Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 15 May 2007

Ukraine B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

An entry from Russian language in Ukraine appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 April, 2007.

Maps

The quality is awful, can't someone make some good .pngs? --Kuban Cossack 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try, but I will base it off Image:Map of Ukraine political simple blank.png. —dima/talk/ 23:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you do the second one as well? --Kuban Cossack 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try, but will start a bit later.. —dima/talk/ 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a new better, please check it, I think it may be better.

Remove the Oblast centre titles, they are excessive here, leave only a separate heading for Kiev and Sevastopol. --Kuban Cossack 09:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I`m not so familiar with Photosop :)) Russianname 10:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I`ve changed the map. You may revert. Could anybody revome the table "Support" under the map? I tried with no success. Also it would be better to frame the tables if anybody knows how to do this. Russianname 11:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As requested I made the headings larger.--Kuban Cossack 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Header copy

Pointing out that the header states that the Russian language is the most common first language in Kyiv, whereas the maps point out otherwise. The only mention of the capital in the article itself is the Byurkhovetskiy reference about the Russian language being its dominant form of communication. So is the header copy a mistake, or something yet to be referenced? The article is looking great. Good work!--tufkaa 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the question here is actual language versus language usage. Remember one can have a native tongue and use the other one much more frequently, which is the case for Kiyev. --Kuban Cossack 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I`ve provided a link more, . The Russian language dominates in communication in Kiev, but it is not considered to be native for the Kievites (I think the grounds of this position are extralinguic, political). Russianname 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed at multiple pages. Some that I remember of the top of my head:

• Talk:Ukraine/Archive02#in_fact_more_fluent__in_Russian_than_in_Ukrainian
• Talk:Ukrainian language/archive03#Percentage of speakers.
• Talk:Ukrainian language/archive03#Native language vs. mother tongue.

That said, I think the article right now is somewhat one-sided but I will sure add to it. Also, please make sure that this article and Ukrainization don't fork each other. The best way is to have a clear understanding what belongs were and keep it there. Regards, --Irpen 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

I see that Kuban has reverted AndriyK's edits. I concur with the revertion of these misleading edits. The claim AndriyK makes about UA constitution is false. The only thing the constitution states is it grants the Russian a constitutional protection along with other languages in Ukraine. It does not give the Ukrainian any official status, contrary to AndriyK's edit. Second, AndriyK replaced the reference with the "fact" tag. This does not even need to be commented on. Page 68 of the referenced document provides the data cited in the article. If lack of the page number is an issue, I request AndriyK to start cleaning up after himself. The whole set of references he added to the UA language origin section point to lengthy books or multi-hundred page essays and lack page numbers or any narrower pointer. Finally, he weaselized as specific (and referenced) statement in the article by replacing it with meaningless: "the Russian language is used not only by native speakers." This statement means nothing, it can be said also about English, German and Yiddish. --Irpen 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's notorious how your team acts: first Kuban kazak reverts everything without explanation. And then, in two and a half ours comes Irpen with explanations.

OK, let's discuss.

My claim about the UA Constitution is true. The Constitution says

In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed.

The phrase "Russian, and other languages of national minorities" clearly implies that the Constitution recognizes Russian as a minority language.

This is not my personal interpretation. This was stated officially by the UA Ministry of justice:

22. Конституція України чітко визначила статус російської мови: відповідно до положення частини третьої статті 10 Конституції російській мові в Україні надано статус мови національної меншини.

You may write in the article that many Russophones are not satisfied with the minority status for their language and would prefer higher status. It's true. But what is written in the version restored by your friend is not true. Because Russian has officially recognized status in Ukraine. And tis status is minority language.

Concerning the reference. Is it not better to link the reference to the proper page instead of revert warring?

It's look very strange if the reference about the language usage is linked to a page telling something about a political crizes but not even a single word about the language usage.

I looked for a relevant page at that site, but did not find anything. If you can find, please correct the link. This would be much more usefull then your advocating of the revert warrior.

Concerning "the whole set of references I added to the UA language origin section" they are linked to books about the history of Ukrainian language, not to the pages about political crizis or anything else. It's not possible to give references to particular pages, because the facts are explained grounded on tens of pages in these books. The books are wriiten by very serious scientists and every fact is considered in details, and it takes many pages to explain them. In contast, the table with figures has to be located somewhere in one plase. Why not to give the proper link if this data do exist?

Concerning the third point. What is written in the version you advocate is just plaine desinformation:

According to a public opinion poll, the Russian language is used far more than was claimed by the official census.

The official census does NOT make any clames about the language usage.

Only the number of native speakers are listed there. This is not the same thing as language usage. Because native Ukrainophones can use Russian, and vice versa.

How the poll can tell us that "Russian language is used far more than was claimed by the official census" if the official census does not say anything about the usage?

I add the disputed tag to the article. I kindly ask your and your friends do not remove it until the dispute is resolved.--AndriyK 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Russian a minority language ?

Thanks, Irpen, for these explanations, but I'm confused now. Does Russian have a status of minority language in Ukraine or not ? If not, then what is missing to fit the definition, and what definition ? --Lysy 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The census and the poll

Why are the poll results different from the census ? Was different methodology used ? --Lysy 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because the polls are subjected to statistical errors. Look at the data for years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. It looks like 3 to 4 percent of Ukranians change their mother language every second year. ;) Or there are years when only rusophones die and only ukrainiphones are born, foolowed by the year with the opposite tendency. ;)

Additionally, nearly all polls in Ukraine have a systematic bias. The interviewer are to lazy to go to remote villages, and prefer to ask people living near large cities. Hence sytematic undeestimation of the inhabitants of the population in the countryside. This is a well known fact. Polls systematically underestimated the election results of the paties that are especially popular among rural population.--AndriyK 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles