Talk:Universal of National Unity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Universal of National Unity article.
Article policies

[edit] What next

Thanks for the stub! It seems to me that we need to:

  1. Move this article to Universal of National Unity
  2. Write a separate article Universal (act) for which it suffices to translate the uk:Універсал which is basically a copy/paste from "Encyclopedia Ukrainoznavstva". We would only need to add a phrase to the UE article about the word being resurrected in UA by recent events.
  3. Add Universal (act) to the Universal (dab) page. If no one does it before I get to it, I will do it all when I have time. --Irpen 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about one thing: on the news sites, it calles this document a declaration. Why don't they call it a universal? Just because it's a not well-known term? — Alex (T|C|E) 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the readers of the news are more interested in what's actually happened and things are explained to them in the easiest to understand terms. News are written very briefly and the readers are saved from details of what "Universal" is, which would have to be provided if the newsreaders were given the word in an unusual context. OTOH, we are not space limited in Wiki and, besides, completeness is good feature in ecnyclopedia while not necessarily so in the news brief. --Irpen 03:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and we better hurry with expanding the Universal (act) article. It's already under fire for deletion. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. It will stay. I will take care of it if others won't. --Irpen 03:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream English media does use a word other than Universal (for the reasons stated above). However, I do not oppose the move as it will only clarify what is what, but we will have to mention that the "Universal" document is the same as the "Declaration" one (redirect, and direct explanation within the article, etc).--Riurik (discuss) 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't really oppose the move, I just wanted to clarify that the new way is correct. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A misplaced info

Gentlemen, I removed the following paragraph.

In effect, President Yushchenko retained the control over foreign policy, while Yanukovych, as Prime Minister, got the right to focus on country's economy.[citation needed]

I find it a misplaced and way too simplified truth that belongs to Constitution of Ukraine or Politics of Ukraine. Anyway, it is not that simple. Wishes, Ukrained 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is misplaced at all. Simplified due to the length of the article itself, which is stub length. Here is [http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=414&&issue_id=3828 The Jamestown Foundation's Oleg Varfolomeyev), see last paragraph. The sentence can be elaborated on, but as stated above it seems succinct and accurate.--Riurik (discuss) 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)