Talk:Lithuanian press ban

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from Lithuanian press ban appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 3, 2007.

[edit] Russian Empire stance on other languages

It appears that the Lithuanian press ban was not unique (see Russification#Poland_and_Lithuania); Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish languages shared a similar fate - which should be noted in the article, and a comparison of to what extent other languages (Belorussian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc.) were similarly persecuted should be added.

This source mentions persecution of Ukrainian language, although this source gives the date of a ban for 1876; this gives the date for bans as 1870s). They probably refer to Ems Ukaz. This and this however mention restriction after the Polish uprising of 1863 (lifted in 1905).

This and this note that Belarussian was also banned specifically after the January Uprising (1863).

This mentions bans on Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

This source mentions restrictions on Polish language after 1863; a ban was proposed, ban on religious use "in late 19th century" mentioned here.

I particularly wonder if we can say that all four of those languages shared a similar fate (ban), or were there notable differences in their persecution? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There were 2 bans on Ukrainian The first was the Valuyev circular in 1863 and the 2nd the Ems Ukaz in 1876.

The Valuyev circular happened as a result of the Polish uprising. Up until 63 Polish was the language spoken on the streets of Kyiv. It was replaced by Russian. Bandurist (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Valuyev circular? Thanks, I was unaware of that. Very interesting! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was invited to comment on this (presumably on the Belarusian side of the matter), but right now I'm not able to do so (without my books, like). What I may recall right now is (storyline incomplete!): the Belarusian printing in Latin (Polish) script was banned in 1859; Belarusian printing was alltogether banned in 1867, and permitted — for ethnographical use only — in 1869. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

One important difference should not be forgotten, that the abovementioned Slavic languages share more or less similarities to the Russian, hence the Cyrilic alphabet could be adopted by them with a larger success, compared to the Baltic Lithuanian that never used cirylic to write in its own language and it appeared unsuitable and totally unappropriate whatsoever.Iulius (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic was not used for Polish. Which reminded me - although this is probably OT - of łacinka.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the kicks, I'll remind that actually, Cyrillic was used for Polish — in the practice of printing prayer-books in the Polish language but with Cyrillic letters, which started in Belarus at least as early as 1941, in Minsk, under the German occupation. The initiators were Polish-minded Catholic priests seeking to facilitate their parish expansion. Interestingly, this initiated sort of competition and Belarusian translations of prayer-books were published, by Belarusian-minded Catholic priests (Turonek. Belarusian book under German control, 2002). The practice continued well into 1990s, however, now it seems to be confined to the rural districts. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus you are incorrect, Polish wikipedia gives a sourced info in article about Cyrilic that Russian Tsar plotted to have Polish language eradicated by introducing a modified cyrilic alphabet to help with russification of conquered territories, happy for us he was arogant enough to believe he can do it himself and never finished the project[1].--Molobo (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)