Talk:Ukraine/Archive 1

message: However, these "artificial famines" appear to have been themselves, artificially engineered by western historians as slander. 
This is ridiculous. I have read translations of documents from Ukraine and Russia about the Ukrainian genocide, and in my travels in the former Soviet Union have spoken to people who lost relatives in it. I don't think the famines were invented by Western historians. --Ed Poor
As a local journalist, I strongly support Ed's remark. Besides, those famines were anyway artificial since the whole system of Soviet "collectivization" was practically designed to leave peasants with minimal food supplies. --AlexPU 16:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Starvation is definitely was not the primary target of the Soviet collectivisation policy. No doubt, however, it had some very specific priorities and side effects... Dr Bug  Volodymyr V. Medeiko 17:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is it: a pre-designed immanent side effect resulting in genocide  AlexPU 10:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Side effect is a bit different than intention. Artificial famine is no doubt the non-NPOV wording implicating that starvation was a primary target of the policy, not a side effect. It's why "artificial famine" is not appropriate term for Wikipedia. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 13:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your rebuttal, Genyo. There was a resolution passed by Canada's Senate (http://www.ucc.ca/media_releases/2003-06-19_1/) which, among other things, states that it is "to recognize the Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33 and to condemn any attempt to deny or distort this historical truth as being anything less than genocide". The US Senate has a similar resolution on the table (http://www.ukrweekly.com/resolution202.shtml), but it's currently being held up by Senator Richard Lugar in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I would like to note that of the 19 members of this committee, 10 of them have co-sponsored the resolution. What's the hold up, Mr. Lugar? -- Eric Pawlyshyn 01:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While a famine did occur, it cannot be pinned on the Soviet government. The kulaks provoked it by hoarding grain, destroying property, killing cattle, attacking people who wanted to join the collectives, and refusing to work the land that they occupied. The claim that Stalin caused a famine is indeed a lie that was cooked up by Western "historians". Shorne 06:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure this Wiki is not the place for personal disagreement so I will say that I can agree to disagree with those who feel the Famine in Ukraina was not induced by Stalin. However, I will submit to everyone that while I am living in America now, my entire family, and many of our friends, were in Ukraine at the time of the Famine. I speak from our collective experience and not from the view of a western "historian" or aged Soviet who thinks that it's too late to blame the current Russia for something that happened decades ago. Whatever your background, if you or someone you know wasn't there, then anything you have to add to this subject is simply conjecture and hearsay. Although I cannot say what was going on in Stalin's head at the time, I can tell you this, "In 1988 the Gorbachev government finally admitted that the 1932 famine had been part artificial, the direct result of Stalin's deliberate use of starvation as a means of coercion and social control." Eric Pawlyshyn 08:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Artificial famines" 

message: Why no mention of Cossacks in the article? Not even in demographics?
Rübezahl 16:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cossacks

message: The Ukrainians lived through a Soviet terror prior to Hitler's invasion, which included genocidal intent, and these events are described in standard histories as "terror" and using the term "terrible" is quite proportionate to the real situation and an accurate reflection of the wide varieties of view that population experienced.  If you think this is unbalanced, add some accurate information for balance.  Don't delete valuable accurate information in these articles.
Genyo 16:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian dilemma during WW II 

message: Should we adopt the official system of transliteration adopted by the Ukrainian Legal Terminology Commission in 1996 ()? This would entail slight changes to the current spellings, such as Zaporizhzhya -> Zaporizhzhia. I don't think the transliteration system that the articles now use is so entrenched that the changes would cause any major problems. If no one objects, I will start changing the spellings to follow the official system, as soon as I have some free time. Iceager 16 May 2004
: I agree that we should use a common transliteration.  I would extend this to all Ukrainian text, not just place names (e.g. names of people).  With my limited knowledge of the various Ukrainian transliteration standards, the one you suggest seems to be most appropriate.  --JamesTeterenko 21:28, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the English Wikipedia, not Ukrainian one, neither Russian one. We should use the most common names in English, ignoring etymology of those names. It's the Wikipedia policy. Also please refer to Wikipedia:Naming policy poll. Dr Bug  Volodymyr V. Medeiko 17:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration of Ukrainian place names 

message: The article is not consistent to other articles on similar topics in History section (Ruthenian, etc.), and contains biased view Drbug 11:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it inconsistent? How is it biased? The point of the tag is to say it's biased. The point of the talk page is to explain how, not to repeat the same unsubstantiated claim. --Jiang 23:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: And it goes on and on and on... *sigh* --Joy [shallot] 23:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: You people (especially moderators) note that the image presented here is not an official  coat of arms, but a most popular project for it. The actual "small coat of arms" (as stated in constituion) is a trident at the center of the picture that you see. I have a proper picture file but don`t know yet how to upload it to Wikipedia. The "big" coat of arms is still not adopted. --AlexPU 18:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find "Uploa file" button (if you use the standard layout, it should be the next to the last button in the left bar). If you experience problems, please ask me at my talk page, I'm happy to help! Dr Bug  Volodymyr V. Medeiko 17:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention moderators: Incorrect coat of arms picture 

message: A good place to harvest some information, if someone has the time:
BBC Country Profile for Ukraine
—thames 14:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: Why put the Russian name of the country here? Russian is not an official language of Ukraine.
*Over half of Ukrainians speak Russian, and a substantial portion of the country speaks it as their only language, especially in the east. 力伟|☺ 19:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because many Ukrainians know Russian and can speak the language (due to massive and aggressive rusification) it doesn´t mean that they speak it their everyday life. (Dynamok)
*:Still, it is not an official language, so why putting it so prominently?  It does look like Russian has equal rights with Ukrainian, which it does not.  Can't the fact that over half of population speaks Russian be mentioned elsewhere in the article?  (Just for the reference—the original question was not asked by me, but I happen to agree)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
*:I don't see a Spanish name in the article about the United States of America (even though that country doesn't have any official language)
----
*
*Really, why not to put hear a Polish name of Ukraine, or Hungarian one? There are 100+ nationalities in Ukraine, and all their languages have the same rights as Russian according to present time Ukrainian laws. May be we also should place here a Mongolian name (Mongolians seized Kyiv once upon a time)? Or Greek (there were ancient Greek settlements here)? Another good idea: let's put 'Росія in Ukrainian' in the article 'Russia'. Why not? --Olexij 22:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Just because many Ukrainians know Russian and can speak the language (due to massive and aggressive rusification) it doesn´t mean that they speak it their everyday life. (Dynamok)
Statistics shows that they do. See the last paragraph of Ukrainian_language#Independence_in_the_modern_era. Why you worry? --Irpen 16:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian name 

message: The totally confusing paragraph removed.
:The region has also been known as Rus’ or Ruthenia, and in Russian historiography as Little or Lesser Russia (Малороссия, Malorossiya). This gave rise to the formal title of Russia's Tsar, the "Tsar of all the Russias"—the others being Russia proper and White Russia (now Belarus).
First, the region of whole Ukraine was never known as Rus or Ruthenia. hence these names are better discussed in the "History" section. Second, "This gave rise" in wrong conjunction, third, "the others" part is unclear, fourth, "of all the Russias" is an inexact translation of the title, for whatever reason. In Russian it is literally "Of the whole Rus". Fifth, it is not "Tsar" of all. &c.., but "Emperor" of all..&c.  Mikkalai 20:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed para