This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Please help this article
Somebody cut this information out of the general article on Russification, but then just dropped the scraps here and ran off. It's too important a topic to be left in such an incomplete form. Please contribute to it. The cutting out of this material created a problem in both articles.~Mack2~ (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Discrimination of Ukrainian language.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Dear Lute88, I would like to know, why you insist on using terms "Ukraine" and "Muskovy" regarding time periods in which they are completely unappropriate and warp wording of official documents of that time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.35.75 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears in this [1]. But actually what matters is not how documents of the time refer to it, but rather how modern reliable sources refer to it when talking about that period. And they certainly use "Ukraine".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This [2] is 12-13th century, not 17th. Try again. And no, when you speak about policies and territorial denominations of certain historical period you should use appropriate names for them. Discussing "Ukraine" in Tzardom of Russia is like discussing "Kiev Voivodeship" in USSR. There were no territorial unit with name "Ukraine" in Tzardom of Russia in discussed period and there are no reason to say that modern Ukraine is ontologically equal to Little Russia. And this is not POV, this is the matter of historical accuracy. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit [3] is about culture and language. Are "malorossian dialect" and "ukranian language" linguistically exactly the same? If I understand correctly, yes, they are. If so, it does not really matter how to call it, except that the most common modern English name is preferred. Following ancient Russian terminology ("malorossian dialect") is not required.My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Language is formal system with its own lexicon and grammar. "Malorossian dialect" had no independent lexicon and grammar and used those of russian language - it was dialect and not language. Therefore "Malorossian dialect" and "ukranian language" are linguistically different etities and they shold not be mixed up. As for common name guideline - it is not really applicable to historical topics - after all we do not call Sasanian Empire "Iran" simply because it occupied territory of modern Iran some time ago and the word "Iran" is more often used today, do we? 46.42.35.75 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then your version is even more POVish than I thought, because it implies that Ukrainian language did not exist even as late as in the end of 19th century. Your version tells: In 1867, Tsar Alexander II of Russia issued the Ems Ukaz, a secret decree banning the use of the "malorossian dialect", however that was in fact modern Ukrainian language. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. IF modern reliable sources referred to the territory of present day Iran as "Iran" when talking about the time of the Sasanian Empire, then we would also use "Iran". But they don't. So we don't. What matters is how modern sources refer to the geographical area when talking about the time period in question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Kiev manuscript is about 12-13th century but that's not when it was written. Also, that was the source for early use of "Ukraine". There's plenty of sources for the "Muscovy" part. But again, what matters is how modern reliable sources speak of the time period and geography. Finally, even if we were going to go that way, it wouldn't be "Little Russia". It would be "Ru's" or "Ruthenia".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, according to that article, The Kiev manuscript was compiled around 1200 by hegumen Moses from Vydubychi Monastery. This is the begining of 13th century. Secondly, I skimmed and searched text of that manuscript [5] and failed to find any form of word "Ukraine" so far. Can you provide more accurate citation? Thirdly, "there's plenty of sources" is not a valid form of argument. If you have citations - please, provide them. And I still do not see how word "Muscovy" in any way preferable to "Tzardom of Russia" - officialandwidespread name of russian state of that period. Fourthly, what matters is how those entities was actually called during time of their existence and not how they were renamed posthumously. And above all we shold not mix up different historical etities by trying to ascribe them the same name. And "Ukraine" and "Little Russia" are different historical etities, no less different than, say, Roman Empire and Kingdom of Italy. And finaly, "Ru's" is the collective name of russian princedoms before formation of Tzardom of Russia so ir is not the same as Little Russia; "Ruthenia" is latinized exonym of russian state as whole; unlike Little Russia (as this variant is accepted in Wikipedia), "Ruthenia" is not well defined and highly context-dependent term, and while I am not completely against it, I do not see why it should be preferred. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For "Muscovy" this is a typical source [6]: "(Muscovy) is used to indicate the late fifteenth-seventeenth-century state centered on Moscow, sometimes called the Moscow State, or the Russian Tsardom or state". Generally speaking either "Muscovy" or "Tsardom of Russia" would be acceptable. "Little Russia" is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why not? It is referred as such both in modern sources and in official documents of that age. You cannot cite "Малая Россия, Лифляндия, Финляндия суть провинции, которыя правятся конфирмованными им привилегиями" and say (with straight face) that it says something about "Ukraine" and not "Little Russia". It accomplishes nothing and only breed confusion. 46.42.35.75 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
