in Introduction

" the 2004 Orange Revolution prevented pro-Moscow Viktor Yanukovych from stealing an election" is not encyclopaedic wording; plus: 10 years old day-to-day politics do not belong into an Introduction. This paragraph for deletion.

Nuremberg - Ángel.García 131.188.3.21 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. There Politics of Ukraine article is a better place for such matters. Nobody has disagreed with you, and I shall delete it tomorrow if there is still no objection. Also, the introduction is short, and it has an unexplained "update" flag. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead, I have swapped the two. Now this article has the longer intro, and the Ukraine article has the shorter. Probably I have moved too much material into this one, or perhaps other editors will find other problems. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Collectivization section is non-neutral and inaccurate

The collectivization section was obviously written or edited by someone who supports the Ukrainian Nationalist historical argument. Claiming that "[n]on-Soviets maintain that the famine was an avoidable, deliberate act of genocide" is ridiculously inaccurate and misleading. Only 13 countries out of nearly 200 UN member nations agree with that position, and they are almost exclusively NATO members and/or close allies of the United States. The descriptor "non-Soviets" doesn't make any sense at all in 2014, since the Soviet Union has not existed for over two decades, but if it means anything then it suggests agreement among the countries of the world that were not part of the Soviet Union. That is, to put it bluntly, a lie, and one that serves to further the obvious political bent of this section.

The only sources cited in this entire section are a BBC article citing unnamed historians who believe that the death toll might have been "possibly up to" 10 million, and a 40 page Encyclopaedia Britannica article about Ukraine to support the statement about Stalin's purges of the KPU and intelligentsia. It makes reference to "the most recent demographic studies" without bothering to cite them or even identify the source.

This is a historical subject that has been thoroughly distorted by Cold War era propaganda in general, but surely Wikipedia can do better than this.

205.178.27.71 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Galicia

Um, the name Galicia was invented in the late 18th c. It is not proper to speak of Galicia before then. The older name was Ruthenia, no? See Larry Wolff, "The Idea of Galicia: History and fantasy in Habsburg political culture," 504 pp. Stanford University Press, 2011.

Galicia was an invented name bestowed on the region by 18th c. Austro-Hungarian scholars after the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, based on the somewhat fanciful notion that in remote antiquity it had been the original homeland of the Gaulish tribes who later settled in France, Italy, Britain and Spain. (Note, during the time of the Roman Empire Gothic barbarians referred to all Romanized (i.e., Latin speaking) peoples as "Gauls"). During the 18th c. Austro-Hungary embarked on a "civilizing mission" for the region and succeeded to a considerable extent in forging a regional identity out of its heterogeneous population, which included Poles, Jews, Russians and others. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to project this collective identity backward into earlier times. 173.77.75.164 (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of 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/20090318221033/http://home.swipnet.se:80/roland/mongols.html to http://home.swipnet.se/roland/mongols.html

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} 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of 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://bank.gov.ua/Engl/Macro/index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bank.gov.ua/Engl/Macro/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603124713/http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/main/69573/ to http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/main/69573/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030416140456/http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/european/ukraine/ua.html to http://www.loc.gov/rr/international/european/ukraine/ua.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102112915/http://holocaustbybullets.com/ to http://www.holocaustbybullets.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of 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.trypillia.com/info/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021092115/http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Crimean_Tatar_-_complete_report_01.pdf to http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Crimean_Tatar_-_complete_report_01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304025646/http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/government-statement-tymoshenko.html to http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/government-statement-tymoshenko.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050110172544/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/yakovenkon/znaid/index.html to http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/yakovenkon/znaid/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050302102308/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/grytsakj/formuv/index.html to http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/grytsakj/formuv/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gubernias de Ucrania - ENG.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sibirian Ice Lake

"Around 10,000 years ago the world's longest river[22] emptied glacier melted water through the Don and the Black Sea. From springs in Gobi it flowed along the Yenisei, which was then dammed by northern glaciers. Through the West Siberian Glacial Lake flowed about 10,000 km;[23] It was longer than any river known today.[24]" - This obviously is completely misunderstood, because the source speaks of 90,000 (!) years ago. The source is now (2021-10) available via http://people.geo.su.se/martin/PDF/Mangerud_etal_2004_QSR_QUEEN_issue.pdf2A02:8108:9640:AC3:99C1:4837:7C52:EC0C.HJHolm (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Clumsily Worded Sentence

I made a small edit, adding the link to Deep and Comprehensive Free trade Area under the acronym DCFA, as I thought this would not be controversial, but I am a casual wikipedia user doing research and not an editor. With that understood, this sentence is one I have read several times and still cannot fully grok. I know it is likely not possible to track down the editor that made this edit, I am merely bringing this to your attention in the hopes that someone has enough contextual knowledge and history with this page to understand what this is saying :

• Significant achievements in the foreign policy arena: support for anti-Russian sanctions, obtaining a visa-free regime with the countries of the European Union, combined with the need to overcome extremely difficult tasks within the country

Needing difficult tasks does not sound like an achievement in the foreign policy arena. My best guess is,

• Steps forward to diplomacy with the west were made during this period, with anti-Russian sanctions and the ability to travel visa free within the European Union. Domestically, several challenges left over from the recent economic strife and political division were overcome as well

I believe this would then end with a "which" tag in either case, as the domestic achievements were not specified. However I am very uncertain about my guess, and as I am doing research on the political situation and mainly stopped here for context and primary sources, I am fairly certain I should not be the person making this edit, if indeed an edit should be made. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.59.126 (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

EU membership application

The following passage is no longer correct:

As of 2021, Ukraine is preparing to formally apply for EU membership in 2024, in order to join the European Union in the 2030s.[94]

I propose the following revision:

On February 28th, 2022, Ukraine formally submitted its application for membership in the European Union. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadocollin (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Needs more mention of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The page definitely needs more mention of the 2022 invasion. In fact, the invasion is only referenced once (not including citations) Nonexistent User (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Why is there no mention of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and how he was elected as President of Ukraine? 2601:983:4702:7820:30E5:71CD:FD6E:EC91 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Simple information

comprising local rulers, gentry, and even the Lithuanian Crown itself (see Algirdas and Dmytro Dedko). During this time, Ukraine and Ukrainians saw relative prosperity and autonomy, with the Duchy functioning more like a joint Lithuanian-Ukrainian state, with freedom to practice Orthodox Christianity, speak Ukrainian (especially demonstrated by the significantly low linguistic overlap between the Ukrainian and Lithuanian languages), and continue to engage in Ukrainian culture practices,

In 1490, due to increased oppression of Ukrainians at the hands of the Polish, a series of successful rebellions was led by Ukrainian hero Petro Mukha, joined by other Ukrainians, such as early Cossacks and Hutsuls, in addition to Moldavians (Romanians). Known as Mukha's Rebellion, this series of battles was supported by the Moldavian prince Stephen the Great, and it is one of the earliest known uprisings of Ukrainians against Polish oppression. These

The 1648 Ukrainian Cossack (Kozak) rebellion or Khmelnytsky Uprising, which started an era known as the Ruin (in Polish history as The Deluge), undermined the foundations and stability of the Commonwealth.

While right-bank Ukraine belonged to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth until late 1793, left-bank Ukraine had been incorporated into Tsardom of Russia in 1667 (under the Treaty of Andrusovo). In 1672, Podolia was occupied by the Turkish Ottoman Empire, while Kyiv and Braclav came under the control of Hetman Petro Doroshenko until 1681, when they were also captured by the Turks, but in 1699 the Treaty of Karlowitz returned those lands to the Commonwealth. 2A04:4A43:476F:EA14:7514:3C2C:472C:59F1 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

Navi86 (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Could you explain me what connection of Kiev russia to Ukraine ? Do you know that capital of russia was moved from Kiev to Moscow ? So it means Kiev Russia was never connected to Ukraine, pls remove this nonsense.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"1930 in Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 1930 in Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 20 § 1930 in Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Randi Moth (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Location of Cossack Hetmanate.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

The last sentence in the section Russo-Ukrainian War, is not correct. "Russia officially annexed the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, along with most of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts on 30 September.[103]"

The article in reference does not say "Russia officially" anywhere in the article and the annexation is considered illegal by the United States of America and other western countries outside of Russia. This is a pro Russian stance.

Proposal: 1) Change the first part of the sentence to read: "Russia illegally" "Russia illegally annexed the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, along with most of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts on 30 September.[103]"

2) Remove "officially" from the sentence. "Russia annexed the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, along with most of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts on 30 September.[103]" Politij123 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Kyi

Shouldn’t it mention the traditional founding of Kyiv by Kyi, Shchek and Khoryv? MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

20th Century is a Mess

The 20th Century section on this article is not great. The "Russian Revolution and War of Independence" topic consists of a short blurb on chaos in the country before jumping to 2 historians' accounts, and then jumping to the Holodomor. At no point does the section even MENTION that Ukraine joins the USSR in 1922. This needs attention stat, pretty big oversight. I've added a brief sentence but we need some elaboration. SSR07 (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

POV edits

Despite being warned, Smm380 (who is likely also editing as an IP) continues to make unsourced and POV changes. Here is the latest example. If there is no objection, I will undo all their edits. Mellk (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that some of the edits were not bad and probably most were made in good faith but I agree with you regarding this particular change. The claim that Galich-Volyn was *the* successor state of Kievan Rus seems spurious and would require several high-quality sources which the editor has not added. Alaexis_¿question? 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

They added a bunch of text in the past few weeks. They were told to add citations as this is a basic policy but they continued to not follow this.

For now I would suggest to remove unsourced and questionable statements. Some of the sources they used are also not reliable. Unless someone wishes to review all the text and sources they added as well as to add references for uncited text. Mellk (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I haven't followed the changes closely, no citations is indeed a serious matter. Alaexis_¿question? 20:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The section still says that Galicia-Volhynia "is successor state". I also do not think it makes sense to include the modern concept of state succession here, but perhaps there is a better way to phrase this? Mellk (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

History of ukraine

Responding to @Alaexis, Ruthenia is simply a synonym for Land of Rus', which is the core region of Kievan Rus'. One and the same thing. And it's located in what is now Ukraine. Shahray (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, but names can change their meaning during the course of the centuries. E.g. "Dutch" (in German: Deutsch) originally meant "German". But nowadays, I wouldn't advise you to call a Dutch person a "German". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The term Ruthenia has multiple meanings ranging from the whole Kievan Rus to various Western Rus' territories now located mostly in Ukraine and Belarus. Therefore using it obfuscates rather than clarifies the text.

It's also not a native contemporary name (Rus' - Русь), nor is it commonly used in historical books. Alaexis_¿question? 08:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay so am I replacing with just Land of Rus' then? Shahray (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly in the article would you like to add it? Alaexis_¿question? 21:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I saw your edit. I'm still not sure it's an improvement. You're still linking Ruthenia where it's not justified The earliest source about the history of Land of Rus' and the Middle Dnieper region is the Tale of Bygone Years (Primary Chronicle). Land of Rus' is unclear and clicking on the wikilink doesn't clarify anything. Alaexis_¿question? 21:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a short section in "Early Middle Ages" that clarifies Land of Rus' in core sense. Shahray (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Alaexis, I saw your rv, first of all I am glad you actually give explanation for your reverts unlike some editors, you could have notify me in the Talk page though.

About sources, Encyclopedia of Ukraine does call it an organisational core, quote:"The location of the Polianians' territory at the intersection of important trade routes contributed to their economic and cultural development as organizers of the Kyivan Rus’ state". Polianians were inhabitants of Dnieper Ukraine territory.

In the main Ukraine article it also says:"During the Middle Ages, Ukraine was the site of early Slavic expansion and the area later became a key centre of East Slavic culture under the state of Kievan Rus', which emerged in the 9th century".

Even this image in the article is called "Historic core of Rus'".

So yeah, Ukrainian lands were the core, it's definitely should be mentioned.

About Subtelny, I didn't get what you exactly mean, here's the quote from the page I cited:"It was at this stage Kiev and it's surrounding lands were reffered to as Ruskaia Zemlya, the Land of Rus', in the narrow sense. Nonetheless, Kiev was still an alluring prize, whoever claimed not only enjoyed prestige of "Mother of Rus' cities", but could also claim himself as senior of Rurikid dynasty". Completely corresponds to what I have added.

About Cossacks, well maybe it needs additional source, in my opinion it's obvious that they played crucial role in development of Ukrainian identity. Shahray (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is your text

“ Ukraine enters into written history with the establishment of medieval Kievan state, with Ukrainian territories serving as its core, naming themselves as Land of Rus'. It emerged as one of the most powerful and advanced nations of Europe at that time, with Kyiv meeting its Golden age and Christianization under Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise. Kievan Rus' started to disintegrate in High Middle Ages, with Kievan monarchs competing and fighting over the throne in Land of Rus', ”

Regarding the "core" claim, if a source says that the Polanians were the organizers of the Kyivan Rus’ state you can't use it to write that Ukrainian territories served as the core of Kievan Rus. These are very different statements. Also note that the very same Encyclopedia of Ukraine acknowledges the role of the Varangians in the 9th century the Varangians from Scandinavia conquered the tribes and laid the groundwork for the Kyivan Rus’ state.

Regarding Land of Rus', you use a piped link that leads the reader to the Ruthenia article. This is not based on any sources and can only mislead the reader. Note that Subtelny only starts to use the term Ruthenian starting from ~14th century. The term Land of Rus itself is used only two times in Subtelny's book so it's not a commonly used name. On p. 38 Subtelny makes it clear that there are multiple definitions of the Land of Rus. So again, there is no need to use this term in the lede. Elsewhere in the article we can definitely discuss multiple meaning of this term. Alaexis_¿question? 19:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, obviously Ukranian is used merely as a geographical term, because the article is about History of Ukraine, if that's your concern.

Article Ruthenia was merged with an item "Rus' region" by reaching consensus 10 years ago, item "Rus' land" also redirects here. So it's one and the same thing.

Yes, Land of Rus' also has a broader meaning, meaning all the lands under Kievan control, and regarding that broader meaning there is already an established historiographic name which is "Kievan Rus'", while Land of Rus' is mostly used to describe this core region specifically. Shahray (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the redirect (Rus region -> Ruthenia) makes sense to be honest. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

I don't think I can add anything to what I wrote earlier, so please feel free to seek external feedback via WP:RFC or other channels. Alaexis_¿question? 10:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well that's your viewpoint.

So are you allowing me to keep some of the changes or you need additional sources? Shahray (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not a good idea to bad-mouth another editor immediately after your block expired. Secondly, you have been told multiple times to look at dispute resolution if you cannot come to an agreement with another editor. It is pretty clear in their last comment that they do not think the changes should be restored. Mellk (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, this edit was made without any supporting sources. Please propose edits here at the talk one by one providing reliable sources for them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, this section was already unsourced, so does it need a source? Shahray (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the lead and such statements are not supported in the article. Like with other POV edits you have made, I do not think it is something that will be supported by high-quality sources in a way that follows WP:DUE. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

In the article History of Poland the lead does not contain sources as well. Don't accuse someone else in POV pushing when you yourself make unreasonable reverts. Shahray (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Because we have MOS:LEAD. Perhaps it is worth spending time actually showing an intention to learn more about the policies and manual of style? Mellk (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

For you it's definitely worth spending time on learning how to have a good attitude to other person. Shahray (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

When you add statements like Ukrainian territories serving as it's core and Principality of Galicia-Volhynia then succeed the Land of Rus', this is pretty clear POV-pushing (and poor English). Mellk (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Quote from the main Ukraine article:"Ukraine was the site of early Slavic expansion and the area later became a key centre of East Slavic culture under the state of Kievan Rus". Shahray (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"During the Middle Ages, Ukraine was the site of early Slavic expansion and the area later became a key centre of East Slavic culture...". There is a difference between this and saying that Ukrainian territories formed the core of the state. Mellk (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Ukrainian area later became a key centre of East Slavic culture" what difference? Shahray (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not the correct quote. Either way, Principality of Galicia-Volhynia then succeed the Land of Rus' is still POV-pushing. Mellk (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"This not a correct quote" Lmao.

No it's not POV pushing, quote from the main article:"Its rulers continued the political and cultural legacy of Kiev, preserving the traditions and governance of the Rus' state".

I should probably add this as one of another example of your false accuses and POV pushing. Shahray (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between this statement (which needs a better source anyway) and referring to the concept of state succession. Comments like "Lmao" are not helpful. Mellk (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Shahray. That's not how it works. You can challenge unsourced content by adding a {{citationneeded}} tag if you believe it's not true. If no one provides a source within a reasonable time this content can be deleted. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I can add sources. Do you have any question about Land of Rus'? Shahray (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, sources are cited. Shahray (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You were told to propose changes on the talk page and get consensus first. But you still restored disputed changes. Please stop restoring your edits after they have been reverted. There is clearly an issue with the wording. Mellk (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Alaexis, so I didn't get what you exactly mean by "I don't think I can add anything to what I wrote earlier". Does this allow me to keep the changes or you suggest me to rephrase them to correspond more to sources?

Can I ask @Rsk6400 to view my changes for example? Shahray (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This means that I'm not convinced by your arguments, I don't agree with the changes you've made and I don't think that further discussion involving us is helpful. At this point you have two options:

1. You take into account the feedback that u:Mellk, u:Rsk6400 and I have given and come up with a new version of the lede.
2. You ask other editors to express their opinion via WP:RFC or any other way that doesn't violate WP:CANVASSING.

Naturally, @Rsk6400 is welcome to chime in. Alaexis_¿question? 21:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no point in answering your other comments. You said something about not liking "Ukrainian lands were a core", so I can change the lead instead to "In Dnieper Ukraine, the tribe of Polans served as organizers of Kievan Rus' state, which was contributed by their geographic location". This one just strictly follows the source.

Land of Rus' merely refers to a region that was first called Rus', which is modern Dnieper Ukraine. Questions?

Rus' region redirects to Ruthenia article, this two items were merged by consensus, why am I not allowed to use it where it's obviously appropriate? Shahray (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that you realised why other editors objected to your edits.

I'm not even disputing that Polanian lands served as the core of the Kievan Rus state, you just need to find a reliable source stating that. "In Dnieper Ukraine, the tribe of Polans served as organizers of Kievan Rus' state, which was contributed by their geographic location" is fine, as long as the role of Vikings is mentioned somewhere not very far (per the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, in the 9th century the Varangians from Scandinavia conquered the tribes and laid the groundwork for the Kyivan Rus’ state).

I've explained multiple times why Ruthenia is not an appropriate term to use here. Please either find sources that support your position or request external feedback. Otherwise it's just wasting the time of other editors. Alaexis_¿question? 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so regarding "the core" your only issue was that I didn't strictly followed the source? Alright, lesson learned then.

I don't specifically create pipelink to Ruthenia, I create pipelink to Rus' region, which then redirects to Ruthenia. Article Ruthenia doesn't solely discusses the Early modern term of "Ruthenia", but also the Rus' region of 9th-13th century as well. This items were merged, and so this is best article for discussing Rus' region term. You can create a link for a specific section in this article in order to avoid confusion with the later Ruthenia term. Shahray (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, "Land of Rus" is not mentioned anywhere in the body and Subtelny only refers to it once here to refer to "the narrow sense of the word". Neither does he refer to "core Land of Rus". This is WP:OR. It is preferable to have the wording proposed on the talk page that everyone can agree to rather than back-and-forth reverts. Mellk (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding: The Polans will start to identify themselves as Rus' approximately in 9th century with the arrival of the Varangians. This is based on the chronicle retelling of events and is not something that can be stated in wikivoice. There are doubts about this and like other events mentioned in chronicles to give political legitimacy to the ruling dynasty this was probably an attempt to artificially introduce the name to the region. Mellk (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not the statement from any part of the chronicle, it's a well known fact that inhabitants of Dnieper started to call themself Rus' with arrival of Vikings in 9th century. Shahray (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The only mention of this is in the chronicle, which is well known to not be a reliable source. Mellk (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned in a source, not chronicle. Shahray (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We know about the history during this period because of the chronicle. That does not mean we have to take everything it says at face value. Is there a reliable source that does not challenge what it says regarding this? Encyclopedia of Ukraine hardly counts as a reliable source. Wladyslaw Duczko for example challenges this narrative. Is there anyone who disagrees with him? Mellk (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is your POV. Like I said, this statement is not derived from chronicle, and never said to be from it, it's just a well-known fact. Don't push WP:Fringe Theories that were already denied, your behavior is already questionable. Shahray (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a reliable source, a book written by a specialist to support this statement, and rather than finding another specialist who refutes this view, you instead write "it's just a well-known fact" and claiming that this is a fringe theory without any evidence. Mellk (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't yet mean all statements in it follow WP:FRINGE policy. It seems we have already discussed how this author was denying the existence of Polans, and now you're bringing him up again? Shahray (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

But going by your logic, it is cited so it is you who must get consensus to remove this. Right? Or is this something different? Mellk (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We get consensus that it is a WP:Fringe theory, what do you mean? Shahray (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Firstly, this is a pointless addition to the lead. The lead already starts off by referring to the prehistoric period. There is no reason to state the obvious.

Secondly, this adds too much emphasis on the Ruthenian aspect of GDL and tries to portray it as something along the lines of a Ruthenian continuator state. Also, it is not appropriate to refer to 'Ukrainian territories' at this time. Ruthenian, sure. So I do not understand why "present-day" was removed. Like with the text about Kievan Rus, this is introducing anachronisms. Mellk (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

First, this changes were agreed upon by two editors. Without this part, the article has no proper beginning, in any other history article there's a beginning like that (e. g. History of Poland).

Secondly, yes, this is an article about history of Ukraine, so it must put emphasis on elements that matter for Ukraine. The name of the state itself is "Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Ruthenia-Samogitia".

Third, again, this article is about history of Ukraine, term "Ukranian territories" would be applied correspondingly. You better be concerned about anachronisms like "Russian states". Shahray (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me where exactly another editor explicitly said that they "agreed" with this change. Just because you were not automatically reverted does not mean that consensus was achieved here. If you are not able to, then I will ask you to kindly self-revert. If you cannot do both, then I will simply go ahead and ask for an administrator to intervene, since it would indicate that the block did not help. Mellk (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the bold in the beginning of the article, the relevant guideline is MOS:AVOIDBOLD. In more refined articles, like History of England, History of Ireland or History of the United States (it is the English WP after all), there is often no bold. A bigger issue is that the topics presented in the first paragraph are not discussed in the article, and conversely, the prehistoric topics discussed in the article are not presented in the lead (which should be a summary of the article per MOS:LEAD). Since the topics brought up the first lead paragraph are highly interesting, I would suggest expanding the article, and then rewriting the intro accordingly. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As I don't see any productive discussion with this other aggressive editor and I already reported them, you can address how you would like to expand this article. For example, this bold is presented in History of Israel, History of Poland and History of Netherlands. Shahray (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk, yeah, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that I agreed to these changes. I'm not sure they constitute an improvement compared to the previous version but I didn't see anything obviously wrong and therefore did not revert them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

We have had a few hundred edits to the article in recent months, mostly by one or two editors. I already ran out of energy to review those changes a good while back. Mellk (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk, I am responding to your edits in Kievan Rus' article. The text "Rus' land" below the image is sourced, there's no issue regarding this. Why does my changes "not look like an improvement"? I won't create hundreds of talk pages just because you always disagree with me for precisely no reason. Shahray (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, this is called WP:SYNTH. Secondly, please start the discussion on the talk page of that article so that all interested parties can participate in the discussion. Mellk (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to spam messages everywhere just because of you alone. If you want to create new topic there, you can do it.

And now, I ask for a clear explanation for why my changes are "synth" or "not an improvement", otherwise it's just another unreasonable edit. Shahray (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Since this concerns another article, you must start the discussion on the talk page of that article. Otherwise, this is a misuse of the talk page. This talk page is only about improving this article. This does not count as spam. If you create a new topic there, I will explain my reasoning there in more detail. Mellk (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't waste my time on interrogating you everywhere for "more details", you should give a clear reasoning for you edit from the beginning. If you prefer to give explanation in the talk page, then fine, do it there. Shahray (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you remember the advice that was given to you before on what you should do if your edit has been reverted? I have also realized now that you had already started a talk page discussion about Polans on Talk:Kievan Rus' with the participation of other editors and there was clearly no consensus to implement your changes. Best to continue the discussion there. Mellk (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, yes, Lithuania is important to mention. But this kind of phrasing is missing from Grand Duchy of Lithuania. That article was also a target of Belarusian nationalists who attempted to overemphasize the Ruthenian part and tried to rename it or consistently refer to it as the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Ruthenia-Samogitia". Similarly, it would be problematic to take the Russian POV and refer to it as the "Lithuanian-Russian state" when talking about Russian history. Since Lithuania had a large chunk of modern Russian territory as well, it would not make sense to overemphasize the Slavicness of the state just because the context is Russian history. Mellk (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I hear for the first time of ridiculous concept "Lithuanian-Russian state" which I don't think is even supported by Russian POV. Shahray (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)