Talk:Valuev Circular

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

The more common name seems to be the "Valuyev circular". Any objection to moving this? Michael Z. 2006-11-18 04:57 Z

The document is know under different English names: Circular, Ukaz, Ukase, Edict, Decree. I agree that "circular" seems to be the most common name, but should it be "Valuev Circular" or "Valuyev Circular"?
Good question. I mostly see "Valuev", but that's because my books are North American publications which use ALA-LC transliteration. Wikipedia uses BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian: "Valuyev", but perhaps we should go with the former, to be consistent with the article "Pyotr Valuev". Michael Z. 2006-11-19 17:11 Z
I think, "Ukaz" is definitelly wrong word. There was "Valuyev circular" and "Ems ukaz". The status of this two documents was different. English translation should retain this difference.--AndriyK 10:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Ukrainian language never existed, does not exist, and shall never exist"[edit]

The article says that "in spite of commonly accepted opinions, this decree did not include" this phrase, and that "this phrase was included in his previous letter of 27 June 1863". However, the article also refers us to the russian wikisource, where we can see the following sentence:

Они весьма основательно доказывают, что никакого особенного малороссийского языка не было, нет и быть не может, и что наречие их, употребляемое простонародием, есть тот же русский язык, только испорченный влиянием на него Польши;

Who are you, ghost of Valuev? Ukrainian is my native language and none of the Russian will take it from me --68.38.122.179 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Which includes that phrase exactly, in modern writing. Who's right and who's wrong here? The Transliteratortalk 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That must have been transcribed from some writing about the Ems Ukaz rather than the Valeyev circular. That document did not include the notorious phrase, but Valuyev's Circular was the "previous letter" of 1863 (but I don't know why it says 27 June).
I've already updated the article to account for this. Sorry for the late reply. Michael Z. 2007-09-27 18:16 Z