Talk:Russian language in Ukraine

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Header copy

message: 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 ? --Lysytalk 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially and de jure yes, de facto Ukraine is making every attempt to eradicate Russian. I am yet to see any evidence of the protection that Russian is experiencing. On the contrary when starting from last year Russian was raised to local level yushenko made every attempt to counter that decision. --Kuban Cossack 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this be described in the article ? Ideally, we should have the facts (like the official minority status) stated there and the opinions properly attributed and sourced. I expect that should not be a problem, as they are probably voicefully expressed by those unhappy with the inadequate protection of the language. --Lysytalk 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Particularly this sentence: the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine forms the largest linguistic community in Europe that does not have official status for its language seems misleading in face of the above explanation. I have moved it from the "census" to the "community" section but I would suggest removing it altogether. On the other hand it would be good if the article discussed what you have explained above. --Lysytalk 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Russian a minority language ? 

message: I have just changed back the sentence "According to a public opinion poll, the number of people using Russian language in everyday life exceeds considerably the number of native Russophones" to reflect that the survey asked about the usage at home, if I understand it correctly. To me "at home" and "in everyday life" makes a difference. The Russophone article explains that a Russophone is "a speaker of the Russian language either natively or by preference". --Lysytalk 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "Russophone" and replaced it by another formulation. Please have a look.--AndriyK 14:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is a Russophone ? 

message: * The picture about a quotation in a clinic in Lviv is used to make biased inferences. It has nothing to do with Russians in that city, it does not name them specifically, nor does it show that they will be discriminated against. --Hillock65 16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the fifth time: What is this picture doing in this article. What does it illustrate? What is its relevance? --Hillock65 12:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to display arrogance, the picture shows how the compassionate the European Western Ukrainians are to different cultures and minorities, and that they will stop at nothing to demostrate it, even using citations from Karl Marx, whose publications many were happy to destroy some 16 years ago. This picture simply punctuates that. --Kuban Cossack 13:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then please move this picture to appropriate article about Western Ukrainians or cultural minorities. This article is about Russian language in Ukraine, no link between the picture and the topic of the article has been established. This is not the place to put random quotations of Karl Marx.--Hillock65 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is already about a linguistic minority...so it by definition alone it fits. --Kuban Cossack 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it fit? What does it have to do with the Russian language? What is the relevance? --Hillock65 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to answer the question that me and Russianname answered several times already, you can choose to be arrongant, but that is your problem. If you do not like it file a WP:DR. --Kuban Cossack 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be the problem that you refuse to explain your actions and only wage revert wars on multiple articles. I asked 5 (five) times about the relevance of this picture to the article and not a single time have you provided a coherent answer. Please refrain from discussing me, and instead try to explain how this picture relates to the article. Two more editors have asked you to give your reasoning and the only thing we hear is "I refuse". If you refuse, then leave Wikipedia in peace with your disruptive edits. --Hillock65 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  You received the answer 5 times and I will write it again and again: 1) Russian speakers are the most numerous linguistic group (alongside with the Ukrainian speakers) 2) the announcement is written in Ukrainian and it mentions the goverment language 3) the only goverment language in Ukraine is Ukrainian, so the announcemet is a message from the Ukrainian speaking chauvinists to the Russian speakers. --Russianname 09:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me again show for the sixth time how this picture is IRRELEVANT. 1) In the whole of Lviv oblast Russian speakers make just tiny 3.8% of the population http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/language/lviv/. So, in the city, where you claim this picture is taken there are even less than 4% (FOUR per cent) of the Russian speakers. 2) The language of the quotation from Karl Marx does not matter to the tiny percentage of Russian language speakers in that community. 3) All announcements in Ukraine can be written in official Ukrainian langugage, it does not show prejudice against anyone. 4) You are making biased and unsubstantiated conclusions for what this picture is supposed to be meaning. 5) The picture itself does not point to Poles or Russians or any other national group 6) The quotation of Karl Marx is as much relevant to Russian language in Ukraine as if it was from Joseph Stalin or anybody else. In other words, the picture is irrelevant. The source or illustration should not require additional interpretation and should clearly state its message. As it is now, this picture does not show the relation to the subject of discussion and everything else is speculation and POV. How many more times do we have to explain one and the same thing over and over again? --Hillock65 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sixth time I am telling you that the census is for Lviv Oblast, unless you are suggesting that all the minorities are evenly distributed which is WP:NOR, we must assume that the majority of those live in cities, hence the tiny population is not as tiny as you think it is. Second of all what is tiny? There are Ukrainian Russophones in Lviv as well, as well as Russophones of other nationalities. Yet even so, with respect to the European Charter for languages which Ukraine ratified, any minority deserves protection.  Also what is  All announcements in Ukraine can be written in official Ukrainian langugage? What is a langugage (лангугач? :). Finally as you pointed out the citation of Marx is directed to all linguistic minorities of whom Russian-speakers are a distinct majority. So by common sense, only someone infested with cynicism would reject this statement as non-Russophobic. --Kuban Cossack 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "we must assume"?! That is the point! We must not assume anything! That is WP:OR! The picture should clearly show the relevance. WITHOUT ANY ASSUMPTIONS. That is the point I am trying to hammer in yuor heads. Don't tell me which is which and what I need to assume, the picture should explain everything without the need to assume. It does not, hence it is irrelevant.--Hillock65 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find that many images that are used in wikipedia only partially explain it. And readers make assumptions, if they think it is pointless they will see it as pointless. Censoring the shameful face of this European city is not your job to do.--Kuban Cossack 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about Russian-speakers not ethnic Russians. --Kuban Cossack 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wholly neutral and know nothing about the situation in the town. But this picture is unencyclopediac, and a picture of a single clinic proves nothing about the more general situation. Indeed, drawing such conclusions from a picture qualifies as WP:Original research. Find a reliable source. Hgilbert 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now, do we need another mediation to remove the picture or the author will spare the trouble and his own embarassment and remove it on his own? It appears that consensus of editors on this page is against the inclusion of this picture. There are enough reasons listed above.--Hillock65 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an origianal research because the picture is not an original research by itself. --Russianname 11:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are persisting against the consensus of the majority of editors, including the third opinion of uninvolved party. This is a counterproductive approach. You leave no option for me but to report this abuse. This cannot continue. --Hillock65 13:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: The cited source gives the percentage of Russian language speakers. Here is the quote from the source: Українську мову вважали рідною 95,3% населення Львівської області (в Україні – 67,5%), що на 5,2 відсоткового пункта більше, ніж за даними перепису 1989 року. Російську мову визнали як рідну 3,8% населення (в Україні – 29,6%). That is the number that is reflected in the text. Please discuss your changes before starting the revert war.--Hillock65 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your quote that says a city where the Russian-speakers comprise 3,8% whilst the reference says населення Львівської області. Naturally the number of Russian speakers will be higher in a megapolis such as Lvov, also why remove all the commented out text? Is it not better to translate it? --Kuban Cossack 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, good point. Then the unreferenced text about 80% does not belong there, since there is no proof if it is true. Besides, this is hardly the place to store foreign language material. It is hard to find things with all that text just stored there. The best way to write an article is not to translate it but to write from sources. --Hillock65 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave you sources already, so the topic is closed. --Russianname 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Far from it. The question why a picture with Carl Marx's quotation is relevant to this topic is valid one. Apart from me, two other editors expressed concern over it. --Hillock65 14:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war again? 

message: ** Hillcock, please do not remove the text with all proper citations (you removed a whole paragraph about actions against the Russian language in Lviv)  and do not remove the hidden text (it will be translated soon).  --Russianname 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I removed the text with dead link that leads nowhere. Gardian says it does not contain that article. So, if you cannot support your claims with sources. Remove it yourself. As well, this article is not a dump to store pages and pages of material in foreign languge. If you need to continue to translate from your disgusting and hateful article in the Russian WP, so store it there. It is just a click away. I suspect you clutter this article with all kind of garbage in foreign language specifically to make it harder for other editors to edit. Exclusion of other editors and preventing them from editing this article is very counterproductive. Show some good faith. --Hillock65 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hillock what makes you think that the Russian WP article is disgusting and hateful, are you a russophobe? --Kuban Cossack 16:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hateful and disgusting because it twists facts, not because it it in Russian WP. It could be in Kirghiz WP for all I care. Don't try to get personal again. --Hillock65 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New removals of the info 

message: Perhaps AlexPU could explain the rationale of spamming the page with irrelevant tags prior to reisnserting them. Just putting it on makes no sense whatsoever. --Kuban Cossack 13:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More tag spamming

message: Having read the article I can state that it is not written from a neutral point of view! It is definitely purposed to highlight an opinion that Russian language is being treated unfairly in Ukraine, and that it is being suppressed by the authorities. Please change it. --MaksKhomenko 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this up. Incidentally, that's been the opinion of several editors here. This article needs to be cleaned of POV. We need to list all those biased parts and issues and start mediation in an attempt to clean them. A good start would be to write the list of issues first. --Hillock65 12:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well please do so, because so far here I am rereading this article, scratching my head, and failing to see those issues that you are repeatedly referring to. Please, enlighten me! --Kuban Cossack 12:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gladly. Since this article is about Russian language in Ukraine, I think it is singularly lacking information on Russification in different periods of Ukrainian history. Russification is very pertinent to the subject of this article. Very much so. History of the Russian language in Ukraine needs to show that up until recently Russian has enjoyed privileged position and expanded at the expense of the Ukrainian language. It also needs to show that even now without any official status in the country, the Russian language in some instances is enjoying far better conditions than Ukrainian. It heavily dominates now in printed media in foreign movie translations, etc. In Crimea, where there are over a third of population are ethnic Ukrainians, there are only 2 Ukrainian schools. So, User:MaksKhomenko is quite justified in his concern about the lack of neutrality in this article. Undue weight is being placed on perceived persecution of Russian now and it singularly overlooks far greater evidence of Russian language's privileged position and virtual monopoly in the past. In fact, in terms of evidence it by far outweighs all complaints about persecution of Russian now. All that boils down to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It needs to be changed.--Hillock65 12:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs not be changed, it needs to be expanded. First of all let's drop this it's not fair  POV, towards Ukrainian in Crimea, there is a Ukrainian language article which can show exactly why it was un-privileged. On the contrary, if Ukrainian was indeed to be neglected during Soviet times it would probably have completely died out, because people would simply not bother learning it.  With Russian, however, it was indeed a monopoly langauge, however in the present time frame, it is being pushed out (or at least attempted to be pushed out) by Ukrainian, which is refrenced. I do not see a Undue weight argument. Provide concrete examples please. --Kuban Cossack 13:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concrete examples can be found in Limitations on the Russian language in Ukraine. If this segment is there, there should be another one Privileged position of the Russian language in Ukraine, where all the voluminous history of Russian language's dominance past and present and of Russufication should be presented. Presenting one side of the story is indeed WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The author prefers to bemoan the ills of Ukrainization but prefers to overlook the far greater evidence of Russification in terms of volume and time frame. Of course story about Crimean Ukrainian schools belong to a different article too, but it is relevant here as well because it goes to show what monopoly Russian has in Crimea, including over a third of ethnic Ukrainians there. In short, in its present state the article, as it has been pointed out above, is indeed biased and one-sided. Expand it if you need, but presented one-sided and biased evidence severely damages this article. --Hillock65 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on limitations on Russian language is completely legitimate and the information contained is important; and as Kuban Kazak noted, the facts are referenced and true.  I do agree with you that a section on the past priviledged situation of Russian, such as Ems and Russification, is also important and probably deserves its own section.  Probably there needs to be section on history of Russian speakers (settlement, assimilation of native elites, etc.), a separate section on historical anti-Ukrainian/pro-Russian language government policies, and then the important and valuable information about current Ukrainization policies and anti-Russian language actions post independence.  I will get to it, if no one else does, eventually (I am busy now).  The article right now includes that stuff and therefore it does not seem biased.  It just needs to be better organzied.Faustian 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are saying that when we write about Holocaust the article cannot show the image that Jews were treated unfairly in Nazi Germany? The facts are presented, and they are also refrenced. If you have anything that contradicts them or disproves them, you are welcome to introduce them so, but until then don't use wikipedia to make a point.--Kuban Cossack 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just reviewed the article, I agree that it is biased in its current form.  Any article on the Russian language that doesn't mention Ems and other pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainioan language acts is inherently biased, like an article about Stalin that doesn't mention gulags.  Hopefully someone will add the section on anti-Ukrainian government practices, which is very relevent to the spread and dominance of the Russian language in Ukraine.  I'm just too busy.  Once that is added, the article becomes nuetral.  As I noted, there is niothing wrong with inncluding true, referenced facts of anti-Russian discrimination. Faustian 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read carefully Burden of Proof. You, who is supposedly, an author of this one-sided text is supposed to balance it. Don't count on others to mop up after you. Please present balanced text with voluminous evidence of Russian language's dominance and state support during the course of centuries. As well, instances of prohibitions against other languages in favour of Russian should not be omitted. As for the present instances of restrictions the Russian language supposedly suffers, they should be balanced with just as multiple instances of the language dominance in certain regions and areas of public life of the country. If you counted on translating biased and one-sided article from the Russian WP here, I hope you realize that you are sorely mistaken. There are different standards here for neutrality. Please look into it. --Hillock65 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Ghirlandajo, can you please explain why my edits appear to have no merit to you and why have you reverted them without discussing it first ? I'm restoring the previous wording of the first section until this is satisfactorily explained. --Lysytalk 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts by Ghirlandajo 

message: Але наразі мовні права етнічних росіян, які проживають на території України, забезпечені значно краще, ніж мовні права етнічних українців, - вважає О. Медведєв. За його словами, у всіх сферах позиції російської мови є значно потужнішими. Це передбачає неактуальність питань стосовно утисків російськомовного населення України.  Hope that would help. --Hillock65 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source to help balance the article 

message: I find the following phrase very dubious:
::Prior to this, the language spoken in the region was west Ruthenian (the language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the antecedant of the modern Belarusian and Ukrainian languages).
Is there any source confirming it?
As far as I know, the written language was common for ancestors of Belarusians and Ukrainians and it indeed was a sort of state language of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But the spoken language was quite different from the written one and it was not common. Regional differences were present even in the times of Kievan Rus.--AndriyK 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as nobody answers I remove the dubious sentence.--AndriyK 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common spoken language? 

message: How the phrase "the Lviv city council has been trying to ban Russian-language pop music ..." has to be understood. "Has been trying but never succeed?" Was this decission adopted by the city council? If yes, please provide a reference. If no, then how coud it result into "limitations on the Russian language" if it never was adopted.
The same with the bill proposed by BJuT. Was it adopted? 
Moreover,  according to the reference  there is no special restrictions on Russian in the proposed bill. It just make state officials incumbent to use the state language in the parlament. Just a normal practice in practically all parlaments of democratic countries. Is it alloud to use Russian language by state officials officials in France? Is it also  a "limitations on the Russian language in France"?--AndriyK 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see this as a limitation, but rather a liberalization. The only person who can see this is limitation is a Russian nationalist. The Russian language should be eliminated from Verkhovna Rada at all. It is not professional manner to speak Russian in Rada. Why would anybody need to speak that language there? Are we Ukrainians? Who are we if we do not speak Ukrainian? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tendentious Russian newspaper twisted the facts and presented this directive as aimed against Russsian. In fact there is not a word in it about Russian. NOT A SINGLE ONE! NONE! Read the original again: Министр запретил своим подчиненным говорить и на службе, и дома на любых языках, кроме украинского, пишет «Московский Комсомолец». A requirement to speak Ukrainian is not automatically a restriction against Russian or Tatar for that matter. Let's not twist facts here. This piece of garbage from the Russian newspaper does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Hillock65 10:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These things noted above do not qualify as restrictions. Please look up the meaning of the word "restriction". In example #1 in what way an attempt to do anything according to some newspaper can be considered a restriction? The proposed bill is not a restriction either! Whatever happened to the Russian language in the parliament? Nothing! So why include this tendentious information here? In the last example a request not to speak in court in a foreign language cannot be considered a restriction on anything. If the request to use the official language was a restriction on Russian, than so it was a restriction on Hungarian, Yiddish, Tatar and all other minority unofficial languages. This section should be named "Situation with the Russian language in present-day Ukraine" --Hillock65 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Lviv city council has been trying" 

message: * In 2000 the British "Guardian" informed that "the Lviv city council has been trying to ban Russian-language pop music in bars and cafes and to close down a Russian-language radio station, and linguistic vigilantes have been cruising shops and kiosks, bullying retailers into dumping Russian literature, newspapers and CDs."
* On September, 2006, the fraction of Bloc of Yuliya Tymoshenko in Ukrainian parlament proposed a bill to forbid the usage of the Russian language by members of the parlament. The draft was aimed against Russian-speaking members of parlament (mainly Communist Party of Ukraine and Party of Regions) alongside with some ministers.
* In October 2006 the Russian newspaper "Moskovskiy komsomolets" reported that Boris Tarasyuk, the Foreign minister of Ukraine, issued a directive forbidding Ukrainian diplomats and members of their families to speak in Russian even at home. Boris Tarasyuk is a member of "Our Ukraine" party and was a representative of the president Yuschenko in the Ukrainian cabinet of ministers.
:::: The tendentious Russian newspaper twisted the facts and presented this directive as aimed against Russsian. In fact there is not a word in it about Russian. NOT A SINGLE ONE! NONE! Read the original again: Министр запретил своим подчиненным говорить и на службе, и дома на любых языках, кроме украинского, пишет «Московский Комсомолец». A requirement to speak Ukrainian is not automatically a restriction against Russian or Tatar for that matter. Let's not twist facts here. This piece of garbage from the Russian newspaper does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Hillock65 10:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These things noted above do not qualify as restrictions. Please look up the meaning of the word "restriction". In example #1 in what way an attempt to do anything according to some newspaper can be considered a restriction? The proposed bill is not a restriction either! Whatever happened to the Russian language in the parliament? Nothing! So why include this tendentious information here? In the last example a request not to speak in court in a foreign language cannot be considered a restriction on anything. If the request to use the official language was a restriction on Russian, than so it was a restriction on Hungarian, Yiddish, Tatar and all other minority unofficial languages. This section should be named "Situation with the Russian language in present-day Ukraine" --Hillock65 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations on the Russian language in Ukraine 

message: Explain this or clean it away. --Russianname 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed a very important section above called Neutrality. It is all explained there. None of the issues mentioned there have been addressed. There is no need to spread this discussion all over the place. Issues related to the NPOV tag should be addressed there: Talk:Russian language in Ukraine#Neutrality --Hillock65 18:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the talk thread shows nothing about any issues, it only ecourages to expand its pre-20th century history, but it does not challenge the existing parts of the article in any shape or form. --Kuban Cossack 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read it very carefully. Thre is a concensus of editors that this article is unbalanced and one-sided. The reasons and the things to be addressed are listed there It would help if you read them instead of wasting time on pointless arguments. --Hillock65 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now say why there is NPOV tag 

message: right|270px|Percentage of people with Russian as their native language according to 2001 census (in regions).	right|270px|Percentage of people who prefer to use Russian according to 2003 survey by KIIS (in macroregions).
I corrected introduction to reflect the most valuable facts, which are:
*(1) Russian is the most common first language in Donetsk Oblast, Luhansk Oblast, and Crimea. (Source: 2001 Census; see the map)
*(2) Russian is the most widely used language in east and south of Ukraine as well as in Kiev. (Source: 2003 KIIS survey, etc.; see the map)
*(3) Russian is the most widespread second language throughout Ukraine. (Reason: Russian was studied either as the first or as the second language in all primary and secondary schools of Ukrainian SSR, and is currently studied in most of primary and secondary schools, etc.)
Please speak up if something is wrong. Thanks, Novelbank 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Today yet another picture has been added to the article that further slanted its bias. All the pictures with the excepiton of graphs depict how terrible the life of Russophone in Ukraine is: the first about demanding recognition of the Russian language as an official language in Kharkiv, the second about demanding recognition of the Russian language as an official language in Odessa, the third is about the protest against Ukrainization. There is not a single neutral illustration apart from the graphs that show Russian language's dominance in some areas, only those where the authors feel it is being discriminated against. Why don't we rename the article into The Struggle of Ukrainian Russophones or The Restrictions on the Russian language in Ukraine? In its present state the article focuses almost exclusively on restrictions placed on the Russian language and egregiously overlooks the privileged position it has on the national level and on exclusive dominance in some regions. Additionally the authors of the article prefferred to focus almost exclusively on the present state and intentionally prefferred to overlook far more voluminous evidence of Russian language's dominance in the past and restrictions and prohibitions that were applied to secure its dominance. In its present state the article is severely biased, and is in fact used by some editors with political agenda to flood it with evidence to present the slanted and biased view on the state of affairs in the language policy in the modern-day Ukraine. If that is the intention of some editors, than the article should be renamed accordingly, so that the readers are not mislead with the Russian nationalist propaganda. --Hillock65 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hillock, could be that some editors see your editing as pushing your political agenda, so no need to do this talking about the agenda of some editors. This is besides the topic. What are those "neutral" illustration that should be added to the article? Do you have any particular illustrations in mind that you want to add? --Irpen 10:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do expand beyond your usual ad hominem attacks. What agenda exactly am I pushing? Please be specific. It is not my job to provide neutral illustrations, it is the job of those, who post biased pictures to balance them and bear in mind the Undue weight policy. I recall you expressed the same concern over undue weight here and never bothered to present the material to balance it out beyond tagging the article. So, what changed here, different political interests, different biases? --Hillock65 14:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I new I would have to point out at your selective memory. You switched from your complaints about "undue weight" to something entirely different. Let me remind you of your arguments: Шановний Олегу. Ми з Вами непогано поспіврацювали на обговоренні, що привело до видалення жалюгідного та, м'яко кажучи, жахливого шедевру Яро.П. під назвою Фальцификация голодоморной истории, але тут не можу с Вами погодитись. Недостатнє розкриття інформації не обов'язково є синонімом заупередженості, тут я згоден з Вами, але у кожному випадку треба дивитись окремо. Вибачаюсь, що не знаю влучного українського терміну для перекладу означення "undue weight". Селективне вісвітлення українофобії лише в одніеї країні не проста робить статтю чи розділ не повними, а викликає в читача необгрунтоване у джерелах враження, що українофобія - це суто російське явище. Якщо б це було правдою (джерела?), то можна б було говорити проста про неповне висвітлення. Але поки немає обгрунтування такого твердження, присвячення секції про побутову УФ виключно Росії є порушенням НТЗ. --Irpen 17:04, 23 квітня 2007 (UTC) So in the light of your own words above, let me paraphrase your question that you ask me here, what are those "neutral" facts that should be added to the article? Do you have any particular facts of Ukrainophobia in mind that you want to add? I hope you see now your own hipocrisy. To put it shortly, to balance the article out is the job of those who put it there, please don't try to put the blame on me. If you have anything to add, please do so, otherwise beating around the bush, who should do it is counterproductive. --Hillock65 10:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Dude, you may be right about the biases of some users, but do not compare denying Ukrainization with denying of famine where lots of people really died. This does not help your entries to have any impact. This talk page should be used to discuss the article,  ways to improve it as well as past edits. Please stick to the topic and avoid making provocative and inflammatory statements. --Irpen 10:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: I believe the issue of the Russian language in Ukraine should be treated in its entirety, in all historical periods with equal attention given to its dominance and state support as well as to its present state, when it doesn' have any status at all. The illustrations and the narrative should not focus exclusively on restricions and not exclusively on the present situation, but rather present the issue objectively and with respect to historical evidence of its dominance in the past and its privileged postion in some regions at present.--Hillock65 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%.Faustian 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Since you cannot find any excuses to tag the article (except different tales from history), we must remove the tag -Russianname 09:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so fast, you addressed none of the issues above in another section Neutrality. I have repeated concrete objections twice, that should be enough. Several editors expressed their concern over the article's neutrality. Those issues have to be addressed before the tag is removed. --Hillock65 12:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask, half a year later, is it alright to remove the tag? --Kuban Cossack 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. During all these months no one took the trouble to rectify all the problems pointed out in another section called Neutrality up top. Nothing has been done. It is as biased as ever, there is no time limit on NPOV tag. It should be removed only when those problems are addressed, not before. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A tag is meant to be there for the duration of the dispute, yet the dispute is inert. If you are ready to make additions and edits to the article then please do so know. Anyway the tag says that neutrality is disputed, yet the dispute has all but frozen. Therefore the tag is incorrect. You might question the dispute here on the talk page, but a tag cannot stay there forever. Please either take active steps to resolve whatever issues you have, otherwise remove the tag. --Kuban Cossack 12:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The dispute is not frozen. I have to say that quite a few references are way too biased to be considered. I have a lot of questions in regards to descrimination subsection of this topic. I read the article "В.Колесниченко. «Европейская хартия региональных языков или языков меньшинств." His article is semi-bogus. He uses some stats to make contrast, but not sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I saw an article on www.interfax.com with this title. Unfortunatly I'm not subscripted to interfax so couldn't read it... But it could be interesting for this article. Has anybody found a public source with the same info? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Most Ukrainians positive about Russia, but Russia has fewer Ukraine fans"

message: His perception is that because the quater of population of Ukraine is Russians, the Russian language is ought to become the co-official state language. All of the documetations of the parliamentary deputy Vadim Kolesnichenko is anti-Ukrainian as he makes people believe that state officials should speak in the language other than the state language. That is crazy. First of all that guy does not even speak Ukrainian, at least, I never saw him do that and I watch "Svoboda" on Inter channel regularly. His documentations are oriented to populize the use of Russian language on the official level, even though he talks about some other minority languages and their discrimination. He points out that there a lot of stuff the Verkhovna Rada needs to do to fully ratify the european laws in regards to the problems with minority languages, yet he is one of those who went on strike with the Party of Regions and instead of showing some initiative on his part he has nothing better to do as to simply accuse the government of Ukraine. That guy needs to loose his deputy rights and never again allowed in Rada's Chamber. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolesnichenko is the Russian partizan 

message: I have heard this from a friend, but can't find a sollid reference for it (for now). Is it true? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion at: Talk:Ukrainian language#Studying Ukrainian was also a requirement in all schools of the Ukrainian SSR — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studying Ukrainian was also a requirement in all schools of the Ukrainian SSR. 

message: According to this FOM-Ukraine survey, which is done every few months, as of April 2009 Russian as the domestic language of choice is currently at 55%, while Ukrainian is at 39%. I thought this information might be useful for the article. LokiiT (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Up to date poll results regarding the usage of Russian/Ukrainian

message: Good information LokiiT. There is a clear discrimination in Ukraine against the majority of the population who prefers to speak in Russian and want their children to study in Russian at school. That is a reality. --88.18.150.26 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination against the majority of the population 

message: This sort of "information" has no palce on wikipedia; who says Russians are too stupid to learn Ukrainian? Good luck finding a reference for that... Besides I had people telling me it is very easy for Russians to learn Ukrainian... Besides Wikipedia is not a blog and section has no references. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I deleted "Linguistic issues and National Perspective" 

message: Calls for broadcasts to be allowed in Russian without dubbing. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future reference? 

message: The information about the word авто is wrong in that the article assumes that ukrainian google only shows ukrainian pages.
http://www.google.com.ua/search?source=ig&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&q=lvfw&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BA+Google&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=#q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&tbas=0&tbs=lr:lang_1uk&prmd=ivl&source=lnt&lr=lang_uk&sa=X&ei=xor2TNHAO8jrsgaak-TZBA&ved=0CAsQpwU&fp=34d66d2806877bec
14,700,000 results for авто on Ukrainian language pages
http://www.google.com.ua/search?source=ig&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&q=lvfw&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%88%D1%83%D0%BA+Google&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=#q=%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE&hl=uk&rlz=1G1GGLQ_UKUA342&tbas=0&tbs=ctr:countryUA&prmd=ivl&source=lnt&cr=countryUA&sa=X&ei=bo32TJTyBdKEswaL1ZXWBA&ved=0CAwQpwU&fp=34d66d2806877bec
17,200,000 results for авто on Ukrainian pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.180.211 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet 

message: There's been little debate about it for a couple of years. Is it resolved or not? There's no point copy editing content that should change. If the POV tag can be removed, that would be great, otherwise I will remove the copy edit tag and mark this as . --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done the latter. --Stfg (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been no discussion for years. I removed the tag: if anyone is still watching this who has a problem they are welcome to retag it and explain their reasons here. -- LWG talk 21:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag still needed? 

message: Yes, I can tell this is a fairly contentious issue… but can we get some actual linguistic information somewhere in this article, please? There’s no mention of surzhik, there’s nothing about grammar or pronunciation… How does the language vary in the East from the West? In what ways do the dialects of Kiev differ from the rest of the country? In what ways do the dialects of the country differ from other Russian-speaking areas? I feel like there used to be something like that before, if not in this article then elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it’s been no doubt lost in ensuing edit wars. ♥Wiki Wikardo 05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features of Ukranian varieties 

message: ... it says here. But I am not sure what it means... Does it mean them fifth formers think they know Russian good enough already and thus would like to concentrate on learning German? Or do they just do not want to learn Russian because...? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it would be interesting to see a split by language of instruction. Alæxis¿question? 07:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 50% of (Ukraine's) fifth formers in school-year 2013-2014 chose German as an obligatory second foreign language... 

message: For all websites whose titles are in what looks like a Cyrillic script, it should say if they are in Russian or Ukrainian. (Or another Cyrillic-alphabet language for that matter, probably Belarusian.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rus. or Ukr.? 

message: The article seems to be about the non-Western Ukraine only. The history of Western Ukraine was different.Xx234 (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Since the 20th century 

message: Gogole left Ukraine.Xx234 (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  were born and lived in Ukraine 

message: Surzhyk isn't linked in the article even if the subject has been discussed since ages. Compare :ru:Русский язык на Украине 5 Лингвистические особенности русского языка на Украине.Xx234 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be linked somewhere in the article.  --Taivo (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor surzhyk 

message: The Russian-Austrian border separated something.Xx234 (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No definitive geographical border separated people speaking Russian and those speaking Ukrainian 

message: Now one reads the following: "Although the ancestors of a small ethnic group of Russians – Goriuns resided in the Putyvl region (in present-day northern Ukraine) in the times of Grand Duchy of Lithuania or perhaps even earlier, the Russian language in Ukraine has primarily come to exist in that country through two channels: through the migration of ethnic Russians into Ukraine and through the adoption of the Russian language by Ukrainians". There may be a syntax error in the sentence ("Although the ancestors...") and the statement "Russian language in Ukraine has primarily come to exist ... through ... migration ... adoption" is not supported by reliable sources. I've added the tag "citation needed". Plus, that statement seems to contradict what one reads in the preceding paragraph: "No definitive geographical border separated people speaking Russian and those speaking Ukrainian – rather gradual shifts in vocabulary and pronunciation marked the areas between the historical cores of the languages". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did the Russian language come to exist in Ukraine 

message: thumb
A version of the image to the right has been in the article for at least a decade. It was originally uploaded to Commons by  on 13 April 2007, as own work sourced to p13 of a survey. The numbers on the image correspond to those in table 13 on p13 of the source. The original image can be seen here.
On 12 June 2012,  uploaded a new version of the image with the note "Correct map to conform to source". I cannot see where these higher numbers come from in the source. I can't read Ukrainian so perhaps I'm missing something. Given the sensitivity of the issue, the sourcing of any image shown needs to be clear and straightforward. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked through the article and haven't found the source for the new numbers. I think we should restore the original version. It would be even better to create a new one based on newer surveys as the data in the current graph is almost 20 years old. Alaexis¿question? 17:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I've done the revert, now the image to the right shows the correct numbers. Alaexis¿question? 17:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential issue with image 

message: This article is extremely outdated, especially following the start of the Russian invasion. It relies heavily on statistics such as polls from the early 2000s, and the 2001 census - attitudes and percentages have changed considerably ever since. This is just a suggestion, I think it should be updated, especially statistics of languages spoken at home, and media on TV/the radio. P0tato112 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely outdated