Talk:All-Russian nation

Title "Tsar of All Rus' "

The title "Tsar Of All Rus'" borne by every Russian ruler after Peter the Great reflects the official status of this ideology in the Russian Empire. This is incorrect. The illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible, a valuable Russian historical source from 1540's illustrates that the Tsar of Moscow is called ruler of all Rus. So this term is in use much earlier than when Peter the Great ruled. --Vladislav Nikolaevitch (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Russophile ideology?

There are many authors, academic encyclopedias throughout history with many works who can confirm that the White-Russians were one people with the Great-Russians and Little-Russians. That is why it's not an ideology. It was an academic fact.

"Russian dialects fall into two main divisions - Great (Velikorusskij), including White (Belorusskij) Russian, and Little Russian (Malorusskij). The latter is spoken in a belt reaching from Galicia and the Northern Carpathians (see Ruthenians) through Podolia and Volhynia and the governments of Kiev...." Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 28. 1911. P. 913.

"The Russian population is composed of three large groups: Great Russians, or Veliko-Russ; Little Russians, or Malo-Russ; and White Russian, or Bélo-Russ." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Vol. 35. London. 1873.P 350.

"Subdivisions of Russians. Three different branches can be distinguished among the Russians from the dawn of their history: - The Great Russians, the Little Russians (Malorusses or Ukrainians), and the White Russians (the Byelorusses)." The Encyclopaedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information". Volume 23. Cambridge. 1911. P. 884.

Alexander Guanini describes also in his book "Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio, quae Regnum Poloniae, Lituaniam, Samogitiam, Russiam, Masoviam, Prussiam, Pomeraniam... A Description of Sarmatian Europe" (printed in Kraków, 1578), which contained descriptions of the countries of Eastern Europe (history, geography, religion, traditions, etc.) that the Moscovian territory is also named as White-Russia or White-Rus.

There are many more works, books, maps who can confirm this information. --Vladislav Nikolaevitch (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

One problem here is that the word "Russian" can be used for "citizen of a Russian state," "member of the Russian people," or "the Russian language." The first quote you have clearly refers to the last of these, while the second seems to refer to the first. The third quote contradicts your point; if there were three different branches "from the dawn of their history," then clearly it's not "one people." Note also that views from the era of the Tsars is likely to be different than current understanding. I do think it is a bit confusing to lump together all geographical Russian nationalist ideas from the last seven centuries into a single Wikipedia article using only one of them as its title, but I don't think you can call the triune concept "academic fact." (One point you might have is that the triune concept shouldn't technically be called "irredentist," since irredentism advocates reclamation, and, for most of the term's history the Russian Empire had firm control over all the territory it claimed. I've called it "irredentist" on this talk page as shorthand, but a Wikipedia article should be more accurate.) Calbaer (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Inapropriate sourcing

Ladies and gentlemen, I found at least one example of inaccurate sourcing. The claim that this shauvenistic obsolete concept is currently in use in Ukraine is citing a PDF text without any names and references which was, judging by the URL, produced by a demonstrably-partisan Kremlin-funded group called Russkiy Mir" ("Russian World"). Anyone can make sure how marginal and ridiculed such ideas are in Ukraine simply by googling it in any of the local RS news sites.

Moreover, I was unable to find any mentions of the article's subject even in that so-called "source". Deleting. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Funding is certainly not a criterion. If we start to analyze how much of Ukrainian press, NGO's and historical research is funded by US grants we will have to remove half of information on Ukraine from Wikipedia. This source (report of Kiev centre for political research and conflictology) is not better and not worse than most what is usually used by Ukrainian "patriots". And it is non-sense to deny that there are Ukrainian circles that connect Ukraine's future with Russia and the Orthodox world rather than with the West. The source is one clear example of it. By the way, the text says "the conception of the triune Russian (Ruthenian) people remains in different forms". So the criticism about the absence of the "exact name" in the source is also incorrect. --Shervinsky (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Funding certainly is a criterion. At least the ground for explicitly mentioning this fact next to your "refs". Especially regarding the Russian organization declaring opposition to the country's integration with the West (which is the official strategy of the Ukrainian state). I wonder if you could name a US, European or Chinese state-funded organization in Ukraine aiming at something similar. So, your source is demonstrably unreliable and needs to be supplemented beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm going to tag the article on that mater if you insist on your agenda-pushing.

As for the referenced file itself, it still contains no names of the authors or sources that they cite, and therefore is not a reliable research product. Which is only an additional ground for excluding it. Basically, it's an insider memo. My guess is that this "paper" was a product of a kickback operation aimed to siphon Russian public funds from the Russkiy Mir Foundation. I'm proud that some "Kiev centre for political research and conflictology" managed to promote Russian expansion so open-heartedly). Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, well, Shervinsky. You have been a busy propagandist, haven't you? Now that you've shoved this as a link into the Ukrainians article, you've made it abundantly clear that you are not quite a harmless, well intentioned newbie who's simply stumbling through some inadvertent edit conflict hiccups and antagonising contributors who are truly working at neutrality and a balanced presentation of issues. I think we now have ample evidence on this user to ask for serious intervention, don't you, Ukrained2012? And here was I writing copious notes on talk pages as to your questionable sources, having dignified your presence by treating your contributions as being in good faith, if not heavily biased, absolutist and of questionable translate, cut and paste methodology. Your agenda is no longer simply a little suspicious. Happy editing, indeed! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read posts like above. This is argumentum ad hominem in it's purity. Please try to discuss article matters, but not editor's matters. HOBOPOCC (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see a fellow Wikipedian so concerned about the integrity of the article and espousing not attaching the person but the content. You certainly do a very good job at feigning to be quite the unbiased voice of reason. I'm very surprised to find that you're surprised considering [your activities in editing. Let's just take the example of one of your recent constructive changes to the Pavlo Skoropadskyi entered under the edit remark of, "first of all he was Russian". Great job at making significant and constructive changes to content. Is there anything you've contributed that hasn't featured putting Russian before any other ethnicity? I'm finding it difficult to take your indignation seriously. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't discuss the priorities and political views of the users as they're irrelevant. Rules, procedures and consensus are what matter. In my 5+years in Wikipedia, I've met brilliantly co-operative, diplomatic and helpful editors whose ideas and topical article interests I found unbearable and/or ridiculous. No opinion on recent edits here for now. Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

the idea of ukraine and russia being "brotherly nations" or the "same nation" still exists today, though the terminology of malorussian does not (unless you're some extremist wack job from crimea). You'll see if often in politikspeak, exclusively from Russophiles. To what extent does the PDF say it is in use in Ukraine? --Львівське (говорити) 22:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Ruthenian"

Ladies and gentlemen, this term is to be used with caution and avoided wherever possible as evidently disputed by the community. "Ruthenian" is usually an attempt English translation of different, politically charged, scholarly disputed ethnic identity terms like Rus(kyi), Russkiy or Rusyn.

Possible solutions include using exact Cyrillic spelling/transliteration (in this case, Russian), careful (and pre-solicitated) Wikilinks, or quotation marks (which I did in lowest sec). Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Usually Ruthenian is used in historical texts (including primary sources from Latin western europe) to refer to Galicia or Rus' people, but not Russian. You will find 'Ruthenian' and 'Varangian' used side by side when talking of Kievan Rus, or Daniel of Galicia will be a Ruthenian king. It should never be used in overlap with the Russian state in Moscow (Rossiya) or the Great Russian ethnos. This is doubly important seeing as Ruthenian was a separate language from Russian, used in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as a precursor for Ukrainian and Belarusian. Finally, you have the attempted formation of the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth, the latter to refer to Ukrainians. In the diaspora, Ruthenian continued to be used as ethnic identification among immigrants, separate from Russian. This distinction was made even in newspaper titles (I know that in the early 19ths century before 'Ukrainian' took hold, Ruthenian was used among the diaspora in Canada) Using exact translits of source material would be beneficial, crossover of a "Triunate Ruthenian People" will lead to confusion as no such group existed once the Russian ethnic identity took hold post-Rus. At this point in history, we have Tsars of 'All the Russias' and no such 'Great Ruthenia' or 'Great Rus' existed as a synonym for Russia proper, for example. --Львівське (говорити) 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

the linguistics involved is also important, as ethnic russians in ukrainian are (Росіяни, Rosiyany) and ruthenians are (Руський, Rus'kyi), but in russian the former are (русские, Russkiye) and ruthenians are (Русины, Rusyny). --Львівське (говорити) 23:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

With the above note in mind, I just realized the Ukrainian translation was wrong in the intro (per the UKR wiki page version) and says Rosiis'kyi(російський), and the russian version is Russkiy (русский). Thus, in both languages the article is dealing with Russian, not Ruthenian peoples.--Львівське (говорити) 06:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian Wikipedia is not a valid source. If you didn't know it so far, you can't pretend to be a serious Wikipedian. I added some sources now, can add more. The very idea of the Triune Russian people is that it refers to the Rus (Русь), not just to contemporary Russia. It regards Grand Russians only as one of the three branches of the Pan-Russian people and nobody said this branch was more important than others. Otherwise I expect citations. Some Ukrainian nationalists try to use ambiguities of translation and use the word росiйський to make it look more like narrow Russian nationalism, but that's a conscious distortion of the core idea of the conception. Rus is sometimes translated in Latin and English as Ruthenia, so the addition of Ruthenian (not even as the main translation) can surely be helpful to explain the context. --Shervinsky (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an issue with the second citation. Second ref in the intro says "pan-russian" (pan-rus'kyi). This article appears to be a repacking of pan-slavist material with little support. Blaming the lack of referencing on 'ukrainian nationalists' and 'ambiguity' isn't very helpful.--Львівське (говорити) 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• did a cursory check, and "Триєдиний руський" has 9 results on google books ref, and "Триєдиний російський" has 22 results on google books ref. There is a similar 2:1 ratio in favor of 'Rosiis'kyi' being the common use name --Львівське (говорити) 09:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There are in fact only 12 hits of "Триєдиний російський". Both queries are not very sensible since the same issue can be also named єдиний руський, великий руський or пан-руський. BTW, the fact that the whole conception was coined predominantly by Kievan clergy speaks clearly against російський (in the modern sense) and in favour of руський. --Shervinsky (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

24 results, not 12. What is more sensible? The bottom line is that the current intro uses the non common use form of the term.--Львівське (говорити) 16:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The initial hit number doesn't correspond to the number of results when you browse the result pages. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been doing some light reading on the subject and I have whole lot to add to the article. The good news is that the etymology section will be completely hammered out and the 'Ruthenian' issue will be taken care of. :) --Львівське (говорити) 02:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I could give an impulse for your Canadian horizon to became broader on history of the South Western Rus. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

...what? --Львівське (говорити) 16:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose North American books don't write a lot about pan-Russian historic and cultural links of Ukraine. --Shervinsky (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many, many books on this subject. --Львівське (говорити) 17:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not delete requests for translations of citations

Please do not delete requests for cited sources to be translated into English. We are not talking about a single instance of usage of non-English sources in order to write an article: we are talking about an entire article being written with a plethora of references, only two of which are in English (Nelly Bekus and Alexei Miller: found via a google book search in German). Interestingly enough, what you picked out of their writings doesn't tally with the way in which you have synthesised their views. I'll look into it further over the next few day.

Please read the Wikipedia policy WP:NONENG carefully. I am not playing games with you, Shervinsky. This is not the first time I have brought up the need to translate at least relevant tracts of sources being used in this and other articles. These are serious, valid requests, so do not attempt to dismiss them as being 'vandalism' again. They remain in place until such a time as the relevant material is translated. Other editors/contributors should be in a position to read the material and check whether the interpretation actually corresponds with content of the source text. It simply cannot work as a, "Take my word for it." situation. As it stands, you have not even bothered to translate the names of the authors or of the texts in question. The reference list, in itself, is meaningless to an English speaker with no working knowledge of Slavic (or German) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Iryna, I start to lose my patience towards you. You are vandalizing the article with a flood of requests most of which are absurd and trivial. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --Shervinsky (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How is requesting salient excerpts of the works you've drawn on to be translated (as per Wikipedia policy) in order to improve on a potentially important article - which could be drawn on in other articles - harassment or vandalism? I have no interest in you personally, but elaborating on and clarifying the position of this entry is essential. At the moment, it does not read as being neutral but a synthesis of POV concepts and original research. Do you seriously think that brazen statements such as, "On the personal level, Little and White Russians were never discriminated against on ethnic grounds." are not going to be seriously and justifiably challenged? Here, you are quoting both Alexei Miller AND Andreas Kappeler (from his essay in "Iazyki russkoi kultury"/"Languages of the Russian Culture"), therefore the sentence should read, "According to both Alexei Miller and Andreas Kappeler, on a personal level, Little and White Russians were never discriminated against on ethnic grounds."... but that's only part of what is being postulated by Miller, so don't cherry pick. If you don't tighten this entry up it will be challenged and decimated the moment anyone else gets a sniff of it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research?

Searched google books for "Триєдиний руський" and found nothing, conversely, searched basic google for it and found pages talking about the "triune myth" (1, 2, 3. Is this just internet propaganda run amok? This article needs some english sources from legit scholars, stat.--Львівське (говорити) 08:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Precisely why I tagged it for the Russian sources to be translated into English at the least. The couple of English references appear to be ad hoc, tying in only in as far as they discuss the treatment of non-Russians within the Russian Empire. No "Truine" is referred to in the English sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Upon further research, 'triune russian' is discussed in the english language scholarship. Synonyms are pan-Russian and all-Russian; though the latter seem more popular (WP:COMMON) I guess my original issue was to do with the Ukrainian translation, which seemed to have more for Triune Rossiyan. Also, the mythology seems to just be critical talk about the concept and the 'russian nationalization' project the Romanov's engaged in. Case in point, Timothy Snyder recently referred to Putin's suggestion that Ukrainians and Russians constituted a 'single nation' to have no basis in history. It's a revisionist, nationalist concept aimed to create a slavic Anschluss of sorts. HOWEVER, it does have some historial basis in Rus' times but I'll get to the sourcing of that later once I crack open my history books from my shelf ;) --Львівське (говорити) 03:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's interesting. I've just had a little more of a read of Miller's paper which is actually quite an interesting parsing of the idealogical/terminological objectives of Imperial Russia and how it was carried over into the 20th century. Once I get out from underneath a few Middle Eastern articles I've been pushed into mediating on, I might have a delve into this area myself down at the uni used to work for. It could have the potential to be an elucidating and useful article on Russification once it has been properly sourced. Looking forward to seeing what you can elicit from reliable English texts you source! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's the wine talking, but I had an epiphany and I think I may have crossed up all/pan-Russian and triune-Russian as the same line of thinking rather than competing schools. One example of the competing schools was British versus French, the latter being assimilation and the former being separate but equal nations within a singular nation state (england, scotland, ireland...all british). I'm reluctantly going to have to go over my notes again to make sure the terminology is consistent because I realized I was typing 'triune' in place of all or pan the entire time....#$%^&*(!!!! --Львівське (говорити) 04:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As with much of history, a significant remnant of ideologies binding Empires (even past their death-throes) carried over into the psyche of modern nation-states and are still pervasive... At least, I suspect that's what you're referring to. If not, maybe I need to crack open a bottle of wine to get into your mindset. Eh, maybe I just need to crack open a bottle of wine, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

haha I think the problem is that you can have Miller and then another author talking about virtually the same thing, but one say 'triune' and another say 'pan/all', and though they seemingly mean the same thing....triune accounts all 3 as part of a grater (ultimate?) russian identity, whereas all/pan says everyone is just russian, it's russiphilism at the base level. right? I'll figure this out once I re-read everything...ugh...--Львівське (говорити) 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

'Tomato/tomato, potato/potato... let's call the whole thing extremely off/a stinker.' Am sending wine, aspirin and best wishes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

yeah... --Львівське (говорити) 06:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia occupational hazard... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

upon further research, I believe potato/potato applies here. It's the same thing, the terms are used interchangeably, but all vs. triune seems to just define two slightly different mindsets of what is the same made-up national project. --Львівське (говорити) 22:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

issue with the current article

While trying to fix the messy prose around Vasily Klyuchevsky's theory, I found a flaw in his theory. He says that Russians were united until the feudal era, and then split into Great and 'West' Russians, and then 'West' Russians split into Little and White Russians. This would mean that the ethnic identities preceded the regional namesakes. Of course, this is in contrast to Prokpovich, who says that the triune peoples were based on the tsarist acknowledgment of there being 3 Russian territories (great, little, white). So what was it, were the people named after their regional divisions, or were the regions defined along ethnic borders? Chicken and egg situation here. --Львівське (говорити) 08:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I just made a slew of alterations to the article. Most were grammatical in nature or tagging the need for sources, or requesting clarification of sentences and phrases which made no sense to me in English, that I felt I could not adequately improve without altering the intended meaning. Also, I added 2 sources and expanded on the sentence regarding discrimination, which was a bit dishonest on the subject. For the record, no sources or points were removed from the article in the interim. --Львівське (говорити) 01:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that you've improved the general comprehensibility of this article, and that the elaboration on the source in question is in keeping with the sense of what was being conveyed (as noted earlier in the year when I pointed out that it had been shoehorned). Before anyone reads my agreement with your changes as being 'obvious', I'm well acquainted with the article as it stood, what it was positing and have read through the altered text without prejudice. If I felt that this was unwarranted POV tampering, I would certainly have no compunction in saying so. It is still in need of some solid work (including translations) and double-checking of V and RS, but it's finally shaping up as an informative and relevant entry. Your hard work and intelligent analysis is highly appreciated, Lvivske. Hopefully, Shervinky will recognise that he is not dealing with 'opponents' and will make an attempt to work collaboratively with other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Snyder's citations

Snyder's citation don't have anything in common with the topic. The idea of the Triune Rus' people which was predominantly coined by the Kievan clergy doesn't teach the superiority of Grand Russians and doesn't deny the historical role of Kiev. The addition of Snyder's far-fetched citation is an attempt to bring in anti-Russian political propaganda. Removed as irrelevant and useless. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

it has everything to do with this topic because...it's the topic he's talking about, he's specially talking about the "one russian nation" talk. And to call Snyder a propagandist is ridiculous, considering he's one of the most highly acclaimed eastern european historians out there.--Львівське (говорити) 14:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you claim any relationship to the topic, you have to prove it. This is not obvious. If there are some Russian ultra-nationalists who consider Ukraine as a younger brother and somehow inferior to the Russians, that's their problem. This is neither a part of the described conception nor political mainstream in modern Russia, including the cited Vladimir Putin. Yes, he said that Ukrainians and Russians are one nation but he never said Ukrainians were the junior partners or inferiour. I could agree on the mentioning of his actual statement about one nation but I strongly oppose the non-representative rest. --Shervinsky (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything, it's a direct quote.--Львівське (говорити) 14:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You have to prove relevance since Wikipedia is not a wild dump of everything. --Shervinsky (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevance? He's specifically talking about Little Russia when he says "slavic younger brother" and "same nation". He second article on the subject, which was also sourced and you removed reference to it, talks entirely about them being union peoples/nations and the absurdity of such statements. --Львівське (говорити) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Does he prove somewhere that these attitudes are representative for the Russian political class and society? Just writing that something exists doesn't say anything about its weight and level of spreading. For example, if somebody writes about chauvinistic and racist theories that exist among Ukrainian nationalists like the claim that Russians are an obscure Asiatic mixture of Finno-Ugric, Turkic and Mongolic tribes, should it be associated with Ukraine on the whole and integrated in the article about the country? I don't think so (I even close my eyes on the fact that a book of such content, "Krayina Moxel" by Volodymyr Bilynskyy, got a state prize for such a trolling in 2011). I suggest not to discredit each other by focussing on nationalist idiots. --Shervinsky (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. --Львівське (говорити) 17:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that you didn't show Snyder's words are representative for the Russian politics and society and not just for Russian marginal groups. --Shervinsky (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to show anything, the entire article of his was talking about the words of Russia's diplomat to France and Putin's direct statements. The head of state and his envoy are hardly representative of "marginal groups" --Львівське (говорити) 15:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, and now show me where Putin says something like "Ukrainians are our younger brothers". --Shervinsky (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Putin: "“Let me tell you absolutely seriously and without any irony that we often use the phrases ‘fraternal country’ or ‘fraternal nation’” for Ukraine" So he said brothers. If you're asking specifically for the word younger then that's just nitpicking, since it's implied.--Львівське (говорити) 22:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

While Snyder doesn't use the term "Triune" explicitly, the text based on him appears to be directly related to the topic. Volunteer Marek  09:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Guys, your situative numerical superiority doesn't replace arguments and doesn't camouflage that you avoid clear answers. --Shervinsky (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

what isn't clear to you? Is this a language gap issue? --Львівське (говорити) 15:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Shervinsky, you appear to be misconstruing our intent as being to somehow gang up against you. It's great that you've introduced the concept of 'truine' into English Wikipedia but it does not mean that the subject remains closed to what you wish to discuss in it or censor from it. As Lvivske has pointed out, and as you have pointed out in the article itself, "it became the official conception in the Russian Empire as well as the ethnological mainstream view on Eastern Slavs in the most countries until (and some time after) the Russian Revolution.", but there is plenty of room for debate on 'and some time after' as evidence is being added that it still persists not only in those 'most countries', but within the Russian consciousness.

The dialogue continues but has assumed variants in terminology in scholarly discourse. Something that deeply entrenched over centuries is unlikely to just miraculously vanish 'some time after the Russian Revolution'. Qualifying how and where it persists is absolutely relevant to this article. If you insist that it isn't "representative for the Russian politics and society and not just for Russian marginal groups", the onus is on you to provide some very solid and verifiable RS to demonstrate this to be absolute and irrefutable fact. It seems that facts (literally) straight out of the mouths of those in the Russian political arena demonstrate something contrary to your contention. By no means is this article being treated as "a wild dump of everything." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

OR claims in the section "Translation specifics"

Lvivske, can you clearly and explicitly explain what exactly you think is OR? --Shervinsky (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

the entire section has no sources and reads like someone's opinion. --Львівське (говорити) 16:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since I don't think you demand a source for every single word, is there a specific statement you don't agree with and want to see the source? --Shervinsky (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I demand a source for every explicit statement made so it doesn't appear to have come out of thin air.--Львівське (говорити) 17:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A perfect method to annoy your opponent. Throughout Wikipedia, there is no such rule that every single statement has to be sourced. Besides that, most of the statements here are trivial and easy to check. I agree to give you three sources of your choice if you say me at which points you have doubts. --Shervinsky (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:WHYCITE and WP:V. This is not a tactic of annoyance, it's how wikipedia works.--Львівське (говорити) 17:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. I wasn't the one who did it, though. That was User:Lvivske, who apparently didn't know that you need to actually close a move request after you carry it out. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 09:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Triune Russian people → All-Russian nation – Based on google results, triune Russian seems to be a distant third between "All-Russian", "pan-Russian", and "triune-Russian". In terms of google books, ""triune russian people" only gets 7 results, whereas "all-russian nation" gets 10,000. While the latter obviously includes other results not on this topic, I think it's fair to say more than 7 do. There are 40 results in books for 'triune russian nation', and ARN is supported by guys like Miller, who seem to be experts. What is everyone's take? WP:COMMON for English language matters here. Львівське (говорити) 03:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Well, my Ngram search and general google search (sans Wikipedia) tallies with yours. Considering that the page view statistics indicate that it's been virtually invisible except for recent interest due to renewed editing activities, and that there are only a handful of linked articles that can easily be manually updated, there doesn't appear to be any need for a redirect, either. All-Russian stands out as the most recognisable English common name. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

One issue I've found is that in all of the names, in English 'nation' is used but in slavic, "narod" (people) is used instead of natsii (nation). One one hand it's a disconnect between translations (but that's not up for us to decide), and on the other people and nation mean the same thing so potato/potato. Nation may have been the preferred term in English by these scholars because most people hear 'nation' and think 'country'. "A Russian nation inside a country inside an Empire? Inception??" --Львівське (говорити) 05:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

although, translate says another word for narod is 'folk' or 'nation', and with the former, if college ww2 classes taught me anything, Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer, folk is the equivalent of a nation or national group. (potato potato!) --Львівське (говорити) 06:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

FINALLY, just wanted to point out that "Триединый русский народ" (triune russian people) in the original Russian only has 31 books results on google, so there are more sources in English on this subject in the alt names than the original Russian, which is telling.--Львівське (говорити) 06:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You must be a bundle of fun to live with. I could swear that your greatest pleasure in life is to spend your time finding your way out of a paper bag then thinking yourself back into it. In all seriousness, though, we can't control perception of 'a people'/'clan'/'tribe' as opposed to the modern concept of a nation-state. Translation has been understood to be problematic from the time translation began. Signifiers and signification can't easily be carried over into other languages or across time. Common name is the rule of thumb. If people can read "Tsar of All the Russias" without thinking about the implications, they're not going to be swayed one way or the other by the use of 'nation' or 'people'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a waffler.--Львівське (говорити) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry. My most heated philosophical debates are with myself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. My inner translator is wondering if the current name is a calque from the original Russian. Nobody ever uses "triune" for anything other than the Trinity (this is a sliiiiiiiiight exaggeration, if even that). Red Slash 06:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Red Slash, the entire article was a 'cut, translate and paste' directly from RU Wikipedia. There's been no attempt to correlate anything with English language sources other than a bit of shoehorning. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

in fairness, I've got 5 sources so far using the word 'triune', so it's not nonexistent. Even Magocsi jokingly refers to it as the "biblical three in one" --Львівське (говорити) 09:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Merge content with East Slavs or Pan-Slavism and make it redirect. What we are talking about here is generally known as East Slavs, which is a valid ethnographic, rather than only a nationalistic concept. The conclusion about common origin of East Slavs is partly based on linguistic analysis - see East Slavic languages and Slavic languages... My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a nationalistic/imperialist concept drawn on the linguistic East Slav division. It's the equivalent of Pan-Germanism being based on the ethno-linguistic Germanic peoples.--Львівське (говорити) 02:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but we have already separate page for Pan-Slavism. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Pan-Slavism is different, as you can tell by the name - it thinks all Slavs (from czechs to russians to serbs) are one people. This, all-Russianism, is more like Yugoslavism. --Львівське{{ (говорити) 16:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've considered your suggestion and I think it would be wiser to take some content from here to beef up the East Slavs article a bit, and maybe make a section on Pan-Slavism about this variant about it; but this article is bigger than both of those combined. Have 'see more' tags on each of those articles leading into this one. East Slavs article is about the ethnic and linguistic group, whereas this article is about the politicizing of it. If we merged all of this content into the Pan-Slavism article, it would dwarf all of the actual Pan-Slavism movement stuff (WP:UNDUE). --Львівське (говорити) 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you actually demonstrate (verifiable) WP:RS connecting the two as being the same 'ethnographic' concept, My very best wishes? All I've been able to establish from your comment indicates that you've pulled up existing Wikipedia articles and appear to have misconstrued ethnology and linguistics as being the equivalent to a philosophical and ethical ideology. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think this subject deserves a separate article. That's why you are having difficulties with defining the title. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The only issue we're having is on which prefix to use (all, pan, triune) I don't see why a WP:COMMON dispute means an article should be XFD'd. --Львівське (говорити) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted by Lvivske, there are no difficulties in identifying it as being a political-idealogical concept outside of the scope of the East Slavs. It also pre-dates Pan-Slavism and provides further background in order to enhance the reader's understanding nationalist movements in the region. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support new title. Yes, I think it is sufficiently supported by books.My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sinyakov

According to Ukrainian philosopher Sinyakov, the unification idea of Ukraine and Russia was not imposed by the Moscow government but was originally Ukrainian. Different initiatives began already at the end of 16th century (in connection with the Orthodox struggle against the Union of Brest) and the idea strengthened in the course the 17th century.

What is the relevance of Sinyakov's opinion here, seeing as he is a philosopher and not an historian? The source says he has a PhD in and is a professor of Philosophy. His opinion is obviously wrong here, and totally inaccurate seeing as Ivan III was ruler of all the self described Russias by this point.

In his paper, he says Prokopovich invented the term 'triune Russian people', but there is no mention that it was a Ukrainian initiative in of itself.

Also, the statement that it was not imposed by Moscow contradicts literally every historian...literally. Also, does "originally Ukrainian" mean originally from Kiev? Obviously it did not come from Ukrainians as a people. The citation reads "Идея объединения Украины и России не была навязана московским государством, а изначально являлась украинской," is this saying it was invented BY a Ukrainian (Kievan)? --Львівське (говорити) 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just run a comprehensive search on him (his full name being Sergei Sinyakov) in both Russian and Ukrainian. The single entry I could find on him is that he's a lecturer at The National Transportation University in Kiev, teaching in the Department of Philosophy and Pedagogy. How, exactly, that qualifies him to be an authority on the subject at hand eludes me entirely. Even assuming that this is accurate summary of what he postulates in his paper, he simply doesn't meet any criteria to suggest his being a recognised authority in this field. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

does the text just simply go? the content itself has issue but if it's confirmed from a dubious source, what's the point in keeping it? I highlighted it in yellow for the time being to keep track since it's on the talk page now and acknowledged to be problematic.--Львівське (говорити) 06:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's probably reasonable to keep it for the time being. It's only a short article and the text is there, as per the quote. The context is a little more problematic. I'm going to try to track down what it was for (it reads a little like an intro for some sort of conference for Ukrainian-Russian collaboration with loosely thrown together historical events and vague allusions to the cited experts rather than research). I'll be busy tomorrow but will get to it the following day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

no rush (obviously) --Львівське (говорити) 14:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Having gone through the entire article (while an engrossing read in and of itself), the excerpt is grossly misrepresented. In context, Sinyakov is discussing the idea as a concept earlier embodied by the Zaporozhian Cossacks and goes on to say that "Theophanes Prokopovich and Taras Shevchenko can be considered the main ideologists for the unification of the Slavs." Under Peter I, the schisms of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century, and further bastardisation with the advent of the Russian Empire's absolutism "in the Prussian manner", 'triune' became the precursor of pan-Slavism. That's a far cry from what is currently being postulated in the article by using the excerpt!

Whether Sinyakov's essay should be used is another question altogether. I'm hesitant to use sources that are A) written by unknown quantities (is he a recognised expert in the specific field?); B) this essay essentially deals with the future identity of Ukraine as a creative space in which to make decisions about ethical, geopolitical and other positions facing contemporary Ukraine; C) there's an abundance of English language research from which this article can be developed and accessible to English language readers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

wow. Okay, so all that notwithstanding and just going by the quote you wrote - because I agree that we can't just use his musings without him being established in this field - we would need further elaboration on why/how they were the (first/ideal?) conceivers of this idea. From what I've read so far, I've never seen those two related to the 'all-russian' concept, which seeeeems to be a product of the romantic period justified by the federalism of Rus politics and all sorts of other loose history. I think (personally) it would be a stretch to put Shevchenko at teh forefront of a Russophile movement. No word on Prokopovich, he did a lot but so far nothing's come up in regards to him pushing a triune national idea. I also find it funny that this would be the pre-cursor for pan-Slavism, when in a roundabout way in the "second half of the 19th century, Russian publicists adopted - and transformed - the ideology of Pan-Slavism; convinced of their own political superiority ... argued that all Slavs might as well merge with the Great Russians" (Magocsi) --Львівське (говорити) 06:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that the only information provided on him is, "доктор философских наук, профессор кафедры философии Национального транспортного университета". The article itself is in this university's biennial journal (No. 2, 2011) amidst about 20 or more essays from disparate fields with no binding themes. His essay only cites 4 authors (Tolochko, Osipov, Kiiashchenko and Bystriakov), and even there, in a casual manner. This guy's area is really metaphysics and ethic. As I say, an interesting read... but at the expense of a serious stretch of the imagination. I'd suggest that it's extremely 'cutting edge', 'highly' original. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the main offensive material, but what about the statement about Prok talking about the "triune"? Do I leave it with a "citation needed" tag or remove it since it came from an unreliable source? Obviously, this needs to be backed up by an historian or a primary source quotation. --Львівське (говорити) 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that, in my haste to provide an 'in a nutshell' summary of Sinkyakov's essay, I may have given you the wrong impression. The pan-Slavism bit is my own reading of his essay.

The claim is that the idea of the triune of Rus' peoples was that of being of the same origins (that of Rus') finding commonality in their origins and being equal parties in terms of their history, ideology (and religion). Each was a branch having developed with differences, but no one branch was greater or lesser than the other. According to him, this had already been actualised and made very real through the (Zaporozhian) Cossack elders from the late 16th century and the entire 17th century." However, after the unification of the eastern part of Ukraine to the Muscovy tsardom, a new ideology of governance for the Russian Empire emerged as a 'spiritual constitution' in the form of the thesis by Gizel and given gubernatorial voice by Prokopovich (triune of the Rus' people). Later in Russia, with the establishment of absolutism, Russian language and culture (that is, the Russian form and image) were pushed to the fore. With the destruction of Sich, surviving Cossacks became the peasant class and moved to Kuban, while the 'starshyna'/elders became aristocrats of the Russian Empire (the Rozumovskiy's, Doroshenko's, etc.): that is, unified in the Prussian manner.

He links Shevchenko (plus the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood) and Prokopovich as great idealists who were fighting for the freedom of 'Brother Slavs' (Russian, Ukrainian and Polish) from enslavement by Germanic Empires (i.e., Russia was under the influence of the Germanic rulers within their monarchy).

None of his assertions, nor how he pulled together his ideas, are supported by citations or any indication of drawing on specialised research. Toss the lot. If I had a student approach me with this essay as an outline for a dissertation, I'd tell them they'd better get some serious references under their belt or it wouldn't get past being laughed at. The fact that it was published in this university's journal tells me a lot about the the university. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a good call to remove anything using Sinyakov's essay as the source. Prokopovich as the author of "triune" can be added, but not using a piece on the entire history of the Ukraine in a short, uncited essay by an unknown academic (and written in Russian). There must be a multitude of reliable sources for his authorship and the gist of his thesis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there's something, but in all the (dozen or so?) sources I've read concerning this topic, none have mentioned Prokopovich. My rule of thumb is that if Magocsi doesn't mention it, it never happened. (his book is like 1000 pages and extremely comprehensive, if Prokopovich was known for promoting this idea, it would be mentioned in passing...) Maybe it did happen, but I think to associate him to this we'd need a verified source, none of this weird 3rd party uncited essay junk. --Львівське (говорити) 09:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Kostomarov

The original version text reads:

The well-known historian Nikolay Kostomarov also acknowledged the existence of an All-Russian people.[14] Мысли о федеративном начале в Древней Руси // Собраніе сочиненій: Историческіе монографіи и изследованія. 8 кн., 21 т. — СПб, 1903. — Т. 1, Кн. 1. — С. 24.

Kostomarov's wiki page says this about him, though:

On the basis of their folksongs and history, he claimed that the peoples of what he called Northern or Great Rus' on one hand and Southern or Little Rus' on the other (Russians and Ukrainians, respectively) differed in character and formed two separate nationalities. In his famous essay "Two Russian Nationalities" ("Две русские народности"), a landmark in the history of Ukrainian national thought, he propagated what some consider to be the stereotypes of Russians inclined towards autocracy, collectivism, and state-building, and Ukrainians inclined towards liberty, poetry, and individualism.

Now, my Miller citation merely added the portion about his essay ("his well known article, Two Russian Nationalities, which spoke of Little and Great Russian peoples constituting "two Russian nationalities" and "two Russian languages.") because I was unsure if "two" meant two in the same or two individual/separate nationalities. Miller (pg 55) says he was a Ukrainian activist, and separatist, and (pg 81) it's called the gospel of Ukrainian nationalism. This leads me to (matter-of-factly) conclude that the original text saying it acknowledged an "All-Russian people" is at best bad original research. I've since adjusted the text, to reflect Kosto's actual views, and deleted the original Russian ref until we can translate or verify its contents; at the present it serves no purpose with the Miller analysis backing everything up.--Львівське (говорити) 07:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"the mainstream ethnological view"

Huge issues with this last sentence of the lead now that I've fact checked Brace and Latham (the third, from Japan, was nowhere to be found):

• The concept remained the mainstream ethnological view of East Slavs in most countries until (and some time after) the Russian Revolution."

Charles Loring Brace, a philanthropist and weekend racial theorist ^{(he has degrees only in theology)} in 1863 says:

"The Slavonic race divides itself into two great branches distinguished by their dialects ... 1 the Russian including Great Russian, Little Southeastern and western Russian, and White Russian 2 Bulgarian 3 the Illyrian or Serb comprising the Servians Kroats and Slovens"

Robert Gordon Latham says they are divided as follows:

"The Russ division itself however falls into sections and subsections both in respect to physical conformation and dialect"

and describes White Russians as:

"weaklier in body and worse looking in the face than the others", while [Ruthenians] are "much better looking than the majority", "are the most purely Slavonic", and that "Malorussian" is their Muscovite name"

He does not adhere to the "triune" theory as a national/identity group, but is rather talking about their 'slavonic' racial grouping (in contemporary terms, this would be saying that Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians are East Slavs). Regarding the identity of Ukrainians, he says:

"A good deal more than I can either confirm or contradict has been said about their separate nationality It lies I imagine much within the same limits as that of the English and the Scotch Kiev being the Malorussian Edinburgh"

Summary: To qualify the argued statement, you need to provide a tertiary source proving that this was the dominant scholarly view worldwide, not provide 3 sources at random (one of whom wasn't even a scholar, the other who is unknown). To make matters worse, the Ryo book, a text from 1908 from Japan...(according to Google books) makes zero mentions of 'Little Russian' or 'White Russian' - what? This is all just bad original research. Using 2 sources of racial theory from the 1800s to say this was the view of East Slavs in most countries is one (bad) thing, but to use them and say it continued post-revolution? They weren't even alive for the revolution! My suggestion is that all 3 and the sentence itself be removed from the article, the sources aren't salvageable and the statement can't be backed up, at least at the moment. (unless we want to use Latham's analysis that Ukrainians are the best looking?) --Львівське (говорити) 17:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• removed the Latham citation and added a short paragraph about what he said on the topic. Not sure where to slot it in, be it in an ethnology section or in a section on the 1800s, but at least it's covered within proper context now.--Львівське (говорити) 09:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

The article Of all Rus', could be merged into the main article All-Russian nation as one section, which is heavily realted and could also be easier explained. The content of this article is not enough for an independent one, and the size will not cause any further problems as far as I concern. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Support --Львівське (говорити) 15:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Support - Agreed that any relevant content from the "Of all Rus'" stub should be moved here. As noted by WWbread, the stub deals with what is, essentially, the same concept. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Done -- WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 11:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The title "OF ALL RUS"

The article is about the conception of All Russian nation implying Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians to be jointed. But why does it redirects here, when I mean the title of Russian sovereigns and priesty? I am sure firmly that this is not appropriate, but it doesn't let me to create a new page called "of all Rus' ".

The title of monarchs "of All Rus'" initially was meant to emphasize the fact that Moscovy won all its competitors, the main of which was Novgorod Republic - the separate state in the modern north of Russia. And that conception of Russia, Ukraine and Belorussia to be joint wasn't even developed that time; but it directs here. I am writing an article about some ancient monastery in Novgorod and its history after the massacre of Novgorod under the crown of All Rus', and need an article which explains to readers what does the title means. But it doesn't mean what is written in this article.

Is it possible to create an article called "of All Rus'" and to separate it from this article? I would be glad to get some suggestions about it. 07:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't use WP:OR names for articles, per WP:TITLE, where there is an English WP:COMMONNAME. The articles started life as a slap-up job on the concept of "триединый русский народ" by a WP:POV editor who essentially copied across the content from the article of that name in Russian Wikipedia (and that article has since been deleted in Russian Wikipedia as being badly written, POV and OR nonsense slapped together from cherry picked sources).

Essentially, it's a mess we couldn't even verify sources for, or were misrepresented. The "triune" is known as "all-Russian" in English language scholarship. We still have bits and pieces we weren't able to understand enough in the editor's impoverished English translation left over. Without the full text of the references used, it's impossible to fully comprehend what he was trying to say and, due to the source not being being able to be verified or confirmed to be misrepresented, we couldn't just simply delete the source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The stub shouldn't have been merged with an article to begin with. It seems to have been done based on the limited understanding of three editors, who cite no reasons why the two terms are related. It's unclear that the 17th-18th century concepts relating to "all-Russian nation," justifying (by my reading of this article) the partitions of the Cossack Hetmanate and later Poland, are the same as the 15th-16th century one "of all Rus'", which appears to refer to the Gathering of Rus' lands. Yes, "of all Rus'" evolved into "of all Russias," but I don't see the etymological link between that medieval land-based term and the modern peoples-based "pan-Russian nation." Both might be interpreted as expansionist and irredentist, but they apply to different places and peoples in different centuries. As it is, this seems like conflating Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. I see no reason why these two terms should share a page. Calbaer (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A) Please do not attempt to make an impression by denigrating the ability and knowledge of other editors; B) Your interpretation is precisely that (and your analogy is aggressively OTT); C) The article is the result of attempting to clean up an extremely WP:POV, WP:POV and WP:SYNTH retelling of Russian historiography (try reading the corresponding Russian Wikipedia article, plus read the background section of this article). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If the problem is that this is an imperfect fix to dreadful POV, that's no reason to resist further improvement, or to defend it on an ad hominem basis. I was prompted to write based on inconsistencies I observed in Wikipedia on this subject. That's why I assumed (due to good faith) that the merge was a result of incomplete understanding (rather than agenda-setting); the very Russian-language Wikipedia article you point me to would argue against it.

Whatever this article's history, the facts remain: The Russian-language article clearly marks the start of the "triune" concept, the subject of this article, to the era of the Cossack Hetmanate. It says that the first person to write about the "thesis" of Great, Little, and White Russia was Theophan Prokopovich, born in 1681, though the Tsardom used the phrase "All the Russias, Great, Minor, and White" during the time of Tsar Alexis, likely starting in the 1650s. (Note how, when mentioning the triune, the language switches from "Rus'" (ВСЕЯ РУСИ) to "Russias" (ВСЕЯ ... РОСИИ.) At that point the term "all of Rus'" had been used for centuries; one source dates it from Mikhail of Tver (14th century), and it was certainly widely used by the government of Ivan the Terrible and subsequent Tsars. They are different concepts from different eras; though related, it is best to have them as separate articles, as done on the Russian-language Wikipedia pages you cite. Calbaer (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Mistranslation of Putin's "One nation"

This citation claims that Putin calls Russians and Ukrainians "One Nation". The original quote from Putin however is [emphasis mine ] "Что бы ни происходило, и куда бы Украина ни шла, мы все равно когда-то и где-то встретимся. Почему? Потому что мы - один народ. И как бы на то, что я сейчас сказал, ни сердились националисты с обеих сторон, а националисты есть и у нас, и на Украине, на самом деле оно так и есть. Потому что у нас одна Днепровская Киевская купель, у нас, безусловно, общие исторические корни и общие судьбы, у нас общая религия, общая вера, у нас очень схожая культура, языки, традиции и менталитет."

This wiki page has already acknowledged that народ means people and нация means nation, I suggest that the reference to "One nation" be removed for the sake of accuracy and consistancy --71.88.99.117 (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, however this article is not based on an examination of Putin's interpretation of the subject, but an examination of the pre-existing, historical evolution of the concept of "Триединый русский народ" (Russian) / "Триєдиний російський народ" (Ukrainian). Wikipedia uses the English language equivalent (as per academic/scholarly research) of this political philosophy which is known as "All-Russian nation" in the Anglophone academic community. Please see the references used for clarification and elaboration. The subject is closely related to Pan-Slavism. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of what this article is about, I just find it strange that the issue is ignored due to an excerpt from this very page:

"Note that in this context the three East Slavic languages use the word narod, which translates as "people" and not as "nation" (natsia) as in a nation state. This represents a legacy of Leninist dialectics and of Stalinist nationality policy. Narod ("people") in these languages expresses the sense of "a lower-level, ethno-cultural agglomeration", whereas in English the word "nation" (as used by scholars) also refers to a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.[24]"

This just seems inconsistent 71.88.99.117 (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual reliable source is a secondary source (which is what we use for Wikipedia) in accordance with our no original research policy. The reference used is a far more complex analysis by a recognised expert who has parsed the usage of Putin's usage of 'narod', and this analysis is not based on a single statement by Putin as you would have it. As clearly stated, Putin's 'schooling' is based in his KGB background of the concept as being the "... legacy of Leninist dialectics and of Stalinist nationality policy ..." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All-Russian nation. 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/20130927093500/http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/soc_gum/nzzui/2008_21/240_251.PDF to http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/soc_gum/nzzui/2008_21/240_251.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227234939/http://m.regnum.ru/news/1470788.html to http://m.regnum.ru/news/1470788.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit warring of this article

Kovanja, please stop approaching the content of this article with a battleground, edit warring attitude by simply reverting other editors under the edit summary or "Stay away from Galitsian nationalist nonesence." This is not a valid content criticism, but a disregard for WP:NPOV, and merely reflects that you don't like it. If you wish to discuss this further, use this talk page, otherwise, please desist from your disruptive editing or I will have to report you to the administrators' Edit Warring Board. I'm sure you are a reasonable person, and will be happy to cooperate once you look into Wikipedia's policies and guidlines. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Big OR with Genetics section: MyHeritage as VER

Because

These are the most common ethnicities in X, according to MyHeritage DNA users' data

Let us remove these tables. Zezen (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support  Nothing in this section is in any way connected to the article. It’s inviting WP:SYNTH on the part of readers. I will remove it. —Michael Z. 16:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

   Done