Talk:Ukraine

If you are here to discuss Kiev vs. Kyiv please click here

If you are here to discuss Kiev vs. Kyiv please click here

Ukraine's area needs revision

The current number is not cited. UN gives area as 603,500.

https://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=UKRAINE

Crimea no longer part of Ukraine on Google maps

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ukraine/@48.383022,31.1828699,6z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x40d1d9c154700e8f:0x1068488f64010

Seems that it is time to update the map - no matter how painful for some nationalists. Reaper7 (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Google Maps is not the final authority for anything. And Wikipedia does not change maps every six months when an active war is in progress. Indeed, even when a "frozen war" is in progress, we don't "update maps" (cf. Georgia and Moldova). It also seems to be clear that you haven't actually looked closely at the Google Map. The boundary between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine is not a solid international boundary. It is dashed, indicating something less than an international boundary (compare the boundary between Ukraine and Russia, for example). --Taivo (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Even though it is dashed, "indicating something less than an international boundary", nevertheless, it is still some kind of boundary that needs to be acknowledged. For instance, it seems futile now to continue to claim that Yalta is a popular Ukrainian tourist destination, or that Crimea's water and electricity come from Ukrainian sources. Santamoly (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Crimea's electricity and water still do come from Ukraine. Electricity may be changed in 5 years, water won't be changed for decades. Please read up. The boundary is being acknowledged in the article. The current situation is being acknowledged in the map. Crimea is under control of the Russians and most countries don't recognize its annexation. Hence, it is disputed. I don't understand why this is hard for people to understand.Hilltrot (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

2014 Crimean takeover by Russia

As I said before, after a year, one will be able to more clearly find and verify what actually happened. This section needs a complete rewrite as it was mostly written at a time when very little was verifiable. Large portions of this section are just plain false and misleading. Russians started sending troops to take Crimea from Ukraine as early as 21 February 2014. Putin admitted an all-night planning session on 22 February 2014 and stated he personally was in charge of the operation. The vote for a referendum being held at gunpoint is no longer disputed.

I probably won't get to it until next week, but I wanted to give a warning. I don't do stealth edits on major rewrites. I also know that sometimes people get attached to what they write and wanted to give people a chance to speak.Hilltrot (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC) CapsHilltrot (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with you providing some reliable sources that support what you've said. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Which parts do you dispute? You need to be specific. And obviously, I will provide numerous reliable sources for what write. I always have. To prevent knee-jerk reactions, I'm willing to prepost a revision here.Hilltrot (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The part where Putin "admitted" would be a good start. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

These should help you catch up a bit. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/europe/putin-contrary-to-earlier-assertions-suggests-planning-to-seize-crimea-started-in-early-2014.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-was-surprised-at-how-easily-russia-took-control-of-crimea/2015/03/15/94b7c82e-c9c1-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html

Hilltrot (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hilltrot, I'd rather see the content left as is than another outbreak of POV pushing and WP:SYNTH. This is a broad scope article already carrying more abstracts/summaries about WP:NOTNEWS current affairs than it should. If anything, I'd rather just toss the summaries and simply have hatnotes to direct the reader to the information they're looking for. As it stands, the edit warring on all of the current affairs articles has lead to a number having being shut off to admin only protection level because of the traffic. Where do you think the rejects from that traffic go? We can't do justice to the complexity in a couple of paragraphs, so I'm all for calling it a no-fly zone. Let it all stagnate until it's become genuinely historical. The more abstract and non-committal it is, the better. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Suggestions to shrink a section might be profitable. Suggestions to expand, no. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with shrinking or simple hatnotes. I never suggested expansion. Sorry I scratch my cornea and haven't been able to respond. I'll probably be feeling good enough to respond tommorowHilltrot (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here are the primary parts of the Crimea chapter.

A. Because the situation in Ukraine had changed so dramatically, Putin began work on the annexation of Crimea.

B. Under the guise of protection of Russia's military base in Crimea, Putin commanded Russian intelligence, naval, and paratrooper forces to disarm the Ukrainian military and take effective control of the peninsula.

C. In a referendum, a majority of voters in Crimea voted to join Russia. The UN general assembly voted that the referendum was invalid.

Those are the three primary parts which are indisputable. Unfortunately, what is there now, is rubbish. None of the important indisputable parts are covered.

The problem with what is there now.

"In the wake of the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the resultant 2014 Ukrainian revolution in February 2014, a secession crisis began on Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula which has a significant number of Russophone people. "

This is a completely without any sourcing, much less reliable sourcing. "Succession crisis" is a good joke, but jokes are not what Wikipedia is suppose to be about. Sometimes, I feel like wikipedians only require User:Hilltrot to provide reliable sourcing.

"Unmarked, armed Russian soldiers began being moved into Crimea on 28 February 2014.[150]"

Although the sourcing has changed, this short, to the point, sentence has all the trademarks of my input. I insisted on something like being added to stop the complete one-sided PoV that follows.

"On 1 March 2014, exiled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych requested that Russia use military forces "to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine".[151] On the same day, Russian president Vladimir Putin requested and received authorization from the Russian Parliament to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine and took control of the Crimean Peninsula by the next day.[152][153][154][155]" In addition, NATO was perceived by most Russians as encroaching upon Russia's borders. This weighed heavily upon Moscow’s decision to take measures to secure its Black Sea port in Crimea.[156] received by most Russians as encroaching upon Russia's borders. This weighed heavily upon Moscow’s decision to take measures to secure its Black Sea port in Crimea.[156]

All of this is irrelevant clutter. We now know from the horses' mouth what caused Putin to want to annex Crimea. This blind wailing about to "find out" why is no longer relevant.

"On 6 March 2014, the Crimean Parliament voted to "enter into the Russian Federation with the rights of a subject of the Russian Federation" and later held a referendum asking the people of these regions whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine.[157] Though passed with an overwhelming majority, the vote was not monitored by outside parties and the results are internationally contested; it is claimed to have been enforced by armed groups which intruded and enforced voting according to their demands.[158][159][160] On 11 March, the Crimean parliament and Sevastopol issued a letter of intent to declare independence from Ukraine as the Republic of Crimea and requested that they be admitted as constituents of the Russian Federation."

Once again, more irrelevant clutter. What Putin considered to be the most important part was the referendum by the people of Crimea. He wouldn't have finalized the annexation of Crimea without it. If you are trying to make this shorter, the above goes.

"On 16 March, they held the Crimean referendum on that issue. The next day, the U.S. and the European Union started sanctions against individuals who were ‘undermining democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine’ or were ‘undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine’."

The sanctions have been useless and irrelevant to Ukraine. If you feel the sanctions against Russia are important, put them in the Russia article. The referendum is the key point.

"On 18 March 2014, Russia and Crimea signed a treaty of accession of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in the Russian Federation, though the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of a non-binding statement to oppose Russian annexation of the peninsula.[161]"

Treaties by Russia have been irrelevant for a little over a decade now. I'll agree with the PoV pusher for this treaty, if I can add the 40 or so treaties Russia has broken recently in the same section. Or in Wikispeak WP:UNDUE? The second part insults the reader and calls them stupid. All U.N. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding to its member states. Or else the West Bank would have been returned to Jordan among a number of other things.

Iryna, what's currently there is not abstract or noncommittal. I can see this throughout the article. Not just this section.

"Women's rights were greatly increased through new laws." Sounds abstract and noncommittal? If you read the source you understand the writer either pushed a major PoV, forgot to read 9 tenths of the article, or had to be functionally illiterate. Sometimes if someone insists on really abstract and noncommittal, you'll end up pushing a fringe PoV without knowing it. Yeah, I could reduce the holocaust to "Many died during WWII, including Americans, Australians, some Jews, Russians, French and a couple of Gypsies." Abstract and non-committal.

Genuinely historical? It was genuinely historical over a year ago, but now its not? But you're afraid of someone coming over here and trashing article, because it's not old enough . . . you do know what's happening on Savushkina Street? You'll come across the same problems writing about the Russian liberation of Berlin or any other "more" historical article about Russia or Russian interests.

What are you waiting for? Do you think Putin is going to go on television and say, "Wow, that was some wicked acid trip!! Sorry about what I said in the 2-hour documentary I ordered to be made, that wasn't me, it was the drugs talking!" Seriously? And both sides agree with what Putin said. Are you waiting for the end of the frozen war in eastern Ukraine? That's not ending in the foreseeable future. Russia is in de facto control of Crimea. It's over. Most countries don't like it. Ukraine obviously doesn't, but Crimea isn't even coming up in the cease-fire agreements. It will be a disputed area until Putin dies or cronies are overthrown. And this won't happen in the foreseeable future. This is as history as it's going to get unless you're asking me to wait until after I die.

I was not the one rushing to get stuff added to this over a year ago. If you don't like what is now verifiable fact, here are the two other options.

1. Put a box statement saying that no information newer that May 2014 has been allowed into the section and that you are enforcing a stagnation. 2. Delete the section and leave only redirections to other articles.

I'm really not ok with the status quo. I am open to other suggestions if you wish to suggest them.Hilltrot (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Easier, I think, to deal with one section at a time unless there's good reason to do otherwise. Shall we stick to the Crimea section? If so, we can decide what should be dropped and what added. Preferably, in this article, the added material should be the smaller, leaving more details to the detail articles. For example, I think the procedures of Russian law are discussed in too much detail for this article. Those details could be trimmed and replaced with other Crimean material. However, if changes to another section are more urgent, we can start a new discussion section about that one, instead. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted to change the other sections. I only gave them for examples.

These are the three primary parts of the Crimean Annexation. The reason and premeditation behind the annexation, how it was accomplished, and the end result.

A. Because the situation in Ukraine had changed so dramatically, Putin began work on the annexation of Crimea.

B. Under the guise of protection of Russia's military base in Crimea, Putin commanded Russian intelligence, naval, and paratrooper forces to disarm the Ukrainian military and take effective control of the peninsula.

C. In a referendum, a majority of voters in Crimea voted to join Russia. The UN general assembly voted that the referendum was invalid.

These are much shorter than what's there and we no longer have to waste space giving dueling narratives, since Putin has agreed with what happened. As far as what happened, there is no competing narrative among current sources. You won't see Russian news outlets calling Putin a liar. And the western outlets aren't disagreeing with him either. Other parts, such as who protested when, how many guns or bullies were there at this poll or that poll, etc. are "debatable" and should be left out.

The only key "procedure of Russian law" is the referendum. That's what got the vote by the U.N. General Assembly, and that's what Putin also said was important to him. So the importance of the referendum is also agreed upon by both sides. They just disagree upon the legitimacy and result.

I'm not really attached to my wording, except that it really should read Putin and not Russia.

Get rid of everything that's there. I'm sorry but what's there was created at a time when it shouldn't have been created.Hilltrot (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I see sense in what what Jim.henderson has suggested: focussing on one section at a time. Yes, I do have to agree with you, Hilltrot, that the substance of the current 'summaries' have been fiddled with to the point of being mercenary gobbledygook posturing as NPOV. RS on the topics at hand are not mincing words in the manner in which they've been refactored (i.e., WP:GEVAL reinterpretations of what RS are actually saying). Intentions may have been WP:AGF, but I suspect that a lot of minor tweaks have been overlooked (read as 'approved') due to high traffic changes that should not have been allowed to slip through.

I still stand by keeping these summaries terse and avoiding the introduction of extraneous material... so let's keep it on track and allow for a bit of breathing/commentary room here on the talk page.

Given the problems regular editors have faced for ages relating to this article, we're justifiably paranoid as to the smallest adjustment, therefore I'd also suggest avoiding POV language comments carrying value-laden intent raising WP:REDFLAG signals to EvergreenFir and myself for starters. Let's stick to RS representation of concerns surrounding content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So, you like my three primary parts of the Crimean Annexation. Yeah, I know no one has bothered to even mention them. . .

What I have written is not redflag. Not in the least bit. If someone hasn't read up on issues about Ukraine for the past year, it might seem like a Red-Flag. I took the POV language out in my second and third postings of the same ABC.

If you've been paying attention to Ukraine, and I hope you have, you should know my sources on this are more than rock-solid. They are indisputable. Has Russian media called Putin a liar? Has the western media and governments disputed what was said? Do we not also have a ton of collaborating evidence? Do you know of any reliable sources in the past three months which dispute these three points? Any unreliable ones?

That makes it a good base for this section. What was in Crimea before was just an amalgamation of rumors countered by a fact or two. The section should be based on something which all the sources are in agreement with. This section will never be made shorter without using WP:UNDUE or WP:RECENTIVISM.(I think I got those right. Is there a WP:OUTOFDATE?) The old stuff has to be killed. Even "Unmarked, armed Russian soldiers began being moved into Crimea on 28 February 2014." is old and dated. In fact, it was only put there to prevent a PoV clobber.Hilltrot (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hilltrot, not only have I been keeping on top of all of these articles actively since their inception, I continue to be highly involved, which is why it's taken me a few days to respond here... They're all still being edit-warred over despite RS having established far more concrete 'facts' about events and how they've unfurled. If any other editors doubt how involved I am with questions sources, problem users being brought to the ANI, and trying to maintain genuine WP:NPOV over this period of time, feel free to check all of the surrounding articles. I'm high profile in the area pertaining to both article development and talk page consensus 'discussions' (using the term extremely loosely), which is more than can be said about the majority of editors involved in this article.

Nevertheless, I was alarmed about your initial statements regarding changes in content, and can understand why alarm bells went off for other editors. I think that, essentially, your use of language triggered off a backlash. Yes, it is time for the content to be changed as it's outdated, therefore I've tagged the Crimea and 2014-15 unrest sections are needing to be updated. Updated does not, however, mean in-depth analysis or expanding the sections, but the removal of WP:POV and WP:WEASEL language (i.e., the lead-up to "This weighed heavily upon Moscow's decision to take measures to secure its Black Sea port in Crimea"? - no, that's not what RS are saying!). It does need a tidy, but the brunt must be carried by the main article. I still feel that, for the purposes of this article, hatnotes to the relevant articles would be the best compromise for those subsections. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, from his posts, the pine tree clearly doesn't know anything Ukraine and is just shadowing me because he didn't like what I wrote somewhere else or maybe he just doesn't like me personally. Jim has just said he basically wants it shorter. I hate to say this, but what "backlash"? Even from you I don't feel that much backlash. You haven't mentioned a single part of the Crimea section that you feel really needs to be saved. So, I have to assume that you're ok with my getting rid of it? Jim has even been more specific to say that he thinks at least parts should be deleted and seems to be in agreement with me. As for the three primary parts (A,B, and C above.) I want to replace it with, I have received no objection from anyone.

Inflammatory!? Even my original comments haven't brought a tenth the heat that my wanting to removing a passage talking about thousands of fictional Blackwater troops brought. But this was one of my points. The people who were here just because this was news and they wanted to be FIRST!, aren't here anymore for Crimea. In addition, the sources are in agreement. The insanely stupid double narrative is no longer remotely justified. Edit waring on Crimea? There are less that 50 changes in the past month! What are you imagining?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&action=history

Savushkina Street is not going away, but it shouldn't scare us into not making Crimea a decent encyclopedia article section instead of the pile of doodoo it currently is.Hilltrot (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Hilltrot: I just want to make it clear that with regards to EvergreenFir, I don't approve of derision of editors who are most certainly WP:HERE. That said, I do see scope for improving the summaries as they're representative of outdated information. Per Jim.henderson, I agree that this should be done a section at a time, and I have no reason to believe that one section takes precedence over the others with regards to this article, therefore starting with the annexation of Crimea to the RF is as good a starting point as any other.

One section at a time also allows regular editors (who are events savvy) to discuss potentially problematic changes as they occur. In other words, you have my support in reworking the sections one at a time, and allowing a little breathing space for policy and guideline objections, as well as positive feedback on directions taken in the brunt of these summaries. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, therefore no one has the right to prevent you from bold changes so long as the WP:BRD process is followed. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110510093709/http://me.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=115924&cat_id=38912 to http://me.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article?art_id=115924&cat_id=38912
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101209112933/http://bestofukraine.com/travel-essentials/medical-care.html to http://bestofukraine.com/travel-essentials/medical-care.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140908232006/http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/53483/ to http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/53483/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct x 1; archived access denied replaced with Cbignore until archive can be found x 1; replaced archived redirect to direct archive x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate Economic Growth Statistic

In the Independence section, the article states that Ukraine's GDP rose by an average of seven percent annually during the 2000s and cites two sources. I checked both sources and did some math and neither agrees with the statement. I don't want to change the article in case I'm missing something, so I'd appreciate if I could get a second opinion. Thanks. 2602:252:D5C:A4C0:2C9D:9EA9:36A7:3AB6 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that your assessment is correct. In fact, I would say that at best this is a poor WP:Synth - at worst original research - assuming good faith of course. It's possible that the original source used got deleted. I'm going to wait a while for a response before I take this out or replace it.Hilltrot (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I recall a discussion of these figures some time ago, but am about to log off for the day. I'll take a look through the archives ASAP. If I don't respond tomorrow, Hilltrot, could you please ping me to remind me? Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've found a better source. I'm going to just change the sourcing to http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/09/underachiever-ukraine-s-economy-since-1991# . An economy expert might be able to get 7% from the sources listed. But that seems too much like original research. But the 7.4% listed from an expert source seems to be a much better way to do it. That, and it basically says the same thing.Hilltrot (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

By all means, go for it. I found the beginnings of a discussion I started in the archives last year, but it didn't develop any further. There was a short-lived period of an upturn after the later 'naughties' world economic slump... but I'm not going to go OR here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ca. 17 000000000000 USD loan to Ukraine. Is it not worthy of attention? It is advisable to mention the names of the generous sponsors. It is pleasant for honored sponsors. Ukrainians it should not forget the names of their virtues. Not today not later. Have jemmand something about it? The Rettere the Ukrainian "finacial ship" Angela_Merkel; Wolfgang Schäuble;Michel Sapin; David Cameron ...A Karjavina (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Er, do tell where your WP:RS for this figure comes from! Being able to communicate in English tends to be useful, too... particularly from someone who appears to be using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blackseagrain.net/data/news/ukraine-becomes-worlds-third-biggest-grain-exporter-in-2011-minister

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct archive link confirmed. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on Ukrainian cities' leads

Just a remind. Consensus should incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Some important naming conventions and manuals of style Ukrainian cities' leads do not comply with (WP:LEAD#General guidelines and WP:LEAD#Separate section usage): Once a Names or Etymology section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. (Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".' If the case is exceptional, common sense may be applied to ignore all rules. Please discuss to see whether there are good reasons to exempt the cities from the general manuals and conventions or not.2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)