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 WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
A fact from Russian language in Ukraine appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Stfg, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 1 March 2012. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!
I`ve changed the map. You may revert. Could anybody revome the table "Support" under the map? I tried with no success. Also it would be better to frame the tables if anybody knows how to do this. Russianname11:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that the header states that the Russian language is the most common first language in Kyiv, whereas the maps point out otherwise. The only mention of the capital in the article itself is the Byurkhovetskiy reference about the Russian language being its dominant form of communication. So is the header copy a mistake, or something yet to be referenced? The article is looking great. Good work!--tufkaa21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question here is actual language versus language usage. Remember one can have a native tongue and use the other one much more frequently, which is the case for Kiyev. --Kuban Cossack22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I`ve provided a link more, [1]. The Russian language dominates in communication in Kiev, but it is not considered to be native for the Kievites (I think the grounds of this position are extralinguic, political). Russianname09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at multiple pages. Some that I remember of the top of my head:
That said, I think the article right now is somewhat one-sided but I will sure add to it. Also, please make sure that this article and Ukrainization don't fork each other. The best way is to have a clear understanding what belongs were and keep it there. Regards, --Irpen 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is major piece of anti-Ukrainian propaganda, i would recommend to make it neutral and focus on the subject, instead of advancing political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsobody (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Kuban has reverted AndriyK's edits. I concur with the revertion of these misleading edits. The claim AndriyK makes about UA constitution is false. The only thing the constitution states is it grants the Russian a constitutional protection along with other languages in Ukraine. It does not give the Ukrainian any official status, contrary to AndriyK's edit. Second, AndriyK replaced the reference with the "fact" tag. This does not even need to be commented on. Page 68 of the referenced document provides the data cited in the article. If lack of the page number is an issue, I request AndriyK to start cleaning up after himself. The whole set of references he added to the UA language origin section point to lengthy books or multi-hundred page essays and lack page numbers or any narrower pointer. Finally, he weaselized as specific (and referenced) statement in the article by replacing it with meaningless: "the Russian language is used not only by native speakers." This statement means nothing, it can be said also about English, German and Yiddish. --Irpen20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's notorious how your team acts: first Kuban kazak reverts everything without explanation. And then, in two and a half ours comes Irpen with explanations.
OK, let's discuss.
My claim about the UA Constitution is true. The Constitution says
In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed.[2]
The phrase "Russian, and other languages of national minorities" clearly implies that the Constitution recognizes Russian as a minority language.
This is not my personal interpretation. This was stated officially by the UA Ministry of justice:
22. Конституція України чітко визначила статус російської мови: відповідно до положення частини третьої статті 10 Конституції російській мові в Україні надано статус мови національної меншини.[3]
You may write in the article that many Russophones are not satisfied with the minority status for their language and would prefer higher status. It's true. But what is written in the version restored by your friend is not true. Because Russian has officially recognized status in Ukraine. And tis status is minority language.
Concerning the reference. Is it not better to link the reference to the proper page instead of revert warring?
It's look very strange if the reference about the language usage is linked to a page telling something about a political crizes but not even a single word about the language usage. [4]
I looked for a relevant page at that site, but did not find anything. If you can find, please correct the link. This would be much more usefull then your advocating of the revert warrior.
Concerning "the whole set of references I added to the UA language origin section" they are linked to books about the history of Ukrainian language, not to the pages about political crizis or anything else. It's not possible to give references to particular pages, because the facts are explained grounded on tens of pages in these books. The books are wriiten by very serious scientists and every fact is considered in details, and it takes many pages to explain them. In contast, the table with figures has to be located somewhere in one plase. Why not to give the proper link if this data do exist?
Concerning the third point. What is written in the version you advocate is just plaine desinformation:
According to a public opinion poll, the Russian language is used far more than was claimed by the official census.
The official census does NOT make any clames about the language usage.
Only the number of native speakers are listed there. This is not the same thing as language usage. Because native Ukrainophones can use Russian, and vice versa.
How the poll can tell us that "Russian language is used far more than was claimed by the official census" if the official census does not say anything about the usage?
I add the disputed tag to the article. I kindly ask your and your friends do not remove it until the dispute is resolved.--AndriyK17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it ever bore you to begin disputes out of nothing? Are you going to re-assault Russian Architecture and Battle of the Dnieper. Why not come back with writing articles about Ukraine, or Frankfurt for all I care. --Kuban Cossack12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What will be my contribution to WP is my decission. You may decide about yours.
OK, how about removing the misleading statement about the status of Russian language in Ukraine from the article altogether ? --Lysytalk13:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The status of minority language is officially recognized. I gave the references.
But if Irpen and Kuban kazak do not accept it, btter to remove this phrase at all.
Better to say nothing, than to take wrong information. So, removing, in my opinion, would be a reasonable temporal solution.--AndriyK13:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do I think, I think that dealing with a person who for third time now begins the same crusade (essentially) like before... nahh... if he files a WP:DR then fair enough but talking with him directly is a waste of time IMO. --Kuban Cossack21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was asking about the statement in the article about the official status of Russian language in Ukraine. Please read the discussion above if this is not clear. --Lysytalk04:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False. Russian language does not have a status of the official language in Ukraine and no language does except of the Ukrainian. Russian is protected along with other minority languages but this is not the same as how, say Swedish is portected in Finland or French in Canada where the respective languages have an the status of the official language granted by the law. --Irpen15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please try to formulate it clearly and unambigously. Just stating "no official status" is misleading. Because it does officially have a status of minority language (see the Ministry of Justice document I cited above).--AndriyK09:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Irpen, for these explanations, but I'm confused now. Does Russian have a status of minority language in Ukraine or not ? If not, then what is missing to fit the definition, and what definition ? --Lysytalk11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Officially and de jure yes, de facto Ukraine is making every attempt to eradicate Russian. I am yet to see any evidence of the protection that Russian is experiencing. On the contrary when starting from last year Russian was raised to local level yushenko made every attempt to counter that decision. --Kuban Cossack23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be described in the article ? Ideally, we should have the facts (like the official minority status) stated there and the opinions properly attributed and sourced. I expect that should not be a problem, as they are probably voicefully expressed by those unhappy with the inadequate protection of the language. --Lysytalk07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly this sentence: the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine forms the largest linguistic community in Europe that does not have official status for its language seems misleading in face of the above explanation. I have moved it from the "census" to the "community" section but I would suggest removing it altogether. On the other hand it would be good if the article discussed what you have explained above. --Lysytalk13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the polls are subjected to statistical errors. Look at the data for years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. It looks like 3 to 4 percent of Ukranians change their mother language every second year. ;) Or there are years when only rusophones die and only ukrainiphones are born, foolowed by the year with the opposite tendency. ;)
Additionally, nearly all polls in Ukraine have a systematic bias. The interviewer are to lazy to go to remote villages, and prefer to ask people living near large cities. Hence sytematic undeestimation of the inhabitants of the population in the countryside. This is a well known fact. Polls systematically underestimated the election results of the paties that are especially popular among rural population.--AndriyK18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand that the polls are being criticized for their methodology. Do we have examples of such criticism (possibly not by journalists but maybe social science researchers) ? Has the census been criticized as well ? --Lysytalk07:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical errors are not a reason for criticism. Any, even ideal, methodology would not remove statistical errors. This is an inherent feature of all pulls. One just have to interpret them correctly: a few percent difference is not an indication of disagreement.
Concerning the systematic bias, I did not see any criticism of the particular polls presented in the article. But there were other polls undestimating electoral results of some parties more popular among rural population (Socialist party in 1998 and Tymoshenko block in 2006, for instance.) I saw this criticizm somewhere in newspapers, but I could not find it in internet.
Because there are less native Russians in willages than in cities, I expect the same bias in the discussed polls.
This is my own conclussion, therefore I am not going to insist on mentioning it in the article.(NOR!!!)
P.S. This is not exactly what I was looking for, but a rellated thing. A sociologost admits, that if one asks only the people in the cities one underestimates some results [5].
But this is not exactly what I was talking about. I ment that even if the people in villages are taken into consideration, the result may still contain a systematic bias, if the interviewers just go 10 km from the city, and do not visit remote villages.--AndriyK08:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which parts of Ukraine. You see this matters. Saying that Russian is used in Urban centres alone would be true for Kiyev and all eastern cities, but it would be incorrect for western cities agree? Same thing saying Ukrainian is used in rural areas is likewise misleading. It can be true for the whole of centre and west, but in the east you have the surzhik, you have the mixed dialects, and in the south nobody uses Ukrainian, particularly in Crimea where the rural population is not even Ukrainian. What about the Hungarian and Romanian villages in Transcarpathia and Bukovina? Or for that fact the Rusyn population, they don't favour Ukrainian among themselves now do they? Have you forgot about the mixed Belarusian/Polessian dialect in Northern Volhynia? Saying that they speak Belarusian is not incorrect as both grammar sets can be applied to that dialect. In the same way that the whole of Sloboda people can be speaking both Ukrainian and Russian at the same time... ... ... Answer to that! --Kuban Cossack12:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you just wrote is completelly irrelevant to our discussion with Lysy.
It's well known fact that there are much less Russophones among rural poulation than in the cities of Ukraine. Some regional variations do not change the whole picture.--AndriyK12:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by Well known facts? How well known is this well known fact? The same as Well known as the princes of CherniGOv? As well known as the Red Army LIBERATING Ukraine? As well known as the Sophia of Kiev being an example of RUSSIAN architecture. As well known as that the Golodomor was NOT a genocide of Ukrainians... Need I continue? --Kuban Cossack13:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you needn't. Anyway what you say is irrelevant to the discussion.
It would be much better if you take some real steps to resolving the dispute about neutrality and factual accuracy of the present article.--AndriyK13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to convey is that while every editor may have his personal opinion, the article should not present the opinions of the editors, but only facts and significant and referenced published opinions of third parties, if this is useful for improving the article. In this case I understand that this is enough to state that there are differences in the results, but there are no enough published analyses that would explain the reason for this differences, so at the moment it's not possible to explain this in the article in an unbiased way. Thank you for the explanation. --Lysytalk13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly!
Moreover, the artcle should not say or even imply that polls are more correct then the census.
The article does not discuss the question if the poll or the census is right. But the data from different polls each year shows that the census showed less Russophones and did not counted surzhyk speakers at all. --Russianname13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here can be stated like this. The census results provide the number of users who claim Russian and Ukrainian as their respective mother tongue. The poll results show that the number of peope for who Russian is the primary language of communication (that is they use it primarily or exclusively at home and at work) by far exceeds the census number of the native speakers. The results of such polls show divide the population by the primary language of communication approximately equally (with the Russian being somewhat ahead). What we have is a counterintuitive discrepancy between the number of people who call the language native in the census and the number of people who claim to use it as the primary medium of communication (including at home.) Possible reasons of such discrepancy were widely discussed at some of these discussions are listed at #Header copy. We do not need to hypothesize here but simply to present both data. AndriyK's claim that polls are "biased" are his own. Several sociological institutions specialize in taking polls in Ukraine and their results on this particular questions are quite consistent. Any professional sociologists knows how to construct the poll's sampling to make the poll representative (rural/urban, Eastern/Western, older/youner, etc.) Those same polls consistently produce a slight majority favoring granting Russian a status of the state language along with the Ukrainian one. We do not need to speculate on the reasons unless we find sources that do so. We simply present all the facts referenced. I will do just that. --Irpen15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The poll results do not say anything about "primary" or "secondary", do they? They say us about usage. We (I and Lysy) reformulated this piece of the text:
According to a 2004 public opinion poll by the Kiev International Sociology Institute, the number of people using Russian language at their homes considerably exceeds the number of those who declared Russian as their native language in the census.
If you disagree with this formulation, let us discuss before your revert.
Concerning the bias: I do not insist on telling anything about it in the article. So, there is nothing to discuss here. But if you would like, try to explaine yourself the difference between the table "Native language (according to annual surveys by the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences)" and the census results. If you find the answer, you may write on my talk page. Anyway, it's not relevant here, because I do not insist on telling anything about it in the article.--AndriyK18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many polls were done by govermental Institute of socilogy (National academy of sciences). Each time the results showed that the census data underestimated the portion of the Russophones --Russianname12:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just changed back the sentence "According to a public opinion poll, the number of people using Russian language in everyday life exceeds considerably the number of native Russophones" to reflect that the survey asked about the usage at home, if I understand it correctly. To me "at home" and "in everyday life" makes a difference. The Russophone article explains that a Russophone is "a speaker of the Russian language either natively or by preference". --Lysytalk13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does this picture have to do with Russian language in Ukraine? It is irrelevant to this topic. Whatever Karl Marx said about the language has nothing to do with Russian language in Ukraine. Inserting this image there is blatant POV. --Hillock6513:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is neutral by itself. It shows that the administration of this public clinic regards all non-Ukranian speakers as "guests, slaves, occupants". The Russian speakers are the biggest linguistical minority in Lviv. So mostly the Russian-speakers are exposed to this announcement (and other of this kind). --Russianname16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means there is no question about the picture's neutrality the question is WHY DOES IT BELONG in an article about Russian language in Ukraine? Neither the picture, nor the text mention a single word about Russians or Russian language! Everything else is speculaton and POV. Whatever the administration thinks or which quotaton to display is their business and there is no proof it is directed against Russian-speakers. None whatsoever. We are not here to give interpretations of the facts but to present them. And the fact is — this picture is irrelevant to the topic of discussion and is used to push POV of imagined persecution of Russians. POV tag should stay until the issue is settled, and it is for admins to remove, when the decision is made.--Hillock6517:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means the announcement is targetted against the Russian-speakers because a) the Russian language is the most widely used minority language in Lviv (Russian speakers are over 80% of all non-Ukrainian speakers) b) the Russian language is the only minority language widely understandable and thus socially acceptable in Lviv (for example, almost all Poles are Ukrainian speakers) c) The Russian language is the most popular second language. The announcement is clearly aimed against linguistical minorities, and the Russian speakers are the largest linguistical minority. --Russianname09:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All that you are saying is speculation. For the third time, where does it show in the picture or in the Karl Marx's quotation that it is directed against Russians and not Poles? There is no need to cite statistical data, the question is not in them but in the picture and its relevance to the article. --Hillock6513:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is directed against all non-Ukrainian speakers be they Poles, Russians, Jews or Rusyns. Of those the Russians are a majority, as proven by Russianname. --Kuban Cossack14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is directed against is not relevant to this article. This article is not about Poles, Jews or anybody else. The picture doesn't relate to the Russians, which is the topic of this article. There is no proof whatsover that it is directed against Russians. Speculations of how many Russians live there are irrelevant. Is the clinic in the Russian-speaking area? How does it show it is in Lviv? The picture should clearly demonstrate bias agains Russians and it does not. It is used for speculations and POV conclusions.--Hillock6516:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this article is not about Russians but Russian speakers! And this picture clearly demonstrates that only Ukrainian speakers are permitted, thus it is discriminatory against all non-Ukrainophones, of whom 80% are Russophones. 80% is a majority by any measure. So please don't be naive, just because you do not like that image.--Kuban Cossack16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I blame the people who use any means to discriminate others, based on their national, ethnic, religious or linguistic parameters. Marx himself has nothing to do with this.--Kuban Cossack22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it give permission to anything? All I can see is the Karl Marx's opinion about those who may or may not speak what language. It is not an order, it is a quotation from Karl Marx. And even if it was, nothing shows that it is directed against speakers of a particular language, least of all Russian-speakers. All inferences about how many of them are there - just speculation. The fact remains, the picture is improperly tied to the Russian speakers. There is no clear relation between the two. --Hillock6516:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious concern about authenticity of the picture. Who did it take? When? Can he prove that this announcement is permanently there, or it was put there just to take the picture?--AndriyK16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concerns Andriy.. I can go and give someone $50 to put up a sign and take a picture and claim it is a public announcement from the clinic.. We need proof that it is a real announcement, and was not put up just for the picture.. —dima/talk/17:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a real announcement, what does it change? It only shows that people like to quote Karl Marx. That is all. It is irrelevant to the subject of this article. And I also would like to second the previous opinion. It might very well have been staged. Not that it matters to its validity here.--Hillock6517:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made this picture on May, 30, 17-36. I left an unedited version in commons. And I can make it again today in several rooms of the clinics if you like. --Russianname09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I shot a movie today. So I`m ready to send 53 Mb .avi file by email to anyone who wants to see in one shot the announcement, personel, the clinic, the street where it is situated. --Russianname10:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo was taken by you, you are not permitted to use it in WP articles. Please read WP:NOR carefully.
Primary sources that 'have been published'by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
You gravely misunderstand what WP:NOR is. If you read the policy thoroughly (which I doubt, knowing your disruption history on WP, but heh let's give it a try), you can read that:
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.
Bottom line: Using a self-made picture to illustrate a subject is totally permitted. What is not permitted is to use your own publications to push an agenda. Actually, it is even more OK to use a self-made picture because it avoids all the Fair-use issues.
Unless the picture is fake and you can prove it with arguments other than "me too, I can pay a person 50$ to make something", it is very much on purpose in the article. Therefore I'm restoring it.
Please read carefully, what you cited "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or argument". In this case, however, Russianname proposed his own interpretation. He claims that the Marx' citation shown in the picture has something to do to Russian language in Ukraine. Which is nothing else as OR.
In the case you did not understand, I argue concerning the relevance of the picture to the article. The claim of Russianname that it's relevant is nothing else as OR.--AndriyK15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I raised that question several times already, what does Karl Marx's quotation from some place, (which the author claims is from Ukraine and cannot be proven) has at all to do with the topic of Russian language? What is the relevance? It does not mention Russians, it does not refer to them indirectly, it does not mention the Russian or any other language? So, why is this picture here? Can I post pictures of other Karl Marx quotations if relevance to the topic is not important? --Hillock6518:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So there are no doubts of authentity? Great! Now about importance. This picture is very important. This picture shows the actual brutality and aggressiveness of the Ukrainian chauvinism towards the non-Ukrainian speakers aka the Russian speakers. People must see that the laws are ignored in Ukraine, that some clinic could make announcement that abuse citizens on the ground of their language. --Russianname10:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still serious doubts concerning authentity. (Please see the comment by DDima above.)
But even if there would be no doubts, the relevance of the picture to the article is your own judgement, i.e. it's original research.
Videos can be faked as well. Moreover, authencity doubt is not the only problem. Please read the talk carefully.--AndriyK11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you read my words carefully. I shot the picture and the video. I showed 2 versions of the picture. Now I have a video to show to everybody. Now you must proof it is a fake. But instead you do not want to view it. So just stop this. --Russianname11:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only creadible and published sources are acceptable as a proof. Your own video (a) is not creadicble and (b) was not published.
The picture about a quotation in a clinic in Lviv is used to make biased inferences. It has nothing to do with Russians in that city, it does not name them specifically, nor does it show that they will be discriminated against. --Hillock6516:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another version of the shot (Date and time of data generation 17:36, 30 May 2007)
The announcement is made in a city with 2 sizeable linguistic groups: the Ukraininan spekers and Rthe Russian-speakers. The Russian-speakers are 80 % of all non-Ukrainina speakers. 20 % of these non-Ukrainian and non-Russian speakers (5 or 10 different linguistic groups) do not use their languages in public conversations with personel of public clinics. The Russian-speakers use their language because the Russian language is understandable for all Ukraininan speakers. And the law allows usage of the Russian language (the main non-official language in the country) in all public situations. --Russianname08:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the fifth time: What is this picture doing in this article. What does it illustrate? What is its relevance? --Hillock6512:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to display arrogance, the picture shows how the compassionate the European Western Ukrainians are to different cultures and minorities, and that they will stop at nothing to demostrate it, even using citations from Karl Marx, whose publications many were happy to destroy some 16 years ago. This picture simply punctuates that. --Kuban Cossack13:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then please move this picture to appropriate article about Western Ukrainians or cultural minorities. This article is about Russian language in Ukraine, no link between the picture and the topic of the article has been established. This is not the place to put random quotations of Karl Marx.--Hillock6513:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to answer the question that me and Russianname answered several times already, you can choose to be arrongant, but that is your problem. If you do not like it file a WP:DR. --Kuban Cossack14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the problem that you refuse to explain your actions and only wage revert wars on multiple articles. I asked 5 (five) times about the relevance of this picture to the article and not a single time have you provided a coherent answer. Please refrain from discussing me, and instead try to explain how this picture relates to the article. Two more editors have asked you to give your reasoning and the only thing we hear is "I refuse". If you refuse, then leave Wikipedia in peace with your disruptive edits. --Hillock6514:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You received the answer 5 times and I will write it again and again: 1) Russian speakers are the most numerous linguistic group (alongside with the Ukrainian speakers) 2) the announcement is written in Ukrainian and it mentions the goverment language 3) the only goverment language in Ukraine is Ukrainian, so the announcemet is a message from the Ukrainian speaking chauvinists to the Russian speakers. --Russianname09:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me again show for the sixth time how this picture is IRRELEVANT. 1) In the whole of Lviv oblast Russian speakers make just tiny 3.8% of the population [1]. So, in the city, where you claim this picture is taken there are even less than 4% (FOUR per cent) of the Russian speakers. 2) The language of the quotation from Karl Marx does not matter to the tiny percentage of Russian language speakers in that community. 3) All announcements in Ukraine can be written in official Ukrainian langugage, it does not show prejudice against anyone. 4) You are making biased and unsubstantiated conclusions for what this picture is supposed to be meaning. 5) The picture itself does not point to Poles or Russians or any other national group 6) The quotation of Karl Marx is as much relevant to Russian language in Ukraine as if it was from Joseph Stalin or anybody else. In other words, the picture is irrelevant. The source or illustration should not require additional interpretation and should clearly state its message. As it is now, this picture does not show the relation to the subject of discussion and everything else is speculation and POV. How many more times do we have to explain one and the same thing over and over again? --Hillock6513:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sixth time I am telling you that the census is for Lviv Oblast, unless you are suggesting that all the minorities are evenly distributed which is WP:NOR, we must assume that the majority of those live in cities, hence the tiny population is not as tiny as you think it is. Second of all what is tiny? There are Ukrainian Russophones in Lviv as well, as well as Russophones of other nationalities. Yet even so, with respect to the European Charter for languages which Ukraine ratified, any minority deserves protection. Also what is All announcements in Ukraine can be written in official Ukrainian langugage? What is a langugage (лангугач? :). Finally as you pointed out the citation of Marx is directed to all linguistic minorities of whom Russian-speakers are a distinct majority. So by common sense, only someone infested with cynicism would reject this statement as non-Russophobic. --Kuban Cossack13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"we must assume"?! That is the point! We must notassume anything! That is WP:OR! The picture should clearly show the relevance. WITHOUT ANY ASSUMPTIONS. That is the point I am trying to hammer in yuor heads. Don't tell me which is which and what I need to assume, the picture should explain everything without the need to assume. It does not, hence it is irrelevant.--Hillock6514:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that many images that are used in wikipedia only partially explain it. And readers make assumptions, if they think it is pointless they will see it as pointless. Censoring the shameful face of this European city is not your job to do.--Kuban Cossack15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully WP:OR. You are presenting a picture of Karl Marx's quotation and tie it to ethnic Russians. You might as well have taked a picture of a drunk and made an ssuption it was Russian speaking. These are wild and unsubstantiated claims. --Hillock6515:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am wholly neutral and know nothing about the situation in the town. But this picture is unencyclopediac, and a picture of a single clinic proves nothing about the more general situation. Indeed, drawing such conclusions from a picture qualifies as WP:Original research. Find a reliable source. Hgilbert13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, do we need another mediation to remove the picture or the author will spare the trouble and his own embarassment and remove it on his own? It appears that consensus of editors on this page is against the inclusion of this picture. There are enough reasons listed above.--Hillock6514:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are persisting against the consensus of the majority of editors, including the third opinion of uninvolved party. This is a counterproductive approach. You leave no option for me but to report this abuse. This cannot continue. --Hillock6513:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source gives the percentage of Russian language speakers. Here is the quote from the source: Українську мову вважали рідною 95,3% населення Львівської області (в Україні – 67,5%), що на 5,2 відсоткового пункта більше, ніж за даними перепису 1989 року. Російську мову визнали як рідну 3,8% населення (в Україні – 29,6%). That is the number that is reflected in the text. Please discuss your changes before starting the revert war.--Hillock6523:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote that says a city where the Russian-speakers comprise 3,8% whilst the reference says населення Львівської області. Naturally the number of Russian speakers will be higher in a megapolis such as Lvov, also why remove all the commented out text? Is it not better to translate it? --Kuban Cossack00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, good point. Then the unreferenced text about 80% does not belong there, since there is no proof if it is true. Besides, this is hardly the place to store foreign language material. It is hard to find things with all that text just stored there. The best way to write an article is not to translate it but to write from sources. --Hillock6501:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far from it. The question why a picture with Carl Marx's quotation is relevant to this topic is valid one. Apart from me, two other editors expressed concern over it. --Hillock6514:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from you nobody showed this hatred towards the Russian language. You received the reasons and understood the point very good.--Russianname10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hillcock, please do not remove the text with all proper citations (you removed a whole paragraph about actions against the Russian language in Lviv) and do not remove the hidden text (it will be translated soon). --Russianname15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I removed the text with dead link that leads nowhere. Gardian says it does not contain that article. So, if you cannot support your claims with sources. Remove it yourself. As well, this article is not a dump to store pages and pages of material in foreign languge. If you need to continue to translate from your disgusting and hateful article in the Russian WP, so store it there. It is just a click away. I suspect you clutter this article with all kind of garbage in foreign language specifically to make it harder for other editors to edit. Exclusion of other editors and preventing them from editing this article is very counterproductive. Show some good faith. --Hillock6515:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is hateful and disgusting because it twists facts, not because it it in Russian WP. It could be in Kirghiz WP for all I care. Don't try to get personal again. --Hillock6518:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to clean away info that is irrelevant to the topic. We do not discuss "linguistic situation" in the Ukraine here. --Russianname16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history and background are very important parts of the article. Not only in their own right, but for the sake of providing context.Faustian02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Background is linked with history as russian language is not a native language of Ukraine ...
There is no mention of holodomor in that section. You appear not to read things before comenting on them or changing them (you did this on the article about the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists where you made the clearly false claim that cooperation with Germany wasn't mentioned). As for the importance of the history and background, I'll repeat from my talk page:
The information on history and background is relevant and necessary. The history of the Russian language in Ukraine needs no justification to be included in the article. Historical phenomena such as the ban on the Ukrainian language, are a part of that history insofar as they explain part of the reason for the Russian language's historical dominance there. They are also necessary context for the discriminatory anti-Russian countermeasures adopted recently by Ukrainian authorities. Describing anti-Russian language legislation and actions without mentioning Ems and other historical restrictions on the Ukrainian language is, frankly, somewhat analogous to writing about the Soviet conquest of Germany without mentioning Barbarrossa. It presents only half the truth, and therefore an innacurate portrait.Faustian17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The historical background information you are trying to add is not neutral and it is concentrated on the Ukrainians and their language. This info is irrelevant to the article. --Russianname12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps AlexPU could explain the rationale of spamming the page with irrelevant tags prior to reisnserting them. Just putting it on makes no sense whatsoever. --Kuban Cossack13:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article I can state that it is not written from a neutral point of view! It is definitely purposed to highlight an opinion that Russian language is being treated unfairly in Ukraine, and that it is being suppressed by the authorities. Please change it. --MaksKhomenko14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up. Incidentally, that's been the opinion of several editors here. This article needs to be cleaned of POV. We need to list all those biased parts and issues and start mediation in an attempt to clean them. A good start would be to write the list of issues first. --Hillock6512:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well please do so, because so far here I am rereading this article, scratching my head, and failing to see those issues that you are repeatedly referring to. Please, enlighten me! --Kuban Cossack12:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly. Since this article is about Russian language in Ukraine, I think it is singularly lacking information on Russification in different periods of Ukrainian history. Russification is very pertinent to the subject of this article. Very much so. History of the Russian language in Ukraine needs to show that up until recently Russian has enjoyed privileged position and expanded at the expense of the Ukrainian language. It also needs to show that even now without any official status in the country, the Russian language in some instances is enjoying far better conditions than Ukrainian. It heavily dominates now in printed media in foreign movie translations, etc. In Crimea, where there are over a third of population are ethnic Ukrainians, there are only 2 Ukrainian schools. So, User:MaksKhomenko is quite justified in his concern about the lack of neutrality in this article. Undue weight is being placed on perceived persecution of Russian now and it singularly overlooks far greater evidence of Russian language's privileged position and virtual monopoly in the past. In fact, in terms of evidence it by far outweighs all complaints about persecution of Russian now. All that boils down to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It needs to be changed.--Hillock6512:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs not be changed, it needs to be expanded. First of all let's drop this it's not fair POV, towards Ukrainian in Crimea, there is a Ukrainian language article which can show exactly why it was un-privileged. On the contrary, if Ukrainian was indeed to be neglected during Soviet times it would probably have completely died out, because people would simply not bother learning it. With Russian, however, it was indeed a monopoly langauge, however in the present time frame, it is being pushed out (or at least attempted to be pushed out) by Ukrainian, which is refrenced. I do not see a Undue weight argument. Provide concrete examples please. --Kuban Cossack13:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concrete examples can be found in Limitations on the Russian language in Ukraine. If this segment is there, there should be another one Privileged position of the Russian language in Ukraine, where all the voluminous history of Russian language's dominance past and present and of Russufication should be presented. Presenting one side of the story is indeed WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The author prefers to bemoan the ills of Ukrainization but prefers to overlook the far greater evidence of Russification in terms of volume and time frame. Of course story about Crimean Ukrainian schools belong to a different article too, but it is relevant here as well because it goes to show what monopoly Russian has in Crimea, including over a third of ethnic Ukrainians there. In short, in its present state the article, as it has been pointed out above, is indeed biased and one-sided. Expand it if you need, but presented one-sided and biased evidence severely damages this article. --Hillock6513:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section on limitations on Russian language is completely legitimate and the information contained is important; and as Kuban Kazak noted, the facts are referenced and true. I do agree with you that a section on the past priviledged situation of Russian, such as Ems and Russification, is also important and probably deserves its own section. Probably there needs to be section on history of Russian speakers (settlement, assimilation of native elites, etc.), a separate section on historical anti-Ukrainian/pro-Russian language government policies, and then the important and valuable information about current Ukrainization policies and anti-Russian language actions post independence. I will get to it, if no one else does, eventually (I am busy now). The article right now includes that stuff and therefore it does not seem biased. It just needs to be better organzied.Faustian14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that when we write about Holocaust the article cannot show the image that Jews were treated unfairly in Nazi Germany? The facts are presented, and they are also refrenced. If you have anything that contradicts them or disproves them, you are welcome to introduce them so, but until then don't use wikipedia to make a point.--Kuban Cossack17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having just reviewed the article, I agree that it is biased in its current form. Any article on the Russian language that doesn't mention Ems and other pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainioan language acts is inherently biased, like an article about Stalin that doesn't mention gulags. Hopefully someone will add the section on anti-Ukrainian government practices, which is very relevent to the spread and dominance of the Russian language in Ukraine. I'm just too busy. Once that is added, the article becomes nuetral. As I noted, there is niothing wrong with inncluding true, referenced facts of anti-Russian discrimination. Faustian14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. If you say that there was some spread of Russian language by the edicts of valuev or tsar, so you must prove this statement: by sources and by numbers of people who have chosen Russian instead of ukrainian because of these edits, with all evidences, not mere nationalistic tales. So you must give proofs, not I. --Russianname16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully Burden of Proof. You, who is supposedly, an author of this one-sided text is supposed to balance it. Don't count on others to mop up after you. Please present balanced text with voluminous evidence of Russian language's dominance and state support during the course of centuries. As well, instances of prohibitions against other languages in favour of Russian should not be omitted. As for the present instances of restrictions the Russian language supposedly suffers, they should be balanced with just as multiple instances of the language dominance in certain regions and areas of public life of the country. If you counted on translating biased and one-sided article from the Russian WP here, I hope you realize that you are sorely mistaken. There are different standards here for neutrality. Please look into it. --Hillock6517:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirlandajo, can you please explain why my edits appear to have no merit to you and why have you reverted them without discussing it first ? I'm restoring the previous wording of the first section until this is satisfactorily explained. --Lysytalk19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On February 28, 2007 the Contitutional court of Ukraine forbade the member of parlament Serhiy Matvienkov (Socialist Party of Ukraine, Mariupol) to speak in Russian during his report.
”
Why the editor who wrote this considers this fact as "limitation" on Russian in Ukraine?
If somebody would try to speak Russian in US Constitutional Court, I am prety sure that he or she would be requested to switch to English or use aid of an interpreter. Does it mean that there are "limitations on Russian language in US"?
On the other hand, if somebody would try to speak any language different from Russian in Russian Constitutional Court, he or she would get similar request. Are there "limitations on all languages except Russian in Russia"?
Please be neutral if you're writing WP articles.--AndriyK18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Since when, asking someone not to use a foreign language in court is considered a "limitation"? Wouldn't a Spanish-speaking person in California trying to adress the American court in Spanish be asked the same? Classification of this as a "limitaition on Russian" is indeed biased. The Russian language is free to be used everywhere in Ukraine except for the places where, according to the Constitution it does not belong. No laws have been broken. The editor is making a biased conclusion based on news report. The source doesn't say there are any "limitations", we are here to present sources, not to interpret them accourding to our POV. --Hillock6519:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the reason limitations or similar wording is appropriate is because of the 'change' in status. Russian was the official language in Soviet times but now it has been limited. Russian was the languiage of the universities but now it has been phased out. So it is different from the situation of the Russian language in America, for example. Perhaps a more accurate wording would be "measures taken against the Russian language".Faustian22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change of the status took place in late 80s and yearly 90s from de facto the state language to a minority language. At it's indeed a fact that worth to be mentioned.
What happened in the Constitutionsl Court is just a normal practice, which is not specific neither to Ukraine nor to Russian language. There is nothing notable about it to be mentioned in the article.
And last but not least: does not it contardict to WP:NOR? Did any scholar classified the episode in the Const. Court as "limitation on Russian Language"?--AndriyK20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. "Limitations" are in line with the genaral one-sided "theme" of this article, that the Russian language in Ukraine is being persecuted and discriminated against. If this was the intention of the author, the article should be renamed into Discrimination Against the Russian Language in Ukraine. Like in the above example the author prefers to single out cases and one-sidedly draw conclusions about the discrimination. Not even going into validity of such conclusions, to preserve the neutrality and alleviate accusations of Undue Weight, this section should also include cases of the Russian laguage's privileged position in Ukraine even now. It dominates, among others[7], now in printed press and in foreign movies' dubbing. Again, the heavy emphasis on its persecution and complete ommition of its dominance is some areas. Either this intentional disbalance should be corrected, or the article renamed to reflect the true intentions of the authors. --Hillock6500:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you sdhould definitely add examples, with citations, of continued dominance, and the article needs to have information about past anti-Ukrainian actions which were partially responsible for Russian linguistic dominance. On the other hand, all of the examples of limitations placed on the Russian language are legitimate and should stay. The article should become balanced through addition, not subtraction.Faustian03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for their removal. Information should be balanced per (WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Calling adherence to the laws of the land "limitations" is unbalanced, among other things. If the respondent wanted to address the court in another minority language - Hungarian, would that be a limitation on the Hungarian language? If the authors present evidence, they should take care to balance it and rid it of POV. The onus for balancing the article and removing the POV is on the authors, not other editors.--Hillock6504:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting for the answer on my comment of 18:50, 25 June 2007. Did any scholar classified the episode in the Const. Court as "limitation on Russian Language" or this is OR of one of the users?--AndriyK16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is way too late, but I agree. That is radicilous. If he is parlamentary he simply showed a direct disrespect to all of the nation that voted for its independance and its Constitution. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Але наразі мовні права етнічних росіян, які проживають на території України, забезпечені значно краще, ніж мовні права етнічних українців, - вважає О. Медведєв. За його словами, у всіх сферах позиції російської мови є значно потужнішими. Це передбачає неактуальність питань стосовно утисків російськомовного населення України. [8] Hope that would help. --Hillock6502:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
А за даними соцопитування, презентованими О.Медведєвим, серед тридцяти найгостріших проблем, важливих для населення України, питання статусу російської мови наші співвітчизники поставили на 26 місце, а української - на 24. Тобто, лише вісім відсотків громадян вважають пріоритетним надання російській мові статусу другої державної чи регіональної (переважно Крим та Донбас) та дев’ять відсотків (переважно Захід України), які виступають за одну державну мову, - українську. [9] This needs to be added to the article as well. --Hillock6502:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to this, the language spoken in the region was west Ruthenian (the language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the antecedant of the modern Belarusian and Ukrainian languages).
Is there any source confirming it?
As far as I know, the written language was common for ancestors of Belarusians and Ukrainians and it indeed was a sort of state language of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But the spoken language was quite different from the written one and it was not common. Regional differences were present even in the times of Kievan Rus.--AndriyK20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How the phrase "the Lviv city council has been trying to ban Russian-language pop music ..." has to be understood. "Has been trying but never succeed?" Was this decission adopted by the city council? If yes, please provide a reference. If no, then how coud it result into "limitations on the Russian language" if it never was adopted.
The same with the bill proposed by BJuT. Was it adopted?
Moreover, according to the reference [10] there is no special restrictions on Russian in the proposed bill. It just make state officials incumbent to use the state language in the parlament. Just a normal practice in practically all parlaments of democratic countries. Is it alloud to use Russian language by state officials officials in France? Is it also a "limitations on the Russian language in France"?--AndriyK19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as nobody answers, I'll move the dubious section to the talk. Let's clarify all the points.--AndriyK10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this as a limitation, but rather a liberalization. The only person who can see this is limitation is a Russian nationalist. The Russian language should be eliminated from Verkhovna Rada at all. It is not professional manner to speak Russian in Rada. Why would anybody need to speak that language there? Are we Ukrainians? Who are we if we do not speak Ukrainian? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 2000 the British "Guardian" informed that "the Lviv city council has been trying to ban Russian-language pop music in bars and cafes and to close down a Russian-language radio station, and linguistic vigilantes have been cruising shops and kiosks, bullying retailers into dumping Russian literature, newspapers and CDs."[2]
On September, 2006, the fraction of Bloc of Yuliya Tymoshenko in Ukrainian parlament proposed a bill to forbid the usage of the Russian language by members of the parlament.[3] The draft was aimed against Russian-speaking members of parlament (mainly Communist Party of Ukraine and Party of Regions) alongside with some ministers.[4]
In October 2006 the Russian newspaper "Moskovskiy komsomolets" reported that Boris Tarasyuk, the Foreign minister of Ukraine, issued a directive forbidding Ukrainian diplomats and members of their families to speak in Russian even at home.[5] Boris Tarasyuk is a member of "Our Ukraine" party and was a representative of the president Yuschenko in the Ukrainian cabinet of ministers.
The tendentious Russian newspaper twisted the facts and presented this directive as aimed against Russsian. In fact there is not a word in it about Russian. NOT A SINGLE ONE! NONE! Read the original again: Министр запретил своим подчиненным говорить и на службе, и дома на любых языках, кроме украинского, пишет «Московский Комсомолец». A requirement to speak Ukrainian is not automatically a restriction against Russian or Tatar for that matter. Let's not twist facts here. This piece of garbage from the Russian newspaper does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Hillock6510:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These things noted above do not qualify as restrictions. Please look up the meaning of the word "restriction". In example #1 in what way an attempt to do anything according to some newspaper can be considered a restriction? The proposed bill is not a restriction either! Whatever happened to the Russian language in the parliament? Nothing! So why include this tendentious information here? In the last example a request not to speak in court in a foreign language cannot be considered a restriction on anything. If the request to use the official language was a restriction on Russian, than so it was a restriction on Hungarian, Yiddish, Tatar and all other minority unofficial languages. This section should be named "Situation with the Russian language in present-day Ukraine" --Hillock6510:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above mentioned website article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,393658,00.html, is a good article. The mess that Ukraine has stuck in after the Soviet occupation and dissorder, now is on the shoulders of the current government. The Article also states: "It's a tall order. Russian-language newspapers still outnumber Ukrainian 10 to one across the country. At a second-hand book stall there are only tomes in Russian. In an art gallery bookshop, Russian predominates." The article also mentions how Ukrainians still are being descriminized in THEIR OWN COUNTRY. It's a very sensitive subject. And I do not want to be that Ukrainian who only smiles and continues speak in Russian just because 27% of population of Ukraine is Russian. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I explained why this info has to be deleted. I invaited everybody interested to participate in the discussion. I waited a day or so. As far as nobody objected, I removed the info.
Then come you and instead of discussing the problems on the talk page, you just revert the article.
You missed a very important section above called Neutrality. It is all explained there. None of the issues mentioned there have been addressed. There is no need to spread this discussion all over the place. Issues related to the NPOV tag should be addressed there: Talk:Russian language in Ukraine#Neutrality --Hillock6518:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the talk thread shows nothing about any issues, it only ecourages to expand its pre-20th century history, but it does not challenge the existing parts of the article in any shape or form. --Kuban Cossack19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read it very carefully. Thre is a concensus of editors that this article is unbalanced and one-sided. The reasons and the things to be addressed are listed there It would help if you read them instead of wasting time on pointless arguments. --Hillock6523:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Russian is the most widely used language in east and south of Ukraine as well as in Kiev. (Source: 2003 KIIS survey, etc.; see the map)
(3) Russian is the most widespread second language throughout Ukraine. (Reason: Russian was studied either as the first or as the second language in all primary and secondary schools of Ukrainian SSR, and is currently studied in most of primary and secondary schools, etc.)
Today yet another picture has been added to the article that further slanted its bias. All the pictures with the excepiton of graphs depict how terrible the life of Russophone in Ukraine is: the first about demanding recognition of the Russian language as an official language in Kharkiv, the second about demanding recognition of the Russian language as an official language in Odessa, the third is about the protest against Ukrainization. There is not a single neutral illustration apart from the graphs that show Russian language's dominance in some areas, only those where the authors feel it is being discriminated against. Why don't we rename the article into The Struggle of Ukrainian Russophones or The Restrictions on the Russian language in Ukraine? In its present state the article focuses almost exclusively on restrictions placed on the Russian language and egregiously overlooks the privileged position it has on the national level and on exclusive dominance in some regions. Additionally the authors of the article prefferred to focus almost exclusively on the present state and intentionally prefferred to overlook far more voluminous evidence of Russian language's dominance in the past and restrictions and prohibitions that were applied to secure its dominance. In its present state the article is severely biased, and is in fact used by some editors with political agenda to flood it with evidence to present the slanted and biased view on the state of affairs in the language policy in the modern-day Ukraine. If that is the intention of some editors, than the article should be renamed accordingly, so that the readers are not mislead with the Russian nationalist propaganda. --Hillock6517:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hillock, could be that some editors see your editing as pushing your political agenda, so no need to do this talking about the agenda of some editors. This is besides the topic. What are those "neutral" illustration that should be added to the article? Do you have any particular illustrations in mind that you want to add? --Irpen10:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do expand beyond your usual ad hominem attacks. What agenda exactly am I pushing? Please be specific. It is not my job to provide neutral illustrations, it is the job of those, who post biased pictures to balance them and bear in mind the Undue weight policy. I recall you expressed the same concern over undue weight here and never bothered to present the material to balance it out beyond tagging the article. So, what changed here, different political interests, different biases? --Hillock6514:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hillock, in your entry above you wrote that the "article is used by some editors with political agenda to flood it with evidence to present the slanted and biased view." This was indeed an ad hominem attack implying that other users edit Wikipedia in bad faith. I responded merely that you should cut it down since if people start speculating about each other's agendas, they should go to the forums at the political web-sites or usenet groups, not Wikipedia talk pages. In the article you recall, I expressed concerns about your using images of an unknown origin, the work of unnotable bloggers who posted bullshit to the LiveJournal. You used such images for the Wikipedia article. I did not complain about their copyright, I did not even get to checking it. I considered the images invalid because of their source, that's all. There is no way to check the validity of those images (one can even upload the image oneself and then refer to it in WP.) LJ blogs of pseudonymous users cannot be used as sources of anything. As for the article, I did not "never bother." I decided to leave it alone because I got tired of arguing with you and your friends and decided to not disturb anymore your enjoyment of the neutrality and overall balance of the articles in Ukrainian Wikipedia, --Irpen07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I new I would have to point out at your selective memory. You switched from your complaints about "undue weight" to something entirely different. Let me remind you of your arguments: Шановний Олегу. Ми з Вами непогано поспіврацювали на обговоренні, що привело до видалення жалюгідного та, м'яко кажучи, жахливого шедевру Яро.П. під назвою Фальцификация голодоморной истории, але тут не можу с Вами погодитись. Недостатнє розкриття інформації не обов'язково є синонімом заупередженості, тут я згоден з Вами, але у кожному випадку треба дивитись окремо. Вибачаюсь, що не знаю влучного українського терміну для перекладу означення "undue weight". Селективне вісвітлення українофобії лише в одніеї країні не проста робить статтю чи розділ не повними, а викликає в читача необгрунтоване у джерелах враження, що українофобія - це суто російське явище. Якщо б це було правдою (джерела?), то можна б було говорити проста про неповне висвітлення. Але поки немає обгрунтування такого твердження, присвячення секції про побутову УФ виключно Росії є порушенням НТЗ. --Irpen 17:04, 23 квітня 2007 (UTC) So in the light of your own words above, let me paraphrase your question that you ask me here, what are those "neutral" facts that should be added to the article? Do you have any particular facts of Ukrainophobia in mind that you want to add? I hope you see now your own hipocrisy. To put it shortly, to balance the article out is the job of those who put it there, please don't try to put the blame on me. If you have anything to add, please do so, otherwise beating around the bush, who should do it is counterproductive. --Hillock6510:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russian nationalist propaganda? How about western Ukrainian propaganda. You're as biased as the Russian supporters in this article if not more. After reading this discussion it makes me sick how much personal agenda and their opinion people put here. Fact is, there is a problem for Russian language in Ukraine, denying that fact is like denying holodomor. I say this as a native of Dnepropetrovsk 131.247.19.18612:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you may be right about the biases of some users, but do not compare denying Ukrainization with denying of famine where lots of people really died. This does not help your entries to have any impact. This talk page should be used to discuss the article, ways to improve it as well as past edits. Please stick to the topic and avoid making provocative and inflammatory statements. --Irpen10:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And considering his signature and statement overall I already have an idea who the guy is. Problem of the Russian language in Ukraine is a joke. Russian language is a foreign language. I do not like the idea the state gives away money to build Russian oriented schools after all of these speeches from Luzhkovs and such. And the Russian official comment and protest in regards to Ukrainian gas transportation system. How about to make this a "two way street"? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issue of the Russian language in Ukraine should be treated in its entirety, in all historical periods with equal attention given to its dominance and state support as well as to its present state, when it doesn' have any status at all. The illustrations and the narrative should not focus exclusively on restricions and not exclusively on the present situation, but rather present the issue objectively and with respect to historical evidence of its dominance in the past and its privileged postion in some regions at present.--Hillock6517:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so fast, you addressed none of the issues above in another section Neutrality. I have repeated concrete objections twice, that should be enough. Several editors expressed their concern over the article's neutrality. Those issues have to be addressed before the tag is removed. --Hillock6512:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object. During all these months no one took the trouble to rectify all the problems pointed out in another section called Neutrality up top. Nothing has been done. It is as biased as ever, there is no time limit on NPOV tag. It should be removed only when those problems are addressed, not before. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag is meant to be there for the duration of the dispute, yet the dispute is inert. If you are ready to make additions and edits to the article then please do so know. Anyway the tag says that neutrality is disputed, yet the dispute has all but frozen. Therefore the tag is incorrect. You might question the dispute here on the talk page, but a tag cannot stay there forever. Please either take active steps to resolve whatever issues you have, otherwise remove the tag. --Kuban Cossack12:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, the dispute is frozen, as no effort has been made to address the issues listed above. If you are unhappy about the tag, maybe you should start correcting the obvious bias of the article? There is more above. If you are planning just to complain, instead of rewriting the article, then, please don't waste other people's time. --Hillock65 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The dispute is frozen because of people like Kuban Cossack, who frankly has no business doing anything on this article as he is CLEARLY not neutral at all. His presence here is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarikaYkrainka (talk • contribs) 11:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is not frozen. I have to say that quite a few references are way too biased to be considered. I have a lot of questions in regards to descrimination subsection of this topic. I read the article "В.Колесниченко. «Европейская хартия региональных языков или языков меньшинств." His article is semi-bogus. He uses some stats to make contrast, but not sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The intro looked (I just changed it) as it was written by Calimero ("They are big and I'm small; it is not fair"). We all know Russian is still dominant in Ukraine, it is time to tell that side of the story instead of having this article hijacked by people who want us to believe Russian speakers are under attack! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Most Ukrainians positive about Russia, but Russia has fewer Ukraine fans"
I saw an article on www.interfax.com with this title. Unfortunatly I'm not subscripted to interfax so couldn't read it... But it could be interesting for this article. Has anybody found a public source with the same info? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His perception is that because the quater of population of Ukraine is Russians, the Russian language is ought to become the co-official state language. All of the documetations of the parliamentary deputy Vadim Kolesnichenko is anti-Ukrainian as he makes people believe that state officials should speak in the language other than the state language. That is crazy. First of all that guy does not even speak Ukrainian, at least, I never saw him do that and I watch "Svoboda" on Inter channel regularly. His documentations are oriented to populize the use of Russian language on the official level, even though he talks about some other minority languages and their discrimination. He points out that there a lot of stuff the Verkhovna Rada needs to do to fully ratify the european laws in regards to the problems with minority languages, yet he is one of those who went on strike with the Party of Regions and instead of showing some initiative on his part he has nothing better to do as to simply accuse the government of Ukraine. That guy needs to loose his deputy rights and never again allowed in Rada's Chamber. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Studying Ukrainian was also a requirement in all schools of the Ukrainian SSR.
According to this FOM-Ukraine survey, which is done every few months, as of April 2009 Russian as the domestic language of choice is currently at 55%, while Ukrainian is at 39%. I thought this information might be useful for the article. LokiiT (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination against the majority of the population
Good information LokiiT. There is a clear discrimination in Ukraine against the majority of the population who prefers to speak in Russian and want their children to study in Russian at school. That is a reality. --88.18.150.26 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted "Linguistic issues and National Perspective"
This sort of "information" has no palce on wikipedia; who says Russians are too stupid to learn Ukrainian? Good luck finding a reference for that... Besides I had people telling me it is very easy for Russians to learn Ukrainian... Besides Wikipedia is not a blog and section has no references. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me!10:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is correct. The very first result on the first link is in Russian - should you contact Google and tell them their search by language is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.135.8.95 (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's been little debate about it for a couple of years. Is it resolved or not? There's no point copy editing content that should change. If the POV tag can be removed, that would be great, otherwise I will remove the copy edit tag and mark this as {{GOCEreviewed}}. --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no discussion for years. I removed the tag: if anyone is still watching this who has a problem they are welcome to retag it and explain their reasons here. -- LWGtalk21:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can tell this is a fairly contentious issue… but can we get some actual linguistic information somewhere in this article, please? There’s no mention of surzhik, there’s nothing about grammar or pronunciation… How does the language vary in the East from the West? In what ways do the dialects of Kiev differ from the rest of the country? In what ways do the dialects of the country differ from other Russian-speaking areas? I feel like there used to be something like that before, if not in this article then elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it’s been no doubt lost in ensuing edit wars. ♥Wiki Wikardo05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over 50% of (Ukraine's) fifth formers in school-year 2013-2014 chose German as an obligatory second foreign language...
... it says here. But I am not sure what it means... Does it mean them fifth formers think they know Russian good enough already and thus would like to concentrate on learning German? Or do they just do not want to learn Russian because...? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For all websites whose titles are in what looks like a Cyrillic script, it should say if they are in Russian or Ukrainian. (Or another Cyrillic-alphabet language for that matter, probably Belarusian.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be about the non-Western Ukraine only. The history of Western Ukraine was different.Xx234 (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC) See also Suppression of the Ukrainian language section about the 19 century.Xx234 (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All classifications of Slavic have the four East Slavic languages descending from a common ancestor at the time of the Kievan Rus. It's simply not something that people debate about. The Kievan Rus spoke "Proto-Eastern Slavic". --Taivo (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia and even obvious knowledge should be supported by reliable sources.
This Wikipedia doesn't use the name "Proto-Eastern Slavic", I assume that you mean the Old East Slavic.
ru:Древнерусский язык: Древнерусский язык не был единым, а включал множество разных диалектов и представлял собой результат их конвергенции,
uk:Давньоруська мова lead says Правомірність застосування цього терміну в обох його значеннях визнається не усіма дослідниками. The name of a section is: Проблема існування спільної східнослов'янської мови Are you sure that everything is so obvious? Xx234 (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the article talks about Russian "settlers" in Novorossiya, and the areas are referred to as southern Ukraine - except at the 19th century there was no such thing as Ukraine, and the areas of Novorossiya had no historical connection to Ukraine.
The author keeps on mentioning how Russians moved into "Southern Ukraine/Eastern Ukraine," except at the time these were not "Ukraine," and the previous residents before Russians there were not Ukrainians but Tatars. Or in other words, there's an attempt to push a nationalistic revisionist POV in this article.
Wrong, the irredentism is all yours. Of course they were emigrating: they were not a pre-existing ethnic group in the region. Good choice of moniker. Please stop your WP:POVPUSH both in the article and on this talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly were they "emigrating," if Novorussia was a part of Russia?
No doubt, there had been an ethnic group in that region before that Russians, the Tatars - but NOT the Ukrainians.
You might argue the Russians were colonising Tatar land, fair game, but hardly a Ukrainian land, did they ;-) ?
By trying to claim that the Russians were colonising "Ukraine" in the 17th century you're attempting to push a POV and to be frank blatantly lying. The Russians were colonising land which was prior to that Tatar, but that had never been Ukrainian.
As a regional nickname, like Geordies used in England; however, one thing is certain - Russians were not "colonising" Ukrainian lands. Saying Russians were immigrating "into Ukraine" in the 17th century is historically wrong. Russians were immigrating into the region known as Novorussia, previously Tatar land. DonetskAndBack (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Russians were not colonizing "Ukrainian" lands. They were colonizing what was known "Ukraine", "Novorossia", "Wild Fields" and whats not. Nobody says they were colonizing lands belonging to the kingdom of Ukraine or something. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get this 'regional nickname' business from? I've never seen an official map with "Geordieland" anywhere (nor "Scouseland", or any other number of pejoratives). Try checking out the number of maps attesting to the use of "Ukraina". Of the indigenous people living in those regions, the majority were Ruthenians... so stop trying to play at semantics to make a point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Poles and the Lithuanians referred to what is now known as Belarusians and Ukrainians as Ruthenians, which was the Latin term for the people of Rus. The term Ukrainians for the nation we refer to as Ukrainians is a very late term (the Russians weren't always Russian either, they were Moscovites).
A neutral formulation is needed for Russian language in Ukraine. Maybe my formulation is not ideal, but you can't say that "Russians were colonising Ukraine" when referring to Russian settlement in Novorussia in the 17th century; they were colonising land which was formerly Tatar, fair enough, but they were most certainly not colonising "Ukraine" simply as at the time Novorossiya wasn't actually Ukraine, and no one saw it as such.
The first time Novorussia became a part of Ukraine was under Soviet rule, and fair enough, since then it is; legally, it still is, as even Russia doesn't recognise DNR. But in historical context, Russian settling in 17th century Novorossiya had no connection whatsoever to Ukraine or Ukrainians.
It tells: The first new waves of Russian settlers onto what is now Ukrainian territory came in the late 16th century (i.e. "what is now..."). I think this is proper way to tell it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'What is now' is perfect, except it was only clarified in one place. The rest of it was presented like Russians immigrated into "Southern and Eastern Ukraine," when at the time they were most certainly not.
Southern Ukraine is land of Ukrainian cossacs and villagers, and to a lesser extent Turkic, Greec and Bulgarian people. Russians, and Serbian and Germans and others settled on their lands in 17-18 centuries, forming there the cities, all the rural population was consist principally Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars since ancient times. Until liquidation Zaporizhian Sich in the end of 18th century, censuses were taken into account only urban settlements which really dominated the Russian in the 18th and early 20th century, in the uncontrolled lands Zaporizhian Sich, population census of Russian Empire were not carried out, and the census Sich gave striking predominance of Ukrainians, don`t distribute stamps Russian propaganda.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, a nationalist twisting facts. First of all, in English you write the name of a nation or an ethnicity from a capital letter.
Secondly, the areas whichis Odessa was not Cossack, but rather Ottoman, and Donbass belonged to the Tatars; no connection whatsoever to Ukraine, Ukrainians, etc.
Donbass was mostly empty in the 17th century when Russian Don Cossack started settling it; a part of Donbass did belong for a period to Zaporozhian Cossacks, and a part to the Tatars.
I reverted these changes by "Donetsk". They are not improvements. Why the key phrase about the russification was removed? Claim that Russian language remains main language in business today is not supported by the source published in 2008. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's typical for Russian chauvinists to twist history this way merely to justify their aggression, addressed to their neighboring nations. They'd gladly rewrite the whole history, just like in Orwell's "1984". I'd suggest to block this user for this gross POV-pushing.--Piramidion20:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but this is Wikipedia, not the Ukraine's (or Russian's) TV propaganda. There was no independent stated called Ukraine in the 16th century, there was the Zoporozhian Sich, and the lands on which Odessa and Donetsk were built were not a part on it - historical facts!
Does it mean Russia has the right to invade Ukraine and take these lands? I personally don't think so. However, it's irrelevant to the part of this article talking about history. DonetskAndBack (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact, proved by the Russian census of 1897, that in the 19th century the majority of the population in the territories of Novorossiya spoke or at least considered Ukrainian (which was called "Little Russian" at that time) as their mother tongue. In the Yekaterinoslav Governorate (which included Lugansk and the city that is now called Donetsk), 68 percent of the inhabitants did declare "Little Russian" to be their native language. In every of this governorate's uyezds there was a majority of Ukrainian-speakers or at least there were more of them than speakers of Great Russian. While the Russian language dominated in the big cities at those times, the Ukrainian language did dominate in rural areas. The map that I will link here does show which Russian governorates had a high decree of Ukrainian speakers in 1897. --Universal-Interessierterde (talk (de)) 00:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone mentioned here the formulation of "what is now Ukraine..." in regards to mentioning Russian settlement in certain areas, and I fully agree with this suggestion - in case it was not followed in the overwhelming majority of the article, and for the sake of NPOV it should.
Examples!
"The 19th century saw a dramatic increase in the urban Russian population in Ukraine, as ethnic Russian settlers moved into and populated the newly industrialized and growing towns. This phenomenon helped turn Ukraine's most important towns into Russophone environments." - This is at best political propaganda, at worse an attempt to push POV - and here's why. This phrase presents it as if Russians immigrated into Ukraine, and "turned" Ukrainian towns into Roussophone environment; this is not accurate historically, as when Donetsk and Odessa were founded they were most certainly not founded in "Ukraine" (as it was not Ukraine there), and they weren't "turned" Russian but rather founded as such.
And that's why the term "what is now Ukraine" should be used, as what is Ukraine in the 16th century is a highly controversial debate. Most agree that the Cossack Hetmanate was Ukraine's predecessor, and that's fair enough; but the lands which are now Odessa, Donetsk, and Lugansk were not part of that state. They are undoubtedly Ukraine now, but they were not then. Therefore, "the territory that is now Ukraine..."
Another example! "Beginning in the late 18th century, large numbers of Russians settled in newly acquired lands in southern Ukraine" - It was not "southern Ukraine" back then though, was it? So once again, it should be "what is now southern Ukraine." DonetskAndBack (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look population census in Russian Empire in 1850, 1858, 1897, 1917, and USSR 1926 years.
Someone mentioned here the formulation of "what is now Ukraine..." in regards to mentioning Russian settlement in certain areas, and I fully agree with this suggestion - in case it was not followed in the overwhelming majority of the article, and for the sake of NPOV it should.
Examples!
"The 19th century saw a dramatic increase in the urban Russian population in Ukraine, as ethnic Russian settlers moved into and populated the newly industrialized and growing towns. This phenomenon helped turn Ukraine's most important towns into Russophone environments." - This is at best political propaganda, at worse an attempt to push POV - and here's why. This phrase presents it as if Russians immigrated into Ukraine, and "turned" Ukrainian towns into Roussophone environment; this is not accurate historically, as when Donetsk and Odessa were founded they were most certainly not founded in "Ukraine" (as it was not Ukraine there), and they weren't "turned" Russian but rather founded as such.
And that's why the term "what is now Ukraine" should be used, as what is Ukraine in the 16th century is a highly controversial debate. Most agree that the Cossack Hetmanate was Ukraine's predecessor, and that's fair enough; but the lands which are now Odessa, Donetsk, and Lugansk were not part of that state. They are undoubtedly Ukraine now, but they were not then. Therefore, "the territory that is now Ukraine..."
Another example! "Beginning in the late 18th century, large numbers of Russians settled in newly acquired lands in southern Ukraine" - It was not "southern Ukraine" back then though, was it? So once again, it should be "what is now southern Ukraine." DonetskAndBack (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I can see a certain user insists on removing the information about the 1994 a referendum that took place in the Donetsk Oblast and the Luhansk Oblast, with around 90% supporting the Russian language gaining status of an official language alongside Ukrainian, and for the Russian language to be an official language on a regional level.
The 2001 census section talks about “Russian-speaking population,” and “Russophones,” when it’s actually referring to people who responded “Russian” to the question about native language (rodnoy yazyk or ridna mova). But this could mean language of one’s ethnicity, of their baba, of childhood, etc., and not necessarily preferred or even a spoken language.
It is important throughout the article to be clear on what is being referred to. The Ukrainian census did also have stats on language usage, but I can’t find anything except a good map (source). There are also polls that refer to language usage or proficiency, and not “native” language, and their results shouldn’t be confused with it when mentioned here. —MichaelZ. 2017-05-04 21:35 z
Agreed that there's a lot of WP:SYNTH in this article. I know that a lot of more detailed information has been dropped from the live site, so I'll scour archived captures for relevant material when I get the chance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty mush sure that in Ukraine vast majority speaks both ru: and uk:, and the choice of 'ridna mova' was cultural rather than "biological", whereas 'ethnicity' in the passport is allegedly "biological", although it is now recognized that it is a rather social construct as well. Also keep in mind that the simplistic construction of the questionnaire did not allow selection of two languages. Therefore it will be quite difficult to be "clear" in the article what is "being referred to". And unless proven otherwise I see no reason not to call a person "russophone" is ru: is their 'ridna mova'. I find it highly dubious that in 2001 a 'svidomy' ukrainian would declare 'ru' their 'ridna mova' unless it was 100% so. For comparison, in the United States, the questionnaire at my kids' school the question was "language spoken at home", with an obvious non-political purpose. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe it is best to refer explicitly to what was measured (e.g., self-declared native language, perhaps with an explanation of the native terminology), and not reinterpret with labels that could mean something else (Russophone).
Doing otherwise risks reinforcing common stereotypes, like maps and articles about a “physical line” between Ukrainophones and Russophones, which in reality is an imperceptible border between 49.9% and 50.0% of the first choice among people who 95% communicate in two languages. —MichaelZ. 2017-05-05 00:29 z
How did the Russian language come to exist in Ukraine
Now one reads the following: "Although the ancestors of a small ethnic group of Russians – Goriuns resided in the Putyvl region (in present-day northern Ukraine) in the times of Grand Duchy of Lithuania or perhaps even earlier, the Russian language in Ukraine has primarily come to exist in that country through two channels: through the migration of ethnic Russians into Ukraine and through the adoption of the Russian language by Ukrainians". There may be a syntax error in the sentence ("Although the ancestors...") and the statement "Russian language in Ukraine has primarily come to exist ... through ... migration ... adoption" is not supported by reliable sources. I've added the tag "citation needed". Plus, that statement seems to contradict what one reads in the preceding paragraph: "No definitive geographical border separated people speaking Russian and those speaking Ukrainian – rather gradual shifts in vocabulary and pronunciation marked the areas between the historical cores of the languages". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A version of the image to the right has been in the article for at least a decade. It was originally uploaded to Commons by Russianname on 13 April 2007, as own work sourced to p13 of a survey. The numbers on the image correspond to those in table 13 on p13 of the source. The original image can be seen here.
On 12 June 2012, Kostja2 uploaded a new version of the image with the note "Correct map to conform to source". I cannot see where these higher numbers come from in the source. I can't read Ukrainian so perhaps I'm missing something. Given the sensitivity of the issue, the sourcing of any image shown needs to be clear and straightforward. — Jts1882 | talk11:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the article and haven't found the source for the new numbers. I think we should restore the original version. It would be even better to create a new one based on newer surveys as the data in the current graph is almost 20 years old. Alaexis¿question?17:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is extremely outdated, especially following the start of the Russian invasion. It relies heavily on statistics such as polls from the early 2000s, and the 2001 census - attitudes and percentages have changed considerably ever since. This is just a suggestion, I think it should be updated, especially statistics of languages spoken at home, and media on TV/the radio. P0tato112 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
![[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_Hetmanate#/media/File:Location_of_Cossack_Hetmanate.png){kind=link}
