The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Kiev Pechersk Lavra did not officially support little identity
It is mistake to say about Kiev Pechersk Lavra as a supporter of "identity". There is only one (but not 3) source by Miller, saying about one local orthodox hierarch (who was not Kiev Lavra Representative), probably archimandrite Innokentiy who wrote a "Synopsis". However, Miller concluded that "Synopsis" author was aiming to show motivation to Moskovy King to continue his war with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as well as to make easier the process of Cossack Hetmanate elite incorporation to Russian society. Shervinsky, there is no sources allowing to say the Kiev Lavra Orhtodox to support the Little Russia identity. --Andrux (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All this doesn't change things. Историк Михаил Дмитриев отмечает, что «Синопсис» не может быть признан конструкцией ad hoc и сознательным сотворением некой востребованной временем политической идеологемы. Указывая на долгую традицию выступлений за единство Руси среди православных книжников, он считает Синопсис не стартовой, а промежуточной и сравнительно поздней вехой в формировании концепции единого русского народа (Дмитриев М. В. Этнонациональные отношения русских и украинцев в свете новейших исследований // Вопросы истории, № 8. 2002. — С. 154—159). Besides Gizel many other archimandrites and monks wrote about the Little Russian people, for example Yelisey Pletenetsky. The image and the text above is legitimate. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I'm talking to you personally on behalf of your personal objections. This is an excerpt. Your pretension not to know Russian raises doubts about your overall sincerety. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a reference to publication of Yelisey Pletenetskiy. What do you mean by saying something on "on behalf of your personal objections"? What do you mean by applying words "excerpt" and "sincerety"? --Andrux (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of Pletenetsky the Print Yard of Kievan Pechersk Lavra was founded (as well as Radomysl paper mill) where many Orthodox works were published of Job Boretsky, Pamvo Berinda, Lavrentiy Zizaniy, Petro Mohyla, Ivan Vishensky, Isaya Kopinsky, Tarasiy Zemka, Zakharia Kopystensky (who was also Lavra archimandrite) etc. All of them polemicized with Uniates and Catholics and many wrote about the Little Russian people. You can get a good overview here, a lots of is said about the term Little Russia. Note that many of the mentioned authors were directly connected to the Lavra, not just via publication in its Print Yard. --Shervinsky (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does every Russian wiki-paster make this presumption that everyone knows who to speak Russian on English wikipedia? "Your pretension not to know Russian raises doubts about your overall sincerity." SERIOUSLY? --Львівське (говорити) 15:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Living in Ukraine is different than living in Canada, dude. If somebody can't speak Russian in Ukraine, he hardly becomes Doctor of Medicine since most of the professional literature is in Russian. --Shervinsky (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you I am living in Ukraine and got my PhD there, dude? Moreover, ALL professional literature is published in English, not in Russian, at least in medical science. This is not polite at En-Wiki to use other then English in the discussions. Concerning this publication you provided previously, I was not able to find there anything regarding the Little Russians identity.--Andrux (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard the "you obviously know Russian" argument twice this week, it's annoying me and a cop out from having to verify sources. Was I a bit general? Sure, sue me.--Львівське (говорити) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you live in Sweden, I believe you, that the professional literature THERE ist in English. In Ukraine however, the majority doesn't have that level of English and reads mostly Russian literature. If you read the text carefully, you probably noticed that the historian tells not only about the reintroduction of the term Little Russia but also about the gradual development of the understanding by Little Russians of their close cultural ties with Grand Russians. This is nothing else than development steps of the Little Russian identity. And numerous people connected to Kiev Pechersk Lavra had a big role in it. --Shervinsky (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a nit-pick FYI thing, but 'grand russians' aren't a thing; the 'greater' part emphasizes their territory being a grater distance from Constantinople, not their stature. --Львівське (говорити) 17:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent revert on this dispute, with Shervinsky inserting it citing Kohut without a page number. The Kohut article is here. Can someone verify if it's actually in citation?
The quote from the article at the time of verification: "|The archimandrites and Orthodox writers of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra where among the leading ideologists of the Little Russian identity and the Triune Russian people in the 17th century"
I was about to start tagging several references in need of English translations of the relevant passages. I'll download the PDF and try to wade through it some time today (if I can get to it). I'll let you know as soon as I find the info AND can verify that it is an accurate interpretation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a PS, thanks for finding the English language version. Shervinsky should be using the English language references, not their translations into Russian, in the first instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've had a good read through and can't identify anything even resembling Shervinsky's interpretation of the material. The brunt of Kohut's article is antithetical to anything postulated by Shervinsky in writing this article. In relation to the 17th century archimandrites, what Kohut does examine is Nikon's attempts to merge the enlightened, European, humanitarian and scholarly Ukrainian Orthodoxy with archaic and insular Russian (at that time still Muscovite) Orthodoxy in order to create a united, universal Eastern Orthodox Church: an exercise which failed and resulted in the raskol that divides the Russian church to this day. Kohut goes on to discuss later Russian scholarship surrounding this epoch as being 'revisionist', citing various Russian scholars as taking very different positions to each other in their interpretations.
In a nutshell, while Kohut is undoubtedly a V and respected RS, I have no idea where Shervinsky's source is to be found because it certainly can't be found in the work he's citing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this passage, aside from the rampant WP:OR and POV pushing going on, but Plokhy] page 38 makes no mention of what's going on in this text. It mentions the Khazar myth in passing, nothing more. I suggest info on the Khazar myth be put back in the article as an 'alternative theory' of origin, but as it stood this text was too rotten to keep without re-writing entirely to keep within what plokhy actually says--Львівське (говорити) 08:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well Serhii Plokhii is a reputable source, says that Divovych argued with themes taking from 'Mazepa's days', including "the Khazar myth, which established the separate ethnic origins of the Cossacks," and that Hlukhiv "made no mention of the Khazar origins of the Cossacks, which established Ukraine's distinct, non-Rus' origins."--Львівське (говорити) 23:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske, let alone the paragraph and stop to demonstrate your lack of knowledge. Have you read the "Constitution" anyway? Here is an excerpt: Дивный и нεпостижимый в сүдбахъ своих Б[о]гъ, милосεрдный в долготεрпѣнії, пр[а]вεдный в казни, яко всεгда от початку видимого сεго свѣта на пр[а]вдномъ правосүдія свого мирилѣ, εдны Панства и Nароды возвышаεтъ, другіε за грѣхи и бεззаконія смираεтъ, εдны порабощаεт, другіε свобождаεтъ, εдны возноситъ, другіε низвεргаεтъ, такъ и nародъ валεчный стародавный козацкий, прεждε сεго имεнованый козарскій, пεршъ прεвознεслъ былъ славою нεсмεртεлною, обширнымъ владѣніεмъ и ωтвагами рицεрскими, которими нε тылко окрεстным nародомъ, лεчь и самому восточному панству на морѣ и на зεмли страшεнъ былъ такъ далεцε, жε цεсар восточный, хотячи оный сεбѣ вѣчнε примирити, сопряглъ малжεнскимъ союзомъ с[ы]нови своεму дочку кагана, то εст князя козарского. You also searched very badly in the book of Plokhy. I hope, this issue is now over. Does anyone want to translate the Russian wiki article? --Shervinsky (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I see here is a block of text in another language. I see enough letters that no longer exist in Russian orthography. What is this? No, the issue is not resolved by this mystery passage you have provided, especially the matter of original research. Primary sources are not yours to interpret.--Львівське (говорити) 01:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're well acquainted with the Wikipedia policy on primary sources, Shervinsky. Try providing a V and RS (secondary, thank you). After doing so, we'll be in a position to evaluate whether it's as you represent it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Plokhy, he says "The idea of a distinct Cossack nation of Khazar origin was popular among the Ukrainian elites that supported the revolt of Mazepa against Tsar Peter I in 1708. Their vision of a proud and heroic Cossack nation that..." p5. Note he does not use the word "myth", not does he say they were unrelated to Rus' people (as we know, Rus' has minor origins in the Rus' Khaganate and Khazar influence to a degree). The steppes weren't really Rus' lands so they identified with the peoples that preceded them.--Львівське (говорити) 08:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specify your requests
What about all those weird requests your group brings in again and again?
In the now linked article of Zakatnova there is nothing about language. There is clearly said that nationality was registered by order. If you doubt the sourced information, bring counter-proofs yourself.
Savenko is born in Pereyaslav, he has nothing to do with Great Russians.
What exactly do you want to be clarified in the Soviet section? Which examples do you need, if examples are already there?
Gogol is considered an archetypical Little Russian, this is clearly sourced. And the sources citation also says much about his self-identification. The removal of this sourced issues is vandalism
There is enough said on Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. What else do you want?
Who are you addressing and who is 'your group'? You continuously speak to editors as if there were some sort of conspiracy against you. This behaviour has been noted regarding your contributions to several articles now. Any 'group' here is a group of contributors working independently of each other. If there are problems with the articles you've copied, translated and pasted from their corresponding Russian Wikipedia entry, it means that there are questionable sources, material and (worse still) specious interpretations being brought over along with the translated article. Identifying problems is part of the process of developing an article in order that it meet English Wikipedia standards. The article you've introduced here is full of holes and misrepresentation of sources, therefore removal of sources checked and not meeting verification can in no way be understood to be vandalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shervinsky, you'll have to be more specific with what you don't understand needs to be clarified. If a clarify tag highlights a sentence, that sentence needs to be clarified as it's likely gobbledygook. The OR tag at the top of the article is for the ongoing discussions related to questionable sources, as well as OR tags within the article pointing out contentious material that appears to be original research. Connect the dots and don't play coy. --Львівське (говорити) 02:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're concentrating on Sinopsis as if it were the embodiment of all views held by the archimandrites yet, according to Kohut (whose work you're using as an RS):
"The Sinopsis’ somewhat extreme Russocentrism was one view among several held by members of the Ukrainian clerical elite. In the 1670s, Feodosii Sofonovych, the archimandrite of the Monastery of St. Michael of the Golden Domes, wrote another major historical work, Kronika. Sofonovych traces the history of Rus’ during the Kievan period, then describes how Lithuania absorbed Rus’, and finally focuses on Poland’s entry into Rus’ history. He shows little concern for the Russian territories of Rus’. Like Gizel’ in the Sinopsis, Sofonovych concentrates on rulers, but the Russian Rurikides are of no interest to him. Instead, he lavishes his attention on Prince Danylo of Galicia-Volhynia. He sees the Muscovites and Ruthenians as separate peoples. In describing hetman Khmel’nyts’ky’s placement of Ukraine under the suzerainty of Muscovite tsar, Sofonovych simply reports the event without expressing any opinion about it." (page 6)
Enough of your cherry picking. If you want to put together an article on the subject, use the RS in keeping with what it examines retaining the integrity of the work. Ultimately, all you are engaging in is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous or just plain incomprehensible
As the subject of gobbledygook has been touched on, can anyone enlighten me as to what the caption for Savenko means?
"Anatoly Savenko was one of the most prominent Little Russian political activist(s) in Kiev prior to WWI"
Does that mean that he was a prominent political activist who happened to be of Little Russian descent (Ukrainian) although he was actually of Russian descent? Should his photo be there? Should the caption be there? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was he of Russian descent? He obv has a Ukrainian surname. According to his wiki page he was a hardcore Russian nationalist. I think the caption is trying to say he was a big pusher of the Little Russian identity (that is, "Ukrainians are just a branch of Russians"). Maybe he self identified as a Little Russian? That said, I have no idea why he's got a photo op in the article. There's no citation to back up that he was "the most prominent" activist, but even if there was a ref it's another matter if he's notable enough.--Львівське (говорити) 08:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm not certain. His surname certainly demonstrates that he must have had an Ukrainian forebear somewhere in his past... Nevertheless, considering that the photo and caption are the only reference to him, I fail to see what relevance he has to the article: more so in light of its being a gratuitous use of an image with gobbledygook as the caption. Prominent as what? I don't understand it to be self explanatory that he was 'the most prominent' activist for the Little Russian identity (although I'm guessing that's what is being suggested). For a reader who knows nothing about the subject, it's a confusing piece of nothing in particular. Ukrainian or not Ukrainian, it really doesn't belong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and Happy New Year! Despite his last name, Savenko was a Russian activist and nationalist publishing works related to Little Russia in relation to Great Russia, as Lvivske suggested. That is why his photo can probably be placed in the article.--Andrux (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Savenko has nothing to do with Great Russia, neither by descent nor by self-identification. He identified himself as Little Russian who adheres All-Russian unity. This is exactly what Little Russian identity is about. This doesn't make him a (Great) Russian nationalist. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes him an Russian imperialist. No single comment above said he was a 'Great Russian nationalist' or that he was of 'Great Russian descent / identification'. Stop making things up. --Львівське (говорити) 17:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous historians and political scientists are not always honest
As of now this Wiki-article claims: Numerous historians and political scientists share the view that the Little Russian identity still lives in parts of the Ukrainian society. I read a lot of English sources about current Ukraine... But not one claimed that "the Little Russian identity still lives in parts of Ukraine". Is that because English speaking historians and political scientists know the Little Russian identity is dead in all parts of Ukraine and some Russian historians and political scientists wants us to believe the Little Russian identity still lives in parts of Ukraine because they are Russian imperialists? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!01:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already re-wrote All-Russian nation, that was like 6000 words, I'm spent for the time being on OP's rubbish lol. If something is questionable, nuke it, it seems every time Iryna or I factcheck something it fails. The trend will continue.--Львівське (говорити) 02:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that a lot of people in Crimea still say they have a Soviet identity... But Soviet identity seems to be a different thing then Little Russian identity... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!02:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm in my studies that yes, many still self identify as part of the 'Soviet people', but this is in contrast to Little Russian - it's actually a rejection of Russianess itself; Soviet, in this sense, is post-Russian. I think (trying to remember here) it's more common among 'ethnic Russians' but it comes about because they were born in the Soviet Union and in Ukraine they feel no attachment to Russia itself (dont come from there, don't live there) so they continue to identify with what they know.--Львівське (говорити) 06:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying with old regimes and rewriting history are entirely different matters. I have a backlog of other articles to be copyedited, fact checked and reworked (including still ploughing through some other articles Shervinsky overwrote and filled with untranslated citations). In light of the fact that I can now expressly state that everything he put his hand to was misrepresented in the other articles (as well as serious peacock statements, weasel words and blatantly POV, anti-Ukrainian sentiments), per Lvivske, I fail to see why we should be under some obligation in trying to make sense of incomprehensible sections or wade through even more disinformation here. I've even tried to find other sources reflecting any truth in citations which proved to fail verification. Lvivske has put the hard work into creating a coherent article of the mess. Everything else with requests for clarification, citations and translations deserves to be nuked. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little Russian identity. 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:
I have just modified 2 external links on Little Russian identity. 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:
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.