Talk:Ukrainization/Archive 1

message: :I don't think that redirect to Ukrainian language is the solution we need. The Crimea is briefly mentioned in one passage only. We should have a separate article on this major problem which article would slowly evolve into something more balanced and informative. Deleting it wholesale doesn't help. Otherwise, this important issue will not be addressed in Wiki for years. --Ghirlandajo 06:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Started anew

message: This is factual based, I agree. But transferring the proceedings into Ukrainian is still not the same as "ban of Russian" in courts. However, this is a valid point. It just needs reformulation, I think. If anyone wants more info on this aspect of court reform and the reaction, see this. If no one gets to this before I will, eventually, I will edit this later. Thanks! --Irpen 06:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:done. --Irpen 02:08, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, re your comment "please don't delete stuff not to your liking", this has nothing to do with my "not liking". Personally, I think that switching all courts, especially in one day, is as stupid as switching all, or most of the, schools. And I think the protest RU MID, though a demagogical one, has a factual basis and makes a shrewd PR step. I just think a multi-line quote from a relatively unimportant document doesn't need to be fully present in an article. A brief summary clearly covers the issue. Similarly, there are no multiline quotes from Stalin's late-1931 telegram ordering to swiftly stop Ukrainization. We just say about this. Why do you think it is not enough? --Irpen 18:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban in courts

message: Usually, when I disagree with the way something is added to articles, I try to edit it rather than delete (see directly above). But this stuff can't be possibly modified into anything useful. Sorry. With Russophobia being completely out of the picture in these events (I follow Ukraine's news closely and I hope my WP history is sufficient to not completely dismiss my judgement), the T.'s government was much less associated with nationalism  than some other centers of power. If one can't just take my word on it, read some reputable press instead of Komsomolskaya Pravda. If one insists on using the Russian press only, try Kommersant (koomersant.ru or its Ukraine-centered edition at kommersant.ua) . If you take my word that some Ukrainian media is also reputable, check the recent Zerkalo Nedeli at zerkalo-nedeli.com . It is obvious that other reasons than Ukrainization lead to the government dismissal and to use "Russophobe" for Yu. T. and her gov is plainly strange to say the least. Generally, I think we should use the Russopho- word less liberally in Wikipedia. Of course Russophobia may be related to some events and even some wikipedians but it is counterproductive to overgeneralize in those things. I hope, we will not get an edit war here. --Irpen 02:08, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
:During her term in office, she didn;'t find opportunity to visit Moscow, which is plain weird, considering how dependant Ukraine on Russian energy is. And M-me Grigyan-Telegina, being ethnically Armenian and Russian, didn;t speak a word in her native Russian. How do you explain this? Look at the Yehanurov, and you will see the difference. My relatives from Crimea report that the latest textbooks contain such nonsense as Adam and Eve were the first Ukrainians on Earth, and that their proper names were Taras and Halya, etc! And they force Russian children to learn all this rubbish. And this textbook was approved by Timoshenko's government. --Ghirlandajo 06:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this! It is no worse nonsense than Adam/Eve thingy. and logical, too. The parents of an Ukrainian must be Ukrainians, right? mikka (t) 16:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I am referring to "Taras and Halya" part. I see it as a joke or misinterpretation of what was actually written. Anyway, since Irpen is deadly serious, on this note I must agree that qouting rumors even in talk pages (and especially in talk pages as an argument) is not productive. As for the rest of arguments, they are non-convincing as well. Moscow visit: can it be that she was unwelcome there, rather than simply unwilling? Why would Telegina want to speak Russian? I don't know who the hell is she, but is she is a government official and the policy is Ukr lang, then it is reasonable for her to speak Ukr in public, is she can, to support the policy. mikka (t) 21:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As for the Taras and Halya thing, I see no need to comment on this. Instead of this joke, one could bring up another silly, but at least true, story that some Doctor of some Sciences from Lviv wrote a long monography proving that Ukraine was a craddle of the Western civilization and that Sanscrit was developed from the Ukrainian language. I've heard about this bullshit from some Russian press that claimed that this was also tought in Ukrainian schools. Interestingly, I was able to find the work of that fellow (of course the claim about its being tought at schools was still false). Timoshenko did speak Ukrainian on official occasions in Ukraine for obvious reasons but she did give plenty of interviews in Russian and not only to printed, but to the broadcast media. If anyone doubts and google and yandex give nothing, drop me a note and I will try to find what I can. Are there any other reasons to call her a "Russophobe"? Actually, Yushchenko is by far less popular in Eastern Ukraine than Timoshenko which would never be the case should she was viewed as a russophobe. But most importantly, the fall of her government had nothing to do with these issues. --Irpen 23:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Russophobe government of Yulia Timoshenko"

message: If my memory serves me right, at the meeting between the ministers of education a month or two ago, the Russian minister made such proposal and the Ukrainian minister did not object. If someone has more details, adding this to an article would be useful, I think. --Irpen 02:15, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
:This is not relevant to the subject of this article at all. What is relevant is why every winner of Ukrainian election makes promises to make Russian a second state language and reneges his promises immediately after the inauguration. According to the last poll, more than 60% of Ukrainians support the idea of making Russian a state language. And yet the Ukrainization continues. --Ghirlandajo 06:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am less sure now. I found no mention of this in serious media, only reprints from one or two questionable sources. The recpectable paper did not mention the financing deal when covering the meeting. --Irpen 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a shame for Russia, that 4.000.000 ukrainians which are living there have no ukrainian schools at all. --Gutsul
I don't know about others, but the phrase "forcible" transfer in my mind gives rise to two pictures. One, is what indeed happened, that is a burocrat, being stupid or a careeristic or both, making a decision to switch this or that school, with the parents having no say in this. The other is a SWAT team braking into a school and taking a Russian principal away and installing a Ukrainian one in his place, something like desegregation of the U. of Alabama. To make sure that it is the first of the two scenarios we are talking about, I replaced "forcible" by "voluntaristic". If there is a better way to say it, feel free to change my version. --Irpen 03:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Russia offered to support RU-schools in UA financially

message: I think the topic of Rusyns fits this article. This issue (whether Rusyns are just Ukrainians and whether their language is a dialect of UA L.) sometimes gains political heat. Rusyns, Talk:Slavic_peoples#Rusyns_in_Ukraine, Ukrainian_language#Current_usage cover the issue a little bit. Should we devote some of this article to it? --Irpen 22:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rusyns

message: I would think that the rivarly between to Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, the canonical one and the "Kiev Patriarchy" may be reflected in this article. Particularly, the support to Filaret's UOC-KP by Kravchuk, the the initial reversal by Kuchma and gradual establishment of the current status-quo. On the other hand, the rivarly, with UGCC, although no less bitter, does not fit here, in my opinion, because, unlike the former one, the latter involved some real issues outside of the politics. 
Any takers to write on this, as well as, on Rusyn issue? If anyone wants to do this, please-please-please use measured words. Regards, --Irpen 00:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Church affairs

message: http://www.mova.org.ua/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=34
On Crimea 24% Ukrainians, 10% who consder Ukrainian native. From 640 schools only 4 Ukrainian. Many  want to study in Ukrainian school, but they don't have an opportunity. 
Ilya K 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Read this

message: This article I consider less important than Ukrainian language (I was actually not supporting its being started at this point) but since it reached certains stage of development and then got completely destroyed, something needs to be done. I won't edit it just yet but please consider the objections above and implement it into the article if possible. If nothing would be being done for a while, I will get back to this. To start with, I request that a more general definition is restored or rephrased (otherwise it is a Korenization article that we already have), stop saying that it is just Russians (Rusyn and Romanian issues did not go anywhere), return the UNR times and return the modern controversy about schools (if you view the latter an artificial invention of pro-Russia politicians, you a free to say so, but the issue should be covered). Transferring courts is also notable as well as licensing laws for TV/Radio. If this is done in some form, the article would be dramatically improved. As it is now, it is destined straight into a VfD and this is the last thing I want. --Irpen 06:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of what Michael wrote above I become even more convinced that current form of the article is even less acceptable than the previous one. Trying to present the definiton of korenization here as the general definiton of Ukrainizaition is anacceptable. The main difference between the original and the current version is that lots of material is removed. Go ahead and modify the material, try to explain the propaganda campaign in certain media but removing material is only the last resort option. I could try to rewrite this myself but we need a starting point to build on. The older version was a better starting point. Unless someone makes this article more inclusive soon, I will return most of the deleted material myself. Treating any criticism of Ukraine as an anti-Ukrainian attack does not help make better articles. --Irpen 04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cite your sources and only then modify the text.--AndriyK 07:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Destruction of the article