Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
+ 3rd opinion
Line 234: Line 234:
:::::::(3) "Politics and Separatist insurgence are two different things" - the separatists are fighting for political goals, like any separatist insurgency. By your logic, a lot of the far-right Ukrainian groups should also be deleted because they're not politicians. ~[[User:Asarlaí|Asarlaí]] 11:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::(3) "Politics and Separatist insurgence are two different things" - the separatists are fighting for political goals, like any separatist insurgency. By your logic, a lot of the far-right Ukrainian groups should also be deleted because they're not politicians. ~[[User:Asarlaí|Asarlaí]] 11:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Strongly support inclusion of this material. All RSs consider this part of Ukraine, and excluding it creates a serious skewing. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 12:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Strongly support inclusion of this material. All RSs consider this part of Ukraine, and excluding it creates a serious skewing. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 12:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Strongly support inclusion of this material as well. --[[User:Sonicyouth86|<span style="color:#8B0000;">'''Sonic'''</span><span style="color:#00CED1;">'''Y'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sonicyouth86|(talk)]] 06:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please also consider [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Ukraine&diff=1059447589&oldid=1059373204 this removal] of material sourced to academic books and papers by [[User:Mhorg]]. His edit summary is plainly wrong and puzzling as he seems to rationalize his edit by reference to an opinion piece in [[The Nation]]. As for his claim that the academic sources (e.g., ''The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right'') say "the opposite" let us look at the first source just to explain that the editor is clearly mistaken. The source ([[doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274559.013.30]]) [https://books.google.com/books?id=--5IDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT695#v=onepage&q&f=false directly supports] every sentence. If you can fault the content for anything then it's that the rendering was perhaps ''too close'' to the academic sources given. I have restored much of the content deleted by Mhorg but encourage other editors to keep an eye on further attempts by Mhorg to remove content purely because it doesn't align with his favorite opinion pieces or his view of the topic as suggested by his edit summary. --[[User:Sonicyouth86|<span style="color:#8B0000;">'''Sonic'''</span><span style="color:#00CED1;">'''Y'''</span>]] [[User talk:Sonicyouth86|(talk)]] 06:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:36, 26 March 2022

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT

WikiProject iconUkraine Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Help requests

You can leave your requests here. Please add new sections at the bottom with your signature so that the request will have the date included.

==[[Article name]]==
*Description of the help you require
*~~~~

Category:1907 establishments in Yekaterinoslav Governorate, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for rename. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I have updated Wikipedia’s guideline as per discussions there. The default romanization system for Wikipedia is the Ukrainian National System that is currently used for Ukrainian geographic names, in Ukrainian passports, in the United Nations, and in most English-language media. This also simplifies the guidelineMichael Z. 2019-11-19 20:05 z

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mirax-Plaza Ukraine#Requested move 12 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 01:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944

Hi, I'm a graphic worker and I have been working on this request Map of the 4th Ukrainian Front advance during the Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive 1 to 8 February 1944 which was requested by Kges1901. Unfortunately I lost contact with him so the request is not complete. At the time when I lost contact we were working on day 6 out of 8 so it's pretty close. It's one file for each day in SVG.
When requested it was intended for this article here Nikopol–Krivoi_Rog_offensive.
I would really like to complete it as there is a lot of time and effort invested in it both from the requester and me.

So I'm asking if there is anyone here that has the knowledge and possibility to work with me and help completing and finish those maps. It would really mean a lot for me and hopefully also for that article.
--always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Hi @Goran tek-en: what king of interaction you envision and what knowledge you would need?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter thanks for responding.
  • The source map image "4th Ukrainian Front situation map 1 to 8 February 1944 northern half.jpg" given in the original request has as was predicted been deleted from commons now. There is a small problem then as I can't link to it as an "information" source but maybe you know where it, or a similar map can be found.
    • This source map image is big 141510*10698 px and here is a scaled down version just to show you. If you can help me I can email you the full image. Here is a part of the image in 100% so you can see what it really looks like.
    • The source map image is just used for information and that I'm allowed to do with any map, image. The background image is created from OSM which is a "free" source that I can use like that.
  • Here is a PNG rendering of the SVG file for Day 6 as it looks now. Of course I will show you all the others also if you accept this.
    • The things I need help with is to check my drafts towards the source image and your knowledge about this battle. I have some difficulties to really see what is what and as I have zero knowledge about this battle I can't really interpret the difficult and not so clear parts. Also Kges1901 had the theoretical knowledge about this battle and I hope you also have that.
    • So checking my drafts, guiding me what to change, anything that improves the maps etc.
  • I haven't looked at the maps I created for some time and I see now that I create maps nowadays in what I think is a better way so I will change things like visibility and other things, that would mean that I would need you to check all of the day maps. Hope this doesn't scare you of. I would mean a lot for me if you can help me and I hope the maps can be of use somewhere, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: No, unfortunately I do not have any understanding or knowledge about the battle. Russian is my mothertongue, and I could help parsing the maps, but for the knowledge of the battle you probably are better off at WP:MILHIST (or wait until someone responds here).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YmblanterYes, could you help me with those two things:
  • Could you help me parsing the map for day 6 (almost done), 7 and 8. Send me an email and I will send you the source map image.
  • Could you search and see if you can find that source map image or a similar, high resolution. I think it would be easier for you as you can search in Russian and hopefully you know of places that keep material like this. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter Could you please respond if you will help me with your part of knowledge or not, just so I know, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: Sorry, too much work in real time. Let me check in the weekend the original map (I am a Commons administrator so I should be able to get it from there) and come back to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter It was not my intention to push you. Here is the deletion request if it helps you. I have used image search to try to find it or a similar but it's hard when I can't search in Russia. I use it as Information so anywhere a map can be found is OK, it's doesn't have to be free or uploaded to commons.
Take your time, I just wanted check with you. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ukrainian coup d'état plot

The article for the 2021 Ukrainian coup d'état plot was recently created. Any help by members of this project would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in Ukraine all my life, I constantly watch independent Ukrainian and Russian media news, I always follow deputies in social networks who often talk about the domestic political scene and I even have a friend who is an official and I have never heard of any coup d'etat in 2021 GoldNotGod (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t looked at this article but based on my recent reading it seems that Zelenskyy, British intelligence and American intelligence all alleged (two different) coup plots by (two different) media moguls in late 2021. It’s tangentially related to what I am working on but I haven’t been able to nail down the details yet. Look at Viktor Medvedchuk and Rinat Akhmetov for more details. Both denied the allegations, and I am confused about why Akhmetov would be involved, but British intelligence seems to think he was and I don’t know enough to have an opinion Elinruby (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename articles about uezds for consistency

I’m proposing renaming every article in the form of, for example, Akhtyrka Uyezd → Akhtyrka Uezd, to match the spelling of the renamed main article Uezd. Please discuss at talk:Uezd#Rename articles about uezds for consistency. —Michael Z. 22:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've recently added a section regarding the 2020s & the escalation of tensions between the two countries, and I would appreciate feedback from you guys. Feel free to contribute any information that you may have, as I cannot read Ukrainian nor Russian, so perhaps your domestic news sources could provide another perspective. Cheers Obama gaming (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I opened this discussion to see what we can do about the categories which pertained to the abolished districts of Ukraine. Whereas obviously everybody is welcome to comment there, some level of familiarity with the category system on the English Wikipedia is desirable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about article "Ukrainian crisis"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ukrainian crisis#Disambiguate, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a Request for Comments to point Ukrainian crisis to a disambiguation page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me

Greetings,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, my expectations to get expanded Black sea related articles failed miserably. I am expecting and requesting at least some help in expanding the article Draft:List of erstwhile slave trading townships with regions surrounding Black sea. In next steps I wish to have a proper map showing erstwhile slave trading townships across black sea.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling in History of Kyiv

Please help find consensus at Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text. The question is whether the article text should use the spelling from its title. —Michael Z. 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grajda

Hello, I recently created a draft for Grajda, a type of farm house dwelling found in the Hutsul region. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User for Ukraine

This is trivial given the current "situation", but I've created a new userbox at Template:User for Ukraine. My wish is for all Ukrainians to stay safe, healthy, and free. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Template:User Слава Україні. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_-_Should_NATO_be_displayed_in_the_infobox_as_a_support_belligerent_providing_indirect_military_aid%3F

Maxorazon (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are Russian readers viewing on Wikipedia today?

Other than the Main page, the top 25 articles by page views are almost all about current events; see the table at WP:VPM#What are Russian readers viewing on Wikipedia today? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of the Stugna River#Requested move 7 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis

I recently created the article for the 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis. This is of course a rapidly evolving crisis. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

good topic. thanks! a lot of Ukrainians are all over the Europe right now. --VenrAmD (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New articles needed for Ukraine?

I saw a banner about the need for editors to help with articles about Ukraine. I would be happy to help out, but I haven't been able to find that notice again (you know, like the ones that appear periodically for donations).

Do you know anything about this project?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the screen again, with a link to this page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a bit of work to this article and it seems he's relatively important in Ukrainian history. I wondered if someone in the project wanted to rate it for importance, I don't feel qualified to do so. Further improvements would also be welcome. CT55555 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine

Think we should work on this article together Ukraine ...needs lots of care. As of now its full of unsourced info and full of excerpts that dont allow us to monitor changes to the article and has many subpart references we normally dont use in country articles. Best get as many eyes on this considering whats going on.Moxy- 17:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Irvanets

I recently created a draft for Ukrainian poet Oleksandr Irvanets. Any help with translation would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ukraine Wikiproject" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ukraine Wikiproject and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#Ukraine Wikiproject until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can i Join?

I want to join :) 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk) 14 March 2022 (UTC))

@2ofthe22ofthe2022: Just add your name to this list, and you're a member! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zelensky or Zelenskyy

Looking for wider feedback on how we want to romanize the name of the Ukrainian president (Template:Lang-uk). As he is much in the news and is referred to across many articles, we should come up with one spelling, and stick to it. Both "Zelensky" and "Zelenskyy" are seen in highly reliable sources, which is not surprising as there are a dozen or more systems for romanization of Ukrainian; and in particular, the two i-like letters -ий at the end, can be romanized in many ways. Further background on this is available at the earlier conversation.

This ngrams search points to the spelling "Zelensky" taking off around 2014. We can't be sure without further examination that these apply to the Ukrainian president, however the invasion of the Donbas occurred in 2014, so very likely it does. On the other hand, ngrams searches books exclusively, and there are far more articles from news websites than in books, and they show a different story. A wild-card web search for "Ukrainian president *" shows three variants (-yy, -y, -iy) in the top ten results. In the top 50, I counted: yy=15, y=15, iy=5. Interaction between Google exact search and wildcard search can be tricky; here's a slightly different formulation that provides a different picture, with more -yy results: Ukrainian president Zelen*.

Any way one searches, the -iy suffix comes out last (and also looks more to me like Russian romanization than Ukrainian romanization), and I think we can drop that one from consideration. Which leaves us a choice between "Zelensky" and "Zelenskyy". Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In adding links to this discussion, I discovered this RM at Talk:Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and this one, which resulted in the "Zelenskyy" version, so I don't know if that makes this moot or not. I never saw those RMs, but they appear to have been sufficiently well-attended. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another reliable source, The Guardian, consistently uses "Zelenskiy" [1]. Certes (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That one is weird: surname romanized from Russian, following the given name from Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 16:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that he has used both (according to <https://en.as.com/en/2022/03/15/latest_news/1647309379_288360.html>), but I'm not seeing anything "recent" with a preferred spelling. There seem to be a lot of claims at wikidata:Q3874799 presented as well. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the spelling from the main article title which was recently determined by consensus, unless there’s a reason to do otherwise, as we can infer from WP:OTHERNAMES. Barring that, Wikipedia’s default romanization per WP:UKR, corresponding to the Ukrainian National system, would be Zelenskyi, which fact is missing from the discussion above.
Wikidata has alternate spellings derived from Ukrainian and Russian by multiple romanization systems, to capture many possible search strings. —Michael Z. 16:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a 9 April 2021 update to the AP Stylebook that specifically addressed this matter. It reads as follows, though I regrettably don't have a publicly accessible link to the actual update.

Editors:

The AP is changing its style for the transliteration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s name effective immediately. Previously, the AP spelled the name with -iy at the end, Zelenskiy, in line with the spelling on an English-language webpage used by his campaign when he was running for office. Since then, Zelenskyy has adopted a transliteration with the -yy ending to his name for official use. This also is the English-language spelling used by most governments and government organizations, including the U.S. government, the European Union and NATO.

In general, the AP rule is to use the name by which a person wishes to be known. In this instance, Zelenskyy wants to be known using the -yy ending to his name when transliterated into the Latin alphabet from Cyrillic. We recognize that other news organizations have simplified the spelling to Zelensky in their publications, but AP’s choice of Zelenskyy respects the president’s preferred spelling.

Given this, it seems to make sense to standardise on 'Zelenskyy'. If the AP has verified that Zelenskyy himself prefers 'Zelenskyy', that should be sufficient grounds for using said spelling on Wikipedia. RGloucester 16:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all of them are used by reliable sources, I suggest allowing them all or at least listing them all whenever needed. Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki Talk~~ 23:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this (pending verification), we should certainly defer to a BLP's preference for how their name is transliterated, once they have made it known. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
based on this discussion I am mildly in favor of Zelenskyy if he himself and the AP stylebook use that. But I do not claim any expertise at all in transliteration or Wikipedia policies thereupon. As an editor heavily involved in this particular article I am happy to standardize on whatever the consensus is. Using both according to the source is not an option within this article, as one editor has a definite opinion about this and keeps changing Zelensky to Zelenskyy. I am fine with this if we decide that’s correct. The article isn’t primarily about Zelenskyy, but he does get mentioned quite a few times, and there is a section about his various speeches and addresses to legislatures. Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the unnamed editor alluded to by Elinruby who "keeps changing Zelensky to Zelenskyy," I have done so to standardize the Ukrainian president's surname in conformance with Wikipedia's BLP Volodymyr Zelenskyy. If there is consensus to impose a different spelling on Russian information war against Ukraine, I will be happy to change all occurrences in that article accordingly. Repszeus (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for clarifying your position Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hasten to add that I did not change spelling in Bibliography or References, as I believe those should remain unaltered from the original sources. Repszeus (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also see the principles enshrined in MOS:ARTCON. Articles should be internally consistent in their use of a spelling of Zelenskyy's name, and as far as I can tell, there is no reason to deviate from the spelling used by our main article on the subject. Of course, quotations and citations should be left as they are. RGloucester 15:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically speaking, there is no reason whatsoever to spell it Zelenskyy. It has no distinctive function. The Ukrainian ending has no English sound "i" (like in the word machine) at all – that's the irony. It is confusing and unnecessary. It is also inconsistent with other surnames that are read the same but are spelled "y" (not "yy"). Britannica and BBC did it right. The transliteration should be adapted to the target language. I urge you to rename it to Zelensky. Language is my profession and seeing Zelenskyy hurts my eyes. Lingcro (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically speaking, I suggest you learn about romanization of Ukrainian. The spelling Zelenskyy corresponds to the BGN/PCGN systemic romanization, in which y is used for both letters и and й. (But the derivation of the spelling is mostly irrelevant to the topic of which to use in an article title.) —Michael Z. 21:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lingcro, I have to agree with Michael Z here. An appeal to the English sounds isn't really relevant. There are multiple romanization systems for Ukrainian, not to mention other things that come into play such as the majority of reliable sources (which may override the romanization tables; not sure what MOS has to say about that), as well as the preference of a living person for the spelling of their own name, which may also override what seems like the otherwise "logical" choice. But as someone who uses language in your profession, you know that language is anything but logical. As for "Tchaikovsky", he was not Ukrainian, and in any case, Russian romanization styles in the 19th century may well have been different. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistically speaking, most of the letters in the English surname Featherstonhaugh (pronounced /ˈfænʃɔː/ FAN-shaw) have no distinctive function, yet that's how people with that name spell it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation seems pointless: please let me know if there’s a reason not to close it. We use the article title’s spelling. If there’s a reason to change it, please file a WP:RM at talk:Volodymyr Zelenskyy. —Michael Z. 21:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Z, whether you write it Zelenskyy or Zelensky the English reader will still read it the same way. It has no distinctive function in English whatsoever. Lingcro (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument. The surname is not English thus it doesn't have to fit any function in English. Super Ψ Dro 22:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you don't spell Tchaikovsky as Tchaikovskyy. It reads the same as the Ukrainian surname of his grandfather. Lingcro (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the distinctive function in English of the letter T in that? (In a certain context I would spell it Chaikovskyi, but not in a Wikipedia article.) —Michael Z. 03:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None in English, but it has a function in French, to distinguish the nonexistent "tch" sound in French (as in English "chair") from the "sh" sound (as in "shy"). "Note [a]" at the Tchaikovsky article gives some background on this. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the previous closure of this discussion has been undone. Details at your UTP. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the two recent RMs linked above offer enough of a consensus in favour of 'Zelenskyy'. Having a third discussion on this in the space of two months seems counterproductive to me in light of the snowballed closure of the latest RM. —Legoless (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't disagree with your first sentence, as this discussion tends to support the previous RMs. But it was opened as a discussion, not a proposal; some of the points raised may end up being reused as supporting material for any future RM, should there be one. But I hardly see it as counterproductive to anything; it's been a worthwhile discussion, and may (or may not) continue to be. It's already been closed once, and you're a second voice stating that it is counterproductive, and I wouldn't stand in your way if you requested closure; I just don't see why you'd want to while other editors of good faith feel it worthwhile to comment.

Given that both the -y and -yy forms are well established in media, why not let his own current spelling of it and the form in which it appears on his passport (Zelenskyy) be the tie breaker? Largoplazo (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the Russian version of the man's name also in this article, at least in parentheses? He's a Native Russian speaker and his actual name is "Vladimir Aleksandrovich Zelensky". It's important to at least mention that in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.69.7 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In his condolence letter of about a week ago to the family of American filmmaker Brent Renaud, written in English on official Ukraine President letterhead (in Cyrillic font), he signs his name as Volodymyr Zelenskyy (in Roman font). This letter should still be found online fairly easily. Given that he uses the "yy" construction, I think we should follow his usage for the pagename, and provide alternate spellings as redirects. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the IP suggestion immediately preceding, that his native language being Russian, his birth name and an explanation would be useful to include in the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title advice needed

Advice for renaming at Talk:2022 Chernihiv bombing#Requested move 17 March 2022 is needed, especially from people familiar with Ukrainian culture and language. Boud (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right politics in Ukraine

The article Far-right politics in Ukraine is in need of attention. A small group of editors keeps deleting any mention of far-right politics among Russian separatists - yet the article is called "far-right politics in Ukraine", and Donbas is recognized as part of Ukraine by all states except Russia. The article also seems to cherrypick sources; it includes some biased wording; and many sentences are written in poor English (possibly translated from the Russian version) with lots of needless wordiness. Attempts to fix this have been reverted by the same two editors, and unfortunately the article hasn't got much attention from other Wikipedians. ~Asarlaí 12:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the same editors are now repeatedly deleting mention of far-right politics from Russian separatist forces in Donbas as well, with the incorrect claim that it was "original research" or "rumor". ~Asarlaí 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. See how:
What you term as "poor English" is sufficiently sourced to this English language source.
It makes no sense to mention the titbit (WP:SYNTH) you collected about "far-right politics among Russian separatists" from outdated media sources on a page called Far-right politics in Ukraine. Your logic would mean that Bangladeshi nationalism and Pakistani nationalism are same just because they were one country before. Segaton (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Donbas is legally recognized as part of Ukraine, by all sovereign states except Russia. No state recognizes Bangladesh and Pakistan as the same country, so that argument doesn't work at all.
As I said, the article also includes biased wording (such as "notoriously") and unneeded wordiness (such as "The translation of the philosophy into living reality finds its way to the public", which is gibberish). Content might be sourced, but if you were a native English speaker you could see that many sentences are not written in proper English ("In the same time", "caused by raise of informal youth groups", "keeps to classifies right-wing terrorism", etc). It also cherrypicks details from the sources. ~Asarlaí 15:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two of the sources your text largely relied on are Researchgate and WashingtonPost but both of them haven't used the term "far-right"/"far right". Just because you consider their nationalism to be "far right", doesn't mean Wikipedia will do the same because WP:VERIFY is important and the information must be exactly backed by the source.
Note that this is encyclopedia, and is supposed to maintain WP:NPOV. Who controls Donbas at this moment? Russia. So whatever happens in Donbas and in Russian territories is none of the concern for a page specific to Ukraine. Segaton (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there were at least six separate reliable sources supporting the text. All of them use terms such as "far-right", "extreme right", "ultra-right", "ultra-nationalist", "radical nationalist", "extreme nationalist", "national-socialist", "fascist" and/or "neo-Nazi" to describe these Russian groups. Even the two sources you named! Anyone can check this themselves. So that's another argument that doesn't hold up.
For the third time, Donbas is legally recognized as part of Ukraine, by all sovereign states except Russia. Even Russia recognized it as part of Ukraine until a month ago, and these articles aren't only about this very moment. You're arguing that Donbas should never be treated as part of Ukraine (now or in the past) because its occupied by Russia at this moment. That's anachronistic and taking a pro-Putin POV.
Also I'm well aware of Wikipedia policies, having been editing for twelve years longer than yourself. ~Asarlaí 17:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Asarlaí points out, WP:NPOV requires occupied areas of Ukraine to be considered part of Ukraine. Information on Donbas is therefore relevant to the article. —Legoless (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asarlai, they use those terms to describe Ukrainian groups, and the Russian groups which they have mentioned either don't actually exist or they are too non-notable.
Re The two of the sources your text largely relied on are Researchgate and WashingtonPost but both of them haven't used the term "far-right"/"far right". The "ResearchGate" source [Natalia Yudina: Russian nationalists fight Ukrainian war. In: Journal on Baltic Security (de Gruyter). 1, Nr. 1, 2015, S. 47–69. doi:10.1515/jobs-2016-0012], by an expert on the far right,[2] does in fact say "ultra-right", which I think is obviously synonymous. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can't treat Donbas as Ukranian territory and talk exclusively about "Russian far-right" on an article called "Far right politics in Ukraine".
Not only there is a dispute between Ukraine and Russian geography but Politics and Separatist insurgence are two different things. They can be same only if the separatist insurgents have political power but in this case they don't have any. Segaton (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entry explains "Far-right politics in Ukraine refers to the actions, organizations, and beliefs of the far-right in Ukraine." By your logic, the whole article should be deleted, because far-right groups do not have any political power in Ukraine and the article is mostly about the 2-percent Svoboda party or about right-wing military units (which also do not hold any political power in Ukraine). And if you claim that these Russian groups don't actually exist, you are just acknowledging that you did not check the sources.KastusK (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Segaton, I'll deal with your arguments one by one:
(1) "Wikipedia can't treat Donbas as part of Ukraine" - well as I've said three times already: every state apart from Russia treats Donbas as part of Ukraine, and so did Russia until a month ago. The articles aren't only about this very moment. Wikipedia goes with the majority of the sources.
(2) "the Russian groups don't actually exist or they are too non-notable" - well they do exist, because they're mentioned in many reliable sources. The sources show that some of them are very influential. The idea that they're "non-notable" is only your opinion. The same could be said of some Ukrainian groups.
(3) "Politics and Separatist insurgence are two different things" - the separatists are fighting for political goals, like any separatist insurgency. By your logic, a lot of the far-right Ukrainian groups should also be deleted because they're not politicians. ~Asarlaí 11:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support inclusion of this material. All RSs consider this part of Ukraine, and excluding it creates a serious skewing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support inclusion of this material as well. --SonicY (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider this removal of material sourced to academic books and papers by User:Mhorg. His edit summary is plainly wrong and puzzling as he seems to rationalize his edit by reference to an opinion piece in The Nation. As for his claim that the academic sources (e.g., The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right) say "the opposite" let us look at the first source just to explain that the editor is clearly mistaken. The source (doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274559.013.30) directly supports every sentence. If you can fault the content for anything then it's that the rendering was perhaps too close to the academic sources given. I have restored much of the content deleted by Mhorg but encourage other editors to keep an eye on further attempts by Mhorg to remove content purely because it doesn't align with his favorite opinion pieces or his view of the topic as suggested by his edit summary. --SonicY (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]