Talk:Russian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Russian language:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify : the whole article especially History section
  • Other : rewrite Grammar section (add info about Russian grammar's specificities, such as exactness, difficulty to learn by foreigners, etc.). Also borrowing of words, due to Peter I (who spoke Dutch himself and started bringing Europeans to Russia) should be mentioned. Russian has significant number of Dutch and French words, most of which are modified either due to grammar or simply because "plain people" couldn't pronounce them (or maybe just mocked them up).
Former featured article Russian language is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2004.

Not number one in Mongolia[edit]

"It is currently the most widely taught foreign language in Mongolia, and has been compulsory in Year 7 onward as a second foreign language since 2006.[29][30]" The first ref, which is too old, does not support the statement; the second is also old. In fact, the government already has English as the most commonl taught foreign language. Since I don't have a ref., I won't change the page, but I hope some-one will get a recent government statistic on foreign-language teaching in Mongolia.Kdammers (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article says that Russian was to be replaced as the first foreign language in autumn 2005, so I changed the statement from "currently" to 2005. --illythr (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
But now it says that it IS compulsory, since it says "since 2006." This is still wrong: students do not have to take Russian. Kdammers (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
That's what the last available source says. Can you provide another, more modern one stating what you say? --illythr (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This is one of the really frustrating things about Wik's policies. If we have an old source that says the night sky over New York city is black, we are stuck with it, because, even though it is obvious to millions of New Yorkers that it is not [i.e., no longer] true, since nobody has pointed out the well-known fact in a citable source, we stay with [personally verifiably] wrong statements. I can't cite students, school headmistresses, parents, education officials spoken words or use my own observations in my class-rooms to state this fact. For some reason, the Ministry of Science and Education doesn't put this kind of information on its WWW site.Kdammers (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It's actually worse than that. You have one respectable scholar make a translation error, other scholars reference his wrong data and then have this data solidly rooted in a Wikipedia article, because no one bothered to check the original source and your contacting the original author and getting him to state the obvious qualifies as original research. Still, to profane Churchill, while the system sucks, no better ones have been found, to date. As the Essjay controversy had demonstrated, nothing can be assumed of Wikipedia editors' expertise and knowledge when it comes to editing mainspace content (well, except good faith, heh-heh). Without sources to back you up, another user may appear and rewrite the text into stating the opposite citing his own personal experience with Mongolians he's acquainted with.
I suspect, the necessary information is widely available in the Mongolian sector of the net, though. It's just that, well, nobody cares enough around these parts. --illythr (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the necessary information does not seem to be widely available "in the Mongolian sector." The relevant Ministry doesn't list or link to the information on either its Mongolian or English pages, and searches using relevant terms in Mongolian in Google and in a standard Mongolian newspaper turned up nothing. I'm sure if I went down to the Ministry' s Office I could come up with a citable source. But I don't feel like spending half a day on doing that. Kdammers (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I sent an inquiry to the Mongolian Edu. Ministry on this-hopefully they will provide a useable response.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you get a response? I teach English in Mongolia and can get no citable source. Since the statement was patently wrong, I have changed it by making it past tense, leaving mention of current status blank. Thus, I have complied with Wik policy and still got rid of a wrong statement.Kdammers (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
No I didn't - damn their eyes!  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

russkiy yazyk --> russkij yazyk[edit]

Should the transliteration scheme used here be changed to the GOST 7.79 (2002) standard? The Romanization of Russian page states that is the official standard of the Russian Federation and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Nicole21532 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but since this is the English Wikipedia, what difference does it make which standard is official in Russia? In absence of one official transliteration standard in the English-speaking countries, we use one that's arguably the most common (BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian). Such approach is consistent with the overall Wikipedia philosophy of using the names/titles/spelling variations/romanization systems most common in the English language.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 17, 2012; 17:33 (UTC)

The map[edit]

I'm to delete the map "russian language in eurasia" because it contains incorrect information. It shows russian as minority language in plenty of regions, in which russian is actually native for absolute majority. (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Number L2 speakers[edit]

We need a new source for the number of L2 speakers. I deleted the Ethnologue figure, which was obviously wrong: They say there are 137M L1 (2010 census) and 110M L2 speakers in Russia, a country of 143M people. Perhaps this is a figure inherited from the USSR, and copied over as if Russia were the same thing? If that's the case, it's badly outdated anyway. (No date is given.) — kwami (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

the Russian Federation is down to 143M people?? That's quite a reduction, even taking into account the areas lost to independence from the USSR days.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)