Talk:Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine–Central Powers)

Merge Proposal

This article and Treaty of Brest-Litovsk appear to deal with the same subject matter. I propose that they be merged.--ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's two different treaties. And strangely this first treaty isn't even mentioned in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk article. That's why I thought this article was more than needed. Narking (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - that was not clear from the other article. Do you think it would be worth mentioning this first treaty in the other article with a wikilink back to this one? I will delete the merge tag in any event.--ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this first treaty should be mentioned also in the second treaty, especially since it's mentioned in that treaty's article 6: »Russia obligates herself to conclude peace at once with the Ukrainian People's Republic and to recognize the treaty of peace between that State and the Powers of the Quadruple Alliance.« And maybe that whole article needs some other changes and additions. Narking (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you take on that job? I am not at all expert in this area. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will see what I can do. Narking (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation =

I am familiar with the Russian/Central Powers treaty, but I was not familiar with this treaty.

I think that most readers will be more familiar with the Russian treaty, and at the same time they will not know when it was signed. Therefore, they may be confused when they see this article.

I would like to suggest some ways to address this problem:

1. Change the title of this article to Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine/Central Powers)
2. Change the title of the other article to Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Russian/Central Powers)
3. Put "see also" cross-links in the articles
4. Explain the relationship between the treaties in more detail.

As a side note, I have been to Brest, and I have seen the palace in which the Russian treaty was signed. I assume (but don't know for certain) that the Ukraine treaty was signed in the same palace. The city is probably more known to the outside world for the treaties, but within Russia I expect it's more known for the defense of the Brest fortress against the Nazis in the opening days of WWII. In USSR days, Brest had a military cemetery for WWII victims along with an enormous steel monument. The Brest fortress still showed battle damage when I saw it in 1992. Jmalin (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

These are good suggestions, and I'll help implement these. Just to point out, the Russia-Central Powers treaty is mentioned and linked in this entry under the "terms of the treaty" section, see last paragraph. But I think articulating the two a bit more would help.--Riurik^(discuss) 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree on that. The old article was written like there was only one treaty. Now we know there were two of them, and renaming the articles to make it more clear is a good idea. And the old article probably also needs some additions and rewritings. Narking (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't rename the other one. It is far more well known in English as just "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk". And historically to most it is probably far more important than this one. Rename this one "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine/Central Powers)" or whatever, but leave the other one as just "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk". My recomendations. Ostap 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

• ...that the February 9, 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a peace treaty between the Ukrainian People's Republic and the Central Powers that helped clear Bolshevik forces from Ukraine?

Alternatives? --Riurik^(discuss) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)~

Well, sounds like a good summary of the article. By the way it's strange we didn't have an article about the treaty before. Narking (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we do (thank you by the way), and it looks really good with its visual components. Suggested here.--Riurik^(discuss) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I had to write the article since I had both the information and the illustrations for it. I also noticed that some of the Ukrainian delegates don't have articles here either so maybe I should write about them too. Narking (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. I am not too familiar with the period, however main actors involved on the Ukrainian side should be covered on the Wikipedia, and I will be ready to help with that. --Riurik^(discuss) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many of the delegates from the Central Powers have articles while the Ukrainian ones lacks them. I will see when I can get a little time to start something about them. Could also always start with a stub of course, but a real article is preferable. Narking (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine–Central Powers). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212135548/http://fakty.interia.pl/news/chwalebna-zdrada-rarancza-1918,1113387 to http://fakty.interia.pl/news/chwalebna-zdrada-rarancza-1918,1113387

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)