Talk:Ukrainian nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Riurik, why did you delete the mention of mass murder of Polish civilians conducted by UPA? It was a organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and the mass murders were conducted as part of UPA's effort to create "Ukraine free from Poles", so that was on-topic for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M80 PL (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought that while inserting this paragraph, other paragraphs were blanked out so I "fixed" the "blanking."--Riurik(discuss) 05:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rus' princes

Please don't remove referenced material simply because you call it OR. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Plsease do not insert dubious material. No modern academic source considers Rus' princes in any way related to Ukrainian Nationalism. I suggest you take a look at the Wilson's book dedicated to the subject cited at the reference section. If you cannot visit the library, try searching selected pages at google talk. --Irpen 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Irpen, please do read up on WP:RS. Encyclopedia of Ukraine is a boa fide encyclopedia. If you have difficulty with the English, please ask, and I will help you. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal

Now Miyokan, (Personal attack removed) removes "After the downfall of Kyiv in 1240, Ukraine was under the control of first Lithuania and then the Polish commonwealth until 1648". How is this dubious and worthy of removal? This is referenced fact. The real reason for its deletion is far too obvious. Ostap 17:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this fact is again removed as a "fringe theory". Ostap 02:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There are no doubts that Kiev fell in 1240. What is in doubt is that this fact is relevant to be included in the lead of the Ukrainian Nationalism article. If it somehow implies that before or immediately after 1240 existed a national group known as Ukrainians with strong national feelings and attachment to Kiev, Crimea, Odessa, Lviv, etc. but not Oryol, Smolensk, Moscow, Wilna, Warsaw then I am afraid it is indeed a very marginal theory. I left the strange phrase but was trying at least to make in understandable for the readers unfamiliar with the history of Ukraine Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we know that modern Russia was founded in 862, or so says our article. Anyway, it is relevant to the topic. It describes the historic background. It is not meant to impy anything. If not in the lead, it belongs in the article. And that was hardly a personal attack, it was based on constant removal of referenced information describing Vladimir Zhirinovsky as an ultra-nationalist. Ostap 05:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither did Russians exist as national group in 862. This sentence is important, the beginnings of Ukrainian statehood and nation have to be mention as it is an essential part of this idea.--Molobo (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The fragmentation of Eastern-Slav identities into White, Great and Little Russian/Ukrainian have nothing to do with the Kievan period, and implications to that effect are seriously misleading. Yes, it's equally misleading to claim that the idea of "Great Russians" comes from that period, but there at least there is continuity of name there and besides that's an issue for that article. BTW, the statement With the downfall of Kiev to Mongols in 1240, the territory of modern Ukraine was under the control of first Grand Duchy of Lithuania and then the Polish Commonwealth ... is inaccurate, or at least misleading, as no territory (or very little intermittently) of the modern Ukraine fell under Lithuanian control until later, and the southern third of the Ukraine, the non-slavic steppe, never really came under any Lithuanian control. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I fear you are reading too far into this. I wanted that sentence about PLC in there to give the historic background. There were not supposed to be any implications of anything. As far as modern Russia being founded in 862, that comes straight out of the infobox on our Russia article. Ostap 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand the effects of your text may not have been intentional, but you can see from 3 users here that this effect nevertheless took place. :) Have you brought the 862 matter up at the Russia article btw? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but to no avail. I re-added the PLC part because previously there was no historic background given at all, which would be confusing to some readers. The discussion about the Rus princes being the guardians of the Ukrainian nation, the part I didn't re-add, was supposed to take place in the section above. Ostap 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it seems that there are very many things getting very confused very quickly here. One step at a time. I think that the lead is very good as it stands. Following the lead, there are many arguments made about the idea that the people of Kyiv felt a very strong connection to the area of Ukraine, as stated in the Primary Chronicle. However, it must be noted that at the time, Ukraine did not include the Crimea, Odesa, or Donetsk, but did include Moscow, Novhorod, and Smolensk. And it must also be stated that it was not called Ukraine, but Rus. Please see here: [[1]] and here [[2]] and even on Wikipedia here: [[3]] as well as

Next, I absolutely agree with ABakharev that the fact that Kyiv was destroyed by the Mongols in 1240 is irrellevant to this article. The fact that before that, there were people who were ready to defend Kyiv, for the fact that there was a Kyiv, however, is relevant.

Also, I absolutely agree that the fragmentation of Kyivan Rus into different countries and nationalities is irrellevant here.

Also, it is also true that neither Lithuania nor Poland actually controlled the Steppe. Neither did the Khanate of the Crimea. The people who finally brought it under control were the Zaporozhtsi. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine included Novgorod, Moscow, and Smolensk but was not called Ukraine, but Rus'? Very interesting theory. Sorry, we can't use your own theories in Wikipedia. --Irpen 09:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Irpen, I'm very happy that you find history interesting. If you have difficulty accessing the links about Ukrainian hisory provided, please just leave me a message and I will be happy to help you with that. Also, please see the discussion below about the idea that empire=hegemony. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good book and review about the subject

[http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=23803921690163 The Contest for the Legacy of Kievan Rus

It would seem that the merging of Muscovy with Mongolian culture was important fact for Ukrainian national idea and its belief of seperation between Russia formed out of Muscovy and Ukraine which the believed is true legacy of Kievan Rus.--Molobo (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, if only the amount of critique this author received in this review was given to an author someone would use to source something you don't agree with, you would charge the source's non-usability at once. But this aside, reviews cannot replace the books themselves as sources. I hope you don't plan to cite the review as a source for the info on the book's subject. You can of course use a respectable review as a source in an article about a book or its author. --Irpen 04:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen the review is a scholary work, and Wikipedia allows it to use it as a source of information about a subject. Please read on Wiki policies. It is fairly often procedure.--Molobo (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you wanting to argue, Molobo? That such arguments about the relationship between Moscow and Kiev, the Mongols and Rus, have been used in Ukrainian nationalist writings, or that such a relationship actually exists? It is true that some Ukrainian writers have argued for such a relationship, it is not true however that such a perspective is part of mainstream scholarship. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"it is not true however that such a perspective is part of mainstream scholarship"

Source of that claim ?--Molobo (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that claim comes from my knowledge of [english language] scholarship. I could really only substantiate it for your by listing individual examples and describing how they treat this topic, which would be very laborious, but this is even what your own source above states "He directs his major criticism against the prevalence in modern Russian and western historiography of the theory of Kievan-Muscovite continuity to the exclusion of Ukrainian claims". The flip-side is Ukrainian nationalist historiography which has claimed for a few hundred years that Malorussia/Ukraine is the real successor of Kievan Rus and that, extremely, Great Russia is an orientalised imposter. You can read a survey of this kind of thing and other features of "nationalist" Ukrainian historiography in this article. You might also be interested in the a related Russian take on this, Eurasianism and Neo-Eurasianism. None of this would have made sense until the 18th century or so when pan-"Russian" identity began to decline as an indirect consequence of Muscovite imperialism, as until then (and after) "Russia" (and related terms) was the collective term for what we now call [European] Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. In simple geographic terms, all three housed major Kievan-era Rus sub-states, though the Russian Federation, because it is the main successor state of Muscovy's reunification of Rus lands, preserves the name and appears like it is claiming to be the true successor; this however is just an accident of modern terminological changeas far as westerner historians are concerned. Janet Martin's Medieval Russia uses the term Russia in the traditional sense, but she is not a Russian imperialist and she matter-of-factly elsewhere shows herself fully aware that there are three states there today, only one of which is called "Russia". Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The collective term was never Russia but Kievan Rus, this is nationalist take, Rus and Russia are two different things, although as matters are it is no surprise that Russians have influenced some Westerners. As to Eurasianism, Dugin and other imperialist ideology in Russia I know more then I would like to[4]. --Molobo (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, "Kievan Rus" is a modern term. "Rus", "Russia", and variations thereof were the terms. Muscovy changed its name to "Russia" because it was unifying the eastern Slavs (actually, this is mildly anachronistic, the ruler rather changed his proclamation of rule, claiming to rule all old "Russia" rather than a vague Grand Principality of lands collected around Moscow). Quoting Norman Davies, himself a mild "Russosceptic", (Europe, p. 558), "The formula Muscovy + Ukraine =Russia does not feature in the Russians' own version of their history; but it is fundamental. In which case the true founded of the Russian Empire was Alexei Mikhailovich". What's happened now is that Russia has become associated only with Muscovy and its successor states because that state used "Russia". Compare Spain: Spain (and its variants) is the ancient term for what we now called Iberia, but its association with a particular state has changed this meaning. This has led some Portuguse to irritation when medievalists speak of "medieval Spain", but these medievalists are innocently following medieval terminology and aren't in any way "Spanish imperialists". Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The older version was overwhelmingly Rus no Russia. Also terming the brutal slaughter and conquest by Muscovy of various seperate groups that developed over the centuries of their own development 'unification of Eastern Slavs' sounds a bit too much like Russian imperial theories, not very credible btw since Muscovy was a merging of Germanic Ruriks and Mongol culture largely transformed it from anything that Eastern Slavs were before Mongol Yoke. But that is outside the topic.--Molobo (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the same word; Russia is just a territorialization. Anyways, not defending conquests or anything, that's just the ethnic ideologicalization background to those conquests. The level of violence was hardly unique, and certainly nothing notable compared with the numerous reunifications of China for instance. Not sure the Muscovite rulers who referred to themselves and were referred to by the same ethnic terms as inhabitants in what are now Belarus and Ukraine thought it important that they had been under "Mongol Yoke". People don't tend to have historical perspective like that. The Muscovite rulers did see themselves as the rightful rulers of the "eastern slavs" because they monopolized the Grand Principality of Vladimir and right to collect tribute from all of the eastern Slavs on behalf of the Sarai khan, the nominal overlord. The Lithuanians also claimed the same right (not the tribute part). It just worked out that Muscovy rather than Lithuania emerged, partly because Lithuania was effectively attached to Catholic Poland. As for Mongol impact. Minimal, beyond a few institutions. The vast bulk of Golden Horde manpower was Turkic rather than Mongol (which became merely an ideological-aristocratic thing within a few generations), and the Horde exercised minimal direct control of Rus'. Read Ibn Battuta's account, and you'll realise that the inhabitants of areas directly under "Mongol" control, even those in the Sarai-Astrakhan region, knew virtually nothing about Rus', and the only info he could offer was that its inhabitants were fair-haired and tall (standard literary Mediterranean/Mid-Eastern pastiche about northern Europeans) and that lots of fur and other trade goods came from there. Of course this is digressionary, and this is only my opinion. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Woa, woa, woa - too many things there. Let's go one at a time - first, Rus vs. Russia. "Rus" is a term that was widely used, by many groups and people to represent something which was originally based in Kyiv. When did the name "Russia" first appear? I honestly don't know. I do know, however, that up until the time of Khmelnytsky, "Rus" was associated with the area of Ukraine: see the quote here [[5]] about the Khmelnytsky uprising: "While in Poland, it is King Jan II Casimir Vasa, in Rus it is Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky". 1648, mid 17th century.

Also, I think there may be a translation issue here: the modern name "Russia" in Russian is actually better transliterated as Rossiya. The first syllable is very important - it is a RO sound, not a RU sound.

Now, trying to get back to the topic, I think that there has always been a difference between Ukrainians and Belorussians and Russians (just as there is a difference today between Russians and Chechens) - just like there has always been a difference between Italians (Romans) and French (Gauls), English and Scots. Just because the languages are simmilar and there is a long history of interaction, that is no reason to assume that the various cultures are one. But let's get back to this article, which is about Ukraine, not Ukraine-Russia historical relations. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Horlo, Rus was originally used for a group of Scandinavians who established a political network over the river system from Lake Ilmen to the rapids of the Dnieper (and beyond). You'll notice that the 10th cent. Byzantine De Administrando Imperio distinguishes Slavic from Rus'ian, with the latter clearly Germanic. Kiev indeed was for a few centuries its great and majestic centre, though it was not the original Rus centre nor indeed the permanent one. The thing about the name Russia, is that it's just a Latinate territorialization. There is no meaningful semantic difference between Rus and Russia, as the the two have been distinguished from each other only recently. See above. Also, read the Etymology of Rus and derivatives wiki article. You may benefit from reading this interview with Professor P. P. Tolochko in Zerkalo Nedeli, as you seem have a good deal of the mentality that he talks about. It may be an interesting article to have in English, so I shall ask a Russian speaker to translate it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the Ukrainian version of this same article for Horlo and the readers who are more comfortable reading in Ukrainian than in Russian. I will gladly translate some important passages and post them. Prof. Tolochko is a full member of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine, and the director of the Institute of Archeology of the same academy. He is the main editor of the "Etnichna istoriia davnyoi Ukrainy" (Ethnic history of Ukraine) published in Kiev, 2000, ISBN 9660217587 and a three-volume fundamental "Davnia istoriia Ukrainy", Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1997-2000, ISBN 966000009X (set), ISBN 9660000103 (t. 1), ISBN 9660207263 (t. 2), ISBN 9660213964 (t. 3) among others. To find some of the books by this authos click on LCCN 20-363883 and click on the author's name. Translation upcoming. --Irpen 05:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I see the issue here. However, I think that this is not the forum for this discussion. I will try to focus on the issue directly related to this article. What I want to say is that 1240 was a key year in the history of Ukraine, as that is when Kyiv ceased to be the centre of Rus. After that, the Rus empire was divided, and two major centers developed - Halychynya in the European area, and Novgorod in the north. For this discussion, I think that that date is the key - until that time, Kyiv was the centre for Rus.
Also, I think that what was originally used as a name for what a group of Varangians created and what was known as "the mother of all Rus cities" is two different things - where things begin and where they end are very often very very different. What is important is that at that time, nobody considered Novgorod the centre of the empire - Kyiv was. St. Volodymyr the Great started out in Novgorod, but actually had to kill his own brother to take control of Kyiv. That in itself shows that Kyiv was what everybody wanted, and Novgorod was not. Yaroslav the Wise also spent time in Novgorod, but once he got to Kyiv, he issued all of his decrees from there, built the UNESCO heritage sites there, and only collected monies from Novgorod, Smolenks, and other principalities.
Deacon of Pndapetzim, note that in your quote from the Latin text, you do not say Russian, but rather Rus'an. That is a very big difference.
Also, "for a few centuries" is exactly how long Kyiv was the centre. What happened between the late 880s and 1240 is the whole focus of the "Ancient Nationalism" section.
As to the recent distinction between Rus and Russia, you are again correct. As I mentioned above, the term Russia is relatively new - even up to the time of Khmelnytsky, Rus was associated with Ukraine, not Russia. I think that deserves a separate section in this article, come to think of it.
Irpen, you seem to have forgotten a key word in the title of the first article that you mention - "Etnichna istoriia davnyoi Ukrainy" (Ethnic history of Ukraine) is not a correct translation. You forgot the third (misspelled) word, (should be: Davnoyi) which means "ancient". As in "ancient nationalism". And believe it or not, there are many Ukrainians who neither understand nor read Russian. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
One other note about the link provided to the Latin Source: it is a Latin source written in Greek. Please keep in mind the context and historical situation of the time. At the time, the Pechenegs were used by Constantinople against Kyiv - specifically against Svyatoslav the Conqueror. Any mention of Kyiv from that time would naturally try to minimize the power of Kyiv as a very beatable enemy, which in fact it was not. Were Kyiv so beatable, there would not have been any association between the Pechenegs and Constantinople against it. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian nationalism and Russian discrimination

This article and others detailing Ukrainian nationalists' and the governments discrimination against Russians and the war against the Russian language and culture should be summarized and inserted into this article.--Miyokan (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is 8 years old... and the people discripted don't look a good example of the people of Lviv. Better sources needed. On a personal note: please also keep in mind that various Russian rulers tried to whipe out Ukrainian culture/language before you udge people who want to promote Ukrainian (in a wrong way or right way). That doesn't justify discrimination but could stop it (if Russians would show some remorse, I mean!). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. One should also keep in mind that Moscow Bolshevik government conducted genocide of Ukrainian people during the Holodomor according to prominent historians and Ukrainian government. Obviously, there is Ukrainian nationalism. But why? More should be explained in this article about the Holodomor, in my opinion.Biophys (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Mikoyan, please do not confuse [nationalism] and [Fascism]. There are extremists in every philosophy, but they are currently a minority faith. If you think that article is representative of the political situation in Ukraine, please feel free to write about it elsewhere. However, that is not the focus of this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Connection between nationalism and fascism if sourced is certainly relevant. As for the nationalism-inspired discrimination of everything Russian in general, antisemitism, etc, (or discrimination of anything Ukrainian prior to that), there are narrow articles for this stuff. This article's subject is the nationalism itself, not the historical processes such as Ukrainization, Russification, or the condition of Russians in Ukraine or the Ukrainians in Russia or the historic events or entities such as UPA or Civil war. The easiest thing to mess articles up is to saturate it will irrelevant or loosely relevant pet issues. There are plenty of examples around.
Mariah, I suggest to avoid using the Wikipedia talk pages to demand people to remorse. Encyclopedia talk pages are not the political fora. Nor the articles should be written with political goals in mind. --Irpen 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Irpen, saying that there is a connection between nationalism and fascism is like saying that there is a connection between socialism and war communism. And like saying that there is a connection between cold and ice. That's not the point. The point is that this is not an article about fascists in Ukraine, but rather nationalism in Ukraine. Those are two different kettles of fish. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try too :), I just tried to warn Miyokan not to look like someone who is trying to reach political goals by telling only 1 side of the story. I'm not demanding remorse. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As to show what I mean: I started an article Racism in Ukraine, User:Miyokan's article can be used there, and I invite him to do so! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism vs Fascism

This is an article about nationalism - that is not a violent nor discriminatory nor exclusionist philosophy. However, fascism is. Extremism in any philosophy is not good. However, that is not the focus of this article.

The Wikipedia article about nationalism [[6]] clearly explains this.

Certain education systems, particularly those in communist and some former communist countries, used the terms "nationalism" and "fascism" interchangably. However, the two ideas are very different. Let's keep this article about Nationalism, not extremism. Exclusionist extremism is a minority faith in Ukraine at this time. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current nationalist occupation of New Russia

A reliable source states that Ukrainian nationalists are currently occupying New Russia. Should this be included in the lead section, or get its own section? Ostap 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I once gave User:Kuban kazak an award For his enthusiasm and dedication to Ukrainian topics and making sure the information about Ukraine on Wikipedia stays balanced. That sort of statments don't sound like him at all. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take this seriously. At the time he created this "reliable source" he claimed it was in response to me displaying, just like a hundred or so other wikipedians, an icon on my talk page, in seport of the Chechen independence. In fact there is an icon is support of Tibet independence as well, I am not sure who is protesting against that one. I don't usually care what other users display on their user pages, although I am afraid that particular user's page violates a number of policies under WP:USER. Contrary to the above guideline, it offers not only an excessive amount of personal information, but is also used as a propagnda tool complete with a picture of Stalin and an array of anti-Ukrainian jabs like the above mentioned icons and even carefully installed definite articles in front of Ukraine, something that is absent from original articles. Given that only the Ukrainian nationalism gets dedicated opponents, I wouldn't worry about this. Russian nationalists have been getting away with this for ever, so I suggest you just ignore this and move on. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I expressed that multiple times that any political statements at the user's talk pages are inflammatory. It is especially so when the Wikipedia users use their user pages to call for partitioning of the neighboring countries. I contacted Kuban and asked him to reconsider (and he was less accomodating than some users). Similarly to how I cannot force anyone to remove Russophobic or Ukrainophobic calls from his/her page, I cannot do much with Kuban's being so eloquent in propagating his views. As for the Hillock's link, for some reason he places a diff to his own page, not to what I have really said. Is it because if someone would see the real diff, one would not be mislead? I don't know. Speaking of using blogs and wikipedia pages as RS, no one than Hillock himself continues to use such sources in his uk-wikipedia articles and even in some en-wiki articles he writes which refer to scholarly pages such as "The Portal of the Ukrainian", or the "Haidamaka Portal". So, I suggest the users start the housecleaning from their own user pages and the articles they have written for their calls to look sincere.

That said, I fail to see the purpose of Ostap's starting this thread which cannot possibly produce anything productive. --Irpen 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland"

In the see also section I see a link to All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland" a party lead by someone from Russian speaking Dnipropetrovsk and Our Ukraine isn't mentioned while they are the follow-up of Rukh. It could make sense, but doesn't to me... Why is All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland" the nationalist pary in Ukraine and not Our Ukraine? I don't live in Ukraine so could mis inside info... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fatherland is one of the mainstream parties and although it includes some notorious figures in its ranks, it is not a cradle of the Ukrainian nationalism. Our Ukraine, also mainstream, is more nationalist without doubt, but still not anywhere near the extreme (as a party, not by some of its members.) If you are looking for the pure nationalist, look for the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, Tyahnybok's Svoboda and the less known Patriot of Ukraine that recently raised the demand for the "apologies from the Russians and the Jews" and financial compensation for the Great Famine to be paid by both Russia and Israel(!).[7] You may ask why Jews and Israel? Don't ask me. Ask them --Irpen 01:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, just like I thought. The part about the 3 ultra-nationalist party's is verry interesting! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This "Patriot of Ukraine" guys are a rather outrageous cattle of fish causing as much embarrassment to the Ukrainians as this otherwise little known antisemitic private "educational institution". See this this report and scroll down to a very scary "ANTISEMITISM AND XENOPHOBIA SPREADS IN UKRAINE" string for one of the actions by "Patriot of Ukraine" (note, that later a court opened a criminal case against Patriot of Ukraine activists but not for the hate-crime itself, but for "illegal detaining") It would be best if this articles is not turned to a list despicable incidents. Neither a Racism in Ukraine article should be allowed to degrade to such list. The list of best hits can make every country to look like the racist hell and/or tolerance paradise. We are best to use sources dedicated to the issue at hand that summarize facts and offer the analysis. We, as Wikipedia editors, are not allowed to do it ourselves. --Irpen 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I wan't realistic articles and Ukraine is a big country so the number of incidents might make things look bigger then the same number of incidents happening in Monaco. Sorry for keeping you busy with my wiki adventures the last day's. I did clean out some my userboxes :) I only kept the ones that explane my edit's. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

Who determined that the flag in the article the flag of "Ukrainian nationalists"? Isn't this the flag of Ukrainian nationalists? Ostap 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not add this flag to the article but I must say that I've seen it being used by radical organizations at their shows. --Irpen 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What kind of radical organizations? You know, not all nationalists are radicals and not all radicals are nationalists. Radicals are extremists. Nationalists are people who love their country and are willing to sacrifice for it. I must say I see no connection whatsoever. Anyway, I support removing the flag from the article, unless it really is recognized by Ukrainian nationalists as their flag, which I doubt it is. Ostap 05:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The black-red flag is indeed the flag of the UIA. Irpen is quite right, radical organizations like here, a mixture of nazi's, skinheads, football hooligans, members of nationalists organization at a rally of ultra-right people from all over Ukraine dedicated to 65-anniversary of the UIA, wave the flag at their rallies. --Miyokan (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said, though, that all ua-nationalists are like radical skinheads. --Irpen 07:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
But is it the flag of UIA? I never belief skinheads :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is the flag of the ukrainian insurgent army, then why is it labeled the flag of Ukrainian nationalism? Ostap 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor article

What we need to know and cover in the article are the goals and ideologies of Ukrainian national thought.

  1. -What is its view of Ukrainian nation in Europe, World ?
  2. -How did they view their future state in the past ?
  3. -How did they wanted to organise it ?
  4. -How do they view their history ?
  5. -What was its attitude to other ideologies ?

Things like that would improve the article.--Molobo (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fofudja

Should this Fofudja phenomena be mentioned in the article? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the article says it "has been used lately to make fun of Russian imperialism, xenophobia, antisemitism and religious intolerance". That has nothing to do with Ukrainian nationalism. Ostap 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)