This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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! |
The quality is awful, can't someone make some good .pngs? -- Kuban Cossack 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
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!-- tufkaa 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- Irpen 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about removing the misleading statement about the status of Russian language in Ukraine from the article altogether ? -- Lysy talk 13:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Kuban Cossack, what do you think ? -- Lysy talk 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Lysy talk 04:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, as nobody seriously objects it, I'm going to remove the misleading sentence. -- Lysy talk 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Lysy talk 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Irpen 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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 ? -- Lysy talk 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
See above. -- Irpen 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are the poll results different from the census ? Was different methodology used ? -- Lysy talk 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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 ? -- Lysy talk 07:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Lysy talk 13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Irpen 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that the "Public opinion" foundation is Russian ? -- Lysy talk 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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". -- Lysy talk 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This makes more sense to me now. -- Lysy talk 14:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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?-- AndriyK 16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If the photo was taken by you, you are not permitted to use it in WP articles. Please read WP:NOR carefully.
One more concern: Did the lady on the photo permitted to use her immage in WP?-- AndriyK 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 15:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
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.-- Hillock65 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I had to clean away info that is irrelevant to the topic. We do not discuss "linguistic situation" in the Ukraine here. -- Russianname 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Cossack 13:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- MaksKhomenko 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a recorded fact that it was suppressed and almost did die out. Your refusal to see it shows it is impossible for you to be neutral about this. MarikaYkrainka ( talk) 11:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
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. -- Lysy talk 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
“ | 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.-- AndriyK 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Matvienkov did not ask for the intepreter [6], although he had this option.-- AndriyK 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 00:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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?--
AndriyK 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as nobody answers, I remove this paragraf from the article as it does not comply with WP:NOR.-- AndriyK 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 02:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I find the following phrase very dubious:
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.-- AndriyK 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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"?-- AndriyK 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as nobody answers, I'll move the dubious section to the talk. Let's clarify all the points.-- AndriyK 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we to rely upon Moskovskiy komsomolets on the situation in Ukraine? The article itself is written with some degree of racism anyway. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 05:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
I do not understand why did you mived ou 4 passages about bans of the Russian language. -- Russianname 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Explain this or clean it away. -- Russianname 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I corrected introduction to reflect the most valuable facts, which are:
Please speak up if something is wrong. Thanks, Novelbank 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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, -- Irpen 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
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 131.247.19.186 12:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.-- Hillock65 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I am removing this RFC from the list of RFCs. If it is still active then please resubmit. --
Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you cannot find any excuses to tag the article (except different tales from history), we must remove the tag - Russianname 09:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have heard this from a friend, but can't find a sollid reference for it (for now). Is it true? — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Calls for broadcasts to be allowed in Russian without dubbing. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Because
a) it is too large for this article
b) there is no valid speakers-per-region data, I have checked the links
c) because of (b) there's no sense to have school-language-per-region data
The information about the word авто is wrong in that the article assumes that ukrainian google only shows ukrainian pages. http://www.google.com.ua/search?source=ig&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&q=lvfw&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BA+Google&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=#q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&tbas=0&tbs=lr:lang_1uk&prmd=ivl&source=lnt&lr=lang_uk&sa=X&ei=xor2TNHAO8jrsgaak-TZBA&ved=0CAsQpwU&fp=34d66d2806877bec 14,700,000 results for авто on Ukrainian language pages
http://www.google.com.ua/search?source=ig&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&q=lvfw&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BA+Google&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=#q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&tbas=0&tbs=ctr:countryUA&prmd=ivl&source=lnt&cr=countryUA&sa=X&ei=bo32TJTyBdKEswaL1ZXWBA&ved=0CAwQpwU&fp=34d66d2806877bec 17,200,000 results for авто on Ukrainian pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.180.211 ( talk) 18:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Wikardo 05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
... 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)
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)
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)
Gogole left Ukraine. Xx234 ( talk) 10:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's obvious that Kievan Rus' means Rus' (region), please write it somewhere. Xx234 ( talk) 13:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Surzhyk isn't linked in the article even if the subject has been discussed since ages. Compare ru:Русский язык на Украине 5 Лингвистические особенности русского языка на Украине. Xx234 ( talk) 08:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The Russian-Austrian border separated something. Xx234 ( talk) 08:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
Russians were not "immigrating" to Ukraine in the 19th century, but rather migrating to other Russian lands, like Novorossiya (that only became Ukraine under the USSR). DonetskAndBack ( talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
and
Look on North of Black Sea shore. North at the bottom of the map . -- Yasnodark ( talk) 16:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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. — Michael Z. 2017-05-04 21:35 z
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)
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)
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 | talk 11:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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! |
The quality is awful, can't someone make some good .pngs? -- Kuban Cossack 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
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!-- tufkaa 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- Irpen 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about removing the misleading statement about the status of Russian language in Ukraine from the article altogether ? -- Lysy talk 13:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Kuban Cossack, what do you think ? -- Lysy talk 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Lysy talk 04:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, as nobody seriously objects it, I'm going to remove the misleading sentence. -- Lysy talk 21:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Lysy talk 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Irpen 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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 ? -- Lysy talk 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
See above. -- Irpen 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are the poll results different from the census ? Was different methodology used ? -- Lysy talk 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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 ? -- Lysy talk 07:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Lysy talk 13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Irpen 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that the "Public opinion" foundation is Russian ? -- Lysy talk 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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". -- Lysy talk 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This makes more sense to me now. -- Lysy talk 14:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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?-- AndriyK 16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If the photo was taken by you, you are not permitted to use it in WP articles. Please read WP:NOR carefully.
One more concern: Did the lady on the photo permitted to use her immage in WP?-- AndriyK 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 15:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
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.-- Hillock65 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I had to clean away info that is irrelevant to the topic. We do not discuss "linguistic situation" in the Ukraine here. -- Russianname 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
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 Cossack 13:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- MaksKhomenko 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a recorded fact that it was suppressed and almost did die out. Your refusal to see it shows it is impossible for you to be neutral about this. MarikaYkrainka ( talk) 11:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
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. -- Lysy talk 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
“ | 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.-- AndriyK 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Matvienkov did not ask for the intepreter [6], although he had this option.-- AndriyK 18:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 00:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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?--
AndriyK 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as nobody answers, I remove this paragraf from the article as it does not comply with WP:NOR.-- AndriyK 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 02:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I find the following phrase very dubious:
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.-- AndriyK 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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"?-- AndriyK 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, as far as nobody answers, I'll move the dubious section to the talk. Let's clarify all the points.-- AndriyK 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we to rely upon Moskovskiy komsomolets on the situation in Ukraine? The article itself is written with some degree of racism anyway. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 05:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
I do not understand why did you mived ou 4 passages about bans of the Russian language. -- Russianname 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Explain this or clean it away. -- Russianname 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I corrected introduction to reflect the most valuable facts, which are:
Please speak up if something is wrong. Thanks, Novelbank 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Hillock65 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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, -- Irpen 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
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 131.247.19.186 12:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.-- Hillock65 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I am removing this RFC from the list of RFCs. If it is still active then please resubmit. --
Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you cannot find any excuses to tag the article (except different tales from history), we must remove the tag - Russianname 09:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have heard this from a friend, but can't find a sollid reference for it (for now). Is it true? — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Calls for broadcasts to be allowed in Russian without dubbing. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Because
a) it is too large for this article
b) there is no valid speakers-per-region data, I have checked the links
c) because of (b) there's no sense to have school-language-per-region data
The information about the word авто is wrong in that the article assumes that ukrainian google only shows ukrainian pages. http://www.google.com.ua/search?source=ig&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&q=lvfw&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BA+Google&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=#q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&tbas=0&tbs=lr:lang_1uk&prmd=ivl&source=lnt&lr=lang_uk&sa=X&ei=xor2TNHAO8jrsgaak-TZBA&ved=0CAsQpwU&fp=34d66d2806877bec 14,700,000 results for авто on Ukrainian language pages
http://www.google.com.ua/search?source=ig&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&q=lvfw&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BA+Google&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=#q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&tbas=0&tbs=ctr:countryUA&prmd=ivl&source=lnt&cr=countryUA&sa=X&ei=bo32TJTyBdKEswaL1ZXWBA&ved=0CAwQpwU&fp=34d66d2806877bec 17,200,000 results for авто on Ukrainian pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.180.211 ( talk) 18:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Wikardo 05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
... 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)
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)
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)
Gogole left Ukraine. Xx234 ( talk) 10:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's obvious that Kievan Rus' means Rus' (region), please write it somewhere. Xx234 ( talk) 13:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Surzhyk isn't linked in the article even if the subject has been discussed since ages. Compare ru:Русский язык на Украине 5 Лингвистические особенности русского языка на Украине. Xx234 ( talk) 08:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The Russian-Austrian border separated something. Xx234 ( talk) 08:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
Russians were not "immigrating" to Ukraine in the 19th century, but rather migrating to other Russian lands, like Novorossiya (that only became Ukraine under the USSR). DonetskAndBack ( talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
and
Look on North of Black Sea shore. North at the bottom of the map . -- Yasnodark ( talk) 16:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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. — Michael Z. 2017-05-04 21:35 z
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)
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)
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 | talk 11:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
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)