Talk:Military of Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Military of Ukraine as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Ukrainian language Wikipedia.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Related task forces...


	Russian and Soviet military history task force

The page needs serious widening and editing. Hope to find time for that. Just for start, I've made some edits using conventional English terms. Later I'll explain them with official Ukrainian names. AlexPU 16:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Might want to work this in somewhere: Siberia Airlines Flight 1812. A2Kafir 20:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1 T-55
2 Frigates
3 Internal security during election unrest
4 Translating Ukrainian Featured Article

[edit] T-55

Michael, хто їх знає, що в них in service. Вони, по-моєму, геть усе вже розпродали/розкрали... Military in Ukraine is highly untransparent. AlexPU

I was wondering about the list of equipment here, myself. My understanding is that the USSR was widely equipped with the very latest, but kept a lot of very old equipment in reserve service and war stores. Я не маю поняття що Україна ще уживає. I'll see if I can find a recent Jane's Fighting Vehicles at the library, and look up some realistic information. —Michael Z.

To the best of my knowledge, they were selling the old equipment out in 1990s. That's how Ukraine, producing almost null of armaments in mid-1990s, got on the world's top ten of sellers :). It wolud be interesting to find out what the Jane's knows. Pryvit, AlexPU

[edit] Frigates

what are ukraine's 7 frigates? I thought Ukraine only had 2 frigates( the sebastopol being actualy unable to set to sea) and 4 corvettes? User:Domnu Goie

Indeed. Anyway, we have more corvettes than frigates :) . The block is tagged for now. Ukrained 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal security during election unrest

This controversial issue is addressed here (and here by me recently). That's why the section is tagged. Ukrained 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I also find the story hard to beleive at face value but NYTimes is one of the most respactable papers and we cannot say that what it wrote is plain BS unless we can find other respectable sources that discredit that article. BTW, the links above "here and here" do not direct to your addressing the issue. --Irpen 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops... The issue is addressed by my edit here. Thanks for alerting. Ukrained 23:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at your edit there and I disagree with this approach. NYTimes rarely publish dubious info, although it happends of course, as with any media. However, if they make a blunder, it becomes known from the media itself, like the Bush's service records published by CBS that were later found out to be forged [1]. You say "not confirmed". This may apply if this is found on some web-blog or a tabloid. NYTimes story cannot be considered dubious until it is rebutted, not vice versa. That said, I find all this hard to beleive myself, but I don't claim the authority in news services and, as a wiki-writer, accept the version of the respected paper, in attributed form, until it is rebutted. --Irpen 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. But I still think we should either rewrite the section or keep tag. The current text looks like documenting the mere facts. Ukrained 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, please rewrite the section by presenting the version in attributed form, similar to what was done in the OR article. Like "According to..." --Irpen 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)