Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Ukrainians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Ukrainians

Proto-Ukrainians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable pseudoscientific theory. The article attempts to prop up with questionable sources unscientific and blatantly anti-Ukrainian theory. Most of the sources used to support this invention are either from known Russian nationalists with anti-Ukrainian tendencies, like Nikolay Ulyanov or from fringe Ukrainian writers, who have never been taken seriously. This theory is actively used by Russian nationalists in an attempt to negate the very existence of Ukrainians as a separate people and has never been used by any serious scholars. This rabidly anti-Ukrainian and xenophobic article should not be in Wikipedia. --Hillock65 11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

*Delete as nasty pseudoscience. On second thought, I'll withdraw this comment. It's true that one hears this stuff from some strange quarters, but it might be possible to write about this phenomenon within the article, and the phenomenon itself might be notable, if not exactly scientifically rigorous. ProhibitOnions (T) 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Please note that the theory of "Proto-Ukrainians" is a Ukrainian concept, not Russian, so it is a disservice done by Ukrainians to themselves and not an expression of Russian racism toward them. It is in fact no different from Japanese Nihonjinron, Nazi Aryanism, Jewish Chosenness, etc., etc., ad nauseam - junk-science inventions by nationalists seeking any kind of "proof" of their people's superiority. The question remains whether the "Proto-Ukrainian" concept has ever been (or is still) a staple of right-wing rhetoric in the Ukraine. I don't know, so I wouldn't hastily dismiss the theory as not notable. I suggest inviting editors familiar with the region to express their opinion. --Targeman 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a maveric theory of a couple of obscure and absolutely unimportant Ukrainian writers. The mere fact that it appeared in the form of an article is that it is blown out of proportion as something that has ever been considered seriously. It never has. Unlike Aryanism or Chosenness, which were accepted by substantial number of people in those respective societies, this one remained on the fringes forever. Should every maverick and outlandish theiory of German or English writers be given such prominence? I am sure there are plenty of those. This fringe theory has been very actively adopted by Russian nationalists instead. The mere name of nationalist-Ukrainophobe Ulyanov at the top of the references list speaks volumes. Let me illustrate: Google gives only 6 hits of this Ukrainian word[1](one of which is this article) and 7,760 (!) hits of its Russian equivalent[2]. If it was notable, and not used to put down Ukrainians should it be the other way around? You be the judge. The only place for theories like these in Ukrainophobia or Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, none of which exist at this time. --Hillock65 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You may very well be right. However, I'm not that sure Google is helpful here - most of these nationalist theories were en vogue in the 19th century. They may have been forgotten for a hundred years and totally obscure for the average Russian or Ukrainian nowadays, but if they were notable in the 19th century, they still should have an article. Again, I have no idea, I'm just throwing in my two cents from a researcher's point of view. --Targeman 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an important, albeit weird, issue in Russian-Ukrainian relations. Maybe it can be merged into Ukrainization and maybe sources should be better checked, but this certainly should not be deleted. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Articles should present neutral view.Ans-mo 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Hillock65 and others --AS sa 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the strangeness, inaccuracy or offensiveness of a theory are not criteria for deletion (although there may be others for this particular weird fringe theory). Bigdaddy1981 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is a typical attack page. The neologism Proto-Ukr (протоукри) has been introduced in marginal Russian nationalist circles and is used almost exclusively only in blogs, chatrooms as another derogative word in relation to Ukrainians. If ofther ethnic slurs, like Khokhol is wide spread in Russia, Proto-Ukr is used far less by some bloggers. There are no theories of "Ukrainian Romantic Nationalism" where this termin has ever been used. See serch in Google in Ukrainian [3] - 2 in Wikipedia and 3 blogs. In Russian 152 link exclusively only in blogs and forums. See Протоукры снова отжигают Протоукры переводят интернет на протоукрский: (please translate)

Протоукры переводят интернет на протоукрский. Есть такой искусственный язык, украинский. В википедийной статье много написано, а по простому он - искусственного происхождения (холопы были вынуждены говорить с панами, вот и общались на причудливой смеси польского и русского, т.е. это - язык рабов), и никто толком (кроме какой-нибудь Леси Украинки и Тараса Шевченко) на нем ничего не писал. К счастью, это язык потихоньку исчезал после освобождения от пользского владычества, но со времени возникновения СССР, и особенно после его, СССР, гибели, вновь поднял свою голову.

Proto-Ukainians translate Internet into Proto-Ukrainian. There is such an artificial language as Ukrainian. There is a lot written in the Wikipedia article, but simply put - it is of artificial origin (serfs had to talk with masters, so they spoke this strange mixture of Russian and Polish, so this is the language of slaves) and no one (apart from Lesia Ukrainka and Taras Shevchenko) wrote anything in it. Fortunately, this language was gradually disappearing after the liberation from Poland, but as the USSR stoop up and especially when it broke up, it again raised its head. Translated by me --Hillock65 12:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So, I believe this article should be deleted as an unimportant neologism, Wikipedia:original research and attack page. --Yakudza 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Also request to remove the obvious vote-staking by the attitudes of Ukrainian wikipedia. The same one that lists EU and NATO as part of the Ukrainian history, despite that Ukraine is neither a member of those organisation and has never been (talk about Historical knowledge there...sigh) --Kuban Cossack 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What does NATO and EU have to do with the topic of this AfD? --Hillock65 02:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete First of all, author of the article did some fabrications. Namely, the term "Proto-Ukrs" ("прото-укри" or "протоукри" in Ukrainian) is absent in the biggest cited source which is "П.Кононенко. Українознавство" (I had used automatic search in all parts). More over, author of the cited work did not use the term "Proto-Ukrainian Theory" in any case; so the placement of this source in correspondent part of discussed article is again a pure fabrication. Secondly, the concept itself was introduced by purely non-scientific community and is hardly used now by opinionated anti-ukranian nationalists (mainly in Russia), but it's not in usage in Ukraine: examples provided above by Yakudza. And the most important point: there are a lot of weird hoaxes in the Russian or any other public culture; but their publication contradicts WP:SOAPS and WP:Not Original Thought --Shao 11:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are articles for Flat Earth and Hollow moon. This theory can be listed. --TAG 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems like some of the Ukrainain nationalists are way too sensitive. It is bullshit, but it is sources bullshit. :) Odessaukrain 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - neutral sourced description of a fringe theory Alex Bakharev 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alex. Possibly move and merge into some larger related fringe theory. The word appears in Western academic prints, ex. here (alongside 'proto-Russians'). PS. If there are modern academic views this term is pseudoscientific or anti-Ukrainian, please reference them in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - yes it's a fringe theory, but it's clearly presented as such. Since the term itself is notable, it should be kept. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete
  1. This article is named Proto-Ukrainians. That means the article should be about those who lived before (proto) the Ukrainians on the territory of the modern Ukraine. It should include the information about all ethnic groups from the ancient times to the middle of the 16-17 century when the Ukranians, a new European nation, was formed. But the present Proto-Ukrainians article lacks that kind of information and is focused only on pseudo-scientific Ukr-hoax. (the term proto-ukranians can be used and is used in academia as well as other terms of that kinds like proto-Japanese, proto-European, Proto-German, proto-Armenian ect. Such terms have no "national" sence.) So in the article Proto-Ukrainians we have just speculations about the term, but not the article about the term.
  2. This article speculates on intentional mix of two terms: scientific Proto-Ukranians and pseoudo-scientific Proto-Ukrs. The first one is used by archeologist and ethnologists. The latter one is a idea of numsmatist Chacki (not ethnologist). The article is written on the basis of the later, so I doulbt whether it should be in Wikipedia (Should be write articles about what do the hockey players thinks about the origin of aikido phylosophy or what do the reserchers in physics think about the paining technique?..)
  3. The article deals not with a theory but hypothesis (assumptions, suggestions). It has no theoretical base no evidence. I think, wikipedia is not a proper place for such stuff. The links and sources that are indicated in the artilce are not academic and has no revalance for Wikipedia. Such hoaxfull formation can can be merge with "Ukranian nationalism" article, but the existence of a separete topic seems to be an original research...

--Alex Kov 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. As the mastermind behind Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard I don't dispute that the idea of proto-Ukrainianism is a fringe theory, but the article explicitly qualifies it as such. It does not involve any fringecruft-pushing. This bad-faith nomination of an elaborately referenced text was engineered from Ukrainian Wikipedia after they failed to have the equivalent Russian Wikipedia page deleted. The nationalist comments above fail to impress me, as does incivil campaigning in English Wikipedia. As per WP:CANVAS, I expect more votes from accounts based in Ukrainian Wikipedia, but I also expect the closing admin to reflect that this is not a vote and that only the arguments do matter. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Off-wiki canvassing demonstrated above is dissapointing but that aside, the article is about a notable theory, not about the origin of Ukrainians. The article clearly states that the theory is a fringe one but the theory is notable enough for the article if there is anyone interested to write it. Far earlier than this article I read some work signed by some Doctor of Science from some Lviv institution pushing this theory as a serious one. I laughed a lot from the claim that Sanskrit, according to the author, originated from the Ukrainian language (not the other way around.) I would not object to renaming it to "Proto-Ukrainian theory" but I think it is good as is, since it clearly states that this is an article about the theory only. --Irpen 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: reasonably covered fringe theory. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: national origin stories whether characterized as "myth" or "romantic nationalism" or "fringe" or "theory" where sourced as to its existence, as it is here they are inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.