Revision as of 13:00, 8 September 2023 editRsk6400 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,248 edits →Little Russian language: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:21, 8 September 2023 edit undoCrash48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users880 edits →Little Russian language: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
{{Ping|Crash48}} Our articles should primarily be based on secondary sources, see ]. The fact that a certain author used a certain name for a language (in this case, the name "Little Russian"), normally becomes relevant only if a secondary source sees this as relevant. The second problem with your edits is that the whole concept of "Little Russia" was used by the imperialist / colonialist government in St.Petersburg with the intention to suppress Ukrainian identity (see e.g. ], The Gates of Europe, ], Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine, ]'s 2022 lectures on Ukrainian history (available on YouTube)). We cannot just mention the name "Little Russia" without discussing the problems of that concept. ] (]) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC) | {{Ping|Crash48}} Our articles should primarily be based on secondary sources, see ]. The fact that a certain author used a certain name for a language (in this case, the name "Little Russian"), normally becomes relevant only if a secondary source sees this as relevant. The second problem with your edits is that the whole concept of "Little Russia" was used by the imperialist / colonialist government in St.Petersburg with the intention to suppress Ukrainian identity (see e.g. ], The Gates of Europe, ], Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine, ]'s 2022 lectures on Ukrainian history (available on YouTube)). We cannot just mention the name "Little Russia" without discussing the problems of that concept. ] (]) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
::# ] and ] have their own detailed articles, so that anyone interested in "the whole concept" can get there in one click; | |||
::# This article is about the language (and the history of its name), not about the country (and the history of its name) or the nation (and the history of its name) -- the three names weren't always the same; | |||
::# Until the 1860s, the name ''Little Russian language'' was used not only by the imperialist / colonialist government in St.Petersburg, but also by the majority of Ukrainians themselves, as you can plainly see from the primary sources, all of them published in Ukraine, and none in St.Petersburg; | |||
::# ] states unambiguously that primary sources may be used to support statements of facts, such as the fact that a certain author used a certain name for a language; | |||
::# That a statement about the history of a language's name "normally becomes relevant only if a secondary source sees this as relevant" is your own fabrication, not backed by ] or any other policy. | |||
:] (]) 17:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:21, 8 September 2023
Ukrainian language was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ukrainian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
2015 study
I just deleted mention of a lexicostatistical calculation from the article whose results do not only suggest that the East Slavic languages were already distinct by the time of the earliest mentions of the Slavs in the mid-6th century, and that the South Slavic languages were already distinct even before Slavs migrated into the Southeastern Europe! That's absolutely bonkers and patently illogical if you know anything about the history of the Slavs and the Slavic languages, frankly. There is no way that South Slavic can already have been differentiated at the time because loanwords from Latin and Greek and even renderings of names imply that the differentiation of (South) Slavic can only have begun after the migration across the Danube, and differences were very minor as late as about 800. While a unified South Slavic dialect may never have existed, nor even a West Slavic counterpart, if anything the differentiation into dialects that later became the South Slavic languages started in the 7th century at the earliest (and it's extremely unlikely and makes no sense from the point of history and linguistics to postulate that Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian should already have been distinct by 700, let alone by the 5th century). Like practically all lexicostatistic studies, this one is completely off in its results. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Florian Blaschke thank you for work Gerçois (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
"Ukrainian jargon" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Ukrainian jargon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Ukrainian jargon until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
About faulty sweeping statement in the ingress & footnote 15
I hereby quote he initial 'synopsis' (such an intro+summary section is called ingress in my native tongue, not sure about english) on the subject of the Russian Communist Party (basically the same as Soviet Russia's executive organ) and its official opinions on the Ukrainian language as a medium and as a part of a culture:
" Russification saw the Ukrainian language banned as a subject from schools and as a language of instruction in the Russian Empire, and continued in various ways in the Soviet Union."
That last claim is the fact (or, to me spontaneously, disinformation) in question. I checked the footnote that supposedly confirmed that the sneaky ruskies also in their soviet form found wicked ways to oppress a local culture without doing it "on paper" I guess the article-maker means. It stands to reason that the footnote reinforce the notion in the wiki article. The text referenced reads as follows;
"From 1804 until the 1917 revolution the Ukrainian language was banned from schools as a subject and a medium for instruction.
This almost total suppression of Ukrainian culture eased somewhat under the Bolsheviks. They permitted a controlled Ukrainization of the party and administrative elite (...)".
The book continues to mention among other things that the relations between "big brother" Moscow and vassal govt in Kiev wasnt as tense as for example between Soviet Russia and Poland. The text also continues to, just two sentences after the above quoted sentence, mention the 1930's great famine, which by most laymen, and many historians, and wiki writers is blamed on Stalin's administration who requisitioned a lion's share of the harvests and left local peasants to starve. This - however!! - is NOT anywhere in any works of fact defined as a general Russian tendency to love to cause mass-death but a well known historical event, perpetrated by a combination of 1. a chaotic logistic and political situation, 2. the recurring unknowns, mistakes, sabotages, and aggressive stress factors all systems who deny capitalism get to experience (if not from within or planted from outside by massive military force) and 3. JV Stalin, the Purger of the executive branch's too sharp minds and of the Party's and the Revolution's veterans, poster boy for the dictator mustache style, arbitrary evil and despotic rule both in the liberal West and Reactionary East, but even Stalin can't be blamed for ever having the Ukrainian culture or language in his crosshairs. The kulaks, yes, as a class even. They were not endemic to Ukraine but existed all over former Imperial Russia and all neighboring nations with farmland a-plenty.
There you have it. I wouldnt have written this oddly long comment if the wiki page simply threw isht at all things red, many articles lack objectivity and use Robert Conquest as basically their only source when it comes to the nitty gritty, the real headlining "crimes", Conquest; ultraconservative, bordering on fascist and at any rate an avid apartheid fan and right wing junta supporter (specifically of Ian Smith's Rhodesia), warfare romantic and most importantly a continous distributor of known Gestapo falsifications. But he IS at the same time such a big established name I gotta take that standing. The rules of the game. BUT: making such a sweeping propagandistic claim - that Russia in itself, in all forms, Tsarist, Socialist, Authoritarian, Anarcho-Capitalist, third world-poor and defenseless, lacking real administration except puppet functionaries who sign off priceless amounts of property, land and resources for cheap to transnational big money players ("free" Russia in the 90's), - want to destroy Ukrainian culture and in spite of its different forms and real pressing problems and threats to its own well being, finds sneaky ways to do it even when it cant be seen and add a footnote to the claim WHICH DOESNT SUPPORT THE CLAIM AT ALL - that grinds my gears something fierce (sry for the rhyme and the worn phrase).
I won't edit the ingress text today. All articles and keywords even remotely connected to Ukraine, Russia, the 2014 events, Russias invasion or more supercontroversial: Nato's expansion or the Zelenskyj regime's blut und boden rhetorics or worst of all: Vladimir Putin himself or actually any stupid little thing that can be perceived as having anythinng to do with it will blow up a storm. Misplaced Pages is usually good with balance but when it comes to views opposed to the current politicial paradigm Ive given up. But if ppl are gonna lie, its degrading to the entire academic tradition to use a reference that says almost the opposite of your claim. IHSjohansson (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to ignore the assumptions of bad faith and outright genocide denial in this comment, and just address the substance of the discussion, which is the claim that:
continued in various ways in the Soviet Union
- You are indeed right to point out that the source cited does not address this issue comprehensively, although in my view it is probably sufficient. Either way, this is an entirely fair and helpful claim to make.
- Again, I am going to focus on language only in an attempt to keep this discussion on-track: an exhaustive overview of Russification policies in Soviet Ukraine is beyond the scope of this talk page, but I am happy to provide a couple of examples of ways in which the Ukrainian language suffered during that period.
- Publication in Ukrainian was a hot topic throughout Soviet history, but there can be no doubt that the publication of newspapers and other periodicals in Ukrainian was severely limited during the 1930s. See Martin, Terry. 2001. The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939, pp. 108, 369.
- Monolingual Ukrainian education was withdrawn, while monolingual Russian eduation remained an option in Ukraine. See Weinstein, Harold. 1941. 'Language and Education in the Soviet Ukraine', The Slavonic Year Book, 1, 124-148.
- Ukrainian was not used as a language in the workplace in most of Ukraine's cities. See Martin, Terry. 2001. The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939, p. 122.
- Literature was rarely translated from/into Ukrainian, apart from where the other language involved was Russian. Foreign literature was experienced "through" the lens of Russian, and Russian literature was very rarely translated into Ukrainain (some authors in fact objected to this practice personally). See Kamovnikova, Natalia. 2019. Made Under Pressure: Literary Translation in the Soviet Union, 1960-1991, chapters 1 and 3.
- There you go. If you would like to improve the page, I suggest tidying up vague/overly general statements, adding concrete examples, and adding better references. All the best, Akakievich (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Claims about Old East Slavic in lede
Note: Liliylo is a blocked sockmaster - see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Liliylo. One of their socks to also edit this article is Mellow775 . DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)The following discussion 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.
Hello all,
Recently there has been some back-and-forth about the claims made r.e. Ukrainian's relationship to Old East Slavic in the lede of this article. I reverted the most recent edit, because it makes some outlandish claims (proto-Ukrainian began in the 6th century and has vocabulary derived from Sanskrit? really?) but I think the editor makes a very good point that the blanket statement Ukrainian is a descendent of Old East Slavic
is perhaps unwarranted. Indeed, we contradict it in the very first section. There are certainly reliable sources which support the Old East Slavic theory and it appears still to be the prevailing hypothesis, but others e.g. Shevelov make credible claims to the contrary.
As per BRD, I am starting a discussion to hopefully establish consensus.
Opinions? I would be inclined to make mention that this is disputed in the article lede, but certainly not erase it completely as it still seems to be the most commonly cited view in scholarship on the topic.
Inviting @Liliylo: to weigh in. Akakievich (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- So you show that this theory about the existence of a single Old Russian language belongs to Russians, and do not delete the edits. Ukrainian science believes otherwise and we have evidence. Show that there are two positions, but you only approve of one sided story! The fact is that you are promoting Russian history and Russian theories to the West, bypassing the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. I will publicize your actions! Liliylo (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- The Ukrainian language is a descendant of the Old Ukrainian language. The Old Russian language itself was called the Old Ukrainian language, but this term should be avoided, because there may be a change of concepts due to a different interpretation of the term Old Russian language by Russians and Ukrainians, since in Russian the sound of Russian (русский язык) and Russian (русский язык) is the same, but in Ukrainian there is a difference руська мова (Ukrainian language) and російська мова (Russian language). Liliylo (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- https://archive.org/details/st-sophia-of-kyiv
- I have attached a link to Ukrainian doctor of historical sciences. The only evidence is graffiti on the walls of the Cathedrals of Kyiv and Chernihiv. Listen to this scientist if you want to understand why our scientists do not support the theory of a Common Slavic language. Shevelyov was the one who claimed that Kyiv spoke the old Ukrainian language. What is the Old Ukrainian language - it is a complex of dialects of Northern Rus'. In Novgorod, there were graffiti in the Old Belarusian language on the walls of the temple. Regarding the Rostov-Suzdal land. Of course, there were their own dialects. It is possible that the Finno-Ugric languages influenced the formation of Russian, if they do not believe that the Russian language arose from Old Ukrainian, but Shevelyov thought so. Liliylo (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then where does it descend from? Straight from Proto-Slavic? This would be a POV of a very small minority. Mellk (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Change the number of native speakers
There are officially 32,6M people with Ukrainian as their first language. It's also state on the Ukrinian language page in other languages. The number on this page is too little to be real and the source links to a non-existent page. Meli.roden (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Little Russian language
@Crash48: Our articles should primarily be based on secondary sources, see WP:PSTS. The fact that a certain author used a certain name for a language (in this case, the name "Little Russian"), normally becomes relevant only if a secondary source sees this as relevant. The second problem with your edits is that the whole concept of "Little Russia" was used by the imperialist / colonialist government in St.Petersburg with the intention to suppress Ukrainian identity (see e.g. Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe, Andreas Kappeler, Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine, Timothy Snyder's 2022 lectures on Ukrainian history (available on YouTube)). We cannot just mention the name "Little Russia" without discussing the problems of that concept. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Little Russia and Little Russian identity have their own detailed articles, so that anyone interested in "the whole concept" can get there in one click;
- This article is about the language (and the history of its name), not about the country (and the history of its name) or the nation (and the history of its name) -- the three names weren't always the same;
- Until the 1860s, the name Little Russian language was used not only by the imperialist / colonialist government in St.Petersburg, but also by the majority of Ukrainians themselves, as you can plainly see from the primary sources, all of them published in Ukraine, and none in St.Petersburg;
- WP:PSTS states unambiguously that primary sources may be used to support statements of facts, such as the fact that a certain author used a certain name for a language;
- That a statement about the history of a language's name "normally becomes relevant only if a secondary source sees this as relevant" is your own fabrication, not backed by WP:PSTS or any other policy.
- Crash48 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Ukraine articles
- Top-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- Unassessed Rusyns articles
- Low-importance Rusyns articles
- WikiProject Rusyns articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (language and literature) articles
- Language and literature of Russia task force articles
- B-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
- Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class language articles
- High-importance language articles
- WikiProject Languages articles