Template talk:History of Ukraine

Colors and symbols

Nice job. What about adding some Ukrainian colors/symbols to make the template more 'live'? Some blues and yellows would be nice, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. We should think about how this will overlap with the usage of Template:History of Russia and Template:History_of_Russia_Ukraine_Belarus, as well as history articles relating to Belarus, Poland, and possibly Lithuania.

Good point. It would be nice to design a common format, so when 2 or more templates are used, they would flow fairly seemlessly into one another. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The template also demonstrates some of the gaps in our history articles. Ukrainian SSR could use a history section, and an article about Ukraine during the Russian Revolution would be nice too. —Michael Z. 2005-10-29 23:14 Z

I would more tha welcome anyone messing with this template, provided these are not known troublemakers. You know who I mean and definetely not any of those who already commented :) . -Irpen 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please keep only historic periods in the template. RU 17 revolution is a historic period, the Orange Revolution is an event. Ukr SSR is a historic period, Holodomor is an event within it. Pls no trolling. --Irpen 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no trolling, Irpen. Please. The Russian revolutions of 1917 and 1905 are not "historic periods". Unless you go and change the History of Russia template, don't come and change this template.--Andrew Alexander 04:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot happened in 1917–1922, but this period in Ukraine is rather underrepresented in mainstream history and in Wikipedia. I would love to read an article on this period, and I would contribute any way I could. I don't think 'trolling' is a fair accusation. —Michael Z. 2006-02-26 14:32 Z

Foreign occupation nonsense

How could a piece of land that is integrally part of a another country be occupied? Its like saying that just because my Kuban is part of Russia it is occupied by it... I hope nobody minds me purging this nonsense.--Kuban Cossack 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

May I propose Foreign rule? This period of history is typically depicted by Ukrainian historians as a time when most of present-day Ukraine was split and controlled by foreign powers. During this period, the concept of Ukrainian nationalism was brought to the fore, which was challenged by harsh restrictions on self-expression (see Taras Shevchenko, Ems Ukaz, etc...), so I certainly do not think that "occupation" was way over the line, but if it has inherent POV, then since the corresponding section in HoU is titled Russian and Austrian Rule, I will insert Foreign rule for now.--tufkaa 17:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "Foreign rule" usually means the colonial-type administration. Territories of Ukraine were fully integrated within the Russian Empire and the Governorates in the Ukrainian territory was not economically exploited in any more extent than other Governorates of Russia. --Irpen 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that there was integration, but from the perspective of the HoU, this was a period lacking in self-autonomy. The preceding period of Cossack rule range from full to partial autonomy, however that was abolished along with the Sich. If this wasn't foreign rule, then from where do the concepts of nationalism emerge?--tufkaa 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective of the HofUA, USSR was also lack of self-determination. Still, this was not the "foreign rule" either. Ukraine was part of the larger country, this is true. That larger country opposed local separatism, this is also true. But the concept of the Ukrainian nationalism emerged only in mid- to end-19th century, together with other nationalist concepts in Europe. There was no colonial-type administration of Ukraine under the control of the Russian Empire and the term "Foreign rule" implicitly implies such. --Irpen 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just trying to find an agreeable title. However, according to WP:

Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced. Colonizing nations generally control and exploit the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory. Some colonizing powers imposed their socio-cultural and religious practices and their language on the conquered population and suppressed the local religions or languages (see also cultural imperialism).

Both the Tsardom of Russia an the Empire extended their borders and directly ruled the populations indigenous to the newly acquired area. So by that definition, I have to point out that using such language as Foreign rule, especially in the context of HofUA, is, again, not over the line. Other templates with similar histories point to a "Union", although I can't really see a practical parallel in Ukraine's case. Perhaps Partitions (of Ukraine? of Ruthenia?)?--tufkaa 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the usage of Ukraine for pre-19th century time is somewhat anachronistic. Ruthenia? Perhaps, not sure. Little Russia is usable as well. Secondly, Ukraine was indeed integrated fully both within the Russian Empire and the USSR. Its representatives took the highest posts in the countries, population was not discriminated (except when separatist threats where suspected) and its territory was not economically exploited, not deprived of investment, development, etc. Thus, Ukraine was simply part of the larger country rather than ruled by another country, the term more applicable to the colonial type rule. Russia was not a colonial power in the classical sense and the administration of Ukraine was similar to that of any other part of the country, unlike, say, administration of India compared to the administration of England itself. So, "foreign rule" is misleading for sure. --Irpen 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well why not just label the part of history from the so-called "Ukrainian" perspective as Russian Empire, and Austro-Hungary. And in the Russian Empire the Ukrainians Little Russians were not seen as foreigners, and neither did they view others as such.--Kuban Cossack 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Color

Folks, the word "show" is nearly invisible in the template now; you may want to change its color. Beit Or 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template placement

Please stop slapping this template on every article listed by it. Some articles it may be useful to link to, but may not be focussing on the Ukraine specifically enough to warrant transclusion of the template on the article (e.g. Scythia). --dab (𒁳) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial Greater Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg

It's not correct to use the Greater Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg because it's project only. In article Coat_of_arms_of_Ukraine you can read The Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine was never officially adopted, but it was published in various heraldic sources. So, it will be more correctly use Lesser_Coat_of_Arms_of_Ukraine.svg. --Movses (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cherry-picking

Can I ask what is the reasoning of including the Holodomor here? True it is an important event, but for example you don't see the Holocaust on Template:History of Germany, nor do you see the Irish Potato Famine on Template:History of Ireland, so what makes Holodomor unique? We have section on the Ukrainian SSR, which would generally describe that. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is up to every nation to decide what is important and what is not. Judging from edit history, there are at least two people, who think that Holodomor should be included in the template. It is important for Ukrainian history, this discussion is not about what makes Holodomor unique, but rather that some people believe it should be mentioned in the template. WP works by concensus, remember? --Hillock65 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well why not add then the Arsenal Plant Uprising, individual battles, DnieproGES (20 years that would have been VERY important), why not add about the Polish administration of Western Ukraine, Carpatho-Ukraine in Czechoslovakia, Budjak and Bukovina in Romania? Why not add about the Molodaya Gvardiya, or how Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich? Neither Ukraine nor you WP:OWN this template, so again don't cherry pick individual events and details Have a look at how other templates are done, and you will find that only the most general events are laid out. There is no consensus on adding this event, or for that reason the Orange Revolution or indeed the quarrel of the two Ivans. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are free to start a survey to see if your proposal for removal of Holodomor will get the concensus of the editors. So far, you are in the minority. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you not aware that wikipedia is not a democracy, there are common policies. One thing is adding say History of Urkaine (1920-1939), the other is specific events. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please don't remove Holodomor from History of Ukraine, there is Britannica article on Ukraine which has Holodomor in its history section [1] - thanks --windyhead (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Britanica article will also no doubt have the Irish potato famine in its history section, yet the wikipedia template does not, same for Germany & Holocaust. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Kazak, you are clearly in the minority here. Things are decided by concensus and now several people think Holodomor deserves a place in the History of Ukraine template. It is an important event and has way greater significance than some other events in the history of other countries. That's the way it is. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus my dear Hillock is when all editors agree, or compromise, I for one don't believe just because two or twenty two editors believe that. I am sure in the present groupings more people would believe that Category:Genocide belongs to Holodomor yet it is not there. Same with this event. Have a look at Template:History of Russia, do you see events such as Time of Troubles or Eastern Front of WWII, or the Great Purge, or the endless conflicts there? Same with Template:History of Poland, Template:History of France, Template:History of Italy... In comparison this template is way too cherry picked, and that is the way it is. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. And yet... --Hillock65 (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no opinion, the template needs re-vamping, preferrably simplified in navigation, and generalised rather than point-specific. Remember also, this is the history of Ukraine, not history of Ukrainians. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it does. What are Galician SSR and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic doing there? Somebody is trying to say that these were more important than Holodomor? This is beyond rediculous! There were way more important events than these two short-lived republics, which obviously suits someone's POV. It is time to clean them out. I wonder, what other editors think about this? --Hillock65 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's for sure that the Holodomor has a much higher significance than the very shortlived Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic. If something should be taken away from the template it's the latter one, not Holodomor. Narking (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Both should go, keep it clear.

Why isn't Orange Revolution in the template? Ostap 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why indeed is the August Coup in Russia not on History of Russia? Why not put Crimean anti-NATO protests of 2006 there as well? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You probably confused this template with the History of Russia one. Please discuss issues related to that template at its corresponding talk page. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This navigation box doesn't have to be identical to the many others, and even if it did, one would have to consider others which haven't been mentioned. Some are very detailed, approaching timelines, some are more thematic or geographical. See {{History of Russia}}, which mentions the specific events February Revolution and Civil War, {{Islam}}, {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}}, which does indeed link to the Holocaust and many other events, {{History of China}}, {{History of Japan}}, {{Aliyah}}, and {{History of Australia}}, for some examples.

My biggest concerns are with the poor usability of this template. By default, it displays five “show” links which don't get the reader anywhere, and only three functional links, which are obscured by appearing in the same non-standard colour as three non-link titles. The tryzub and its colour identify the navbox sufficiently—there's no need to reduce the utility with excessive decoration. The template should emulate some of the other long ones by initially showing all links in small text. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-23 22:28 z

That is exactly what I've been saying above, is that this template is too overfocused on History of Ukrainians rather than History of Ukraine, and it is as geographical as it is chronogolical. That is why we don't need nonsense like Orange Revolution or ZUNR in there, those details are either too minute or too insignificant, same for Holodomor, it falls into the History of Ukrainian SSR. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not what I was saying at all. —Michael Z. 2008-07-24 14:02 z

What I meant was something back to the simple design that existed a spin of which I tried to re-create. I believe that such a template should resemble those such as {{History of Ireland}} or {{History of Germany}}. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he cares about what other people think. I was wondering what other editors think the template should look like, because it appears K. Kazak is unilaterally imposing his twisted view on the rest of us. Please speak up! --Hillock65 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about someone who has complained about commenting on the content and not the contributor...--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details but it seems that using {{History of Ireland}}, {{History of Poland}} other countries as models would be a good idea, for the sake of consistency. The German one has a "building the nation" section; an analogous one in this article including ZUNR, the Directorate, etc. would be appropriate. The Galician SSR seems much too obscure for a template. The Holocaust wouldn't belong in the German template, as the victims weren't Germans and most of the concentration camps weren't on German soil. However the Template:History of the Jews in Europe doesn't include the Holocaust.Faustian (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But that one goes at the bottom of the page and is only geographical, not chronological at all, so it doesn't really compare to this template. The “history” section of {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} lists topics chronologically, and includes the Holocaust. —Michael Z. 2008-07-24 21:39 z

I also support the simple template, which would be broken down into several epochs, as opposed to a timeline of events. The latter would come with endless bickering as to what is notable enough, and what isn't. --Bogdan ^що? 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

After checking the other templates I must say I prefer the Ukrainian one. For example I certainly don't like the Swedish one as being too simple. The French one is more of my taste. The template is there to help the reader to navigate further which I think the Ukrainian template does. And I'm quite sure the reader would expect to find both Holodomor and the Orange Revolution there. Narking (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I support making the template more simple. I see absolutely no reason to not include Holodomor. Ostap 22:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed redesign

History of Ukraine Name of Ukraine · Ukrainian historical regions Ancient History Cucuteni-Trypillian culture · Yamna culture · Catacomb culture · Cimmeria · Taurica · Scythia · Sarmatia · Zarubintsy culture · Cherniakhov culture · Hunnic Empire Middle Ages Early East Slavs · Onoghuria · White Croatia · Khazars · Kievan Rus' · Halych-Volhynia · Cumania · Mongol invasion of Rus' · Golden Horde · Principality of Moldavia · Grand Duchy of Lithuania Cossacks Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth · Crimean Khanate · Cossack revolts · Khmelnytsky Uprising · The Ruin · Right-bank Ukraine · Left-bank Ukraine (Cossack Hetmanate · Sloboda Ukraine · Zaporizhia) · Danube Imperial Period Ottoman Empire · Russian Empire (Little Russia · New Russia) · Habsburg Monarchy (Kingdom of Galicia · Bukovina · Carpathian Ruthenia) Twentieth Century Ukraine in World War I · Ukraine after the Revolution (Ukrainian People's Republic · Western Ukrainian Republic · Hetmanate · Directorate · Free Territory · Ukrainian War of Independence) · Soviet Union (Ukrainian SSR · Holodomor · Crimean Autonomous SSR) · Ukraine in World War II · (Carpatho-Ukraine · Reichskommissariat Ukraine) Independent Ukraine Orange Revolution

Here's a proposal for a redesign, including all of the links currently there, plus a couple of non-chronological ones added at the top. I've added a separate section for independent Ukraine.

This is simpler than the current layout, and makes all of the links directly accessible. —Michael Z. 2008-07-24 22:56 z

Looks good to me!Faustian (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A much simpler design. The other one was pretty fancy, but I support using your new one. Ostap 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Throw out Orange revolution and Crimean ASSR, the former is already covered on the Politics of Ukraine template, the latter was only part of Ukraine for half a year. The design is perfect however --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF, in W-European media the Orange revolution is mentioned a lot when they talk aboy Ukraine, since where writing for an English speaking audience... I also propose to place Ukrainization & Cassette Scandal in the template. Now it looks like nothing happend in Ukraine since 1991!(?) -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some comments about recent changes.

I changed “Modern Ukraine” to “Independent Ukraine.” Modern has a specific and very different meaning in the context of historical periods, and is already used in the link for “Imperial Period,” which links to the article Early Modern Period.

I don't see a problem with having the “modern” coat of arms. The tryzub itself is a symbol which goes back to very early recorded history in Ukraine.

The dots already separate single navigation links: adding a dash confuses the typographical scheme. I'm not sure about the exact relationship of Scythia/Sarmatia, but can we separate them with a dot, or use brackets (“Sarmatia (Scythia)”), or just link to one of them? —Michael Z. 2008-07-25 15:48 z

Nice job on the redesigning Michael! It's much easier to follow and cleaner now than before. I agree with you on the COA, it's a historic symbol and should be put back into the template. —dima/talk/ 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was easy. Instead of reinventing wheels, I just inserted the content from this template into the framework from one of the others. Since the tryzub has been there for a while, and there are no other dissenters, I'll restore it for now. But if there are objections, of course it is open to discussion. (I wouldn't mind replacing it with a nice clear historical tryzub of Volodymyr.) —Michael Z. 2008-07-25 16:57 z

Omissions

Oops, it looks like the following links have been removed recently. A few have been mentioned in talk here, but none of this appears any edit summary, and I don't know if it is supported by consensus.

I'm going to restore them to the template, so that no one can complain about sneaky deletions. Please remove any that don't belong here, but please make use of the edit summary. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2008-07-25 21:06 z

• Onoghuria > Old Great Bulgaria
• White Croatia
• Cumania
• Golden Horde
• Principality of Moldavia
• Cossack revolts >Category:Cossack uprisings
• Ottoman Empire
• Western Ukrainian Republic >Western Ukrainian National Republic
• Carpatho-Ukraine
• Reichskommissariat Ukraine
• Orange Revolution

All the links under "modern Ukraine" need to be removed. There is absolutely no reason to put the Holodomor or World War II on par with the Cassette Scandal. Carpatho-Ukraine and Reichskommissariat Ukraine should also be omitted, the first as non-notable and the latter as a strange presentation of the occupation. --Bogdan ^що? 13:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By “strange presentation” do you mean an odd title or something about the presentation of the article? Shouldn't General Government be added as well?

I don't think that the presence of Orange Revolution implies that it is somehow “on par” with the Second World War, any more than it implies that WWII is more important than, say, the Battle of the Kalka or the Treaty of Pereyaslav. The timeline includes various events significant within their division, and closer to the present it may be broken down more finely, especially in the last division representing less than 20 years. I think it would be silly to leave the post-Soviet period blank just because there haven't been any world wars lately. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 16:02 z

I stronly support the inclusion of Orange Revolution, but agree that the cassette scandal does not really belong. Ostap 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Orange revolution is already included in the template politics of Ukraine. I strongly disagree with the amount of littering the template has suffered. For example we are adding things like Crimean SSR which was strictly never even part of Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's silly to include the orange revolution just because it's recent event. Unlike the others, which changed the course of history, the orange revolution changed a single election. To me, the significant of the events in the template should at least be remotely similar; regardless of their division.

As for Reichskommissariat, what I saw as strange was that the a three-year German colonial administration was being presented in the Ukrainian history template as a Ukrainian polity. If you like, I think a link like occupation would be appropriate. --Bogdan ^що? 11:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I also would disagree with the inclusion of some of the early cultures, some of them inhabited only part of modern Ukraine. 100% agree on Orange Revolution, it is part of modern politics, not history. Give it 50 years, and if its effects would still be significant then, then include it.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Orange Revolution should be included and also Reichskommissariat Ukraine. Like it or not it did exist and for longer time than for example Ukrainian People's Republic. The French template has Vichy France for example. Narking (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan, the Orange Revolution is very important. In 1991, the government and administration in Ukraine remained essentially the same when Moscow's control evaporated. It continued to be run by Kravchuk and Kuchma's croneys without any politically viable opposition. The Orange Revolution represents the first free Ukrainian election and the first Ukrainian government which was not corrupt from the top down. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 19:54 z

Michael that is a subject for modern politics, not for history please keep political opinions out of this. I see nothing important in having a bunch of clowns freeze their genitals off, so that instead of being controlled by FSB, Kiev is now controlled by CIA. Again only half of the population supported it, remember that. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr Serhy Yekelchyk, the author of one of the most important books on Ukrainian history, would disagree with you. He would have us believe that Yushchenko's prime ministership, the Orange Revolution and enstatement of democratic elections, and the end of Kuchma cronyism were an important turning point in the development of modern Ukrainian nationhood. The point is that now we are actually able to know what was supported by half the population. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 15:41 z

A Ukrainian Canadian historian supported Yushchenko? No way! --Bogdan ^що? 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misunderstanding, or just leaping to unfounded conclusions? Firstly, Yekelchyk is from Ukraine, educated in Ukraine and Canada, and taught in the US. Secondly, if you have heard of him “supporting Yushchenko,” then please show me where. If you have some evidence that the reputation of Yekelchyk and Oxford University Press is unfounded, then please show us the bad reviews and point us to a better book about modern Ukrainian history than Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 20:11 z

Luckily we are not obidient to Yekelchyk's POV. OR is already as part of {{Politics of Ukraine}}, I am not questioning its impact there, however other effects are not exactly proven yet. For example economically there have been little change in developement since 2004, politically development hardly changed the social and administrative structure of Ukraine. At the end of the day, after the 2006 elections Yanukovich returned as PM... --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Like you said, half voted for Yushchenko, and Yanukovich is now PM. This demonstrates that since the Orange Revolution power is shared by the parties who get the people's support, rather than held by cronies of Kuchma who want to make a billion off of the Ukrainians' backs. (Unless you really believe crackpot theories about the CIA controlling Ukraine, please don't pretend they somehow support your argument.) All of the parties have to act like politicians in a free country now, and try to satisfy the voters, Yushchenko included. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 20:11 z

Yes, but Ukrainian People's Republic was a Ukrainian polity not a German colony. Just like Vichy France was a French polity and was governed by renowned prewar French leaders, and remained independent throughout the war. --Bogdan ^що? 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree Reichskommissariat does not belong there. Ukrainians had nothing to do with it, it was an occupation administration. --Hillock65 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it matters if there were Ukrainians or Germans governing the Reichskommissariat Ukraine. It existed for three years in what is Ukraine today. And we have Ottoman Empire in the template. And it affected Ukrainians much more than Carpatho-Ukraine for example. But what about Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Proclamation of Ukrainian Independence in 1941? But maybe it's enough with Ukraine in World War II after all.

But I guess most agree on Orange Revolution now? But what about the two other ones under Modern Ukraine? Narking (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is history of Ukraine, not just of Ukrainians. If we remove the German occupation—General Government should stay or go along with the Reichskommissariat—then should we also remove all of the Scythian, Mongol, Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, Ottoman, and German cultures, principalities, yokes, commonwealths, empires, and unions? —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 19:54 z

I put Ukrainization in the Template cause it explains the current language problems and east-west divisions in current Ukraine. I put in Cassette Scandal cause it seems to be a build up to the Orange Revolution. Also I would like to again point out that Orange Revolution is find important by western journalist and most English speaking country's are in "The West". I am ussualy for stuffing this templates with as much as possible :) since where not short on paper and it gives the wikipedain a handy remote control between articles. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I must say I strongly disagree with cherry-picking the template, why not Crimean anti-NATO protests of 2006 then. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your disagreement is noted. The consensus is heavily for the inclusion of the Orange Revolution in the template. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not one's invention, its when all parties come to agreement. The fact that there is no consensus above is clear. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary defines con·sen·sus –noun, plural -sus·es.

• 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
• 2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
• I think the term you are looking for is "veto". What do "really" have against including the ORANGE REVOLUTION. This is an unique event where major change was acheived without bloodshed. Bobanni (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  A lot of events were achieved without bloodshed, and no majority would be 90% of regular participants. Let's see in the past Irpen, myself, Bogdan have voiced their objection to OR, you, Michael, MY, Hillock & Ostap voiced their support. Majority would be >95%. Now my logic that other templates do not put excessive WP:UNDUE weight on modern events, as they rightly belong to the Politics of the country, not to the history. Note that neither the Christianization of Kievan Rus', the Pereyaslav Rada or the Union of Brest (all of which had far more significant effects on the fate of Ukraine, are absent from the template), the logic goes back to cherry-picking, and that was my initial argument for excluding Holdomor from the template as well. I still believe that it should be done so, and the template should not be over-cluttered with nonsense like Crimean ASSR and Principality of Moldavia which I can't even see a connection with Ukraine let alone it being included in the template. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with the principle and most of the details. But the post-independence period is significant in history, and really should be represented by more than just a link to Ukraine. For now, I've linked to History of Ukraine#Independence. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 15:54 z

  Well look at Template:History of France, the most recent event is that of Fifth republic which begins in 1958. Now you are saying that nothing significant has happened in France since 1958? Of course that is nonsense, but given the fact that we have several centuries to compact in here, adding a political event wrt 13 years of Ukraine's independence is cherry picking. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The French are a lovely people, but this isn't about their history.

  This is a navigation template for relevant articles, not strictly a timeline. Even if it was, it wouldn't make sense to stick to some arbitrary “X links per century” limit. The fact is that vitally significant events in Ukrainian nationhood have taken place since 1989, so why would we ignore them to emulate the History of France navigation? Since we're not cherry-picking, let's compare {{History of Georgia}}, or {{History of India}}. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 20:45 z

Also note that the main subdivisions of the template represent different time spans: about 60, 7, 2.5, 1.5, 0.75, and 0.2 centuries respectively, by my rough estimation. Even given a strictly mathematical determination, it deserves from 3 to 7 links to be on par with the others, so adding one is not “cherry picking.” —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 21:16 z

The Independence period is important not only because of the Orange Revolution. There were a few other important events: Tuzla, Gas dispute, Cassette scandal. The Orange Revolution is a watershed between before and after. It is not just an event. May I remind that it put Ukraine on the world map, deepened the split in society, caused deterioration of relations with Russia and events that spiralled from there. Just for these reasons alone, its exclusion from template is not wise. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Orange Revolution made an impact around the world. If people in Europe and the rest of the world know something about recent Ukrainian history they know about Orange Revolution.

I guess more people should be here and discuss it, but so far I see a majority for keeping Orange Revolution in the template. It surely made a strong impact, wether you like what happened or not. And by the way, I don't think the other templates have reached its final perfection. Narking (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout with visible links

I'm sorry Mariah-Yulia, but as I mentioned above, I object to a navigation box which appears with all of its navigation links hidden, and requires a reader to operate six controls to get a historical overview. The box should convey its information immediately and be operated with a single click. Your reasoning “It's smaller” makes no sense to me, because we are not short on paper—is there a particular article where the template's vertical height was causing a layout problem?

At least four other editors have expressed approval for the simpler design on this page, and no one else has asked for hidden links, so I'm going to revert to the previous layout until it looks like consensus is against it. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 16:07 z

I ain't mad at cha :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate titles

Regarding KK's edit with the summary “Don't mutilate article titles,” and the preceding edit summarized as “per talk” (yeah, right): It is appropriate to use Ukrainian names in the Ukrainian history navigation, which appear in Ukrainian History articles. Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, Chernyakhiv culture, Halych-Volyn’, Bukovyna, Chornobyl, are all appropriate.

And rudeness, like referring to Ukrainian names as “mutilation,” sure won't help you gain consensus. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 15:09 z

Hold on a second why can't we title articles based on their accepted titles? For example Galicia-Volhynia is titled as Galicia-Volhynia not Halych-Volyn. Same for the rest. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting renaming any articles. Different names are acceptable and appropriate in different contexts. Reasonably well-known Ukrainian names are in many cases more appropriate in Ukrainian history articles than, say Latin, Russian, or Polish names.

For example: Subtelny writes about the “Trypillian culture,” and Magocsi “Trypillia, Zarubintsiv, Cherniakhiv.” Neither mentions “Cucuteni” at all, and before finding the Wikipedia article I had only heard of Trypillia. In this template, “Cucuteni-Trypillian” is appropriate so that it is identifiable for all.

Most of the others are cases where the Russian or Latin and Ukrainian names are easily associated by English readers, and Ukrainian is more appropriate for the Ukrainian history template. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 20:07 z

Well in that case would you feel I have full authority to revert this edit? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, one does not need to write Velika Vitchizna Voyna for Second World War? So what's wrong with Galicia-Volhynia? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Kuban Cossacks, and perhaps some of these are debatable, but I will insist that the term Trypillian or Cucuteni-Trypillian be included. As I said, in the Ukrainian context it is often referred to only by this name. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 14:20 z

The point is, we have people dedicated to changing every mention of Kharkov to Kharkiv, Lvov to Lviv etc. Surely by extending your logic we can rightfully revert those people? Again how would an English reader benefit from seeing Halych-Volyn instead of Galicia-Volhynia? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow how you reached that conclusion from my logic. How does an English reader benefit from seeing Galicia-Volhynia instead of Halych-Volyn? And Bukovina for Bukovyna, Chernyakhov for Cherniakhiv, and Chernobyl for Chornobyl? The Ukrainian versions tend to be used in histories specific to this topic (I can do a survey of these names in the main sources, if you're interested). —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 16:33 z

Another problem

Have a look at History of Russia template, why don't we also add the dates, and trim the template from excessive detail. Also here is another problem, and general we have the Mongol Invasion of Rus in 1240, we have the Cossack Hetmanate in 1654, but that leaves a four century gap in the History of Ukraine, there is very scarce information in many articles as to what happened during that time, particularly in central and eastern Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see an example with dates. I like the way dates are presented in grey text in e.g., {{History of Japan}} and {{History of China}}.

The nature of the template is such that things which lasted a long time are only listed in one place, so Lithuania, Poland-Lithuania, Halych-Volyn’, the Ottoman Empire, etc, may all account for part of the gap, but be listed apparently centuries apart. I don't see this as a problem, but is there something specifically missing in the gap? —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 14:28 z

Well if you look at the template to your right you will find there is quite a bit of overlap at certain events. So the question is why can't we make this template resemble the one on the right? Also might I bring your attention to Template:History of East Slavs, would it make sense to re-write that template and say move all events prior to Kievan Rus along with cultures to that one leaving just the link to it at the top of the proper templates for Ru/Ua/Be? Have a look btw at Template:History of Belarus as well, even simpler than Russian one. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have a more modular system which would allow that kind of inter-templating. The military history Wikiproject has a great standard for battle and campaign boxes, which can selectively appear in an article opened or collapsed. This would require some broad cooperation across national histories. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 20:50 z

“Modern” Ukraine

“Modern” Ukraine is simply an incorrect name for the link to History of Ukraine#Independence. In history, Modern history, the Modern era, or Modernity mean something absolutely different. It doesn't matter to me what History of Belarus or some other template does, the word simply doesn't refer to this period in a history context. Accepting this reflects poorly on us as the editors.

If we want to be specific, then we can call it:

• Ukraine today (an acceptable synonym)
• Present-day Ukraine (wordier synonym)
• Contemporary Ukraine (dry, but correct)
• Post-Modern Ukraine (if we want to be cutting-edge)
• Post-Soviet Ukraine (if we want to define it by what it's not)
• Ukraine (if we want to define it by nothing)
• Independent Ukraine (referring to the defining event)
• [what else?]

“Independent Ukraine” is my choice. It precisely identifies the period to the reader with reference to its defining event, and also names the linked article section. It happens to be the title of Yekelchyk's book section about the subject. One editor objects to the title because Ukraine was independent before, but I don't see how that could cause any confusion here at all.

But please let's change it to any acceptable name. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 21:51 z

It is my choice too, what would that first independent Ukraine be then, the Cossack Hetmanate? Not sure a warior republic is the same as an independent state. But besides that English media uses the term "Independent Ukraine" to describe post-1991 Ukraine (CNN/BBC atleast). The term "Modern Ukraine" sounds more like an art-form to me... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I second Michael's proposal. I don't see anything wrong with Independent Ukraine - it signifies certain historical events that happened after independence. Modern is too vague and can mean any period of modern history. As well, I think Imperial period should be changed as well. It is vague as well. Poland also had periods of Imperial rule, and yet they don't call it that. It is early modern period. Why do we call in Imperial and then redirect to Early Modern Europe? What's wrong with calling it what it is: Early Modern Period.--Hillock65 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Imperial period

[Topic introduced by Hillock65 above: “As well, I think Imperial period should be changed as well. It is vague as well. Poland also had periods of Imperial rule, and yet they don't call it that. It is early modern period. Why do we call in Imperial and then redirect to Early Modern Europe? What's wrong with calling it what it is: Early Modern Period.” —MZ]

I chose the name, because it describes the tenure of Ukrainian lands under both the Russian and Habsburg empires (While “Early Modern period” says nothing to me about Ukraine's history, and might include the Cossack era as well). I think it was inspired by a book chapter, but I can't remember specifically. The link doesn't have to be there; I chose it based on the period. —Michael Z. 2008-07-29 23:59 z

I prefer Imperial period too per Mzajac's arguments and “Early Modern period” sounds like an art periode again... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical tryzub

Tryzub of Volodymyr

Found this on commons. It looks a bit more historical, but I maybe the coin background is a bit distracting. —Michael Z. 2008-08-08 05:33 z

My 5 cents

Seeing some disagreements - I would like to point out that as a citizen of Ukraine I would approve the inclusion of the following in the template: - Holodomor - Orange Revolution (and the surrounding events - although I oppose any one-sided illumination of this occurrence) - Trypillya ? - I thought maybe have some sort of continuous line of culture evolution in the territory of Ukraine - from oldest known to modern. Cos in my mind a nation/country is mainly its culture. Will take a closer look and try to constructively contribute - it's a promise :) Vvolodymyr (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reichskommissariat Ukraine

I simply don't understand why this part of Ukraine's history should be erased from the template. It's been erased because it's "German colonial administration". Well, then why does Habsburg Monarchy or Soviet Union stay in the template? Like it or not the Reichskommissariat is an important part of Ukraine's history. And since there is no real article about Ukraine in World War II yet, but only a small section in the article History of Ukraine and with no information about Reichskommissariat Ukraine I strongly suggest it should stay in the template. Närking (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Habsburg and additionally the Golden Horde are entirely foreign entities that have nothing to do with Ukrainians, they should go. The Soviet Union is also somewhat redundant because we have a link to the Ukrainian SSR, so I'm indifferent as to whether it stays or goes.

Lack of an article or a bad section doesn't warrant the inclusion of anything (who's stopping you from writing about the Reich in "history of Ukraine"?). And even if it did the Reich. Ukraine article talks about German division and governing of the territory, not Ukrainian history. There is nothing on the holocaust or the partisans just German administration. This is a German entity that has nothing to do with Ukrainians, so how are these colonial divisions an important part of Ukraine's history? --Tavrian 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is in indeed part of Ukrainian history just like Ukrainian SSR. Since the template deals with not just the history of independent Ukraine. If that would be the case then the template wouldn't include much. German governing of Ukraine is of course important just like Russian or Soviet ones. Närking (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two key differences here. First, Reich. Ukraine was not merely a governing body, it was a colonial government which was aimed at milking Ukraine for everything it had. Even the Russian/Austrian empires which were far from creating Ukrainian entities allowed the territory to prosper to some extent. And second, unlike the Russian empire which ruled Ukraine for centuries, Reich. Ukraine lasted some 2.5 years. That's what makes it far less significant and merits it being covered in the general "Ukraine in World War II" link. --Tavrian 05:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wheather the Reichskommissariat Ukraine was a "colonial" government or not has no importance here. It's part of the history of Ukraine and shouldn't be erased from it just because one doesn't like it. And yes, it didn't last long, but it surely had great impact in Ukraine with millions of killed Ukrainians and Jews. Närking (talk) 08:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You see, it does have some importance. Unlike all the other polities, Reich. Ukraine gave no power or opportunity for Ukrainian people to prosper. Thus it had nothing to do with Ukrainians; other than killing them and shipping them off to Germany for slave labour of course. But the whole argument start because you felt The "Ukraine in World War II" link wasn't informative enough. So look at Reich. Ukraine, do you see a section on the holocaust, Nazi massacres or slave labour? All I see is list of German governors and administrative divisions. Please explain why the short lived Nazi governing structure is so vital to Ukrainian history. --Tavrian 17:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If your problem is that it had nothing to do with ethnic Ukrainians then surely there are many other things to remove from the template. The same with the short timeframe argument. But this could be solved by someone writing the article about "Ukraine in World War II" which should include such things as Reichskommissariat Ukraine, Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II, Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine, 1939–1940, Operation Barbarossa, Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood, 1941, Holocaust in Ukraine, Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Soviet partisans, OST-Arbeiter etc. But right now I don't have time to write this article. Närking (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And it would be interesting to know what other editors think since Reichskommissariat Ukraine was in the template for a long time before it suddenly was deleted without explanations. Närking (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My problem, in short, is that a Nazi governing structure is being portraied as a Ukrainian polity alongside the UNR and UkrSSR. And what other governing body on the template lasted 2.5 year Narking? You seem to have a lot of suggestions for others (and pointing out what others like and don't like with a very NPOV image on your user page) but you've yet to answer my question: why is the short lived Nazi governing structure is so vital to Ukrainian history? --Tavrian 23:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what my userpage has anything to do with this. It's a pity that discussions about historical articles related to Ukraine always end up with personal attacks including hidden accusations of being a Nazi or Communist, pro-Russian or anti-Russian. This is partly also the problem with current Ukrainian politics. Bad things in history just don't disappear because you ignore them. Närking (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're so hurt. Answer the question. --Tavrian 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You have given your view and I have given mine. Now I'm awaiting other editors' views, especially those who have been working with the template before and added Reichskommissariat Ukraine to it. Närking (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my authoritarian views, but this is a discussion and not a WP:vote or comparison of people's POV. So, why is the short lived Nazi governing structure is so vital to Ukrainian history? --Tavrian 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I hate to intrude on this no doubt productive conversation, but is there a reason why in the Cossacks section a few titles repeat? Can I remove them? Ostap 03:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those repeating sections really should go. Närking (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)