Talk:Ems Ukaz

Do we know how significant was Shevchenko's association with СM? There were lots of legends created later that Shevchenko was a leading member and even a "close friend" of Kostomarov.

The fact is that Shevchenko was rather young at the time and definetely not the most significant member or thinker of the society at that early stage of his life. For example in the book "The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918", by Wandycz at al, University of Washington Press, ISBN 0295953586 (p. 250) it says that Kostomarov was the CM chief ideologist and Shevchenko is called the "main artist", not much of a political role. "The Ukrainians", by Andrew Wilson Yale University Press, 2002, ISBN 0300093098, (p. 99), says that CM society "included Kostomarov, Kulish and indirectly Shevchenko). Of course Shevchenko has later become the best known of them all, therefore some sources tend to overemphasize his role, but even our article on him (Taras Shevchenko) says correctly that he was probably "not an official member of the Brotherhood".

There were plenty of other significant for that time figures that got into trouble when the CM was shut down, such as Panteleimon Kulish and Vasily Belozersky. No need to overemphasize Shevchenko in this context, I think. We can mention him in other places of the article since his career was certainly affected by the Ukaze. --Irpen 16:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just thought Shevchenko's initial arrest was a good landmark, in that readers who are only vaguely familiar with Ukrainian history would know of it, even if they haven't heard of the C-M Brotherhood. And as opposed to the ukaz affecting his career, this is a case where an event in his life contributed (in a very minor way) to setting the stage for the subject of this article. But feel free to remove if you don't agree. —Michael Z. 2006-11-18 18:15 Z

I won't want to remove, just some kind of rephrasing because in the current form Shevchenko's role in CMB seems overblown. We are not talking about his role in UA culture, which was immensed, but in the narrow context of the article. --Irpen 18:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

But it doesn't say anything about his role in the brotherhood. How about "In the 1860s, a decade and a half after the Brotherhood of Sts Cyril and Methodius in Kiev was broken up, its founder Nikolay Kostomarov exiled, and poet Taras Shevchenko arrested for his suspected association with them?" —Michael Z.

Sounds good to me. --Irpen 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, I removed the last phrase. Stalin's crack down on Ukrainian is unrelated to Ems Ukaz in any way. Besides, according to my sources it started from 1931 and not 1929. Perhaps, the policies related to 1920s should go as well. The article is about Imprerial Russia's policies which came to a logical end in 1917. --Irpen 21:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The ukaz has a much wider importance than just as a legal document, or even as just a policy which was in effect for a fixed period. It is part of the history of the development of the Ukrainian language and nation, and an indicator of how they were seen and dealt with by the Imperial regime. It's important to put this in its historical context, both before and afterwards. It certainly doesn't waste too much space to include a single clause which mentions that the language was encouraged for a dozen years, only to be repressed again.

Regarding the date, I thought I read somewhere that Stalin started to put the brakes on Ukrainization by 1930, but I'll need to check this. —Michael Z. 2006-11-19 23:08 Z

Woah, you're fast. I was just about to change that in the article, and you beat me to it. —Michael Z. 2006-11-19 23:09 Z

The landmark date for the reversal of Ukrainization was the Stalin/Molotov telegram to the Central Committee of the CP(b)U dated December, 1932. From Олександр ТЕРЕЩЕНКО, УКРАЇНСЬКЕ ВІДРОДЖЕННЯ НА ПІВДНІ РОСІЇ :

Але успіхи українізації в Україні та Російській Федерації, в кінцевому підсумку, викликали негативне ставлення з боку вищого партійного керівництва в Москві. В грудні 1932 року на адресу ЦК КП(б) України і в деякі регіональні партійні органи Росії була направлена телеграма за підписами Сталіна і Молотова, в якій українізація безапеляційно засуджувалася як непродумана і шкідлива кампанія. Місцевим органам наказувалося "немедленно прекратить украинизацию в районах, перевести все укринизированные газеты, книги и издания на русский язык и до осени 1933 года подготовить переход школ и преподавание на русский язык" --Irpen 23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I want to compliment the authors. The article is informative and even-handed. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

These sentences lack sufficient contexts to be understood:

• "Sunday schools and hromada cultural associations were closed and their publications stopped."
  • What are "hromada" and what publications are referred to? You can't "publish cultural associations"!
• "A new translation by Pylyp Morachevsky of parts of the New Testament was vetted and passed by the Imperial Academy of Sciences, but rejected by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church, because it was considered politically suspect."
  • Was that translation in Ukrainian? The context implies it, but there's no way to be sure. In which year did this happen? 1861? 62? 63?

Circeus 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the publications: the Russian Empire had neglected education for decades, and a lot of religious, cultural, and nationalist organizations ran their own schools and educational programs. I'd have to do a bit of reading to be able to present it correctly in the article, though. —Michael Z. 2006-11-20 17:54 Z

Did anyone read this interpretation of the Ems decree? What do you think? (Igny 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC))Reply

The article is a mine of useful information, thanks. I hope the authors will add some of this to the text. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If this is going to be used, here is the link to the original source of the article rather than a mirror at some internet Blog:

• (in Russian) Leonid Solokolov, Valuyev circular of 1863 and Ems Ukaz of 1876. The truth and concoctions.

--Irpen 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The impartiality of the article by Leonid Solokolov is under serious doubt as it is posted on the anti-Uktrainian site, in which in particular they call for absorption of Ukraine into another union, in addition to hate literature about "invention of Ukraine".[ http://www.ukrstor.com/index.html]--Hillock65 23:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, could you point out where exactly this site is calling for absorption of Ukraine? From what I can see, the site is: Украинские Страницы, История национального движения Украины 1800-1920ые годы (translation: Ukrainian pages, the history opf the national movement in Ukraine in 1800s-1920s). In any case, for any author, be it Leonid Solokolov or even much more acclaimed Orest Subtelny we are able to separate facts from the author's opinions. The linked article cites a welth of facts and references them to specific documents. We are free to use the facts unless they are referred to the falcified documents. --Irpen 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You probably missed this part right on the front page: "Сбор подписей за воссоединение Малороссии, Белоруссии и России!" (Collection of signatures for unification of Little Russia (!), Belorus and Russia). And if that was not enough, there is also a link on the same front page to a known Ukrainophobe book: "Происхождение украинского сепаратизма Николая Ульянова, Нью Йорк 1960г." (Origins of Ukrainian Separatism by Nikolai Ulynov). Imagine if you would be considering information on Judaism as credible if taken from a White Supremacist site "unless they are referred to the falcified documents"? --Hillock65 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The analogy with the white supremacist site is rather a far fetched one. The collection of signatures is an external commercial link and in any case the idea does not even come close with the idea of the white supremacy and other hatred ideologies. Anyway, the site also has other banners.

As for the authors it hosts, Ulyanov is one of many. There are plenty of diverse figures such as Volodymyr Antonovych, Stepan Bandera, Pyotr Wrangel, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Dmytro Dontsov, Mykhailo Drahomanov, Panteleimon Kulish, Nikolay Kostomarov, Paul Robert Magocsi, Nestor Makhno, Ivan Nechuy-Levytsky, Symon Petliura, Yevhen Petrushevych, Pavlo Skoropadsky, Andrey Sheptytsky, etc. etc. etc. This is an extremely useful collection of the online info we got here. No site is a cradle of absolute truth and neutrality but this one is usable with reservations, depending on the particular work. The work in question seems historical, contains the author's POV which we are under no obligation to introduce into the article, but also a wealth of relevant factual info. --Irpen 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Reading this long document was difficult (the Russian-Ukrainian machine translation was not bad, but long Ukrainian readings are a lot of work for me), but this looks like an editorial, perhaps a primary source, but not an academic document to cite in an encyclopedia article. The author is criticizing anti-Russian propagandists who state that the Russian Empire literally banned the Ukrainian language. But it is unclear whether he is making a fair critical analysis or simply entering into the opposite side of the same discussion. If not for a few hints, I would wonder which century this was written in.

Some concerns:

• The author quotes a lot of editorial sources from the period, and it's unclear whether he agrees with writings which approve of bans on Ukrainian-language publications because they are the tools of "Jesuit intrigues", or which baldly suggest that the Ukrainian language is a Polish invention. I almost get the impression that the author feels that a Polish rebellion justified suppressing Ukrainian bibles and grade-school primers—he states strong opinions in the article, but none of them disapprove of such actions.
• But then he excuses this by saying that the Russian Empire was only copying the rest of Europe (a government which resisted giving rights to serfs to the point of revolution, and "whose per capita investment in education was at the time on of the lowest in the world", according to Magocsi, 1996:373).
• He makes a big deal that that Ukrainophiles including Shevchenko wrote in Russian (of course they could only have been educated in Russian), implying—I'm not sure exactly what.
• He holds up historians like Subtelny as examples of Ukrainian propagandists. I wonder why he doesn't add Magocsi to this list, who translates the full text of both the Valuev and Ems decrees, but concludes that "the ministerial decree accepted the view of the contemporary Russian press that ‘the Little Russian language has not, does not, and cannot exist.’ In short, the Valuev decree ended the Russian-Little Russian debate by administrative fiat and with a message that was unequivocal: There is no Little Russian or Ukrainian language, and those who believe there is represent a minority and most likely an anti-imperial, separatist minority."
• A main point is that Valuev is misquoted and misunderstood. He was only quoting the press in his decree. As if enacting a secret decree based the assertion that a Ukrainian language could not exist, "with the exception of some corruptions from Poland," did not constitute approval and embodiment of the same sentiment.
• The author makes a big deal out quoting the entire Valuev circular to clear up the misunderstanding of it. But even though the article's subject is the Ems ukaz, that document, which went much further, is barely mentioned. (s:ru:Емский указ)I see the original link only has the first half—more reading for me to do. —Michael Z. 2006-11-21 01:08 Z

It may be difficult to write a balanced account of such actions by a government in another century, for a Wikipedia article. That is why it is good to have input from many editors, and write according to academic sources. This article does seem to get all of its facts right, but it is written as an opinion piece: I can't help but respond to it as such, although I am not swayed by its arguments.

[post-edit conflict]

Yes, we can cite facts, keeping in mind WP:V#Sources.

Does anyone have the full citation of journal, title and date for this piece? —Michael Z. 2006-11-21 00:12 Z

Just one comment. I don't ever see Sokolov calling Subtelny a propagandist historian. To the contrary. Sokolov contrasts Subtelny, with Moroz and further mentions "propagandists" historians who distort the Ukaz. In referring to Subtelny further in the text, Sokolov does critize Subtelny for calling the Ukaz as "the absolute ban on Ukrainian literature." and refers to Ivan Krypyakevych who cites the Ukaz more fully. What online translator did you use, Michael? I will run it too and see how well it works.

I did not mean to call the linked article completely neutral. But it cites a wealth of primary sources, publications of the 19th centuries, gives quotes of prominent figures of the time such as Drahomanov, Kulish, Belozersky and contemporary press. Those are facts rather than an "opinions of the Russophile author". --Irpen 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The translator is "http://pere.slovnyk.org.ua/cgi-bin/pere.cgi". Seems to work very well for RU-UK, but unfortunately doesn't have any English vocabulary to speak of. My rusty Ukrainian reading skill is the biggest obstacle.

For myself, I have to be careful to understand the context of what I read, since I am learning much about Ukrainian history as I research Wikipedia articles. I trust Subtelny, and especially Magocsi, who seem to place a lot of importance on presenting events in a neutral light. Always best to read several sources, of course.

Thanks for the comment; I will go over some of it again. I also see now that the link I used only had the first half of the article. I'm getting a headache, and I have a lot of other work to attend to in the next few days, so please take my comments so far with at grain of salt, and I hope to get back to this in a couple of days. —Michael Z. 2006-11-21 01:08 Z

Irpen, look at the style Leonid Sokolov writes. He simply radicules Ukrainians and their language. I just started to read his article that you suggested and it stinks as the pro-Russian propoganda which I already have an idea how it ends. Why does he write that way? Is that really funny? Certaintly not to me and it itches me to punch him to pulp. Who is that guy anyway? I couldn't find any description about the author. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ems Ukaz. 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://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/ie/show/609/54147/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311010339/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/609/54147 to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/609/54147/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply