Talk:Ukrainian language

Little Russian language

The discussion below pertains to the following three statements:

1. Ivan Kotliarevsky, regarded as the pioneer of modern Ukrainian literature, subtitled his Eneida (1798) as a translation into Little Russian language; this subtitle was used until 1842, but changed into Ukrainian language for the next edition in 1862.
2. As late as 1845, the Ukrainian poet and philologist Ivan Vahylevych referred to his language as Little Russian.
3. Pylyp Morachevskyi, the author of the first translation of the New Testament into Ukrainian, called the language Little Russian in his manuscript from 1861; but when first published in 1907, the language of his translation was named both as Little Russian and as Ukrainian.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash48 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Crash48: Our articles should primarily be based on secondary sources, see WP:PSTS. The fact that a certain author used a certain name for a language (in this case, the name "Little Russian"), normally becomes relevant only if a secondary source sees this as relevant. The second problem with your edits is that the whole concept of "Little Russia" was used by the imperialist / colonialist government in St.Petersburg with the intention to suppress Ukrainian identity (see e.g. Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe, Andreas Kappeler, Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine, Timothy Snyder's 2022 lectures on Ukrainian history (available on YouTube)). We cannot just mention the name "Little Russia" without discussing the problems of that concept. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Little Russia and Little Russian identity have their own detailed articles, so that anyone interested in "the whole concept" can get there in one click;
2. This article is about the language (and the history of its name), not about the country (and the history of its name) or the nation (and the history of its name) -- the three names weren't always the same;
3. Until the 1860s, the name Little Russian language was used not only by the imperialist / colonialist government in St.Petersburg, but also by the majority of Ukrainians themselves, as you can plainly see from the primary sources, all of them published in Ukraine, and none in St.Petersburg;
4. WP:PSTS states unambiguously that primary sources may be used to support statements of facts, such as the fact that a certain author used a certain name for a language;
5. That a statement about the history of a language's name "normally becomes relevant only if a secondary source sees this as relevant" is your own fabrication, not backed by WP:PSTS or any other policy.

Crash48 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Informations important for this article should be mentioned in this article.
2. "Little Russian" is obviously derived from "Little Russia".
3. Ukrainians used that name because they were in a colonial situation. The censorship in Russian Ukraine was the same as in St.Petersburg.
4. Of course, but the selection of the facts is the problem.
5. According to WP:DUE, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. I understand this as "secondary, preferably academic" sources.

@Crash48: Another important point is that you are already edit warring. According to WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, and WP:NOCONSENSUS the onus to archieve consensus here for the changes you propose is on you. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Would the following sentence, copied from Little Russia, be a sufficient introduction to the term for the purposes of the article on the language?
   • In modern times, the concept of "Little Russianness" is described as an "indifferent, and sometimes a negative stance towards Ukrainian national-statehood traditions and aspirations, and often as active support of Russian culture and of Russian imperial policies".
2. Although the terms are obviously related, their usage was not the same;
3. Holovatsky and Vahylevych published their books in Lviv, that's in a different empire altogether; and yet, at that time, they called the language Little Russian, as you can see;
   • In case you need another example: Mykhailo Drahomanov, described as "a prominent Ukrainian nationalist", published in Vienna in 1876 a brochure in Russian, titled "On the question of Little Russian literature", in which he calls the language Little Russian (e.g. p.VIII); [1]
   • See also the book titles at uk:Граматики української мови#Західна Україна --Crash48 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
4. You're more than welcome to try and find any mentions of Ukrainian language pre-dating Shevchenko's in 1854.

Crash48 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References

I saw a note about the discussion at wikiproject Ukraine. I would suggest to retain the words instead, the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian because if we write that the language was not called Ukrainian before a certain date, the reader would most likely want to know *how* it was called. I don't think that the examples given afterwards contribute to the section and would agree with their removal. Alaexis_¿question? 20:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The statement that the Ukrainian was named "Ruthenian or Little Russian" is supported by the source, but the source says more (e.g. that it was used by the "Russian Empire"), and making that statement in a sentence starting with the year 1187 gives the wrong impression that the names "Ruthenian" and "Little Russian" both go back to the 12th century. Since our source concentrates on the middle of the 19th century, we need a source about the origin of the name. I'm going to search for that. Since Crash48 notified three WikiProjects (Ukraine, Russia (why that ?), and Languages) of this discussion, maybe we should wait some time to see if more people want to join our discussion.

Crash48, regarding your suggestion about "Little Russianness": The fact that Ukrainians used a name that was imposed by the colonial power is not necessarily connected to Little Russianness. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

but the source says more (e.g. that it was used by the "Russian Empire") -- no it doesn't; and you have abundant evidence of its use by Austro-Hungarian Ukrainians as well, which you consistently choose to disregard.

making that statement in a sentence starting with the year 1187 gives the wrong impression -- do feel free to drop the reference to the year 1187 if you wish; the subsection's topic is the development of the language after the fall of the Kingdom of Ruthenia, anyway.

why that ? -- because at the top of this talk page, all these WikiProjects are listed as being interested in this article.

The fact that Ukrainians used a name... -- I've now added quotes from [2] (not directly related to the name of the language) into Little Russian identity#Russian Empire; please see these quotes, and optionally the whole source article, before you carry on pushing your "imposed by the colonial power" agenda. Crash48 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If you add comments at the beginning or in the middle of other comments, that's really confusing for anybody wanting to join this discussion. Regarding my "agenda": My agenda in this case is "No original research !", one of our three core content policies. For your use of such expressions, please take a look at the pillars of WP, especially WP:5P4. NOR also means that we (as editors) don't select primary sources arbitrarily, but follow good, preferably academic, secondary sources. That's why the primary sources you refer to are IMHO not relevant. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: do you have any source asserting any kind of negative sentiment, before the 1860s, from the Ukrainians in either of the two empires, towards the name Little Russia(n) as applied to either their region, their people, or their language -- i.e. that "Ukrainians used that name because they were in a colonial situation"? I have shown you a modern source asserting exactly the opposite: that the designation Little Russia(n) was favoured by the Ukrainians at the time, and that it became associated "with the intention to suppress Ukrainian identity" only decades later. Did you dismiss that (non-primary) source in the same way as you dismissed all uses of the Little Russian designation in the Habsburg Empire, far beyond the reach of the Russian censors?

"The selection of the facts" is of no concern in this case, as 100% of sources from that time call the language Little Russian, even so far from the Imperial Russia as Britannica 1911 (Russian dialects fall into two main divisions — Great (Velikorusskij), including White (Belorusskij) Russian, and Little Russian (Malorusskij). The latter is spoken in a belt reaching from Galicia and the Northern Carpathians (see Ruthenians) through Podolia and Volhynia and the governments of Kiev, Chernigov, Poltava, Kharkov and the southern part of Voronezh to the Don and the Kuban upon which the Dnepr Cossacks were settled. and further that Ruthenians [is] a name applied to those of the Little Russians who are Austrian subjects.) Literally any sources from before the 1860s would do; whereas you seemingly oppose citing any primary sources howsoever selected, so let me reiterate that WP:PSTS explicitly allows the use of primary sources in support of statements of facts.

Now note how the modern https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ukrainian-language starts with mentioning Little Russian as a historic name of the language right in the first sentence, in bold; and it doesn't find it necessary to elaborate on the reasons why that name fell out of use. Your insistence to bowdlerise quotes from Flier&Graziosi, Britannica, etc, so as to exclude the mentions of Little Russian, has nothing to do with NOR, quite the opposite: the statement that "Ukrainians used that name because they were in a colonial situation" is your OR with no factual base.

By way of example, some may find the original name of And Then There Were None disagreeable; but nevertheless, the name features prominently in the article, without an explanation of "the whole concept" that necessitated the change of name. Crash48 (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for long enough; I don't see how we can agree on the interpretation of WP:NOR, and we are also in disagreement about what language to use in discussions. Please note that NOR applies to main space, but not to talk pages. Therefore my use of "colonial situation" wouldn't be a violation of NOR even if I had invented it. But I didn't invent it, I got it from Timothy Snyder's lectures (link in the article). You notified three projects of this discussion, but you are of course free to seek other ways of dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, now requested a WP:3O.

No doubt that Ukrainians were in a "colonial situation", but your claim that it was the reason why they used the Little Russian name isn't supported by any sources, and in particular not by Snyder's lecture linked in the article, which never mentions either "Little Russian" or "colonial situation" at all. Crash48 (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I said "lectures", not "lecture", meaning it's in the series of 23 lectures. If I'd had time to search for the exact location, I'd given it. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t had the time to unravel the discussion and article history yet. But I suspect the article needs more from secondary sources about the colonial terminology and colonial repression of Ukrainian language and national status, not less. Yes, there are academic articles about when and how some terminology was used, but making their point generally depends on statements supported by many paragraphs of background and context.

Giving examples from primary sources and implying some conclusions from them is a very poor way to try make a point in an encyclopedia article. We don’t pointedly drop examples into other language articles about who historically used names like Indian, Eskimo, Negro, or N***** to normalize them, so we shouldn’t do the same with Little Russian, Malo-Russian, Khokhol, Ukrop, or Bandera, either. Little Russian is currently a weapon wielded directly in a genocidal war by its main instigator. Whatever its historical status has been, emphasizing that without context is normalizing it and perpetuating colonial violence. —Michael Z. 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The use of the name "Little Russian" is a fact that can be supported by primary sources. However, the interpretation of why the name was used is a matter of interpretation and requires a nuanced understanding of the historical context. Some sources I've looked at suggest that the name was favored by Ukrainians at the time, but that does not exclude that it is important to recognize that the use of the name was imposed by the colonial power and was part of the suppression of Ukrainian identity. The article would benefit from more discussion of the colonial terminology and repression of Ukrainian language and national identity. It isn't appropriate to perpetuate the colonial violence by dropping examples from primary sources without context. MK882 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@MK882: as mentioned above, the name was used far beyond the reach of the Russian colonial power, e.g. in Britannica; and note how the modern https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ukrainian-language starts with mentioning Little Russian as a historic name of the language right in the first sentence, in bold, but doesn't include the historical context which led to that name falling out of use. Does, in your opinion, Britannica perpetuate the colonial violence by this? Crash48 (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that up and asking a rather obsolete question. It is important to note that the use of certain terms in historical texts and modern encyclopedias often reflects the biases of the term and the time period in which it was used. While Britannica's inclusion of "Little Russian" as a historic name of the Ukrainian language may not necessarily perpetuate colonial violence, it is crucial for us as editors on a superior platform, to provide the full context and historical significance behind these terms to avoid perpetuating harmful narratives to our readers. We should strive to recognize the impact of colonialism on language and cultural identity and highlight the efforts of communities to resist this suppression. Does that make sense? MK882 (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems to ignore the perpetuation of colonial and racist language generally, and high-profile problems in Ukrainian historiography specifically. Haven’t you noticed we used a Russian spelling for the Ukrainian capital city until recently?

Did you not notice Britannica does not use the name, and prominently marks it as “now considered pejorative” in bold text?

RFE/RL has a very good overview article on Western academia still working on shedding Russian colonial bias today.[3]  —Michael Z. 19:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you not notice my reverted edit did not use the name, and included "came to be seen as implying a Little Russian identity" after the first mention, linking to the detailed article on the historical context associated with that term?

WP:NPOV explicitly states that we must align with the published sources. Only after Western academia "sheds Russian colonial bias", may we update the article accordingly. Crash48 (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No I didn’t, because as I said I hadn’t reviewed the mass of material here and was talking about acknowledging principles, and not specific edits. But as you bring it up, I don’t think citing nineteenth-century primary sources and leaving un-cited statements like “the latter came to be seen as implying a Little Russian identity” without any explanation of the concept looks particularly good in this regard.  —Michael Z. 20:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The guideline WP:DETAIL states that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article. The history of suppression of Ukrainian national identity by the Russian colonial power has its own articles dedicated to it. Let me refer once again to the example of And Then There Were None: it states that the N-word had to be replaced as it became too offensive, and links to the article on it for any further details. What exactly is your objection to applying the same treatment here: stating that the term Little Russian is now considered pejorative, and linking to Little Russian identity, or perhaps to Little Russia or Russification of Ukraine, for any further details? Crash48 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that sounds better. But not good enough. If we’re going to use the term in the very article about its referent, then explanation about the very term is more appropriate here than anywhere else.

If it is too much detail, then break it off into a new child article as the guideline recommends. Not shuffle it aside into a different subject, which is not.

If “Little Russian” belongs here then its explanation belongs here.  —Michael Z. 02:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If we’re going to use the term -- no we're not: I had already pointed you to the revision being discussed, which doesn't use the term. Same as the article on Christie's novel doesn't use the N-word (to refer to black people), but mentions it a lot (to refer to its uses by Christie).

Not shuffle it aside into a different subject, which is not -- are you seriously suggesting that Little Russian isn't the subject of Little Russian identity (despite appearing right in its title) but is the subject of Ukrainian language (despite being disused as the language's name for about a century now)? Crash48 (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: see my point above: By way of example, some may find the original name of And Then There Were None disagreeable; but nevertheless, the name features prominently in the article, without an explanation of "the whole concept" that necessitated the change of name.

No conclusions are implied, and no point is made; these are simply references for how the language was called, by its speakers, in the 19th century.

Other language articles do mention historically used names right in the lead paragraph, e.g. Bohemian for Czech language, or Lettish for Latvian language; for Samoyedic languages, it remains the primary title, used with an explanation that The term has come to be considered derogatory. This language article is the only one that avoids mentioning the language's former name. Crash48 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t indicate whether you’re getting my point.  —Michael Z. 18:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't, because you're arguing against a straw man who is "emphasizing smth. without context" and "implying some conclusions ... to try make a point". Also I'm showing that your statements are factually wrong w.r.t. the (non-)use of nowadays controversial but historically notable terms in other articles. Crash48 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of other endonyms for the historic forms of this language focusing just on the imperialist term is concerning—blindlynx 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: Both of your claims are unsubstantiated: that there were "plenty of other endonyms" in use before the 1860s, and that mentioning that the language was historically called Little Russian is equivalent to "focusing just on the imperialist term". Crash48 (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you claiming the language was exclusively called 'little russian' pre 1860?—blindlynx 20:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it was also called Ruthenian, as already stated in the article. One other name isn't "plenty". Crash48 (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

there's a laundry list of terms people who spoke it used including: руський язик or руська мова---that the term Ruthenian is related too---as well as проста мова, наша мова, простонародна мова, козацька мова, народна мова—blindlynx 21:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I had seen the laundry list at ukwiki: it's unreferenced, undated, and thus useless. Only the two names Ruthenian and Little Russian are attested in written/printed works from that time period, though. Crash48 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Simple speech is totally uncited i suppose—blindlynx 23:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it has no dated references to uses of the name. Not a single one. Crash48 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

you are being unnecessarily selective in your demands, i don't have to explain whyhistoric written works won't exist for an attested vernacular term—blindlynx 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Demands for what? Simple speech is already named in the article, without specifying a timeframe of when that name was used. No objections on that. Now back on topic: what are your objections to mentioning Little Russian as the name used in notable historic written works? Crash48 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Including it without qualification of the imperialist nature of the term and without including other names used for the language is undue—blindlynx 21:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned many times before, "other names" are already included. So? Crash48 (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Crash48, you took this discussion to three different WikiProjects, and nobody supported your idea to use 19th-century sources for the usage of "Little Russian". I think now is really the time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. On the other hand, nobody was opposed to mentioning that name, provided some context regarding the colonial circumstances is given. I'd suggest something like After the incorporation of Left-bank Ukraine during the 18th century, the imperial centre used the name "Little Russia" for Ukraine and "Little Russian" for its language in order to convey the notion of a fundamental unity between "Great Russians" and "Little Russians". The problem is, that I only vaguely remember where I read that, so I can't give the reference now. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

There are several problems with your suggested phrasing:

• The incorporation of Left-bank Ukraine, formalised in the treaty of Andrusovo, took place in mid-17th century;
• The name "Little Russia" for Ukraine (which originated not in Russia but in Byzantine Empire, as the corresponding article explains) was widely used outside Russian Empire even before the incorporation of Left-bank Ukraine: e.g. see [4] for a 1636 publication from Lyon;
• The name "Little Russian" for the language was widely used outside Russian Empire: e.g. see [5] for a 1839 publication from Oxford.

While it's certainly true that the imperial centre used these names, it's hardly notable because so did everyone else, at that time. Crash48 (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, pointedly ignoring colonialism with a completely context-free recitation of factoids. Byzantine Greek mikra Rhosia meant “Rus proper,” the core of Kyivan Rus. Russian imperial Malorossiia meant ”Little Russia,” a lesser colony and the invented maloros a belittling epithet for an inhabitant.

“Was widely used outside the empire” is typical colonial language, ignoring that all diplomacy and nearly all academia in the West that led to this usage was conducted and established by Russian imperials. Again, this is colonial language firmly established, recognized as such by the 1950s, and being decolonized in two ways to this day: gradually, and then suddenly.[6]  —Michael Z. 13:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

WP is not a battleground against colonialism/imperialism; it describes the established terms as they are/were used in published works. Please do acquaint yourself with WP:NPOV. Also, your statement regarding the meanings of mikra Rhosia as opposed to Malorossiia is pure WP:OR. Crash48 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ll remind you that WP is not a battleground for preserving outdated, prejudiced, colonial attitudes against the consensus of recent secondary reliable sources. Resisting current scholarship is WP:RGW. —Michael Z. 15:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:RGW is exactly what you're attempting here, by presenting verifiable references as "recitation of factoids", and your own baseless fantasies as "current scholarship". I have now asked for assistance at WP:NPOV/N Crash48 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Your publication “from Oxford” is not published by the university. And it was funded by “His Imperial Highness The Grand Duke Alexander, Hereditary Prince of Russia, . . . in gratitude for his munificent patronage in helping forwards its publication by His Highness’s devoted servant, the editor” according to the dedication page.  —Michael Z. 20:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That was probably the same Alexander II of Russia who as emperor issued the infamous Ems Ukaz expanding the Russian ban on Ukrainian language to draconian levels, banned the Ukrainian alphabet, and removed suspected Ukrainophiles from teaching and professorship.

This is a good example of Russia’s reach far beyond its borders to denigrate Ukrainian identity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. —Michael Z. 15:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note that I just added the name Little Russian to the article, hoping to put it in the correct context. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: thank you for your addition. Now that a "context" is there to your satisfaction, do you still have any opposition against completing the truncated quote from Flier&Graziosi, and reinstating the references for the uses of the "colonial" name in notable 19th century works by notable Ukrainian authors, in Russian Empire as well as outside?

As an aside, I see several potentially misleading points in your phrasing: parts of Ukraine east of the Dnipro river gradually lost their autonomy -- and so did the parts to the west of Dnipro, too; The Russian Empire used the name -- the empire was only established a century later, but the name was already in use in the 17th century and even earlier, in Russia as well as outside. I leave it to you to refine your phrasing. Crash48 (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am declining your request for a third opinion because there are too many people involved already. You could flag the article with ""expert"" (published with {{ }} or either side of the term) to see if there is another editor who is an expert on this subject would could advise. My general thought is that providing examples of popular authors or popular books that were published using the phrase "Little Russian" helps describe the extent of this aspect of colonialism. If these books and authors were not popular, then such listings are trivial. Citing these publications directly is allowable in this situation. Rublamb (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Shulgin source

The source Basil Shulgin 1939[7] (available here) is an unsuitable, unreliable source for the statement it is used to support about the interpretation of “Little Russia” and “Little Russian,” for this or any article related to Russian and Ukrainian nationality, or indeed for any article. It is non-neutral POV opinion and outdated. It is an anti-Ukrainian imperialist political editorial by a Russian monarchist politician (who also wrote “I’m a Russian fascist”).[8]

The paper’s title has an editorial note “This Review has published various views on the Ukrainian question. Mr. Shulgin’s article will explain itself. It is the view of a sturdy opponent of the Ukrainian claim and also of the Bolshevik Revolution.—Ed.” (p 62). (And an early twentieth-century journal discussing an open “Ukrainian question” is not a suitable source either.)

The author in his own voice gives his colonial POV by using the terms Russia and Russian to mean “Rus,” referring to Ukraine as part of “European Russia” and Ukrainian language as the “South Russian dialect,” and denying the nationhood of Ukrainians and Ukraine by writing about “two branches of the Russian people: the South-Western, or Little-Russian, lives mainly on both sides of the Dnieper, while the North-Eastern, or Great Russian, is more connected with the Volga.” (62). He doesn’t just interpret Little Russia’s meaning in its seventeenth-century historical context, he uses the denigrating term a-historically and un-ironically.

If you read the article, you should see there’s much more wrong with it, but the above is more than enough.  —Michael Z. 16:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

And regarding the question of the historical meaning of “Little Russia” in other languages, it is important to distinguish the borrowing from Greek mala(ia) Rus from the imperial coinages Malorossiia, maloros.  —Michael Z. 16:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Rusyn language

Rusyn (not russian) is a Language that is disputed as being a dialect of ukrainian.

the map showing the ukrainian language Has it as ukrainian.

I think There should be a new color to Show it as Disputed. 2601:1C2:D00:40:4A83:949F:15DB:34B0 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Status of Ukrainian language in Transnistria?

Transnistria is hardly a valid region. It is a rogue territory under military occupation of foreign power. Identifying status of Ukrainian language there is as important as identifying status of Ukrainian language in Ukrainian Village or portions of Antarctic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, the same applies to occupied Crimea. Official declarations there have little to no credibility. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Pereiaslav and Western Ukraine

Crash48, I reverted you because I see little sense in your addition. Why "Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine" ? Why should we talk about Western Ukraine in the context of "Little Russia" and Pereiaslav ? Also: The source mentions intolerance, but not loss of autonomy in Poland. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the Western Ukrainians called their language Little Russian too. The use of this term had never been confined to Russia, which is the impression you're trying to convey. Crash48 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I noticed this at WP:DR. A quick look suggests there is slow edit warring which could be resolved by a topic ban or page block for Crash48. I have not investigated sufficiently to determine whether that would be warranted but participants should remember that this topic is covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So we have one more party joining who is willing to comment on my conduct but not on the article content? Ever heard of WP:FOC? Crash48 (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator mentioning "edit warring" (WP:EW) should be taken as a warning that repeated editing against consensus will result in a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

An administrator suggesting that an ongoing mediated DR can be resolved by topic-banning the initiator of the mediation is not helpful in the least. --Crash48 (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on adding a section on the names of the language

A draft for a section on the historic names of the language is created at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names/Crash48. Requesting comments on whether to add such a section. Crash48 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This still has the problem that it suggests 'little russian' was usually used used since 1187. It neglects to mention the terms was tied to the russian empire while tieing the term 'Rutheian' to the austrian empire when it was historically more widely used.

This section is clearly POV painting 'little russian' as being used much more widely and for longer than sources say—blindlynx 15:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The section includes abundant references confirming that the term Little Russian was not tied to the Russian Empire, and was used worldwide, including in Austro-Hungary. The editors who asserted that the term Little Russian was tied to the Russian Empire couldn't, since September, present as much as a single source asserting that. Crash48 (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it contains a few of wp:primary sources that you try to use to show that. The first source you cite [9] clearly says : [...] '“Little Russian” language (the term used for Ukrainian in the Russian Empire—blindlynx 20:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Brock says: Whereas those who lived under Habsburg rule were called Ruthenian their brethren in Russia were usually known as Little Russians. [10], Moser echos this distinction. While the Kohut paper talks about how the term fell out of use after 1340 and was relived with the incorporation of the Hetmanate into the russian empire and even then was only used for the parts of Ukraine under russian rule. Boeck says something similar The term [ukraïna] continued to be used in the eighteenth century, but by midcentury the lands of the Hetmanate began to be called Little Russia (Malorossiia) by both its inhabitants and imperial officials. (also after saying the term 'ukraïna' came around in the 16c)—blindlynx 20:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point that the section is about the name of the language, not the name of the country. They didn't always match, and that's exactly what the section is about. As for the first source, contrary to your claim, it doesn't state that the term Little Russian was used exclusively in or by the Russian Empire, or somehow "tied" to it. Crash48 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you think [...] '“Little Russian” language (the term used for Ukrainian in the Russian Empire means?

I think it means what it literally says: that the term was used in the Russian Empire. Now, what do you think it means? Do you think it means that the term was not used outside the Russian Empire? --Crash48 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Crash48 that the source doesn't say the term was 'usually' used since 1187 and that it does not say it was used outside the russian empire as your draft suggests—blindlynx 19:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct: this source neither asserts nor denies that the term was used outside the Russian Empire. This is why I'm citing not only this source but also other secondary sources which state that it was used outside the Russian Empire as well. Do you lot know of any RS stating the opposite? Crash48 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft does not reflect the name of the language and the name of the country not always always matching. Please hold yourself to the same standard you expect of others—blindlynx 00:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

William Morfill (1887): The Malo, or Little Russian language, as it ought properly to be called, the term Ruthenish being without meaning -is spoken by upwards of sixteen millions of people, scattered over Southern Russia, Galicia, Bukovina and part of Northeastern Hungary. Britannica 1911: Dialects. — Russian dialects fall into two main divisions — Great (Velikorusskij), including White (Belorusskij) Russian, and Little Russian (Malorusskij). The latter is spoken in a belt reaching from Galicia and the Northern Carpathians (see Ruthenians) through Podolia and Volhynia and the governments of Kiev, Chernigov, Poltava, Kharkov and the southern part of Voronezh to the Don and the Kuban upon which the Dnepr Cossacks were settled. These are two secondary RS, British in origin, asserting that the language of Ukrainians both inside and outside the Russian Empire was known as Little Russian at the time. You're still welcome to present any source asserting the opposite. --Crash48 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Those sources are more then 100 years old and, since the naming has been changed since, should not be used without modern secondary sources describing them. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that 100-years-old secondary sources are less authoritative on the terminology used 100 years ago than modern secondary sources? Of course the terminology has changed since then: this is precisely what the section is about. --Crash48 (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It's better to use sources aware of the terminology change to discuss terminology change. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Britannica 1962, cited in the draft, is aware of the terminology change, yet equates between Little Russian and Ukrainian: The Russian language <...> is sometimes called Great Russian to distinguish it from the closely related Byelorussian or White Russian and "Little Russian" (an obsolescent term) or Ukrainian, with which it makes up the eastern branch of the Slavonic languages. Does this citation resolve the question of whether the term Little Russian was "tied" to the Russian Empire, or do you want me to play WP:FETCH? --Crash48 (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No. The fact you have to rely on synth and outdated sources to make this claim while selectively reading modern secondary sources means it's at best undue and realistically the modern secondary sources you use do not support your position—blindlynx 15:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you like to identify any specific synthesised statement in the draft? Previous editors who called the draft synthesised refused to point out any specific synthesised statements. --Crash48 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

See below for a quote Talk:Ukrainian language#c-Manyareasexpert-20231225110100-Crash48-20231225102700 Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that the part you quoted implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source, please specify which conclusion that is. Crash48 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A section on the subject of the language’s name and historical names might be warranted.

But the proposed section as presented is chiefly a list of historical anecdotes from selected primary sources, and not a representation of what reliable secondary sources say on the name of the subject. It is basically WP:SYNTH, or a collection of facts inviting the reader to draw conclusions without telling us what conclusions RS have drawn. The anecdotes are a selection that may point to a conclusion that’s not the one that NPOV sources give us.

It’s also a bit out in left field without the specific context of what Ukraine and Ukrainians were called, since the names of the language refers to them.  —Michael Z. 07:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine and Ukrainians have their own articles. The subject of this article is Ukrainian language. --Crash48 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You aren't answering arguments presented. The arguments stay. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Calling clearly attributed citations from secondary sources "a list of historical anecdotes from selected primary sources" is an obvious WP:GASLIGHT and doesn't need any refutation. --Crash48 (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

In particular, Ivan Kotliarevsky, regarded as the pioneer of modern Ukrainian literature, subtitled his Eneida (1798) as a translation into Little Russian language; this subtitle was used until 1842[2], but changed into Ukrainian language for the next edition in 1862.[3] As late as 1845, the Ukrainian poet and philologist Ivan Vahylevych referred to his language as Little Russian[4] for practical reasons, as this term was more familiar to his intended readers.[5] The linguonym Ukrainian language appears in Yakub Holovatsky's book from 1849,[6] listed there as a variant name of the Little Russian language. In a private letter from 1854, Taras Shevchenko lauds "our splendid Ukrainian language".[7] Pylyp Morachevskyi, the author of the first translation of the New Testament into Ukrainian, called the language Little Russian in his manuscript from 1861[8]; but when first published in 1907, the language of his translation was named both as Little Russian and as Ukrainian.[9] Valuyev's decree from 1863 derides the "Little Russian" language throughout, but also mentions "the so-called Ukrainian language" once.[10] In Galicia, the earliest applications of the term Ukrainian to the language were in the hyphenated names Ukrainian-Ruthenian (1866, by Paulin Święcicki) or Ruthenian-Ukrainian (1871, by Panteleimon Kulish and Ivan Puluj), with non-hyphenated Ukrainian language appearing shortly thereafter (in 1878, by Mykhailo Drahomanov).[11][12] is a collection of facts from selected primary sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't, as it incorporates citations from secondary sources. --Crash48 (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)