Talk:Ukrainian language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

History & Current usage

These sections need a serious correction since they are inacurate and incomplete. --AlexPU 16:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Alex, through the Wikipedia practice, it is required to expess explicitly what do you think to be wrong with the article before labeling it as "disputed".

However, I guess, that you mean that Ukrainian language was forbidden in the USSR and was not used in the Ukrainian SSR. It's definitely wrong. I haven't experienced any problems buying a literature (starting from magazines for kids) in Ukrainian in the eighties. There were newspapers and TV programs in Ukrainian language either. Therefore Monedula is right, and you are not, it's that simple :-). I don't see your point here. By the way, distance between Yaroslavl and Kiev (Ukraine) is shorter than between Yaroslavl and Tyumen or Yekaterinburg (Siberia). For others to understand our discussion, I would like to cite some of Monedula's talk page below. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 13:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey, Monedula!

Would you please stop your post-imperial propaganda in the articles related to Ukraine. If you can documentally prove that Ukrainian was "being used" in USSR in the fields you specify - so do it on the page, cite. And even if you do - your anyway would be lying or misinformed because Sovdepia was purely Byzantine system of lying, hiding and falsing. I was born in 1977 and never seen such usage. AlexPU 15:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So your parents have never watched the Ukrainian TV ("the republican program")? And have never bought any Ukrainian-language books? — Monedula 05:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not Monedula, but I don't understand what you are talking about. Which fields do you mean? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Monedula. My parents even had a Czech books and a Latin vocabulary. Bui it noway means that these languages were "used" in Ukraine like you edited (consistently deleting previous more neutral points). Anyway, how dare you (living in Yaroslavl) to be an undisputable expert regarding Ukraine? To delete and write just "it is ridiculous"? Am I disputing the items of local revolutionary events in your city? Or Siberian history? Again, you're a shameless nationalistic vandal.

To DrBug. To find out what I'm talking about, see this guy's editing manner in Ukrainian language (he deletes the same unbiased points by different authors without any explanation, just adding something like "this is ridiculous"). Particularly answering your question, this "Wikipedian" doesn't accept consistent remarks on that page stating that Ukrainian was not used in all, or in many spheres of social life (see the editing history for Ukrainian language) And please note: we're not talking about deletion of my particular contributions. I'm just fighting for neutrality. He`s just a vandal. AlexPU 12:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I will refrain from describing people, some facts need to be affirmed here about contributions. I take issue with calling the Monedula contributions as nationalistic, they are, more precisely imperialistic and chauvanistic. This is how they vandalize the truth. I visited a major bookstore in downtown Kiev in the late 1980s, and all titles were in Russian except about 10, and of these ten, six or seven were on the theme of the 'bourguoiuse...Nazi-colloborating Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church', which was portrayed in the press at the time as 'not existing, except in the diseased mind of a Uniate priest.' The television was overwhelmingly dominated by Russian. I saw one Ukrainian program there, which was merely two speakers talking in a studio, the entire time. Either they had no other resources for Ukrainian programming, or didn't know how to use them. Let's eliminate the foreign chauvinism from the non-friendly neighbors, and document the repressive and manipulative language situation. Genyo 20:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still you do not deny that Ukrainian has been "used in education, print, radio and television programs throughout the Ukrainian SSR", do you? — Monedula 05:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You bet we deny. Not "throughout" (just in few oblast's) despite the fact that Ukrainians were in majority everywhere except Crimea, not in higher education except unpopular linguistic specializations (anywhere), not in "television" (poorly-financed Ukrainian TV channel had a narrowest territorial coverage in the republic). These are just some undisputable facts. And they prove you're poltically biased, Monedula. How often have you visited Soviet Ukraine? How many articles/books/reports concerning local ethnopolitics (reflecting any POV) have you read? So do we need to discuss further (which you are not ready to)? Or shall you stop vandalizing other people' contributions? AlexPU 15:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Despite I still don't see what's really wrong with the "throughout" word, I replaced it with probably more neutral "in", I hope it will make you happy! :-) Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You say "unpopular linguistic specializations"? So the study of Ukrainian language was unpopular? — Monedula 07:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, the career of school teacher of Ukrainian (as well as of Russian, math or any other discipline) was unpopular throughout Soviet Union - because it was underpaid and of low prestige. Everybody wanted to become engineers, physicists, lawyers or army officers. Strange things you ask, Monedula. You should know that well if you're Russian of at least 15 y.o. So how old are you? Have you finished secondary school? Does your mother know you're using Internet? Or may be you're not from Yaroslavl'? May be you are a second generation immigrant from Russia (having read few imperialistic books)? That explains your good English. Again, study a little before vandalizing pages. AlexPU

Dear Alex, Monedula definitely doesn't deserve a personal attack of this kind. Also, it seems that you don't know too much about the Soviet period of Ukraine in particular and the USSR in general, while Monedula exposes much knowledge. Therefore I suppose you're much younger than Monedula, expecially considering that you are so expressive. (Your hatred for the USSR and Russia looks to be irrational.) Please, be a bit more careful with the claims and assertions like these.

As for the facts, it's very interesting that you confirm equal (un)popularity of careers of the Ukrainian language teacher and of the Russian language teacher. Then, "Everybody wanted to become engineers, physicists, lawyers or army officers" is definitely wrong. It seems that Monedula is right, and you're not. I've checked Monedula's list of contributions, he has never vandalized any page. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 17:19, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2 Genyo AlexPU: At the Soviet universities and institutes, the biggest konkurs (ratio of the number of people desiring to study to the number of planned admissions) was exactly for "humanitarian" specialities (languages and history), not for engineering or physics.  And more specifically, such speciality as the "Russian language and literature" was very popular (at the MGU, for instance, the konkurs was 10:1). — Monedula 14:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dr Bug, alias "volodymyr" formerly representing oneself as "Vladimir." Please decide who you are. And kindly refrain from lectures on proper conduct here. You should know better than to delete information with a mere jingoism. Back up your sloppy inaccurate labels with facts before you delete information. Your vandalism of the linguistic facts has been repaired. Genyo 00:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see your points here. I am who I am.

Then, the burden of proof is on those who inserts information that is not commonly accepted, i.e. on you. I will persist removing invented theories if they are not attributed properly. Your recent changes will be reworked.

I always study several independent sources. In Soviet times, I trusted neither Soviet radio nor BBC, digging out the truth comparing them. And I'd recommend you not to rely on the biased nationalistic POV, but study the independent sources.

(Now listening: "Нохчийчоь" (Chechnya) song in Chechen language.)

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 09:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Monedula (et. al.) Thank you for your entry to me. I'd be interested in hearing more about how your assertion of interest in (the acccurate English term is) "Humanities" in the Soviet Union and Soviet Ukraine relates to the language situation. I look forward to continued dialogue. Genyo 16:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So AlexPU say that the study of Ukrainian language was unpopular.  And I know well that the linguistic study of Russian language was very popular (at least among Russians).  So perhaps the problem was not with the Soviet "oppression", but with the general lack of interest toward the Ukrainian language among Ukrainians themselves. — Monedula 06:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Added NPOV template following persistent and brutal propaganda provided by Monedula. Everyone seriously citing Soviet constitution or CPSU statements as a regulation source (see editing history) is either deeply undereducated person or a shameless propagandist. Such propaganda is designed for naive Westerners who believe that every government in the world fulfills its constitution. In reality, the Soviet constitution was written mostly for the West and has never been really applied to practice. Actually, thousands of Soviets were executed or imprisoned just for saying aloud that their constitutional rights are abused.

I`m loosing hope to achieve neutrality in this encyclopedia. Readers of this article, prove that I`m wrong - combat Monedula and his advocates. AlexPU

You take an extremely one-sided view that "under Soviets, everything was bad".  In reality, things were more varied than that. — Monedula 05:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we know... Stalinist constitution of Soviet Union was very nice. According to this paper Soviet Union was democratic country with freedom of religion, trade unions, freedom of gatherings. Lagers were just normal turistc courorts (brother of my grandfather - who almost died in Siberia like majority of his friends - was just a turist of course), there was no forcible collectivisation and 100 milion people who were killed by communists between 1917-1956 are barely effect of propaganda.Yeti 12:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't mix everything up.  Stalin era is one thing.  Brezhnev era is something quite different.  And remember that collectivisation and arrests of "enemies of the people" was a proclaimed policy in USSR (not very Byzantine here...). — Monedula 13:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

During the time of the incorporation of Ruthenia (Ukraine and Belarus) into the Polish Commonwealth, Ukrainian (Rus'ian) and Belarusian diverged into identifiably separate languages.

It seems to be a controversial thesis. What about border between Belarusian and Ukrainian, which has nothing to do with border between the Crown and Lithuania after after incorporation of Ruthenia to Poland? The linguistic border runs about 100-150 kilometers north of the political border. For example northern part of Podlachia was settled by Ruthenians between 10th and 13th centuries. If Belarusian and Ukrainian diverged after 16th century, this area should be linguistically Belarusian, but in fact is clearly Ukrainian. According to me the only possible explanation is that clear differences between "Belarusian" and "Ukrainian" existed already at the time of settlement of this area, before 13th century.Yeti 13:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeti, can you find a different explanation in history, say, in Belarusian histories? I'd be interested! Genyo 02:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Further discussions on history

Alex, there are some outrageous recent edits. I'll be refuting them with facts soon. Genyo 02:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So far, I see no facts, but only the ardent desire to be the victim.  The Stalin's repressions, however bad, had nothing to do with the Ukrainian (or any other) language. — Monedula 07:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As the article documents, special repressions in Ukraine began several years before they were instituted in other parts of the Soviet Union. Ukrainians were 20% of the population of the Soviet empire, and 40% of the gulag. Genyo 17:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lies.  Where did you get such nonsense?  Next you will tell us that the Chernobyl accident was organized by evil Russian imperialists in order to hurt Ukraine.  At least you could mention that it was exactly the October Revolution and the Lenin's vision of national relations that brought about the Ukrainian statehood. — Monedula 18:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Monedula, please keep me out of your fantasies. The Soviets recognized an independent Ukraine and then invaded it. Let's hear more about your fantasy of Lenin bringing about Ukrainian statehood. Genyo 18:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(1) First of all, Lenin has brought down the Russian Empire.  You did not know that?  With the Russian Empire alive, there could be no hope for a Ukrainian state.  (2) You are always talking about Soviet Union.  What about the Ukrainian territories incorporated into Poland in 1921-1939?  What was the fate of Ukrainian language there?  If there were any Ukrainian-language schools, for instance? — Monedula 06:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poland had to recognize treaty about rights of minorities, part of Versaille Agreement. Ukrainians had full minority rights, what means: Ukrainian public schoos (2996 Ukrainian and further 89 bilingual in 1922/23. Further 37 were privat ones), ukrainian political parties and organizations, some of them openly hostile towards Polish state (in Polish Sejm deputees from Ukrainian parties constituted about 12 percent in 1928, many others were members of mainstream parties), Ukrainian press (855 newspapers and periodics in total). We have to add normal rights of citizens, which were entirely deprived citizens of Soviet Union.

Political rights were to some extend supressed after 1930, but it was an effect of general policy of Sanacja towards political opposition. To summarize: Ukrainians in pre-war Poland had more national and much more citizen rights than in Soviet Union, even if there was no Ukrainian official national territory and despite often extremally stupid policy of Sanacja authorities towards them.Yeti 10:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Monedulla: "constitution of Soviet Union"? "Lenin father of Ukrainian state"? I hope it is a stupid joke. Suppose that, you know very well that in Soviet constitution were lots of beautiful things that had nothing to do with reality (for example freedeom of thought and freedom of religion) and that self-determination of nations according to bolshevik interpretation was "self-determination" of "consciouss" part of society, what means subordinated to Lenin communists.Yeti 10:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still it is true that the downfall of Imperial Russia was the beginning of the modern Ukrainian state (just as it was the beginning of the modern states of Poland and Finland).

And as to the rights of citizens, stalinist repressions and the like: nobody denies that there were so many bad things in the USSR.  What I deny is that the repressions, famine etc were intentionally targeted on Ukraine and Ukrainian language.  It was political struggle, not national.  I cannot conceive of a Russian who would want to hurt Ukraine. — Monedula 06:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeti, there is a quote from a contemparaneous Russian Soviet journal which stated that the goal of the famine was to break the backbone of the Ukrainian nation. The borders of Ukraine were sealed, and wheat was exported by the Russian Soviets. The famine was largely limited to Ukraine and adjoining areas were Ukrainian settlement was prominent.

Genyo 14:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but remember that area inhabited by Ukrainians cover largery with the most fertile areas of former Soviet Union, where class of middle farmers was strongest. As far as I know the objective of famine was to destroy this class (which was numerous and usually antisoviet) and colectivisation.Yeti 19:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True, but how do you interpret the media quote I gave, and the fact that Ukraine was attacked earlier than other Soviet regions, and that Ukrainian nationalism was the first problem of the USSR? Genyo 02:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalism never was a big issue in the USSR.  In 1970s and 1980s, for instance, one would hear so much about nationalism in the Baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), but nobody has ever talked about Ukrainian nationalism. — Monedula 06:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Monedula, some facts from Ukraine: A History. by Orest Subtelny, University of Toronto Press.

liquidation of Ukrainian peasants included 1,000,000 souls in the drive against the kulaks. of these 850,000 were exiled not to other parts of Ukraine, but to Russia. p410

The first FYP targeted 20% of jouseholds to collectivize--in Ukraine, 30%.

Much of Russia barely expeienced the famine of 1932-33. Ukraine provided 27% of the grain harves and 38% of quotas. p 415

A leading Communist paper in Ukraine noted in 1930 that collectivization in Ukraine was "to destroy the social basis of Ukrainian nationalism--individually owned peasant agriculture." p416

Stalin's spokesman in 1933 said that nationalism was Ukraine's most serious problem. p418.

(2 Genyo) So you have read one book and now you believe that you know everything.

xxx talking about me is little off topic. . .I didn't give a number for the books Iread, but actually, it's more than two!

You find it strange that Ukrainians kulaks were exiled to Russia and not to Ukraine?  In fact, most kulaks were exiled to Siberia.  And Stalin could find no place like Siberia in Ukraine...

xxx thank you for evidencing that the Russian were imprisioned in their own nation, the Ukrainians in another. The gulag had many locations inside Ukraine.

Dear User:Genyo, I understand that you don't wish to read another book, but may I dare ask you to read at least the Gulag#Geography section? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And you think that Ukrainian nationalism was the most dangerous for the Soviet empire?  Read about the Basmachi revolt, which caused much more worries for Bolsheviks.  In reality, Ukraine was the most loyal Soviet republic, and in no way the most problematic, as you are alleging.

xxx the Basmachi sound like a people of some virtue! Slava! I wonder if their representation in the Gulag was 2x that in their population (As for the Ukrainians)? To read more about this, see Natal(Anatoly) Shcharansky's memoirs).

As for Stalin spokesmen: they were too keen to find more "enemies of the people", so they easily invented nationalism, cosmopolitism, foreign spies, fascist conspiracies and the like.  Do not take their speeches too seriously.

xxx OK, but they invented them more in Ukraine than elsewhere.

1. Who are "they"? Maybe History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia_and_Soviet_Union#Jews_and_Bolshevism? Or maybe List_of_Georgians#Leaders_.26_Politicians? Or even maybe List_of_Ukrainians#Politicians?
2. Please refer to Joseph_Stalin#Deportations. These people suffered more than Ukrainians.

However, I have no illusions to explain you anything :-(. No any response required. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And now, while Ukrainian nationalists say that the Soviet regime was anti-Ukrainian, Russian nationalists say that it was anti-Russian, Jewish nationalists say that it was anti-Semitic, Estonian nationalists say that it was anti-Estonian etc etc.  And everybody can find their own compelling arguments.  So what?

xx different people find different arguments compelling--the key is back them up with facts, as I have done--you're welcome, Monedula, to provide your own

xxx Genyo 20:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

— Monedula 17:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(2 Genyo) What about the massive expulsion of Russian professors in 1922?  And the bloody crushing of Antonov revolt in 1920-1921 in Tambov and Voronezh regions (with use of chemical weapons against Russian peasants)?  So Ukraine was not the first to be oppresed, but rather the last. — Monedula 07:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Monedula: Thank you for sharing. Strictly speaking, the "Antonov revolt" was part of the civil war, as opposed to governmental oppression in peace-time. I believe Antonov had some Ukrainian heritage, and they used a hyphenated form of his last name (Antonov-Ovsiyenko) during the Bolshevik Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I'm delighted to see he served freedom later.

Certainly the Russian Bolshevik state oppressed it's own people first; the oppression of 14 or so other nations generally came later (to be fair, these 14 are only the major ones--we shouldn't slight the others). This later step constituted inter-nation oppression and crime, though. And, overtime a certain inequality developed to the relative advantage of the first nation to be oppressed at the expense of the others. The Soviet system came to serve a "dictatorship of the lower class," and Russian imperialism, too.

This is not an exhaustive description of the situation, just some major trends. Genyo 23:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems that you got some confusion with different persons named Antonov.  The Antonov uprising was led by Alexander Antonov.  But Vladimir Antonov-Ovsiyenko was the person who crushed that uprising. — Monedula 08:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the education. Genyo 04:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, please, please. Let's talk linguistics now, OK? --i@k5 22:42, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

My understanding of the relationship between Russian and Ukranian is that one ought to be very careful with word choice and language context when asking for a match (to light a cigarette). Those who have ears to hear ... will laugh their heads off; but it raises a serious question of whether it is an indication of closeness, or divergence. I'm not certain, myself.

Surzhyk

Why doesn't this article mention surzhyk? As a matter of fact it's one of the very few (if not the only) pidgins in Europe. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:20, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Old Ruthenian language

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Old Ruthenian language whether to rename that page to Old Russian language or not. If a consensus to move the page is reached at Wikipedia:Requested moves, the page will be moved to the new location. Please take part in the ongoing discussion. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:03, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Russian Ukrainian Relationship

Does anyone have any comment on the following editorial?

"The relationships between Ukrainian and Russian have long been a subject of especially hot controversies.  The summary of those controversies is that Ukrainians tend to say that these two languages are quite different, whereas Russians tend to say that they are quite similar." Genyo 02:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A sweeping generalization about a very complex, sensitive topic. Don't know if this belongs in this article at all. Better to talk about how linguists describe the relationship of the languages (I know, I'm sure there's some controversy there, too). —Michael Z. 05:55, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

You may dislike it, but it's true! — Monedula 10:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you write that paragraph based on linguistics literature, or some survey of linguists or of the public, or just your own observation of Wikipedia conversations? I don't 'dislike' it, I'm just suspicious of an un-cited one-line summary of a "long, hot controversy". Even if it's true in some particular context, I don't think that generally attributing an opinion to an ethnic group is encyclopedic or even polite. —Michael Z. 18:25, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

NPOV notice

If there's no objection, I'll remove the NPOV notice from this article. —Michael Z. 17:49, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Never mind. —Michael Z. 16:27, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

This talk page has not been edited since January 16 and the last major edit to the article is also from that date so there seems to be little interest in fixing the perceived lack of NPOV with the article, perhaps it is time to remove the NPOV notice now? I don't think it was intended to be permanently embedded in any article. --Biekko 21:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Ukraine"

Phrase removed:

"Modern term for the country, Ukraine, is derived from the Russian word for border area, which had been used originally to denote "ukraines" in Karelia, Ural, and elsewhere."

First, it must be discussed in a single place, to avoid divergence, namely, in the Ukraine article. Second, I've never heard of "Karelia" called "Ukraina". I also never seen the usage in the plural form, kind of "ukrainy Rossii" or something like that. mikka (t) 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Bilingual"

"The country became truly bilingual as is most of its population."

Forgetting about past/present tense mismatch, what exactly this supposed to mean: most of persons of its population became bilingual as well? Also, wasn't ukraine bilingual within the USSR? AFAIK, it was far more bilingual than Belarus. mikka (t) 00:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be said better. I meant to say the following. Most of population was of course bilingual. As for the republic itself, it was not really, except for the western part. Elsewhere, Ukrainian was little, if at all, used meaningfully in most spheres of life. Even Ukrainian Communist Party congresses were in Russian in early 80s. Not to say there was no Ukrainian around of course. One could buy the books, papers, magazines and listen to it on the radio, for example. But most people who even used Ukrainian at home (they were bilingual) didn't use it at work or at schools (that is the republic wasn't bilingual). Feel free to modify this, if you think it could be said better. As for the tense mismatch, feel free to replace an en-2 by en-1 at my userpage. --Irpen 01:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

In view of what you've said the tense mismatch makes sense. How about "The state became truly bilingual as most of its population have already been." ? mikka (t) 01:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say the mismatch made sense. I was not being sarcastic in my en-2→en-1 remark. I corrected the grammar as per your suggestion. --Irpen 01:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Poster of 1921

Michael, thanks for your copyediting. Others, please help bring this to FAC. With grammar section rewritten, it should be ready. Now, re the poster. I think it is more than recruitment poster. It is also a Ukrainization poster. Mikkalai explained it well at Talk:Ukrainization#The_poster. So, should we make the caption say both? --Irpen 02:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)