Talk:Little Russia

message: I have concerns over the neutrality of the article. Large material is being forked from other article, namely in regards to the name Ukraine. Some material is prejudged to be pro- or anti-Russian purely according to some users. The article abounds in sources from Russion nationalist and imperialists sources, validity of which are highly questionable. I have to tag the article, until these issues are addressed. --Hillock65 12:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good, so the POV tag is warranted. And plese assume good faith and no personal attacks please. (WP:NPA) Discuss the article and issues and not me.--Hillock65 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Не скули! Enough with personal attack claims, where does the above quote by Russianname show a personal attack? Deleting large amount of material from the text is also not a very good faith thing to do. --Kuban Cossack 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kuban Cossack, what does "Не скули" mean in English, please ? --Lysytalk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop whining, both literally and implicatively.  --Kuban Cossack 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been warned multiple times not to insult the opponent in foreign languages! One more time, don't discuss me or my thoughts or attitudes, focus on issues raised above!--Hillock65 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ну и ябидничей кому надо, а я буду говорить на каком языке желаю... Also I can discuss any issue I damn please, and as I said above, you were the one who complained about Russianname's comment, refusing to answer his query on why you removed large amount of Material from the article. Having double standards towards others, can also be a Personal attack btw. --Kuban Cossack 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more time, stop discussing me and get to discuss the issues.--Hillock65 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say m'am :) --Kuban Cossack 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't throw the terms around. One more time, which words do you find offensive and an assault?--Hillock65 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank you for pointing out that I do not have the right to "judge whether some source is Russian nationalistic or not". That is my point, precisely. Since I cannot judge, how come you are allowed to judge whether some source is Ukrainian nationalistic or anti-Russian? --Hillock65 12:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You yourself said above The article abounds in sources from Russion nationalist and imperialists sources, validity of which are highly questionable Do you thus take back your words?--Kuban Cossack 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not in the least. They are from nationalist, imperialist sources, the main view of which that Ukraine does not exist at all. There is no place for this garbage here. Follow the link.--Hillock65 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Garbage in your view... There are sources claiming that Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo don't exist, are you going to delete them as well? People have a right to an opinion, and since you chose to assault edit an article that is essentially based on an opinion that made the national policy in the past, then you cannot censor people who want to continue that policy, Ukraine is a democracy and everyone has a right to a policy, even those who want to re-unite with Russia and become Little Russians again. Whether those people are marginal is another issue, and that should be treated separately. --Kuban Cossack 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will not be discussing Kosovo and other places. As far as Ukraine is concerned, it's true, it is a free country and traitors and turncoats of all kinds can aspire to be Little Something or Other — it is not my concern or point of this discussion. The point of the discussion is the validity of the sources, as there are just as offensive Ukrainian nationalist sources to counter Russian imperial. That would be the wrong way to go. References need to be from neutral, scientific sources, preferrably in the language that everyone understands. We want to write a neutral article not the one written from neoimperialist or UNA-UNSO point of view.--Hillock65 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One man's traitor is another one's hero... Also judging from your uk-wiki user page your from Belaya Tserkov, well then Russian language sources will be understandable for you. Also don't compare neoimperialists to UNA-UNSO, its more of a case skinheads and other filth = UNA-UNSO; whilst "neoimperialists" are more equivalent of just nationalists.  --Kuban Cossack 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more time, start discussing the issue and not me or where I am from. You don't interest me in the least. Whatsoever. Why are you always talking about me? What languages I speak is not your concern, I asked your repeatedly stick to English as a sign of Good Faith, you instead assume things and harass me with unwanted messages in foreign languages. (See:WP:Civility) Start talking about the question we are discussing instead of getting personal. Even if Russian neoimperialists are "just nationalists", this is not the source we want for an encyclopedia article. The question of sources is the valid one, until the neutral one is presented we are at a deadlock.--Hillock65 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you say,  m'am.--Kuban Cossack 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will move it to a previous section then. --Irpen 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I find it instructive to show the subtleties of Drahomanov's terminology in one place. He was quite a notable person and his opinions are not "POV-pushing", but a notable historical fact and relevant to this article. The term "POV-pushing" applies only to activities of wikipedians. `'mikka 01:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the suggestion. I moved the detailed ref to his work "Malorossia" to the section where his peers and colleagues are discussed (Kostomarov, Antonovych). At the same time, I will add a brief mention of the issue to the section on Little Russianness. A brief mention seems indeed warranted but won't give an undue weight. --Irpen 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: These issues have to be settled for the article to be neutral. Feel free to add the list of issues to be improved.--Hillock65 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will move it to a previous section then. --Irpen 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I find it instructive to show the subtleties of Drahomanov's terminology in one place. He was quite a notable person and his opinions are not "POV-pushing", but a notable historical fact and relevant to this article. The term "POV-pushing" applies only to activities of wikipedians. `'mikka 01:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the suggestion. I moved the detailed ref to his work "Malorossia" to the section where his peers and colleagues are discussed (Kostomarov, Antonovych). At the same time, I will add a brief mention of the issue to the section on Little Russianness. A brief mention seems indeed warranted but won't give an undue weight. --Irpen 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV (section break)

message: I removed unreferenced poorly worded sentences about how Russia tried to "justify" incorporation of ukraine.  If you want them back, please provide references that are based on supporting historical documents that indeed Russia badly wanted Kiev because it felt "not exactly russia" without it. `'mikka 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence says: During the 18th century and well before it the Russian authorities assumed the heritage of Rus and applied it directly to Russia. In order to legitimize their claims to the territory of Rus all Ruthenian population in Ukraine and elsewhere was viewed as part of one Russian nation. I think you misinterpret it, as it does not suggest that "Russia badly wanted Kiev because it felt not exactly russia". All it says is that Russia used the Rus heritage argument to justify its claims to Ukrainie. --Lysytalk 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what is said on top. References, please. How exactly Russia attempted to justify. `'mikka 21:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orest Subtely writes a speculation: "The implication was that Ukraine had always been an integral part of Russia". Not to say that the quotation is cut out of context: implication from what? `'mikka 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to say I have serious suspicions that Russia had to "legitimize" anything.  At these olden times, what you grab, that you keep. There was no United Nations or something to complain about "illegal occupation". `'mikka 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is true but the myth had to be created to legitimize the claims to the territory. Russians were not original English and French were fighting for a hundred years over their claims to a territory. Catherine II claimed: I recovered what had been torn away, so their version of events was that Rus was Russia and thus it had claims to all the territories of Rus. They needed it for external use: the sovereign of Little, White and Great Russias and for internal use to mold and assimilate Belarusians and Ukrainians into one Russian nation. Luckily it didn't work. --Hillock65 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think that they were wrong? Neither the term Belarusian or Ukrainian in ethnical terms became widespread until the 19th century. People called themselves Ruski which Russians interpreted as Russkiye, thus all they had to do was to "free" them from the Polonisations. In doing so they created two new nations essentially. So on the contrary it you should be grateful that you have no Polish landlord in Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just don't go into who is "lucky" and who is "grateful". I clearly requested supporting quotations. Don't waste time. `'mikka 22:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Name doesn't mean much, even Little Russia didn't help, did it? Grateful for changing Polonization to Russification? Are you grateful to the Tatars? What difference did it make? Changing one opressor for the other? Every new conqueror had its own idea why they were there, it just happened that Russians were last. As far as quotations, I can supply the rest of Subtelny, he claims what I mentioned above and namely: "If one were to ask the imperial official by what right Russia ruled much of Ukraine, the reply would have been similar to the inscription on a medal struck in honour of Catherine II in 1793, which read: I have recovered what was torn away." So that is the implication - they believed they ruled what was part of Rus and they thought Rus and Russia to be one and the same thing. Is that not enough? --Hillock65 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, you are quoting an agitated essayist, not a historian. Wikipedia needs facts. And again, you are wrong: A conqueror does not necessarily need a justification. I may agree that there was one, in the of Russia vs. Ukraine (but I don't have to remind you that Russia happily expanded way beyond Russian or even Slavic lands without buthering with excuses), but for the 4th time: serious historical quotations please. `'mikka 23:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the same respect, this is the first time ever that I hear the eminent historian and unquestionable authority in Ukrainian history Orest Subtelny to be termed an "essayist". This is the best source in Ukrainian history and is already quoted in dozens of articles in this encyclopedia. Subtelny is as serious as it will ever get, and not only here.--Hillock65 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for poor phrasing. I wanted to say that the sentence in question reads more like a polemic newspaper article bashing these moskali, rather than serious historical work. At best it may be quoted as an opinion of Subtelny, not as a presentation of a historical fact. Wikipedia badly needs facts and historical documents. This lack of solid content is a major reason of all ethnic battles in wikipedia. Facts speak for themselves, Subtelny speaks for himself, unless he quotes facts and documents. `'mikka 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. It is opinion. There are as many opinions as historians. "imperial imagination" sheesh! Mind reader, dream walker, this guy like. I am sick of reading such texts, where the writer shows off how smart he is, rather than presents a history. If I want a novel, I read Alexandre Dumas or Valentin Pikul, and I know what I get. But if I want to learn history, I better be reading a dull text  full of dates, numbers and quotations of imperial ukases. Such nicely written texts are good for brainwashing and propaganda, rather for research.  `'mikka 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rus heritage speculations 

message: Those are not one and the same things in Ukrainian and neither should they be in English. The article starts with Little or Lesser Rus’ and then it changes into Little Russia. When did the switch happen? For example the quoted Hrushevsky gives (Історія України-Руси), it is not Russia but Rus, as well in reference number 4: (Самой столицы Киева, також части сие Малые Руси нашия) it is also not Russia but Rus. So, all those metropolitans and patriarchs wrote Rus or Russia? And Khmelnytsky wrote about Rus. The sources, at least the two I mentioned above mention Rus, not Russia. This should be reflected in the article as well. --Hillock65 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That they "should not be in English" is your opinion and I am sorry that things in English are not the way some of us like but so they are. Little Rus' happens to not be an established English term while Little Russia is. Wikipedia is not to be used to change the usage in the English language but to reflect it. --Irpen 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The sources in Ukrainian and Russian cite it Rus, not Russia. Even at the beginning of the article it states: "Little Russia, originally Little or Lesser Rus’" - so who decides when it becomes Russia? It maybe whatever it is in English, but sources from Ukrainian and Russian make clear distinction and have to be rendered truthfully without POV. This has to be addressed. It is big deal. Look at the article Rus, an effort has been made to distinguish between Rus and Russia and no one complained about hair splitting. The same effort had to be applied here. --Hillock65 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the Rus article says nothing you imply. It is a norman English language disambiguation page and does not even mention the word "Russia" (btw, indicating that Russian wikipedians are quite moderate in POV-pushing here). But you are right. An effort was undertaken by emerged Ukrainian Russophobes who wanted to prove that Russia is nothing but a bunch of ugro-finns, scythians and Tatar-Mongols. I guess you were not here  and didn't witness the Kyiv Rus-ian wikipeditor's hysteria. `'mikka 02:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Before we, go any further, if I could ask you to refrain from discussing my likes or dislikes, I was not talking or referring to anyone of you personally or either to your prefferences of dislikes. I would appreciate if we talked about the issue at hand, instead. It is true history as science evolves, some decades ago the name for Kievan Russia was nearly universal in all kinds of encyclopaedias and textbooks. That has changed however, everyone understands that Rus was a progenitor of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. No one tries to monopolize or to exclude anyone from that heritage, at the same time an effort should be made to reflect the history truthfully. Not all textbooks and works in English present it universally as there are still some that call it Kievan Russia, others Ukraine-Rus and others Kievan Rus. The same applies to Little Russia, by not distinguishing between Rus and Russia we are willingly or unwillingly denying Ukrainians and Belarusians equal contribution in its heritage. I am not insisting on every word replaced, but a distinction in the article and preferrably and explanation should be made to distinguish between Little Rus and Little Russia, as those are not the two identical things. --Hillock65 02:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is so unknown? You mention it in the first sentense of the article and noone expressed concern about it before now. By leaving Little Russia everywhere even in reference to Khmelnytsky we are unwittingly perpetrating the imperial stereotype of one indivisible Russia and "artificialness" of Ukraine and Belarus. Russia as well as Ukraine and Belarus have outgrown Kievan Rus and Little Rus. And if distinction is made between Russia and Rus, leaving Little Russia everywhere is indeed unfair. Little Russia should be only there where it is Russia, but not Rus. Little Russia is an imperial construct and indeed, as such, entered along with Kievan Russia many publications in English. But as the cited examples show above, in Ukrainian and Russian it still remained Little Rus in many of the quoted documents, and it was never otherwise. However, if Little Rus is so unconvential, might I  suggest Malorossia instead? --Hillock65 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I checked a little more and there are indeed both usages in English even though one is less frequent. I made some changes. Also, I removed the purported quote of Smolin "Ukraine is not Russia, Ukrainannes is a decease". He easily means that in his pretty nationalist writing but such exact quote is not there. We do not need xenophobic quotes anyway. All there is to it is that the term is indeed misapplied in modern context by the Great Russian nationalist and the link to Smolin's article who does just that is sufficient. Besides, the article's title "Overcoming the "Ukrainianness" and the all-Russian unity" tells it all anyway. --Irpen 05:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have already changed the usage within the article to reflect that. --Irpen 06:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mentioned "Little Rus" as an alternative name in the lead. Hope that's OK. --Lysytalk 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also let's not forget that Russia was refered to the Moscow-Rus initially as well as to the other post Kievan principialities. Then Peter I changed the name of his country in Russian language, but it has never occured officially in English and even if it did so, the change had never seemed to be enforced or it might had been omitted in some ways.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Alexandr. This story of Peter's "renaming" anything is a rather popular but untrue urban legend. It can be found in some amateur nationalist sites and web-fora but has no factual basis. The rest you say about English just makes no sense. --Irpen 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry guys ... there was no such distinction between Rus and Russia in any language until the modern era. Russia is just Rus with i-a at the end following the manner of Greek and Latin ... and both meant the same thing. Little and Great Russia/Rus were used by the Byzantines and have nothing to do with the bogey man Tsarist imperialist monster. Usage of it then just reflected common usage. It is the modern objection to its usage which is the first attempt to manipulate it for politics ... counter-ıntuitive I know (modern nationalisms being the goodies and Tsarists the baddies), but those are the facts. 88.226.134.146 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But there is a real difference today, and it is inherently tied into political and cultural perceptions.  There's no way to ignore it, and trying to do so would likewise constitute an attempt to manipulate it for politics.  We're stuck with the issue. —Michael Z. 2008-07-03 14:49 z
***New Content***
But You write Yourself, that this is geographic name. So why You are translating it? If a visitor there would ask someone no one will understand it. Should one translate Ontario etc. into other languages? Why not just "Malorussia" or "Malorossija"? And Malaja Rusj? Also the country Russia is named Rossija, it is not to difficult to speak and write. Next aspect: the use of this term Malorossija was stopped by the Bolsheviks according to Lenin's nationalization program, who is the creator of the Ukraine, connected Novorossija to it, as terminus and Ukrainian modern language out of one of 14 dialects. Stalin was pressing this Lenin's nationalization until 1938, and then stopped it for some years. 
89.15.237.249 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Russia or Little Rus? 

message: I undertook an effort to Wikify names that were unlinked in the article. I think I linked to the right Dietrich, Casimir and Callistus. As for red links, I created them them with my best guesses of how the articles to be created should be titled.  Suggestions welcome. --Irpen 01:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification effort

message: The king Casimir III of Poland, was called "the king of Lechia and Little Rus’"
This detailed list of king's titles does not include such wording. Where the title "the king of Lechia and Little Rus’ was used in?--202.71.90.139 (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casimir III 

message: The maps showing the changing conceptualization of Little Russia on uk.wiki (here) are really helpful and illustrative. Anyone fancy bringing them into English wiki? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps on uk wiki 

message: THis is the exact translation of Greek "Mikra Rosia", i.e. NEAR Rus, analogously to Asia MINOR.--Galassi (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read up on WP:NPA, WP:NPOV.--Galassi (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saying to other people that they are vandalizing and making an OR is not a PA by no means. But you are still doing this, so you make me ask admins. -Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  And btw, "your" Μακρά Ῥωσσία didn't exist at all.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Read up on the definition of vandalism here, and then look i ru-wiki, where it says MAKRA.--Galassi (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ru-wiki is not a reliable source at en-wiki. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

text:  You don't have to get histerical (WP:NPA and WP:GOODFAITH). Look up Asia Minor article and see what was its Greek name. My source looks reliable, even though its emphasis is musicolgy, rather than history. Kartashov reference has MAKRA. Now the article includes all opinions, in line with Wikipedia standards.--Galassi (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rus Minor

message: Having reviewed the issue, here is my analysis. The edit war seems to be mainly revolving around the statements concerning the origins of the term "Little Russia". I am not qualified to argue this from the academic standpoint; however, from the administrative standpoint this seems to be a rather clear-cut case.
Galassi's opponents (which as of today count at least three people) source their statements to Vasmer's etymological dictionary and to Soloviev's work. Galassi's source, for much of the duration of the edit war, was this website. It was repeatedly pointed to Galassi that the Torban website does not qualify as a reliable source, and I fully concur with that assessment. Apart from being on an unrelated subject (Ukrainian music), the site contains no authorship information and thus cannot be considered "[a] reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". From what I gathered from other places, it is possible that the website is maintained by Galassi himself. If this allegation is true, that makes using it even more troublesome.
In the most recent edit, Galassi retained both of his opponents' sources, but introduced this one (by Kartashev) to reference the statement that "Little or Lesser mean[s] the "near" (analogously to Asia Minor) and comprise[s] the areas of contemporary Western Ukraine". I was unable to find that statement in the source. In fact, as it was pointed by User:Любослов Езыкин in one of the sections above, it says exactly the same thing Soloviev does, yet in this edit the two sources are portrayed as contradicting one another.
To sum up, I, once again, have no opinion on the academic validity of either side's arguments. It is, however, clear that the sources used by Galassi either can't be considered reliable (as per the WP:RS definitions), or the edits misrepresent what the sources actually say. I'm going to assume good faith here and write it off as an honest mistake. While the article is protected, please treat the situation as an opportunity to discuss the matter. Edit summaries like "nationalist POV" or "vandalism" will hardly help you come to a consensus. Please remain civil and remember that it is always possible to incorporate even diametrically opposite views into an article in an neutral way, but reverting one another day after day isn't how it's done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2012; 15:20 (UTC)
: The Kartashov source is not about Asia Minor, but MAKRA ROSIA, instead of MEGALE pushed by Ljuboslov. That is how this is sourced on RUwiki. Soloviev extensively discusses this taxonomy as well, and explicitely mentions the Asia and Greece analogy (Magna Graecia = Greek settlements outside Greece proper etc) with which he disagrees, but the terms were used nonetheless, per Soloviev.--Galassi (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  As to torban.org: the site lists the content authors/contributors on the front page http://torban.org . I am not a contributor there.--Galassi (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That page says this:  The problem I have with that blanket statement is that there is obviously an editor of it all, and that person is not named. The individual pages have no author(s) listed, so there is no idea who came up with what facts. There are no footnotes for individual facts, let alone pages. The whole website is unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Superb encapsulation of the matter, Ezhiki. Yes, it is possible to incorporate opposite opinions, but the conclusions of scholarly historians should not be played down as they have been by Galassi. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   We don't have to rely on that site here. The contentious info that Ljuboslov dislikes is contained in the Kartashov ref, besides Soloviev that he quotes SELECTIVELY.--Galassi (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: moved this page to "Rus' Minor" without any form of discussion. Many thanks to  for moving it back to "Little Russia".
As there have been deliberations in the past as to the WP:COMMONNAME and/or appropriate nomenclature, any such issues should - and must - be thoroughly discussed rather than through executive decisions by a single editor.
Pertaining to the scope of this article, IMHO, "Μικρὰ Ῥωσία" is irrelevant to the context of the article as it addresses the use of the term post-dating the initial non-secular application of the term, therefore the only arguments relating to the WP:TITLE revolve around the use of "Малая Русь" or "Малороссия" (i.e., "Little Rus'" or "Little Russia"): an issue which would need to be subject to WP:RM#CM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Rus' Minor without discussion 

message: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10610405.2016.1251121 - I don't have access.Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also several books.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little Russia. 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:
*Added  tag to http://89.252.24.138/sites/default/files/iz_istorii_russkoy_kulturyi_2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070320051610/http://www.tuad.nsk.ru/~history/Author/Russ/JA/JavornitskijDI/izk2/226.html to http://www.tuad.nsk.ru/~history/Author/Russ/JA/JavornitskijDI/izk2/226.html
*Added  tag to http://www.km.ru/magazin/view.asp?id=58056468F69545CE811DCE89F6F4B0E3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little Russia. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211062242/http://www.ua.mrezha.ru/rus-vs-uk.htm to http://ua.mrezha.ru/rus-vs-uk.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the section should be deleted all together since the only source has too little for an entire section. Mordanist (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The referenced statement can be easily moved to the previous section. - Altenmann >talk 16:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I think someone should do it since it makes some big claims with 2 too many citation needed. Mordanist (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "From Little Russia to Ukraine" section has no sources for the majority of claims.