| Revision as of 10:40, 5 October 2019 editPiznajko (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,229 edits →linguistic and official name controversy← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:14, 27 December 2024 edit undoChipmunkdavis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,480 edits →Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe. It is the second-largest European country after Russia,: As usual, the trivia should be removedTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{ds/talk notice|e-e|style=long}} |
|
|
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Ukraine}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=12 April 2006 |
|
|action1date=12 April 2006 |
| Line 37: |
Line 36: |
|
|action6link=Talk:Ukraine/GA1 |
|
|action6link=Talk:Ukraine/GA1 |
|
|action6result=delisted |
|
|action6result=delisted |
|
|
|
|
| topic = Geography |
|
| topic = Geography |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-08-24|otd1oldid=5428216 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-08-24|otd2oldid=21697688 |
|
|
|otd3date=2006-08-24|otd3oldid=71497281 |
|
|
|otd4date=2007-08-24|otd4oldid=153360765 |
|
|
|otd5date=2008-08-24|otd5oldid=233938360 |
|
|
|otd6date=2009-08-24|otd6oldid=309788060 |
|
|
|otd7date=2010-08-24|otd7oldid=380724501 |
|
|
|otd8date=2011-08-24|otd8oldid=446437815 |
|
|
|otd9date=2012-08-24|otd9oldid=508861414 |
|
|
|otd10date=2014-08-24|otd10oldid=622593572 |
|
|
|otd11date=2015-08-24|otd11oldid=677651589 |
|
|
|otd12date=2016-08-24|otd12oldid=735805147 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Geography|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Europe|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
{{WPCountries|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe |class=B |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=B |category=Geography |WPCD=yes |importance= }} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|e-e|protection=ecp}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Old move | |
|
|
date=28 July 2022 |from=Ukraine |destination=The Ukraine |result=not moved |link=Special:Permalink/1101051487#Requested_move_28_July_2022 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|] and ]}} |
|
{{OnThisDay |date1=2004-08-24|oldid1=5428216|date2=2005-08-24|oldid2=21697688|date3=2006-08-24|oldid3=71497281|date4=2007-08-24|oldid4=153360765|date5=2008-08-24|oldid5=233938360|date6=2009-08-24|oldid6=309788060|date7=2010-08-24|oldid7=380724501|date8=2011-08-24|oldid8=446437815|date9=2012-08-24|oldid9=508861414|date10=2014-08-24|oldid10=622593572|date11=2015-08-24|oldid11=677651589|date12=2016-08-24|oldid12=735805147}} |
|
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Feb 16 2014|until|Mar 2 2014|Mar 16 2014|Jan 23 2022|Feb 13 2022|until|Mar 20 2022}} |
|
<div align=center>'''<big>If you are here to discuss Kiev vs. Kyiv please <font color="green">]</font></big>'''</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 50K |
|
|counter = 8 |
|
|counter = 12 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Ukraine/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Ukraine/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 64: |
Line 80: |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}}__TOC__{{clear}} |
|
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. The anchor (#ESPN) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"ESPN","appear":{"revid":842807270,"parentid":842806692,"timestamp":"2018-05-24T20:25:27Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1019781793,"parentid":1019202855,"timestamp":"2021-04-25T11:12:24Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
== Maidan = square == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__{{clear}} |
|
As noted here: "The Euromaidan (Ukrainian: Євромайдан, literally "Eurosquare")" |
|
|
"maidan" is Ukrainian for the English "square." |
|
|
|
|
|
Hence, "Maidan Nezalezhnosti square" later on belongs in the Department of Redundancy Department. |
|
|
It should read "Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Nezalezhnosti square)." |
|
|
I didn't notice if that mistake was made other places, but it should be corrected. |
|
|
Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Minor: link to Misplaced Pages Podzol page in soil section. == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the soil section podzolized soil is mentioned. Might it not be reasonable to link podzolized to the Podzol Misplaced Pages page as it is an obscure reference. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
], (), regarding this the statement "was not a state, and not even a puppet state" is true, but careful with the rest, because the so-called "international community" does not equal with the ], especially in such conditions when practically one side generally recognize some creations whole or partially, and the other systematically not (or in many cases even parties by one side do not recognize some things). I draw the attention to this just becuase if the latter would be applied in the infobox, then the West UPR or Ukrainan People's Rep could be also removed, because they were unrecognized and partially recognized states, respectively. Cheers(] (]) 19:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)) |
|
|
:Well, the Axis didn't recognise the Reickomissariat as a state either. And, if we do that in the Ukraine article, why don't we do the same for Czech republic, Poland, etc? There were several Reichskomissariates in the Third Reich.--] (]) 21:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, I also acknowledged it was not a state. As you can see, I did not contest your edit, just precisity lead me to this issue. In other words, I have no problem if "Reichskomissariat" Ukraine of any of such is present in any other articles as well, but any removal should not be based on just "recognition", because then many other's may fall..(] (]) 21:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Foreign relations section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've just removed the addition of {{tq|"In the 2011 poll, 49% of Ukrainians said they had relatives living in Russia."}} to an inappropriate (i.e., ]) addition to the ] section {{diff2|907029379|here}}, which was quickly followed up by a revert by another editor {{diff2|907029953|here}}. The paragraph has become a hodge-podge of information with the introduced information being gratuitous to more generalized, big picture historical nature of such a section in an article of this scope. Such content may be relevant to other articles specifically dedicated to Russian-Ukrainian relationships, but not in this section (particularly in light of the POINTy source being used). IMHO, it's a perfect example of ] when it comes to context. |
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any editors who'd be kind enough to explain why ] and meets with WEIGHT in the manner in which it was placed? ] (]) 01:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{reply to|Iryna Harpy}}, I agree with ], the information is very brief, relevant (Russia hosts the world's largest Ukrainian diaspora), the was conducted by the ]. -- ] (]) 19:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::SharabSalam hasn't responded here, although he (I'm going by his user page where he identifies as a male, so I'm not using s/he) must be aware of your ping as he fixed a minor error through the submission below long after I started this new thread. If he still believes that it meets with DUE, he's welcome to state his case, but there are two other contributors who agree with my interpretation. ] (]) 02:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, I have said my personal perspective: the paragraph is relevant and brief. I understand your argument but this is a subjective argument there is no objective argument here. I was just waiting for more editors to say their own personal opinion about this.--] (]) 02:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::No, you're implying that your argument is not subjective, and by that rationale all content is subjective. Every article is potentially floating in a sea of potential ] content, but that doesn't mean that it's right for the scope of the article, or for the very context in which it's presented. You don't see that, as has been noted, it doesn't even work in the context (i.e., it simply doesn't fit with the other information). If it were to have some form of relevance or meaning here, it would need to be balanced out by statistics for the number of Ukrainians with relatives living in Poland (also high, although I don't have recent stats to hand)... and other places in Europe. The only common denominator is that Russia was invoked. How does this 2011 poll talking about 49% having relatives in Russia fit into {{tq|"Ukraine long had close ties with all its neighbours, but Russia–Ukraine relations became difficult in 2014 by the annexation of Crimea, energy dependence and payment disputes. There are also tensions with Poland and Hungary."}}? Not only is it taken from a (derisive) opinion piece with a point to make, and qualified by "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.", have you actually looked at the linked article (in Russian, but you should be able to make sense of it with Google Translate) from whence these responses were elicited? There's a fair amount covered, and it doesn't actually mention how many of these people were Russian residents in Ukraine, or first generation Russians, or how long these relatives were going to be living in Russia: in fact, there simply aren't any details as to how many were in the sample group, which part of Ukraine was predominantly represented, or how participants were chosen. It was also taken in 2011, therefore would include a significant portion of those living in Crimea and separatist held areas. So, please explain to me how this fits into the paragraph, and why it is should be included where it isn't significant and tell me that you're following ] and just simple ], please. ] (]) 04:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agree with Irina Harpy that this is UNDUE and POINTy and should be removed. --] (]) 19:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also agree with Iryna Harpy. It also didn't fit into the paragraph at all.--] (]) 22:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::{{ping|Tobby72}} You've probably noticed, as I know the article would be on your watch list, but just to let you know that {{u|SharabSalam}} has added this content to the ] article where it is actually appropriate. I'm still a little dubious about the use of the Al Jazeera source. My preference would be for using the Russian language article () referenced for the figure, but I know that English language sources are preferred on English Misplaced Pages. I know this is a little off topic for this page but, as there's a new thread here and no discussion on the the article for ages, it might be useful to have interested editors opine as to the source here. If it's preferred that that article's talk page be used, I'm happy to bring it up there. Just thought I'd save myself - and other contributors - a bit of time on having to waffle on through this again. Cheers, all. ] (]) 01:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've found another secondary source, but it's from the same author. -- ] (]) 19:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Hmm. It's still an incidental in another highly politically charged article, except that this time it targets Putin. I'd prefer to stay away from what is sort of ], but not (if if you know what I mean). I'm really tempted to use the Lenta source despite its not being in English. We use non-English sources for demographics regularly, so I think that'd be a better way of handling it. ] (]) 07:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Maybe you're right. Personally, I have no objections. -- ] (]) 06:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::To be honest, on reflection, I don't think it's that big a deal for that article. I'm good with leaving it with your original reference, but I might get around to changing it. I'm certainly not that concerned that I think it's worth bending over backwards to change. Cheers, Tobby72. ] (]) 07:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== World War II section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to try to detract from the murky waters of massacres of Polish people by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, but the WWII section only covers the most cursory details of the massive number of events that took place on (and off) Ukrainian territory. The loss of Ukrainian, Jewish and other Soviet lives are quickly enumerated. In contrast to these salient details, we have a contributor wishing to elaborate even further on details {{diff2|907082587|here}} and {{diff2|907083394|here}}. Not only is it a complex issue, it involved a tiny volunteer army of 100,000 or so Ukrainians. It is certainly a political football still looming (fairly) large in Polish-Ukrainian relations, but it's already skimming being over-stretched in the incarnation it currently appears in. Any more detail is certainly out of scope per ]. This is a broad-scope article on Ukraine, not Poland and Poles. If Holodomor can be skimmed over in the between the wars section, and the details of the ensuing war barely touched on in general in the section in question, there is no justification for this elaboration outside of ]. Details, including contemporary political issues, are dealt with in appropriate articles. ] (]) 23:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't really have any objections to E-960's put in the estimate of how many Poles were estimated to have been killed by the UPA (ergo I self-reverted after asking him to discuss it further here as was originally requested), but I still think that the section is awkwardly written. Any thoughts from other editors who are actually familiar with this area of Eastern European history as pertains to what is relevant to that section, and as opposed to current day political repercussions and ramifications? ] (]) 07:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2019 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|Ukraine|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change "annexed by Russia (light green) --> "'''A'''nnexed by Russia (light green)" in info box. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Done}}--] (]) 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Demographics == |
|
|
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. Thoughts? -- ] (]) 14:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I can see what you are getting at with a better date order. But the 2nd para (ethnic groups) sits awkwardly in the date flow. As an experiment I'll bring that out into its own (tiny) section, and also try to reduce the image crunch on the right (though my solution is a bit awkward). What do you think? ] (]) 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think it's a good idea. Thanks. -- ] (]) 20:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ukraine is located in Central Europe partially == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Misplaced Pages article about Ukraine in Ukrainian language claims that Ukraine is located in Central Europe partially. Probably it means the Westernmost part of Ukraine. I don't see why not to include the same mention in the English version, especially as Misplaced Pages doesn't provide strict definition of Central Europe and some variants of the definitions they propose include the Westernmost part of Ukraine. |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Grossgliederung_Europas-en.svg<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:Absolute rubbish. Only the western region which constitutes about 10% of the entire area of Ukraine can be classified as Central Europe. Ukrainian Misplaced Pages is highly biased with own interpretations by Ukrainian users who desire to be more Central than Eastern. ] (]) 11:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::But this is exactly point. The Misplaced Pages article about Ukraine in Ukrainian states that Ukraine is a country "which is located in Eastern and partially in Central Europe". I don't see why not to make exactly the same definition in English, as at least 10% of the country is located in Central Europe. So, what is the problem here?<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:::Given the ambiguity of the definitions of "Central Europe", we can't even say for certain that ANY of Ukraine is in Central Europe. Or even that Central Europe, as a separate region actually exists. In English language sources, Ukraine is characterized as Eastern Europe. --] (]) 13:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Also, countries are generally not split between regions in English sources. Notice that France is not described in its article as "partially in Southern Europe" even though that map supports that position as much as it supports your position that "Ukraine is in Central Europe". --] (]) 13:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
Khajidha, are you Misplaced Pages appointed official moderator of this article about Ukraine? If yes, with all the respect to you, could I know what is you background? Does it have to do something with Europe? Where is your interest in Ukraine come from??? According to general Misplaced Pages policies everyone can modify pages. I want to modify it, and if I'm not permitted to, then my opponents suppose to provide very sound arguments. For now I don't see it. Only some "fortune telling". Misplaced Pages defines Germany as a country in "Central and Western Europe" https://en.wikipedia.org/Germany; Switzerland as a country in "Western, Central and Southern Europe" https://en.wikipedia.org/Switzerland; Romania as a country "located at the crossroads of Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe" https://en.wikipedia.org/Romania; Chroatia - is a country "at the crossroads of Central and Southeast Europe" https://en.wikipedia.org/Croatia. So, Ukraine perfectly fits in the same row.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::::Khajidha is absolutely correct. English language sources overwhelmingly place Ukraine in Eastern Europe. He is also correct that these definitions of "Central" and "Eastern" Europe are not actual entities, but general designations by geographers that vary from one geographer to the next. There is '''''no such thing''''' as "Eastern Europe" or "Central Europe" in an absolute, objective sense. They are all abstract constructs and have no fixed size or shape. --] (]) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I suspect there's been some ]-taking from the same IP responsible for whereby they declare their intention to {{tq|... to change the statement that Russia is located in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia to the more correct statement it is located in Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Asia, because Kaliningrad region (which is part of Russia) is located in Central Europe.}} There's been some jumping the gun regarding this being a nationalist agenda. The IP has done nothing to make any actual changes, but seems more interested in ] out of someone/anyone. I suggest following ] should they return (unless, of course, they actually try to make changes to the content of the articles. ] (]) 00:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2024 == |
|
== Ukrainian traditional clothing == |
|
|
I think there should be a section for traditional costume of Ukrainian people as part of the culture portion of the page. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Ukraine|answered=yes}} |
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2019 == |
|
|
|
Can you add a romanization in the infobox add Ukraina in the infobox ] (]) 06:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{not done}} Please use the form "please change X to Y". ] (]) 06:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit extended-protected|Ukraine|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 14:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Hello I saw that this article has dead links and I have actual links for users!] (]) 12:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{U|DianaMakov}} Which links are you referring to? And what are the actual links? Thanks.--] (]) 13:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Formation of Ukraine== |
|
== linguistic and official name controversy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is the Soviet Union on the list? This is a strange list. Is it possible that Misplaced Pages now lists periods of occupation as formations? If so, please add other periods of occupation, such as the ], which is also a state entity. It is very strange that for some reason Poland does not have the Soviet Union in its formations in 1939, but they decided to list the period of occupation of Ukraine by the Soviet Union as a Ukrainian state.This is a double standard. In addition, for some reason I did not see a list of really important periods: ] or ]. It is necessary to supplement and change! ] (]) 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Could you please replace the phrase "sometimes called the Ukraine" with "previously called the Ukraine" to emphasise the fact that, according to grammar rules of contemporary English, "Ukraine" is used without THE (like many other countries' names of that kind), except for the term referring to its certain past periods. It is also used with NO article because modern Ukraine with its OFFICIAL name UKRAINE is now an independant country, unitary republic - it is NOT part of something anymore and NOT a federation as well. |
|
|
Millions of people read Misplaced Pages everyday, so it should offer true, grammatically correct information. |
|
|
As a linguist, English teacher and Ukrainian citizen, I have to say that it is a very important issue and there should be NO ambiguous points of view concerning the official name of my country. The phrase "sometimes called the Ukraine" says that people can use it as well BUT it is incorrect from historical and linguisctic perspectives. Thus, the phrase "previously called the Ukraine" would show that it is already in the past and now the only name, which is UKRAINE, is possible. |
|
|
I would be very grateful for these changes made as soon as possible. |
|
|
Kind regards, |
|
|
] (]) 19:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Tetiana |
|
|
:But people still do say "the Ukraine" and, while it does not follow the usual rules, it is still grammatically correct because "the Ukraine" version is an established exception to that rule. --] (]) 19:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:: {{ping|217.77.212.60}} Instead of your proposed {{tq|"sometimes called the Ukraine"}} the phrase should actually state {{tq|sometimes '''incorrectly''' called "the Ukraine"}}: ''every single'' respectable large English-language news organization in the world explicitly states in their Stylebooks that it is only correct to write ''"Ukraine"'' and that ''"the Ukraine"'' is grammatically incorrect. Please see the list of all major US/British media Styleguides on this: |
|
|
:: US Media: |
|
|
::* NPR Styleguide: '''"Ukraine, not "the Ukraine""''' () |
|
|
::* AP Stylebook: '''"Ukraine (no the)"''' () |
|
|
::* The New York Times Style Guide: '''"Ukraine, Ukrainian (not "the Ukraine")."''' () |
|
|
::* The Wall Street Journal Stylebook: '''" Always write Ukraine. Don't use the article the"''' () |
|
|
:: UK Media: |
|
|
::* The Guardian and Observer Style guide: '''"Ukraine no “the”; adjective Ukrainian""''' () |
|
|
::* The BBC News Styleguide '''"Ukraine. And not "The Ukraine""''' () |
|
|
::* The Economist Style guide '''"Do not use the definite article before: Ukraine""''' () |
|
|
::* Reuters Style guide '''"Ukraine not "the Ukraine""''' () |
|
|
::* The Telegraph Style book '''"Ukraine - (not the Ukraine)""''' () |
|
|
::* Financial Times Style guide '''Always "Ukraine" never "the Ukraine""''' () |
|
|
:: Also asking for comment from {{ping|Roman Spinner}}, who is one of the very few English WP editors who is academically knowledgeable in Ukraine-related topics.--] (]) 00:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Nope, sorry. It is correct because for literal centuries it was how it was said. That it is no longer the preferred version, doesn't make it incorrect. --] (]) 00:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Also, the links above that I could access did not say that "the Ukraine" was grammatically incorrect, just that it is not to be used. You are making the assumption that grammar was their motivation, while it could just be "political correctness". --] (]) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Any news media Styleguide is an English grammar ] created by journalists. There's no political agenda or correctness in news media Styleguides --] (]) 00:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The entry for Palestinian in the NPR link above disproves your assertion that these guides are just grammar guides and totally apolitical. There is nothing in that entry that is about grammar. --] (]) 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It would actually be incorrect to state that it is {{tq|sometimes '''incorrectly''' called "the Ukraine"}}. As noted by Khajidha, it was certainly grammatically correct, and remains grammatically correct. Accepted practice in guidelines used by various institutions since independence drops/dropped 'the' from the name of the nation-state, and use of the definite article has become anachronistic, but this is certainly not the same thing as its use as being incorrect. I've never seen an English language (Anglophone) grammar book asserting that the use of the definite article is wrong. At some point in the future, it may not be used at all. When/if that happens it would be appropriate to note that it was called 'the Ukraine', but that such usage has become anachronistic. That will only be correct and noteworthy when the Anglophone world demonstrably no longer refers to Ukraine as 'the Ukraine' any longer. ] (]) 01:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Numerous outdated terms referring to geographical locations and ethnicity are still in common use, but those terms, when referenced in Misplaced Pages articles, already are or need to be qualified as being outdated. "The Ukraine" is one such outdated term and, unlike the unresolved, as of this writing, conflict among key media stylebooks over the spelling of "]", there is no such stylebook conflict, as detailed above by {{ping|Piznajko}} regarding "the Ukraine", which is considered outdated by '''all''' stylebooks and should be unequivocally specified within the article's lead sentence as a historical form which is now outdated. —] <small>] • ]</small> 01:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I don’t have an opinion on that but I see ] is a long article. If you are interested and have time you could start by improving that and the more detailed articles you mention. After that you will likely have done enough editing to be able to change this article. ] (]) 07:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I agree with {{ping|Roman Spinner}}. Also, upon further examination of article's introductory paragraphs, it became apparent that the phrase "sometimes called the Ukraine" should simply be removed from the Lead section, since this is an incorrect archaic spelling that does not warrant space in the Lead Section per ]. Including information about the incorrect and archaic "the Ukraine" spelling int the ] is ]. The article already has a section "Etymology and orthography" <small>(which I now renamed from "Etymology" to "Etymology and orthography" given that more that half of that section talks about "Ukraine" vs. "the Ukraine" spelling)</small> which talks in detail about "Ukraine" vs. "the Ukraine" spelling. Furthermore, I do think that the section "Etymology and orthography" right now suffers heavily from ] and ] issues and it incorrectly states that it is still grammatically correct to write "the Ukraine" (quote, {{tq|the Ukraine has become less common in the English-speaking world}} - this should be changed and it should be stated clearly that there is complete consensus among major English language Stylebooks regarding the fact that the only gramatically correct spelling is simply "Ukraine".--] (]) 02:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Again, these are stylebooks NOT grammar texts. "The Ukraine" is out of style, but these books are not written to make pronouncements about grammar. --] (]) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
:I don't think we should change this article: Reichskommissariat was never internationally recognized, but Soviet Ukraine was. The West Ukrainian People's Rep. (or ]'s entity) was too short-lived to be relevant here. ] (]) 07:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::De jure, Ukraine is the legal successor of the Ukrainian SSR. This is how it happened historically. At the same time, Ukraine, maintaining its historical relationship with the Ukrainian People's Republic of Ukraine, held a succession ceremony for the government in exile of the Ukrainian People's Republic of Ukraine (but without legal consequences). The Soviet Union is definitely an occupation of Ukraine. Therefore, there is no legal basis to exclude the Soviet Union from the formation, but it is also not entirely correct to leave the Soviet Union in the list. Regarding this issue, it is at the discretion of the community. I apologize for the excessive comparisons and emotionality, but I am concerned about this problems. Regarding other issues, such as the Western Ukrainian People's Republic, it is worth supplementing the article. There is nothing more to add ] (]) 16:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Early history para tagged for 2 years as needing quote to verify cite == |
|
::Honestly, this is getting plain silly. We seem to have contributors ] the function of grammar and style manuals, consequently creating protracted arguments based on a this misunderstanding. What the issue seems to be here is a consistency of style across nation-state articles with regards to this change in usage of the definite article, and whether 'the Ukraine' is still being used ] to justify such a prominent note in the lead. Given that is being used to support the use of the definite article, I can honestly say that I'm currently on the fence on this content issue. Having checked the corresponding articles for ], ], ] ''et al.'', some carry a prominent mention of the use of the definite article, others do not. The fact is that the BBC article does not claim that this usage is still common, but that it did exist (and is sometimes still used: certainly in the case of ''the'' Netherlands, yet this is an instance in which it is omitted from the inception, possibly due to moving straight into the usage of 'Holland' in the English language). In a nutshell, if it's deemed to be ], I think it's an RfC issue which needs to be properly constructed and put to editors. The current objections are mistaken as we're not here to teach the reader anything, nor to attempt to redress ]. ] (]) 05:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In addition to depending upon its own ], Misplaced Pages rarely if ever contradicts unanimous guidelines specified within other stylebooks. Thus, if all media stylebooks in the English-speaking world are in unison regarding deprecated use of "the Ukraine", the text in the lead sentence of Misplaced Pages's entry for ], "{{green|sometimes called '''the Ukraine'''}}" should be either deleted, moved under section header "Etymology and orthography" or revised so that the text makes it unequivocally clear (for example, {{green|sometimes called / occasionally referenced by its outdated name '''the Ukraine'''}}) that "the Ukraine" is no longer a professionally acceptable alternative form for ]. —] <small>] • ]</small> 18:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I have no objection to removing it from the intro on grounds of undue weight. The only change I would make to the etymology section is to put the attribution to Taylor before his quote. --] (]) 19:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I do wonder exactly which part of "also known as" or "sometimes called" you are interpreting as making any sort of statement about whether it should be used. It reads to me as a simple statement of fact letting people know that they may encounter such usage. --] (]) 15:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ping|Khajidha}} I am sorry but "also known as" or "sometimes called" in the introduction have no relation to the current official name of the country. Also, the term "The Ukraine" with such a note just gives some unnecessary reasons to call the country with the wrong name again and again in modern context, which is not quite right. It can be only used as a historical term regarding some specific periods and it should not confuse the reader. I suggest putting "used in very specific historical context: limited use" or something like that just in order to show that there is such a term but it is definitely a very specific one. ] (]) 21:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)] (]) 21:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Tetiana |
|
|
:1) "have no relation to the current official name of the country" Neither the introduction as it stands nor myself have made any assertion that it did. 2) "call the country with the wrong name" Again, "correct" in English is whatever English usage says it is. There is nothing "wrong" with the term "the Ukraine", it is simply no longer popular. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the 5th and 6th centuries, the ], an ] people, lived in Ukraine. Migrations from the territories of present-day Ukraine throughout the ] established many ] nations. Northern migrations, reaching almost to ], led to the emergence of the ] and ]. Following an ] raid in 602 and the collapse of the Antes Union, most of these peoples survived as separate tribes until the beginning of the second millennium.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t124cP06gg0C&q=antes+avar&pg=PA42 |title=A History of Ukraine |first=Paul Robert |last=Magocsi |date=16 July 1996 |publisher=] |access-date=16 July 2018 |via=Google Books |isbn=9780802078209}}</ref>{{Request quotation|date=March 2022}} ] (]) 14:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{ping|Khajidha}} The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC just tweeted this: “Let us kindly help you to use the words related to #Ukraine correctly,” Ukraine’s Embassy in the U.S. tweeted, noting that the country goes by “Ukraine, not ‘the’ Ukraine” and that its capital city should be spelled “Kyiv, not Kiev.” <ref>{{cite web |title=Ukrainian Embassy begs public to stop using 'the Ukraine' after latest Trump flub |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/30/ukraine-embassy-trump-tweet-012691 |author=Caitlin Oprysko |publisher=Politico.com |date=30 September 2019 |accessdate=30 September 2019}}</ref> ] (]) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:And when exactly did the Ukrainian embassy receive the power to make decrees as to what is correct English? Because not even the governments of English speaking countries have that power. --] (]) 11:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
Since everyone apparently agrees that "the Ukraine" is an archaic and / or outdated form, thus it apparently follows that there is also agreement for either revising the lead sentence text "{{green|sometimes called '''the Ukraine'''}}" so that it states "{{green|sometimes called by its outdated name '''the Ukraine'''}}" or for both revising the text and then moving it from the lead to under section header "Etymology and orthography". —] <small>] • ]</small> 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not exactly. It is a less common and less preferred form, so it does not need to be in the intro and we should state that it is no longer common and is less preferred and even that Ukrainians reject it, but we cannot say that it is "wrong". --] (]) 11:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that "the Ukraine" does not need to be in the intro and that we should state that it is no longer common and even that Ukrainian's reject it, but we cannot say that it is "wrong". However, description of "the Ukraine" as "less preferred" should not be included unless it is also accompanied by a description of it as archaic and / or outdated. Otherwise, an impression would persist that "the Ukraine" is still preferred by at least one if not more reliable sources, albeit to a lesser degree. —] <small>] • ]</small> 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think the current wording ("The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article.) is fine as is.--] (]) 13:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree with ] that the current wording is better. Remember that Misplaced Pages is descriptive (which Khajidha's text is) and not prescriptive (which using the words "archaic and/or outdated" without a specific reference as to who declares it to be such is). Misplaced Pages can list who says X, but Misplaced Pages cannot say X under its own authority. --] (]) 14:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I agree with {{ping|Roman Spinner}} and {{ping|Khajidha}} that {{tq|"the Ukraine" does not need to be in the intro and that we should state that it is no longer common and even that Ukrainian's reject it, but we cannot say that it is "wrong"}}. I disagree with Taivo and Khajidha that {{tq|the current wording in the section ("The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article.) is fine as is}} - it is not fine as is, because i currently misleads the reader into thinking that it is still correct to write "the Ukraine", when in fact every single major English styleguide states that the only correct form is "Ukraine".--] (]) 20:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::] you do fine until you get to that nonsense about "correct" and "incorrect". There is no such thing as "correct" and "incorrect" when you are dealing with toponyms. You might as well tell the truth and label them as "the form I like" and "the form I don't like" because it's just your personal preference and not a description worthy of an encyclopedia. There is the older form, "the Ukraine", and the newer form, "Ukraine", that is preferred since independence by Ukraine and in style guides. There is no "correct" and "incorrect" about it. --] (]) 22:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Again, let's wait for an answer from a person who is an actual subject matter expert on Ukraine-related topics - Roman Spinner. He is is one of the few WP editors on English Misplaced Pages who are academically knowledgeable in Ukraine-related topics (which includes linguistic questions). I don't want to give here a full college-lecture on the history of the term 'the Ukraine', but lest assured that everything you said above, quote {{tq|There is the older form, "the Ukraine", and the newer form, "Ukraine", that is preferred since independence by Ukraine and in style guides.}} is false. To discuss this topic in any academic way, It would be good for the quality of the article, if we actually had someone who shows actual rigorous linguistic knowledge of the English language when it's used in Ukrainian context (it is good that English WP has Roman Spinner, but it would be even better if we had highly-respectable, well-published subject matter experts on English language linguistics when it's used in Ukrainian context to come and contribute to this article - such experts reside in that have Ukrainian studies departments, e.g. Ukrainian Research Institute at ], Ukrainian Studies academic centre at ] etc.). But TL;DR version: {{green|from the dawn of Ukrainian civilization it was at first mostly referred to as ] (from around 900s to around 1300s), but starting in 1100s Ukraine began being referred to as simply "Ukraine" (there are earlier mentionings of Ukraine in chronicles, but the first major chronicle to mention Ukraine was ] in 1100s), with the name Ukraine becoming the most widely used form by about 14-15th century. During the colonial rule of the ] in 20th century, Ukraine was given a colonial label 'the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic' or 'the Ukraine' for short. The short version of that colonial label, the Ukraine, was very widely used by English media in the 1900s, so often that many journalist and editors even forgot that it was merely meant to be a short form of 'the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic'. When Ukraine '''re'''gained its independence in 1991, it became grammatically incorrect to refer to Ukraine as 'the Ukraine' in any context whosoever & without exceptions, since the very pseudo-soviet construct 'the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic' from which the short version 'the Ukraine' was derived no longer existed. The end. <small>p.s. You can learn more about the history of the name "Ukraine" in Ukrainian WP article on the subject ] (as is usually the case avoid English Misplaced Pages articles on any Ukraine-related topics, including the eponymous ], as they all currently suffer from major NPOV issues )</small>}}.--] (]) 23:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::When you said "suffer from major NPOV issues" I think you meant to write "do not bow down to Ukrainian POV". Funny how those little typos happen, isn't it? --] (]) 00:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I find it revealing that ] still refuses to understand the simple concept that history has no relevance to what English speakers call the place today and whether they put a "the" in front of the word or not. English usage is governed by English speakers, not by the tender feelings of Piznajko. --] (]) 02:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Without making any academic claims, I definitely do not agree with the statement , above that "...the current wording... is fine as it is." As of this writing, the lead sentence still contains the text, "...sometimes called '''the Ukraine'''", rather than such text being deleted or revised to state, {{green|"...sometimes called by its archaic / outdated form '''the Ukraine'''", thus making it clear that "'''the Ukraine'''" is not merely an alternative form that is "sometimes" used instead of '''Ukraine''', but a form that is sometimes used despite being archaic and / or outdated.}} |
|
|
::::::::::Furthermore, the text under section header "Etymology and orthography" equivocates instead of stating directly: "The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English → {{green|"The Ukraine" used to be the alternatively-used form in English }}. |
|
|
::::::::::The text under "Etymology and orthography" continues, "but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article" → {{green|"but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has come to be considered archaic and / or outdated in the English-speaking world, and style-guides warn against using the definite article"}} . —] <small>] • ]</small> 03:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I believe if you reread the statement, you will notice that it was in reference to the Etymology and orthography section, not the intro. I have already stated that the mention of "the Ukraine" could be removed from the lead on grounds of undue weight. As for the bit about style-guides, as it is probably not possible to look into every style guide out there, I feel that "largely recommend" or simply "recommend" is better than an unsupported assertion that all style guides are against the usage of "the Ukraine". I'm not seeing the difference you are trying to draw between what a style guide prescribes and what it recommends, the two seem the same to me. --] (]) 15:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::My proposed edit: "The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English,<ref name="merriam-webster">{{cite web |url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ukraine |title=Ukraine – Definition |publisher=Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary |accessdate=4 May 2012}}</ref> but since the ], "the Ukraine" has become less common in the ], and style-guides now recommend not using the definite ].<ref name=UKrW812991TU>{{cite web |url=http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1991/499102.shtml |title=The "the" is gone |publisher=] |volume=LIX, No. 49 |date=8 December 1991 |accessdate=21 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Adam Taylor |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/why-ukraine-isnt-the-ukraine-and-why-that-matters-now-2013-12 |title=Why Ukraine Isn't 'The Ukraine,' And Why That Matters Now |website=] |date=9 December 2013 |accessdate=21 October 2015}}</ref> According to U.S. ambassador ], "The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty.<ref>{{cite news |title='Ukraine' or 'the Ukraine'? It's more controversial than you think. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/03/25/ukraine-or-the-ukraine-its-more-controversial-than-you-think/ |accessdate=11 August 2016 |work=] |date=25 March 2014}}</ref> The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically."<ref name="BBC News Magazine --] (]) 15:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Both ] and ] are saying virtually the same thing that I agree with: 1) Remove mention of "the Ukraine" from the lead. 2) State that "the Ukraine" is the former common usage in English. 3) State that many style guides recommend not using the definite article. 4) State that the government of Ukraine since independence has urged English-speaking countries to discourage the use of the definite article as demeaning. --] (]) 17:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::I do not see that the one-sentence statement at 13:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC) specifies a distinction between the Etymology and orthography section and the intro. Since that single sentence ends with the words "is fine as is", I had to indicate why it is not fine as is. |
|
|
:::::::::::::As of this writing, the text, "sometimes called '''the Ukraine'''", is still part of the lead sentence. As for "it is probably not possible to look into every style guide out there", Piznajko provided links to the salient points of all ten key styleguides in the English-speaking world. |
|
|
:::::::::::::All ten of those styleguides do not equivocate ('''not "the Ukraine"''' or '''no "the"''' or '''Don't use the article "the"''' or '''Always "Ukraine" never "the Ukraine"''', etc). Therefore, stating that the styleguides "recommend" or even "largely recommend" using "Ukraine", rather than "the Ukraine", is much too mild. As I indicated in the previous posting, the styleguides ''']''', not ''']''', use of form "the Ukraine" on penalty of... being considered an unprofessional writer. |
|
|
:::::::::::::Therefore, it is not "an unsupported assertion that all style guides are against the usage of "the Ukraine", but an actual fact, unless someone can uncover an eleventh major styleguide which indicates that "the Ukraine" is an acceptable alternative to "Ukraine". |
|
|
:::::::::::::Ultimately, a version of the green-tinted text above, "'''but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has come to be considered in the English-speaking world as antiquated and style-guides warn against using the definite article'''", would best express, without equivocating, the actual state of affairs regarding use of "the Ukraine" in professional English writing. —] <small>] • ]</small> 09:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::1} Did you not read the parenthetical? I specified exactly which wording I was referring to: "I think the current wording ("The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English, but since the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite article.) is fine as is." 2} You did not specify major styleguides 3) All styleguides are the recommended uses of the writers, so I still don't see how saying they recommend is any different from saying they proscribe. --] (]) 09:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::1) I did read read the parenthetical and indicated why it is not "fine as is". |
|
|
:::::::::::::::2) As far as can be determined '''all stylebooks ] the use of the form "the Ukraine"'''. The relevant links to the ten major stylebooks of the English-speaking world are above for all to see and if anyone contends that a stylebook exists which indicates that "the Ukraine" as an alternative form of "Ukraine", then it is incumbent upon that person to provide a link to such a stylebook. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::3) To put it unequivocally, the stylebooks do not merely "recommend" not using "the Ukraine", they proscribe (forbid or prohibit) its use. The terms "recommend" or even "largely recommend" are grossly imprecise and, in fact, inaccurate, since those terms leave the clear impression that styleguides still leave some leeway for continued use of "the Ukraine" when, if fact, the styleguides leave no such leeway. —] <small>] • ]</small> 10:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Piznajko is ambitious in his zeal to fight all slights to the glory of Ukraine, of course, but to assume that Piznajko has specified '''''all''''' the style guides in the Anglosphere is utterly ridiculous. Where is the Chicago Manual of Style? Or the MLA Style Guide? So to specify that "all" style guides do X is a false statement on its face and can never be proven. Even specifying "all major style guides" is false if you're just relying on Piznajko's list (I have cited two major style guides that Piznajko ignored). --] (]) 10:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::1) As my comment was in reference specifically to the quoted sentence, your objection (based on a sentence in the lead that I had already agreed should be removed) is rather irrelevant. 2) See Taivo's response. 3) Even their prohibitions are simply the recommendations of the writers of the styleguide. I don't see how saying that styleguides say you should do such and such leaves any confusion that they say you can do something else. If I say that styleguides recommend not using "Ukraine" without the definite article, that - by definition-- means that they recommend NOT using "the Ukraine". No matter how strongly they phrase it, it is still their recommendation and has force only over those who choose to follow it. ] (]) 11:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Granted that Piznajko has missed two major style guides and, upon returning from being blocked, can perhaps provide direct links and quotes from those. However, taking into account the unequivocal statements in the other ten guides ('''"Always write Ukraine. Don't use the article the"''' / '''"Always "Ukraine" never "the Ukraine""''') I don't think any of us doubt that the guidelines in whatever style guides that still remain unlinked will differ from the ones already on display. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Since Misplaced Pages's ] follows the consensus of English style guides and this discussion concerns the consensus wording to be used in Misplaced Pages's ] article, it would seem appropriate to choose language which clearly indicates the position of style guides. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::The current text (under ]) is: '''"The Ukraine" used to be the usual form in English, but since the ], "the Ukraine" has become less common in the ], and style-guides largely recommend not using the definite ].''' "The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty, according to U.S. ambassador ]. The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically." |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::The proposed consensus text might be: '''"the Ukraine" was once a frequently used form in English, but since the ], "the Ukraine" has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides warn against its use / warn against using the definite ] in professional writing.''' "The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty, according to U.S. ambassador ]. The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically." —] <small>] • ]</small> 15:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::I would support: "'''"the Ukraine" was once a frequently used form in English, but since the ], it has become less common in the English-speaking world, and style-guides warn against its use in professional writing.''' According to U.S. ambassador ], "The Ukraine" now implies disregard for the country's sovereignty. The Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically." --] (]) 16:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::Sounds good to me. Let's hope Taivo, Ymblanter and others agree. —] <small>] • ]</small> 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::That is appropriate wording. My problem has always been that terms like "correct" and "offensive" must not be Misplaced Pages's position, but the position of someone or something outside Misplaced Pages that we directly reference: "According to the US Ambassador....", "According to the Ukrainian government...", "According to most style guides..." (still can't claim "all" and never can). --] (]) 18:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::: @Taivo, your comment {{tq|So to specify that "all" style guides do X is a false statement on its face and can never be proven}} is unsubstantiated - neither I nor Roman Spinner have at any time on this TP said even once that ''all'' style guides proscribe to use Kyiv''; the simple reason for that - English language has literally more than thousand (and maybe even multiple thousands) Stylebooks published over the course of "" of English-speaking peoples; it is simply humanly and logistically impossible for me to read through ''all'' the English language stylebooks that have been created over the past 1,400 that English language literature existed. That said, however, I looked at the other major English language styleguides that I could find and all types of styleguides point to Ukraine as the only correct way of writing: |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::: 1) Government institution-type styleguides: |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::* EU's institutional styleguide: just says {{tq|Ukraine}}, and it does not mention any other alternative names other than "Ukraine" |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::* US's BGN institutional styleguide on Ukraine: {{tq|Conventional name: Ukraine; Approved name: Ukraine}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:You can download a PDF copy from... Wondering why we need to put in a quote? |
|
:::::::::::::::::::: 2) Media institutional-type styleguides (please see the original media stylebooks from ) : |
|
|
|
:https://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/8750/file.pdf |
|
::::::::::::::::::::* The Times Style Guide: A guide to English usage: {{tq|Ukraine (omit ''the''). Note the Orange revolution}} ( ) |
|
|
|
:... Don't forget PDF page numbers and actual book numbers aren't the same....looking for book page number I would assume. Pages 39 to 48 cover the period.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::::::::::::::* Australian Broadcasting Corporation: {{tq|Ukraine. Not The Ukraine}} () |
|
|
|
::@] I have not looked back to see who asked for a quote but perhaps they wanted a quote to support “most of these peoples survived as separate tribes until the beginning of the second millennium” ] (]) 17:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{talk-ref}} |
|
:::::::::::::::::::: 3) Academic-type styleguides |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::* MHRA Style Guide: {{tq|The definite article is no longer used in the names of the countries Lebanon, Sudan, and Ukraine}} (, ) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::* Chicago Manual of Style: the lastest 17th edition of CMS it does not explicitly state how to write country names; however in section "8: NAMES AND TERMS" it says to consult Merriam-Webster dictionary instead (). IN ''Merriam-Webster's Dictionary'' () it says: {{tq|Ukraine or Ukrayina or, chiefly formerly, the Ukraine }} |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::* MLA Style Guide: MLA Style guide was discontinued in 2016 and instead MLA now offers MLA Handbook. The latest MLA handbook doesn't cover anything other than logistics of preparing an academic research papers : in 7 chapters it covers topics from compiling a bibliography to thesis style, to avoiding plagiriasm in research papers to how to cite others withing the paper etc.; in other wrods MLA Styleguide has a limited scope of usage and is aimed exclusively at academics who want to learn how to write a research paper; It does not cover any other parts of English language besides bibliographical references, e.g., country names including Ukraine, are outside the scope of this manual. |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::* Lastly, Oxford Style Guide ''does not'' mention Ukraine explicitly, but it states quote, that {{tq|"authors not writing in a historical context should avoid using German names for Eastern European cities, or Russian names for non-Russian cities in the former Soviet Union: as ''Karlovy Vary'' is preferable to ''Carlsbad'', so ''Chisinäu'' is preferable to ''Kishinev''. This applies even when the Russian form is an approximation to the local form adopted in Soviet times in place of the traditional Russian name: write Tallinn not Tallin (the Tsarist Russian Revel' as compared with the German Reval)}}. In other words, instead of writing "we went to the Ukraine" (from Russian "мы пошли ''на'' Украину) , one should write "we went to Ukraine" (from Ukrainain "ми пішли ''в'' Україну). () |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2024 == |
|
:::::::::::::::::::: I cannot think of any other major institutional/media English style-guide. Given that there's clear consensus among major modern{{efn|e.g. styleguides that have been updated continuously and have their latest version published within the last few years. I am sure one could find a styleguide from 1920 that says 'the Ukraine'}} English styleguides (from both governmental/institutional and private/media types) that the correct modern spelling is "Ukraine" (the only place that 'the Ukraine' was given any weight, was Merriam-Webster dicttionaly (which was suggested by Chicago Style Guide) and even there it says ''chiefly formerly''). This should be clearly reflected in the section " Etymology and orthography". If someone argues against the statement that {{tq|all modern English styleguides proscribe that Ukraine should be used in all instances}}, I agree with {{ping|Roman Spinner}} that, quote {{tq| it is incumbent upon that person to provide a link to such a stylebook }}--] (]) 09:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Ukraine|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Military ranked 6th, not 5th. As per link provided ] (]) 23:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 13:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe. It is the second-largest European country after Russia, == |
|
; Notes |
|
|
{{notelist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and you wonder why wikipedia is begging for payment all the time. half of asia is actually in europe and not east africa, why?????????????? ] (]) 15:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2019 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I cannot make sense of your argument. Yes, Europe & Asia are really the same continent, ], but as per ], {{tq|Europe's limits to the east and north-east are usually taken to be the ], the ], and the ]; to the south-east, the ], the ], and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the ].}} See also ]. ] (]) 20:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit extended-protected|Ukraine|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
::The real problem is that it says "second largest European country" in the normal text, but uses a footnote to qualify it as being limited to territories within continental Europe. Most readers are going to come away from that with an erroneous idea. Why does it bother with this odd qualified statement that seems at once arrogant and submissive? Why not make the simpler and ndisputable statement that it is the largest country located entirely within Europe?--] (]) (]) 21:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Change "Kiev" to "Kyiv," because "Kiev" is a Russified and outdated spelling. ] (]) 21:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::The simple solution to handling very specific ] is to remove it. This specific trivia comes up on the talkpage very often, it just needs to go. We give readers the area, they can figure out a ranking of their own choice. ] (]) 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Against ]. Not done. --] (]) 21:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
Why is the Soviet Union on the list? This is a strange list. Is it possible that Misplaced Pages now lists periods of occupation as formations? If so, please add other periods of occupation, such as the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, which is also a state entity. It is very strange that for some reason Poland does not have the Soviet Union in its formations in 1939, but they decided to list the period of occupation of Ukraine by the Soviet Union as a Ukrainian state.This is a double standard. In addition, for some reason I did not see a list of really important periods: West Ukrainian People's Republic or Unification Act. It is necessary to supplement and change! Нестеріна (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1. Why is Ukraine listed as the second-largest country in Europe? France is. (Or alternately, Denmark is.)
It's an ambiguous statement, and depends on whether you include non-European territories or not, and whether you include disputed territories or not. The totality of France (which includes French Guiana) is larger than Ukraine, but the European part of France (Metropolitan France) is smaller than Ukraine. Although Denmark is in Europe, Greenland is in North America.
Q2. Kyiv or Kiev?
This is a topic for discussion at Talk:Kyiv. The current transliteration is based on the Ukrainian spelling of the name: "Kyiv" (pronounced "KEE-ev"). The Russian version is "Kiev" (pronounced "KEE-ef") is associated with the Russification of Ukraine. Source:."Slownik geograficzny Krolestwa Polskiego i innych krajow slowianskich". Druk „Wieku” Nowy Świat. 1883. Archived from the original on 5 March 2022.
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Not done Please use the form "please change X to Y". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)