Talk:Russians in Ukraine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Russo-Jewish alliances

copypasted from my talkpage:

Thank you for upgrading the level of the article i've created, Russians in Ukraine, i liked most of what you added there, but yet there are a few things i would like to talk to you about: 1. Why did you delete the section of "Relationship with other Ethnic Groups"? I came from Ukrain, and i'm half Russian (By the father, Jewish by mother), and what i wrote there was not a personal view but the truth. The Tatars in Criemea threaten to kill Russians, while Russians dont like Tatars there (And for a good reason, remember how they killed our people in the middle-ages, the Tatarian basterds occupied most of our lands). The Russians and the Russian-Speaking Ukrainians see themselves as a Slavic Unity. The Russians and Jews are really allied, and on an "orange" demonstration in Lviv in 2002 Yuchenko supporters shouted: "bey judiv i maskaliv " ("beat Jews and Russians"). M.V.E.i. 15:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all tone the politics down. comments like Tatarian basterds should be avoided at all costs, just because some degenerates use offensive language (like your example with Lviv) that does not mean you should. It gives me no sympathy and it will only destroy the image of the article

Second of all, spelling, do make an effort

Thirdly, you can't just say things X and Y see themselves as a Slavic Unity or Z try to kill X. This is but a POV and the article should be free of it.

Fourthly again Jews supported both Yushchenko and Yanukovych, and the quasi-anti-semetic people made up both Yushchenko's and Yanukovych's electorate.

So really the heading that I removed was just a piece of aggravated opinion, nothing else nothing more. --Kuban Cossack 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Russo-Jewish alliances in Ukraine are real (these people share common language and much of Soviet and old Russian tradition, together with some other Russian-speaking groups) but unfortunately these alliances are not researched. It would be nice if someone could find an article about this matter. --Russianname 12:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just stick to narrow facts. Jews in Ukraine tend to be suspicious about the (real or perceived) Ukrainian nationalism and its (possible) resurgence. It is very clear why. This may align them politically with Russians on some issues but this is not the same as being aligned with Yanuk, Vitrenko or Symonenko. If we can find a source that we can use, a statement along these lines (wariness of nationalism) can be warranted. Whether Yushchenko is a Ukrainian nationalist is not a settled issue, unlike for Tyahnybok or other scum. Therefore, the Jewish vote, however small, was indeed split between the orange and the blue. --Irpen 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Irpen. I don't believe any Russo-Jewish alliances belong here. There is an article History of the Jews in Ukraine, that's where these alliances belong. Otherwise, it will open the door for Russo-Polish, Russo-German (!), Russo-Serbian and other alliances. If someone else apart from Russians is mentioned, exclusion of Greeks, Bulgarians, Tatars and Gagauz will be "undue weight" and POV. So let's just stick to the subject matter, shall we?--Hillock65 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Can anyone explaine why is the current title better than the original Russians in Ukraine? What was the rationale behind renaming, besides I don't see any discussion about it. Was the name changed without any warning and discussion whatsoever?--Hillock65 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As you can see i moved the page. M.V.E.i. 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The title Russians in Ukraine is good enough. No need to get any more specific as the scope of the article naturally follows from the title. The word "ethnic" should only be used when absolutely necessary. It is not the case here.

"Little Russia" and the terms derived from it can only be used within the proper context, that is for the 19th century and earlier. Historic books tend to use contemporary terminology and we should do the same. The term is improper in the modern context and if used as such has a political meaning. For the 19th century period, the term is usable as per contemporary sources. --Irpen 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC) --Irpen 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Politics

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)

Look at the election distribution map the borders of New Russia become all to visible. --Kuban Cossack 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any factual data that support destribution of vote by ethnicity? Read WP:OR.--Hillock65 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

convinced yet? — Not at all. What do these colours represent, Russians, Jews, Ukrainians or Tatars? - The legend is clear enough they represent the majority of parties that the electorate of Crimea, Donbass and New Russia supproted. — Well, it is an excellent source to show political landscape of the country, but a very poor one to claim what ethnic group supported who..

• 
• 
• 

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)

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)

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)

Could this be of some assurance: http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/rus/results/general/nationality/ ?--Kuban Cossack 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Dontsov was ethnic Russian? Now that is news for me. Do please tell me more.--Kuban Cossack 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Gee, why West and not Northern Ukrainian? How can you tell?--Hillock65 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmytro is simply the Ukrainian version of Dimitros, which is actually a Greek name originally. --Kuban Cossack 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Russians support this one political force is certainly an overgeneralization and also incorrect. What is correct to say is a less committing assertion that three (not one) non-fringe political movements in Ukraine "Progressive Socialists", Communists and PR are to a varying degree tending towards the Russian voters. We don't have any reliable data to judge the degree of their success but the correlation certainly exists. By a simple rephrasing and saying that these specific forces/parties make appeals towards the Russian support instead of saying that Russians support them, we convey the info more precisely and less ORishly. --Irpen 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians and Russophones in Ukraine overwhelmingly supported the forces that were less inclined towards the aggressiv Ukrainian nationalism: Kravchuk in 1991, Kuchma in 1994, Yanukovich in 2004, Party of Regions in 2006. Claiming this statement to be an original research is nonsense: http://www.zn.ua/1000/1030/53764/ День. Киев. 28 ноября 1998. http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n18texts/tanchyn.htm --Russianname 11:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Crimea

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)

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)

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 {{subst:Smile}} 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

http://www.newsru.com/russia/04oct2005/krym.html --Kuban Cossack 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this source? What does it change?--Hillock65 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We cannot state that the transfer was illegal as if this is an unquestionable statement. This is similar to the Baltic "occupation"/annexation/incorportation POVs. To say that the legality is questioned and give the info is one thing. Prejudging this by taking sides in the dispute is a violation of NPOV. --Irpen 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Orignal Research

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)

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)

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)

Identify the theories and discuss them, don't revert war.--Kuban Cossack 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I already identified them, several times actually. Read above. --Hillock65 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The question of transfering Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR has been researched many times. One of these works is Правовой статус Крыма. Правовой статус Севастополя. Автор: Федоров А. В. Издательство: МГУ. Год издания: 1999 ISBN: 5-211-04139-9 Количество страниц: 56 --Russianname 12:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Yes, this is right. The legal aspects are the matter of other article. But the transfer itself was controversial and is perceived to be controvercial and unjust by majority of Crimeans who voted for their independence in 1994. --Russianname 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality

I tried listing all of the points let's work through them:

Use of Little Russia

Explained above

The use of Little Russia and Little Russian should be limited to explaining the official Russian Imperial policy. The name Ukraine and Ukrainians was used well before the census and the described events. We are here to represent the neutral point of view not the one of the Imperial Russian government.--Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

True as that may be, however the use of these archaic terms is justified when describing the period in question. You can disagree with them, however replacing them with their modern equivalent is not correct, because in case of Little Russians many other regions which labeled their tongue as such would become ethnically Russian territories. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of Little Russians to generally describe Ukrainians is not acceptable in any historiographic literature of any period of Ukrainian history. It should be explained, but used instead of "Ukrainians" is very biased.--Hillock65 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Source this then, like I said before prior to 1918 Ukrainians as such did not exist, only their progenitors. The affiliation with being Russian or Ukrainian came from language. However language alone is insufficient to class one as bellonging to a separate ethnic group. Did the fact that in 1897 my Kuban spoke in Little Russian make as Ukrainians? No, we are Russians. Did the fact that northern Polessia spoke Little Russian in 1897 make them Ukrainians? No they are Belarusians. Same with New Russia, this is an important historical term and is applicable here.--Kuban Cossack 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainians existed well before 1918. Here is the source:

Як умру, то поховайте

Мене на могилі,

Серед степу широкого,

На Вкраїні милій,

Щоб лани широкополі,

І Дніпро, і кручі

Було видно, було чути,

Як реве ревучий.

Як понесе з України

У синєє море

Taras Shevchenko, December 25, 1845

Again, it is not for us to decide who and why became Ukrainian and why didn't. Treat Ukrainians with respect, use the universally acceptable terminology in all historiographic literature and this issue will be closed.--Hillock65 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My wife is Ukrainian ... and I would never call any Ukrainian Little Russian, even if he behaved like a complete immature (examples of which could be found on wikipedia). Also Nikolay Gogol uses both actually, however Ukrainian when referring to the region, whilst Maloros when referring to people i.e. ethnical terms. --Kuban Cossack 16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia article not an amateur culturological piece, please use respectful and generally acceptable terminology in historical articles. For your reference, please consult Encyclopedia Brittanica and compare the use of correct respectful terminology[1].--Hillock65 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, in the context of this article alone, it is suitable to use Little Russians, particularly wrt census results. It is not suitable to apply the term to contemporary Ukrainians. --Kuban Cossack 18:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would only ask that you consult very reliable and scientifically trusted Encyclopedia Britannica in your use of archaic and improper terms for Ukrainians. I don't see them using this kind of terminology in the description of events you are trying to describe. Neither should you. --Hillock65 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I trust Britannica, and I trust it as an accurate source, however two reasons make me reject the usage wrt New Russia alone. First in the Russian Empire it was a term that was not only applied to Ukrainians, but to speakers of the Little Russian language (nominally all were Russian). The full identification of ethnicity took place during the Russian Civil War. Like you said above with the example of Dontsov, there were a lot of ethnic Russians who claimed themselves as Ukrainians and vice versa. That was when the term became truly archaic, and wrt Novorossiya and the Donbass the transition of Little and Great Russians to Ukrainians and ethnic Russians was not universal. This phenomenon is important to the article and to avoid confusing the reader, I see no harm in using the old terminology to describe a period where the contemporary one would be misleading. --Kuban Cossack 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how British went about without insulting Ukrainins with imperialist terminology. As far as Ukrainians concerned, this is a very touchy and controversial area who was Great and who was Little. Our mutual acquaintance Dontsov, for example, didn't consider Russians to be related to Ukrainians or having common ancestry at all. And he was not the only one. So let's just agree in the spirit of compromise that was starting to appear that we stay away from nationalistic characterisations of each other and stick to the internationally recognized terminology like in the EB I quoted above.--Hillock65 19:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you find the term offensive? Well I find quite offensive when people use the term Muscovites to reffer to modern day Russians, in wikipedian articles... --Kuban Cossack 13:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And in particular with respect to Ukrainian language, since Little Russian, although incorporates, is a much broader definition than standard Ukrainian. --Kuban Cossack 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time, please refrain from using Imprial terminology in regards to Ukrainians and stick to the generally acceptable and respectful terminology. I find this use of outdated and denegrating terminology as counterproductive and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. For the correct terms to be used in regards to Ukrainians and Ukrainian language please consult other articles on Ukrainian language, Ukrainian history. If your constant warring and reverting over imperialist terminology doesn't stop, I will have to ask for RfC. Hope that won't be necessary.--Hillock65 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Truth hurts? No? Once again there is no imperialism here. It was the terminology that was used at the time, and because of the unique events it should persist. Furthermore like I explained previously the mixed population of New Russia was mixed. I did not choose to have dialects such as Surzhik or our Kuban Balachka to fall under Little Russian term that was used in 1897 census. The census did not use the term Ukrainian. If in question I think a mediation might be more suitable. Also I cannot take responsibility of you being insulted by the term Little Russian. There are plenty of Ukrainian Russophiles who would feel otherwise.--Kuban Cossack 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Using the term in modern context is both inappropriate and insensitive. In the 19th century context the term is fine to use as per contemporary sources. And, no, the term is not offensive, even in modern context, just anachronistic and weird. No need to invent arguments and sensitivities for the sake of prevailing one's POV. --Irpen 23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The term is clearly derogative, let me illustrate: In the 20th century Malorosiiany or Malorosy has been a derogatory term used by Ukrainians to designate Ukrainians with little or no national consciousness.[2] [3]--Hillock65 14:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Little Russia does not have any derogatory sense and it was widely accepted till 1917:

Впервые термин "Малая Россия" встречается в начале XIV века в Византии для определения современных западноукраинских земель (Галицко-Волынское княжество) в церковно-административной практике. Галицкая митрополия, созданная в 1303 году, охватывала шесть епархий: галицкую, перемышльскую, владимирскую, холмскую, луцкую и туровскую (то есть, также часть территории современной Беларуси), которые в византийских источниках получили название Малая Русь (Greek: Μικρά Ρωσία — Микра Росиа) в противоположность Великой России (Greek: Μακρά Ρωσία — Макра Росиа), под которой с 1354 г. понималась территория епархий под властью киевского митрополита. Галицкий князь Юрий II Болеслав в грамоте к великому магистру немецкого ордена Дитриху, от 20 октября 1335 года называл себя «dux totius Rusiæ Minoris» ("Божией милостью прирожденный князь всея Малыя Руси"), хотя и он, и его предшественники именовали себя «Rex Russiæ», «Dux totius terræ Russiæ», «Dux et Dominus Russiæ». В конечном итоге названия "Великая Русь" и "Малая Русь" вышли на официальный уровень - в 1361 г. константинопольский патриарх учредил две митрополии, одну - в "Малой Руси" ("Микра Росиа"), с центром в Новгородке и Галиче, другую в "Великой Руси", с центром во Владимире и Киеве. Польского короля Казимира называли "королём Ляхии и Малой Руси", так как он распространил свою власть на значительную часть владений Юрия-Болеслава . Согласно схеме Михаила Грушевского "Малая Русь" - это Галицко-Волынская держава, а с её гибелью, вхождением ее земель в состав Польши, данное название "выходит из употребления" .

В XV— до конца XVI веках название Малая Русь не встречается. В дальнейшем названия "Великая/Малая Русь" или "Великая/Малая Россия" оказались в употреблении у православных духовных лиц, особенно часто эти названия стали появляться после Брестской унии 1596 г. в текстах православных публицистов, например, у Ивана Вишенского в сочинениях постоянно используются для различения Руси вообще термины Великая и Малая Русь: "абовем ныне християне Малое Русии" ("Книжка", около 1600 г.), "если не хочеш плодоносия спасителнаго языка словенскаго от Великой России доведоватися, доступи в Киеве в монастырь Печерский" ("Зачапка", около 1608 г.). А митрополит Мир Ликийских Матфей пишет Львовскому братству, что ему даны патриархом Константинопольским полномочия "относительно церковных дел в Малой России и в Московском царстве" (1606 год). Иов Борецкий, Исайя Копинский и Зиновий Копыстенский также постоянно используют понятие Малой России в своих полемических (против унии с католицизмом) сочинениях. Понятие "Малой Руси" на переломе XV— XVI век веков охватывало не только современные украинские земли, но и белорусские и, частично, литовские, то есть всю территорию киевской митрополии. Одно из своих посланий Иван Вишенский адресовал "христиранам Малой России - братству Львовскому и Виленскому" Захария Копыстенский в "Палинодии" писал "Россия Малая, то есть Киев и Литва" .

Начиная с пол. XVII века оно также употреблялось в церковной переписке Киева с Москвой. В хрониках и на географических картах почти до конца XVII века западноукраинские земли именуются Русь (Russia), Русская земля (Ziemia Ruska) или Красная Русь (Russia Rubra). Контарини называет Нижней Россией земли, где находятся города Луцк, Житомир, Белгород (ныне с. Белогородка в 20 км от Киева) и Киев [4].

Название Великая Русь, которая применялась сначала к Киеву и другим епархиям Киевской митрополии, переходит позднее к Московскому государству, так как сначала во Владимир, а затем в Москву перезжает митрополит киевский.

После Переяславского договора 1654 года русский царь изменил свой титул на «Всея Великія и Малыя Россіи», куда со временем прибавили добавку «Белыя». С того времени название Малая Россия (Малая Русь) также начала распространяться в украинской правительственной переписке, хрониках и литературе, в частности, употребляется Богданом Хмельницким , Иваном Сирко . Настоятель Киево-Печерского монастыря Иннокентий Гизель в «Синопсисе» (1674) сформулировал понимание русского народа как триединого народа в составе великорусов, малорусов и беларусов, а государственной власти Московского государства во всех трёх частях — Великой, Малой и Белой Руси — единственно законная, так как московские князья, а потом цари, ведут свой род от Александра Невского, который «бысть князь Киевский из земли Российския, Александр Ярославич Невский». Термин «Малороссийскя Украина» появился в 1677 г. и затем укоренилось в гетманской канцелярии и летописании. Термины «Малороссия» и «Малая Россия» употребляется в летописи Самойла Величко, хронографе по списку Л.Боболинского, «Скарбнице» Ивана Галятовского (1676) .

Названия Малороссия, малороссийский, малороссияне употреблялись относительно всей российской Украины на протяжении XIX и нач. XX в., хотя также употреблялось название Украина (Украйна). Название Малороссия применяли иногда в узком смысле для Левобережной Украины в границах Полтавской, Харьковской и Черниговской губерний. Именно так Левобережную Украину, матерью и «Малороссией» назвал Григорий Сковорода , а подпольскую Украину — тёткой , что указывало на отсутсвие в термине «Малороссия» уничижительного оттенка.

Тарас Шевченко в своем личном дневнике (за 1857—1858 гг.) использует 21 раз слова «Малороссия/малороссийский» и только 3 раза «Украина» (при этом он не использует прилагательное «украинский» вообще); одновременно, в письмах единомышленникам-украинофилам 17 раз «Украина» и 5 раз «Малороссия/малороссийский», а своей поэзии употребляет только термин «Украина» .

Украинский историк Михаил Максимович в своей работе 1868 года опровергал миф, сформировавшийся в польской историографии: приписывание Московскому государству внедрения названия «Малороссия» после 1654 г., деления русского народа на «Русь, рутенов и московитов» (причем «московиты причисляются даже не к славянскому племени»). Украинские историки Николай Костомаров, Дмитрий Багалей, Владимир Антонович признавaли, что «Малороссия» или «Южная Русь» во времена борьбы Московского государства и Речи Посполитой являлось этнонимом для «малороссийской/южнорусской» народности, а «Украина» использовалась как топоним, обозначавший окраинные земли обоих государств . --Russianname 12:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not spam, who is going to read all that stuff above? You could've just given the link. That question seems to be settled even with Kazak, let's not start again.--Hillock65 13:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you refuse to read ru-wiki text, than perhaps directly posting it here would help to convince you, that was intention, and don't claim of issue settlement, it takes two to agree, not one. --Kuban Cossack 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

the Bolshevik government tolerated the UPR

1. 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)

   Axis refers to WWII, we are talking about post-WWI. At least let's agree on the history frame, and then on the fact. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry, I meant Central Powers, my mistake. This slip, however, does not change the above argument of time frame for Bolshevik involvment.--Hillock65 15:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Actually if you look at the maps of WWI then really it just follows through the Red Army began around Moscow and moved all the way into Ukraine...without stopping. [5] --Kuban Cossack 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

claiming their borders based on the 1897 census.

1. 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)

   Who says it was not so you? You support with sources that it was the opposite way around

   No logic here, I am not making any claims, you are. And please support them with sources.--Hillock65 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   You want to remove something that is not sourced, you too source the alternative. I think for common sense, why did the UPR not claim...Karelia for that fact? --Kuban Cossack 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry I don't follow the argument, what is so unusual about asking not to insert unsupported claims? If you want, I will not put a word of my own but will erase all unsupported assertions. That will not be very helpful. Let's write a neutral article, not one replete with original research. If you want to make a point, be my guest, but do not make outlandish claims and ask someone else to disprove it. If you write something, the onus is on you to support it with factual data. --Hillock65 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Hetman State claimed their authority for modern White Russian and Russian lands: Делегація Української держави пропонувала на переговорах з Росією, що точились впродовж 1918 р., встановити в межах Мінської губернії кордон, що мав проходити по ліні∙: Вигонівське озеро - р. Шара - на Любашево - Круговичі - Локтиші - Чепелі - Погост - Пасика - Уріччя - Слуцьк - Борова - Новий Степ. Кордон на територі∙ Могилівсько∙ губерні∙ йшов по р. Дніпро (4 версти вище Жлобина) - далі на Рачин - Шепетовичі -річкою Сож до р. Бесіди - на Святське (Могилівщина). Далі він проходив по адміністративних межах Чернігівської губернії до Красного рогу на Семенець Трубчевський (в межах Орловської губ.) річкою Нерусь - р. Сєва - до р. Тари на Онишковичі. По Курщині він проходив: на схід від лінії Амон-Сафонівка - р. Свипа річкою Сейм до Глушкова на Гущино, Лук'янівку, Старий Оскол і Петропавлівське (Обухівська). В межах Воронезької губ.: на Шаталівку, Ріпівку - Колбіно до Дону (по верху Коротяку). Доном йшов через Ліски на Шостаково, Нижню Кислю, Козловку, Бутурлінівку, Василівку, Банку і до Східного кордону Воронежчини - Новохоперську. Далі починався кордон з Всевеликим Військом Донським. http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/publish/article?art_id=10295317 --Russianname 11:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nearly the same was position of "UPR" officials 7 (20) листопада прийнято ІІІ Універсал, згідно з яким, Україну проголошено Українською Народною Республікою, тобто автономним державним утворенням в складі Російської Республіки, визначивши її кордони. До її території визнано належними землі, заселені у більшості українцями: Київщина, Поділля, Волинь, Чернігівщина, Полтавщина, Харківщина, Катеринославщина, Херсонщина, Таврія (без Криму). Остаточне вирішення кордонів УНР, зокрема "прилучення частини Курщини, Холмщини, Вороніжчини, так і суміжних губерній і областей, де більшість населення українське, має бути встановлене по згоді з організованої волі народів". http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/publish/article?art_id=10295317 --Russianname 11:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent source, thank you.--Hillock65 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

one of the most hit areas were the south and eastern Ukraine

1. 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)

   Read Holodomor article, I discussed this on the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Let's stick to the subject at hand and this article. At the moment, I am interested in this one. If you make controversial claims that casualties were higher somewehre else, support them. As simple as that..--Hillock65 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   I can't be asked to write it out again: Talk:Holodomor#Was the Holodomor genocide?#A few questions--Kuban Cossack 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   By all means, if you found a reliable source that says that Crimea, Southern and Eastern Ukraine was hit more than any other area, please insert it.--Hillock65 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   It is all there. --Kuban Cossack 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars

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

   Why shouldn't they be relevant? If the ethnic cleansing hadn't happened we could talk about different ethnic balance in Crimea. The proportion of tatars in Crimea before deportation is questionable and should be supported by documents. --Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   1939 Soviet census is questionable? Find it in www.demoscope.ru --Kuban Cossack 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   The census is a good source, you should cite it there. This however, cannot exclude the part about ethnic cleansing, since however small their percentage was, Russians coming to replace them in Crimea increased their proportion there and shifted the balance of ethnic groups.--Hillock65 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   As you have noticed, this article is in an extremely early stage, and wrt comments that the creator wrote at the very top...about Crimean Tatars... I reckon it is easier to deal with things one step at a time than with 50 issues. --Kuban Cossack 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hand-drawn picture

This hand-drawn elementary school illustration with unknown origin should be kept out of encyclopedia article. There is no proof that it represents real and not imagined facts. I could do a better one, can I post it too?--Hillock65 15:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I could make a bettern .png one, if you want me to.

Sure, let's all post hand-drawn pictures of what history should have been like! Whouldn't that be fuuunnnnn!!!!--Hillock65 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see your reasoning. According to ru-wikipedia: ru:Донецко-Криворожская советская республика, Создание Донецко-Криворожской советской республики противопоставлялось буржуазной Украинской Народной Республике, претендовавшей на территорию Донбасса, Харьковской и Екатеринославской губерний.. According to the Large Soviet Encyclopedia: Объединяла территорию Донецкого и Криворожского бассейна (Херсонская губерния), Харьковской и Екатеринославской губернии; входила в состав РСФСР. [6]. So the borders were simply determined by the borders of the governorates. --Kuban Cossack 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute the fact, although Russian Wikipedia can hardly be a reliable source for one, my objections is with the use of this amateourish drawing. It is not for me to decide if it is true or not, there should be no questions as to its reliability. As it is, there are.--Hillock65 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes Russian wikipedia less credible? It is simply a statement of how the borders of that republic was aligned do you question the borders? The map was simply drawn out based on that evidence. Like I said would you like me to make a .png of it? --Kuban Cossack 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters, a map like any other source or illustration should have a source. And where is this drawing coming from? In regards to Russian Wikipedia, it cannot serve as a source for this one. A quotation from a scientific article or research is a different matter. Since its source is unknown, depiction of territories there should be questioned and supported with sources. Like I said, I can draw or make /png file with slightly differnt outline of territories, would that be acceptable too?--Hillock65 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And the Large Soviet Encyclopedia is that too amateurish? --Kuban Cossack 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually think this map is exelent. If anyone will find a better one he could uploaded here and we will talk about it here, while know i support the current map. M.V.E.i. 19:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The underlying and very justified question is where this map coming from and therefore, how trustworthy is it? Will the one done by me be just as reliable?--Hillock65 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have checked in some Universities web-sites, and i can say that their map-qualities ain't better. If you find a better version your welcome to upload it hear, but while thats all we have, thats what we have. And as i noticed, thats only the three of us working on this article for now, but there will be more M.V.E.i. 19:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAITH

1. It helps not to have a skeptical view on things. --Kuban Cossack 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, check this out

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)

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)

Totally disputed

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)

• It is very difficult to search for compromise and consensus without the list of the contentious points. Can you provide the list of the "incorrect and tendentious statemets" and when we can deal with them one by one. Alex Bakharev 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the contentious points have been listed above, in particular the other editor insists on using the imperial term for Ukraine and Ukrainians in virtually all contexts (see above).

• Ukraine is viewed as Little Russia not in terms of imperial terminology but geographical terms (see map) even though it was never outlined with this name or had an official status.
• There is no controversy of when Ukrainians and Russians separated, the dates are quite clear from the History of Ukraine.
• Claims are made that "Southern and Eastern regions which were nominally under the RSFSR" while the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was never recognized by the Soviet Russian government (see Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic) and this republic lasted only 4 months. There are no sources to support these claims.
• There is no source on reference on Odessa republic.
• There is no source or reference that borders were based on the 1897 census.
• There is no source or reference that one of the most hit areas were particularly the south and eastern Ukraine.
• On what documents or data is based the assertion that surzhyk was listed as Ukrainian?
• Original researcn in assessing that transfer of Crimea was "contradictory with respect to acting Soviet law". No sources or reference as well.
• As well on what factual data or sources all this article is based on, on ideas of some editors?
• In addition, the other editor does not tolerate additions or comments from other editors whatsoever. Revert war is waged over every single sentense and frase. Additional info on deportation of Crimean tatars, reworked paragraph on growth of Ukrainian identity are mercilessely reverted without discussion. My suggestions to use neutral terminology are termed as pushing nationalist sentiment User talk:Kuban kazak#Revert war. Basically, one sided, absolutely intolerant attitude to opposite view done in extremely bad faith made editing this article almost next to impossible. This article is still very raw, twisting arms and forcing other editors out by constant revert war is very detrimental to its quality. As you can see from discussion above, I made every effort to negotiate and plead for moderation and compromise. My only hope is that with outside intervention this impasse can be resolved. --Hillock65 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the term "Little Russia"

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)

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)

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)

If it doesn't offend anyone there's no reason to change it )) Alæxis_¿question? 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

What do you mean by neutral terminology here? What exactly do you propose? Alæxis_¿question? 12:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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 [7] and in other articles on Ukraine in this ecyclopedia. --Hillock65 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Noone is contesting the modern name for the country.--Kuban Cossack 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

The term "Little Russia" is used only a few times:

• The territory of Ukraine was called [by] Imperial Russian authorities Little Russia and its people Little Russians - That's true, isn't it?
• In these circumstances, during the Russian Empire Census of 1897, most mixed families in many regions of the country, listed their language as "Little Russian". Even though mixed Russo-Ukrainian dialects such as the surzhyk were listed as Little Russian as well,[citation needed] nonetheless this key piece of evidence would be one of the decisive factors for New Russia ending up in Ukraine. - Do you want to change Little Russian to Ukrainian here?

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)

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)

• Initially the Bolshevik government treated Little Russia, now officially recognized as Ukraine, separately from the Southern and Eastern regions - How would you reformulate this sentence?

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)

I agree, in this context, Little Russia is an improper term. -Irpen 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• The (rough) borders between the Ukrainian People's (УНР) and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog (ДКР on the map) and Odessa Soviet Republics represent the old Russian Imperial definition of the borders between "Little Russia" and New Russia(map legend) - the source supporting this statement should be presented first, imho. Alæxis_¿question? 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

The sources for this entry?

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)

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)

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)

1897 census borders

There is no source or reference that borders were based on the 1897 census.

“ Когда эксперты Центральной Рады в 1917 году определяли границы Украины, они руководствовались данными этой переписи о родном языке и конфессиональной принадлежности. Когда Временное правительство вынуждено было признать реальность украинского освободительного движения и самой Украины, оно определило ее границы не по этнографическому, а по историческому принципу: с какими землями вошло Казацкое государство гетмана Богдана Хмельницкого в Российскую империю. Как показывала перепись 1897 года, этнографическая территория Украины в результате многовековой колонизации азово-черноморских степей оказалась едва ли не в два раза большей, чем первичная. ”

This is taken from here (Ukrainian source).

“ В 1919 г. на основе языковых данных ("национальности, определяемой по языку") была произведена делимитация границ между Украиной, Белоруссией и РСФСР ”

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)

1.Russians; 2.Great Russians; 3.Little Russians; 4.White Russians

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)

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)

Yeah, but the quality of the .jpg itself is ... crap. No offense meant --Kuban Cossack 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't scan it myself... At least all the labels are discernible. Alæxis_¿question? 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since all of this is PD, then we can just use the maps of the Russian Empire [8] and [9] 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)

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)

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)

Transfer of Crimea

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)

Only unquestionable statements should be made as agreed facts. Unquestionable is to say that the transfer was controversial. We can also say that its legality is also a subject of the controversy. To say it was illegal, is POV as this takes one side in such controversy. We can go lengths discussing each sides argument about the legality. This should be done in a dedicated article. --Irpen 23:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Map of "Novorossia"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You'v got to be kidding!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."[10] 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)

I agree, we should not used such articles as sources. Even an unreliable web-site can sometimes have a reliable single article among other junk and we can use it if the authenticity can be established. But this article is entirely unscholarly. We can read it to get some leads where to look for more info but not to use it directly as a reference of unquestionable facts. --Irpen 23:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, could someone answer what this reference is supposed to support? Alæxis_¿question? 12:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

New Russia

New map of New Russia. —dima/talk/ 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an initial explanation of the term under "New Russia" section, but by the end of it the reader is left unclear as to what it eventually became, as the subject veers off towards Khmelnytsky. Also the map is definitely helpful but only for those who can read Russian. Is someone working on an English version of Novorossiya map?--Riurik^(discuss) 23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What is Novorossiya in broad and narrow senses? Alæxis_¿question? 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Here is also a map of Novorossiya on some website. —dima/talk/ 16:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what's written in Brockhaus about Novorossiya - [11]. Alæxis_¿question? 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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."[12].--AndriyK 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Krivoy Rog and Odessa republics

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In addition to the above comments about the trumped up ideas of "Russian self-determination" in Ukraine, those two republics formed by Bolsheviks were not the only ones. There were also the Soviet Socialist Republic of Taurida and the Don Soviet Republic [13]. So, the hand drawn map, apart from its doubtful truthfulness, amateurish representation and misleading the reader about "Russian self-determination" also omits other Soviet Republics that swore allegiance to their fellow Bolsheviks in Petrograd. And none of them were recognized. So, let's treat this subject seriously — yes, these short-lived republics formed by local Bolsheviks existed. That is true. But given the topic of this article is about ethnic Russians, not Bolsheviks how did they matter for ethnic Russians? --Hillock65 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ukrainian Autocephallos church

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)

See the whole History of Christianity in Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 11:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Repeating statements of one other editor, I would like to stress again, that this article is written without any scientific literature whatsoever. The text is written "from the memory" of one of the users with clearly biased attitude and references are added as wild assertions are challenged. And referenses are added from all kinds of sources, from xenophobic, nationalist Russian authors (see above) and from Russian Wikipedia, from a clearly biased article, the validity of which is being challenged even by members of that community. I urge other editors to step in and bring at least the sense of normalcy in what is going on here.--Hillock65 12:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So Russian wikipedia is biased, and xenophobic? --Kuban Cossack 12:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that anyone can edit Wikipedia (Russian or any other one) it can't be the only source that supports some claims. Alæxis_¿question? 12:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality of Russian Wikipedia is not my concern, however, even that article is challenged by that community. What is a doubtful source from another Wikepedia doing here? In regards to biased and xenophobic I was referring to Smolin, a known xenophobe and antisemite, the one that was attempted to be treated as a reliable source.(see You've got to be kidding, above) That fact alone, speaks volumes as to the intentions of some editors and from what point of view this whole subject is going to be treated.--Hillock65 13:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article ru:Малорусское наречие is simply a statement of different theories nothing else nothing more. You do not know which is true, and neither do I. Moreover I said before about the low literacy and how it would be very surprising that the dialect spoken in village X in 1897 somewhere in New Russia would be identical to the one spoken there in 2007 in vocabulary, intonation etc. Also the numerous reforms that affected Ukrainian in the early 20th century had their affect (letter ґ for example) also would have affected the evolution of the language. Thus the Little Russian language that was nominally spoken was not the same as modern Ukrainian. Given the scope of the distribution on Alaexis' maps and given the modern distribution of Ukrainian, it will shrink dramatically. --Kuban Cossack 12:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

1.Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

2.The article has to describe today's view on the problem. No serious researcher considers Ukrainian as a dialect of Russian.

Yes, official policy of Russian Empire supported this view. Exactly as some other authorities supported the flat Earth theory in the past. The present day science considers these both theories wrong. Please reread WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.--AndriyK 12:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but when describing early navigation techniques, you would state the flat earth assumption. BTW please tell me a source where the theory of little Russian is wrong? The article simply lists most of the 19th century research into that field. Also how do you explain the fact that some dialects like my Kuban Balachka was seen as Little Russian is now NOT seen as Ukrainian? Same for Northern Polessian dialect which is now seen as a Belarusian one not Ukrainian, yet was listed as Little Russian on the census... --Kuban Cossack 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP articles shoul describe modern viewpoint and use modern terminology. I do not think, you'd find many supporters, if you'd try to base WP articles on flat Eearth theories.

No modern scolar uses the term Little Russian, no modern research classifies it as a dialect of Russian. Even in XIX century it was clear to educated people. Read the works of Russian linguist Shakhmatov, for instance.

Kuban dialect is classified as Ukrainian dialect. But it is practically extinct and replaced by Russian. That's the reason.--AndriyK 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Practically extinct? Really, which is why everybody speaks it here. Myself including...

Actually it is classed as a hybrid dialect, we did discuss this before somewhere. --Kuban Cossack 13:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

May be it is hybrid at present, after 70 years of Russification. But previously it was classified as Ukrainian by all serious linguists.--AndriyK 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Russification? On the contrary my poor Kuban was victim to Ukrainization in the 1920s. Luckily they found a brick wall in the will of the Kuban Cossacks and were forced to give up. Ask yourself that question how can one make us more Russian than we already are? And no if you care to listen to the spoken dialect it will be a hybrid, not only ours, but find any old man and you'll hear the same thing. --Kuban Cossack 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in every Russian village there's a different dialect, so the Kuban accent is not Ukranized, visit any village in the rest of west Russia and you will find a pretty close dialect to that one (and nevertheless, in every village you will find a different dialect). The Don Kazaks for example have their own dialect to, whoever is interested may read Sholokhov, wherever there are Kazaks talking there he tried to deliver us their dialect. M.V.E.i. 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But actually, Kuban Kazaks may have some Ukrainian in the dialect because they are direct successors of the Zaporojian Kazaks. They have a nice website, www.kubankazak.ru . M.V.E.i. 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Kuban Cossacks an article I wrote essentially by myself. --Kuban Cossack 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Russians in Ukraine

This is a dispute about an article Russians in Ukraine 12:40, May 20, 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• As has been mentioned above by other editors, from the very beginning this article lacks any published scholarly sources and has been written from personal background knowledge of some editors. Some references are added as biased statements and OR are challenged. In addition, references are provided from clearly biased, xenophobic authors (see above) and from other foreign language Wikipedias, from articles the neutrality of which has been challenged by that community. One of the editors insists on using non-neutral Russian imperial terminology, contrary to the consensus of the editors of this article and with clear intent to inflame passions and to provoke the revert war. Serious issues raised in the article are not discussed as attention shifts to personal attacks (see above) and insults in foreign languages (numerous requests have been made not to discuss the other editors in foreign languages or in English and discuss the issues instead, per WP:NPA) This article needs attention from unbiased editors, as given serious lack of scholarly literature and meaningful discussion of the issues, my suspicion is that it is more of an ax-grinding exercise than a serious attempt to treat the subject.--Hillock65 13:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add, that the terms "Little Russia" and "Little Russian" are considered as derogatory by many Ukrainians. I would not surprised, if some Ukrainian organization in US will take a legal action agains the Wikimedia Foundation, if the WP community is not able to stop xenophobic activity of some users.--AndriyK 13:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So is being called Muscovites for Russians, or Byelo or White - Russians for Belarusians. Yet that does not prevent us from using those terms in historical reference. Why should Little Russia be an exception to the rule? --Kuban Cossack 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We are here not to study why one term became doratory and another one did not. Our mission here descriptive. There is a simple fact that "Little Russian" is considered as derogatory and this fact has to be taken into account by WP editors.--AndriyK 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not answer my question about why it is unsuitable to use, despite the derogatory image attached to it? Considering there were no trouble in using Byelorussia, would Malorussia suit as an alternative to "Little Russia"? --Kuban Cossack 18:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the third place on this page alone, where this discussion goes on! The vindictiveness, the spite and blatant disregard for opinions of other editors astounds me! Numerous editors mentioned above that this term is inappropriate, yet this madness continues! If some are so bent on insulting Ukrainians, let them have fun. I would like to ask all sides to stop these ad nauseum discussions about Little Russians and move on with constructive comments of the ways to improve the article.--Hillock65 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think anyone tried to insult anyone. Malorosi means residents of Little Russia, and it was called so because it's little in size reletively to Russia, no one here would like to insult Urainians here, theres no logic in that, because eventually, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians are historicaly all one nation, Rus', so this argue is stupid. But, you cant write about the Russian Empire times without using this term. M.V.E.i. 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good source about Novorossiya: [14] Malorossiya means not small, but lower Russia (Нижния Русь) i.e. southern, steppe. A purely geographical definition. So please everybody is familiar with your paranoia about using that term, yet your personal complexes do not justify its eradication! Have a read. --21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

O my, nice. I always thought it's because of the size. Thanks for the information. If you would like add this information to the New Russia main article, i dont think it has it. M.V.E.i.

That borders on legal threats. Alæxis_¿question? 13:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not a threat, that is a comment. A threat would be if he himself threatened leagal action. --Hillock65 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a threat. Alæxis_¿question? 13:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No it does not borders on legal threats. It was not ment that I am going to take any legal action. But it can be taken by other people, because many Ukrainians see these terms derogatory.--AndriyK 13:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Well, we came to understanding that in fact the term Little Russia has been used widely by Ukrainians till 1917. --Russianname 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC) look at [[15]]

A nice article: New Russia Vs. Galicia

Guys i see that the talk and interest in New Russia are very relevant here, so i found a nice article you could read about the historicle struggle beetween New Russia and Galicia, a really interesting article.

http://if.vlasti.net/index.php?Screen=news&id=203830 (RUSSIAN)

If anyone wants to start a discussian lets have one here. I know i slightly move us frome the topic of the article, but i hope i will be excussed for that because an argument/talk like this might help people learn more about the topic, and it will help to understend better the main subject of the article. M.V.E.i. 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

“ Дореволюционный «Краткий курс географии России» относил к Новороссии губернии Бессарабскую, Херсонскую, Екатеринославскую, Таврическую и Донскую область. ”

Alæxis_¿question? 20:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They were a prt of Russia just like any other part of Russia, they didn't have anything to do with the then-called-Little-Russia. I think those regions were givem to the new-formed Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR) because the original historic Little-Russia didn't have and industrial/economic potencial, so for Ukrainian SSR to have a good economy, they were given thost rich regions (Rich in coal, iron, anything you want), infact, the whole Ukraine has an economy just thanks to those regions. If New-Russia was a seperate state, i belive it would be an economic-Empire. M.V.E.i.

Kuban Kozak, please notice

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)

This is based on census, the actual amount of Russians nominally is probably higher, I agree.--Kuban Cossack 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Didn't think of the name thing, sorry. M.V.E.i. 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

New stage of edit warring

Name

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)

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)

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)

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)

And at the same time, the President's personal website has a Russian version... [16], as does the whole government. Also when is stating facts inventing? --Kuban Cossack 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

What are you talking about? Are you following the topic of discussion?--Hillock65 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Agree with exclusion. "Russians in Ukraine" is merely a translation of some words, useless for the reader who, if interested, will check a dictionary. It is not a toponym or anything like that to justify extra clutter. Examples:

• Ukrspetsexport a name based on translit, non-English name warranted.
• History of jewellery in Ukraine an English name in its own right. Any non-English translation is mere clutter.

Our case is closer to the second example. --Irpen 12:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

• Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians, Eastern Slavic peoples, shared a common ancestry

versus

• Russians and Ukrainians both Eastern Slavic peoples, shared a common ancestry

Are Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians not Eastern Slavs? How are Belarusians relevant? --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Belarusians be relevant, as far as I am concerned, they are even more relevant than anybody else.--Hillock65 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are concerned. Alright HOW are they relevant? --Kuban Cossack 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

They are our brothers who share the misfortune of having endured the Russian Empire. --Hillock65 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to be blunt. This right above is merely silly and unneeded here. Sorry :( --Irpen 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do read of WP:NPOV... and in what ways was this a misfortune (my mother is Belarusian, so I am listning)? --Kuban Cossack 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So being ruled by Poles was more fortunate than being ruled by Russians? I wonder why 83% of Belarusians continue to vote for the pro-Russian president... Ohh sorry, according to Lukashenko it was 93% that voted for him, he just dropped it to 83 as the west would not believe the elections were democratic... --Kuban Cossack 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not digress, I will not be discussing the history of Poland or Belarus, that trick won't fly. Stick to the point of discussion. They are our brothers who have shared the same destiny for centuries, omitting them is unfair. Period.--Hillock65 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you did shock me here. A personal POV about destiny, about brotherhood (which I must say is quite doubtful) and now about unfairness... Remind me what this article is about its about Russians in Ukraine. Are Russians also your brothers, big or small? So kind of you, brother! (At least half-brother for now...:) --Kuban Cossack 22:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously what are you trying to prove? --Kuban Cossack 22:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see POV? In mentioning Belarusians? Since you mentioned the origin of Ukrainians, Belarusians are right there - from that time on are a part of our commont heritage. Excluding them is indeed POV. Kyivan Rus is our common heriatage, excluding someone that you don't like is POV.--Hillock65 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Rus is mentioned there, and if you mention Belarusians, why not mention Rusyns or Pomorians. I disagree that omitting them is a POV, they are simply irrelevant to the heading, this is about how out of Ruthenians Russians and Ukrainians separated. An equal heading might be important for Belarusians in Russia or Ukrainians in Belarus or Belarusians in Ukraine or Russians in Belarus. --Kuban Cossack 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are sidetracking the discussion yet again. Your objection was about mentioning them at all. If you want, I can reference Belarusians that they are relevant, related to Rus and they belong in its history.--Hillock65 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying they are relevant to Rus, and if you read Kievan Rus they are covered in length, however this article is about Russians, in Ukraine. So as we do have the fortune of sharing the same ancestry (hello rodstvennik), it is important that we distinguish when we became separate, Belarusians made their own identity, just like we made our own, however this article is not about Belarusians. It is about Russians in Ukraine. Also I can too refrence Rusyns that they are equally relevant...with respect to Rus...So I still fail to see your point. --Kuban Cossack 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is excluding Belarusians is POV. I don't see why we have to exclude them. As far as fortunes and misfortunes, we shared them with a few other peoples, which are less relevant. Don't be greedy, they deserve to be mentioned.--Hillock65 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In their respective articles they do, and they are mentioned! Be my guest, compose Belarusians in Ukraine and feel free to exclude Russians from the Kievan Rus. Considering that you listed them first, which makes no sense at all. --Kuban Cossack 23:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't own the article (WP:OWN), excluding them is unbrotherly and unfair. --Hillock65 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither do you own it, and unfair to whom? To them, considering this article is not about them. Would you like me to ask a few Belarusian editors? Also what is this brotherhood sympathy? Do you extend it to your Russian "brothers"? --Kuban Cossack 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do, this whole article is the extension of my sympathy. But it does not and will not exclude Belarusians.--Hillock65 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't own the article extend your sympathy in user space if you are so keen on it... --Kuban Cossack 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion proved fruitless, third opinion required.

• Agree - 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, imho Belorussians are not relevant to the topic of the article.

Possible solution:

Russians and Ukrainians are both Eastern Slavic peoples (as well as Belorussians) and share a common ancestry Alæxis_¿question? 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I find inclusion of Belarusians excessive in this particular article as context does not warrant it if you ask me. Adding irrelevant info is clutter but this is just one word. I think it is not worth a lengthy discussion. Kuban, let it go, if Hillock insists. There are by far more significant disagreements. --Irpen 12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Letting unrelated stuff into the article? This article is not about Belarusians, particularly for the reasons he gave.--Kuban Cossack 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense

• Both Ukrainians and Russians made the bulk of the migrants — 42.0 % and 31.8% respectively.

versus

• Both Russians and Ukrainians made the bulk of the migrants — 31.8% and 42.0 % respectfully.

This article is about Russians, not Ukrainians in New Russia (which one may well write about if they wish to) thus logically they should go first. Am I wrong? --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, mind your English - respectively and respectfully are two differnt words. Let's be true to the source, this article is not about Russians but about Ukraine, where Russians along with other ethnic groups happen to live. Stay true to the cited source.--Hillock65 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the English correction, but this artilce is titled Russians in Ukraine not Demographics of Ukraine not, Ethnic Minorities in Ukraine. If you write an article about Ukrainians in Russia who are going to include primarily Russians or Ukrainains? --Kuban Cossack 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians are a minority in Ukraine. Embellishing facts about them and twisting sources to belittle the importance or numbers of their Ukrainian compatriots is not the way it is going to be.--Hillock65 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

17% is quite a large minority, and if I extrapolate your thoughts, you suggest that what? We delete this article altogether. Or just write Russians are an insignificant minority in Ukraine. Sorry, but that is how articles have been written in the past... Feel free to ask for a third opinion on this. --Kuban Cossack 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even mention what kind of minority they were. They are a minority by pure mathematics, and it should be illustrated with numbers, and usuallly higher number goes first and diminishing. And in respect to New Russia it is important to show that it was settled by Russians being in minority 42% vs 31%, that will help explain why they are still in minority there now.--Hillock65 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Still that does not adress the point of who this article is about, it is not about Ukrainians in New Russia, it is about Russians in Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is about Russians in Ukraine and I don't see why information about Ukrainians should be hidden or twisted. They do live in Ukraine, don't they. So information about people who live with them will not be excluded. --Hillock65 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Write an article Ukrainians in Ukraine and list them first everywhere. Not in this one though --Kuban Cossack 22:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So that's what it is all about? That the numbers were given in the normal order and not in the order of your preference? This is beyond petty. Really.--Hillock65 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So now you decide on what is normal? Russians are the topic of this article not Ukrainians. --Kuban Cossack 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The numbers will be in the order they are provided in the cited source. --Hillock65 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when do you have more authority to make such dicisions? --Kuban Cossack 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let the sources speak, remember from above? --Hillock65 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for order of Russians and Ukrainians, sorry would you like me to give you several sources where Russians precede Ukrainians by listing. Don't be rediculous. --Kuban Cossack 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to twist the cited source to suit your prejudices and fobias. The thought of Ukrainians mentioned in front of Russians must be really unbearable, bordering on insult? A while up you were talking about us relatives and happy experiences Ukrainians have had with Russians. And this is the illustration?--Hillock65 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So who is veering off the point now? --Kuban Cossack 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I still insist, Belarusians belong where our common heritage is mentined. Be brotherly.--Hillock65 23:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Belarusians belong to other section... :)---23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change anything, I will not be bullied. It's not me or you but the sources that determine how things will look in the article. Period. --Hillock65 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Copying source word for word is plagiarism, using listing is WP:NOR... Noone is bullying you. --Kuban Cossack 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion failed at reaching consensus; Third opinion required

• Agree --Kuban Cossack 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME. Whoever of you two is less stubborn should let it go. This is so-o-o incredibly unimportant. --Irpen 12:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is lame, and that was one of the reasons someone went of the revert rampage yesterday. I suggest leaving it to someone else apart from me and Kozak to use the cited source to present the evidence whichever way they choose to. I will not object as long as the cited source presented truthfully.--Hillock65 12:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My name is Kazak not Kozak, please WP:NPA, the reasoning is clear, and copying the source word for word is plagiarism, unless you blockquote it.--Kuban Cossack 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don Soviet Republic

The Don is outside Ukraine, the sentance reads The October Revolution also found its echo amongst the extensive working class and several Soviet Republics were formed by Bolsheviks of Ukraine: Hence I removed it. --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What did you remove? You were reverting the whole page without any regard for what you were removing. There is no mentioning about Don in the above example. What are you referring to?--Hillock65 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the follow on list you make refrences to four republics, one which is the Don, a region that was and is outside Ukraine, politically and ethnographically. --Kuban Cossack 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

True, the majority of the Don Soviet Socialist Republic was not in Ukraine, but parts of Ekaterinoslav governorate was claimed by the Central Rada, thus making it a part of Ukrainian history and as such it belongs here. [17] --Hillock65 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yekaterinoslav Governorate if you care to look on the map, did not extend beyond modern Ukrainian borders...--Kuban Cossack 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not be doing any comparisons, that would be Original Research (see WP:OR) I relied on the source that I referenced and which you reverted without checking. --Hillock65 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And Yekaterinoslav Governorate clearly falls outside the Don region. It does help to check the accuracy of the sources, per WP:Verifiability :) --Kuban Cossack 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you have questions about Department of Ukrainian History of the Kharkiv State University, you can challenge them. But given the stature of the University this source is as solid as they come. Besides, you didn't provide any verifiable sources to the contrary apart from Original Research. --Hillock65 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the borders drawn of the Yekaterinolav governorate are not the same as they would have been? My oh my... --Kuban Cossack 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

FYI you are not Jimbo Wales so what you believe is not the same as what can go into articles. I let the facts speak for themselves, and fact is, the Don was never part of Yekaterinoslav Guberniya. --Kuban Cossack 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please no names (WP:NPA) Let the sources speak, my does, what about yours?--Hillock65 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources that have been proven wrong Period.--Kuban Cossack 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proven by whom? By you?--Hillock65 23:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

By cartography. --Kuban Cossack 23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean that picture above? (see WP:OR) I don't see the point to continue about this, you are not getting it anyway, or just pretend not to... What a pity. --Hillock65 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch the WP:NPA please, It is not a picture, it is a map, and there are many other maps of the Russian Empire governorates that show...surprise suprise the same alignment. Not one shows the Don territory as part of Yekaterinoslav governorate... It's a pity that you will not be swayed. --Kuban Cossack 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion hit a brick wall; third opinion required

• Agree --Kuban Cossack 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Borders and rule

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 [18] 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)

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)

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)

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)

The argument is about the prominance and the control of the numerous republics that were proclaimed. --Kuban Cossack 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I still didn't find any answer to the argument above.--Hillock65 23:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

There is still no answer in the relevant section above.--Hillock65 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Adopted Ukrainian identity

WTF? Refrences, who was the one who urged to refrence everything? Please do so, find me those refrences. The comment the editor removed, however, has been quite refrenced. For example, Hillock how do you explain this --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What does WTF mean?--Hillock65 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer my questions, I'll answer yours.--Kuban Cossack 22:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from reference to Russian Wikepedia again, which I will not comment (see WP:Verifiability), I presume your question was about Russians adopting Ukrainian identity. That is not an unheard of thing, and happened quite frequently one way or another (e.g. Gogol, Dontsov, Razumovsky) and not only in Ukraine. Hitler wasn't born German either, neither was Columbus born Spanish. Here is the English language source to assuade your fears about Russians being just as human--Hillock65 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of Ukrainians increased by 0.3 percent between 1989 and 2001, while the number of Russians decreased by 26.6 percent during this period. Two factors are likely to account for this loss: 1) out- migration of Russians from Ukraine; 2) and Ukrainians who declared Russian as their nationality in 1989 and switched to Ukrainian as their nationality in 2001. The available data does not allow us to estimate the relative weight of these two factors. [19].

Quoted from above: The available data does not allow us to estimate the relative weight of these two factors.. With respect to Russian wikipedia, do you question the individual attacks, (all of which are sourced) taking place? --Kuban Cossack 22:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to establish the relative weight of those two factors, we only need to establish that the fact occurred. That's what I mentioned in the article, nothing more. Please don't try to sidetrack the discussion if you don't have a counterargument, trust me these tricks won't work. Not with me.--Hillock65 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I got a counter-argument, there is no source for this... Considering that the population of Ukraine in general fell...This borders on WP:NOR I am not denying individual cases, which is true for many people, the opposite for Ukrainians in Russia fyi, but to happen on a collective scale requires a little more than a hypothesis. --Kuban Cossack 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if there is no source and it borders on WP:NOR why did you revert? Wouldn't it have helped to show some respect and good faith?--Hillock65 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just extending you same courtesy as you did to my Little Russian in the census quote and many other cases. Like quotes from the Soviet constitution about the contradiction of Crimean transfer (which you chose to revert). Respect and faith... set an example then. --Kuban Cossack 23:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I did, and how you answered with another round of revert wars? Back to the discussion, I believe this topic is closed?--Hillock65 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you provide a good source, it would be, if not then no.--Kuban Cossack 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And what is your objection to the one I cited above? Suddenly it is not good enough because you ran out of arguments? This is getting rediculous.--Hillock65 23:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument is the same, and it is yet to be overpowered, concrete evidence is nice, like genuine statistics. Primary source. So far it is as good as adding. some assume that the decline in ethnic Russian population was also partly due to some ethnic Russians adopting Ukrainian identity. That is all. --Kuban Cossack 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that can be a compromise, a phrase like: "it is believed" or "some explain this by" I don't object. As long as the facts are presented, all of them.--Hillock65 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This a hypothesis, some might call it yellow press, i.e. junk, but if you insist for the sake of consensus yes, alright, but so far it is only one who believes. And again, not a literature historian, but just a journalist... --Kuban Cossack 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At least this is an explanation unlike saying that nationalism affected the birth rate or number of ethnic Russians. At least there is logic here.--Hillock65 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism affected the exodus of Russians from Western Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here sourced and refrenced: read on. --Kuban Cossack 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you reference it in the exact same formulation from a reliable source, sure you can mention that. Russian WP is out of the question though, in terms of sources. --Hillock65 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is refrenced, (btw with literature, not yellow press), so its ok to copy refrences, the sources...--Kuban Cossack 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, be my guest! If you find an original source saying that it was an exodus, why on Earth not? Who am I to prevent you from supporting your statements with references? And also remember there is that little thing you mentioned above. one who believes So, I hope you will be as cortious to mention that little thing as well.--Hillock65 00:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote it another time:

“ The number of Ukrainians increased by 0.3 percent between 1989 and 2001, while the number of Russians decreased by 26.6 percent during this period. Two factors are likely to account for this loss: 1) out- migration of Russians from Ukraine; 2) and Ukrainians who declared Russian as their nationality in 1989 and switched to Ukrainian as their nationality in 2001. The available data does not allow us to estimate the relative weight of these two factors. ”

The data is likely to be true, however two last sentences (which are supposed to prove that "the fact occurred") is the opinion of the author of The Ukrainian Weekly newspaper. imho this is not a neutral source with respect to this article's topic. Since you ask for valid sources for other statements here (and you're right doing it) could you find a neutral source supporting this claim? Alæxis_¿question? 05:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Clearly the native eastern slavs of modern Ukraine adopted Ukrainian identity in 19-20 centuries. "Ukrainians" was out of use among this people till Ukrainization. The term "Ukrainians" has been used for the first time in Galicia in 1890 by Vakhnyanyn. The vocabulary of Ukrainian language by Hrinchenko in 1909 did not give any usage by common people (it gave usage of Kulish novel ohf 1863). More citations:

• *М. М. Еремееев, бывший секретарь Центральной Рады, вспоминал уже о времени накануне революции 1917 года «В ту эпоху, само название „украинец“ было еще каким-то чужим и странным, потому что украинская литература ее никогда не употребляла. Писалось и говорилось: Украина, украинский, даже, очень редко украинка, но термин украинец был в ту эпоху неологизмом, который тяжело входил в жизнь».

Єреміїв М. За лаштунками Центральної Ради (Сторінки зі спогадів) // Український історик. 1968. № 1-4. — С.98.

• • В. К. Винниченко в октябре 1918 года на открытии в Киеве Украинского государственного университета: «Украинцы» до сих пор было неизвестное слово, и теперь оно еще не прошло во все слои общества".

Постернак С. Із історії освітнього руху на Україні за часи революції 1917-1919 рр. К.,1920. С.75.

• • По свидетельству галицко-русского деятеля Н.Антоневича, на одном из таких собраний молодой и неопытный агитатор-украинофил назвал присутствующих украинцами, но ему ответили: «Мы не украинцы», а один из участников собрания просто обиделся: «Прозывают нас украинцами, а ведь мы ничего не украли».

Антоневич Н. И. Наше нынешнее положение (Эпизоды из новейшей истории). Львов, 1907. С.51. --Russianname 12:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Two narrow comments. Ukrweekly, while not a peer-reviewed scientific publications is not junk and can be cited on modern issues with the caveat like "it is sometimes said" or smth like this. If the particular Ukrweekly article happens to be written by a respected scholar, it changes the balance of course. On a separate note, Russian or any other Wikipedia (even this one) cannot be cited as a source of anything. If you use other WP articles, cite their sources and refer to those. --Irpen 12:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

More versions why the Russian minority shrinked after 1989 (in scientific magazin http://www.antropotok.archipelag.ru/text/a192.htm ). By the way, the cited ZN gave an interview with Nikolai Shulga who is an expert in Russian demographics in Ukraine. Shulga counted that Russians lost only 150-200 000 people during migrations of 1990-s, so the shinkage of 3 000 000 cannot be explained by migrations. --Russianname 12:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Noone objects to presenting reasons for the reduction of ethnic Russian population, however, this does not have to turn into forking stuff from Russophobia or Ukrainization or some other article. I would also cuation against wild ideas why it shrinked, like suggesting yesterday that nationalism affected birth rate of ethnic Russians. If you have a verifiable and credible source, by all means present it, but than again, as Irpen mentioned above, it is an opinion "as some believe". Let's not make it a contest of sources, because almost anything outlandish can be found in print in either language. I don't object against Russian, but please present sources in Russian when it is absolutely impossible to find anything in English. Given the controversial topic of the article, English-only speakers will have to be able to understand it too to judge the validity. --Hillock65 12:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So since when does an english source have more authority than a Russian one, the one you gave a above is a mere interpretation, by a Ukrainian emerge author. If Vroclav and Volga both give good bibliography then yes they are worth trusting. Otherwise its a mere yellow press spam. Finally where did I say that nationalism affected birth rate of ethnic Russians.? I said that nationalism affected the exodus of ethnic Russians. --Kuban Cossack 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I gave a link already: http://www.antropotok.archipelag.ru/text/a192.htm --Russianname 13:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can mention, that someone on the Volga in Russia doesn't trust Ukrainian census results and believes this or that. Like I said, let's not go overboard with sources, almost anything can be found in any language. I am sure some Polish comentator in Vroclav might have a different oppinion from his colleague on the Volga. Let's stick to official results of the census rather than all the range of its interpretations.--Hillock65 13:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's clarify our positions in this dispute

I was trying to understand what this dispute is about and who supports what, but have failed. To make the things clear, I ask everybody particpating in the dispute to agree or disagree with the following two hypothesis proposed in "Ukrainian weekly". (I reformulated them slightly.)--AndriyK 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC) You may add other hypothesis, but please do not chnge the order. This courses a mess.--AndriyK 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of Ukrainians increased by 0.3 percent between 1989 and 2001, while the number of Russians decreased by 26.6 percent during this period. [20].

This happened

1) partially because of out- migration of Russians from Ukraine;

• Agree--AndriyK 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Alæxis_¿question? 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree --Kuban Cossack 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree partially Netto out-migration of the Russians from Ukraine was 150-200 000 during 1990-s (according to Nikolay Shulga, this is a paper book, no links), out-migration wasn`t a major factor --Russianname 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

2) partially because some fraction of the people, who declared Russian as their nationality in 1989, switched to Ukrainian as their nationality in 2001.

• Agree--AndriyK 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree partially - this is only an assumption, I didn`t see any special research proving this. --Russianname 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - could you find a neutral source supporting this claim? Alæxis_¿question? 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider the "UW" article written by a US researcher as a neutral source.

Moreover, a Russian (and clearly anti-Ukrainian biased) source considers the "identity-switch" hypothesis as the most plausible one: "Пожалуй, самое правдоподобное (из всех совсем уж неправдоподобных) объяснение произошедших изменений — смена самоидентификации."[21]

Taking into account the large number of people stamming from mixed families, I do not see the reason why this hypothesis can be implausible.--AndriyK 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not implausible, and there are obviously individual cases, however as we have no information on the scope of the event we cannot assume that it was big enough to have any profound effect. --Kuban Cossack 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to speculate about significance of this factor. We may just state that researches consider it as one of the possible reasons. (+reference to the source)--AndriyK 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The significance plays a very key role, it has certainly not been noted to play the significant part, otherwise there would have been a bit more than a personal opinion of some Ukrainian-Canadian or whoever he is that wrote that source. --Kuban Cossack 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article is a scholar, in contrast to you.--AndriyK 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please No personal attacks, and even scholars make mistakes... --Kuban Cossack 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Telling you that you are not a scholar is not a personal attack. Mistakes of scolars should be mentioned by other scholars. It is not your mission as WP editor to juge.--AndriyK 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Being rude is a personal attack, like you said, I will decide on what I judge and edit.--Kuban Cossack 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Andriy, I wouldn't you agree that it's not an ideally NPOV source? Let's write then according to some scholars temporarily. If it's true I'm sure you'd be able to find another source. Alæxis_¿question? 19:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

3)partially becuase of the falling living standards in Ukraine leading to higher death rate and lower birth rate.

• Agree (although this affects really everyone in Ukraine, as the country has the lowest birth rate in Europe) --Kuban Cossack 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree I don't see the need for another source. This is quite common thing all over the world, morover, the sentenst should begin with "it is believed" or "some explain this change by". Even if the other source in English is found, it cannot exclude the one already presented.--Hillock65 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree falling living standards influence all people. It does not explain, why Russian population decreases and Ukrainian does not.

--AndriyK 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also most Russians live in south and east Ukraine, which overall has much more serious problem of falling population than the more rural and traditional west. --Kuban Cossack 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree partially - South Eastern regions show the worst rates of birth, death, AIDS and tuber. in Ukraine, and over 75 % of the Russians live in South Eastern regions. The Russians are predominantly urban population and therefore they exposed to all "social diseases" of modern times, they have less children, more divorces. The crisis of 1990-s clearly influenced all trends of Russian demograhics in Ukraine. --Russianname 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

4) partially because of Kuchma goverment fraud in processing the resuts of 2001 census.

• Agree partially. Ukraine signed the European chart of minority languages in 1996 but the parlament apodted the Chart only in 2002 , 6 years later, after 2001 census results were published. these census results showed decreasing of Russians, Russophones and hence the less territories with Russian minority over 20 %. Ukrainian law does not recognize the Russophones as a linguistic community, and the Russians only can ask to defendended their language by the Chart. --Russianname 09:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• strenuously disagree — this is blatant POV just like the stuff about "illegality" of the Crimea transfer. No wild guesses and Original Research, please. If you have any data from respectable international organizations supporting this science fiction and challenging the results of the census, then present it, otherwise, don't waste space.--Hillock65 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about general decreasing of the poulation in UA. Relevant or not?

• Numerically Ukrainian population has also decreased. --Kuban Cossack 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The discussion is about the proportion between Ukrainian and Russians. Why it changed.--AndriyK 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    I thought we were discussing about generally why the Russian population of Ukraine has decreased, certainly this would be an important factor. Here is a ref btw [22]. --Kuban Cossack 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    No, we're discussing here why the dynamics is different in Russians and Ukrainians.--AndriyK 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Ok in that case, on a separate note, would it be fine to include the demographical population decline for all Ukraine in the article itself, even though, as you say it is outside the scope of this dispute? Do you agree on the issue itself of the general falling population of Ukraine? --Kuban Cossack 18:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    The population falling is obvious, but it is irrelevant to the present article. There is nothing special about Russians there.--AndriyK 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    That the number of Russians are falling with them? That is irrelevant? --Kuban Cossack 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    It is irrelevant because there is nothing special about Russians here. It belongs to the demographics of Ukraine in general.

    On the other hand, the different dynamics of Russians and Ukrainians is relevant. This is what we are discussiong here.--AndriyK 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    And this article is about Russians in Ukraine. The fact that the amount of Russians in Ukraine is decreasing is important. Period. --Kuban Cossack 18:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My proposal

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)

Full support. --Kuban Cossack 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Ethnic Russians and Soviet Republics.

Hillock65 have already rised this questions, Kuban kazak disagreed with him. Still, I would like to see the opinions of everybody who edits and discusses this article. I do not see, how Donetsk-Krivoi Rog and Odessa Soviet Republics are relevant to the topic of the article. Were most of the Russians bolsheviks? Where all bolsheviks Russian? I do not think so. Well, the both republics were declared in the regions, where the fraction of ethnic Russians is larger than in other parts of Ukraine. But in the same time, these regions were (and still are) more industrial. This mean, there were more proletarians there and this was likely the reason why bolsheviks could found some support there.

I wonder, is there any scholarly supporting the idea that ethnic factor played any role in these two republics? I propose everybody to indicate their opinion and, if possible, to provide sources supporting this opinion.--AndriyK 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A think that Russian ethnic factor was insignificant in the events around Donetsk-Krivoi Rog and Odessa Soviet Republics.

Agree--AndriyK 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A think that Russian ethnic factor played important or even crucial role in the events around Donetsk-Krivoi Rog and Odessa Soviet Republics.

Disagree--AndriyK 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Andriy have you read Белая Гвардия by Bulgakov? How does it begin, with the former Russian Imperial civil servants being loyal to the Hetmanate? How do you explain more Ukrainians fighting for the Red Army than the Ukrainian states? Because nothing in the Russian Civil War was definte, and one could equally argue that the existance of these short-lived states meant nothing for the future of self-determination in Ukraine. That was the picture the Soviet Union tried to paint. Now Hillock is trying to ignore the fact that there are quite a few publications that see the DKR as a sign of New Russian self-determination... again it is irrelevant whether they ruled any areas or had any support, it is the legacy that they left behind that is now inspiring quite a number of publications... I am not going to make political conclusions of this, but it would wrong to be completely arrogant to this. --Kuban Cossack 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there any publications in respectable journals?--AndriyK 17:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Look no further Archives of the Donetsk Oblast and in particular this quote: период, предшествующий референдуму, развить широкую агитацию за оставление всего Донецко-Криворожского бассейна с Харьковом в составе Российской республики с отнесением этой территории в особую единую административно самоуправляющуюся область;. --Kuban Cossack 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And what? Did any scholar attributed it to ethnic Russian factor? Or you make your own original research?--AndriyK 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It did not want to submit to the Ukrainian People's republic...that is clear from the archival refrence, one needs not go further to intepret that the motives of this was Russian self-determination. --Kuban Cossack 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One bolshevic republic wanted to joint a larger bolshevic republic (otherwise they would not be (and were not) able to keep the power). I do not see here any ethnic determination. If you find any respectable source (not a partisan one) stating the contrary, I would agree with you. Otherewise you have to follow WP:NOR and avoid strong statements in the article.--AndriyK 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Archives of the Donetsk Oblast are Partisan??? Official archives are partisan??? You do not see anything, but it is clear that Artem in the source does not mention bolshevik, he said в составе Российской республики. I.e. part of Russia, as quoted from Hillock, stick to the source :). --Kuban Cossack 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The archives do not say anything about the significance of the ethnic Russian factor. This is your own interpretation. Please re-read WP:NOR--AndriyK 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment about the same way how Soviet people refused to play the ethnic Ukrainian factor wrt Ukrainian states. Also do realise that officially Russia was the protectore of ethnic Russians, so when Artem wanted to make a union with RSFSR...it's not only my personal interpretation. Please re-read WP:POINT and stop trying to censor this article. --Kuban Cossack 18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said only reliable reference can convience me. Anything else is irrelevant here.--AndriyK 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My past experience tells me that convincing you is all but impossible, I will wait until a third party states something, keeping a discussion in circles is a waste of valuable time. --Kuban Cossack 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about mediation?--AndriyK 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been a long supporter of a mediation. Read my last night's attempt at consensus with Hillock, impossible given how stubborn he is. --Kuban Cossack 18:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is his opponent who is stubborn. ;)

Try to propose him once more and please fill the request.--AndriyK 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see my entry above was ignored and migrated down here. I will repeat the same statement: in oreder for several republics (not just DKR, see above) to be relevant to the topic of ethnic Russians you need to establish that these republics represented self-determination of ethnic Russians. Mind you not Bolsheviks that proclaimed them, but ethic Russians. The fact that they were proclaimed by ethinic Russians itself does not prove the desire for self-determination of ethnic Russians. There were many non-Russians in the Bolshevik gov't. Maybe Nestor Makhno also cared for the plight of ethnic Russians? The fact that Russians were at the helm of these republics proves nothing, they were all later at the helm of UkSSR. The fact that they were not recognized by a single body in the world, not even fellow Bolsheviks in Petrograd blows this lame theory of Russian self-determination right out of the water. The Bolsheviks abhorring the mere idea of nationality and believing in internationalism and world proletariat without nationalities, would be the last people in the world to care about self-determination of Russians. So if DRK in these conditions is relevant, so is ZUNR and Makhno and other small warlords who "cared" for self-determination of Russians. Let's be serious. And by the way, there are still no sources to the contrary, as usual. --Hillock65 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are so keen on adding your POV then how about this one, maybe Artem did not want to be a subject to Lenin and Trotsky, i.e. he was after independence from Bolsheviks? --Kuban Cossack 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And maybe he was a secret transvestite and devil worshipper? Should we continue with wild guesses? Ah, maybe, just maybe... :)))) --Hillock65 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And maybe so are you? What difference does it make? You make claims, I make claims, you were not there in 1918 so how could you be a judge of what actually happened. All we have is a few facts and events, which left a legacy. --Kuban Cossack 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you again insulting me? You just cannot stay away from personal attacks, can you? One more time (WP:NPA), by the way it is all going to be accounted for sooner of later. Getting back to the topic of discussion, if you make claims, support them with sources and literature, I mentioned above what needs to be sourced and proven. Per WP:OR and WP:Verifiability--Hillock65 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the argument about? )) It's written now in the article that The October Revolution also found its echo amongst the extensive working class and several Soviet Republics were formed by Bolsheviks of Ukraine: Soviet Socialist Republic of Taurida, Odessa Soviet Republic[3] and the largest, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog. Isn't that true? Does anyone want to add anything to this? Alæxis_¿question? 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is how it is related with the title of the article? The article is about Russians in Ukraine, not about the history of Ukraine. This would be relevant if there would be any relation (etablished by reliable sources) between ethnic Russian factor and those republics. At the moment, I do not see any relation.--AndriyK 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There were other republics on the territory of Ukraine, do we cover them all, or just some. Then why some and not all? I suggest we drop republics altogether, mention that they were along with many other things and that all lands were amalgamated in the UkSSR.--Hillock65 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't support complete removal of this info. At the very least these republics occupied the territory where most of Ukraine's ethnic Russian population lived. Anyway, if you think that it's true but irrelevant let's leave it in the article to let the reader decide how relevant it is - after all it's just one sentence. Alæxis_¿question? 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, no problem, for the sake of compromise let's leave them in. So, now, would you mind pointing out which parts in the quoted text you find objectionable? (see below) --Hillock65 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See below for the ref I consider non-neutral. Alæxis_¿question? 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Even so, it is only one of the three sources for this passage. So, just because of that one the whole paragraph is not good? What are the objections, what do you want to add, change, etc.?--Hillock65 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the variant that Kazak reverted:

The October Revolution also found its echo amongst the extensive working class and several Soviet Republics were formed by Bolsheviks of Ukraine: Soviet Socialist Republic of Taurida, Don Soviet Republic, Odessa Soviet Republic[3], Donetsk-Krivoy Rog. Of them all the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic last the longest — four months. These short-lived republics barely exercised any sovereignty over the claimed area and were never recognized by fellow Bolsheviks in Russia [4].

The new borders included New Russia without Crimea, Donbass and other neighbouring provinces. Several small and short-lived Soviet republics were proclaimed by different bolshevik factions, some territories were ruled by warlords and anarchists [8]. After the capture of Ukraine by Bolsheviks, all former Soviet republics and territories were amalgamated into one Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic [9]. This led to many regions with Russian population being incorporated into Ukraine.

What was so objectinable in that variant? Everything is supported by sources and quotations and is neutral [23]. Any objections?--Hillock65 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that all the sources were neutral - what about this one? Let's leave the current version since it just states the facts and then add other info supported by appropriate sources. Alæxis_¿question? 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That source is straight from the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic, I just move it here. And I don't think it is biased, just because it is in Ukrainian doesn't mean it is biased. There is the Russia version as well. --Hillock65 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Donetsk-Krivoy Rog republic was a Bolshevik republic and it was clearly non-Ukrainian in its characteristics (unlike UPR), moreover the owerwhelming majority of Bolsheviks in Ukraine were ethnic Russians (and less Jews). --Russianname 09:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on something. Yes, it was a Bolshevik republic, so what does it have to do with ethnic Russians, we are not writing History of Ukraine. Even if not the owerwhelming majority but all of them were Russians (which they weren't) it does not show why it is relevant particularly to ethnic Russians in those areas over ethnic Ukrainians. And Russians are in minority there even now. So, why didn't it matter to ethnic Ukrainians in DKR but mattered to a minority of ethnic Russians? I don't see the logic.--Hillock65 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because there was no Ukrainian nationalist sentiment in those areas even then, let alone now. Moreover what evidence do you have that Ukrainian culture in those areas was distinct and isolated from Russians? Thus both Ukrainians and Russians (or simply put Novorossiyani) wanted to remain part of Russia. What evidence do you have that contradicts this? --Kuban Cossack 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In the names of all these republics there is no name Russian. The region wasn't and isn't now exclusively ethnically Russian. One more time, what do republics proclaimed by Bolsheviks in the territory with mixed population have to do with Russians only? Any sources to the contrary, again? --Hillock65 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kuban Cossack is right. Those areas never belonged to Ukrainians. Newrussia never had anything to do with the historic Ukraine. Many Ukrainians immigrated to Newrussia to work in the industry, thats righ, but they all talked Russian and they aware they are coming into the real Russia. Infact, there never have been nationalists sentiment in Novorosia and Left-Bank Ukraine. The Ukrainian patriotism was always in the Left-Bank Ukraine (East), but because of them being Patriots they were always in fawor of Russia and thankful to it for defending and saving it from the Turks, the Austrians, the Poles ans etc. The west Ukraine is not patriotic, but nationalists. They have the Stocholm Syndrom, They wanna be friends with Poland (which kept them as slaves for itself) and have solidarity with it agains Russia (which saved them fron the poles). Infact, West Ukraine is historicaly Polish, then how did the Ukrainians get there? as slaves, and who gave those areas to Ukrainians? Russia and USSR. The real historic Ukraine is the Left-Bank Ukraine, a part Zaporojiye, a part of Kherson, a part of Poltava (not a big area). M.V.E.i. 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In order for all those Soviet Republics to matter in the article, you will have to prove with sources and references that several Soviet Republcs founded by Bolsheviks mattered for Russians only, and not for Jews, Ukrainians and other nationalities. Please let's not waste time, if you have sources that show that these republics were founded for Russians only, provide them and we will move on. As of now there is no indication of that whatsoever, in fact the source [24] I have is quite to the contrary — that these Bolshevik republics were founded by territorial principle rather than national, so I say they didn't matter for anyone as Bolsheviks believed in internationalism, a brotherhood of proletariat without nationalities. So it didn't matter to Russians or even to Ukrainians, who have always been in majority there. One more time, let's not waste each other's time with speeches who are Patriots and who are not, present the sources or allow others to present theirs. --Hillock65 19:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean for Russians only? First of all, have you ever heard the frase that iss said alot by communists in Europe "Russians inverted communism"? The Russian communism is actually National-Bolshevism, for exemple Lenin fought against foreign words in Russian language. Have you ever thought why USSR was not one but broken intu republics? There was no such thing a republic of one nationality, in every republic there was a minority, but in every republic there was also a dominating majority, and they didn't make out republics out of nowhere, every republic was built mainly for the majotiry. For example in the Russian SFSC they talked Russian, lerned Russian culture. Offcourse there were Jews, Ukrainians, Belorussians and other minorities there, but it was built up for Russians. Same thing about any other republic, it was built up first of all for the majority in there. M.V.E.i. 10:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

“ The October Revolution also found its echo amongst the extensive working class and several Soviet Republics were formed by Bolsheviks of Ukraine: Soviet Socialist Republic of Taurida, Odessa Soviet Republic[3] and the largest, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog. ”

Quoting myself, at the very least these republics occupied the territory where most of Ukraine's ethnic Russian population lived. Anyway, if you think that it's true but irrelevant let's leave it in the article to let the reader decide how relevant it is - after all it's just one sentence.

Hillock has already agreed to this proposal (20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)). The current sentence presents only facts and should remain imho. Alæxis_¿question? 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

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)

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)

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)

Ther is the talk page, whoever is interested cam always participate. Everything is cool. Join in.--Hillock65 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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) You are now misrepresenting me in saying that I refused a compromise. That is a lie. Anyone can see it from the exact sentense you referred to. This attitude along with continuous insults is not very helpful.--Hillock65 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I feel were like, trapped in a television or a radio or somthing

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)

• Indeed, do not assume I am following the talk pages of all the articles I have protected. In future if there is a consensus please drop me a note on my talk page or formally request unprotection on WP:RPP. I have unprotected the article. Alex Bakharev 01:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Have there remained any other disputed things? Alæxis_¿question? 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's it, it's just not understood. M.V.E.i. 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

List of Russians

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)

I'm glad that now you support it. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why not? I support it. M.V.E.i. 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please make a separate list at the separate page. This list here is just a clutter. --Irpen 02:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A few issues to settle

And namely a) that Russians from southern and south eastern parts supported overwhelmingly Denikin and Wrangel. I think the contrary is true. Most of them supported Bolsheviks and Makhno. Anyway, the source to support that claim is needed. And b) until "contradictory with respect to the acting Soviet law" is settled the NPOV tag is warranted. Making decisions, which was contradictory or not is POV. --Hillock65 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your right about that, most there were peasents who hated the Tsar and his mafia. M.V.E.i. 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok there was a misunderstanding, he didn't say most of New Russia supported the whites, he just said that a big part of the volebtier army came from there. M.V.E.i. 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So, why is the stress on whites then? What about removing that sentence altogether? If we are stressing the Whites, what about others? That's called (WP:Undue weight). Unless there are sources to the contrary, of course.--Hillock65 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to have than not to have, so instead of deleting the whole sentence, your welcome to see the edit i have dont there. I've added a sentence where i said that most of the residents of the area supported the Red Army and a big part supported the Black Army, because most of the area were peasents and workers. M.V.E.i. 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get this brilliant idea? Can you share the source or literature where you found it?--Hillock65 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cmmon, i came from there, i know. Before the USSR this place was many villages of peacents and a few Coal-mine cities, after the revolution the place was industrialized, god bless modernization. M.V.E.i.

Gee, maybe you should write a book and then we will use it as a source in this article?--Hillock65 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hhh haven't tried myself in writing books, i write music. Anyway, i'll try to explain. Most of the cities in north Novorossiya were built in the first place because there was coal there (south Novorossia is more based on tourism). Besides having a huge potential for industry, Novorossiya also has an exelent sort of land. Chernozyom, and thats why many peasent villages were built there. M.V.E.i. 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen it is a nice discussion, but it is not a serious one, Hillock there is no need to be sarcastic to people who certainly want to contribute to wikipedia but their English is not the best. M.V.E.i. I agree with you partially, except it was not tourism, but simple colonisation of the land, to ensure that it will remain part of Russia afterwards. Nikolayev, Odessa Kherson and Sevastopol were port cities. --Kuban Cossack 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your right, but what i was talking about is today. If i'm not wrong the thing that brings South-Novorossiya most of the money from tourism, but your right about the thing of ports, to tell you the truth i completely forgot about that when writing. M.V.E.i. 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

ethnic Russians were provided with all the means to develop their own culture and language What means? What kind of gibberish is this? Also how is this unsourced passage relevant to the scope of the article? Russian language was being actively introduced in areas with predominantly Ukrainian population as well.--Kuban Cossack 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any doubts that Russians could develop their language and culture in Soviet Ukraine? The mere fact that the language is still predominant in the areas where they live testify to that. As well it was forcibly introduced in other areas. This goes to show that Russians were not as miserable in Ukraine as you try to portray. In fact up until 1991 they enjoyed better libraries, better press and almost exclusively Russian speaking media elswhere. This is a well described situation in Russification, I can reference that but it will serve no purpose and will only crowd the article. --Hillock65 18:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The modern predominance of Russian language means nothing, it is WP:NOR as far as I am concerned, don't mix two separate issues. Also I am not trying to portray that they were miserable, particularly after the mid-1930s I would say quite the opposite, although I would like a refrence that they were the only...first-sort citizens in Ukraine. Also what is better libraries or better press, and where is elsewhere (mind the spelling). Please do reference this. Also by saying up until 1991 they enjoyed better did you just confirm that after 1991 it became worse? Why that settles quite a few issues. :-) --Kuban Cossack 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Between 1937 and 1993. Can someone provide a better reference that is more suitable at showing the immediate shift in demographics rather than one that spans almost 60 years.--Kuban Cossack 18:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no answer

Thus in 1933 Stalin declared Russian chauvinism not to be a threat anymore (ref Subletny). I would like a quote from Subletny and a reference that he uses for it please. --Kuban Cossack 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote from page 418 of Ukraine, A History:

...For many years the party had officially reiterated that Russian chauvanism was the primary threat to the Soviet system, while the nationalism of the non-Russians was less dangerous because it was essentially a reaction to the former.

BTW, the page number in article needs to be corrected, its not p. 600 as stated in the reference.. —dima/talk/ 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not cite the written quote. Although it helps to understand the early appeasement of Ukrainian nationalism. --Kuban Cossack 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no answer. --Kuban Cossack 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet the person did mind reverting again..--Kuban Cossack 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reference - Orest Subtelny: p 422 of Ukraine, A History: "Behind the personnel changes was the decisive shift in Moscow's nationality policy that occurred in 1933 when Stalin declared local natioinalism (not Russian chauvinism) the main threat to Soviet unity. --Hillock65 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Subletny guessing or does he cite a source for this? I would like Stalin's original quote rather than an interpretation.--Kuban Cossack 16:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get rediculous here. A quote from a well known and respected source should be enough. Is this another ploy to drag the discussion to infinity? You asked the source from Subtelny, I provided it. Now you decided it is not enough. C'mmon.--Hillock65 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillock is right here imho. This is enough to include this into Wikipedia. If there is another scholarly opinion about it we should give it as well. Alæxis_¿question? 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also what is this about Ukrainian Catholic Church? Or about the learning of Ukrainian in the Ukrainian SSR? There is an article on Ukrainization and Russification for exactly that. The only relevant point in that heading was the migration into Western Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it is all relevant to show that Russians felt quite comfortable in Soviet Ukraine be it in the east or west. If information about Ukrainian Autocepallos church is relevant, so is about Ukrainian Catholic. It shows that ethnic Russians were quite comfortabe even in minority in W. Ukraine since they didn't have to bother to go to Russian Orthodox Church — for their convenience even UCC churches were transferred to Moscow Patriarchate. It is very relevant.--Hillock65 18:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that the UGCC was abolished for the benefit of the ethnic Russians moving there? My that is a new one... --Kuban Cossack

For this discussion it is irrelevant for what purpose it was outlawed. The fact that they were converted to Russian Orthodox churches shows that mentioning UCC is relevant. Russians in Lviv had better means to practice their religion than Ukrainians, whose church was banned.--Hillock65 18:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And I thought that most of the migrants were Soviet-type people, most of them not religious, speculate all you want, but only a concrete referenced source will justify its inclusion into the article.--Kuban Cossack 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And Soviet-type people, most of them not religious is not a speculation? The paragraph is very relevant and if need be will be referenced. --Hillock65 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, sorry, what do both of you have against what's written now in the article about these matters? Alæxis_¿question? 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New round of revert warring?

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 [25]. This is very counterproductive. --Hillock65 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Speaking of which why did you do this? [26] --Kuban Cossack 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So who is reverting whom [27] then? --Kuban Cossack 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotation from Subtelny is well documented and referenced. It is very relevant. Removing it will not help. --Hillock65 19:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An extremely dubious paragraph

I move this paragraph to the talk page.

During the German occupation, the entire Polish population of Volhynia was ethnically cleansed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. This created a vacuum of workers and peasents , and after Red Army's Liberation of Western Ukraine in 1944, a new wave of migrants to integrate and Sovietize these territories was necessary. This included a large portion of ethnic Russians who mostly settled around industrial bases and military garrisons.

1. Murders of Polish civilians did take place. But they were very far from ethnic cleansing of "entire Polish population".
2. A real ethnic cleansing took place after the re-occupation of West Ukraine by the Soviets, when all the Poles were forced to move to Poland.
3. Is there any reference confirming "a vacuum of workers and peasants"? As far as I know, there always was redudndancy of working power in West Ukraine. Even in the Soviet times, when there was "no unimployment" officially.
4. Soviets sent to this region quite a number of Army and KGB officers to control it and combat the resistance. Many of them were etnic Russians. But KGB and Army are anything else than "workers and peasants"

Please do not restore this paragraph in the article. Please first prove your claims, provide sources on the talk page.--AndriyK 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with #1? Look here, for example. At a first glance the article seems well referenced. Alæxis_¿question? 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully, what I wrote. I do not deny mass murders of Polish civilians. But they were far from destroing "entire Polish population". A great part of the Polish poulation survived and were forced to move to Poland by Soviets. All this has very litle to do to Russians in Ukraine, except that KGB and Army officers (mostly Russians) lived in the houses confiscated from Poles.--AndriyK 19:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cite me the refrence that the majority of Polish population that departed Ukraine was from post-war migration, not from the genocide of the UPA. Also by commons sense even if you remove 100 people that would already create a vacuum, if remove 1000 people even a bigger one, 200,000 people is not a vacuum??? You are telling me that those 200,000 people did nothing for the land they lived on? Are you having a laugh? --Kuban Cossack 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • OK, not entire, some were left by their good Ukrainian neighbours. Anyway, you can enjoy a report about Ukrainian population of Lviv in 1931: the Ukrainians by faith 15 % (by language obnly 7%), and almost all without education, servants and unqualified workers (If you want links I will add it with my great pleasure). Ukrainian specialist were nearly absent. Who was supposed to work on factories? Peasants? :) Now about KGB officers. This is just an aggressive anti-Russian statement without any real statistics. You must read more Bandera leaflets who stated that NKVD were the Russians and "kikes" (and all of them must be exterminated). Do you want me to show this ugly statements in the section of Antisemitism? Do you want more fact about Ukrainian nationalists form Ulrainian collaboration police who killed the Poles and the Jews with sadistic pleasure? It is OK, I will add this info if you do not want to stop your aggressive Anti-Russian talks. --Russianname 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC) You may look at this my post like on warning, because I`m really tired of reading chauvinistic edits. This is last time I warn you. Next time everybody will read something extermely bad about Ukrainian chauvinists (with all necessary sources). --Russianname 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making angry statements please support the claims in the paragraph you have inserted a few days ago by creadible referencies.--AndriyK 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Aha, I knew that you like to see more info. Good. --Russianname 10:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The source you cited in your new version is not reliable. This is a self published article of Mr. Sokolov whose creadibility is dubious. Even this source does not support the claims you made in th eparagraph under discussion.--AndriyK 11:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Please give proofs of being dubious. --Russianname 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious is everything whose creadibility is not proven.--AndriyK 11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • You must proove the grounds for thinking that something is dubious. --Russianname 11:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's your duty to prove the creadibility of your sources.--AndriyK 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • read carefully. This is citation from the speach of the Ukrainian researcher: 27 января 1938 г. на заседании статистической комиссии «Наукового Товариства iм. Шевченка» во Львове д-р Владимир Огоновский выступил с докладом на тему «Национальная, социальная и профессиональная структура населения Львова по переписи населения 9.12.1931 г.» Среди жителей Львова людей, сознательно считавших себя украинцами, было всего лишь 7,8 %, но в подсчётах, проведённых д-ром В.Огоновским, за основу взят конфессиональный признак, и термин «украинцы» применяется ко всем греко-католикам, составлявшим 15,9 % всего населения Львова. Резюмируя рассмотренный статистический материал, докладчик пришёл к следующим выводам: «Украинцы во Львове — это, в основном, молодой, свободный (то есть, не состоящий в браке), наплывающий, не очень грамотный, преимущественно рабочий элемент. На 30.000 всех украинцев и украинок, которые зарабатывают во Львове, есть 9.700 слуг, 2.000 сторожей, 1.400 неквалифицированных рабочих и 9.000 квалифицированных рабочих и ремесленников. Кроме домашней прислуги, украинцы нигде не имеют относительно большого числа, а что касается 11 % в торговле, то там на 4.000 украинцев половина сторожа… Об интеллигентных профессиях и говорить нечего. Ещё в промышленности украинские рабочие и ремесленники играют некоторую роль, но как наёмная сила». Цитируется по: Соколов Л. «Кто сделал Львов украинским городом». --Russianname 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Sokolov said nothing about the connection between the expelled Poles and arriving Russians - it is an original research. There were no large scale UPA massacres in Lvov city itself, the partisans were deadly in the villages but not in the cities. I have removed the paragraph Alex Bakharev
    • Tnis is not original research, but I have references only to paper books. What shall we do? --Russianname 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And, finally the article by Sokolov is not a self published work: [28] [29] and ukrstop is not his domain. So the information is published and I do not see any grounds to doubt that Ogonovsky was a bad sociologist. --Russianname 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Give references to the paper books then. If possible can put in the talk citation showing connection between expelling of Poles and arriving of Russians. Also I would remove the Volyn massacre unless you can prove that it aaffected urban demography Alex Bakharev 11:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The connection was between the modernisation (and industrialisation) of the western regions and the arrival of the Russians. There were no qualified work force, specialists and the professors to teach students in the public and higher schools. There wer no Ukrainian no professor in technical sciences (because the Ukrainians were not in favour during the Polish times). OK, I will give the references, as usually. --Russianname 11:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Finally, the Russians arrived also because the qualified Jews were killed during WW2. View here http://www.mankurty.com/evreilvova.html The figures are identical to the book by Roman Lozinski "Ethic situation in Lviv", Lviv, 2005. --Russianname 11:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The "source" however dubious it is, still does not establish a relation to ethnic Russians and the topic of this article. You are asking people to make assumptions and conclusions. The source has clearly to state the point you are trying to make. Moreover, it appears that this part about "ethnic cleansing" is another editor's revenge for mentioning ethnic cleansing of Crimean tatars. This paragraph has nothing to do with the topic of this article and is there purely out of spite without any relation to reality whatsoever. --Hillock65 13:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not revenge, it is just that if you are so keen on going into details, which frankly can be left out of the article, then why not allow to expand in the other direction. In any case use your common sense, 200 thousand people murdered does not create a vacuum in the workforce and the economy? What the hell did they do before the war? Did they just sat there and waited? Don't be rediculous. --Kuban Cossack 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THE TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE?--Hillock65 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

...don't boil! ;)

I explained to you before this caused a migration of ethnic Russians into Western Ukraine. Why else, would think so? --Kuban Cossack 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Original Research. Two more editors have pointed it out. There are no sources that show this paragraph's relevance to this article. Which source tells the "this caused a migration of ethnic Russians into Western Ukraine"? Which one? You know as well as I do that this is BS and you dragged it out purely out of spite for mentioning ethnic cleansing of Cremean Tatars. Nothing else. Thre are no sourses to support this wild dream and there never will be. This is very counterproductive. Instead of looking for ways to improve the article you wage personal vendettas. --Hillock65 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You can consider it BS all you want, as are my motives for adding it, however just because this might not be a bright side of history of the Украинская Пидорская Армия there is no need to exclude all of the senses. There is no original research in mentioning all of the points, even in some are indirect. The fact that Russians formed a majority in Crimea prior to the Tatars' deporations prompted you to add them anyway, so if you are keen to Make a point why can't I? --Kuban Cossack 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did I try to make a point? So, you are revenging me for inserting "ethnic cleansing" in the part about Crimea. But this is what the source says! Not me! It doesn't matter how many Russians lived in Crimea, the Tatars were ethnically cleansed and Russians replaced them. That is true, there is no denying that. You instead thought up some outlandish idea about ethnic Russians in Western Ukraine and insist on putting it here, even though the majority of editors tell you that this is wrong. Even if you disagree with my edits about Crimea, you don't have to disrupt the whole article just because you want to avenge my quotation. Reason instead of reverting. --Hillock65 14:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The deportation of the Cr. Tartars has nothing to do with the Russians in the Ukraine. The Ukrainian increased in number 2 times after 1944, the Russians 1.5 time. So this infornmation is more relevant to be added to the article about the Ukrainians. --Russianname 09:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes it does! And very much so! If the Crimean Tatars were expelled and that was the end of the story it would've been different. But the Crimean Tatars were replaced by others most of whom were Russians, thus making the percentage of ethnic Russians even higher. If you want, you can include the number of ethnic Ukrainians as well, but that does not mean that the history of ethnic cleansing of Tatars should be excluded. This is what it is called in historiogrpahic literature and you can complain as much as you want, but ethnic cleansing it was. And it is also relevant to the article because one could make an argument that they were ethnically cleansed specifically to increase the presence of Russians in the region. Besides your percentage numbers hide the real truth that Russian population after ethnic cleansing there jumped from 31% to 66%. So Ukrainians were twice as many, but Russians were more, way way more and the ethnic cleansing of the Tatars made them even larger population than it was!--Hillock65 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not change anything, first of all in 1944 Crimea was not part of Ukraine. Even if what you say is true, although percentage figures are not that helpful, pure numbers would be better on the percentages. Simple arithmetic: In 1939 Crimea had 1126429 people of whom 218879 were Tatars (Russians made 558481, Ukrainians 154123). In 1959 the population of Crimea was 1201517 people. Given the war casualties and the post-war birthrate (which by the 1950s was very high), there is still no evidence about replacement. So do bit of math subtract 218879 from 1126429 = 907550. Now add on the ages of people 0-4, 5-9, 10-15. [30]. We arrive at a figure of 1225969. Now is that just coincidental? The difference between numbers is a deficiency of 24452 people. However if we take into account the civilian war casualties given the scale of the fighting Crimea seen, 24.4 thousand is a believable figure. So by simple demographics alone. There is no evidence that the rise of the proportion of Russian population, after the Tatars' expulsion was due to migration, and simple population growth rate. It does not change the fact that in 1954, Russians were the majority, and they were indigenous Crimeans. --Kuban Cossack 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Article

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)

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)

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)

Once again my condition for consensus purge all or leave all. --Kuban Cossack 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

What's the problem with mentioning the expulsion of both Tatars and Poles as facts? Alæxis_¿question? 15:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please cool down, and stay off personal attacks. Volhynia and Lvov is done in revenge and you admitted it above. This has been done to blackmail and twist my arms to make me remove material about ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars. One more time: Black mail will not work. If you want to argue about relevance of Tatars to this article - do so, you don't need to drag in unrelated rubbish to make a point. --Hillock65 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not done in revenge, you were the first one to put this in [31], 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)

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)

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)

And BTW since when did you start to care so much about the Poles, ever since the mass murderer on your personal page massacred thousands of them in Katyn? Interesting ...--Hillock65 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And he massacred even more Russians... your point?--Kuban Cossack 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that the reason, why you put his picture on you personal page. Are you a russophobe? :) --Hillock65 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hillcock, it was the Ukrainians who killed people in Volyhnia and settled there. It was the Ukrainians who mainly settled Lviv and vicinities after deportation of the Poles: the Ukrainians were about 60% in Lviv oblast before the WW2 and now they are about 95 %. So please add this information to the article about the Ukrainians. Be honest :) By the way, it was the Ukrainian shutzman police who killed and burnt the Byelorussian village Khatyn. --Russianname 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• It was the Ukrainian shutzman police who killed the Jewish population in Dubno, Dobromyl, Zhovkva, Radomyshl, Chudniv, Kamenka (Cherkassy oblast) etc. And it was mainly Ukrainians who settled there in the houses of the Jews. So please do not edit the article in the way modern Ukrainian nationalists edit Ukrainian history. The other people have good memory. --Russianname 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

En masse deletion and tag spamming

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)

Look in the mirror for that matter of fact. --Kuban Cossack 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

• • The problem that you did not ask anything. Where is the question? --Russianname 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally, totally disputed

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)

The references I gave are from the modern Ukrainian and Ukrainian-speaking research. And all the facts that were added are relevant to the topic: Russians in the Ukraine----Russianname 05:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [32]? 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)

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)

You are digging yourself deeper in the hole with these arguments. Even if you perceived some things were done wrong, it did not give you the right to disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point. Read carefully (WP:POINT). By avoiding two direct questions above I take it as another confirmation of the passage's inclusion here as an act of revenge, which disrupts Wikipedia, rather than helping. The only option left for me now is to decide where to report this abuse. I will consult other users and communicate my decision to you shortly. --Hillock65 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Comment

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Stop adding non-compliant external links!

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 .

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)

• • The cited sites are fully reliable and they must be cited and will be cited. --Russianname 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please consult WP:Verifiability. References to Russian nationalist sites can never be accepted as reliable sources. Let's not get ridiculous.--Hillock65 17:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: [33], [34], [35]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

• • The cited websites fully qulify for reliability. I restored the link about 1500 when the modern Slobozhanschyna came under the Russian control. This is just a historical fact, whatever the Ukrainian chauvinists may say now. --Russianname 04:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Kuban kazak, I don't need your trollish answers at all, nor do I need the answers from your friends. I was only making necessary official steps to explain my de-spamming edits. Happy edits, Ukrained 18:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

About tagging "totally disputed"

Please give all points that you dispute or clean away this tag. --Russianname 12:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't label conventional edits as vandalism. This is not nice, has no point and may result in punishments for you if you persist in doing it. Alæxis_¿question? 12:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I second the remark above (WP:NPA). Second of all, it appears that some of the issues we disputed have been cleared by another editor. If this state of edits is going to be preserved, this tag is indeed out of place. There are still a couple of issues to clear:

1. How does Ukrainization affect Crimea? With only 2 Ukrainian-language schools for almost 40% ethnic Ukrainians? This is POV. You can argue that it affects Russians in Kyiv, but in Crimea? If you make a statement of Ukrainisation affecting particularly ethnic Russians provide clear scientific sources to support that. I hope you see the difference between Ukrainization affecting population of Ukraine and affecting ethnic Russians. Support the latter claim with verifiable sources. --Hillock65 13:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the examples of the regions are needed here. What's the point in it? Alæxis_¿question? 13:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• There are about 10 or 15% of all Ukrainian Russians who live in Crimea. So Ukrainiazation issues are essential. The question of the Orthodox Church needs more clarification. So we can hide this info at the moment. --Russianname 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainisation is of course essential but all the Russians in Ukraine suffer from it in various degrees so mentioning only Crimea seems not justified to me. Alæxis_¿question? 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I saw this sentence, it is removed. --Russianname 14:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

2. What is the evidence of "state-supproted attempt to introduce the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate"? This is not neutral. If you have a neutral scientific source, preferrably in English, please provide it, otherwise it does not belong here. --Hillock65 13:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

3. How does reduction of schools with Russian language affect ethnic Russians? There is no evidence that it does. Even in Rivne Oblast, where there are Russian classes ethnic Russians can receive education in their language. I am afraid this part is being forked from Russian language in Ukraine. In other words, the source has to show that ethnic Russians are inconvenienced and/or discriminated. This is not a language article, if you bring the language issue, the onus is on you to prove that it affects Russians not Ukrainians, Jews, Poles or Tatars.--Hillock65 16:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I do not understand what yiu ask. If there are no Russian schools in a region, this means that the Russians are effected. --Russianname 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If the Russians are affected, support it with sources. We are not here to draw conclusions with our POV but to present facts. So, please do so. So, if Russians are affected provide the source to support that statement or remove it. --Hillock65 01:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Imho it's too much to require not only source giving some info but also source proving its relevancy. Such sources are sometimes difficult to find and anyway it takes lots of time and has relatively little value to the reader. The editors should rather apply common sense to determine what to include. My personal opinion is that in questionable cases one should include more information and let the reader decide whether it's relevant or not.

In this particular case I think it's pretty obvious that the absence of Russian-language schools affects ethnic Russian population. Alæxis_¿question? 19:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to make assumptions but to present facts. If someone makes a claim, it is quite appropriate to ask to support that claim with references. If that presents a problem, then don't make these claims. This and the previous questions have not been addressed yet. The NPOV will stay until references are provided or disputed parts are removed. --Hillock65 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim (about the absence of Russian schools) HAS BEEN referenced. What Wikipolicy requires one to always seek the reference proving the relevance of information to the article? Alæxis_¿question? 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

References

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)

page 7 of the article:

“ Статистика свидетельствует: в Ровенской области сейчас уже нет ни одной школы с русским языком преподавания, в Винницкой – на 116 украиноязычных 9 русскоязычных школ, в Киеве осталось 9% русскоязычных школ. Русский язык в украинских школах начинают изучать со второго-пятого класса, а украинский язык в русскоязычных школах – с первого; более 80% населения, по данным Киевского центра политических исследований и конфликтологии, считают необходимым повышение статуса русского языка; 46% – за то, чтобы русский язык был признан вторым государственным языком. ”

Alæxis_¿question? 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that settles it. Thank you.--Hillock65 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify here

Please clarify here what is the problem with NPOV. --Russianname 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

• • This is not original research. But this fact is irrelevant, because the majority of believers of the Russian Orthodox Church are ethnic Ukrainians. This fact is removed. --Russianname 11:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)