The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 October 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
The whole article was basically deleted and now is a stub with a small introduction to the topic with a history of Ukraine according to Timothy Snyder, who is neither a specialist in medieval history and pushes the Ukrainian government narrative (after all, he works for them).[1] This is not WP:NPOV. Mellk (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Ukraine was attacked in an unprovoked invasion, but our goal is not to rewrite history using such figures. Mellk (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is rewriting history. I'm rewriting this article and am doing so based on reliable academic sources of which I know several. Snyder works for Yale University, and is a professor there, specializing in East European History and related subjects. You, as an editor, have no right to accuse him of pushing any narrative, unless you can base that on other, equally qualified academic sources. A Yale professor ! I also added Kappeler, who basically says the same. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Yale professor" does not mean anything here. He is not a specialist in that specific area. This is pushing a certain POV. See for example Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands where it mentions narratives pushed by nationalists.
Under "Myths of descent: Ukraine" (p. 32), it says: "According to Ukrainophiles, the effect of the Tatar incursion in the thirteenth century has been exaggerated by Russian historians... it now tends to be argued that Ukrainian society and Ukrainian institutions survived largely unscatched after 1240. In the west the 'centre of [Ukrainian statehood] passed to' the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia... the territories around Kiev enjoyed virtually complete autonomy under Lithuanian rule... This is in turns makes it easier to claim the Cossack period was a direct revival of the traditions of Rus'..."
This is just as POV as the Russophile claims that there was a single 'Russian' nationality during the of Kievan Rus', that the inheritance was passed to Moscow, and that the Belarusians and Ukrainians began seeking their 'reunification' with Russia from the 14th century after their conquest (after which the history of the Belarusians and Ukrainians end after those territories are annexed by Russia), which the book also mentions. Mellk (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's common that professors of East European history cover all periods, even if they don't publish about all periods. Do you really think that at Yale an amateur or layman could lecture for a whole semester ? Nation-building is much in line with what I know from Kappeler, Ungleiche Brüder / Unequal Brothers. On the other hand, what Snyder says is rather different from the Ukrainophile myth - "society and institutions" versus "legal and bureaucratic traditions" and "surviving largely unscathed" versus "were inherited". Rsk6400 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He also covers prehistory and ancient history, we would not use him as an authoritative source. Of course, he does not take the extreme position because nobody outside of Ukraine would buy this. For instance, he does not dispute the mainstream view that Varangians of Scandinavian origin played a role in the founding of the state. But the general narrative is the same. He places the beginnings of the state in the territory of modern Ukraine and paints the picture that this state expanded to the north (into modern Russia), as if nothing had previously happened there, and brought civilization there. Then centuries later an eastern descendent of the Horde ("Mongol Rus") rebrands itself as "Russia" at the precise date of 1721. Not to mention other numerous errors, such as that Novgorodians did not consider themselves part of "Rus" until after it was conquered, among many others. Mellk (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met". There is no consensus that this has been resolved. You simply responded and immediately removed the tag, therefore you cannot claim that the discussion has become dormant. Mellk (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with this article
I am planning to rewrite this article based on academic sources, mainly Andreas Kappeler, Ungleiche Brüder ("Unequal Brothers", see the bibliography). That book has been written as an explicite response to the Russo-Ukrainian war (the author's preface of the first edition starts with a sentence about the Russian occupation of Crimea, the 2nd extended edition was written some months into the full-scale attack of 2022. The book focusses on the relationship between the two peoples, including their mutual perceptions. The author also wrote a "Russian History" and a "Small History of Ukraine". Any thoughts ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
