Talk:Ukrainization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Abominable facts of forced Ukrainization

"городские власти Ивано-Франковска. Согласно изданному ими распоряжению отныне запрещено говорит на русском на всей территории учебных заведенный, не разрешается проводит массовые мероприятия на русском языке и даже расклеивать объявления на русском языке в общественных местах. Поручено также вести наблюдение за книготорговцами и распространителями периодических изданий на русском языке". [1] Russianname 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate it, because now it's not a fact. Currently if You want to discuss something also note yourself for don't collect here facts and link. This page is not a blog or board. --194.44.200.142 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Russianname is trying to say is that the government of Ivano-Frankivsk prohibited the use of the Russian language in all schools, put out flyers in Russian in public areas, and organization of mass-public events in Russian as well. Also a supervision was enforsed upon the publishers of books and periodicals in Russian.

Well, that is all an empty fact, first of all, because it is; and second of all, because does not go into the details. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Ukrainization! There is a total Russification. Russification is when Moscow was forcing Ukrainians to build Russian schools and speak Russians, descriminating Ukrainian speaking scientists, teachers, soldiers, etc. There was no such thing in relationship to Ukrainian language. Kyiv does not force Russians build Ukrainian schools and speak Ukrainian in Russian Duma. That is ridiculuos. There is no Ukrainization, but a cultural revival of Ukrainian culture. And in my opinion the government in Ukraine be it local or national is way too lenient towards forcing deRussiafication of the culture and even a mentality. The Russian language should be prohibited completely for a few years and then permitted again if necessary. That way nobody such as Russianname would call deRussification as the "forced" Ukrainization. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

This map should be included in the article, however, I'm not sure if it's allowed to add an image with non-english letters in english wikipedia? Also, I don't know who the main authors of the article are, so I'll leave it up to them to find a proper space for this image. Best regards --Sylius 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like nationality data has been turned into a linguistic map - a neat, if not fully accurate, trick. Jd2718 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused over Federal/Local

On what level (federal, regional (or I guess Oblast), or local) are decisions on what language is taught in schools made?

Ethnographic territories in the beginning of 1900s versus Today

I have some collection of international links to Ukrainian and European ethnographic maps. Maybe it will help to see the difference with the current state:

Transport Minister forbids foreign songs in Ukrainian trains and aircrafts

I came acros this article [2]. Is it worth mentioning in this article that Transport and Communication Minister

talk) 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Russian language in Donetsk

Диалог 10:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you name some of the "many media outlets around the world" which republished this story?
This one primary-source factoid reported by one news agency (sans byline), with no additional background, no information about reactions to it, and no indication of how or if it is being implemented is being used to draw broad implications about an undefined scope of "opposition to expansion of Ukrainian-language teaching" in an undefined area of "eastern regions closer to Russia". This is not balanced, informative, or insightful. We know there is a language debate in Ukraine, but isolated news bites is not an encyclopedic way to demonstrate its nature.
Have a look at Russian-Speaking Citizens of Ukraine: “Imaginary Society” as it is in Zerkalo Nedeli. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 15:42 z
By the way, Yekelchyk (2007) talks a bit about pre and post-Soviet language issues in the context of politics, regional divisions, and the people's reactions. Alas, my copy is loaned out at the moment, but I'll add the full reference to the article. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 16:35 z
Found some context: the city prosecutor declared the decision illegal, the mayor of Donetsk suspended it the next day, and the council reversed itself two days later: Donetsk City Council Cancels Resolution Restricting Use Of Ukrainian Language In Educational Establishments. I'm sure there's more to the story, but let's not rely on context-free breaking news items and similar primary sources. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 17:26 z

Unsourced claims in the lead

There was recent addon to the article lead [3] following several reverts removing sources requests [4] or returning unsourced claims to the lead [5] [6] [7] [8] . The reverts were given comments like "discouraging Russian is evidenced by the banning of Russian in various aspects, as they sources show; education-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Meeting_near_Russian_school.jpg", "Stick to what the sources say", or no comment were given. The disputed parts are "systematically discouraging Russian" and "which has been banned in various aspects of life" (in bold), for which no sources were given, and no sources provided contain a word about "systematically" or "in various aspects of life". Can somebody please have a look. --windyhead (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on systematically but that seems like a strong statement and indeed needs to be supported by credible sources. As far as the ban goes, it is plainly not true. There is not a single document that bans Russian. It only gives preference to Ukrainian and establishes a quota of the laguage use. It is a well known practice in many countries. As such one can make equal claims of "ban" on Gagauzan, Hungarian and Crimean Tatar language in Ukraine or ban on English in Quebec (Canada), which is nonsense. As this is a hot political topic, there is a proliferation of one-sided sources; preference should be given to scholarly English language publications. --Hillock65 (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now we have 2 more unexplained reverts. What the correct action should be? --windyhead (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People removing source requests with comments like "see sources" and "there are sources already": instead of removing source requests again, please put a citation from source confirming statements for which sources are asked in place of source requests. --windyhead (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a friend living in Ukraine And he told me that many radio stations were closed, same thing cinema's. Think about it. A live Russian radio program. How will you translate it to Ukrainian? Closed down. Afro-Russian (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources content policy and put the article content into accordance to it --windyhead (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many radio stations closed and not a single website reported about it? If you don't hace
talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm a third party and I've read the lead and the English sources. The BBC said it was a "ban" on Russian. I'd say the BBC is pretty reliable as a source. So it is clear at least that Russian has been banned from radio programs and TV. I also believe the source that explains the ban on movies is reliable. I can't comment on the ban of Russian in the education system and government as I can't read the Russian source. I believe statements regarding the ban of Russian in TV, radio, and movies should be included, it is well sourced. I think if there is such a huge resentment of the word "systematicaly" then the sentence should be rewritten without it. If the editors trying to include the statements about the ban on Russian are editting

in good faith
then one word should not matter to the point of edit warring. That word is not vital to the meaning of the sentence. What is vital is that Russian was banned, not that it was systematically banned.

As for "in various aspects of life," that exact expression does not need to be stated word-for-word in the source in order for it to be included. We are not machines, we're editors. We possess the ability and authority to regurgitate information in a way it was not precisely written as before. My point is, in order to determine if the source does validate "in various aspects of life," you need to do more than a search for that expression in your browser. Read the source and determine if it states that Russian is indeed being banned from use in multiple aspects of life. I think the supporters of inclusion could be helpful in this and explain more specifically why they believe "in various aspects of life" is supported by the source (what paragraph or line). AzureFury (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your opinion. Editors adding "in various aspects of life" please cite sources confirming this before adding it back to the article. --windyhead (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't remove ban "according to some" - there is no single law exist banning the russian, and even BBC source states that russian movies with ukrainian subtitles are OK --windyhead (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I read said that radio and TV programs would face "severe penalties" if broadcast in Russian. I don't think that qualifies as "ok". AzureFury (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and later: This will mean that Russian-language films or programmes will need a Ukrainian translation or subtitles. --windyhead (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I stand corrected. Fair enough then. AzureFury (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an entire guideline dedicated to why we don't use terms such as "according to some". Read
WP:weasel. Fix the paragraph properly if you have a problem with it. Krawndawg (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Only 11% of Ukrainians opposed to more films dubbed in Ukrainian

I found a realaible source [9] that states only 11% of Ukrainians opposed to more films dubbed in Ukrainian, Any objevtions to put that information in the lead? PS those

talk) 20:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sure, by all means put it there. Right after the part about "bans" and dubbed films. It is a very important peace of information. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the poll ask how many of them want to ban Russian-language films? The poll is meaningless if not. Krawndawg (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ban on Russian films. That's why the poll doesn't ask for it. Films are still shown in Russian, only now they have to be supplied with subtitles in Ukrainian, and that upsets only 11% of movie goers. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is including the major candidate to the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Army" :
    • "Ukrainization, although with less success, was implemented in the Army (School of Red Commanders in Kharkiv, newspaper of the Ukrainian Military Disctricr "Chervona Amriya" published until the mid-1930s, etc.)".<br> ''Encyclopedia of Ukrainian studies)'' cited above
    • "Ukrainization, although with less success, was implemented in the Army (School of Red Commanders in Kharkiv, newspaper of the Ukrainian Military District "Chervona Armiya" published until mid-1930s, etc.)". ''Encyclopedia of Ukrainian studies)'' cited above

talk) 22:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sentence: "meaning Russian-language programmes should be subtitled in Ukrainian" should be in the lead!

I think the phrase meaning Russian-language programmes should be subtitled in Ukrainian (it was in there but

talk) 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This information is already as you put it word for word in the article's text. But not every minute piece of detail belongs to the lead. Also, the lead does not say "wipe out", it says "squeeze out" and this is exactly what a requirement of subtitling or dubbing does as this is certainly onerous and unaffordable for small local cable providers. The details about subtitling and dubbing requirement belong to the main body but the lead should only briefly say on what these policies amount to. --Irpen 21:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the Russian language public universities in Ukraine?

What is the purpose of the Russian language public universities in Ukraine? I understand private universities who pay their taxes to the Ukrainian government. Why does Ukrainian government need to spend money to build the Russian speaking universities when even the

Russian Federation cares less about except only spreading a bad word in that regard instead of investing into that issue? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Most of Ukrainians, if I am not mistaken, voted for the independent Ukraine with its own national culture and not an autonomous entity of the Russian Federation that is obligated to provide its Russian population with its special education system. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 03:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Ukrainization. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements needed on neutrality and citing

This article is extremely biased and there are many opinions given. I've worked on the first few sections and I'll continue to work on them, but additionally if anyone else has more knowledge on this subject and wants to help find citations for any of the 'facts' given then by all means go ahead, this article has so few citations it looks like the school projects I wrote when I was 12. Thanks guys! Finnybug (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magyarization

Well,

then I have to pinpoint here as well that in such form this addition is not supported, since it is confusing fo the reasons I raised:

Excluding Hungary, national/assimilation policies in the other countries mentioned have a relevantly different scope, since the subject's are Ukrainians without any debate in the Ukrainian historical regions, while regarding Hungary, the whole question is controversial, especially on such context and wording as this section is stating the things. In the Kingdom of Hungary, in the corresponding era, Rusyns/Ruthenians were the subject, who never called them or even regarded themselves Ukrainians then contemporarily - as many to also today. Thus even Hungarians did not know they would put "Ukrainians" as the subject of Magyarization and vica versa, moreover the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary were never part then or before any historical Ukrainian state or entity. Therefore also reffering to Western-Ukrainian territories are also misunderstandable, since i.e. Carpathian Ruthenia is only today part of Ukraine and may be called as a Western Ukrainian territory.Consequently, reffering to Magyarization to an era where the whole context is fallacious and confusing, and the conflict existing until today about the debate of origins or identification of the Rusyn People; that Ukraine/Ukrainians do not recognize them a spearate ethnicity should not be included or imported into anachronistic conditions.

The sentence that was anyway problematic should be rephrased, but if someone really stick to include Magyarization, then the necessary clarification needed (and an NPOV one, not "imperative" declarations that "they were Ukrainians, just they did not know about that" or any prejudicative standpoint. As well the term Ruthene is much broader, than Rusyn - however in Hungary the latter was definitively relevant - despite the official census counted Ruthenians, and it is heavily misleading to identify them Ukrainians just because of some possible nationalistic reasons back in time. Of course, this does not exclude the fact that later some of them accepted the Ukrainian identity, but we should not confuse modern times of some instances and retrospectiveley project in the past in an inproper way.

In case, if the sentence is properly rephrased reflecting the concerns written above and gains consensus, I won't have any objection to include Magyarization.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Language policy (2012)

I think new language policy (2012 summer) is also important here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine --Nimelik (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness

The language in this article tries really hard to sound soft and politically correct. Discrimination and prejudice against Russians and Turkic population is downplayed when you compare it to the way Russification article is written. 46.143.90.13 (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ukrainization&oldid=1208427171"