Talk:Russian language in Ukraine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Native language

The 2001 census section talks about “Russian-speaking population,” and “Russophones,” when it’s actually referring to people who responded “Russian” to the question about native language (rodnoy yazyk or ridna mova). But this could mean language of one’s ethnicity, of their baba, of childhood, etc., and not necessarily preferred or even a spoken language.

It is important throughout the article to be clear on what is being referred to. The Ukrainian census did also have stats on language usage, but I can’t find anything except a good map (source). There are also polls that refer to language usage or proficiency, and not “native” language, and their results shouldn’t be confused with it when mentioned here. —Michael Z. 2017-05-04 21:35 z

Agreed that there's a lot of WP:SYNTH in this article. I know that a lot of more detailed information has been dropped from the live site, so I'll scour archived captures for relevant material when I get the chance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty mush sure that in Ukraine vast majority speaks both ru: and uk:, and the choice of 'ridna mova' was cultural rather than "biological", whereas 'ethnicity' in the passport is allegedly "biological", although it is now recognized that it is a rather social construct as well. Also keep in mind that the simplistic construction of the questionnaire did not allow selection of two languages. Therefore it will be quite difficult to be "clear" in the article what is "being referred to". And unless proven otherwise I see no reason not to call a person "russophone" is ru: is their 'ridna mova'. I find it highly dubious that in 2001 a 'svidomy' ukrainian would declare 'ru' their 'ridna mova' unless it was 100% so. For comparison, in the United States, the questionnaire at my kids' school the question was "language spoken at home", with an obvious non-political purpose. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I do believe it is best to refer explicitly to what was measured (e.g., self-declared native language, perhaps with an explanation of the native terminology), and not reinterpret with labels that could mean something else (Russophone).

Doing otherwise risks reinforcing common stereotypes, like maps and articles about a “physical line” between Ukrainophones and Russophones, which in reality is an imperceptible border between 49.9% and 50.0% of the first choice among people who 95% communicate in two languages. —Michael Z. 2017-05-05 00:29 z