Talk:Ukrainians in Kuban

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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Article's title

I think the definite article in Ukrainians in the Kuban is superflous. I looked at the Kuban article and looked it up in Google, and it most often comes without an article. Wouldn't Ukrainians in Kuban or Kuban Ukrainians be better? Any ideas? --Hillock65 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Following the lead of Russians in Ukraine, I think it should be called Ukrainians in Kuban. Ostap 23:30, 22 September 2007

I tend to say "the Kuban" mainly because it is a region - "na Kubani". However, if overall wisdom would like it to be thus I will not complain if it is changed. I just want the Ukrainianess of Kuban to be acknowlwdged rather than being constantly edited out by Ukrainophobic editors. Bandurist 00:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if there is a concensus for Ukrainians in Kuban, I will rename the article to Ukrainians in Kuban. --Hillock65 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That was easy Bandurist 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly

Good for Junior High or Ukrainian House version of history. But questionably for WP. As far as I can see pre 1917 sources stated there (Kuban) only Cossacks minority existed – as separate ethno-cultural population group highly known for their Crown loyalty and military capability. As regards LittleRussian treatment as Ukrainian – pre 1917 sources noted existence of both – e.g. Ukrainian and LittleRussian. Moreover extrapolation of LittleRussian speaker as Ukrainians it’s not scientific, so taking into account the time and place of such “scholar works” it can be treated as political demands rather then scientifically proved approach. So after 1917 everyone would like to have their loyalty so every methods was allowed. Soviet gain non-rich Cossacks loyalty – rest spread over different type of political movement – from Royalist to simply bandits. During and after Civil War times such powerful but not fully loyal to regime group should be neutralized through not only “DeCossackisation” but also through splitting a society through dividing by major national group – e.g. Ukrainian and Russian – also quite known the initiators and conductors of such policy- they was nor Ukrainians nor Russian. So Ukrainization can not be treated as inline method “DeCossackisation” but also same way as other actions to reformat existed before “великодержавный шовинизм” and radical nationalistic movement into new “soviet multinational society”. Taking into account the differences in non-voluntary provided “new soviet Ukrainian language” and existed LittleRussian and Kotlyarevskiy Ukrainian and administrative methods of it implementation such practice was also assumed as “regime repression”. Quite common was a difficulty with understanding of documents issued in “new soviet Ukrainian language” even by LittleRussian spoken persons – so it was definitely ununderstandable for other language population. Taking into account the Stalin’s reforms for agriculture and peasants from late 1932 stopping the ukrainization program in Kuban can be treated not as repression but as softening of regime methods. Cossacks was also specially forbidden to serve in RKKA till 1935. Since that time many similar sanctions was lifted and Cossacks culture revive and they return to a position of regime loyalist. Non referenced POV as :” total population in the Kuban region of 3,343,893 of which 1,644.518 (49.2%) stated that they were Ukrainian, and 1,428,587 (42.7%) stated they were Russian”; “and most Ukrainians speaker speak a a Ukrainian dialect which differs only slightly from standard literary Ukrainian”, “Stalin’s answer to Skrypnyk’s demands was series of repressions”; “All Ukrainian toponyms in the Kuban”; “resultant ethnic cleansing of the population, the terrorist tactics of Russification, the Holodomor of 1932-33 and 1946-7 and other tactics used by the Russian government lead to the catastrophic fall in population that associated themselves with Ukrainian ethnicity in the Kuban.”; “Official Russian statistics of 1959”; “speak Ukrainian and sing Ukrainian songs” “In recent times filters have been placed on Internet connects to filter out all sites in Ukrainian or with Ukrainian information“ claims spoil the WP credibility. Jo0doe (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I must say I agree to every word you say. Good summary of this OR nonsense. I have suggested that the information on the Kuban at Ukrainians in Russia is sufficient, and needs no separate article. I would love to wipe it out and replace it with a re-direct to that section, what do you think? --Kuban Cossack 21:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. One has to be able to understand that Russian text in English words to agree with it. As far as wiping it out, no surprises there again. Might I remind you of seeking consensus among other editors before making unilateral moves? Good luck. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well have you got any real comments on the article, not on the user, but on the article? Do you not agree with the points laid out? Poor English is not a reason that the editor can't contribute or put forwards ideas, speaking of which I just re-worded a massive section (check my contrib list, which I know is one of your most-visited pages on wiki). --Kuban Cossack 23:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any comments neither on the user or on whatever he has written. I am against any kind of merger or move. This topic is notable and deserves proper coverage in a separate article. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so the user highlighted a problem, that is concerning the whole article. Yet you refuse to even listen to him, and adress the issues he has raised. So who is not following the consensus that he is so keen on others to follow? You are against the merger, without even taking time to take note of what others have said. --Kuban Cossack 00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's say I made a real effort to understand what he/she has written, but I don't find it compelling enough for a move or merger. Moreover, I think this topic will be better covered in a separate article. How many times do I have to answer one and the same question? --Hillock65 (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok in that case, are you satisfied with the article as it is? I.e. irrespective of the important problems that were adressed by the user? --Kuban Cossack 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)