Talk:Little Russian identity

Kiev Pechersk Lavra did not officially support little identity

It is mistake to say about Kiev Pechersk Lavra as a supporter of "identity". There is only one (but not 3) source by Miller, saying about one local orthodox hierarch (who was not Kiev Lavra Representative), probably archimandrite Innokentiy who wrote a "Synopsis". However, Miller concluded that "Synopsis" author was aiming to show motivation to Moskovy King to continue his war with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as well as to make easier the process of Cossack Hetmanate elite incorporation to Russian society. Shervinsky, there is no sources allowing to say the Kiev Lavra Orhtodox to support the Little Russia identity. --Andrux (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

All this doesn't change things. Историк Михаил Дмитриев отмечает, что «Синопсис» не может быть признан конструкцией ad hoc и сознатель­ным сотворением некой востребованной временем политической идеологемы. Указывая на долгую традицию выступлений за единство Руси среди православных книжников, он считает Синопсис не стартовой, а промежуточной и сравнительно поздней вехой в формировании концепции единого русского народа (Дмитриев М. В. Этнонациональные отношения русских и украинцев в свете новейших исследований // Вопросы истории, № 8. 2002. — С. 154—159). Besides Gizel many other archimandrites and monks wrote about the Little Russian people, for example Yelisey Pletenetsky. The image and the text above is legitimate. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In English, please.--Andrux (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Currently, I'm talking to you personally on behalf of your personal objections. This is an excerpt. Your pretension not to know Russian raises doubts about your overall sincerety. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are 126,700 other En-Wiki users, who potentially also may decide to participate in this discussion.--Andrux (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When they decide, we will see. How long do you want to delay answers on the issue itself? Go read about Yelisey Pletenetskiy better. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Provide a reference to publication of Yelisey Pletenetskiy. What do you mean by saying something on "on behalf of your personal objections"? What do you mean by applying words "excerpt" and "sincerety"? --Andrux (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

On behalf of Pletenetsky the Print Yard of Kievan Pechersk Lavra was founded (as well as Radomysl paper mill) where many Orthodox works were published of Job Boretsky, Pamvo Berinda, Lavrentiy Zizaniy, Petro Mohyla, Ivan Vishensky, Isaya Kopinsky, Tarasiy Zemka, Zakharia Kopystensky (who was also Lavra archimandrite) etc. All of them polemicized with Uniates and Catholics and many wrote about the Little Russian people. You can get a good overview here, a lots of is said about the term Little Russia. Note that many of the mentioned authors were directly connected to the Lavra, not just via publication in its Print Yard. --Shervinsky (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Why does every Russian wiki-paster make this presumption that everyone knows who to speak Russian on English wikipedia? "Your pretension not to know Russian raises doubts about your overall sincerity." SERIOUSLY? --Львівське (говорити) 15:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Living in Ukraine is different than living in Canada, dude. If somebody can't speak Russian in Ukraine, he hardly becomes Doctor of Medicine since most of the professional literature is in Russian. --Shervinsky (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware that literature in Russian is used at Ukrainian Universities and should not be used in English Wikipedia... But Wiki-talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. And sentences like "Your pretension not to know Russian..." and "Why does every Russian wiki-paster" are against Wikipedia:No personal attacks and a very lame debating trick too (undermining credibility)... that in the end will only undermine the one who used this trick... You have real arguments, use them. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Who told you I am living in Ukraine and got my PhD there, dude? Moreover, ALL professional literature is published in English, not in Russian, at least in medical science. This is not polite at En-Wiki to use other then English in the discussions. Concerning this publication you provided previously, I was not able to find there anything regarding the Little Russians identity.--Andrux (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've heard the "you obviously know Russian" argument twice this week, it's annoying me and a cop out from having to verify sources. Was I a bit general? Sure, sue me.--Львівське (говорити) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Me too. If you want to use Russian, maybe it would be better to you to try yourself at Ru-Wiki.--Andrux (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if you live in Sweden, I believe you, that the professional literature THERE ist in English. In Ukraine however, the majority doesn't have that level of English and reads mostly Russian literature. If you read the text carefully, you probably noticed that the historian tells not only about the reintroduction of the term Little Russia but also about the gradual development of the understanding by Little Russians of their close cultural ties with Grand Russians. This is nothing else than development steps of the Little Russian identity. And numerous people connected to Kiev Pechersk Lavra had a big role in it. --Shervinsky (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is just a nit-pick FYI thing, but 'grand russians' aren't a thing; the 'greater' part emphasizes their territory being a grater distance from Constantinople, not their stature. --Львівське (говорити) 17:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation, please (of course with translation to English). --Andrux (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a recent revert on this dispute, with Shervinsky inserting it citing Kohut without a page number. The Kohut article is here. Can someone verify if it's actually in citation? --Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I was about to start tagging several references in need of English translations of the relevant passages. I'll download the PDF and try to wade through it some time today (if I can get to it). I'll let you know as soon as I find the info AND can verify that it is an accurate interpretation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As a PS, thanks for finding the English language version. Shervinsky should be using the English language references, not their translations into Russian, in the first instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've had a good read through and can't identify anything even resembling Shervinsky's interpretation of the material. The brunt of Kohut's article is antithetical to anything postulated by Shervinsky in writing this article. In relation to the 17th century archimandrites, what Kohut does examine is Nikon's attempts to merge the enlightened, European, humanitarian and scholarly Ukrainian Orthodoxy with archaic and insular Russian (at that time still Muscovite) Orthodoxy in order to create a united, universal Eastern Orthodox Church: an exercise which failed and was responsible for the resulted in the raskol that divides the Russian church to this day. Kohut goes on to discuss later Russian scholarship surrounding this epoch as being 'revisionist', citing various Russian scholars as taking very different positions to each other in their interpretations.

In a nutshell, while Kohut is undoubtedly a V and respected RS, I have no idea where Shervinsky's source is to be found because it certainly can't be found in the work he's citing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Khazar Myth

This stood out

The supporters of hetman Ivan Mazepa who betrayed Peter the Great and went over to the Swedish king Charles XII favoured the so-called Khazarian myth. It told that the "Cossack people" originates from the old Khazars and thus are not related to the Russians. This version is also described in the so-called Orlyk Constitution.

I removed this passage, aside from the rampant WP:OR and POV pushing going on, but Plokhy] page 38 makes no mention of what's going on in this text. It mentions the Khazar myth in passing, nothing more. I suggest info on the Khazar myth be put back in the article as an 'alternative theory' of origin, but as it stood this text was too rotten to keep without re-writing entirely to keep within what plokhy actually says--Львівське (говорити) 08:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Smile-flag Ukraine.gif

Might there be 2 Khazar Myth's? Khazar Myth is another word for The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory. Or did Mazepa and his supporters all did genetic research of Ashkenazi Jews as a hobby...? I assume not... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well Serhii Plokhii is a reputable source, says that Divovych argued with themes taking from 'Mazepa's days', including "the Khazar myth, which established the separate ethnic origins of the Cossacks," and that Hlukhiv "made no mention of the Khazar origins of the Cossacks, which established Ukraine's distinct, non-Rus' origins."--Львівське (говорити) 23:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Shervinsky re-inserted the paragraph into the article. Anyone else have an opinion on it? It still seems to be a bit of synthesis.--Львівське (говорити) 21:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, let alone the paragraph and stop to demonstrate your lack of knowledge. Have you read the "Constitution" anyway? Here is an excerpt: Дивный и нεпостижимый в сүдбахъ своих Б[о]гъ, милосεрдный в долготεрпѣнії, пр[а]вεдный в казни, яко всεгда от початку видимого сεго свѣта на пр[а]вдномъ правосүдія свого мирилѣ, εдны Панства и Nароды возвышаεтъ, другіε за грѣхи и бεззаконія смираεтъ, εдны порабощаεт, другіε свобождаεтъ, εдны возноситъ, другіε низвεргаεтъ, такъ и nародъ валεчный стародавный козацкий, прεждε сεго имεнованый козарскій, пεршъ прεвознεслъ былъ славою нεсмεртεлною, обширнымъ владѣніεмъ и ωтвагами рицεрскими, которими нε тылко окрεстным nародомъ, лεчь и самому восточному панству на морѣ и на зεмли страшεнъ былъ такъ далεцε, жε цεсар восточный, хотячи оный сεбѣ вѣчнε примирити, сопряглъ малжεнскимъ союзомъ с[ы]нови своεму дочку кагана, то εст князя козарского. You also searched very badly in the book of Plokhy. I hope, this issue is now over. Does anyone want to translate the Russian wiki article? --Shervinsky (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All I see here is a block of text in another language. I see enough letters that no longer exist in Russian orthography. What is this? No, the issue is not resolved by this mystery passage you have provided, especially the matter of original research. Primary sources are not yours to interpret.--Львівське (говорити) 01:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Specify your requests

What about all those weird requests your group brings in again and again?

• In the now linked article of Zakatnova there is nothing about language. There is clearly said that nationality was registered by order. If you doubt the sourced information, bring counter-proofs yourself.
• Savenko is born in Pereyaslav, he has nothing to do with Great Russians.
• What exactly do you want to be clarified in the Soviet section? Which examples do you need, if examples are already there?
• Gogol is considered an archetypical Little Russian, this is clearly sourced. And the sources citation also says much about his self-identification. The removal of this sourced issues is vandalism
• There is enough said on Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. What else do you want?

If you don't specify where and why exactly is OR and which sources and why are dubious I consider it's legal to remove you tags. --Shervinsky (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Shoehorning

Shervinsky, your shoehorning is not acceptable encyclopaedic sourcing, particularly in view of the POV hysteria in your approach to other editors involved in developing this article.

You're concentrating on Sinopsis as if it were the embodiment of all views held by the archimandrites yet, according to Kohut (whose work you're using as an RS):

"The Sinopsis’ somewhat extreme Russocentrism was one view among several held by members of the Ukrainian clerical elite. In the 1670s, Feodosii Sofonovych, the archimandrite of the Monastery of St. Michael of the Golden Domes, wrote another major historical work, Kronika. Sofonovych traces the history of Rus’ during the Kievan period, then describes how Lithuania absorbed Rus’, and finally focuses on Poland’s entry into Rus’ history. He shows little concern for the Russian territories of Rus’. Like Gizel’ in the Sinopsis, Sofonovych concentrates on rulers, but the Russian Rurikides are of no interest to him. Instead, he lavishes his attention on Prince Danylo of Galicia-Volhynia. He sees the Muscovites and Ruthenians as separate peoples. In describing hetman Khmel’nyts’ky’s placement of Ukraine under the suzerainty of Muscovite tsar, Sofonovych simply reports the event without expressing any opinion about it." (page 6)

Enough of your cherry picking. If you want to put together an article on the subject, use the RS in keeping with what it examines retaining the integrity of the work. Ultimately, all you are engaging in WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)