Talk:Ukrainian language

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 [1] 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. [2], 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)

I'm not going to list them yet again, perhaps you should reread the sources you use... Moser in particular who uses "Ruthenian" to talk about the language in Hapsburg empire "Little Russian" in Russian Empire. [3]

The fact the source makes a point of saying it was a term used in the russian empire and not something like a historic term for Ukrainian implies that it was not substantially used outside the empire. Your use of primary and dated secondary sources rather than modern secondary ones also does not inspire confidence in the claim and is discussed below—blindlynx 16:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

implies that it was not substantially used outside the empire is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Thank you for making so obvious which party has to rely on synth for statements which they cannot find in any RS. Crash48 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH governs article content, not discussions. Somebody please bring this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rsk6400 . Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how your sources not supporting what you say is synth on my part—blindlynx 22:34, 26 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)

I don't know what you are trying to prove with that extensive collection of mentions of "Little Russian". Regardless, that collection should not be in the article. Me being you, I'd find a reliable source for the issue, and base a paragraph on it. For example, Kamusella has a few books which pay attention to the issue. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean when I state that you lot refuse to point out any specific synthesised (=implied but not explicitly stated by any source) statements. Your allegations of synthesis are entirely baseless, and you know it. Crash48 (talk) 08:25, 26 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)

How many citations of primary sources is your proposed text relying on? Why?  —Michael Z. 05:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Because it's explicitly permitted by Wikipedia policy, whereas your demand to abstain from citing primary sources is not based on any Wikipedia policy, and amounts to WP:STONEWALL. Crash48 (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSPRIMARY Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This draft is based mainly on reliable secondary sources. It uses citations from primary sources too. What exactly is your problem? Crash48 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Concerns are regarding the specific part quoted above based on primary sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I only asked how many.  —Michael Z. 21:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries only have entries for etymons like Ukrainian, not for their use in compound terms like Ukrainian language.  —Michael Z. 21:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The very idea of this type of section is not bad, even interesting and valuable, but not in its current form. The current form jumps from the name "Ruthenian" to the name "Little Russian" very quickly, completely ignoring other names that functioned before. The article ignores such names as " prosta mova," as well as the issue of the Ukrainian variant of the Church Slavonic.Marcelus (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Intermediate summary

Multiple editors expressed allegations that the draft is WP:SYNTH. None of these editors is willing to specify any particular conclusion which is implied by the draft but not explicitly stated in any of the cited sources, which is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Any further discussion with these editors is impossible until they either substantiate or strike out their allegations. --Crash48 (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay.  —Michael Z. 02:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Whatever the problem, some parts of the page are completely unsourced. This should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

Add the Brazilian city Prudentopolis as a place where Ukrainian language is official, because it was officialized some years ago. Sources:

http://web.archive.org/web/20220225004703/http://www.cmprudentopolis.pr.gov.br/index.php?sessao=a8e910730f0da8&id=59452 http://web.archive.org/web/20220225004645/https://nossagente.info/2021/10/06/lingua-ucraniana-e-oficialmente-a-lingua-co-oficial-do-municipio-de-prudentopolis/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220225232953/https://redesuldenoticias.com.br/noticias/lingua-ucraniana-e-oficializada-nessa-quarta-20-em-prudentopolis/ Mirandi7777 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

New svg map I have created

I have vectorised and turned the current map into an svg. Could someone with editing privileges please change the current map to this one?

Thanks. Mnohohrishnyi (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop

Moved from User talk:Manyareasexpert § Please stop

 – ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, please don't revert my edits without talking first. I am tackling the citations and the duplinks and the individual cns on this dreadful article are not needed - I can see where the text needs to be cited. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, I don't see the reason for the CN template for the whole article, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It can go if you want, but the article as a whole needs the citations checked, and any uncited material removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! After you're done, as the article is mostly supplied with sources, there is no sense to have CN for the whole of it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you help with the missing citations? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are you doing, which sentence(s) you need the source for? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Err... any with ^{[citation needed]} after them, or any that are clearly in need of a citation. If you can help, that would be great. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Request on adding a link to the relevant article Geographical distribution of Ukrainian speakers

I think that the Ukrainian language #Current usage section would be better if its beginning provided a link to the Geographical distribution of Ukrainian speakers article. It contains census data from different countries and other important information. Swiirwo (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)