Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:04, 5 July 2006

Worthy topic

Ghirlandajo, I think it is a worthy topic and I proposed this article myself a while ago. But for now, it seems you are starting it of the wrong foot and it will soon attract edit wars and POV pushing. I suggest you take a look at UA language article first, where the issue is briefly discussed, particularly, the following chapters:

• Ukrainian_language#Ukrainianization_.26_Tolerance
• Ukrainian_language#The_Khrushchev_thaw
• Ukrainian_language#The_Shelest_period
• Ukrainian_language#Gorbachev_and_Perestroika

and especially:

• Ukrainian_language#Independence_in_the_modern_era

Also check the talk there from Talk:Ukrainian_language#Percentage_of_speakers and on as well as the earlier talk. I just have no time to kick into this article right away, but I have a great interest to do so. In the meanwhile, you are welcome to take into account the info above since it is achieved via discussion and compromises. --Irpen 15:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yushchenko

The term may also refer to Viktor Yushchenko's efforts to ban Russophone TV channels and radio stations.

Did Yushchenko actually said he wants to ban Russophone broadcastings ? If he did not explicitly said that, then this article is not factually accurate and/or is POV. From what I've read it was only a decision of the Ukrainian National Council for Television and Radio. bogdan | 20:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope and there is plenty of RU L media in UA. See my note above. As of now, the article simply would be best to redirect to Ukrainian language where the issues of Ukrainization are discussed, although not in detail. Redirect is much better than relaying inaccurate and POV information.

I am interested in a separate article on the topic but haven't got to it. This version is not just POV and factually inaccurate, it doesn't touch any of the much more real controversies and will simply serve a magnet for POV tags and revert warring. Later on, I will try to rewrite the stub from scratch but I would welcome if anyone else, or the author, does it taking into account this criticizm as well as the UA L article. Finally, I hope that a Wikipedian who is being critisized would not take the disagreements personally. --Irpen 21:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I put a dispute tag until something is decided about this article. bogdan | 21:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved to talk as a better tmp solution than "totallydisputed"

OK, I didn't want to put a tag but you had a right to place it. Reasons at talk more than justify it. However, I have a better idea. The tag might suggest that the problem isn't there, while it actually is. I will move an entire content to talk below and replace the article with a redirect to Ukrainian language for now only.

I think it is better to have a redirect to where real problems are discussed, even briefly, than to have a false information with a tag attached. The latter might suggest that the issue only exists in minds of Ukrainophobes. The issue is real though. It just should be presented properly. The text from the article is below. I removed the pic for now since it is unrelated to what the article was about. If it gets into Korenization period, we can restore it then. The disputed text is below. --Irpen 21:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainization refers to the policies of Ukrainian government to forcibly transfer Russian-language schools of Crimea and other historically Russophone territories of Ukraine to Ukrainian as the main language of instruction. The term may also refer to Viktor Yushchenko's efforts to ban Russophone TV channels and radio stations. As of 2005, there have been numerous rallies against Ukrainization in the Crimea and other regions of Ukraine.

External links

• Ukrainization in the Soviet Union
• The Ukrainization of Lvov has been accelerating
• Ukrainization of the City of Russian glory

Please do not revert to an original article

I tried to write a stub from scratch and it is not easy for exact reasons as Russophobia. I cound not find many sources to base this upon, because the topic is too politically charged. Google gives lots of links but mostly to histeria or POV sites. Some measured article about particular cases can be found but no analysis and review. I am afraid we have to move in small steps. Write a stub with a definition of a phenomenon with no analysis and gradually allow it to evolve. I need more time to do it. In the meanwhile, to have this factually incorrect and POV text, with newspaper clippings as references is worse than a redirect to a balanced discussion at U.L. Please feel free to start anew but the old text cannot be there. It is not better as no article at all. Sincerely, --Irpen 06:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I also checked the links above. The first one indeed claims to be a "review" but it relates to a different period (our article claimed to be mostly devoted to modern Ukrainization} and this "review" is full of false claims. The other two are newspaper clippings. Even if fact based, they prove nothing by themselves yet. I saw clippings in other RU papers that claim the opposite, so what? I had a difficulty, so far, to find a good unbiased review. Some decent articles may be found by searching "УКРАИНИЗАЦИЯ" at www.zerkalo-nedeli.com but even at this solid weekly, more than a half of articles devoted to this is at op-ed level of either UA and RU "patriots" whining. Let's not rush into this just yet. I will keep looking. In the meanwhile, let me repeat that a redirect to a balanced discussion at Ukrainian language is better than just some original reasearch stuff here. I hope my proposal gets accepted for now. As an alternative, we can have simply a defintion here with a link to the same U. L. article. Everyone is welcome to write it of course. I will try too. --Irpen 06:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Started anew

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

I viewed a redirect as a short-term solution only. You may see that I was a proponent of an article earlier at Talk:Ukrainian_language#Ukrainization_red_link. Anyway, your new version, unlike the original, can be used as a starting point. I am sorry for being blunt about the old one, but perhaps you can also see the original was a road to nowhere. Please reconsider citing dubious sources in the end. I agree with "slowly evolve" approach. If the problem is just stated, it is enough for now, since no one can seriously deny that. The newsclippings or this particular "review" is of no use. Also, please do not forget to point to the sources of images. I had to dig for a while to figure out the problem because you labeled a '21 image as early 30's and it clearly didn't look like being from 30's. Regards, --Irpen 07:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

References

This is a sensitive and disputed topic and that's why it badly needs references. bogdan | 07:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

We'll have a problem with this for a while. See above, --Irpen 07:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The poster

Why is that poster a "Ukrainization" poster? It appears to be a "join the army" type of poster. bogdan | 08:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right. It is better to reformulate it. The issue here is that UA L was used for Soviet propaganda due to Ukrainization, but the poster is related but it is not a "Ukrainization poster" per se. --Irpen 06:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. You are thinking of "ukrainization" in the restricted meaning of language enforcing. At these times the issue of national cadres in bureaucracy and army was acute as well. The old man at the poster is advising just this: ukrainization of the Army. mikka (t) 21:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. OK, let's leave it as is. --Irpen 07:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, this may well be our reading: the main point of the poster that the young man is being urged not simply to join the Read Army, but to go to a school of commanders, i.e., to "strengthen the national cadre", in the parlance of the time. mikka (t) 16:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The source indicates this poster is from 1921, when the Soviets controlled most of Ukraine, but before the Soviet Union was officially created. I guess it is using an appeal to national pride, to increase the ranks of the Soviet Ukrainian army. The image looks like a farm boy and his elderly father, but I wonder if it is really aimed at a more literate and nationally self-concious city and town demographic. —Michael Z. 2005-09-21 17:35 Z

Ban in courts

This is factual based, I agree. But transferring the proceedings into Ukrainian is still not the same as "ban of Russian" in courts. However, this is a valid point. It just needs reformulation, I think. If anyone wants more info on this aspect of court reform and the reaction, see this. If no one gets to this before I will, eventually, I will edit this later. Thanks! --Irpen 06:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

done. --Irpen 02:08, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, re your comment "please don't delete stuff not to your liking", this has nothing to do with my "not liking". Personally, I think that switching all courts, especially in one day, is as stupid as switching all, or most of the, schools. And I think the protest RU MID, though a demagogical one, has a factual basis and makes a shrewd PR step. I just think a multi-line quote from a relatively unimportant document doesn't need to be fully present in an article. A brief summary clearly covers the issue. Similarly, there are no multiline quotes from Stalin's late-1931 telegram ordering to swiftly stop Ukrainization. We just say about this. Why do you think it is not enough? --Irpen 18:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Russophobe government of Yulia Timoshenko"

Usually, when I disagree with the way something is added to articles, I try to edit it rather than delete (see directly above). But this stuff can't be possibly modified into anything useful. Sorry. With Russophobia being completely out of the picture in these events (I follow Ukraine's news closely and I hope my WP history is sufficient to not completely dismiss my judgement), the T.'s government was much less associated with nationalism than some other centers of power. If one can't just take my word on it, read some reputable press instead of Komsomolskaya Pravda. If one insists on using the Russian press only, try Kommersant (koomersant.ru or its Ukraine-centered edition at kommersant.ua) . If you take my word that some Ukrainian media is also reputable, check the recent Zerkalo Nedeli at zerkalo-nedeli.com . It is obvious that other reasons than Ukrainization lead to the government dismissal and to use "Russophobe" for Yu. T. and her gov is plainly strange to say the least. Generally, I think we should use the Russopho- word less liberally in Misplaced Pages. Of course Russophobia may be related to some events and even some wikipedians but it is counterproductive to overgeneralize in those things. I hope, we will not get an edit war here. --Irpen 02:08, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

During her term in office, she didn;'t find opportunity to visit Moscow, which is plain weird, considering how dependant Ukraine on Russian energy is. And M-me Grigyan-Telegina, being ethnically Armenian and Russian, didn;t speak a word in her native Russian. How do you explain this? Look at the Yehanurov, and you will see the difference. My relatives from Crimea report that the latest textbooks contain such nonsense as Adam and Eve were the first Ukrainians on Earth, and that their proper names were Taras and Halya, etc! And they force Russian children to learn all this rubbish. And this textbook was approved by Timoshenko's government. --Ghirlandajo 06:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I like this! It is no worse nonsense than Adam/Eve thingy. and logical, too. The parents of an Ukrainian must be Ukrainians, right? mikka (t) 16:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I don't get what you were saying, sorry. Please reformulate.

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

As for the Ghirlandajo's entry above, I will reply to that separately. But I am sorry to see a great editors sometimes writing stuff which makes so little sense, sorry buddy. For now I just want to reiterate that using the Russopho- term too liberally at edit summaries, articles and talk pages is counterproductive. And it is certainly unhelpful. And also, it is offensive, when misapplied.

Lets just cooperate more. I think generally, we are doing a good job around here. Ghirlandajo, your point certainly makes it into articles and you can easily see that in most cases we find acceptible phrasings. Don't jump the gun so fast! Also, let's not turn the talk pages into political debate forums. There are other venues for such discussions around on the net. Thanks, --Irpen 18:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Russia offered to support RU-schools in UA financially

If my memory serves me right, at the meeting between the ministers of education a month or two ago, the Russian minister made such proposal and the Ukrainian minister did not object. If someone has more details, adding this to an article would be useful, I think. --Irpen 02:15, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the subject of this article at all. What is relevant is why every winner of Ukrainian election makes promises to make Russian a second state language and reneges his promises immediately after the inauguration. According to the last poll, more than 60% of Ukrainians support the idea of making Russian a state language. And yet the Ukrainization continues. --Ghirlandajo 06:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it is related. It is a good PR step for the RF and a shame, for UA, I think, that its financing of the Russian schools is such a low priority in the budget, that Ukraine isn't even ashamed to accept this assistance. That is, of course, if this is real story. --Irpen 23:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am less sure now. I found no mention of this in serious media, only reprints from one or two questionable sources. The recpectable paper did not mention the financing deal when covering the meeting. --Irpen 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame for Russia, that 4.000.000 ukrainians which are living there have no ukrainian schools at all. --Gutsul

I don't know about others, but the phrase "forcible" transfer in my mind gives rise to two pictures. One, is what indeed happened, that is a burocrat, being stupid or a careeristic or both, making a decision to switch this or that school, with the parents having no say in this. The other is a SWAT team braking into a school and taking a Russian principal away and installing a Ukrainian one in his place, something like desegregation of the U. of Alabama. To make sure that it is the first of the two scenarios we are talking about, I replaced "forcible" by "voluntaristic". If there is a better way to say it, feel free to change my version. --Irpen 03:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

In Russia there are 4.000.000 ukrainians and there are no ukrainian schools! Russian government should first solve this problem and then we will talk about russian scholls in Ukraine. --Gutsul

"Ukrainization" or "Ukrainianization"?

Ukrainization seems to be a good anglicization of Ukraïnizatsia, but I think Ukrainianization is a better English word. The first sounds fine on its own, but the verb to Ukrainianize and adjective Ukrainianized sound much better than to Ukrainize, Ukrainized. This also comes up a couple of times in the article on Ukrainian language. —Michael Z. 2005-09-17 08:02 Z

I would say "Ukrainianize", "Ukrainianized", but "Ukrainization". However, that's just me. --Irpen 08:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

In the history books, Subtelny uses "Ukrainization" and Magocsi uses "Ukrainianization". Neither is in my Oxford Canadian Dictionary or in dictionary.com. So for our purposes, I think either is acceptable.

To put a finer point on it, I would say that Ukrayinizatsiya, the historic phenomenon, would be anglicized Ukrainization, but the English-language cognate of Ukrainianize (-ing) would be Ukrainianization. Either may have its place. —Michael Z. 2005-09-21 20:04 Z

Rusyns

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

Church affairs

I would think that the rivarly between to Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, the canonical one and the "Kiev Patriarchy" may be reflected in this article. Particularly, the support to Filaret's UOC-KP by Kravchuk, the the initial reversal by Kuchma and gradual establishment of the current status-quo. On the other hand, the rivarly, with UGCC, although no less bitter, does not fit here, in my opinion, because, unlike the former one, the latter involved some real issues outside of the politics.

Any takers to write on this, as well as, on Rusyn issue? If anyone wants to do this, please-please-please use measured words. Regards, --Irpen 00:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainization in the Crimea 2005

Ukrainian government opened new school in Crimae and said that this school will be ukrainian (ukrainian language as teaching language). Today there are only 6 ukrainian schools from more then 500 schools in Crimea. Is it ukrainization?

The meaning of the term "Ukrainization"

In scientific literature, the term "Ukrainization" is related to the Bolshevik party policy in 1920s and early 1930s. There is no other interpretation of this term in science. If you are not agree, please cite reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not appropriate for publishing somebody's fantasies.

In addition to referring to the Soviet policy of the 1920s and '30s, Magocsi 1996, A History of Ukraine (pp. 619–20) and Subtelny 1988, Ukraine: A History (p. 455) both also use the term in reference to Ukrain(ian)ization of Western Ukraine after the Soviet occupation of 1939. Magocsi refers to resolutions of the Central Rada in 1917 for ukrainianization of the school system (p. 472). Subtelny uses the term referring to the Kiev government's attempts at increasing Ukrainian population and cultural influence in Crimea after it was gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954 (p. 500), in a hypothetical future scenario of Ukrainization (p. 524), and about the Czechoslovakian government program of the 1950s (p. 569).

Magocsi capitalizes the Soviet Ukrainianization program of the 1920s–30s, and in other contexts writes ukrainianization and ukrainianized in lower case. Subtelny uses the terms Ukrainization, Ukrainianize, Ukrainized, Ukrainianism capitalized both as a proper noun and in the general sense.

• Paul Robert Magocsi. A History of Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (1996) ISBN 0-8020-0830-5.
• Orest Subtelny. Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 3rd edition (2000) ISBN 0-8020-8390-0. online Ukrainian translation.

So in respectable academic writing, the term has been used to refer to both the specific Soviet policy, and in the general senses of increasing Ukrainian population, applying Ukrainian language or cultural influence, in different periods. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 22:46 Z

Who is Magocsi? Has he any academic position? In which university? Are his works recognized by the scientific community? --AndriyK 07:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

From the book: "Paul Robert Magocsi, a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a professor of history and political science at the University of Toronto and director of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. He is the author of several books, including the Historical Atlas of East Central Europe, Ukraine: A Historical Atlas, and Galicia: A Historical Survey and Bibliographic Guide." See also short bio, longer bio, some books, and search on Amazon.com for "Paul Robert Magocsi". When you're done reviewing his credentials, why don't you start an article on Paul Robert Magocsi? —Michael Z. 2005-10-12 08:23 Z

Thank you Michael, could you please supplement the page numbers by the titles of chapters/sections. I do not have the same edition.--AndriyK 19:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll pull out the tome tonight or tomorrow and describe the location of the passages. If you're in a hurry, just look for "Ukrainization" in the index, particularly under "in Western Ukraine"; I started from there. —Michael Z. 2005-10-12 23:05 Z

We have, however, to understand what this usage really means. It says to us not just that the term is applicable to these 3 or 4 particular moments in history but this is a general word, similar to any other -zation whose definition has to be general either. The original definition in the article was just that, and it was totally non-aggressive by the way. I can see how some passages may have seem aggressive to oversensitive editors, but not the original definition that said that Ukrainization "in general, is the state policy to increase the prominence of Ukrainian language and/or representation of Ukrainian people within state institutions, mostly, but not exclusively, within Ukraine. It has been cited as a reverse of Polonization and Russification."

Instead what we got now is the definition of a specific historical policy, called Korenization. There is an article for that already. First of all where is UPR here? Now, some would say that post-independence government policies is "derussification" and applying Ukrainization to them is an error. Very well, a legitimate position. But there are certainly publications in the media (in Russia and Ukraine) that call this Ukrainization as well. Who is a wiki-editor to judge which of the two opinions is correct? They both should be included. Court reform should be included as well.

The most sensitive issue here is transfer of schools. Opinions differ about it. Some view this a measure of restoration of historical justice, justified by an urgent need of protection of Ukrainian, also the measure to curb the influence of our not always well-meaning neighbor (this is a legitimate opinion and it should be presented). Others, however, view this as forced assimilation of the citizens and infringement on their rights. Languages in schools is the most sensitive issue ever (even more than transfer of church property between "patriarchates"). Remember what the transfer of school language eventually led to in Transnistria. To simply dismiss it and omit from the article is clearly wrong. Yushchenko during his election campaign understood it very well. I remember very well that he said repeatedly on maidan and in presidential debates:

"Ніхто не закриє жодної російської школи... Ніхто не закриє жоден православний храм в угоду одній чи іншій конфесії... жодна церква не буде потерпати гоніння... В Україні кожен громадянин буде мати можливість говорити мовою, яка йому зручна."

Why would he have to say this if there was no issue like some editors would like to present it? You can say that the fears were blown up by pro-Russian media. Very well, say so. But don't pretend there is nothing because we don't want the article with a POV tag.

Now, has anyone seen any websites of Rusyns? I mean one cannot seriously say that this is a non-issue either. I did not engage myself into editing here yet, because this is, IMO, a less important article than others. One can see from the top of this page my comments on that as well as my reservations about having this article at all. However, if we have it, we have to do something so that we could dump the POV tag on top. I don't believe anyone thinks that to have a permanent POV tag attached to the article is what we need. --Irpen 23:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

POV

User:Irpen says return sourced and referenced info blanked by the user http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ukrainization&diff=24898429&oldid=24880300

But I cannot see sources and references in article and discussion page. There are only three links to political colored articles in Russian and to Russian Foreign Ministry protest.

Irpen tries to return

Ukrainization (or Ukrainianization), in general, is the state policy to increase the prominence of Ukrainian language and/or representation of Ukrainian people within state institutions

In which way Ukraine increases representation of Ukrainian people within state institutions?

Ethnic minorities of modern Ukraine consider the implementation of these policies to be a forced assimilation

• Where's the point of view of ukrainophones?

Ilya K 15:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

About "Ukrainian people" this does not apply to post-independence time. But it was applicable in early Ukrainization. The article says "language and/or people" for a reason. I myself substituted "and" by "and/or". Please check a history of and earlier talk to see how article went through stages.

Then it must be stated in clear way. And I did not find mention of it in Ukrainization after the Russian Revolution section Ilya K 16:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

you are welcome to add the Ukrainophone POV. BTW, we should change "minorities" by "minority-based political movements" and similar for ukrainophones. I will try to do that later unless someone can do this sooner.

first, it's not encyclopedia style to write many paragraphs about one point of view (even more - minority pov), and totally omit other. Second, why narrow pov to political parties? If statement is wrong for people, but only for political mottos - we should move it down. If this statement is supported by surveys and cultural workers we should mention this support also. Ilya K 16:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the article so far off that it requires a general POV? If you insist, fine with me fow now. --Irpen 15:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ilya, please add this to the article as you see fit. I just have a limited amount of time and some of it now has to go to redo the new wave of POV pushing and destruction of the work of me an the others by a new user. I hope we can get this worked out. Why didn't you raise your objections earlier? The current text is around for a while now and it was mostly me who tried to have a Ukrainian POV represented here as you can see if you check earlier talk and history. I am glad we are managing this civilly so far. Regards, --Irpen 17:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Because it's hard and takes much time to make clear articles which base on true information. This article I haven't read before. I was considering this way to write on controversial topics : uk (gather facts)- ru (polish against contrary pov) - en (unbiased, already disputed article).

On topic - we need number of Ukrainian and Russian schools and classes (In Ukraine and Russia), compare with ethnicity and mother tongue, analize official statements, surveys, media and prees language distribution analisis. We can't just write what we think. Misplaced Pages is not for it, but blog or usenet Ilya K 17:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we need to find the numbers but we need to be sure what numbers to look for. Using results of the census of ethnicity and mother tongue may be misleading without proper caution as explained in Ukrainian language and its talk.

A drammatic change of definiton is a bad idea. First of all it ommits entirely the UNR times. Secondly (and regarding "only used for early Boshevik policies") as separate article for that (Korenization) is already here. You are welcome to imrpove it.

Finally, saying that only Russians complain is factually incorrect. To begin with, check the publications about Rusyns and Romanians in Bukovyna. I hope we'll deal with this step by step. --Irpen 18:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Viktor Yushchenko and "Ukrainization campaign" in 2005

This paragraph should be removed. Almost all information there is wrong.

After Viktor Yushchenko's inauguration, the pace of Ukrainization has been accelerated.

Are there any facts?

As of 2005, there have been numerous rallies against Ukrainization in the Crimea and other regions of Ukraine, prompted by the authorities' arbitrary transfers of Russian-language schools in Crimea and other historically Russophone territories of Ukraine to Ukrainian language of instruction, without any public consultation.

This was not an “arbitrary transfers of Russian-language schools”. This was a newly-built school. It was planned to be a Ukrainian-language school long before Viktor Yushchenko's inauguration. Its construction was partially paid by the central goverment. Russian chauvinists tried to forbid Ukrainian children to learn their mother-language.

The new round of government's efforts to limit the use of Russian on television and radio stations

A there any facts about “effots”? Thre is still more Russian on television and radio stations than Ukrainian.

According to newly-enacted laws of civil and administrative procedure, all legal and court proceedings in Ukraine are to be conducted in Ukrainian, which is the only official state language.

What has Yushchenko to do to this law? It was adopdet by Suprem Rada an signed by Kuchma long before Yushchenko's inauguration (see ).

The practice of using official languages in court (and guaranteeing interpretation service for any language desired by a defendant) is very common for most of the contries, including Russia, USA, Germany, France ...

On September 6, 2005, the Russian Foreign Ministry protested the measure issuing a statement that the change infringes on the rights of the Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens.

This is true but more apprpriate for th artcile "Russian chauvinism" as well as the information about rallies against Ukrainian language schools in the Crimea.

Read this

http://www.mova.org.ua/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=34

On Crimea 24% Ukrainians, 10% who consder Ukrainian native. From 640 schools only 4 Ukrainian. Many want to study in Ukrainian school, but they don't have an opportunity. Ilya K 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In 2000 35% newspapers , 12% magazines, 18% TV programs made in Ukraine are in Ukrainian. (And several times more which made in Russia) Ilya K 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Pupils 21% in Russian schools, 73% in Ukrainin Students up to 90% in Ukrainian (although this is formal statistic. In Kharkiv very few lectors indeed use Ukrainian)

Destruction of the article

This article I consider less important than Ukrainian language (I was actually not supporting its being started at this point) but since it reached certains stage of development and then got completely destroyed, something needs to be done. I won't edit it just yet but please consider the objections above and implement it into the article if possible. If nothing would be being done for a while, I will get back to this. To start with, I request that a more general definition is restored or rephrased (otherwise it is a Korenization article that we already have), stop saying that it is just Russians (Rusyn and Romanian issues did not go anywhere), return the UNR times and return the modern controversy about schools (if you view the latter an artificial invention of pro-Russia politicians, you a free to say so, but the issue should be covered). Transferring courts is also notable as well as licensing laws for TV/Radio. If this is done in some form, the article would be dramatically improved. As it is now, it is destined straight into a VfD and this is the last thing I want. --Irpen 06:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

In view of what Michael wrote above I become even more convinced that current form of the article is even less acceptable than the previous one. Trying to present the definiton of korenization here as the general definiton of Ukrainizaition is anacceptable. The main difference between the original and the current version is that lots of material is removed. Go ahead and modify the material, try to explain the propaganda campaign in certain media but removing material is only the last resort option. I could try to rewrite this myself but we need a starting point to build on. The older version was a better starting point. Unless someone makes this article more inclusive soon, I will return most of the deleted material myself. Treating any criticism of Ukraine as an anti-Ukrainian attack does not help make better articles. --Irpen 04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Cite your sources and only then modify the text.--AndriyK 07:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Andriy, sources were cited in the original article as well as above by Michael. Since you where telling me elsewhere, which articles I should work for in your opinion, may I suggest that you check Portal:Ukraine/Things you can do. Feel free to edit/modify the list. --Irpen 18:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Original research

Where the definition of "Ukrainisation" in the first paragraph came from? Looks like original research.--AndriyK 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the talk above. Scholars use the term in many senses and restricting a definition to the one specific instance is just false. This is not an original research but a plain summarizing of several uses and it is so straightforward, that it does not qualify for original research. Please seize your tag-trolling. Your assaulting of multiple articles with tags is very disruptive. --Irpen 01:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition to quotes above, read, for instance, Petro Shelest article in uk-wiki. Also, google and google books the term Ukrainization, also the Ukrainian and Russian variant. If you know German and do some googling there as well, I would be interested to see the result.

Your "correction" as related to presidential election was removed as improper. The article doesn't speak of presidential promises to change the constitution on their own. I carefully wrote about promises made to "to support the idea" which might or might not have been succesfull. Personally, I don't support such an idea and I didn't vote for either of those guys. --Irpen 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the proof the educational system in Ukrainian was changed to an overwhelmingly Ukrainian one, I added a ref. --Irpen 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I removed the citation of Malenkovich because the numbers given there are not reliable. According to the official data of Kiev city state administration there are 16 Russian language school and 16 partially Russian language schools , which is quite different from what Malenkovich says.

I am restoring it. Malynkovych is a respected analyst in Ukraine. The data isn't conflicting in any way. It is for different times. I will keep your data as well. --Irpen

Respected by whom?

He is published and referred to in say Zerkalo Nedeli, his interviews are commentaries are frequently published in the Ukrainians liberal press. Don't pretend you haven't seen. Stop pestering in the hope to drain me down. --Irpen

Do you really believe that 10 Russian language schools disapeared in two years? He did not even mentioned mixed Russian-Ukrainian schools.--AndriyK 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I've shown in the article that the "official" data is incorrect. It lists school number 300 as a Russian school (as of 2003-2004), while school's own web-site claims the school was changed to Ukrainian in 2000 (see refs in the article). So, some of these 16 schools may have been not Russian as well, the list is proven false. Besides, and most importantly, Malynkovych's article is the most recent data. If you have numbers proving his data false as of 2006, bring it up.

1. I added the percentage of students obtaining education in Ukrainian. Let the readers decide what is "overwhelmingly" and what is "partially".

Nope, the modern numbers are overwhelming. You can file an article RfC to ask for more opinions if you want. --Irpen

If you have more fresh numbers please add them. But "overwhekming" is POV, let the readers judge.--AndriyK 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, this is just commons sense. Numbers are overwhelming. They are referenced. I will not let you erase this word. It is absolutely clear here. I will bring more uninvolved editors through an article RfC. --Irpen 18:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I restored the tag. The question was not about how scholars use the term, but where the definition came from. If you invented it yourself then it is original research and should be removed from the article. If it came from a reliable source, please give the reference. Do not remove the tag until the issue is solved.

I will remove the tag because this is nothing but tug trolling, the new tactic, you are using for fast-hand-fixes in enforcement your POV once your moving spree was trumped. I will bring this to a public attenton for the others to judge. --Irpen

Please bring it to public attention as soon as possible as well as your pushing of your OR into the article.

Will do. Sorry, if you regret the consequenses. --Irpen

1. Information about authority of the President to change the Constitution is factual and relevant. The state language is fixed by the Constitution and changing the Constitution is the only way to change the status of the language. Please do not remove the factual information.--AndriyK 09:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The authority of the president to change the constitution is irrelevant. The presidential candidates did not give a promise to change the constitution single-handily. They promised to work towards this change. Your adding to an article a piece of trivia about Ukrainian legal system is off-topic. --Irpen

Please provide the reference that " they promised to work towards this change".--AndriyK 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pestering. Your trolling will be exposed as soon as I can find time for it. The president cannot change the constitution single handily. Neither can he guarantee that the constitution will be changed. The article doesn't say so. But the president, even legally, has the right for legislative initiative "Zakonodavcha initsyatyva", as per the consitution itself. He exherts certain influences on the pro-gov parties and even on the opposition parties through the compromises on the other things important to them. These are very general rules. Besides, in addition to such legal ways, president has many extra-legal ways to affect the deputies votes, especially in Ukraine and some other states, and this is all too well known to waist time and discuss. Right now this might have somewhat lessened but we are talking about Kuchma and Yanuk here. Even in the US when presidential powers are much more in check, presidential promises are important in the elections and they are implicitly understood as his plans to work things out with congress, not to dismantle congress, assume king's power and implement some changes. In any case, this legaleze either here or in the article is off-topic. The facts are that in Ukraine, president had always had much influence on how the things will go, even in the spheres of the government, parliament and Judicial rather than constitutionally his spheres of competence. Why so, whether he is authorized to check constitution, etc. are the pieces of trivia that belong to the article about Ukrainian political system and in much more comprehensive form. --Irpen 04:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be said clearly, what did candidates promissed

• Did they promise use the right for legislative initiative?
• Did they promise to use their political influence on the pro-Presidental parties?
• Did they promise to use extra-legal methods? ;)

Or they promised to make Russian a state language.

As far as I remamnber it was the latter case. If you disagree, please provide the references to what exactly promised the candidates and make the text more clear.

The section has to be tagged until the dispute is resolved.--AndriyK 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they didn't promise to change the consitution. This is too vague for public campaign. the candidate gives clear political goals (second state language). The political details are the part of the political process should he win, rather than pre-election debate. --Irpen 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Recruitment poster

Does somebody see any "Ukrainization theme" at the poster? I don't.--AndriyK 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed. Care to read talk. --Irpen 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed but the issue was not solved. Its relation to Ukrainization is just a POV.--AndriyK 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this is just commons sense. Yours is POV.

Please don't overload this talk for now with repeated arguments to make sure side viewers will read an entire page. I will bring them asap. By all means, if you have anything new to say, go right ahead. --Irpen 18:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is common sense? If a poster is in Ukrtainian then it is "with Ukrainization theme"? Then every poster in Russian is "with URussification theme"? Do any sources confirm that there was "Ukrainization of Red Army"?--AndriyK 08:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, sourced to Encyclopedia Ukrainoznavstva material is added. --Irpen 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Malenkovich's numbers

Dear Irpen, why did you ignore my comment concerning the figures given by Malenkovich. The official source dated by Jan 23 2004 gives essentially different numbers - 32 Russian language schools (cf. 6 given by Malenkovich). Don't see any problem?

I think, respectable and acting in good faith wikipedian would not use the Malenkovich's numbers until the discrepency is clarified.--AndriyK 08:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do your research to clarify this than. I did my part and I see that official number is:

1. False as shown in the article (see discussion of school #300)
2. applies to a different time (2003-2004, while Malynkovych's number (2005-2006) is of two years later). Please find another number for 2005-2006 if you want to contest Malynkovych. --Irpen 18:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

POV-update by User:William Jockusch

I moved the passage added by that user here:

The Ukrainization policies of the Ukrainian government have provoked a backlash in Russian-speaking areas. In 2006, city councils in Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrivsk, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, and the Crimea have declared that Russian is a legal language in their respective areas. However, the central Government is threatening legal action to prevent this., ,

The factual info (the one sourced by ext links) is relevant to the article, but interpreted in a POV/OR way. Neither text nor links explain why practically did the local councils made their decision. As far as I know, they wasn't reacting on any particular anti-Russian language attempts (since there was no such attempts at all :))). It is not stated in the text anyway.

According to the common knowledge, those councils are dominated by the Party of Regions which openly arranged the campaign. Given that, many consider this campaign as part of PR's efforts to make a pressure on President.

I believe the info from Mr. Jockusch's text belongs to Party of Regions and Russian language, in a NPOVed condition of course. Ukrained 14:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Ukrainization

I restored the definition of Ukrainization which is base on a creadible source (Encyclopedia of Ukrainian studies). The previous version was unsourced (likely Original Research).

One of the sections does not fit into the definition of Ukrainization. I did not removed it so far but marked by a dispute tag. I propose to discuss where this section belongds to.--AndriyK 14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So what is Original Research, as you insist on inserting tags and revert warring why not discuss for a change prior to making the next revert. Is the fact that Yushchenko opposed the recent raising of Russian as official in Eastern regions Ukrainisation? Well again the article has varying definitions of what it is. So let's maybe have an understanding what is Ukrainisation itself --Kuban Cossack 14:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored the definition found in literature. If there are other definitions in creadible sources, then let's discuss how we can reconcile them. Inventing own definition is original research and violates the policy.

The post 1991-period does not fit the definition of Ukrainization. It does not belong to the scope of the article.--AndriyK 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that definition in one source is different from another, and I think that all definitions (which in this case is only a question of scale and impact) should be presented accordingly, but removing text is not policy either. --Kuban Cossack 15:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please list here all the definition you have found in the literature. And then we'll discuss.--AndriyK 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition is the same, to introduce/increase the role of Ukrainian in a scenario (they use different wordings, but its the same all around). However, what some see as Ukrainisation others, as Lysy pointed out see as de-Russification. I am not talking about positive or negative contributions, all I am saying is that say introducing Ukrainian in Crimea is as much of an Ukrainisation as having Ukrainian fully replace Russian in Kiev, and as much as offering Ukrainian language packages for e.g. Mobile phones or Computers, even having Ukrainian subtitles in cinemas is a form of Ukrainisation. The point is scale and impact, and this has to be expanded on, NOT removed. --Kuban Cossack 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please list all the definitions you have found with the referencies to the sources.--AndriyK 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro should summarize the article. The policies of different historic periods are called by the term "Ukrainization" as per several respected refs. As such, the narrow intro suggested by AndriyK is inappropriate as it refers to only one specific usage. He is welcome to offer his version of the lead. The current version he proposes simply contradicts the article itself as well as the refs cited at this talk page above. --Irpen 06:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on that. --Kuban Cossack 10:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The WP editors should not invent the definitions of the terms. The definitions should be based upon creadible sources. And the content of article should correespond to the definition.--AndriyK 08:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The content of the article should summarize the currently avaiolable scholarship. As per the latter, the issue is not limited to the Soviet policies of the 20s and examples of Subtelny and Magocsi prove that by themselves. As such, the policies of the other periods belong to the article where they are and the intro should reflect the article's breadth. If you have a better definition of the subject or a version of the lead that reflect the referenced use of the term, pls come up with this. If not, start doing something else for WP in addition to revert warring and tag-trolling. --Irpen 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a better definition and I rpoosed it in my version, but you reverted it.

Your version is original research and should be marked as such until the dispute is resolved.--AndriyK 09:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What is Original Research

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

• ...
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• ...
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

(see WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F)

The present version of the article is OR as the definition of Ukrainization in the leading paragraph was not published by any reputative source. Irpen can prove the opposite by citing the source where the definition is taken from. Otherwise the sourced version should be restored.--AndriyK 11:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead merely summarizes the uses of the term as per reputable sources cited in this talk page and in the article references. Your version, OTOH, weaselizes the usage by saying "some researchers"... Subtelny, Magocsi and others are not "some: but leading researchers in the field. If you have a better way to summarize the article in the lead, offer that by all means. --Irpen 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Merely summarizes" is nothing else as "an analysis or synthesis of established facts", which is OR.

Please pay attantion that the fact that we are discussing the problem means that the dispute is there and it has not been settled. Removing the tag is a violation of the policy.--AndriyK 10:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Split

The problem with this article is that it attempts to describe two very distinct phenmena under a single common title. I suggest to split it into two separate articles, one dealing with Ukrainization in the Soviet Union and the other with Ukrainization policies of Ukraine. The reason for this suggestion is to put stop to revert wars on this article, particularly on the lead which fails to satisfactory summarize the two different issues. In result we'd get two clearly focused articles and the editors could use their efforts in a more productive way than edit-warring. --Lysy 12:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)