Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:17, 11 July 2006

Archives
2005

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)

Dispute tags

The present discussion clearly indicates that there is unresolved dispute about this article. Removing a dispute tag in such a situation is in varience with WP:Vandalism. Please stop removing the tag and switch to the discussion.--Mbuk 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Improper use of dispute tags is also Vandalism by the way. -- Grafikm 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case it was used poperly. Read the discussion above and take part in it, if you have objections.--Mbuk 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's get to it. If you think that the way "Ukrainization" is defined in that section is not appropriate, point out a source claiming so instead of putting that tag. Otherwise, chances are high that your tag will get reverted since it is unjustified.

Blanking and putting tags is hardly WP:DR. Adding references and points of view are DR. -- Grafikm 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk. AndriK refers to a source, but Irpen does not.--Mbuk 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources were referred to above. But I will add more: Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 3rd Edition, University of Toronto Press, ISBN 0802083900. pp. 606, 608 For instance p. 608 (Chapter "The troubled transition" of the post-91 independent UA).

Quote: "Many critics of linguistic Ukrainization did not object to it in principle. Rather they wanted it to be appled gradually so as to cause a minimum of inconvenience and disruption. Since many Russian speakers staunchly and regularly supported Ukrainian interests and independendence, it would be unjustified to view them as less patriotic."

Another source: Gearoid O'Tuathail, A Companion to Political Geography, Blackwell Publishing, 2002, ISBN 0631220313.

Quote: "Since 1993, entrance examinations to higher education institutions are taken in Ukrainian and, as a rule, first years classes now be taught in Ukrainian. This confroms the language law that forsaw the Ukrainization of the higher educational network. Fortunately, the zeal of local authorities in the implementation of this principle varies from one region to another and fluctuates in time. As for the Ukrainization of higher education, there are objective problems with regard to text books, of the fluency of Ukrainian among the teaching staff, and even with the Ukrainian equivalnets in professional terms. As a result, the Ukrainization of education, at least in East Ukraine, is taking place much slower than the national "revivalists" would like".

Another Source: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on European Affairs, U.S. Policy on Ukrainian Security, 1993, ISBN 0160415683.

Quote: "Ukraine has given major concessions to the Russian minority, by practically putting the Ukrainization on hold..."

Source: Ilya Prizel, National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine, Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 0521576970.

Another quote for the 60s period (in addition to the one from E of U quotes already: Quote: "Ukrainizationof the Ukraine's Orthodox Church, much like Ukrainization of the Communist party of UA. (the quote further tells how this switch in 60s impacted the presence of UGCC in Western UA as people were less opposed to joining the OC that they perceived Ukrainian enough"

Another quote, same book: "The parties of the moderate right, consisting of Rukh, DPU and URP, all share basic vision. While committed to the democratic proocess and minority rights, the envision UA as a unitary state with the central gov dedicated to the gradual but systematic Ukrainization of the educational system."

More: Will Kymlicka, Magda Opalski, Can Liberal Pluralism Be Exported?, Oxford Uni press, ISBN 019924815X.

Quote: "'Ukrainiation' policy is not so dissimilar from the Soviet-era policy of Russification.... Attitudes favouring Ukrainian majority nation building, and its logical outcome 'ukrainization', dominate the ideological discourse."

Plenty of more are around in books and press. --Irpen 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Irpen. You activity became much more constructive. Citing the sources is much more usefull than removing the tags and edit warring. Please act similarly in the future. Thanks again.--Mbuk 06:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mbuk, some of this info was cited above already prior to that. Read talk and the article which refs for non-20s as well. Such an approach on your behalf would help avoid wasting yours and others' time on the repeated discussions. You had to see the previously cited sources and google a little bit yourself even if you are not familiar with the topics and the books written on it. While in this instance I don't consider my time wasted, as the sources cited will be used for the article's expansion, note the end result. The usage is shown again as justified, tags removed as before as unwarranted, you did not add any content to Misplaced Pages. Time to start doing something about the latter and time to get critical when others just ask you to do something. Doesn't mean they are all wrong, but you should analyze that critically and use your own head. --Irpen 06:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very critical and always use my own head, but it has very little to do with Ukrainization. Please use my talk page for personal comments next time.

Thanks.--Mbuk 06:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You obviously did not bother to read talk if you claimed that non-20s use of the term is unsourced. References were there, and in the article, before I added more today to this page above. --Irpen 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The OR problem is still to be resolved

I reread the article and the talk on Irpen's request and came to the conclution that the OR problem is still there. The references that were listed by Irpen above are very usefull and likely will help to improve the article content. But none of the citations contains the definition of Ukrainization in the form it is given in the present version of the article. According to WP:OR, an article is OR if "It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms" (see citations of WP:OR by AndriyK above).

Let's think together how to resolve the problem. I'll put the OR template on the top of the article. Please do not blank it before the dispute is settled. Thanks.--Mbuk 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

On of the solutions to the OR problem could be to split the article, as suggested in the section below. --Lysy 11:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable idea. One article could be about Ukrainization in the narrow meaning of this word. Another one could be more general about the Language policy in Ukraine, for instance.--Mbuk 11:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so. The primary goal should be to avoid using the article for the purposes of political advocacy for or against the present government of Ukraine. Specifically I would suggest to:

1. merge the content of the 1917-1923: Times after the Russian Revolution section into appropriate place in "History of Ukraine" article
2. Move the content of the sections 1923-1931: Early years of Soviet Ukraine and Early-1930s to mid-1980s to a new Ukrainization in the Soviet Union article (or even better, merge the first section with Korenizatsiya)
3. Move the section Post-1991: Independent Ukraine into a new article Language policies in modern Ukraine.

"Ukrainization" itself is a very loaded term, and the title could be used for a disamb page (altough one might argue that this is not necessary as encyclopedia is not a dictionary) --Lysy 12:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, I described the problem with your proposal to limit the scope of the article. The article is not being used to grind anyone's axe against the UA gov, so this is really just a hypothetical problem. The term is used not only to 20s and post-90s policies. Article and the term's usage is very well referenced. I object to the removal of info to other topic articles. These policies were called "Ukrainization" by plenty of sources and moving them to History of UA is hiding them from the reader, no matter how AndriyK wants that. I do not object to creating mainarticles, if one wants to elaborate but not remove the material I wrote, I repeat very well referenced. The fact is that there is plenty of respected usage of the term for the policies of the different times. The definition reflects that. I am ready to see proposals on how to change the definition but it should be equally applicable to what the article is about. --Irpen 19:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of my suggestion was to reduce the number of edit wars on the article by having a number of more focused articles instead of the general one. Contrary to what you say, the content would not get "hidden" that way, as I've also proposed to have a disamb page to direct users to specific articles. As for using the term "Ukrainization" with reference to modern Ukraine's policies, I'm not sure if it's not POV usage itself. What do you think ? --Lysy 19:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It worth to reread what MZajac wrote above:

"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."

That is, ukrainization in general and Ukrainization with narrow meaning are not exactly the same. This should be made clear. Splitting the article is the most preferable way to do it.

Irpen is right saying "there is plenty of respected usage of the term for the policies of the different times." But this does not justify using an OR definition in the article. How do we know that the authors who use "ukrainization" implied precisely the same definition as Irpen proposed? Nobody knows.

I concur with Lysy that using the term "Ukrainization" with reference to modern Ukraine's policies may provoke POV disputes. To avoid them, I would propose the following:

• Use "Ukrainization" only in the title of the article about Ukrainization in the narrow sence;
• For all other periods use more general and neutral titles like "Language policies ..."
• The word "ukrainization" with general meaning can be used in the text of these articles precisely there, where it is used in the reputative sources. A resonable way to avoid disputes is "indirrect speach", i.e. instead of asserting "This was Ukrainization" better to say "Authors XXX and YYY consider/call this policy Ukrainization".

The final suggestion: please do not remove the tag before the dispute is settled.--Mbuk 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all scolars consider the policy of modern Ukraine as "ukrainization". I would say even that most of them do not consider. Different views cannot be reconciled in the article entitled "Ukrainization". Therefore, I agree with Max: neutral title will help to find a solution of the problem.--AndriyK 15:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, the usage of the term with respect to the modern policies of the UA gov is wide and should be reflected. Whether it is POV or not depends whether the article is right on the content. As long as it is referenced, there is going to be no dispute, provided the parties with strong POV still approach to it in good faith. If AndriyK reinvents himself or ends up locked out, I don't see who will be POVing it for now.

Now, let me ask you, the authors who apply the term to the different time, Policies of what do they mean? Policies of reduction of Ukrainian everything? Policies of permanentizing the results of the past Russification of or Ukrainization? No? What then? Not what's in the intro now? Suppressing any usage from the intro and leaving it limited to the 20s is going against the sources and common sense too.

One more thing, I suggest you take a look at the article's early history and match it with early talk, now archived by Elonka. I did not start the article. It was started exactly the way it should not have been started, it was an axe grinding exercise against Yushchenko's gov policies. At that time, I blanked that stuff. The article later was restarted and developed to the current stage where, along with Polonization it is one of the best referenced articles expecially taking into account the sensitivity of the topic. We won't have problems between good faith editors, if we stick to facts and sources. That said, I object to splitting as of now. I will be developing the article using the sources and sticking close to them. Cooperation of good-faith editors would be appreciated. --Irpen 04:04, 10 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)

Lysy, as you can see from the article and talk the term is wider than just Soviet 20s and Ukrainian post-80s. The sections would do the trick provided that editors act constructively by helping to write an article instead of trying it to disappear. --Irpen 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a benefit of having a single article instead of a separate one for each specific issue ? The constructive cooperation that you're longing for obviously is not happening, and the article continues to be plagued with revert-wars instead. --Lysy 10:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

If there are conflicting opinions of what a term means, the best way forward is to describe these conflicting opinions in the article, rather that editwarring about which one is "right". We can say that according to Foo, Ukranization is ABC and according to Bar, Ukranization is DEF. We can even say that there are different contexts for this term, one dealing with "Ukrainization in the Soviet Union" and another dealing with "Ukrainization policies of Ukraine". This is the best way to avoid endless POV tags and edit wars... Describe all significant viewpoints, by attributing these statements to those that hold them, and supporting these by a reliable source that can be verified. Please note that I do not know anything about this subject, just suggesting a way forward based on WP's content policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that only Foo exist, whyle Bar does not. Only one definition is found in the literature, another one (the one in the current version of the article) was invented by Irpen and is an Original Research.

Some author use the term Ukrainization beyond its definition and tis is mentioned in the version of the article I've proposed . This version was reverted by Irpen who insists on his OR definition.--AndriyK 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not OR, see Irpen's references provided here. -- Grafikm 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that user:AndriyK when he doesn't tag, revert wars and when neither, he removes material from WP not to his liking or tries to hide it from the view, no matter how well referenced the information is. We have yet to see him adding content to Misplaced Pages. This article is well referenced both here and at talk and the deletion of weaselizing of referenced information is intorelable. --Irpen 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, forgot to mention, that when AndriyK is not tagging, revert warring, removing info and attacking his opponents, trying with little luck to recruit the supporters, he is Wikilawyering. See his contributions to

I would also advise editors:

• to remain WP:CIVIL and not use the edit summaries to level personal attacks against fellow editors. Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
• Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. Once you reach consensus on how to proceed, you can place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Please note that protection is not an endorsement of the current page version, as stated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was about to expand the article further, especially, since I recently quoted more sources. Too bad it is protected, but fine if you insist. The tagger, user:AndriyK, is enduring another 48 hour block (following the more ones in the past). The ArbCom ruling and an ArbCom's one moth block did not teach AndriyK to change his habbits of not writing anything for Misplaced Pages but instead he continued to devise the methods to with as little effort as possible get the most bang for a buck. Banned from moving pages or even renaming placenames and people within articles by ArbCom, he resorted to the next simplest thing: the tag-trolling.

Please note that mutliple sources were cited in the article and at the talk and more have just been added above. For the tagger, user:AndriyK, tag-trolling has been the prevailing activity on Misplaced Pages since his ArbCom's ban. Just check his edit history. User:Mbuk, for whatever reason decided to simply act as AndriyK's proxy (I haven't seen any other activity from that user as well). I am saddened by that since he seemed a polite, albeit a stubborn, and potentially a contributor.

If this is all it takes to force a lock onto an article, too bad for Misplaced Pages. I am saying this just for the record, because I am unhappy about the article's lock even though the last edit before the lock is mine. The article needs major work and a flat-Earth theorist causing the lock of the Earth article is what happens with AndriyK causing locks to Russian architecture as well as now to this one, sadly, even with the locked version fiercely not to his liking. This is very un-wiki.

Fine, I have other projects to work at for now. --Irpen 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see that AndriyK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for edit warring. Given this, I will now unprotect. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

of Symon Petlura had to face a new wave of chaos as Ukraine was invaded by Bolshevik and Polish troops,

What about the cooperation of Petlura and bad Polish troops? Xx236 07:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the History of Ukraine. We just need a context that Petlura got other things on his head to worry about rather than UA-zation. Chaos meant the gov had to consern itself with more urgent things than UA-zation. Who of the two invader Petlura chose to cooperate with is known but it is not related to the article's narrow topic. --Irpen 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't known to 95% of the English speaking readers, who know perhaps, that Petlura was responsible for pogroms and was rightly killed in Paris, but nothing more. You misinform suggesting that there were Polish-Petlura fights. Xx236 11:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There were Polish-Ukrainian fights. Petlura chose to give in to the Polish demands and make peace in order to get Polish help against others. This all belongs to historic articles. This article merely brings the context of chaos in view of the invasions of Ukraine. --Irpen 00:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Polish-Ukrainian conflict over Eastern Galicia was a Polish invasion is a matter or POV and can discussed in Polish-Ukrainian War article but should not be judged here. I'm about to remove this part of the sentence as it does not bring new information relevant to the article's topic, and otherwise would need to be elaborated further. --Lysy 10:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But you kept "Bolshevik invasion". Interesting NPOV. There is not question that Polish actions (including the ill-concieved Kiev Offensive) were invasions. Please don't weaselize that. --Irpen 19:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I do not need to explain to you that the Kiev Offensive happened later and it did not bother Petlura, as the Poles were his allies in this offensive, not invaders. I assume your good faith in your edit, but the current wording is misleading. --Lysy 19:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, Poles invaded Ukraine from the West and Bolsheviks from the east. This is not POV but facts. The first goal of Poles was to crush the statehood attempt of Ukrainians in Galicia and Volhynia (which they did since the WUR was destroyed) and expand to the east where, as per Pilsudski ("the doors were open"), while Bolsheviks invaded from the east. Petlura, of the two invaders, chose one who would get content with less leaving something for him too. In any case, both Poland and Soviet Russia invaded Ukraine and that was chaos. These are facts and not POV. --Irpen 04:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The initial conflict over East Galicia cannot be called an invasion. Both nations considered the territory to be their. There was no well established traditional border between Poland and Ukraine. Both countries were just regaining their independence and defining their borders. You can call this a conflict, but calling it an invasion would reflect a biased point of view. As for the later events, including the Kiev Offensive that you mentioned, it was planned together with Petlura already. Of course you can argue that Petlura had to consider if to ally with the Poles or not, but that's another story. The fact is that in the Kiev Offensive Poles were Petlura's allies. The sentence that you reverted to, suggests otherwise and that is why I have changed it. --Lysy 07:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, Galicia was obviously an invasion. The army was not local Polish resistance, but came from the West to crush the self-proclaimed Ukrainian state, the WUR. As for KO, I am not saying the Poles invaded Petlyura. They invaded Ukraine. Some Ukrainians (Petlura) supported that and assisted, some opposed and fought it. The matter is that Ukraine was in chaos under to invaders and the gov had to worry about other things. That's the only idea of this piece. --Irpen 07:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Ukrainian perspective Lviv belonged to Ukraine, but from the Polish perspective it was Polish. Ukrainians tried to capture Lviv but were opposed by the local Polish population. Polish forces came to the rescue of the Polish self-defence units in the town. Also, Poland did not recognize the split of Galicia into Western and Eastern parts and assumed that it was an integral part of Poland. As I said, it's a matter of POV and I maintain that we should avoid using a single POV biased statements in the article, especially that such phrasing serves no other purpose here than advocating anti-Petlyura propaganda. --Lysy 09:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to change the sentence again, to reflect the above concerns. From Petlura's point of view, the Kiev Offensive certainly was "liberation" and not "invasion" and it was not him but the Soviets who were the invaders. --Lysy 08:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, you may not want to use the term "invasion"/"liberation" in Misplaced Pages. A disagreeble to me but an understandable approach. However, Misplaced Pages uses strong terms if respected scholars use them. In plenty of literature Polish eastward drive is called invasion and there is no reason to purge it from the article. However, I am even more baffled by your replacing the "invasion" for the Poles and keeping it for the Russians. This is totally unacceptable POV pushing which I did not expect from you. I repeat, I am not speaking of the Petlura perspective only. I am talking about Ukraine as a whole. It was invaded from West and East at the same time. --Irpen 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence obviously suggest Perlura's perspective. It reads: "...government of Symon Petlura had to face a new wave of chaos as Ukraine was invaded ...". You said this refers to the "ill-concieved Kiev Offensive". Again, Petlura was a Polish ally in this offensive, so if you call this an invasion, than Petlura was among the invaders. Now, claiming in the very same sentence that he had to face the invasion is not only POV but also inaccurte and misleading. --Lysy 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will rephrase that. --Irpen 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy with the current sentence. (I think I missed your rephrasing earlier). --Lysy 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainization of the Poles

The article doesn't inform about the Polish minority in Ukraine. Xx236 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is now being developed. You can help it with any relevant info. If there are editors interested in adding info to WP rather than removing it, WP and all of us would benefit from such an input. --Irpen 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility

To involved editors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages..

Some suggestions:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jossi. Based on a quick glance of the discussion on this talk page, there seems to be way too much in the way of attacks on editors, as opposed to ideas. Please try to stay focused on the article, and not on the respective personalities involved. Keep additions to the article carefully referenced, and if there are conflicting references, then try to include both sides in the article, which usually makes for a stronger article anyway. --Elonka 22:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, may I ask you to read the talk, not just "glance" it if you are going to take part in the further article's development. --Irpen 04:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on my read of the talk page, I see a dispute about the definition of the word "Ukrainization". The quantity of editors on either side of the dispute seems to be relatively balanced, though some editors seem to be engaging in personal attacks which are making it difficult to maintain a civil discussion. There does not appear (to me) to be consensus on the article, so I feel that the "disputed" tag is appropriate, and engaging in an edit war about the tag itself is not appropriate. I recommend working harder at civility (especially in regards of accusing other people of trolling), and trying to reach consensus here on the talk page. Perhaps a poll would help clarify matters? --Elonka 05:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please note that if simply someone disagreeing with something and persisting no matter how many references are shown to the contrary would be sufficient to tag the article, we would have any historical article tagged forever as there are always people who disagree and persist. Since you are in US, you are aware that some people dispute evolution and some dispute the Holocaust (its not illegal in US unlike in Europe), and continue doing so despite the significant amount of scholarly research on both. Common sense is needed too. Also, if the holdout is a known problem user, his tag has to be taken with the grain of salt. He refuses to acknowledge the sources given to him in any article when the info does not fit his fringe POV of the aggressive Ukrainian nationalist. Stating that is not a personal attack but a statement of fact defined by ArbCom, the second highers authority of Misplaced Pages (after Jimbo).

Now, please, after reading the talk and disagreeing with definition, please propose the definition that would have been agreeable to you.

"Ukrainiastion is the policy (of what?) applied in several periods in the History of Ukraine"

I am looking forward to your suggestion.

AndriyK's opinion that UA-zation is the Soviet policy in 1920s in Ukraine simply contradicts a whole lot of academic sources. If you see the current definition lacking something, pls propose yours but make sure you familiarize yourself with the article and its talk. Thanks in advance and again, I appreciate more users looking into it. --Irpen 05:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have read the entire talk page. Twice. And I think that there has been a lack of civility, and obviously some profound difficulties in communication. It is also my opinion that a certain amount of sensitivity is required when dealing with the issue of Ukrainian national identity. This is not an issue unique to Andriyk, but a wider movement within the Ukraine as a whole, so I feel that Andriyk's comments are actually representative of a larger group, and that it is inappropriate to say that this is just a nationalist issue unique to him. When I have looked into how the issue is handled in other press, such as the Lonely Planet guidebooks, I see them agreeing that there is a strong difference of opinion here. I don't have the guidebook in front of me, but it basically says something like that there is a difference of opinion among academics, based on their national origin, with Ukrainian authors still struggling after the breakup of the Soviet Union to define their national identity, so that as a result, some Ukrainian academics may offer one point of view, while Western authors may offer a very different one. As such, I think it would be worthwhile for the Misplaced Pages article to include a similar statement in the article. Rather than trying to find the "one best" definition of Ukrainization, include the different ones, and list their varying sources. I do understand what you're saying about Holocaust-deniers and "Flat Earth" proponents, but in the case of the Ukraine, I truly believe that trying to give more leeway for what is effectively a young country trying to re-find itself, is appropriate. --Elonka 06:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I do not oppose adding the opinions of others. I do maintain that the position of AndriyK is untypical as the Ukrainian nationalism among the Ukrainians, a friendly and open nation, is a "minority faith". As for the issue, I restate my question: "Ukrainization is the policy of what in your opinion?" if you dislike the current definition. TIA, --Irpen 06:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen wrote:

Now, please, after reading the talk and disagreeing with definition, please propose the definition that would have been agreeable to you.

"Ukrainiastion is the policy (of what?) applied in several periods in the History of Ukraine"

Please have a look at what I porposed. Let's make a separate article about "Ukrainization" in narrow sence. (The definition can be found in the article history).

(A) more general article(s) "Language policies..." can use "ukrainization" according to the sources without defining it. (Misplaced Pages is not a Wiktionary) Later, academic definition can added to the article if it is found in literature. If you cannot find the definition in literature, please do not invent your own. This is OR and not permitted in WP.

Please note that AndriyK is not the only user who oppose you in the dispute. Are we all "aggressive Ukrainian nationalist"? I do not think anything "nationalistic" in the proposal to avoid Original Research in the article.

I cited some WP policies at your talk. This has very little to do Ukrainization and does not belong here.--Mbuk 06:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I explained why splitting is inappropriate. Your refusal to provide a better definition is telling. I don't need to be cited policies I am aware of them. You, OTOH, should start doing something on your own rather than serve AndriyK's faithful fan and revert proxy. And please don't try to call this a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. If you have anything to say regardiung this article's conflict, say it here for a wider audience rather than at my talk. I would like to give this discussion the best exposure among other editors so that others would perhaps come up with better suggestions. --Irpen 07:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I regard your above comment as more of an attack on Mbuk, than on what Mbuk said. Calling someone a "faithful fan and revert proxy"? Please try to work harder at civility. As for my own opinion on the definition, I'm not here to propose a definition, I'm here to propose a method of coming up with a definition. As I look through this article's history, over and over, I see people working on different definitions, and then someone else comes along and just does a wholesale revert. I have seen multiple people do this on the article, and I regard each case, regardless of who is doing it, as inappropriate, especially when it involves rude edit summaries. Reverting someone's good faith work tends to just make the situation worse. There obviously is a dispute, so the key issue is figuring out a way to work through that dispute in a civil manner. Perhaps making a list of proposed opening paragraphs, and then letting the community vote on them? --Elonka 07:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment is based on Mubk's behavior. It is harsh but not uncivil.

Fine, let's propose the opening paragraphs. I am intereste to see what others say re "Ukrainization being the policy of what". Or we can try to find a way to get rid of the definition considering it obvious. That would be strange. Polonization, Russification, Rumanization all start with definitions. I fail to see what's unique in Ukrainization that makes it not needing one. --Irpen 07:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

suggestion on way to proceed

There seem to have multiple versions of the opening paragraph that have been proposed in the article history (before they were reverted out of existence). One possible place to start is that we dredge the different versions out of history, post them here as "Proposal #1", "Proposal #2", etc., and then debate the merits of each separately. We could also name them if you prefer, such as "Irpen's proposed definition", "Andriyk's proposed definition", "Ilya K's proposed definition", and so forth. Where possible, I also recommend that each definition include its own references, to show where the information came from. Then we can either try to forge a compromise between the different definitions, or else conduct a straw poll to see which definition has the most endorsements, perhaps RfC style. Would this be acceptable? --Elonka 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the definition based on "Encyclopedia of Ukrainian studies":

Ukrainization (or Ukrainianization) was the policy conducted by the Bolshevik party and the Government of the Ukrainian SSR during 1920s and early 1930s to increase the presence of Ukrainian within schools, the press, and other educational and cultural institutions as well as in administration. Ukrainization was a temporal policy forced by the hostile attitude of the Ukrainian population to the Communist regime. The true objective of this policy was a strengthening of Soviet power in Ukraine.

In the same time, I proposed to add:

Some scolars also use this term in reference to the policy of the Communist regime in Western Ukraine after its annexation to the Soviet Union in 1939 and in Cremea after its transfer from Russian SFSR to Ukrainian SSR in 1954.

Sometimes also the resolution of Ukrainian Central Rada about development of Ukrainian school system is refered to as ukrainization.

Mbuk proposes to limit this article only to the Ukrainization within this narrow definition. All other periods could be moved to a more general articles with more neutral title. I think, it would be a reasonable solution.--AndriyK 17:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your definition is very similar to the one I've found in Polish "Leksykon Kultury Ukraińskiej" ("Lexicon of Ukrainian Culture", Universitas, Kraków 2004, ISBN 8324202021). --Lysy 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's first separate apples from oranges. There are two questions. What is this misterious policies called "Ukrainization"? Is this a policy to promote the things Ukrainian or is this the policy to preserve the fresh water or clean air or the world peace or whatever? Please, Lysy, let me know what's your opinion on the Ukrainization being the policy of what. Than we can discuss the applicability to the different historic periods. BTW, its applicability to any historic period described in the article is referenced. That someone claims that modern policy is not Ukrainization, we can discuss once we figure what exactly this policy is, not when it was applied. --Irpen 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The lexicon that I mentioned does not define it as "policy" but a specific action of Soviet authorities. Pardon me for quoting in Polish, hopefully you can understand it or maybe someone would be able to translate parts if needed:

Ukrainizacja (Українізація) - akcja dotycząca Ukrainy Naddnieprzańskiej w 1923-1932 oraz Ukrainy Zachodniej, Bukowiny Północnej i Zakarpacia w 1945-1950, podjęta przez władze ZSRR, próba ukierunkowania narodowych dążeń Ukraińców w stronę tzw. internacjonalizmu komunistycznego; była też wyrazem ustępstw bolszewików wobec odrodzonego ruchu narodowego w zakresie językowym, oświatowym i kulturalnym; w miarę wzmacniania się władzy Sowietów na Ukrainie oraz eliminowania przez aparat represyjny inteligencji narodowej oraz mniejszej potrzeby kamuflowania polityki imperialnej ZSRR, zwłaszcza wobec Zachodu, powracała bezwzględna sowietyzacja, ateiacja i rusyfikacja narodu ukraińskiego.

To summarize, according to this definition, Ukrainization was a specific plan of Soviet authorities in 1923-1932 and 1945-1950, carried out in certain areas of Ukraine (in the periods when the Soviets needed to win the sympathy of Ukrainians, coincidentally). Interestingly, a similar definition is presented on Ukrainian wiki. --Lysy 09:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally incorrect approach. There are two questions: What is Ukrainization? It is the Policy of what? (See above). Your refusal to give any answer is telling. Second questions: to what policies by who and of what time is the term applicable. You are saying that only for 20's. Other researchers disagree and refs are given. Now, you say that some researchers do not consider the policies of other times as Ukrainization and do not use this term. Same may be said about 20s. Some do not use Ukrainization, but use Korenization term only or, in English, they use indignization and putting down roots. So, let me restate the question. Ukrainization is the policy of what? Would you mind answering that? --Irpen 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, can you please try to show a tiny bit more respect for the opinions of other editors? Just because someone has a different opinion from you, does not make it "totally incorrect". Also, could you please participate by suggesting what definition you would like to see? Or are you saying that you are completely supportive of the paragraph that's currently at the head of the article? And if so, could you please cite the specific sources where that information came from, so that we can compare the different versions, side by side? Thanks. --Elonka 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I do appreciate your involvement but please udnerstand it is OK for people to disagree or even to totally disagree as long as they try to work out their differences in good faith and civilly. Saying that something is "totally incorrect" is not a personal attack. It is just a statement that someone's opinion is toally incorrect in the view of the writer. I may very well be also totally incorrect. As for the definition, the current one is good IMO. Whatever one thinks about applicability of the term to 20s, 60s and post-90s, when thinking about the term, we all mean one and the same thing. Polonization is promoting of all things Polish, Ukrainization is promoting of the all things Ukrainian. Every source that writes about Ukrainization of any period writes exactly about those things: spread of Ukrainian language into education, publishing, government and public life, promotion of the Ukrainian culture, etc. Saying so in the article is not an original synthesis of the idea by the author. It is a mere repetition of what's said in the sources. WP:V taken to extreme would mean that entire WP should consist only of the quotes, each referenced to its own book. Common sense should never be thrown out. That e^π ≈ 23.140692632779269005729086367949 may not be exactly written to this precision in any book. No one can ban a Wikipedian to state so in the article. --Irpen 17:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, your definition is not "a mere repetition of what's said in the sources". None of the sources you cited sais it. You definition is

• new definitions of pre-existing term;
• 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;

In other words, it is OR.--AndriyK 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeatedly asked you and Lysy to give your own definition of the term that would fit the sources cited, not only the ones liked by you. Give it a try, I am all listening. --Irpen 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Irpen, I am asking for something different. I am not asking Andriyk to come up with a definition based on your sources, but for him to come up with a definition based on his sources, which he has done, and which Lysy has confirmed according to his (I'm assuming it's "his"?) sources. Now, what I'd like to see is for you to provide sources backing up your own definition -- not a "check this book" source, but an exact word-for-word quote from a cited source, if possible. Thanks. --Elonka 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"My own" definition would be another OR which would violate the policy. I would not like to do it. Let's stick at sourced definitions.--AndriyK 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, the definition currently in the article reflects all the sources, one that uses the term for 20s and ones that use it for 40s, 60s, and post-90s. The definition proposed by AndriyK implies that the usage for 40s, 60s and 80s is the wrong usage. Who is AndriyK to state that Subtelny and Magosci are wrong? All I see is perpetual refusal to provide the definition in place of the the one not to someone's liking. --Irpen 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not state that Subtelny and Magosci are wrong. I mentioned their usage in my version of the leading paragraph.

I state that your definition is OR. That's all.--AndriyK 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your "definition" implies that S and M use the term inapropriately. You are in no position to say so. This is becoming an endless loop as long as you and Lysy challenge the definition I gave and refuse to provide a different one that would fit the sources listed. --Irpen 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not in position, therefore I do not say so. My version summarize the sources, whyle yours gives an unsourced definition. To stop the endless loop, please take a break an read the WP policies.--AndriyK 18:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For one, I am familiar with policies. Your version implies that one usage is more correct than the other, something you are not qualified to state. The whole thing is off the wrong foot. The primary problem is to agree on the essense of the word. Ukrainization is the policy of what? You refuse to answer. You only speak about the usage. Your refusa; to answer is obvious to anyone. I will not be feeding this loop anymore unless I see some new points. As soon as you, Lysy or Elonka post a definition of UA-zation that would state what it is and fitss the sources, as the current one does, I will resume my participation in this. --Irpen 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So far we see only two confirmed definitions, the one from "Encyclopedia of Ukrainian studies" and the one that I quoted in Polish from the "Lexicon of Ukrainian Culture". Both seem quite similar (and are called "totally incorrect" by Irpen). Then we have Irpen's definition in the current lead of the article. With all due respect, so far, I'm inclined to believe the authors of the Lexicon and Encyclopedia than Irpen's word on this one. What we need now is to see quotes of some alternative definitions, that would contradict the two already provided. --Lysy 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, those definitions only reflect the usage those particular authors see appropriate, thus dismissing other usage as "incorrect". Please finally, respond to the question: "Ukrainization is the policy of what?" --Irpen 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Why has the "disputed" tag been removed ? I'm certainly disputing the factual accuracy at least in the Symon Petlura/Polish invasion section above. Irpen reverted my attempt towards neutral wording and I'm trying to persuade him in the talk page. Would the dispute get better recognition if I engage in the revert war instead ? I insist that the "disputed" tag is put back. As to the "OR" tag, I still believe that splitting the article would solve at least part of the problem and so far do not understand the rationale behind Irpen's strong opposition to this suggestion. --Lysy 09:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto.--AndriyK 10:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur, the article is in dispute. We therefore have at least a consensus that there is a dispute.  ;) --Elonka 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as other users, rather than the one who does nothing but placing tags here and there frivolously and on the whim, joined, the tag stays while we are discussing it. I don't have a problem with that. --Irpen 00:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I am confused. Here on the talk page, you agreed with the tag, and yet you are still removing the tag from the actual article. Please cease this activity. If you don't like the tag, you are welcome to suggest a different one, but please abide by consensus, and discuss controversial actions here on the talk page before changing the article itself. --Elonka 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please make sure you understand what tag are you inserting and if inserting, explain it at talk. You reinserting the "disputed" tag that states that the "factual accuracy is disputed". Please state exaclty which facts are disputed. It is you, could do not explain the insertion of the controversial tag at talk. --Irpen 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Lysy's comment at the top of this section. The issue of whether or not there is a dispute, seems to be confirmed by everyone involved in this discussion, except for you. If there is anyone watching this discussion who does not think that the disputed tag is appropriate, I encourage them to speak up. Alternatively, Irpen, you are welcome to suggest a different type of dispute tag, and I will be happy to take a look at it and offer my opinion as to whether or not it might be more appropriate. --Elonka 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's take for instance a recently published book named "Ethnic Conflict and Conflict Resolution in Ukraine" published by SpringerLink ()

• the Ukrainian polity that is softening the excesses of Ukrainisation policies
• The Ukrainisation campaign of the Ukrainian government has been very ineffective and Ukrainian culture is in 2001 more endangered than in 1991.

A serious book calling a cat a cat. Is this OR?

Another example from the European Journalism Center written by an Ukrainian journalist ()

Such steps of the young Ukrainian state were immediately interpreted as a forced Ukrainisation and discrimination against the Russian speaking population.

Is this OR too?

From an article by Dr Peter W. Rodgers of University of Toronto (PDF):

The region’s strong attachment to the Russian language and stuttering embrace of ukrainisation since 1991 is seen in the results of the 2001 National Ukrainian Census. This is OR?

-- Grafikm 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the definition? What imply the authors saying "ukrainization"?--AndriyK 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious from the links provided. -- Grafikm 18:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not my job to propose a tag as I don't see the article problematic. If you persist with a tag, it is your job to find the one that fits. The tag that claims that the "factual accuracy is disputed", with refusal to explained at talk what facts exactly are disputed is inappropriate. Tehrefore, i removed it. Since you reinserted, please explain what facts you dispute and if none, remove the tag yourslef. If you choose a different tag instead, read what it says and provide an explanation at talk. If you want an OR tag, explain what is OR and how to address it. If you choose POV, explain what's in the article is POV and how to address it. That's all I ask if you persists with your desire to have an article some tag on its top. --Irpen 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please, a couple of sections above you are engaged in a dispute of factual accuracy of Petlura having to face the Polish invasion in Kiev Offensive. You keep reverting to the wording that ~you know I consider inaccurate and misleading, and now you're telling there's no dispute ? Come on ! --Lysy 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, the taggers were placing the tag because of the def only. Our disputed may be resolved separately and I rephrased the sentence already. We can work it out further but calling the Bolshevik "Invasion" and the Polish "War" is not NPOV and you know it. --Irpen 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible "dispute" tags to use

There are several possible tags to place on this article. A list of possibilities is here: Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Disputes, and I've listed a few possibles below. Does anyone have a preference on which of these is most appropriate? --Elonka 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, none of the objections dispute a single fact in the article. As such, "disputed" tag that states about there is a dispute about the factual accuracy is inaplicaqble.

"Disputeabout" is a dubious tag and should follow the AndriyK's faforite POV-Because to a TfD since playing with the wording gives room for trolling and another POV dispute about the wording itself.

"POV" tag is inapplicable, as far as I can see. The article is not about opinions but about facts. Facts are right on the money. That some do not consider something Ukrainization but a mere correction of past Russification or Polonization is included. As such, I see no room for it.

Finally, the claim that the definition is OR makes no sense. The definition simply states what the policy is. Do you deny that Ukrainization is the promotion of the Ukrainian language and culture? Does anyone deny that? Alternative def favored by AndriyK and Lysy is applicable to a single example of Ukrainization. The phenomenon is wider than 20s as I've shown here and in the article. --Irpen 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• {{disputed}}
• {{disputeabout}}
• {{pov}}
• {{originalResearch}}

A game of tag?

Adding and removing dispute tags repeatedly will take editors nowhere. These tags are designed so that editors can express concern about an article not abiding by WP content policies and encourage an open discussion about these concerns in this page. Unless editors want this page protected, I would suggest that you engage in a meaningful discussion, rather than keep revert each other. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

First, as there obviously is an accuracy/POV dispute between myself and Irpen, any of the "pov" or "disputed" tags is warranted. Second, I find it ridiculous that instead of disputing the probelm, we are now discussing the tag, which was first accepted by everyone involved (including Irpen) and then removed from the article. Finally, it would be good if accusations of "trolling" and similar could be avoided in edit summaries and in the talk page. Namecalling is not really helpful for a constructive dispute. --Lysy 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The dispute between myself and Lysy is really minor and doesn't concern the whole article at all. We will work it out. If Lysy insists on placing a tag just because of this minor issue, it should be POV-tag although. That is if he thinks that the issue warrants the tag over an entire article. As for the definition dispute, again, this has nothing to do with the "factual accuracy" of the article tag the tagger persist with. They can mark a particular statement but not the whole article because someone doesn't like the content. Finally, name calling is unhelpful but trolling is even more unhelpful. When someone is trolling, talking is useless. Constructive disputes with such people aren't possible. As soon as someone is talking here, we are all talking. In fact, that's all we are doing at this talk page for a long time.

One more time I request Lysy and others who challenge the statement that UA-zation is the policy of implementation of Ukrainian language to say what is then Ukrainization policy. It is a policy of what? Please answer. --Irpen 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another tag

Now that the article is tagged by Jossi by the yet another tag that states that the article lacks one or more from: a "neutral point of view", "veryfiability", "suitability" and "non-original research" may I request that the tagger elaborates which of those the article indeed lacks and explain that at talk. --Irpen 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I support Jossi's choice of the "noncompliant" tag. It is appropriate. --Elonka 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The POV dispute

I think, there is also a POV dispute which is tightly rellated to the OR dispute discussed above.

The policy of 1920s has the official name "Ukrainization". It was called so by the Bolshevik party who conducted it. And all scolars: Soviet, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Canadian, American as well as Communist, Nationalist and Liberal use this name. So there is no POV problem if one applies this term to the 1920s policy.

In contrast, Ukrainian Government never called its polisy of 1990s and 2000s "Ukrainization". I am sure there are many Ukrainian scolars who would disagree, that the policy of their government should be called "Ukrainization". I do not think that all Western scolars consider "Ukrainization" as a part of UA Gov. policy. For instance, according to ISBN 0160415683 cited by Irpen above "Ukraine has given major concessions to the Russian minority, by practically putting the Ukrainization on hold...". Therefore, using "Ukrainization" in the context of the modern Ukraine is a POV (this is notable and verifiable POV, but still a POV). In view of it, describing these policies under the title "Ukrainization" is giving andvance of one POV over other ones, which is not neutral. To avoid it, it is better to use a neutral title and describe how different authors view the policy, including those who call it "Ukrainization" (see my proposal above).--Mbuk 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

First, there are Ukrainians who call their own policy Ukrainisation, e.g. here.

Second, the very word Ukrainisation is actually pretty unambigous. Ukrainisation is the assumption or imposition of elements of Ukrainian culture and language. The same way "Polonization" is absolutely unambigous and the same way "Russification" is, the word Ukrainisation is pretty self-explanatory.

Whether the current Ukrainian governement is conducting a forced Ukrainisation is another debate. -- Grafikm 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics