Jump to content

User talk:RusHistorian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi RusHistorian! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statement

[edit]

Welcome on Wikipedia. I noticed you made some changes in several articles, but you rarely give footnotes. I am talking especially about these changes. Can you back them up with reliable sources (WP:RS)? these are rather controversial statements and they need a proper source. Marcelus (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I give footnotes at approximately the same frequency as I find them in articles, particularly the one you linked above.
"Controversial" is at least a partially subjective statement. I have stated historical facts that are often obfuscated regarding the competition between societal strata and between national movements. There is also a deficit of demographic data and a chronology of the development of ideas on certain topics. I believe strongly in objectivity and showing both sides. Rarely do we see both sides, and I think that we all agree that it is critical to show a balanced set of information in an encyclopedia. Obviously, when discussing politics and nationalism it can be easy to take offense with statements which run counter to narratives, even if those statements are rooted in fact, and simply discuss opposition to whatever politics or nationalism the offended party holds.
Having said that, I take your commentary seriously, and will look into citing or linking to sources. As you can tell, I am a relatively new editor. I will closely examine my edits, beginning with those you have linked above.
Best, RusHistorian RusHistorian (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding, you need to be aware that every information you add without clearly indicating the source can be removed only because of that Marcelus (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

[edit]

Information icon Hello. In a recent edit to the page Girls' Brigade, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

[edit]

Greetings! Please stop adding statements not supported by sources [1]

Your text: The mentality behind Russification when applied to these groups differed from that applied to others, in that they were claimed to be part of the All-Russian or Triune Russian nation by the Russian Imperial government and by subscribers to Russophilia, source given Russophiles (encyclopediaofukraine.com) contains no mention of Russification.

Your text: Russian Imperial authorities as well as modern Russian nationalists asserted that Russification was an organic national consolidation process that would accomplish the goals of homogenizing the Russian nation as they saw it, and reversing the affects of Polonization , source given Белорусы: становление этноса и «национальная идея» (1998) | Персональный сайт белорусского историка Вячеслава Носевича (archive.org) contain no mention of Russification. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited multiple sources. You are vandalizing my articles because you are a Ukrainian nationalist on a crusade to re-write history.
"The mentality behind Russification when applied to these groups differed from that applied to others, in that they were claimed to be part of the All-Russian or Triune Russian nation by the Russian Imperial government and by subscribers to Russophilia"
The Encyclopdia of Ukraine article cited discusses Russophiles engaged in Russification (in Ukraine no less):
"The first manifestations of Russophilism appeared in Transcarpathia in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in the use and propagation of the Russian language and the adoption of Russian etymological practices in Ukrainian; in travels by local scholars and students to Russia for study and work..."
"Russian Imperial authorities as well as modern Russian nationalists asserted that Russification was an organic national consolidation process that would accomplish the goals of homogenizing the Russian nation as they saw it, and reversing the affects of Polonization"
I cited 5 sources. FIVE SOURCES! And you deleted them, only mentioning one.
You are dishonest and are ruining Wikipedia. I became an editor because I believe in balance. I got sick of seeing biased articles. In order to show balance in articles, both sides must be presented. That is all I am doing. I think that is perfectly acceptable for you nationalists to express you positions in the articles. But your opponents should be represented too. You can't stand the fact that there are people out there like me who believe in fairness and objectivity. This is an encyclopedia, not a nationalist manifesto. RusHistorian (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The mentality behind Russification when applied to these groups differed from that applied to others, in that they were claimed to be part of the All-Russian or Triune Russian nation by the Russian Imperial government and by subscribers to Russophilia"
The Encyclopdia of Ukraine article cited discusses Russophiles engaged in Russification (in Ukraine no less):
"The first manifestations of Russophilism appeared in Transcarpathia in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in the use and propagation of the Russian language and the adoption of Russian etymological practices in Ukrainian; in travels by local scholars and students to Russia for study and work..."
— User:RusHistorian 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Good. Where's anything about All-Russian or Triune Russian nation here, as your contribution says? Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The linked Wikipedia articles themselves add that context. Don't play games. RusHistorian (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:RSCONTEXT Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
Regarding your newly added source [2] . Please provide a quote supporting your text. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to post the entire text here, but will highlight some of the pertinent sections (because you said "please").
Paragraphs 11, 13 of the Intro.
Chapter: The ‘One Nation’ Trope in Contemporary Russian Nationalist Discourse
Conclusions, 2nd paragraph, the term "triune Russian nation" is used. Word for word.
I will also note that this essay that I cite is actually anti-Russophilic and villainizes Russia and Russian nationalists. RusHistorian (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs 11, 13 of the Intro.
— User:RusHistorian 21:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The intro is just 7 paragraphs long Full article: Ukrainians and Russians as ‘One People’: An Ideologeme and its Genesis (tandfonline.com) and the whole article contains no entry of Russification. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's in the next section of the article, my bad, beginning the count from the first paragraph of the intro.
This source discusses the concept of the "Triune Russian Nation". It does not even need to explicitly talk about Russification. It outlines the national vision, and that's why I cited it.
You asked for a source on Triune Russian Nation (after I had already linked the relevant Wiki page), I obliged and provided it, and now you're moving the goalposts and demanding that my source explicitly mentioned Russification. You're playing word games now, and losing. This is not a good look for you. RusHistorian (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I asked for a source for your statement you added into the article. Your edit is disputed. Please don't return your edit without reaching the consensus first. See * WP:EDITCON If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your question. I added the source, what more is necessary? What is still hanging out there unresolved?
You just deleted several statements that I made plus all of their sources, even after I addressed your questions. I cited multiple sources, and you delete all of them. You are not operating in good faith. RusHistorian (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the public record, here is my contribution. Note all of the sources.
Russification was extended to non-Muscovite ethnographic groups that composed former Kievan Rus, namely Ukrainians and Belarusians, whose vernacular language and culture developed differently from that of Muscovy due to separation after the partitioning of Kievan Rus.[1][2] The mentality behind Russification when applied to these groups differed from that applied to others, in that they were claimed to be part of the All-Russian or Triune Russian nation by the Russian Imperial government and by subscribers to Russophilia.[3][4] Russification competed with contemporary nationalist movements in Ukraine and Belarus that were developing during the 19th century.[1][5] Russian Imperial authorities as well as modern Russian nationalists asserted that Russification was an organic national consolidation process that would accomplish the goals of homogenizing the Russian nation as they saw it, and reversing the affects of Polonization.[6][7][8][9][10] RusHistorian (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source should support your text. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my questions:
I added the source, what more is necessary?
What is still hanging out there unresolved? RusHistorian (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source should support your text. Your addition talks about russification, and your source, as you said, It does not even need to explicitly talk about Russification, while it should. WP:RSCONTEXT Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source was in reference to "Triune Russian Nation". Not Russification specifically.
What is still unresolved? RusHistorian (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Seton-Watson, Hugh (1967). The Russian empire 1801-1917. Oxford history of modern Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 485–492.
  2. ^ "Russia and Ukraine: the tangled history that connects—and divides—them". History. 2023-02-24. Retrieved 2023-12-28.
  3. ^ "Russophiles". www.encyclopediaofukraine.com. Retrieved 2023-12-28.
  4. ^ Kolstø, Pål (2023-08-23). "Ukrainians and Russians as 'One People': An Ideologeme and its Genesis". Ethnopolitics: 1–20. doi:10.1080/17449057.2023.2247664. ISSN 1744-9057.
  5. ^ Seton-Watson, Hugh (1967). The Russian empire 1801-1917. Oxford history of modern Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 410–412.
  6. ^ Subtelny, Orest (2012). Ukraine: a history (4. ed ed.). Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-0991-4. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  7. ^ Snyder, Timothy (2003). The reconstruction of nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569 - 1999. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-300-10586-5.
  8. ^ Himka, John-Paul (1999). Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek catholic church and the Ruthenian national movement in Galicia, 1867 - 1900. McGill-Queen's studies in the history of religion. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. pp. 24–28. ISBN 978-0-7735-1812-4.
  9. ^ Горизонтов, Л. Е. (2007). К Украинско-белорусские исторические и историографические параллели // Україна—Білорусь. Політичні, екомомчіні та культурні аспекти взаємин. Чернівці-Вільнюс.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  10. ^ Носевич, В. Л. "Белорусы: становление этноса и «национальная идея". Archived from the original on November 18, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RusHistorian&oldid=1192353251"