Talk:Ukraine/Archive 9

Could you please replace the phrase "sometimes called the Ukraine" with "previously called the Ukraine" to emphasise the fact that, according to grammar rules of contemporary English, "Ukraine" is used without THE (like many other countries' names of that kind), except for the term referring to its certain past periods. It is also used with NO article because modern Ukraine with its OFFICIAL name UKRAINE is now an independant country, unitary republic - it is NOT part of something anymore and NOT a federation as well. Millions of people read Wikipedia everyday, so it should offer true, grammatically correct information. As a linguist, English teacher and Ukrainian citizen, I have to say that it is a very important issue and there should be NO ambiguous points of view concerning the official name of my country. The phrase "sometimes called the Ukraine" says that people can use it as well BUT it is incorrect from historical and linguisctic perspectives. Thus, the phrase "previously called the Ukraine" would show that it is already in the past and now the only name, which is UKRAINE, is possible. I would be very grateful for these changes made as soon as possible. Kind regards, 217.77.212.60 (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Tetiana

But people still do say "the Ukraine" and, while it does not follow the usual rules, it is still grammatically correct because "the Ukraine" version is an established exception to that rule. --Khajidha (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@217.77.212.60: Instead of your proposed "sometimes called the Ukraine" the phrase should actually state sometimes incorrectly called "the Ukraine": every single respectable large English-language news organization in the world explicitly states in their Stylebooks that it is only correct to write "Ukraine" and that "the Ukraine" is grammatically incorrect. Please see the list of all major US/British media Styleguides on this:

US Media:

• NPR Styleguide: "Ukraine, not "the Ukraine"" (online html version)
• AP Stylebook: "Ukraine (no the)" (online html version)
• The New York Times Style Guide: "Ukraine, Ukrainian (not "the Ukraine")." (Amazon kindle version)
• The Wall Street Journal Stylebook: " Always write Ukraine. Don't use the article the" (Amazon kindle version)

UK Media:

• The Guardian and Observer Style guide: "Ukraine no “the”; adjective Ukrainian"" (online html version)
• The BBC News Styleguide "Ukraine. And not "The Ukraine"" (online html version)
• The Economist Style guide "Do not use the definite article before: [...] Ukraine"" (Amazon kindle version)
• Reuters Style guide "Ukraine not "the Ukraine"" (online html version)
• The Telegraph Style book "Ukraine - (not the Ukraine)"" (online html version)
• Financial Times Style guide Always "Ukraine" never "the Ukraine"" (Amazon printed version)

Also asking for comment from @Roman Spinner:, who is one of the very few English WP editors who is academically knowledgeable in Ukraine-related topics.--Piznajko (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. It is correct because for literal centuries it was how it was said. That it is no longer the preferred version, doesn't make it incorrect. --Khajidha (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the links above that I could access did not say that "the Ukraine" was grammatically incorrect, just that it is not to be used. You are making the assumption that grammar was their motivation, while it could just be "political correctness". --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Any news media Styleguide is an English grammar style and usage guide created by journalists. There's no political agenda or correctness in news media Styleguides --Piznajko (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The entry for Palestinian in the NPR link above disproves your assertion that these guides are just grammar guides and totally apolitical. There is nothing in that entry that is about grammar. --Khajidha (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It would actually be incorrect to state that it is sometimes incorrectly called "the Ukraine". As noted by Khajidha, it was certainly grammatically correct, and remains grammatically correct. Accepted practice in guidelines used by various institutions since independence drops/dropped 'the' from the name of the nation-state, and use of the definite article has become anachronistic, but this is certainly not the same thing as its use as being incorrect. I've never seen an English language (Anglophone) grammar book asserting that the use of the definite article is wrong. At some point in the future, it may not be used at all. When/if that happens it would be appropriate to note that it was called 'the Ukraine', but that such usage has become anachronistic. That will only be correct and noteworthy when the Anglophone world demonstrably no longer refers to Ukraine as 'the Ukraine' any longer. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Numerous outdated terms referring to geographical locations and ethnicity are still in common use, but those terms, when referenced in Wikipedia articles, already are or need to be qualified as being outdated. "The Ukraine" is one such outdated term and, unlike the unresolved, as of this writing, conflict among key media stylebooks over the spelling of "Kyiv", there is no such stylebook conflict, as detailed above by @Piznajko: regarding "the Ukraine", which is considered outdated by all stylebooks and should be unequivocally specified within the article's lead sentence as a historical form which is now outdated. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Roman Spinner:. Also, upon further examination of article's introductory paragraphs, it became apparent that the phrase "sometimes called the Ukraine" should simply be removed from the Lead section, since this is an incorrect archaic spelling that does not warrant space in the Lead Section per MOS:LEAD. Including information about the incorrect and archaic "the Ukraine" spelling int the Lead section is WP:UNDUE. The article already has a section "Etymology and orthography" (which I now renamed from "Etymology" to "Etymology and orthography" given that more that half of that section talks about "Ukraine" vs. "the Ukraine" spelling) which talks in detail about "Ukraine" vs. "the Ukraine" spelling. Furthermore, I do think that the section "Etymology and orthography" right now suffers heavily from WP:NPOV and WP:Grammar issues and it incorrectly states that it is still grammatically correct to write "the Ukraine" (quote, the Ukraine has become less common in the English-speaking world - this should be changed and it should be stated clearly that there is complete consensus among major English language Stylebooks regarding the fact that the only gramatically correct spelling is simply "Ukraine".--Piznajko (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, these are stylebooks NOT grammar texts. "The Ukraine" is out of style, but these books are not written to make pronouncements about grammar. --Khajidha (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this is getting plain silly. We seem to have contributors conflating the function of grammar and style manuals, consequently creating protracted arguments based on a this misunderstanding. What the issue seems to be here is a consistency of style across nation-state articles with regards to this change in usage of the definite article, and whether 'the Ukraine' is still being used commonly enough to justify such a prominent note in the lead. Given that this article is being used to support the use of the definite article, I can honestly say that I'm currently on the fence on this content issue. Having checked the corresponding articles for Sudan, Netherlands, Lebanon et al., some carry a prominent mention of the use of the definite article, others do not. The fact is that the BBC article does not claim that this usage is still common, but that it did exist (and is sometimes still used: certainly in the case of the Netherlands, yet this is an instance in which it is omitted from the inception, possibly due to moving straight into the usage of 'Holland' in the English language). In a nutshell, if it's deemed to be immportant, I think it's an RfC issue which needs to be properly constructed and put to editors. The current objections are mistaken as we're not here to teach the reader anything, nor to attempt to redress perceived wrongs. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition to depending upon its own WP:Manual of Style, Wikipedia rarely if ever contradicts unanimous guidelines specified within other stylebooks. Thus, if all media stylebooks in the English-speaking world are in unison regarding deprecated use of "the Ukraine", the text in the lead sentence of Wikipedia's entry for Ukraine, "sometimes called the Ukraine" should be either deleted, moved under section header "Etymology and orthography" or revised so that the text makes it unequivocally clear (for example, sometimes called / occasionally referenced by its outdated name the Ukraine) that "the Ukraine" is no longer a professionally acceptable alternative form for Ukraine. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing it from the intro on grounds of undue weight. The only change I would make to the etymology section is to put the attribution to Taylor before his quote. --Khajidha (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I do wonder exactly which part of "also known as" or "sometimes called" you are interpreting as making any sort of statement about whether it should be used. It reads to me as a simple statement of fact letting people know that they may encounter such usage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I am sorry but "also known as" or "sometimes called" in the introduction have no relation to the current official name of the country. Also, the term "The Ukraine" with such a note just gives some unnecessary reasons to call the country with the wrong name again and again in modern context, which is not quite right. It can be only used as a historical term regarding some specific periods and it should not confuse the reader. I suggest putting "used in very specific historical context: limited use" or something like that just in order to show that there is such a term but it is definitely a very specific one. 217.77.212.60 (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)217.77.212.60 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Tetiana

1) "have no relation to the current official name of the country" Neither the introduction as it stands nor myself have made any assertion that it did. 2) "call the country with the wrong name" Again, "correct" in English is whatever English usage says it is. There is nothing "wrong" with the term "the Ukraine", it is simply no longer popular.

@Khajidha: The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC just tweeted this: “Let us kindly help you to use the words related to #Ukraine correctly,” Ukraine’s Embassy in the U.S. tweeted, noting that the country goes by “Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine” and that its capital city should be spelled “Kyiv, not Kiev.” ^[1] Commenter8 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

And when exactly did the Ukrainian embassy receive the power to make decrees as to what is correct English? Because not even the governments of English speaking countries have that power. --Khajidha (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Since everyone apparently agrees that "the Ukraine" is an archaic and / or outdated form, thus it apparently follows that there is also agreement for either revising the lead sentence text "sometimes called the Ukraine" so that it states "sometimes called by its outdated name the Ukraine" or for both revising the text and then moving it from the lead to under section header "Etymology and orthography". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly. It is a less common and less preferred form, so it does not need to be in the intro and we should state that it is no longer common and is less preferred and even that Ukrainians reject it, but we cannot say that it is "wrong". --Khajidha (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "the Ukraine" does not need to be in the intro and that we should state that it is no longer common and even that Ukrainian's reject it, but we cannot say that it is "wrong". However, description of "the Ukraine" as "less preferred" should not be included unless it is also accompanied by a description of it as archaic and / or outdated. Otherwise, an impression would persist that "the Ukraine" is still preferred by at least one if not more reliable sources, albeit to a lesser degree. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the current wording ("The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article.) is fine as is.--Khajidha (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Khajidha that the current wording is better. Remember that Wikipedia is descriptive (which Khajidha's text is) and not prescriptive (which using the words "archaic and/or outdated" without a specific reference as to who declares it to be such is). Wikipedia can list who says X, but Wikipedia cannot say X under its own authority. --Taivo (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Roman Spinner: and @Khajidha: that "the Ukraine" does not need to be in the intro and that we should state that it is no longer common and even that Ukrainian's reject it, but we cannot say that it is "wrong". I disagree with Taivo and Khajidha that the current wording in the section ("The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article.) is fine as is - it is not fine as is, because i currently misleads the reader into thinking that it is still correct to write "the Ukraine", when in fact every single major English styleguide states that the only correct form is "Ukraine".--Piznajko (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Piznajko you do fine until you get to that nonsense about "correct" and "incorrect". There is no such thing as "correct" and "incorrect" when you are dealing with toponyms. You might as well tell the truth and label them as "the form I like" and "the form I don't like" because it's just your personal preference and not a description worthy of an encyclopedia. There is the older form, "the Ukraine", and the newer form, "Ukraine", that is preferred since independence by Ukraine and in style guides. There is no "correct" and "incorrect" about it. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, let's wait for an answer from a person who is an actual subject matter expert on Ukraine-related topics - Roman Spinner. He is is one of the few WP editors on English Wikipedia who are academically knowledgeable in Ukraine-related topics (which includes linguistic questions). I don't want to give here a full college-lecture on the history of the term 'the Ukraine', but lest assured that everything you said above, quote There is the older form, "the Ukraine", and the newer form, "Ukraine", that is preferred since independence by Ukraine and in style guides. is false. To discuss this topic in any academic way, It would be good for the quality of the article, if we actually had someone who shows actual rigorous linguistic knowledge of the English language when it's used in Ukrainian context (it is good that English WP has Roman Spinner, but it would be even better if we had highly-respectable, well-published subject matter experts on English language linguistics when it's used in Ukrainian context to come and contribute to this article - such experts reside in ALL top ranking US and UK universities that have Ukrainian studies departments, e.g. Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University, Ukrainian Studies academic centre at Cambridge University etc.). But TL;DR version: from the dawn of Ukrainian civilization it was at first mostly referred to as Kyivan Rus' (from around 900s to around 1300s), but starting in 1100s Ukraine began being referred to as simply "Ukraine" (there are earlier mentionings of Ukraine in chronicles, but the first major chronicle to mention Ukraine was The Tale of Bygone Years in 1100s), with the name Ukraine becoming the most widely used form by about 14-15th century. During the colonial rule of the Soviet Empire in 20th century, Ukraine was given a colonial label 'the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic' or 'the Ukraine' for short. The short version of that colonial label, the Ukraine, was very widely used by English media in the 1900s, so often that many journalist and editors even forgot that it was merely meant to be a short form of 'the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic'. When Ukraine regained its independence in 1991, it became grammatically incorrect to refer to Ukraine as 'the Ukraine' in any context whosoever & without exceptions, since the very pseudo-soviet construct 'the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic' from which the short version 'the Ukraine' was derived no longer existed. The end. p.s. You can learn more about the history of the name "Ukraine" in Ukrainian WP article on the subject uk:Україна (назва) (as is usually the case avoid English Wikipedia articles on any Ukraine-related topics, including the eponymous one, as they all currently suffer from major NPOV issues ).--Piznajko (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

When you said "suffer from major NPOV issues" I think you meant to write "do not bow down to Ukrainian POV". Funny how those little typos happen, isn't it? --Khajidha (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I find it revealing that User:Piznajko still refuses to understand the simple concept that history has no relevance to what English speakers call the place today and whether they put a "the" in front of the word or not. English usage is governed by English speakers, not by the tender feelings of Piznajko. --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Without making any academic claims, I definitely do not agree with the statement [at 13:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)], above that "...the current wording... is fine as it is." As of this writing, the lead sentence still contains the text, "...sometimes called the Ukraine", rather than such text being deleted or revised to state, "...sometimes called by its archaic / outdated form the Ukraine", thus making it clear that "the Ukraine" is not merely an alternative form that is "sometimes" used instead of Ukraine, but a form that is sometimes used despite being archaic and / or outdated.

Furthermore, the text under section header "Etymology and orthography" equivocates instead of stating directly: "The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English →‎ "The Ukraine" used to be the alternatively-used form in English [not the "usual form" — the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry is titled "Ukraine", not "The Ukraine"].

The text under "Etymology and orthography" continues, "but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article" →‎ "but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has come to be considered archaic and / or outdated in the English-speaking world, and style-guides warn against using the definite article" [the style-guides do not "largely recommend", but completely and totally proscribe {"Always write Ukraine, Don't use the article "the"" or "Always "Ukraine" never "the Ukraine""} the use of "the Ukraine" as representing unprofessional writing]. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe if you reread the statement, you will notice that it was in reference to the Etymology and orthography section, not the intro. I have already stated that the mention of "the Ukraine" could be removed from the lead on grounds of undue weight. As for the bit about style-guides, as it is probably not possible to look into every style guide out there, I feel that "largely recommend" or simply "recommend" is better than an unsupported assertion that all style guides are against the usage of "the Ukraine". I'm not seeing the difference you are trying to draw between what a style guide prescribes and what it recommends, the two seem the same to me. --Khajidha (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My proposed edit: "The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English,^[1] but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides now recommend not using the definite article.^[2][3] According to U.S. ambassador William Taylor, "The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty.^[4] The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically."--Khajidha (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Both User:Khajidha and User:Roman Spinner are saying virtually the same thing that I agree with: 1) Remove mention of "the Ukraine" from the lead. 2) State that "the Ukraine" is the former common usage in English. 3) State that many style guides recommend not using the definite article. 4) State that the government of Ukraine since independence has urged English-speaking countries to discourage the use of the definite article as demeaning. --Taivo (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not see that the one-sentence statement at 13:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC) specifies a distinction between the Etymology and orthography section and the intro. Since that single sentence ends with the words "is fine as is", I had to indicate why it is not fine as is.

As of this writing, the text, "sometimes called the Ukraine", is still part of the lead sentence. As for "it is probably not possible to look into every style guide out there", Piznajko provided links [at 00:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC), above] to the salient points of all ten key styleguides in the English-speaking world.

All ten of those styleguides do not equivocate (not "the Ukraine" or no "the" or Don't use the article "the" or Always "Ukraine" never "the Ukraine", etc). Therefore, stating that the styleguides "recommend" or even "largely recommend" using "Ukraine", rather than "the Ukraine", is much too mild. As I indicated in the previous posting, the styleguides wikt:proscribe, not wikt:prescribe, use of form "the Ukraine" on penalty of... being considered an unprofessional writer.

Therefore, it is not "an unsupported assertion that all style guides are against the usage of "the Ukraine", but an actual fact, unless someone can uncover an eleventh major styleguide which indicates that "the Ukraine" is an acceptable alternative to "Ukraine".

Ultimately, a version of the green-tinted text above, "but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has come to be considered in the English-speaking world as antiquated and style-guides warn against using the definite article", would best express, without equivocating, the actual state of affairs regarding use of "the Ukraine" in professional English writing. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

1} Did you not read the parenthetical? I specified exactly which wording I was referring to: "I think the current wording ("The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article.) is fine as is." 2} You did not specify major styleguides 3) All styleguides are the recommended uses of the writers, so I still don't see how saying they recommend is any different from saying they proscribe. --Khajidha (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

1) I did read read the parenthetical and indicated why it is not "fine as is".

2) As far as can be determined all stylebooks wikt:proscribe the use of the form "the Ukraine". The relevant links to the ten major stylebooks of the English-speaking world are above for all to see and if anyone contends that a stylebook exists which indicates that "the Ukraine" as an alternative form of "Ukraine", then it is incumbent upon that person to provide a link to such a stylebook.

3) To put it unequivocally, the stylebooks do not merely "recommend" not using "the Ukraine", they proscribe (forbid or prohibit) its use. The terms "recommend" or even "largely recommend" are grossly imprecise and, in fact, inaccurate, since those terms leave the clear impression that styleguides still leave some leeway for continued use of "the Ukraine" when, if fact, the styleguides leave no such leeway. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Piznajko is ambitious in his zeal to fight all slights to the glory of Ukraine, of course, but to assume that Piznajko has specified all the style guides in the Anglosphere is utterly ridiculous. Where is the Chicago Manual of Style? Or the MLA Style Guide? So to specify that "all" style guides do X is a false statement on its face and can never be proven. Even specifying "all major style guides" is false if you're just relying on Piznajko's list (I have cited two major style guides that Piznajko ignored). --Taivo (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

1) As my comment was in reference specifically to the quoted sentence, your objection (based on a sentence in the lead that I had already agreed should be removed) is rather irrelevant. 2) See Taivo's response. 3) Even their prohibitions are simply the recommendations of the writers of the styleguide. I don't see how saying that styleguides say you should do such and such leaves any confusion that they say you can do something else. If I say that styleguides recommend not using "Ukraine" without the definite article, that - by definition-- means that they recommend NOT using "the Ukraine". No matter how strongly they phrase it, it is still their recommendation and has force only over those who choose to follow it. Khajidha (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Granted that Piznajko has missed two major style guides and, upon returning from being blocked, can perhaps provide direct links and quotes from those. However, taking into account the unequivocal statements in the other ten guides ("Always write Ukraine. Don't use the article the" / "Always "Ukraine" never "the Ukraine"") I don't think any of us doubt that the guidelines in whatever style guides that still remain unlinked will differ from the ones already on display.

Since Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style follows the consensus of English style guides and this discussion concerns the consensus wording to be used in Wikipedia's Ukraine article, it would seem appropriate to choose language which clearly indicates the position of style guides.

The current text (under Ukraine#Etymology and orthography) is: "The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article. "The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty, according to U.S. ambassador William Taylor. The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically."

The proposed consensus text might be: "the Ukraine" was once a frequently used form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides warn against its use / warn against using the definite article in professional writing. "The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty, according to U.S. ambassador William Taylor. The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I would support: ""the Ukraine" was once a frequently used form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, it has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides warn against its use in professional writing. According to U.S. ambassador William Taylor, "The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty. The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically." --Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Let's hope Taivo, Ymblanter and others agree. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That is appropriate wording. My problem has always been that terms like "correct" and "offensive" must not be Wikipedia's position, but the position of someone or something outside Wikipedia that we directly reference: "According to the US Ambassador....", "According to the Ukrainian government...", "According to most style guides..." (still can't claim "all" and never can). --Taivo (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Taivo, your comment So to specify that "all" style guides do X is a false statement on its face and can never be proven is unsubstantiated - neither I nor Roman Spinner have at any time on this TP said even once that all style guides proscribe to use Kyiv; the simple reason for that - English language has literally more than thousand (and maybe even multiple thousands) Stylebooks published over the course of "the Writing age" of English-speaking peoples; it is simply humanly and logistically impossible for me to read through all the English language stylebooks that have been created over the past 1,400 that English language literature existed. That said, however, I looked at the other major English language styleguides that I could find and all types of styleguides point to Ukraine as the only correct way of writing:

1) Government institution-type styleguides:

• EU's institutional styleguide: just says Ukraine, and it does not mention any other alternative names other than "Ukraine" html version
• US's BGN institutional styleguide on Ukraine: Conventional name: Ukraine; Approved name: Ukraine online pdf

2) Media institutional-type styleguides (please see the original media stylebooks from [00:12, 29 September 2019 ]) :

• The Times Style Guide: A guide to English usage: Ukraine (omit the). Note the Orange revolution (Amazon kindle online html)
• Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Ukraine. Not The Ukraine (online html)

3) Academic-type styleguides

• MHRA Style Guide: The definite article is no longer used in the names of the countries Lebanon, Sudan, and Ukraine (Amazon printed version, online pdf)
• Chicago Manual of Style: the lastest 17th edition of CMS it does not explicitly state how to write country names; however in section "8: NAMES AND TERMS" it says to consult Merriam-Webster dictionary instead for geographic names (Amazon print version). IN Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (online html) it says: Ukraine or Ukrayina or, chiefly formerly, the Ukraine
• MLA Style Guide: MLA Style guide was discontinued in 2016 and instead MLA now offers MLA Handbook. The latest MLA handbook doesn't cover anything other than logistics of preparing an academic research papers : in 7 chapters it covers topics from compiling a bibliography to thesis style, to avoiding plagiriasm in research papers to how to cite others withing the paper etc.; in other wrods MLA Styleguide has a limited scope of usage and is aimed exclusively at academics who want to learn how to write a research paper; It does not cover any other parts of English language, e.g., country names including Ukraine, are outside the scope of this manual.
• Lastly, Oxford Style Guide does not mention Ukraine explicitly, but it states quote, that "authors not writing in a historical context should avoid using German names for Eastern European cities, or Russian names for non-Russian cities in the former Soviet Union: as Karlovy Vary is preferable to Carlsbad, so Chisinäu is preferable to Kishinev. This applies even when the Russian form is an approximation to the local form adopted in Soviet times in place of the traditional Russian name: write Tallinn not Tallin (the Tsarist Russian Revel' as compared with the German Reval). In other words, instead of writing "we went to the Ukraine" (from Russian "мы пошли на Украину) , one should write "we went to Ukraine" (from Ukrainain "ми пішли в Україну). ()

I cannot think of any other major institutional/media English style-guide. Given that there's clear consensus among major modern^[a] English styleguides (from both governmental/institutional and private/media types) that the correct modern spelling is "Ukraine" (the only place that 'the Ukraine' was given any weight, was Merriam-Webster dicttionaly (which was suggested by Chicago Style Guide) and even there it says chiefly formerly). This should be clearly reflected in the section " Etymology and orthography". If someone argues against the statement that all modern English styleguides proscribe that Ukraine should be used in all instances, I agree with @Roman Spinner: that, quote it is incumbent upon that person to provide a link to such a stylebook [that says "the Ukraine" is a grammatically correct form]--Piznajko (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Millions upon millions of people still use "the Ukraine" in everyday speech (particularly older ones like me and Donald Trump; I'm about as old as Donald, but nowhere near as senile as he is...), because that's what we were taught in school, along with "the Netherlands" and "the Sudan", and since it's still in common use it's not obsolete/archaic, it's also not grammatically wrong. So stop trying to tell native English-speakers what words we can and cannot use, it's simply none of your f-ing business, because the Ukrainian government/people/whathaveyou has no authority/power what so ever over anything outside the borders of the Ukraine... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

and finally merged fully into the Russian-dominated Soviet Union in the late 1940s as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

a) Soviet Union was co-founded by Ukrainian SSR, hence in 1991 it was one of the three states to sign Belovezha Accords

b) that happened in 1922, not in the "late 1940s"

Sources:

• Договір про утворення Союзу Рад. Соц. Республік. [30 грудня 1922 р]. В кн.: Укр. РСР на міжнар. арені. 36. док-тів (1917-1923 рр.). К., 1966
• Бабій Б. М. Союз РСР і роль України у його створенні. К., 1972; Історія д-ви і права України, ч. 2. К., 1996.
• Распад СССР и правопреемство государств: монография. — М.: Юрлит­ информ, 2012. — 192 с. Korwinski (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The key word is fully. Before 1940s, parts of present-day Ukraine were outside the Soviet territory. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    • So how come it merged fully in 1940s while there was a 1951 Polish–Soviet territorial exchange, not to mention that there was also a Crimea that became part of Ukrainian SSR only in 1954? I think this sentence needs to be replaced completely as it truly does not make that much of a sense. For example: Following the All-Russian and Ukrainian Revolutions, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became second largest constituent of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And formation of the territory of Ukrainian SSR part should be put somewhere in the History section. Korwinski (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Crimea is a bit contentious issue, yet the wording can be indeed replaced, ", and finally merged fully into the Russian-dominated Soviet Union in the late 1940s as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic". "Merged" here means final assemblage of certain territory into the single Ukrainian polity, whether it is deemed to having happened in 1954 (if one talks about UN-recognised borders), or in 1951 (if one excludes Crimea from Ukraine). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Is there a specific necessity for "Russian-dominated" part? I mean the preface should be as short as possible, yet you propose that we keep that part and ignore the one about All-Russian and Ukrainian Revolutions that led to formation of USSR and Ukrainian SSR, which make much more sense to include here. 194.156.251.30 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right. "Russian dominated" is a questionable statement for several reasons. First, " The affirmative action empire: nations and nationalism in the Soviet " by TD Martin, a source that has more than 2000 citations is google scholar says that Russian nationalism was suppressed in the Soviet Union at much greater extent than other ethnic nationalisms. Second, other authors argue that there were virtually no Russian nationalism in Russian Empire/USSR until mid XX century. The fact that Russian was lingua franca has no relation to that story, because even now many ethnic nationalists in modern post-Soviet states speak Russian. I suggest to remove "Russian dominated" as a not universally accepted point of view, especially taking into account that many leaders of the USSR (Khruschev, Brezhnev, Chernenko) were of Ukrainian origin, and Gorbachev even had pronounced Ukrainian accent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've realized that the 1917-20 Civil war period is missing from the lede. I think one sentence is needed to describe the period of foreign conquests and internal political perturbations that lead to formation of Ukrainian SSR and USSR. The fact that Ukraine was a founding member of the USSR should also be reflected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, where did the above ideas come from? A few academics opining. Anything can be published by academics: it doesn't make it mainstream, or full of truthiness. It's what they're paid to do. Doesn't mean anyone else in their department agrees with them, or maybe they all do. That still does not make them mainstream or reliable.

Define ethnicity. Ethnicity is of no consequence to those who have rejected it (or preferred to take on 'Russian' as their ethnicity). There was hardly a song and dance routine into the sunset about, "The Bolsheviks have it all!" (although I can show show a fantastic array of Bolshevik and Stalinist propaganda that someone might believe it they are desperate to believe in something). Russification didn't take place. Russians were persecuted? Does that mean they were forcing Russians to speak, read and write in Ukrainian, Belarus, Georgian, etc. and they couldn't get a job as anything other than a manual labourer if they were illiterate and spoke no Russian? Aside from large towns, we're talking vast numbers of villages... and nationalism had arrived on the scene long before any Russian revolution. If it was such a happy marriage between Ukraine and Russia, why did it take until 1919 for the battle to be won by the Bolsheviks? I think you are oversimplifying history so much that it's fringe. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:, I am afraid I may open a can of worms by joining that discussion, so I reserve a right to stop participating in it if I'll see that is moves into an undesired direction. First, if we decide that "academics" are not mainstream, than what is mainstream? BBC? Fox News? Russia Today? Al Jazeera? According to our policy, peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly journals are top quality RS, and if you disagree with that, then I see no reason to continue a discussion.

Regarding the rest, Soviet Union had a very complex history, and it would be deeply ahistorical to speak about Ukrainization, Russification etc as some uniform policy Soviet authorities were pursuing during the Soviet times as whole. In addition, 1917-20 events in Ukraine were very complex, and they could be probably even more complex than the events in Russia proper. There were several internal political forces in Ukraine plus several foreign invaders, and sometimes it was not possible to discriminate the later from the former. Thus, taking into account that a significant part of Bolsheviks were Ukrainians (Dybenko, Antonov-Ovseenko), Ukrainian born Russians (Voroshilov, Khruschev), or Ukrainan born Jews (Trotsky, Kaganovich), and many Ukrainins, especially East Ukrainians supported Communists, it is hard to tell if Bolshevik invasion was a Russo-Ukrainian war or a part of civil war in Ukraine (actually, both components were present, but its proportion is a subject of debates). And what about Makhno? Was it a Ukrainan movement, or it was a part of international nationalist movement? Was establishement of Ukrainan national state a goal of Makhnovtsy? I am not sure. In addition, Petlura had many other opponents even among ethnic Ukrainians, such as Grigoriev. I am not going to re-tell the whole story of Ukraine in 1917-20, but it is obvious that your interpretation is a dramatic oversimplification. And, by the way, taking into account the role of Odessa and Donbass in Bolshevik movement, it is a big question whether Bolshevism is Russian or Ukrainian invention (under "Ukrainian" I mean the term in a modern european sense: population of territory of modern Ukraine).

And yes, Russian nationalism was suppressed even in Russia, and it was the most suppressed nationalism in the USSR, so it would be ridiculous to call USSR "Russian dominated". Yes, many Ukrainian authors were forbidden, but what about Bunin, Kharms, Pasternak, Mandelshtam, Tsvetaeva, and many many other Russian authors? I can continue, but that page is not a forum, so if you do not propose any changes, let's stop here. If you want to continue, my talk page is at your disposal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess the meaning of "Russian-dominated" (and what Iryna is talking about) in not Russian nationalism (it was suppressed in the Soviet Union, at least before WWII), but ru:Великодержавный шовинизм meaning building the Soviet/Russian Empire [of Evil] that was also a "Prison of Nations", starting from the Russian Empire. In English translation that would be "Great Russian chauvinism" , but the Chauvinism in English has a slightly different meaning than "шовинизм" in Russian. Perhaps the colonialism would be a better word because Great Russian chauvinism can be viewed as a variety of colonialism. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you and I have passed each other on talk pages for years and, although we mainly disagree, I respect your opinion and know you to be no fool. Please excuse the 'slightly' acerbic tone of my previous response to your proposal/s. I can be unnecessarily curt, much of the time not even realising the extent of it coming across as being nasty. I promise, I did not intent to be nasty. In fact, I rather think you're someone whose company I'd enjoy, and would be sitting around and having a discussion/debate with you on all manner of things. You might be surprised at who the real me is, and what I believe (ever fluctuating quantities because one must always be open). I don't always believe in what I am defending, but I try to go by the spirit of Wikipedia. Right now, much as I'd like to engage in comparing notes on the content in question on your talk page, my health is extremely poorly, and I know what my thoughts are, but they're scrambled when I try to articulate them.

Segue to another person whose company I know I would enjoy: My very best wishes. Yes, 'The Great Russian Chauvinism' an excellent quantification, and I can't think of a better descriptor than colonialism. Before the Revolution all serfs, including Russians, were treated with the same lack of respect (I'm thinking "Dead Souls" here). During the different phases of the Soviet Union, Russian ethnics were no better off it their treatment than the majority of other Soviet citizens (and I do stress majority as there were degrees and degrees of persecution of ethnic groups: Tartars, etc.). What the general Russian ex-serf's offspring picked up and carried with them was the equivalent to the British Victorian sensibility as to their superiority to everyone. With the Russians who bought into it (and the numbers seem to have increased dramatically), it was more along the lines of believing that Ukrainians, Belarusians, et al, were helpless creatures who couldn't survive without them. I think that's what you had in mind, MVBW, is it not? Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Don't worry, I do not care if a person looks nasty. If a person is prone to arguments and is thinking logically the wording does not matter to me. You may call me a even f&ckig b@stard, but, if your post contain serious and logically perfect arguments, and you analyze my arguments seriously, I will be happy to talk with you.

The more I am reading, the more I realize that the term "Great Russian Chauvinism" is a tool in a political struggle, not a real phenomenon. This article, which is being widely cited demonstrates that there were no ethnic Russian nationalism in Russia until recently. There definitely were no official Russian nationalism before WWII, and Stalin's course to "struggle against cosmopolitism" and suppression of some ethnic groups was more his own imperial politics. It was not an indication of a rise of Russian ethnic nationalism, but rather an attempt to introduce it. Soviet Union was not "Russian dominated", before 1953, it was dominated by Stalin's clique, which declared (at the later stages on history) that it is ruling on behalf of Russian people. However, in 1920, during korenizatsya, even that was not the case, and Russain-speaking Kharkov was being forcefully Ukrainized.

In general, the recent tendency to emphasizing a Russian nature of Bolshevism is extremely worrying. Not only it is ahistorical, it is politically harmful, taking into account modern political realities. Bolshevism was not more Russian than Ukrainian or, e.g., Latvian. One part of Ukrainians, mostly central Ukraine, was supporting Petlura, whereas Odessa or Donbass were pro-Bolsheviks. The former were the analogs of Russian Denikin, the latter were the analog or Moskow Bolsheviks. In both cases, each party obtained foreign support and/or had to fight against foreign intervention. At some moment of Ukrainian Civil war, pro-Bolshevik Ukrainians (I mean not only ethnic Ukrainians, but Russians, Jews, etc) became expelled from the territory of Ukraine, and then they came back as a part of Red Army, but was it a real conquest by Russians?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You also may be interested to read . This monograph is being widely cited, so it is by no means non-mainstream view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I had that in mind, and a lot more. Actually, the "great Russian chauvinism" was (and still is) the desire of Russians to build their new Empire by enslaving other peoples, whatever the name, Soviet Union, Third Rome, etc (some of them tell that the actual name of Jerusalem is "Rusalem"). The Third International is not international, but a Russian national idea (Nikolai Berdyaev). As Soviet poet Pavel Kogan said, just before the beginning of WWII :

This (inter)nationalistic sentiment/ideology is the only reason why Putin attacked Ukraine and is preparing for the WWIII right now, as we speak. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Ukraine. Krakkos (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Krakkos. I saw it when you posted it, but didn't bother to vote as I thought it was a no-brainer. Turns out it pays to !vote unless you want to be swamped that cat police who don't actually know anything about the subjects they're categorising. This entire project is mad... so why are we all still addicted? Bad call. Maybe someone will change it back in 5 years. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy - Fortunately, the category is still archived as it appeared on January 10, 2019. If someone does indeed change it back in 5 years, i won't be much of a time-consuming task. It's unfortuntely becoming clear to be that there are no such things as no-brainers on Wikipedia... Krakkos (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos, I think history, ethnicity, good guys, bad guys will be rewritten on the Wiki project a million times over before it's over as a generational project (unless it burns itself out in the next few years, with the numbers dropping off, although I tend to suspect there'll always be an army of those who to rewrite articles using what are laughingly known as 'techniques' and waving the red flag at el toro loco because they know better. Wikipedia is, "Bombs away, that's okay, IAR is in your favour!"

And talk about weird YouTube/'culture as imagined' stuff, check this out: Squat dance, Russian folk dance, Russian braid to name just a few created by an enthusiast. Looks as if there are people out there reading talk pages (yay for the good lurkers & trolls!). I found an obscure article entitled That Russian Squat Dance, but it's a gem in a million. The Great 'Russian Empire' lives on, so pull up a pew in front of your local mall with your Bandura, grab a hat and start busking, beginning with that old favourite, Kalinka. Now we've got the Russian groove thang happening!

Just as a matter of interest, let's compare what Wikipedia says about Jumpstyle. ;~)Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hahah :D Krakkos (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: The cat police who orchestrated the deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories are now at work on the article Romance peoples. If this subject is of interest to you, the relevant discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance peoples. Krakkos (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change

as well as severe corruption.^[1]

to

as well as severe corruption.^[2]

The reason for the change is the allegations made there in a January 2018 article https://www.unian.info/society/2373677-ukraine-starts-mass-production-of-troop-command-and-control-systems-ukroboronprom.html are not confirmed still (despite change of power in Ukraine which happened about half a year ago) Pamerast (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Transparency International is an organization with a long-established track record in this area and it discusses the issue of corruption in general instead of specific allegations. This is more appropriate as a cite. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Somehow a reference has been lost in this section. The reference named BBC News Magazine is invoked, but not defined. Anyone know what source is meant here? --Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed.

The way you fix these problems is to use the article history - go back to an old version and search for the missing reference. This one was easy to find - it was in the first one I looked at (an edit by you, 300 edits ago). Sometimes it takes a long time, particularly if there is a dead URL, or a "live" URL that leads to a different article, which means you need to know when the URL did lead to the right article, so that you can find it in a web archive. Toddy1 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "president, parliament and government" section, someone forgot to change the name of the prime minister from Oleksiy Honcharuk to Denys Shmyhal. Can anyone fix this for me, please? Thanks! DoanVN (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for catching the mistake! — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In contrast with the rest of the article, the Covid-19 section utilizes the outdated "The Ukraine" nomenclature all throughout. Someone please change. See the beginning of the article: Before its independence, Ukraine was typically referred to in English as "The Ukraine", but most sources have since moved to drop "the" from the name of Ukraine in all uses.[11] Berehinia (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Also fixed a few "Kyiv"s. The section needs a grammar edit, though.--Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Khajidha. Wish I had the priveleges to fix the spelling. There's a few more Kievs in there :) Berehinia (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly why you can't do it. "Kiev" doesn't need fixing. --Khajidha (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the number of inhabitants for Ukraine marked "without Crimea", while the page Russia has two lines, "including" and "excluding" Crimea.

I feel a neutral position would be to have two lines, "including" and "excluding" Crimea, like Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy75 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How would you go about doing that? There's no data for the current population of "Crimea-as-part-of-Ukraine". The only data on Crimea's current population is based on the people living there post-annexation. There is no way to know how many of them would be living there if it were still under Ukrainian control. --Khajidha (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the point is that the Russia page should only have one figure as well - the 'including Crimea' one, as that was what was covered by the census. Birtig (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Last paragraph of introduction, about halfway through makes claim that Ukraine "...maintains the second-largest military in Europe after the Russian Armed Forces." This claim does not appear to be accompanied by any citations or links which could provide it any credibility. I have been unable to find any evidence to support this claim, and I find it highly unlikely that this is accurate. This claim should be reviewed, and citations should be presented to support it if any exist.

--Thanosins (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

More or less supported by list of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel (assuming you exclude Turkey). --Khajidha (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This needs clarification. Russia and Kazakhstan are both larger in total area, but only Russia is larger if only European territory is concerned. The Kingdom of Denmark is also larger, but most of its territory is in Greenland. Probably best to just say that Ukraine is the largest country whose entire territory lies within Europe. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Kazakshtan does not play here, as it is not a European county.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

France is also larger; it includes French Guiana, which is in South America. So Ukraine can properly be called the "second largest country by European area". France in general is larger than Ukraine because it includes French Guiana; the European part of France is smaller than Ukraine. Georgia guy (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Go take a look at the map in the infobox for Europe. See that green section in northwestern Kazakhstan? That is Kazakh territory within the general definition of Europe. That small piece of Kazakhstan is larger than Greece, Bulgaria, Iceland, Portugal, Austria, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Bosnia, Slovakia, Estonia, Denmark (European portion only), Switzerland, the Netherlands (European part), Moldova, Belgium, Armenia, Albania, North Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Luxembourg, Georgia, Andorra, Malta, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco, the Vatican City, the European portion of Turkey, or any one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. So, yes, it is a European country. --Khajidha (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, do not confuse having a peace of territory in Europe with being a European country. Turkey has as well a small strip inside Europe, but it is not an European country, but Asian, as Kazakshstan.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

Both Turkey and Kazakhstan are Asian AND European countries precisely because they have territory in both continents. --Khajidha (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

France is likewise both European and South American. Georgia guy (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, both of you again distinguish from the blind geographical approach. France is an European country, while Kazakshtan is Asian. Being European not just depend on geography, but several other factors.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

...such as... Georgia guy (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering the sentence in question is purely about physical geography, any other factors are quite irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Georgia guy, also cultural aspects, but not even identical with UEFA member states, or EU membership, we had a nice discussion about it in the Languages of Europe talk. Khajidha, I don't object your modification, but I had to express my concerns about what should be designated as a European country.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

Your concerns make no sense. It's in Europe. Even if only partially. Being IN Europe is sufficient to make it European. --Khajidha (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

NO, part of her territory is in Europe, but it is NOT sufficient to make it as an European country, as Turkey as well us not European. I suggest you to read the discussion I referred which reflects all aspects of this question, even geographically, that has more views and aspects.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

I should read a discussion that can't even accept basic English? Nope. Whatever your hangups might be, the simple fact that a country has territory in Europe means it IS a European country. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's your choice, I disagree. At minimum there could be transcontinental countries, a small strip is not enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

1) As I have already stated, transcontinental countries count in both categories and 2) Look at that list of size comparisons again. This is hardly a small strip". --Khajidha (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

1), are your opinion, not mine, 2) we could discuss if you'd read what you will not read.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

So, by your logic that transcontinental countries are not European, we have to leave France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Russia off the list of European countries. As the text in question is about physical location and territorial size, your "other factors" are completely irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you don't know the background of my logic or it's details because you won't read something I asked, hence to continue this discussion is useless (btw, I would not take down from the list those countries you just listed and again, the text in question irrelevant here, since our discussion is not about objecting your edit, as you were told).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

With so many ways to evaluate this, sources are never going to all agree; editors offering their reasoning is SYNTH -- completely irrelevant. I suggest just stating something similar to "one of the largest countries in Europe" and move on to useful editing. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Saying that Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe after Russia is wrong, because several other countries in Europe are larger than Ukraine: France, Denmark, and Kazakhstan are all larger by total area. If what you mean is "country with the second-largest territory within Europe", say so. But it is simpler to just say that it is the largest country located entirely within Europe. --Khajidha (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha: The several other countries you just mentioned, namely France, Denmark, and Kazakhstan, are all smaller than Ukraine by European territory, Denmark's Greenland is located in North America, and all of Overseas France is located outside of Europe. Making Ukraine the second-largest country in the European continent after Russia, but yes, the largest country entirely located within Europe, which i added a note for, The article had the previous edit for a long time, you're reverting it without consensus. Start a discussion before reverting the much older edit again. And Kazakhstan does not even come to the play here, it is not European. Danloud (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your text does not make it clear that you are considering only European territory. As that is a matter of poor writing, your consensus is irrelevant. And if you can include countries with territory outside Europe, you cannot exclude Kazakhstan for having territory outside Europe.--Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha: There are several other factors that make a country European, even Turkey has a small portion of it within Europe, but the Turks are not ethnically white European, nor are the Kazakhs, they are Turkic - Asian and two Muslim-majority nations with a non-european language, and a non-western culture, unlike the Russians who are white Europeans, speak a European language, are are culturally European. And the talk here is about the continent of Europe, not about South America or North America. Only the European portions of the country should be included. France and Denmark, even though with territory outside of Europe, are considered European, because of language and culture, while Turkey and Kazakhstan, even with smaller portions within Europe, are considered Asian. Danloud (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What does culture have to do with physical location? The sentence is about the physical size of countries. There are two possibilities here: total area and area solely within Europe. If you mean the latter you should specify, as my version does. ---Khajidha (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Oh, so without culture, and physical geography only, Ukraine is the second-largest country by land area in the European continent, after Russia, which is first by land area in the continent, and its European portion only, is almost 6.6 times the size of Ukraine. That is what should be written in the introduction. Danloud (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your proposal still doesn't make it clear if that is based on total area or only on the area within Europe. --Khajidha (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Only the area within Europe, because that is what matters. It's clearly written that Ukraine is the second-largest country by area in Europe, after Russia. Anybody can understand that i am talking about area solely in Europe here. And the parts of the other European countries outside of Europe have clearly not been included. Danloud (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not clear. You are not specifying that you are looking only at area within the European continent. Kazakhstan is a has a larger land area than Ukraine and is in Europe. --Khajidha (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is only partly located in Europe, and its European portion is much smaller than Ukraine. Your geographic knowledge is the reason we had to take this discussion this far, because you think any partly located country in Europe is "full European", and count their whole land area, which may or may not be within the European borders, if borders did not matter then the European continent would've never been different from Asia. Can you not see that the discussion here is about Europe - the continent, and portions of countries within the continent by Boundaries between the continents of Earth. Ukraine's European portion of 603,628 km² is around 6.6 times smaller than Russia's European portion, which spans 3,972,400 km², making Ukraine the second-largest country by land area within the European continent, and Russia the largest. You can see that i am only counting Russia's European portion's land area here, otherwise i would've put Russia's whole land area, which is partly in Asia, and spans 17,098,246 km². How hard is this to understand? Now you will probably bring Turkey, France or Denmark saying its total land area is larger than Ukraine and that its in Europe, when their European portions are much smaller than Ukraine. Do you know what Geography or a Continent is? Read this article - List of European countries by area. Danloud (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The problem is that you are not specifying that you are ranking the countries in Europe solely by that portion of their territories that is in Europe. Transcontinental countries are "in Europe" and must be taken into account unless specified that only the European portion is relevant. The wording you are using in the article is ambiguous on this point. The meaning changes depending on whether you break it down as "second-largest country by area" and "in Europe" or "second largest country" and "by area in Europe". The wording you used here ("second-largest country by land area within the European continent") is actually clearer.--Khajidha (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The wording is correct as far as i know, just saying that Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe after Russia, which was in the previous version, before you reverted it, was also okay. Don't think the wording needs to be this long and clear. Its already clear to people, that Russia is the largest country in Europe, and Ukraine the second-largest. This whole discussion is pointless, it would to be good to put the introduction the way it is and move on to useful editing. Gatesnaze (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why was this section created, when it concerns the same article issue as the section above? And why title the section after an editor's name, rather than how the article can be improved? If an editor is the problem, that cannot be resolved in an article talk page, but only on one of the administrator drama boards. Targeting editors on an article talk page is somewhere between pointless and actively disruptive.

Unless some argument is presented on how the article issue in this section doesn't heavily overlap the one above, I will merge the two sections, removing the unhelpful heading. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No idea on why he named the section over me, and even made it in the first place, since the issue is the same. It should be merged into the first section. Danloud (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Recognised regional languages Russian, Rusyn, Belarusian, Yiddish" is either obsolete or completely unsubstantiated lacking any sources - First of all, there is NO other "official" language in Ukraine except for its "State" language, which is Ukrainian. However, there is EU Charter for minor languages listed: Belarusian, Bulgarian, Gagauz, Greek, Yiddish, Crimean Tatar, Moldavian, German, Polish, Russian, Romanian, Slovak and Hungarian. see. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=802-15/#Text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xobbitua (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This statement in the introduction struck me as blatantly false, and surely enough the linked sources don't support it either: "At US$40, it has the lowest median wealth per adult in the world,[note 1][15]" According to the linked source, Sierra Leone has the least median wealth per adult in the world, which makes a ton more sense. I can't edit the article because the clown above got it semi-protected, but this matter should get resolved. 216.58.117.162 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no source for saying it has a "very high poverty rate", although this is true as far as I can tell relative to other countries at similar levels of development. The statement is also somewhat weasel-y because it does not define poverty as absolute or relative or give any kind of indication of what definition of poverty is being used. I have changed it to a citation needed in my suggestion but really I think it should be removed until a proper source is provided. Saying it's the poorest country in Europe makes the point clear without these unsupported assertions anyway. I did find a source that supports the assertion that it's the poorest country in Europe at least, although I am not sure it is a source befitting an encyclopedia:

{cite web |last1=Kalymon |first1=Basil |last2=Havrylyshyn |first2=Oleh |title=Why is Ukraine Still So Poor? |url=https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-is-ukraine-still-so-poor/ |publisher=Atlantic Council |accessdate=9 June 2020}

As a result, I would support changing the following part of the lede:

As of 2020, Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe alongside Moldova in terms of GDP per capita. At US$40, it has the lowest median wealth per adult in the world,[note 1][15] and suffers from a very high poverty rate as well as severe corruption.[16]

To this:

As of 2020, Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe alongside Moldova in terms of GDP per capita[above citation], with a high rate of poverty[citation needed]. Corruption also poses a significant problem in the country: in 2017, Ukraine ranked 126th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.[16]

Thanks to the editors. 216.58.117.162 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This doesn’t seem like a simple enough matter for an edit request; I think you need to discuss your concerns about the way in which this information is presented with other editors on this talk page (such as the possible use of weasel words) to obtain a clear consensus for your changes. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 08:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This sounds like a good change. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The latest issue of Global Wealth Report (https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html, see Global wealth databook 2019 (PDF), Table 3-1) has this fixed: Ukraine is reported to have Median wealth per adult $1,223 (and not $40), no longer making it "the country with lowest median wealth per adult in the world". I agree with the suggested edit, there is no extra value in highlighting the wealth per adult measure here. --MaryanUa (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There has been plenty of time for responses here and there seems to only be support for this change. As a result, I am reopening this edit request. 216.58.117.162 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Seemplez 09:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there really a need for a whole section about COVID-19 in this Wikipedia article as we have now in Ukraine#COVID-19? It is a bit strange to me to make it look that the COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine is just as important as the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea or the War in Donbas. Besides the section has not been updated since 1 June 2020. 1 sentence about the COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine is enough for this particular article for the time being (in my opinion). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The information currently in Ukraine#COVID-19 seems to me to belong in the Wikipedia article: Modern history of Ukraine. But even then (I think) it needs to be trimmed down. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The link to "Zaporozhian Host" leads to a disambiguation page. Can someone fix this? Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine has very good food — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syyy the goat (talk • contribs) 13:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to make. Firestar464 (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I propose to make changes in definition of Ukraine as an "Eastern European country" into a "country which is partially located in Central and partially in Eastern Europe". The reasons: Western Ukraine was part of a Habsburg Empire for hundreds of years with subsequent cultural influence. Otto Von Habsburg claimed himself that not only Western Ukraine, but entire Ukraine belongs to Central Europe. https://books.google.ca/books?id=-IWjGh3u5iEC&pg=PA293&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true In 1887, geographers from the Austro-Hungarian Empire set up a historical marker and a large stone in what is today a part of Ukraine, believed to mark the geographic centre of Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europe#Austria-Hungary I think to deny any historical and geographical relation of Ukraine or some parts of Ukraine to Central Europe is just ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Otto von Habsburg was not a geographer, so how can his personal opinion be used in matter regarding geography? Also "Central Europe" is not one and the same as "the centre of Europe". Ukraine does have historical ties to central Europe, but I would not say that makes it a central european nation any more than Belgium which also has ties to the Habsburg empire. Andro611 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So, which criteria do you propose, geographical, cultural or both? Regarding geography: if we draw a straight line from Lisbon to Ural mountains (for example Yekaterinburg of Russia) and divide this line into a three equal parts which will conditionally stand for Western, Central and Eastern Europe, then slightly more than 50% of Ukrainian territory including Kiev will appear within Central part of Europe. Where are the proves it is wholy in Eastern Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

We use the definitions generally found in English sources. And Ukraine is only rarely discussed with Central Europe. --Khajidha (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Partially, it attributes to the Cold War legacy. In 1990 the very notion of "Central Europe" was rarely used in the Western geographic sources and commonly Europe was divided into Eastern and Western straight along the Iron Curtain line. Even Eastern Germany was part of Eastern Europe on many Western maps. Doesn't it seem to you there is a time for revision of this legacy? I think the notion of Eastern Europe started to get politically provocative as a term which applied to the enemies in the past by Western sources. Especially as there are insufficient geographic or say political basis in the old division lines. And some softer and more flexible divisions could be introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether I think it is time to revise these definitions is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not create its own system of regions of Europe, it reports the systems in use in the sources. If most English language sources still use the Cold War system then that's what we should use. --Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia already became a widely cited source on its own. Until September 17-th, 1939 Western Ukraine was part of Poland. If we assume that pre-War Poland was wholly in Central Europe (why not?) then how could we say that Western Ukraine has no historical relation to Central Europe? It was part of it 80 years ago!

1) Citing Wikipedia is poor scholarship. 2) Why would we assume that? In conclusion, you really need to just accept that Wikipedia follows the sources. ---Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia claims modern Poland is wholly in Central Europe. In 1939 Western Ukraine was part of Poland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Polish_Republic How it possible that Western Ukraine changed its location from Central Europe to Eastern Europe just in 80 years with no right for appeal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need in my opinion to mention the name of Ukraine in Russian at the beginning of the article. Russian is, per law, just like Crimean Tatar or Romanian, only a minority language of Ukraine, though protected. Of course it is still widely spoken across the country, however, when looking at other country’s articles you will also just find the name of the country in the state language(s), not the also commonly spoken ones. Ukraine’s only official language is Ukrainian. Thus, there is no need to mention the Russian name. It actually sounds belittling to be honest since it draws a connection to the time where Russian was an official language in Ukraine as it was still part of the Soviet Union and not a country by its own. You won’t find that kind of belittling in the articles of countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. . Albert Malik 1997 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. Ukraine is younger than Russia. Russia has been around since biblical times. Eastern point of roman empire was russia Ukraine didnt appear in any texts until the 12th century.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:CDAB:2821:979A:9BE0 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes in articles about sovereign states (at least about Eastern European countries which have similar historic context) contains list of historic states regardless of continuity (Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Lithuania etc). Respectively, the same logic should be used regarding Ukraine.--Dƶoxar (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The examples you listed especially proves the opposite you try to say.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC))

No. These modern states are not directly connected with medieval states on their territory, but there's historic connection (just as well as in Ukrainian case). Removing info about medieval Ukrainian states looks not neutral in this context. If mention historic states in the infobox is wrong, this should be disscussed on the project level and changed in all those articles (not to confuse users and not to provoke edit wars).--Dƶoxar (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Serbia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, Czechia didn't preserve their independence throughout their history, these nations established modern states without sovereign continuity from medieval monarchies. Ukrainian situation is very similar. Ukrainian State in 1918 was ruled by Pavlo Skoropadsky, the descendant of Cossack Hetmanat's ruler of early 18 century Ivan Skoropadsky. And the Cossack Hetmanat's founder Bohdan Khmelnytskyi was referred as the "Prince of Rus". Ukraine has as much connection with Rus and Cossack State as other Eastern European countries with their medieval and early modern kingdoms.--Dƶoxar (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Medieval states or proto-states such as Kievan Rus' or the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are not exclusively a part of Ukrainian history (but also of Russian and Belarusian history). Ukraine only emerged as an independent state and nation in 1917–18, during the fall of both the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires.(CapLiber) (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Read attentively what I wrote and stop vandalising the page.--Dƶoxar (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I would recomend you to do the same.(CapLiber) (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

To do what? I'm restoring the recent stable version of the page you vandalised on 2nd August without any discussion.--Dƶoxar (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Ukraine. Details of what existed in the area before Ukraine should be brief. At present the history of what existed before Ukraine is far too long. Birtig (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Capliber argumentations is fair. And again, the countries you listed have direct continuity on their entities.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC))

Countries I listed didn't exist for one or couple of centuries and they don't have any legal connection with early states. Can you prove the opposite with facts, not just words?--Dƶoxar (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, last stable version was before User:CapLiber edit as (s)he removed the information on 2nd August without discussion and any arguments.--Dƶoxar (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

While proto-states and states such as Kievan Rus' and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are obviously a part of the Ukrainian history, they are not exclusively Ukrainian (unlike the examples you've given). While the Ukrainian language had been developing since the late middle ages (as a distinct language, while the Old West Russian language is also a part of history of Belarus and the Ancient Russian is also a part of the Russian history), there was no Ukrainian statehood until the empires of both Austria-Hungary and Russia collapsed in 1917–18, giving an opportunity for the Ukrainians in the West and in the East to create their own state.(CapLiber) (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all I'm talking about Galicia-Volhynia and Cossack Hetmanat which are "exclusively Ukrainian" to use your terminology. Also Kievan Rus was a federation, so instead of this name "Principality of Kiev" can be mentioned.--Dƶoxar (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, CapLiber, KIENGIR but this is nonsense. Ukraine's connection with previous state formations on the territory of Ukraine is a historical fact. For example, the fact that Poland was deprived of independence for some time, like Lithuania, does not mean that it cannot claim inheritance with the state of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - this is indicated in the infoboxes of the countries of Latvia and Poland. The infobox of the state of Russia also indicates the connection with Kievan Rus and the Novgorod principality (and there is much more doubt about that as the Novgorod Republic in 1478 was conquered by Ivan III). If your argument is that Kievan Rus belongs to three states, then it is worth removing the mention of Kievan Rus from the article about Russia. First of all, it is necessary to remove the mention of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from articles about Poland and Lithuania (from their infoboxes). And in the end, these states will be kind of lost. Historically, the longevity of Ukrainian statehood can be traced back to the period of Kievan Rus. That is, between the 12th century and the 20th century there were also state formations. Read more carefully the history of Ukraine. In these respects, it differs little from the history of many other Central and Eastern European states. --Wellring (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If it's gonna be this much trouble, just cut everything except the current constitution and leave the rest to the history section. This is just an infobox. It's supposed to be quickly accessible, basic information. Six separate dates (as of when I write this) is neither quick nor basic. --Khajidha (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Dƶoxar, I think you should avoid WP:CANVASSING. Wellring, there is no "nonsense" here, your summarization have many problems, claiming "historical fact" in an area where more entities/nation claim heritage in a conflicting way, to say nothing of these issues heated nowadays because of geopolitical/military conflicts, etc. The example and comparison with Polish is totally failed, since it has been a Polish state in that part "Królestwo Polskie i Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie" -> "Korona Królestwa Polskiego", etc. The discussion was not about here how many claim "Kievan Rus'" or what is in the Russia page, raise these issues there in case. Your final sentences are totally POV "Historically, the longevity of Ukrainian statehood can be traced back to the period of Kievan Rus", or I would say heavily inaccurate. In fact CapLiber's summarization again was correct about this issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC))

I'm actually for cutting this ancient period off from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine articles' infoboxes, leaving verified statehood dates instead (1283 in case of Russia, 1917 in case of Ukraine, 1918 in case of Belarus).(CapLiber) (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I see double standarts here. Bosnia and Hercegovina has Banate of Bosnia in the infobox, Bulgaria has First Bulgarian Empire, but Ukraine "emerged" in 1917 and has "no connection" with Kievan Rus. Come on, this looks like manipulation. Infobox shouldn't contain all the historic events happened in Ukraine, but Kievan Rus (or Principality of Kiev to not disturb other nations), Kingdon of Galicia-Volhynia and Cossack Hetmanat should be mentioned. No other nation claims Galicia-Volhynia or Cossack Hetmanat "their states", and Ukraine's connection with these formations is at the same level as Bulgria's with its medieval Empire and as other Eastern European countries' with their early states.--Dƶoxar (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

These states existed while mostly unified people of Ancient Rus' hadn't fully divided between the modern nations yet. For example, most of modern Belarus and Ukraine were a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and were using the same West Russian language, while what is now known as Russia had already been emerging as a distinct nation with its own version of once similar language.(CapLiber) (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's try to eliminate double standards we can see over and over again. Well, no one is claiming for Ukraine's exclusive right to inherit Kievan Rus' history. Now we are discussing the origin of the modern Ukrainian state. We can trace it to Kievan Rus'.

• 1) Okay, if there are some doubts about the inheritance we can go a little beat further. Now we can see that Principality of Kiev arose in 1132. It was a medieval East Slavic state, situated in central regions of modern Ukraine around the city of Kiev. No one except Ukraine claims the inheritance. This is fully consistent with CapLiber's position on Russia (the foundation of Grand Duchy of Moscow in 1283). It is all about leaving verified statehood dates
• 2) Later there was the Kingdom of Rus' (1253–1349) or the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia which integrated the Principality of Kiev. Actually, the Principality of Kiev was dissolved in 1471.
• 3) Later we cannot ignore Cossack Hetmanate as a fundamental state formation in Ukrainian history.
• 3) If you exclude the mention of Kievan Rus from this article, then do the same in the article about Russia and also exclude the mention of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the article about Lithuania (KIENGIR). CapLiber, your arguments show that the mention of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the article on Lithuania is superfluous.
• 4) Once again, as we see from the practice of writing state infoboxes in the wiki, periods of state dependence are not a reason to reset the date of establishment.
• 5) Khajidha, I would accept your position if it was a common practice in the wiki. But this is not the case. As for Ukraine, we are witnessing a one-time action.

--Wellring (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wellring, I intended it as a general policy, not a one-off thing. --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, I got it. However, it doesn't work like this in real life, in real Wikipedia practices. Perhaps, you can launch a large discussion. Eventually, if the community will come to a consensus, there would appear a legitimate basis for edits you stand for --Wellring (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

User:CapLiber, you are trying to make an accent at Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was a polynational state and its herritage still is a "battleground" between modern Lithuanians and Belarusians. I agree we should avoid it in the infobox here. But I am trying to make an accent at "exclusively" Ukrainian historic states like Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia and Cossack Hetmanat. I didn't see any arguments against their presence in the infobox.

Regarding Kievan Rus. As there is mention about it in Russia arcticle why it can't be mentioned in Ukraine article? Otherwise it is an obvious double standart (which is actually very close to the Russian imperial historiography with its attempts to monopolize the Rus heritage). If you sincerly belive Rus should be removed from both Ukraine and Russia infoboxes, let's find a consensus with Russia article's editors and remove it simultaneously not to provoke classical Ukrainian-Russian battles here. And let's restore it for now until the consensus is found.

Can we agree like this?--Dƶoxar (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Khajidha, six (and sometimes much more) separate dates in the infobox is normal pratice in the Wiki (check out ANY Eastern Eropean country article). In other cases there are full lists of historical formations (sometimes despite any legal connection), dates of annexations etc. Russia - 10 dates, Poland - 10 dates, Lithuania - 14 dates, Bosnia and Hercegovina - 10 dates, Croatia - 9 dates, Moldova - 9 dates, Romania - 10 dates, Serbia - 9 dates, Slovenia - 9 dates, Slovakia - 7 dates, Czech Rep. - 6 dates, Hungary - 10 dates). And if you try to cut them off there, I am sure, it would be the very similar discussion. There are just couple of essential dates which have to be mentioned here: 1) Kievan Rus, 2) Galicia-Volhynia, 3) Cossack Hetmanat, 4-5) UNR/ZUNR, 6) UkrSSR, 7) 1991 independence. Enought and not too much in compare with others.--Dƶoxar (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I can agree with that, except the mention of Kievan Rus' (I've already explained why) and Ukrainian SSR (basically a puppet state of the bolsheviks, doesn't have to be mentioned just as Reichkomissariat Ukraine doesn't have to). I'm also for reaching consensus on Russia and Belarus pages regarding their first establishment history dates, excluding Ancient Rus' as their common proto-state predeccessor.(CapLiber) (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, UkrSSR was a puppet republic (not even a state) but 1) it existed at Ukrainian territory for 70 years and it is an important chain in its establisment history (giving to independent Ukraine its early political elite and administrative tradition); Reichskomissariat didn't have such a big impact; 2) UkrSSR was a UN member. And about Rus; until Rus is mentioned in Russia article it should be also mentioned here, as at least Principality of Kiev was a direct ancestor of Ukraine's statehood.--Dƶoxar (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine declared to be the legal successor of the Ukrainian SSR as well as of the Ukrainian People's Republic.--Wellring (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Dƶoxar, there are no double standards here, you practiacally reiterate similarly your failed argumention in an extended way. Banat of Bosnia and First Bulgarian Empire were Bosnian and Bulgarian states (not the city of Kiev makes a state Ukrainian). Establishment history has not any connection if anyone would exclusively claim a state. Again you repeat your already refuted argumentation about referring Galicia-Volhynia and Cossack Hetmanate as "exclusively Ukrainian" historic states (and as I see you already invented other "direct ancestors"...). No, as Capliber as well explained more times, and you should not tell you don't see arguments, because you ignore arguments. Moreover your list about other countries and article especially contradict you as well, since all of them properly contain their clearly connected historic states, so such discussion like here could not emerge by any means, you falsely try to indentify and connect the "number of dates" as a stress pattern to your argumentation, although this factor is totally irrelevant in this discussion (i.e. Slovakia starts in the 20th century, regardless how many dates, are, Slovenia ibidem, etc.).

Wellring,

(1)-(2), again, claim is irrelevant, or if anyone other claims, similary if any earlier entity shared a territory of a present-day country, furthermore as explained above

(3) The Cossack Hetmanate was a Cossack state, the founder designated it a Ruthenian one. However, since it has been referred a Ukraine, here I may agree to mention, but just because of this. Furthermore there is not any reason to remove from the Lithuania article the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, simiarly per Poland argumentation before, clearly Grand Duchy of "Lithuania", Ducatus Lithuaniae, etc.

(4) periods of state dependence...again it is not about this or whatever you mean, not dependence matters, but if the state itself clearly connected and derived from it.

(5) No "one time action" action here, i.e. Belearus article as well started from the 20th century, etc.

In general, I repeat other articles issues should not be discussed here, as demonstrated we just saw false analogues and completely failed attempts on this. Again, feel free to open in the Russia article as Capliber referred to discuss if in case anything there would be problematic, etc. (as pointed out, at Belarus such not needed). Ukrainian SSR was an Ukrainian state, not just by name, all that matter's, other issues are irrelevant.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I don't ignore your arguments, but I neither accept them. There are many evidence of Ukraine's historic continuity to these states. Your words without links to any source are just your words (or better to say your attempt to distort my words). Anyway, we found an agreement with CapLiber, so let's restore Galicia-Volhynia and Cossack Hetmanate in the infobox. --Dƶoxar (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "false analogues".

• Principality of Pereyaslav was called "Ukraina" first time in 1187, so we can mention this date in the infobox just as it is done in Lithuania article (see "First mentioned").
• First Czech state was called Bohemia, so (according to your logic) it has nothing to do with Czechs, it was a "Bohemian" state, right? No, it is stupid to say this just as well as to say that Cossack Hetmanate was Cossack, not Ukrainian, or Kingdom of Galicia and Volhynia can't be Ukrainian (Galicia and Volyn are modern Ukrainian regions just as well as Bohemia and Moravia are Czech regions).
• Romania. This name was firstly used by Italians in 16th century, but the infobox contains mentions of Principalities of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania which appeared much earlier, and even mention about "first Romanian polities" of 9th century which for sure were not called "Romanian" by that time.
• According to your logic North Macedonia should have mention about Macedonian Empire, but we know, why it's a bad idea.

Regarding lack of connection.

In Treaty of Zboriv (see Polish or Ukrainian version) signed by Polish crown and hetman Khmelnytsky in 1649 the term "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian cities" is used regarding territory of Hetmanate (not "Cossack cities" or "Cossack land"). The term was used in many other documents of that period, for instance in so called "Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk" (1710, see the Latin text). Also in 1918 Ukrainian State was ruled by Pavlo Skoropadsky whose claim on Ukrainian neomonarchy trone was based on his ancestor Ivan Skoropadsky's rule in Cossack Hetmanate. Even Russian government recognized Cossack Hetmanate as a "little Russsian" formation (this term was in official use in Russian Empire instead of "Ukrainian").

In Galician–Volhynian Chronicle of 13th century the term "Ukraine" was used as synonym to the territory King Daniel controlled (see the original text).

In Galicia the term "Ruthenian" was used since Middle Ages until late 19th century when it was gradually replaced in public use with the term "Ukrainian". Despite this fact "Ruthenian" and "Little Russian" intellectuals were collaborating on commnon national idea for the whole 19th century. In 1848 Supreme Ruthenian Council in Lemberg adopted modern Ukrainian flag based on symbols of Galicia-Volhynia.--Dƶoxar (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am surprised to see the title of the section as Independence from Russia.
  • First of all, there was no real concept of independence from [the] Russian Republic before CapLiber introduced it. There is literally not a single book on it. Independence from the Russian Republic was a non-existent event: on one hand, the Russian Republic did not exist anymore when the Fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Central Council was adopted, on the other side, a significant part of Ukraine at that time was not even controlled by any Russian state but was controlled by Austria-Hungary instead. The Ukrainian War of Independence was essentially about reunification of Ukrainian lands that were split between the Russian Empire and Austro-Hungary, not about independence fro the Russian Republic.
  • Secondly, there is an extensive amount of books on Ukrainian history tracing back its roots to the Kievan Rus. The Declaration of Independence of Ukraine (1991) describes that Ukrainian tradition of state development is thousand-year and not of several dozen years, which means that Kievan Rus is a part of the establishment history of Ukraine. Major reference sources (including those cited in the article) confirm this vision of Ukrainian history: The World Factbook refers to the Kyivan Rus and the Cossack Hetmanate as a part of Ukrainian establishment history, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine writes that Ukrainian historiography traditionally starts with Kyivan Rus as well. This is a mainstream vision of the Ukrainian establishment history.
  • Thirdly, this is not in line with the description of other European countries. Apart of some articles where infoboxes were recently edited by CapLiber himself (like Belarus), very few countries are defined in the infobox by Independence from... rather than Establishment or Formation. All countries described by Independence from were fully incorporated in another country and had no major state formations established before the independence, like Belgium, Luxembourg or San Marino. Similar cases like Montenegro or Czech Republic describe formation history and not independence from Yugoslavia or Austria-Hungary respectively.

  Thus I do think the version prior to CapLiber's edits should be the basis for the infobox. It can be improved but the mentions of Kievan Rus' 882 and Cossack Hetmanate 1648 must absolutely be there. P.S. For full transparence, Dƶoxar asked me to comment on this — NickK (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

" six (and sometimes much more) separate dates in the infobox is normal pratice in the Wiki (check out ANY Eastern Eropean country article). In other cases there are full lists of historical formations (sometimes despite any legal connection), dates of annexations etc. " In other words, "other articles are just as crappy and messed up, so we can't fix this one." --Khajidha (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If we need to limit ourselves to five dates, they should probably be 882 for the Kievan Rus, 1648 for the Cossack Hetmanate (both are widely considered as key events in formation of the modern Ukraine), 1918 for the Fourth Universal, 1991 for the Declaration of Independence, and either 1919 for Act Zluky (crucial but very close to 1918) or 1996 for the constitution (very relevant but less crucial). These are the dates that appear in literally every work on formation of the Ukrainian independent state — NickK (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We should limit ourselves to one date. Anything beyond that is too much for an infobox. If you can't get it down to one date, don't have any dates in there. --Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dƶoxar, not accepting arguments that proved the opposite you wished to identify (multiple times happened) is not a solution for anything, just reinforce your tendentiousness. I've never distorted your words, and not necessarily links prove you wrong or the opposite what you say, it has been demonsrated why, when and where, etc. In a discussion all participants agreement is needed.

- the term Ukraina or similar to be mentioned does not prove being an Ukrainian state. The evolution of the Ukrainian national consciusness and formation as a nation, or state that could be called or treated solely Ukranian dates back much later, with such argumentation you could claim all early Slavic formations as Ukrainian, that is a blatant POV and OR

- No my logic is right, since as well later it has been called Bohemia, and undoubtedly it was the land of the Czech people, i just reflected how you wish to trim other articles based on fallcious arguments just because you don't like some other entities' dating. The Cossack nation and identity is not clearly a Ukrainian identity, so i was totally correct on that, but since in modern times it has been referred as Ukraine, this is an appeasement regarding establishment history, when the term really started to designate and render it's modern meaning. Again it is irrelveant if an earlier entity shares territory of a modern state, Sumer won't be the predecessor of the Iraqi state because of that, Galicia and Volhynia, alias Regnum Rusiae could easily be claimed better by Russians, etc.

- Romania, as a reference to the to the country of Romanians have been used first in the 19th century, while Wallachia was undoubtedly a Romanian state formation, etc. You fail to understand the logic has multiple layers, but you cherrypick one and ignore another and with that you try to justify your problematic argumentation.

- No, according to my logic not, since that were of Ancient Greeks, not Slavs.

- useless to fuss about the Cossack Hetmanate, I already told it may be mentioned

- The term Ruthenian does not make automatically anything Ukrainian, it may denote any ancestors Belarusians, Rusyns or Ukrainians or even further etc.

- So you say in the manifesto the did not "announce and explain separation from Russian Republic", then what they announced according to you?

- "a significant part of Ukraine at that time was not even controlled by any Russian state but was controlled by Austria-Hungary instead" -> at the time Austria-Hungary had it own sovereign states and borders, and there were some Ukrainian proclamations which remained unrecognized if fact claiming territories from Austria-Hungary, so you cannot state any means Ukraine at the time was controlled, it's pure anachronism.

- "was essentially about reunification of Ukrainian lands that were split between the Russian Empire and Austro-Hungary" -> "reunification of Ukrainian land" is again a POV statement, btw. which makes a land "Ukrainian"?

- No doubt Ukrainaian historiography claims much more far, but here we maintain WP:NPOV.

- "Independence from... rather than Establishment or Formation" -> these variates mostly added by editors not necessarily professional at the topic, these terminologies are added sometimes inaccurately, they should be carefully and properly chosen.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC))

Moreover, nobody concerns that Germany or Italy achieved their undoubted state only in the 19th century, as as well noone should feel inferior becuase Egypt can date back the 4th millenium. This is history, it's not a "problem" you wish to identify as a general issue. At every respective article these issues may be reviewed, and the vast majority of other articles mentioned here does not have the problems we discuss.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I think that you miss the difference between a nation and a state. Ukrainian nation existed long before 1917. Before 1917 there were Ukrainian people speaking Ukrainian on lands controlled by the Russian Empire (File:Subdivisions of the Russian Empire by largest ethnolinguistic group (1897).svg) and there were Ukrainian people speaking Ukrainian on lands controlled by Austria-Hungary (File:Austria Hungary ethnic.svg). There was a Ukrainian nation which was split by a border, and there were lands were Ukrainians were a majority. This is not a POV, this is a fact which is confirmed by all mainstream historians. In 1918-1919 this nation and its lands was reunified within the same sovereign state, the Ukrainian People's Republic.

Regarding in the manifesto the did not "announce and explain separation from Russian Republic", they could not announce separation from the Russian Republic neither on 23 June 1917 (it did not exist yet) nor on 22 January 1918 (it already disappeared). The First Universal declared autonomy from the Russian central government (Центральне Російське Правительство), the Fourth Universal declared independence from all neighbouring states including Russia, Poland, Austria, Romania and Turkey (Росія, Польша, Австрія, Руминія, Туреччина) and particularly from the government in Petrograd (петроградське правительство). Neither mentions Russian Republic. Only the third mentions the Russian Republic, claiming the goal to transform that republic into a federation of equal and free peoples (федерацією рівних і вільних народів) — NickK (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha: This can be an option. However, all European countries list multiple dates, with an average probably around 5. If we need one date, that should clearly be 24 August 1991. In any case the independence from the Russian Republic should not be there as there are no sources on it — NickK (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NickK,

definetly do not miss the difference on the two terms, on the contrary, very carefully care about not just these, but all related aspects, having a long-long experience on the topic inlcuding many other countries/nations.

Let's clear the terminologies, since here you a bit conflating the things. The evolution of Ukranian people and their nationaly identity/conscience came to a point in the end of the 19th century onwards, when some people adopted the ethnonym Ukrainian, some not, with particular debates ongoing even today. Henceforth the term or Ukranian nation and the inlcusion of it won't be so much clear long backwards, especially in some regions. The same goes to the Ukrainian language in connection with the Ruthenian one, etc. Hence i.e., "on lands controlled by Austria-Hungary" (precisely lands part Austria and Hungary, and the map is inaccurate since it is depicting in a POV way Rusyns and other as Ukrainians, etc.), i.e. Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria of Austria were a multi-ethnic area which inlcuded as well other nations, like Poles, etc. Calling these as Ukrainian lands by the other user was POV, for that said, I did not say in Austria-Hungary did not live people with Ukrainian identity, etc.

About the other topic, if that is in the original document, then please correct the Fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Central Council article accordingly.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: The truth is that national conscience in the majority of Europe has their roots in the Spring of Nations. Thus almost all modern European national identities came to a point in the middle of the 19th century. Still, it is common for European historians to trace back the history of establishment of respective countries back to the Middle Ages. The same Ukrainian people were named Ruthenians or Little Russians depending on the political context, all of them are recognised as a part of Ukrainian history by modern mainstream historical POV, while the point of view that Ukraine did not exist before 1917 is marginal.

I have corrected the Fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Central Council, as the original document does not have any mention of separation from Russian Republic — NickK (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK:,

national awakening is one part, national identity or charachter another one, connection of countries is again an other, but in a way there may be some important or common points that would determine these questions. Here, we have to be careful regarding POVs vs. facts.

Thank you for the correction in the other article.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Once again, the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine clearly states that there is a thousand-year tradition of state development in Ukraine. This means that Ukraine is a modern state assumes historical connection to Kievan Rus' as a medieval state, and sources confirm it. The article used to state this as well, however, your edits transformed this thousand-year tradition of state development in Ukraine to a seventy-three-year tradition of state development in Ukraine (as of 1991). This is exactly contrary to facts and is a minority POV ('Ukraine did not exist before 1917') — NickK (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK:, please do not confuse declarations or assumptions with facts or other issues, btw. not I was the only one or even initiated this. About states, connections, etc. and other issues back in time were already discussed here.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: There is a clear fact that history of Ukraine does not start with the independence from [the] Russian Republic, so it cannot be in the article. The Declaration of Independence of Ukraine is a fact, it is not an assumption. These issues were not addressed in the article despite all these discussions — NickK (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK:, sorry you start to conflate things. We are not discussing about the history of Ukraine, indeed I did not call what you say an assumption. Read back if it's not clear.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: The infobox used to show the establishment history of Ukraine. I am speaking of the establishment history of Ukraine, and provide a factual confirmation that the establishment of modern Ukraine is related to a thousand-year tradition of state development in Ukraine, which means Kievan Rus'. I also provided multiple sources above. This establishment history based on mainstream sources is replaced with 'independence from the Russian Republic', which is wrong, and it is also a fact — NickK (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK:,

it is meant to show that (and not claims), you provided a claims from a document, but claims and facts are not necessarily equal.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I don't really get what you expect. If you are looking for succession of states, it dates back only to the 19th century and was codified only by 1996. There was no codified succession of states before the 19th century; while other states like Montenegro or Czech Republic list historical states of which they are not a formal successor. If we look at historic predecessors and not formal successors, Kievan Rus' and Cossack Hetmanate are recognised as predecessors of Ukraine, see List of predecessors of sovereign states in Europe. In similar cases other countries list predecessors as a part of their establishment history, no reason was given anywhere in this discussion why this should not be the case for Ukraine — NickK (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK:,

I'd expect to finally understand. It has been already explained in this talk that multiple factors we have to take into accouint regarding this question, you pick one by one and try to see from it as would fit your target goal. I did not refer to those articles, however the latter have does not have any relevance (recognized by whom?), since it contains Scythia, the Hunnic Empire, so it clearly just list any entity who wholly or partially included any of the areas of present entities, which are not the situation in infoboxes.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Please provide this list of these multiple factors. I am especially interested in how these multiple factors result in independence from the Russian Republic. I am currently seeing nonsense in the article and my target goal #1 is to replace it with something meaningful — NickK (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK:,

these are mentioned all this discussion, no need to repeat it. If you say Russian Republic issue that you corrected in the other article is false, no problem, I correct it accordingly.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Please list them here directly — NickK (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, we already discussed these in this thread.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, you wrote about one of the theories of nationalism as a self-evident thing. However, you forgot that according to this modern theory, all nations originated around the 19th century. We are talking about nations in a broad sense when the whole nation realizes itself as one nation. Therefore, if we want to be consistent and take this position, we need to remove the mention of any other formations before the 18th century, for example. I mean, they should be removed from all the infoboxes in any article about countries. However, this should not be done. Because the establishment history is not only the history of the nation but first of all it is about the history of state formations. If we are talking about the history of state formations, then it is appropriate to start from afar, not from the 20th century. If you want to focus on nations, then remember that they all arose recently and start cleaning up other infoboxes. Kind of rhetoric question for the end: do you believe that in 927 Angles, Saxons, and Danes formed a brand new nation (look at England's infobox)?--Wellring (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, there is not such theory that all nations originated around the 19th century., that is fake, hence your argumentation based on this entirely false. History of state formations should conform with state itself, the timing is irrelevant, but clear relation to that. Just because I explained something to fellow editors in more aspects given their inaccurate statements, it does not mean a specific focus or the change of the general approach influenced by more variables, and again, not all nations formed recently, some much older, some more recently, the paletta is versatile. About your rhetoric question, my beliefs are not much relevant, the question is only if this "Unification of Angles, Saxons and Danes" what state was, and has a direct connection of today's England through former English states.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC))

@Dƶoxar: you going into some gray areas with your initiative. Your mentions of Khmelnytsky and Skoropadsky background only proves that you have limited knowledge of the subject. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK: the term "Kievan Rus" is a conditionally accepted term for country that never existed under such name. There is no written or archaeological evidences that contain this phrase. The name was invented by Russian Mikhail Pogodin in order to justify existence of another office construct like Muscovite Rus. Pogodin is known for promotion of the Russia's leading role in Pan-Slavism movement. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK: the reason I mentioned Kievan Rus is because before arrival of Oleg to Kiev and saying his words about who is who of Russian cities, there already existed some form of government and/or statehood on territory of modern Ukraine that is completely ignored by today's mainstream historiography. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: why don't you familiarize yourself with the following article on Wikipedia like nationalism before telling what is fake and what is not. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: your question about what makes land Ukrainian is a study of ethnography. Beside reading historic evidences, one should familiarize oneself with other evidences that support written statements among those are studies about lifestyle of local population as well as archaeological studies. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: there is no evidences that Russia existed in 10-11th century where today stands Moscow, the heartland of modern Russia. Russian claims on Kievan Rus are marginal. There is a strong debate in regards to Normanist theory that today is very popular among Russians, but was opposed by the first Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. The fact that Russia never existed before 18th century is mentioned by the godfather of modern Russian Federation Karl Marx. In Russian chronicles the Russian land is referred exclusively to what is now Kiev. Russia relates to Kievan Rus like Romania relates to Roman Empire or Holy Roman Empire relates to Roman Empire. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev:,

- I am familiar with the mentioned article and as well the subject, do not think I'd make irresponsible statements.

- I did not ask that question because I would not have an asnwer or I would lack of information, it was directed to an editor, per his argumentation I wanted to know what he would say.

- Thank you for the information, I mentioned anyway marginally some possible Russian claims, though I said more time any of such issues should be discussed at the Russia article.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: uh-m, yeah, I was totally about something different. My bad. It is again the "Infobox war". I hate those:) I see what the matter is now. The infobox fails to mention about the fact that there was a specific official document adopted by Verkhovna Rada in 1991 when the country and its state institutions were declared as such that were renamed from Ukrainian SSR to Ukraine. Technically it is a really minute detail, but there was an actual event which preceded the actual legal dissolution of the Soviet Union. In general, the list which now has six dates (4 in early 20th century and 2 at the end) is fairly just, considering the infobox in article about United Kingdom. I think there should be added the fact that in 2014 Ukraine recognized Crimean Tatars as own indigenous people making Ukrainian nation, not only Slavic but rather a nation of Pontic steppes. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev:,

as you see this debate is not about modern issues, so go on in case. Well, I also dislike when overwhelming, lenghty discussions are made about hot subjects in a tendentious way, I already gave of reading fully or being totally up do date e.g. Talk:Kiev :) - which in fact, I never participated. It's like an online chat site...(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: I know the issue around the name of Kievan Rus'. I opted for it as a common, well-recognised name. I know that there was something before arrival of Oleg, but, again, 882 seems to be the most relevant date for Ukrainian history. Do you agree that its mention is relevant in this context? Thanks — NickK (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@NickK: as I told to KIENGIR I walked into something that really did not pay intention. There are really way to little quality articles in Wikipedia about earlier forms of Ukrainian statehood as well as indifferent position of the official Ukraine towards its past. There are too many questions what really the Cossack Hetmanate was and how was functioning its government. There is too little information about the role of Ottoman Empire and the Ecumenical Patriarch in support of Ukraine. There are no articles about religious and economical infrastructure of Southern Ukraine during that period. There are no articles even about the old Tsarist Muscovy fortresses in Southern Ukraine such as Kamenni Zaton. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no logic to the presentation of this article to others like it. In particular, the article about Russia states that the formation began in 862. And in the article about Romania, which in 895, and in 1330, the principality of Wallachia appeared. By the logic set forth here, neither Russia before 862 and Rus' in general, nor Romania to the principality of Wallachia, have anything to do in the context of state formation. In this case, the question is why the approach to Ukraine has been changed and only historical states have mentioned since 1917? I propose to state as follows: 862 year of Rurik's arrival in Novgorod; 882 year of Oleg's arrival in Kyiv; 1199 year of formation of the Galicia-Volyn principality; 1432 proclamation of the Grand Duchy of Ruthenian; 1649 Hetmanate; and then for 1917 and subsequent years. So it will be, first, logical in relation to the presentation of the material according to similar articles; second, it reflects historical realities; third, it will reduce passions. And the name of the country in Russian should be removed. By the same logic, in this case, the article about the United States should add a name in Spanish.Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

On the back of Stalin's Tanks

Old encyclopedias (like E. Britannica 1911 and old German Brockhaus encyclopedia) depict only Rusyn people in Kárpátalja region(modern name: Zakarpattia Oblast) of Kingdom of Hungary. Ukrainians existed only in Austrian part of the Empire in Galicia. So Ukrainians arrived to that region during and after the WW2. The first Ukrainians arrived on the back of Stalin's tanks to Kárpátalja.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Royal Free Citiy

• On January 21, 1919, at the People's Assembly in Khust, the unification of Carpathian Ukraine with the Ukrainian People's Republic was proclaimed.
• Carpatho-Ukraine (Karpatska Ukraina). The name of the autonomous Carpatho-Ukrainian state within Czechoslovakia in 1938–39. This name as well as the earlier name Subcarpathian Ruthenia (Pidkarpatska Rus’) was in official use. http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CA%5CCarpatho6Ukraine.htm --Wellring (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Simple political proclamations could not superside real democratic plebiscites/referendums. Rusyn people are not Ukrainians, they were forced to be.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Royal Free Citiy: as they say the Nile is not only a river in Africa... Origin of term Rusyn is from Polish "Rusini" that was used towards all people of modern Ukraine and related to the Kingdom of Russia and Grand Duchy of Kiev or Ruthenia. Until early 20th century in Habsburg Galicia existed another term like Halicki Rusini or Galician Rusyns also were known as Galician Ruthenians. Your "old encyclopedias" do not claim that Rusyn people in Kárpátalja are not Ukrainians, but they do relate them to Ruthenians, like Carpathian Ruthenians. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Royal Free Citiy: replying to your claim about who arrived to where, I can mention that Magyars also are not native to Pannonian Basin and arrived on the back of Arpad's Horses. Let's not use these insulting statements who arrived on whose backs. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Royal Free Citiy: such toponyms (place names) like Ruska Dolyna in Carpathia, Ruska Poliana in Dnieper Ukraine, Ruska Lozova in Sloboda Ukraine, Rava Ruska in Galicia and many others appeared long before the Stalin's Tanks. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Kárpátalja Subcarpathian Ruthenia was never was part of Russia, and Rusyns were never were called Ukrainaians. Historically the first Ukrainians arrived to Kárpátalja only in 1944, on the back of Stalin's tanks, or as they followed the shadows of the RED Army. Ukrainians are migrant settlers of the communist era in Subcarpathia.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion has no sense to continue. To be precise, the Ukrainist movements which arose the nreaby regions also affected the area after end of the 30's, when some of the Rusyns accepted this identity, per Voloshin along with the trial to establish Carpatho-Ukraine etc. In fact, from Ukraine (SSR) after 1945 moved non-native Ukrainians also there, as Transcarpathia became part of the Soviet Union (into the Ukr SSR)(KIENGIR (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC))

Why aren't the Hungarian population not native? Unlike the most of the Slavic nations (especially Eastern Slavs), Hungarians have not Asian (mongoloid) genetic markers (see autosomal genetic tests) Eastern Slavs have some degree of Asian (mongoloid) markers, which shows their genetic admixture. It laso effect their more oriental/eastern anthropological look (like the facial features) too. The genetics of Hungarians, Czechs, Austrians also shows very signifficant ancient celtic and ancient era germanic admixture, which ancient genetic composition is lacking from Eastern Slavic populations. Do not forget Slavic genetic markers are much younger in this region. In short, the Slavic is the youngest genetic admixture in Hungarian population and in the region and in the Carpathian Basin.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Really, let's close this, we are really wandering out of scope.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

@Royal Free Citiy:, you are seemed to be talking some Racial problems that you have towards people of Asian background. One guy in the mid 20th century already wanted to correct his Racial issue through the his program of "Lebensraum". Just because a person is found of some culture it does not matter of what Race he or she is. Rudyard Kipling was born in British India, Freddy Mercury is from African Zanzibar, Anton Denikin was born in Russian Poland. Nonetheless, Ukrainians lived in Carpathians for many years before arrival of Magyars to the area. Arrival of Magyars to the Pannonian plains is a proven historical fact that is also accepted in the Hungarian community. Ukrainians did not arrive on Stalins tanks to Carpathian Ruthenia, Stalins tanks in 1938-39 were nowhere close in Carpathian Ruthenia when it became Carpatho-Ukraine. Rusyns are people who choose associate themselves with historic Ruthenia. Historically Rusyns also lived in Eastern Galicia because the area in Poland was known as wojewodstwo Ruske and the whole area was known unofficially as Red Ruthenia. Political party of Ivan Franko was initially known as Rusyn-Ukrainian Radical Party before it switched to Ukrainian Radical Party. the Main Rusyn (Ruthenian) Council in 1848 raised a blue-yellow flag over the Lviv's Ratusz (Lviv Town Hall). Until late the 17th century the Mukachevo diocese remained Eastern Orthodox Christian before accepting the Union of Uzhhorod, similar to the Union of Brest. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, you was the person who came up with the "who was the first here" chauvinist idea, I just corrected you, with some genetic information. Ukrainians arrived on the tanks of Stalin to Kárpátalja, it is a historic fact too. A hard fact. Religion has nothing to do with the fact that Rusyns were not Ukrainians. What happened there is genocide after 1945. --Royal Free Citiy (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Royal Free Citiy, great, I guess you proven your fact that I am chauvinist since the arrival of Ukrainians on Stalin's tanks is extremely hard fact. I bet Ukrainians were really good at twisting the Stalin's arm before hijacking his tanks and driving off like maniacs to Rusyns in Kárpátalja. And let's not forget that Genetics tells us that Rusyns are not Ukrainians, because there is specific gene that makes Rusyns so much different that Ukrainians are practically a residents of Ulaanbaatar. You have a wonderful day, now. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Genetics that simply shows that Ukainains (and Slavs generally) are not so old in that region, the lack of celtic and ancient germanic markers in Eastern Slavic population simply confirm that.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please remember you cannot edit WP. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The wind of Balkans blows again.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the following paragraph with something more optimistic. Poverty and corruption should be written about in economics and politics.

"Ukraine is a developing country ranking high in the Human Development Index. Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe alongside Moldova, and suffers from a very high poverty rate as well as severe corruption.[12] However, because of its extensive fertile farmlands, Ukraine is one of the world's largest grain exporters.[13][14] It also maintains the third-largest military in Europe after Russia and France.[15] Ukraine is a unitary republic under a semi-presidential system with separate powers: legislative, executive and judicial branches. The country is a member of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the GUAM organization, and one of the founding states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)". Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The list of regional languages ​​given at the beginning of the article is invalid. The law defining the list of regional languages ​​was declared unconstitutional in 2018. I suggest reviewing the proposed list and leaving only the most common languages ​​in Ukraine: Russian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Crimean Tatar and Greek, indicating the relevant sources for each language. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Big parts of western Russia and it's Old Russian cities and regions which were part of Kievan Rus and need also to be included in this sentence:

~In general it is believed that Kievan Rus' included the central, western and northern part of modern Ukraine, Belarus, and the far eastern strip of Poland~

It's important to be fair because it's better for all. --85.212.61.140 (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Covid is in almost every country, so there’s nothing special about the situation in Ukraine. Hikerblunt01 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree way to much information here..... a sentence or two in the normal timeline but its own section is overwhelming.--Moxy- 05:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead says it was internationally recognized. Is it really the case? What international treaties were signed by that state? Update. Found the source, everything is fine.

In addition, the article says:

"the Hetmanate, the Directorate and the pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (or Soviet Ukraine)"

I am not sure "pro-Bolshevik" qualifier is needed, because it represents Bolsheviks as some external force. Meanwhile, Bolsheviks were very popular in Donbass and Odessa regions, and majority of them were Ukrainian born (Ukrainians, Ukraine born Jews or Russians). If someone believes the qualifier is needed, I propose:

"the Germany supported Hetmanate, Ukrainian nationalist Directorate, and the Bolshevik Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (or Soviet Ukraine)"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Everything is very simple. Before the First All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, military units from Soviet Russia arrived in Kharkiv, and Soviet Russia itself provided financial and material assistance to the Bolshevik Ukrainian government. In addition, if you look at the activities of Soviet Ukraine, it differed little from Soviet Russia and went completely in its fairway. It should also be taken into account that in November 1917 elections to the All-Russian Constituent Assembly were held, where the Bolsheviks in Ukraine took only 10% of the vote. Thus, it is better to leave the wording in the article unchanged.

As for Germany's support for the UPR, the active work of the German government in Ukraine began after January 1918, after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, and ended in November 1918 after the end of the First World War. Accordingly, to say that the UPR was in every way dependent on Germany is not entirely correct. Moreover, the UPR was destroyed by the Germans in April 1918 after the occupation of Ukraine and the establishment of the pro-German Hetman regime of Pavel Skoropadsky.

Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Bolshevik's opponents in Ukraine, Russia, Finland etc were obtaining massive support from abroad, but that does not make them "pro-German" or "pro-Wesetrn". If you look at the Russian Constituent Assembly election results, you will see that Petliura led socialists won in Central Ukraine, whereas Donbass and Odessa regions voted for Bolsheviks. And, again, many Bolsheviks who invaded Ukraine as a part of the Soviet troops actually returned to Ukraine, because they were Ukrainian born, and their revolutionary activity started on the Ukrainian soil.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You answered your own question. It is one thing to get help, like Haller's Blue Army in Poland, but the Polish government does not do so. It was a different matter when the very activity of the Bolsheviks in Ukraine depended on decisions and assistance from Moscow. The other side is the existence not of a separate political party, but of the Ukrainian branch of the Russian Bolshevik Party. Their ethnic or geographical origin does not matter. Some modern Russian politicians and the military are Ukrainians, but that does not make them their own in Ukraine. The very fact of the formation and continued existence of Soviet Ukraine, whether in the format of the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets, or the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, or any other regional Soviet republic, is characterized by puppetry in relation to Moscow, and set a single goal of establishing Soviet power in Ukraine.

Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You mix a government and party policy. There was a Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republic and various Communist parties, including the Communist Party of Ukraine, who coordinated their activity with the Russian party, but Ukrainian Communist party was never subordinated to the Russian Communist party. If you check the list of top party officials, you will be surprised: a significant part of Communist leaders in Russia came from Ukraine, Poland, Baltic states and other former provinces of Russian Empire, so it would be equally to claim Soviet Russia was under foreign control (note, I do not claim that).

However, the question is different: we do know Bolsheviks had significant support is some (not all) parts of Ukraine, whereas other political movement were supported in other parts of Ukraine. I see no reason to present Ukrainian Communist state formations as "pro-Bolshevik", because Bolshevism was not an external phenomenon for Ukraine, so they were not "pro-", just "Bolshevik".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Bolsheviks were not Ukrainians. Trotsky was a Ukrainian Jew, Pntonov-Ovsienko was a Ukrainian, Dybenko, Kolontai, Skrypnyk, Khvylovy, Kotsyubynsky, Petrovsky, etc., were also Ukrainians. But when we talk about the Communist Party of Ukraine, it should be understood that it, a party with such a name, emerged later, directly in Soviet times. Whereas, at that time, it was the center of the Bolshevik Party of Russia, right here in Ukraine. Hence the name Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party (Bolsheviks) - Social Democracy of Ukraine. It arose, again, after the Moscow Bolsheviks agreed to it and sent their representatives to Kyiv, who created the party. in Ukraine. But, as noted by the same Soviet sources, Formally founded in April 1918 as an independent Communist Party, but after 3 months, at its First Congress, the CP (B) U joined the RCP (B) with subordination to the general party Moreover, the First Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine believes that the task of our party in Ukraine is: resolutely breaking with the mistakes of the past, to fight for the revolutionary unification of Ukraine with Russia on the basis of proletarian centralism, in within the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, on the way to the formation of a world proletarian commune. Therefore, in my opinion, Soviet Ukraine is about the Bolshevik government and Ukraine, which was a puppet, although the guardian of formal independence. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

At that time, there was an independent communist party in Ukraine - the Ukrainian Communist Party. They opposed the Bolsheviks. Therefore, in the 1920s, it was finally destroyed. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If you know the history of Communist parties, you should probably know that they (at early stage of their history) were against formation of parties based on national criteria, so "Russian" Communist party was not a party of "Russians", but the party of all nationalities in the former Russian Empire. Moreover, the old term "Russian" meant all Orthodox subjects of the Russian Empire. The equivalent of modern word "Russian" was "Velikoross". What you call "independent Communist Party" was something different, probably you meant "Mensheviks".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

We moved away from the topic of discussion. The question was whether the regime of Soviet Ukraine in 1917-1922 could be considered Bolshevik? Yes! And I answered this by quoting it above. Everything else, namely ethnicity or geographical origin or their personal attitude to Ukraine, is secondary and insignificant. Soviet Ukraine itself, if we read its history from the moment of its foundation to the formation of the Soviet Union, is an exclusively puppet and pro-Bolshevik government, headed by a formally independent state. And this should be emphasized by a formally independent state. There were people who fully and completely defended and pursued the political line of the Moscow Communists. Under no circumstances can they be called an independent force or anything close to it.

By the way, you yourself said that the Ukrainian Bolsheviks belonged to the larger political party of the Russian Bolsheviks.

Wikipedia has an article called The Ukrainian Communist Party. I meant it when I spoke of the independent Ukrainian Communist Party of those years.

Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This wording should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTm5 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Tweaked, converting that to a efn-footnote on boundaries with Russia. Seryo93 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The formation of Ukraine and Ukrainian culture starts in the Kievan Rus’ (established in 879, baptism in 988). This period of history was before the Cossack Hetmanate. 103.137.83.34 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing and the exact text you would like to add, remove or change. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Yaroslav Dolishniak (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the name of the country in Russian!

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ukraˈjina. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 14#Ukraˈjina until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Everywhere Kyivan Rus' is considered as a common ancestor for Belarus, Ukraine, Russia. Why then is Kyivan Rus' included as a part of the russian page, but not ukrainian or belorusian? Make that consistent, please. Then Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia is obviously the next step of Ukrainian history after Kyivan Rus' had separated cause of the raids of mongols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromyk (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Above these issues have been discussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

Well, I read all of that and it seems to be another one double-standart, as the russian article has got Kyivan Medieval State, but Ukrainian did not. How does it work at all? Ukraine has another continuation of Kyivan state, which was called Ruthenia or Rus' Kingdom. I just consider that as obvious manipulation. Either the mention of Kyivan State should be removed from the russian article, or be added to the ukrainian and belatusian ones. All three states claim the Kyivan State as their predecessor, which surely was a federation created from local principalities. (Gromyk (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC))

I disagree being a double standard/manipulation, all important points are reflected in the discussion, what you state here may be considered as well dubious, regarding the Russia or Belarus article, issues regarding those should be raised on their talk pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC))

Both should be listed. We should have 'formation' in the infobox to keep it in line with other Eastern European country's infoboxes—blindlynx (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Is COVID-19 anything new or shocking to anybody by now? Its a global pandemic, happening since years by now. And does an article of a country, deserve a separate section for it? I must say I haven't seen many, that have one. Not to even mention that the section is full of old data, from 2020, not even an update of the current situation is found there. It is filled with templates, on top of that. Now, there's a separate article for the exact topic - COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine; there's also COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. But the section remains on the article. Danloud ^(talk) 12:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that this is unneeded on this page. This is the general overview page for the entirety of the country, not a "current events in Ukraine" article. The other articles you mentioned are much better places for any of this that isn't already there. --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)