Talk:Russification of Ukraine

Please help this article

Somebody cut this information out of the general article on Russification, but then just dropped the scraps here and ran off. It's too important a topic to be left in such an incomplete form. Please contribute to it. The cutting out of this material created a problem in both articles.~Mack2~ (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Discrimination of Ukrainian language.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Discrimination of Ukrainian language.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Discrimination of Ukrainian language.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Anachronistic terminology

Dear Lute88, I would like to know, why you insist on using terms "Ukraine" and "Muskovy" regarding time periods in which they are completely unappropriate and warp wording of official documents of that time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.35.75 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The term "Ukraine" goes back to at least 15th century. The term "Muscovy" was well in use in the 17th century.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation, please? Also, documents of that time still speak about "malorossian dialect", not "ukranian language". 46.42.35.75 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears in this [1]. But actually what matters is not how documents of the time refer to it, but rather how modern reliable sources refer to it when talking about that period. And they certainly use "Ukraine".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This [2] is 12-13th century, not 17th. Try again. And no, when you speak about policies and territorial denominations of certain historical period you should use appropriate names for them. Discussing "Ukraine" in Tzardom of Russia is like discussing "Kiev Voivodeship" in USSR. There were no territorial unit with name "Ukraine" in Tzardom of Russia in discussed period and there are no reason to say that modern Ukraine is ontologically equal to Little Russia. And this is not POV, this is the matter of historical accuracy. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit [3] is about culture and language. Are "malorossian dialect" and "ukranian language" linguistically exactly the same? If I understand correctly, yes, they are. If so, it does not really matter how to call it, except that the most common modern English name is preferred. Following ancient Russian terminology ("malorossian dialect") is not required.My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Language is formal system with its own lexicon and grammar. "Malorossian dialect" had no independent lexicon and grammar and used those of russian language - it was dialect and not language. Therefore "Malorossian dialect" and "ukranian language" are linguistically different etities and they shold not be mixed up. As for common name guideline - it is not really applicable to historical topics - after all we do not call Sasanian Empire "Iran" simply because it occupied territory of modern Iran some time ago and the word "Iran" is more often used today, do we? 46.42.35.75 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Then your version is even more POVish than I thought, because it implies that Ukrainian language did not exist even as late as in the end of 19th century. Your version tells: In 1867, Tsar Alexander II of Russia issued the Ems Ukaz, a secret decree banning the use of the "malorossian dialect", however that was in fact modern Ukrainian language. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And what proofs do you have for that "fact"? Whether malorossian dialect can be considered language (and when exactly it can be considered as such) is up to debate, so any version can be considered POVish (including the current one). Anyway, my version is based upon literal text of Ems Ukaz, hence the use of quotation. If you have better ideas about how this text can be made more neutral and less POVish - i'm attentively reading. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why one should use modern-day terminology per WP:COMMON NAME. Quoting Ems Ukaz was misleading. A modern reader would think the text was about a "malorossian dialect" which is very different from the Ukrainian language (as you just said), whereas it was actually about modern Ukrainian language. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"It was actually about modern Ukrainian language" is speculation. Please, stop presenting speculations as facts. Ems Ukaz adressing the issue of "malorossian dialect" is fact (as per its text). Assumption, that it was adressing something else, is point of view and not a fact. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This is very strange. You insist that Ukrainian language in the end of 19th century was different from modern Ukrainian? Any sources to support such position? My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I insist that Ems Ukaz adresses the issue of "malorossian dialect" and this is supported by the very text of that ukaz. It is you who insist that it instead directed at some kind of "ukranian language". And so it is up to you to cite sources that say that 1)"Ukranian language" existed at that time as independent language. 2)Ems Ukaz was directed at that "ukranian language". 46.42.35.75 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not going to use Ems Ukaz as a source about Ukrainina language, or rather as a source that according to your interpretation (see above) claims that Ukrainian language does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Suit yourself. However, one of the cornerstones of every language is alphabet. Another is formalised grammar. So no written "ukranian language" were even theoretically possible until this guy invented first ukranian alphabet and grammar in 1850-s. Before that it is merely a dialect. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. IF modern reliable sources referred to the territory of present day Iran as "Iran" when talking about the time of the Sasanian Empire, then we would also use "Iran". But they don't. So we don't. What matters is how modern sources refer to the geographical area when talking about the time period in question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Very well, here [4] modern sources refer to "Little Russia" when talking about those territories in 17th century. Good enough? 46.42.35.75 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you find an English language source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit [5] was not about territory, but about language. As a compromise version, I think something like In 1863, minister of internal affairs Pyotr Valuyev stated that the "malorossian" (Ukrainian) language never existed, doesn't exist, and cannot exist would be acceptable. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, as this is not warping words of official documents (and I cannot devise any less POVish form right now), this is acceptable. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Kiev manuscript is about 12-13th century but that's not when it was written. Also, that was the source for early use of "Ukraine". There's plenty of sources for the "Muscovy" part. But again, what matters is how modern reliable sources speak of the time period and geography. Finally, even if we were going to go that way, it wouldn't be "Little Russia". It would be "Ru's" or "Ruthenia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, according to that article, The Kiev manuscript was compiled around 1200 by hegumen Moses from Vydubychi Monastery. This is the begining of 13th century. Secondly, I skimmed and searched text of that manuscript [6] and failed to find any form of word "Ukraine" so far. Can you provide more accurate citation? Thirdly, "there's plenty of sources" is not a valid form of argument. If you have citations - please, provide them. And I still do not see how word "Muscovy" in any way preferable to "Tzardom of Russia" - official and widespread name of russian state of that period. Fourthly, what matters is how those entities was actually called during time of their existence and not how they were renamed posthumously. And above all we shold not mix up different historical etities by trying to ascribe them the same name. And "Ukraine" and "Little Russia" are different historical etities, no less different than, say, Roman Empire and Kingdom of Italy. And finaly, "Ru's" is the collective name of russian princedoms before formation of Tzardom of Russia so ir is not the same as Little Russia; "Ruthenia" is latinized exonym of russian state as whole; unlike Little Russia (as this variant is accepted in Wikipedia), "Ruthenia" is not well defined and highly context-dependent term, and while I am not completely against it, I do not see why it should be preferred. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

For "Muscovy" this is a typical source [7]: "(Muscovy) is used to indicate the late fifteenth-seventeenth-century state centered on Moscow, sometimes called the Moscow State, or the Russian Tsardom or state". Generally speaking either "Muscovy" or "Tsardom of Russia" would be acceptable. "Little Russia" is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And why not? It is referred as such both in modern sources and in official documents of that age. You cannot cite "Малая Россия, Лифляндия, Финляндия суть провинции, которыя правятся конфирмованными им привилегиями" and say (with straight face) that it says something about "Ukraine" and not "Little Russia". It accomplishes nothing and only breed confusion. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And no, "Ruthenia" is not just a different term for "Russian state as a whole".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is [8] 46.42.35.75 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That article cites reliable sources, what are you not satisfied with? If you so wish - go and look up sources of those references. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What is this reliable source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the article. It's all there. Anyway, that's besides the point. The point is that you claim that "Ruthenia" somehow equals "Little Russia". Therefore it is up to you to cite sources for that. I am not seeing any. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm claiming at all. I'm stating that "Ruthenia" is NOT "just a different term for Russian state as a whole", which is a ridiculous proposition.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

<-- Again, what is this "reliable source"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

For those who cannot read the part "References" by themselves: V.A. Brim, "Genesis of term 'Rus'"; Tatishev, "Russian History"; A.V. Nazarenko, "German latin language sources of IX-XI centuries" and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.35.75 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to further elaborate: even 1850-s ukranian grammar was not that of modern ukranian language. It was more about "simplified russian". Modern ukranian grammar and alphabet were invented by Shelehovskiy in 1886 and was adopted in Austro-Hungary in 1893. So, no, Ems Ukaz (1876) was not referring to modern ukranian language. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, since logic of this argument got so convoluted let's quantify it:
0)Basic terminological principle: whenever possible, use term with the least amount of ambiguity.
1)Use of term "Little Russia" in modern sources as per WP:COMMON NAME - source requested - source provided [9]
Additional argument: term "Little Russia" is used in official historical documents as well as modern sources, therefore it is preferable to all other "modern terms" as the one which creates the least amount of confusion.
2)Use of term "Tzardom of Russia" - same here, it is both officially called so and referred as such in modern sources. "Muskovy" is not as much used when referring to russian state of 17th century and also used to refer to previous form of russian state.
3)Use of term "Ruthenia" - here it is you, Marek, who should provide sources that term "Ruthenia" somehow strictly equals "Little Russia" and can replace it. Actori incumbit onus probandi. So stop derailing this argument with irrelevant questions. As far, as I see, it is also used for any number of other historical entities. Therefore I see no reason for it to be preferable to term "Little Russia", especially considering that such translation of "Малая Россия" is already accepted in Wikipedia.
Bottom line: so far no solid reasons were provided against replacement of anachronistic terminology with terminology used both in historical documents and modern sources. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

One more time, can you provide an English language reliable source to support your position? It's trivial to provide such sources which use the term "Ukraine" for the period in question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

One more time, it is irrelevant in what language sources are written. And of course most of historiographic materials about russian history are written in russian. If you cannot read russian - you really should not involve yourself in disputes about russian history. But alright, whateverer, have this [10] as an example. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, actually it's not. On English Wikipedia, for naming conventions we use the name which is predominantly used in English language sources. The source you give in fact puts "Little Russia" in quotation marks and notes that this term is particular to Russian historiography of a particular time. In fact that's where the term comes from; Russian nationalist (and irredentist) history. It's actually sort of ironic (in a sad way) that on the article on the "Russification of Ukraine" is being subjected by you to... Rusification. Anyway, here are some key English language sources all of which use "Ukraine" for the relevant time period, except to note, again, that "Little Russia" is a Russian term (these also tend to use "Muscovy" for 18th century and earlier Russia):

[11], [12], [13].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia term "Little Russia" is already accepted. End of the line. And again, if you read both your and my sources more carefully, you will see: term "Ukraine" is used to denote geographical region throughout the ages and not exactly during discussed time period. It is ambiguous term (much like "Russia", which denotes different russian states during different time periods), much more ambiguous than "Little Russia". And here we are discussing history, not geography. Discussed politics were targeted at administrative unit which is "Little Russia" and not at geographical region. Feel the difference. Discussing "Ukraine" in context of politics of Tzardom of Russia and then Russian Empire is like calling Temüjin "Great Khan of the Central Asia".

And no, term "Little Russia" is particular not to "Russian historiography of a particular time" - it is particular to administrative structure of russian state of a particular time. As for historiography - this term still used and not only by russian historians. And again, no, this term comes not from "Russian nationalist (and irredentist) history" it comes from official documents of that age (cited even in this article, no less). 46.42.35.75 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It is accepted if used properly, not as a nationalistic Russian synonym for "Ukraine". And yes, these sources do use Ukraine for this time period. For example this source [14] explicitly states, quote: "decree of Peter I prohibiting the printing of books in Ukrainian". That's what we had in the article - "In 1720 Tsar Peter I of Russia issued a decree in which he ordered the expurgation of all Ukrainian linguistic elements in theological literature printed in Ukrainian typographical establishments" - before you started POVing it and changed it to "In 1720 Tsar Peter I of Russia issued a decree in which he ordered the expurgation of all malorossian linguistic elements in theological literature printed in malorossian typographical establishments." based on a Russian source. See problem?

To repeat myself (yes, you're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games), it doesn't matter what the documents of the time say (especially since they were written and issued by Russians). What matters is what modern sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does matter what the documents say, as they are primary sources of historical information. Your position is amusingly close to "if reality does not conform to my expectations - well, bad for reality". And your "source" [15] is telling an outrageous lie. Here is the text of that decree:

«Его Императорскому Величеству известно учинилось, что в Киевской и Черниговской типографиях книги печатают несогласно с великороссийскими, но со многою противностью к Восточной Церкви…вновь книг никаких, кроме церковных крещенных изданий, не печатать. А церковныя старыя книги, для совершенного согласия с великороссийскими, с такими же церковными книгами справливать прежде печати с теми великоросскими дабы никакой разны и особаго наречия в оных не было».

Translation:"It became known to His Emperor Greatness, that in Kievan and Chernigov typographies books are printed not in accordance with great russian ones, but with much aversion to Eastern Church... no new books, aside from church-christened issues, should be printed. And old church books, for complete accordance with great russian ones, should be checked for accordance with respective great russian church books so no difference and special dialect would be present in them".

So, "ukranian language", "russification"? Nope, not at all. It was about standartisation and unification of church slavonic language, used in orthodox liturgies. Check your sources sometimes. So the one who is POVing is (again, amusingly) you. And you refuse to see it. This is the problem. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, we rely on secondary sources, not primary sources. It's not our job to interpret primary sources, as that's original research. Between the opinion of an anonymous IP on Wikipedia, and that of a prominent historian [16] (who you think is telling "outrages lie"!), I'll take the historian.

In Subtelny's book, he uses "Little Russia" when referring specifically to the province of the Russian empire, and "Ukraine" when referring to a geographic area, a language or a people. That's what we should do here. Not follow some irredentist Russian nationalist POV which says that these never existed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's another source which speaks of Peter the Great's banning of the Ukrainian language prints [17]

And another [18] (doesn't say "Ukrainian" but does say "in Ukraine", not "malorossia")

And another [19]

This source talks about a "map of Ukraine" (not "malorossia") published in 1699 [20]. This source also uses "Ukrainian" for the time period [21]. This source [22] talks about the development of the language during the period under discussion and it consistently refers to it as "Ukrainian", not "malorossian".

Etc. etc. etc. Like I said above, findings sources to show this is trivial. Finding English language sources for the opposite view is apparently impossible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please, Marek, stop trying to dodge the bullet. It is our job to judge reliability of presented sources. And if any source tells obvious lie - it does not mean that this lie is truth, it means that that source in unreliable, no matter who its authtor is. And WP:OR is about content of articles not about verification of reliability.

Here is basic logic: any written language needs grammar and alphabet to actually exist. Historical facts:

1)First ukranian grammar and alphabet were created in 1850-es.

2)Modern ukranian grammar and alphabet were created in 1886.

3)Peter I's decree is from 1720.

There were no written "ukranian language" in 1720. You do not even need primary sources for this. Your "sources" fail even validation by basic logic.

And yes, exactly, Subtelny uses "Little Russia" when referring specifically to the province of the Russian empire. And we here refer specifically to the province of the Russian empire when we talk about "russification of Ukraine" in Russian Empire. That is why we should use this term - it is the most accurate, regardless of how you feel about it. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We judge the reliability of sources according to the criteria in the policy WP:RS, not according to whether we like what the source says or no, whether we personally think it "tells an obvious lie" (in the opinion of an anonymous editor on Wikipedia). A professional historian is obviously a reliable source. So are all the other sources I've given above. What you are doing is original research. Once you get that published in a reputable venue we can use it in the article. Until then we stick to the actually existing reliable sources.

And no, we are not "specifically" referring to the province, except in a few places. We're referring to a geographic, cultural and linguistic area, and its inhabitants.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And where did you get that "whether we like what the source says or no" nonsense? And if I point to sky and tell that it is blue, will you call this "original research" as well? I am constatating easily observable fact. You can open any theological book of that period from that region and see for yourself: it is typed not in russian, not in any variant of ukranian - it is typed in church slavonian. A professional historian telling an obvious (and very silly) lie is is obviously not a reliable source, regardless of what honors he managed to get. Opinions inconsistent with known facts should be presented as such, not as main course of article.

And really, Marek, learn a little history. All those troubles began with Truce of Andrusovo. And the very source of them is the fact that "Little Russia" is not equal to "Ukraine" as whole - only to its Russia-controlled part, gained in that truce. The other part remained Commonwealth-controlled (and became constant source of "harmful political propaganda"). And when we speak about "Ukraine-in-Russian-Empire" and politics applied to it - we speak exactly about russian-controled part of it, which is called "Little Russia". Ans when we speak, for example, about ban of sunday schools (which was empire-wide, by the way, and not Little Russia-centered) - we can only speak about how it influenced Little Russia, not Ukraine, because part of that time Ukraine was not controled by Russian Empire and therefore this ban had no influence on it. Is this difference clear to you now? 46.228.108.43 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"A professional historian telling an obvious (and very silly) lie is is obviously not a reliable source" - Wikipedia policy requires that we take the opinion of a professional historian over that of an anonymous Wikipedia editors even, or especially, if that editors feels the professional historian is "lying".

And I don't know why I have to repeat this over and over - what matters is not what the sources of the time say, it's what modern English language sources say. Not that hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with opinions - it is demonstrable fact. And no, Wikipedia policy does not require to adhere to silliness that contradicts observable reality simply because it was said by someone who you consider to be "reliable source".

And I don't know why I have to repeat this over and over - when you cite official documents - your translation should be literal not liberal. Not that hard to understand. 46.228.108.43 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:NOR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I know them by heart already. And you please read this [23]. Maybe then you will understand what was decree of Peter I (1720) about. 46.228.108.43 (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if we are going down this path - your sources seem to be questionable as they are not checking the fact that church books in Russian Empire are typed in church slavonian before making their outrageous claim about "ukranian language" and they are suffering from conflict of interest. 46.228.108.43 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that debate is not going anywhere anytime soon. However, considering Ems Ukaz, I have an idea. If some people here so irratioanlly dislike word "malorossian", let's use even more exact term that was used in the ukaz itself - in part A, paragraph 2 it explicitly forbids the use of "kulishovka". I offer to adress it as such unstead of trying to divine whether it shold be considered "ukranian language" or "malorossian dialect". 46.228.108.43 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"kulishovka" is not going to be understood by most readers without an explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think so - do a good deed and translate this article in english. 46.228.108.43 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well then, here is another version of article, where difference and relationship between terms "Ukraine" and "Little Russia" made explicit and term "Little Russia" is retained only where and when it is direct translation from cited historical official documents. Is this acceptable? Also, added an explanation for "kulishovka" (using as much as present in english Wikipedia). 46.228.108.43 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to edit controversial subjects, such as this one, please create and use one named account, rather than multiple IP accounts. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs a bias tag

The whole article is taken from a single book by a dubious third degree author. 46.246.157.26 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The article in general is quite poor & draws almost exclusively from a single author, who just so happens to be a Ukrainian nationalist. Particularly egregiously, it sources a supposed quote from Lenin which appears to show up nowhere else - and without a page number, no less. 2601:152:4F00:3C20:8C2D:370D:D087:3340 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Page numbers

The Plokhy source has literally zero page numbers listed for where the sources are coming from. Can we add some, to make it easier to verify? Since there's no easily accessible print book anyway, this means a reader would have to just flip through the whole physical book to find the quotes and evidence. HappyWith (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)