Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arguments to delete are generally not founded in policy. Deletion would be appropriate if the topic as a whole; that is, suppression of the Ukrainian language; were not covered in reliable sources. Those arguing to keep have put forward such sources, which have not been rebutted. All other concerns, such as specific unverifiable content, or whether a list is the best format, are best resolved through talk page discussion or direct editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It's a misleading list, conflacting many various unconnected events, in order to create impression of a total suppression of Ukrianian language throughout the ages. Not to mention that some points on the list I was able to verify are simply false Marcelus (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and History. Marcelus (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to this internal project discussion on a subject that contains content related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed. See WP:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 17:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment @Marcelus, care to give examples of those "points on the list I was able to verify are simply false"? Ping me if you reply. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 15:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Bestagon the one I already deleted: decision of the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth on the introduction of the Polish language in the courts and institutions of the Right-Bank Ukraine is false, because in 1697 Sejm recognised Polish as a de facto language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ukraine wasn't part of it for a long time. But there are others, almost all of them are problematic. For example: 1884 - the ban by Alexander III of Ukrainian theater in all the provinces of Little Russia is not true. Ukrainian theater was banned earlier but in 1881 the ban was abolished, 1880s was actually small "golden age" of Ukrainian theatre in Russian Empire. Another: 1869 – Introduction of the Polish language as the official language of education and of the administration of Polish Eastern Galicia, even if that is true it's not a ban of Ukrainian, because Polish replaced German, in the worst case situation of Ukrianian didn't change. Basically all of them are problematic, I was trying to confirm them in historical literature, but couldn't find any, basically only Valuev Circular and Ems decree are supported by actual historians. It's basically copypasted list that circulates in Ukrainian/Russian webzone for couple years. Marcelus (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Bestagon to continue: 1720 – Peter I's decree banning printing in the Ukrainian language and the seizure of Ukrainian church books., what actually happened (and what reference is saying): Peter III forbade the printing of non-religious books in Pechersk Lavra and Chernigov, regardless of language. Marcelus (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could it not be reworded? Mellk (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Bestagon Another example: 1881 – Prohibition of teaching in the public schools and conducting church sermons in Ukrainian. is completely wrong, in 1881 the amendment was made to Ems decree allowing usage of Ukrainian in dictionaries (but with Russian alphabet) and the theatrical performances were allowed, but only after the special permision of governor-general, and exclusively Ukrainian theatrical companies were prohibited. The Church sermons in Ukrainian were disallowed much earlier, but it's impossible to pin point the exact date, because there was no such official decree. That's another problem with this article, it was rarely done officialy, by officially enacted decrees it was often done on a local level, over longer period of time etc. What's more some things were disallowed at some point, later allowed to be disallowed again. It was much more complex process Marcelus (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article contains useful information and presents it in a clear manner. On a sidenote, deleting such an article while the Russo-Ukrainian War is raging and the Ukrainian identity itself is repeatedly questioned could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether the article should be deleted or not should depend on if it meets the criteria for deletion (not saying this one necessarily does). We are not going to keep articles because something "could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action". The nominator however needs to be more specific on why it should be deleted and what guidelines it does not meet. Mellk (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * speedy keep - Marcelus above identifies some elements in the list that are unverifiable or wrong. The proper thing to do in that case, of course, is to delete anything that is unsourced or incorrect, not to come to AfD. Quite possibly the article would also need a re-write into a proper article, instead of a list. But absence of an applicable AfD rationale for a deletion is a criterion for speedy keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it looks like you have had some content disputes with the nominator very recently. Mellk (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mellk yeah, @Cukrakalnis is trying to frame me in all things worst for some time, I got used to it. I added to my statement more specific examples Marcelus (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mellk, Marcelus has insulted me by saying that You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus. and firmly stands by what he said (in his own words on 17 July 2022) in direct response when I brought up his verbal abuse towards me in this section (links to both can be found in that section). He also has repeatedly denigrated my work on Wikipedia, which he also did in that section, where I was asking for a stop to the unending disputes between us through a WP:IBAN, but for some reason it was not satisfied despite ample reason. In fact, Marcelus tried (unsuccesfully) to get me banned that same month on baseless accusations. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My opinion about your edits didn't change a bit. And once again these aren't insults. Can we now focus on the topic? Marcelus (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone has basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus is clearly an insult and this was only brought up because of your false accusations towards me. You yourself went off-topic and I was obliged to address your false claims. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article clearly meets notability criteria, article form (timeline) is a common way to convey information on Wikipedia. The rational for deletion is an unsubstantiated POV ("It's a misleading list, conflacting many various unconnected events, in order to create impression of a total suppression of Ukrianian language throughout the ages.") and articles in need of improvement is not a valid reason to delete. ("Not to mention that some points on the list I was able to verify are simply false").  // Timothy :: talk  01:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The information in this article may be useful, but this is an unorthodox and unprecedented style of article in Wikipedia. I am not sure why is a timeline of this necessary, I am sure the information can be integrated into other articles without any problem. That deletion "could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action" is a statement that shouldn't be taken seriously in this discussion. Super   Ψ   Dro  01:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is orthodox and well precedented. See WP:Timeline and WP:Timeline standards. —Michael Z. 17:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See also List of timelines and Category:Wikipedia timelines. —Michael Z. 15:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This "incorrect" info might be accurate (or not, haven't verified the nom's claims), but it's pretty weird to have an article on this bunch of unrelated events. As mentioned before, "could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action" is not a valid argument. In fact, I can say that keeping the article could very well be construed of anti-Russian action. (That also won't be a valid argument, but it's pretty much the same logic.) The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 04:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Super Dromaeosaurus @The Bestagon @Mellk I said ...could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action not because that would be a valid argument for keeping the article on Wikipedia (I thought I made it clear by saying On a sidenote) and not because the mere deletion of this article would be a case of Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, but merely to remind all those involved about how sensitive Wikipedians should be when it comes to Ukraine-related content on Wikipedia, considering the current Russian aggression against Ukraine, Ukrainians and the Ukrainian identity. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for misunderstanding your statement, but it doesn't change my earlier !vote though. The point stands that the article is just a collection of decrees (official and not) that aren't really related, except by their goal of suppressing the Ukrainian language. This general idea can be portrayed with a few sentences on an article on the history of Russian- or Polish-ruled Ukraine. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 13:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this is chronology list based on academician sorces and objects of academician study. Importance and citetion criteria are obvious.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument is false: 90% of the article is based on single source, non-academic article Marcelus (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you saw Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression section? --PsichoPuzo (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's irrelavant, since it's pretty obvious the whole chronology was copypasted from the article in reference Marcelus (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Try to read something frome those section, and other links.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read my all my comments here, and you will see that I know what I am talking about Marcelus (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. A short guide to the linguicide of the Ukrainian language | Infographics, The “Doubling of Hallelujah” for the “Bastard Tongue”: The Ukrainian Language Question in Russian Ukraine, 1905–1916 // Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute How Russia weaponizes the language issue in Ukraine, It's good that you can read cyrillic.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why you link all of these? Marcelus (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep  It’s mind-boggling that someone can say 1) the oppression of Ukrainian language, by colonial powers, in Ukraine is all “unconnected.” Padded with two straw-man arguments 2) “in order to create impression of a total suppression of Ukrianian [sic] language” – falsely infers a malign motivation on the part of the nasty editors that created the article, falsely infers that “total” has some backing or significance, but fails to give a valid WP:DEL-REASON, and 3) “some points on the list . . . are simply false” – also an invalid reason to delete. —Michael Z. 16:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But I’ll indulge and address 1) in detail. I guess, in lieu of any other applicable WP:DEL-REASON, the proposal is implying that the list doesn’t meet WP:N, or WP:LISTN. This timeline has been around for nine years without any deletion requests, so it’s not in some way obviously non-notable or clearly ripe for deletion. It does belong under the umbrella of established subject areas, including language policy, linguistic imperialism, linguistic discrimination, linguistic racism, cultural assimilation, cultural genocide. And it is specifically covered by sources as a subject field in Ukrainian history and linguistics, and indeed this is a topic integral to that subject. For example, George Y. Shevelov (1989), The Ukrainian language in the first half of the twentieth century, 1900-1941: its state and status, includes chapters that “place the language in its political and historic contexts: its suppression as the consequence of Ukrainian political oppression by Russians, Poles, and Rumanians, as well as Czechs and Slovaks,” and conceives the book as a “history of linguistic imperialism” (according to reviewer Dragan Milivojevic). And yes, the topic and the attempt to delete this invaluable document is also strongly related to current events and the topic of Ukrainian nationality: Milivojevic also writes “of course, as the author points out, at the root of the various forms of suppression of the Ukrainian language was the denial of separate Ukrainian nationality. By denying the former, the latter was also denied. . . .” In case you don’t know, Russia is accused of incitement to genocide as part of its current war of aggression, with the evidence including “high-level Russian officials have repeatedly denied the existence of Ukrainian language, culture and national identity, implying instead that those who identify as distinctly Ukrainian threaten the ‘unity’ of Russians and Ukrainians.” Not only does it need to be updated to account for recent events, it should not be ignored or deleted in their context. —Michael Z. 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets WP:LISTN, this topic has been covered by sources such as this, this, and this, as well as sources mentioned above. As observed by Michael Z the issues raised by the nominator are not valid WP:DEL-REASONs --Tristario (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't you people see the problem here? Two of the links you put there are literally the same list we have here, it's redundant. This list was copy pasted in Russian/Ukrainian web for years now, it's everywhere. Plus nobody here is trying to erase narrative about the suppression of Ukrainian language, there is already Ukrainian language article, there can be History of Ukrainian language article etc. Marcelus (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The existence of an article on a particular topic does not preclude a timeline article on that same topic, or an outline of that topic, or an index for the topic. They provide different ways to view and understand a topic and its constituent articles (chronologically, topically, alphabetically) and provide valuable navigation help. That articles need work (these certainly do) is not a valid reason to delete. What is needed is editing to improve and harmonize the articles.  // Timothy :: talk  20:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is another article written by uk:Борисенко Валентина Кирилівна that covers the topic Tristario (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's nothing that can't be fixed with ordinary editing decisions. Clearly notable topic. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bearian Nobody is saying that topic isn't notable. The question is if the list of dates is the best way to present it Marcelus (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an issue for moving and re-naming. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bearian No, that's an issue with removing content, if there are already articles such as Ukrainian language Marcelus (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.