Talk:Ukrainization

Abominable facts of forced Ukrainization

"городские власти Ивано-Франковска. Согласно изданному ими распоряжению отныне запрещено говорит на русском на всей территории учебных заведенный, не разрешается проводит массовые мероприятия на русском языке и даже расклеивать объявления на русском языке в общественных местах. Поручено также вести наблюдение за книготорговцами и распространителями периодических изданий на русском языке". [1] Russianname 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please translate it, because now it's not a fact. Currently if You want to discuss something also note yourself for don't collect here facts and link. This page is not a blog or board. --194.44.200.142 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What Russianname is trying to say is that the government of Ivano-Frankivsk prohibited the use of the Russian language in all schools, put out flyers in Russian in public areas, and organization of mass-public events in Russian as well. Also a supervision was enforsed upon the publishers of books and periodicals in Russian.

Well, that is all an empty fact, first of all, because it is; and second of all, because does not go into the details. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no Ukrainization! There is a total Russification. Russification is when Moscow was forcing Ukrainians to build Russian schools and speak Russians, descriminating Ukrainian speaking scientists, teachers, soldiers, etc. There was no such thing in relationship to Ukrainian language. Kyiv does not force Russians build Ukrainian schools and speak Ukrainian in Russian Duma. That is ridiculuos. There is no Ukrainization, but a cultural revival of Ukrainian culture. And in my opinion the government in Ukraine be it local or national is way too lenient towards forcing deRussiafication of the culture and even a mentality. The Russian language should be prohibited completely for a few years and then permitted again if necessary. That way nobody such as Russianname would call deRussification as the "forced" Ukrainization. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

This map should be included in the article, however, I'm not sure if it's allowed to add an image with non-english letters in english wikipedia? Also, I don't know who the main authors of the article are, so I'll leave it up to them to find a proper space for this image. Best regards --Sylius 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like nationality data has been turned into a linguistic map - a neat, if not fully accurate, trick. Jd2718 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused over Federal/Local

On what level (federal, regional (or I guess Oblast), or local) are decisions on what language is taught in schools made?

Ethnographic territories in the beginning of 1900s versus Today

I have some collection of international links to Ukrainian and European ethnographic maps. Maybe it will help to see the difference with the current state:

• Andrij Mendeluk. Ukrainian Ethnographic Border and Peculiarities of Its Forming (by Prof. V. О. Gerynovych) (Ukrainian)
• Dialect map of Ukrainian language (Ukrainian/English)
• Dialects of Ukrainian Language / Narzecza Jezyka Ukrainskiego by Wl.Kuraszkiewicz (Polish)
• Ukrainian ethnograhpic map 1949 by V.Kubijovyc-M.Kulyckyj (Ukrainian/English)
• Races of Europe 1942-1943 (English)
• Hammond's Racial map of Europe, 1919 (English) "National Alumni" 1920, vol.7
• Peoples of Europe / Die Voelker Europas 1914 (German). http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/verbreitung_der_deutschen.htm
• Ethnographic map of Europe 1914 (English)
• Linguistic Divisions of Europe in 1914 (German)
• Ethnic Territory of the Ukrainian people in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (English)
• Etnographical map of Slavs / Národopisná mapa Slovanstva, end of 19th beginning of 20th century (Czech) Slovanstvo. Praha 1912. (Příloha.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KKonstantin (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Transport Minister forbids foreign songs in Ukrainian trains and aircrafts

I came acros this article [2]. Is it worth mentioning in this article that Transport and Communication Minister Yosyp Vinskyi approved a plan that forbids foreign songs in Ukrainian trains and aircrafts? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian language in Donetsk

User:Mariah-Yulia has removed information placed in the article by another editor regarding the Donetsk City Council passing a resolution banning further use and expansion of Ukrainian in the predominantly Russian region. The information is sourced to Russia Today TV, and the reason for removal is that this source is bias. Please note, the removal whilst likely done in good faith was not done for a valid reason, in that Russia Today TV is a reliable source for matters concerning reporting of facts, and the media created by the station is used by many media outlets around the world. It seems that Mariah-Yulia doubts the validity of the information since, perhaps at first glance, no Ukrainan news agency has published this information. This is not how content on Wikipedia is deemed to be relevant for inclusion, for then one could doubt the entire validity of Holomodor, since Pravda or TASS never printed the same information. It turns out that others have reported said information, including the Ukrainian News Agency at this link. The information has been re-added as per the validity of Russia Today TV being a reliable source in the first place, and the existence of a (somewhat not needed at all) second source. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you name some of the "many media outlets around the world" which republished this story?

This one primary-source factoid reported by one news agency (sans byline), with no additional background, no information about reactions to it, and no indication of how or if it is being implemented is being used to draw broad implications about an undefined scope of "opposition to expansion of Ukrainian-language teaching" in an undefined area of "eastern regions closer to Russia". This is not balanced, informative, or insightful. We know there is a language debate in Ukraine, but isolated news bites is not an encyclopedic way to demonstrate its nature.

Have a look at Russian-Speaking Citizens of Ukraine: “Imaginary Society” as it is in Zerkalo Nedeli. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 15:42 z

By the way, Yekelchyk (2007) talks a bit about pre and post-Soviet language issues in the context of politics, regional divisions, and the people's reactions. Alas, my copy is loaned out at the moment, but I'll add the full reference to the article. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 16:35 z

Found some context: the city prosecutor declared the decision illegal, the mayor of Donetsk suspended it the next day, and the council reversed itself two days later: Donetsk City Council Cancels Resolution Restricting Use Of Ukrainian Language In Educational Establishments. I'm sure there's more to the story, but let's not rely on context-free breaking news items and similar primary sources. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 17:26 z

Unsourced claims in the lead

There was recent addon to the article lead [3] following several reverts removing sources requests [4] or returning unsourced claims to the lead [5] [6] [7] [8] . The reverts were given comments like "discouraging Russian is evidenced by the banning of Russian in various aspects, as they sources show; education-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Meeting_near_Russian_school.jpg", "Stick to what the sources say", or no comment were given. The disputed parts are "systematically discouraging Russian" and "which has been banned in various aspects of life" (in bold), for which no sources were given, and no sources provided contain a word about "systematically" or "in various aspects of life". Can somebody please have a look. --windyhead (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment on systematically but that seems like a strong statement and indeed needs to be supported by credible sources. As far as the ban goes, it is plainly not true. There is not a single document that bans Russian. It only gives preference to Ukrainian and establishes a quota of the laguage use. It is a well known practice in many countries. As such one can make equal claims of "ban" on Gagauzan, Hungarian and Crimean Tatar language in Ukraine or ban on English in Quebec (Canada), which is nonsense. As this is a hot political topic, there is a proliferation of one-sided sources; preference should be given to scholarly English language publications. --Hillock65 (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, now we have 2 more unexplained reverts. What the correct action should be? --windyhead (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

People removing source requests with comments like "see sources" and "there are sources already": instead of removing source requests again, please put a citation from source confirming statements for which sources are asked in place of source requests. --windyhead (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Windyhead

I've got a friend living in Ukraine And he told me that many radio stations were closed, same thing cinema's. Think about it. A live Russian radio program. How will you translate it to Ukrainian? Closed down. Afro-Russian (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources content policy and put the article content into accordance to it --windyhead (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Many radio stations closed and not a single website reported about it? If you don't hace Wikipedia:Reliable sources you shouldn't make strong accusations. Mabey these radio stations simple havn't got enough listeners and Party of Regions loves to scare there voters so they make up story's like that and tell them Party of Regions will save them. Find a friend in Lviv there is a chance he could be starting to tell you that Ukrainian radio stations are getting closed because of a Donesk conspiracy... There are to many people in Ukraine who are paranoid, I'm afraid your friend is one of them, no problem I've got friends like that too :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a third party and I've read the lead and the English sources. The BBC said it was a "ban" on Russian. I'd say the BBC is pretty reliable as a source. So it is clear at least that Russian has been banned from radio programs and TV. I also believe the source that explains the ban on movies is reliable. I can't comment on the ban of Russian in the education system and government as I can't read the Russian source. I believe statements regarding the ban of Russian in TV, radio, and movies should be included, it is well sourced. I think if there is such a huge resentment of the word "systematicaly" then the sentence should be rewritten without it. If the editors trying to include the statements about the ban on Russian are editting in good faith then one word should not matter to the point of edit warring. That word is not vital to the meaning of the sentence. What is vital is that Russian was banned, not that it was systematically banned.

As for "in various aspects of life," that exact expression does not need to be stated word-for-word in the source in order for it to be included. We are not machines, we're editors. We possess the ability and authority to regurgitate information in a way it was not precisely written as before. My point is, in order to determine if the source does validate "in various aspects of life," you need to do more than a search for that expression in your browser. Read the source and determine if it states that Russian is indeed being banned from use in multiple aspects of life. I think the supporters of inclusion could be helpful in this and explain more specifically why they believe "in various aspects of life" is supported by the source (what paragraph or line). AzureFury (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your opinion. Editors adding "in various aspects of life" please cite sources confirming this before adding it back to the article. --windyhead (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please don't remove ban "according to some" - there is no single law exist banning the russian, and even BBC source states that russian movies with ukrainian subtitles are OK --windyhead (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What I read said that radio and TV programs would face "severe penalties" if broadcast in Russian. I don't think that qualifies as "ok". AzureFury (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

and later: This will mean that Russian-language films or programmes will need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles. --windyhead (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected. Fair enough then. AzureFury (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an entire guideline dedicated to why we don't use terms such as "according to some". Read WP:weasel. Fix the paragraph properly if you have a problem with it. Krawndawg (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Only 11% of Ukrainians opposed to more films dubbed in Ukrainian

I found a realaible source [9] that states only 11% of Ukrainians opposed to more films dubbed in Ukrainian, Any objevtions to put that information in the lead? PS those Russia Today fellows realy give there true intensions away by forgetting to give that information in there article Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, by all means put it there. Right after the part about "bans" and dubbed films. It is a very important peace of information. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the poll ask how many of them want to ban Russian-language films? The poll is meaningless if not. Krawndawg (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no ban on Russian films. That's why the poll doesn't ask for it. Films are still shown in Russian, only now they have to be supplied with subtitles in Ukrainian, and that upsets only 11% of movie goers. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And that is including the major candidate to the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Army" :
  • "Ukrainization, although with less success, was implemented in the Army (School of Red Commanders in Kharkiv, newspaper of the Ukrainian Military Disctricr "Chervona Amriya" published until the mid-1930s, etc.)".<br> ''Encyclopedia of Ukrainian studies)'' cited above
  • "Ukrainization, although with less success, was implemented in the Army (School of Red Commanders in Kharkiv, newspaper of the Ukrainian Military District "Chervona Armiya" published until mid-1930s, etc.)". ''Encyclopedia of Ukrainian studies)'' cited above

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentence: "meaning Russian-language programmes should be subtitled in Ukrainian" should be in the lead!

I think the phrase meaning Russian-language programmes should be subtitled in Ukrainian (it was in there but Irpen took it out) does belong in the lead to show the Ukrainian government is not trying to "wipe out" Russian from TV. I.o.w. I think it is an important piece of information! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This information is already as you put it word for word in the article's text. But not every minute piece of detail belongs to the lead. Also, the lead does not say "wipe out", it says "squeeze out" and this is exactly what a requirement of subtitling or dubbing does as this is certainly onerous and unaffordable for small local cable providers. The details about subtitling and dubbing requirement belong to the main body but the lead should only briefly say on what these policies amount to. --Irpen 21:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the Russian language public universities in Ukraine?

What is the purpose of the Russian language public universities in Ukraine? I understand private universities who pay their taxes to the Ukrainian government. Why does Ukrainian government need to spend money to build the Russian speaking universities when even the Russian Federation cares less about except only spreading a bad word in that regard instead of investing into that issue? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of Ukrainians, if I am not mistaken, voted for the independent Ukraine with its own national culture and not an autonomous entity of the Russian Federation that is obligated to provide its Russian population with its special education system. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ukrainization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016144013/http://sdpuo.org.ua:80/faction/laws/laws-lang to http://www.sdpuo.org.ua/faction/laws/laws-lang/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502225224/http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2005/11/28/4896.htm to http://www2.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2005/11/28/4896.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Ukrainization. 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/20090108154958/http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Revolution_2004/UKL/photos.php?UKL302 to https://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Revolution_2004/UKL/photos.php?UKL302
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731193143/http://www.russiatoday.ru/features/news/27078 to http://www.russiatoday.ru/features/news/27078
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830191431/http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1997/079719.shtml to http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1997/079719.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060604050113/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/ivanyshynv/movnaz/index.html to http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/ivanyshynv/movnaz/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927031304/http://lib.dvgu.ru/maintext/menu/vist/Viktoriya/Rudnev.htm to http://lib.dvgu.ru/maintext/menu/vist/Viktoriya/Rudnev.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526094834/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/sxid/conference.doc to http://vesna.org.ua/txt/sxid/conference.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521190059/http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm to http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120918130005/http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/125348.html to http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/125348.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502142633/http://www.ombudsman.kiev.ua/de1_zm.htm to http://www.ombudsman.kiev.ua/de1_zm.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217114918/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/ie/show/596/53322/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/ie/show/596/53322/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217114918/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/596/53322/ to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/596/53322/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510134557/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/language/ to http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/language/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108122741/http://www.ombudsman.kiev.ua/d_06_3.htm to http://www.ombudsman.kiev.ua/d_06_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822002527/http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=414&issue_id=3737&article_id=2371110 to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=414&issue_id=3737&article_id=2371110
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229234413/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMvSDB9rvglC2L_HJzqnBA-xQUZw to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMvSDB9rvglC2L_HJzqnBA-xQUZw
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924084331/http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/21463 to http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/21463
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928151354/http://ura.dn.ua/archive/?%2F2006%2F03%2F04%2F~%2F389 to http://ura.dn.ua/archive/?%2F2006%2F03%2F04%2F~%2F389
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011084307/http://www.partyofregions.org.ua/contrprop/resonance/444f3980d4979/ to http://www.partyofregions.org.ua/contrprop/resonance/444f3980d4979/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090816094822/http://www.partyofregions.org.ua/pr-east-west/44857865032d4 to http://www.partyofregions.org.ua/pr-east-west/44857865032d4/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/06/03/officiallanguage.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619092502/http://5tv.com.ua/eng/newsline/179/0/26344/ to http://5tv.com.ua/eng/newsline/179/0/26344/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukraine-embassy.co.il/english/news/index.php?text=10675
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140825180712/http://tvi.ua/new/2014/08/24/poroshenko_poobicyav_scho_ukrayina_bilshe_nikoly_ne_svyatkuvatyme_23_lyutoho to http://tvi.ua/new/2014/08/24/poroshenko_poobicyav_scho_ukrayina_bilshe_nikoly_ne_svyatkuvatyme_23_lyutoho
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521190059/http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm to http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080813035156/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43512 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43512

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Improvements needed on neutrality and citing

This article is extremely biased and there are many opinions given. I've worked on the first few sections and I'll continue to work on them, but additionally if anyone else has more knowledge on this subject and wants to help find citations for any of the 'facts' given then by all means go ahead, this article has so few citations it looks like the school projects I wrote when I was 12. Thanks guys! Finnybug (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Magyarization

Well,

then I have to pinpoint here as well that in such form this addition is not supported, since it is confusing fo the reasons I raised:

Excluding Hungary, national/assimilation policies in the other countries mentioned have a relevantly different scope, since the subject's are Ukrainians without any debate in the Ukrainian historical regions, while regarding Hungary, the whole question is controversial, especially on such context and wording as this section is stating the things. In the Kingdom of Hungary, in the corresponding era, Rusyns/Ruthenians were the subject, who never called them or even regarded themselves Ukrainians then contemporarily - as many to also today. Thus even Hungarians did not know they would put "Ukrainians" as the subject of Magyarization and vica versa, moreover the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary were never part then or before any historical Ukrainian state or entity. Therefore also reffering to Western-Ukrainian territories are also misunderstandable, since i.e. Carpathian Ruthenia is only today part of Ukraine and may be called as a Western Ukrainian territory.Consequently, reffering to Magyarization to an era where the whole context is fallacious and confusing, and the conflict existing until today about the debate of origins or identification of the Rusyn People; that Ukraine/Ukrainians do not recognize them a spearate ethnicity should not be included or imported into anachronistic conditions.

The sentence that was anyway problematic should be rephrased, but if someone really stick to include Magyarization, then the necessary clarification needed (and an NPOV one, not "imperative" declarations that "they were Ukrainians, just they did not know about that" or any prejudicative standpoint. As well the term Ruthene is much broader, than Rusyn - however in Hungary the latter was definitively relevant - despite the official census counted Ruthenians, and it is heavily misleading to identify them Ukrainians just because of some possible nationalistic reasons back in time. Of course, this does not exclude the fact that later some of them accepted the Ukrainian identity, but we should not confuse modern times of some instances and retrospectiveley project in the past in an inproper way.

In case, if the sentence is properly rephrased reflecting the concerns written above and gains consensus, I won't have any objection to include Magyarization.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC))

Language policy (2012)

I think new language policy (2012 summer) is also important here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine --Nimelik (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Political correctness

The language in this article tries really hard to sound soft and politically correct. Discrimination and prejudice against Russians and Turkic population is downplayed when you compare it to the way Russification article is written. 46.143.90.13 (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Potential sources

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Since you are working on this article at the moment, as it is in pretty poor shape, I took a look at some potential books that could be used. Breaking the Tongue: Language, Education, and Power in Soviet Ukraine, 1923-1934 (2014) looks good for the early Soviet era. The Fate of the Bolshevik Revolution: Illiberal Liberation, 1917-41 (2020) also has a chapter on korenizatsiia. I will try to add from these books, but if you have access to them, then perhaps you could check them out if you are interested. I will see what else can be used for this article. Mellk (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk Thanks for the suggestion, I appreciate it. I'm not sure yet how much time and effort I'll dedicate to it; for now I'm just looking into the section that you flagged for possible original research, which seems to be a good call. The Britannica entry was entirely about political history and not culture and language, so I removed it. The Peredriyenko 2001 paper is very interesting and relevant for linguistics, but it says almost nothing about political history, never mentions 'Hetmanate', and only occassionally mentions 'Cossack' in a non-political context, e.g. Авторами й укладачами цих творів були переважно представники демократичної частини інтелігенції: студенти, писарі, духівництво, освічені козаки, міщани. ('The authors and compilers of these works were mainly representatives of the democratic intellectuals: students, clerks, and clergy, educated Cossacks, and burghers.')

I haven't yet checked the Snyder book, but by the looks of it, the section was WP:SYNTHed together by someone who saw an apparent link between the emergence of the Cossack Hetmanate and the standardisation of the Ruthenian / Chancery Slavonic / Old Ukrainian / simple language, whereas it seems that these things were rather independent developments that happened around the same time without necessarily being closely linked together. What we call "Ruthenian" arose as early as the 14th century and also arose in present-day Belarus and not just present-day Ukraine, while the Cossack Hetmanate did not really arise until 1648, and as far as I know the Hetmans were not particularly concerned with linguistics as a matter of government policy. That seems quite anachronistic.

The idea of a "national" standard language is mostly a 19th-century government-driven concept, and that's not really what we are seeing here. Some languages went through certain stages of standardisation before 1800 (and Ruthenian seems to be one of them), but not really because of political reasons, nor necessarily driven by political policy. In some northwestern European languages, for example, early modern standardisation was partly driven by the authorised vernacular translations of the Bible rather than some government-sponsored commission setting out rules for grammar, spelling and vocabulary. Peredriyenko 2001 argues that in Ukraine (and Belarus), the "simple language" was based on "Old Ukrainian business speech" (Вихідною стилістичною базою “простої мови” ХУІ – ХУІІІ ст. було, звичайно, староукраїнське ділове мовлення.), so economic conventions were supposedly the main driver rather than religious literary conventions or govt policies. NLeeuw (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Timothy David Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999 (2003), p. 116 [page 133 of PDF file]. This is probably a pirated version of the book, so we shouldn't use this URL as a source, but at least we can verify the claims for free.

Snyder's book doesn't really say what the wiki section says; it's almost the opposite: ... This leads to the misleading impression, in retrospect, that “Poland” and “Ukraine” were distinct in an era when they were joined in a single kingdom, and that “Poles” and “Ukrainians” were doomed to be enemies. The hetmanate used Polish currency, and Polish as a language of administration and even command. The negotiations of the mid-seventeenth century failed both sides, but the two parties understood each other. When the Commonwealth and the Cossacks negotiated, they did not need translators. The Cossack officers and the Polish nobility (groups that overlapped) shared one, two, or even three languages: Latin, Polish, and the vernacular Ruthenian (Ukrainian). When the Cossacks negotiated with the Muscovites, they used translators. Khmel’nyts’kyi had letters in Muscovite dialect translated into Latin, so that he could read them.[20]

I knew about that last bit, because this is always brought up by anyone narrating the history of Ukraine who discusses the 1654 Pereiaslav Agreement. They will point out that by 1654, the languages spoken by Cossacks ("Ukrainians") and Muscovites ("Russians") had diverged so much that they couldn't understand each other and needed translators / interpreters. I never knew, however, at which point that happened, and that Latin was the language used for translation from Muscovite to Ruthenian / Old Ukrainian.

More importantly, however, the Polish nobles and Cossack officers of the mid-17th century all wrote and spoke Polish, Latin, and many of them also Ruthenian / Old Ukrainian. Nothing in Snyder 2003 or Peredriyenko 2001 says anything along the lines of: A light Ukrainization started in as early as the 17th century, after the Cossack Hetmanate was created according to the Treaty of Zboriv in 1649. After a long period of Polonization, the Ukrainians started to earn more rights. Ukraine got its own government, army (although limited to 40000 soldiers), system and the Orthodox church was granted privileges. Practically, for a short period of time the Hetmanate functioned as an almost fully independent state. In 1654, the Cossack Hetmanate became a protectorate of the Russian Empire, which ended with its full absorption to the Russian Empire in 1764. During this period of time, the Ukrainian identity became much stronger than before. No one speaks of "a (light) Ukrainization", or "Ukrainians earning more rights" etc. and on identity, Snyder says almost the opposite. The only thing we might take from this is that the standardisation of Ruthenian / Chancery Slavonic / Old Ukrainian stimulated the divergence from Church Slavonic and the Muscovite dialect of what used to be Old East Slavic, but even that is somewhat WP:SYNTHed by combining Snyder and Peredriyenko. So I'm going to delete that whole misleading text, because it is just not in citation given. Thanks again Mellk for pointing this out! NLeeuw (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the part about translators, I think this part has been overemphasized in the source. I have not really seen this conclusion in other sources; it is simply known that the Russian embassy had two translators. Since this involved political negotiations, I would imagine the need for translators was to avoid misinterpretation when it came to certain political or legal terms. Mellk (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. Mutual intelligibility between language variations that share a dialectal continuum is always somewhat subjective and personal; it depends very much on the linguistic proficiency of the individual. In the 2010s and 2020s, I have heard a lot of anecdotes of native Russian speakers who cannot understand Ukrainian unless they have had some training, or school education on it (e.g. native Russian speakers who grew up in Ukraine and did get some Ukrainian lessons in school, but have used Russian for most of their everyday lives, may not have as much difficulty as Russian speakers from other countries trying to understand Ukrainian). It could be that by the mid-17th century, Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian) and Muscovite (early modern Russian) were also already quite diverged that for an untrained person, it would be difficult to properly understand the other language variation. Khmelnytskyi and most other Cossack officers were educated in Ruthenian (probably the mother tongue of the majority of Cossack officers / Polish nobles in present-day Ukraine and Belarus), Polish (the native tongue of some of them who were Polonised by then), and Latin, but not in Church Slavonic (which only the clergy and some artists still used at this point, according to Peredriyenko 2001), nor in the Muscovite dialect of northeastern Rus' (that they rarely had direct contact with in the centuries before the Hetmanate arose). Perhaps he could understand like 70%, but when it comes to legally binding agreements, one will want to make sure that there can be no confusion over interpretation, so you might well be correct that Latin acted as a safeguard against false friends and such. That doesn't sound too far-fetched. NLeeuw (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sure whether ділове мовлення is best translated as "business speech", although that is the literal meaning in Ukrainian. Peredriyenko 2001 might mean something broader, like "formal speech". It might also include Kievan Rus' law#In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, that is, Chancery Slavonic for legal purposes, such as contract law, within the GD of Lithuania between c. 1350 and 1569. NLeeuw (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In regards to writing, the correct term is diglossia. Up to the 18th century, Church Slavic was regarded as the higher style in Russia, but increasingly russified over the centuries. Therefore, this variant is known as Russian Church Slavic.

Textual Parameters in Older Languages (2001) sums this quite well: "After the Middle Ages, local Russian vernaculars acquired increased functionality. This was especially true of the Russian vernacular based on the central dialect of Moscow... By the end of the 18th century, Church Slavic had lost its function as the high literary style." For example, in regards to the Domostroy, it says: "its first part, dealing with matters of religion, morals, and the education of children, is written in a high style, strongly colored by Church Slavic phonological, lexical and grammatical characteristics... the second part, dealing with the practicalities of running a household, is in an 'almost pure vernacular'...". For the Novgorod chronicle, it says: "It uses Church Slavic for describing events of national importance, and the northern Russian vernacular of the city and county of Novgorod for describing local events". Mellk (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, according to Język polski Wileńszczyzny i Kresów północno-wschodnich XVI-XX w. (p. 34), 50% of Vilnius acts were written in the Ruthenian written language and 50% in Latin in the period 1495–1550, then this gradually decreased as usage of Polish increased, and by 1651–1754, 10% was in Latin and 90% in Polish. Mellk (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. I've seen scholars observe similar characteristics in the PVL, where church-, religion- and morality-related matters are in Church Slavonic (similar to Old Bulgarian), but when discussing events or secular/profane affairs, the contents, style and form are much closer to what was presumably the spoken Old East Slavic language. For how long OES remained a kind of pluricentric language until it diverged into Ruthenian in the southwest and Russian in the northeast to the point where there was no more "diglossia", shall probably always remain a point of contention, as there is little textual evidence of what the spoken Russian language of the northeast was like (compared to spoken/written Ruthenian in the southwest, for which there are plently of written sources) as long as they generally upheld the norm of writing in (Russian) Church Slavonic there. Languages evolve and diverge (or merge) gradually, they don't split overnight. We could never put an exact year on it. (As far as I can tell, Church Slavonic in Romania and Moldavia/Moldova also appears to have gone its own way, staying closer to (Old) Bulgarian to the south rather than evolving along with Ruthenian / Chancery Slavonic to the north, but that is only based on some weak anecdotal evidence I have seen. The obvious reason might be that the vast majority of the local population did not speak Slavic languages at all, and so there was no incentive to "localise" the Church Slavonic used by the elite, as happened in the areas that would later become Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.)

Very interesting what you write about acts of (the city of?) Vilnius gradually changing their administrative language. That seems to confirm what Snyder 2003 p. 110–111 writes about the gradual Polonisation of the PLC after 1569, and that the Polish language was standardised between 1569 and 1648. Somewhat strangely, Peredriyenko 2001 claims that the Ruthenian language was standardised in the 17th century, even though it lost its official status after 1569 in Lithuanian Belarus and Polish Ukraine, and that the Cossack Hetmanate largely maintained Polish as its administrative language after 1648 according to Snyder 2003 p. 116. Then who drove the standardisation of Ukrainian between 1600 and 1700 if it was neither the PLC as a whole, nor the GDL in particular, nor the Hetmanate as some sort of deliberate cultural policy or pragmatic administrative policy?

Most importantly, can we really say that the standardisation of (written) Ruthenian and the abandonment of Church Slavonic in GDL, PLC, and Hetmanate-controlled Ukraine and Belarus between the 14th and 18th century was an example of 'Ukrainization'? That seems a bit anachronistic, or a bit of a stretch. If anything, we might call this Ruthenisation. One could argue that, in this period, that the Ruthenian or 'Old Ukrainian' language, that would later become Ukrainian, was being defined, developed, established. But it wasn't yet known as 'Ukrainian', and there seems to be a broad consensus that Ruthenian did not split into Ukrainian and Belarusian until somewhere in the late 18th or early 19th century. It wouldn't make much sense to say that the language used in Belarus was first Church Slavonic, then "Ukrainized" to Ruthenian, and then after 1800 became Belarusian. So I'm not sure if this section might just be beyond the scope of this article entirely. It might be better to move it to Ruthenian language. NLeeuw (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the book was citing data from guild charters, but I do not really know Polish. It also seems that Vilnius was the center of Ruthenian-language book printing and the language there was based on Belarusian dialects (Old Belarusian), hence why such texts are often referred to as Belarusian. But this is another area of contention, on whether the language should be called 'Old Belarusian' or 'Old Ukrainian'.

I think what the original editor was trying to refer to was resistance to Polonization (by Ukrainian Cossacks). But referring to this as a 'light Ukrainization' looks like original research. I have not found any sources that refer to Ukrainization during this period, so probably this belongs in another article. Mellk (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, glad we agree. I've split off most contents to Ruthenian language#Development, where I have rewritten and expanded the contents. I've left a bit under the heading of 'Background' and put a link to Ruthenian language#Development for more information. The Danylenko 2006a paper shows just how complicated research and drawing conclusions about the 'Ruthenian' language even is. It does appear that "Ukrainian" and "Belarusian" spoken varieties started to emerge in the 16th century, became more pronounced in the 17th century, and by the early 18th century, the spoken languages had essentially split, while barely anyone was still using the (still-unified) written Ruthenian language anymore, as Polish had mostly taken over as administrative language in both the PLC/GDL and in the Hetmanate. It's not a great surprise that this proto-Belarusian kept slowly Polonising, while Polonisation was reduced in this proto-Ukrainian after the political break between the PLC and Cossacks, and new ties were forged with Muscovy and the Crimean Khanate. NLeeuw (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As Grigory Vinokur says in The Russian Language: A Brief History: "Thus in some instances the languages of the eastern Slavs has affinities with the southern Slavonic languages and in other instances with the western; but on the whole the internal genetic relations between the different groups of Slavonic languages are so complex that they defy attempts to set them out in a simple comprehensive scheme." (p. 9) For example, in Ruthenian, the West Slavic influences prevailed but in Russian, there was the "Second South Slavic influence". Mellk (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems spot on. NLeeuw (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)