Talk:Ukrainians in Russia

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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. 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 an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Template

When some one has the chance, you might want to add the {{Ukrainians}} template to this article. Ostap 19:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done Bandurist 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image for the article

Since all the minority articles have their image (when they have who to place, and here we have), this one to should have. I take it on myself creating the image, but offcourse i will create it by what will be decided during a discussion. My proposal is to create an image of 6 people consisting of two rows with 3 people in each. The line-up i propose is:

Row 1: Sergey Korolyov, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Ilia Lagutenko

Row 2: Alexander Dovzhenko, Anna Akhmatova, Nikolai Gogol

We have free images of all those people, so there won't be any license problems.

If you have other proposals, state them here.

note: if you offer to choose somewhere else, you have to make shure there is a free image of him, and you should give a link to that image.

As they say in weddings, speak now or forever shut-up (no seriously, don't be modest, feel free to make your suggestions). M.V.E.i. 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I think, Gogol and Korolyov DEFINETELY. I would also add figures maybe like Brezhnev or Matviyenko. The rest looks good. --Kuban Cossack 12:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought exacly like you! The problem is we dont have a free image of Brezhnev, and those when he was young are not understood it's Brezhnev. Matvienko to has no free images. Thats the reason i had to keep them out of the proposal. M.V.E.i. 20:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Since we are talking about these people as Ukrainians in Russia, would it be a problem to refer to them by their Ukrainian names under the pictures? Rather than "N. Gogol" can we have "M. Hohol" or rather than "A Dovzhenko" can we have "O" for Oleksandr? Ostap 21:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But they lived in Russia, and spoke Russian, and named themselves in the version the are known by. M.V.E.i. 21:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I used the names which are used in English, and this is an English Wikipedia. What you talk about fits more the Ukrainian Wikipedia. M.V.E.i. 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Taras Shevchenko left Ukraine when he was 14 and lived most of his life in Russia. Then you have the composers Bortniansky, Berezovsky and the singer Ivan Kozlovsky. Bandurist 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? Haven't known that. Well, let's see what other's say here and if it get's a support from others, i will expand it to an 8 people image. Shevchenko and Bortniansky are good suggestions. M.V.E.i. 17:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Man they both died in Sankt Peterburg! After checking the information, i support that! M.V.E.i. 17:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable Ukrainians in Russia

Does not belong here and has to be split off. There were thousands and such lists is pointless. Mention the prominent figures in the culture and other sections but spin the pointless list out. --Irpen 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Those lists are not pointless and all minority articles have those. When the list will become to big we will split it. For now it's to small for a seperate article. M.V.E.i. 10:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The point is not size but a physical impossibility for the list to be inclusive enough to be meaningful. 10 or 100 people in it, it is equally meaningless because there were thousand of notable Ukrainians in Russia. --Irpen 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The list is interesting and important, that's why all articles like that one have it. M.V.E.i. 21:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Do we require a map of the geographical distribution of Ukrainians in Russia? The only problem is that since the 2002 census, certain variations have already taken place. The other problem is size, writing in the precentages would be rather difficult. The alternative is to use the data for federal districts. Any suggestions? --Kuban Cossack 12:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever is comfortable and easy to you. The article having a map, any map, already can be considered a great gift and luck for the article. I looked for such map and couldn't find it anywhere. M.V.E.i. 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An uncertain statement in the infobox

It's written in the relegion section in the infobox that "A minority is Byzantine Catholic". In Ukraine a minority of Ukrainians is Greek-Catholic, but that doesn't mean that in Russia that's like that to. If you give me a link which shows that there's at least one Ukrainian Greek-Catholic church in the whole territory of Russia, that statement stays. But if not, i'll have to delete it. M.V.E.i. 18:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out Siry klyn Ukrainian community portal. This is for the Ukrainian Byzantine church community in Omsk. Something many people aren't aware of is the fact that in recent years there have been large numbers of Ukrainians from Galicia working in Siberia in particular in the oil industry. They fly in from Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk after finishing some special Oil Insitute there and have set up church communities. Because the Byzantine Catholic communities have their services in Ukrainian but they are basically the same as orthodox services they are generating much interest and many what would normaly be orthodox patrons support these communities. weird huh? Bandurist 12:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The statement stayes, nice answer! Do you want to create a "relegion" section like we have in the Russians in Ukraine article? I see you have a very big amount of knowledge on the topic and you have the references. Relegion and Demography are to sections that are very useful and the article doesn't have them for now. M.V.E.i. 12:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
One community is not enough to justify a mass of population. If there are buddist communities in Kiev to which ethnic Ukrainians, out of interest, attend to, does that mean that you can add "Buddists" on Ukrainians religion? The article says that most Ukrainians migrated to Russia in times of Russian Empire and USSR. Thus the only possible religion they could have adhered to was the Russian Orthodox Church. I am not denying that minorities existed of individuals with other religious views (they always have, they always will be). --Kuban Cossack 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
According to what he said it ain't only in Omsk, he explained about a big number of workers coming from Galicia to Sibirea. It's a really small minority, but they still exist. M.V.E.i. 07:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guys, help needed

A highly notable man that should be entered to the image is Nikolai Fomenko. He's one of the most famous and loved show-men in Russia, he's an ex-member (and in the 1990-1996 period leader) of the highly acclaimed band Secret, and he's the first to really try and to create a car-racing team for Russia (without the governments help). The problem is, free image. I need an image which is free. Could please anyone help me with that? Because i haven't found it anywhere. M.V.E.i. 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two sections requiered, who wants to take the task?

The article needs two more sections: Religion and Demography. Whoever wants and can help, feel free to create those sections and write there some. M.V.E.i. 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 86 Million???

And I quote: According to unpublished documents from the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, under the category of "nationality", 86 million people noted down Ukrainian ethnicity in 1989. Now this would meant that Ukrainians would make more than a third of the 1989 population of the USSR, THAT IS ABSURD. I would love to see those unpublished documents, and until then, the secion was removed. --Kuban Cossack 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, that makes no sence. I mean, today there are 44-45 million (2005 est.) Ukrainians in the whole world, what happend to the rest? There was probablly a mistake there. M.V.E.i. 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are the results of that Census. 44186000 is the number, twice less. M.V.E.i. 07:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits re Kuban

Please note, that this article is about a Ukrainian minority in Kuban, not about those, who consider themselves Cossacks, Ukrainian historians, Decossakization, Ukrainization, etc. Please stick to the subject of the article and do not disrupt the article with unrelated and inflammatory edits. If you have anything to add about Ukrainians in Kuban, please do so, otherwise I suggest reading the title of the article, twice if necessary. Thank you. --Hillock65 20:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with you. In particular the version you are reverting to, if you want to trim the section, make it:
  • Ukrainians in the Kuban make 150000, and mostly migrated there in the course of the 20th century(I already have a refrence for that)Kuban Cossacks, that were in the 1920s forcibly (I too have a refrence for that)identified as Ukrainians are not considered to be them.. I
If you want to shorten it to that, be my guest, but I prefer that the issue is not as simple as that and needs to be kept expanded. --Kuban Cossack 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
What are your objections to the content of this section? Is the number of Ukrainians not given correctly? This section is about those who do consider themselves Ukrainian and mentioned so during the 2002 census. Everything else, about other ethnic or cultural groups in Kuban and their beiefs and circumstances are beyond the scope of this article. --Hillock65 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It is inocorrect to say that in 1792 and adverse national policies, the national history of the Kuban if you want to keep it simple would be like my suggested passage above, otherwise it needs some expansion. Just because it might not be something you like, this is refrenced and please stop deleting it. I like the double standards you play here. Someone tells you its not relevant, you keep it nonetheless, here you decide its not relevant you delete it, remembering WP:OWN, I recommend you stick to a policy that is uniform for all articles. Also there is no such thing as a limiting factor on what an article can or cannot carry. --Kuban Cossack 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you are getting personal and follow my edits everywhere. Fine, be my guest. Discuss issues related to other articles at corrsponding talk pages, otherwise I assume your latest edit is a clear example of WP:POINT. There is such a liminging factor as Relevancy. You are littering this article with unrelated, biased and inflammatory material with an obvious attempt to provoke, particulary User:Bandurist, as he is the main contributor, not me. I only hope that you realize what you are doing. --Hillock65 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to get into an edit war now, but per the lengthy discussion in the Kuban cossacks article the claim that most of today's self-declared Ukrainians in Kuban immmigrated in the 20th century is not supported. Likewise, the claim of Ukrainization accounting for the large self-declared Ukrainian population there contradicts the tsarist-era census which shows virtually the same proportion of the population being Ukrainian in the nineteenth century as in the early Soviet times. The section needs to be changed accordingly.Faustian 03:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have sources, I gave sourced arguments, if the only thing user:Hillock can do is to revert claiming that content. Here is what expert Viktor Zakharchenko wrote in his work:
    1. Современные украинские фольклористы, этнографы, журналисты, не говоря уже о политиках, часто называют кубанских казаков “украйинцямы Кубани”, яки запамьятувалы свою историю”. Однако такая околонаучная точка зрения, полностью отрицающая этническую, социальную, культурную и языковую самобытность кубанского казачества, в корне неверна, ибо она совершенно не соответствует действительности....
    2. То, что кубанское казачество начало приобретать свои характерные социально-культурные особенности, которые отличали его от запорожцев и линейцев, уже в 1888 г. заметил Ф.А. Щербина, который писал...
    3. Должен сказать, что и данные моего опроса исполнителей черноморских песен также свидетельствует о том, что подавляющее большинство черноморцев, несмотря на осознание своих генетических украинских корней, считают, например, своим родным языком кубанский, а не украинский. Во время звукозаписи исполнителям песен мною ставился один и тот же вопрос: кем вы считаете себя по национальной принадлежности – русскими или украинцами? И основное число опрашиваемых утвердительно отвечало: “русьскымы”. Тогда мне приходилось напоминать им об истории и генетических корнях кубанского казачества, после чего исполнители говорили: “Це наши прадиды булы колысь украйинцями та запорожцями, а мы уже давно сталы “кубаньскымы козакамы”.
    4. Показателен в этом отношении факт, с которым нам часто приходилось сталкиваться в экспедициях. Русские и украинские песни более позднего происхождения, проникавшие на Кубань в начале XX в., в предвоенные и послевоенные годы так и воспринимались – как русские или украинские. А произведения, занесенные в прошлых столетиях первопоселенцами, несмотря на очевидное русское или украинское происхождение, воспринимаются как свои “кубанские”, “казачьи”.
  • Эти факты подтверждаются и фактом неудачной “украинизации” кубанского казачества, предпринятой в конце 1920-х гг. (перевод делопроизводства, издание периодики на украинском языке и т.п.). Это вызвало стихийный протест коренного населения, что подтверждается и нашими полевыми материалами, и архивными данными.
  • I can give many more refrences, but fact is a fact, Victor Zakharchenko, the same man you claim to be a pro-Ukrainian of the Kuban Cossacks, publishes something like that. Read yourself [1]. If anything his authority on the topic goes without question. And Hillock please stop reverting. The whole paragraph on "adverse policies" is plain wrong, there was an unsuccesful attempt and Ukrainization and it ended unsuccesfully, and is so insignificant it gets a quarter of a lesson in Kuban schools on local history. --Kuban Cossack 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You tend to quote selectively; this is not the first time. From the same passage by Zakharchenko, Тогда мне приходилось напоминать им об истории и генетических корнях кубанского казачества, после чего исполнители говорили: “Це наши прадиды булы колысь украйинцями та запорожцями, а мы уже давно сталы “кубаньскымы козакамы”.
As before, you are confusing national ideology with the nation. Just because someone says he is not Ukrainian, does not make him non-Ukrainian. Just because, for example, Galician Russophiles claimed to be Russians, did not mean that they were Russian (in some respect, Kuban cossacks are more Ukrainian then the old Galician Russophiles were Ukrainian, as the latter tended to speak Polish at home). You are injecting political ideology/mythology into questions that are unrelated to it. Let's stick to facts only. The fact is that in the late 19th century census about half the population declared Little Russian (that is, Ukrainian in an ethnic sense but not necessarily Ukrainian in the political, nationalistic Ukrainian sense) to be their native language. The fact is that the Soviet census in the 1920's had about the same numbers. Therefore, based on the facts, one cannot attribute the fact that in the 1920's half the population spoke Ukrainian to be an artificial product of Soviet Ukrainization policies. On the other hand, the question of how this self-identification that existed in pre-Communist times and right through the 1920's, finally disappeared during Stalin's rule and later is an interesting one that deserves exploration. Faustian 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is what Shambarov writes, that after the Red Army victory, Cossacks became the first real target of repressions, in fact De-Cossakization should be titled Cossack Genocide, otherwise rename Holocaust to de-Jewinisation. Initially the Bolshevik authorities when giving out new ID papers (passports) for Cossacks they were forbidden to even write their nationality as Cossacks. Yet documents with blanks would not be accepted anywhere. Simultaneously you have the partition of Cossack lands to the autonomous regions, where the titular nationality would be granted full unproportional representation. According to de-classified Bolshevik orders, in order to undermine the Cossacks' majority of the Kuban, Ukrainians were chosen to be titular for that very reason. As a result between 1897 and 1926, despite the Civil War, there is a disproportionate growth of many titular nations as opposed to the Russians there. Thousands of Cossacks, named themselves Osetians, Adyge with intentions to be allowed to have any job at all. Proving your new identity was simple, most of the population was mixed anyway, and many mountain Stanitsas had very strong Circassian "spices" as you call them in their local balachka. For Kuban, Cossack pride was a bottom low, people chose to be Ukrainian simply for the fact of being allowed to keep their house from being confiscated otherwise, incomplete documents, get yourself re-registered. Yet the Kuban Balachka as Zakharchenko points out, was already a separate dialect. I have old documents that show my Great Grandparents being listed as Ukrainians, and how they changed to Russians in 1936. I also have some diaries that are written in what language? Russian. In 1930s, seeing that there was such a massive anti-Ukrainian sentiment that arose because of Ukrainization, it was called off as unsuccesful, just like Russifications in some regions like Poland and Finland produced no lasting results. How do you explain this Faustian in 1936 the Kuban Cossack Chorus is re-formed and Kuban Cossacks are allowed to from their own units in the Red Army? --Kuban Cossack 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting. Since the Cossacks left Ukraine before the Ukrainian political identity was formed, it makes sense that they would not strongly identify themselves with Ukraine on a political level. But this is a seperate question from whether or not they are Ukrainian ethnically. There was no pressure on the Kuban cossacks to identify themselves as Ukrainians in 1897, yet at that time, long before Bolshevism, 47% listed Little Russian (Ukrainian) as their native language. In western Kuban this figure was around 60%. During the 1926 census, the figure of Ukrainians was about the same - 62% in the western region. So therefore the Ukrainization may have made a difference in whether or not the Ukrainians living there called themselves Little Russians or Ukrainians, but it had little impact on their ethnicity. As for the events of 1936, serious researchers have concluded that "In the Soviet Union Cossacks were undone in almost every respect - military, economic, political, as in lifestyles. The territory of Krasnodar, established in 1937, only partially coincides with boundaries delineated for the erstwhile Kuban Cossack Host of imperial Russia. This was quite a deliberate attempt to erase Cossack memories, all the way to changing the name of the province and its capital city (formerly Katerynodar) to the more Soviet-sounding Krasnodar, literally translated as the 'Gift of the Reds'. Bolshevik authorities considered Cossacks an estate or, even worse, a class of 'armed kulak servants of tsarist despotism',(12) thus refusing to recognise them as a minority akin to the non-Russian nationalities endowed with the territorial institutions of administrative and cultural autonomy....During World War II Stalin sanctioned the formation of Kuban Cossack regiments as part of his effort to tap into popular patriotism, but this materialised as a sporadic episode. In the 1950s to 1970s Cossack identity survived in Krasnodar only as a residual part of a broader regional consciousness, almost completely divorced from its historical socio-political context. The Cossack past largely slipped from memory, or its history became unintelligible to or incompatible with the new, Soviet-formed and largely urbanised generations. A few elderly folk retained faded photographs of brave young men in World War I uniforms emblazoned with St George's crosses and picturesque regalia, but they seldom showed these sad relics to anyone, including their grandchildren. The unbearably painful memories of the 1914-45 period remained firmly suppressed. Decontextualised imagery of the dashing Cossacks survived primarily in the art of state-sponsored folk choirs, as the unofficial emblem of Krasnodar, or in the cheering slogans of fans in the Krasnodar soccer stadium. The third advent of the Cossacks in the 1990s could rely on only these faint yet fabulous memories. In fact, the neo-Cossacks benefited from this widespread historical amnesia, especially the turbulent and violent final years of the old Kuban Cossackdom. The revolution period of Kuban Cossack history requires further examination. It is often overlooked, for example, that the Kuban Cossack leaders were simultaneously caught in a bitter conflict with the Bolsheviks and the reactionary White generals. In the summer of 1917 the liberal Cossack autonomists in the Kuban formed a local political body, which they significantly called a Rada, adopting the Ukrainian word for council. The Rada entertained a project of a Cossack republic. Met with scorn by the White Russian chauvinists, the Kuban Cossack autonomists tried to establish closer ties with the newly independent Ukrainian state, but the latter proved too weak and unstable to render any tangible assistance. Ukrainian was briefly adopted as the language of the Kuban Cossacks, confirming the pro-Ukrainian leanings of local intellectuals and public figures.(15) Eventually, the supreme commander of the White armies in Southern Russia, General Denikin, disbanded the Rada and even executed several Cossack leaders for treason." The author of those words is a former member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a professor at one of America's leading universities, as well as of Kuban Coccack descent himself.Faustian 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well in 1897, there was Ukrainian identity at all, and only the hybrid Balachka, which according to Zakharchenko already in 1860s was different from standard Ukrainian was made. I have no time left to answer more, and my wife is already dragging me into the Bedroom, but tomorrow I will answer you in detail tommorow. Regards. --Kuban Cossack 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt that it is different from the standard language - so is the Galician dialect. But as always I look forward to your reply. Na vse dobre.Faustian 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the difference between the Galician dialect of Ukrainian and the Kuban Cossack Balachka is in the name and classification. Galician dialect is approved to be a dialect wholly of Ukrainian. Balachka is a hybrid and is a dialect as Russian as Ukrainian. Unlike Galician dialect which was formed over large historical period of >1000 years, Balachka, according to Zakharchenko was evident already by 1850s. I.e. three generations later after the Chernomortsy moved to the Kuban. Moreover Galcian Ukrainians (or Ruthenians, but I respect their latter (present) national determination), were always isolated, partly inserfed, if not officially then socially. I.e. no interaction outside their selo. That is a generalisation but for a rural region that is exactly what happened. For Black Sea Cossacks, the first 70 years of life in the Kuban, was one that was lived at the fronts of the war. Every day there would be attacks by the gortsy against the stanitsas and outposts. Now what does that have to do with dialects? Well constant raids, constant attacks, constant mobilisations here and there. Some are slain, some return, some settle new regions. I.e. unlike a passive mundane life in Galicia, the Cossacks were in constant interaction with other peoples. Ultimately it goes down to Gumelyov, that a person belongs to a group of people not by native language, or religion, or his ethnical roots, but by how he interacts with the surrounding environment, and the Kuban was a new region. People of all bloods mixed, yet what united them was not their background, but their collective behaivour in dealing with the realities that arose from living in a region which until 1861 was as Hostile as modern Chechnya or Iraq is. If you read Zakharcheno, if you read Shambarov, and many others, they all say the same. After Kuban was pacified, the Kuban Cossack Host was merged with the line Cossacks and since then there were never any friction between them, they both adopted the new Kubantsy, and continued to develop their own identity, that was distinctively split from Urkainian and Great Russian. That's why we are not Ukrainians, because our experience through the 19th century alone. You ask us who are the most closest group to the Kuban Cossacks, we will answer the Terek and Don Cossacks, both of whom show a similar self-identity that is Russian (in the broad term) but not Great Russian. What's more is that today, as Cossackdom is becoming very popular, you'd be surprised how many passionate people from all over the ex-USSR and even outside wish to become part of it. They perfectly know that there are no state benifits for Cossacks, they perfectly know that its extremely demanding, (Right now we are in process of having our Plastuns merge with the Krasnodars MVD's spetsnaz to form a large joint elite unit that would consist jointly of Cossack volunteers and regular police, this summer when I was in Karachay-Cherkessiya, we had our 200 strong Plastun fighter pass the Spetsnaz qualification, the command of the 10th (Mountain) ObrSpN, were amazed at how much better trained and willing were the our plastuns, of whom I am one. This ain't some salaga performing in front of a praporshik, this is the elite of the Russian military recognising how people with no Academy training, a few had no military service behind them at all, performing on par if not better than those who stand on par with the British SAS and the US Delta and Rangers, the Russian Spetsnaz. Next year after some sorting through Red Tape and formalities the unit will be inagurated. So where were we, of course, where does a country that is foreign to the Cossacks, that conducts adverse national politics towards Russians and Russia, who wants to turn its back on its long history of unity with Russia, and instead use itself as a landing stage for hostile armies, come into the modern identity of the Cossacks? It is for that very reason that many Kuban Cossacks find it offensive to be called Ukrainians just as Galicians find being called Russians offensive. We interpret that nomenclature identically, arrogant, chauvinist and disrespectful. --Kuban Cossack 16:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kuban section and neutrality

  • I removed the unsupported and biased statement about Ukrainian historians. The source led to the 2002 census. What does it have to do with Ukrainian historians?
  • Secondly, Zakharchenko, as far as I remember is not a historian nor is he a scientist of any other kind. Can anyone, please, substantiate his credentials as suitable for reference? Somehow, it strikes me as strange the reference to Folklore Songs of Kuban[2] as a source to substantiate the part about Cossack history. I don't think it agrees with WP policies, like WP:SOURCE. If this statement is to stay, it needs to be supported by published academic source, not by a choir director. --Hillock65 06:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Zakharchenko is the conductor of the Kuban Cossack Choir and a composer. He has music qualifications but alas none as a historian or linguist. I can attest to him being a nice guy though. In 199o he toured Ukraine with the choir singing just Ukrainian folk songs. I remember in Kyiv he was told they could not perform any songs in Ukrainian, so all the songs were prefaced with "Kubanskaya narodnaya piesnia" The concert was memorable. They started the concert with "Kubanskaya narodnaya piesnia" - "Shche ne vmerla Ukraina". Everyone stood up except for two rows in the front centre. He later received the Shevchenko award. He tried to get Ukrainian government support for the choir. He couldn't and didn't. His politics and policies have since changed. Bandurist 12:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well neither any of you are historians or linguists. However he is a conductor of the largest and most famous social organisation, on the Kuban Cossacks, apart from the KKV itself, I of course can provide works of Ataman Gromov, but they are much more military based and trying to make filter the ethno-cultural history from them is slightly more difficult. --Kuban Cossack 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to be. You are missing a point. His evidence (per WP:V) would be valuable for article on Kuban music, not on lingustic or history issues. Atamans and othe Cossacks' evidence would be valuable, if they had published academic works and were considered specialists in the field. Read the policy, please no more references from cooks and jokeys on space exploration or brain surgery. --Hillock65 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • To Hillock:
      1. The statement is sourced from Zakharchnko's work. Just a note, can I ask that you don't remove, but instead use templates such as ((who)) and ((fact)), it makes it easier to source existing text, rather than having to re-assemble sections together. Likewise I will do the same. --Kuban Cossack 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, unsupported and biased text does not belong here. If I were to put inflammatory, unsubstantiated garbage, you are free to do the same. The provocativeness and outrageous character of these statements make them unacceptable even for tags. They belong in Russian imperialist blogs, not on WP. --Hillock65 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, same for svidomy sources, but what happens whe it is supported? Like the case here, there is no citation on the passage itself, but its in the refrence(s) I provided. --Kuban Cossack 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
per se, read above: Современные украинские фольклористы, этнографы, журналисты, не говоря уже о политиках, часто называют кубанских казаков “украйинцямы Кубани”, яки запамьятувалы свою историю”. Однако такая околонаучная точка зрения, полностью отрицающая этническую, социальную, культурную и языковую самобытность кубанского казачества, в корне неверна, ибо она совершенно не соответствует действительности.... -
Then modify the text: According to Zakharchenko, the choir director from Kuban, the issue of the Kuban Cossack's national identity is challenged by some Ukrainian historians and politicians. And provide reference. Right now you are misleading the reader presenting an opinion of a choir director as a statement of a specialist in history. I will have to tag the article. --Hillock65 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      1. Well at least its better than Batkivsh'chnina forums that Bandurist has been using, now Zakharchenko might be a composer, but given that part of Kuban Cossack Chorus's work includes collecting folk songs, then I feel so far its best thing we have. There is a lot of printed literature, and Zakharechnko's article refers extensively to it as well. The only problem is that, I feel its best to use online refrences so that we could be transparent to each other. --Kuban Cossack 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I will also remove statements from 1989 census that don't even have data either on Kuban or Ukraine. Kazak please do not insert usupported forgeries in the hope that they will only be tagged. You are provoking the revert war by inserting inflammatory and unrelated stuff supported by false references. This is not your first day in WP, I see your actions as deliberate. This is not nice. --Hillock65 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in 1989 there were 235026 natives of the Ukrainian SSR living in the Kuban. How is that infammatory and unrelated, it confirms another sourced statement of Zakharchenko that most of the Kuban Ukrainians were 20th century migrants. Please don't remove it, I remember some of your inflmation on Russians in Ukraine, and you known I don't like double standards. --Kuban Cossack 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It is inflamatory because you present most of Ukrainians in Kuban as migrants, which is not true. The source does not show the whole of Ukrainian population, only those that migrated, there are and were many more who remained Ukrainians before any migrations. It is you who makes that POV conclusion. (WP:NPOV) --Hillock65 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That is not inflamatory in any way, the figures show that in 1989 there were 195883 Ukrainians in the Krasnodar Kray, which was less than 235026 people from the UkSSR. Now unless of course you are saying that of the 195883 all Ukrainians were native and the 235026 people from the UkSSR were all non-Ukrainians, which will see a roar of laughter from me if that is what you are thinking, you have no argument. Now it is true that also 235026 does not equal 195883, well the 89 census showed Ukrainians to be roughly ~3/4 of the Ukrainian SSR. So thus, we can assume that the real amount of ethnic Ukrainians that made up that fraction is 160-180, even if it was not 3/4 but as low as a half, it would still mean that 110 thousand Ukrainians of the 195883 that were in the Kuban in 1989 were not born in the Kuban. That's still more than half. Now I know I am simply guessing, but before you begin accusing me of POVs and personal interpretations, simple logic that between 60 and 75% of Ukrainians, i.e. a significant chunk of them were born in Ukraine proper, not in the Kuban. That's all. Moreover as you can see between 89 and 02 this number fell by almost 1.9 times. So what happened? Did those who moved (I would not use the word migration, because unlike in the 19th century, there were no direct migration policies associated with the Kuban during Soviet Times) to the Kuban moved back? Did they die? Did they adopt a Russian identity? You don't know, I don't know, and thus there is no point trying to speculate on this issue. I do not see any inflammation or a POV here. It's simple logic, if you want ask for a third opinion. --Kuban Cossack 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So thus, we can assume that the...... Since when are your assumptions accepted in WP? All your assumptions are Point Of View (read the policy WP:POV). Present the source that supports your claim without mathematical calculations and biased assumptions. If what you say is true, than no calculations are necessary. The princieple of WP is not to distort reality and present one's POV and assumptions but rather to reflect reality with source. Do try to make an effort to see the difference. If you don't know and I don't know, why on green Earth would you make these statemens if not to try and provoke the revert war?!!! Do the right thing and take them out, please. --Hillock65 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Look the text I wrote, does not make assertions, but it simply uses a refrence and for the reader to make conclusions, contrary to your negative opinion on me, an edit war is not something I enjoy and that was not my intention. The reality is that one source stated that of the modern Ukrainians in the Kuban most have moved from the Ukrainian SSR. The census shows that there were more migrants from the UkSSR in the Kuban than there were ethnic Ukrainians living there, with concrete numbers. Now at that point leave it to the reader to decide. --Kuban Cossack 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/ Kuban

I am tired of revert wars in that section and see the following problems with it: 1. User:Kuban Cossack keeps inserting statements by a choir director from Kuban and presents them as expert opinions in history contrary to (WP:V) 2. A statement is made that Cossacks were Ukrainianized. That is that they were never Ukrainians but became so only during several years of Ukrainization. That is supported by a single Russian nationalist writer and contradicts common sense, no one can be turned Russian or Ukrainian by force in several years. Besides, Ukrainization is equated to Dekossackization, which is an outrageous insinuation in itself. 3. An POV attempt is made to present the Ukrainian minority in Kuban only exclusively as migrants. To support this a source is dragged out, a 1989 census, that lists migrants to Kuban, but does not show the number of Ukrainians, who never migrated and did not adopt Russian identity. In other words, a very thinly disguised attempt is made to distort the reality and to present Ukrainians as alien in that territory, only as migrants and only as "victims" of several years of Ukrainization. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would like other users to comment on this, as the situation with Kuban Cossack's disruptive behavior has deadlocked and needs an outside intervention. --Hillock65 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

After all that tedious work by me and Faustian, after mutual consensus the fact that no disruptive behaivour was noted on my behalf by anyone, your accusations are pathetic. Everything else has been answered above. If the best you can do is simple discredit your opponent, then I feel sorry for you. If you want other editors to comment let them, I offered you a third opinion above, although I still fail to see, how after a weekend of being inert and after a full day of me and Faustian working towards a neutral version of the article all you can do is to come out with that nonesense. What I am in turn seeing as a thinly disguised attempt is how you are trying to get back at me for my attempts to de-radicalise another editor and bring him back from the Dark side :). Please if you want to discuss the issues above discuss them, if you want to rant on go to a nationalist Ukrainian blog or livejournal and do it there. PATHETIC!!! --Kuban Cossack 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on issues, not the user (read WP:NPA). I know, I mentioned it at least a hundred times, you do not interest me either as an editor, and infinitely less as a human being. Not in the least. So, please spare me the insults and stick to the point of discussion. Thank you. --Hillock65 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How civil of you, to accuse your opponent in what you yourself is indulging. I did not start the talk page section with In other words, a very thinly disguised attempt is made to distort the reality. You want to have a civil discussion on whatever it is you are trying to discuss on this secion, you treat others the you want to be treated, and that's how you will be treated in return. --Kuban Cossack 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, please comment on issues, not the user. Other than that, no comments. --Hillock65 18:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the issues are above the section break, and that's where I will comment, as for anything below it...no comments. --Kuban Cossack 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specifics

I disagree with the NPOV tag. Could you Hillock65, please point out, specifically, which statements within the Kuban section are false or misleading?Faustian 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go:

  • Because of this and the unique historical past of the Kuban, the issue of the Kuban Cossack's national identity is challenged by some Ukrainian historians and politicians— this is supported by the choir director. Does an accountant of that choir have on opinion on that too that we can quote? (WP:V) --Hillock65 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you doubt that because of Kuban's historical and cultural ties to Ukraine, some Ukrainian historians and politicians challenge its identity?Faustian 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, there are some Russian historians that challenge the mere presense of Ukrainians there. That is why they were Russified, Ukrainian schools closed and encouraged to switch their identity into Russian. Ukrainian historians point out to the rich Ukrainian heritage in the area. In any case, this paragraph is there specifically to inflame passions, and on top of everything that statement is supported by a choir director! --Hillock65 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be reworded.Faustian 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • that by 1860, when officially the Kuban Cossack Host was formed there was already a distinct sub-ethnical group living in the Kuban. And then goes about 47.3% of speakers of Ukrainian. Of course in his version of history they never saw themselves as Ukrainians, even though spoke Ukrainian, they were already by 1860 (!!!!!) a distinct sub-ethnical group. Why they spoke Ukrainian and allied themselves with Central Rada is a mystery. No Ukrainians whatsoever from the get-go! (WP:POV)--Hillock65 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read subethnical group to mean non-Ukrainian. Hutsuls are considered a distinct subethnical group of Ukrainians, too. I wonder if you are finding more anti-Ukrainianbias then there is.Faustian 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Read the full text: intermixed with many other ethnic groups such as the indigenous Circassians. The effort is made to present people of Kubans as a distinct ethnic group even before the census and the 1 million inhabitants. One can hardly assume that by his version, intermixing with Circassians they formed a sub-ethnic group like the Hutsuls. It's anything but Ukrainian. --Hillock65 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, I simply don't read it that way. The Ukrainians who moved to Kuban in the 18th and early 19th century did intermix with other wethnic groups. It's factual. And they are a subethnic group. Also factual. The rest involves reading into it what is not there, in my opinion.Faustian 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course Hillock, in your view anyone speaking Ukrainian is automatically ethnically Ukrainian, I wonder if you extend the same logic to languages such as English, Spanish and French (as well as Russian). It seems the number of ethnic Frenchmen in the world is quite understated (following your logic). True can be said about the whole of Kiev right? Why did they ally with Central Rada, because from the east you had Bolshevik controlled Terek and Kalmykiya, from the North Don is about to fall, whilst in 1918 Central Rada looked the strongest anti-Bolshevik "bastion". The alliance was primarily militarily, any other conclusions are but imaginations of different quasi nationalist Ukrainian historians. --Kuban Cossack 10:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In the 1920's in the wake of the Decossackization policies and general Bolshevik crimes, some Russian historians claim that Cossacks were forcibly [11] Ukrainized. So, what is implied is that Ukrainization was one of the Bolshevik crimes, just like the Decossackization. And Cossacks, who have never been Ukrainian (!) were miraculously Ukrainianized in several years. And that was the only reason why there were nearly a million of them in 1926 census. No Ukrainian identity at any time, never! --Hillock65 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it says what it says. Some Russian historians claim that Kuban cossacks were forcibly Ukrainiaized. That is what they do, indeed, claim. It is factual. The facts earlier in the article, that 47.2% had claimed to speak the Little Russian/Ukrainian language long before Ukrainization, puts those claims into context.Faustian 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What on Earth is meant by Ukrainianized? Turned into Ukrainians by force? That is the only reason, why there were 1 million of them in 1926? Even with hundreds of years of Russification not all Ukrainians were russified, and here we are to believe that in several years of Ukrainization they were ukrainianized?! --Hillock65 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The term "Ukrainization" is not pejorative: Subtelny and Magosci use the exact same term to refer to the policies within Ukraine at the same time as the Ukrainization in the 1920's. Some Russian historians and nationalists claim that it was forced in Kuban (or even in Ukraine for that matter). The article states explicitly that half of Kuban spoke Little Russian/Ukrainian prior to the Ukrainization. Again, what is the problem?Faustian 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Like Faustian said, Urkainization was parralleled with brutal de-Cossackisation, the policies were extremely unpopular, and even today noone wants any of it to be repeated.--Kuban Cossack 10:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


  • After the eventual reversal of all Cossack repressions and the Ukrainization nearly all of the Cossacks' descendents chose to re-identify themselves as Russians Just like the above. Ukrainization was one of the crimes, and the only reason why there were Ukrainians in the first place. And of course, there was no Russification, no Ukrainian schools were closed, by his version when they were given freedom from repressions and Ukrainization they "returned" to being Russian. (whatever happened to 47.3% before the revolution is still a mystery).
Again, you are reading into it too much. The facts are there. After the repressions and Ukrainizations ended, most people identified as Russians. Perhaps it can be reworded a bit to clearly differentiate Ukrainization from the Famine.Faustian 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So, you are OK with equating Ukrainization with repressions? This is new. So, just like that, they were given freedom and they returned to being Russians (which they never were to begin with). And you never heard of Russification there, of Ukrainian schools and theaters being closed? It happened even in Ukraine proper, it was on a far larger scale in Kuban. If there were no Ukrainians and those were Russians, who were forcefully ukrainianized, why did Ukrainization happen in Kuban and not in Siberia and Kazakhstan in the first place? Maybe because it was logical since there were a lot of Ukrainian speakers? The fact is that Russification replaced Ukrainization, that fact is purposfully omitted. --Hillock65 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Again you are reading into things too much. There was Ukrainization, and there was at the same time repression and deCossackization. Those things happened. They are facts. I agree however that something should be said about Ukrainization, that it involved teaching etc. in the language that was the native language of half the province so that the article will be clearer in not implying Ukrainization involved a bunch of Russian-speakers being forced to learn Ukrainian.Faustian 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Hillock, let's begin with that in 1920s Ukrainization involved closing Russian schools, in fact those 700 that a source names were not built in space of several years. Most of the stanitsas had schools already by the time of the revolution. In 1930s, the language of most o them was reverted back to Russian. My stanitsa was no exception. --Kuban Cossack 10:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • From that moment onwards almost all of the self-identified Ukrainians (....) moved there by time of census. There you go, the falsification of history is complete. Were never there, repressed, forcefully converted into Ukrainians, no Russification, whatever happened to 47.3% of Ukrainians before the Revolution is a mystery... and whatever UKrainians are there now are migrants. Never happened, they are migrants, aliens there! Hope that is enough for the NPOV tag.--Hillock65 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The figures speak for themselves. Where is the falsification? What happened to the 47.3% is no mystery - their descendents chose to identify themselves as Russians by the mid-twentieth century. The census shows over 200,000 in Kuban born in Ukraine and 150,000+ Ukrainians in Kuban. So by the census, it is logical that most of the 150,000+ Ukrainian in Kuban were from the 200,000+ people who moved from Ukraine in the 20th century, and only a very small amount of people who identified themselves as Ukrainian on the census are descendents of the original Ukrainian settlers.Faustian 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So, why is there no mentioning of that fact in the article? It is evident that not all of the Ukrainians in Kuban are migrants. The source only shows migrants, and not those who didn't switch identity. It is presented that the only Ukrainians in that region are the migrants. That is not true. --Hillock65 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
LEt's go over the number again. The 1989 census shows over 200,000 people in Kuban who were born in Ukraine. They are migrants. The latest Russian census shows over 150,000 Ukrainians. Logically, most of those 200,000+ Ukrainian-born people are ethnic Ukrainian. Since only 150,000+ people in Kuban declared themselves to be Ukrainian, and since most of a group of 200,000 migrants from Ukraine to Kuban are Ukrainian, this means that most of the 150,000 self-declared Ukrainians have to be those migrants. There is a caveat - we do not know for sure the ethnic background of the migrants from Ukraine to Kuban. But if even half of them (100,000) were Ukrainian, this acounts for the majority of the modern self-identified Ukrainians. Do you follow?Faustian 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I would like to draw Hillock's attention to this article, where it says: впервые был составлен полный список истинно русских фамилий по регионам страны. При этом ученым пришлось потратить массу времени, собирая русские фамилии собственными силами.and most of all Интересно, что на заключительном этапе исследования они решили добавить в список Южного региона фамилии жителей Краснодарского края, ожидая, что преобладание украинских фамилий потомков запорожских казаков, выселенных сюда Екатериной II, ощутимо сократит общерусский список. Но это дополнительное ограничение сократило список общерусских фамилий всего на 7 единиц - до 250. Из чего вытекал очевидный и не для всех приятный вывод, что Кубань населена в основном русскими людьми. А куда делись и были ли вообще здесь украинцы - большой вопрос. So in the Kuban -enkos and -chuks are not common. Hillock how would you comment on that? --Kuban Cossack 10:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on anti-Ukrainian discrimination

This section should be created, consistent with information on anti-Russian acts scattered throughout the Russians in Ukrainearticle. I don't have time to write it now, perhaps someone else will. The section can include incidents such as the recent vandalism of the Ukrainian famine exhibit at the Ukrainian cultural center on the Arbat [3] (the cultural center itself has been vandalized in other incidents), the low rating of Ukrainians in opinion polls, the tiny number of Ukrainian-language schools given the Ukrainian population (about 20 schools in a country with over 3 million Ukrainians), the refusal by authorities to allow the construction of a Ukrainian Catholic church for believers living in Moscow despite there being a Russian Orthodox Church in Lviv (in all of Russia there is only one Greek Catholic church for Ukrainian believers, and it was built only last month [4], etc. I don't have time to look this stuff up now, find references, etc. and probably won't for at least a couple weeks but hopefully someone will.Faustian (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this is ludicrous. First of all, the attacks of vandalism, on the Ukrainian centre are nothing compared to what the Russian cultural centre in Lviv suffered. Second low rating of Ukrainians in opinion polls, how is that discrimination? Maybe its caused by the hostile policies conducted by the government in Ukraine towards Russian and the Russians in Ukraine? Again causes of a sentiment are more useful than just random facts. Ukrainian language schools tiny? Well as there is no region where there is a compact population of Ukrainians, most of them are scattered around Russia. Of course, every major large city will have a Ukrainian school. However I doubt that there will be a French or a German school in a tiny little derevnya, so its not exactly double standards to Ukrainians. Refusal of authorities to build a Catholic Church? First of all, not all Ukrainians are Catholic, in fact a minority of Ukrainians are Catholic. Moreover as the Catholic region of Ukraine became part of the Soviet Union in 1939, the only migrations to Russia proper would begin after that date. In fact in 1989 census for the RSFSR [5] there were 58741 from Ivano Farnkovsk Oblast, 113401 from Lvov Oblast and 46144 from Ternopol Oblast. That puts a 200 000 minority. Combine with the fact that prior to 1989 the majority of those people would be at least nominally Orthdox and/or more likely Communist Aetheist. Given that the number of Ukrainians in Russia has gone down from 4.36 to 2.94 million, this proportion would have carried through on those native Galicians, in fact more for those who would feel Greek Catholic as that identification would automatically mean quasi-nationalist orientiation. Thus the amount of Greek Catholics in Russia would not be greater than 100 thousand, scattered across the largest country in the world. Yet you did say that it was actually built! So how is that discrimination? Finally in Russia there is indeed a law that does protect traditional religions. They are Orthodox Christianity of ROC and Old Believers, Islam (in 8 autonomous republics), Buddihism (in Buryatiya and Kalmykiya) and Judaism (in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast). Furthermore addherents to all those religions when living in compact societies would have full state support, for example Mountain Jews in Dagestan. The absoloute majority of Ukrainians are Orthodox, Russian Orthodox. --Kuban Cossack 19:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect to vandalism, I would say that smashing up an exhibit on the Famine is pretty extreme, not much different than skinheads smashing up a Holocaust exhibit at a Jewish cultural Center in the center of Berlin.
With respect to the lack of schools, when I attended a meeting at the Ukrainian Cultural Center in Moscow while I lived in that city, that was a big complaint. The representatives of the local Ukrainian community were saying that although the number of Ukrainians far outnumber the number of Armenians or Georgians or even Bashkirs, those groups all had their own language schools while Ukrainian applications for a school were being denied. I have no documentation of these facts, they are only what I heard, so I won't put this into the article, but it is a legitimate point. There are 150,000 or so Ukrainians in Kuban. How many Ukrainian-language schools are there for those 150,000 people who identified themselves as Ukrainians? If not having enough Russian schools for all the Russians in Ukraine is discriminatory as per the Russians in Ukraine article, then vice versa should also be true. Or should we remove the references to such in the Russians in Ukraine article?
With respect to churches, in addition to the 200,000 western Ukrainians living in Russia in 1989, many new migrants have arrived since then (they often work as skilled construction workers or carpenters, remonting apartments). I'm not sure how many of Moscow's 400,000 Ukrainians (that is the number of Ukrainians in Moscow city plus Moscow oblast according to latest census) are from one of the western oblasts, but if only 5% of them are, that's 20,000 without a single church. In contrast, there are 10,000 Ukrainians in the US state of Arizona, not all of whom are Catholic [6] and they have at least two Ukrainian Catholic churches there [7]. The American state of West Virginia has only 1,880 Ukrainians according to the census, yet there is a Ukrainian church in West Virginia [8]. The fact that after years of struggle finally one church in all of Russia was built for Ukrainians is indeed evidence of anti-Ukrainian discrimination.Faustian (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes its vandalism, and any form of vandlism is treated as such, Reverted and its author blocked! ;). As for having national schools, it is a big issue, yet the overstretched budget of Russian education (until recently all school teachers were paid pathetic salaries, and even today there are hundreds of existing schools that require refurbishment and repairs). There are thousands of settlements in Russia with no schools at all or those located in old converterted vagon's. Those groups are priority! As for international schools, then American schools for example are funded not by the authorities but by whom? USA! If Ukrainian government did care about its people it could have donated to build a Ukrainian school (s) in Russia.
Greek Church, maybe its just because as the UGCC is not a traditional religion of Russia, the people there have to cut through the same Red Tape as those of missinorry organisations, and don't get any subsidies. Don't see that as Anti-Ukrainian. That's just Russian beurecracy. Moreover as you said yourself many are temprorary workers, they move around constantly, for many a church is second priority (unlike those that live in the USA where they...live permanently). Also let's not forget that in Western Oblasts for over several decades the UOC(MP) has been trying to open additional parishes, and in Lviv all they have is Saint George's Church, whilst -KP has no problems in erecting a new one and gaining planning permission. I am not saying that just because one side has clearly more wrongs than the other, that other is right. No, however making conclusions such as that long time is an act evidence is a very big OR guess. For one, the economic boom in Moscow began in 2000-ish. That's when you had the big influx of migrants. Second Moscow is the largest city in Europe. If those 20,000 can find group themselves together in one region, donate funding there would have been churches and not one. I don't know if I am right, however i am just following clear logic.--Kuban Cossack 20:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone needs to include this information on discrimination. That act of vandalism was despicable and it is incredibly notable. User:Kuban kazak's personal point of view that it was "nothing compared to what the Russian cultural centre in Lviv suffered" does not justify keeping it out of the article. Ostap (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    I said before a more serious wrong does not justify a lesser wrong or make it a right.--Kuban Cossack 11:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Faustian just above said that Ukrainian Catholic Church is already open.

UCO-KP, we look at the bottom of the page, where it seems that forget individual parishes there are three whole eparchies of the church in Russia. Now I am aware that wrt Filaret what's written on paper is not exactly true what is in real life, but even the Russian religion registar shows that UOC-KP has 11 communities and the Greek Catholic Church 4. That was back in 2006.

So the question is How can the churches be denied a parish when there are 15 functioning parishes? --Kuban Cossack 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church itself on its website claims that it has only one church in all of Russia [9] despite the offical census showing that back in 1989 200,000 people living in Russia who were from Galicia (due to migration the number of western Ukrainians is probably a lot higher now). One church for over 200,000 people is pretty notable. According to the 1989 census, there were about 12,000 people in Moscow city [10], and another 9,000 in Moscow region [11] who were born in the three Catholic Ukrainian oblast. These 21,000 people do not have a single church. There may be four Greek Catholic parishes in Russia as the website you added indicated, but due to problems getting permission to build churches these parishes use Roman Catholic churches in which to have their services. In my opiniom it is perfectly legitimate to state in the article the small number of churches relative to the Ukrainian population.Faustian (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction, they do have a church, now that it is built. Now the fact that its small could well be due to their pattern of living, it could be because like many urban dwellers, few are religious. The numbers don't point to anything. It could well be that the planning permission is refused as an act of vengence for the refusal of planning permission to increase the number of UOC(MP) parishes in Galicia by local authorities there. All of those arguments are legitimate but they are hypothesis. A refusal of building a church is not a form of Ukrainophobia, so in any case I would like to ask that my paragraphing changes such as a religion section are kept, and that our freind Hillock65 exlains himself here. --Kuban Cossack 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with your paragraph being retained, as it is factual and important. However I think that the small number of Ukrainian churches for the population is important and should be retained.Faustian (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well just because its small it is not a proven case of direct Ukrainophobia, tie it into religion paragraph. --Kuban Cossack 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I also don't object to it being tied into a religion paragraph. The paragraph has to rely on sources, though — not on User:Kuban kazak views. So, far I haven't seen any. Instead of supporting information with sources, quoted stuff is being deleted. This is not the way to do it. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly and so far I have not seen any sources. For example the UOC-KP can go straight out of the Ukrainophobia section. They have three eparchies in Russia. It contradicts them "not being able to build a church".--Kuban Cossack 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you are doctoring the text, removing quoted text and inserting unsupported allegations. None of the sources mention the beurocracy stuff, where on GREEN EARTH did you dig it up? You invented it, plain and simple. You are trying to hide the discrimination of Ukrainians based on religion behind some flimsy beurocracy stuff. There is no beaurocracy, read the source in English. It is a discrimination and they say it. QUOTE: (Particular discrimination is leveled against Ukrainian Orthodoxy and Catholicism. [12]) Please stop revart wars and read the sources. --Hillock65 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear who talks about POV sources? Nationalist Material? Just read the article, it is false, based on the contemprory registars and the UGCC and UOC-KP sources provided above. Nationalist and Russophobic material is to be kept out of wikipedia right? --Kuban Cossack 20:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What's so russophobic about the Ukrainian World Congress? Is criticising Russia for discrimination russophobic? I don't think so. And if you thought it was russophobic and nationalist, why did you keep it in your watered down and doctored version? Any explanaiton of that? I know one - it is just that you HAVE NEVER READ it. Just like the religion section, you slapped it together from you imagination without any regard for sources or the truth. --Hillock65 (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I just read it, and the fact is that the truth is against the content of that article. I posted figures for religion, both from Russian registars and from the Church bodies themselves. That is quite far from However to date not a single Ukrainian Orthodox Kyiv Patriarchate or a Ukrainian Catholic Church has been sanctioned. Maybe it was indeed because the source is five years old, and hence does not reflect the contemprory situation. In that case this is just history as far as the article is concerned. --Kuban Cossack 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


I have readded the church information into the religion section, making sure that the claims of the president of the Ukrainian World Congress are labelled as claims. He attributes the tiny number of churches to discrimination, so it belongs in this section.Faustian (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well claims of individuals such as Kiril Frolov were ruthlessly removed by Hillock in Russians in Ukraine article. Double standards? --Kuban Cossack 20:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Askold Lozinsky [13] is head of the World Congress of Ukrainians, an organization that represents the Ukrainian diaspora in the West and in the East [14]. Thisd organization meets with, for example, the Ukrainian president [15]. Its leader is an important figure within the diaspora whose claims about the diaspora deserve some weight. Kirril Frolov seems to be a minor figure working within a Kremlin think tank; I don't think the two are comparable.Faustian (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Making allegations such as falsified census results, and refusal of church register (even though they are registered) mean that the two were either in a wrong state of mind when writing this or simply Russophobic nationalists. In any case find a proper refrence that proves this issue, I will agree not to blank it but will add a disputed tag. --Kuban Cossack 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Lozinsky stated that the number of Ukrainians in Russia was undercounted in the census and that even Russian government officials have privately agreed with this assessment. He did not say that the results were falsified. Indeed, he stated that "many reasons have been suggested for this undercount ranging from a lack of national awareness on the part of the Ukrainian minority to subtle psychological pressure exerted in the form of 'we are all brothers'". With respect to the churches, his statement was in 2001. The first Catholic church was only built in 2007. There is nothing innaccurate in his statement. Moreover, given the man's stature, his claim is noteworthy and belongs in the article. Please note that the paragraph merely stated that the president of the World Congress of Ukrainians claimed something. It does not stated that this is a fact; there indeed ought to be concrete proof before it is described as a fact. But stating that the leader of the organization representing the Ukrainian diaspora including Russia's Ukrainians stated that efforts to build churchjes have met with resistence from Russian authorities is indeed a fact. So I don't see why a disputed tag belongs there.Faustian (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly are Kuban cossacks objections? For the record, so that we know? He doesn't like the UWC and thinks it is russophobic. On what grounds? --Hillock65 (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My objections, that whatever truth there is in that passage should it be kept with the anti-Ukrainian discrimination (alleged anti-Ukrainian discrimination mind you) or with the more specific religion section, which could be expanded. I follow the latter. As for just how much truth is in there, well it is indeed a fact that religions that are not traditional religions of the Russian peoples (Rossiyani) such as Russian Orthodoxy, Old Believers, Sunni Islam, Buddihism (Kalmyks and Buryats) and Judaism (Russian is the only country which actually has a Jewish autonomy and recognises them as titular nation, in Dagestan (Mountain Jews) and in Jewish Autonomous Oblast.) This does not only affect Ukrainian churches, it has an affect on hundreds of missionary groups, effectively protecting the population from sektanty. --Kuban Cossack 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use religious slurs. Ostap (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The section on religious discrimination is well sourced, all you object to is that you want this informationa scattered all over the article. This is not going to happen. Eeligious discrimination will stay where it belongs. You presented no sources, and all you were doing is disturbing the article against the concensus of most editors. Instead you should focus on that biased Religion section that you created. Now it becomes evident that you created it only that you can doctor and distort the info on religious discrimination. Now that it has been restored in its proper place, you suddenly "lost interest" in that section. If that is the case remove it and focus on discriminaiton section. --Hillock65 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction, but I provided sources, in case you were too lazy to look here you go again:

UCO-KP, we look at the bottom of the page, where it seems that forget individual parishes there are three whole eparchies of the church in Russia. Now I am aware that wrt Filaret what's written on paper is not exactly true what is in real life, but even the Russian religion registar shows that UOC-KP has 11 communities and the Greek Catholic Church 4. That was back in 2006. . As for consensus, consensus of two against one is not consensus. Considering that as in most cases, your interest here is not as much as the subject but to satisfy your need (fetish?) for conflicts, conflicts and more conflicts, which seem to be arise from every article or section you touch. FYI me and Faustian have in the past found neutral ground w/o any excessive friction and I have full confidence in finding it here as well. I don't involve myself in your disputes with other editors, care for once to extend the favour. --Kuban Cossack 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Kuban Kazak is Russian biased and Beetstra does not read any Russian or Ukrainian or Cyrillic. They deleted my links.

Maybe someone can use these for references in the article or as External Links (I am for it, but please agree as well - as there are some objections from a Dutchman who issued a warning to me, and one Russian)

[edit] "Most Ukrainians positive about Russia, but Russia has fewer Ukraine fans"

I saw an article on www.interfax.com with this title. Unfortunatly I'm not subscripted to interfax so couldn't read it... But it could be interesting for this article. Has anybody found a public source with the same info? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)