Talk:Post-Soviet transition in Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unnecessary: delete or redirect[edit]

This article is completely unnecessary as Ukraine in it's current shape and form is the direct legal successor to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. At no point in time has "Ukraine" ever been called the "Republic of Ukraine," and the 1991 declaration of independence further proves that, having no mention to this so-called Republic. Yes, the country was undergoing a transition at the time, but the name never changed, and always was "Ukraine" from 1991 onward. Don't you think Ukrainian sources would be more trustworthy and credible than French ones? I suggest this article is deleted or redirected back to what it was before. § DDima 03:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have the source? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In wp:fr, this article is also problematic. --Nouill (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just tagged the article with {{disputed}} and hope this can be resolved before any decision is made. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello (it seems to be a difficult word to write here !),
The searches made in the French-speaking side of the Wikipedia world seem to indicate that Ukraine did use the name "Ukraine" without any status indication since its independence from USSR (actually, we only found "Ukraine" and never "Republic of Ukraine", in the declaration of independence, in the Budapest manifesto 1994, and in a document related to the resolution of the 1990's Crimean crisis for exemple). Therefore, it has been decided in the French-speaking side to merge the content of "Republic of Ukraine" into "History of Ukraine" and redirect "Republic of Ukraine" toward "Ukraine" (with a desambiguation page called "Republique d'Ukraine (homonymie)" [="Republic of Ukraine (desambiguation)"] in addition to the already previously available "Ukraine (homonymie)").
Best regards, SenseiAC (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:DDima, User:Panam2014, User:Nouill, User:Fitzcarmalan,
It has finally be decided that the previously called "République d'Ukraine" ('Republic of Ukraine') be renamed into "Transition post-soviétique en Ukraine" ('Post-soviet transition in Ukraine') that would be a detailed article of a dedicated sub-section of "Histoire de l'Ukraine" ('History of Ukraine'). I suggest that the same be done here. Best, SenseiAC (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I went ahead and made the move. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My idea[edit]

Why not doing this type of pages for all Soviet Republics? 109.166.135.160 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of this article[edit]

Is this article about 1) History of Ukraine, 1991–1996, as implied in discussion above? If so, let’s rename it.

Or is it about 2) some undefined aspects of “transition”? If so, then let’s define what this comprises and rename the article after what it is, not what it is not: Post-independence transition in Ukraine, Adoption of the constitution of Ukraine, or whatever.  —Michael Z. 17:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Soviet transition in Ukraine → Post-independence transition in Ukraine – Define the subject by what it had become, not by what it had ceased to be.  —Michael Z. 20:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the article deals with the soviet past, right? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article scope is not clear (#Subject of this article above), so that makes properly titling this article difficult. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, only its background talks about that. The subject is Ukraine’s non-Soviet history during independence, 1991–1996.  —Michael Z. 14:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interesting that the current title and the proposed one are using "post-" in different ways. If it meant the same thing in the latter as it does in the former, it would imply that Ukraine had ceased to be independent (when in fact the intention is to refer to when it became independent). Perhaps the title should avoid the prefix "post-" entirely. Srnec (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By way of explanation, Soviet denotes a period and independence an event, which ended the same period, and the word transition helps provide context, I think. My point is that the subject defined is the transition in independent Ukraine, so it’s better defined referring to independence which characterizes it rather than by contrasting it to things Soviet which were now gone. I am fine with dropping “post-,” but as a transition it is an adaption from a former state to a current one, so I’m not sure how to rephrase it. Proposals?  —Michael Z. 16:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at headings in some of the standard histories, here’s the first chapter covering part or all of the period after the declaration of independence:
    • Magocsi 2010, A History of Ukraine: The Land and its Peoples (2nd), has a chapter on “Independent Ukraine,” divided into thematic sections.[1]
    • Subtelny 2011, Ukraine: A History (4th), has a chapter on “The Troubled Transition.”[2]
    • Wilson 2015, The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation (4th), has a corresponding chapter “Politics: Developing the Rules of the Game.”[3]
    • Yekelchyk 2017, Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation, has a chapter “Independent Ukraine.”[4]
    • Plokhy 2021, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine (revised), has a chapter titled “The Independence Square” (following one about the end of the Soviet period, entitled “Good Bye, Lenin!”)[5]
     —Michael Z. 19:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Ukraine gained independence in 1991, not lost it, so the "post-independence" makes no sense. I wonder if we even need an article describing such a short period of Ukrainian history (5 years!). The title Post-Soviet transition in Ukraine suggests the political, economic and social transformation of Ukraine from a Soviet republic to a democratic free market state. If it would be such an article then it is at leaving the current name, if not then I think the article should be removed. Marcelus (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be a separate discussion. What would you think of a title like Ukraine's transition after independence (the concise version of Ukraine’s transition after achieving its independence)?  —Michael Z. 20:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what the scope of the article should be. Also I don't thik that "post-Soviet" is in any way wrong or derogatory Marcelus (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it’s a stereotyping anti-definition. Like defining the USA as a “former British colony” or “post-Slavery state,” or Germany as a “post-Nazi republic.” Former Russian and Soviet colonies are demeaned this way, but most nations are not.  —Michael Z. 21:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AP Stylebook recommends against it for states other than Russia.
AP Stylebook Online, “former Soviet republic(s),” Style tip of the month, July 2023.[6]
Avoid this shorthand for any of the group of 14 countries besides Russia that existed within the former Soviet Union, unless clearly relevant to the story. For example: Belarus’ security apparatus retains elements of its past as a Soviet republic.
The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, and the countries that emerged have identities, histories and governing systems that transcend their years within the Russia-dominated USSR. This applies to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
 —Michael Z. 21:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody here is describing Ukraine as "post-Soviet", but the transtion it went through. So it's very much justified to use that term. Marcelus (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article is a bit strange in terms of scope (also there might be issues with OR) but in terms of title, the article is only about 1991 to 1996, when a new constitution replaced the Soviet-era constitution and Soviet form of government. So it probably seems justified in this case to use "post-Soviet". I am not sure if it is the best title but "post-independence" might be confusing; would this include the brief period of de facto independence after World War I? Mellk (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments above. The transition away from the old SFR system does indeed seem to be a major focus of this article. SnowFire (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current title states clearly what did Ukraine transition from. And as others have stated, "post-independence" is an awkward word. But I also don't think this article is necessary. I think an AfD should be done. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-Soviet_transition_in_Ukraine&oldid=1204864439"