Talk:Ukrainian War of Independence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] DYK suggestions
This is a good topic. Let's get it to the DYK nomination.--Riurik(discuss) 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is this a genuinely new article or is it based on the existing ones? --Irpen 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's a new topic that is not specifically covered by any other article, however several parts of it are covered by separate articles which are listed. This article also contains information that is not covered by any existing articles at all. 155.246.121.113 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
My question is whether the article is written anew or is the compilation of the existing enwiki articles. If so, which ones. It is not prohibited to use other articles to write new ones but this should be acknowledged for GFDL reasons if not for any others. --Irpen 05:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, the article is written almost entirely anew. There is certain information that is taken directly out of other Wiki articles, and these articles are referenced. There is also information that appears nowhere else on wikipedia. 155.246.121.113 06:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK suggestion, Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created_on_November_1
- ...that the Ukrainian War of Independence began when Tsentralna Rada in Kiev declared independence of Ukraine on January 22, 1918? - article by Kami888 (talk · contribs); nom by --Riurik(discuss) 23:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UWI as a historical term
This is a continuation of the discussion started on the wp:dyk page under November 1, asked by Carabinieri regarding the usage of Ukrainian War of Independence.
The term is used by:
- Encyclopedia Britannica although not directly in this way World War I and the struggle for independence.
- Also by historian Orest Subtelny in Ukraine: a History on page 441 where Subtelny writes: "...during the war for independence" refering to the period specifically covered by this article between 1917-1921.
- Also by the Encyclopedia of Ukraine "the Ukrainian struggle for independence (1917–1920)"
Regards, --Riurik(discuss) 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was just unable to find the term on the first glance.--Carabinieri 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- This title suggests a formality and establishment of title that really looks like it's the product of the author creator. Please will someone involved in these article read WP:NOR, esp. WP:SYN. This title makes a mockery of these policy-guidelines. Actual content ... minus the spin ... would appear to be Ukraine in the Russian Civil War. By looking at the War of Independence articles, there needs to be establishment of usage for this term. Also the term suggests 1) the primary theme of the war was one side's struggle for an independent Ukraine (POV) and 2) that the latter were successful (they weren't). And 3) it has to be an established historical term in the lingua anglica! This article may need to go to WP:RFC. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think that the title Ukrainian Civil War would be most acceptable. After all Ukrainians fought on all three sides, in the Russian White Army, in the Bolshevik Red Army, were allied to the Poles, in addition to exclusively making the Makhnovschina and the short-lived UNR states. By definition of a Civil War (A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power.), this fits perfectly to the case.--Kuban Cossack 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm more concerned about using any title which suggests widespread formal use. Description wise, Civil War is appropriate, as it would be to the War of American Independence and the Wars of Scottish Independence among others. However, use of "Ukrainian Civil War" likewise suggests a widespread formality of usage. Ukraine in the Russian Civil War and Polish-Soviet War is, if long-winded, descriptive and not in violation of guidelines. Is "Ukrainian Civil War" more widespread than "Ukrainian War of Independence"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll note, the Castilian wiki has much of the same content under the title Ukraine in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, es:Ucrania después de la Revolución Rusa. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is the title of this article acceptable?
- I have to second Kuban kazak's proposition about the Ukrainian Civil War. Inclusion of this war in Russian civil war is improper as at times, hostilities went on without the participation of Russian forces and in Ukraine, which was by then de facto and de jure independent. Moreover, even in relation to those who participated, it is not easy to figure out which were Russian or not. It happened in Ukraine, thus the above title is appropriate. In addition, this title is widely used in English-language historiographic literature [1][2][3][4][5]. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Though the idea that Ukraine experienced civil strife or war in this period is easy to verify, "Ukrainian Civil War" isn't. It has the benefit of naturally following the terminology of Russian Civil War, but beyond that I can't find evidence that English historians have embraced the concept "Ukrainian Civil War" to the extent necessary. The links don't support a wiki title enshrining "Ukrainian Civil War"; I think therefore this title would still be in violation of WP:SYN. Civil war in Ukraine, 1917-1921 or perhaps better Political strife in Ukraine, 1917-1921 would get around that. And again, there is the suggestion of the Castilian wikipedia as a possible alternative. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well with all do respect what other conflict would you describe as the Ukrainian Civil War? Also I have to disagree with Hillock about its non-inclusiveness into the Russian Civil War. Nearly all historians agree that it was part of this large superconflict, and Ukraine without doubt was one of the major theatres of the conflict. Same way Transcaucasia is included as part of the same superconflict although not directly involving "Russia" at times (see for yourself). With Ukraine however, was Crimea not the final stand of the Russian White Army? Was the Polish-Soviet Conflict not the closing phase of the european theatre? The Ukrainian theatre of the Russian Civil War was one of the most important ones. How can you deny that. We are not focusing on individual conflicts involved, but to describe the whole period. In doubt dig into any Military History book on the subject. --Kuban Cossack 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kuban, it's not that Ukrainian Civil War might be ambiguous, it's that wikipedia isn't the place to enshrine terminology before historians do. There's a similar problem with the rather ridiculously named Ukrainian-Soviet War, overly formal (I don't think the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is good or representative enough) and implies that the Ukrainian SSR and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic weren't "Ukrainian". Ukrainian Civil War isn't nearly as bad as the current title ... I won't oppose it if otherwise there's consensus, but I don't really see what problem there is with Civil war in Ukraine, 1917-1921. As it duplicates the content here, if and when the article gets renamed to a more sensible location, we should seriously consider merging the ill-named Ukrainian-Soviet War into this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Against above comments, I've just discovered for myself that there's already an article called Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, as many here knew and didn't point out. Anyways, this means wikipedia has three articles with pretty much the same content ... two with names in violation of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, and one a with a descriptive name such as the one I suggested:
- So the problem looks worse (to me at least) than it originally did. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I agree, three articles for the same topic is inappropriate. They should be merged somehow. I am not sure about the naming though, either UCW or UWI sounds fine to me, but "Ukrainian-Soviet War" is too specific (it is only a part of a larger struggle), while "Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" is too broad - it doesn't specify existence of a conflict at all. Kami888 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- If one article is too specific, and the other is too wide, then please explain why do you want it to be merged? The scope of the articles is different, and that's fine. Why do you think that everything should be in one article? --Greggerr (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I find the topics of all three articles to be too similar, their contents overlap too much. The scope is different but I don't think it necessiates existance of all 3 articles. For example I fail to see Ukraine-Soviet war as a really separate conflict from all the other conflicts which took place in Ukraine at the same time. It can hardly be described even as a separate "front" of the war.Kami888 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, there are two subarticles, Ukrainian-Soviet War and Polish-Ukrainian War, which cover specific details of the conflict. Both of the articles look well written, and in size are larger than this article. For me it seems acceptable to keep it as it is. There were many conflicts between different parties in Ukraine at that time, and Ukrainian-Bolshevik conflict was one of such conflicts, and actually, an important one. --Greggerr (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well I disagree, first of all why do we privatise the terms "Ukrainian" to the UNR? Ukrainians fought in the Red Army, many fought for Wrangel and Denikin (read Bulgakov's White Guard for that fact). There were the Galician riflemen who after Petliura surrendered Galicia to the Poles instead sided with Denikin. However what is true, and would go against the title, was that the one group that had the majority of Ukrainians in it, was neither the Red or the White, or the samostiyniki... the one group that truely holds the title of being a Ukrainian one is the Black Army of Nestor Makhno. Which is why the current title is wrong. I would suggest Ukrainian theatre of the Russian Civil War --Kuban Cossack 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Basically, there are two subarticles, Ukrainian-Soviet War and Polish-Ukrainian War, which cover specific details of the conflict. Both of the articles look well written, and in size are larger than this article. For me it seems acceptable to keep it as it is. There were many conflicts between different parties in Ukraine at that time, and Ukrainian-Bolshevik conflict was one of such conflicts, and actually, an important one. --Greggerr (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I find the topics of all three articles to be too similar, their contents overlap too much. The scope is different but I don't think it necessiates existance of all 3 articles. For example I fail to see Ukraine-Soviet war as a really separate conflict from all the other conflicts which took place in Ukraine at the same time. It can hardly be described even as a separate "front" of the war.Kami888 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- If one article is too specific, and the other is too wide, then please explain why do you want it to be merged? The scope of the articles is different, and that's fine. Why do you think that everything should be in one article? --Greggerr (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, three articles for the same topic is inappropriate. They should be merged somehow. I am not sure about the naming though, either UCW or UWI sounds fine to me, but "Ukrainian-Soviet War" is too specific (it is only a part of a larger struggle), while "Ukraine after the Russian Revolution" is too broad - it doesn't specify existence of a conflict at all. Kami888 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Kuban, it's not that Ukrainian Civil War might be ambiguous, it's that wikipedia isn't the place to enshrine terminology before historians do. There's a similar problem with the rather ridiculously named Ukrainian-Soviet War, overly formal (I don't think the Encyclopedia of Ukraine is good or representative enough) and implies that the Ukrainian SSR and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic weren't "Ukrainian". Ukrainian Civil War isn't nearly as bad as the current title ... I won't oppose it if otherwise there's consensus, but I don't really see what problem there is with Civil war in Ukraine, 1917-1921. As it duplicates the content here, if and when the article gets renamed to a more sensible location, we should seriously consider merging the ill-named Ukrainian-Soviet War into this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I think "Ukrainian theatre of the Russian Civil War" would definitely not look good since it suggests that Ukraine is part of Russia :) Kami888 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Care to explain? The historic definition of the super conflict that this war was part of is the Russian Civil War. Ukrainian here does not necessarily imply in the national or ethnic sense, but instead in regional. Also at present of course Ukraine is not part of Russia, but historically it was (in fact it was a cradle of Russian civilisation mind you!). Transcaucusian thetre is also considered to be part of the Russian Civil War. Yet does not suggest that Transcaucasia
wasis part of Russia? Does Ukraine after the Russian Revolution suggest anything? Yet that title is universally accepted.--Kuban Cossack 12:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Care to explain? The historic definition of the super conflict that this war was part of is the Russian Civil War. Ukrainian here does not necessarily imply in the national or ethnic sense, but instead in regional. Also at present of course Ukraine is not part of Russia, but historically it was (in fact it was a cradle of Russian civilisation mind you!). Transcaucusian thetre is also considered to be part of the Russian Civil War. Yet does not suggest that Transcaucasia
- Well with all do respect what other conflict would you describe as the Ukrainian Civil War? Also I have to disagree with Hillock about its non-inclusiveness into the Russian Civil War. Nearly all historians agree that it was part of this large superconflict, and Ukraine without doubt was one of the major theatres of the conflict. Same way Transcaucasia is included as part of the same superconflict although not directly involving "Russia" at times (see for yourself). With Ukraine however, was Crimea not the final stand of the Russian White Army? Was the Polish-Soviet Conflict not the closing phase of the european theatre? The Ukrainian theatre of the Russian Civil War was one of the most important ones. How can you deny that. We are not focusing on individual conflicts involved, but to describe the whole period. In doubt dig into any Military History book on the subject. --Kuban Cossack 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Though the idea that Ukraine experienced civil strife or war in this period is easy to verify, "Ukrainian Civil War" isn't. It has the benefit of naturally following the terminology of Russian Civil War, but beyond that I can't find evidence that English historians have embraced the concept "Ukrainian Civil War" to the extent necessary. The links don't support a wiki title enshrining "Ukrainian Civil War"; I think therefore this title would still be in violation of WP:SYN. Civil war in Ukraine, 1917-1921 or perhaps better Political strife in Ukraine, 1917-1921 would get around that. And again, there is the suggestion of the Castilian wikipedia as a possible alternative. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current title is valid, and the arguments provided by Riurik are convincing. The terms "war of independence" and "struggle for independence" have been used by Britannica, Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and among historians. On the other hand, the title "Ukrainian Civil War" is too narrow to describe the event. German, Polish, and Russian forces payed important, if nor the dominant role in the conflict. --Greggerr (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ukrainian War of Independence is a right term. To argue that it isn't because Russian Empire fell is absurd, we could then portay Polish struggle was only part of Russian Civil War. Also a large part of Ukraine came from Galicia region which wasn't part of Russian Empire but Austro-Hungarian Empire.--Molobo (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
