Talk:Ukraine/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 2005 and December 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Ukraine/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. — Alex(T|C|E) 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: the following piece removed.
However, since Ukrainian independence, some of the Russian language speakers have begun using a different preposition (в as opposed to на) to emphasize Ukraine's status as a country and not merely a neighboring territory.
First, it is relevant only for Russian language usage, hence only marginal relation to English wikipedia. All languages change all the time, and IMO there is no reason to discuss every language in every other language encyclopedia.
Second, the sentence as it stands is stated in a totally unclear way for an English speaker.
Third, even when you "get it", the "emphasize" part is not totally correct. E.g., there is the usage, e.g., "na Rusi" (English: "On Rus"). The preposition "na" (Eng:"on") is not exclusively used in the cases of territory or direction, as opposed to "in". A seeming confirmation of this theory would be: "na smolenshchine", but "v Smolenskoj oblasti". But this is not a strict rule, often a matter of tradition. "Na Ukraine", but "v Zaporozhye" (in the sense "in Zaporizzhya area"). "V zapolyarye", "v pribaltike", no "na dalnem vostoke", "Na Volge" i "v Povolzhye" are almost synonyms. Anyway, this is a topic of Russian language, not English one. Mikkalai 19:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In/On 

message: Cross posted from user:talk page:
:I am just curious why the main article about Ukraine contains a wrong image of the coat of arms: the one with a lion and a cossack. The only official (small) coat of arms is currently the trident. I'll try to find an image of the trident.Sashazlv 03:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found. Use. Sashazlv 03:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If this CoA is not official, we should change it. Could you or anyone just confirm for sure that the CoA in the main UA article is not correct? (I am not at all and expert in these things).  Irpen 07:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
From the Constitution :
* The state symbols of Ukraine are the State Flag of Ukraine, the State Coat of Arms of Ukraine and the State Anthem of Ukraine.
* The State Flag of Ukraine is a banner of two equally-sized horizontal bands of blue and yellow.
* The Great State Coat of Arms of Ukraine shall be established with the consideration of the Small State Coat of Arms of Ukraine and the Coat of Arms of the Zaporozhian Host, by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional compositio n of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
* The main element of the Great State Coat of Arms of Ukraine is the Emblem of the Royal State of Volodymyr the Great (the Small State Coat of Arms of Ukraine).
I think the small COA is the trident, here's something else I found :
The current state emblem (officially known as the "small" or "minor" coat of arms) is a gold Trident of St. Volodymyr the Great on a blue shield (much like the one shown on your rendition of the Border Guard Flag). As correctly stated in your excerpt from the Ukrainian Constitution, the small coat of arms is to become the central element in the great coat of arms. However, this decision has become stalled in parliament, mainly due to opposition from the Communists, who would like to see an emblem at least partially recalling the Soviet period.
I don't think the "Great" COA has been adopted yet... --Berkut 09:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds convinsing. Than we should put the small CoA into main Ukraine artcle. Let's just wait a little bit for responses. I don't expect objections, so we can replace the image there soon. Thanks, guys. Irpen 16:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Great CoA has not yet been adopted and even considered by the Verkhovna Rada (unlike the text of the anthem). A bill was proposed by Kuchma (26.09.2002) and another one by Lukyanenko (08.07.2003). None of them is scheduled for consideration during this session . Sashazlv 20:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of Arms

message: Various etymologies have been suggested for the name.
I suppose that:
A. The first part of the word, the root "Uk-", is derivated by name "S-ak-a" (i.e. Sacae, Sacians, or else Scythians).
The same root occurs in words:
#"Oxus" ( i.e. Oks-us)( = Amu Darya, ancient river, in Central Asia) (which is mentioned as Aces by ancient historian writer Herodotus).
#"Iaxartes" (i.e. Oks-arta) ( = Syr Darya, ancient river, in Central Asia)
#"Euxinus Pontus" (i.e. Oks-inus pontus) ( = the modern Black Sea) etc.
B. The second part of the word, "-raine", perhaps, is derived by latin word "regnum" (= kingdom, in English)).
--IonnKorr 08:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that come from a linguistic source, or just speculation?  It seems counter-intuitive.  It feels more natural that kraj is the root, u- is a prefix (meaning "in"), and -ina is a suffix forming a feminine noun.  Is there any evidence for the Latin influence?  Greek or Old Church Slavonic would appear more likely, and local rulers were called knjaz, not rex.  
-Michael Z. 2005-10-30 16:05 Z.
Thanks for your answer. Your arguments seem to be more precious than mine.
You're right I dare say.
--IonnKorr 16:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Ukraine 

message: Please take a look at Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Geographic_naming at the proposal of geographic naming convention. --Lysy (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographic naming

message: I find the following:
:The term "Rus'" was originally applied to the inhabitants of all Rus' principalities, today comprising Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.
misleading. A more accurate would be to say: The term "Rus'" was originally applied to the inhabitants of all Rus' principalities, today comprising Central, Western and Northern Ukraine, Belarus, and Western and North-Western Russia. A map of Kievan Rus would be hlpful, especially because its heritage is disputed by so many countries :) Compay 12:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did Kievan Rus comprise 

message: Maybe this was previously discussed, but please excuse me that I don't understand what division of Ukrainian territory took place and when. There was any ancient Ukrainian state inherited somehow by the modern (Soviet and the new one) Ukrainian state? --Vasile 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't troll. --Ghirla | talk 16:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  please refrain your personal comments or threats and discuss the subject or not. --Vasile 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's true that the wording could be improved.  How would you rewrite it, instead of deleting?  —Michael Z. 2006-02-17 16:01 Z
I restored the text blanked by Vasile. It is a reasonable issue to discuss but fast hand deletions are unwarranted. --Irpen 18:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division of state 

message: I don't understand how "usage" can be "deprecated".  I don't think that is the correct verb because it makes absolutely no sense.  What is trying to be conveyed here?
: Style manuals of major papers instruct writers to no longer use "the Ukraine".   More details are in the main article Name of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 2006-02-24 00:58 Z
Still, "deprecated" is the wrong word to use.  What about "the Yukon".  Is it called "yukon" now?  I mean I'd hate to offend anyone up there  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.0.40 (talk • contribs) 
: I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  What would be a better wording?
: Regarding the Yukon, I'm not sure.  The opening line says "Yukon or Yukon Territory or (usually) The Yukon is one of Canada's northern territories...".  The Canadian Oxford Dictionary just says "Yukon Territory".  Perhaps the CP style guide would be the best authority.  —Michael Z. 2006-02-24 21:07 Z
It's hard to say what word you should use because "deprecated" makes no sense, so the original sentence has very little meaning to me.  what are you trying to convey?
: The use of "the Ukraine" is recommended against by the style guides of influential journalistic sources, and has fallen out of use in most professional writing.  —Michael Z. 2006-03-01 23:21 Z
The use of "the" is unfortunate, because unlike the Yukon, Ukraine is no longer a territory or part of another country. It is independent.
It's ridiculous how this fight keeps creeping up on the main page.  There is no official organization that calls the country "the Ukraine", so get over it.  It is "Ukraine" for now, forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewuoft (talk • contribs) 
:What's correct in English is not decided by how "official" are those who apply certain usage. The Ukraine is uncommon but still used in the media and books published by respected publishers, while slowly falling out of use. However, those who use it do so not because they imply that  Ukraine is a part of another country but because the usage became established enough. "The" is used with some countries to this day. It does not mean that "the" should or should not be used and we are not qualified to judge that. All we can say is that both usages exist . In any case the issue is covered in the name section and does not belong to the lead section. --Irpen 03:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the" ukraine 

message: From the introduction:
:The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic's territory was enlarged westward after the Second World War ...
Did the annexed Polish territory not immediately become part of the URSR in the fall of 1939?  The articles on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Polish September Campaign are sketchy on these details.  —Michael Z. 2006-03-03 16:44 Z
:I think it did, but '39 Soviet advance into what's now Western UA was done already during the WW2. Besides, '39 borders ended up not being final. Following the war, the USSR ceded to Poland some of the territory it got in '39. Also, some afjustments were made with Romania and Czechoslovakia following the war. 
:One can also claim, that '39 annexation was illegal from the POV of international law (I put aside the dispute for now on how fair that time's borders were to begin with and how the host countries behaved towards their minorities), but following the war the adjustments were agreed at multi-side conferences (e.g. Yalta, Paris Peace Treaties, 1947) and separate border treaties between the USSR and other countries involved. --Irpen 19:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annexation of Galicia 

message: I removed the "finally-finally" bad-style repetion in the second paragraph. --Vasile 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finally finally

message: Where did the 2005 estimated population figure come from? I ask because the Population decline article lists Ukraine as one of the few countries making a notable population decline, and this contradicts the infobox in this article. Jonathan Kovaciny 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimated population accurate? 

message: I think it's a little bit strange that nothing has been said about Chernobyl disaster. The chronically ill people and the dislocated people should be cited in this article, as well as the ecological catastrophe itself. Typelighter 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chernobyl 

message: Today there were some additions to the list of external links on the "Ukraine" page, namely to various discussion forums. One was by Kuban Kazak, to a place called "Anti-Orange". Having checked some titles and content on the page that opens from that link, I cannot call that site anything but a stinking shithole. Of course, that's my personal opinion, perhaps not all people would agree. But to avoid getting into a protracted debate over which site merits to be shown on the "Ukraine" page and which one doesn't, why don't we get rid of that "Boards" section in its entirety? What is the point of having that section anyway, why does Wikipedia have to advertise various discussion forums? Is that it's purpose? Looking forward to your views.  Serhiy 15:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all boards have to go. We don't need them in such a broad article as Ukraine. Some of them are worse, some better, many POV and even as external links they don't belong here. I don't want top spend time studying those boards and choosing which ones to remove. I will remove only those I know and can judge to be out of place here. Whoever added other, please consider removing them as well. After some time, I will take a look at every and each of what remained but I strongly encourage others to do it sooner than myself and, please, taking into account these consideration about board appropriateness. --Irpen 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Boards" on the Ukraine page

message: See Talk:History_of_Ukraine#The_number_of_Holodomor_victims.
:Despite what is discussed in that talk, several millions passage in the "mainest" UA-article is neutral, unambiguous and short. Instead, strict from _ to wordings pushed by the Russian Group are unspecific, instructive and redundant. To the best of my humble EN command, several may correctly refer to 3, or 3,5 or 7 millions.
:By the way, if historians develop a new verified study (resulting in 7 millions of victims count) in a month, what we Ukrainian editors should do then? Start another edit war over this particular article too regarding your 3 to 3,5? Or conversely? Let's stick to NPOV wording at least here! Ukrained 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number of Holodomor victims 

message: Ukraine has one of the most steadily declining populations in the world. Its relevant if a paragraph could be added to the page about this and the underlying reasons-mass emigration, low birth rate, abortion, alcohol abuse ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiter8 (talk • contribs) 
:This info referenced and properly written should be add to the Demographics of Ukraine article. We can add a brief mention here after that but not the other way around. --Irpen 05:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population collapse 

message: I am looking for information on clothing styles in use in Ukraine during the 16th century.  I am specifically searching for illustrations/pictures of the clothing worn in each Oblast and social class.  Does anyone know of any sites that may have this type of information?  English sites prefered, Ukrainian, Russian, Portuguese or Spanish sites are acceptable.  Thanks for any help Vivafelis 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clothing of 16th century Ukraine 

message: A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics in Cyrillics 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
"By the 3rd century BC, the Sarmatian name appears to have supplanted the Scythian in the plains of what is now south Ukraine."
Referring only to Scythia glosses over the reality of this time period.
-68.253.137.137 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Sarmatians? 

message: Hello, although I am not a Ukrainian, I am a great lover of the country. However, I added this information: Ukraine is the third largest country in Europe (after Russia and France)". My brother from Ukraine Riurik told me that Ukraine is in fact the second largest. But Wikipedia says: Ukraine's land area is 233,090 sq mi, but Wikipedia also says, France's land area is 260,558 sq mi. So after Russia, doesn't France become the 2nd largest country? Or, may be, I am wrong in assuming that European Russia has the largest land area? I will appreciate if Riurik or somebody kindly correct me. Kazimostak 15:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CIA can not be wrong. Read here. "second-largest country in Europe". I suspect Russia is simply excluded from European-countries list. You can see area of Russia here Europe#Territories and regions. I've found some comments that Asia will not be largest continent if Russian will be in Europe.  --TAG 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. Russia is included. It's simply France is smaller according to CIA France is 545,630 sq km vs. Ukraine 603,700 sq km. --TAG 16:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Kazachstan? It has part of the territory in Europe.--Pethr 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Ukraine the second largest country in Europe? 

message: In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Ukraine. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject