Talk:Little Russia

A little confusion

Originally the article said:

"While in its time, the term was simply a proper name for the land, the modern name (Ukraine) started to slowly gain in usage since 16th century. However, for political reasons, "Ukraine" as a proper name for the territory became totally accepted only in the 20th century when the term "Little Russia" mostly fell out of use."

In the next version:

"While in its time the term ukrayina was simply a name for the geographic territory, the modern name Ukraine has slowly gain in usage since the 16th century. However, for political reasons, Ukraine as a proper name for the nation became totally accepted only in the 20th century when the term Little Russia mostly fell out of use."

Perhaps my original text was somewhat confusing. By "proper name" I meant "proper noun" rather than "appropriate term" to reflect that LR was just a name not a political statement (or meaning) it gained later. The term, as the article says, certainly originates from the time not of Russians and Ukrainians but of East Slavs or Rus' People or whatever we call them (sometimes translation of terminology is confusing). With LR replaced by Ukrayina in the sentence, the original meaning was lost. So, I rephrased this returning LR in the sentence but taking into account Michael's edit. I hope this is agreeable. Irpen 04:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted that sentence, and changed the meaning with my edit. Thanks for catching it. —Michael Z. 2005-06-2 04:39 Z

"Great Russian" nationalism

Today, many Ukrainians consider the modern usage of Little Russia offensive, as it often implies the denial of a separate Ukrainian national identity, an opinion not uncommon among Great Russian nationalists.

Irpen removed the "Great" from this sentence, with the edit summary "anachronism to apply 19th century term to modern times". But it's not just Russian nationalism this refers to, but to a certain kind, having to do with the belief that "one, indivisible, Russia" includes Belarus and Ukraine. This view has its roots in the nineteenth century Russian Imperialism, and earlier, but it still exists today. It may be considered an obsolete view, but if the term "Great Russian nationalism" in an anachronistic description of it, then what would be an up-to-date one? —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 21:40 Z

"Annexed" vs "gained"

Irpen replaced it more than one time without any explanation. In my opinion "annexed" is the appropriate term here. Why Irpen thinks otherewise?--AndriyK 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In international relations the annexation usually implies the unilateral action of appropriation of certain territory through conquest (Texas, Golan Heights), discovery (oceanic islands) or changing its administrative status from the dependent territory but still nominally not fully integrated in the country' system of administrative division to a fully integrated status (Hawaii). Partition of Poland was by no means unilateral a decision announced by the country but happened through a series of international negotiations and several countries were included. Most importantly, the particular term chosen to describe dividing Poland between the three empires has very little relevance to the topic of the article which is about the term Little Russia and its etymology and usage, not even the history of the territory called such or its people. There is no question that in result of the partitions Russian Empire gained (check the dictionary definition of the verb to gain) those territories and this info is conveyed to the reader. --Irpen 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I reread the article about Annexation and did not find anything about "unilaterality". Could you please cite any sources supporting your claim?--AndriyK 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reread means you read it earlier? Strange because if you did, the article until recently included the following:

In international relations the term annexation is usually applied when the emphasis is placed on the fact that territorial possession is achieved by force and unilaterally rather than through treaties or negotiations.

The piece along with a lot of other info was removed by someone two weeks ago[1]. Thanks for pointing this out. I restored it. The main point though, is that this is not Partitions of Poland article to discuss the applicability of the complex terms defined in the international law. The issue is marginal for term's etymology and "gained" gives all the info relevant to the reader. --Irpen 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If it so marginal, why did you correct it two times? ;)

OK, after your last edit, the article Annexation tells, what you cited. It looks strange, I must say. Now I am trying to clarify this point on the corresponding talk page. Depending on the result I'll return or not return to the present discussion.--AndriyK 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Annexation fits perfectly well here. The meaning of the word is "to incorporate a territory to an existing political unit". "Gained" is POV (someone "gained", some other "lost") and weasel. --Lysy^talk 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen's edits on Annexation were reverted by Philip Baird Shearer. Especially, he criticized the phrase "In international relations the term annexation is usually applied when the emphasis is placed on the fact that territorial possession is achieved by force and unilaterally rather than through treaties or negotiations."

Irpen, if you think that you are right here, please prove this at Talk:Annexation. Otherwise, "gained" has to be replaced with "annexed".--AndriyK 11:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shearer's unexplained repeated *MASSIVE!* deletions reverted. The text has long been there until Shearer started shearing it out in early May. It is not invention of Irpen. So indeed "it looks strange", but it is rather previous disappearance of the text than current appearance. `'mikka 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, annexation is a legal term in modern international law and applying it to the 18th century events is an unscholarly anachronism. Similarly as to use the term civil rights when talking about medieval serfdom. --Irpen 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at the article "Poland" in Britannica-Macropedia. There is a map of partitions of Poland there which uses the term "annexed". Do you think EB is "unscholarly anachronism"? ;)--AndriyK 09:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I've just caught on what is happen here, and why it has been causing ripples on the annexation page. My major consideration is that the text on "annexation" reflects how and what annexation is today, hence my complaint about the phrase above. Since wars of aggression are now outlawed, annexation is also prohibited as it was the major reward in the past for invasions and wars of aggression (Think of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait). So today an annexation could not take place without the sanction of the UN, but that does not mean that before World War I/League of Nations, that the sentence was not true. I think that annexed is quite acceptable in this context, unless from the Russian perspective it was a reacquisition of territory that they traditionally considered theirs and the population welcomed them with open arms. Either way there seems to be enough sources for the sentence in this article to be backed up with a reliable source using the word regained or annexation which ever is more appropriate.--Philip Baird Shearer 16:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

PBS, having the wars of aggression outlawed does not make an annexation by such war impossible. Not all annexations are legal and international law has terms for illegal acts as well, like war crime. In any case, application of the 20th century legal term to the 18th century event requires a separate analysis and this belongs to the partitions of Poland article. Here we can state mere facts that the territory was acquired by Russia since all we are talking about is the time-mark when the notion of the term changed. The partition of Poland by itself is not marginal for the purposes of this article. --Irpen 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I would like to remind you once more that modern Britannica uses the term "annexed" for the partitions of Poland. What is the reason to use another term in WP?--AndriyK 08:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out which page? I would like to see the usage, first, to verify and, second, to see the context. Does it use the word in a dedicated article about Polish partitions, Poland or its history (that is a dedicated article on the subject) or does it use it passingly and matter-of-factly in an article where this event in Polish history is unrelated or marginal? --Irpen 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, most of your questions were answered one week before you asked them (see above, the message of 09:33, 24 May 2007).

Now the remaining question. In 15th edition of EB, this is vol 25, the map on p. 949. See also the text on p. 947, the last paragraph in the right column: "Russia annexed 62 percent of Poland's area...".--AndriyK 13:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask, is this really matter wether it was annexed or gained? I think it was both annexed and gained. What is the passage in question? --Kuban Cossack 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AndriyK, I don't have a paper version, only a full access to the online one. Poland article is 100+ pages long, so I was asking you for a narrower ref, like a section name or smth.Still, I infer from your answer that the term is used in the article that focuses on Poland, not the article were the Polish issue is marginal. However, in non-Polish articles it does not use "annex". Here is what EB says in Catherine II article:[2]

..she reorganized the administration and law of the Russian Empire and extended Russian territory, adding the Crimea and much of Poland.

As you can see "extending" and "adding" are used, no "annexed" here. --Irpen 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, why did you ask "which page" if you were not going to use the paper version. Just to make me to go to the library?

Why not you go to the library if you would like to verify and se the context?

It's not difficult to find the map of partitions of Poland in the electronic version, after all!

Can you search for "Russia annexed" in the electronic version?

You can usee google, after all and find [3].

And the last, but not the list. Usually dedicated articles use more precise terminology, than "passing" articles. Why did you dicide use marginal articles as a source rather than the dedicated article? Is there something in WP policy about it, or this is your own invention?--AndriyK 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Russian?

Classification of someone pro or anti Russian would be POV. Whatever their views are they had their own view of the term Little Rusianness and they should not be prejudged just because some don't like it.--Hillock65 11:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the cited Evhen Malanyuk wrote Anti-Russian verses, for example, "Towards Murom! Towards Murom!". Then Little Russiannes was described in article not neutrally, like something wrong. I do not see why it should be described in this way. --Russianname 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when are you given this power to decide what is anti- or pro-Russian? I consider that picture by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky as anti-Ukrainian because he doesn't use the proper name of the country, can I erase it too?--Hillock65 12:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So you must blame Taras Shevchenko, Bahaliy, Kostomarov etc that they did not use proper name. In times of Prokudin it was the most proper name.

Then you reverted this text:

The Ukrainian name Ukrayina (Ukraine, from Ancien Russian word "borderland" .) had been used the first time in 1187 to describe borderlands of Pereyaslav principality (a century earlier than the term Little Russian has been used for the first time) but it was not until the turn of the nineteenth century when the term Ukraine was accepted as a name for the nation and the land. At the same time the Russian name started to fall out of use. It was however still not considered offensive until the beginning of the 20th century.

References

I do not see why. You gave no explanation. --Russianname 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I totaly agree, I don't have the right to decide which is pro- or anti- Ukrainian. And neither do you. Deciding which is anti Russian or anti Polish or anti Ukrainian is your own opinion. See WP:NPOV--Hillock65 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not write these assaults, just cool down. --Russianname 12:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you, please specify, which particular words in the previous sentense are assaults?--Hillock65 12:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote this: I totaly agree, I don't have the right to decide which is pro- or anti- Ukrainian. And neither do you. Deciding which is anti Russian or anti Polish or anti Ukrainian is your own opinion.

and this: Since when are you given this power to decide what is anti- or pro-Russian?

Please do not write in this tone, I do not assult you. I understand that you have a different POV and I respect it. But you reverted my edits with numerous references and then you wrote these statesments. --Russianname 12:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time, which words in my message did you find offensive? Please let me know, so that I don't use them again. --Hillock65 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please get serious, Hillock. You want to cite Malanyuk as a source of any kind? Are you familiar with his masterpieces? Here is one fragment:

За набої в стінах Софії,

За криваву скруту Крут, —

Хай московське серце Росії

Половецькі пси роздеруть.

"Anti-Russian" is just too soft for this hate speach propagator. If you want to refer to him, the caveat "Russophobic author" should stand at the bery least. Or better yet, find someone respectable who would repeat his bizarre claims. --Irpen 07:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite a reliable source classifying him as "Russophobic author"?--AndriyK 09:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second the previous question, although I do not insist on his inclusion in the text. As you mention, it is "some authors", and it is not for us to give our opinion who those authors are. They defined the term and that is it, be they, in our opinion, anti-Vietnamese or pro-Russian. --Hillock65 11:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As well, I didn't find an explanation, why Vyacheslav Lypynsky's definition was thrown out. Was he deemed by some to be anti-something or too much pro-something and there are sources to support that, or there is another logical reason?--Hillock65 12:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. The elementary act of reading comprehension does not constitute the original research. If you disagree that the author of the stanza "Lest the Muscovite heart of Russia be shredded by the Cuman dogs" can be called anti-Russian, I invite you to seek for a wider input to ask the Wikipedia editors community stand on the issue. As for Lypynsky, I don't understand what you are talking about. I did not remove his quote. Look at the version after my last edit. Lypynsky is there. --Irpen 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I do not want protracted arguments about him and do not insist on his inclusion, however, with all due respect, labelling someone this or that is indeed POV. It depends on person who interprets it - somehow Shevchenko's similar sentiments "Кохайтеся чорнобриві та не з москалями" doesn't evoke the same attitute. Which is what it is, a personal attitude to this particular author. No big deal, he is out, case closed. As far as Lypynsky, it didn't show because of the mistake in the reference tag, again I corrected it and everything is ship-shape.--Hillock65 21:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Moskal in the 19th century context is not the same as Moskal in the modern context. The meaning of the term has evolved, but anyway since Malanyuk is out, this is purely an academic question. Now I realize what you were saying about Lypynsky. I screwed up the wikisyntax in the referencing and Lypynsky and a piece of other text became hidden in the output despite those were not actually deleted from the wikicode. Sorry, my mistake. --Irpen 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

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)

I have strong comcerns about neutrality of some parts of the article, secribing Little Russianness and the term itselfnegatively. And also significant portions of the text with references were removed by Hillock65 because they do not agree with his POV. --Russianname 12:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Kuban Cossack, what does "Не скули" mean in English, please ? --Lysy^talk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop whining, both literally and implicatively. --Kuban Cossack 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

One more time, stop discussing me and get to discuss the issues.--Hillock65 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As you say m'am :) --Kuban Cossack 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, please do not assault me anymore and do not judge whether some source is Russian nationalistic or not. Why do you feel you have this right? --Russianname 12:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whatever you say, m'am.--Kuban Cossack 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

POV (section break)

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)

• The origin of the name "Ukraine" does not belong here, if the "border line" theory is in, it will be forking from other articles and to give the range of opinions other theories will have to be presented as well
• Little Russia does have in present-day Ukraine negative connotation, and is considered offensive not just by nationalists but some others as well. There are sources to support that.
• Judging who is anti-Ukrainian or anti-Russian without references is Original Research. We shouldn't be passing our judgements but reflect information from the sources.
• It should be Reflected that Rus is not automatically Russia, but its progenitor, thus not only Little Russia, but Little Rus, just like Great Rus, since the time when the Greeks gave the name Muscovy was not called Russia yet.

The part of what Drahomanov thought about Little Russia does not belong in the section Little Russianness, it is POV-pushing. That section is not a) about Drahomanov nor b) about his or anyone else's attitude towards the name Little Russia. Please consider removing it from the innappropriate section.--Hillock65 01:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I will move it to a previous section then. --Irpen 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Rus heritage speculations

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)

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. --Lysy^talk 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what is said on top. References, please. How exactly Russia attempted to justify. `'mikka 21:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here is another opinion, although, not as famous as Subtelny: One interesting aspect of the Ukrainian situation is that within the imperial imagination it, in fact, straddled the domestic-foreign divide. It has sometimes been viewed as an organic part of Russia and sometimes as mysteriously different and exotic, and hence its conquest, subjugation, or full assimilation has been justified both in terms of bringing domestic peace and in terms of intervening abroad. The unanimity of Russian conservatives, liberals, and socialists on the question of Ukraine?s incorporation and assimilation stems in large part from the fact that the country has always been seen as an early and crucial test case of successful imperial expansion and assimilation. Any challenge to its success has carried enormous consequences for the Russian self-image and has been dealt with in uncompromising terms. The dissolution of the Russian-Ukrainian link has always threatened the imperial identity of Russia itself, the symbiosis of nation and empire that Russian intellectuals have so frequently extolled. These intellectuals have always been called upon to provide justifications for imperial growth and to defend an increasingly monolithic conception of Russian identity. The very idea of a Ukrainian identity, of course, threatened both.[4]--Hillock65 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Little Russia or Little Rus?

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)

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)

I'd also add it is a hair splitting. Russia has also been called Rus. Big deal. `'mikka 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Look, point is that in English there is by far less distinction between the terms Rus and Russia. It so happened whether you like it or not. One of the classical modern works on the subject published in English uses Russia for what you mean Rus'.

• Janet Martin, "Medieval Russia, 980-1584", Cambridge University Press (1995), ISBN 0521368324.

The book's author is one of the highest authorities in the US on the subject. Some pseudonymous Wikipedian claiming she uses the wrong terminology is out of the question. True, there is another term, also established in English to refer to what is called Русь in Ukrainian and in Russian. This term is "Rus’" and we are free to use it. But "Малая Русь" is the well-established term in itself and its English equivalent is "Little Russia". You find it unfair? I am sorry about that. But Wikipedia should not deviate from the established terminology. --Irpen 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

I do not object to such explanation indeed. What would be unhelpful is wanton replacement of the term throughout the article by inserting the term unknown in English terminology. Explanation is OK though. --Irpen 02:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Terms can be converted from Russian into English in two ways: through translation thus substituting the word by and English one when such exists and trhough transliteration in cases when a separate English term does not exist or English scholars use a loanword. Here, the English term exists and it happends to be Little Russia. English (as well as any other language) is imperfect in a sense that it has homonym. There is nothing we can do about that and we should not correct English in Wikipedia by inventing the unused terminology. The etymological explanation is a good idea unlike deviating from established terminology. --Irpen 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Both "Little Rus" and "Little Russia" are in English usage. Little Russia is a bit older, as it was propagated in tsarist times. Today, however, Little Rus is the correct terminology and is being increasingly used in modern publications. The general usage by mass media etc. of course lags behind but this is a normal process. A modern encyclopedia however, should be using modern professional terminology. --Lysy^talk 06:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already changed the usage within the article to reflect that. --Irpen 06:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned "Little Rus" as an alternative name in the lead. Hope that's OK. --Lysy^talk 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lesser Ruthenia.--Юе-Артеміш (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikification effort

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)

"Commonly"?

There were a few instances of the word "commonly" in the lead. Unfortunately, as "commonly" is a subjective adverb, it cannot be included without pushing a POV. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

“As the term has become an archaic one, its anachronistic usage in the modern context may be considered offensive by some Ukrainians, unlike the usage in the historic context which is widely accepted and non-controversial.”

You all know better than to edit-war over some subjective wording. A challenged fact needs a citation to support it. And anyway, this is poorly written: the logic of the sentence clearly implies that “its usage in the historic context ... is not considered offensive by any Ukrainians”—hardly encyclopedic. —Michael Z. 2008-10-24 16:05 z

Casimir III

The king Casimir III of Poland, was called "the king of Lechia and Little Rus’"

This detailed list of king's titles[5] 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)

Maps on uk wiki

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)

Rus Minor

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)

• All of this you're doing here is an original research. And your deletion of academic sources is a clear vandalism. Next time you delete it I'll have to ask administrators. And by the way, the site made by an anonymous (though most probably it's you) cannot confirm any statements.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Read up on WP:NPA, WP:NPOV.--Galassi (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

And btw, "your" Μακρά Ῥωσσία didn't exist at all.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Ru-wiki is not a reliable source at en-wiki. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand English at all? Third time: all you are now doing here is your pushing of an original research:
1) The combination "Rus Minor" did not exist in the medieval times as well as in the modern ones. Happily, you've accepted this fact.
2) "Mikra" does not mean in Greek "near". It's a bare fact.
3) Little Russia has nothing to do with Asia Minor. It's also a fact. Moreover, the etymology of the term "Asia Minor" is still vague.
4) "Makra Rosia" did not exist also. "Megale Rosia" did exist. It is also a simple fact. It does not matter what the Russian Wikipedia says.
5) The story about eparchies is not a "claim" by some Russian scholars. It is an accepted scientific consensus about these terms. Moreover, A. Soloviev is a well-known Byzantinist and philologist and his work is quite unique that it is dedicated to and thoroughly enlightens the issue. Instead of accepted science you are pushing an original research.
6) Do not think that vandalism is made only by crazy anonymouses. You five times roughly deleted the text which definitely clears the issue and with the reference to a dedicated academic work without any explanation. If it is not a vandalism, at least it's a rough pushing.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

I don't I'm just plainly repeating what you do not want to comprehend.
1) Your source is not reliable in any sense. It has no author, nothing is known about his speciality and competence in linguistics. Knowing that this site belongs to you, most probably all the text is written by you. It seems that you're making an OR in the Wiki and refer to your own OR from your site. And you are not making NOPV. You've five times in a row deleted the text with the reference to a dedicated scientific work, which you simply dislike. You are doing your POV-pushing and nothing else.
2) Kartashov's work has not makra. Maybe it's me who cannot find but Mr. Google also can't. It's interesting that Kartashov says literally what you are intensively deleting. I wonder why you are deleting a work by the professional linguist but refer to a work by the theologian which has no competence in linguistics. Quite the contrary Kartashov exactly confirms what Soloviev says.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Малая Русь

The article on Little Russia talks about changes in perception of the term Малая Русь. For Taras Shevchenko, this was the preferred term for Ukraine. The term was perceived differently by some people in the 1980s, when Ukraine was part of the USSR. Since the contention of the article is the perception of the term has changed over time, a source from the 1980s is not evidence of how the term is perceived 24 years after publication.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that is is perceived differently now than in the 1980's? The word Ukraine has also changed meaning; does a work published in the 1980's stating that Ukraine is the word used for the people become "in the 1980's the people referred to themselves as Ukrainians"?Faustian (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Little Russia was a preferred term for Taras Shevchenko?! This is TOTALLY not true! Read his most famous poem The Testament. Moreover, since we are talking about perceptions, this article is incomplete and biased, based particularly, as you put in, on perception in different times. Here Little Rus and Little Russia are equated, which is not true and very wrong. We no longer equate Rus with Russia and make a distinction between the two: you can check the Kyivan Rus article. Yet, here, the imperialist construct of Malorossia is still equated with Little Rus. This needs to be corrected. I wonder if an NPV tag should be placed to this article until this issue is resolved. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you repeatedly removed the "in the 1980s" words, I have added the tag "dubious" to the claim that phrase is considered offensive. The only citation for this claim is a 1988 book. Claiming this as evidence for present day feelings is dubious.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Any evidence, other than your opinion, that this is dubious? We have a reliable source stating, in 1988, that the word is offensive for Ukrainian nationalists. Do you have evidence that at some point afterward it ceased being offensive to Ukrainian nationalists? If you do not - please don't base tags entirely on your own personal opinions. Faustian (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is now 2012.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So, no evidence then that Ukrainian nationalists no longer consider the term "Little Russian" offensive. I will go ahead and remove the dubious tag. We don't assume people change atttiudes without evidence. Wikipedia isn't a blog of personal unfounded opinions.16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry I accidentally reverted your comment when I replied to it. I have rolled back my edit and then re-added the comment I was trying to post.)--Toddy1 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that a book published in 1988 is not evidence for attitudes 24 years later in 2012.

It is your opinion that attitudes are the same. All I ask for is evidence.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you are the one proposing that attitudes have changed, the burdon of proof is yours. We have a source form 1988 stating that Ukrainian nationalists find that term offensive. And no evidence that this has changed (btw, do you seriously believe that Ukrainian nationalists don't consider that term insulting?). We can't editorialize every piece of information on wikipedia by the date of the source. Faustian (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I do not have an opinion on what Ukrainian nationalists think. All I ask for is evidence.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent developments

Another editor asked me to look at the situation around this page. Having found a creeping edit war, I've protected the page for a month. Please discuss your disagreements on the talk page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2012; 12:07 (UTC)

Note that there are some arguments here. Note also that I am not a part of the dispute and have no interests in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2012; 12:15 (UTC)

Summary

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)

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)

That page says this:

These are the contributing authors that graciously helped with this collaborative project, originally started in 1988: Tim Crawford, Roman Turovsky, Robert Paul Magocsi, Eduard Drach, Volodymyr Kushpet, Rob MacKillop, Volodymyr Vojt, Alexander Batov, Valery Sauvage. Arto Wikla, Ed Durbrow, Mathias Rösel, Victor Mishalow, Nestor Torbanyst, Bernd Haegemann, Marcin Ludwicki, Michal Wycislik, Greet Schamp, Yuri Fedynsky, Jerzy Zak, Matanya Ophee, Alisja Knast, Aleksandr Tolokno, Andriy Bondarenko, Franco Fois, Davide Rebuffa, Andrij Hornjatkevyç, Orest Kuprij, Patryk Miernikiewicz, Terrell Stone, Christopher Wilke, Massimo Marchese, Lex van Sante, David van Ooijen, Hans Kockelmans, Andrij Legkyj, Michael Andrec, Oleg Timofeyev, Stuart Walsh, Elio Donatelli, Jean-Marie Poirier, Michal Mlynarz, John-Paul Himka, Eugene Kurenko et alia.

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)

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)

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)

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/donbas-separatists-pronounce-new-state.html?utm_source=traqli&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=traqli_daily

Rework needed

Move to Rus' Minor without discussion

User:Sanya3 moved this page to "Rus' Minor" without any form of discussion. Many thanks to Ezhiki 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)

Academic source

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10610405.2016.1251121 - I don't have access.Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There are also several books.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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 {{dead link}} 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"From Little Russia to Ukraine" section has no sources for the majority of claims.

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)

The referenced statement can be easily moved to the previous section. - Altenmann >talk 16:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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)