Talk:Ukraine/Archive 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously, my edit was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia respects the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine and recognizes Crimea is a part of Ukraine according to udapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.25.5.35 (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with what is there now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello editors,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new editor has added a new paragraph today

Cancellation of the official status of Russian language^[1], violent behaviour of far right group Right Sector and disagreement with new government's politics^[2] caused massive protest in Eastern Ukraine where people organised pro-Russian manifestations.

So let us see whether the citations support this.

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

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

Amitashi (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC): Before my entrance there was a long lived information block about refugees that I suggested to revert during my recent edit.
I believe it was accidentially deleted during edit warring by My very best wishes and then by Ian.thomson.
Those deletions targeted my edits but somehow affected information I didn't added. Here is information block:
According to the United Nations, 730,000 Ukrainian refugees have fled to Russia since the beginning of 2014 and 117,000 have fled to other parts of Ukraine.^[1]

The page doesn't even use the word oligarch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pay attention that in current version of article whole "Separately..." paragraph is logically incomplete. It begins with "Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions...". But that doesn't logically link to anything! With new addition it would be logically completed: "Protests... Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions..." Also addition is recommended because of absense of info that corresponds "pro-Russian protest in Donetsk". Here is suggested addition.
"Unpopular language law project,^[1] appointments of new governors^[2] and rise of far right views^[3] caused protest in Eastern Ukraine where people organised pro-Russian manifestations."

So let us see whether the citations support this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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