Talk:The Ruin (Ukrainian history)

It seems like the article was started to heroize the traitor Vyhovsky. Wikipedia does not need nationalist oversimplifications. Please consider rewriting. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia does not need nationalist oversimplifications, that includes the use of highly bias word "traitor" that is commonly used by rabid Russian nationalists in relation to Ukrainian historical figures. If you want to make a pretence of being objective, please avoid using it. Secondly, if I think rewriting it, the role of Vyhovsky will not be change to suit Russian nationalist myths ans desires. Please consult the article about the hetman Vyhovsky and in the future, please do not make significant changes without discussing first. All attempts at vandalism from any Russian nationalists will be promptly reported.--Hillock65 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I attempted to link the page from The Ruin, but it appears that the latter page is owned by someone, who claims that the name for this period "was fabricated by myself". Third opinions are welcome on Talk:The Ruin. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change the disambiguation. You do not own the article and moves like renaming and changing links and disambiguation should be discussed first. Your last chaotic move and renaming of the whole article was very disruptive and counterproductive. Besides, you neglected to update or amend all the links to proper disambiguation from which you redirected the article. Please stop the war of edits and focus on content and meaningful discussion before making changes that affect other pages and harrass other people.--Hillock65 10:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• • The article is mot neutral. It heroizes and describes 1 figure - Vyhoivsky and ignores other politicians. No sources. Totally disputable. Russianname 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This comment proves total absurdity of the above claims. Two respectable sources are listed. Take a closer look. --Hillock65 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This contined tagging of the article is frivolous. Respectable sources are used. No objections have been listed. --Hillock65 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Name of Ukraine without the Definite Article Adjective

The removal of the definite article adjective from "the Ukraine" to form "Ukraine" is supported by published style guides as referred to in Name of Ukraine #Syntax. User:70.27.90.213 should post some evidence of current grammatical rules that support the change of seven instances of "Ukraine" to "the Ukraine" in edit number 364520860 on the 27th of May or these changes should be reversed. --Fartherred (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is no objection to removing the definite article from "the Ukraine." It is time to do it. --Fartherred (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tone of the intro

The tone of this article's intro is not academic and attempts to portray heroically the image of Khmelnitsky. The first few lines are just compliments and asides about him that do not relate whatsoever to the period about which this article is supposedly written. Given his ambiguous legacy, and his documented massacres of Jews and Poles, this is not an academic approach to writing and should be reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.148.66 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Martyn Pushkar.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)