Talk:Ukraine after the Russian Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Ukraine after the Russian Revolution appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 November 2006.

[edit] DYK

Please propose better DYK questions. Just off the top of my head, Did You Know:

1. ... that Ukraine after the Russian Revolution of 1917 was fought over by the forces of three different Ukrainian governments, Russian Bolsheviks and Loyalists, Poles, Germans, Cossacks and anarchists?
2. ... that despite battles in Ukraine after the Russian Revolution between Ukrainian, Bolshevik, Russian, Polish, German, and Cossack forces, and various anarchist and paramilitary bands, Ukrainian-language publication and education flourished?
3. ... that Ukrainian-language publication and education flourished in Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, despite battles between Ukrainian, Bolshevik, Russian, Polish, German, and Cossack forces, and various anarchist and paramilitary bands?

Please wikify, improve, or add more proposals. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 00:51 Z

Both are good. Actually, the most neutral title of this artcile is: "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)". 04:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the second DYK entry you wrote. As for the title, "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" does seem to be more defined in scope and not as long so perhaps the current article can be moved there (either now or after the dyk). --Riurik ^(discuss) 20:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the tone of the second question too. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:08 Z

Question: my impression is that Ukrainian-language publication and education flourished after the Tsar's edicts banning Ukrainian was no longer in force, under the Centralna Rada and the Hetmanate. The fighting increased later, but I don't know how much overlap there was. Does question no. 2 reflect the reality well enough? —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 22:19 Z

I've reworded #2 slightly as #3, so perhaps it implies that there was more flourishing before fighting. I'll propose it to WP:DYK shortly, and of course suggestions for rewording or changing the question will still be welcome. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 03:40 Z

the third is even better.--Riurik ^(discuss) 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

[in response to comments in #DYK above]

I prefer the current title because it relates to the topic: an unfamiliar reader knows from the title what goes on during the period, whereas the years alone would not carry significance to everyone. I'm now think that "Ukraine in the Russian Revolution" might be a bit better. "Ukraine in the Russian Revolution (1917-1922)" may be the best of both. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:08 Z

(1) Russian Revolution, by itself, is an ambiguous term.
(2) A part of Ukraine was in the Austria-Hungary Empire, which collapsed due to WWI. As well as, the Russian Empire collapsed in part due to WWI. It may suggest "Ukraine in WWI" title, as a world war is wider recognized than a revolution in Russia.
(3) And why should we prefer "Ukraine in(after) the Russian Revolution", instead of "Ukraine after the collapse of Russian Empire" or, say, "Ukraine before the formation of the Soviet Union"?

All in all, "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" is a neutral way to name the article. Other proposals have a subjective emphasis built in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.84.5.80 (talk • contribs).

My issue was that Ukraine after the Russian Revolution title can indicate the Ukrainian SSR or the independent Ukraine, however I don't really mind your proposed title as long as in the lead paragraph it is made explicit to the reader that the article is about specific events/governments of Ukraine between 1917-1922. --Riurik ^(discuss) 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some good points, which require more thought. Some initial responses:

• I don't think "Ukraine in WWI" is suitable, because most of the activity discussed in the article wasn't directly concerned with the war, and the period covered doesn't correspond to the duration of WWI (1914–1918).
• "Ukraine after the collapse of the Russian Empire" would be better, but it only defines the period in question by what it followed. In contrast, "in the Russian Revolution" is associated with the events covered herein.
• I agree that "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" is the most neutral, but that is simply because it avoids saying what the article is about. I think readers appreciate being given a clue to the subject of an article when they see the title in isolation. It would also be good to have a title which can at least occasionally be linked directly, rather than always having to type a piped link: [[History of Ukraine (1917-1922) |Ukraine in the Russian Revolution]].

The first revolution of 1917 is what starts the events here, and Russian Revolution or Russian Civil War can refer to the greater events up to 1921. I also think this article requires an earlier section covering events from the 1905 Revolution, but that will take a bit of reading first.

Is it a problem to associate a Ukrainian history article with the Russian revolution in the title? Personally, I think it's neutral because it doesn't imply that Ukraine was Russian, but merely refers to the defunct Russian Empire.

But as I wrote above, you make some good points. I'd like to get some more input from other editors. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 03:34 Z

See also: Talk:Ukrainian_People's_Republic#more_on_expansion.

I've removed the POV tag from the top of this article. Anonymous, please participate in the discussion instead of just publicly expressing your displeasure. We've taken the trouble to respond to you, you could at least take the trouble to respond in kind. If all of your points haven't been addressed, then let us know how.

And why do you label the title POV? Exactly what is the "subjective emphasis" you think it is suffering from? —Michael Z. 2006-11-19 18:04 Z

In my opinion, the current title of this article "Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" is POV because it unnecessary and subjectively overemphasizes the Russian revolution of 1917. Similarly, if it were named "Ukraine before the formation of the Soviet Union", it would overemphasize the Soviet Union creation. The two titles I just mentioned are exactly similar, as they both bring additional focus on some events, which are not actually the main subject of the article. As it looks for me, it’s just that you for some reason like one POV title over the other.

It’s my understanding that the most common practice among historians is naming historical periods by time. For example, History of the United States (1865–1918), History of Canada (1960-1981). If there is a consensus name for a historical period, an article may be named that way. For example, Spain under Franco, or Italy in the Middle Ages.

The way you named the article implies that there is no name for a historical period of 1917-1922. But if so, it should be something neutral like "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)". Second, your title also implies that the only valuable historical event is the Russian revolution of 1917. This is quite subjective in my opinion, as such events as World War I, and Soviet Union formation are of no less value. Third, your title lack any indication of the end point of the historical period you are covering. Ukraine after the Russian Revolution until what? Even the initial historical point is not marked correctly because there were more than one Russian Revolution. Your title is not bringing clues, but rather generates confusions. Lastly, even for Russia, there is no article with the name "Russia after the October Revolution"; the article is named Russian Civil War.

If you agree that the title "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" is the most neutral, then why do you look for excuses to keep it under "not so neutral" name? If it's moved, no need to use piped links. Redirects would work. And piped links, if used, they would be quite different one from the other, like "there was [[History of Ukraine (1917-1922)|short period of independence]]...", etc, etc.

And as a side note, I know, you are an admin, and a long-standing contributor. Yet, your removal of POV tag constitutes vandalism. The tag is there, as it reads, to indicate that "this is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title". To the best of my abilities, I think, I explained why I see your title as subjective. You wrote that you would like "to get some more input from other editors". This is exactly what the tag is intended to bring. And you probably noticed that following the incusion of the tag, one person already voiced his opinion (but unfortunately he did it in wrong way) [1]. I think, the tag is a reasonable way to facilitate the discussion and to get others involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KPbIC (talk • contribs).

Dear KPbIC, I will respond to your message despite your writing it in your usual uncivil attack style. Calling your opponents vandals does not add credibility to your argument. Referring to the actions by true vandals[2] as those that somehow support your POV is plain bad-faith argument. In fact both the vandal and yourself assaulted the well-written article, although in different ways.

The article title is good. The article is devoted to the events in Ukraine prompted and unleashed by a grand event for the time, the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. Has the Soviet Union been not formed, the turmoil in Ukraine unleashed by the RU revolution would have warranted the article in any case. History of UA (XXXX-YYYY) would have made sense if we had written, similarly to our Polish colleagues, the overall series of history of Ukraine articles. Such does not exist. Creation of such a complete series would have been a gigantic undertaking. With 2.5 editors only who regularly work along the topics of Ukrainian history it will take time, especially when editors who write have to spend time fending off the occasional assaults on their work like this one.

I realize from your past edits how eager you are to detach Ukrainian topics from the Russian influences and even purge the very word Russia and Soviet from as many Ukrainian articles as possible. Such an extreme approach is counterproductive. Like it or not, none of the neighbors of Ukraine played a greater role in its history than its northeastern neighbor with Poland's being a clear but very distant second. You want to see an ethnically pure History of Ukraine as a first step to the ethnically pure Ukraine? You will get very little support for that even at uk-wiki. Take care and do not forget to log in if you choose to respond. --Irpen 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, Let me ignore for now the first and the third paragraph you wrote, as they are nothing more than personal attacks. On your constructive point, you seem to agree that the current title put tremendous emphasis on the Russian Revolution. However, you think that such emphasis is acceptable, as the revolution was such a "grand event". While the revolution was, in fact, a significant event (driven by even more significant World War I as well as domestic factors), the article is about a time period. In Russia, the established name for this time period is Russian Civil War, not "Russia after the Revolution".

If the series of History of Ukraine articles is needed, and it’s in fact needed, then this particular article titled in a neutral way as History of Ukraine (1917-1922) is really a good starting point. It does show the right direction to proceed. And you personally did call for such name for the historical article [3]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KPbIC (talk • contribs).

I thoroughly deny your accusation and stand by every word I said. As for the title, you may note that the entry by me you dug out (I applaud your gruntwork of finding my edits from months ago) is made specifically in the context of such hypothetical series of articles. Until now, we only have one History of Ukraine article. --Irpen 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I overreacted earlier, but it's been my experience that a label goes up on an article when an editor has decided that any further discussion is moot—it's like a second-resort weapon, used when an editor is convinced others are wrong but that his point of view has no chance of achieving consensus. I'm glad we're back to talking, even if it looks like there's a ways to go. It's too late at night for me to read through this carefully and respond, and it may be a day or two before I can. Regards. —Michael Z. 2006-11-20 08:11 Z

Before I go, I'll respond to a couple of points...

"Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" refers to the events, Revolutions of 1905 and 1917, which directly led to the major defining happenings in Ukraine covered in this article. "Ukraine before the formation of the Soviet Union" certainly does not. I don't see how this title "generates confusion", nor how it implies that the February Revolution is the "only valuable event" of the period. I think you might consider the possibility that you are inferring too much.

I don't know what basis there is for your understanding that historians prefer titles like "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)", but if you ask me this sounds like something that would be found in a grade-school textbook written by a committee. A listing of Ukrainian history articles with only dates in the titles is completely void of content, useless to any reader who doesn't already know the history. It doesn't show respect for the reader, and it's no wonder the kids would rather listen to gangsta rap.

Cream of wheat is neutral too. It may have its place, but I don't need "excuses" to avoid making it my main course for dinner.

As an example, the excellent reference I am looking at right now has chapters in its part eight ("World War I and the Struggle for Independence") entitled "World War I and Western Ukraine", "Revolutions in the Russian Empire", "The Period of the Hetmanate", "The Directory, Civil War, and the Bolsheviks", and "The West Ukrainian National Republic". The second of these, "Revolutions in the Russian Empire", has the following sections:

• Russia's first revolution of 1917
• Revolution in Dnieper Ukraine
• The Central Rada
• First Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada [quoting the full text of the document]
• The Bolshevik Revolution
• Third Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada (Preamble) [quoted text]
• The Ukrainian National Republic
• The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk [quoted text]

I doubt that this guy pitched in thanks to your valuable contribution of slapping a tag on this article, but if you want to claim that as a victory, I won't argue. And finally, please read what constitutes vandalism before you accuse any other editors who may not be as forgiving as I. If you still think I'm guilty, please consult Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Michael Z. 2006-11-20 08:58 Z

"Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled." (Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism)

At this point the article describes the events of 1917-1922. The title "Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" presumably refers to the events after the revolution, but the reader is left to figure out after which revolution. If, instead of clarifying the title, you plan to extend the article by including here events after 1905 revolution, with the sole purpose of validation the "after the revolution" title, then it's nothing more than an attempt of manipulation with the history, known as original research. "After 1905 revolution" and "after 1917 revolution" are the two separate time periods.

I don't see in which way the title "History of Ukraine (1917-1922)" brings disrespect to a reader. It covers the well specified period of history, with many events included. Dmytro Doroshenko wrote a two-volume book "History of Ukraine 1917-1923". I don't think, he named it in an attempt to disrespect readers. And actually, a textbook in Ukrainian high schools for 10th grade is named "Новітня історія (1914-1939 рр.)". None of the chapters of the book you cited is named as "Ukraine after the Russian revolution". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KPbIC (talk • contribs).

On tag removal, dispute tags may be removed when the user believes in good faith that the tag was added frivolously such as to disrupt or to fulfill one's political agenda especially when the tagger has a history of trolling in the past. WP:AGF includes the following clause specifically to address the issue: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." With the evidence of past history of a tagger to remove any reference to Russian language, Russian names, Russia and USSR (except the strongly negative ones) from all Ukraine-related topics, there was every reason to treat the tagger's action with suspicion, especially since the tagger refused did not add anything to a talk page when tagging the article. A tagger's claim that the vandal's addition of graffittee to an article[4] when it was featured at the mainpage signifies the vandal's support to the tagger's position is not even worthy of a response but it does exemplify the tagger's good faith.

On title, we are not talking 1905 here and the "Russian Revolution" in the title means the events that took place during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and its aftermath. The 1917 events in Russia unleashed the whole bunch of social and national movement in Ukraine that rocked it for the following 5 years, which can be clearly seen as the revolutionary turmoil. The article is specifically about the time of this turmoil and the title reflects that. When it all settled, the new chapter of Ukraine's history started, the interwar period. --Irpen 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been planning to add a preamble about relevant events after 1905 to this article, as you can see from earlier comments on this page, and your preëmptive accusations will not deter me. Please address complaints of my anticipated future offences to Temporal Investigations.

Anonymous, you don't seem to be getting the gist of my reasoning here, so let's just save our bickering for when it really counts. I suggest we see if there is support for a change. I'm not married to the current title, but I haven't yet seen a suggestion which is clearly better. —Michael Z. 2006-11-20 20:47 Z

Again, please don't ignore the recommendations of WP:STRAW#Creating a survey. And don't forget to annonce the survey at Wikipedia:Current surveys.

[edit] Straw poll regarding the article title