Talk:Russians in Ukraine/Archive 1

message: Use of archaic imperial terminology if unacceptable, this is 21st century. Besides, modern Ukrainians consider reference to them as Little Russians insulting. While I understand that this imperial name for Ukrainians should be explained, use of it in a 21st century article instead of modern terminology is clearly over the top and biased. Besides, Little Russia historically meant the area of former Cossack Hetmanate and is clearly inappropriate in description of Southern (New Russia), Western and Sourh Eastern regions of the country. --Hillock65 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kuban Kozak used this terminology because it was importent in the historical part so we could understand the time. The names of the peoples was an importent part of that time, you cant ignore them. If you would like to explain them you are welcome to do so. And Little Russians doesnt mean they are little but that the Ukrainian people are little by the number reletively to the Russian people. M.V.E.i. 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Little Russian meant as the source of the area. Moreover there is a distinct difference between Little Russia and New Russia and this is important to stress. Finally even though it is archaic at present, when discussing the 19th century it is important. Last but not least it is Kazak not Kozak. --Kuban Cossack 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Little Russia does not refer to the whole of modern Ukraine, but to a limited area of Cossack Hetmanate and is not related to the Donets basin and the New Russia. It is just as improper to use it to describe people as if we were talking about Muscovites, a name often substituted for all Russians. So, explain the terminology but please stick to the modern term, especially in the title to avoid bias.--Hillock65 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is a loose term that is applied to all ethnic Ukrainian land. I am not using Little Russia to describe New Russia, and the border between Little and New Russia can easily be seen on the election results and the map of the Soviet Republics I published here. Yes using it in modern day is incorrect and wrong, however we are describing a period of time when that definition was used. Particularly for the 1897 census. In 14th century history it is alright to refer to Russia's progenitor Muscovy as such. --Kuban Cossack 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I created the article with the title Russians in Ukraine. When Kuban Kozak moved it i didn't think it's a problem but now when i think of it, your right. Once you say "Russians" it's already understod your talking about Ethnic Russians. For example in the article of Russians in Kazahstan its not said Ethnic Russians in Kazahstan. Lets wait for Kuban Kozaks reply before we move it anywere. M.V.E.i. 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Russian can also mean Russian citizen who could be Tatar, Yakut, Chuvash, Chechen and even Ukrainian for all we know. --Kuban Cossack 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should change the name to the previous one, but type beyond that this article is about Ethnic Russians in Ukraine and not about Russian Citizens who are not Ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine. Please response to that offer. M.V.E.i. 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the move, this title is to clumsy, I don't think anyone will think of Russians as tourists or someone else. Will a title Swedes in Finland confuse anyone? I wonder why neither Swedes nor Finns saw it necessary to write an article like this. And there are ethnic Swedes in Finland. --Hillock65 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see i moved the page. M.V.E.i. 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Making assertions that Russians in Ukraine support one particular political force is blatant POV. One can talk of regions that give preference to certain politicians but to claim that Ukrainian politics are divided along ethic lines is wrong. There are plenty of Russians in all political parties of Ukraine as well as Ukrainians in the Party of Regions and others.--Hillock65 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the election distribution map the borders of New Russia become all to visible. --Kuban Cossack 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any factual data that support destribution of vote by ethnicity? Read WP:OR.--Hillock65 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but one needs not be a genius to see how the Donbass, New Russia and Crimea chose not to support the Ukrainian nationalists. What makes you think they will?--Kuban Cossack 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My thoughts as well as yours are irrelevant. This is Original Research. Please present facts and not your thoughts or assertions.--Hillock65 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it just me, or do I see the same line forming, cutting Ukraine in half... I wonder why? Same wrt the political maps, AND to the historical map of the DKR, OSR and the UPR. --Kuban Cossack 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me assure it is you. If you have a reliable data on ethnic vote supply it, otherwise it is just waste of time. --Hillock65 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it you want proof of? You mean that Russians in Ukraine do not support UNA-UNSO and the like? --Kuban Cossack 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Could this be of some assurance: http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/results/general/nationality/ ?--Kuban Cossack 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am quite positive that out of millions of Russians there were some, who supported UNA-UNSO, rest assured. The map and the census source do not prove that ethnic Russians voted one way or another. It only proves that in some areas, where ethnic Russians predominate, certain political parties had more success than in other areas. That is all. Claiming that people vote because of their ethnicity is hard to prove, as even in those areas only in Crimea do Russians have absolute majority. --Hillock65 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? Please do tell me of ethnic Russians who support UNA-UNSO... I would very much like to hear about that. --Kuban Cossack 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By pure statistical probability, it is quite conceivable that out of 18 million there was at least one Russian, who voted for them. BTW I trust you know that an ideologue of Ukrainian integral nationalism Dmytro Dontsov was an ethnic Russian from Donbass? That is beyond the point, however. Let's stick to the main argument I expressed above.--Hillock65 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dontsov was ethnic Russian? Now that is news for me. Do please tell me more.--Kuban Cossack 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And from a Cossack famility too. Read the link above. Can we stick to the point of discussion and not digress?--Hillock65 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not a complete Ethnic Russian, but he has a Russian lastname, so he shurely had Russian roots (Or Bulgarian, but what are the chances), but nevertheless, Dmitro is a pure West-Ukrainian name. M.V.E.i. 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gee, why West and not Northern Ukrainian? How can you tell?--Hillock65 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dmytro is simply the Ukrainian version of Dimitros, which is actually a Greek name originally. --Kuban Cossack 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So what's the objection with the present variant in the article?--Hillock65 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: As well, making claims that transfer of Crimea was illegal is controversial and not supported by any official decision acceptable both to Ukraine and Russia. We are not here to make assumptions but to represent facts. The assumption that it was illegal has not been established with certainty and should be kept out of this article.--Hillock65 14:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the prosecutor's office in Simferopol back in 1991 established that the transfer was not fully legal, however to avoid conflict they agreed to remain within Ukraine as an autonomous republic. --Kuban Cossack 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so..  
Kuban Cossack has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!   Smile at others by adding  to their talk page with a friendly message.
}. Again to avoid OR, these unsupported controversial assertions should be kept out of this article. --Hillock65 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important part of the history of the article. The fact that the transfer of Crimea remains controversial to this day says something about it. As opposed to say the transfer of other provinces within the USSR's republics. --Kuban Cossack 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one argues that it is not a controversial point, however, to put it in the article you have to present factual data that supports your original research. Please present facts that are provable and supported by serious sources.--Hillock65 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crimea was transferred in three steps. First, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation proposed the transfer. Second, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union made the decision by a Decree on April 26 1954. Third, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR accepted the transfer by a Decree dated June 17 1954.
However, in the context of the 1950s Soviet Laws, the method of the transfer of Crimea violates the Soviet constitution. For any transfer of territory, the highest ruling body of the USSR, the Supreme Soviet, must conduct referendums in both republics, the territory in question, and the whole country. However, this was not done, thus violating the Soviet constitution, which states: 
*Article 15: The sovereignty of union republics is limited only by the constraints mentioned in article 14 of the constitution of the USSR. Aside from these constraints, each republic can carry out its state power independentely. The USSR defends the rights of union republics (this was not done in the case of RSFSR, thus violating its soveriegnity).
*Article 18: Territory of all Union republics may not be changed without their consent. 
(Source: The 1936 constitution of the USSR)
Also puzzling was the rush with the transfer procedure. The whole decree was prepared in near secrecy, and the residents of Crimea found out that they were part of Ukraine only after the oblast was transferred.--Kuban Cossack 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And in what capacity, if I may ask, you are interpreting (see WP:OR) the data? Where does it actually say, word for word, that the transfer was illegal? And in the unlikely case that it did, it would only represent one point of view that is far from being recognised as an unquestionable fact.--Hillock65 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.newsru.com/russia/04oct2005/krym.html --Kuban Cossack 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the relevance of this source? What does it change?--Hillock65 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance is that there is still enough to go on that people are considering that the transfer is illegal. Like I wrote the critical piece is with respect to acting Soviet law. Not wrt the present Russo-Ukrainian agreements, that recognise Crimea as part of modern Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "people are considering" is the wrong reason for it to be a fact in encyclopedia. People are considering a lot of things and we should be considering reliable, well-sourced facts. --Hillock65 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So when a Ukrainian state institution confirms that Russia has territorial rights to Crimea, that is not enough for you... What is? --Kuban Cossack 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What enough for me is that Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine even by Russia in the treaty of 1997. That is all, everything else if folklore, which should not be here.--Hillock65 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the locus of the problem, it was the transfer that matters, did the fact that the USSR used military means to annex western Ukraine in 1939 put the question of Lvov not being a Ukrainian city? No. I for one recognise Crimea to be part of Urkaine, however I do acknowledge that the method used in for Crimea becoming part of Ukraine is questionable, and it seems I am not the only one. --Kuban Cossack 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You very well may call it questionable, I wrote myself, that it was controversial, but there are no grounds to call it illegal. Questionable and illegal are two very different words. To prove illegality with sources is next to impossible, it would be advisable not to go into that area altogether.--Hillock65 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Crimean prosecutor's office proved it so...but if you insist, for sake of consensus I would not mind to rewrite it slightly and remove the term of legality.--Kuban Cossack 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimea 

message: This article seem to be abounding with original research (see WP:OR) and baseless assertions in regards to transfer of certain regions to Ukrainian SSR. This being a controversial point, assertions like these without any historiographical data or relieable sources is unacceptable. This smacks of Russian nationalist revisionism, for which there is no place here, at least not in this article.--Hillock65 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your conspiracy theories are equally assertions and original research. For example do you disagree that Southern Ukraine was victim of Ukrainization in the 1920s? --Kuban Cossack 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The crucial difference between my conspiracy theories and yours is that I do not try to put them into an encyclopedia article. As well plese discuss article and not me or my theories (see WP:NPA). --Hillock65 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Identify the theories and discuss them, don't revert war.--Kuban Cossack 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already identified them, several times actually. Read above. --Hillock65 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so? We are not here to discuss the transfer. We should mention that a)it happened, b)that it is controversial, c)that some question the legality, and most importantly d)that Russia recognized Ukrainian borders in the treaty of 1997 and thereby relinquished all claims to the Crimea. That is all. Going into aguments how exactly it happened and what laws of the USSR Krushchev broke and everything else belongs in some other place, not here. --Hillock65 13:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not here to discuss the legality - it does not belong here. We are talking about Russians in Ukraine. Any statements as to what Crimeans feel, should be supported by souces. If you start talking about Crimeans, don't forget the indiginous population of the Tatars. --Hillock65 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we state that the population of the Tatars was deported, it is alright to leave the quote in a controversial and contradictory to acting Soviet law decision. That does not question  the present status of Crimea, but simply that the the 1954 event was not entirely legal. --Kuban Cossack 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contradictory is absolutely unacceptable. Read Irpen's comments on this page. Its a non-starter. Out of the question.--Hillock65 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orignal Research 

message: #:It never did, the provisional government did, but not the Bolsheviks, Trotsky simply used the creation of the USPR on paper. De facto the USPR was run by the SNK and was at war with the Ukrainian states from day one. 
#:: It actually did tolerate it. During German and Austrian occupation there were no attempts to regain the territory, only after the Axis left. Toleration is not recognition. --Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the Bolshevik government tolerated the UPR

message: #:This is true, the UPR even demanded regions such as eastern Sloboda and my Kuban.
#:: Well, if this is true, then support it with credible documents and sources. Who says that it is so, you?--Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent source, thank you.--Hillock65 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: claiming their borders based on the 1897 census.

message: #:Do you disagree? Well so do I the most hit areas were actually the Don, and Kurgan as well as Northern Kazakhstan which saw cannibalism emerging, but with respect to this article the scope is too wide to cover.
#:: Again, see the above response, the bold part. Please no original research, present facts not your thoughts or dreams. If you have documents to suppot your assertions, please provide them, otherwise keep OR out of the encyclopedia article.--Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: one of the most hit areas were the south and eastern Ukraine

message: #:How are they relevant? In 1939 they only made a fifth of the Crimean population.--Kuban Cossack 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crimean Tatars

message: #:It helps not to have a skeptical view on things. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FAITH]]

message: I think we should have this map in the New Russia section:
http://karty.narod.ru/great/nvr/nvr.html
P.S.
What kind of licence fits a public domain taken from the internet? Its not copyrighted. M.V.E.i. 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now you can upload it as fair use, but I would look around for something better.--Kuban Cossack 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys, check this out 

message: This article is replete with incorrect and tendetious statemets, virtually none of which are supported by any sources. Because of the constant revert warring whole paragraphs are being deleted without discussion. That makes improving this article very difficult. I would be interested in other users to express their opinions on this article as we clearly have hit an impasse. Hope good faith prevails and meaningful contribution from all parties can continue. --Hillock65 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed 

message: We write Ruthenian do describe the people living in modern Ukraine and Belarus in the medieval and renaissance times. We use Ruthenian to describe the Zaporozhian Cossacks. We use Ruthenian to describe the inhabitants of Galicia right up to World War I. Why is it that Little Russian should be different? Just like Ruthenian it is a term that is archaic, vague and abstract in the modern sense. HOWEVER in the historical time frame of 19th century pre-1917, just like the term it was the term that was used, not only in Russia but in English Encyclopedia Britannica ref. So why is it we have to have double standards on the terms which are to a degree, essentially mirrors of each other?  --Kuban Cossack 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's write Malorossiya instead of Little Russia and write (literally Little Russia) when this word occurs for the first time. Alæxis¿question? 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, but theres a problem. You don't have an article named Molorossa while you do have an article called Little Russia. Besides, this name doesn't want to insult anyone, i think Little means the reletively size of Ukraine in compare to Russia, or/and the reletively little number off Ukrainians in compare to Russians. M.V.E.i. 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it doesn't offend anyone there's no reason to change it )) Alæxis¿question? 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot understand, why is it so difficult to use the neutral terminology that is common to other articles about Ukraine? Noone objects to explaining this term, but using it in place of generally accepted and neutral terms in my opinion is a provocation. Pure and simple. It is designed to imflame passions and push people, who feel insulted by imperialist terminology into revert war. This article needs a lot of work, and endless discussions about this name cannot go forever. Let's use neutral terminology and move on.--Hillock65 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by neutral terminology here? What exactly do you propose? Alæxis¿question? 12:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proper name for the country is Ukraine. It is neutral. The name is used to describe Ukraine since middle ages, why do we need to drag in Russian imperial terminology all of a sudden? All I am asking is that we use terms used in EB  and in other articles on Ukraine in this ecyclopedia. --Hillock65 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone is contesting the modern name for the country.--Kuban Cossack 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you interpret it as provocation that is your personal problem. Interesting why do Belarusians not mind being reffered to as Belorussians or White Russians for different historical periods? --Kuban Cossack 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Let's bracket it and drop the unsupported claims: In these circumstances, during the Russian Empire Census of 1897, people in many regions of the country, listed their language as Ukrainian ("Little Russian"). The result of the census determined which parts ended up in Ukraine.--Hillock65 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that I disagree with this point, because it is bordering WP:NOR to say that Little Russian WAS the same as modern Ukrainian. First of all the literacy rates were low in the Russian Empire, thus to say that the language village X spoke in 1897 would be the same as it would speak in 2007, with identical vocabulary and intonations. We know that is simply not true, and one needs not references. In particular this affects the dialects in border and mixed regions such as New Russia. Even the proper Ukrainian in 1897 would not be the same as the modern Ukrainian. For one there were several orthographic revisions during the Soviet times like the loss of the letter ґ for example. So one cannot assume that the Little Russian dialect of 1897 is identical to the contemporary Ukrainian language.--Kuban Cossack 20:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  What is the rationale for the use of imperial terminology here? Initially the Bolshevik government treated the Ukrainian People's Republic separately from the Southern and Eastern regions of the country. This however, is far from being true, since Lenin and Trotsky were against deviding Ukraine. There are documents that support that. Let's leave it like that for now.--Hillock65 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, in this context, Little Russia is an improper term. -Irpen 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is not the only place by far where sources are needed. For now let's drop out the non-neutral terminology:The (rough) borders between the Ukrainian People's (УНР) and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog (ДКР on the map) and Odessa Soviet Republics.--Hillock65 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the term "Little Russia" 

message: I can see the possible need for this encyclopedia entry, however why not rely on published scholarly sources?  Is there a book or two that deals with this subject in English preferably?  Use sources instead of writing from personal background knowledge.  I have no desire in getting dragged into these edit/revert games that are a complete waste of potentially productive time.  So, if you want to develop this piece further then citing published sources in English ought to be the first step.  --Riurik(discuss) 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is reletively new and there are only few people working on it. Besides, this article is based entierly on facts. M.V.E.i. 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Normally, the first step in writing an article the writer lists sources it will be based upon. It hasn't happened here, and I don't see what scientific literature it is based on, just on imagination of some users. That's all.--Hillock65 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sources for this entry? 

message: There is no source or reference that borders were based on the 1897 census.
This is taken from here (Ukrainian source).
This is taken from here. (Russian source) .
I'll post a map of the distribution of different peoples in Russia according to 1897 census shortly. Alæxis¿question? 11:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one nuance, could it be possible to get hold of a slightly better quality version of the image. --Kuban Cossack 21:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  C'mon, it's 2127 × 2789 pixel. Have you looked at the full resolution version of it (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/East_Slavs_in_Russia_1897.JPG. )? Alæxis¿question? 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but the quality of the .jpg itself is ... crap. No offense meant --Kuban Cossack 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I didn't scan it myself... At least all the labels are discernible. Alæxis¿question? 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since all of this is PD, then we can just use the maps of the Russian Empire  and  and re-create this, besides the 1897 census on which it was based is available on demoscope.ru --Kuban Cossack 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: An excellent map! Here is a fine example of several provinces that were populated by Little Russians. If you draw a similar map of lands populated by Ukrainians the borders will shrink. That is my point that Little Russian is not the same as Ukrainian, it was a progenitor of the language:Proof::ru:Малорусское наречие.--Kuban Cossack 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not understand why Hillock refuses to answer the unfinished queries yet continued to edit war.--Kuban Cossack 12:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1897 census borders 

message: How is the (il)legality of the transfer relevant to the topic of the article? It should be mentioned in the article about Crimea, not here.
ps. Its legality is indeed questioned.
See: Our Security Predicament, Vladimir P. Lukin, Foreign Policy, No. 88 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 57-75
US Department of State Daily Briefing #81: Friday, 5/22/92 Alæxis¿question?
::It's illegel because it has nothing to do historicaly with Ukraine, it's historicaly Russian. M.V.E.i. 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer of Crimea 

message: The immage is completelly untrustable. The people who made it were even unaware that Lugansk is another city, rather than another name of Donetsk. A correct map of Novorossia have to include the city of Novorossijsk. The present map does not. I think, it's completely untrustable and has to be removed from the article. Let's keep in mind that WP articles should be based on reliable sources.--AndriyK 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This map at least gives people a sence of what New Russia is, and by the way, the mistake you mentioned is the only mistake there. Besides, Luhansk was New Russia to. Donetsk was then Yuzovka by the way. Anyway, Kuban Kazak said he'll find a better one, so we keep this only for a while. Nevertheless we need it. M.V.E.i. 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it, i fixed the mistake on the map. Nevertheless, Kuban Kazak said that this one is here only till he finds a better map of the region. M.V.E.i. 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, the borders are wrong. Do you know where Novorossijsk located? Or you believe that Novorossijsk was not a part of Novorossia? ;) I think, better to give less information rather then misinform the reader. But it's your choice.--AndriyK 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right here to, but its a temporrary one. But the message is clear, it was kind of a backwords rainbow starting in the Dondass, and coming down to Cremia and continuing thru Odessa. If you wish you might try to help us find a better version of this map, i agree that this map is not a proffesional one, but i yet found a better one in Google. M.V.E.i. 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the map is erroneous, although I disagree with AndriyK. There is a Novomoskovsk in Ukraine and that does not make the region part of Muscovy. I think the best way to go about this is to make a map similar to what was have of Siberia with a macro and microscopic definitions. --Kuban Cossack 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Novomoskovsk was not ment to be a part of Muskovy, but Novorossijsk got its name as a town in Novorossia.--AndriyK 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of "Novorossia" 

message: An article entitled Ukraine is not Russia, Ukraine is a disease (Украйна» — не Россия, «Украйна» — это болезнь) is considered to be a reliable source for reference? Are we writing an article about ukrainophobia?--Hillock65 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The historical inferences it makes are justified, it has its own references. И пожалуста детские капризы о т.н. Украинофобии не нужны, без них хватает. --Kuban Cossack 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Mein Kampf, I assume, also has historical references, why don't you site it along with this hateful garbage? As well what was in the secont part of your message? Please use English. Using strange languages to lash out at the opponent is not the sign of cooperation or respect.--Hillock65 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I checked the references which Smolin - the author of Ukraine is a desease - makes and they are not very "reliable" either (with the exception of maybe Ulyanov, Rudnytskyi and Monchalovsky).  If Smolin's historical inferences are not supported with reliable sources, I have major objections in using him as a reference.  Also, does it speak anything at all about his "credibility" that he is an editor of "Imperial Renaissance" journal?  I want to stress again, that it is crucial to cite reliable sources preferably in English if we are not to waste time bickering.--Riurik(discuss) 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me quote this "highly regarded authority" on Ukaine: "Today we should take a firm position, that South-Russian, Little Russian lands is an iseparable part of the Russian state, that there is no Ukrainian people, no Ukrainian language, that all theese are ideological fanthoms." An attempt to use this authority as a source speaks volumes, doesn't it? Incidentally, he is using the same terminology User Kozak has been insisting on even before posting this filth.--Hillock65 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, could someone answer what this reference is supposed to support? Alæxis¿question? 12:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The forceful conversion of mixed Little Russian/Great Russian families in the 1920s New Russian and Donbass. I will look for more... --Kuban Cossack 12:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You'v got to be kidding! 

message: thumb|200px|New map of New Russia. —dima/talk/ 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is a newly created map by me. The borders are roughly drawn and are just based off of the current oblast borders, which isn't too much of a difference of the other map's bordrers. If you want any changes, don't hesitate to ask.—dima/talk/ 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think Moldova as a whole could be considered as Novorossiya. It has a distinct history and was not really populated by Ukrainians and Russians. The only part of it that is part of Novorossiya is the left bank of Dniester, that's now called Pridnestrovye. Alæxis¿question? 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Rostov is part of Novorossiya also, even though it's located in Russia now. I'm not that sure about Krasnodar and Stavropol krais but according to the article about Novorossiya in Russian Wikipedia (:ru:Новороссия) they are also part of it. Alæxis¿question? 11:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said we need a map similar to what we have of Siberia a broad definition and a narrow one. --Kuban Cossack 11:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is Novorossiya in broad and narrow senses? Alæxis¿question? 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terretories that Russia added to itself to be part of Russia, and during the Soviet era were added to Ukrainian SSR (Thought historicaly it ain't connected in any way to Ukraine). Where are they? East and south Ukraine, the Russian-speaking Regions of Ukraine (Odessa, Criemia, Dnipropetrovsk, part of Zaporojye, Donetzk, Luhansk-Maybe Charkov, but i'm not shore maybe it was a part of Russia before the New Russia). Some of the terretories of South-West Russia and East Moldova were also New Russia by the way. M.V.E.i. 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This map was just roughly drawn borders, which is an unreliable source.. If we had a professionaly made map to base this on off of, then it would be a lot easier. I have a collection of Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionaries at hand, and I can look on their articles on Novorossiya and other areas, so I'll upload a new Brockhaus map when I find it.. —dima/talk/ 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is also a map of Novorossiya on some website. —dima/talk/ 16:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's what's written in Brockhaus about Novorossiya - . Alæxis¿question? 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one looks more serious. But still, there are sources (I do not know how much reliable) claiming that Krasnodar region also belonged to Novorossia: "С присоединением Закубанья это название было распространено и на него.".--AndriyK 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dima, nice work. If you want you can upload one of them, but thought the second one (This one from the link) is almost perfect for here, the borders are not seen so good because it's extremely hard to see the names of the cities. Anyway, your maps are still better then the one i uploaded so feel free to upload the one you chose, at list for a while it's the best solution, offcourse the hunt for the perfect map is still burning. M.V.E.i. 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Russia 

message: Both very short-lived republics (KR survived 4 months and Odessa survived 2 mo.) are presented in the text as a sort of Russian attempt at self-determination, while they clearly weren't. Both of these republics were formed by Bolsheviks' based on class principle, rather than on national determination. Both were socialist republics as an opposition to "borgeois" UNR. They did try to become part of Soviet Russia, but the Bolshevik government refused them point black. So these two republics in the history of Ukraine were just to blimps, barely worth mentioning in an article about Russians in Ukraine. They didn't afffect Russians in Ukraine in any meaningful way.--Hillock65 23:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an opposition to the National USNR. -Yes and Lenin, did not want to anger the Ukrainians by recognizing Artyom's republics. They are clearly a sign of self-determination as in opposition to becoming separate from Russia proper. --Kuban Cossack 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the same OR that has been the problem of this article for quite a while. There is no indication, and there has never been one, that Russians in Ukraine wanted self-determination too. Self-determination from what? As far as they concearned, they lived in Russia, some even believed that way after the Revolution and the creation of Soviet Ukraine. All the small, short-lived republics were the creation of local Bolsheviks without the support or recognition from Lenin and other Bolsheviks. It is funny how Russian nationalists now cling to these puny, absolutely insignificant republics founded by those same Bolsheviks, whom they blame for destruction of Great Russia and transfer of Russian populated areas into Ukraine. The text and the hand-drawn map about these republics put undue weight on this insignificant event and leave the reader with the impression that Russians in Ukraine, just like Ukrainians wanted self-determination from .... Russia?--Hillock65 00:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cмотри на каркаешь...back in the Soviet times they too had the same approach to the UNR and the UPA, small, puny, insignificant, unrecognized by practically anyone... People who are arrogant of history usually end up causing it to repeat itself, and you would not want that to happen? ;)--Kuban Cossack 11:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot really comment what you have written, except two things: discuss the issue not me or my attitude to this or other events, one more time see WP:NPA, and again no insults in foreign languages, stick to English, this is not the sign of respect. I am not using foreign languages to address you, neither should you. Be civil. --Hillock65 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this a sign of lack of response or the lack of arguments. Oh... and really there is nothing to say that the use of foreign language on talk page is prohibited. You understand and that is what's important. --Kuban Cossack 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ever considered that they were formed as NOT to join Ukraine? To avoid falling under the Ukrainian rule? Yes Lenin was ruthless is supressing them because he did not want conflict with Ukrainians by confining them to the territory of the UNR on the map (i.e. Malorossiya). So on the contrary this is a very important historical chapter, when the Russian right for self-determination was forcefully supressed. And in the course after the Russian Civil War there was about a dozen or so Soviet Republics formed and dissolved... --Kuban Cossack 16:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of Russian self-determination in Ukraine is laughable. There was none. It was the infighting within the Bolshevik party, nothing more. Some bolsheviks wanted to answer directly to Lenin and Petrograd government, some wanted a larger body in Ukraine also in line with the Bolshevik policy. As always they couldn't devide power and that's why they were never recognized by Lenin or his government. But there is one thing you are missing: Bolsheviks hardly represented any people Russians or Ukrainians. What if Mensheviks won, or Anarchists won in the civil war? And what if the White army prevailed would there be any talks about self-determination of Russians? Hardly. All theese tiny republics (I suspect there were more) were an opposition on class principle to the borgois UNR and infighting between the local bolsheviks unable to come to a compromise without an order from Petrograd or Moscow. --Hillock65 17:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So was the idea of Ukrainian separatism in the 1970s Soviet Union... Don't use wikipedia to make a point. You can interpret all the events any way you like, but like you said only sourced information can go, and so far there is plenty to say that the DKR was significant. --Kuban Cossack 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand your complaint? All that stuff about POINT and everything. What law did I break now? Would you mind expressing your thoughts completely? It is not my interpretation, read the sources in the article. Bolshevik Artem's breach with Skrypnik and the other Ukrainian bolsheviks was over the principle that Ukrainian PSR was being formed on national principle, while he insisted on territorial. He was the real bolshevik, an internationalist. He didn't give a damn for Russians or Ukrainians. Internationalism was their main ideology, remember? Allowing Russian self-determination was rediculous, it's like supporting their sworn enemies the Whites, who indeed cared for Russians and didn't tolerate anyone else. So DKR is just as significant as any other tiny fiefdom that sprang up after the revolution. DKR was even less significant than Nestor Makno, who is remembered long after his time. If it wasn't for Ukrainian separatists and Russian natioanalists dragging DKR out of history archives to justify their outlandish claims, noone would even remember.--Hillock65 18:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krivoy Rog and Odessa republics 

message: There is an assumption in the text that Russian Orthodox churches were being closed in favour of Ukrainian Autocephallos church. The idea of bolsheviks, even Ukrainian bolsheviks supporting one church over the other seems doubtful, particularly at that stage in history. Like in many other places in the text, references to scholarly sources to support this assertion are needed.--Hillock65 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the whole History of Christianity in Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 11:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian Autocephallos church 

message: As someone from Donetzk and who is who is also familiar with Luhansk, i can tell you that there are more then 50% Russian their, but many of those Russians have surnames ending in -ko (Ukrainian ending) because when many Russians came to that area from different parts of the USSR their surnames were mostly changed from -ov to -nko. My family also had this cange when immigrating to Ukrainian SSR in the begining of the 30s. I dont know if the census types as Ukrainian anyone who has a Ukrainian lastname, or anyone who has even some Ukrainian blood, but anyway, i think this is a fact we should take notice of but i cant find the right link about this. M.V.E.i. 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is based on census, the actual amount of Russians nominally is probably higher, I agree.--Kuban Cossack 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And please, I am a kazak not a kozak, use correct Russian names for people not the twisted versions. --Kuban Cossack 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't think of the name thing, sorry. M.V.E.i. 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kuban Kozak, please notice

message: Russians in Ukraine mostly speak Russian, this is about Russians, not Ukrainians, therefore I feel that Ukrainian should (if need to) go second, not first.  --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The state language of the country is only one, and it is not Russian. If you write an article about the country, you use that language first. Since you insist otherwise, I prefer no translation at all. --Hillock65 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually pretty much all local level radas have raised Russian as a minority language, and Russian does have a special clause in the Ukrainian consititution, but if you insist, I'll go with it. --Kuban Cossack 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't invent things, the only state langugage of the country is Ukrainian, I don't care which city block or a hamlet decided to have it otherwise.--Hillock65 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And at the same time, the President's personal website has a Russian version... , as does the whole government. Also when is stating facts inventing?  --Kuban Cossack 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sidetracking the discussion to websites won't work. The state language is Ukainian. The only one. Anything else?--Hillock65 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And wikipedia is not owned by the Ukrainian governemnt, which is quite happy to own versions of its sites in Russian. --Kuban Cossack 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Are you following the topic of discussion?--Hillock65 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly, you have no justification to assume that Ukrainian has to go first over Russian, as Ukraine does not owe wikipedia...And this topic is about Russians, not Ukrainians, in a similar way Ukrainian would go first in Ukrainians in Russia. --Kuban Cossack 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A compromise variant would be to exclude them altogether, the name is common enough to have no translation. English only? Agreed?--Hillock65 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally you are suggesting a compromise...I would have thought I'd be here all night... Agreed! --Kuban Cossack 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Hillock, I do not understand are you trying to magnify the prominance of the UNR and minimise the one about the numerous Soviet republics? For example whilst you insist on:  These short-lived republics barely exercised any sovereignty over the claimed area  (something that has been disproved in refrences I gave above) and yet you chose to remove my comment about the UNR Many states after the Central Rada too claimed the new borders. Although de facto few of them were able to penetrate and rule on those areas which I can source if you look on the UNR's entry (territorial distribution on the WHP site here  just follow the territorial timeline, it turns out that the hold on New Russia and Donbass was less than the four months of DKR's time :( Once again Don't use wikipedia to make a Point--Kuban Cossack 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not try to magnify anything, I didn't claim the UNR controlled everything, although a succession of other Ukrainian states, Directory and the Hetmanate at one point or another did control almost all of the territory of present-day Ukraine with the exception of Crimea. UNR is not the focal point, the unimportance of small short-lived republics is. Your portrayal or them as an expression of self-determination of ethnic Russians is rediculous. See the extensive commentary above in the Krivoy Rog Republis section.--Hillock65 21:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Republics. I disagreed with your commentry, and gave counter-arguments which you never answered. In any case, one could argue that the UNR and all like states, also were composed of a political minority and if one believes the Soviet version, did not have any support of Ukrainians. In such a case I am offering you to equally treat both the Soviet Republics and the Ukrainian ones in the scope of this article irrespective of what you make of them. --Kuban Cossack 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't comment at all, my argument is the last in that thread. Talk:Russians_in_Ukraine#Don_Soviet_Republic Who are you trying to fool? I will not be dragging this discussion all over the page like the one about Little Russia. Be honest and respond where answers have been provided.--Hillock65 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is about the prominance and the control of the numerous republics that were proclaimed. --Kuban Cossack 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still didn't find any answer to the argument above.--Hillock65 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is that neither the DKR nor the short-lived Ukrainian states were able to put a footprint on the land of New Russia (essentially that's what it comes down)...--Kuban Cossack 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still no answer in the relevant section above.--Hillock65 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Borders and rule

message: *:Numerically Ukrainian population has also decreased. --Kuban Cossack 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article is not about Ukrainians but about Russians, why Ukrainian population is decreasing is beyond the point, focus on Russians. At lease two reasons have been established and supported by sources: 1)outmigration and 2)switching identities. Instead of digressing all over the place focus on finding sources to support other possible causes for the decrease, preferrably in English. --Hillock65 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant by Ukrainian population decreasing is about the whole Ukrainian population in the broad definition of the term. i.e. anyone who lives in Ukraine, be it Russian, Jew, Ukrainian, Rusyn or whoever else. On the whole the population of Ukraine is decreasing, and the Russians make up the decreasing part. What's wrong with having that?  --Kuban Cossack 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misunderstood, In that sense it is relevant, it will show how drop in etnic Russian population is relevant to the overall number. By all means, it is important. --Hillock65 19:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not just them who make up the decreasing part, the populations of many eastern regions, both Ukrainian and Russian numerically fell, as confirmed by the census. --Kuban Cossack 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The discussion about  general decreasing of the poulation in UA. Relevant or not?

message: Let's list first the reasons of the decline exclusive (to some degree, that is) to ethnic Russian population (like emigration to Russia and changing identities(?)) and then write that Russian population was also hit by the factors affecting all the population of Ukraine (and list them also). Alæxis¿question? 19:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Full support. --Kuban Cossack 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A great idea. M.V.E.i. 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposal 

message: I can see theres an edit war, and i would like to help you to to get a compromise. If you don't wont me to be the 3 side, anyone of you can tell me and we will forget i started it. If not, please each of you write what are you complaining at, and what are your demends. M.V.E.i. 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not panic, noone died yet. Why don't we all just relax and let other users express their ideas and thoughts. Maybe in the meantime some sources will come up to support the claims. I am waiting for all editors to express their ideas and suggestions. --Hillock65 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it's such a good idea, the trick is that other editors wont write here now, and that you and Kuban Cossack will find a compromise together, and again, without other editors here getting involved. M.V.E.i. 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ther is the talk page, whoever is interested cam always participate. Everything is cool. Join in.--Hillock65 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Offcourse they can, but i think most of them understand that you and Kuban Cossack should get the chance to solve it beetwem yourself here. M.V.E.i. 18:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: M.V.E.i. look at last night's discussion, for a consensus there must be a neutral point... a compromise, however Hillock fully said that I will not be swayed. So if a person refuses to make concessions, in my opinion it is pointless to waste time until a third opinion arrives. I have long suggested a Mediation to him, and realistically I see no other choice.--Kuban Cossack 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misrepresenting the words of the opponent is not the sign of good faith. (WP:FAITH) Let me show you, where you lied: my words from above Sorry, I will not be swayed, I am not going to claim anything, let the sources and references speak.--Hillock65 23:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ANYWAY, let's not go into those details, theres no way getting a compromise that way. Just say what are the problems and what are your demends (Please, lets not go to the Edit-War details, about the article please). M.V.E.i. 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats why i offer in this messege to start from scrach, so each of you will just say what he complains are and what are his demands (and Hillock 56, please dont invite users to this conversation. The reason i started this is so you could find a compromise without others wormming the conflict beetwen you). M.V.E.i. 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: And no, i'm not takingg drugs, i just think that Alex (the guy that protected this article) forgot that he've protected it. M.V.E.i. 14:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have there remained any other disputed things? Alæxis¿question? 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it, it's just not understood. M.V.E.i. 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's quiet a confusing situation, it's not understood if it's a consencus or just no fight's because no reverts can be done. I personaly hope for a consencus here. M.V.E.i. 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel were like, trapped in a television or a radio or somthing 

message: I went through the individuals and I see no problem with them of course it can be expanded/contracted, but some examples of prominent figures, both historical and contemprory should be given, if not in a form of a list then in form of thumnailed images. --Kuban Cossack 20:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that now you support it. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However there are quite a few too many people to list all. I mean if we filter the Russians out of :Category:People from Odessa we still arrive at one too many for the article to remain compact. Any suggestions, or can we just make a separate list? --Kuban Cossack 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? I support it. M.V.E.i. 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Russians 

message: The part about Volhynia has nothing to do with the topic of this article, no reference, no logic. And as always no sources to support outlandish claims. Is it designed specificall to start the revert war? As well large parts of the text were erased, including parts that were well referenced and sourced . This is very counterproductive. --Hillock65 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing can be said about the Crimean Tatars. I dislike double standards. I removed everything that was dubious and totally irrelevant. --Kuban Cossack 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if I understand you correctly, this outlandish and unsupported rubbish about Volhynia is your revenge for mentioning about ethnic cleansing of Tatars? --Hillock65 19:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So who is reverting whom  then? --Kuban Cossack 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotation from Subtelny is well documented and referenced. It is very relevant. Removing it will not help. --Hillock65 19:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New round of revert warring?

message: The article is about the Russians, not about UPA, KGB, Poles, Tartars, Ukrainians, Ukrainian church and so on. So please add this inforamtion to the relevant articles. --Russianname 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am proposing to Hillock for the sake of consensus, with respect to WP:FAITH to either purge or retain everything in the article and continue to have petty discussions about each of the above topics. --Kuban Cossack 11:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't agree more. This however does not mean that the history of Crimean Tatars should be excluded. They, after having been ethnically cleansed, made way to even more Russians in Crimea. Everything else, I agree is irrelevant. Now that we have established that you dreamed up the irrelevant story of Volhyn events and the UPA as a revenge for mentioning about ethnic cleansing of the Tatars, you should bear in mind that it is not a very good sign of Faith (WP:FAITH) to dream up some outlandish story in one part in order to try to wrestle the truth out from another part of the article. This is counterproductive. If you have an issue with some parts of the article, discuss them, you don't need to harass and disturb the whole article to make a point. So, for the sake of consensus and with respect to WP:FAITH purge the irrelevant parts you mentioned above and concentrate on the topic of relevance of the Crimean Tatars. That would be a show of positive attitude and an honest attempt to bridge the differences.--Hillock65 13:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again my condition for consensus purge all or leave all. --Kuban Cossack 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cannot twist arms of editors with outlandish claims. Read WP:POINT you are using one dubious fact to get you leverage in another dispute. This is not good fait (WP:FAITH), this is blackmail, it will never work.--Hillock65 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained above adding the Tatars is as dubious as the Poles. Considering that the Crimea that Ukraine took in 1954 did not have any Tatars. Like I said again purge all or keep all, no double standards. I am happy with either option, you? --Kuban Cossack 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Blackmail will not work. Facts that are relevant and proven by facts should stay. Period. --Hillock65 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Mentioning of the Poes is done in revenge. See above. This is blackmail and will not work. If Russians are mentioned in Crimea, them it should be mentioned that some of them kicked Tatars out and moved in their town and houses. That is the truth. --Hillock65 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) The article is not about the Tartars or Poles. 2) It was the Ukrainians who gained after depotations of the Tatars and the Poles: a) the Crimean Ukrainian population swallowed twice b) Lviv for the first time became a Ukrainian city in the late 1940-s, after deportations of the Poles. If so this info must be added to the article about the Ukrainians. --Russianname 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does information about Lviv has to do with Russians and the topic of this article? BTW it was not Ukrainians but Russians who deported Poles from Lviv. Check your facts. Trying to tie absolutely irrelevant information about Lviv to Crimea and ethnic cleansing there will not work. --Hillock65 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My that is historical revisionism, actually it was the Soviets, of whom Ukrainians made quite a chunk that removed the Poles from Lwow, and it was Ukrainians (in Soviet uniform if you like) that carried out the ethnic cleansing. The 200 thousand butchering of the Poles in Volhynia was carried out by the UPA. However in any case it proves that you are so keen on using this article for propaganda, particularly when citing Kuzio, who I am sorry to say is a complete Russophobe. --Kuban Cossack 16:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not done in revenge, you were the first one to put this in , like making even more absurd claims about the UGCC being removed to allow the Russians to settle there, I just expanded the section.--Kuban Cossack 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not point fingers at who did what first, we are not in Elementary school, at least not me. I put the part about Tatars because it was relevant to the story of how Russians prevail in Crimea. It is very relevant. I explained and referenced it. You instead decided to take revenge, in your own words: so if you are keen to Make a point why can't I?. So, all this irrelevant BS about Lviv and Volhynia is just to make a point to revenge my inclusion of ethnic cleansing of the Tatars. Nothing else. And now having piled up all this nonsense with the help of your meatpuppet Russianname you believe you are in position to negotiate something. You can only achieve advantage by presenting facts, not by presenting irrelevant rubbish and trying to blackmail me. This is not how WP works. "purge all or leave all" is a clear blackmail and it will never work. Besides, I am acutually glad that rubbish about UPA stays here - it is so ridiculous and so out of context, people can easily see it and it actually shows by what means you try to reach concensus - by blackmail and making a Point. (WP:POINT) It speaks volumes. Let people judge for themselves. --Hillock65 17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also please noone is twisting your arms, but as Irpen said about nationalists in wikipedia ... nationalist users ending up banned or having left due to "frustration". If anything I am bemused by your rough reaction and outlandish claims, no one is pressing you to do anything, once again purge all or leave all. Otherwise its a WP:DR, you can't keep some BS in the article whilst choosing to remove other. Wikipedia does not work that way. --Kuban Cossack 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And he massacred even more Russians... your point?--Kuban Cossack 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the reason, why you put his picture on you personal page. Are you a russophobe? :) --Hillock65 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Look in the mirror for that matter of fact. --Kuban Cossack 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That still does not answer any of the questions. Reverting pages without any explanation is not very helpful. --Hillock65 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: As well, please note, that removal of whole parts of the text without discussions is not a very good sign and is very counterproductive. If you have an issue, raise it at the discussion page first. As well, spamming the article with meaningless tags is not helping anyone either. What is dubious? Ever thought about explaining what is dubious?--Hillock65 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in the mirror for that matter of fact. --Kuban Cossack 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That still does not answer any of the questions. Reverting pages without any explanation is not very helpful. --Hillock65 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: En masse deletion and tag spamming

message: Inclusion of irrelevant facts about Western Ukraine done as a revenge (WP:POINT), inclusion of sources from the Russian nationalist sites makes this article BEYOND non-neutral. In its present state it is a hate fest. Not willing to start the new round of revert wars I downgraded the tag to totally disputed. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is cleared. --Hillock65 04:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I bother you to show the relevance of Volhyn massacre to the "astounding" number of 2.4% Russians in the region? What is it? How does massacre relate to the 2.4% of Russians? And what do your sources say, since there is no electronic version - you curiously switched sources from electronic to printed, but the article passage stayed the same. So, what's in there? --Hillock65 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Volhynia does not = Volyn Oblast, and also compare to the 1989 Russian population there: 4.4% and if you can source me how they arrived there that explicitly states that they were not filling a vacuum in labour force after your герої carried out their oath in freeing Ukraine from foreign influence, then I will agree on its removal, but not before. --Kuban Cossack 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I will not even move my finger to source anything of that BS, I didn't put it there. You put it there without any sources at first, them addede electronic unrelated sources, then changed to printed ones, and all the while, when sources kept changing the text stayed the same to the word! You invented this "fact" and how it relates to the whopping 4.4%, so the only thing I am asking, show the relation of massacre to the 4.4% with verbatum citatons from the source. You asked me above about Subtelny's quote, I did it, now it is your turn to support your outlandish claims with facts. I am curious as to how the massacre relates to the whopping 4.4%? --Hillock65 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2. Then second question arises, why particularly this region with this tiny Russian minority is mentioned while others, for example Zhytomyr oblast with almost double the number of Russians in Volhynia is overlooked? That again highlights the real reason, why this BS is here - a revenge for mentioning ethnic cleansing of Crimean Tatars. (WP:POINT). If you and Russianname are concearned with the plight of etnic Russians in Western Ukraine, why almost the same number of Russians in Transcarpathia, and even the higher number of Russians in Lviv Oblast have been overlooked ? Is that because these numbers could not be used in childish revenge, while Volyn ones, even if they are way lower, can? (WP:POINT) --Hillock65 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were the one who first added the same BS about dissolution of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was done for the Russians moving into western Ukraine. Moreover I put a reasoning paragraph up there about how the expulsion of Crimean Tatars did not affect the Crimean Russian population demographics (in terms of actual size). Thus I suggested to you all or none. I personally favour the latter, as there is more rational logic into it. Same WP:POINT applies to you. --Kuban Cossack 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please WP:DICK, are you now after revenge? Two wrongs would surely never make a right. Once again, I proven that the Crimean Tatar deportation, in the detail covered by you, is excessive. Now we must search for a compromise. --Kuban Cossack 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop. I asked you two specific questions above and instead you keep finding exuses to justify your revenge. This is counterproductive. --Hillock65 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally, totally disputed 

message: What is this article supposed to be about?  What is its scope?  It is turning into another Russian language in Ukraine and the likes, covering the same information and failing to provide anything new to prospective English readers of the wikipedia.  Worst of all, a lot of it is done (or at least initially was done) without relying on any previous scholarly work in English.  Notice that half of it is a history of "russians in Ukraine," and a quarter now appears to be a list of russians in Ukraine.  Soon you'll have to move it to "History of Russians in Ukraine" a la History of the Jews in Latin America.  
Instead of bickering and striving on controversy, why not write something that a prospective reader will find beneficial when he or she stumbles on this topic.  For example, how are ethnic Russians living in Ukraine do so?  What are their communities like?  Are they different and segregated from other ethnic groups be it Tatars or Ukrainians or Jews?  What is the contribution of these migrants to Ukraine?  How do they affect economy and politics of modern Ukraine?  Do they hate the country they live in or are they neutral or indifferent?  When answering these and other questions, do rely on verifiable and authoritative sources (for example: no imperial newspapers) so that others can check these sources and cite them in turn.  What is really the scope of this entry?--Riurik(discuss) 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what do you have against Japanese newspapers - I don't know of any other empire left in the world now :). If you think the article is lacking something you could add it. Alæxis¿question? 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe this article as well as the one about Russian language is nothing but an ax-grinding exercise. This one was started by a user, who has since been banned indefinitely, but a couple of other users adopted it as a venue to settle scores, rather than to treat the subject fairly. I pointed numerous times on the lack of scientific literature, which should be the first step in writing any article. Here, however, facts are presented from personal and often twisted imagination of some users and then sources (often from Russian nationalist sites) are added to substantiate the POV. As of yet, no one knows where this article is going as some editors seem to be fishing for a juicy fact to include here to inflict more damage to the opposing side rather than objectively and neutrally treat the subject. Because of the recent and multiple revert wars most editors shun this article and are unwilling not only to contribute but even to offer suggestions to improve it. But clearly, this need to change, because this state of things cannot continue forever.--Hillock65 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Russian or Ukrainian nationalist sites are obviously not valid references. However I cannot agree with the general rejection of this article. The subject of the article is quite relevant and there exist many articles about similar things (e. g. Italian American, Hungarian minority in Romania etc.) Everyone should help to make this article better, I presume. Alæxis¿question? 15:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say I was rejecting the article, otherwise I would've moved for deletion. This subject clearly has its place and merit, my only concern is about the attitude to it and the way it is being written. --Hillock65 15:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Mr. Kuban kazak & Co., please stop referencing your POV claims with ext links to partisan non-academic Russian sites like "Русь единая", "Православие" etc. Those sites are clearly not reliable secondary sources, as some of them are actually blogs based on hosts like http://www.narod.ru. And what is more, they are utterly anti-Ukrainian from their very first sentences. This unworthy tactic of supporting your POV was already reprimanded at Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment and hundreds of other places.
I also suspect that, by linking such "sources", you are trying to not only bias the UA articles, but also attract more attention to the mentioned sites (which is directly prohibited by WP:SPAM). This my suspicion may be proven by the fact that one of the non-compliant links was "supporting" the uncontroversial statement of common knowledge:
:later, due in large part to pressure from Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders, one Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed  Ukrainian (Soviet) People's Republic World History Project Retrieved on 19 May 2007.
Next time you apply such a "referencing" method, your edits will be identified as SPAM and deleted immediately regardless to 3RR rule. Happy edits, Ukrained 06:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what they refrencing, using them as examples is allowed, using them as to refrence an opinion is also allowed, using them as literature is not allowed, although it usually a case that nationalists cannot write articles themselves (as they are nationalists they are only good in street fights and trolling on the internet), this goes for Ukrainian ones as well (not naming any names), in any case most internet articles published there were ripped off from various works some of which are actually full of refrences and sources themselves. --Kuban Cossack 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way Russian nationalist sites calling for restoration of the Russian empire and abolishment of Ukraine are going to be relevant? We are not writing an article about Russian impeialism, but on a different topic. Those sites are only good to describe what perverted version of the world Russian nationalists have. That is all. To use them as reference in a serious encyclopedia article is beyond rediculous. If you see reference from Ukrainian nationalist sites that don't consider Russians to be a separate nation, please delete them. But leaving Russian ones who advocate the same is dead wrong. If you have a serious academic source, present it. If it is a credible, scientific research it is bound to be found in places other than hateful Russian nationalist dumps. --Hillock65 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is wrong with re-unification it is merely a belief any judgement on it is a POV. Otherwise for example here are three sites that Ukrained has removed: , , . Neither of these three did you ever mind before, so why have all of a sudden changed your opinion? --Kuban Cossack 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can disguise imperialist ambitions in any number of ways, re-whatever, especially re-unification is pure example of Russian imperialism. And there can never be re-anything, colonization and occupation is not "re", it is imperialism and should be called by its rightful name. Ever wanted to re-unify with Nazi Germany with whom you so gallantly paraded in Brest in WWII? Apply all standards evenly. Imperialism no matter where it is coming from, from Nazi Germany or Russia will never be tolerated, so keep it out of Wikipedia, please. I concur with his edits - edrus.org and pravoslavie.ru are hateful nationalist dumps and should have never be included here. --Hillock65 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who do you refer to as you? You mean the UPA who carried out the butchering of Belarusians in Khatyn? Pravoslavie.ru is simply an Orhtodox newsletter is not hateful, and please don't place Nazi Germany and contemprory Russia in one category. A re-unification is one that is accepted by all parties, and if the people of both Ukraine and Russia want it, why not? --Kuban Cossack 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My dear Ukrained, please withhold from personal attacks and trollish entries. Re-writing the above in a sensible format might warrant me to give you a sensible answer in the mean time, I do not feed the trolls. --Kuban Cossack 17:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop adding non-compliant external links! 

message: In the latest reference on Rivne Russian schools I didn't find in the referenced article by Dubchinsky any mentioning of the fact. Would you please mention the part where he states that there are no Russian schools left or remove the reference as irrelevant. --Hillock65 14:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: page 7 of the article:
Alæxis¿question? 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that settles it. Thank you.--Hillock65 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Please clarify here what is the problem with NPOV. --Russianname 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. What is the evidence of "state-supproted attempt to introduce the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate". Please cite the original source or provide link to on line version. If you remove dubious state-supported claim, there should be no further objections. --Hillock65 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify here