Talk:Lithuanian press ban

Russian Empire stance on other languages

It appears that the Lithuanian press ban was not unique (see Russification#Poland_and_Lithuania); Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish languages shared a similar fate - which should be noted in the article, and a comparison of to what extent other languages (Belorussian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc.) were similarly persecuted should be added.

This source mentions persecution of Ukrainian language, although this source gives the date of a ban for 1876; this gives the date for bans as 1870s). They probably refer to Ems Ukaz. This and this however mention restriction after the Polish uprising of 1863 (lifted in 1905).

This and this note that Belarussian was also banned specifically after the January Uprising (1863).

This mentions bans on Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

This source mentions restrictions on Polish language after 1863; a ban was proposed, ban on religious use "in late 19th century" mentioned here.

I particularly wonder if we can say that all four of those languages shared a similar fate (ban), or were there notable differences in their persecution? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There were 2 bans on Ukrainian The first was the Valuyev circular in 1863 and the 2nd the Ems Ukaz in 1876.

The Valuyev circular happened as a result of the Polish uprising. Up until 63 Polish was the language spoken on the streets of Kyiv. It was replaced by Russian. Bandurist (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Valuyev circular? Thanks, I was unaware of that. Very interesting! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was invited to comment on this (presumably on the Belarusian side of the matter), but right now I'm not able to do so (without my books, like). What I may recall right now is (storyline incomplete!): the Belarusian printing in Latin (Polish) script was banned in 1859; Belarusian printing was alltogether banned in 1867, and permitted — for ethnographical use only — in 1869. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One important difference should not be forgotten, that the abovementioned Slavic languages share more or less similarities to the Russian, hence the Cyrilic alphabet could be adopted by them with a larger success, compared to the Baltic Lithuanian that never used cirylic to write in its own language and it appeared unsuitable and totally unappropriate whatsoever.Iulius (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic was not used for Polish. Which reminded me - although this is probably OT - of łacinka.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the kicks, I'll remind that actually, Cyrillic was used for Polish — in the practice of printing prayer-books in the Polish language but with Cyrillic letters, which started in Belarus at least as early as 1941, in Minsk, under the German occupation. The initiators were Polish-minded Catholic priests seeking to facilitate their parish expansion. Interestingly, this initiated sort of competition and Belarusian translations of prayer-books were published, by Belarusian-minded Catholic priests (Turonek. Belarusian book under German control, 2002). The practice continued well into 1990s, however, now it seems to be confined to the rural districts. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus you are incorrect, Polish wikipedia gives a sourced info in article about Cyrilic that Russian Tsar plotted to have Polish language eradicated by introducing a modified cyrilic alphabet to help with russification of conquered territories, happy for us he was arogant enough to believe he can do it himself and never finished the project[1].--Molobo (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-GA Review Comments

Per the request on my talk page, here are the things that I would pick on if I were to do a GA review of the article right now:

• There are a lot of images in this article and they tend to cramp the text. I would suggest removing the "Mikhail Nikolayevich Muravyov's edict..." image from the Origins and legal basis section and the "Due to mistake of censors..." image from the Effect on education section. If the latter is kept, some discussion about what it represents should be inserted in the text - right now nothing about mistakes by censors or anything else really related to the image is discussed in the text, making it something of a non sequitor.
• Make sure all your web references (even if they're journal articles accessed through the web) have access dates.
• Ref 12 should have the title formatted as the link, and does not need the Wikipedia link in the title - it simply makes things confusing.
• Ref 18 needs to be properly formatted.
• I added a few fact tags in places that need references.
• In the last paragraph of the Enforcement section you give the numbers of people arrested in connection with this ban. Do you have any examples of typical punishments, or how many of these people were convicted after their arrests?

I hope these comments help you on your quest to GA. Overall the article looks really nice, and the issues above are fairly minor. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I'm not watching this page, so please drop a note on my talk page if you reply here. Dana boomer (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Images reduced so far 1; 2. M.K. (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 18 not working
• Ref 12 fixed
• Access dates updated. M.K. (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lithuanian press ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927162352/http://www.lfpr.lt/uploads/File/1999-4/Gudavicius.pdf to http://www.lfpr.lt/uploads/File/1999-4/Gudavicius.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)